Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Extremely well written article

This should be a featured article.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's also an observor bisased paragraph. The bias is that it reflects English speaking Kiruv oriented experience, but not necessarily the typical situation in reality. In most of Heradi society, particularly among the Chasidim (who are by far the most numerous Heradim) Harkachas Rishoim is as big a mitzvah as kiruv, and much safer for the average Baal Habeis. They simply want nothing to do with modernim at all. In English speaking circles, particularly the Aish Hatorah/Chabad heavy crowds, that there is a mitzvah Harkachas rishoim is not often said, and kiruv is raised way above its signifigance in the broader Haredi world, sometimes being the point of everything they do. Illistrating a big diference is the comment above, "Loving all Jews does not mean "loving all Jewish organisations,." That is, of course, tru; but not germane to a discussion of Heradi because they never accepted to love ALL Jews, only al FAITHFUL Jews. As to the others, thery go by the Beis YOsef on Tur, "If there is a member of the community who wants to lead others astray it is a mitzvah to hate him and obstruct him in every way;" or the SHulchan Aruch on the laws of mourning, where if ones relative who is not shomer shabbos dies, one is required to put on Shabbos clothes and hold a celevration that an enemy of the L-rd has been destroyed. TOtally different outlook between the English speakers (who are themselves largely Baalei teshuvah) and the Hebrew and espescially Yiddish speaking people. 88.152.2.248 10:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I can shine some light on this one. I have family that is orthodox and I know what they do. I find almost everything that they do absurd. Dancing generaly does not happen, because men and women are not allowed to dance together. Some orthodox jews don't play sports becasue their schedule does not allow it; they spend a great deal of their day in the yeshiva, escpecialy in Israel. In addition, because they have to wear the fancy get up and women are not allowed to wear short sleeves or pants, they don't have the attire for sports. As for music, most Orthodox Jews will listen to music, just not that of a woman. This is because they won't listen to a woman singing.

It's just like the letter from the Hasmonean King said to the King of Sparta when asked the same question. "My people has one pastime. We learn the TOrah." Seriously that is what they do. It's also fairly common to enjoy cigarettes with friends and chatting, though usually the topic turns to "talking in learning," as they say. Also, the rituals provide outlets. Shabbos meals, wedding, briss's, this guy is having a kiddish, time to go to the tische, the b'datz called a hafgunah, etc. But at these events the topic turns to learning all the time. 88.152.2.248 10:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless the need for fun is there, despite all these restrictions. Of course they avoid popular sporting and musical events, films, drinking etc., but in England I have seen them doing ten-pin bowling, boating, on walking holidays and so on, and their schools hold fairs just like everybody else. Remember, we are dealing with human beings, not some alien species. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty interesting that the comment of user 88.152.2.248 etc above denigrates his/her Orthodox cousins by commenting that all they do is study. Some people would find that a compliment. I would also assume that the editor considers him/herself intelligent- probably more than average. Thank your orthodox ancestors who spent countless generations doing one thing- thinking and studying. Not wasting time watching TV or playing immature silly games. But to each his own.... 38.117.213.19 (talk)>

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)

Frum here?

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

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)

Present day

The Present Day section mentions Israel, USA and UK. How about including other chareidi communiites: Antwerp, Zurich, South America? Redaktor 16:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeshivos

A list of the major yeshivos would be in place here. Anyone willing to start? Redaktor 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article on Yeshiva, which links to a list of yeshivot. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Status Quo

There is a little misunderstanding of a big part of the old status quo in Israel. It was not only between Harediim and the State but between all the religious groups and the State. The Chief Rabbinate was not given to the Haredim but to the religious Zionists. As well as IDF rabbinate. The part of the Haredim was mostly the exemption from military service. So this should be changed. I am waiting for other opinion before changing the text. Benjil 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was making earlier. The article confuses "Haredi" with "Orthodox" in general. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved most of the stuff about the Status-Quo Agreement to Religion in Israel. The section still needs some more tidying up.--Redaktor 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sephardim History

The article contains nothing about the History of Sephardic Haredim. All the information about the Askhenazi Haredim emerging as a result of European enlightenment doesn't seem to apply to them. Do the Sephardic Haredim have different traditions compare to the Azkhenazi ones? Also, as there are a substantial number of Sephardic Haredim in Israel(just look at Shas, I don't think that this section should be overlooked.

The problem is that most of the terms we use are not applicable to Sephardim. Reform, COnservative, Modern Orthodox, Heradi, etc. Most religious Sephardim if one had to squish them into these artificial terms would be theologically Heradi (I once had a cab driver quote me entire sections of Reishis Chokma) and in practical terms liberal Modern Orthodox. (He was not wearing a yarmulke while doing it, and their was some weird ISraeli-blasheme pop on the radio) The terms weren't created to describe them, so they don't fit. 88.152.2.248 10:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Term 'Haredi' in the U.S vs in Israel

Having only recently viewed this, I was surprised to see the assumption that Jews of what would be referred to in this article as a "Haredi" viewpoint would actually use that term for themselves.

In the Israeli media, including the Haredi media, the term is used. However it is almost never used in the U.S. What would be called the Haredi community in Israel calls itself many things; most often "B'nai Torah" [sing: Ben Torah], "Frum", or even the colloquial "yeshivish" for the non-CHassisic groups - but never Haredi.

I see from reading here that people like to ask for sources; admittedly this is not an easy task here. Instead I can only buttress the claim with two items: 1) The English Haredi-type media never uses the term for US Jews, ever, and 2) I have travelled and interacted with almost every major Orthodox Jewish community in the U.S.

In summary, while the ideas of Haredi may exist outside of Israel, the term itself does not.

How do I get this amendation inserted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvia613 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Eight months later, how do I get somebody to address this point? It is a huge inaccurate impression that any Jews in the USA refer to themselves as Haredim. The word is not used. If further evidence is needed, one can listen to the entire transcript of each year's Agudath Israel of the US convention speeches and there is not a single use of the word Haredi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.220.162 (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is used. Read HaEdah; it mentions issues about "ha-tzibbur ha-chareidi" or "ha-chinuch ha-chareidi" all the time. And I know plenty of Americans who also use this word. You're simply wrong. Sorry to say it. Also, HaModia does write 'Haredi'. Mishpacha even writes 'chareidi' in its articles. (More than that I don't know, since I don't usually read either of them). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

First, apologies for not signing, I just found the cheatsheet . . . However your answer is incorrect, and I did not actually expect a counter-claim, so I did not previously provide more details or support. These points are not in any meaningful order.

• The HaModia, an English language spinoff from the Hebrew paper of the same name, is divided into sections. The "Community" section contains all news and articles relevant to the U.S. There is a large amount of content covering the New York area, a smaller sub-section for Lakewood, and still smaller section for Cleveland and all points west, and a yet smaller section for Florida. Each of these sub-sections has its own editor, each of whom report to the section's main editor. I pulled two random weeklies from the last 90 days, and there were no articles in the U.S. section referring to the U.S. population as Haredi.
• I spoke with one sub-section editor of the HaModia, who confirmed the term would not intentionally be used in an article about Jewish communities outside of Israel. This editor, however, did not wish attrition on Wikipedia.
• The English newspaper Yated Ne'eman, also a spinoff of a Hebrew newspaper of the same name, also has a section for NY news and sub-sections for various regional news. They do not use the term Haredi at any time to describe non-Israel communities in the Ny section or other U.S. sub-sections.
• Both the HaModia and Yated Ne'eman have columnists who are not bound by any conventions regarding terms. However is both sample issues of both newspapers, I was unable to find any columnist describing a U.S. Jewish community as Haredi. They often used terms including "frum", "b'nei Torah", "Torah community", "chasidic community", and "yeshiva community."
• HaEdah is NOT a "Haredi" organization or source, and in fact is often in quite strong, almost violently strong, disagreements with "Haredi" community. However they use the label would not be relevant. Nonetheless, I can still disprove even that point. A search on their website for "charedi" or "haredi" returns a total of three articles discussing Haredi positions as contrasted with Edah's positions. Each of those articles ONLY refers to Haredi as an Israeli defintion! One article defines Haredi political parties, one is entitled Conflict and Accomodation Amongst Jews in Israel, and one has no definition without reading the book itself.
• As many have pointed out, what a group chooses to call itself is the most defining element. As has been described on Wikipedia, the leaders of the community we are discussing in the U.S. would be Rabbis mostly who are Hasidic Rebbes or Roshei HaYeshiva of yeshivos. In the U.S., these leaders address the broadest set of constituents at the annual convention of Agudath Israel of America. At the last 3 years of conventions, not a single Chasidic Rebbe or Rosh HaYeshiva or even other keynote speaker or panel leader referred to a "Haredi" community in the U.S. How do I know this? I personally listened to every single tape from the last three conventions of all keynote speeches (all of which are published) and all published panel sessions. ( I do not know if literally all panel sessions are published or not.) In these unarguably major addresses to the so-called Haredi constituency, there were numerous references to a variety of terms, including "Torah world", "Torah community", "frum", "b'nei Torah", "yeshiva" and other kinds of community -- but none of the leaders of what you wish to call a Haredi community used that term to refer to any U.S.based Jewish community.

Haredi is a term coined by persons not of that community to refer to segments of the Jewish population in Israel. The Israeli "Haredi" community has accepted that moniker for use in describing itself. It is, however, and as of now remains, an Israeli term with no real meaning or definition to other communities outside of Israel. Unless somebody has some pretty strong proofs that all the items I listed are incorrect, I plan to incorporate this change into the article after sufficient time for responses. Tuvia613 (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, the communities in the United States and elsewhere as described in the article are very obviously the same sort of thing as the Israeli Haredim, and need to be described somewhere. What would you call them? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I indeed don't really have the energy to deal with another one of this type - right after the guy who started claiming that 'Orthodox' and 'Haredi' is one and the same thing. But I *really* don't know what you are talking about regarding HaEdah. They don't have a website at all - the rabbonim forbade that, quite obviously. I have not the slightest idea what kind of articles you are talking about. Check http://daniel.breslauer.googlepages.com/balak5768.pdf for an example of HaEdah. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to drain your energy, and the website is edah.org. Edah has not prohibited websites.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Indeed the non-Israel communities are similar to the Haredi communities. I am not sure how you would label them, as they do not grant themselves an easy label like Haredi. They refer to themselves under a variety of titles, such as Torah Observant, Bnei Torah, Frum, etc. Keep in mind the communities have no need to indentify themselves to outside groups, so scholar -- or online encyclopedia -- is left with bit of a problem. It does not though obviate the need to make the edit so it is clear that Haredi is an Israeli -- as opposed to Jewish -- term.Tuvia613 (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I don't know what you were thinking, but "Edah" refers to the "Edah HaChareidis", and they do *not* allow the use of the internet (ehhm), do *not* have a website, and they are anything but 'Modern-Orthodox.' --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe and hehe, read my post please. I mentioned the edah group referenced below by sir myles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvia613 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There was an online magazine called "Edah" (or HaEdah", I forget which), that was definitely Modern Orthodox and had articles from people like Marc B. Shapiro and Menachem Kellner. It has since shut down, but some of the files are still available. Obviously this had no connection with the Edah Charedit. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

"Group of Haredim observing the Shabbat in New York City" -- it looks like they are observing Sikhs, not Shabbat. —Nricardo (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Chadash is assur min hatorah

I believe that this comment was actually was not making a general claim that innovation is assur, it's pretty clear from his own shutim and interpretations of the gemara that the chatam sofer and other early chareidim believed in some level of halakhic innovation and evolution. If I recall, it was actually a somewhat witty response to those reforms who referred to the biblical prophecy that there will be so much grain that the old will be discarded to make room for the new. I don't think it should be assumed that the the early chareidim believed a torah pasuk taken out of context would constitute a halakhic basis for anything. Avraham (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Same picture, different groups (???)

As I understand Hasidic Judaism and Haredi Judaism are two different groups. Why does these two articles have the same picture [2] then?

--84.202.208.245 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hasidic Judaism is a sub-category of Haredi Judaism. However, to forestall confusion, I have changed the picture to non-Hasidic Haredi Jews. -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ktav vs ksav

It's clear this one needs discussion rather than continued reverts. Discussion should invoke relevant policies and guidelines, naturally. In the first instance, as my edit summary indicated, WP:HEBREW indicates use of sav only for topics that relate primarily to a particular subset of Diaspora Jewry. The majority of Haredim live in Israel, and for topics relating to modern Israel WP:HEBREW indicates tav. It doesn't matter whether, within Israel, there are more Ashkenazi Haredim than Sephardi Haredim, as neither group is part of Diaspora Jewry. In general, it won't be relevant that individual editors hold certain opinions about usage that emerge from their own personal practices or experiences (e.g., "go to Holon and listen to people pray"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity. Unfortunately this is simply not true. The vast majority of Haredim around the world are Ashkenazim (I recall reading an academic publication that put the number of Haredim at 75% Ashkenazim and 25% Sefaradim). The number living in the Zionist state is entirely irrelevant, since the Zionist language does not influence the way we pray or learn. That applies not only to the more Torah-true communities such as mine, but also to the more corrupt communicities such as the Gerrers and the Litvishe. You want to try walking into any normal chareidi shul, anywhere in 'Israel' or anywhere in the world, and find me someone who grew up in a chareidi home or has been chareidi for more than let's say 3 years, who will - in English or during religious study - use the Tav instead of Sav. Anything else is plain Zionist slander and lies, but well, that's nothing new either. The practice of you, secular Zionists, forcing your dirty impure so-called "Ivrit" on us is just another part of the religious persecution (shmad) against us. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Piz d'Es-Cha, you are invoking religious rules. Those rules do not govern how we edit Wikipedia. If you want to make a point about editing this article, you are invited to do so in reference to Wikipedia rules. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are using lies and distortions. While (at least!) 75% of all chareidim worldwide are Ashkenazim, you nevertheless claim that it is an Israeli thing and that the Zionist spelling should be used. This is complete nonsense. Half of all chareidim live outside of your miserable "state" and almost all of those are ashkenazim. Tell me how many sefardi chareidim there are in Antwerp, London, New York, Lakewood, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Los Angeles, etc? The only place outside of 'Israel' where there are a reasonable number of sefaradim - and the only place outside of perhaps Netivot where sefardi chareidim outnumber the ashkenazi ones - is France. You don't have a single foot to stand on. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia rules do provide a little bit of leeway in this regard. The WP:Naming conventions guideline provides for naming by the way a subject is most commonly known in English. In general, it has been considered appropriate to use Ashkenazi pronunciation for clearly Ashkenazi topics, such as the names of Ashkenazi rabbis who would normally be known by that pronunciation. Haredi Judaism is mixed, however. Piz d'Es-Cha, suggest reviewing our No personal attacks policy. Thank you. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, children! May I suggest the following:

1. It was scholarly convention (e.g. in the Jewish Encyclopedia) to use Sephardi spelling for pan-Jewish topics long before the foundation of the state of Israel; so stuff about "Zionism" is beside the point (but then as a Sephardi myself I would say that, wouldn't I?)

2. Where a word refers to something applying to Judaism in general, we should use Sephardi spelling ("Sukkot", not "Sukkos"; "shacharit", not "shachris")

3. Where it refers to something exclusively Ashkenazi, especially a proper name, Ashkenazi spelling is preferable ("misnagdim", not "mitnaggedim"); but even then titles of books should probably be in Sephardi, as all Jews may read them ("Shev Shema'tata", not "Shev Shmaytsa")

4. These distinctions should be applied according to the particular word, not according to the article ("Sukkot" does not become "Succos" in an article about an Ashkenazi yeshivah that breaks up for that holiday; Zvi Hirsch Chayes does not become "Sebi Hirsh Ħayyot" in an article about a Sephardi rabbi influenced by him).

This doesn't help us decide about Ashkenazi Haredi institutions in Israel, e.g. should it be "Edah Haredit" or "Eidoh Chareidis"? And there is a further issue about pre-modern rabbis with Biblical names ("Moses", "Mosheh" or "Moishe" ben whatever). But we can't solve everything at once!

What do you all think? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

for words, topics, etc concerning secular jewish topics or the state of israel directly the sephardic pronunciation should be used. when discussing religious matters (it should never be written chatam sofer instead of chasam sofer! never! nor should it ever be written mitnagged or chassidut because these are both insulting spellings to the movements and simply incorrect as no one used them before 50 years ago). an article regarding "haredi judaism" or "hasidic judaism" should take care to use only the ashkenazic pronunciation for all terms, unless those terms denote specifically israeli or sephardic concepts. thus sukkos should always be spelled sukkos because it is of religious significance. likewise edah hachareidis should always be like that way instead of edah hareidit. maybe it would be a best idea to use a neutral spelling such as sukkoth or shavuoth. wikipedia should provide factual information and not tinge it in any way or another. thus wikipedia should not do anything to support a particular pronunciation over the other.68.50.99.248 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)jonah

I see what you mean. Unfortunately the use of spellings designed to represent Ashkenazi pronunciation sends a clear message "This article is written by Haredim for Haredim and no one else". In the wider academic and publishing world, as opposed to ArtScroll and similar, Sephardic spelling in one form or another is absolutely universal. Similarly Wikipedia should not use acronyms such as "Rambam" (except for cases like Rashi, where no one knows him as anything else).

This has nothing to do with Zionism or Israeli Hebrew. For exactly the same reasons, I am against Israelified spellings such as "Yosef Karo" instead of "Joseph Caro". In an English-language medium designed for a general readership, some degree of Anglo- or Euro-centricity is unavoidable: are we to say "Wien" instead of "Vienna" and "España" instead of "Spain"? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir Myles is partially correct and partially incorrect in his assertion that prior to the "modern" Hebrew of Israel, publication such as the Encyclopedia Judaica used Sephardic transliterations. The confusion stems from the fact that technically he is correct -- but those transliterations are from actual Sephardic usage, not the spoken Hebrew of today, which is a combination of various sources. The Enc Judaica would write the holiday of Sukkot/Sukkos as "Sukkoth", not using either Sukkot or Sukkos. Tuvia613 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was actually making exactly the same point: it was genuine Sephardic Hebrew, not Israeli Hebrew, that was the standard. However, most Sephardim do pronounce tav raphe as t. The convention of transliterating it as "th" was partly a nod to Christian usage and partly a way of flagging up the letter so that everyone could pronounce it his own way. In most Continental languages (e.g. French, German and Dutch) "th" is also pronounced "t", and was therefore a convenient way of distinguishing tav from tet. Except in established Biblical names like Asenath and Ashtoreth, to use "th" today would look very old-fashioned indeed. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Neturei Karta

The picture of Neturei Karta in this article does not represent anyone but a tiny, little group of idiots. It is like portraying Tali Fahima as an average Israeli, or portraying Osama Bin Laden as an average Arab. It is a grave distortion of the truth that should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Nomo, I request you to carefully read [[3]]. You will understand that the idiot pictured here (and who run the site www.nkusa.org) are none but a small group of nearly 'excommunicated' weirdos, even within Neturei Karta. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has included discussion of Neturei Karta together with the associated picture for months. The claim that they are not Haredim is preposterous; they don't need to be representative of all Haredim (there's too much diversity there for any one group to represent all Haredim). If this article is to take a different direction in this regard, then consensus will be required for the change. At this point I am not prepared to agree with that change (though open to attempts at persuasion, naturally). If we excluded all groups who had been rejected by someone for some reason we'd end up with a blank page here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read my link at all. I am not willing to enter any further discussion with you, until you have read and can here summarize what it says in the above link, and by whom that poster was signed. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided a link that works. I'll read it if you do, but I won't treat this as an exam. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the link provided doesn't work, I have found what I assume you want me to read. So there are divisions within Neturei Karta and one group denounces the other - what else is new. There's more of this sort of thing in your own posts above (Gerers, Litvishe). The fact that one part considers the other an abomination doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to endorse or accept the claim that the one is genuine and the other is a bunch of usurpers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are misinformed. The fringe element who demonstrated at Trafalgar Sq were denounced by the whole of Chareidi Jewry and have been excommunicated from chareidi synagogues. --Redaktor (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1. What part of consensus for changes do you not understand? 2. I repeat that if we removed everyone who has been denounced we'd have a blank page. The only thing distinctive about this group is its political beliefs (and even on that score they have anti-Zionism in common); they are Haredim in every respect that matters. As for being excommunicated - I strongly suspect they have their own synagogues: Haredi ones (what else?). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What you suspect is irrelevant. They not accepted as part of the Haredi community. --Redaktor (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And that acceptance (or otherwise) is also irrelevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am reading! If the chareidi rabbinates declare individuals to be non-haredi, that is definitive. The opinion of a Wikipedia editor has no standing in the matter. --Redaktor (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again we have the wrong set of rules being invoked. What a chief rabbi says might be notable and worth noting in the course of the article, but Wikipedia editors are not bound to observe it. In any event I really think we need the thoughts of some other editors on this one; the three of us are getting too involved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that Piz d'Es-Cha may have a point on this one. The Neturei Karta are an extremely controversial group that has gotten a lot of negative press for views and actions not necessarily representative of Haredi Jews as a whole. It might be more appropriate to have a picture of a less controversial group of people reflected in the visual that represents Haredi Jews in the article. I don't think it matters whether they are or are not Haredi Jews and I don't see a need to address the question. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that instead we put up a picture of a demonstration against Zionism by people who are generally accepted as Haredim, ie, those who affiliate with the Edah HaChareidis in the Holy Land and/or those who affiliate with the Central Rabbinical Congress in America and Canada. Now all we need is an available picture of a demonstration against Zionism by one of these groups. I should be able to find one somewhere on my PC later today, and I will first put it here for approval by the others. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, thanks for your comments. I hope it doesn't seem ungracious of me to press a bit further. Two thoughts: first, I think it is unfortunate when we adopt the view that Wikipedia articles should avoid touching controversy - especially for topics where controversial aspects are so prominent, and as you say they have gotten a lot of press. Second, while I certainly agree that it is important to represent Haredi Jews in the mainstream, I also think it is important to represent their diversity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a picture of a demonstration outside on my PC, but I did found a few of a rally against Zionism held in Yeshivas Meoh Sheorim earlier this year. I put these online on Imageshack; once we decide on the appropriate picture for this page, I will put it on Commons. Note: since Wikipedia automatically blocks imageshack links, I've had to remove the http before the links, so you have to copy-paste them into your browser.

img225.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf0437ba3.jpg Rabbi Yehoshua Rozenberger, member of the Badatz of the Edah HaChareidis, Rov of Beit Shemesh.

img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf0454zi1.jpg Forgot his name, one of the askonim who organized this gathering.

img362.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf0444qz5.jpg

These people are definitely just as anti-Zionist as the guys who portray themselves with the Palestinian flag. Let me translate some of the text for those who do not read Hebrew: "Chareidi Jewry decries: we do not have any part in the heretic rulership" and "The existence of the state is a denial of the existence of G-d" and "that the state should be annulled soon". If you don't call that anti-Zionist, then I don't know what is. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agudas Israel

The article says:

"In Germany the opponents of Reform rallied to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, and later (in the 20th century) formed the Agudas Israel movement. In Poland Jews true to traditional values gathered under the banner of Agudas Shlumei Emunei Yisroel, which later evolved into the East-European arm of Agudas Yisroel."

But the article on World Agudath Israel says that it was founded in Poland in 1912.

Isn't the article confusing Agudas Israel with the Hirschian congregation Adath Israel? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've always thought the Agudah was founded then. It was niftar about 60 years ago when they started taking bribes. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So where does the information about "Agudas Shlumei Emunei Yisroel" come from? I'm reluctant to alter the article till we're sure of the facts. Thanks. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Agudas Israel was founded in Germany in 1912 by the opponents of Reform; what is wrong with that?
2. 1912 was in the 20th century
3. "World Agudath Israel (The World Jewish Union), usually known as the Aguda, was established in the early twentieth century as the political arm of Ashkenazi Torah Judaism, in succession to Agudas Shlumei Emunei Yisroel (Union of Faithful Jewry). Its base was in Eastern Europe, where the Torah and its principles were strong before the Second World War and was undergoing a revival due to the Hasidic movement, but it included participation from Orthodox Jewry throughout Europe." [4]

--Redaktor (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. In 1912 Kattowice was in the German-occupied part of Poland, so technically the first WUA conference was in "Germany". But given the clearly Eastern European (rather than yekke) background of the movement, saying this gives an odd impression. I'll think how to cover all bases. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand it also. Indeed difficult to understand. I always thought the Agudah had been founded in what is now the Czech Republic, in Marianske Lazne I think (Karlsbad). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd always understood that the formative event was the Kattowice conference as stated in the article. I don't know about any link with Carlsbad (or do you mean Marienbad?), which is not to say that there wasn't one: was it perhaps the headquarters of the organisation once founded? or was there some advance meeting of notables there to discuss the conference? or was that the location for the previous organisation (Agudas Shlumei etc)? All information welcome. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, yes, Marienbad. Karlsbad is Karlovy Vary nowadays. Marienbad is Marianske Lazne. No, I remember, that is where they had a major conference about Zionism in the 1930s, or so. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed with decision not to rename.

---

This issue has been brought up before. I appeal to the resident editors to maintain their intellectual honesty.

Chareidi Judaism is said here to be a "form" of Orthodox Judaism when in actual fact "Chareidim" is more accurately but a Classical Hebrew term now used in Modern Israel to refer to Orthodox Jews as a whole with political and demographic connotations. My qualms with Chareidi Judaism gaining its own entry are not with these connotations, rather that it an alternate title for Orthodox Jews much like Frum or Heimisher Jews.

Furthermore, the title of this article which only describes Orthodox Jews is misleading as Chareidi Judaism is not at all considered to be a Jewish religious denomination distinct from or alike to Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism and others, nor as as a Jewish ethnic division with its own set of minhagim like Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews and others, or an ideological movement like Religious Zionism though the term is generally used to set Orthodox Jews apart from Religious Zionist Jews.

I propose this article which in essence about Orthodox Jews and Judaism, be merged into Orthodox Judaism where the term "Chareidi" will be given as an alternate term in modern-day Israel and now worldwide for Orthodox Jews. -- ephix (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal is completely ridiculous and laughable. You would classify Saul Berman, Norman Lamm, Avi Weiss as Haredim. Your proposal is so stupid that I cannot express its stupidity in normal words. No, this is not an insult and not a personal attack, it's just the plain truth. Please just withdraw this proposal. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please at least express your indifference intelligently and argue my points above instead of insulting me and deriding yourself. For now I'm not withdrawing the proposal. ephix (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not insulting you, and I am not deriding myself. I am laughing because of the stupidity of someone who would classify Saul Berman, Norman Lamm, and Avi Weiss as Haredim. It's not Purim, nor the 1st of April, you know. I propose that you get serious and withdraw this proposal. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how do you respond intelligently to something that looks like a Purim joke? :) --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Piz, I'm still waiting for some inteligent utterance perhaps debunking my points. Maybe you're too exulted to come down low enough to comprehend my illogic, is that it!? Anyways merging what is a none existent denomination into Orthodox Judaism would not classify Saul Berman, Norman Lamm, and Avi Weiss as Haredim, in case you didnt read me right, im proposing to merge Haredi Judaism into Orthodox Judaism, not Modern Orthodox Judaism into Haredi Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is the denomination of Haredim, a term with political implications in Israel, Modern Orthodox Judaism on the other hand is the denomination of the people you mentioned who live in the USA, and would thus not be classed as Haredim there, even if we were to consider Modern Orthodox Judaism as a subset denomination of Orthodox Judaism. ephix (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would not use such strong language, but Piz is right. Ignoring the vast, VAST, cultural differences between haredim and orthodoxy, it's not possible to merge the two articles without overloading the orthodox article with unduly weighted information. If haredim were a section within orthodoxy, I would advocate it being split into its own article - like it is. This is not the way forward. If the name concerns you, you would be better of arguing for the title of the article to be changed to "Ultra-Orthodox Jews" or similar. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Thanks for participating Dev920, please understand that vast cultural differences between Orthodox Jews and other Orthodox Jews who hold by the same principles of faith, level of observance or whatever you would like to call it, whatever these may be, does not set aside one from the other as a separate denomination. "Ultra-Orthodox Jews" has been debated many times and ruled out as it would be offensive to Orthodox Jews to shift them to the right of a centre and left. Modern Orthodox Judaism is now its own denomination on the left of Orthodox Judaism, a centre thus being established between them. If this article stays, it will look like a game of twister soon with entries like Frum Judaism, Heimisher Judaism, Litvish Judaism, Carlebachian Judaism, Hasidic Judaism, Breslov Sephardi Judaism... arguably they mixing people, places, ethnic divides, music, art, political movements with Orthodox Judaism would "unduly weight" it down. ephix (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Any issue of differentiations between people who are at least nominally part of the same denomination is obviously potentially controversial. However, there are lots of reliable sources evidencing vast cultural differences between Chareidi and Modern Orthodox. One of their most important differnces, ther vastly different approaches to how they relate to outside society and culture, means that outside society in particular (i.e. most of Wikipedia's readership) is likely to perceive differences perhaps more strongly than insiders might, and would particularly benefit from explanation and discusion. Although differences in philosophical approaches to religious law are quite minor compared to both their differences with any other Jewish denomination, they are still substantial. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: You are right this is controversial, I would ask you to reread my point that the term Haredi is almost entirely political in Israel alone, and perhaps reconsider your position and at least to support renaming the article. ephix (talk)`

• Support merge or rename - this is tricky, the proponent correctly asserts that Haredim are essentially Orthodox Jews, the term having more political and demographic overtones in Israel where Orthodox Jews are either Haredi or Dati, on the street, at home and in the media, distinguishing between the two important Orthodox communities, the anti-zionist and religious-zionist communities. Just as there are no "Orthodox" Jews in Israel due to the paradigm there is there and because it is an English word, so too is there no Haredi in the diaspora where the pro and anti-zionist paradigm is very different and narrower terms like "Frum", "Yeshivish" and/or "Litvish"/"Chassidish" are more common, the term only appearing in English language publications from Israel like the Yated, Hamodia and Mishpacha. This article says "Haredi Judaism is the most theologically conservative form of Orthodox Judaism" so if the problem is that Modern Orthodox Judaism figures cant be said to be very theologically conservative as one of the editors above points out, which is true, let Modern Orthodox Judaism which is its own denomination and rightfully has its own article be differentiated from mainstream Orthodox Judaism, not Haredi Judaism which is one and the same thing as Orthodox Judaism and only confused in the jetlag after a very long tiring flight from Tel Aviv to New York or visa virsa. Other than merging these two articles, there is an article on Frum and Yeshivish, which like "Haredi" is another term for Orthodox Jews with a story to tell, so i think it would OK to rename this article "Haredi" and rewrite the material that paints a picture of Haredi Judaism being its own denomination separate or as if having branched out of Orthodox Judaism. Herscu (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I would find it acceptable to rename the article to Haredi but will not withdraw my merge proposal just yet. I still believe Haredim refers to general Orthodox Jews and should be depicted in Wikipedia as such. ephix (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not wasting any more of my valuable time on this laughable nonsense. According to your argument, I suppose that Yuval Sherlo, Chaim Druckman, Michael Melchior etc are Haredim. Very funny. Please just finally understand that both Haredim and Dati'im (=Modern-Orthodox, Israeli version) are Orthodox Jews. I myself have no problems going to a shul with dati'im or eating with dati'im (who keep good hechsherim) on shabbat. Why should that be any problem? We have slightly different outlooks, but we're still the same people with the same religion, and the fundamentals are still the same (the 13 ikkarim of the Rambam, our view of halacha etc). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Piz, you seem to have misunderstood me, i did not suggest Haredim and Dati'im are not Orthodox Jews, le'hefech, I am proposing to merge Haredim with Orthodox Judaism because and as as i mentioned above Heridi is a term used in Israel to distinguish regular Orthodox Jews from from Dati Jews with whom they comprise Orthodox Jewry in Israel with. You can also read my response to your comment above where i wrote "merging what is a none existent denomination into Orthodox Judaism would not classify Saul Berman, Norman Lamm, and Avi Weiss as Haredim, in case you didnt read me right, im proposing to merge Haredi Judaism into Orthodox Judaism, not Modern Orthodox Judaism into Haredi Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is the denomination of Haredim, a term with political implications in Israel, Modern Orthodox Judaism on the other hand is the denomination of the people you mentioned who live in the USA, and would thus not be classed as Haredim there, even if we were to consider Modern Orthodox Judaism as a subset denomination of Orthodox Judaism." Please don't go on your little tangents when you've got the wrong end of the stick. So far you've not been at all cordial in attempting to resolve this issue, please either leave as you just promised, or much more preferably keep your cool. ephix (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that Orthodox = Hareidi, and that Modern Orthodox != Orthodox. Forget it. That's an ideological and completely POV claim. Oppose, oppose, and most strongly oppose. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose because the Haredi Judaism article should stand alone since the Orthodox Judaism article is a general article for ALL brands of Orthodox Judaism, such as Hasidic Judaism (better than just "Hasidism") Modern Orthodox Judaism, Religious Zionism, and Haredi Judaism (better than "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism") and noone would dream that all those "must" all be merged onto one page which wouldcreate sheer chaos, not help enyone and amount to madness. They are all Orthodox Judaism but with their own ideologies, rabbis, views and sources. Let us not move backwords. These dcebates have long been settled. IZAK (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Orthodox Judaism is an umbrella term that covers Modern Orthodoxy (USA/Europe), Religious Zionists (Israel and diaspora), Centrist Orthodoxy, Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism (Hasidic probably belonging inside the Haredi group). Whatever terminology is used in some parts of Israeli society, in English the term Orthodox applies loosely to all Jews who subscribe to Albo's three Ikkarim (God is one, Torah given on Sinai and keeping a binding Torah law gets one to Heaven). To force Haredism back into the Orthodox Judaism is conceptually very hard. JFW | T@lk 05:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

State of the proposal

(arbitrary break in discussion)

Thi merger proposal seems absolute dead in the water, I'm afraid, Ephix. I'm going to remove the merge tags because for cultural and space issues, it's not gojng to happen. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So you say, I prefer not to bring this to mediation, so please let's wait for a consensus from at least 10 or so wikipedians. its OK having the tags up for at least another week or two. ephix (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not really the next step on, given there is nothing to mediate. You wish to merge the content, which is fine, but it has been immediately slammed by three other editors. This is a hopeless cause, and there really isn't any point in prolonging this. I'm trying to shut you down or anything, but there simply is not the space to merge the two articles even if anyone was in favour. Really, arguing for a rename is a much more sensible way to go if you really want something done. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is WP:SNOW but would not have got away with merging it myself and my points still stand. I will rename the article "Haredi" to match in consistency with "Frum" if the merge doesn't go ahead, but with the participation of only three wikipedians who including yourself have done little to debunk my points, this is not a way forward either so I intend on reinserting the tags after 24 hours of my last insertion. Haredi Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are one and the same, Haredi is a term used only in Israel to refer to Orthodox Jews, thats it. thnx again for participating. ephix (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to consider that this is only the case in Israel. Every book I have ever read on Judaism makes a difference between Heredi and Orthodox Jews. I doubt you are going to get a consensus on this merger. If you really want to go ahead with it, I won't stop you, but it's a waste of typing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And I, Ephix, assure you now that any edit of the type that you are talking about, will be reverted, either by me or by others. You are simply wrong. Haredi Judaism is not the same as Orthodox Judaism. It is *not* the same. Not in Israel, and not anywhere in the world. Orthodox Judaism also includes non-chareidim (the Religious Zionists, Modern-Orthodox, Dati'im, whatever you want to call it). You are simply wrong and any edit of the type which you describe above will be reverted. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. We've already got articles on Modern Orthodoxy, Open Orthodoxy etc. I see nothing wrong with having the present article together with these, and then an article on "Orthodoxy" as an umbrella term for them all. I don't even see any reason for changing it from "Haredi Judaism" to "Haredi": we've already got "Hasidic Judaism".

There may be some Haredim who regard their own stance as the only genuine Orthodoxy around, and Modern Orthodoxy as an impossible balancing act. But to merge the articles is to concede without discussion that this is factually true; whereas it is surely one point of view to be recorded among others.

It's true that "Orthodox" is fatally ambiguous. In one sense a synagogue (say the United Synagogue in Great Britain) is "Orthodox" if it officially follows the rules of halachah, however lax the private lives of its members; and a member will describe himself as "Orthodox" in the sense of not being Reform, even if he then admits that he is not very "Orthodox" in the sense of observant. In another sense you could say that a synagogue is only genuinely "Orthodox" if full observance is required from everyone, and that is what is meant by the "Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations". Even this strict sense, however, is wider than "Haredi", as it includes the Hirschians.

My vote is for leaving everything exactly as it is. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I might note that I don't even know any Haredim who claim the sole ownership of the name 'Orthodox'. I myself for sure do not deny those from Yeshiva University, Mercaz HaRav and such institutions as being Orthodox. They are definitely not Haredim, but that doesn't mean that they aren't Orthodox! This entire proposal is nonsense. Thanks for your opinion. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Piz, way to go! Still pushing your false argument about how other Orthodox factions would be labelled Haredi as a result of this merger? No one has yet to address my point that the term Haredi is a political and demographic term. And Sir Myles, I dont agree with Hasidic Judaism, its more a sect and should be renamed Hasidism, or Hasidut. ephix (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you buy some server space somewhere and you make your own wiki. All content here is GFDL, so feel free to copy it to your own site and re-arrange it there, of course still under the GFDL. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's say it is a political and/or demographic term - I'm not sure why that means a merger is necessary. There is still a meaningful difference, with Haredi Jews standing as a relatively distinct group (even if only in political or demographic terms, though that is debatable I think). I don't see why the denomination issue would be definitive in relation to whether a separate article is warranted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So, ephix, if I understand you, though you're not saying that Haredi and Orthodox are absolutely synonymous, you are saying that Haredism is the typical, or default, form of Orthodoxy and that MO and other types have to make a special effort to dissociate themselves from it, i.e. Haredism is Orthodoxy-stam and MO is Orthodoxy with a difference. This may be true from a Haredi perspective. But it is not a neutral statement of the facts.

I agree that Haredism should not be regarded as a denomination (though in some countries it is indeed represented by separate organisations), but rather as a style. If we have to rename the article, then what about "Haredi Jews"? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Haredim do not view themselves as the only Orthodox Jews. Yes, we view ourselves a better than the non-Haredim - but we do not claim that they are not Orthodox Jews. I've never heard anyone say that. Not even the official newspaper of the Edah HaChareidis - not even there is it claimed that the Religious Zionists are not Orthodox Jews. Sure it is claimed that the Edah has the only real and true da'as Torah etc, and the only real proper rabbis, but I've never seen them being called non-Orthodox. (Though of course they have been called heretics etc for believing in Zionism, but that's something else.)

Next, calling the article "Haredi Jews" is completely wrong. I have always considered Orthodox Judaism to have two subdenominations: one is the Modern-Orthodox, one is the Haredi. The Haredi subdenomination can then be subdivided into the subsubstreams Lithuanian, Hasidic and Sephardic streams. I don't see anything wrong with this classification and I do not think that anyone other than Ephix sees any problems with it. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that MO and Haredim are two subsets of Orthodox Jews. They aren't necessarily exhaustive: there are Hirschians who fall somewhere in between, and there are middle-of-the-road observant Jews, Ashkenazi or Sephardi, who do not specifically identify with the MO or any other ideology. I don't think we're in any disagreement on the substance. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Orthodox Jews can be Hareidi, Modern Orthodox, Left-wing Modern Orthodox, or Yeshivish (Right-wing Modern Orthodox). Where ephix is confused is that in Israel, there is a common usage of "Ortodoxi" for Hareidim and "Dati" for non-Hareidi Orthodox Jews. For example, I once had a friend ask me, when she found that I didn't own a TV, "Walla, aht Ortodoxit?" ("Woah, are you Hareidi?") The friend who said this was an Orthodox Jew, as am I. But this is an isolated usage, and is as relevant to this article as the fact that many Israelis use the English word "f***" as a noun, synonymous with the English "snafu". In English usage, Orthodox includes Hareidim and non-Hareidim. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is true - in Israel (even in English-language Israeli media, such as ynetnews.com) they often refer to Haredim as 'Orthodox.' For example, the fight of 'the Orthodox' against Rabbi Chaim Druckman (who, by any normal definition, is an Orthodox rabbi himself). But this is the English Wikipedia. And even in Hebrew, it's wrong. The Dati'im are also Orthodox. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Counter Proposal - Renaming the article

While it's true that "Orthodox" does not mean "Haredi", even if the word "Ortodoxi" has come to mean "Haredi" in Israeli slang, it's equally true that Haredim are not something separate from Orthodox Jews, but rather one type of Orthodox Jew.

That being the case, I think this article should be renamed from "Haredi Judaism" to "Haredi". Because there's no such thing as "Haredi Judaism" as distinct from "Orthodox Judaism". It's merely a subtype.

For the record, I'm beginning to harbor a suspicion that this is essentially what ephix had in mind, but if it was, it wasn't explained very well. Because there are really two serious options, and that's to rename this article "Haredi" or to delete this article and transfer its content to a subsection within the Orthodox Judaism article. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense to me also. Would you rename "Modern-Orthodox Judaism" to "Modern-Orthodox? Would you rename "Reform Judaism" to "Reform", or would you rename "Sunni Islam" to "Sunni"? That is completely illogical to me. I don't see any problem with the current name. So what that it's a subtype? The article would be called "Fearing" - doesn't that sound a bit weird? Any serious Hebrew publication also refers to it as ha-yahadut ha-charedit, ie, Haredi Judaism. Not 'Haredi'. What is 'Haredi'? What ideology is called 'Haredi'? That is completely illogical, from all points of view. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a poor comparison. Modern Orthodoxy isn't a separate stream of Judaism. "Modern" is merely a modifier on "Orthodox". The Reform Movement calls itself "Reform Judaism", but Orthodox Judaism contains Hareidi and Modern streams. There is an article called Frum. It's not called Frum Judaism.

The sine qua non of Orthodox Judaism is acceptance of the fact that the Torah, written and oral, was given at Sinai and that it's obligatory for all Jews. Orthodox Jews come in all shapes and sizes. There's a thing called Orthodox Judaism. It is different in character from Reform Judaism or Conservative Judaism. There is no such thing as Haredi Judaism that is different in that way from Modern Orthodox Judaism.

Conservative and Reform have a separate identity because they are organizationally separate. There is a group called the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. There is a group called the Union of Reform Jewish Congregations. A synagogue that does not belong to one of those groups is not a Reform or Conservative synagogue. Orthodox Judaism has a separate identity because it is what's left when you take away those who are affiliated with one or another movement and those who are unaffiliated altogether. There is no Union of Haredi Jewish Congregations, and there is no United Synagogue of Modern Orthodox Judaism.

"Haredi" is no more and no less than a descriptor used for some Orthodox Jews. There is no separate thing called Haredi Judaism. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes there is. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In some countries there are indeed separate denominational bodies for Haredim. In others there aren't. But in either case Haredi-ness is one particular way of doing Orthodox Judaism. In a secondary sense we can speak of "the Haredi community", in the same way as we can identify any other interest group, but it is not a "community" in the sense of a kehillah. That said, I consider that "Haredi Judaism", just like "Sephardic Judaism", is innocuous. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Piz, for someone so makbid about hechsherim and the like, i would have thought you could show just a little more derech eretz when interacting with others here. I and others have commented on your harsh language a number of times. The argument you are repeating time and time again is not sound. You cite an oft used term in "Hebrew publications" called ha-yahadut ha-charedit that would suggest we keep the title of this article. As I've commented above, in Israel where there exists a pro and anti Zionist paradigm in the Orthodox Jewish community, the term Haredi is used to set apart Orthodox Jews who are not Religious Zionists from those who are. There is no term for Orthodox Judaism" in Hebrew, rather an Orthodox Jew is either Haredi or Dati, and Orthodox Judaism is either 'ha-yahadut ha-charedit' or "Da'ati Leumi". It seem you put more input into insulting and hypothesising inconsistencies with my points than addressing them directly.

LisaLiel, your compromise of renaming the article is perfectly acceptable to me, I guess I could have proposed renaming the article to match in consistency with entries like "Frum". The reason I proposed a merger is because the material of this article overlaps Orthodox Judaism, where as Frum is more about the term itself, its etymology and usages. I would advise you to refrain from responding any further to Piz if he cant be civil. He is under investigation as a suspected sockpuppet of a certain suspended member who will go unnamed for now.

Sir Myles, Sephardic Judaism is not religious denomination like this article would have some believe, there is no Sephardic Judaism article here on wikipedia, please see Sephardi Jews though.

ephix (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How about Haredi Jews? That actually makes the most sense. Frum is about the word, rather than the people, you're right, so just Haredi wouldn't be a good name. But to call the article Haredi Jews makes sense. There's no separate "Haredi Judaism", but there are definitely Haredi Jews. I'm changing my counter-proposal to that. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ephix (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"...there is no Sephardic Judaism article here on wikipedia": oh isn't there? Funny, I wrote most of it! (though maybe you think it should be renamed "Sephardic laws and customs"). That article does stress that "Sephardic Judaism" is not a denomination, but a cultural tradition. There can be a similar caveat here. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Otherwise when I see articles like that, however well written and informative it is, I see Wikipedia reaching a critical mass. ephix (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Let us not go at cross-purposes please. Some articles come at a topic from the perspective of ethnicity, such as the Jew article, other from the religious perspective, such as the Judaism article, and they were split for good reasons many years ago on Wikipedia, and similarly some articles are more from the ethnic perspective, such as Sephardi Jews and [[Ashkenazi Jews], others from the cultural and religious perspective like Sephardic Judaism and Yeshivish, while others are based on the religious and spiritual, such as the ones included in the Jewish denominations and all in Orthodox Judaism articles. Let's avoid parochialism and prevent turning the wheel backwards on Wikipedia where once upon a time many topics could be squeezed into one or a few articles, but now it is impossible and these articles have developed over time for various serious sub-topics, that are not meant to be "judgmental" nor studied together as a course in "comparative topics of Judaism and Jews" on Wikipedia which is more of a prism reflecting many perspectives than a straight line with everything conforming to only one set of definitions. Kindly respect the inplicit and ineherent built-in room for multiple views. . IZAK (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just an FYI, there is a naming conventions guideline that gives some guidance about how to resolve conflicts about article names. It says that subjects should be described using the "most easily recognized name", the most common term in ordinary English use. It suggests looking to how often terms are used rather than what editors think is the best term on intellectual grounds. Because "Haredi" isn't really a term in ordinary use (in English, anyway), this may not be especially helpful. But when people do write about them in English, do we have any information about whether the commonest term people use is "Haredi Judaism", "Haredi Jews", "Hardim", or some other term? I understand a Google search might not be the most reliable appraoch for this group. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated by the fact that you can spell it Haredi, Hareidi, Charedi, Chareidi (and probably other possilibilities). It's as bad as Hanukkah. For the record, I've never heard the term "Haredi Judaism" until I saw it here on Wikipedia. Then again, I don't think I've heard "Haredi Jews", either, because when you talk about Haredim, it's assumed you're talking about Jews. The only people who use the term are Hebrew speakers and/or religious Jews. The common English term is "Ultra-Orthodox", but we can't use that, because it's a perogative. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa et al -- It is incorrect to think that the use of Haredi is merely a Jewish/Hebrew term. Look at google Scholar. As you'll see, there are hundreds of English sources in many academic disciplines (esp. sociology, politics, history but also psychology and sciences) that use the term Haredi. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa: FYI: "Haredi, Hareidi, Charedi, Chareidi" all redirect to Haredi Judaism. And the origins of "Haredi Judaism" on Wikipedia is because a few years ago there were editors that wished to create an article for Ultra-Orthodox Judaism but it was decided that the term "Ultra Orthodox" was an insulting pejorative and should not be used, ever, and in turn Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism should be used. The word "Judaism" was added to "Haredi" to indicate that the topic was Judaism, and noone is suggesting that Haredi Judaism be merged with the main Judaism article either. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Another FYI. Our guidelines are also concerned about self-identifying terms. In scholarly and other reliable outside sources, the haredi world is called Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox, and Haredi. (There are less common sociological terms, too.) As I think most of editors here know, Haredi Jews encompass quite diverse communities. It is important to keep in mind that they do NOT all follow the same self-identifying practices. A significant segment of insider Haredi sources do NOT identify as "Orthodox" and a fair number oppose "Orthodoxy" (i.e., equating Orthodox as non-Haredi). Accordingly, wouldn't it be best to keep Haredi Judaism and Orthodox Judaism as separate articles, but explain the complex relationship/overlap in each article as needed? HG | Talk 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Another FYI for you. There are no Haredi Jews in the world who do not identify as Orthodox Jews. Any Haredi Jew is by definition an Orthodox Jew. Just as the fact that a resident of London is by definition a resident of the United Kingdom, or that a resident of Washington, DC is by definition a resident of the United States of America. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • HG, can you cite some sources? Because frankly, I'm with Piz. I've never heard of a Haredi Jew who doesn't identify (in English) as an Orthodox Jew. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Vast majority against. Removing templates from pages. Issue closed, as far as I'm concerned. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Haredi Jews, Abortion and Interfaith

While Haredi Jews are not particularly known for their interfaith efforts, it should perhaps be noted that Haredis and Roman Catholics share many common positions on the topics of Abortion, Contraception and Euthanasia. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who is a Haredi, has for instance participated in several joint efforts with Catholic leaders in order to oppose Abortion. [5]ADM (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite big nonsense. There are very big differences. Judaism allows abortion under certain circumstances: when the life of the mother is in danger - including in psychologic danger. It must be noted that abortion needs the permission of a very big rabbi who is well-aquainted with these laws. However, it is possible, which is quite different from the Catholics, where it is forbidden under any and all circumstances. This difference is because Judaism does not regard the unborn child as a living being. Don't ask me about further specifics - I'm not a rabbi. But I do know enough to tell you that the Jewish position regarding abortion is absolutely not the same as the Catholic one. And the fact that conservative (ie, Orthodox Jewish) religious people of any religion opposite abortion doesn't need to be explained. So I see no reason at all to add this to the article. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked." Non-abortive abortion is kosher. From a Katholic perspective, of course :D Pietru (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but it doesn't really change things. It's still not related. We could make links between all religions then. For example, Haredim forbid homosexuality, and so do Pentecosts - so then they must be very similar and we must include it in the article? Haredim don't eat pork and neither do Muslims, does that have to be mentioned? It's an unnecessary exaggeration to include such things in articles. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Commonality in different perspectives on something so fundamental as life is more important than you make it sound. Either way, I have no interest in this debate, I just wanted to correct your msinformation. Good luck with the article guys. Pietru (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect, Piz. IIRC, the fetus IS considered a living being, which is why abortion is forbidden in general. However, it is no different than any other living being, and at times may be considered a rodef, a murderer, and there are times when killing someone in self-defense is permitted (Ba L'hargecha...). -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but my point was that Haredi rabbis will oppose abortion in 90-95 % of cases, while Reform and Conservative rabbis will oppose it in only 20-50 % of cases. Pardon the casuistry, but in a sense the Ultra-Conservative Jews have a slightly similar position to that of the Church. ADM (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The topic of divorce also seems relevant in Christian-Haredi relations, since the Haredi are known to be quite hostile to divorce, in a way that in a sense mirrors the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter. ADM (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, regarding abortion: as I said, I'm not a rabbi. Don't ask me for details. But there are instances in which rabbis permit abortions. With the Catholics, there are none, which is a fundamental difference. Also, please tell me where you got those statistics. Secondly: divorce is accepted and occurs quite frequently in the Haredi world. There is no taboo on divorcees; they simply remarry (usually with another divorcee). My own very big Haredi rabbi has two divorced children. Divorced youth usually return to their parent's house until they remarry. So, there is no likeness whatsoever in the Catholic and Haredi view on abortions. Now, tell me, just why do you seem to think you know everything about Haredim? Are you actually even Jewish, Orthodox? I'm sorry to say so, but it seems to me like you don't really know what you're talking about, both regarding the abortion issue and the divorce issue. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about sociology and statistics (and your friends), but about official opinions, views and teachings, for example in the topic of comparative religion, which may or may not yield comparisons to magisterial doctrine and dogma on abortion and divorce. ADM (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm telling you I know a **censure** lot more about Judaism than you do, and you're plain wrong. So I suggest you try to find another topic to get involved in. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Officially, divorce is permitted under halacha, and entire sections of Maimonedes, The Tur, The Shulchan Aruch, and tens of thousands of pages of post-Shulchan Aruch responsa are dedicated to it. There is no sweeping prohibition per se against divorce as there is in the Catholic religion. There may be times where it is counseled against, for the sociological reasons that divorce can be extremely destructive to children and extended families, but divorces happen all the time (unfortunately). Please do not confuse a respect for the sanctity of marriage and a desire to keep families together with a religious doctrine against divorce. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please. The question isn't whether the Haredi view on abortion (or divorce, or stem cell research, or anything else) is exactly the same as the Catholic view: obviously there is some common ground, and some differences. It is whether there has in fact been any joint work between the two on those aspects they happen to agree on. No one seems to have commented on this. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer is very short. Haredim generally do not participate in any interreligious dialogue whatsoever. And the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel (which is primarily Modern Orthodox though with a significant Lithuanian Haredi influence as of recent) just cut all ties with the Vatican a few days ago, as did the Italian Jewish community, so I understood. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there has been no joint work on any religious issue. -- Avi (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I did however mention Yehuda Levin, a noted Ecumenist AND a Haredi, although it is not clear what is Mr Levin's standing within the Haredi community. ADM (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One person's actions do not alter centuries, if not millenia of tradition backed by written responsa and texts. -- Avi (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Levin's standing? Pretty much similar to the standing inside Catholicism of those Catholic clown bishops who deny the Holocaust. Levin is a small person, a non-important 'rabbi' with very controversial points (including his alliances with Christian right-wing extremists and his advocacy of violence against gay parades, and IIRC alson the pullout from Gaza 3 years ago). Normal Haredim do not see Levin as a normative Haredi rabbi. If you want some reading material about normative Haredim, check: http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com (especially check in the left column "TOPICS IN THE NEWS" and on the right side "A CHAREIDI VIEW ON...". You'll find a lot of interesting reading material there (though some of it contains certain Jewish terms which you might not understand). Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you need help understanding something there. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: I'll give you a short list of really representative Haredi rabbis. Check the following list, which is a random quickly comprised list of some prominent living and deceased Haredi rabbis.

• Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
• The Chofetz Chaim
• The Chassam Sofer
• Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum
• The Chazon Ish
• Rabbi Ovadia Yosef
• Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach
• Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv
• The Rebbes of Satmar, Ger, Belz, Vizhnitz, Munkatsh, Dushinsky, Nadvorna, Boyan, for example, and many others - see List of Hasidic dynasties.
• Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky
• Rabbi Nissim Karelitz
• Rabbi Yaakov Yisroel Weiss
• Rabbi Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss
• The Steipler Gaon
• The Vilna Gaon
• Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
• Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg
• Rabbi Aharon Kotler

Now if you go and read all that these rabbis wrote about issues such as abortion and divorce, and any other issue on your mind, then you'll have a clearer understanding of the matters involved. These are all rabbis who are recognized by virtually the entire Haredi world as being important leaders of immense posture. Some examples of rabbis who belong to the Hardal world, which combines Religious Zionism and Modern Orthodoxy (sociologically, they are closer to the Modern Orthodox world) with halachic observance on a higher level than the regular Modern Orthodox, see for example Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, Rabbi Dov Lior, and also this Rabbi Yehuda Levin you mentioned (I think). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks ! ADM (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again the recent posts seem all to be about similarities between Haredi Jews and other religions, not about joint work between them.

One question. Jewish and Muslim organisations sometimes do establish joint lobbying groups for the defence of shechitah/halal. Some people involved in these may be dayanim of broad-brush "Orthodox" organisations, who are personally Haredi in the sense that they attended relevant yeshivot and look and dress like Haredim; but Haredi groups and organisations as such are not generally involved. Does this count as "Haredi inter-faith contact" or not? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No. There are quite a few 'rabbis' who are actually from the Modern Orthodox cq. Religious Zionist sector, but wear black coats and hats. For example: Rabbi Avraham Shapira, Rabbi Dov Lior, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Rabbi Yona Metzger, Rabbi Moshe David Tendler, and many others. For example, see this picture of Moshe David Tendler, who went on the Temple Mount - something that is strictly forbidden by all great Haredi rabbis from all streams and is 'permitted' only by a few extreme right Religious Zionist people. The fact that these people wear black coats and hats does not turn them into 'Haredim' nor 'Haredi rabbis'. In their environments, they are basically the only ones who dress that way. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you are talking about Israel. In other countries e.g. England mainstream "Orthodox" (MO) bodies sometimes recruit genuine Haredim as dayanim, e.g. Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss, who sat on the Manchester Beth Din before becoming a dayan at the Edah Haredis in Jerusalem; older examples include Yehezkel Abramsky and many others. In Israel, Rabbi Elyashiv himself once sat on State-sponsored battei din. I am asking whether you know of people of this type who became involved in joint issues such as the defence of shechitah and halal slaughter (obviously not in Israel, where it needs no defence). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The star-K, which is run by Rabbi Moshe Heineman has done a joint supervision (certified steel) with Moslems and (I think) adventists. I don't know if this counts. Look in general Chareidim follow the same rule as mainstream Moden Orthodox, which is that you co-operate when theology is not involved. People make the mistake of thinking that there is a religious difference between Chareidim and Modern Orthodox, but there really isn't one, and I say this as someone who has both been a member of and attended institutions of both groups. Chareidim are generally more right-wing and don't call themselves Zionists, but that's it.77.127.188.114 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. I would not automatically classify all right-wing Modern Orthodox as chardal. Many would probably object to the term.19:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)