[Avodah] From a current off-list discussion - Hair covering

[SBA]

Upon request of R' Micha - transferred back here:
(Hopefully my cut and pasting makes some sense)


From: Gil Student [mailto:gil.student at gmail.com] 

Toby:
> And that it supposed to excuse or explain why a woman today with a 
> good enough Jewish education to be learning Gemara is OK with not 
> covering her hair?  It's supposed to make the MO tendency to be lax in
halacha somehow excusable or justifiable?

Yes, it is supposed to EXPLAIN why some women choose to act like their
mothers and the rebbetzins of their youth who did not cover their hair. To
many people, Judaism is a living religion that requires following in the
footsteps of the righteous people who preceded you rather than learned from
a book. That is why, for example, my father-in-law will make kiddush on a
shot glass of schnapps even though it is clearly against halachah. 

>>
SBA: Have you heard the saying that 'minhag' is osiyos 'gehenom'...?

I have often found that one can bring a rayah from the vochedigeh parsha
(and if I can't - it is because I haven't studied it properly).

Ayen Rashi this week 5:18 dh: Uporah: 
"Mikan l'Bnos Yisroel shegilui harosh genai lohem."

This is from the Sifri - which adds - d"a, "melamed al bnos yisroel
shemechasos roshehen." (This also is a gemara somewhere, IIRC)

And as we have debated 100 times before on Arvm, O Jewesses in
Greater-Hungary, Germany, Poland - especially the chassidishe - mostly DID
cover their hair. Lita was where this broke down after WW1.

 
________________________________________
From: Moshe Feldman [mailto:moshe.feldman at gmail.com] 
, Gil Student <gil.student at gmail.com> wrote:
> Toby:
>> And that it supposed to excuse or explain why a woman today with a good
enough Jewish education to be learning Gemara is OK with not covering her
hair?  It's supposed to make the MO tendency to be lax in halacha somehow
excusable or justifiable?
> 
> Yes, it is supposed to EXPLAIN why some women choose to act like their
> mothers and the rebbetzins of their youth who did not cover their
> hair. To many people, Judaism is a living religion that requires
> following in the footsteps of the righteous people who preceded you
> rather than learned from a book. 
 
Not so long ago, Toby, I used to think as you do.  However, now I realize
that Halacha is dynamic and there are many kulos which we barely notice that
have been adopted over the generations.  Here are some:
 
Chodosh in Chu"l
Shok b'isha erva (many poskim believe this means the lower leg)
Using a heter iska to borrow money for personal (not business) purposes
Shaving with rotary shavers (even if not lift 'n cut) which leave the face
looking beardless
Unmarried women not covering their hair (see Rambam, S'A EH 21:2)
Wearing of a sheitel (violates Das Yehudis according to the Aruch)
 
At the time that a kula is adopted, there are extenuating circumstances, and
poskim look for a reason to be meikil if the the kula is weak.  If enough
time passes, the kula becomes minhag yisrael and is hard to uproot.  It is
just in the 20th century, with the death of mimeticism (as detailed in Dr.
Chaim Soloveitchik's article) that the process has changed.
 
In the case of women's hair covering: R. Michael Broyde has written about
the basis for a leniency which was adopted by the rav of Hartford, who (as
reported by R. Hershel Schachter) Rav Soloveitchik felt was a greater posek
than his own cousin Rav Moshe.  The concept that erva can depend upon
standards of modesty of the time is not radical.  After all, "u'fara es rosh
ha'isha" does not explicitly state that it is assur to have uncovered hair,
just that women normally covered their hair.  And I understand that in the
ancient Near East, both married and unmarried women covered their hair when
in public.  I believe (but would appreciate more proof) that the distinction
between married and unmarried women covering their hair arose among *goyim*
in Europe.
 
In any case, the overwhelming majority of Klal Yisrael is meikil about the
same halacha with regard to unmarried women:

=================
 On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:20 PM, SBA <sba at sba2.com> wrote:
A link to a web birur on this:
 
http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=1590

================
RMF:  
Thanks, SBA, for this useful article.
 
Some points:
1. The question is whether deoraisa means that it's a chiyuv de'oraisa, or
that the makor of this type of tznius is found in the Torah and is not a
later minhag of B'nos Yisroel (see Rashi's Kesubos 72a definition of Das
Yehudis--שנהגו בנות ישראל ואע"ג דלא כתיבא).
 
2. Note also--
היוצאה בקפלטין שלה [קרבן העדה: שם בגד דק שמנחת על ראשה; פני משה: היא המטפחת
שעל ראשה; אלינסון: מן הלטינית capillitium, דהיינו שער בצורה של פאה נוכרית]
אין בה משום "ראשה פרוע". הדא דתימא לחצר, אבל למבוי יש בה משום יוצאה וראשה
פרוע. יש חצר שהוא כמבוי ויש מבוי שהוא כחצר
He should have added that Ellinson is quoting the Aruch, who was of course
an expert in Latin and lived close in time to the Gemara so he was more
likely to understand the meaning of words used by the Gemara.
 
This is the basis for ROY's view that wearing a wig violates Das Yehudis.
3. For those who didn't read the entire article, it supports what I argued
re unmarried women and states:
על כן נראה כי יישוב הדברים הוא כך: מכיוון שדרכן של הבתולות היא, שלא לכסות את
ראשן בחוץ כבפנים, וכולם מורגלים בהתנהגותן זו הנוגדת את דין אבן העזר - זאת
אומרת בניגוד להלכה – אין חשש להרהור עבירה אצל מי שקורא שמע לפני הבתולה. אין
בכך כל אמירה ביחס לחובת כיסוי הראש של אותה בתולה, ויתכן מאוד שהיא עושה שלא
כדין. 

יוצא אפוא כי בתולות ישראל, על פי אופן הליכתן בחוץ כבר מאות בשנים, לא קיבלו
על עצמן את דין הגמרא ומנהגן נתקבל בדיעבד אף להלכה. 
Moreover, he cites ROY:
בתולות פנויות שרגילות ללכת בגילוי ראש, ולא שמענו שיצטרכו לכסות ראשן בשעת
הלימוד בבתי הספר, או כשמברכות, יש לומר שנהגו כדעת המתירים, ויש להן על מה
שיסמוכו. הלא הם מהרש"ל והפר"ח והגר"א וסיעתם [...] וכן דיברתי בזה עם ידידי
הגאון המפורסם כמהר"ר יוסף שלום אלישיב שליט"א, והסכים עמי שיש להקל, מאחר שכן
פשט המנהג גם אצל הבנות החרדות לדבר ה'
Kol tuv,
Moshe