Answer

I don’t have a position. In my view, hair on the head is a formal prohibition (at least nowadays), so it doesn’t matter how it is covered.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
What do you mean by the expression “formal prohibition”? In any case, if I understood correctly, your position is that covering the head by means of a wig is permitted.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
A formal prohibition means that its rationale (the stimulation that would be created) no longer really exists, but we have no authority to change it (because something established by a formal count requires another formal count to permit it). Similar to this is women’s singing, where there is no problem pushing leniency as far as possible within the framework of Jewish law, since the rationale no longer really exists.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner (another):
Is there permission for a married woman to go out with her entire head not covered?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
A married woman is supposed to cover her head. But regarding the question whether the entire head must be covered, in the opinion of most halakhic decisors, no. There is no clear halakhic measure, and there are different statements. It seems to me that what is clear is that there must be a significant covering that clearly expresses that she is married.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Regarding what you said, that what is needed is a significant covering that clearly expresses that she is married—
1. Can that measure be more than a handbreadth? It’s hard from the passage in Berakhot 24, where “a handbreadth in a woman is nakedness,” regarding hair.
2. You left the sages’ words without fixed measures; one person can say that the clear form is that she only has a piece of cloth on her head.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Where did you get the idea that the measure for hair is a handbreadth? That is a separate statement there in the Talmud, and if you look at the halakhic decisors you will see that they did not bring the handbreadth measure for this.
Indeed, I left the matter without fixed measures, because it is dependent on measure and context. Modesty depends on the matter, the circumstances, and the norms. Shevut Yaakov writes that there is no need at all to cover the head by Torah law; rather, it is enough to gather up the hair.
——————————————————————————————
Arik:
What is the source that the covering has to “be a significant covering that clearly expresses that she is married”?! Is this instead of a wedding ring (which, as is known, has no source)?! And according to this, a wig would be forbidden if it cannot be distinguished from the uncovered hair of an unmarried woman…
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Indeed, a wig (if one cannot tell that it is a wig) is a formal covering and does not really help if there is a substantive dimension. That is why there has been so much controversy about it.
It seems to me that there is room for the reasoning that the obligation of head covering for a married woman (as accepted in Jewish law according to most views) is based on marking a woman as married. And even if that is not the basis of the obligation of head covering, this idea itself has logic. If you want a source, here it is before you (in the previous sentence. Responsa and Articles, sec. 119).
——————————————————————————————
Arik:
Thank you for the response, but I remain uncertain.
I challenged the rabbi on his own terms, because on the one hand he argued that this is a formal prohibition (and from that angle there is no problem with a wig), and on the other hand regarding the extent of the covering he wrote that there needs to be an indication that she is married (and from that angle a wig is forbidden). By the way, even if the logic of indication makes sense, without a Talmudic source it is not binding, only for someone who wants it…
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Arik.
First, logical reasoning binds one who recognizes it and understands it, not only one who wants it. “Why do I need a verse? It is logical reasoning!”
From the standpoint of the prohibition there is no problem with a wig, but the reasoning says that it is proper to be stringent. In most cases, however, people understand that it is a wig, because the “religious” context indicates that, even if one cannot directly tell.