4

I know that Jewish women married to non-Jews do not need to go to mikvah (and indeed should not do so with a blessing). Is there any evidence suggesting that a woman married to a non-Jew does not have to cover her hair, or has a diminished requirement for it?

Motivation: I don't have a very good sense of this, but it would seem (maybe, possibly) that she is not forbidden to other Jewish men if married to a non-Jew...in fact, I'm not even sure to what extent she is considered "married" under Jewish law. Thus she might not need to take on the expanded tznius requirements of a married woman (if we are calling hair covering that). (...This is all just speculation. Feel free to correct.)

EDITED TO ADD:

I'm asking also partially in light of a story of a woman I knew. She was married to a non-Jew, but had begun to take an interest in Yiddishkeit because their 9-year-old son was an extremely serious Jew. Her rebbetzin had her start wearing a hat at a retreat we were at. I found it interesting. I also think we should keep such sensitive cases in mind when we post comments here.

Related: Tznius and B'not Noach

SAH
  • 19,756
  • 4
  • 56
  • 165
  • 2
    Her marriage isn't a marriage as far as Jews are concerned, and she is permitted to Jews. – mevaqesh Feb 17 '15 at 02:51
  • 1
    @SAH I don't think having this lady cover her hair has as much to do with real halacha as it does getting her into a Jewish mode of thought, get her to do tshuva, something like that. Chazzal have an expression about going to the mikva with a sheretz in one's hand. It doesn't work. Do you think this lady should be keeping taharas habayis and going to the mikva once a month? – user6591 Feb 17 '15 at 03:42
  • @user6591 I don't know. But I also know that such situations can be very complicated. Teshuvah may be involved, or she may (very likely) have married the man in a condition other than brazen sin on her own part. – SAH Feb 17 '15 at 03:54
  • @user6591 Anyway, as discussed below, the requirement to cover hair may be a question of virginity. – SAH Feb 17 '15 at 03:55
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/49279 and http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/34547 – Fred Feb 17 '15 at 04:27

1 Answers1

5

The Mishna Berura concludes that even an unmarried woman who has had relations needs to cover her hair, although we won't force her to do so (M.B. 75:11).

ובתולות ארוסות אסורות לילך בגילוי הראש וה"ה בתולות שנבעלו צריכין לכסות הראש ומ"מ אם זינתה ואינה רוצה לצאת בצעיף על ראשה כדרך הנשים אין יכולין לכופה

Y     e     z
  • 58,536
  • 3
  • 109
  • 249
  • see here where R. M. Feinstein holds (unlike the apparent opinion of the MB) that this isnt an absolute obligation. I believe this is also the opinion of R. Ovadiah Yosef. – mevaqesh Feb 17 '15 at 03:17
  • 1
    @mevaqesh That was regarding if you can be matir it for extenuating circumstances. And R' Ovadia argued with R' Moshe's hetter. Yabia Omer 4 E.H. 3 – Y     e     z Feb 17 '15 at 03:19
  • @mevaqesh and the MB is also pretty clear it isn't an "absolute obligation" like for a married woman - he says you don't force her. – Y     e     z Feb 17 '15 at 03:21
  • I didnt study it thoroughly but it appeared that their opinion was that it wasnt a formal prohibition but rather dependent on practice. בנידון דידן it would be difficult to forbid an intermarried Jewess from baring her head on account of traditional Jewish culture (you can disagree of course that two wrongs dont make a right.) – mevaqesh Feb 17 '15 at 03:23
  • @YeZ Interesting. Does anyone explicitly connect this to the case of a woman 'married' to a non-Jew? – SAH Feb 17 '15 at 03:23
  • 2
    @SAH I doubt it - as you suspected in your question, and was repeated in a comment there, her "marriage" has no halachic validity and therefore is probably not discussed in this context. And it probably hasn't come up very often, that an intermarried woman wanted to cover her hair. But I have been surprised before by what has been discussed. – Y     e     z Feb 17 '15 at 03:27
  • I just want to point out (although you are probably aware) that intermarriage is beside es for being completely prohibited, traditionally viewed as a particularly repellent sin (see e.g. Rambam Hil. Issurei Biah). Violators of this sin didnt generally inquire about halachic minutia generating rabbinic literature on the topic. This would even more likely be the case here where (I assume albeit without a solid source) that the obligation wouldnt be a rigid one, but rather a pendulous one probably more based on tradition than on strict halacha. Severe sinners generally dont seek chumros. – mevaqesh Feb 17 '15 at 03:28
  • 3
    @mevaqesh I'm asking partially in light of a story of a woman I knew. She was married to a non-Jew, but had begun to take an interest in Yiddishkeit because their 9-year-old son was an extremely serious Jew. Her rebbetzin had her start wearing a hat at a retreat we were at. I found it interesting. I also think we should keep such sensitive cases in mind when we post comments here. – SAH Feb 17 '15 at 03:33
  • 1
    @SAh I didnt mean to offend anyone. If you think I should delete the comments I will. I sincerely wish great success to your friend. Perhaps the recommended hair covering was meant to effect a social shift as part of the tshuva process rather than address a particular halachic need. – mevaqesh Feb 17 '15 at 03:56
  • @yEz I want to accept your answer, but I have a question--between "should" and "we don't force her to," what is the actual /halacha/? Sorry if it's clear from the Hebrew; I can't read it. Thanks! – SAH Mar 13 '15 at 04:25
  • 1
    @SAH the halacha, according to the Mishna Berura, is that she has an obligation to cover her hair. If she doesn't, it is not something that we would enforce (using whatever means would be available), but it is an obligation. – Y     e     z Mar 15 '15 at 01:36
  • Most assume this obligation is Derabanan. It would be interesting to find sources discussing the stronger claim of if marriage to a non-Jew can generate a biblical hair covering obligation. – Double AA Nov 29 '15 at 22:20