Comments on: I'd never sell an idolatrous wig, madam...

I'd never sell an idolatrous wig, madam...

troutfishing — Sun, 16 May 2004 10:32:40 -0800

".....The storm began four weeks ago, when someone told the rabbis that most natural wigs imported from Europe are actually made of Indian hair. Two years ago, rumors had begun circulating that this hair was bought from Indian priests who gathered it up after the women cut it during a Hindu religious ceremony. This would be a serious problem, since Jewish law forbids the use of objects employed in idol worship (which in Judaism means all polytheistic religions). Apparently many wig-sellers concealed the fact that their wigs, though made in Europe, used Indian hair" (Ha'aretz, Friday, May 14 2004)

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 16 May 2004 10:35:21 -0800

( thanks to Ed Weiss for bringing this hairy scandal to my attention )

By: 327.ca

327.ca — Sun, 16 May 2004 10:37:37 -0800

"It's too late to return us to the days of our mothers," said A., a Bnei Brak mother of seven. No kidding. My ex-mother-in-law, a deeply religious and quite wonderful woman, said to me shortly before her death, "There's too much damn religion in the world." I'm so sick of dogmatism. All kinds.

By: 327.ca

327.ca — Sun, 16 May 2004 10:41:29 -0800

I'm so sick of dogmatism. I guess that would be "dogma", wouldn't it? Dogmaticity? Dogmaciousness? Dogmaciosity?

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 16 May 2004 10:45:27 -0800

327.ca - "Dogmatism" is correct, I believe. But, I really like "Dogmaciousness" and "Dogmaticity"

By: bingo

bingo — Sun, 16 May 2004 10:45:42 -0800

It's an oversimplification to say that all polytheistic religions count as idol-worshippingin Judaism. From an orthodox point of view, both are definitely considered misguided practices, and perhaps it's an accurate interpretation of the spirit of an anti-idolatry law to say that it should apply to religions with multiple gods in general. But when you talk about the reasons that, say, the Catholic trinity is an idea inconsistent with Judaism, then you're talking about monotheism vs. polytheism, without idols having to enter into it.

By: bingo

bingo — Sun, 16 May 2004 10:48:08 -0800

...of course, once you start talking about iconography, the idol question does enter into it. All I'm saying is that the explanation is this article is flippant in a way that makes this situation sound stupid, for reasons separate from the reasons that it actually is stupid.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Sun, 16 May 2004 11:00:05 -0800

Indian hair is the next best I can vouch for this. Everyone I know absolutely adores my hair, which is pure-bred. Although the cuts, styles, shampoos, conditioners, and 3-5 different products get extremely pricey. It ain't easy, or cheap, being this pretty.

By: taz

taz — Sun, 16 May 2004 11:13:22 -0800

Am I understanding this correctly? Wigs are popular with ultra orthodox women because after they are married, they aren't supposed to show their hair? But it's perfectly okay to show somebody else's hair, as long as the somebody else doesn't worship idols? It's not the showing of hair that's sinful? Just the showing of your own natural hair? Baffling. Great supporting link on the temple hair biz, trout

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 16 May 2004 11:21:19 -0800

taz - thanks, but I can't take credit. Thank Ed Weiss - he's the Mefi reader who emailed me the story. "this article is flippant in a way that makes this situation sound stupid, for reasons separate from the reasons that it actually is stupid." - Well, that's a good distinction I guess. BlueTrain - Do you let people touch your hair, for luck?

By: bingo

bingo — Sun, 16 May 2004 11:29:41 -0800

I've seen a lot of orthodox women show their hair, though. And I'm sure some of them were married. Maybe this only applies to certain situations...

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Sun, 16 May 2004 11:34:43 -0800

Until recently, only two people were allowed to touch my hair: my stylist and myself (which annoyed the hell out of my g/f). Five years ago I allowed a priest to shave my head for a ceremony, which was quite odd because he used a straight blade and was quite "rough". In a place high in the mountains, Tirupati (as I'm sure most have heard of, in passing) is supposedly the largest seller of human hair in the world. Hindus from all over the world climb the mountain and sacrifice their hair for god. It's an amazing place, but extremely dangerous for tourists (muggers and monkeys are rampant). It is, in my opinion, something to do for the sake of culture and mysticism, more than anything else. You take part of a process that has been around for thousands of years.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 16 May 2004 12:11:03 -0800

extremely dangerous for tourists (muggers and monkeys are rampant). monkeys? /serious question

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 16 May 2004 12:12:49 -0800

I mean, I know macaques are sacred in India, but dangerous?

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Sun, 16 May 2004 12:24:44 -0800

I haven't been there in 3 years, but when I walked up the mountain, several monkeys came at us with rather large fangs and began hissing. I, as the ignorant tourist, laughed and imagined trained monkeys from television, which are fun-loving and obedient. Luckily, I wasn't so stupid as to provoke them, but as a few relatives mentioned afterward, they have been known to attack on occasion.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sun, 16 May 2004 12:32:53 -0800

Great post, troutfishing. I find this a fascinating story, and it's already inspired BlueTrain's very interesting comments and bingo's brilliant "this article is flippant in a way that makes this situation sound stupid, for reasons separate from the reasons that it actually is stupid." I've seen a lot of orthodox women show their hair Dumb question: How do you know it was their hair?

By: bingo

bingo — Sun, 16 May 2004 12:53:24 -0800

Well...I admit that I've never seen an orthodox woman get her hair wet, or offer it for me to touch. And yet, I have come into (non-physical) contact with an awful lot of orthodox women, Teachers in hebrew school, customers at a store I worked at for a while in an orthodox neighborhood, people I spent time with and around during the six weeks I spent in Israel. I can just say this; there would have to be an awful lot of variety in those wigs, including many different colors and styles. And that variety would be an extravagance that would in itself be very atypical of the orthodox sartorial aesthetic. Also, sometimes they wear hairnets, which you would think would not be worn over a wig, and on non-hairnet days, the hair looked to be the same as the hair that had been previously visible through the net. Not that I was keeping track.

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Sun, 16 May 2004 12:58:55 -0800

Taz, not every Orthodox person is as stringent as these people. Note the article describes them as ultra-Orthodox. Many people think just a scarf, a hat or a snood will do.

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Sun, 16 May 2004 13:02:37 -0800

(And even among the ultra-Orthodox, it's the married women who conceal it all; the unmarried don't have to save it for their husbands.) Incidentally, my Orhtodox nephew has just had his upsherin, ie his hair was cut for the first time preceding his 3rd birthday. The hair is being donated to make wigs for child cancer victims.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 16 May 2004 13:06:07 -0800

Bluetrain - BTW. I wasn't trying to be offensive, and your response was fascinating. This is at least an American cultural tradition (and probably common to a lot of cultures), touching an "exotic" "other" (who might also be denigrated or believed to be somehow "primitive" for luck). For European cultures, I guess this has meant pretty much everyone else in the World. There was a Metafilter thread a few months ago where people discussed this tradition, within the US, of whites touching the heads of blacks for luck - and a number of Mefis testified that it's still around. Did you not allow your g/f to touch your hair for religious reasons and - if so, do you mind my asking about the background? If you don't want to respond, I fully understand. On another note, how much does a head of hair bring anyway ? I have enough for a decent wig now.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 16 May 2004 13:18:57 -0800

this tradition, within the US, of whites touching the heads of blacks for luck - and a number of Mefis testified that it's still around. indeed. (scroll down to half-page or just search for "teenager")

By: callmejay

callmejay — Sun, 16 May 2004 13:46:16 -0800

Hair covering is something which many but not all Orthodox women do. If you look at the profiles on frumster.com, an Orthodox dating site, you'll find that it is used as one of the markers of one's position on the Orthodox spectrum. Many Modern Orthodox women do not cover their hair after marriage.

By: Wet Spot

Wet Spot — Sun, 16 May 2004 13:51:32 -0800

how much does a head of hair bring anyway ? Not much if you've been washing it.

By: zaelic

zaelic — Sun, 16 May 2004 14:31:27 -0800

Callmejay: I just looked at Frumster. As Mefi's resident expert on Orthodox Jewish headgear, what I see is that most of the photos show guys with big broad fedoras. That style of hat is worn by Litvaks. Very orthodox, but not Hasidic. The wig thing is big among Hasidic women. The difference is that while "Modern Orthodox" Litvaks will argue a point - such as wig wearing or eating chickens with black legs - to death using a very traditional logic based on Talmud interpretation, the Hasids go by gut instinct and emotion, or more precisely, the gut instinct of their Rebbe, or rabbinical leader. My grandmother wore a sheitel - a wig - because she considered a Klein's Dept. Store (shout out to y'all in da Bronx!) polyester fright wig a liberating modern change from the babushka scarves her mother and grandmother wore back in Moldavia. Her family was Hasidic (I'm descended from a rabbinical dynasty on her side, but it is kind of a Moldavian "put your hands on the radio and let the power cure you" kind of tradition that has very few modern followers.) But I was raised in a very anti-hasidic Yiddish atmosphere. The Bronx was non-hasidic, while Brooklyn became hasidic after WWII. We spoke Yiddish, we were kosher, but Hasidic wasn't as main-stream acceptable back in the 1960s. And sheitels cost a lot. Cheap ones begin about $2000.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 16 May 2004 15:23:19 -0800

zaelic - I'm sure glad my wife isn't orthodox. Closer to Deadheadox, maybe. Ah, but we're young. Time will bring tradition to the fore and so one day, perhaps, I'll find a blond polyester wig on her bedroom dresser. "Oh my God. What the HELL is this?....." "Oh that, honey. I thought you'd like something contemporary."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 16 May 2004 15:39:34 -0800

i'm with zaelic--for regular(?) orthodox it's not necessary, but for ultra-orthodox and hasidic people it's absolutely necessary.

By: zaelic

zaelic — Sun, 16 May 2004 16:29:29 -0800

New Yorker Pearl Gluck just released a great indie film about growing up hasidic in Brooklyn and then leaving the Orthodox community for a new secular life in Manhattan. Divan - The Couch. It's a great take on a isolated Hasidic culture (Brooklyn Satmar) that even Jews often find unfathomable.

By: bingo

bingo — Sun, 16 May 2004 16:59:18 -0800

I like "A Price Above Rubies" with Rene Zellweger (before she was really big).

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Sun, 16 May 2004 18:38:27 -0800

Did you not allow your g/f to touch your hair for religious reasons Hell no. I happened to be extremely vain and pompous and enjoy having a perfectly groomed head of hair. Once upon a time I was annoyed when even a single strand of hair was out of place (so the idea of a person touching, let alone messing with, my hair was repulsive). I still enjoy my culture and heritage, and continue to observe a few customs (I'm a vegetarian, I have pictures of dieties in my apt., I wear religious jewelry), but for purely cultural reasons, not religious. I enjoy being brown, and Indian.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Sun, 16 May 2004 18:51:42 -0800

For a great book about growing up Hasidic in New York, I recommend Pearl Abraham's Giving Up America.

By: Dark Messiah

Dark Messiah — Sun, 16 May 2004 19:05:20 -0800

BlueTrain: I find the whole concept of ruffling someone's hair as a "goof" to be fuckin' annoying anyway; I wouldn't consider it a point of vanity unless taken to the extreme. Then again, I've got my own screwed-up rules regarding physical contact anyway...

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 16 May 2004 19:27:33 -0800

Bluetrain - I think a certain measure of vanity is a measure of mental health. Humans are animals, and poorly groomed animals tend to be - in general - unhealthy. Then again, various other expressions of grooming ( such as spiritual, as opposed to physical, grooming ) don't have much traction in this age.

By: luriete

luriete — Sun, 16 May 2004 19:49:17 -0800

the ultra orthodox women in my family all (almost all - one wears a scarf) shave their heads bald and wear a wig. i used to think there was some kind of proscription against (antiscription?) vanity, but that can't be right as they all wear too much makeup and perfume. way too much perfume. they don't touch me either, maybe i'm too secular and thus trafe, who knows. i don't hate it, i'm just baffled and, i guess, i pity them to some extent as they miss out on so much. but they probably think the same about me.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 16 May 2004 19:54:40 -0800

luriete - It's great to hear a firsthand voice in this. What I find odd about this sort of religious observance is the suggestion that all those who do not adhere are relegated to the realm of the profane, the non-sacred. I have to scowl at such assertions.

By: Slagman

Slagman — Sun, 16 May 2004 20:42:33 -0800

Wig crisis was on the front page of the NYT the other day...Women of Williamsburg going about in "snoods" as a result. Some of these human hair wigs cost a grand or more.

By: taz

taz — Sun, 16 May 2004 22:26:25 -0800

I guess what's puzzling to me is my assumption that the prohibition against a woman showing her hair after marriage would have a purpose - probably something about not inciting lust in the hearts of men other than her husband, or some such - and that by wearing a wig, the letter of the law is kept while the intent is completely violated. But perhaps I'm way off base, and there is no underlying meaning, or I'm just completely missing what the actual point is. The hair covering could be something so simple as an obvious statement that "this woman is taken, look elsewhere," for example, but with a wig such a message is lost.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sun, 16 May 2004 22:58:51 -0800

If this were something that concerned me much, my first question would be "of all the places in the world where you can get hair they had to pick the place where the hair is cut during a polytheistic religious ceremony?" I'm pretty sure that's what I would think.

By: uncanny hengeman

uncanny hengeman — Sun, 16 May 2004 23:12:05 -0800

Until recently, only two people were allowed to touch my hair: my stylist and myself (which annoyed the hell out of my g/f). Good grief.

By: TungstenChef

TungstenChef — Sun, 16 May 2004 23:16:37 -0800

Metafilter: muggers and monkeys are rampant

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 17 May 2004 05:45:25 -0800

taz - Back in Biblical times, the Jewish people dressed exactly like 19th Century Eastern European Orthodox Hasidim. Jewish customs and mores have, however, degenerated since that time.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 17 May 2004 08:01:05 -0800

just kidding

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Mon, 17 May 2004 09:15:06 -0800

Wow, I grew up in a part of Florida that was primarily Jewish, went to temple with friends, investigated Judaism for a while when playing with the concept of organized religion...and I had no idea about this. None. Then again, I think most of my friends are/were Reform as opposed to Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox. Still, it seems awfully similar to the scarves worn by many Arabic women. (Not necessarily an Islamic thing...many Christian Arabs also follow the same rule, I'm guessing it's a cultural standard, rather than a religious one in those cases.) I guess, coming from a secular western perspective, it doesn't make much sense to me, in that I don't understand the logic behind it. Why only married women? What purpose in "gods divine plan" does it serve? I don't ask to be snarky, I just have no frame of reference in which to make sense of the rule.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Mon, 17 May 2004 10:37:13 -0800

Alternative title for FPP: Fundies Wigging Out Over Hair

By: zoogleplex

zoogleplex — Mon, 17 May 2004 11:55:39 -0800

"Still, it seems awfully similar to the scarves worn by many Arabic women." Similar, temporally and geographically co-existent Semitic cultures with even the same roots to their languages. They're much more alike than different, which I'm sure they'd both hate to admit at this point.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 17 May 2004 12:17:31 -0800

nofundy - ! zoogleplex - of course. that's why they are at each other's throats. Plus, they may be quite literally cousins. The Cohanes got around, maybe - I recall hearing, quite recently, that the Cohen gene is distributed widely through the Mideast among semitic peoples. I'm still searching for verification on this. Maybe I dreamt it?.......

By: orange swan

orange swan — Mon, 17 May 2004 12:52:49 -0800

Leonard Cohen did a lot of Mideastern groupies? I guess I can believe that, if I try.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 17 May 2004 14:22:15 -0800

orange swan - well, probably. The Leonard Cohen gene is probably widely distributed now. But, the priestly lineage descended from Moses are called alternately "Cohains", "Cohainim", "Cohanim", "Cohanes", and "Cohens" - and probably "Coens" too, as well as other variations I've missed.

By: bingo

bingo — Mon, 17 May 2004 16:33:19 -0800

Cohns. But not all of them.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 17 May 2004 21:05:49 -0800

bingo - "Cones", too I suppose. And what of the Kohns, Khohns, Khins, Kihns, Kinns, Coons, Kuhns..........

By: bingo

bingo — Mon, 17 May 2004 21:12:07 -0800

Well...the Cones that I know of are not Jewish. Kohns typically are (e.g. John Kerry's grandfather), and are most like Cohaynes. Most of those others, I'd say probably not. Once you can start to imagine a completely non-biblical origin for the name without much trouble, then chances are that they're not part of the "tribe," let alone that particular one of the ancient tribes.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Tue, 18 May 2004 06:41:15 -0800

bingo - on the other hand, recent genetic tracing has demonstrated that some rather improbable population groups - such as one indigenous South African tribe (relatively indigenous anyway - predating the Boers ) - has Jewish ancestry.