Okay, here’s the basis for my confusion on why only married Jewish women cover their hair:
The texts of the Mishneh Torah and the Shulhhan Arukh state, “The daughters of Israel are not to go about in the shuq (market/public shopping place) with their heads uncovered, whether she is available or whether she is a married woman.”
Mishne Torah-Sefer Qedusha-Hilkhot Eesureh Bee’ah Chapter 20 halakha 17.
Here is a transliteration: “Lo yehl’khu bnot yeesra’el pru’eh’ee roh’sh b’shuq, ahhat pnu’ya v’ahhat eh’shet eesh.”
First the female Jewish commutnity is reffered to as “bnot yeesra’el,” the daughters/females of Israel.
“Eh’shet eesh” means “a woman of a man” meaning a married woman. “Pnu’yah” means “available female” – a female who is available for marriage.
I’m not a talmudic scholar, and don’t know much about talmudic logic, so what am I missing here?
If it is Law, it is Law, and “times changing” doesn’t apply because The Law is “permanent”, “forever”, and “eternal”. So, I figure, I must misunderstand what I’m reading.
What, then, is The Law governing hair/head covering for married women, and how is it specified in this Law that hair covering is ONLY for married women?
RABBI-
I will check out what you are saying, but at first glance it rases another question for me:
If “pnuya” is referring to divorced or widowed women, why is this same word used in many other places in the same book of halakha to refer to never married women (sometimes to the exlusion of divorced or widowed women)?
Also, if the lack of the word “betula” is to show that we are only talking about previously married women, why aren’t the words “Amana” (widowed woman) or “gerusha” (divorced woman) or “sh’lo betulah” (that is not a virgin) used?
Isn’t the presence of “pruya” against the previously stated “eeshet eesh” the clearest way with the least words to include ALL women?
Doesn’t Sefer Nashim-Hilkhot Yibum 3:3/4 use the same method to refer to ALL women? Or was this intended to exclude never married women as well?
