Siman 75

Even though regarding a man it is not called "ervah" except for the place of the ervah itself, but when the rest of his flesh is revealed it is of no concern to us—nonetheless, regarding a woman it is not so. And as the Rambam wrote in the third chapter, law 16, and this is his wording: And the entire body of a woman is ervah. Therefore, one may not look at the body of a woman while he recites, even his wife. And if a tefach of her body was revealed—he may not recite facing her. Thus far his words, and it appears that this is the explanation: that regarding looking at her body, it is forbidden to recite even when the revelation is less than a tefach, but without looking it is permitted. However, with the revelation of a tefach—it is forbidden to recite facing her even when he is not looking at her. And in all this there is no difference between his wife and another woman. (And so it is implied in the Gemara 24a, that to look is forbidden even at any amount. And it follows that in such a case it is forbidden during the recitation of Shema, even with his wife.)

And I saw one who wrote regarding the intent of the Rambam that specifically regarding his wife one requires a tefach, but regarding another woman even less than a tefach is forbidden, and that so it is written in the Ba'ag (Lechem Mishneh). And I wonder: for it is true that so it is written in the Hagahot Maimoniyot there. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1, that there are those who say specifically regarding his wife, but regarding another woman even less than a tefach is ervah. Thus far his words. But the opinion of the Rambam is not so. And also in the Ba'ag it is not so, and this is the wording of the Ba'ag: That even his wife, when a tefach of her is revealed – it is forbidden to recite Kriat Shema facing her. Thus far his words, meaning: and all the more so regarding another woman. However, in any event, we require a tefach.

This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 1: A revealed tefach of a woman in a place that is her way to cover, even if she is his wife – it is forbidden to recite Kriat Shema facing her. Thus far their words. And behold, certainly the opinion of the Rambam is also such, that it deals with a place that is her way to cover. However, regarding gazing, it appears that it is obvious that even in revealed places – it is forbidden. And behold, from their words it is also explained that in less than a tefach there is no prohibition even not with his wife, like the opinion of the Rambam. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say that with another woman even less than this is ervah, and we have already explained this. And know that the Tur wrote: And so too if her shok is revealed – it is forbidden to recite facing her. Thus far his words. And there are those who explained in his words that his intention is that regarding the shok it is forbidden even in less than a tefach, and even with his wife, because there it is a place of more hirhur (Bach and Taz, subsection 1). And it is difficult to explain thus, for if so, he should not have left this unspecified. And it appears more likely as the Rashba wrote in the name of the Ra'avad regarding this law in the Gemara there, that it comes to teach us that the revelation of the shok is also ervah, meaning that even though there are places where they walk barefoot, and there is nothing in her feet regarding revelation of ervah – nevertheless, in the shok which is higher than the foot, there is a matter of ervah. And therefore our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not bring this from the Tur, for this is also included in the category of covered places. (And so wrote the Beit Yosef and the Derishah, see there.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: It appears from the words of the Rosh that a tefach of a woman is ervah even for another woman, only that she herself may recite even though she is naked, as above in siman 74. Thus far his words. Behold, the Rashba wrote explicitly to the contrary, that it is only ervah for men because of improper thoughts, but not for women. And why should another woman be worse than she herself? And from the Rosh, who wrote "and specifically regarding another, but regarding herself...", thus far his words — there is no proof. For of necessity it is a printing error, as previously he did not speak at all regarding another woman. And so it must be said: "and specifically for others" (the Gra, subsection 3). Also, the Levush did not transcribe this, see there. And proof for this is from the Tur, who did not mention this matter. And it is likewise explained from his words in the Remazim, see there. There is one who also interprets the words of our teacher, the Rema, with a different intention, that his intention was to disagree with what he himself wrote previously, that some say that regarding another woman who is not his wife — it is forbidden even with less than a tefach. To this he says that from the Rosh it appears that a tefach of a woman is ervah also for another, meaning that even regarding another woman there is no prohibition with less than a tefach (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 1). And in truth, this is explained from the words of the Rosh, see there. Therefore, regarding the halachah, one should be lenient in this like the Rashba.

And there is a doubt whether a woman is permitted to recite Kriyat Shema and to recite a blessing opposite a revealed tefach of a man in a place that is usually covered. For just as it is forbidden for a man regarding a woman, so too it is forbidden for a woman regarding a man. Or perhaps: for a man is more prone to improper thoughts than a woman, and it is implied accordingly from the poskim who did not mention this law. And it is implied accordingly in Ketubot (64b), see there.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 2: The hair of a woman that is typically covered—it is forbidden to recite [the Shema] facing it, even his wife. However, virgins who typically go with their heads uncovered—it is permitted. And the same law applies to the hairs of women that typically protrude outside their hair-net, and all the more so a wig, even if it is her way to cover it. Thus far his words. And that which was explained in Even HaEzer siman 21, that even unmarried women shall not go with an uncovered head—this refers to those who have had relations, such as widows and divorcees, and not virgins (Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel ibid.). And there is one who wrote that even a virgin should not go with her hair loose and not braided (Magen Avraham subsection 3). And some say that in a courtyard all women, even married ones, are permitted to go with an uncovered head. And see in Even HaEzer siman 115, and in the Zohar "Naso" he warned very much regarding this (ibid. subsection 4). And women who come from places where it is not their way to uncover them to a place where it is their way to uncover them, and they do not intend to return—they are permitted to uncover them (ibid. in the name of Alashkar).

And now, let us come and cry out over the breaches of our generation in our many iniquities, for it has been many years since the daughters of Israel have been breached in this sin and walk with an uncovered head. And all that they have cried out over this—it has been of no help and no avail. And now the plague has spread, such that married women walk with their hair like virgins. Woe to us that this has arisen in our days! However, in any event, regarding the halacha, it appears that it is permitted for us to pray and recite blessings facing their uncovered heads, since now the majority of them walk thus, and it is like the uncovered places of her body, just as the Mordechai wrote in the name of the Ra'avyah at the end of the third chapter. This is his wording: All the matters that we mentioned as ervah—specifically regarding a matter that is not customarily uncovered. But a virgin who is accustomed to the uncovering of hair—we are not concerned, for there is no improper thought. Thus far his words. And since among us married women are also thus, it follows that there is no improper thought. (And the Rif and the Rambam omitted the law of hair and voice entirely, because they hold that it was not stated regarding the recitation of Shema. See Beit Yosef.)

One must be careful regarding hearing the sound of a woman's singing during the recitation of Shema, and even regarding one's wife. For regarding one who is not his wife – it is forbidden even not during the time of the recitation of Shema. For thus our sages, of blessed memory, said there (ibid.): A woman's voice is ervah. However, the sound of her speech is permitted, and similarly, a voice to which one is accustomed is permitted regarding one's wife even for the recitation of Shema. This is the wording of the Mordechai there in the name of the Re'ah of Metz: Therefore, it is forbidden to say a sacred matter while hearing the sound of a woman's song, and in our iniquities… we are not careful to avoid studying while hearing the sound of the song of Aramean women. Thus far his words. And it appears that specifically when they sing with their mouths is there a prohibition, and not when they play on an instrument, for in this, the concern of improper thoughts and ervah does not apply.

It has already been explained that it is forbidden to recite Keriat Shema facing ervah, and even facing the ervah of a son of Noah, and even facing the ervah of a minor. And there are those who permit facing the ervah of a minor as long as he is not fit for cohabitation, which is nine years and one day. And such is the primary ruling. And see Yoreh Deah siman 265 that there are those who do not hold the ervah of the infant during the blessing over the milah. And there are those who do hold it, for on the contrary, in this case ervah is not applicable, as he is occupied with sanctifying him with the sanctity of the milah.

Ervah in a lantern, meaning in a glass vessel, even though the ervah is covered—and regarding tzoah it is permitted in such a case—nevertheless regarding ervah it is forbidden, since it is visible, and regarding ervah it is written, "and He shall not see in you an unseemly thing"—and behold, it is visible. And so too when one is wearing a thin garment through which the ervah is visible, or a woman wearing a thin garment through which her flesh is visible—it is like revealed ervah.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: If there was ervah opposite him, and he turned his face away from it, or closed his eyes, or if it is night, or if he is blind – it is permitted to recite, for the Merciful One made it dependent upon seeing, and this man does not see it. Thus far his words. And many disagree with him, and they hold that nothing is effective except for turning the face away, for the interpretation of "it shall not be seen" is not that he shall not see, but rather that it shall not be fit to be seen. If so, what benefit is there in closing the eyes, or night, or being blind, since others standing in his place would be able to see? And such is the primary ruling (Bach and Taz subsection 2, and Magen Avraham subsection 9), and so it is proven in the Yerushalmi. And even turning the face away is only effective when he turns his entire body to the other side (Taz ibid.). And we have already explained at the beginning of siman 74 that contemplation is permitted even opposite ervah, see there.