Minhag for married women to cover their hair in bed

Question

I know(1) there is a practice in Chabad for married women to wear a tichel in bed (i.e., with their husbands). I would not be surprised if this is the same in other Chasidic groups, if not in other ultra-Orthodox groups as well.

My understanding is that one reason for this is the mystical idea that married women's hair attracts kelipos, or forces of impurity. (There may also be some influence from the story about Kimchit that "the rafters of her roof had never seen the plaits of her hair" [Talmud, Yoma 47a].)

My questions are:

1) How widespread is this practice? Is it universal in Chabad? Do groups other than Chabad in fact observe it?

2) What is the reason for it understood to be? (i.e., are there other reasons besides the mystical explanation?)

3) How strict is this considered? Is it known among these groups as halacha per se, or minhag, or chumra?

4) Bonus if anyone knows whether people in these groups actually follow this rule.

(I'll up-vote any answer that addresses one or more of these.)

Related: Married woman covering hair

Woman's hair covering in the home or in private

(1) From Chabad shiurim and personal conversations with Chabadniks.

If you learn the sugya,there is no issur especially in onesome bedroom rather it's a chumrah,and it was even a chumra in gemarahs time they way the describe the minhag of kimchis — sam, Aug 02 '15 at 16:25
@DaniSpringer "I'll up-vote any answer that addresses one or more of these"...Go for it! — SAH, Dec 03 '15 at 22:35
@alldani What in particular about that do you see as being relevant? — mevaqesh, Dec 20 '16 at 05:58
@alldani Seems like a valid point: the question should have been narrower, or broken into multiple relevant question. | That is much more specific and useful than Read the websites [sic] policy — mevaqesh, Dec 20 '16 at 18:29
The rafters of my house don't see my wife's hair either. Because they are covered with drywall... — Isaac Kotlicky, Dec 22 '16 at 13:42
@SAH I haven't looked deeply into this question, but will mention two observations. In the story of Kimchit found in Yoma 47a, Rashi explains, based on Talmud Yerushalmi, that this idea that the rafters of her house never saw the "slings of her hair" is referring to 'woven gold'. But that has an implication. It appears to be referring to the modesty exhibited by an unmarried woman who has never been with a man. She braids her hair. The Mishnah Berurah 75:2:12 also mentions this practice. An unmarried woman who has been with a man is supposed to cover her hair, like a married woman. — Yaacov Deane, Dec 23 '16 at 17:04
So the story of Kimchit seems to be talking about the merit of her modesty from before she was married, not after. Even though it could be assumed that she would continue to be a modest woman after marriage, her particular merit seems to be related to what she did when she was single. — Yaacov Deane, Dec 23 '16 at 17:04

SAH · Answer 1 · 2016-12-22T05:51:51.193

The rebbetzin in my (Chabad) seminary said that people who are makpid on kabbalistic matters do this; others do not. One follows one's kallah teacher's instructions or else the husband's family's minhag. She did not make it sound at all like a necessary part of minhag Chabad. I don't know about the minhag by other chareidim.

She was somewhat more clear that [she thinks] it is required during niddah, at least for Chabad.

score 1 · Answer 2 · edited Dec 20 '16 at 03:59

1

A "chabad" rabbi seems to disagree with the custom stated above (maybe you are dealing with a small group of extremist not basing there behavior on books, or customs)
you are probably right about "(There may also be some influence from the story about Kimchit that "the rafters of her roof had never seen the plaits of her hair" [Talmud, Yoma 47a].)"

see this video
He also brings the Rebbe's letter in igros kodesh 15 page 415 where the rebbe brings a source nozir 28 A that a husband can demand his wife not to shave her hair for translation see end of this misha in perek 4 mishna 5
In the video he also says a statement that "in bed (i.e., with their husbands)" there should not be clothes (הוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה) (maybe the source of this is from this siman that i heard is learnt by Chabad regarding "in bed (i.e., with their husbands)" טהרת ישראל siman 240 sif 66

In my understanding of the sources
if they want to be strict (the rafters of her roof had never seen the plaits of her hair),
they should cover themselfs with a sheet (including the heads), unless the husband is ok with her covering hear head

edited Dec 20 '16 at 03:59

kouty

22,732
3
29
58

answered Dec 21 '15 at 01:08

hazoriz

7,506
2
21
53

A "chabad" rabbi seems to disagree with the custom stated above Do you mean he disagrees with the claim that there is such a practice, or disagrees with the legitimacy of the practice? – mevaqesh Dec 20 '16 at 05:43
@mevaqesh I guess both – hazoriz Dec 20 '16 at 05:45
So just to clarify exactly what it is that you are saying, he says that there is no such practice, but that were there to be such a practice it would be wrong. – mevaqesh Dec 20 '16 at 05:46
The video you link to by Rabbi Jacobson isn't disagreeing with this practice. He specifically states the halachic requirement to be naked when you are having relations. The OP's question is about the rest of the time. The Rebbe's letter is more involved but seems to be addressing the specific idea of when a woman's uncovered hair provides sustenance to the external forces. It isn't making a general statement. – Yaacov Deane Dec 25 '16 at 21:54
3

@YaacovDeane The OP's question is about the rest of the time I have no idea why you think that this was the intent of the OP, when she seemed to be attempting to specifically avoid that misunderstanding. in bed (i.e., with their husbands). – mevaqesh Dec 26 '16 at 02:02
@mevaqesh You don't know the practice she is asking about. That's why your comment is incorrect. – Yaacov Deane Dec 26 '16 at 02:06
@YaacovDeane We all know equally well what is asked about, as it's in the post (by definition). – Double AA Dec 26 '16 at 04:22

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Jul 24 '22 at 04:13

Question 1 you asked if this custom is "Widespread" outside chabad. I see many are quoting the gemara of Kimchis to defend the position that a woman must cover her hair even when she is alone at home. See Igros Moshe Even HoEzer 1:58 that proves from Kimchis that a woman need NOT cover her hair in her own home. If everyone behaved as Kimchis did, why was she so heavily rewarded? Rav Moshe answers because no one covered their hair in their own home, only Kimchis did that. Because she was an extraordinary tzadeikes. I would contend that if Rav Moshe wrote a woman need not cover her hair at home, it is not likely that most typical non chassidic women do.

score 0 · Answer 4 · answered Jul 24 '22 at 10:10

I was taught in my chattan class that this was the object of a dispute between the Steipler Rav and his teacher the Chazon Ish. Neither is in any way connected to the Chabad movement.

One one argued it was assur for a woman to cover her hair in this situation, the other argued it was assur for a woman not to cover her hair in this situation. I am ashamed to say I do not remember which held which position.

This is reconciled by explaining that in one case the husband wants her to cover her hair in such situations, and in the other case the husband does not want her to cover her hair in such situations.

Yaacov Deane · Answer 5 · 2016-12-29T20:41:46.210

-2

This is a excellent question and is addressed in many easily accessible books in English. A few worth looking at are, Modesty: An Adornment for Life by Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Falk, in particular pp.228-235, Gefen Poriah: The Laws of Niddah by Rabbi Avraham Blumenkrantz, Chapter 2, pg 20, item 21 and footnote 68 and Family Purity: A Guide to Marital Fulfillment by Rabbi Fisher Jacobs, pp. 34-35 and 49-50. Rabbi Jacobs is a Lubavitcher Posek in Israel whose area of expertise is this subject. Another good source to look at is this link to the internet magazine, Halachically Speaking on the Shema Yisroel network. It is sponsored by the Kaf-K.

In answer to your first question, the practice is halacha, not minhag. It relates to two different areas. The first is a woman's obligations in regard to modesty. That applies whether she is a niddah or not. Some Poskim hold that women are obligated to cover their hair even in the total privacy of her home unless she has a specific need, like to shower. This is the preferred behavior according to Mishnah Berurah, Biur Halacha 75:2.

The story from Yoma 47a about Kimchit is in this context. That the rewards for modesty are great, both in Heaven and on earth.

The second consideration relates to Ervah, nakedness. A married woman's hair, when uncovered, is considered nakedness Mi'd'Rabannan. That also applies to her boys over the age of Bar Mitzvah and to her husband and the prohibition of making blessings or saying any kind of holy words, I.e. Kriat Shema, zemirot, saying a D'var Torah, etc.

These things apply to all Jews, not just Lubavitchers.

The second part of your question sounds like it is asking the deeper idea behind these laws. That is addressed in Sefer Ma'avar Yabok, Siftei Tzedek, chapter 15 which quotes the Zohar, parshat Naso at the beginning of pg 125b. These laws parallel a wife's monogamy and devotion to her husband with her monogamy and devotion to HaShem. It relates the covering of her hair to the concepts of not serving other gods and not following after the practices of the nations.

As to your third question about how strict this is, it states in Ma'avar Yabok that a woman not being meticulous in this area causes poverty to her husband and death for her children and that this is the decided law (דין). Poverty and death can mean many different things. They don't have to be literal. But none of them are pleasant. That sounds like pretty strict concepts.

Your comment about a woman's hair attracting kelippot is more relevant to a single woman, in particular a woman who is no longer married. That is a much more involved discussion, but should be understandable if one considers the differences between a woman who has never been married to one who is a widow or divorcee.

Your fourth question is more difficult to answer. In this day, the failure of someone to practice something is usually the result of a lack of knowledge, not because of rejection of the Torah. And that also applies whether a person is a Lubavitcher or from any other stream of practice and tradition.

edited Dec 29 '16 at 20:41

answered Dec 25 '16 at 20:56

Yaacov Deane

14,809
22
64

2

A married woman's hair, when uncovered, is considered nakedness Mi'd'Rabannan. source? | That also applies to her boys over the age of Bar Mitzvah and to her husband Source? | and the prohibition of making blessings or saying any kind of holy words, I.e. Kriat Shema, zemirot, saying a D'var Torah, etc. Are you unaware of the Arukh Hashulhan, or deliberately concealing his opinion from the readers? In answer to your first question, the practice is halacha, not minhag Unless you provide some definition for these terms, it is a largely meaningless statement. – mevaqesh Dec 25 '16 at 21:30
Suggest that you try reading Rabbi Falk and Rabbi Blumenkratz's books cited. They are heavily footnoted for all these details. – Yaacov Deane Dec 25 '16 at 21:33
2

it says that a woman not being meticulous in this area causes poverty to her husband and death for her children. Do you mean in the general area of modesty, or about covering hair in bed. Consider clarifying. | Your comment about a woman's hair attracting kelippot is more relevant to a single woman, in particular a woman who is no longer married. Source? – mevaqesh Dec 25 '16 at 21:33
1

I suggest you read the FAQ's of the site, or the beginners' guide on meta. You don't seem to understand the idea of providing sources for particular claims, rather than providing long rambling discourses liberally scattered with references, with no clarification of which sources, if any, actually support your particular claims. – mevaqesh Dec 25 '16 at 21:35
4

@Yaacov R Falk uses heavy footnoting to conceal the weak footing his positions often have, as well as to hide the opinions he'd prefer not exist or at least not be known. I suggest you don't try reading his work. – Double AA Dec 26 '16 at 01:08
@mevaqesh I've looked over Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 73-75 and see nothing that is at odds with what is presented in the answer. Although he occasionally mentions a single or minority opinion that may be lenient, his view is like is written here. In particular, in siman 75 which deals with a woman covering their hair both in public and in private and with her husband he describes the failure of many married women to observe this Mitzvah as a consequence of the sins of the generation. – Yaacov Deane Dec 26 '16 at 15:04
3

@YaacovDeane I think that one who is presenting such a strong and ostensibly marginal position has a chiyuv to list his sources rigorously, especially--especially, especially--when his claims are accompanied by a literal or non-literal mention of (ch"v) "death of children" – SAH Dec 26 '16 at 22:45
@SAH I can't agree with you more. That is why I cited Sefer Ma'avar Yabok by Rabbi Aharon Berachiah of Modena who states this in the name of the Zohar. I also gave the exact citation he quotes from there. Rabbi Aharon is a recognized authority and one of the giants of the early Acharonim of Italy. Most people today don't even know of this source but the previous generation relied on it heavily both among Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mekuballim. I took your question very seriously and suggested the English sources thinking you really want to understand this subject. – Yaacov Deane Dec 26 '16 at 22:54
2

Yaacov, passing references to entire generally-unknown-books by generally-unknown-rabbis about specific claims isn't rigorous sourcing, as @SAH wanted. It's handwaving. Give a page number and clarify the exact claim. For instance, you don't clarify if the source claimed that not covering hair in bed causes your kids to die, or just that not covering your hair outside does? Your entire paragraph about Ervah and Brakhot is totally unsourced, and can easily be shown to be disputed. Even your initial claim "the practice...not minhag" is unsourced and is pretty clearly wrong if not ambiguous. – Double AA Dec 27 '16 at 00:30
2

@YaacovDeane The Arukh haShulchan holds that nowadays men can say blessings in front of women's hair. This is also R Moshe Feinstein's position, and is the apparent position of most if not all Rishonim. Pretending it doesn't exist is not only silly but probably Asur (Ziyuf haTorah? Sheker?). (Moreover the claim that family members need to be worried about this at all is also quite a Chiddush and is a Chumra never mentioned in Rishonim.) – Double AA Dec 27 '16 at 00:32
@DoubleAA The Aruch HaShulchan says that b'diyeved, a husband wouldn't have to go back and repeat. He would be considered to have fulfilled his obligation. That doesn't mean it is what a husband should do to begin with. And the Aruch HaShulchan is saying that in regard to his place and time and emphasizes that it is because his generation has fallen. He clearly laments the failure to follow the Halacha properly. And my guess, without actually reading Rabbi Feinstein's response, is that he probably says something similar. What you are saying is the correct behavior is simply wrong. – Yaacov Deane Dec 27 '16 at 00:39
2

"לדינא נראה שמותר לנו להתפלל ולברך נגד ראשיהן המגולות It seems the law is that it is permitted for us to pray and bless in front of uncovered heads" You are a fool if you think you'll get away with lying about what he wrote to me. – Double AA Dec 27 '16 at 00:41
You are ignoring the rest of the sief and what is expressed in the whole siman. If you're going to quote it, at least do it correctly. – Yaacov Deane Dec 27 '16 at 00:43
2

@SAH This poster just lied about a publicly available text. You should double check anything and everything he claims. I'm not planning on continuing discussing this with him. It's not interesting if I don't have an honest counterpart. – Double AA Dec 27 '16 at 01:26
1

You've cited the article by Halachically Speaking which claims "In the days of the Aruch Ha’shulchan the government said married women may not cover their hair. Therefore he held that during that time hair was not considered to be an ervah since people became accustomed to seeing women with their hair uncovered." which is a complete lie. The AhS was not responding to fictional government mandates. No one should trust anything in that article since it clearly is not interested in telling the truth, and you'd be best served by indicating as much in your post (to avoid Lifnei Iver). – Double AA Dec 27 '16 at 19:15
Discussion about the propriety of the claims and the sources in this answer has been continued in chat. – Double AA Dec 27 '16 at 20:35

Minhag for married women to cover their hair in bed

5 Answers5

Linked