[Avodah] Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles?

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' Seth Mandel wrote:

> If one does not object to adopting new customs, then why,
> pray tell, do some groups make a big issue out of wearing
> the European fur hats (AKA shtreimels or spodiks)?  Why
> do some groups insist that on shabbos one must wear long
> coats, as the upper class wore in Eastern Europe?  Why do
> some groups insist that suits worn to shul on shabbos or
> rabbis' garb must be black?  Why insist that the children
> speak Yiddish?  The reason given for all is that "we do
> not want to change what our holy forefathers wore."

I concede that the reason for this attitude is indeed often phrased as "we do not want to change what our holy forefathers wore." But I think you may be taking it too literally. I think you're focusing too much on the externals. You yourself wrote:

> And, if you adopt the logically teneble position that "I
> prefer to do what my grandfather did, but there is nothing
> wrong with other people changing their custom," then don't
> criticise other Jews for changing their dress (as long as
> it is tziusdig) or the thousands of other things that are
> condemned by the chareidi establishment as dangerous
> innovations.

Here you give what I understand to be the REAL reason: they are dangerous innovations.

The real reason for wearing black coats and speaking Yiddish is not a romantic notion of doing what the heilige zeide did. The reason is that pinstripe suits and speaking English put us in a precarious and dangerous situation, where it is not so easy to fend off the influences of the outside world. Staying in our little enclave is a lot easier.

The point of this post is to clarify what I beleive is the real reason certain groups insist on wearing black coats and speaking Yiddish. Even further, I understand that they wish *us* to wear black coats and speak Yiddish; it would be for our own good (from their perspective), as it would help insulate ourselves and Klal Yisrael from being affected detrimentally. And I'm not convinced that they are wrong.

The part of all this which I *do* bemoan, and which I *am* convinced to be unfortunate, is that we all too often slur our explanations until it becomes unintellgible. For the hamon am who don't think too deeply, "we do not want to change what our holy forefathers wore" is a much juicier soundbite than "we're afraid of the influences of the outside world". It's a dumbed-down version of the same thing.

It is similar to when we say "It's asur to listen to music during the 33 days of sefira", which is a dumbed-down version of "Our minhag is to not get married during the 33 days, and we've extended that to other sorts of simcha, like music." I understand that in many cases, we need to perform this dumbing-down in order for the hamon am to accept it. (Compare to the discussions we've had about citing a halacha in the name of a popular rav who actually never said it, just to insure that the audience will obey.) The problem is those who are capable of deeper thinking need to accept the responsibility to translate these sayings back into their original UN-dumbed-down versions. Taking a statement that "music is assur during sefira" at face value will produce confusing conundrums, no less than the illogic of not wanting to change what our holy forefathers wore at some arbitrary point in history.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here to find the perfect banking opportunity!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsKoDP27gVAj5VbfZdzrfxHDAlsM9SHxPqKBCcd0pZ0dsFCLVfNFBG/