MRR 302-308

TOUPEE AND BARE-HEADEDNESSS

QUESTION:

Some time ago I was asked whether a man wearing a toupee would be considered by traditional law thus to have his head covered sufficiently to be present at religious services. At that time I dismissed the question as trivial, but recently the question came up again, which makes it clear that there are people to whom it is a question of some importance. (Asked by Vigdor Kavaler, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

ASIDE FROM the question asked as to whether the toupee can be accepted as religious head-covering, there may be a general objection on the part of the law to a man wearing a toupee altogether. The Biblical law (Deuteronomy 22:5) forbids a man to put on the garment of a woman. This has been extended to a man’s using any woman’s cosmetic devices. For example, there are many responsa that deal with the following question: If a man has a white streak in his hair and that streak makes him look older than he is, and he asks whether he may dye that streak so that it will be easier for him to be hired for a certain position, the answer is generally “no,” because dyeing the hair is a woman’s device and falls under the general prohibition that a man should not dress himself up to look like a woman. Since, therefore, it is an established custom among pious Jewish women to wear a wig, the toupee which is worn one might say for “cosmetic” reasons could easily be considered an imitation of woman’s wear and therefore forbidden. In fact the Talmud, for the same reason, prohibits a man to pluck out the white hairs in order to look younger (Sabbath 94b). (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 340:1.)

Now as to the status of the toupee as head covering, it should be said at the outset that worshiping without a hat is actually not contrary to Jewish law. The Talmud speaks of Rab Huna being proud of the fact that he would not walk without his head covered because, he said, “The Shechinah is above my head.” (b. Kidushin 31a) This statement was hardly enough to serve as a basis for an actual law. In fact Joseph Caro, in the Shulchan Aruch, clearly says, “There are some who say that it is forbidden to mention the name of God with uncovered head.” (Orach Chayim 2:6) The great sixteenth-century authority, Solomon Luria, in his responsum #72, says plainly, “I do not know of any prohibition against praying with uncovered head.” And Elijah, Gaon of Vilna, says in his commentary to OrachChayim 8:6, that according to Jewish law it is permitted to pray without a hat, but that it is good manners to cover one’s head. See the full discussion in Reform Jewish Practice, Volume I, p. 43 ff., and the reference to the responsum of Jacob Z. Lauterbach.

Therefore, according to strict law, a bareheaded man may pray, but the fact is, of course, that the wearing of a hat has gradually come to be one of the most honored symbols of traditional Jewish piety. Therefore the question must be somewhat rephrased. This is not a question of law but of feeling. What would be the attitude of traditional authorities to a man who did not wear a hat to a religious ceremony, but wore a toupee?

Such a question, which is an estimate merely of pious reaction, can be answered only by analogy. There is a clear analogy that might serve. Women are expected to cover their hair, not only in attendance at religious service, but even in the house. This requirement of women covering their hair has a much firmer legal basis than the covering of a man’s head. The Talmud states definitely that the sight of a woman’s hair is sexually provocative ( Ervah; b. Berachot 24a). Therefore the Shulchan Aruch gives it as a definite law that it is forbidden to pray within sight of a woman’s hair (Orach Chayim 72:2). Therefore it was the universal custom among Jewish women all through the centuries to cover their hair with a cloth (b. Nedarim 30b). Even in Talmudic times women wore wigs, but apparently in the late Middle Ages the use of the wig became wide spread among women. See Current Reform Responsa, “The Woman’s Wig,” #53.

Now there gradually arose objections among the scholars against the use by women of a wig to cover the hair instead of a cloth. See for example the responsum of Jacob Emden, #9, and Eilenberg, in his Be’er Sheva, #18. Clearly their objection was that the wig was visible hair and a passerby would not know whether it was merely a wig or the woman’s own hair, which ought not to be exposed to view. In other words, the objection was on the cautionary principle of mar’it ayin,, that is, how it looks to the eye. This principle is used considerably in the law. For example, meat and milk must not appear on the table together, and certainly not be cooked together. But in the case of a milk-liquid made from almonds, surely this is not prohibited by law. Nevertheless, because of the principle of marit ayin, the look of things, they could not be used together (Yoreh Deah 87:3), unless, according to Shach some almonds were placed there as evidence. So human milk cannot be cooked with meat; that too is strictly forbidden because of marit ayin, the look of things (see Yoreh Deah 87:4). In modern times with the prevalence of types of margarine, especially improved margarine that looks almost exactly like butter, pious people will brush aside the fact that it would be quite permissible to eat it with meat, but would not have it on the table with meat because of mar’it ayin. A visitor coming into the house might imagine that this pious family has given up its piety and is eating meat and butter.

This undoubtedly is the situation with the man wearing a toupee. Of course the bareheadedness of a man has a somewhat more lenient and different status from the bareheadedness of a woman. With a woman it is the very sight of the hair that is forbidden, but nowhere in the legal literature is there objection to the sight of a man’s hair. It speaks only of “uncovered head.” Therefore although it would seem to be much less objectionable for a man to show the hair of his head (or what may look like his hair) than for a woman, nevertheless, the same objection against a woman wearing a wig uncovered would very well apply here too. If an Orthodox rabbi were asked about it, he would admit that the head is covered; nevertheless, because it looks as if the head is not covered and it would appear as if the rabbi does not mind officiating in the presence of Jews with uncovered heads, he would ask the man with the toupee to put on a cap, merely on the principle of marit ayin, because it looks like bareheadedness.

Incidentally, according to legend at least, the hasidic Rabbi Samuel of Lubavitch used the toupee as an adequate headcovering under special circumstances. He was at a watering-place for the cure with Rabbi Israel Salant. Israel asked Samuel of Lubavitch how he coped with the inevitable bareheadedness when he went into the medicinal bath. To which Rabbi Samuel said, “I have given myself good counsel. When I go there I put a wig on my head. Thus I am without a hat, yet my head is covered.” (Cited in M. Lipson, Midor Dor., #741.)

Actually the Rabbi of Lubavitch had a firm Halachic basis for considering his toupee to be a legal head covering. The source is in the Shulchan Aruch, Orah Hay-yim 27:4,5 in the laws concerning the proper placing of the tefillin. Nothing must intervene between the tefillin and the flesh. This applies both to the tefillin of the arm and the tefillin of the head. But #5 discusses the problem of a man subject to head colds who must always keep his head covered. How can he fulfill the law that the head tefillin must touch his flesh? Some say that he should not put on the head tefillin at all; others say that he may put them on the hat, but must cover up so that people should not see this exceptional situation. Isserles adds that those who must put the head tefillin on in this way (with a cap intervening) should not recite the blessing.

Now on this question of tefillin over a cap there are two responsa which bear directly on the question of the toupee as adequate head covering. One responsum is by Samuel Azoab (1610-1696) Rabbi of Venice, in his responsa Devar Samuel, #292, and the other is by Elijah b. Samuel of Lublin (died in Hebron, 1735) in his responsa Yad Eliyahu, #3. Samuel Aboab discusses the question of those who wear a “Peruke” (a wig, a toupee); whether if because they are subject to colds they may put the head tefillin on the toupee. He forbids it since the peruke is a separation (Chatziza) from the flesh (as the hat mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch would be). So, too, does Samuel of Lublin forbid it.

In other words, both authorities consider the toupee (peruke) to be a covering of the flesh, just as a hat is. From which it is clear that the toupee is, from the point of view of the law, a head covering, just as a cap is. Neither the toupee nor the cap may intervene between the tefillin and the flesh.