My Reaction to Rav Elyashiv's Latest Statement on Wigs

The Yeshiva World reports that Rav Eliashiv recently had some harsh words against sheitels. To quote the article:

Maran HaRav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv Shlita had some very harsh words regarding today’s sheitels, stating the women who wear them today are as if they go outdoor bareheaded.

The Rav is quoted as saying there are permitted sheitels and those that are asur, but today’s are strictly forbidden. He called “today’s” sheitels “erva”, stating they are absolutely forbidden.

A participant in the shiur asked Rav Elyashiv how they wore human hair wigs in the time of the Gemara, to which he responded the wigs of those days were different, with the best at that time being comparable perhaps to today’s worst, adding today’s human hair wigs represent “erva” and are absolutely forbidden.

The Rav repeated over and over again the severity of the isur of wearing such sheitels, which the wife and her husband share equal responsibility.

But is this really news? We knew that Rav Eliashiv had this position. I noted that last year, in 2007, in a post which read in part:

Secondly, in recent times, some prominent rabbis such as Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv, and Rabbi Nissim Karelitz have declared that even if one says that wigs are permitted, modern wigs are Biblically forbidden since they are attractive and look like hair.

That summary was based on this YNet article from June 2006:

Citing decisions in Jewish law that forbid the wearing of wigs that look like hair, by among others, Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv, and Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, three of the most important ultra-Orthodox authorities on Jewish law.

...

“Modern wigs are forbidden according to the Torah since they are just as much a breach of the law as hair, if not more,” according to the announcement. “

According to the announcement, while there were a number of authorities in Jewish law who permitted the wearing of wigs for married women, they were referring to the older type of wig. The newer wigs, which look just like real hair, are clearly “forbidden according to the Torah.”

Now, one should point out that in this recent shiur (and likewise in that earlier 2006 article), Rav Eliashiv was distinguishing the newer wigs from the ones permitted in the time of the gemara. One could also perhaps continue this line of argument to the various halachic decisors who permitted along the way to the present day, such as e.g. the Pri Megadim, the Rama, the Mishna Brura, etc., including those who permitted a woman to use her own hair as a wig. I personally think this is questionable, and it potentially a cop-out of nishtana hateva to dismiss the poskim who would truly permit. But that is arguable.

However, there are poskim even in recent times who permitted wigs which are prettier than the woman's own hair, and which look like her own hair. This is what I will set out to prove in this next section.

As noted on the Dreaming Of Moshiach blog, Rav Shalom Schwadron apparently said:

I want to tell you a true story and I wish it was not a true story. 25 years ago a girl came to our house and she spoke to my wife for 4 hours. While I was sitting and learning, I thought to myself that any person that speaks for 4 hours must need a drink. I told my wife, "perhaps give this girl a drink and something to eat?" The girl heard me and said to my wife, "it's not necessary. I'm going home and I'll eat and drink at my home." When she said that I realized this girl is married and has a husband. So why does she look like a girl? You think it's funny??? It's not funny!!! They want to look like unattached women. This 'wanting' is טְרֵפָה unfit, not Kosher!

The Torah says, "ופרע ראש האשה …and let him uncover the head of the woman". A woman that was not faithful to her husband, a Sotah, is disgraced. They disgrace her by removing her hair covering and now, women want to look like a Sotah???!!! A married woman wants to look like a Sotah??? She wants to look like a girl, that she's not married and available? A woman that wears a wig is as if she does not cover her hair! Stupid women! How can a woman like you have fear of Heaven? A woman that wears a wig has no holiness. Who gave women permission to wear hair on top of their hair? To wear a wig that looks better than her own hair and it doesn't even look like a wig! 24 Poskei HaDor of Israel forbid wigs. My grandfather ruled that Divrei Torah or even a blessing is forbidden to say infront of women that wears wigs. The only way Divrei Torah or a blessing can be said in such a situation is with closed eyes.

Now, Rabbi Shalom Schwadron passed away in 1997. Assuming he told this in the last year of his life (a very conservative estimate), and this story happened 25 years previous, then it happened in 1972 at the latest. It likely happened earlier than this. And yet, he has an objection to a sheitel because it looks better than her own hair and looks real, not like a wig.

So this type of objection to realistic looking wigs, and wigs that are prettier than the woman's own hair, is not new in 2008. It goes back at least to 1972.

Let us look at some of the statements in favor. We have the Lubavitcher Rebbe, in favor of sheitels. In the course of discussing it, he said:

In the past the custom was to cut off the hair. Later on the custom spread of wearing a sheitel. Wearing a sheitel is especially appropriate now, when one can obtain a sheitel in various shades, which looks even nicer than one's own hair.

Let the woman ponder this matter. It doesn't take an hour or even a half-hour of contemplation. Why doesn't she really want to wear a sheitel but only a kerchief: because she knows that a sheitel cannot be taken off when she is walking in the street or is at a gathering, while a kerchief can be moved all the way up and sometimes taken off entirely, as known from practice.

It is possible that she will say that she will wear a kerchief properly. If she does so, then surely it is well. But experience has shown that this is not the case.

Why place oneself in the path of temptation?

Thus, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was in favor of sheitels, despite Rav Shalom Schwadron's objection that it looked better than the woman's own hair. In fact, this was a point in their favor. And this was from a sicha of the Rebbe, on Rosh Chodesh Elul, 5714 -- meaning 1954.

(That site, actually a book, has several pages quoting the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe about wigs.)

Similarly, we have Rav Moshe Feinstein. He also is discussing a sheitel which looks like the woman's hair -- so much so, that he had to respond to questions of whether it was marit ayin. He permits in cases when men cannot tell it is a wig {because they do not look carefully at women, presumably as in the case of Rav Schwadron}; and when men can't tell and even women cannot tell. And even in the latter case, when even women cannot tell, Rav Feinstein permit. Read it here, in the original Hebrew and my rough English translation, on parshablog. And nowadays, even with are modern wigs, women can certainly tell.

This teshuva of Rav Moshe was written in Tammuz 7724, or about 1964. Which again, is pretty long ago.

So this problem of wigs which looked real was pretty old, going to 1964 and to 1954.

You will say that the modern wigs look even more like real hair? This is a claim of nishtana hateva to disenfranchise those who permitted, based on a matter of degree. But we see from the words of those who were trying to permit, and those who were trying to forbid, that the concern was identical. If it was realistic enough back then to fool men (for that is what Rav Moshe addresses, and Rav Schwadron addresses), and realistic beautiful hair is Biblically erva, then Rav Moshe should have forbidden it on that count. It is, rather, clear that Rav Moshe Feinstein did not subscribe to this view. And the same could be said for the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Do not tell me now that because of beauty and realism, they would forbid. This is a matter of degree rather than some new innovative topic which was inapplicable back then.

So at this point, we have a very big and learned Rabbi in Eretz Yisrael saying one thing, and we have our own poskim saying something else. Are we permitted to ignore Rav Eliashiv in this matter and follow Rav Moshe and those rabbis who followed him?

Rav Moshe addresses this very issue, and specifically in terms of wigs, and states that we should rely on our local pesak. See this in this teshuva of Rav Moshe Feinstein, posted and roughly translated on parshablog.

Completely orthogonal to all this, I will just note that last year I posted an essay using a particular methodology Rav Elyashiv is unlikely to use, or likely approve of, to argue why wigs are permitted. This is also an entirely separate argument from the ones used by the traditional halachic authorities who permit wigs. You might wish to check it out.

See also Shirat Devorah's "To wig or not to wig," where she cites a particular sicha of the Rebbe, as well as a book or two culled from statement of the Rebbe, about the importance of wearing a sheitel.

Also, Reb Akiva at Mystical Paths has a take on it, though commenting on Rav Ovadia Yosef's condemnation of sheitels. He contrasts the Lubavitcher Rebbe's support and Rav Ovadia Yosef's condemnation, and says each was ruling for his own community. He also draws a distinction between some sheitels which are inappropriate and others.

I am not so sure that Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Eliashiv, et. al., are making these fine distinctions among modern wigs, but rather are contrasting modern wigs from the wigs of the gemara. It is also possible, since in general their community has forbidden wigs, that they are unfamiliar with all the styles of wigs, but are relying on descriptions from others -- or else are hypersensitive to the "sexual" allure of a sheitel because of the lack of this institution in the Iraqi, or Sefardic Jerusalemite -- or charedi communities, where they won't print photos of women in their newspapers. Much as by the sheitel display controversy over at Chaim Berlin a while back, some chareidim saw inappropriateness in the sheitel display (scroll down to bottom of my linked post to see the controversial display). Or much as Biz jean skirts are the tznius mode of dress of Beis Yaakov girls in America, while jeans material is considered horribly untznius in certain chareidi communities in Israel.

I am not entirely sure I agree with him that these Rabbonim are intending to rule only for their communities, but at the very least, I would say, as I put forth above, that this is a dispute between Gedolim and that we have the right to pasken as our community has paskened.

Note: Don't pasken from blogs, one way or another. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Update: And now Emes ve-Emunah picks up the story, with his own take, and the title (since changed) of "wigged out." Heh. His prediction is that people will, by and large, ignore this halachic pronouncement in America; and he contrasts it with pronouncements about Rabbi Slifkin's works. It indeed plays in to this question of independent American psak vs. kowtowing to Gedolim appointed and anointed in Eretz Yisrael. And I can only hope that they indeed will ignore it.

Update #2: If you speak Yiddish, you can listen to Rav Elyashiv from that shiur over at HaMerkaz. (h.t. Danny)

Update #3: See how Hirhurim covers it.

Immersion In A Mikveh For Tumas Keri

The following is the Rif on the matter, citing the gemara:

We learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera says: Words of Torah are not susceptible to {ritual} uncleanness {tumah}.
And there was a story about a student who was mumbling and reading above Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera {because he had had a seminal emission}. He {Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera} said to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words be clear, for it states in Yirmiyahu 23:29:

כט הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ, נְאֻם-ה; וּכְפַטִּישׁ, יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע. {ס

29 Is not My word like as fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? {S}

Just as fire is not susceptible to tumah, so too words of Torah are not susceptible to tumah.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: The world practices like the three elders - in words of Torah like Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera, like Rabbi Yoshaya in kilaim {forbidden mixtures}, and like Rabbi Illai in the first shearing.

When Ze'eri came {from Israel} he said: They have abolished immersion {in the mikvah for seminal emission}. Some say {he said}: They have abolished {ritual} washing of hands. The one who said "immersion" is in accord with Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera. And the one who said "washing of hands" is in accord with Rav Chisda, for Rav Chisda would curse one who returns after water at the time of prayer.

There is one who said that this they they said "They have abolished immersion" is in regard to both words of Torah and prayer. And there is one who said that this is only as regards to words of Torah, but in regard to prayer you need immersion. And not immersion {tevila} specifically but rather washing in 9 kav. And Rabbenu Hai Gaon wrote that since the gemara does not deal with this matter, we should take the custom of all Israel that all Baal Keri, even if they have no water, should not pray until they wash.

Of course, people nowadays don't pasken directly from the gemara, or the Rif. But this principle, cited lehalacha, should give people something to think about.

And it would seem (though I am not paskening at all in this blogpost) that two minutes in the shower give these 9 kav, which is required by the Rif only misafek specifically for prayer. My minhag is not to go to the Mikveh for tumas keri. (And while there might be tznius issues in declaring this, by looking at what the polemic-writers are writing (see inside on the pamphlet), we see that such declarations have a need, for otherwise people will rewrite history.)

Yet this is an old dispute, and different people have different practices.

But in this day and age, every issue is cast as one in which one way is right, and everyone else that follows the non-stringent practice is doing wrong.

Thus, as BreslovWorld, part 1 and part 2 arguing that all men must go to the mikveh as an halachic obligation. This based on a Hebrew leaflet which I saw in shul a few weeks ago, and was greatly annoyed by, because of the way it gave only one side of the dispute, and cast that which it did cite in specific ways. Two citations from BreslovWorld:

It is an unforgivable sin that almost all Yeshivas today have no Mikva and all their students study as Bali Keri (ritually impure) their whole life.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira, and others, would probably disagree. And then:

In light of the above, one can no longer hide behind the myth that Yeshiva students, those who follow Lithunian custom, or anyone else are exempt from mikva. People that want holiness don’t look for exemptions. May Hashem send a spirit of purity throughout the People of Israel, amen.

Compare this with what Rav Kanievsky said, on the actual pamphlet. Click on the link above, but click on the picture (right) to see a specific part of it. Basically, they tried to snooker him into endorsing not only their project but also their conclusions by asking him the question, "Is it bitul Torah to go to the mikveh for tumas keri?" He told them it was not, but was even kiyum haTorah.

Then he realized how they might try to run with this and miscast it. Therefore, they include the following text:

However, he stressed that his intent was not from the aspect of halacha, but rather from the aspect of the greatness of the significance of the matter, for it was already ruled in Shulchan Aruch that there is no obligation in the matter. This language was shown to they eyes of Maran {Kanievsky} shlita and he said upon it "gut geshribn."

The flyer I saw in shul had the same caveat in the text, but that which he stressed was placed in a much smaller font.

So which is it? BreslovWorld looks at the (one-sided) sources and concludes that it is an unforgivable sin to learn while in a state of tumas keri, and that one cannot hide behind the myth that anyone is exempt, while Rav Kanievsky states that his intent was not from the aspect of halacha, but for it was already ruled in Shulchan Aruch that there is no obligation in the matter.

I am not paskening that one is or is not obligated in it. And that is why I am not going to spend my time arguing about every point. But I certainly will not change my conduct based on polemics such as this. My point here is not to argue the halacha of it, but just to point out the pattern of false presentation in polemics.

(See also at revach this post.)

Update: On careful consideration, the first reference to unforgivable sin is the sin on the part of the yeshivos, rather than of the bachurim. Still, it is a somewhat fair contrast. And the latter one about exemption is better.