[Avodah] Habituation

[Chana]

RMM writes:

> The Ra'avyah says that we aren't concerned with an unmarried woman's
> uncovered hair, because we're used to it, and likewise with her
> speaking voice. (I don't understand the Arukh ha-Shulhan's statement
> that there is a d'oraita for a married woman to cover her hair,
> whether or not there's hirhur. Given that the Gemara and Rambam speak
> of Jewish WOMEN covering their hair, married or not, where did the
> Arukh ha-Shulhan derive a principle of married women specifically
> being required? I'm honestly confused.

The discussion regarding women covering their hair comes up in Ketubos 72a-b
and it is there that the Sifri (Rabbi Yishmael) learns from the pasuk
(Bamidbar 5:18) a warning to bnos yisroel not to go out with uncovered head.

Obviously there is an obvious limud to say that this applies to all women
(bnos yisroel), married or not. And has nothing to do with hirhur, being a
straightforward limud from the Torah.

BUT Bamidbar 5:18 is discussing the Sotah.  A Sotah can only be a Sotah if
she is married.
Similarly, the discussion in Ketubos is all about married women (one can
only be divorced without a ketuba if one is married and has one to lose).
And while the Mishna seems to be talking about head covering as a matter of
custom (Dat Yehudit), the gemora, certainly on its most straightforward
reading brings Rabbi Yishmael in the Sifri and appears to posken
accordingly.

So while there is clearly a logic to learning that this is talking about all
women, the narrowest construction for those who accept the limud from Sotah
and the pashtus of the Gemora in Ketubos would limit the d'orisa to married
women since that is clearly the subject matter (and the only subject matter)
of these sources.

 According to what I've seen,
> the only heter that UN-married women have,is a hergel one. Were it not
> for habituation, unmarried women would have exactly the same
> requirement to cover their hair as married women. Shouldn't hergel
> apply to married women just the same as unmarried women, given that
> the Gemara and Rambam don't distinguish between married and unmarried
> women?)

But the Gemora in Ketubos clearly does distinguish, in the sense that it is
not at all dealing with, unmarried women.  You have to derive by implication
that the same law would apply to an unmarried women.  It is an
understandable derivation, but it is not axiomatic.  And once you through
the Sifri into the equation, you appear to be talking about a d'orisa for
which no logic or question of hirhur is necessary.  It becomes a technical
question, not a hirhur one.  The further question is about how this
interacts with the Gemora in Brochos 24a which is far more clearly
discussing hirhur issues, and it is understandable that the two were
understood by some to be intertwined.  But again that is not a necessary
limud.


> Michael Makovi

Regards

Chana