Volume 30 Number 35 Produced: Wed Dec 15 6:14:48 US/Eastern 1999 Subjects Discussed In This Issue: Hair covering [Sherman Family] Negiah (3) [Nosson Tuttle, Chana/Heather Luntz, Gitelle Rapoport] Previous generations (3) [David I. Cohen, Chaim Mateh, Eli Turkel] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sherman Family <sherman@...> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:24:20 -0500 Subject: Hair covering In the excellent book LOVING TRUTH AND PEACE by Sefardic Rabbi Marc Angel, the religious world view of Rabbi Benzion Uziel is expounded. Rabbi Uziel was the first Sefardic Chief Rabbi of of Medinat Israel. Re: women's hair covering, the text describes Rabbi Yosef Messas of Morocco, in 1955, as viewing head coverings as a custom. He states the sages felt any woman who did not cover her hair was immodest because all women ... Jewish and non Jewish... covered their hair. Rabbi Messas thought that since women as a whole no longer cover their hair, the prohibition of uncovering hair was lifted. Rabbi Uziel (1880- 1953) however viewed hair covering as Tora Law , not as a custom. He strongly advocated traditional hair covering. Rahel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nosson Tuttle <TUTTLE@...> Date: Mon Nov 29 16:25:01 1999 -0500 Subject: RE: Negiah Just a short comment on a snippet from a posting >From: Chana Luntz <Chana/<Heather@...> >he again brings the Pnei Yeshua cited above as distinguishing between >single women and a man's wife on the grounds that a man cannot look at a >single woman, but can touch her, while his wife in nida, he can look at >her, but he can't touch her). From my Rosh Yeshiva (Rabbi Leib Tropper of Yeshiva Kol Yaakov, Monsey, NY, I have heard that "looking at" women is not an issue, but "staring at" them is what is Asur or forbidden. This distinction makes a big difference in both the business world and the Shidduch world (to say nothing of singles events which I run). Not easy to do business with or get married to somebody you can't look at! -Nosson Tuttle, Mazel Tov Singles coordinator ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/<Heather@...> Date: Mon Nov 29 22:29:04 1999 -0500 Subject: Re: Negiah <TUTTLE@...> writes >>From my Rosh Yeshiva (Rabbi Leib Tropper of Yeshiva Kol Yaakov, Monsey, >NY, I have heard that "looking at" women is not an issue, but "staring at" >them is what is Asur or forbidden. Yes, that is a paraphrase of what I referred to immediately above the bit you quoted ie " the widely relied upon heter (from the Rema brought the shita m'kubetzes meseches ketubos daf 17a) that such looking is permitted for limited periods [l'fi sha'a] (ie casually)" Another way of saying casually is to say not staring. > This distinction makes a big difference in >boththe business world and the Shidduch world (to say nothing of >singles events which I run). Not easy to do business with or get >married to somebody you can't look at! Well the Rambam brings as a specific exception looking at a woman in order to decide whether you want to marry her. But it is fair to say that the normative halachic position is in accordance with the heter referred to above. One should, however, be aware that not everybody holds by the looking/staring distinction (in particular, certain chassidic groups do not, and hold it is forbidden to look at a woman at all, some with the specific exception of the circumstance permitted by the Rambam, and traditionally, some not even then). And there are certainly enough sources for somebody to justify a not looking position as well as to justify a looking one. The point that it appeared to me that Rav Henkin was making in his teshuva (although I am concerned that on this particular point, I may be misrepresenting him, as he does not state so explicitly), is that just as casual gazing (what you call looking) is mutar while staring (sometimes characterised as looking lustfully) is ossur, so casual touching (eg a business handshake) is mutar unlike hugging and kissing or even sustained touching (eg as found when dancing) which is ossur. As you say, the distinction between looking and staring makes a big difference in the business world (lets leave the shidduch world aside, given that there there is also the specific heter of the Rambam to rely on). Similarly, a heter to shake hands with your business partners/clients can also make a big difference. One of the sub-threads of this particular thread has involved people trying to squeeze a d'orisa issur of handshaking into the Rambam's d'orisa prohibition of hugging and kissing b'derech chiba. The point is that it is just as easy (if not easier), if you try your own hand at interpretation, to come up with a "no looking" d'orisa prohibition. (Of course, you run the risk of being over that fascinating Rambam which suggests that if you make out a d'rabbanan prohibition to be a d'orisa prohibition, you are over on the d'orisa prohibition of bal tosif - although again, like most halachic positions, there are opinions to the contrary). As always, it takes real knowledge to be makil. Kind Regards Chana ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gitelle Rapoport <giteller@...> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:45:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Negiah I received the following message from Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin a few days ago, with a request to post it to mailjewish. Gitelle Rapoport [My thanks to Gitelle for relaying this, and my thanks to Rav Henkin for his message below. Mod.] <<Yesterday I was told of the existence of "Mail Jewish" and of the recent discussions. I would appreciate if you would post the following: Chibat bi'ah alone without chibuk venishuk does not violate the lo ta'aseh of"lo tikrevu legalot ervah", which can be translated as "do not do the preliminaries to forbidden sexual relations." This is the opinion of the Rambam and many rishonim, as I discussed in Bnei Banim, I , nos. 37-39. Hand-holding, handshakes, circle dancing--none of these activities are part of the run-up to relations and do not violate the lo ta'aseh regardless of what chibah and ta'avah may be subjectively involved. One the other hand, a sexually explicit, erotic conversation may violate the lo ta'aseh, as I explained in the case of "mi she'achazato tina." Whether this applies in the case of a telephone conversation as well requires study. Because something is not a lo ta'aseh does not mean it is permitted, and the Ramban and others do not classify "lo tikrevu" as a separate lo ta'aseh at all. Married couples, in my opinion, are permitted to hold hands even in public (when the wife is tahorah), depending on local mores. Unmarried couples may not, in public or private. With Torah blessings, Rabbi Yehuda Henkin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David I. Cohen <BDCOHEN613@...> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:03:14 EST Subject: Previous generations In vol. 30 # 31 Zev Sero responded to my earlier post" <<Where is there an obligation to divorce ones spouse if he/she violates <<halacha? I don't know whether Mr Cohen is married, but if he is, would <<he divorce his wife if she wore shatnez? if she wore a male garment? <<if she skipped benching? if she refused to put a mezuzah on her shop? <<if she cooked meat and milk at a treife restaurant or soup kitchen? if <<she was a vet who fixed cats and dogs? <<In America in the 1920s and 1930s observant husbands were not exactly <<thick on the ground, and many women married men who were not observant; <<they worked hard to make sure that their children would grow up al <<taharat hakodesh, and for the most part they succeeded. If they had <<held to Mr Cohen's standards many of them would have remained single, <<and they certainly wouldn't have married the husbands that they did and <<had the children and grandchildren that they did. I take this a bit <<personally, because if that had happened, I would not be here to write <<this note. I'm afraid Zev missed my point. I was not denigrating anyone who had a non-observant spouse. And, no, I was not saying that there is a halachic obligation to divorce a non-observant spouse. My point was reserved for some of the "gedolim" of that generation, whose wives did not, for example, cover their hair. Now, one can safely assume that these wives (most of whom themselves descended from well-respected rabbinic families) did so, not because they did not care about the requirements of the halacha, but because they believed that the halacha allowed them to do so. This is as reasonable as assuming that they would not purposely violate Shabbat. It is also reasonable to assume that their husbands, knowing of the sincerity of their wives' fidelity to the halachic way of life, would make sure to instruct them (gently, one hopes) on the requirements of the halacha, including, whether a married women needs to cover her hair. From the reported fact that these wives did not cover their hair, one might conclude (although I do concede it is not the only possible conclusion) that hair covering is not halachically required. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the gedolim had to know of the "maarit ayin" implications of their wives' actions, and even in the circumstances where the wife was acting contrary to the halachic position of her husband, the gadol certainly had some obligation to make this known so others would not be led astray. Since that did not happen, this is the type of "maaseh rav" upon which halachic practice could be based. That was my point. Chag sameach David I. Cohen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@...> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 22:54:54 +0200 Subject: Re: Previous generations In vol 30#28, David I. Cohen <BDCOHEN613@...> wrote: << I don't get it. If a married woman must cover her hair or violate a D'orayta (Torah level) prohibition, the it makes no sense that Gedolim would allow their wives to do so and not divorce them. Would they allow their wives to eat treif? to violate Shabbat? >> Not everything is grounds for divorce. IOW, if someone's wife does not cover her hair, the husband is not mechuyav (required) to divorce his wife. There's a difference of opinion among Rishonim (Achronim?) whether it's a mitzvah (good deed) for him to divorce this wife or just a reshus (option) (Even Hoezer 115:4). In fact, when a famous Gadol 50 years ago in America was asked this question (the questioner had chutzpah because he knew that the Rav's wife did not cover her hair), he replied tersely: "It is not grounds for divorce". Add to this a situation where it would have been very difficlut to find a wife who did cover her hair, making this a shaas hadchak, perhaps justifying even golding that it's a reshus in this circumstance. Regarding her eating trief or transgressing Shabbos, this also doesn't _require_ divorce. It's also not even a mitzvah to divorce her. Needless to say, the husband should try his best to convince her (bidarkei noam) to cease her transgressions (Shabbos, trief, or hair covering). BTW, if she is machshil her husband by feeding _him_ trief, or causing _him_ to transgress Shabbos, that's a different story, and may be more grounds for divorce (although I'm not sure what the Hallacha is in this case). <<If the situation was one where the wife's uncovered head was allowed halachically due to some extenuating circumstance,>> I can't think of any "extenuating" circumstances (short of pikuach nefesh) that would Hallachically allow her to go hair uncovered in public. Perhaps I don't have enough imagination <G>, so if someone can think of such circumstances, I'd be interesting in hearing them. << is it not incumbent on the Gadol to publicize those circumstances, just so people would understand the halacha. After all, despite some posted opinions, "maaseh rav" does have significant halachic implications, even if it's not the final word. >> IMO it is incumbant, if only to prevent michsholim (stumbling blocks) due to misunderstanding. I have never seen such a tshuva (that justifies uncovered hair, under _any_ circumstances). Has anyone seen such tshuvos? OTOH, we could say that the Gadol isn't mechuyav (required) to publicize such circumstances. However, until that Gadol publicizes his Hallachic views on the subject, we cannot infer from his wife's actions (and his inaction) vis-a-vis her hair covering, that he holds that it is Hallachically permitted. Kol Tuv, Chaim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:22:58 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Previous generations In relying on a maaseh rav of gedolim in previous generations it is important to distinguish between lechatvhila and bideved. One simple example: It is well known that at the wedding of Rav Moshe Tendler to the daughter of Rav Moshe Feinstein there was mixed sitting even though both sets of fathers were roshei yeshiva. The obvious conclusion is that Rav Moshe did not feel there was any issur involved. On the other hand I have heard from family that if the same wedding were held today it would be separate sitting. For whatever reason, the families felt that given life in NY many years ago that a separate sitting wedding would cause difficulties. Since no issur was involved they had mixed seating. However, both families felt that ignoring societal pressures that separate seating would be better. Similarly, some gedolim may have felt that uncovered hair was not a cause for a divorce. Hence, given the circumstances they lived with a situation that was less than ideal. Eli Turkel ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 30 Issue 35