Is "Haredism" a Movement?

So Sfardim can’t be chareidi?

Of course they can. Did someone suggest otherwise?

I don’t think that is implied.

I think he means that they are all subcategories of chareidim.

I mentioned sfardim, but my question applies to all the groups you mentioned.

He wrote “chareidim as an ambiguous group”.

He was contrasting specific groups of chareidim with the general population of chareidim lumped together.

Sephardim are a bit differnt

In general for example non charedim do not give much respect to the litvish or chassidic rebbes. Most of the non-religious probably couldnt even recognize their name

Even non-religious Sephardim generally respect their Gedolim like Rav Ovadiah Yosef

So the barriers between relgious and non religious Sephardim are much narrower than with Ashkenazim

“Could say the same for Sephardim, Breslovers, Lubavitch and Telzers.”

For Sephardim, see my above post. In terms of the rest, I don’t see your point. Chareidim basically means Jews who are not Zionist. It is also possible to use the term to refer to Jews who are Zionist but choose to label themselves according to the fact that they are Chareidim as opposed to labeling themselves by their zionism.

Breslov and Lubavitchers usually don’t label themselves as Religious-Zionists, although I’m sure there are some who do. I think that most of them consider themselves to be Chareidi and the fact that they are Breslov or Lubavitch is a sub-category of being Chareidi. Joseph explained this very well. For the ones who label themselves as Religious-Zionists (if they exist), the fact that they are Lubavitch or Breslov is a subcategory of being a religious-zionist.

“Which was my original argument that “chareidi” is based on self-identification, not whether you follow the Torah or not.”

I don’t disagree with the first part of the sentence. I am not sure about the second. That’s part of a more general question of exactly what does a person have to keep in order to be considered Frum, and there is no clear-cut answer to that question. Different people will say different thngs. If someone keeps some halachos and not others, can they be considered Frum? What if they keep everything but hilchos tznius? What if someone is a murderer, lo aleinu – can they be considered Frum? Whatever your answer would be for “Frum”, I think it would probably be similar for “Chareidi”.

There are definitely people who consider themselves Chareidi who are “modern” in the sense of not dressing tzniusly, watching movies, etc. They call themselves Chareidi because they consider themselves to be Frum and they are not dati-leumi, and as Joseph put it, Chareidi is the default term for Frum people who are not dati-leumi.

“How about the Orthodox Meretz guy?”

I’m not sure what you mean – almost everyone in Israel is Orthodox. There is very little Conservative or Reform here, Boruch Hashem. What does that have to do with anything? You can be Orthodox without being Frum. Orthodox doesn’t have to do with what you do – it has to do with your beliefs and/or the type of shul you daven in when you go to shul.

I don’t know who this Orthodox Meretz guy is or what you are talking about – it needs more clarification.

“Finally, what do you mean by “do not follow Daas Torah”?”

Not following Gedolim.

I am not sure about this, but I think that I may have heard that the term Chareidim originated with people who were anti-Chareidi and it was a derogatory term. The Chareidim then turned things around by deciding to use the term as a source of pride. I think the same thing happened with the term “Frum” which had a negative connotation not so long ago.

I don’t see your point. Chareidim basically means Jews who are not Zionist. It is also possible to use the term to refer to Jews who are Zionist but choose to label themselves according to the fact that they are Chareidim as opposed to labeling themselves by their zionism.

Okay. Just be aware this includes anyone who self-identifies as a Chareidi, and excludes anyone who doesn’t, whether they are Shomrei Torah U’Mitzvos, follow Gedolim, etc. It is actually very similar to the Liberal definition of “Woman” being anyone who self-identifies as such, no matter whether they are physically a woman or not.

It also means that there were no Chareidim before people started to self-identify using that term.

“I don’t see your point. Chareidim basically means Jews who are not Zionist. It is also possible to use the term to refer to Jews who are Zionist but choose to label themselves according to the fact that they are Chareidim as opposed to labeling themselves by their zionism.”

“Okay. Just be aware this includes anyone who self-identifies as a Chareidi, and excludes anyone who doesn’t, whether they are Shomrei Torah U’Mitzvos, follow Gedolim, etc. It is actually very similar to the Liberal definition of “Woman” being anyone who self-identifies as such, no matter whether they are physically a woman or not.

I meant to say anyone who is “shomer Torah u’Mitzvos” and does not identify as dati-leumi. I don’t know what the exact level of “shomer Torah u’Mitzvos would be. I think that would be debatable, just as the definition of “frum” is debatable.

I think it does have a lot to do with a person’s choice as to how they choose to define themselves.

As for the guy who is “shomer Torah u’Mitvos but votes Meretz”, his anti-Zionism has nothing in common with the Chareidi’s anti-zionism. His anti-Zionism has more in common with Obama’s anti-zionism. No shaychis. In the ways in which Obama (or l’havdil the Meretz guy) are anti-zionist, I (and probably most or many Chareidim) are the biggest Zionists.

“It also means that there were no Chareidim before people started to self-identify using that term.”

As I wrote above, I think the term actually started with non-Chareidim. In any case, there were Chareidim before that, but the term “chareidi” wasn’t used. Just like there were Jews even though they weren’t called Jews. And just like there were Frum people even though they weren’t called Frum.

Actually, just about everyone was Frum and Chareidi at one point. These terms only started being used when there was a significant portion of the population that wasn’t.

There is another way to define “Chareidi” which would have to do with one’s religious level as opposed to one’s hashkafa. According to that definition, Chardalniks would be considered “Chareidi” as well as most Yidden before 200 or so years ago. I think that the definition that I used is the most accurate though. And those are the only two definitions that I think are at all accurate. As opposed to the term “Yeshivish” which can be used in a sociological sense.

In any case, I do consider myself Chareidi and Frum and Shomer Torah u’Mitzvos, so I have to go light my Menora now.

Freilichin Chanuka to one and all (however you label yourself).

As for the guy who is “shomer Torah u’Mitvos but votes Meretz”, his anti-Zionism has nothing in common with the Chareidi’s anti-zionism. His anti-Zionism has more in common with Obama’s anti-zionism. No shaychis. In the ways in which Obama (or l’havdil the Meretz guy) are anti-zionist, I (and probably most or many Chareidim) are the biggest Zionists.

So what? He is still a Shomer Torah U’mitzvos (qualification #1) AND not a Zionist/Dati Leumi (Qualification #2) AND self-identifies as a Chareidi (Qualification #3). Unless you are adding additional qualifications?

Freilichin Chanuka to you as well. I prefer Rav Moshe’s term “Yeraim”, and can only hope that it is applicable.

Which minhagim? Which “chareidim”? The Sephardic chareidim? The Chasidic chareidim? Which “Big Rabbis”?

Q please: Does Chareidi imply anti-Zionist [Torah-observant Jew/frum/religious]?

ZD – before the creation of the State, the Yerushalmim in Eretz Yisrael learned and people in Chutz LaEretz sent them money (instead of sending it to the State like they do now).

“Which minhagim? Which “chareidim”? The Sephardic chareidim? The Chasidic chareidim? Which “Big Rabbis”?”

Please don’t play dumb… You are obviously aware of “The Gedolim.” Ever hear of Rav Kanievsky, Rav Shteinman… All Charedim will look to the Gedolim for guidance and leadership.

LU +1

Thank you I just caught on to that huge detail

ZD- if you read all my posts, I very clearly allowed for the possibility of someone being Chareidi and zionistic. I distinguished between someone who self-indentifies as Chareidi even though he’s zionistic as opposed to someone who feels that his zionism is such an important part of him that he labels himself as Dati-Leumi. I also mentioned that there is such as thing as being Chardel (Chareidi Leumi) which could possibly be considered Chareidi (although it could also be considered not-Chareidi).

I also brought up the differences in Daas Torah.

I don’t consider l’vush to be part of the definition of Chareidi. A person can be Chareidi and dress modern. A person can also dress “Yeshivish” and be dati leumi.

Likewise, I don’t consider attitudes towards secular studies to be part of the definition of Chareidi.

What makes someone a Charadi?

Back 8 years ago…..

“ZD, I would say that your generalities are characteristics that apply to a majority, but not necessarily a definition.”

Winnie the Pooh +1 and thank you. After I wrote my post, it occured to that that would be a good way to describe the difference.

In terms of secular education, I think that it’s very inaccurate to say that the Chareidi world is against it even as a characteristic. I believe I mentioned this in a previous post. The Chareidi world (in general) considers secular education to be valuable – it’s a question of priorities.

” I would say that your generalities are characteristics that apply to a majority, but not necessarily a definition.”

The Lvush points to a lifestyle. There is no Halacha to wear a Borsalano hat or a Streimel and its not assur to go without one.

There is nothing wrong with wearing a Rugby Shirt or khaki pants, but you wont see too many Chassidim or Yeshivish people wearing them

So in the sense that Haredism is a “lifestyle” it is a movement

Speaking Yiddish primarily or eating Hemish foods primarily are other examples of Lifestyle choices as opposed to Halacha

There has however been one movement that burst onto the scene which snowballed and whose aftershocks are still rattling us today and that was/is the chassidic movement

It was surely a seismic revolution/rebellion to the previous established yahadus

The Satmar Rav profoundly understood that

every populist movement since,even irreligious ones could and often would conceivably claim a commonality and kindred spirit with the early chassidim

and the combustion needed to somehow be reigned in

It is with reason and great sagacity

that the Satmar Rav wrote in a letter” ???? ???? ??????? “

IITFT

“there have been adjustments in Jewish practice over the centuries”

Exactly!

Thats why when people say things like ” default, traditional manner of being frum” is demonstrably false.

This is of course nonsense. He wouldnt understand the language, He’d be confused why people are wearing furry hats on their heads. He’d want to know where the Mishkan/Beis hamikdash was. not to mention Why Torah She bal peh was written down.

I could go on and on. What happened to Techeiles? PAra Adumah? Metzorah? Yibum? Instead we have Chanukah which didn’t exist in the time of Tanach. Simchas torah didnt exist during the Gemara. IITFT listed some other examples. There are Dozens of other more recent changes upsherin, shlisel chalah and more recently Chanukah presents. Not to mention hashkafic innovations like mass learning for everybody which I think all acknowledge is a recent innovation (Though perhaps a neccesary one due to eis lassos).

“None of which have to do with being a “Chareidi” as per LuL’s definition. One can wear a Rugby Shirt or khaki pants and be a Chareidi. Perhaps not a Chassid, but those terms are not interchangeable. Some Chareidim are Chassidim, others not. Some Chassidim are Chareidim, others are not.”

GAW, thank you. Also, I would think that you could be a Chassid as well even without the Chassidish levush.

“For example, Ner Yisroel, who LuL considers part of the “Chareidi world”, does work towards secular education for its students”

Thank you again.

And in Bais Yaakov of Monsey which is considered to be very chareidi, the Rebbetzin, a”h, told a girl who wasn’t sure if she should take the optional 12th grade college courses that she should take them because all knowledge is worthwhile. This was despite the fact that she was very anti-going to college. That is because her reasons for being against college had nothing to do with her attitudes towards secular knowledge.

This is true for most Chareidim. They are against too much secular education for boys because it’s bitul Torah. But if it’s not at the expense of limud Torah (for example, a boy who wouldn’t be learning anyhow or needs a parnassah), they are not against it.

And they are against or at least hesitant about boys or girls going to college because of the environment and influences. But if one could attain the knowledge without the environment and influences (and Bitul Torah for boys), they would not have a problem with it.

typo ancestors

everything else are minor sociological details

Like Zionism. 🙂

LU: charedi in EY has a very jaded/antagonistic attitude toward secular education. For boys in chadarim, RRA is given very short shrift if at all (serious elite institutions may have nothing or just rudimentary math. Girls have more, obviously, and some advance to further educatiom. There is at the very moment a huge tug of war about BY girls going to college and beyond, the one side saying it is necessary for parnasa, and the other saying it is spiritual suicide. The “suicide” camp seems to be carrying the vote. This is no doubt due to the commonality of today’s breadwinner women heading out to work all dolled up (a tznius thread in itself) I have previously voiced the opinion that those who claim the nefoshos can’t “hack it” and won’t endure in the secular workplace and in the army are admitting to producing an inferior product. (an education/child rearing thread in it self)

‘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

As the old saying would go “You are where your head is”