Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 139

Sunday, April 6 2003

• Think, Ask, Internalize!
• On the Matter of Masorah
• RE: P' shmini - onen and talmud torah
• Re: Mixed seating
• RE: oral and written traditions
• Re: Oral and written traditions
• Re: Mixed seating
• Re: Sheitels
• Re: Mixed seating
• Re: Mixed seating
• Re: Mixed seating

[As I said, I prefer this version. I like the use of metaphor.
Apparently someone else though it was distracting. -mi]

               Do You Know Where Your Yetzer Ha'Tov Is?
                    Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

We have a problem. This problem struck me the other day when I heard a
distinguished Rav delivering Mussar to his congregation. The congregants
have heard this particular message before, they will hear it again, and
they recognize the truth that underlies the Rav's plaint. Yet I am sure
the Rav and the congregants both know that this is a never-ending,
ongoing, ritual. The problem will remain. The derashos will be
reiterated. Olam k'minhago noheig.[1] What is going on here?

Let us tackle the issue on the basis of a story that strikes me as a
very powerful metaphor for this problem that we face.

Many readers are doubtlessly familiar with the 19^th century children's
story "Pinocchio." Let me summarize the tale (taking some liberties).

Pinocchio is a wooden puppet, or marionette, created by the woodcarver
Geppetto. Pinocchio is "alive" - walks, talks, engages in "human" behavior
- but is not a human being. Marionettes are generally controlled by
strings. Pinocchio has no strings attached - externally - but the point
of the tale is that there are internal strings.

Geppetto's ardent desire is to see Pinocchio become a human, and
Pinocchio is kind of interested in this pursuit as well. Pinocchio
is granted a conscience, Jiminy Cricket, who tells Pinocchio what the
"right" thing is to do. The adventures that form the bulk of the plot
test Pinocchio with temptations and compromising situations. Ultimately,
Pinocchio's altruistic side vanquishes his inclinations towards indulgence
and amoral activity. He is then granted true humanity, becoming a son to
Geppetto. Along the way, Pinocchio was endowed with an interesting trait:
When he lied, his nose would grow, as if the wood of which he was carved
was alive. When he resumed telling the truth, his nose returned to its
original state. Ad kan ha'nogei'ah l'inyaneinu.

Something about the story suddenly struck me the other day: It is a
very powerful metaphor for the problem captured by the episode of the
Rav and the congregation. The problem is this: We often externalize our
"conscience." Why is this a problem? Because then, the battle between
our conscience and our drives takes place outside our selves.

Let me explain: We Torah-true Jews have a common perception of what
is "good" and "holy." We possess, however, great desires, drives and
temptations.

Chazal tell us that we are born with our yetzer ho'ra; but we acquire
our yetzer ha'tov only at the age of bar or bas mitzva. Our conscience
- our yetzer ha'tov - begins work late and comes from outside of us.
In the meantime, we can identify internally with our drives and our own
agendas - our yetzer ho'ra.

At that point - and often beyond - we are, in essence, stuck in the mode
that we (well, at least some of us) experienced in our school days:
There is a system that we know, in some abstract way, is "good." We,
however, test the system, bend the rules, and exploit its weaknesses
(a la the "naval b'reshus ha'Torah"). All too often we adhere to the
system as minimally as possible so as to not be expelled, suspended or
otherwise punished, scraping by and passing to get "through."

As we progress through life, many phenomena may become parts of our
externalized conscience. In the case of the Rav and the congregation, the
Rav remains his congregation's external conscience. Messages of ritual
- or of attire - that are not internalized may comprise an external
conscience, or even a mere societal affiliation. The Mekkuballim call
this an Or Makkif - an enveloping light that does little to affect the
internal state of the soul. The yetzer ha'tov does not become an Or
Pnimi - an internal illumination.[2]

With a conscience that is outside and distinct, we can maintain a
superficial identification with a good and holy system, yet simultaneously
do as we please - as long as the system doesn't "catch up" with us and
castigate us. We are much like a fellow who will speed as long as he
sees no policeman. True, we may feel somewhat guilty over our pleasures,
but as Chazal note at the end of Chagigah, guilt does not help very much
in restraining us from negative activities.[3] (3)

Internalizing the conscience - bringing the extrinsic Jiminy Cricket
into one's inner essence - is the process of becoming fully "human."

While it would be great to emerge victorious over our yetzer ho'ra,
the reality is that most of us must battle our yetzer. If my yetzer
ha'tov is still a Jiminy Cricket, the battle is between my yetzer ha'tov
and me. What if, however, my yetzer ha'tov is no longer outside of me,
but inside me? If I have internalized my conscience, it is part of me,
and it is ever present in my consideration.

We may equate this stage with maturity.[4] In Pinocchio, it is equated
with humanity. Pinocchio is no longer a puppet to be manipulated by
"strings" - he is a "free" human being. "Ein lecha Ben Chorin elah me
she'oseik ba'Torah."[5] I am no longer my subjective agenda struggling
to find the weaknesses I can exploit in the system. I have a component
within myself that weighs matters objectively - and I need to make
decisions. This of course, restricts my "fun." A 19 or 20-year-old may
express his resistance to maturity thus: "Eventually, when I am 21 or 22
and get married, I will lead a full Torah life - now I'm young, I want to
enjoy myself."[6] The danger in this perspective is fairly obvious. An
external conscience is a terrible nuisance. Since it impinges on my
lifestyle, I seek to drown it out - at first, perhaps, with behavior
that distracts me from its inconvenient reproaches. Matters then may
deteriorate. In the original fairytale: Pinocchio attempts to squash
that annoying talking cricket. "Ha'Omer echtoh v'ashuv ein mapikin b'yado
la'asos teshuva."[7]

What is the conscience that we seek to internalize? Let us respond
to this question by continuing our mashal. Pinocchio faced many
temptations. Sheker, however, had the most immediate and dramatic effect:
It provoked an immediate warning sign - the growing nose.

Reb Yisroel Salanter zt"l[8] says that yetzer ha'tov is often a synonym
for the intellect ("seichel") while yetzer ho'ra is frequently identified
with emotion ("kochos ha'nefesh"). Not, says Reb Yisroel, that intellect
is always used for the good, nor that emotion is always for the bad. The
converse can, and does, occur. Nevertheless, following intellectual
conclusions will usually lead one to good; following emotional drives
will generally lead elsewhere.

When a person internalizes emes, awareness and contemplation grant the
objectivity necessary for a true Cheshbon ha'Nefesh. The Rambam tells
us that the first test of Odom Ho'Rishon was not that of good vs. evil,
but rather that of emes vs. sheker. If emes is external, then the kochos
ha'nefesh - and sheker - hold internal sway, and then evil follows -
extending gradually, imperceptibly, at first, then sprouting and growing
beyond control.[9] External awareness cannot do the trick.[10]

But, indeed, how do we educate ourselves (and others) to achieve Emes?

This question leads me to another facet of my experience. My wont, when
preparing and giving a Hashkofo Shiur, is always to present all sides of
the issue, even those that we will ultimately reject. Someone once asked
me: Why present positions that are against Mesorah even as an intellectual
Hava Amina? Suffice it to say that the Gedolim oppose position X!

At first glance, this approach is tantalizingly appealing. It certainly
saves significant mental exertion, which may then be devoted to mego,
rov and chazoko. Furthermore, there is a strong emotional appeal in
"Ru'ach Yisroel Sabbah." Much literature in our circles is based on
this approach. I hope, however, that by now the reader realizes that
this apparent short cut is not without potential pitfalls:

Declarative statements remain extrinsic. Nominal, even occasional,
commitment remains a "valid" option. It is only by inculcating the quest
for truth and meaning; by acquiring and imparting both the truth and its
basis; by training oneself and others to rigorously assess, analyze and
critique, that we internalize the yetzer ha'tov of emes, and we "mohn"
(demand) of ourselves. It is only when we ourselves make demands of
ourselves that they are truly inescapable. We (the congregation) will
only change when we ourselves demand it of ourselves, not when the Rav
demands it from us.[11]

Of course, it may seem somewhat strange for us to build all of this based
on Pinocchio. Excellent point. Let us turn, therefore, to a parallel in
the Maharal, Be'er Ha'Golah, end of Be'er 7 (free translation):

When an individual does not intend to scoff - rather only to state his
belief - even if these positions stand against your belief and system,
don't say to him: "Don't talk, seal your mouth!" For then the system
will not be clarified. On the contrary, in such matters we should say:
"Speak as much as you want, all that you want to say, so that you will not
be able to say that were you granted permission to expand you would have
spoken further [and convinced me with your beliefs]." If, however, you
do close his [the questioner's] mouth and prevent him from speaking, that
points toward a weakness in the system. This [approach] is the converse of
the general impression, which is that it is not permitted to discuss the
system, and that thus the system is strengthened. On the contrary! That
approach undermines the system! ... Thus [through the former approach]
a person comes to the inner truth of matters... For [after all], any
hero that comes to compete with another to demonstrate his might wants
very much that his opponent muster as much strength as possible - then,
if the hero overcomes his opponent, he proves that he is the mightier
hero. What might, however, does the hero display if his opponent is not
permitted to stand strong and wage war against him? ...[12]

In taking our mashal to its conclusion, we might understand an interesting
perspective of the Zohar Ha'Kodosh. The Zohar calls the 613 mitzvos
"Taryag Ittin" (613 suggestions).[13] To be sure, although there are
other interpretations, the simple derivation of mitzvah is from the verb
tzaveh, i.e., command. Why does the Zohar depart from the simple meaning?

Perhaps the Zohar is pointing at the difference between the external
Jiminy Cricket and the internalized conscience. At the earlier stage, the
mitzvos resemble the rules and regulations that an external system must
impose on its constituents. This is the level of Avdus - the impositions
of a Master on His servant.[14]

For the immature individual - be he seventeen or seventy - a structure of
rules is necessary - a system to confine him to the straight and narrow.

But it is not for that end that Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu created us: "Bannim
attem la'Hashem Elokeichem" (Devarim 14:1). The more we internalize
"Hashem Elokeichem Emes" the more we achieve that true Tzelem Elokim which
is our innermost essence. Our conscience is then not imposed command
but inner truth - no longer the directive of a Master to a servant but
the loving advice of a Father to his beloved - and loving son.

After a long, long look, Pinocchio said to himself with great content:

"How ridiculous I was as a Marionette! And how happy I am, now that I
have become a real boy!"

(The Adventures of Pinocchio, Carlo Collodi, 1881)

FOOTNOTES

1. Avoda Zara 54b.

2. It is interesting, in this context, to note that Reb Itzele from
Volozhin zt"l, in his he'oroh at the beginning of his father's Nefesh
ha'Chaim, cites Mekkuballim who locate the yetzer ho'ra between the
penimi'im and the makkifim. (A very beautiful and understandable
explanation of Or Penimi and Or Makkif is in Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin
zt'l's La'Torah v'la'Mo'adim in the section on Simchas Torah Hakkofos.)

3. It is concerning a person at this stage of life that the Michtav
Mei'Eliyahu (vol. 1 p. 255) insightfully notes that when he speaks to
himself about his drives and desires he says things like: "I want this";
yet when he speaks to himself about proper behavior he admonishes himself
in the format of: "You shouldn't do that." The ideal is to accomplish
the converse:. I know of an Oved Hashem who has named his yetzer ho'ra
"Rembrandt" (after the great artist, not the toothpaste) reflecting the
yetzer ho'ra's capacity to paint beautiful - yet deceptive - portraits,
and thus isolates and externalizes his yetzer ho'ra.

4. This is in line with the Chazal (Koheles Rabba 4:15) that we are
born with a yetzer ho'ra, while we acquire a yetzer ha'tov at bar (or
bas) mitzvah.

5. Avos 6:2.Technically, a Ben Chorin is a scion of nobility, not a free
man, as there is a distinction between Chofesh - freedom; and Cheirus
- nobility. In practice no one is truly "free" - but free here means
objective vs. subjective. Most of this essay is captured by the Michtav
Mei'Eliyahu's in his analysis of this Ma'amar Chazal (vol. 1 p. 117).

6. I am sorely tempted to bring Peter Pan in here, but one fairytale
metaphor per essay is enough!

7. Yuma 85b. The Nefesh ha'Chaim (1:12) notes that sinners live in the
midst of their accumulated Gehennom - the constant distracting stimuli
of this world prevent them from experiencing it on an ongoing basis.
Upon leaving this world, divested of its commotion, they finally confront
and experience the shame and degradation of their activities.

8. Or Yisroel Iggeres 30, Vilna 5660 edition and reprints p. 84.
Everything we have discussed (and more) is essentially explicit in
the Or Yisroel there and in the first lines of the Iggeres ha'Mussar.
Sometimes, however, a mashal is a helpful tool...

9. Sukkah 52b.

10. "Yod'im Resho'im she'darchom l'miso, v'yesh lohem chilev al kislom"
- Shabbos 31b.

11. The Shem me'Shmuel on Dayeinu in the Haggadah says that the reason
Am Yisroel in the Midbar fell so many times from very high levels to
great depths is because the madreigos that they acquired were not their
own internal accomplishments, but extrinsic ones conveyed to them by
Moshe Rabbeinu.

12. Cf. the Alter from Kelm, Chochmo U'Mussar vol. 2 p. 50 and p. 76 -
Mesorah and Thought must go hand in hand.

13. Reb Tzadok ha'Kohen of Lublin zt"l expands on this Zohar (vol. 2,
82b) in numerous places. See, for example, Tzidkas ha'Tzaddik simanim 68,
156 and 219.

14. I know I am on shaky grounds here. After all, the Chofetz Chaim
zt"l did not recite "Berich Shmei" because he found it presumptuous to
state about himself "Ana avda d'Kudsha Berich Hu" (see Shorshei Minhag
Ashkenaz vol. 1, the discussion on the German minhag not to recite Berich
Shmei). The Torah reserves the praise of Eved Hashem for Moshe Rabbeinu
a"h. But there are different connotations to Avdus, and I am using the
term here in its more negative implication.

R' Hershel Schachter on women receiving aliyos.
http://www.torahweb.org/thisWeek.html

Gil Student

>>> According to the Pnei Baruch only eating things that are kodesh is
forbidden min HaTorah for an onen. It is difficult to know when the
isur midRabbanan was instituted forbidding an onen or aveil to learn
Torah, but maybe it was not a problem because it was not yet asur. <<<

I don't have a Pnei Baruch, but it is very hard to say the ptur mitzvos
(including T"T) of an onein is derabbanan - you mean the chachamim were
mafkiya all mitzvos b'shev v'al ta'aseh, and this never comes up in the
sugya of yesh koach b'yad chachamim in shas or rishonim?

Rashi on the mishna indicates the ptur mitzvos is osek b'mitzva (kevurah)
patur min hamitzva (similar to chasan) which is a ptur d'oraysa, also
found in meiri and other rishonim, and this may be the idea of "ain
lo mi sh'yisa masa'o"=tirda of being osek mentioned by the yerushlami.
Chazon Ish Y.D. 207 spells this out (as to why tos. brought the deya of
kevod hameis and wasn't satsified with osek b'mitzva -see pnei yehoshua).

Possible nafka minah (discussed in achronim) whether the ptur is osek
b'mitzva or kvod hameis (derabbanan): if you started on the performance
of a mitzva and then fell into a state of aninus. If the pstur is osek
b'mitzva, the mitzva you were already osek in takes precedence, but if
it is kvod hameis, that takes precedence.

 -Chaim

At 01:02 AM 4/4/03 +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>>>What is "ervah" if not a reference to hirhur? The entire issur of
>>>looking at ervah is because of hirhur. How else can you understand
>>>it?

> On 3 Apr 2003 at 13:28, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> It is forbidden as a violation of modesty. (Tznius) Nothing to do with
>> hirhur.

>And "kol b'isha erva" is also only a matter of "tznius?" So if I have
>the woman stand behind a screen I can listen to her sing?

Actually I believe this is the heter to hear singing on a tape or radio.

>>>> What I am saying is that for those women who do not shave or cut
>>>> their hair, then a sheitel, where no hair is showing, is better
>>>> then something where hair does show.

>>>1. "No hair showing" is a big assumption on your part.

>> Certainly there is less hair showing.

>Not necessarily. I have seen many women in close, tight tichels that
>show no hair at all (in fact, one walked by with her husband as I was
>parking my car a few minutes ago).

Did she have long hair under it? If so I doubt it could stay that way
too long.

>>> 2. A sheitel can look real enough to defeat the purpose of covering
>>> the hair.

>> But the bottom line is that it is not hair.

>But it can bring to hirhur the same way that hair does.

Hirhur of what? You need to show that the hirhur of hair from a sheitel
is MORE then of hair itself. I agree that the heter used for a sheitel
is weak, and even those things that are done to indicate that it is
not real (like wearing a hat on the sheitel, which is what my wife does)
are really not 'the best'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@messiahtruth.com 718-436-7705
Messiah Truth/Judaism's Answer:  http://www.messiahtruth.com/
Outreach Judaism:   http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

RYGB wrote
> When Rebbe began compiling mishnayos and Ravina and Rav Ashi redacted
> Shas, the legislative period in Klal Yisroel terminated (until the
> Sanhedrin is reinstitued). The corpus was there, and was carefully
> edited, to present positions and arguments sufficient to serve as a
> springboard for subsequent rigorous and scholarly analysis, subject to
> peer and future review. This new phase is extrapolative and requires and
> interpretive. IT must be based on coherent and cogent argument which is
> then subject to dispute. Thus, the entire vista of responsa literature.

I don't think I am missing a subtle point, but we have a fundamental
disagreement, and you have entered a tremendous hiddush without any
sources.

First, with regard to writing down the tora shebealpe - connecting
it to the end of the legislative period is tenuous at best. The end
of the sanhedrin and its legislative powers is not coterminous either
with Rebbe or rav ashi. Most of the gmara is not legislative, but is
extrapolative and interretive. Furthermore, no main line traditional
source about the heter that I am aware of connects the two,(there may
be some drashot - but I don't think even rav zaddok hakohen goes as far
as you) but writing is viewed as an et la'asot psak.


Second, the issue is the nature of the extrapolation. Even if one accepts
the above position about the redirection, the primary sources for the
interpretation and extrapolation is the gmara and mishna - which are sof
hora'a, and therefore, whose accurate preservation is therefore essential.
The halachic status of post gmara texts is itself subject to dispute,
especially among the rishonim - eg, the rambam's position about the
fact that bate dinim inherently have to consider primarily the gmara is
well known.

However, even if one accepts the halachic status of post gmara positions
(which seems mainstream), that validity is not because they are written
down. Indeed, as you are probably aware, what one may write down today
is a matter of dispute - and those who hold that it is limited clearly
do not view that the oral traditions are worthless.

Furthermore, one might believe (with some justification) that the
most accurate representation of someone's position is that given by
a carefully edited manuscript by the author which he reviewed and
authorized the publication during his lifetime. While some academics
might limit their sources to such validated publications, no rav that I
know would do so - and it would eliminate much (if not most) of rabbinic
literature, which consists of students writing down their recollections
of shiurim, the collection of responsa from individuals who received them
(regardless of whether they were meant for a broad audience or just for
the individual, etc). While the accuracy of the oral transmission is
sometimes challenged, the suggestion that it is inherently passul for
"coherent and cogent argument" is breathtaking, and is not shared by
any major posek that I am aware of, all of whom are willing to accept
oral traditions.

 One classic example that we discussed before is the Seride Esh's famous
tshuva on mixed groups, where he mentions the oral tshuva by rav
Hildesheimer and rav Hoffman allowing women to sing zmirot on Friday
night even with strange males present - something that he learned from the
Berlin kehilla, and for which there is (IIRC) no independent validation.
Similarly, the ma'ase rav is nothing but a collection of oral traditions.
Similarly, much of rishone ashkenaz transmits a written record of a
previous oral tradition of what the gdole ashkenaz did - making it
accessible to us, but few that I know would dismiss that as merely
oral traditions..

Rather than saying that
> The erosion of the halachic method in our day and age
> is in inverse proportion to the spread of oral psak.

I would say that the erosion of the halachic method in our day and
age is reflected in the rejection of the torat chaim of the oral psak,
creating a new type of halacha, unimagined by rav ashi.

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 4/4/2003 10:05:19 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> When Rebbe began compiling mishnayos and Ravina and Rav Ashi redacted
> Shas, the legislative period in Klal Yisroel terminated (until the
> Sanhedrin is reinstitued). The corpus was there, and was carefully
> edited, to present positions and arguments sufficient to serve as a
> springboard for subsequent rigorous and scholarly analysis...

> Oral traditions can play only secondary, perhaps only tertiary, roles
> in this process. The erosion of the halachic method in our day and age
> is in inverse proportion to the spread of oral psak.

It can be shown that Tosafos specifcially and Asheknaz in general DID
did not quite subscribe to this model.

E.G. See Tosafos on Beitza 40A re: metapchin etc. on YT.

Also, RMF seems to reverse the Bavli re: burial on YT Shinei by invoking
chillul YT as a concern - af al pi that the Bavli asserts that legabei
Meisim YT sheini is considered kechol...

Also it is not clear how Ravina nd Rav Ashi ended the Bavli. Many Amoraim
in the Gmara lived after them and arecited after their era, not to mention
some Interpooltaions into the text from Saboraim and from R. Yeuhdai
Gaon etc.

Recently, R. David Weiss Halivini went through about a dozen mar'ei
Mkomomos in Shas on Rav Ashi being Sof Hora'ah. The Iggeres d'rav Shrira
Gaon is the basic source for Rav Ashi as the redactor of the Gamara as
compared to Rebbi being the redactor of the Mishnah. But this does not
hold up well in the sources.

I cannot reproduce the entire shiur here, but suffice it to say,
that RDWHL holds that sof hora'ah refers to Rav Ashi as being the last
Amorah to state Memros - what he called "Apodictic" {sp?} statements.
Nevertheless, it is clera that later Amoraim were still debating issues
within the Gmara.

So far, RDWHL said the best work on the subject is Kaplan's "Redaction
of the Babylonian Talmud"

re: Sof hora'ah I asked R. E. Kanarfogel, RDEK, re: Tosfoas use of
Yerushlami, Psikta, etc. to overturn simple pshat in Bavli. He said
that sof Hor'ah meant an end of an era, but that ANY text containing
Amoraic material was fair game to be included.

See Tosafos re: Michal bas Kushi wearing Tfillin, It would seem from
a straight read inthe Bavli that women MAY wear tfillin!. Rabbeinu Tam
also adds that they should do so with a Bracha! It is the use of a
Psikta as the earliest source for women NOT wearing Tfillin...

Furthermore, See Arachin re: women's chiyyuv of Krias megillah. The
stright Bavli is clear, i.e. women are on par with men, even Tosafos first
acknoweledges this, but then cites the Behag who quotes the Tosefta.
The Rambam seems to clearly follow the stright Bavli, the mechabeir
hedges his bets, etc. BEH I will post a short shiur on this topic

Also see the nos'ei keilim - notably the Taz - on birchas Hanosein Lyaeif
Koach - that the combined power of Gaonim and Minhag Yisrael can alter
nusach tefilah. This also explains interpolations such as zchreinu
lehcayyim and Baruch Hashem L''olam and not to metion the Ashkenazic
practice of adding brachos - such as on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, etc.

For the most agressive use of minhg to overturn dina digmara see Tosafos
on Women being mitztareif for a zimmun, the exact daf excapes me,
but I can find it for you.

And of course, in my recent aveilus, I do not recall being kofeh ANY of
my Mittos despite the Gmaara and the Rambam requiring same. So it is
not only kullos of the gmara that fall away {such as choltin chittim on
Pesach} but there are some chumros that go away, too.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

On 4 Apr 2003 at 15:36, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>>And "kol b'isha erva" is also only a matter of "tznius?" So if I have
>>the woman stand behind a screen I can listen to her sing?

> At 01:02 AM 4/4/03 +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> Actually I believe this is the heter to hear singing on a tape or
> radio.

AFAIK the heter is that a tape or radio is not the actual voice. 

...
>>Not necessarily. I have seen many women in close, tight tichels that
>>show no hair at all (in fact, one walked by with her husband as I was
>>parking my car a few minutes ago).

> Did she have long hair under it? If so I doubt it could stay that way
> too long.

I didn't check :-) 

>>>>2. A sheitel can look real enough to defeat the purpose of
>>>>covering the hair.
>>> But the bottom line is that it is not hair.
>>But it can bring to hirhur the same way that hair does.

> Hirhur of what? You need to show that the hirhur of hair from a
> sheitel is MORE then of hair itself. 

No, I don't. I need to show that the hirhur from a sheitel is the same
as the hair itself. If it is (and obviously that's going to be a bit
difficult to meet as an objective standard) then the sheitel isn't
accomplishing anything because it's still causing hirhurim.

> I agree that the heter used for a
> sheitel is weak, and even those things that  are done to indicate that
> it is not real (like wearing a hat on the sheitel, which is what my
> wife does) are really not 'the best'.

But wearing a hat on the sheitel already reduces the hirhur - that's 
why people do it. 

[Email #2. -mi]

On 4 Apr 2003 at 10:17, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> A sheitel
> ios yet another article of clothing. If it is meant to exude allure is
> yet another article of technically tzanu'ah clothing that provokes
> hirhur and overrides the technical fulfillment. 

That's exactly the point I was trying (apparently not too successfully)
to make.

And that's exactly why the statement I was arguing against (that a sheitel
is ALWAYS a better hair covering than a tichel or snood) is not correct.

-- Carl

At 02:29 PM 4/4/03 -0600, you wrote:
>From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
>Posted by: hmaryles@yahoo.com
>> There is a tremendous illogic to the mitzvah of covering the hair of
>> married women and not single women...
>> Another piece is that no matter how attractive an adult unmarried woman's
>> hair is, there is absolutely no Issur for that hair to be uncovered
>> and fashionable (according to most Poskim). Yet, for that same woman,
>> once she is married that same hair is considered Ervah.
>But isn't being attracted to a married woman much more objectionable
>than to a single woman who is theoretically avaialble for marriage?

That is true.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@messiahtruth.com 718-436-7705
Messiah Truth/Judaism's Answer:  http://www.messiahtruth.com/
Outreach Judaism:   http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

At 11:31 PM 4/5/03 +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>>>>>2. A sheitel can look real enough to defeat the purpose of
>>>>>covering the hair.
>>>> But the bottom line is that it is not hair.
>>>But it can bring to hirhur the same way that hair does.
>> Hirhur of what? You need to show that the hirhur of hair from a
>> sheitel is MORE then of hair itself.
>No, I don't. I need to show that the hirhur from a sheitel is the
>same as the hair itself. If it is (and obviously that's going to be a
>bit difficult to meet as an objective standard) then the sheitel
>isn't accomplishing anything because it's still causing hirhurim.

The problem with this, is that if hirhur is the reason, then for an 
unmarried girl there should also be an issur. I have to look into this 
issue a little more to see all the shitos. ( I have a few seforim de align 
with this.)

>I agree that the heter used for a
>> sheitel is weak, and even those things that  are done to indicate that
>> it is not real (like wearing a hat on the sheitel, which is what my
>> wife does) are really not 'the best'.
>But wearing a hat on the sheitel already reduces the hirhur - that's
>why people do it.


The only think the hat does is indicate that the sheitel underneath is
not hair. (BTW hirhur of what?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@messiahtruth.com 718-436-7705
Messiah Truth/Judaism's Answer:  http://www.messiahtruth.com/
Outreach Judaism:   http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

In a message dated 4/4/2003 3:42:28 PM EST, mshulman@ix.netcom.com writes:
> . I agree that the heter used for a sheitel
> is weak, and even those things that are done to indicate that it is
> not real (like wearing a hat on the sheitel, which is what my wife does)
> are really not 'the best'.

FWIW a little history lesson
Professor Grinstein taught us in several classes that when the "perook"
{I don't even know how to spell it!} first came out the Poskim opposed it
(circa 1820) but under pressure they gave in.

What was originally a concession {IOW a kind of bdiavad} became a lechatcilah 
- at leats in some communities...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

On 6 Apr 2003 at 0:00, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> The problem with this, is that if hirhur is the reason, then for an
> unmarried girl there should also be an issur. I have to look into this
> issue a little more to see all the shitos. ( I have a few seforim de
> align with this.)

It should be obvious what the nafka mina is. The unmarried girl is 
not an aishes ish. 

...
> The only think the hat does is indicate that the sheitel underneath is
> not hair. (BTW hirhur of what?)

But even that is sufficient to reduce hirhur that this woman might be 
available....

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

**********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]