Does a widow have to cover her hair according to Halakha and Minhag? originally appeared on Shayla.
Contents
- Teshuva
- Texts Referenced
Tamuz 5580/July 2020
She'ela (Question)
Is a widow required to wear a head covering in shule and in general - according to halacha and minhag?
Teshuva (Answer) from Rabbanit Rachel Weinstein
The obligation of a woman to cover her hair appears in the Mishna in Ketubot 72a.
The Mishna lists the situations in which a woman יוצאת בלא כתובה, has lost the rights given to her in her Ketuba. One of the cases is a woman who goes out with her hair פרוע. Literally this means wild or uncovered. The Gemara goes on to discuss whether head covering is necessary Mideorita or Miderabanan, and other details regarding the extent and nature of the head covering and the spaces in which head covering is necessary - public places, private domain, and all that lies in between. Although the Gemara does not specify whether these laws are relevant to married women only or to all Jewish women the context is clearly one of marriage and the discussion is in the context of the rights of the Ketuba.
According to the Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 21:2 ) Jewish women should not be seen in public with their hair "Parua". The Shulchan Aruch here clearly specifies that he is referring to both married and unmarried women. This seems to contradict the Shulchan Aruch's own ruling in Hilchot Kriat Shema (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 75:2) where he clearly states that a man should not recite the Shema in the presence of a married woman whose hair is uncovered but he may recite the Kriat Shema in the presence of an unmarried woman whose hair is uncovered since unmarried women did not cover their hair in practice.
The commentaries reconcile this seeming contradiction by explaining that the Shulchan Aruch in Even Haezer, when stating that unmarried women must cover their hair, refers to women who have been married in the past (Beit Shmuel and Chelkat Mechokek on Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer ibid).This is based on the use of the word בתולות in the Hilchot Kriat Shema, which could be understood to mean unmarried but literally means virgins and therefore refers only to those who have never been married.
It seems that the obligation for married women to cover their hair is equivalent to the obligation of a divorcee or a widow.
Reb Moshe Feinstein was asked (Igrot Moshe Even Haezer 1:57) about a woman who was widowed and must work to feed her children. The woman is struggling to find a job because she covers her hair. In his teshuva Reb Moshe ultimately allows this woman to go to work with her hair uncovered. He explains that although a widow is obligated to cover her hair the obligation is of a lesser severity than that of a woman who is currently married. This is not to say of course that the obligation is not important, only that in extreme cases as the one Reb Moshe was discussing there is room for leniency. Although a widow or a divorcee is obligated to cover her hair, not doing so is not considered a transgression. Reb Moshe explains that this being the case there is room for discussion when there is a risk of הפסד מרובה, great financial loss.
There are also poskim who give divorced or widowed women a personal heter not to cover their hair if they are actively looking to remarry. Although these cases are not cases of financial loss, there is a lot at stake and the term הפסד מרובה seems to be applicable here too. As stated previously these heterim are given on a personal basis.
In short, although it seems that by the letter of the law widows and divorcees must cover their hair, cases differ from one another. If there are extenuating circumstances this would affect the discussion.
Regarding the question of covering hair in shul only, halakhically hair covering applies outside of shul and in thus the obligation of hair covering is not halakhically dependent on being in shul. However, covering one's head in shul, whether it be a man or a woman, is a sign of respect, an expression of recognizing shul as a holy place. It seems therefore that even if a woman does not cover her hair outside of shul, ideally she should cover her hair in shul. There are also opinions that a woman must cover her hair when she davens (based on Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 91:3 for further discussion of this topic: https://www.matan.org.il/en/qna/should-i-cover-my-hair-at-home-when-saying-a-bracha/).
I hope this answers your question, please feel free to pursue this question further if you feel the need to and of course to ask other questions in the future.
Kol tuv,
Rachel
Rabbanit Rachel Weinstein is a graduate of Hilkhata, Matan's Advanced Halakhic Institute and is a certified Meshivat Halakha. She studied in Migdal Oz, and Nishmat. Rachel teaches in her community and is a Yoetzet Halakha. She gives classes for women, teaches Kallot and runs the Matan Beit Shemesh Kallah teachers certification course. She lives in Tekoa and is the mother of 8 children.
Have a Halakhic question? https://bit.ly/ask-shayla
שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק א סימן נז
באיסור פריעת הראש לאלמנה במקום הפסד גדול.
נשאלתי בדבר אשה שנתאלמנה וצריכה לפרנס בניה ואינה מוצאה להשתכר למשרה שיהיה כדי לפרנס את בניה אלא באם לא תכסה את ראשה כשתהיה בהאפיס /במשרד/ לעבוד במשרתה אם רשאה. והשבתי שיש להתיר לה בצורך גדול כזה, דהא פשוט שאף להב"ש והדגמ"ר /אה"ע/ בסי' כ"א סק"ה שסברי מירושלמי שגם אלמנה אסורה ללכת פרועת ראש הוא רק מצד דת יהודית דמדאורייתא הא רק בא"א נאמר, ולכן כיון שיש לפרש דמאחר שלא נאמר בתורה בלשון איסור הוא רק חיוב עשה שתלך בכיסוי הראש. ומסתבר לע"ד שבזה פליגי ב' הלשונות ברש"י כתובות דף ע"ב בפירוש הילפותא דללישנא קמא שפי' דמדעבדינן לה הכי לנוולה מדה כנגד מדה כמו שעשתה להתנאות מכלל דאסור סובר שהוא איסור ועיין בריטב"א שכתב לפי' זה דרש"י מכלל דפריעת הראש פריצות הוא לאשה שלכן ודאי הוא איסור וללישנא בתרא שפי' מדכתיב ופרע מכלל דההיא שעתא לאו פרועה הוה ש"מ אין דרך בנות ישראל לצאת פרועות ראש משמע דהוא ענין מצוה עליה ללכת בכיסוי הראש ולא ענין איסור רק שממילא נעשה איסור דהא עוברת על העשה כשהולכת פרועת ראש ומסיק רש"י שכן עיקר. והחלוק לדינא הוא דאם הוא איסור יש לאסור אף בהפסד גדול שתפסיד כל ממונה אבל אם הוא רק חיוב עשה הוי גם אונס ממון דיותר מחומש אונס דבעשה חייב רק עד חומש. ולכן כל שהוא הפסד כחומש נכסיו ויותר כהא שאין משגת משרה להרויח לחיותה וחיות בניה הוא אונס שאינה מחוייבת ללישנא בתרא שהוא עיקר.
אך מ"מ בא"א שהוא דאורייתא יש לאסור מספק פי' לישנא קמא דרש"י שסובר שהוא איסור שלכן יש לאסור אף להפסד דכל ממונה אבל באלמנה שהוא רק דת יהודית יש להקל מספק דודאי לא חמיר מאיסור דרבנן שספק לקולא. ויש גם לומר שאולי דת יהודית הוא רק מדיני מנהג שאין לאסור באופן שלא מצינו שנהגו ובמקום הפסד הא לא מצינו שנהגו, משה פיינשטיין