Shtisel 101, Session 19: Head Coverings

(18) After he has made the woman stand before the LORD, the priest shall bare the woman’s head and place upon her hands the meal offering of remembrance, which is a meal offering of jealousy. And in the priest’s hands shall be the water of bitterness that induces the spell.

3. ופרע AND HE SHALL PUT IN DISORDER [THE WOMAN’S HAIR] — i.e. he pulls away her hair-plaits in order to make her look despicable. — We may learn from this that as regards married Jewish women an uncovered head is a disgrace to them (Sifrei Bamidbar 11).

(6) These leave [their marriage] without their ketubah: A wife who transgresses the law of Moses or the laws of Jewish womanhood...And what is Jewish practice? Going out with her head uncovered, spinning wool in the marketplace or conversing with every man.

§ The mishna stated: And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who goes out and her head is uncovered. The Gemara asks: The prohibition against a woman going out with her head uncovered is not merely a custom of Jewish women. Rather, it is by Torah law, as it is written with regard to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful: “And he shall uncover the head of the woman” (Numbers 5:18). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From here there is a warning to Jewish women not to go out with an uncovered head, since if the Torah states that a woman suspected of adultery must have her head uncovered, this indicates that a married woman must generally cover her head.

What is dat Yehudit? The modest behavior that the daughters of Israel practiced.

Admonishment - Since we do this to her [the sota] to cause her disgrace – measure for measure as she did to beautify herself for her lover – we can infer that [an uncovered head] is prohibited. Alternatively, since it is written, “And he uncovers,” we can infer that at that point in time it was not uncovered. We learn from this that it is not the way of the daughters of Israel to go out with head uncovered, and this is the primary explanation.

11. Rabbi Yitzḥak stated: An exposed handbreadth in a woman constitutes nakedness. The Gemara asks: Regarding which halakha was this said? If you say that it comes to prohibit looking at an exposed handbreadth in her, didn’t Rav Sheshet say: Why did the verse enumerate “anklets and bracelets, rings, earrings and girdles” (Numbers 31:50), jewelry that is worn externally, over her clothing, e.g., bracelets, together with jewelry worn internally, beneath her clothing, near her nakedness, e.g., girdles? This was to tell you: Anyone who gazes upon a woman’s little finger is considered as if he gazed upon her naked genitals, for if his intentions are impure, it makes no difference where he looks or how much is exposed; even less than a handbreadth. Rather, it is referring even to his wife, with regard to the recitation of Shema. One may not recite Shema before an exposed handbreadth of his wife. Along these lines, Rav Ḥisda said: Even a woman’s exposed leg is considered nakedness, as it is stated: “Uncover the leg and pass through the rivers” (Isaiah 47:2), and it is written in the following verse: “Your nakedness shall be revealed and your shame shall be seen” (Isaiah 47:3). Shmuel further stated: A woman’s singing voice is considered nakedness, which he derives from the praise accorded a woman’s voice, as it is stated: “Sweet is your voice and your countenance is alluring” (Song of Songs 2:14). Similarly, Rav Sheshet stated: Even a woman’s hair is considered nakedness, for it too is praised, as it is written: “Your hair is like a flock of goats, trailing down from Mount Gilead” (Song of Songs 4:1).

Uncovering a woman’s head is only a rabbinic proscription … and the Talmud’s challenge “It is on a Torah level!” is saying that it is hinted at in the Torah.