The other night when getting ready for bed, 5-year-old Peach started to take off her turtleneck, but left the neck stretched around her crown, the shirt dangling inside-out down her back. “Ima,” she said to me, “you have a Bat Par’o” (Pharaoh’s daughter). I chuckled along with her, and we proceeded with her bedtime routines.
When she climbed into bed, however, I asked if she wanted to take off the shirt. “No,” she answered. I asked why not. “Because I want to be tznu’ah,” she answered, looking at me a little reproachfully.
I’ve been dreading this sort of confrontation for a while now. How do I explain to a 5-year-old kid that it is possible to be modest without covering one’s hair? And that hair-covering is not the only measure of modesty?
It is true, I don’t cover my hair. I did for a few years after my wedding, then stopped. It wasn’t the community standard where I lived, and after Beans was born, I was less interested in broadcasting my status as a married Jewish woman. I had become much more comfortable with who I was as a convert, a Newtonian, a wife and mother, a modern person, and just me. Covering my hair no longer felt comfortable with how I saw myself.
When we made aliyah, however, I knew that hair-covering was a community standard and while I still planned to wear trousers occasionally, I decided to start covering my hair again while I assessed the lay of the land in Israel. We moved into a community that was modern, but not as modern as Newton. While most women cover their hair in that community, I was noticing that a good number of the women who became my friends, to whom I related particularly easily, were non-hair-coverers. Despite hair-covering being so prevalent, I began to feel uncomfortable again, and after six months stopped covering my hair for good.
Before making aliyah, I did some research on hair covering. I had studied the sota story in the Torah, the basis (so I’ve been told) for the practice of women covering their hair, but I wanted to know more. A fellow 
congregant directed me toward the book Hide and Seek: Jewish Women and Hair Covering by Lynne Schreiber, a collection of stories by women about their own experience of hair-covering (or not). As I read the book, I took careful note of why women were covering their hair. The answers ranged from the dubious to the preposterous:
1) because it’s halachic (perhaps, though I’m not entirely convinced);
2) so people know I’m married (I have a ring that says that);
3) because I want to save it as something special only for my husband to see (I think we all have more special things set aside for our husbands than that);
4) because I don’t want men to have indecent thoughts about me from seeing my hair (then why is your sheitl so much prettier than your actual hair?);
5) because Hashem wants me to (nowhere does it say that in the Tanakh).
Upon finishing the book, I was convinced that covering my hair was not the right thing for me to do.
Certain things I have agreed to do in Judaism “because Hashem says so.” I keep kosher, not because it had any health ramifications in the ancient world (it didn’t), but because the Torah says to, because it is meaningful, and because it’s a basic community standard to be met in the world I inhabit. It’s challenging, especially when one lives in the Diaspora, but it is a challenge I’m up to, that I think is worthwhile. I go to the mikvah too, not because I need to make sure I get a bath in once a month (though sometimes that can be a challenge with a newborn around), but because it is a Torah imperative. But I’m not willing to cover my hair because it means nothing to me, it doesn’t do what women think it does, and while it’s supposedly based on a very circumstantial story in the Torah, I suspect the real reason is that for hundreds of years women in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East covered their hair because that was a cultural norm, and while women in many of those regions no longer cover their hair in the modern era, Judaism has chosen to make continued hair covering a halachic imperative. (And it would not be the first popular custom to be made halachic in that way.)
So Peach is right when she says accusingly, “You hardly ever cover your hair.” But it’s also true that I am a modest person. Modesty is not just how one looks; it’s how one behaves. I don’t flirt with men, do things to call attention to myself, or wear alluring (i.e. trendy) clothing. I am shomeret nigiah, and while I sometimes bristle at the lengths some religious Jews go to avoid the sexes being in the same vicinity (on buses or in lectures), I don’t make a scene.
I guess my challenge with my daughters will be to show them that hair-covering is not a deal-breaker in the realm of modesty. In Israel, where people are quick on the draw with labels (realtors often ask women how they cover their hair when deciding which neighborhoods to show them), this won’t be easy. Wish me luck—I’m going to need it.
Shimshonit 
You know, when I converted the main question the guys on the b”d asked, over and over and OVER, was, “are you going to cover your hair” (once I married, of course). Not knowing the issues but getting quite clearly that the correct answer, indeed the only answer that was going to lead to my becoming Jewish, was yes, I agreed that yes, I was going to cover my hair. Which leaves me seeing the hair-covering as being, if not halacha, a specific element of the brit, as mediated by the b”d, that I agreed to. Which sucks, cuz I’d really like to remove the damn hat.
But you’ve been certified by this point by the rabbanut as Jewish. With everything that’s going on, in Israel and here with the RCA, the I’m not completely sure I’d DARE remove the hat now, lest I one day go looking for certification or aliyah and discover that I’ve got to have gerus l’chumra (or worse!) because a decade after converting I stopped covering my hair…
l_b: I hear you on all of your points. When they asked about my previous studies and wanted details about the woman with whom I’d studied in Israel, as soon as they heard she doesn’t cover her hair, they waved a hand dismissively as though any yichus (which she had), Torah mastery, or devoutness was evaporated by that one missing piece. Their monomania, rather than making them look like serious Torah scholars, in my eyes made them look davka LESS serious. It seemed insulting to them that someone with the temerity to walk with her head uncovered would presume to study Torah.
I respect women who cover their hair. But I wish I could find an explanation for the practice that didn’t sound like an attempt by men to assert control over women, or women making up non-reasons that sound like frumkeit. Another teacher of mine (a hair coverer) says that in Temple times, women’s hair was typically styled with a wide headband and a braid, not a sheitl or a large scarf or even a hat. Given the power of the sun here, a more comprehensive covering would have made sense, but to satisfy the sota story, the band/braid combo would have been considered sufficient.
Of course, my mechitza post has several non-reasons for the practice, and I used to have a few for head-covering too. It was a great way to grow out a bad haircut, it kept pesky wisps out of my face, it looked attractive, and there was no such thing as a bad hair day. But from where I stand now, I can either don a hat or not for the day. A woman who is committed to covering all the time doesn’t have that freedom.
I love this post! I feel the same way that you do about this topic. I respect women who cover their hair, but it’s just not for me. And I don’t like that it has become the gold standard in determining who is religious and who is not.
It helps that I am divorced. If someone asks why I don’t cover my hair, I can simply say “I’m not married”. (Of course that’s a bogus answer, because once-married women are also supposed to cover their hair, but it makes people back off.)
RBS really went to bat for me on this one, and I was not required to agree to this by the b”d. It’s something I’ve come to slowly and (somewhat) reluctantly over the past 15 years, and in fact, it’s also been an on-again-off-again thing too. It seems to be sticking this time. I’m not sure I’m really happy about that.
Great post Shimshonit. I like your argments.
I seem to remember that some Sephardic psokim forbid sheitls.
Ladies: Thanks for your thoughts.
Heather: Perhaps your being married already made some difference? You seem to have been the exception rather than the rule, at least from the women I know. Nice that you were given the choice. Had they given me a choice, I might have been more favorably disposed toward it.
Ilana-Davita: Sephardim don’t generally embrace the sheitl, though Rav Ovadiah Yosef has said that unmarried women and girls should also cover their hair. That hasn’t caught on.
Shimshonit: very interesting post.
I was recently reading Rabbi Avraham Shamma’s heter on kol b’isha (see http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/02/kol-bishah-new-analysis.html), where, inter alia, Rabbi Shamma quotes the Maharam Alkashar, a Spanish refugee, as saying, “Response: Indeed, there is no concern about that hair [that is outside of the braid], because it is customary to reveal it … and that [which is said] ‘a woman’s hair is a sexual enticement’ is only referring to hair that it is usual to be covered, but a person is accustomed to that which is usually uncovered [and therefore is not aroused] and it is permitted … Likewise, the Ravya”h [of 12th-13th century Ashkenaz] wrote that all those [things] that we mentioned for [concern about] sexual enticement are specifically for things that are not customarily exposed, but an [unmarried] maiden who customarily has exposed hair – we are not concerned about sinful thoughts. … all is according to the customs and the locations.”
According to this, there’d be no basis to cover our hair at all today. So many gentiles and non-religious Jews leave their hair uncovered, that the religious Jews are by now inured to this, and there is no longer any sexual enticement. Already, the Aruch haShulhan has ruled that a woman’s uncovered hair is not an impediment to a man’s saying Shema, since he will not be enticed.
Thus, we can eliminate reasons 3 and 4, viz. enticement and saving the hair for the husband. But what of 1 and 5, viz it being an unequivocal halacha that pleases G-d, etc., regardless of enticement?
The Maharam Alkashar would say that 1 and 5 are simply false; he’d say that then need to cover hair is based exclusively on enticement, and the absence of enticement nullifies the law.
But the Aruch haShulhan holds that the two are separate; covering hair is an unequivocal law, that is not based on any enticement, and that because women followed this law, it eventually lead to a separate enticement issue. The absence of the enticement issue today, however, does not nullify the law of hair-covering itself. In his ruling that uncovered hair does not prevent Shema anymore (due to lack of enticement), he continues on to note, vociferously in fact, that women are in fact sinning by not covering their hair.
Moreover, I’d personally say that even if the Maharam Alkashar is correct, nevertheless, there is a minhag haMakom to cover hair, regardless of any intrinsic halacha or sexual enticement. Religious women cover their hair, and this is a minhag, even if not a halacha.
Most follow the Aruch haShulhan, obviously. But I’d say that even if he is correct, we should realize two things:
(1) There is still a significant opinion that hair covering depends only on enticement, and nothing else. Even if (hypothetically) this is a minority opinion, it is a strong minority opinion, and we shouldn’t criticize women who follow it.
(2) Even if a woman IS sinning by not covering her hair, even if the Aruch haShulhan is the only valid opinion, even if my theory of minhag haMakom in this is correct, nevertheless, we should judge a person’s religiosity by what he does in general. If you keep Shabbat and kashrut and taharat haMishpaha and tzniut, etc., in general, and you are generally a G-d-fearing Torah-observing individual, we should cut you some slack; no one is perfect. It is wrong to let one mitzvah be a deal-breaker, especially one such as this. It should depend on (1) the halachic severity of the mitzvah (Shabbat is ontologically more important than most mitzvot, for example), and (2) the sociological significance (keeping kosher and Shabbat is almost a badge of being Orthodox, and breaking them is tantamount to a conscious and deliberate declaration of non-Orthodoxy).
Shimshonit, I’d talk to Rabbi Marc D. Angel, or his son, Rabbi Hayyim Angel, at Upper West Side Manhattan’s Congregation Shearith Israel, at http://www.shearithisrael.org/. I GUARANTEE you that you will like whatever you hear from them.
We should not scoff at the idea that a sociologically-bound mitzvah is nevertheless binding even when the reason no longer applies, as the Aruch haShulhan has it here. For example, Rambam says many mitzvot are designed to combat idolatry, including the entire system of sacrifices. But no one would suggest that the lapse of classical polytheism negates these mitzvot.
I’ve enjoyed reading the comments here, and your original post Shim. The part that provoked the most thought for me was the idea of people fixating on an specific mitzvah or practice as a gauge for other people’s observance. It seems to me that for a lot of people, doing so – especially with “outward” stuff that is visible to everyone – serves as a means for stoking their own self-perceived righteousness. “Did you see how she doesn’t cover her hair?” The thinker must be also thinking “I am so much better/more observant.” Sometimes I wonder if that’s how practices like covering the hair (there are others that would apply too, but I’ll stick to the example at hand) end up carrying more weight than is actually halakhically warranted. Do you ever wonder if folks who do this (I think we all have…) are judging others this way because it makes them feel better about their own observance? Maybe especially in cases where they KNOW they are doing other things in their lives that are decidedly not in line with the Mesora? Just a thought. I enjoyed your post!
Raizy: Thank you for reading, and for your comments. No one should be asking you about why you do or do not cover your hair. How annoying is THAT?!
Michael: Thanks for your very comprehensive treatment of the subject. There is much food for thought there. I like your idea of consulting other prominent rabbis, but since I live in Israel, I tend to seek out opinions from Israeli rabbis since the “makom” here sometimes differs from the “makom” in the U.S.
Yair: Thanks for reading, and for your comments. It bothers me exceedingly when people ask other people about their observance. I suspect people label others to feel more secure (if not superior) in their own observance. I was once in a waiting room with a haredi woman when a woman dressed in maternity overalls came out of the doctor’s office with her small child. When she was gone, the haredi woman’s child asked why the woman was wearing trousers. The haredi mother explained that the other woman probably didn’t know very much Torah, and that she was very unfortunate, because if she did, she would know she was supposed to wear a skirt. I appreciated that the haredi mom did not say the woman was a bad person, but the woman may well have grown up with lots of Torah study, but never found the words “skirt” and “trousers” mentioned. Her trousers were MATERNITY trousers, and hence made for women; she was not violating any Torah laws against beged ish at all, though her clothing did not comply with the minhag of concealing bifurcation (the fact that women have two legs instead of a pedestal under our skirts).
My overall verdict is that Judaism (especially Orthodoxy) is very demanding, and we should do all we can to make life easier for each other, not harder. I like Michael’s points about halachic severity and sociological significance above. I think those are important.
Yair,
You make a very good point, viz. that people use externalities as a means to boost themselves. Rabbi Harry Maryles, in his blog (Emes v’Emuna, I believe) has written recently about this, about how in Haredism, the uniform has supplanted yashrut and meschkeit.
Rabbi Shammah (whom I have previously cited) makes a similar point. He says that no one is stringent on “keep very very distant from women”, while people ARE stringent on kol b’isha, even though it is all part of the same paragraph in the Shulhan Aruch! Rabbi Shammah suggests no one can live with sexually separate markets, so they choose kol b’isha, which is effortless, and is useful as a badge on their sleaves. He says the words of the Prophets speak much against this.
Shim – I think you are right about the idea of making things easier for people. Combining faithfulness to Torah with a practicality that recognizes when the fence erected around the Torah is so daunting it may actually turn people away FROM Torah, makes lots of sense to me. Oh, and your bifurcation/pedestal comment cracked me up :)!
Michael – Thanks once again for the teaching. I will have to look into Rabbi Shammah’s teaching on this, it sounds really interesting. And I totally agree, the Prophets did speak strongly against this kind of thing. It’s really easy to fall into though, when the ego is flaring. The point about the decision to be stringent with “kol b’isha” while basically downplaying the keeping distant part was interesting… when picking and choosing, people tend to pick what’s easiest for them to fulfill in a visible manner. There’s that passage in Talmud about different types of Pharisees (Sotah 22b)… the “kizai” Pharisee, who “makes his blood flow against walls” by smashing his face into a wall to avoid looking at a woman. He destroys himself physically by going over the top to overtly demonstrate his piety, when simply looking the other way would do the trick (or looking at a woman as something other than a sex object in the first place…). It’s interesting, isn’t it?
[…] Tzniut at Shimshonit’s Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Another Salmon RecipeNew Recipe Posted to Frugal RecipesNew Years Eve and Christmas RecipesNew Year’s Day and New Year’s Eve Traditions […]
I’m blown away that I wasn’t following your blog in my Google Reader (I could have sworn I was and that you’d just dropped off the planet), but lo and behold, thanks to another blog linking you I realized I wasn’t following. Yikes!
At any rate, I really enjoyed this post! There have been a few Saturdays at shul that my unruly hair has gone mohawk style overnight and I’ve had to wear a little knitted cap to shul so as to not look like a punk rocker circa CBGB. One morning the rabbis wife slinked over and sat down next to me to help me figure out where we were in the siddur (kind of her, though I was doing find!) and she said she liked my cap and I said “oh, my hair was a mess this morning” and she replied “it looks cute. see, there are good reasons to cover!” She always has a hat on, and hats aren’t for me, but darn’t I like the way I look in a scarf or knitted cap. I know that’s not a reason to cover, but someday, when I’m hitched, I intend on covering. It seems like a lot of women (even you!) cover for a few years and then adjust. I almost look forward to not having to mess with my hair … ;)
You might enjoy Marc Shapiro’s article on the topic:
Click to access 0060.pdf
Shimshonit, see this, pointed out to me by a commentator on my blog: http://www.jofa.org/pdf/Batch%201/0060.pdf
Skeptic and Michael: Thanks for the link. It was a very thorough discussion, and I was interested to see the various sources and opinions he brought into it. I especially like the fact that while R’ Hurewitz did not advocate the practice of not covering hair for women, he did at least recognize that women who choose not to cover are not necessarily the brazen hussies they’re often seen as by rabbinic authorities. That was refreshing.
Oh, at my blog, I cross-posted (http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/03/tziut-married-orthodox-woman-covering.html) what I wrote here, and someone replied with the following link, which supports my assertions above: http://www.jofa.org/pdf/Batch%201/0060.pdf
Rabbi Marc Angel’s recent novel, The Search Committee, has Rebbetzin Sultana Mercado, the protagonist’s wife, not cover her hair, and quite proudly so.
The Jewish Observer asked Rabbi Angel about this (http://www.jewishpress.com/content.cfm?contentid=35537):
Q: In the book, Mrs. Mercado says women no longer need to cover their hair. Is that your opinion?
A: My opinion is that there are various opinions on the subject. There’s a wonderful teshuvah by Rav Yosef Messas (a great Moroccan rabbi and later chief rabbi of Haifa). He says that not only do married women not have to cover their hair but that they shouldn’t cover their hair. First of all he’s 100 percent against a sheitel because it looks better than a woman’s own hair. And to cover with a snood, hat, etc. is not healthy, he says, because they will become less attractive to their husbands who constantly see women with uncovered hair in the streets.
Not too many poskim follow him; he’s a yachid. But when I was a kid there certainly were many rabbis’ wives who didn’t cover their hair. So, I’m not giving a psak. I’m saying there are different opinions.
See also http://www.urimpublications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=UP&Product_Code=Search for some reviews of this novel of Rabbi Angel’s. I myself rather enjoyed it.
[…] tzniut (modesty) before. While I don’t plan to revisit any of the particular points I made in that post here, I will say that Mother in Israel’s treatment of a tzniut meme got me thinking about the […]
I found the following website to be very informative on this, and related topics:
http://www.bermanshul.org
[…] https://shimshonit.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/tzniut/ […]
[…] are expected to cover their hair. I’ve written plenty on this subject already (here and here). In short, in my former community, the only women who covered their hair during the week were a […]
There is No codified Halacha that a married woman must cover her hair totally and constantly whenever she steps out of her house.
The Halachah has been MISinterpreted. When the Halachah refers to “Covering hair,” it does not mean “Cover your hair with hair!” and “constantly for life.” The Halachah is that:
A married woman is required to cover her hair when:
(1) she lights the candles to welcome in Shabbat and Yom Tov – lechavod Shabbat ve Yom Tov, and
(2) when she goes to the Synagogue, because that is the place of Kedusha.
The Halacha does not require anything more from married women. This is the true interpretation of the Halacha.
The misinterpretation of the Torah is completely Assur, and a twisting of the Torah.The Torah must remain straight.
In ancient times, a woman would only cover her hair upon entering the Beit HaMikdash. Similarly for the Sotah-otherwise she would not be required to cover her hair ordinarily, day to day.
It is very important for people to know and realise that when a married woman covers her hair with ‘Real Hair’ the woman is covering herself with 100% Tumah. This is totally against the Torah.
Nothing could be more nonsensical than for a Jewish woman to cover her hair with someone else’s hair -who was not Jewish as well! She can never fully be sure that this ‘hair’ has not come from meitim-despite any guarantee by the seller.This ‘real hair’ is doubly and in some circumstances, triply Tumah.
1.It will contain the leftover dead hair cells from another person – however much it has been treated, the tumah is still there.
2.This other person (likely to be a non-Jew who most likely was involved in some kind of Avodah Zarah) may have eaten bacon, ham, lobster etc, all of which are totally forbidden as unclean and non-kosher foods in Halacha.
3.If the woman happens to be the wife of a COHEN, then she is bringing her husband into close contact and proximity with meitim and Tumah Every day, and throughout their married life. This is clearly strictly against the Torah.
[…] which I’ve grappled for much of my married life, both in the US and in Israel (and posted on here). But I asked B. to let me post her thoughts on my blog because she goes into the subject in much […]