Head-Covering IV: How

How do the rationales for the mitzva affect how a woman should cover her head?

Now that we have discussed the “what,” “why,” and “who” of head-covering, we can address the question of how the head should be covered. We have seen two major rationales for the importance of a woman’s head covering in general: as a mark of her dignity, and as an act of modesty. Though these are related concepts, they have different emphases that lead to practical halachic differences.¹

If we focus on the obligation of head-covering as rooted in the concept of dignity or proper dress, then a woman’s head-covering is a form of dress for the head . Some hair showing outside the head-covering would not necessarily compromise the head being well-attired.

If we focus on the modesty elements of head-covering, then a woman is not so much dressing her head as covering it, and having hair show becomes more of a halachic concern.

Let’s explore the range of opinion on these issues, noting when the emphasis is on dignified head-covering and when it is on modest hair-covering.

Dignified Head-Covering and Torah Law

Rav Moshe Feinstein clarifies what kind of coverage is obligatory by Torah law, noting that the Torah-level obligation is learned from the uncovering of the sota‘s head , not her hair .

The Torah specifically commands uncovering the sota‘s head. That means that the sota must have arrived at the ordeal with the majority of her head covered. Therefore, to fulfill the Torah-level requirement of head-covering, a woman’s head must be mostly covered.

Exposing a significant portion of the sota’s head is required in order to disgrace her. Conversely, a substantial head-covering over most of the head is necessary to maintain a married woman’s dignity, as a matter of Torah law.

Head, Hair, and Dat Yehudit

The Talmud notes that a woman can fulfill the Torah-level obligation of head covering by placing a kalata, a basket or simple cap, on her head. But dat Yehudit, which usually encompasses behavior in line with customs of modesty, demands better coverage:

The Talmud does not explain what makes the kalata insufficient. One approach to this question emphasizes dignity, and the other modesty. Both are possible rationales for dat Yehudit.²

I. Insufficiently Dignified Meiri writes that a kalata is a sort of nightcap, not worn in public:

On this view, perhaps the kalata is insufficient to satisfy dat Yehudit because it is not dignified enough. A dignified person does not go about in public wearing pajamas, or a nightcap or other informal covering for a headdress. Dat Yehudit, like the Torah-level obligation, is primarily concerned with the head .

II. Insufficiently Modest Rashi explains that a kalata was in fact a woven basket:

A version of Rashi brought in Shita Mekubetzet, a medieval anthology of commentaries, explains that a kalata may provide an inadequate amount of head covering:

According to this comment, a kalata cannot serve as a proper covering because it leaves too much hair showing, which is insufficiently modest.³

While the obligation learned from the sota mentions covering the head, this version of Rashi argues that dat Yehudit is also concerned with concealing hair .⁴

Modesty concerns about covering hair , then, may derive from the obligation of dat Yehudit. They also arise in the related discussion of whether hair is considered erva, which can provide additional reason for a woman to cover her hair .

The Talmudic account of a woman named Kimchit takes the idea of covering hair out of modesty to an extreme. Kimchit states that the beams of her house never saw the braids of her hair, which implies that she kept her hair fully covered at all times, even at home.

Kimchit is clearly a meritorious woman who believes her merit stems from the care she takes always to cover her head. The sages, however, question her conclusion.⁵ That “many have done so, and did not achieve an effect” raises the possibility that Kimchit is mistaken as to the source of her merit.

Additionally, this passage implies that Kimchit’s act was unusual, and not to be expected. She sees her conduct as uniquely meritorious, and the sages say “many others” have done it. Not all women shared this practice, or were obligated to, which suggests a woman could meet standards of modesty without full coverage.

Mystical Approach

The Zohar draws on the Kimchit dialogue to present covering every strand of hair, even within the house, as essential for all married women:

According to the Zohar, misfortune befalls a home as a consequence of a woman’s hair being at all uncovered within it. The mystical implications of keeping each hair uncovered go beyond ordinary considerations of modesty. The Zohar’s position connects to broader kabbalistic ideas according to which hair is associated with judgment, and thus uniquely vulnerable to evil. This passage indicates that keeping all hair covered at all times and in all settings is praiseworthy.

Even among rationalists, the Zohar can have halachic influence. Although he does not say it is fully obligatory, Magen Avraham follows the Zohar to urge women to cover every strand of hair. Mishna Berura quotes him.⁶

This practice is followed in many communities, especially in Chassidic circles.

Double Covering

Closer to our day, Chatam Sofer rules that a woman outside her home should wear two coverings, one atop the other, to ensure that not a single hair be seen, following the Zohar, since this has become a binding practice:

Chatam Sofer’s approach is an important source for the practice in some communities of wearing a hat atop a wig. A similar line of thought informs those communities in which women shave their heads, lest a single hair emerge from covering.⁷ Chatam Sofer’s reference to erva indicates that his foremost concern is modesty, though he notes that custom has played a role in defining what is modest here.

As opposed to the Zohar, some early rabbinic authorities do allow for a woman to let some hair emerge from her head-covering, without seeing this as immodest or erva.

In his discussion of erva and recitation of Shema, Rashba (citing a Ra’avad we do not have) mentions hair that emerges from a woman’s head covering:

Rashba seems to indicate that there is no problem whatsoever with a woman leaving some hair exposed. Assuming that Rashba has in mind even a married woman outside of her home setting, this would mean that not every hair need be covered.

Rashba may mean to suggest that a woman may deliberately leave some hair uncovered, as she does her face and her hands (Rav Moshe Feinstein).⁸ Alternatively, he may mean only that fly-away hairs that escape the covering are acceptable (Chatam Sofer). ⁹

Rema rules like Rashba:

According to Rema, a man may recite Shema in the presence of a woman’s hair that emerges from her head covering. He makes no negative statement about the hair being shown, implying that a woman may freely leave such hair uncovered without concern for immodesty or erva.

For Maharam Alashkar, it is not necessary or even desirable to cover every strand of hair. Leaving some hair exposed at the temples or perhaps even a fringe (i.e., bangs), is a longstanding custom in conformity with standards of modesty.

Maharam Alashkar argues that modest practice should not come at the expense of a woman’s attractiveness to her husband, which is part of the bond between husband and wife. A woman today might add that letting some hair show at the temples or in front, so that she doesn’t look bald, helps her maintain her own sense of attractiveness as well.

Basing himself on Maharam Alashkar’s ruling and on common custom, Rav Ovadia Yosef justifies the practice of revealing up to two etzba’ot, finger-widths (4-4.8cm total), of hair:

According to his approach, a small amount of hair showing at the front of the head does not change the overall modest effect of a woman’s head-covering.

As we have learned, Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that the Torah-level obligation is to cover at least most of the head . That leaves the amount of hair that can be left uncovered undefined.

In order to define how much hair can be left uncovered, Rav Moshe turns to the Talmud’s discussion of hair as erva! This is surprising, because Rav Moshe usually takes care to distinguish between the matter of erva and the obligation to cover one’s head, and does not consider women’s hair nowadays to be erva.¹⁰

How does the argument work? According to Rav Moshe, a married woman’s head is considered typically-covered because of her obligation to cover most of it. Married women’s hair can be considered erva both because of its attractiveness and because it is typically-covered along with the head. Now, the Talmud teaches that a certain amount of hair can be exposed without being considered erva. Rav Moshe infers that a woman is allowed to leave that same amount of hair uncovered, without violating the obligation of head-covering.

Since a man may recite Shema in the presence of up to a tefach, a handbreadth (8-9.6 cm), of exposed erva, Rav Moshe argues that up to a tefach of exposed hair is a reasonable maximal measure for a woman to leave uncovered.

This innovative ruling provides a halachic basis for women to leave up to a square tefach of hair uncovered, an area roughly 64-92 cm2.¹¹ Rav Moshe assumes most women who leave hair uncovered will do so across the front or back of the head, and that this will mean an area of uncovered hair 4-4.8 cm in depth (in this case, like Rav Ovadya’s measure). He does not, however, limit his ruling to a specific configuration, which leaves room for a woman to leave some hair exposed in the middle of her head.

Rav Moshe’s ruling has been widely accepted in some circles. Others emphasize that Rav Moshe presents covering more hair as praiseworthy, and question how freely he intended women to rely upon his ruling. A look at his words indicates that full covering is commendable, but relying on his lenient ruling fully acceptable.

Rav Nahum Rabinovitch follows the approach that a married woman’s chief obligation is to cover her head , and that erva is not the source of obligation. He therefore maintains that there is no reason to apply the tefach measure to a woman’s head-covering, since the tefach applies specifically to the law of erva.

Although Rav Rabinovitch does not provide a specific measurement, he does refer to the hair left out “ketzat” (“a small amount” or “a bit”), which would suggest that more than a tefach out would be acceptable as long as it is not the majority of the hair on a woman’s head.

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein reportedly took a similar overall approach. He rejected the tefach measurement and instead formulated the requirement as conveying the overall impression, from every angle, that one’s hair is covered.¹²

It is possible that Rav Rabinovitch’s statement that “one must cover most of the hair of the head” has led to the increasingly common practice of women covering just the top of the head while leaving a good amount of hair flowing beyond the covering, something that Rav Lichtenstein did not support.

As Rav Yehuda H. Henkin has pointed out,¹³ the mishna’s description of a bride going to her wedding with her head uncovered presents a difficulty for women leaving this much hair out. Rashi’s commentary there describes hair loose to the shoulders, regardless of what’s on top, as what is uncovered specifically by a virgin bride:

If an uncovered head is defined by having loose hair to the shoulders, then a covered head could not include hair loose to the shoulders. There are limits to how much hair could be left out of a head-covering without eroding its status as dignified or modest head-covering.

Many women observe the mitzva of head-covering by wearing wigs. From the perspective of modesty, a wig’s effect is mixed. On the one hand, the wig provides full hair coverage, and in that way may be preferable to other options. On the other hand, a wig can look so natural and attractive that it is unclear how it satisfies the dictates of modesty.

Precedent for wearing wigs can be found in the Mishna’s discussion of carrying on Shabbat. Articles seen as adornments unlikely to be removed and carried may be worn on Shabbat, even in the absence of an eiruv. The Mishna teaches:

Rashi explains that this “pe’a nochrit“, foreign hair, is a type of hair extension.¹⁴ The Talmudic discussion of this mishna applies it to married women attempting to be attractive for their husbands.¹⁵ If the mishna explicitly permits a married woman to go out on Shabbat wearing hair extensions, then it stands to reason that wearing a wig is a permissible form of head-covering, since it looks even less like a woman’s own hair.¹⁶ Shiltei Gibborim makes this inference:

According to Shiltei Gibborim, this mishna, coupled with common custom of his day, provides justification for wigs as a form of head covering. He adds that hair growing from the scalp appears significantly different from hair that is not naturally attached. This last argument may have been more applicable to wigs of his day than to some of the more upscale wigs of today, which are attached to a false scalp and thus do appear to grow from the scalp.

It is also possible to explain pe’a nochrit differently, as hair used to fill out head coverings from the inside, much like today’s ”boubou” or “shaper,” worn by some women under a headscarf.¹⁷ In that case, the mentions of pe’a nochrit in rabbinic literature would not support wearing a wig without a hat on top.

Rema rules like Shiltei Gibborim, permitting men to recite Shema in view of a wig:

Common Ashkenazi practice is to permit wigs as a form of head-covering. This raises questions about dignity. In Talmudic times, it seems that dignified dress in public required a significant, visible head-covering. From that standpoint, it would seem that a wig should not qualify as a head-covering.

Nowadays, in some religious communities, wigs are considered more dignified than other head-coverings, in the sense that women would not wear anything other than a wig to a formal event. What constitutes a standard for modesty in wigs also varies from community to community.

What about mar’it ayin, conveying a false impression that one is violating Halacha? Can’t a good wig be mistaken for a woman’s real hair? Some authorities mandate that a wig be worn only in places in which wig covering is common (or if it is obviously a wig).¹⁸ Others, including Rav Moshe Feinstein, are less troubled by this concern, since there is general awareness that halachically observant women sometimes cover their hair with wigs.¹⁹

By placing a hat atop a wig, a woman both ensures all her hair is covered for modesty purposes, and has a hat to add dignity.

It is important to note that the rulings of Sefardi halachic authorities on wigs as head-coverings are mixed. Some Sefardi authorities, such as Kaf Ha-chayyim, freely permit them:

Others, such as Rav Ovadia Yosef, do not generally permit wigs as head covering:

Rav Yosef opposes wigs because they raise questions about modesty, and because they could give the false impression that a woman’s head is uncovered. Additionally, he does not think wearing wigs is supported by Sefardi custom. Even Rav Yosef, however, permits wigs in special cases, such as following divorce.

In many communities in which wigs are traditional, they are viewed as, at best, equal to other full coverings. In contrast, Chabad insists women wear only wigs, as preferable to other coverings.²⁰ As Rav Schneerson wrote:²¹

Since a woman is unlikely to remove her wig or feel otherwise self-conscious when wearing it, the Rebbe considered wigs preferable to other forms of head-covering.

In recent decades, it has become increasingly prevalent for rabbis of some communities to endorse wigs as preferred head-covering, because they provide fuller coverage than many scarves.

In general, styles of head-covering tend to vary from community to community, influenced both by Halacha and social and cultural trends.

Next, we discuss in what settings the obligation of head-covering applies.