I know a man can't say kiddush in front of his wife's uncovered hair, but can he in front of a woman (other than his wife)uncovered hair?

I didn't know that. A new day, a new sin learned from h.com.

maybe the key is not to look at her while saying it?

otherwise, how do all the kiruv rabbonim say kiddush? didn't know about one's wife uncovered hair either - wasn't it shema?.

Yes, provided the woman is not married. The issue here isn't that a man may not read qiddush in the presence of uncovered hair, but that a man may not read qiddush, shemang, etc in the presence of uncovered erwah.

But isn't it eirva only from his wife?

The hair of a married woman is erwa.

The hair of a married woman is erwa.

It sounds like you don't know everything.

Isn't it spelled 'erwah'?

You want I should render it in North-West European Sephardic fashion: herva/ngerva? I'm not that picky about diacritics.

Wife, Jewish woman who should have her hair covered = No. (SA, OC 75:2, MB 75:10, 75:12, and 76:2... Halichos Bas Yisrael also quotes the Chazon Ish OC16:8)
He should turn away completely, or close his eyes. (MB 75:5).

Non-Jewish woman who does not normally cover her hair: Yes. (Halichos BY brings Iggeroth Moshe, OC, Vol.4, No 15:1, Yabiah Omer, Vol. 6, OC, No. 13:5)

My understanding is that an opposing view is presented in Aruch HaShulchan OC 75:7.

I think this article by R'Broyde on the lack of hair covering by women in Lithuania -- and the nature of the obligation -- to be very very interesting:

http://houseofhock.blogspot.com/2004/11/he...stion-by-r.html

Hopefully this should make Psychodad feel like less of a sinner.

From R' Broyde:


The custom of Lithuanian Orthodoxy is not unique in this matter either. At least one other devout Orthodox community also accepted as normative that halacha does not require that married women cover their hair when modest Gentile women do not; this was the practice of the Algerian (and Moroccan) Orthodox community from well before 1900 also. The poskim of this community explicitly defended its custom in this matter with considerable zeal, and one can find a number of teshuvot on this topic from leaders of their community sanctioning this practice. (This Jewish community, like all others in Arab lands, was dispersed and essentially destroyed during the 1950s.) Indeed, to this day, the halachic leadership of this North African Jewish community in Israel maintains that hair covering is not required; see Rabbi Moshe Malka, VaHashiv Moshe 1:34 and 35 and Rabbi Yosef Massas, Mayim Chaim 2:110.

In my view, all of these authorities build on the simple conceptual insight found in Kiddushin 81b-82a which states:
Mar also follows the view of Shmuel, who states, one should not involve himself with women [touching] at all. He replied, 'we accept the other view of Shmuel, who recounts that touching for the sake of heaven is permitted.'
Rashi comments, to justify non-sexual touching that:
Rashi: All for the Sake of Heaven: and my thoughts are not about this women for the sake of sexuality or marriage, but rather touching and making pleasantries with this woman for the sake of her daughter.

Tosafot elaborates and states:

Tosaphot: All for the Sake of Heaven: This is what we rely on since we involve ourselves [touch] with women.

A similar such view is articulated by the Ritva commenting on this talmudic passage. He states:

All is dependent on wisdom and the sake of heaven. This is the normative rule of Jewish law, that all is dependent on what a person sees in himself. If he needs to distance him more, he must do so, even such that he not see women's undergarments when they are being washed. So too if he sees in himself that he has no erotic thoughts, he can look and speak with a prohibited sexual relationship and to ask about the well being of a married women, and this explains the conduct of Rav Yochanan who looked on the women as they were immersing, without any erotic intent, and Rav Ami who spoke with the kings mother, and other Rabbis who spoke with various Matrons [immodest women} and Rav Ada bar Ahava who danced with the bride on his shoulders at a wedding, none of whom where afraid of erotic thoughts. Rather, one should not be lenient on these matter unless one is a greatly pious person.

Similar such sentiments are expressed in Yam Shel Shlomo commenting on Kiddushin 81b. He states:
All is dependent on the that which one sees in one's eyes and feels in one's yetzer. Thus it is permitted to speak and look at an ervah, and ask about her well being. This is what the world relies on as we touch, speak, and look, but still in the bathhouse it is prohibited......
This view is quoted by Pitchay Teshuva Even Haezer 21:4.

All of this has a foundation in the famous formulation of the Ravya on Brachout 24a (siman 76) that all body parts of a women are only prohibited for a man to glaze at when normal women in his society cover these body parts, and thus they are erotic because they are covered. Otherwise (i.e, when normally revealed) they are not erotic, and need not be covered(4).
....


--------------------

....
To extrapolate this to the next step, which is that a woman may reveal areas of her body that are generally covered when (in time and place) such act of revelation is not thought immodest, is not far-fetched at all. Indeed, many women will go to a male obstetrician (even when a woman doctor is avalable, but merely less convenient), based on the view that even revealing makom ha'ervah to a man is permitted when the context deems it not erotic. Hair -- the logical assertion is made -- cannot be subject to any more restrictions than makom ha'ervah mamash. In a society where hair is generally treated without erotic content, such is permissible all the time, these rishonim would claim. And it for exactly that reasons that hair covering is classified as a dat yehudit (and not a dat moshe) in the Shulchan Aruch (as noted above) as it can change based on social norms(5).

n short, the established custom of Lithuanian orthodoxy was that married women did not cover their hair, and this custom was 150 years old when it -- and every other halachic practice of the majestic Lithuanian community -- was destroyed by the Nazis (may the Lord avenge the destruction) a short fifty-five years ago. A similar custom can be found in the North African Orthodox community at roughly the same times. Halachic support for this practice can be found in the text of the Shulchan Aruch, as well as in the rulings of many rishonim, some poskim and a few shelot uteshuvot.

Lithuanian Jewry, like many other European communities of its time, had customs and practices that some in America no longer consider "normative" halacha. That does not in any way imply "laxity in observance of halacha" by that venerated Orthodox community. Casting aspersions on the fidelity to Jewish law and tradition by now-destroyed Jewish fortresses in Europe is uncalled for -- and also not supported by the halachic sources.

As to what this argument about Lithuania says about the reality in America, that will have to wait, but the theoretical conclusions are clear.
-------

What a GREAT article! I've wondered for years what could have been going on halachically in the Lithuanian community.

Thanks for that link!

On the contrary, there is more of a sevora to permit his wife's hair than someone else's....

In general it is assur, but there are those that permit it, and often there is little choice in the matter except putting a bag over someone's head for kiddush....