- This topic has 35 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Is an invisibility cloak itself a covering or do you need to cover your hair even though you are wearing the cloak?
The reason you would have to cover your hair is because the cloak is invisible. But your hair is covered by the cloak!
The nafka mina is, if Hermione was a Jewish married women, could she wear the cloak as a tichel or would she need to wear a tichel under it?
I didn’t think the point of covering hair is to cover it, the point is to make sure it is not seen.
Everyone knows she is Jewish. The Order of the Phoenix is a clear reference to the Elders of Zion.
My father had a great-great aunt named Hermione and was thus the only person alive who was able to pronounce her name before the movies came out. Ergo, it’s a Jewish name, and she’s Jewish and can therefore use an invisibility cloak to cover her hair. But only THE invisibility cloak of the Deathly Hallows, as the others will eventually fade out.
Besides, Syag, if the point was that it shouldn’t be seen, then how does it help to wear hair on top of it–that’s just more hair.
doesn’t the invisibility cloak render the wearer invisible? In which case when Hermoine is wearing it, no one can see her or her hair. the cloak is not only invisible, it makes you invisible too. its not like the point of the cloak was that u cudnt see it so people would be like, “its freezing outside and youre not wearing a cloak???” and you could smugly say “but I am friend, but I am” leaving your friend awestruck. its so that people CANT SEE YOU. and you can sneak around castles at night looking for mirrors of Erised. and obviously, so you can cover your hair without actually wearing a kerchief that will ruin your appearance, which becomes a non-issue anyway bc you no longer appear.
so yeh. not sure what that accomplishes but ok.
doesn’t the invisibility cloak render the wearer invisible? In which case when Hermoine is wearing it, no one can see her or her hair. the cloak is not only invisible, it makes you invisible too. its not like the point of the cloak was that u cudnt see it so people would be like, “its freezing outside and youre not wearing a cloak???” and you could smugly say “but I am friend, but I am” leaving your friend awestruck. its so that people CANT SEE YOU. and you can sneak around castles at night looking for mirrors of Erised. and obviously, so you can cover your hair without actually wearing a kerchief that will ruin your appearance, which becomes a non-issue anyway bc you no longer appear.
Classic halachic technicalism that completely misses the whole point of the halacha.
lol!torah613, youre so creative! i used to be obsessed with harry potter… i kinda miss those days:(
i agree with live right.
I don’t think I was making a halachic point PBA. If you would convince me that there is such a thing as an invisibility cloak, maybe I would try to reason from a halachic standpoint. otherwise, I find it kinda pointless to analyze seriously. which is why you may, if you possess the ability, detect some sarcasm in my post.
Torah – Still holds true. Seen by the walls and seen by people. If I covered my hair with wide mesh, it wouldn’t be covered halachically.
popa – Two separate issues. YOUR hair can’t be seen is not the same as ‘people shouldn’t see hair when they look at you’. If you are bald, I don’t think you are required to wear anything, and along those same lines I know most poskim hold that you cannot wear a sheital of your own hair unless it was cut before you were married.
I was raised in a world where people covered most of their hair, not all, and I spent a very long time discussing this issue with a Rav before my wedding. I needed to be convinced that is was necessary as well as right. I do have my issues with sheitals on a personal level, though, and do not wear them anymore. Neither does my wife.
live right – made sense to me.
The halacha is that the hair shouldn’t be seen so technically by wearing the cloak over her head the hair becomes invisible and cannot be seen. From a practical stand point it might just be easier to wear a wig or a tichel. The way the cloak would fall it would make her head look as if a large chunk had been taken out of it.
“If you are bald, I don’t think you are required to wear anything”
I have never examined that question specifically, but my reading of the Gemara in Kesubos would indicated that a bald married woman would have to cover her head.
“if Hermione was a Jewish married women”
Does this invisibility cloak somehow make her into a duality or some sort of trinity?
If I covered my hair with wide mesh, it wouldn’t be covered halachically.
That’s because since it has holes in it, the strings of the mesh are battul to the holes and are considered to not exist.
Those of you who opine that the din is that a married woman’s hair may not be seen are wrong. the ikkar din is that a married woman’s hair must be covered. A woman’s hair is so obviously not an ervah that it doesn’t require hesber The hair covering is a siman that the woman is married. A married woman who goes about with her hair uncovered is a prutza because she is, in effect, masquerading as an unmarried, and therefore available, woman.
okay, how bout saran wrap?
better example- if you wrap your hair in saran wrap it’s not considered a proper covering.
I had the misfortune today to cross paths with one of the local “burka women” who by the looks of her wanted to be invisible (though her ‘statuesqeness’) made that improbable. Including some contraption of a veil that covered her face. I recall a halacha saying that a woman cannot be compelled to cover her face, and in the textbook case of Tamar, it is taken to the mark of both tznius, and znus. And chazal disapproved it from a similar angle, “lolam yehe adam ragil bikrovosov, so invisibility cloaks are improper.
??? ???? ????. ????? ??
1. Even if it didnt make it invisible, it is STILL a peice of cloth that covers the hair that makes you unable to see the hair so it would be muttar. Its a normal tichel that just makes your head invisible too. 🙂
Very interesting and random topic. But the name of this thread is strange, cuz single women dont cover their hair, I really dont see the connection…i think the mods should change is to something like: “Would the invisibilyty cloak be muttar for Hermione to use as a hear covering?” That makes more sense…
1. Even if it didnt make it invisible, it is STILL a peice of cloth that covers the hair that makes you unable to see the hair so it would be muttar. Its a normal tichel that just makes your head invisible too. 🙂
Very interesting and random topic. But the name of this thread is strange, cuz single women dont cover their hair, I really dont see the connection…i think the mods should change is to something like: “Would the invisibilyty cloak be muttar for Hermione to use as a hair covering?” That makes more sense…
I was kinda wondering about the ‘single girl’ thing myself.
whether the title made sense or not, it made me want to click on the thread. attention catcher….. 🙂 good job
POSTED 19 HOURS AGO #
Syag Lchochma
Tell it to me, and I will tell you if it’s Loshon Hara 🙂
Torah – Still holds true. Seen by the walls and seen by people. If I covered my hair with wide mesh, it wouldn’t be covered halachically.
popa – Two separate issues. YOUR hair can’t be seen is not the same as ‘people shouldn’t see hair when they look at you’. If you are bald, I don’t think you are required to wear anything, and along those same lines I know most poskim hold that you cannot wear a sheital of your own hair unless it was cut before you were married.
I was raised in a world where people covered most of their hair, not all, and I spent a very long time discussing this issue with a Rav before my wedding. I needed to be convinced that is was necessary as well as right. I do have my issues with sheitals on a personal level, though, and do not wear them anymore. Neither does my wife.
+1000
Ben: R’ Ovadia has a T’shuvah where he quotes that a bald woman would have to cover her head because the top of a woman’s head constitutes a usually-covered area (i.e. with hair).
i would think a bald woman would want to cover her head
Sam2,
I hear, but that would be because of a din “makom mechusa” and would theoretically depend on the norms of the society.
I am coming from the language in the Gemara (Kesubos 72) when discussing the din d’oraisa for a woman to cover her head, only refers to heads and makes no mention of hair. Furthermore the drasha from the posuk by Sotah also refers to a woman’s head not her hair. The implication, it seems to me, is that the din is one of a head covering not hair covering and therefore if a woman was bald she would have to cover her head in some fashion.
Well, one thing’s for sure — it would be incredibly difficult for Herminoe to wear a sheitel over all that hair! 😀
the top of a woman’s head constitutes a usually-covered area (i.e. with hair)
So if a woman’s finger was amputated she needs to wear a tichel on the stump because it is a usually covered area, i.e. with a finger?
yitayningwut- +1
What would happen if she transfigures her hair (into hair)? Do we say that the hair is still b’etzem her hair and needs to be covered, or do we say that transfiguring it makes it not her hair?
“if the point was that it shouldn’t be seen, then how does it help to wear hair on top of it–that’s just more hair”
IIRC Rav Hirsch allowed a woman to make a wig from her OWN hair and use it to fulfill the mitzvah.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.