How much needs to be covered with regard to head covering?

Regarding head covering, I also wanted to ask what the Rabbi’s opinion is.
After all, today there are all kinds of women’s organizations that say that head covering is a tool for oppressing women in Judaism.
I thought that maybe there is some justice to what they are saying. I’ll give an analogy to explain myself: suppose a Jew is walking down the street and passes by a food stand selling non-kosher food. The smell of the food is really good, and he can’t hold himself back and eats from the stand. Is the owner of the stand to blame for what happened to the Jew? Does the owner bear any part of the Jew’s transgression, and is his part so great that we would command him to shut down the stand (or cover his head) just so that others won’t stumble because of him?
This law sounds a bit strange to me, because it really forces the woman to do something (cover her head) just so that it won’t be “hard” for men.
And I’m not talking about anything extreme — I’m talking about covering hair, which today in most of the world women do not generally go around doing, and therefore perhaps head covering nowadays is no longer such a critical part of a woman’s modesty.

K,
There is no clear halakhic answer to that. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein claimed that one may reveal a handbreadth, but that is not really well founded. One should cover it so that there is a reasonable covering, and that’s it. Not everything in Jewish law is defined in centimeters.

Yinon,
You assume that the purpose of the covering is to avoid arousing desires in men. As far as I know, your assumption has no source. As for the purpose of modesty in general, I recommend Nadav Shenarav’s article:

Click to access 29.2.Snerb_.pdf

If it’s permitted to express an opinion: it seems to me that the law of “a man shall not wear” is not black and white. That is, it is not only a matter of what is permitted and what is forbidden, but also a matter of statement and belonging.
A person who goes without a kippah is clearly declaring that he belongs to the secular public, and at most he is religious in his heart.
A woman who publicly goes around in pants is clearly declaring that she belongs to a certain stream in Judaism or religion. And she will have to take the consequences into account, on the personal level and on the broader level.
And so too regarding head covering. A scarf, a hat, and a wig of whatever style — each carries a statement and a sense of belonging that must be taken into account.
And one should remember that the main thing is not what is on top of the head, but what is inside the head…

It’s possible that’s exactly what she wants — to distinguish herself from that stream… You don’t scare an Italian with a tray of pizza.

Regarding pants, why is the modesty argument questionable?
Regarding head covering: 1. What is called hair that extends outside her braid? I once read somewhere that only the hair on the head has to be covered, but it is permitted to leave a braid outside {I’ve also seen religious women walking around like that — sort of a large kippah on the head and a braid or ponytail outside}. Is there such a thing in Jewish law?

Because there is no lack of modesty in pants as such. As a sweeping argument, that is far more than questionable. It is unfounded.
For an overview of head covering, see here: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%99_%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9_%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D_(%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94)

The matter of a woman’s head covering is custom, apparently older than a man’s head covering.
There is not the slightest hint in the Torah of any prohibition.
“And he shall uncover the woman’s head” — clearly the meaning is that he shall loosen her hair, along the lines of “He shall not let the hair of his head grow wild, nor tear his garments.”

The big problem today is not what is forbidden to wear and what is permitted, but that everything is split, divided, and fragmented, and their religions are different. These people belittle those people, and those people do not marry these people. Even if there is no hatred on the emotional level, it exists on the practical level.

Thank you for the answer, but I still didn’t understand: there is no lack of modesty in pants as such? Even tight pants? I would really be happy for a somewhat more detailed explanation.
And regarding head covering, I looked a bit at what the Rabbi sent and at what you wrote for Rabbi Amos Barakha’s booklet, and I understood that you do not agree to permit going without head covering. 1. Did I understand correctly? 2. Is uncovered hair more of a problem than wearing pants?
Beyond that I would like to know:
1. If a woman does rely on a lone opinion and goes without a head covering, could she lose her ketubah rights, or does the religious court have no right to deprive her of that right, and she is not considered to be violating Jewish practice because she is relying on a halakhic decisor?
2. And a woman who wears pants — could she have a problem of that sort?
Thank you very much.
And beyond that, the Rabbi’s site is very interesting; yesterday I was exposed to it for the first time, and I still have a great deal to read and learn (and I also saw that the Rabbi has books). So if by chance there are other articles on the site about the Rabbi’s view of modesty and so on, I would be happy for a reference (or if there is something, then in which book), so that I can learn.
Thank you.

I’ll say it again. The sweeping statement that every pair of pants involves a problem is incorrect. There may be pants that are problematic. As a rule, with ordinary pants I do not see a problem; that is the way women dress today, including modest women. The concerns about tight pants always seemed hysterical to me. For some reason I have not heard people prohibit a tight shirt, and in my opinion that is far more likely to provoke improper thoughts. In my opinion this started because pants were men’s attire, and then, in order not to depart from the custom of our forefathers, they began inventing after-the-fact explanations for why pants are forbidden. In my opinion this has no basis whatsoever.
Uncovered hair is an intrinsic prohibition and does not depend on the circumstances (contrary to what Rabbi Messas wrote), and therefore in my opinion it should not be permitted even today. Note well: this is not because hair causes more improper thoughts, but because one cannot permit an intrinsic Torah-level prohibition.
1. If there is such a lone opinion, then in my opinion she deserves her ketubah. I think that nowadays even without a lone opinion nobody would deprive her of her ketubah. Quite a few women are not careful about this even though they have nothing to rely on. I have never heard of anyone canceling ketubah obligations because of lack of head covering.
2. Regarding pants, my view was stated above. But that is my opinion. I cannot guarantee what every religious court would do about it. Though what I said in the previous point about what is commonly practiced should apply here too.
Good luck.
I have not written about modesty (because I do not have much to write about it). Maybe it would be worthwhile for you to read what my friend Nadav Shenarav wrote about modesty, which I linked above.

Honorable Rabbi, thank you for the explained and detailed response.
I will think about what you said. I also read what your distinguished friend Nadav wrote; it’s interesting, it puts the whole issue of modesty into a different perspective {I’m not sure I understood — that it’s not a prohibition but perhaps still something unbecoming?}
In any case, regarding what you said about not hearing of a tight shirt — from what I was taught and from looking into several books of modesty laws, I saw that it is clearly forbidden as well: a tight shirt, a tight skirt, anything tight.
So are you basically saying that this is not such a prohibition / accepted custom?
2. And also regarding head covering, if you have expanded material to read, I’d be happy to see it.
Thank you.

One can see these as prohibitions, but their parameters are flexible and circumstance-dependent. The fact is that with a tight shirt they may say perhaps that it is forbidden, but they do not look at it the way they look at pants, which are perceived as an objective prohibition.
As stated, I have not written about these matters. I did write about head covering, against Rabbi Messas’s lenient ruling. It is here on the site.

Rabbi, so as not to get confused about the parameters of how tight pants are against the flesh, can it be permitted for women to go only with men’s cuts, or would that already be men’s attire? 🙂
Although even in those I have at times come across fairly tight pants, but that is not common in our neck of the woods in my humble opinion, and often it would even provoke laughter.
Or do women need really harem-style pants? After all, as I recall, people tend to say that the prohibition applies if one can see the outline of the calf.

When I sit on the Sanhedrin, I will consider your suggestions. At the moment, neither I nor anyone else has the authority to set parameters for the prohibition. We can only interpret what the Torah forbids. Therefore even if there is logic to prohibiting it, we do not have the ability to establish such a prohibition.

Thank you very much for the response.