Talk:Haredi Judaism

RK, I removed the sentence about Haredi attitudes. It is very inaccurate. Without getting into a lengthy theological debate in this forum, I will simply say that traditional Jewish texts (and their creators) tend to use a lot of hyperbole when arguing among themselves. Take the debate between Maimonides and the Rosh Asher ben Jehiel for example. That got absolutely vicious. However, there is a fine distinction between what they say and what they mean. I can give plenty of examples too, if you want. BTW, the same holds true for Neturei Karta. (on a personal note, I've been put in herem too many times to take the rhetoric that seriously) Danny

Danny, I am restoring the deleted text, and adding a sentence, since my original statement was actually an understatement. I am adding "Haredim consider all forms of non-Orthodox Judaism to be non-Jewish religions altogether. In the ultra-Orthodox worldview, sometimes non-Orthodox forms of Judaism are considered not only to be un-Jewish, but anti-Jewish."

In my personal experience, this is absolutely true. I have seen virulent hatred spewed at Reform and Conservative Judaism in the most horrible manner possible. When hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews translate hateful texts into real life slander, this isn't merely hyperbole. It represents an actual fact: Many ultra-Orthodox Jews literally hate non-Orthodox Judaism. While they may consider non-Orthodox Jews to be Jewish people, practically every single ultra-Orthodox Jew considers Reform, Reconstructionism and Conservative Judaism all to be false and misleading; all of these denomination are held not be authentic Judaism. In fact, I cannot think of a single ultra-Orthodox rabbinical authority that holds otherwise.

In fact, I am seriously understating the case. Consider the views of Rabbi Avi Shafran, the public relations spokesman for Agudat Yisrael, the largest and most mainstream ultra-Orthodox group in the US. The following is a quote from "JewThink: A Guide to Real Judaism for the Thinking Individual" (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1977). Rabbi Shafran states that Conservative and Reform rabbi "qualify for the infamous titles of min and apikoros" and "are the followers of Korach;" states that "these man-made 'religions' [Conservative and Reform] are the most destructive forces in the history of the Jewish people and all those who seek to spread their noxious heresies are mesisim, instigators whose a+im is to lead astray the masses;" and contends, with regard to Conservative and Reform leaders, that there is "a law which orders loyal Jews to kill these types of people if at all possible," a law which was declared inapplicable today by the Chazon Ish but which "remains valuable for the light it sheds on the way Real Judaism" regards such people.

Rabbi Shafran then elaborates on this last point: "These people are not so much meant to be hated as enemies and wished dead for the sake of 'revenge' or to see them dead. The way we hate such people is not like the 'cat hates the mouse,' but rather like the 'storekeeper hates the vermin' which infest his store, not hating the vermin themselves but wanting them gone in order to arrest the damage they are causing. We resent their existence. So, in lieu of the fact that we are not allowed to physically harm these people today, we should still treat them with utter contempt and disrespect, avoiding contact with them as one would with any destructive fiend." (These quotations are from Chapters 15 and 18 of the book.)

Shafran is not alone in this. Statements in ultra-Orthodox newspapers and journals make clear that while most don't issue such virtual death threats, most view non-Orthodox is outrageously demeaning terms. RK

RK, I removed the entire paragraph, which is misleading and inaccurate, and I intend to keep doing that. Combining Haredi attitudes toward Modern Orthodoxy with Haredi attitudes toward Conservative with Haredi attitudes toward Reform is both wrong and misleading. Positing Shafran as a spokesman for the Haredi community is plain ridiculous. Basing an attitude in that community on a popular book in English (!), rather than a primary source, kvitel, psak, ShuT, or halachah lemaaseh shows a deep misunderstanding of the Haredi community, its norms, its means of relaying information to its members, and certainly its diversity.

Yes, the Haredi community (which is an incredibly diverse community) has problems with Conservative and Reform. BTW, have you ever heard the Modern Orthodox movement speak about Conservative and Reform behind closed doors? Yes, their statements are sharp: I would attribute what was said by Shafran to one of two sources: Rodef or Kanaim pog'im bo, (both of which are accepted concepts within the Modern Orthodox world as well). Neither of them have very practical implications in halachah today. In Orthodoxy, Modern or Ultra, Judaism is defined by halachah--nothing more, nothing less.

What you have to look at is the method that dialogue conducted within the community among members, who understand the terms, references, etc. Unfortunately, most Haredim do not understand that their wordings mean something very different to people unaccustomed to those internal codes. In effect, it is an inability to free themselves from an insider's jargon when communicating with the outside world. And yes, even Shafran does that. Unfortunately, with an influx of newly observant baalei teshuva we are beginning to see some misunderstanding within the community itself (but who takes baalei teshuva seriously anyway?).

I am speaking from authority on this one. I come from a rabbinic family: my great-grandfather was a founder of Chaim Berlin and Torah Va-Daas, my grandfather was a musmach of the Chafetz Chaim in Radom and Rav Kook in Jerusalem, my father was a YU graduate and rabbi, while I spent a good seven years in yeshiva after high school. I was also an active member for many years in the Reform synagogue in Jerusalem. In other words, I was raised in the jargon and understand it well enough. I know it is a paradox, but what they seem to say and what they mean are not always the same thing. Danny

Danny writes: "Combining Haredi attitudes toward Modern Orthodoxy with Haredi attitudes toward Conservative with Haredi attitudes toward Reform is both wrong and misleading."

You need to be more specific. We need to point out that (A) Some Haredi rabbis view Modern Orthodoxy as not a valid form of Judaism. (That's just a painful fact; it may make us uncomfortable, but its true.) (B) Some Haredim view Modern Orthodoxy as a valid form of Judaism. Both attitudes exist, and I am uncertain as to what precisely you disagree with here. RK

In regards to non-Orthodox Jewish movements, there is total agreement among all Haredi rabbinical bodies: All forms of non-Orthodox Judaism are not valid forms of Judaism at all. This is even accepted as factual among many Modern Orthodox. Again, there is absolutely no dispute about this in the Haredi community at large. What precisely do you dispute about this? Can you name any Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) rabbinical bodies which do respect any form of non-Orthodox Judaism as a valid form of Judaism? Can you name any Haredi rabbis which view Reform or Conservative rabbis as real rabbis, and accept their conversions as valid? Please name these groups, and offer a few references. If you cannot offer a few references as to the existence of such Haredim, this proves my point. RK

Danny writes "Positing Shafran as a spokesman for the Haredi community is plain ridiculous. Basing an attitude in that community on a popular book in English (!), rather than a primary source, kvitel, psak, ShuT, or halachah lemaaseh shows a deep misunderstanding of the Haredi community,..."

That is incorrect. Rabbi Avi Shafran literally is the official spokesman for Agudat Yisrael, the largest Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) group in the US. That is what he is paid to do. In fact, he is one of the more polished speakers in that organization. Others in his group are a lot more blunt. When he issues his press releases to newspapers, he is doing so as an official representative for many hundreds of Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, and they picked him as their spokesman because they represent their views. RK

Danny writes "Yes, the Haredi community (which is an incredibly diverse community) has problems with Conservative and Reform."

No, the situation is much more harsh than tht. Everything I have ever read from them explicitly states that they view these movements as non-Jewish abominations. They even have taken out full page advertisements in newspapers wanring Jews to stay home on Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kipur, rather than set foot in a non-Orthodox synagogue. Even many Modern Orthodox rabbis have taken such positions. You seem unaware of the actual beliefs that Haredim have towards non-Orthodox forms of Judaism. RK

Danny writes "I am speaking from authority on this one. I come from a rabbinic family: my great-grandfather was a founder of Chaim Berlin and Torah Va-Daas,"

Danny, I can't engage in dialogue with you if you accuse virtually every ultra-Orthodox Jew of being deceptive about their own beliefs, and who all secretly view non-Orthodox forms of Judaism as valid. That position has no basis in fact. However, if you are trying to convince me of something else (e.g. that Orthodox Jews are not trying to murder non-Orthodox Jews), then I agree with you. But that is not what I wrote in the main text of the article, right? That is a separate topic. With regards to the info you deleted, that information must be restored. Maybe it needs to expanded and explained, but it does need to be there. Otherwise we would present a very distorted picture of Haredi Judaism. We must not and cannot portrary them as religious pluralists, even if we want them to be, because we would then be lying about their beliefs. RK

Danny writes "RK, I will start with your last statement. You are putting words in my mouth. Never once did I say that they were deceptive. Has ve-halila. What I actually said is that YOU do not know how to understand what they are saying or why they are saying it. I see that you are very eager to give an account of ultra-Orthodox Judaism. I have stated my qualifications for writing such an account. What are yours? Being the victim of their rhetoric does not count."

Danny, you have repeatedly accused them of totally lying about their own beliefs. You keep saying that no matter what they write, they mean the opposite. But that is just not so. And later on in your own entry here, you finally admit my main point. RK

Please read to the end before answering. No, I am not excusing them of lying at all. I am saying that within their particular culture, a certain amount of rhetorical hyperbole is used to describe things. I can certainly see where this would result in cultural dissonance. For example, when discussing violations of the Sabbath, an ultra-Orthodox Jew will commonly say that it is an issur sekila, i.e., a violation of a prohibition whose warranted punishment is death by stoning. This is sometimes even contrasted with the violation of a holiday, which is only issur karet, i.e., a violation of a prohibition whose warranted punishment is death by the hand of God. These are both common phrases even today, even though the death penalty in Judaism was essentially worked out of existence in Second Temple times (2,000 years ago)?see, for instance Tractate Sanhedrin on the requirements for imposing a death penalty. While to the untrained ear, the statement sounds harsh: smoking on the Sabbath is unquestionably an issur sekila, but NO ONE in the ultra-Orthodox community means that the person should be stoned (no matter what they smoke). It is simply a term used to describe the severity of the violation. They are not lying when they say they don't mean "stone him," but they are also not lying when they say it is an issur sekila. It is merely an expression, based on (pseudo)-halachic implications of an act. Similarly, the expressions used for describing philosophies that result in non-observance according to their halachic standards will sound equally harsh, though that is not what the community means.

Danny notes "I don't question that you know bits of facts. It is very obvious from what you are writing that you do not know the context of those facts you quote. Apart from giving Avi Shafran far more credit than he actually deserves, you are starting with assumptions that would not work in an ultra-Orthodox context. For example, the synagogue on Rosh HaShana. Since when is it a commandment to go to synagogue on Rosh Hashana (or any time for that matter)? However, there can be very serious halachic issues with attending a Conservative shul. For instance, is there a microphone? Who turned it on? Is there a minyan? Can you sit mixed? Halachically, these may well override the halachah of praying with a quorum.

Danny, this is very misleading. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are very clear on this issue. Whether it is halakha (law) or minhag (custom), Jews are supposed to go to synagogue on these days. This is not debateable. This is also the view of Modern Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism. RK

It is totally debatable. You are imposing your values of synaogue attendance on a community that does not share those values. If, for instance, going to a synagogue would result in driving, then it is ruled universally among all Orthodox authorities that the person should stay at home (find me a single Orthodox rabbi who disagrees with this). Some (many?) Conservative rabbis have ruled otherwise.

However, ultra-Orthodox Jews have stated repeatedly that all non-Orthodox synagogues are not synagogues at all, and that it is forbidden to pray in them. Are you really disputing this fact?

No, not at all. Their argument (which is shared by most, if not all Modern Orthodox rabbis) is that what takes place in the non-Orthodox synagogue (mixed seating, microphones, egalitarian services) is no less opposed to halachah than driving to synagogue. As before, there are rankings of severity. In practice, these violations override tefila be-tzibur (public prayer), which is, at best, a rabbinic law. In other words, according to them it is better to stay at home. If it is necessary to attend a service there (family bar mitzvah or whatnot), then pray before hand. Again, virtually every Orthodox rabbi will tell you that, Modern or ultra. (by the way, break up the first sentence. Not synagogues at all? They can certainly call themselves synagogues, since "synagogue" has no halachic ramifications. Is it forbidden to pray in them? Yes, because of the reasons I gave above.)

Stop trying to portray Haredim as religious pluralists. According to their own words, they are actually opponents of religious pluralism. RK

Secondly, I am not inflating the importance of Agudat Yisrael and its spokesman, Avi Shafran. Agudat Yisrael is the largest and most imporant ultra-Orthodox group in the USA. All the other ultra-Orthodox USA groups are much smaller and have virtually no voice in the US Jewish community. Is there anything about this description you specifically dispute? RK

Yes, granting importance to the role of a spokesperson. Such a position does not exist in ultra-Orthodox culture.

That's simply false. Such a postion not only exists, it is a paid position. I don't understand how you can deny this fact. First off, Agudat Yisrael is a large influential ultra-Orthodox group, with a paid staff. Secondly, they have official spokespeople. I do not understand how you can deny this. Perhaps you mean to say that according to the rabbis you used to follow, they believed that such rabbinical groups, and the actiosn they engage in, shouldn't exist. Well, maybe so, and maybe not. But they certainly do exist now.RK

Danny notes "I have no intention of portraying ultra-Orthodox Jews as religious pluralists. They are not, plain and simple. I do have a problem with misrepresenting the origins of that lack of religious pluralism or the attempt to portray them as some kind of anti-Semite (explicitly or not)."

Now I see what one of the problems is. You read the new text for the article as portraying ultra-Orthodox Jews as anti-Semitic. But that is not so at all! I really can't see how you can reach this conclusion. No one here (let alone I) said or implied any such thing. Are you sure that you fully understand the concept of religious pluralism? That concept is not accepted by most of ultra-Orthodoxy or by much of Modern Orthodoxy. RK

While your last comment addresses this, my reading of what you wrote places yourself a the center of Jewish life, and then you say that these people spew hatred at Jews who do not agree with them. How else am I supposed to take it? In fact, they place themselves at the center and perceive of other groups as fringe elements. Again it is a case of cultural dissonance.

Danny writes "They most certainly are not (nor are Neturei Karta, for that matter, but that's not even worth arguing right now)."

But you are arguing against a claim that no one is making. No wonder you keep deleting all that. I am truly sorry if I gave you that impression, and I would like to cooperate with you in creating a description that will not give this impression. RK

I'd be happy to cooperate. But, in writing such an article (as in writing any article) the wording has to be precise.

Danny writes "Yes, it is also true that they do not accept Reform or Conservative Judaism as legitimate forms of Jewish religion. If you are going to say that, explain why--it is actually quite easy to understand."

Finally! This is precisely what I have been saying time and again! Now can we finally restore this sentence to the article? RK

Of Jewish RELIGION. The distinction must be made between Jewish religion and Jewish peoplehood. Yisrael, af al pi she-hata, Yisrael hu., A Jew, even though he sinned, is still a Jew.

Danny writes "Any problems they have with "Modern Orthodoxy" (and I am not sure that is a definable term either) are very different. Do you know what their problems with Modern Orthodoxy are?"

Sure. I think that calling them "problems" is an understatement. Some ultra-Orthodox Jews have a hatred of Modern Orthodoxy, and use virulent hatespeech to describe Modern Orthodox Jews. RK

The other night, an (Orthodox) friend of mine gave me a very good example of what you are talking about in reference to an attack against Norman Lamm for allowing gay groups to operate in the Yeshiva University graduate schools. Here again, however, it is a question of cultural dissonance. What does the attacker really believe? Who was his verbal attack intended for?the victim, his own community, or perhaps the victim's act (or lack thereof). What practical halachic implications would the verbal attack have? In the ultra-Orthodox world, the latter is the main issue. The answer is: None. Essentially, the attack was a hyperbolic means of saying "We strongly disagree." It was meant, essentially, for his own community to explain that rabbi's position vis a vis something that happened in Yeshiva University. That is all. The rabbi who made the attack is known for his outbursts. No one in the ultra-Orthodox community seriously believes that Norman Lamm is a sonei Hashem (to use the exact term).In fact, the rabbi who said that recently left the Agudat Yisrael supreme rabbinical council because of his "weakening faculties."

Danny writes "I have no idea if you are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or atheist. Yet, no matter what you are, an ultra-Orthodox Jew would count you for a minyan. As long as they continue to accept you for a minyan, I will keep taking the paragraph out every time it appears. If you want to debate this further, I would be happy to, but I don't think Wikipedia is the forum for that." Danny

Danny, I think I have found the other interpretation problem. You have conflated two different issues. (A) Who is a Jew, and (B) What kind of Jewish movemenst are considered valid? I pointed out that (B) Ultra-Orthodox Jews view all forms of Judaism other than their own as totally invalid and fraudlent. (And yes, those are the words that they use.) However, you were under the impression that I was writing something about topic (A). I agree with you that an ultra-Orthodox Jew will accept a non-Orthodox Jew as a Jewish person, and will allow them to enter ultra-Orthodox synagogues, and will even allow them to become an ultra-Orthodox Jew! However, they won't accept non-Orthodox views of halakha or theology as valid at all. Let's work together to write a text for thsi entry that makes these distinctions clear. RK

Once again, the words are harsh. Yes, the words exist. And yes, the distinction you draw exists. The most correct statement you make is " they won't accept non-Orthodox views of halakha or theology as valid at all." The reasons for this are purely halachic. According to the most lenient medieval authority (Rabbi Joseph Albo), the three principles of Jewish religious belief are: a) One God; b) Torah (written and oral) handed down at Sinai, and c) reward and punishment. (The better-known 13 Principles of Maimonides are a lot stricter). In halachah, denying one is denying the validity of the Jewish religion. For example, "Jews for Jesus" are perceived as non-Jewish (but not non-Jews) because they deny a) One God (overly simplified, but a Jewish response to the Trinity that I believe you would accept). Similarly, like it or not, denial of the other two are also perceived as non-Jewish by the ultra-Orthodox community. It is not a question of pluralism. They have a right to do whatever they want and believe whatever they want. To the Orthodox, the problem lies with calling such beliefs Judaism. Ironically, and I may be wrong, you seem to want to expect them to accept such beliefs as an authentic Judaism. Please realize, though, that doing this would be, for them, a rejection of their entire belief system. Danny

Call me naive, but why shouldn't a short encyclopedia article on this topic simply include a sentence like "Ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups are sometimes hostile to Modern Orthodox Judaism" (or whoever else they are sometimes hostile to) and then drop it? As far as I can see, you both agree that hostile attitudes are expressed and therefore there should be no problem mentioning them, but going beyond that flat statement leads to NPOV problems (see above). Ortolan88, retired Methodist.

Because it is a misrepresentation. The question is not what they are hostile to, but what beliefs go against their own. Also, as I tried to explain above, these are communities entrenched in a certain rhetoric when describing things. In comparison, there have been discussions here about jihad. Some people have taken offence to the portrayal of jihad as an "all-out holy war against the infidels." Yes, that is what jihad may mean in a literal sense. It is not what it means in many (most?) senses today. An accurate article should rise above the rhetoric of the communities it is describing to explain what is really being said. Danny , very lapsed Orthodox

My interest is in improving the encyclopedia.

You'd rather have nothing than one sentence stating they don't like each other? I don't get it. The sentence says nothing about jihad, anti-semitism, infidels, any of that, it just says they don't like each other. Isn't that part of the picture? What if it said "there are tensions between the U-Os and other Jewish groups"?

Your position seems to be that they say hostile things but they don't mean it quite that way. I read that as you saying they say hostile things. The other guy says so too. Why shouldn't the article say so? Ortolan88

--- Because in the particular case of ultra and Modern Orthodox, they don't really dislike each other, despite claims to the contrary and despite the language that they use. As I tried to explain to RK, the language is hyperbole, intended for their own communities. It is a style of talking that is very different from what people in the West are used to, but having grown up between both communities I can attest to the fact that they do not dislike each other. They simply disagree sharply on certain issues. My contention was that the article was misleading. Indeed, it made you think that they dislike each other, so from my perspective it was misleading. Danny

So put in the article that they're just nuts about each other, but they love dissing each other! I just don't understand this stuff about they don't mean what they say or say what they mean. That is entirely too "meta" for me. Just speculating, but aren't there also "tensions" between Reformed, Conservative, and "regular" Orthodox? People don't set up different groups because they agree with each other. Why not state in one sentence why they differ and then put that in the article? It isn't a very good article if it doesn't say something about how they differ from everyone else. It doesn't have to say they also differ with everybody else.

By the way, how many people are in this movement? Any outside the US? Ortolan88

I definitely agree. I probably wasn't clear in my discussion with RK. My point was intended to be that we should put in how they disagree rather than just saying they disagree. As for numbers, there are several million, with important centers in the US, Israel, Canada, London, and Belgium. In Israel they control about 22 of the 120 seats in Parliament, making them the balance of power. Their numbers have increased meteorically in the past few decades: they have have played kingmakers between Israel's right and left for the past 25 years. In other words, they can call the shots over what concessions are made to the Palestinians. Meanwhile, much of the Israeli ultra-Orthodox leadership is relatively moderate regarding the peace process, even though most of their adherents lean heavily to the right. Of course, this also has an impact on the statements they make. Rabbi Ovadiah Yoseph, an important leader in Israel, was instrumental in toppling both Netanyahu and Barak. In contrast, much of the Modern Orthodox leadership in Israel is alligned with the right. This should all be included in an article. I will try and work on it over the weekend. Danny

Danny writes: "No, I am not excusing them of lying at all. I am saying that within their particular culture, a certain amount of rhetorical hyperbole is used to describe things. I can certainly see where this would result in cultural dissonance. For example, when discussing violations of the Sabbath, an ultra-Orthodox Jew will commonly say that it is an issur sekila, i.e., a violation of a prohibition whose warranted punishment is death by stoning....These are both common phrases even today, even though the death penalty in Judaism was essentially worked out of existence in Second Temple times (2,000 years ago).... while the statement sounds harsh: smoking on the Sabbath is unquestionably an issur sekila, but NO ONE in the ultra-Orthodox community means that the person should be stoned...It is simply a term used to describe the severity of the violation."

You have misunderstood me. I happen to agree with all this. However, I was talking about places where ultra-Orthodox Jews do mean precisely what they say, in a literal sense! For example, ultra-Orthodox Jews _say_ that Reform (hence R) and Conservative (hence C) synagogues are not true Jewish synagogues;

Wrong. The point is moot because in Orthodox Judaism there is no particular religious concept of "synagogue" anyway. You need a minyan to pray, not a synagogue. Hence, they have no concept of synagogue against which to compare it. BTW, most ultra-Orthodox people pray in a beis midrash or shteibel, not a synagogue.

This is flat-out wrong. In your own mind, you apparently still are trying to "protect" ultra-Orthodox Judaism from having their beliefs mentioned in public. Ultra-Orthodox Jews do have synagogues, and their are many in the county in which I live.

they _say_ that what goes inside them isn't Judaism.

This statement has no logical connection with the preceding one.

And in practice, ultra-Orthodox Jews actually carry these words out - they really do refuse to enter or pray in these R or C synagogues.

Pray, yes. Enter, no. It is no different to enter them than to enter a mosque (where they will pray).

That is patently ridiculus. Ultra-Orthodox Jews will not pray in non-Orthodox synagogues. Stop denying facts. You are still using word games to promote ultra-orthodox apologetics. That doesn't help explain the topic. RK

Another example: The ultra-Orthodox _say_ that R and C rabbis, and sometimes Modern Orthodox rabbis, are not really rabbis.

Also nonsense. The concept of "rabbi" is similarly meaningless. They define rabbi solely as semiha in a tradition extending back to Yoseph Caro (who "may have" reinstated semiha after it was annulled in Roman times). Semiha simply means passing a test on a certain corpus of knowledge (yoreh yoreh or yadin yadin). Many great rabbis did not have semiha, for example, none of the medieval rabbis had it, and more recently, the Chofetz Chayyim did not until the end of his life. The yardstick is knowledge. Being an ordained rabbi is effectively meaningless (note how older men are called to the Torah by the appellation Reb XXX. They are not rabbis, in the traditional sense).

This is utterly false. The fact of the matter is that Ultra-Orthodox Jews do have ordained rabbis. Many are employed in the county where I live. Now it so happens that Orthodox Jews happen to have a specific way of oradining someone as a rabbi, but that has nothing to do with the basic issue: Ultra-Orthodox Jews do have rabbis that they regard as legitimate, and they reject the legitimacy of non-Orthodox rabbis, and many Modern Orthodox rabbis. I am appalled that you keep playing word games so as to deny this fact. Your claims violate both NPOV and academic integrity. RK

Therefore, they say that they refuse to accept the responsa (teshuvot, legal decisions) of these rabbis as valid.

Wrong!!! They do not accept them because they do not fall within the parameters of halachah (Reform and Conservative). They do not accept some Modern Orthodox decisions, just as within the ultra-Orthodox community, they do not always accept each other's. (BTW, one of my uncles was a Conservative rabbi in Phillie, whose hashgacha was accepted by everyone in the Orthodox community--it is knowledge, not ordination, that counts.

Danny is very confused. He starts out by claiming that I am "wrong", but then loses track of what he wrote, and accidently admits that I was right all along. He does this a lot, and I just don't get it. RK

And in practice the ultra-Orthodox carry these words out: When they consult responsa to instruct them in how to live, they actually do reject all R and C,

Because they do not follow halachic standards.

and most Modern Orthodox, responsa.

Not true.

Huh? Are you making this stuff up? That is absolutely false! How can you just make this stuff up? RK

The same is true of their statements on conversions for Judaism, and many other topics.

Again, it is not a question of Reform or Conservative. It is a question of the conversion following halachah. In fact, there was some discussion in Israel of accepting certain Conservative rabbis in the batei din (religious courts) that performed conversions.

In regards to all these practical issues, they really do mean for their words to be understood literally. RK

Actually, you are imposing your values and interpretations of Judaism on them. I highly recommend that you take what you wrote to any "Modern Orthodox" authority and see what they say.

Danny writes "It is totally debatable. You are imposing your values of synaogue attendance on a community that does not share those values. If, for instance, going to a synagogue would result in driving, then it is ruled universally among all Orthodox authorities that the person should stay at home (find me a single Orthodox rabbi who disagrees with this). Some (many?) Conservative rabbis have ruled otherwise."

What's the disagreement here? I agree with you. You just are adding that they happen to have a reason for their view. Well, sure they do. So why do you say I am wrong when it is clear we agree on this? RK

I (RK) had written "ultra-Orthodox Jews have stated repeatedly that all non-Orthodox synagogues are not synagogues at all, and that it is forbidden to pray in them. Are you really disputing this fact?" Danny replied "No, not at all. Their argument (which is shared by most, if not all Modern Orthodox rabbis) is that what takes place in the non-Orthodox synagogue (mixed seating, microphones, egalitarian services) is no less opposed to halachah than driving to synagogue...." (rest deleted solely to save space.)

My response to Danny - Again, I find myself in agreement with you. I gave a simple description, and you added more of an explanation for why this position is held. Why do you present this as a disagreement? RK

For two reasons. There is a way to make a statement without violating NPOV. You are not doing that. Also, the debate is not one of Orthodox vs. Conservative and Reform. It is halachic Judaism vs. non-halachic Judaism. Reform rejects halachah. Conservative reinterprets halachah in a way that runs counter to traditional Jewish understanding. Danny

You are still so deeply influenced by ultra-orthodox sociology, that you can't see the forest for the trees. The precise opposite is true. RK

Danny writes "Of Jewish RELIGION. The distinction must be made between Jewish religion and Jewish peoplehood. Yisrael, af al pi she-hata, Yisrael hu., A Jew, even though he sinned, is still a Jew."

Again, I fully agree with you. But this what I have been saying all along! Isn't this clear? RK

No, not at all. Danny

I don't see how you can contribute to this entry when you cannot understand the "Talk" section conversation. How precisely are you confused? This is getting very frustrating, and verges on insulting. RK

Danny writes " No one in the ultra-Orthodox community seriously believes that Norman Lamm is a sonei Hashem (to use the exact term)."

Here I have to disagree. The attack against Rabbi Lamm was so grevious that it violated many Jewish laws of ethical speech.

That is just silly. Yes, I know you mean lashon hara, but translating it as ethical speech is misinformed at best. In fact, despite the fact that it has a nice ring to it, how exactly would you say "ethical" in Hebrew. The concept doesn't exist in the language. That should tell you something.

Huh? Now you are slandering Orthodox Jews, by denying that they have a concept of ethical speech? Come off it. Drop the ultra-Orthodox apologetics. This is a NPOV encyclopaedia, and we don't have time for your word games. RK

On another occasion (I can provide sources) Rabbi Lamm was even slandered to his face by an ultra-Orthodox rabbi who told R. Lamm that he was not a part of Klal Yisrael!

So? You should hear what is said about competing rabbis within the ultra-Orthodox world.

This just proves my point. RK

Now, I am glad that you don't hold such views about Norman Lamm. Neither, it so happens, do I. But many people really do hold such views. Its not just me who holds this way; a great many Orthodox Jews were also shocked and hurt by these statements. RK

Danny writes: "Similarly, like it or not, denial of the other two are also perceived as non-Jewish by the ultra-Orthodox community. It is not a question of pluralism. They have a right to do whatever they want and believe whatever they want. To the Orthodox, the problem lies with calling such beliefs Judaism. Ironically, and I may be wrong, you seem to want to expect them to accept such beliefs as an authentic Judaism. Please realize, though, that doing this would be, for them, a rejection of their entire belief system.

Here you have totally missed my point. To make things clear, no, I do NOT expect them to accept Reform, or Modern Orthodox, or Conservative Judaism, as authentic Judaism.

I am really quite curious as to how the Modern Orthodox community would take being lumped with Conservative and Reform in contrast with the ultra-Orthodox. You might want to ask them next time you daven in one of their shuls.

It is irrelevent whether Modern Orthodox Jews like this or not. It is true nonetheless. RK

I know full well that they will probably never do so, and frankly, I don't care too much if they do or don't. When I daven in a Conservative synagogue, I don't look for or need approval from others Jews (to the right or left.) The same is true when I daven in a Modern Orthodox synagogue. (I usually daven C, sometimes MO.)

Cool, I'm an agnostic myself.

Naturally, I would like it if the far right of Judaism was more accepting of the rest of Judaism, and frankly, I would also like it if the far left was more accepting of the rest of Judaism as well! It seems to me that you have read my proposed with an overly cautious eye. You always try and interject ultra-Orthodox apologetics in every point; I don't think that is helpful.

Nor is defining a group by saying that they hate other groups. Danny

They themselves say that they hate other groups. It is you who continue to hide their own beliefs.

I agree that that each group has a right to believe whatever they want, and if they feel that some group has slipped over the boundaries of Judaism, then they should not be forced to accept that group. However, all I was saying in the article was that precisely that! It seems to me that you start out by disagreeing with me, but by the end of your analysis you end up in exactly the same position that I started with! So again, why the claim that there is disagreement? RK

Danny writes "In the particular case of ultra and Modern Orthodox, they don't really dislike each other, despite claims to the contrary and despite the language that they use. As I tried to explain to RK, the language is hyperbole, intended for their own communities... They simply disagree sharply on certain issues. My contention was that the article was misleading.

No, Danny, here you are just plain incorrect. Many Ultra-Orthodox Jews really do hate Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and to a smaller degree, some of them hate Modern Orthodoxy. That is precisely what they say. You keep making it sound like they are using some kind of coded speech, but that is flatly false. Many ultra-Orthodox Jews, including leading rabbis, often do use grotesquely hateful terms to describe each of these other Jewish movements. I can give you a long detailed list of examples of ultra-Orthodox instances of hatespeech, as well as physical attacks and assaults, with references. On this particular issue you are simply in denial, and this does you no credit. RK

So put in the article that they're just nuts about each other, but they love dissing each other! I just don't understand this stuff about they don't mean what they say or say what they mean. That is entirely too "meta" for me. Just speculating, but aren't there also "tensions" between Reformed, Conservative, and "regular" Orthodox? People don't set up different groups because they agree with each other. Why not state in one sentence why they differ and then put that in the article? It isn't a very good article if it doesn't say something about how they differ from everyone else. It doesn't have to say they also differ with everybody else. By the way, how many people are in this movement? Any outside the US? Ortolan88 <http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/user:Ortolan88>

I definitely agree. I probably wasn't clear in my discussion with RK. My point was intended to be that we should put in how they disagree rather than just saying they disagree. As for numbers, there are several million, with important centers in the US, Israel, Canada, London, and Belgium. In Israel they control about 22 of the 120 seats in Parliament, making them the balance of power. Their numbers have increased meteorically in the past few decades: they have have played kingmakers between Israel's right and left for the past 25 years. In other words, they can call the shots over what concessions are made to the Palestinians. Meanwhile, much of the Israeli ultra-Orthodox leadership is relatively moderate regarding the peace process, even though most of their adherents lean heavily to the right. Of course, this also has an impact on the statements they make. Rabbi Ovadiah Yoseph, an important leader in Israel, was instrumental in toppling both Netanyahu and Barak. In contrast, much of the Modern Orthodox leadership in Israel is alligned with the right. This should all be included in an article. I will try and work on it over the weekend. Danny <http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/user:Danny>

A suggestion: In crafting the text for any entry on a religion, we need to avoid detailed inter-denominational apologetics to justify a group's beliefs or actions. For example, Reform Judaism's acceptance of driving on Shabbat is a sin according to Orthodoxy, but it can and should be stated in the Wikipedia article on Reform Judaism. After all, its a big issue. But just because the Orthodox disagree with this practice doesn't mean that an encyclopaedia description of it is an attack on Reform. The text of the entry is only a NPOV (neutral pointof view) description. Similarly, a description of ultra-Orthodoxy's rejection of Reform and Conservative (and sometimes Modern Orthodox) Judaism might be seen as a gross insult, or religious error, by Reform and Conservative Jews. But just because R and C Jews disagree with this belief doesn't mean that encyclopaedia description is an attack on ultra-Orthodoxy. Rather, it is a mere NPOV description of it. In regards to this article, I don't see how a description of ultra-Orthodoxy's own beliefs can be seen as anti-Orthodox. It sounds to me like you are very uncomfortable with their beliefs, and thus feel a need to rewrite them to make them sound more western and tolerant. RK

RK, my contention regarding this article is based on the following paragraph.

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups are sometimes hostile to Modern Orthodox Judaism, to the point where Modern Orthodox rabbis have been slandered by some Haredim as "enemies" of the Jewish people and "haters of God". Haredim consider all forms of non-Orthodox Judaism to be non-Jewish religions altogether.

(I also take exception to your use of the phrase "grotesquely hateful terms," but apparently, you have had very limited access to traditional texts in the original language).

I will explain point by point:

The article is sorely lacking in terms of any significant information on ultra-Orthodoxy. Essentially (and admittedly oversimplified), it says that they are a group of people who dress in an odd manner, slander non-Orthodox rabbis, reject all other Jews (actually its says "non-Orthodox Judaism," but how many people reading this will understand the distinction you or I immediately make between Jews and Judaism?), and reject Zionism.
Reading it in the most oversimplified way possible, it is a stereotypical piece about a group of people who dress funny and disapprove of anyone who is not them.
What the article fails to discuss is the demography, philosophy, history, culture, deeply engrained tradition of study, and so much more about the community. Or how about the fact that "ultra-Orthodoxy" as you described it is a very new phenomenon.
Most importantly, it fails to discuss their significance whatsoever. The fact is that despite their numbers, they play an important role not only in the Jewish community but in the international arena too, as I alluded to in a response to Ortolan.

Danny, you dont' seem to understand the concept of Wikipedia. This is a new article that was just started. It will take months for it to grow and develop, just like all the other Wikipedia articles. Stop trying to imagine that this is evidence of a hate campaign against Orthodox Judaism. RK

Given this, I would suggest that the paragraph be rewritten as part of a general effort to rewrite the article. (Oh, and by the way, you might want to ask some older ultra-Orthodox authorities what they thought, for example, about Saul Lieberman – I have actually heard him referred to as a gadol hador (great luminary of the generation), who (sigh!) picked the wrong place to teach). There is actually quite a story about that, but this really isn’t the place for it.:

My suggestion for the questionable paragraph is:

Ultra-Orthodox groups will not accept any infringement on their traditional interpretation of halachah (Jewish law), and regard any changes to this tradition as threatening to the very idea of Jewish continuity. This has resulted in heated debates with rabbis from the Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism and even with some other Orthodox leaders [RK, not just Modern Orthodox. Look up some attacks by Satmar and Rab Shach on Lubavitch or Shas], whose actions they believe challenge the integrity of halachah.

Notice how I failed to use the words "slander," "hostile," or "reject" even once. It is not just what you say but how you say it that can evoke disrespect or dislike for a group, even unwittingly. Calling someone a "slanderer" is hardly NPOV. Can you tell who I support in this paragraph? It was fairly obvious whom you did not like in the previous paragraph. Danny

Your statement is extremely misleading. It does not accurately reflect the beliefs and statements of the groups that you say you wish to write about. This bothers me a great deal. RK