Q&A: What Is the Issue with Head Covering
What Is the Issue with Head Covering
Question
I assume this is not connected to modesty, because otherwise an unmarried woman would also have to cover her head. And if the point is that it serves as a symbol of a married woman, then why does it need to be full coverage, and not just a head covering like Silman’s?
Answer
A lot of assumptions. First, head covering is a Torah law learned from a verse, not a matter of modesty laws. Second, who says an unmarried woman does not need to? In the straightforward reading of the Talmud and according to some halakhic decisors, it applies to unmarried women as well. Third, who says full coverage is required? The halakhic decisors disagreed about this, and on the Torah level (dat Moshe), apparently it is not required. And fourth, even if we adopt the invented idea that this is a symbol of marriage, why not just hang a sign on the neck or put a tattoo on the forehead?
Discussion on Answer
Which halakhic decisors disagreed about whether full head covering is obligatory?
Is there an opinion that full coverage is not obligatory? I’d be happy to know who, or to get references.
Thanks
Anonymous, there’s no shortage of surveys online. Even on Wikipedia. See for example here: https://www.etzion.org.il/he/halakha/studies-halakha/women-and-mitzvot/head-covering-iv-how
Nahum, you too are referred to those sources.
I didn’t understand, Michi — do you hold that today (in our time and place) there is an obligation for women to cover their heads?
Yes
I didn’t understand: if it is learned from a verse, then it is not connected to modesty? Isn’t that the reason behind it? For example, would a transparent covering also count as a covering?