Torah, Judaism and Jewish Networking
To All The Beardless...
To All The Beardless…
If you are a woman, this thread is not for you! Here, we wish to engage in the halachic ramifications of shaving one's beard, or being clean-shaven (with an electric Remmington shaver), when you are a Jewish man capable of growing a beard – whether full or scraggly.
Since much of this subject is new to me, it will be a learning experience for me. Honesty, I have read very little about this subject. What is presently known to me, however, I shall lay down in this initial post. I'm looking forward to your give-and-take on this important subject. Perhaps we can learn from each other what we should, or should not, be doing.
To commence, I'd like to open the thread with a short-story about "Moishe" whose dad had just passed away. After sitting "shiv'as yamei aveilus" (the seven days of mourning), he returned to his regular paying desk job with his face clearly marked by the signs of a growing beard. Surprised at seeing him, the "shiktze" secretary and a few of his Jewish compatriots who knew not that his father had passed away, said to him: "Hey, Moishe! You're growing a beard!" His sad but benign answer to them was, "Yes. I just lost my father." With that said, they all knew and understood that in Jewish law, when a man's closest relatives die, he must grow a beard as a sign of mourning.
Here, our story ends, although – sad to say – their perceptions of Moishe and of Jewish law are grossly mistaken! It is not that a Jew must grow a beard at the death of a close relative, but rather, he is not permitted to shave his beard! (Shulhan Arukh, YD 390:1). Moishe, who had no beard, could do no more than to grow out his own beard.
Being a former Yeshiva student, I have always been surprised at how young Jewish lads that begin to sprout their first facial growth are quick to take out their electric shavers in order to rid themselves of those unwanted hairs! Is it not a Jewish custom for the men folk to grow out their beards – especially frum (religious) men? Why all the concern for being clean-shaven? Do not beards add an element of dignity and grace to that person? Afterall, a grandfather without a white beard is a grandfather that has lost much of his "grandfather image." Still, by shaving his beard he could never really return to his youthful days and hide, thereby, his old age. Here, then, he's made himself lose out on two things: youthfulness, he can never return to; dignity, he forfeited.
While the Talmud (Makkos) prescribes the punishment of lashes to he that mars his beard or "peyos" (side-locks) with a razor, cutting your hair in those places with a pair of scissors, on the other hand, does not fit into this prohibition. Can it be implied, therefore, that simply because there is no punishment for cutting off one's beard with a pair of scissors that it is perfectly sanctioned? I should think not. What about Jewish practice and custom? Are we not obliged to keep and to maintain our Jewish customs? Afterall, we have a maxim that says: "minhag yisroel Torah hi" (a custom, once accepted by Israel, becomes as forceful as a thing of the Law that we must abide by). Is anyone to argue that it is not a Jewish custom to grow a beard?
David
If you are a woman, this thread is not for you! Here, we wish to engage in the halachic ramifications of shaving one's beard, or being clean-shaven (with an electric Remmington shaver), when you are a Jewish man capable of growing a beard – whether full or scraggly.
Since much of this subject is new to me, it will be a learning experience for me. Honesty, I have read very little about this subject. What is presently known to me, however, I shall lay down in this initial post. I'm looking forward to your give-and-take on this important subject. Perhaps we can learn from each other what we should, or should not, be doing.
To commence, I'd like to open the thread with a short-story about "Moishe" whose dad had just passed away. After sitting "shiv'as yamei aveilus" (the seven days of mourning), he returned to his regular paying desk job with his face clearly marked by the signs of a growing beard. Surprised at seeing him, the "shiktze" secretary and a few of his Jewish compatriots who knew not that his father had passed away, said to him: "Hey, Moishe! You're growing a beard!" His sad but benign answer to them was, "Yes. I just lost my father." With that said, they all knew and understood that in Jewish law, when a man's closest relatives die, he must grow a beard as a sign of mourning.
Here, our story ends, although – sad to say – their perceptions of Moishe and of Jewish law are grossly mistaken! It is not that a Jew must grow a beard at the death of a close relative, but rather, he is not permitted to shave his beard! (Shulhan Arukh, YD 390:1). Moishe, who had no beard, could do no more than to grow out his own beard.
Being a former Yeshiva student, I have always been surprised at how young Jewish lads that begin to sprout their first facial growth are quick to take out their electric shavers in order to rid themselves of those unwanted hairs! Is it not a Jewish custom for the men folk to grow out their beards – especially frum (religious) men? Why all the concern for being clean-shaven? Do not beards add an element of dignity and grace to that person? Afterall, a grandfather without a white beard is a grandfather that has lost much of his "grandfather image." Still, by shaving his beard he could never really return to his youthful days and hide, thereby, his old age. Here, then, he's made himself lose out on two things: youthfulness, he can never return to; dignity, he forfeited.
While the Talmud (Makkos) prescribes the punishment of lashes to he that mars his beard or "peyos" (side-locks) with a razor, cutting your hair in those places with a pair of scissors, on the other hand, does not fit into this prohibition. Can it be implied, therefore, that simply because there is no punishment for cutting off one's beard with a pair of scissors that it is perfectly sanctioned? I should think not. What about Jewish practice and custom? Are we not obliged to keep and to maintain our Jewish customs? Afterall, we have a maxim that says: "minhag yisroel Torah hi" (a custom, once accepted by Israel, becomes as forceful as a thing of the Law that we must abide by). Is anyone to argue that it is not a Jewish custom to grow a beard?
David
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on
-
Be disturbed all you like. I might ask similar questions about the suspected forgery Besamim Rosh, or the fake Yerushalmi on Kodshim, or the sefer Amar Yehoshua by Eldad HaDani. Regardless, even if we *were* to accept it as a legitimate midrashic source, there is a methodological question of whether to treat (early and) late midrashim as historical. There is a separate question of whether they were intended as literal or allegorical, but regardless, what you are attempting to do is as follows:
* Rather late, post-Talmudic "midrash" makes reference to some technology being used in Biblical times.
* Instead of treating this as an anachronism, take the details of this midrash absolutely literally.
* Also assume that if it was used in Biblical times, the specifics of the technology were passed down.
* Therefore, despite the fact that Chazal make no mention of it, Chazal obviously had knowledge of it.
* And treat "lo rainu" as a "raya," such that Chazal's lack of endorsing its use in a different context demonstrates that they disapproved of it.
I would disagree with this approach even if I *were* to consider it a legitimate midrashic source. I do not believe you have shown that Chazal knew about depilatory cream. And if the post-Talmudic targum sheni (from 400 - 1000 CE) on megillat esther makes reference to the Queen of Sheba having hairy legs, it is still a midrash which is later than Talmudic Chazal, and if I understand your description correctly, it does not even mention that Shlomo HaMelech solved this problem for her with depilatory cream.
As for מספרים כעין תער being used to remove all the hairs on the body of an Israelite, it would not surprise me.
This is a clever way of dancing out of the fact that you were unaware of the particulars of an important source in the entire Misparayim Ke'ein Taar discussion, in thinking that the gemara Nazir was referring to a Nazir than an actual Israelite, when you attempted to draw a distinction. And also that you were unaware that Rav Yosef Karo *explicitly* says what you implied (by asking) he does not. That is, in Shulchan Aruch Rav Yosef Karo *permits* misparayim keein taar, and in Beis Yosef he makes clear that he interprets other sources as permitting even lechatchila. Such that this is a case of "zil gmor." Before thinking to instruct others, learn the sources yourself.
In terms of
"The Torah only prohibits the תער on our beards, but does not prohibit our use of a razor on our legs, back, chest, etc. So this does not have much to do with our discussion about beards."
That may be, but there *was* a Rabbinic prohibition of men shaving pubic hair, under the arms and in the genital area. (Or else, a Biblical prohibition of "lo yilbash gever".) And by shaving all the body hair, this would also be shaved. (And the parallel Yerushalmi brings this prohibition up in terms of a safek nazir shaving all his body hair.) And the Bavli understands that by Taar, there would be this prohibition, yet with misparayim ke'ein taar, it would not.
Whether shaving a *beard* with misparayim ke'ein taar is permitted, based on the gemara, and thus Rav, classifying it as misparayim rather than taar, is something you might well ask upon. The fact remains, though, that as Rav Yosef Karo brought it down lehalacha in Shulchan Aruch, misparayim ke'ein taar on the peyot of the head (rather than beard) is a matter of dispute, and so he is choshesh for the position of those that forbid. But he outright permits, lechatchila, misparayim ke'ein taar for the beard.
You raise questions on it, and say that "this does not have much to do with our discussion about beards." I am not sure in what context you are saying it does not have much to do with it. In terms of relying of technical loopholes, this is a case of relying on a technical loophole (that misparayim ke'ein taar is not taar) to get around a Rabbinic prohibition (perhaps also rooted in lo yilbash gever) on removing such hair. And if in terms of whether such a distinction applies even to beard hair, we have you (who did not even learn through the relevant gemara in Nazir until now) arguing on Rav Yosef Karo, who says that the distinction does indeed hold here.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
-
Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on
-
My friend, Aryeh,
From my own personal observance, proofreading ancient texts and, occassionally, changing them to suit one's own personal whims, or beliefs, is more common in Ashkenazi circles than it is with our fellow Temanim (Yemenites). The Yemenites were very, very traditional, and have preserved copies of Maimonides' Code of Jewish Law (Mishne Torah) untouched by the scrivener's hand, as well as scores of other manuscripts. Of course, this is not the time or place to discuss this. Perhaps, though, some day.
David
-
-
R. Josh,
I thought I made it very clear from the start of this topic that I know very little about the subject of cutting away one's beard, that is to say, I have read very little about the subject. In recent days, however, I have been reading more about the subject. What I have learned thus far, I've posted.
If, however, the Nazir is permitted to shave away his entire body with a pair of scissors whose blades are made like razors, I would think in this case:
הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר
Translation: "The mouth that forbade a certain matter (i.e. G-d) is the same mouth that turned around and permitted the matter."
And even if we should find that R. Yosef Karo permits shaving a man's beard with such an implement (i.e. מספרים כעין תער), it would not be the first time that we've found R. Yosef Karo permitting one thing, yet, in essence, one or more communities in Israel continued to observe stringency in the matter according to an earlier tradition that they had. I will need more time to look again at the text and sources in Tractate Nazir, since the holidays have kept me away from doing this.
David
-
Permalink Reply by Aryeh Shore on
-
David Ben-Abraham said:
One can certainly say that the Yeminite texts have suffered much less in copying than Askenazic texts. The problem in general is that as a ms traveled from place to place, in each town the scribe or posek wrote down what he needed before passing it on, so we have many versions of each text. This doesn't prove authenticity of the author. If you copied or even had the original of a fake document, it is still a fake.My friend, Aryeh,
From my own personal observance, proofreading ancient texts and, occassionally, changing them to suit one's own personal whims, or beliefs, is more common in Ashkenazi circles than it is with our fellow Temanim (Yemenites). The Yemenites were very, very traditional, and have preserved copies of Maimonides' Code of Jewish Law (Mishne Torah) untouched by the scrivener's hand, as well as scores of other manuscripts. Of course, this is not the time or place to discuss this. Perhaps, though, some day.
David
The problem of course with the discordance in the Temini Mishneh Torah and other ms is not scribal errors but that it appears to be an early version. The real problem is the Rambam himself. We have an ms in his own handwriting and it is hopeless. He crossed out, wrote in between lines, wrote on the sides vertically and horizonally, made an outline of the chapter numbers and subjects and then filled it in but he didn't follow his own outline. At the top of one his pages, he writes in Arabic that the scribe should be careful. Good advice but impossible to follow.
Lets bring an example I just saw this week for Parshat Bereshit. It is taught in some chederim that the Rabbi Yitzchak mentioned in the first Rashi was his father. The source is the Taz who says that no such midrash exists. Rashi's father was not a great scholar and he ask his father the question so he could honor him by starting with a saying from him. As the Chidah points out, of course this statement can not be true, as of course there is a midrash in Tanchumah and Rashi brings his father's insights in the talmud to explain difficult sugyahs. It is a bad source.
-
-
Shalom!
1) Once again, if you have not learned enough on the subject, you should not come out instructing other people, as you attempted to do on this thread (and other threads), and declaring Rav Moshe Feinstein's talmidim as nebach, mumar lehachis, or not to eat my shechita (if I were a shochet) or their shechita.
(By the way, can you confirm or deny that my profile photo had anything to do with this thread?)
I am not too optimistic about your learning other sources. So far, my impression is that you take new sources and misinterpret them to reinforce your previously held position. For a recent example, that Maharik in the other thread.
My impression, right or wrong, is that you are proud of being Teimani. That is fine and wonderful. National and Jewish pride is great, as is being confident in the halachic rulings of your specific subgroup. However, where this could get "iffy" is where it extends to writing people, who follow different real halachic traditions, out of Judaism, or Orthodoxy. At that point, it begins to approach bigotry, xenophobia, and sinat chinam.
In general, I try to caution people about following *any* halachic recommendations they find on blogs or solely on the Internet. Rather, they should consult their local Orthodox rabbi. This extends even to my *own* conclusions. A recent example I posted last night, about buying a lulav/esrog set from a katan:
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/10/may-one-buy-lulavesrog-from-mino...
And this despite the fact that I am sure of my conclusions, and may even act myself on my own conclusions. And despite the fact that I have semicha. Or perhaps because of it -- I appreciate the deep responsibility that comes with giving horaah, and so don't give it out right or left. Certainly not in some subject in which I have *not* learned through sufficiently to my liking. And this extends to both lenient positions and stringent positions.
2)
Good. Read through Rav Yosef Karo (both in Shulchan Aruch and what he says in Beis Yosef). In advance -- I am not saying that another *posek* cannot argue with him. Or differ with him practically for other purposes. But those who do follow him are relying on a giant, and should not be declared mumar lehachis.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
-
-
For my chavrusa in study, Rebbe Joshua, and for all those who may have an interest in following this tit-for-tat:
Concerning cutting one's hairs with a pair of scissors made like a razor, well, thanks to you, I've read up more about this subject than I had done in years.
(Nazir 58b)
"…Rav said: 'A man is able to shave his entire body with a razor.' They countered with an objection, [saying]: 'He who removes [the hairs] of his arm pit, and his pubic hair, behold, such a one is scourged [by the whip]!' The one case refers to doing so with a razor, while the other case refers to doing so with scissors. (Meaning, a man is permitted to trim the hairs of his arm pit, or his pubic hair, with a pair of scissors, but he is forbidden to remove those hairs completely, especially by using a razor. However, on his back, legs, chest, arms, etc., he may freely make use of a razor.)
(An additional objection was then raised)
'But lo! Rav was also referring to a razor [when he permitted a man to remove the hairs beneath his arm pit, or his pubic hair]!' To which, this answer was given: '[Rav was referring to something] similar to a razor.' " (RASHI, s.v. כעין תער : "Who cut with scissors close to the flesh like a razor")
The Gemara (Nazir 58b-59a) concludes there that, in the final analysis, a man who removes his hairs from beneath his arm pit, or his pubic hair, he only transgresses a rabbinic prohibition for doing so, and this is only according to those Rabbis (like R. Yochanan) who explain (Deut. 22:5) לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה as meaning that men are prohibited to shave their bodies in those privy places. Note that Rav, although admitting to an ancient rabbinic prohibition to shave away the pubic hair, was actually more lenient than Rabbi Yochanan who didn't allow cutting away the hair in those places at all. Concerning these two great Rabbis, we find a teaching that says "Rav is a Tanna and can dispute [the statements of other Tannaim]" (Kesubos 8b / Eruvin 50b). However, there is found yet another teaching which says whenever Rav and R. Yochanan are in dispute, the Halacha follows R. Yochanan. This is because R. Yochanan remained serving in Eretz Yisroel under Rebbe Yehudah Hanasi, while Rav went down to Babylon.
At any rate, no lesson can be learnt from all this that it is permitted to shave away a beard with scissors made like unto a razor! In fact, just the opposite can be learned from a different source, which we shall bring down forthwith for the benefit of our readers.
Looking again at the issue of cutting away one's beard with an implement not designed for shaving, such as with a carpenter's plane or with a pair of tweezers, where, according to the Sifra, one does not incur liability by using any of these implements, indeed, these were the words of R. Yehudah, based upon a teaching which says: "An anonymous Sifra is Rabbi Yehudah" (Sanhedrin 86a). R. Eliezer in Mishnah Makkos 3:5 seemed to have agreed with him, who said that liability is incurred only if he removed the hairs of his beard with a razor. R. Eleazar, on the other hand, contended with this view, saying: "He that plucked them with tweezers or with a [carpenter's] plane is culpable." According to Maimonides, the Halacha is not like R. Eleazar, but like R. Eliezer, viz., to incur liability only if he had used a razor.
However, in the Tosefta (Makkos 4:10), Rabbi Eleazar's (R. Eliezer) words were amended to read: "R. Eleazar (R. Eliezer) says, 'If he removed them all (i.e. the hairs of his beard) at once, he is not liable save on one count; [however] when he takes up [the implement] and removes [his hair], [and] takes it up [again] and removes [his hair], he is liable thereby for each one, yet, is he not liable until he removed it (i.e. the beard) with a razor. Had he removed it with scissors or with a [carpenter's] plane, he is exempt."
המקור:
ר' אלעזר אומ' אם נטלן כולן כאחת אינו חייב אלא אחת. מגביה ונוטל מגביה ונוטל חייב על כל אחת ואחת ואינו חייב עד שיטלנו בתער. נטלו במספריים וברהיטני פטור.
Rabbi Eleazar (R. Eliezer) says that he is "exempt" (Heb. patur) from liability if he uses either scissors or a carpenter's plane to remove his entire beard. Here, the sense is "patur aval assur" - meaning, he is exempt as far as punishment is concerned, but is forbidden, as a first resort, to use them to remove his beard entirely. While the first Tanna of our Mishnah might disagree with R. Eliezer regarding the counts of liability, it is conjectured that he still agrees with R. Eliezer regarding the use of a carpenter's plane and things similar, or the use of scissors where the intent was to remove the beard entirely, viz., that their use is not permitted to completely shave off the beard as a first resort. Since the matter has not been fully divulged by either the Amoraim or by the commentators, a man with 'a great soul,' I suppose, ought to be reluctant to use either. This would include his being reluctant to use "misparayim ke'ein t'ar"
מספריים כעין תער
For according to R. Eleazar (R. Eliezer), they are "patur aval assur."
In conclusion, shaving away the beard with scissors made like a razor is strictly forbidden, and there is no "uber-minhag" as you phrased it, or requiring others to abide by a custom seen by some as being more than what is required by Halacha. This is total nonsense! Maimonides writes (Hilchos Avodas Kokhavim 12:9) that even an Israelite is forbidden to shave his entire body with anything other than a pair of scissors. For us, the Halacha can be no other way! Cutting away one's pubic hair with scissors, however, depends on local custom according to Maimonides. The Tur and his father, Rabbeinu Asher, prohibit a man from using even a pair of scissors on his pubic hair (YD 182).
A poor scribe
-
-
And you now believe you have learned the matter sufficiently to once again offer your "conjecture" as conclusion, and to confidently argue with Rav Yosef Karo? Wow.
That was Rav Yosef Karo in Beis Yosef, here:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14272&pgnum=81
Kol Tuv,
Josh
-
-
Great site. I have been wondering why no one has posted the Tur. What else does it have besides Yoreh Deah?
By the way, that beautifully bound and set version of the Tur which was printed a few years ago, is full of mistakes which don't exist in one posted here. How did they manage to do that?
-
-
Yes, it is a wonderful site. They also sell an external hard drive loaded with all of their sefarim (about 15,000 sefarim). And besides downloading, you can also order any individual sefer, and you can get it delivered to you, printed and bound. And with their PDFPager application, you can provide an online link to any individual page in any of their sefarim.
They have all of Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Aruch haShulchan, many teshuvot (some not in Bar Ilan), haggadot, Mikraot Gedolot, journals, etc. It is a really great resource.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
-
-
Rebbe Josh, Shalom!
This is not the first time that the Rambam (Maimonides) rules contrarily to the "Beis Yosef," and, besides, the "Beis Yosef" is not a book on Halacha, but rather a commentary on the Tur.
Still, I find it utterly amazing that you will cite the "Beis Yosef" where he speaks about cutting away the beard with scissors made like a razor, but uses an example taken from the Rambam where he says nothing about using such an implement on one's beard, but rather on the peyos of his head!! These are two different matters, whose fine-points differ.
Can you please cite for me the Shulhan Arukh (YD 181) where the Maran permits shaving off your beard by using scissors made like a razor? I'd like to discuss this with you in greater length after the holidays.
David
-
-
Can you please cite for me the Shulhan Arukh (YD 181) where the Maran permits shaving off your beard by using scissors made like a razor?
You asked this already, and I answered it already on page 4 of this thread. But since you apparently only read it when it is almost literally pushed under your nose, here it is again. Siman 3 and siman 10.
The implication of your asking, and by dismissing the parallel Beis Yosef as "not a book on Halacha, but rather a commentary on the Tur," is that you are unaware that the aforementioned simanim in Shulchan Aruch exist.
If so, then not only were you
1) unaware of the gemara in Nazir.
Subsequently, you then
2) confidently gave as the *only* position one could take about the status of misparayim or misparayim ke'ein taar, as one of patur bedieved rather than one of muttar lechatchila. I had preempted you on this by noting that of course other readings are possible, and even other readings by other poskim (to the exclusion of say, you). This showed unawareness of the Beis Yosef I quoted.
Now,
3) with your strong implication that this is just a commentary and was not intended lehalacha, you appear to be demonstrating unawareness of the parallel Shulchan Aruch, where Rav Yosef Karo takes the comments in Beis Yosef to the level of practical halacha.
I once again stress, it is extremely presumptuous to think to give Horaah to Ashkenazim, and similarly presumptuous to declare me and talmidim of Rav Moshe Feinstein "mumar lehachis," when you are unfamiliar with the relevant sources. I am sure you will promptly declare yourself familiar, and competent to argue with and dismiss Rav Yosef Karo. (Or perhaps creatively reinterpret him.) If so, I am willing to similarly dismiss your own lofty position.
Still, I find it utterly amazing that you will cite the "Beis Yosef"
And I should be utterly amazed that you would find this utterly amazing. You gave an interpretation misparayim ke'ein taar, and misparayim, in terms of shaving the beard. And you presented it as the only position. (If it is not the only position, then I do not have to hold like you, no matter how much you think of yourself.) And so the proper response is to show how Rav Yosef Karo thought of the same sources, in which he claims that for the beard, all rishonim permit, whereas for the head, there is a dispute.
Is is not true that "is not a book on Halacha, but rather a commentary on the Tur." This is the error you made in the other thread, and you persist in it. The Beis Yosef is written on the side of the Tur, and the Darkei Moshe is written on the side of the Tur. But it is in these works that Rav Yosef Karo and Rama lay out their halachic reasoning at length, which they then bring to halachic conclusion in Shulchan Aruch. One should not read one without reading the other, or if one does, one should realize that he may be missing out on something. In this particular case, we see that what Rav Yosef Karo fleshed out in Beis Yosef he then takes to practical halacha. Namely, in siman 3, about the peot of the rosh, he mentions the dispute among rishonim and therefore says it is better to be machmir. And in siman 10, about the peot of the beard, he says that with misparayim, or even with misparayim ke'ein taar, it is entirely muttar. This is parallel to his commentary in Beis Yosef, and it is not for you to dismiss it.
This is not the first time that the Rambam (Maimonides) rules contrarily to the "Beis Yosef,"
And if Rambam *does* rule contrarily to Beis Yosef, why should I care? I am not Teimani. I do not idolize the Rambam. Other sources besides Rambam are indeed relevant to halacha. And so, it is not for you, a Teimani, to declare me a "mumar lehachis" because I do not follow the Rambam on this. Was this what you were implying?
At any rate, Beis Yosef claims that this *is* indeed the meaning of the Rambam. In which case it is a dispute between you, my esteemed friend, and the (I suppose) less-esteemed Rav Yosef Karo. Can you guess who I would side with in this dispute?
At a specific point, dispute is pointless. It was most likely pointless even at the beginning of this thread. But we have surely reached that point if I put explicit Rabbinic sources which say exactly what I say, and yet you persist in arguing, and are "utterly amazed" at my words.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
-
-
Dear Josh,
That was pretty clear.
I gather that a good deal of the Temanim were corrupted by the introduction of the printed Sephardic sidur and do not completly follow the Rambam. I believe the purists (who I greatly admire for the clarity of the Rambam nusach) which actually follow the Rambam are a minority.
I heard that when they asked the Rav about the controversy over which electric razors maybe like a razor, he answered "what controversy"?
Moedim L'Simcha
Aryeh Shore
Follow Us with RSS
Video Podcast
Subscribe and Get 35 Solutions for Overcoming Anger Free!
Subscribe and Get 35 Solutions for Overcoming Anger Free!
Tell A Friend
Artscroll Book Search
The Global Yeshiva was created by Rav Mitterhoff
Groups
© 2009 Created by Rav Mitterhoff
