Rabbinic fashion and the art of (davka) (not specifically) looking frum

"Moses' streimel must have been darn inconvenient in the desert.  Anyway, he was very brave to risk it crossing the Reed Sea; a bit of spray and that'd be £4000 down the toilet"

It's this kind of Biblical Criticism that should keep us good Orthodox Jews far away from academia and their heretical ways.  You have been warned of the misleading moral axioms, and mocking ways, that underlie a study of the history of Judaism.  Even having taken on this criticism, we must be astounded by the none-too-Orthodox ways of the past. 

This is so, at least in the manner of dress.  Examine old photos of rabbonim and you will not find a Borsalino in sight.  You are far more likely to find turbans and ottoman-style shoes than you are to find shtreimals and stockings.  Whilst we- today- see a vast uniformity in the frum velt; the old photos show far more individuality and variety than we would ever expect.  These days we open the 'rabbi page' of Hamodia and know exactly what to expect- the same as last week (Purim excluded, of course).  One could reprint the same pictures, change the captions, change 'bris' to 'chasuna' and one wouldn't notice the difference.

Sure, the Rabonim in the old photos do not look like a shmock like myself in jeans and a T-shirt.  They would endeavour to look smart and respectable and thus, distinguish themselves from the general run of men.  There is no better of example of this than the picture of the Rebbe below in his pressed Western suits and stylish creme hat!  It is certainly the case that were Rambam to time travel to the modern world, he would be far more comfortable speaking to a chareidi person dressed as they are, than to myself in my casual clothes.  This is a point ably made in "One above and seven below: a consumer's guide to Orthodox Judaism from the perspective of the Chareidim" of which I read an extract in Hamodia.  This indeed is an imperative I should take to dress in a way such that I would be happy to meet the King of Kings.

However, what Yechezkel Hirshman (the author of the aforementioned book) may not have emphasized is that this gives us no reason to dress in a chareidi or chassidic (as opposed to modern) way.   There is no need to davka look Jewish.  There is no reason dress in a Jewish way- a universal style that transcends culture, country or time.  As is often pointed out, this Jewish way is simply the style of Polish noblemen of a few hundred years ago. 

The Rabbis of old presumably followed the edict 'do not walk after the ways of the gentiles'- they didn't follow every fashion and especially kept far away from ones with relation to idolatrous practices.  However, this didn't mean that they should davka dress differently to the surrounding culture.  In fact, they may very well- like Hirsch- have had some derech eretz and intentionally dressed in the (respectable) manner of the time.  See Emden's Renaissance clothing; Hirsch and British Chief Rabbi's clergyman clothing, the Rebbe's fashionable French ware and the Sdei Chemed's Ottoman finery.

You will too find- although I haven't reproduced them here- that even when a Rebbe of a particular chassidic group wore what you would expect them to, there Chassidim do not.  The chassidim themselves (in the 30s) wore Western clothing.  Why then the change?  Why, for example, did the Rebbe (although he wasn't Rebbe at the time) go from a guy known to the Seridei Aish as the "well dressed young man at the back of my lectures" to dressing in the manner we know him to have done? 

This change is one that has gone hand-in-hand with a change in Judaism itself and its attitude to the outside world.  Gone are the glory days when three Gedolei Yisrael- The Rav (Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik), The Rebbe (Rabbi Schneerson) and Rav Hutner- could all be found attending the same lecture at the University of Berlin.  Three great rabbis- three great friends- who went on to lead three very different (and sometimes antagonistic) kinds of Judaism, all to be found in the same lecture hall of a secular university!!  Who would have thought?  Sure, this was pre-Holocaust and a very different kind of world.  Plus, no doubt the Rebbe had good reasons for his decisions.  Only through securing a strong personal identity could his group have the strength to go out in the world in the way they have done.  Still, it's a great shame.

Seperate? Judaism has always been this.  Seperatist?  Well, there's a question.

---------

 

 

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson- The Seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe.  Leading the Lubavitch movement in an era when it has become the most inclusive, most extensive and geographically expansice chassidic group ever.  He is  the living/the temporarily dead/bechezkat/hopefully the/ a false/ a failed/ never claimed to be (delete as appropriate) messiah.

The picture on the left situates him perfectly in early twentieth century France in the "Jardin du Luxembourg".  The picture on the right, I think, was taken in Berlin.  Very stylish

 

 

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch- Gaon of the 19th Century who created a towering commentary on Chumash, tehillim and Siddur; as well as creating a monumental philosophical work on the reasons for the commandments.  A critique of both rationalism and Kabbalah, he took a keen interest in both the grammatical and ethical aspects of Judaism. 

A proponent of "Torah im derech eretz" and creator of a "Neo-Orthodoxy" he was a Religious Humanist.  Interestingly, despite his written testimony to the contrary he only believed in studying secular subjects for 'parnasa' and that 'Torah im derech eretz' was a concession to his time.

He has a striking resemblance to a young athletic Henry VIII.  However, his morality and spiritual grandeur was far in excess of any known monarch.

 

Rabbi Samuel Luzatto (The Shadal)- Expert talmudist, grammatician, and poet of the Nineteenth Century.  He wrote aessays, Hebrew Grammar, a commentary of the Targum, a collection of piyyutim, a commentary on the Petntateuch and many of the prophets, as well as many essay on topics such as Kabbalah.

He was a fierce proponent of the style of Biblical and Talmudical Judaism as opposed to the more philosophical understandings of Rambam and Ibn Ezra.  He was the first from a traditional perspective to question authorship of Kohelet and The Zohar.

He looks very gentrified!

 

 

Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai ("The Chida")- Student of the Ohr ha- Chaim, he was a strict talmudist and kabbalist of the 18th Century.  His scholarship encompassed the whole range of Judaism and earned him the right to be emissary of the small Jewish community in the Land of Israel.  This meant he was a great Jewish traveller of the day taking him places such as Tunisia, Britain and Amsterdam.

His most famous contribition was his Shem ha-Gedolim, inspired by an interest in the history of Rabbinic literature.  The work is a scientific travel guide of his journeys, recording information about all the works and their authors of all the places he visited.  There is valuable information that would otherwise be lost.

 

Shimon Bar Yochai- One of the greatest and most famous talmudic rabbis whose oral tradition was later incorporated in The Zohar in the 13th Century.  As such, he is seen as a major torch bearer of kabbalah.

After many years in a cave with his son, he came out and almost destroyed the world due to his insistence that people should be in kollel full-time.  G-d sent him back to the cave for another year to mature.  After this, he went through some more lessons in order to answer a question that eerily preceeds Monty Python's "What did the Romans ever do for us?" scene.

He is included here, not because the picture is an accurate portrayal of how he looked or what clothes he wore.  Instead, it reflects the attitudes to fashion of the artists at the time in which it was drawn.

  

Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan- info to follow

 

Rabbi Herman Adler- info to follow

 

Rabbi Jacob Emden- info to follow

 

 

Rabbi Lipschitz (the Tiferet Yisrael)- info to follow

Rabbi Marcus Adler- info to follow

Sdei Chemed- info to follow

  

The MP3, the list of questions and an orgiatsic experience (Alternatively titled: Moroccan Jewry)

Shal-oh-m. It’s 2.37 in the morning and I have just finished a shiur (“lesson”/ lecture) that has got me all excited. It’s certainly a good shiur, and how can you tell? Because I started listening at midnight, it’s 1 hour and 9 minutes long, and I have just finished it. Anyone who knows a friend, who knows a friend that does maths, or even lives in a country where mathematicians are present will know that, it doesn’t add up. I live with a Mathematician, ask him!

[I on the other hand, am a philosopher, and should be able to cast doubt on the most simple assertion. Last year, when my housemate arrived home from drinking and found me reading a book with ‘68 + 57 = ?’ on the front, he confidently asserted ‘125’. Of course (so I explained) the book was arguing that there is no fact of the matter as to whether by ‘+’ we meant addition rather than a different mathematical function. As such, you couldn’t castigate me for saying the answer to the question was ‘5’ (or you could, but not on the grounds that 125 is the addition to 68 + 57, which we both agree on). To this he went furious. It turned his mathematical world upside down and was questioning everything he held dear.]

That is [so I will confidently assert on this occasion] I was listening to the shiur for 88 minutes longer than it lasted! Magic, I hear you ask? Practical Kabbalah? A faulty watch? No, I’m afraid. Just having to pause it every five minutes to argue, to pace, to jump up in delight, to kvetch, to relive the point, to go to the toilet, to rewind and relisten to parts.

And what was this wonder? It was by Rabbi Dr. Marc Shapiro on “A Non-Orthodox Traditional Approach: Reflections on the Authority of the Moroccan Rabbinate.” And what was so brilliant? Well, it was worth listening just to the Americanisms: ‘Shal-oh-m’, ‘P-oh-skim’, ‘Takan-oh-t’. ‘A takan-oh-t that if he deflowered a virgin, he had to marry her.’ Ha! Deflowered, I haven’t heard that term since the last virgin who tried to bed me and wed me (/ an episode of ‘Friends’ with fat Monica). And the slightly funny comments like the following:

[Disclaimer: I put ‘slightly’ despite the fact that it was definitely a LOL moment. However, those who wonder why I laugh in synagogue very loudly, and wonder what was so hilarious are less impressed when I point to Rabbi Hertz’s commentary on the first line of Shema. But there you go… some people laugh at Friends, so there really is no accounting for taste]

“Today you go to the Bet Din, they can do whatever they want because they don’t have to adapt to the community because it is all voluntary… Now if the rabbis in America issues Takonot, no-one who wasn’t Orthodox would care, that’s for sure. And even among the Orthodox if the Aguna rabbis issued them, the Chassidim wouldn’t care; and if the Chassidim issued Takanot, the Aguna wouldn’t care; and if the Modern Orthodox issue Takanot, no-one would care, not even the Modern Orthodox.”

But witticism aside… this shiur raised such fundamental questions that had my head turning (‘literally turning’ as a misuse of English language might be heard to proclaim’). These are such fundamental issues that I just want to write about now if it wasn’t for the fact I have to be up in 4 and a half hours to daven, hear the megillah and go to Manchester to see my old Rav. The art of the blog is to write briefly but I have not an artistic bone in my body. See how long this is turning out to be and I’m not even writing seriously or putting my incisive, multi-faceted intelligence to (say I). But yeh… ever wondered about:-

• the nature of Jewish belief: dogma versus ‘just a set of laws’.
• the role of the Rabbi: to forbid the permitted versus permitting the forbidden.
• the ‘Chumra’ (stringency) culture versus ‘lets all go have sex' culture.
• the place of religion in Modern Israel: religious Zionism versus Zionism + Religion.
• Conversion in Judaism: ‘get lost unless you are a saint’ versus ‘we don’t want the kids to be non-Jewish, so let’s get you quickly converted, no questions asked’
• Halakhic ‘change’ versus the hegemony of the Shulchan Aruch (and more specifically the Mishna Berura).
• Why Askenazim have such a thing as ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Conservative’ or ‘Progressive’ denominations where (parts of) the Sephardi world have none
• The immorality of secular culture, the stupidity of Modern Orthodoxy, the terrifying and ridiculous (in no particular order) nature of Charedi world.
• Judaism as ‘sect’ (/religion) versus Judaism as a code for society at large

And more. Oh yes. The stuff was positively- I wouldn’t say orgiastic, okay I would- orgiastic. [‘Orgiastic’ is a word that Rav Soloveitchik repeatedly uses in a chapter of ‘The Emergence of Ethical Man’. Now, I’m sure he doesn’t mean it in the sense that the dictionary definition gives it : ‘pertaining to orgies’. But, I think we can understand the word in context]. So much so, I cannot talk about it now, but I had to write something! It will be on my pile of things to write about: I’m already in the middle of writing blog articles which I need to finish including “Chassidism without mysticism?”, “Easy religion”, “Is I Orthodox? Innit”. I get so inspired by things; the first of the aforementioned articles was inspired by “The Wind in the Willows” written by that great sage of old: Kenneth Graeme. But then I can never get them down cos there so bloody complicated (and no-one reads what I write anyway).

But just to give a general flavour…. The shiur was about the decrees of the Moroccan rabbinate and the nature of the Moroccan Jewish community. It was one where the whole community was under the sway of Halakha. Yes individuals were non-observant and very few you would call ‘Orthodox’. Yet the communities were run according to the decrees of the Rabbinate and they lived a traditional Jewish life. There was no ‘reform’ Jews trying to give a different account of what Judaism essentially was or should be. However, neither was there a need for a self-conception of ‘Orthodoxy’ and there was no need to tailor Halakha (or strengthen it) to root out the community of true believers from those who have left the fold.

The Bet Dinim (courts of law) had far more authority over the Jewish community in Morocco (as opposed to these days where, as per the ‘funny’ quote above, you’ll only listen to a Bet Din if you ideologically agree with the people that make the decisions). However, the effect of this is that the rulings were more lenient. Why? Because you are not ruling over a sect, or a group of like minded people, or those who have exactly (or so poskim must think) exactly the same needs. No… Halakhic law is just that. Law. It has to take into account and run society with people in with different needs, different beliefs, different circumstances. Plus they could be lenient because they didn’t think the leniencies would be taken as a concession to other sects of Judaism. How often, these days, do we hear “Oh. Umm. It’s technically allowed but you still can’t do it. It may lend credence to feminism, to other denominations, to secular wisdom, to the gentile customs, etc; plus don’t complain stringency beautifies the mitzvah” Does it heck!

[To a certain extent, this kind of situation still exists even within Sephardi ‘Orthodox’ congregations in Europe. When my brother was in Aix-en-Provence he said that it would be unheard of to have synagogue that weren’t run by ‘traditional’ Rabbis, but they didn’t kick up a poop when women in the ladies gallery put on tallit and tefillin]

Yet when the Moroccans moved to Israel, their culture and their halakhic traditions and thousand year old customs were not respected. There was a general prejudice against sefardim: the secular believed they were ignorant, superstitious and backward looking and the Yeshiva world couldn’t comprehend that there may be some traditions that are not codified in the Shulchan Aruch. Rav Ovadiah Yosef, a major figure, brought back pride for Sephardim but at a cost. In order to win respect from the ‘Orthodox’ (the Chareidi Yeshivish world) he has attempted to standardise Sephardic practice according to the Sephardic opinions in the Shulchan Aruch (despite the fact that many of his rulings deviate from it!). He himself orchestrated attempts to wipe out the halakhic traditions of some Sephardim. For example, based on teshuvot of Rambam, Moroccan Jews do not repeat Mussaf Amidah (especially if there is talking in shul). Unacceptable. Why? Because the Shulchan Aruch defines ‘Orthodoxy’. Why? Because ‘Conservative’ Jews say that halakha changes, whilst that law code was appropriate for the time, it is now no longer. So, G-d forbid that anyone deviates an iota from it (despite the fact that they do) because it lends credence to Conservatives.

What was interesting was some of the halakhic rulings of Moroccan Jews that are very pertinent today. There is a lot of fuss about women prayer groups in our world! Yet they have rulings going back hundreds of yours saying they are fine and happened! [G-d forbid we do them unless we are going egalitarian or copying the gentiles]. There are instances of ‘mi shabeirachs’ about v’imateinu Rachel, leah, v’sarah. [G-d forbid we have prayers like that unless we are reform]. There are other that aren’t directly importable (because they were relevant to their community not ours] but are still interesting. For example, prohibitions on gentiles and wine did not apply. Based on a [previously censored] ruling of the Rema, it was argued that there absolutely nothing wrong with wine handle d by Muslims. In fact, to prohibit it would be to turn the holy into the profane as, G-d forbid we consider worshippers of G-d into worshippers of idols. Obviously, that was a completely Muslim and as such, monotheistic culture, it would be different where there are religions [including Christianity] that may {or may not} be considered avodah Zorah.

In fact, there were lots of interesting rulings and so much to say. Let’s make a date… we’ll talk some time.

Damn its 4 o’Clock