Sheitels in Halacha

“Sheitels has become universally accepted even among those who originally opposed this trend.”

Not true. Among the many, many osrim: Sanzer rov, Satmar Rov, and the Chasam Sofer in his tzavo’o.

didn’t we discuss the sheitel issue already in previous forum. Close this and continue it.

Don’t close this thread! It’s intelligent and sourced. Let’s let this progess, stage by stage. True, R’ Ovadia certainly forbids to wear any Shaitel; I have not though seen many Sfardim who seem to abide by this, though many do. But it’s fair to say that some certainly do not wear Shaitels under any circumstances. I have never seen a Yerushalmer wear a shaitel; they even have special Kallah Tichels – and that’s after the chuppah, when it is a Machlokes (Rashbah & Rosh, I think) if a woman need cover her hair , and many indeed do not.

But let’s leave that for later, when we get to the Poskim.

if a WOMAN CAN tell that another woman is wearing a shaitel than its muttar. note that its if another woman can tell, cuz men usually cant tell anyway the difference if the shaitel is very natural.

The worst sheitels are those natural impossible to differentiate from real hair ones, that have unfortunately become somewhat widespread in America during the last 10 years.

basmelech, why should sheitels be assured? So that you can follow the “fashion” trend? If you feel that sheitels are wrong, don’t wear them. But for those that follow rabbonim who allow sheitels, let them be.

What I was always taught is that you cover hair because its erva. The hair has to be covered and can even be covered with a sheitel made of your own hair.

FWIW, I don’t own a sheitel.

Secondly, how is a sheitel that looks exactly like the erva it is covering anymore tznius than a shirt thats designed to look like the erva it is covering?

What do you mean “objectively”? Hair is erva. How is a hair (erva) covering that looks exactly like the erva it is covering any more tznius than a bossom (erva) shirt covering that is designed to picture the erva IT is covering?

Dave Hirsh, first of all I’m not missme. More importantly, you misconstrue the argument. The sad fact that their descendants don’t follow them doesn’t annul their issur.

A married woman’s hair IS erva just like her other erva parts.

That is what we are (eagerly) waiting to find out from DH (Yasher Koach!), who will bring the Shittos involved (I assume).

It is pretty clear that there are valid reasons for holding both that a nice human hair sheitel is assur as well as that it is muttar.

However personally I always felt that Jewish people should be proud to look distinctly “Jewish” (and dressing like a distinguished 18th century German is not what I mean)even if they arn’t religious at all. I mean you see Indian woman dressing distinctly eastern all over New York and our culture and religion is at least as rich as theirs so why should we be ashamed? even if you arn’t religious at all you should be proud to be a Jew and dress the part.

Wearing a nice scarf that looks distincly “Jewish” is probably more like that then trying to blend in wearing an as natrual looking as possible headcovering (or wearing none at all.)….. But then again I think most Chareidim are against the whole Jewish Pride thing… so whatever.

SJSinNYC, I think reasoning similar to yours eventually developed into Reform and Conservative Judaism. They didn’t start with basic halachos, just “unimportant” little things like deleting yekum purkan.

msseeker, there are poskim who allow you to use YOUR OWN HAIR as sheitels. This is because they rule that only hair ON YOUR HEAD, as in attached by the roots, is actually erva.

And, as I said above, I don’t wear sheitels.

i once read a good example. imagine your husband will come home one day with a yarmulke thats made of real hair so that he has the covering but it should not be recogniseable. wouldnt it be hilarious? well we are doing the same thing with our wigs…

ASF its called a toupee.

The OP made two mistakes in his opening sentence.

I quote:”The Gemara (Kesuvos, 72A) states that a woman who goes out with her hair uncovered gets a divorce without a Kesuvah.”

1. This is a mishnah, not a gemara. Yes, I know it is the tractate, but there is a difference, and the difference is important.

2. The word ???? does not mean uncovered. It means wild or unruly. This definition is the crux of the entire issue. If it is improperly defined, the discussion loses value.

DAVE HIRSCH:

When is the next, promised, installment coming forth?

Looking forward

charliehall, what is wrong with deleting yekum purkan?

For all people who think that eye-catching is the issue in tznius, there are plenty of very tzniusdig women who are eye-catching and attention-getting for other reasons: a) They are dressed all in black b)they have a LOT of kids with them c)they are obese (that goes for their husbands, too) d) they are trying to show how tzniusdig they are – it backfires. You get the idea.

Eye-catching is a very ambiguous expression, it can mean many things. People are tzniusdig or not, but other people will look if they want to look, no matter what others are doing or not doing.

I once asked a frum lady what the point is of wearing a sheitel that was so natural looking that the average person seeing it would think it was her own hair. She told me that she was required to cover her hair but she was not required to look homely.

yentish – “if a WOMAN CAN tell that another woman is wearing a shaitel than its muttar. note that its if another woman can tell, cuz men usually cant tell anyway the difference if the shaitel is very natural.”

I’m not sure why you think the difference between a good shaitel or a bad shaitel is if another woman can tell its fake. Isn’t the whole issur for a man to see a married woman’s hair? Either those that a man can’t tell are fake should be no good, or they should all be good. I don’t see any valid position in the middle.

basmelech – “I think that although covering one’s hair with a natural looking sheitel is technically not ossur as far as hair covering is concerned, it may be ossur for mar-as ayin, that it looks like one’s hair is not covered, and also if it is so eye catching that it makes men want to look at a woman, then it is an issue of lack of tsnius. Just like one shouldn’t wear clothing that make a man look at a woman, her sheitel should also not be attention getting.”

Well said, that is my view on the issue as well.

oomis1105 – “For all people who think that eye-catching is the issue in tznius, there are plenty of very tzniusdig women who are eye-catching and attention-getting for other reasons: a) They are dressed all in black b)they have a LOT of kids with them c)they are obese (that goes for their husbands, too) d) they are trying to show how tzniusdig they are – it backfires. You get the idea.

Eye-catching is a very ambiguous expression, it can mean many things.”

Please. Do you honestly believe that being obese or having alot of kids is a breach of tzniyus? (Oh, and how does dressing in black attract attention?)

“People are tzniusdig or not, but other people will look if they want to look, no matter what others are doing or not doing.”

True, if a woman is tzniusdig and men look anyway then its not her problem. However, if she doesn’t dress and act properly and men look, she is going to have to give a din v’cheshbon.

I read up on the shaitel issue last night since it was bothering me… i forgot to write down the names of the gedolim that were quoted in the sefer but it was written in “daughters of Dignity” that the gedolim today say that the point of a shaitel is so that a MAN (not a woman) should be able to tell that the woman is married. as far as Ervah is concerned… if you cant tell the woman is married you are defeating the whole purpose of ervah and therefor its not muttar.