Volume 42 Number 75
Produced: Fri May 21 5:17:17 US/Eastern 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bugs in Water
[Eli Turkel]
Sheitels and Avodah Zorah (3)
[Martin Stern, Stephen Phillips, Martin Stern]
Vocalization of Mordechai
[Matthew Pearlman]
why they shave women's heads and hair is covered
[Jeanette Friedman]
Wigs (4)
[Tony Fiorino, Akiva Miller, Shoshana Ziskind, Elana Geiger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:55:28 +0300
Subject: Bugs in Water
> We had a similar problem some years ago in Manchester, England. The
> crustaceans were visible as small dots that seemed to move in the
> water but their identity could only be ascertained using a magnifying
> glass. Since they were visible to the unaided naked eye, there was a
> kashrut problem, the lens was only used to check on the suspicious
> object.
My general attitude was that if R. Akiva, Moshe Rabbenu couldn't have
known the dots were bugs we dont have any obligations to go
further. Similarly RMF says our tefiilin don't have to be square then
the ratio of sqrt(2) to 1.4 since that is the approximation used by
chazal.
Prof. Eli Turkel, <turkel@...> on 5/19/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:02:38 +0100
Subject: Re: Sheitels and Avodah Zorah
on 19/5/04 12:03 pm, Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...> wrote:
> You bring up a good point, but that is not exactly what happens. The
> women do not receive any money for their hair. They give it to the
> priests. The priests then sell it.
> So even if the act of selling would negate the avoda zara aspect (and
> their are opinions that it would), it is already too late by the time it
> is sold, since the women themselves could have made it avoda zara by
> their intentions at the time it was cut.
There is a confusion here between avodah zarah (the idol itself) and
takruvat avodah zarah (an offering made to an idol) The former can have
its idolatrous status revoked by its non-Jewish owner (but not by a Jew)
but the latter remains forbidden once the offering has been dedicated
and the appropriate ritual performed. So, unfortunately the act of
selling will not nullify the hair if the donor had dedicated it to
avodah zarah, which appears to be the case.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:08:30 +0100
Subject: Re: Sheitels and Avodah Zorah
> From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
> While waiting for a clearer picture of what's going on, here's a
> question -- is the deriving of benefit or pleasure from an act of Avodah
> Zorah botel b'rove (nullified in the majority.) Specifically, if you
> have a sheitel and have no idea of its origin -- and let's presume that
> the majority of sheitels (or the bulk of the hair used in sheitels) does
> NOT come from sources where there is an issue of Avodah Zorah, but from
> sources that sell hair for simple monetary gain -- then is there any
> leniency derived from the concept of botel b'rove.
2 Points. First, I heard (and the source wasn't that authoritative) that
most human hair wigs are made from Indian hair. Secondly, it may well be
that the Halocho is that the Indian hair is not Botul even BeMashehu
(the smallest part). See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 140 - I only
have the text of the SA on my PC, not any of the Commentaries.
> Is there now an issue of marat ayin in wearing a synthetic or European
> hair sheitel?
Our Sefardi brothers would no doubt think so and I have a feeling that
those who follow the Psokim of HaRav Ovadyia Yosef (who forbids sheitels
altogether) are having a good laugh at our expense! :-)
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:38:26 +0100
Subject: Re: Sheitels and Avodah Zorah
on 19/5/04 12:03 pm, Carl Singer <casinger@...> wrote:
> While waiting for a clearer picture of what's going on, here's a
> question -- is the deriving of benefit or pleasure from an act of Avodah
> Zorah botel b'rove (nullified in the majority.) Specifically, if you
> have a sheitel and have no idea of its origin -- and let's presume that
> the majority of sheitels (or the bulk of the hair used in sheitels) does
> NOT come from sources where there is an issue of Avodah Zorah, but from
> sources that sell hair for simple monetary gain -- then is there any
> leniency derived from the concept of botel b'rove.
There is a confusion here between two types of bittul berov. Avodah
zarah never becomes nullified in a mixture unlike, for example, treife
meat in 60 times the quantity of kosher meat, and benefit from the whole
mixture is prohibited. Furthermore, this mixture itself renders anything
into which it gets mixed prohibited also, i.e. no possibility of trei
betulei, secondary nullification.
There is a different situation referred to in the literature as 'esser
chanuyot' - ten shops, nine selling kosher meat and one selling
neveilah. If one finds a piece of meat in the street one can assume it
comes from one of the majority of kosher shops and eat it.
So if Indian hair is only used in wigs made in India (and this were the
only kind about which there was a suspicion of having been dedicated to
avodah zarah), then a sheitel not known to be from India would be
permitted. On the other hand, if Indian hair were exported and included
in wigs made elsewhere there might still be a problem. This is a
complicated problem and one should be guided by one's rav as to what one
should do in practice.
As regards the queries regarding the origin of the custom of wearing a
sheitel rather than other forms of hair covering, there has always been
opposition to it especially among Sefardi posekim (most recently and
vehemently by Rav Ovadia Yossef in very strong terms). Even among those
who allowed them, many were opposed to ones made from human hair, though
there are lenient opinions in the matter. One should therefore follow
the ruling of one's rav in this matter.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:11:44 +0100
Subject: Vocalization of Mordechai
Meir Possenheimer asked <I would be very interested to know how else one
would have pronounced a second sh'va in the middle of a word other than
by a sh'va na, with or without the "rules of the medakdekim">
Try saying "cordless" in English - it has roughly the same consonant
pattern. I have certainly heard many people refer to the Rishon (found
at the back of the standard gemara) as "Mordche" (difficult to get the
proper pronunciation across in an email).
Part of my problem with getting to grips with the standard masoretic
vocalisation is that they clearly had difficulty pronouncing things that
we find easy, and vice versa. Hence a patach changes to a kamatz before
a guttural, but I have no problem with either pronunciation (and for
sefardim they are the same anyway); but I have supreme difficulty with
"veyoladt" in haftara of Naso.
Matthew
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:12:15 EDT
Subject: why they shave women's heads and hair is covered
the balding of women and the advent of sheitel occurred during the
middle ages, when lords of the manor asserted their droit de seigneur,
and Jewish women were ordered to shave their heads the night before the
wedding to make them unattractive to the leige lords.
jeanette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tony Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:21:10 -0400
Subject: RE: Wigs
> From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
> First off, why is it that wigs are permitted in the first place? If
> it is considered immodest for a woman to show her hair, wouldn't it be
> equally immodest to show something that one could easily mistake for
> her own hair? If one is concerned that showing hair will atrract the
> attention of men, wouldn't it be just as much a concern that a good
> looking wig (which may even look better than her natural hair) would
> have the same effect?
I'm sure there will be more erudite and well-documented responses on
this, so apologies - my recollection is that the issue is discussed in
the mishna brura - there is a machlochet acharonim about whether hair
that is severed from the scalp continues to have a of din of erva or
not. Those who hold that women's hair does not have a din of erva after
being severed from the scalp allow wigs.
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:31:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Wigs
First, there are indeed many authorities who disapprove of wigs, for
exactly the above reason, and who prefer a hat or tichel or some other
covering which does not look like hair.
It was explained to me (sorry, I don't remember from who) that the
authorities who allow wigs feel that a woman's hair has different laws
than the rest of her body. The rest of her body must be covered because
of the "attractiveness" issue, as explained by the poster above, but
covering the hair is a "chok" - a law which is not subject to logical
arguments. Evidence for this distinction can be found in the fact that
unmarried women do NOT have to cover their hair. This proves that the
reasons for covering hair are different from the reasons for covering
the other areas. So as long as her hair is covered, it would suffice,
even if the hair is covered with something that appears to be her
hair. In other words, the wig of a married woman is no more "attractive"
than the hair a single woman.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana Ziskind <shosh@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:17:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Wigs
On May 19, 2004, at 7:03 AM, Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...> wrote:
> The question I've been asking for years is related: if the point of
> the sheitl is to save the beauty of the wife's hair for her husband,
> the constant wearing of sheitls has the opposite effect: many women
> end up cutting their hair short so the wearing of the sheitl is more
> comfortable. This means that their "hair" actually looks better when
> they go outside than it does to their husbands!
Well for one thing it helps when you go the mikvah to make sure
everything's under the water. I think that's why some chassidishe ladies
shave their hair off completely. I'm Lubavitch and the Lubavitcher
Rebbe said that the hair should be 2 tefachim long, like about 2 finger
lengths I think (hope I'm not getting my measurements incorrect) so
that's what I do. Another good thing is that if you have to toivel on
Shabbos its much easier as your hair dries pretty quickly. OTOH, if you
have long hair which you can't really dry properly it will leave wet
streaky marks on your Shabbos outfit and be somewhat of an obvious
indicator also that you went to mikvah.
Another thing is how often does the husband see the hair anyway? I know
someone women don't cover their hair indoors but I've got my hair
covered indoors. I can think of a few good reasons but the main one is
that I'd then forget I'd have my hair covered and go to the answer the
door with my hair covered. This happened shortly after I was married
and I was horrified and decided that IY"H from then on I would always
have something covering my head.
And lastly, short haircuts can look good!
Shoshana Ziskind
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elana Geiger <egeiger@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:17:15 -0400
Subject: Wigs
> First off, why is it that wigs are permitted in the first place? If
> it is considered immodest for a woman to show her hair, wouldn't it be
> equally immodest to show something that one could easily mistake for
> her own hair? If one is concerned that showing hair will atrract the
> attention of men, wouldn't it be just as much a concern that a good
> looking wig (which may even look better than her natural hair) would
> have the same effect?
It is not immodest to cover hair with hair because the issue is that a
married woman's hair not be worn, not that someone else's hair not be
worn as a cover for her own hair. The reason for hair covering is not
to avoid attracting other men, it seems that it is just to cover the
hair. That's it. Yes, it is deemed "immodest", but this is a different
than other parts of a woman's body which must be covered. The idea that
hair is immodest after one is married, but not before, is strange unto
itself, so I think there is more here than meets the eye anyway.
> Second, the article mentioned teachers in girls' schools. Would the
> requirement of hair-covering apply to a teacher in an all-girls
> school? If there are no men present, then the reasons for the
> requirement (not appearing attractive to anyone other than one's
> husband) shouldn't apply. (But I suppose there will be at least
> _some_ men working in these schools, so the situation probably never
> comes up in actual practice.)
According to the letter of the law, married women do not have to cover
their hair in front of other women, but I've never heard of anyone using
that on a large scale level, i.e., when teaching in an all-girls school
because it is impractical (there are men) and because it is not in the
spirit of the law, just as girls in all girls schools don't dress
immodestly even if no men are present.
> Finally, why is a snood OK? If this is what I think it is, a snood is
Like the Mod. noted, some snoods are just nets, but most are hair
socks/bags, and thus cover all the hair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 42 Issue 75
