Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 15

Sat, 19 Jan 2013

• 1. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Jonathan Baker)
• 2. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy (Jonathan Baker)
• 5. Cholent is its name (Rabbi Yehuda Spitz)
• 6. Re: Leeuwenhoek's Halachic Legacy (microscopic) (Rabbi Yehuda Spitz)
• 7. Leeuwenhoek's Halachic Legacy (microscopic) (David Wacholder)
• 8. R.Fuerst's kitchen advice (martin brody)
• 9. Re: CONTEMPORARY KITCHEN ISSUES (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. Hanaah from Chametz (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. Re: CONTEMPORARY KITCHEN ISSUES (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Q&A: Isn?t Wearing a Wig Over Hair Pointless? (Prof. Levine)

(moved from Areivim per RMi's request)

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:57:40AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 9:19 AM, Jonathan Baker wrote:
      
>> Lisa: surprising bit of ahistoricism from you.  How could the Anshei Knesset
>> Hagedolah have banned something (Kabbalistic concepts being taught in public)
>> that wouldn't be invented until 1500 years later?

> So you're conflating the Zohar and Kabbalah?  That's a mistake.  Chazal

So you don't conflate the Zohar and Kabbalah?  The Zohar is the primary
library of Kabbalah, which is pretty widely understood to be the 10 sefirot/
4 worlds structures.

> spoke about Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereishit.  Even if you believe

Which are not Kabbalah.

> that the Zohar was invented out of whole cloth by Moshe de Leon, which I
> think is untrue, there's plenty of Kabbalah other than that.

Only by remapping the term "Kabbalah" to mean mysticism in general, instead
of ten sefiros/four worlds and all their ramifications.  Kabbalah only began
in the 1100s, maybe 1200s, texts like Bahir and possibly Masechet Atzilut
being among the earliests texts.  Even the Rambam has a Neoplatonic mysticism
(inasmuch as the Aristotle he learned was adulterated with Neoplatonism), but
explicitly non-Kabbalistic, not related either to the mysticism of Hazal or
the Kabbalah.

Before the Middle Ages, Kabbalah meant tradition, not mysticism.  Sod might
have meant mysticism.

>> If you're talking about the Mishnah in Taanit 2:1, Ein Dorshin, the mysticism
>> of Hazal was very different from the mysticism of the Kabbalists, being about
>> chambers and chariots and meditative ascents to God, rather than about the
>> mechanisms of God's action in the world.

> That's a false dichotomy.

No, it's not. Read the scholarship, read the texts.  Sure, there's meditative
material in Chasidism which is drawn from the earlier ideas, and in other
kabbalistic texts, but Kabbalah itself was a new creation written (or revealed)
in the 1200s.  It did not form part of the old Merkabah mysticism in either
case. 

The primary meditative author's works were suppressed - Abulafia, whose
books are only now coming into print.  You can find them online, at Amnon
Gross' blog.  And as for dichotomy - the theosophical kabbalists suppressed
his writing, while his writing dismisses the sefirot-niks. So the dichotomy
is real and long-standing.
      
>> Be that as it may, I can't see panentheism as heretical, inasmuch as it's
>> the theology of parts of the Zohar, the Arizal, and even more so the
>> Hasidim.  Unless we want to reject the whole enterprise of Kabbalah and its
>> child Hasidism?

> If you believe that Kabbalah is a 13th century invention, why wouldn't
> you want to reject it?  I would.

Why should we reject a 13th-century innovation?  It was created and
ratified by the Rishonim.   Surely that's no less valid (if less
authoritative) than the Tannaim?

Mimah nafshach: either no revelation after Sinai is valid, so we should
reject the Kabbalah (which was invented/revealed either in the 2nd Century
or the 12th, in either case long after the end of prophecy) and Chasidism
etc., or revelations after Sinai (or after AKHG, the end of prophecy)
are valid, as long as they don't contradict established mitzvot. How one
can accept Kabbalah and reject other religions' revelations becomes a
problem for the reader.

Continuous revelation is widely supported in Judaism, although it has 
fallen out of style in contemporary non-Hasidic Ashkenaz, where the kabbalism
has been replaced by nothing or by philosophism. It wasn't invented by 
Tamar Ross to justify recent feminist innovations.

Meanwhile, none of this has any bearing on Panentheism.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On 1/16/2013 7:40 PM, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>                                       IOW, for R' Kaplan himself, the
> Kabbalah's subject matter is the Divine pleroma, the material revealed
> in the Zohar and Bahir and such texts.  This from a TV interview you can
> find at Judaism.com http://www.judaism.com/bio.asp?author=Aryeh%20Kaplan

If you're basing your conclusions on things he said to a goy in an 
interview, I'm not sure what else I can say.

On 1/16/2013 3:02 PM, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> So you don't conflate the Zohar and Kabbalah?  The Zohar is the primary
> library of Kabbalah, which is pretty widely understood to be the 10 sefirot/
> 4 worlds structures.

Widely understood by whom?  Most of what I know about Kabbalah, I got 
from Aryeh Kaplan, and that's definitely not his view.

>> spoke about Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereishit.  Even if you believe

> Which are not Kabbalah.

According to you.  With all due respect, I'm going to go with R' Kaplan 
on this.

>> that the Zohar was invented out of whole cloth by Moshe de Leon, which I
>> think is untrue, there's plenty of Kabbalah other than that.

> Only by remapping the term "Kabbalah" to mean mysticism in general,
If it helps you to cast it as me remapping a term, when there are 
scholars who use the term my way, feel free.  But I can't be expected to 
respond to a context I reject.

> instead
> of ten sefiros/four worlds and all their ramifications.  Kabbalah only began
> in the 1100s, maybe 1200s, texts like Bahir and possibly Masechet Atzilut
> being among the earliests texts.  Even the Rambam has a Neoplatonic mysticism
> (inasmuch as the Aristotle he learned was adulterated with Neoplatonism), but
> explicitly non-Kabbalistic, not related either to the mysticism of Hazal or
> the Kabbalah.

> Before the Middle Ages, Kabbalah meant tradition, not mysticism.  Sod might
> have meant mysticism.

That's a lot like saying there was no Sanhedrin until Hellenistic times 
because the word Sanhedrin is of Greek derivation.  The body existed, 
even if it wasn't called that.  Someone once wrote that someone who has 
a problem saying that Queen Elizabeth was born in 1926 because she 
wasn't queen at the time is a pedant.  V'ha-meivin yavin.

>>> If you're talking about the Mishnah in Taanit 2:1, Ein Dorshin, the mysticism
>>> of Hazal was very different from the mysticism of the Kabbalists, being about
>>> chambers and chariots and meditative ascents to God, rather than about the
>>> mechanisms of God's action in the world.

>> That's a false dichotomy.

> No, it's not. Read the scholarship, read the texts.
If by scholarship, you mean Gershom Scholem, I have better things to do 
with my time.  As I said, I'll go with a rav who is part of the living 
tradition.
>> If you believe that Kabbalah is a 13th century invention, why wouldn't
>> you want to reject it?  I would.

> Why should we reject a 13th-century innovation?  It was created and
> ratified by the Rishonim.   Surely that's no less valid (if less
> authoritative) than the Tannaim?

Absolutely, it is.  Because it claims to be otherwise.

> Mimah nafshach: either no revelation after Sinai is valid, so we should
> reject the Kabbalah (which was invented/revealed either in the 2nd Century
> or the 12th, in either case long after the end of prophecy)
Wrong.  We were given both Nistar (Kabbalah/Sod/Merkavah/etc) and Niglah 
(Torah she'bichtav and b'al peh) at Sinai.  If it was invented or 
revealed even at the time of Shimon ben Yochai, and it claims to come 
from Sinai, it's fraudulent, pasul, tamei.  This is a strange 
conversation.  It's like the Conservatives who say that even if Matan 
Torah didn't actually happen, the Torah is "true".  Which may be the 
case for values of "true" that don't interest me, but smacks more of 
sophistry, in my opinion.

Lisa

Terminology debate: Lisa says Kabbalah is equal to Jewish mysticism of all
schools, I say (following the academics, who actually care about history,
where practitioners don't particularly) that it's the subject matter of
the Zohar, the Bahir, etc.  texts from the 1100s onwards.  We disagree,
I think we should just leave it.

> >> spoke about Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereishit.  Even if you believe
> > Which are not Kabbalah.

> According to you.  With all due respect, I'm going to go with R' Kaplan 
> on this.

Let's just note that we have different views, but that R' Kaplan is
clearly aware of the different schools of Jewish mysticism, and that
the Zohar material is its own thing, separate from the mysticism of
Hazal.  See, e.g., Sefer Yetzirah intro pp. xxiv-xv, and the Commentaries
section of the bibliography - none of the commentaries before the 1100s
is described as "kabbalistic" or "mystical".

> >> that the Zohar was invented out of whole cloth by Moshe de Leon, which I
> >> think is untrue, there's plenty of Kabbalah other than that.

> > Only by remapping the term "Kabbalah" to mean mysticism in general,
> If it helps you to cast it as me remapping a term, when there are 
> scholars who use the term my way, feel free.  But I can't be expected to 
> respond to a context I reject.

The context of R' Kaplan?  I don't think you know his real context, as a
rabbi in the Midwest in the 1960s.  More on that later.

> >>> If you're talking about the Mishnah in Taanit 2:1, Ein Dorshin, the mysticism
> >>> of Hazal was very different from the mysticism of the Kabbalists, being about
> >>> chambers and chariots and meditative ascents to God, rather than about the
> >>> mechanisms of God's action in the world.

> >> That's a false dichotomy.

> > No, it's not. Read the scholarship, read the texts.

> If by scholarship, you mean Gershom Scholem, I have better things to do 
> with my time.  As I said, I'll go with a rav who is part of the living 
> tradition.

Well, you'll have to look beyond R' Kaplan, then.  I have it on good authority
that like Scholem, Kaplan learned his Kabbalah from texts, sitting in a library
studying from books & mss. for a long time. He has to have been absolutely 
brilliant to do that.  Also, he learned Ladino in 3 months so he could translate
the Meam Loez.  I have nothing but respect for him, and awe at his intellect
and writing ability - so much clear, detailed, footnoted material put out 
at 5pp (printed, probably 10pp typed) a day for years.

He learned Breslov from R' Zvi Aryeh Rosenfeld, but the Kabbalah he had
to learn on his own.  There weren't a lot of people out there teaching
it, much less to Americans, in the 1960s.  He got the basics from Scholem,
and also absorbed a number of occult and Buddhist works in translation.
I've talked to people who have studied various systems, there is a surprising
amount of commonality between Kabbalah and Buddhism.  Or maybe not that
surprising - they're both Eastern religious systems.

The fact that he seems to have gotten it right, lends credence to Scholem
having gotten it right also learning from texts.

BTW, you want to know how R' Kaplan defines the words?  Mysticism == 
devekut, direct experience of the Divine.  Kabbalah == {theoretical (sefiros
etc.), meditative (prophetic), magical (little is known of this)}.  The
Kabbalah was known in antiquity and hidden away after the Tannaim to be
revealed in the 12th-13th centuries.  IOW, for R' Kaplan himself, the 
Kabbalah's subject matter is the Divine pleroma, the material revealed 
in the Zohar and Bahir and such texts.  This from a TV interview you can
find at Judaism.com http://www.judaism.com/bio.asp?author=Aryeh%20Kaplan

You want authentic contemporary kabbalah?  How about the Beit El community
in Israel?  Learning and meditating in a continuous line since R Shalom
Sharabi in the 1700s. They spend hours every day meditating on the "yichudim"
diagrams in their siddurim, which have no meaning - they are only doing it
lishmah.  Which is a very high level, but kinda dry and tasteless to an 
outsider looking for meaning in life.  See, e.g., Pinchas Giller's recent
book on the community.

> >> If you believe that Kabbalah is a 13th century invention, why wouldn't
> >> you want to reject it?  I would.

> > Why should we reject a 13th-century innovation?  It was created and
> > ratified by the Rishonim.   Surely that's no less valid (if less
> > authoritative) than the Tannaim?

> Absolutely, it is.  Because it claims to be otherwise.

Claims are not proof.  Pseudepigraphy was a common style of writing for 
a very long time, down to the present day. It doesn't mean that something
is a fraud.  R' Yudel Rosenberg wrote some respected stuff, such as his 
translation of the Zohar, alongside the more controversial fictions, 
such as the story of the Golem of Prague.
 
> > Mimah nafshach: either no revelation after Sinai is valid, so we should
> > reject the Kabbalah (which was invented/revealed either in the 2nd Century
> > or the 12th, in either case long after the end of prophecy)

> Wrong.  We were given both Nistar (Kabbalah/Sod/Merkavah/etc) and Niglah 
> (Torah she'bichtav and b'al peh) at Sinai.  If it was invented or 

Based on what pre-12th-century source?  We were given Torah sheb'al peh
at Sinai, as evidenced by the lack of certain necessary details in the
text, and by the universality of certain basic halachic ideas. And even
that is just a belief, not a proven fact.

But nothing in the Torah hints at an authentic esoteric interpretation
necessarily linked to the subject matter of the Zohar.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

To R' Micha,
I just saw your comments here about my series of articles about the*halachic
* origins of cholent.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.jewish.avodah/293
92/focus=29393

I just wanted to point out that your comments were actually addressed in
the original.
Yes, the Baal Hamaor's name was R' Zerachia and not Zecharia - it was a
typo [actually, I think a female editor might have changed it not being
familiar with such an uncommon name] and was corrected the very next day -
see here <http://ohr.edu/5294>.
You are correct that there were special *tavshilim* mentioned in the Gemara
exclusive to Shabbos, but the idea that one must eat a hot dish on Shabbos
day that was heated up from before Shabbos *b'davka* to actively show that
we do not follow the Karaim, as far as I know was first mentioned by the
Baal Hamaor. A Friday night cholent might be terrific for *tavshil
shel*Shabbos and even be
*yotzei To'ameha* (addressed in footnote 6 <http://ohr.edu/5294#_edn6>),
but would not seem to fit this criteria. As mentioned in footnote 3, for an
expanded explanation and the parameters of this Mitzva, see Shu?t Ba?er
Moshe (vol. 1, 1, 2) and Chut Shani (Shabbos vol. 2, pg. 147, Ch. 28, 12).
Might I suggest that you read the article in it's entirety (including
footnotes)? I am sure that then you would get a more complete picture.
I hope this helps clarify.
*kol tuv* and Good Shabbos,
Y. Spitz
Yerushalayim
Insights Into Halacha <http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130118/61215df7/attachment-0001.htm>

To R' David,
Thank you for writing; all feedback is appreciated. I am however unsure why
you are addressing me in third-person. I also am unclear about your
comments.  Unfortunately, there are many out there who first pick up a
magnifying glass or microscope and then *assur* something due to a problem
that was only able to be detected using this visual aid. The main point of this
article <http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5043> (and stressed
further in its companion article <http://ohr.edu/5032>) was exactly your
point, that not only is this unnecessary, but it is not even following
the *halacha
pesuka*, as '*lo nitna haTorah Lmalachei Hasheireis*' and we do not rely on
a microscope's use '*bein lehakel bein lehachmir*" unless the problem can
already be detected with the naked eye. I am not sure where phobias would
seem to fit in with all this.If anything, the articles should serve to
allay fears, and not cause them.
I hope this helps clarify,
*Kol Tuv* and Good Shabbos.
Y. Spitz
Yerushalayim
Insights Into Halacha <http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/>

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:24 AM, David Wacholder <dwachol...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Rabbi Spitz captured the theory of the halacha very very well. He is
> microscopically correct. The only problem is he  is sociologically "putting
> the cap on the lens" .  He is MACROscopically incorrect.
>
> If I buy billboards and put  pictures of  ;microscopic mites or
> "you-name-its" - I will create a "mite phobic " population who will be
> unable to eat food associated with mites.
>
> If you tell people that water has invisible [except to the superior more
> perfect among us]  beings -  you will induce phobia of water.
>
>  Rabbanim and others must be cognizant of this.
>
> Is it worth adding phobias? Do we need more of them?
>
> inducing the phobia is most effective with those who did not grow up with
> microscopes.
>
> --
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130118/47bfb6df/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbi Spitz captured the theory of the halacha very very well. He is
microscopically correct. The only problem is he  is sociologically "putting
the cap on the lens" .  He is MACROscopically incorrect.

If I buy billboards and put  pictures of  ;microscopic mites or
"you-name-its" - I will create a "mite phobic " population who will be
unable to eat food associated with mites.

If you tell people that water has invisible [except to the superior more
perfect among us]  beings -  you will induce phobia of water.

 Rabbanim and others must be cognizant of this.

Is it worth adding phobias? Do we need more of them?

inducing the phobia is most effective with those who did not grow up with
microscopes.

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130117/51f75dc4/attachment-0001.htm>

He said
"There is no way for the consumer to
tell whether or not the dairy equipment was ben yomo at the time the
pareve food was processed or not. Therefore, we are careful not to eat
any DE products together with meat or chicken, since it is forbidden
LeChatchila to eat meat or chicken together with pareve foods that were
processed in hot ben yomo dairy equipment."

Interesting, he admits that it's impossible to tell if the equipment is ben
yomo dairy.
What happened to suffeik ben yomo is aino ben yomo?

Suffeik d'Rabbanam chumra, I guess.

-- 
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130117/40b5a49c/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Joel Rich wrote:

> ... the argument against chalav hacompanies (assumedly chalav
> stam really means no supervision at all) is really ...

I have always presumed that the phrase "chalav stam" means exactly the same
thing as "chalav hacompanies". It is *NOT* milk which has no supervision at
all, but rather it is milk which lacks Jewish supervision but does have
government supervision. Milk which has no supervision at all is called
"chalav akum" or "chalav nochri". (In fact, when I explain Chalav Yisrael
to people, I am careful to say that ALL poskim require the milk to be
supervised; the machlokes is whether the supervision must be Jewish, or
whether the government is adequate.)

It is unfortunate that many people confuse these concepts, because they
incorrectly think that if it is mutar to drink "plain milk" in the USA,
then it must be mutar to drink it abroad as well.

Warning: Linguistic digression follows!

It is my opinion/guess that when Rav Moshe zt"l used the phrase "chalav
hacompanies" in the Igros Moshe (which was written in Rabbinic Hebrew) the
presence of the foreign word "companies" served to show that he was using
it as a technical term. Outside of present company, however, I have never
heard it used in conversation (except when I try to interject it myself). I
suppose this is because "hacompanies" is an English word which has become
part of a Rabbinic Hebrew phrase, and would sound bizarre if inserted into
an otherwise-English context. My feeling is that this bizarreness is a good
thing, serving to help remind people that the heter exists only when the
milk is produced by major companies under government supervision. But it is
an uphill battle.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes&#63
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50f88c2133743c203becst02vuc

Mechaber 448:6 -- "It is assur to feed one's chametz on Pesach, even to an animal belonging to someone else or to (28) hefker."

Mishne Berura 448:28 -- "Because he gets hanaah, in that he fulfills his
desire to satisfy the animal. And see the Beis Yosef, that even if he finds
chametz which isn't his own, it is also assur to throw it in front of a
dog."

It seems clear to me, and to the others in my chabura, that the main point
here has nothing to do with the ownership of the chametz. One may or may
not be taking ownership of hefker chametz in the process of feeding it to
an animal, but regardless, the point made here is that since he is using
the chametz in a manner that he enjoys, that constitutes a forbidden form
of getting hanaah from chametz on Pesach.

From there, my mind jumped to another situation which seems very similar.
Suppose one is in an ordinary non-Jewish supermarket on Chol Hamoed Pesach,
and a non-Jewish shopper asks me, "Sir, I cannot reach those cookies. Could
you please hand me that box of cookies?" Being a nice guy, it is my nature
to want to be helpful, and so I cheerfully pass it to him. Was that mutar
or assur?

The two cases seem very similar. In both, I took chametz which did not
belong to a Jew, and I gave it to someone/something who is allowed to eat
it, and I did so because I like doing that. The only real difference that I
can see is that the dog eats it immediately, but the supermarket customer
will eat it later. But I don't see why that should make a difference.

Someone suggested that this might be another example of Eivah and/or Chilul
haShaym. I certainly don't want him going home and complaining, "That Jew
was standing right there and wouldn't help me out!"

Any thoughts? Should I try to avoid such situations, or is it mutar?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes&#63
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50f88d156ff5cd154647st01vuc

R' Joel Rich wrote:

> ... the argument against chalav hacompanies (assumedly chalav
> stam really means no supervision at all) is really ...

I have always presumed that the phrase "chalav stam" means exactly the same
thing as "chalav hacompanies". It is *NOT* milk which has no supervision at
all, but rather it is milk which lacks Jewish supervision but does have
government supervision. Milk which has no supervision at all is called
"chalav akum" or "chalav nochri". (In fact, when I explain Chalav Yisrael
to people, I am careful to say that ALL poskim require the milk to be
supervised; the machlokes is whether the supervision must be Jewish, or
whether the government is adequate.)

It is unfortunate that many people confuse these concepts, because they
incorrectly think that if it is mutar to drink "plain milk" in the USA,
then it must be mutar to drink it abroad as well.

Warning: Linguistic digression follows!

It is my opinion/guess that when Rav Moshe zt"l used the phrase "chalav
hacompanies" in the Igros Moshe (which was written in Rabbinic Hebrew) the
presence of the foreign word "companies" served to show that he was using
it as a technical term. Outside of present company, however, I have never
heard it used in conversation (except when I try to interject it myself). I
suppose this is because "hacompanies" is an English word which has become
part of a Rabbinic Hebrew phrase, and would sound bizarre if inserted into
an otherwise-English context. My feeling is that this bizarreness is a good
thing, serving to help remind people that the heter exists only when the
milk is produced by major companies under government supervision. But it is
an uphill battle.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Could be - I guess "back in the day" there was little chance that the milk
source would be unknown.  What would the halacha be "back in the day" if I
lived in a town where 80% of the dairy herds were owned by Jews and I found
a recently filled container of raw milk in the street?	And what label
would you put on it?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

 From http://tinyurl.com/a7zmlt8

Dear Jew in the City,

For the Orthodox ladies who wear a wig and claim part of the reason 
is for modesty, isn't wearing a wig over hair kind of like wearing a 
t-shirt with a naked body printed on it? (Sorry for the crude 
example.) Wouldn't it be better to cover the hair with a cloth? I 
know some Orthodox ladies do, and this seems to make more sense to me.

Thanks,

D.V.

Dear D.V.,

Your question is an excellent one, and I was asked a similar question 
by a friend who upon hearing that I wore a wig over my hair told me 
that it was like wearing a prosthetic nose over my nose! His question 
bothered me for a while. I do NOT like having philosophical 
quandaries floating around in my head that I don't know how to 
answer, so after a bit of thought, I came up with something, and I 
think it applies to your question as well.

See the above URL for more. YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130118/fe25b4bc/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 15
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)