3

The Eida HaChareidis1 paskened (and R' Wosner agreed) in accordance with the Mishna Berura2, who requires women to go in public places only when wearing redid (a head-covering wrapping the entire body like men wear a talis3) concealing the triangular space between head and shoulders, and the split between arms and torso. This applies even today.4

According to R' Moshe Feinstein5 a woman may select any posek she wants, even if her husband is a posek. Indeed, no wife of any of these poskim followed their husband's psak. It is also the prevalent custom not to follow this, although some do.6

Which poskim would they be following?7

1. Written kol koreh by R' Weiss with R' Fisher, R' Rabinowitz, R' Halberstam, R' Bernsdorfer, and R' Ulman.
2. Biur Halacha on Siman 75: Veda shekol ze (...) le kula alma (...) overes al das yehudis...
3. Rambam Hilchos Ishus Perek 13 & 24, Shulchan Oruch Even HaEzer Siman 73.
4. Diyuk in Rambam ibid. shenohagu bnos yisroel and not shenohagin i.e. it doesn't change according to current custom.
5. Written by R' Leib Tropper in the name of R' Feinstein's son.
6. At least in Bet Shemesh, Jerusalem, Kiryas Joel, London, Monsey, and Montreal. E.g. one of the two Shomer Emunim Rebbetzins, and R' Shlomo Brevda's daughter-in-law.
7. It would seem that they would be either later than the Mishna Berura, or that he did not know (or consider) them.

Adám
  • 6,801
  • 21
  • 54
  • Related (and possibly undercutting my premise there): http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/29085/5 – Seth J Aug 02 '13 at 05:06
  • 1
    Igros Moshe YD 1:81. – sam Aug 02 '13 at 05:54
  • 2
    These signs are quite ridiculous and this whole discussion is quite ridiculous! – Yehoshua Aug 02 '13 at 11:43
  • See Rashi in Shabbos Daf 80a d"h "b'irnois" – Yehoshua Aug 02 '13 at 11:46
  • @sam: I am not sure what you are trying to say. I"M there permits gentile clothing as long as it is not preitzusdig. I.e. there is no obligation to look Jewish, although it is preferable. Tzniusdige non-Jewish garments (e.g. chador or apostolnik instead of redid) are fine. R' Pesach Eliyahu Falk brings that too in Oz vehadar levushah 1:I:4. – Adám Aug 04 '13 at 14:28
  • @Yehoshua: R' Falk 1:H:3(b) explains that it would be inappropriate today to emulate the old behavior of covering the face, but it isn't mandated by halacha either. You cannot argue that because a minhag (if it was even that!) of extreme tznius is inappropriate today, a halacha that that would be considered equally extreme also is inappropriate. Quite oppositely, R' Falk 7:F:3 actually promotes the redid, "the present day two-piece outfit that has a loose hanging tent-like top". See http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.417562!/image/646043355.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_476/646043355.jpg – Adám Aug 04 '13 at 17:59
  • 2
    @NBZ Extreme tznius can be damaging to the woman that follows it, the children of such a woman, the husband, the family, etc. We see much of tznius is dependent in the place and time (See Rashi that I referred to.) See also the M"B that says one may lein Krias Shema in front of a woman where the bottom part of her legs are not covered if that is the minhag. – Yehoshua Aug 04 '13 at 19:09
  • @Yehoshua: I agree 100%, but behavior still has to be halachically acceptable. That is why I am trying to find the source for permitting a woman to go outside without redid. The rabbonim's wives are hopefully following accepted opinions, although R' Falk hints at this being questionable in 1:O:3. He dispels the notion that there always is a "second opinion" in 2:J:3(a). In 2:J:3(d)&(e) he explains how poskim's omission of an obligation doesn't imply exemption, and that no valid minhag can arise from this. I.e. What appears prohibited will only become permitted through explicit mention. – Adám Aug 04 '13 at 20:59
  • @NBZ Wearing a redid was a practiced minhag until now? Who said these Rabbonim actually signed on anything or endorse it at all? Why is R' Falk the ultimate authority (it seems) over anyone else on this topic? – Yehoshua Aug 04 '13 at 21:45
  • @Yehoshua Yes, as far as I have understood, the redid was never entirely forgotten although its use declined drastically the last 100 years. I have the signed document from the Eida. R' Wosner's opinion was published by R' Brevda's grandson. R' Falk is not at all the ultimate authority, which is why I didn't bring him in the main question. However, he becomes something like a meta-authority when he teaches what to infer or not to infer from rabbonim's words and wives. This is what I brought in my last comment. – Adám Aug 05 '13 at 15:56
  • 1
    @NBZ I wouldn't give so much weight to this letter anyway and I don't know in any case how "binding" their opinion really is. There is a R' Brevda that is a chosid of R' Rupler and is a big fan shauls, right? So he's the one with the "letter" from R' Wosner? In regards to R' Falk and to "teach what to infer from Rabbonim words and wives" ... This is just ridiculous. Don't give weight to any of these letters, nothing to infer and no need to look to their wives either. – Yehoshua Aug 05 '13 at 22:31
  • @Yehoshua While I find it irrelevant, yes, Brevda is a chosid of R' Rumpler, and he heard it from R' Wosner. You may think of all the mentioned people what you want, but that still doesn't exempt us from a clear halacha in M"B. My original question was exactly an attempt at finding such exemption. If M"B brings a Rambam-based Sh"O, and no-body contradicts it (at least M"B says so), we ought to keep it no matter whatever reasoning we can come up with. Or, can you find me another example of ignoring being the norm? – Adám Aug 06 '13 at 14:28
  • 1
    "I expect a source explicitly mentioning redid (or equivalent, e.g. tzeif, shal...), permitting not wearing such in public." -- that isn't the way halachic sources often work. Halachic sources will NOT mention the obligation of a redid, since they don't hold it obligatory. It is the absence which is often informative. E.g. if Rif skips over an Amoraic statement in the gemara, it indicates he does not hold of it. – josh waxman Aug 07 '13 at 15:03
  • @joshwaxman That would be contradictory to R' Falk. Do you have a source indicating that the principle applies to rishonim and acharonim also? Or, does absences of contradictions to R' Falk indicate that the sources doesn't hold like him either? – Adám Aug 07 '13 at 15:42
  • 1
    oy, don't pay attention to Rabbi Falk. Some of my many posts about that book: http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-rabbi-falk-have-correct-peshat-in.html http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/09/does-rabbi-falk-conceal-from-his.html http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-rabbi-falk-threaten-girls-who-do.html http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/08/ruths-tznius-according-to-oz-vehadar.html – josh waxman Aug 07 '13 at 19:55
  • @NBZ, for example, Aruch HaShulchan is a comprehensive work. If in his discussion of chametz on Pesach, there were a famous stringent position by Rambam, and he did not mention it, it would be clear that he does not hold that it is necessary. This sort of thing should be obvious... – josh waxman Aug 07 '13 at 19:59
  • 1
    and here is an example where Rabbi Falk mischaracterizes a Taz, http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-oz-vehadar-levushah-accurately.html and omits mention of those who argue with the Taz (namely Beis Yosef, Rashba, Raavad). I wouldn't accept a bald assertion from Rabbi Falk. Instead, let us see his justification for this assertion and weigh it. – josh waxman Aug 07 '13 at 20:39
  • also, for those who want to look at sources inside, i believe you mean siman (rather than seif) 75 (rather than 74) in the MB. – josh waxman Aug 07 '13 at 21:32
  • @joshwaxman Thanks, fixed that. Regarding Aruch Hashulchan, I asked a talmid chacham who told me that indeed the Rambam and M"B are comprehensive, but that the Aruch HaShulchan isn't: The author writes in Siman 75 that the women don't cover their hair at all (they didn't around the M"B either) which explains his omission of redid – he is trying to fix the adherence to D'Oraisa before engaging Das Yehudis. – Adám Aug 11 '13 at 16:01
  • welcome. asking an unnamed talmid chacham is not dispositive, though. MB is comprehensive, though it is only on Orach Chaim, while Aruch Hashulchan is not intended so? nor is the presentation above, one path through the sources, persuasive. for example, in (4), does everyone agree to this diyuk in Rambam, and does everyone agree with Rambam? – josh waxman Aug 11 '13 at 16:34
  • Quite impressive critique of R' Falk you've got there. This same talmid chacham (who shall remain nameless for personal but unrelated reasons) actually warned me against R' Falk's book long ago, which is why I left it out of the original question. The diyuk can be left out, but it just leaves the question open, and I don't find any indication that the halacha should be different today. M"B does say everybody agrees. Appreciating your clarity of mind and scholarly ability (as demonstrated in your posts about R' Falk) I would very much like to see your take on the sources. – Adám Aug 11 '13 at 18:23
  • @joshwaxman If I remember right, I saw on your blog that you don't actually own a copy of R' Falk's book. I'm moving, and trying to get rid of as much as possible, including Oz. I think you can use it better than me. Do you want me to send it to you? – Adám Apr 14 '16 at 14:42
  • The diyuk in the Rambam is the he speaks in present tense. Rambam lived 850 years ago. That does not tell us that "This applies even today". – mevaqesh Jul 29 '16 at 06:47

1 Answers1

3

There are too many assumptions in the question for me to formulate an acceptable answer. I suppose I could identify poskim, but I will not. Hopefully, I have waited until the bounty on this question has expired.

I would assume (correctly) the many, many Ashkenazic poskim who indeed maintain that a redid is not required. I believe that the redid is an Arabic clothing, and reflects Rambam's specific (culturally based) interpretation of the gemara which speaks of a kalta (a sort of basket-hat, according to Rashi) as an insufficient level of head covering. Maybe they are holding like the Shiltei Giborim who permits wigs as a sufficient level of covering to the reshut harabim.

Maybe they are holding like the Rambam, in the following diyuk. He says, in Ishus 24:

וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא דָּת יְהוּדִית, הוּא מִנְהַג הַצְּנִיעוּת שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְאֵלּוּ הֶן הַדְּבָרִים שְׁאִם עָשָׂת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, עָבְרָה עַל דָּת יְהוּדִית: יוֹצְאָה לַשּׁוּק אוֹ לְמָבוֹי מְפֻלָּשׁ, וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ וְאֵין עָלֶיהָ רָדִיד כִּשְׁאָר הַנָּשִׁים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׂעָרָהּ מְכֻסֶּה בְּמִטְפַּחַת; אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה טוֹוָה בַּשּׁוּק, וּוֶרֶד וְכַיּוֹצֶא בּוֹ כְּנֶגֶד פָּנֶיהָ עַל פַּדַּחְתָּהּ אוֹ עַל לְחָיֶיהָ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשׂוֹת הַגּוֹיוֹת הַפְּרוּצוֹת; אוֹ שֶׁטּוֹוָה בַּשּׁוּק, וּמַרְאָה זְרוֹעוֹתֶיהָ לִבְנֵי אָדָם; אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְשַׂחֶקֶת עִם הַבַּחוּרִים; אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה תּוֹבַעַת הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ מִבַּעְלָהּ בְּקוֹל רָם, עַד שֶׁשְּׁכֵנוֹתֶיהָ שׁוֹמְעוֹת אוֹתָהּ מְדַבֶּרֶת עַל עִסְקֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ; אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְקַלֶּלֶת אֲבִי בַּעְלָהּ בִּפְנֵי בַּעְלָהּ.

Note he says מִנְהַג הַצְּנִיעוּת שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, so we can perhaps make a diyuk that some group of women cannot suddenly redefine it in their generation and are thus free to do whatever they want. But once it has been redefined (through the fluid development of minhag) as a thing women do in order to be tznius in public, then people in the present can look to the practice of women in the past. (I don't know that we should make the diyuk at all. Must we cast all instances of מקום שנהגו as specifically past rather than present tense.)

Note we can make another diyuk, that Rambam also says וְאֵין עָלֶיהָ רָדִיד כִּשְׁאָר הַנָּשִׁים, and there is not on it a redid like the other women, meaning that he is operating in a framework where other women are wearing redids, that not having it is a violation.

josh waxman
  • 20,700
  • 44
  • 86
  • 1
    I think--and the OP can correct me if I'm wrong--that the question is asking whose authority are the wives of the members of Eida HaChareidis following such that they don't follow the psak of their husbands? – Daniel Aug 22 '13 at 13:31
  • 2
    @JoshWaxman thank you. Concur this question has far too many assumptions. BTW Rabbi YH Henkin shlit'a also points out that elswhere in Ishus, Rambam talks about what a man must provide for his wife. He writes "and give her a redid, in places where that's expected." Which implies that where it isn't, she doesn't need one. – Shalom Aug 22 '13 at 13:43
  • Ah, Daniel, thanks. I just reread the question and see the words "no wife of any of these poskim". I would first want to establish then that these poskim actually hold this, from more than a kol koreh (which can be written by anyone, and often does not make fine distinctions). – josh waxman Aug 22 '13 at 23:12