Q&A: Head Covering for a Divorced Woman
Head Covering for a Divorced Woman
Question
Hello and blessings.
I was asked by a relative of mine—a young divorced woman with no children—about head covering.
She is not asking whether to cover her head. It is clear to her that she is obligated to cover it, and her surroundings also obligate her to do so.
What she mainly wants is to understand the reason, so that she can come to terms with this Jewish law, which is very, very difficult for her.
She cannot understand how she is different from other girls her age who are unmarried, why they are exempt from head covering while she is obligated. Why does the fact that she was once married obligate her to cover her head?
I would be glad if you could explain what to answer her, mainly on the level of ideas, and if possible, also from a halakhic perspective.
Answer
It is certainly possible to be lenient.
And Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wrote this as well (Even HaEzer, vol. 4, no. 32; at least when she thinks this will help her in finding a match). See, for example, here: http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/print_shiur.asp?id=1831
And for the reasoning behind the lenient ruling, see here: https://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91/%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%99-%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%94-26/
In my opinion, there is no reason to distinguish between an unmarried woman and a divorced woman, even though in fact there is a strange custom here that differentiates between them.
Discussion on Answer
* In the words of Igrot Moshe—it is “only” rabbinic
I did not understand the basis of your surprise. The Shulchan Arukh is not the source of any prohibition in the world. The source of a prohibition can only be either from the Torah or from an authoritative religious court (the Great Court or the Talmud). That is all. And I wrote that I do not see any basis for distinguishing between an unmarried woman and a divorced woman, and my words stand as they are. I know what the halakhic decisors wrote, but that is my opinion.
As for Igrot Moshe, you are basically just repeating what I wrote.
If you think there is a prohibition—then please explain the prohibition to her yourself. Do you expect me to explain your position or the position of the Shulchan Arukh?
How, in your opinion, does one explain the source of the Shulchan Arukh’s words, in the Jerusalem Talmud in Ketubot: “This means that a virgin who had been married does not go out with her head uncovered”?
I don’t know. Strictly speaking, it seems that even a virgin before marriage does not go out that way. Once they were lenient regarding a virgin, I wrote that I do not see any difference between her and a divorced woman.
I was surprised by the answer.
The source of the prohibition is in the Shulchan Arukh: “The daughters of Israel should not go with uncovered heads in the marketplace, whether an unmarried woman or a married woman” (Even HaEzer 21:2). And all the commentaries explain that this refers to a widow/divorcee (the Bach, Chelkat Mechokek, Beit Shmuel, Degul MeRevavah; though see there in Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of the Magen Avraham elsewhere). So the accepted practice is to prohibit it—so how did you write that “there is no reason to distinguish between an unmarried woman and a divorced woman”?
What is written in Igrot Moshe is beside the point. He agrees that uncovering the head is prohibited for a widow/divorcee, though he innovates that the prohibition is only rabbinic. His entire leniency is directed to a case where the covering causes major financial loss, and in a case of loss greater than one-fifth of one’s assets, a person is exempt from fulfilling a positive commandment (or that in a case of major loss the prohibition was never accepted in practice to begin with).
I return to the question:
This woman is not in doubt about the prohibition; it is clear to her that the matter is prohibited—not because of the above sources, but because of the message she receives from her Haredi surroundings.
What she wants is for the taste of the prohibition to be sweetened for her, so that the matter can sit well with her heart, and so that “the heart may follow the actions.”
She does not intend to uncover her head; she is asking to come to terms with it emotionally, and therefore she is asking for an explanation of the reason for the prohibition.
Can the Rabbi find a reason and explanation?