February 17, 2013 1:34 am at 1:34 am #1191969
Daas and Sam,
I feel a bit like a broken record. With respect to hair there are TWO dinim:
1. There is a chiyuv for married women to cover hair learnt out from a posuk in the Torah in the Gemara in Kesubos. It is doraisa according to most poskim. This chiyuv has NOTHING to do with Erva.
2. There is a separate Gemara in Berachos that says that a woman’s hair could be Erva. This is derived from a posuk in Shir Hashirim and is d’rabanan. It is also, according to the R’Moshe and the Aruch Hashulcan cited above, dependent on the norm in the frum society. Therefore if women violate the chiyuv in point 1, there won’t be any problem of saying krias shma from point 2.
According to most poskim, these two Gemaras are not connected at all.February 17, 2013 2:04 am at 2:04 am #1191970
See Ig’M. O.C. 4, 112-4.February 17, 2013 4:04 am at 4:04 am #1191971mddMember
I am not a follower of Rav Menashe Klein ztz”l. However, I protest the changing of the name of his seifer — it is a bizayon Talmud Chocham.February 17, 2013 5:33 am at 5:33 am #1191972old manParticipant
Meshaneh Halachos as in “v’shinantam” or Kol hameshaneh (study) halachos b’chol yom muvtach lo…, not as in changing halachos. I believe that is the intended name of the sefer.Mishneh halchos is incorrect grammar and I do not think that is the corect name of the sefer.February 17, 2013 7:27 am at 7:27 am #1191973old manParticipant
Sorry, the correct nusach is “kol hashoneh halachos”. Even so, the meaning is the same, and certainly there was no intent to slight the great posek Rav Klein.February 17, 2013 8:11 am at 8:11 am #1191974moi aussiMember
“Shoneh Halachos” is a 3 volume set compiled by Rav Chaim Kanievski on Mishna BeruraFebruary 17, 2013 1:47 pm at 1:47 pm #1191975Sam2Participant
Moi Aussie: And Rav Menasheh Klein has an 18 (I think)-volume set of Teshuvos usually called Mishneh Halachos. That is what is being debated here.
The most random, most unexpected, and possibly most amazing Haskama ever, by the way, is Rav Klein’s on the first Chelek of R’ Yehudah Hertzl Henkin’s Shailos Ut’shuvos B’nei Vanim.February 17, 2013 2:13 pm at 2:13 pm #1191976chevronMember
Sam: How is that unexpected and random?February 17, 2013 2:25 pm at 2:25 pm #1191977R.T.Participant
old man — I have not read your copy of “Pinkus Arbaa Aratzot”. (I do not have access to it) However, let me ask you this: You claimed that the book was written by “x” and then edited by “y”. Could it be that “y” chose to concentrate on certain aspects of the Takanat, and not others? In other words, neither you nor I can now conclusively prove that the inyan of shaving heads originates with the Takanot.February 17, 2013 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #1191978
I looked it up. I don’t see how it supports your position.
Please look up the Gemara about hair covering in Kesubos. I believe it is on daf 72a going over onto 72b.February 17, 2013 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #1191979
He is clearly saying that hair is more kal than other areas, and that it is a lower form of ervah.February 17, 2013 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #1191980
It is a lower form of erva.
But that is not why married women cover their hair. They cover their hair because of the drasha of the Gemara in Kesubos. The effect of their covering their hair is to make the hair erva, but it is not the cause.
That chiyuv for a women to cover her hair is stricter than any erva based chiyuv for a women to cover up.February 18, 2013 12:41 am at 12:41 am #1191982
Please read it again. He is clearly saying that sa’ar is more kal than basar.February 18, 2013 2:18 am at 2:18 am #1191983
He is saying hair is more kal than basar with respect to saying kriyas shema, not with respect to the chiyuv for a married woman to cover her head. With respect to a head covering he says clearly that it is a d’oraisa:
??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????
Can you point to any source that says it is d’oraisa that a woman must cover her arms (not b’shas tefilla)?February 18, 2013 2:28 am at 2:28 am #1191984
The chiddush of hair, writes R’ Moshe, is that it has the din of basar. Obviously, basar is d’Oraisa, it’s just less of a chiddush.February 18, 2013 4:08 am at 4:08 am #1191985
Basar is not d’Oraisa. Please find me a source that says it is an issur d’Oraisa for a woman to walk around in public with uncovered arms.
This is what R’Moshe says: hair in a vacuum is not erva b’etzem. It can become erva, however, if it is always kept covered. Basar is erva b’etzem but it can become not erva if it is always kept uncovered (which is why a face is not erva).
Now, because there is a chiyuv min HaTorah for married women to cover their hair, m’meila the hair of married women will become erva and it will be assur to daven in front of the uncovered hair of a married woman.
You are mixing up the cause and the effect.February 18, 2013 4:36 am at 4:36 am #1191986
It is ervah b’etzem, but that’s a chiddush and needs a passuk. For krias Shema, which is talui in hirhurim, the fact that it is a common sight is a mitigating factor.*
How can you ignore the fact that R’ Moshe writes that the chiddush of sa’ar is that it is like basar, and still insist that basar is not d’Oraisa?
*It is worth noting that the Chofetz Chaim very strongly condemns saying berachos in front of uncovered hair. He does not hold of the Aruch Hashulchan’s heter.February 18, 2013 5:04 pm at 5:04 pm #1191987
I am not ignoring it, I am explaining it.
It is mefurash in the Gemara in Kesubos 72a-b that Covering Hair is d’oraisa. It is also mefurash in the Gemara in Kesubos 72a-b that covering arms is Daas Yehudis, i.e. the tznius minhagim of B’nos Yisroel. It is also clear from the Gemara that Daas Yehudis is not d’oraisa.
R’Moshe is not arguing on a mefurashe Gemara. Rather he is saying that regarding the halacha of saying krias shema in front of erva, the hanacha rishona would be that hair would be mutar. However, because there is a posuk that requires a portion of the hair to be covered, that portion becomes a mokom mechusa and is m’meila erva.
If it had not been for the Gemara in Brochos 24a (that says “saar b’isha erva), hair would not have been considered erva for krias shema even if it was normally covered because I would have thought that only basar could be erva. Kamashma lan the posuk in the Shir Hashirim which shows that saar could be erva.
The issue of davening in front something uncovered is separate from the issue of walking around with something uncovered. With regard to the former, hair is more meikel. With regard to the latter hair is much more chamur.February 18, 2013 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #1191988Sam2Participant
DY: Ben is assuming not like R’ Moshe, obviously. I once said over this R’ Moshe in front of my sister, who brought me a whole list of Mefarshim on Chumash that say that hair is D’Oraisa while arms are not (I’ll try and find who later if I get a chance, B”N). Needless to say, I was quite surprised. I also think there’s a Rosh in Brachos that says that Shma in front of hair and voice are D’Rabannan while everything else on the list is D’Oraisa.February 18, 2013 7:22 pm at 7:22 pm #1191989
I am not arguing on R’Moshe. I am explaining R’Moshe.
You and your sister are talking about different things. The requirement to walk around with a body part covered is different from the prohibition of davening in front of erva. Don’t conflate the two and the contradiction disappears.
A married woman is required to cover her hair m’d’oraisa. Not davening in front of uncovered hair is a d’rabbanan, which, according to R’Moshe, does not apply if women habitually violate the halacha and don’t cover their hair.
A women is not allowed to uncover her arms in public because of Daas Yehudis. Not davening in front of uncovered arms is d’rabbanan which applies, according to R’Moshe, even if women habitually don’t cover their arms.February 18, 2013 7:43 pm at 7:43 pm #1191990sam4321Participant
DY: I am assuming you are talking about Geder Olam where the Chofetz Chaim brings that Zohar and other sources,or you meant the Mishna Brurah.February 18, 2013 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm #1191991
Ben, even if arms are d’rabbonon (and I’m not certain that being das Yehudis means something can’t be d’Oraisa, although it certainly means that it’s not written in the passuk), other parts certainly are d’Oraisa, and if those are muttar in a bathhouse, so is hair. It is possible that the Gemara regarding Kimchis was not referring to every single occasion, but I believe that your assertion that the bathhouse would be worse than the home does not make sense. Anyhow, the d’Oraisa of hair only applies in a public place and is irrelevant in the bathhouse.
R’ Moshe and others clearly write that arms are assur despite any prevalent mode of dress, but again, whether or not that’s d’Oraisa doesn’t negate the fact that areas which are d’Oraisa may be uncovered in the bathhouse, and since there is a tzorech, hair is no worse.
Sam4321, I was referring to Geder Olam, but it’s clear in the M”B (75-10) as well.February 18, 2013 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm #1191992
“It is worth noting that the Chofetz Chaim very strongly condemns saying berachos in front of uncovered hair. He does not hold of the Aruch Hashulchan’s heter.”
It seems to me that even the Aruch Hashulchan (and R’Moshe) wouldn’t hold of this heter nowadays. Boruch Hashem in recent times hair covering has become the norm it most frum communities.February 18, 2013 8:33 pm at 8:33 pm #1191993crselectionMember
Yes shaving your head is extremely comfortable when summer comes around. Many previous Rabbis asked women to shave their head when they were asking for brochos and yeshuos.I even heard a story where a women didn’t have children for many years and one of todays Rebbes told her to shave and she gave birth shortly after. Furthermore, when your head is shaven you never have the nisoyin of uncovering publicly.February 18, 2013 8:59 pm at 8:59 pm #1191994
It seems to me that even the Aruch Hashulchan (and R’Moshe) wouldn’t hold of this heter nowadays. Boruch Hashem in recent times hair covering has become the norm it most frum communities.
Most, but not all, so there’s certainly a nafka minah.
Also, I wonder, since the reason for the Aruch Hashulchan’s heter is that uncovered hair is a common sight, if the fact that it’s common among non-frum women makes it okay, or is it talui in frum women.February 18, 2013 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm #1191995
It is meduyak in the Gemara that Daas Yehudis cannot be D’Oraisa (unless you say the Gemara is lav davka, which is dochek). The gemara quotes the Mishna that says going out with uncovered hair is Daas Yehudis and the Gemara asks “uncovered hair, that is
D’oraisa?” The clear implication is that it therefore cannot be Daas Yehudis.
I used arms as my example along this debate because it was the only part of the body I was certain was only Daas Yehudis. However I have never seen any source for an chiyuv D’Oraisa for a woman to cover up body parts not during tefillah, and while I can’t prove it, I am pretty sure it is only d’rabbanan or Daas Yehudis.
The bathhouses in those days were public places and therefore the requirement to cover hair should apply, even if it there are only women around (unlike baring arms, there is no indication in the Gemara that hair covering has anything to do with men being around). The Gemara is clear however that the chiyuv to cover hair does not apply in the home.
“R’ Moshe and others clearly write that arms are assur despite any prevalent mode of dress.”
R’Moshe is discussing saying Krias Shema, he is not saying that in a frum society where women commonly go out with bare arms, it would still be ossur to walk around like that. Pashtus, Daas Yehudis a minhag and if the minhag changes, the minhag changes.February 19, 2013 3:20 am at 3:20 am #1191996
Ben, I know the Gemara sounds like das Yehudis can’t be d’Oraisa. The reason I entertain another possibility is the loshon of Rashi on the Mishnah, that das Yehudis means it’s nahug “af al pi d’lo ksiva”. He could have simply written “af al pi d’eino min haTorah”.
I may sound like a broken record, but, again, R’ Moshe writes that the chiddush of sa’ar is that it’s like basar; obviously, some form of basar is d’Oraisa. The source might be a kal ‘chomer from sa’ar, or there might be a different source which you and I are not aware of.
Is sa’ar had nothing to do with men seeing, t wouldn’t be uttar in the house. The reason it’s muttar in the house id because men won’t see it. See, for example, Rashi s.v. “v’derech mavui”.
I thought you had conceded that sa’ar was ervah based.February 19, 2013 3:55 am at 3:55 am #1191997
Chas V’shalom, I never “conceded” anything. I have maintained since the beginning that there are two separate dinim: (1) that a married woman must cover her head having nothing to do with erva, and (2) that if and when hair is normally covered it gets the status of erva.
R’Moshe cannot make up issurim d’oraisa, there has to be another source for it according to your reading (You can’t make a kal v’chomer unless you have some other din in which it is already more chomur). According to my reading R’Moshe is NOT saying that basar is d’oraisa. He is saying that basar is has a greater status of erva than hair and can therefore be erva, with respect to krias shema (he is not discussing walking around in public, which is a SEPARATE DIN), even if it not normally covered.
You are only understanding R’Moshe they way you are because you are trying to understand the Gemara in Kesubos as erva based. There is no discussion of erva in that Gemara, there is no questions from the Gemara in Berachos.
Rashi s.v. “v’derech mavui” says “that the public are not common there.” Neither Rashi nor the Gemara mentions men in connection with covering hair. There is no indication that it has anything to with men (in her home it is mashma it would be mutar even if there was a man or two around). The issue is public versus private. Similar to the way that a Rav or a Rosh Yeshivah won’t go out of his house without a hat and jacket on, but will meet people in his house without them.November 14, 2016 10:59 pm at 10:59 pm #1191998
The Minhag of married women shaving their head was throughout all of the Ashkenazic lands, including in Germany, Amsterdam and England. What stopped it among various communities was Czar Alexander’s decree in the 1850s prohibiting Jews in Russia, Poland and Lithuania from doing so. It was part of his same decree prohibiting Jews from wearing long jackets (kapotas). This is when most Litvish men stopped wearing kapotas and Litvish women stopped shaving. The Chasidim, for the most part, resisted the new law.November 14, 2016 11:35 pm at 11:35 pm #1191999Lilmod UlelamaidParticipant
How did they know if women were shaving their heads?November 14, 2016 11:40 pm at 11:40 pm #1192000
Chassidim laugh at such edicts. No one tells us how to yiddishkeit our yidden.
I know of one woman, a recent widow unfortunately with lots of kids ayin hara, who cuts her head extremely short. I was startled the first time I saw her in a hat instead of her usual sheitel. It was a short as a man’s!
In my Excellence Opinion, utter nonsense. A lady should not need to cut so much. She won’t look like a woman any more. Perfectly fine to have longer hair. Just cover it with a mitpachat thing. Why such extremes?November 15, 2016 1:08 am at 1:08 am #1192002
lilmod, the Russian police conducted actual spot checks. Here is a translation of a report from Zhitomir, 1851 – it is the Jewish community complaining that the enforcement is too zealous:
“On the streets, district inspectors tear the wigs off Jewish women’s heads, bonnets, and other head attire; they pull them by their hair to the police station and pour a few buckets of cold water on them; they keep them under arrest for 48 hours; and then finally make them sweep the streets in public.”November 15, 2016 1:14 am at 1:14 am #1192003MammeleParticipant
Joseph: nothing connected with Chasidim. It relates to which country one hails from. I believe Galicianer Chasidish women therefore don’t shave while Oberland women do, even if not Chasidish. Or at least they used to.November 15, 2016 3:59 am at 3:59 am #1192004
May Hashem take vengeance on the souls of those Russian brutes, that they should have no rest even today. May they at least continually incarnate as dogs in countries that abuse them.November 15, 2016 5:02 am at 5:02 am #1192005LightbriteParticipant
“lilmod, the Russian police conducted actual spot checks. Here is a translation of a report from Zhitomir, 1851 – it is the Jewish community complaining that the enforcement is too zealous:
“On the streets, district inspectors tear the wigs off Jewish women’s heads, bonnets, and other head attire; they pull them by their hair to the police station and pour a few buckets of cold water on them; they keep them under arrest for 48 hours; and then finally make them sweep the streets in public.” “
Joseph: Sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread. But do you mean that district inspectors would punish women for shaved heads or unshaved heads?November 15, 2016 10:14 am at 10:14 am #1192006
I did not know about this. You made me upset knowing they were abused like that. I don’t care if it’s pointless to be upset 120yrs later. I still am…. I want the Jewish ladies avenged for this. I want those russian dogs punished without rest.November 15, 2016 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm #1192007
lightbrite: The Czar passed an edict prohibiting women from shaving their hair, as was the Ashkenazic Jewish custom for married women. He wanted to “modernize” the Jews. This is when many Jewish women stopped shaving. The Russian police enforced this edict prohibiting shaving.November 15, 2016 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm #1192008WinnieThePoohParticipant
Joseph- your quote actually does not suggest that they are enforcing the edict- after all, you mention that “they pull them by their hair” to the police station. If they have hair, then they have not shaved, so why are they being punished for breaking the edict? Sounds to me like just “ordinary” tormenting, not spot-checking and punishing the law-breakers. Unless there was something missing in the beginning of the quote?November 15, 2016 9:51 pm at 9:51 pm #1192009
The Czar insisted on long hair. In the case cited in the above report she had short hair, and thus violated the law, and was pulled as described.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.