In the Talmud in Ketubot it seems that head covering is a Torah-level law.
In your opinion, does that law change according to custom?
Why does someone who goes with a headband not violate what appears in that Talmudic passage as a law from the Torah?

Thanks

There are views among the halakhic decisors that the Torah requirement of head covering is only gathering the hair. The question is what is included in the prohibition. Beyond that, even the assumption that a Torah law does not change with custom is not unequivocal (true, that is what emerges from the simple reading of the passage, which distinguishes between the law of Moses and Jewish practice, but some commentators drew distinctions).

Thank you for the answer. I’d be glad if the Rabbi could expand a bit on the second element that head covering has in his opinion (is it modesty?), and if from the outset it isn’t clear that this is only for married women, why is it that today only married women go this way? Is that something that depends on social norm?
B. Up to what point is change along with the norm legitimate? Is there a red line? Can the norm also completely cancel head covering?
Thanks again very much…

I didn’t understand the question. Is the Torah law due to modesty? Apparently yes. That is why the priest uncovers the hair of the woman who strayed. From the Talmudic passage this is not clear, and in the halakhic decisors, according to most views, it is only for a married woman. See a short overview here:
http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=1590
I don’t know of a red line. It’s a matter of judgment. But as stated, it is doubtful whether the Torah law is something that depends on social norm. What I wrote is that it is not clear that it does not, but plainly speaking it does not.

Regarding head covering for an unmarried woman:
Nadav Shnerb inferred from the fact that unmarried women do not go with a covering that apparently the custom is not connected to modesty. By contrast, in the overview the Rabbi linked to, it seems that in principle there is no distinction between an unmarried and a married woman, only that unmarried women did not accept the Torah law upon themselves and their custom was accepted after the fact. Seemingly, from here it comes out that custom does change the Jewish law even if it is Torah-level (because unmarried women do not go even with a basket-covering), no? How does that happen? It sounds really strange to me that because they did not accept it, it changes… If a girl wants to do God’s will in the most complete way, is it proper for her to cover her head?

I don’t think that custom here changed the Jewish law. The custom shaped it. That is a big difference. To claim that custom changed the Jewish law means that originally the law was that covering applied both to a married and an unmarried woman, and custom changed that. But it is possible that the custom reflects the law from the outset, and that is how it always was. As stated, in Maimonides and the Shulchan Arukh there are other formulations (there are also contradictions), but I am speaking about the principle. Likewise, it is possible that the custom determined the law from the outset, meaning that the Torah instructs us to go the way modest women go, and the custom determines what modest women do.
And from here, if there is an unmarried woman who covers her head, that is definitely not a foolish custom, and perhaps it is even proper ab initio to do so.

I think I understood the possibility that the custom reflects the law from the outset, and according to that things make sense to me, but the second possibility is still a bit unclear to me—does the Rabbi mean that when the Torah hints that a woman should have head covering, it is basically saying that women need to be modest—only that this was the expression / custom of modest women in ancient times, and that included both married and unmarried women, and over the generations the concept of modesty changed and became limited to married women only, and therefore unmarried women stopped going with head covering?
According to this, seemingly, there really could be a situation in which women would not wear head covering at all and would still be fulfilling God’s will, because nowadays, say, it seems to me that this is not a characteristic of modesty (it seems to me there are many non-Jewish / secular married women who are modest and do not feel any need to cover their heads…)
Just for clarification—I’m not looking for a permit for women to go without head covering, I’m only trying to understand…

Indeed.

What is preferable: loose hair with a partial head covering, or gathering the hair with no covering at all?

As a matter of Jewish law, it is accepted that one must cover, and gathering alone is not enough.

I didn’t ask what is accepted in Jewish law, but rather which of the two options presented is preferable

In my personal opinion, not a halakhic one, do whatever you want.
What kind of preference do you mean if not on the halakhic plane? Are you asking whether it is preferable for a woman to mark that she is married? I think so. But what counts as marking depends on accepted norms (if unmarried women cover their heads, then head covering will stop being an effective sign).

Now I thought that perhaps you mean to ask what my halakhic opinion is (as distinct from the opinions of the halakhic decisors). I don’t have a clear opinion. The passage can bear all of it.

Regarding the personal opinion, is the claim that in this case it is *proper* to do whatever I want? Or as a practical piece of advice in the style of “do not be overly righteous”?
And if the passage can bear all of it, why is it specifically accepted in Jewish law to require covering?

Neither this nor that. I meant to say that if you are not asking a halakhic question, I don’t understand the question. Do whatever you want. If you are asking what is proper apart from Jewish law, I wrote that it is worthwhile to mark that she is married.
The simple meaning of the passage is that on the Torah level there is one level (the law of Moses) and on the rabbinic level another level (Jewish practice). There are views that on the Torah level gathering is enough, but as far as I remember, on the rabbinic level, according to all views, covering is required. However, rabbinic law depends on custom, and therefore there is room to say that today the situation is different.

Thanks

I’ll divide my comment into sections.

The source for head covering is the Talmud in tractate Ketubot 72a, which derives it from the verse, “And he shall uncover the woman’s head,” implying that originally it had been covered.

In Rashi there are two explanations: A. It is a scriptural decree (that this is learned from the verse). B. From the verse we learn that this was the custom of the daughters of Israel.

The plain meaning of the Talmud is that the prohibition is Torah-level, “It is from the Torah!” and that is how most halakhic decisors ruled.

However, Terumat HaDeshen in section 242, in Maimonides’ view, writes that the prohibition is rabbinic, and the meaning of “It is from the Torah” is that it has a hint in the Torah. Two or three other halakhic decisors held this as well, foremost among them Rabbi Yosef Messas, that the prohibition is merely the custom of the daughters of Israel.

According to everyone, this is not a prohibition of a negative commandment or a positive commandment.

The plain meaning of the Talmud is that the prohibition applies to all daughters of Israel, “a warning to the daughters of Israel,” both single and married, and that is also what follows from the plain meaning of Maimonides and the Shulchan Arukh. Following a contradiction in their words (in the laws of reciting the Shema they permitted reading opposite the hair of virgins), the commentators explained that an unmarried divorcée is obligated, but an unmarried virgin is exempt.

In the introduction to the book Chen VeKavod (it can be read at the address bit.ly/chenvechavod), he brought an innovative explanation: that in the time of the Talmud, both single women and married women covered their heads, but they would leave a braid out from under their head covering (and the hairs outside the braid were called “outside her braid”). On their wedding day, the single women would let their hair fall over their shoulders as a sign, but their head would remain covered.

It is likely that over the generations a custom developed in which single women uncovered their heads completely, and we already find testimony to this among the medieval authorities. In the above-mentioned book Chen VeKavod, chapter 8, he pointed to Shitah Mekubetzet (Ketubot 15b) on the words “with her head uncovered,” who wrote as follows: “Meaning: uncovered, and this was the practice for a virgin but not for a widow. And that which we say later (72a), ‘And he shall uncover the woman’s head’—from here a warning to the daughters of Israel that they should not go out with head uncovered—it may be said that this speaks of married women. From the collections of the Geonim.”

Likewise, the Or Zarua wrote in the laws of Sabbath (section 84) as follows: “And if it is attached to the hair-net it is permitted, as Rashi explained, because she does not uncover her head in the public domain; if so, a virgin, who is not concerned about uncovering her head, even though it is attached to the hair-net, is forbidden to go out with it.” It is proven from his words that single women were not concerned about uncovering their heads in the public domain, since they were accustomed to this.

Likewise, Rashi wrote in tractate Sanhedrin (58b) as follows: “From when she uncovers her head in the market—that even married non-Jewish women were accustomed not to go out with head uncovered.” This implies that head covering was an issue for married women and not for single women, and regarding this Rashi writes that not only Jewish married women covered their heads, but even married non-Jewish women.

This is an interesting datum, according to which hair covering depends on custom. Likewise, regarding reciting the Shema opposite the hair of unmarried women, in the medieval authorities on tractate Berakhot 24a, they all point out that it is permitted to recite the Shema opposite the hair of virgins because they are accustomed to uncover it. We have not found such a permission regarding a certain prohibition, and this requires analysis.

Among the medieval authorities it is brought that the simple custom among women was to uncover their faces, hands, and feet: “But their faces, hands, and feet… we are not concerned with them, because one is accustomed to them and is not distracted” (Rashba); “But their faces, hands, and feet… we are not concerned with them because one is accustomed to them” (Orchot Chaim).

And the question is asked: how are their hands and feet—and especially their faces, where the main beauty of a woman is—different from other limbs, and why is it permitted to uncover them? Is “because one is accustomed to them” really a reason to permit uncovering them?

And it appears that the reasoning is simple: hands and feet and face, although they are nakedness and it is forbidden to look even at a little finger, do not have the same status as the main body, and it is permitted to uncover them. Rather, one must examine up to what boundary face and hands and feet are called such, and where that boundary is stated explicitly. And today they have invented boundaries, both for uncovering the face and nape, and for uncovering hands and feet (up to the elbow and up to the knee).

And after all that, let us consider the basis of the prohibition of uncovering the thigh/shin, in Berakhot 24a: “A woman’s thigh/shin is nakedness… a woman’s voice is nakedness… a woman’s hair is nakedness.” And they bring proof from verses in Song of Songs and the like. And here too the question is asked: why is there a need to bring proof from verses? After all, this is included in “your camp shall be holy,” and “let no naked thing be seen among you.”

And it seems that the three things mentioned in Berakhot 24a—namely thigh/shin, hair, and voice—are not inherently nakedness, but rather depend on what is customary; and if people are accustomed to uncover them, they are not nakedness. Therefore their prohibition is not Torah-level but rabbinic, in a place where people are not accustomed to them, and therefore special verses were needed. (And regarding a woman’s uncovering her hair, there is a different verse from which the prohibition is learned—“And he shall uncover the woman’s head”—and the prohibition is not because of nakedness. There are also those who held that even this is not Torah-level, such as Terumat HaDeshen in section 242 in Maimonides’ view; and there are many places where the Talmud’s expression “It is from the Torah” is only rabbinic.)

And this is proven from Tosafot HaRosh on Berakhot 24a: “A woman’s thigh/shin is nakedness—that you should not say that sometimes a woman raises her garments and it is not her way to keep it covered; it teaches us that it is nakedness.” And similarly in Shitah Mekubetzet there: “It teaches us that even though sometimes it is exposed, it has the status of a covered place that brings one to nakedness.” This implies that if a woman were actually accustomed to uncover the thigh/shin, there would be no issue of nakedness in this. Only that in their time they were accustomed ‘sometimes’ to uncover it, and therefore the Talmud teaches us the novelty that this is not enough to permit it.

And this is also explicit in Raaviah, part 1, tractate Berakhot, section 76: “And all the things [mentioned above] regarding nakedness [namely thigh/shin, voice, hair] apply specifically to something that is not ordinarily uncovered. But for a virgin who is accustomed to uncovering her hair, we are not concerned, for there is no improper thought.” It follows from his words that the same applies to the thigh/shin and to the voice—that if there is regularity in this, we are not concerned.

And in Aguddah, tractate Berakhot chapter 3, the matter is explained even more clearly: “A woman’s thigh/shin is nakedness in a place where it is the way to cover it.” That is, in a place where it is not the way to cover it, it is not nakedness.

According to this, the Bach’s difficulty in Orach Chaim section 75 is clarified: “Why was the thigh/shin mentioned more than the other covered places of her body?” He explained that one might have thought it is permitted even to look at the thigh/shin of a married woman, since it is usually dirty, and therefore the Talmud teaches us that it is forbidden. But according to what we have said there is no difficulty at all, because specifically the thigh/shin depends on custom, like hair, whereas other limbs do not (and the arm up to the elbow has the same law as the leg up to the knee).

And consequently, even if we hold that the location of the thigh/shin is the lower part of the leg, there is room to say that if it is customary to uncover it, it is not nakedness, just as this is the law regarding hair according to all the medieval authorities. Consequently, one can certainly rely on the Mishnah Berurah and the Pri Megadim, even if one sticks to plain common sense that the thigh/shin is the lower part.

The practical conclusion from this regarding hair is that single women today uncover it because it is no longer considered nakedness. But still, most halakhic decisors simply maintain that the prohibition is “the law of Moses,” that is, Torah-level, and will not change under any circumstances. Therefore one should not permit women to uncover their heads even today, and one should not rely on a lone opinion among the halakhic decisors.

Another thing brought above was that head covering is intended “to distinguish between a married and a single woman.” This is most far-fetched, because they can be distinguished by a wedding ring. Likewise, if one looks at the source I brought at the beginning of my remarks, it speaks about all the daughters of Israel, not about a distinction between married and single women.

In addition, there are explicit reasons given for the reason behind the prohibition of uncovering the head. The Talmud in Eruvin 100b states that it is because of the curse of Eve. Rashi brings that it is a scriptural decree, or custom. None of the Sages or medieval authorities mentioned that the covering comes to distinguish between a married and a single woman.

Likewise, it was mentioned above that on the Torah level head covering is only gathering the hair. The word “uncover” includes two things: revealing the hair by removing the covering, and disheveling it. This too seems to be how the Talmud understood it, and therefore it requires the minimum—a basket-covering (a kerchief, or a basket made of dense mesh).

Rabbi Michael Abraham also wrote this unclear sentence: “Is the Torah law due to modesty? Apparently yes. That is why the priest uncovers the hair of the woman who strayed.”

The priest’s purpose is to make the woman who strayed unattractive; see Sotah 8b: “She spread fine cloths over his head; therefore the priest removes the head-covering from her head and places it under his feet.” And on the next page: “She braided her hair for him; therefore the priest undoes her hair.” This has nothing to do with modesty, and of course has nothing to do with the reason for which the Torah (apparently) obligated women to cover their hair.

In my humble opinion, it seems that from the outset the Torah obligated hair covering for a hidden reason (this too was written in the book Meorei Or by a student of the Arukh LaNer), or that the women’s custom to cover the head was established in the Torah. Either way, after the custom spread, it became an element of modesty after the fact, because a woman who breaks the custom is considered immodest. Therefore one can see in the responsa of Terumat HaDeshen that uncovering the hair involves “male licentiousness.” But that does not mean this was the original reason.