- What is the purpose of Jewish distinctiveness?
- Is distinctiveness an abiding Jewish value? Is it relevant today?
- How did the early Reformers wrestle with the value of distinctiveness?
(1) יהוה spoke to Moses, saying: (2) Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: I יהוה am your God. (3) You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws. (4) My rules alone shall you observe, and faithfully follow My laws: I יהוה am your God. (5) You shall keep My laws and My rules, by the pursuit of which human beings shall live: I am יהוה.
(22) You shall faithfully observe all My laws and all My regulations, lest the land to which I bring you to settle in spew you out. (23) You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. For it is because they did all these things that I abhorred them (24) and said to you: You shall possess their land, for I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I יהוה am your God who has set you apart from other peoples.
(29) When your God יהוה has cut down before you the nations that you are about to enter and dispossess, and you have dispossessed them and settled in their land, (30) beware of being lured into their ways after they have been wiped out before you! Do not inquire about their gods, saying, “How did those nations worship their gods? I too will follow those practices.”
(א) אֵין הוֹלְכִין בְּחֻקּוֹת הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים וְלֹא מִדַּמִּין לָהֶן לֹא בְּמַלְבּוּשׁ וְלֹא בְּשֵׂעָר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ כג) "וְלֹא תֵלְכוּ בְּחֻקּוֹת הַגּוֹי". וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ג) "וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ". וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים יב ל) "הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תִּנָּקֵשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶם". הַכּל בְּעִנְיָן אֶחָד הוּא מַזְהִיר שֶׁלֹּא יִדְמֶה לָהֶן. אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מֻבְדָּל מֵהֶן וְיָדוּעַ בְּמַלְבּוּשׁוֹ וּבִשְׁאָר מַעֲשָׂיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מֻבְדָּל מֵהֶן בְּמַדָּעוֹ וּבְדֵעוֹתָיו. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר וָאַבְדִּל אֶתְכֶם מִן הָעַמִּים. לֹא יִלְבַּשׁ בְּמַלְבּוּשׁ הַמְיֻחָד לָהֶן. וְלֹא יְגַדֵּל צִיצִית רֹאשׁוֹ כְּמוֹ צִיצִית רֹאשָׁם. וְלֹא יְגַלֵּחַ מִן הַצְּדָדִין וְיַנִּיחַ הַשֵּׂעָר בָּאֶמְצַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין וְזֶה הַנִּקְרָא בְּלוֹרִית. וְלֹא יְגַלֵּחַ הַשֵּׂעָר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן וְיַנִּיחַ הַפֶּרַע מִלְּאַחֲרָיו כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין הֵן. וְלֹא יִבְנֶה מְקוֹמוֹת כְּבִנְיַן הֵיכָלוֹת שֶׁל עַכּוּ''ם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנְסוּ בָּהֶן רַבִּים כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין. וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה אַחַת מֵאֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לוֹקֶה:
(1) It is forbidden to follow the customs of the idolaters, or to imitate them neither in dress nor in hair-trimming and like customs, for it is said: "And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation which I cast out before you" (Lev. 20.23), and it is also said: "And in their customs shall ye not walk" (Ibid. 18.3), and it is, moreover, said: Then take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them" (Deut. 12.30)—all of which pertain to one subject admonishing them not to be like unto them. Forsooth an Israelite shall be separated from them, and be recognized by his clothes and in his conduct as he is different than they are in education and tendencies. For even so it is said: "And have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be Mine" (Lev. 20.26). An Israelite shall not wear a garment of a design particularly adopted by idolaters, nor raise hair-locks as their hair-locks; not shave the sides and leave the hair in the middle, such as is called a queue, nor shave the hair opposite his face, from ear to ear, and leave the locks at the back of his head as they do. He shall not build public places of the same design and architecture as are the palaces built for idolatry in order to attract a crowd as they do.2Sifra, Lev. 20; Abodah Zarah, 29a; Baba Kamma, 83a; Sotah, 49b; Tosefta, Shabbat Ch. 6. C. G.
(ד) ולהרחיק מכל מעשי הכשוף הזהיר מעשות דבר מחוקותיהם ואפילו במה שנתלה במעשי עבודת האדמה והמרעה וכיוצא בהם - רצוני לומר כל מה שיאמר שהוא מועיל ממה שלא יגזור אותו העיון הטבעי אבל נוהג לפי דעתם כמנהג הסגולות והכוחות המיוחדות - והוא אמרו "ולא תלכו בחוקות הגוי" והם אשר יקראום 'ז"ל' 'דרכי האמורי' מפני שהם סעיפי מעשי המכשפים שהם דברים לא יגזרם הקש טבעי אך הם מושכים למעשי הכישוף אשר הם נסמכים לעניני הכוכבים בהכרח ויתגלגל הענין להגדיל הכוכבים ולעבדם - ואמרו בפרוש "כל שיש לו משום רפואה אין בו משום דרכי האמורי" - רוצים בזה שכל מה שיגזרהו העיון הטבעי הוא מותר וזולתו אסור.
(4) In order that we may keep far from all kinds of witchcraft, we are warned not to adopt any of the practices of the idolaters, even such as are connected with agriculture, the keeping of cattle, and similar work. [The Law prohibits] everything that the idolaters, according to their doctrine, and contrary to reason, consider as being useful and acting in the manner of certain mysterious forces. Comp. "Neither shall ye walk in their ordinances" (Lev. 18:3). "And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast out before you" (ibid. 20:23). Our Sages call such acts "the ways of the Amorite"; they are kinds of witchcraft, because they are not arrived at by reason, but are similar to the performances of witchcraft, which is necessarily connected with the influences of the stars; thus ["the manners of the nations"] lead people to extol, worship, and praise the stars. Our Sages say distinctly, "whatever is used as medicine" does not come under the law of "the ways of the Amorite"; for they hold that only such cures as are recommended by reason are permitted, and other cures are prohibited.
(ג) ובחקתיהם לא תלכו. מה הניח הכתוב שלא אמר, אלא אלו נמוסות שלהן, דברים החקוקין להם, כגון טרטיאות ואצטדיאות רבי מאיר אומר אלו דרכי האמורי שמנו חכמים:
and you shall not follow their laws: Why did Scripture omit [until now] this? Rather, these are their social practices, things that assumed the status of law (חָקוּק) for them, for example, [certain days set aside for attendance at] theaters and stadiums. Rabbi Meir says: These [practices referred to here,] are the “ways of the Amorites,” [the superstitious practices] enumerated by our Sages.
() תוספת הילקוט:[ח] "ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו". וכי מה הניח הכתוב שלא אמרו? והלא כבר נאמר "לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש...וחובר חבר..", ומה תלמוד לומר "ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו"? שלא תלכו בנימוסות שלהם, בדברים החקוקים להם כגון תיטריות וקרקסאות והאסטריות. רבי מאיר אומר אלו דרכי האמורי שמנו חכמים. ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר שלא תנחור ושלא תגדל ציצית ושלא תספור קומי שפה. ושמא תאמר להם חוקים ולנו אין חוקים?!, תלמוד לומר "את משפטי תעשו ואת חוקתי תשמרו ללכת בהם אני ה' אלקיכם". עדיין יש תקוה ליצר הרע להרהר ולומר שלהם נאים משלנו, תלמוד לומר "ושמרתם ועשיתם..כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם...".
"and in their statutes you shall not walk": What did Scripture leave unsaid (that this need be stated)? Is it not already written (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire (for sacrifice to a foreign god is prohibited) and a sorcerer (is also prohibited)"? What, then, is the intent of "and in their statutes you shall not walk"?
In their customs — those things that are established for them — such as theatres, circuses, and sports.
R. Meir says: These are "the ways of the Amorites," which the sages enumerated.
R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: that you not preen yourself (to attract women), and not cultivate locks, and not wear the hair komi (a gentile fashion). And lest you say: "They have statutes and we have no statutes" — It is, therefore, written (18:9) "My judgments shall you do and My statutes you shall heed to walk in them; I am the Eternal your God."
אין הולכין בחוקות העובדי כוכבים (ולא מדמין להם) (טור בשם הרמב"ם) ולא ילבש מלבוש המיוחד להם ולא יגדל ציצת ראשו כמו ציצת ראשם ולא יגלח מהצדדין ויניח השער באמצע ולא יגלח השער מכנגד פניו מאוזן לאוזן ויניח הפרע ולא יבנה מקומות כבנין היכלות של עבודת כוכבים כדי שיכנסו בהם רבים כמו שהם עושים : הגה אלא יהא מובדל מהם במלבושיו ובשאר מעשיו (שם) וכל זה אינו אסור אלא בדבר שנהגו בו העובדי כוכבים לשם פריצות כגון שנהגו ללבוש מלבושים אדומים והוא מלבוש שרים וכדומה לזה ממלבושי הפריצות או בדבר שנהגו למנהג ולחוק ואין טעם בדבר דאיכא למיחש ביה משום דרכי האמורי ושיש בו שמץ עבודת כוכבים מאבותיהם אבל דבר שנהגו לתועלת כגון שדרכן שכל מי שהוא רופא מומחה יש לו מלבוש מיוחד שניכר בו שהוא רופא אומן מותר ללובשו וכן שעושין משום כבוד או טעם אחר מותר (מהרי"ק שורש פ"ח) לכן אמרו שורפין על המלכים ואין בו משום דרכי האמורי (ר"ן פ"ק דעבודת כוכבים):
1. Not To Dress Like A Non-Jew, 3 Seifim: One [i.e., a Jew] should not follow the customs of non-Jews (nor should one try to resemble them) (Tur in the name of the Rambam). One should not wear clothing that is particular to them [i.e., their culture]; one should not grow forelocks on one’s head like the forelocks on their heads; one should not shave the sides [of one’s head] and grow one’s hair in the middle of one’s head [like they do]; one should not shave the hair in front of one’s face from ear to ear and let one’s hair grow [in the back] [like they do]; one should not build places [i.e., buildings]—like the non-Jews’ temples—so that large groups of people will enter them, like [non-Jews] do. RAMA: Rather, one [i.e., a Jew] should be distinct from them [i.e., non-Jews] in one’s manner of dress and in all of one’s actions. But all of this [i.e., these restrictions] apply only to things that non-Jews do for the sake of licentiousness. For example, they are accustomed to wearing red clothing, which is official/princely clothing, and other clothing that is similarly immodest. [These restrictions also apply] to things that they are accustomed to doing because of a custom or rule that does not have a[ny underlying] reason, out of concern that [a Jew who does such things will follow the] “ways of the Amorites,” and that it has the blemish of [i.e., is tainted by] idol worship inherited from their ancestors. But things that they are accustomed to doing for a useful purpose—such as their custom for expert doctors to wear particular clothing so that the doctors will be recognized as specialists—one is permitted to wear [such clothing]. (Maharik Shoresh 88) Similarly, things that are done out of respect or another reason, it is permitted [for one to do such things]. And therefore they said one may burn [the items of deceased] kings, and there is not in this “the ways of the Amorites.” (R"an, Chapter of the Laws of Non-Jews)
We are not permitted to follow the ways of the gentiles, nor adopt their styles in dress or in hair style or similar things, as it is said: "You shall not follow the ways of the gentile."3Leviticus 20:23. It is [also] said: "In their ways you shall not follow"4Leviticus 18:3. It is [also] said: "Guard yourself lest you be ensnared to follow them."5Deuteronomy 12:30. You should not wear a garment which is specifically worn by them as a symbol of ostentation, such as a garment of high-ranking officers. For example, the Talmud states:6 Sanhedrin 74a. that it is forbidden for a Jew to be similar to them even in regard to shoelaces; if their practice was to tie one way and the practice of Jews to tie another way, or if their practice was to wear red shoelaces and Jews wear black shoelaces because the color black indicates humility, submissiveness and modesty. [In all such instances] it is forbidden for a Jew to deviate. From these examples everyone should learn how to apply these standards to his time and place. A garment designed for showiness or immodesty must not be worn by a Jew, but rather his clothing should be made in a style which suggests humility and modesty. The following is mentioned in Sifrei: You should not say that since they go out with scarlet I shall go out with scarlet, since they go out with kulsin (the word kulsin meaning weaponry) I also shall go out with kulsin, because these practices are indicative of arrogance and haughtiness which are not the heritage of Jacob. Rather, our heritage demands of us to be modest and humble, and not be influenced by the haughty. Similarly, any custom or statute of which there is a suspicion of idolatrous intent or background should be avoided by Jews. Similarly, you should not cut your hair or style your hair as they do, but rather you should be distinct, in your clothing and speech and all other endeavors just as you are distinct in your perspectives and concepts. Similarly, it is said: "I have set you apart from the nations."7Leviticus 20:26.
When the Hamburg Reform temple was dedicated on 18th October 1818, the employment of an organ during worship was among the central innovations the Reformers proposed in order to enhance the aesthetics of the contemporary Jewish service....
Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann, Professor of Talmud and Codes, and since 1899 head of the Rabbinerseminar fur das orthodoxe Judentum in Berlin, testified almost eighty years later to the significance this event and these writings held for the history of modern Jewish religious denominationalism. It was there, "in the city of Hamburg", he wrote, that "the evil [of Reform] first burst forth". Despite the protests of the Hamburg rabbinate, "the destroyers" insisted on unleashing their" destructive innovations" on Judaism and the Jewish public. Chief among these innovations was the organ.
Debate over the employment of an organ in Jewish worship remained the single most significant point of boundary demarcation between Liberal and Orthodox Judaism in Germany throughout the nineteenth century. Disputes over its use abound in Central-European legal literature of this age. Its importance was such, Hoffmann observed, that a codicil was "issued to each student of our seminary here in Berlin along with his certificate of ordination stipulating that the organ was forbidden on account of the biblical injunction 'Thou shalt not walk in their ways'" (Leviticus 18:3) If a student, in later years, elected to serve a community that employed the organ either on the Sabbath or during the week, then, the codicil stated, the ordination certificate that had been issued to the student was to be considered, "completely canceled, null and void" (bteilin u'm'vutalin, la sharirin v'la kayam).
Disputed Precedent: The Prague Organ in Nineteenth-Century Central-European Legal Literature and Polemics By David Ellenson
3. We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only its moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization.
4. We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.
Reform is distinguished from innovation, in that the former hath purpose and limits, the latter has none. . . . Reform must move within the sphere of Judaism. . . . To extinguish a system signifies not to reform it. This latter term can only mean to expose and abolish errors, misconceptions or malpractices, but always remaining in the main within the given limits of the system. . . . Successful attempts may be made to reconcile religion and philosophy, as Maimonides did with Judaism and the peripatetic philosophy; but then as to the reformer of philosophy, philosophy is the basis, so Judaism must be the basis to the reformer of Judaism. Therefore reform has its limits, of which the reformer must be conscious.
The reforms in Judaism, during this century, have a double tendency, a reform of doctrines and theories, and a change of forms. Criticism, this mighty lever of modern learning, seized also upon national literature. Under this heading comes much of modern knowledge, which is in direct contradiction of old concepts of Judaism. This is the first part of Reform, which we style theoretical reform. This . . . proved many an established conception and accepted doctrine as unfounded and untrue, purporting always to guard religion against the incursions of superficial skeptics, and remaining always within the limits of scriptural Judaism. . . .
Practical reform involves a change of forms, new forms for new conceptions. Many customs and practices, intended to keep Jews and Gentiles separate, laws about eating, drinking, dressing, etc. have become obsolete. What shall we do now with these laws, when we are citizens of almost all civilized countries, and by our own free will come in contact with all classes of people? Evidently they exist no more for us.
Next comes the problem of music, of the sermon, of decorum, of forms and ceremonies. . . . Therefore reform stepped in between the extremes, endeavored to draw a distinct line of demarcation between essence and form, idea and symbol, the eternal and the transient parts of Judaism, to stop the violation of essential laws, and reorganize the scattered fragments of conflicting opinions. Wherever reform has not this object in view, it is innovation. Reform, therefore, has its limits, strictly marked by the Bible itself, beyond which the Jewish reformer can not and dare not go. He may explain the Bible, by the aid of ancient and modern researches and obtain results directly contrary to established views, but he can not go beyond it. Thus reform has purpose and limits, and innovation has not.2
The Isaac M. Wise Temple, often locally called the Plum Street Temple, a synagogue erected in 1866 for Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise and his congregation in Cincinnati, Ohio
B'nai Israel Temple of Galveston, c. 1890s. The facade was made less ornate after the building was sold in the mid-1950s and adapted as a Masonic lodge.
Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim, Reform Synagogue in Charleston, South Carolina. The Greek Revival building, was constructed in 1841 by enslaved African descendants owned by David Lopez Jr, a prominent slaveowner and proponent of the Confederate States of America. One of the earliest Reform Synagogues in America
“The inner conflict between the desire to remain securely within the Jewish fold and the pressure of circumstances to depart from tradition – even toward Christian practice – came to focus on the issue of Sunday services. In Germany only the independent Reform Congregation in Berlin worshiped exclusively on the Christian Sabbath. In America the Sunday movement spread at one time or another to about three dozen synagogues, including some of the largest, and it continued to win new adherents even after World War I.
Rarely did proponents of Sunday services justify them by any felt desire to bring Jewish sabbath observance into line with Christian. The argument was nearly always based on necessity. With Jews unwilling or unable to absent themselves from work on Saturday, services were sparsely attended, for the most part only by women, children, and the retired. Only Sinai Congregation in Chicago and one or two others went so far as actually to abandon the Saturday morning service in favor of Sunday. And even Hirsch claimed to have transferred nothing, adding: “I am ready today, tomorrow, as I always have been, to preach on Saturday, but not to vacant pews, and not as a vicarious Scapegoat in a wilderness of empty space.” Neither Sinai, nor apparently any other congregation, used a Sunday liturgy that included any traditional prayers making specific reference to the Sabbath. Congregations with Sunday services severely limited the Sunday liturgy, giving prominence to a lengthy sermon or lecture and lending the occasion an ambience that was more homiletical or academic than celebratory. The frequent presence of large numbers of non-Jews provided an additional rationale for reducing denominational features.” (pg 290)
“Kaufman Kohler began the trend to Sunday services in the United States when he initiated them at Sinai in 1874. By the time of the Pittsburgh Conference in 1885 they had spread to only a very few other places, but the movement possessed enough perceived momentum that the rabbis at Pittsburgh felt they had to deal with the issue. They declared unanimously that although they fully recognized the importance of maintaining the historical Sabbath “as a bond with our great past and the symbol of the unity of Judaism the world over…there is nothing in the spirit of Judaism, or its laws, to prevent the introduction of Sunday services in localities where the necessity for such services appears, or is felt.” Following Pittsburgh, the incidence of Sunday services grew, spurred sometimes by lay pressures, sometimes by rabbinical initiative. In some places they were only a brief experiment, in others they lasted for decades. A 1905 estimate notes “about thirteen,” one in 1906 “about twenty,” and still in 1914 the number was perceived to be growing steadily. By then Sunday services were being held in all the major Jewish communities.” (pg 290-91)
By the time the CCAR dealt with the Sunday service issue, one of its chief proponents had changed his mind. Early in his career, during the mid-seventies, Kaufmann Kohler had gone so far as to hope for an eventual common Sabbath observance that would religiously unite all humanity. By 1879, however, he was favoring Sunday services only as an expedient – and necessarily as a weekday ritual. A decade after that, in 1891, he was ready to confess that, in any form, the innovation was a fundamental error. Now he argued there was “something in the very air of the Sunday service that chills the heart. Reason alone, cold, proud reason dictates the words. The soul is not there.” And there was another motive for reconsideration as well: “the changed attitude of the world towards the Jew and the principles he represents.” The resurgence of antisemitism in Europe and its appearance as a new exclusivism in America had destroyed the sanguine hopes that once generated Reform’s willingness to depart from distinctive ways. That optimism had been premature:
How rudely have we all been roused from our dream! How shockingly were all the illusions of the beginning of the nineteenth century destroyed by the facts developed at its close! What a mockery has this so-called Christian civilization turned out to be! What a shame and a fraud has this era of tolerance and enlightenment become!...Dare we, in the face of such great disappointments, recognize the predominance of Christian culture, by accepting the Christian Sunday as our day rest, in place of the ancient Sabbath?...Our duty today is to maintain our Jewish identity and to preserve our Jewish institutions without faltering, without yielding. We must, with united forces, rally around our sacred Sabbath.
By the end of the century Kohler had become more interested in keeping Reform within Judaism than in reaching outward beyond it.” (pg 291-92)
Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism, by Michael A. Meyer
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-way-of-the-gentiles/
In many traditional communities, the pressure to erect new lines of demarcation between Jews and non-Jews has led to more expansive readings of what might be prohibited. How one draws the lines between acceptable and unacceptable “imitation” has been a dividing line between Modern Orthodoxy and more traditionalist forms of Orthodoxy.
As the dividing line becomes less clear, some communities have used the prohibition against foreign practices in ever more restrictive ways, prohibiting not only foreign action, but also foreign thought. Some modern authorities have forbidden women’s prayer groups on the basis that feminist ideology is a non-Jewish mode of thought.
On the other hand, the contemporary halakhic authority, Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin, has reacted against this extended reading of the law. Rav Henkin has opposed this argument against women’s prayer groups, stating that the Torah only prohibits non-Jewish actions, not non-Jewish motivations or movements (Shut Bnei Banim II:10, 1992).
The prohibition against imitating non-Jews was intended as a way to distinguish Jews from non-Jews. It is a great irony of modern Judaism that this law now functions in a way that also distinguishes Jews from other Jews.
it is obvious in my opinion, that even in a case where something would be considered a prohibited Gentile custom, if many people do it for reasons unrelated to their religion or law, but rather because it is pleasurable to them, there is no prohibition of imitating Gentile custom. So too, it is obvious that if Gentiles were to make a religious law to eat a particular item that is good to eat, halacha would not prohibit eating that item. So too, any item of pleasure in the world cannot be prohibited merely because Gentiles do so out of religious observance.
רַב הוּנָא אָמַר בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא בִּשְׁבִיל אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים נִגְאֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִצְרַיִם, שֶׁלֹּא שִׁנּוּ אֶת שְׁמָם וְאֶת לְשׁוֹנָם וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְלֹא נִמְצָא בֵּינֵיהֶם אֶחָד מֵהֶן פָּרוּץ בְּעֶרְוָה. לֹא שִׁנּוּ אֶת שְׁמָן רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן נָחֲתִין, רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן סָלְקִין, לֹא הָיוּ קוֹרִין לִיהוּדָה רוּפָּא וְלֹא לִרְאוּבֵן לוּלְיָאנִי וְלֹא לְיוֹסֵף לֵיסְטֵיס וְלֹא לְבִנְיָמִין אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי. לֹא שִׁנּוּ אֶת לְשׁוֹנָם, לְהַלָּן כְּתִיב (בראשית יד, יג): וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָהָם הָעִבְרִי, וְכָאן (שמות ה, ג): וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֱלֹקֵי הָעִבְרִים נִקְרָא עָלֵינוּ, וּכְתִיב (בראשית מה, יב): כִּי פִי הַמְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיכֶם, בְּלָשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
Rav Huna stated in the name of Bar Kappara: Israel were redeemed from Egypt on account of four things; because they did not change their names, they did not change their language, they did not go tale-bearing, and none of them was found to have been immoral. 'They did not change their name', having gone down as Reuben and Simeon, and having come up as Reuben and Simeon. They did not call Reuben 'Rufus' nor Judah 'Leon', nor Joseph 'Lestes', nor Benjamin 'Alexander'. 'They did not change their language', as may be inferred from the fact that it is written elsewhere, 'And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew' (Genesis 14:13), while here it is written, 'The God of the Hebrews has met with us' (Exodus 15:3), and it is written 'It is my mouth that speaks unto you' (Genesis 45:12), which means that he spoke in Hebrew.
דבר אחר ויהי שם לגוי. מלמד שהיו ישראל מצויינים שם. שהיה מלבושם ומאכלם ולשונם משונים מן המצריים. מסומנין היו וידועין שהם גוי לבדם חלוק מן המצריים:
Another interpretation: “And there they became a nation” – this teaches that the Israelites were distinct there, in that their clothing, food, and language was different from the Egyptians’. They were identified and known as a separate nation, apart from the Egyptians.
R. Joseph Kolon (aka Maharik, France 1420-Italy 1480) permitted Jewish physicians to don distinctive medical robes worn by Gentile doctors. His wide-ranging analysis set forth these guidelines by which one could recognize what fell under the prohibition of chukkat ha-goy: customs which Jews adopt for no other apparent reason than to imitate the Gentiles; customs which offend the rules of modest behavior.
R. Haim David Halevy (Jerusalem, 1924-1988) who was the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv permits the use of funeral flowers and the wearing of black clothing by mourners in Israel. Such practices are prohibited "only when we adopt their custom out of the desire to imitate their religious rites." For this reason too he defends the Israeli custom, borrowed from Western culture, of standing for a minute of silence on Yom Ha-Zikaron and Yom Ha-Sho'ah (Remembrance Day [for the fallen in Israel's wars] and Holocaust Remembrance Day).