- This topic has 292 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Twisted- as I already explained, the things you are talking about have nothing to do with the secular education itself – they have to do with things that often go with it. That is not the same thing at all. That is why the girls do receive a secular education, including two years post high-school which are certainly not required by law.
“everything else are minor sociological details”
“Going from an agricultural based society to an urban based society is a not a minor sociological detail
Also major transfers of population centers has had a major effect”
Even if they are not minor, they still are sociological details that are not connected to Chareidi hashkafa and hence, have nothing to do with this discussion.
“Depending on how you phrase those goals, destiny and purpose I think all orthodox JEws and (probablly even many non-orthdox) will say they have similar goals”
So maybe none of them are new movements.
“everything else are minor sociological details”
GAW: “Like Zionism. :)”
Zionism is a hashkafa, not a sociological detail.
IITFT – +1!
IIFT
“So you wish to sell us that for our ancestors Shavuos was primarily a Wheat Festival,Tu B’Av a Festival Of Love, Succos a Harvest Festival,etc.”
what? No where did you get that from?
you dont need me to tell you what they celebrated Open your hcumash it will tell you what why they celebrated Sukkos and Shavuos. Open a gemra taanis it will tell you about Tu B’Av I’m not sure how you got there.
“do you really believe a shift from life revolving around beis hamikdash and karbanos to today is merely “minor sociological details” ‘?
It depends for whom”
Can you elaborate? Or at least tell us if you view your life with a beis hamikdash to without as one that would differ in a “minor sociological detail”
LU
“Even if they are not minor, they still are sociological details that are not connected to Chareidi hashkafa and hence, have nothing to do with this discussion.”
It is a direct response to the silly notion that charedisim is the “default, traditional manner of being frum” charedi Judiasm (like all branches) is VERY different than Judiasm as practiced a millenia ago let alone during the time of chazal not to mention Matan Torah.
Thank you for keeping me up in this thread and your understanding.
Questions::
1) If Chareidi Jews are characterized as being anti-Zionist, then wouldn’t that be a movement
Being against the legal and secular State of Israel is holding a political, social, and economic affiliation.
If anything it is at least a social movement.
2) If every generation has its tests, then why not give a name to the differences in this generation?
Is it so wrong to label the contemporary frum Jew who may be living in Israel and an anti-Zionist as a Chareidi?
I think that the desire to say that Chareidim are the same as the Jews on Sinai and only are labeled such because their environment gave them such a title is also avoiding to recognize the special mission and challenges that Chareidim have today.
Okay that was a long awkward sentence.
I was just reading an empowering book on being an even Hashem. It mentioned how we each have our own missions. So many of these stories of the Gedolim and Jews of generations ago cannot be a model for us to live by today.
Hashem expects us to take on the challenges before us and see the value in our nissayonos.
So I was thinking… what if saying that Chareidim are just like Jews of the past; they just have a different social environment, is like omitting the very reason and uniqueness that Hashem wanted this group of Jews to recognize and value.
Maybe the Chareidi mindset is focused on conforming our identity with our Torah-observant ancestors, so that may be the reason why someone who identifies as Chareidi may defend against the notion that Chareidi is a movement.
Point is… Maybe there is bias here against the word “Movement.” As if it delegitimizes frum Jewry from being just plain frum.
It is a strong word.
If we look more objectively at the selected definition of Movement and our collective definition of Chareidi/Haredi, would associating Chareidim/Haredim as part of a movement reduce the group’s value?
Hopefully not.
If we recognize the differences between Chareidim/Haredim and religious Jews of the past, maybe that can highlight the great and special details that it takes to be a Chareidi/Haredi Jew today.
Haredim according to a poll from “May 2016 on a total of 1,531 interviewees of the Jewish and Arab public, with a margin of error of 5.3% for the haredi sample” (JPost):
“Despite public perceptions, 69.5% of haredim in Israel are proud to be Israeli, compared to 87% of the rest of the Jewish population according to the annual index.
Additionally, 64% of haredim feel part of the State of Israel and its problems, compared to 86% of the non-haredi Jewish population.” (Jpost)
It sounds like according to JPost, Haredi and Zionism/Anti-Zionisn are mutually exclusive. They may go together but being haredi doesn’t necessarily imply one’s Zionistic leaning.
The State of Israel itself is not a “minor socialogical issue”
Its very differnt to say Next Year in Jerusalem when its unlikely you will ever go there in your lifetime and when you can go tommorrow if you like or even live there
Living in a place where Jews control the government is very different than living in a place where the government is Hostile to jews (Dont compare the modern state of Israel to Czarist or Communist Russia) or in a place that is benevolent to jews (The US) where you can pretty much do what you want and the government will support your decision
Correction please:
It sounds like according to JPost, Haredi and Zionism/Anti-Zionism are *not* mutually exclusive.
They may go together but being haredi doesn’t necessarily imply one’s Zionistic leaning.
Chabad are considered Charedi and they are zionistic
Historically, Chabad was antizionist, but have shifted towards zionism as they’ve become more and more modern.
A Chabad rabbi told me that after the State of Israel happened, people stopped opposing it since its existence must have been from Hashem. So then they started supporting it.
Context: I had just read a book (I think it was by Chaim Potok) that talked about the tensions between Misnagdim and Chassidim. The book also mentioned the resistance against the State of Israel. That was news to me.
So I asked my rabbi if it was true that some people were against it.
He said yes before it was a state but after it happened then clearly Hashem had a reason and it was important to support it.
At another time, I told my rabbi that a family member told me that sometimes he regrets something he did many years ago. My rabbi said that was nothing to regret. If it happened then it needed to happen and the family member wasn’t in control. The point here is that my rabbi puts his trust in Hashem that what happens is meant to happen and we must deal with what is here, even when it differs from our will.
I am not certain that the reason Chabad now is pro-Zionist has to do with becoming more “modern.” Maybe it is part of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings to be happy and serve Hashem with joy. Plus the Talmud’s teaching to be happy with one’s lot.
Zionism is a hashkafa, not a sociological detail.
I would argue that Aderaba, Zionism is the biggest “detail” to split Torah society (at least in Israel) since the Chassidic/Misnaged divide, and maybe even the Pharisee chumrah of Chulin B’Taharah.
Boruch Hashem I live in a neighborhood where “Zionists” and “Anti-Zionists” can get along, but then again there is no money on the line for supporting a side.
after the State of Israel happened, people stopped opposing it since its existence must have been from Hashem.
Should we now support the latest UN resolution? Now that it happened, it must be from Hashem, so we should support it! You can say that about anything bad tbat happens.
Maybe it is part of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings to be happy and serve Hashem with joy
There are other followers of the Baal Shem Tov who aren’t Zionistic.
Lubavitch, even today, is officially anti-Zionism.
after the State of Israel happened, people stopped opposing it since its existence must have been from Hashem.
A similar Shittah was held by many others, that once the State is in existence then protesting it would give support and comfort to Sonei Yisroel (as we have seen happen). Agudah in EY took a different approach, in which they don’t support the state, but don’t specifically go against it (for the time being) and get support (money) from the state.
DY once showed me a fascinating written version of the Agudah Shittah post ’48 from one of the Gedolim, perhaps he could find it and copy it here as well?
Zahavasdad,etc.,
You’ll welcome to keep throwing
What’s will be next after agricultural societies, and now zionism?
Seems the stakes are awfully high for you and yours
“The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with …”
The Frum Jew “saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always..” …
And To borrow from Rudyard Kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
You da man.
Thanks DY.
Im not sure if it was Rav Hutner or Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky who this is about
After the 1967 there was a debate if it was a miracle or not and the Satmar Rebbe said it was no Miracle and either Rav Hutner or Rav Yaakov replied, I dont think Hashem needs the permission of the Satmar Rebbe to perform a miracle
You’re welcome.
BTW, I think this discussion is just another rehashing of the many MO/DL vs. chareidi threads.
There’s no question that all streams are different than Jews were in the past, the difference between each of today’s streams is how they have adapted to today’s reality.
Everyone thinks that they have adapted in the manner that our gedolim from the past (going back to Chazal and even earlier) would have wanted, and therefore “default” Judaism, and the others are “movements”.
Been there, done that; this is just a semantically different take on an old topic.
There’s no question that all streams are different than Jews were in the past, the difference between each of today’s streams is how they have adapted to today’s reality.
Everyone thinks that they have adapted in the manner that our gedolim from the past (going back to Chazal and even earlier) would have wanted, and therefore “default” Judaism, and the others are “movements”.
+1
ZD: You post that bubbe maaisa above once a year. It’s still a bubbe maaisa.
Rav Aharon Kotler zt’l, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
Rav Aharon Kotler zt’l, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
You post that at least once a year.
So far, the only chiddush in this thread is that ZD and I agreed to something.
So far, the only chiddush in this thread is that ZD and I agreed to something.
And that must be a sign Moshiach is on the way
Baruch Hashem for DY & ZD’s agreement.
May you again find peace and common ground 🙂
I don’t think I’ve posted that in at least 5 or 6 years, if not longer. But the difference between posting that and what he posted is that what I posted is verifiable true. What do you agree with him about?
That there’s nothing in this thread that hasn’t already been discussed, by the same people, ad nauseum.
After the 1967 there was a debate if it was a miracle or not and the Satmar Rebbe said it was no Miracle and either Rav Hutner or Rav Yaakov replied, I dont think Hashem needs the permission of the Satmar Rebbe to perform a miracle
As I read it, the Rebbe said that it was the work of the Samech-Mem;
Reb Yaakov disagreed.
Xtians and Zoroastrians notwithstanding, anything the Samech-Mem does requires Hashem’s permission. This is stated explicitly in Sefer Iyov. I actually once heard a suggestion that the miracles were performed through non-observant Jews to confuse him.
Lightbrite: “1) If Chareidi Jews are characterized as being anti-Zionist, then wouldn’t that be a movement
Being against the legal and secular State of Israel is holding a political, social, and economic affiliation.”
Lightbrite, I didn’t define Chareidiism as being anti-Zionist. I even allowed for the fact that it could be possible to be Chareidi and be Zionist. My point was that being Chareidi includes all Frum Jews who do not define themselves as Dati-Leumi/Mizrachi. Dati-Leumi/Mizrachi is a new movement. Not being part of it does not make you part of a new movement.
Part of the definition of Chareidi is being Frum. Being Frum includes following Daas Torah. Following Daas Torah means listening to the Gedolim of your generation. The reason why we have to follow the Gedolim in our generation and it’s not enough to follow the Gedolim in past generations is that there are new issues in each generation. The fact that there are new issues in each generation that need resolved does not mean that being Frum is a new movement because being Frum might involve doing some things differently than it did in the last generation. If that were the case, then we are creating new movements every day because there are new issues every day.
So if you are going to say that Chareidiism is a new movement just because there are new issues today, then being Frum is also a new movement and so is being Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos.
“That there’s nothing in this thread that hasn’t already been discussed, by the same people, ad nauseum.”
That wasn’t what you agreed on. What you agreed on was:
Did you change your mind from earlier in this thread? I thought you had said something very different earlier, but I may be mistaken.
Lilmod: “Or: Possibility #2: One could argue that someone who votes Meretz is by definition not “shomer Torah u’Mitzvos”.”
Gavra-at-work: “Where is the Aveirah of voting for Meretz? Does this tie into “following the Gedolim”? Wouldn’t that be an additional qualification?”
I think it would be “not following the Gedolim” which is part of being Shomer Torah and Mitzvos.
“That there’s nothing in this thread that hasn’t already been discussed, by the same people, ad nauseum.”
I never discussed it before, and I have been one of the main participants in this discussion!
“That there’s nothing in this thread that hasn’t already been discussed, by the same people, ad nauseum.”
That wasn’t what you agreed on. What you agreed on was:
Did you change your mind from earlier in this thread? I thought you had said something very different earlier, but I may be mistaken.
“That there’s nothing in this thread that hasn’t already been discussed, by the same people, ad nauseum.”
I never discussed it before, and I have been one of the main participants in this discussion!
Essentially the same thing, except that you’re right, I should have written “by mostly the same people”.
Unless you’re Joseph. 😉
I didn’t read the old threads, but are you trying to tell me that I didn’t say ANYTHING original that wasn’t already said? And here, I thought I was such an original thinker! 🙁 oh, well… maybe, great minds just think alike 🙂
This thread provides a clear proof that I can’t possibly be Joseph, since I posted Motzei Shabbos when it was Shabbos in the US, and it looks like he posted Erev Shabbos when it was Shabbos here.
besides, I think we have very different personalities..
Lilmod: “Zionism is a hashkafa, not a sociological detail.”
GAW: “I would argue that Aderaba, Zionism is the biggest “detail” to split Torah society (at least in Israel) since the Chassidic/Misnaged divide, and maybe even the Pharisee chumrah of Chulin B’Taharah.”
That doesn’t make it a sociological detail as opposed to a hashkafa. Adraba, that is why it is so divisive – precisely because it IS a hashkafa.
DY: “There’s no question that all streams are different than Jews were in the past, the difference between each of today’s streams is how they have adapted to today’s reality.
Everyone thinks that they have adapted in the manner that our gedolim from the past (going back to Chazal and even earlier) would have wanted, and therefore “default” Judaism, and the others are “movements”.”
That sounds very nice except that I don’t think it’s true. Zionism was a new movement that hadn’t existed previously, and the term Chareidi is just used to refer to any Frum Jews who don’t define themselves as religious-zionists.
Chareidi is the hebrew word for Frum. There is no other word for Frum in hebrew. Do you consider Frum to be a new movement?
Were the Perushim a new movement? They were just the Jews who didn’t become tzedukim – the same way that the Chareidim are the Jews who didn’t become tziyoni.
Does Joseph mind that he’s the CR person who gets teased about being on the CR?
I think the thing is that Americans are confused by the term Chareidi because it’s not really used in America, so Americans think it refers to some kind of movement. But that’s not how most Israelis use the term. Whenever I told an Israeli that I wasn’t Chareidi (before I figured out that I was), they would look surprised and ask me in what way I wasn’t Chareidi. They consider anyone who is Frum to be Chareidi.
Chareidi is the hebrew word for Frum. There is no other word for Frum in hebrew.
Are we talking about secular zionism or religious zionism? If secular, I think all here would agree.
If religious, then it would be the same old debate. The RZ would say that the gedolim in past generations would react the same as they did to the opportunity to populate and build Eretz Yisroel, which wasn’t possible in the past.
The word for “frum” is Dati.
LU
What would you call someone who wears jeans, Sandals , shirt tucked out and a Kipa Sruga, but ptherwise the mitzvahs in a similar way to someone who wears a streimel, Becksha and shoes
So the State of Israel was precedented in its effects on Torah Jewry?
GAW: You mentioned the “Chassidic/Misnaged divide, and maybe even the Pharisee chumrah of Chulin B’Taharah.”
Btw please… What was the “Pharisee chumrah of Chulin B’Taharah.”?
“The word for “frum” is Dati.”
That’s an American fallacy. Israelis don’t use the word dati to mean Frum. It means religious. It would not be used for someone who keeps halacha completely. It certainly is unlikely to be used for someone who doesn’t watch movies or tv, and doesn’t send his daughters to the army, dresses tzniusly,etc.
There are plenty of people in Eretz Yisroel who fully keep halachah but are not considered by anyone to be “chareidi”.
Anyone who is fully Frum would be considered Chareidi by many people. They certainly wouldn’t be considered “Dati” by itself. “Dati” implies not fully Frum. Anyone who is fully Frum would at least be called “Dati Chazak”, if not Chareidei Leumi or Chareidi. There is a reason why the terms “Dati Chazak” and “Chareidi Leumi” exist. If “Dati” meant fully Frum, there would be no reason for anyone to call themselves “Dati Chazak” or “Chareidi Leumi”.
Before I moved into an Israeli Chareidi apartment building, the landlord asked me if I was Chareidi. He was asking about my religious level, not my hashkafos. He didn’t care about my hashakafas; he wanted to make sure that I wouldn’t do anything that would offend the neighbors.
ZD – a Jew. I try not to label people unless I have to.
If he were being “redt” to me, I would probably ask about the specific issues that are important to me (tv/movies, learning, etc.)
Lilmod, you are absolutely wrong. “Dati” is used for someone who is considered (some people talk the talk but in private don’t walk the walk but that is true across the board) a member of the non-Chareidi (or Chareidi Leumi – Chardal) religious public. Someone who is up front about no longer keeping mitzvot is a datlash/it (dati/a leshe’avar – formerly religious). Someone who cuts corners is “dati lite”. I have also heard of people named Datia, apparently the Hebrew equivalent of the Yiddish name Fruma.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.