Devotional Head Covering Source, Shulhan Arukh, Orekh Chayim 91:3-4

Translation partially by Sarah Mulhern.

Text:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות תפלה סימן צא 

יש אומרים שאסור להוציא אזכרה מפיו בראש מגולה, * וי"א שיש למחות שלא ליכנס בבהכ"נ בגלוי הראש. 

סעיף ד

כובעים, (קפיל"ה בלעז) הקלועים מקש, חשיבא כסוי, אבל  הנחת יד על הראש לא חשיבא כסוי; ואם אחר מניח ידו על ראשו של זה, משמע דחשיבא כסוי. 

סעיף ה

ה לא יעמוד באפונדתו (טאסק"ה בלעז) ולא בראש מגולה ולא ברגלים מגולים, אם דרך אנשי המקום שלא יעמדו לפני הגדולים אלא בבתי רגלים. 

Translation:

91:3 There are those who say that it is forbidden to say the name of G-d with an uncovered head, and there are those who say that there is reason to object [and say] one should not enter a synagogue with an uncovered head.

91:4 Hats (Kipeleh in the vernacular) that are plaited from straw are considered a covering, but putting the hand on the head is not considered covering; and if another person rests his hand on this person's head, it is considered a covering.

91:5 One should not stand with his money bag/purse, and not with an uncovered head, and not with uncovered legs, if the way of people in that place is not to stand before the great without shoes.

Commentary:

Once again, we tangle with the question of whether all of this grammatically masculine halakha is addressed only to men, primarily to men, or is only assumed by later/any readership to only mean men.  I will note (as I have done before, I'm sure) that in many contexts similar to that of the Mechaber, unmarried women covered their heads in some way as a social norm.  This makes it hard to determine whether he was even considering what was required of women, or whether he assumed that the rules were the same, or if he had some other considerations that I have not yet found for women's heads and prayer.

I would never have questioned the validity of a straw hat, which the Shulhan Arukh here feels a need to state qualifies as a hat- I suppose a straw hat is a very flimsy sort of covering compared to a turban.  Interesting to see it here as a further note as to the way that our social perceptions of dress influence how we shape the boundaries of halakha.  Here's codification of something I would have never questioned- and therefore would never have addressed as question in need of answering.

Head-covering here seems to be a matter of showing respect, especially given that 91:5 makes an explicit analogy between the way you dress for prayer and the way you would dress to be in the company of an important person.  This one does reflect an awareness of differences of cultural norms, mostly around how one clothes one's legs, that suggests that the earlier sections about head covering are less socially-defined than permanently set as a symbol of respect or awe.

Devotional Head Covering Source, Shulhan Arukh, Orekh Chayim 2:6

Text:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות הנהגת אדם בבקר סימן ב סעיף ו 

אסור לילך  בקומה זקופה,  ולא ילך  ד' אמות בגילוי הראש (מפני כבוד השכינה),  ויבדוק נקביו. הגה: ויכסה כל גופו, ולא ילך יחף . וירגיל עצמו לפנות בוקר וערב, שהוא זריזות  ונקיות (הגהות מיימוני פרק ה' מהלכות דעות. 

Translation:

Shulhan Arukh, Orech Hayim, Laws About a Person in the Morning

2:6 It is forbidden to walk with an upright posture (haughtily) and one should not walk four amot [cubits] with an uncovered head (because of respect for the Shechinah) and one should examine one's orifices [to make sure they are clean].  Gloss: One should cover one's whole body, and not go barefoot.  And one should accustom oneself to turn aside [to use the bathroom] morning and evening, for this is scrupulous and clean.

Commentary:

This halakha comes in the context of rules about a person getting dressed in the morning.  In this context, covering one's head right away, before walking any significant distance (4 amot, about a man's height) is both part of getting dressed and is described explicitly as done to give respect to the Shechinah- G-d's presence.  Thus, it is a devotional practice, related to our awareness of G-d's presence in the world. However, it is outward, designed to give respect in itself, rather than as a reminder for the person.

It is interesting that head covering is described as religious or devotional in meaning, yet it is set in the context of both modesty and politeness to other people: covering the whole body with clothing, wearing shoes, and keeping one's orifices clean.  It suggests to me that the attempt that I, and others, are always making to distinguish between modesty and respect for G-d and polite self-presentation may be not entirely possible.  They seem to be quite wrapped up in each other.  It's something I'm going to want to think more about.

It is surprising that this is given as straight halakha, while the popular conception of things is that head covering is custom, rather than law.  Here, however, it is treated as law, at least in some sense.  Oddly, encouraging regular toileting habits is treated in the same area, which is an odd addition- except that the following section of Shulhan Arukh is laws pertaining to using the bathroom, which makes this comment rather a nice literary transition.

Also interesting is the lack of gendering here.  My presumption is that this is talking to men, but it never says it explicitly here.  I'll have to talk a look at the earlier part of the section to see if there is any clarification, or if it operates on presumption.

Devotional Head Covering Source, Masechet Sofrim, Chapter 14, Halakha 12

Translation mostly courtesy of Sarah Mulhern, rabbinical student and friend.

(For more on Masechet Sofrim, one of the "smaller tractates", additions to the Talmud- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soferim_(Talmud)).

Text:

מסכתות קטנות מסכת סופרים פרק יד

פוחח, הנראין כרעיו, או בגדיו פרומים, או מי שראשו מגולה, פורס על שמע, ויש אומרים בכרעיו נראין, או בגדיו פרומים, פורס על שמע, אבל בראשו מגולה אינו רשאי להוציא הזכרה מפיו; ובין כך ובין כך מתרגם, אבל אינו קורא בתורה, ואינו עובר לפני התיבה, ואינו נושא את כפיו. 

Translation:

What is pocheach (a condition in which a person is able to say shema but not to read Torah)? One whose thighs are visible, or his garments are unraveling, or his head is bare,may recite shema. And there are those who say that one whose knees are visible or his garments are unraveling may recite the shema, however one whose head is uncovered is not permitted to mention the name of Gd.  And any of these may translate but they may not read Torah, and they may not lead services [literally: descend before the ark], and they may not give the priestly benediction.

Commentary:

We often don't think about modesty for prayer as a gender-neutral or masculine concern, but in this context, where the assumption is that men are the ones who read Torah, lead services, etc, it is clear that we are talking about minimum standards of male modesty.

In this context, there are three "levels" of modesty- the first, where one may perform any public ritual function, such as leading services and reading Torah.  This requires covered thighs and intact clothing.

In the second level, one may pray privately, but not lead services or be involved in most public ritual.  This category is the explicit topic of this text, and includes such intermediate sorts of body-coverage such as having thighs visible or clothing that is unraveling or presumably has holes.  A second opinion includes even bare knees.

In either of these categories, one may still be a translator for the Torah reading [a practice that most of the Jewish world has abandoned, perhaps with the availability of printed texts, but the Yemenite community still maintains.  The practice is to translate each verse into Aramaic, one at a time, after they are read from the Torah.]  So there are still some public roles that are acceptable while not fully meticulously covered.

In the third, one may not even pray privately, especially according to the second opinion given, that forbids even mentioning G-d with an uncovered head.

This text is relevant to our questions because there is a disagreement as to what category being bare headed falls into.  The first opinion puts it into the second level- pocheach, while the second opinion puts it into the third level, where one may not even pray privately.

This is interesting because this is a description of head covering as part of a concern for public appropriateness or appearing respectable.  And yet the second opinion implies that it is actually about private respect for G-d, and relevant in all situations, even unconnected to how one appears to other people.  The two opinions have different visions of what head covering (for men at least) is about- is it devotional or about public respectability?

Depending on which way we go, we can derive different decisions about the importance of covering now, where it is of less concern for public respectability, and where women as well as men may be interested in covering as a devotional practice.  If it is about public respectability, we may want to be not only lenient but also find that there's less significance to wanting to do so. If it is about the ability to appropriately pray, then we should encourage it for as many Jews as we can, in a wider range of contexts.

Head Covering Source, Talmud Bavli, Nedarim 30b

Translation significantly done by Sarah Mulhern, some additions by me.  
Text:

משחורי הראש - אסור בקרחין ובעלי שיבות, ומותר בנשים ובקטנים, שאין נקראין שחורי הראש אלא אנשים

גמ'. מ"ט? מדלא קאמר מבעלי שער.

ומותר בנשים ובקטנים, שאין נקראין שחורי הראש אלא אנשים. מ"ט? אנשים זימנין דמיכסו רישייהו וזימנין דמגלו רישייהו, אבל נשים לעולם מיכסו, וקטנים לעולם מיגלו

Translation:

Mishnah: He who vows not to benefit from black-haired people may not benefit from bald people and gray haired people, but may benefit from women and children, because only men are called black haired.

Gemara: What is the reason for this ruling?  Since it did not say "from those who have hair" [therefore the bald- who might once have had black hair- are still forbidden].
"But may benefit from women and children" because only men are called black-haired.  What is the reason?  Men sometimes cover their heads and sometimes reveal their heads, but women's hair is always covered, and children are always bareheaded.

Commentary:

This short text is a font of information about norms around head-covering in [at least some part of] the Talmudic period.  The Gemara text, which is where things get interesting for us, begins as an inquiry into the reason behind a somewhat surprising ruling in the Mishnah- that if one vows not to gain benefit from black-haired people, one may not get benefit from men who are either black-haired or might once have been so (which makes hair color an identity that one retains even without hair...  fascinating).

The Gemara continues to elucidate that the reason that someone who has made this vow may still derive benefit from women and children is that women's hair is always covered, while children are always bare-headed- but neither gets called "black-haired".  This makes more sense in relation to women than to children, but oh well...  However, the sense in regard to women is that you can't be expected to identify them by hair color, since you will never see their hair or know its color.  Interestingly, it says that All women have covered hair- seemingly even unmarried ones.  (Admittedly, it seems highly unlikely that there were many never-married women at all.)  It is only men who may or may not cover their head- both women and children have social expectations regarding their head/hair.

This is very much a description of a social reality- there are Jewish communities (like our own contemporary community) where some women are bare-headed, and others (such as the Yemenite Jewish community, historically) where children of both genders also had covered heads.  But the assumption that All women cover their hair, while only some men do, is an interesting perspective, in comparison with what we now presume.  

Devotional Head Covering Source: Kiddushin 8a

Translation courtesy of Sarah Mulhern, rabbinical student and friend.

Text:

 וכגון דקביל כהן עילויה; כי הא דרב כהנא שקיל סודרא מבי פדיון הבן, אמר ליה: לדידי חזי לי חמש סלעים. אמר רב אשי: לא אמרן אלא כגון רב כהנא, דגברא רבה הוא ומבעי ליה סודרא ארישיה, אבל כולי עלמא לא 

Translation:  

[What is the law in] a case where the priest accepts [an object of insufficient value in return for the redemption of a son] as happened in the case of R. Kahana, who accepted a scarf for a son's redemption, and said to him [the father],‘To me it is worth five selas.’? R. Ashi said: "This is only applicable in the case of a person like R. Kahana, who is a great man and needs a scarf /turban
for his head, but not of people in general."

Comments:

This text refers to head covering only in passing, as part of a social reality.  The focal point of the text is the question of how to handle an oddly done redemption of a firstborn son, which requires the use of a sum of 5 selas- usually this would involve 5 silver coins, contemporarily.  This text raises the question of relative worth- if something is worth more to you (the receiver) than it is normally, could it count?  The answer seems to be "Yes, but no"- in theory, it could, but we don't really want to go there.

However, the example is what makes this text relevant to our question.  The example is used to indicate that the specifics here make the results of this case is not generally transferable- because Rav Kahana is a particularly important person, therefore he needs a turban.  This suggests that turbans at least are a marker of social status, rather than of religiosity or piety.  (I notice that in stories that talk about head covering as piety in the Talmud, the covering is either of non-specific style or is a robe worn over the head, rather than being a turban.)

Turbans (much) later become the usual covering for men in most of the Middle East, but I'm not sure when that happens.  

Devotional Head Covering, Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 118b

Translation courtesy of Sarah Mulhern, a talented friend and rabbinical student at Hebrew College.

Text:

אמר רב נחמן: תיתי לי דקיימית שלש סעודות בשבת. אמר רב יהודה: תיתי לי דקיימית עיון תפלה. אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: תיתי לי דלא סגינא ארבע אמות בגילוי הראש. אמר רב ששת: תיתי לי דקיימית מצות תפילין. ואמר רב נחמן: תיתי לי דקיימית מצות ציצית 

Translation:

R. Nahman said: "May [reward] come to me for observing three meals on the Sabbath." R. Yehudah said: "May [reward] come to me for observing focus in prayer. R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: May [reward] come to me for never walking four cubits bareheaded. R. Sheshet said: May [reward] come to me for fulfilling the commandment of tefillin. R. Nahman [also] said: May I be rewarded for fulfilling the commandment of tzitzit.

Commentary:

This passage connects statements from various rabbis that indicate that the fulfillment of certain practices deserves reward.  The collection seems united by the phrase "תיתי לי", especially since there is no pttern or unity in the sages' era- they come from several different generations of Amoraim.

 First, this implies that doing so is unusual and/or difficult.  Second, the combination suggests that all have some shared value.  However, some are clear, d'oraita (from the Torah) mitzvot- tzitzit, tefillin. (One wonders that these were seen as deserving of particular praise- it says Something about how little the Jewish people may have changed over time.) Others are pietistic practices/abilities- maintaining focus in prayer, and not going bare-headed.  Yet focus in prayer is really part of the mitzvah of prayer- the best way to fulfill the mitzvah, possibly the only way.  Whereas head-covering is only piety, not a mitzvah at all...

The obvious connection (to me at least) is that these are difficult and/or unusual practices which the rabbis would like to encourage- yet in this context go no further than saying that they will bring eventual reward.   Not exactly a statement of requirement in regards to head-covering, but the way that the statements have been brought together by their common structure begins to give it a weight that it does not have on its own.

Devotional/Men's Head Covering Source: Pesachim 111b

Thanks for the translation in this post go to Sarah Mulhern, rabbinical student and a friend of mine.  Commentary (and any blame) is, of course, mine.

Text:

ההוא בר קשא דמתא דאזיל וקאי גבי זרדתא דהוה סמיך למתא, עלו ביה שיתין שידי ואיסתכן. אתא לההוא מרבנן דלא ידע דזרדתא דשיתין שידי היא, כתב לה קמיע לחדא שידא. שמע דתלו חינגא בגויה, וקא משרו הכי: סודריה דמר כי צורבא מרבנן, בדיקנא ביה במר דלא ידע ברוך אתא 

Translation: 

A certain town-officer went and stood by a bush near a town, whereupon he was set upon by sixty demons and his life was in danger. He then went to a scholar who did not know that the bush was haunted by sixty demons, and so he wrote a one-demon amulet for it. After, he heard how the demons suspended a harp on the tree and [mocked him] singing: ‘The man's turban is like a scholar's, yet we have examined him and found that he does not know "Baruch Atah".’

Comments:

This source is very much aggadah: story, rather than halakha.  Obviously, the story is full of folk beliefs of the time- demons and amulets.  But it tells us something about what wearing a turban indicated socially in the time.  Namely, it was a marker of status, and seemingly, intellectual status.  It wasn't what every man wore- and wearing one in this case was viewed as pretentiousness for the "scholar" in this piece of aggadah.

Obviously, head covering doesn't have any of the same connotations now- although I've heard similar sorts of reactions to the relative "frumkeit" of how people dress.   

Wigs and Men, or Halakha of the Toupee, Part 1

I forget quite how this one came to my attention, but it's Jewish head covering, of a less-than-frequently-discussed variety.  Having built all that excitement (and as you saw from the title), the question is about men's toupees.  Namely: how do you wear tefillin if you wear a toupee?

Clearly, you can see the connections to women who wear tichels/scarves, sheitels/wigs, hats (hats), etc and still want to put on tefillin in a public space.  This stuff can get tricky to accomplish, so what does the halakha have to say about it?  Does the tefillah shel rosh have to touch the head?

The Mishnah Brurah (27:16, commenting on Shulchan Arukh 27:4 "Nothing should make a separation (חציצה) between the tefillin and your flesh, whether the tefillin for the hand or the head", and the Rema: "This is specifically about the tefillin, but one does not need to be careful about the straps") considers the question, and gives the following comment:

אין להקפיד - והאחרונים כתבו דאין להקל רק במקום הכריכות אבל מה ששייך להקשירה יש להחמיר אף ברצועות בין בשל יד ובין בשל ראש וכתבו תוכחת מגולה על המניחים התפילין ע"ג פאה נכרית הנקרא פארוק"ה ואפילו אם רק הרצועה מונח על הפאה נכרית. ומ"מ משמע מדברי המ"א והח"א דאם יש לו מכה בראשו ורק במקום שהרצועות מונחים ולא במקום הקציצה מותר לו להניח הרצועות ע"ג סמרטוטין שעל המכה או ע"ג כובע דק ולברך אע"ג שיש חציצה בין הרצועות כיון דבמקום הקציצה אין חציצה וכן בשל יד אם יש לו מכה אפילו במקום הקף הקשר שסביב ידו מותר לו להניח הקף הקשר ע"ג סמרטוטין ולברך אך בזה יזהר לכסות מלמעלה כדי שיתקיים לך לאות 

ולא לאחרים לאות:

Translation:
One does not need to be careful: And the Achronim wrote that one only needs to be careful in the place where they come together.  However, since it is pertinent to the knots, one should be stringent also with the straps, both for the tefillin of the hand and of the head.  And they wrote a clear rebuke about wearing tefillin over the foreign hair called a perukeh (i.e. a wig), even if only the straps rest on the false hair.  And in any case, we learn from the words of the Magen Avraham and the Hayei Adam that if one has a wound on his head and it is only in the place where the straps cross, and not where the tefillin itself sit, it is permissible to wear a rag or a thin hat, and to bless (upon putting on the tefillin), even though there is a separation (חציצה) between the person and the straps, since there is no separation where the tefillin itself sit.  Thus too for the tefillin of the hand...

Comment:
This halakha seems to be somewhat self-contradictory: why should it be okay for straps to rest on bandage, but not on a wig?  Perhaps it is because the bandage is temporary and prevents pain (and possibly blood getting on your tefillin straps), while the wig is likely on-going but more easily removable.  [A historical note: the Mishnah Berurah's author lived from 1839 to 1933, so late for men to be regularly wearing wigs, even when he was young.]

On the one hand, the Shulchan Arukh on its own would seem to open up the wearing of tefillin with the straps over a wig or other covering, as long as one was careful not to let anything come between oneself and the tefillin.  However, the Mishnah Berurah is considerably more concerned, and forbids this, even though it cites what sounds like a permissive precedent, namely the case of bandages under the straps being permitted.

The Mishnah Berurah's reasoning is based on concern that the knots of the tefillin straps Do need to touch the person without any separation, which he extends from the knots to the entire volume of the straps.

Rambam on Men's Clothing and Headwear

Coming back to men's or ritual headcovering, after a break, here's the Rambam, discussing how one should dress for prayer.  So here we're in Egypt, between 1170 and 1180 in the Mishneh Torah.

Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefillah 5:5

תקון המלבישים כיצד? מתקן מלבושיו תחילה ומציין עצמו ומהדר שנאמר "השתחוו לה' בהדרת  קודש".
  ולא יעמוד בתחילה 

באפונדתו ולא בראש מגולה ולא ברגליים מגולות אם דרך אנשי המקום שלא יעמדו בפני הגדולים אלא בבתי הרגלים

Translation:  The standard arrangement [literally: fixture] of one's clothes (when one prays), what is it?
One should arrange his clothes first, and then he should distinguish himself and beautify [literally, glorify], as it says "bow down to God in the glory of holiness".  And in an ideal circumstance, he should not appear with his purse, and not with an uncovered head, and not barefoot, if the way of the people of the place is not to stand before the great without something covering their feet.

Commentary: Head covering for prayer here is connected with other ways that one "dresses up", it's a demonstration of formality and respect for God, in the same way that dressing formally (or, here, wearing shoes) displays respect for people in authority.  This is wearing a hat the way that one wore a hat for all respectable occasions until sometime around the 1960s.  It would be fair to say that it isn't a separate aspect of one's wardrobe that has a purely devotional purpose.  We're talking about being appropriately dressed for a respectable environment.

I find it interesting, however, that the requirement for shoes and/or socks is qualified, and the requirement for a head-covering isn't.  You can go barefoot (or in sandals) for prayer if people walk barefoot/sandal-shod in formal situations.  But head-covering doesn't get that qualification.  That takes something away from my previous paragraph- there is Something about a covered head that implies respect, even if it isn't part of the regular dress code for respectable dressing.  There's something special about it that isn't getting defined here, but there's a hint.  I wonder if any of the nosei keilim on this passage pick up on it...  But that will have to be a post for another day.

Shulhan Arukh on Going Bareheaded

Shulhan Arukh 2:4

ולא ילך ד' אמות בגלוי הראש (מפני כבוד השכינה) ויבדק נקביו... 

Translation:

And one should not go/walk 4 cubits with an uncovered head (because of the honor of the Shechinah [God's presence]), and one should check one's openings [i.e. keep yourself clean].  

This text codifies into what law (or what seems to be law- opinions differ, as we'll see at some point) the story from Kiddushin 31a- both the action (covering the head), the distance (4 amot/cubits), and the reason (respect for God's presence).  It does not reflect the reasoning from Shabbat 156b - there is nothing here about a covered head having any effect on our yetzer hara.  (Well, once could create a connection pretty easily, something about not sinning being how we show appropriate respect to God, but while it works, it's pretty obviously a created connection, just to weave in all the ends.)

I find it fascinating that head-covering is paired with basic hygiene.  It gives the practice this very basic feeling, as if it were something about general basic decency.  It isn't an sense that I've gotten anywhere else, yet, but it sure gives a different sense to things.  It makes me wonder if the honor of the Shechinah might be understood as "don't look like a shlump who can't take care of himself", or "don't be disgusting"- although that might take it a bit too far for me.  

Men's Headgear in the Talmud, part 2

Here's another short story about another Talmudic rabbi who had a head-covering practice:

רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא מסגי ארבע אמות בגילוי הראש אמר שכינה למעלה מראשי

Kiddushin 31a

Translation: Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua would not walk 4 cubits with an uncovered head.  He said: "The Shechinah [G-d's presence] is above my head."

This aggadah- story- is the second mention of a rabbi covering his head in the Talmud.  Notably, neither instance has any indication that the behavior is anything other than a personal pious practice- there is no comment that such behavior is encouraged.  On the other hand, we learn a great deal from the practices of the sages of our tradition.  However, the fact that there is no indication of requirement or even encouragement for the community to do the same is behind the line of later poskim who hold that wearing a kippah is minhag (custom) rather than law.

This story also introduces one of the primary reasons given for wearing a kippah- that the Shechinah is always above us.  Often it is phrased as a reminder that the Shechinah is always there, watching us.  In other words- a more conscious, intentional version of Rav Natan bar Yitzhak's obstacle to sin.  However, one might also wonder if it is a sort of modesty, not to be "seen uncovered", or even a sort of anxiety about God's omniscience.  

Men's Headgear in the Talmud, part 1

One of the primary texts from which the practice of wearing a kippah.  The context is a discussion about fortune/fate, and whether or not it applies to Jews, or perhaps more accurately, whether it is unavoidable for Jews.  The stories used seem to suggest that fate impacts Jews, but that meritorious behavior (giving charity, etc- and in this case, covering the head) can alter or prevent or at least modify that fate.

ומדר"נ בר יצחק נמי אין מזל לישראל דאימיה דר"נ בר יצחק אמרי לה כלדאי בריך גנבא הוה לא שבקתיה גלויי רישיה אמרה ליה כסי רישיך כי היכי דתיהוו עלך אימתא דשמיא ובעי רחמי לא הוה ידע אמאי קאמרה ליה יומא חד יתיב קא גריס תותי דיקלא נפל גלימא מעילויה רישיה דלי עיניה חזא לדיקלא אלמיה יצריה סליק פסקיה לקיבורא בשיניה

Shabbat 156b

Translation: And from Rabbi Natan bar Yitzhak,we can also learn that there is no fortune for Israel: A Chalden said to the mother of Rabbi Natan bar Yitzhak "Your son will be a thief".  She did not permit him to reveal his head.  She said to him- "Cover your head, so that the fear of heaven will be upon you, and pray for mercy".  He did not know why she said this to him.  One day, he sat and was learning under a palm tree.  His cloak fell off his head.  He lifted his eyes and saw the palm tree.  His [evil] inclination became strong, and he cut off a bunch of dates with his teeth.  

This Talmudic tale tells us that wearing a covering of some sort gives one the fear of heaven, and even suggests that it has the power to prevent us from sinning, even or perhaps particularly in ways that are natural for us, individually.  In this manner it is a preventative measure, and a step toward being our best selves, rather than our worst ones.  

It also does not, at this point, presume that this is something that most people do, nor that there is any general requirement to do so.  On the other hand, it makes the practice look very attractive- a benefit without any detriment.  It's a way of helping ourselves to be good.  

It also does not say anything about what sort of head-covering is involved- Rabbi Natan bar Yitzhak  used his cloak/outerwear as his head-covering.  So any hat, scarf, turban, etc ought to work.  And as it is a story and not law, there are no suggestions of any sort about how much of the head needs to be covered for this preventative to work.  It doesn't even seem to have anything to do with personal awareness- our protagonist has no idea why he covers his head normally, or that it has fallen off in this instance.  

Therefore, it would seem that if the community at large were to adopt this practice (as of course, has happened, to a great extent), gender might not play a significant role.  There's nothing strongly gendered about this story, as far as I can tell...