July 12, 2013 12:56 am at 12:56 am #610032
is it assur to wear a necklace with symbols on it? they mean something, but its not real.July 12, 2013 12:58 am at 12:58 am #965978
What kind of symbols and I am assuming you’re a female.July 12, 2013 1:23 am at 1:23 am #965979
Is it assur for a man to wear a necklace?July 12, 2013 2:39 am at 2:39 am #965981UtahMember
As long as its not a cross there shouldnt be any problem with itJuly 12, 2013 3:01 am at 3:01 am #965982
I’m not a rabbi by any means
But I think cross is mostly ????? ???
Anything else abstract that could possibly be or resemble a symbol of A”Z should be ok as long as the item itself has never been worshipped. If the item has been worshipped one may not derive benefit.July 12, 2013 3:05 am at 3:05 am #965983WIYMember
So one can wear a Buddha necklace?July 12, 2013 3:31 am at 3:31 am #965984
A man shouldn’t wear a necklace, just like a man shouldn’t wear a wedding ring. You run into a lot of hotza’ah issues with men and jewelry. Not to mention that a necklace on a man is very tacky, IMHO. Reminds me of a low-class gavone Italian.July 12, 2013 3:31 am at 3:31 am #965985
Buddha I think is even worse than a cross
It’s ????? ??? of a well known AZ, and it also is an imageJuly 12, 2013 3:43 am at 3:43 am #965986
What hotza’ah issues? I thought that doesn’t apply to decorative jewelry.July 12, 2013 3:47 am at 3:47 am #965987UtahMember
ok let me redefine my statement
As long as you dont wear one with non-jewish religious symbols on it there shouldnt be a problemJuly 12, 2013 6:37 am at 6:37 am #965988
if its a cross or buddha i would imagine its a problem. also big problem if its a sun or any heavenly body.July 12, 2013 11:59 am at 11:59 am #965989SaysMeMember
or a human figure. Hm possibly a yin-yang too?July 12, 2013 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm #965990cherrybimParticipant
“just like a man shouldn’t wear a wedding ring.”
From you rebdoniel? Where’d you get that from?July 12, 2013 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm #965991July 12, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm #965992
Most BY schools do not permit peace signs.
A word of advice: Do not wear symbols, if you do not know what they mean.July 12, 2013 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm #965993July 12, 2013 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm #965994WIYMember
Better to be sure. If you don’t mind can you describe in detail what the symbols are? You’ll be surprised how many symbols you think are nothing actually mean something.July 12, 2013 1:46 pm at 1:46 pm #965995
Torah: So if you wear a peace sign you need to know beforehand that you’re REALLY protesting for nuclear disarmament?
octopi: If you made up the symbol (the only way I can think of offhand that you’d know the symbol didn’t mean anything and STILL call it a symbol), then I don’t see the issue- it’s the same thing as making your own jewelry, no?July 12, 2013 4:46 pm at 4:46 pm #965996
writersoul: You should. Or you will be very confused when the principal pulls you over.July 12, 2013 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #965997July 12, 2013 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm #965998
okay, who here read harry potter? can i wear a necklace with the symbol of the deathly hallows?July 12, 2013 6:02 pm at 6:02 pm #965999
I’m an HP fan and I think it’s totally fine.July 12, 2013 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm #966000
The gemara (Shabbat 62) allows a man to wear a signet ring in reshut harabbim, as it is common for men to wear those. Other rings, however, are not normally worn by men, and they thus cannot be considered a garment. Wearing such rings thus constitutes carrying, rather than wearing, and is forbidden in a public domain on Shabbat (OC 301:9).
While a man’s wedding ring is probably not to be considered beged isha, it still conveys an effeminate spirit, in my opinion, and portrays marriage in a light inimical to classic Jewish understandings of matrimony.July 12, 2013 6:14 pm at 6:14 pm #966001YW Moderator-127Moderator
J.K. Rowling invented the Deathly Hallows symbol.July 12, 2013 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm #966002
“The gemara (Shabbat 62) allows a man to wear a signet ring in reshut harabbim, as it is common for men to wear those. Other rings, however, are not normally worn by men, and they thus cannot be considered a garment.”
B’zman hazeh it IS normal for men to wear wedding rings (and nobody wears signet rings anymore unless he is a king or something). The only question is whether or not that would be chukas hagoyim.July 12, 2013 6:47 pm at 6:47 pm #966003
It isn’t normal in many communities for men to wear rings.July 12, 2013 6:59 pm at 6:59 pm #966004
Well, again, it’s a question of chukas hagoyim. In 2013 MEN wear rings, and even many frum men wear rings. If they don’t in your community and therefore you want to hold by chukas hagoyim, go ahead. But when the gemara says that men wear signet rings, it doesn’t mean in a particular “community”, it means in society as a whole. The gemara doesn’t pasken for individual communities.July 13, 2013 11:05 am at 11:05 am #966005no longer need seminaryMember
yes u can wear a necklace with the deathly hallows symbol. it doesnt mean anything and doesnt go against religion in any way.July 13, 2013 7:41 pm at 7:41 pm #966006
jewishf- not only is it chukas hagoyim, which btw has nothing to do with how motzui it iords about it.s, R moshe has a teshuva where he uses very, very strong language about men wearing rings. even in 2013. and toeiva is still toeiva. even in 2013.July 14, 2013 5:12 am at 5:12 am #966007
A man wearing a ring usurps the way in which Judaism traditionally thinks of marriage. A wife is not “koneh” the husband. A teacher of mine, understanding that many non-observant Jews will request a traditional chuppah ve kiddushin, will only allow a man to wear a wedding ring after the ceremony/ outside of the chuppah.July 14, 2013 7:58 am at 7:58 am #966008
From my husband:
Based on Igros Moshe EH 4:32: Rav Moshe’s maskana about men wearing rings ( ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?’ ??? ????? ?????? ??”?) could be taken as a mild discouragement of the practice. However, Rav Moshe writes this in the context of a polemic against double-ring ceremonies (which, IMHO, can only be done through highly questionable halachic sleight-of-hand). The chukos ha’goyim in having a men’s wedding ring is using the wedding ring as part of the ceremony, NOT in wearing the ring after the ceremony (ad meah v’esrim). Rav Moshe says that goyische men will wear wedding rings for ornamental reasons (“l’noi”), as well as (probably the most important reason) to make it clear to opportunistic women (r”l) that the man is married, and these are not assur mishom chukos ha’goyim. (I think one can find greater elaboration of Rav Moshe’s shita on chukos hagoyim from his teshuvos about Thanksgiving and Nittlenacht)
The only reason for a wedding ring to be assur is if it were somehow obvious that the ring was actually used as part of a double-ring ceremony as practiced by some goyische communities. However, Rav Moshe found it to be inconceivable that a double-ring ceremony would ever actually happen in the presence of a Mesader Kedushin, two kosher eidim and an audience including frum friends and family. More importantly, he found it inconceivable that a stam yid who sees a wedding ring on the hand of a chassan would believe that the ring was from a double-ring ceremony.
Perhaps a chassan who wants to be particularly careful about preventing perceptions that his wedding ring was part of a double-ring ceremony should wait a few days after the wedding before buying his ring so that friends at sheva berachos can tell that the chassan’s ring was not part of the ceremony. (my wife and I didn’t pick out my wedding ring until after our sheva berachos when we were already in Las Vegas).July 14, 2013 4:02 pm at 4:02 pm #966009
rebdoniel: Frum men I know of who wear rings (admittedly few, generally on the older side, actually) absolutely did NOT wear them as part of the whole kiddushin/chuppah ceremony. It’s completely outside it.
Torah: Why would my principal be so annoyed that I’m protesting nuclear disarmament?
octopi: That’s actually cute! I would wear it, if that were my thing. (I personally would be more likely to wear it on a tshirt.) I don’t think there’s any problem with it, unless you actually believe it means something. (Which you don’t, right? RIGHT?)July 14, 2013 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #966010
writersoul: It’s associated with a certain liberalism. Like nowadays they’d be upset if you wore a rainbow.July 14, 2013 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm #966011popa_bar_abbaParticipant
I want a hallows necklace.July 14, 2013 4:24 pm at 4:24 pm #966012
popa_bar_abba: try amazon or ebay.
thanks everybody!July 14, 2013 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #966013
jewishf’s husband-????? ????? ??? ????? ?’ is a stronger lashon than mild discouragement, if we are being honest.July 14, 2013 4:27 pm at 4:27 pm #966014
I would hold that halakhically, al pi din, there is most likely nothing wrong with a man wearing a wedding ring. The issue is one of hashkafa; it is an attempt to impose non-Jewish, modern conceptions of marriage (a ring is a symbol of the husband’s position and stature in a marriage). A lot of things are mutar al pi din, but are still poor decisions that are out of touch with the ethos of Torah Judaism.July 14, 2013 7:03 pm at 7:03 pm #966015
Torah: I was kidding… (If you’re kidding just say so and ignore everything below.)
What on EARTH does a peace sign have to do with a rainbow?
A peace sign is a representative of a fifty-year-old peace movement that is pretty much irrelevant right now to the extent that nobody even remembers what a peace sign stands for anymore.
A rainbow is representative of a movement that the principal would definitely see as against TORAH. Not against conservatism.
There is nothing in the Torah forbidding liberalism (sorry, Yated). There is a lo sa’asay in the Torah against the basics of what a rainbow stands for.
Setting aside the fact, of course, that nobody would say boo if a bais Yaakov girl wore a rainbow because around here, LGBTQ is not the first thing you think of when you see a rainbow.
I think people are more disturbed by the pop culture aspects of peace signs. By the same token, they may have issues with mustaches now (which is a rant for another time).July 14, 2013 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #966016
“A lot of things are mutar al pi din, but are still poor decisions that are out of touch with the ethos of Torah Judaism.”
Yes, but not this one. What you say applies more to, for example, hunting.
As already stated, there are real, legitimate reasons for wearing a wedding ring, chief among them being to signal a man’s marital status to those who don’t know him. Additionally, many men like to wear something tangible that they can look at and think of their wives when they are apart– almost like, lehavdil, a kippah reminds one of Hashem.July 15, 2013 4:05 am at 4:05 am #966018sam4321Participant
The Mishna Brurah 161:19 writes that women who are makpid to take off her ring before doing work holds she needs to take it off before washing.He then writes but men who don’t take their rings off don’t have to since they leave them on unless it has an expensive stone which he would take off.From here it seems like it was normal to wear a ring.
Regarding wearing jewelry in a reshus harabim see Tosfos and the halacha lmaaseh very surprising.July 15, 2013 9:18 am at 9:18 am #966019
jewishf- so when R moshe called it michu’ar, i think he meant to invalidate those frumme cheshbonos.July 16, 2013 1:42 pm at 1:42 pm #966020mewhoParticipant
nothing wrong with a man wearing a wedding ring or a necklace etc.
men do wear fancy cufflinks and tie pins…no prob with that??July 17, 2013 3:29 pm at 3:29 pm #966021miritchkaMember
As mentioned above, the necklace you are referring to should be fine.
I had a necklace with my name on it and someone made a comment that people that those necklaces are tacky and show the person has a low IQ. Although i cant figure out why…and i have an average – above average IQ.July 17, 2013 4:40 pm at 4:40 pm #966022
That’s ridiculous. I think the person who made that comment about your necklace has a low IQ (not to mention bad middos).July 17, 2013 7:12 pm at 7:12 pm #966023miritchkaMember
jewishfeminist02: lol! i told her it was a nameplate so others wouldnt feel funny if they didnt remember my name!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.