The Ba'kh, Part 2

This is a reflection on this text.

The Ba"kh (ב"ח), standing for the Bayit Hadash (בית חדש), was written by Rabbi Joel Sirkes, who lived in Poland, from 1561-1640.  This work is a commentary on the Arba'ah Turim.  His other work includes commentary on the Talmud, two works of responsa, and a commentary on the book of Ruth.

One of the things that I noticed playing a very strong role in his comments, as well as in the comments of the Mordechai, whom he quotes, is the force of communal practice.  The thing that establishes what is permissible to wear is what is the norm.  The norm in his community, like that of the Mordechai, is that "בתולה הרגילה בגילוי שער ", a "virgin... is accustomed to revealing her hair", and therefore "לא חיישינן, דליכא הרהור", "we are not concerned, because there is no [concern over] improper fantasy".  


When taken in a modern light, I'd end up taking this approach to mean that since women don't generally cover their heads in our (American) society, they don't need to- even married women.  I've seen modern writers and rabbis take this approach.  It has a certain loyalty to one meaning of modesty, from the perspective of not standing out, not drawing attention. At the same time, I don't know which communal norms I should be judging by, in the modern world.  The local general community?  The local Jewish community?  The Jewish community/movement with which I prefer to affiliate?  Depending on the answer, I'd come out with very different practices.  That sort of difference didn't exist in Rabbi Sirkes' time.

On the other hand, he also handles a variety of texts from the Talmud that deal with issues of women's modesty, and hair-covering in particular.  These establish a textual requirement, beyond the impact of social norms.  


One thing that I like about this text is that it explains a clear tension on the issue of unmarried women's headcovering, and addresses it from both textual and social angles.  It shows how complicated the issue can be.  

The Bakh, Part 1: His Text

לא ילכו בנות ישראל פרועות ראש בשוק אחת פנויה ואחת אשת איש: נראה דנפקא לן מדאיתא פרק המדיר (כתובות עב.) ואיזהו דת יהודית?  יוצאה וראשה פרוע.  דאורייתא  היא דכתיב (במדבר ה יח) "ופרע [את] ראש האשה"!  ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אזהרה לבנות ישראל שלא יצאו בפרוע ראש.

 דמדלא קאמר אזהרה לאשת איש אלא סתמא אזהרה לבנות ישראל אלמא דאחת פנויה ואחת אשת איש באזהרה.  מיהו במרדכי כתב ס"פ [סוף פרק] מי שמתו (ברכות סי' פ) ע"ש  "[וכתב] ראבי"ה (סימן עו) וז"ל [וזה לשונו]: "כל הדברים שהאזהרה למעלה לערוה דוקא בדבר שאין רגילות להיגלות אבל בתולה הרגילה בגילוי שער לא חיישינן, דליכא הרהור" עכ"ל [עד כאן לשונו].

ואין לפרש דדוקא בבית ובחצר אבל בשוק אסורה לצאת  דהא ברפ"ב [ראש פרק 2] דכתובות (טו: ) שנינו אם יש עדים שיצאת בהינומא וראשה פרוע כתובתה מאתים ויצאת פירש"י [פירש רש"י] (ד"ה [דיבור המתחיל] אם יש עדים) מבית אביה לבית בעלה ואפי' [ואפילו] דרך השוק 

משמע, וכן נהגו וצריך לומר דבפנויה בעולה קאמר, אבל הבתולות אינן באזהרה. 

The daughters of Israel do not go with an uncovered head in the marketplace,  both an unmarried and a married woman: It seems to originate in what it says in Ketubot chapter “” (daf 72a): “What is Dat Yehudit?  She goes out with an uncovered head.  But that is from the Torah, as it says (Numbers 5:18) ‘And he uncovers the head of the woman’ [context is the Sotah ritual, as explored in these posts].  The house of Rabbi Ishmael says, a warning to the daughters of Israel that they should not go out with an uncovered head.”

Since it does not say “a warning to a married woman”, but rather simply “a warning to the daughters of Israel”, both unmarried and married women are included in the warning.  However, in the Mordechai, at the end of Brachot, chapter “One Whose Dead”, section 80, it says “the Ra’avya writes: ‘All the matters in the warning about is specifically about erva [nakedness], in a matter that they do not usually reveal, but we are not concerned about a virgin, who is accustomed to revealing her hair, because there is no [concern over] improper fantasy.”

And one should not explain that this [that a virgin goes with an uncovered head] is specifically in the house or courtyard, but [her going with an uncovered head] is still forbidden in the marketplace, because at the beginning of the second chapter of Ketubot (15b) it says that if there are witnesses that a woman went out in a hinuma, and her head is uncovered, her ketubah is 200.  [Going out in only a hinuma is sufficient legal evidence that she was a virgin when she married, and therefore gets the higher ketubah value.  This implies that unmarried virgins do not cover their hair, even in public.  For some more about the ambiguous meaning of the term hinuma, see this post]  Also, Rashi explains (in his comment beginning: If there are witnesses) that this means when she goes from her father’s house to her husband’s house, even by way of the marketplace.  This is our custom, and therefore it is necessary to say that the Tur meant a non-virgin unmarried woman [when he said that unmarried women also cover their heads], but virgins are not included in the warning [from the house of Rabbi Ishmael, in Ketubot 72a.]  

This seems pretty lengthy already- so some thoughts about the Ba"kh's position (and the usual information about who he was) will come in a following post.  I will add here that the quotation from the Mordechai comes from his comments on the recitation of the bedtime Shema.  This is a digression based on the principle that he is establishing for what a man may see of his wife while reciting Shema.  In my mind, that almost makes it more reliable, because it isn't on the topic where he might have something to prove, at that point, it's just a good sociological proof, from his perspective.  

Halakhic Prequels

In my anachronistic exploration of halakhic texts pertaining to head-covering (currently, women's head-covering), I went to look at the Tur, and found that in bringing you the Shulhan Arukh, I have already brought you the Tur on this topic- the wording is identical.

(Here it is, as a reminder:  לא תלכנה בנות ישראל פרועות ראש בשוק, אחת פנויה ואחת אשת איש

The daughters of Israel should not walk with uncovered heads in the marketplace, both unmarried and married women)

While I was looking through the Tur to find it, I found that earlier in the same siman, there's another relevant snippet of halakha- "אסור לשמוע  קול ערוה או לראות שערה"  It is forbidden to listen to the voice of a sexually-forbidden-woman, or to look at her hair.   The same thing is brought in the Shulhan Arukh, again word-for-word (E"H 21:1).  

This is presented in the context of a variety of prohibitions on male attention to women, much of which I am, at the least, quite uncomfortable with- as you can probably tell by the beginning of the sentence.  Nevertheless, it presents an interesting balance to the following se'if, which somehow changes the feeling of the thing, for me.  I shouldn't show it, and they shouldn't look.   If I fall through, they're still not allowed to enjoy my error.  

Somehow, I manage not to react to this text by putting my head-covering into that category of "do this to protect your too-easily-tempted men from sin", a philosophical approach to modesty that often irks me.  I don't know why it doesn't press those buttons, since it would be logical enough.  The chain of reasoning would be: 1. they oughtn't look.  Therefore 2. I should have to keep it out of sight.  I dislike the one-sided responsibility for someone else's obligation that goes on in this approach.  Expressing the requirement for women to cover their heads as a separate requirement helps prevent this from being my dominant reading of the rule.  The other meanings that head-covering has both for me and in the text, also keeps it from falling into this hole for me.  

Beit Shmuel on Shulhan Arukh E"H 21:2

The Beit Shmuel was written by Rabbi Shmuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, a Polish rabbi, and was first published in 1689, with a much edited second edition in 1694.  The work comments on Shulhan Arukh Even Ha'Ezer, and 

  אחת פנויה: היינו אלמנה או גרושה אבל בתולה מותר ופריעת הראש בחצר ליכא אסור אלא 

משום צניעות ועיין ב"י וד"מ בסי' קט"ו ושם כתבתי בשם הסמ"ג והש"ג דאסור אפילו בחצר 

   "And also unmarried: This is a widow or a divorcee, but a virgin is permitted, and to go with an uncovered head in a courtyard is not forbidden except because of modesty... [ending with some citations, and a note that elsewhere, the author wrote that it was forbidden.  I need to look into this part more.]

In the shiur I went to on college on the topic of women's head-covering, they brought this source- but only the first phrase.  That makes the interpretation seem much simpler than the full length of the comment does, however short that may still be.  Never-married women may go with an uncovered head, the end.  But then the comment goes on, without actually designating another subject.  

However, it then talks about courtyards (space that is not quite public, but also not quite private)- a subject that makes sense only for married women, if going about truly in public (the context stated in the Shulhan Arukh) is permitted for unmarried women.  It makes no sense to require more covering in a less public place than in a more public one.  So this must have to do with married women.  

The question of modesty versus a marriage-related prohibition, which seems to be implied here, is rather confusing for me.  If it is immodest for women to go with uncovered heads, then why do you need to require it separately for married women?  I suppose this is an indication that mitzvot are one thing, and modesty, while also required, is so culturally influenced that you can't rely on it to stay steady.  So perhaps head-covering is more than a modesty-requirement that gets waived for the unmarried.  Or maybe not...  

In summary- this comment raises more questions for me than it provides answers.  

חלקת מחוקק: This is one source I can't transliterate

The Helkat Mehokek, R. Moshe Lima, (the link is to a Hebrew Wikipedia article, since there doesn't seem to be one in English yet), was born in 1604 in Poland, and died in 1658.  He served as a rabbi in Slonim, Vilna and Brisk.  Here's what he has to say about our favorite piece of Shulhan Arukh (i.e. Even HaEzer 21:2)

אחת פנויה ואחת אשת איש: פנויה בעולה קאמר, אבל בתולה אמרינן דיוצאה בהינומא וראשה פרועה, וכן הוא בב"ח ועיין במרדכי

Both an unmarried and a married woman (the citation from Shulhan Arukh): this means an unmarried woman who has had sex, but we say that a virgin may go out with only a hinuma and an uncovered head, and thus in the Bach, and see the Mordecai.  

What a hinuma is, I'm still working on.  According to Jastrow (p. 348, right column), it is either a curtained litter on which a virgin bride is carried or a slumbering couch.  This seems unlikely to be any sort of reality in 17th century Poland, so he must mean something else.  According to my pocket dictionary, it's a bridal veil.  Neither seem like regular clothing for anyone...  Even-Shoshan has the same two definitions, although expands the latter to any sort of face veil, as well.  Still, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense with what I think I know of 1600s Poland- I don't think face-veiling was normative there.  I'm wondering if it isn't some sort of babushka for the outdoors, worn over loose hair.

Checking in the Arukh HaShalem sent me to the place where the Talmud discusses exactly this question (I seem to be in extremely good company): Ketubot 17b.  The two options given are, 1. a dome of myrtle branches, and 2. a veil she can doze in.  Rashi suggests that this second interpretation involves a scarf over her head that can hang down and cover her eyes, and says about it "as they do in our place".  I don't know if that's talking about young women in general, or about brides... (Also, Rashi lived several centuries before R. Lima, and in a different country.)

What I can tell is that head-covering for unmarried women is at the least less stringent than for married women, but there is some item that seems to be required for public places.  Any further insight into the identity of the hinuma in the view of Ashkenazi Acharonim (or anyone else, for that matter) would be welcomed...

Ramblings About Ambiguity, Ethnicity, and Law

When we looked at Shulhan Arukh Even Ha'Ezer 21:2, I really only addressed the main text, that by R. Yosef Karo...  Today, I opened up the book to see if I'd missed any comments by the Rema on that halakha.

There's nothing.  Not a word.

In other words, this is something where Sefardim an Ashkenazim were in agreement.  When the Rema wrote his gloss to adapt the Shulhan Arukh for Ashkenazi audiences, he didn't have anything to say to alter what he saw on the page.  That speaks pretty loudly, to me, for a community whose current practice is for unmarried women to go sans any head-covering, almost across the board (I know some Haredi communities have unmarried women braid their hair, a la the other interpretation of  BaMidbar 5:18, where the term "" means to 'unravel one's hair', i.e. braids, rather than 'uncover one's head').  However, if the same source phrase was supposed  to mean different things for married and unmarried women, you'd think that a halakhic text would say so explicitly.

How this came to be is a real mystery to me, for all that the usual theories have to do with the practices of surrounding cultures.  Nevertheless, the "uncovered head=unmarried woman" equation is deeply coded into current Ashkenazi culture, and putting on a head-covering for the first time after you get married is a big deal.  Heck, it was a (quiet) big deal for me, and I'd been wearing a kippah/etc for over half a decade already.

So I am all in favor of a broader sort of head-covering practice for women as well as men (someday, I'll start talking more about men, kippot, and the like), but I don't want to deprive people of a social practice that speaks to people so deeply.  I liked my own transition from kippah to full-head covering.  But would it work more broadly?  Is this a change worth pushing for, for that matter, or is it just a spiritual practice that works for me, and shouldn't be socially supported?

An Instance of Interpretation

One of my favorite pieces of Shulhan Arukh is the following:

 לא תלכנה בנות ישראל פרוענות בשוק, אחת פנויה ואחת אשת איש (Even HaEzer 21:2)
The daughters of Israel should not walk with uncovered heads in the marketplace, both unmarried and married women.

It has always sounded pretty definitive, to me.  In fact, when I was in college, I had fairly strong feelings that I was "doing it right" in contrast to my Orthodox peers, in this matter.  Of course, nothing stays that simple- halakha expands and comments and interprets, and as you'll see later, the term פנויה/unmarried woman gets interpreted in rather surprising ways in this case.  I don't want to jump ahead of myself, but the interpretations lead to what is normative practice today, which very clearly does not involve all Jewish women wearing a head-covering of some sort.  Although, before I was married, this source was one of the ones that gave me support in choosing to wear a kippah or the equivalent all the time, without feeling like it was inauthentic.

I'm also told, although I haven't researched it myself yet, that there are Sefardi/Edot HaMizrach communities where unmarried women do, or at least did, cover their heads.  And I've heard of Sefardi rabbis who promote the idea that all women should have a head-covering of some sort to pray.  It'll be an interesting area to explore...  I expect that the fact that women in the broader society in which those Jewish communities were living did cover their heads influenced this halakha and its interpretation.