i have to say this about bassar bechalav achila...i don't want to mislead about torah...it was done because of sakana(health), it seems according to the Magen avraham, but per rules of gzeiras...you need to attach it to a deoraisa...which is bishul.
The the magen avraham might just be saying it in this case ofa sakana where the metzius might actually be different...as opposed to other siagim...
sorry if i mislead anyone in the few seconds it took to post this.

As regards what David said about hte rabbis deciding what is veinisem es nafshoseichem.....what that means isa part of hte mesorah....it was not decided by the rabbis who did not know what that meant, and we accept the rabbis words. The specific meaning of that passuk (its not just eating) had to always be part of hte Torah shebaalpeh....I don't see what hte difference is between whether its written bepheirush or is part of hte torah shebaal peh...they are not separate and you can't really say that the pasuk by yom kippur---or any passuk--has any meaning whatsoever outside the oculus of the Torah shebaal peh. Therefore, veinisem es nafshoseichem means, among other things, and has always meant, DON'T EAT.

Quote "A certain Rav mentioned Eating Bassar Bechalav is learned from the Torah. Saying this is 'over Bal Tossef,"

This is incorrect. It's Basar oyf (fowl) which is D'rabanon which the Shach in YD 87:4. Regular bassar V'Chalov is d'oirassah to everyone.

What Moshe Rabeinu held is only known to us through our Mesorah, which the Gemarah tells us what it is. We don't accept every Tom Dick and Harrys critique on Chazal's Drasha to tell us which one's are authentic or not.

The big difference between Yom Kipper and Kisuy Rosh is that eating today doesn't tell us about what was before, but only for the present. By Kisoy Harosh, when the Torah says to uncover, it shows us what is the accepted position that should be before hand, that the Torah expects it to be covered to uncover it.

The Gemarah makes the CHiluk when it's D'Oiraisah and when it's Daas Yehudis, so there is no question there.

quote:

Originally posted by Shimon Senders:
As regards what David said about the Rabbis deciding what is veinisem es nafshoseichem ועניתם את נפשותיכם.....what that means is a part of the mesorah....it was not decided by the Rabbis who did not know what that meant, and we accept the rabbis words. The specific meaning of that passuk (its not just eating) had to always be part of the Torah shebaal peh תורה שבעל פה...I don't see what the difference is between whether it's written bepheirush בפרוש or is part of the Torah shebaal peh תורה שבעל פה...they are not separate and you can't really say that the pasuk by yom kippur---or any passuk--has any meaning whatsoever outside the oculus (eye) of the Torah shebaal peh. Therefore, veinisem es nafshoseichem ועניתם את נפשותיכם means, among other things, and has always meant, DON'T EAT.

Yes, you are right Shimon. But you still cannot deduce from this that just as we are not required by the Torah to eat on other days, so too, women are not required to cover their heads. The covering of hair of married women is a religious custom, tantamount to halacha. Eating is not a religious custom, but needed only to sustain life.

David

B"H

Two points:

1) A CORRECTION: (I should have rather written "Jewish women who are married")

Where the Torah says, "Uncover her head," it implies that all Jewish women who are married 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 who are married must cover their heads with a scarf, shaitel, &c.

2) Shimon mentioned the matter of Basar be-halav, saying in the name of some teacher that it was בל תוסיף. This is, without question, an erroneous teaching. Rather, the prohibition of eating meat and milk products together was learnt by way of an inference from minor to major premise (A Fortiori). If it is wrong to merely cook meat and milk together, how much more then would it be wrong to eat them together!

David

Shimon Senders,
It was Rashi who said that a "kid's meat" was euphemistically used to mean meat from all behema, although kid was most common those days. It's like saying "a steak" today. It could be a stake from any behema. So a gezera was not necessary to get meat from other behema included. Therefore Basar veHalav is clearly Torah d'oraita.

Shimon Senders said:

quote:

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

This is also incorrect. There are many Rishonim incliuding Rashi and the Shiltay Giborim who say that a woman going out with uncovered hair is a BIBLICAL prohibition. The Gemmorah explains it is only considered a "Das Yehudis" in a situation where part of her hair is already covered. _

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H
Shimon mentioned the matter of Basar be-halav, saying in the name of some teacher that it was בל תוסיף. This is, without question, an erroneous teaching. Rather, the prohibition of eating meat and milk products together was learnt by way of an inference from minor to major premise (A Fortiori). If it is wrong to merely cook meat and milk together, how much more then would it be wrong to eat them together!
[end quote]

There are two possible actions and two specific animals, resulting in 4 (soon to be five) situations.
1. Bishul Bassar im Chalav
2. Achilas Bassar im chalav
3. Bishul Owf im Chalav
5. Achilas Owf im Chalav

I just looked it up in the Rambam (Thanks mechon-mamre.org), whose introduction to the Sepher Hamitzvos is where the bal tosef remark comes from (he asks why is adding to the Torah not Bal Tosef, and answers that as long as we don't make nay claims at misconstruing what is and is not deoraisa, and we say about a derobnana that it is a derobanan, its not bal tosef...from which it seems clear that were we too claim--knowingly--that a derabanan is a deoraisa we would be 'over bal tossef.), and I am still unclear about it from his words. Unfortunately I don't have a Shulchan Aruch in front of me to look up the SHach, as Rabbi Kacev suggested, but I had always thought the Shulchan Aruch to be mashma that #2 above needs to be divided into two categories. The first is eating bassar and chalav cooked together (call it 2a) and hte second is eating bassar (real meat, not owf) with milk, where there is no bishul involved.

I had always been under the impression that 2b, 3, and 4 were all derabanan, as just pashut pshat in the S"A. #1 is the deoraisa. Though it is nice to present it in the kal vechomer (a fortiori) manner, there is really no need to mention specifically eating the assur cooked bassar bechalav, when it comes to halacha, though I believe the S"A does mention it, since cooked basar bechalav is assur in any type of hana'a, automatically including eating, mideoraisa. So 2a is mideoraisa, but that is included in the issur of Bishul Bassar bechalav and the issur hana'a associated with it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but achilas bassar bechalav....WITHOUT the issur deoraisa of bishul being involved at all...is, in fact, a derabanan, at least according to the Mechaber. I will look this up as soon as I get a chance...and hte Shach too. (I am not at home, but there are shull's around.)

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Y. Kacev:
Shimon Senders said:

quote:

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

This is also incorrect. There are many Rishonim incliuding Rashi and the Shiltay Giborim who say that a woman going out with uncovered hair is a BIBLICAL prohibition. The Gemmorah explains it is only considered a "Das Yehudis" in a situation where part of her hair is already covered. _

I was wondering if it would be ok to get hte maare mekomos on that Rashi. (and boy, the tone of that earlier post of mine is horrible...sounds so authoritative...sorry about that everybody)

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Two points:

1) A CORRECTION: (I should have rather written "Jewish women who are married")

Where the Torah says, "Uncover her head," it implies that ALL Jewish women who are married went with their heads covered.

Actually, David, for the sake of accuracy The Tanna de'vei R. Yishmael says that "uncover her head" implies that ALL daughters of Israel should go with heads covered. Your modification of only married women was a later lenient addition in the halachic literature.

I stand by my previous statement that perhaps this was a response to the general society relaxing the standards of modesty by hair.

Your "correction" does not really add anything new to the discussion, as it is NOT CORRECT. Go back and check your sources.

B"H

Mike,

While it is true that Rambam requires all women (married and unmarried) to go with their heads covered - and, thus, was it practiced in Yemen, still the teaching in the Torah that says "Uncover her head," refers specifically to the suspected adulteress who is, obviously, a married woman. If you want to infer anything about the statement, you should at least infer that it speaks about married women.

Thank-you for pointing out to me the teaching in Tanna de Be-Yishmael. I didn't know this. מכל מלמדי השכלתי

Quote "A certain Rav mentioned Eating Bassar Bechalav is learned from the Torah. Saying this is 'over Bal Tossef,"

This is incorrect. It's Basar oyf (fowl) which is D'rabanon which the Shach in YD 87:4. Regular bassar V'Chalov is d'oirassah to everyone.

What Moshe Rabeinu held is only known to us through our Mesorah, which the Gemarah tells us what it is. We don't accept every Tom Dick and Harrys critique on Chazal's Drasha to tell us which one's are authentic or not.

The big difference between Yom Kipper and Kisuy Rosh is that eating today doesn't tell us about what was before, but only for the present. By Kisoy Harosh, when the Torah says to uncover, it shows us what is the accepted position that should be before hand, that the Torah expects it to be covered to uncover it.

The Gemarah makes the CHiluk when it's D'Oiraisah and when it's Daas Yehudis, so there is no question there.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
... the teaching in the Torah that says "Uncover her head," refers specifically to the suspected adulteress who is, obviously, a married woman. If you want to infer anything about the statement, you should at least infer that it speaks about married women.

Thank-you for pointing out to me the teaching in Tanna de Be-Yishmael. I didn't know this. מכל מלמדי השכלתי

David:

You are welcome. We are all here to learn.

The fact that the specific case in the torah is by force a married woman (sotah) did not stop R. Yishmael (it was not me who inferred this) from declaring that from here we can learn that ALL daughters of israel covered. The fact that this case happens to be a married woman is not meant to limit this law only to married women.

Thus, we can see from here that there is a subjective societal component to this law, as the law originally included all women, and then was changed to exclude unmarried women.

In today's society, where hair is no longer considered to be immodest even for married women...

B"H

Mike,

You wrote: "...Thus, we can see from here that there is a subjective societal component to this law, as the law originally included all women, and then was changed to exclude unmarried women.

In today's society, where hair is no longer considered to be immodest even for married women..."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If there is a "subjective societal component to this law," as you suggested, then this does not mean that the law has changed. It means that people simply adapt themselves to their societies and cultural surroundings.

In Yemen, the law has never changed. It is the same for married women and younger girls who are unmarried.

Although unmarried girls who come to this country (Israel) from Yemen eventually stop wearing their head scarves so as not to be different from their peers, this has never happened (and will never happen) with the older married women who come here - even if they should find themselves feeling different from those secular women who go in public with their heads uncovered. So, we see here, the same law concerning covering one's hair seems to be more strictly applied to married women than to single women. This is also learnt by Meseches Ketuvos, where we find the issue of wearing scarves is "Minhag Yehudis."
There is no compromising when it comes to married women wearing head gear.

David

quote:

Originally posted by Mike;

The fact that the specific case in the torah is by force a married woman (sotah) did not stop R. Yishmael (it was not me who inferred this) from declaring that from here we can learn that ALL daughters of israel covered. The fact that this case happens to be a married woman is not meant to limit this law only to married women.

Thus, we can see from here that there is a subjective societal component to this law, as the law originally included all women, and then was changed to exclude unmarried women.

In today's society, where hair is no longer considered to be immodest even for married women...

What you are saying is not really correct. Rabbi Yishmael was referring to married women only as pointed out by the Bach in Even Haezer.Therefore this prohibition is NOT subjective and applies in all times and places.

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Y. Kacev:
Originally posted by Mike:

Thus we see from here that there is a subjective societal component to this law, as the law originally included all women, and then was changed to exclude unmarried women.


Rabbi Kacev posted:

Rabbi Yishmael was referring to married women only as pointed out by the Bach in Even Haezer.

Rabbi Kacev:

I would greatly appreciate it if you can please cite the entire Bach you were referring to. I do not have access to the TUR at the present moment.

Thank You.

The major question that we need to figure out before we come to any conclusion is whether any sort of hair covering is a deoraisa...or is it all minhag.

This is a Machlokes. Simple as that.

The second question is whether if its a minhag, it can ever change.

This too seems to be a machlokes (especially among hte Sepharadi poskim)

In my earlier posts I had thought that everyone held it was a minhag and hte question was whether the minhag still stuck, or whether it was ever possile for it to change once accepted. I was arguing in past posts...that it is possible but whether it, in fact, has change is a different issue.

Quote "The major question that we need to figure out before we come to any conclusion is whether any sort of hair covering is a deoraisa...or is it all minhag.

This is a Machlokes. Simple as that."

It's a Machlokes between whom?


Quote "The second question is whether if its a minhag, it can ever change.

This too seems to be a machlokes (especially among hte Sepharadi poskim)"

Also, who is the Machlokes between whom?

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Y. Kacev:
Originally posted by Mike:

Thus we see from here that there is a subjective societal component to this law, as the law originally included all women, and then was changed to exclude unmarried women.


Rabbi Kacev posted:

Rabbi Yishmael was referring to married women only as pointed out by the Bach in Even Haezer.

The Bach on TUR:
This (the halacha that jewish women, married or not, should not walk in the marketplace with their hair uncovered) is based on the statement by the school of Rabbi Yishmael: "Jewish women are warned not to go out with their hair uncovered." As the warning is addressed to "jewish women" and not "married" ones, it presumably applies to ALL, married or not.

The Bach does NOT state that R. Yishmael was referring to married women only. In fact, the Bach says that R. Yishmael was referring to ALL women.

This reading of the Bach lends support to my statement above that there is a societal subjective component to this law.

The Mordechai (as well as the Bach) quotes the Ravyah who states that everything which is mentioned (in the gemara) regarding erva is limited only to those areas that are REGULARLY COVERED. Regardng a virgin, there is no suspicion of erotic thought, because it is usual and customary for her to REGULARLY UNCOVER her hair.

Thus, according to the Ravyah, whether or not uncovered hair on a woman is erva is SUBJECTIVE to whether or not it is REGULARLY COVERED. If hair is REGULARLY UNCOVERED, it is NOT CONSIDERED erva.

As to whether today, women's hair, which in our society is REGULARLY UNCOVERED is considered erva...