To All The Beardless...

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 17, 2008 at 3:24pm

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

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 19, 2008 at 5:54pm

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

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 20, 2008 at 9:30am

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

Permalink Reply by Aryeh Shore on October 20, 2008 at 11:38am

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

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 22, 2008 at 1:16pm

Maran wrote in his Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 181:10, that a man is not liable over marring the corner (Heb. pe’ah) of his beard, except if he had done so with a razor. However, with scissors it is permitted [to shave the beard], even [if they were made] like unto a razor."

אינו חייב על השחתת פאת הזקן אלא בתער. אבל במספרים מותר אפילו כעין תער.

From this teaching and a similar teaching in the "Beis Yosef" (YD 181, s.v. וכתב), my disputant has tried to prove that it is permitted to shave off one's beard by using electric razors whose cutting blades are made like scissors that cut close to the skin just as razors do, removing the very stumps of the hairs. With all due respect, Maran's insistence that it is permissible to use such scissors that cut close to the skin is only dependent upon how we look at the Mishnah in Makkos 3:5, which says: "A man is not culpable unless he takes it off with a razor." The Boraitta (Sifra on Lev. 19:27) would have us learn: זיל בתר טעמא – "Go after the reasoning behind the statement!" Meaning, it is permissible to use scissors on one's beard, since there is no marring of the beard in this way, that is, the stump of the hairs are not removed. For scissors are designed in such a way that when the two pivoted blades rest against a man's face, the thickness of the one blade prevents the other blade from reaching down to the stump of the hairs. If, therefore, a man wished to remove the very stump of the hairs of his beard, he cannot do so – no matter which implement designed for shaving he had in his hands! However, others (e.g. Maran, the Tur) say: זיל בתר דיוקא – "Go after the exact wording!" Meaning, since the Mishnah only prohibits the use of a razor, taking a pair of scissors – even though they were made like unto a razor – would be permitted. Maimonides does not follow this method applied by Maran, but rather, the former method זיל בתר טעמא is used by him. Wherefore, Maimonides prohibits shaving away the beard altogether, in any form or manner as we have carefully shown, while the use of scissors made like razors is prohibited by gedolim such as Rabbeinu Asher (Makkos, ch. 3), and by the "Noda' Biyehudah" (Responsa, Tinyanna, Section Yoreh De'ah, responsum # 80, 81), as well as by the "Chatam Sofer" and by the "Tzemach Tzedek," of whom all, it can be said, went after the underlying motive.
דכולהו אזלו בתר טעמא
Even Rabbi Moshe Iserlische, in his "Darkei Moshe" (YD 181, letter ה) prohibits the use of scissors on one's beard (there being no electric razors in his days) whose pivotal blades were made very sharp, fearing that the lower blade – that is, the blade that rests against the face – would cut the hairs in the manner in which a razor cuts the hairs. Here, too, the RAMA prohibits מספרים כעין תער, contrary to the teaching of the Shulhan Arukh!

But let's look at what caused this divergence in opinion, or should I say, "division?" Maran's teaching in the Shulhan Arukh (YD 181:10) is a direct carry-over from a teaching in his "Beis Yosef" (YD 181, s.v. וכתב), whose words (in Hebrew) have already been posted on this thread and where we find a drawn-out explanation of the words of the Tur who said:
אינו חייב עד שישחית בתער ("He is not made liable until he mars [his beard] with a razor.") A translation of the words of the "Beis Yosef" is here provided for the sake of our readers who may not have a good command of the Hebrew language:

R. Yosef Karo (Maran) wrote in his "Beis Yosef" (YD 181, בד"ה וכתב):
"…He is not liable until he mars [his beard] with a razor. [Thus is it written] at the end of [Tractate] Makkos in the Mishnah, where it had been learnt in the Gemara from a biblical verse, its implication being that certainly he is not liable. The oral teaching does not necessarily have to be [in the way in which it was here stated], for even as a first resort it is permitted to shave the beard with scissors, and even [with scissors] that are similar to a razor, seeing that from this Mishnah, Maimonides has learned to permit the rounding of the corners of the head with scissors, just as it has been explained that he holds that our Mishnah refers to either the corner (פאת) of the beard or the corner (פאת) of the head, even though the Tosfos (Shevu'oth 2b, s.v. חייב) and Rabbeinu Asher disagree with him and are of the opinion that it does not apply to the corners (Heb. peyos) of the head. At any rate, where it applies to the corners of the beard, everyone agrees that it is permitted, certainly [even] as a first resort by using scissors, and even [with scissors that were made] like unto a razor…"

המקור:

אינו חייב עד שישחית בתער. בסוף מכות במשנה, ויליף לה בגמ' מקרא ומשמע ודאי דאינו חייב. דקתני לאו דוקא, דלכתחילה נמי מותר לגלח הזקן במספרים ואפי' כעין תער שהרי ממשנה זו למד הרמב"ם להתיר להקיף פאת הראש במספרים כמו שנתבאר דקא סבר דמתניתין בין אפאת זקן בין אפאת ראש קאי ואע"פ שתוס' והרא"ש חולקים עליו וסוברים דלא קאי לפיאות הראש, מ"מ לפיאות הזקן דקאי לכ"ע שרי ודאי לכתחלה במספרים ואפי' כעין תער

Note that Maran's understanding of Maimonides' words in Hilchos Avodas Kokhavim 12:6 was exactly like that of the Tur. The Tur had spoken of Maimonides on this wise (YD 181), saying:
"Maimonides wrote [concerning the peyos of the head] that he is not made liable [for cutting them], except had he done so with a razor. However, with scissors made like a razor it is permitted [to do so]…"

וכתב הרמב"ם שאינו חייב אלא בתער אבל במספרים כעין תער מותר (Tur)-

Yet, anyone looking for the source where Maimonides may have said these words, or where it is allegedly permitted for a man to cut off the peyos of his head by using "scissors made like a razor," he would be hard pressed and much ado to find the source, for there is no such source! Rather, Maimonides wrote simply (Hilchos Avodas Kokhavim 12:6) that "he is not liable until he rounds it (i.e. his head) with a razor." - ואינו חייב עד שיקיפנו בתער
No more is added after these words; nothing about scissors, nor anything about scissors made like a razor. Rather, it was the Tur's understanding (as well as that of Maran) that any other implement, besides a razor, would be sanctioned on the peyos of his head and his beard. For they, as stated, went after the exact word – viz., anything is permitted, excluding a "razor." Scissors that were made like unto a razor are still scissors.

This then is the gist of the matter. Yet, calling to mind the very words of the "Beis Yosef," in witness whereof we make the following affirmation that it is a Jewish custom to grow out one's beard, just as it was formerly practised in Israel to do so, there can now be no excuse for abandoning this precious custom:

"If, in a few countries, they practise a prohibition in some things, even though we shall decide contrary [to their practice], let them hold on to their own custom, since they have already taken upon themselves the words of that wise man who forbids its practice, and they are, [therefore], prohibited to act leniently." (Introduction to the "Beis Yosef")

המקור:

"ואם בקצת ארצות נהגו איסור בקצת דברים, אעפ"י שאנו נכריע בהפך, יחזיקו במנהגם כי כבר קבלו עליהם דברי החכם האוסר ואסור להם לנהוג היתר."

Written this day of the departing of the feast known as Sukkos, in the year 5769 anno mundi, during the week of the biblical lection (the Hallel) which carries in it the words:
שומר פתאים יי' ... ואמת יי' לעולם

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 22, 2008 at 7:52pm

CORRECTION:

My previous post should be amended to read:

"...he would be hard pressed and much ado to find the source, for there is no such source! Rather, Maimonides wrote simply (Hilchos Avodas Kokhavim 12:6) that 'it is not prohibited, except marring [the peyos of the head] with a razor.' - לא נאסר אלא השחתה בתער
No more is added after these words; nothing about scissors, nor anything about scissors made like a razor."

When I had written down the excerpt taken from Maimonides, I had relied upon a secondary source, since, at the time, I had no copy of Maimonides' Code of Jewish Law (Mishne Torah) before my eyes. At any rate, the import is the same. The Tur had improperly quoted from Maimonides, and Maran followed in suit. Maimonides never said that shaving with scissors made like a razor is permitted!

David

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 23, 2008 at 1:55pm

As I suspected, after being unaware of the content of various important sources, you quickly read through them, perhaps through some interpretive literature, and believe that you have mastered them sufficiently to absolutely and definitively once again give the same Horaah. How cute.

Do you think that perhaps Rav Moshe Feinstein also knew the sources, perhaps better than you know them? As might Rabbi Tendler, Rabbi Heinemann, Rabbi Belsky, and Rabbi Blumenkrantz?

A number of points, in short, because you do not want to learn, but rather find the issur you want to find.

1) "my disputant has tried to prove that it is permitted to shave off one's beard by using electric razors"
This is not my sudden chiddush. These are the sources that certain prominent rabbanim have cited in the course of permitting them. And these are rabbanim who bothered to learn through all the relevant sources before thinking to give Horaah, and are actually qualified to give Horaah. So don't pretend that I am your only disputant.

2) Furthermore, I was proving that it is permitted to shave off one's beard with "misparayim ke'ein taar," even lechatchila, something you were declaring impossible on the previous page. Whether an electric shaver is equivalent to "misparayim ke'ein taar" is subject to a more modern dispute, between very prominent rabbonim.

3) In terms of the chumra of the Rama, this is not, as you definitively assert, because otherwise it accomplishes the same effect of razors, such that he, too, forbids misparayim ke'ein taar. Rather, he is dealing with a certain concern brought down by Terumat haDeshen that if the lower sharp blade were used by itself, it would in effect *be* a razor. The solution is to keep the lower blade in place and only move the upper blade. Another solution is to make the blades blunter, so that one cannot accomplish it by itself.
See here for Darkei Moshe in Tur:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14272&pgnum=81
and here for Rama in Shuchan Aruch:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9146&pgnum=250

Thus, it is not as you assert, that Here, too, the RAMA prohibits מספרים כעין תער, contrary to the teaching of the Shulhan Arukh! Rather, Rama permits misparayim ke'ein taar, but is choshesh for a particular method of using the misparayim in which, by using only a single blade, one is using a taar mamash! Indeed, his words in Shulchan Aruch are "umikol makom, keshemistaprim bemisparayim sheyaaseh hagiluach bechelek haElyon min hamisparayim velo batachton pen yaaseh hakol in chelek hatachton vahavei ketaar." The idea being that this would have the status of taar, rather than of misparayim ke'ein taar.

Though it is certainly quite possible that Rav Yosef Karo would not even be choshesh for this concern.

In practical terms, this restriction has indeed been considered in terms of electric shavers. Rav Moshe Feinstein maintains that the rotating blades should not be able to cut by themselves. Indeed, the way shavers cut (or at least most used to) was with the rotating blades pressing against the screen of the shaver. Rav Moshe would remove the screen and do a test similar (but opposite) to testing a shechita knife. If the rotating blades could cut hair without the screen, then it was not acceptable. But many shavers (back then, at least) would cut only when used together with the screen. In which case he would hold it was misparayim ke'ein taar rather than taar, and would thus be muttar lechatchila.

4) Then you argue with Rav Yosef Karo's *diyuk* in Rambam. (And yes, they presumably knew it was a diyuk rather than a direct quote, or as you assert, an improper quotation.) Fine. I hold like Rav Yosef Karo over you. (And like Ritva, a rishon, who similarly says that shaving with misparayim ke'ein taar is mutar lechatchila, according to the shurat hadin). Does this make me a mumar lehachis? I seriously doubt it. But you may say what you want, and I will ignore you.

5) In terms of where to apply that dictum of not changing minhag (which has a Talmudic basis, by the way), that is indeed an interesting and complicated sugya. It obviously was not applicable in the time of Rav Yosef Karo, since we see that he paskens it is mutar lechatchila. Nor for the Rama. And we can find others since then who hold like them, and permitted misparayim ke'ein taar, and people who acted in accordance with that.

By this question, it seems you want to resurrect the "uber-minhag" theory. Yet Ritva permits, Rav Yosef Karo permits, Rama permits, all lechatchila, and they do not say like you? Why not? Take it up with them, not with me.

There may be questions of what is makom, and what is minhag hamakom, and whether this dictum applies to *all* instances of minhag, and whether the Rav of a community can establish a new practice in his place, in accordance with his understanding of sources. (E.g. see Beis Yosef on hilchos chanukka, which we should start learning now, about the custom of some people not to do melacha Chanukka at all -- perhaps specifically on the first and last day -- and how this dictum does not apply; and perhaps does not apply to women doing melacha while the candles are burning, from his language in Shulchan Aruch).

In America, in my community, it has been permitted. This may indeed be a question, and a concern, for someone living in a community where the rabbanim (such as Chazon Ish) have forbidden electric shavers. Or maybe not. If one has a question about this, consult a real posek.

6) Where you write the stump of the hairs are not removed
there is a discussion of what distinguishes "misparayim ke'ein taar" from a "taar," something you briefly touched on here. This is also subject to dispute, as you sort of note. It the issue one of hashchasa, all the way to the root? Is it the method of cutting, with one blade or two? Is it the number of hairs cut at a time? Or is it just that it is not a taar, and that is definitional, as described above. There are different approaches. For example, Rashi, Tosafot, Tosafot Rosh, and perhaps even Rambam (hilchot Nezirut 5:11, though see Lechem Mishneh there) define misparayim ke'ein taar as something that removes hair at the root level, just like a taar, and thus in accomplishing hashchasa.

7) Finally, you claim Rosh as someone who categorically forbids a razor, stating "while the use of scissors made like razors is prohibited by gedolim such as Rabbeinu Asher"
Yet Rav Yosef Karo's interpretation of that Rosh is that he is only forbidding misparayim ke'ein taar on the peot of the head but not on the beard. See that Beis Yosef I cited before.

There are of course other ways of looking at the sources, and the metzius. That is why some rabbis forbid and some rabbis permit.

People in general, consult your local Orthodox rabbi if you have questions as the the actual practical halacha.

But I do not know why I am wasting my time here.

All the best,
Josh

Permalink Reply by Aryeh Shore on October 23, 2008 at 2:10pm

But I do not know why I am wasting my time here
Well because it is interesting to see how people approach things. I mean I know what I know but I have trouble imagining how a student sees the text unless one has years of experience as a teacher. This is particular a problem in Israel where the yeshiva students seem to be ignorant of just about everything and if you want to explain something you have to be aware you do not have a common language like what is a pesak and what is minhag hamakom.

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on October 23, 2008 at 6:06pm

"Well because it is interesting to see how people approach things."

True enough. Though I may already have had my fill within this discussion, for now.
Kol Tuv,
Josh

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 24, 2008 at 4:39pm

R. Josh wrote:
"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."

Answer:
"He who is tacit to the charges laid against him admits to those charges laid against him." שתיקה כהודאה
In order, therefore, that there be no subtle admission of guilt, let me explain my actions. The reason that I asked you to cite for me the Shulhan Arukh (YD 181) was because I wanted to begin to look again at the subject, but as the holidays approached and came upon us, I was on a certain Moshav in the mountains of Judea at the time. The synagogue that I attended there on the Moshav, while it had all the volumes of the Shulhan Arukh, it was lacking in this one volume that I was looking for. I, therefore, wrote to you, asking for you to quote the source for me, since I wanted to review the subject matter once again.

הוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות
Perhaps you and my fiend, Aryeh, will try giving me the benefit of the doubt the next time around.

As for the matter of a man being "an apostate in one of the commandments contained in the Torah," or, in our case, in the matter of refusing to grow out a beard, this very subject finds expression in the Talmud (Hullin 5a) and is called in the Hebrew vernacular מומר לדבר אחד. There, we learn that any man who willfully transgresses one of the commandments, we are to exercise a certain precautionary measure vis-à-vis that person and not to partake of anything which he may have shechted (ritually slaughtered) until the knife he used in the slaughter is first checked by us for blemishes. For we say, just as he could care less about the commandment, so, too, he could care less about checking his slaughtering knife for blemishes. Maimonides, as noted, ruled as Halacha (Hilchos Shechita 4:14) this stringent, precautionary measure.

When I asked a well-known ritual slaughterer in Israel (Rabbi Sasson Greidi) about the implications of this Halacha and whether or not we should be stringent with a man who has not grown out his beard, but wishes to perform a ritual slaughter on a domesticated hen, he said to me that the matter had never come to the fore in Yemen since all Jewish men and all ritual slaughterers in that country had fully grown beards. However, in Israel, he said, there is no slaughtering house (משחטות) which will accept a man among their rank and file as a professional licensed shochet (ritual slaughterer) if he had not the signs of a beard on his face. He said, moreover, that in rural settlements, villages or farms, we occasionally find a shochet who will perform a ritual slaughter on a private basis, either for himself or for his household. If such a man had no beard, R. Greidi said that he would discretely inquire into the manner in which he removed the hairs of his beard. If it were learned that he used a depilatory cream (סם) to remove his beard, he would not question the legitimacy of his slaughter, since obviously he had relied upon those Rabbis that permit the use of such cream for removing the beard. However, if it were learnt that he used a razor, he would not eat of his shechted meat. (In the matter of using electric razors – being a matter of dispute – he did not delve into the subject, although I did give him a brief overview of the differing opinions regarding this matter. He listened, but did not say how he would treat the case had he learned that a man used an electric razor on his face.)

David

Permalink Reply by David Ben-Abraham on October 24, 2008 at 4:44pm

My dissatisfied and disgruntled friend previously made this one outstanding assertion that "we Ashkenazim follow the halachic rulings of the RAMA," or something to this effect. Has he now retracted his statement, deciding when – for convenience sake – it is best to follow the RAMA's teachings, and when it is not? The RAMA prohibits the use of scissors that are made like a razor. Yet, my friend continues to voice his unrelenting support for the use of electric razors which would fall under the category of very fine razors. I know (judging by his photograph) that he is a man that has, heretofore, decided to remain beardless. It is not surprising, therefore, that a man who finds it more 'appealing' not to grow out his own beard will do everything in his power to show that his actions are justified. Have we not read in Sanhedrin 25a: "A man is motivated by his own interests, and no man incriminates himself."
אדם קרוב אצל עצמו. ואין אדם משים עצמו רשע.
Do not be fooled, my fellow compatriots, by his use of the Shulhan Arukh (YD 181:10) and its parallel in the "Beis Yosef" into thinking that it is a perfectly natural and condoned practice to shave off the beard by using scissors made like unto a razor! Rabbi Yaakov Adess, the Sephardic Rabbi, has recently published a book, entitled "Pe’at Zekanekha" (פאת זקנך), now becoming quite popular amongst young religious Jews in Israel, showing how that none of the modern electric razors are kosher for shaving off the beard. He brings down pictures of several devices and explains how the contraptions work for all the בנים המשחיתים (precious sons who mar their beards).

Neither be taken aback by the prospect of going against the Shulhan Arukh. How many rulings have been passed down in the name of the Shulhan Arukh which are not Halacha for either the Ashkenazim or the Temanim! Tradition and custom supersede halachic rulings, as we shall show by the following:

1) The Shulhan Arukh calls the matter of "kapparos" on the eve of Yom Kippur "the way of Amorite" – מדרכי האמורי – saying that this practice should be eliminated. Yet, the Ashkenazim (and many of the Sephardim) will persist in its practice, in spite of the censure of the Shulhan Arukh!

2) The Shulhan Arukh rules that a man is not to make two blessings over the Tefillin, unless he had spoken between his putting on the head phylactery and his binding the arm phylactery. Yet, the custom of Ashkenaz is to make two separate blessings over the Tefillin at all times, contrary to Maran's ruling.

3) The Shulhan Arukh (OC 458:1) says that "Matzah" can be baked on the eve of Passover only after the sixth hour of the day. Yet, the Mishna Berura wrote that the custom prevalent in Ashkenaz is to forbid baking Matzah during the entire day of the 14th of Nisan on the eve of Passover, since we fear lest "chametz" be present while baking the "Matzah."

4) The Shulhan Arukh (OC 321:12) wrote that he who cuts vegetables very, very thin is culpable on that account for grinding on the Sabbath day. Yet, the custom of Ashkenaz is to permit the practice, relying upon the RAMA (Rabbi Moshe Iserlisch) who wrote that this only applies when he cuts the vegetables and puts them aside for another meal. Yet, if he eats the thinly sliced vegetables immediately, it is permitted.

And there are many, many other differences between the Shulhan Arukh and actual Ashkenazi practice from a practical level, but which things do not fall under the scope of our present inquiry. Therefore, I would console my disgruntled friend, saying that it should not come as a surprise to him that Ashkenazim are to abstain from shaving off their beards with electric razors (that is, if the RAMA is a true representative of Ashkenazi practice) – even though such a teaching stands in direct contradiction to the ruling in the Shulhan Arukh (YD 181:10).

Using my disputant's own crude way of phrasing it, "So what if the Shulhan Arukh *does* rule contrarily to the RAMA, why should I care?" Or, if I might again turn the tables on my disputant: "It is extremely presumptuous to think to give Horaah to Ashkenazim on the Global Yeshiva forum when you are unfamiliar with the relevant sources found in RAMA's 'Darkei Moshe' and in his commentary on the Shulhan Arukh." I, who accept the teaching of the RAMA in this case, have shown myself to be more Ashkenazi than what my disputant pretends to be! (Sigh) Although, really, it was obvious to me from the very start of our debate that my disputant was terribly misguided.

At any rate, Rabbi Yaakov Adess claims that this *is* indeed the problem with electric razors – viz., that they *mar* the beard. In which case it is a dispute between you, my esteemed friend, and the (I suppose) less-esteemed Rabbi Yaakov Adess. Can you guess who I would side with in this dispute?

In conclusion, the view that it is alright to shave off one's beard is a view that is slowly dying, and soon they will have buried it, and said "Hashkeva" over it!

David

Permalink Reply by Aryeh Shore on October 24, 2008 at 5:07pm

Dear David,

You hit the nail on the head. Judiasm is what the Jews do. However, some of us like to think that there are rules of some sort like the Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch and that halacha relies on precedent not some agenda or pilpulistic reasoning.
Now if the Rashba, Ramban and the Mechaber call Kapparot Darchei Amorim, this carries weight beyond what the Jews actually do. It is not a term they use lightly and I would think any rational Jews would stay away from Darchei Amorim.
We do a lot of things against halachic logic. But I don't like it as I think that there is something called halachic logic. Extraneous kaddishim, putting up posters for avelus announcements, not saying goel yisrael in aloud, minyanim at the house of avel, etc. However, we have to give more weight to the Askenazic customs in the Ramah as the Tosephot believed that their ancestors knew something we don't.
Lots of practices started and met strong Halachic opposition. Some make it through anyway like Hakafot and some don't like throwing babies in the air, burning down sukkot and writing the names of the angels in the Mezuzot. That doesn't mean we should give up the fight to get rid of these minhagim. This happens through various means which are more in the field of social interaction.
A lot of water has run under the bridge since the Shulchan Aruch but it is still the ONLY thing we agree on. The processes after the Shulchan Aruch are completely messed up since people changed their minhagim not because of organic processes but because of agenda, the penentration of the Kabballah and the rise of Chassidut. In part this was amelerated because of the minhag Hamakom. However, since the mass of Jews no longer live in their geographical areas and you can do what you want in a new place plus the Jews gathered to Israel refused to follow minhag Hamakom, we are left in a period of chaos. Judging from history, it will be several generations before a minhag Hamakom will be re-estrablished. We will just have to live with uncertainty of how it will come out and try to be polite and tolerant in the meantime.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page