Recently, in a parking lot, I noticed a woman who was obviously Jewish. She was wearing a crocheted head covering and a skirt, and her son wore a keepah and tallis. On the other hand, she was the first religious woman I have ever seen who was wearing short sleeves. Is this allowed now?

This train of thought leads me to a somewhat unrelated question, however (!): I have a question regarding the difference between Orthodox Jews and Chasidic Jews. I have heard definitions for BOTH that they are the ones who strictly follow the laws of the Torah. If they both follow the same laws, how can there be differences? Also, what are the differences aside from appearance? Are the differences major?

Thanks.

wearing sleavesless shirts some wouldn't say it is somthing that isn't allowed, nor is it somthing pushed for. I know in morden orthodoxy it is allowed by them, however I am of the oppion that if it can be avoided in wearing one should strive to do so.

the difference between orthodoxy and Chassidim is a matter of history. for some of the custom of chassdidim found their way into Orthodxy. one of the major differece at one time, women would be taught both oral and written Torah by the Chassidim where as orthodox didn't accpet that practice. this is one example of the major difference which no longer applies. the study of Kabbalistic text (seract teachings of Torah) is to some degree done by all Chassidim. they use a different siddur (prayer book)
though the main difference is unlike orthodoxy the stress the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his court. they (Chassidim who are Asknaize Jews) mix spharidic and Asknaize practices.

nothing else comes to mind of the differences today and time.

How short were the sleeves? As Mack writes, the orthodox say that the elbows must be covered, whereas the Modern Orthodox say that the upper arm must be covered to within a tefach (a measurement equal to a man's fist) of the elbow.

Regarding how Chassidim and Orthodox. They are both following the Torah and serving G-d. It's kind of like an army, there are diffferent segments, e.g. the paratroopers, the air force, the navy. Each has its speciality and each is very valuable. However they are all following orders of the Chief of Staff. And they all know that they will never fight against each other, because they are all on the 'same side'.

So it is, the Orthodox have their ideology, the Chasidim have their way, but we all submit to the Higher Power of G-d. We only have to follow the Shulchan Orech - the Code of Jewish Law, to be guaranteed eternal life! (From Rav Amnon Yitzchak)

The Modern Orthodox are not following the halacha and it is forbidden for the elbow to show.

Let's 1st get terminology straight. "Orthodox" per se means the stricter observance of commandments etc. Within that term there is a wide variety of currents.
The include among others Chasidim, Litvak, German Ashkenz, Polish, Sfaradi Orthodox, Mizrahhi & "modern orthodox". Unfortunately what is called modern Orthodox all too often has strayed from the path & have become permissive of behaviors unacceptable by Halakha. Short sleeves, vertical splits in the skirt, tranluscent clothes, long fancy wigs, heavy perfume etc being only a part of it. By the way all these are against Halakha.

Many Ashkenaz type orthodox did not let women learn at all except what was needed to run a kosher kitchen and keep family purity. This was corrected by the start of the Beth Yaakov schools.
CHasiduth in many types had its women learning some aspects of Kabalah or Kabalah oriented teachings/customs, so do kehiloth of Sfaradim that include Kabalah as part of daily life. The practice has proven itself to make a stronger foundation of belief with much less chances of "getting bored" by "dried out" customs etc, & more prevents the persons feeling a need to look for something stimulating outside of Judaism.

As Rabbi Nahman said, "You must learn Halakha ever day. You may do customs of all kinds as much as you like, but don't dare to twist or drop even one word of the Shulhhan Arukh"

what is the rational behind a women not allowed to short sleeves or even long fancy wings. now perfume i thought that was accpeted all around execpt for maybe a few communities?

It's all a question of "tznius" modesty.

yes that is without question, however this is what raise my question the concept of modesty. what is the rational behind defineing what is the minute form of modesty? for it is without question what is the strong hand form known to all.

Pardon my brevity today. It's 2 AM here & I'm really tired.
Hhaza"l taught us, "Kol kvod Bat Melekh pnima" All of honor/respectability of a kings daughter is internal. Also from the erev Shabbath song "Eishet Hhayil" we learn, "Sheker haHhen & Hevel hayofee" the beautification "charm" is false & vanity.
Gemara teaches us that a woman should make herself attractive to her husband INSIDE their home, and there alone. That NO-ONE outside of their & other than the couple should see this.
It is strictly forbidden for a woman to dress or behave in any way that could possibly attract a youths or mans attention (other than her husband at home).
The Gemara has very strong warnings/threats agains a man enjoying seeing even only the heel of a woman other than his own wife's. Ditto seeing the lingeree of a woman on the laundry line (in those days river side).
Kabalah teaches us that seeing such things lowers the learning and understanding capabilities of the youth/man.
Hhaza"l also stated that a woman who purposely makes herself attractive/attention drawing or from wanton negligence lets herself be noticed by youth/men other than her husband at home, is in for some extremely unpleasant punishment.
There's more but not the strength an dtime for it now.
Shalom & Laila tov.
Rav Yaakov Bar-Nahman

I understand why a woman should make herself more attractive to her husband than to the general community. Why, then, is a woman allowed to cover her natural hair with a wig that is just as nice? No one buys a wig that makes them look UNattractive, so I don't understand this at all. And wigs are HOT. Personally, I think it would be modest enough if married women wore their hair in a modest way in public - say in a bun or braid or pony tail or short - anything not showy. Surely a woman in a bun is less attractive than a woman in a stylish wig - and yet the latter is allowed! Attractive (and still hot) hats and scarves are allowed! This seems very wrong to me. Why punish a woman with the heat (and sometimes itchiness) of a wig or scarf or hat, if she could appear even more modest without one?

On some other recent forum, it was quoted that the rule about covering heads was taken indirectly when a religious woman was shown uncovering her head (or something like that). Isn't it possible that G-d meant for a woman to be modest in SOME WAY, and that covering her head was just ONE example of a way she could be modest with her hair?

once agian the concept of modesty as it is define. for example a woman wearing long sleeves and a long dress still can be consider attractive in some circles. then you have what the arabs do which is to completely cover her. have i have not seen nor heard of such a practice in Israel. so then we return to the question of defineing making herself attractive and making herself presentable for the world around.

quote:

Originally posted by Paulette:
I understand why a woman should make herself more attractive to her husband than to the general community. Why, then, is a woman allowed to cover her natural hair with a wig that is just as nice? No one buys a wig that makes them look UNattractive, so I don't understand this at all. And wigs are HOT. Personally, I think it would be modest enough if married women wore their hair in a modest way in public - say in a bun or braid or pony tail or short - anything not showy. Surely a woman in a bun is less attractive than a woman in a stylish wig - and yet the latter is allowed! Attractive (and still hot) hats and scarves are allowed! This seems very wrong to me. Why punish a woman with the heat (and sometimes itchiness) of a wig or scarf or hat, if she could appear even more modest without one?

A married woman is not allowed to show her hair uncovered in public. This is learned out from the "Sotah" the suspected adulteress whose hair was uncovered as part of the Sotah ceremnony. The Torah consider's a married woman's hair as "ervah" nakedness.

As to what she may cover her hair with, there are 2 basic opinions. In the Ashkenazi world it is sufficient that a woman's hair be covered, whether with a hat, scarf or a wig (even if this is more attractive than her own hair). Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, former Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel and the leading Halachic authority for the Sefardim, forbids women from wearing wigs. My daughter married a Sefardi. For years she had been looking forward to wearing a wig when she got married, and she went and married a Sefardi and wasn't able to do so!

Even Ashkenazi Rabbis, however, do not approve of a wig that is too "over the top" as it were; it must be modest nonetheless.

Regarding short sleeves, there is no room for debate. We are guided by codified laws of Shulchan Oroch which specify [Orech Chaim 75] that aside from a woman's face, hands below the elbow and feet below the knee, any ungarbed area of flesh of a women is considered "Ervah"-one's privacy.As such decreed by Chazal and codified in shulchan Oroch, it is absolute. Covering one's hair is likewise a law brought down in Shulchan Oroch. The issue of nice wigs vs. kerchiefs is intrinsically a one of values of modesty among Poskim. As long as the hair IS covered, the difference of opinions thereafter are a focus of HOW to cover one's hair, which there are customary differences among communities, where each should follow their Rabbinical counselor or Posek.
This nevertheless doesn't detach the importance of modesty on our ladder of values in picking how to cover our hair[ wig vs. kerchief] and/or which wig to purchase [ showy or conservativly honorable ].This is subject matter AFTER understanding what is first along the lines of Halocha and what crosses the barrier which is halachicly unacceptable.

the problem with making the statment of the shulchan Aruch says so, is nice however the shulchan Aruch does not explain the rational for the Halakah in which alot of rabbi were not happy about since it didn't come with the Beit Yosef. with this said of the appearence of dress up to the elbow and so forth could have been due to that was considered modest form of dress of those times? if we consider the history of clothing. once more I have no idea that is why i am striving to understand the rational behind the ruling which is somthing the Shulchan Aruch can not give.

Shalom all;
Stephen Phillips answer is almost correct.
NOt all Ashkenazis permit wigs. A good number forbid even the most modest wigs.
The wig mentioned in the Gemara, in a discussion as to permitted or not, was only a small decorative piece, being either a "bangs" over the forehead or a small braid in back of the head.
Today among the strict orthodox in Israel many permit only the "bangs" on the forehead and on that a hat or kerchief. Many others not even that, permitting only a turban or kerchief, a good number of Sfaradi woman use a double kerchief since it stays in place better.
What most people, & I think even Rabbis, forget is that the original Heter for a wig in our generations was done for a specific time and reason by the Hhatam Sofer za"l. I his days the secularists got the goyish government in his region to outlaw the wearing of a headkerchief by women. he had to come up fast with a solution to guard the modesty of loyal Jewish women. The solution was to shave their heads and wigs, with stipulation that the wig be not longer than the jaw line & be made of strands like goat hair. a far cry from todays "Custom" "Glory" etc. wigs.

Mori-Rabi the Baba Sali zzavek"l said that a woman who wears a wig is preparing kindling for herself in Geheinom.
Why do women wear wigs, why do men pernit or request them? One very simple yet truthful answer, "Yeisser Hara". It is known that th eintellect is well adapted to be a capable lawyer for the Yeisser Hara.
Bebrakha
Rav Yaakov Bar-Nahman
As I will not have time to write tomorrow I already wish all a
Shabbat Shalom

The Heter of wigs is mentioned in Rama O.C. 75:2. Even though the Beer Sheva argues that you can only wear it when the head is covered, the Pri Migadim says that where the custom is to wear uncovered wigs are allowed to. This is brought for Halacha in M.B. 15

The Pri Migadim brings a proof that it’s permitted to wear an uncovered wig from Kesuvos 72. The Mishna says that uncovered hair only transgresses the laws of “Yahadus” and not of the Torah. The Gemarah asks that it’s prohibited from the Torah? The very fact that the Gemarah doesn’t answer that she was wearing a wig is a proof that wearing a wig, even uncovered completely, doesn’t consist of transgressing anything.

Maybe the rabbis (including Gedolei Haposkim) do know what they’re talking about.

thank you rav Yaakovi Bar Nahman v'Rav Chaim for bring down the rational of the wig. now at least I have a little bit more understanding of that matter alone. and what of rest of her appearnece such as clothing is concern? which i leave wait for after shabbos.

in the mean time good shabbat to everyone

The propriety of a wig is a much bandied about & battered question. Before depending on the Mishna & Gemara for permission one must 1st realise what wigs were talked about then. The word for we call a wig is "Pe'ah". What is a Pe'ah? Look to Torah. Pe'ah there is mentioned as Pe'ath Hasadeh = corner or edge of the field, & Pe'oth (corners) of the head= sidelocks. The Pe'ah that was in any form of consideration was a partial thing (bangs or braid) NOT the whole head. The rest of the womans head was covered with cloth. For generations if/when/where a Jewish woman wore a Pe'ah it was just that, which is very different than the full head wig that the goyish women wore for either vain beautification or to hide their own filthy stinking hair back in the days when bathing was uncommon.
It was the emergency Hhidush of the Hhatam Sofer za"l that introduced the full head Pe'ah for observant Jewish women.
But like the one person special situation heter for shaving the beard given to a german Jewish politician in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm, this too got adopted & carried away with all too quickly & easily. As is wont the Yeisser Hara loves to get his long filthy nose Davka into the realms of the religious, the more the better, because when succeeding to bring a "kilkul" there he feels better also gets more to "eat" because the more pure spirituality there is the more energy there is. So when he causes a fall he gets to "eat" the energy, when he causes a fall/stumble among the righteous etc the meal is juicier richer. The Sitra Akhra makes greatest efforts to confuse the greatest Halakhik minds to veer from absolute truth/heavenly deisire so as to cause them to err and suck more "energy" for himself & his Dark Side powers.(Zohar in modern terminology)

It is difficult to rule against something that has gotten out of hand, & many Rabanim would rather find a way to permit than fight a fashion.
Rav Chaim I do not mean to say that Gedolei Yisrael don't know what they are saying Hhas veshalom. I do say that many are very strongly against Peoth & why, & give what may give understanding as to why there are those who permit.
If all will pardon me, I will quote here the words of Rav Shabderon the famous Yerushalmi Magid. "A woman who wears a wig wants to look like a "night consort"" When asked what about a Rabbis wife who wears a wig, he answered "she too", when asked what a Rabbi who permits it, his answer was far from complimentary.
I usualy try not to be that harsh. So I brought the opinion just to state that my possibly strong view given above & in my previous post are relatively gentle.

Mack K your question is so correct that I could cry. It is not for naught that a few years ago I tore my drivers license to bits & threw it in the trash. 30 years clean 15 ton license. Why you ask. When walking you can avoid looking at pedestrian women a lot more safely tah when driving. Drivers must look around everywhere to be sure no one crosses suddenly in front of them and must look at a very wide angle view. When walking you can limit your viewing angle to a very small one (except when crossing a street of course).

25 years ago Rav Binder, Rav Shmuel Shapira zaza"l, Rav Libermensch, Rav Dorman shlita & a few others publicised a letter part of whihc I bring here. "In the flood of Noah, th eflod itslef did not cover the Holy Land. However some drops did splash in and harmed whatever they did touch. Today the immodest fashions of the street while not totaly conquering our circles, some drops of this dealy flood have splashed in & caused harm. It is incumbent upon every head of household & upon every congregational leader or teacher or Moreh Tsedek to see to it that his household his followers be warned, watched over & if neccessary firmly reprimanded to be ware not to let these drops of flood enter & damage the all important level of modesty of our people."
Now today 25 years later, the flood levies have cracked severely and flood waters have entered so much it is horrible.
& as our sage predicted the Hhutspah of this generation is outrageous both in the dress & in the reaction given when something is said.
As Rabbi Nahman of Breslov said 250 years ago, there will come a generation that many will appear religious or righteous but the really G-d loving/fearing will few & scattered. They will cry out to tell the truth till their throats are worn out & few will listen & the will be mocked by most. This is also expounded in the verse "Those remaining in Yerushalayim will be called Kadosh", wherein those who remain unwaveringly dedicated devukim masurim to that love/fear etc will be few & will be called Kadosh"
When we Pray for the Peace of Yerushalayim" the matter of true Love/fear of Hashem must be intended too.

Quote “Before depending on the Mishna & Gemara for permission”

If you read my post, I was not bringing proof from the Gemarah and Mishna, but rather from the Poskim. I brought the Rama (which was way before the Chasam Sofer), the Pri Migadim and the Mishna B’rurah. Three Of the most widely used Poskim!

I would like to add another quote from the Rama in his Darchai Moshe (on the Tur) O.C. 303:6 “The new Haghos Alfasi writes that a married woman is allowed to wear a wig revealed (without any covering.) There is no difference if it’s from her hair or a friend. Hair is only an Ervah if it’s attached to her skin and not detached designed to cover other hair. Even if she does it for beautify herself so she should look like she has a head full of hair.” This is not some “punk Posik”, this is the Rama.

Why these Poskim do not care for the “disproof” of this that the Gemarah only says Peah Nochris is very simple. If a wig would be a true Ervah, they wouldn’t permit a bang or a ponytail. This we know that hair itself is not permitted in this fashion. So it’s definitely not an Ervah. They felt that it’s very unprobable to invent a “Hybrid-Ervah” that only permits bangs, since there is not much of a hint to create such a middle stage that is not here or there. Why then did it didn’t use the term of a full wig? There could be a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with religion. It could have been the style or too expensive to make a full one etc. But to create a new category of Ervah from this weak hint was not a good probability. Thus, once they proved it was not an Ervah, so then it’s completely permitted.

So even though the “anti-wig” crowd conveinently leave out these Poskim when they bring down their propaganda (so thus those that are influenced by them might not have heard of this, but The Rama, Pri Migadim and Mishna B’rurah all permit wearing wigs. Are they not from the biggest Baalai Horah that Klal Yisroel have? Are they not Poskim that people can rely on? (Or they are just “double agent” for the Sitrah Achar and the Yetzer Hara? Chas V’Sholom for anybody to even to suggest this!) Puk Chazi Ma Ama D’var and everyone is Noheg to wear them.

So there I presented, in this post and my last, all the Mara M’Komos needed to present the case to permit it (so anybody can look it up and see for themselves if I’m making anything up.) Could you please bring the sources for your prohibition (See Rabbi Mitterhoff’s post on bringing down sources.) Is this Chasam Sofer in a T’shuva somewhere (so bring down where this is in his T’shuva,) or is it from hearsay (which, of course, brings up doubts if it’s for real, or a rumor created by the anti-wig crowd. There are a lot of scholars here, who do not take hearsay as any proof,. Especially quoting people that are not from the Gedolai Haposkim as if it’s a defining opinion) I would like to know where it is, even though, for Halacha, I wouldn’t change what I wrote, since it wouldn’t push off a Rama, Pri Migadim and Mishna Brurah and the Pushut Minhug.