Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 090

Tuesday, January 2 2001

• Re: hair covering as a das yehudis or a das moshe
• Re: hair covering as a das yehudis or a das moshe
• Re: hair covering as a das yehudis or a das moshe
• Re: Dat Yehudit
• Psak (was Re: hair covering as a das yehudis or a das moshe)
• Re: menorah lighting
• Re: menorah lighting
• Quick Tips On Visiting The Sick
• Re: Talit and 'atifa
• Re (2) Talit and 'atifa
• mishnah
• Kedushas Kesuvim
• Re: bechira
• Dressed Woman At Mixed Beach
• Re: hair covering as a das yehudis or a das moshe
• das Moshe
• Compilation of the Mishnah - Re: Dor Revi'i and TSBP
• Re: menorah lighting
• RE: menorah lighting
• RE: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• RE: mishnah
• RE: menorah
• Re: zemer lechanuka
• Re: zemer lechanuka
• Rishonim, not
• Re: Re (2) Talit and 'atifa
• Re: hair covering as a das yehudis or a das moshe
• Re: das Moshe

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" 
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>>  A woman must constantly adhere to the dictates of Hilchos EH 21.

At 08:32 AM 12/31/00 +0200, janet rosenbaum wrote:
>If e.g. EH 21:2 is a perpetual obligation, it's not clear to me what 
>single women rely on in not covering their heads.  Seeing the issue as 
>single women now having an exception is more troubling to me:  G-d forbid 
>we allow them to display erva in order to get married!

(Sarcasm ignored.)

I believe I addressed this matter already SA EH 21 is defined as SA plus 
NK. The caveat that the issur applies only to married women is in the NK.

At 08:32 AM 12/31/00 +0200, janet rosenbaum wrote:
>> Seeing the issue as single women now having an exception is more troubling
>> to me: G-d forbid we allow them to display erva in order to get married!

RYGB [in part]:
> (Sarcasm ignored.)

fwiw, i am completely serious about this. the transition from the
mechaber's specification that it applies to both single and married
women to a heter for single women seems problematic to me.

janet

At 05:57 PM 12/30/00 -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
>But I must side with RMJB on the issue of Limud Zechus. It seems clear
>to me that the Tur and SA, DO NOT consider " complete hair uncovering"
>to be Das Moshe, and only Daas Yehudis. It is also apparent to me that
>Das Yehudis has the component of relativism.

We all are in agreement that it is good to be melamed zechus on Klal 
Yisroel. So long as we admit that a LZ is never a basis for behavior but an 
ex post facto attempt to mitigate the severity of the *misdeeds* of fellow 
Jews. If we all agree on that definition, we are doing well.

>In the context of this discussion, what we call Tznius is a term that
>refers to any manner of dress that goes beyond the minimum of the
>body covering requirements of Erva. And this feature (of Das Yehudis)
>IS REALTIVE TO SOCIETAL STANDARDS. That Das Yehudis falls into that
>category is ably demonstrated by RMJB.

Me gila raz aeh l'bonai?

I have not seen it demonstrated by RMJB that DY is relative to societal 
standards (even if you put it in CAPS :-) ). That is only true, as I shall 
not tire of stating, in terms of whether this or that is valisd grounds for 
divorce: The standard is unchanging. Thus, if DY, for example, states that 
women may not knit a certain way in public (as it does), they may still not 
knit in that manner, albeit it is no longer, I would think, grounds for 
divorce.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

"Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <henkin@surfree.net.il> wrote:
> Shulchan Aruch, wrote...                   "Bareheaded and without a
> shawl" (roshah parua ve'ein aleha redid) lacks the clarity of the Tur's
> formulation, and can just as easily be read as saying "bareheaded in that
> she has no shawl on her, even though her hair is covered by a
> kerchief."

> Read this way, the Shulchan Aruch is not discussing a woman who goes
> completely bareheaded at all, and consequently does not include her in
> the category of dat Yehudit. This has the advantage

Advantage or not, it requires reading "out" of that "Sif" it's listing
of "barehedednaess" as a Das Yehudis. The refference to "Matpachas"
(kerchief) seems to be an "even if" which still leaves "bareheadedness"
in the category of that "Sif": Das Yehudis". This being the case it
seems clear to me that the SA does not consider "bareheaded anything
but a Das Yehudis.

HM

On 30 Dec 00, at 17:57, Harry Maryles wrote:
> As for ...suggestion that we "change the topic", I couldn't disagree
> more. ...                                             To the extent that
> there will inevitably be a quote taken out of context or a misreading
> of a post should not deter anyone from transmiting his thoughts on Torah
> subjects. The need to know the Emes by serious seekers of it, outweighs
> the pitfall of the possible misusing of information thus transmitted.
> Ceratinly our ruminations are not the same as RMF's. His desire to "leave
> certain things unsaid" is based on a far more legitimate concern that his
> views will be misused...

I agree with this with the proviso that it be made very clear that what
is said on this list is b'geder milchamta shel Torah, and that no one
should go paskening halacha (for themselves or others) based on what they
read on this list without consulting with their moreh horo'oh. Aderaba,
things that we learn together as a Chevra should spur us to ask questions
of our own morei horo'oh for our own daily lives, and not (with the
exception of those on this list who are poskim themselves) to pasken for
ourselves. Perhaps that is a caveat that we should consider putting in
the welcome letter to the list?

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 04:47:15PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: How about this? After the Churban Hanukkah went into flux, it was
: unclear if it was still applicable at sheba the Gmoro in Shabbos.

It is somewhat realistic that Chanukah would fall into neglect when the
rest of megillas ta'anis did, and therefore require a takkanas chazal
to revive it.

-mi

In message , Stein, Aryeh E. <aes@ll-f.com> writes
>       4) why do we say a bracha when we light the menorah in shul; this
>lighting is only a minhag, and we usually don't say a bracha on a minhag?

>But, once we say that the menorah (together with saying "Haneiros
>Hallalu...") is a form of hallel, all of these questions are answered:
...
>4)  hallel on Rosh Chodesh is a minhag, and we do say a bracha on RC.  So
>too when we light the menorah in shul (and, IMO, when Chabad lights a huge
>menorah at a public display) a bracha is made.

This only works if you are Ashkenazi.  Because Sephardim do *not* make a
bracha on hallel on Rosh Chodesh, but they do in shul on Channuka.

Regards
Chana

Quick Tips On Visiting The Sick (1/2 page)
(Adapted from a lecture by Rabbi Paysach Krohn.)

Visiting the sick is a mitzvah. Some tips on doing it right:

-> Be sure that the sick person WANTS visitors.
-> Be careful NOT to have an expression of shock on your face when you
   first see the sick person.
-> Do NOT come dressed in fancy clothes as if you were attending a bar
   mitzvah or wedding.
-> Many sick people feel irritated when people say to them: "don't worry,
   everything thing will be fine." How do YOU KNOW that everything will
   be "fine"? So don't say this unless you are certain that you can
   say it in a way that will comfort the sick person.
-> Do NOT say "if you need anything just call" because the sick person
   won't will most likely never call. BE SPECIFIC when offering help
   to the sick, for example:
   1. Can I drive you somewhere?
   2. Can I do laundry for you or pick up your mail?
   3. Can I write a letter or make a phone call for you?
-> Don't tell the patient that his doctor is inferior if it is already
   too late for the sick person to get a better doctor.

Those people who are interested in further study of Rabbi Krohn's
teachings may fax him at: (718) 847-6041.

>> Anyone who has seen Yishmaelim wrapped up should realize that the one
>> place they do not cover is at least part of the face that lets them
>> see where they're going.

I've heard Rabbi Frand make the same point on one of his tapes

KT
Joel

R' Gil replied re: 'atifa:
> I was told by someone who does both, that he does it not out of chumra
> but so as not to deviate too much from the accepted custom and be min
> hamatmihim

Does this mean that doing 'atifa both ways is now the norm and one who
does 'atifa only one way, old style or new, is min hamatmihim??

Etm'ha,
David

Gil Student wrote:
>: However, there is no question that there were full masechtos of Mishnayos
>: that were memorized and transmitted verbatim long before Rebbi was born.
>: "All" Rebbi did was collect the Mishnayos from the different schools,
>: decide which to include where, and convene a gathering of all the gedolim
>: to accept this as the official Mishnah. [See Toldos Tannaim VeAmoraim,
>: sv. R. Yehudah HaNasi] There were authoritative, albeit unwritten
>: texts before Rebbi's time. However, there may have been two or three
>: different texts on any given masechta...

I don't think that is "all" that rebbi did. Before rebbi the various versions
were private versions that tannaim and there students used. Rebbi changed this
to an official text (oral or written is irrelevant). After reebi there is the
mishna and everything else is a beraita i.e. outside and less authoritative.
This is an inherently different circumstance than what existed before then.

>> That is precisely the point of the Dor Revi'i. The famous question of
>> the Keseph Mishnah on Mamrim 2:1 is why Amoraim cannot argue with Tannaim
>> if Mamrim 2:1 is valid....

>: The Maharatz Chajes ...        says that once an halachah is argued
>: amongst all the gedolei hador, and they all have the opportunity to
>: convince each other with their arguments, the majority rule obligates even
>: the minority to follow it and makes the halachah immutable. In Rebbi's
>: day, he convened a gathering of all of the gedolim and they all had
>: a chance to convinve each other....

Chazon Ish argues and says that the Amoraim took on themselves not to
argue with Tannaim because they recognized the greater level of the
Tannaim. His main proof is that Amoraim don't argue with Beraitot or other
statements of Tannaim that are not Mishnaic. He wrote a strong letter to
R. Elchanan Wasserman stating that according to REW anyone today could
argue with Tannaim. REW wrote back stating that he was misunderstood
(basically he retracted his opinion) and agreed that no one could disagree
with any statement in the Talmud whatever its source.

Ramban also has a shittah that zaken mamreh only applies if the zaken Mamreh
participated in the debate of the Sanhedrin and they rejected his opinion.
If the Sanhedrin was not aware of his objections to their ruling than
he cannot become a zaken mamre as is seen from the gemara in Horiot that
one can disagree with the Sanhedrin.

Eli Turkel

We discussed this here a while ago, but while preparing Yerushalmi I came 
across a mind boggling Pnei Moshe, end of the first perek of Bava Basra: He 
says that Divrei ha'Yomi was not written b'ru'ach ha'kodesh.  Heis saying 
this en passant, and the Amudei Yerushalayim, in what is perhaps the 
longest entry in that commentary, takes him severely to task, but the fact 
remains that the PM says it, which is interesting to contemplate in light 
of many contradictions between DhY and parallel seforim in Nach, and in 
defining what, exactly, Kesuvim are.

KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

At 07:50 PM 1/1/01 +0200, janet rosenbaum wrote:
>r bechhoffer asked for the source from tanya that non-jews lack bechira.
>it was an inference (which i have heard others make) from the end of the 
>first chapter which says that they don't have a true yetzer hatov (even 
>their good actions come from selfish motivations), and the fact that 
>bechira is generally defined as between the yetzers.

I believe the Tanya is referring to the mystical defintion of Yetzer 
ha'Tov, as opposed to the more "rational" defintion of Intellect. He does 
not believe they have diminished bechira, l''fum darga dilhon, rather, less 
impact/reward, relative to Jews.

There was discussion about this recently on Areivim. In the back
of R. Shmuel Katz's Kedoshim Tihyu (p. 236) there is a teshuvah from
R. Shlomo Aviner about this. He rules that it is assur for a tzniusdikly
dressed woman to go to a mixed beach because of mar'is ayin. However,
if it is clear that she is not going to swim in an untzniusdik bathing
suit herself, such as if she is with a child and it is clear that she
will just be watching the child, then it may be permitted.

Gil Student

"Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> We all are in agreement that it is good to be melamed zechus on Klal 
> Yisroel. So long as we admit that a LZ is never a basis for behavior but an 
> ex post facto attempt to mitigate the severity of the *misdeeds* of fellow 
> Jews. If we all agree on that definition, we are doing well.

I don't think that it was ever in contened by anyone that a Limud Zechus
was a basis for Halachic behavior. Only that it is, at the most extremely
minimum, a possibillity that at least according to the SA "Uncovering
hair" is only a Das Yehudis and therefore, at the most basic level,
subject to societal standards. I think everyone would agree that BeZman
HaZeh, Halacha K'Basra and that the Beis Shmuel and virtually every
modrern day Posek (except for the one you mentioned) holds that hair
covering by married women is Halacha L'Maaseh. Especially since it has
become so widespread in our day.

>> In the context of this discussion, what we call Tznius is a term that
>> refers to any manner of dress that goes beyond the minimum of the
>> body covering requirements of Erva. And this feature (of Das Yehudis)
>> IS REALTIVE TO SOCIETAL STANDARDS. That Das Yehudis falls into that
>> category is ably demonstrated by RMJB.

> Me gila raz aeh l'bonai?

> I have not seen it demonstrated by RMJB that DY is relative to societal 
> standards (even if you put it in CAPS :-) ). That is only true, as I shall 
> not tire of stating, in terms of whether this or that is valisd grounds for 
> divorce: The standard is unchanging. Thus, if DY, for example, states that 
> women may not knit a certain way in public (as it does), they may still not 
> knit in that manner, albeit it is no longer, I would think, grounds for 
> divorce.

In the context of Limud Zechus, while I must defer to your expertice,
it seems to me that the fact that it is stated in the context of "valid
grounds for divorce" does not limit the SA's definition of it being
a Das Yehudis to only divorce situations, thus making hair covering a
relativistic Halacha.

HM

Rav H Henkin asserts that Rosh and Tur have a new understanding of das
Moshe.  In his avodah correspondence he brings no evidence.  The Rosh in
Ksubos seems to quote the Gemara, nothing added.  The Bais Yosef seems to
understand the Tur like the Rambam.  What indication is there of a new
understanding of DM?

Shlomo Goldstein

David Glasner wrote:
> Well, I encourage you to read or re-read the hakdamah to Dor Revi'i.

I got a copy today of the original introduction and pesichah so I won't
have to rely on the translated highlights.

> This is true of any Sanhedrin.  All the gedolei 
> ha-dor are arguing and they reach a conclusion that 
> becomes binding on everyone else.  But they can 
> never bind a subsequent Sanhedrin.

The Maharatz Chajes in his Toras Nevi'im, Ma'amar Los Sasur and Ateres
Tzvi, Mishpat HaHora'ah distinguishes between the din of acharei rabim
lehatos and holchin achar harov. This chiluk is a standard lomdishe
chiluk from Yoreh Deah that can be found in many sefarim. I can recall
seeing it in Reb Chaim (stensil) and Reb Shimon's Sha'arei Yosher.
The MC quotes it from Get Pashut.

In a sanhedrin there can be two possible conclusions to a disagreement.
The majority can answer all of the questions posed by the minority.
If they do so then we say acharei rabim lehatos and everyone must
follow the majority view. The MC adds that this rule is considered
unanimous and can never be overturned by a subsequent sanhedrin.
The other possible conclusion is that the majority cannot answer all
of the questions but still remains convinced that they are correct.
If that happens then we say that there are two valid opinions but, due
to lack of any other proof, we follow the majority. This rule can be
overturned by a subsequent sanhedrin.

The MC says that the process that resulted in the Mishnah was like a
gathering of a sanhedrin and a stam Mishnah is like the ruling of this
sanhedrin. No one can disagree with a stam Mishnah and no subsequent beis
din can overrule a stam Mishnah because there was a give-and-take at the
time and the tannaim were evidently able to answer all of the questions
posed. The same applies to the process that resulted in the Gemara.

Gil Student

RRW wrote 2) Anyone who says there was a Hanukkah as described by Al
Hanissim but the miracle of the oil never really happened, might be
mistaken, but he is not a Kofer.

How can one reject a Gemara in Shabbos and not be a Kofer?

Shlomo Goldstein

RRW wrote
>> 2) Anyone who says there was a Hanukkah as described by Al Hanissim
>> but the miracle of the oil never really happened, might be
>> mistaken, but he is not a Kofer.

Shlomo Goldstein
> How can one reject a Gemara in Shabbos and not be a Kofer?

Are all aggaditos required to be understood literally?

Does the maase re: the shechita on Purim taken literally by all those
who consider themselves frum?

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> If so how do we deal with the disputes re: Ribuy miut ribuy vs. klal
> prat uchlal?

Gil Student wrote:
> Excellent question. I don't know. The Maharatz Chajes writes in his
> Mevo HaTalmud (ch. 3) that all of the hermeneutic rules are Sinaitic and
> explicitly includes kelal uperat and ribuy umiyut....

> The Ra'avad in his commentary to the 13 midos at the beginning of Toras
> Cohanim (2nd par.) says that kelal uperat and ribuy umiyut are not
> contradictory and that R. Yishmael holds from both.

So is the Ra'avad saying that:

1) R. Yishmael is going alibe d'alma?
2) That the middos must be universally held - iow there can be no
   machlokes on them?

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

Eli Turkel
> Chazon Ish argues and says that the Amoraim took on themselves not to
> argue with Tannaim because they recognized the greater level of the
> Tannaim. His main proof is that Amoraim don't argue with Beraitot or other
> statements of Tannaim that are not Mishnaic. He wrote a strong letter to
> R. Elchanan Wasserman stating that according to REW anyone today could
> argue with Tannaim. REW wrote back stating that he was misunderstood
> (basically he retracted his opinion) and agreed that no one could disagree
> with any statement in the Talmud whatever its source.

According to REW how is arguing defined?

If it is disagreeing with a conclusion/psak?  
Or does it mean we must hold from the sevara, too?

Illustration:  Re: uv'shachbecha uv'kumecha, 

Can I hold like Beis Shammai's svara, and defer to Beis Hille legabei
hanhagga,
or
Must I defer to Beis Hillel both ways?

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

Eli Turkel
>> Note: The Vanilla Megllas Taanis does mention that Hanukkah is a
>> holiday, of course. However, The Hebrew parts of Megillas Taanis are
>> of later origin. The passage re: the miracle of the oil is considered
>> grafted onto the original text.

> when was it grafted? If it is still taanaic literature it is still before
> the gemara.

Not quite. There are two layers of text. It would be like considering
Gmoro Taanitic. I'm not an expert on Megillas Ta'anis, but if I have
talked to some. What a lot of people do not realize is that commentaries
were often placed into texts, that is texts were layered.

MSB:
>> As I see it, there are really two questions relevent to my suggestion
>> about the lack of a discussion of Chanukah (not just a single oblique
>> reference) in the mishnah:
>> - When Rebbe compiled the mishnah, was the mitzvah of hadlakas haneiros
>>   in the MT yet?
>> - If not, was Chanukah itself?

> From memory that Josephus mentions that there were public parades with
> torches on Channukah. Hence, even in second Temple days there were
> public connections of Chanukah with fire. However, Josephus himself
> does not know about pach hashemen.

We know that the Menorah/lights are an integral part of Hanukkah.
E.G. Al Hanissim mentions:
    "hidliku neiros bechatzros kadshecha".

The problem is the neis of the pach shemen and the 8 days that is missing
from Al Hanissim, Josephus, Maccabbees, etc.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In Avodah V6 #87, MBerger replied:
>> while the two hatavos on YhK were both "babokair" and not separated
>> to a great extent....

> Is the time it takes for zerikas dam hatamid long enough?

As per my previous message, I didn't think so -- strictly speaking,
however, they _were_ two separate hatavos. More importantly, were they
"*b'chol* yom"?

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 01:57:02PM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: As per my previous message, I didn't think so -- strictly speaking,
: however, they _were_ two separate hatavos. More importantly, were they
: "*b'chol* yom"?

According to the mesorah Abayei used (based on Abba Sha'ul) for listing
the seider ha'avodah, yes.

-mi

> Besides Tosafot, another use by a rishon of the principle of habituation
> is apparently found in the 15th century Leket Yosher, in the name of
> his teacher, the Trumat HaDeshen:
 
And I believe I also saw another poster cite the maharil as a rishon
with no demurrals from the responders.  Though its late, I would like
to register my own disagreement.  The Leked Yosher, T'rumas Haddeshen,
and Maharil for that matter are all acharonim  (despite what you may
see in a few different artscroll histories as well as other works). 
The -ashqenazic anyway-  period of rishonim ends in the mid 1300s with
the large scale outbreak of the black plague in europe.   This is a topic
that has been more extensively masticated some time ago on either mail
jewish or avodoh/bais t'filoh and should be retrievable from some archive
where sources for the above assertion are adduced.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com		H: (301) 593-3949
Michael.Frankel@osd.mil

David wrote:
> Does this mean that doing 'atifa both ways is now the norm and one who
> does 'atifa only one way, old style or new, is min hamatmihim??

No. It means that doing it the "new" way is the norm and, so as not to
look too conspicuous, this talmid chacham does it the "old" way first
and then the "new" way. I don't reall get it either, which is why I only
do it the "old" way.

Gil Student

At 07:11 PM 1/1/01 -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
>In the context of Limud Zechus, while I must defer to your expertice,
>it seems to me that the fact that it is stated in the context of "valid
>grounds for divorce" does not limit the SA's definition of it being
>a Das Yehudis to only divorce situations, thus making hair covering a
>relativistic Halacha.

Pray tell why this is *not* an obvious limitation?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Shlomo Goldstein
> Rav H Henkin asserts that Rosh and Tur have a new understanding of das
> Moshe.  In his avodah correspondence he brings no evidence.  The Rosh in
> Ksubos seems to quote the Gemara, nothing added.  The Bais Yosef seems to
> understand the Tur like the Rambam.  What indication is there of a new
> understanding of DM?

From the Rosh on the Mishna in Ketuvot 72a:

"What is dat Moshe? A wife who feeds him untithed produce, or  has relations
with him when she is  niddah, or does not separate chalah [from his bread],
or vows and does not fulfill [her vows]. What is dat Yehudit? A wife who
goes out bareheaded, or knits in the marketplace, or talks to
everybody...That which she violates dat Moshe and [dat] Yehudit and receives
no  ketuva, [in the case of dat Moshe] it is that she causes him to stumble
(machshilato) such as the cases in the Mishneh and similarly if she feeds
him cheilev or blood, and also [if she]vows and does not fulfill [her vows],
because of his sons. But if she [alone] violates other aveirot such as if
she herself ate forbidden foods, she has not lost her ketuva. And [in the
case of] dat Yehudit, she loses [it] because of brazenness and suspicion of
promiscuity."

The Rosh defines dat Moshe as cases in which she the wife actively harms her
husband, either by causing him to sin or by not fulfilling vows (which
causes the death of one's children), while dat Yehudit is brazen behavior
which raises the suspicion of her being a loose woman. This is not the
Rambam's et al distinction between dat Moshe and dat Yehudit as being
between Torah law and custom. Rather, going bareheaded according to the Rosh
is dat Yehudit because it is brazen and immodest behaviour, with no
distinction made between Biblically forbidden, rabbinically forbidden, or
customarily forbidden status of that behaviour.

The Gemara, which the Rosh copies, argues "Is going bareheaded not
de'oraita?...  From the standpoint of d'oraitaa, wearing a kalta is
sufficient..." This explicitly states that going completely bareheaded is
de'oraita, while partial haircovering is not. The Rambam, who defines dat
Moshe as a Torah category as opposed to dat Yehudit which is only a minhag
tzniyut, does not answer the question: if going completely bareheaded is dat
Moshe, why is it not listed as such in the Mishnah? This is no difficulty
for the Rosh, because for him the category of Dat Yehudit listed in the
Mishnah includes both Torah-prohibited and other types of  going bareheaded.
She loses her ketuva just the same.

Many Rishonim follow the Rambam's definition of  dat Moshe and dat Yehudit,
but the Semak and Tur, the Rosh's son, who make no mention of minhag tzniyut
nor of dat Moshe in connection with going bareheaded, share the Rosh's
approach.

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


[ 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         ]