The Truth About the Kippah Context, History, and Reverence

B"H

Introduction: Context Matters

When sacred Jewish traditions are taken out of context, they don’t just become misunderstood—they become distorted. One of the most persistent distortions involves the Jewish practice of head covering, often attacked using verses from a foreign text—the New Testament.

Let us be clear from the outset: We do not consider the New Testament sacred. It is not part of the Torah, nor does it hold halachic authority. However, its verses are regularly misused—especially by Protestant traditions that paradoxically rely on the Catholic Church's canonization of these texts while rejecting its broader theological authority.

Among these misuses is the claim that Jewish men should not cover their heads in prayer—a claim usually based on 1 Corinthians 11. This lecture will address that claim directly, showing how such a reading is not only wrong, but disrespectful to the integrity of Torah and Jewish tradition.

Part 1: Paul, Corinth, and the Pagan Misunderstanding

A commonly misused verse is 1 Corinthians 11:4:

“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.”

This is often quoted to discredit the Jewish kippah. But this statement is ripped from its original Greco-Roman context.

Paul’s audience in Corinth was made up of Gentile converts living in a city soaked in Roman idolatry. In Roman religion, men covered their heads during sacrifices—

this practice, called capite velato, was associated with idol worship and ritual mourning. Paul’s message here was not a halachic statement, nor was it addressed to Jews.

It was a warning against pagan ritual mimicry among Gentiles.

Applying this to Jews—whose head coverings stem from Torah commandments and centuries of reverence—is a gross misapplication.

Part 2: Paul’s Limitations and Lack of Halachic Standing

Let us examine the deeper issue: Was Paul ever a halachic authority?

Though trained as a Pharisee and reportedly educated under Rabban Gamaliel, Paul's letters display a profound departure from Torah norms. While he retained Jewish language, mystical imagery, and Midrashic technique, he lacked the transmission, communal recognition, and halachic consistency required of any Torah authority.

For example:

• In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul invokes Leviticus 18:8 by condemning a man for sexual immorality with his stepmother.

• Yet, in other letters, he dismisses circumcision, reinterprets kashrut, and downplays the Sabbath.

This inconsistency reveals Paul’s role not as a transmitter of halacha, but as a theological innovator. His system, as explored in earlier teachings, can be described as a “Torah-lite” mysticism—Jewish in language, but detached from Jewish legal tradition.

That is why applying his words to rebuke Jewish head covering is not just wrong—it is irrelevant. His teachings lack standing in Jewish law.

Part 3: Head Covering in Torah and Prophetic Vision

In contrast to Paul's writings, Torah provides clear and sacred precedent for head covering in holy service.

•Exodus 28:40 commands:

“And for Aaron’s sons you shall make tunics… and caps (migba’ot) for glory and for beauty.”

•Ezekiel 44:18, in his vision of the restored Temple, declares:

“They shall have linen turbans on their heads…”

These are not metaphors. They are Torah-based garments of holiness worn by priests in the direct service of HaShem. Covering the head in Jewish tradition is a sign of submission, honor, and sanctity—not pride or ritual idolatry.

Part 4: The Development of the Kippah

The kippah (or yarmulke) was not commanded in the written Torah, but it grew from deeply rooted Torah values.

•Talmud Kiddushin 31a,

a sage said:

“I do not walk four cubits with an uncovered head, for the Shekhinah is above me.”

•Talmud Shabbat 156b

recounts a mother who kept her son’s head covered so he would learn humility before God.

Over time, these customs became communal expectations. By the Middle Ages, wearing a kippah became widespread among Ashkenazim, later also among Sephardim during prayer, study, and blessings.

The word yarmulke may stem from “yarei malka”—“one who fears the King.”

Even without being a biblical commandment, the kippah reflects centuries of living in awareness of God's presence.

Part 5: What It Means Today

In a world fixated on self-expression and rebellion, the kippah remains a humble act of God-consciousness.

To cover one’s head is to say:

I am not my own master.

The King is above me.

My life is not secular—it is sacred.

And yet, this holy symbol is constantly ridiculed by those who misapply foreign texts. Often, these critics rely on Paul’s writings—but without acknowledging that Paul’s letters were canonized by Catholic councils centuries after his death.

Ironically, Protestant critics, who reject Catholic authority, retain Paul's letters—while discarding other books from the same councils. If they trust the Church’s decision to preserve Paul’s letters, why reject its authority elsewhere?

This inconsistency only highlights that the real issue is not theology—it is the erasure of Jewish tradition under the guise of defending Scripture.

Conclusion: The Crown of Humility

The kippah is not a curse.

It is not a symbol of “legalism” or bondage.

It is a crown of humility—an act of daily reverence by a people who walk with HaShem.

So when someone says, “God doesn’t want men to wear head coverings,” ask:

Which God?

Whose text?

Whose context?

Because the God of Israel commanded head coverings for His priests. The Jewish prophets envisioned a future of holiness marked by sacred garments. And the Jewish sages passed down customs rooted in awe and sanctity.

As for Paul—his writings are historically significant, and his mystical worldview influenced much of Christianity. But within Judaism, he holds no halachic standing, and his opinions on Jewish law carry no authority.

To use Paul to rebuke Torah is to misuse both Paul and Torah.

Let us remember:

The truth does not diminish the Jewish people.

It reveals their endurance, their reverence, and their strength.