Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Nazir 28b - Sheitlech

Finally a break from kodshim!
The gemara explains the machlokes in the mishna whether the fact that she will have to shave her head is considered a nivul and an inuy that would justify his right to do hafara even after the blood of the korban has been sprinkled (rosh), is dependent on whether we consider a sheitel a good option. The Tanna Kama holds he can't do hafara after the blood has been sprinkled because there isn't any inuy with the giluach since she can just wear a sheitel, but R' Meir argues and says that because of zuhama he doesn't want her wearing a sheitel [Tosafos seems to understand that to wear something external that she makes look like part of her is degrading in the eyes of the husband, but the Rosh seems to understand that it is specifically the fact that she will be wearing the hair of a goy that is mezuham in the eyes of the husband].
The Ein Mishpat (although typically only cites sources in shulchan aruch) comments that from here we see a heter for married women to wear sheitels as a means of covering their hair. However the ya'avetz says that this gemara would not be a proof that a sheitel is permitted as a valid head covering even for the public domain [where the gemara in kesubos insists on a full covering (71b)]. The ya'avetz explains that the husbands claim acc. to R' meir in the mishna that he doesn't want a women with a shaved head, must be referring to a place where he would normally see her hair and since both the sheitel and a shaved head are degrading in his eyes, he can be meifer to prevent giluach. Clearly it can't be speaking in the reshus harabim, because in the reshus harabim her head would anyway be covered with a full covering and he would not see her hair even if she had hair. Rather the gemara is speaking in a more private domain where the husband will normally see her exposed hair, and therefore has a claim that he doesn't want to see her bald or with a sheitel. Based on this the ya'avets concludes that a sheitel doesn't qualify as a valid covering for a woman in the reshus harabim.
From the ya'avetz who explains that the gemara is speaking about a more private area where her hair would be exposed, seems to support R' Moshe's claim that in the home (presumably in the presence of just her husband) she does not need to cover her hair (even if she is a nida). If a woman would have to cover her hair even in her home, there would not be any situation where he should be makpid about the fact that she is bald since anyway her head would be covered. In truth, the ya'avetz avoids one from drawing this conclusion by writing:
אלא ודאי הכי פירושו, דאשה מגולחת היא נמאסת קצת לבעל שלפעמים בביתה שאינה יכולה להזהר כל כך מגילוי שערה, וכשראשה נגלה והיא נראית קרחה היא מתגנה עליו לפי שהשער נוי הוא לאשה כדבר הכתוב
Meaning, that although she has to keep her hair covered even in the home, sometimes she won't be so careful and it is for those situations where the husband has a claim of not wanting a bald wife. However, it seems unlikely that the husband has such a major hakpada for the chance that he may see her hair uncovered accidentally. The ya'avetz's description of the concern being in private would be much more understandable if we assume like R' Moshe that in the house she need not have her hair covered at all (at least when no one other than her husband is present). Then he would have a strong claim that in the home where he would normally see her hair, he doesn't want to see her bald.
Regarding the proof of the ya'avetz that since the gemara is speaking in private, it implies that in public it would be assur to use a sheitel as a head covering, doesn't seem to be such a strong argument. Perhaps the concern of R' Meir that the husband doesn't want to see his wife bald where he would otherwise see her hair is in private. But the solution of the Tana kama that she can wear a sheitel would take away his concern of seeing her bald because she would likely wear the sheitel always, both in public and in private, but now he would have a new concern that the fact that he knows she is wearing someone else's hair on her head is also megunah to him. Since there is no valid possibility to cover up her baldness with a sheitel, he can be meifer to prevent giluach.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If ossible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Aparelho de DVD, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://aparelho-dvd.blogspot.com. A hug.

Anonymous said...

Rabbi Lebowitz. On 28B the gemara says that if the kivsei atzeres that are shechted lo lishma they throw the blood and can eat but on shabbos they don't throw the blood. There is a machlokes as to why not but each seems to say it is a rabbinic law to not throw the blood on shabbos (and that is why if you do throw you can eat it). Isn't there a rule that ein shvus b'mikdash, and if so how can there be a rabbinic rule to not throw the blood?

Avromi said...

reshash in yoma 46b is medayek from rashi that its an issur min hatorah to sprinkle the blood

Anonymous said...

Then why is it kosher if done bde'eved?