whats the story here, it surely looks like that this "ervah" is different than other ervah, the story of satmar rebbe telling some women to wear a shaitel(granted he meant it to those who went with their hair out) but still if its mamesh ervah than why compromise if its asur (shaitlech) than its asur.
why do we see some women cover their shaitel by a chupah or bet hachaim?
wearing a shaitel for married women
Started by
shaya
, Jun 15 2011 09:38 AM
4 replies to this topic
#2
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 16 June 2011 - 06:42 PM
A Shaitel is not Ervah according to anyone. Many - probably most - poskim held it was a pritzus, and violates the intent of the law. The reason for the "compromise" is because not everyone prohibits it. And obviously, the majority of frum women today rely on those shitos.whats the story here, it surely looks like that this "ervah" is different than other ervah, the story of satmar rebbe telling some women to wear a shaitel(granted he meant it to those who went with their hair out) but still if its mamesh ervah than why compromise if its asur (shaitlech) than its asur.
why do we see some women cover their shaitel by a chupah or bet hachaim?
The reason why women cover their hair at the chupah is because they're married then. The heter for women not to cover their hair at their chasana is because the chasana has not yet been consummated and it is a weak heter. As far as a Chupa goes, there is no real reason. Regarding a Bais HaChaim, I don't know one either. According to many, women don't belong in a Bais HaChaim altogether due to kabbalistic reasons.
#5
Yet
-
- Members
- 6 posts
Member
Posted 08 January 2012 - 08:39 AM
I learned that m'd'oraisa, the halacha is that a woman has to cover part or most of her hair - for lack of a better way of describing it, sort of like the bonnets that Mennonite and Amish women wear - but this is (quite obviously) no longer the minhag Yisroel, and da'as yehudis is that we cover all of it. (just as we must not move muktzah objects on Shabbos, even though m'd'oraisa it is allowed). I just went and looked it up in my notes - it isn't written clearly, and I would still like to get in touch with my teacher. From what I understand, my notes say that we learn this from hilchos Sota, that m'd'oraisa, covering the hair isn't stated explicity, but by the halachos in Sota, it speaks about "a basket" - something that covers part or most of the hair. However, I thought that this might also be a part of the reason/heter why women don't cover their hair by the chasuna - the veil would take care of the halacha m'd'oraisa.
(I am not at all trying to say that therefore not covering all of the hair is ok for a married woman - among other things, we also learned in that class that the well-known heter from R' Moshe that you can leave less than a tefach uncovered was not meant in any way to a be a blanket "heter," and that someone had written to R' Moshe asking, if his wife was leaving less than a tefach uncovered, did he have to divorce her? R' Moshe replied that because it was less than a tefach, she was not considered to be doing a *major* aveirah, and he didn't have to divorce her - and also that he didn't like putting it in writing, for fear that it would be taken out of context, and that people should be machmir to cover the whole hair. She also mentioned that, as it is, we're not completely sure of the measurements, so even if one were to decide to rely on that heter, it would be rather risky. I'm writing this to show that it wasn't a class trying to give us ways around things, or warping the truth - but that was one source that she brought.)
(I am not at all trying to say that therefore not covering all of the hair is ok for a married woman - among other things, we also learned in that class that the well-known heter from R' Moshe that you can leave less than a tefach uncovered was not meant in any way to a be a blanket "heter," and that someone had written to R' Moshe asking, if his wife was leaving less than a tefach uncovered, did he have to divorce her? R' Moshe replied that because it was less than a tefach, she was not considered to be doing a *major* aveirah, and he didn't have to divorce her - and also that he didn't like putting it in writing, for fear that it would be taken out of context, and that people should be machmir to cover the whole hair. She also mentioned that, as it is, we're not completely sure of the measurements, so even if one were to decide to rely on that heter, it would be rather risky. I'm writing this to show that it wasn't a class trying to give us ways around things, or warping the truth - but that was one source that she brought.)
