Can, Should, or Must: Wearing a Kippah to Work

Transcription

1 1 Can, Should, or Must: Wearing a Kippah to Work A Very Material Fact Simcha Goldman, an Orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi, served in the United States Navy in the 1970 s, during the Vietnam war. He was accepted into a program where the army paid for his training as a clinical psychologist, and after earning a Ph.D., he worked in the Mental Health Clinic at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California. Three and a half years into his service, he was called as a defense witness at a court martial. The opposing counsel was unhappy with his testimony, and found a way to retaliate: he lodged a complaint against Goldman concerning a breach of air force regulations. Simcha Goldman wore a kippah on duty in violation of the air force dress code, which did not allow for any headgear other than that of the air force. His superior officer ordered him to remove the kippah, but Goldman refused on the grounds that he was an Orthodox Jew who had worn a kippah all his life, as required by his faith. Now it was Simcha Goldman himself who was threatened with a court martial! Dr. Goldman retained the services of an attorney to negotiate with the air force on his behalf, without success. He next filed for a temporary and a permanent restraining order in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. He was granted the temporary restraining order, which meant that for the time being, the air force could not insist that he remove his kippah. The court was unable to issue a permanent restraining order, because a certain relevant material fact was still in dispute. The material fact in dispute was this: is wearing a yarmulke in fact a requirement of the Orthodox Jewish faith? A kippah, or a yarmulke as it is often called, has become the trademark identifying an Orthodox Jew. The question of whether or not one is obligated to wear a kippah when venturing out into the non-jewish working world is a major issue for Jews everywhere. 1 What is the origin and significance of a kippah? What is its status in halachah, and in our daily lives as Jews? Are there circumstances which permit removal of one s kippah? Can we face the world with it and can we face the world (and ourselves) without it? 2 The Need for a Kippah Subjugation to the Al-mighty 1 We will refer to a head covering in general as a kippah or yarmulke unless the context requires otherwise. 2 See Otzar HaKippah for a comprehensive treatment of all aspects of the laws and customs of wearing a head covering.

2 2 Early sources discuss a number of reasons for wearing a head covering. One major reason is that it expresses our subservience to the Al-mighty. A number of Rishonim (early halachic authorities) link the obligation to wear a head covering to the Gemara s prohibition against walking in a haughty manner (Kiddushin 31a). Chazal tell us that walking in a haughty manner is inconsistent with having a pervasive awareness that the entire world is filled with His glory (Yeshayahu 6:3). The Gemara records that the Amora Rav Huna never went four amos (approximately six feet) without a head covering because, as he said, the Shechinah is above my head. This was his way of showing respect for Hashem s constant presence. Covering one s head and a more humble, subdued gait are indications that we subjugate ourselves to the Al-mighty (see also Kallah 2:2 and the Levush on Orach Chaim 2:6). Fear of Heaven The Gemara relates that the mother of the Amora Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was warned by astrologers that her infant son was destined to be a thief. To counteract this dreadful inborn tendency in her child, she insisted that he keep his head covered at all times 3 to imbue him with the fear of Heaven, and instructed him to pray for mercy that his evil inclination not overcome him. As he grew up, he did not understand why his mother made such an issue of this one detail until the day he sat down to learn under a date palm. A powerful wind blew off his turban, and then it happened. He looked up and noticed the tempting dates hanging from the branches. Good as they looked, they did not belong to him, but he couldn t restrain himself. He clambered up the tree, and in his overwhelming desire to eat those dates, he did not even wait to pick them off the branches he ripped them off with his teeth! At that moment, he understood why his mother had insisted so forcefully on the head covering (Shabbos 156b). In keeping with this Gemara, Rabbi Moshe HaKohen, a Rishon, clearly associates wearing a head covering with fear of Heaven. He cautioned against so much as sitting with one s head bared for even a short time, for anyone who sits with his head bare, has no fear of the Kingdom of Heaven the honor of the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the entire world, [and one should] put Hashem before me always (Tehillim 16:8) (Sefer Chassidim HaChadash, p. 12). Based on this understanding of a head covering as a means to foster fear of Heaven, wearing a kippah can be viewed as part of the Torah ordained commandments to love Hashem (Devarim 6:5) and fear Him (Devarim 6:13). The Lev Avraham, a contemporary halachic authority, cites an interesting question raised by some Rishonim concerning these commandments. Love and fear are emotions, dependent on man s heart. Can emotion be produced on order? If an individual simply does not feel anything, how can he be commanded to feel? Some Rishonim explain that what the Torah does command is to do any tangible acts and think any thoughts which will lead to the love and fear of Hashem. The Torah s commandments relate to practical actions which we can carry out as a means of helping us develop these emotions. A very central act which leads to fear of Heaven is 3 According to some commentators, among them the Maharsha, this means that as an added precaution, he always wore an additional, more prominent head covering (a sudar), and not only the smaller head covering which others commonly wore.

3 3 covering one s head, making it part of the fulfillment of these commandments (Responsa Lev Avraham 1; see Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 2:1-2). Hallowed Custom Chazal tell us that The customs of our ancestors are [also] Torah (Menachos 20b, Tosfos, nifsal ). A custom universally accepted by Torah-observant Jews has the weight of law. Responsa Afarkasta D anya writes that this is all the more true of customs instituted as safeguards to preserve the Torah s laws. While all of our customs are precious and sacred, wearing a head covering is more than simply a custom; it has a solid halachic foundation in the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch, applicable for all times (Responsa Afarkasta D anya 4, 362). It follows that wearing a head covering, which has become standard practice among observant Jews, is obligatory. At What Cost? There are numerous references to men s head coverings in Tanach, and in the Talmud, Midrash and Zohar as well. The references range from the requirement for Kohanim to wear a head covering while doing the Avodah in the Beis HaMikdash, to Torah scholars wearing a special turban known as a sudar, and the story of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak s sizable head covering. The Rishonim (early halachic authorities) and Achronim (later halachic authorities) discuss whether head coverings for men have always been an absolute obligation, or simply a praiseworthy and pious practice (middas chassidus). Either way, today the Achronim are in agreement that wearing a head covering is definitely obligatory. What about wearing a kippah to work? For many Jews in the workforce, this can be a crucial issue. Under what circumstances would we be obligated to give up or lose a job for the sake of wearing a head covering at work? The answer depends on whether our kippah is a Torah ordained commandment (d Oriesa), a rabbinic decree (d rabbanan), or a praiseworthy custom universally practiced by G-d-fearing Jews (minhag). Chukas HaGoyim According to some halachic authorities, going bareheaded (or in other words, not wearing a kippah) violates the Torah s prohibition of do not follow the traditions of the non-jews (Vayikra 18:3). This prohibition against following non-jewish practices is often referred to as chukas hagoyim. Two important early proponents of this halachic opinion are the Mahari MiBruna, writing in Germany in the 1400 s, and the Taz, in seventeenth century Poland. The Mahari MiBruna writes that going bareheaded is common practice among non-jews, so that for a Jew living in a non-jewish society, going bareheaded is a distinct deviation from Jewish norms, and transgresses the prohibition against chukas hagoyim. A Jewish man s head covering is the one external factor distinguishing him from a non-jew, making it especially critical (Responsa Mahari MiBruna 34).

4 4 Similarly, the Taz writes that it is absolutely forbidden to go bareheaded, because doing so is now an established pagan practice (a chok) among the non-jews. As such, it is included in the prohibition of chukas hagoyim. In addition, the Taz writes, there is another critical element involved. A fundamental reason for wearing a head covering is to imbue us with fear of Heaven; accordingly, we should be especially careful to avoid going bareheaded, even more than any other form of chukas hagoyim (Orach Chaim 8:3). According to the Mahari MiBruna and the Taz, going bareheaded is a violation of chukas hagoyim, making it a Torah-ordained prohibition, a ruling with important halachic ramifications. Based on this ruling, how much must we sacrifice in order to wear a kippah? Financial Loss to Fulfill a Positive Commandment We find in the Gemara that we are not obligated to suffer significant financial loss (of one-third of one s assets) in order to fulfill a positive commandment (Baba Kama 9a). Similarly, Chazal instituted that one should not give away more than twenty percent of one s assets to charity, so that he does not become impoverished and in need of charity himself (Kesubos 50a). This is true even of an explicit Torah ordained commandment such as obtaining a lulav and esrog for Sukkos, or purchasing tzitzis or tefillin we are not obligated to spend more than twenty percent of our assets in order to fulfill the mitzvah (Rema, Orach Chaim 656:1). Based on the Gemara s ruling, the Rema and the Bach write that we are not obligated to undergo extensive financial loss in order to fulfill a positive commandment, even for a mitzvah overess; 4 even though we stand to lose the opportunity, we are not obligated to spend excessive amounts of money (Orach Chaim 656:1). The Mishnah Berurah comments that in any case, one is obligated to spend at least ten percent of his assets, comparable to giving charity (Orach Chaim 656:8). 5 Financial Loss to Avoid Transgressing a Negative Commandment However, it is forbidden to transgress a negative commandment, even at the cost of financial loss and even if it involves the loss of all of one s assets (Rema, Orach Chaim 656:1 quoting Rashba and Raavad; Bach, Orach Chaim 656; Mishnah Berurah 656:9-10). The Vilna Gaon and other authorities note that it is forbidden to transgress even a rabbinic prohibition in any form in order to avoid financial loss (Orach Chaim 656, v davka ). This would include loss of one s parnassah (livelihood). Positive, Negative, or Customary? As we see from the poskim, if going without a head covering is a transgression of a positive commandment, whether d Oriesa or d rabbanan, we typically would not be 4 A mitzvah whose time will pass, and it will no longer be possible to fulfill the mitzvah. 5 Ten percent is considered an acceptable outlay for charity, although it is preferable to give twenty percent.

5 5 obligated to give up our job over wearing a kippah this would usually be considered a one hundred percent loss, surely far greater than the required ten, twenty or thirtythree percent. Similarly, if wearing a head covering is not an actual commandment or rabbinic decree, but rather, a minhag a firmly entrenched Jewish practice then apparently, it would be permitted to go bareheaded in the workplace. If it is certain that we will not be hired wearing a head covering, we are not obligated to sustain substantial financial loss by remaining unemployed in order to observe this minhag, even if it is universally accepted. However, if going bareheaded transgresses a Torah ordained negative commandment, as the Taz rules, or even a rabbinic prohibition, we would be forbidden to accept a job which requires that we do not cover our head. Simcha Goldman s case eventually reached the Supreme Court in The Court ruled in favor of the Air Force. However, the following year Congress passed a law permitting members of the armed forces to wear an item of religious apparel while in uniform Dr. Goldman s kippah included. Strict Halachic View of Going Bareheaded at Work A number of halachic opinions do not allow for leniency in going bareheaded for parnassah purposes. Problem No. 1: Chukas HaGoyim The Maharam Brisk ( ) was asked the following question in pre-war Europe. A Jew was offered a job which required him to go bareheaded while at work. Was it permitted for him to take the job to support his family, or was he obligated to give it up, in order to keep his head covered at all times? The Maharam Brisk wrote that according to the Rishonim and Achronim, wearing a head covering was initially a praiseworthy practice (middas chassidus), and not an actual halachic requirement. However, as the Taz ruled, now that going bareheaded is a matter of religious principle among non-jews, it has become an issue of chukas hagoyim, a Torah ordained prohibition. As such, the Maharam Brisk states that it is impossible for him to permit a G-d-fearing Jew to commit himself to a job where he must go bareheaded the entire time that he is at work. The very fact of the employer s insistence on his removing his head covering as a matter of principle makes the issue of chukas hagoyim all the more apparent. The Maharam Brisk cites a responsum written in Poland in the 1500 s by the Maharshal. The Maharshal was greatly disturbed by what he understood to be a matter of misplaced priorities in his times. He wrote that people see no problem in going about in a haughty manner, explicitly forbidden in the Gemara (Kiddushin 31a). And yet, they do make a great issue of not going bareheaded, certainly a worthy practice but not an actual prohibition. Even more so, he was disturbed that Jews who transgressed the explicit prohibition against yayin nesech (non-jewish wine) were still

6 6 accorded respect in the community, while one who was careful to partake only of kosher foods, but did not wear a head covering, was considered to have abandoned Judaism (Responsa Maharam Brisk, vol. I, 8). It is true that the Maharshal was unhappy about these mistaken attitudes within the Jewish community. However, the picture he paints of the norms of his era is a clear indication of how very careful Jews were about keeping their heads covered at that time. The Issues in America Rav Moshe Stern ( ), the Debrezciner Rav, a posek in the United States, was asked the same question. A Jewish man was offered a job which required him to go bareheaded during working hours. Considering that he was finding it very difficult to obtain another position, would it be permitted for him to take this job in order to support his family? Rav Stern s response, published in his Be er Moshe, touches on several important aspects of the question of wearing or not wearing a kippah. He writes that from the standpoint of halachah, it apparently would be permitted for the questioner to take the job, even if it would mean removing his kippah at work. He writes that this is especially true in the United States, where the vast majority of non-jews in any case do not adhere to the old pagan rites, and attach no religious or pagan significance to going bareheaded. The Taz, who ruled that going bareheaded violates the Torah s prohibition against chukas hagoyim, spoke of an era when pagan practices were very firmly entrenched in non-jewish society, but this is no longer the case in our times. Problem No. 2: Maris Ayin In addition, Rav Stern points out another problem with removing our kippah while non-jewish society may have changed its motivation for going bareheaded, we have not. Wearing a head covering has been accepted as a fundamental of Jewish practice, and a Jew who goes bareheaded is perceived to be non-observant. In other words, there is also a question of maris ayin involved. 6 Wearing a kippah has become a symbol of allegiance to Torah and mitzvos. The Be er Moshe writes that even though his questioner would theoretically be permitted to remove his kippah at work for purposes of parnassah, it will be viewed as an indication that he has cast aside Torah observance, a problem on its own. The Be er Moshe s reasoning reflects the halachic principle of minhag Yisrael din hu: a custom which has been universally accepted among Torah-observant Jews takes on the status of halachah. For example, rice is not actually chametz, and the Torah does not forbid consumption of rice on Pesach. However, it is a long-established custom among Ashkenazic Jews to refrain from eating rice on Pesach. As such, this practice is now in the realm of halachah, not merely a custom which would allow for flexibility. Apparently, this is how the Be er Moshe understood wearing a kippah in our times: it is no longer optional, but obligatory. Problem No. 3: Long-term Corrosive Influence 6 See Chapter 4, How Will It Look? Business Meetings in Non-Kosher Restaurants, which discusses the prohibition of maris ayin in detail.

7 7 For these reasons, Rav Stern concludes, he absolutely cannot permit accepting the job on these terms. Working in such a place will mean that day after day, week after week, and month after month, this Jewish employee will be spending the entire day bareheaded, blending in with all the others around him. This is certain to have a corrosive influence on his religious observance. Even if at first unwittingly and unwillingly, he will begin to follow the example of his co-workers and slide into negative habits, simply because there is nothing which sets him apart (Responsa Be er Moshe, vol. VIII, 40). In the contemporary workplace, this concern may quickly be translated into invitations to office parties or a drink at a bar after work, with all the obvious problems attached. 7 An employee who would never have dreamed of doing such things before he took the job can be faced with a real dilemma. Those around him see him as one of them and expect him to join them socially. Without the yarmulke, it is much easier to just give in and go along. Ben had always been observant, and had never hesitated to wear a yarmulke wherever he went. When he was accepted to Harvard Business School, he began having second thoughts; in that setting, he was concerned that his yarmulke might work against him. It was not an easy decision, but when the semester began, Ben went bareheaded for the first time in his life. Despite this, the first year was more difficult than he had anticipated. Even without the yarmulke, Ben did not participate in many of the more social aspects of his Harvard education, avoiding after-class parties, trips to bars, and the like, and his classmates were a bit put off. Networking and teambuilding are crucial to success in business school, and Ben was perceived as aloof and arrogant, a decided disadvantage. Ben was never really happy with his decision, and he returned to Harvard for his second year wearing his yarmulke. Ironically, that year was far more successful, not only academically, but socially as well. The yarmulke did not isolate him, as he had feared on the contrary, his classmates now understood that he stayed away from certain social activities not because he was snobbish, but because he was religious. The Be er Moshe discusses the consequences of long term behavior, which can have a cumulative effect. We can gain insight into this idea from a responsum written by Rav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita. A questioner had a choice between davening with a minyan which was held before sunrise, 8 or davening on his own without a minyan, although at the proper time. Rav Sternbuch writes that the answer depends on whether this is a long-term situation, or only a short-term problem. If it will mean davening without a minyan on a regular basis, it is preferable to daven even before the proper time with a minyan. This is because davening alone, without a minyan, for an extended period will foster a more cavalier attitude towards prayer in general (Responsa Teshuvos V Hanhagos vol. I, 67). 7 See Chapter 14 Nothing for Me, Thanks: Drinking with Non-Jews, and Chapter 15, You are Cordially Invited: Attending Non-Jewish Social Gatherings and Holiday Parties. 8 Sunrise, under normal circumstances, is the earliest halachically permitted time to begin Shemoneh Esrei in the morning.

8 8 The Be er Moshe concluded the responsum with a piece of encouraging news. The questioner had accepted his ruling, and had not taken the job. Shortly afterwards, he let the Be er Moshe know that he had found a much better job which did not require him to take off his kippah! All Day, Every Day The Be er Moshe raised the concern of the negative effect of going bareheaded on a regular daily basis. We find a similar concern in Kevod Melachim by Rabbi Shmuel Heller ( ). Ordinarily, we follow the principle of safek d rabannan l hakel: if it is uncertain whether or not an act violates a rabbinic ordinance, we rule leniently. A familiar example is the requirement to recite brachos before and after eating. The blessings recited before eating are of rabbinic origin. If we are not sure if we made a brachah before we ate, we do not say it for what may be a second time. These blessings are d rabbanan, and we rule leniently where there is doubt concerning a d rabbanan. However, the obligation to recite the proper blessing after eating bread is Torah ordained, derived from the verse and you will eat and you will be satiated, and you will bless Hashem your G-d (Devarim 8:10). If we are unsure of whether or not we remembered to recite the Grace after Meals, we recite it, even if it may be an unnecessary repetition. This is because when we are uncertain regarding a Torah ordained obligation, we rule strictly (safek d Oriesa l chumrah). However, Kevod Melachim qualifies this principle. He writes that safek d rabannan l hakel applies only to specific instances where a d rabannan is in question for example, did we or did we not make the brachah but not in the case of an ongoing transgression. In such circumstances, he writes, we are strict, rather than lenient. In the case of the kippah, because going bareheaded all day, every day involves a possible transgression on an ongoing basis, we would not be lenient. In conclusion, though, he does say that it might be possible to be lenient concerning going bareheaded where necessary to make a living (Kevod Melachim, Halachah L Moshe 3, Dinei Bizbuz Memono 10). Lenient Halachic View of Going Bareheaded at Work There are a number of halachic opinions which allow for leniency in going bareheaded for parnassah purposes. The lenient rulings are based on the reasoning that if removing the kippah is a requirement for employment, we can be lenient because neither chukas hagoyim nor maris ayin apply. The Igros Moshe on a Kippah at Work Rav Moshe Feinstein discusses the question of whether one may go without a kippah where necessary for parnassah, in three separate responsa. In essence, Rav Moshe rules in accordance with the Taz: going bareheaded is a violation of the Torah s commandment against adopting non-jewish practices (chukas hagoyim). However, he writes, this is only so in circumstances and locales where the basis for a given non-jewish practice is related to their religious beliefs and customs. In the United States, a non-jew generally goes bareheaded not as a matter of religious belief, but simply because of comfort, convenience, and contemporary norms.

9 9 Rav Moshe writes that initially the wearing of a kippah was neither a Torah ordained commandment nor a rabbinic ordinance. Therefore, in a case of great financial loss, Rav Moshe rules that one may rely on the authorities who disagree with the Taz. This would certainly be true in the United States, where people go bareheaded not because of idolatrous rites, but simply because head coverings are not currently in vogue and there is no reason to wear them; even religious Jews generally wear just a kippah rather than a hat, certainly indoors (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, vol. IV, 2). In another responsum, Rav Moshe writes that one is clearly permitted to take a job that requires going bareheaded, because we are not obligated to undergo substantial financial loss for a praiseworthy practice (middas chassidus), such as wearing a kippah. It is surely no more serious than failing to fulfill a positive commandment, where we are not obligated to take a major financial loss and giving up a job which is our primary source of income qualifies as a major financial loss. Here too, he writes that even according to the Taz, the question of whether or not going bareheaded is chukas hagoyim depends on the norms in the location in question. In the United States, the majority of the population is not maintaining the old pagan customs, so that going bareheaded is not a violation of the prohibition of chukas hagoyim. However, Rav Moshe makes a very important point: this lenient ruling is not a carte blanche permit to go about bareheaded at all times, just because one cannot wear a kippah at work. The heter is limited only to the time actually spent in the workplace. As soon as we leave the office itself and certainly when we leave the building or ride the subway it is forbidden to go bareheaded. This is true even if our co-workers or boss will see us with our skullcap and snicker. We will not lose our job over wearing a kippah outside the office, so there is no reason to permit it (Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat vol. I, 93). It was my first day on the job at Sullivan and Cromwell, a major non-jewish New York law firm, where I had the distinction of being the first employee to wear a kippah to work. Another Orthodox Jew working for the firm was showing me the ropes. My jaw dropped at the sight of an obviously religious Jew, complete with a full beard. He was carrying the classic yeshivah man s black hat in hand but he was bareheaded, with no sign of a kippah. Is this the kind of client the firm works with? I asked, surprised. No, my companion told me. That s Meir. He works here. He s on his way out to minchah across the street. As I soon discovered, after many years in kollel, Meir had gone on to law school in order to support his growing family. He had landed a good job at Sullivan and Cromwell, but in those years, he had not been able to wear a kippah on the premises. He would wear his black hat to work, remove it upon arriving at the office and put it back on the instant he stepped out. This was in Today Sullivan and Cromwell boasts over thirty employees not only with yarmulkes, but even with peyos and tzitzis in full view, with kosher food provided at company functions. In a third responsum, Rav Moshe writes that if a certain act definitely qualifies as chukas hagoyim, but is followed by non-jewish society as a whole including even those who are not religious it would no longer be a transgression of the prohibition of chukas hagoyim. The fact that even the non-religious non-jews do it proves that they are not motivated by any religious conviction, but simply by comfort and convenience.

10 10 Therefore, he writes, if one cannot obtain a job to support himself unless he goes bareheaded at work, he is permitted to take the job. At the same time, he adds, if the employer objects specifically to a kippah, but would not mind a hat, he should wear a hat at work (Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah, vol. IV, 11:3). Fulfilling a Mitzvah Bareheaded is Chukas HaGoyim The Neta Sorek was asked the following question in the latter half of the 1800 s in Hungary. An observant Jew wanted to train for a profession working in the non- Jewish court system, where he would not be able to wear a kippah. Was he permitted to take the job under these conditions? The Neta Sorek responded that according to many halachic opinions, covering one s head is an important pious practice (middas chassidus), but going without a head covering is not an actual prohibition. Even in keeping with the halachic opinion that going bareheaded is a violation of chukas hagoyim, this would only apply to praying or fulfilling any other mitzvah while bareheaded. This is because baring one s head specifically for religious services is the non-jewish practice, but going bareheaded at other times has no particular religious connotations. Accordingly, he writes that there is no basis to prohibit engaging in other activities while bareheaded. Going to work is not a religious activity per se. According to the Neta Sorek, when necessary, there is no problem of chukas hagoyim in not wearing a kippah at work. However, the Neta Sorek himself writes that his responsum is intended as a discussion of the relevant halachic issues, and not as an actual practical halachic ruling (Responsa Neta Sorek 2). Writing in the years before the Holocaust, Rav Yoel Katz, author of Yerushas Pleitah, discusses the question of wearing a head covering and going bareheaded at some length. He writes that if one must go bareheaded in order to support himself, it would be permitted to rely on the lenient ruling of the Neta Sorek, under the following conditions. First, the only motivation behind going bareheaded should be solely the need for parnassah, and not any other considerations. Also, the heter extends strictly to the workplace itself, and not outside on the streets. He concludes by saying that one who wishes to be strict in this matter should do so only for himself, and not as it relates to others, especially during times when it is extremely difficult to earn a living (Responsa Yerushas Pleitah 18). Observers will Understand As we learned from the Be er Moshe, in addition to chukas hagoyim, there is another problem involved in going bareheaded at work: maris ayin doing something which is permitted under the given circumstances, but appears to be a transgression in the eyes of an observer unaware of those circumstances. In the case of the kippah, a Jew who does not cover his head is generally assumed to be non-observant. However, depending on the city and circumstances, Orthodox Jews occasionally will not wear a kippah in the workplace; outside Eretz Yisrael it is common knowledge that it may not always be possible. Observers will typically understand the situation, and not automatically equate the absence of the kippah with a total abandonment of Torah.

11 11 Limitations on the Leniency We see that some poskim do permit going bareheaded for purposes of parnassah. And yet, even according to these lenient opinions, there is no blanket heter to take off our yarmulke because we are looking for work among non-jews; the circumstances of every instance must be weighed separately. In fact, these poskim themselves included a number of limitations and conditions to the heter. Substantial Loss First, Rav Moshe rules that one may rely on the lenient opinions which permit going bareheaded when there is a question of substantial loss (Orach Chaim, vol. IV, 2). Apparently, this would only be permitted in a case of substantial loss not minor loss. This would mean that a job which is our primary source of income is one thing but an opportunity to pick up a little extra on the side is quite another. Similarly, the owner of a business may lose some deals or sales from time to time because of his kippah. However, if the business will not be seriously affected by the presence of the kippah, it is likely that he would not have a heter to go bareheaded. The question of what would constitute a major or a minor loss should be discussed in every case with a halachic authority. Only on the Premises Second, in another responsum, Rav Moshe writes that the heter to go bareheaded applies only to the workplace itself, where the employer objects to the kippah not on the way there, the way home, or anywhere else, even if it will be uncomfortable to be seen with a kippah (Choshen Mishpat, vol. I, 93). Other Options Third, Rav Moshe also writes that if the employer specifically does not allow a kippah but would agree to some other type of head covering, one should wear that instead, rather than going bareheaded (Yoreh Deah, vol IV, 11). Weighing Each Case Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss ( ), a noted posek, was also very reserved in permitting the removal of a kippah for work. In a responsum written in England in 1965, he points out that the major halachic authorities have already discussed at length the question of going bareheaded in order to work in a government or municipal office. Many authorities are of the opinion that, based on the Gemara, covering one s head is an obligation, and not only a praiseworthy custom. This would be so especially in our times, when going bareheaded is standard practice in non- Jewish society, making this a problem of chukas hagoyim. In any case, he writes, it is impossible to establish a blanket policy concerning employment in government offices. Every case must be decided based on the particular circumstances of the place and the time. Certainly if the governmental agency does not object to the wearing of a kippah at work, there is no basis to be lenient about removing it (Responsa Minchas Yitzchak, vol. III, 33:3). In addition, before deciding to remove the kippah for an interview, some soul searching is in order. Why are we so sure that it will lose us the job? Is it a hunch, a gut feeling, or a reasonable assumption based on the company s hiring record? A hunch or a gut that it might hurt our job prospects is not sufficient grounds to remove the kippah; there would have to be much more solid evidence. The

12 12 questioners in the responsa cited above knew for a fact that they definitely would not be hired unless they removed the kippah, and that was the basis for the lenient rulings. However, none of the poskim, even those who ruled leniently, permitted going bareheaded simply on a hunch that it could jeopardize a potential job offer. Abe, an old friend, had just completed his undergrad degree in business and was seeking employment. When the first interview materialized, he was convinced that his kippah would ruin his chances. With a sigh, he folded it carefully into his pocket and tried to put his best foot forward. The interview was not a success, and did not lead to a job. Little did Abe realize that this was the first of not five, ten, or even twenty interviews to come but the first of over one hundred! He went to them all without a kippah, but somehow, that did not do the trick. Then came the interview with the consulting division of Coopers and Lybrand, at the time one of the Big Six accounting firms. For some reason he couldn t even say why himself Abe came to this interview with a very prestigious firm with his kippah on and got the position. This was Abe s first interview with his kippah on, and he landed the job! Abe has now been successfully employed for over twenty years, currently as the CEO of a successful internet company, and never again did he remove his kippah for work. Problems on the Job As we see, some poskim forbid going bareheaded even for parnassah, while others rule more leniently, permitting it under certain conditions. However, taking off the kippah while at work brings its own problems. A major issue sure to crop up several times over the course of a day is making brachos before and after eating, reciting asher yatzar after using the bathroom, and very likely, davening minchah. None of the poskim, even those who are lenient concerning the kippah at work, extend the leniency to making a brachah or praying bareheaded. The Shulchan Aruch writes clearly that it is forbidden to make a brachah bareheaded (Orach Chaim 206:3). Similarly, the Mishnah Berurah (2:12) writes that it is forbidden to say the name of G-d, make a brachah, or learn Torah while bareheaded. What options are available for the employee who is not wearing a kippah on the job? An easy solution would be placing a hand on one s head while reciting the brachah. However, the Shulchan Aruch rules that this is not an acceptable substitute putting one s own hand on one s head is not considered a head covering, although someone else s hand would be (Orach Chaim 91:4). The Mishnah Berurah explains that this is because a person s hand and his head are part of the same body they are a single entity, and the body cannot cover itself. The Rema rules similarly: using a hand to cover one s own head is not a head covering (Orach Chaim 74:2). The Bach suggests another possible solution: pulling a sleeve down over one s hand and placing it on the head would qualify as a head covering. While it may look a bit odd to the uninitiated, this particular method is used by a number of people who have heterim to not wear yarmulkes at work. However, on a practical level, this is also problematic it will obviously look rather odd, and the uncomfortable employee is very likely to speed through his brachah with little or no kavanah. An interesting option mentioned by a few of the poskim for those who must go bareheaded on the job is to wear a toupee. This is an inconspicuous head covering

13 13 which can be worn at all times while at work. According to some opinions, wearing a toupee would eliminate the problem of chukas hagoyim, and even the problem of maris ayin (Toras Yekusiel, Mahadurah Kama, Orach Chaim 12). However, not all poskim agree on this it will not be obvious to observers that a toupee, certainly a good one, is a head covering, so that maris ayin is still an issue. Also, many poskim do not permit making a brachah while wearing only a toupee. Even so, while a toupee is not ideal, it would still be preferable to going bareheaded altogether. Interview Only The kippah question can also bring with it another major dilemma. Are we permitted to arrive for a job interview without a kippah (relying on the lenient halachic opinions), and once the job is safely landed, come to work wearing it? The absence of the kippah has enabled us to be hired on the basis of our qualifications. Now that the employer has decided that we are right for the job, though, we want to wear it as we always do. 9 The primary concern in this scenario is the issue of geneivas da as. Literally translated as stealing another s knowledge, it means misrepresentation or deception. Geneivas da as is a serious matter; according to many poskim, it is a Torah ordained prohibition. It is explicitly forbidden by the Gemara, in relation to Jews and non-jews alike (Chullin 94a). In the case of the interview, causing the employer to form a mistaken impression of whom and what we really are may well be geneivas da as. Between the second and third years of law school, my fellow students and I began applying for first-round interviews with a number of law firms. Firms satisfied with a student s qualifications would invite him for a first-round interview, held near the campus in the best hotels in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I set out for an interview with a prestigious New York law firm, suitably dressed for the occasion. These interviews usually last twenty to thirty minutes, or even longer. This one was over in five minutes. It was interesting nonetheless, because the (non-jewish) interviewer spoke not to me, but to my yarmulke. He made almost no eye contact, and brought the conversation to a close as quickly as possible. He did not strike me as being a religious person, who might discriminate against me because of his religious beliefs. He obviously objected to having an attorney with a skullcap at the firm, and I was not invited for a second-round interview at the New York office. The Shulchan Aruch rules that we must be impeccably honest in our dealings with others. For example, he writes, a potential customer should be informed of any defect in merchandise we offer for sale. So too, if a non-jew assumes that the meat we are selling is kosher, and it really is not, we must tell him so, even if it seems to us that it should not matter to him. The prohibition applies as well to other relationships, even to honesty in speech, when there is no financial transaction involved. We should not allow someone to think that we are going out of our way to do him a special favor, when in truth, we are not. For example, if we planned to go to the store to make a personal purchase, we should not lead the other party to believe that we are making an extra trip only to shop for him (Choshen Mishpat 228:6; see Rambam, Hilchos 9 See Chapter 3, Will They Really Care? Honesty in Interviewing, which deals with the topic of geneivas da as at interviews.

14 14 Mechirah 18:1). The Rambam rules that geneivas da as (deception or misrepresentation) is absolutely forbidden, even if it involves just one single word! (Hilchos De os 2:6). Even so, based on a responsa from Rav Moshe, it seems that at times there may not be a concern about causing a mistaken impression by not wearing a kippah. A questioner asked Rav Moshe the following: he would be interviewing for a job, and he had been forewarned that if he arrived wearing a kippah, he would not be hired. Not only that, it would reflect badly on the employee who had recommended him for the job. However, he had also been told that once he got past the interview and was hired, he would then be able to wear his kippah at work. The questioner very much needed the job, and where he lived in Denver, it was not easy to find a place where one could wear a kippah to work. Rav Moshe wrote that in his opinion, given the situation, it was permitted to go to the interview without a kippah (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, vol. IV, 2). He did not even raise the issue of geneivas da as as a possible consideration. Because the circumstances of every case differ, a posek should be consulted regarding specific questions. Conclusion As we have seen, some poskim rule strictly and do not permit taking a job which requires going bareheaded at work. Others are lenient in this regard. The debate among these poskim focuses primarily on whether or not going bareheaded is a violation of the prohibitions against chukas hayogim and maris ayin. Some poskim maintain that these prohibitions apply to going without a head covering at work, and others are lenient when necessary for parnassah. Practically speaking, today there are fewer and fewer occupations which would require an employee to go bareheaded. Observant Jews wearing yarmulkes are found in all industries and professions, especially in the larger cities with sizable Orthodox populations. The Aruch HaShulchan writes that according to some major halachic authorities, going bareheaded violates a fundamental prohibition, while according to others wearing a head covering is only a middas chassidus. Either way, he writes, experience has shown that going bareheaded will bring the brazenness of the evil inclination to the fore, even without our realizing it. He rules that in situations where being bareheaded is absolutely necessary, for example when required by law in a non-jewish courtroom, we are permitted to do so. Otherwise, unless absolutely necessary, a Jew concerned with maintaining his fear of Heaven should be careful to keep his head covered (Orach Chaim 2:10).