If someone is divorced, should they still cover their hair?

Ruchel

Wed, Dec 17 2008, 11:57 am

shnitzel wrote:

Don't some hold that the veil is considered a covering?
I know that I was told I couldn't take it off b/c my hair needed to be covered. I don't understand why it is enough b/c a veil isn't a good hair covering - a lot shows underneath.

because it is symbolic, like yichud room is only symbolic too (these days at least)

Crayon210

Wed, Dec 17 2008, 6:16 pm

I'm sorry, I should have clarified.

Yes, I learned that it's a machlokes. My point was just that amother's post was definitely not the absolute, across the board halacha, since many women do not cover their hair until after the yichud room or until the next morning.

The yichud room svara has everything to do with virginity, that is the first time that the kallah could potentially no longer be a virgin.

And to the amother who said it's not tznius or spiritual enough: halacha on its own is not usually that "spiritual". That's where chassidus comes in. But the halachos themselves are often pretty bare bones, technical, legal, not very romantic. So your assertion that it can't be related to virginity because it's not tznius or spiritual really doesn't make any sense.

chaylizi

Wed, Dec 17 2008, 6:39 pm

shnitzel wrote:

a friend of mine took her veil off at her wedding because she was hot & her kallah teacher went right over to her & told her to put it back on. I think that was the reason.

amother

Wed, Dec 17 2008, 6:44 pm

Crayon210 wrote:

I don't know if you are talking to me in this whole post but I did say that the way I was told seemed more tzanua. please don't misinterpret what I said. I did not say "it can't be related to virginity because..." I said that it sits better with me this way. my personal sense of it. that's all. otherwise it is all quite scarlet-letter-like.

the REASON I am saying this is because this is what the rov told me. I was assured that it had nothing to do with virginity, but had to do with the fact of the wedding itself.

you may wish to insist on this virginity thing, and be my guest. I am not purporting to be an expert and if everyone here says they heard it was a machlokes then fine, now I found out new information.

I am just sharing what a LUBAVITCHER well-known respected rov told me. (and I was given a heter by another well-known lubavitch rov, so obviously it is not so simple as virgin/non-virgin.)

the reason I keep emphasizing lubavitch is because I know it will mean something to you, crayon.

Crayon210

Wed, Dec 17 2008, 6:48 pm

Just because the rav didn't refer to it in terms of virginity doesn't mean that's not the issue. Most Lubavitcher rabbonim I've spoken to would not discuss the ins and outs of virginity with me, they would probably use a euphemism.

It's sad to me that you would see being a non-virgin and wearing a shaitel as scarlet-letter. There's nothing to be embarrassed of, it's just the way the halacha works (according to that opinion). I don't think that most people see a newlywed in a shaitel or hat and says, "Oh wow, she had relations! Isn't that something?" It's just a natural part of life, that happens to be connected specifically to virginity (according to some poskim).

I'm not sure what your point is in telling me you're Lubavitch, though. Confused

amother

Wed, Dec 17 2008, 8:55 pm

it's not a scarlet letter if someone's married. it IS a scarlet letter if they are divorced and otherwise it would remain private. (no kids, young woman, relatively short marriage.)

if you don't see it that way, great and I hope it (divorce) never becomes something you experience personally. but it is generally not experienced with pride in our world.

the reason I think you would find it relevant that it was chabad rabbonim is you seem to be quite strongly chabad.

I don't remember exactly what words the rov used, but someone else I spoke to about what the rov had said (a close family member who I felt comfortable talking openly with, and who is quite scholarly) made it very clear to me and also emphasized using very clear english - including the word "virgin" - that it was not a virginity thing.

anyway if it makes you happy to think it is loss of virginity that makes the hair need to be covered, go for it. I am just reporting that I was told quite clearly otherwise. (and that I was also given a heter to uncover.) do with that information what you will.

chocolate moose

Wed, Dec 17 2008, 9:40 pm

chaylizi wrote:

shnitzel wrote:

a friend of mine took her veil off at her wedding because she was hot & her kallah teacher went right over to her & told her to put it back on. I think that was the reason.

Actually, it has to do more with the kallah being royalty, then actually covering her hair. That's what th e rov told me when I asked.

Crayon210

Thu, Dec 18 2008, 12:58 am

chocolate moose wrote:

I have also heard that a giorus is not considered a besulah. I know at least one women who wore a sheital after conversion.

Except that halacha takes into account that though they aren't considered besulos for kesuba purposes, they are realistically besulos.

That's a highly unusual psak, if it even was a psak and not just someone deciding on her own.

shalhevet

Thu, Dec 18 2008, 1:43 am

chocolate moose wrote:

shalhevet wrote:

I wore a sheitel from before the chuppa.

Did you get married in Israel? I think I have heard that in Israel the kalahs all get married with sheitlach.

No, there are different minhagim/ opinions. MO and some Litvish only cover their hair fully the next day. Some chassidishe weddings the kallah puts on a sheitel in the yichud room. At one chassidishe wedding I was at the kalla wore a white turban after the yichud room, covering all her hair, because that was her minhag, even though she wore a sheitel (with a hat on top) afterwards.

shabbatiscoming

Thu, Dec 18 2008, 2:55 am

shalhevet wrote:

chocolate moose wrote:

shalhevet wrote:

I wore a sheitel from before the chuppa.

Did you get married in Israel? I think I have heard that in Israel the kalahs all get married with sheitlach.

and just to add to the beautiful minhagim here in israel, I have a cousin who married a toldos aaron girl and she had very long braids at the badekin. then right afterwards, the mothers took out her braids and put her hair all up with pins so that it would be covered and covered it with a beautiful white cloth and then put the kalla dekel on. I thought that it was so beautiful.

Isramom8

Thu, Dec 18 2008, 4:01 am

[quote="Crayon210"]The basic halacha is that any woman who has had relations needs to cover her hair. An exception is made for unmarried girls because it would be extremely embarrassing for them to have to cover their hair if they were raped, if they were intimate before they were frum, or if they just plain made a mistake.
/quote]

Let's say a woman who was never married is a mother. Should she cover? Obviously she had relations.

One divorced woman who uncovered told me she is following "the shita that says that a woman who wants to get married must advertise it". I was like Rolling Eyes

Crayon210

Thu, Dec 18 2008, 10:35 am

Isramom8 wrote:

Crayon210 wrote:

The basic halacha is that any woman who has had relations needs to cover her hair. An exception is made for unmarried girls because it would be extremely embarrassing for them to have to cover their hair if they were raped, if they were intimate before they were frum, or if they just plain made a mistake.

Let's say a woman who was never married is a mother. Should she cover? Obviously she had relations.

Obviously a shaila!

chaylizi

Thu, Dec 18 2008, 10:36 am

chocolate moose wrote:

chaylizi wrote:

shnitzel wrote:

a friend of mine took her veil off at her wedding because she was hot & her kallah teacher went right over to her & told her to put it back on. I think that was the reason.

Actually, it has to do more with the kallah being royalty, then actually covering her hair. That's what th e rov told me when I asked.

oh that's interesting, thanks for the info.

Crayon210

Thu, Dec 18 2008, 10:39 am

amother wrote:

it's not a scarlet letter if someone's married. it IS a scarlet letter if they are divorced and otherwise it would remain private. (no kids, young woman, relatively short marriage.)

Sorry, I am embarrassed to admit this, but I forgot that we were discussing this in the context of divorce.

Quote:

if you don't see it that way, great and I hope it (divorce) never becomes something you experience personally. but it is generally not experienced with pride in our world.

Again, I'm sorry that I forgot the context. Obviously it's something uncomfortable.

Quote:

the reason I think you would find it relevant that it was chabad rabbonim is you seem to be quite strongly chabad.

I understand your anonymity, but an anonymous person giving me the opinion of anonymous Chabad rabbonim isn't relevant.

Quote:

I don't remember exactly what words the rov used, but someone else I spoke to about what the rov had said (a close family member who I felt comfortable talking openly with, and who is quite scholarly) made it very clear to me and also emphasized using very clear english - including the word "virgin" - that it was not a virginity thing.

Okay, there are different opinions. If I can dig up my notes, I can respond better to this.

Quote:

anyway if it makes you happy to think it is loss of virginity that makes the hair need to be covered, go for it. I am just reporting that I was told quite clearly otherwise. (and that I was also given a heter to uncover.) do with that information what you will.

I don't really appreciate your tone. I don't think using amother for privacy reasons is an excuse to be rude.

I have no issue with someone getting a heter to uncover. Why did you even bring that up?