Monday, March 28, 2011

The great Wives and Wigs controversy of 1890.

Most people probably don't know about the Wives and Wigs controversy that brewed in the pages of London's Jewish Standard for two months in 1890. It all began apparently innocently, with a question signed by one יהודי (i.e., "Jew," i.e. Anonymous):

February 21, 1890



The question was, nowadays, do women still need to wear a sheitel?

In the following issue (February 28, 1890) a Dr. Klein, residing in Paris, and "A Funny Little Kentish Maid," (this was Victorian England, after all) responded. Klein asked, first of all, who says women must wear a sheitel in the first place? According to halacha they must cover their hair, but the form of covering is not specified. Secondly, מה נשתנה העת הזאת, or Why is this epoch different from any other? In other words, the question itself
lacks a clear premise.

Dr. Klein was in fact Theodore Klein (1845-1902) a Parisian physician, and son of Rabbi Solomon Klein (1814-1867) of Colmar. Klein was a member of the Jewish Consistory of Paris, and also the president of the Société de l'Etude Talmudique.

The Funny Little Kentish Maid replies in a fashion that was probably very in tune with the particulars of the religious situation of her time and place, and suggests that it is less important that Jewish women wear a sheitel and more important that they do not profane Shabbat. She claims that many women cook on Saturday in preparation for Sunday! Furthermore, she writes that no one should be surprised that the husbands of these women are also mechalelei shabbos, and that the women should shore up their Sabbath observance and positively influence their husbands.


Note that the Jewish Standard appended a line stating that due to space limitations they did not print several letters. After one week's respite, the March 14, 1890 issue printed a letter from Naphtali Herz Imber (famed Hebrew poet, author of the poem which the Israeli national anthem is based upon). Imber gives a unique interpretation of a vaguely specified Talmudic source, and claims that according to the Talmud the wearing of a sheitel is itself ground for divorce! As for covering the hair, that was the practice only of "very few women of extraordinary piety," rather than a general requirement:



In the next issue (March 21, 1890) Dr. Klein pulls out an unambiguous Gemara which states that women must cover their hair, and asks if Imber could "prove his statement by as clear a text, and one of equal authority."

Another respondent, signed I. Student, seems to raise the specter of whether or not יהודי, who had asked the question in the first place, was acting as an agent provocateur, since the question was about the obligation of women "at the present time." Klein was correct in asking what difference time makes. However, he disagrees with Klein's equation of the Talmudic פאה נכרית with the sheitel. He believes that the meaning of this term is something along the line of hair extensions, rather than a full wig. He then adds several sources regarding hair covering generally and sheitel wearing specifically, including one lenient opinion. But in sum, while women are required by halacha to cover their hair, it needn't be with a sheitel.



In the same issue (March 21, 1890) Israel Zangwill gives a witty summary of the situation. One almost imagines him eating popcorn as he reads the exchanges and thinks up puns. After the "Wives and Wigs" controversy ends, he suggests, perhaps there will be a discussion about "Husbands and Hair . . . Relatives and Razors . . . Parents and Pigtails."



The next week (March 28, 1890) printed a reply to Klein by Imber. Imber now accuses Klein of mistranslating the Talmudic phrase דת משה ויהודית as "Mosaic and Jewish law," when it really means "the custom (not law) of Jewish women."

Imber then mentions the bane/ inspiration of Bais Yaakov students everywhere, Kimchis. He sees her example as proof that covering the hair was considered an exceptional mark of piety only. He then closes with a defense of his assertion that the Talmud was opposed to sheitels, and concludes that "the sages of the Talmud were more chivalrous, and had better taste than the Jews of the orthodox countries of Galicia and Russia, where the custom prevails of cutting off the bride's hair on her nuptial day, thereby compelling her to adopt a wig as a head covering."



Dr. Klein and someone called Isaac Crystal respond in the April 4, 1890 issue. Klein writes that he had no intention of replying to Student's assertion that he mistranslates פאה נכרית, however as Imber is a Hebraist he wishes to reply to the poet's assertion that he mistranslated a Hebrew term. Klein simply says that he himself does not offer original interpretations since he is a physician and doesn't have too much time to devote to learning. Instead, he gives the interpretations received from the traditional teachers, and therefore Imber takes issue with their translation of peah nachris as meaning a wig. Furthermore, Imber asserts that grammatically das yehudis means "custom of Jewish women," since yehudis is a feminine term. Klein asserts that Imber is twice mistaken. Das only means law, never custom, and as the word das is itself feminine, why shouldn't yehudis be feminine as well? Next Klein tackles Kimchis, and calls Imber out on his distortion of that text. Finally, Klein agrees that wigs may well be "an object of disgust," but that's not germane to the requirement to cover the hair, which no halachic authority can dispense with. Isaac Crystal makes much the same points as Dr. Klein.



Next (April 10, 1890) Imber replied to these two letters. He writes that the Talmud's declaration that a woman's hair is ervah (curiously translated by Imber as "sin") is no unambiguous requirement for all women to cover their hair, for the same term (ervah) is used for a woman's voice, and surely we need not "put a padlock on her mouth." Rather, these statements in the Talmud mean only that a woman's hair and voice are the mediums which affect men "with a sense of female beauty." Then he responds to Klein's assertion that Imber's own statement that the feminine form of yehudis means "[the custom] of women." Imber explains that the reason he interprets it as he does is because the term used here - "das Moshe ve-yehudis" - is most unusual, where the normal formula is das Moshe ve-yisrael. Therefore it cannot mean "the law of Moses and Jews." As mentioned before, Imber understood this to mean "the law of Moses and the custom of Jewish women." He then remarks that once he mentioned to Chief Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler the following interpretation: that yehudis actually refers to Judith of the Apocrypha! Thus, the statement might mean "the law of Moses and the custom of Judith," that is, a special pious custom instituted by this quasi-Biblical heroine. To this, what did Rabbi Adler say? He said that Imber's "hypothesis may be correct."

Then Imber makes a strong point, which is that words often retain contrary meanings. So why should it not be possible for das to mean both law and custom, depending upon context? Then Imber points out four examples that the Talmud gives for das yehudis, and asks rhetorically, are they laws or customs? Then Imber asserts that Kimchis only strengthens his point, for she was not only pious, but actually a fanatic. Finally, he disputes the way Klein and Crystal translated a certain word to mean "head covering," while Imber holds that it means a thing like a hair pin or a comb, and suggests that it is Klein and Crystal who don't know how to read the Talmud correctly, and that Rashi supports him.



April was only half over, so the next issue (April 18, 1890) included Klein and Crystal's reply. Klein begins his salvo with a surmise, that I tend to assume is correct, that Chief Rabbi Adler was basically politely nodding, rather than agreeing: "Mr. Imber shows us what we know already, that the late lamented Chief Rabbi was a very sensible man, who preferred to yield to Mr. Imber's opinion rather than discuss with him." Next Klein says that if he mistranslates the Talmud, he is in the glad company of Rashi, the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, etc. as all Posekim agree that covering the hair is required by the Torah.

Klein then admits that he kind of enjoys the opportunity of schooling a Hebrew poet in Hebrew grammar. He sensibly notes that if das yehudis means "a Jewish woman's custom," then doesn't melach sedomis mean "a Sodomite woman's salt?" Next, he noted four separate places in rabbinic literature where Kimchis is praised by the rabbis, so indicating that in their opinion she was no fanatic.

Then Klein asserts that in language a word cannot have at the same time two different meanings. Thus, das Moshe ve-yehudi is not the same as das Moshe and das yehudis. How can das Moshe ve-yehudis mean "the law of Moses and the custom of yehudis"? Since we know that Moses only gave laws, then the entire statement can only mean law for both.

Then Klein attacks Imber's statement that Rashi supports him by stating that a certain element of the hair covering issue is a minhag (custom). Klein says that Rashi means to say that this law comes from a Minhag, because "the customs adopted by the Jews are laws." Therefore we are dealing here with a law derived from a custom, namely that it is forbidden to cover the hair with a קלתה, since that was forbidden by custom.

Isaac Crystal replies with a "jargon proverb" (i.e., Yiddish). Crystal's reply isn't worth paraphrasing so much, but it is interesting that he says that he asked a "renowned Continental Rabbi" to give an opinion on the subject, and he is awaiting this rabbi's reply to make it known. He is certain that the reader's will accord it at least as much weight as Imber's. Unfortunately, he does not name the rabbi and by the time Crystal received his responsum (if indeed he received one) the paper had ended the correspondence. All threads must come to an end.



In the April 25 issue Dr. Klein sent in some rather crucial corrections to printer errors in his previous letter. He also takes the opportunity to clarify that Imber falsified a Talmud quote - he makes a pretty good case, too.



On May 2 Imber's reply appears, where he explains that the אהחע letters are "mutually exchangeable, as every schoolboy knows" (wanna bet, says I?). Therefore his misspelling is not a falsification at all. Naturally he is indignant. At this point the editor steps in and says that the back and forth ends here.



One contemporary critic writes that Imber "had made a complete fool of himself."

25 comments:

  1. My grandfather used to claim that our family arrived in Hungary from Colmar, and I assume he meant to imply that we were related to Rabbi Solomon Klein. Unfortunately, I'v never been able to document this.

    What's this "ferka" as a synonym of "sheitel"? I wonder if it's related to "peruke," an archaic word for "wig," which an online dictionary derives from the Italian "perruca."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am having difficulty in determining whether I got more enjoyment out of the above exchange, or your commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan, it is no doubt related. Sounds Russian. Evidently парик means wig in Russian (with some variation in all the Slavic languages). Perhaps "ferka" was an eastern Yiddish variation. Note Zangwill's "Paters and Periwigs."

    Yasher Koach, yasher koach.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent post and commentary.
    Do you think that by giving Imber the last word the editor showed his opinion on the matter, or was it patently obvious by then that he was wrong so letting him have the last word didn't make any difference?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Imber was actually doing some work for the Jewish Standard. It had published a serial of his "Leaves From My Palestine and Other Diaries." I think he may have assisted in some editorial capacity.

    There is some reference to the wig thing in his correspondence with Zangwill, which was published in Studies in Zionism 2.2 (1981) - the periodical is now called Journal of Israeli History. I don't have the article, but I seem to recall that he was kind of bitter about it, and referred to Klein and those who agreed with him as zealots whose wives still wore wigs. Apparently his work with the Jewish Standard lessened by degrees, and the publisher of this correspondence offers the opinion that the wig thing may have played a role. First of all, the Jewish Standard was an Orthodox newspaper. Secondly, Imber's arguments showed that he was no scholar, and even his understanding of the languages was flawed. Apparently this was Imber's MO, and then he would refuse to budge. So it made him look like a pseudo-scholar at best. See my previous post on Imber and Chad Gadya - here. Entertaining? Yes. Rigorously scholarly? No.

    So, it does not seem like he was given the last word to show what the editor favored. It probably was as it appeared - time to end the show. That doesn't mean that the editor was personally for hair covering. This was 1890 and it was not exactly a "Chareidi" publication. But I don't think the editor was making the statement of siding with Imber.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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.

    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!

    Rabbi Menachem Schneeerson 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First off Deborah Shaya, you ranting needs a bit of a tune up, you posted the exact same thing here:
    http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2010/02/bald-jewish-women.html
    Do you search the internet and every time you find the word "shaitel" you post the same gibberish you heard from your reform Rabbi?
    As to your claim that G-d wouldn't have created women with such beautiful hair only to have them cut it off: Do you tell that to your husband every morning while he's shaving? That G-d didn't bless him with a beautiful flowing beard only to have him cut it off (with a "kosher" shaver).
    And what goes through your mind when you pass a store selling delicious looking shrimp? Do you tell yourself that G-d didn't create such good food only to tell us not to eat it?
    In summary: That's the religion lady, if you don’t like it then become a Buddhist!

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's the internet for if not to indulge our projects and hobbies?

    ReplyDelete
  9. S., which comment are you responding to?

    ReplyDelete
  10. That's not the religion Sir that's your version of orthodoxy and halacha.. and I do not think that Deborah Shaya is a "reform" Jew.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Shlomo Zalmen, the one directly above mine.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not directly related, but ...12:50 PM, March 29, 2011

    This is a really weird link: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Dinosars_live_until_the_2000

    ReplyDelete
  13. " the Jews of the orthodox countries of Galicia and Russia, where the custom prevails of cutting off the bride's hair on her nuptial day"

    Interesting. Nowadays that is often thought of as a Hungarian Chassidic custom. I wonder exactly who did it then. Just (or mostly) Chassidim in Galicia and Russia, or others too?

    ReplyDelete
  14. ok I found this whole thing very interesting to read... but by far and large the best thing was this comment:

    "In summary: That's the religion lady, if you don’t like it then become a Buddhist!"

    Well if that don't beat all! lol

    -signed a women who covers her hair completely of her own volition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A few observations:

    1) Whether 1890 or 2011, this topic has a way of igniting a firestorm, doesn't it? Some things don't change.

    2) The Standard may not have been "chareidi," but boy, the command some of its readers had on Gemara, lashon, dikduk and halacha is certainly impressive by anyone's standards.

    Thanks for training the proverbial spotlight on this exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  16. S: Thanks for posting this entertaining, and enlightening historical exchange. I can't imagine a paper today printing such an exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for all the comments, everyone. Unfortunately I am nursing a bad cold, and the loss of my hard drive. I'm glad everyone enjoyed this as much as I did.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Deborah Shaya:

    Who is Anonymous?

    Maybe it is Anonymous who comes from Avodah Zarah.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nice collection you have share thanks

    ReplyDelete
  20. "reb anshl", that is certainly the religion; "Anonymous" is 100% correct to say so. "Anonymous" did not claim that "Deborah Shaya" is a reformed Jew; all s/he claimed was that she had heard this "pilpul" from a reformed rabbi. That is a reasonable supposition, though it's also possible that she heard it from the voices in her own head. In any case it's utter nonsense and completely contrary to the gemara and all the poskim; it's not one of the shiv`im panim latorah but one of the shiv`im achor, and a sign that the gemara was right when it said that if lo zacha then Torah does not become a sam chayim.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In many cases, a person will reach a point where they desperately seek relief and solutions for their issues.
    It needs to be rushed to a medical facility which is capable of handling
    emergencies. Her book doesn't just give a temporary quick fix, but provides all the information necessary for understanding, combating and ultimately curing yeast infection. Vu promises that you'll
    look forward to doing them as the results are well worth it.
    Yeast Infection No More Book key formulation component is the 5 step system
    plan where not a single thing held back.

    Have a look at my webpage - Farika

    ReplyDelete
  22. Make sure to evenly cover your hair, especially the tips.

    Just focus on one herb at a time that suits your present needs.
    Deemark herbal hair care oil have been traditionally used to treat irritated stressed scalp, reduce
    effect of aging on hair shape and growth, combat seborrhea
    and alopecia. Ideally, prepare the day before dilution and in the evening,
    put the mixture in the palm of your hand and
    apply and hold your hair and scalp. Many people use hair greases to keep their hair
    moisturized.

    My website; medium hairstyles

    ReplyDelete
  23. If you don't see any bugs or if you can't determine the reason why the plant is looking sick, take a sample in to the local county extension office.
    So, I propose to you that you might want to consider doing your
    own organic gardening right in your own back
    yard. Grab a few bags of organic potting soil and
    lean them up against the sunny side of your garage
    or a brick wall of your home.

    Take a look at my site mac

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you don't see any bugs or if you can't determine the reason why the plant
    is looking sick, take a sample in to the local county extension office.

    So, I propose to you that you might want to
    consider doing your own organic gardening right in your own
    back yard. Grab a few bags of organic potting soil and lean them up against the sunny
    side of your garage or a brick wall of your home.


    My webpage; mac

    ReplyDelete
  25. ” The stepmother went over to the young “Jessie James,”
    placed her hand under his chin, tilted his head upward, looked him squarely in the eyes for a moment, and then turned to her husband and
    said, “You are wrong. If so, taking steps like trying to prevent further injury or loss of blood are the most
    important thing you can do. A good personal injury lawyer can save you from making a great deal of mistakes and can shoulder much
    of the hassle of knowing what to do about car repairs, car rentals, medical treatment, witness statements and
    the like. Some conditions affect basically one organ or tissue type, others are more widespread.
    o - Focus on the optometry practice (no ambition to supply a retail eyewear answer).


    Here is my web page :: affirmative attitude

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails
'