Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 28, 2008 at 11:32am

Rebbe Yisroel Phillips,

This, as I noted, was the personal opinion of a Rabbi (Rabbi Sasson Greidi) who expressed his own view about the subject. Moreover, he already clarified that we have no precedent in Yemen for calling a man "an apostate in the matter of growing out his beard" מומר לדבר אחד as clearly defined in Hullin 5a, and ruled as Halacha by Maimonides, since every Jew in that country had a full-grown beard. However, in this country, where we might find the practice of removing one's beard with a depilatory cream, however much the practice is condemned by Maimonides, there was, in R. Sasson Greidi's opinion, room for leniency - since, obviously, he had relied on those poskim that permit doing so.

Again, this is his personal opinion, and does not reflect my own view, nor the view of "Sefer Beis Hillel" mentioned in the Shulhan Arukh YD 181 (quoted by Rabbi Shimshon Morforgo, in his Responsa "Shemesh Tzedaka," YD, responsum # 61)

With best regards,
David

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 28, 2008 at 2:22pm

I read through that teshuva of Shemesh Tzedaka a few weeks back, several times over. (It is available at HebrewBooks.org, starting on page 212, here:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1186&pgnum=212
It is a beautiful defense of a group of Grecian Italians who had a custom of cutting their beards, where the rabbis in Salonica wanted them to change their minhag to conform to the local minhag or halacha.

There are some choice quotes in there, such as on page 213, bottom of first column going on to the top of the second column, where he says:
קבלה נאמנה היא בידינו מאבותינו איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו עליו השלום אין השחתה אלא בתער וכל המפקפק בזה כחולק על האמת ואומר אין תורה מין השמים והגם שמלשון הטור נראה לכאורה שאינו חייב עד שישחית בתער הא איסורא מיהא איכא כבר הסיר מרנא ביתא יוסף מסיר העורון והתמהון הזה מעל עינינו

The quote from the sefer Bet Hillel that forbid depilatory cream is on page 213, second column, second paragraph. But after citing and initially endorsing the position, the sefer Bet Hillel, Rav Shimson ben Yehoshua (the Shemesh Tzedaka) writes the following words arguing with them:



At any rate, that is the Sefer Bet Hillel on whether it is is permitted or not. But those who used depilatory cream were holding like the rabbanim who say otherwise. And that does not make them mumar lehachis any more than those who put on tefillin on chol hamoed, who rely on their rabbonim for that halacha.

Kol Tuv,
Josh

Permalink Reply by Aryeh Shore on October 28, 2008 at 4:17pm

well actually the not putting tefillin on chol hamoed got a lot more public opposition than shaving one's beard. For shaving one's beard one could rely on various sources like the shulchan aruch and various rishonim or it was a accepted practice in their community. The Pachad Yitchak solicited fifty letters from all the European Rabbis how it was wrong to change the minhag of their fathers. This was well after the publication of the Shulchan Aruch. To change one's minhag because of something in the Zohar violated the fundimentals of the askenazic minhag of putting on one's tefillin on chol hamoed and not poskining from the zohar against the halacha.
A lot of good that did.
Why we are there. The phrase minhag is mebatel halacha refers to business practices, i.e., in places where deals are finished not according to halacha we go by the minhag of the place. Saying that minhag yisrael chai ignores that for centuries minhagim change (I don't think anyone puts dirt in the mouth of witches anymore) and that most of the new minhagim are the result of the kabbalistic or chassidic revolt which for the most part completely destroyed the concept of minhag avotainu b'yadainu and minhag hamakom, let alone minhag yisrael chai (which isn't a halachic concept as far as I know). There are lots of minhagim out there with no basis in the Shulchan Aruch or the rishonim which violate the halacha (usually dealing with avelus) and should be gotten rid of.

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 28, 2008 at 4:53pm

Good points.
Indeed, the aforementioned Shemesh Tzedaka has another wonderful teshuva (Orach Chaim siman 4),
available here:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1186&pgnum=34
starting at the bottom of the page, where he makes similar points about changing one's minhag because of the Zohar -- that kabbalah should not impose its chumrot on non-kabbalists, that Rosh said what he said despite the Zohar, and about the importance of minhag hamakom.
Kol Tuv,
Josh

Permalink Reply by Aryeh Shore on October 28, 2008 at 5:28pm

Well if you are reading Shemesh Tzedaka, note that he mentions that they ate eel. The son of the Nodah Byuda brings him as proof that eels are kosher. The name the Shemesh Tzedaka uses is for the juvenile form which appears in Shmuel Markus's book on Icthology which the son of the Nodeh B'yehuda used (the pictures are still used today, as he was a great artist.).
I bring this up because I got one of those hysterical phonecalls from Bnei Brak last week in which he heard they that they were making killaim of ell fish and salmon. Now the eel fish isn't an eel but it is on the non-kosher list anyway. What they are doing is taking a gene sequence they learned from the eel fish to make an anti-freezing protein which allows commercial salmon to breed in the winter time. Now however strange the Jews maybe, the non-Jews can always outdo them. The opposition to the use of this gene because it might escape and destroy the world was so great that they discontinued the practice. However, I see they are going to put the eel fish protein into ice cream, so stay tune for the next round of hysteria.

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 29, 2008 at 2:28am

Thanks. Very interesting. I will keep an eye out for it.

Kol Tuv,
Josh

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 29, 2008 at 3:46pm

To my chavrusa in the U.S., Rebbe Joshua, who by his study of Torah day and night, G-d sustains heaven and earth, as it is written:
אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי
And to my fellow colleague in England, Rebbe Yisroel Phillips, who keeps a watchful eye over what is said here, SHALOM, SHALOM, to you and to those dear to you,

Rebbe Josh wrote:
"The concern of the Rama is orthogonal to that of misparayim ke'ein taar (scissors that act like a razor)… The Rama, following Terumas Hadeshen, is insisting that we make use of both blades while shaving, but agrees with Rav Yosef Karo that shaving off [the entire beard] with scissors is permitted, so long as both blades are used.
There are two methods of accomplishing [this act of shaving off the beard], while at the same time making certain that both blades are used: (1) make the sharp side blunt, such that it will only cut with both blades. (2) Do not move the lower, sharp, blade."

Answer:
Briefly speaking, I should think that there is no man living who can tell us what was in the mind and heart of the RAMA (R. Moshe Iserlische) when he quoted from the Terumas Hadeshen in YD 181, and if he, indeed, held like the Shulhan Arukh (YD 181:10) who said that מספרים כעין תער (scissors that act like a razor) would be permitted to use on one's beard as a first resort. If he did hold like the Mechaber, your explanation above of the Terumas Hadeshen makes sense; but if he held like Maimonides in Hilchos Avodas Kokhavim 12:7, and the Boraitta in Toras Kohanim (on Lev. 19:27) who forbid a man to shave off his beard in any manner (and which, by the way, has long been the understanding of gedolim dating back to the author of 'Sefer Beis Hillel' who said that we are to go after the underlying motive זיל בתר טעמא when we forbid a razor or anything similar on one's beard), our explanation of the Terumas Hadeshen in the previous posts makes sense. After all, it would be presumptuous and wrong of us to think that that holy and righteous man, the RAMA, did not see or understand the words of Maimonides there. Then, again, he may have seen the words of Maimonides (in Hil. Avod. Kokh. 12:7), but he may have seen also the words of the Kesef Mishne (ibid.) and held like him. We do not know. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's understanding of the RAMA is no clear indication of what the RAMA, himself, may have actually been thinking.

Bear in mind that there are two divergent opinions as to how we ought to view this subject: 1) Maimonides (with the Boraitta in Sifra); 2) The Shulhan Arukh (with the "Beis Yosef"). The first, being tenable; the second, in my humble opinion, being less tenable for the reasons we have already mentioned.

As for the RAMA, doubtless, he also saw the words of the Terumas Hadeshen, responsum # 295, where he was asked by one of his protégés if there is any 'inkling' of a prohibitive act to shave off [entirely] the corner (Heb. פאת) of the beard with scissors. The reply given by the Terumas Hadeshen was this: "It would seem that there is a place to act stringently [in this matter], except that the world is not cautious about the matter." יראה דיש מקום להחמיר אלא שאין נזהרין העולם בדבר

Rabbi Shimshon Morforgo, in his Responsa "Shemesh Tzedaka" (YD responsum # 61) wrote that the Terumas Hadeshen only intended by this statement to forbid scissors whose blades were so sharp that they could cut like a razor, in which case, only the upper blade should be used in cutting, etc. Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Naphtali Hirsch (or Hertz ?) in his book, "Sefer Beis Hillel" (YD responsum # 181) rejected this explanation, saying: "To me, it would seem that the intention of Terumas Hadeshen 'to act stringently' is on account of [the biblical injunction] 'in their ordinances you shall not walk' (Lev. 18:3), [which rule applies] even with scissors that act like a razor, concerning which he wrote 'that the world is not cautious about the matter.' However, if they have it as a practice in Ashkenaz to cut [their beards] with scissors, using the two heads of the scissors and uprooting [thereby] all of the hairs, where no longer any hair can be seen, like a razor, this is, without question, completely prohibited!"
המקור:

ולי נראה דכוונת ת"ה להחמיר משום בחוקותיהם לא תלכו אף במספריים כעין תער וע"ז כתב שאין העולם נזהרין בזה. אבל אם שנוהגין באשכנז לספור במספריים בשני ראשי המספריים ועוקרין כל השערות ואין נראה שום שער כמו תער זה וודאי איסור גמור הוא (מתוך ספר בית הילל למוהר"ר הילל בן ר' נפתלי הירץ ז"ל)

David

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 29, 2008 at 3:49pm

My disputant wrote:
"Let me note that the first time I argued with you, and believed that you were twisting sources either due to stubbornness or inability to learn was in a thread called 'The Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon.' I did not accept your words there also, where the discussion was about 'yesh em lamikra' vs. 'yesh em lamesores.' And there, once again, you considered only *your* position correct, such that even though there was a quite understandable and convincing reading of the relevant gemaras in favor of the author, it was the author who made a 'mistake.' You have assumed a similar attitude in other threads, where the topic was about more practical matters."

Answer:
When I saw that the other commentators wrongly explained the meaning of the terms "yesh em lemikra" and "yesh em lamesores," I felt a strong impulse to show the public where their explanations did not coincide with what the Talmud actually says. (Look again at the end of that thread entitled, "Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon," and you will see that both principles were accepted principles of logic used by the Sages; the one principle not used to the exclusion of the other. The Sages were not divided as to the validity of both principles, although the Gemara, at first, leads us to believe that they were, but in the end, concludes just the opposite. This is what we call: מקשה שלא אליבא דהילכתא).

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 29, 2008 at 4:48pm

I throw up my hands in despair.

You are not adding anything new here. Yes, Beis Hillel says this. And yes, others argue.

From the fact that Rama offers both suggestions in Darkei Moshe, (a) namely not moving the blade or (b) letting the blade be dull, and in Shulchan Aruch, Rama mentions only the idea of not moving one of the blades, it seems clear to me that Rav Moshe Feinstein is correct in understanding of the Rama. You disagree. Fine. I disagree with you. It would be interesting if you can bring down modern poskim who share your interpretation of the Rama. Feel free to cite them.

At the end of the day, it does not matter. There is a frum community of Orthodox Jews who follow their poskim, where those poskim navigated the sources to arrive at a specific halachic conclusion -- and indeed, as a lechatchila, where bochurim were actively discouraged from growing a beard, such that clearly, it was viewed even as a lechatchila. You disagree with the steps to the conclusion. Fine. But if you choose to instruct others, they very well may not listen to you. And if they do not listen to you, but rather to their own gedolim and rabbonim, that does not make them a mumar lehachis. That makes them Ashkenazim who follow their Torah leaders, rather than followers of David ben Avraham.

That is why I did not really bother, in *every* case, to show how an interpretation you offer is wrong. (Yes, I skipped some of them.) From my perspective, I do not feel that I need to show any interpretation you offer to be incorrect. Rather, all I need to show is that there is a basis, and a path, in the sources for arriving at the conclusion which matches standard Ashkenazic yeshivish practice in America.

Think of it like a chess game, where I am black and you are white. To black to win, all I need to do is come up with *some* sequence of moves where I would achieve a checkmate. For white to win, you must show that no matter *what* moves black makes, I cannot achieve a checkmate. One particular set of moves for me and you with a win for white proves nothing, and wins you nothing. You may not like the setup of this game, but too bad.

Yes, I know that is how you view the thread on the Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon (though I disagree, and state that what that person said is not against "what the Talmud actually says," but rather with how *you* *interpret* what the Talmud actually says.) But that is beside the point. The *point* was that I argued with you, until I gave up in despair, despite the fact that I did not stand to physically benefit from it. I do not go about making "yesh em lamikras" to the exclusion of masores, daily, such that I was biased in this regard. And if I can argue with you *there,* in similar fashion, then what makes you leap to conclusion here that really I would admit to your oh-so-brilliant analysis here, except that I am being blinded by the fact that I want to shave my beard? This is an ad hominem attack.

Kol Tuv,
Josh

Permalink Reply by Aryeh Shore on October 29, 2008 at 7:16pm

In re the minhag in Eretz Israel outlined in the Yerushalmi, the tosephot say it obvious that if they davened maariv while it was still day, they must have said the kriyat shma. The Ran says that if they davened maariv while it was still day, they certainly didn't say the kriyat shma.
The point is just because something is obvious according to your sefora, doesn't make it halacha. Halacha is determined by the community which eventually gets around to asking a posek to justify it. Very rarely do the Rabbis try to go against what the community has done (kra etgar). Primarily as most of the time it rarely does any good and it is not worth the downside.
I can think of three cases where it was specifically stated that it was wrong but it just isn't worth causing dissention in the community, having American and Israeli flags in the synagogue, Chazanim repeating words for effect and having depictions of animals in three dimensions on the aron hakodesh.
I will repeat Rav Henkin's quote: Just because you come from an area where the Chachamin are very particular about a certain proceedure, you do not have any right whatsoever to demand that another community to follow your strictures.
Ben David seem impervious to the basic argument that each community has the completely right and by definition are right to follow their chachamim. Seforas or pilpul or halachic discourse are all very interesting and may influence individual decision but the halacha practice by the community is supreme.

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 31, 2008 at 10:07am

To my chavrusa in the U.S., Rabbi Joshua,

I'd like to pose this question to you:

If Rabina and Rav Ashi, who summed up the words of our Sages in Nazir 58b, conclude there that the Sages prohibit a man to shave away the hairs of his body by using a razor (being only a rabbinic prohibition), yet, permit the use of regular scissors on his body (although saying nothing of scissors that act like a razor), how then does it stand to reason that they would permit shaving off the beard (a thing which touches on a biblical prohibition) by using scissors that act like a razor?

Is there not an inference from minor to major premise (kal ve'chomer) that can be drawn here, not to permit the shaving off entirely of one's beard by using scissors that act like a razor?

To refresh your memory, here is the sugiyah in Nazir 58b (Munich Ms):

אמר רב מקל אדם כל גופו בתער.
מתיבי המעביר בית השחי הרי זה לוקה.
לא קשיא הא בתער והא במספרים.
והא רב נמי בתער קאמר.
כעין תער.
(Translation)
"…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]!' There is no difficulty, for the one case refers to doing so with a razor, while the other case refers to doing so with scissors. (Meaning, Rav permits a man to shave his body hair with a razor, but he may not use a razor beneath his arm pit or on his pubic hair.)
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] that acts like a razor.'" (RASHI, s.v. כעין תער: "Who cut with scissors close to the flesh like a razor.")

The אוקימתא of the Gemara makes it a rabbinic prohibition to shave away one's body hair with a razor, which prohibition Rav adhered to. However, in the matter of the pubic hairs and that which grows beneath a man's arm pit, he permits its shaving with scissors that act like a razor. In the words of the Bahag (Baal Halachos Gedolos), Hilchos Giluach, we find the passage expounded in a slightly different way:

"אמ' רב מיקל אדם את כל גופו בתער.
מיתיבי המעביר בית השיחי ובית הערוה הרי זה לוקה.
כי קא אמ' רב, בשאר איברים. אבל בית השיחי ובית הערוה לא אמ'.
(Meaning, Rav permits shaving the body hairs with a razor, but not the pubic hairs or the hairs of man's arm pit. To which statement, the following objection was raised)
ושאר איברים מי שרי, והא תניא העברת שיער אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים.
(Meaning, by a rabbinic ordinance, a man is prohibited to shave off even his body's hair)
כי קא אמ' רב במספריים, כי תניא ההוא בתער.
(Meaning, Rav permitted shaving off the body hair with scissors, while the rabbinic prohibition refers only to shaving with a razor)
והא רב בתער קא אמ'
(An objection was again raised, for Rav spoke explicitly about the use of a razor, but not scissors!)
אימא כעין תער."
(The conclusion arising from all this is that Rav, when speaking about shaving body hair, was speaking about scissors that act like a razor, meaning, they would cut down to the level of the skin, as explained by RASHI. Bear in mind that this permit refers only to a man's body hair, but not to his facial beard! While Rav was lenient here in what applied only to a rabbinic prohibition, the Rabbis were stringent in what was seen as only מדרבנן. How, then, is it possible that the Rabbis would go from being stringent to being lenient on the hairs of one's beard when the beard is מדאורייתא ?)

David

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 31, 2008 at 1:44pm

Are you trying to understand here, or are you just trying to extend the argument? If the former, fine. If the latter, I am not really interested, and a bit annoyed. And if the latter, this is a continuation of your belief that if you can present the sources in one way which leads to prohibition, that is the only correct way.

Know that Ritva, Rav Yosef Karo, and quite possibly Rama all *do* understand there is this distinction. And it would be a nice thing to learn Torah, and understand how they make such a distinction.

See this web page which gives a good summary of the various positions:
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/nazir/insites/nz-dt-058.htm

A number of minor points, *off the top of my head,* which might help you understand those positions, if that is your aim. There might well be much better answers. Read the link above first, and then:
1) First you say "although saying nothing of scissors that act like a razor" but then you say later that they indeed *do* discuss scissors which are like a razor. Or are you drawing a distinction between "the Sages" and Rav?

2) Behag has a different girsa of the gemara, from which he is working. According to Rabbenu Tam, one is indeed *permitted* to shave pubic hair with misparayim ke'ein taar. And the Tur rules like Rabbenu Tam. Who says that e.g. Ritva needs subscribe to the girsa of Behag? In terms of Rav Yosef Karo, he holds in Shulchan Aruch like Rosh and like Behag, in terms of pubic hair. And yet, in terms of beard hair, Rav Yosef Karo says what he says *even* according to Rosh. His reasoning is explained in the Beis Yosef I put a picture of in page 5. It has to do with the fact that there must be some ributa of peat hazakan over the peat harosh, and if all was meant was scissors which are *not* ke'ein taar, then what ribbuta is there?

3) If you would *continue* reading that gemara in Nazir on to the next page, to 57a, you would find a different version of the discussion about the nature of the prohibition, in which there is a Biblical prohibition of removing that hair, and that is why there is lashes. And then *this* is what is brought in contrast to Rav, a Biblical prohibition. And various rishonim indeed understand it as Biblical.

4) Despite any of the above, even if we subscribe to the reading of the Behag, we can still arrive at a permissive conclusion for beard hair. Don't make any kal vachomer. Rather, note that in a particular area of halacha, Rav noted the existence of something called misparayim ke'ein taar, which achieved hashchasa. And so he referred to it in his statement as a taar, but still it is really misparayim. And this a distinction the setama digmara presents. Thus, in this particular area (and depending on your girsa, either though not in others or also in others), misparayim ke'ein taar has the halachic status of misparayim rather than a halachic status of taar.
Then, in the gemara in Makkot, which was also copied to that gemara in Nazir 58b, there is a diyuk in a brayta which ends with הוי אומר זה תער. If, e.g., we read this as not going after the reason (hashchasa), but rather as a something definitional, then we can once again say that this is *not* actually a taar.

This was my attempt off the top of my head. And my failings in this matter, if they exist, should not reflect upon Ritva, or Rav Yosef Karo, or Rav Moshe Feinstein. Agree or disagree. I don't care.

Kol Tuv,
Josh

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page