Why is the issue of kisui rosh addressed with such vehemance for a woman who is thinking of becoming hozert b'tchuva? It seems, that with 613 mitzvot, there should be other things that can be addressed before this. I am not even sure why it is so difficult to accept this alteration in exterior appearance...I only know that I feel that I would be being dishonest with those who look upon me if I were to cover my head today.
Thank you for your comments.

I'm not a kiruv pro. ,nor I think it's so stressed in the kiruv in USA as in Israel, so I cannot say for sure why. But in your question you wrote "I am not even sure why it is so difficult to accept this alteration in exterior appearance...I only know that I feel that I would be being dishonest with those who look upon me if I were to cover my head today." which seems to apply that you are under the assumption that covering your hair is just to fit into Charaidi society.
The reason why married woman cover their hair is because of modesty, which is a main part of Judaism, and there is a bigger sensitivity to it in Israel than in the states. That's why I think they stress it.

Thank you, Rav Chaim

The obligation of covering one's hair when married is a precept learned from the Torah. So it is no less important than any other mitzvah.

Thank you Rav Kechev. I guess my question was, is it more important than other mitztvot.
Hag Sukkot Sa-mayach

Question: Where does it say in the torah that a woman must cover her hair?


Thank You.

The Torah tells us that one of the acts we do to the "Sotah" is to uncover her hair. From this we learn that all other women normally must have their hair covered.

I do not understand: Why would HKB"H teach us this halacha by method of inference? Why would He not use a direct passuk in the torah to teach us such an incredibly important halacha?

The Torah was given to us by Hashem in two parts. The written Law and the Oral Law.The Oral Law explains and clarifies the Written Law. With just the Written part of the Torah we would not understand anything about the commandments and prohibitions of the Torah.That is why the two are inseparable.

Thank you Rabbi Kacev for your answer, but allow me to clarify what it is I do not understand: "Absent" the Oral Law, we would still know that HKB"H wants us to keep the Shabbat as a holy day. There are at least three P'sukim in the Written Law that positively command us to keep Shabbat.

Similarly, "absent" the Oral Law, we would still know that Hashem instructs us not to wear sha'atnez-there are no inferences-it says it directly and positively in the Written Law. Also, we know that Hashem states explicitly in the Written Law the instruction to have proper weights and measures. Again, no inferences. Of course there are numerous other examples where Hashem instructs us in the Written Law.

My question then is: Why did HKB"H not instruct us positively about this important mitzva in the Written Law? Why is this mitzva, as opposed to the examples above (and numerous other mitzvot) alluded to only by inference in the Written Law?

You make some good points Mike. However allow me to explain why the examples you listed as mitzvah's mentioned in the Written Torah would really not be telling as much at all.
The Written Torah tells that we are not allowed to work on Shabbos. But what is considered work? Is it just going to the office? Or hard physical labor? What about driving a car, Is that work? What about turning on a light? Would anyone classify that as work?
So again without the Oral law to give us the details we would know nothing.
You mentioned Shaatnez. How and under what circumstances does one violate this prohibibtion?
The Torah tells us to put on Teffilin, but does'nt inform us what they consist of. The Torah tells us to put Tzitzis on our garments ,what are they? We Are Told to sit on a Sukkah--what constitutes a Sukkah? The list could go on and on. As You see without the Oral law the Torah would be quite unintelligible.

A freilichin Chanuka, Rabbi Kacev. What you write in your response is most definitely true, but it does not answer my question.

Of course we need the Oral Law to teach us the laws of Shabbat, but, that we must keep shabbat as a holy day is instructed explicitely in the Written Law.

Same with Sha'atnez: we need the Oral Law to provide us with the details, but, that we must not wear Sha'atnez is again instructed explicitely in the Written Law.

What constitutes a crime of murder punishable by capital punishment, and the judicial process of discovery, conviction and sentencing is spelled out for us in the Oral Law, but that murder is prohibited, is instructed explicitely in the Written Law, not by inference.

Again, my question is: Why is this important law of covering the hair, unlike the others mentioned above (+your additional examples of Sukkah, Tzitzis and teffilin)
not written explicitely in the Written Law, but is only alluded to by reference?

I/m sorry -correction the last word of the previous post should be INFERENCE.

I am sorry if I haven't answered your question directly.I was pointing out that the Torah does not spell everything out directly.However you raise a good point, that the mitzvah of covring one's hair is different from the examples I gave,in that not only are the details of this mitzvah not spelled out, but even the general prohibition is not given explicitly.
However even this is not an abberation in the Torah. There are many other mitzvos which are learned from inference alone.

To mention a few, we have the mitzvah of Shechitah, the mitzvah of prayer,the prohibition of eating milk and meat together,the mitzvah of learning Torah,none of which are mentioned explicitly in the Torah.
So the mitzvah of covering one's hair is certainly not alone in this.

Allow me to wish a freilichin Chanukah to you too Mike. We enjoy your thought provoking questions.

Why would H' see fit to instruct us some mitzvot eplicitely in the written torah , but not others?

That is something only Hashem knows

Do you (or any one else who may read this exchange) know of any scholarly discussion in the Talmud or after that discusses this issue, either in general or specific to those mitzvot which are not mentioned directly in the written torah, i.e. being that they are so important and fundamental to our observance, why they are not mentioned explicitely? Why some yes mentioned and others not?

Thank You.

I think the underlying point is to show the importance of the Oral law. Without it, the Bible is a closed book, where everything is vague and could be interpeted any which way. Only with a Mesorah and the Oral Law could we put any of it in context. The reason why some things are written and others are only hinted to,the Ramban says that every word and letter has it's spacific place in the Torah (this is to explain why there are Mitzvos that are only written in Devarim, though it's really a reveiw.) In light of the Bible codes, we can understand this Ramban better.

I understand that the Oral Law is very important in the development of halacha. I also understand that there is a tremendous amount of discussion and discourse in the Oral Law.

My question is: Is there any discussion in the Oral Law (or in the post talmudic period) that deals with the issue (either in general or specific to a mitzva not written directly in the Torah) as to why some mitzvot are mentioned explicitely in the torah while others , which are presumably just as important to our observance, are not mentioned directly?