A few months back I mentioned that the new work by David Assaf Hazitz Unifgah appeared in print. I noted that a complete bibliography of the sources that were used for writing this book was printed in the recent volume of Mechkarei Yerushalayim 23 (2011) pp. 407-481. This was not included in this new work. Recently this bibliography appeared on line here.

1. In Babylon they were lax regarding the requirement
   for one who experienced seminal emissions [Ba’al Qeri] to immerse
   himself in a mikva. In the Land of Israel they were stringent.
2. In Babylonia they commence the Sabbath in the midst
   of the blowing of the shofar teru’ah — They retain their fathers’
   practice. (Sabbath 35b)
3. In Babylon, they read the hallel on the day of
   the New Moon. In the land of Israel they did not (Ta’anit 28b, “They
   retain their fathers’ practice”).
4. In Babylon [a large unit of length] is referred to as
   a “parsa.” On the other hand, in the land of Israel, it is referred
   to as “four mil.” [miles]
5. According to the understanding of the sages of the
   Land of Israel there are four keys in the hands of the holy one, blessed
   be he. According to the understanding of the sages of Babylon, there are
   three.
6. In Babylon there were sages who fasted two Days of
   Atonement due to uncertainty as to on which day the new month begins.
7. The Babylonians do not greet [rabbinic authorities],
   so Z’eira [respected their custom and] did not greet Rabbah when he
   visited.
8. Rabbi Yohanan said to Rav Hiyya bar Bo: “The
   Babylonians have brought two [customs] up with them: full prostration on
   the fast days and the taking of the willow on the seventh day [of Sukkot].
   The Rabbis of Caesarea added bloodletting [to the list] as well.
9. In the Babylonian Talmud we find: “Yosef.” In
   the Jerusalem Talmud: “Yosi.”
10. (7) “There, in Babylon, when there is no wine, the
    prayer leader descends to the bima and recites the one blessing in
    place of seven and concludes with meqadesh Israel v’et yom hashabbat.”
    However, in the Babylonian Talmud we do not find this.
11. (8) In Babylon the custom followed Rabbi Ishmael in
    reciting “borkhu et hashem hamevorakh.” It appears that in the Land
    of Israel they followed Rabbi Akiva [instead].
12. (9) Is seems that in the Land of Israel, when a Kohen
    was called to the Torah reading in the absence of a Levite, he would not
    recite a second blessing. In Babylon he recites the benediction.
13. (10) In the Land of Israel they recite “Barukh
    shem kavod malkhuto l’olam va’ed” out loud because of the heretics. In
    Nehardea they whisper it since there are no heretics there.

Lines like this are good for applause in a Modern Orthodox (and even a haredi) shul, among people anxious to be reassured that these Taliban women couldn’t possibly have any sources in our tradition for their actions. The truth of the matter is that, whether we like it or not, there are sources that are strong supports for the Taliban women, and there is no reason to deny that they exist.[9] Sotah 10b is clearly praising Tamar when it mentions that she was so modest that she covered her face in her father-in-law’s house. R. Joseph Messas (Mayim Hayyim, vol. 2, Orah Hayyim no. 140) points out that Shabbat 6:6 refers to Arabian Jewish women going out veiled, which means that their entire face was covered except for their eyes. He also points to Shabbat 8:3: כחול כדי לכחול עין אחת, which as explained in the Talmud refers to those women who were so modest that they were completely veiled, with only one eye showing in order for them to see (see Rashi, ad loc. See also Rashi to Isaiah 3:19.) Messas tells us that in his youth he personally saw Jewish women who dressed like this: וכן ראינו בימי נעורנו. R. Meir Mazuz’s mother testified that brides in Djerba would only show one eye, also for reasons of modesty.[10]

Here is the letter of R. Mazuz that appears at the end of the volume.

There are numerous texts I could bring in opposition to the approach of Amsalem and Mazuz (which I believe is also the approach of the Sages). One noteworthy one is found in Ateret Menahem, p. 23a, where R. Menahem Mendel of Rimanov is quoted as follows:

While Aflalo’s reply is phrased very respectfully, his feeling that Rabbi is way off base comes through very clearly.

• [21] See the numerous explanations of these passages in R. Moshe Zuriel, Leket Perushei Aggadah, ad loc. Tosafot, ad loc., quotes one opinion that does take the passage literally, but this opinion assumes that the am ha’aretz spoken of is a violent person suspected of murder