Tag Info

Per the Igros Moshe the bride does not have to cover her hair until the morning after the wedding. The reasoning is that so long that she retains a public presumption of virginity, she has no obligation to cover her hair.

Presumably standard practice is that once a woman begins treating her hair as erva, she should continue doing so. (I believe I've heard this from Rabbis Broyde or Willig.) Rabbi Moshe Feinstein does write that hair-covering while married is dat moshe, but hair-covering afterwards is dat yehudit. There is a great deal of discussion over what those terms ...

One source is Shabbos (64b), that is interpreted by some as allowing married women to cover their hair with only a wig in public (e.g. this is the interpretation of the Shiltei Giborim). R' Noach Chaim Tzvi Berlin disagrees and holds that this is not considered a legitimate headcovering (Atzei Arazim, Even HaEzer 21:2). Some other opinions hold that the ...

The opinion of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein -- which I've heard quoted by several prominent American Ashkenazi authorities on Laws of Nida -- is that the "modesty" required of a woman in her own home, when she's a nida, is not the full set that would apply for going out in public (e.g. hair covering). Rather, it's whatever she would normally feel comfortable ...

You say: A veil is worn, of course, but that hardly seems to be a full covering. I learned that due to the large argument about when the bride first must cover her hair, it is sufficient at the wedding to have a partial covering which satisfies the Biblical requirement (dat moshe) but not the rabbinic requirement (dat yehudit). [See the Talmud Ketubot 72b ...

To add to Fred's answer: in Sifra (to Num. 5:18, the same verse that the Gemara cites) R. Yishmael finds support for the idea that unmarried virgins don't need to cover their hair in II Sam. 13:19, ותקח תמר אפר על ראשה, by explaining אפר as "a scarf" - i.e., we see that Tamar began covering her head with one only after she was violated. (As the commentary ...

This was a very hot topic several years ago when some it became known that many wigs from India have hair that comes from idol worship. For a comprehensive treatment of the subject see Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff's article "Can a Sheitel be Prohibited Because of Avodah Zarah?".

A requirement for a married woman to cover her hair, whether d'oraysa or d'rabbanan, is suggested by the fact that the kohein would uncover a sotah's hair (Kesuvos 72a). Hair is additionally considered an ervah when it is customarily kept covered. Since married women must cover their hair, the sight of this normally covered area is an ervah. For single women ...

As stated here: A man may recite a bracha in the presence of a non-Jewish married woman whose hair is uncovered (Shu”t Igros Moshe - OC 4:15:1) Much of tznius is based on context and expectations. The very fact that there is a difference between a married and unmarried Jewish woman's hair (or according to Rashi, even a married and unmarried woman's ...

This is a very (extremely?) delicate subject. We must first understand what stands behind it and this forum may not be the best place to discuss it. The idea of "tzniut" is very deep and comes to help us build a meaningful and lasting married relationship. The chinuch (training? education?) starts at a very young age much before the boy/girl gets to the age ...

A human hair sheitel is hair that was already detached from the natural source (a person’s head) therefore the concern of gozez because of brushing does not apply. The same halacha applies to a non-human hair sheitel. Therefore, you are allowed to use a brush with hard bristles.However, one should still use a different brush than the one used during the ...

Per Oz VeHadar Levusha a married gentile's uncovered hair is also considered an Ervah.