Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Whilst studying I came across this,

From Sefer Kedushah, Issurei Biah Chapter 21 - Halacha 17

Jewish women should not walk in the marketplace with uncovered hair. [This applies to] both unmarried* and married women.

Followed by this note,

*I.e., a widow or a divorcee. A woman who never married may wear her hair uncovered (Chelkat Mechokek 21:2).

Simply put, may under any circumstances a never married/divorced woman cover her hair? In the note it says "may wear her hair uncovered", which implies that such a woman could cover her hair and need never to have been married or be currently married to do so. It sounds like it is permissible.

I also wonder if it is allowed for a unmarried woman for personal tznius reasons to cover her hair.

When speaking of "personal tznius reasons" this discussion came up in a class. As some married women choose to, for instance, never uncover their hair as it is seen to be meritorious. The question was asked if it were allowed for unmarried women to have a similar, but of course situational different, high standard.

Consulting my local Orthodox rabbi is a given. However, I like hearing different perspectives. Sometimes LORs don't elaborate on their answers or answer so simply that a discussion doesn't benefit from the answer.

share|improve this question
Perhaps related?judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/14635/… My question would be whether this specific action would yield the desired result of a higher level of modesty, when the context of the action would seem to draw more attention to an individual, not less! I would try to think of more subtle adaptations that could be made. Covering hair at a time of one's life when no one else does screams 'I'm modest, look!', which isn't what the individual is aiming for, one would assume. – Baby Seal Mar 4 '14 at 4:15
In today's world dressing tzniusly already screams "Look, I am modest" as it is not the norm. One could argue this renders dressing modestly counterproductive, if everyone is going to gaze at you. Dressing tzniusly is a very small part of being tznius, which also includes behaviour, speech, and mannerism. Plenty of people abide by the dress part but not by the deeper application. Is it really then untznius to cover ones hair when one is unmarried? Also, what about fashion and style, may one cover ones hair with a colourful turban all the time if one finds it stylish? – user5025 Mar 4 '14 at 4:46
That's a fairpoint, and honestly I think its beautiful that the Bnos Yisrael stand out to people by NOT flaunting themselves, be it tacitly or intentionally! I was referring more to within the Jewish community, where halacha and general practice is known. It would, with or without the dresser's intent, project a 'frumer than thou' air on to people, which would accomplish the opposite of tsnius, as outlined in the Talmud in one of the answers I linked. I'm not saying to prohibit it, certainly not in the case of style, I just don't think it will achieve the sought after high standard. – Baby Seal Mar 4 '14 at 5:13
Fryda, this is a very interesting discussion, but generally comments are supposed to help to improve the posts your commenting on, so if you'd like to continue chatting, we have a room for that here: chat.stackexchange.com:80/rooms/468/vdibarta-bam. Thanks for your thoughts thus far! – Baby Seal Mar 4 '14 at 5:17
Err, my bad, you actually need 10 more reputation to post in chat, sorry! ^ Foryour future reference, I guess. – Baby Seal Mar 4 '14 at 5:20

Consult your local Orthodox rabbi. The answer should end there.

But really, motivations really matter here. Let us say that I say that there are indeed unmarried girls in Meah Shearim who, based on this Rambam, braid their hair (so that it is not parua). And that in Yemen, Jewish unmarried girls cover their hair just like the Muslims.

If done as a deliberate divergence from the normative standards of tznius, that is, Daas Yehudis, then even if technically within the realm of tznius the practice is allowed, hashkafically, it might be quite problematic. There are groups of women, such as the Burqa Babes, who have formed their own sect and reject rabbinic authority. (And attract attention to themselves with their extremes of tznius, which in fact runs counter to tznius.) Halachic norms are halachic, and you should not necessarily be adding upon yourself more extreme degrees of tznius.

Could you elaborate more upon "personal tznius reasons"?

share|improve this answer
I edited the post again, to elaborate. So if your community allows it like in Yemen it is consider okay. But if the girls from Yemen move to NY they would be expected to change to conform into the prevailing community standards concerning dress. I am aware of this. However, if married women are allowed to practice the hair covering in more a more severe manner, why can't unmarried women cover their hair if they feel that this makes them closer to HaShem? – user5025 Mar 4 '14 at 2:41
The community in Yemen requires it, rather than allows it. Why can't people adopt restrictive non-halachic practices according to their whims, and declare that this makes them closer to Hashem? It is the first step in rejecting Rabbinic Judaism, as defined by halachic decisors, and creating one's own religion. And this is precisely what has happened, in the present day. (For instance, to follow this thread a bit, if Rashi on the gemara explains that it is specifically hair of a married woman that is erva, why are you arguing and defining this other hair as erva, rejecting Rashi?) – josh waxman Mar 4 '14 at 2:56
also, besides for possible concerns of מחזי כיוהרא and אל תפרוש מן הציבור, think practically for a moment. You'll ruin your shidduch chances! Everyone is going to think that you are married, or divorced, or a non-virgin! – josh waxman Mar 4 '14 at 3:03
@josh rambam clearly says a girl of about 3 years old must wear a meetpa7ath n when married a rodeedh on top. Why say it is like muslims? – MoriDoweedhYaa3qob Mar 4 '14 at 14:57
yes wiki is a great source...also most of the customs teimonim had had been abandoned in israel because it is israel... – MoriDoweedhYaa3qob Mar 5 '14 at 4:42

I haven't heard anything on stopping an unmarried woman from covering her hair although if one has never been married then doing so isn't necessary. On the other hand for those that have been married and no longer are either through divorce or becoming a widow (G-d forbid for either) then we have this concept where once someone begins to take on an action they may not subtract from it. Even in the case of a single girl who has never been married if she takes on the unnecessary stringency of covering her hair then she may not stop covering her hair in the future if she decides doing so is burdensome before getting married. The other issue besides this is making it appear as if one is already married may make it difficult to get married. If people in the community see you with your hair covered already it may be assumed your married. yes that could easily be corrected by those who know you well but then there will be confusion as to why exactly you started covering your hair when it isn't necessary

share|improve this answer

Rav Yitzchok Berkowitz ruled for a single woman who was a teacher in a seminary did female students, that she is obligated to cover her hair. As she is in a position of respect, and the underlying principle of hair covering and tznius in general, is dignity and self respect, and since this woman is in a position of respect she should cover her hair.

share|improve this answer
Darshinan Taama DiKra? – Double AA Jun 16 '15 at 15:51
רגיל בפומי im just quoting. But I did hear this explicitly in a shiur from his mouth. – Mefaresh Jun 16 '15 at 15:54
@DoubleAA hopefully now it is better – Mefaresh Jun 16 '15 at 16:09

It is assur. It's a chutzpah to the rabinnic authorities! It's a statement that says "you guys didn't do your job by enforcing more rabbinical restrictions."

share|improve this answer
This answer would be more valuable if you supported the assertion that it's assur. Thanks. (Also, if you could reconsider the tone, that'd be great.) – Monica Cellio Mar 6 '14 at 2:18
This isn't at all helpful. Just like @Monica Cellio said, please provide supporting documentation for the assur statement. – user5025 Mar 12 '14 at 7:38

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.