Law School

[PlatinumGuy]

The most overused heter out there

I hope you're not implying it's incorrect.

[thaber]

Is treife the only thing you can eat at a treife restaurant? I just order some fruits/veg. They always have something.

Since most people buy non kosher in a treif restaurant there is a potential maaris ayin issue.  As usual there are mekilim and machmirim.  I'm happy to provide a list of each if you'd like,  but that wasn't my point. 

[thaber]

I hope you're not implying it's incorrect.

I was implying that sometimes it's applied incorrectly. 

[henche]

I don't think we have a different understanding of condescension, I think we interpreted lunatic's post differently

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying

[AJK]

Is treife the only thing you can eat at a treife restaurant? I just order some fruits/veg. They always have something.

So the fact that McDonalds may have some food that isn't strictly treif means there is no chashash of maaras ayin? That's news to me...

[AJK]

That's a chicken & egg argument.

If taking it off is permitted, and taking it off would reasonably increase your probability of a higher income, keeping it on is losing out on money you're 'supposed' to earn.

If taking it off is prohibited, taking it off won't cause you to earn more.

Either way, the fact that the income is predetermined doesn't have any impact on the actual halacha, it merely makes it physcologically easier to obey.

For me personally and based on my rebbeim, there is a predetermined income from RH, but it may be better to give up on some of it in order to be closer to hashem. Nowhere does it say that מזונותיו של אדם קצובים לו means I won't earn less that God predetermined and it might be worth it. I thus (personally) have no issue losing 10-20% of my annual income over it but do take it off when I think an objective bystander would think it can have a bigger impact.

Can we agree that as a general rule it is better to wear it than not to wear it?

Assuming we can, then any departure from the general rule is departing from the better course of action, provided of course that there isn't some extenuating circumstance. And therein lies the rub:

Personally, I think extenuating circumstance would be fear of bodily harm, whereas you, and perhaps your rabbonim, view extenuating circumstances as possibly not getting a job.  However, I'd submit that even those rabbonim themselves would acknowledge that, all else equal, wearing would be the preferred approach.

I just can't help believe that a person with 100% emunah would ever take off his head covering... especially to get a job. 

[yakrot]

Can we agree that as a general rule it is better to wear it than not to wear it?

Assuming we can, then any departure from the general rule is departing from the better course of action, provided of course that there isn't some extenuating circumstance. And therein lies the rub:

Personally, I think extenuating circumstance would be fear of bodily harm, whereas you, and perhaps your rabbonim, view extenuating circumstances as possibly not getting a job.  However, I'd submit that even those rabbonim themselves would acknowledge that, all else equal, wearing would be the preferred approach.

I just can't help believe that a person with 100% emunah would ever take off his head covering... especially to get a job.

+1

[Achas Veachas]

Can we agree that as a general rule it is better to wear it than not to wear it?

Assuming we can, then any departure from the general rule is departing from the better course of action, provided of course that there isn't some extenuating circumstance. And therein lies the rub:

Personally, I think extenuating circumstance would be fear of bodily harm, whereas you, and perhaps your rabbonim, view extenuating circumstances as possibly not getting a job.  However, I'd submit that even those rabbonim themselves would acknowledge that, all else equal, wearing would be the preferred approach.

I just can't help believe that a person with 100% emunah would ever take off his head covering... especially to get a job. 

+1
That story with R' Elyashiv sounds strange to me, I don't know enough about R' Elyashiv and his worldview I just know it pretty much goes against the Lubavitchers Rebbe's whole worldview on these matters.

[PlatinumGuy]

+1
That story with R' Elyashiv sounds strange to me, I don't know enough about R' Elyashiv and his worldview I just know it pretty much goes against the Lubavitchers Rebbe's whole worldview on these matters.

One thing is for sure R Elyahsiv wouldn't care what the Lubavitcher rebbe thought.

Can we agree that as a general rule it is better to wear it than not to wear it?

I don't agree that it can't impact parnassah.

[AJK]

I don't agree that it can't impact parnassah.

Who would say it can't impact parnassah?

But if you had 100% amunah and bitchon, it wouldn't matter, as whatever it does affect, you weren't entitled to anyway.

[PlatinumGuy]

Who would say it can't impact parnassah?

But if you had 100% amunah and bitchon, it wouldn't matter, as whatever it does affect, you weren't entitled to anyway.

Now I don't understand your opinion. A person can earn more than he's entitled to?

[AJK]

Of course not.  All comes out in the wash.

[Achas Veachas]

One thing is for sure R Elyahsiv wouldn't care what the Lubavitcher rebbe thought.

I didn't mean that R' Elyashiv would change his opinion if he knew the Rebbe disagreed. I'm just saying that for those who respect the Rebbe's opinion (and there are quite a few of those here) such an attitude is repugnant.

[PlatinumGuy]

Of course not.  All comes out in the wash.

If taking it off is technically permissible and taking it off can increase parnassa, how would you define the boundary of required hishtadlus?

[PlatinumGuy]

Then I guess it would be mutual.

I didn't mean that R' Elyashiv would change his opinion if he knew the Rebbe disagreed. Is just saying that for those who respect the Rebbe's opinion (and there are quite a few of those here) such an attitude is repugnant.

I agree with every word.

[JoeCha]

So the fact that McDonalds may have some food that isn't strictly treif means there is no chashash of maaras ayin? That's news to me...

Frankly, I don't know. I'm just asking.

[shiframeir]

Can we agree that as a general rule it is better to wear it than not to wear it?

Note also that in some instances, its clear you shouldnt wear it. R Moshe told someone i know not to wear (he's a judge), and i have some scummy friends who are real jerks in and outside the courtroom (though good for their clients to an extent, zealous advocacy and all) that i kinda wish DIDNT wear a yarmulke. (i do wear (the only yarmulke in my firm), and am walking around with an ugly bushy face, but thats only bc i am bh comfortable where i work. i fully understand why others would shave/noyarmulke etc.)

+1. I wasn't saying I personally follow the Chazon Ish. My whole point was that chillul Hashem is not the right words for this. There may be a 'don't make people uncomfortable' heter. but that's not chilul Hashem. Is it a chilul Hashem to wear your tzitzis out? not shave on chol hamoed? refuse to step in to a treife restaurant? there's heteirim for all of those, and by all means, seek out the tzad heter. I would if my job depended on it, or even if I just thought so. But it's wrong to term a machmir as a chilul Hashem

R Thaber, you must agree that there is a huge difference between the question of shaking a hand, where the specific halacha on the books clashes with important halachic considerations and affects others, and wearing tzitzis, shaving etc.

[CS91]

and am walking around with an ugly bushy face, but thats only bc i am bh comfortable where i work. i fully understand why others would shave/noyarmulke etc.)

I want to preface my question by just clarifying that I'm not attacking at all. Just asking your opinion and how you feel about something because someone has brought this up to me before–

I'm assuming at least someone has asked (or wondered in their head) why you suddenly stopped shaving (or trimming, not sure what you usually have). It is also very possible that they have heard of sfira/3 weeks and know that for work, one is allowed to shave. They may know this by looking at other co-workers who are frum and are still clean shaven for example. Do you not think that there is a slight chance that a partner perhaps would get upset at you because you walk into a client's meeting or into court with a messy beard when they know that in reality, you are allowed to shave?

Again, just asking an innocent question because before law school I was working at a big 4 and during the 3 weeks, a non-jew asked me how come I (along with 99% of the other frum accountants at the firm) were allowed to shave but one specific individual wasn't. I was honestly stumped and didn't know how to respond. So again, not attacking at all, and you're of course entitled to do whatever makes you the most comfortable.

[blerbz]

It seems that *most* of the difference in opinion here can be attributed to litvish vs chassidus/Chabad. So all the "ask your LOR" as usual depends on who that person is

[henche]

I have trouble understanding why people think there is an issue of maris ayin to go to a treif restaurant. I do it all the time.  Sometimes I have even had kosher meals brought wrapped to me at these restaurants.

If you saw me at Legal Sea Food at a table with a few other lawyers, would you really have any ch'shash that I was eating their food?  Wouldn't the much more likely assumption be that either I was not eating or I was eating kosher food that had been brought in?