June 24, 2015 5:00 pm at 5:00 pm #615896
You guys should really get together and decide whether you want to put down yeshiva guys for caring too much about how they look, or not caring enough about how they look.
The way half of you do one, and half the other, really makes you transparent.June 24, 2015 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm #1089276
DaasYochid – can you please define “Yeshiva Hater”? I would like to know if I need to respond.
🙂June 24, 2015 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm #1089277MDGParticipant
I think we can have a healthy discussion about what is the appropriate balance between different ideals. In this case it’s being dressing nicely versus not being materialistic (at least that’s how I understand the discussion).June 24, 2015 6:15 pm at 6:15 pm #1089278
I think we can have a healthy discussion about what is the appropriate balance between different ideals. In this case it’s being dressing nicely versus not being materialistic (at least that’s how I understand the discussion).
Sounds suspiciously like another Jewish concept called TZNIUS.June 24, 2015 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1089279DaMosheParticipant
I don’t think anyone was saying a hat and jacket is inappropriate for davening. The issue is when people insist that a hat and jacket is the ONLY proper way. Is a hat and jacket respectful? Absolutely (assuming they’re clean). That doesn’t mean that someone who comes in without a black hat is not. I don’t wear a hat when I daven. But I also never wore a hat on a job interview. I didn’t wear a hat when I met some high-ranking politicians.June 24, 2015 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #1089280
can you please define “Yeshiva Hater”?
The definition is self evident. What you must be looking for is examples. Here’s one: someone who thinks a propeller beanie is as appropriate for davening as a fedora. 😉
I would like to know if I need to respond.
You already did, so what does that say? 😉June 24, 2015 6:47 pm at 6:47 pm #1089281
You already did, so what does that say? 😉
Machlokes Rebbe Akiva and the Chachomim in Perek HaNoder Min HaYerek. I believe the Chachomim are like me.
P.S. who said anything about a propeller? Efshar if it charges your (kosher) phone via wind power, then maybe.June 24, 2015 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm #1089282DaMosheParticipant
I think you missed his point about a propeller beanie. Many people take the example listed by the Mishna Berurah about a hat being respectful at that time, and use it as proof that a hat is required during davening. If it’s the hat that’s the ikkur, not the respectful mode of dress, then yes, even a beanie should be fine. I’ve seen people walk into shul wearing a Yankees cap. I once asked one why, and he replied that the halachah requires a hat!
If the ikkur is to dress respectful, and the hat was merely an example given that place and time, then not wearing a hat should be perfectly fine.June 24, 2015 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1089283charliehallParticipant
A beanie might be more appropriate than a fedora. The Fedora was popularized by a notorious apostate, Sarah Bernhardt. (Yes, the Fedora was originally a women’s hat style.) Yarmulkes are basically beanies; the propeller beanie was devised by a science fiction writer and is quite pareve.June 24, 2015 7:21 pm at 7:21 pm #1089284charliehallParticipant
” I’ve seen people walk into shul wearing a Yankees cap. “
I’ve seen people davening at Yankee Stadium wearing Yankees caps!June 24, 2015 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #1089285MDGParticipant
From wikipedia about Fedora:
  After Prince Edward of Britain started wearing them in 1924, it became popular among men for its stylishness and its ability to protect the wearer’s head from the wind and weather. Since the early part of the 20th century, many Haredi and other Orthodox Jews have made black fedoras normative to their daily wear.June 24, 2015 8:37 pm at 8:37 pm #1089286akupermaParticipant
No one ever thought that yarmulkes were particularly Jewish until the goyim stopped wearing them. Same goes for fedoras (which are coming back in style among goyim, so maybe the frum crowd will have to switch to some other type of hat, e.g. homburgs). Remember that the fedora is originally a work hat, popular among cowboys, American military in the 19th century, etc., though we made it into a formal dress hat (among the goyim it was always what you wore when not fully dressed up).June 24, 2015 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm #1089287🍫Syag LchochmaParticipant
I don’t think anyone was saying a hat and jacket is inappropriate for davening. The issue is when people insist that a hat and jacket is the ONLY proper way. Is a hat and jacket respectful? Absolutely (assuming they’re clean). That doesn’t mean that someone who comes in without a black hat is not. I don’t wear a hat when I daven. But I also never wore a hat on a job interview. I didn’t wear a hat when I met some high-ranking politicians.
DaMoshe, thank you for this post.June 24, 2015 9:21 pm at 9:21 pm #1089288Zev7Member
It’s one problem. They teach not to care about how you look which causes some to care too much. I am the yeshiva hater you are talking about. Proud of it. Burnt by the system. I’m that guy.June 24, 2015 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #1089289nfgo3Member
I’m totally confused. I thought a yeshiva hater was someone who sells hats to yeshiva bochurs.June 24, 2015 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm #1089290
DaMoshe, what you wrote is for a different discussion, but this wasn’t about that.
One can discuss the chiyuv of wearing a hat, and whether that’s changed (machlokes haposkim, I believe), and whichever position you take doesn’t make you (or, more precisely, demonstrate that you’re) a hater.
I’m talking about assigning false stereotypes to a group. I wasn’t referring to you, DaMoshe.
Zev, no, they teach that one should be presentable but not vain.June 25, 2015 9:10 am at 9:10 am #1089291ExcellenceParticipant
If i can add my prutah to this discussion…
Monday was originally a homage to the moon, the sun for sunday. Today, nobody gives a garden of fig trees, it’s just a day name for everyone. Can that be applied to today’s hat style?
Moreover, the streimels that are worn come from eastern europe and lots of cossacks, polish and russian commoners and others wore thosr furry hats.
I don’t believe the origin has meaning. The intent of the yid wearing is their own.June 25, 2015 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm #1089292
Excellent, Excellence.June 25, 2015 1:17 pm at 1:17 pm #1089293
DY – So you haven’t answered my question. Am I a Yeshiva Hater or not (taking into account the Machlokes Tannaim I brought in)?June 25, 2015 1:57 pm at 1:57 pm #1089294
Nah, you like to yank some chains, but are not a hater.
BTW, MDG, that is a legitimate discussion, but not what I’m talking about.June 26, 2015 1:58 am at 1:58 am #1089295
DY, please don’t call Charlie & co. yeshiva haters. Dr. Hall is one of the most civil people I have ever met both online and in real life. Plus, as a opponent of the yeshivish hashkafa, these people are too moderate by far! 😉
Regarding the actual point, in line with the Be’er heteiv who says ‘not the kappel you wear inside but the big hat you wear in the street,’ whenever I actually am wearing a dress hat I keep it on for davening. Usually the “big hat I wear in the street” is my kippa though sometime even I will be found in a fedora (though my current one isn’t black)June 26, 2015 2:44 am at 2:44 am #1089296
And what am I, DY?June 26, 2015 3:22 am at 3:22 am #1089297
Sam, you most definitely are not what I was referring to. As much as some of your hashkafos (which you erroneously claim to be lack of haskhafos) irritate me, I don’t think you’ve ever ascribed negative personal stereotypes, which is what I’m talking about. In fact, I think you have pointed out that some stereotypes are just individual failings rather than policy, and that these individual failings are found everywhere.
That is the last comment I will make, bl”n, on any individual. I’m afraid to be asked by someone who I’ll find difficult to be diplomatic with, and my point isn’t to insult anyone (if I have, that was just an unintended bonus 😉 ).June 26, 2015 3:56 am at 3:56 am #1089298
DY: Oh, please elaborate on my erroneous Hashkafos. I’ve been waiting for years to hear this 🙂June 26, 2015 3:25 pm at 3:25 pm #1089299June 26, 2015 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #1089300
DY: That’s not a Hashkafa. Also, see my explanation. I don’t know what’s so wrong with what I said.June 26, 2015 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #1089301
It’s your attitude towards how Torah should be understood in light of secular sources.June 26, 2015 5:24 pm at 5:24 pm #1089302
DY: I never said that we should understand the Torah in light of secular sources. Sort of. I mean, there are times where secular sources can shed light on the Torah. Especially in this case, where the Rambam himself tells us that that he quotes Aristotle on these issues. (Or the Gemara in Avodah Zarah, which I assume you’re also referring to, which again explicitly tells us it’s referring to what was standard worship in those days. Hence, sources from those times on what was worshipped can add insight to the Gemara.)June 26, 2015 6:05 pm at 6:05 pm #1089303
Precisely. And you do it all the time, especially when you don’t like what the Torah says.June 26, 2015 6:10 pm at 6:10 pm #1089304
DaasYochid – In all fairness, the Torah has to be understood via the supplemental information provided by secular sources. Take a classical example (Bava Basra 102a), where both Rashi and Tosfos attempt to understand the Gemorah without resorting to secular sources (in this case, the Pythagorean theorem, which was well known at the time of the Tannaim, let alone Rishonim), and fail to succeed. (Another example is BB 27a and the value of ?). We have to use the secular knowledge available to us to assist our understanding of what Hashem wants and how to go about doing it.June 26, 2015 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #1089305
DY: And this is why your hashkafa is objectively incorrect. It leads to the belief that the less you know about a subject, the more qualified you are to talk about it.June 26, 2015 6:37 pm at 6:37 pm #1089306
No. I’m not saying we don’t use math or even other forms of knowledge in Torah. I’m saying we don’t twist the Torah to conform to secular knowledge.
And that is why your hashkafah, IS, is incorrect.June 26, 2015 6:46 pm at 6:46 pm #1089307
No. I’m not saying we don’t use math or even other forms of knowledge in Torah. I’m saying we don’t twist the Torah to conform to secular knowledge.
I’m not certain what you mean. Would you mind expounding on your thoughts? (I assume you do not mean on the basis of secular “thinking”, such as liberalism, because that would be obvious).June 26, 2015 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm #1089308
gaw: sukka 7a and the value of pi as well.
DY: I get the impression that if I tried to argue, we’d go around in circles about what counts as legitimate use of secular knowledge and what is illegitimately twisting what the Torah source means to conform to secular ideas. Then you’d call me an apikores, and I’d call you a revisionist troglodyte and it would go downhill from there. So instead, I’ll leave it right here and try to catch up with you and Sam on Torah sources.June 26, 2015 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #1089309
Gavra, not obvious to some, but there are less extreme examples. My particular gripe with Sam is his learning Gemaros and Rishonim shelo kipshutan for no good reason other than what he learned in college, and then calling it “the pashtus”.
IS: good idea.June 26, 2015 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #1089310
DY: Lol. You don’t even know if/that I went to college. You make a strong assumption here. And no, I have never twisted anything based on not liking what is said. I’ll try to find it, but I’d be willing to wager that the Rambam somewhere cites this starts thing from Aristotle, at the very least implicitly. I’ll have to read through the Moreh and the astronomy Teshuvah again, to be sure.
And I think you’re conflating willingness (albeit extremely reluctantly) to dismiss Rishonim and Achronim if they make it clear they’re basing themselves off incorrect information with “twisting the Torah”. Find me a place where I change what Chumash or Chazal say based on secular knowledge. You can’t. Because it’s not something I do. Rishonim, probably. Chazal? Never.June 26, 2015 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #1089311
College was lav davka anyhow, but yes, I’ll make that assumption.
Rishonim are Torah too, and I’ll bet if I looked hard enough I’ll find Chazal too, but I’m not looking, so I’ll concede that.
Isn’t a Mishnah in Avodsh Zarah considered Chazal?June 26, 2015 9:48 pm at 9:48 pm #1089312
DY: I never said Chazal got something wrong in the Mishnah. I said Pshat in the Mishnah might (I said might, I said I was very conflicted by it) not be like Rashi.June 27, 2015 12:08 am at 12:08 am #1089313
That’s true. I just think you twisted the plain meaning of Chazal because of some historical tidbit you learned, and it might have a nafka minah, and it might be wrong.June 28, 2015 4:19 am at 4:19 am #1089314
DY: Other way around. The plain meaning of Chazal is clearly Atlas. The Gemara tells us that you can assume these idols were worshipped (at least once a year) because they were common idols and they were found at the entrance to major cities (in the Greco-Roman empire). So either the Mishnah is referring to something random (some idols we’ve never heard of) or to the idols that we know were worshipped and were found on major highways and at the entrances to cities? I’m much, much more inclined to say that the Pashtus is the latter, even if that’s not how the simple meaning of the words sound. (And the Baraisa that adds several things can all also be attached to major Greek gods.)
(By the way, after our earlier discussion on this, I had an idea. I showed a major Posek a picture of a statue of Zeus (without telling him this was Zeus) and asked if it was Avodah Zarah. He said no, because the bird depicted with him was at his feet, not in his hand. Now, again, I don’t know how comfortable I am saying that when the Mishnah uses the word “BeYado” it’s Lav Davka, becaue Zeus is almost always depicted with a bird, though the bird is rarely actually in his hand. I do know, however, that a statue of Zeus is without question Avodah Zarah and that I have a very hard time believing that a reading of the Gemara that tells you Zeus isn’t Avodah Zarah is correct.)June 28, 2015 5:07 am at 5:07 am #1089315
You are again confusing the meaning of “pashtus” or “plain meaning”.
Obviously, if something is ne’evad, it’s avodah zarah even if this posek never heard of it, but he is correct for not twisting the gemara as you continue to do.June 28, 2015 5:32 am at 5:32 am #1089316
DY: I do not think it’s considered “twisting” the Gemara to actually, you know, figure out what the Gemara is talking about. If you never look in a kitchen, you won’t understand Yoreh Deah. If you don’t know what the inside of an animal looks like, you can’t learn Triefos. And if you don’t know what they worshiped, how can you understand Maseches Avodah Zarah?June 28, 2015 5:41 am at 5:41 am #1089317homerMember
EVERY WORD OF THE RISHONIM HAVE KOL HATORAH KULA BEHIND THEM.June 28, 2015 6:17 am at 6:17 am #1089318
I know you don’t, but when the actual pashtus of the sugya based on Chazal, Rishonim, and Acharonim is rejected based on what your textbooks say, and then you call that the pashtus, I do consider it twisting.June 28, 2015 1:38 pm at 1:38 pm #1089319
DY: Let me lay out my thought process, and you tell me where you disagree.
1) The Mishnah is referring to actual Avodah Zarah that was worshiped.
1) The Gemara says it was found at the entrance to every large city, therefore they were common idols.
2) There are common idols that were found at the entrance to major cities that are very similar to what the Mishnah says, as the historical record shows.
2a) We have excellent records of what the Greeks/Romans worshiped and where they kept their idols, so we know what their major gods were and what the idols looked like, including actual remains of actual Shekatzim.
3) The Lashon in the Gemara is too perfect to not be referring to Atlas (look at an idol of Atlas and the Lashon of the Gemara, SheRodeh Es Atzmo…)
4) It is illogical for the Mishnah to be referring to idols that were not as common as idols that were, you know, actually there.
So where do you think I went wrong?June 28, 2015 4:19 pm at 4:19 pm #1089320
I don’t know about 2) and 2a). (This is not a maalah per se, but at least it hasn’t led me to farkrum the gemara.)
See, the Mishna/Gemara are actually talking about statues of unknown status, and whether their form, symbolism and location make us assume, or at least be choshesh that they’re a”z. In your zeal to apply your vast knowledge of historical worship, you’re applying known statues to what Chazal say were not known to us.
The halachah, for example, that comes out of the Gemara, is that a statue known to not be atlas or zeus or whatever, but is holding a spherical object, is assur b’hana’ah out of a concern that it might be a”z based on the general symbolism of holding a ball (maybe they learned this from seeing atlas, but I don’t even know that that’s important). With your shtickel, though, since we know its not actually atlas, it would be okay, yet the Gemara clearly didn’t say that.June 28, 2015 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #1089321
DY: And that’s why I say I’m conflicted. I mean, it could be it’s all irrelevant. Because there were no other idols at the entrances to major cities holding balls, which is kind of the point.
The problem is, I find it inconceivable to assign a general symbolism to holding a ball because, well, it’s kinda foolish. We find a random statue and we know what the symbolism behind it is? How do we know this? If we know this because we know what the Ovdei Avodah Zarah mean/believe in, then there’s no reason that we nowadays don’t know the same things. And if we know this because that’s just a general assumption we’re making, then what makes it right? Hilchos Avodah Zarah aren’t Talui in theoretical rules or Klalim. It’s a simple question: is/was this worshiped or not? So it seems foolish for us to give Klalim when such Klalim are irrelevant. If there’s a figure holding a ball that isn’t worshiped (I remember my Rebbe who once, based on your assumptions, thought that our high school basketball trophies were Avodah Zarah because it holds a ball), then it’s not Avodah Zarah. Now, maybe because of Atlas Chazal decided to be Choshesh for all ball-holding statues. But again, the Gemara tells us that it’s because this was what we can assume was worshiped. Why are we assuming something was worshiped unless, you know, it was actually worshiped?June 28, 2015 5:36 pm at 5:36 pm #1089322
The Gemara says we’re being choshesh when we don’t know, so don’t argue with me, argue with the Gemara.June 28, 2015 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1089323
DY: That’s what the Gemara says? I thought the Mishnah was telling us which ones we can/have to assume were worshiped.June 28, 2015 8:02 pm at 8:02 pm #1089324
?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?”? ???? ?? ???? ?”? ????? ?????? ?? ?”? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??”? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????
It’s not a certainty; it’s a machlokes what degree of chashas makes it assur.
The rest of the gemara consists of other factors influencing the likelihood of it being a ne’evad, but a vaday ne’evad is assur l’kulei alma, and a vaday lo ne’evad is muttar l’kulei alma, and your rebbe either made a mistake, or was making a rhetorical point about sports being avodah zarah.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.