Rosh Chodesh Elul

I read an interesting limud zechut in this sefer
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/melech/chm.jpg
about not chastizing women who wear tefillin in spite of the Rama seeming to say one does. Many halachot as codified in the Tur (and Shulchan Aruch) assume tefillin are worn all day. That's why we can ignore many halachot in SA among those who wear them only during tefillah. That's why, for example, as discussed in another thread, we don't say a berachah every time the tefillin move out of place. Long story short, the requirement to admonish women only applies to wearing them all day, but when worn only for tefillah, there's no reason to think even women can't remain "clean".

What does it mean when it says says that women shouldn't wear teffillin because they are less careful about cleanliness? Does that mean then men were more hygienic?

I don't know. You'd have to chase down the sources - The Mishnah Berurah who talks about a "guf naki" and how women aren't careful about that is quoting the Beit Yoseph, who in turn is quoting the Orchot Chaim and the Kol Bo and the Orchot Chaim is in turn quoting the Maharam. [Trivia: there are those who claim the Kol Bo is an abridged version of the Orchot Chaim by the same author, R. Aharon Ha-kohein of Lunel. So it's a bit strange if the Kol Bo would be challenging something in the Orchot Chaim]. I suppose you'd have to look at the originals to get a sense of what exactly is dirty about women more so than men.

[I don't know what they say about this, but I can imagine the feminists argue that women aren't any dirtier (in whatever sense is meant) with the possible exception of mestruation but that they would further argue that when taharot, that reason wouldn't apply. But I'm just guessing - I actually have no idea. The JOFA references a couple of books http://www.jofa.org/social.php/ritual/prayer/tefillin but I haven't read either].

Is it possible to say that the women who deal with babies and the like will be more likely to be exposed to unclean things,thus their likelyhood of being "less careful"?

Could be. In fact, if I recall correctly, there's a Sefer Chassidim that says men shouldn't handle babies before tefillah for that reason (I think it was siman 18 or 19 or so - it's the long one around there) and if I recall correctly, RSZ Aurebach references that Sefer Chassidim in his Halichot Shlomo (albeit posthumously).

melech, you don't spend a whole lot of time actualy studying the shulchan aruch inside with the traditional comentaries (ie not the new and radical mishneh berurah) nor the tur do you?

On that sif, the mefarshim explain that the reason why she is not allowed to wear tefilin is the same reason why, technicaly, men should not wear tefilin. The shulchan aruch and its comentaries are full of references to the fact that "and these days we do not know how to keep our bodies clean" with the resultant halacha that we therefore wear tefilin only for tefila, because its a deoraisa and we can't just skip it entirely, so we minimize the oppertunity to transgress guf naki, which can only be done by breaking wind.

This applies to both women and men. However, it would seem that idealy, because of respect due the tefilin Men should not be wearing it at all, and if they are only wearing it because the have to, and idealy they should be refraining entirely, then for a woman to wear tefilin anyway might be seen as yehurah. However, the magen avraham rules that if they declare themselves obligated, or they put it on anyway, then they are chayiv and not potur from their obligation, and they should be instructed with regards to the bodily purity needed for tefilin, just the same as men.

Which means you don't rebuke them or yell at them, you just explain them that tefilin require guf naki, and that no normal person is capable in guf naki, and men wouldn't be putting on tefilin either if they were not obligated midoraisa.

That good enough?

melech, you don't spend a whole lot of time actualy studying the shulchan aruch inside with the traditional comentaries (ie not the new and radical mishneh berurah) nor the tur do you?

On that sif, the mefarshim explain that the reason why she is not allowed to wear tefilin is the same reason why, technicaly, men should not wear tefilin. The shulchan aruch and its comentaries are full of references to the fact that "and these days we do not know how to keep our bodies clean" with the resultant halacha that we therefore wear tefilin only for tefila, because its a deoraisa and we can't just skip it entirely, so we minimize the oppertunity to transgress guf naki, which can only be done by breaking wind.

This applies to both women and men. However, it would seem that idealy, because of respect due the tefilin Men should not be wearing it at all, and if they are only wearing it because the have to, and idealy they should be refraining entirely, then for a woman to wear tefilin anyway might be seen as yehurah. However, the magen avraham rules that if they declare themselves obligated, or they put it on anyway, then they are chayiv and not potur from their obligation, and they should be instructed with regards to the bodily purity needed for tefilin, just the same as men.

Which means you don't rebuke them or yell at them, you just explain them that tefilin require guf naki, and that no normal person is capable in guf naki, and men wouldn't be putting on tefilin either if they were not obligated midoraisa.

That good enough?

Indeed, no, unfortunately I do not.

thought so. I aught to do more of it myself, but its really facinating to see all the things they leave out for the digests.



It really is quite facinating, such as the statement by the chalakat machokek that a non-married's singing voice isn't erva. (depsire not being allowed to recite krias shema while listening to it, because it is destracting.)(actualy the tur I think specifies that it is "kol erva", and later in the next siman states explicitly "v'penuyah einah ervah b'chlal". (this is despite stating that one's wife who is niddah is ervah, which is rather confusing, I think it is related to the fact that ones wife one isn't allowed to touch at all, but someone elses wife, one may touch not-b'derech chibbah, ie its a rabbinic enactment based on the extra worries about one being accustomed to intimacy with ones wife, but I'm not sure that rav moshe gives the same psak, and I'd like to see what he says about it before feeling certain.)

Repent soon because the end is nigh.......

What makes the Mishnah Berura "radical" ?

for one example he was mechadesh and mosif al hashulchan aruch by quoting the gemorah in kesubos daf ayin bais amud bais with regards to zeroah in the context of reciting krias shema stating that it is "objective erva", despite the fact that noone before him had made such an "obvious" connection.

learn out from this that whatever he though, the connection was not firm in the minds of the mechaber or baal haturim, or the rosh, or anyone else in all of jewish history.

and yet he dares go and add something such as this? The rule is, when something is blatantly obvious, and it wasn't included in something that is supposed to be completely comprehensive (like the shulchan aruch) it means that it really isn't obvious and the problem is with you, not them.

phew.

or thats how I feel, and there are countless other tainas against the sefer, not least of which are, for instance, his insistance that the best middah is that one should not invite boys and girls to the same shabbos table, despite my objections above. The shulchan aruch is comprehensive, or intended to be so, it is also machmir, if the bais yosef had seen it fit to include, he would have.

Kamashmalan that its actualy a bad thing.

So I guess every sefer is radical by that critera,ok.

And why did you decide that the SA was meant to be comprehensive?

because the author said so. "kulan b'socho"

And by the way, most sefarim previously just simply explained issues in the gemorah and in in other sefarim. in this regard the mishnah berura is unique in the tremendous disrespect he accords those authorities words who came before him, and his utter williness to me mosif on what they felt was comprehensive. For instance, for the most part, the mefarshim in the shulchan aruch are little more than a rencapsulation of the mefarshim on the tur, which are an encapsulation of many traditional works, many of which discuss the same issues and which may differ on which talmud source that they cite, however the rule is that they are, as a total exaustive.

not so with the mishneh berura, who is constantly mosif on what was considered enough by his forebearers.

Where does he say it is comprehensive? I was under the impression that the SA was actually supposed to be a kitzur (you might want to check up the shem hegedolim under "Shulchan Aruch")

I wont bother with the other point, as I see no point in doing so.

it is a kitzur of the bais yosef which, together with the darchei moshe is truly "kulan b'socho". It is intended to contain all the laws that are "halacha l'maise" (rav karo's words verbatum in the introduction to it) so that a "young student" or other unlettered person may follow the law properly, with it and with no other sefer. The rema felt that it was lacking certain inyanim, certainly from an ashkanazic perspective, so he authored the Mapah, which bedecked it.

Look on the girl learning to lain megila thread, there is a link towards the end to an early print of the shulchan aruch that has his own personal introduction in it.

Look at it and see what you make of it.

Which means that even if you feel like the shulchan aruch might miss out on some particulars (which it does, those areas where one might need to understand the reasons to apply the halacha correctly generaly are treated machmirly and avoided entirely, and in some other cases he is also machmir l'shma here, but not in the bais yosef, but that doesn't apply to this issue at all, because the question is on being more machmir than the shulchan aruch.)

it does not make any sense to say that he left out "zeroah erva hi", in the context of the intent of the author, and the ommision makes sense, as I am rather inclined to think that that source (kesubos 72) actualy largely gives examples pertaining exclusively to married women, such as hair, which might imply that he issue of covering the zeroah only applies likewise to a married woman.

I'm not going to vouce for that, and likewise it may just be a statement of custome, but there certainly is a reason why it was left out of the catagory of "objective erva" in that sif.