[Avodah] Q&A: Isn't Wearing a Wig Over Hair Pointless?

[Kenneth Miller]

R' Joel Rich asked:

> ... In terms of covering hair with a wig, the hair in the wig
> is not explicitly sexual as we already said, but at the same
> time it does create a barrier so that the actual, free-flowing
> hair of the woman is not available for public consumption. It's
> somewhat similar to wearing a t-shirt with flesh covered sleeves.
> As long as the material is opaque, wearing such a shirt is
> totally fine.

As I see it, the critical word in your formulation is "somewhat". Hair is not sexual in the exact same way as arms are, in that the hair of a single girl is mutar in ways that the arms of a married woman are not.

Therefore, it seems to me that there is room to say that for hair we have only a technical requirement for the hair itself to be covered and not seen, while that might not be sufficient for the arms. It could well be that the arms not only must *be* covered, but that they must also *appear* covered.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
One Trick to Stay Asleep
If you struggle to fall asleep, or stay asleep, try this&#8230
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50fdaed88ac952ed813eest03vuc