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

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:58:33AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> 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.

But qol ishah is lumped together in the gemara with sei'ar and shoq,
and all appear in the context of kol hamistaqeil. I meant, your list
of specific issurim into which one can pin sei'ar has to work for kol
ishah too.

>>   <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?

How is it two gezeiros? One can't stare, therefore things that make you
stare are assur.

>> 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.

Yes, logically derived from a din in sotah.

What's puzzling? I'm saying the deOraisa is logically prior to saying
that (i) kol hamistaqeil (the sugya in which "sei'ar be'ishah ervah"
appears) applies to sei'ar as a second issur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha at aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter