quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabbi Y. Kacev:
As I mentioned before, the prohibition of a woman covering her hair is a Torah prohibition.
However once women do go around with thier hair covered,it now also becomes a modesty issue for a married woman not to cover her hair.

---

Once it also becomes a modesty issue, how is it that unmarried women are exempt-they do not have to be modest like married women must be? Is that logical?

Married women usually have thier hair covered. Thus for them to have their hair uncovered would create a modesty issue. However men are accustomed to seeing unmarried women with their hair uncovered, so thare would be no tznius issue there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
To Mike:
There is a difference why she doesn't cover her hair. If it's from ignorence, that's not a problem. Even if it's "too hard for her" this would be under the heading of being unobservant in one area can they be believed in a different area.See YD 119 for this in detail.
But your question was that she doesn't "believe" in the Mitzvah. If she doesn't believe any Mitzvah, then she is an Apikores, thus can't be trusted for Kashrus.

---

If you do not know her reason for not covering her hair, is one obligated to ask her before eating(or not eating) in her home?

If you don't see anything that would hint to it, I don't think you have to worry about it, and you can say it comes from ignorence

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
If you don't see anything that would hint to it, I don't think you have to worry about it, and you can say it comes from ignorence

But what if you know that she is an educated woman, i.e she has been frum all her life, and has received a yeshiva education?

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Y. Kacev:
The Torah was given to us by Hashem in two parts. The written Law and the Oral Law.The Oral Law explains and clarifies the Written Law. With just the Written part of the Torah we would not understand anything about the commandments and prohibitions of the Torah.That is why the two are inseparable.

Do you have any good examples that one would be able to use to answer Karaites when they ask for proof?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
I/m sorry -correction the last word of the previous post should be INFERENCE.

Suggestion: You could in the future edit your postings and thus avoid the necessity of another post.

There are many examples. Here are just a couple. The Torah tells us to put on Teffilin. What in the world are Teffilin? Without the oral law we would not know. The Torah tell us to put tzzizis on our garments. What are tzissis? The Torah tells us if we work on Shabbos we will be put to death, yet we are not told what constitutes "work" . THE Oral law tells us.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
To Mike:
There is a difference why she doesn't cover her hair. If it's from ignorence, that's not a problem. Even if it's "too hard for her" this would be under the heading of being unobservant in one area can they be believed in a different area.See YD 119 for this in detail.
But your question was that she doesn't "believe" in the Mitzvah. If she doesn't believe any Mitzvah, then she is an Apikores, thus can't be trusted for Kashrus.

If you do not know her reason for not covering her hair, and you know her to be an educated woman (precluding the possibility of ignorance) are you obligated to ask her before eating (or not eating ) in her home?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike,

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
If you do not know her reason for not covering her hair, and you know her to be an educated woman (precluding the possibility of ignorance) are you obligated to ask her before eating (or not eating ) in her home?

Perhaps you would be making this woman into a Mayzid if she were to not listen to you and change? Also, why not just stop eating in her house until you find out that she starts to cover her hair, thus you avoid embarassing her?

1. If I understand correctly, not listening and changing and thereby turning a sinner b'shogeg inta a Mayzid as a reason not to bring up a subject, does not apply to a torah prohibition. Besides, I am not talking about tochacha here, just fact finding, and if she is an educated woman then she is already b'mayzid.

2. If you just stop eating in her home, you are embarrassing her.

3. I was asking from an HALACHIC point of view-are you obligated HALACHICALLY to ask her reason for not covering her hair before eating (or not eating) in her home?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike,

A certain Rav mentioned Eating Bassar Bechalav is learned from the Torah. Saying this is 'over Bal Tossef, as the Rambam states in his intro to the Sepher Hamitzvos that making new rules is not 'over baal tossef, if and only if we specifically mention that it is a d'rabbanan and make no claims at it being d'oraiso. Bishul bassar bchalav is learned from the Torah...it was always part of the Mesorah...and Moshe knew it the way we know it. Eating, it seems, is a D'rabanan.

Now, be careful with the matter of Kisui Rosh...lest you are 'over an issur D'oraisa of Bal Tosef, at least according to the Rambam--and I see no way to argue otherwise without delimiting Bal Tossef into the realm of the impossible. The question is--when it comes to learning out from the Torah--whether Moshe Rabbeinu understood the concept of Kisui Rosh the way we do, or not. Furthermore, to be D'oraisa, our concept of the issur, if it is one, of Kisui Rosh must be descendant through the Mesorah directly from Moshe Rabbeinu. This is the beginnings of the most lenient qualifications of any D'oraisa. Did Moshe even consider this issue at all? Did he think of it as an issur d'oraisa? If a woman went walking in the streets with her head uncovered, would he think of it in the same way as a woman eating treif, or would he have just said, "what a Meshugana"...because it was against hte Hanhaga of the Olam.
As regards the Passuk in Sotah. The first question is whether there is any other way of explaining the Pashut Pshat in the PAssuk...i.e. wether "Uncover her head" actually means that in all other cases she MUST wear a head-covering. When it says that on Iom Kippur we have to stop eating, does it mean that from that Passuk we have a Mitzva Chiuvis to eat on every other day (all taaneisim would be an instance of Shev ve'al taaseh..but it does not matter...there is no such Mitzvah.) Therefore, the fact that we "learn out" this Mitzvah is not from the Text itself...but from somewhere else...and as eveything d'oraisa that we "learn out", there must be an actually Mesorah behind linking this Passuk in the Torah shbeksav, with the Baal Peh. This is why we cannot makes gzera shavas and hekeshim...and no-one ever could MAKE them per se...chazal had to have a long standing mesorah of there being sucha gzera shava.
The question now is almost a matter of pure Metzius...is "learning out" Kisui Rosh from Sota part of hte Mesorah, thereby making it d'oraisa...and the answer is LOOK IN THE GEMARA! Well, it itself is not one of 613 (if it was learned out legitimately from the Torah, it would be), but perhaps it is somehow included in the others..tznius or kedoshim Tihiu or something.

If something is an chiuv/issur de'oraisa....the Gemara says so. The gemarah calls it Das Yehudis...whether that is a d'rabbanan or a minhag israel (with perhaps issues of being different from the ways of the Goyim mixed in) is a Machlokes.
However, the issue of being like goyim is not even touched upon when talking about the chiuv of Kisui Rosh....you are Iotze the chiuv with the latest Parisian trend--common among the most immodest people, let us say--of hats that covers the whole head. The issue of being like goyim seems to be something totally separate. The issue here is hte pure fulfillment of covering the head...whether Chok or Mishpat, all Halachos must be treated hte same....we don't do mitzvos because they make sense or protect from being 'over on tznius....we do them because that specific thing is what Hashemn told us to do. If Kisui rosh is a Mitzva d'oraisa, we would not say das yehudis.

But what about Sotah. Later mephorshim darshaning something into the Torah may be a remez...but it is not a de'oraisa....and to say that those mephorshim even implied such a thing is to make those mephorshim be 'over the issur of Liphnei 'iver. We have all seen in writing that the 25th word in the Torah is "Or"...yet there is nothing in Chanuka that even comes close to a Deoraisa.

Kisui Rosh is done for reasons...but claiming it is de'oraisa is a Shvach.

B"H

Dear Shimon,

You wrote: "As regards the Passuk in Sotah. The first question is whether there is any other way of explaining the Pashut Pshat in the Passuk...i.e. whether "Uncover her head" actually means that in all other cases she MUST wear a head-covering. When it says that on Yom Kippur we have to stop eating, does it mean that from that Passuk we have a Mitzva Chiuvis to eat on every other day..."
* * * * * * * *

Where the Torah says, "Uncover her head," it implies that all Jewish women went with their heads covered. Now since a Jewish custom is tantamount to halacha, as we learn by the Rabbis, this would mean that all Jewish women must cover their heads with a scarf, shaitel, &c.

As for our not eating on Yom Kippur, the Torah does not say explicitly that we are not to eat. Rather, it says כל נפש אשר לא תתענה, meaning, "Any soul that does not afflict itself." The Rabbis of the Talmud discussed the matter, asking what could this mean? Perhaps we are to sit out in the scorching sun, or roll our bodies in the ice and snow, etc. It was concluded by them that the affliction intended here is to abstain from food and drink. And, yes, it is implied that normally men do not abstain from food and drink, since they are both vital to sustain life. Whether or not we must eat and drink on other days goes without saying. But this has nothing to do with custom, or halacha.

David

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
...all Jewish women went with their heads covered. Now since a Jewish custom is tantamount to halacha, as we learn by the Rabbis, this would mean that all Jewish women must cover their heads...

David:

If the custom was that "all jewish women" went with their heads covered, and this is tantamount to halacha, why is it that "all" jewish women are not required by halacha to cover their hair?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

If the custom was that "all jewish women" went with their heads covered, and this is tantamount to halacha, why is it that "all" jewish women are not required by halacha to cover their hair?

Mike,

Can you please show me an authoritative, halachic source that says not all Jewish women are required to cover their hair?

David

Mike,

This subject has been dealt with on another thread but basically during the Rambam's day, he poseked that all post puberscent women should cover their hair.

Today, all "non-virginal" women must cover their hair. So you are correct when you say not ALL Jewish women are required to cover. However, the reason for their covering has not changed. It's just that it has become more lenient today than it was in ancient times. Any married woman (presumed to be non-virginal) must cover. That's halacha.

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:

... more lenient today...

MY:

Can you tell me when it has become more lenient? And more importantly, can you tell me WHY it has become more lenient?

The Rambam ruled that all adult women should cover. This is stricter than the rulings today which don't require "ALL" adult women to cover...only married ones....in some communities divorced and widowed ones too. Further, while the use of wigs was acceptable in ancient times, those were wigs under some headcovering too. Today wigs are uncovered.
When did this leniency happen? I don't know.
Why did this leniency happen? I don't know.

quote:

Originally posted by Avi d'Israeli:

When did this leniency happen? I don't know.
Why did this leniency happen? I don't know.

perhaps this leniency happened because society in general was becoming more lenient about women's hair being immodest.

Dear All,
I was not saying that it is not a minhag. In fact, I brought the gemara that called it das yehudis. All I was saying was that it is not learned out from the Torah, in the same way Bishul bassar bechalav was, which is a deoraisa, and the way achilas bassar bechalav was a siag around that, making the latter a derabbanan. To suggest that it is a deoraisa is bal tossef.

Now as regards halacha. Its very nice that it is a halacha....but that in itself is meaningless. Halacha is by definition anything which presents normative issues. Hilchos deoraisa and derabbanan on the one hand, and hilchos minhagim on the other, are worlds apart. It is even possible to distinguish between deoraisas and derabbanans (as the Magen Avraham on achilas bassar bechalav today), but lets leave that aside since such a procedure is probably not applicable to most cases of derabbanans even according to the MAgen Avraham. Minhag israel is by definition something that evolves in Klal israel, and this is what is mashma in the Shulchan Aruch. Lets take yarmulka, for example. The Shulchan Aruch says its nice all the time and a must when davening and learning. Later poskim have said its a must all the time because the minhag has been accepted. R' Moshe Feinstein said in certain pecualiar cases (usually involving Parnasa) its ok to go without a yarmulka. I am sure today's Rabbis would say that because hte minhag is so accepted and because it is probbaly not a chisaron kis in New York/LA/Israel any longer, that its a chiuv.
Similar things have happened with head covering. The Litvishe did not wear head covering for a while...ay, the GEMARA says its das yehudis...but thats what minhag means. Minhagim such as this that are not really extensions of halacha are socio-specific and are relatively fluid. So during the Bais Iosef's time it was more accepted to have men without Kippot, and women had to wear a head covering. (Notably the Metzudas dovid on the Kitzur brings down the Shulchan Aruch as saying that all married women--I have never seen reference to a virgin, though it may be--need to wear a head covering, but before than is up to the local Minhag. The former was probably accepted by all Jews, and hte latter was not accepted but by some communities.)
A couple of hundred years ago, it may be said the tables were turned upside down in Litta. The question of whether a minhag should change is one thing, but, if it trully does change, than that is the new Minhag. The question of whether a local community minhag in a specific time (Litvishe during yeshivish times) is enough to uproot a universally acccepted minhag is a question unto itself.

What you have to realize is that nothing I have said in either post advocates a position in what you OUGHT to do. I am just saying that we should call it what it is. I am not denigrating minhagim, but that keeping minhagim is there to serve a purpose should not be forgotten (to remain separate from the nations/not to be like the goyim). We had a thousand year old custom of kneelng (I don't think there's another minhag in Jewish history that had been so universally and uncontrevesially accepted, even in the theoretical). BUT Christianity began and they too kneeled, and soon it became the "Christian" thing to do...and since the Minhag of kneeling itself was not the ikkar but the mere status of it being a Jewiosh Minhag was, and since it was no longer serving to distinguish the Jews and to instill an isolationist self-identification, it was abandoned. So too, was polish music be'ikkar evil or keneged halacha?...no! the mere fact that it was polish was enough to disqualify it in the eyes of almost everyone until Nachman of Breslov, and even then, it seems that this is a minority opinion.

Is a black shoe-lace more in accordance with the Torah than a red one---perhaps...anavah, but if it had been teh Jews wearing the red shoelaces would we revert to Black ones...absolutely not.

Though minhagim are not to be compromised, one must recognize minhagim are fluid, and as such partake in the Torah itself, per se, to a lesser extent than other parts of the Mesorah, simply because the Torah does not change while minhagim do. Minhagim serve a deoraisa of being distinguished, but hte specific pratim of each minhagim themselves are far from deoraisa.

(There is a second kind of minhag, which is regarding which of the various opiniond regarding deoraisas and derbbanans...and both opinions must be eilu-ve-eilu viable...a certain group keep. This is far more common by derbbanans...and therefore, eaiser to explain. An example is how long to wait between meat and milk. A deoraisa example is tefillin on chol hamoed, or as regards the Rashi, R'T, RAAVA"D, and Shimusha rabba, what order hte Parshioth are supposed to be in. This sort of minhag is tangential to kisui rosh since it results from a safek in regards to a deoraisa/derbanan, and the problem--it is a problem since it should not have been left up to minhag, but beavonoseinu harabim we lost some of Torah misinai--can be theoretically totally resolved by knowing hte emes and hte metzius of what the bris at har sinai actually said, or what exactly the takana taht was made comprised of. The minhagim we are talking about are those that do not result from a safek in what the deoraisa/derabanan is.)

What I want to emphesize isthat Chas Veshalom that you should present any sort of kisui rosh issue (Male or female)as itself being deoraisa. Sure they serve and hover around deoraisas....Iraas shamaim and araios are noradik deoraisas...but iraas shamaim (according to the Aruch Hashulchan) means daas schar ve'onesh while araios means any one of the forbidden releationships in hte Torah....theyh do not mean kisuirosh. (Another relevant deoraisa is being distinguishable from the rest of the world, which does not give deoraisa status to everything done for its sake...the ends is deoraisa not all the means taken to get there.) A person might actuallty think that deoraisas change if everything is presented as deoraisa and then it is revealed that the custom arose two hundred years ago. If you try to raise the minhag up to a deoraisa, you will probably just as quickly lower the Torah to a minhag, anda religion of pure minhagim and not torah and emes....is called masorti or even reform and is kfira gamur (i think I can still say that in the yeshiva velt). Lets not actually justify the "everything is invented" argument that Wellhausen put forth so vehemently. We should do better than davening because its a beautiful thing our parents did, and wearing a yamaka because my great grandaddy was in a pogrom etc etc. Our religion is not a Santa Clause, "its a beautiful thing" religion. (Sorry I feel strongly about genuine religiosity.)

Back to the particualr issue at hand. THe lady asked whether it is so crucial to have a head covering. Head covering is a minhag...its important...a large portion of observant klal israel holds of it. As part of acceptance into the community, which allows for easy accomplishement of identification as a Jew, it would be beffiting to follow the minhag. But its a minhag...

Don't hak anybody a chaynik about gebrachts before she/he is fully observant of every single taharas hamishpacha/nidda issue, and every shabbo/yom tov issue from muktza to kli shlishi (if you hold of it...i personally prepare the tea essence before shabbos...takes a lot of hte shailos away).