Hair Covering in Jewish Law

Midrash Rabah (Bamidbar 9:16)

“Why does the priest uncover her hair? Because it was the way of the daughters of Israel to have their heads covered. When he uncovers her hair, he says to her: “You have departed from the ways of the daughters of Israel, whose ways it is to have their hair covered, and you have walked in the ways of the gentile women, who walk about with their heads uncovered. Here then, now you have what you have wanted.”

Ravad

[It is forbidden] only in a hidden (tzanua) area, but her face, hands, and feet and her speaking voice and the hair outside her plaits (michutz latzamata) that is not covered are not causes for concern, because he is used to them and not distracted.

Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 75:7

"...due to our many sins, it has become widespread that daughters of Israel have broken the barriers and go about without their hair covered. And although we scream about this, it does not help and the plague has spread… However, as far as the law is concerned, it seems that it would be permissible to pray and recite blessings in front of uncovered heads because ervah is specifically with things that are not usually covered, since we are worried about inappropriate sexual thoughts.”

Misechta Yuma, 47a, (Kimchis, a woman whose sons were all kohanim gedolim.)

“The sages said unto her. “what have you done to merit such a glory? She said: Throughout the days of my life, the beams of my house have not seen the plaits of my hair. They said unto her: There were many who did likewise and yet did not succeed.”

(Zohar, parashat Naso 125b-126b)

"Disruption of spiritual consciousness will befall a man who allows his wife to expose her hair; this [the proper covering of a woman's hair] is one of the foundational principles of modesty. A woman who let's her hair be seen in order to appear attractive causes poverty to her home, spiritual inferiority to her children and causes a negative spiritual influence to reside in the home... If all this in one's own house certainly in public places and certainly other brazen acts of immodesty....

Therefore, a woman should cover her head when she is at home. And if she does so, what is the result? Children shall be like olive plants [round your table]” (Psalm 128: 3). Why “olive plants”? The olive tree does not lose its leaves in either winter or summer, and it is always given pride and place over and above other the other trees. So her children will be given pride and place over all other men. Moreover, her husband will be blessed in all things, with blessings from both the world above and the world below, with riches, and with children, and with grandchildren.”

Rambam, hilchos ishis, p. 24.

“If a woman wears a wrap in public (mitpahat), but not a veil, she violates Jewish custom (dat yehudit) and forfeits her kesuva, even if her hair is covered with a kerchief.”

"Her children will be superior to other children; moreover, her husband will be blessed with all blessings, blessings of above and blessings of below, with wealth, with children and grandchildren, etc."

For example, when you write that wearing a sheitel makes your head hurt, it is possible that:

1. This is a falsehood of the evil inclination who does not want mitzvos to be performed and does not want Jews to be showered with blessings.
2. If this is indeed true -- then this demonstrates that [your hair is too long and] you should cut it so that it be shorter. When you do so, your head surely won’t hurt when wearing a sheitel.

(Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXXIII, p. 264)

As to your inquiry about the difference between covering one’s hair with a sheitel and covering one’s hair with a kerchief:

The difference is extremely simple. When the hair is covered with a kerchief and one meets a non-religious friend or acquaintance, then quite often the kerchief "slides up" or disappears altogether into the pocket.

This, of course, cannot be done with a sheitel. Ultimately, keeping the hair constantly covered becomes second nature.

(Igros Kodesh, Vol. X, p. 186)

How are we to reconcile the seeming contradictions between the passage in Ketubot which is less restrictive (only public spaces; head not hair; married woman) with the passage in Berakhot which more restrictive (possibly all hair, in all places, and for all women)?

Perhaps the simplest way is to note the different contexts and the persons to whom these passages are being directed. The Berakhot passage is directed to the man – what he is to avoid when reciting the Shema, or what to avoid when looking at other women who are not his wife. They are not directed to the woman; there is no indication that a woman must cover her hair, just as there is no indication that she must cover (silence) her voice. (This is a larger discussion regarding tzniut in general – whether it is directed to the woman’s appearance of the male gaze.) In contrast, the passage in Ketubot is referring to the modesty norms of women and what is demanded of them, and these norms do not require them to cover their hair fully or to cover it in all places. So married woman can have some of their hair uncovered (Ketubot), only other men just shouldn’t be gazing at it sexually (Berakhot).

(2) Rishonim – Context and Prevailing Norms Matter

The above discussion, that a woman’s requirement to cover her hair emerges only from the Ketubot passage and not from Berakhot, assumes that the “nakedness” of hair in Berakhot means that hair can elicit sexual thoughts, not that it is considered to be like the genitals. If hair was so considered, it would have to be fully covered under all circumstances.

Many Rishonim make this point explicitly. Ravyah {source ‎13}, and similarly Rosh in the context of Shema {source ‎14}, states that those things mentioned in Berakhot – hair, voice, and a woman’s calf – are only a contextual ervah; that is, they are considered ervah only if it is the norm for them to be covered. In contrast, in a society in which these are normally exposed, it is unlikely that they will provoke sexual thoughts, and they are not an ervah. It is for this reason that unmarried girls need not cover their hair.

Rashba, citing Ra’avad {source ‎15}, adopts a similar approach, and states that since it was the norm for married women to wear some hair outside their hats, this hair is not considered an ervah since it is normally exposed. [He goes on to say that for this reason the Talmud’s statement that a woman’s voice is an ervah, which originally referred to her speaking voice, in his contemporary context would only apply to her singing voice, since in his time society was less segregated and men were accustomed to hearing a woman’s speaking voice. It should also be noted that for Rashba, certain parts of a woman’s body, such as her shok (originally calf, but in this context, possibly thigh) are objectively an ervah like her genitals and this is not based on context.]

Shulkhan Arukh, in the Laws of Kriat Shema {source ‎16}, rules in accordance with Rashba and Ravyah.

It must be noted that these rulings are in regards to the recitation Shema and what might be a source of sexual distraction for a man. This is distinct from the question of whether it is permitted for a woman to go with her hair uncovered. Nevertheless, it is implicit in all these rulings that married women did not cover all of their hair, and that this behavior was seen as acceptable and not a violation of dat Yehudit. None of these sources deal with the possibility that a married woman would be permitted to go with all of her hair uncovered – against dat Moshe ­- if that were the societal norm at the time.

Rav Messas (1909-2003; Chief Rabbi of Morocco; Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem)

Otzar HaMikhtavim, 3:1884

Rav Messas argues that even dat Moshe is not a Biblical requirement but rather a norm found in the Torah, and is itself subject to change based on the current societal norms. (He also adds that it is only free-flowing and not braided hair that is a problem, even according to dat Moshe.) Rav Messas thus concludes that in a society in which the norm is for a woman’s hair to be uncovered, there is no halakhic requirement that she cover her hair.

"However, these days, in which women have reached a consensus that there is no inherent shame or licentiousness – Heaven forbid! – in walking in public with uncovered hair, and that there is no intrinsic modesty (tzniut) in covering the hair, only colorfulness (tz’biut), (i.e., covering the hair is a matter of fashion), then the mitzvah of the time has passed, and the prohibition has gone…
Finally, we are going to add the obvious. In these days, now that all women go about with exposed hair, there is no difference between the hair of unmarried women (which is permitted to be uncovered) and the hair of married women. The principle for unmarried women applies to everyone, since today everyone ordinarily goes out with uncovered hair, so this cannot be considered a “breaking of a norm.” Therefore, this is the law and the practice of married women as well, going out with uncovered hair, that – God forbid! – there is no licentiousness in this behavior. This applies also to the principle that a woman’s hair is sensual (Talmud Berakhot 24.) Since, therefore, there is no worry about the sensuality of the hair of unmarried women, since they ordinarily walk about with uncovered hair, so, too, there is no concern about the sensuality of the hair of married women these days, since one’s sexual imagination is not stimulated by that which is ordinary. Every man knows this in himself, for he sees thousands of women passing him on the street every day, all of them with uncovered head, and pays no attention to it. And one who does have sexual thoughts, is not having these thoughts because he sees uncovered hair. In this manner, my dear friend, I see the matter according to the limits of my ability. I could go on and on, but my schedule does not allow it. Furthermore, there is no intrinsic gain in greater length—for now the eyes of your parents will gaze and rejoice, such that there may be peacefulness in your home, tranquility in your abode. Amen."

Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Likutei Sichot 13, p 189

A woman who wears a scarf on her head will tend to take it off in certain cases because of discomfort. As opposed to a woman who dons a wig, even if President Eisenhower himself walks in, she will not remove it.