.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Ask Shifra

Something Different... Answering questions and making curious observations (online) since 2005.

Powered by WebAds

Thursday, September 15, 2005

The Business of Headcovering

There has been quite a bit of banter among the menfolk here at GH's blog about women's headcoverings.

I find this rather odd since my own husband makes every effort to stay out of my business regarding the level of modesty in dress that I choose to take upon myself.
"I have no opinion, it's your head!" is what he usually says when I ask him about matters of Kesui Rosh. This mode of thinking, however, seems to be unrepresentative of most men based on last night's head covering debate. I suppose it is to be expected - was it not MEN who decided upon these restrictions in the first place (based on the word of God of course....) without so much as consulting a woman?

Perhaps the covering of our heads is not even our OWN business but rather the business of rabbanim and ba'alim?
Now THAT's disturbing.

Speak up women! Give me some hope!
(comments from men are also welcome as long as they are respectful and on topic)


At 3:24 PM, Blogger Air Time said...

I agree with your husband. Your head, your decision. I'm just not xcrazy about the snood in public look.

At 3:28 PM, Blogger Shifra said...

AT - if you are still doing Jewish themed posters I think you should do one that says "My Head, My Choice"

At 8:27 AM, Blogger orthomom said...

OrthoDad has the same policy. But he prefers me to wear my wig or funky hats. So basically, his attitude is "Your head, your decision", but only if what's on my head looks good.

At 11:11 AM, Blogger Krum as a bagel said...

Same policy here. Established very early on in our marriage.

At 12:36 PM, Blogger Looking Forward said...

i know i kinda don't have an oppinion but all the same, personaly i just think that the tichels (and snoods for that matter) make a woman more attractive... (i know i'm kinda weird) but other than that i personaly think it really is her head, her decision. just like a guy can chose to wear a kippa sruga to cover his head or velvet (or cloth like me). :-)

At 2:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A woman's head covering is a personal choice, just like a man's is. My philosophy is: As long as it is covered... (shaitel, hat, scarf, kippah sruga, suede, baseball cap)

At 4:41 PM, Blogger Noam S said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 4:43 PM, Blogger Noam S said...

Addendum. I did not mean to leave R. Broyde's email and address on the post. Please do not bother him. Feel free to direct any vitriol towards me.

At 11:00 PM, Blogger Air Time said...

Shifra -

If I did I would use an old Sinead O'Conner picture.

At 11:32 PM, Blogger Shifra said...

AT - I think that's awesome!

At 2:05 PM, Blogger AMSHINOVER said...

comments from men are also welcome as long as they are respectful and on topic
Is that like a nice way say
"Amshinover you are not invited"

At 2:13 PM, Blogger Shifra said...


Actually I didn't see your two cents on the GH's sheital-head-thread.

Go ahead and tell us: What's your feeling about how a woman should cover her hair.

At 10:48 AM, Blogger Just Passing Through said...

While I agree in priciple with "it's your head, your choice", I admit that I may have some issues with bad choices :-)

At 2:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"his mode of thinking, however, seems to be unrepresentative of most men based on last night's head covering debate. I suppose it is to be expected - was it not MEN who decided upon these restrictions in the first place (based on the word of God of course....) without so much as consulting a woman?"

actually, i don't think so. The takana was in the context of a society where women were already covering their hair; the idea was that women who uncovered their hair were doing the equivalent of taking a wedding ring off in a bar. I don't think it was chazal's idea that they start - they were describing the reality and reacting to it. Das yehudis implies that this is what women already do. Of course, what women were doing was probably influenced by men, but still...

To this day, many of the exceptionaly stupid tznius chumras are started by women. I'm pretty sure sewing up slits was originally some rebbetzin's idea. The campaign against patterned stockings, ditto. The patriarchy argument is more of a sociological background/context argument.

At 3:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"was it not MEN who decided upon these restrictions in the first place (based on the word of God of course....) without so much as consulting a woman?"

Um, no. It is in the Torah itself and described in the Gemara. Now, of course if you dont believe that G-d gave the Torah, what is the point of even considering the issue?

At 4:17 PM, Blogger Shifra said...

Ah too many Anons.

Anon #1- you raise an interesting point about Judaism in general. How much of halacha is God's original intent for man and how much has been added (in snowball fashion) from the places and people we have been exposed to?
I suppose to some extent it doesn't matter that much since at some point it was all codified in the gemarah and developed into the halacha that most orthodox Jews accept today.
Everything that comes AFTER that however (at least for me)and especially modern interpretations certainly are up for questioning.

I think that Anon #1 addresses your issue Anon #2- when the torah (in sota for example) speaks of uncovering a woman's hair - the question remains about why it was covered in the first place.

If the torah explicitly stated "and a married woman must cover her hair" it would be a little more straightforward and therefore easier to accept.
I think my writing may have been unclear- I don't think that men wrote the torah, I think it was divine in origin. I do believe however that the interpretation that married women should cover their heads BASED on various verses in the torah was the work of men.

At 1:20 PM, Blogger Noam S said...

Here is a article that reflects my position. I posted it at the House a while back and it recieved a lot of discussion(most of it negative and not on the topic, I am sad to say)

Defending the Custom in Lithuania
that Married Women Did not Cover Their Hair

Michael Broyde

The halachic issues involved in defending the minhagim of a community that has now nearly disappeared is a complex one, and a task not to be taken lightly. Indeed, perhaps one of the failures of our religious community is that we sometimes forget that the concept of not ignoring the teachings of our mothers (al titash torat imecha) and minhag ha'avot (observing the custom's of our fathers), includes not only the acceptance of their strictures, but -- at the least -- the validation of their halachicly based leniencies too.

One such issue was recently touched on by Rabbi Meyer Schiller in his excellent article entitled "The Obligation of Married Women to Cover their Hair" JHCS 30 pp. 81-108 (1995) when he states that:
It is fairly well known that among Lithuanian Jews and their leaders after World War I many married women uncovered their hair. This was common even among rabbinic families.
I question one phrase in this paragraph: the words "after World War I." It is quite clear from both the halachic and historical literature that this uncovering was the practice of the community in Lita (Lithuania) a 100 years before World War I, when Orthodox observance and culture was at its strongest. For proof of this, one need only examine the fact that many poskim note this uncovering in the 1870s as already being well established; see e.g. Rabbi Yosef Chaim (Ben Ish Chai) Parshat Bo 12 (writing around 1870). Rabbi Yecheil Epstein's famous remarks on the commonness of this practice (Aruch HaShulchan OC 75:7) were published in 1903, and Rabbi Kagen's (Mishnah Berurah OC 75:2) in 1881; both of them are clearly referring to what is then an already very well established practice, and not one that took root after World War I, which started in 1914. So too, even a casual survey of Lithuanian Yiddish and Hebrew fiction of the late 1800s indicates that most of women in the observant community of Lithuania did not cover their hair in the 1800s; see for example the well known Yiddish writer Yitzchak Moshe Rumsch's work, Se'ar She-ba'isha (Vilna, 1894) for a "fictionalized" discussion of these issues.

If that is the case, and what is being dealt with is a well-developed custom of the established Orthodox community of Lithuania -- a community that many now perceive as the idealized paradigm for non-chasidic Orthodoxy -- one has no choice but to disagree with Rabbi Schiller's final remarks on this custom that:
the Lithuanian practice is probably best seen as an aberration which, when the time became more receptive, was quickly abandoned. It may be understood in the context of the general laxity which enveloped East European Orthodoxy concerning this halacha in the post World War I era.
This minhag was not a product of the "general laxity" of religious observance in Lithuania in the years when this "practice" was developed; nor was this minhag abandoned. It came to an end with the nearly complete destruction of the Lithuanian Jewish community during the Holocaust.

What then is the halachic basis for this widespread custom emanating from this venerated Torah community? Both the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (based on a wealth of rishonim ) codify the prohibition for a woman to uncover her hair even completely as a dat yehudit. Dat yehudit is the term used for the socially determined customs of modesty of Jewish women -- minhag tzininut she-nohagu benot yisrael (Even Haezer 115:5) -- which according to most poskim is not immutable but which can and does change with the customs of Jewish women; see Iggrot Moshe EH 4:32(4), Yabia Omer 3:21 and many sources cited by Rabbi Schiller. Thus, the simple understanding of the Shulchan Aruch's and Tur's discussion of why even fully uncovered hair violates halacha places the prohibition in a halachic context that indicates it to be dependent on the local custom of "modest Jewish women," which certainly was, historically, to cover their hair. This would, however, imply that in a society where the normative custom of observant Jewish women is go without their hair covered, such conduct is permitted, according to Tur and Shulchan Aruch. (As Rabbi Schiller notes, the Beit Shmuel disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch and Tur's classification of the prohibition of full uncovering as dat yehudit.) So too, in a society where many women do not cover their hair at all, the secondary reasons for covering cited by Rabbi Schiller (at pages 93-94) -- licentiousness and Gentile practices -- also disappear. These insights alone perhaps justify the minhag of the Lithuanian community.

While one will not find teshuvot from the Lithuanian Torah community defending this minhag, this perhaps reflects the nature of Torah scholarship and discourse by the Lithuanian poskim, which generally did not focus on halacha le-maseh. With notable exceptions, it focused its profound intellectual energies on -- and produced many Torah works of unsurpassed virtue relating to -- abstract talmudic study, methods of categorization and conceptual analysis of Torah precepts. Not surprisingly, within the Lithuanian Torah community and its writings one can find quite a number of authorities, who -- as was the style -- provided forms of categorization for the obligation of women to cover their hair which indicated that there is no torah obligation for a woman to cover her hair in a society where uncovering is not perceived as immodest.

For example, Rabbi Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv), a premier Lithuanian authority, in Amek HaNetziv, Sifri Naso 11 argues that whether there is a Torah obligation for women to cover their hair conceptually parallels and is interrelated to the dispute between Rosh and Ravad in Moad Katan 14a (Rosh, Moad Katan 3:3) as to whether torah law prohibits a mourner from having his hair cut. Both cases, Netziv notes, share the common context of the Almighty explicitly directing that a particular act be done in a special and unique circumstance: In one case He directs "roshechem al tefromu" -- that Aaron and his children should cut their hair even though they are mourners, and in the other case He commands "upara et rosh haisha" -- that the hair of a married woman to be uncovered or dishevelled during the sotah ritual. The question is whether the Divine edict directing an act to be done in one unique circumstance implies that in all other circumstances such conduct is prohibited or not?

The Netziv states that Ravad, who rules haircutting is prohibited by Torah law for all mourners generally and that the Lord had to specifically tell Aaron to cut his hair, would rule that torah law also mandates hair covering for all women generally. Ravad maintains that uncovering of hair in the sotah ritual is only permitted because the Lord specifically directed that uncovering of hair (which is generally prohibited) should be done during this ritual. Rosh, who rules that torah law does not prohibit hair cutting for mourner generally, would rule that torah law does not mandate hair covering for a woman generally. According to the Rosh, no hair cutting for a mourner and hair covering for a women are both merely customs, which the Almighty directed must not be observed in specific circumstances. This observation of Netziv would explain why Tur, who was the Rosh's son, categorized even full uncovering as a dat yehudit, a custom. Indeed, although the Netziv does not add this, he is certainly aware of the fact that normative halacha rejects the approach of Ravad and accepts that of Rosh vis-a-vis mourners; see YD 398:1 and 399:13).

One must also add to this mix the well known school of thought which rules the torah obligation for women's hair is limited to dishevelled, rather than uncovered, hair (see Shevot Yaakov 1:103). Indeed, many other limiting forms of analysis from Lithuanian poskim can also be cited related to woman's obligation to cover their hair; see Minchat Ani, s.v. Gilui Sair Benashim; Sedia Chemed 4:19 s.v. Deoriyta; Shut VaYashav Yosef YD 1-3; Chedushai Hafla, Ketubot 72a; Chedushai Mahardam al Sefer Hamitzvot LeHarambam, 175.

Thus, one sees the clear outlines of a halachic justification for uncovered hair begin to appear that might have been used in Lithuanian rabbinical circles and explains why married women did not cover their hair. Indeed, one can find quite a number of achronim who advance explanations for the obligation to cover their hair that lead one to conclude that in situations where modest people generally do not cover, halacha does not mandate such covering. Included in that list are: Sh"t R. Yitzchak Halevi 9 (Brother of the Taz, who discusses whether an arusa has to cover her hair, and relates covering to hirhurim, sexual thoughts); Sh"t Moshe ibn Chabiv EH 1 (who relates the obligation to cover to the societal norm of covering); Machatzek Hashekel EH 21 (same); Sh"t Sefer Yehoshua 89 (who states "but if the custom had been for all Jewish women to uncover their hair, there would be no prohibition even for married women"); Sh"t Vayashav Yosef (Burlow) YD 1; Sefer Chukai Nashim (by the author of the Ben Ish Chai) page 55 (same, but with less certainty); Sh"t Etz Chaim OC 12 (same); Yad Halevi al sefer hamitzvot shel Harambam Aseh 175 (same); Perush Lesefer Hamitzvot Shel Rav Sadya Gaon Aseh 96 (hair covering is a bechukotayhim issue).

The custom of Lithuanian Orthodoxy is not unique in this matter either. At least one other devout Orthodox community also accepted as normative that halacha does not require that married women cover their hair when modest Gentile women do not; this was the practice of the Algerian (and Moroccan) Orthodox community from well before 1900 also. The poskim of this community explicitly defended its custom in this matter with considerable zeal, and one can find a number of teshuvot on this topic from leaders of their community sanctioning this practice. (This Jewish community, like all others in Arab lands, was dispersed and essentially destroyed during the 1950s.) Indeed, to this day, the halachic leadership of this North African Jewish community in Israel maintains that hair covering is not required; see Rabbi Moshe Malka, VaHashiv Moshe 1:34 and 35 and Rabbi Yosef Massas, Mayim Chaim 2:110.

In my view, all of these authorities build on the simple conceptual insight found in Kiddushin 81b-82a which states:
Mar also follows the view of Shmuel, who states, one should not involve himself with women [touching] at all. He replied, 'we accept the other view of Shmuel, who recounts that touching for the sake of heaven is permitted.'
Rashi comments, to justify non-sexual touching that:
Rashi: All for the Sake of Heaven: and my thoughts are not about this women for the sake of sexuality or marriage, but rather touching and making pleasantries with this woman for the sake of her daughter.

Tosafot elaborates and states:

Tosaphot: All for the Sake of Heaven: This is what we rely on since we involve ourselves [touch] with women.

A similar such view is articulated by the Ritva commenting on this talmudic passage. He states:

All is dependent on wisdom and the sake of heaven. This is the normative rule of Jewish law, that all is dependent on what a person sees in himself. If he needs to distance him more, he must do so, even such that he not see women's undergarments when they are being washed. So too if he sees in himself that he has no erotic thoughts, he can look and speak with a prohibited sexual relationship and to ask about the well being of a married women, and this explains the conduct of Rav Yochanan who looked on the women as they were immersing, without any erotic intent, and Rav Ami who spoke with the kings mother, and other Rabbis who spoke with various Matrons [immodest women} and Rav Ada bar Ahava who danced with the bride on his shoulders at a wedding, none of whom where afraid of erotic thoughts. Rather, one should not be lenient on these matter unless one is a greatly pious person.

Similar such sentiments are expressed in Yam Shel Shlomo commenting on Kiddushin 81b. He states:
All is dependent on the that which one sees in one's eyes and feels in one's yetzer. Thus it is permitted to speak and look at an ervah, and ask about her well being. This is what the world relies on as we touch, speak, and look, but still in the bathhouse it is prohibited......
This view is quoted by Pitchay Teshuva Even Haezer 21:4.

All of this has a foundation in the famous formulation of the Ravya on Brachout 24a (siman 76) that all body parts of a women are only prohibited for a man to glaze at when normal women in his society cover these body parts, and thus they are erotic because they are covered. Otherwise (i.e, when normally revealed) they are not erotic, and need not be covered.

In this view, non-erotic activity is permitted since it is only touching grounded in eroticism that is always prohibited. To extrapolate this to the next step, which is that a woman may reveal areas of her body that are generally covered when (in time and place) such act of revelation is not thought immodest, is not far-fetched at all. Indeed, many women will go to a male obstetrician (even when a woman doctor is avalable, but merely less convenient), based on the view that even revealing makom ha'ervah to a man is permitted when the context deems it not erotic. Hair -- the logical assertion is made -- cannot be subject to any more restrictions than makom ha'ervah mamash. In a society where hair is generally treated without erotic content, such is permissible all the time, these rishonim would claim. And it for exactly that reasons that hair covering is classified as a dat yehudit (and not a dat moshe) in the Shulchan Aruch (as noted above) as it can change based on social norms.

In short, the established custom of Lithuanian orthodoxy was that married women did not cover their hair, and this custom was 150 years old when it -- and every other halachic practice of the majestic Lithuanian community -- was destroyed by the Nazis (may the Lord avenge the destruction) a short fifty-five years ago. A similar custom can be found in the North African Orthodox community at roughly the same times. Halachic support for this practice can be found in the text of the Shulchan Aruch, as well as in the rulings of many rishonim, some poskim and a few shelot uteshuvot.

Lithuanian Jewry, like many other European communities of its time, had customs and practices that some in America no longer consider "normative" halacha. That does not in any way imply "laxity in observance of halacha" by that venerated Orthodox community. Casting aspersions on the fidelity to Jewish law and tradition by now-destroyed Jewish fortresses in Europe is uncalled for -- and also not supported by the halachic sources.

As to what this argument about Lithuania says about the reality in America, that will have to wait, but the theoretical conclusions are clear.

At 1:22 PM, Blogger Noam S said...

It appears the footnotes didn't make it. If any one wants a fuller copy feel free to email me.

At 4:19 PM, Blogger Mar Gavriel said...

Interesting article, Dilbert.

You wrote:
Mar also follows the view of Shmuel....

What's that you're sayin' about me?

At 6:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well i always felt that matters of spirituality are the hubbys domain
and everything else is the fairer spouses
ie he wants to eat gebrocks sure we'll eat gebrocks
no gebrocks ok your the inhouse rabinical authority
but if its pink or orange colored chairs hes got a say but she definitely rules
i think you should follow his lead in these matters
a couple of points if i may where do the kids go to school cause its best to conform if it makes the kids more comfortable seeing as your not set on anything anyway
how bout the neighborhood i know people gonna get ticked but dont wear anything that would label you unfrum
good luck

At 6:31 PM, Blogger Shifra said...

Anon at 6:19PM-
I don't know if you are male or female but either way I really need to question your response.

Why should women have no say on matters of spirituality?
I do realise that on matters of Minhag is it traditional in Orthodox circles to follow the husband.
I also agree that a married couple needs to make unified decisions on matters which affect them both (as well as their children).

HOWEVER saying that the man will rule over all spiritual matters while the woman decides on the sofa patterns does not seem in any way like an equal relationship.

I'm not sure what you mean by the woman "not being set on anything anyway." Does a woman have no opinions of her own prior to marriage? I certainly did!

Lastly, I would choose the school my kids go to based on what I'd want them to see there rather than change MY beliefs and practices to please the school.

As for me personally:
I do cover my hair
I DON'T care what the neighbors think

At 12:35 AM, Blogger Ayelet said...

I do cover my hair although it's something I find extremely annoying. And I do it because I want to and not because anyone is forcing me to or because I care what anyone will think. But, as a matter of principle, I do think my husband should care about my level of tznius, whether in dress or in head-covering. We are a team that is working to live fulfilling lives as Orthodox Jews and to build a home based on these values. How we dress/act/talk/etc. are all part of that. If I feel he is doing something that is beneath our standard, I would certainly say something and he, too, should say something to me. Of course, I reserve the right to grumble about it when he does say something.

At 9:16 AM, Blogger Shifra said...

Ayelet -
You make some good points.
Certainly a husband and wife should make decisions together regarding the way they live. Extreme differences in religious observance can certainly be a deal breaker.

Somehow though, I feel like women's issues are somewhat of an exception because they are personal, unlike keeping Shabbos for example which affects the entire family.
Clearly if a man feels his wife is really dressing in an unacceptable manner they should talk it out and try to reach some kind of agreement.

PS You have a beautiful name, I have a long lost friend named Ayelet.

At 11:54 PM, Blogger Hadar said...

I've read most of the posts. I find this topic very interesting as well. I am not married, but I have discussed the idea of head coverings with my newly married friend. I am more Modern Orthodox, but I have personal issues with covering the hair that makes me against it more so than 'for' it.
While I believe that women should be able to choose, and in this days society I don't find the need to cover the hair relevent, I do think that when persons grow up with a certain belief that they more readily 'think' that uncovering the hair is wrong due to tnius.

I don't think that the average person (whatever average means) really spends all day thinking about women ni "that" kind of way, so that if they uncover their hair they are immediately 'attractive' as if it is some huge difference?
I personally think that men will find a woman attractive no matter what she wears, how long, how thick, how covered, and if she wore a paper bag he would still find her attractive. This is just my point of view. Why spend $3000 on a natural hair wig that looks 100% better than your own hair if tnius is about being modest? What is modest about a wig that makes you look more gorgeous than you are? Which brings to mind the notion that not all men and women can tell when someone is wearing a wig. If someone can't tell, why not show your own hair in the first place. :)

At 11:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My husband and I discussed covering of the hair prior to getting married. He told me that it would be my decision. I decided to cover my hair, based on the many reasons given to do so.

At one of our sheva brachos, one of our friends asked him why he was *forcing* me to cover my hair. He was highly insulted, that it was assumed that it was his decision he was forcing on me. We believe that if one of us feels like we are being forced into do something, that we would not be in a healthy relationship.

My husband, sometimes, has preferences as to what styles and colors he likes for me to wear, etc. But he isn't choosing for me and that is a huge difference.


At 8:02 PM, Blogger Ayelet said...

Thanks for the compliment Shifra. Actually, when I was younger, I hated my name partly because it was Israeli-sounding (we moved here when I was 3) and I must have felt like it didn't "fit in". In fact, my mom tells me I came home from kindergarten one day and challenged her as to why she hadn't named me Gitty or Hindi! I have grown to love my name - especially for its uniqueness.
As for the topic at hand: I can't help but think of the sight of a Hassidic man dressed in his decidedly ultra-Orthodox garb who will turn his head while passing me to avoid looking at a woman...his wife, a few steps behind him, dressed in a less-than-strictly-orthodox manner. I tend to think he has some responsibility there as well. (Not that I go around judging people on a regular basis...but I think you know what I mean.)

At 12:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

fishstix said

I don't think that the average person (whatever average means) really spends all day thinking about women in "that" kind of way,

get real
see http://kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html

if i may quote:
54% of men think about 'that' everyday or several times a day, 43% a few times per month or a few times per week

yes men do think of women in 'that' way
sorry but there you have it
i once heard a tape from r. avigdor miller saying that beauty was created for the sake of pri urvi thats why it most dominant when the body is at the height of pri urvi'ness
id clarify but im not in the education business
as a male i can verify that this is a difficult issue with us even if we are happily married
a women whos parts show are eye candy and a greater effort is required to look away
same goes for smelling perfume your nose goes towards the smell
and since eyes are mounted directly above the nose you look and than look away (too late!)
there are those who say that these attractions are causing the man to sin therefore by doing any 'atraction' you are machtah es horabim

At 12:13 PM, Blogger Shifra said...

What do you recommend Chuck?
Women walking around in Burkas with a wreath of garlic around their necks?

I don't dispute the fact that men think about sex or are attracted to women (it goes both ways you know) but to BLAME women for it is not the answer.

Azeh hu gibor ha'kovesh et yitzro.
(who is strong? One who conquers his [evil] inclinations. - Perki Avos

At 12:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

true but
yesterday i was in kd manhatten
and this 20 something skinny as rail stood in from of me
she wore a short skirt a fuzzy white top no socks pointy boots smelled like some flowery stuff long etc etc (sorry it was a long line)
after 10 minutes i moved out of the line i was extremely uncomfortable
i agree that women cant and wont wear bulap sacks but please have rachmanus on us testosteronians
and if a man walked down the street in really really tight form fitting jeans you look too!
but on the average, men dont
while the average woman usually wears more form fitting clothing

At 6:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

one note if i may about actually covering the hair
anyone know the story of on ben pele from parshas korach?
in nutshell on was originally mentioned as a cohort of korach but never mentioned again sowhat happened to him?
he come home tell his wife bout korach she tells him eitheraaron or korach are gonna be the kohen gadol you're still just a second fiddle and you'll get in trouble if moshe wins
on:what do i do now?
mrs on:i'll take care of it
2 hours before the next big korach rally she makes him drink till he's drunk and snorin
she sits in the doorway of thier tent UNCOVERS her hair
korach henchmen come a callin seeing her with UNCOVERED hair they leave On ben Pele is saved
dilberts lecture aside covering hair is very old say 3300 years?
could be fashion over the years dictated styles but the religious woman always covered her hair somehow scarf, kerchief, veil, shawl, cap, hat ,turbans,and finally wigs and snoods
for something more explicit and recent
The Talmud in Kesuvos 72a states that the source for this prohibition is from BaMidbar (Numbers) 5:18 which deals with the laws of a sotah - a suspected adulteress - and states, "The priest shall stand the woman before God and uncover her hair...". Rash'i (Rabbi Shlomo Yitchaki, 1040-1105, author of the primary commentary on the Talmud) provides two explanations for the Talmud's conclusion, one, that from the fact that she is punished midah kneged midah (measure for measure) for exposing her hair to her paramour we see that this IS prohibited and, two, from the fact that we expose her hair we see that under normal conditions a Jewish woman's hair should be covered
but of course im male so its none of MY business right?

At 9:24 AM, Blogger Shifra said...

Well chuck, you make a good case, but ultimately each person needs to decide what they are willing to accept upon themselves, and this included women and their headcoverings despite your biblical and talmudic reasoning.

Also here is a punch of punctuation [.....,,,,,,......????!!!.....] as you seem to be short. Using it will make your posts easier to read and understand.

At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Punctuation, is fantastic. I'll use it. As much as I can. D'ya have, a spell checker, for me too?
Sorry when I write the words come faster than I type.
I posted elsewhere regarding
' ultimately each person needs to decide what they are willing to accept upon themselves'
is unacceptable. one must strive to do all.
You can't pick and choose, oh I love shabbos, but I gotta have my football game too!
I agree with your 'willing to accept upon themselves' regarding which kugal (of none at all) to eat.
But standard accepted issues like hair covering have to mean more than cholent.
Can you imagine some ashkenazik men deceiding that the kipa is not for them?
I can hear it now.
"well, you know its very unhygenic, makes your head sweat, goyim look at it weird it so it's mamish a chilul hashem, in short it's a mitzvah in this day and age NOT to wear one.
Besides moshe rabainu didn't wear one. It was started much much later." etc. etc.
You CANT pick and choose.
P.S. I'll keep the spare punctuation for later thanx.

At 6:19 PM, Blogger sandyhay said...

Hey!! Just surfing some sites and found this place. Cool!! I have a oracle small business software site where i try to sell oracle small business software related software. Drop by anytime.


Post a Comment

<< Home