Popular Backpack Contains ‘Foreign’ Symbols in Lining

A concerned reader reached out to CrownHeights.info after a parent discovered symbols of a foreign religion within the lining of her daughter’s backpack. The bag had torn and the symbols were found hidden on the inside of the lining.

According to the parent this backpack is very popular among local girls, and was purchased on Amazon for $27.99. The backpack is available in many different styles and it is unclear how widespread the problem may be.

The symbols are popular with a ‘foreign’ religion, and the images appear on a piece of fabric which was adhered to the lining and does not appear to be there by necessity.

Parents who purchased these backpacks are urged to check them and make sure they do not contain the symbols, and reach out to Amazon to voice your concerns.

Calls to the retailer were not returned in time for publication.

backpacks-inside

86 Comments

  • 1. allow one in and the others will follow. wrote:

    the klipa was invited and is now happily finding other ways to mix into our homes – classrooms…. r’l.
    Hashem yishmor!!

    please send Moshiach!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
    • 2. chias wrote:

      i once opened the back of my chitas and goyish newspaper was used for the binding….

    • 3. Milhouse wrote:

      Goyishe newspaper is normal and expected. No reason to be upset over that. But it could also be something with tzlomim, or inappropriate pictures, etc., and you will never know unless and until it falls apart.

  • 4. Love AMAZON! wrote:

    To be fair, thousands of companies sell on Amazon. This specific item is “Sold by SilverHooks, Inc and Fulfilled by Amazon. ” Amazon wouldn’t have a clue (as would you and I) that crucifixes are being hidden inside!!!

    Reply
  • 6. reminds me of GRACO wrote:

    They used to have on their baby swings, on the circuit board (only noticeable if you take it out) J…. saves.
    When they were asked they responded “you invalidated your warranty by opening it”.
    I say “used to” as haven’t looked into it for years.

    Reply
  • 11. Yossi A wrote:

    In the future to avoid this hassel buy in the shechuna.
    A) you are supporting your own.
    B) that is the rotzon of the Rebbe.

    Reply
    • 12. Anonymous wrote:

      Buy in the shechuna,the rebbe wants you to also get ripped off for bad quality products?

  • 14. kol shofar wrote:

    these stuff caused so many people of this community to attend kol shofar programs. hashem yerachem

    Reply
  • 16. Customer service wrote:

    Get a full refund plus a credit for inconvenience

    That’s a bunch of hooey and amAzon needs to fix that asap

    Reply
    • 17. Milhouse wrote:

      You may< get a refund, just because you're dissatisfied with the product, but you will not get anything else, and anyone you complain to will laugh at you. You don’t realise how ridiculous this whole story sounds to anyone who doesn’t share our peculiar beliefs.

      And Amazon has nothing to do with it. They’re just processing the orders. They can’t fix it, even if they saw any reason to, which they won’t.

    • 18. K wrote:

      Ya, “You don’t realise [SIC] how ridiculous this whole story sounds to anyone who doesn’t share our peculiar beliefs.” (Milhouse Quote of the Day),

      Just like if you return a food item because it isn’t kosher, “You don’t realise how ridiculous this whole story sounds to anyone who doesn’t share our peculiar beliefs.”

      Just like if you return a suit to a department store because it is full of shatnez, “You don’t realise how ridiculous this whole story sounds to anyone who doesn’t share our peculiar beliefs.”

      Because, according to Milhouse, we live in a single-cultural society that does not tolerate even the existence of other beliefs.

      Hey, it is almost like seeing someone in shul saying Boruch Sheomar before Hodu, – You don’t realise how ridiculous how that would sound to anyone who doesn’t share our peculiar nussach.

      Searching unsuccessfully for intelligence in Milhouse’s comment.

    • 19. Milhouse wrote:

      K, I suggest you try returning a garment because the lab found shatnes in it, and see how far you get. You may get a refund, if you’re lucky, but you will certainly get no compensation for your inconvenience, because as far as they are concerned you’re crazy. Or they may not even take it back, because why should they? Especially once you’ve told them that you had a lab cut into it? It’s not as if they said or implied that it didn’t have any shatnes.

      Or try returning food after you’ve opened it, because you heard that the hechsher isn’t as reliable as you thought it was. Talk about sounding crazy.

      Expecting Amazon to give you anything, or to understand what your issue is with something you found in the lining of a backpack you bought from a private vendor, is insane. And if the person you speak to happens to be Jewish that will make it even worse. “I’m Jewish and I’ve never heard of such a thing in my whole life so it doesn’t exist.” The whole issue makes no sense to anyone who isn’t a chossid.

    • 20. K wrote:

      I am not a chosid, and I would not allow my children to dress as Santa Claus (Milhouse has no problem with it!) nor would I allow them to wear clothes that have hidden tzelems, buddahs or other forms of avoda zorah.

      It is insulting of Milhouse to suggest that frum Yidden outside of Chabad would have no problem with their kids carrying symbols of avoda zara hidden in their backpacks. Look, we may eat Haagen Daz icecream (thanks to the government monitoring the dairy products – I am eternally grateful) but don’t allow avoda zara.

    • 21. Milhouse wrote:

      If you’re not a chossid, then what exactly do you think is wrong with carrying these backpacks, with the tzlomim hidden in the lining? There’s no halachic issue, so what’s the big deal? Haagen Daaz puts a tzeilem in your head, which is far worse.

      And no, there’s nothing at all wrong with dressing in a Coca Cola suit on Purim.

    • 22. K wrote:

      You know (I am going out on a limb here by crediting that you know basic halacha) that cholov stam is 100% muttar. Some people are machmir not to use it, but NO ONE holds it is ossur. A keli that had cholov stam is always considered N”T d’hetera. You may gift another yid a Hershey chocolate if he eats cholom stam because you are not giving him issur.

      This is the krum-frum problem of Milhouse, when cholov stam is a tzeilim, and Santa is muttar. Halacha and hashkafa is re-invented..

    • 23. Milhouse wrote:

      There is no such thing as “cholov stam”. There is no such category in halocho. Milk only comes in two categories, cholov yisroel and cholov akum.

      Reb Moshe paskened that commercial milk has a din of cholov yisroel. You are presumably relying on his psak. But if you imagine that there is nobody who is cholek on him, you are sadly sadly misinformed. Reb Moshe’s psak was not universally accepted by other poskim. And if the halocho is not like him, then Haagen Dasz is treif, just like chicken and milk, or like stam yeinom.

      Keilim of cholov akum are ossur. That is undisputed. So according to those who don’t pasken like Reb Moshe, the keilim in which commercial milk was cooked are not kosher.

      But now another rule comes into play: the rule of “keilim divnei Rhenus”. The Jews of the Rhineland used to eat what we pasken is cheilev, not because they were shkotzim, but because they held like a minority opinion that it was kosher. We do not agree with their psak. We consider them to have been eating treif beshogeg, and if Moshiach had come in their lifetimes they would each have had to bring a chatos. And yet the Shulchon Oruch paskens that one may eat at their homes, from their keilim, relying on the general rule that סתם כלים אינן בני יומן. Normally one may not rely on this rule, but when one is at the home of a frum Jew, who is legitimately following a psak din that one does not agree with, then one may rely on it. So if someone like you relies on Reb Moshe, then even those who pasken against him are allowed to eat from your keilim, so long as they don’t actually know them to be bnei yomon.

    • 24. K wrote:

      wow, milhouse is machmir on cholov stam but is matir using kelim manufactured with tallow (derived from trief animal fat) as attested by DART, the manufacturer of Styrofoam cups and utensils.

      milhouse, don’t you have the priorities backwards?

      yes, there are heterim for the tallow in Styrofoam, but there are heterim for cholob stam. now take a step back – which issur is worse – treif shmaltz or milk?

      regarding the term of cholov stam (which you claim it does not exist):
      יש רבנים בחו”ל שנמנעים מלכנות בשם “חלב נכרי” את המוצר, ובמקום זה מכנים אותו “חלב החברות” או “חלב סתם”, היות שהוא מותר לכתחילה, ולא חלה עליו גזירה כלל

      Basically, Cholov Stam (literally – plain milk), is milk which our Rabbanim never forbade – see: http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-issues-cholovYisroel.htm

  • 28. Yitzchok Halevi wrote:

    Many of the above comments are a gross overreaction. Nobody (who sells this bag) is targeting us for wholesale shmad. Find yourself another Klipa.Chill out and don’t buy it.

    Reply
  • 29. K wrote:

    That is how I was taught to say Mode Ani. It is a Jewish expression that goyim imitate. Does that make it possul??

    Reply
    • 30. K is for Kofer wrote:

      Is THAT how you say moda ani – like a xtian?

      you kofer!

      Who taught you to say mda ani like that – the priest???

      You are a KOFER!!!

    • 31. So beautiful wrote:

      your hands MUST be one higher than the other, not like these hands where fingertips meet. Our chachamim instituted the change in position because the goyim were using the original position in their avoda zara.

    • 32. K wrote:

      It is a JEWISH gesture when praying ‘Kaf al Kaf’, two palms and fingers are together, as per Talmud (Shabbos 10a) of how the sages would clasp their hands in such a manner whilst praying, in the manner of slaves before their masters.

      See in detail Sefer Hasichot 5709 page 330

      Sheesh! Don’t you know ANYTHING?

      Now I am not mochel you until you apologize for the name calling.

    • 33. Milhouse wrote:

      K is absolutely right. “so beautiful”, what is your source that our chachomim changed the position? I have never heard of such a thing, and the source I linked to above doesn’t mention it; if you have a source please share it with us and educate us.

    • 34. K wrote:

      Milhouse wrote ” the source I linked to above doesn’t mention it” – which source? I provided the Gemarah (and for the Lubavitchers – also a Sefer Hasichos). The minhag of davening with hands together was “stolen” from us by the early xtians.

      The real kasha is that the Gemarah makes it a position for hands during DAVENING (mistama – shmona esrei) while in the Sefer Hasichos it seems restricted to Mode Ani ONLY.

      However, this kasha is not too shtark because the Sefer Hasichos is merely telling a child’s ma’ase (story) and not a halacha or shtikel Torah.

      But it is still a tzorich iyun.

    • 35. FYI Reb K wrote:

      FYI Reb K -
      Sefer Hasichot of the Rebbe Rayatz is not a children’s storybook. A “Ma’asay Rav” is stronger than halacha.

    • 36. Milhouse wrote:

      K, what do you mean, which source? I gave you a link. What more do you want?

      And K, the gemara does not say what you claim it does. Quite the contrary, in fact.

    • 37. K wrote:

      The girsa in my Gemarrah is as I stated. To humor you, I checked in the Ain Ya’akov and it is the same girsa. The Targum of Ein Ya’akov states in Yiddish: “placed hands together”…maybe you have the wrong girsa?!

      The Tur says that this gesture is done only when davening at an ais tzorah, however the Rambam is mashma that it is done at all times. The Iyum Ya’akov adds that now we always daven with our hands together because we are in golus – so it is an ais tzorah.

      Milhouse is simply trying to discredit me by saying that the gemarah does not say what I said it does, which is consistent with a person who is megaleh ponim b’Torah shelo k’halacha and a maysis u’mediach.

    • 38. K not the point wrote:

      I think you totally missed the point because the main issue here are the crosses not the hands (the pink lines which have the tops blurred.)

    • 39. Milhouse wrote:

      K, you are misquoting the gemoro. הרוצה לשקר ירחיק עדותו, and yet anyone can look up the gemoro and see that you are not telling the truth, and that in fact the gemoro says the opposite of what you are claiming — not only does it not say to daven with the palms and fingers pressed against each other, like at modeh ani (or lehavdil like the Xians pray), it specifically recommends a different position for the hands (at least at a time of trouble).

    • 40. K wrote:

      You must have a different gemorah than mine, unless you have trouble reading it – maybe use Art Scroll.

    • 41. k wrote:

      Here is the ACTUAL gemarah which Milhouse denies :
      Shabbos 10a
      רבא
      שדי גלימיה
      י ופכר ידיה ומצלי אמר כעבדא קמיה מריה
      אמר רב אשי חזינא ליה לרב כהנא כי איכא
      צערא בעלמא שדי גלימיה ופכר ידיה ומצלי
      אמר כעבדא קמי מריה
      Rashi:
      ופכר ידיה. חובק יליו באצבעותיו
      מרצי״ר בלע״ז כאלם המצטער מאימח
      רבו:
      But a liar simply calls everyone else a liar.

    • 42. Milhouse wrote:

      Wow, I’ve heard of brazen lying, but this takes the cake. You copy the gemoroh, and expect nobody to be able to read it and see that it says the opposite of what you’re claiming?

      Despite your slight typos, everyone can see that the gemoro clearly recommends davening with the hands clasping each other, as Rashi says “with the fingers clutching the hands”, in the classic hand-washing pose of servants from Chazal’s day to ours. Not with the hands pressed against each other, held vertically in front of one, in the classic “prayer” pose depicted on this print that was used to line the backpacks. That pose, with a bowed head, is usually associated with Xian prayer, but it is how the FR says he was taught to say Modeh Ani, and how Yosef Mordechai the Meshores had been taught some 80 years earlier, i.e. it is a long-standing Jewish tradition. (Of course Modeh Ani itself is only a few centuries old, so the tradition can’t go back that long, but it’s long-standing enough for our purposes.)

    • 43. K wrote:

      The hands in the gemarrah are “kaf el kaf” – palm to palm, fingers against fingers of each hand. Why are you mis-translating it???

    • 44. Milhouse wrote:

      The hands in the gemarrah are “kaf el kaf” – palm to palm, fingers against fingers of each hand.

      No, they are not. You are making that up. The very words you copied say the opposite. Why do you continue to lie?

    • 45. K wrote:

      We really must meet and I will teach you the gemarah.

      The kasha remains, why did the Sefer Hasichot instruct the position of “kaf al kaf” only for mode ani? that is very strange!

  • 49. To #4 wrote:

    You are right. They said GRACO stands for
    “G-d rewards all christian (sorry, can’t remember
    the last word).” Maybe operatives.

    Reply
    • 51. K wrote:

      Just like “bible” = Basic Instructions Before Life Ends, that is NOT “why” it is called “bible” but it has that true meaning too, so also, although Snoopes explains the “real ” origin of name Graco, it may very well also have the meaning of ” Gd Rewards All Ch..ian Organizations”.

      Many names are chosen for additional reasons than the obvious. The combination of the names of the two owners could have been CoGar (and “C” comes before “G” – a general rule when listing partners).

      But Milhouse takes Snoopes as the posek acharon, and if Snoopes says “false”, so it must be, kein yehi rotzon.

    • 52. Milhouse wrote:

      No, it doesn’t have that meaning. It is made up. You do know the difference between real and fantasy, right? You can play word games with anything, but the results you come up with exist only in your imagination, not in the real world.

    • 53. K wrote:

      “It is made up” – of course, because Snoopes said it is “false”.

      No, it is “unsubstantiated” – which means there is no “conclusive” proof that it is true (that it was their intent when naming the company).

      As a moshel, 770 has several gematriyos: bais rabbeiny she’b'bavel etc.

      Were they the intent when buying the building? Possibly. But not unsubstantiated.

      According to Milhouse, those gematriyas are all “false”.

    • 54. k wrote:

      Milhouse, 770 has the same gematria аs paratzta – is THAT also “False” (or at best “a coincidence”)?

      Milhouse would typically claim: “You can play word games with anything, but the results you come up with exist only in your imagination, not in the real world”

      This is a maisis u’mediach who is trying to mislead the public.

    • 55. Milhouse wrote:

      K, gematria is a word game. It evokes associations in the mind, some valid and some not, but they say nothing about the real world.

      The people who were looking for a house for the Frierdiker Rebbe bought the former abortion mill at 770 Eastern Parkway because it was for sale at a reasonable price; gematria played no role in their decision. (“Uforatzto” was not yet a Lubavitcher slogan, and if it had been, and they had been looking for a building with such a gematria, they’d have looked for one numbered 776.)

      Nor, when the Rebbe made “uforatzto” a Lubavitcher slogan, did he do so because its gematria was close to the house number of Beis Rabbenu Shebevovel. Since everything is behashgocho protis, the gematria is interesting. If it evokes feelings that help in avodas Hashem then it’s useful. But at the end of the day it’s just a game. One can easily make gematrias that are useless or harmful; they are invalid because they’re useless or harmful.

    • 56. K wrote:

      I suppose Milhouse claims the Rebbe never said 770 is gematria “poratzta” and Bais Rabbeinu she’b'bavel??

      Misleading the public is his modus operandi.

    • 57. Milhouse wrote:

      No, of course I don’t claim that. Why would you imagine I did? Once again you’re displaying a complete inability to read and comprehend English.

      (Though 770 is not the gematria of בית רבנו שבבבל, not even close. It is the gematria of בית משיח, but I suppose you didn’t want to say that.)

    • 58. K wrote:

      When the Rebbe said 770 is gematriya “poratzta”, do you still say: “at the end of the day it’s just a game. One can easily make gematrias that are useless or harmful; they are invalid because they’re useless or harmful”?

      Was that also just a game, invalid…useless or harmful?

      Have a bit of derech eretz!

  • 59. unreal! wrote:

    This is insane i bet u the rebbis that went to COTS must have been brainwashed to work in an amazon.co factory and sew this in to all childrens backpacks. This has all been leading up to this! the backpacks will surely bring down our precious community. Oy vey!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  • 62. Moishe wrote:

    So now you have to take apart backpacks before they are used?
    Maybe they have been around for years!
    What we didn’t know didn’t hurt us.

    Reply
  • 63. WE ARE TAUGHT wrote:

    we are taught that even before a child is born – while the mother is still carrying the child – the mother needs to be extra careful about what she sees, hears and ingests. We know how Eisav reacted when his mother passed a church – why not realize that tuma even if concealed in the lining still affects it’s surroundings.
    I doubt that Amazon is aware of this issue. I assume the manufacturer knows or maybe some employees who are missionaries are responsible for this w/o their employers knowledge. It should most definitely be brought to the attention of Amazon who in turn will most likely turn to the manufacturer. Or alternatively going straight to the manufacturer should suffice. It should not be ignored. this is serious and not silly.

    Reply
    • 64. Milhouse wrote:

      Amazon is certainly not aware of it, and if you tell them they will laugh at you and not do anything about it; it has nothing at all to do with them. And no, the manufacturer doesn’t know about it either; if you complain to them they will laugh at you too. It is serious, but only to us.

    • 65. K wrote:

      Yes, we mustn’t do anything that will cause people to laugh at us…is that the Milhouse Psak FOr Today, to be nispoel from the ma’ligim?!

    • 66. Milhouse wrote:

      Again K lies through his teeth. I made no such “psak”, and I have many times written the exact opposite. There is no mystery about my position on how to deal with mal’igim. Among whom K is numbered.

    • 67. K wrote:

      Milhouse, read carefully: ” if you complain to them they will laugh at you” Those are your words.

      Now you say: I made no such “psak”, is that a RETRACTION?

      We accept retractions, people make mistakes, but not DENIALS – that is lying.

    • 68. Milhouse wrote:

      No, it is not at all a retraction. Why do you imagine it would be? One can see a retraction when someone writes two things that contradict each other; the later statement must necessarily imply a retraction of the earlier one. But when someone writes two things that don’t contradict each other at all, when someone first writes that the sun rises in the east, and later that cheese is made from milk, it takes a special kind of mind to see the second statement as retracting the first!

    • 69. K wrote:

      “if you complain to them they will laugh at you”…”There is no mystery about my position on how to deal with mal’igim.”

      So, Milhouse, if these two statements are not a stira, please clarify: Do you or don’t you care that they laugh / are mal’igim?

  • 70. Dosnt stop there wrote:

    You might want to know that some smicha programs also have cult related methods to help the bochurim avoid depression when failing their 1st tests

    Reply
  • 71. Its horrible wrote:

    …most of you are blowing this way out of proportion! Chill out! in fact thats what many of you do when you guys go out on mivtzoim

    Reply
  • 73. Milhouse wrote:

    This discussion is really silly. It’s obvious that the manufacturer used whatever fabric they had lying around for the lining. The tzeilem print probably didn’t sell well, so they used it for lining.

    There’s no deep dark conspiracy, for the simple reason that nobody but us believes that there would be any point in it. We chassidim are the only ones who believe this sort of thing could affect the child who wears the backpack, and the house in which it is kept. Almost no other Jews believe it, and almost no goyim believe it.

    Accusing them of deliberately doing this to harm us is exactly equivalent to the way the Catholics used to accuse us of “kidnapping” the crackers they worship and “torturing” them. To them this made sense, because they believe the cookies are literally the Creator r”l, but to anyone who doesn’t share that belief the accusation sounds ridiculous, and the person making it seems like a fool. To anyone but us, this story sounds exactly like that. Anyone who does not share our peculiar beliefs will laugh at the very idea that we are concerned about such a thing.

    By the way, are you aware what paper was used to bind your seforim? It’s usually old newspapers, but it could be anything that happened to be lying around the bindery, including avoda zara stuff or arayos. You never know. And yes, if it is that stuff it could have a bad effect on anyone who learns from the sefer, but what are you going to do? Rip apart the lining to check?

    Reply
    • 74. K wrote:

      We rip open the collars of suits to check for shatnez. We examine leafy vegetables for insects. If there is a REAL chashash of avoda zara or znus in our seforim’s bindings – we would check it too. But, there is no such chashash. It is a silly moshol from Milhouse.

    • 75. Milhouse wrote:

      We only check clothes or vegetables when there is a real reason to suspect that there is something wrong there. We do not check for problems that we don’t have a reason to suspect. For instance, we do not check chickens for treifos at all; and with beheimos we only check the lungs, not any other part (and if we lived in a country where lung defects were as uncommon as the other treifos we wouldn’t check the lungs either). Similarly we don’t check vegetables in which infestations are not common, or clothes in which shatnes is not common. Without a reason to suspect that there’s anything wrong with the linings of our backpacks, or the bindings of our seforim, there’s no need to check.

      Another problem with your claim is that this is not a halachic issue in the first place, so an analogy from halacha doesnt’ really work. Even if we know for sure that a sefer’s binding or a backpack’s lining is made from such material, there is no issur in continuing to use it. And most non-chassidim would probably continue to use it. Our problem with it is because we believe there’s a sakonoh, so if we had a serious reason to worry about it we would check, but without specific information we can’t go around worrying about vague dangers in everything.

    • 76. k wrote:

      Milhouse started by saying: “are you aware what paper was used to bind your seforim? It’s usually old newspapers, but it could be anything that happened to be lying around the bindery, including avoda zara stuff or arayos. You never know. And yes, if it is that stuff it could have a bad effect on anyone who learns from the sefer, but what are you going to do? Rip apart the lining to check?”

      I replied: ” If there is a REAL chashash of avoda zara or znus in our seforim’s bindings – we would check it too. But, there is no such chashash. It is a silly moshol from Milhouse.”

      Now Milhouse restates what I said, k’ilu it was his position all along: “We only check clothes or vegetables when there is a real reason to suspect that there is something wrong there. We do not check for problems that we don’t have a reason to suspect.”

      This is typical of someone who tries to mislead others and when caught as a liar, he says that is what he held all along.

      Re-read the thread and it is crystal clear.

    • 77. Milhouse wrote:

      K, my comment was crystal clear. You constantly, and I do mean constantly, imagine and attribute to me things that I never wrote, never implied, and that cannot possibly be read into my words. It’s as if you are reading my words after passing them through machine translation into several languages and then back into English. Or as if you can’t really read, and just see a word here and there and let your mind concoct a fantasy out of them and guess that that’s what the person wrote.

      I did not claim that there is a reason to suspect every sefer of being bound with problematic material — any more than there is a reason to suspect a backpack of being lined with such material. Both are exactly as likely as each other. Both can and do happen, and we should not be surprised when we find such examples, but we can’t go through life ripping up all our books, bags, and everything else we possess, just in case. We don’t even do that when there’s an issur involved, let alone in our case where there is no issur at all.

    • 78. K wrote:

      More silliness from Milhouse: “we can’t go through life ripping up all our books, bags, and everything else we possess, just in case.”

      We actually do! We don’t eat food without a proper hechsher – “just in case” we will go hungry.

      We make ourselves crazy cleaning for crumbs before pessach – “just in case” there might be a significant piece of chometz..

      We have our tefillin / mezuzos checked – “just in case”.

      We have our clothing checked for shatnez – “just in case”. Tzadikim wouldn’t sit on upholstered train seats on a train – “just in case” it contained shatnez.

      A great part of halacha is based on situations of “just in case”, but Milhouse says: “we can’t go through life… just in case.”

  • 80. Millhouse don't be ashamed wrote:

    Don’t be ashamed of our halachas. I have experienced nothing but respect from salespersons and shop owners regarding shatnes.
    Some of the stores advised me not to do the alterations until I got my all clear from the shatnes test and yet some told me which brands do not usually have shatnes yet advised to have it verified.
    We are respected for keeping our halachas – they did not disrespect or ridicule at all. I never had to bring it up.- the proprietor or salesperson always brought it up as the purchase was finalizing.

    Reply
    • 81. Milhouse wrote:

      Who said anything about being ashamed of halochos? Did I say that? No, I didn’t. I didn’t say it, I didn’t imply it, I didn’t indirectly hint at it. But a normal goy has never heard of shatnes, and it seems crazy to him. When he sells you clothes he does not, explicitly or implicitly, guarantee that they do not include shatnes, unless you specifically ask him. So if you come back to him with taynos that you found shatnes, and you demand a refund and compensation, as if he had defrauded you or sold you something unfit for use, he will laugh at you, whether to your face or behind your back.

      How would you imagine Amazon would react if some other customer has a mishugas that purple is an evil color, and he never buys anything that has purple anywhere in it, and they took apart a backpack and found purple in the lining, and complained that Amazon had cheated them, and that there was a deep dark conspiracy to be “machshil” them in the terrible sin of possessing purple? They’d laugh because the very idea of such a conspiracy is ridiculous. Nobody is conspiring to force purple on anyone, because nobody has any notion that purple is evil in the first place, or that there is anyone who objects to it. If there’s purple in the lining, it’s for no reason at all except that some purple fabric happened to be lying around.

      And how would you expect Amazon to react to such a person demanding not just a refund (after they’d taken the item apart and ruined it for resale), but also compensation “for their inconvenience”? Well, that’s exactly how we would look if we came to them with complaints about these backpacks, which they don’t even sell, they just process the orders.

  • 82. Millionaire wrote:

    Milhouse, take a look at what you wrote in #17, then take another dose of Prozac.
    Even at the finest men’s clothing store, Bergdorf Goodman on 5th Avenue, the sales staff and tailors are aware of shatnes, and will respect your concerns both before and after a purchase. As someone above suggested, like the salesmen in Bergdorf tell me, buy it and get it checked for shatnes, then come back for the alterations. Their tailors will even work with a shatnes inspector to open any seams or linings.

    If you act like a mensch, people will respect your beliefs.

    Reply
    • 83. Milhouse wrote:

      What has that got to do with it? It’s no surprise that salesmen at a store frequented by religious Jews have been made aware of this halocho, and therefore cater to it. They know in advance that you care about this, so they tell you to get it checked before you buy it. What has that got to do with what I wrote?

      Try returning a garment that you have 1. already bought, 2. without any warranty, express or implied, that it is non-shatnes, 3. to any normal store, 4. after you have cut it for testing, and expecting a refund, let alone an apology or compensation! How do you imagine they’d react?

      If you’re buying something at a normal store, it is up to you to ask them in advance about shatnes. If you don’t, you cannot expect them to know, and you can’t complain if it turns out to have shatnes.

      That is what we are talking about here. The backpacks were sold without any guarantee that they didn’t contain tzlomim. There was no warranty, not even implied, that they were tzeilem-free. And the idea that anyone would care what is printed on the material used to line the inside seems insane to anyone who doesn’t share our peculiar beliefs that such a thing could have an effect on us. Even most Orthodox Jews don’t believe such a thing. Most Orthodox Jews would say that a tzeilem which you are not aware of can’t affect you, and they would call our contrary belief superstitious and irrational. So how should a goy understand it?

  • 85. brazil wrote:

    Isn’t it amazing that some are bothered by the inside of a lining yet don’t notice the “yellow flag” hanging on from their balconies ?

    Pot calling the kettle black I say!!

    Reply

Leave Comment

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly.