- This topic has 292 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
It is the closest, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing exactly. It is used interchangeably for lack of alternative. And of course, there is more than one way to explain each term (so depending which definitions you use, they can probably mean the same thing).
I was going with one meaning of Chareidi for the sake of simplicity, and since for the context, it wasn’t really necessary to use the other meaning.
I don’t have time to explain the differences/similarities between the terms right now, but maybe when I have a chance, bli neder.
Basically, “yeshivish” can either refer to a sociological concept or a religious one or a combination. It actually has many more meanings than Chareidi does, since you can choose the proportion and type of sociology and religion that you mix into your definition.
It is also something that one can have in various amounts. You can compare how yeshivish one person is to another (although you probably shouldn’t!) or talk about how yeshivish someone is (for example, “he is super Yeshivish” or “he is not so Yeshivish”).
The term “chareidi” is usually used in “black and white terms” (pun intended). Generally, someone is chareidi or he is not. That is unlikely to be the case with “yeshivishness” where it is more likely to go by degrees as opposed to “you are or you aren’t”.
I still haven’t gotten to the concept of “Chardal” yet….
I always understood that the Charedi movement began with the Chassam Sofer’s famous quote “??? ???? ?? ?????” which until that point was not used for anything other than wheat. Seeing the societal changes and the danger it imposed on traditional Judaism, the Chassam Sofer built stronger gates separating the Jewish community from the Goyish world by prohibiting “???”. As I understand it, this was a new innovation, something not necessarily practiced by Chazal and the Rishonim (which is why it is the beginning of a “new” movement), but was instituted to protect Jews from falling off the derech. In other words, it was a small change in the Mesorah in the hope to stop Jews from completely abandoning the Mesorah.
I don’t think Chareidism is a movement. You can’t have a movement without organization and leadership that understand it as such. Agudah was a movement. There are and were shuls and organizations that were officially affiliated with an Organization called Agudas Yisroel.
Chareidi is just a descriptive term (whose application is not entirely clear) that applies to some members of the Agudas Yisroel movement, some members of the Yeshivah movement, and some members of the Chasidic movement.
How is everyone defining Chareidi anyway?
Does it mean not going to the army? Well that how does it apply to Jews outside of Israel, not to mention the minority of Chareidim that do serve in the Army.
Does it mean not working outside of klei kodesh? There are hundreds of thousands of Chareidim that work outside of klei kodesh.
Does it mean not getting a secular education? I and many of my comrades from “Chareidi” yeshivos have high-school and post-high school degrees.
Does it mean being meticulous in mitzvah observance? There are many non-Chareidim, from YU to Mizrachi, who are meticulous in mitzvah observance.
First, I will repeat my post above regarding Rav Kook’s objection to labels (and BTW, Chassidut has changed greatly form its populist roots to adopt intellectual Torah learning).
“Chareidi’ism”, as it is called, is a movement. In general, it rejects secular studies and sends women to support their families and thus is a re-interpretation of Judaism. There is also Chareidi Leumi (Chardal), which is Zionistic, only opposes secular studies not connected to parnassa (e.g. Philosophy) and emphasizes Torah learning much more strongly than the traditional Mizrachnikim.
simcha613,etc.,etc.,
Did Conservatism start with Sir Walter Scott and the Romanticists?
Some would say it did ,which is ridiculous
It was obviously always there, they just overtly ,due to world developments, cultivated a consciousness
Same with Charediism
You’ve imbibed too many modox propaganda articles
Is it amazing how haredi , whether as a postive or more often as pejorative, has ever moving goalposts?
“How is everyone defining Chareidi anyway?”
The default, traditional manner of being frum.
By giving generic, default Judaism a label it conceals the fact that this Judaism is in fact the generic and default.
I generally do not use the adjective “chareidi” because it is misleading. It originated in Eretz Yisroel as a way to describe those who followed the Eidah HaChareidis as opposed to the Rabanut. But it has evolved, and has come to mean basically anyone who is not Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionist.
So there really is no such thing as a “Chareidi.” Those who people refer to as “Chareidim” have mostly never referred to themselves as such – in America you can go to Yeshiva from Kindergarten through Kollel and you will most probably never hear “we are Chareidi,” and you may even never hear the term used at all.
Joseph +1. Yours is the best answer since mine (I didn’t read the old posts).
Avi K – the things you are writing about are not the definition of Chareidi. At best they may be things that are commonly found in the Chareidi world but definitely not the definition. You can be Chareidi and think that women should not go to work and/or be in favor of secular studies.
Being Chareidi is basically just as Joseph put it (and I did earlier) the default definition of Frum – what you are if you are not Mizrachi.
and btw, the “Chareidi world” does not “reject secular studies”. They minimize the time devoted to it because of bitul Torah concerns. The girls, on the other hand, for whom that is not a concern, do receive a secular education including a minimum of two or three years post-high school.
“But I’m curious if any of those who believe “Hareidism” is indeed a “modern phenomenon” can name any of the founders of this new movement, and how their beliefs differed from those of their teachers.”
The Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, Reb Aharon Kotler, and Satmar Rav, were all charismatic and influential people who had some significant chiddushim in their mehalchim.
That’s where a person who believes as above might start pointing. #justsaying
Some other charismatic and influential people with chiddushim were Moshe Rabbeinu, Yehoshua, Dovid HaMelech, Ezra HaSofer, Rabban Shimon Ben Yochoi, Rashi, Rambam, Rabbeinu Gershom, the Yaavetz, the Baal Shem Tov, the GRA and the Chofetz Chaim.
Chareidim do not follow any specific teachings of any specific Rebbi, nor do they believe in any specific values not already in the Torah. Chasidim follow the specific teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his disciples; Telzers follow the teachings and Minhagim of the Telzer Yeshiva; the Mussar movement was started by Rav Yisroel Salanter – but “Chareidi”? There was no beginning to “Chareidism” except on Har Sinai; no particular person whose teachings they follow except Moshe Rabbeinu, and no particular Minhagim they perform.
The original “agudah” in the early 1900’s was an unprecedented event on a societal level in galus. The changes that were proposed and implemented there are obvious to any unbiased thinker.
The holocaust and communication technologies caused a previously impossible centralization of authorities.
There’s a reason why the “haskalah” became “less of a nissayon”.
As to whether the people who quote the Gra besht and Reb yisroel salanter, are fully accurate, is an interesting question.
These great men were a part of a much larger plethora of social “orthodoxy” (formerly called Judaism in years past).
fny, your last comment is devoid of any accuracy.
What is secular? Or chiloni?
When I looked up the definition of secular, it’s defined as someone who only believes in nature and what is measurable by the senses, what we see. Secular doesn’t believe in G-d or the Divine.
So is it wrong when I say that I am secular?
What would you call someone is not Charedi but totally believes and practices Ain Od Milvado, and observes some mitzvot that a solely secular person wouldn’t keep?
Is there a point where someone says I am no longer labeling myself as BT and am now charedi?
Or is it better to move to another community once you’ve grown enough and say that you’re charedi?
Joseph, how do the Chassidim fall into your definition of normative , default Judaism? It was a radical change from the existing practice and was fought for decades by the religious establishment.
In addition, you should modify your definition to read the EASTERN EUROPEAN default Judaism . You excluded the whole world of Sephardic Judaism
He (and I) were not talking about Chassidim; we were talking about Chareidim. Chassidim are Chareidim; Chareidim are not Chassidim. It’s not the Chassidish aspect that makes them Chareidi; it’s the fact that they fit the definition of Chareidi in other ways (ways that have nothing to do with being Chassidish).
I actually would agree with you that Chassidus is a new movement although that doesn’t necesssarily make it a problem. That is why there was so much (necessary) opposition to it when it started. On the other hand, even though Chassidus was originally a new movement, one has to keep in mind that Chassidus of today is very different than it used to be, and non-Chassidim of today are different as well. The Chassidim would probably say (and perhaps correctly so, at least in America, and at least to some extent) that today, they are actually the ones holding on to the Mesorah of yesteryear and the rest of the oilam has become modernized.
LB – you are 100% correct about the label “chiloni/secular”. It is a complete misnomer and a terrible word. On the other hand, these labels mean what they have come to mean, and one could say that the technical definition doesn’t matter.
L’maaseh, when the words “chiloni” or “secular” are used to refer to people, they just refer to people who are not religious; they don’t really mean people who are secular according to the dictionary definition of secular. It is sad that these are the words that are used, but most people don’t really think about the dictionary definition when using the terms.
In America,though, those words aren’t really used. People usually say not-Frum.
In terms of yourself, you are in transition, and shouldn’t worry too much about labels right now. If people ask, you can say that you are a Jew who is trying to become more religious.
Truthfully, I am a bit confused.Sometimes you say things that make it sound like you aren’t really Frum yet, but other times, you are asking detailed questions about specific halachos that make it sound like you are very Frum and concerned about keeping every detail of halacha.
In any case, you are clearly a very sincere person who “sees the light and is making her way there” so that is the kind of answer you should give if someone asks.
Charedi is just the term people use to describe Yeshivish or Chassidim as opposed to the prejorative Ultra-Orthodox.
The lines where Dati Leumi ends and where Charedi begins are somewhat blurred as there were people in Israel where I wasnt exactly sure who they were (Peyes are not common among MO in the US, but I did see people who seemed to dressed more modernly with very thick peyos)
The Pograms, persecutions and poverty in the 17th century (And before) were really getting to people and people were losing hope, Them Chelminski massacare were really a major blow. Shabbatai Tzvi came along and gave them hope and when he turned out to be a fraud, people really lost hope. There was a major crisis in Judaism and faith. in the 18th Century the crisis had not abated and Jacob Frank came along and it became worse.
Most people were not able to meet the ideal of torah study all day and so Chassidism came along and said you could still be a frum jew and not have to be a scholar, you could have stories of Rebbeim , Zimirot, Dvekas and still be a good jew. Misnadgish felt this was Kefirah and said they were wrong and made intensive torah study and some other changes were done.
Yes people were religious before this crisis of Faith and they were relgious after the Baal Shem tov and the Vilna Gaon, however some things (not actual Mitzvoh, but some other things) did change so the Charedim of today are not exactly the same as frum Jews in the 17th Century (Shabbos, Kosher, davening, etc are the same)
Im not sure exactly when , but after world world 2, the divisions between Chassidism and Misnadish (now called Yeshivish) began to break and they began to get closer and each took things from the other. (Empahsis on Rebbes became stronger in Yeshivish and emphasis on Torah Study became stronger in Chassidish communities)
“Charedi is just the term people use to describe Yeshivish or Chassidim as opposed to the prejorative Ultra-Orthodox”
Maybe for some
More likely the term Charedi was originally imported by modox writers as a sleight of hand in order to segregrate traditional Yeshivish from mainstream thereby dimishing their impact.
It also then adopted by the chassidish inclined to give themselves a sort of continuity
For most of us in North America it’s the opposite probably
We may be Ultra-Orthodox
But Charedi is a black cloistered medieval prejorative
ZD – even if what you are saying is true (about Chareidim today being different than in the 17th century), I don’t think that what you are talking about is necessarily relevant to this discussion.
I think that when people talk about Chareidim being a new movement they are comparing Chareidim to Dati-Leumi and saying that Dati-Leumi is the regular way to be Frum and Chareidim is a new movement that sprung up. In reality, Dati-Leumi is a new movement, and Chareidi refers to people who are not part of this new movement.
Also, the changes that you are talking about (if in fact there were such changes) took place before the dati-leumi movement started. So the dati-leumi people started out as Chareidim.
LU, you made my point for me. Joseph had stated Chareidim was the default Judaism and I simply pointed to two examples ( Chassidus and Sephardim ) to show that it wasn’t.
I am going to give you some changes, These by themselves are not major but as a whole are very differnet
People had chickens and went to the local shochet to slaughter them and they kashed them, themselves.Today people go to the supermarket and buy pre-packaged chicken
Eating at a restaurant, Buying premade food from Meal mart or just catering did not really exist. People cooked for simchas themselves
Weddings many times occured Friday Afternoon (except in Krakow) so the Seudas Mitzvah was also the Friday night meal (Money was tight)
People rarely travelled outside their immediate areas especially for a short time, Today travelling is a regular thing and has its own issues.
You really have to admit that its differnet living in a small Shtel vs living in Brooklyn, Its a very different style of living.
LIving in the US or Israel is not the same as living in Lithiuania or Russia/Ukraine
Most people do not live in an agrarian society and live in Urban areas and the living is different
None of these things makes anyone more or less religious, Just a different lifestyle and as a whole would look very different to someone from the 19th century Shtetl
I am not sure when the more Modern Orhtodox began, but I know it began in the 19th Century when Jews migrated from small villages to Urban areas.
Moving from small villages to urban areas has big effects on people, nobody is immune to them.
There were always jews in Urban areas like Prague. but they were the minority until the 19th century. Vienna for example only had a small jewish presence until the 19th century
ZD- thank you for giving examples. I was going to ask you what I meant. The changes you are talking about have nothing to do with being Charedi. They are sociological changes that have to do with living in the 21st century. That has nothing to do with being Chareidi.
lesschumras – I did not make your point for you. Read my post carefully.
LU
The claim is the Charedi Judaism is the same today as it was in the Rema’s time and I am telling you its not. I doubt even the Vilna Gaon would recognize many things that occur today. He of course we see jews daving, keeping Shabbos, Kosher etc, but I can see him being perplexed by people eating out on a Tuesday night with a meal that is better than the food on Shabbos
LU, then you are addressing a question I directed to Joseph that you either don’t understand his question or my answer. He stated, among other things, that what we call Chareidism was the default form of Judaism. H e also said hat it goes back to Har Sinai
I simply pointed out that he did not take either Chassidus or Sephardim into account.
With regard to his Har Sinai claim, Rabbinic Judaism is only roughly 2,000 years old. It bears little resemblance to what went before and has evolved dramatically since. Just look at our Machzorim, for example. The authors of the peyutim were born between 700 and 1100 A.D., so they were obviously not part of our davening before 700.
lesschumras, Why are frum sefardim not included among the default chareidim? They adhere to halacha, respected talmeidi chachimim and Torah learning. I don’t think anyone here is defining chareidim or chareidi lifestyle as a mode of dress or type of accent one uses during davening or a style of learning.
“Sometimes you say things that make it sound like you aren’t really Frum yet, but other times, you are asking detailed questions about specific halachos that make it sound like you are very Frum and concerned about keeping every detail of halacha.”
LU: I agree and it’s the weirdest thing.
Did I already share this story? Last week I went with a friend to a clothing store in Jerusalem. It was the Israeli version of freezing outside and she needed to upgrade her resources. My friend found a winter coat [resource] and read the label: Wool and polyester.
After seeing “wool” I said to the extent of, “What if it has linen?!”
The sales person then went on to say that the company is 100% Israeli, adheres to halacha, and they serve all the datiyim here.
It was the weirdest thing. I was dressed dati. [Oh yes I did share this story I think in another thread?] But the sales lady had no clue that I just happened to be dressed dati that day to go to the Kotel. The day before I looked like a chiloni.
However that question came from me. I meant it. I really don’t want to buy shatnez. I really don’t want to encourage my friend to buy something with shatnez.
All I can say is that if and when I do something, I like to do it for real. I’m still figuring it out.
Thank you LU 🙂
ZD -according to what you are saying, it’s not chareidi judaism that is different; it’s people that all different.
The differences you are talking about apply to all people – they have nothing to do with Chareidim in particular.
Lesschumras – from your last post, you clearly did not understand my posts.I already answered everything here.
Regarding Rabbinic Judaism, the Torah Sheb’al Peh was given at Har Sinai, and it is kefira to say otherwise. I am not sure if that is what you meant, but your words could be interpreted that way.
The Peyutim in the Machzorim have nothing to do with anything. The definition of Chareidi has nothing to do with Peyutim. According to that definition of Chareidi, Sephardim and Chassidim would certainly not be considered Chareidi.
Of course there are things that are done differently today. But those things have nothing to do with the definition of chareidi. That’s why even today there are many Jews who do things very differently from each other but can all still be considered Chareidi (such as Sephardim and Chassidim). According to the definition of Chareidi that both Joseph and I were using, most Jews from the time of Har Sinai until relatively recently would be considered Chareidi, despite their differences, because those differences have nothing to do with the definition of Chareidi.
The Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, Reb Aharon Kotler, and Satmar Rav, were all charismatic and influential people who had some significant chiddushim in their mehalchim.
In what way did they differ from their rebbeim?
To clarify some of the points made above: The title of the thread is: “Is CHAREIDISM a movement?” It is not, “Are CHAREIDIM the exact same in every way as they were three thousand years ago?” (and if you can find anyone who is the exact same in every way as people were three thousand years ago, I’d be very interested in hearing about it!)
LB- Maybe I am wrong, but I have the impression from your posts that tznius is the only (or main) issue you are struggling with. If that is the case, I certainly don’t think it’s accurate to refer to yourself as “secular”. And you can certainly call yourself religious.
Again, I might be wrong, and it’s not my business, and you certainly don’t have to share any personal information. But I am just pointing out that that is the impression that I get from your posts.
In any case, everything I wrote in my previous post still holds true: You are a Jew who trying to be an Eved Hashem and to grow in her Yiddishkeit (just like the all the rest of us :))
Who was the Chazon Ish’s rebbi?
,
Do haredim and/or ‘others’ have the Same Goals,
Destiny,and Purpose, as the past or Not?
Some insist incessantly here and elsewhere on rehashing over little details
Who was the Chazon Ish’s rebbi?
His father.
Of course there are things that are done differently today. But those things have nothing to do with the definition of chareidi. That’s why even today there are many Jews who do things very differently from each other but can all still be considered Chareidi (such as Sephardim and Chassidim). According to the definition of Chareidi that both Joseph and I were using, most Jews from the time of Har Sinai until relatively recently would be considered Chareidi, despite their differences, because those differences have nothing to do with the definition of Chareidi.
If you define “Chareidi” as “Religious Jews excluding Zionists”, then why would you even ask the question?
By your definition (which I reject), any Orthodox member of Meretz is now “Chareidi” because they aren’t Zionist?
So sure, everyone is now Chareidi, so the word has no meaning.
LU: May your impression of me be a bracha and amen.
“In any case, everything I wrote in my previous post still holds true: You are a Jew who trying to be an Eved Hashem and to grow in her Yiddishkeit (just like the all the rest of us :))” (LU)
Amen and may we all grow as Evedim Hashem and in our Yiddishkeit 🙂
LU +infinity
DY: And after his father?
Side question… When an older rabbi’s long-time teacher is no longer living (alas), does the rabbi ever defer to a much younger rabbi for personal psaks?
I am guessing rabbis have their own rabbis. Like doctors go to doctors.
Is age a factor?
I just thought of how the Chabad Rebbe of blessed memory would pray at his father-in-law’s kever. Did he have a rabbi to guide him after his father-in-law, of blessed memory, passed?
Amen! LB + infinity + infinity!
btw, I think you are the nicest poster in the CR!
Why are Religious Zionists not “Chareidi”? After all, they also have “no particular person whose teachings they follow except Moshe Rabbeinu”?
benignuman – With the definition being proposed by Joe & LuL in this thread, all of the above (YU, Army, Chassidish, Misnaged, Breslov, Brisker, College, etc. etc. etc.) are Chareidi. What others might call “Frum”, or Rav Moshe called “Yeraim”, and the term “Chareidi” are interchangeable.
gavra, they self-segregate *themselves* in identity classification in identifying as MO or RZ. As earlier stated, those who people refer to as “Chareidim” have mostly never referred to themselves as such – in America you can go to Yeshiva from Kindergarten through Kollel and you will most probably never hear “we are Chareidi,” and you may even never hear the term used at all.
Joseph +1. Basically, the Religious Zionists choose to identify themselves by their Zionism instead of their Chareidism.
It is possible to be Chareidi and to be zionistic. I know people like that.They are people whose identity is that they are “Chareidi” and they feel that being zionistic is just a part of that and not what defines them.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman is quoted as saying that you can’t have Torah and something else. If something is part of Torah, then it is included in Torah, and if it’s not part of Torah, then it shouldn’t be part of your belief system.
In terms of some of the examples you gave, you can be Chareidi and go to the army or college.
Also, Religious Zionists is a very large group and it includes a wide range. There are people who say that there are basically two types of Religious Zionists – dati-lite and Chardal. When I first heard that, I wasn’t sure how accurate it was, since I thought there was a large middle ground. However, since I am back in EY, I have noticed that there does seem to be a growing polarization within the Religious Zionists (although I do not know the extent of it).
There are many Religious Zionists (dati-lite) who keep some halachos and not others and do not follow Daas Torah (even the Gedolim of the Mizrachi world). I personally know people in those circles who do not know the difference between following the Poseket who lives next door and following Gedolim. This may be in total innocence and they may be tinok shenishba. Personally, I would call many of those people Religious as opposed to Frum. In the US, they would be considered LWMO or possibly OO (some of the people I know believe in women Rabbis).
Regarding the Chardalniks, it is possible to consider them Chardal – that is what Chardal stands for – Chareidi Leumi. On the other hand, some might argue that by calling themselves Chareidi Leumi, they are choosing to call themselves something other than Chareidi. So I guess it’s up to them how they choose to define themselves.
Joseph +1. Basically, the Religious Zionists choose to identify themselves by their Zionism instead of their Chareidism.
Could say the same for Sephardim, Breslovers, Lubavitch and Telzers.
Please explain yourselves why one group’s identification removes them from being “Chareidi” and the other group’s identification does not.
Regarding the Chardalniks, it is possible to consider them Chardal – that is what Chardal stands for – Chareidi Leumi. On the other hand, some might argue that by calling themselves Chareidi Leumi, they are choosing to call themselves something other than Chareidi. So I guess it’s up to them how they choose to define themselves.
Which was my original argument that “chareidi” is based on self-identification, not whether you follow the Torah or not.
How about the Orthodox Meretz guy?
Finally, what do you mean by “do not follow Daas Torah”?
There was another important point that I wanted to make and didn’t get to yet. Any definition given for any of these terms is not going to be 100% accurate. No matter what definition is given, you will probably be able to find someone who doesn’t fit.
That is because none of these labels are real, so they don’t have a real definition. They are sociological terms that developed. You would have the same problem if you tried defining other labels such as Frum, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, secular, chiloni, mesorati, etc. There is more than one way that one could define each of the terms, and for each definition used, one will find people who don’t fit. I think that some of these other terms may be even more complicated to define. It is also important to remember that in some cases, the definitions have changed over the years.
In addition to the fact that labels aren’t real, people are complex and don’t necessarily fit neatly into boxes. That is why many people are anti-labels and only use them when they have to, if at all. I used to be very anti-label, and I actually still am in theory at least to some degree, but I have come to realize that they are necessary and valuable to some extent. However, even when one used labels, they have to realize they are essentially meaningless. People are people and they are not labels, so any definition you give will probably not work 100% for all people all of the time. Which is fine. Because it’s just a meaningless label. And we’re waiting for the day when we will be “agudah achas” and get rid of the labels.
I used the definition of Chareidi that I used because it is the one that I think makes the most sense, fits best with the way that the term is used in modern Israeli society, and leaves one with the least contradictions and questions.
I have been living in Eretz Yisrael for over 2 decades, and it took me a long time to figure out what the term Chareidi meant. I came up with this definition after living here for many years, in many types of communities, speaking to many people, thinking about it a lot and analyzing society here and the way the labels are used.
Bli neder, I will try to answer your specific questions/arguments later (probably not tonight because I am tired).
But I think that this post should answer your questions to some extent, and maybe even fully. In any case, I will try when I’m less tired, bli neder.
Avi K:
I will repeat my post above regarding Rav Kook’s objection to labels
Wouldn’t that objection also apply to the label “Dati(-Leumi)”?
sends women to support their families and thus is a re-interpretation of Judaism
Oh, are the MO/DL makpid on not having women work out of the home, in line with what you appear to believe is the original “interpretation of Judaism”?
fny:
The Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, Reb Aharon Kotler, and Satmar Rav, were all charismatic and influential people who had some significant chiddushim in their mehalchim.
DY:
In what way did they differ from their rebbeim?
+1
Sephardim, Breslovers, Lubavitch and Telzers are kehilos that each have unique minhagim and/or rabbonim. “Chareidim”, as an ambiguous group, do not follow any specific teachings of any specific Rebbi, nor do they believe in any specific values not already in the Torah. Chasidim follow the specific teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his disciples; Telzers follow the teachings and Minhagim of the Telzer Yeshiva; the Mussar movement was started by Rav Yisroel Salanter – but “Chareidi”? There was no beginning to “Chareidism” except on Har Sinai; no particular person whose teachings they follow except Moshe Rabbeinu, and no particular Minhagim they perform.
So Sfardim can’t be chareidi?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.