Volume 54 Number 81
Produced: Thu May 31 5:15:42 EDT 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Ben Ish Chai on Hair Covering
[Ken Bloom]
Married Women and Hair Covering (3)
[Abbi Adest, Ilan Fuchs, Orrin Tilevitz]
Married Women and their Hair
[Michael Broyde]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ken Bloom <kbloom@...>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:53:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Ben Ish Chai on Hair Covering
Michael Broyde <mbroyde@...> wrote:
> Rabbi Wise writes about the Ben Ish Chai's view of hair covering:
> > In the married women's hair covering debate surely the Ben Ish Hai
> > was talking about Bagdad - not Lithuania! I have yet to see a
> > recognised posek who allows married women to leave their hair
> > uncovered ab initio.
>
> This stands in contrast to
> the words of the Ben Ish Cha in his sefer
> Chukai Hanashim on page 55:
>
> Our women looked at the women of Europe, whose custom is not to
> reveal themselves to strangers and their clothes are proper and
> they do not reveal their body, but only their face, neck, hands and
> head. Yes it is true that they reveal their hair, which according to
> our halacha (din shelanu) is a prohibited act, but they have a
> justification because they say this practice [to cover hair] was
> never accepted by all their wives, and both Jewish and gentile women
> have made hair revealing like revealing of face and hands, and causes
> not sexual thoughts in men.
>
> It does not sound like he is speaking about the practice of the women
> of Bagdad at all, and I would encourage Rabbi Wise to actually look
> at the sources to see if he is correct in his understanding of the
> context of Ben Ish Chai's remarks. I think he is trying to explain
> to his community in Bagdad why this conduct might be mutar in Lita
> and yet still assur in Bagdad.
The Ben Ish Chai (Parshat Bo, section 12) discusses what constitutes
erva, whether one may say sh'ma in front of a woman with her hair
uncovered in places where most women do so. He makes no explicit mention
of what sepharadi women are permitted to do min hadin, so unless there's
some other Ben Ish Chai that contradicts Chukat Hanashim, I'd assume
that he's telling only that you may read sh'ma in a place where many
people don't follow a halacha requiring married women to cover their
hair.
BTW, the Ben Ish Chai is from Bagdad, a place where we all know well
that even the goyish (muslim) women are very careful about hair
covering, and proper dress. I find it unlikely that a lenient ruling
(letting acceptable hair covering be determined by minhag hamakom) would
have much practical leniency in Bagdad.
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abbi Adest <abbi.adest@...>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:23:11 +0300
Subject: Re: Married Women and Hair Covering
> A claim not based on any survey but on the fact that both the Arukh
> Hashulchan and Mishneh Berurah both bitterly decrie a laxness in this
> area and discuss whether or not men are allowed to pray or bentch in
> the presence of such women. This is hardly a heter." (my emphasis)
Rabbi Wise, the last five words of your response underlines the cross
purposes of this discussion. Not one of the responses to this debate
has claimed that the Lithuanian women had a heter to uncover their
hair. They merely brought proofs that this practice simply existed, with
or without a heter. I'm sure the Aruch Hashulchan did decry this
practice, in light of this fact.
However, the fact that pious women did uncover their hair, and they were
still considered pious and not Reformed Jews, simply underlines the fact
that this halacha is a lot more fluid than most people consider it
today. The laws of tzniut and ervah were not handed down on Sinai but
are very much influenced by attitudes towards modesty in the general
society.
What many frum Jews of today find unbelievable is the fact that much of
halacha was/ is not determined by poskim but by human practice (a la Rav
Haym Soloveitchik's "Rupture and Reconstruction").
This is a fact of halacha because it is a fact of life. Very pious
people will consult rabbonim for every move they make in their lives,
but the majority of Jews will make halachic decisions on their own
without consulting a rav. And so halacha and Jewish life develop.
Abbi Adest
Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ilan Fuchs <ilan_25@...>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 19:35:30 +0000
Subject: RE: Married Women and Hair Covering
The sefer were Rav Yosef Mesas wrote his original opinion on hair
covering for women is Otzar Hmichtavim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Married Women and Hair Covering
>From Rabbi Wise:
> This correspondence commenced with an innocent question about women
> covering their hair to bless the candles.
As I pointed out explicitly and others pointed out implicitly, the
practice of covering hair to light candles has nothing to do with a
general requirement for married women to cover hair. One point not made
before: candles are lit at home, normally in the presence of family
only, and at least some if not most authorities who require married
women to cover hair impose this requirement only in public, or at most
where there are strangers present.
> I replied amongst other things that hopefully they will get to a level
> when they will cover their [hair] always. I did not . . . criticise
> anyone's level of observance . . .
These two sentences are contradictory.
> . . .[C]orrespondents to this Digest. . . . claim that the majority of
> married women in Lithuania between the 1880s and 1914 did not cover
> their hair. A claim . . . based . . .on the fact that both the Arukh
> Hashulchan and Mishneh Berurah both bitterly decrie a laxness in this
> area . . . This is hardly a heter. . . . The majority of Jews today
> do not keep Shabbat. . . . .I have provided 5 rishonim and 5
> acharonim and 2 seforim which deal With this subject and have asked
> for a world recognised posek who allows ab initio a married woman not
> to cover her hair. . .
The point raised by Rabbi Wise's absolute, if irrelevant, original post
and my response of "nicht azoi poshut" was not whether "the halacha" is
that married women must cover their hair, at least most of it and at
least in public. I'd guess that most or all Orthodox rabbis, if asked
in a vacuum, would reply that they must do so. The point is that,
unlike in the matter of Shabbat observance, it is not simple to say that
a married woman who does not cover her hair is at a lower level of
observance. Even if it is not in accordance with "the halacha" as set
out by the majority - and, I'll assume for the sake of argument,
all--recognized authorities, uncovering one's hair may--may -
nonetheless be halachically acceptable behavior. That many kosher
Jewesses (sorry) have over the years done so is but one indication that
this could be true.
Another classic example of this apparent contradiction is the
requirement to sit in the sukkah, for all meals, on Shemini Atzeret
outside Israel. The conclusion in the gemarra is crystal clear and I
know of no posek who says that it is not required. Even the Aruch
Hashulchan, who rationalizes the contrary prevailing practice in Eastern
Europe, does not accept it. In my shul, the sukkah is closed on Shemini
Atzeret, except for kiddush in the morning. So one sukkot between
mincha and maariv, I spoke about the Mishna Berura, who of course says
that it's required. Someone tattled on me to our black-hatted and
black-coated LOR, who does not do so and who the following day delivered
a blistering sermon on why I had no basis to say it's required because a
midrash - don't ask me where - says that it's not. Of course he's
wrong, technically, but is he at a "lower level of observance"?
Halachic norms - and by that I mean conduct that is acceptable in an
observant Jew - sometimes depends on time and place, and are not always
dictated by what's in the books. This is true, incidentally, both
lekula (in leniencies) and lechumra (in stringencies).
> Halacha is not decided by taking a census of what Jews do. . .
That's generally true (although see the gemara's foccasional statement
"pok chazi mai ama debar" - go see what the people do), but here it
actually might be. It would be if (1) the requirement to cover hair is
based on "dat yehudit" and (2) "dat yehudit" depends on what the
majority of Jews (or, perhaps, religious Jews) do. I don't know that
either of these propositions is true - the cited discussion, I think,
raises them-- but they cannot be dismissed with simplistic absolute
statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Broyde <mbroyde@...>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Married Women and their Hair
Rabbi Wise places the halachic issue completely correctly when he notes:
> I have provided 5 rishonim and 5 acharonim and 2 seforim which deal
> with this subject and have asked for a world recognised posek who
> allows ab initio a married woman not to cover her hair.
This is, as he correctly notes, independent of historical data about
what was or what was not the practice of this or that community, whether
it is in reference to the Orthodox community or not.
I will try to outline my sense of this issue, but with a clear caveat.
The vast majority of contemporary poskim of the last century have spoken
with just about one voice on this topic and have insisted that married
women are obligated to cover their hair as a matter of halacha no matter
whether this is in fact a standard of modesty in the community that they
are part of. Anyone who actually conducts themselves in reliance on
something they read on the internet against the weight of contemporary
poskim gets what they deserve! Anything I write here should merely be
considered a lemud zechut, an explanation of what could be said to
justify a practice.
The basic issue with regard to hair covering is whether hair is a dat
yehudit (DY) or a dat moshe (DM). The assumption is that those matters
that are DY are subject to change based on the modest practice of
Orthodox Jewish women in general and DM is objective and immutable.
Rambam (Ishut 24:11-12) clearly classifies full uncovering of hair as a
DM and immutable. On the other hand, Tur EH 115 and Shulchan Aruch EH
115:1-4 both base themselves on the languegue of the Rambam, but do not
classify uncovered hair as a DM but as a DY (the Beis Shmuel 115:9
disagrees). Thus, once could make a clear claim that both the Tur and
the Shulchan Aruch classify the obligation of women to cover their hair
in a way that would allow one to claim that -- in a society where modest
women do not cover their hair, such is not obligated by halacha.
Why both the SA and Tur make that switch is, I think based on the view
of the Rosh (Tosphot harosh, gitten 90a) and other rishonai ashkenaz
such as the Ravya (Brachot 76) Rakanati (26) who seems to insist that as
a general matter the obligation to cover is dependent on the presence of
erotic thoughts by men or the notion that this conduct is, in fact,
immodest. This explains minhag ashkenaz with regard to why single women
do not cover their hair -- look closely at Rosh Brachot 3:37 and you can
see that a good claim could be made that 'darchan lechasot' is a crucial
issue. One could show quite few rishonim who seem to adopt such a view.
Semak 181 also classifies full uncovering as a DY and not a DM as does
the Ittur (ot Mem under mered) as do many others. This might have as
its most basic foundation the view of Ritva (Kiddushn 82a) which
permitts non-sexual touching when it is clearly not erotic. This basic
view in the rishonim posits that all is driven by whether the content is
sexual.
(Spelling out this logic is important. If a male doctor is permitted as
a matter of halacha to look at a woman's private parts in the course of
a medical exam because such conduct is not in context immodest, even if
a woman doctor is available, but just less convenient, one could well
claim that when it is not immodest, this line of thought would permitt
hair to be uncovered too.)
Other rishonim clearly head in this direction, although I am too time
pressed now to cite them.
In terms of achornim who deal with this issue in a way that indicates
that in a place where modest married women do not cover their hair,
halacha does not direct that Jewish women must also, I will merely cite
the list, and let others look them up.
1. Sefer Yehoshua (babad) 89
2. Rav Yitzchak Halevi (brother of the Taz) teshuva 9
3. Rav Moshe Ibn Chabiv EH 1
4. Shut Yashav Yosef (Tzurmani) YD 3
5. Sefer Chuka Hanashim Ben ish Chai page 55
6. Shut Etz Efraim OC page 12
7 Shut Mayim Chaim Masas 2:110
8. Shut Moshe Malka Vaheshiv Moshe 34 and 35
9. Yad Halevi on Rambam's sefer Hamitzvot aseh 175
There are yet others, too.
So, I have provided a clear reading of the Shulchan Aruch and Tur, as
well as a number of rishonim and 9 acharonim which deal with this
subject in a way that would indicate that they accept ab initio a
married woman not to cover her hair in a society where modest women do
not cover their hair.
As I stated above, the vast majority of contemporary poskim of the last
century have spoken with just about one voice on this topic and have
insisted that married women are obligated to cover their hair as a
matter of halacha no matter whether this is in fact a standard of
modesty in the community that they are part of. Anyone who actually
conducts themselves in reliance on something they read on the internet
against the weight of contemporary poskim gets what they deserve.
Anything I write here should merely be considered a lemud zechut, an
explanation of what could be said to justify a practice.
Michael Broyde
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 54 Issue 81
