August 8, 2010 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm #592113August 8, 2010 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm #692496
1)Public street- Hair must be properly covered.
2)Private alley- Hair must be covered but any covering is enough.August 8, 2010 8:23 pm at 8:23 pm #692497
“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.August 8, 2010 10:46 pm at 10:46 pm #692498
Missme, how many Sanzor Chassidim do you know that shun wigs? How many descendants of the Chasam Sofer don’t wear wigs? And how many thousands of Satmar Chassidim wear the likes. As we will discuss in upcoming posts, the Osrim forbid anything in the likes of wigs, covered or not, synthethic and human. According to them only kerchiefs are permitted (excluding Shpitzels etc.). And Missme, hang on as we discuss the Osrim you mentioned.August 9, 2010 2:51 am at 2:51 am #692499mazal77Participant
didn’t we discuss the sheitel issue already in previous forum. Close this and continue it.August 9, 2010 3:25 am at 3:25 am #692500
Amongst various chasidim and sefardim (incl. Rav Ovadia) and other shittos especially in E. Yisroel, it is still assur.August 9, 2010 11:02 am at 11:02 am #692501MoqMember
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.August 9, 2010 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm #692502Be HappyParticipant
There are 2 things very wrong about shietels:
1. The Cost (Buying and Maintaining)
2. Wanting a shietel to look so natural that you have to look twice to see if the lady is wearing one!August 9, 2010 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm #692503yentishParticipant
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.August 9, 2010 1:03 pm at 1:03 pm #692504mamashtakahMember
I don’t understand the point of this thread. Are you trying to convince everyone that shaitels are assur? For those who follow rebbeim that say it’s OK to wear shaitels, let them wear. For those who follow rebbeim who say it’s not OK, let them wear something else. Follow your own rav.August 9, 2010 1:18 pm at 1:18 pm #692505
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.August 9, 2010 1:29 pm at 1:29 pm #692506basmelechParticipant
I personally would be very happy not to wear a sheitel. I only wear one so I shouldn’t stand out a different from anyone else, and I admire those who are not ashamed to wear other headcoverings at simchos. (Usually I do not wear sheitels, only when going out on Shabbos or to a simcha) If I am in Eretz Yisroel, I go out even on Shabbos without a sheitel because so many women there do, and if I am in a community where sheitels are ossur, I for sure don’t wear one.I would be very happy if all the rabbonim would assur sheitels altogether.August 9, 2010 1:38 pm at 1:38 pm #692507
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.August 9, 2010 1:47 pm at 1:47 pm #692508
The reason the ossrim assured sheitels, is because it is less tznius than a tichel.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that when the mutturrim permitted sheitels, it was NOT todays natural sheitels that are often impossible to differentiate whether she is even wearing a sheitel. They mattered a sheitel that was synthetic with obviously fake hair.
EDITEDAugust 9, 2010 2:23 pm at 2:23 pm #692509
To all of those that posted (whether against ‘natural’ Sheitels etc.) please cite sources or declare that it is your own Torah. NOTE: The title of this thread is ‘Sheitels In Halacha’. I plea that we leave it to Halacha only that is cited in the Poskim. I won’t add my opinion either just write the facts and leave everyone (to ask his Rabbi) and judge on his own.August 9, 2010 2:29 pm at 2:29 pm #692510
Dave, when the mutturim permitted “sheitels” 50 or 100 or whenever years ago, who said they are the same thing that is sold today under the name “sheitel”? They weren’t natural hair then and they didn’t look impossible to differentiate then. Just because the industry today calls their product today a sheitel, does not necessarily mean it is the same thing that was mattired by some back before these products existed in their current nature.August 9, 2010 2:31 pm at 2:31 pm #692511
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?August 9, 2010 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #692512
Helpful, hair is not objectively erva. A woman’s body is at all times. Hair is NOT. There are sources that state just a woman’s hair ATTACHED TO HER HEAD (as Dave Hirsch posted above). If its not attached to her head, its no longer erva.
Not everyone holds according to the same thing. To each their own.August 9, 2010 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm #692513
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?August 9, 2010 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm #692514
Meaning, a woman’s body is ALWAYS erva no matter what. A woman’s hair is NOT always erva (pre-marriage, post divorce with a heter, in her courtyard etc).August 9, 2010 3:26 pm at 3:26 pm #692515
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.August 9, 2010 3:38 pm at 3:38 pm #692516Max WellMember
Either it IS erva or it is not. A married woman’s hair IS erva just like her other erva parts. Just as you wouldn’t replicate her other erva parts on her clothing to make it indistinguishable from the actual erva, so shouldn’t you with her hair erva.August 9, 2010 3:55 pm at 3:55 pm #692517
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).August 9, 2010 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #692518
A woman’s own hair on her head is erva. Hair off of a woman’s head is not necessarily erva according to poskim. So if hair off her head is not erva, why can’t she wear hair on her head?
A picture of a woman’s body is not halachically allowed, even off of a woman. A man is allowed to look at a wig (if its off a woman’s head).August 9, 2010 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #692519000646Participant
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.August 9, 2010 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #692520Max WellMember
I also agree with the above point that what some poskim mattired years ago is not the concoction called a shaitel today with its indistinguishable human/natural hair (that more times than not you can’t even tell she is wearing a sheitel as opposed to going around uncovered.)August 9, 2010 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #692521
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.August 9, 2010 5:25 pm at 5:25 pm #692522
just “unimportant” little things like deleting yekum purkan.
Or Korbanos, or Heicha Kedusha, or saying extra tehillim at the end of Davening.
Slippery slope?August 9, 2010 5:25 pm at 5:25 pm #692523
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.August 9, 2010 6:24 pm at 6:24 pm #692524
the reason y we wear shaitels is because the rabbonim know that we are unfortunately not on the level not to. when the Sanzer rav assured shaitels he told the men that if their wives refuse to take them off its grounds for divorce. the problem was though that the women refused either way and told their husbands they can go. so they gave a heter… doesnt mean its right!! its just that this is our weak point. most ehrlich poskim will not tell you its mutar… they will tell you that the most mehudar would be to wear a kerchief.August 9, 2010 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #692525
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…August 9, 2010 7:05 pm at 7:05 pm #692526missmeMember
in yerushlayim essentially women dont wear sheitels because of the poskim.August 9, 2010 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #692527
ASF its called a toupee.August 10, 2010 6:42 am at 6:42 am #692528MoqMember
How sad. This interesting halacha based thread has denegrated into a blog of hearsay, feelings and assumptions.August 10, 2010 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm #692529shlomozalmanMember
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.August 10, 2010 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm #692530oomisParticipant
“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… “
I believe there is a frum actor who did exactly that.August 11, 2010 3:02 am at 3:02 am #692531missmeMember
When is the next, promised, installment coming forth?
Looking forwardAugust 11, 2010 3:09 am at 3:09 am #692532charliehallParticipant
What is wrong with what SJS wrote? Her facts are correct!August 11, 2010 4:02 am at 4:02 am #692534
Missme, The truth is, I planned a daily series. However, as some mentioned above, this forum has gotten out-of-hand somewhat and I think I’ll just compile everything together in one post (you can give it some time).
1. I know it’s a Mishne, however I see no difference in the way it should be mentioned here. And if you frequent Shut Seforim, you may know that they usually refer to Mishnayos as Gemara.
2. That is actually a Machlokes Rishonim. Most agree to the definition I posted. However, many (of whom claim hair should always be collected in a pony etc.) define it as you said. I was going to get there (when discussing the Tznius of wigs).August 11, 2010 4:24 am at 4:24 am #692536
Just a short note: All of you denouncing wigs (in any way) and claiming no Poskim would tell you it’s Muttar. Before we get to the Poskim of today (with some even stating wigs as the most Mehudar), the Shiltei Giborim is someone you should think about before arguing. He was in the same generation as the Beis Yosef and one of the leading Poskim of his times. He is the ‘Rosh Hamatirim’ and he writes that hair (which isn’t connected to skin) is not an Erva. Again, if you want to follow the Be’er Sheva (known as the ‘Rosh Haosrim’) fine, but don’t claim to know better than the Shiltei Giborim (the Rema, Magen Giborim, Magen Avraham, Ba’al HaTanya to name a few).August 11, 2010 4:29 am at 4:29 am #692537
charliehall, what is wrong with deleting yekum purkan?August 11, 2010 5:43 am at 5:43 am #692538basmelechParticipant
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.August 11, 2010 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm #692540oomisParticipant
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.August 11, 2010 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm #692541
Ruth was eye-catching (to Boaz) with her tznius and she is praised for it.August 11, 2010 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm #692542minyan galMember
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.August 11, 2010 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #692543
its mind boggling to see how defensive ppl always get when it comes to tznius… tznius is unfortunately one of our weak points due to pair pressure. the way a person dresses is the way they want to show the world who they are. any change in the way you dress is changing the impression ppl will have about u. its mind boggling how much time and money ppl would spend for pair pressure. how many of us have the extra 3,500 $$ for that GORGEOUS shaitel?August 11, 2010 7:43 pm at 7:43 pm #692544mw13Participant
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.August 11, 2010 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #692545
how many of us have the extra 3,500 $$ for that GORGEOUS shaitel?
You assume it is extra; many will say it is well worth the cost.August 12, 2010 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm #692546
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.August 12, 2010 3:42 pm at 3:42 pm #692548
I thought erva was a halachic status, not necessarily a visual thing. You can’t see “erva” itself, you see body parts or hair that IS erva.
I’m wonderinf if Daughters of Dignity is connected to R’ Falk.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.