Sefard, Ashkenaz and...other?

In the '40s in Argentina, the Syrian Chachamim decided to deal with a problem they were having then - the proliferation of fake converts who only wanted to marry Jewish women, a common problem among the non-religious. The only solution they found to this fake-convert-intermarriage problem was to disallow converts to enter into their community (in Argentina or elsewhere), even if the conversion was proper and they are 100% Jewish.

This means, a Syrian rabbi will not perform a marriage that involves a convert, nor will they allow the children of converts in their schools, or in other community institutions.

However, the Syrians still recognize the converts as equal Jews, will of course count them for a Minyan, and will accord them the full respect due to a Torah scholar etc. if warranted. Their intent is not to deny the concept of conversion, nor to deny someone's right to convert, but rather, it was a hard decision that they had to make, that because of the intermarriage problems, not to integrate converts socially into their community.

Therefore, if you are a convert and want to marry a Syrian, although the Syrian rabbi will not perform the ceremony, he will assist you in finding another rabbi - non-Syrian - that will, and offer whatever assistance they can. Their rule was made in self-defense of their specific community, but they happily support and respect converts in general.

---

The 10 tribes did not go away and turn to paganism. They were exiled at the end of Kings II.

Even so, there were always people from the 10 tribes still among mainstream Jewry -- not everyone was exiled.

---

There are numerous reasons why someone might say that the sefardic poskim are more traditional and the ashkenazic ones are more creative, so to speak. First, patterns seems to develop in halachic methodology where ashkenaz minhagim are created not based on tradition but rather the needs of the time or some other reason. You will find the Rama in shulchan aruch all over the place mentioning chumras that comes from custom and not din --- and you will even find him saying: "there are some places that are accustomed to the following [chumrah] ... and so too I am accustomed to do it due to minhag, but it is a chumrah without any reason" (YD 93:1).

You will also find things like sefardic girls not making the brachah she'asani kirtzono because it is nowhere to be found in the gemora or writings of chazal, and first appeared in the days of the geonim.

You will also find that sefardic poskim are very much into collecting opinions from rishonim nad achronim, the more the better, in their responsa, whereas ashkenazi poskim will tend more to learning the sugya and coming out with their own conclusion. (Of course, nobody is going to argue with a Taz, but the issue here is how important is it to find as many opinions as possible, and how much weight does your own opinion hold).

From all of this and much more, including some of the items mentioned by Rachak, it could seem to someone that sefardic Orthodoxy is somehow more traditional and ashkenazic more creative.

But that would be a mistake. Ashkenzaim and sefardim both have their own legitimate mesorahs. The measure of creativity involved in the halachic process is itself a subject of tradition: if you’re going to base your approach on the approach of the earlier sages, perhaps you ought to use them as an example of what you should be doing, rather than merely using what they did. In other words, the early geonim themselves were creative in their halachic process, and now the question becomes does that tradition of creativity end there or does it continue throughout the generations, each generation carefully measuring its own parameters of how far it is allowed to go on its own and how far it must rely on previous generations.

In short, the mesorah of gedolim on both sides is equally legitimate; there is no way to argue in favor of the sefard methodology over the ashkenaz and vice versa.

---

Nusach sefard is really a variation of the Nusach created by the Arizal (what is called Nusach Ari is not from the Ari - it is from the Baal HaTanya). The reason he changed nusach ashkenaz was because the later, weaker generations were no longer able to direct their tefilos upwards on the path that they needed to go (each shevet has its own "pathway" and thus its own "kavanah"), he created sefard as a generic nusach that people from all shevatim can use.

The main difference between nusach sefard and ashkenaz, the Divrei Chaim says, is the reversal of the order of Boruch Sheamar and Hodu - the other changes are of lesser significance.

---

According to Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL, any way that Jews speak is considered Loshon HaKodesh and it doesn't matter what the accent is.

However, all though all Halchicly valid Minhagim are proper, as is the case in all Minhagim, you should follow your own Minhagim and not someone else's. Meaning, if you are of Ashkenaz descent you should speak Ashkenaz, and not like an Israeli or Sefardi. Unfortunately, the original Zionists, who were non-religious and atheists to boot, decided that Jews should become a plain middle-eastern people with a middle eastern language, and so they changed their own accents from Hungarian and German to Middle Eastern-Sefardic, which is the way Israelis speak today. They did this in order to break our Eastern European traditions and transform us into a Middle Eastern culture. Following them in this is wrong. If you are of Ashkenaz descent you should speak Ashkenaz and vice versa.

I remember once, in the Shul I am rabbi in, Rabbi Dovid Lifshitz Z"L, who was a Rebbi in YU, davened there, and the Baal Tefilah prayed with a Sefardic accent.

After the Davening, Rabbi Lifshitz came over to me asking me why I allow Ashkenazim to pray in a Sefardic accent (like they do in Israel), since it is against their Minhag. I answered that the Baal Tefilah was a real Sefardi, he just happens to pray in my Shul. He said it bothers him in YU where he sees Ashkenaz boys of European descent speaking with a Sefardi/Israeli accent.

---

Chasidish, Livish, UO, and me?

Many people have "pop", folklore version of Chasidus -- kind of analogous to the idea that Judaism is all about bagels and lox and maybe saying kaddish and marrying your daughter off to a doctor. There's the folklore version of Judaism, and the folklore version of Chasidus. In short:

1) Chasidus is not a "movement" - the phrase "chasidic movement" was not made by the Baal Shem Tov but by observers - not very scholarly ones at that - who interpreted it to be so. And, I suspect, that even they did not mean the phrase literally, or in the sense that your protagonist means it. In reality, Chasidus is (are) teachings. Simple as that. It is no more a "movement" that the "Brisker movement" of Rav Chaim, or the "Kabbalah movement" of the Arizal, or, of course, the "Mussar movement" of Rav Yisroel Salanter. Any of these can be called a "movement" if you like, but of course all it means is "teachings".

As far as its "newness" in concerned, there is little "new" about the teachings of chasidus, in the same sense that there is little new about mussar, which, like chasidus, is based on chazal and rishonim. Chasidus also adds a large chunk of kabalah-based teaching as well.

The "newness" of chasidus is that it emphasizes teachings of Torah -- established, already known parts -- because the generation needed emphasis on those aspects of Avodas Hashem.

This itself is nothing new. The idea that different teachings apply to different people based on their needs is itself an ancient Torah principle. Check out the Gemora at the beginning of Kiddushin where the Gemora asks a contradiction: One place it says its better for a person to get married early and learn Torah afterwards; another place it says the opposite -- better to first learn then get married.

The Gemora answers "Ha lan veha lehu" -- each one was true for the group of people to whom it was said. In other words, something was taught by Chazal generically, without any conditions or specifications, just the opposite can be true for another group of people with different needs.

Sometimes, a Rebbi will emphasize simcha a lot with his talmidim because they may need it; other times, or in other places, humility will be the teaching; still others will work to instill a sense of pride and Gadlus HaAdam in their students. Whatever is needed.

Chasidus - meaning, the Chasidishe Rebbe - will teach his group of Talmidim what is needed according to the "roots of their souls", and according to the needs - both in terms of personal growth and the individual's "mission in this world" (which he himself may not even know) of their students, and their generations. It is the Rebbi's job to know this.

The Satmar Rebbe ZTL once said that all the approaches of all the Talmidei HaBaal Shem Tov can be found in the Chovos Halevovos!

The question is merely, if you had a Rebbi who could peer into the depths of your soul and teach you specifically the approach that you need to grow, as well as to fulfill your particular existential mission here on this world, and to "fix" whatever it is that you are here to fix, he would be your "Rebbe" and you would be his "Chosid".

The Kabbalists -- way before the Chasidim -- also taught that Hashem Himself sometimes helps this process by revealing to the leaders of certain generations, certain teachings that were not previously available even to perhaps greater leaders in greater generations, because those teachings are revealed only when they are needed by the specific generation.

This, they have said, is why the Zohar and Kabbalah was made available when it was, and not before. The Rambam (at least for most of his life) and Rav Saadiah Gaon did not have the Kabbalah, because they did not need it for their Avodah.

The Ramchal writes this in response to the claims that were leveled against him that he must be a faker because the supernatural revelations that he had were not had even by the Arizal himself. The Ramchal answers (in his letters, Ramchal Ubnei Doro) that although he does not compare in the slightest to the Arizal, since his (the Ramchal's) generation was in need of those revelations, someone is chosen, in this case the Ramchal, to be the recipient of those revelations, to be used for the needs of the generation.

And so, when you see such an idea in Chasidishe Seforim regarding Chasidus, it is neither new no Chasidic in origin.

---

Often, many Chassidishe kehillos have clear cut rules about things like tznius and chukas akum that honestly reflect the ratzon Hashem without compromises, a lot more than what is practiced in the non-chassidsh places. This includes the separation of boys and girls, dress codes for girls that satisfy a much larger section of Halachic authorities, tznius issues such as not allowing girls to speak in public for men (like by High School graduations) which is Halachicly questionable at best, beards and payos are mandatory which is demanded by many halachic authorities, the insistence on not going to college, and numerous gedorim and siyagim, such as their mode of dress for men and their speaking yiddish.

Of course this is a generalization, and does not reflect on the frumkeit level of any particular individual. Also, regarding things like learning in Kollel, or even the prohibition of chodosh in some circles, one can argue in the other direction. But on a communal level, it is definitely often the case that there is reason for people to think that chasdim are simply more haclachicly and religiously stringent.


The separation of men and women is mandated in the Halachah. The Bach (as per sefer chasidim without attribution) writes that if there is mixed seating at a wedding, one may not say "shehasimcha b'meono", since it is not a simcha, but a tragedy.

Separate catering halls are not mandated by anybody.

In ancient times, in the days of Moshe Rabbeinu too, men and women celebrated separately. By Moshe you see this at Krias Yam Suf, where Miriam had a separate group for Shira than did Moshe, and in Tehillim, "Bachurim v'gam besulos", an extra word stuck in there which means that boys and girls do not praise Hashem together (as do the other entities mentioned), rather concomitant but separate.

Also, it is normative halachic practice for siyagim and gedorim to be added as time goes by, since the generations get worse and worse. That includes rabbinically enacted gezeiros, self-imposed restrictions (such as many minhagim as cheromim), and certain halachic practices (such as the preference of Chalitzah over Yibum, where Yibum used to be preferable, due to the later generations' tendency to perform Yibum with ulterior motives).

The behavior of Chasidim, like their non-Chasidic counterparts, are rooted in the instructions of their Gedolim in their communities. Under the supervision of these Gedlim, there can be no enactments that are inappropriately machmir, or maikel.

---

The Bnei Yissaschar writes that before Moshiach comes, Hashem will give us great Tzadikim, but the leaders chosen by the masses will not be those Tzadikim.

"...This refers to the fake Rebbes, [someone] who makes himself like a Tzadik, is meyached yichudim, wears the Talis of a Rebbe, and with all the clothing of a Rav and a Rebbe, but in reality he is the work of the S"M, in order to mislead the masses . . . G-d should save us from them and from the likes of them" (Munkatcher Rebbe ZTL, Divrei Torah #82).

The Kotzker Rebbe ZTL said (Emes VEmunah) that before Moshiach comes, there will be "white jupitzes" (Bekisches, i.e. Rebbes) who are apikorsim."

The Satmar Rebbe ZTL (Vayoel Moshe, end of ch. 2) writes that the Derech of the Baal Shem Tov is already totally forgotten from our generation.

I am not talking about nay individuals, but simply stated, the above and other Chasidishe Tzadikim have told us not to be surprised when, in these generations, there are Rebbes who are not what we would expect them to be. It says nowhere that just because someone's father or uncle was niftar and left him a Kehilla of Chasidim, that that makes him a Tzadik.

In fact, if this wouldn’t be happening we would have a big "kasha" on Chasidus, because this was predicted and expected, as per above.

But don't worry - or maybe this is reason to worry more - it's not only by the Chasidim. The world is problematic today in all segments of Orthodoxy.

There are still Tzadikim, and there are Bainonim, and there are others. Just because someone has a big straimel doesn’t make him a Tzadik and just because someone has no big Yeshiva doesn’t mean he’s not a Godol Hador - e.g. the Chazon Ish, the Stepiler, the Vilna Gaon, just to name a few.

So the fact that people in high "positions" aren't what you expect them to be doesn't conflict with Chasidus - or the rest of Torah - in fact, Chasidishe tzadikim have said this themselves. But it does NOT leave us leaderless, for there are real Gedolim and Tzadikim out there. You just have to judge them by real Torah standards - Torah knowledge and righteousness - and not by a popularity contest.

---

There was, in the olden days, opposition to Chasidim from the GRA and his Talmidim on several grounds:

First, the Kabbalistic concept of "tzimtzum" was, they claimed, misrepresented by Chasidim (this concept explains how a materialistic world can exists if G-d encompasses the whole universe. If G-d is not material, and He is all over, then how can a gashmiyus universe exist?)

2) The Chasidim changed established Minhagim (such as the nusach of tefilah), and they were accused of violating certain halachos (such as the time of davening).

3) There were Chasidim who did weird things - like bizarre gyrations and movements during davening, and things like that. Also their seeming frivolous attitude would violate "Ashrei Adam mefachad tamid" - Fortunate is he who is always scared (of doing an aveirah), and their emphasis on happiness unrelated to happiness from a mitzvah would fly in the face of the general attitude of awe and seriousness that a Yorei Shamayim should have.

4) Their seeming minimizing of the important of learning Torah, in favor of other Mitzvos, and sometimes even "Chasidishe tishin".

The Chasidim countered the above claims either by defending their position based on torah (such as their understanding of Tzimtzum, which is explicit in the Ramak), or that the GRA was misinformed about their philosophy or behavior. But in any case, it was a machlokes between two great Torah schools.

Today, however, these issues are really non-issues. There was a good moshol given by the Kamarna Rebbe ZTL, about today’s Chasidim and Misnagdim:

There was once a rich man who married off his daughter, and was willing - as was the custom in those days - to support the new couple by having them move in to his house.

He told him that he would give him his own wing in his mansion, but on one condition - that he (the son in law) only eat fleishigs. The son-in-law agreed.

Some time later, the rich man married off his next daughter, and made the new son-in-law the same deal, but this time, he was only allowed to eat milchigs. Agreed.

So he had his fleishig son-in-law on one side of the house, and his milchig one on the other side, supporting them both.

Until one day, when the wealthy man unfortunately lost all his money. Now he could no longer support his sons-in-law the way he used to. So he went to the fleishig son-in-law and said "Sorry, fleishiger son-in-law. Until now, you’ve been eating steak and lamb chop. I can’t afford that anymore. Now you will have to subsist on potatoes".

Then he went to the milchig son-in-law and said "Until now you were eating ice cream and tiramisu. Now you will have to eat only potatoes."

And so it was.

One day shortly thereafter, the two sons in law went to their father in law and said when one of us was eating fleishig and the other milchigs, it made sense that we had to have separate rooms. But now that all of us are eating potatoes, we can just live together in one apartment.

The nimshal is, there used to be chasidim, and misnagdim. Fleishigs and michigs. And there were two separate camps, that would not mix. But today, we have all gone bankrupt - our madreigah has dropped so that the chasidim are not chasidim and the misnagdim are not misnagdim. Never mind tzimtzum, never mind supremacy of learning as opposed to other types of avodah - halvai we should all keep the basic Torah and mitzvos.

Today, we are all eating potatoes.

And so there is no longer much difference between the chasidim and the misnagdim, both are living on a bare and basics level, and so there is really no reason to have separate camps anymore. Today, we're all eating potatoes anyway, so why have separate kitchens?

---

"Frum" is just a word, which means "religious." It has no measurable meaning in itself - it's just a word and you can use it any way you want.

When I got to shamayim after 120 years Hashem will ask me if I fulfilled the Torah; he is not going to ask me if I was "frum". So if Hashem doesn't care about what it mean why would I?

There is no threshold of "frum" or "religious", because since the definitions of those words make no difference, whether you are "religious" or not becomes an issue of semantics - how you define the word.

What does matter is that you set as your ideal the lifestyles of the great Tzadikim, our role models. Of course, you are not yet able to be on that level, and of course the Tzadikim themselves often had to work very hard for many years to reach their level. Very hard. And many years. But they always had their eyes on the prize, on their goal, on Perfection.

As Rav Yisroel Salanter once said - where you are does not matter as much as in what direction you are going. Striving for greatness the way and working toward that goal the way people work toward any glorious goal is what we are supposed to focus on.

So the question "at what point in my observance do I become religious" is not really a question - it is a question of semantics. We are also not supposed to stop at any given point. If G-d has given us an additional day of life, it is for us to use it to grow.

---

The black hat is a purely cultural thing. In Europe yeshiva guys all wore hats (grey, usually, not black), and the style, I guess, just continued. Could mean absolutely nothing at all, could mean a statement, depends on the whole picture. No way to judge just by the hat.

It's not nearly frowned upon if you don't wear one as much as you may think. Especially if for business dress or the like. But since in "dress mode" such as Shabbos or formal weekday wear what people wear on their heads - black hat, knitted yarlmuka, colored giant Tzefas-type Yarlmuka etc. - happened to have become very statistically equatable with the different segments of Judaism, it will naturally raise an eyebrow if it's incongruous with the segment that observers would expect you to identify with.

It's like let's say you're having lunch in a wall street eatery where everyone is wearing horn-rimmed glasses, suits, yellow ties, and reading the wall street journal, and in walks a guy with pink hair, 6 piercings, leather pants and a copy of "High Times". Of course, this person may well be the most savvy broker in the group, but people are going to ask themselves what's up with him. True that, even though there is nothing intrinsically investment-oriented with gray suits or thin ties. It's just a cultural thing.

In Yeshiva, if a bochur suddenly stops wearing his hat, more than the removal of the hat itself, the question would be why did he do it. Is he trying to make a statement, or what? Since the fact is that teenagers (and adults) generally do dress according to the style that the group they identify with does (regardless of personal taste), if a person who identifies with the Yeshiva world dressed differently it will raise questions.

So it's not a chumra thing, it's a style thing. But instead of the style of Calvin Klein, it's the style of the Yeshiva world. Intrinsically, it has zero significance (except during davening, where there is Halachic discussion about wearing a hat over your Yarlmuka). It is purely social, and nonconformity here has the same connotations as nonconformity with the dress norms of any social group.

---

There is a chumrah of covering your entire head with a bigger yarlmuka than just one that we wear. Gedolim wear hats or big, whole-head Yarlmukas for that reason.

It is a cultural thing, not a Halachic thing; it tells the world what group you identify with and how you want to be recognized, but the fact that it is a black hat (of a certain style, technically called a fedora) is pure coincidence. In Europe, in the main yeshivos, the head covering of choice was a GRAY hat (today it would be considered very unyeshivish); in certain Sefardishe circles, gedolim would wear turban type hats; Rav Moshe Feinstein used to sometimes wear a straw (dark) hat.

When I was a teenager, back hats had small, narrow brims and large, wide bands. Today if you wore such a hat they'd laugh you out of the Bais Hamedrash. Some guys used to wear feathers in their hats, or - this was once very popular - imitation pearls. No more. It's a style, this hat thing. The style of Bnei Torah, true, but a style.

I'm not saying not to wear the hat. I'm saying that whatever you do, you should know why you are doing it -- is it a mitzvah, a chumrah, a minhag, a siyag, an aveirah, a davar reshus (neutral), a cultural thing, etc. The black hat is not INTRINSICALLY meaningful; it has become a cultural style of the Yeshiva world.

The concept of following the Rabbonim means either to follow their directions, or to figure out why they do what they do and then take it form there. Sometimes you should do as they do; sometimes you should NOT - some things are appropriate only for people of a certain stature - and sometimes it's in between.

If you don't know WHY the person you are following does what he does, you are likely not following correctly. Example: The Kedushas Yom Tov always used to specifically eat egg kichels for Kiddush Shabbos morning. Some Chassidim thought there was some significance to that and followed suit. When they asked the Kedushas Yom Tov his reason, he explained that he was Makpid on making an Al haMichyah only if he ate a Kazayis of flour; and since egg kichels do not have much flour in them, he is always safe.

So if a Chosid did not have the Rebbe's chumrah and made an al hamichyah on his kichels, or if he ate so many kichels that he had a kazayis of flour, he may have thought that he was following his rebbe by eating the kichels, but actually he accomplished nothing.

---

Na-Na-Nachman

The Na-na-nachers are a break off from Breslov. Their leader was a Rabbi Yisroel Odesser ZTL, who was a Tzadik, but a bit naive. He found a letter to him written by Rav Nachman way after Rav Nachman was niftar (the letter was obviously a prank) saying that, basically, the solution to all our problems is if people go around saying na-nach. I'm serious. Sigh.
The letter had to be a prank. It was written after Rav Nachman was niftar. And it makes zero sense.

Orthodox Jews who believe without any evidence that a letter supposedly written by a long-ago niftar rebbe with a message that makes no sense according to Torah values (Torah and Mitzvos are what nurture the world - not a na-nach chant) is authentic and should be followed blindly, are already sufficiently off that spray painting Har Hamenuchos is not a great jump from where they already are to begin with.

The grandson of the person who authored the prank letter to Rabbi Odesser claims that his grandfather actually told Rabbi Odesser afterwards that it was a prank, but he (Rabbi Odesser) would not believe him. The whole thing is due to a practical joke that got out of hand.

So we have someone that admitted they pranked Rav Odesser. But it really doesn't matter what did happen. What matters is what did not happen - namely, Rav Nachman writing that letter.

The kids you see are usually baalei teshuva, or potential baalei teshuva who were brought back by the na-nachers

---

History and our own observations show that otherwise intelligent people can believe all kinds of crazy things. You think all suicide bombers are idiots in all other aspects of their lives as well? They're not. You think crazy cults and wacko religions don't have otherwise intelligent people believing in them? They do. As bizarre as this sounds, intelligence never stopped someone from believing stupid things.

This is because, on a simple level, believing is not the same as thinking. People believe what makes them feel good, or what they were brought up to believe, or what others around them believe, or what’s easiest to believe in terms of not having to be considered an outcast in society, etc, and then their Negiyus causes them to intellectually believe they’re making sense. Shochad yaavir ainei pikchim ---- totally.

On a more theological level, ain adam choteh ela im kein nichnas bo ruach shtus - they Yetzer Horah is adept at causing people to be stupid -and either acting or believing in stupid ways. Our vulnerability to stupidity is part of Hashem's way of keeping our Bechirah intact. If we would always make intelligent decisions, we would never sin. So Hashem, in order to even the playing field, so to speak, created a vulnerability to nonsense in the human being, just enough to make it an even choice for him to accept or reject it.

---

The na-nachers are not sufficiently organized to produce "required" beliefs. I have heard this certain Gilgul thing from a number of them, but it is not an officially required belief - developed kind of like the various Moshiach movements within Chabad.

The meditation thing is not part of their beliefs. The constant repeating of nananachman is because they claim that a letter written by Rav Nachman to Rabbi Odesser (written after Rav Nachman was niftar) said that if they repeat this phrase good things will happen in the world. That letter is their only "shitah", it is just a paragraph long and it doesn’t mention anything about meditation or mantras.

The Satmar Rav ZTL did hold from the writings of Rav Nachman ZTL, and quotes them occasionally. However, the catch here is that the Satmar Rav also held that all Chasidic Seforim were meant only for the talmidim of the Rebbes at that time and although the custom-tailored directives that these seforim contain are extremely useful for us as well, we should not take the advice and the direction in them as if it were literally meant for us. "Following" the seforim of Breslov in that context produces results that would be a lot less shocking than those that you probably envision right now.

---

About their Haskama from Rav Moshe, read the Haskama. It says they should print Rav Nachman's seforim and things like that but in no way does it say anything remotely close to the posthumous letter of Rav Nachman not being a fake or that any of the things this group thinks or does are anything but.

---

Reform, Conservative, etc.

Reform has an added sin beyond being non-religious, and that is distorting the Torah. At least the non-religious don't falsify our religion.

Because Reform falsifies our religion, they cause others to sin because there are those who want to be religious, and Reform tells them that their way is the way G-d wants them to be. So reform makes others non-Religious.

Other than that, falsifying the Torah is itself a grave sin. If you don't want to be religious, that's one thing, but don't misrepresent G-d.

A non-religious person can say he really believes, but he is not ready or willing to keep the Mitzvos. That's like a guy who is caught for speeding and tells the judge I'm guilty, but I have no excuse. I just wanted to get home quicker.

But the Reform are like someone who is caught speeding and tells the judge that he disagrees with the speed limit, and that the judge has no right to tell him how fast to drive.

One is guilty of speeding. The other is making a revolution against the lawmaking process.

So a non-religious Jew violates the Law. Reform rebels against it, telling people that they do not have to follow it, that it is not binding.

Look at it this way: Jews for Jesus.

They believe in the Torah as much as the Reform, or perhaps more:

1) Jews for Jesus believe in G-d, Reform does not have to

2) Jews for Jesus believe in the revelation at Mt. Sinai, Reform does not

3) J4J believe that G-d literally wrote the Torah, Reform does not

4) J4J believes in the wrong Messiah. Reform believes in no Messiah at all

5) And one more difference, between a Reform rabbi and the Pope:

The Pope wears a Yarlmuka.

So if I were to ask you if J4J are "proud to be Jewish", what would you say?

Obviously, what they call "Jewish" and what we call "Jewish" are 2 different things. Although they are 100% Jewish if they had Jewish mothers, the religion they are practicing certainly is not Judaism.

So too the Reform. They are not practicing Judaism.

I think this whole pluralism thing would be looked at in a different light if we were to include Jews for J as Judaism.

Why in the world should they be left our more than, say, Reform? They are Jews too, right?

Yes.

So why does anybody consider Reform a "branch" of Judaism and not Jews for Jesus? Jews for Jesus is much closer to real Judaism than Reform.

So we may as well ask, Which is worse: Christianity or Reform?

Well, if a Reform Jew is an atheist, and he may be, then the Christian Jew is clearly on a higher level, since idolatry is one step above atheism.

---

They can consider themselves Reform, since Reform does not have anything against people believing in G-d, but they also give them the option of not believing in G-d too, and that's a serious problem. So serious, in fact, that it takes reform Judaism out of the realm of Judaism. We do not need labels. I don't know why, if your friends keep mitzvos, they consider themselves Reform and not Orthodox, but the point is not how religious you are, but what religion it is you are practicing. Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are two different religions, despite the label. And just as there are Jews who do not practice Judaism - such as Jews for J - there can also be Jews who do not practice reform Judaism, despite what they call themselves.

---

To say that Reform Judaism is not Judaism is not Loshon Horah more than saying Jews for Jesus is not Judaism.

The Maharitz Chiyus writes (Kol Kisvei III:p.1113) that the Reform/Conservative Jews are indeed not responsible for their misguided beliefs because that's what they were taught. But those who taught them, those who should know better, are held responsible for them and their followers.

Someone who is reform is in the same category as someone who is Jews for Jesus. Of course they are Jews no matter what. And of course we need to show them the "way." But first and foremost we have to protect their potential victims from following them. Every Jewish child molester, for instance, are also Jews. And we should get them to do teshuva. But first we have to make sure they don't destroy any more lives. And if the child molester will leave our community unless we allow him to be a kindergarten teacher, then it's sad, but goodbye.

So too Reform rabbis, who destroy people's souls. You know the Halachah is that to save someone from becoming reform you would be allowed to violate Shabbos just as if the person was going to die? Do you know that Jews are obligated to die rather than believe that the Torah is not Min haShamayim? Reform rabbis should be shown the light, true, but first and foremost we have to make sure that nobody believes what they say, that they are not really rabbis, and not practicing Judaism at all. They are just like Jewish missionaries for Jesus.

Another thing. Even though every Jew remains a Jew, if someone believes in another religion - like Christianity OR Reform Judaism - he attains the status of a non-Jew regarding all privileges. Meaning, he cannot be counted as part of a Minyan, his Brachos are not brachos (we do not answer Amen to them), and if he touches our wine we may not drink it. (All of the above is the opinion of the majority of poskim. If someone is a Tinok Shenishbah - innocently duped, totally ignorant about Judaism - there is a disagreement about this).

He remains Jewish regarding all responsibilities, but is not granted any privileges.

Our religion does include non-orthodox Jews. But their religion, meaning the one they has chosen, does not include us. And I know it's painful, but my job, and the job of all of us, is first to make sure that distinction is understood.

---

Why would Reform be considered a "legitimate" branch of Judaism and not, say, Jews for Jesus? After all, that’s their "interpretation" of Judaism, so who’s to say they’re wrong?

Obviously, just because someone calls their religion Judaism does not make it so. The Judaism that was given by G-d bears no resemblance to Reform, who do not even feel obligated to believe that G-d ever gave that Torah in the first place. You can call it Judaism, but it is not. Sorry.

And forget about the old Reform blood libel of "How can you say we're not Jewish?!"

Nobody is saying you're not Jewish. You're just not practicing Judaism. You're like a Jewish atheist or a Jewish Buddhist or a Jew for Jesus.

They're all Jewish, if they had a Jewish mother. But being Jewish is what you are. Practicing Judaism is what you do. One does not necessitate the other.

According to Judaism, Reform is simply another religion, regardless of what you call it.

---

Your actions do not have to mean something to YOU. They have to mean something to G-D.

That’s the difference between Orthodox and Reform Judaism. Orthodox Judaism follows instructions that G-D gave us. Reform ignores those instructions and instead follows instructions that they themselves concocted. So Reform is not a religion given by G-d but rather made by men.

Why would you exclude Jews for Jesus as a "legitimate" branch of Judaism? Because they believe in Jesus? So what? Why can a Reform rabbi not even believe in G-d but a J4J "rabbi" can't believe in Jesus? Maybe Jews SHOULD believe in Jesus? Who are you to say they shouldn't? If this is what "connects" them to G-d, then what's wrong? And are you so arrogant as to say only you know how to connect to G-d

Orthodox Judaism is not "my" way of worshiping G-d. I did not invent it. Hashem did. I just follow it. You are projecting the man-made nature of Reform religion onto Orthodoxy, making believe that they are both man-made and then you ask why is your concocted religion better than mine? But the answer is that we did not make up our religion. Hashem gave it us on Mt. Sinai.

Let me ask another question: What makes Judaism better than Buddhism? Or any other religion? They, too, say they are "connected to G-d".

But the reality is that your Judaism and their Buddhism has nothing to do with G-d. G-d did not give either religion

---

To a Torah-thinking Jew, it is unthinkable to look at a reform rabbi preaching his religion as anything else than a spiritual mass murderer. And joining with him is as repulsive, even more so, than joining with a physical murderer. So if you believe your cause if important enough to join with a spiritual mass murderer, you surely would have no qualms with joining with a physical murderer.

But the Hashkafically assimilated would mistakenly look at a Reform rabbi as a "peer", albeit a wrongheaded one, as opposed to an enemy. Therein lies the Hashkafic tragedy. The masses of reform Jewry who have been mislead may be innocent victims of the spiritual atrocities of their leaders; but the rabbis themselves are guilty of mass murder - worse! - and are no less dangerous to us than any mass murderers of our physical beings.

The reform rabbi today goes through training which, as twisted as it may be, gives him the opportunity to willingly reject real Judaism in favor of Reform, which makes him very responsible.

---

Sometimes rejection of one Orthodox group of another is justified and sometimes it is not. Throughout history, we have had Orthodox groups - who kept Kosher, Shabbos, and Tznius - that were B"H rejected from Klall Yisroel. Korach's group was totally Orthodox, complete with Talmidei Chachamim and 250 Heads of Sanhedrin. Yeravan ben Nevat did more damage to Klall Yisroel than anyone in history and he and his group were totally Orthodox. Shabse Tzvi, the false Moshiach, was Orthodox, and so were his followers.

You can be sure that the followers of Korach said that "we too are Orthodox" and therefore Klall Yisroel's rejection of them was sinas chinam. In fact, that is exactly what Korach meant when he came to Moshe and said "The entire congregation is holy, why do you lord it over them?"

And I am sure that young men and women of Korach's sect also claimed that those who rejected them were just infighting, and better they should go fight with Amalek or something.

While it is true that it is difficult to know, sometimes, which group is Korach and which is Moshe, it is clear that even within Orthodoxy, there are groups that we must reject. That is because Torah is a lot more than just Kashrus, Tznius and Shabbos. You can keep all of those things and yet theoretically be an idol worshipper. An Ir Hanidaschas - an idolatrous city that the Torah commands us to utterly destroy - can be totally Tzniusdik, Kosher, and Shomer Shabbos.

If you want to be BY/Yeshivish, then you can successfully be that. A BT can sometimes feel out of place, but it is not because the community does not accept BT's, rather, some people in the community are not wise or mature enough to know how to express that acceptance.

---

Conservative Judaism does NOT follow Halachah -- they say they do, but they have a totally different definition of Halachah and the Halachic process than the Torah. Orthodox Judaism's "halacha" and Conservative "Judaism's" Halachah" are only homonyms. They’re not the same.

The so-called "halakhic pluralism" of the Conservative movement, the bogus "Committee on Law and Standards" which acts as their lawmaking body with no halachic due process is merely a false way of creating new and invalid so-called "halachos".

The heretic, Mordechai Kaplan, in his "Judaism as a Civilization" decided that Religion is a human creation, and halakhah has the status of "folkways." The heretic Solomon Schechter concocts his idea of Halachic "academic freedom" - meaning, halachah is no longer halachah as we know it, but a new, grotesque imposter thereof.
That resulted in a totally non-halachic religion, part of which follows:

"Mixed seating" in synagogue; retroactive annulment of marriages; counting of women in minyanim and giving them aliyos and letting them read form the Torah; ordination of women as rabbis; chilul Shabbos: permitting driving to "synagogue"; permitting use of electricity on Sabbath; eliminating second day of holidays; Friday night davening; unauthorized reforms in the siddur; changing the cycle of Torah reading.

---

Saying that the Torah isn’t really from Hashem, but merely "divinely inspired" is meaningless. How do we know that the Torah was divinely inspired? And how do we know what authority, if any, "divinely inspired" has? Maybe this website is divinely inspired? Maybe the Pope is "divinely inspired"?
The entire "divinely inspired" thing is so ambiguous and means so little in the bottom line that anyone can say it means anything they want. And this is no surprise, since "divinely inspired" was the concoction of some relatively modern day conservative rabbis, and Jews have never thought of such an outrageous concept ever.

Why didn’t the people who were "divinely inspired", their contemporaries, and the entire thread of torah tradition down ever mention the fact that the Torah was merely "divinely inspired" as opposed to the Word of G-d, which is what it says all over. How did these Conservatives decide this? Based on what? Nothing.

If we can just chuck Halachos that we consider offensive or nonsensical why haven't any Halachos been chucked until the Conservatives decided to do it? Torah has been around for thousands of years. It makes zero sense to say that only since the advent of the Conservative movement do we understand what it really means.

And it makes no sense anyway. "Nonsensical" to whom? "Offensive" to whom? What authority does the "Conservative movement" have to decide what's offensive or nonsensical? I am offended by the Conservative movement. That, by Conservative standards, should be enough to abolish it, no? Who makes these decisions, and, most importantly, who gives any of these people the authority to decide laws and practices for other people? Like, who died and make them the boss?
The fact that Conservative Judaism does not believe the Torah is the Word of Hashem but rather "divinely inspired" whatever that means, makes it a totally different religion than Orthodox Judaism. The last time an Orthodox rabbi said this, the Conservatives freaked out and falsely publicized to the papers that we do not believe they are Jews.

Not so. They are Jews. Nobody ever said differently. Their religion, however, is not Judaism. Like Jews for Jesus, they are full-fledged Jews, but are practicing the wrong religion.

And at least Jews for Jesus believe that the Torah was given by G-d, not merely "divinely inspired".
I’m not saying J4J are better than Conservativism. I said that at least they believe the Torah was given by G-d Himself. J4J is also not Judaism, and has other problems, but this is not one of them.

---

Conservativism doesn't merely partially follow Halachah, it partially believes in Halachah. People who can't resist temptation partially follow Halachah, but they know that there is more that they are not following. Conservativism has abolished Halahcos they do not like.

Our religion says the Halachos - all of them - were given by G-d. Not merely "divinely inspired", whatever that mean (it means nothing, really). To say that the Torah, including the Halachos are not binding is to create a new religion. Sorry.

---

Saying something like the conservative movement never abolished shatnez or niddah Halacha is like saying the Christians never abolished the Torah, they just "reinterpreted" it. Conservativism has some rules that they refer to as shatnez and nidah, but there is not much more similarity between theirs and ours.

---

Conservative Judaism is clearly heresy, and not Judaism at all. They create their own baseless rules and policies and incorporate those fairy tales into what they call Judaism.

As far as “Halachah” goes, they make call it “Halachah”, but it is nothing close. Solomon Schechter concocted, as part of the Halachic process a baseless and nonsensical concept called "Klal Yisrael" (yes, Klall Yisroel) which means that decisions on Jewish Law are largely determined by the practices of Klal Yisrael. In other words, instead of people having to follow the law, the law follows the people. Of course, it is more complicated – and more messed up – than that. They have something called the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), that decides Halachah. Sometimes this pseudo-Sanhedrim hagadol will give people a choice of what they can do, and each conservative rabbi (sic) can decide on his own. Who gave these people authority, I have no idea. And what authority they think they have – over all Judaism, over the Conservative movement – is not clear. Do they believe that the Conservative movement is correct? Then everyone should be bound to the decision of these lawmakers, since they represent the correct Torah view. But for some reason, they only claim to speak for the Conservative Movement – in other words, we’re not saying we’re right, but if you want to have our label, you have to listen to us.

That’s why Conservative Judaism is not defined. What is the status of someone who is not part of the Conservative Movement? Is he practicing Judaism? Is he wrong? Is he a heretic? Answering these questions based on Conservative philosophy generates irreconcilable contradictions and dead ends with no answers. But what can you expect? One cannot expect a coherent philosophy when you try to remake Torah in your own image.

You want to call it a new religion, call it a new religion. But calling it Judaism just doesn’t work.

The CJLS also has something called “standards”. These are more “chomur” than just plain laws.
The CJLS decides, not based on any legitimate Halachic grounds, what is considered a “standard.” But don’t worry – they only have 4 of them in the entire Torah! They are:

1. Rabbis cannot officiate at intermarriages.
2. Rabbis cannot officiate at a remarriage where the previous marriage has not been terminated according to Conservative laws
3. Rabbis cannot act as if Jewishness depends on having a Jewish father (not mother).
4. They cannot do any conversions without what they call Milah and Mikveh.

People can get thrown out of the Conservative movement (whatever that means – again, how does this effect him in any measurable way, besides a label?) for doing these things. What makes these things so special is the random, non-halachic decision of the lawmakers. Rabbis can not keep Shabbos and still be Conservative rabbis. But if they perform a conversion without a Mikveh, they can get thrown out. Go know.

They also believe - don’t ask how they got this – that “revelation” (like Har Sinai) in the form of prophecy, can happen today. I am not kidding.

---

Of course Conservatives don’t keep Shabbos, the problem is they think they do! So do the Christians, and the Moslems. They just re-define what Shabbos is. This has been the history of all deviant religious movements. They won't say we reject the Torah, they will say we just have a different hashkafa of what it means! My intent therefore is to demonstrate on their terms that their religion (Conservative Judaism) is stupid.

---

I know of Frankel's writings. They're so haphazard, baseless, and messed up it's pathetic. Pruzbul changed nothing; it means Bais Din takes over the debt, which was always an option, merely never instituted in an organized fashion. There are no changes, and there is no reason their law body has any authority. The entire thing is a fabrication out of thin air falsely attributed to Judaism.

In fact, I think I am the one who should be making the laws for Conservative Judaism. I am Jewish, too. So what right do they have more than me to make laws for people? The first law I am going to enact is that anyone who says they respect Conservative Jewry is in cherem.

Second, everyone has to post to this site 3 times a day instead of praying, since the Internet is much more in the "spirit of the times" than a shtiebel.

(I saw the RA letter on what they refer to as Taharas Hamishposhchah. Nothing there that changes anything. It's not real Taharas Hamishpochah.)

Quoting Zechariah Frankel to confirm what Conservatives of say does not defend his position. And it is, really, a pretty stupid thing for him to say. The people are not molded by the "wills of theologians and scholars", but by the will of G-d. Frankel, in true Conservative form, was scared to admit that G-d is in charge, but doesn't say clearly that He is not.

---

By Torah law, a man may have more than one wife. About 1,000 years ago, most of Klall Yisroel accepted the ban of Rabbeinu Gershom not to marry multiple wives. That was a new rabbinic restriction. However, that restriction is suspended under a handful of circumstances that may qualify under heter meah rabbonim. Don't forget, objectively, a man can marry 2 women if he wants; it was a self-imposed restriction not to. Therefore, the HMR is merely a codicil of this restriction, suspending it under certain circumstances.

And no, sorry, all 100 rabbis do not have to meet your friend. In fact, it will almost be impossible to do so, since the 100 rabbis have to come from a number of different places, as per the rules of HMR. Only the Bais Din itself needs to rule on someone’s "fitness".

The whole conservative thing is a political club rather than an interpretation of Judaism.

---

We're not talking about Conservative Jews, we're talking about Conservative Judaism. I am saying that it is not at all Judaism, but rather a freewheeling, Monty Python type of religion with no rhyme or reason, never mind any resemblance to anything that can reasonably be referred to as Judaism.

---


Those who are irreligious because they don't know any better are considered, according to many poskim, like "tinikos shenishbu". This means they are not punished for their sins, since they did not know any better.

However, if someone who doesn't believe in G-d does Mitzvos, they do not count, since to them, they are not doing a Mitvah but rather performing meaningless motions. It's like if someone let's say wants to buy a nice citrus fruit to eat and comes upon a pile of esrogim in the marketplace, and picks them up one by one feeling them for ripeness, not even being aware that it is an esrog. If they did this on sukkos they would not get a Mitzvah. If someone does not believe in G-d, all the mitzvos he does are like that.

---

I once heard from Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach ZT"L that if a Jew (a) knows he is Jewish, and (b) can become religious, and (c) the government won’t persecute him if he is religious, then he is no longer a Tinok Shenishbah and is therefore responsible for his actions.

There is a big machlokes about this. Regarding Reform, the rabbis themselves are definitely responsible for their actions, since they know enough to realize their religion is not Judaism (See Kol Kisvei Maharitz Chiyos III:p.1003); whether an average reform Jew is responsible would be a machlokes.

---

Those Mitzvos done without believing in anything are not Mitzvos. They do not train a person to believe in G-d, and if they did train a person to do the mitzvos, then they have the same status as let’s say a person put on leather straps with comic books in them, not tefillin. They don't retroactively count at all. They may help as fake training tools, but they have no intrinsic value in the slightest.
The only value is in continued education and affiliation, NOT the doing of the Mitzvah. The Mitzvah itself means nothing - it's like blowing his nose. That accomplishes nothing. But if he comes every day to Yeshiva to blow his nose, maybe something good will happen. Those who put tefillin on atheists in a one-time event and say good bye to him wasted their time; they accomplished nothing.

---

Hold off a decision on your place in regards to religiosity for the meantime and focus on getting more and more information about Judaism. Making these decisions with more information will maximize the chances of the decision being correct.

It's impossible to rely on your feelings when it comes to these things, because as we learn more and more, our perspective changes. So don't lock yourself in to any decision yet.

For example: "Something is better than nothing" in respect to Reform.

OK, if something is better than nothing, how about Jews for Jesus?

In principle, labels are wrong etc. But the question is how to properly apply the principles.

I would start by reading the book of Rabbi Avigdor Miller shlita. I do not know of any English books on the ideology of Judaism that come close to these. Start with Rejoice O Youth and then go to Sing You Righteous.

Learn a lot, and then decide where you want to be. Right now it's too early to make that decision, which is why you are lost trying to do it.

---

The maharitz chiyos writes regarding conservative that the simple people in their congregations are not responsible for believing what their rabbis taught them but the rabbis are responsible for misleading their congregants.

A person is responsible for whenever he should know better. There is a moral obligation and expectation to be objective and try to find the truth. If someone believes in a religion that makes no sense, and they are capable of seeing it makes no sense, then they are responsible if they do not.