Fellow blogger Steg (dos iz nit der šteg) is cohost of a blog entitled Mad Ascythianazzi Skillz.
He is also a guest blogger here.
Not a very prolific one, though.... he's posted only once to my four times (albeit that an argument could very well be made about quality versus quantity, but I really don't want to go there).
So how about it, Steg? How about posting again? Soon? Before the bear yanks the plug? How about some mad ascythianazzi skillz?
Many other readers are also curious... although only one of them, in an unguarded moment caused by consuming the drugs she stole from Ed, actually admitted it.
We're dyin' here, dude, shreib voss!
Showing posts with label B.O.T.H.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label B.O.T.H.. Show all posts
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
SHEITEL SHEITEL SHEITEL!
Why am I posting this? Because I can!
Dov parked the car, threw the key to seven of us, and the other six gentlemen seemed to have gone off and gotten drunk, leaving me as the designated driver.
Bad move, boys.
It's time to talk of sheitels!
SHEITELS!
The best sheitlach are made with real human hair, inferior ones with heavens knows what. Fortunately, you can look like a Soprano widow at either end of the price range.
A while back there was a groise machloikes over sheitels made with hair from India. Women panicked, running through the streets of Boro Park and Lakewood screaming and shedding hair. Or so I've been told.
[And I always believe everything I'm told by ehrliche menthsen - don't you?]
The problem was that the hair (either all, or three symbolic tufts) was shorn from Hindu women at religious ceremonies - don’t ask, I haven’t a clue!
But it had to do with purification for idolatrous rituals, and temple profits from the sale of the hair, and thus shmecked of avoidah zara (strange service, hence idolatry). It is issur to partake of, share in, or in fact have anything to do with idolatry. Especially monetarily.
Why is hair from India used in wigs?
The two main sources of hair used in wigs and hairpieces are Europe and India. The desirability of Indian temple-cut hair lay in the length, strength, and alignment.
Hair that is aligned (that has all its cuticles pointing in the same direction – called Remy hair) can be used for high quality wigs that have a natural look, whereas hair that is not aligned will need to be chemically stripped of the cuticle layer to keep it from becoming tangled.
[Note: to dye hair, it has to be stripped and bleached; this is never done to Remy hair. Keeping hair aligned is done by tying it with ribbons prior to cutting, which was also the custom at the temple. The hair was then sold, and the money benefited the getchkeh served at that temple.]
Such aligned hair is more expensive than stripped hair, and is used for better wigs, whereas stripped hair is often also chemically bleached, dyed, and conditioned.
So the problem is this: if your sheitel is glossy, black and expensive, it probably is made of Indian Remy hair. If it is any other colour but did not cost an arm and a leg, it nevertheless also may be made of Indian hair.
Is all hair from India suspect?
Only ten percent (more or less) of the hair purchased from India comes from the temple in question (Tirumala). Because a much larger percentage of Remy hair from India is temple hair, it might be argued that a wig made from dyed hair (remember, Remy hair is not dyed) should contain far less temple hair. But there is no way of telling – a sheitel of dyed hair could be all temple hair, because not all temple hair is Remy.
In the same way that one can not assume that a piece of meat is kosher without evidence (presumption based on place purchased, trust in the merchant having full knowledge of the derivation, and verifiability based on trusted agents who oversee and examine), one can not blithely assume that because the sheitel is not Remy it is safe.
What about European hair?
Hinduism is not prevalent in Europe, and there are no religious practices in Europe in which a woman cuts off long hair. So, based on currently known data, European Remy hair should be considered Halachically acceptable.
Several ravs have spouted psak and teshuve ad nauseum, most either coming out against Indian hair wigs except under certain circumstances (psak l’issur), or stating l’heter that they were acceptable unless it was definitely known that the hair was tainted by A.Z., or in fact outright takruves (offerings) to the getchkeh (idol).
Some went on for several pages, quoted multiple authorities most marvelously, without actually saying anything. And a few proved nothing more than that an obsession with hair is might be common among poskim, so if you have a fetish, you’re in good company!
That a lenient ruling should be made is in keeping with the decision made by rebbeyim over fifteen years ago (AND thirty years ago) when this issue came up before. But it may be that, at that time, the poskim were not fully aware of the details of the issue, hence their being matir.
Chinese hair
There are some very fine sheitlach made from Chinese hair, which is as strong as Indian hair, but has a much softer look.
[But if you must have a luxurious head of Chinese hair, might as well keep the entire Chinese person to whom it belongs. You won’t regret it.]
Other hair
On the other hand, hair from a harlot, or from a murderess shorn at her imprisonment, would also be perfectly acceptable - as long as she was not involved in idolatry.
Caring for the Sheitel.
Many women use a sheitel liner in between their head and the actual wig, which keeps it cleaner and prevents their own hair from intruding on the elegant, sexy lines of the sheitel. Synthetic hair is easier to clean, but bear in mind that synthetic wigs end up looking ratty and eccentric within a year, whereas a good real hair wig maintains its looks a bit longer.
If you wish to wash the thing yourself, instead of taking it to your local sheitel macher, do so every five or six weeks. It is best to place the thing securely on a Styrofoam head (use pins), wet it with warm water, lather with shampoo, and rinse gently. Conditioner can be applied, but apply AWAY from the root. Rinse after a minute or so. It can be air-dried, but in moist environments it is advisable to speed up the process with a blow dryer on low heat – also good for styling.
Why a wig in the first place?
Rabbinic law states that married women should cover their hair before all save their husbands, for reasons of modesty.
In the eighteenth century, when ultra-orthodoxim first started wearing sheitlach, the deceptively real appearance of certain wigs was manifestly not a problem; wigs were observedly unnatural, and no immodesty could be imputed.
Many orthodox rebbeyim at that time opined that covering one’s hair was more effectively done l’halocho with a sheitel than with a tiechel (headkerchief) or hat, as the sheitel can cover all of the hair, while also being convenient for wearing indoors.
Since then wiggery has become a firm custom, which many do not have the confidence to discard, and yet do not think deeply about. And there are those who, b’hiddur mitzvah, also wear a kerchief or a hat, in addition to their perruque.
A final consideration
A good wig can mislead other women (who cannot see that it is fake, and may therefore assume that if a woman who is known to be respectable and frum is showing hair, it is acceptable to do so), and may in fact be as immodest in its effects as flaunting a luxurious head of hair for men to see, to smell, nay even to brush their faces against on the bus, inhaling deeply of its delicate aroma of perfumed shampoo.
[The fragrance may actually be so intoxicating even during Elul as to cause the poor man to miss his stop, limply unresisting, and consequently loose his job.... do you really want that on your head? Do you?]
If showing hair is tantamount to immodesty, I have to wonder whether it is not best for men to expose their big (!) bushy (!) beards (!) only to their wives, and only in the home.
------------------------
Note: Some of you may remember that I posted much of this material back in 2006. And so what? I'm not above canabalising my own stuff. I'm both lazy and opportunistic.
Further note: If the six other guest-posters don't sober-up and start posting soon, I will be forced to tell you all about Nidah, Zivah, and Zavah. You don't want that, do you?
Dov parked the car, threw the key to seven of us, and the other six gentlemen seemed to have gone off and gotten drunk, leaving me as the designated driver.
Bad move, boys.
It's time to talk of sheitels!
SHEITELS!
The best sheitlach are made with real human hair, inferior ones with heavens knows what. Fortunately, you can look like a Soprano widow at either end of the price range.
A while back there was a groise machloikes over sheitels made with hair from India. Women panicked, running through the streets of Boro Park and Lakewood screaming and shedding hair. Or so I've been told.
[And I always believe everything I'm told by ehrliche menthsen - don't you?]
The problem was that the hair (either all, or three symbolic tufts) was shorn from Hindu women at religious ceremonies - don’t ask, I haven’t a clue!
But it had to do with purification for idolatrous rituals, and temple profits from the sale of the hair, and thus shmecked of avoidah zara (strange service, hence idolatry). It is issur to partake of, share in, or in fact have anything to do with idolatry. Especially monetarily.
Why is hair from India used in wigs?
The two main sources of hair used in wigs and hairpieces are Europe and India. The desirability of Indian temple-cut hair lay in the length, strength, and alignment.
Hair that is aligned (that has all its cuticles pointing in the same direction – called Remy hair) can be used for high quality wigs that have a natural look, whereas hair that is not aligned will need to be chemically stripped of the cuticle layer to keep it from becoming tangled.
[Note: to dye hair, it has to be stripped and bleached; this is never done to Remy hair. Keeping hair aligned is done by tying it with ribbons prior to cutting, which was also the custom at the temple. The hair was then sold, and the money benefited the getchkeh served at that temple.]
Such aligned hair is more expensive than stripped hair, and is used for better wigs, whereas stripped hair is often also chemically bleached, dyed, and conditioned.
So the problem is this: if your sheitel is glossy, black and expensive, it probably is made of Indian Remy hair. If it is any other colour but did not cost an arm and a leg, it nevertheless also may be made of Indian hair.
Is all hair from India suspect?
Only ten percent (more or less) of the hair purchased from India comes from the temple in question (Tirumala). Because a much larger percentage of Remy hair from India is temple hair, it might be argued that a wig made from dyed hair (remember, Remy hair is not dyed) should contain far less temple hair. But there is no way of telling – a sheitel of dyed hair could be all temple hair, because not all temple hair is Remy.
In the same way that one can not assume that a piece of meat is kosher without evidence (presumption based on place purchased, trust in the merchant having full knowledge of the derivation, and verifiability based on trusted agents who oversee and examine), one can not blithely assume that because the sheitel is not Remy it is safe.
What about European hair?
Hinduism is not prevalent in Europe, and there are no religious practices in Europe in which a woman cuts off long hair. So, based on currently known data, European Remy hair should be considered Halachically acceptable.
Several ravs have spouted psak and teshuve ad nauseum, most either coming out against Indian hair wigs except under certain circumstances (psak l’issur), or stating l’heter that they were acceptable unless it was definitely known that the hair was tainted by A.Z., or in fact outright takruves (offerings) to the getchkeh (idol).
Some went on for several pages, quoted multiple authorities most marvelously, without actually saying anything. And a few proved nothing more than that an obsession with hair is might be common among poskim, so if you have a fetish, you’re in good company!
That a lenient ruling should be made is in keeping with the decision made by rebbeyim over fifteen years ago (AND thirty years ago) when this issue came up before. But it may be that, at that time, the poskim were not fully aware of the details of the issue, hence their being matir.
Chinese hair
There are some very fine sheitlach made from Chinese hair, which is as strong as Indian hair, but has a much softer look.
[But if you must have a luxurious head of Chinese hair, might as well keep the entire Chinese person to whom it belongs. You won’t regret it.]
Other hair
On the other hand, hair from a harlot, or from a murderess shorn at her imprisonment, would also be perfectly acceptable - as long as she was not involved in idolatry.
Caring for the Sheitel.
Many women use a sheitel liner in between their head and the actual wig, which keeps it cleaner and prevents their own hair from intruding on the elegant, sexy lines of the sheitel. Synthetic hair is easier to clean, but bear in mind that synthetic wigs end up looking ratty and eccentric within a year, whereas a good real hair wig maintains its looks a bit longer.
If you wish to wash the thing yourself, instead of taking it to your local sheitel macher, do so every five or six weeks. It is best to place the thing securely on a Styrofoam head (use pins), wet it with warm water, lather with shampoo, and rinse gently. Conditioner can be applied, but apply AWAY from the root. Rinse after a minute or so. It can be air-dried, but in moist environments it is advisable to speed up the process with a blow dryer on low heat – also good for styling.
Why a wig in the first place?
Rabbinic law states that married women should cover their hair before all save their husbands, for reasons of modesty.
In the eighteenth century, when ultra-orthodoxim first started wearing sheitlach, the deceptively real appearance of certain wigs was manifestly not a problem; wigs were observedly unnatural, and no immodesty could be imputed.
Many orthodox rebbeyim at that time opined that covering one’s hair was more effectively done l’halocho with a sheitel than with a tiechel (headkerchief) or hat, as the sheitel can cover all of the hair, while also being convenient for wearing indoors.
Since then wiggery has become a firm custom, which many do not have the confidence to discard, and yet do not think deeply about. And there are those who, b’hiddur mitzvah, also wear a kerchief or a hat, in addition to their perruque.
A final consideration
A good wig can mislead other women (who cannot see that it is fake, and may therefore assume that if a woman who is known to be respectable and frum is showing hair, it is acceptable to do so), and may in fact be as immodest in its effects as flaunting a luxurious head of hair for men to see, to smell, nay even to brush their faces against on the bus, inhaling deeply of its delicate aroma of perfumed shampoo.
[The fragrance may actually be so intoxicating even during Elul as to cause the poor man to miss his stop, limply unresisting, and consequently loose his job.... do you really want that on your head? Do you?]
If showing hair is tantamount to immodesty, I have to wonder whether it is not best for men to expose their big (!) bushy (!) beards (!) only to their wives, and only in the home.
------------------------
Note: Some of you may remember that I posted much of this material back in 2006. And so what? I'm not above canabalising my own stuff. I'm both lazy and opportunistic.
Further note: If the six other guest-posters don't sober-up and start posting soon, I will be forced to tell you all about Nidah, Zivah, and Zavah. You don't want that, do you?
FOUR AMOS
Per Slobodka minhag, the entire space of a Jewish residence is to be considered as four amos. This in regard to nayglvasser. I have heard that this derives from the Vilna Gaon, who considered the woof of the world altered after the death of Avraham ben Avraham.
Which is fascinating.
Does anyone know more about this?
-------------------------------
Related thereto,
Who was Avraham ben Avraham?
Avraham the son of Avraham was a Polish nobleman, Count Valentin Potoki, who was exposed to Judaism while studying in Paris. After becoming convinced that Judaism was the true religion, he travelled to Rome, and then to Amsterdam, where he formally converted.
He was also know as the Ger tzedek.
There is much about him in Jewish sources. There is no actual evidence, however, that he ever lived. We must conclude that, like a character from Talmudic meshalim, there was a need to invent him.
Suppose I begin an anecdote with “once there were these three men – a rabbi, a galach, and a height-impaired tax-accountant...”. I then proceed to tell an absolutely hysterical meisse, ending with a punchline that sticks in the mind for days afterward.
You remember the punchline, yes? You tell someone else the tale. They too remember the punchline.
Does it actually matter that the rabbi, the galach, and the height-impaired tax-accountant didn’t really exist?
Which is fascinating.
Does anyone know more about this?
-------------------------------
Related thereto,
Who was Avraham ben Avraham?
Avraham the son of Avraham was a Polish nobleman, Count Valentin Potoki, who was exposed to Judaism while studying in Paris. After becoming convinced that Judaism was the true religion, he travelled to Rome, and then to Amsterdam, where he formally converted.
He was also know as the Ger tzedek.
There is much about him in Jewish sources. There is no actual evidence, however, that he ever lived. We must conclude that, like a character from Talmudic meshalim, there was a need to invent him.
Suppose I begin an anecdote with “once there were these three men – a rabbi, a galach, and a height-impaired tax-accountant...”. I then proceed to tell an absolutely hysterical meisse, ending with a punchline that sticks in the mind for days afterward.
You remember the punchline, yes? You tell someone else the tale. They too remember the punchline.
Does it actually matter that the rabbi, the galach, and the height-impaired tax-accountant didn’t really exist?
CREATIVE DUTCH INVENT NEW NASTY SLUR
The Dutch language is sodden with slurs and insults. We speakers of Dutch are not known for our subtlety.
A sampling of Dutch terms of misaffection will be illustrative:
Kut-Marokkaan = “Erva-Moroccan” (generic term for any North-African).
Kanker-Jood = Cancerous Jew (generic term for a Jew).
Klote-Jenk = Testicle American (again, a generic term – applies to either gender).
There are many more. Some, like the extremely long list of insulting sixteenth century terms for the different types of German, are scatological. Some are heretical.
Some sneering, and repulsive.
Such as this recent one: Kroepoek
Pronunciation ‘crew-pewk’. Diminutive: kroepoekje - 'crew-pewk-yuh’.
[Krupuk is a crispy snack cracker made of tapioca flour (manioc or cassava starch), seafood flavourings, salt and spices, kneaded to a dough, rolled into a snake shape, sliced thinly across, and dried in the sun. The resultant chips are deepfried when needed – they swell up enormously. They are very popular in South-East Asia and Holland. Called ‘shrimp-chip’ in English. Most are not kosher. There are also entirely vegetarian 'shrimp chips', but I do not know the brand names or whether they are even imported. Sorry.]
As the term applies to a human, what is meant is an attractive woman of partly or entirely Dutch East Indies ancestry, especially one to have a brief and exploitative affair with; a tasty little snack of a woman, but not the kind you would marry. The term is both racist and sexist. And, if you think about it, additionally offensive on so many different levels.
BACKGROUND
Indos are people of an Indonesian background, often of mixed race - Dutch mixed with Malay types or Chinese. They were citizens of the Netherlands, who after Indonesian independence either voluntarily "repatriated" to a country they had never seen , or were later chased out.
In the fifties and sixties, most Indos were self-effacing, and did their very best to assimilate. They were ashamed of their Indischkeit, and spoke excellent proper Dutch in public and at work. Maybe at home they spoke Petshaw, Betawi, or Malay, but they did not want their children to speak it. They were the perfect immigrant group.
Now their children and grandchildren are exploring what it means to be ‘different’. And what it means to have inherited non-standard cultural traits. They do not keep quiet when sneered at, they talk back when patronized, they object to stereotypes.
They are no longer quietly just like ‘everybody else’.
Everybody-else does not like this one bit. It somehow feels like a devaluation of everybody else, and of everybody else's values, or a deliberate insult. Everybody else has a remarkably fragile ego and a tendency to act pissy.
Now, while the point of this may seem to be that majority behaviours show similarities in different countries, especially if you are in the deep South or Rotterdam - and if you wish to read that into this, please do - what I am really doing by posting this is expressing my displeasure at Dutch attitudes. I expected much better from them, dammit. Buncha farty kaaskoppen.
A sampling of Dutch terms of misaffection will be illustrative:
Kut-Marokkaan = “Erva-Moroccan” (generic term for any North-African).
Kanker-Jood = Cancerous Jew (generic term for a Jew).
Klote-Jenk = Testicle American (again, a generic term – applies to either gender).
There are many more. Some, like the extremely long list of insulting sixteenth century terms for the different types of German, are scatological. Some are heretical.
Some sneering, and repulsive.
Such as this recent one: Kroepoek
Pronunciation ‘crew-pewk’. Diminutive: kroepoekje - 'crew-pewk-yuh’.
[Krupuk is a crispy snack cracker made of tapioca flour (manioc or cassava starch), seafood flavourings, salt and spices, kneaded to a dough, rolled into a snake shape, sliced thinly across, and dried in the sun. The resultant chips are deepfried when needed – they swell up enormously. They are very popular in South-East Asia and Holland. Called ‘shrimp-chip’ in English. Most are not kosher. There are also entirely vegetarian 'shrimp chips', but I do not know the brand names or whether they are even imported. Sorry.]
As the term applies to a human, what is meant is an attractive woman of partly or entirely Dutch East Indies ancestry, especially one to have a brief and exploitative affair with; a tasty little snack of a woman, but not the kind you would marry. The term is both racist and sexist. And, if you think about it, additionally offensive on so many different levels.
BACKGROUND
Indos are people of an Indonesian background, often of mixed race - Dutch mixed with Malay types or Chinese. They were citizens of the Netherlands, who after Indonesian independence either voluntarily "repatriated" to a country they had never seen , or were later chased out.
In the fifties and sixties, most Indos were self-effacing, and did their very best to assimilate. They were ashamed of their Indischkeit, and spoke excellent proper Dutch in public and at work. Maybe at home they spoke Petshaw, Betawi, or Malay, but they did not want their children to speak it. They were the perfect immigrant group.
Now their children and grandchildren are exploring what it means to be ‘different’. And what it means to have inherited non-standard cultural traits. They do not keep quiet when sneered at, they talk back when patronized, they object to stereotypes.
They are no longer quietly just like ‘everybody else’.
Everybody-else does not like this one bit. It somehow feels like a devaluation of everybody else, and of everybody else's values, or a deliberate insult. Everybody else has a remarkably fragile ego and a tendency to act pissy.
Now, while the point of this may seem to be that majority behaviours show similarities in different countries, especially if you are in the deep South or Rotterdam - and if you wish to read that into this, please do - what I am really doing by posting this is expressing my displeasure at Dutch attitudes. I expected much better from them, dammit. Buncha farty kaaskoppen.
Monday, August 20, 2007
WHY AM I HERE?
Not an existential question – more a rhetorical device explaining, in part, why I infest worthwhile J-blogs.
Should Torah be taken literally? Of course not – that would defy reason. Which I can do very well indeed, but I refuse to chuck science and the scientific method out the window. Does the Torah even need in any way to be taken as the unalloyed and unvarnished truth, or should we better see it as preambular to a weltanschauung and a foundation for an intellectual methodology?
[Both that weltanschaung and that intellectual methodology find splendid expression in the Talmudic literature; throughout, divergent opinions suggest that rigid and singular monolithmus of ideology is neither natural nor desirable. Certainly this is quite different from the thought-world of certain other ‘Abrahamic’ belief-systems.]
Do either the Torah or RSO actually benefit from our belief? Or are either better served by our doubt and consequent need to argue these matters? Better to ask how such conviction even serves us. In the same way that a convinced disbeliever has already given up the battle, a firm believer makes no progress either, and a literalist may be moving backward. Fine good, you’ve accepted the Torah word for word as the precise truth, this is davka how it happened, Hashem is our/your god, Hashem is one..... what on earth is your mind actually doing here? Are any synapses actually firing, or is there a slow process of mental decay taking place?
Such certainty cannot be good. It does not challenge, and it does not lead to change. Even Moses questioned and wondered till the end of his days. The tension and the dynamic of debate and disagreement is what keeps faith alive and on the surface. You have been blessed with more intelligent and more informed heretics than other religions.
Please, discuss among yourselves.
Should Torah be taken literally? Of course not – that would defy reason. Which I can do very well indeed, but I refuse to chuck science and the scientific method out the window. Does the Torah even need in any way to be taken as the unalloyed and unvarnished truth, or should we better see it as preambular to a weltanschauung and a foundation for an intellectual methodology?
[Both that weltanschaung and that intellectual methodology find splendid expression in the Talmudic literature; throughout, divergent opinions suggest that rigid and singular monolithmus of ideology is neither natural nor desirable. Certainly this is quite different from the thought-world of certain other ‘Abrahamic’ belief-systems.]
Do either the Torah or RSO actually benefit from our belief? Or are either better served by our doubt and consequent need to argue these matters? Better to ask how such conviction even serves us. In the same way that a convinced disbeliever has already given up the battle, a firm believer makes no progress either, and a literalist may be moving backward. Fine good, you’ve accepted the Torah word for word as the precise truth, this is davka how it happened, Hashem is our/your god, Hashem is one..... what on earth is your mind actually doing here? Are any synapses actually firing, or is there a slow process of mental decay taking place?
Such certainty cannot be good. It does not challenge, and it does not lead to change. Even Moses questioned and wondered till the end of his days. The tension and the dynamic of debate and disagreement is what keeps faith alive and on the surface. You have been blessed with more intelligent and more informed heretics than other religions.
Please, discuss among yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)