Talk:Haredi Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haredi Judaism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism.

Judaism Portal

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do:

Archives: 1

[edit] ultra-Orthodox as a pejorative term

Many view the term "ultra" Orthodox as pejorative, and prefer "haredi". Should this be incorporated into the article, or at least some mention be made of it? Jayjg 03:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not without documentation of the extent of this interpretation. --Zero 07:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in another talk page, the main Jewish FAQ points out regarding the term "Ultra-Orthodox"

In practice, the term is usually used as a disparaging synonym for Orthodox or Chassidic. What passes for an unremarkable level of observance is inaccurately elevated into a form of "fanaticism". Many people outside the Orthodox community mistakenly identify those who wear Chassidic garb (long black coats, earlocks for men, wigs/kerchiefs for women) as "ultra-Orthodox." In fact, the Chassidic groups are no more or less observant than other Orthodox groups who do not dress so distinctively.

I don't think that this is factually correct. Chassidic Orthodox Jews are more stringent in their interpretation of Jewish law than many other Orthodox Jews. They are much more stringent in their rulings in dress, modesty, the role of women, the laws of kashrut, and a host of other issues. The SCJ FAQ is pretty good, but it has some ultra-Orthodox apologetics that are factually incorrect. RK 17:05, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

If you'll look above this section in the FAQ you'll see a debate between Danny (the main author of the article) and Ezra Wax, in which Ezra makes the claim that you do, and Danny pretty convincingly (IMHO) refutes it. I don't think the article or author agrees with your claim that Chassidic Orthodox Jews are more stringent than other Orthodox Jews.

BTW, which parts of the SJC FAQ do you think has factually incorrect "ultra-Orthodox" apologetics? Jayjg 17:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As well, the social scientist Marvin Schick has noted

"through the simple device of identifying [some Jews] . . . as ‘ultra-Orthodox,’ . . . [a] pejorative term has become the standard reference term for describing a great many Orthodox Jews . . . . No other ethnic or religious group in this country is identified in language that conveys so negative a message."

We need 'some' way to describe the fact that they are much more stringent than other religious Jews. However, I don't have a problem with using the term haredi, which refers to the same concept. Many ultra-Orthodox Jews refer to themselves in this way. RK 17:05, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

RK, Marvin Schick is obviously wrong. Evangelical Christians and Bible literalists are often called "fundamentalists," which is just as pejorative as "ultra-Orthodox." Practicing Muslims are also called fundamentalists or Islamists or similarly pejorative terms. You can certainly successfully argue that "ultra-Orthodox" can be pejorative, but it is also descriptive and is hardly unique to Jewish people in that sense. -ntk

Mandell Granchow, the vice-President of the Religious Zionists of America has stated

Isn't it time to declare "ultra-Orthodox," a pejorative term and discard it from our vocabulary?

Is that good enough? Jayjg 16:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Most "ultra-orthodox" Jews prefer to be called charedi (or haredi). If you'd actually read the article, Jayjg, you would have found that haredi is mentioned in the first few lines. Haredi redirects to this page. I agree completely that Ultra-Orthodox is pejorative, but I don't think consensus can be found to move this page to Haredi Judaism. JFW | T@lk 07:52, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If I'd read the page? That's a rather nasty assumption, and false to boot. read the entire page with interest; it was obviously written by somebody quite knowledgeable in the topic. And I did notice the brief mention of haredi at the top; however, it didn't address, or even acknowledge the pejorative nature of the term "ultra-Orthodox". Jayjg 16:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, my apologies, I had misunderstood your question. I thought you felt the concept haredi had to be worked in, which was already the case. Indeed, there ought to be some mention of the pejorative use of Ultra-Orthodox. Use of "Ultra" itself is already POV. For many non-religious folk, even Modern Orthodox Judaism may sound Ultra. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Jfdwolff, I realize now my question could have been interpeted that way. Should I write a couple of sentences on the topic? Jayjg 01:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Differences among Orthodox Jews

Here is the section of the SCJ FAQ that I was referring to. It contains the quote you mentioned, but the quote is just plain wrong. Some contributors to the FAQ like to say that all Orthodox Jews are basically the same, and observe Judaism at the same level of observance. Not so; in fact, many Haredi Jews deride other Orthodox Jews as not observant enough, or even as heretical. The codes of Jewish law and responsa followed by many Hasidic Jews are contain many rules viewed as unnecessary stringincies by other Orthodox Jews. Who is right and who is wrong? That is a matter of opinion; but there is no disputing that significant differences exist. RK 17:47, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Section of the SCJ FAQ

Here is a summary of the many ways that Orthodox Jewish groups can differ. Diverse attitudes among Orthodox Jews, compiled by Rabbi Saul J. Berman

I don't think the quote was saying that all Orthodox Jews have similar levels of observance, but rather that dress or membership in a Chassidic group is not the defining characteristic. Jayjg 18:52, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is absolute true! RK

Now that I've thought it, I'd like to make two points that may help us phrase things appropriately in this article. (1) Most non-Orthodox Jews do not use the phrase "Haredi Jews" or "Torah Jews"; they only use the phrase "ultra-Orthodox Jews". Many non-Orthodox Jews (religious or secular) don't even know what the word Haredi refers to. The phrase ultra-Orthodox, for better or worse, is more commonly used in the USA. (2) At the same time, many non-Orthodox Jews sometimes do use the term "ultra-Orthodox" in a perjorative way. That isn't to say this is the primary way that they use it (it isn't) but it used in this way. I believe that somehow the article should incorporate both of these points. RK 01:41, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is important to incorporate the idea that the Jews in question do not consider themselves to be "ultra"-Orthodox, nor do they refer to themselves that way. As you point out, they use the terms "Haredi", or "Torah" Jews, or often simply "Orthodox" Jews. Jayjg 01:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article be renamed Haredi Judaism?

Should this article be re-named and reworded as Haredi Judaism, and re-directed from Ultra-Orthodox Judaism? As has been stated before, regardless of its common usage in English, the term Ultra-Orthodox is pejorative, and not used by Haredi Jews to describe themselves. I note that the Latter Day Saints article refers to the members as "Latter Day Saints", not "Mormons", as they prefer, even though they are commonly called Mormons in English. Similarly, "Quakers" re-directs to "the Religious Society of Friends", their preferred but not common name. People looking for Moonies are re-directed to the Unification Church. We don't see articles on "Mohamedans" or "Mohametans" or even "Moslems", but rather "Muslims", as they prefer. Isn't it time this article was cleaned up as well? Jayjg 22:08, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To revise my opinion stated above, I think this sounds perfectly reasonable. JFW | T@lk 09:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I've never seen the term ultra-orthodox used as a pejorative anywhere, and it's the prevalent English usage, as haredim is not in the widespread vocabularly. Retitling it could come across as trying to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. Chris Rodgers 09:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chris, as the quotations I gave above demonstrate, the mere use of the word "ultra" is seen as pejorative. The American Heritage dictionary defines it as "Immoderately adhering to a belief, fashion, or course of action; extreme". The related definition it gives as a noun is "An extremist". Websters give excessively as one definition. These are not neutral, but negatively value laden. The people in question do not see their actions as immoderate or excessive, regardless of how you or I or much of the rest of the world view them. And what is "prescriptive" about describing them as they describe themselves? Does that mean that Wikipedia would be taking the "side" that they are not "excessive"? Jayjg 15:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chris, the world "Ultra" is generally understood to mean: "outside the normal limits". It decreases legitimacy by suggesting that adherents of Haredi movements overdo their religiosity. JFW | T@lk 09:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's one way to understand it, but it isn't the only way and it isn't the way intended in this case. Here it means "to an extreme degree", similarly to "ultra-high frequency", "ultra-productive", etc., which is how the haredim consider their own observance. --Zero 14:33, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why do you say that that is not the way it is intended "in this case"? I think that is quite often exactly the way it is intended, immoderate, excessive, extremist. A quick web search will inidicate hundreds of sites which attempt to link the "ultra"-Orthodox with both Baruch Goldstein (the doctor who killed 29 Muslims in the Cave of the Patriarchs) and Yigal Amir (Rabin's assassin), when neither man was raised as Haredi, nor a member of any Haredi group. The reason for the linkage is clear; once you're an "extremist", outside normal limits, you're capable of any act. Jayjg 15:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

None of that is relevant to the question. --Zero 09:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than that, Zero. Why do you think it isn't relevant? Why do you think your personal view of what is meant by "ultra" is correct? Jayjg 17:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant whom the ultra-orthodox are linked to, correctly or incorrectly. The issue here is only over the name "ultra-orthodox". Also it is not just my opinion that "ultra" is intended to mean "to an extreme degree" or "perfectly"; it is the opinion of many people (including haredim) who I have known over the years, and countless articles I have read. Actually I suspect the idea that "ultra" is offensive is a modern American invention. --Zero 09:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Who they are linked to is relevant to how the term is used and/or understood. As for "modern American inventions", the term "ultra-Orthodox" is itself a modern American invention, and the people who object to it are haredim. Jayjg 17:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By "modern" I meant "last decade". Can you find a claim before then that "ultra" is perjorative? As for the phrase itself, it is older and used to be used for any (not just Jewish) absolute adherence to a religious position. I found such a usage in 1900 to a pagan king, in 1925 to a Wahabite, 1952 to a Hindu, and for an Israeli Jewish group (Agudat Israel is called "ultra-orthodox of the religious parties", clearly meaning "the most orthodox") in 1953. By the mid 1950s there are many references to "ultra-orthodox Jews" in the academic literature. Probably more early references would appear in a newspaper search but I'm not currently in a position to make one. --Zero 15:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reason that objections to the term are relatively recent is that term came only came into wide currency a couple of decades ago, and the people to whom it was pejoratively applied were fairly disconnected from the society and the outlets which were negatively labelling them in this way, so it took some time for them to formulate a response. As for Aguda, the quote could mean what you surmise, or it could mean that it is the party representing ultra-Orthodox Jews. Not that the age of the objections is particularly relevant; the academic and popular literature was full of the term "Negro", the "Colored" in the mid 20th century, when it was not seen as pejorative, but the term certainly wouldn't be used today. Finally, the real issue remains unaddressed; Wikipedia seems to use a group's preferred term for itself regardless of common usage, except (apparently) in the case of Haredim. The fact that members of the group (and others) see the term as pejorative, and that the term "ultra" has intrinsically pejorative meanings, only deepens the issue. Jayjg 17:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having seen an edit today where "Mormon" was changed to "LDS", I was reminded of this unfinished business. A few final words on the subject. The term Haredi is much older than "ultra-Orthodox", having been used by the Haredi to described themselves as early as 1900, and used officially in the names of communal groups by 1920. As for "ultra" being pejorative, a quick google finds it used pejoratively in this context:

I am a Jewish woman, and one who could be called by that favorite ever-so-subtle pejorative used by much of the media – "ultra-Orthodox". http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/467

"Ultra-Orthodox" is a pejorative label applied to more conservative elements in Orthodoxy; it is not a label those Jews use themselves. If they were to use a label, it would likely be "Charedi" or "Chassidic" or "Yeshivish". http://www.joi.org/cgi-bin/bigtalker/discussion.cgi?forum=6&discussion=38

In my community there are many self-help organizations supported and staffed exclusively by Orthodox volunteers - primarily the sort of commonly described by the fashionable pejorative - "ultra-Orthodox." http://www.clal.org/e68.html

In other contexts:

My impression is that the so-called "ultra-Darwinians" (to use Gould and Eldredge's pejorative expression http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200003/0091.html

The other side of the 'High Table' are quickly labelled with the pejorative 'Ultra-Darwinist', although how anyone can be 'beyond Darwin' remains elusive. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471303011/104-5082128-7299966?v=glance

But in the practice of journalism, one should know better than to apply a pejorative label, the label of extremism ("ultra-"), to members of one political faction but never to its opposite number. http://lists.bostonradio.org/pipermail/boston-radio-interest/2003-October/000027.html

And even on Wikipedia:

Ultra-nationalists are extreme nationalists or patriots. The term has a clearly pejorative meaning, and is particularly used for those ardently opposed to international cooperation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-nationalist

Having heard no other objections, it would seem to make sense to move this article to more neutral terminology, following the Wikipedia standard. Any other discussion on the subject before getting started? Jayjg 05:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's a good illustration of how any point of view can be "proven" by using the right Google search terms. Since there are so many opinions out there, restricting yourself to the one you like by including words like "pejorative" in your search is guaranteed to work. If you more objectively search just for "ultra-Orthodox" and work your way down the list, you will find only one suggestion of pejorativeness (which is more like "it's a good term but people misuse it") in the first two pages except for one copied from Wikipedia. You will also find usages by religious Jewish organizations who obviously see nothing wrong with it. No matter, I actually have no problem with "haredi". --Zero 04:03, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems the debate has been tentatively resolved. As per Jayjg's request on my talk page, I'm moving this page to Haredi Judaism. Most Ultra-Orthodox Jews, when asked, would describe themselves as Torah Jews or Haredim. This is lehavdel analogous to the LDS, whose in-house terminology is followed on Wikipedia (instead of calling them Mormons). In case of objections, please discuss below before making unilateral moves. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewash

I think this is a bit of a whitewash:

In recent years, there is a process of reconciliation and merging of Haredi Jews with the Israeli society. While not compromising on religious issues and their strict code of live, they become more open to the secular Israeli culture. Haredi Jews such as satirican Kobi Arieli, publicist Sehara Blau and politician Israel Eichler write regulary to leading Israeli newspapers. Another important factor in the reconciliation process is the activity of ZAKA - a volunteery rescue organization which rescue human remains from suicide bombings scene to bring them into proper burial.

It does not seem to me that there is "reconciliation and merging" except in the fringes. The overall situation is that indicated by the rise of Shinui and similar groups. The secular public are just as afraid of "Haredi domination" as ever, and the Haredim are no more compromising than before on things that matter to them. Of course there are tons of different opinions on this, but the opinion in the article is just one and should not be presented as more than that. --Zero 04:03, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A very typical example is described in this article. --Zero 02:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As a Haredi myself, I agree completely with Zero that this is a whitewash, there are some trends of social reconciliation between Haredi Jews and the Israeli society, but there are many polarizing trends that outweigh them (e.g. rise of Shinui, the resistance to any public encouragement of men to leave the Yeshiva / Kollel and join the workforce). Rule of thumb: while the Haredi community, or some elements within it, might be willing to participate in social compromise, religious or theological compromise is out of the question. --GrifiN 12:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in Israeli Haredi society

I think that something about these developments should be introduced into the article. Many Haredim believe that if you want to be a good Jew, then you need t spend all of your time in Torah study. But in the real world this is not a good choice for all people; not all people have the desire or constitution for non-stop lifelong Torah study. So what to do with these people? Have them leave Orthodox Judaism? Or perhaps this alternative:

"The holy revolution", The Jerusalem Post, By Anshel Pfeffer and Neta Sela

The Holy Revolution, article in Jerusalem Post

...Welcome to Yeshivat Sha'arei Yosher in northern Jerusalem, a prototype of a new haredi yeshiva for young men which has become more prevalent during the last few years. These yeshivot are not meant to compete with the established traditional ones such as Mir, Hevron, and Ponevezh, each with thousands of students, but to cater to young men known as noshrim (dropouts) who can't handle the rigors of yeshiva life and are on the verge of leaving the haredi world. Not long ago the rabbis weren't even admitting that such a problem exists. Now they understand that they have little choice.

...The rabbis at the new yeshivot realize that it's unrealistic to expect their students to spend all their time learning, so they are satisfied if they study a couple of hours a day, just as long as a day does not go by without Torah. The rabbis understand that sometimes they must find material incentives to keep their charges interested in the Talmud.

It's hard to measure the size of the dropout yeshiva phenomenon. Naturally, they are not advertising themselves as such so as not to stigmatize their students and they are very cagey about their student numbers. But at least a dozen yeshivot of this kind have sprung up lately. In the Givat Shaul-Har Nof area in northern Jerusalem alone, there are at least three.

...The major changes in the way haredim live their lives are not only taking place among teenage yeshiva students...Within the 20-35 age group, the main shift is away from the kollelim - the yeshivot for married men who get scholarships - and into the workplace...All of a sudden the haredi ideal is not to be an avrech (a married man who studies Torah all day) and a learned rabbi, but to be a successful businessman who learns a couple of hours a day.

...Prof. David Assaf, head of the history department at Tel Aviv University and an expert on the history of hassidic sects: …"The hard-core classic haredim who don't want anything to do with the modern world are still the majority, but a growing number among the younger generation are more open; they want to learn and are looking for jobs outside the narrow haredi world. But this doesn't make them leave the haredi worlds and the two groups live together harmoniously."

My goodness, the fact that someone can't remain in yeshiva doesn't make him a heretic! These programs and projects have been extant for a long time, initially for young men with mental disabilities. However, even the "reactionary leadership" that Prof. Assaf is ranting at has approved of programs that combine vocational training and yeshiva studies, and this article is at least 3 years too late. You can make a brief mention of the phenomenon, and provide a footnote (like this[1]) to the news article, but please keep it brief, and without direct quotes from prof. Assaf. JFW | T@lk 14:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I too would discourage attempts to make too much of this minor phenomenon; it should be given the attention it warrants, which is not very much yet. Jayjg 15:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely well written article

This should be a featured article.

[edit] Population track?

Something I'm left wondering if anybody can find any info on.

The article mentions that the original number of haredi draft exemptions was 400 in 1948.

Can anybody find out what the number was when Begin lifted the numerical limit, and what the haredi population of Israel (in strict numbers, not percentages) was at each point? --Penta 19:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "persecutors"

small point: on the page, Zionists are referred to as the Haredi's former "persecutors", and in the context of the aftermath of the Holocaust! I think a milder term would be more appropriate.

I've changed it to "enemies". Is that better? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

maybe opponets--Truthaboutchabad 23:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population

We need numbers even if it is just estimates.

exactly my thought. this is badly needed to place in infobox/lead . Amoruso 19:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced and Inaccurate

"Some historians claim that the distinctive customs of Haredi Jews are relatively recent, dating back to the Enlightenment and emancipation of Jews in Western and Central Europe."

This sentence from the opening doesn't quote sources. It doesn't mention which customs. This is especially apalling given the tremendous range and variety of customs among Charedim. Even in regards to dress.

Many customs of both Chareidi and Modern Orthodox Jews are recent. Many date back to as late as the 20th century. Most come from much earlier sources, though customs have risen and developed all throughout Jewish History.

Shouldn't this sentence be removed? HKT 23:57, 4 May 2005

"Some historians claim..." is a weasel phrase. That sentence shall now be deleted. 04:45, 6 May 2005

[edit] POV

Furthermore, while there was a severe dearth of Jewish educational facilities, the law required that children receive an education, and parents also insisted on an education as a means of getting ahead in life. This frustrated many religious leaders, who were unaccustomed to the freedoms the United States offered, which often came at the cost of their own authority. Some left; others managed to find a balance between the religious and secular needs of their communities through Conservative Judaism and later, Modern Orthodoxy. A few began to lay the foundations of the Jewish revival movement known as the Teshuvah Movement.

This passage is a mix of POV and inaccuracy. (1.) ...the law required that children receive an education, and parents also insisted on an education... others managed to find a balance between the religious and secular needs of their communities through Conservative Judaism, etc. Conservative Judaism is unnecessary for allowing a secular education. You don't have to, for example, remove synagogue partitions and allow driving to synagogue on the Sabbath, in order to keep congregants who merely desire secular education for their children. Looks to me like POV. (2.) Conservative Judaism was virtually non-existent before WWI; it didn't really affect the Jewish communal dynamic until the twenties. (Though Zecharias Frankel is considered a forebear of Conservative Judaism, and JTS was founded in 1886, and Solomon Schechter began to revitalize JTS in 1902, the movement never really began to take off in the community at large until the twenties.) (3.) This frustrated many religious leaders, who were unaccustomed to the freedoms the United States offered, which often came at the cost of their own authority.?! Which religious leaders? Who says they were frustrated? Where's the source? Also looks to me like POV. I thought that many people qualified to be religious leaders were frustrated at being unable to find positions as such. (4.) ... and parents also insisted on an education as a means of getting ahead in life. Hmm: "Getting ahead in life." That sounds just like the phrase many parents would use, but then again, they usually have a strong POV. Is "life" universally defined by salary and academic standing? How about "... as a means of preparation for future financial security." I know that the "getting ahead" phrase refers to the parents' POV, but I think that it's more appropriate to keep the POV out (or otherwise expressly labeled as such). (5.) A few began to lay the foundations of the Jewish revival movement known as the Teshuvah Movement. What is clasically known as the "Teshuvah Movement" didn't begin until the 1960's. In the early twentieth century, the "few" (actually much more than a few) were laying the foundations for, and building up, mainstream Orthodox communities and institutions. (6.) Some left; others managed to find a balance between the religious and secular needs of their communities through Conservative Judaism and later, Modern Orthodoxy. The Orthodox European emigree rabbis (and any US born Orthodox rabbis) very rarely took up leadership posts in non-Orthodox Jewish congregations. "Some left" is true. Some stayed and took up other occupations is also true. Some stayed and remained functioning in the Orthodox rabbinate. A few left to lead Reform congregations, though the vast majority of Reform leaders were never Orthodox leaders. Hardly any joined the (then lilliputian) Conservative Movement (though, beginning in the twenties, the sons of many Orthodox rabbis became Conservative rabbis). (7.) ...through Conservative Judaism and later, Modern Orthodoxy. If I'm not mistaken, what is commonly known as Modern Orthodoxy (the American brand of it, that is) also began to grow during the twenties.

Sorry that the objections were a bit out of sequence. HKT 00:04, 7 May 2005

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite yet impersonal preset message. Just kidding. Anyway, I followed your advice about signing on. Maybe I'll get to revamping the article later. ;-) HKT 22:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of your points seem valid, though I would say that in the twenty years after WWII is was not uncommon for Orthodox Rabbis to end up heading Conservative synagogues. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

True, but the passage is talking about the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. HKT 21:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In the words of a popular aphorism of the Enlightenment, a person should be "a Jew in the home, and a mentsch (human being) in the street."

The phrase " a person should be "a Jew in the home, and a mentsch (human being) in the street." was indeed a popular aphorism of the time, and mistakenly attributed to Mendelsohn. I can't remember who actually said it, and have been unable to track it down so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If you're sure... I'll rv it myself. (But I'm italicizing mentsch instead of bolding). HKT 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It was popular enough for S.R. Hirsch to call the perfect Jew Mensch-Yisroel in response to this aphorism. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Haredi": Fear or Tremble?

HKT (talk • contribs): your translation of "haredi" is not more literal, it is simply less accurate in this case. According to the Even-Shoshan dictionary, "hared" means either tremble or fearful. See for example Genesis 27:33 and Shmuel-1 28:5. In these cases, as in the case of Haredi Judaism, translating as "fearful" is more accurate. OwenX 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Fearful or "has fear" is the accurate translation. gidonb 13:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, only in a colloquial sense has "chared" come to mean "fear" alone (see, for example, Exodus 18:19, where it clearly means "tremble"). The reason for the colloquial usage is obvious: Frequently, people often tremble out of fear or dread. In fact, the word is commonly used in the context of trembling out of fear. Nothing, including the sources you mentioned, contravenes translating as this word as "tremble." The article already mentions that Haredi means one who trembles out of fear. If you translate only as "fearful," you rob the translation of nuance by making it unnecessarily vague. HKT ^talk 17:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Dress So Critical??

I think the entire paragraph beginning "Many members of the Haredi community still ...." is out of place in the beginning of the article. It is simply a pejorative -- oh, look, how quaint, sort of like the Amish, but Jewish...

It should be moved much lower down, and replaced with a sincere discussion of who the Charedim are and what they believe. This business about how some believe Halacha was flexible and then fossilized should be addressed rather than glossed-over yet left as fact. frumtech

Frumtech, you're hitting a very rusty nail right on the head. Wikipedia has, for its first years, had very little "insider input" from the Haredi community. Ezra Wax (talk • contribs) was virtually on his own until some time in 2004, by which time various editors had inserted many views that from a Haredi POV are anything from plain wrong to malignant fabrications. This article could do with a gentle rewrite. To insist that Halakha is flexible is completely unqualified. Yes, a heter can be found, but that is not the same as flexibility. You have my support in addressing these POV statements. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have actually removed the offending phrase, as well as restructuring the article in general. I also added some on Haredi life in the UK. I could not obscure the paragraph on dress, but added some things about family life, the emphasis on yeshiva attendance, attitude towards modern media etc etc etc. Other paragraphs should be added, but I couldn't get my mind around it. JFW | T@lk

[edit] Quote

Haredi leaders warned that "if the Jews do not make 'kiddush', the gentiles will make 'havdalah'."

I could find no online support for this source, which sounds familiar but appears to be paraphrased from a different statement: "American Jews know how to make kiddush, but not how to make havdalah". Again, I don't know the source of that quote. If no source can be found it may be anecdotal and insufficient to support claims as this article does. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've heard both versions, but I don't know if both are authentic. HKT ^talk 20:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Combine with Hasidim?

Haredi is just an Israeli term for Hasidim and Lithuanian Orthodox who are almost Hasidim...what do you ppl think of combining Haredi and Hasidim on Wikipedia? I don't know how to do it so someone else do so :)

Well, Hasidism is generally seen as a subset of the Haredim (although there are some Modern Orthodox Hasidim - very few). There is a lot of material peculiar to Hasidism that would just be out of context in this article. Many "Lithuanian" Orthodox (what about the Hungarians, the Yekkes and the Polish?) would not like to be regarded as Hasidim.

I would not be in favour of a merge of these. What do you think could be gained from such a move? JFW | T@lk 22:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Lithuanian Orthodox" would find the descriptiong "almost Hasidim" highly insulting. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this truly a Paradox?

"For many Haredi groups, this created an interesting paradox. On the one hand, Conservative and Reform Jews are classic targets of extensive outreach programs, conducted out of a "deep love and concern" for the "spiritual well-being" of other Jews; on the other hand, their religious practices and often their leaders are denigrated and condemned. It is this paradox that defines the Haredi community's relationship to the larger Jewish community to this day."

From an outsiders perspective, I don't see this as a contradiction/paradox at all, if the main obstacles for the spiritual well-being are the other religious practices and leaders. In fact I think its non NPOV to call it such if this is the real reasoning of the Haredi.

From an insider's perspective I agree that this is not a a paradox at all. One can love someone while being disappointed in their actions. I think the above quote does not reflect a NPOV and should be edited or removed. Avi 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, any reason why not to erase this paragraph? Speak now, or forever hold your peace :) Avi 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not a paradox. Loving all Jews does not mean "loving all Jewish organisations", especially when these are - from the Haredi point of view - simply expressions of institutionalised heresy (not my words, see Shimon Schwab). JFW | T@lk 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fun?

Could someone who knows put something in the lifestyle section about what ultra-orthodox jews do for fun. I'm not joking. I'm really curious. Do ultra-orthodox jews dance, play sport and listen to music?

In brief, and for the sake of extreme over-generalization: Recreation among Haredi Jews, just as among other humans, is generally dependant on the individual. This is excepting things that violate Jewish law. Also, assimilation of secular culture is generally avoided. As such, recreational music, reading, dance, etc., are usually the product of Haredi or otherwise religious Jewish society. Haredi children often play common sports, such as basketball and soccer, though the spectator aspect of sports is generally avoided. Much of the American Haredi community is more liberal than the Israeli Haredi community regarding spectator sports.

Anyway, I don't know if this topic merits inclusion in the article. HKT 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haredi vs. Orthodox

I don't think this article does quite enough to show how "Haredi" Judaism is different from Orthodoxy in general: certainly much of the historical material could serve equally well for both. It does distinguish it from "Modern Orthodoxy", but that is a comparatively recent phenomenon.

Isn't the real point this? Most countries have a set of official Orthodox institutions, embodied in a Chief Rabbinate, such as the United Synagogue in Great Britain and the dual Chief Rabbinate in Israel; and in Israel someone who is Orthodox in this sense is called "dati" (and need not be "Modern Orthodox"). A "haredi" is someone who belongs to independent congregations to the right of these, on the ground that the official institutions are not Orthodox enough. (Hence the term "ultra-Orthodox".)

As for the history, there is a sort of precursor in S. R. Hirsch, who led an "Austritt" (secession) from the official Jewish community in Germany. The point there, however, is that that community was not exclusively Orthodox. Hirsch is therefore claimed as a spiritual ancestor by both centrist Orthodoxy (whether "dati" or Modern Orthodox) and by Haredi Judaism. It begs too many questions to try to classify older authorities such as the Vilna Gaon as "Haredi" or not.

The article needs to go into much more detail about the various developments that have resulted in today's Haredi Judaism, namely:

1. the Hasidic movement;

2. the yeshivah movement starting at Volozhyn;

3. the Chatam Sofer;

4. S. R. Hirsch and the distinction between Gemeinde and austrittende Orthodoxy (and analogous movements elsewhere, such as Adath Israel in England);

5. the formation of Agudat Israel in Poland;

6. the secession of the Haredim from the official Jewish community of Mandatory Palestine (and the formation of the Edah Haredit).

I don't have the knowledge to give all the facts and dates about the above; can someone else have a go?

Another difference worth mentioning is that, while all Orthodox Jews try to obey Jewish law, Haredim also give great weight to "daat Torah", meaning the wisdom of their leaders on what is a "Torah view", even on matters that are halachically neutral. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sir Myles: From your words above it is obvious that you are lacking some serious perspective about the world of Haredi Judaism.

First of all, you are coming at this from a British perspective. You need to realize that the two main centers of Haredi life in the world today are Israel and the United States. In Israel Haredi Jews wield power through their political parties in the Knesset something no other Haredim have done like this. In the United States they have the freedom to grow economically (greater than in Israel where issues about serving in the army are a problem for them) and politically which is not happening on the same scale in Britain. (America's Jewish and Haredi population dwarfs Britain's). Britian and Europe have very minor roles in the overall spread and significance of present-day Haredi Judaism. Also, the notion of "Haredi congregations" is false. It's not like those synagogues that are "officially Orthodox" as in Britain. Haredim do not identify with their "congregations" as such but with their rosh yeshivas (and yeshivas they attended), rebbes (and the Hasidic dynsties they belong to), or poskim (and the Halakhic works they follow). Ultimately many are part of the Agudah world or offshoots thereof or Hasidic and Sephardic groups that work along parallel lines to the Agudah's modus operendi.

Secondly you are assuming that the definition here starts with "Orthodox Judaism" and then one either jiggles it this way or that to come up with contrivances that are "less" Orthodox or "more" Orthodox when the very word "Orthodox" is of modern vintage and was in fact invenetd by Reform Jews in Europe to tar their more Halakhicly observant brethren as "Orthodox" I guess to depict them as some kind of weirdo narrow-minded and primitive Jewish version of the "Christian Orthodox" - just another proof how the Reform mindset had fallen victim to assimilation and had lost its ability to think like Jews, let alone act like Jews. The notion of "left" and "right" as applying to major groups within Orthodoxy is inherently problematic because each group is convinced it's in the "center" somehow and that everyone else is on their "left or right."

Thirdly, Rabbi Hirsch is not recognized as a precursor to Haredism by almost any Haredim who in the main are against higher secular education and the professions. It is indeed rather the Vilna Gaon himself who should be called the father of non-Hasidic Haredi Judaism since as you yourself admit it is from the Haredi yeshivas that stem from the Vilna Gaon, such as all those Lithuanian yeshivas today that are rooted in the Volozhin yeshiva founded by the Vilna Gaon's disciples.

Fourthly, you strangely do not mention or stress Rabbi Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov) which makes no sense, because from him stems the rise of all Hasidic Judaism, the great modern-day pillar of Haredi Judaism.

Finally, there are already some brief introductory articles about Daat Torah, Torah Judaism, Torah im Derech Eretz, Yeshivish, Agudat Israel, and others. So there is much that has been worked on over the years on Wikipedia and you need to spend time broadening your horizons prior to making any major edits to this article that may land up depicting a Haredi Judaism that is only the figment of imagination when it rather calls for more delicate editing and writing. IZAK 11:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I was only wanting to raise these issues for discussion, I was far from trying to provide a definitive account (which as you say, I am not qualified to do). My point was simply that there was some history that needed to be gone into in order to distinguish what is now called Haredi Judaism from other Torah-observant streams. For better or for worse, the term "Orthodoxy" is in general use, and covers a larger spectrum than what we today call "Haredi", and I was simply saying I wanted to see more about the distinction: the article starts by defining Haredism as one sort of Orthodoxy but much of the body treats "Haredi" and "Orthodox" as interchangeable terms. This suggests a POV to the effect that Haredism, in pretty much its present form, was basically the only sort of Torah Judaism around until the comparatively recent emergence of something called "Modern Orthodoxy", and I was trying to say that the history is a bit more complicated than that.

1. My emphasis on Europe was because I was dealing with the nineteenth century history rather than today's situation. True I said nothing about the United States, and this is a major omission, which I would like others to fill. My suggested rule of thumb is obviously quite inapplicable to the United States, where (unlike in most countries) there is nothing like an official Chief Rabbinate, though one could draw up a list of "Orthodox" but non-Haredi bodies that occupy an equivalent point on the spectrum. It does not in fact quite apply to England either, as there is also the Federation of Synagogues, which is regarded as to the "right" of the United Synagogue but which is by no means exclusively "Haredi". My main emphasis was on Israel, where there was a formal secession from the organised Jewish community by those groups that later formed the Edah Haredit; and I thought there was a useful analogy to be drawn between that and the previous European experience.

2. I know that the term "Orthodox" is a neologism (but then "Haredi" is still more of a neologism), and I may have been mistaken in trying to pin down "Haredim" in terms of the particular kehillah to which they belong (which, as you say, should not be thought of as equivalent to or rivalling official "Orthodox" institutions). I was primarily thinking of Israel, where there is a distinction in popular speech between "dati" (Hechal Shlomo, Mizrachi etc.) and "haredi" (Agudah, Edah Haredit etc.), and I thought this was a convenient rule of thumb for answering "who is a Haredi", even if it does not answer (and I did not say it went anywhere near answering) "what is Haredism". And I did mention the Agudah as an important catalyst, and any edit to the article would need to go into more detail on this.

3. I was not claiming Hirsch as a precursor of Haredi Judaism, I made it quite clear that any such identification is controversial. I was simply making the analogy between his "Austritt" and the later (and clearly Haredi) secession in Israel, while making it clear that the line of fission occurred in quite a different place. The English situation is indeed exceptional, because Adath Israel started out as a Hirschian movement and ended up by becoming the umbrella organisation for all the (genuinely) Haredi groups: I was not using this to identify Haredism with Hirschianism. If anything my point was the opposite: in effect I was saying "The article traces modern Haredi Judaism to the fight of nineteenth century rabbis against Reform and assimilation; but look, this would equally apply to Hirsch and many other Orthodox movements which one would never describe as Haredi, so we need to say more about Agudah etc. to show where Haredism parted company with these". Perhaps I can agree with you that, whatever my meaning, I gave too much space to Hirschianism when it should only have been there as an interesting sidelight.

It would be just as problematic to coopt the Vilna Gaon as a "Haredi", as he was in favour of general education and could thus equally (and equally problematically) be claimed by the modern Orthodox followers of J. Soloveitchik: one should not try to sort out our ancestors to fit on one or the other side of a line that was not in their minds at all. My point was that one side of his legacy became the Volozhyn yeshivah tradition, and that this was an important constituent in today's Haredism.

4. I did not mention the Baal Shem Tov because I was only providing an outline, and "the Hasidic movement" was number 1 in my list of strands. If my outline had been used, this paragraph would obviously have been expanded. But as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), the Baal Shem Tov, unlike Volozhyn and the Chatam Sofer, was not primarily trying to counteract attacks on the tradition from Haskalah etc., though this obviously became important for later Hasidic leaders.

5. Given all this, I would not dare to try to edit the article, as I would be instantly shot down in flames. Perhaps, rather than trying for a single test to distinguish Haredim from other Torah-observant groups, we need a list of features typical of Haredism, such as: Haredim are typically against secular education except for purely vocational purposes; Haredim tend to follow leaders such as Tsaddikim and Rashe Yeshivah and give great importance to "daat Torah"; Haredim normally don't belong to official "Orthodox" groups such as Hechal Shlomo or the United Synagogue, though they (and in particular Lubavitchers) occasionally accept rabbinic posts with them; they usually oppose Zionism; and probably more that I haven't thought of. And I still think something more about the history, especially on the Agudah and Edah Haredit issues, needs to be added. Over to you! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frum here?

See discussion at Talk:Orthodox_Judaism Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haredi Judaism

This term is just so confusing from the perspective of an outsider. Why not meger this with 'orthodox judaism'? Haredi is just the Israeli version of 'frum'. Do we have an article on Frum Judaism? Chavatshimshon 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, look at the Modern Orthodox Judaism article to see the distinction. There are a number of other distinctions within the "Orthodox" umbrella, see for example Hassidic Judaism, Ashkenazic Judaism, Sephardic Judaism, Open Orthodoxy, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, and others. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHaredi_Judaism_730d.html"

Category: WikiProject Judaism articles