Talk:Kippah

RE: the change about wearing kippot in courtrooms, etc. to being "In Large American cities..." etc., I do NOT live in a large American city, I live in rural Minnesota, and a kippah is more acceptable than a hat indoors here also. I've worn mine in the courtroom with no objections from the judge after I respectfully educated him as to what it was. <bg> Ditto for wearing one in a public school classroom. So nu, what's the rationale for limiting this aspect to "large American cties" only? Rooster613 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

Can we please remove the Turkish word? If the word came from Turkish, why is "Yarmulke" only used by Ashkenazim and not by Sephardim? Also, it is not a coat and it is not worn against the rain. It looks more like a prank, to be honest. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The Turkish etymology is found in the Max Vasmer's etymological dictionary of Russian language.  That dictionary is quite respectable.  Most probably the word came into Yiddish through Russian or Polish. — Monedula 11:31, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

If that's so, it might be better to quote the source in the article. Improved credibility and all. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Talmud story

The basis for wearing a head covering is a story in the Talmud (tractate Shabbat).

Could someone who knows this story add a paragraph about it to this article? Thank you. -- Jeff Q 19:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The new pictures are fine, but excessive, given the minimal textual content in this article. I ask again for someone to include at least a paragraph explaining why yarmulkes are worn. Does no one know this Talmud story? -- Jeff Q 00:28, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It takes some time to find things in the Talmud. Frankly, there is a lot more to say on the religious purpose of head covering. Such as way many men prefer to wear a hat over they yarmulke during prayer... JFW | T@lk 01:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why should Jews wear a yarmulkah?

I found an answer:

למה חובשים כיפה?

תוכן התשובה ב"ה

שלומות

מקור לבישת הכיפה או כל כיסוי ראש אחר מובא בגמרא במסכת קידושין. שם משמע שעיקר לבישת הכיפה היא ממידת חסידות. כך האדם מבטא ש"שכינה למעלה מראשי". בימים בהם המיצוי האישי תופס מקום רב כל כך, בימים בהם הדגשת ה"אני" חורגת מעבר לכל פרופורציה, אנו צריכים לזכור "מה למעלה ממך". אמנם, הט"ז בסימן ח' בשו"ע או"ח הביא דעת יחיד שלבישת קפה היא מדאורייתא. אבל אין זו דעת רוב הפוסקים. פוסקי דורנו, וכדאי לעיין בתשובתו של הרב עובדיה יוסף בשו"ת יחווה דעת, הוסיפו רובד נוסף ביחס ללבישת כיפה. הכיפה היא סמל האדם הדתי. יש בה ביטוי להשתייכות, להזדהות כמו גם לקבלת העול הנגזרת מהיותנו חלק משומרי תורה ומצוות. ואם תאמרו: למה לייחס משקל רב כל כך לסמלים? הנה, בימי חיי ראיתי שסמלים לא חשובים הם סמלים שלא מזדהים עימם... משום מה, לא פגשתי את הצנחן שיוותר על נעליו האדומות, את הטייס שיוותר על ענידת כנפי הטייס או הפרופ' שיעלים את תוארו. כל אלה קנו את מעמדם מכוח ההשקעה הרבה והיזע הרב שהושקע בהם. הכיפה הינה גורם משמעותי בהצטרפותו של היחיד אל היחד, אל הציבוריות הדתית. לא רק מידת הענווה יש בכיפה אלא אלמנט מסויים של "גאוות יחידה" והשתייכות המסייעים ליחיד לפסוע בין שבילי עולם תוהה המחפש את דרכו, את זהותו.

יצויין שכל זה, לא נוגע לשאלת לבישת כיפה בזמן ברכות, תפילה או לימוד תורה.

בברכה,

שי

from http://www.kipa.co.il/ask/show.asp?id=41736 . Kipa is an Israeli Jewish website in which Rabbis answer questions.

I will translate the answer to English tomorrow. Good night. MathKnight 22:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Piron's FAQ

I'm not sure if Rabbi Piron's FAQ is really worth verbatim inclusion in Wikipedia. Does anyone object if we synthesise the material into flowing text, or perhaps cut it alltogether? JFW | T@lk 22:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kippah sizes

The sizes given are somewhat absurd. I own a kippah of diameter just over 4", and another few between 5 and 6".

Surely much more useful details would be things like:

• common patterns and designs on kippot, such as the alef-bet on those for children;
• different types of kippot, including larger patterned ones that cover the whole top of the head;
• acceptability of hats as an alternative;
• traditions as to wearing kippot only when performing a religious ritual;
• distances some consider to be the limit one may walk without a kippah;
• that the kippah is not worn when asleep;
• positions in which kippot are worn (particularly where this politicised in Israel);
• how kippot srugot are made (a common art for young religious zionist women, in particular)

I am happy to assist, but do not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of this, just know that there is much unnecessary in here, and much left uncovered (so to speak).

--jnothman 04:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Responding to your points in order:

1. I've seen them as small as 4", as large as 9" in diameter.
2. Common patterns might be interesting, recognizing that certain communities stick to black only.
3. Different types would be interesting; ideally this should be comprehensive.
4. Point about hats is good.
5. The tradition should be mentioned, and sourced.
6. 4 amos distance should be mentioned, and sourced.
7. Some people do wear them when asleep.
8. Positions worn would be interesting.
9. How they are made would be interesting.
10. You don't need to be an expert to edit; why don't you try a couple of edits to begin with, and see how it goes? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Imrai Pichos"

What is "Imrai Pichos"? Who wrote this work, and what is it about? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see what this question refers to...!! --jnothman
  • User:PinchasC has copied and inserted a couple of sentences from a source which refers to "Imrei Pichos"; I'd like to know what it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is Rabbi Pinchos of Koritz in Imrei Pinchos--PinchasC 07:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kippah vs Yarmulke?

Why is the yiddish name the default? Among the Jews I know (which isn't necessarily representative) the Hebrew name is much more commonly used. Any chance we could switch Kippah to be the default? --Cypherx 05:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I can concur that most Jews I know do call it a kippah, particularly because most Jews I know are from a Modern Orthodox / Religious Zionist background that prefer the Modern Hebrew name. I would think that those from Ultra-Orthodox (or Yiddish-speaking) backgrounds more readily call it a Yarmulke. Certainly Sephardim cannot identify with the Yiddish jargon. On the other hand, it may not be a question of what the Jewish community calls it as much as what the rest of the population knows it as, and there, I think, yarmulke is more well known through American-Yiddish influence. --jnothman 01:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I moved the page. Using "yarmulke" seems to be a bit partial to the Ashkenazim; Hebrew is the international language of Jews everywhere. Plus "kippah" is easier to spell ;) --Neutrality^talk 05:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact is, "yarmulke" is the standard word in English, the one you will find in most dictionaries. "Kippah" is in some dictionaries, though it's usually listed as a foreign word. This is not a matter of being partial to Ashkenazim, but about knowing what's English and what isn't. Because of the way the article is titled, many non-Jews will be confused. marbeh raglaim 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with marbeh raglaim that 'yarmulke' is the appropriate English word. My quick test of standard English usage is to see if a word is in the online versions of Merriam Webster (a reputable US English dictionary) and Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (a reputable UK English dictionary). Both have entries for 'yarmulke' and no entries that I can find for 'kippah'. They also do not mention alternative words for yarmulkes. Justinep 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would take issue with the statement that "Hebrew is the international language of Jews everywhere". Biblical Hebrew may be the language of the Jewish liturgy, but (Modern) Hebrew is not spoken by all Jews and is not the first language of all Jews. I don't see a need to sanitise our language to fit modern sentiments at the risk of confusing, as marbeh raglaim suggests, those who are consulting wikipedia for impartial, clear, un-nuanced information. Justinep 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter what Jews call them? What matters is what wikipedia readers can reasonably be expected to call them. The title of a page should be the word or phrase a reader will look something up under. If we wish to educate readers as to what Jews consider to be the proper word, that's great, but that should be in the page content not its title.

We Jews/friends and family of Jews/people close to Jewish communities/etc, may know the words 'yarmulke' and 'kippah' and, indeed, others, but if the vast majority of human beings think they're called XYZ, we must name the page XYZ as wikipedia's purpose is to be a reference source and the general public should be able to find things under the name that most people call them by. I think it would be good to have some material in the page stating why some people use one word and not another as the political and linguisitic reasons are interesting and non-trivial.

In summary, from what I see, (please read the arguments other authors have put forth as I do not wish to accidentally misrepresent them)

• Kippah: Cypherx suggests moving the article to Kippah.
• Yarmulke: jnothman agrees kippah is in widespread usage among (some) Jewish groups but suggests yarmulke is more widely used outside Jewish groups
• Kippah: Neutrality moves the page, after a reasonable period of time and no dissent, stating Hebrew is the language of the Jewish people (which marbeh raglaim and I don't think is a valid argument in this case, as argued above)
• Yarmulke: marbeh raglaim argues 'yarmulke' is the proper English word, regardless of questions of partiality to individual Jewish groups
• Yarmulke: I agree with marbeh raglaim.

As a rough tally I'd call that a 3 to 2 'yarmulke' to 'kippah' split for the page title. (Does anyone disagree with my tally?)

I propose moving the page back to 'yarmulke' based on the fact this is the standard English term.

I also propose adding a section on the different words and why and when they're used. I know of yarmulke, kippah, kapel...

I'm hoping the very fact the word 'yarmulke' crops up several times in the article will encourage people to state a case for making it consistent one way or the other. Justinep 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that 'yarmulke' should be the term used for the article, we should be using the widely used English term in the English language version of Wikipedia. BHC 08:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Styles

Does anyone know where I can get comprehensive information about various communities and their Kippah styles? For example, Chabad has the "Yechi" Yarmulkah, some Breslovers wear the "Na Nach" Kippah, and the Bukhara style is popular with Jewish neo-hippies. Daykart 20:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added some information about the ancient head-coverings in Israel, and a bit of information about the Yemenite style. I am working on getting the names of the Persian Jews and the North African Jews. --EhavEliyahu 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SEE http://home.comcast.net/~projecty/ProjectY.html

This article is full of stereotypes about the "types" of people that wear a particular kipah. 68.48.139.115 17:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sterotype are generalization held by one social group about another. The article does not present one group's point of view of what a particular kipah mean, but rather decribes a broadly accepted social context. To say that different communities, in general, wear different kippot is not a contraveral or offensive statement. Jon513 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Which passage in Tractate Kiddushin?

In the article, under the Halakhich sources box, it says the Talmudic basis for wearing a kippah is found in Tractate Shabbat 156b as well as Tractate Kiddushin 32a.

In the section of the article entitled "Purpose", the same passage from Tractate Shabbat is cited. However, in this section, it says the passage relevant to a kippah is Tractate Kiddushin 31a (instead of 32a).

Does anyone know which passage from Tractate Kiddushin actually contains the relevant passage? And if/when it is found, I think the article should be edited/updated accordingly.

31a discusses the issue of not walking four cubits with ones head uncovered (15th narrow line), while 32a or b does not discuss this topic at all. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How correct is this line?

I found the following line in the etymology section:

"It is most likely that the first definition (the Yari Malka one) is correct, because Yarmulke is a Yiddish word. Since Yiddish is mostly a mix between Hebrew and German, it is highly unlikely that a Turkic or Slavic word would have entered the Yiddish language."

I protest the factual evidence behind this line. I can understand that it's unlikely Yiddish was influenced by Turkic languages, but I personally can name at the least 50 Yiddish words of Slavic descent, which is more than I can name from Hebrew. Yiddish is based on German in grammar and main vocabulary, but it is still not unlikely to find a Polish or Russian word or 5 in a sentence; nor does it refute the idea that Yiddish could be influenced by these languages. In short, I think that we should remove this paragraph, because generally it appears uninformed on the argument.

---

The above post is essentially correct, except that there are in fact many Turkish words in Yiddish, many for foodstuffs that were imported from Turkey to central and eastern Europe.

Yarmulke is absolutely a Slavic word. I am changing it on the page right now to prevent the "yari malka" canard from making its way any further into general usage. There is no evidence for it and there is much more for the Polish word. Nomi Jones 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the Meriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries claim a Slavic origin for "yarmulke", ultimately possibly Turkish. I think they should be considered authorities. Mordechai Becher, the source cited, is a rabbi, not an etymologist. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was changed in this edit. Further sources than AHD & MW? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not just cloth

I've been to my fair share of bar/bat mitzvahs in America (even though I do not practice Judaism myself, my family does) and I have only seen one yarmulke made of cloth. The description of it as a "cloth skullcap" bothers me as yarmulkes, at least in America, are made out of many different kinds of materials (felt, satin, velvet, etc.), as far as I've seen. Ersatzzzzz 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Felt, satin, and velvet are all cloth. Rob Standefer ^talk 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is under the Equivalents: Catholic section. I'm not quite sure if this has a good tone associate with it in the article. I'm pretty bad with these things so I'm hesitant to delete it myself.

"- but during the early days of the Inquisition it was a most useful tool in spotting Jews: "

204.52.215.80 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

story of nah-nah-nahman

This paragraph long explanation is irrevelant here. It should be on a Bratslav page with a link to this one, if someone thinks this is necessary. --Gilabrand 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslims and Kippah

"Some Muslims wear a kippah equivalent called a topi." - This statement is misleading, Majority if not all muslims wear Kippah or Topi before prayers. - alif

Offensive?

Is anyone else besides me offended by the fact that people might actually be searching for the term "Jew Hat"? To me, it would be like searching for "Christ dude on a plus sign" and coming up with the page for a crucifix.

lmao Aygo (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In Torah, it is thus customary for men to wear kippot at all times,

I'm removing this line as redundant and POV. The source cited as 'Torah' is the Kitsur Shulchan Aruch, whose opinion is already given above. Savant1984 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Question Biblical basis for Yarmakule

What ever else you think of Paul (Saul of Tarsus), I think there is no question he was a Torah scholar. In First Corinthians 11:4 he says "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" and in 11:7 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God". Now Paul would sometimes pronounce that some ritual laws were unimportant. However, he never instructed to deliberately go counter to any ritual laws. So I think it is safe to say that the ancient Hebrews did not cover their heads in the synagogue or Temple. (Except for the priest when entering the "Holy of Holies"). Thoughts? GuyInCT (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

a response to GuyInCT

by 99.238.16.80 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC) There is a question whether Paul preached contrary to Torah. How do you reconcile "Every man praying or prophesying ..." and so on, when you admit the priests covered their head? The priests prayed and the priests did prophesy. You wrote "the priest when entering the holy of holies" but there were priests who served in various roles who did not enter the holy of holies and who did wear head covering. The bible says the purpose of the special garments worn by Aaron, including the special head covering, was for adornment and respect. (Exodus chapter 28 verse 2 "You shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron, for honor and glory.") That is, to impress the public. The priest wore head covering outside the holy of holies, where people could see the priest. I was taught that wearing head covering, and wearing a waistband, and wearing pants, are garments derived from the priests' garments. There may or may not be historical evidence, but an article on kippah/yarmalka must narrate what jews believe about their own purpose for head covering.

Is there any evidence at all that Saul/Paul was a "Torah scholar"? He was a Jew, and he may have been wise, but not every wise Jew is a Torah scholar.

Pronunciation

Someone who's invested in this article should put pronunciations for "kippah" and "yarmulke" using the IPA and perhaps also an easy to understand pronunciation (e.g. "KEE-PAH" and "YAMA-KUH"). ask123 (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Worrying similarity to published article not referenced

I was unhappy to find that much of the text and pictures included in this article seem to have been cut and pasted directly from an article by Eli Ballon of New West End synagogue. It seems to me that EB's words have been rearranged in a way I find unhelpful. If this amounts to plagiarism, then I suggest that someone with an interest in this article should rewrite it, without the plagiarism. I would add that I was actually looking for an explanation of the differeence between kippah and kippot and was directed to this article, which in no way explains the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuDor (talk • contribs) 09:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll check out the copyvio when I have a moment. As for kippot, the third and fourth words of the article explain this about as well as can be done - did you miss it? --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Kippah is singular; kippot is plural.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talmudic?

The article says:

"From a strictly Talmudic point of view, however, the only moment when a Jewish man is required to cover his head is during prayer (Mishneh Torah, Ahavah, Hilkhot Tefilah 5:5)."

The indicated source is the Rambam which is certainly not a Talmudic source. Moreover, there is no Talmudic source for Rambam's ruling in this case.

We have in Vayikra Rabah, Emor, 27, a clear indication that uncovering the head is a sign of respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.235.163 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Other Types of Skullcaps

I really don't see why we need such a detailed section on non-Jewish skullcaps in this article. They aren't really relevant; there isn't much evidence of mutual influence. Maybe the section should be used as a basis for a seperate page on skullcaps? CharlesMartel (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Hech cap

This needs a source. I've lived among observant Jews for 60 years and never heard of it, and the only hits I find through Google have wording identical to the Wikipedia wording, so they're not independent evidence. Can anyone point to instances where this term is used?