More Discussions for this daf
1. How soon is immediate? Why don't we believe the wife? 2. Danger of Not Keeping Nedarim to Children 3. Hair Cover For A Divorced Woman
4. Women Covering Hair 5. Question on the Quiz 6. One who buries will be buried
7. Difference between "betrothal invalid" and "she leaves without a Kesuvah" 8. Wearing Special Clothes While A Nidah 9. A Woman with Nedarim
10. Ba'alas Mum 11. Kidushin and Mekach Ta'us 12. Definition of Chatzer for Haircoverings
13. Bigdei Tziv'onim 14. כיסוי ראש לאישה קרחת 15. איטר יד באישה
DAF DISCUSSIONS - KESUVOS 72

ELi asks:

Does someone who is divorced need to still cover her hair?

ELi, london

The Kollel replies:

Dear Eli,

Rav Moshe Feinstein deals with your question in a Teshuvah (E"H IV, 32.4). The question was specifically about a young woman divorcee who hoped to get remarried and felt that she had more of a chance of getting remarried if he she did not cover her hair. She knew that any prospective husband would enventually find out that she was a divorcee, but if he didn't know from the outset then there was a chance that he would develop an interest in her that, when he found out, would override the consideration that she was a divorcee.

Rav Feinstein permitted her, in this case, to go without covering her hair for the following reason. A married woman is required by the Torah to cover her hair. According to the Talmud Yerushalmi even a widow or divorcee is required to cover her hair, but the requirement is only Das Yehudis - essentially a Rabbinic requirement. Rashi (Ksuvos, 72) brings two opinions as to the nature of this requirement. Either it is an Isur (prohibition) to go around in public with uncovered hair, or it is a Mitzva to cover the hair (Rashi says that the second opinion - that it is a Mitzvah - is the more accepted of the two). If it is an Isur, then there is no room for leniency. That is the general rule regarding Isurim. One must give up all of their property to avoid violating an Isur. But if it is a Mitzvah then there is room for leniency in cases of great need. So if the woman is married and the requirement to cover the hair is from the Torah then we have to follow the strict opinon that it is an Isur (Safek d'Oryasa l'Chumarah), but if she is widowed or divorced then we are entitled to follow the lenient opinion that it is a Mitzvhah.

Bottom line, according to Rav Feinstein, if a divorcee will suffer some type of loss - loss of job or loss of opportunity to get married - then she is not required to cover her hair.

Kol Tuv,

Yonasan Sigler

This is not a Psak Halachah

Webbe Rebbe comments:

Dear Kollel,

The original question was, "Does someone who is divorced need to still cover her hair?"

Rabbi Sigler, in his interest in invoking Rabbi Feinstein's leniency, appears to have minimized the original question and the formulation of the primary halacha.

In this writer's opinion, before going into exceptions to the rule, the appropriate answer to the question is that fundamentally, divorced women ARE required to cover their hair.

The source for this can be found in Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha'ezer 21:2) [See the comments of the Beis Shmuel (ad loc. 5), Chelkas Mechokek (ad loc. 2), and Daggul Mervavah (ad loc.). Also see Perisha (ad loc. 3) and Aruch Hashulchan (ad loc. 4(].

It should be noted, that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein also ruled this way. However, he made lenient exceptions in two separate situations:

The first was the case of a widow, who needed to support herself and her children. The only job that she was able to find that paid the level of salary that she required, was a secretarial job. The problem was that the boss demanded that she come to work with her hair uncovered. Rabbi Feinstein ruled that she was permitted to take the job under the boss's terms [Iggros Moshe, EH I: 57].

[Rabbi Feinstein adds (ibid.) that this leniency can only be applied to the case of a widow, who isn't married currently married (Eishes Ish). However if the woman was currently married (Eishes Ish), we would need to rule stringently, even at the expense of losing such a job].

The second case where Rabbi Feinstein ruled leniently was posed to him as a hypothetical question, regarding an imaginary divorcee who desired to remarry. While the woman planned to eventually reveal the fact of her previous marriage to any potential husband, she felt, however, that this information should only be shared later; after meeting the person, and giving him a chance to get to know her and her qualities. Premature disclosure about her previous marital status, would seriously impact her potential for remarriage, and she wouldn't stand a chance in the dating process. Rabbi Feinstein validated such a type of concern, and ruled (in theory) that the potentially negative impact on remarriage would be sufficient grounds to permit her to uncover her hair [Iggros Moshe, EH IV, 32:4].

It's important to note, that despite his liberal stance, Rabbi Feinstein nevertheless qualified his ruling, and stated that this shouldn't be misconstrued as a blanket dispensation for the hypothetical divorcee to always walk around with her hair uncovered. The exception was only applicable, he said, if and when, covering her hair would negatively impact her matrimonial prospects. Otherwise, she must cover her hair.

[I add, that logic would dictate, that Rabbi Feinstein's qualification would also assumedly apply to his other ruling regarding the widow, in that she would only be allowed to uncover her hair when doing so would endanger her job].

For further discussion, see Shut Lev Avrohom (#107) and Shut Machzeh Eliyahu (#119) who dispute Rabbi Feinstein's leniency. See also "Halichos Bas Yisrael", by Rabbi Y. Y. Fuchs (Chap. 5, note 8) who records a personal written communication from Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, that preferably one should not rely on this leniency if they have other options available; for example, wearing a wig. He also records a ruling that he heard from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, that divorcees are required to cover their hair. If they find this difficult, they should at least wear a wig].

For Sephardic readers, I note, that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer IV, EH:3) posits that ALL women must cover their hair, regardless if they are currently married or not.

He also takes a strict stance, and opposes wearing "shaitels" (wigs) in public. He deplores the recent trend of Sephardic women who have adopted this "flawed custom" ("mekalkalta") from their Ashkenazic counterparts who conduct themselves "lightheadedly" ("kalut rosh") in this matter. Nevertheless, with reference to widows or divorcees, he rules that one may be lenient, and that they are PERMITTED to wear a WIG!

B'Virkas ha'Torah,

"The Webbe Rebbe"

https://il.linkedin.com/in/webbe-rebbe-800738a5