When the outer world goes up a notch eg victorian era we go up with them.But when they descend we won't descend with them.Be that as it may,the move from Homburgs for the upper caste toward the new style is undoubtedly (an admixture of) chassidic influence (& bit of comfort)
The devil's advocate contention could be (& has been): the author was hungarian, & in general the turn to black was perhaps due to impact of hungarians into our institutions.
Your third reason, uniform, is the reason. I don't understand your objection to hats. They are really not so expensive compared to suits or having many nice shirts, ties, etc. Most people only have two hats. And forget about sheitels. And don't even get started about shtreimels. Hats really are comparatively cheap, and shouldn't be one of the main targets of a frum consumer protection advocate!
You're right that hats are far from the worst offenders in the materialism sweepstakes, but they're arguably the least necessary. There's no good argument to eliminate jackets, shoes, and glasses: selecting designer brands is just a dumb choice. But hats could disappear in a day and, as far as I can tell, the Torah world would not be worse off for it.
Cost/benefit analyses are so much simpler in the absence of actual need.
A bit of both I guess. The're perceived as important in the sense that roshei yeshiva push them very hard. But they're tangibly important in the context of the huge financial and social costs they impose on the community. :)
What? You absolutely wouldn't wear a hat in the presence of a head of state. The Taz's whole rationale for head-covering being scripturally required is that European etiquette calls for taking off your hat in the presence of your superior and in private, therefore a Jew must keep a hat on in those situations.
Of course, the Taz was still assuming a population that mostly wore hats outside.
Well my yarmulka would definitely cover me (if you'll excuse the expression) for the Taz. But we should also keep in mind the (in)famous teshuva from R' Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann in Melamed L'hoyil #56 who infers from R' Hirsch that any incidental consideration can override the chukas hagoy issue. See: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1053&st=&pgnum=194
> "Accordingly, no matter that the current black fedoras differ to Rav Schneur's, the fact that the 'rov am' of the Yeshivishe world adopted it, it becomes ipso facto minhag and Torah."
I'm not sure that whatever halachic status "minhag Yisrael Torah" might have, would work when it's only a small minority that keeps it. I would guess that - over the past 50 years - hat wearers have never represented more than, say, 30% of frum Jews and a few percentage points of all Jews. And if you posit that various fashion-driven variations aren't even keeping to the minhag in its full expression, then those numbers would be even smaller.
> "it seems to me self evident that the psychology behind it is an extension of the psychology of the yarmulke, which is a physical reminder to be yarei malka."
Which, in a way, is exactly my point: since the yarmulka effectively does the same job but without the associated economic and social damage, why isn't that enough?
> "Buying a fancy esrog has devolved similarly, this doesn't discount the value or symbolsim of the ritual."
Except that esrog is still a mitzva d'oraissa, no matter how some people might misuse it. But non-mitzva activities should be assessed for their potential costs far more carefully.
> "I think the Yeshivishe world considers this an example of the degradation of the surrounding culture...But from a hashkafic/psychological perspective, striving to maintain a connection with en era that had greater moral standing is a good thing."
I think I disagree on this one. One could argue that the closest historical "cousins" to yeshivishe hats were those worn by Frank Sinatra and Al Capone. Those were hardly representatives of greater moral standing. Which ben Torah chooses a hat that looks anything like the one worn by R' Schneur in the picture above?
> "I don't know the halachic parameters of minhag Yisrael Torah, but the notion of a head covering above and beyond the yarmulke was prevalent across Ahekenaz and Sefard"
Do you have any evidence for that? I mean, that there was a widespread minhag to wear something beyond a yarmulka that had nothing to do with non-Jewish practice.
> "the economic and social 'harm' are extraneous to the minhag, and not a reason not to institute it."
Not just minhagim, but even halachic gezairos are predicated on extraneous considerations (גזירה שאין הציבור יכול לעמד עליו)
> "seeking yiras shomayim is absolutely a mitzva deoraissa"
Every mitzva and minhag should involve seeking yiras shomayim or we're doing it wrong. But that doesn't change its status.
> "no one considers the advent of 'making a simcha' to be an error"
Actually, I would consider it an error to make an expensive simcha.
> "A minhag instituted or adopted in order to achieve this Yirah, would have the status of an aseh deoraissa."
That's an unlikely formulation that I haven't seen anywhere. But it would mean that the rule עשה דחה לא תעשה applies. Does that mean you would, if you didn't happen to have a black hat with which to walk home, be **required** to steal one? I'm having trouble with that.
> "So too with hats and shtreimels - the fact that many abuse it and it leads to social and economic cost shouldn't preclude us from keeping it as a minhag"
Not everything that lots of people do has the status of "minhag". See פסחים נא. תוס’ דה”מ אי אתה רשאי and שו”ע יו”ד רי”ד פתחי תשובה ס”ק ד
@Ploinus Almoinus : As I read your "Some food for thought" comment, I remember thinking that you'd made a genuinely respectable effort at presenting your arguments in the erudite contemporary Orthodox idiom. But that nevertheless I couldn't take you seriously, seeing that you hadn't used the word "hashkafic" at least once. Well, you were obviously saving the best for last, redeeming yourself just under the wire only in your final sentence. Thanks for that, and please accept my sincere apologies for unjustly suspecting you of such a gaffe. (But as I'm sure you will admit, that was a very close call indeed.)
re:Hats in general
When the outer world goes up a notch eg victorian era we go up with them.But when they descend we won't descend with them.Be that as it may,the move from Homburgs for the upper caste toward the new style is undoubtedly (an admixture of) chassidic influence (& bit of comfort)
typo
Ksh"A ch.3 s.2
Yes indeed.You missed an importantant source.
The devil's advocate contention could be (& has been): the author was hungarian, & in general the turn to black was perhaps due to impact of hungarians into our institutions.
Your third reason, uniform, is the reason. I don't understand your objection to hats. They are really not so expensive compared to suits or having many nice shirts, ties, etc. Most people only have two hats. And forget about sheitels. And don't even get started about shtreimels. Hats really are comparatively cheap, and shouldn't be one of the main targets of a frum consumer protection advocate!
You're right that hats are far from the worst offenders in the materialism sweepstakes, but they're arguably the least necessary. There's no good argument to eliminate jackets, shoes, and glasses: selecting designer brands is just a dumb choice. But hats could disappear in a day and, as far as I can tell, the Torah world would not be worse off for it.
Cost/benefit analyses are so much simpler in the absence of actual need.
>> But there’s no denying how important hats
>> have become in contemporary yeshivishe life.
@boruch clinton
Do you mean actually important, or *perceived* as important?
A bit of both I guess. The're perceived as important in the sense that roshei yeshiva push them very hard. But they're tangibly important in the context of the huge financial and social costs they impose on the community. :)
What? You absolutely wouldn't wear a hat in the presence of a head of state. The Taz's whole rationale for head-covering being scripturally required is that European etiquette calls for taking off your hat in the presence of your superior and in private, therefore a Jew must keep a hat on in those situations.
Of course, the Taz was still assuming a population that mostly wore hats outside.
Well my yarmulka would definitely cover me (if you'll excuse the expression) for the Taz. But we should also keep in mind the (in)famous teshuva from R' Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann in Melamed L'hoyil #56 who infers from R' Hirsch that any incidental consideration can override the chukas hagoy issue. See: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1053&st=&pgnum=194
I had a rebbe who put it bluntly: if you wear a hat on the street, you are not picking up any girls!
That's not very clear. What was your רבי saying, actually? That that's a reason to wear one, or not to wear one?
Not if you have a spiffy hat and gallantly doff it to speak to a member of the fairer sex.
I appreciate those points. Here are my thoughts:
> "Accordingly, no matter that the current black fedoras differ to Rav Schneur's, the fact that the 'rov am' of the Yeshivishe world adopted it, it becomes ipso facto minhag and Torah."
I'm not sure that whatever halachic status "minhag Yisrael Torah" might have, would work when it's only a small minority that keeps it. I would guess that - over the past 50 years - hat wearers have never represented more than, say, 30% of frum Jews and a few percentage points of all Jews. And if you posit that various fashion-driven variations aren't even keeping to the minhag in its full expression, then those numbers would be even smaller.
> "it seems to me self evident that the psychology behind it is an extension of the psychology of the yarmulke, which is a physical reminder to be yarei malka."
Which, in a way, is exactly my point: since the yarmulka effectively does the same job but without the associated economic and social damage, why isn't that enough?
> "Buying a fancy esrog has devolved similarly, this doesn't discount the value or symbolsim of the ritual."
Except that esrog is still a mitzva d'oraissa, no matter how some people might misuse it. But non-mitzva activities should be assessed for their potential costs far more carefully.
> "I think the Yeshivishe world considers this an example of the degradation of the surrounding culture...But from a hashkafic/psychological perspective, striving to maintain a connection with en era that had greater moral standing is a good thing."
I think I disagree on this one. One could argue that the closest historical "cousins" to yeshivishe hats were those worn by Frank Sinatra and Al Capone. Those were hardly representatives of greater moral standing. Which ben Torah chooses a hat that looks anything like the one worn by R' Schneur in the picture above?
> "I don't know the halachic parameters of minhag Yisrael Torah, but the notion of a head covering above and beyond the yarmulke was prevalent across Ahekenaz and Sefard"
Do you have any evidence for that? I mean, that there was a widespread minhag to wear something beyond a yarmulka that had nothing to do with non-Jewish practice.
> "the economic and social 'harm' are extraneous to the minhag, and not a reason not to institute it."
Not just minhagim, but even halachic gezairos are predicated on extraneous considerations (גזירה שאין הציבור יכול לעמד עליו)
> "seeking yiras shomayim is absolutely a mitzva deoraissa"
Every mitzva and minhag should involve seeking yiras shomayim or we're doing it wrong. But that doesn't change its status.
> "no one considers the advent of 'making a simcha' to be an error"
Actually, I would consider it an error to make an expensive simcha.
> "A minhag instituted or adopted in order to achieve this Yirah, would have the status of an aseh deoraissa."
That's an unlikely formulation that I haven't seen anywhere. But it would mean that the rule עשה דחה לא תעשה applies. Does that mean you would, if you didn't happen to have a black hat with which to walk home, be **required** to steal one? I'm having trouble with that.
> "So too with hats and shtreimels - the fact that many abuse it and it leads to social and economic cost shouldn't preclude us from keeping it as a minhag"
Not everything that lots of people do has the status of "minhag". See פסחים נא. תוס’ דה”מ אי אתה רשאי and שו”ע יו”ד רי”ד פתחי תשובה ס”ק ד
@Ploinus Almoinus : As I read your "Some food for thought" comment, I remember thinking that you'd made a genuinely respectable effort at presenting your arguments in the erudite contemporary Orthodox idiom. But that nevertheless I couldn't take you seriously, seeing that you hadn't used the word "hashkafic" at least once. Well, you were obviously saving the best for last, redeeming yourself just under the wire only in your final sentence. Thanks for that, and please accept my sincere apologies for unjustly suspecting you of such a gaffe. (But as I'm sure you will admit, that was a very close call indeed.)