One of the Halachos that I have the most difficulty with is hair covering. Married women are required by Halacha to cover their hair. It is considered Erva… nakedness. That is a strange Halacha which I have never really understood.
Hair equals nakedness?! Does anyone get Hirhurim when looking at hair? And more importantly, what’s the difference between the hair of an unmarried young woman and the hair of a married woman? An un-married woman has no Halachic requirement to cover her hair. A married woman must. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of that.
The fact is that there is no direct commandment in the Torah to cover the hair of a married woman. The Gemarah in Sotah tells us we derive it from scripture. When speaking about the procedure of the Sotah (a married woman suspected of having an affair) the Torah, states: “The Kohen shall uncover the head of the woman” (Numbers 5:18). This teaches that married women cover their hair. And the Gemarah then tells us that covering hair is a D’Oraisa… a biblical level Halacha.
I’ve posted at least twice on this issue on the issue of hair covering for women and why I have such a problem with it. See here and here. But, what about men?
Are men required to cover their hair too? Of course for men it is not about hair being Erva. It is about covering the head, usually with a Yarmulkee (sometimes called a Kipa).
Let’s take a look at the soures.
We find references to it in the Gemarah: Men should cover their heads in order to have the fear of heaven upon them (Shabbos156B). But is this a Halachic requirement? Or is it just a Midas Chasidus, a pious act?
The Gemarah addresses the issue indirectly. We are told (Kidushin 31A) that Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua never walked more than four Amos (cubits) without a head covering saying, “The Shechina is above my head” and “Covering my head protects me from sinning”.
The Rambam tells us in his “Guide” and in his “Yad” that our sages were always careful to cover their heads because the Shechina (God’s presence) hovered above them and covered them.
There is also the Gemarah in Brachos (60B) which tells us the specific Bracha recited every morning for covering the head: “Oter Yiroel B’ Sifarah”: … Blessed art Thou… Who crowns Israel with glory. This is a reference to covering the head.
Does any of this mean that covering the head is a Halachic requirement? Or is it only a pious act? Not required by Halacha.
According to a vast number of Poskim, wearing a Yarmulke is only a pious act. They conclude this from the fact that Chazal praised those who would take care to not walk 4 Amos without a head covering. Why praise someone for simply following Halacha? The praise must have been for going beyond Halacha. A partial list of these Poskim include: Maharshal, Tashbatz, Darkei Moshe, Prisha, Magen Avraham, Birkei Yosef, Bach, and Rabbi E. Kramer.
Rabbi Kramer reasons that when the Anshei Kensesses HaGedolah (The men of the Great Assembly who formalized prayer at about the time of Ezra) created those Brachos, they put them in a specific order. The Bracha of “Oter Yisroel B’ Sifarah” is stated after other Brachos are made. Certainly had head covering been required, this Bracha would be one of the first.
On the other hand there are those Poskim who say that head covering for a man is a Halachic requirement. These Poskim include; Mahari Bruna, Daas Ha-Itur, Tur, and Tzemach Tzedek. They explain the praise in the Gemarah given to those Amaraim was not for the basic Halachic requirement, but for wearing an additional head covering on top of it.
The Taz (OC 8:3) however offer a novel ruling. He says that in those societies which require their citizens to remove their hats as a sign of respect, it becomes a matter of Halacha: U’VeChikoseham Lo Selechu: Do not walk in the their ways (i.e. the ways of idolators) More recent Poskim like the Chasam Sofer (CM: 191) and the Shar HaTzion to the Mishna Brurah (OC 2:17) say that even the GRA who holds that it is only a Pious act would agree that in our circumstance it is a matter of Halacha to not follow this practice and instead to always wear a Yarmulkee.
Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that indeed based on the Gemarah it is not a Halcaha and it is only a pious act. But based on the Taz, it is has become in our day a matter of Halacha.
But this Halachic requirement has built in Heterim for not to wearing one in certain instances. For example Rav Moshe holds that if one is required by his school or profession to not wear a Yarmulke one is not required to do so, as long as he doesn’t do it because of Chukas Hagoy and comports himself otherwise like a religious Jew.
I wonder though whether in our day and in America, removing one’s hat is a still considered a sign of honor. Our society recognizes that we are a nation of immigrants each with our own customs. Ironically it would seem that the fact that one can now even wear a Yarmulke in a courtroom or in the armed services… that it is removed from being considered Chukas HaGoy.
I would think therefore that perhaps wearing a Yarmulke should revert to being a Midas Chasidus, a pious act and no longer be considered a Halachic requirement at all.
Please note: By no means am I advocating the abandonment of wearing a Yarmulke. This essay is only meant as an exercise in Halachic thought.
Primary Source: Torah L’Daas
