15

Why do people say that the hair of a married woman is considered as nakedness, but not the hair of a single woman? Isn't hair just hair? What if a man grew his hair long - would it also be considered erva?

Adam Mosheh
  • 6,025
  • 1
  • 34
  • 59

2 Answers2

8

To add to Fred's answer: in Sifra (to Num. 5:18, the same verse that the Gemara cites) R. Yishmael finds support for the idea that unmarried virgins don't need to cover their hair in II Sam. 13:19, ותקח תמר אפר על ראשה, by explaining אפר as "a scarf" - i.e., we see that Tamar began covering her head with one only after she was violated. (As the commentary Meir Ayin there notes, R. Yishmael may have arrived at this understanding - instead of the standard translation of אפר as "ashes" - because the usual verb that would go with that is ותעל, "she cast up," or ותזרק, "she threw.")

The Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l points out (Igros Kodesh, vol. 11, letter 3592) that since the verse in the Torah is talking about a married woman, there's nothing to tell us that it should be extended to an unmarried one. As for a deeper reason behind the distinction, he suggests that since the requirement that women cover their hair is a consequence of Chavah's having misled her husband Adam into sinning (Eruvin 100b), then it need not apply to a girl who has never had a husband.

Alex
  • 90,513
  • 2
  • 162
  • 379
  • 1
    The verse in the Torah is also only talking about a women who is doubtfully unfatithful. Maybe only she is required to cover her hair. – Double AA May 15 '12 at 03:56
  • 1
    @DoubleAA: then what would be the point of uncovering it during the ordeal - putting her again on the same level as any other married woman? – Alex May 15 '12 at 03:58
  • 1
    @DoubleAA - Since the Torah only states that the sotah had her hair covering removed (not put on) as part of the process, presumably she wore a hair covering before she became a sotah. – Fred May 15 '12 at 05:22
  • @Fred , Alex: Good points. Let's try the other way: the verse in the Torah is also only talking about a women who is a gedolah. Maybe only she is required to cover her hair. – Double AA May 15 '12 at 05:27
  • 1
    @DoubleAA - It's an exegetical principle to assume that only the smallest reasonable group is included. Sotahs had to be married, so all married women must have covered their hair. We can make no inference beyond that. – Fred May 15 '12 at 05:40
  • "reasonable" is not very precise... – Double AA Jun 19 '14 at 06:14
  • Why are we assuming that we must dress as they happened to, anyway? – Double AA Jun 19 '14 at 07:01
  • @DoubleAA You're right; "reasonable" is not very precise. Perhaps that's the reason that some opinions do seem to hold, as you suggested, that "the verse in the Torah is also only talking about a women who is a gedolah... she is required to cover her hair." – Fred Jun 19 '14 at 17:22
  • @Fred Very interesting! (I'm not going to say "likely", but interesting all the same.) – Double AA Jun 24 '14 at 05:40
  • Let's try one more: the verse in the Torah is only talking about a women in the Mikdash. Perhaps covering is only required by married adult women in holy places? (This actually isn't all that unreasonable.) – Double AA Jun 24 '14 at 05:41
  • @DoubleAA Interesting. A couple of thoughts: 1. If that were the case, I would expect that the sotah would instead leave her covering off when coming to the Mikdash, rather than putting it on just to take it off. – Fred Jun 25 '14 at 00:47
  • @DoubleAA 2. Are you suggesting that this requirement to cover hair in the Mikdash would be due to מורא מקדש? Let's even assume that this applies to the משכן to the same degree as to the Beis HaMikdash (e.g. the opinion of the Minchas Chinuch). See Rambam (Hil. Bi'as HaMikdash 1:17) that uncovering one's hair only violates מורא מקדש if it is in an unkempt or sloppy manner. One would not expect a מורא מקדש-based difference between men and women in this regard if it was okay for women to expose their hair elsewhere. – Fred Jun 25 '14 at 00:48
  • @Fred Not that it would be Mora Mikdash itself, which applies equally to both genders, but that it would be in the same spirit. If we have to pick "the smallest reasonable group" this might be it. – Double AA Jun 25 '14 at 02:16
  • @Fred Consider the Gemara here http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/80727/759 which assumes a Sotah takes place in Reshut HaYachid (the Safek Tumah kind, that is). Would it not be quite reasonable that the law of ופרע which is Middah Keneged Middah would also apply in exactly the complementary domain (ie. Reshut HaRabbam, the Safek Tumah kind)? Then we'd have a model for defining how public a place needs to be to require covering since we have precedent for private/public by Sotah laws. – Double AA Mar 08 '17 at 04:52
  • @DoubleAA That does seem reasonable. I wonder if anyone suggests this explicitly. This doesn't preclude an extrinsic 'erva status from potentially applying even in a private domain, of course (Yad Efrayim OC 75:2 "כיון שדרכן לכסותן בשוק שוב אף בחצר מיקרי ערוה לענין קריאת שמע"). – Fred Jan 22 '20 at 00:38
7

A requirement for a married woman to cover her hair, whether d'oraysa or d'rabbanan, is suggested by the fact that the kohein would uncover a sotah's hair (Kesuvos 72a). Hair is additionally considered an ervah when it is customarily kept covered. Since married women must cover their hair, the sight of this normally covered area is an ervah. For single women who do not and need not otherwise cover their hair, it is not (Bach, Even HaEzer 21:2).

Fred
  • 16,984
  • 1
  • 45
  • 85
  • 1
    I don't see how this answers why married is different than single – yydl May 15 '12 at 02:05
  • @yydl - The idea is that the fact that a married woman's hair is generally covered (and is supposed to be covered) changes the way people look at it. This makes it an ervah. This explains why common disregard for the obligation to cover hair is a basis for kulos with regards to kriyas shema. – Fred May 15 '12 at 02:12
  • 1
    Okay. But then why do married women need to cover their hair (and not single girls)? – yydl May 15 '12 at 02:20
  • @yydl Firstly, it may simply be a standalone d'oraysa (according to some Rishonim). According to those who say it is an asmachta (like the Terumas HaDeshen's understanding of the Rambam), R' Daniel Shiloh suggested the following reason: "The hair covering is meant to remind Jewish women to act always in accordance with the guidelines laid down for them. By our sages' understanding, any woman already experienced in male-female relationships requires this reminder, hence the obligation falls upon every non-virgin." – Fred May 15 '12 at 02:31
  • 2
    I'm getting dizzy from this circular logic. "Married women must cover their hair. Therefore, since they must cover their hair it is 'Ervah. Therefore, since it is 'Ervah, they must cover their hair." – Seth J Jun 06 '12 at 14:45
  • 1
    @SethJ - Your last sentence ("Therefore, since it is 'Ervah, they must cover their hair") is not part of the reasoning. They have to cover their hair regardless of erva. Erva is not the basis for the requirement. However, the fact that it became erva compounds the importance of hair covering and has halachic implications for men. – Fred Jun 07 '12 at 23:56
  • So your answer is "(Women must cover their hair based on the Gemara.) Since hair is normally covered, it becomes 'Ervah." Is that right? That's a bit better than what I thought you were saying. It's still missing the part explaining why covering it makes it 'Ervah. One might think the opposite - it's covered because it's 'Ervah (leading us to the original question - why is it 'Ervah?). – Seth J Jun 08 '12 at 00:08
  • @SethJ - Correct, that's what I mean. Although some areas of the body have an intrinsic erva status, any areas that are normally covered achieve at least an extrinsic erva status because people consequently think about those areas differently. – Fred Jun 08 '12 at 18:56
  • 1
    You can source your second sentence to Brachot 24a. – Double AA Jun 19 '14 at 05:25