Reason for sheitel

[dys]

The difference here at least for Chabad chassidim is that the Tzemach Tzedek expressed himself very sharply concerning this issue that if a woman has any other minhag to do otherwise then that minhag is osios gehenom.

[Majorthinker]

So all those who do not go according to the TT...?
Nu, nu.

[Torah613]

Originally Posted by dys

The difference here at least for Chabad chassidim is that the Tzemach Tzedek expressed himself very sharply concerning this issue that if a woman has any other minhag to do otherwise then that minhag is osios gehenom.

Again: The minhog the TT decries there (as being the letters of gehenom) is not the minhog discussed here.
Why do you insist on confusing the two?

[dys]

You mean to differenciate between inside and outside the house? Why makes you want to interpret it that way. We say chinuch starts at home. Why should there be any different stadard of tznius at home as opposed to outside?
The same goes for wearing socks at home. Harav Dvorkin wrote clearly that a woman should wear stockings even at home alone with no men present because of tznius.

[Majorthinker]

That does not mean that one who does not keep this chumra'dik standard is following minhag gehinom.

[Torah613]

Originally Posted by dys

You mean to differenciate between inside and outside the house? Why makes you want to interpret it that way. We say chinuch starts at home. Why should there be any different stadard of tznius at home as opposed to outside?

I am not "interperting" anything.
The basic point there is, that there are things that are not considered "erva" for the husband, while they are considered in front of others. Concerning the minhog by some to be lenient in front of others, is what the TT refers to as minhog=gehenom.
It is not a question of inside or outside - it is a question of in front of others or not.
Of course, some are machmir in front of (only) their husbands also, based on Kimchis. But those that are lenient, is not what the TT refers to as the letters "gehenom". Saying it is - is a distortion of the TT.

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

I am not "interperting" anything.
The basic point there is, that there are things that are not considered "erva" for the husband, while they are considered in front of others. Concerning the minhog by some to be lenient in front of others, is what the TT refers to as minhog=gehenom.
It is not a question of inside or outside - it is a question of in front of others or not.
Of course, some are machmir in front of (only) their husbands also, based on Kimchis. But those that are lenient, is not what the TT refers to as the letters "gehenom". Saying it is - is a distortion of the TT.

have you ever actualy looked at the kimchis gemorah inside? the rabbanim repudate her explanation of why she merited to have so many sons that were cohanim gedolim. (if this was indeed a merit. . . the rest of the aggada doesn't really sound so positive)

[Torah613]

I know all about it, and so did the poskim. Nonetheless, the poskim - including the Rema (not a Rambam...) - saw fit to bring the story of Kimchis as least as a lesson in midas chassidus/chumra.

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

I know all about it, and so did the poskim. Nonetheless, the poskim - including the Rema (not a Rambam...) - saw fit to bring the story of Kimchis as least as a lesson in midas chassidus/chumra.

facinating. where does he bring this?

(is it in derchei moshe? I know its not in EH"E 21 or in O"H 75. . .)

[Torah613]

דרכי משה אבן העזר סי' קטו

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

דרכי משה אבן העזר סי' קטו

I should have known that would be where it was! lol. thanks

[Agent40]

B'h
I seriously with quite strong conviction do not believe that the Rebbe when talking about shaitels looking nice etc was talking about these super long, super natural ones, that turn heads.............
The lengths that I wouldn't have my daughters wear their own hair loose like that................
Then again who am I?

[noahidelaws]

I don't think anyone here would disagree with you.

[Agent40]

B'h
Perhaps not here but in real life there 4 sure r. Don't ask what some of the responses I have got from some of these individuals.

[Agent40]

Originally Posted by shmeichel

When you're satisfied with what you have, you don't look elsewhere.

B'h
What about those that are never satisfied?

[shmeichel]

Anything that is eye-catching is by definition pritzus. Tell these women that they are flouting the clear warnings of the poskim, and bringing the opposite of blessing upon themselves, their families, chassidim, and klal Yisroel, rachmono litzlan.

Regarding "those who are never satisfied", they need to learn Chassidus regularly so they will have more yiras Shomayim, and then they will stabilize, im yirtzeh Hashem.

[Agent40]

B'h
Obviously too the husbands must not mind since their wives are the ones wearing them.....

[Majorthinker]

So to quote a very, very, respected [female] figure in Kfar Chabad, the story is this:

Covering your hair with a sheitel is not l'chatchila. It's not the best, most tznua, etc. HOWEVER, to the Rebbe, what is important is that EVERYONE should keep mitzvot.

Therefore, the Rebbe prefers that even the super-tznua women, who would cover every single hair with two mitpachot (120%), should cover their hair with a sheitel (99-100%). Why? So that none of those who would cover less hair (60%) will be embarrassed to wear a sheitel, therefore wearing a mitpachat that does not properly cover their hair.

In other words, if all those who are makpid wear a mitpachat, then wearing a sheitel will become embarrassing, a sign of less commitment to halacha/ chassidus. Therefore, it's better that everyone be 100%, than that some be 70% and some be 120%.

And so she says, yes it is a sacrifice on the part of those who are *more* tznua; however, this is what the Rebbe wants from us.

אשכרה, I could not believe my ears. Someone who is respected as a chassid/ mashpia/ teacher in Kfar Chabad agrees with me on this point (that a sheitel is not better; it's just to make sure that *everyone* covers their hair)? I thought I was a koifer.

Originally Posted by Majorthinker

Kimchis is to be praised, but she is not halacha. She kept an extreme chumra which earned her a great reward. But what she did is not halacha, it is midat hachassidut, in a major way.

Why is it "a great reward" to have six sons die? (It's not.)

And how do we know that the rabbanim are not praising her "b'lashon sagi nahor"? (Which, by the way, is not at all clear.)

[hishtatchus]

Kimchis had 7 sons who served as Kohanim Gedolim, that is true. But it is not true that all of the older ones had to die to give that honor to the younger ones! (See Yoma 47, summary here) It is clear that the praise of Kimchis is genuine.

With all due respect to the anonymous Rebbetzin of Kfar Chabad, I'm not sure that the shaitel that the Rebbe advocates is an inferior tznius covering. If something covers your hair 100%, that's 100%!

What does "covering 120%" mean? More tznius? More aidel? Within shaitelach there are more and less aidel options. I don't think that a refined shaitel is less modest than a double tichel. Neither is a showy, metallic-threaded, twisted-into-a-crown-atop-the-head shaitel equally as modest as a simple head covering. And, when worn correctly, both CAN cover the hair 100%. But a shaitel is INTENDED to cover the hair 100%, and a tichel is, in essence, designed to look good with your hairline showing.

In addition, I was under the impression that a shaitel (and not just the etzem inyan of covering your hair) confers a certain Ruchnius'dike benefit.

[Majorthinker]

It's actually not that clear if they are speaking in awe or b'lashon sagi nahor when they praise Kimchis.

She's not anonymous, but I didn't ask permission to write her name on the internet. So . . . I'm not writing it.

120% means that not only is all your hair covered, but it actually looks like it's covered and is tzanua.

If it's not okay to wear your hair down, past the shoulders, when you're single, why is it suddenly okay when you're an eishet ish?? It's NOT. But we say, "Okay, at least her hair is fully covered."

If I, who grew up among sheitel-wearers, and am part of a sheitel-wearing community, don't know if you're wearing a sheitel or not within 2 seconds (kal v'chomer if I still haven't figured it out after 5 minutes) - then there is an issue. A BIG issue. Maybe the hair is covered 100%. But the other part of covering your hair is so that people know, at first glance, that you're married. And if they can't know, then half the reason has gone to the trash.

Every true hair covering is meant to cover 100%. It depends on the person wearing it. (One person studied with me for a year and a half. I was sure she was single. One day I see her with a huge belly. HUH?? She has the chutzpa to come to a religious institution single and pregnant?? I stared at her hard and suddenly realized that in the back she had a 3 inch wide band of hair showing from under her ponytail sheitel. OH. She's not single. OH.)

Ruchnius benefit is conferred by covering your hair completely, it's mentioned in Kabbala. Because the sheitel covers your hair completely, it brings bracha. Pretty simple.

[hishtatchus]

Look at the meforshim. I have yet to see an opinion that Kimchis was not being genuinely praised.

I'd love to see a source that hair covering is so that others can see you are married. Your hair must be covered because it is ervah, not to alert men as to which women are available. Many people consider wedding bands to be a more accurate siman anyhow.

Wearing a shaitel is not an excuse for a less than aidel hairstyle, but that is not the point. The issues you bring up with shaitels (100% covering, aidelkeit, length, etc.) are not exclusive to shaitels. Tichels can have the same problems, and neither are acceptable.

The Rebbe is not saying that a poorly chosen shaitel is tznius, and I doubt anyone would argue with that. The Rebbe is saying that there is an advantage to an aidel, well-fitting full shaitel OVER an equally tznius tichel.

You should be aware that the Rebbe was not in favor of falls, even if worn with a hat. "A halbe shaitel is a halbe bracha" - "half a shaitel is a half a bracha." That implies that there is an additional Ruchnius benefit conferred by a shaitel.

[Majorthinker]

Okay, Kimchis:
(Background: She lived during Bayit Sheini.)

According to the Yerushalmi, the rabbanim responded, "כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה ממשבצות זהב לבושה"; Rashi says that in the zechut of her tzniut, her son was kohen gadol and wore mishbetzot zahav.

Yafeh.

According to the Bavli:
Tanu rabanan - 7 sons were [born] to Kimchis and all of them served in kehuna gedola; the Chachamim said to her, "What did you do that you merited this?" She said to them, "Never have the walls of my house seen my hair." They said to her, "Many did as such and it did not help [them]."

According to the Maharsh"a:
Only four kohanim gedolim during Bayit Sheini lived through their service on Yom Kippur. And why did they ask what *she* had done? Because they assumed that it was her merit and not her husband's.

Now - what the chachamim said, "Many did as such and it did not help them," seems to tell us that they do *not* think that her sons serving as kohen gadol was related to her level of tzniut.

Remember, Kimchis had 7 sons, and we're assuming that 6 of them died. If you say that *all* four of those who did not die during Bayit Sheini were her sons, that would mean that at least three of her sons *did* die.

One point that needs to be made is that Rabi Yishmael was certainly one of the four, and the reason he kept on being replaced was that every year, an Arab (who is b'geder zav) spat on his clothes just before Yom Kippur, thereb rendering him tamei. Was this a big zechut? Yes. It was probably in this zechut that he was saved, although, because we're talking about Rabi Yishmael - lav davka. We only find out that Rabi Yishmael ben Pavi is also Rabi Yishmael ben Kimchis (Pavi was his father) because the gemara happens to be discussing Kimchis anyways.

HOWEVER.....

Is her zchut connected to her tznius?

This we do not know for certain. The Yerushalmi seems to say yes. The Bavli says, "Eh, that can't be the reason."

NOW....the tone of the Chachamim's reply is also uncertain; however, that is not discussed. If you look inside, you will see what I mean.