Thursday, June 9, 2016

Controversial psak of a Chabad rabbi to divorce wife who won't wear a sheitel

update:Eliyahu G; wrote:

This is a classical case of taking things out of context.
Let's explain the whole story:

1) The Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l felt that it is better for woman to wear a shietel the wear a tichel, because those who wear a tichel are often not careful about covering all their hair.

2) The Rebbe was speaking to his Kehila which he knew well, and was obviously not talking to communities like Satmar etc. where women a) often shave their hair and b) the tznius is already on a higher level and women have less of an issue keeping to higher standards, therefore this is less of a chashash that a womean with a tichel will leave hair uncovered. [Here is not the place to discuss the historical/sociological differences of communities that come from Hungery vs. those that come from Russia and also have many BT's etc. and the effect that this has on the Tznius standards].

3) Indeed, in Chabad, those women who leave their houses with tichels and not sheitels, are almost always not "super frum" and are leaving much hair uncovered, thus not covering their hair properly according to Halocho.

4) The new Rav of Kfar Chabad (Rav Meir Ashkenzy), who happens to be an exceptionally honest and fine person, has taken it upon himself to fix the Tzniuts standers of Kfar Chabad. One of his campaigns are to stop the trend of women leaving their house with a tichel only half covering their hair, and instead enforcing the Rebbe's shito, that in Chabad women should leave their house with a sheitel, so that their hair will be fully covered.

5) In order to explain how important it is to cover one's hair fully, Rav Ashknazy quoted to some women the Halocho the a man must divorce his wife is she does not cover her hair. in other words - he was telling the women, don't look at this sheitel vs. half covered hair with a tichel as a light issue, it is a very serious one, as not covering hair is a reason for divorce.

6) the Rav NEVER told any man or women, that they should get divorced because the woman left her house with a tichel. that is a complete lie.

7) some of the more modern women of Kfar CHabad, who are not so happy with the fact that the Rav is enforcing Tznius standards in the Kfar (as a Rav should do), went to the press, and quoted him completly out of context - as saying that a man should divorce his wife if she wears a Tichel.

kikar haShabbat

סערת איסור המטפחות בכפר חב"ד: רבני חב"ד נגד פסק הרב אשכנזי: "לא צריך לגרש את האישה"
חובה על הבעל לגרש את אשתו אם היא חובשת מטפחת ולא פאה? רבנים בכירים בחב"ד מתייחסים לסערת הרב אשכנזי וקובעים: "אפשר לשכנע, לא צריך להגיע עד לגירושין בגלל וויכוח כזה" (חרדים)

32 comments :

  1. Doesn't the Shulchan Aruch say to divorce a wife who goes in public without covering her hair?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is not uncovered hair - it is whether her husband can insist she wear a sheitel

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where is the rest of this?
    My Hebrew is a bit rusty, but to my understanding, it's saying one may not divorce his wife for wearing a wig, unlike ashkenazik rabbis who say one can diorce his wife of she wears a sheitel....
    Am I missing anything?
    Doesn't Rav Moshe also hold that one can not divorce his wife if she wears a wig instead of a scarf?

    Some one please correct me if I got this all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hevel havalim - when Rav Obadiah Yosef was critical of the Sheitel altogether, and Rav Elyashiv was critical of some Sheitels, how can they divorce a wife on grounds that she is being machmir?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Insist she wears a wig or he'll divorce her?
    How can that make any sense? It's like a guy saying I'll divorce you if you decide not to eat gebrachs on Pesach....
    If her hair is fully covered, how can that be grounds for divorce?
    I must be missing something.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is a classical case of taking things out of context.
    Let's explain the whole story:
    1) The Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l felt that it is better for woman to wear a shietel the wear a tichel, because those who wear a tichel are often not careful about covering all their hair.
    2) The Rebbe was speaking to his Kehila which he knew well, and was obviously not talking to communities like Satmar etc. where women a) often shave their hair and b) the tznius is already on a higher level and women have less of an issue keeping to higher standards, therefore this is less of a chashash that a womean with a tichel will leave hair uncovered.
    [Here is not the place to discuss the historical/sociological differences of communities that come from Hungery vs. those that come from Russia and also have many BT's etc. and the effect that this has on the Tznius standards].
    3) Indeed, in Chabad, those women who leave their houses with tichels and not sheitels, are almost always not "super frum" and are leaving much hair uncovered, thus not covering their hair properly according to Halocho.
    4) The new Rav of Kfar Chabad (Rav Meir Ashkenzy), who happens to be an exceptionally honest and fine person, has taken it upon himself to fix the Tzniuts standers of Kfar Chabad. One of his campaigns are to stop the trend of women leaving their house with a tichel only half covering their hair, and instead enforcing the Rebbe's shito, that in Chabad women should leave their house with a sheitel, so that their hair will be fully covered.
    5) In order to explain how important it is to cover one's hair fully, Rav Ashknazy quoted to some women the Halocho the a man must divorce his wife is she does not cover her hair. in other words - he was telling the women, don't look at this sheitel vs. half covered hair with a tichel as a light issue, it is a very serious one, as not covering hair is a reason for divorce.
    6) the Rav NEVER told any man or women, that they should get divorced because the woman left her house with a tichel. that is a complete lie.
    7) some of the more modern women of Kfar CHabad, who are not so happy with the fact that the Rav is enforcing Tznius standards in the Kfar (as a Rav should do), went to the press, and quoted him completly out of context - as saying that a man should divorce his wife if she waers a Tichel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. חובה על הבעל לגרש את אשתו אם היא חובשת מטפחת ולא פאה

    Is it an obligation on the husband to separate from his wife if she wears a scarf and not a wig?

    רבנים בכירים בחב"ד מתייחסים לסערת הרב אשכנזי וקובעים:

    Elder rabbis in kfar chabad disagree in regards to Ashkenazim and state:


    אפשר לשכנע, לא צריך להגיע עד לגירושין בגלל וויכוח כזה" (חרדים)

    You can convince (her to wear a wig?) But no need to divorce about such an argument.

    .what did I miss?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Many litvish 'gedolim' wives did not cover their hair (to varying degrees).

    The accepted psak was A: not a reason to divorce B: not a reason not to go through with the shidduch

    ReplyDelete
  9. Many litvish 'gedolim' wives did not cover their hair (to varying degrees).

    Please explain. The supposed letter from some rabbi in Israel about Rav Schach in Tradition was a forgery by rabbi Micheal Broydie.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That is factually incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A problem of many educators and Rabbanim is that they fail to understand - it is not what we teach that matters but what people learn, and often the message and lesson learned is completely different from the intended message.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you for the explanation!!! So well written.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is simply a fact. The Aruch HaShulchan got in trouble for saying that even though it is wrong for women to not cover their hair - but a man can say a bracha in the presence of a woman with uncovered hair.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Where is there any record that the Aruch HaShulchan "got in trouble"?

    Aruch Hashulchan 72:7: "Now let us come and cry out regarding the immodesty of our generation, because of our many sins. For many years (some) Jewish women have been neglectful regarding this transgression, and they go with uncovered hair. All which they (the leaders, rabbis) have screamed about this has not helped or accomplished anything. Now the plague has spread, that married women go about with their hair just like unmarried women! Woe to us that such has occurred in our days."

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was told that because he acknowledged the reality of it by permitting the beracha he was not universally accepted

    ReplyDelete
  16. But in this case, according to the above explanation, both what was taught and was was learned and understood were the correct message. Only some mischief maker deliberately took it out of context in order to make the rav look bad.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yehoishophot OliverJune 10, 2016 at 12:35 AM

    I was a talmid in yeshiva where this rabbi was the magid shiur for Gemara. In addition to being a brilliant talmid chacham, he struck me as a very fine person.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yehoishophot OliverJune 10, 2016 at 12:36 AM

    Because the Lubavitcher Rebbe didn't take that approach. His approach is that a sheitel covers better than a tichel and is therefore davka a higher level of frumkeit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yehoishophot OliverJune 10, 2016 at 12:41 AM

    You are indeed missing something. Practically, the women who wear tichels are exposing a lot of hair. That's why those women are davka wearing tichels--because they want to show off their hair.
    And again, see the update from Eliyahu G, that the rabbi never said that the husband must divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I came across a discussion on a very interesting Aruch Hashulchan (on the Yeshivaworld website)

    "The Aruch HaShulchan brings L'Halacha (OC 91:7) that in times of Za'am
    or raging tzorus, one should daven with his hands clasped together and
    his fingers interlocking. However says the Aruch HaShulchan in times of
    peace you should not do so because it causes Din Shamayim to be brought
    down on you."

    SO in certain circumstances, the Aruch recommends interlocking of fingers!

    ReplyDelete
  21. It is simply a fact.

    What is a fact? Is it a fact that Lithuanian Talmidei Chachomim's wives did not cover their hair? Where did the Aruch Hashulchan suggest this?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I hear you. Thank you for the explanation.
    I guess we're not talking about chareidi women who hold it is better to wear a metpachat and take the issur of covering their hair seriously.
    Plenty of breslover, chassidish, and chareidi women cover 100% with metpachat. But as Eliyahu said, it was not rendering to that.
    I also assume Rav Ashkenazi was not giving a heter for long, luxurious sheitals, wedding styled that promote preitzut.... It's not that a woman can't look beautiful (short shaitels can be elegant and very nice too), but the long, styled sheitels are undeniable an eye turner and untznius. Especially when they are marketed to "look sexy".

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is there anyway you can perhaps find me the sicha where he speaks about that? I have searched, but have not been able to find it.
    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Can I assume, that with the line of thinking that sheitels are more tzanua, that the chabad aproach would be to wear short sheitels?
    Not the long, twirly, eye-catching, luxurious, sexy sheitels. Or does it not matter if all the hair is covered?

    ReplyDelete
  25. What's is the relevance of this?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Even Moshe Rabeinu was not universally accepted at one point or another....
    I don't think any great Gadol was universally excepted in their lifetime....

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rav Ashkenaz's father (Rav Mordechai zt"l), wrote a letter forbidding the long sheitels. I am sure Rav Meir Shlit"a does not disagree with his father's psak.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I know it might be a bit inconvenient to mention here, but it is well documented that the wife of the lubavitcher rebbe didn't always wear a sheitel.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Politically IncorrectJune 10, 2016 at 7:47 PM

    Step 2: Link us up to the documents. ....

    ReplyDelete
  30. After reading this account again- http://www.kikar.co.il/200739.html - the explantion in the update imho does not tell the whole story. My previous comment was to repeat an educational truth - it matters not what we teach but what they learn -

    ReplyDelete
  31. He was pretty much accepted, but when RAK came to america, he took it upon himself to change the acceptance to MB, which anyway was published later. And since RAK controlled the yeshivah world, that's what is accepted today.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.