The Virtue of Wearing a Sheitel - Rabbi Shaul Silam shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to “Lema’an Yishme’u,” a podcast of Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 Hello. Today, with Hashem’s help, we’ll study the subject of wearing a wig. The class will be divided into thirteen parts. We won’t start with the basics, with the more theoretical questions, but with some general, lighter points. Then, with Hashem’s help, as we go along, we’ll try to delve into the issue. The first part is an introduction: a few cautions and general points. There’s a very strange phenomenon surrounding the subject of wearing a wig. After all, there are many disagreements among Jews, and we’re used to differing opinions. Yet, for some reason, on this subject there’s a great deal of zealotry. Here, of all places, we tend to forget what our Sages tell us: “Both these and those are the words of the living G-d.” Or what we learn in Kiddushin: when a father and son study Torah, or a teacher and his student engage in Torah study, they may begin by arguing, but they do not leave until they have come to love one another. We learn this from “Vahev in Sufah”—read “in Sufah” as “at its end.” In other words, Torah should ultimately bring about peace. In this case, though, the subject is very tense. There are posters, pamphlets, campaigns, and battles, for some reason. Perhaps this should make us realize that if there are so many obstacles to fulfilling the Rebbe’s call to wear a wig, there must be something very fundamental at stake. It’s a little reminiscent of the opposition at the beginning of the Chassidic movement. So that’s an important introduction. A second point: we won’t try here to present all the different opinions. We won’t try to persuade someone who follows the rulings of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, for example, to wear a wig. That’s really not the point. We’ll focus more on explaining the opposing view, which permits a wig. But still, everyone

02:28 Speaker 2 must follow their own rabbis. So it’s entirely legitimate for someone who follows a different rabbi to follow that ruling fully; that’s all well and good. Even so, there are certain things about which one should always be stringent. For example, one should be extremely careful about the requirement of the Zohar, which we’ll encounter several times during this class: that not even a single hair should show from beneath the headscarf of a woman who wears one. We certainly will try to persuade every woman to be careful about that. The third point concerns those posters, pamphlets, and other materials that publish lists of halachic authorities throughout the generations who supposedly opposed wigs. Again, we’ll examine all of this more closely later. But I want to say at the outset that there are many, many distortions and falsehoods. Let me just give you a few names of halachic authorities who appear in all those pamphlets as though they prohibit wigs, and we’ll see how inaccurate that is. The Chofetz Chaim, author of the Mishnah Berurah, did not prohibit wigs, contrary to what various pamphlets claim. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and even Rabbi Kanievsky—we’ll see how their writings are distorted and misrepresented. Another introduction, the fourth, concerns the modesty of wigs. No one disputes that some wigs may be immodest. That’s true. But that isn’t the subject here. Objecting to wigs because some wigs are immodest would apply equally to any item of clothing. Anything that draws a great deal of attention is completely inappropriate, whether it’s a wig, a dress, a blouse, or

04:38 Speaker 2 even stockings. So that question is really outside the scope of our discussion. And a fifth introductory point: what we present here won’t be slogans or unsupported claims. It may make the class a little heavier, but for every halachic authority and every point we bring, we’ll give the source. Some passages we’ll read inside; for others, we’ll give the section or chapter of the book, the paragraph, subsection, or letter, so you can look them up. You’ll be able to check all the information. The second part of the class is: What is the Rebbe’s view of wigs? We mentioned pamphlets that spread all sorts of rumors. In those pamphlets you can read that the Tzemach Tzedek supposedly prohibited wigs. More than that, some claim that even the Rebbe, who is known to permit wigs, preferred a headscarf to a wig. We’ll see how inaccurate these claims are. We’ll devote a class to the Tzemach Tzedek later on. As for the Rebbe, we’ll soon see how inaccurate the claims are—at best, an innocent mistake, and at worst, an outright lie. From among the Rebbe’s dozens of letters on the subject, let’s take three and see exactly what the Rebbe writes. I’m directing you now to Likkutei Sichos, volume 13, page 187, in the additions to Parshas Naso. The Rebbe writes there: “In response to her letter from the end of Menachem Av, in which she writes about a wig, and that in the religious community where she lives they do not customarily wear one, and she is embarrassed that people might laugh at her if she wears a wig.” The Rebbe says of this: “The essential point is to wear a wig and not make do with a hat or headscarf.”

06:57 Speaker 2 So, to anyone who says the Rebbe prefers a hat or headscarf: the Rebbe says to wear a wig and not make do with a hat or headscarf. This is explained in several places. “We see in practice,” the Rebbe says, “that wearing a hat, or even a headscarf, leaves some hair uncovered.” Yes, hairs can slip out, at least briefly. The headscarf shifts a little, and for a short time some hairs become visible. That means, the Rebbe says, transgressing the serious prohibition and strict ruling in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, section 75. “The importance of the matter,” the Rebbe continues, “can also be understood from the great reward for fulfilling the instruction”: as we quoted from the holy Zohar, “he is blessed in everything.” We’ll soon look at exactly what the holy Zohar says. Here the Rebbe quotes the passage of the Zohar that speaks about the blessings received by the husband of a woman who is careful that not even a single hair be seen. Of that woman’s husband it says: “He is blessed in everything”—blessed in everything—“with blessings from above and blessings from below, with wealth,” meaning riches, “with children and children’s children.” Yes, that is what the Rebbe says in this first letter. Now I’m directing you to Igros Kodesh, volume 6, page 327. In the middle of that letter, the Rebbe says: “I was distressed by what he wrote in his letter, that he has not yet had the opportunity to travel to order a sheitel.” A sheitel is a wig. The Rebbe is writing to a man who had told him that he had not yet managed to buy a wig for his wife. Apparently, the Rebbe had told him that it was important for his wife to wear one, and the Rebbe says he was distressed to hear this. “It is surprising that he is letting the opportunity slip…”

09:17 Speaker 2 the matter so much, especially since he knows what is explained in several places in Chassidus, and what is also understandable to human reason: every single moment, one can gain an entire world, or, G-d forbid, the opposite. “If so,” the Rebbe says, “every moment that passes without his doing anything about the above matter”—that is, as long as he is not actually making an effort to buy that wig for his wife, he could have been building a world. He could have built a world in that time—“means bringing additional holiness into all the worlds through it, as is understood from the Alter Rebbe’s Igeres Hateshuvah, chapter 12. And because of negligence, this did not happen.” The Rebbe adds, “But we do not lament the past, and at any rate, he must now hurry as much as possible in this matter. And this is also the reason”—from what I understand here, the Rebbe sent this letter specially—“And this is also the reason I am not sending this letter by special delivery,” the Rebbe writes. Yes, apparently that is how the letter was actually sent. That is the second passage. Again, I said there are many, many sources; I chose these from among them. The third source is in the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, volume 18, page 311, letter 3,266. There, too, the Rebbe speaks to someone who was having difficulty earning a livelihood. The Rebbe tells him, “In the end, a livelihood will come too, and in time, even an ample livelihood.” Then, in parentheses, the Rebbe says, “Though if they had listened to my words—regarding the thirteen attributes of the beard”—if they had actually listened to what I say about the husband being careful not to touch his beard, and his wife regarding the sheitel, the wig—the Rebbe says in parentheses, “According to what is explained in Zohar, volume 3, 126a, and Tikkunei Zohar, 18c, there would already have been a tangible change in their livelihood, visible even to the naked

11:26 Speaker 2 eye. And what can I do about these two matters besides speak?” Yes, the Rebbe is truly distressed that the person did not make progress in these matters—not touching his beard and buying a wig for his wife. So again, as I said, there are many, many sources. In the first source we brought, the Rebbe even compares the wig to a headscarf, so there is no room for confusion. The third part of the class is to look inside and see exactly what the holy Zohar says. This is very interesting, because in his letters the Rebbe specifically quotes the end of the Zohar’s words, the more positive things: blessings from above, blessings from below, her husband blessed with every blessing from above and below, wealth, children, and grandchildren. But let us see what the Zohar says. I have the Zohar here. This is a passage the Rebbe refers to often. It is also cited by the halachic authorities; the Magen Avraham already mentioned it. So remember: Zohar, Parshas Naso, page 126a. It is quoted very often by the halachic authorities. Let us see exactly what the holy Zohar says. To make it easier, I have taken the translation from Matok Midvash by Rabbi Daniel Frish, z”l, and I will read from that translation. What does the holy Zohar say? The holy Zohar does not discuss wigs, but it does discuss the importance and necessity of covering every single hair. And as the Rebbe says, only with a wig can this be done with certainty. The Zohar says there: “Rabbi Yehudah said: The hair of a woman’s head that is exposed causes other hairs—that is, the hairs of Malchus—to be revealed.” What does that mean? Again, these are Kabbalistic terms; we are talking about the holy Zohar. When a little of a woman’s hair is exposed below, it causes hair above, the hair of Malchus, to be revealed. But what is the hair of Malchus?

13:41 Speaker 2 It is the forces of judgment, the Zohar says, forces of judgment to which the external forces attach themselves. So this gives [unclear] to the external forces. It causes the forces of impurity to grow stronger and causes a blemish in Malchus. Therefore, the Zohar continues, a woman must be careful that even the beams of her house do not see a single hair of her head. In other words, is the [unclear] prohibition against exposing a woman’s hair only because of immodesty? No, that is not the only issue. It goes much further. Even when a woman is alone at home, she must be careful that the beams of her house do not see her hair, because it causes an effect above. Here, what I am reading is not so much a translation of the Zohar as Matok Midvash’s explanation of its words: it causes a blemish in Malchus above. If so, even the beams of her house should not see a single hair of her head. The Zohar continues: “All the more so”—meaning, certainly when she goes outside, where it is already prohibited—“all the more so must the hair of her head not be seen outside in the marketplace.” And this is much more severe, Frish says, because it also involves the prohibition of immodesty and causing people to stumble. I am skipping a little. The Zohar continues and says: “Come and see how much harm is caused by a woman’s exposed hair. It causes a blemish above, in Malchus of Atzilus; below, it causes the forces of judgment to grow stronger. It causes her husband to be cursed above and below for allowing his wife to expose the hair of her head; it causes poverty,” may Hashem protect us, “and it causes something else: the spirit of impurity dwells in the home. It also causes her sons to lose their standing.” In other words, her sons will not be counted among the distinguished people of their generation. Yes. And the Zohar continues: “May Hakadosh Boruch Hu save us from what women cause through their brazenness.” Then it continues: “Therefore, a woman must cover herself even in the corners of her home,” meaning even in a secluded place. “And if your wife conducts herself modestly, what is said of her?” Here we are approaching the words the Rebbe quotes, but there are still some truly

15:58 Speaker 2 wonderful gems. “It is said of her, ‘Your children’”—yes, what is written in Tehillim—“‘Your children will be like olive saplings.’” Tehillim 128. “Your children will be like olive saplings.” The Zohar asks: What does “like olive saplings” mean? What is special about an olive tree? Whether in winter or summer, its leaves do not fall off or disappear. The olive tree’s leaves remain all the time. Incidentally, this is also brought in the Rambam’s Laws of Shemitah. And it always has greater distinction than other trees. So what is special about “Your children will be like olive saplings”? What about the children of a woman who is careful that the hair of her head not be seen, even at home, makes them like olive saplings? They are like the olive tree, whose leaves do not fall off. And what does that mean? The Zohar explains that it always has greater distinction than other trees. Because its leaves do not fall off, the tree has a special distinction. So her children, too, will always be distinguished among all the children, because her children will rise and be more distinguished than other people’s children. Then the Zohar continues, and this is the point we quoted in the Rebbe’s name, at the end of this passage: “And not only that, but her husband is blessed with everything.” Not only all this—her husband is blessed with everything: blessings from above and blessings from below, with wealth, children, and grandchildren. Yes, and that is the end of the Zohar’s words. What the Rebbe did not quote in the letters were the less pleasant things said at the beginning, or the point about “Your children will be like olive saplings.” But the Rebbe refers us there to the holy Zohar so that we can see it. These are the Zohar’s words, which we really need to know. And as I said, these words are also mentioned by the halachic authorities. This passage of the Zohar in Naso, page 126, is really a foundational one. The fourth part of our class: which halachic authorities permit the wig

18:10 Speaker 2 The wig? Yes. We’re used to seeing long lists of poskim who forbid it. So who are the poskim who actually permit wearing a wig? The answer may be surprising, but you could say that the vast majority of poskim permit it. Yes, we’ll see that. There are many poskim, but from among them I’ve brought seven or eight of the better-known, more foundational ones, and you’ll see that this is a little surprising in light of everything we hear. So let’s start. The first posek we’ll quote was, you could say, one of the first to examine this question in depth, in the sixteenth century. He lived in the time of Rabbi Yosef Karo and was born in Italy to a family of Jews expelled from Spain: Rabbi Yehoshua Boaz ben Baruch. He is better known by the name of his commentary on the Rif, the Shiltei Giborim. So what does the Shiltei Giborim actually say? First, it’s important to know that the Shiltei Giborim is not cited in the Beis Yosef. Rabbi Yosef Karo did not receive his rulings in his lifetime. But what’s very interesting is that he was a Sephardic posek whose rulings did not reach Rabbi Yosef Karo, yet they did reach the Rema. The Rema cites the Hagahos Alfasi, which is the Shiltei Giborim. So this is quite unusual, a very interesting phenomenon: a Sephardic posek cited by the Rema but not by Rabbi Yosef Karo. By the way, before we look at what the Shiltei Giborim says, you encounter him in every Gemara. Anyone who opens a volume of Gemara will find three works of his on every page, beyond

20:12 Speaker 2 his commentary on the Rif. I have Maseches Shabbos here, because that’s where the discussion of the wig appears. There’s his Masores HaShas. When we study a page of Gemara and want to know where the parallel passages are elsewhere in Shas, where a beraisa quoted here is quoted elsewhere, Masores HaShas gives those references, and sometimes variant readings too. There’s also something small between Rashi’s commentary and the Gemara, with the names of books of Tanach: Torah Or, which gives the sources for all the verses quoted in Shas. That’s also his work. The third is Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah, up at the side of the page, on the right or left. Those are references for the subjects under discussion—to the Rambam on the one hand, or the Tur and Shulchan Aruch—directing you to the relevant rulings. That’s the Shiltei Giborim, so he is one of the great poskim. We’ll look more closely later at exactly what he writes, but for now, he analyzes a passage in the Gemara that we’ll study and derives a proof from it. You can look it up; it really is very easy to understand. It’s in Maseches Shabbos, page 29a in the Rif’s pagination. The Shiltei Giborim infers from the passage and from the Rif’s words that a married woman may go out wearing a wig, and not only a wig made from another woman’s hair, but even one made from her own hair. This is very interesting, because everyone is sure that when we speak of the Shiltei Giborim permitting a wig—fine, but in the sixteenth century it must have been a straw wig. No. Not only was it not a straw wig; he is speaking about

22:28 Speaker 2 wigs. Presumably they weren’t of the same quality as today’s wigs, of course, but he is speaking about wigs made of natural hair—even the woman’s own hair, not only another woman’s. The Shiltei Giborim permits it. That’s the first posek I’m citing here. The second—again, we won’t dwell on every posek, though there are some very interesting points we’ll spend a little more time on. In any case, I’ll refer you to the Rema, both in Darkei Moshe, section 303, subsection 6, in the laws of Shabbos, and in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch, section 75, paragraph 2: he permits a wig. The Magen Avraham, in the same section, subsection 5, permits a wig. The Vilna Gaon, in Biur HaGra on section 75, permits a wig. He even brings a source from the Gemara for the Rema’s ruling permitting it. The Alter Rebbe, in section 75, paragraph 4, permits a wig. The Pri Megadim also permits it, both in section 75 and in section 303, in the laws of Shabbos that we mentioned. The Chofetz Chaim, author of the Mishnah Berurah, also permits a wig, contrary to what some people say when they distort things a little. It’s true that he has a certain reservation, so let’s look at exactly what the Mishnah Berurah says. He’s a very central posek, so we’ll read his words. Look at Mishnah Berurah, section 75, subsection 15. He addresses the Rema’s permission to wear a wig. I’ll read what the Mishnah Berurah says: “It is called ‘foreign hair’ when the hair has been cut and is not attached to her body.” In other words, what is the wig the Rema permits? Hair that has been cut and is no longer attached to her body. The Mishnah Berurah says, “And it stands to reason that it was not about this

24:35 Speaker 2 that our Sages said, ‘A woman’s hair is ervah.’” Those who permit it, like the Rema, hold that the statement “A woman’s hair is ervah” does not apply to a wig, even if it is made of natural hair, and it is permissible to leave it uncovered. Yes, it is permissible to leave that hair uncovered, “and doing so does not constitute going with her head uncovered.” That is what the Mishnah Berurah says; that is how he explains the Rema. Let’s be fair and mention that there was indeed one of the great poskim who disagreed. It wasn’t immediately after the Shiltei Giborim’s ruling; no poskim rejected it until several decades had passed. Then the Shevus Yaakov came along, and he was one of the major opponents of wigs. The Mishnah Berurah does cite him here: “And there are those who disagree”—in the Shaar Hatziyun [?] he cites the Shevus Yaakov—“and say that even with a wig, ‘a woman’s hair is ervah’ applies, as does the prohibition against going with her head uncovered.” Yes, that position exists. But how does the Mishnah Berurah ultimately rule? He cites the Pri Megadim: “The Pri Megadim wrote that in places where people are accustomed to uncovered wigs, they may rely on the Shulchan Aruch. And it appears from his words there that even if she cut her own hair and then attached it to her head, she may do so.” In other words, the Pri Megadim says that where this has become customary, where it is the practice, it can be permitted. That is what the Mishnah Berurah cites. Yes. He goes on to cite the Magen Giborim, sorry: “But the Magen Giborim was stringent about this; see there. He further wrote that if it is not the local custom for women to wear wigs, the law certainly follows those who are stringent, because of maris ayin.” In other words, to sum up the Mishnah Berurah’s words: first he explains the Rema, who permits it. Then he cites the Shevus Yaakov, who forbids it, and essentially

26:34 Speaker 2 He rules like the Pri Megadim that it is permitted in places where wearing a wig is customary. If it really isn’t customary—if we arrive on some island where people don’t know what a wig is—then it would be forbidden, not because of the prohibition concerning a woman’s hair, but because of maris ayin: people don’t know what a wig is. But certainly, according to the Mishnah Berurah’s ruling, today there is no longer a problem of maris ayin, since everyone knows what a wig is. So according to the Mishnah Berurah, there really is no prohibition. Later in the class we’ll bring another statement from the Mishnah Berurah, something rather surprising, but for now we’ll leave it at that. So after citing the Shiltei HaGibborim, the Rema, the Magen Avraham, Igeres Mevinah [unclear], the Alter Rebbe, and the Pri Megadim, we’ve seen that the Chofetz Chaim also permits a wig. The Aruch HaShulchan, section 75, paragraph 6, permits it as well. And we’ll finish with Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. He has a book called Horeb. I’ll read a passage: “Covering a woman’s hair with a wig, or with a wig made from her own cut hair, is an ancient custom that involves no prohibition whatsoever.” That’s how plainly he writes it. Again, there are many, many more halachic authorities, but I’ve cited major ones: the Rema, Igeres Mevinah [unclear], the Mishnah Berurah, and the Alter Rebbe. You could say that’s the full range of Ashkenazi halachic authorities. The sixth part: Is there a clear halachic ruling in Chabad? What do Chabad’s halachic authorities say today? Are there clear statements? We’ve already seen what the Rebbe said, and we won’t repeat his insistence that women wear wigs, but it is also reflected in halachic rulings. I found three. First, in Kfar Chabad, the former rabbi of Kfar Chabad, Rabbi Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi, z”l, wrote a letter to the residents of Kfar Chabad in which he simply forbids

28:38 Speaker 2 the residents of Kfar Chabad to go out wearing a hat or a headscarf with hair showing beneath it. Of course, this does not apply to guests, who may do as they are accustomed. But this was even incorporated into the village’s bylaws. Rabbi Yaakov Weiss, z”l, who was also on the Crown Heights beis din, wrote a letter saying that everything possible should be done regarding the wearing of wigs. He also writes that there is no permission whatsoever to leave the house wearing a hat or a headscarf. And anyone who thinks she can be lenient in the summer or at vacation spots—he says that is completely out of the question there too. Third, there is a ruling issued fifteen or twenty years ago by the Chabad Rabbinical Court. The ruling itself is very, very short, but what matters is the list of rabbis. They rule that covering the head with a wig is preferable to every other form of head covering. It is signed by Rabbi Zev Dov Slonim, Rabbi Yitzchak Yehuda Laskovsky, Rabbi Ben Zion Lipsker, Rabbi Eliyahu Yochanan Gurary, Rabbi Yosef Hecht, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Gluckowsky. That concludes the rulings of Chabad rabbis. The seventh part of the class asks whether a wig actually needs to be covered with a hat. There is something very interesting—and misleading—here, and some of the distortion in the posters we discussed is based on it. What we’re about to say is very, very fundamental. It’s worth listening carefully. Some rabbis will tell you, “It’s true, it’s true that most rabbis, most Sephardi and Ashkenazi halachic authorities, permit wigs, but they require the wig to be covered.” Yes, that’s what they’ll tell you. So now we’ll really get to the heart of the matter and see the distortion in those claims. Those claims

30:53 Speaker 2 simply aren’t true, and we’ll see where they come from. There is a concept called a radid, an outer shawl. Yes, there is a requirement, according to some, for a woman to put a radid over her head covering. This is not mentioned anywhere in the Talmud, but it is mentioned by the Rambam. In Hilchos Ishus, chapter 11, halachah 13, the Rambam rules that a woman cannot make do with one head covering; she must put a radid, a shawl, over it. And it’s true that some halachic authorities ruled that way: the Chasam Sofer in Orach Chayim, section 31, and in his Even HaEzer, and the Yaavetz in She’eilas Yaavetz, volume 1, section 9. They rule that a radid is indeed required. But here is the important point that really needs to be emphasized, and where the misleading claim comes in: those authorities—the Rambam, the Chasam Sofer, and the She’eilas Yaavetz—require the radid regardless of whether the woman has a wig or a headscarf underneath. The radid wasn’t invented for wigs; the Rambam isn’t even talking about wigs. Whoever holds that a radid, a shawl, is required requires it over a headscarf too. So when people misleadingly cite the Chasam Sofer as opposing going out in a wig, and cite the Yaavetz’s position as well—that is true, but those same authorities also forbid going out in a headscarf alone, because the radid must be worn over it. That is why the way they present this is misleading. It really is a distortion, a blatant falsehood. Anyone who cites the Chasam Sofer or the Yaavetz’s position to forbid wigs is citing something true—they do indeed forbid going out in a wig—but it’s demagoguery, because according to them, women cannot go out in a headscarf either, or in anything else, without the shawl. And today there is hardly any halachic authority who requires

32:49 Speaker 2 that. Hardly any halachic authority requires what the Rambam, the Chasam Sofer, and the Yaavetz require. So it really is quite irrelevant to this discussion. On the other hand, the Magen Avraham, the Vilna Gaon, the Alter Rebbe, and most halachic authorities explicitly do not require a radid. That is something to bear in mind as we return to the discussion. Now I want to add three more points on this subject, three very important distinctions. There is a work called Tzava’as Moshe, the will of the Chasam Sofer. It’s a slim book containing his instructions to his descendants. In that will, the Chasam Sofer writes a very interesting sentence. He says to stay away from wicked women who have even one hair showing from beneath their head covering. That’s what he writes. And he adds, “I forbid you even a wig.” Now, if we analyze that sentence, what do we learn from the Chasam Sofer? Yes, he forbids a wig. Everyone understands that the Chasam Sofer forbids wigs, both in his responsa and in Tzava’as Moshe. But look at what he says: he says it is forbidden to go out with even one hair showing from beneath a headscarf, and he calls such women wicked—and he forbids even a wig. In other words, a wig is still better. So if you asked the Chasam Sofer, based on that sentence, which is preferable—going out with a headscarf and a few hairs showing, or wearing a wig? Certainly a wig. He forbids even a wig. So according to the Chasam Sofer, whom people want to cite as a great opponent of wigs, before he opposes wigs, he strongly opposes a headscarf with any hair showing. Again, if someone wears a headscarf with nothing showing—although the Rebbe says it shifts and all that—but

34:55 Speaker 2 Let’s read the Chasam Sofer. True, if you really make sure that not a single hair comes out, then according to the Chasam Sofer, that is preferable to a sheitel. But if even one hair comes out from under the scarf, then according to the Chasam Sofer, that is more serious than the very sheitel they cite him as opposing so strongly. Right? That is another misleading claim in all those posters. That’s one point. I said there were three points I wanted to bring at the end of the class. Another is something very interesting that emerges from the Mishnah Berurah. We saw that the Mishnah Berurah does permit a sheitel where there is no concern of maris ayin. But look at what he writes in Biur Halachah, something people don’t really know. In Biur Halachah, in that same place, a little past the middle, he writes: “All this concerns her courtyard and her room, but as for going into the marketplace or a public courtyard…” Right, what about going into the marketplace? Biur Halachah says: “According to everyone, even if she goes wearing only a scarf to cover her hair, she violates das Yehudis.” She really is violating a prohibition. “Until she wears a shawl over it, like all the women.” That is what the Mishnah Berurah writes. In other words, it is not just the Chasam Sofer, the Rambam, and the responsa of the Yaavetz: the Mishnah Berurah, too, does not permit a woman to go out wearing a scarf alone. He requires a shawl over it. So please don’t cite the Mishnah Berurah to argue against the sheitel, because the Mishnah Berurah requires a shawl even over a scarf. One more matter, and with this we’ll finish the discussion of covering a sheitel. Again, we saw that according to the vast majority of the poskim who permit a sheitel, it is permitted even without a shawl over it. But

37:02 Speaker 2 beyond that, I’m now going to bring something suggesting there may even be a problem with covering a sheitel, and that an uncovered sheitel is preferable. Yes, we’re going a step further now. There is a book called Chen VeChavod, which collected a great deal of material about sheitels. On page 507 it brings something very interesting: a yechidus that a chossid had with the Rebbe in 5732, 1972. During that yechidus, the chossid asked the Rebbe whether it would be desirable for him to take upon himself that his wife cover her sheitel with a hat—adding another stringency. The Rebbe told him that, yes, certainly, on an occasion such as a wedding. There are even photographs of the Rebbetzin wearing a hat over her sheitel. It wasn’t how she always dressed, but on a particular occasion, for something festive, certainly there is no problem. But the Rebbe said that going out regularly with a hat over the scarf actually has a drawback: people will become accustomed to seeing it. Of course, the hat a woman wears will not cover the entire sheitel, so there will be a hat with some of the sheitel showing. When people do not see the whole sheitel, but only hair showing from under the hat, some women may begin putting a hat directly over their own hair and say, “Yes, even the Rebbetzin did that. She wore a hat over her hair with some hair showing, and it’s not such a problem; even religious women do it.” The Rebbe said it would be misleading: women would simply start wearing the hat directly over their hair. So one certainly should not make a habit of this supposed stringency of covering the sheitel with a hat. Part eight on the sheitel: What is the Talmudic basis for permitting it? Until now we have seen more general points, but we haven’t yet looked at the basis in the Mishnah and Gemara. The next two or three classes will be a little more in-depth, and after that we’ll return to simpler matters.

39:06 Speaker 2 As is known, on Shabbos one may not carry from a public domain to a private domain, from a private domain to a public domain, or for four amos within a public domain. There is a prohibition against carrying on Shabbos. In a public domain, one may not carry more than four amos. Clothing and jewelry worn by a person, whether a man or a woman, are considered part of that person, and Torah law presents no obstacle to carrying clothing or jewelry in this way. But our Sages prohibited a woman—and a man too, though the examples in the Mishnah concern a woman—from going out into a public domain wearing certain garments or pieces of jewelry. The concern is that she might take off a piece of jewelry to show a friend, or that something might fall off, and she might then carry it four amos in the public domain. So there are certain garments and pieces of jewelry that, by rabbinic law, one may not go out wearing into a public domain on Shabbos. There is a Mishnah in Tractate Shabbos, page 64b, which says that a woman may go out—I’m skipping ahead a little—“wearing a kavul and a sheitel into a courtyard.” What do these words mean? “A woman may go out wearing a kavul and a sheitel into a courtyard.” A kavul is a kind of large cap. This Mishnah permits a woman to wear these into a courtyard, notwithstanding the restrictions instituted by our Sages that we mentioned. We also need to understand that a courtyard is not quite a public domain; it is what is called a karmelis. That means taking something in one’s hand from a private domain into a courtyard is also forbidden. Despite the Sages’ prohibition against going out wearing certain garments or jewelry lest she carry them, the Mishnah says that a woman may go out

41:20 Speaker 2 wearing a kavul and a sheitel into a courtyard. We said what a kavul is. Now, in the Gemara, Rav tries to explain the matter and says that, as a rule, anything the Sages prohibited a woman from wearing into a public domain on Shabbos, lest she carry it, they also prohibited her from wearing into a courtyard. In other words, this is an even stricter safeguard. It is not only forbidden to go out wearing these items from a private domain into a public domain, but also into a courtyard, which is a karmelis, even though carrying an object in one’s hand into a courtyard is a rabbinic prohibition. With these particular pieces of jewelry, which we are concerned she might come to carry, what they prohibited wearing into a public domain they also prohibited wearing into a courtyard. But there are two exceptions: the ones mentioned here in the Mishnah. That is how Rav explains it. Although it is forbidden to go out wearing a kavul or a sheitel into a public domain on Shabbos, it is permitted to wear them into a courtyard. They are exceptions. The Gemara asks: Wait a moment, why these exceptions? What is special about a kavul and a sheitel that a woman may wear them into a courtyard on Shabbos, even though she really may not wear them into a public domain, lest she come to carry them in her hand? The answer is: lest she become unattractive to her husband. We do not want a woman to become unattractive to her husband, so we do permit her to wear certain things into a courtyard on Shabbos, even though there is always a concern that someone might go from the courtyard into a public domain. Nevertheless, for her not to become unattractive to her husband, they placed a limit on this safeguard. Regarding these passages, we mentioned the Shiltei Giborim, one of the early poskim who took up the task of permitting the sheitel. As we said, he was a posek born in Italy to a family of Spanish exiles, in the era of Rabbi Yosef Karo. Now the Shiltei Giborim, in his commentary on the Rif, page 29a, says: From here, then

43:26 Speaker 2 What does it say—“lest she become unattractive to her husband,” right? So we’re talking about a married woman. From here you see that wearing a wig is indeed permitted. There was a real debate in the time of the Shiltei Giborim about whether a wig was permitted. Now, put the laws of Shabbos aside: may a woman go out wearing a wig? He says: Look, it says “lest she become unattractive to her husband.” It isn’t talking about an unmarried woman going out in a wig. The discussion is about a married woman. So from here we see that the Sages permitted a woman to go out into a courtyard on Shabbos wearing a wig. You see that a married woman may go out wearing a wig. The Shiltei Giborim continues and adds a few points. He says there is no distinction here between types of wigs: it makes no difference whether the wig is made from her own hair or another woman’s hair. Incidentally, anyone who thinks wigs made from women’s hair are something new should know they aren’t. Already in the time of the Shiltei Giborim, in the sixteenth century, there were wigs made from natural hair. So even if it is made from her own hair, the Shiltei Giborim says she may go out wearing it. And he says something else: there is no indication here that the wig is covered. “Lest she become unattractive to her husband” refers to an uncovered wig. That is the plain meaning. So that is the Shiltei Giborim’s proof. Again, we’ve been discussing the Shiltei Giborim. We wanted to show how the discussion develops in the Mishnah, the Gemara, and then the Shiltei Giborim. Part nine: May a woman also go out into the public domain wearing a wig? Based on what we saw in the previous lesson, you might think so. The Shiltei Giborim writes that a woman certainly may go out into a courtyard wearing a wig; that is explicit in the Gemara. But does this also

45:23 Speaker 2 apply to the public domain? Perhaps the permission is only to go out into a courtyard wearing a wig. We still need to prove that a woman may also go out into the public domain wearing a wig—and again, we’re talking first about weekdays. In fact, this can be proven from the Shiltei Giborim’s words, and from the Gemara itself. What do our Sages say? They say that the things a woman is forbidden to wear when going out into the public domain on Shabbos are forbidden because she might come to carry them. There are certain garments and ornaments that we’re concerned she might remove, or that might fall off, and she would then carry them in the public domain. Those things are forbidden even in a courtyard—that is what Rav told us. But there is an exception: a headband and a wig are permitted in a courtyard, though forbidden in the public domain. Why? “Lest she become unattractive to her husband.” That means that were it not for this concern, they would be like all the other things forbidden in the public domain, which the Sages also forbade wearing in a courtyard lest she go out with them into the public domain. Without the concern that she might become unattractive to her husband, the same would apply to a wig: the Sages would have forbidden her to wear it into a courtyard on Shabbos lest she go out with it into the public domain. But if there is a concern that she might go from the courtyard into the public domain wearing a wig, that is because she normally goes out that way during the week. So that is precisely what we needed to prove. From this Gemara, we can readily understand that it is permitted to go out into the public domain wearing a wig on weekdays, and that is why there is a concern she might do so on Shabbos as well. Otherwise,

47:18 Speaker 2 there would be no concern at all if it were forbidden throughout the week. Incidentally, this is not stated explicitly in the Shiltei Giborim, but it is explicit in the Alter Rebbe and the Pri Megadim. If you look at the Alter Rebbe’s rulings—in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, section 75, subsection 4, which we already quoted—where the Alter Rebbe permits going out wearing a wig, he is speaking about a place where carrying is prohibited by Torah law. In a courtyard on Shabbos, carrying is prohibited only by rabbinic law. So it is clear that the Alter Rebbe is speaking about the public domain. According to the Alter Rebbe, then, the permission the Shiltei Giborim derives to go out wearing a wig applies not only to a courtyard but also to the public domain. And it is even more explicit in the Pri Megadim. The Pri Megadim has Eshel Avraham on the Magen Avraham and Mishbetzos Zahav on the Taz. In section 304, subsection 9, in Mishbetzos Zahav, the Pri Megadim writes explicitly that a woman may go out without concern—we’re talking about weekdays. From the standpoint of modesty, there is no problem with her going into the public domain wearing a wig. I just want to note one thing. Someone who has followed the whole argument might say, “Wait a minute. From what you’ve said, we understand that a woman may go out into a courtyard and the public domain wearing a wig on weekdays, and she may even go out into a courtyard on Shabbos. But it would seem from your words that she may not go out into the public domain wearing a wig on Shabbos. Isn’t that what we learned in the Gemara?” Yes, that is correct. With the wigs of those days, women wore another covering underneath. The wig was uncovered, as the Shiltei Giborim says, but there was a covering beneath it. So

49:25 Speaker 2 in the public domain, the Sages were concerned that she might take off the wig to show it to a friend. But later halachic authorities say that this certainly applied in their day; today, there is no concern that a woman will take off her wig in the public domain to show it to a friend. Therefore, anyone who permits a woman to go out into the public domain wearing a wig on weekdays permits it on Shabbos as well. Part ten: Is it true that the Tzemach Tzedek forbids wearing a wig? In the first lesson, we mentioned all the posters and pamphlets put out against wigs, with a great deal of demagoguery. One of those demagogic claims is that the Tzemach Tzedek forbids wigs. We’ll see exactly what the Tzemach Tzedek says. First, it’s important to understand that the Tzemach Tzedek’s discussion of wigs is not in his responsa, but in his explanations of the Talmud, on Tractate Berachos. That is the first point: these are a halachic authority’s discussions and insights on the Talmud, not a halachic ruling. Now, what exactly does the Tzemach Tzedek say there? After discussing the Shiltei Giborim’s position at length—which, as we’ve seen, permits wigs; we’re not talking about Shabbos now, but about everyday wear—the Tzemach Tzedek cites the view of a later authority, the Atzei Arazim, who forbids wigs. The Tzemach Tzedek says that Rav Anani’s words offer some support for the Atzei Arazim. Now, who is Rav Anani, what does he say, and how does he offer some support to someone who disagrees with the Shiltei Giborim and forbids wigs? Let’s say what Rav Anani actually says. Rav Anani is responding to Rav’s statement. We said that Rav comments on the Mishnah’s statement that a woman may go out

51:38 Speaker 2 into a courtyard wearing a hairband or a wig. Rabbah said these are exceptions. Generally, anything one may not wear into the public domain on Shabbos may not be worn into a courtyard either. But Rabbah taught us that these two things really are exceptions, and he explains why: so that a woman will not become unattractive to her husband. Yes. Reb Anani’s view is, in a certain sense, more permissive. Reb Anani says no: anything one may not wear into the public domain on Shabbos may be worn into a courtyard, just like the hairband. In other words, Reb Anani does not read the Mishnah as Rabbah does. Rabbah understood that when the Mishnah speaks about the wig and the hairband, they are exceptions, and everything else is forbidden even in a courtyard. Reb Anani takes a broader, more permissive approach, as we said, and permits everything, just like the hairband: all these items were prohibited only in the public domain, not in a courtyard. The Tzemach Tzedek asks: Why does he say “just like the hairband,” and not “just like the hairband and the wig”? After all, the Mishnah mentions both. The Tzemach Tzedek says this offers some support for the French authorities who prohibit the wig. Apparently, Reb Anani permits only the hairband, not the wig, because perhaps he holds that a woman may not wear a wig at all. Yes. Now we need to understand this. People have inferred from here that the Tzemach Tzedek’s position was to prohibit wigs. But the Tzemach Tzedek is discussing the Gemara here. After all, all the halachic authorities ruled like Rabbah, not like Reb Anani, so, first of all, what he says is not a halachic ruling. He is discussing Reb Anani’s words, which are not the halachah, and suggesting that Reb Anani indeed holds that a woman may not wear a wig. But the bottom line is that the halachah follows Rabbah. And from Rabbah’s words we can explicitly see, as we learned about

53:32 Speaker 2 the two men, that one may indeed go into the public domain wearing a wig. And beyond the fact that this is not a halachic work, and that the Tzemach Tzedek, in his intellectual honesty, wants to offer some support from Reb Anani’s words for the opinion that disagrees with those two men—even though, as we said, Reb Anani’s view is not the halachah at all—there is something much more fundamental. As we said, the Alter Rebbe, the Tzemach Tzedek’s grandfather, explicitly permits a woman to wear a wig in section 75, paragraph 4. It is inconceivable that the Tzemach Tzedek would come along—yes, the Tzemach Tzedek sometimes disagrees with the Alter Rebbe; that happens. But when he does, he addresses the Alter Rebbe’s position and says that he disagrees and why. Here he does not mention the matter at all, because he is not coming to issue a ruling. He is only saying, by way of Talmudic discussion, that Reb Anani’s words—which, as we said, are themselves not the halachah—offer some support for the French authorities’ position. That is all. Since the Alter Rebbe explicitly ruled that a wig is permitted, and the Tzemach Tzedek does not address that ruling or even mention it, he certainly is not coming to disagree with his teacher and grandfather. So when opponents of wigs cite the Tzemach Tzedek, that is really demagoguery; it proves nothing whatsoever. Part eleven: Is it true that the holy Baba Sali prohibited wearing wigs? This is very interesting. There is a book about the life of the holy Baba Sali, Rabbi Yisrael Abuchatzeira, which says that Baba Sali once said truly terrible things that I do not even want to repeat, about Gehinnom and wigs—things that should not be said. Are those claims true? Is

55:33 Speaker 2 there a source for them? To find out, thank G-d, we are not many generations removed from Baba Sali; we can ask his relatives. There are two rabbis who can be asked, who have in fact been asked and have written about it: Baba Sali’s nephew, Rabbi Yechiel Abuchatzeira, the rabbi of Ramla, and Baba Sali’s son-in-law, Rabbi Yisrael Edri. We will see how they address the matter. There is a book called Chen VeChavod, with a great deal of material about wigs. It has letters of approbation, and I will read from Rabbi Yechiel Abuchatzeira’s. What does he say about this story? Rabbi Yechiel Abuchatzeira writes in his approbation, on page 64 of Chen VeChavod: “Regarding what is being spread in the name of my teacher and uncle, Sidi Baba Sali, of blessed memory.” Rabbi Yechiel Abuchatzeira is the son of Baba Chaki, Baba Sali’s older brother. “Regarding the claim being spread in his name that he supposedly spoke harshly against those who permit wigs: We can testify with certainty that he never said these things, G-d forbid, and that this was not his way at all. Some of the women in his family were lenient in this matter, as his sons-in-law, the husbands of his daughters, also attest,” as shown in Chen VeChavod. And in a moment we will see what the husbands of his daughters say. So according to Rabbi Yechiel Abuchatzeira, Baba Sali’s nephew, these claims are completely baseless. Now, what does Rabbi Yisrael Edri say? He was very close to Baba Sali—his son-in-law. Afterward I will also tell you what Rabbi Yisrael told me some time ago, in Tishrei 5782. Rabbi Edri, who also gave an approbation for the book, writes here—again, this is Baba Sali’s son-in-law—“I never heard

57:46 Speaker 2 him speak against wearing a wig. Likewise, his daughter, my wife”—may she rest in peace; she passed away a few months ago—“and my mother-in-law, the righteous Rebbetzin, said that they never heard him speak against wearing a wig.” In other words, he is testifying not only in his wife’s name but also in his mother-in-law’s name that Baba Sali never spoke against wigs. These stories are simply inventions. “On the contrary, the fact is that two of his daughters wore wigs when they were young, and my wife, his daughter, wore a wig for close to ten years. Although he knew about it, he never said a word to her against it.” On a personal occasion, not long ago, I was paying a shivah visit to the Vaknin family in Jerusalem. This was in Tishrei 5782. Rabbi Yisrael Edri came to comfort Rabbi Adam Vaknin, a dear friend, and I said to him, “Rabbi Yisrael, I recently read the approbation you wrote about wigs. Could I hear it firsthand?” He told me, “It was all lies. All those stories about Gehinnom never happened. My wife wore a wig, and Baba Sali never said a word about it, either to her or to my late mother-in-law.” So I can testify firsthand, from the words of Baba Sali’s son-in-law, that these claims are simply false. There is no such thing; Baba Sali never spoke against wigs. Shalom. Part twelve. Are wigs from India forbidden? Several years ago, rabbis spoke out against wigs from India out of concern that they were made from hair used in idol worship—the hair cut off there in India. As we know, one may not derive benefit from an object of idol worship, so the wigs from India were removed, and this caused a great stir. Rabbi Shalom Dovber Wolpo really got involved

59:56 Speaker 2 He got to the bottom of it and investigated the matter both factually and, separately, from the standpoint of halachah. He completely permitted wigs from India, and I want to take a few minutes to summarize what the book says. In southeastern India, in the city of Tirupati, there is a place that is a shrine to idol worship. Fifty thousand visitors come there every day—an astonishing number. Of those, twenty thousand have their heads shaved there, completely bald. So there is a concern: since this is a shrine to idol worship, perhaps that shaving is part of the worship. Perhaps the hair was used for idol worship and would then be forbidden, even though it later reaches the sellers and is made into wigs. Is there really a concern? Just so we know, there are five hundred barbers there shaving those twenty thousand people each day. It is an astonishing operation. The sale of hair from that shrine alone amounts to 450 tons a year—an enormous quantity. So is there actually a problem? Several points show that there is no problem at all. First, shaving does not appear anywhere in that Indian religion. On the contrary, those who follow it are supposed to be ascetics. The practice of shaving was introduced only a few decades ago, when people saw its enormous potential as a business. It is not an act of idol worship at all. The haircuts take place at the bottom of the mountain; their shrine is at the top. In other words, after being shaved, those who want to visit the shrine have to climb for several hours to reach it. The five hundred barbers are at the bottom of the mountain. What is more, Indians regard hair and nails as

1:02:16 Speaker 2 unclean things, right? Unlike us—though we, too, know that these things carry impurity; they took that from us. In any event, they regard them as unclean. There is no sign of idol worship whatsoever where the shaving takes place. To them, these things are unfit for it; on the contrary, they would detract from their worship. This is strictly a business. Once the hair has been cut, it is not offered anywhere. It is taken to warehouses in other cities, and three or four times a year there are auctions where wig manufacturers buy it. The barbers are not considered religious priests there at all. Precisely because they cut people’s hair, contrary to their religion’s expectation that people be ascetics, they are regarded as unclean. In other words, the whole thing is about tourism and money. There is an elite that receives the money—again, Rabbi Wolpo investigated this in depth. A certain portion goes to charitable causes, to hospitals and things like that, while most of it goes to enrich the people running the operation. But as we said, it has no connection whatsoever to idol worship. And one final point: the hair from Tirupati accounts for only seven and a half percent of all the hair from India used to make wigs. That matters even if one were to argue that there was some connection to idol worship. So, taking all these points together... I have summarized an entire book in a few minutes and given you the main points. It goes into the matter at great length, including the halachic side of what the law would be if this really were idol worship. The rabbi works through it in detail, bringing proofs that there is no problem, and that even if the circumstances were more serious, there still would not be a problem. But as a matter of fact, there is no connection to idol worship here, and there is no reason not to buy wigs from India. Shalom. Part thirteen: Does Rabbi Kanievsky forbid wearing a wig? Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky is often cited as someone who opposes today’s wigs. It is true that Rabbi Kanievsky is very, very strict about modesty, and that he finds many wigs immodest and forbids wearing them. As we mentioned in one of the first classes, things that are immodest and strongly draw the eye are indeed forbidden on grounds of modesty. That applies to dresses, blouses and even stockings, as well as wigs. But does Rabbi Kanievsky hold that a wig is inherently forbidden, or not? People present it as though Rabbi Kanievsky shlita forbids wigs. We will see how inaccurate that is. I am holding Shoneh Halachos, volume one, one of Rabbi Kanievsky’s well-known halachic works. I will read two paragraphs from section 75, the familiar section in which the Rema, the Mishnah Berurah, the Alter Rebbe, the Bigdei Yesha and the Vilna Gaon’s commentary, among other authorities, address wigs. Shoneh Halachos collects rulings from the Shulchan Aruch, the Rema and the Mishnah Berurah, and was compiled by Rabbi Kanievsky himself. So let us see what Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky shlita says there in subsections 21 and 22. Before he addresses wigs in subsection 22, it is very important to know his view on hair covering in general, because there is something we tend to forget. People think the stringency we saw in the holy Zohar is only for Kabbalists. No, it is not

1:04:33 Speaker 2 only for Kabbalists. We saw that many, many halachic authorities, starting with the Magen Avraham, take the Zohar’s words seriously: not even one hair should emerge from a woman’s headscarf. They regard this as a very serious matter. What does Rabbi Kanievsky say? In section 75, subsection 21, Rabbi Kanievsky shlita writes: “And the Zohar is very stringent that no hair of a woman should be visible, for it brings poverty upon her home.” It causes poverty in her home. “And it causes her sons not to be esteemed in their generation”—these are quotations from the Zohar that we already studied. It means her sons will not be prominent people in their generation. “And the sitra achra dwells in her home.” Again, this means that a few hairs emerging from the headscarf cause the sitra achra, impurity, to dwell in her home. “All the more so if she goes out into the street that way. Therefore, a woman must ensure that even the walls of her home do not see a single hair on her head.” Not even the walls of her home should see one of her hairs. That is what Rabbi Kanievsky writes—yes, even inside her own home. Rabbi Kanievsky continues: “And the Gemara relates the story of Kimchis, who, in the merit of her exceptional modesty, had sons who became Kohanim Gedolim.” Yes, that is what he writes. This is the first thing to mention to anyone who wants to lecture people about wigs. I am not talking about the halachic authorities; they know the facts. They know there are differing opinions, that many authorities permit wigs, and even those who forbid them know the facts. I am talking about the people who put up polemical posters, right? They have no objection to two finger-widths, a handbreadth, or strands of hair showing, as long as there is no wig. They also quote Rabbi Kanievsky forbidding one wig or another because it really is very curly and... Yes, but take note: Rabbi Kanievsky warns very strongly here that not a single hair should emerge from beneath the headscarf. Now let us address the wig itself. In subsection 22, Rabbi Kanievsky shlita writes,

1:06:39 Speaker 2 To the Kabbalists. We saw that many, many halachic authorities, beginning with the Magen Avraham, take seriously the Zohar’s words that not even a single hair should come out from under a woman’s headscarf, and they regard this as a very serious matter. What does Rabbi Kanievsky say? In section 75, paragraph 21, Rabbi Kanievsky shlita writes: “The Zohar is very strict that no hair of a woman should be visible, for it brings danger into the home.” This causes poverty in her home. “And it causes her children not to be esteemed in their generation”—these are quotations from the Zohar that we already studied. It causes her sons not to be regarded as important people in their generation. “And the sitra achra dwells in her home.” Again, this means that if a few hairs come out from under the headscarf, the sitra achra, impurity, will dwell in her home. “All the more so if she goes out into the street like that. Therefore, a woman must ensure that even the walls of her home do not see a single hair of her head.” That is what Rabbi Kanievsky writes—yes, even in her own home. Rabbi Kanievsky continues: “And the Gemara tells the story of Kimchis, who, in the merit of her exceptional modesty, had sons who became Kohanim Gedolim.” Yes, that is what he writes. The first thing to point out to anyone who wants to preach about wigs and whether they are permitted—I’m not talking about halachic authorities, because they really know the facts: they know there are differing opinions, that many authorities permit wigs, and even those who forbid them know that. I’m talking about the people who put up those denunciatory posters, yes? They aren’t bothered if two fingerbreadths, a tefach, and strands of hair are exposed, as long as there isn’t a wig. And they also quote Rabbi Kanievsky forbidding this wig or that one because it is indeed very curly and... Yes, but be careful: Rabbi Kanievsky warns very strongly here that not a single hair should come out from under the headscarf. We’ll now address the wig itself. But in paragraph 22, Rabbi Kanievsky shlita writes,

1:08:58 Speaker 2 “A wig, even if she normally covers her hair, is not considered ervah. Some permit it and some forbid it.” Right, he presents it exactly as the Mishnah Berurah does: some permit it, and some forbid it. He cites the Magen Giborim and continues: “In places where it is customary to go out wearing one, one may rely on those who are lenient.” And it sounds as though even a wig made from a woman’s own hair, which was cut off, is permitted. Yes, it is not only the Yaskil Avdi, whom we quoted, and the Magen Giborim. Rabbi Kanievsky himself also says that in a place where people are accustomed to wigs, there is no concern that people won’t know what they are seeing. Today, after all, everyone knows what a wig is. So, based on this, as we noted in the Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Kanievsky also writes that in a place where women are indeed accustomed to going out with a wig, there is no problem with it—even a wig made from the woman’s own hair. Yes, that is what Rabbi Kanievsky says. In the book Chen Vechavod, which we have quoted several times already, on page 171, Rabbi Kanievsky is quoted as saying, when comparing a wig to a headscarf, that a wig is actually far preferable to today’s headscarves, from which hairs stick out. And again, we have shown that Rabbi Kanievsky is very, very concerned about the Zohar’s words regarding hairs that stick out. Another point: there is a book called Orchos Rabbeinu about the Kehillos Yaakov. The Kehillos Yaakov—the Steipler—was Rabbi Kanievsky’s father, and Orchos Rabbeinu has several volumes. In volume 3, paragraph 63, it says that the Chazon Ish’s mother wore a wig, as did the Chazon Ish’s wife and the Steipler’s wife. All three of them did indeed wear wigs.