Imagine the Outrage

amother

Orange

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 5:57 pm

This is a paragraph from the intro in the sefer Geder Olam-
"Sefer Geder Olam addresses modesty as embodied in three mitzvot which are continuously challenged by the gentile world: the obligation of married women to cover their hair when appearing in public, and the great reward earned by women to retain their modesty...
The Chofetz Chaim first proves from Shas and poskim citing the Rif, the Rosh, and the Rambam, and codified as law in Shulchan Aruch Ehvan Haezer that a woman's hair is called Ervah (a s-xual excitement) and when appearing in public with her fair uncovered she is violating a law of the Jews. The woman who exposes her hair in public in order to enchants her beauty can cause poverty to her home.."
If a sheitel enchantes a woman's beauty is defeating the entire purpose of the mitzvah of kisui rosh

amother

Seagreen

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 6:05 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

Is this your conclusion bc from the quote all I see is "the woman who EXPOSES her hair in public." a shaitel is a covering.

What's with your crusade anyways? No we will never all agree that shaitel are terrible and scarves are the best way to cover your hair. Sorry.

Mommyg8

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 6:08 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

Where is this sentence from? Not from the Chofetz Chaim, right?

Yes, the Chofetz Chaim was talking about the fact that most women in his times (even in Europe) did not cover their hair. That's a long leap to shaitels.

What is your agenda?

amother

Apricot

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 6:11 pm

Orange, yes, covering your hair is for tznius. Because after getting married, your hair (the personal hair attached to your own head) changes status and becomes ervah.

And just as other areas which are ervah must be COVERED to achieve modesty, the same is true with your hair.

But ervah is most certainly allowed to be covered with a beautiful covering.

For example, my highly stretch-marked and flabby belly is far less attractive than even my plainest T-shirt, all the more so my beautiful Shabbos clothing. No shirt or jacket will ever completely disguise the fact that I have breasts.

So is my shirt inherently non-tznius?

Of course not!

A covering can most certainly enhance your beauty.

A married woman may and should dress beautifully, wear makeup as appropriate, and even wear perfume!

Of course, her clothing should not be overly seductive, her makeup should be tasteful and not overdone, and her perfume should not be too heavy. That's part of tznius.

The same is true of her headcovering. It may certainly enhance her beauty.

Whether she wears a shaitel, a tichel, a shpitzel, or a snood.

Whether her natural hair was stunning, average, or ugly and stringy.

A gorgeous tichel, a beautiful natural shaitel, or a comfy snood are ALL doing the same job: Keeping the ervah on your head covered.

And as long as your overall look is modest and appropriate, there is nothing wrong with a sleek shaitel or gold-embroidered tichel.

If there is anything wrong with a waist-length highlighted shaitel, it's not that it's a shaitel. It's that (with some exceptions perhaps) it is a less than refined look.

A shaitel CERTAINLY need not look ugly and wiggy. It should look beautiful, modest, and refined, the same as the rest of your clothing.

Your legs can be covered with nude stockings which make your legs look even more perfect and unblemished, and your hair can be covered with a hair-like covering.

If your personal Rav feels otherwise, feel free to wear an ugly shaitel or a tichel, but do not denigrate the rest of us for wearing beautiful, modest haircoverings.

Mommyg8

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 6:19 pm

amother [ Olive ] wrote:

My Rav tells me what his sources are because he wants me to know. Why not?

Sources:

(This is from the sefer "A Practical Guide to Tznius" based on shiurim delivered by Rabbi Yaakov E. Forchheimer)

The Gemarah (kesuvos 72) states that from the fact that the Torah says that a sotah is degraded by having her hair uncovered, we learn that the obligation for a married woman to cover her hair in public is meda'araysa.

The majority of poskim rule that a woman is obligated to cover all of the hair on the head.....

(Then it discusses R' Moshe's heter, while explaining that R' Moshe said it is proper for women to be machmir, igros moshe ).

......................

When the manufacture of shaitels first began many years ago, there arose a widespread machlokes among the poskim of the time regarding the permissibility of wearing them altogether. Many teshuvos were written concerning this issue, raising questions of pritzus and mar'as ayin among other things. The majority of Klal Yisroel follows the ruling of those poskim who hold, based on the opinion of the Shiltei Giborim, that wearing a shaitel is permitted. (Those that don't follow this opinion do not wear shaitels at all).

Then he goes on to say which poskim rule that it has to be clear that it is not natural hair - Maharil Diskin, R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Shmuel Wosner.

Since R Forchheimer follows the above poskims opinions, he does not bring other opinions, and I'll leave it to another poster to continue...but I understand that R Moshe Feinstein paskened that any shaitel is ok.

amother

Apricot

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 6:41 pm

Shaitels come up in the Gemara (Erkin 7b). Here's the discussion:

The Mishna states that one may benefit from the hair of a woman who was put to death by Beis Din.

The Gemara asks, how is this possible? We may not benefit from a corpse!

Rav says, we are discussing if the woman stated before being put to death that her daughter should get her hair.

The Gemara asks, how is THAT okay? Would we give the daughter her hand if the woman asked for it? It's still a part of a corpse!

Rav said, no, we are not talking about her actual hair, which would be forbidden, but about her WIG. If she offered it to her daughter, she is saying that it is like an article of clothing for her, and therefore her daughter may have it. But if she just wore it without making such a statement, it would be considered a part of the corpse.

But is this such a clear halacha? R' Yosei bar R' Chaninah asked a question on a different Mishna, about the Ir Hanidachas (where the majority of the city was convinced to serve Avodah Zarah): Is the hair of a righteous woman living in that city [note that a righteous woman could be wearing a wig] considered part of their PROPERTY and therefore burned, or is it part of the PERSON and therefore not burned? And there it was not clear!

Rava said that in that case, it was also referring to a wig.

But how does that fit with what Rav said about a wig, that it should be considered a part of a woman's body unless specifically stated otherwise?

The Gemara answers, in the case of the Ir Hanidachas, we are speaking about a wig that was hanging on a hook, not being worn at the time. There we can question whether it is considered a part of her or not, whereas if she was wearing it it would by default be considered part of the person.

Here, Rav is talking about where the woman who is put to death is ACTUALLY wearing her wig, where only a previous statement would make it permissible to benefit from.

Conclusion: Shaitels have been around a REALLY long time, and were not considered problematic in the times of the Gemara, even when synthetic wigs could not have been a thing.

amother

Apricot

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 6:54 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

No agenda here- just explaining the purpose of the mitzvah of kisui rosh with Torah sources
Women are obviously going to do whatever they want and wear whatever they want.
I'm not expecting what I write to change that
but maybe there are open minded women on this site who never knew this info and are interested in reading it (I never knew why I was covering my hair and I was really grateful to finally understand the mitzvah properly)

So your conclusion is that because a woman's hair must be covered it must be in a way to make her more ugly?

Do you say the same about other parts of your body which are considered ervah? Do you only wear ugly clothing that does not enhance your beauty?

amother

Orange

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 7:41 pm

We do not cover body parts that are considered ervah with clothing that looks just like the body parts underneath. We are supposed to be concealing those body parts.
A married woman's hair become ervah- covering hair with nicer hair defeats the entire point of covering the hair! Ironically many secular and not frum Jews see the hypocrisy of today's wigs right away.
Hair is alluring to men (as I wrote before with all the sources explaining why married women need to conceal their hair from other men) so putting nice hair (and most wigs are nicer than ones own hair) on top of hair will still be alluring to men and is not accomplishing the point of the mitzvah- which is to create a barrier between a married woman and men other than her husband.
I'm not saying all wigs are wrong (although there are many great poskim that forbade sheitels such as the chosom sofer, the vilna gaon etc..,) I'm pointing out how many of today's wigs (which look nothing like the wigs from hundreds of years ago) are natural looking and beautifying -defeating the purpose of the mitzvah of kisui rosh.
A cloth head covering looks nothing like hair and will never provoke a man like nice hair does - it fulfills the mitzvah of kisui rosh in the best manner. This is really obvious. Would an actress ever wear a tichel to look glamorous?? No, but many of them wear wigs to look
glamorous.
Btw in the book Adorned with Dignity it explains (with sources) how in the times of the Gemara women only wore wigs inside the house to beautify themselves for their husbands ( if their hair was thin, white, balding etc...) when they went out they covered their wig entirely with a tichel. The wig was not used as a head covering in public.
The whole practice of wearing a sheitel in public started about 200 years ago in Russia when the czar decreed that women could not wear scarves outside anymore so the Rabbanim at that time allowed the Jewish women to wear very wiggy wigs outside instead of going around bare headed. And even on these wiggy wigs there was a fiery debate among poskim with many not allowing even the wiggy wigs.

Mommyg8

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 7:48 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

\

Is this your own interpretation? It sounds like it. Please, when you make things up you lose all credibility for everything else you have said.

You are obviously allowed to cover your hair with other hair - I gave the sources above.

Just because secular and non-Jewish people don't understand the point of a wig doesn't make it wrong. They don't understand the point of keeping kosher either. And try explaining niddah to them Rolling Laughter

. Good luck.

I have no idea why you are quoting this book, and I don't want to know who wrote it, but it's obviously lots of nonsense.

amother

Orange

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 7:48 pm

Tznius is not at all about being ugly- but it is about not provoking men.
A woman could look nice and dignified while being tznius. But there is a big misunderstanding about what is attracting to men- we've become desensitized to what men find alluring. But the Torah spells it out very clearly- and as it says in Rav Falks sefer there are many Torah sources stating that hair is the main beauty of a woman and that is why a married woman covers her hair- to ensure she does not cause men to look at her inappropriately.

Mommyg8

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 7:50 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

My husband says that someone asked a Rav why women are allowed to wear a shaitel that looks just like their hair. He said - why are you looking at women for? Keep your eyes to yourself. (I think this was the Steipler but I'm not 100% sure).

In general, the onus is on the man not to look. A woman should not be openly provocative, but men who stare at women have their own problems.

trixx

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 7:53 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

Ugh I will try to be nice but I really want to say a not nice thing that means be quiet.
Tznius has nothing to do with men. Hatzneiah leches im Hashem elokecha. On a deserted island you would still have to be tznius.
Please stop regurgitating incorrect statements with your own spin that coincidentally contradict your own sources. Above you wrote that hair covering is bc of ervah not beauty.
And I'll say this in my name which is more than you have done.

amother

Orange

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 7:54 pm

There is a heter to cover hair with hair (obviously- I never said there wasn't) but what type of "hair" the married woman wears makes all the differences. If this "hair" is beautifying it's defeating the purpose of the mitzvah. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record!
The author of the book Adorned with Dignity is really respected and well known-she wrote many other books like purity of speech and mastering patience. Adorned with Dignity is a fantastic book about kisui rosh (and really needed today)

amother

Orange

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 8:00 pm

I think I'm going to exit this thread now!
Tznius is all about not provoking men and the only way to really be modest is to understand this!
There is no Halacha to be tznius in the house or on a deserted island with no men there. Women could swim in bathing suits together- right? The halachos of tznius are ONLY in front of men. There is a hashkafa of being modest while alone because Hashem is always there but it is not Halacha
Women could justify all dress and head covering with whatever excuses they want- the emes is pretty obvious to anyone that is open to seeing it.

amother

Seagreen

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 8:05 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

Again - I follow the Lubavitcher rebbe who was more respected and known than the other of your book, and he held the best way is a wig.

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

No that's not what tznius is about.

Bye Felicia

amother

Apricot

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 8:39 pm

Of course there is a mitzvah to be tznius privately. Did you never learn that it is best to get dressed in a bathroom or under your covers, even if there is nobody else there? Hashem is everywhere.

There are certain situations where the halachos of tznius are different, for example in a bathhouse, where it is tznius to walk around without clothing, and in a pool where it is tznius to walk around in a swimsuit (but not necessarily tznius to walk around in the nude).

If hair is in essence provocative, young girls should cover their hair.

If only the hair of a married woman is provocative, then as long as that hair is covered, BY ANY METHOD, then she is no longer displaying her provocative hair. If she covers her hair (even more so, with the hair of an unmarried girl), then why would that be provocative?

You think that the fact that she HAS hair is provocative in and of itself? So then a tichel that displays a bump where hair is covered should be inappropriate too...

A woman is allowed to be, and encouraged to be, beautiful. She must cover all of her ervah. The two are not contradictory at all.

Tznius is in front of Hashem. Not just about men. I'm sorry that you were misled.

little neshamala

Sat, Dec 07 2019, 8:41 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

Hearing something from a Rav who heard it from another Rav is not really a Torah source. I've never seen anything written anywhere stating that Rav Moshe Feinstein said that the mitzvah of kisui rosh has nothing to do with tznius.

I am SO ANGRY right now. And it takes a lot to do that. DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?????
"A Rav hearing it from another Rav is not really a Torah source"??!! What exactly are you trying to say?? That my Rav ch"v is not basing his psak on a Torah source??? And you, little miss you, has never seen anything written from Rav Feinstein like I said??? So what, my Rav is mistaken, ch"v??!! Or misinformed???

For privacy reasons I can not out myself by saying who my Rav is. But he is a very well known yeshivish posek who is literally sought after night and day from people around the world with halachicly complex shaylas.

And you have the NERVE to question him, to DISAGREE (!!!) with him because you yourself have never encountered the source he explained to me??!!