Orthodox Judaism
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2021) |
| Part of a series on |
| Judaism |
|---|
   |
Orthodox Judaism is the collective term for the traditionalist branches of contemporary
and faithfully transmitted ever since.Orthodox Judaism, therefore, advocates a strict observance of Jewish law, or
Orthodox Judaism is not a centralized denomination. Relations between its different subgroups are sometimes strained, and the exact limits of Orthodoxy are subjected to intense debate. Very roughly, it may be divided between Haredi Judaism, which is more conservative and reclusive, and Modern Orthodox Judaism, which is relatively open to outer society. Each of those is itself formed of independent communities. Together, they are almost uniformly exclusionist, regarding Orthodoxy not as a variety of Judaism, but as Judaism itself.
While it adheres to traditional beliefs, the movement is a modern phenomenon. It arose as a result of the
Definitions
| Part of a series on |
| Jews and Judaism |
|---|
The earliest known mention of the term Orthodox Jews was made in the Berlinische Monatsschrift in 1795. The word Orthodox was borrowed from the general German Enlightenment discourse, and used to denote those Jews who opposed Enlightenment. During the early and mid-19th century, with the advent of the progressive movements among German Jews, and especially early Reform Judaism, the title Orthodox became the epithet of traditionalists who espoused conservative positions on the issues raised by modernization. They themselves often disliked the name that was earlier adopted by eastern Christianity, preferring titles such as "Torah-true" (gesetztreu). They often declared they used it only as a convenience. German Orthodox leader Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch referred to "the conviction commonly designated as Orthodox Judaism"; in 1882, when Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer became convinced that the public understood that his philosophy and Liberal Judaism were radically different, he removed the word Orthodox from the name of his Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary. By the 1920s, the term had become common and accepted even in Eastern Europe.[1]
Orthodoxy perceives itself as the only authentic continuation of Judaism as it was until the crisis of modernity. Its progressive opponents often shared this view, regarding it as a remnant of the past and lending credit to their own rival ideology.[2]: 5–22 Thus, the term Orthodox is often used generically to refer to traditional (even if only in the sense that it is unrelated to modernist movement) synagogues, rites, and observances.
Academic research noted that the formation of Orthodox ideology and organizations was itself influenced by modernity. This was brought about by the need to defend the very concept of tradition in a world where that was no longer self-evident. When secularization and the dismantlement of communal structures uprooted the old order of Jewish life, traditionalist elements united to form groups that had a specific self-understanding. This, and all that it entailed, constituted a notable change, for the Orthodox had to adapt to modern society no less than anyone else; they developed novel, sometimes radical, means of action and modes of thought. "Orthodoxization" was a contingent process, drawing from local circumstances and dependent on the threat sensed by its proponents: a sharply-delineated Orthodox identity appeared in Central Europe, in Germany and Hungary, by the 1860s; a less stark one emerged in Eastern Europe during the Interwar period. Among the Jews of the Muslim lands, similar processes on a large scale began only around the 1970s, after they immigrated to Israel. Orthodoxy is often described as extremely conservative, ossifying a once-dynamic tradition due to the fear of legitimizing change. While this was sometimes true, its defining feature was not forbidding change and "freezing" Jewish heritage, but rather the need to adapt to the segment of Judaism in a modern world inhospitable to traditional practice. Orthodoxy often involved much accommodation and leniency. In the mid-1980s, research on Orthodox Judaism became a scholarly discipline, examining how the need to confront modernity shaped and changed its beliefs, ideologies, social structure, and halakhic rulings, separating it from traditional Jewish society.[3]
History
Modernity crisis
Until the latter half of the 18th century, Jewish communities in Central and Western Europe were autonomous entities, with distinct privileges and obligations. They were led by the affluent wardens' class (
This state of affairs came to an end with the rise of the modern, centralized state, which appropriated all authority. The nobility, clergy, urban guilds, and all other corporate estates were gradually stripped of privileges, inadvertently creating a more equal and secularized society. The Jews were one of the groups affected: excommunication was banned, and rabbinic courts lost almost all their jurisdiction. The state, especially following the
By the end of the 18th century, the weakened rabbinic establishment was facing a new kind of transgressor: they could not be classified as tolerable sinners overcome by their urges (khote le-te'avon), or as schismatics like the
Rabbi Elazar Fleckeles, who returned to Prague from the countryside in 1783, recalled that he first faced there "new vices" of principled irreverence towards tradition, rather than "old vices" such as gossip or fornication. In Hamburg, Rabbi Raphael Cohen attempted to reinforce traditional norms. Cohen ordered the men in his community to grow a beard, forbade holding hands with one's wife in public, and decried women who wore wigs, instead of visible headgear, to cover their hair; Cohen taxed and otherwise persecuted members of the priestly caste who left the city to marry divorcees, men who appealed to state courts, those who ate food cooked by Gentiles, and other transgressors. Hamburg's Jews repeatedly appealed to the civil authorities, which eventually justified Cohen. However, the unprecedented meddling in his jurisdiction profoundly shocked him and dealt a blow to the prestige of the rabbinate.
An ideological challenge to rabbinic authority, in contrast to prosaic secularization, appeared in the form of the The very foundation of the Law and commandments rests on coercion, enabling to force obedience and punish the transgressor. Denying this fact is akin to denying the sun at noon.[4]
However, maskilic'-rabbinic rivalry ended in most of Central Europe, as governments imposed modernization upon their Jewish subjects. Schools replaced traditional
Hamburg Temple dispute
The founding of the Hamburg Temple in 1818 mobilized the conservative elements. The organizers of the synagogue wished to appeal to acculturated Jews with a modernized ritual. They openly defied not just the local rabbinic court that ordered them to desist, but published learned tracts that castigated the entire rabbinical elite as hypocritical and obscurant. The moral threat they posed to rabbinic authority, as well as halakhic issues such as having a gentile play an organ on the Sabbath, were combined with theological issues. The Temple's revised prayer book omitted or rephrased petitions for the coming of the Messiah and renewal of sacrifices (post factum, it was considered to be the first Reform liturgy). More than anything else, this doctrinal breach alarmed the traditionalists. Dozens of rabbis from across Europe united in support of the Hamburg rabbinic court, banning the major practices enacted there and offering halakhic grounds for forbidding any changes. Most historians concur that the 1818–1821 Hamburg Temple dispute, with its concerted backlash against Reform and the emergence of a self-aware conservative ideology, marks the beginning of Orthodox Judaism.
The leader and organizer of the Orthodox camp during the dispute, and the most influential figure in early Orthodoxy, was Rabbi
Sofer's response to the crisis of traditional Jewish society was unremitting conservatism, canonizing every detail of prevalent norms in the observant community lest any compromise legitimize the progressives' claim that the law was fluid or redundant. He was unwilling to trade halakhic opinions for those he considered to be pretending to honor the rules of rabbinic discourse, while intending to undermine them. Sofer regarded traditional customs as equivalent to vows; he warned in 1793 that even the "custom of ignoramuses" (one known to be rooted solely in a mistake of the common masses) was to be meticulously observed and revered. Sofer was frank and vehement about his stance, stating during the Hamburg dispute that prayers in the vernacular were not problematic per se, but he forbade them because they constituted an innovation. He succinctly expressed his attitude in
Unlike most, if not all, rabbis in Central Europe, who had little choice but to compromise, Sofer enjoyed unique circumstances. He, too, had to tread carefully during the 1810s, tolerating a modernized synagogue in Pressburg and other innovations, and his
The 1818–1821 controversy also elicited a different response, which first arose in its very epicenter. Severe protests did not affect Temple congregants, eventually leading the wardens of Hamburg's Jewish community to a comprehensive compromise for the sake of unity. They replaced the elderly, traditional Chief
The combination of religious conservatism and modernity in everything else was emulated elsewhere, earning the label "Neo-Orthodoxy". Bernays and his like-minded followers, such as Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger, fully accepted the platform of the moderate Haskalah, taking away its progressive edge. While old-style traditional life continued in Germany until the 1840s, secularization and acculturation turned Neo-Orthodoxy into the strict right-wing of German Jewry. It was fully articulated by Bernays' mid-century disciples Samson Raphael Hirsch and Azriel Hildesheimer. Hirsch, a Hamburg native who was ten during the Temple dispute, combined Orthodox dogmatism and militancy against rival interpretations of Judaism, granting leniency on many cultural issues and embraced German culture. The novel mixture termed Neo-Orthodoxy spread.
While insisting on strict observance, the movement both tolerated and advocated modernization: Traditionally rare formal religious education for girls was introduced; modesty and gender separation were relaxed to match German society; men went clean-shaven and dressed like Gentiles; and exclusive Torah study virtually disappeared. Basic religious studies incorporating German Bildung provided children with practical halakhic knowledge for thriving in modern society. Ritual was reformed to match prevalent aesthetic conceptions, much like non-Orthodox synagogues though without the ideological undertone, and the liturgy was often abbreviated. Neo-Orthodoxy mostly did not attempt to reconcile its conduct and halakhic or moral norms. Instead it adopted compartmentalization, de facto limiting Judaism to the private and religious spheres, while otherwise yielding to outer society.[8][9] While conservative Rabbis in Hungary still thought in terms of the now-lost communal autonomy, the Neo-Orthodox turned Judaism from an all-encompassing practice into a private religious conviction.
Wissenschaft des Judentums
In the late 1830s, modernist pressures in Germany shifted from the secularization debate, moving into the "purely religious" sphere of theology and liturgy. A new generation of university-trained rabbis (many German states required communal rabbis to possess such education) sought to reconcile Judaism with the
The Reform conferences were met with uproar by the Orthodox. Warden Hirsch Lehren of Amsterdam and Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger of Altona both organized anti-Reform manifestos, denouncing the new initiatives, signed by scores of rabbis from Europe and the Middle East. The tone of the signatories varied considerably along geographic lines: letters from traditional societies in Eastern Europe and the Ottoman Empire implored local leaders to petition the authorities and have them ban the movement. Signers from Central and Western Europe used terms commensurate with the liberal age. All were implored by the petitioners to be brief and accessible; complex halakhic arguments, intended to convince the rabbinic elite in past generations, were replaced by an appeal to the secularized masses.
The struggle with Wissenschaft criticism shaped the Orthodox. For centuries,
Jay Harris commented, "An insulated orthodox, or, rather, traditional rabbinate, feeling no pressing need to defend the validity of the Oral Law, could confidently appropriate the vision of most medieval rabbinic scholars; a defensive German Orthodoxy, by contrast, could not. ... Thus began a shift in understanding that led Orthodox rabbis and historians in the modern period to insist that the entire Oral Law was revealed by God to Moses at Sinai." 19th-Century Orthodox commentaries, like those authored by Malbim, attempted to amplify the notion that the Oral and Written Law were intertwined and inseparable.[10]
Wissenschaft posed a greater challenge to the modernized neo-Orthodox than to the traditionalist.
All of them stressed the importance of dogmatic adherence to Torah min ha-Shamayim, which led them to conflict with Rabbi Zecharias Frankel, Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau. Unlike the Reform camp, Frankel insisted on strict observance and displayed great reverence towards tradition. But though appreciated by conservatives, his practice of Wissenschaft left him suspect to Hirsch and Hildesheimer. They demanded again and again that he state his beliefs concerning the nature of revelation. In 1859, Frankel published a critical study of the Mishnah, and added that all commandments classified as "Law given to Moses at Sinai" were merely customs (he broadened Asher ben Jehiel's opinion). Hirsch and Hildesheimer seized the opportunity and launched a public campaign against him, accusing him of heresy. Concerned that public opinion regarded both neo-Orthodoxy and Frankel's "Positive-Historical School" centered at Breslau as similarly observant and traditionalist, the two stressed that the difference was dogmatic and not halakhic. They managed to tarnish Frankel's reputation in the traditional camp and delegitimized him for many. The Positive-Historical School is regarded by Conservative Judaism as an intellectual forerunner.[13][14] While Hildesheimer distinguished Frankel's observant disciples from Reform proponents, he wrote in his diary: how meager is the principal difference between the Breslau School, who don silk gloves at their work, and Geiger who wields a sledgehammer.[15]
Communal schism
.jpg)
During the 1840s in Germany, as traditionalists became a clear minority, some Orthodox rabbis, such as Salomo Eger of Posen, urged the adoption of Moses Sofer's position and to anathemize the principally nonobservant. Eating, worshipping or marrying with them were to be banned. Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger, whose journal Treue Zionswächter was the first regular Orthodox newspaper, signifying the coalescence of a distinct Orthodox millieu, rejected their call. Ettlinger, and German neo-Orthodoxy in his wake, chose to regard the modern secularized Jew as a transgressor rather than a schismatic. He adopted Maimonides' interpretation of the Talmudic concept tinok shenishba (captured infant), a Jew by birth who was not raised as such and therefore could be absolved for not practicing, and greatly expanded it to serve the Orthodox need to tolerate the nonobservant majority: Many of their own congregants were far removed from strict practice. For example, he allowed congregants to drink wine poured by Sabbath desecrators, and to ignore other halakhic sanctions. Yet German neo-Orthodoxy could not legitimize nonobservance, and adopted a hierarchical approach, softer than traditional sanctions, but no less intent on differentiating sinners and righteous. Reform rabbis or lay leaders, considered ideological opponents, were castigated, while the common mass was to be carefully handled.[16]
Some German neo-Orthodox believed that while doomed to minority status in their native country, their ideology could successfully confront modernity and unify Judaism in more traditional communities to the east. In 1847, Hirsch was elected Chief Rabbi of
That year, Hildesheimer visited Hungary. Confounded by urbanization and acculturation – and the rise of
In their struggle against acculturation, the Hungarian ultra-Orthodox struggled to provide strong halakhic arguments. Michael Silber wrote: "These issues, even most of the religious reforms, fell into gray areas not easily treated within Halakha. It was often too flexible or ambiguous, at times silent, or worse yet, embarrassingly lenient." Schlesinger was forced to venture outside of normative law, into mystical writings and other fringe sources, to buttress his ideology. Most Hungarian Orthodox rabbis, while sympathetic to the "zealots"' cause, dismissed their legal arguments. In 1865, the ultra-Orthodox convened in
The internal Orthodox division was complicated by growing tension with the Neologs. In 1869, the Hungarian government convened a General Jewish Congress that was aimed at creating a national representative body. Fearing Neolog domination, the Orthodox seceded from the Congress and appealed to Parliament in the name of religious freedom. This demonstrated the internalization of the new circumstances: Twenty years before, in 1851, Orthodox leader Meir Eisenstaedter petitioned the authorities to restore the old coercive powers of the communities. In 1871 the government recognized a separate Orthodox national committee. Communities that refused to join either side, labeled "Status Quo", were subject to Orthodox condemnation even when impeccably conservative. However, the Orthodox tolerated nonobservant Jews as long as they affiliated with the national committee: Adam Ferziger claimed that membership and loyalty, rather than beliefs and ritual behavior, emerged as the definitive manifestation of Jewish identity. The Hungarian schism was the most radical internal separation among the Jews of Europe. Hildesheimer returned to Germany soon after, disillusioned though not as pessimistic as Hirsch. He was appointed rabbi of the Orthodox sub-community in Berlin (which had separate religious institutions but was not formally independent of the Liberal majority), where he finally established his seminary.[18]
In 1877, a law enabling Jews to secede from their communities without baptism was passed in Germany. It was a stark example that Judaism was now confessional, not corporate. Hirsch withdrew his congregation from the Frankfurt community, and decreed that all Orthodox should do the same. However, unlike the heterogeneous congregations of Hungary, which often consisted of recent immigrants, Frankfurt and most German communities were close-knit. The majority of Hirsch's congregants enlisted Rabbi Seligman Baer Bamberger, who was older and more conservative. Bamberger was concerned with the principal of unity among the People Israel and dismissive of Hirsch, whom he regarded as unlearned and overly assimilated. He decreed that since the mother community was willing to finance Orthodox services and allow them religious freedom, secession was unwarranted. Eventually, less than 80 families from Hirsch's 300-strong congregation followed their rabbi. The vast majority of the 15%–20% of German Jews affiliated with Orthodox institutions cared little for the polemics. They did not secede over reasons of finance and familial relations. Only a handful of Secessionist, Austrittorthodox, communities were established in the Reich; almost everyone remained Communal Orthodox, Gemeindeortodox, within Liberal mother congregations. The Communal Orthodox argued that their approach was true to Jewish unity and decisive in maintaining public standards of observance and traditional education in Liberal communities. The Secessionists viewed them as hypocritical middle-of-the-roaders.[19]
The conflicts in Hungary and Germany, and the emergence of distinctly Orthodox communities and ideologies, were the exception rather than the rule in Central and Western Europe. France, Britain, Bohemia, Austria and other countries saw both a virtual disappearance of traditional Jewish life, and no serious interest in bridging Judaism and modernity. The official rabbinate remained technically traditional, in the default sense of not introducing ideological change.
Eastern Europe
The slow pace of modernization in Russia,
In the 1860s and 1870s, moderate maskilic rabbis like
Jewish nationalism, particularly Zionism, with its nonobservant if not staunchly secular partisans, was the key question facing Eastern European traditionalists, although it was tangled with modernization. Salmon claimed that the future Zionists were: supportive of a national agenda; motivated by criticism of Jewish society; supportive of modernity; tolerant of nonobservance; and approving of traditional faith and practice. Their proto-Haredi opponents sharply rejected all he former positions and espoused staunch conservatism, which idealized existing norms. Any illusion that differences could be blanded and a united observant pro-Zionist front would be formed, were dashed between 1897 and 1899, as both the Eastern European nationalist intellectuals and Theodor Herzl himself revealed an uncompromising secularist agenda, forcing traditionalist leaders to pick sides. In 1900, the anti-Zionist pamphlet Or la-Yesharim, endorsed by many Russian and Polish rabbis, largely demarcated the lines between the proto-Haredi majority and the Mizrahi minority, and terminated dialogue; in 1911, when the 10th World Zionist Congress voted in favour of propagating non-religious cultural work and education, a large segment of the Mizrahi seceded and joined the anti-Zionists.[24]
In 1907, Eastern European proto-Haredi elements formed the Knesseth Israel party, a modern framework created in recognition of the deficiencies of existing institutions. It dissipated within a year. German Neo-Orthodoxy, in the meantime, developed a keen interest in the traditional Jewish masses of Russia and Poland; if at the past they were considered primitive, a disillusionment with emancipation and enlightenment made many young assimilated German Orthodox youth embark on journeys to East European yeshivot, in search of authenticity. The German secessionists already possessed a platform of their own, the Freie Vereinigung für die Interessen des Orthodoxen Judentums, founded by
In the
United States
American Jewry of the 19th century was small and lacked traditional institutions or strong rabbinic presence due to its immigrant-based nature. This informality allow religious innovation to flourish. Voluntary congregations were the norm. Separation of church and state and dynamic religiosity along the Protestant model shaped synagogue life. In the mid-19th century, Reform Judaism spread rapidly, made popular by formally abandoning traditions that few upheld. The United States was labeled the Treife Medina, or "Profane Country", in Yiddish.[26]
Orthodox Judaism
Isaac Leeser was an ultra-traditionalist in the American context, although his lack of a rabbinic ordination and limited knowledge would have marked him as a heretic by European standards. In 1845 he introduced the words "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy" into the American Jewish discourse, explicitly to oppose Reform.[27] Leeser was a staunch proponent of Zecharias Frankel, whom he considered the "leader of the Orthodox party". at a time when Positive-Historical and Orthodox positions were hardly distinguishable. In 1861, Leeser defended Frankel in a polemic instigated by Hirsch. Lesser became a rallying point for conservative elements, concerned mainly with public standards of observance in critical fields such as marriage.[26]
Conservative Judaism
A broad non-Reform, relatively traditional camp slowly coalesced as the minority within American Jewry, serving the nonobservant. Their synagogues liberalized their approach: omission of piyyutim from the liturgy; English-language sermons; secular education for the clergy;[28] and many did not partition men and women.[29] In 1885, the antinomian Pittsburgh Platform moved conservative religious leaders to found the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTS). Orthodoxy never became consistent and was mainly motivated by a rejection of Reform. They variously termed their ideology as "Enlightened Orthodoxy" or "Conservative Judaism". The latter gradually became the preferred term.
Modern Orthodoxy
Strictly traditionalist Eastern European immigrants formed the
Hardening boundaries
In the postwar era, the vague traditional coalition came to a definite end. During and after the
Theology
Orthodox attitudes
Judaism never formulated a conclusive credo; whether it reflects a dogma remains controversial. Some researchers argued that the importance of daily practice and adherence to halakha (Jewish law) mooted theoretical issues. Others dismissed this view entirely, citing ancient rabbinic debates that castigated various heresies with little reference to observance. However, even without a uniform doctrine, Orthodox Judaism is basically united in its core beliefs. Disavowing them is a major blasphemy.[citation needed].
Several medieval authorities attempted to codify these beliefs, including
During the Middle Ages, two systems of thought competed for primacy. The rationalist-philosophic school endeavored to present all commandments as serving higher moral and ethical purposes, while the mystical tradition, exemplified in Kabbalah, assigned each rite with a role in hidden dimensions of reality. Sheer obedience, derived from faithfulness to one's community and ancestry, was believed sufficient for the common people, while the educated chose one of the two schools. In the modern era, the prestige of both declined, and "naive faith" became popular. At a time when contemplation in matters of belief was associated with secularization, luminaries such as Yisrael Meir Kagan stressed the importance of simple, unsophisticated commitment to the precepts passed down from the Beatified Sages.[clarification needed] This became standard in the ultra-Orthodox world.[35]
God
Judaism adheres to
Maimonides delineated this understanding of a
The utter imperceptibility of God, considered as beyond human reason and only reachable through what he chooses to reveal, was emphasized among others in the ancient ban on making any image of him. Maimonides and virtually all sages in his time and thereafter stressed that the creator is incorporeal, lacking "any semblance of a body". While incorporeality has almost been taken for granted since the Middle Ages, Maimonides and his contemporaries reported that anthropomorphic conceptions of God were quite common in their time.
The medieval tension between God's transcendence and equanimity, and his contact and interest in his creation, found its most popular resolution in the Kabbalah. Kabbalists asserted that while God himself is beyond the universe, he progressively unfolds into the created realm via a series of emanations, or sefirot, each a refraction of the perfect godhead. While widely received, this system proved contentious and some authorities lambasted it as a threat to God's unity.[36] In modern times it is upheld, at least tacitly, in many traditionalist Orthodox circles, while Modern Orthodoxy mostly simply ignores it.
Revelation
The defining doctrine of Orthodox Judaism is the belief that God revealed the
Orthodoxy holds that the body of revelation is total and complete. Its interpretation and application under new circumstances, required of every generation's scholars, is an act of inferring and elaborating, not of innovation or addition. One clause in the
Lacunae in received tradition or disagreements between early sages are attributed to disruptions, especially persecutions such that "the Torah was forgotten in Israel". According to rabbinic lore, these eventually compelled the
An important ramification of Torah min HaShamayim in modern times is the reserved, and often totally rejectionist, attitude of Orthodoxy toward the historical-critical method, particularly
While the Sinai event is held to be the supreme act of revelation, rabbinic tradition acknowledges matters addressed by the Prophets, as well as
Eschatology
Belief in a future Messiah is central to Orthodox Judaism. According to this doctrine, a king will arise from King David's lineage, and will bring with him signs such as the restoration of the Temple, peace, and universal acceptance of the God of Israel.[43] The Messiah will embark on a quest to gather all Jews to the Holy Land, will proclaim prophethood, and will restore the Davidic Monarchy.
Classical Judaism incorporated a tradition of belief in the
Other passing references to the afterlife appear in Mishnaic tractates. Berakhot informs that the Jewish belief in the afterlife was established long before the compilation of the Mishnah.[44]: p. 70 [failed verification] Biblical tradition mentions Sheol sixty-five times. It is described as an underworld containing the gathering of the dead with their families.[45]: p. 19 Numbers 16:30states that Korah went into Sheol alive, to describe his death in divine retribution.[45]: p. 20 The deceased who reside in Sheol have a "nebulous" existence. No reward or punishment comes in Sheol, which is represented as a dark and gloomy place. But a distinction is made for kings who are said to be greeted by other kings when entering Sheol.[45]: p.21 Biblical poetry suggests that resurrection from Sheol is possible.[45]: p. 22 Prophetic narratives of resurrection in the Bible have been labelled as an external cultural influence by some scholars.[45]: p. 23
Talmudic discourse expanded on the details of the World to Come. This was to motivate Jewish compliance with religious codes.
Practice
Intensity
A relatively thorough observance of halakha – rather than theological and doctrinal matters, which produce diverse opinions – is the concrete demarcation line separating Orthodoxy from other Jewish movements. As noted by researchers and communal leaders, Orthodox subgroups have a sense of commitment towards the Law, perceiving it as seriously binding, which is rarely visible outside the movement.[2]: 121–122
Law, custom, and tradition
The halakha, like any jurisprudence, is not a definitive set of rules, but rather an expanding discourse. Its authority is derived from the belief in divine revelation, but rabbis interpret and apply it, basing their mandate on biblical verses such as and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee. From ancient to modern times, rabbinic discourse was wrought with controversy (machloket) and sages disagreeing over various points of law. The
The system's oldest and most basic sources are the
The most important distinction within halakha is between all laws derived from God's revelation (
Minhag
A third major component buttressing Orthodox and other practice is local or familial custom, Minhag. The development and acceptance of customs as binding, more than disagreements between decisors, is the main source of diversity in matters of practice across geographic or ethnic boundaries. While the reverence accorded to Minhag across rabbinic literature covers the extremes, including "a custom may uproot halakha" and wholly dismissive attitudes,[50] it was generally accepted as binding by scholars, and drew its power from popular adherence and routine.
The most important aspect of Minhag is in the disparities between various
Eating in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeret[51][52] is an area where Minhag varies; likewise, how to accommodate the idea of eating some dairy on Shavuos.[53] The influence of custom upset scholars who noted that the common masses observe Minhag, yet ignore important divine decrees.
Rabbinic authority
Rabbinic leadership, assigned with implementing and interpreting tradition, changed considerably over the centuries, separating Orthodox from pre-modern Judaism. Since the demise of the
Their influence varies considerably: In conservative Orthodox circles, mainly Haredi, rabbis possess strong authority, and often exercise leadership. Bodies such as the
Daily life
Orthodox Judaism emphasizes practicing rules of
Many Orthodox can be identified by their dress and family lifestyle. Orthodox men and women dress modestly covering most of their skin. Married women cover their hair, with scarves (
Orthodox men wear a ritual fringe called Tzitzit, and wear a head-covering for males.[55] Many men grow beards, and Haredi men wear suits with black hats over a skullcap. Modern Orthodox Jews may adopt the dress of general society, although they, too, wear kippahs and tzitzit. On Shabbat, Modern Orthodox men wear suits (or at least a dress shirt) and dress pants, while women wear clothing.
Orthodox Jews follow the laws of negiah (touch). The Orthodox do not engage in physical contact with those of the opposite sex other than their spouse, or immediate family members. Kol Isha[56] prohibits[57] a woman's singing to a man (except as per negiah).[58]
Doorposts have a mezuzah. Separate sinks for meat and dairy have become increasingly common.[59][60]
Diversity
Orthodox Judaism lacks a central framework and a common leadership. It is not a "
As in any other broad religious movement, an intrinsic tension connects the ideological and the sociological dimensions of Orthodox Judaism – while elites and intellectuals define adherence in theoretical terms, the masses use societal, familial, and institutional affiliation. The latter may be neither strictly observant nor fully accept the tenets of faith.[2]: 25–26, 76, 116–119, 154–156 [61]
Demographics
Professors
In the
The
In the United Kingdom, of 79,597 households with at least one Jewish member that held synagogue membership in 2016, 66% affiliated with Orthodox synagogues: 53% in "centrist Orthodox", and 13% in "strictly Orthodox" (further 3% were Sephardi, which technically eschews the title "Orthodox").[67]
The Orthodox have higher birth rates than others. Ultra-Orthodox communities have some of the world's highest birth rates, averaging six children per household. A nearly non-existent rate of intermarriage with members of other faiths (Orthodox vehemently oppose the phenomenon) contributes to their growing share of the world's Jewish population. Among American Jewish children, the Orthodox share is an estimated 61% in New York, including 49% ultra-Orthodox. Similar patterns are observed in other countries. With present trends sustained, Orthodox Jews are projected to numerically dominate British Jewry by 2031, and American Jewry by 2058.[62][68][69][70] However, large numbers of members leave their communities and observant lifestyle. Among the 2013 PEW respondents, 17% of those under 30 who were raised Orthodox disaffiliated (in earlier generations, this trend was far more prevalent, and 77% of those over 65 left).[66]
Groups
| This section needs additional citations for verification. (August 2021) |
Haredim
The most recognizable sub-group is the
The ultra-Orthodox may be roughly classified into three sub-groups:
Hasidic
Litvaks
The second Haredi group are the Litvaks, or Yeshivish. They originated, loosely, with the
Sephardic
The third ultra-Orthodox movement is the Sephardic Haredim, who live mostly in Israel. There they are linked to the Shas party and the legacy of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Originating in the Mizrahi (Middle Eastern and North African Jews) immigrants to the country who arrived in the 1950s, most of the Sephardi Haredim were educated in Litvak yeshivas. They adopted their educators' mentality. Their identity developed in reaction to the racism they encountered. Shas arose in the 1980s, with the aim of reclaiming Sephardi religious legacy, in opposition to both secularism and the hegemony of European-descended Haredim. While living in strictly observant circles, they maintain a strong bond with non-Haredi masses of Israeli Mizrahi society.
Modern Orthodoxy
 |
In the West, especially in the United States, Modern Orthodoxy, or "Centrist Orthodoxy", is an umbrella term for communities that seek an observant lifestyle and traditional theology, while at the same time ascribing positive value to engagement (if not "synthesis") with the modern world.[71][72]
In the United States, the Modern Orthodox form a cohesive community, influenced by the legacy of leaders such as Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and concentrated around Yeshiva University and institutions such as the OU or National Council of Young Israel. They affirm strict obedience to Jewish Law, the centrality of Torah study, and the importance of positive engagement with modern culture.[73]
Religious Zionism
In Israel,
European Centrist Orthodoxy
In Europe, "Centrist Orthodoxy" is represented by organizations such as the British United Synagogue and the Israelite Central Consistory of France, both the dominant official rabbinates in their respective countries. The laity is often non-observant, retaining formal affiliation due to familial piety or a sense of Jewish identity.
Israeli Masorti (traditional)
Another large demographic usually considered Orthodox are the Israeli
See also
References
- .
- ^ a b c d e Salmon, Yosef; Ravitzky, Aviezer; Ferziger, Adam (2006). Orthodox Judaism: New Perspectives (in Hebrew). The Hebrew University Magnes Press. Retrieved 11 March 2024 – via www.magnespress.co.il.
- ^ Ravitzky, Aviezer (2 January 2006). Brown, Benjamin (ed.). "The Varieties of Orthodox Responses: Ashkenazim and Sephardim". ש&Quot;ס - היבטים תרבותיים ורעיוניים. Shas: Cultural and Ideological Perspectives. Am Oved.
- JSTOR 3709748.
- ISBN 9780195051674.
- ISBN 978-1-351-31800-6.
- S2CID 160182115.
- ISBN 978-0-8173-1272-5.
- ^ "YIVO | Orthodoxy". yivoencyclopedia.org. Retrieved 11 March 2024.
- ISBN 978-1-4384-0586-5.
- ISBN 978-3-11-024758-9. Retrieved 11 March 2024.
- ^ Ellenson 2003, p. 148-149.
- ^ Silber, Michael K. (1 January 1992). "The emergence of ultra-orthodoxy: The invention of a tradition". The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era. Harvard University Press: 35–36.
- ^ Landerer, Chaim (2009). "R Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport (Shir), Champion of Jewish Unity in the Modern Era" (PDF).
- ^ Ellenson 2003, p. 78.
- ISBN 978-0-8122-3865-5.
- ^ Silber, Michael K. The Invention of Tradition. p. 59.
- ISSN 0009-4978.
- ^ Katz 1999, pp. 257–280.
- JSTOR 1908382.
- ISBN 978-0-520-22720-0.
- ^ a b Brown, Benjamin (1 January 2010). ""As Swords in the Body of the Nation": East-European Rabbis against the Separation of Communities (Hebrew)". יוסף דעת.
- ISBN 978-1-80034-014-5.
- ISBN 978-0-87451-882-5.
- ISBN 978-0-19-534613-8.
- ^ ISSN 0041-0608.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-300-19039-7.
- ISBN 978-0-8276-1257-0.
- ^ Sarna, Jonathan D. "The Debate over Mixed Seating in the American Synagogue"(PDF).
- ISBN 978-0-88125-567-6.
- ISBN 978-0-472-11648-5.
- JSTOR 1396734.
- ISBN 978-0-231-15635-6.
- ISBN 978-1-80085-844-2.
- ISBN 978-1-61811-714-4.
- ISBN 978-0-19-973004-9. (articles: God; God, attributes of).
- ISBN 978-0-8143-2555-1.
- ISBN 978-0-19-826466-8.
- ISBN 978-0-88125-778-6.
- ISBN 978-0-19-518826-4.
- JSTOR 24191185.
- ^ Brody, Shlomo (2011). "Halakha and Kabbalah: Rabbi Joseph Karo's Shulchan Aruch and Magid Mesharim". Rabbinical Council of America Rabbis' blog. Archived from the original on 5 December 2018.
- .
- ^ ISBN 978-0-300-13515-2.
- ^ ISBN 978-965-524-100-6.
- ISBN 978-965-524-100-6.
- ^ See also: Michael Rosensweig, Elu va-Elu Divre Elokim Hayyim: Halakhic Pluralism and Theories of Controversy. Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought. Spring 1992.
- JSTOR 23260884.
- ISBN 978-1-4936-1211-6.
- ^ For example: Brown, Benjamin (2018-01-01). "A translated chapter from: The Hazon Ish: Halakhist, Believer and Leader of the Haredi Revolution: "The Gaon of Vilna, the Hatam Sofer and the Hazon Ish - Minhag and the Crisis of Modernity"". Hakirah.
- ^ outside of Israel
- ^ Grunfeld, Raphael (15 October 2014). "Eating In The Sukkah On Shemini Atzeret". www.jewishpress.com.
- ^ "The Minhag of Eating Dairy Products on Shavuot" (PDF). YUTorah.org.
- JSTOR 23260883.
- ^ skullcap (kippah)
- ^ Simi Lichtman (January 29, 2013). "Keep Singing, Girlfriend, But Obey the Rules". The Forward.
this law of kol isha does not exist in other sects of Judaism
- ^ (Berachot 24a) records the prohibition of Kol Isha."The Parameters of Kol Isha by Rabbi Chaim Jachter". 2 July 2018.
- ^ "Kol Isha: Ask the Rabbi Response". Aish.com. 21 August 2011.
- ^ Jennifer A. Kingson (April 9, 2009). "Making Kosher a Little More Convenient". The New York Times.
- ^ Alex Mindlin (February 3, 2008). "Here Come the Babies. There Go the Jackhammers". The New York Times.
aimed at Orthodox buyers... two sinks .. one for meat and one for dairy
- ^ For an online source: Eleff, Zev (8 June 2017). "The Vanishing Non-Observant Orthodox Jew". The Lehrhaus. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-7914-9202-4.
- ^ Elazar, Daniel J. (1991). "How Strong is Orthodox Judaism – Really? The Demographics of Jewish Religious Identification". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
- ^ Center, Pew Research (8 March 2016). "Israel's Religiously Divided Society". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
- ISBN 978-0-226-32495-1.
- ^ a b Center, Pew Research (1 October 2013). "A Portrait of Jewish Americans". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
- ^ Mashiah, Donatella Casale; Boyd, Jonathan (July 2017). "Synagogue membership in the United Kingdom in 2016" (PDF). Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 January 2019.
- ^ "Orthodox Will Dominate American Jewry In Coming Decades". The Forward. 2018-06-12. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
- ^ "Half of Britain's Jews 'will soon be strictly Orthodox'". The Independent. 15 October 2015. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
- JPPI.
- ^ Rabbi Saul J. Berman, The Ideology of Modern Orthodoxy
- ^ William B. Helmreich and Reuel Shinnar: Modern Orthodoxy in America: Possibilities for a Movement under Siege Archived 2008-02-29 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Rabbi Soloveitchik".
External links
- The State of Orthodox Judaism Today
- Orthodox Jewish population growth and political changes
- Orthodox Retention and Kiruv: The Bad News and the Good News
| Branches | |
|---|---|
| People |
|
| Education | |
| Politics | |
| Rabbinates | |
| Organizations | |
| Laws | |
| Philosophies | |
