Head-Covering V: Where

Does a woman have an obligation to cover her head in every setting?

If head-covering primarily signifies dignity and modesty, then it stands to reason that the amount of privacy of any given setting should affect the requirement. Standards of appropriate dress vary in different types of spaces.

Most people feel less constrained in the privacy of their homes than in public.

Indeed, the Talmudic and Mishnaic passages that discuss a woman’s obligation to cover her head suggest that head-covering is not required in all settings.

The daughters of Israel must not “go out” with uncovered heads. A woman violates dat Yehudit specifically when she “goes out” with her head uncovered. These sources imply that a woman does not need to cover her head at all within her private domain.

According to the continuation of this Talmudic passage, the more private the location, the less obligation to cover the head. The head-covering requirement of the marketplace does not apply to the chatzer, the courtyard.

In public settings, the full dat Yehudit norms of coverage apply. But in an intermediate space, like an alleyway or an apartment building’s laundry room, a kalata is good enough, even though it provides lesser coverage. An analogue might be wearing slippers or a house robe to the laundry room, clothes one would not ordinarily wear when going out in public. (See more here.)

In our next section, we explore the Halacha of head-covering in the chatzer – courtyard. In the days of the Talmud, a courtyard could be shared by a few families, so it was not totally private. A modern-day equivalent might be the area outside one’s door in an apartment building or the common yard shared by a group of garden apartments.

I. Not Obligatory in the Courtyard

One approach – that a woman need not cover her head in her courtyard – follows from a straightforward reading of the Talmudic passage cited above. The gemara argues that, if one defines the violation of dat Yehudit as going completely bare-headed in the courtyard, then almost every Jewish woman is in violation of Halacha and her marriage at risk, because Jewish women generally did not cover their heads in the courtyard. Hence it must be that a woman has no obligation to cover her heads at all in her courtyard.

Both Rashi¹ and Tosafot understand the passage this way. Public standards of dignity and modesty do not extend that far into the private domain.

Shulchan Aruch seems to hold this view as well:

Shulchan Aruch specifies that this halacha applies “in the marketplace.” Later, when discussing the requirements of dat Yehudit, Jewish women’s modest practice, Shulchan Aruch, following Tur, again specifically refers to public settings:

Since Shulchan Aruch mentions only public settings, we can infer that he permits a woman to go completely bare-headed in more private settings such as her courtyard.

Terumat Ha-deshen explicitly rules this way:

On these views, head-covering is obligatory only in a public or semi-public space, and the courtyard is treated like a private space.

II. Obligatory in the Courtyard

The Talmud Yerushalmi obligates women in a partial head-covering (kapaltin) even in the courtyard:

According to the Yerushalmi, a woman is obligated in the minimum head-covering in the courtyard, presumably because it is not completely private. This differs from an open alleyway (mavoy), where more is required because it is more public.

Sefer Ha-aruch, an eleventh-century reference work, presents a similar view in its disucssion of kalata.

Bach, basing himself on the Yerushalmi and Ha-Aruch, maintains that some head-covering is fully required both in the public domain and more private courtyard, regardless of who is present.

Reading the Talmud Bavli in light of the Yerushalmi,² Bach writes that a woman is prohibited from having her head fully uncovered in her courtyard even if only her own family is there!

Beit Shemuel rules accordingly.

Beit Shemuel writes that a woman does not forfeit her ketuba if she uncovers her head fully in a courtyard, but it is still prohibited.

Given that there is debate about whether head-covering is obligatory in the courtyard, one might think it clear that a woman need not cover her head in the privacy of her home.

This issue is complicated, however, by the Talmudic story of Kimchit, who covers every strand of her hair, even at home, introducing a new standard of modesty for hair that does not depend on the presence of other people:

As we’ve noted previously, Kimchit believes her merit stems from the care she takes to always cover her head, while the sages’ response is more ambiguous. The passage implies that her behavior was not normative for all Jewish women.

Required

The Zohar goes so far as to write that full head-covering at home is demanded of the married woman:

According to the Zohar, the requirement to cover is absolute and unchanging from place to place. This goes beyond the normal bounds of modesty and enters the realm of mysticism.

Chatam Sofer argues that women have adopted the halachic approach of the Zohar, so head-covering is in fact required, even in a private chamber like a bedroom:

Note that, while he mandates head-covering in the privacy of one’s home or room, Chatam Sofer concedes that this is not the simple meaning of the main halachic texts, but rather developed as a binding custom. Thus, he allows for less thorough coverage in private. A hat on top of a scarf is necessary in public, but a headscarf alone suffices at home, since the concern there is only modesty, and not dignity. In other words, even on the most stringent view, there are grounds for being less particular about head-covering in the home than in public.

Proper or Meritorious

Rema, in his commentary to Tur, admits that a woman with head uncovered in a private courtyard is not in violation of dat Moshe or dat Yehudit, but asserts that for her to cover her head even at home is still proper, modest behavior:³

Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly maintains that there is no requirement for a woman’s head to be covered in a private setting like her bedroom, but doing so is meritorious.⁴

Rav Moshe considers Chatam Sofer’s position “astonishing” and not obligatory. A woman need not wear a head-covering in private.

Does it make a difference who is present in a given space?

The Talmud Yerushalmi introduces another parameter in determining where head-covering is obligatory:

Here, the Yerushalmi notes that the obligation in a courtyard or alleyway depends on how private the setting is, and that is a function of how many people pass through them. A courtyard might be private or shared; it may be used only by the nearby households or serve as a shortcut for strangers. The public or private nature of a domain is as much a function of who tends to be there as of geography and architecture. So, for example, the stairwell of one apartment building might be like a courtyard, but of that another might be more like an alleyway.

Do those who maintain that women may go bareheaded in the courtyard or home apply that ruling even in the presence of people from outside the household?

Maharit indicates that they do:

Maharit explains that the obligation of head-covering does not apply in a woman’s courtyard , even if her neighbors or occasional visitors are there, unless it is really a public thoroughfare.

Ritva suggests otherwise:

From Ritva’s statement that most women go without a head-covering in the courtyard because others don’t see them there, we can infer that the head shouldbe covered in such a space when others are actually present.

Taz takes this idea a step further. He rules that the halacha in a given space varies depending on how many people tendto be around, whether or not they are around.

In Practice

We have seen that, among early authorities who permit going fully uncovered in the courtyard or even at home, some extend that to cases when male guests are present, some do not, and others do not address the issue.

Today, some women wear head-covering outside of the home, but uncover at home, even in front of male guests. Rav Ovadya Yosef reportedly defended this practice in an oral question and answer.

Prevailing practice, however, is that even women who go bareheaded at home do cover in the presence of men who are not members of the household. Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that this is required as a matter of modesty:

Rav Feinstein compares a setting “in front of other men” to the marketplace. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch, who generally takes a lenient stance regarding head-covering, also rules that a woman should be careful in this regard:

A woman who follows the view that she should don a head-covering at home specifically when there is a male guest, still has a halachic basis to be less particular about the quality of the coverage in that setting than she would be in public.

Similarly, there is halachic support to don a less complete or more informal covering in the modern equivalent of a courtyard, like the area right outside one’s door, if not facing a busy street.

Rav Yehuda Henkin adds the caveat that leniency should not extend to someone else’s private domain or courtyard:

Since dignity and modesty standards are often more relaxed in front of other women, common practice is not to cover in a women-only space, like a gathering of girlfriends, even outside of one’s home, and certainly not to cover in spaces where standards are even more relaxed, like a women’s exercise class or a women’s pool or beach.

Defining Spaces

The Talmud tells the story of On ben Pelet’s wife, whose husband had joined Korach in challenging Moshe’s leadership:

From this story, we can infer that, at some stage in Jewish history, women covered their heads in front of other men, even at home. At the same time, On’s wife receives no censure for uncovering at the entrance to her home, which suggests that doing so is, strictly speaking, permissible.

By loosening her hair at the entrance to her tent, On’s wife effectively extends her intimate space with her husband, and her ability to protect it and him. As a married woman, she covers her head as an expression of her relationship with her husband, and she finds a way to use this halacha not just to signal this relationship to others, but to save it.⁵ The privacy of a space defines the obligation in head-covering, and, in its own way, head-covering can define the privacy of a space.

This is yet another example of how head-covering can take on as much meaning as we choose to give it.