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.
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)
Doesn't the Shulchan Aruch say to divorce a wife who goes in public without covering her hair?
ReplyDeleteIt is not uncovered hair - it is whether her husband can insist she wear a sheitel
ReplyDeleteWhere is the rest of this?
ReplyDeleteMy 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.
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?
ReplyDeleteInsist she wears a wig or he'll divorce her?
ReplyDeleteHow 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.
This is a classical case of taking things out of context.
ReplyDeleteLet'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.
חובה על הבעל לגרש את אשתו אם היא חובשת מטפחת ולא פאה
ReplyDeleteIs 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?
Many litvish 'gedolim' wives did not cover their hair (to varying degrees).
ReplyDeleteThe accepted psak was A: not a reason to divorce B: not a reason not to go through with the shidduch
perfect summary - thanks
ReplyDeleteMany litvish 'gedolim' wives did not cover their hair (to varying degrees).
ReplyDeletePlease explain. The supposed letter from some rabbi in Israel about Rav Schach in Tradition was a forgery by rabbi Micheal Broydie.
That is factually incorrect.
ReplyDeleteA 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.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the explanation!!! So well written.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteWhere is there any record that the Aruch HaShulchan "got in trouble"?
ReplyDeleteAruch 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."
I was told that because he acknowledged the reality of it by permitting the beracha he was not universally accepted
ReplyDeleteBut 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteBecause 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.
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, see the update from Eliyahu G, that the rabbi never said that the husband must divorce.
I came across a discussion on a very interesting Aruch Hashulchan (on the Yeshivaworld website)
ReplyDelete"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!
It is simply a fact.
ReplyDeleteWhat 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?
I hear you. Thank you for the explanation.
ReplyDeleteI 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".
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.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Can I assume, that with the line of thinking that sheitels are more tzanua, that the chabad aproach would be to wear short sheitels?
ReplyDeleteNot the long, twirly, eye-catching, luxurious, sexy sheitels. Or does it not matter if all the hair is covered?
What's is the relevance of this?
ReplyDeleteEven Moshe Rabeinu was not universally accepted at one point or another....
ReplyDeleteI don't think any great Gadol was universally excepted in their lifetime....
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteStep 2: Link us up to the documents. ....
ReplyDeleteAfter 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 -
ReplyDeleteHe 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