April 29, 2009 12:51 am at 12:51 am #643665
ames: life is just so much less complicated like that!April 29, 2009 12:56 am at 12:56 am #643666YW Moderator-72Participant
when I want to change my fashion, I go with my brim up instead of down. j/kApril 29, 2009 1:15 am at 1:15 am #643668
72: why not ah streimel?!April 29, 2009 1:30 am at 1:30 am #643669an open bookParticipant
jax, is that what you do when you want a change? 😉April 29, 2009 1:38 am at 1:38 am #643670YW Moderator-72Participant
Jax, only between Succos and Pesach… and it’s not a real streimel, it has ear flaps for the really cold days.April 29, 2009 1:40 am at 1:40 am #643671JosephParticipant
not many fashion options with a streimel
You have the Shtreimel, the Spodik, the Kolpik, etc.April 29, 2009 1:42 am at 1:42 am #643672
ames: actually a fashion thing with strimels, is they add the color of their beards as highlights to the strimels! say a red beard guy would have red in the streimel! i’m serious btw!
an open book: nope, not me—yet!
72: oh i totally get it!April 29, 2009 1:44 am at 1:44 am #643673
Joseph: & a beeba hat!April 29, 2009 1:47 am at 1:47 am #643674
Joseph: which one’s the low flat strimel? i wanted to borrow one for purim, but didn’t in the end!April 29, 2009 1:58 am at 1:58 am #643675beaconParticipant
It’s called a beeba hat? Lol I always thought it was beaver!April 29, 2009 2:08 am at 2:08 am #643676
ames: no i an not, i know a bunch who do this & they say everyone does it!
beacon: ha that’s really funny?April 29, 2009 2:27 am at 2:27 am #643677
beacon: sorry that wasn’t supposed to be a question, rather ending with a ”!”April 29, 2009 2:36 am at 2:36 am #643678
ames: the one’s joseph said where of different chassiduses! no they don’t switch off when they want to, that would associate them with a different group!April 29, 2009 2:39 am at 2:39 am #643679
ames: wouldn’t bother me a bit! 😉April 29, 2009 3:55 am at 3:55 am #643680
Honestly, is there no place that has the same type of amusements and arcade games as CEC, that is not a treif place? For maris ayin alone, I would not want to go in there, since the primary purpose of the place is the food.April 29, 2009 4:20 am at 4:20 am #643681
i’ve never been to Chuck-E-Cheese, & was just wondering if it’s more of a New Rock City arcade place or more of a kid’s n action place! say for younger children?April 29, 2009 7:23 am at 7:23 am #643682kapustaParticipant
ok, so would anyone have a problem if they saw someone wearing a streimel while in Chuck-E Cheese?
not unless they were eating something that wasn’t chalav yisroel that would lead to their weight gain because they never bothered taking up running.
Nominated for post of the day/week/year – YW Moderator-42April 29, 2009 10:23 am at 10:23 am #643683
Flatbush, I don’t really agree that clothes make the man.
I think for Shabbos you should dress extra special. If my son wears jeans a tshirts during the week, but wears nice khakis for Shabbos (that he reserves for Shabbos), whats the problem? Its all about wearing something l’kavod Shabbos.
Ames, did you ever have a uniform? I did in elementary school and I really didnt mind. In HS I didnt but I sort of created by own by wearing the same thing every day LOL.April 29, 2009 2:13 pm at 2:13 pm #643684tbParticipant
I vote that once everyone has said the same thing 57 times that the thread be closed. Anyone with me on that? ( or are we up to 157 times by now?)April 29, 2009 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm #643685
Ames, I never changed after school. It didn’t pay.
I’m not such a fashionable person so it wouldn’t bother me much. But I don’t like to be forced to, just have it optional 🙂April 29, 2009 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm #643686yitzy99Member
The discussion about the black hat etc. seems to pop up periodically. I wonder if it is because this “uniform” and all the current minhagim associated with it seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Young adults probably think this is the way it always has been. Older folks can recall a time when a jacket and hat were worn to shul on Shabbos and a were not limited in color and style.April 29, 2009 4:04 pm at 4:04 pm #643687
sjs: if thats the norm where you live i hear that but if he walked into bmg dressed like that people may think this guy has no respect for shabbos although they dont know what he wears during the weekApril 29, 2009 4:56 pm at 4:56 pm #643688
Flatbush, I don’t care what everyone else thinks. To me, the intentions matter as long as you are within the bounds of halacha. Other people have to learn to be less judgemental, rather than me pandering to non-halachic expectations that have no real backing.
Its a sad fact, but the better times are for the Jews, the worse we are to each other. Uniforms amongst different sects just amplify the possible hatred and judgement.April 29, 2009 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #643689
Its a sad fact, but the better times are for the Jews, the worse we are to each other. Uniforms amongst different sects just amplify the possible hatred and judgement
AMEIN to that!!! Sad, but true.April 29, 2009 6:37 pm at 6:37 pm #643690
im not understanding the whole crusade against uniforms. whats wrong with boys schools having uniforms and girls schools having uniforms.April 29, 2009 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm #643691
Flatbush, no one is AGAINST uniforms. In fact, I wore one and didn’t care.
But, my uniform also made sense. We had warm sweaters for the winter and light cotton blouses for the summer. And if someone wore a sweater in the summer (particularly out of school), I would think they were ridiculous.
However, what you were basically saying is that the black and white is holy because the gedolim wear it. Um, no.April 29, 2009 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #643692
Jax & ames: I’ve heard of red highlighted & blond highlighted streimels, but I never dreamed it was to match the beard!! That’s insane- I thought it was just a matter of personal taste. I have some learning to do 😉
beacon- it can be called “beaver hat” (english) or “beeba hit” (yiddish). Jax mixed the 2 😉April 29, 2009 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #643693
im getting sick of this whole topic anyway but i see no reason why someone should be upset at a yeshiva bachur for wearing his uniform everyday. if someone is not against uniforms then whats the problem. even if that particular uniform seems to someone else uncomfortable in the summer months then so what. its his choice. its not like hes wearing a sweater and longjohns. hes just wearing a hat and jacket on a hot day. and if he wears it in chuck e cheese then whats the problem. hes still a yeshiva bachur when hes not in yeshiva so its still ok if hes wearing his uniformApril 29, 2009 7:18 pm at 7:18 pm #643694mdlevineMember
If the boys in the story on the front page were in jeans and parkas, they still would have done a great thing, however, the kiddush HaShem was because she recognized them as associates of a Yeshiva based on how they were dressed.April 29, 2009 7:24 pm at 7:24 pm #643695
good point on the story mdlevine.
although im sure some anti yeshiva garb wearers will say well maybe it was a bunch of lawyers on the way to a meetingApril 29, 2009 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #643696
mdlevine- excellentApril 29, 2009 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #643697
“hes still a yeshiva bachur when hes not in yeshiva so its still ok if hes wearing his uniform”
Far better and more important that he is still a Yeshivah bachur when he is NOT in a uniform.
Also regarding that article, which indeed was a fine story – if the boys were merely wearing their Yarmulkes, even if dressed casually, they would also have been recognizably frum Jews. My friend’s son was driving by one evening after a snowstorm, and saw the rebbetzin of our shul struggling to shovel her walk. He stopped the car (no easy feat because there is no parking on the street on either side, and picked up her shovel and did the job for her, then went on his way. Had he not stopped, she would never have noticed him driving by. Only he would have known. Acts of chessed are acts of chessed, no matter who does them. And Jewish males who are religiously observant, are usually recognizable, whether or not they are wearing a hat.April 29, 2009 8:34 pm at 8:34 pm #643698
Did everyone read the same thread I did?
What I read mostly from the “anti” side was not really anti, but more saying it is in no way commendable to wear black and white.
The “pro” side was saying that if others want to dress like goyim, fine, but yeshiva bochrim are doing better.
mdlevine, that is a beautiful story. And their clothing was much more appropriate in winter in Minnesota than when its hot outside and they arent going to davening. Their clothing was a uniform, but the uniform is not what set them apart. It was their chesed for someone they didn’t know that did. Commendable for wearing the uniform? No. Commendable that they pushed the car? Absolutely. May they be zoche to do many more mitzvot!April 29, 2009 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #643699tzippiMember
I never got the whole Chuckie Cheese thing anyway. Friends in the midwest used to go to Caesarland, run by the Little Caesar’s people. The Cesarlands were primarily a playground with a restaurant and it was understood; frum people there didn’t go to Chuckie’s AFAIK.April 29, 2009 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm #643700
“Their clothing was a uniform, but the uniform is not what set them apart.”
it did set them apart as yeshiva bochurim! if they werent dressed the way the were, the woman in the story would have no idea they were yeshiva bochurim. if they were dressed like some frum kids today;ex: jeans, sweatshirt, baseball hat (not saying thats wrong)the lady would not be able to have known they were frum kidsApril 29, 2009 10:16 pm at 10:16 pm #643701
>> Their clothing was a uniform, but the uniform is not what set them apart.<<
SJS- did we read the same article?? She specifically states that it was their clothing that identified who these boys were.April 30, 2009 12:11 am at 12:11 am #643702
“Also regarding that article, which indeed was a fine story – if the boys were merely wearing their Yarmulkes, even if dressed casually,”
and i always try to be correct…its amazing how you try to twist this as a proof your way when its so obviosly not but you apparently can never be wrong.
“Far better and more important that he is still a Yeshivah bachur when he is NOT in a uniform.”
it is not far better or more important. one should not delibrately put oneself in tests. ex: a person always dresses like a yeshiva bachur because he is one all the time and he acts like one so there is no reason for him to wear other clothes to prove he will act the same. and if he does wear other clothes and act the same then good for him but that its not better or more important.April 30, 2009 12:17 am at 12:17 am #643703
Yes I read the same article. THe clothing IDENTIFIED them. But their actions set them apart.
Actually Flatbush, if they were wearing kippot (a Jewish article of clothing), they would have been identified as Orthodox Jews anyway.April 30, 2009 1:15 am at 1:15 am #643704
“and i always try to be correct…its amazing how you try to twist this as a proof your way when its so obviosly not but you apparently can never be wrong.” (Flatbush)
Forgive me, but what exactly was it you claim I was twisting?????? And did I say anything wrong about the men who did this kiddush Hashem? Really, I think you need to re-read what I wrote. This is getting a little silly. And apparently SJSinNYC understood what I was saying. Why do you seem to have difficulty?
“Their clothing was a uniform, but the uniform is not what set them apart. It was their chesed for someone they didn’t know that did. Commendable for wearing the uniform? No. Commendable that they pushed the car? Absolutely. May they be zoche to do many more mitzvot!” (SJSinNYC)
Good points.April 30, 2009 1:32 am at 1:32 am #643705
Flatbush, lets look at it a different way. If you saw a yeshiva bachur dressed in uniform but doing something wrong, would you say its the uniform or their actions that are wrong?April 30, 2009 1:57 pm at 1:57 pm #643706dovid_yehudaParticipant
” If you saw a yeshiva bachur dressed in uniform but doing something wrong, would you say its the uniform or their actions that are wrong?”
I think the point of the article was that it was a Kiddush Hashem because of how they were dressed they were easily recognizable as Jews. If they were dressed like everyone else, unrecognized as Jews, then they would be perceived as decent individuals, not too shabby, but not a Kiddush Hashem.April 30, 2009 2:08 pm at 2:08 pm #643707
And again, if they were merely wearing YARMULKAS and not hats and suits, they would have ALSO been recognizable as religious Jews. There are many different ways by which we are recognizable. In truth it is really the girls who need “the uniform” more than the boys. If a boy has on his kippah and tzitzis, no one will mistake him for anything else.April 30, 2009 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #643708
Dovid_yehuda, if they were wearing kippot, they would have been easily recognizable also.
However, the ultimate point is that their ACTIONS is what made the kiddush hashem, but the clothing made them identifiable. They ACTIONS could have made a chillul hashem also (not in this situation, just hypothetically).
I still think someone in the Bronx Zoo when its 90 degrees out looks ridiculous.
I also think women in pointy shoes look ridiculous.
Plenty of people think I am ridiculous in the winter when I don’t wear a coat.
However, the women in pointy shoes don’t think they are better people for wearing the shoes nor do I for not wearing a coat. The argument in this thread was turning towards “only don’t wear yeshivish dress if you want to emulate the goyim” which is the MOST ridiculous thing I have ever heard.April 30, 2009 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm #643709dovid_yehudaParticipant
A Jew must be recognizable for Kiddush Hashem to occur, it is the recognition linked with the action which creates the KH. Yes, it is posssible wearing a kippa could also do this, but not as obviously as black suit and hat. Why quibble?
I am saddened to read that you think a Jew dressed in a black suit and hat “in the Bronx Zoo when its 90 degrees out looks ridiculous”.April 30, 2009 3:07 pm at 3:07 pm #643711
if they were only wearing yarmulkas they may not have been recognized as yeshiva bochurim because a black or dark blue yarmulka is not so easy to see on someones head especially during a blizzard. what is much more distinguishable is a black hat which is just pain easier to see in a blizzard.April 30, 2009 3:12 pm at 3:12 pm #643712
‘someone in the Bronx Zoo when its 90 degrees out looks ridiculous.”
looks ridiculus to who? its shameful to hear that you are embarrassed of your own people for wearing the accepted garb for Torah learned individuals. you should be more embarrassed of how people in the Upper West Side, Teaneck and the 5 towns dress in 90 degree heat. the way some of these people dress in the summer makes them undistinguishable from the shaigitzis and shiksas around them. thats shameful and something to be embarassed of.April 30, 2009 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm #643713gavra_at_workParticipant
flatbush27: :-)?April 30, 2009 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #643714
dovid_yehuda- 2 thumbs up! for expressing exactly what I wanted to say in your past 2 posts. Shkoyach- and may you always be a defender of Hashem and what He expects from His chosen nationApril 30, 2009 3:27 pm at 3:27 pm #643715
2 points to you. Though I would tend to wonder exactly how well a hat of that type would stay upon one’s head, during an actual blizzard, while someone was using both hands to try to help a motorist with his car. In that case, a yarmulke would be as readily visible and a lot more securely in place. Truthfully, it would be visible anyway, as the people were right there in the same space with the boys, even were there not a blizzard at the moment. What is the difference. They were frum boys, they made a Kiddush Hashem, and that’s all that matters.April 30, 2009 3:34 pm at 3:34 pm #643716
Honestly, I am more sad that there are people who take something as insignificant in halacha as a black suit, white shirt and black hat and make them out to be the ikkur. There is NO inyan to wear those clothing, especially in the hot sun. So yes, I think wearing a suit and black hat to the zoo is ridiculous. I would also think the same about someone wearing a ball gown at the zoo or even a bathing suit. That is not someone who is standing up for ratzon Hashem – that is someone who is following an unecessary uniform in a place that doesnt warrant it.
If someone is making a FASHION statement, I look at it as such. Its a shame people don’t put more stock on the inside, rather than what is on the outside.
- The topic ‘Hat and Jacket at Chuck-E-Cheese???’ is closed to new replies.