Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
well, nobody, APOLOGIES to you if I misunderstood your words. I surely did not mean to insult you. However, you can see from Joseph’s posting (just above) how people try to muzzle sincere questions. THAT is why i asked the question.
IT is ABSURD to accept joseph’s words as he writes them.It is close to heresy to say that the Tur’s words (or any other rishon) are akin to G-d’s words. What do you do then with an opposite opinion? And what happens if he is proven wrong?
When I learned the story of “tanur shel achnoyi” I remember clearly that the gemoro says “loi bashomayim hih”. Enough said.
nobody and joseph and bogen…..
Why does any real question about Poskim and Rabbonim and Gedolim of this dor or any past dor suddenly make the questioner an apikoros and a rosho? I just don’t get it. The Wolf and I (and others) have asked a sensible question. Do Piskei halocho never change/ Are they ever influenced by customs of the day ? We have the greatest respect for all Poskim and Gedolim but why can’t we ask any questions??
Is anyone so scared of any question that you cannot bear it? Sorry- I don’t get it.
Pashute yid, your (excellent)posting about shabbos clocks is the proof that it takes time for a halocho to settle in. It is obvious that the vast majority of Jews (and Poskim) have agreed that shabbos clocks are fully acceptable and R”Moshe zz’l Psak is only accepted by very few.
Hence, whenever there are “new’ halovhos, don’t necessarily reject it… or accept it.
‘Puk mo amo diber” is a very reliable way of knowing how a halacha develops and is ultimately accepted.
Lest anyone accuse me of only looking at “kulos’, remember that in the early part of the twentieth century, thee were major Poskim who wanted to allow the use of electricity on shabbos vejomtov but the preponderance of Poskim decided against it and presto- today , no one allows using electricity on shabbos. (Yom tov may be different). It takes time for halachic decisions to become accepted or-rejected!
jphone- this is the BEST posting I have seen in at least a month! Kol hakavod!
eisheschayil- the problem is with your quote “due to religious reasons it is forbidden to shake hands with a male”. This is not the crux of it.If there is no “issur’ (as many maintain) then there is no need to circumvent it. Not everyone has to do ‘middas chassidus”. (and, btw, this is surely less of a problem for a woman,as mentioned)
bogen- just a simple quesiton : do you believe that ALL the Piskei halacha of the past apply today?
to jewish feminist…if you (or someone close to you) can check the actual gemoro , you will see that the ones who only cite “bonov” rely upon the actual reason for this which is quoted later in the gemoro, i.e. learning to read the torah, which they iterpret as actually reading in the torah and this would exclude females.
dear noitallmr…..First, mussar seforim are not halacha…also, Ii have no idea why there should be any discussion about shaking hands in mussar seforim…
Second, you mentioned the mishne berurah…OK, please can you quote where he discusses shaking hands with another gender?
Thirdly, there is a difference beteeen men and women on that. For example, is listening to the voice of a man “ossur’ for a woman? NO- because the lav of “loi sikroivu’ has a limited purpose.
Lastly, I will bring you some mekoros that fully allow shaking hands because it is not derech chibah.
Again, I did not say that everyone holds by this but there are enough Poskim of great stature who do hold that shaking hands is not ‘begeder chibah”.
Jewishfeminist..I will review the source again because I did not notice Tosafot,Rosh and the other meforshim mentioned.
I have great admiration for Rav Henkin but I daresay that his view that “banav’ means BOTH males and females is just speculaiton, as if the gemoro wanted to mean sons ONLY, they would have to choose the exact same words.
Actually, the reason why the meforshim insist that it is “banav’ only is derived from the gemorro a page later that talks about teaching the sons to read in the Torah, and this is, manifestly, only for boys only (unless you say that this gemoro predated the gemoro in megillah that disdaloowed women to have an alyah)
To all posters….remember that R’Moshe’s hetetr was not novel…It was already a hetter in the days of the Pri Chodosh….two hundred years ago…
Cheese is differetn beause of the rennet….
well, jent (and all the others) has the appropriate response for this bochur’s behavior:; It is a Mitzvos assay” to rise before an older person.(Mipnei seivah tokum)It is no even a question whether to give one’ seat up because maybe, maybe you would be touching another gender by accident.
As far as shaking hands with another gender, (to noitallmr and jent), first of all, this may not even be a problem for a woman.She may not be under the issur of “loi sikroivu”. second ,even for a man, touching which is not for ‘chibah” (closeness and sensuality) is not ossur. This is clear from a number of sugyos in shas. (Quotes at your request).
In Germany and Hungary, it was the custom to shake hands as politeness and good jews (even rabbonim) did it all the time. So, very respectfully, it is not an “issur” to shake hands, regardless of what you may think. It may very well be midas chassidus and ,jent, if you want to you are welcome to do this, but don’t denigrate people who do shake hands.
there is an Igros Moshe on this and various gemoros.
BTW-jewishfeminist-your source from nedarim 35 is problematic…as there are two different “girsaot”- (versions) of this mishnah and the prepondarent version just says “to teach his SONS Torah’ and does not include daughters.
wow, I stand hunbled here of the erudite words on this site. I am thankful to “mekubal” for his clarifications on women’s learning. Clearly, many of the Poskim mentioned have ‘adapted’ the learning to today’s conditions. This is clearly because the original maa-mar chazal was not an explicit “issur” (as mentioend earlier) and hence, one can adapt it to present conditions, as is actually doen in many other situtations.
Well ,for now, every one will follow the “hora-ah’ that he feels comfortable with. Actually, we may very well see “lehagdil torah ulha-adiroh”.
( I am not sure that Joseph hasn’t changed his mind after “mekubal’s words)
will hill, just a short posting as it is erev shabbos…Read my (and jewish feminist) posting again. The Perisha CLEARLY states that a woman CAN learn Torah shebaal peh if she initiates it. The perisha is not an inconsequential Possek.(on the Tur, if you are not familiar with him)
Secondly, you keep on saying it is IMPERMISSIBLE. But this is the whole point. If it would be IMPERMISSIBLE- translated “Ossur”- why doesn’t the gemoro, the rambam ,the shulchan aruch and others write simply “ossur lelamed es bittoi torah”?
They do not and this is clearly because it is not an “issur”, just a manner of conduct. I am not minimizing the ma-amar chazal and the Rishonim’s and acharonim’s words but it is not an outright “issur” like -chas vecholilo- chazzir or chillul shabbes,
Because it is not an outright issur, people have found reasons for cirucmventing it. Obviously, you don’t agree and this is fine but others feel different. Remember that ,originally, the Bais Yaakov movement was vehementy opposed by many gedolim in Poland and Russia.Ultimately ,it was a brocho (although, from what you hear from Israel, it seems that elitism has arrived there too) and now it is the flagship of chareidi Yiddishkeit.
WOW- I am learning more on this website than in Bais hamedrash !!
Actually, joseph, I know the Aruch Hashulchan. The Torah Temimah is from his son , R’boruch Epstein and written in the early 20th century- yours(12th)must be a typo.
I have not seen the sefer Chassidim but the Tur you bring down actually vitiates against you.As far as the menaing of tiflus- i knwo the rashi but other translations are equally valid. (tiflus from the word “toful” unimportant or less important thing)
I do admit that I said- and still say- that the majority of poskim FROWN upon women learning gemoro.
All I have claimed is that there is no real “issur”-prohibition to do this. Otherwise why didn’t the gemoro say “ossur lilmod es bittoi torah”? Neither do the Rambam and the other Poskim use the loshon “ossur’. That was my point all the time. there is a big difference between issur and “eitzah toivah”.
Now to the posting of ‘feminsit02″.
I am kind of amazed at that very interesting posting.If these are her own words and research, I stand in awe.(My doubts about the authorship center mainly about the quote from the Jerushalmi-scarcely the everyday learning of an average baal habayis) Whoever did the research, it is thorough and I actually quoted this Perisha to Joseph in another posting. Whatever the source, it encapsulates the reasons why some Poskim do allow women to learn Torah sheba-al peh.
So- Joseph- you surely will do as you have been taught and some others will hnalde this matter otherwise.
well, notpashut–I have NEVER,NEVER heard the logic you are talking about. Look, I am not going to question your words and maybe some of the Rabbonim you mentioned did think that way, BUT there is an eiruv (actually about four diferent ones) in Jerushalaim, there are eiruvim in every city in Eretz Yisroel, there is a big eiruv in Monsey and in Skver and numerous other cities across the world. Obviously, the thinking that you wrote about did not bother any of the many,many,many Poskim and gedolim who made those eiruvim throughout the centuries. So, not to make an eiruv in Flatbush or Boro park, based on halachich reasons, “dos vershtei ich”, but to avoid making an eiruv for the reasons you quote negates every single halacha because, maybe this and maybe that….
Basically, I stand with my original opinion, you are welcome to follow your Rav and allow other people to follow his.
It is amazing how many of our good Yidden have been brainwashed…oh,well, what else is news?
I am not going to comment on many of the above postings. Suffice it to say that I do not believe there is any mitzvah for everyone to learn in kollel.About the only way to show one’s displeasure of this is not to contribute to a kollel.
elilev- looks like you believe that the laws of economics have been suspended for today’s dor, even as it was surely part of the time of our Tanoim and Amoroim.
And, actually, yup, I do disagree , on that item, with the Rabbonim you mentioned. Thank G-d, I have many other rabbonim (and gedolim) who feel like me, starting with the Tanoim of the Mishnah.
The comments I made were not necessarily degrading (as you intimate) but just a gentle reminder that one should look at the original sources.
I am pretty sure that if I say to you that we should ignore a Mishnah or gemoro on another item (say–about women learning gemoro)you would call me an apikoros. Strange ,isn’t it, that you ignore plenty of mishnas and gemoros and yet, you don’t find it wrong. “Hajitochen?”
notpashut-thank you for your reply but I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. What churban?? Obviously, I am NOT ‘vehamevin jovin”. I have lived In Eret YIsroel and in Europe and virtually everywhere there were eiruvim, so you will have to excuse me that I have no clue what you are talking about.
I do understand the actual differences in halacha (whether it is a reshus horabim mi-deoraisa,etc..) but you will have to be clearer about what you wrote. If you don’t want to, then, I am sorry to say, I (and others) will have no idea what you are talking about.
Last time I looked, there seems to be a couple of gemoros who deal with this…Have you ever learned the mishna in Kiddushin ? “Chayiv lelamdo umnus” …Maybe you only learned berochos..oh, do you remember the gemoro about “harbeh osu velo olso bejodom”?
The fact is that it is not a mitzvah for EVERYONE to learn all day. It is not something that ever happened in Klal Yisroel and for a very simple reason….it is not practicable or feasible!
Just an addendum to this post….
notpashut- As much as I respect the various Rabbonim- R’Avigdor Miller zz’l was never a Posek and neither was R’Shmuel Berenbaum zz’l. I do not know about the eiruv of Flatbush but there is an eiruv in Boro Park and it was organized by many outstanding poskim.
The fact is that there are people who believe in the eiruv and some do not. Every person should act according to his Rov and conscience. Each side has good reasons for theri Psak and let the Kehal follow those they want to follow.
There is no machlokes in Queens because even the ones who may not hold of an eiru allow the other side to practice theri way of halacha- as has been the case for man ycentuires until a Psak is ultimately accepted by the whole Klal.
This must be like groudhog day….the same discussion again….
sjsnyc- It is a bit too late to quote other sources than Joseph and it is true that, in general, the early Halachic authorities frowned o mwomen who leanred “torah she ball peh”. That much, i wil ladmit 9to joseph’s delight) but I will not admit that it is an irrevocable issur. The exact loshon is ‘ke-ilo lomdo tiflus’,as he would teach her “tiflus” (it is not clear what tiflus means). There is no outright “Issur” -prohibition. If I have time in the next days, I’ll review Joseph’s sources (again!) and add my two (poor) cents!
joseph- which teshuva was printed first??? Siman 84 or 88? THAT is the important question, not where they are filed in the sefer.
notpashut- you are playing with semantics. Unless you can show that it is an obvious mistake in a teshuva or an opinion(like saying purim falls on the 15th of nisssan) no disagreements can ever be called mistakes by the other side. This is evident from a multitude of teshuvos and events throughout Jewish history. Many have disagreed with others on very important matters – even more important matters than an eiruv- and yet the other side was never accused of making a “mistake”.
A consensus tends to emerge afetr a while and then, the “other” psak disappears into history. But, as long as no consensus has emerged, BOTH sides are right and you cannot “Passel” the other side, even if you may think that there is a chilul shabbos involved.
I think it is absolutely weong for a Rov to give a Psak that is NOT for his kehillah and “force” this Psak on other people. The ROV who does nto hold of the eiruv can tell HIS congregants what to do but how can he bascially force his Psak on other people? Wrong, wrong, wrong
I could not ressist adding a “knaitsh'(angle) to the discussion about eiruv. I truly don’t understand how Rabbonim can tell their congregnats NOT to invite OTHER people in case they may use the eiruv, which they think is kosher. Even if that particular Rov does not “hold’ of the eiruv, there is a gemoro in Jevomos that says that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel “lo nimnemu milehasi”. They did not refrain from marrying into each other’s families although they had diametrically opposite views on ‘tsoros’ (too complicated to explain now to the layman-please forgive me!)In other words, they would hold one shittah but accept the other person’s shittah without it affecting how they acted towards them. I fail to see why this could not be done today.
Joseph, I have to be brief today because I have other matters to worry about today.
Actually, I disagree with your description of sweatpants. I don’t think they are un-zniusdik, as you describe. You can also add culottes (absolutely no outline at all) to this and pants under a skirt. So, we differ on the actual matter at hand. SJS gave you another possibility. The point is that, if this does not come under the guise of ‘lo silbash’, there is much more latitude for allowing it as the concept of what is considered znius is a more nebulous one.
As far as miniskirts and cars. Can a woman wear scanty clothing in her own home? Depending on how you answer that, you can deduce whatever decision you want to make about a miniskirt in a car,although she is less protected in the car, and it might be more problematic.
I’ll give you jeans – they particularly are in contradiction of znius standards – and may even admit that a pantsuit should not be part of “bas Ysroel” clothing. I am less sure of ski pants (when skiing)or culottes or pants worn UNDER A SKIRT. BTW- on a summer day , it seems to me to be a lot more comfortable to wear skirts.
But our discussion has more relevant issues like – halocho lemaase- a family goes on a long car trip of say, eight to ten hours. Only the family members are present.It is a lot easier for a woman to travel in a pair of comfortable pants (to get in and out of the car, for example.)What if she asks to wear a comfortable pair of sweatpants? No major issue of znius- the pants are made for a woman, they are not tight and only her husband is present anyway.
If the issue is not one of “lo silbash”, then it should be permissible,as there aren’t any znius questions. If there is a problem of ‘lo silbash”, then it changes the whole question. Nu,how would you pasken?
Actually, the concert was ‘amaesh gevaldig!
Anyway- I am not debating the reasons that the later acharonim prohibited pants. All I wanted to say is that pieces of man’s clothing-if worn for a reason or if not being an important piece of clothing do not come under the heading of ‘lo silbash’. Yes- a miniskirt is not zniusdik and should not be worn, the same way that tight pants should not be worn,even if they are woman’s pants. On the other hand ,long johns in winter, for example, could be worn. They surely are not an important piece of clothing and they are worn to ward off the cold. Similarly, culottes, which are a combo skirt-pants and are actually very zniusdik should be able to be worn ,especially as they are only worn by women.Loose pajama pants, wide ski pants and other pieces of clothing where there is no problem of znius should be able to be worn ,especially if they are women’s garments.
Anyway, regardless of our different olitical viewpoints, I respect your learning and knowledge.Find the tiem to look up the bach,. it is a very lnghty piece but you wil lfind that it is apparent that to make the issur of ‘lo silbash”, you need a lot more than just the designation of a man’s clothing. Additionally, there is an exemption of “minhag hamokom”. The Taz and the Shach both mention the Bach and concur with him.
joseph, we are talking at cross-purposes here. A miniskirt is-as you write- not zniusdk and should not be worn. Absolutely. I don’t whitewash the znius question at all. If my memory still serves me right- the Bach and the other acharonim allow any piece of clothing of a man if it is not an important beged. For example- long johns in the winter. “Lefi anyus daati”, this would not be considered ‘lo silbash’,even if they were men’s long johns.They surely are not an important part of clothing and are worn to fend off the cold. Culottes- a kind of combination skirt-pants, is ONLY worn by women and is actually quite zniusdik should be allowed. Pants UNDER a skirt (such as soem yemenite women wear) should be allowed.It is zniusdik and it is surely not a ‘beged ish”.
Please remember that the Bach is talking about a beged who actually belongs to a man, unlike my examples where they are absolutely a woman’s garment.
Look, I am not here to pasken and the acharonim whose teshuvos you bring have their reasons for the issur. My main point was that it is not ‘lo silbash”. Simply put ,if all these pieces of clothing would be actually “lo silbash” I am not sure thet Bach and his followers could say it is Ok. Additionally, there is also a hetter of “the community’s customs” (lefi minhag hamokom).Look it up.
Anyway- regardless of our different political views, I respect your knowledge, If you have a chance, look at the Bach. it is very lengthy but it will be worthwhile. (You can also check the Taz and the Shach subsequently, who follow in his footsteps.)
Well, after an absolutely, mamash, gevaldig shlomo zzl’l concert motzei shabbos that went on till one in the morning, I am back adding my two cents to some of the questions discussed.Joseph and others, notpashut,noitallmr, I had the opportunity to ACTUALLYy learn the BACH this shabbos and other “nosei keilim’ of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch.
It is INCONTROVERTBILE that the Bach and his succesors do not consider “beged ish’ a Piece of clothing of the opposite sex in two different situations: 1) even it is a “beged Hiddur”- meaning a fancy and important piece of clothing, if it is put on by the woman (or the man)for a specific purpose (like cold or rain), not related to wanting to look like the opposite sex, it is PERMITTED. The Taz ( Bach’s son-in-law) and the Shach CONCUR.
the other situation is of a piece of clothing that is not used for “hiddur’- importance, then it is mutter anytime.
Before jumping on me- PLEASE check the sources!!
Ok- now, the Bach does not specifically mention pants or the like and I surmise that the acharonim mentioned prohibit pants because of znius , not “lo silbash’. This fact is truly clear from the BACH, the TAZ and the SHACH.
Interestingly, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch mention a “mitznefet” as a ‘beged ish”, because it is a piece of clothing that a man wears to look important. SO, women, to put on a (man’s) hat may be “lo silbash’!
Anyway- It is absolutely clear from these acharonim that what a “beged ish” is much more limited than you’d think. Woman’s pants are not even “beged ish”, so wearing pants may not be “znisudik” but ‘lo silbash’ it ain’t.
notpashut- I have not seen the various teshuvos that Joseph mentions but I can only quote the gedolei acharonim like the Bach ,the Taz and the Shach.
Joseph, I checked the Bi-ur halocho about woman’s hair and ,if you would quote it properly, he writes that , in her house, she is permitted to go without her hair covered. True- the Chofetz Chaim himself continues and strongly questions this custom but he writes it in Biur halocho, which ,as you know, is not the way he actually paskens.
The issue of hair coveing is very extensive and really cannot be covered in a short email posting. There are a multitude of halochos and customs -Das moshe, das jehudis, etc. The Rambam seems to have his own way of looking at this (see Hichos soitah)and “nahara ,nahara pashtei” ,the customs on this have spread far and diffently to various communities.
One correction- the mother who said that “the walls of her house never saw her hair’ had the zechus of “Kohanim gedolim'(not a Tannah ,as I wrote mistakenly) as descendants (Massechet Jummoh).Still ,it was a “madreiha’, not a halacha.
I won’t even venture into the discussion about eiruv. For that, you need a whole blog!
hmmmm….yoshi, as much as I may want to symphatize with your Orthodox Rabbi, I have to say that I would like to see his sources for such a blanket “hetter”. Halacha does not work that way- it analyzes every question in its proper context. But i’d like to hear your rav’s comments. and REMEMBER- tomorrow is Shlomele’s z’l yarzeit! concert tomorrow night in Manhattan! GUT SHABBOS
well, thank you, joseph, for having quoted the Bach I was referring to. Whatever the limitations the Bach puts on the wearing of clothing from the other gender, it is clear from this Bach (and no one disputes this) that it is not “Mi’doraisa”, but subject to prevailing conditions. In other words, the lav of “lo silbash” is subject to conditions of the day. I am not sure what the reference to the Rambam is, as he antedates the Bach by hundreds of years.
No one has said that it is a blanket hetter, as the question of znius is present, but many Poskim have said that, depending upon the conditions, pants may be permitted. This includes pants UNDER a skirt, culottes (where you don’t even realize they are pants) or pants in the process of work or leisure like ski pants.
So, maybe we are not really arguing the actual fact of ‘lo silbash’, just when it is applicable. I will try IYH to check the original sources on shabbos.
And to notpashut,just because the Avnei Nezer has a hard line on pants doesn’t mean it obligates everyone. You are welcome to follow his Piskei halocho but there are plenty of other poskim who have a more lenient approach. Again, I realize that tsnius compels one to be careful, but it is not an absolute as you and others maintain.
noitallmr, you are talking about middas chassidus. In the privacy of her owen home, I still maintain a woman does not have to cover her hair. (Yes, Joseph,I will also check your mishne berurah,IYH))
joseph, I’ll check on the Mishna berurah you mention although ,from other sources ,it does not seem to be lehalocho.
oomis1105…If memory serves me right, it was the mother of a Tannah who said this and I have no problem accepting it as is. True, it is her opinion but clearly the gemoro quoted he to show the “ammaloh’ of this behavior.
notpashut….I’ll look up the Bach and will quote his exact words. Actually, there is no other acharon that disputes this ,so it seems to me that it is accepted as lehalocho by all his contemporaries. Just a little bit of patience till I quote the exact words.
notpashut….joseph and I have had strong disagreements on a number of issues….generally, our arguments have become fairly civil and, for your information, the actual sources were as much on my side as his( Joseph might disageree). So, your remark about “pounding him’ are as much the sign of your maturity as they are wrong.
joseph, I clearly said in my earlier comment that I do NOT advocate wearing pants.You are perfectly correct that the matter of “znius” is the one aspect on which the opponents of wearing pants should hang their (black?) hats. Clearly, the qearing of tight pants, even if made for women, or similar pants should be considered “unzniusdik’. We are talking about pants like the culottes (pants that look like a skirt), pants UNDER a skirt, ski pants (worn for protection), pyjama pants (very wide pants)and other such uses, whether they are OK. And- most importantly, how about in your own home where no-one sees you ? In the privacy of her own home, a woman does not even have to cover her hair(OK-unless she wants a son a talmid chochom-me-olom lo ro-u koros baisi…)), so why should she not be able to wear comfortable pants?
My original comment was only on the fact that the poster said that “the Torah said that trousers are ossur” THAT, clearly is not the case. The matter of znius is a deterrent, for sure.
BTW- thank you for your (extensive) research. I will try to look up most of these Poskim (don’t have access to all these seforim) and I will IYH quote you the exact place of the BACH. Also, If my memory serves me right, there were no cholkim on that BACH but I wil lendeavor to find the exact place.
well, joseph went to great lengths to do research on the issue of “beged ish”. Interestingly , he never contradicted my mention of the BACH. Can you tell me why the BACH’s pask (accepted by all early poskim) should not ber considered??
Just a quick rejoinder on the “pants are ossur’ bit (noitallmr). Actually, you are wrong. Look in the BACH (surely an acceptable posek to you) concerning women wearing pants in the market place during cold days.He clearly says it is ok. And, for your info, the Torah said nothing about pants, only about “beged ish’ and only if it is actually “beged ish” (see the possuk))Plenty of modern day poskim have allowed ski pants and culottes, where the “zniudisk” aspect is not a consideration.I am not advocating wearing pants, all i am saying that it is not beged ish and certainly you cannot say that “the Torah said that trousers arw ossur” (BTW, just wondering ,are you english? the word trousers is only used in england)
i have come late (very late) to this post and I am only responding to some of the questions posed on why is hair ‘ervah’,(see SJSin NYC)etc..
Actually, the word ‘ervah’ is used for other parts of the body (“shoik”, thigh) and also to the voice of a woman. there are some kabbalsitic aspects to the hair of the head being the soruce of the ‘soton’ but I’ll refrain from quoting these mystic opinions.
Basically, hair is considered ‘ervah” because it was and is a source of beauty for women and hence, a source of possible seduction from a forbidden woman.This is clearly the reason as it is equated to the reason for “shoik” (thigh) and singing being an ‘ervah”. There is no intrinsic issur on hair. This is clear as girls who are unmarried are not subject to this rule. Additionally, the Aruch Hashulchan allows to say “divrei kedusha” in front of a woman with uncovered hair. He decries this custom but BECAUSE of this fact ,he says that uncovered is not an ‘ervah’ as far as kriat sheman is concerned. Rav Moshe Feinstein zzl’ also allows a “tefach” of hair to be uncovered as the gemoro says ” tefach be’isho ervah”. Clearly, hair is not intrinsically ossur but it is the allure of the hair that is the problem here.
What has happened is that woman’s hair has been imbued with some supernatural issur,based on kabbalistical sources and therefore, sheitels became OK because they were not the real hair,
In truth, all the beautiful sheitels are an end=run over the fact of uncovered hair. It would be a lot better to have a hat or a snood or a scarf. However, because women have adopted sheitels enthusiastically and the rabbonim will not issue a gezeira that will not be heeded,they have refrained from doing that. Hence, sheitels are here to stay!
queen of persia….sorry, not enough….You have to bring me WRITTEN proof of these words…I also knew R’Nachman Bulman and he never sadi anything like you intimate…PLUS- you say a phrase without giving the context….”shaky foundation” meaning what? bad government? wish to give back land? what does it mean exactly?
gut shabbos
to feivel: Last time I looked ,the translation of “medinah” is country (look in the megilla) “am” means people.
so, whatever differences you may have with the government of Israel, there is aboslutely no reason to extend this to the “medinah” where hundreds of thousands of frum yidden live.
To queen of persia: i am not sure whom you refer to.if it is Rav Nachman Bulman, i don’t beleive your qute. I knew him well and he never, ever had bad words to say about the “medinah” yup, the “medinah”.
As far as the content of such quote- you will have to wait a very long time for Israel to -chas vesholom- fall. It never will fall because it is teh “aschalte degeulah”
Corrolary to my earlier comments…R.Meir Simcha meDvisnk was niftar in 1926….His sefer “meshech chochmo’ was published well before that date….divrei nevius indeed….
to shkoyach…It is indeed R’Meir simcha in “Meshech Chochmo” Parshat bechukosai.By the way, this was absolutely ‘divrei nevius’ because R’Meir Simcha wrote this in the early twenties ( I think he was niftar in the late twenties),WAY before Hitler JM”S appeared on the scene. (And, also BTW, this is an answer to all those who claim that the rabbonim of that dor could not say anything about leaving Europe before the Holocaust becuase it was so cozy there).
As far as Obama- I do suscribe to the deepest fears and join most of the “posters” on this. The more I think about him and his total unknown past, the more I am convinced he is a Manchurian candidate and is a plant from our enemies.
And to Queen of persia, remember that the Meraglim brought catastrophe uopn Klal Yisroel because they were “motzi shem ra” on Eretz yisrel. You are in danger of following the meraglim with your evil statements (treifene medinah, better to bring up kids in the US..etc)
a guten moed, all.
MMM….On some matters I am starting to like joseph-ok- don’t go overboard- only on SOME matters! Anyone who calls Ronald Reagan “Ronaldus magnus” is a faithful listener to a certain radio program (rhymes with sosh) and is on the “right” side of the argument! congratulations!
truehonesty….see my reply to your words on the actual “general news” site for this matter…And, by the way, EVERY meshulach takes a cut of the money that he brings in….menachem porush was not better (or worse) than all the others….
chasid-of-hashem— GO COLORED TIES- GO !!!
hal higdon’s ??? where is that?
kitzur-dot-net:
I cheated a bit and I just googled “maaser kesofim”.(You can do the same). Although there is a ‘daas jochid’ that maintains that “maaser kesofim” is “my-do’oraisa”, the vast majority of Poskim say it is at best ‘mi-derabbonon”. Of course, “maaser oni” is “midoraysa”, (every third and sixth year) but this is different than our “maaser kesofin”.