[Avodah] More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Micha Berger)

[David Riceman]

snip>On 10/26/2011 5:52 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:16:31PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> (i) A man may not gaze at a woman he may not marry.
>>
>> (ii) A man may not gaze at someone or something which may later induce a
>> shichvas zera l'vattalah.
>>
>> (iii) A person may not look at something distracting while reciting
>> krias shma.
>>
>> (iv) A married woman may not go out "v'roshah parua".
> Kol ishah also needs a place on your list.
No, it doesn't.  The list is specifically about laws related to seeing 
women's hair.
>   <snip>  My argument requires assuming
> that sei'ar, shoq and qol are dinim derabannan motivated by (i),
> not instances.
But that can't be true, since (i) is itself d'rabbanan.  v'chi gazrinan 
gezeirah l'gzeirah?
>    <snip>  I
> also think that you overstate it by linking (ii) to SZL rather than
> also trying to prevent hirhurim that don't get that far.
Read the title of EH 23 "issur hotza'as zera l'vatalah udvarim ham'vi'im 
l'kach".  The title and the first din in a siman of SA often serve as a 
general introduction to the whole siman.
>
> I would have instead characterized the idea as saying that (iv) is based
> on Sotah. The existence of this issur, and thus the norm that married
> women's hair is covered, is what motivated a derabbanan linking sei'ar to
> (i).
What I find most puzzling is that (iv) is the one din on the list which 
is almost certainly d'orayysa.

David Riceman