Recently, in Daf Yomi, we encountered an interesting gemara. To cite
my translation of the Rif, who cites the
gemara lehalacha:
{Kiddushin 31a}
אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי אסור לאדם שיהלך ארבע אמות בקומה זקופה
שנאמר מלא כל הארץ כבודו
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is forbidden for a person two walk 4 cubits while standing erect, for it is stated {
Yeshayahu 6:3}:
| ג וְקָרָא זֶה אֶל-זֶה וְאָמַר, קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ ה צְבָאוֹת; מְלֹא כָל-הָאָרֶץ, כְּבוֹדוֹ. | 3 And one called unto another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory. |
רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא מסגי ארבע אמות בגלוי הראש
אמר שכינה למעלה מראשי
Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua did not walk four cubits with head uncovered. He said "the Divine Presence is over my head."
The Rif cites it
lehalacha, as does Rosh. Indeed, this makes it into Shulchan Aruch. This all makes me somewhat ... unsatisfied.
I have my issues with even the first statement, by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Specifically,
1) elsewhere Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi sometimes makes
homiletic comments. For example, a recent one from masechet Kiddushin:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever teaches his son Torah, it is as if he received it from Mount Sinai.
And he then cites a prooftext, from Devarim.
2) The prooftext in this case is from sefer Yeshaya, or Nach. We don't derive Biblical law from Nach, in general. Perhaps this is as a
gillui milta bealma, about the nature of the manifestation of the Divine Presence? Or perhaps we should cast this as a rabbinic enactment he made, such that it is
derabbanan, upon recognizing this fact about reality, proven from this citation from a sefer in Nach. I would much more lean toward it being
mussar, showing how one should recognize the Ominpresent aspect of the Divine Presence, such that one should not walk
bekomah zekufah. And as such, I would treat it as a type of
middat chassidut, rather than binding law, despite the rather strong use of the word
assur.
On the other hand, we see elsewhere Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi derive halacha from Nach, such as rules for cohabitation based on a pasuk in sefer Iyyov. And he
does say
assur. So perhaps this is of kind.
3) The content of the statement strikes me as more along the lines of
mussar, as it channels ideas of humility and recognition of the Divine Presence.
So I have my bone to pick with this first statement, from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. But the second statement, about Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua strikes me as even more clearly an example of
middat chassidut. Namely,
1) Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua is a 5th generation Babylonian Amora. At least Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is a fairly
early Amora, such that he could be stating a quasi- (or entirely) Tannaitic
halacha which others then followed. But here, it
seems like this requirement, if it is such, only surfaced fairly late, a student of Rava and contemporary of Rav Pappa. Certainly we find such late
halachot, but this was not
stated by him, but
practiced by him. The implication is that earlier generations did not practice this, but that it was something which was his innovation, and for the reason he gave.
2) Indeed, even within his own generation, all it says is that
he did it, not that others in his generation were so
makpid.
3) And the juxtaposition with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement leads to the distinct impression that this is a fulfilling of the ethos of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement. So
if Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was stating law rather than
middat chassidut, others would have kept it by following Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's instruction. It seems that, perhaps as a
middat chassidut (
or an extension of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's
middat chassidut), Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua extended it to a
further recognition of Hashem's all extending Presence.
4) There are, of course, other sources about head-covering for men which might (and indeed do seem to) cast a different light to it. For example, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak also seemed to have a head-covering, for similar reason. And earlier references as well. He might have been applying this existing practice to the extent he applied it, based on this idea that Hashem being everywhere.
But working just based on this gemara (and perhaps working with these other sources as well), I would certainly walk away with this impression that it is a
middat Chassidut.
As such, I would consider the latter requirement to be one purely of
middat chassidut, and if so, would be careful in any halachic work to label it as such.
Even as a
middat chassidut, one need not adopt
every middat chassidut that someone, even someone respected, innovates, to be a frum, God-fearing individual. Other Amoraim, it would seem, were frum, yet did not adopt his innovation.
Of course, in
practice, I always wear a
kippah wherever I go. Of course, I never learned this
sugya in great detail before now, such that I did not know the nature of the obligation. But even now, I would feel and act the same, for reasons historical and sociological, which determined the role of the yarmulka in present-day Orthodox Judaism. And because of binding minhag, and because it is nice to do
middat chassidut, for the reasons given as the motivation. And because this is what I have done and feel comfortable with.
As mentioned, Rif and Rosh both record the gemara, with no further comment. The implication is that a halachically practicing Jew should keep this practice, whatever its nature.
As we explore some of the later sources, we will see that they vary in their treatment of it, and to whether it is a halachic
requirement or a
middat chassidut.
Rambam also lists this in his
halachic code, but in such a way that it seems a
middat chassidut. He writes (
Hilchot Deot, perek 5):
י [ו] צְנִיעוּת גְּדוֹלָה נוֹהֲגִים תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּעַצְמָן: לֹא יִתְבַּזּוּ, וְלֹא יְגַלּוּ רֹאשָׁן וְלֹא גּוּפָן.
This indeed seems to be a middat chassidut, a
tzniut gedolah. And a bit later,
יד [ח] לֹא יְהַלַּךְ תַּלְמִיד חֲכָמִים בְּקוֹמָה זְקוּפָה וְגָרוֹן נָטוּי, כְּעִנְיַן שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "וַתֵּלַכְנָה נְטוּיוֹת גָּרוֹן, וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינָיִם
As we will see in a bit, Kol Bo cites Rambam as this being a
middat chassidut, and it indeed seems borne out in Rambam's own words. (Though a talmid chacham perhaps, just based on this, is being
strongly encouraged, perhaps required, to keep this
middat chassidut.)
Let us continue with Tur, son of the Rosh. He
writes in Tur, Orach Chaim, siman 3, what is pictured to the right. He cites both Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement, and the practice of Rav Huna brei deRav Yehoshua,
lehalacha. He omits the 4 cubits in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement, but I am not certain that this omission was intentional. Or perhaps not even unintentional. We will see in a moment that Beis Yosef cites the
gemara with identical language, and so it is quite possible that they simply had a different
girsa. But then, Rosh, his father,
does have 4 cubits in that statement.
Beis Yosef is pretty straightforward about endorsing this. He writes (same page) the text to the right. In both the case of walking entirely erect and walking bareheaded, he simply notes the relevant gemara, which is the first perek of Kiddushin.
And then in
Shulchan Aruch (right), he repeats this, without elaboration as to its nature.
Rama in this siman in Shulchan Aruch does not contradict this (see above). On the other hand, he notes that it is a more complicated picture, in his Darkei Moshe on the Tur. He writes what is pictured to the right. Click on the image to see it larger. The text is so small, you really
have to do this here. He writes:
* בטור, ויכסה ראשו – וכתב הכלבו בשם הר"מ, דאינו אסור לילך תחת אוויר השמים בגילוי ראש; כי מה שאמר: רב הונא כו' – זה היה מידת חסידות. והרי"ף כתב שאסור לילך בגילוי ראש לב"ה. ובפסקי מהרא"י סימן ר"ג כתב: על מה ששאלתם, שהשלטונים גזרו על היהודים המחוייבים שבועה להישבע בגילוי ראש, לא מצאנו בזו איסור בהדיא.
אמנם בבית יוסף לקמן סימן ח' משמע דאסור לילך תחת אוויר השמים בגילוי ראש. אך פשט דברי רבינו הטור שם משמע כדברי הר"מ, כמו שאכתוב לקמן. וכן משמע לקמן סימן צ"א דשרי בלא זמן תפילה.
* כתב באור זרוע: איתא במדרש פרשת מצורע בסופו. "'בעצלתיים ימך המקרה': על ידי שאדם מתעצל לכסות ראשו כראוי, 'ימך המקרה', הרי הוא נעשה דומי". פירוש, נזיקין.
Rama cites the Kolbo, citing the Rambam in turn, that it is a
middat chassidut. The Rif writes that it is forbidden to go with bare head to the synagogue. In Piskei Maharai he writes a
kulah in a case where the rulers ruled on the Jews to swear with bare heads, that we find no explicit
issur in this. But Beis Yosef in Siman 8 writes that it is forbidden to go under the air of the sky with uncovered head. But the
pshat in Tur there implies like the words of Rambam, as he will write there. And so too later in siman 01, that it is permitted not during the time of prayer. He finally cites the Or Zarua who cites a midrash, about damage coming because of uncovered head. So it is strange that he does not clarify in Shulchan Aruch as well the parameters of this. Perhaps since it is a
middat chassidut, he is willing to leave well enough alone.
Bli neder, perhaps a follow-up on those two simanim, in a different post.
Bach has an extensive writeup (right, but you must click on it), in which he discusses the language of Tur, whether he considers each to be a din or a middat chassidut, and whether there is a difference in
middat chassidut or stringency regarding 4 cubits or less than 4 cubits, and in the house vs. outside, in each case. I am not so convinced by his conclusions about the nature of the
middat chassidut, but read it all inside.
Perisha (right) notes that head-covering for men is a
middat chassidut, that it is dispute between Beis Yosef and Rama, and Rama says what he says in siman 91.
Three final sources. There are many more that I am not citing, such that this is not comprehensive. First, Be'er Heitiv, which gives some perspective of how some understand what
is the
middat chassidut, though I do not necessarily agree.
The next is the Likutei Megadim, who brings down other interesting Tannaitic sources. See them inside.
Finally, we have the
teshuva of the Maharshal,
siman 72. The question posed to him was למי שראשו כבד יש לו היתר לישב ולאכול בגלוי ראש. He writes what follows. Wow! The contents are so great, and astounding, I feel compelled to transcribe it (perhaps in translation), but will leave this for a subsequent post. For now, see the images! For example, he proves from a Midrash Rabba that it is
better with uncovered head, but Hashem does not impose upon us this
requirement when saying Shema. Even if he does not come to this conclusion entirely in the end, for reasons he explains.
Note: Do not pasken from blogs. This was not intended
halacha lemaaseh, and it is not comprehensive. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi for any practical application.
Related:
A Simple Jew happens to cite Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz on wearing a yarmulke.
