Syndication
Stop Calling Me an ‘Ultra-Orthodox Jew’
Print this article
Email this article
Other articles by Abbott Katz
More in Forward ForumStop calling me an ultra-Orthodox Jew.
“Ultra” — the modifier of choice for a press hawking its smudged cartography of Jewish religious life — has enjoyed a long, wearisome, dubious run, and it isn’t recusing itself from the discourse any time soon. The Jewish religious world occupies a bewilderingly disparate space, to be sure, but mapping its turf begs a measure of precision of which the media’s collective instrumentation seems largely incapable — and “ultra,” with its Latinate tinge, redolent of cultic cadres pushing their faith to mysterious extremes, badly misreads the coordinates.
And foments an agenda, besides. After all, if there are ultra-Orthodox Jews, then there are merely Orthodox ones as well, and what makes the recourse to “ultra” so pernicious is its very status as prefix, a descriptive tack-on to a more primeval, integral Judaism of truer provenance. Orthodox Jews seem to be seen as marking the spiritual baseline, while the “ultras” are typed as a kind of fanatic insurgency, sparse but dangerous.
If you think I protest too much, then ruminate upon Gershom Gorenberg’s recent article in The New York Times, “How Do You Prove You’re a Jew?”, an informative but flawed take on the Israeli rabbinate’s endeavors to ratify the Jewishness of Israelis seeking to marry, an article that soon bobbed to the top of the Times’s “Most Emailed” chart. The rabbis’ efforts to buttress the lineal claims of applicants are perfectly sensible, given the fusillade of intermarriages and doubtful divorces riddling the Jewish world today. And moreover, one should know that this kind of scrutiny is neither unprecedented nor particularly over the top.
The London Beit Din, for example, has for quite some time taken similar pains to affirm the backgrounds of its applicants, but no matter. “Ultra-Orthodox” manages to presume itself into Gorenberg’s treatment rather often, most irritatingly in his citation of the great early 19th-century German-Hungarian Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, known universally in the Orthodox world as the Chasam Sofer. It is he whom Gorenberg terms the founder of ultra-Orthodoxy. But what can that mean?
Follow the implied chronology: 3,000 years of Jewish tradition and rabbinic scholarship suddenly mutate in the 19th century, culminating in an ultra-Orthodox strain branded as a new, firebrand alternative to that which preceded it. That is, the Orthodox were there first.
The claim is preposterous, but durable. In fact the Chasam Sofer is very much of a piece with his rabbinic predecessors and successors. Nowhere in the yeshiva world is he credited with striking a stance at any fundamental remove from his forebears.
It is impossible, for example, to understand the equally illustrious Rabbi Akiva Eiger — whose daughter the Chasam Sofer married and who was nearly the same age — in different terms from his son-in-law. But because of his adamancy against the Reform movement and his much-misunderstood assertion, “That which is new is forbidden in the Torah,” the Chasam Sofer is cast as a revolutionary extremist — namely, as ultra-Orthodox.
But in fact, “ultra-Orthodox” is a revisionist coinage, one that skews the dialogue and skewers the segment it means to identify. If “Orthodox” denotes a temperate, sensible, comfortable Judaism, then “ultra-Orthodox” has been made to counterpoise a fierce, immoderate and relatively new take on our faith.
Again, this peculiarly binary view suggests that those rabbinic giants who predated the Chasam Sofer were by definition something less, or other, than “ultra.”
So there’s no misunderstanding, the differences among Orthodox, and non-Orthodox, Jews are substantial and abiding, and call for clear-eyed expounding. But facile, freighted adjectives won’t abet that process.
It’s high time, then, for a rethink. Can’t the stylebook writers think of something else?
Abbott Katz is a writer living in London.
Comments
Well, the stylebook writers at JTA have thought of something else to call the fervently Orthodox, and it's even more absurd: "fervently Orthodox." I first noticed it some years ago, in a JTA report on friction at the Kotel between those who wanted to worship in mixed-sex groups and some fervently Orthodox Jews ("friction" in this case meaning violence by the fervently Orthodox). At first I felt bad for the writer, who I assumed would be rebuked at the office. Later, reading other JTA articles, I realized that "fervently Orthodox" was the house style.
There are at least two problems with "fervently Orthodox." The first, and less important, one is that it sounds ridiculous when it's repeated over and over, as it was in the JTA story that I read (and in my previous paragraph). The more important reason is that the difference between hareidim and us Modern Orthos has nothing to do with fervor.
How about "paleo-"?
My definition of "Modern Orthodox" are those who spend the potentially most productive years of their lives "sitting and learning" while their wives work and raise the children. This is a new paradigm in the Jewish world not seen in the past, except perhaps for a small number of true scholars who were widely recognized as such by their communities. What most people seem to regard as "Modern Orthodox" is really traditional Judaism, where one got out and interacted with the world at large, yes, even the non-Jewish world, while maintaining one's commitment and identity as a Jew!
Abbott Katz would remove the prefix "Ultra" as part of a campaign to disqualify those who are something less as non-Orthodox. Those who are on the right would like to claim the center so that those in the center get shoved to the left and eventually off the edge of the playing field altogether.
Abbott Katz would remove the prefix "Ultra" as part of a campaign to disqualify those who are something less as non-Orthodox. Those who are on the right would like to claim the center so that those in the center get shoved to the left and eventually off the edge of the playing field altogether.
How is it possible the author fails to recognize "That which is new is forbidden in the Torah" as a break from established tradition? He insists it is "much misunderstood", but we all know how it is taken. It is also clear that "Das Torah" encouraged a deferral to the rabbi over matters that were never within his purview. What is at issue is the sort of extremism in religious practice that Maimonides warned about. We see it in the obsessive drive for gender separation and striving for ever more rigorous practice.
Denial, Denial, Denial...It is NOT the name of a river.. Orthodox is how my parents lived and raised the six of us. When that movement went awry, the term "Modern Orthodox " suddenly needed to be applied to the saner and more tolerant Judaism.Then, proudly(discracefully)and by example , right through today, "Ultra" Orthodox intolerantly shoots down what once stood graciously and Halachically for the term... ORTHODOX.
Starting tomorrow, I suppose we all could agree to use the term "Haredi Jew" instead of "ultra-Orthodox Jew".
Yet, how would Abbott Katz suggest we go about describing a "Hardedi Jew" for an audience less familiar with the nuances of the Jewish People.
Perhaps: "Haredi Jew (a Jew who tremble in awe of G-d)?"
Joel Katz http://religionandstateinisrael.blogspot.com/
Sh'koyach! For non-ultra-Orthodox Jews, that means, "My highest commendations to you, sir, for making an important point." Seriously, though, I agree that the term "ultra-Orthodox" is meant to marginalize part of the observant community and its standards. My preference is simply to call all Jews who adhere to the basic terms of "Das Moshe v'Yisrael" (as usually defined by halachic observance of Shabbos, Kashrus, and Taharas HaMishpacha) as simply "Torah observant." Or "frum," if you like. As we all know, there are always gradations within any community. But I believe that it's better for observant Jews to define themselves within the same basic ideological/theological stream than focus on differences unnecessarily. I don't think that Mr. Katz's point was edging out the "center" or the "left." Maybe he's trying to remind the various shades of "frum" out there that we are all on the same team and that the "frumkeit" of today's "ultra-Orthodox" generally appears over the top today because it is more like your alte Bobbe's Judaism than your mother's.
I can't remember Warren Buffet complaining to stop calling him ultra-rich, or President Bush for us to stop insinuating that he is ultra-intelligent, or the best of five-star hotels suing a magazine for referring to it as "ultra-clean." So, perhaps Mr. Katz is not "ultra" and so therefore dislikes the modifier? Doesn't like that someone is more ultra traditional? Maybe stop referring to other Jews as ultra-heathen, or even that we are not Jews at all. Then the differences would be less for ultra to be meaningless.
For a totally non-scientific survey, I did a word-check for the last 2 issues of "Religion and State in Israel".
The results: "ultra-Orthodox" - appears 25 times. "Haredi" - appears 25 times!
Joel Katz http://religionandstateinisrael.blogspot.com/
Growing up Orthodox in London, we had 2 types of frum. There was "Frum" and "Meshugge Frum." I think Meshugge Frum is the more appropriate term for "Ultra-Orthodox."
Abbott Katz makes an excellent point. I would love to know the actual origin of the term 'ultra-Orthodox' but it is easy to see it was by someone up to no good in creating some artificial distinction. All Orthodox Jews are on the same team and have in common what counts. Those referred to as 'ultra' were not the ones who chose this title and thus have no obligation to defend it, while those using it and insisting on its use to indeed marginalize haredim show intolerance and emotional insecurity. It is the same mechanism by which the Reform movement distanced itself from the Orthodox. In fact, the Chasam Sofer's approach was a 'circle-the-wagons' and 'cut-your-losses' reaction to the aggressive reform movement in Hungary, as opposed to the engagement of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch in Germany. These men might well have adopted the other's policy in each other's place.
Ultra-Orthodox to me simply refers to those who adapt Jewish values into a total lifestyle (and communal lifestyle) rather than as a didactic exercise. In a certain sense, it is simply easier and more practical to do so if one is to value those values, with some historic and theoretical justification. They should more properly thought of in the affectionate and indulgent way we think of those who insist on filtered water and organic produce when basic responsible nutritional practice suffice.
This is obscene. Ultra-Orthodoxy began with the creation of the Chassidic and contemporary yeshiva movements. Of course Katz did not address that at all. Both movements are indeed different, but both are most certainly ULTRA-Orthodox. And neither quiescent-fundamentalist tent existed five hundred or two thousand years ago.
Own it, Mr. Katz.
I blog at: http://kvetcher.net
The problem is the Israeli Rabbinate who get to define what "Jewishness" is, as though anyone has a monopoly on the truth. I have friends who are living examples of the horror stories that Gershonberg spoke of. The political dominance of the current Israeli rabbinate is the direct result of a political compromise made, of course, in 1948, because Ben Gurion needed them to form a government. It has become a source of divisiveness and controversy and unless they let go, it will ultimately spell the end of Judaism -- look at the levels of secularity in Israel. If I had a choice between the Israeli rabbinate and secular, I'd pick secular. Is there any wonder why the Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodox are not strong in Israel? They are not welcome relgiously; if they told me I couldn't get a religious ceremony there, I would gladly raise my middle finger at "official Judaism", too. The reality is as you say it: our commonalities far outweigh our differences, but it is not politically feasible for the Israeli Rabbinate to give it up. What's in a name? A rose by any other name smells as sweet. It's not the fault of the style-book writers that the word "ultra" has been made lingua franca. You have, thankfully, identified the problem, and it stares back at you in the mirror.
Really, the Forward should take the trouble to fix their wretched response system. In this thread alone, and I've seen it in many others, there are often several copies of the messages, repeatedly submitted by posters who didn't get a response from the system that their post had been accepted.
I find the repeated posts wasteful, irritating, and an offense to any aesthetics in programming. Modern programs notify the sender and do not disappear into the ozone like the Forward's response system. If this antiquated system is a bow to orthodoxy, then I suggest it is misplaced. There is no need to feel reverential toward computer systems because they are old. Please fix your response mechanism, "ultra"-quick!
I can understand Abbott Katz's unease,I really do. Nobody wants to be known as the extreme version of anything. I am guessing that those whom the media describe as ultra-rich generally regard themselves as ordinarily wealthy. The problem is that even in a language as rich as English, the spectrum goes: liberal-moderate-conservative-orthodox-reactionary. Would Mr. Katz prefer "reactionary" to "ultra-orthodox"? I suspect not. I think he wants the "orthodox" designation, and the rest of us should just move over one space. Sorry, we were here first. And BTW, don't be reading this designation thing as some conspiracy of the rest of us to marginalize your group. These designations are almost always supplied by the media in their relentless search for shorthand descriptions which ordinary people can relate to. Your group's pressure has induced some Jewish publications to use "fervently orthodox". I suspect that you do not find this fully satisfactory, since it still implies an extreme version of some other group rather than as a fully realized group of your own. "Haredi" works well in Jewish media, but it's just not ready for crossover use. But keep trying.
And don't call me Ultra either! Rather than single out "branches" of Orthodoxy with various titles, how about instead applying them to those types of Judaism that are the true upstarts - Reform and Conservative. Perhaps they could be called "Ultra Non-Religious" and "Ulta not-quite-sure-where-they're-holding". Torah observant Jews have been and will be around long after all those others have assimilated out of existence.
1. Hareidim is an excellent term that is politically correct to all parties, except the American Reform Jews can't pronouce gutterals.
2. From an historic perspective, the Hareidim are the plain, original, normal "Jews" and everything else should need the qualifier, but that's not politically correct.
Re Randy Shiner: Modern Orthodox aren't strong in Israel?
Well, the stylebook writers at JTA use "fervently Orthodox Jew." I first noticed this some years ago in a JTA article on friction at the Kotel between Jews who wanted to daven in mixed-sex groups and some fervently Orthodox Jews. By "friction" I mean violence by the fervently Orthodox Jews. "Fervently Orthodox" appeared all over the article, and at first I thought the writer would get scolded by his boss at JTA. After reading other articles, I realized that "fervently Orthodox" is the house style at JTA.
There are two problems with "fervently Orthodox." The first is that it sounds ridiculous after a while, as in that JTA article. The second is that it's misleading. The difference between the hareidim and us Modern Orthos isn't that they're more fervent than we are. This is also a problem with "ultra-Orthodox"; not only are the hareidim not more fervent than we are, they are also not more Orthodox.
So my problem with "ultra-Orthodox" is different from Katz's problem with it. To me it doesn't sound insulting (but then, I'm not the one being called that); it just seems inaccurate.
the first ultra religious jews in the press were the nationalist jews of the "territories", not the charedi (or whatever).
by the way, the chatam sofer, rav moshe schreiber, was NOT chassidic, though the chassidim "adopted" him in later years for strategic reasons, and the "yeshivish" declined to "formally" adopt him since he was not "litvish" (lithuanian origins). and his yeshiva (like all hungarian yeshivot) had numerous talmidim / students, while the "famed" litvish yeshivot always struggled to find (let alone feed) students / talmidim.
Congratulating Charedim on a Haaretz blog, a South Korean called them Quaker Jews.
That got me thinking.
The Society of Friends were pejoritavely called Quakers 350 years ago because they "trembles before the Lord".
Tremble and Quake are synonyms.
The Charedim - those who temble in Hebrew - chose their name because they "tremble before the Lord"
So let the stylesetters drop the name Quakers for the Friends who do not like being called that and adopt it for the Charedim.
Viola, Jewish Quakers or just plain Quakers.
I agree with the article by Reb Katz. I just wish the Haredim, the Hasidism, the Orthodox, the Frum would stop calling Reform Jews goyim.
the "frumkeit" of today's "ultra-Orthodox" generally appears over the top today because it is more like your alte Bobbe's Judaism than your mother's.
Rather than single out "branches" of Orthodoxy with various titles, how about instead applying them to those types of Judaism that are the true upstarts - Reform and Conservative. Perhaps they could be called "Ultra Non-Religious" and "Ulta not-quite-sure-where-they're-holding". Torah observant Jews have been and will be around long after all those others have assimilated out of existence.
Haredim insist upon portraying their world view as the only legitimate form of Judaism, the successor to "traditional" forms. In reality, their subculture has developed as a reaction to the non-Orthodox denominations and to Zionism - none of which they recognize as legitimate. The growth of Jewish fundamentalism parallels that of the Christian variety; each is a reaction to modernity. Perhaps a better term would be "Reactionary Orthodoxy".
Mr. Katz, how about this - we'll respect your semantic preferences when you stop denigrating us, when you stop telling us that we're destroying Yiddishkeit, when you stop referring to us as "Jewish goyim", when your Gedolim stop making pronouncements concerning subjects about which they know nothing, when you reign in those among you that see nothing wrong with beating up women on buses, and, in general, when you decide to join the rest of civilization in the 21st century. Deal?
And Charney - Orthodoxy and Reform (and, later, the other non-Orthodox denominations) have each been predicting the other's demise for over two hundred years. We're all still here.
We need a reader's response area in the Arts and Culture section.
How about 'Outer Orthodox', as many of our brothers and sisters have gotten so 'religious' they have left the religion.
About 20 years ago, s person who I always knew as Shomer Shabbos, etc, told me that he was going to be spending the upcoming Shabbos at a famous hotel in the Catskills in New York. I commented to him that I was surprised that he was going to that place, because they had mixed swimming. He told me that he, in fact, engaged in mixed swimming, but that it was ok because he was "Modern Orthodox". It was at that point that I changed my terminology, never to use that term again. I now use "Torah-Observant" instead.
I prefer "benighted Yiddish-speakers," myself. Or "Cholentists."
I think that as long as you keep shabbas and wear teffilin, you are a good jew. And I'm super ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra Orthodox, so take that to the bank!
And while the stylebook writers are looking for new terms, would someone explain the term now suddenly much in use,"modern orthodox." When I ask those who call themserves modern orthodox, they generally speak of dress style differences.