View source for Orthodox Judaism

{{short description|Traditionalist branches of Judaism}}
{{More citations needed|date=January 2025}}

{{Infobox religious group
| group         = Orthodox Judaism
| image         = [[File:Koppel_reich.png|280px|alt=Jewish cemetery in Budapest]]
| image_caption = Jewish cemetery of the [[Schism in Hungarian Jewry|separate Orthodox community]] in Budapest, {{Circa|1920}}. The Word "Orthodox" (ארטאדאקסען) inscribed in Hebrew letters, second from the left.
| population    = 2+ million practicing, ~4-5 million affiliated
| founder       = [[Moses Sofer]] and other 19th-20th century traditionalist leaders
| region1       = {{flag|Israel}}
| pop1          = 1 million (strictly observant) – 2.2 million (identifying)<ref>The 2016 Pew survey found that 22% of adult Jewish Israelis were ''dati'' or ''haredi'', and 50% identified as Orthodox when asked. Adult Jewish population in Israel is roughly 4.5 million. See "demographics".</ref>
| ref1          =
| region2       = {{flag|United States}}
| pop2          = ~500,000<ref>The 2013 Pew survey found out that 10% of adult American Jews identify as Orthodox, of a population of 4.2-5.3 million.</ref>
| ref2          =
| region3       = {{flag|United Kingdom}}
| pop3          = ~150,000<ref>The 2016 synagoge survey found that 70% of British households with a membership (56,000 of 80,000) were Orthodox. With almost zero intermarriage, 120,000 is thus the minimum.</ref>
| region4       = {{flag|Belgium}}
| pop4          = ~13,000<ref name="JPR2022">{{cite web |title=“Jews in Belgium: a demographic and social portrait of two Jewish populations” |author=Staetsky, L. Daniel; DellaPergola, Sergio |publisher=Institute for Jewish Policy Research |date=November 2022 |url=https://www.jpr.org.uk/reports/jews-belgium-demographic-and-social-portrait-two-jewish-populations }}, p. 26.</ref>
| ref3          =
| religions     = [[Judaism]]
| scriptures    = [[Torah]], [[Talmud]]
| languages     = [[Hebrew]], [[Yiddish]]
| related-c     = [[Hasidic Judaism]], [[Dati Leumi]]
| notes         = The population numbers are estimates based on observant members.
}}
{{Judaism|1=movements}}
'''Orthodox Judaism''' is a collective term for the traditionalist branches of contemporary [[Judaism]]. [[Theologically]], it is chiefly defined by regarding the [[Torah]], both [[Torah|Written]] and [[Oral Torah|Oral]], as literally [[revelation|revealed]] by [[God in Judaism|God]] on [[Mount Sinai (Bible)|Mount Sinai]] and faithfully transmitted ever since.

Orthodox Judaism therefore advocates a strict observance of Jewish law, or ''[[halakha]]'', which is to be [[Posek|interpreted and determined]] only according to traditional methods and in adherence to the continuum of received precedent through the ages. It regards the entire ''halakhic'' system as ultimately grounded in immutable revelation, essentially beyond external and historical influence. More than any theoretical issue, obeying the [[Kosher|dietary]], [[Tumah and taharah|purity]], ethical and other laws of ''halakha'' is the hallmark of Orthodoxy. Practicing members are easily distinguishable by their lifestyle, refraining from doing [[39 Melakhot|numerous routine actions]] on the [[Jewish sabbath|Sabbath]] and holidays, consuming only ''[[kosher]]'' food, praying thrice a day, studying the Torah often, donning [[kippah|head covering]] and [[Tzitzit|tassels]] for men and [[Tzniut|modest clothing]] for women, and so forth. Other key doctrines include belief in a future bodily [[resurrection of the dead]], divine reward and punishment for the righteous and the sinners, the [[Election of Israel]] as a people bound by a [[Mosaic covenant|covenant with God]], and an eventual reign of a salvific [[Messiah in Judaism|Messiah]] who will restore [[Third Temple#Orthodox Judaism|the Temple in Jerusalem]] and [[Gathering of Israel|gather the people to Zion]].

Orthodox Judaism is not a centralized denomination. Relations between its different subgroups are often strained, and the exact limits of Orthodoxy are subject to intense debate. Very roughly, it may be divided between the ''[[Haredi]]'' (ultra-Orthodox) branch, which is more conservative and reclusive, and the [[Modern Orthodox Judaism|Modern Orthodox]], which is relatively open to outer society and partakes in secular life and culture. Each of those is itself formed of independent communities. These are almost uniformly exclusionist, regarding Orthodoxy as the only legitimate form of Judaism.

While adhering to traditional beliefs, the movement is a modern phenomenon. It arose as a result of the breakdown of the autonomous Jewish community since the late 18th century, and was much shaped by a conscious struggle against the pressures of [[secularization]], acculturation and rival alternatives. The strictly observant Orthodox are a definite minority among all Jews, but there are also numerous semi- and non-practicing persons who are affiliated or personally identify with Orthodox communities and organizations. In total, Orthodox Judaism is the largest Jewish religious group, estimated to have over 2 million practicing adherents, and at least an equal number of nominal members or self-identifying supporters.

== Definitions ==
{{Jews and Judaism sidebar |Denominations}}
The earliest known mention of the term ''Orthodox Jews'' was made in the ''[[Berlinische Monatsschrift]]'' in 1795. The word ''Orthodox'' was borrowed from the general German [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] discourse, and used to denote those Jews who opposed Enlightenment. During the early and mid-19th century, with the advent of the progressive movements among German Jews, and especially early [[Reform Judaism]], the title ''Orthodox'' became the epithet of traditionalists who espoused conservative positions on the issues raised by modernization. They themselves often disliked the Christian term, preferring titles such as "Torah-true" (''gesetztreu''). They often declared that they used it only as a convenience. German Orthodox leader Rabbi [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]] referred to "the conviction commonly designated as Orthodox Judaism"; in 1882, when Rabbi [[Azriel Hildesheimer]] became convinced that the public understood that his philosophy and Liberal Judaism were radically different, he removed the word ''Orthodox'' from the name of his [[Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary]]. By the 1920s, the term had become common and accepted even in Eastern Europe.<ref name="JB">{{cite journal |last1=Blutinger |first1=Jeffrey |title="'So-Called Orthodoxy': The History of an Unwanted Label". |journal=Modern Judaism |date=2007 |volume=27 |issue=3 |page=310 |doi=10.1093/mj/kjm005}}</ref>

Orthodoxy perceives itself as the only authentic continuation of Judaism as it was until the crisis of modernity. Its progressive opponents often shared this view, regarding it as a remnant of the past and lending credit to their own rivals' ideology.<ref name=srf>{{cite book |first1=Yosef |last1=Salmon |first2=Aviezer |last2=Ravitzky |first3=Adam |last3=Ferziger |title=Orthodox Judaism: New Perspectives |url=https://www.magnespress.co.il/en/book/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA-1911 |access-date=11 March 2024 |lang=he |publisher=The Hebrew University Magnes Press |year=2006}}</ref>{{rp|5–22}} Thus, the term ''Orthodox'' is often used generically to refer to traditional (even if only in the sense that it is unrelated to the modernist movements) synagogues, rites, and observances.

Academic research noted that the formation of Orthodox ideology and organizations was itself influenced by modernity. This was brought about by the need to defend the very concept of tradition in a world where that was no longer self-evident. When secularization and the dismantlement of communal structures uprooted the old order of Jewish life, traditionalist elements united to form groups that had a specific self-understanding. This, and all that it entailed, constituted a notable change, for the Orthodox had to adapt to modern society no less than anyone else; they developed novel, sometimes radically so, means of action and modes of thought. "Orthodoxization" was a contingent process, drawing from local circumstances and dependent on the threat sensed by its proponents: a sharply delineated Orthodox identity appeared in Central Europe, in Germany and Hungary, by the 1860s; a less stark one emerged in Eastern Europe during the [[Interwar period]]. Among the [[History of the Jews under Muslim rule|Jews of the Muslim lands]], similar processes on a large scale began only around the 1970s, after they immigrated to Israel. Orthodoxy is often described as extremely conservative, ossifying a once-dynamic tradition due to the fear of legitimizing change. While this was sometimes true, its defining feature was not forbidding change and "freezing" Jewish heritage, but rather the need to adapt to being but a segment of Judaism in a modern world inhospitable to traditional practice, often employing much accommodation and leniency. In the mid-1980s, research on Orthodox Judaism became a scholarly discipline, examining how the need to confront modernity shaped and changed its beliefs, ideologies, social structure, and ''halakhic'' rulings, separating it from traditional Jewish society.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |editor-last=Brown |editor-first=Benjamin |date=2 January 2006 |title=The Varieties of Orthodox Responses: Ashkenazim and Sephardim |url=https://www.academia.edu/5121180 |first=Aviezer |last=Ravitzky |journal=ש"ס - היבטים תרבותיים ורעיוניים |series=Shas: Cultural and Ideological Perspectives |publisher=[[Am Oved]]}}</ref>

== History ==
===Modernity crisis===
[[File:JewinKune.jpg|thumb|A Jewish man pilloried in the synagogue, a common punishment in the pre-emancipation Jewish community in Europe.]]
{{See|Jewish emancipation}}
Until the latter half of the 18th century, Jewish communities in Central and Western Europe were autonomous entities, with distinct privileges and obligations. They were led by the affluent wardens' class judicially subject to [[rabbinical court]]s, which governed most civil matters. Jewish Law was considered normative and enforced upon transgressors (common sinning was rebuked, but tolerated) invoking all communal sanctions: imprisonment, taxation, flogging, pillorying, and, especially, [[Herem (censure)|excommunication]]. Cultural, economic, and social exchange with non-Jewish society was limited and regulated.

This state of affairs came to an end with the rise of the modern, centralized state, which appropriated all authority. The nobility, clergy, urban guilds, and all other corporate estates were gradually stripped of privileges, inadvertently creating a more equal and secularized society. The Jews were one of the groups affected: excommunication was banned, and rabbinic courts lost almost all their jurisdiction. The state, especially following the [[French Revolution]], was more and more inclined to tolerate Jews as a religious sect, but not as an autonomous entity, and sought to reform and integrate them as "useful subjects". Jewish emancipation and equal rights were discussed. The Christian (and especially [[Protestant]]) separation of "religious" and "secular" was applied to Jewish affairs, to which these concepts were alien. The rabbis were bemused when the state expected them to assume pastoral care, foregoing their principal judicial role. Of secondary importance, much less than the civil and legal transformations, were the ideas of [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] that chafed at the authority of tradition and faith.

By the end of the 18th century, the weakened rabbinic establishment was facing a new kind of transgressor: they could not be classified as tolerable sinners overcome by their urges (''khote le-te'avon''), or as schismatics like the [[Sabbateans]] or [[Frankists (Sabbateanism)|Frankists]], against whom sanctions were levied. Their attitudes did not fit the criteria set when faith was a normative and self-evident part of worldly life, but rested on the realities of the new, secularized age. The wardens' class, which wielded most power within the communities, was rapidly acculturating and often sought to oblige the state's agenda. 

Rabbi [[Elazar Fleckeles]], who returned to [[Prague]] from the countryside in 1783, recalled that he first faced there "new vices" of principled irreverence towards tradition, rather than "old vices" such as gossip or fornication. In [[Hamburg]], Rabbi [[Raphael Cohen]] attempted to reinforce traditional norms. Cohen ordered the men in his community to grow a beard, forbade holding hands with one's wife in public, and decried women who wore wigs, instead of visible [[headgear]], to cover their hair; Cohen taxed and otherwise persecuted [[Kohen#Effects on marital status|members of the priestly caste]] who left the city to marry divorcees, men who appealed to [[Invalidity of gentile courts|state courts]], those who ate food [[Bishul Yisrael|cooked by Gentiles]], and other transgressors. Hamburg's Jews repeatedly appealed to the civil authorities, which eventually justified Cohen. However, the unprecedented meddling in his jurisdiction profoundly shocked him and dealt a blow to the prestige of the rabbinate.

An ideological challenge to rabbinic authority, in contrast to prosaic secularization, appeared in the form of the ''[[Haskalah]]'' (Jewish Enlightenment) movement which came to the fore in 1782. [[Hartwig Wessely]], [[Moses Mendelssohn]], and other ''maskilim'' called for a [[Words of Peace and Truth|reform of Jewish education]], [[Jerusalem (Mendelssohn)|abolition of coercion in matters of conscience]], and other modernizing measures. They bypassed rabbinic approval and set themselves, at least implicitly, as a rival intellectual elite. A bitter struggle ensued. Reacting to Mendelssohn's assertion that freedom of conscience must replace communal censure, Rabbi Cohen of Hamburg commented: {{Blockquote|The very foundation of the Law and commandments rests on coercion, enabling to force obedience and punish the transgressor. Denying this fact is akin to denying the sun at noon.<ref>See Jacob Katz, ''Out of the Ghetto: The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation, 1770–1870''. Syracuse University Press, 1973. pp. 144–152.</ref>}}

However, ''maskilic''-rabbinic rivalry ended in most of Central Europe, as governments imposed modernization upon their Jewish subjects. Schools replaced traditional ''[[cheders]]'', and [[standard German]] began to supplant [[Yiddish]]. Differences between the establishment and the Enlightened became irrelevant, and the former often embraced the views of the latter (now antiquated, as more aggressive modes of acculturation replaced the Haskalah program). In 1810, when philanthropist [[Israel Jacobson]] opened what was later identified as the first [[Reform Judaism|Reform]] synagogue<ref>{{Cite book |last=Meyer |first=Michael A. |title=Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1988 |isbn=9780195051674 |location=New York |pages=42}}</ref> in [[Seesen]], with modernized rituals, he encountered little protest.

===Hamburg Temple dispute===
[[File:Moses S. Schreiber Litho.jpg|thumb|[[Moses Sofer]] of [[Pressburg]], considered the father of Orthodoxy in general and ultra-Orthodoxy in particular.]]
The founding of the [[Hamburg Temple]] in 1818 mobilized the conservative elements. The organizers of the [[synagogue]] wished to appeal to acculturated Jews with a modernized ritual. They openly defied not just the local rabbinic court that ordered them to desist, but published learned tracts that castigated the entire rabbinical elite as hypocritical and [[Obscurantism|obscurant]]. The moral threat they posed to rabbinic authority, as well as ''halakhic'' issues such as having a gentile play an organ on the Sabbath, were combined with theological issues. The Temple's revised prayer book omitted or rephrased petitions for the coming of the Messiah and renewal of sacrifices (''post factum'', it was considered to be the first [[Reform Judaism|Reform]] liturgy). More than anything else, this doctrinal breach alarmed the traditionalists. Dozens of rabbis from across Europe united in support of the Hamburg rabbinic court, banning the major practices enacted there and offering ''halakhic'' grounds for forbidding any changes. Most historians concur that the 1818–1821 [[Hamburg Temple disputes|Hamburg Temple dispute]], with its concerted backlash against Reform and the emergence of a self-aware conservative ideology, marks the beginning of Orthodox Judaism.

The leader and organizer of the Orthodox camp during the dispute, and the most influential figure in early Orthodoxy, was Rabbi [[Moses Sofer]] of [[Pressburg]], [[Hungary]]. Historian [[Jacob Katz]] regarded him as the first to grasp the realities of the modern age. Sofer understood that what remained of his political clout would soon disappear, and that he had largely lost the ability to enforce observance; as Katz wrote, "obedience to ''halakha'' became dependent on recognizing its validity, and this very validity was challenged by those who did not obey." He was deeply troubled by reports from his native [[Frankfurt]] and the arrival from the west of dismissed rabbis, ejected by progressive wardens, or pious families, fearing for the education of their children. These émigrés often became ardent followers.

Sofer's response to the crisis of traditional Jewish society was unremitting conservatism, canonizing every detail of prevalent norms in the observant community lest any compromise legitimize the progressives' claim that the law was fluid or redundant. He was unwilling to trade ''halakhic'' opinions for those he considered to be pretending to honor the rules of rabbinic discourse, while intending to undermine them. Sofer regarded traditional customs as equivalent to vows; he warned in 1793 that even the "custom of ignoramuses" (one known to be rooted solely in a mistake of the common masses) was to be meticulously observed and revered. Sofer was frank and vehement about his stance, stating during the Hamburg dispute that prayers in the vernacular were not problematic ''per se'', but he forbade them because they constituted an innovation. He succinctly expressed his attitude in [[wordplay]] he borrowed from the Talmud: "The new (''[[Chadash]]'', originally meaning new grain) is forbidden by the Torah anywhere." Regarding the new, ideologically-driven sinners, Sofer commented in 1818 that they should have been anathemized and banished from the People of Israel like earlier heretical sects.

Unlike most, if not all, rabbis in Central Europe, who had little choice but to compromise, Sofer enjoyed unique circumstances. He, too, had to tread carefully during the 1810s, tolerating a modernized synagogue in Pressburg and other innovations, and his ''[[yeshiva]]'' was nearly closed by warden Wolf Breisach. But in 1822, three poor (and therefore traditional) community members, whose deceased apostate brother bequeathed them a large fortune, rose to the wardens' board. Breisach died soon after, and the Pressburg community became dominated by the conservatives. Sofer also possessed a strong base in the form of his ''yeshiva'', the world's largest at the time, with hundreds of students. And crucially, the large and privileged [[Hungarian nobility]] blocked most imperial reforms in the backward country, including those relevant to the Jews. Hungarian Jewry retained its pre-modern character well into the 19th century, allowing Sofer's disciples to establish a score of new ''yeshivas'', at a time when these institutions were rapidly closing in the west, and a strong rabbinate to appoint them. A generation later, a self-aware Orthodoxy was well entrenched in the country. Hungarian Jewry gave rise both to Orthodoxy in general, in the sense of a comprehensive response to modernity, and specifically to the traditionalist, militant [[Ultra orthodox|ultra-Orthodoxy]].<ref>Michael K. Silber. ''The Historical Experience of German Jewry and its Impact on Haskalah and Reform in Hungary''. In: Jacob Katz, ed., ''Toward Modernity: The European Jewish Model'' (New Brunswick and Oxford: Transaction Books, 1987). pp. 108–113, 118–122, 150 (footnote no. 57).</ref>

The 1818–1821 controversy also elicited a different response, which first arose in its very epicenter. Severe protests did not affect Temple congregants, eventually leading the wardens of Hamburg's Jewish community to a comprehensive compromise for the sake of unity. They replaced the elderly, traditional Chief [[Dayan (rabbinic judge)|Dayan]] Baruch Oser with [[Isaac Bernays]]. The latter was a university graduate, clean-shaven, and modern, who could appeal to the acculturated and the young. Bernays signified a new era, and historians marked him as the first modern rabbi, fitting the demands of emancipation: his contract forbade him to tax, punish, or coerce, and he lacked political or judiciary power. He was forbidden from interfering in the Temple's conduct. Conservative in the principal issues of faith, in aesthetic, cultural, and civil matters, Bernays was a reformer and the Temple leaders. He introduced secular studies for children, wore a [[cassock]] like a Protestant clergyman, and delivered vernacular sermons. He forbade the spontaneous, informal character of synagogue conduct typical of [[Ashkenazi]] tradition, and ordered prayers to be somber and dignified. Bernays' style re-unified the Hamburg community by accommodating their aesthetic demands (but not theological ones, raised by only a learned few).<ref>Ismar Schorch, ''Emancipation and the Crisis of Religious Authority: The Emergence of the Modern Rabbinate''; in: Werner Eugen Mosse etc., ''Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German-Jewish History''. Mohr Siebeck, 1981. pp. 208–209</ref>
 
[[File:Isaac Bernays.JPG|thumb|[[Isaac Bernays]] in clerical vestments. The ministerial style of dress seen here was ubiquitous among Central and Western European (neo)-Orthodox Jews.]]
The combination of religious conservatism and modernity in everything else was emulated elsewhere, earning the label "[[Torah im Derech Eretz|Neo-Orthodoxy]]". Bernays and his like-minded followers, such as Rabbi [[Jacob Ettlinger]], fully accepted the platform of the moderate ''[[Haskalah]]'', taking away its progressive edge. While old-style traditional life continued in Germany until the 1840s, secularization and acculturation turned Neo-Orthodoxy into the strict right-wing of German Jewry. It was fully articulated by Bernays' mid-century disciples [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]] and [[Azriel Hildesheimer]]. Hirsch, a Hamburg native who was ten during the Temple dispute, combined Orthodox dogmatism and militancy against rival interpretations of Judaism, granting leniency on many cultural issues and embraced German culture. The novel mixture termed Neo-Orthodoxy spread.

While insisting on strict observance, the movement both tolerated and advocated modernization: Traditionally rare formal religious education for girls was introduced; modesty and gender separation were relaxed to match German society; men went clean-shaven and dressed like Gentiles; and exclusive Torah study virtually disappeared. Basic religious studies incorporating German {{Lang|de|[[Bildung]]}} provided children with practical ''halakhic'' knowledge for thriving in modern society. Ritual was reformed to match prevalent aesthetic conceptions, much like non-Orthodox synagogues though without the ideological undertone, and the liturgy was often abbreviated. Neo-Orthodoxy mostly did not attempt to reconcile its conduct and ''halakhic'' or moral norms. Instead it adopted compartmentalization, de facto limiting Judaism to the private and religious spheres, while otherwise yielding to outer society.<ref>David Ellenson. ''Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy''. University of Alabama Press, 2003. pp. 17–19.</ref><ref>For a concise introduction: Michael K. Silber, ''[http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Orthodoxy Orthodoxy]'', [[YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe]].</ref> While conservative Rabbis in Hungary still thought in terms of the now-lost communal autonomy, the Neo-Orthodox turned Judaism from an all-encompassing practice into a private religious conviction.

===''Wissenschaft des Judentums''===
[[File:David-zvi-hofmann.png|thumb|[[David Zvi Hoffmann]], the single most prominent Orthodox theoretician who dealt with the critical-historical method.]]
In the late 1830s, modernist pressures in Germany shifted from the secularization debate, moving into the "purely religious" sphere of theology and liturgy. A new generation of university-trained rabbis (many German states required communal rabbis to possess such education) sought to reconcile Judaism with the [[Historical-critical method|historical-critical study of scripture]] and the dominant philosophies of the day, especially [[Kant]] and [[Hegel]]. Influenced by the critical "[[Science of Judaism]]" (''Wissenschaft des Judentums'') pioneered by [[Leopold Zunz]], and often in emulation of the [[Liberal Protestant]] milieu, they reexamined and undermined beliefs held as sacred in traditional circles, especially the notion of an unbroken chain from [[Sinai Peninsula|Sinai]] to the [[Chazal|Sages]]. The more radical among the ''Wissenschaft'' rabbis, unwilling to limit critical analysis or its practical application, coalesced around Rabbi [[Abraham Geiger]] to establish [[Reform Judaism]]. Between 1844 and 1846, Geiger organized three rabbinical synods in [[Braunschweig]], [[Frankfurt]] and [[Breslau]], to determine how to refashion Judaism for present times.

The Reform conferences were met with uproar by the Orthodox. Warden [[Hirsch Lehren]] of [[Amsterdam]] and Rabbi [[Jacob Ettlinger]] of [[Altona, Hamburg|Altona]] both organized anti-Reform manifestos, denouncing the new initiatives, signed by scores of rabbis from Europe and the Middle East. The tone of the signatories varied considerably along geographic lines: letters from traditional societies in [[Eastern Europe]] and the [[Ottoman Empire]] implored local leaders to petition the authorities and have them ban the movement. Signers from Central and Western Europe used terms commensurate with the liberal age. All were implored by the petitioners to be brief and accessible; complex ''halakhic'' arguments, intended to convince the rabbinic elite in past generations, were replaced by an appeal to the secularized masses.

The struggle with ''Wissenschaft'' criticism shaped the Orthodox. For centuries, [[Ashkenazi]] rabbinic authorities espoused [[Nahmanides]]' position that [[Midrash halakha|the Talmudic exegesis]], which derived laws from the [[Torah]]'s text by employing [[Talmudical hermeneutics|hermeneutics]], was binding ''[[d'Oraita]]''. Geiger and others presented exegesis as an arbitrary, illogical process, and consequently defenders of tradition embraced [[Maimonides]]' claim that the Sages merely buttressed already received laws with biblical citations, rather than actually deriving them. 

Jay Harris commented, "An insulated orthodox, ''or, rather, traditional'' rabbinate, feeling no pressing need to defend the validity of the Oral Law, could confidently appropriate the vision of most medieval rabbinic scholars; a defensive German Orthodoxy, by contrast, could not. ... Thus began a shift in understanding that led Orthodox rabbis and historians in the modern period to insist that the ''entire'' Oral Law was revealed by God to Moses at Sinai." 19th-Century Orthodox commentaries, like those authored by [[Malbim]], attempted to amplify the notion that the Oral and Written Law were intertwined and inseparable.<ref>Jay Harris, ''How Do We Know This?: Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism''. [[SUNY Press]], 1994. pp. 161–167.</ref>

''Wissenschaft'' posed a greater challenge to the modernized neo-Orthodox than to the traditionalist. [[Samson Raphael Hirsch|Hirsch]] and [[Azriel Hildesheimer|Hildesheimer]] divided on the matter, anticipating modernist Orthodox attitudes to the historical-critical method. Hirsch argued that analyzing minutiae of tradition as products of their historical context was akin to denying its divine origin and timeless relevance. Hildesheimer consented to research under limits, subjugating it to the predetermined sanctity of the subject matter and accepting its results only when they accorded with the latter. More importantly, while he was content to engage academically, he opposed its practical application in religious questions, requiring traditional methods to be used. Hildesheimer's approach was emulated by his disciple Rabbi [[David Zvi Hoffmann]], a scholar and apologetic.<ref>David J. Fine, ''Abraham Geiger and the Hamburg Gebetbuchstreit of 1842'', in: Christian Wiese, ''Jüdische Existenz in der Moderne: Abraham Geiger und die Wissenschaft des Judentums''. Walter de Gruyter, 2013. pp. 161–178</ref> His polemic against the [[Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis]] formed the classical Orthodox response to Higher Criticism. Hoffman declared that for him, the unity of the Pentateuch was a given, regardless of research. Hirsch often lambasted Hoffman for contextualizing rabbinic literature.<ref>Ellenson, ''Hildesheimer''. p. 148-149.</ref>

All of them stressed the importance of dogmatic adherence to ''Torah min ha-Shamayim'', which led them to conflict with Rabbi [[Zecharias Frankel]], Chancellor of the [[Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau]]. Unlike the Reform camp, Frankel insisted on strict observance and displayed great reverence towards tradition. But though appreciated by conservatives, his practice of ''Wissenschaft'' left him suspect to Hirsch and Hildesheimer. They demanded again and again that he state his beliefs concerning the nature of revelation. In 1859, Frankel published a critical study of the [[Mishnah]], and added that all commandments classified as "[[Law given to Moses at Sinai]]" were merely customs (he broadened [[Asher ben Jehiel]]'s opinion). Hirsch and Hildesheimer seized the opportunity and launched a public campaign against him, accusing him of heresy. Concerned that public opinion regarded both neo-Orthodoxy and Frankel's "Positive-Historical School" centered at Breslau as similarly observant and traditionalist, the two stressed that the difference was dogmatic and not ''halakhic''. They managed to tarnish Frankel's reputation in the traditional camp and delegitimized him for many. The Positive-Historical School is regarded by [[Conservative Judaism]] as an intellectual forerunner.<ref>Michael K. Silber, ''[https://www.academia.edu/1829696/ The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of Tradition]''. Harvard University Press, 1992. pp. 35–36; Chaim Landerer, ''[http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%208%20Landerer.pdf R’ Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport (Shir), Champion of Jewish Unity in the Modern Era]''. Hakira 8, 2009.</ref> While Hildesheimer distinguished Frankel's observant disciples from Reform proponents, he wrote in his diary: ''how meager is the principal difference between the Breslau School, who don silk gloves at their work, and Geiger who wields a sledgehammer''.<ref>Ellenson, ''Hildesheimer''. p. 78.</ref>

===Communal schism===
[[File:Samson Raphael Hirsch (ZR002).jpg|thumb|Young [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]], the ideologue of Orthodox secession in Germany.]]
During the 1840s in Germany, as traditionalists became a clear minority, some Orthodox rabbis, such as Salomo Eger of [[Poznań|Posen]], urged the adoption of [[Moses Sofer]]'s position and to anathemize the principally nonobservant. Eating, worshipping or marrying with them were to be banned. Rabbi [[Jacob Ettlinger]], whose journal ''Treue Zionswächter'' was the first regular Orthodox newspaper (signifying the coalescence of a distinct Orthodox mindset), rejected their call. Ettlinger, and German neo-Orthodoxy in his wake, chose to regard the modern secularized Jew as a transgressor rather than a schismatic. He adopted Maimonides' interpretation of the Talmudic concept ''[[tinok shenishba]]'' (captured infant), a Jew by birth who was not raised as such and therefore could be absolved for not practicing, and greatly expanded it to serve the Orthodox need to tolerate the nonobservant majority (many of their own congregants ignored strict practice). For example, he allowed congregants to drink wine poured by Sabbath desecrators, and to ignore other ''halakhic'' sanctions. Yet German neo-Orthodoxy could not legitimize nonobservance, and adopted a hierarchical approach, softer than traditional sanctions, but no less intent on differentiating sinners and righteous. Reform rabbis or lay leaders, considered ideological opponents, were castigated, while the common mass was to be carefully handled.<ref>Adam Ferziger, ''Exclusion and Hierarchy: Orthodoxy, Nonobservance and the Emergence of Modern Jewish Identity''. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. pp. 92–99, 168, 188.</ref>

Some German neo-Orthodox believed that while doomed to minority status in their native country, their ideology could successfully confront modernity and unify Judaism in more traditional communities to the east. In 1847, Hirsch was elected Chief Rabbi of [[Moravia]], where old rabbinic culture and ''yeshiva''s operated. His expectations were dashed as traditionalist rabbis scorned him for his European manners and lack of Talmudic acumen. They became enraged by his attempts to reform synagogues and to establish a rabbinical seminary including secular studies. The progressives viewed him as too conservative. After four years of constant strife, he lost faith in the possibility of reuniting the Jewish public. In 1851, a group in [[Frankfurt am Main]] that opposed the Reform character of the Jewish community turned to Hirsch. He led them for the remainder of his life, finding Frankfurt a hospitable site for his unique ideology, which amalgamated acculturation, dogmatic theology, thorough observance, and strict secession from the non-Orthodox.

[[File:Chaim Sofer.jpg|thumb|[[Chaim Sofer]], the leading ''halakhic'' authority of the Hungarian "zealots" during the [[Schism in Hungarian Jewry|Orthodox-Neolog schism]].]]
That year, Hildesheimer visited Hungary. Confounded by urbanization and acculturation – and the rise of [[Neolog Judaism|Neology]], a nonobservant laity served by rabbis who mostly favoured the Positive-Historical approach – the elderly local rabbis at first welcomed Hildesheimer. He opened a modern school in [[Eisenstadt]] that combined secular and religious studies. Traditionalists such as [[Moshe Schick]] and Yehudah Aszód sent their sons to study there. [[Samuel Benjamin Sofer]], the heir of late Hatam Sofer, considered appointing Hildesheimer as his assistant-rabbi in [[Pressburg]] and instituting secular studies in the city's great ''yeshiva''. The rabbi of Eisenstadt believed that only a full-fledged modern rabbinical seminary could fulfill his neo-Orthodox agenda. In the 1850s and 1860s, however, a radical reactionary Orthodox party coalesced in the [[Unterlander Jews|northeastern regions of Hungary]]. Led by Rabbi [[Hillel Lichtenstein]], his son-in-law [[Akiva Yosef Schlesinger]] and decisor [[Chaim Sofer]], the "zealots" were shocked by the demise of the traditional world into which they had been born. Like Moses Sofer a generation before them, these Orthodox émigrés moved east, to a pre-modern environment that they were determined to safeguard. Lichtenstein ruled out any compromise with modernity, insisting on maintaining [[Yiddish]] and traditional dress. They considered the Neologs as moving outside of Judaism, and were more concerned with neo-Orthodoxy, which they regarded as a thinly veiled gateway for a similar fate. Chaim Sofer summarized their view of Hildesheimer: "The wicked Hildesheimer is the horse and chariot of the [[Yetzer hara|Evil Inclination]]... All the heretics in the last century did not seek to undermine the Law and the Faith as he does."

In their struggle against acculturation, the Hungarian ultra-Orthodox struggled to provide strong ''halakhic'' arguments. Michael Silber wrote: "These issues, even most of the religious reforms, fell into gray areas not easily treated within Halakha. It was often too flexible or ambiguous, at times silent, or worse yet, embarrassingly lenient." Schlesinger was forced to venture outside of normative law, into mystical writings and other fringe sources, to buttress his ideology. Most Hungarian Orthodox rabbis, while sympathetic to the "zealots"' cause, dismissed their legal arguments. In 1865, the ultra-Orthodox convened in [[Nagymihály]] and issued a ban on various synagogue reforms, intended not against the Neologs but against developments in the Orthodox camp, especially after Samuel Sofer violated his father's expressed ban and instituted vernacular sermons in Pressburg. Schick, the country's most prominent decisor, and other leading rabbis refused to sign, though they did not publicly oppose the decree. Hildesheimer's planned seminary was too radical for the mainstream rabbis, and he became marginalized and isolated by 1864.<ref>Michael K. Silber, ''The Invention of Tradition]''. pp. 55–62, quote from p. 59.</ref>

The internal Orthodox division was complicated by growing tension with the Neologs. In 1869, the [[Schism in Hungarian Jewry|Hungarian government convened a General Jewish Congress]] that was aimed at creating a national representative body. Fearing Neolog domination, the Orthodox seceded from the Congress and appealed to Parliament in the name of religious freedom. This demonstrated the internalization of the new circumstances. In 1851, Orthodox leader [[Meir Eisenstaedter]] petitioned the authorities to restore the coercive powers of the communities. In 1871 the government recognized a separate Orthodox national committee. Communities that refused to join either side, labeled "Status Quo", were subject to Orthodox condemnation. However, the Orthodox tolerated nonobservant Jews as long as they affiliated with the national committee: [[Adam Ferziger]] claimed that membership and loyalty, rather than beliefs and ritual behavior, emerged as the definitive manifestation of Jewish identity. The Hungarian schism was the most radical internal separation among the Jews of Europe. Hildesheimer returned to Germany soon after, disillusioned though not as pessimistic as Hirsch. He was appointed rabbi of the Orthodox sub-community in Berlin (which had separate religious institutions but was not formally independent of the Liberal majority), where he finally [[Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary|established his seminary.]]<ref>Jacob Katz, ''A House Divided: Orthodoxy and Schism in Nineteenth-Century Central European Jewry''.  Brandeis University Press, 2005. pp. 210–245.</ref>

In 1877, a law enabling Jews to secede from their communities without conversion was passed in Germany. It was a stark example that Judaism was now confessional, not corporate. Hirsch withdrew his congregation from the Frankfurt community and decreed that all Orthodox should do the same. However, unlike the heterogeneous communities of Hungary, which often consisted of recent immigrants, Frankfurt and most German communities were close-knit. The majority of Hirsch's congregants enlisted Rabbi [[Seligman Baer Bamberger]], who was older and more conservative. Bamberger was concerned with the principal of unity among the People Israel and dismissive of Hirsch, whom he regarded as unlearned and overly assimilated. He decreed that since the mother community was willing to finance Orthodox services and allow them religious freedom, secession was unwarranted. Eventually, less than 80 families from Hirsch's 300-strong congregation followed their rabbi. The vast majority of the 15%–20% of German Jews affiliated with Orthodox institutions cared little for the polemics. They did not secede over reasons of finance and familial relations. Only a handful of Secessionist, ''Austrittorthodox'', communities were established in the Reich; almost everyone remained Communal Orthodox, ''Gemeindeortodox'', within Liberal mother congregations. The Communal Orthodox argued that their approach was true to Jewish unity and decisive in maintaining public standards of observance and traditional education in Liberal communities. They claimed that Secessionists viewed them as hypocritical middle-of-the-roaders.<ref>''A House Divided'', pp. 257–280.</ref>

The conflicts in Hungary and Germany, and the emergence of distinctly Orthodox communities and ideologies, were the exception rather than the rule in Central and Western Europe. France, Britain, Bohemia, Austria and other countries saw both a virtual disappearance of observance and serious interest in bridging Judaism and modernity. The official rabbinate remained technically traditional, not introducing ideological change.<ref>Michael A. Meyer, ''Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism'', Wayne State University Press, 1995. pp. 154–160.</ref> The organ – a symbol of Reform in Germany since 1818, so much that Hildesheimer seminarians had to sign a declaration that they would never serve in a synagogue that introduced one – was accepted with little qualm by the [[Central Consistory|French Consistoire]] in 1856. It was part of a series of synagogue regulations passed by Chief Rabbi [[Salomon Ulmann]]. Even Rabbi [[Solomon Klein]] of [[Colmar]], the leader of [[Alsace|Alsatian]] conservatives who partook in the castigation of Zecharias Frankel, allowed the instrument in his community.<ref>Salmon, Ravitzky, Ferziger. ''New Perspectives'', pp. 389–390.</ref> In England, Rabbi [[Nathan Marcus Adler]]'s [[United Synagogue]] shared a similar approach: It was vehemently conservative in principle and combated [[David Woolf Marks|ideological reformers]], yet served a nonobservant public – as [[Todd Endelman]] noted, "While respectful of tradition, most English-born Jews were not orthodox in terms of personal practice. Nonetheless they were content to remain within an orthodox congregational framework" – and introduced considerable synagogue reforms.<ref>Todd M. Endelman, ''The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000''. University of California Press, 2002. p. 167</ref>

===Eastern Europe===
The much belated pace of modernization in Russia, [[Congress Poland]] and the Romanian principalities, where harsh discrimination and active persecution of the Jews continued until 1917, delayed the crisis of traditional society for decades. Old-style education in the ''[[heder]]'' and ''[[yeshiva]]'' remained the norm, retaining [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] as the language of the elite and [[Yiddish]] as the vernacular. The defining fault-line of Eastern European Jews was between the [[Hasidic Judaism|Hasidim]] and the ''[[Misnagdic]]'' reaction against them. Reform attempts by the [[Czar of Russia|Czar]]'s government, like the school modernization under [[Max Lilienthal]] or the foundation of rabbinical seminaries and the mandating of communities to appoint clerks known as [[Crown rabbi (Russia)|"official rabbis"]], all had little influence. Communal autonomy and the rabbinic courts' jurisdiction were abolished in 1844, but economic and social seclusion remained, ensuring the authority of Jewish institutions and traditions de facto. In 1880, there were only 21,308 Jewish pupils in government schools, out of some 5&nbsp;million Jews in total; In 1897, 97% of the 5.2&nbsp;million Jews in the [[Pale of Settlement]] and Congress Poland declared Yiddish their mother tongue, and only 26% possessed any literacy in Russian. Though the Eastern European ''[[Haskalah]]'' challenged the traditional establishment – unlike its western counterpart, no acculturation process turned it irrelevant; it flourished from the 1820s until the 1890s – the latter's hegemony over the vast majority was self-evident. The leading rabbis maintained the old conception of communal unity: In 1882, when an Orthodox party in [[Austrian Poland|Galicia]] appealed for the right of secession, the [[Netziv]] and other Russian rabbis declared it forbidden and contradicting the idea of Israel's oneness.<ref name="BBR">Benjamin Brown, [https://www.academia.edu/5121242 "As Swords in the Body of the Nation": East-European Rabbis against the Separation of Communities]. In:
''Yosef Da‘at: Studies in Modern Jewish History in Honor of Yosef Salmon''. [[Ben-Gurion University of the Negev]] Press, 2010.</ref>

While slow, change was by no means absent. In the 1860s and 1870s, anticipating a communal disintegration like the one in the west, moderate ''maskilic'' rabbis like [[Yitzchak Yaacov Reines]] and [[Yechiel Michel Pines]] called for inclusion of secular studies in the ''heder''s and ''yeshiva''s, a careful modernization, and an ecumenical attempt to form a consensus on necessary adaptation of ''halakha'' to novel times. Their initiative was thwarted by a combination of strong anti-traditional invective on behalf of the radical, secularist ''maskilim'' and conservative intransigence from the leading rabbis, especially during the bitter polemic which erupted after [[Moshe Leib Lilienblum]]'s 1868 call for a reconsideration of Talmudic strictures. Reines, Pines and their associates would gradually form the nucleus of [[Religious Zionism]], while their conservative opponents would eventually adopt the epithet ''[[Haredim]]'' (then, and also much later, still a generic term for the observant and the pious).<ref>Joseph Salmon, ''Enlightened Rabbis as Reformers in Russian Jewish Society.'' in: David Sorkin, ed. ''New Perspectives on the Haskalah''. Litmann (2001). esp. pp. 166–168, 172–173, 181–183.</ref>

The attitude toward Jewish nationalism, particularly [[Zionism]], and its nonobservant if not staunchly secularist leaders and partisans, was the key question facing the traditionalists of Eastern Europe. Closely intertwined were issues of modernization in general: As noted by Joseph Salmon, the future religious Zionists (organized in the [[Mizrachi (religious Zionism)|Mizrahi]] since 1902) were not only supportive of the national agenda per se, but deeply motivated by criticism of the prevalent Jewish society, a positive reaction to modernity and a willingness to tolerate nonobservance while affirming traditional faith and practice. Their proto-''Haredi'' opponents sharply rejected all of the former positions and espoused staunch conservatism, which idealized existing norms. Any illusion that differences could be blanded and a united observant pro-Zionist front would be formed, were dashed between 1897 and 1899, as both the Eastern European nationalist intellectuals and [[Theodor Herzl]] himself revealed an uncompromising secularist agenda, forcing traditionalist leaders to pick sides. In 1900, the anti-Zionist pamphlet ''Or la-Yesharim'', endorsed by many Russian and Polish rabbis, largely demarcated the lines between the proto-''Haredi'' majority and the Mizrahi minority, and terminated dialogue; in 1911, when the 10th [[World Zionist Congress]] voted in favour of propagating non-religious cultural work and education, a large segment of the Mizrahi seceded and joined the anti-Zionists.<ref>Joseph Salmon, ''Zionism and Anti-Zionism in Traditional Judaism in Eastern Europe'', in: Jehuda Reinharz, ed. ''Zionism and Religion''. University Press of New England, 1998. pp. 25–26, 30–32.</ref>

In 1907, Eastern European proto-''Haredi'' elements formed the Knesseth Israel party, a modern framework created in recognition of the deficiencies of existing institutions. It dissipated within a year. German Neo-Orthodoxy, in the meantime, developed a keen interest in the traditional Jewish masses of Russia and Poland; if at the past they were considered primitive, a disillusionment with emancipation and enlightenment made many young assimilated German Orthodox youth embark on journeys to East European ''yeshivot'', in search of authenticity. The German secessionists already possessed a platform of their own, the ''Freie Vereinigung für die Interessen des Orthodoxen Judentums'', founded by [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]] in 1885. In 1912, two German FVIOJ leaders, [[Isaac Breuer]] and [[Jacob Rosenheim]], managed to organize a meeting of 300 seceding Mizrahi, proto-''Haredi'' and secessionist Neo-Orthodox delegate in [[Katowice]], creating the ''[[World Agudath Israel|Agudath Israel]]'' party. While the Germans were a tiny minority in comparison to the Eastern Europeans, their modern education made them a prominent elite in the new organization, which strove to provide a comprehensive response to world Jewry's challenges in a strictly observant spirit. The Agudah immediately formed its [[Council of Torah Sages]] as supreme rabbinic leadership body. Many ultra-traditionalist elements in Eastern Europe, like the Belz and Lubavitch Hasidim, refused to join, viewing the movement as a dangerous innovation; and the organized Orthodox in Hungary rejected it as well, especially after it did not affirm a commitment to communal secession in 1923.

In the [[Interwar period]], sweeping secularization and acculturation deracinated old Jewish society in Eastern Europe. The [[October Revolution]] granted civil equality and imposed anti-religious persecutions, radically transforming Russian Jewry within a decade; the lifting of formal discrimination also strongly affected the Jews of [[Second Polish Republic|independent Poland]], [[Lithuania]] and other states. In the 1930s, it was estimated that no more than 20%–33% of Poland's Jews, the last stronghold of traditionalism where many were still living in rural and culturally secluded communities, could be considered strictly observant.<ref>Jaff Schatz, ''Jews and the Communist Movement in Interwar Poland'', in: ''Dark Times, Dire Decisions : Jews and Communism''. Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry. Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 35.</ref> Only upon having become an embattled (though still quite large) minority, did the local traditionalists complete their transformation into Orthodox, albeit never as starkly as in Hungary or Germany. Eastern European Orthodoxy, whether Agudah or Mizrahi, always preferred cultural and educational independence to communal secession, and maintained strong ties and self-identification with the general Jewish public.<ref name="BBR"/> Within its ranks, the 150-years-long struggle between [[Hasidim]] and [[Misnagdim]] was largely subsided; the latter were even dubbed henceforth as "Litvaks", as the anti-Hasidic component in their identity was marginalized. In the interwar period, Rabbi [[Yisrael Meir Kagan]] emerged as the popular leader of the Eastern European Orthodox, particularly the Agudah-leaning.

===United States===
[[File:First National Meeting of American Orthodox Rabbis. ca 1920.jpg|thumb|An assembly of American Orthodox rabbis, 1920.|320px]]
American Jewry of the 19th century was small and immigrant-based, lacking traditional institutions or strong rabbinic presence. Voluntary congregations, rather than corporate communities, were the norm; separation of church and state, and dynamic religiosity of the independent Protestant model, shaped synagogue life. In the mid-19th century, [[Reform Judaism]] spread rapidly, advocating a formal relinquishment of traditions very few in the secularized, open environment observed anyhow; the United States would be derisively named the ''Treife Medina'', or "Profane Country", in [[Yiddish]]. Conservative elements, concerned mainly with public standards of observance in critical fields like marriage, rallied around [[Isaac Leeser]]. Lacking a rabbinic ordination and little knowledgeable by European standards, Leeser was an ultra-traditionalist in his American milieu. In 1845 he introduced the words "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy" into the American Jewish discourse, in the sense of opposing Reform;<ref>[[Jonathan D. Sarna]], ''American Judaism: A History''. [[Yale University Press]], 2019. pp. 85–88.</ref> while admiring [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]], Leeser was an even stauncher proponent of [[Zecharias Frankel]], whom he considered the "leader of the Orthodox party" at a time when Positive-Historical and Orthodox positions were barely discernible from each other to most observers (in 1861, Leeser defended Frankel in the polemic instigated by Hirsch).<ref>Ze'ev Eleff, ''[http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0035-0053.pdf American Orthodoxy's Lukewarm. Embrace of the Hirschian Legacy, 1850–1939]{{Dead link|date=September 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}''. [[Tradition (journal)|Tradition]] 45:3, 2012. pp. 38–40.</ref>

A broad non-Reform camp slowly coalesced as the minority within American Jewry; while strict in relation to their progressive opponents, they served a nonobservant public and instituted thorough synagogue reforms – omission of ''[[piyyut]]im'' from the liturgy, English-language sermons and secular education for the clergy were the norm in most,<ref>Ze'ev Eleff, ''Modern Orthodox Judaism: A Documentary History''. [[University of Nebraska Press]], 2016. pp. xxxiv–xxxv.</ref> and many Orthodox synagogues in America did not [[Mechitza|partition]] men and women.<ref name="Seating"/> In 1885, the antinomian [[Pittsburgh Platform]] moved a broad coalition of conservative religious leaders to found the [[Jewish Theological Seminary of America]]. They variously termed their ideology, which was never consistent and mainly motivated by a rejection of Reform, as "Enlightened Orthodoxy" or "[[Conservative Judaism]]". The latter term would only gradually assume a clearly distinct meaning.

To their right, strictly traditionalist Eastern European immigrants formed the [[Union of Orthodox Rabbis]] in 1902, in direct opposition to the Americanized character of the OU and JTS. The UOR frowned upon English-language sermons, secular education, and acculturation in general. Even before that, in 1897, an old-style ''[[yeshiva]]'', [[RIETS]], was founded in New York. Eventually, its students rebelled in 1908, demanding a modern rabbinic training much like that of their peers in JTS. In 1915, RIETS was reorganized as a decidedly Modern Orthodox institution, and a merger with the JTS was discussed.<ref>Sarna, ''American Judaism: A History'', pp. 188–193.</ref> In 1923, the [[Rabbinical Council of America]] was established as the clerical association of the OU.

Only in the postwar era, did the vague traditional coalition come to a definite end. During and after the [[Holocaust]], a new wave of strictly observant refugees arrived from Eastern and Central Europe. They often regarded even the UOR as too lenient and Americanized. Typical of these was Rabbi [[Aaron Kotler]], who established [[Lakewood Yeshiva]] in New Jersey during 1943. Alarmed by the enticing American environment, Kotler turned his institution into an enclave, around which an entire community slowly evolved. It was very different from his prewar ''yeshiva'' at [[Kletsk]], [[Interwar Poland|Poland]], the students of which were but a segment of the general Jewish population and mingled with the rest. Lakewood pioneered the homogeneous, voluntary and enclavist model of postwar ''Haredi'' communities, which were independent entities with their own developing subculture.<ref>Joel Finkelman, ''[https://www.jstor.org/stable/1396734 Haredi Isolation in Changing Environments: A Case Study in Yeshiva Immigration]''. [[Modern Judaism]], Vol. 22, No. 1 (February 2002).</ref> The new arrivals soon dominated the traditionalist wing of American Jewry, forcing the locals to adopt more rigorous positions. Concurrently, the younger generation in the JTS and the [[Rabbinical Assembly]] demanded greater clarity, theological unambiguity and ''halakhic'' independence from the Orthodox veto on serious innovations — in 1935, for example, the RA yielded to such pressures and shelved its proposal for a solution to the [[agunah]] predicament. "Conservative Judaism", now adopted as an exclusive label by most JTS graduates and RA members, became a truly distinct movement. In 1950, the Conservatives signaled their break with Orthodox ''halakhic'' authorities, with the acceptance of a far-reaching legal decision, which allowed one to drive to the synagogue and to use electricity on Sabbath.<ref>Michael R. Cohen, ''The Birth of Conservative Judaism: Solomon Schechter's Disciples and the Creation of an American Religious Movement''. Columbia University Press, 2012. pp. 137–140, 157.</ref>

Between the ultra-Orthodox and Conservatives, Modern Orthodoxy in America also coalesced, becoming less a generic term and more a distinct movement. Its leader in the postwar era, Rabbi [[Joseph B. Soloveitchik]], left Agudas Israel to adopt both pro-Zionist positions and a positive, if reserved, attitude toward Western culture. As dean of RIETS and honorary chair of RCA's ''halakha'' committee, Soloveitchik shaped Modern Orthodoxy for decades.<ref>Jeffrey S. Gurock. ''American Jewish Orthodoxy in Historical Perspective''. KTAV Publishing House, 1996. pp. 43–47.</ref> While principled differences with the Conservatives were clear, as the RCA stressed the divinely revealed status of the Torah and a strict observance of ''halakha'', sociological boundaries were less so. Many members of the Modern Orthodox public were barely observant, and a considerable number of communities did not install a [[Mechitza|gender partition]] in their synagogues – physically separate seating became the distinguishing mark of Orthodox/Conservative affiliation in the 1950s, and was strongly promulgated by the RCA – for many years.<ref>For example: Deborah D. Moore, ''American Jewish Identity Politics''. University of Michigan Press, 2009. pp. 185–189.</ref> As late as 1997, seven OU congregations still lacked a partition.<ref name="Seating">[[Jonathan D. Sarna]], ''[https://www.brandeis.edu/hornstein/sarna/synagoguehistory/Archive/TheDebateoverMixedSeatingintheAmericanSynagogue.pdf The Debate over Mixed Seating in the American Synagogue]''.</ref>

== Theology ==
=== Orthodox attitudes ===
Judaism never formulated a conclusive [[credo]]; whether it reflects a [[dogma]] remains controversial. Some researchers argued that the importance of daily practice and adherence to ''halakha'' (Jewish law) mooted theoretical issues. Others dismissed this view entirely, citing ancient rabbinic debates that castigated various [[Heresy in Judaism|heresies]] with little reference to observance. However, even without a uniform doctrine, Orthodox Judaism is basically united in its core beliefs. Disavowing them is a major [[blasphemy]].{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}.

Several medieval authorities attempted to codify these beliefs, including [[Saadia Gaon]] and [[Joseph Albo]]. Each composed a creed, although the [[13 principles of faith|13 principles]] expounded by Maimonides in his 1160s ''[[Mishnah#Commentaries|Commentary on the Mishna]]'', remained the most widely accepted. Various points were contested by many of Maimonides' contemporaries and later sages, such as the exact formulation and the status of disbelievers (either misinformed or expelled heretics). Similarly, Albo listed only three fundamentals, and did not regard the [[Messiah in Judaism|Messiah]] as a key tenet. Many who objected argued that the entire corpus of the Torah and the sayings of ancient sages were of canonical stature, rather than a few selected points. In later centuries, the 13 Principles became considered universally binding and cardinal by Orthodox authorities.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Shapiro |first=Marc B. |author-link=Marc B. Shapiro |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=rG9vEAAAQBAJ |page=1}} |title=The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised |date=2022-03-16 |publisher=Liverpool University Press |isbn=978-1-80085-844-2}}</ref>

During the Middle Ages, two systems of thought competed for primacy. The rationalist-philosophic school endeavored to present all commandments as serving higher moral and ethical purposes, while the mystical tradition, exemplified in [[Kabbalah]], assigned each rite with a role in hidden dimensions of reality. Sheer obedience, derived from faithfulness to one's community and ancestry, was believed sufficient for the common people, while the educated chose one of the two schools. In the modern era, the prestige of both declined, and "naive faith" became popular. At a time when contemplation in matters of belief was associated with secularization, luminaries such as [[Yisrael Meir Kagan]] stressed the importance of simple, unsophisticated commitment to the precepts passed down from the Beatified Sages.{{Clarify|reason=First mention of Beatified Sages. Who?|date=March 2024}} This became standard in the Haredi world.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Brown |first=Benjamin |author-link=Benjamin Brown (scholar) |date=2019 |title=The Comeback of "Simple Faith": The Ultra-Orthodox Concept of Faith and Its Development in the Nineteenth Century |url=https://www.academia.edu/36068205 |journal=Dynamics of Continuity and Change in Jewish Religious Life |pages=130–197 |doi=10.1515/9781618117144-006 |isbn=978-1-61811-714-4}}</ref>

=== God ===
{{Main|God in Judaism}}
Judaism adheres to [[monotheism]], the belief in one God. The basic tenets of Orthodoxy, drawn from ancient sources like the Talmud and later sages, chiefly include the attributes of [[God in Judaism]]: one and indivisible, preceding all creation, which God alone brought into being, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, absolutely incorporeal, and beyond human reason. This basis is evoked in many foundational texts, and is repeated often in daily prayers, such as in Judaism's creed-like ''[[Shema Yisrael]]'': "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One."

Maimonides delineated this understanding of a [[personal God]] in his opening six articles. The six concern God's status as the sole creator, his oneness, his impalpability, that he is first and last, that God alone, and no other being, may be worshipped, and that he is omniscient. The supremacy of the God of Israel is even applied to non-Jews. According to most rabbinic opinions, non-Jews are banned from the worship of other deities. However, they are allowed to "[[Shituf|associate]]" lower divine beings with their faith in God (mostly to allow contact with [[Christians]], accepting that they were not [[Idolatry in Judaism|idolaters]] with whom business dealings and the like are forbidden.)

The [[Apophatic theology|utter imperceptibility]] of God, considered as beyond human reason and only reachable through what he chooses to reveal, was emphasized among others in the [[Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image|ancient ban on making any image of him]]. Maimonides and virtually all sages in his time and thereafter stressed that the creator is incorporeal, lacking "any semblance of a body". While incorporeality has almost been taken for granted since the Middle Ages, Maimonides and his contemporaries reported that anthropomorphic conceptions of God were quite common in their time.

The medieval tension between God's transcendence and [[Apatheia|equanimity]], and his contact and interest in his creation, found its most popular resolution in the ''[[Kabbalah]]''. Kabbalists asserted that while God himself is beyond the universe, he progressively unfolds into the created realm via a series of emanations, or ''[[sefirot]]'', each a refraction of the perfect godhead. While widely received, this system proved contentious and some authorities lambasted it as a threat to God's unity.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Berlin |first=Adele |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=hKAaJXvUaUoC |page=294}} |pages=294–297 |title=The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion |date=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-973004-9}} (articles: ''God''; ''God, attributes of'').</ref> In modern times it is upheld, at least tacitly, in many traditionalist Orthodox circles, while Modern Orthodoxy mostly simply ignores it.

=== Revelation ===
The defining doctrine of Orthodox Judaism is the belief that God revealed the [[Torah]] ("Teaching" or "Law") to [[Moses]] on Mount Sinai, both the written scripture of the [[Torah]] and the [[Oral Torah]] explicating it, and that [[chazal|sages]] promulgated it faithfully from Sinai in an unbroken chain. One of the foundational texts of rabbinic literature is the list opening the ''[[Pirkei Avot]]'', enumerating the sages, from Moses through [[Joshua]], the [[Moses Elects Seventy Elders|Seventy Elders]], and [[Hebrew Prophet|Prophets]], and then onward until [[Hillel the Elder]] and [[Shammai]]. This core belief is referred to in classical sources as "The Law/Teaching is from the Heavens" (''Torah min HaShamayim'').

Orthodoxy holds that the body of revelation is total and complete. Its interpretation and application under new circumstances, required of every generation's scholars, is an act of inferring and elaborating, not of innovation or addition. One clause in the [[Jerusalem Talmud]] asserts that anything that a veteran disciple shall teach was given at Sinai: a story in the [[Babylonian Talmud]] claims that Moses was taken aback upon seeing the immensely intricate deduction of future [[Rabbi Akiva]] in a vision, until Akiva proclaimed that Moses had received everything he was teaching. The Written and Oral Torah are held to be intertwined and mutually reliant. The latter is a source of many divine commandments, and the text of the Pentateuch is seen as incomprehensible. God's will may be surmised only by appealing to the Oral Torah, which revealed the text's allegorical, [[anagogical]], or [[tropological]] meaning, rather than by a literal reading.

Lacunae in received tradition or disagreements between early sages are attributed to disruptions, especially persecutions such that "the Torah was forgotten in Israel." According to rabbinic lore, these eventually compelled the [[legist]]s to write down the Oral Law in the [[Mishna]] and [[Talmud]]. The wholeness of the original divine message and the reliability of those who transmitted it are axiomatic. One of the primary intellectual exercises of Torah scholars is to locate discrepancies between Talmudic or other passages and then demonstrate by complex logical steps (presumably proving each passage referred to a slightly different situation, etc.) that no contradiction is obtained.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Meyer |first=Michael A. |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=E097BTUssM4C |page=3}} |pages=3–6 |title=Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism |date=1995 |publisher=Wayne State University Press |isbn=978-0-8143-2555-1}}</ref> Orthodox Judaism considers revelation as propositional, explicit, verbal, and unambiguous. Revelation serves as a firm source of authority for religious commandments. Modernist understandings of revelation as a subjective, humanly conditioned experience are rejected.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ward |first=Keith |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=4rwsM_w1uAwC |page=85}} |title=Religion and Revelation: A Theology of Revelation in the World's Religions |date=1994 |publisher=Clarendon Press |isbn=978-0-19-826466-8 |pages=85, 115, 209}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Freundel |first=Barry |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=qaCfpwuTv68C |page=29}} |pages=29, 35 |title=Contemporary Orthodox Judaism's Response to Modernity |date=2004 |publisher=KTAV Publishing House, Inc. |isbn=978-0-88125-778-6}}</ref> Some thinkers at the liberal end of the liberal wing promoted such views, although they found virtually no acceptance from the establishment.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Schimmel |first=Solomon |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=Ku-xzIY5mecC |page=202}} |pages=202–203 |title=The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth |date=2008-08-15 |publisher=Oxford University Press, USA |isbn=978-0-19-518826-4}}</ref>

An important ramification of ''Torah min HaShamayim'' in modern times is the reserved, and often totally rejectionist, attitude of Orthodoxy toward the historical-critical method, particularly [[higher Biblical criticism]]. The refusal by rabbis to employ such tools, insisting on traditional methods and the need for consensus and continuity with past authorities, separates the most liberal-leaning Orthodox rabbinic circles from the most conservative non-Orthodox ones.<ref name=srf />{{rp|115–119}}

While the Sinai event is held to be the supreme act of revelation, [[rabbinic tradition]] acknowledges matters addressed by the Prophets and [[Bat qol|God's later announcements]]. The [[Kabbalah]], as revealed to illustrious past figures and passed on through elitist circles, is widely (albeit not universally) esteemed. While some prominent rabbis considered Kabbalah a late forgery, most generally accepted it as legitimate. However, its status in determining normative halakhic decision-making, which is binding for the entire community, and not just for spiritualists who voluntarily adopt kabbalistic strictures, was always controversial. Leading [[Posek|decisors]] openly applied criteria from Kabbalah in their rulings, while others did so only inadvertently, and many denied it any normative role. A closely related mystical phenomenon is the belief in ''[[Magid (Jewish mysticism)|Magidim]]'', supposed dreamlike apparitions or visions, that may inform those who experience them with certain divine knowledge.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=כ"ץ |first1=יעקב |last2=Katz |first2=Jacob |authorlink2=Jacob Katz |date=1980 |title=Post-Zoharic Relations between Halakhah and Kabbalah / יחסי הלכה וקבלה בדורות שלאחר "התגלות" הזוהר |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24191185 |journal=Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah / דעת: כתב-עת לפילוסופיה יהודית וקבלה |issue=4 |pages=57–74 |jstor=24191185 |issn=0334-2336}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Shlomo |last=Brody |url=http://text.rcarabbis.org/halakha-and-kabbalah-rabbi-joseph-karos-shulchan-aruch-and-magid-mesharim-by-shlomo-brody |title=Halakha and Kabbalah: Rabbi Joseph Karo's Shulchan Aruch and Magid Mesharim |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181205003255/http://text.rcarabbis.org/halakha-and-kabbalah-rabbi-joseph-karos-shulchan-aruch-and-magid-mesharim-by-shlomo-brody/ |archive-date=5 December 2018 |publisher=Rabbinical Council of America Rabbis' blog |year=2011}}</ref>

=== Eschatology ===
{{Main|Jewish eschatology}}
Belief in a future Messiah is central to Orthodox Judaism. According to this doctrine, a king will arise from King David's lineage, and will bring with him signs such as the restoration of the Temple, peace, and universal acceptance of the God of Israel.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Berger |first1=David |title=The Fragility of Religious Doctrine: Accounting for Orthodox Acquiescence in the Belief in a Second Coming |journal=Modern Judaism |date=2002 |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=103–114 |doi=10.1093/mj/22.2.103}}</ref> The Messiah will embark on a quest to gather all Jews to the Holy Land, will proclaim prophethood, and will restore the Davidic Monarchy.

Classical Judaism incorporated a tradition of belief in the [[resurrection of the dead]].<ref name="Levenson2006">{{cite book |author=Jon Douglas Levenson |title=Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=iv9l8vgL1iAC}} |year=2006 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0-300-13515-2}}</ref>{{rp|p. 1}} The scriptural basis for this doctrine, as quoted by the Mishnah is:<ref name="Levenson2006" />{{rp|p. 24}} "All Israelites have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is written: "And your people, all of them righteous, Shall possess the land for all time; They are the shoot that I planted, My handiwork in which I glory.". The Mishnah also brands as heretics any Jew who rejects the doctrine of resurrection or its Torah origin.<ref name="Levenson2006" />{{rp|p. 25}} Those who deny the doctrine are deemed to receive no share in the World-to-Come.<ref name="Levenson2006" />{{rp|p. 26}} The [[Pharisees]] believed in both a bodily resurrection and an immortal soul. They also believed that acts in this world would affect the state of life in the next world.<ref name=LL.book>{{cite book |author=Leila Leah Bronner |author-link1=Leila Leah Bronner |title=Journey to Heaven: Exploring Jewish Views of the Afterlife |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=pBAiBgAAQBAJ}} |date=1 June 2011 |publisher=Urim Publications |isbn=978-965-524-100-6}}</ref>{{rp|p. 61}} Mishnah ''[[Sanhedrin (tractate)|Sahedrin]]'' 10 clarifies that only those who follow the correct theology have a place in the World to Come.<ref name="Levenson2006" />{{rp|p. 66}}

Other passing references to the afterlife appear in Mishnaic tractates. ''[[Berakhot (tractate)|Berakhot]]'' informs that the Jewish belief in the afterlife was established long before the compilation of the Mishnah.<ref name="Levenson2006" />{{rp|p. 70}} {{Failed verification|date=May 2020}} Biblical tradition mentions [[Sheol]] sixty-five times. It is described as an underworld containing the gathering of the dead with their families.<ref name=LL.book />{{rp|p. 19}} {{Bibleverse|Numbers|16:30}}states that [[Korah]] went into Sheol alive to describe his death in divine retribution.<ref name=LL.book />{{rp|p. 20}} The deceased who reside in Sheol have a "nebulous" existence. No reward or punishment comes in Sheol, which is represented as a dark and gloomy place. But a distinction is made for kings who are said to be greeted by other kings when entering Sheol.<ref name=LL.book />{{rp|p.21}} Biblical poetry suggests that resurrection from Sheol is possible.<ref name=LL.book />{{rp|p. 22}} Prophetic narratives of resurrection in the Bible have been labelled as an external cultural influence by some scholars.<ref name=LL.book />{{rp|p. 23}}

Talmudic discourse expanded on the details of the World to Come. This was to motivate Jewish compliance with religious codes.<ref name=LL.book />{{rp|p. 79}} In brief, the righteous will be rewarded with a place in [[Gan Eden]], the wicked will be punished in [[Gehinnom]], and the resurrection will take place in the Messianic age. The sequence of these events is unclear.<ref name=LL.book />{{rp|p. 81}} Rabbis support the concept of resurrection with Biblical citations and show it as a sign of God's omnipotence.<ref>{{cite book |author=Leila Leah Bronner |title=Journey to Heaven: Exploring Jewish Views of the Afterlife |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=pBAiBgAAQBAJ |page=82}} |date=1 June 2011 |publisher=Urim Publications |isbn=978-965-524-100-6 |page=82}}</ref>

== Practice ==
[[File:Zeev_Erlich_funeral5501.jpg|thumb|A crowd of Orthodox Jewish men and women, usually defined as "[[Religious Zionist]]", in [[Israel]]]]
=== Intensity ===
A relatively thorough observance of ''halakha'' – rather than theological and doctrinal matters, which produce diverse opinions – is the concrete demarcation line separating Orthodoxy from other Jewish movements. As noted by researchers and communal leaders, Orthodox subgroups have a sense of commitment towards the Law, perceiving it as seriously binding, which is rarely visible outside the movement.<ref name=srf />{{rp|121–122}}

=== Law, custom, and tradition ===
The ''halakha'', like any jurisprudence, is not a definitive set of rules, but rather an expanding discourse. Its authority is derived from the belief in divine revelation, but rabbis interpret and apply it, basing their mandate on biblical verses such as ''and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee''. From ancient to modern times, rabbinic discourse was wrought with controversy (''machloket'') and sages disagreeing over various points of law. The [[Talmud]] itself is mainly a record of such disputes. The Orthodox continue to believe that such disagreements flow naturally from the divinity of Jewish Law, which is presumed to contain a solution for any possible question. As long as both contesting parties base their arguments on received [[hermeneutics]] and precedents and are driven by sincere faith, ''both these and those are the words of the Living God'' (Talmudic statement originally attributed to a [[Bath Kol|divine proclamation]] during a dispute between the [[House of Hillel]] and [[House of Shammai]]).<ref>See also: Michael Rosensweig, ''[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23260661 Elu va-Elu Divre Elokim Hayyim: Halakhic Pluralism and Theories of Controversy]''. Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought. Spring 1992.</ref> Majority opinions were accepted and reified, though many disagreements remain unresolved as new ones appear. This plurality of opinion allows [[Posek|decisors]], rabbis tasked with determining the legal stance in subjects without precedent, to weigh a range of options, based on methods derived from earlier authorities. The most basic form of ''halakhic'' discourse is the [[History of responsa in Judaism|responsa literature]], in which rabbis answered questions directed from commoners or other rabbis, thus setting precedent.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Woolf |first=Jeffrey R. |date=1993 |title=The Parameters of Precedent in Pesak Halakhah |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23260884 |journal=Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=41–48 |jstor=23260884 |issn=0041-0608}}</ref>

The system's oldest and most basic sources are the [[Mishna]] and the [[Talmud]]s, augmented by the [[Geonim]]. Those were followed by the great codes which sought to assemble and standardize the laws, including [[Isaac Alfasi|Rabbi Isaac Alfasi]]'s ''[[Hilchot HaRif]]'', Maimonides' ''[[Mishneh Torah]]'', and [[Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel]]'s work (colloquially called ''the Rosh''). These three works were the main basis of [[Rabbi Jacob ben Asher]]'s ''[[Arba'ah Turim]]'', which in turn became the basis of one of the latest and most authoritative codifications – the 1565 ''[[Shulchan Aruch]]'', or "Set Table", by [[Rabbi Joseph Karo]]. This work gained canonical status and became almost synonymous, with the ''halakhic'' system. However, no later authority accepted it in its entirety (for example, Orthodox Jews wear phylacteries in a manner different from the one advocated there), and it was immediately contested or re-interpreted by various commentaries, most prominently the [[gloss (annotation)|gloss]] written by Rabbi [[Moses Isserles]] named ''HaMapah ("The Tablecloth")''. ''Halakhic'' literature continued to expand and evolve. New authoritative guides continued to be compiled and canonized, until the popular 20th century works such as the ''[[Mishnah Berurah]]'' arrived.

The most important distinction within ''halakha'' is between all laws derived from God's revelation (''[[d'Oraita]]'') and those enacted by human authorities ([[De-'oraita and de-rabbanan|''d'Rabanan'']]), who are believed to have been empowered by God to legislate as necessary. The former are either directly understood, derived via various hermeneutics or attributed to commandments handed down to Moses. The authority to pass measures ''d'Rabanan'' is itself subject to debate – Maimonides stated that absolute obedience to rabbinic decrees is stipulated by the verse ''and thou shalt observe'', while [[Nachmanides]] argued that such severity is unfounded, while accepting such enactments as binding, albeit less so than the divine commandments. A Talmudic maxim states that when in doubt regarding a matter ''d'Oraita'', one must rule strenuously, but leniently when it concerns ''d'Rabanan''. Many arguments in ''halakhic'' literature revolve over whether a detail is derived from the former or the latter source, and under which circumstances. Commandments or prohibitions ''d'Rabanan'', though less stringent than ''d'Oraita'', are an important facet of Jewish law. They range from the 2nd century BCE establishment of [[Hanukkah]], to bypassing the Biblical ban on charging interest via the ''[[Prozbul]]'', and up to the 1950 marital rules standardized by the [[Chief Rabbinate of Israel]], which forbade [[polygamy]] and [[Yibbum|levirate marriage]] even in communities that still practiced them.<ref>For a good introduction to ''halakha'' see: {{Cite book |last1=Broyde |first1=Michael J. |first2=Ira |last2=Bedzow |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=b9wunwEACAAJ |page=1}} |pages=1-6, 368-370 |title=The Codification of Jewish Law and an Introduction to the Jurisprudence of the Mishna Berura |date=2014 |publisher=Academic Studies Press |isbn=978-1-4936-1211-6}}</ref>

A third major component buttressing Orthodox and other practice is local or familial custom, ''[[Minhag]]''. The development and acceptance of customs as binding, more than disagreements between decisors, is the main source of diversity in matters of practice across geographic or ethnic boundaries. While the reverence accorded to ''Minhag'' across rabbinic literature covers the extremes, including "a custom may uproot ''halakha''" and wholly dismissive attitudes,<ref>For example: {{Cite journal |last=Brown |first=Benjamin |date=2018-01-01 |title=A translated chapter from: The Hazon Ish: Halakhist, Believer and Leader of the Haredi Revolution: "The Gaon of Vilna, the Hatam Sofer and the Hazon Ish – Minhag and the Crisis of Modernity" |lang=en |url=https://www.academia.edu/36530833 |journal=Hakirah}}</ref> it was generally accepted as binding by scholars, and drew its power from popular adherence and routine. [[Ashkenazim]], [[Sephardim]], [[Teimanim]], and others have distinct [[Nusach (Jewish custom)|prayer rites]], [[kosher]] emphases (for example, by the 12th century, it became an Ashkenazi custom to [[Kitniyot|avoid legumes]] in [[Passover]]) and other distinctions. The influence of custom upset scholars who noted that the common masses observe ''Minhag'', yet ignore important divine decrees.

=== Rabbinic authority ===
{{see|Rabbinic authority}}
Rabbinic leadership, assigned with implementing and interpreting tradition, changed considerably over the centuries, separating Orthodox from pre-modern Judaism. Since the demise of the [[Geonim]], who led the Jewish world up to 1038, ''halakha'' was adjudicated locally, and the final arbiter was mostly the local rabbi, the ''Mara d'Athra'' (Master of the Area). He was responsible to judicially instruct his community. Emancipation and modern transport and communication made this model untenable.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kirschenbaum |first=Aaron |date=1993 |title=MARA DE-ATRA: A Brief Sketch |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23260883 |journal=Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=35–40 |jstor=23260883 |issn=0041-0608}}</ref> While Orthodox communities, especially the more conservative ones, have rabbis who technically fill this capacity, the public generally follows more broadly known authorities who are not limited by geography, and based on reverence and peer pressure more than coercion. These may be either popular [[Rosh yeshiva|chairs of Talmudic academies]], renowned [[posek|decisors]], and, in the [[Hasidic]] world, hereditary ''[[rebbe]]''s.

Their influence varies considerably: In conservative Orthodox circles, mainly Haredi, rabbis possess strong authority, and often exercise leadership. Bodies such as the [[Council of Torah Sages]], [[Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah|Council of Torah Luminaries]], the [[Central Rabbinical Congress]], and the [[Orthodox Council of Jerusalem]] are all held as the arbiters in their respective communities. In the more liberal Orthodox sectors, rabbis are revered and consulted, but rarely exert direct control.

=== Daily life ===
Orthodox Judaism emphasizes practicing rules of ''[[kashrut]]'', [[Shabbat]], [[family purity]], and ''tefilah'' (daily prayer).

Many Orthodox can be identified by their dress and family lifestyle. Orthodox men and women dress modestly covering most of their skin. Married women cover their hair, with scarves (''[[tichel]]''), [[Snood (headgear)|''snoods'']], turbans, hats, berets, or wigs.

Orthodox men wear a ritual fringe called ''[[Tzitzit]]'', and wear a head-covering for males.<ref>skullcap ([[kippah]])</ref> Many men grow beards, and Haredi men wear suits with black hats over a skullcap. Modern Orthodox Jews may adopt the dress of general society, although they, too, wear ''kippahs'' and ''tzitzit.'' On Shabbat, Modern Orthodox men wear suits (or at least a dress shirt) and dress pants, while women wear clothing.

Orthodox Jews follow the laws of ''[[negiah]]'' (touch). The Orthodox do not engage in physical contact with those of the opposite sex other than their spouse, or immediate family members. ''Kol Isha''<ref>{{cite news |newspaper=[[The Forward]] |date=January 29, 2013 |title=Keep Singing, Girlfriend, But Obey the Rules |url=https://forward.com/sisterhood/170169/keep-singing-girlfriend-but-obey-the-rules |quote=this law of kol isha does not exist in other sects of Judaism |author=Simi Lichtman}}</ref> prohibits<ref>(Berachot 24a) records the prohibition of Kol Isha.{{cite web |url=https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/the-parameters-of-kol-isha-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter |title=The Parameters of Kol Isha by Rabbi Chaim Jachter |date=2 July 2018}}</ref> a woman's singing to a man (except as per ''negiah'').<ref>{{cite web |title=Kol Isha: Ask the Rabbi Response |website=Aish.com |date=21 August 2011 |url=https://www.aish.com/atr/Kol_Isha.html}}</ref>

Doorposts have a ''[[mezuzah]].'' Separate sinks for meat and dairy have become increasingly common.<ref>{{cite news |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/garden/09kosher.html |title=Making Kosher a Little More Convenient |author=Jennifer A. Kingson |date=April 9, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/nyregion/thecity/03mult.html |title=Here Come the Babies. There Go the Jackhammers. |quote=aimed at Orthodox buyers... two sinks .. one for meat and one for dairy |author=Alex Mindlin |date=February 3, 2008}}</ref>

== Diversity ==
{{See|Hashkafa#Broad hashkafot|Relationships between Jewish religious movements}}
Orthodox Judaism lacks a central framework and a common leadership. It is not a "[[Religious denomination|denomination]]" in the structural sense, but a spectrum of groups, united in broadly affirming matters of belief and practice, which share a consciousness and a common discourse. Individual rabbis often gain respect across boundaries, particularly recognized [[Posek|decisors]], but each community largely elevates its own leaders (for example, the [[Haredi]] world shares a sense of common identity, while distinct subgroups include hundreds of independent communities with their own rabbis). The limits and boundaries of Orthodoxy are also controversial. No encompassing definition has found acceptance. Moderately conservative subgroups hotly criticize more liberal groups for deviation, while strict hard-liners dismiss the latter as non-Orthodox. Contentious topics range from the abstract and theoretical, such as the attitude toward the study of scripture, to the mundane and pressing, such as modesty rules.

As in any other broad religious movement, an intrinsic tension connects the ideological and the sociological dimensions of Orthodox Judaism – while elites and intellectuals define adherence in theoretical terms, the masses use societal, familial, and institutional affiliation. The latter may be neither strictly observant nor fully accept the tenets of faith.<ref name=srf />{{rp|25–26, 76, 116–119, 154–156}}<ref>For an online source: {{Cite web |last=Eleff |first=Zev |date=8 June 2017 |title=The Vanishing Non-Observant Orthodox Jew |publisher=The Lehrhaus |url=https://thelehrhaus.com/commentary/the-vanishing-non-observant-orthodox-jew/,%20https://thelehrhaus.com/commentary/the-vanishing-non-observant-orthodox-jew/ |access-date=2024-03-11}}</ref>

== Demographics ==
[[File:Beit yaaaak.JPG|thumb|Haredi schoolgirls at the [[Western Wall]] in [[Jerusalem]]|upright=1.2]]
Professors [[Daniel Elazar]] and Rela Mintz Geffen, according to calculations in 1990, found there to be at least 2,000,000 observant Orthodox Jews worldwide in 2012, and at least 2,000,000 additional members and supporters who identified as such. This estimate held Orthodoxy to be the largest Jewish group.<ref name="EG">{{Cite book |last1=Elazar |first1=Daniel J. |author-link=Daniel J. Elazar |first2=Rela Mintz |last2=Geffen |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=6Lg6BmMTZGIC |page=105}} |pages=105–106 |title=The Conservative Movement in Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities |date=2012-02-01 |publisher=State University of New York Press |isbn=978-0-7914-9202-4}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Elazar |first=Daniel J. |author-link=Daniel J. Elazar |url=http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/demographics.htm |title=How Strong is Orthodox Judaism – Really? The Demographics of Jewish Religious Identification |publisher=Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs |year=1991}}</ref>

In the [[State of Israel]], where the total Jewish population is about 6.5&nbsp;million, 22% of all Jewish respondents to a 2016 [[Pew Research Center|Pew]] survey declared themselves as observant Orthodox (9% ''[[Haredim]]'', 13% ''Datiim'', "religious"). 29% described themselves as "[[Masortim|traditional]]", a label implying less observance, but identification with Orthodoxy.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Center |first=Pew Research |date=8 March 2016 |title=Israel's Religiously Divided Society |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/ |access-date=2024-03-11 |website=Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project}}</ref>

The [[List of Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States|Orthodox community of the United States]] is the second-largest in the world, concentrated in the [[northeastern United States|Northeast]] and specifically in [[Jews in New York|New York]] and [[Jews in New Jersey|New Jersey]].<ref name="Heilman">{{Cite book |last1=Heilman |first1=Samuel C. |author-link=Samuel Heilman |first2=Steven M. |last2=Cohen |authorlink2=Steven M. Cohen |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=jPnEKhX6icIC}} |title=Cosmopolitans and Parochials: Modern Orthodox Jews in America |date=1989-10-11 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-32495-1}}</ref> A 2013 Pew survey found that 10% of respondents identified as Orthodox, among a total Jewish population of at least 5.5&nbsp;million. 3% were Modern Orthodox, 6% were Haredi, and 1% were "other" ([[Sephardic]], liberal Orthodox, etc.)<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Center |first=Pew Research |date=1 October 2013 |title=A Portrait of Jewish Americans |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/ |access-date=2024-03-11 |website=Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project}}</ref>

In the United Kingdom, of 79,597 households with at least one Jewish member that held synagogue membership in 2016, 66% affiliated with Orthodox synagogues: 53% in "centrist Orthodox", and 13% in "strictly Orthodox" (further 3% were Sephardi, which technically eschews the title "Orthodox").<ref>{{cite web |first1=Donatella Casale |last1=Mashiah |first2=Jonathan |last2=Boyd |url=https://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/Synagogue_membership_in_the_United_Kingdom_in_2016.pdf |title=Synagogue membership in the United Kingdom in 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190106204832/https://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/Synagogue_membership_in_the_United_Kingdom_in_2016.pdf |archive-date=6 January 2019 |publisher=Institute for Jewish Policy Research |date=July 2017}}</ref>

The Orthodox have higher [[birth rate]]s than others. Haredi communities have some of the world's highest birth rates, averaging six children per household. A nearly non-existent rate of intermarriage with members of other faiths (Orthodox vehemently oppose the phenomenon) contributes to their growing share of the world's Jewish population. Among American Jewish children, the Orthodox share is an estimated 61% in New York, including 49% Haredi. Similar patterns are observed in other countries. With present trends sustained, Orthodox Jews are projected to numerically dominate British Jewry by 2031, and American Jewry by 2058.<ref name="EG" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-06-12 |title=Orthodox Will Dominate American Jewry In Coming Decades |url=https://forward.com/news/402663/orthodox-will-dominate-american-jewry-in-coming-decades-as-population/ |access-date=2024-03-11 |website=The Forward}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=15 October 2015 |title=Half of Britain's Jews 'will soon be strictly Orthodox' |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/haredi-half-of-britain-s-jews-will-soon-be-strictly-orthodox-says-new-study-a6696046.html |access-date=2024-03-11 |newspaper=[[The Independent]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>See also: {{cite web |url=http://jppi.org.il/uploads/Haredi_Demography_The_United_States_and_the_United_Kingdom.pdf |title=Haredi Demography – The United States and the United Kingdom |publisher=[[JPPI]]}}</ref> However, large numbers of members leave their communities and observant lifestyle. Among the 2013 Pew respondents, 17% of those under 30 who were raised Orthodox disaffiliated (in earlier generations, this trend was far more prevalent, and 77% of those over 65 left).<ref name=":2" />

== Groups ==
{{refimprove section|date=August 2021}}
=== Haredim ===
{{Main|Haredi Judaism}}
The most recognizable sub-group is the ''[[Haredim]]'' (literally, 'trembling' or 'fervent'), also known as "strictly Orthodox", and the like. They are the most traditional part of the Orthodox. ''Haredim'' have minimal engagement with/wholesale rejection of modern society, avow precedence to religious values, and accept a high degree of rabbinic involvement in daily life. ''Haredi'' rabbis and communities generally accept each other, and accord them legitimacy. They are organized in large political structures, mainly [[Agudath Israel of America]] and the Israeli [[United Torah Judaism]] party. Other organized groups include the Anti-Zionist [[Central Rabbinical Congress]] and the [[Edah HaChareidis]]. They are easily discerned by their mode of dress, often mostly black for men and very modest, by religious standards, for women (including hair covering, long skirts, etc.).

The ''Haredim'' may be roughly classified into three sub-groups:

==== Hasidic ====
{{Main|Hasidic Judaism}}
[[Hasidic Jews]] originated in 18th-century [[Eastern Europe]], where they formed as a revival movement that defied the rabbinical establishment. The threat of modernity turned the movement towards conservatism and reconciled it with traditionalist elements. Hasidism espouses a mystical interpretation of religion. Each Hasidic community aligned with a hereditary leader known as ''rebbe'' (who is almost always an ordained rabbi). While the spiritualist element of Hasidism declined through the centuries, the ''rebbe''s' authority stems from the mystical belief that the holiness of their ancestors is inborn. They exercise tight control over their followers. Each of the hundreds of independent Hasidic groups/sects (also called "courts" or "dynasties") has its own line of ''rebbes''. Groups range in size from large ones with thousands of member households to very small. Courts often possess unique customs, religious emphases, philosophies, and styles of dress. Hasidic men, especially on the Sabbath, don long garments and fur hats, which were once a staple of Eastern European Jews, but are now associated almost exclusively with them. As of 2016, 130,000 Hasidic households were counted.

==== Litvaks ====
The second ''Haredi'' group are the Litvaks, or Yeshivish. They originated, loosely, with the [[Misnagdim]], the opponents of Hasidism, who were mainly concentrated in [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania|old Lithuania]]. The confrontation with the Hasid bred distinct ideologies and institutions, especially great ''[[yeshiva]]s'', learning halls, where the study of Torah for its own sake and admiration for the scholars who headed these schools was enshrined. With the advent of secularization, the Misnagdim largely abandoned their hostility towards Hasidism. They became defined by affiliation with their ''yeshiva''s, and their communities were sometimes composed of alumni. The prestige ascribed to them as centers of Torah study (after they were rebuilt in Israel and America, bearing the names of Eastern European ''yeshiva''s destroyed in the [[Holocaust]]) persuaded many who were not Misnagdic, and the term ''Litvak'' lost its original ethnic connotation. It is granted to all non-Hasidic Haredim of [[Ashkenazi]] descent. The Litvak sector is led mainly by heads of ''yeshiva''s.

==== Sephardic ====
{{Main|Sephardic Haredim}}
The third ''Haredi'' movement consists of the Sephardic ''Haredim'', who live mostly in Israel. There they are linked to the [[Shas]] party and the legacy of Rabbi [[Ovadia Yosef]]. Originating in the [[Mizrahi Jews|Mizrahi]] (Middle Eastern and North African Jews) immigrants to the country who arrived in the 1950s, most of the Sephardi Haredim were educated in Litvak yeshivas. They adopted their educators' mentality. Their identity developed in reaction to the racism they encountered. Shas arose in the 1980s, with the aim of reclaiming Sephardi religious legacy, in opposition to both secularism and the hegemony of European-descended ''Haredim''. While living in strictly observant circles, they maintain a strong bond with non-Haredi masses of Israeli Mizrahi society.

=== Modern Orthodoxy ===
{{Main|Modern Orthodox Judaism}}
{{POV section|date=November 2020}}
In the West, especially in the United States, [[Modern Orthodoxy]], or [[Torah Umadda#Centrist Orthodoxy|"Centrist Orthodoxy"]], is an umbrella term for communities that seek an observant lifestyle and traditional theology, while at the same time ascribing positive value to engagement (if not [[Torah Umadda#Synthesis|"synthesis"]]) with the [[Modernity|modern world]].<ref>Rabbi Saul J. Berman, [http://www.shma.com/2001/02/the-ideology-of-modern-orthodoxy/ The Ideology of Modern Orthodoxy]</ref><ref name="HelmreichShinnar">William B. Helmreich and Reuel Shinnar: [http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/jl-383-helmreich.htm Modern Orthodoxy in America: Possibilities for a Movement under Siege] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080229025428/http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/jl-383-helmreich.htm |date=2008-2-29 }}</ref>

In the United States, the Modern Orthodox form a cohesive community, influenced by the legacy of leaders such as Rabbi [[Joseph B. Soloveitchik]], and concentrated around [[Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary|Yeshiva University]] and institutions such as the OU or [[National Council of Young Israel]]. They affirm strict obedience to Jewish Law, the centrality of Torah study, and the importance of positive engagement with modern culture.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Thinkers_and_Thought/Jewish_Philosophy/Philosophies/Modern/Joseph_Soloveitchik.shtml |title=Rabbi Soloveitchik}}</ref>

=== Religious Zionism ===
{{Main|Religious Zionism}}
In Israel, [[Religious Zionism]] represents the largest Orthodox public and are fervent [[Zionists]]. Religious Zionism supports Israel and ascribes an inherent religious value to it. The dominant ideological school, influenced by Rabbi [[Abraham Isaac Kook]]'s thought, regards the state in messianic terms. Religious Zionism is not a uniform group, and the split between its conservative flank (often named "[[Chardal]]", or "National-''[[Haredi]]''") and more liberal elements has increased since the 1990s. The [[National Religious Party]], once the single political platform, dissolved, and the common educational system became torn on issues such as gender separation in elementary school or secular studies.

=== European Centrist Orthodoxy ===
In Europe, "Centrist Orthodoxy" is represented by organizations such as the British [[United Synagogue]] and the [[Israelite Central Consistory of France]], both the dominant official rabbinates in their respective countries. The laity is often non-observant, retaining formal affiliation due to familial piety or a sense of Jewish identity.

=== Israeli Masorti (traditional) ===
{{Main|Masortim}}
Another large demographic usually considered Orthodox are the Israeli ''[[Masortim]]'', or "traditionals". This moniker originated with [[Mizrahim|Mizrahi]] immigrants who were secularized and reverent toward their communal heritage. However, Mizrahi intellectuals, in recent years, developed a more reflective, nuanced understanding of this term, eschewing its shallow image and not necessarily agreeing with the formal deference to Orthodox rabbis. Self-conscious ''Masorti'' identity is limited to small, elitist circles.

== See also ==
{{Portal|Israel|New York City|New York (state)|New Jersey|Judaism}}
* [[Hashkafa]]
* [[List of Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States]]
* [[Open Orthodoxy]]
* [[Orthodoxy]]

{{clear}}
== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category}}
* [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/orthostate.html The State of Orthodox Judaism Today]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20061212113800/http://news.ufl.edu/2006/11/27/hasidic-jews/ Orthodox Jewish population growth and political changes]
* [http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=21523 Orthodox Retention and Kiruv: The Bad News and the Good News]

{{OrthodoxJudaism}}
{{Jews and Judaism}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Orthodox Judaism| ]]