- This topic has 38 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 5 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
I’m asking this question out of a sincere desire to understand this phenomenon. I can think of several individuals on this site who should be able to answer, but welcome devil’s advocates as well!
If being yeshivish/Litvish Charedi is the ideal form of Judaism, and in a perfect world, all Jews would be this way, why does a yeshivish English term like “Harry” exist? Not everyone grows up yeshivish, and when one makes an effort to change their lifestyle and mentality, retroactive purity tests somehow pop up. (For the record, I have yet to hear it used as a compliment. In fact, the only time it isn’t a mockery is when referring to a specific individual who actually has that name.)
A baby is not born understanding cultural nuances, no matter how yeshivish its parents are. Ditto for an adult who grows up differently but views yeshivish mentality as correct and tries to join a yeshivish community. So my question toward people who use or agree with usage of “Harry” to describe newly yeshivish adults is of the same level. How perfect do you expect people to be?
Bonus question – is the term conducive to keeping new “flipouts” (also somewhat of a mocking term) to remain yeshivish? Or is the term a form of Ona’as Devarim toward people who did not choose their parents’ lifestyle?I think you’re making a large leap in saying that being yeshivish is the ideal form of Judaism.
There are many out of town modern communities that follow halacha in my opinion more closely than the lakewood standard, and they focus on halacha more than chumra.
Yeshivish people who call others Harry’s are clearly not focused on the Halachic and societal ramifications of their message.
A true ben torah, ben alia, baal yiras shomayim may be more common in the yeshivish and chasidishe world, but to say that being a member of a yeshivish community makes one an ideal jew would be wrong.Very simple. Normal people don’t use the term Harry. It’s used by people who think highly of themselves and consider themselves to be big shots. And it isn’t used that often in common usage. And when it is, it isn’t necessarily only used regarding newly Yeshivish.
In short, it isn’t justifiable; and it isn’t common.
Yeshivish is the ideal form of Judaism?? Yeshivish is a modern, artificial form of Judaism and is an Ashkenazic invention. Where is it written that Yeshivish is the ideal form? The ideal form is to be an Oved Hashem with good Middos.
Being an Oved Hashem with good Middos is exquisitely describing and impeccably depicting being Yeshivish. It’s virtually synonymous.
ChiefShmerel: I’m born and bred Yeshivish and I first heard the term in the coffee room here (years ago). I don’t ever remember hearing it used in real life.
Ppl make fun of those who are not culturally the same as them.
This has NOTHING to do with religion, but rather cultural association.
They make fun of chassidim, and they use even more derogatory terms to refer to those more frum than them.
I was called a Harry in 10th grade, because I was MORE frum than the rest of the class
When we call someone a Harry, it’s usually describing a person who grew up American and doesn’t necessarily understand all the cultural nuances.
You can tell them by how they dance in a circle or by the white socks, what type of coat they wear.
All of which is cultural but nothing to do with Avodad Hashem or Halacha.
I thought they are called “:yankees”.
Probably, young people embrace stereotypes faster in our days due to media propagation. So, all labels have memes going around. All of that is total nonsense. Someone who watches TV is not “modern”, and someone who wears a hat is not “yeshivish”. R Soloveitchik is modern, R Feinstein is yeshivish – and they are cousins.
Good question. I gave this some thought. I don’t think “Harry” is called “Harry” to his face. It’s a term for internal use only. You also have to understand that referring to someone as a Harry doesn’t mean the guy is lower down in his avodas Hashem (usually he’s higher up). It means he doesn’t fit in socially and this is important to know in certain situations. For example, it might be necessary to explain why this guy wouldn’t be a good shidduch for a particular girl. Or, if a chaburah wants to only allow in a certain “type,” they would use need to use this word to explain why this person doesn’t fit in.
Still, you’re asking, why do the Yeshivish not embrace the “Harry”s since they are trying to become the “perfect Yeshivish Jews”? I think the answer is that just like not everyone is a Kohen or a Levi – you’re born into it – so too is the status of Yeshivish (for the most part). It’s a fact of life: you need to be born into it to be Yeshivish. A Harry is just not Yeshivish. Period. Just like a chair is not a table, a Harry is not Yeshivish. He has to accept the sheivet he was born into, so to speak.
Sincerely,
HarryCharedism as it exists today is not some timeless, authentic Judaism but a post-Holocaust concoction—an anxious, postmodern reconstruction that confuses costume for covenant and jargon for Torah; the obsession with hats, coats, and labels like “Harry” or “flipout” is nothing more than cultural cosplay masquerading as faith, for—as I say—you are a Jew in your heart, not in your hat, and the essence of Yiddishkeit has always been to be a mensch, to be ehrlech (honest) in conduct and eydel (refined) in spirit, not to perform purity tests or enforce superficial codes; the tragedy is that instead of nurturing inward refinement, so much of the Charedi project reduces itself to cultural gatekeeping, while the truth—known to our sages across centuries—is that what endures is menschlechkeit, dignity, and compassion, not millinery or slang. My late father a”h held that frumkeit is often a cover for hardheartedness and a lack of character. True righteousness is being stringent for yourself and lenient to others.
It’s been about ten years since I heard someone called a Harry.
When I did hear the term it was never in the context you described.
It was more of a Chofetz Chaim type and it derived from (at least as I understood it) being close talmidim of Rabbi Harris (obviously it expanded from just his talmidim to become a stereotype). But I’m unsure where your version comes from.
If you scan the scholarly literature on what it means to be “Yeshivish” (ka Litivsh, Misnagdim, or any other nomenclature assigned to the non-Chassidish, non-Sephardeshe segments of the frum tzibur, you are unlikely to find a lexicon that lists a “Harry” reference.
It seems everyone has a different definition of what being a “Harry” means.
I associate myself completely with Mr. Knobler’s view. Concerning his statement that one is a Jew not in your hat but in your heart, I made a similar response to a certain Rabbi’s comment on my own headgear. What’s in your head is more important than what’s on your head.
Ari > My late father a”h held that frumkeit is often a cover for hardheartedness and a lack of character.
Maybe our Fathers davened in the same shul? One of his bitter comments was that young “frum” members cancelled the contract to rent a nearby parking lot for Yamim Norayim, and some of people he knew who used to come occasionally for maybe 60 years – stopped coming.
Comparing chumros level v. middos is one mussar way to check yourself. A story of Alter from Slabodka who did not want to go greet a visiting dignitary because he did not hold much of him, but he was not sure whether he is just being lazy. So, he dressed up, walked to the hotel, stopped to think about it again, and, satisfied with the integrity of his decision, went back home.
a simpler method: In Avoda Zora it is said that sakanah is stricter than kashrus. If you eat something that is allowed by most and turned out you made a mistake – you have a defence in the shamayim that you followed a halachic process. If you drink water left overnight open for snakes, in the unlikely case of a snake depositing poison, you’ll die even if you followed the right statistical model. Halakha is very strict about that – we don’t eat, say meat/fish because of sakanah as perceived in Shulchan Aruch even if we don’t have medical evidence for that.
So, one should be more careful how one crosses the road; eats healthy food; drives in traffic than in worrying whether a non-Jew added camel milk into your yogurt. If one is not, then his Torah learning is off.
redleg > made a similar response to a certain Rabbi’s comment on my own headgear.
I’ve seen a cartoon years ago – chassidim in shterimels stand in line to great their Rebbe. There is a modern-dressed professor in the line. Seeing that he is sticking out, he adds a shterimel to his suit. Rebbe says “gut shabbos” to everyone, and to professor he says “a freliiche Purim”
Be comfortable in your own skin/shtreimel
The idea that “one is a Jew in their heart” comes straight from the Reform/Conservative playbook. You just gotta be a Jew in your heart, a mentsch, while you eat your pork and drive to synagogue twice a year on R”H and Y”K, you are better than anyone who keeps the 613 Mitzvos that you violate.
AAQ: It is unquestionably a million times better to not go to Shul on Shabbos than to be Mechallel Shabbos by driving to Shul.
thanks for filling me in on halochos shabbos. You absolutely changed my plans for this weekend.
There is a lot of halachik literature about inviting non-religious people for shabbos. In this case, it is people who had a kesher with a shul for several generations and continued coming (and supporting) the shul. Cutting them and possibly their children and grandchildren off is not a mitzva and thank you for demonstrating that this attitude exists, unfonrtuately, not in just that one shul.
> “one is a Jew in their heart” comes straight from the Reform/Conservative playbook.
now havos halevavos is a reform book? What this reflects is that we sometimes tend to counter the external influences. For example, some emphasize doing v beliefs in response to the religion that calls for the faith alone. Same here. As we were challenged by reform and communists, it was natural to focus on what they rejected. Good that we have Tanach and Gemorah that still has those issues mentioned.
thanks for filling me in on halochos shabbos. You absolutely changed my plans for this weekend.
There is a lot of halachik literature about inviting non-religious people for shabbos. In this case, it is people who had a kesher with a shul for several generations and continued coming (and supporting) the shul. Cutting them and possibly their children and grandchildren off is not a mitzva and thank you for demonstrating that this attitude exists, unfortunately, not in just that one shul.
Chiefshmerel,
In my experience, the term Harry isn’t intended to mock anyone & isn’t even derogatory. It’s a Yeshivish term to describe someone more out of townish.
This wouldn’t be Ona’as Devarim unless it was said about the person in his presence, thus causing him pain. A decent Yid wouldn’t do such a thing.ujm
“It is unquestionably a million times better to not go to Shul on Shabbos than to be Mechallel Shabbos by driving to Shu”
You are entitled to you opinion , and Rav Moshe did hold that way.
However others perhaps most famously Rav Shlomo Zalman and yibadel Lchaim Rav Shternbuch disagree.In practice the vast vast majority of kalal Yisroel does not follow R’ Moshe regarding this , I asked Rav
Bluth Ztzl who said “the velt doesnt follow R’ Moseh in this inyan”Thus the “unquestionable” part of your response is a bit strong, Sure you can disagree wit h Rav Shternbuch and R’ Shlomo Zalamn? But is it really unquestionable that you are right?
@ujm is talking about someone who is shomer shabbos.While I don’t know what sources you are referring to, I can only imagine that you must be talking about the question of i one can invite a secular jew to shil knowing that they will drive to get there. That is a very different question that centers on the status of secular jews today vis-a-vis the laws of tinik sh’nishbu and if we have any concern for “arvis” towards such profaned “jews”.
The minhag to invite would seem to point to there not being arvis even if the “jew” is coming to shil on shabbos…
ubiq: Do you pull this stuff out of a hat or simply make it up as you go along?
Rav Shlomo Zalman does NOT permit it whatsoever. All he permits is inviting someone on Shabbos IF you offer him a place to sleep so that he doesn’t have to be Mechallel Shabbos to come. He does NOT permit renting a parking lot so people can drive there on Shabbos, like AAQ and his father wanted.
Do you really fail to see the huge, tremendous and significant difference?
And Rav Ahron Leib holds exactly as Rav Moshe.
@ujm & Ubiquitin:
I think we are addressing a few different questions together.“It is unquestionably a million times better to not go to Shul on Shabbos than to be Mechallel Shabbos by driving to Shul.” Absolutely!
But what about the choice between driving to the beach/club versus driving to Shul?
This is a key distinction between kiruv and being religious.
When you are religious, you try to do what Hashem wants you to do.
Kiruv is about trying to help someone getting on board with becoming religious without turning them away.Have you ever learned Chovas Halevavos? Your inane comment implies that you haven’t!
Ubiq,
Rav shlomo zalman and Rav Shternbuch said one is allowed to drive to shul on Shabbos if need be? Really? Why wouldn’t it be a מצוה הבאה בעבירה?
Can you please provide sources?
ubiq — Furthermore, in practice, like most things, the vast majority of Torah observant Klal Yisroel absolutely does follow Rav Moshe on this. Even the Young Israel shuls that used to have an open parking lot on Shabbos have all long closed them. There was one Young Israel in Las Vegas that was at one point the last Young Israel in the country that had it.
ubi, I wonder whether your correspondent ever considered inviting someone non-observant for shabbos? If not, he might not have been interested in these halochos.
pekak > Have you ever learned Chovas Halevavos?
I admit I did not – I do not read Arabic! I was simply making a pun on the poster referring to heart as a Reform thing.
> Even the Young Israel shuls that used to have an open parking lot on Shabbos have all long closed them.
“Even”? As if YI was not shomer shabbos l’hathila. I had a sephardi rabbi complaining about (many years ago) when he was trying to raise up his community while renting space from YI. When a Sephardi congregant parked on Shabbat right in front of the shul in a “no stopping” zone – a YI zealot ran in shouting about shabbos. The Rav felt that if he were to give this message to the congregant, he’ll lose him – so he simply asked him to move the cat from “no stopping”, Now, grandchildren of that man are all in yeshivos despite YI love for shabbat
anyway, to be clear about the context, my original story was not about whole congregation routinely violating shabbos. It was about people will long-time ties to the shul, whose families started the shul, who felt marginal connection and were coming on yomim norayim and the shul cut them off. Now, all the chabadnikim will be spending years trying to find grandchildren of these people and maybe bring back a small number of them.
I guess each person has a different take on this phrase. In a certain yeshive I learnt in 20 years ago we called ourselves Harry Central. We all felt like “Harrys” There was a guy that our rebbi called hurricane harry… He showed up with a knapsack loaded with equipment for learning like a pencil case with different colored highlighters… pencils with tons of extra lead… sticky notes to put on every page… a card to chase away shmoozers a dictionary for hebrew english and one for aramaic to english and for english to english (our rosh yeshiva used very hard words)… and we loved the guy he knew what he was talking about he came prepared and knew the gemara better than anyone else!!
UJM
slow down you are mixed up as usual.
“Rav Shlomo Zalman does NOT permit it whatsoever. All he permits is inviting someone on Shabbos IF you offer him a place to sleep so that he doesn’t have to be Mechallel Shabbos to come.”
This is contradictory. He does permit it as you say , even if you know he will be mechalel Shabbos to come whcih is EXACTLY what I said . however there is YOUR problem of lifeni iver/mesayea, you can avoid that issur by offering him a place o sleep now if/when he drives on Shabbos to come that is his problem not yours.
He does not say you cant invite him.
You are confusing tow issues. HIS issur of driving on Shabbos and YOU issur of mesaye. offerign him a place does not solve his issur of driving.“He does NOT permit renting a parking lot so people can drive there on Shabbos, like AAQ and his father wanted.”
OkDo you really fail to see the huge, tremendous and significant difference?
I sure do, I also see that you are sharing ignorance again. Please don’t .And Rav Ahron Leib holds exactly as Rav Moshe.
As do many others. and like You!
But to say “unquestionable” is wrong“ubiq — Furthermore, in practice, like most things, the vast majority of Torah observant Klal Yisroel absolutely does follow Rav Moshe on this”
I dont have data. As mentioned Ive spoken to rav Bluth, heard from Rav Asher Weiss, Rav Aron Feldman and Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky wh oall the standard psak is not like R” Moshe (and R’ Aron Shtienman and you,)
(To be honest I dont really understand the matirim thats why this sugya always interested me )CA
“Rav shlomo zalman and Rav Shternbuch said one is allowed to drive to shul on Shabbos if need be? Really? Why wouldn’t it be a מצוה הבאה בעבירה?
Can you please provide sources?”no . They do not say that. They do say that if in the long term it will reduce chilul Shabbos long term by bringing them, closer to Yidishkeit it is better to invite them than not to even if they will drive. Rav Shternbuch is Teshuvos Vehanagos 1:358, R’ Shlomo Zalman is Minchas Shlomo 2:4:10
Today as far as I’m aware this is the standard practice. Though certainly not all agree
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.