RITSS HIGH SCHOOL

PRESENTS A D`VAR TORAH

ON NASO

By Rabbi Moshe Heigh

A HAIR-RAISING EXPERIENCE

     This is an introduction to the Torah viewpoint on married women covering their hair. In its totality, it is a vast topic, beyond the scope of this d'var Torah. Guidance from your rav is imperative for further knowledge and practical advice.

     "The kohen shall present the woman before Hashem, and he shall uncover the woman's hair" (5:18). This is part of the SOTAH ceremony, where the suspected adulteress is brought to the Mishkan or Bais Hamikdosh. There is a firm basis for the fact that she did have an affair, but the necessary witnesses to the actual adulterous deed are missing. The Torah prescribes a method of ascertaining her innocence or guilt, culminating in a supernatural sign in a case of infidelity. This is described here in Perek Hey and in the Talmudic tractate, Sotah. Since the moral, righteous women have traditionally specialized in GUARDING the sanctity of the Jewish home, a woman who deviates from this path must undergo the sotah procedure.

     Let us first define this term "ufora" - "and he shall uncover". Rashi indicates that the kohen is supposed to undo her hair plaits in order to make her look despicable. Women would usually wear their hair in braids on top of the head, and these were to be disturbed now. Rashi on Ki Sisa 32:25 says clearly that the root of our term "ufora" means to uncover. Its connotation is also to loosen or make free, as Rashi expresses here in Parshas Naso. Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi on our Rashi reinforces the fact that disarranging her braids is simply part of the process of uncovering her hair, the true meaning of the word "ufora" in our context.

     The Sifri (midrash) 56 deduces: "This teaches that Jewish women cover their hair." In the words of Rashi on our pasuk, going about with an uncovered head is considered disgraceful for a Jewish woman. Let us also see Kesubos 72A at the bottom. The Gemara emphatically states that it is a prohibition for a married woman to go in public with uncovered hair, as it says in our pasuk, "He shall uncover the hair of the woman". But how can the Gemara derive a WARNING, a prohibition against uncovered hair, simply from these words?

     The first interpretation of Rashi on the Gemara is that since uncovering her hair is a PUNISHMENT dictated by the Torah to degrade her, we see it must be forbidden to conduct herself this way voluntarily and in general. Rashi points out that the sotah is humiliated in this manner measure for measure. She had beautified herself for the suspected adulterer, so the opposite is now done to her. Bared, undone hair is viewed as extremely demeaning. In this statement, Rashi is paraphrasing the Mishna Sotah 8B. [Even if she did not actually commit adultery, she definitely secluded herself with this strange man long enough to have relations after being warned not to, as the psukim here and the Mishnayos and Gemara Sotah establish.] We see from the fact that uncovered hair is a PUNISHMENT, that it must be something undesirable, and in fact, forbidden. That is one approach to the Gemara. Rashi provides a second method of understanding this conclusion. Since it says "he shall uncover", we infer that her hair MUST have been covered at the time. This automatically proves that it is not the manner of Jewish women to go about bareheaded. Rashi prefers this second approach.

     One place this discussion is brought in the Shulchan Aruch is Orach Chaim 75:2. The topic is reciting prayers in the presence of immodest sights, such as parts of the body which are generally unexposed. Here is the statement of the Shulchan Aruch, encompassing the Mechaber and the Rama. "The hair of a woman which it is her manner to cover - one is forbidden to read (the Shma) in front of it, even the hair of his wife. But single women, that it is their manner to go with uncovered hair, one is allowed (to read Shma in front of their uncovered hair)."

     The Mishna Brura states: even if it is the custom of this woman and her friends in that place to walk with uncovered hair publicly, in the way of immodest people, one may not recite prayers in view of her hair. In other words, one might have thought that since this particular woman's hair is generally uncovered, it is no longer judged as a "part of the body usually covered", to prohibit saying tefilos in front of it. So, the Mishna Brura comes to tell us that the hair of a married woman which she never covers is STILL considered an "erva", a part which is SUPPOSED to be concealed. Thus, it has the same din as the thigh, for example, an area which is always termed "erva", whether people are careful to cover it or not. The Mishna Brura adds that there is a prohibition from the Torah to leave her hair open, as in the Gemara Kesubos 72A we explored earlier. "All Jewish women who hold firmly to authentic Torah law have been careful about this since the days of our fathers. Even up to today, it is considered an erva, and it is forbidden to read Shma in front of it." Mishna Brura clarifies that the only reason the Shulchan Aruch made reference to women "whose way it is to cover their hair", implying that some do not, was that single women are not required to do so. Or, this could even apply to married women, since some hairs inevitably fall out of the sides of their head coverings, since it is difficult to prevent this. These hairs - how does halacha view them? It depends on the location. If the prevalent minhag of that place is not to allow even a hair or two to go out, those one or two are also considered erva, and one may not recite Shma in front of them.

     The comments of the Aruch Hashulchan in 72:7 are noteworthy. "Now let us come and cry out regarding the immodesty of our generation, because of our many sins. For many years (some) Jewish women have been neglectful regarding this transgression, and they go with uncovered hair. All which they (the leaders, rabbis) have screamed about this has not helped or accomplished anything. Now the plague has spread, that married women go about with their hair just like unmarried women! Woe to us that such has occurred in our days. However, concerning the halacha, it seems that we are allowed to recite prayers and brachos in front of their uncovered hair. Since now most of them conduct themselves this way, it is considered like parts of her body which are generally worn uncovered. This is based on the Mordechai in the name of the Ra'avya: all the things mentioned in regard to erva apply only to parts not generally revealed. But a single woman, who usually does not cover her hair, we are not concerned...." Since by us, concludes the Aruch Hashulchan based on this Mordechai, the married women are ALSO this way, Shma and other prayers may be recited in proximity to their hair. The prohibition of uncovering it, however, is STILL being violated, as he himself states.

     The Mishna Brura and Aruch Hashulchan differ as to whether we are permitted to say prayers in front of uncovered hair if many women disregard the Torah law to cover it. The Aruch Hashulchan maintains that it is no longer considered an erva for this din alone.

     Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:42, brings support for this Aruch Hashulchan. Therefore, he concludes that in pressing circumstances, we may rely on him. G-d-fearing individuals should preferably turn their faces away when saying Shma and tefila. If this is not feasible, they should close their eyes. But the din of the Aruch Hashulchan can be taken into account.

     Just as any woman must cover the bottom portion of her neck (below and including the collarbone), upper arms (including the elbow), and thighs (including the knees), we have shown how a married woman must cover her hair. Concerning the sources for these other parts of the body being covered, they are based on Chazal in various places, and some particulars can be found in the following poskim: Mishna Brura and others on Orach Chaim 75, especially Mishna Brura 75:2 and 7; Tiferes Shmuel 37 on Rosh Brachos Perek Gimmel - page 28, plus many more. For some points regarding the very small amount of hair which is allowed to come out according to some opinions, please consult your rav. In addition, there are numerous dinim associated with this topic, all worthy of your personal study. You are encouraged to pursue this further. Perhaps we will also continue this at a later date, B"H.

     In the zechus of tznius, which enhances and preserves the beauty of our Jewish identity, may we merit a speedy redemption. As a reward for guarding our eyes from forbidden sights, those same eyes will behold ultimate salvation. As payment for covering what needs to be covered, preventing others from gazing immodestly, we will witness Hashem's majesty and deliverance.

     If you wish to sponsor the weekly D`var Torah please e-mail Rabbi Kibel or call 513-631-0083

Comments? Suggestions? e-mail webmaster

reach us on the web at http://www.kicc.org