Mike,
Could you clarify what you mean by "society". Do you mean Jewish society? Do you mean Jewish society as it is supposed to be or as it has become? If we were to go by a fluid definition of society we would be in trouble for much of our halacha and minhagim.

quote:

Originally posted by Avi d'Israeli:
Mike,
Could you clarify what you mean by "society"...

Avi:

Very good question. IMO, "society" is the sphere in which we function. IOW, if we were to all live in a ghetto, and our daily interactions are only with jewish women who regularly cover their hair, then uncovered hair would be immodest.
But, if we live under societal circumstances where we interact with women the overwhelming majority of whom do not cover their hair, then the circumstance is that of REGULARLY UNCOVERED, and uncovered hair would NOT be immodest. "Society" is a subjective concept. There is not a single definition.

Mike,

Surely, by your definition, the whole concept of tzniut would go out the window. Women in this society go around practically naked. Are we (Jews) to accept that as the "societal" norm for ourselves?

In "most" Jewish communities (consider that 20% of Jews - tops - are observant), driving on Shabbat is the norm. Shall we then accept that as our norm? I can go on and on about this. Our halacha and minhagim have to be anchored somewhere and we cannot achieve that through "societal" norms. In fact, societal norms are what spawned the "Enlightenment".

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
[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...[/QUOTE

END OF QUOTE-------------------------------------

You are correct, the Bach is the one who says ALL women are included in the prohibition of Rebbi Yishmoel. What I meant to bring was the opinion of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe Even Haezer vol 1,57 where he clearly states the prohibtion of Rebbi Yishmoel applies ONLY to married women,as the Torah only mentions the wife. Thus, a Torah prohibition has NO bearing as to what the custom of people are and applies to all times and places. I apologize for the misquote.

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:
...the opinion of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe Even Haezer vol 1,57...

Rabbi Kacev:

Can you please relate the specific question asked of Rav Moshe, and what his answer was?
I am interested in the context of his understanding of Rabbi Yishmael.

Thank You.

שו"ת אגרות משה חלק אה"ע א סימן נז

באיסור פריעת הראש לאלמנה במקום הפסד גדול.

נשאלתי בדבר אשה שנתאלמנה וצריכה לפרנס בניה ואינה מוצאה להשתכר למשרה שיהיה כדי לפרנס את בניה אלא באם לא תכסה את ראשה כשתהיה בהאפיס /במשרד/ לעבוד במשרתה אם רשאה. והשבתי שיש להתיר לה בצורך גדול כזה, דהא פשוט שאף להב"ש והדגמ"ר /אה"ע/ בסי' כ"א סק"ה שסברי מירושלמי שגם אלמנה אסורה ללכת פרועת ראש הוא רק מצד דת יהודית דמדאורייתא הא רק בא"א נאמר, ולכן כיון שיש לפרש דמאחר שלא נאמר בתורה בלשון איסור הוא רק חיוב עשה שתלך בכיסוי הראש. ומסתבר לע"ד שבזה פליגי ב' הלשונות ברש"י כתובות דף ע"ב בפירוש הילפותא דללישנא קמא שפי' דמדעבדינן לה הכי לנוולה מדה כנגד מדה כמו שעשתה להתנאות מכלל דאסור סובר שהוא איסור ועיין בריטב"א שכתב לפי' זה דרש"י מכלל דפריעת הראש פריצות הוא לאשה שלכן ודאי הוא איסור וללישנא בתרא שפי' מדכתיב ופרע מכלל דההיא שעתא לאו פרועה הוה ש"מ אין דרך בנות ישראל לצאת פרועות ראש משמע דהוא ענין מצוה עליה ללכת בכיסוי הראש ולא ענין איסור רק שממילא נעשה איסור דהא עוברת על העשה כשהולכת פרועת ראש ומסיק רש"י שכן עיקר. והחלוק לדינא הוא דאם הוא איסור יש לאסור אף בהפסד גדול שתפסיד כל ממונה אבל אם הוא רק חיוב עשה הוי גם אונס ממון דיותר מחומש אונס דבעשה חייב רק עד חומש. ולכן כל שהוא הפסד כחומש נכסיו ויותר כהא שאין משגת משרה להרויח לחיותה וחיות בניה הוא אונס שאינה מחוייבת ללישנא בתרא שהוא עיקר.

אך מ"מ בא"א שהוא דאורייתא יש לאסור מספק פי' לישנא קמא דרש"י שסובר שהוא איסור שלכן יש לאסור אף להפסד דכל ממונה אבל באלמנה שהוא רק דת יהודית יש להקל מספק דודאי לא חמיר מאיסור דרבנן שספק לקולא. ויש גם לומר שאולי דת יהודית הוא רק מדיני מנהג שאין לאסור באופן שלא מצינו שנהגו ובמקום הפסד הא לא מצינו שנהגו, משה פיינשטיין

quote:

Originally posted by Avi d'Israeli:
Mike,

Surely, by your definition, the whole concept of tzniut would go out the window. Women in this society go around practically naked. Are we (Jews) to accept that as the "societal" norm for ourselves?

In "most" Jewish communities (consider that 20% of Jews - tops - are observant), driving on Shabbat is the norm. Shall we then accept that as our norm? I can go on and on about this. Our halacha and minhagim have to be anchored somewhere and we cannot achieve that through "societal" norms. In fact, societal norms are what spawned the "Enlightenment".

Avi:

Nowhere in the halachic literature is there a suggestion that the laws of shabbat are subject to societal norms. Ditto for laws of kashrut.

Laws of covering hair and modesty are different in that they are subject to societal components. We see this from the Ravyah (at least regarding hair covering), and he is not alone in suggesting subjectivity in laws of modesty.

I do not agree with your assertion regarding the concept of tzniut. We, as jews, do not have to emulate the way women in our society dress. But we must make a choice: Either we accept society's mores and standards of modesty, or if we deem these mores are immoral, then we must withdraw from this depraved society. This is the choice of those people who sincerely believe that the society we live in is not fit for moral people. By choosing to live in NYC, or Chicago, rather than in Lancaster, Pa. or Kfar Chabad, we are declaring that no matter what we espouse, we really do not have a problem with the standards of modesty of society.

Avi, I hope this answers your question.

Yisroel-Thank you very much.

quote:

Laws of covering hair and modesty are different in that they are subject to societal components. We see this from the Ravyah (at least regarding hair covering), and he is not alone in suggesting subjectivity in laws of modesty.

Mike,
If you single out, specifically, the laws of modesty as being different from others, then I cannot argue with your premise.
Shalom!

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:

...What I meant to bring was the opinion of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe Even Haezer vol 1,57 where he clearly states the prohibtion of Rebbi Yishmoel applies ONLY to married women,as the Torah only mentions the wife...

Rabbi Kacev:

I have examined the Shu"t of Iggros Moshe as brought by Yisroel Philips, and there is no mention of Rav Moshe "clearly stating" what you assert.

In fact, Rav Moshe is actually saying that regarding a woman who was once married, (about whom the Shulchan Aruch CLEARLY STATES is required to cover her hair) the laws of hair covering are SUBJECTIVE to whether or not they (the laws of hair covering) cause the woman a financial loss.

quote:

I have examined the Shu"t of Iggros Moshe as brought by Yisroel Philips, and there is no mention of Rav Moshe "clearly stating" what you assert.

In fact, Rav Moshe is actually saying that regarding a woman who was once married, (about whom the Shulchan Aruch CLEARLY STATES is required to cover her hair) the laws of hair covering are SUBJECTIVE to whether or not they (the laws of hair covering) cause the woman a financial loss.

Mike, Firstly Rav Moshe was in doubt as to whether a large financial loss was reason enough to permit a woman to go to work with her hair uncovered.
His reason for thinking it might be permitted was not because this was a "subjective" mitzvah, but because it would fall under the rule that applies to ALL mitzvos, i.e. that one does not have to part with an enormous part of his money yo fulfill it. It has nothing to do with the custom of the people of that time.

However he was not sure if this was just a mitzvah to cover your hair or a prohibition, in which case no amount of financial loss would be reason enough to permit going out with an uncovered head.

But he clearly states that either way the source is from the Torah and only applies to women who were married.

Rabbi Kacev:

This responsa of Rav Moshe is very nuanced, and is therefore inconclusive to our discussion. It simply can not be proven from this responsa that Rabbi Yishmael's statement is different from the simple reading that the prohibition applies to ALL women.

As to the question of the prohibition of uncovered hair being of biblical or rabbinic origin, it is clear that there are opinions in the halachic literature to support both assertions. It is not universally believed in the halachic literature to be from the torah.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
Rabbi Kacev:

This responsa of Rav Moshe is very nuanced, and is therefore inconclusive to our discussion. It simply can not be proven from this responsa that Rabbi Yishmael's statement is different from the simple reading that the prohibition applies to ALL women.

As to the question of the prohibition of uncovered hair being of biblical or rabbinic origin, it is clear that there are opinions in the halachic literature to support both assertions. It is not universally believed in the halachic literature to be from the torah.

Here is a quote from his responsa;

"The TORAH prohibition of going out with uncovered hair applies only to MARRIED women."

What is unclear here?

Here is another quote from the responsa:

"It (covering hair) is NOT mentioned in the torah as A PROHIBITION"

And: "It is NOT a matter of A PROHIBITION"

Selectively quoting from this responsa can lead to conclusions which may not be Rav Moshe's intent. This responsa can only be looked at in its entirety. This is why I said that it is inconclusive for our discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
Here is another quote from the responsa:

"It (covering hair) is NOT mentioned in the torah as A PROHIBITION"

And: "It is NOT a matter of A PROHIBITION"

Selectively quoting from this responsa can lead to conclusions which may not be Rav Moshe's intent. This responsa can only be looked at in its entirety. This is why I said that it is inconclusive for our discussion.

I think the problem is that you have misunderstood what Rav Moshe is saying. He was saying that since the Torah does not express the matter of uncovered hair in terms of a prohibition
(The Torah does not say Do not go out without a headcovering) it is POSSIBLE that it is considered to be a positive commandment(cover your hair)rather than a negative (Dont cover your hair) Thus the quote you refer to is saying it is not a prohibition(negative commandment) but a positive precept(cover your hair)
But either way the obligation of covering one's hair comes from the TORAH according to Rav Moshe whether as a positive commandment or negative, even after looking at the responsa in ite entirety.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
Here is another quote from the responsa:

"It (covering hair) is NOT mentioned in the torah as A PROHIBITION"

And: "It is NOT a matter of A PROHIBITION"

Rabbi Kacev Posted:

I think the problem is that you have misunderstood what Rav Moshe is saying...

...But either way the obligation of covering one's hair comes from the TORAH according to Rav Moshe...

Rabbi Kacev:

I did not misunderstand Rav Moshe. All I did was merely quote his words. I did this to illustrate the hazards of quoting out of context.

I can argue that when Rav Moshe says MARRIED WOMEN in your (out of context) quote, he is not comparing this to never married women, but rather to the widow he was discussing in the first part of the sentence you partially quoted.

When Rav Moshe quotes Rabbi Yishmael, he does not say, as you assert, that Rabbi Yishmael is talking about married women.

Thus we are back to where we were before: Rabbi Yishmael says ALL women must cover their hair. The Bach also says ALL women must cover their hair.

We learn from the Ravyah that whether or not uncovered hair on a woman is considered erva, and must be covered, is subjective to whether or not it is regularly covered. If hair in general is regularly uncovered, it is not considered erva and is not required by halacha to be covered. How to apply the Ravyah to the standards of current society is subject to debate.

And finally, the issue of whether it is a torah or rabbinic prohibition is discussed in the halachic literature. It is not universally accepted as being a prohibition from the torah.

QUOTE FROM MIKE:

I can argue that when Rav Moshe says MARRIED WOMEN in your (out of context) quote, he is not comparing this to never married women, but rather to the widow he was discussing in the first part of the sentence you partially quoted.

When Rav Moshe quotes Rabbi Yishmael, he does not say, as you assert, that Rabbi Yishmael is talking about married women. END QUOTE

You can argue that, but it would not make any sense. If divorced women are exempt,certainly unmarried women are.

As I have already pointed out Rav Moshe says quite clearly that the Tanna Rebbi Yishmoel was referring to a married woman, so there is really no point to argue over it,because any one who wants can read it for themselves and see.