ושערא רבא וטופרין סגיאו וכדין דינין מתערין בכלא, ותאנא כד בעת אתתא לאתדכאה בעייא לספרא ההוא שערא דרבי ביומא דאיהי מסאבא ולספרא טופרהא וכל ההוא זוהמא די בהון, דתאנא ברזי דמסאבותא זוהמא דטופרין יתער זוהמא אחרא, ובגיני כך בעיין גניזא, ומאן דאעבר לון לגמרי כאלו אתער חסד בעלמא, דתניא לא לבעי ליה לאיניש למיהב דוכרנא לזינין בישין דתנינן (עז א) אלף וארבע מאה וחמש זינין בישין מתאחדן בההוא זוהמא דאטיל חויא תקיפא וכלהו מתערין בההוא זוהמא דטופרין ואפילו מאן דבעי יעביד בהו חרשין לבני נשא משום אינון דתליין בהו, ומאן דאעבר לון כאילו אסגי חסד בעלמא ודינין בישין לא משתכחין, ויעבר ההוא זוהמא וטופרהא דרשים ביה, דתניא מאן דדריך ברגליה או במסאניה עלייהו יכיל לאתזקא, ומה בהאי שיורי דשיורי דזוהמא דלעילא כך, אתתא דמקבלא ואתחברת בחויא ואטיל בה זוהמא עאכ"ו, ווי לעלמא דמקבלא מנה מההוא זוהמא, בגיני כך ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב,
Are these considered the same?
My problem with this theory is (among other things) that the hair and the nails grow from the roots, and while they shave all the hair that grew during those days, since it grows from the roots, so too should they not rip out the nail all the way to the cuticle? They don't, but rather just trim it. Perhaps, then, we might argue that a woman can maintain her long hair and just cut the length which grew during that time, but from the end of the hair instead of from the root, and that would fulfill לספרא ההוא שערא דרבי ביומא דאיהי מסאבא, if for some reason we wanted to consider this source as halachically sound.
Thoughts?
12 comments:
Technically the roots of the hair are within the skin, not on the skin, right? So in both cases only the "protruding" part is cut off. Personally, I'm glad my community ignores this Zohar.
Where do you see this brought down as a source for the minhag?
As I recall the Avnei Tzedek references the Zohar in parshas Nasso, which I believe is likely the same one referenced in the MA and MB 75. Other sources I've seen discuss this as being out of more pragmatic concerns.
It has been many years, so I am not sure I will be able to remember. Does Naso talk about nails also? I think I remember the combo mentioned in Otzar haPoskim (but I could be wrong, as I noted).
But ותאנא כד בעת אתתא לאתדכאה בעייא לספרא ההוא שערא דרבי ביומא דאיהי מסאבא ולספרא טופרהא וכל ההוא זוהמא די בהון is certainly instructing women to do this, and as a requirement.
Are you saying that this statement in Zohar was ignored in the development of this custom? Just because certain poskim cite a certain Zohar does not mean that another statement in Zohar (which instructs this) did not. What does the Zohar on Naso say? Could you provide a link, or text?
Thanks, and Kol Tuv,
Josh
It is late and night, and I might have missed something, but looking in Zohar the reference appears to be covering all hair and not letting anything see it. It is too late at night, but I did not see the reference to specifically shaving off the hair.
I definitely saw *some* halachic source refer to the Zohar in the blogpost, or to some Zohar text referring to both hair and nails grown during niddah needing to be removed. (I only knew of it secondhand, as I am no expert in Zohar, so I must have seen it in some halachic source - I think the aforementioned, but don't have the time to track it down.)
I have a hard time with the Aramaic (not that I'm great in Hebrew anyway) but insofar as I haven't seen this Zohar brought down as a source for shaving I'm not certain that, as you have suggested, it may just require trimming. I've only seen some of the sources incomplete and second hand however, and there may be others.
Alternatively, if it is a source I think that the original commenter is correct. Particularly as we see halachic differences between the "body" of the nail which is attached and the white.
The Zohar in Nasso is cited but I don't know that it is meant to say it is required by the Zohar. It is very difficult to not expose one's hair even in private, brushing one's hair under cover etc., and shaving one's hair is a pragmatic solution.
It's OK - the author of the Zohar was not so good at Aramaic either. :)
ותאנא כד בעת אתתא לאתדכאה בעייא לספרא ההוא שערא דרבי ביומא דאיהי מסאבא ולספרא טופרהא וכל ההוא זוהמא די בהון
means:
ותאנא -- And they taught (used to refer to Tannaitic sources):
כד בעת אתתא -- when a woman wants
לאתדכאה -- to become pure {from the word zakkai)
בעייא לספרא ההוא שערא -- she needs to cut off that hair
דרבי ביומא דאיהי מסאבא -- which grew in the days she was a niddah
ולספרא טופרהא -- and to cut her fingernails
וכל ההוא זוהמא די בהון -- and all of that foulness which is within them.
I unfortunately cannot track down the halachic source which cites the Zohar, but it does exist. Regardless, I doubt many people *started* the practice because of what is in Avnei Tzedek, or in Magen Avraham, etc. Rather, these were existing practices, and then these halachic personalities brought in sources to explain the practice. This is why so many different explanations exist -- the pragmatic concerns of hair protruding from the mikveh, the Zohar about the importance of keeping hair covered, all besides this one of removing the spiritual snake-like influences from niddah impurity.
If people had this practice based on the Zohar, I would guess that it would start based on the Zohar's actual instructions and requirement to shave the hair. But indeed, many things are possible.
I agree with Anonymous that one could give that teretz and interpretation.
At any rate, if this Zohar or that Zohar is the legitimate basis for this practice, I will admit that I would still oppose it. Because there are gemaras and pesukim that suggest otherwise -- shaving the head and cutting the nails of an Eshet Yefat Toar is to make her ugly in the eyes of the prospective husband. And because it seems that the Zohar is a late work not by Rashbi, as is discussed in the series of posts translating Shadal's Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See here for a post in the sequence.)
Kol Tuv,
Josh
In terms of the Magen Avraham, in siman 75 he does not cite the Zohar on parshat Nasso as a reason to shave. Rather, the context is whether married women can go in a chatzer where no men are present with their hair uncovered. He says yes, but then cites the Zohar in Nasso.
He does not mention shaving, because he is not recommending shaving. That is not to say that other sources don't cite the Zohar on Naso to this effect, of course. I'll take a look at the Mishnah Berurah, bli neder.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
The Beer Heitiv also cites the Zohar on Naso, and connects it to Kimchis, who made sure the koros of her house did not see her hair. He does not speak about shaving in this regard.
The Chafetz Chaim makes no mention of the Zohar in Mishnah Berurah, but he does in Biur Halacha, where he basically cites the Magen Avraham, where no mention is made of shaving.
My own guess is that they did not connect this Zohar on Naso to shaving. After all, something being erva such that one must be exceedingly careful about it does not mean one must get rid of it. Otherwise, we might (chas veshalom) say one should amputate legs, or mutilate the vocal chords to get rid of kol. I admit I can see how this practice of shaving could develop as an outgrowth of this excessive (and I would say not halachically necessary) scrupulosity. Still, I would first latch on to the Zohar which actually says the shave, as a source.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
I certainly didn't mean to imply that the Magen Avraham or the Mishneh Berurah suggested shaving, I meant that they cited the Zohar in parshas Nasso about a married woman never exposing her hair. I meant that in so far as the Avnei Tzedek apparently cited this Zohar as well that shaving is a way to keep from exposing her hair even in private.
"Still, I would first latch on to the Zohar which actually says the shave, as a source."
But it doesn't actually say to shave, in the end you are correct however that this Zohar does appear to be tied into the question. But insofar as this source cites commentators which say only minority shave it would seem that it is not, or might not, be understood as requiring shaving. If a trim is sufficient then it wouldn't seem that you accomplish anything more by shaving. On the other hand the Zohar in Nasso doesn't require one to shave but doing so makes compliance easier.
"I will admit that I would still oppose it"
I understand, the Igros Moshe didn't seem exactly comfortable about it. On the other hand it seems he recognizes it as a legitimate minhag and it is not a simple thing to disregard it if it is yours (see Divrei Yatziv E"HE 38).
I have some thoughts on the Zohar issue but not being in a position to learn Zohar puts me at a disadvantage :( Suffices to say that; 1)while the Zohar's role isn't always well defined many/most Ba'alei Mesora since is publication have accorded it some status and 2) While modern academic scholarship certainly doesn't assume that that the Zohar originated with Rashbi it is my impression that it generally recognizes that it incorporates older and much older material and the Talmud and Midrash are major sources for it's material. While that wouldn't support a passage such as this in and of itself, I believe that is a much more conservative position that is generally painted by Orthodox antagonists to the Zohar/Kabballah.
That's probably enough for now.
Thank you for your comments. I'll try to look up the various sources you and the Rebbe bring down, inside, to see what exactly they say. E.g. to see what is said by the Zohar II, 268b and what is said by the Mikdash Melech on Zohar III, 79a. And what the Avnei Tzedek says, and so on. (Though I am swamped with other things, so this may take some time.) Thank you for the sources.
My impression is that some do suggest some of the Zohar's material was based on much older works, but that this was not particularly the scholarly consensus. Yet even *if* some of it is, the work as a whole tries to fool people into thinking it is from Rashbi, and particularly attributes statements in a false manner. (e.g. one person quoting someone who lived two generations later, as Shadal discusses.) To cite Shadal's examples: "Such as "Rabbi Shimon cited Rabbi Yossi who cited Rav" (chelek 1, 126b in Midrash haNeelam). And Rabbi Shimon would not say something in the name of Rabbi Yossi, for he was his colleague, and Rabbi Yossi would not say something in the name of Rav, who was a student of his student.
And so too, "Rabbi Yossi said: But Rabbi Chizkiyah who cited Rabbi Chiyya" (chelek 1, 81b) and Rabbi Yossi was of the teachers of Rabbi, and Rabbi was the teacher of Rabbi Chiyya, who was the father of Chizkiya, and Rabbi Yossi would not bring a proof from the words of one who was not yet born, and who was the student of the student of his student." I understand that Rav Moshe is not ready to dismiss the Zohar wholesale, and thus there is this *tension* when it clearly contradicts gemaras.
From my own perspective, if there already is knowledge that some (or all) parts of Zohar were added later or forged, then when there is a conflict with a Bavli or Yerushalmi it should be presumed to be such a forgery, and we should think no more of it.
I agree that the Zohar did make use of material from the Talmud and Mishna. But then, so did Rav Yosef Karo and Rav Moshe Isserles! But making use of such *material* does not ensure that you are making use if it accurately. If there is a dispute between how a rishon or acharon learns a gemara and how the Zohar learns it, I would say that this is a post-Talmudic dispute. And I would even weigh against the Zohar because at least the rishonim and acharonim were subject to peer review, while the Zohar gets to state things as absolutes, because of an appeal to mysticism or because it is coming directly from the Tannaim.
I don't think Rav Moshe thought the Zohar to be a forgery, just that kabbalah and nistar should not be determinant of Jewish practice, but rather developed halacha based on nigleh. But I'll have to see inside. The fact or forgery can have major halachic import, because it can then transform practice based on the Zohar into a minhag taus or minhag shtus. If the original accepting of a practice was based on false information, rather than on as a chumra or as a legitimate interpretation of a gemara, that can impact the status accorded to the practice.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
While it doesn't have the same, or much that I know of, impact on practice, do you regard the Sefer Yetzira as similarly possul?
I'm planning on compiling something on the shaving, with other sources as well, if your interested I'll give you a heads up.
The gemara at least references sefer Yitzirah. And the sefer Kuzari actually has an explanation of it which has nothing to do with Sefirot. (See
'http://parsha.blogspot.com/search?q=yetzirah'>the top three posts after following this link.) So I wouldn't passul it, I think. I might disagree with certain interpretations of sefer Yetzirah.
Though kabbalah and Jewish mysticism in general is not my focus, and I have not read enough to endorse a particular theology or mysticism.
Sure, let me know when you compile something.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
Post a Comment