Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Sheitel Shmeitel

I must preface by saying I appreciate this woman thinking of me, and I am glad she called. Like they say, "one man's trash is another man's treasure." (or something like that)

A woman who has a daughter "of age" called my mother recently.

"I might have someone for your daughter, but I have one question before anything," she warned. She talks loud. I heard this through the phone. I worried and wondered what she could have in store.

I held my breath as my mother asked, "Sure, what is it?"

"Would your daughter be willing to date a boy whose mother doesn't cover her hair?"

"Of course. No problem," my mother replied without hesitation. I breathed a sigh of relief, and rolled my eyes.

"Oh, because my daughter isn't willing to date anyone whose mother doesn't cover her hair," she replied matter-of-factly. (I guess that explains why she's willing to pass the guy on to someone else)

My question is, WHY NOT?!

I understand the significance of head-covering. I do. That's why I plan to do so when I get married IY"H, but to reject a guy on that basis, to me, seems narrow-minded, and possibly a little foolish.

Many guys from MO communities where it is more common not to cover one's hair than it is to cover one's hair end up more sincerely frum than the ones born to yentas in Flatbush who wear sheitels that look better than their real hair (a pet peeve of mine, of course).

Obviously, this is a more important concern than tablecloths and shabbos robes. I wouldn't ask whether the mother covers her hair when a shidduch comes up, because that's not important to me.

What's important to me is that her son respects me for covering my hair, and respects his mother even if she doesn't.


At 2/19/2008 11:01 AM, Blogger BrooklynWolf said...

Just a quick "heads up" that I linked to this post. I enjoyed it very much.

The Wolf

At 2/19/2008 12:22 PM, Blogger SuperRaizy said...

Very sensible!

At 2/19/2008 2:52 PM, Anonymous Ike said...

Well done - I like the last line in particular.

At 2/19/2008 3:35 PM, Blogger megapixel said...

does this mean that when you get married, you wont wear a shaitel that looks natural?
you are gonna wear ye olde plastic mat on your head?
if so I commend you!

At 2/19/2008 4:04 PM, Blogger Garnel Ironheart said...

People worry about the dumbest things. I once heard about this one girl in Toronto whose mother forbid her to play with a certain friend from school. Not because this friend had a TV in her house, chas v'shalom, but she was known to play with other girls who did!

When people decide to be frum, it's the stupid little things they focus on. I wonder why people aren't as obsessive about tzedakah, saying hello nicely to people, helping out the poor...

By the way, nice blog.

At 2/19/2008 6:28 PM, Blogger Michelle said...

Megapixel- Honestly, if I had it my way, yes.
I don't plan to wear one of those slutty sheitels (sounds like an oxymoron, but unf. it isn't.)I see all around.
But as I've mentioned in the comments before, I did have a broken engagement, and I have sheitels from that which B"H are just right. Not too natural, but not unflattering.

garnel- thanks, please stay awhile :-)

At 2/19/2008 7:21 PM, Blogger Nice Jewish Guy said...

Nice blog-- found it via Wolf.

Funny about sheitels. Personally, I respect those who cover their hair, but I can't see myself with someone who wears a sheitel. I just can't do it. I could deal with someone who wore a cute hat, or some partial hair covering, but sheitels, to me, look like sheitels. I find the fake hairlines, and the unnatural way they sit on the head and move, aesthetically aversive. And don't tell me about sheitels that look so good you can't tell-- first of all, yes you can, 99% of the time. And second, if you're going to spend $1000 or more (Gadzooks!) on a sheitel so that it looks indistinguishable from natural hair, why not just go with your own hair already?

Besides, the whole hair covering thing has a questionable halachic mandate anyway, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

At 2/19/2008 7:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I think that there is something to a mother covering her hair... I mean Halachickly. I am not saying someone should discriminate against it but maybe the girl has her reasons. I'm sure things would bother you about dating a guy that wouldnt bother someone else. Why so judgemental?

At 2/19/2008 7:56 PM, Anonymous big bro said...

Good job. Agree with everything you said. (Nice job, Mom!)

The only rationale I can think of is that perhaps the woman is afraid that the boy's "frumming out" is just a phase, and that he will revert back to his upbringing. I've heard that argument before.

That said, I still agree with you.

At 2/20/2008 9:34 AM, Blogger halfshared said...

I once dated a guy whose parents were much more MO than him and his Mom didn't wear a wig either. It didn't bother me but you know what, this guy was so busy trying to be frum and "yeshivish" that he totally went to the other extreme and was fanatically frum. Cud be it was just him but his upbringing and his subsequent frumming out definitely contributed.

At 2/20/2008 11:12 AM, Blogger Jessica said...

These kinds of people think of not wearing a wig as a disease of sorts and they're worried that it could be passed down genetically. In most cases, if a person is told about someone who is single, but one of their parents have a mental illness, people would turn down the shidduch for the same reason. They're worried that the illness is passed down genetically and they're kids may end up with it. I'm not condoning either way of thinking (my mother-in-law does not cover her hair, I do -- it is each of our prerogatives), but when those modes of thought are brought into play, what other choice do they have but to say no?

At 2/20/2008 12:08 PM, Blogger Rahel said...

Hi Michelle,

Great post. I found this blog via the Wolf, and will be adding you to my ever-growing list of JBlogs read via RSS.

At 2/21/2008 7:11 AM, Anonymous Gavi said...

Many people would want to read into such a fact that the boy isn't that frum... I say, go out with the guy if all else is OK and judge for yourself!

My mother doesn't cover her hair, and my wife does - she obviously found me acceptable enough, even from such a family... Did I mention that my mother uses plastic tablecloth covers on her shabbos table!! How my brother and I got married, I don't know ;-)

BTW- If you are not sefardi, you don't have to follow Rav Ovadiah's opinion that shaitelach are not permitted, and the gedolei ashkenaz have permitted them. Like anything else, you have to follow more than the letter of the law - one's dress and hair covering should be modestly attractive, not attention-getting in an inappropriate fashion.

At 2/22/2008 4:29 AM, Anonymous big bro said...

"Oh, because my daughter isn't willing to date anyone whose mother doesn't cover her hair," she replied matter-of-factly.


Let's see what her policy is when she's 25 and single.

At 2/22/2008 6:50 AM, Blogger frum single female said...

tell me again why there is a shidduch crisis? no one can figure out why????

At 2/22/2008 10:58 AM, Blogger Michelle said...

Gavi--I'm sure this guy won't have a problem getting dates-- after all, he is a GUY, and it's man's world out there.

Thanks to those who have blogrolled me and linked to me :-) Please check out my archives.

Big Bro--this girl will not be 25 and single, since she's pretty, has money, and is well-known in the community. That's pretty much all that counts, right? (she happens to be a pretty nice kid too)

At 2/24/2008 8:02 AM, Anonymous megapixel said...

although I hear your side of the story very clearly, I do also hear hers.
for the same reason that all those crazy questions are ridiculous - tablecloth, stacking etc. yet some people are really looking not at the guy himself but at the whole picture since they are marrying into the family as a whole as well.
so they want to be comfortable among them. if it was important to me not to use plastic tablecloths, and i want to fit into my new family, it might be something I want to check into. true, it is very silly and meaningless, but there are silly and meaningless people out there and they need to find each other.
you dont want these people- and she may be missing out on a great guy. there are just as many people (probably more) that scoff at these ideas. that's who you need to be looking at!
that being said, I married into a family that doesnt even use real cutlery on SHABBOS. and they dont even set the table!! they use plastic plates and plastic forks. YUCK! I had no idea till I was engaged cuz back then nobody would think to ask such a silly question about a prospective shiduch. and even if they did, I wouldnt have asked - i deem it stupid. (let me tell you, when my parents found out they were totally disgusted and they are NOT silly people-in fact pretty simple. They thought it was a total lack of respect for shabbos and class and my dad told me I better not follow in THEIR footsteps)
SO let me tell you, it has no bearing on my marriage whatsoever. Except that my husband thinks I am really fancy when I use china and silverware. so it works as a plus for me. Although it drove me crazy whenever i went to my in laws for shabos- I would make my husband go get me a real spoon for the soup, etc. He didnt mind.
when I asked my MIL why she uses plastic, she claimed that no one was going to help her wash dishes after the meal, and she was too tired to do it, so therefore she used strictly plastic. Yeah, its totally unclassy and not geshmak, but who can blame her? after a long day of work, she's tired. and I am not volunteering to wash her dishes. but her son is nice to me. and she doesnt look down at me cuz i am not up to her standards like so many mother in laws do

At 2/25/2008 10:32 AM, Anonymous biggest bro said...

Nice post and well said. While I appreciate the commenter who suggested that your friend might not be comfortable with a mother-in-law who doesn't cover her hair, as a mother-in-law, the woman may turn out to be more loving and caring, which would be better for the friend in the long run and the son may actually make a better husband. This is what you may find if you look past the outside.

At 2/25/2008 12:05 PM, Anonymous Chani said...

I totally agree with you. Basically, I think it comes down to whether or not you're willing to marry a baal teshuva, or someone who's parents had a different religious standard than you. It is a concern, but as long as the guy's a solid, good person, it shouldn't be a problem.
I did have an issue with one of your comments-hopefully that girl won't ever be 25 & single, but you can't say for sure. I think a lot of people forget that G-d is in charge of shidduchim. I know people who are not pretty by normal standards & don't have much money & are married, & people who are well off & pretty & are still single. It is not in our control!

At 2/25/2008 4:02 PM, Anonymous big bro said...

How do you not give your take on Lipa? Come on!

At 2/25/2008 5:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

michelle, please don't act nieve. a woman who covers her hear sets a certain tone and religious atmosphere. yes of course, there are women who don't cover their hair and do 100x more chesed and are more sincere in their observance of this religion than those who do cover their hair. yet you know quite well that if a woman covers her hair she espouses in her home a different, perhaps not better, level of observance. its pretty much the same thing as a woman who wears a skirt just touching the kness, or one whose sleeves ride the elbow. technically, it's not "not tzniuskik" and is in no way an indicator of one's true belief in god and the sincerity of one's practice of "yiddishkeit" yet it is something. michelle i enjoy your posts but i think you know the answer to this one, and deep down know that there's a justifiable reason to reject a shidduch based on the reason mentioned in this post- this is from IYHBYYOU. don't know why i can't post under this name anymore the blogger site changed stuff around

At 2/25/2008 5:42 PM, Blogger Michelle said...

IYHBYYOU- you raise an issue that I thought would complicate the post so I didn't include it.
There is quite the difference between a woman who comes from a background of no hair covering and one who attended a Bais Yaakov.
Also, things were different in the previous generation. I wouldn't judge.
Like I said, I understand the importance of hair-covering, but if someone wasn't raised that way, and got married back in the '70s '80s, who can blame them?! Times were soo different back then.
Also, those words are spelled "Naive" and "hair."

At 2/25/2008 9:19 PM, Anonymous mlevin said...

Well, I don't cover my hair. And my daughter is looking for a husband who will respect her as a person and thus will understand that she will not be covering her hair.

I do not understand why is it that Hungarian Jews are brainwashing or simply forcing, the rest of us shomer mitzvos Jews into following their minhagim. I asked my husband's aunts who are in their high 80s and they insist that neither their mother nor grandmothers nor any other female relative covered her hair. Exception was when they were walking among goyim. Because orthodox Christians forced women (married and single) to braid and then cover their hair. Why are we suddenly following Christian laws? Same applies to my family. My grand aunt's husband worked and was very active in the shul... no hair covering for women.

On another note, I feel very offended by implication that because I do not cover my hair, my house automatically has less spirituality.

My and husband's family background is Russia, Ukrain and Rumania. We are real Jews.

The way I see it, is that hair covering, extreme emphasis on tznius, separation of sexes and etc. is Jews following in the ways of Arabs. i.e. transformation of women into invisible slaves, to be used and abused.

At 2/26/2008 6:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i never said there is less spirituality, i said there was a different one. and the gemara actually mentions that a woman should cover her hair.
Also, you write, "There is quite the difference between a woman who comes from a background of no hair covering and one who attended a Bais Yaakov." you are simply making my point.IYHBYYOU

At 2/26/2008 6:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry the Also you write and quote following it is that of michelle.IYHBYYOU

At 2/26/2008 9:09 AM, Anonymous mlevin said...

I did some research and found that the most you can say about hair covering for married women is that it’s a michlochos. To insinuate that women who do not cover their hair are not as frum is very insulting. I could even go as far as say you are spreading loshon harah about women who have different minchagim.

By the way, I attended Bais Yaakov. Fortunately for me I attended one that teaches girls to use sechel. In other words it wasn’t Bais Yakov of Boro Park.

Here’s a link http://www.jeremyrosen.com/blog/2007/08/womens-hair.html

“Was head covering a social phenomenon in Torah times? Or was it a religious obligation? There is no actual requirement laid down in the Torah, but the origins lie in the Biblical narrative (Numbers 5:18) of the woman suspected of adultery (who gave adequate grounds for suspicion but there was no proof). She was brought before the priest for a sort of psychological test. No Inquisition trial by torture I am pleased to say. The priest made her swear her innocence and "loosened" her hair. The Hebrew for "loosened" (PaRaH) is also used of loose men, as in the song of Deborah (Judges 5.2). There it certainly didn't mean "uncovered". Rashi, the great commentator, says it (PaRaH) in the Torah means "removing the pins that keep her hair in place" and then he goes on to say, "This is the origin of the daughters of Israel not going out in public with uncovered hair." Of course, in Rashi's day in northern Europe, no good Christian woman would be seen in public with her hair uncovered either.

The Talmud (Ketubot 72a) asks if hair covering is a Torah obligation or just "tradition" and if tying hair up under a basket to keep it in place is good enough. It is clear that head covering of some sort is an ancient tradition. The only issue is whether it is merely a matter of modesty, as with modest dress, or whether hair covering is a requirement in itself. Clearly the Western rabbis thought modesty was the issue. But, interestingly enough, as important as modesty is, it is not really defined. The Shulchan Aruch says that one should not pray in front of a tefach (a hand's breadth) of hair or skin that is normally covered. But "normally covered" is left vague. The actual definition varies with times and traditions. "In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking; now, heaven knows, anything goes," wrote Cole Porter.”

At 2/26/2008 4:24 PM, Blogger Michelle said...

mlevin-- i didn't intend to offend. my apologies.

At 2/26/2008 5:06 PM, Anonymous Chani said...

I've never actually seen this inside, but I've always learned that a man cannot daven or make brachos while facing a married woman whose hair is uncovered. Does anyone know where this halacha comes from/is written?

At 2/26/2008 7:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mlevin, i never said a)that your home is less spiritually infused because you don't cover your hair, so don't act like youre all insulted, and b)i never said that women who don't cover their hair are less frum. please don't read into my words what you want to, ie that the black hat world as has ae a superiority complex; if you want to get offended you will, if not, not. and yes there are black hat enclaves that certainly do feel superious than the rest of "klal yisroel" but on the whole, not. now, michelle,and all others reading her posts and legitimate gripes at times: michelle, you must realize that most of your comments and complaints have been directed at the insulated flatbush community. this community is certainly prominent, not meaning prestigeious, but prominent in that they stand out. now people reading your post often misinterpret and believe that compaints you lodge against this sect of the jewish people are reflective of those who are similar to them (though only in religious observence, and not to their general disposition towards life, i.e. conspicious consumption and the holier than thou attitude) so you may want to cover your self and issue many disclaimers, ie the following happened to me on aveune j but some stupid flatbush mom in her giganitc lexus, or the girls in brooklyn college who make so many chilul hashems actually are from brookyln. this way, when your bais yaakov friends act disrespectfully to people their behaviour is not reflective of all bais yaakov girls, and when a jappy women in all black with a 5k sheitel acts like a witch we don't confuse her with other very frum womena dn presume that she represents that stereotype but instead represents those people from brooklyn. I DO NOT MEAN TO SAY in anyway that brooklyn people are bad, but what i am saying is that michelle, most of your fodder is produced in the flatbush world, which is unfortunately presumed to serve as a reflection of the entire black hat north american community. IYHBYYOU

At 2/27/2008 5:17 PM, Anonymous Gavi said...

For the record:

A married Jewish woman must cover her hair according to halacha. This is stated in the gemara in Kesubos 72a, and brought down unequivocally as halacha by the Tur and Shulchan aruch in Even Ha'ezer 116. The Bach ad loc makes it very clear that normative practise is to cover all of the hair.

The source for a man not being allowed to say berachos/shema/etc. in front of a married woman's uncovered hair (or any other ervah, for that matter) is shulchan aruch Orach Chayim 75:1-2. See Mishnah Berurah ad loc se'if kattan 10 where he clearly rules that for a married woman to uncover her hair is an issur deoraysa.

At 2/27/2008 8:12 PM, Anonymous YomTova said...

IYHBYYOU, Michelle's profile on the top right of the blog clearly says she's from Brooklyn. Which implies that she's discussing the horrible krumkeit that's being forced on frum people here.

Those nasty comments about women in black with $5000 sheitels, and BC girls, were completely unnecessary.

At 2/28/2008 8:17 AM, Anonymous mlevin said...

Gave - And I upthread posted specifically about Kesubos 72a, and it seems it's not as unequivocal as you think.

Suggestion: Do not really completely on art scroll, the conviniently omit things that goes against their agenda.

At 2/28/2008 10:19 AM, Anonymous Gavi said...


As you correctly note, the gemara is not clear. However, the Tur and nos'ei keilim, Shulchan Aruch and nos'ei keilim, and the Mishnah Berurah (all primary sources, not Artscroll agenda-driven digests) all are.

At 2/28/2008 10:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yomtova, it implies no such thing. my examples are simply cases, albeit a tad exaggerated for dramatic effect, but on the whole stereotypical of the cases cited by the wonderful and lovely michelle. IYHBYYOU

At 3/01/2008 9:46 PM, Anonymous mlevin said...

Gavi - The bottom line is that Gemora is UNCLEAR on the issue, but later on people decided to put down in the shulchan aurach that it's halacha? Why did they do it? Because goyim at the time would literally kill women for walking around with uncovered hair? So, why is it that Jewish women of later year in the same geographical areas abandoned that custom? Because they were no longer threatened with death sentence from goyim?

Therefore if these same women came to America and continued not to cover their hair, why suddenly, after the influx of Hungerian Jews, are all Jewish women suddenly forced to do so?

At 3/07/2008 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, the Gemara is quite clear that the obligation for a woman to cover hre hair is a Torah obligation. There is nothing unclear about that. What is unclear, is the degree to which a lady has to cover. In the house, in a yard, single/double/netting. This is no different than any other Gemara where there is a vertain vagueness/brevity. The commentaries then explain. Very often there is a disagreement in undestanding the Gemara and then a decision is made through the standard halachic process. There is no question that a married woman walking in the street must cover her hair.

Why did covering hair fall out of practice in much of Lithuania and Russia? No idea. This is not intended to demean anyone.

At 3/25/2008 5:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

IYHBYYOU, it seems that you are suggesting that Michelle should make it clear that her "comments and complaints" are about obnoxious people in Brooklyn, but not about frum people elsewhere. Do you think, in that case, that it's okay to malign an entire community based on the actions of a few individuals? Not every girl in Brooklyn College makes a chilul Hashem, and not every woman who wears black or drives a Lexus - even down Avenue J - "acts like a witch." Do you think that Michele is the only non-obnoxious girl in Brooklyn? [Though she is very sweet :)]

You say: "this way, when your bais yaakov friends act disrespectfully to people their behaviour is not reflective of all bais yaakov girls, and when a jappy women in all black with a 5k sheitel acts like a witch we don't confuse her with other very frum womena dn presume that she represents that stereotype but instead represents those people from brooklyn."

Despite the disclaimer tacked on at the end, your statement insinuates that these stereotypes accurately represent frum Brooklynites.

Maybe it's time we focused on some of the good things going on in our community.


At 12/17/2009 8:00 AM, Anonymous Deborah Shaya said...

There is No codified Halacha that a married woman must cover her hair totally and constantly whenever she steps out of her house.

The Halachah has been MISinterpreted. When the Halachah refers to "Covering hair," it does not mean "Cover your hair with hair!" and "constantly for life." The Halachah is that:

A married woman is required to cover her hair when:

(1) she lights the candles to welcome in Shabbat and Yom Tov – lechavod Shabbat ve Yom Tov, and

(2) when she goes to the Synagogue, because that is the place of Kedusha.

The Halacha does not require anything more from married women. This is the true interpretation of the Halacha.

The misinterpretation of the Torah is completely Assur, and a twisting of the Torah.The Torah must remain straight.

At 12/17/2009 8:00 AM, Anonymous Deborah Shaya said...

In ancient times, a woman would only cover her hair upon entering the Beit Hamikdash.Similarly for the Sotah-otherwise she would not be required to cover her hair ordinarily, day to day.

It is very important for people to know and realise that when a married woman covers her hair with 'Real Hair' the woman is covering herself with 100% Tumah. This is totally against the Torah.

Nothing could be more nonsensical than for a Jewish woman to cover her hair with someone else's hair -who was not Jewish as well!She can never fully be sure that this 'hair' has not come from meitim-despite any guarantee by the seller.This 'real hair' is doubly and in some circumstances, triply Tumah.

1.It will contain the leftover dead hair cells from another person - however much it has been treated, the tumah is still there.

2.This other person (likely to be a non-Jew who most likely was involved in some kind of Avodah Zarah) may have eaten bacon, ham, lobster etc, all of which are totally forbidden as unclean and non-kosher foods in Halacha.

3.If the woman happens to be the wife of a COHEN, then she is bringing her husband into close contact and proximity with meitim and Tumah Every day, and throughout their married life. This is clearly strictly against the Torah.

There is nothing more degrading and demeaning to a woman than to make her cover her hair FOR LIFE upon marriage.It is an abhorrent practice.

Any man who makes such a ridiculous demand on his wife, or wife-to-be, should similarly also be required by his wife to wear: long white stockings, even in the summer; a fur streimel; grow a long beard; wear a black hat and coat constantly, and cover his face when he speaks to his wife.Wigs -"la perruque"- were merely a fashion item in the time of Louis XIV-they are not for the Jewish woman!

At 12/17/2009 8:01 AM, Anonymous Deborah Shaya said...

Rabbi Menachem Schneeersohn tz”l, gave the directive that a married woman must cover her head with a “sheitel.” This needs to be corrected. Rabbi Schneersohn a"h, was a Tzaddik, – but on this – he was, unfortunately not correct.

It is extremely unhealthy and unhygienic for a woman to cover her hair constantly.The hair needs oxygen to breathe.A woman's hair will lose its natural beauty and shine, she may have scalp problems, some of her hair may fall out, she may get headaches, and she may end up cutting it short like a man, when she always wore it long, in order not to have too much discomfort from her hair covering.

Do you think that HaKadosh Baruch Hu commanded this of women? I can assure you that He did not.The commmandments are not meant to cause so much repression and oppression in women.Was Chava created with a wig? Of course not! Did she start wearing a wig? Of course not!

Please Wake Up.

Use the spark of intelligence that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave to you and blessed you with.

And give your wig back to your husband if you wear one.

At 12/17/2009 8:02 AM, Anonymous Deborah Shaya said...

1. To all the women who are wondering about the sources:

We have all been created, "Betselem Elokim" - "in the image of Elokim."
This means that we have been given something called "intelligence." The source is the very first Parsha, Bereishit - 1:27. It is time that people use the spark of intelligence and Kedusha with which Hashem has blessed them.

If your rabbi will tell you to go and jump into the depths of a glacier, presumably you would do that too – and give me a source for it?

“According to the Zohar”, I should also be covering my hair with a wig when I have a bath. “According to the Zohar and the Gemara” and all the sources that have misinterpreted the Halachah, and MIStranslated the Zohar, I should also have been born with a WIG on my head.

These sources and translations are incorrect, as they have deviated very far from the true and correct interpretation, of the Halachah.

At 12/17/2009 8:02 AM, Anonymous Deborah Shaya said...

2.Remember that the Jewish women are very, very holy. They are much more holy than the men. Look at the exemplary behaviour of the women at Har Sinai.

The women never sinned at the Eigel, and so are greatly elevated. Many of the men, unfortunately, ran after a calf made out of a lump of gold – after they had just been given the Torah, and seen the greatest of all Revelations. The women refused to give their gold for the avodah zarah of the men.

The women were greatly elevated after such a wonderful display of Emunah, and they are regarded very highly in Shamayim.

That is why women are not even required to pray. They can pray at home on their own. Nor do women have to make up a minyan. That is how holy the Jewish women are. Men have to pray 3 times a day to remind them of their Creator.

The men are telling the women to put the hair of a non-Jewish woman who may have eaten things like snakes and sharks and alligators, and has worshipped in churches, Buddist temples or Hindu temples : on their own Heads. They had better wake up.

If the men don’t want to wake up to the truth, and the true interpretation of the Halacha, the women will wake them up – whether they like it or not.

3. Many righteous women influenced their husbands for the good at the Chet Haeigel and at the time of Korach.

It was these righteous women who succeeded in bringing their husbands back to their senses.

And because of these great women, the lives of their husbands were saved. Those men therefore turned away from the madness of avodah zarah, and the rebellion of Korach against Hashem's choice of Aharon, as Cohen HaGadol.

At 12/17/2009 8:03 AM, Anonymous Deborah Shaya said...

4. Look at the Jewish women in history, and remember how holy they are.

(a) Yaakov, who was the greatest of the Avot, came to marry the 2 daughters of Lavan, Rachel and Leah. Lavan was not exactly a tzaddik. Yaakov went to Lavan, of all people, to marry his 2 daughters – not 1 daughter, but his 2 daughters. Nothing could be greater than that.

(b) Rut, who came from Moav, became the ancestor of David Hamelech.

(c ) Batya, the daughter of Paroh, was given eternal life because she rescued Moshe from the river. No one could have been more evil than Paroh.

(d) Devorah, was a Neviah, and also a Judge.

Women who came from such adverse backgrounds, were able to become builders of Am Yisrael. That is how holy the women are, and how much more elevated they are than the men.

This was never the case with men. It never happened the other way round.

Don't tell me it is holy for me to wear a WIG! Hair over my own hair? This is ridiculous!

Similarly, don’t tell me it is holy for me to plonk a permanent head covering on my head for the rest of my life. This is equally vile.

Please Wake Up.

Use the spark of intelligence that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave to you and blessed you with.

And give your wig back to your husband if you wear one.

5. Remember: Not a single “dayan” or “rabbi” has the slightest bit of interest in correcting the situation for the women. Therefore, the women will have to correct the situation................for ..................themselves.

Whether you wish to accept the correction – which is true – is up to you. Are you going to live by the truth? Are you going to use the spark of intelligence that Hashem gave to you and all women? Or are you going to follow rabbis and dayanim who tell you to wear a wig in a Heat Wave – and you thank them for it as well?

At 12/21/2009 9:21 AM, Anonymous William Dwek said...

The next things the bloody "rabbis" will come up with is to tell the woman to wear a CARPET on her head. Not a sheitel AND a hat, but a Carpet. Or you could go for 5 shaitels on your heads and a rug.

And do you know what the Jewish woman will say to her husband?
"Yes, husband! I am now wearing a carpet on my head!"

You women must either be extremely thick, or petrified.

At 1/09/2012 1:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great website, looks very clean and organized. Keep up the good work! antibacterial


Post a Comment

<< Home