Head-Covering Part III: What is "Dat Yehudit"?

I am taking a short break from our modern discussion regarding Skype and head-coverings, instead, I thought I would examine some of the older material that define the parameters of the prohibition. (Fear not, we veer only to return in the fullness of time.)

The obligation for a married woman to cover her hair when she leaves the house is based on a Mishnah in Ketuvoth (72a):

Mishnah. "These are to be divorced without receiving their kethubah: a wife who transgresses the law of Moses or [one who transgresses] the practice of Jewish women. And what is [regarded as a wife's transgression against] the law of Moses? Feeding her husband with untithed food, having intercourse with him during the period of her menstruation, not setting apart her dough offering, or making vows and not fulfilling them. And what [is deemed to be a wife's transgression against] the practice of Jewish women? Going out with her head uncovered, spinning in the street or conversing with every man." Translation: Rabbi Dov Linzer. For those who wish to read in Hebrew:

מתני'. ואלו יוצאות שלא בכתובה: העוברת על דת משה ויהודית. ואיזו היא דת משה? מאכילתו שאינו מעושר, ומשמשתו נדה, ולא קוצה לה חלה, ונודרת ואינה מקיימת. ואיזוהי דת יהודית? יוצאה וראשה פרוע

Now I wish to point out two things. First a very literal read of the Mishnah, seems to imply that the obligation to cover hair begins when a woman leaves her home. ''Going out...." states the Mishnah. But more on this later... Second, the Hebrew for 'Law of Moses' is Dat Moshe while the Hebrew for 'the practice of Jewish women' is 'Dat Yehudit.' Now, the latter raises all kind of questions regarding how Dat Yehudit ought to be defined--Do Jewish women decide for themselves? Do the social mores of a host country or culture play a role? Is it based on what men find to be provocative? Is it rabbinic? Is it biblical?

The discussion starts in the Talmud, continues with the Rishonim, and has not ceased till this day. But I thought  to point out something that is of far more academic interest, conceding that it probably has limited application in terms of the halachic process. Nevertheless, I offer two pieces of evidence that Dat Yehudit was not the original expression. The first is from an early Mishnah manuscript held in the Biblioteca Palatina. For those who can make out the Hebrew, it's in the bottom left-hand corner of the following Link. The Second is from a  manuscript of the Mishnah Ketubot, held in a Library in Budapest. The Mishnah (7:6) is found on the right column.

Well, what both these manuscripts state plainly is that the original expression is not Dat Yehudit (Practice of a Jewish Woman) but Dat Yehudim (Practice of Jews).  What difference does this make? Perhaps none whatsoever, especially since all the Talmudic manuscripts that I found use Dat Yehudit in their discussions. (Vatican EBR 113; Vatican EBR 130; Vatican EBR 487.11; Cf. Dikdukei Sofrim HaShalem: Ketuboth** for Genizot)

But to my mind at least, the parallel of Dat Moshe and Dat Yehudim--the Practice of Moses and the Practice of Jews, reaffirms a division between the Laws of the Jewish People and the Customs of the Jewish People. The latter naturally being far more fluid than the former. I admit, however, that even this might not always hold true, the force of custom is often stronger than that of law, and besides, we Jews are pretty stubborn.

To be continued next week...

Must A Woman Cover Her Hair on Skype? Part II

Continuing from yesterday's discussion (Please note the legal disclaimer):

If we assume that a technologically reproduced image has the same status as an actual person (vis-a-vis modesty), it is somewhat hard to imagine that a woman who normally covers her hair when hosting in her home should be exempt when video-conferencing.

The latter view is in keeping with the decision of R. Moshe Feinstein who rules that a woman must cover her hair when hosting others who are not part of her immediate family. (Igroth Moshe EH 1:58) His argument is based on the premise that the uncovered hair of a married woman should only be seen by her husband or immediate family. Thus it makes no difference whether the video-meeting is said to take place in the employer's office or in one's dining room or in some virtual space in-between. The woman is being "seen"...one could even say she is being seen "outside-the-house," therefore a covering is required.

To take a slight tangent, it's worth mentioning that there are other views when it comes to covering inside the house. There is the stringent view that a married woman ought to cover her hair at all times even in her own home among family. (Chatam Sofer OH #36 based on the Zohar, Naso 125b) On the other end of the spectrum, there are women who do not cover their heads whatsoever, neither in-home nor away. (See Aruch HaShulchan OH 75.6,7; Sefer Yehoshua #89)  There is a fascinating view that the requirement to cover one's head is based on physical location--outside the home, yes--within the home, no. (Discussed at length in B'nei Banim III.24) While I shall return to the latter in a later post, for now we shall retain Rav Moshe Feinstein's p'sak. 

This brings us to the heart of the matter: Ought a digital image of a person be given the same halachic significance as the physical presence of a person?


There is a fascinating responsum of HaRav Ovadiah Yosef that begins with the following question: "May a man recite Kriat Shema if he sees the reflection of an unattired (or somewhat unattired) woman in a mirror? What of a similar image in a photograph?" (Yabia Omer I. O.H. #7)

Rav Ovadiah Yosef begins by making a distinction between actual images (seen through an interfering medium) and reflected images. For example, let us say one wished to bless the new moon. If one were to look directly at the moon through a glass lantern or a window, this would constitute proper "seeing" despite the barrier of glass. In contrast, if one could only see the reflected moon shining upon the surface of a lake, it is rather debatable if this constitutes actual "seeing." It follows from here that photographs, reflections, and videos would fall into this "surface of the lake" category.

At first, Rav Ovadiah seems to prefer the opinion that viewing something seen in a mirror constitutes actual seeing--at least as far as women's hair and exposed limbs are concerned. However, he brings the Nachalat Binyamin (#26) who makes a fascinating counter-argument based on the Rama's p'sak regarding wigs. (OH 75.2) The Rema rules that a man may recite Kriat Shema in front of a woman wearing a wig because detached hair does not have the same (provocative) status as hair that is still rooted to the scalp. This is so even when the hair of the wig was cut from the very scalp it rests upon! Moreover, a comparison can be drawn from wig hair, which is detached from the scalp, and natural growing hair seen in a mirror, as the reflected image is also "detached" from the actual person. Thus the Nachalat Binyamin permits the reciting of Kriat Shema in front of a reflection of uncovered hair that (under normal circumstances) should be covered. Likewise, the same argument may be applied to photographs and reproduced images.

For whatever reason, Rav Ovadiah Yosef seems rather uncomfortable with this notion...Perhaps because he just doesn't like Sheitels... he goes onto to list the many poskim who frankly don't like wigs either. (Cf. his son's work, Yalkut Yosef "Otzer Dinim L'Ishah u'l'Bath" #775) [Also, I found a video clip of R. Ovadiah Yosef discouraging brides from marrying grooms who insist that their betrothed wear wigs.]

Nevertheless, R. Ovadiah concedes that even if one does not wish to call an image in a mirror or photograph actual "seeing," one would still have the problem that the image itself may be enticing and distracting to a man trying to recite Shema. Therefore, he rules stringently in any event. His decision is echoed in another responsum this time dealing with the question of whether a man can recite Kriat Shema in front of a television showing images of less than fully-appareled women. (Yechaveh Da'ath 4:7)

Once more and a bit more firmly, R. Ovadiah rules that images on television are considered reflections or shadows of the real. Likewise, his basis for prohibiting the recitation of Kriat Shema is grounded on the idea that the images are distracting to a male trying to pray and may well lead the fellow to think indecent thoughts.

The upshot of this is the following. A woman who web-conferences is not really in the presence of man, she is in the presence of a digitally reconstituted image. Similarly, the man who converses with her...does not see actual hair, but merely the digital representation of that hair on a computer screen. To wax poetic, no matter how beautiful the moon's reflection on a dark placid lake, it should not be mistaken with actually seeing the moon.

By this argument alone, it would be difficult to articulate a basis for obligating a woman to cover her hair while Skyping in her own home. The concern that her uncovered hair may produce an immodest image is mitigated by the Nachalat Binyamin's argument (above) as well as by the fact that in our day, men are accustomed to  seeing married (and unmarried woman) with their heads uncovered. (Aruch HaShulchan OH 75.6,7; Sefer Yehoshua #89) The extent of the latter is such that men, in many communities and synagogues, may even be permitted to pray in the presence of exposed hair of married women. (Aruch HaShulchan ibid; Cf. Biur Halacha 75.2 'M'chutz L'tzmatan')

To be continued...

Must A Woman Cover Her Hair on Skype? Part I

(Legal Disclaimer: Despite the fact that this question was asked of me recently and I did give an answer, what  follows is the beginning of a wider analysis of the sources that deal with head covering. It is meant to provoke discussion, not to render any sort of decision.)

Question: "I have a Skype interview tomorrow. Since I am technically in my house, do I need to cover my hair? (I cover if men are expected in the home, but not in front of other women, or children...)"

Response: There is a certain ambiguity inherent to video-conferencing. As in your situation, your "person" is in the West, but your image and voice may be seen a thousand miles to the East. The same may be said of your potential employer, his or her "person" is the East, but the individual's voice and image carry to a computer screen in the West.

So where is the interview said to occur?  Shall we say that you are sitting in your potential employer's office? Or shall we say that your potential employer is sitting in your dining-room or den?

Perhaps we might say that it is an in-between zone. A physical parallel of this 'virtuality' might be one's front porch or gated lawn...you are not exactly in your home, but you are not exactly in the street either. (In due time, I shall discuss the "Courtyard" scenario in Ketuvot 72a/b as well as Rav Henkin's discussion of the latter in B'nei Banim III.24)

Alternatively, one may object to the whole premise of the question: Why should photographs and videos be given any legitimacy. At the end of the day, 'they show a body without a soul...' Must a woman cover her hair every time her daughter decides to snap a photo of her (or shoot a video of her) with an iPhone or similar device? The technological repercussions of stringency might (and may in fact already) straight-jacket women into keeping their heads' covered even in their own homes among family, lest an unruly teenager snap a photo and post it on Facebook...

To be continued...