Orthodox Judaism

Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum was born in 1887 to his father Rabbi Hanania Yom-Tov Lipa Teitelbaum, chief rabbi of Sighet, the capital of Maramureş County, Hungary. The father was a Rebbe to his Hasidim, headed the local yeshiva, and was one of the top leaders of Hungarian Orthodoxy. During his childhood, Rabbi Yoel was known as a prodigy but was not destined to continue the family’s Hasidic or rabbinic dynasty, as this role was reserved for his older brother - Rabbi Haim Tzvi. At seventeen, soon after his father’s death and the ordination of his older brother as his successor, the newlywed Rabbi Yoel and his wife were forced to leave Sighet.

They settled in nearby Satmar (Satu Mare) where Rabbi Yoel began gathering a small group of disciples. Several years later he was elected as chief rabbi of the remote village Orshiva, but during World War I he returned to Satmar and established a small yeshiva, dividing his time between Satmar and Orshiva. In 1926 he was elected as chief rabbi of Kroly (Carei) in Transylvania, Romania and two years later he was elected chief rabbi of Satmar. This appointment faced substantial public opposition and it took Rabbi Yoel six years of fierce and scandalous struggle until he eventually took office in 1934. During that waiting period he also tried to run for a rabbinate office in other communities, including that of the Edah Haredit (the ultra-Orthodox community) of Jerusalem.

Rabbi Yoel was known to have a stubborn, controversial and argumentative personality. Wherever he wanted to serve, public debates arose and the newspapers accused him in using improper means during the election process. At the same time, he was also known as a religious zealot, and several extremist Orthodox groups acknowledged him as their spiritual leader. Following his ordination as chief rabbi of Satmar, Rabbi Yoel gained an important leadership role among the extreme-Orthodox, and became known for his unwavering opposition to modernity, Zionism and even to the ultra-Orthodox party Agudat Israel. In the late 1930s, after a long public campaign, he was elected to the leadership of the Central Bureau of the Orthodox Jewish communities of Transylvania. In that position he was able to influence the lives of over one hundred and fifty thousand religious Jews in that region.

In his personal life, Rabbi Yoel suffered a series of tragedies. After losing his father at an early age, he was expelled from his hometown, Sighet. He and his wife could not give birth to a son, and two of their three daughters died young and childless. His chronically ill wife died soon thereafter, as well as Rabbi Yoel’s mother and brother. He married again, but although his wife was young and healthy, she too did not bear him any children. Following this second marriage, Rabbi Yoel and his only daughter became estranged and they hardly spoke until she died, also at a young age. This surviving daughter was also barren meaning that Rabbi Yoel had no grandchildren to succeed him.

During World War II Rabbi Yoel was involved in various rescue operations for refugees who fled Poland. As danger grew, he sought to get a certificate that will allow him and his close family to immigrate to Palestine. Failing that, he abandoned his community and escaped along with a small group of friends from Satmar, but was caught and sent to the ghetto of Cluj. He was spared from being sent to Auschwitz as he was included in the small group saved by Zionist activist Israel Kasztner’s rescue train. He and the rest of the passengers were taken to Bergen-Belsen, where they were detained for a few months. Later the group was released to Switzerland where Rabbi Yoel stayed for a few months. He did not return to lead and to comfort the survivors that returned to Satmar after the Holocaust, nor did he join the relief operations conducted by other rabbis in the refugee camps in Germany.

After his stay in Switzerland, Rabbi Yoel decided to settle in Jerusalem. The leaders of the ultra-Orthodox community, who were aware of his aggressive and argumentative personality, shunned away from him. As a result, the institutions he established failed and he was on the verge of bankruptcy. His only hope to repay his tremendous debt was by raising funds in the United States. Humiliated and destitute Rabbi Yoel was forced to travel to the land he always considered the most hostile and spiritually dangerous environment for Orthodox Jews.

After arriving in the United States, it became clear to Rabbi Yoel that he will never be able to raise enough funds to save his institutions in Jerusalem. Having no place to return to, he decided to settle in New York. Oddly enough, it was in this notorious “New World” that Rabbi Yoel was able not only to establish his own congregation, but also to significantly expand and develop it. Within a few years he attracted a large circle of supporters and devotees and created a congregation which, he claimed, resembled that of an East-European “Shtetel.”

However, in order to succeed in his mission, Rabbi Yoel had to apply significant un-traditional innovations that were inconceivable in the East-European “Shtetel.” He established a Hasidic education system, including one for girls, which introduced secular teachings and summer camps. He also encouraged his followers to go to work or to establish their own small businesses. His delegates cooperated with government and municipal officials who helped the poor Hasidim to get public housing, professional training and social benefits. That innovative spirit was one of the main reasons his Hasidic court grew rapidly and prospered economically. Rabbi Yoel used funds gathered by his adherents to support the Eda Haredit in Jerusalem, and in 1952, just a few years after he was forced to leave Jerusalem, he returned triumphant to be declared president of the Edah Haredit.

One of the reasons for Rabbi Yoel’s unparalleled success, beyond his personal charisma and leadership qualities, was his anti-Zionist and Extreme Orthodox ideology. His views were published in two major books, Va-Yoel Moshe – published in the late 1950s, and Al Ha-Geula Ve-Al Ha-Temura – published after the Six Days War. These books were re-printed numerous times, and new editions are still being printed to this day. The radical ideas expressed in these books still affect and guide the Satmar Hasidic court and some of the other Hungarian courts, as well as some marginal groups of zealots, also known as Neturei Karta.

At the time of his death, in 1979 and still today, Rabbi Yoel was undoubtedly one of the most recognized and influential Jewish leaders in the post-Holocaust era. His community had tens of thousands of Hasidim and the education system he established was amongst the largest in the Jewish world outside Israel. Ideas expressed by Rabbi Yoel have influenced the rest of Orthodox society and thus the Jewish society in general. Today, about forty years after his death, the “Satmar” trademark is still strong and still synonymous with religious zealotry. The spiritual and practical foundations laid by Rabbi Yoel continue to fuel the ever-growing expansion of the Satmar Hasidic court that today has more than a hundred thousand followers worldwide.

The purpose of this research is to publish a manuscript of the treatise Sefer Habri’a (The Book of Creation), written in 1670 by Rabbi Avraham Binyamin Nathan ben Elisha Chaim Halevi Askhenazy, also known as Nathan Ghazzati or Rabbi Nathan of Gaza. It has been copied into several manuscripts, which ended up scattered around the world, until they were ultimately collected by professor Chaim Wirszubski Z.L. of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the 1930s and 1940s. Wirszubski set out on a project of conducting a scientific edition of the treatise, and even published a small part of it.  However, misfortune has prevented him from finishing his great work, and he was called upon to teach in the Great Yeshiva in heavens. Now, the reader is presented with a full edition, accompanied by a comprehensive and methodical research. The research is separated from the original text, to allow the reader to focus on the text itself, if they so wish. Those who would seek to also delve into the analysis, can easily do so.
It is not everyday that a person is awarded the great privilege of returning a lost book to the collective Jewish library. Even more so when it is a book written by one of the greatest rabbis in recent generations, least of all a halakhic figure of the magnitude of Rabbi Nathan. We are faced with an unparalleled text in Rabbinic messianic and Hebrew literature. It is the central text of the Sabbatean movement after Sabbatai Zevi’s conversion to Islam. Sefer Habri’a was written by the progenitor of the movement, Rabbi Nathan of Gaza. Rabbi Nathan was famously considered a prophet by the spiritual leaders of the Jewish world in his time, and was one of those who declared Sabbatai Zevi to be a messiah. He was the one who explained the profound meaning of Zevi’s conversion, and the one who tried to prevent the masses from converting along with him.
If we wish to be certain that we can indeed declare “thou art our brother” to Nathan, we must look at this renewed text from every possible perspective. The text’s uniqueness, it’s complexity, length and meaning introduce many challenges, both on the technical-philological level and on that of semantic analysis. We should also pay heed to how socially problematic the Sabbatean movement is, following the heated debates that arose several generations after Zevi’s conversion. On that subject, we can view Sefer Habri’a as a treatise which ascribes profound meaning to Zevi’s ‘foreign acts’, through the Ha’ari’s hyper-nomic system. That is, the Lurianic Kabbalah, which unequivocally accepts the Jewish Halakha as sacred, is the treatise’s main method of discourse. It seems that the survival and continuity of Jewish tradition after the crisis was Rabbi Nathan’s main motivation in writing this immense work. That is, the desire to give a profound kabbalic meaning to the commandments of halakha, in the face of a shifting historical reality is at the heart of the text.
Sabbateanism is a grave subject in Jewish history. Therefore, whenever a new Sabbatean document is published, we must ask ourselves how its publication will affect the existing knowledge we have. When people read new material that contradicts what they perceive to be true, they often develop a ‘resistance front’, assuming that every new claim must be proved out of the existing body of knowledge, as if the unknown can be explored from the confines of the known. The problem here is evident - new information cannot be added in this way, and true learning cannot be achieved. All that can happen is that we pour old knowledge into a slightly different mould, at best. That said, there are times when a newly published document is so important that it demands of us to re-examine all of our previous held knowledge. More often than not, those who are tasked with preserving knowledge are not enthusiastic by the appearance of a new research which undermines the well known system to which they adhere. Therefore, if we wish the new knowledge to be properly accepted by people in that position, upon publishing such a document we must present in detail what we retain, and what we reconsider. It is possible that Sefer Habri’a would lead us into rethinking the Sabbatean movement in its entirety. It is, after all, a fundamental text written by the movement’s progenitor, immediately after the conversion. We will soon see that Sefer Habri’a would lead any observant reader to a clear understanding that it is a Kabbalah book that follows directly the writings of the Ha’ari. It is a direct continuation, and some would even say the highlight, of the Lurianic corpus. In this manner we can also see that Torat Israel, the Jewish halakha and the well-being of the nation at a time of crisis were undoubtedly on the mind of the author, Rabbi Nathan of Gaza, and that he was a loyal grand sage of Israel.

https://www.idi.org.il/books/17580
היהדות החרדית הולכת וכובשת לעצמה מקום ונוכחות בחברה הישראלית. מקהילה קטנה שנתפסה
ככת ורק מעטים התעניינו בה היא נהייתה אחת הקהילות המסוקרות והמסקרנות ביותר בארץ. ההצדקות לכך ברורות: קצב הגידול של הקבוצה מדהים; השונות שבין אורחות חייה ובין המקובל על הרוב הישראלי גדולה ביותר; ההשפעה שלה על המרחב הציבורי ועל הפוליטיקה הישראלית בולטת מאוד; ומערכת היחסים שבינה ובין הרוב הישראלי הלא חרדי מתאפיינת אפוא בקשיים ניכרים. ואולם בתוך מבול החומרים האקטואליים מחבר ספר זה מבקש להציג את העולם החרדי בחתכי רוחב ועומק. הוא מציג את ״מפת״ היהדות החרדית לסיעותיה השונות — חסידים, ליטאים וספרדים - ועוסק ביחסה של החברה החרדית לסוגיות רעיוניות מרכזיות הנוגעות לחיי כולנו: למדינה, לדמוקרטיה הישראלית ולגיוס לצבא. בכל אחד מן הפרקים הוא סוקר בקצרה את שורשיה ההיסטוריים של הקהילה הנדונה ומגיע עד ימינו, תוך כדי הבחנה בין הגוונים השונים שיש בתוך היהדות החרדית עצמה בעניינים שונים.

הספר כתוב מתוך גישה ביקורתית — אך מכבדת. המחבר מבקש לשלול את דימוי החרדים כגוש אחיד וסגור ולהראות שיש בו גוונים ואף מצביע על הגורמים השונים שמתוכם נוצרו גוונים אלה, בין הרוחניים ובין הארציים. המחבר מבסס את טענותיו על נתונים ועל מחקרים מעמיקים, ועם זאת ספרו מנוסח בשפה קולחת ושווה לכל נפש, שאינה מחייבת את קוראיו בידע מחקרי קודם. הוא מבקש לתת תמונה מקיפה, יסודית ומועילה.

לעמוד הספר באתר הוצאת עם עובד:
http://www.am-oved.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA

לגירסה דיגיטלית ללא תשלום באתר המכון הישראלי לדמוקרטיה:
https://www.idi.org.il/books/17580

סיפורה של חסידות קרלין, אחת החסידויות הראשונות, הוא מן המרתקים בתולדות החסידות. חסידות זו שמה דגש על עבודת ה' ברגש ובגוף, על האמת, על הענווה ועל התנגדות ליומרנות אינטלקטואלית. היא הייתה הראשונה שהעמידה בראשה 'ינוקא', בן של צדיק בעודנו ילד, ואף חזרה על תקדים זה כעבור כמה דורות. היא עודדה עלייה לארץ ישראל שנים לפני הציונות ואף תמכה בהגירה ממזרח אירופה לאמריקה זמן רב לפני מלחמת העולם  שנייה, בניגוד לעמדתם של רוב רבני התקופה. משפחת אדמו"ריה כמעט שנכחדה בשואה, אך היא הצליחה להמשיך ולהתקיים ושרדה התפלגויות ומתחים. צאצאים של חסידי קרלין נטלו ונוטלים חלק פעיל בצדדים מגוונים של חיי  יישוב והמדינה, והיא עצמה, על ארבעת פלגיה, ממשיכה לקיים חיי דת תוססים בישראל ובעולם.
כספינה מיטלטלת: חסידות קרלין בין עליות למשברים הוא מחקר רחב יריעה ראשון על חסידות זו. אף שהאדמו"רים עומדים במרכז הדיון, הספר מאיר גם את דמויותיהן של הנפשות הפועלות מסביבם: נשותיהם, בני משפחתם,  פעילים והעסקנים. הספר משלב עיון מחקרי ותיאור סיפורי ומציג ניתוח מעמיק של אמונות וערכים לצד התנהגויות אנושיות, אישיות וחברתיות. עלילתה של חסידות קרלין ראשיתה במאה השמונה עשרה ואחריתה בימינו אלה, תחילת המאה העשרים ואחת.

N.B. The interested reader is invited to turn to the expanded and more fully annotated Hebrew version of this article, to appear in the volume Ma'or va-Shemesh: History, Philosophy, Lore and Legacy, edited by Levi Cooper, Ariel Evan Mayse and Zvi Mark (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, forthcoming).

סיפורה של חסידות קרלין, אחת החסידויות הראשונות, הוא מן המרתקים בתולדות החסידות. חסידות זו שמה דגש על עבודת ה' ברגש ובגוף, על האמת, על הענווה ועל התנגדות ליומרנות אינטלקטואלית. היא הייתה הראשונה שהעמידה בראשה 'ינוקא', בן של צדיק בעודנו ילד, ואף חזרה על תקדים זה כעבור כמה דורות. היא עודדה עלייה לארץ ישראל שנים לפני הציונות ואף תמכה בהגירה ממזרח אירופה לאמריקה זמן רב לפני מלחמת העולם  שנייה, בניגוד לעמדתם של רוב רבני התקופה. משפחת אדמו"ריה כמעט שנכחדה בשואה, אך היא הצליחה להמשיך ולהתקיים ושרדה התפלגויות ומתחים. צאצאים של חסידי קרלין נטלו ונוטלים חלק פעיל בצדדים מגוונים של חיי  יישוב והמדינה, והיא עצמה, על ארבעת פלגיה, ממשיכה לקיים חיי דת תוססים בישראל ובעולם.
כספינה מיטלטלת: חסידות קרלין בין עליות למשברים הוא מחקר רחב יריעה ראשון על חסידות זו. אף שהאדמו"רים עומדים במרכז הדיון, הספר מאיר גם את דמויותיהן של הנפשות הפועלות מסביבם: נשותיהם, בני משפחתם,  פעילים והעסקנים. הספר משלב עיון מחקרי ותיאור סיפורי ומציג ניתוח מעמיק של אמונות וערכים לצד התנהגויות אנושיות, אישיות וחברתיות. עלילתה של חסידות קרלין ראשיתה במאה השמונה עשרה ואחריתה בימינו אלה, תחילת המאה העשרים ואחת.

The dual curriculum model ubiquitous to Orthodox Jewish day schools in North America typically bifurcates into religious (Judaic) studies and general studies. While most classes generally fit into one of those two halves of the curriculum, some classes are not intuitively categorized as wholly belonging to one part over the other. One of those classes is Ivrit (Modern Hebrew). This study aims to describe Ivrit’s place in the dual curriculum model and the various factors that contribute to that reality by exploring the context in which Ivrit emerged as a subject-matter for Orthodox schools and seeking to identify trends in the ways Ivrit is taught. This paper lays out the theories behind how ideology influences curriculum formation and documents how Hebrew has fit into the curriculum of Jewish Education throughout the ages. It also provides a picture of the particular context of North American Orthodox Jewry that this study focuses on, as well as a review of the different theories behind Hebrew education (heritage language vs. communicative language). With this theoretical background in hand, this dissertation surveyed 36 Orthodox high schools in North America to better understand how they viewed Ivrit’s place and shows that ultimately this subject’s place in the dual curriculum model remains ambiguous. Documenting how Ivrit is taught and examining the reasons as to why Ivrit is taught helped shed light on Ivrit’s precarious place in the dual curriculum model, as some of those policies/techniques/motives seem to line up with the aims of the Judaic studies curriculum, while others seemingly reflect the goals of the general studies curriculum.

Maramures (Hungarian: Máramaros) was a north-eastern county of the Hungarian monarchy. Due to its rough terrain, which was ill suited for agriculture, and its remote location, it was poorly inhabited. Jews, usually immigrants from nearby Galicia, constituted one quarter to one third of its population, which made it the most "Jewish" county in greater Hungary. The Jews of Maramures were known for their Hasidic and pious lifestyle. The population of the region, which consisted of Hungarians, Romanians, Germans and Ruthenians, was known for its poor socioeconomic status and lack of basic education. Following WWI, Maramures county was divided between the newly formed Czechoslovakia, who got its northern part, which was included in the Carpatho-Rus' region, and Romania who got the southern part, including the county's capital – Sighet (Hungarian: Máramarossziget, Romanian: Sighetu Marmatiei). The Romanian ruled in Maramures until 1940, and during WWII, Hungary took over Carpatho-Rus' and the Northern part of Transylvania.
Despite the poor economy and the scattered population, the newspaper industry of Maramures flourished. Starting in 1865 with the first newspaper of Maramures and ending with the last Jewish newspaper published after the Holocaust, roughly one hundred newspapers and magazines were published.  Most of the papers were published in Sighet, but a few were also published in the smaller villages and towns. During that period, Jews played a significant role in the newspaper industry. They served as printers, publishers, editors, and correspondents in both Jewish and non-Jewish press. Considering the fact that during that time, Hungary and Romania were known for their anti-Semitism, this type of collaboration is all but obvious.

If AIPAC involves itself in religious conflicts and takes stands on issues unrelated to Israel's security, it will narrow its base of support. AIPAC deserves the wholehearted support of every Jew. As we enter the Three Weeks, during which traditional Jews observe acts of mourning to remember the destruction of the Temple, I am reminded of an incident that occurred 56 years ago at this time. Rabbi Moshe Sherer, the legendary leader of Agudath Israel of America, was invited to meet with president John F. Kennedy regarding an upcoming vote in the United Nations that was unfavorable to Israel.

The story of King David is one of the most celebrated ones in the bible. David's relationship with Jonathan, the son of King Saul, played a pivotal role in David's surviving the attempts of Saul to destroy him. -- 

Many believe that David and Jonathan were lovers as evidenced by David's famous lament upon Jonathan's death: "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle. O Jonathan, thou was slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan. Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." 2 Samuel 1:25,26. Without the love and loyalty of Jonathan, David possibly would have never lived to become king of Israel. --

Malcolm Gladwell's 2013 book on the confrontation between David and Goliath is an in depth examination of how an apparently powerful adversary is no match for a more nimble opponent. -- 

The Orthodox Jews have overlooked this aspect of David's sexuality for centuries to the detriment of human happiness and reproductive success.  See:  David - Tanzio Varallo.pdf - for the famous painting of David. The painting is at the Palazzo dei Musei Pinacoteca di Varallo e Museo Calderini Via Pio Franzani.  My March 2017 letter to Pope Francis included a reproduction of this work.

Notwithstanding their rhetoric of conservativism and a measure of suspicion of science and technology, western religious groups, over the ages, were early adopters and innovative adapters of new communication technologies. The early and intensive application of Internet technology by religionists is only the most recent example of the affinity of religion and new media, as demonstrated in the past by the enthusiastic adoption of script and then print, telegraph and radio, audiotapes and satellite transmissions. I have previously interpreted this pattern as stemming, fundamentally, from the unique standing and functions of the word in western religious thought.

Forgotten and Revived: The Bruria Episode in Orthodox Discourse in the Modern Age

Iris Brown (Hoizman)

The “Bruria Episode” is a short narrative cited by Rashi in his commentary on Tractate Avoda Zara that describes how Bruria's husband, Rabbi Meir, brought about the seduction of his learned wife in an attempt to prove to her that women are, indeed, temperamentally light-headed —an event that ultimately led to her suicide. This article deals with how the story is reflected in the teachings of halakhists, scholars, and sages over the last few decades, from across the Orthodox spectrum. It discusses how this medieval account has been marshaled by the various parties to internal Orthodox debates over the character and place of women—specifically the question of Torah study for women. 
There is no doubt that Bruria is one of the few female characters referred to positively in the Talmud, and who is mentioned there on numerous occasions. As a consequence of this tragic story that presents her in a negative light, Bruria became a controversial figure. Beginning in the middle of the 20th century the question was raised: Is Bruria an empowering figure, a positive role model for Jewish women, or is she a dangerous figure whose path should be avoided, her story a cautionary tale about improper behavior? 
For hundreds of years – from the 11th century when Rashi wrote it, until the 19th century – the Bruria episode received little attention, relatively speaking, and it does not appear that the story engendered significant deliberation. In contrast, from the beginning of the 20th century, with the unprecedented development of religious education for girls, the Bruria episode began to take center stage. This development is most pronounced in the second half of the 20th century and in the beginning of the 21st century when the spectrum of opinions about this story became much broader: factually, in terms of the story’s credibility; morally, in terms of criticism applied to the characters in the story, and halakhically, in terms of the legitimacy of Torah study for women. It is as if the Bruria episode has been conjured up from the dead to serve the ideological goals of the different parties involved in the modern controversy surrounding the status of women in contemporary Orthodoxy.

The article suggest a simple model, based on the distinction between principles and supra-principles, as a tool for tracking the continuity that may exist between teacher and follower in spite of the apparent difference between them.
The model is exemplified through a particular case study: Isaac Breuer was the grandson of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, and presented himself as his disciple. However, a critical examination of the opinions of the two regarding the crucial question of Jewish nationalism reveals that their principles were quite different: Hirsch was against Jewish nationalism, Breuer fought for it. Notwithstanding, in the level of supra-principles they the continuity is preserved: Advocating the supra-principle of "Torah In Derekh Eretz, both viewed "Torah" (i.e. the Halakhah) as eternal and immutable and "Derekh Eretz" as the demand to give changing responses to the changing challenges of each time. The change in the principles towards Jewish nationalism entailed, therefore, from the change in the challenges.
This model is found similarly applicable to the opposite change that took place in Hungarian Ultra-Orthodoxy, from warm support of Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael to fierce opposition to it. The supra-principle of building fences against the "New" (i.e. the modern and the moderns) stood behind both of them.

The article first summarizes the history of Orthodox Jewry in Cleveland from the mid-nineteenth century up to the Second World War, based on an article I wrote on that period that is published elsewhere. It begins to consider the postwar period by examining some significant issues with respect to Orthodox Holocaust survivors coming to Cleveland.  It continues with a discussion of the founding of the Telshe Yeshiva and deals with its considerable significance in the postwar development of Cleveland Orthodoxy. It discusses the founding of the first Orthodox day school in Cleveland, the Hebrew Academy, in 1943, and the significance of the proliferation of day schools in the 1980s. It examines the establishment of Orthodox synagogues in the Cleveland Heights/University Heights area in the 1950s and later in Beachwood. It discusses developments in the regulation of kashrut in this era including the influence of the Cleveland Jewish Federation on local kashrut through the 1990s and the Haredization of kashrut standards at the end of the twentieth century. Postwar relations and tensions between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews in Cleveland, both institutionally and on a grassroots level, are considered. The article concludes with a survey of the Orthodox Jewish community of Cleveland in the early twenty-first century with special emphasis on its educational initiatives and the relationship between “yeshivish” and “modern” Orthodox Jews.

Mesih inancı ya da başka bir deyişle gelecek kurtarıcı Mesih'i beklemek Ortodoks Yahudiliğin karakteristik özelliğidir. XVIII. yüzyılda Ortodoks Yahudiliğin içinden doğan Hasidim ve Mitnagedim hareketlerinin Mesih inancına getirdiği yeni yorumla Yahudi toplumu için yeni bir dönem başlamıştır. Mitnagedim disiplininden gelen Mesihçi rabbiler sonraki yüzyılda hem Siyonist hareketin öncüsü hem de destekçisi olmuşlar, dini Siyonist olarak adlandırılarak Mizrahi grubunun çatısı altında toplanmışlardır. Siyonizm'e destek olmayan diğer Mesihçiler ise Holokost'a kadar anti-Siyonist Mesihçiler olarak Agudat Israel grubu olarak kendi politikalarını oluşturmuşlardır. Bu gün İsrail'in resmi mezhebi Ortodoks Yahudiliktir. Ülkede %22'lik kesim de kendisini Ortodoks ve Ultra Ortodoks olarak tanımlamaktadır. Seçim sistemi nedeniyle Knesset de sandalye sayıları az olmasına rağmen koalisyon hükümetlerinde yer alarak kendi düşünceleri doğrultusunda mevcut politikalarını uygulama alanı bulabilmekte, İsrail devletini dini kurallara uygun yönetilmesi için çaba göstermektedirler. Bugünü iyi anlamak geçmiş tarihi iyi analiz etmekle mümkündür. Dolayısıyla tarihsel sürece bağlı kalarak hazırladığımız çalışmamızda amacımız; Mesih inancı, dini önderlerin görüşleri ve politikaları, Siyonist hareketin ve İsrail devletinin sadece laik temelli olmadığı, Yahudilerin Filistin'e göç etmesinde Mesihçilerin doğrudan ya da dolaylı desteklerinin bulunduğu, devlet kurulduktan sonra da nasıl din devleti haline dönüştüğünü Mesihçi anlayış açısından ortaya koymaktır. The Messianic belief or in other words, waiting for the coming of messiah is characteristic of Orthodox Judaism. In XVIII century Hasidim and Mitnagedim movements, came from Orthodox Judaism, brought to a new understanding about Messianic belief. The Messianic rabbis of Mitnagdim's discipline have been the pioneers and supporters of Zionist movement in the next century. They were grouped under the roof of Mizrahi group. The other Messianists who did not support Zionism formed their own policies as Agudat Israel group as anti-Zionist until holocost. Today,Israel's official religion sect is Ortohodox Judaism. In the State, 22% of the people define themselves as Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox. Despite the small number of seats in the knesset, they are able to realize their idea in the current policies in line with their own thoughts by taking part in the coalition governments and striving to manage the state of Israel according to religious rules. A better understanding of this day is possible by analyzing past history well. Therefore, we prepared this study with adhering to the historical process. Our aim show Messiah belief, the social and political effects of the new understanding of Messianic belief, the views and policies of the religious leaders, Zionist movement and the state of Israel are not only secularly based, the direct or indirect supports anf effects of Messianism. Thus, we targetted to reveal how the state of Israel became a religious state by evaluating it from the point of view of Messiah belief.

The article deals with R. Moshe Sofer (1762-1839), an important leader of Orthodox Jewry and probably the most important halakhic decisor of the nineteenth century. Several mystical motifs found in the works of R. Moshe Sofer over the years are reflected in his personality, life, and halakhic writings. The article explores the mystical and individualistic consciousness of the Chatam Sofer as a halakhic decisor. In his self-perception, the truth of his statements was granted from heaven, and, because of this, he could never make a mistake or reverse a decision. The article shows the connection between this awareness and the rational foundations of the Chatam Sofer’s understanding of Halakha. In addition, the article demonstrates the important role this understanding played in forming his attitudes in the real-life discussion regarding the challenges of modernity as manifest in the threat posed by the Enlightenment and the Reform movement.