Why Rabbi Akiva, Rebbe, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua All Went Bareheaded
In other words, was the original Jewish custom, the custom that was followed in the Land of Israel, is…
…not to wear a yarmulke?
Yes.
And that is why the Rashal and the Gra ruled the yarmulke is unnecessary:
Ask the Rabbi: The way you wear your hat
Jan. 8, 2009
Shlomo Brody, THE JERUSALEM POST
Q What is the source and reason for men to wear a kippa (yarmulke)?- A.S., Jerusalem
A Religious garb, and head coverings in particular, stirs strong religious and sociological emotions. The Muslim hijab, the Catholic miter and the Jewish yarmulke, to take a few examples, each represent, in their own ways, important symbolic messages and shape the identity of individuals and communities. The ambiguous legal origins of the kippa, as we shall see, only underscore its evocative power.
While the Babylonian Talmud depicts in multiple places male head coverings, known as sudra, it appears that in the talmudic era not all men covered their heads at all times. Covering one's head, the Talmud explains, expresses one's reverence for the divine power above (Kiddushin 31a). Indeed, the word sudra itself connotes those who fear Him (Shabbat 77b). As such, the Talmud implies that head coverings are only worn by those who possess this desired characteristic of fearing God, such as married scholars (Kiddushin 29b). In particular, it is worn on occasions that require greater reverence, such as court decisions (Shabbat 10a), life cycle ceremonies (Kiddushin 8a) or grace after meals (Brachot 51a).
Prof. Yitzhak Zimmer, author of an authoritative historical study on the kippa, has further noted that the Jerusalem Talmud never mentions a sudra or other coverings. Similarly, an eighth-century gaonic text contends that in the Land of Israel kohanim offered the priestly blessing with their heads uncovered, as opposed to their Babylonian counterparts (Hillukim Bein Bnei Mizrah Uma'arav 42). Collectively, these sources indicate the male head coverings originated in Babylonia and only spread to Israel and other localities in early medieval times.
Be that as it may, by early medieval times, the practice of wearing a kippa had extended to major Jewish populations and included the entire male populace. Spanish authorities in particular contended that one should always cover his head. They cited, for example, the talmudic statement prohibiting one from walking four ells with his hair uncovered (Shabbat 118b). Similarly, prayers and blessings require head coverings (Sofrim 14:12). Others, however, treated these sentiments as pietistic exhortations but not normative requirements, and a number of sources indicate that early medieval French males, among others, did not always cover their heads (Sefer Kolbo 11).
In his various writings, the preeminent 16th-century decisor Rabbi Yosef Karo argued that head coverings are mandatory for all males and all times (Beit Yosef OC 8), and this became the dominant position. Two notable detractors were Rabbi Shlomo Luria (16th century, Poland) and the Vilna Gaon (18th century, Lithuania), both of whom insisted that kippot are not always required. Nonetheless, even these sages acknowledged that popular practice adopted constant head coverings. Many Italian and Moroccan Jews still follow their heritage that asserts kippot are non-normative requirements.
As Prof. Zimmer speculates, the symbolic differentiation created by kippot helped distinguish the Jews from their gentile neighbors. A couple of 15th-century German sources, for example, indicate that leaving one's head uncovered inappropriately imitates gentile habits and leads to assimilation. Similarly, in the 17th century, Rabbi David Halevi Segal ostracized those Jews who, like their non-Jewish neighbors, remove their hats when sitting down (Taz OC 8:3).
Conversely, those who wanted to break down the laws and symbols that distinguish Jews from non-Jews historically fought against this practice. While the earliest Reform Jews did not abandon their kippot, by 1844 this requirement was dismissed as an act of talmudic pietism. American Reform Jews in particular downplayed this custom, ruling it unnecessary not only in public but in synagogues as well. Recent traditionalist trends within the Reform movement have reintroduced kippot to this community, and some Conservative and Reform women have begun to wear kippot as an egalitarian sign of their proud Jewish identity.
Some of the most fascinating questions regarding kippot shed much light on the larger cultural context. One 18th-century rabbi, for example, struggled to emphasize the obligation of always wearing a kippa while allowing his congregants to remove it in order to greet the king and other noblemen. Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, the famed 19th-century German leader of neo-Orthodoxy, allowed local youth to remove their head coverings to attend gymnasium classes.
One decisor who dedicated much ink to these questions was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (20th century, United States). He famously allowed American Jews to remove their kippot for work purposes, but insisted that they put them back on when returning home (Igrot Moshe OC 4:2) In one particularly fascinating responsum, he ruled it was better not to remove one's kippa when (sinfully) entering an inappropriate place like a dance club, even though some feared this would desecrate God's name (YD 2:33). As with many other decisors, Feinstein recognized that the kippa has served an important sociological role for many centuries, and refused to allow this person to remove himself, even in the most irreverent of places, from the community of those that fear God.
The writer, editor of TraditionOnline.org, teaches at Yeshivat Hakotel and is pursuing a doctorate in Jewish philosophy at the Hebrew University.
Jan. 8, 2009
Shlomo Brody, THE JERUSALEM POST
Q What is the source and reason for men to wear a kippa (yarmulke)?- A.S., Jerusalem
A Religious garb, and head coverings in particular, stirs strong religious and sociological emotions. The Muslim hijab, the Catholic miter and the Jewish yarmulke, to take a few examples, each represent, in their own ways, important symbolic messages and shape the identity of individuals and communities. The ambiguous legal origins of the kippa, as we shall see, only underscore its evocative power.
While the Babylonian Talmud depicts in multiple places male head coverings, known as sudra, it appears that in the talmudic era not all men covered their heads at all times. Covering one's head, the Talmud explains, expresses one's reverence for the divine power above (Kiddushin 31a). Indeed, the word sudra itself connotes those who fear Him (Shabbat 77b). As such, the Talmud implies that head coverings are only worn by those who possess this desired characteristic of fearing God, such as married scholars (Kiddushin 29b). In particular, it is worn on occasions that require greater reverence, such as court decisions (Shabbat 10a), life cycle ceremonies (Kiddushin 8a) or grace after meals (Brachot 51a).
Prof. Yitzhak Zimmer, author of an authoritative historical study on the kippa, has further noted that the Jerusalem Talmud never mentions a sudra or other coverings. Similarly, an eighth-century gaonic text contends that in the Land of Israel kohanim offered the priestly blessing with their heads uncovered, as opposed to their Babylonian counterparts (Hillukim Bein Bnei Mizrah Uma'arav 42). Collectively, these sources indicate the male head coverings originated in Babylonia and only spread to Israel and other localities in early medieval times.
Be that as it may, by early medieval times, the practice of wearing a kippa had extended to major Jewish populations and included the entire male populace. Spanish authorities in particular contended that one should always cover his head. They cited, for example, the talmudic statement prohibiting one from walking four ells with his hair uncovered (Shabbat 118b). Similarly, prayers and blessings require head coverings (Sofrim 14:12). Others, however, treated these sentiments as pietistic exhortations but not normative requirements, and a number of sources indicate that early medieval French males, among others, did not always cover their heads (Sefer Kolbo 11).
In his various writings, the preeminent 16th-century decisor Rabbi Yosef Karo argued that head coverings are mandatory for all males and all times (Beit Yosef OC 8), and this became the dominant position. Two notable detractors were Rabbi Shlomo Luria (16th century, Poland) and the Vilna Gaon (18th century, Lithuania), both of whom insisted that kippot are not always required. Nonetheless, even these sages acknowledged that popular practice adopted constant head coverings. Many Italian and Moroccan Jews still follow their heritage that asserts kippot are non-normative requirements.
As Prof. Zimmer speculates, the symbolic differentiation created by kippot helped distinguish the Jews from their gentile neighbors. A couple of 15th-century German sources, for example, indicate that leaving one's head uncovered inappropriately imitates gentile habits and leads to assimilation. Similarly, in the 17th century, Rabbi David Halevi Segal ostracized those Jews who, like their non-Jewish neighbors, remove their hats when sitting down (Taz OC 8:3).
Conversely, those who wanted to break down the laws and symbols that distinguish Jews from non-Jews historically fought against this practice. While the earliest Reform Jews did not abandon their kippot, by 1844 this requirement was dismissed as an act of talmudic pietism. American Reform Jews in particular downplayed this custom, ruling it unnecessary not only in public but in synagogues as well. Recent traditionalist trends within the Reform movement have reintroduced kippot to this community, and some Conservative and Reform women have begun to wear kippot as an egalitarian sign of their proud Jewish identity.
Some of the most fascinating questions regarding kippot shed much light on the larger cultural context. One 18th-century rabbi, for example, struggled to emphasize the obligation of always wearing a kippa while allowing his congregants to remove it in order to greet the king and other noblemen. Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, the famed 19th-century German leader of neo-Orthodoxy, allowed local youth to remove their head coverings to attend gymnasium classes.
One decisor who dedicated much ink to these questions was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (20th century, United States). He famously allowed American Jews to remove their kippot for work purposes, but insisted that they put them back on when returning home (Igrot Moshe OC 4:2) In one particularly fascinating responsum, he ruled it was better not to remove one's kippa when (sinfully) entering an inappropriate place like a dance club, even though some feared this would desecrate God's name (YD 2:33). As with many other decisors, Feinstein recognized that the kippa has served an important sociological role for many centuries, and refused to allow this person to remove himself, even in the most irreverent of places, from the community of those that fear God.
The writer, editor of TraditionOnline.org, teaches at Yeshivat Hakotel and is pursuing a doctorate in Jewish philosophy at the Hebrew University.
Does this mean you do not have to wear a yarmulke today? Ask your rabbi.
Another reason why many Jewish males should undertake the practice of always wearing a yarmulke is because it nicely covers up bald spots. You won't find me in public without one!
Posted by: itchiemayer | January 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM
"Nonetheless, even these sages acknowledged that popular practice adopted constant head coverings."
While Shmarya keeps harping that the Gra & Rashal did not require headcovering at all times, he misses the boat that a binding minhag, as accepted by Jews, has the force of halacha itself.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM
"In one particularly fascinating responsum, he ruled it was better not to remove one's kippa when (sinfully) entering an inappropriate place like a dance club, even though some feared this would desecrate God's name (YD 2:33)"
Shmarya, do you wear a yarmulka when courting ebony members of the opposite sex?
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I absolutely stand firm in my opinion that in the good ol' US of A, it is inexcusable for an orthodox Rabbi to be seen in public without a head covering. I must say that I am surprised by Reb Moshe's ruling regarding keeping it on when entering an "inappropriate" place. Of course, I would never find myself faced with this situation...oh, actually, never mind.
Posted by: itchiemayer | January 26, 2009 at 12:36 PM
While Shmarya keeps harping that the Gra & Rashal did not require headcovering at all times, he misses the boat that a binding minhag, as accepted by Jews, has the force of halacha itself.
And Archie misses the fact that minhag America was NOT to wear a yarmulke in public or in non-prayer settings.
But then the Eastern Europeans came and ignored the established minhag.
Posted by: Shmarya Rosenberg | January 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM
There is a basis for R' Moshe's shita in 2 places in the Talmud. The yarmulka could remind the sinner who he is and inspire him to teshuva. Even in a place of sin, he may then refrain from further misbehaving.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Shmarya, is a yarmulke part of your blogging uniform? or is it restricted to nothing but a pair of tighty whites?
Posted by: face | January 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM
"Does this mean you do not have to wear a yarmulke today? Ask your rabbi."
Scotty just woke up to this question and seems to have no clue that this question has been fully vetted for the last couple of hundred years and, according to many been resolved.
Do tell us Shmarya, what new information did you dig up on this issue that triggered this post? Did you ask your rabbi a question before you took off your yarmulke?
Posted by: Successful Messiah | January 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Sigh.
SHmarya, as someone who is not a talmid chacham or anything close, it is not up to you to decide what constitutes minhag America.
While early Jewish America was mostly Yekkish & Sfardi who indeed were not bound by the minhag, their numbers were tremendously diluted by Eastern Europeans who changed the landscape of tradition in many ways. What was the minhag of America in the 1800s does not continue today.
I do not rely on my own learning to make this assessment either. I have heard it from poskim.
Name one posek who backs what you say.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM
the posek who lives in his head
Posted by: face | January 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Ya man! Maybe Shmarya's been growing Rastafarian dreadlocks and has switched from a yarmulka to a cap.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I'd also love to see Shmarya live up to even a single stringency mentioned in Iggeres Hagra.
What a farce that Shmarya invokes the name of one of the greatest rabbis of all times to misrepresent his words to further his twisted agenda.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 01:12 PM
While early Jewish America was mostly Yekkish & Sfardi who indeed were not bound by the minhag, their numbers were tremendously diluted by Eastern Europeans who changed the landscape of tradition in many ways. What was the minhag of America in the 1800s does not continue today.
I do not rely on my own learning to make this assessment either. I have heard it from poskim.
Name one posek who backs what you say.
Let's see.
A wave of Eastern European Jews arrives in America.
The rabbis who come with them ignore existing American minhag and instead stick to shtetlkeiyt.
This is your excuse?
The fact is, Bunker, until the end of WW2, most American Orthodox Jews did NOT wear a yarmulke in public and did not always cover their head in public.
That changed because of sympathy for post-war refugees and the continued intransigence of haredi rabbis – not because American Orthodox Jews agreed to change their minhag.
As for the claim made above that this issue has been decided for the past 200 years, that is also false – unless by the term decided, you mean decided in and for Poland.
Posted by: Shmarya | January 26, 2009 at 01:14 PM
I'd also love to see Shmarya read/translate even a single word mentioned in Iggeres Hagra.
Posted by: face | January 26, 2009 at 01:15 PM
Hey chabad defending trolls, you forgot to answer my question in the post about how chabad declared a fast day for shoylom rubaskin, a man who can do no wrong. I don't want to screw up my fast because I missed out on proper halacha.
Hope everyone is having a wonderful fast today!
Here it is again:
I'm all up to fasting for the sake of the honorable and completely innocent Moshe Rubaskin who is victim of an obvious anti-semetic government conspiracy/pogrom and has said in his own words that he has done absolutely no wrong. He's no flight risk either, like seriously where is he going to go to besides his 10 kids????? I mean really, just because at least two other managers of Agriprocessors with warrants out for there arrest never were captured and "are thought" to have fled to Israel don't mean he'll "flee to israel".
I do have one question regarding the fast though, will I be allowed to drink water or is that off limits as well?
Archie, you seem knowledgeable in the field of Truth and Emes(unlike the lies spewed by so called shamarya and the rest of snoei yisroel), perhaps you could clarify for me?
~ Yehi Melaych HaMoshiyach ~
/sarcasm
Seriously though I really do have a serious question on behalf of all those who are fasting.
Are we allowed to drink or is that also forbidden?
Also, does the fast start and end at sundown?
All the chabad defender trolls, please clarify.
Posted by: ShehAyLah 770 | January 26, 2009 at 01:16 PM
** Sorry I meant MOYSHE Rubaskin in my last post, not Shoylom.
Either way, neither can do no wrong and have never done any wrong EVER. (Trust me, it's a fact)
Posted by: ShehAyLah 770 | January 26, 2009 at 01:21 PM
"until the end of WW2, most American Orthodox Jews did NOT ... always cover their head in public"
Did you take a "survey" like that jerk Neuhoff on Tuvya's Blog?
If you mean members of orthodox synagogues who were not orthodox themselves you would be correct. Any other reading of that is not true. It's just more spin to further your cynical attempts to destroy religious belief and practice.
And you can continue with your circular arguments ad absurdum but you of course cannot name a single posek who says like you.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 01:28 PM
"until the end of WW2, most American Orthodox Jews did NOT wear a yarmulke in public"
Notice how Shmarya tries to sneak that little detail by to fool some of the readers.
It was unusual to wear a yarmulka until recent times by anyone as other types of headcovering were used. But the fact remains that their heads were covered.
What Shmarya's doing is the perverse opposite of a Shakespearian anachronism.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 01:47 PM
From one who lived that long ago, back in the very late 60's you first started seeing large numbers of Jews wearing a kipah in public. The Black Pride movement contributed much to the growing numbers of Jews who wanted to demonstrate their fealty to their religion. At that time, btw, lawyers who wore a beard or a kippah were called losers- as in they always lost their cases. I know of many fully practicing Orthodox men who practiced law with an uncovered head. Similarly in the jewelry industry where my family was involved, there were many Orthoprax (they were practicing Orthodox Jews) who stood in their stores in Philadelphia with an uncovered head.
Finally, the person who wrote: "Shmarya, do you wear a yarmulka when courting ebony members of the opposite sex?" should be ashamed of himself. That was rechilut of the highest order.
Posted by: Jeffrey Rappoport | January 26, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Is it rechilut when the person being spoken about is proud of his behaviour? The first time I met Shmarya he was wearing a shirt with the slogan "once you go black....." Then he took it off and went down to the basement to blog in the buff.
Posted by: face | January 26, 2009 at 02:21 PM
"rechilut of the highest order"
False.
Shmarya intimated that he has been having relationships with Black women. Since he wrote the comment in a public forum it easily meets the requirement of beapei telassa that allows anyone to repeat it. And since he seemed mighty proud of himself for this indiscretion, there is no problem of embarassing him over a slip up either.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 02:38 PM
And look at it this way. We can breathe easy that the discussion revolves around hetero affairs. No one has accused Shmarya today of being gay!
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 02:39 PM
why do you people come here if you had the blog so much? I've been following the blog for a while and people like Archie clearly don't respect the ba'al hablog yet they waste their time reading and posting and my time with pointless motsi shem ra
Posted by: Benjamin | January 26, 2009 at 02:42 PM
Benjamin, what "motsi shem ra" do you refer to?
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 02:44 PM
I actually think today's thread is quite funny. However, it cannot be denied I have a low sense of humour, like smut, and use foul language at every opportunity.
Posted by: yidandahalf | January 26, 2009 at 02:48 PM
"back in the very late 60's you first started seeing large numbers of Jews wearing a kipah in public. The Black Pride movement contributed much to the growing numbers of Jews who wanted to demonstrate their fealty to their religion"
It's pretty evident that SHmarya wants to keep Black Pride in the stable and doesn't believe in ethnic crossover unless it weakens observance.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 02:49 PM
"I have a low sense of humour, like smut"
SHmarya will be incensed and call you a racist for how you view his choice of women!
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 02:56 PM
I heard a rumor that the reason Shmarya is so bitter is because he wanted a shiduch with Obama's youngest daughter but was denied since he was 58 at the time and she was only 6. He went after rubashkin's daughter but was denied due to the fact tat he's an am haeretz and severly unstable (he has anger issues). The rest as they say is history.
Posted by: face | January 26, 2009 at 03:08 PM
Here in the south many old black folk say they would any day rather live next to a card carrying member of the Klan than a Yankee liberal. And this is a fact and the reason is that essentially they believe true liberals are not sincere, mean them no good, and want to continue to keep them down with their 'do gooder isms'. Whilst in the throes of Jungle Boogy Fever, instead of seeing Obama as a man, the liberals saw him first as a black man. A very insidious type of racism, subtle and impossible to eradicate in the liberal mind set. So who are the real racists?
Posted by: yidandahalf | January 26, 2009 at 03:17 PM
Apologies to James Brown
Look a'here, some people say we got a lot of malice
Some say it's a lotta nerve
I say we won't quit moving
Til we get what we deserve
We've been buked and we've been scourned
We've been treated bad, talked about
As just as sure as you're born
But just as sure as it take
Two eyes to make a pair, huh
Brother, we can't quit until we get our share
Say it loud with Shmarya,
I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud,
I'm black and I'm proud, one more time
Say it loud,
I'm black and I'm proud, huh
I've worked on jobs with my feet and my hands
But all the work I did was for the other man
And now we demands a chance
To do things for ourselves
we tired of beating our yarmulka-less heads against the wall
And working for someone else
Say it loud,
I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud,
I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud,
I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud,
I'm black and I'm proud, oowee
Ooowee, ou're killing me
Alright uh, you're out of sight
Alright, so tough, you're tough enough
Ooowee uh, you're killing me, oow
Say it loud with Shmarya,
I'm black and I'm proud
Say it louder with Shmarya,
I'm black and I'm proud
One thing more I got to say right here
Now, we're people like the birds and the bees
We rather die on our feet,
Than keep living on our knees
Uh, alright now, good Lord
You know we can do the boog-a-loo
Now we can say we do the Funky Farbrengin!
Now we can do, hu
Sometimes we dance, we sing and we talk
You know I do like to do the Chabad walk
Alright now, hu alright,
Alright now, just smear some rabbis ha
Say it loud with Shmarya,
I'm black and I'm proud
Say it louder,
I'm black and I'm proud, let me hear ya
Say it louder,
I'm black and I'm proud
Say it louder,
I'm black and I'm proud
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Apologies to RUN DMC
[Run]
You know I'm proud to be black y'all
and that's a fact y'all
And if you try to take what's mine
I take it back y'all - it's like that
Licki-licki-licki-licki-licki-licki-licki-licki-
Listen party people here's a serious song
It's right not wrong, I should say right on
I gotta tell you somethin that you all should know
It's not a mystery it's history and here's how it go
Now Hariett Tubman, was born a slave
She was a tiny black woman, when she was raised
She was livin to be givin there's a lot that she gave
There's not a slave, in this day and age
I'm proud to be
[D.M.C.]
Black, god damn, I'm tired my man
Don't worry bout what color I am
Because I'll show you how ill, this man can act
It could never be fiction cause it is all fact
And if you get in my way, I will not turn back
I'm proud of my name, my name is Darryl Mack
I'm black and I'm proud, and I'll say it out loud
I'll share my story with the whole crowd, AUUUGHH!
You know I'm proud to be black y'all
and that's a fact y'all
And if you try to take what's mine
I take it back y'all - it's like that
DJ Shmarya, and I run these things
You can hear it loud and clear like when the schoolbell rings
Like Martin Luther King, I will do my thing
I'll say it in a rap cause I do not sing
Shmarya, the man, that's causin the beef
I got a message for the world so listen up it's brief
Like Malcolm X said I won't turn the right cheek
Got the strength to go the length, if you wanna start beef
Start beef!
You know I'm proud to be black y'all
and real brave y'all
And motherfucker I could never be a slave y'all
So take that!!
We're gonna tell ya somethin put your mind in a swirl
God bless the next baby that comes in this world
The world's full of hate discrimination and sin
People judgin other people by the color of skin
I'll attack this matter, in my own way
Man, I ain't no slave, I ain't reelin no hay
Written a deposition, in any condition
Don't get in my way cause I'm full of ambition
I'm proud to be black (and I ain't takin no crap)
I'm fresh out the pack (and I'm proud to be black)
SO TAKE THAT!!
There was a man - an inventor - who invented so well
He invented a fortune - for a man named Bell
George Washington Carver, made the peanut great
Showed any man with a mind, could create
You read about Malcolm X - in the history text
Jesse Owens broke records, Ali broke necks
What's wrong with ya man? How can you be so dumb?
LIKE DR. KING SAID, SHMARYA SHALL OVERCOME!
Posted by: face | January 26, 2009 at 03:31 PM
"the liberals saw him first as a black man"
And had their kids play hookey from school so they could get into the inauguration frenzy "as a family".
Someone should run on a platform next election that that is child abuse.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 03:43 PM
"LIKE DR. KING SAID, SHMARYA SHALL OVERCOME!"
"Shmarya has a dream that yeshiva bochurim will one day learn in yeshivos where they will not judge girls on shidduchim by the color of their skin"
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 03:50 PM
Yid: Yes, liberal racism is more insidious because it's coupled with denial. (NB not all liberals are racist).
Archie: I liked my James Brown parody better.
Nothing wrong with being black and Jewish, or with a white Jewish man marrying a black Jewish woman, or vice versa. If Shmarya married a nice Ethiopian woman, I'd be very happy for him. They're often gorgeous. Presuming that's true, and you don't know if it is, what's wrong with that.
As someone who grew up in the 60's and 70's, I can corroborate that the Black Power movement and the 67 victory inspired Jews to be more open about their religion/ethnicity. Too bad the BP movement gravitated towards the Arabs, the very people who help sell them up the river. MLK, Jr. and A. Philip Randolph, by contrast, were very pro-Israel and philosemitic.
Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | January 26, 2009 at 04:08 PM
LIKE DR. KING SAID, SHMARYA SHALL OVERCOME!"
"Shmarya has a dream that yeshiva bochurim will one day learn in yeshivos where they will not judge girls on shidduchim by the color of their skin"
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 03:50 PM
That's my dream too. Not only are Ethiopian and African American Jews treated like "niggers," but even Sephardim.
Or they're judged by the color of their tablecloths.
Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | January 26, 2009 at 04:10 PM
Mr Rosenberg
That changed because of sympathy for post-war refugees
Please provide evidence that existing American Orthodoxy were only willing to "allow" the yarmulka creep (sic) to become normative practice because they felt sympathy with post-war refugees.
and the continued intransigence of haredi rabbis
Please provide evidence that there were (at least) discussions on this between existing American Rabbis and the new immigrants and that Haredi Rabbis did not acede to explicit requests not to wear a yarmulka and were therefore intransigent
If you are implying that Minhag America was to require others to remove a Yarmulka as opposed to not inisting one needs to be worn, then I'd suggest you need to provide historical record.
If you have another source/understanding of yarmulka intransigence do provide us with the historical record.
not because American Orthodox Jews agreed to change their minhag
Hmmm American Orthodox Jews. How do you define that after an influx of immigrants? Do you expect Sephardim who move to the States to eat Rice or change Nusach?
Mr Rosenberg, what is "Minhag America" on Turkey? Was there a Mesora?
There is no such thing as Minhag America.
Posted by: Isaac Balbin | January 26, 2009 at 04:18 PM
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that what goes IN the head is a whole lot important than what goes ON the head. From what I see, that seems to matter little to the professional batlanim holding court here.
This whole conversation is absurd.
Do not think for one minute that focusing on the theater of the absurd (frumkeit today) as opposed to the real and substantive issues that pose a real challenge to building a community of yirei shomayim goes unnoticed.
Make no mistake about it, the vast majority of Jewish institutions in this country- including the bigger yeshivas- were paid for by those not covering their heads. That's right- the rosh hayeshivas were all too happy and most grateful to keep on taking the money.
Please feel free to piss on those who go with heads uncovered- you know, show your real character. Be sure to teach your children your contempt.
Learn from the Arabs.
Posted by: Reality Fungus | January 26, 2009 at 04:39 PM
It's sadly amusing to see the ortho-dweebs who spend all day and night posting comments on this blog have degenerated to the point of answering their own pathetic insults flung at Shmarya. It's time to kick these losers off and delete their drivel.
Posted by: Neo-Conservaguy | January 26, 2009 at 04:43 PM
There is no such thing as Minhag America.
Sure there is - but which is the real deal? Depends who you ask, of course. How many minhagim were competing for that title over the course of 200ish years? Lots! Which is the authentic "Orthodox" minhag? Lots!
Posted by: Neo-Conservaguy | January 26, 2009 at 04:46 PM
Balbin –
I believe Marc Shapiro and Jeffrey Gurock have done work on this.
These is no question that haredim rejected American rabbis and minhag America.
That you don't know this?
Well, you're Isaac Balbin, apologist for anything and everything right of center Orthodox.
Ignorance of history is your swimming pool.
Posted by: Shmarya | January 26, 2009 at 05:24 PM
And you're Shmarya Rosenberg, slanderer of anyone to the right of Steve Greenberg and apologist for every poretz geder who tries to pretend he's orthodox.
Go jump in the swimming pool at Mall of America.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 06:02 PM
Go jump in the swimming pool at Mall of America.
Good old Archie. When the facts are against him, he just screams and whines.
Posted by: Shmarya | January 26, 2009 at 06:04 PM
"Ignorance of history is your swimming pool."
Once again Shmarya resorts to name calling when he can't respond with facts or well reasoned arguments. Do tell us Mr. Genius, was their a minhag america specifically not to wear yarmulke or was it just that it wasn't there custom but someone who does elect to wear one is not violating any minhag? Is there any reputable posek that agrees with you on this issue? If the original immigrants had a custom to wear a yarmulke but didn't do so when they came to america (lets assume for valid reasons) does that create a minhag not to wear a yarmulke? When the women in reform synagogues don yarmulkes for prayer services are they violating minhag america? And finally, is this post nothing more than a pathetic attempt to justify your not wearing a yarmulke? If so, what is next - Scotty determines that it is minhag america to eat treif?
Posted by: Successful Messiah | January 26, 2009 at 06:21 PM
Do tell us Mr. Genius, was their a minhag america specifically not to wear yarmulke or was it just that it wasn't there custom but someone who does elect to wear one is not violating any minhag?
Until the Eastern European wave of immigration, Jews did not wear kippot in public. Period.
Is there any reputable posek that agrees with you on this issue?
I doubt there is a "reputable posek" who knows the history.
If the original immigrants had a custom to wear a yarmulke but didn't do so when they came to america (lets assume for valid reasons) does that create a minhag not to wear a yarmulke?
It does if that is the norm and the existing community does not approve a change.
Posted by: Shmarya | January 26, 2009 at 06:46 PM
Ahmadinejad will gladly kill us whether we wear kippot in public or not. And Williamson will gladly deny that it happened.
Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | January 26, 2009 at 06:59 PM
Ahmadinejad will gladly kill us whether we wear kippot in public or not. And Williamson will gladly deny that it happened.
And the Pope will gladly "rehabilitate" Williamson anyway.
Posted by: Shmarya | January 26, 2009 at 07:03 PM
No Shmarya, if you had any sense of humor, you would have recognized the play on words echoing your own post.
It's you who screams when the facts are stacked against you.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 07:11 PM
"I doubt there is a "reputable posek" who knows the history"
So Shmarya who can't even hold a candle to children reading Mishna Brura goes on to smear the entire cadre of poskim who have a vast wealth of knowledge. Does Shmarya even have an education in secular Jewish American history at college level let alone any idea of religious history?
Pathetic that this reprehensible blogger has become so presumptuous.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 07:16 PM
Your poskim don't know science. They don't know history.
Sad facts, Bunker, but true facts, nonetheless.
Posted by: Shmarya | January 26, 2009 at 07:21 PM
You can attempt an argument about science with many of them but in most cases they do their homework and consult with scientific experts.
It is even more difficult to attempt an argument with history as less is required to accumulate that knowledge and many poskim have it under their belts.
The only sad reality is that you are an expert on neither, do not even do proper homework, and do not even possess the basic rudiments (just rudeness) yet style yourself as some kind of gifted know-it-all.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 07:39 PM
The jpost article was an interesting history. I think the yarmulke is important because it has been done by Jews, and Jews, being a holy people will give some level of holiness to the things they do. If one has positive feelings about klal Yisrael, then one will easy see the value in wearing a yarmulke.
Posted by: Yoel | January 26, 2009 at 08:17 PM
I am Sephardic, and our minhag is to only wear a kipa when praying or studying Torah or saying blessings.
However, no one has brought up the fact that wearing tzizit is a Torah commandment (not a rabbinic one) and so is actually even more important than wearing a yarmulke.
Posted by: Dave Marshall | January 26, 2009 at 08:39 PM
Archie is presuming that one has to be an Albert Einstein in a particular subject in order to be informed on it.
This is a fallacy.
Posted by: SJ | January 26, 2009 at 08:42 PM
"I doubt there is a "reputable posek" who knows the history."
So some little fellow sitting in his mother's basement in his underwear, with dillusions of grandor, has decided that he, and only he, knows the true halacha about wearing a yarmulke. Do you really expect people to take you seriously?
"It does if that is the norm and the existing community does not approve a change."
So Scotty, during the period of your life when you were a Lubab, were you violating minhag america?
Posted by: Successful Messiah | January 26, 2009 at 08:48 PM
"I am Sephardic, and our minhag is to only wear a kipa when praying or studying Torah or saying blessings."
And Rav Yosef Karo was what? An ashkenazi? That was the custom of only select sephardic communities. I use the term "custom" loosely as for the most part that is there custom only because they lived in communities where jews were persecuted, but not that they had an affirmative custom not to wear a yarmulke.
Posted by: Succesful Messiah | January 26, 2009 at 08:52 PM
Here is a practical problem for those orthodox Jews that don't wear a yarmulke at all times. What if you are at the mall, get thirsty...do you go to the water fountain, take your yarmulke from your pocket, make the brocho, dring your water, say borei nefashos, and then put the yarmulke back in your pocket...or you see a rainbow outside, then you reach in your pocket, put on the yarmulke, say the brocho, take off the yarmulke, and then put it back in your pocket. Then a minute later you go to the water fountain and must remember to do this all over again......
I realize Shamarya holds that you can say a brocho or daven without your head covered. It seems to me that even the Gaon of Vilna would consider that practice, even if technically ok, a practice devoid of piety. Dave, I am sure there are many sephardim that wear a yarmulke at all times.
Posted by: itchiemayer | January 26, 2009 at 09:25 PM
"one has to be an Albert Einstein in a particular subject in order to be informed on it"
Not at all.
The problem is however that a know-nothing like Shmarya thinks he is better informed than numerous de facto Einsteins.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 26, 2009 at 09:26 PM
I thought we wore yarmulkes to keep the elephants away! Seems to work so far ;)
Posted by: jimmy37 | January 26, 2009 at 09:59 PM
Conservaguy:
Sure there is - but which is the real deal? Depends who you ask, of course. How many minhagim were competing for that title over the course of 200ish years? Lots! Which is the authentic "Orthodox" minhag? Lots!
You've actually just proved my point. There is no Minhag America (anymore than there is Minhag Australia for that matter). The most you can claim is a Minhag of a given community in a particular city under the aegis of a particular rabbinate.
Posted by: Isaac Balbin | January 26, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Conservaguy:
Sure there is - but which is the real deal? Depends who you ask, of course. How many minhagim were competing for that title over the course of 200ish years? Lots! Which is the authentic "Orthodox" minhag? Lots!
You've actually just proved my point. There is no Minhag America (anymore than there is Minhag Australia for that matter). The most you can claim is a Minhag of a given community in a particular city under the aegis of a particular rabbinate.
Posted by: Isaac Balbin | January 26, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Mr Rosenberg:
I believe Marc Shapiro and Jeffrey Gurock have done work on this.
They have done work showing that American Rabbis objected to post War Rabbis wearing Yarmulkas because that would be a breach of "Minhag America?". Or, more accurately, to use your claim, they were intransigent which would imply that they were asked to go bare headed but refused?
Do point me in the direction of historical data which supports your allegation.
Please don't get confused. Nobody has questioned the fact that people didn't wear Yarmulkas! Are you watering down your original allegation on purpose, or have you forgotten what you wrote?
These is no question that haredim rejected American rabbis and minhag America.
Look, let me spell it out to you using another example. I am confident you will agree with me. Assume Minhag America was to eat Gebrokts on Pesach. Assume a wave of immigration ensued who had a Mesorah not to eat Gebrokts on Pesach.
By refraining from eating Gebrokts are they culpable for an halachic infraction? I think you'd agree they are not! It is perfectly okay to be machmir, whether that is with Gebrokts, or wearing a Yarmulka or whatever. I am not aware of an existing Minhag which prevents people from following stricter dicta.
That you don't know this?
As above, I am not sure you understood my point.
Well, you're Isaac Balbin, apologist for anything and everything right of center Orthodox.
And your point being that if you have such a view of me, that what I have written cannot be true? Come now, surely you have more intellectual capacity than this.
Ignorance of history is your swimming pool.
What do you expect me to do, throw an insult back in order to strengthen my argument?
Posted by: Isaac Balbin | January 26, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Balbin–
I don't understand your confusion. There was Orthodox practice here before haredim came.
It was very close to Provencal and Sefardi practice as it was in the 17th and 18th century before the rise of haredism.
God willing, one day it will return to that practice.
Posted by: Shmarya Rosenberg | January 27, 2009 at 12:23 AM
"I am Sephardic, and our minhag is to only wear a kipa when praying or studying Torah or saying blessings."
And Rav Yosef Karo was what? An ashkenazi? That was the custom of only select sephardic communities.
No.
It was the custom of most Sefardim, and it one of the few things in the Shulkhan Arukh Sefardim did not adopt as binding.
Posted by: Shmarya Rosenberg | January 27, 2009 at 12:25 AM
What if you are at the mall, get thirsty...do you go to the water fountain, take your yarmulke from your pocket, make the brocho, dring your water, say borei nefashos, and then put the yarmulke back in your pocket...or you see a rainbow outside, then you reach in your pocket, put on the yarmulke, say the brocho, take off the yarmulke, and then put it back in your pocket. Then a minute later you go to the water fountain and must remember to do this all over again......
1. A brsacha on water is not by most opinions a d'orita – before or after.
2. Many people make a bracha on water in the morning and a borei nefashot at night, not after each drinking.
3. The Gra holds you can make brachot without a head covering.
4. Even for stricter opinions, the real issue would only be with saying berkat hamazon with an uncovered head, not in saying borei nefashot or blessing a rainbow (as if the latter happens even once a year for most people!).
Posted by: Shmarya Rosenberg | January 27, 2009 at 12:31 AM
While it is good to be frum it is more important to be erlich.
How can anyone be taken seriously with all the tumah and tipshut coming out. The nonsensical insults about African Americans etc.
You will all be saying an al cheit on Yom Kippur about the nonsense coming form youw lips.
Why not try to avoid it in the first place!!
There may be room for an intelligent discussion over covering the head. There is no room for nivul peh.
Posted by: Dr, Dave | January 27, 2009 at 07:19 AM
"blessing a rainbow"
How many of Shmarya's posts have caused a rainbow to form?
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 27, 2009 at 08:04 AM
"ebony members of the opposite sex"
Tell me Archie, is your whole porn collection ghetto hos, or do you secretly touch yourself to the song from Hair that starts "I'm a bush-nigger, jungle bunny..."
You've got real fascination with that sort of thing. It's probably healthy. Think of it as a cry from your genitals to try to get a whiff of genetic diversity into your tired, played out "proudly inbred for seventy generations" DNA.
Once you actually lose your virginity you'll find that all women, Black, White, Asian and those transplanted Iraqis called Jews are pretty much the same.
Posted by: A. Nuran | January 27, 2009 at 11:03 AM
thought we wore yarmulkes to keep the elephants away! Seems to work so far ;)
Posted by: jimmy37 | January 26, 2009 at 09:59 PM
Maybe not. Many Orthodox Jews vote Republican (LOL).
(I am an Indie, but I usually vote Republican- disclosure).
Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | January 27, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I think it's ironic that when covering ones head is mentioned in the talmud it's associated with piety and modesty. Whereas the minhag now is based in distiguishment and pride. The reason the orthodox establishment is insistent upon people wearing kipot is that it makes the Jew different from everyone else and keeps them confined in their shtetl. It's also a badge the jew can wear around to say, "Hey look, I'm holier than you!" and "I'm tremendously proud of myself because I'm Jewish! Out of my way!" This is not a modest disposition at all. I think of a yarmulke as chareidi garb lite. This is the reason all poskim rule it mandatory, because it separates the Jew. It's not an objective halakic conclusion they're arriving at, they want to keep all the sheep on the derech, so they say that God says you have to walk around all day with a beanie on your head. And we're powerless to rule otherwise because it's an established minhag or some rabbi 600 years ago thought it was a good idea. And anyone who says different will be ostracized. The reason that this minhag and so many others have been 'universally' adopted is that the frum community has the minhag of demanding absolute conformity or excommunication- minhag fascist- seriously, I bet this disposition developed after living around Russians and Germans for so long. I'm sure over time there have been plenty of people alienated from Judaism because of minagim. And many people who stayed with this lifestyle did so because they're simple and appreciate a life where you're just a particle in a group and decisions are made for you. And you can believe whatever you want about the world and life and that you're righteous because you engage in arbitrary ritual. So of course the orthodox minhag is to have poskim decide every minute detail of an individuals life. I know people love to worship their poskim, but they are like anyone else, if they were subjected to any objective intellectual standard many would be exposed as not such talented individuals. I think the requirement is that you can read Hebrew and Aramaic, and you can repeat what you hear. I wouldn't care so much, it's just I actually believe in God, and I believe God cares about us, and did teach Moshe the Torah, etc... I realize it's hard to mantain Torah Judaism today, and minhag fascist is an effective means to keep the traditions alive, however it's not ideal. If you're like me and believe as the Rambam that keeping mitzvot will develop ideal middot, I think it's apparant that this is not what's happening. In fact I think that Torah Judaism makes many people who might otherwise be normal into asses. The point is I am frum and only wear a kipah when I have to in a shul. I do not wear on the street, or at home, even when I daven, learn, am wearing teffilin, etc... Any frummies who want to rebuke or excommunicate me over it, I don't care, I'd rather learn from the ways of the goyim in this country than some small minded fascists.
Nice job on the blog Shmyara, you're doing good stuff!
Posted by: frum1 | January 27, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I think it's ironic that when covering ones head is mentioned in the talmud it's associated with piety and modesty. Whereas the minhag now is based in distiguishment and pride. The reason the orthodox establishment is insistent upon people wearing kipot is that it makes the Jew different from everyone else and keeps them confined in their shtetl. It's also a badge the jew can wear around to say, "Hey look, I'm holier than you!" and "I'm tremendously proud of myself because I'm Jewish! Out of my way!" This is not a modest disposition at all. I think of a yarmulke as chareidi garb lite. This is the reason all poskim rule it mandatory, because it separates the Jew. It's not an objective halakic conclusion they're arriving at, they want to keep all the sheep on the derech, so they say that God says you have to walk around all day with a beanie on your head. And we're powerless to rule otherwise because it's an established minhag or some rabbi 600 years ago thought it was a good idea. And anyone who says different will be ostracized. The reason that this minhag and so many others have been 'universally' adopted is that the frum community has the minhag of demanding absolute conformity or excommunication- minhag fascist- seriously, I bet this disposition developed after living around Russians and Germans for so long. I'm sure over time there have been plenty of people alienated from Judaism because of minagim. And many people who stayed with this lifestyle did so because they're simple and appreciate a life where you're just a particle in a group and decisions are made for you. And you can believe whatever you want about the world and life and that you're righteous because you engage in arbitrary ritual. So of course the orthodox minhag is to have poskim decide every minute detail of an individuals life. I know people love to worship their poskim, but they are like anyone else, if they were subjected to any objective intellectual standard many would be exposed as not such talented individuals. I think the requirement is that you can read Hebrew and Aramaic, and you can repeat what you hear. I wouldn't care so much, it's just I actually believe in God, and I believe God cares about us, and did teach Moshe the Torah, etc... I realize it's hard to mantain Torah Judaism today, and minhag fascist is an effective means to keep the traditions alive, however it's not ideal. If you're like me and believe as the Rambam that keeping mitzvot will develop ideal middot, I think it's apparant that this is not what's happening. In fact I think that Torah Judaism makes many people who might otherwise be normal into asses. The point is I am frum and only wear a kipah when I have to in a shul. I do not wear on the street, or at home, even when I daven, learn, am wearing teffilin, etc... Any frummies who want to rebuke or excommunicate me over it, I don't care, I'd rather learn from the ways of the goyim in this country than some small minded fascists.
Nice job on the blog Shmyara, you're doing good stuff!
Posted by: frum1 | January 27, 2009 at 12:24 PM
"frum1", what a misnomer.
You need some serious help dude to get you over that conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | January 27, 2009 at 01:13 PM
Actually, Frum1, I agree with you.
If anything is mandatory to wear all the time, it is wearing tzizit. In fact the modern Karaites- oo! boogey man! (sarcasm) actually say that it is also mandatory for women to wear tzizit. (Although I am certainly becoming a Karaite, because some of them have ridiculous humrot as well).
Posted by: Dave Marshall | January 27, 2009 at 07:38 PM
Oops, I meant to say I am certainly NOT become a Karaite, because some of them have ridiculous humrot as wel.
Posted by: Dave Marshall | January 27, 2009 at 10:43 PM
I do believe the obligation to wear tzitzis is if you are wearing a four cornered garment, but if you are not then it is not an aveirah to not wear tzitzis. I recall a story from the gemara with a Rabbi (don't remember his name) who was rebuked because he rounded off his garment so he wouldn't have to wear tzitzis. He explained that since he rounded the garment, thus eliminating the 4 corners to the garment, he didn't have to add the tzitzis (strings) to the garment. My recollection is a little sketchy, but the bottom line is it is not obligatory, but certainly pious, laudable, and easy to perform the mitzvah of tzitzis on a daily basis.
And frum 1 - why would you daven and learn Torah without a head covering, even a baseball cap would suffice. I don't get it. I understand those who don't wear a yarmulke at work, although I do. Aside from that, and absent unusual circumstances, I fail to see why a person would not wear a yarmulke, especially in a free country like ours. We are supposed to be different from the gentiles - the Jews in Mitzrayim kept their names, their dress, and their language. Certainly a yarmulke is one of those things that differentiates us in dress from the average gentile. Also, my yarmulke, more than my tzitzis which I tuck in, does impact in a positive way my behavior. At work or at the store or wherever, I am very concious that I am recognizable as a Jew, and try to come across in a very positive manner. I will admit if one is a person prone to anger, rudeness, and the like, perhaps it is better if they are not so open about their Jewishness. I have seen people in yarmulkes show behavior in public which made me cringe. I do know that my yarmulke serves as a reminder that I represent the Jewish people, and it has served me well in that regard, and I try every day to impart this to my children.
Posted by: Itchiemayer | January 28, 2009 at 01:22 AM
Here is a thought for those of you who insist that wearing a head covering is merely a stringency and not an obligation:
Instead of thinking that it is a stringency so I will not do it, why not look at it as an act of Piety so I am going to do it!
I understand that cholov Yisroel is a stringency, but it might be somewhat hard to follow so I can accept that one would not take that upon themselves (I guess I had better say that, since I'm not cholov Yisroel!). However, wearing a yarmulke, especially during prayer and learning, is so doggone easy to do, I can't think of a reason not to do it!
Posted by: Itchiemayer | January 28, 2009 at 01:45 AM
I've a good amount of research and photographs for my own family, firmly ensconsed in Central Pennsylvania's "Russian Hebrew" community, which flourished with a number of synagogues from the 1890s to about the 1930s. My great-uncle was on the charter for the one in Bloomsberg, PA, by all accounts a very observant man, and his father was one of the founding members of Lancaster, PA's Orthodox shul. These people were misnagdim. Curiously, in the hundreds of photographs I've collected of Central Pennsylvania Jewry from the pre-WW2 period (which I am happy to scan and share, just for their neat-o value), kippot are conspicuously absent, with the exception of the odd bar mitzvah photo. This seems to be common in the pre-WW2 Baltimore community, as well, though I haven't the research to necessarily back it up (just the familial connection to 1880s-1920s Baltimore yiddishkeit).
It's not clear to me that even Eastern European immigration embraced a consistent minhag. Did more misnagdim arrive from the Pale and more chassidus during/after WW2?
Posted by: Brian Kresge | January 28, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Itchiemayer:
It really doesn't come up in my mind to put on a yarmulke, or a hat when I daven. I don't even think about it. And it is a kind of an annoyance when you're constantly learning, just looking at stuff on the computer say, and have to always get a hat. And it is easy to put on, but it would also be easy to put on a pair of gloves also, doesn't mean I'm going to. When I learn in a beis midrash I of course wear a hat or yarmulke, but I think hats are informal for the most part (I would never wear a hat when going to a restaurant, bar, or club) And I do not like having a yarmulke on my head, it bothers me, and I think they don't look good. I used to wear a yarmulke in public, it wasn't the worst thing in the world, however it does make you stand out a little, even in NYC. Imagine how you'd interact with a woman in a burka, or a hara krishna. You wouldn't be rude (I hope) but you would notice and think about their abnormal dress, or if not you, many people would. Granted a yarmulke is not nearly as extreme, but also an Indian Siek with a turban. And wearing a yarmulke does not make me more conscious to be good or whatever, I tend to be a normal agreeable person, and don't need a yarmulke or even Judaism for that.
As for tzitzis, yeah, it's definitely more important than a yarmulke, it's a mitzvah d'oraisa. I think the mitzvah is when you are wearing a four or more cornered garment, to attach tzitzis to it (during the day). Personally I only wear such garments during prayer, and that's when I fulfill that mitzvah, I don't wear a talit katan, and don't see it necessary to wear them all day, although I might wear them all day if I lived in Israel.
Posted by: frum1 | January 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM