Here is a question that was once posed to me and i had no idea how to answer them without giving a cop out answer.
Why do women have to cover their hair when they are married, but we need to keep shomer negia before we are married etc.?
Can someone shed some light on to this? I know women have to keep their hair special for their husbands, but what is the difference with the other "rules" like shomer negia, etc. Is there a different level of "specialness" to it?
I once heard that a kabbalistic explanation for this, Unfortunately the moderator has edited out the explanation for modesty reasons
As for other things such as shomer negiah, they are all in place to prevent men and women from giving into their temptations and doing something wrong. From the kabbalistic view I heard, the hair only becomes an issue after the night of the wedding, so it doesn't need to be covered beforehand. Touching someone can cause issues before marriage, so it's forbidden then also.
Covering hair is not related to shomer negiah.
When a woman gets married her hair gets the status of any other body part that needs to be covered and therefor needs to be covered.
Shomer negiah is a fence that was put in place to prevent people from transgressing more serious laws.
There is an opinion that negia is d'oriasa me'asmachta from Vayikra 18:6. Anyone who has a source, please let me know.
Negiah shel chibah (nishuk etc) in and of itself is assur midoraisa, acording to the Rambam, if you arent married (other may say its derabonon). At times, just touching may enter the 3 of "ye'herag, v'aal yaavor".
Sources please? Also, while RaMBaM distinguishes between chiba and not, the mechaber doesn't. There is a big machlokes whether the omission was davka or lav davka. (I couldn't say "deliberate" because that would open a whole 'nother can of worms.)
The Rambam in Issurei Biah (I believe 21:1) says that Negiah is D'oraisa. No one really disagrees. The Ramban brings down a Deah that it might be D'rabannan but even he doesn't hold like it. According to the Rambam it would be Yeherav V'al Ya'avor. However, the majority seems to agree with Tosafos that Negiah is it's own Issur and isn't considered Giluy Arayos and therefore would not be Yeherag V'al Ya'avor.
Negia shel chiba is de'Oraisa and "yehareg ve'lo ya'avor". Look in Shach in Yore Deya, Halochos of Yeahareg ve'lo Ya'avor.
Covering the hair in the street is also min'HaTorah -- Kesubos 72A.
Whether negi'ah is assur mi'doraisa, mi'd'rabbanan, or even muttar, is a machlokes amora'im in Shabbos (13a) and Avodah Zarah (17a).
Assuming it is assur, and it was mentioned that the Rambam paskens it is d'oraisa, it is a fence put in place to distance one from the actual act of giluy arayos. (Yes there are fences that are d'oraisa. The classic example is the prohibition of a nazir to eat grapes.)
Covering hair, IMHO, has nothing to do with arayos. I once wrote an essay on this and I had a number of problems trying to say it is indeed because of ervah,* and the truth is you wont find me a single rishon who explains it this way.
And by the way, the Rambam who learns that negi'ah is d'oraisa, understands that covering hair is only d'rabbanan. The Terumas Hadeshen (1:242) writes: דלפי הרמב"ם פריעת ראש באשה אינו אלא זהירות מדרבנן.
*כתיב ופרע את ראש האשה, ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, אזהרה שלא יצאו בנות ישראל בפרוע ראש. ולכאורה דבר ברור הוא דאין אזהרה זו משום שער באשה ערוה, דא"כ אמאי קאמר דמדאורייתא קלתה שפיר דמי, והא שערותיה מגולין. ועוד דבכ"מ שהוזכר דרשה זו לא מצינו לשון גלוי שער אלא לשון פרוע ראש, ואם איסור זה הוא משום שער באשה ערוה הרי העיקר חסר מן הספר. ועוד דא"כ אמאי לא הביאו רב ששת לענין שער באשה ערוה ואמאי שביק קרא דאורייתא ונקט קרא דכתובים. אלא לפום ריהטא פשוט דאינו משום ערוה
yitayningwut: Nor the Rambam nor the commentaries say that it is prohibited as a fence. It is explained as assur in and of itself. Deriving pleasure in such a fashion is prohibited, period.
If you have a source stating otherwise I shall be corrected.
The Gemora in Kesubos says that covering the hair is de'Oraysa!!(there are additional Halochos de'Rabbonon about that, but the ikar is min ha'Torah)
Rabbiofberlin , maybe, you want to melamed ze'chus on the Jews of Bais Rishon by saying that avoda zara is not me'de'Oraysa??
Chibuk ve'nishuk is negia shel chiba, for example.
truth be told-
You are incorrect. First of all, the Rambam himself writes, (I.B. 21:1) ונאמר לא תקרבו לדברים המביאין לידי גילוי ערוה. Clearly he is understanding the issur of קריבה as a fence. Furthermore, the מגיד משנה says this openly; he writes in halacha 6, אפי' שום קורבה אסור משום לך לך אמרינן לנזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב. Moreover, in svarah I don't understand why you would assume any other way. לכאורה this pshat should be the 'השקפה ראשונה'.
mdd-
True the gemara says those words. But there are places when the gemara says d'oraisa and it simply refers to an asmachta.
If you're interested, here's more from that shtickel I wrote a while back:
מיהו אכתי יש לחקור אם אזהרה זו דאורייתא היא. דבאמת מצינו לשון אזהרה ואינו אלא מדבריהם, כמו (סנהדרין דף ז:) שמוע בין אחיכם ושפטתם (דברים א:טז) אזהרה לב"ד שלא ישמע בעל דין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו, דע"ז כתב הכסף משנה (פכ"א מהל' סנהדרין ה"ז) דאסמכתא היא (והגם דהתם עובר עכ"פ על מדבר שקר תרחק מ"מ הלשון אזהרה איירי באסמכתא בעלמא), ועוד איתא (שבועות דף יח:) והזרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם (ויקרא טו:לא) אמר רבי יאשיה מיכן אזהרה לבני ישראל שיפרשו מנשותיהן סמוך לוסתן, והובא ברמב"ם (פ"ד מהל' אסו"ב הי"ב), וכיון שסובר הרמב"ם דוסתות דרבנן כתב הכסף משנה בזה"ל פשוט הוא שזה האיסור אינו מן התורה אלא מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא. ואם תאמר והא ודאי דאורייתא היא דהרי מייתי לה הש"ס לענין שלא תחשב בכלל דת יהודית אלא בכלל דת משה. זה יש לדחות דהא הרמב"ם כשהעתיק דינא דמתני' כתב (פכ"ד מהל' אישות הי"א) ואלו הן וכו' דת משה וכו' כגון שאמרה לו פירות אלו פלוני כהן תקנם לי, ועיסה זו פלונית הפרישה לי חלתה, ופלוני החכם טיהר לי את הכתם - והא כתמים דרבנן כמ"ש בהל' אסו"ב (פ"ט ה"ג). והיה נראה להביא ראיה גם מהא דמפרש המגיד משנה (בהל' אישות שם) דתרו"מ בזה"ז אינן אלא מדבריהם, אולם לע"ד צ"ע שהרי פסק הרמב"ם דבארץ מן התורה נוהגין אף שלא בפני הבית. איברא דעכ"פ מבואר שהרה"מ הבין בדברי הרמב"ם דאיירי ג"כ בדברים שהם מדבריהם ואפ"ה כוללם בכלל דת משה. עוד יש להביא דברי התרומת הדשן שכתב (ח"א סי' רמב) דלפי הרמב"ם פריעת ראש באשה אינו אלא זהירות מדרבנן ומסתמא ס"ל הא דפריך תלמודא ר"ל רמז דאורייתא יש לה, ע"ש. לכן לית לן הוכחה גמורה דראשה פרוע אסורה מן התורה הגם דבגמ' לכאורה משמע דיליף ליה מקרא, וא"כ צ"ע אם הוא דאורייתא או דרבנן. ואגב אורחיה חזינן דעכ"פ להרמב"ם לפי"ד התרוה"ד הנ"ל אינו אלא מדרבנן, ונאריך יותר בצד זה לקמן בס"ד.
SJS -While you modern people might have a heter not to cover hair, I see the same women with short sleeves. What heter do you have to go with short sleeves?
The Issur of Lo Sikr'vu may be to avoid leading to greater Issurim, but the fact remains that it is its own Lav (Lav 353 in the Sefer Hamitzvos) and that you would get Malkos for it by itself. The reason for the Lav does not necessarily matter as it is its own Lav.
Health-
Short sleeves are way easier to be mattir then uncovered hair.
I'm not paskening, only saying that when you are analyzing the sugyas and the halacha it is much easier to be melamed zchus on those who wear short sleeves, pants, etc. than those who wear their hair uncovered.
I am actually curious to know if you can find me one clear source in the gemara and rishonim that any dress code is required, apart from not dressing in a markedly provocative manner.
Sam2-
I was told by my Rebbi, Rav Tzvi Berkowitz, that the halacha is in accordance with R' Shimon that דרשינן טעמא דקרא, if none of the applications implied are disputed in the gemara.
Health-
Let me explain. Those who maintain that a woman must dress a certain way generally source their claim in the fact that the gemara calls certain body parts ervah. There is a lot of room to say that those things are subjective and have everything to do with time and place. The hair covering halacha, on the other hand, is not just because of that gemara which calls hair ervah. Therefore it is more difficult to be mattir.
SJSinNYC -Would this apply to leg also that the Shok would be the hip and not the knee? Also, please find out who held like this, even a contempory Poisek.
"yitai..." "Short sleeves,pants...are easier to be mattir than uncovered hair" I am in full accordance with you on pants (see bach and other achronim), but I am not sure what you mean by 'short sleeves". How about sleeveless? is there a line to be drawn anywhere?
The Gemara in this case agrees with that as we have cases of Amoraim that were "over" on this but it was allowed because they felt no attraction whatsoever. Although in this case the Ta'ama Dikra is actually Meforash. It's only things that have a physical pleasure that are Assur. It's not like Yichud where to be Assur you need Yichud Hara'oy L'Biah. Even if there is no chance of Bi'ah in this situation there still is an issur of Lo Sikr'vu. There is no Inyan of "Kirvah Hara'oy L'Biah" anywhere.
rabbiofberlin-
As long as it is the norm in that time and place and does not give hirhur to the average individual, I think it shouldn't be too hard to be melamed zchus.
Sam2-
What do you mean by "there is no inyan of kirvah haraui l'biah"? Who says?
Rabbi, some hold that Z'roah means only the shoulder. Also, there are Shittos that since it says "Tefach B'Ishah Ervah" as well you are allowed a full three inches above the elbow.
The leg is definitely stricter as everyone agrees that the area from the hip to the knee (at least) is the Shok. There are those that apply the 3-inch Heter mentioned above to the leg as well, though I have heard that that is much rarer. Pashut Pshat (in just what the word means) should be that the knee itself is okay as it is not part of the thigh. Presumably the reason we are so strict about the knee is that it would be very hard to have the knee uncovered and still have every bit of skin above the knee covered.
I have to go now, be back soon.
Sorry Yitay. You have to show me someone who does say that it's only Assur if it's Ra'oy L'Biah. Otherwise, Mistimas Divrei Haposkim, we will assume that the Issur D'Orasisa applies to what the Poskim say it applies to-any Kirvas Basar that has physical Hana'ah.
yitayningwut: I see what you're saying. I'll have to look into it. Don't have the seforim here. I do remember otherwise, but I may be wrong
Sam2, look at the Rama, I believe in E"H 22, who says the minhag is to be meikil on many things. From what I read, which seems almost impossible for me to believe that I am understanding it right, men were allowed to have a female servant bathe them. I assume this involved some physical contact, but do not know what the Rama means. If somebody can shed light on this, and explain, please do so.
One of the nosei keilim there says that these restrictions all depend on the type of person one knows himself to be. That is why some amoraim picked up the kallah to dance with her.
I wrote an earlier posting responding to "mdd" but it was ignored so let me answer him briefly. Actually, "yitaiy...." has done a masteful job in showing sources whether uncovered hair is d'oraisa. Thanks, especially for the "terumas Hadeshen' that I did not know.
I wanted to respond to "mdd' question whether I would be 'dan lekaf zechus" for the "ovdei avodah zoroh" of bayis rishon? Actually, "mdd', yes, I would be 'melamed zechus" on any jew, regardless of the sin. This is how Moshe rabbeinu conducted himself, how the nevi'im acted and how all our gedolim went about for centuries. You should remonstrate them (hochocho) but, in the final analysis, you must be a "senegoir" an advocate for any Jew.
Pashuteh Yid. I am familiar with that Rama (I believe the Siman is 21) where after the Shulchan Aruch gives the details of Issurei Kirvah the Rama adds on his own ideas and then is Melamed Zechus by saying at the end "Hakol Lesheim Shamayim". But that is the point. If it Lesheim Shamayim then there is no Hana'ah and therefore no Issur. If there is physical Hana'ah then it is an Issur D'Oraisa of Kiruv Basar B'Derech Chibah (Lo Sikr'vu).
So Sam2, how does that fit in with the handshaking thread of a few months back? Wouldn't it be lshem shomayim to shake the hand of an interviewer or a non-frum person at a chasuna if they extend it, instead of making them uncomfortable?
This is outrageous. This is Yeshiva WN, not Modern- matir everything wildly-WN. It would take me half a day to answer all the shvere kulos over here.SJSin, there are those who claim RambaM ALLOWED BEATING ONE'S WIFE. Like that?
Rabbiof, it is good to melamed zechus but not by being oker Halocha!!!
Yitay!! Most Poskim hold it does not depend on the minhag ha'mokom. And this opinion does not fit the reality -- even if ladies in a certain place wear very open clothing, a man does not get used to it. Whom are we kidding??
Trumas Hadeshen, means that covering all hair is derabbonon, but the ikar covering is de'Oraysa. (Chofets Chaim writes it's de'Oraysa).
Plus, all these ba'ALEI AVEIROS DON'T HAVE ALL THESE heterim in mind. They do it because of ta'avos.
Bekitsur, why don't you go and open the Everything-mutar.com?
pretty frustrating isnt it?
welcome to modern america.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
RSS