6 - Orthodoxy

Summary

ORTHODOX JEWS at the end of the twentieth century are divided into a number of groupings, each following its own specific pattern of religious conduct. The Sephardi Jews are generally content to have their religious life modelled on the traditional behavioural norms of their ancestors without too much reflection on its theological underpinning, while Ashkenazi Jews have been compelled to become more theologic - ally inclined, the result of the greater impact made on European Jewry by the Emancipation and the Enlightenment. It is no accident that no real Reform movement has emerged among the Sephardim. The Ashkenazim are divided into the h. aredim, or ultra-Orthodox, as they are now often called, and the Modern Orthodox. The term h. aredim is taken from the verse ‘And trembleth [veh. ared] at My word’ (Isa. 66: 2) and the verse in the same chapter ‘Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble [hah.aredim] at His word’ (Isa. 66: 5). The h. aredim usually claim that they are not a new group of especially pious folk but are simply continuing what has always constituted authentic Jewish piety. Orthodox Jews have two things in common: they all affirm allegiance to the doctrine of Torah from Heaven, conceived of in what we have called the fundament - alist understanding of the doctrine, and they all seek to lead their lives according to the halakhah as recorded in the standard codes of Jewish law.

Unity and Diversity in Orthodoxy

It has to be appreciated, however, that all these groups, when claiming to follow the Jewish tradition, are in reality devotees of a particular tradition, that of their immediate ancestors and teachers. Nowadays, when the Ashkenazi/Lithuanian mode of learning has spread throughout the Orthodox world, there is an increasing trend for Sephardi youngsters to become, as it were, honorary Ashkenazim, even to the extent of speaking Yiddish and adopting Ashkenazi mores. But in former times it was virtually unheard of for a Sephardi to become an Ashkenazi or vice versa. Such an exchange of allegiance would have been seen as an act of sheer disloyalty to the community to which one belonged.