THE WOMAN’S WIG

Mr. Alfred Rubens of London asks the following question which came up in the course of his research for a book on “Costumes.” Grunwald, in the article, “Costumes” in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, says that when the women’s wig (sheitel) was introduced in the late Middle Ages, the rabbis violently opposed its use. What is the evidence of this opposition and what was its basis?

THERE can be no doubt that Jewish women (some of them) wore wigs long before the Middle Ages. The Mishnah and the Talmud make mention of women wearing peak nochris (“the lock or hair of a stranger”). The Mishnah (Shabbas VI, 5) speaks of what a woman is permitted to carry out into the courtyard on the Sabbath and it mentions: “Her hair, the hair of others, and a wig (peak nochris) .” In the Talmud (b. Nazir 28b) there is a discussion of a woman making a vow to be a Nazarite. When the term of a Nazarite vow is over, the Nazarite must shave the head. Now, may her husband annul her vow on the ground that he objects to a wife with a shaved head? In the discussion of the question, one of the discussants says: “But she may wear a peah nochris (a wig).”

If, then, women wore wigs in Mishnaic and Talmudic times, how could rabbis in latter Middle Ages object to it? There are a number of objections which they could and did adduce from the older literature itself.

The first reason may be described as puritanical. They considered the sight of a woman’s hair to be sexually provocative (ervah). The Talmud (b. Berachos 24a) says that the sound of a woman’s voice, the sight of her skin and the sight of her hair are all provocative. This puritanical attitude became a fixed motif in the law. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayyim 75:2) says that it is forbidden to pray within sight of a woman’s hair.

Therefore it became an established custom for women to cover their hair entirely with a cloth. That custom of women covering their hair was already well established in Mishnaic times. In Mishnah Nedarim III, 8, the law is given that if a man vows not to have any benefit from the “black haired,” his vow does not include women. The Talmud (Nedarim 30b) explains this by saying that women’s hair is always covered by a cloth (so their black hair is not seen).

It will be of interest to the writer of a book on “Costumes” to know that (at least in France in the twelfth century) women always used a white cloth to cover their heads. This is clear from Rashi’s comment to the Talmudic passage.

Joshua Boas (sixteenth century, Italy) in his commentary, Shiltey Ha-Gibborim to Alfasi on the passage on the Sabbath law cited above (that a woman may go out on Sabbath wearing a wig) does not disapprove of the custom. He gives the wigs an Italian name, “Coronale. ” In fact he says that the sexual provocation objected to in the Talmud applies only to a woman’s own hair, not to a wig.

But Joshua Boas seems to be the only one who permits the wigs. All traceable later opinions oppose it. Issachar Eilenberg of Posen (sixteenth-seventeenth century) in his Beer Sheva (Responsa 18) attacks Boas’s permissive decision and cites (from a manuscript) the contrary opinion of another and contemporary Italian, Rabbi Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen. Katzenellenbogen says that when the Rabbis of the Talmud permitted the wig, they permitted it only if worn under the usual head covering.

So it is clear that by the sixteenth-seventeenth century when the custom grew widespread of wearing wigs (evidently it started in Italy) the women began to wear them instead of (not under) the white kerchief. This is evident from the responsum of Jacob Emden of Altona (1697-1778). In his responsum I, 9, he says: “The wig is prohibited if placed on the top of the head in place of the hair (i.e., covering the hair); but it is not prohibited if it is put under the kerchief and on the side of the temples.” Therefore, the hah* was again visible to any passer-by who, of course, would not necessarily know whether it was the woman’s own hair or not. So the old puritanical objection was raised again against women showing their hair in public. Eilenberg, who quotes Katzenellenbogen, decides that the Mishnah permits a woman to go into a courtyard, but not into a public place. To appear in public, that is a violation of “das Yehudis,” i.e., the decencies required of a Jewess.

The next scholar to give a full discussion of the matter was Eleazar Fleckeles (1754-1826) Rabbi in Prague (cf., Teshuvah Me-ahavah I, 47-48). He raises a new objection, namely, that the hair comes from the dead and it is forbidden to have any benefit from a dead body.

Moses Sofer of Pressberg (1763-1839) the leading authority of Hungarian Jewry, in his will forbids the women of his family ever to wear a wig. This will was so greatly honored that it was published with a long commentary by Akiba Joseph Schlessinger and widely studied. In the book called Lev Ha-Ivri, at the passage in Sofer’s will where he forbids the wig, Schlessinger lists many other authorities who forbid it. I cannot cite the exact page since my copy of Lev Ha- Ivri has no pagination. But the passage is easy to find by following the text of the will. Schlessinger’s commentary is well worth reading, not so much for the arguments (for they are only a rehash of the earlier arguments mentioned) but for the strong indignation expressed, indicating that the objections are against what was deemed immoral, and also against a new fashion in the fear of all novelty.