Divorced woman – head covering

A woman who was married must always keep her hair covered when in public, even if she is divorced.

Sam, once again you are right on the money. You can’t make general rules here. Each woman does what her own Rav paskens for her.

As far as a boss legally permitted to say it, a boss can ask whatever they want, demanding it or making it part of the dress code, no I don’t believe he has the right to do so. Could he demand that of a non-jew taking the same position? No, not unless it was a safety issue. He could have a dress code which would require a woman to dress in a modest fashion covering their chest, arms and legs as long as he provided enough air conditioning and temperature control to be comfortable to accommodate that dress code. But to require head covering, no that would not fly.

Peacemaker, as Sam2 said, there are heteirim out there. R’ Moshe Feinstein zt”l said that a widow can uncover her hair if it will help her to remarry (Igros Moshe, E.H. 1:57)

1. Is it legally permitted for a boss to say this?

Absolutely not. He also can’t legally make you cover your hair when married, unless it is a dress code rule (which unless men do it as well, it would be sexual discrimination).

2. Uncovering the hair for a divorced woman (with children) is it so simple to say that she can uncover

No, but Hetairim (and good ones) exist, as others have pointed out. Ask your LOR.

Even if the woman’s rabbi gives her a heter (which seemingly is only applicable while on a date in any event), the employers rov may not hold of such a heteirim and he is forbidden from seeing her with uncovered hair.

OK. And? (seems to be a theme today). It’s still illegal, and still Mutar for her (the two questions asked by the OP). Maybe to be nice she can do so if she wants, but by asking, the boss opens himself to a discrimination lawsuit.

What do you do in such a situation? Break halacha or break secular law, if it comes down to one or the other.

We are assuming she has a heter to uncover her own hair, and is not breaking halacha by doing so.

My understanding that such heterim are not given to divorced women with children, only those without.

If she has a Heter to do so, why is she obligated to adhere to his Chumra? If someone holds that woman need to cover until their ankles, does that mean that every woman who goes past him has to wear ankle-length skirts? Or does that mean that she can cover her knees like she holds and that if he has a Chumra he has to find his own ways to meet it?

Sam: It isn’t a chumra. It is the normative halacha that her hair should be covered. Her uncovering it is, at best, a heter from normative halacha. (And according above, when Rav Moshe gave someone such a personal heter, he only allowed it while she was on a date. Not when she went to work.)

It affects his ability to hire her or allow her into the office with her hair uncovered. Since it is assur for him to see her hair, he can’t allow her into his office as such.

We are assuming she is already hired. He is allowed to fire her (of course), but will also lose a discrimination lawsuit. However, that has nothing to do with HER chiyuvim.

I think we agree here.

Is he breaking Halacha if she has a legitimate Heter? I am not positive about that.

Sam: The heter is very very far from universally being accepted. So if his posek doesn’t accept it, and as far as he is concerned it is unacceptable, he can’t rely on such a heter.

Sam: Hypothetically, if some posek somewhere issued a heter to wear a miniskirt (for arguments sake), you would be permitted to see that person?

PM: There are other Heterim used that are more Meikil than R’ Moshe’s. To answer your question, if hypothetically a woman got a legitimate Heter to wear a miniskirt in public, then, while I would not personally look at her, I would have no right whatsoever to try and force her to wear longer skirts.

Even better: what if the boss finds himself attracted to a woman? She is perfectly Tznius and follows Halacha to the letter (or past). Is it her fault? Should he fire her or realize that since this problem stems from him he has to find a way to fix it without affecting her?

Peacemaker- you are incorrect in that he is not allowed to see her hair at all. If we were to hold that it should be covered (which is generally the psak, but as others have pointed out, heteirim exist), then at worst, he has a problem with saying a bracha in front of her, a problem which could be easily remedied by one of them leaving the room if he has to make a bracha. There are lots of Jewish married women walking around with uncovered hair; if simply seeing it was assur, no one would ever be allowed outside. The issur is in saying a bracha in front of a bare-headed married woman, and even then, not everyone agrees that it’s a problem.

Men aren’t allowed to see a married woman’s hair bchlal. The restriction isn’t only during brochos.

Josh: It’s a Mefurash Gemara that you should go to the farther one.

Shmoel: I’m gonna make a stupid request, because the proper answer should be it’s common sense. But do you have a source?

And the fact that it’s not permissible to look at them doesn’t stop us from walking in the street. Why would having her in the office be any different? Especially if she’s not a secretary or someone that he would have to interact with on an overly-consistent basis.

We are missing a whole point here, by the way. There is more than enough reason to say that we don’t consider women’s hair the same level of un-Tznius as anything else, namely from the fact that unmarried girls leave their hair uncovered. I would honestly be surprised if no one says that the Halacha by hair (as long as you don’t have Kavanah for Hana’ah, obviously) is a special Din by Devarim Shebikdusha and would not apply in everyday interaction. Why would he be perfectly allowed to see the (never-married) girl next to her’s hair but not the divorcee’s?

We see already in the time of Moshe Rabbeinu women covered their hair and men weren’t allowed to see it, from the story of Ohn ben Peles’ wife scaring away Korach’s men with her hair, since she knew men aren’t allowed to see her hair.

“it is permitted to walk on the street when necessary”

What defines necessary?

Is going an extra block to another shul really necessary?