~ Ask the Rabbi ~

If it is needed for a person's emotional health, then it is considered beneficial speech and is allowed (see footnote to Chafetz Chaim 10:14). (Otherwise, we may not speak lashon hara about a deceased person and certainly against a parent whom we are obligated to respect.) The speaker, however, should keep in mind the regular rules for what may be said and how. For example, he should not exaggerate and he should only say as much as needed to achieve his purpose. (Theoretically, he should speak to the person who hurt him first to ask him to stop, but that usually isn't practical with an unstable or abusive parent.) The above being said, the speaker should not feel too constrained when he speaks if that in itself will affect his ability to heal. Lastly, the speaker should have a positive motive in mind – namely, he should not speak about his abusive parent to get back at him and put him down, but to relieve his own upset over the abuse he suffered.

It is also important that the therapist not accept the speaker's words as definite truth. He can only consider that his words might be accurate.

Finally, if this question is about yourself, I wish you full healing from your past trauma

I'm glad you're asking a rabbi about whether he is replaceable! That's like asking an employee about the prospect of being replaced with automation.

I assume your question isn't about replacing the rabbi's role as mentor, given that AI lacks human experiences, emotions, and the ability to empathize. Much of what a rabbi does involves connecting with individuals on a personal and emotional level, understanding their unique circumstances within the greater context, and providing guidance accordingly. AI cannot replicate the depth of human connection required for spiritual counseling and support.

Rather, your question seems to be about asking halachic questions to a chatbot instead of a rabbi.

The truth is that, unlike a typical employee being replaced by an AI, many rabbis would welcome a possible alternative. After all, they would love nothing more than to spend their time learning more Torah. As for their livelihood, they know that G‑d can provide everyone with their livelihood regardless of AI. Unfortunately, however, a chatbot does not a rabbi make.

Here's why:

Are Chatbots and AI even accurate?

If one is simply seeking information about what a specific halachic text has to say, an AI can be a valuable tool for information gathering and Torah study. It can provide access to a wide range of sources and help compile comprehensive summaries of various opinions and texts.

Yet, despite AI's significant advancements in various fields, it still has a very long way to go to provide reliable and accurate information, especially in the realm of halachah.

Torah texts often require nuanced interpretation, taking into account historical and contextual factors. AI systems typically operate on data-driven algorithms and lack the ability to grasp the intricacies of religious teachings. A human rabbi (hopefully!) possesses years of training, study and understanding of the text, allowing him to provide guidance within the framework of halachah.

A second issue is that the programming of AI introduces a significant challenge. The values and halachic rulings programmed into AI systems inherently reflect a bias, influenced by the beliefs and interpretations of those who develop the algorithms. This bias may lead to the exclusion or prioritization of certain opinions, potentially distorting the halachic landscape presented by AI. The acceptance or rejection of controversial topics can greatly impact the AI's conclusions, steering it in specific directions that may not align with halachah.

But let us assume, for argument's sake, that an AI has somehow overcome all of these challenges and has also advanced significantly to the point where it can gather and present unbiased information.

Knowing accurate information and data is merely one component of determining what the correct halachah is.

Shimush and the Practicing Rabbi

Countless letters and talks from the Rebbeemphasize (and admonish!) that if a question arises in halachah, it is not enough to just ask someone who was ordained and has the title "rabbi"; the rabbi needs to be a practicing rabbi who has shimush, the experience that comes from apprenticing with a veteran rabbi.1

The sages of the Talmud2 discuss "one who read and learned but did not serve Torah scholars (shimush)":

Rabbi Elazar says: This person is an ignoramus.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: This person is a boor.
Rabbi Yannai says: This person is comparable to a Samaritan (i.e., follows the Written Torah but not the traditions of the sages).

Clearly, shimush is critical.

Shimush involves actively engaging with experienced and knowledgeable authorities, observing their methodologies, and gaining hands-on experience in halachic decision-making. This apprenticeship-like approach is crucial to developing practical skills, judgment, and insights into halachic practice, which can't be gained by reading text and gathering information.3

On the same note, Mesorah (tradition) plays a crucial role in halachic decision-making. AI lacks the ability to access anecdotal material or personal experiences passed down through generations of scholars. Mesorah encompasses not only the oral teachings received from one's teacher, but also the observation of how the teacher applied halachic rulings in practical cases.4

An intriguing statement often quoted in halachah is that "the opinion of the lay people is the opposite of the Torah's opinion."5

The Rebbe explains that this refers to people who have indeed learned and are perhaps very knowledgeable in halachah. However, even such individuals miss a vital component of the halachic decision-making process if they lack practical experience.6

It is not for naught that the Talmud states, "Shimush is even greater than learning."7

In other words, an AI may have learned a lot and appear more "knowledgeable" in many ways, but it may still be considered "an ignoramus" for our purposes.

Although we may not technically have the original semichah (see What Is a Rabbi? - A Brief History of Rabbinic Ordination (Semichah)), for one to be considered a rabbi, he still needs to be ordained and have shimush.8

Divine Help

In addition to the reasons outlined above, when a rabbi approaches the halachic decision process with proper preparation (i.e., shimush) and the appropriate humility and fear of heaven, then he receives siyata dishmaya, help from Heaven, ensuring that he will rule correctly in that specific situation. This is because the rabbi is following what the Torah9itself enjoins us to do.10

A story often relayed by the Rebbe illustrates this point:

Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, the famed author of Noda B'Yehuda, served as the rabbi of Prague from 1754 to 1793. Once a group of scholars who wished to contest his rabbinic qualifications presented him with a series of questions in Torah law. These fictitious "cases" were carefully constructed to be as complex and as misleading as possible, so as to ensnare the rabbi in their logical traps and embarrass him with an incorrect ruling.

Rabbi Yechezkel succeeded in resolving all the questions correctly—all, that is, but one. Immediately, his detractors pounced on him, showing how his verdict contradicted a certain principle of Torah law.

Said Rabbi Yechezkel: "I am certain that this case is not actually relevant, and that you have invented it in order to embarrass me!"

"How do I know?" the rabbi continued. "Because I know that G‑d's Torah is true. You see, whenever a human being is called upon to decide a matter of Torah law, we are faced with a paradox: how can the human mind possibly determine G‑d's will? The laws of Torah are the wisdom and will of G‑d and the most basic laws of reality, preceding and superceding even the laws of nature. How is it that the finite and error-prone intellect is authorized to decide such Divine absolutes?

"But the Torah itself instructs that 'the Torah is not in heaven' but has been given to man to study and comprehend, and that whenever a question or issue of Torah law is raised, it is the human being, employing his finite knowledge and judgment, who must render a ruling. In other words, when a person puts aside all considerations of self and totally surrenders his mind to serve the Torah, G‑d guarantees that the result will be utterly consistent with His will.

"However," concluded Rabbi Yechezkel, "this 'guarantee' only applies to actual events, when a rabbi is called upon to determine what it is that G‑d desires to be done under a given set of circumstances, but not if his personal honor is the only issue at hand. Had you presented me with a relevant question, I know that I would not have erred, since I approached the matter with no interest or motive other than to serve the will of G‑d. But since your case was merely a hypothetical question designed to mislead me, my mind was just like every other mind, great and small alike—imperfect and manipulatable."

"Well," I like to answer, "For starters, it depends what you think the point is."

One thing that I think is often missing from general conversation about Jewish hot-button issues, including but not limited to questions surrounding women's attire specifically and "roles" more generally, is a careful attention to the multifaceted sources that have shaped our laws through the centuries. Our halachic heritage is built through an intricate mix of text and real-world practice, and neither should be minimized.

The issue of hair covering is no different –in fact, is a prime example.

On one hand, there are those who view hair covering entirely as a matter of communal custom or even of personal practice: "What a woman wears on her head is no one's business but her own!" Certainly, that is true, at the very least in a practical sense. On the other hand, a friend of mine recently referred to "the halachot of sheitels," apparently in the sense of specific guidelines about what sort of sheitel is or is not permitted. If there could be such a thing as a set of halachic guidelines about what a woman must wear on her head, then is it really only her business or is it "halacha's business"? If it is halacha's business, does that mean other people might have a responsibility to educate women who don't seem to be following halacha?

As is so often the case in matters of Jewish tradition – though we might often forget this truth about our tradition – both extremes could be right, or at least could claim basis in the sources, as could many other nuanced perspectives.

As I like to put it when asked about sheitels (and it is not only the unaffiliated, or non-Jewish, who ask), hair covering is a particularly tricky subject to pin down for several reasons, the first being that the Torah source is derived backwards. There is no pasuk that says a married woman must cover her hair; rather, the requirement is inferred from the fact that one of the acts prescribed for the sotah ritual is that the kohen must uncover[1] her hair.[2]

How does the uncovering of the sotah's hair lead to a conclusion that it must be required for married women to cover their hair? Rashi on the Gemara offers two explanations, with different implications as far as our ability to draw conclusions about the "point" of hair covering.

In his first explanation, Rashi suggests that the sotah's hair is uncovered specifically as a midah keneged midah punishment: presumably, she beautified herself for her paramour, including uncovering her hair, so she is punished by being shamed in the same way. According to this explanation, one might well suggest that the purpose of hair covering has something to do with modesty – i.e. not making oneself alluring through exposure/styling of hair – and assess potential covers within the question of how modest they are.

The second explanation, and the one Rashi himself prefers, is that the need to uncover the sotah's hair indicates that it had until that moment been covered. In this approach, the pasuk is understood to imply the fact that married women (such as a sotah) must cover their hair - but it tells us nothing about the reason. One might, if we understand the Gemara this way, completely ignore any questions of relative modesty and simply make sure there is some object on a woman's head.[3]

This second perspective seems to fit nicely with those authorities – as I understand it, those most widely accepted by Ashkenazi communities – who wrote that the only requirement was for a woman to cover her natural hair. (See Shiltei Giborim on Rif Shabbos 29a – cited by the Rema in his Darchei Moshe commentary, Orach Chaim 303.)

Those who find this unsatisfying might then speculate as to the reason, and perhaps that is how we get to those perspectives which suggest hair covering is for the woman herself, to be aware and know she has something on her head, as an extra barrier between herself and the men around her now that she is married and has let her modesty guard down, so to speak, in her relationship with her husband. (This is a perspective I hear often, in various permutations, but I am unaware of any source for it earlier than the past century.) Whatever we might speculate about the reason, however, if we have no fundamental reason attached to the requirement in our fundamental halachic sources, then we can assume that halachically any cover will do. Even a wig – maybe even a beautiful one, and maybe even a glamorous or alluring style. Those questions as to style would then be best left to an individual woman's sensitivities as to how she wishes to present herself to the world in general; indeed, her choice alone, perhaps with guidance from her chosen mentors.

However, other scholars have focused on Rashi's first explanation, and extrapolated a reason from it that might well have implications not just for the question of wearing a sheitel but for questions of its cut and style. If the sotah is punished for having used her hair to look beautiful for a man she should not have been trying to attract, we might then conclude that the requirement to cover is actually a requirement that a married woman not use hair to make herself beautiful in front of other men.

If this is the "point" of the practice, it may indeed be defeated by wearing a wig. For instance, Rabbi Avraham ben Tzvi Hirsch Teomim takes just this approach and argues that a wig, being hair, is exactly as sensually suggestive as the hair attached to a woman's head.[4] In his view, wigs fundamentally do not satisfy the Torah requirement and it is therefore forbidden on a Torah level for a married woman to go in public with nothing but a wig on her head.

One might also take a similar approach and suggest that wigs are valid head coverings according to Torah law, but only if they are not unduly attractive. Defining such parameters would of course be enormously difficult, and definitions even of the Torah law could end up being somewhat subjective, but in theory this approach would represent a viable interpretation of halacha.

So far, we have focused only on the question of whether a wig – or certain kinds of wigs – would satisfy the Torah requirement for married women to cover their heads. There is, however, another level to the mitzvah, and therefore another level of complication.

The Gemara in Ketuvot further tells us that there is a dat Yehudit element to the mitzvah that demands more than the Torah obligation. According to many scholars, "dat Yehudit" refers to the norms of actual practice of Jewish women specifically in the context of modesty. (See, for instance, Rambam Hilchot Ishut 24:12) This part of the requirement is also difficult to define, and an attempt to do so –including an attempt to determine whether dat Yehudit can change, and to what extent and through what mechanism – would be way beyond the scope of this article. We should, however, remember if the norm in a certain community has been that married women do not go in public with an uncovered wig, or perhaps only wear those of particular styles that are not considered "immodest," then it would gain a level of prohibition in that community even if the Torah fundamentally allows all wigs.

There is one further avenue of halachic analysis that agrees wigs would fundamentally satisfy both Torah law and the requirements of dat Yehudit, but objects to them because of other halachic concerns. The most commonly discussed secondary halachic issue is the concern of marit ayin, that people who see a woman in a wig will think she is not covering her hair. (See the responsa of Be'er Sheva, siman 18.) Many argue this concern doesn't apply to wigs, but others believe it does – thereby classifying uncovered wigs as a violation at least of Rabbinic law.

In this realm as well, the style or quality of the wig – how "natural" it looks – might well play a role in determining the actual halacha: If one is of the position that a wig satisfies the Torah requirement of covering, but violates marit ayin, then one might also say a wig which is obviously a wig is perfectly fine but that one which is so beautiful as to be mistaken for real hair is forbidden – not because it is too beautiful or immodest, but because it looks like she is violating the requirement to have some object on her head. How do we define "obviously"? This, too, offers a lot of room for subjectivity not just in the realm of "spirit of the law," but in applying the "letter of the law" as well.

(On the side that argues wigs do not violate marit ayin, I highly recommend reading the teshuva of Rav Moshe Feinstein in which he compares women wearing wigs to men shaving with a razor that satisfies technical halacha but might lead people to think he used a forbidden razor. He applies the same considerations to his halachic analyses regarding both genders, and suggests that a man who would shave with such a razor, but doesn't want his wife to wear a wig, is a hypocrite. See Igros Moshe Even HaEzer volume II siman 12.)

So, what do we do with all these explanations and interpretations and opinions?

The first time I ever taught the halachot of hair covering, I was a first-year high school teacher overwhelmed with preparation and assigned my students to research various topics before I had had the chance to review the sources carefully myself. This led to an awkward moment when one of the students assigned to the topic of hair covering asked me "So which opinion do you follow, Mrs. Rudolph?" and I couldn't remember, at that moment, which posek it was. Over a decade later, I have the confidence to give the real answer: I cover the way I do because my mother does and because that is the norm among those whose Jewish philosophy and practice most aligns with mine. I would wear a sheitelif I found them comfortable, and I do wear scarves that allow just a little hair to show, not because I find one particular interpretation of the sources most compelling, but because my community has adopted the halachic rulings of some poskim over others. This is where text and practice intertwine, and rather than being embarrassed, I am proud to be a part of a mesorah with such depth and breadth, with such intricate thought and analysis, with room for so many different practices – though not all – to be considered "halachic."

It would be tragic, as well as inaccurate, for us to relegate this entire area of halacha to the realm of "personal choice" or "custom" and forget that there are real d'Oraita and d'Rabbanan laws at play. On the other hand, it would also be tragic – and inaccurate – for us to forget the richness of our halachic heritage, to crawl into the box of our personal community and psak, and forget that there are other valid halachic approaches. And what would be the most tragic of all would be to not only forget that this area of halacha does indeed leave room for a wide variety of practices, but to vilify those who follow a different psak without taking the time to study and ask and learn what might be behind what they do.

Teaching others one's own perspective is great; arguing the merits of one approach versus another is fun and an integral part of our tradition of Torah study. But shaming those who disagree is never okay.

Sephardic tradition, strongly influenced by prominent rabbis like Rav Ovadia Yosef, generally favors scarves, hats, or snoods over wigs (sheitels) for married women, viewing them as more modest. While wigs are common in Ashkenazi communities, many Sephardic authorities consider them unsuitable because they resemble natural hair, contradicting the purpose of covering.

The End of the Davidic kingdom

There is no question that King David's descendants are alive today. God promised David through Nathan the Prophet that the monarchy would never depart from his family (II Samuel 7:16). The prophets likewise foretell the ultimate coming of the Messiah, descendant of David, the "branch which will extend from the trunk of Jesse," who will restore the Davidic dynasty and Israel's sovereignty (Isaiah 11:1, see also Jeremiah 33:15, Ezekiel 37:25).

The Prophecy of the Davidic Dynasty

King David's initial dynasty came to an end with the destruction of the First Temple and the Babylonian Exile. In an earlier expulsion King Jehoiachin was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, together with his family and several thousand of the Torah scholars and higher classes (II Kings 24:14-16). Eleven years later the Temple was destroyed. The final king of Judah, Jehoiachin's uncle Zedekiah, was too exiled to Babylonia. He was blinded and his children were executed (II Kings 25:7).

However, Jehoiachin and his descendants did survive in exile. Babylonian cuneiform records actually attest to Jehoiachin and his family receiving food rations from the government. I Chronicles 3:17-24 likewise lists several generations of his descendants (either 9 or 15 generations, depending on the precise interpretation of the verses), which would have extended well into the Second Temple era. (One was the notable Zerubbabel, grandson of Jehoiachin, who was one of the leaders of the return to Zion and the construction the Second Temple.)

In Babylonia, the leader of the Jewish community was known as the Reish Galuta (Aramaic for "head of the exile," called the Exilarch in English). This was a hereditary position recognized by the Babylonian government. Its bearer was generally quite wealthy and powerful, well-connected to the government and wielding much authority over Babylonian Jewry.

King David's Lineage

According to Jewish tradition, the Exilarch was a direct descendant of Jehoiachin. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 5a) understands Genesis 49:10 – Jacob's blessing to Judah that "the staff would not be removed from Judah" – as a reference to the Exilarchs in Babylonia, "who would chastise Israel with the staff," i.e., who exercised temporal authority over the Jewish community. It stands to reason that these descendants of Judah were descendants of David's house, who would have naturally been the leaders of the Babylonian community, in fulfillment of God's promise to David that authority would always rest in his descendants.

There is also a chronological work, Seder Olam Zutta (an anonymous text from the early Middle Ages), which lists 39 generations of Exilarchs beginning with Jehoiachin. One of the commentators to Chronicles, the Vilna Gaon, states that the first one was Elionai of I Chronicles 3:23.

The position of Exilarch lasted for many centuries. The Reish Galuta is mentioned quite often in the Talmud. As can be expected, some were quite learned themselves, some deferred to the rabbis for religious matters, while some, especially in the later years, fought them and their authority tooth and nail.

Exilarchs existed well into the Middle Ages, throughout the period of the early medieval scholars known as the Gaonim. The last ones known to history was Hezekiah, who was killed in 1040 by the Babylonian authorities, although he was believed to have had sons who escaped to Iberia. There are likewise later historical references to descendants of the Exilarchs, especially in northern Spain (Catelonia) and southern France (Provence).

Beyond that, there is no concrete evidence as to the whereabouts of King David's descendants. Supposedly, the great French medieval sage Rashi (R. Shlomo Yitzchaki) traced his lineage to King David, although on a maternal line. (In addition, Rashi himself only had daughters.) The same is said of Rabbi Yehuda Loewe of Prague (the Maharal). Since Ashkenazi Jews are so interrelated, this is a tradition, however dubious, shared by many Ashkenazi Jews today (my mother's family included). See also this past response about the kinship many of feel with King David and his story.

In any event, we do not need be concerned today how the Messiah son of David will be identified. He will be a prophet, second only to Moses. God Himself will select him and appoint him to his task. And he himself, with his Divine inspiration, will resolve all other matters of Jewish lineage (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 12:3).

"Beged isha" is the Torah prohibition of men wearing women's clothing or vice versa, as is written: "Male garb shall not be on a woman, and a man shall not wear a feminine garment" (Deut. 22:5).

The Sefer HaChinuch (#542) explains that the purpose of this mitzvah is to help maintain a separation between the sexes. If men and women were to wear each other's clothing, they would eventually become intermingled and would fall into licentiousness.

The precise parameters of what constitutes "men's and women's clothing" depends on a given society's norms. For example, in Scotland it would be permitted for a man to wear a kilt (skirt), but not in other places. Earrings are another possible example. Years ago, before they became popular with men, it was forbidden for a man to wear one; today that might be changing.

Unisex clothing would likewise generally be okay, with the exception of clothes or colors originally designated for one gender which then began to be produced for both, as that is viewed as a means of consciously undermining modest behavior and the separation of he sexes. An example of this are pants for women. (Note that apart from this, pants for women would be forbidden because the garment itself is not considered modest for women.)

This realm of Jewish law extends beyond clothing to other activities, such as dyeing one's hair to remove the gray. Again, it depends on local custom: If it is acceptable for men to do such a thing, then it is not considered a women-specific activity.

Further, it would be permitted for a man to wear one item of women's clothing for some functional reason -- e.g. he is stuck in the pouring rain and only has a woman's raincoat.