Head covering
Hello Rabbi Michi,
For a long time I have had difficulty defining a covering. If it is a pubic area as the Hebrew Scriptures require from the verse, then why are virgins in the Old Testament covered?
My approach, as I saw, also sided with the Rabbi in the MCA, which once was a matter of reflection, is no longer relevant today, and therefore only the reason for a formal declaration remains (which is unclear as to its origin if the entire reason was once for modesty). And in truth, single women also used to cover their heads for modesty reasons, until there was no longer a modesty problem with it and single women stopped and married women continued (it is known that there is also a contradiction in this in the Shulchan Arbiter and Rambam). The question is whether this is historically correct?
In the issue of the Ketubot, it is explicitly stated that the Gamma requires that it be a dowry. Most commentators (except for Terumat Hashanah) argue that the intention is that it is a prohibition of dowry. I do not understand them at all. Overall, we see that during the Torah, all women used to wear a head covering, and therefore removing it is because of the perversion of the pervert. Where did the prohibition of dowry come from?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I didn't understand what kind of pubic hair (even when it's theoretical) exists in married women and not in single women. Pubic hair, by definition, is a place on the body that a woman usually covers, and the divisions are divided by places (each place is usually its own), so even if married women usually cover their hair, it still doesn't belong to call it pubic hair as long as all single women don't cover their hair, because these two groups are included in one category, "women." And to say (even theoretically) that married women and single women are two groups with respect to the concept of pubic hair seems strange to me. What is this? Does a married woman "become someone else's"??
And according to this (who do not accept the division between single and married) the question is for the Rishonim and not for the Gam, because it can be interpreted as you interpreted it to be a reason (from the law) of modesty (according to the norm of their time) for all women, whether single or married. But for those Rishonim who exclude the prohibition of dau, I find it difficult, because they divided the son of a single woman into a married woman, and therefore it is necessarily not a matter of modesty, but rather a custom of married women to walk with a head covering on their heads, and therefore where does the prohibition of dau come from?
According to the first paragraph of Rashi (for the prostitute), they do indeed see a prohibition of dau, and it is difficult to distinguish between married and single women. And according to the paragraph Rashi's second interpretation includes the above division, but I do not see any source for the prohibition of dau. (And your interpretation goes well with Rashi's second interpretation)
I wrote that there might be a pubic lice depending on the situation. That's really not the accepted perception, so I just raised it as a possibility.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
