30 Jan SECURING IDENTITY: NAVIGATING CONCEALMENT IN CHALLENGING TIMES

When times become

challenging, and anti-
Semitism rears its

ugly head in various
parts of the world,
Jewish individuals
often choose to
conceal their Jewish symbols to mitigate
potential risks and avoid attacks. Let’s
address a few questions and explore the
guidance provided by Halacha on this matter.
Let’s commence our discussion with the
halacha (קנז סימן יו״ד (that whenever Jews
face persecution and are compelled to violate
any Jewish law or remove any Jewish sign,
even if it pertains to a Jewish custom such as
wearing specific shoelaces, they may not
comply. Even if a non-Jew threatens to kill
them for non-compliance, the halacha
dictates that one should choose martyrdom
rather than violate the minhag (יעבור ואל יהרג(.
Accordingly, we can conclude that removing
the Mezuzah or kipa in a place of danger
should be prohibited. However, it is important
to note that this obligation is primarily
applicable in situations of persecution, where
non-Jews attempt to force conversion or
openly command violations of Jewish
tradition. In a scenario where it is merely
dangerous to be around non-Jews with these

Jewish symbols, it is permitted to conceal
them.
Mezuzah Placement in High-Risk
Locations.
As the Mezuzah on the door is the most
conspicuous indication that a Jewish
individual resides in a house, in certain
locations around the world, Jews have opted
to remove the Mezuzah from their front
doors. Is that permitted?
The Halacha openly addresses a scenario
where partners share a house, one being
Jewish and the other a gentile. The Rema(סימן
ס״א רפו (notes that such a house is exempt
from having a Mezuzah. Among the reasons
provided for this exemption, some
suggest(ש״ך (that it is due to the potential
danger that the gentile partner might suspect
the Jewish partner of engaging in supernatural
practices with the Mezuzah, potentially
leading to harm against the Jew.
The Meiri (א,יא יומא (explains that Hashem
does not desire a person to expose themselves
to danger and rely on miracles for the
fulfillment of the Mitsvot. Similarly, it is
written in the responsa “Chikrei Lev” (סימן
קכט (that the Torah did not command the
placement of a Mezuzah for the sake of
potential harm. The Shach (סק״ז ש״ך (writes

that throughout the exile
the Jewish ghetto’s gates
were exempt, as they

were prone to non-
Jewish hostility in those

locations.
According to these
considerations, there
certainly would have
been grounds to exempt
the residences in a
dangerous area to
prevent harm to property
and life. However, there
is a distinction between the case discussed
above and today’s situation. In a house shared
with a non-Jew, it is not possible to affix a
Mezuzah at all, as the non-Jew would see the
Mezuzah both upon entering and exiting.
Nevertheless, in a location where non-Jews
only pass from the outside, one can place the
Mezuzah in the inner part of the entrance,
visible from within the house but not from
outside. Even though our Sages established
fixed its that) הובא בשולחן ערוך סימן רפט ס״ב)
position should be within a handbreadth of
the outside (החיצון טפח (to immediately
encounter the Mezuzah upon entering, and to
safeguard the entire house from harmful
entities, this is merely an ideal practice, but
in time of danger, one can place it more
internally.
For those unable to affix the Mezuzah on
the inner part of the entrance, an alternative
is to carve into the doorpost and place the
Mezuzah inside, concealing it from view.
However, it’s crucial to note that the
Mezuzah should not be deeper than a hand
breadth(טפח (. While some poskim(הקטנה יד
the if that contend) הובא בפת״ש סימן רפט
Mezuzah is entirely invisible, one might
not fulfill the obligation, as by placing the
Mezuzah in a concealed manner, the
intended purpose of the Mezuzah—to serve
as a constant reminder of Hashem’s
presence when entering or leaving the
house (Rambam)—is compromised, as its
visibility is crucial for fulfilling this
function. Still the majority poskim assert
that while it’s not the ideal way, the mitzvah
בן איש חי ש״ב) .fulfilled considered still is
(פרשת כי תבוא אות יד, ערוך השולחן
Removing the Kipa in Vulnerable
Environments.
Another conspicuous sign of a man being
Jewish is the kipa. In a place where one
might fear for his safety, the best course of
action is to wear a hat, as it will cover the
kipa. But what should one do if he finds
himself in a dangerous place without a hat?
Should he remove the kipa? This becomes
particularly relevant, for example, when
driving from Brooklyn to Manhattan and,
upon reaching the Brooklyn Bridge,
encountering a large and violent Palestinian

rally. In such a tumultuous situation, should
he remove the kipa to avoid drawing attention
to his Jewish identity?
Let’s first explore the obligation to wear a
kipa. The Talmud(ב,קנו שבת (states that
covering the head aids a person in acquiring
Yirat Shamayim—the fear of Hashem.
(Rambam הלכות דעות פ״ה ה״ו ) Maimonides
further elucidates that it is a manifestation of
tsniut—modesty. The rationale is that when
one wears a kipa, he senses a higher presence
above him, prompting him to conduct himself
with greater modesty and mindfulness of his
actions compared to someone without a
רמב״ם מורה נבוכים ח״ג פרק)reminder tangible
. (נב
(אגר״מ ח״ד ס״ב ויבי״א ח״ט ס״א) poskim Many
maintain that according to the aforementioned
opinions, wearing a kipa is considered a
Midat Chasidut (חסידות מידת(, an act of piety,
and stringency, but it is not deemed
obligatory. However, the Taz (סק״ג ח סימן (

notes that in contemporary times, as non-
Jews often go without head coverings,

wearing a kipa also serves to distinguish the
Jewish nation from others (תלכו לא בחוקותיהם(.
assert) יבי״א ח״ט ס״א) poskim Contemporary
that today the obligation to wear a kipa is
even more pronounced. It serves to delineate
the distinction between God-fearing Jews
who believe in Hashem and those who do
not. In the present context, it becomes
essential not to appear as someone who lacks
fear of God.
Returning to our discussion, Rabbi Moshe
Feinstein was asked about someone seeking
employment at a place where wearing a kipa
would not be feasible. He responded that
based on the poskim who consider wearing a
kipa a stringency and not an obligation; one
may go without head covering in a situation
where finding alternative employment would
be challenging. In light of this, it is certainly
permissible in life-threatening situations not
to place oneself at risk.
Next week, we will continue, with Hashem’s
help, the discussion on when one should
consider a scenario dangerous and when one
should not. We will also explore what one
should do if asked directly about their Jewish
identity in a perilous environment.