Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses rabbinic allowances for a convert, such as permitting him to exchange idolatrous portions of an inheritance with gentile siblings for permitted items — something normally forbidden, since money from idolatry retains its prohibition.
Chasam Sofer (ibid) explains that the inheritance of a convert is a rabbinic enactment, not biblical; otherwise, the Sages could not permit such an exchange. The leniency is to prevent the convert from feeling alienated and reverting to former ways, but Torah law itself cannot be abrogated for such accommodation.
This reflects a crucial principle: while rabbinic law has flexibility, Torah law does not yield to emotional or social pressure alone. Complaints that a halacha offends modern sensibilities do not in themselves justify change. If the Torah basis is sound, gentile disapproval does not create a Chillul Hashem. The mitzvos of Shabbos or kashrus may appear antisocial, but they are rooted in divine command. If we used the perception about us by other nations as a yardstick, we could violate Shabbos because they would think we are lazy or we could consume non-kosher items gifted to us by them so they won’t be insulted. That’s absurd and has never been done.
That said, the Sages sometimes suspended even Torah law for reasons of eivah (avoiding mortal danger or grave hostility) or darchei sholom (promoting societal harmony). For example, a Jewish doctor may treat gentiles on Shabbos to prevent animosity that could endanger Jews (see Yoma 85b; Avodah Zara 26a; Mishna Berura 330:8; Igros Moshe OC IV:79). Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 40 note 8) noted that in the age of instant global communication, a local incident can provoke danger elsewhere, making eivah concerns more urgent, and a person cannot necessarily claim that locally the sensitivities are different.
Darchei sholom differs from eivah in that it is not about mortal danger, but about promoting peace and functional coexistence (Gittin 61a; Mishna Berura 325:11). The terms are sometimes interchanged, and poskim debate whether these allowances are hutra (intrinsically permitted in such cases because societal harmony is a value and mitzvah in and of itself) or hudcha (temporarily overridden due to necessity).
In sum: Chillul Hashem cannot apply when acting within Torah morals and standards no matter how unpopular it might look, yet the Torah itself mandates being good neighbors and responsible members of society. Navigating the balance requires the judgment of contemporary poskim, since the needs for accommodation shift with time and culture and the rationalizations to cave into conformity can be strong.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com