6

See Can a Sheitel be made out of one's own hair? where the question wonders whether a woman is allowed to wear her own detached hair as a Sheitel.

In Fred's answer, he quotes the Shiltei Giborim (Shabbos 29a in dapei haRif) who says it is fine.

However, upon looking in the Shiltei Giborim, you will see a very interesting thing. He twice mentions(, the second time clearer then the first) that a woman's hair is only Ossur if it is attached AND the attachment can be seen.

He seems to be saying that if were one to wear a bandfall or headband on their actual attached hair where the head meets the hair, and the actual attachment itself is not visible, that would be OK too.

Unless I am wrong, not a mention of this Heter exists in any known seforim or Poskim.

Do you know of a Posek who allows use of this Heter? If not, why doesn't a single Posek mention this Heter? The Shiltei HaGibborim is the mother of the Leniency of the Sheitels, why isn't this important caveat well known and allowed?

Improve this question
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

I understand the שלטי גיבורים slightly differently.

He seems to say that the Erva section of the head is where you potentially could see the hair attached to the scalp - referring to the entire hairy part of the scalp.

It would seem that he would allow one's bangs and pony-tails to stick out from a Sheitel/Tichel.

Here are the 2 sections you mention:

Once in the middle of that section:

דשער באשה ערוה דאמרינן לא הוי אלא בשער הדבוק לבשרה ממש ונראה גם בשרה עם השיער אבל שיער המכסה שערה אין כאן משום שער באשה ערוה וגם לא משום פריעת ראש

And again in his conclusion:

ובדברי הרא״ש תמצא דאין איסור בשער אשה משום ערוה אלא במחובר לבשרה וגם שהבשר נראה עם השיער כדאוקימנא

Improve this answer
9
  • Hi Danny, in what way is a ponytail sticking out under a Sheitel different from her own hair but just covering the scalp attachment? Is it because it is little hair? Or because at least she has a covering on?
    – Yehuda
    Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 13:23
  • @Yehuda - not sure what you're asking. The שלטי גיבורים seems to says that once the entire hairy-scalp area is covered, any other hair sticking out seems to be allowed. (Since he keeps on mentioning the scalp-meets-the hair.)
    – Danny Schoemann
    Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 13:55
  • Exactly. Which would allow any married womans' own hair so long as they wore a hair-band that covered the seams.
    – Yehuda
    Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 15:17
  • 2
    @IsaacKotlicky I would argue the opposite. The one tefach is used from the forehead in, and displays the attachment of the hair to the scalp which would be Ossur even according to what I suggest. The reason of that is because it is lacking in Shiur.
    – Yehuda
    Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 16:34
  • 1
    @Yehuda - לשיטתך your headband would also have to cover any "parts" and thinning areas, since the שלטי גיבורים has an issue with שהבשר נראה עם השיער - wherever the scalp is visible with the hair. The edges are not the only places that happens. (But I understand the שלטי גיבורים to mean the entire scalp-area that has hair, not only the point it connects.)
    – Danny Schoemann
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 9:49
0

The Shiltei Hagibborim uses the word "Erva" referring where the skin meets the root of the hair. Erva means the part that is forbidden to uncover in public min hatorah. Source Brochos 25b:

אמר רב יהודה עכו"ם ערום אסור לקרות ק"ש כנגדו מאי איריא עכו"ם אפילו ישראל נמי ישראל פשיטא ליה דאסור אלא עכו"ם אצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב בהו [יחזקאל כג, כ] אשר בשר חמורים בשרם אימא כחמור בעלמא הוא קמ"ל דאינהו נמי איקרו ערוה דכתיב [בראשית ט, כג] וערות אביהם לא ראו - To summarize the Torah says explicitely the word ervah-"nakedness" of their father Noah means refers to an area which is uncovered that is supposed to be covered.

The hair on the scalp the Torah tells us that a married women should keep covered, so uncovering it would be also deemed as "ervah." Source Kesubos 72a:

ראשה פרוע דאורייתא היא דכתיב (במדבר ה, יח) ופרע את ראש האשה ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אזהרה לבנות ישראל שלא יצאו בפרוע ראש דאוריית, קלתה שפיר דמי -
Uncovered married womens hair is prohibbited from the Torah as it says (bamidbar 5,18 with regards to the Sotah) "And you shall uncover the head of the woman" And rabbi Yishmael teaches this is the source of the commandment that Jewish women (Who are married as is evident from the Sotah who is married) must cover their head (scalp) from the Torah. Using a basket to cover her hair would be sufficient According to the Torah.

A basket is like a rigid hat that only covers the scalp where the hair meats the head, but not the long hair coming out on the sides.
We see that only the Scalp is an ervah i.e prohibited to uncover from the Torah which is Hashems Word. And the Shiltei Hagiborim says ,likewise uses the term erva describing the the place the hair meats the head i.e scalp.

ערוה דקאמר רחמנא לא הויאלא בשערהדבוק לבשרו

However the Gemoro continues דת יהודית אפילו קלתה נמי אסור - The Law of the Jewess (which is the way Jewish woman act in an extra degree of modesty), even a basket is not sufficient to cover her hair and is prohibbited rabbinically. The Tur Even Haezer 115 explains on this Gemora (see there)that כיון שאינה מכוסה בצעיף since she has not covered her hair with a scarf i.e a scarf covers all her hair not only the scalp.

And the Beis Shmuel on Even Haezer 115,4 seif kotton 9 quotes the Shiltei haggiborim Explicitely that he holds of both Dat Moshe and Dat Yehudis:

כלל הוא בר"ה וראשה פרוע לגמרי הוי דת משה ואם ראשה מכוסה בקלתה או בשאר דבר אלא דאינה מכוסה כדרך הנשים אז הוי דת יהודית, ובחצר שאין רבים בוקעים לפרש"י ותו' ליכ' איסור אפילו פרוע לגמרי ומחצר לחצר דרך מבוי ופרוע לגמרי הוי ד"י וקלתה מותר אבל בסמ"ג הביא ירושלמי אפי' בחצר יש איסור אם ראשה פרוע לגמרי וכ"כ בשילטי הגיבורים

In conclusion: all the poskim in even Haezer 115 including the shiltei hagiborim say like the Gemara Kesubos 72a that only the scalp is an "erva min hatorah But all agree including Shiltei Hagiborim that because of Dat Yehudit woman has to cover all her hair in public places even the bangs on the side as the gemora Ketubot 72b continues.

Improve this answer
11
  • 1
    Consider using block-quotes to make your posts nicer and easier to read.
    – mevaqesh
    Commented Oct 26, 2017 at 19:30
  • 1
    "Erva means the part that is forbiddon to uncover in public min hatorah. This is clearly defined in Kesubos 72a" How can you say "clearly" when that Gemara never says the word Ervah?? This is just a clearly incorrect claim.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Oct 26, 2017 at 19:57
  • 1
    "A basket is like a rigid hat that only covers the scalp but not the long hair coming out on the sides. " How do you know this? Some Rishonim think the problem with the basket is that it has holes in it so you can see part of the scalp, yet it still fulfills Dat Moshe. Others seem to think its inappropriate because of its informal style not coverage.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Oct 26, 2017 at 19:58
  • 1
    Welcome back! i always enjoy your skeptical comments, The truth is that the Gemora in Brochos 25b says clearly that ervah means the part that is forbidden to uncover in public min hatorahאמר רב יהודה עכו"ם ערום אסור לקרות ק"ש כנגדו מאי איריא עכו"ם אפילו ישראל נמי ישראל פשיטא ליה דאסור אלא עכו"ם אצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב בהו (יחזקאל כג, כ) אשר בשר חמורים בשרם אימא כחמור בעלמא הוא קמ"ל דאינהו נמי איקרו ערוה דכתיב (בראשית ט, כג) וערות אביהם לא ראו:It could be that its true that not every part of the scalp need be covered but no significant part in one area thats what it couldmean in SH
    – user15464
    Commented Oct 26, 2017 at 21:01
  • 1
    That isn't the truth at all, since that's not what the Gemara in Brachot says. It just says that the rabbinic rule of not reading Shema in front of nakedness applies to gentiles as well. You seem confused about these terms. Aside from @mevaqesh's point above about formatting, this is a consistent issue with your posts: you take non-obvious or questionable reads of sources, and then present them as obvious or universal. Just because you provide some text and a reference in a book doesn't mean you've sourced your claim or presented it accurately
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Oct 26, 2017 at 22:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .