The most easily recognized symbol of Jewish identity – for men – is doubtless the kippa or yarmulke. Orthodox men always wear a kippa, and even non-observant men are generally careful to don the head-covering when attending a religious ritual or entering a Shul. For those who are careful to do so, wearing a kippa is symbolic of the wearer’s commitment to Torah and mitzvos.
Yet, the source for the halachic obligation to wear a kippa is a matter of debate, and, as we will see, this debate has important ramifications even when wearing it has become universal custom and as such is required.
What are the primary sources for wearing a kippa? How big does a kippa need to be? Under which circumstances might it be permitted to refrain from wearing a kippa? When does the obligation become more severe?
These questions, among others, are discussed below.
Covering One’s Head: An Act of Piety
The Gemara notes (Kiddushin 31a): “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is forbidden for a man to walk four cubits with an upright posture, as it says, “The whole land is filled with His Honor.” Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head.”
According to Rashi and the Maharsha, the reason why Ran Huna covered his head was out of respect and subordination to the Divine. According to the Ran (12b in pages of Rif), it was an expression of subservience to Hashem.
The statement of Rav Huna appears to indicate that covering one’s head, certainly to the extent of not walking four cubits without a head covering, is a matter of pious practice. In contrast to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who mentioned a prohibition to walk with an upright posture, the practice of Rav Huna is recorded as personal custom.
According to this reading, while there is no obligation to cover one’s head, this was the special practice of Rav Huna, who sensed the Divine Presence over his head and was therefore careful to always cover his head out of respect of the Shechina.
This reading is also implied by the rulings of the Rambam (De’os Chap. 5). The Rambam writes that Torah scholars should be careful to follow strict modesty practices, including “not deriding themselves, and not revealing their heads and their bodies.” Concerning walking upright, he writes, “A Torah scholar must not walk upright and with his throat stretched out.”
Based on this ruling, covering one’s head is an act of piety that Torah scholars should follow. Another source backing this understanding is the Gemara in Nedarim (30b), which states, “Some men cover their heads, and some men do not.”
Yet, as we will see below, this is not accepted by all authorities.
Kippa for Davening and Blessings
Is there a stronger reason to cover one’s head for davening or for reciting berachos?
In Maseches Sofrim (Chap. 14) we seem to find two opinions concerning this question. According to the first opinion, it is permitted for a pocheah, which (among other situations) refers to somebody whose head is uncovered, to lead prayers in Shul. According to a second opinion, however, “It is forbidden for him to mention the Name of Hashem with his head uncovered.”
Out of deference to the second opinion, the Or Zarua (2:43) writes that a person (either a minor or an adult) should not read from the Torah with his head uncovered. He moreover criticizes the custom of “our rabbis in France,” where people would recite blessings with their heads uncovered, though he suggests there might be room to uphold the custom based on the first opinion in Maseches Sofrim.
A question can be raised from a Gemara which seems to permit the recitation of berachos even with one’s head uncovered.
In Maseches Berachos (60b) the Gemara records the order of a person’s awakening and the relevant berachos he recites. Among the activities recorded are covering one’s head with a turban or scarf, upon doing which the berachah, “Who crowns Israel with glory,” is recited. Yet before this action, a number of berachos were already recited (over the cock’s crow, over getting dressed, and others). This seems to indicate that it is permitted to recite berachos with one’s head uncovered.
However, it can perhaps be argued that even before donning the scarf, the person’s head was already covered. This might explain how the Rambam records the order of the morning blessings (Prayer 7:3-4) as set out by the Talmud, while also noting (5:5) that a person should not stand for prayer with his head uncovered—implying that one must ensure that one’s head is covered for prayer. If we assume that the person’s head is covered even before donning the scarf as mentioned by the Gemara, there is of course no contradiction.
Halachic Rulings
Many authorities write that it is proper to cover one’s head as an act of piety. Discussing the wording of the Tur (Orach Chaim 2), who writes that one should not walk more than 4 cubits without a head covering, the Bach writes that this is a matter of pious practice, and adds that for this purpose there is actually no difference between 4 cubits or less.
The Rema (Darchei Moshe) also notes that this is a matter of midas chassidus, though he mentions that according to the Beis Yosef a head covering is required (see below). He also mentions, citing Rabbeinu Peretz, that one should not enter a Shul with one’s head uncovered.
However, the Shulchan Aruch apparently understood this differently. He rules (2:6), “A person must not walk four cubits without a head covering.” His wording, and his interpretation of the Tur concerning laws of Tzitzis (Siman 8: The Tur writes that a person should cover his head with a Tallis, and the Beis Yosef assumes that his head was already covered, and thus this refers to an additional covering), imply that this is an actual halachic obligation. For davening, the Shulchan Aruch (91:3-6) rules that covering one’s head is obligatory.
The Mishnah Berurah (2:11) takes an especially stringent line, explaining that those who are pious are particular about covering one’s head even for walking less than four cubits, and even during sleep. He adds: “Concerning today, the Taz has written that there is a full prohibition to leave one’s head uncovered, even at home.” The reason for this is that it has become non-Jewish practice to leave one’s head uncovered, and it is forbidden to emulate non-Jewish practice.
The Mishnah Berurah also advises (citing Magen Avraham) that young children be trained to wear a kippa, in order to instill the fear of Heaven in them.
The Maharshal (Shut Maharshal no. 72) was asked whether it is permitted for somebody with a headache to eat and sit without a kippa. He begins his response by stating, “I know of no prohibition to recite a blessing without a kippa.”
In deference to the Terumas HaDeshen and Rabbeinu Yerucham, he is not lenient in practice to recite blessings without a head covering, but he expresses wonder at the fact that people are more careful about wearing a kippa than about walking with an upright posture—which he considers more severe than leaving one’s head uncovered.
Wearing a Kippa at Work
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Shut Iggros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:2) was asked whether a person can be in his workplace without a kippa, if the only job he could find demanded that he come to work without a kippa.
Rav Moshe rules that this is permitted. He notes that the foundation for wearing a kippa is middas chassidus, and not a full obligation. Although wearing a kippa has become ubiquitous among Orthodox Jewry, and it is therefore obligatory by force of the custom, the requirement to earn a living still defers this obligation—as we find with other obligations that are deferred by monetary constraints (one need not spend more than a fifth of one’s income for the purpose of positive mitzvos).
Thus, he rules that it is permitted to work without a kippa, where doing so would mean losing his job.
Size of the Kippa
How big must a kippa be?
The only authority to give any measure for this is Rav Shlomo Kluger, who writes that a kippa has to cover the majority of the person’s head.
However, Rav Moshe Feinstein, in the very first responsum of Iggros Moshe (Orach Chaim 1:1), writes that all other authorities disagree with this ruling, and concur that even covering less than the majority of the person’s head suffices.
