Tzniut and wigs, I don't get it

[sapphire_chan]

Okay, my SIL won't eat beans at pesach because they look like grain, she won't eat chicken with milk because it might look like beef*, but she'll cover her hair with a wig that looks just like her own hair. She says this is correct.

I have no problem with her choice to do so, regardless of "correctness," but I don't understand why it would be rabbinically correct when there are so many other rules based on the outward appearance.


*"The prohibition of chicken and milk was a rabbinic enactment to protect the Torah law - being that we also refer to chicken as meat, buy it in a butcher shop, and it looks similar to meat, they forbade mixing chicken and milk in order that we should not come to confuse it with "real" meat." (from http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-...2/Kosher-2.htm )

[Mommal]

My understanding is that the reason a wig is "tzniusdik" is that the primary motivation for covering the head is to show respect before G-d, not to demonstrate modesty to other people. So it doesn't matter what you cover with- a napkin, a wig, a cloth- they all fit the bill.

[sapphire_chan]

thank you! That makes a lot of sense. Really, one cound prayerfully hold an umbrella, barring other options, yes?

ps am using phone, accidentally hit 'report' button, I hope it got cancelled when I hit back, but just in case a mod did get a notification, I'm sorry!

[merpk]

The point of the headcovering is to cover the person's hair. It is *not* to look ugly or somehow "different."

So it doesn't matter that you have hair showing on your head, as long as your own hair is not on display. Which is the point.

Which is why a wig is (to some) acceptable as a hair covering.

[sapphire_chan]

My question wasn't about looking "ugly" or "different" it was about actually looking like you're covering your hair. Momal's explanation clarified things excellently.

Personally, I don't think of hair scarves or hats as making people look "ugly," I'm sorry if you've encountered rude remarks.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

My question wasn't about looking "ugly" or "different" it was about actually looking like you're covering your hair. Momal's explanation clarified things excellently.

Personally, I don't think of hair scarves or hats as making people look "ugly," I'm sorry if you've encountered rude remarks.

"Ugly" can be a matter of personal perception ... I certainly know people who don't like the look of headscarves on themselves, and who as a result struggle with a clash between their theological convictions regarding dress and the natural human inclination to just want to look nice.

And, in a terrific lot of places on this earth, discernible headcovers = looking different. That's just how it goes. While your question may not have been about looking different, part of the answer is.

[Chavelamomela]

Covering hair is slightly different from covering other body parts. Hair, unlike, say, breasts, are not intrinsically "erva" (that which should be hidden, sacred for private). As you may know, unmarried women do not cover their hair, and once a woman is married, it is customary to cover it (though the levels/types of coverings vary from community to community).

The rules of covering "erva" - that which should be hidden, generally mean that even a reproduction of that thing (i.e. a picture of a naked woman printed on a shirt that covers her actual nakedness) would be forbidden. But since hair is not intrinsically "erva", a reproduction of it (a wig) would be permissible.

And the wig doesn't have to 'look' like a wig - there are many women who cover their hair with a wig and it looks very natural.

As a teacher of mine once explained to me - It doesn't matter what I cover my hair with - hat, scarf, wig, snood, etc - the only person who needs to know I am wearing a hair-covering is ME. Because even the most comfortable scarf, wig, hat, snood, etc, you still feel. And the feeling of that covering somehow reminds you that "I am married" (and therefore, hopefully I would behave in a manner that is appropriate for a married woman to behave).

[christianmomof3]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

*"The prohibition of chicken and milk was a rabbinic enactment to protect the Torah law - being that we also refer to chicken as meat, buy it in a butcher shop, and it looks similar to meat, they forbade mixing chicken and milk in order that we should not come to confuse it with "real" meat." (from http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-...2/Kosher-2.htm )

Interesting. I had never heard of that. I always thought the no meat and milk rule was based on the don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk verse.

But I never heard of chicken milk before.

[merpk]

Originally Posted by christianmomof3

Interesting. I had never heard of that. I always thought the no meat and milk rule was based on the don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk verse.

But I never heard of chicken milk before.

The rule is technically based on the "kid in its mother's milk" verse. And that is very clear when you're discussing red-meat-animals like cows or goats or sheep.

But birds were deemed different. You're right, no chicken milk; fowl was not clearly meat by the simplest reading of the verse. So the sages-of-old determined that all fowl, for purposes of milk/meat classification, would be considered meat.

In the same vein, all fish is considered to be not-meat, or what we call "parve."

[DashsMama]

Thanks for asking this question Saphire_chan. I've wondered about this for years but could never come up with a respectful way to ask the question.

[Lil'M]

My mother covers her hair with a wig and my understanding of it is that as a married woman, the only man who should see her real hair is her husband. So she can be uncovered in the company of just women, and my mom also might not be covered in front of her son, son-in-laws, or grandsons.

She has beautiful wigs that most people wouldn't realize are wigs. But it is important to her that SHE knows she is covered.

(BTW My parents became orthodox when I was in college which is why my understanding of these practices is from a somewhat outside POV)