The Talmud says that a woman’s hair is erva (immodest – i don’t really know how to translate it.) It does not distinguish between a married and unmarried woman’s hair.
The Talmud also dicusses how married women wouldn’t walk outside their house without a basket covering their head, but not their hair.
All women used to cover their hair – Jewish and non-Jewish women.
As non-Jewish women stopped covering, so did many Jewish women.
It somehow ended up that a married woman’s hair is considered erva, and a single woman’s hair is not considered erva. Since part of the concept of erva is that any part of the body you don’t regularly expose is erva – this makes sense.
Also:
Some married Orthodox women don’t cover their hair. Some say that since non-married women’s hair isn’t considered erva anymore, no hair is considered ervah anymore.
Some married women also cover their head but not their hair. They claim the same thing – hair just isn’t erva anymore. But they cover their head based on the second Gemara I mentioned – a married woman has to cover her head.
There are other variation – but I hope I answered the question.
Addition:
Some halachic authorities permit women to keep their hair uncovered in their own home, even when men are there.
Women may cover their hair in any way they wish to – it need not be a wig. I believe that Rav Ovadia Yosef does not permit women to wear wigs, which is why many sefardi women do not wear wigs.
More:
The Law is The Law, but there’s also a halachic system at play here. Different communities follow different customs, there may be different interpretations, and the way a law is applied may change throughout time. For example – we know that Michal, King Saul’s daughter, wore tefillin and the sages did not protest. Rashi’s daughters wore teffilin. But that (women wearing tefillin)is strongly discouraged now, though it is not forbidden.
I think that this topic, like many other topics in Jewish Law, might be better understood when studied in class or with a chevruta, guided by a rabbi or teacher. I could get out my old notes and go through this, but the Jewish tradition is really something that should be passed down from teacher to student. May you merit to study and teach, to keep and do and fulfill all the words of Torah with love.
I am not exactly sure what you are asking? Are you asking “”Why is it that in spite of the statement, only Married women cover their hair when it says that all women should?”"
Or are you asking simply, “”Why do only married women cover their hair?”
If the former, I think you have to look at the changing times. For this reason, i think Ella has it right.
For the latter, the issue is that the view of Hair has changed, and as such, so has the impetus to cover it. By keeping uncovered the hair of an unmarried women, it shows, in the synagogue, who is available for a match. The same thing happens for men. One assumes a male has on the tallit katan, under the clothes. But only married men wear the tallit gadol over the clothes, showing by default, who is available for a match.
in the ramba”m la-am it explains that when it says pnuya (in this case) it is refering to a widow or a divorced woman, however a never before married woman may go with her hair uncovered.
this is explained from the beis shmuel, and even haezer ch. 21 se-if kotton 2
and just for the record, this is why only married women cover their hair:acc. to jewish law after a woman is married only her husband may see her natural hair, and a kerchief for the hair won’t really do, being that it is very easy to take off and fall off, so they wear a wig. but under no circumstance would the torah command a jewish woman to make herself look not nice because she is a married woman.
also it is worn for the woman herself to recognize the fact that she is married, and be more careful in how she interacts around men, being that she is unified with only her husband.
and you are right that the halacha doesn’t change!!!!!
okay let me try to explain this as best possible: in shulchan aruch even haezer ch. 21 halacha 2 it says the halacha that you wrote, now 98 % of opinions agree there that pnuya is refering to a once married before (and now widowed or divorced) woman.
if it was refering to an unmarried before woman it would have said besula, like it is written in the next halacha, that one may look at an unmarried woman (it uses the term pnuya) to see if she is nice looking for him to marry her, and the halacha continues “bein shehe besula oi beulah” which means that he may look at her wether she is a virgin or wether she has already had intercourse, so we see that a pnuya can be used to refer to a woman who was married before. now if the halacha would be any woman no matter if she was married before or not, the tem that would be used would be plain and simple-just the first line of the halacha, that the jewish girls-women do not go out with uncovered hair, but since the halacha is only refering to married or once married women it has to explicitly say it i.e. wether she is unmarried but was before, or if she is married now.
also the source of this halacha is from the third mishna in tractate kesuvos, and there it says clearly “these are the ones which leave their marriage (divorce) without getting their kesuba money…. a woman which goes out and her hair is uncovered”, so it is only talking about married or like it says in shulchan aruch, once before married women.
about the question why the word pnuya is used for different meanings; i never actually saw an answer written anywhere, however just from common sense i would say that it is a word that has to be transalated acc. to the context, like the word “yomim” which can refer to years like in the story of rivkah and eliezer, or in the begining of parshas mikeitz, or it can be refering to days lit., like it is used many times in tanach. that is just from my understanding though there might be a answer actually written somewhere.
ramba”m, shulchan aruch, talmud, mishna, not in this order, it’s just the order that i looked up the info.
Well the Catholic women use to cover their hair , it’s a distration , a thing of the flesh, in respect not to take away from the worship of the Lord
Report Spam/Abuse
The Talmud says that a woman’s hair is erva (immodest – i don’t really know how to translate it.) It does not distinguish between a married and unmarried woman’s hair.
The Talmud also dicusses how married women wouldn’t walk outside their house without a basket covering their head, but not their hair.
All women used to cover their hair – Jewish and non-Jewish women.
As non-Jewish women stopped covering, so did many Jewish women.
It somehow ended up that a married woman’s hair is considered erva, and a single woman’s hair is not considered erva. Since part of the concept of erva is that any part of the body you don’t regularly expose is erva – this makes sense.
Also:
Some married Orthodox women don’t cover their hair. Some say that since non-married women’s hair isn’t considered erva anymore, no hair is considered ervah anymore.
Some married women also cover their head but not their hair. They claim the same thing – hair just isn’t erva anymore. But they cover their head based on the second Gemara I mentioned – a married woman has to cover her head.
There are other variation – but I hope I answered the question.
Addition:
Some halachic authorities permit women to keep their hair uncovered in their own home, even when men are there.
Women may cover their hair in any way they wish to – it need not be a wig. I believe that Rav Ovadia Yosef does not permit women to wear wigs, which is why many sefardi women do not wear wigs.
More:
The Law is The Law, but there’s also a halachic system at play here. Different communities follow different customs, there may be different interpretations, and the way a law is applied may change throughout time. For example – we know that Michal, King Saul’s daughter, wore tefillin and the sages did not protest. Rashi’s daughters wore teffilin. But that (women wearing tefillin)is strongly discouraged now, though it is not forbidden.
I think that this topic, like many other topics in Jewish Law, might be better understood when studied in class or with a chevruta, guided by a rabbi or teacher. I could get out my old notes and go through this, but the Jewish tradition is really something that should be passed down from teacher to student. May you merit to study and teach, to keep and do and fulfill all the words of Torah with love.
What I remember from class.
Report Spam/Abuse
Hi Aliya!
I am not exactly sure what you are asking? Are you asking “”Why is it that in spite of the statement, only Married women cover their hair when it says that all women should?”"
Or are you asking simply, “”Why do only married women cover their hair?”
If the former, I think you have to look at the changing times. For this reason, i think Ella has it right.
For the latter, the issue is that the view of Hair has changed, and as such, so has the impetus to cover it. By keeping uncovered the hair of an unmarried women, it shows, in the synagogue, who is available for a match. The same thing happens for men. One assumes a male has on the tallit katan, under the clothes. But only married men wear the tallit gadol over the clothes, showing by default, who is available for a match.
I hope this helps!
What I remember from class.
Report Spam/Abuse
in the ramba”m la-am it explains that when it says pnuya (in this case) it is refering to a widow or a divorced woman, however a never before married woman may go with her hair uncovered.
this is explained from the beis shmuel, and even haezer ch. 21 se-if kotton 2
and just for the record, this is why only married women cover their hair:acc. to jewish law after a woman is married only her husband may see her natural hair, and a kerchief for the hair won’t really do, being that it is very easy to take off and fall off, so they wear a wig. but under no circumstance would the torah command a jewish woman to make herself look not nice because she is a married woman.
also it is worn for the woman herself to recognize the fact that she is married, and be more careful in how she interacts around men, being that she is unified with only her husband.
and you are right that the halacha doesn’t change!!!!!
okay let me try to explain this as best possible: in shulchan aruch even haezer ch. 21 halacha 2 it says the halacha that you wrote, now 98 % of opinions agree there that pnuya is refering to a once married before (and now widowed or divorced) woman.
if it was refering to an unmarried before woman it would have said besula, like it is written in the next halacha, that one may look at an unmarried woman (it uses the term pnuya) to see if she is nice looking for him to marry her, and the halacha continues “bein shehe besula oi beulah” which means that he may look at her wether she is a virgin or wether she has already had intercourse, so we see that a pnuya can be used to refer to a woman who was married before. now if the halacha would be any woman no matter if she was married before or not, the tem that would be used would be plain and simple-just the first line of the halacha, that the jewish girls-women do not go out with uncovered hair, but since the halacha is only refering to married or once married women it has to explicitly say it i.e. wether she is unmarried but was before, or if she is married now.
also the source of this halacha is from the third mishna in tractate kesuvos, and there it says clearly “these are the ones which leave their marriage (divorce) without getting their kesuba money…. a woman which goes out and her hair is uncovered”, so it is only talking about married or like it says in shulchan aruch, once before married women.
about the question why the word pnuya is used for different meanings; i never actually saw an answer written anywhere, however just from common sense i would say that it is a word that has to be transalated acc. to the context, like the word “yomim” which can refer to years like in the story of rivkah and eliezer, or in the begining of parshas mikeitz, or it can be refering to days lit., like it is used many times in tanach. that is just from my understanding though there might be a answer actually written somewhere.
ramba”m, shulchan aruch, talmud, mishna, not in this order, it’s just the order that i looked up the info.
Report Spam/Abuse