From veil to wig: Jewish women's hair covering

Judaism, Fall, 1993 by Leila Leah Bronner

Modesty laws in rabbinic literature functionally acted to render the woman inaccessible and unavailable to all but her husband. Rousselle, a cultural historian, writes in regard to ancient Rome that the veil or hood worn by an honorable woman "constituted a warning: it signified that the wearer was a respectable woman and that no man dare approach without risking grave penalties.... Although the veil was a symbol of subjection, it was also a badge of honor, of sexual reserve, and hence of mastery of the self."(12) Similarly, hair covering was a sign not only of rabbinically enjoined modesty, but of a wife belonging to a particular man, and the veil had to be worn whenever she was in mixed company or went out in public.(13)

According to the Mishnah, for a woman to go about with uncovered hair represents unacceptable conduct. In fact, such behavior is so improper that it is considered sufficient grounds for a husband to divorce his wife without benefit of compensatory financial support (ketubah). The Mishnah states:

These are they that are put away without their ketubah: a wife that transgresses the Law of Moses [dat Moshe] and Jewish custom [dat Yehudit]. What [conduct is such that transgresses the] Law of Moses? If she gives her husband untithed food, or has connection with him in her uncleanness, or does not set apart dough-offering, or utters a vow and does not fulfill it. And [what conduct is such that transgresses] Jewish custom? If she goes out with her hair unbound, or spins in the street, or speaks with any man.(14)

As we have stated, a distinction is made in this mishnaic text between the Law of Moses (dat Moshe) and Jewish law (dat Yehudit). Hair covering is clearly defined as non-Pentateuchal, a matter of custom. The fact that the Mishnah distinguishes between Pentateuchal law and Jewish custom might suggest that the latter is placed on a lower level of importance, yet both are grounds for divorce. Moreover, the severity of divorce without the benefit of the marriage contract and the monetary protection it provided for the woman should not be underestimated. The requirement of hair covering was taken seriously, even if a matter of custom.

The Talmud (in the Gemarah) attempts to minimize the distinction made by the earlier rabbis of the Mishnah. They question the categorizing of the practice as being merely custom, and argue that it should instead be understood as Pentateuchal. The rabbis, in doing this, made the practice of hair covering for women even more stringent. The Talmud selects the unhappy subject of the suspected adulteress (sotah) to demonstrate its case:

"And [what is deemed to be a wife's transgression against] Jewish practice? Going out with uncovered head." But [is not the prohibition against going out with] an uncovered head Pentateuchal; for it is written, "And he [the priest] shall parah [?] the woman's [i.e. the suspected adulteress'] head" [Num. 5:18!, and this, it was taught at the school of R. Ishmael, was a warning to the daughters of Israel that they should not go out with uncovered head.(15)