Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 075

Thursday, December 21 2000

• Tfillin on Chol haMoed
• RE: Chilul Hashem, Goyim and Shaving
• Re: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• Re: Halachic History and Halachic Process
• RE: Ashrei
• Learning Dikduk
• RE: Shellahanukka
• Re: zemer lechanuka
• Onen on chanukah -oops
• Re: An Onen on Chanukah
• Re: Chashad on Chanukah
• Looking for a Medrash
• onen - chanukah
• RE: Halachic History and Halachic Process
• Rashi question
• (Fwd) Tfillin on Chol HaMoed (was Minhag Avoteynu Beyadeinu)
• Sei'ar beIshah

Michael Feldstein wrote:
> The recent discussion of shaving on Chol HaMoed brought to mind the different 
> customs regarding tfillin on Chol HaMoed.  I'm curious...for those who do 
> put on tfillin during Chol Hamoed, what are the reasons given why a 
> person should put on tfillin during Chol HaMoed?
     
This is an issue that the poskim discuss AT LENGTH.  For a good rundown, check 
the Malbim's Artzos HaChaim in hilchos tefillin where he goes through ALL of the
relevant gemaras and rishonim.
     
Gil Student

From: Markowitz, Chaim [mailto:CMarkowitz@scor.com]
> I was asking about the chilul hashem issue and I fail to see how you
> answered that question unless your makor is from Rav Moshe. . From RYBS you
> don't see it at all. If your makor is from Rav Moshe what does he say.

1.  I had misunderstood your question as asking for a makor for the idea
that it is better to shave l'chvod ha'regel.
 
2.  I have no makor on the chilul Hashem issue tied *directly* to shaving.
However, I did show a makor in the context of Tisha B'av.
 
Kt,
Moshe

Gil Student [quoted RDG and wrote]:
> I hope that it is understood that I am not attacking the Dor Revi'i.

It is indeed.

>> I met an old acquaintance recently who told me that he had heard Rabbi
>> H. Schachter discuss the Dor Revi'i in his tape series on the Oral Law. 

> Anyone know where I can get hold of this?

Go to the OU website and click tapes.  By the way, anyone know how I can
get the OU webmaster to link the Dor Revi'i site to theirs?  Several of my 
requests have not been acted upon and my most recent inquiries (which I
thought were all extremely polite) have not even elicited a response.

> Rather than try to defend the Dor Revi'i, let me just ask you how you would 
> explain the Rambam in Mamrim 2:1 in which he codifies the law that a Sanhedrin
> may change a halakha decided by a previous Sanhedrin based on an alternative 
> interpetation of the Scripture? 

> This only refers to NEW halachahs that are derived from Scripture through
> the 13 exegetical rules.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by a "new halachah."
If you look up the Rambam you will see that he is quite explicit that
the p'sak of a previous Sanhedrin can be overruled by the current one
based on a different interpretation of the relevant Scriptual text.
The gadol behokhma u'v'minyan restriction does not apply here either.
That restriction is mention in the next halakhah (2:2) about overruling
a takanah or a gezeirah of a previous Sanhedrin.

Micha Berger wrote:
: 2:1 is about two Sanhedrins. It therefore has little to do with the
: situation R' Gil found unacceptable. There is no s'michah or Sanhedrin
: bizman hazeh. I'm not even sure that d'rashah at all is possible without
: one -- never mind a d'rashah that overlooks precedent.

Well, now I'm thoroughly confused, because the whole point of the Dor
Revi'i was to contrast the ideal halakhic system when there is a 
Sanhedrin with the new system that resulted from the redaction of the 
Mishnah (eit la-asot la-ha-Shem heifeiru!!!! toratekha) in which the 
halakhot recorded in the Mishnah and later the Gemara became the
last halakhic word were no longer subject to revision by a Sanhedrin.
v'ayein sham.

[RGS, quoting again and adding:]
>> How would you interpret the gemara in BM 59 conerning the dispute over tanur 
>> achnai in which hazal disregard an explicit directive from the Almighty to 
>> pasken the halakhah in accord with R. Eliezer?

> There are a number of ways to interpret this gemara. Simply, Hashem
> gave us the Torah and a whole bunch of rules and then let us run
> with it. It is now ours to determine.

I think that is precisely the Dor Revi'i's point. Once the Torah was
given to us, we get to decide what the halakhah is. Our emunat hakhamim
requires us to believe that they don't decide the halakhah based on
personal considerations but do so conscientiously and l'sheim shamayim,
and they play by the rules and don't just make things up as they go along.

[MSB:]
: R' Gil already wrote my answer: "lo bashamyim hi" has nothing to do with
: ignoring precedent, "only" with ignoring neis and bad kol. For that matter,
: one can argue that the story says that halahichic process reigns supreme,
: and /if/ that process includes precedent, it would give more authority
: to precedent.

Excuse me, are you saying that a Sanhedrin that could ignore a bat kol 
transmitting an explicit directive from the RShO could not ignore the
precedent of an earlier Sanhedrin?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

This reminded me of something that is only slightly tangential (for a change).

I was pointed to a Rashbam on this week's parashah, d"h "toldos". (I 
forgot by whom, possibly an email d'var Torah.) In it, the Rashbam
asserts that the simple p'shat of the pasuk is a subjective thing, and
changes. He even suggests that Rashi is necessarily incomplete, since
each day Rashi would have had to have written a totally different kuntrus.

Similar reasoning might explain a similar variability in other parts
of aggadita. Particularly if you see aggadita's purpose as being the
motivation and depth to live a halachic life. Each person needs a
different perspective; and for a given person, that changes with time.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Dr. Feldman wrote:
     
> Of course, when we speak of the Septuagint, strictly speaking, we refer only 
> to the Torah. The other books of Tanach were translated about a century later.
     
How definite is the dating?  I've seen people say that the Septuagint 
translation of Nevi'im and Kesuvim was composed by Christians but I'm not sure 
if that is just bad scholarship for the sake of counter-missionary efforts.

Gil Student

I came across this teshuvah today about seder halimud in general and learning 
dikduk in particular.  Since there was a brief discussion of this in Areivim, I 
took the liberty of translating this and posting it.

R. Yair Chaim Bachrach, Shu"t Chavos Yair, 124

It is good and necessary for a knowledgeable person (ben da'as) to learn a 
little of the wisdom of grammar and to know the general rules, whether plural 
and singular pronouns, feminine and masculine, past, present and future tenses, 
direct and indirect objects, or prefix and suffix letters.  But it is 
unnecessary to waste one's time on the various conjugations (binyanim) that 
grammarians discuss.  Also, the points of emphasis and softness (dagesh and 
rafah) and the general rules are incumbent on a person [to know] as he is a man 
and a "nefesh chayah" as Targum translates (Bereishit 2:7).  How can one who has
studied, learned, and taught until he reached the level of teaching and judging 
(yoreh veyadin) not be embarrassed is someone asks him about the prayerbook why 
the vowels under "vav" prefixes change between "UNeshabeichacha", "UNefa'arecha"
with a melafoos and "VEnamlich", "VEnazkir" with a sheva...?  However, it is not
worth wasting time on knowing all of the details and details of the details and 
the derivatives of the general rules because knowledge of them is a great 
confusion and a minor relevance.  Some have explained thusly what Rabbi Eliezer 
said (Berachos 28b) "Keep your sons away from 'higayon'".

Gil Student

D & E-H Bannett:
>: Clarification: Shelichanukah as one word is either with a shva or a chataf
>: patach not a chirik gadol.

> Sorry, the lamed has neither a sh'va nor a chataf, nor a chirik.
> The lamed has a patach because the chet has a hataf patach.

Right you are! It is a patach. I was trying to be meyasheiv the "i"
as in sehlichanukah, and No can do

Sorry.

For ruther iyyun see Baer's Avodas Yisrael on Shel-zvachim page 60.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

[I am amazed by how much discussion my lack of dikduk generated. -mi]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 04:08:09PM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: Ditto...and I feel like I must really be off-base, because I strongly
: doubt that generations of Torah-true Jews sang a secular drinking
: song/tone poem on, of all days, Shabbos Chanukah.

I can't explain a number of poems written by Sepharadi paytanim who were
also rishonim.

Since the idea was floated that the author was the Ibn Ezra, can we also
discuss some of the contracts he took to do?

: Perhaps in the context of a s'udas mitzva (compare and contrast with
: s'udas Purim).

There goes all those divrei Torah noting that Chanukah, which celebrates
a spiritual threat (if we would have assimilated, the misYavnim would have
won) has a spiritual celebration. Whereas Purim, where the threat was gashim,
survival, the mitzvos (aside from pirsumei nisa of megillah) are gashmiyos
-- matanos la'evyonim, mishloach manos, and the se'udah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: jjbaker@panix.com
> what they tell you to do.  Since the onen is still obligated in the
> positive mitzvot, the rabbinic mitzva of pirsumei nisa is still incumbent
  ^^^^^^^^
> on him - so he lights with a bracha.

Oops.  I meant "negative", of course.

On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 10:15:15AM -0500, Ron Bratt wrote:
:                Since an Onen is asur be'mitzvos aseh, this would lead
: me to conclude that lighting, without a bracha, is *not* a mitzvah and
: that this lighting is strictly for pirsumei nisa and that pirsumei nisa
: is separate and distinct from the mitzvah of hadlakah.

Perhaps this is just proving that my rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz, didn't
learn Brisker, but I don't get your chakirah.

First, pirsumei nisa (PN) is a mitzvas asei. It's also chal on people
who were zocheh to a personal yeshu'a.

Second, the din of menorah is motivated by PN. I don't see how you can
make a division between the asei of hadlakah and the asei of PN. It
would be like dividing boreir from the concept of shevisah from melachah.

(It's very R' Shimon Shkop-esque to analyze a din or machlokes
based on its essence as given or implied in the gemara. See also
<http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/derachim.htm>.)

The hekesh in the digest where your email appeared made me think about a
different chakirah. Perhaps the onein isn't motivated by the asei of PN,
but by the lav of causing chashad. After all, does everyone know he's
an onein?

: Further on though, the MB discusses what one should do if he comes home
: late. So late that all his bnei bayis is sleeping. If he wakes up a
: member, fine, then he lights with a bracha. But if he is alone, he
: lights *without* a bracha.

My understanding is that MB is mesupak as to whether PN includes reminding
oneself of the neis. (For example, there is a chiyuv to hear the megillah,
and that too is PN.) Therefore he lights, but safeik berachos lehakeil.

(Obviously I can't understand the question to be about kiyum hadlakah
w/out PN, because I don't believe that's possible.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:22:22AM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: 	Although we still light at the window,  we are not makpid, at least
: not le'ikuva,  on the zman.  What chashad is there if I pass by your
: house and see no menorah lit:  I can assume that you come home from work
: at, say,  6PM, and light then...

If I could be balebatish for a moment...

In the days of the gemara there was a cultural difference. No lighting.
Even or haneir, as we learn from hilchos Shabbos, was an unreliable thing.
Evenings were probably short, people went from work to bed in a much
narrower range of time and with less personal variation than we do now.

Don't we also see the impact of this on hilchos ma'ariv? That it's possible
to stall until everyone gets in from the fields? Implying a 15 minute range
or so.

So, I can see chashad being a real problem then. Odds that someone came home
at a different time were small.

Perhaps this, like refu'ah beShabas, is a takanah whose motive has ended.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I remember reading a medrash linking Yaakov avinu's pachim k'tanim with
the pach shemen of the ishah haShunamis and the pach shemen of Chanukah.
As well as a fourth story that unfortunately I forgot. If someone could
please point me to it. My Bar Ilan search skills weren't up to the task.

This would explain why the Yevanim didn't find the pach shemen -- it
wasn't with the normal oil storage.

It also answers the beis Yoseif's question: If it's the same neis as that
for the Shunamis, then the jug was still full after emptying it on the
first day.

Last, the medrash nicely connects the kedushah of masa umatan be'emunah
with the ribbui of Chanukah. Money properly acquired will also be enough
to cover your needs.

--

Another Chanukah thought:

Kana'us, as I mentioned in my bar mitzvah derashah, requires pure
motivations. Which is why the kana'us of the Macabeem is recalled with
zahav tahor -- both spiritually tahor and physically pure, and why the
light and even the oil (if the neir went out early) can only be used
for the mitzvah and are asur behana'ah.

--

See also <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chanukah.html>. I think I posted
in the past, so I won't bother do so again.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

jjbaker@panix.com  wrote 
> I'd speculate that this might be related to the nature of rabbinic
> mitzvot as kiyumim of lo tasur. That is, the Torah mitzva underlying all
> 7 rabbinic mitzvot is itself negative - you shall not deviate from what
> they tell you to do. Since the onen is still obligated in the positive
> mitzvot, the rabbinic mitzva of pirsumei nisa is still incumbent on him -
> so he lights with a bracha.

The Onen lights without a bracha. The best answer I have heard so far is
that the lighting (without a bracha) is actually a kiyum of the negative
Rabbinic Mitzvah.

A source for an Onen performing an Aseh without a Bracha is Nodeh
B'Yehudah Chelek Rishon Teshuva 27, -- there the question is whether
an onen can count sefirah. One difference there is that if he fails to
count one day he loses subsequent days. That does not come into play
on chanukah.

> Further on though, the MB discusses what one should do if he comes home
> late. So late that all his bnei bayis is sleeping. If he wakes up a
> member, fine, then he lights with a bracha. But if he is alone, he
> lights *without* a bracha. Does he get the mitzvah of lighting? And if
> so, how can the onen light even if he lights without a bracha? Further,
> can pirsumei nisa exist without the kiyum of the mitzvah? You can have
> the most exquisitely mehudar esrog, but if it is pasul it can't be hidur.
> I can't these two issues.

Is it assur to light a candle? Maybe it's doubtful at this point whether
or not the mitzva exists for him, since it's presumably after feet have
ceased to pass in the market. In which case, light without a bracha so
in case the mitzva exists, you're covered. I would think that pirsum
hanes *is* the kiyum of the mitzva. So if he can wake someone up, he
gets clear pirsum, and makes the bracha. But if not, then his time has
passed, so I suppose it's like lighting the next morning without a bracha,
for a non-onen.

I'd guess that pirsum is best fulfilled when a) it's dark, so the candles
are obviously burning, and b) there are people around to see it. When
only one of those conditions applies, then one lights without the bracha.
So, if one lights between dark and when people stop walking around,
both conditions are fulfilled. If it's dark and someone is awake in the
house, it's fulfilled. If it's daytime, people are walking around, so
it's only a partial pirsum. If it's late at night, so nobody is around,
it's also a partial pirsum.

The difficulty is understanding the nature of the mitzvah the
late night man gets. Is it a *Full-fledged* mitzvah? If so, the Onen
shouldn't light at all.

Micha Berger
> the Rashbam asserts that the simple p'shat of the pasuk is a subjective
> thing, and changes. He even suggests that Rashi is necessarily incomplete,
> since each day Rashi would have had to have written a totally different
> kuntrus.

It seems pashut that rabbonim have been darshaning Torah for thousands
of years

I can personally say that every year, virtually ever Parsha I learn,
I see slightly differently. While the Torah text is holy and immuatble,
how we understand it evolves.

And even Rashi himself frequently gives various angles. Certainly the
idea and format of a Mikraos Gedolos is to subbest that each passuk has
wide ragne of lessons to learn.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

Rashi in vayeshev explains, during Yosef's interpretation of the sar
hamashkim's dream, that "yisa Faro es roshecha" means that he will
count you in the number of servants. Then, when it actually happens,
Rashi gives what is apparently the same explanation. Why?

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

This is a Mail Jewish post I did in 1996 regarding Tfillin on Chol 
Hamoed. You should note that the version of Yom Tov Sheini 
k'Hilchoso which I own is the first edition - I don't know if the page 
numbers in the second edition match.

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Self <Single-user mode>
To:             	Avi Feldblum <feldblum@cnj.digex.net>
Subject:        	Tfillin on Chol HaMoed (was Minhag Avoteynu Beyadeinu)
Send reply to:  	sherer@actcom.co.il
Date sent:      	Fri, 29 Nov 1996 00:43:43

In Volume 25 Number 20 Israel Pickholtz writes:

> The notion of minhag avoteynu beyadeinu (our fathers' customs are
> entrusted to us) is a fairly powerful one.  Most obviously it supercedes
> the Torah commandment of tefillin on the extra day of the three
> festivals.
> 
> People treat this concept with great respect regarding nusach of prayer,
> pronunciation, rice on Pesah and dozens of "little" things.  ("What, me
> sit down for lecha dodi?? - minhag avotai beyadai!!")
> 
> So how come when it comes to tefillin on Hol HaMoed - which is practiced
> in galut by many people - EVERYONE in Israel accepts the local custom of
> not putting on tefillin?  (A Torah commandment.)  Shouldn't there be a
> logical kal vahomer that says if a visitor from galut cancels tefillin
> on the day after a festival "just" because of minhag avotav, a person
> cannot cancel tefillin on Hol HaMoed IN CLEAR VIOLATION of minhag
> avotav?

In Volume 25 Number 24 Menashe Elyashiv answers:

"True, minhag avotanu beyadanu, however it appears that minhag hamakom
overrides this rule. The reason for not putting on Teffilin on H.H. in
Eretz Israel is because the three main groups of the original settlers
of Eretz Israel in the last generations did not put on Teffilin. The
Sefaradim (at least from the time of the Shulhan Aruch and the
Kabbalah),the Talmidai HaBeshet (Hassidim) and the Talmidai HaGra
("Perushim"),and that set the custom here. The machloket on Teffilin
on H.H. probably goes way back to the Tannaim! In any case this is
minhag haaretz."

IMHO the answer begs the question.  It essentially says that because 
the minhag of those who settled in Eretz Yisrael in the 18th and 19th 
centuries had a different minhag, that minhag is followed.  If that 
is so, why do we still see many different nuschaot (versions) of 
davening in Eretz Yisrael? Why don't we just follow the version of 
those who settled here first? 

The question of Tfillin on Chol HaMoed bothered me deeply when I 
studied here because I am a pure-bred Litvak and to me wearing 
Tfillin on Chol HaMoed is a matter of pride.  Two years ago, in 
preparation for having to be bored through Yom Tov Sheini in America 
for Pesach, I purchased the Sefer "Yom Tov Sheini K'Hilchaso" (by R. 
Yerachmiel David Fried) and discovered that my minhag 
has support in the poskim, even in Eretz Yisrael.  The passages quoted below 
are my free translation from the Hebrew edition and appear starting 
on Page 179:
                         Jerusalem and the United States

5) Jerusalem, New York and other places in the United States 
(America), have the rule of places that do not have a fixed custom 
(footnote cites the author's personal conversation with R. Shlomo 
Zalman Auerbach zt"l and Iggros Moshe EH 1:59), and therefore one who 
comes from a place where the custom is to wait three hours between 
eating meat and milk, or who comes from Arab countries and such 
places where they were lenient in eating legumes and other such on 
Pesach to live in [Jerusalem or the United States] may continue to 
keep his own custom (footnote cites personal conversation with R. 
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and refers to another footnote that indicates 
that nevertheless one who comes to live in Jerusalem is bound to say 
Ein Keilokeinu after Shachris each day as is the custom here even in 
Ashkenazic davening, as well as saying Sim Shalom in Mincha on 
Shabbos, which is also the custom even in Ashkenazic davening here).

                       Putting On Tfillin on Chol HaMoed

6) One who comes from a place where the custom was to put on Tfillin 
on Chol HaMoed to live in Eretz Yisrael, where the custom is not to 
put them on, may be lenient in accordance with the local custom 
(footnote citing Iggros Moshe OH 4:105 at E), *however if he wishes 
to be strict with himself and put on [Tfillin] he is allowed to* 
(footnote citing the same Iggros Moshe, as well as personal 
conversations with R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l and R. Chaim 
Pinchas Scheinberg shlit"a), but he should be careful to do so in 
private and without a blessing (footnote citing the Iggros Moshe and 
Rav Auerbach, and then suggesting that one look further into the 
Responsa of the Beis Yitzchak to be discussed below), and he should 
make a condition that if the Halacha is like those who require 
[wearing Tfillin] then he is wearing them for a Mitzva, and if not, 
then he is wearing them as clothing (footnote citing a conversation 
with Rav Auerbach, as well as Mishna Brura 31, Note 8).

I alluded above to a responsum of the Beis Yitzchak.  Since I don't 
own the Sefer, I am posting based on R. Fried's footnote, not having 
seen the original repsonsum.  According to the Beis Yitzchok YD 2:88, 
one should put on Tfillin and daven at home (!) if there is no minyan 
which puts on Tfillin, so that he will not be bearing false testimony 
by not having the Tfillin on for Kriyas Shma, to which R. Fried 
writes in the footnote, "and we are required to understand (ktzas 
tzorich la'ayen) why should he not daven in shul with the 
congregation without Tfillin, and just read Kriyas Shma with the 
Tfillin so that he will not be bearing false witness."  The footnote 
then goes on to cite a number of other poskim who agree that one 
should not put on Tfillin in a shul where the custom is not to put 
them on because of Lo Sisgodidu (one should not vary from the 
congregation's custom).

In conclusion, IMHO (and I am *not* a posek), one who wishes to put 
on Tfillin on Chol HaMoed in Eretz Yisrael in private is on solid 
ground in doing so, one should not make a bracha (blessing) if he 
does so, and it may be preferable to say Kriyas Shma (without the 
brachos) while one has the Tfillin on.  As to the original poster's 
question regarding why more people do not do this, I would suggest 
two possibilities:

1. There is a clear heter (permission) in the poskim not to act this 
way.

2. People take for granted that if you don't put Tfillin on in shul, 
you don't put them on anyplace else either, without really 
investigating the halacha.

I should emphasize that the entire (halachic) discussion was based upon the 
premise that one is privileged to live in Eretz Yisrael, and isn't 
just visiting here.  May Mashiach come before the next Yom Tov and 
resolve all of our Halachic doubts.

-- Carl Sherer

------- End of forwarded message -------

I would add two points from the viewpoint of four years later:

1. I am told that there is someone in my (hanetz) minyan who 
davens in another room until Hallel on Chol HaMoed, because he 
puts on tfillin (I was told this during Chol HaMoed Succos and I 
daven at the Kotel during Chol HaMoed Succos, so I cannot testify 
to this myself).

2. Four years later, I still don't own a Beis Yitzchok :-(

-- 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.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

See pictures of Israel. Point your browser to:

http://www.members.home.net/projectonesoul/israel/israel.htm
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm

The whole thing started with a question of whether there is a tzad
heter for a woman, in this case the wife of a well-known gadol during the
first two-thirds of the 20th cent, to have not covered her hair.

(Yes, I know that said gadol is named in the discussion. I'm trying to
avoid readers from prejudging their answer based on who is involved,
and stick to the issues.)

-mi

Rabbi Bechhoffer responds:
: No.

From: Michael J Broyde <mbroyde@emory.edu>
> I think that Rabbi Bechhoffer is wrong.  Such a limud zichut is recorded
> explictly and directly in the name of Rabbi Moshe Solovietchik in Rabbi
> Dov Frimer's work on this topic "aliyot erushin aykin netnagdud belti
> mesorit" ("Grounds for Divorce due to Immoral Behavior")on pages 100 and
> 102 notes 159 and 161.  My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that RMS
> shared this view with many and it was well known in his name.  (This is
> recorded as well in the old time Chicago Posek teferet Moshe, and was a
> well known view -- as is noted by Frimer who cites more than 10 poskim of
> that vintage -- as agreeing with this view.)
  
> For those who are interested in hair covering in some detail, I would
> heartily recommend pages 90-140 of Dov Frimer's work, which is an
> unpulished PHD dissertation in misphat ivri from hebrew U.  (I also have
> an unpublished article on views in the rishonim on hair covering which
> attempts to show that there are rishonim (quite a few, actually) who think
> hair covering is a dat yehudit and subjective, rather than a dat msohe and
> objective. I would be glad to share a copy with anyone who would like to
> read and comment on it, or mail copies of Frimer's work.

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
: And  think R' Broyde is wrong, but I am grateful that we finally got him to 
: write!

: Knowing what we do about RYBS's dikduk b'kalla k'ba'chamura, and knowing 
: what we do about recent history, and knowing what RHS writes, and knowing 
: how the halachic process works, the answer remains:

: No.

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> [about RMB's comment]:
} I would love to see a copy of that article.

} IIRC the Gemmarah in Kesubos(?) that discusses hair covering seems to
} indicate that minimal hair covering, such as a small hat, for instance,
} is Daas Moshe but any greater covering is the amorphous Daas Yehudis.
} Is that not your reading of the Gemmorah?

From: "Moshe Feldman" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
) The main issues are: (1) whether daas Moshe is truly d'oraissa (we have
) other cases where the gemara says d'oraissa hee and it's really an
) asmachta), and (2) whether daas Yehudis can change l'kulah based on the
) mores of a given society.

) BTW, I believe #2 and that is how I explain the phenomenon of sheitels
) today.  I believe that R Ovadia Yosef proves pretty convincingly that
) sheitels violated daas yehudis in the time of the gemara--the Aruch says
) that Kapaltin (the word used in the Yerushalmi instead of Kalsa, used by the
) Bavli) means a wig in Latin (lashon Romi).  (My father told me that
) capilitium means little hair, or something like that.)  The Shiltei
) Hagiborim is shver (and I've read lots of the tshuvos--both pro and con
) dealing with the SHG).

) My chiddush on what ROY says is that because sheitels are in the realm of
) daas yehudis, society can decide to be meikel against the gemara's
) standards.  See my previous post about R. Willig's position re Shok b'isha
) erva.

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


[ 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         ]