[Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress

[Chana Luntz]

> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 03:31:24 -0400
> From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
> Subject: 
> Message-ID: <4BE3C1CC.8080908 at sero.name>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> 
> Chana Luntz wrote:
> 
> > And further, it would seem from Kesuvos 48a that the Beis Din is
> > empowered, in the absence of a husband, to go down onto his property
> > in order to provide sustenance for his wife, such sustenance to include
> > a required provision for adornments
> 
> Actually this is incorrect.  "A woman whose husband is gone, and the
> BD appropriates for her food and clothing and furniture and rent, they
> do not appropriate adornments for her, for she has no husband for whom
> to adorn herself."   http://mechon-mamre.org/i/4113.htm#8

Although the Rambam then goes on to state that where the husband becomes a
shoteh or a cheresh, they do appropriate adornments for her - and while it
does not seem to be in the hilchon mamre version of the Rambam, the Beis
Shmuel and the Chelkat Mechokek, amongst others, appear to have a version
which adds the words "ki aina chayevet lyiyot l'olam b'lo tachshitim" - ie
she is not required to spend the rest of her life without adornments (or
alternatively they are adding this in as the explanation of the second part
of Rambam, but from the way they phrase it, it seems to me that that
actually was in their version of the Rambam).

And not everybody appears to agree with the Rambam's reason (ie "for she has
no husband for whom to adorn herself").  I note that the Haflah wonders on
that reason of the Rambam, as what is the difference between the case of a
husband who goes out m'daas (ie goes intentionally to midinat hayam) and one
who goes out shelo midaas (ie becomes insane).  He prefers the explanation
he understands from Rashi on 48a (and which fits better with the explanation
given in the gemora itself when it justifies the practice of a beis din
going down onto the husband's property as being because "dlo niche lei
dtinavul" - ie we assume he would not want his wife to become repulsive),
namely that where somebody goes to midinas yaham, we can assume that if he
didn't leave tachshitim behind for his wife, he doesn't care whether she
becomes repulsive, and hence would protest the forced taking of his property
for this purpose, and so while we do still allow beis din to go down onto
his property to ensure that she does not starve, we do not for this.  But in
the case of one who becomes insane, and so does not have the capacity to
protest the use of his property, the beis din does what is right.

> The same psak is in Shulchan Aruch EH 70:5: "But they don't give her
> the means to adorn herself". 

But again in Shulchan Aruch EH 70:6 he poskens that if the husband becomes a
shoteh or a cheresh, they do give her the means to adorn herself.

>  Evidently either we pasken like R Chisda
> rather than R Yosef, or else we accept Rashi's reading which reverses
> the "kol sheken".

The Beis Yosef says explicitly that we posken like R' Chisda (and the Beur
HaGra says this is because Rav Chisda was the Rebbe of Rav Yosef).  The Taz
explains the difference between the two cases as being that in the case of
the husband going to midinas hayam, the power of the beis din to go down on
his property is only based on a tnai beis din, and that the tnai beis din
only extends to mezonos and not to tachshitim.  (I *think* what he is saying
is that the power to go down onto a person's property when they are still
assumed to be compos mentis, just happen to be away, is an extraordinary
power with very limited application, whereas the power when a person is not
longer able to run their own affairs is a much more general power of
attorney, allowing beis din to do much more of what needs to be done).

In any event, it would certainly have been better if instead of my using the
example of a husband going away to midinas hayam, I had used the example of
a husband who becomes insane and is in no position to appreciate his wife's
tachshitim, as the same point could have been made, without entering into a
complicated machlokus.

But I think that as you can see, leaving aside the Rambam's justification
for Rav Chisda's position, the general thrust both of the gemora and later
commentators is that tachshitim are not just for the delectation of the
husband (nor are they about, to use RMB's phrase, being sexually alluring),
but are part and parcel of, in the words of the gemora, the woman "not
becoming repulsive".  And it is something that is significant enough that it
is the subject of a machlokus as to whether, even when the husband is compos
mentis but just away, a beis din should have the power to confiscate
property to ensure their provision.  The fact that the majority position
holds to limit beis din's power vis a vis other people's property does not,
it seems to me, undermine the fundamental understanding of Chazal into the
importance and desirability of cosmetics even in the absence of the husband.

> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you

Regards

Chana