Sunday, January 13, 2008

סוגיא דפריעת הראש

Last week I read a post from blogger "Bad Rabbi" (he's listed among my links as "רב שאינו הגון". In the Oct. 14 2007 post) about the subject of covering of the hair for women, from a Judaic/halachic perspective.The background for this requirement is well known; the bible (Numbers 5) has a prescribed method to deal with a ‘woman who has gone astray’. Basically the suspected woman should be brought to the priest, and it then states “ופרע את ראש האשה”, which can be understood as “then he should unbraid her hair”, or “then he should uncover her hair”. Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes (1040-1105) suggests that simply it is perhaps more likely to mean ‘he should unbraid’, but from a semantic perspective it can really go either way.

The Talmud (Ketuboth 72a) comments; "then he should uncover the woman’s hair"- and "if so", it states, "then we see it once was covered- if it once was covered, then it should always be covered. From here we can infer" says the Talmud, "that G-d would want a woman to have her hair always covered".

The author of the ‘Bad Rabbi’ blog had difficulty in understanding the logic of this talmudic derivation; “Let us review the logic:
.
1. The hair of the woman in ‘The Sotah’ story was uncovered by the Kohen
2. If her hair was uncovered, then it must have been covered to begin with
3. If her hair was covered, then it must have been covered all the time
4. If her hair was covered all the time, then ALL women’s hair must have been covered at all times
5. Therefore all women must have their hair covered!”, to quote his understanding.

But he adds “…does it follow that just because a woman’s hair was uncovered in that act of judgment then all women’s hair must from then on be covered? Maybe the fashion of the time three thousand years ago was to keep hair covered. Does this mean that we must keep with that fashion even now? Should we wear exactly what they were wearing too? Thank goodness the story does not describe the color and the dress this woman was wearing, or else, the rabbis would have required women to wear that dress as well!A more respectable argument for covering of hair could have been made on grounds of modesty. The rabbis could have said that modesty in dress includes covering hair. Certainly those women who wear hats or otherwise cover their hair tend to be less flamboyant then those who flaunt their hair. An argument could have been made that a dignified woman should cover her hair out of modesty. Unfortunately, when asked, Rabbis always point to ‘The Sotah’ story for justification for this law, and only add the modesty issue as an afterthought.”

I pondered his argument against the logic of the Talmud on and off for a few days. Initially I thought- that his whole understanding of the halachic process was faulty; the Talmud here is not trying to prove that it is a biblical imperative for a woman to cover her hair, it cannot be suggesting that- for we know such a thing is not one of the 613 Divine Laws. Rather this form of proof in the Talmud is called an "אסמכתא" ("a leaning"). The point of bringing an asmachta is not to prove something biblically, but just to provide a verse that somewhat assists our idea. But that is not THE proof for woman’s head covering.

It is known to all reading this, that most observant Muslim women cover their hair. It would seem to us that this would be based on the Koran, or perhaps only in the Hadith. When one searches through the Koran though, to one’s surprise, he finds no such verse instructing women to cover their hair!

Why is it then that all observant Muslim women have their hair covered? From the simple understanding that the Koran felt it was understood (in that time and place, at least- I.e. seventh century Saudi Arabia) that women cover their hair. This was understood by all. The Koran does state though, that women should generally be modest. The prophet (Mica 4:8) also bequeaths man to ‘walk modestly with g-d’.

So if the argument can be made that woman should cover their hair, because she had it covered, the argument can also be made that if Moses was wearing shoes, we all should be wearing shoes. True, but who among us is not wearing shoes? It is understood.

That is what I thought at the time. But still that argument is slightly (I stress- slightly faulty) because times and norms change. There is a famous Hassidic dictum that "how do we know that Moses wore a ‘shtreimel’ (the fur hat that Hassidim wear)? For it says “ and Moses came out"!...would Moses come out without a shtriemel?!”. Rabbi Dr. Josef Breuer (18421925) in his book ‘The Jewish Marriage’ brings up this problem. He writes “you might say that the practice of covering the hair does not seem to be a custom followed by Jews only; it is the common heritage of the orient, and thus it brings to mind the inferior position of woman in the east and the degradations that were associated with the harem”. After convincing the Jewish woman that this is a practice of Jews, he adds “And even if upon superficial examination there might be some truth in this argument- might it not be possible that two persons might engage in the same practice, but each for quite different reasons that the other? Does not the oriental also pray…, does not he have temples priests and prophets- and still, would you be so thoughtless as to consider identical certain phenomena and concepts which, while seemingly alike, actually represent ideas diametrically opposed to each other by virtue of the spirit in which each is performed?”
.
(I personally wish to add to his words that the New Testament also testifies to the fact that women of the orient were expected to cover their hair in the time of Paul, for he writes (I Corinthians 11.5) "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven". this is not kept in actuality by most Christians today for the very reason that it was 'only said for that time', though there is a movement today among Evangelical Christians to bring the practice back).

Though the original problem still lingers; but then it hit me- the Bad Rabbis whole premise is off. It does not say that anyone ever uncovered anyone else’s hair. It says ‘this is what you should do in this situation’. In fact there is a wording of our prestated Talmudic derivation on this verse in the Midrash. The Midrash Sifri (ibid.) formulates “this is to teach you that a woman’s hair should be covered”, not “it was covered”, but “should be covered”! In other words the Torah is telling us “this is what you should do in this situation…then uncover her hair”, i.e. I expect her hair to be covered then.

Ah but the eyes of those who do not wish to see will always be blind! For all time, those who have discarded and mocked the commandments which we understand to be of Divine origin, did so out of ignorance and an unwillingness to learn!

עבד

24 comments:

Lubab No More said...

You make a reasoned argument but, sadly, at the end you toss it all out the window and just default to the Sifri.

If hair covering is ultimately based on a medrish then why is it treated like the 614th mitzvah and not like any other chumra brought down from medrish?

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Thanks for reading.

My first argument that it was a given to the bible that a womans hair aught to be covered was slightly faulty because all oriental women cover their hair until today, so it's not fully proven that G-d would also consider it understood today (in 'the West'), where the -general- standards are different.

What I was attempting to prove from the Midrash is that the 'parashat ha'sota' is a command for the future, and not a recalling of passed events, like the bad rabbi saw it. If so, the Midrash understands the bible there as not being the 614th mitzva, but expecting all Jewish women in futre generations to cover their hair.

[p.s. the way things are 'treated' by anyone has no bearing on the objective truth, but that fact is too obvious to be uttered.]

Lubab No More said...

> If so, the Midrash understands the bible there as not being the 614th mitzva, but expecting all Jewish women in futre generations to cover their hair.

What is the difference between the Torah "expecting all future generations to do something" and "a mitzvah"? Can you show me anything else that has as little source as hair covering but is treated in the same high regard?

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Wearing a shtreimel, or black hat. No, I'm joking... Um, I can't think of anything off hand (if I do I'll tell you), but there are instances where we apply the rule "מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן" ("from the negative you can infer the positive"- one of 'the thirteen principles'), I'm not saying this is nesasariy one of them, but I'm saying that's to me a close example in other parts of 'Torah' of what's happening here.

The way I see it, in the eyes of the Talmud the laws which appear in the Torah as we read them are not the only aspect of Divine law. There are a million and one ways (13 to be exact) of extrapolating new 'legal' understandings from small nuances in the actual wording of the laws (from inferences and missing letters etc. -there is even a tradition that laws were extrapulated at one time from the letters' ornementation (תגין)-.

So the bulk of the Talmud, besides from it's explaing the 613 laws, and bringing up scenarios where what to do is questionable, is also trying to rediscoer the biblical source for a lot of the laws that were given orally by G-d, (the existance of which we find to be the only logical explination of things).

הכותב לכבוד הא"ל
ולכבוד תורתו

שלמה

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

correction: The aforementioned inference is not a principle, rather an understanding.

Lubab No More said...

> There are a million and one ways (13 to be exact) of extrapolating new 'legal' understandings from small nuances in the actual wording of the laws

This is true, but it is usually applied to better understand an existing mitzvah. Whereas hair-covering comes out of no where.

What do you think the difference is between the Torah "expecting all future generations to do something" and "a mitzvah"?

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

very shortly; again, this mitzva is clasified in the talmud as 'dat yehudit', which is a very obscure halachic concept, especially considering that this is pretty much the only thing under that clasification (though I will (insh-a"llah) research it). Some other clasifications are 'de'oraita' v.s. 'de'rabanan'. halacha le'moshe misinai. drash (drasha). smach (asmachta). And covering of the hair is connected to an actual mitzva 'not to come near to reveal nakedness' of, for example, your friends wife (one might be atracted to a maried woman because of her hair). I know that's a little pushing it, but just because it wasn't stated as that in the talmud doesn't mean it wouldn't agree to such a concept (it's obviously at least partialy a seperation from 'arayaot'). Though more research is defenetely always necesary.

"http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/Hashkafah/mt04.asp"...I recomend this to everybody by the way...

a good day to you.

Lubab No More said...

> this mitzva is clasified in the talmud as 'dat yehudit', which is a very obscure halachic concept, especially considering that this is pretty much the only thing under that clasification

Doesn't this strike you as just a little bit odd that this is the only halacha in the category? It feel like it is only one step higher than the extra days of niddah that got added without any source what-so-ever.

On a side note, it's 'halachos' like the ones I noted above which contributed to my skeptical thinking. If you take a step back and think about the information in front of you without giving Torah sources more weight ("Of course the gemara is correct!") the basis for these practices appears very weak and ultimately rest on your faith in messorah. From my point of view hair covering seems to be a practice that was (and is) observed in the Middle East, and as such it was noted in sotah, but it is not actual halacha, BUT since it was mentioned it got spun into this obligation that didn't previously exist. The whole hair covering thing feels very much like a custom that found a source, not the other way around.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

I think the points you mentioned were already mentioned in the post; namely that it’s true that women of the orient cover their hair because that is what’s expected of women. In G-d’s book too it is expected of women. Just because the descendants of the barbarians of Western Europe don’t do it, doesn’t prove that it’s not a legitimate practice. Again, see quotation from Josef Breauer in my post- it’s true, oriental women cover their hair, but two people can do the exact same action for entirely different reasons. Now I admit women who cover their hair can also be attractive, but adultery and rape are MUCH more likely to happen to a woman who flaunts her beauty to all, and covereth not her hair. So it’s true, we are ‘looking’ for a source, because it’s not a mitzvah because in those times at least it was so obvious.

[But again; this calls for a basic recap of my philosophies.

In ancient Greek 'logic' there are 'premises' and 'outcomes'. If a certain amount of premises are seen to be more true than any other option, one must embrace the outcomes, and try to justify them.

For example; Steven Hawking is known to be the greatest physicist in the world today, say that at an academic gathering, all he said was "puku. lala. mumu. mushu." and walked out. There are two possibilities; either he's just gone nuts already (that's what happens when you're in the Lucasian chair), or we can suppose that he's telling something to us through some sort of obscure riddle, and it's our job to decipher what he's trying to say.

Now, if it is more reasonable (for whatever reason) to assume that he's in his right mind, then it is our job to try to justify everything he says, crazy as it may sound (maybe through initials he was formulating some sort of new theory, and he wants us to struggle a bit to decipher it..).

Same with G-d and His word; if a reasonable amount of credibility can be given to the idea that any given Judaic text is based on solid promises, and is known to come from a logical source; it is only our job to try to legitimize it; be it the most obscure 'medrash pliah'. That is the difference between Rashi and bible critics.

With that said; 1. To be honest, it could be there are other things in the 'dat yehudit' category I'm either not aware of, or didn’t get a chance to be recorded. 2. I don’t know too much about hilchot niddah (I lack diligence in study).

Though I will agree with you that after all is said and done, true, there are those who deny the legitimacy of the (reasonably logical) halachic method, and feel that sociological influences have infiltrated even those parts of the Talmud (the Rambam does admit that some parts of the Talmud are of sociological influence, and to us are therefore no more than nonsense). Though I agree that that is a legitimate approach to Judaism, taken by followers of the Conservative movement, though it is not the one I adhere to.

(I am a proponent of over-legitimizing things. For example; did John Smith really find the book of Mormon in upstate New York (Which is what 14 million Mormons (same amount of Jews in the world by the way) believe)? I don’t think it happened. But I do feel that no large group of people does anything for absolutely no legitimate reason. (The Jewish philosopher has a new post where the commentators are discussing the logical legitimacy of paganism!). Therefore, I do feel that deviant Jewish groups like the Ultra-Orthodox and Conservative movements (perhaps even Reform) have a good amount of reasonable logic to them.)

It is true what you suggest though; we are trying to 'find' known halachot in the biblical verses 'somewhere'. Though again, questioning the legitimacy of part of this system, is synonymous to bringing the whole (proven) system into question. For example; we are of the opinion currently (well, most of us anyway) that the democratic system is the best system of government. Therefore, any given elected official to the executive branch in America wields a certain amount of force. So, simply; do you want America to be in Iraq? No. But the majority of Americans voted for a president ho does. (sort of a bad example, but..you get the point.). So; are there things of seemingly faulty logic in the bible and Talmud? Yes. But if you feel it’s the most logical option, the you av to be like Rashi (on the bible) and Tosafot (on the Talmud) and try to make sense out of the seeming discrepancies.]

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lubab No More said...

> adultery and rape are MUCH more likely to happen to a woman who flaunts her beauty to all, and covereth not her hair.

First of all this is a horrible thing to say. It basically places the blame for rape on the woman. If you keep following this line of logic your conclusion will be to dress women in burkas and not let them leave the house. Further, by your logic if you have identical twins dressed exactly the same and one has her natural hair styled and the other is wearing a wig that looks exactly the same as her twin's hair then the woman without the wig is more likely to be victimized. The same for adultery. But let's not forget the origin of hair covering comes from sotah where an adulterer seemed to have her hair covered!!!

Regarding the Steven Hawking example...
If I were in that crowd and he seemed to go nuts I would have him evaluated by doctors to see if he was actually of sound mind before I would assume that he was try to tell us something.


> if a reasonable amount of credibility can be given to the idea that any given Judaic text is based on solid promises, and is known to come from a logical source; it is only our job to try to legitimize it

This is exactly the issue. I think it is questionable if the written Torah is truly from god. It certainly reads like it was written by man. Like in the Hawking example I'm not going to try and make sense of what he is saying until I have reason to believe that he is actually trying to say something. With the Torah thousands of rabbis for thousands of years have been trying logically understand it but that doesn't automatically mean it is from god or "true".

> (the Rambam does admit that some parts of the Talmud are of sociological influence, and to us are therefore no more than nonsense).

Doesn't this idea bother you? For a moment let's assume that God exists and gave us the Torah, but nevertheless parts of the Talmud are the result of sociological influence. How do you know if what you are practicing is actually from God and not a pagan ritual?!?! Or, what percentage of your practice is commanded by God and what percentage is social influence? 90 God /10 cultural? 65/35? or maybe 20/80!!! You have no way of knowing. But if any social influence at all can worm its way into halacha then what does that say about the fallibility of the whole system?


> we are of the opinion currently... that the democratic system is the best system of government. Therefore, any given elected official to the executive branch in America wields a certain amount of force.

I'm glad you raised this example. I agree that "democratic system is the best system of government" but I don't think it is a perfect system. The President wields power because the people have subscribed to the system but it doesn't mean the President is infallible. In fact the system assumes he IS fallible and has a system of evaluating the leader every few years. Democracy assumes that circumstances change and that adjustments need to be made. On the other hand Judaism assumes that the Torah is TRUE and is PERFECT. Further, halachic rulings mostly have assumed that nothing will ever change. Take the halachos of medicine. We can't take an aspirin on Shabbos because once upon a time if you wanted to make 'refuah' you had to grind up the potion. So, the rabbis passed the rule that you may not take any medicine on Shabbos because they assumed people would forever have to grind in order to make it. Circumstances change and rules and leaders need to adjust with the times, Torah and halacha do not allow for any major changes.

> So; are there things of seemingly faulty logic in the bible and Talmud? Yes. But if you feel it's the most logical option, the you av to be like Rashi (on the bible) and Tosafot (on the Talmud) and try to make sense out of the seeming discrepancies.

Again in order to get to this point you have to assume the Torah is TRUE/logical (or the most TRUE/logical). I think there are enough illogical and untrue things in there to make us question if it is really from God and not the product of man.

All of these examples start with the assumption that something is perfect (Hawking, democracy, the Torah) but in truth Hawking, democracy, and the Torah are all open to mistakes.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Sorry I didn’t respond immediately, I was a bit bussy…

"It basically places the blame for rape on the woman."- No, it places the blame on us banal men. According to your logic, even the most provocative dress or lack thereof should be ok...

"Further, by your logic if you have identical twins dressed exactly the same and one has her natural hair styled and the other is wearing a wig that looks exactly the same as her twin's hair then the woman without the wig is more likely to be victimized. The same for adultery."- I never said there is anything better about having a wig than an uncovered head. Sefaradim don't agree with ashkenazim on the whole 'wig' thing...

"But let's not forget the origin of hair covering comes from sotah where an adulterer seemed to have her hair covered!!!"- Well then how much more so for a woman with sexy hair, and a mini skirt, and clothing that makes her charming shape apparent? Again, the problem is not the girl, it's the guys..

"Regarding the Steven Hawking example...
If I were in that crowd and he seemed to go nuts I would have him evaluated by doctors to see if he was actually of sound mind before I would assume that he was try to tell us something."- ok, Steven Hawking sort of bad example, he looks sort of nuts. I was thinking of a good example, but everyone is a little nuts today! ok- Kant. Emmanuel Kant, what if he said the “mushu” thing. in front of the king of Prussia, and all his servants, in the height of his 'career'?

"> if a reasonable amount of credibility can be given to the idea that any given Judaic text is based on solid promises"- I meant to write 'premises'.

"This is exactly the issue. I think it is questionable if the written Torah is truly from god. It certainly reads like it was written by man. Like in the Hawking example I'm not going to try and make sense of what he is saying until I have reason to believe that he is actually trying to say something. With the Torah thousands of rabbis for thousands of years have been trying logically understand it but that doesn't automatically mean it is from god or "true"."- It's hard to judge from how it 'looks', because you have to remember, it was written originally for ancient man to relate to....

"> (the Rambam does admit that some parts of the Talmud are of sociological influence, and to us are therefore no more than nonsense).

Doesn't this idea bother you?"- no, it gladdens me to know that he wasn't overly dogmatic...

"For a moment let's assume that God exists and gave us the Torah, but nevertheless parts of the Talmud are the result of sociological influence."- ok, I don't know if you know man, but the Torah and the Talmud are different books, with supposedly different authors.. ; )

"How do you know if what you are practicing is actually from God and not a pagan ritual?!?! Or, what percentage of your practice is commanded by God and what percentage is social influence? 90 God /10 cultural? 65/35? or maybe 20/80!!! You have no way of knowing. But if any social influence at all can worm its way into halacha then what does that say about the fallibility of the whole system?"- Ah! Statement of he day! This, my friend, is one of the goals of my life, to separate 'pure-religion' from all social influences. And that sometimes takes a staunch theologian like me (I was in yeshiva for four years after high-school) to admit that many parts of the Talmud are faulty. That is why I hate those over-traditionalist European Jews so much, because for them (both the Hassidim and the atheists) Eastern European food is synonymous with Judaism somehow (I live in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn, NY). That's how they approach the whole religion, with a 'fiddler-on-the-roof' type of Eastern European type of mindless clinging to "tradition".

So, I wouldn't say is says anything about the 'fallibility of the whole system'. Again, going back to the premises; the 'system', to me is the most logical option, I am just trying to justify that premise. And this is not a proof against that anyway, it's a proof against what I like to call 'hereidishkeit', 'freezing the system'. Naturally, the system is ever changing (which is the whole basis of conservative theology). But cartain pricibles, and certain moral ideas always have to be 'beyond time'. (Though I don't beleive that one should stop actively doing the mitzvot that one can do).

"Take the halachos of medicine. We can't take an aspirin on Shabbos because once upon a time if you wanted to make 'refuah' you had to grind up the potion. So, the rabbis passed the rule that you may not take any medicine on Shabbos because they assumed people would forever have to grind in order to make it. Circumstances change and rules and leaders need to adjust with the times, Torah and halacha do not allow for any major changes."- Ok, I admit; that is actually a pretty good example on your part. But 1. Again, there are 'legitimate' ideologies that posit that these things do change (again, 'conservatism'), and 2. Yes, ok, that is actually similar to the democratic system. Do we make medicine hat way now? No. Do we not know what date it is in exile that we have to celebrate he festivals for two days? No. So, why then? Again, it's all part of an intricate, and I stress 'logically legitimate(!)' system. It was deemed 'most logical' by our sages in Iraq (600's) that some things are the result of the 'halachic process', and one is 'better off on the safe side'...

"Again in order to get to this point you have to assume the Torah is TRUE/logical (or the most TRUE/logical)."- That is obviously the point of all points. But, I think we should fulfil in ourselves the advice that was given us in Baz Luhrmans "Everybody's free to wear sunscreen" song, and "do one thing every day that scares you", or at least 'read something every day that scares you'! Read something that goes against your own ideologies or thought patterns. For you it would be stuff like 'Permission to believe/permission to receive' by Lawrence Keleman, or something else along those lines. And for me it would be something like 'the G-d delusion'!

עבד

badrabbi said...

Hello!

I feel honored that my article was discussed in such length. Now that I know that obviously smart people are reading, analyzing, and dealing with the issues, I will go back and write more for the blog.

As an aside, I read your blog and commentary with great interest. I really congratulate you for dealing with what I am saying fairly and scrutinizing it logically. This is all I am asking for.

Anonymous said...

What's your opinion about wigs?

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

"What's your opinion about wigs?"- Not positive at all : ).

I hold that both from a halachic perspective (חוה דעת for example) and from a 'hashkafic' perspective it should be assur for a married woman to wear a wig in public (especially in todays day, with the Jewish and Muslim fundamentalist movements).

I never understood what the logic was behind wearing them: If it's for the husband, he can see his wifes hair all he want in private, why should he be making his wife more attractive for other men? If it's for the wife, again, her goal should not be to look as pretty as possible in public, rather in private.

I'm guessing the main/only reasons girls do it is because of peer preasure, and because in their circles it's unheard of to be opposed to such a thing.

(I used to have a lot of anecdotes on the subject which might make this comment too budensome.)

The truth in fact is, that not only are kerchiefs far more proper, a lot of times they not only don't look worse on a girl than a wig, they look better. And as I said in the post, what can be more attractive to a guy than a girl who wears the crown of modesty and self-respect on her head?

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Are those your sentiments as well?

Shani said...

Thanks for taking time to explain.

Are those my sentiments? Covering my hair fully without a wig is one of my priorities when I'm b"H married, and I'm not willing to compromise it (despite the fact that I've been told I should...)

"I'm guessing the main/only reasons girls do it is because of peer preasure, and because in their circles it's unheard of to be opposed to such a thing." -
One of tzniut teachers in seminary taught us that the main reason for covering our hair is a personal reminder, and therefore, it doesn't matter whether others can discern a wig vs. real hair.
Our Rabbi, however, taught us R'Moshe Feinstein's (a"h) teshuvah, but when I raised a point that this teshuvah was written in the 70s and the wigs of today are far different and more natural, shiny, alluring, etc. than the wigs of back then, he said I very well might have a point.
Most Rabbanim (in America) seem to be matir wigs, especially for women in the work-force. I was thinking about this yesterday when I saw a Muslim business lady on the subway, wearing a classy, professional looking suit and a hijab. If she could pull it off, why can't we? The way I see it...it's all a matter of principles.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

"Thanks for taking time to explain."- I've always been "evangelic" about the subject, so.. Thanks for revealing your sentiments.

"Covering my hair fully without a wig is one of my priorities when I'm b"H married"- יישר כוחך לאורייתא.

"and I'm not willing to compromise it (despite the fact that I've been told I should"- I also feel it would be incorrect to compromise on such a matter. Just like a husband should compromise to shave with a razor or dye his hair because that's what his wife wants..

"it doesn't matter whether others can discern a wig vs. real hair"- That's one of downsides of Seminary; they teach the girls very one-sided opinions which they're compelled to believe. Judaism, in fact, is filled with a lot more diversity than is presented in Seminaries..

"Most Rabbanim (in America) seem to be matir wigs, especially for women in the work-force."- Yeah, ASHKENAZI rabbanim..

"If she could pull it off, why can't we?"- Yeah, that's what I was saying about the Muslims; their tzniut gives us much more of a responsibility than we had in America in the fifties.

Apropos to what you said: I was once making a purchase in a grocery store in the Sefaradi-religious part of Paris and the woman there had a kerchief that looked FAAR better than any wig in Brooklyn, so...there's (as you said) definitely nothing unprofessional about it..

Shani said...

"That's one of downsides of Seminary; they teach the girls very one-sided opinions which they're compelled to believe. Judaism, in fact, is filled with a lot more diversity than is presented in Seminaries.."
Not all seminaries. But yes, for the most part, the one that I went to did, and I was very disappointed because the main reason I went to seminary was to learn as much as I can and be well-aware of different sources and opinions.

"Most Rabbanim (in America) seem to be matir wigs, especially for women in the work-force."- Yeah, ASHKENAZI rabbanim..
Many Sefardi Rabbanim as well. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple. I'm not sure what their basis or source is, but that's just the (in my honest opinion) sad reality right now.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

It's funny, this post was about covering your hair in general, and now we're discussing wigs. It's so hard to gage what Judaic level your readers are on; some things have to be taken for granted.

Though it looks like I mentioned wigs in passing on my Jan 20th comment back to Lubab No More..

1) You should have looked into "drisha".

2) The only sefardi rabbis in America who allow such things are the "fake sefaradim" who have been influenced by Ashkenazim. Or in some Syrian communities where the woman doesn't cover her hair anyway, they feel it's better than nothing..

Shani said...

"The only sefardi rabbis in America who allow such things are the "fake sefaradim" who have been influenced by Ashkenazim. Or in some Syrian communities where the woman doesn't cover her hair anyway, they feel it's better than nothing.."
Then why do their wives wear wigs?

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Who? Those sefaradi rabbis? 1) Like I said, because they're fake sfaradim! 2) Because they're wives "wear the pants" in their households.

I used to say: It says in Beitza (32b) "There are three who's lives are not lives". The second one is "one who's wife controls him". So since these sefardi rabbis are obviously going against "sefaradi halacha" because they have no "halachic authority" over their wives, and are being "ruled by them", you can't accept their religious athority because the Torah is a "Torah of Life", and you cannot accept a "Torah of Life" from one who has no life! ..works a lot better in Hebrew.. ..but that was in my more fundamental days!

In case you want to check out that page in Beitza:

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%91_%D7%91

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

..I still like my old profile picture by the way..