:: wikimiki.org ::

Board Of Education Of Kiryas Joel Village School District V. Grumet

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court

Facts

The State of New York created a school district that coincided with the boundaries of a community of the Satmar Hasidim, an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect.

Opinion of the Court

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Souter, held that the funding of a school district designed to coincide with the neighborhood boundaries of a religious group constitutes an unconstitutional aid to religion. Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Critics of this interpretation argue that it effectively changes the Constitution in a way never contemplated by the founders. However, this is a controversial and evolving area of jurisprudence.

Dissent

Justice Scalia, in his dissent, acknowledged that the residents of this district are Satmars, but noted of the Satmar community: :[A]ll its residents also wear unusual dress, have unusual civic customs, and have not much to do with people who are culturally different from them ... On what basis does Justice Souter conclude that it is the theological distinctiveness rather than the cultural distinctiveness that was the basis for New York State's decision? The normal assumption would be that it was the latter, since it was not theology but dress, language, and cultural alienation that posed the educational problem for the children. Scalia argued that the Satmar school district is not impermissible aid to a religious group because it is directed to the Satmars in their capacity as a culture rather than their religious capacity. The Court was labeling as religion that which Justice Scalia would have put outside the definition of the word, asserting that the author of the majority opinion would "laud this humanitarian legislation if all of the distinctiveness of the students of Kiryas Joel were attributable to the fact that their parents were nonreligious commune dwellers, or American Indians, or gypsies." Justice Scalia concludes that "[t]he creation of a special, one-culture school district for the benefit of those children would pose no problem. The neutrality demanded by the Religion Clauses requires the same indulgence towards cultural characteristics that are accompanied by religious belief."

External link

- Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:1994 in law Category:United States First Amendment case law

Court Citation

Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters.

United States

The standard case citation format in the United States is: :Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) where:
- Roe v. Wade is the name of the case,
- 410 is the volume number of the "reporter" it appears in,
- U.S. is the abbreviation of the reporter,
- 113 is the page number where the opinion begins, and
- 1973 is the year in which the opinion was published. These numbers are used to find a particular case, both when looking up a case in a Reporter and when accessing it electronically (such as through an Internet search). This format also allows different cases with the same parties to be easily differentiated. For example, looking for the U.S. Supreme Court case of Miller v. California would yield four cases, some involving different people named Miller, and all involving different issues.

United States Supreme Court

Cases from the Supreme Court of the United States are officially printed in the United States Reports (U.S.). A citation to the United States Reports looks like this:
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1952)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) There are also two unofficial reporters, the Supreme Court Reporter (S. Ct.) and the Lawyer's Edition (L. Ed.), which are printed by private companies and provide further annotations to the opinions of the Court. Although a citation to the latter two is not required, some attorneys and legal writers prefer to cite all three at once:
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965) The "2d" after the L. Ed. signifies the second series of the Lawyers' Edition. United States case reporters are sequentially numbered, but the volume number is never higher than 999. When volume 1,000 is reached, the volume number is reset to 1 and a "2d" is appended after the reporter's abbreviation (American lawyers have a tradition of using "2d" and "3d" rather than "2nd" and "3rd"). Some case reporters are in their third series, and a few are approaching their fourth. Some very old Supreme Court cases have odd-looking citations, such as Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). The "(1 Cranch)" refers to the fact that, before there was an official court reporter, cases were gathered, bound together, and sold by private individuals who had contracted with the Court for the right to do so. In this case, the case was first reported in an edition by William Cranch, who was responsible for publishing Supreme Court reports from 1801 to 1815. Such reports, named for the individual who gathered them, existed from 1790 to 1874. See the Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions for other edition names. In the caption of a Supreme Court case, the first name listed is the name of the appealing party, followed by the party responding to the appeal. In most cases, the appealing party was the losing party in the prior court. This is the same practice used in cases in the federal courts of appeal.

Lower federal courts

United States court of appeals cases are published in the Federal Reporter (F., F.2d, or F.3d). United States district court cases are published in the Federal Supplement (F. Supp. or F. Supp. 2d). Both are published by the West Publishing Company; they are technically unofficial reporters, but have become widely accepted as the de facto "official" reporters of the lower federal courts because of the absence of a true official reporter. When lower federal court opinions are cited, the citation includes the name of the court. This is placed in the parentheses immediately before the year. Some examples:
- Geary v. Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish School, 7 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 1993) - a case in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2002) - a case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

State courts

State court decisions are published in several places. Many states have their own state reporter, which publishes decisions of that state's highest court. These reporters have the same abbreviation as that state.
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) - a case in the New York Court of Appeals In addition to the official reporters, West Publishing Company publishes several series of "regional reporters" which cover several states each. These include the North Eastern Reporter, Atlantic Reporter, South Eastern Reporter, South Western Reporter, North Western Reporter, and Pacific Reporter. California, Illinois, and New York also each have their own line of West reporters, because of the large volume of cases generated in those states. Some smaller states (like South Dakota) have stopped publishing their own official reporters, and instead have certified the appropriate West regional reporter as their "official" reporter. Here are some examples of how to cite West reporters:
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 583 S.E.2d 780 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) - a case in the Virginia Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) published in the South Eastern Reporter
- Foxworth v. Maddox, 137 So. 161 (Fla. 1931) - a case in the Florida Supreme Court published in the Southern Reporter
- People v. Brown, 282 N.Y.S.2d 497 (1967) - a case in the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) published in the New York Supplement. The case also appears in West's regional reporter: People v. Brown, 229 N.E.2d 192 (N.Y. 1967). Abbreviations for lower courts vary by state, as each state has its own system of trial courts and intermediate appellate courts. When a case appears in both an official reporter and a regional reporter, either citation can be used. Many lawyers prefer to include both citations. Many state courts require that both citations be used when citing cases from any court in that state's system (a practice technically known as "parallel citations"). Some states, notably California and New York, have their own citation systems which differ significantly from the various federal and national standards. Citations in California style put the year between the names of the parties and the reference to the case reporter. Citations in New York style wrap the year in brackets instead of parentheses. Both New York and California wrap an entire citation in parentheses when it is used as a stand-alone sentence. New York puts the terminating period outside the parentheses, but California puts it inside. New York wraps just the reporter and page references in parentheses when the citation is used as a clause. Either way, both state styles differ from the national/Bluebook style of simply dropping in the citation as a separate sentence without further adornment. Both systems use less punctuation and spacing in their reporter abbreviations. For example, assuming that it is being placed as a stand-alone sentence, the Brown case above would be cited (using the official reporter) to a New York court as:
- (People v. Brown, 20 NY2d 238 [1967]). And, again, as a stand-alone sentence, the famous Greenman product liability case would be cited to a California court as:
- (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57.) [http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C2/59C2d57.htm] Like the United States Supreme Court, some very old state case citations include an abbreviation of the name of the private publisher who collected the cases. Most states gave up this practice in the mid- to late-1800s, but Delaware persisted until 1920.

Unpublished decisions

A growing number of court decisions are not published in case reporters. This is because in many states, especially California, the legislature has failed to expand the judiciary to keep up with population growth (for various political and fiscal reasons). For example, only 7% of the opinions of the California intermediate courts (the Courts of Appeal) are published each year. To deal with their crushing caseloads, many judges prefer to write shorter-than-normal opinions that dispose of minor issues in the case in a sentence or two. They avoid publishing such abbreviated opinions, however, so as not to risk creating bad precedents. Attorneys have several options in citing "unpublished" decisions:
- For recently-decided cases which will eventually be published, the docket number from the court can be used as a citation.
- Cases which are intentionally left officially unpublished are nonetheless often "published" on computer services, such as LexisNexis and Westlaw. These services have their own citation formats based on serial numbers (issued sequentially from 1 as documents are added to the database each year). A Westlaw citation looks like this: Fuqua Homes, Inc. v. Beattie, No. 03-3587, 2004 WL 2495842 (8th Cir. November 8, 2004). Some court systems—such as the California state court system and the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—forbid attorneys to cite unpublished cases as precedent. Since 2004, federal judges have been debating whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be amended so that unpublished cases in all circuits can be cited as precedent.

Vendor neutral citations

With the rise of the web, many courts placed new cases on websites. Some were published while others never lost their "unpublished" status. The major legal citation systems required cites to the officially published page numbers, in which publishers such as West publishing claimed a copyright interest. (In view of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, that the mere alphabetical listing of telephone subscribers was an inadequate amount of effort to be valid to obtain copyright, the claim of copyright on page numbering of court decisions is probably not valid.) A [http://www.aallnet.org/committee/citation/ vendor neutral citation movement] led to provisions being made for citations to web-based cases and other legal materials. A few courts modified their rules to specifically take into account cases "published" on the web.

Pinpoint citations

In practice, most lawyers go one step farther, once they have developed the correct citation for a case using the rules discussed above. Most court opinions contain holdings on multiple issues, so lawyers need to cite to the page that contains the specific holding they wish to invoke in their own case. Such citations are known as pinpoint citations, or "pin cites" for short. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the word "person" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn. A full pin cite to Roe for the page with that holding would be as follows:
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158 (1973). And a parallel cite to all three U.S. Supreme Court reporters, combined with pin cites for all three, would produce:
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158, 93 S. Ct. 705, 729, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 180 (1973). But in its opinions, the Court usually provides a direct pin cite only to the official reporter, as follows:
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). Even then, such citations are still quite lengthy, and obviously look quite mysterious and intimidating to laypersons when they try to read court opinions. Since the 1980s, there has been an ongoing debate among American judges as to whether they should relegate such lengthy citations to footnotes to improve the readability of their opinions. Most judges do relegate some citations to footnotes, but Justice Stephen Breyer is famous for never, ever using footnotes in his opinions.

Types of Citations

There are two types of citations: proprietary and public domain citations. There are many citation guides; the most commonly acknowledged is called the Bluebook, published by students at several eminent law schools, led by Harvard Law School. The ALWD Citation Manual is a recent (as of 2004) publication that is quickly winning supporters. Public domain citations are those which usually refer to the official reporters and not some kind of publication service such as Westlaw or LexisNexis or some particular legal journal or specialization specific reporter. States with their own unique style for court documents and case opinions also publish their own style guides which include information on their citation rules.

England and Wales

The standard case citation format in England and Wales is: In England and Wales as with most other Commonwealth countries, the abbreviation "R" for rex (king) or regina (queen), is used for cases in which the state is a party (typically criminal cases or judicial review cases). Square brackets "[ ]" are used when the year is essential to locating the report (e.g. the official law reports either - as with Donoghue v Stevenson, above - do not have volume numbers or, if there are multiple volumes in a single year, they are numbered 1, 2, etc.). Round brackets "( )" are used when the year is not essential but is useful for information purposes, e.g. in reports which have a cumulative volume number such as R v Dudley and Stevens, above.

Law Reports

The term "reporter", meaning a law report or a series of them, is not widely used in England and Wales. Before 1865, English courts used a large number of privately-printed reports, and cases were cited based on which report they appeared in. (This system was also used in the United States and other common law jurisdictions during that period). In 1865, many English cases were reprinted in a set of volumes called English Reports, abbreviated E.R. Between 1865 and 1875, decisions were published in a single series of law reports simply known as the "Law Reports" (L.R). Since 1875 the official law reports have been split into a number of different series, the current series are the Appeal Cases (A.C.), Chancery (Ch.), Family (Fam.) and Queen's Bench (Q.B.) (or King's Bench—K.B.—depending on the monarch of the time). These 4 series are cited in preference to all others in court. There are 2 main unofficial law reports which report all areas of law, the Weekly Law Reports (W.L.R.) and the All England Reports (All E.R.). In addition there are a number of unofficial specialist law reports which focus on a particular area, e.g. the Entertainment and Media Law Reports (E.M.L.R.) or the Criminal Appeal Reports (Cr. App. R.). See the table below for a list of the most common current and past law reports.

Simple Examples

The case usually known by the short form Furniss v. Dawson has the official citation [1984] A.C. 474, meaning that its report begins on page 474 of the 1984 volume of the official "Appeal Cases" reports. The same case can also be cited as [1984] 2 W.L.R. 226, meaning that a report of it can also be found beginning at page 226 of the second volume from 1984 of the Weekly Law Reports.

The Internet

The growth of the internet has not affected the mode of citation in any way, as it has done in less conservative fields. There is no free-access database of UK case law, and most online research is done on the subscription commercial sites Justis and Lexis. Even on these sites, cases are organised, and cited, by the volume and page numbers of the paper law reports from which they are derived.

External links

[http://www.lexis.com/ Lexis] [http://www.justis.com/ Justis]

Canada

The standard case citation format in Canada is: The Style of Cause is italicized as in all other countries and the party names are separated by "v." (english) or "c." (french). Prior to 1984 the appellant party would always be named first. However, since then case names do not switch order when the case is appealed. Undisclosed parties to a case are represented by initials (eg. R. v. R.D.S.). Criminal cases are prosecuted by the Crown which is always represented by "R.". Constitutional references are always entitled "Reference Re" followed by the subject title. Usually either the year of the decision or the year of the reporter is cited, but not usually both. Only if they are different years can they both be cited at the same time. If they are the same, one should always use the reporter year.
Reporters

Neutral Citation
In 1999 the Canadian Judicial Council adopted a neutral citation standard for case law. The format provides a naming system that does not depend on the publication of the case a law report. The standard format look like this: There is a unique court identifier code for most courts. There are a few courts in Quebec and Ontario that have yet to adopt the system. A list of the court identifiers include:
Reference

- Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 5th edition (McGill Law Journal) ISBN 0-459-24042-0, ISBN 0-459-24068-4
- Canadian Citation Committee [http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ccc-ccr/neutr/index_en.htmlA Neutral Citation Standard for Case Law]
Australia
The standard case citation format in Australia is:
Reporters

Reference

- [http://mulr.law.unimelb.edu.au/aglc.asp Australian Guide to Legal Citation]
See also

- German legal citation
- Legal research
- :Category:Case law reporter
External links

- [http://www.aallnet.org/committee/citation/ucg/index.html American Association of Law Libraries Legal Citation Guide]
- [http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/ Introduction to Basic Legal Citation by Peter Martin] Category:Case law Category:Legal citation

United States Supreme Court

:"Scotus" redirects here. For the medieval theologian, see Duns Scotus ---- The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States of America. As such, the Court provides the leadership of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government. The Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Appointed to serve for life, they can only be removed by Congress through the impeachment process, although they may resign. No justice has ever been removed from office, though many have retired or resigned. The Supreme Court is the only court established by the United States Constitution; all other federal courts are created by Congress. The Court holds both original and appellate jurisdiction, but the latter is used quite a bit more often. Like other federal courts, the Supreme Court may exercise the power of judicial review, or the power to declare federal or state laws, as well as the actions of federal and state executives, unconstitutional. The decisions of the Supreme Court may not be appealed to any other body; as Justice Robert H. Jackson once famously remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." The Supreme Court meets in Washington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The court is sometimes referred to by the acronyms SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and USSC (United States Supreme Court).

History

The History of the Supreme Court is generally told in terms of the Chief Justices who have presided over it.
- Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.
- That changed forever during the Marshall Court (1801–1835), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison), and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the Constitutional balance of power between the Federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states.
- The Taney Court (1836–1864) made a number of important rulings (for example, Sheldon v. Sill, holding that, while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, the Constitution does not so restrain it where lower courts are concerned) but is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the case which may have helped precipitate the Civil War. In the years following the Civil War, the The Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) began to interpret the new civil war amendments to the Constitution, and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York; Adair v. United States); under the White and Taft courts (1910–1930), the substantive due process doctrine reached its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital; ), and the Court held that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states (Gitlow v. New York).
- During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation (see United States Supreme Court building, and radically changed its interpretation of the Constitution, in order to facilitate the New Deal (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish).
- The Warren Court (1953–1969) made a number of alternately celebrated and controversial rulings expanding the application of the Constitution to civil liberties, leading a rennaisance in substantive due process. It held that segregation was unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education), that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot have voluntary prayer (Engel v. Vitale) (or, a fortiori, mandatory bible readings, Abington School District v. Schempp), dramatically increased the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio; Miranda v. Arizona), wrote an equal protection clause into the Fifth Amendment, held that the states may not apportion a chamber of their legislatures in the manner in which the United States Senate is apportioned (Baker v. Carr; Reynolds v. Sims), and that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).
- The Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was a constitutional right (Roe v. Wade), reached muddled and controversial rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), that death penalty was unconstitutional (Furman v. Georgia) and then that the death penalty was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).
- The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) narrowed the focus of Roe v. Wade (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) but dramatically circumscribed the ability of states to regulate abortion (Stenberg v. Carhart), and began to limit the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause (United States v. Lopez; United States v. Morrison).

Composition

Size of the court

United States v. Morrison The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Court-packing Bill); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additonal, justice, for every justice who reached a pre-set age but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely recognized that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course to accommodate the President's desires (see The switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint a large number of Justices.

Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices

Per Article II §2 of the United States Constitution, the power to appoint Justices belongs to the President of the United States, acting with the advice and consent of the Senate. As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals that broadly share their ideological views. However, Presidents tend to exercise restraint, as nominees with views perceived as extreme may be blocked by the Senate (see List of Failed Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). In many cases, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Dwight D. Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. While the President may nominate anyone s/he chooses, the "advice and consent" of the Senate is required for appointment. The confirmation process often attracts considerable attention from special interest groups, many of whom lobby senators to confirm or to reject. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the nomination; a simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected only twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork. In 1991, Clarence Thomas' nomination was almost derailed by allegations of sexual harassment; Thomas was eventually confirmed by a vote of 52–48. In some cases, the Senate has defeated a nominee by failing to take a final vote on them, rather than by explicit rejection. For example, the minority may filibuster a nominee, indefinitely prolonging debate and refusing to permit a vote, or the nominee may simply not be reported out of the Judiciary Committee. Furthermore, the President may withdraw a nomination, for instance if he or she feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed. Most recently, President George W. Bush granted a request by Harriet Miers to withdraw her 2005 nomination, citing her concerns about Senate requests for access to internal White House documents during the confirmation process. While filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice may be an option to bar their nomination, no Supreme Court nominee has ever been filibustered when their nomination would seat them on the Court. As a sitting Associate Justice of the Court, Abe Fortas's nomination to become Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. President Johnson had nominated him to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after Earl Warren retired from the Court. Until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently rather quick. From Truman through Nixon, Justices were typically approved in a month. From Reagan through Clinton, the duration of the approval process extended to much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasing political role Justices play. When the Senate is in recess, the President is constitutionally authorized to make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. A recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office not for life, but only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, approximately two years). In order to continue to serve thereafter, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. In the history of the Supreme Court, two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices have received recess appointments. They were all subsequently confirmed for full terms with the exception of Chief Justice John Rutledge. The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (again, of course, unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean life. However, Justices may resign, retire into senior status, or be removed by impeachment and conviction (the last has never occurred). On average, a vacancy arises every two years; however, long stretches without any vacancies occur from time to time. For instance, no vacancy arose after Stephen Breyer's appointment in 1994 until Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement of her retirement from the Court in 2005—a period of eleven years. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence is often evaluated with respect to the service of a particular Chief Justice. Thus, for example, the Court between 1969 and 1986 is referred to as the "Burger Court" (after former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger) and the Court between 1986 and 2005 is referred to as the "Rehnquist Court" (after the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist).

Qualifications for membership

The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact it does not even specify citizenship or age as it does for the executive and legislative branches. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch—in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch. Nominees to the Supreme Court, as well as to lower federal courts, are evaluated by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. The panel is composed of fifteen federal judges (but not Supreme Court Justices), including at least one from each federal judicial circuit. The body assesses the nominee "solely to professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament," and offers a rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified." The opinions of the committee bind neither the President nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into account.

Other functions

Each Justice on the Supreme Court is assigned to at least one of the United States' thirteen judicial circuits. The Chief Justice is usually allotted to the District of Columbia Circuit, the Federal Circuit and the Fourth Circuit; each Associate Justice is allotted to one or two judicial circuits. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, each Justice was required to "ride circuit," or to travel within the assigned circuit and consider cases alongside local judges. This practice, however, encountered opposition from many Justices, who complained about the difficulty of travel. Moreover, several individuals opposed it on the grounds that a Justice could not be expected to be impartial in an appeal if he had previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding was abolished in 1891. Now, the duty of a Supreme Court Justice in this regard is limited to hearing emergency petitions in the relevant circuit and some other routine tasks like addressing certain requests for extensions of time.

Current membership

The current Justices of the United States Supreme Court, in order of seniority, are: During Court sessions, the Justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right: Ginsburg, Souter, Scalia, Stevens, Roberts, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas and Breyer (who has been the junior justice for 11 years, the third longest period in history between appointments of an Associate Justice). Justices Scalia and Thomas, the court's two Originalists are generally perceived as the Court's conservative wing. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are generally perceived as its liberal wing. Justices O'Connor and Kennedy are considered moderates and are hence the swing votes who often determine the outcomes of close cases. Chief Justice Roberts is generally thought to be in between Scalia and Thomas and the moderates, but has not been on the bench long enough for this to be ascertained. On July 1, 2005, Justice O'Connor announced that she would retire from the Supreme Court when her successor is nominated and confirmed. President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts to replace O'Connor on July 19, 2005; however, following the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist on September 3, he re-nominated Roberts as the new Chief Justice. The President subsequently nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to replace Justice O'Connor on October 3, 2005. Due to controversy, Miers withdrew her nomination on October 27, 2005. On October 31, 2005, President Bush nominated United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice O'Connor.

Ages of current justices

At the start of the 2005–2006 term, the ages of the justices were:

- Samuel A. Alito, Jr., nominated to replace Justice O'Connor, is 55 years old.

Quarters

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.] The Supreme Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home at One First Street Northeast, Washington, DC. The four-story building was designed in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol complex and Library of Congress by architect Cass Gilbert, and is clad in marble quarried chiefly in Vermont. The building includes space for the Courtroom, Justices' chambers, an extensive law library, various meeting spaces, and auxilliary services such as workshop, stores, cafeteria and a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force, separate from the Capitol Police

Jurisdiction

Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States. It provides: :The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the Eleventh Amendment, which forbade the federal courts from hearing cases "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, the Eleventh Amendment is not deemed to apply if a state consents to be sued (see Sovereign immunity. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may abrogate the states' immunity from lawsuits in certain circumstances. In addition to constitutional constraints, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is also limited by various federal laws. For example, the federal courts may consider "Controversies ... between Citizens of different States" only if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; otherwise, the case may only be brought in state courts (see diversity jurisdiction). The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states. The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are a variety of devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases. The Supreme Court may only hear actual cases and controversies. It does not hear moot cases or issue advisory opinions. However, the Supreme Court does often hear test cases, or cases specifically designed to test the constitutionality of a statute (rather than to merely redress a particular wrong). Many significant Supreme Court cases were test cases; examples include Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. Furthermore, the Court may consider some cases, such as Roe v. Wade, that become moot during the judicial process, if it appears that the legal issue involved is likely to arise again but would not be reviewable by the Court under a strict mootness analysis. "Roe" had already had her baby when the case came to the Supreme Court, because judicial activity (trials, appeals and so on) takes much longer than human gestation. Because future abortion cases would face the same time constraints, the Court decided the case in spite of its mootness. The Supreme Court is not required to hear every case presented to it. In cases that are heard by a three-judge United States district court (a practice that formerly was somewhat common but has been limited to very few cases by legislation in recent years), there is a right of appeal directly to the Supreme Court, although the Court may dispose of these appeals by summary order if it does not believe they are important enough for full briefing and argument. In most instances, however, the party must petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. By custom, certiorari is granted on the vote of four of the nine Justices. In most cases, the writ is denied; the Supreme Court normally only considers matters of national or constitutional importance. If the Court refuses to grant certiorari, it does not comment on the merits of the case; the decision of the lower court stands unchanged as if Supreme Court review had not been requested.

Procedure

Court reports and citation style

Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. Two other widely used citation formats exist: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyer's Edition, corresponding to two privately-published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S.Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyer's Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyer's Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906). Decisions of the Supreme Court are precedents that bind all lower courts, both federal and state. The Supreme Court generally respects its own precedents, but has in some cases overturned them.

Checks and balances

The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"; however, this quotation is likely apocryphal. State militia in the South also resisted to desegregate schools after the judgment Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950s. More recently, many feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to surrender the Watergate tapes, as he had been ordered to do by the Court in United States v. Nixon (1974). Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling. The Constitution provides that the salary of a Justice may not be diminished during his or her continuance in office. This clause was intended to prevent Congress from punishing Justices for their decisions by reducing their emoluments. Together with the provision that Justices hold office for life, this clause helps guarantee judicial independence. However, as seen above, the President's practice of appointing justices with similar real, perceived or expected ideology can be seen to compromise judicial independence.

References

- American Bar Association. (2002). [http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/backgrounder.html "The ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary: What It Is and How it Works."]
- Joan Biskupic and Elder Witt. (1997). Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
- [http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America The Constitution of the United States.]
- Kermit Hall, et al. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Harvard Law Review Assn., The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (17th Ed. 2000).
- Peter Irons. (2000). A People's History of the Supreme Court. New York: Penguin.
- Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906).
- William Rehnquist (1987). The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf.
- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States] (2005 ed.) (pdf).
- Catherine Hetos Skifos. [http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c01_e.html The Supreme Court Gets a Home]
- Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944).
- Charles Warren. (1924). The Supreme Court in United States History. (3 volumes). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
- Bob Woodward, and Scot Armstrong. (1979). The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster.
- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ The Supreme Court of the United States]
- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf The Court Building]

External links

- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html Supreme Court of the United States. Official Homepage.]
- [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html Legal Information Institute Supreme Court Collection.]
- [http://www.oyez.org Oyez Project Supreme Court Multimedia.]
- [http://www.justia.us US Supreme Court Decisions (v. 1+) Justia, Oyez and US Court Forms.]
- [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History.]
- [http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html FindLaw Supreme Court Opinions.]
- [http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/list.htm Supreme Court Justices.]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/court.htm Teaching about the United States Supreme Court. ERIC Digest.]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-2/court.htm Teaching about Landmark Dissents in United States Supreme Court Cases. ERIC Digest.]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-5/law.htm Teaching the Law Using United States Supreme Court Cases. ERIC Digest.]
- [http://www.supremecourthistory.org The Supreme Court Historical Society. Official Homepage.]
- [http://voteview.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm The Unidimensional Supreme Court.]
- [http://judgejohnroberts.com/ Supreme Court Zeitgeist.] Category:Judicial Branch of the United States Government Category:Article III tribunals United States, Supreme Court of the Category:Constitutional law ja:アメリカ連邦最高裁判所

Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)

Satmar (חסידות סאטמר) is a dynasty of Hasidic Judaism which originated in the Hungarian town of Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti in Hungarian), originally part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and presently located in Romania). Satmar is probably the largest Hasidic dynasty in existence today, but formal demographic comparisons with other Hasidim are not available. It is believed, however, to number close to 100,000 adherents. Members are referred to as Satmarer Hasidim.

Name

Some claim that the name of the town from which Satmar took its name, Satu Mare, means "Saint Mary". Some therefore call the town "Sakmer" so as not to use its "pagan" name. This, however, is a folk etymology. "Satu Mare" in fact means "large village," with the Romanian Satu ("village") deriving from the Latin fossatum, while Mare means "large" in Romanian.

History

Outline

- Rebbe Yisrael Baal Shem Tov - founder of Hasidism.
- Rebbe R' Ber - the Magid (Preacher) of Mezritch - disciple of the Baal Shem Tov.
- Rebbe R' Elimelech Lipman of Lizensk - Author of Noam Elimelech - disciple of the Magid of Mezritch.
- Rebbe Yaakov Yitzchak - the Chozeh (Seer) of Lublin - Author of Zichron Zos - disciple of Rebbe Elimelech of Lizensk.
-
- Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum of Ujhel - Author of Yismach Moshe - disciple of the Chozeh of Lublin.
-
- Rebbe Eleazer Nissan Teitelbaum of Drobitsch - son of the Yismach Moshe.
-
- Rebbe Yekusiel Yehudah Teitelbaum of Siget - author of Yetev Lev - son of Rebbe Eleazer Nissan.
-
- Rebbe Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum of Siget - author of Kedushas Yom Tov - son of the Yetev Lev.
-
-
- Rebbe Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar - author of Divrei Yoel and VaYoel Moshe - youngest son of the Kedushas Yom Tov.
-
-
- Rebbe Chaim Tzvi Teitelbaum of Siget - author of Atzei Chaim - eldest son of the Kedushas Yom Tov.
-
-
- Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum of Satmar - present Satmar Grand Rebbe - author of Berach Moshe - youngest son of the Atzei Chaim.
-
-
- Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum - Chief Rabbi of Satmar-Kiryas Joel - eldest son of the present Grand Rebbe.
-
-
- Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum - Chief Rabbi of Satmar-Williamsburg - third son of the present Grand Rebbe.

Background to the dynasty

The dynasty traces its roots to Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (1759-1841), Rebbe of Sátoraljaújhely (Ujhel), Hungary. Himself an adherent of the Polish Hasidic leader Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak of Lublin (the Chozeh of Lublin), Teitelbaum was instrumental in bringing Hasidic Judaism to Hungary. He authored the works Heishiv Moshe ("Moses Responded") and Yismach Moshe ("Moses Shall Rejoice"), and is commonly called by the title of the latter work. His descendants became leaders of the communities of Sighetu Marmaţiei (Sighet) and Satu Mare. Rabbi Joel (Yoel) Teitelbaum succeeded his father, Rabbi Hananiah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum, author of Kedushath Yom Tov, as Rebbe of Sighet, and later moved to Satmar in 1935, thereby merging the two houses of Sighet and Satmar under the name of Satmar. He authored responsa under the title Divrei Yoel and polemics (mainly against political Zionism) in VaYoel Moshe. Many Satmar Hasidim were murdered and dispersed during World War II and the Holocaust. In 1944, Teitelbaum was one of a small group of people whose release from Hungary was negotiated with Adolf Eichmann by the Slovakian rescue activist Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl. He was a passenger on the Katszner train bound for Switzerland, which was re-routed to Bergen-Belsen. After the war, Teitelbaum spent time in the displaced persons camp of Feldafing, where he offered support and encouragement to the many orphaned young people who survived the Holocaust. A large proportion of Holocaust survivors moved to the United States after World War II, where Teitelbaum established a huge community in Williamsburg. Teitelbaum's efforts to rebuilt the movement also resulted in the acquisition of land in upstate New York, which he named Kiryas Joel. Other Satmar communities sprang up in London and in Jerusalem, Israel. The Satmar Hasidic movement has become known for its social isolation from all forms of secular culture and for its opposition to all forms of religious, secular, and political Zionism. This opposition has at times led to comparisons and confusion with the Neturei Karta. Satmar's views were formulated and espoused by Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum and are maintained by Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum and his children. Unlike the Neturei Karta, Satmar does not support the PLO. Joel Teitelbaum was not survived by any children (his three daughters passed away in his lifetime). He was succeeded by his nephew, Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum, the present Rebbe. present

Aaron-Zalman Conflict

The Aaron-Zalman Conflict refers to an ongoing feud between two sons of the present Satmar rebbe, Moshe Teitelbaum, the oldest son, Aaron Teitelbaum, and the third-oldest, Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. Both brothers wish to succeed their father after his death, and have been jostling for power since 1999.

Important Books to the Satmar Sect

The main Hasidic books revered by the Satmar sect are Yismach Moshe, Yetev Lev, Kedushas Yom Tov, Divrei Yoel, Vayoel Moshe, Al HaGeulah V'Al HaTemurah, and Berach Moshe. The Satmar Rebbe was careful not to be particular about which books his Hasidim should learn because he did not want to exclude any Hasidic teachings, for he felt that all Hasidic books should be learnt. However he taught that the true way of the Baal Shem Tov has been forgotten. The teachings of the Chasam Sofer are also greatly revered in Satmar.

External links

- [http://hasidicnews.com/Satmar.shtml Roots of Satmar]
- [http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/satmar.htm Satmar Jews Against Zionism]
- [http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=satmar&page=1&lv=0 Videos of Satmar Rabbis and Hasidim]
- [http://www.famousrabbis.com/satmarrebbe.htm The Satmar Rebbe]
- [http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/rabbis/teitelbaum.htm Rav Yoel Teitelbaum - The Satmarer Rebbe]
- [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/02-Who-We-Are/section-12.html What is Satmar Chasidism]
- [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/marks_satmar.php3?printer_friendly Satmar's Sisters of Mercy]
- [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/reading-lists/chasidism/section-4.html Chassidic Approaches: Satmar Chassidism]
- [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/teitelbaum.cfm Satmar Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum]
- [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/bergenbelsen.cfm With Rabbi Teitelbaum in Bergen-Belsen]
- [http://satmar.biography.ms/ Satmar Biography]
- [http://tovrent.com/satmar/1%20Page.html Pictures and films of the Satmar Rebbe, zt"l]
-

Ultra-Orthodox

Haredi or Charedi Judaism, often also called ultra-Orthodox Judaism, is the most theologically conservative form of Orthodox Judaism. The term "ultra-Orthodox" is controversial, as it is often considered to be pejorative, and is rarely used by the Jews to whom it is applied; they generally prefer Haredi (חֲרֵדִי, a Hebrew term which is derived from Harada (fear, anxiety) and could be interperted as "one who trembles in awe of God"), Yeshivish, Torah Jew or Hasidic (in the case of Hasidic Jews). Haredi Jews, like other Orthodox Jews, consider their belief system and religious practices to extend in an unbroken chain back to Moses and the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. As a result they consider non-Orthodox denominations to be unjustifiable deviations from authentic Judaism.

Practices and beliefs

Views of halakha

One basic belief of the Orthodox community in general is that it is the latest link in a chain of Jewish continuity extending back to the giving of the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai. It believes that two guides to Jewish law were given to the Israelites at that time: the first, known as Torah she-bi-khtav, or the "Written Law" is the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) as we know it today; the second, known as Torah she-ba'al peh ("Oral Law"), is the exposition as relayed by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation. The traditional interpretation of the Oral Law is considered as the authoritative reading of the Written Law. Jewish law, known as halakha, includes codes of behavior applicable to virtually every imaginable circumstance (and many hypothetical ones), which have been pored over and developed throughout the generations in a constantly expanding collection of religious literature. The earliest written compilation of halakha, the Talmud, is considered authoritative. Halakha is a guide for everything the traditional Jew does from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to sleep. It is a body of intricate laws, combined with the reasoning on how such conclusions are reached. Halakha incorporates as rules many practices that began as customs, some passed down over the centuries, and an assortment of ingrained behaviors. It is the subject of intense study in religious schools known as yeshivas. Throughout history, halakha has addressed issues on the basis of circumstance and precedent. There have been some significant changes, including more formal education for women in the early twentieth century, and the application of halakha to modern technology. While Haredim have typically been more conservative than their Modern Orthodox counterparts regarding new practices and rulings on new applications of halakhic concepts, Orthodox Judaism views these types of innovations as consistent with traditionally expounded halakhic concepts. Haredi Orthodoxy's differences with Modern Orthodoxy usually lie in interpretation of the nature of traditional halakhic concepts and in understanding of what constitutes acceptable application of these concepts. Modern inventions have been studied and incorporated into the ever-expanding halakha, accepted by both Haredi and other Orthodox communities. For instance, rulings guide the observant about the proper use of electricity and other technology on the Jewish Sabbath and holidays. Most major points are the subject of consensus, although fine points are the subject of a greater range of opinions. While discussions of halakha are common and encouraged, laypersons are not authorized to make final determinations as to the applicability of the law in any given situation; the proviso is: "Consult your local Orthodox rabbi or posek (rabbinical authority)."

Lifestyle and family

Haredi life is fairly family-centered. Depending on various factors, both boys and girls attend school and proceed to higher Torah study, in a yeshiva or seminary ("sem") respectively, starting anywhere between the ages of 13 and 18. A significant proportion of students, especially boys, remain in yeshiva until marriage (typically through a shidduch, or facilitated dating), and many study in a kollel (Torah study institute for married men) - sometimes for many years. In many Haredi communities, higher secular education is discouraged, although some have educational facilities for vocational training or run professional programmes for men and women. Families tend to be large, reflecting adherence to the Torah commandment "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28, 9:1,7). Many Haredi poskim (authorities in Jewish law) have spoken out against watching television or films, reading secular newspapers and using the internet. Many feel that mobile phones should be programmed to disable internet and other functionality that could negatively influence their users.

Dress

Many members of the Haredi community still maintain styles of dress similar to those worn by their 18th and 19th century European ancestors. Many men wear beards, most dress in dark suits, virtually all wear a kippah at all times and generally a wide-brimmed hat (typically black) during prayer and outside. Women adhere to strict interpretations of tzeniut (modesty, particularly in dress), and hence wear long skirts and armsleeves, high necklines and a form of head covering when married (scarves, snoods, hats, or wigs). Hasidic men often follow the specific dress style of their group, which may include elegant frock coats (bekeshes), wide or high fur hats (shtreimels or spodiks) and generally a gartel (a long belt wrapped around the frock) during prayer.

History

Modern origins

For several centuries before the Emancipation of European Jewry, most of Europe's Jews were forced to live in closed communities, where their culture and religious observances persevered, no less because of internal pressure within their own community as because of the refusal of the outside world to accept them. In a predominantly Christian society, the only way for Jews to gain social acceptance was to convert, thereby abandoning all ties with one's own family and community. There was very little middle ground, especially in the ghetto, for people to negotiate between the dominant culture and the community. This began to change with the Enlightenment and calls by some European liberals to include the Jewish population in the emerging empires and nation states. For some Jews, it was an opportunity to escape the physical and psychological restraints imposed by the existence of the ghetto while benefiting from the enduring sense of community by finding some way of spanning the two worlds. In the words of a popular aphorism of the Enlightenment coined by Yehuda Leib Gordon, a person should be "a Jew in the home, and a mentsch (human being) in the street." Other Jews argued that the division between Jew and gentile had actually protected the Jews' religious and social culture; abandoning such divisions, they argued, would lead to the eventual abandonment of Jewish religion through assimilation. This latter group insisted that the appropriate response to the Enlightenment was to maintain strict adherence to traditional Jewish law and custom to prevent the disintegration of the community and ensure the survival of the Jewish people. The former group argued that Judaism had to "reform" itself in keeping with the social changes taking place around them. They were the forerunners of the Reform movement in Judaism. This group overwhelmingly assimilated into the surrounding culture. Even as the debate raged, the rate of integration and assimilation grew proportionately to the degree of acceptance of the Jewish population by the host societies. In other countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, acceptance (and integration) was much slower in coming. This was especially true in the Pale of Settlement, a region along Russia's western border including most of modern Poland, to which Jewish settlement in Russia was confined. Although Jews here did not win the same official acceptance as they did in Western and Central Europe, that same spirit of change pervaded the air, albeit in a local variant. Since it was impossible to gain acceptance by the dominant culture, many Jews turned to a number of different movements that they expected would offer hope for a better future. The predominant movement was socialism; other important alternatives were the cultural autonomists, including the Bund and the Zionists. These movements were not neutral on the topic of the Jewish religion: by and large, they entailed complete, not infrequently contemptuous, rejection of traditional religious and cultural norms. The traditionalists of Eastern Europe, who fought against the new movements emerging in the Jewish community, were the forebears of the contemporary Haredi movement.

Effects of the Holocaust

During this time, the emerging Haredi community was engaged in bitter debates with other developing Jewish communities, most notably those that denied the preeminence, or even relevance, of religion in Jewish life. Anecdotes abound: in one case, a reformer sent a leading rabbi a kosher cookie shaped like a pig, knowing that pork was a forbidden food in the Jewish religion. The rabbi responded by sending back a photograph with this note: "Thank you for your gift. You sent me a picture of you, so I am returning the favor in kind with a picture of me." The Holocaust brought a pause to the infighting. Until the rise of Nazism, Germany had been the major arena for the Enlightenment policies of acceptance and tolerance. Haredi leaders warned that "if the Jews do not make 'kiddush', the gentiles will make 'havdalah'." 'Kiddush' refers to the beginning ceremonies of the Shabbat, which sanctifies the day through joy and sets it apart from the mundane. 'Havdalah' refers to the ending ceremony, which mourns the departing of the holy as the darkness of the new week commences. Both words connote separation, kiddush meaning literally sanctification, and havdalah meaning separation. Anti-Semitism that had previously been supressed by legal and social factors, began to spread in the 1930's throughout most of Christian Europe with a fury against all Jews, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. For a time, in the face of destruction, Jews were able to overlook the differences between them as they faced a common enemy bent on their destruction. In the following years, however, the survivors were forced to come to grips with the theological implications of the catastrophe that had all but eradicated their communities. While they struggled to rebuild themselves, particularly in the United States and in Palestine (later Israel), they also attempted to understand why God had allowed such a disaster to befall them. This was coupled with the emergence of socialist Jewish nationalism, or Zionism, as a widely accepted, secular Jewish philosophy. Until that time, the Zionists were a small but vocal minority among the Jewish population of Eastern Europe. Suddenly, they experienced a tremendous growth, since settlement of the Land of Israel seemed to offer a viable response to the anti-Semitism that was still prevalent in Europe. The Haredi traditionalists had long rejected Zionism, partly because it was a predominantly anti-religious movement. Now, suddenly, the secular Zionists were in the process of achieving their goal of a Jewish homeland. Meanwhile, unable to return to their old homes in Europe and with quotas on Jewish immigration in the United States, that a Jewish homeland had necessarily become in some cases the only option for Haredi Jews. In effect, they were suddenly at the mercy of their most bitter opponents. However, they were not without their own leverage, including the sensitive fact that the longest-standing Jewish settlements in Palestine were, in fact, Haredi. It would have been easy for the Haredi community to explain the events of the 1930s-1950s as the direct result of most Jews abandoning their religious beliefs. In fact, some did; but the vast majority chose a more comforting approach, claiming that the Holocaust was a Divine act beyond human understanding. This allowed them to focus on rebuilding their communities, rather than to obsess on the past. There was, however, one stipulation to this approach: the martyred Eastern European past was idealized as a golden era of Jewish life. Within a generation, two vibrant new centers of Haredi life emerged: one in the United States, and the other in Israel, with smaller, somewhat less influential communities in England, Canada, France, Belgium, and Australia. As these communities became viable, independent entities, some of the old animosities between them and members of other Jewish groups began to resurface. This time, however, they were sharpened by the conviction on the part of Haredim that, as predicted, those groups' actions and prescriptions often lead to assimilation, thereby threatening the very idea of Jewish continuity. In the post-Holocaust era, that threat is perceived as being more real than ever.

Present day

Israel

In Israel, home to the most numerically powerful Haredi population, the situation is different. There, as in the United States, the community has adopted a policy of isolationism, but at the same time, it has also struggled for inclusion in dominant society, perceiving itself as the true protector of the country's Jewish nature. The issues date to the late nineteenth-early twentieth century, with the rise of Zionism. Until the Holocaust, the vast majority of Haredi Jews rejected Zionism for a number of reasons. Chief among these was the claim that Jewish political independence could only be obtained through Divine intervention, with the coming of the Messiah. Any attempt to force history was seen as an open rebellion against Judaism (see Neturei Karta for a more complete exposition of this ideology). Ironically, in this the Haredi Jews mirrored the Reform community, which, with few exceptions, rejected Zionism, since it called into question the loyalty that Jews should feel toward their native countries. More importantly, however, was the dislike that the political and cultural Zionism of the time felt toward any manifestation of religion. Spurred on by socialism, they taunted religion as an outdated relic, which should disappear (or, according to some extreme views, even be eradicated) in the face of Jewish nationalism. The Haredi Jews point out that even such liberals as Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, at one time contemplated the mass conversion of the Jews to Christianity as a means of eliminating anti-Semitism. As with the nineteenth century Reform Judaism movement in Germany, the result was mutual recriminations, rejection, and harsh verbal attacks. To Zionists, Haredi Jews were either "primitives" or "parasites"; to Haredi Jews, Zionists were heretics. This kulturkampf still plagues Israeli society today, where animosity between the two groups has even pervaded both their educational systems. Nevertheless, despite the animosity, it was necessary for the two groups to work out some modus vivendi in the face of a more dangerous enemy, first the Nazis, and then the neighboring Arab states. This was achieved by a division of powers and authority, based on the division that existed during the British Mandate in the country. Known as the "status quo," it granted political authority (such as control over public institutions, the army, etc.) to the Zionists and religious authority (such as control over marriage, divorce, conversions, etc.) to the Orthodox. A compromise worked out by Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson even before statehood ensured that public institutions accommodate the Orthodox by observing the Sabbath and providing kosher food. Another compromise, worked out between prime minister David Ben Gurion and Haredi leader Rabbi Abraham Yishayahu Karelitz (known as the Chazon Ish), promised that the government would exempt a group of religious scholars (at that time, 400) from compulsory military service so that they could pursue their studies. In fact, this "status quo" affected virtually all aspects of life, sometimes with bizarre results. For example, there are no buses on the Sabbath in Tel Aviv, though there are in Haifa, since Haifa had a large Arab population at the time of the British Mandate (though to this day, Haifa still has a proportionally larger Arab population and lower Haredi population than other cities within Israel). Finally, the Agudat Israel party representing the Haredi population was invited to participate in the governing coalition. It agreed, but did not appoint any ministers since that would have implied full acceptance of the legitimacy of non-religious actions taken by the government. In 2000, the "status quo" was still in place, despite marked changes to the society since independence. In fact, it is one of the major factors that has prevented modern Israel from enacting a written constitution. Signs of the first challenge to the status quo came in 1977, with the fall of the Labor government that had ruled Israel since independence and the formation of a rightwing coalition under Menachem Begin. Rightwing Revisionist Zionism had always been more acceptable to the Haredi, since it did not share the same history of antireligious rhetoric that marked socialist Zionism. Furthermore, Begin needed the Haredi members of the Knesset (Israel's unicameral parliament) to form his coalition and offered more power and benefits to their community than what they were accustomed to receiving, including a lifting of the numerical limit on military exemptions. They proved to be able politicians, using their new powers to increase their power base, thereby increasing their role even more. From a small group of just four members in the 1977 Knesset, they gradually increased the number of seats they control to 22 (out of 120) in the late 1990s. In effect, they controlled the balance of power between the country's two major parties. On the other hand, less orthodox Israelis (Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism who have always had a negligible presence in Israel), both began questioning whether a "status quo" based on the conditions of the 1940s and 1950 was still relevant in the 1980s and 1990s, and realized that they had the cultural and institutional support to enable them to change it regardless of its relevance. They challenged Orthodox control of personal affairs such as marriage and divorce, resented the lack of entertainment and transportation options on the Sabbath (then the country's only day of rest), and questioned whether the burden of military service was being shared equally, since the 400 scholars, who originally benefited from the exemption, had grown to 32,000. Finally, the Progressive (Reform) and Masorti (Conservative) communities, though still minuscule, began to exert themselves as an alternative to the Haredi monopoly on religious power. No one was happy with the "status quo," but while the Orthodox used their new-found political force to attempt to extend religious control, the non-Orthodox sought to reduce or even eliminate it. This situation was exacerbated still further by the rise of a strong Sephardic (Jews of North African and Middle Eastern descent) population with political aspirations of its own. Traditionally, the political elite in Israel consisted of European Jews, who founded the state. They were joined in the 1950 by entire communities of North African and Middle Eastern Jews (especially from Morocco, Iraq, Tunisia, Yemen, etc.), who were kept marginalized and encouraged (in some cases, even forced) to forego their traditional cultures for the dominant European one. There were protests, including a small but vocal "Black Panther" movement among unemployed Sephardic youth in the early 1970s, but the most effective voice for empowerment came from a small Haredi party named Shas, which split off from Agudat Yisrael in the early 1980s. With Sephardic disenfranchisement as its platform, it gained 17 of the 22 Haredi seats in the Knesset. Taking the attitude that restoring Sephardic pride entails restoring Sephardic religious observance, Shas has created devoted cadres of newly religious and semi-religious men and women with the zeal of neophytes and an animosity toward the country's European political establishment and occasionally, by extension, to all things Western. Furthermore, the movement has gained unflinching obedience in its supporters to the teachings of it spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef. The chief antagonist of the Haredi has been the Supreme Court, which, in ruling after ruling based largely on its own conceptions of democracy and progressivity, limited the power of Haredi community by granting equal powers to competing bodies. The most notable case of this is the "Who Is a Jew?" case, in which the Supreme Court Ruled that the Ministry of the Interior (then controlled by Shas) must recognize Reform and Conservative converts to Judaism. More recently, even the Orthodox Zionist establishment has come under attack by the Court, since it often allies itself with the Haredi in matters of control of municipal and national religious councils. In many instances, the Haredim have responded to these and other threats angrily, verbally assaulting those who challenge their hegemony. At the same time, they recognize the animosity many secular Israelis feel toward them and have embarked on various public relations campaigns and other media projects to improve their image among the general public. Nonetheless, they remain firmly entrenched in their seats of power, with both blocs doing everything they can to gain their support. Following the 2003 elections, the Haredi parties lost their place in the government to the ultra-secular Shinui party. In 2005 Shinnui left the government and Ariel Sharon brought the Haredi United Torah Judaism back into his ruling coalition. Shinui runs under the flag of stopping extra funding to mostly Haredi schools and resistance to Tal Law which gives legal status to their exemption from military service. Nevertheless, a few Haredi Jews choose to volunteer to serve in the IDF, in the Haredi Jewish battalion Netzah Yehuda. In recent years, there has been a process of reconciliation and a merging of Haredi Jews with Israeli society. While not compromising on religious issues and their strict code of life, Haredi Jews have become more open to the secular Israeli culture. Haredi Jews, such as satirist Kobi Arieli, publicist Sehara Blau and politician Israel Eichler write regularly to leading Israeli newspapers. Another important factor in the reconciliation process has been the activity of ZAKA - a voluntary rescue organization which provides emergency first response medical attention at suicide bombing scenes and rescues human remains found there to provide proper burial. Another important Haredi insititution of charity is Yad Sara, established by Uri Lupolianski (mayor of Jerusalem between 2003- ) in 1977. Yad Sara, the only Israeli institution of its kind, provides patients and the handicapped with medical equipment (such as wheelchairs) on loan for free, and it is open to all Israelis. Religious Zionists, mainly from the Mafdal and publicly-involved Haredi Jews are trying to bridge the gaps between secular Jews and Haredi Jews.

United States

While there has been a Haredi presence in the U.S. since the start of the 20th century, the various groups began to emerge as distinctive communities only in the 1950s, with the influx of refugees from the Holocaust in Eastern Europe, who quickly filled leadership positions. Before then, the distinctions that are now commonly made between Haredi and Modern Orthodox Jews were moot at best, dividing lines between the two camps can now be drawn, though it is important to recognize that there is a large area of gray between the two communities to this day. As the tides of Jewish immigrants to the United States in the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries became more settled and affluent, they looked to Europe to provide rabbis and other spiritual leaders and teachers for their emerging communities. While some rabbis accepted the challenge, a number of them returned to Europe soon after, frustrated by what they found in the United States. Unlike Eastern Europe, where Jews constituted a distinct minority group, the United States offered Jews an opportunity to blend into the dominant culture. Many of the new immigrants dropped their traditional customs and laws, both out of choice (the U.S. offered them a chance to escape the constraints of religious identity) or not (Jews refusing to work on the Sabbath were almost always fired at the end of the week; the large majority of those who desisted from working on Saturday had to face the formidable challenge of finding new work each week). The groups that arrived en masse after the Holocaust found a religious and social infrastructure already in place. While they also feared that their communities might assimilate into the mainstream of American society, they were also able to create more insular communities, devoid of all but the most necessary contacts with the surrounding society. As the communities became more affluent, they were able to assume more and more roles of the city and state for themselves. Today, there exist many autonomous communities in places such as Boro Park, Williamsburg and Crown Heights in Brooklyn, with their own economies, educational systems (yeshivos) welfare institutions and gemachs (free loan societies for everything from money to household items to tools to furniture), medical services (such as the Hatzolo ambulance corps), and security (the Shomrim neighborhood patrol). Some smaller, more isolationist groups actually founded their own small towns, such as New Square, New York and Kiryas Joel, New York patterned after the communities they left in Europe. There are still other, smaller communities in the cities of Lakewood, New Jersey, Passaic, New Jersey, Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, Valley Village, Baltimore, etc., which did not have all the established institutions of the dominant community in New York, but even they managed to put many of these institutions in place, thereby preserving their insularity. In recent years, tiny communities have also begun to appear in growing Sunbelt cities such as Dallas and Atlanta. With these in place, the communities were able to grow and flourish, both because of an extremely high birthrate (eight or more children is considered normal), and due to outreach programs geared toward other Jews. While some of the most insular communities regarded this as dangerous, since it could introduce unwanted ideas into the community, others, notably the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic movement embraced outreach with a passion, conducting nationwide campaigns to introduce their brand of Judaism to unaffiliated Jews, as well as to Jews of other affiliations. This helped ignite the Teshuvah Movement that now claims tens of thousands of new adherents to Haredi Judaism yearly. On the other hand, despite all their efforts at insularity, the Haredi leadership could not ignore the appeal of American life to their own youth. While certain few concessions to American society were made (for example, some groups allowed some of their children to pursue some higher education under certain circumstances), for the most part the response was to adopt an even more extreme approach to insularity. In effect, anything that might be perceived as threatening the cultural homogeneity of the community was disparaged, including newspapers, radio, and television. Instead, a regimen of total immersion in study was imposed on the younger generation. Some Haredi leaders, most notably Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer, realized that the communities could not be kept completely insular and established ways to connect to society without compromising on their intrinsic beliefs. In several instances, yeshivos such as Torah Vodaas, Chaim Berlin and Ner Israel started allowing the boys (or bochurim) to pursue a secular education while remaining in the yeshiva. This was helped in a big way by the establishment of Touro College by Rabbi Bernard Lander. A college based in New York City geared towards Haredi students seeking college degrees. One of the most noticeable things in Touro is the fact that the classes are separate for men and women to keep in line with strict Haredi lifestyles. Another, even greater threat, was seen in those Jewish groups that attempted to bridge the gap between the religious and secular worlds, since this was also perceived as potentially alluring to the youths of the community, including those who could not perceive of a total break from their Jewish upbringing. Reform, Conservative, and even Modern Orthodox Judaism were seen as potentially threatening to the very continuity of the community. In the case of Reform, this animosity could be traced to the early nineteenth century in Germany, where Reform and Traditional groups were in open conflict over control of the communities. At that time, both groups attacked each other incessantly in the struggle for hegemony over the Jewish community. Until most recently, the Reform movement felt secure and was not leveling the same attacks on the Orthodox. In many instances, they sought ways to cooperate on common issues, hoping to consume the smaller community. To the Haredi, however, they were seen as a steppingstone to assimilation, to be disparaged and discouraged within their own communities. The old rhetorical attacks of two centuries earlier were revived and extended to the Conservative community as well. Their practices, which were not in keeping with Orthodox traditions, were similarly reviled. For many Haredi groups, this created an interesting paradox. On the one hand, Conservative and Reform Jews are classic targets of extensive outreach programs, conducted out of a "deep love and concern" for the "spiritual well-being" of other Jews; on the other hand, their religious practices and often their leaders are denigrated and condemned. It is this paradox that defines the Haredi community's relationship to the larger Jewish community to this day. The problem is even more complicated, when considering their position vis à vis the Modern Orthodox community. There is a mutual dependency between the two communities: the Modern Orthodox generally respect and adhere to the religious rulings of the Haredi leadership, while the Haredi often depend on university trained Modern Orthodox professionals to provide for needs that members of their own community cannot. For example, since there are so few Haredi doctors, the community will prefer to go to a Modern Orthodox doctor, since he or she will have a better understanding of the implications of the treatment in Jewish law (halakha). Furthermore, Haredi rabbis will consult with Modern Orthodox doctors before issuing rulings on medical procedures (an example of this is on issues relating to the precise moment of death). Nevertheless, the leadership is unwilling to accept the liberalism of their Modern Orthodox colleagues. In some cases, Modern Orthodoxy is perceived as balancing precariously on a very narrow wire between the Jewish and secular worlds: a tenable but, to the Haredi, unnecessary position. In other cases, Modern Orthodox leaders are considered to have passed the bounds of religious propriety and condemned for this in especially harsh, biblical terms, since those leaders, unlike Reform and Conservative rabbis, are believed to have the requisite learning and should have known better. None of these fights, however, no matter how sharp the discourse, has the same intensity as earlier arguments that led to or threatened real schisms among the Jewish people. For instance, with the rise of Hassidism, Rabbi Elijah of Vilna declared that his followers must not marry Jews adhering to the hassidic movement (the ruling was never put into practice). While, as tensions mount between Haredi and other Jews, the possibility of such a schism exists, the leadership of all the factions involved have taken care to prevent a complete break, while respecting the desire of the Haredi for autonomy and separatism. And there is common ground too, especially in the field of learning. It is not uncommon for Haredi scholars to take advantage of the vast library holdings, including rare manuscripts, in the libraries of Yeshiva University (Modern Orthodox), the Jewish Theological Seminary (Conservative), and Hebrew Union College (Reform).

United Kingdom

In the UK, the largest Haredi communities are located in London (Stamford Hill, Golders Green), Manchester (Salford and Prestwich) and Gateshead. The majority of UK Haredim descend from Eastern-European immigrants. Its main organisational body is the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations (UOHC).

Organisations

Haredi Jewish groups include:
- United Torah Judaism - Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox party
- Shas - Mizrahi Sefardi ultra-orthodox party
- Agudath Israel of America
- Hasidic Jewish groups such as: Chabad Lubavitch, Satmar, Belz, Bobov, Boston, Ger, Vizhnitz, Breslov, Pupa, Boyan, Munkacz, and Rimnitz.

Rabbinical leaders

- The Baal Shem Tov (18th century founder of Hasidism)
- The Vilna Gaon (founder of the mitnagdim (originally of Lithuania)
- Rabbi Chaim of Volozhim (19th century founder of the Lithuanian yeshivoth)
- Rabbi Moses Sofer (18th-19th century leader of Eastren European ultra-Orthodox)
- Rabbis of the Gerrer Hasidim (originally Poland, now Israel)
- Rabbis of Lubavitch
- Rabbi Avraham Yishayahu Karelitz (leader of Haredim in Israel)
- Rabbi Aharon Kotler (founder of the Lakewood yeshivas in America)
- Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (leader of Israeli Sephardi Haredim)
- Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (present-day leader of Israel's Haredim)

External link

- [http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/363_Transp/08_Orthodoxy.html Varieties of Orthodox Judaism] (Prof. Eliezer Segal at the University of Calgary) Category:Orthodox Judaism

Jewish

Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. It is one of the first recorded monotheistic faiths and one of the oldest religious traditions still practiced today. The tenets and history of Judaism are the major part of the foundation of other Abrahamic religions, including Christianity and Islam. Over at least the last two thousand years, Judaism has not been monolithic in practice, and has not had any centralized authority or binding dogma. Despite this fact, Judaism in all its variations has remained tightly bound to a number of religious principles, the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, transcendent God who created the universe, and continues to be involved in its governance. According to Jewish thought, the God who created the world established a covenant with the Jewish people, and revealed his laws and commandments to them in the form of the Torah. Jewish practice is devoted to the study and observance of these laws and commandments, as they are interpreted according to various ancient and modern authorities. Judaism does not easily fit into conventional western categories, such as religion, ethnicity, or culture, in part because of its 4,000-year history. During this time, Jews have experienced slavery, anarchic self-government, theocratic self-government, conquest, occupation, and exile; they have been in contact with, and have been influenced by, ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenic cultures, as well as modern movements such as the Enlightenment (see Haskalah) and the rise of nationalism. Thus, Talmud professor Daniel Boyarin has argued that "Jewishness disrupts the very categories of identity, because it is not national, not genealogical, not religious, but all of these, in dialectical tension."

Introduction

dialectic.]] According to both traditional Jews and critical historical scholars, a number of qualities distinguish Judaism from the other religious cults that existed when it first emerged. One characteristic was monotheism. The significance of this idea, according to critical historian Yehezkal Kaufman, lies in that Judaism holds that God created, and cares about, humankind. In polytheistic religions, humankind is often created by accident, and the gods are primarily concerned with their relations with other gods, not with people. Second, the Torah specifies a number of commandments to be followed by the Children of Israel. Other religions at the time were characterized by temples in which priests would worship their gods through sacrifice. The Children of Israel similarly had a temple, priests, and made sacrifices -— but these were not the sole means of worshiping God.

Monotheism

Critical scholars argue as to when the notion of monotheism arose in Judaism. Orthodox Jews claim that it is expressed directly in Torah (the Hebrew Bible), where God incorporates it into the Ten Commandments: "...I am the Lord your God. Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship". Thus the belief in the existence of God, that God exists for all time, that God is the sole creator of all that exists, that God determines the course of events in this world, is the foundation of the Judaistic religion: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..." To turn from these beliefs is to deny God and the essence of Judaism, according to the Jewish understanding of the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, one is required to believe in God and God alone. This prohibits belief in or worship of any additional deities, gods, spirits or incarnations. The idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical for Jews to hold; it is considered akin to polytheism. To deny the uniqueness of God, is to deny all that is written in the Torah: "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above." It is also a prohibition against making or possessing objects that one or other may bow down to or serve, such as crucifixes or icons, and any forms of paintings or artistic representations of God. One must not bow down to or serve any being or object but God. (See Ten Commandments#Jewish interpretation) The significance of the idea is that an omniscient and omnipotent God created humankind as recorded in the Book of Genesis, in the Creation according to Genesis starting with the very first verse of Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," a marked contrast with polytheistic religions in which the gods are limited by their preoccupation with personal desires irrelevant to humankind, by their limited powers, or by the interference of other powers. In Judaism, God is unlimited, fully capable, and fully available to care for Creation.

Practical worship and the laws

Second, the Torah (i.e., The Hebrew Bible) specifies a number of laws, known as the 613 mitzvot, to be followed by the Children of Israel. Other religions at the time were characterized by temples in which priests would worship their gods through sacrifice. The Children of Israel similarly had a Temple in Jerusalem, a caste of priests, and made sacrifices — but these were not the sole means of worshipping God. As a matter of practical worship (in comparison to other religions) Judaism seeks to elevate everyday life to the level of the ancient Temple's worship by worshipping God through the spectrum of daily activities and actions. It has traditionally maintained that this is how the individual would merit rewards in the afterlife, called gan eden (Hebrew: "Garden of Eden") or olam haba ("World to Come"), though Judaism does not have a single concept of the afterlife, nor is the afterlife the focus of Jewish practice.

Traditional view of the development of Judaism

olam haba portion of the Tanakh, decorate the Dura-Europos synagogue dating from 244 CE]] The subject of the Hebrew Bible is an account of the Israelites' (also called Hebrews) relationship with God as reflected in their history from the beginning of time until the building of the Second Temple (ca. 350 BCE). This relationship is generally portrayed as contentious, as Jews struggle between their faith in God and their attraction for other gods, and as some Jews (most notably and directly, Abraham, Jacob -- later known as Israel—and Moses) struggle with God. According to Orthodox Judaism and most religious Jews, the Biblical patriarch Abraham was the first Hebrew. Rabbinic literature records that he was the first to reject idolatry and preach monotheism. As a result, God promised he would have children: "Look now toward heaven and count the stars/So shall be your progeny." (Genesis 15:5) Abraham's first child was Ishmael and his second son was Isaac, whom God said would continue Abraham's work and inherit the Land of Israel (then called Canaan), after having been exiled and redeemed. God sent the patriarch Jacob and his children to Egypt, where after many generations they became enslaved. Then God sent Moses to redeem the Israelites from slavery, and after the Exodus from Egypt, God led the Jews to Mount Sinai and gave them the Torah, eventually bringing them to the land of Israel. God designated the descendants of Aaron, Moses' brother, to be a priestly class within the Israelite community. They first officiated in the tabernacle (a portable house of worship), and later their descendants were in charge of worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. Once the Jews had settled in the land of Israel, the tabernacle was planted in the city of Shiloh for over 300 years during which time God provided great men, and occasionally women, to rally the nation against attacking enemies, some of which were sent by God as a punishment for the sins of the people. This is described in the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges. As time went on, the spiritual level of the nation declined to the point that God allowed the Philistines to capture the tabernacle in Shiloh. The people of Israel then told Samuel the prophet that they had reached the point where they needed to be governed by a permanent king, as were other nations, as described in the Books of Samuel. Samuel grudgingly acceded to this request and appointed Saul, a great but very humble man, to be their King. When the people pressured Saul into going against a command conveyed to him by Samuel, God told Samuel to appoint David in his stead. Once King David was established, he told the prophet Nathan that he would like to build a permanent temple, and as a reward for his actions, God promised David that he would allow his son to build the temple and the throne would never depart from his children (David himself was not allowed to build the temple because he had been involved in many wars, making it inappropriate for him to build a temple representing peace). As a result, it was David's son Solomon who built the first permanent temple according to God's will, in Jerusalem, as described in the Books of Kings. Books of Kings is all that is known to remain of the Second Temple. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.]] After Solomon's death, his Kingdom was split into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. After several hundred years, because of rampant idolatry, God allowed Assyria to conquer Israel and exile its people. The southern Kingdom of Judah, whose capital was Jerusalem, home of the Temple, remained under the rulership of the House of David, however, as in the north, idolatry increased to the point that God allowed Babylonia to conquer the Kingdom, destroy the Temple which had stood for 410 years, and exile its people to Babylonia, with the promise that they would be redeemed after seventy years. These events are recorded in the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Jeremiah. After seventy years the Jews were allowed back into Israel under the leadership of Ezra, and the Temple was rebuilt, as recorded in the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah. The Second Temple stood for 420 years, after which it was destroyed by the Roman general (later emperor) Titus. The Jewish temple is to remain in ruins until a descendant of David arises to restore the glory of Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The Torah given on Mount Sinai was summarized in the five books of Moses. Together with the books of the prophets it is called the Written Torah. The details and interpretation of the law, which are called the Oral Torah or oral law were originally unwritten. However as the persecutions of the Jews increased and the details were in danger of being forgotten, rabbinic tradition holds that these oral laws were recorded in the Mishnah, and the Talmud, as well as other holy books.

Critical historical view of the development of Judaism

Although monotheism is fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism, many critical Bible scholars claim that certain verses in the Torah imply that the early Israelites accepted the existence of other gods, while viewing their God as the sole Creator, whose worship is obligated (a rather henotheistic point of view). According to them, it was only by the Hellenic period that most Jews came to believe that their God was the only God (and thus, the God of everyone), and that the record of His revelation (the Torah) contained within it universal truths. They posit that this attitude reflected a growing Gentile interest in Judaism (some Greeks and Romans considered the Jews a most "philosophical" people because of their belief in a God that cannot be represented visually), and growing Jewish interest in Greek philosophy, which sought to establish universal truths, thus leading - potentially - to the idea of monotheism, at least in the sense that "all gods are One". According to this theory, Jews began to grapple with the tension between their claims of particularism (that only Jews were required to obey the Torah), and universalism (that the Torah contained universal truths). The supposed result is a set of beliefs and practices concerning identity, ethics, and the relationships between man and nature and man and God that examine and privilege "differences" — for example the difference between Jews and non-Jews; the local differences in the practice of Judaism; a close attention, when interpreting texts, to difference in the meanings of three words; attempts to preserve and encode different points of view within texts, and a relative avoidance of creed and dogma. In contrast to the Orthodox religious view of the Hebrew Bible, critical biblical scholars also suggest that the Torah consists of a variety of inconsistent texts that were edited together in a way that calls attention to divergent accounts (see Documentary hypothesis).

Religious doctrine and Principles of Faith

While Judaism has always affirmed a number of Jewish principles of faith, no creed, dogma, set of orthodox beliefs, or fully-binding "catechism," is recognized, an approach to religious doctrine that dates back at least two thousand years and that makes generalizations about Jewish theology somewhat difficult. While individual rabbis, congregations, or movements have at times agreed upon a firm dogma, generally other rabbis and groups have disagreed, and because there is explicitly no central religious authority, no specific formulation of Jewish principles of faith could take precedence over any other. In attempting to define who is a Jew, the ancient historian Josephus emphasized practices and traditions rather than religious beliefs, associating apostasy with a failure to observe traditional customs, and suggesting the requirements for conversion to Judaism included circumcision and adherence to traditional customs. Notably, in Orthodox Judaism some principles of faith (e.g., the Divine origin of the Torah) are considered important enough that public rejection of them can put one in the category of "apikoros" (heretic). Over the centuries, a number of clear formulations of Jewish principles of faith have appeared, many with common elements, though they differ in certain details, and comparisons demonstrate a wide variety of tolerance for varying theological perspectives. Of these formulations, the one most widely considered authoritative is Maimonides' thirteen principles of faith:
- God is one - strict unitarian monotheism, in which the eternal creator of the universe is the source of morality.
- God is all powerful (omnipotent), as well as all knowing (omniscient), and the different names of God are ways to express different aspects of God's presence in the world (see also: Names of God in Judaism).
- God is non-physical, non-corporeal, and eternal. All statements in the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic literature which use anthropomorphism are held to be linguistic conceits or metaphors, as it would otherwise be impossible to talk about God.
- One may offer prayer to God alone — any belief in an intermediary between man and God, either necessary or optional, has traditionally been considered heretical.
- The Hebrew Bible, and much of the beliefs described in the Mishnah and Talmud, are held to be the product of divine revelation. How revelation works, and what precisely one means when one says that a book is "divine", has always been a matter of some dispute. Different understandings of this subject exist among Jews.
- The words of the prophets are true.
- Moses was the chief of all prophets.
- The Torah (five books of Moses) is the primary text of Judaism.
- God will reward those who observe His commandments, and punish those who violate them.
- God chose the Jewish people to be in a unique covenant with Him (see also: Jews as a chosen people).
- There will be a moshiach (Jewish Messiah), or perhaps a messianic era.
- The soul is pure at birth, and human beings have free will, with an innate yetzer ha'tov (a tendency to do good), and a yetzer ha'ra (a tendency to do bad).
- People can atone for sins through words and deeds, without intermediaries, through prayer, repentance, and tzedakah (dutiful giving of charity), if accompanied by a sincere decision to cease unacceptable actions and if appropriate amends to others are honestly undertaken, always providing a "way back" to God. (see also: Jewish views of sin)

The traditional Jewish bookshelf

Jewish views of sin.]] Jews are often called a "People of the Book," and Judaism has an age-old intellectual tradition focusing on text-based Torah study. The following is a basic, structured list of the central works of Jewish practice and thought. For more detail, see Rabbinic literature.
- The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and Jewish bible study, which include:
- Mesorah
- Targum
- Jewish Biblical exegesis (also see Midrash below)
- Works of the Talmudic Era (classic rabbinic literature)
- The Mishnah and its commentaries
- The Tosefta and the minor tractates
- The Talmud:
- The Jerusalem Talmud and its commentaries
- The Babylonian Talmud and its commentaries Babylonian Talmud]
- Midrashic literature:
- Halakhic Midrash
- Aggadic Midrash
- Halakhic literature
- The Major Codes of Jewish Law and Custom
- The Mishneh Torah and its commentaries
- The Tur and its commentaries
- The Shulhan Arukh and its commentaries
- Other books on Jewish law and custom
- The Responsa literature
- Jewish Thought and Ethics
- Jewish philosophy
- Kabbalah
- Hasidic works
- Jewish ethics and the Mussar Movement
- The Siddur and Jewish liturgy
- Piyyut (Classical Jewish poetry) Related Topics
- Torah databases (electronic versions of the Traditional Jewish Bookshelf)
- List of Jewish Prayers and Blessings

Jewish Law and interpretation

The basis of Jewish law and tradition ("halakha") is the Torah (the five books of Moses). According to rabbinic tradition there are 613 commandments in the Torah. Some of these laws are directed only to men or to women, some only to the ancient priestly groups, the Kohanim and Leviyim (members of the tribe of Levi), some only to those who practice farming within the land of Israel. Many laws were only applicable when the Temple in Jerusalem existed, and fewer than 300 of these commandments are still applicable today. While there have been Jewish groups which claimed to be based on the written text of the Torah alone (e.g., the Sadducees, and the Karaites), most Jews believed in what they call the oral law. These oral traditions were transmitted by the Pharisee sect of ancient Judaism, and were latter recorded in written form and expanded upon by the rabbis. Rabbinic Judaism has always held that the books of the Tanakh (called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. To justify this viewpoint, Jews point to the text of the Torah, where many words are left undefined, and many procedures mentioned without explanation or instructions; this, they argue, means that the reader is assumed to be familiar with the details from other, i.e., oral, sources. This parallel set of material was originally transmitted orally, and came to be known as "the oral law". By the time of Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi (200 CE), after the destruction of Jerusalem, much of this material was edited together into the Mishnah. Over the next four centuries this law underwent discussion and debate in both of the world's major Jewish communities (in Israel and Babylonia), and the commentaries on the Mishnah from each of these communities eventually came to be edited together into compilations known as the two Talmuds. These have been expounded by commentaries of various Torah scholars during the ages. Halakha, the rabbinic Jewish way of life, then, is based on a combined reading of the Torah, and the oral tradition - the Mishnah, the halakhic Midrash, the Talmud and its commentaries. The Halakha has developed slowly, through a precedent-based system. The literature of questions to rabbis, and their considered answers, is referred to as responsa (in Hebrew, Sheelot U-Teshuvot.) Over time, as practices develop, codes of Jewish law are written that are based on the responsa; the most important code, the Shulkhan Arukh, largely determines Jewish religious practice up to today.

What makes a person Jewish?

According to Jewish law, someone is considered to be a Jew if he or she was born of a Jewish mother or converted in accord with Jewish Law. (Recently, the American Reform and Reconstructionist movements have included those born of Jewish fathers and gentile mothers, if the children are raised practicing Judaism only.) All mainstream forms of Judaism today are open to sincere converts. A Jew who ceases to practice Judaism is still considered a Jew, as is a Jew who does not accept Jewish principles of faith and becomes an agnostic or an atheist; so too with a Jew who converts to another religion. However, in the latter case, the person loses standing as a member of the Jewish community and becomes known as an apostate. In the past, family and friends were said often to formally mourn for the person, though this is rarely done today. The question of what determines Jewish identity was given new impetus when, in the 1950s, David ben Gurion requested opinions on mihu Yehudi ("who is a Jew") from Jewish religious authorities and intellectuals worldwide. The question is far from settled and occasionally resurfaces in Israeli politics.

Jewish philosophy

Jewish philosophy refers to the conjunction between serious study of philosophy and Jewish theology. Major Jewish philosophers include Solomon ibn Gabirol, Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, and Gersonides. Major changes occurred in response to the Enlightenment (late 1700s to early 1800s) leading to the post-Enlightenment Jewish philosophers, and then modern Jewish philosophers such as Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Mordecai Kaplan, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Will Herberg, Emmanuel Levinas, Richard Rubenstein, Emil Fackenheim, and Joseph Soloveitchik.

Jewish denominations

Over the past two centuries the Jewish community has divided into a number of Jewish denominations; each has a different understanding of what principles of belief a Jew should hold, and how one should live as a Jew. To some degree, these doctrinal differences have created schisms between the Jewish denominations. Nonetheless, there is some level of Jewish unity. For example, it would not be unusual for a Conservative Jew to attend either an Orthodox or Reform synagogue, for example. The article on Relationships between Jewish religious movements discusses how different Jewish denominations view each other.
- Orthodox Judaism holds that the Torah was written by God and dictated to Moses, and that the laws within it are binding and unchanging. Orthodox Jews generally consider a 16th century CE law code, the Shulkhan Arukh, to be the definitive codification of Jewish law, and assert a continuity between pre-Enlightenment Judaism and modern-day Orthodox Judaism. Most of Orthodox Judaism holds to one particular form of Jewish theology, based on Maimonides' 13 principles of Jewish faith. Orthodox Judaism broadly (and informally) shades into two main styles, Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism. The philosophical distinction is generally around accommodation to modernity and weight placed on non-Jewish disciplines, though in practical terms the differences are often reflected in styles of dress and rigor in practice.
- Modern Orthodox is a common traditional form of Judaism, which has a broad respect for historic traditions, and practices, and worship and belief in traditional form.
- Haredi Judaism is a very conservative form of Judaism, sometimes also known as "ultra-orthodox".
- Hasidic Judaism is a sub-set of Haredi Judaism. Hasidic Judaism community, the most theologically conservative form of Judaism.]]
- Conservative Judaism developed in Europe and the United States in the 1800s, as Jews reacted to the changes brought about by the Enlightenment and Jewish emancipation. It is characterized by a commitment to following traditional Jewish laws and customs, including observance of Shabbat and Kashrut; a deliberately non-fundamentalist teaching of Jewish principles of faith; a positive attitude toward modern culture; an acceptance of both traditional rabbinic modes of study and modern scholarship and critical text study when considering Jewish religious texts.
- It teaches that Jewish law was not static, but rather has always developed in response to changing conditions.
- It holds that the Torah is a divine document written by prophets inspired by God, but rejects the Orthodox position that it was dicated by God to Moses. Similarly, Conservative Judaism holds that Judaism's oral law is divine and normative, but rejects some Orthodox interpretations of the oral law.
- Progressive Judaism is composed of multiple movements in several countries. :
- Reform Judaism, called Liberal or Progressive in many countries, originally formed in Germany in response to the Enlightenment. (Note that in the United Kingdom, there are two distinct congregational unions, Reform and Liberal. The former is significantly more traditional than the latter, but both hold to essentially the same theoretical position.) Its defining characteristic with respect to the other movements is its rejection of the binding nature of Jewish law as such and instead believing that individual Jews should exercise an informed autonomy about what to observe. Reform Judaism initially defined Judaism as a religion, rather than as a race or culture; rejected the ritual prescriptions and proscriptions of the Torah; and emphasized the ethical call of the Prophets. Reform Judaism developed a prayer service in the vernacular, and emphasized personal connection to Jewish tradition over specific forms of observance. Today, many Reform congregations have returned to Hebrew prayers and encourage some degree of legal observance. Prophets :
- Reconstructionist Judaism started as a stream of philosophy by a rabbi within Conservative Judaism, and later became an independent movement emphasizing reinterpreting Judaism for modern times. Like Reform Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism does hold not that Jewish law, as such, requires observance, but unlike Reform, Reconstructionist thought emphasises the role of the community in deciding what observances to follow.
- Humanistic Judaism. A small nontheistic movement that emphasizes Jewish culture and history as the sources of Jewish identity. Founded by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, it is centered in North America but has adherents in Europe, Latin America, and Israel. (Nota bene, since "Humanistic Judaism" rejects the ethical monotheism that is seen as the essence of Judaism by other movements, its inclusion as a Jewish denomination is highly controversial. Confer "Messianic Judaism".) Many religious Jews do not look at one's denomination as a valid way of designating Jews; instead they view Jews by the level of their religious observance. According to most Orthodox Jews, Jewish people who do not keep the laws of Shabbat and Yom Tov (the holidays), Kashrut, and family purity are considered non-religious. Any Jew who keeps at least those laws would be considered observant and religious.

Jewish denominations in Israel

Even though all of these denominations exist in Israel, Israelis tend to classify Jewish identity in ways that are different than diaspora Jewry. Most Jewish Israelis classify themselves as "secular" (hiloni), "traditional" (masorti), "religious" (dati) or Haredi. The term "secular" is more popular as a self-description among Israeli families of western (European) origin, whose Jewish identity may be a very powerful force in their lives, but who see it as largely independent of traditional religious belief and practice. This portion of the population largely ignores organized religious life, be it of the official Israeli rabbinate (Orthodox) or of the liberal movements common to diaspora Judaism (Reform, Conservative). The term "traditional" (masorti) is most common as a self-description among Israeli families of "eastern" origin (i.e., the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa). This term, as commonly used, has nothing to do with the official Masorti (Conservative) movement. There is a great deal of ambiguity in the ways "secular" and "traditional" are used in Israel. They often overlap, and they cover an extremely wide range in terms of ideology and religious observance. The term "Orthodox" (Ortodoxi) is unpopular in Israeli discourse (among both "secular" and "religious" alike). Nevertheless, the spectrum covered by "Orthodox" in the diaspora exists in Israel, again with some important variations. The "Orthodox" spectrum in Israel is a far greater percentage of the Jewish population in Israel than in the diaspora, though how much greater is hotly debated. Various ways of measuring this percentage, each with its pros and cons, include the proportion of religiously observant Knesset members, the proportion of Jewish children enrolled in religious schools, and statistical studies on "identity". What would be called "Orthodox" in the diaspora includes what is commonly called dati (religious) or haredi (ultra-Orthodox) in Israel. The former term includes what is called "Religious Zionism" or the "National Religious" community, as well as what has become known over the past decade or so as haredi-leumi (nationalist haredi), or "Hardal," which combines a largely haredi lifestyle with nationalist ideology. Haredi applies to a populace that can be roughly divided into three separate groups along both ethnic and ideological lines: (1) "Lithuanian" (non-hasidic) haredim of Ashkenazic origin; (2) Hasidic haredim of Ashkenazic origin; and (3) Sephardic haredim. The third group is the largest, and has been the most politically active since the early 1990s.

Karaism

Unlike the above denominations, which were ideological reactions that resulted from the exposure of traditional rabbinic Judaism to the radical changes of modern times, Karaite Judaism did not begin as a modern Jewish movement. The followers of Karaism believe they are the remnants of the non-Rabbinic Jewish sects of the Second Temple period, such as the Saducees, though others contend they are a sect started in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Karaites, or "Scripturalists," accept only the Hebrew Bible and what they view as the Peshat: "Plain or Simple Meaning"; and do not accept non-biblical writings as authoritative. Some European Karaites do not see themselves as part of the Jewish community, while most do. It is interesting to note that the Nazis often did not associate Karaites with Jews, and therefore several Karaite communities were spared in WWII and exist to this day even in places such as Lithuania where Jewish communities were completely devastated. In other areas, such as Greece, the Nazis deemed Karaites as belonging to a greater Jewish tradition and abused them accordingly. The main article Jewish views of religious pluralism describes how Judaism views other religions; it also describes how members of each of the Jewish religious denominations view the other denominations.

Jewish prayer and practice

Prayers

Jewish views of religious pluralism shawl. The prayer box strapped to his forehead and arm are tefillin. His uncut sidecurls are payot.]] There are three main daily prayer services, named Shacharit, Mincha (literally: "flour-offering") and Maariv or Arvit. All services include a number of benedictions called the Amidah or the Shemonah Esrei ("eighteen"), which on weekdays consists of nineteen blessings (one was added in the time of the Mishna, but the name remains). Another key prayer in many services is the declaration of faith, the Shema which is recited at shacharit and maariv. Most of the prayers in a traditional Jewish service can be said in solitary prayer, but Kaddish and Kedusha require a group of ten adult men (or men and women in some branches of Judaism) called a minyan (prayer quorum). There are also prayers and benedictions recited throughout the day, such as those before eating or drinking. There are a number of common Jewish religious objects used in prayer. The tallit is a Jewish prayer shawl. A kippah or yarmulke (skullcap) is a head covering worn during prayer by most Jews, and at all times by more orthodox Jews — especially Ashkenazim. Phylacteries or tefillin, boxes containing the portions of the Torah mandating them, are also worn by religious Jews during weekday morning services. The Jewish approach to prayer differs among the various branches of Judaism. While all use the same set of prayers and texts, the frequency of prayer, the number of prayers recited at various religious events, and whether one prays in a particular liturgical language or the vernacular differs from denomination to denomination, with Conservative and Orthodox congregations using more traditional services, and Reform and Reconstructionist synagogues more likely to incorporate translations, contemporary writings, and abbreviated services.

Jewish holidays

Torah Jewish holy days celebrate central themes in the relationship between God and the world, such as creation, revelation, and redemption.

Shabbat

Shabbat, the weekly day of rest lasting from Friday night to Saturday night, celebrates God's creation as a day of rest that commemorates God's day of rest upon the completion of creation. It plays an important role in Jewish practice and is the subject of a large body of religious law. Some consider it the most important Jewish holiday.

Haggim

Haggim (festivals) celebrate revelation by commemorating different events in the passage of the Children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt to their return to the land of Canaan. They are also timed to coincide with important agricultural seasons. They are also pilgramage holidays, for which the Children of Israel would journey to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God in His Temple.
- Pesach or Passover is a week-long holiday beginning on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan (the first month in the Hebrew calendar), that commemorates the Exodus from Egypt, and coincides with the barley harvest. It is the only holiday that centers on home-service, the Seder. Leavened products are removed from the house prior to the holiday, and are not consumed during the holiday.
- Shavuot or Pentacost or Feast of Weeks celebrates Moses' giving of the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, and marks the transition from the barley harvest to the wheat harvest.
- Sukkot, or "The Festival of Booths" commemorates the wandering of the Children of Israel through the desert. It is celebrated through the construction of temporary booths that represent the temporary shelters of the Children of Israel during their wandering. It coincides with the fruit harvest, and marks the end of the agricultural cycle.

Yamim Noraim

Yamim Noraim (Days of Awe) celebrate judgement and forgiveness.
- Rosh Hashanah, also Yom Ha-Zikkaron (The Day of Remembrance) or Yom Teruah (The Day of the Sounding of the Shofar). Although Rosh Hashanah means "new year" (literally, the head of the year) it falls on the first day of the seventh month of the Hebrew Calendar, Tishri. It is called the Jewish New Year because it celebrates the day that the world was created; it also marks the beginning of the atonement period that ends ten days later with Yom Kippur.
- Yom Kippur, or The Day of Atonement, also called "the Sabbath of Sabbaths," is a holiday centered on redemption; a day of atonement and fasting for sins committed individually and communally during the previous year. Many consider this the most important Jewish holiday. Yom Kippur is both a solemn day marked by self-scrutiny, when Jews should "afflict" themselves (by fasting), and a celebratory day, as Jews reflect on God's mercy.

Minor Holidays

There are many minor holidays as well, including Purim, which celebrates the events told in the Biblical book of Esther, and Chanukkah, which is not established in the Bible but which celebrates the successful rebellion by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire.

Torah readings

The core of festival and Sabbath prayer services is the public reading of the Torah, along with connected readings from the other books of the Jewish Bible, called Haftarah. During the course of a year, the full Torah is read, and the cycle begins again every autumn during Simhat Torah (“rejoicing in the Torah”).

Synagogues and Jewish buildings

Simhat Torah Synagogues are a Jewish houses of prayer and study, they usually contain separate rooms for prayer (the main sanctuary), smaller rooms for study, and often an area for community or educational use. There is no set blueprint for synagogues and the architectural shapes and interior designs of synagogues vary greatly, so a synagogue may contain any (or none) of these features:
- an ark (called aron ha-kodesh by Ashkenazim and hekhal by Sephardim) where the Torah scrolls are kept (the ark is often closed with an ornate curtain (parokhet) outside or inside the ark doors);
- a large elevated reader's platform (called bimah by Ashkenazim and tebah by Sephardim), where the Torah is read (and from where the services are conducted in Sephardi synagogues);
- an Eternal Light (ner tamid), a continually-lit lamp or lantern used as a reminder of the constantly lit menorah of the Temple in Jerusalem; and,
- (mainly in Ashkenazi synagogues) a pulpit facing the congregation to preach from and a pulpit or amud (Hebrew for "post" or "column") facing the Ark for the Hazzan (reader) to lead the prayers from. In addition to synagogues, other buildings of signficance in Judaism include yeshivas, or institutions of Jewish learning, and mikvahs, which are ritual baths.

Dietary laws: Kashrut

The laws of kashrut ("keeping kosher") are the Jewish dietary laws. Food in accord with Jewish law is termed kosher, and food not in accord with Jewish law is termed treifah or treif. From the context of the laws in the book of Leviticus, the purpose of kashrut is related to ritual purity and holiness, as well as health. Kashrut involves the abstention from consuming animals that eat other animals, and that roam the sea floor eating the excretions of other animals, therefore excluding birds/beasts of prey and seafood (other than fish), respectively. Also, mixing meat and milk is not allowed, as this is viewed as cooking the child in its mother's milk. Orthodox Jews and some Conservative Jews do keep kosher, to varying degrees of strictness, while Reform and Reconstructionist Jews generally do not. Although sometimes rationalized by reference to hygiene, its stated purpose is perhaps better understood as providing certainty that food eaten is prepared and partaken only from sources which are confirmed to have been spiritually appropriate and which avoided spiritual "negatives" such as pain, sickness, unclean animals or abusive practices in its preparation.

Family purity

The laws of niddah ("menstruant", often referred to euphemistically as "family purity") and various other laws regulating the interaction between men and women (e.g., tzeniut, modesty in dress) are perceived, especially by Orthodox Jews, as vital factors in Jewish life, though they are rarely followed by Reform or Conservative Jews. The laws of niddah dictate that sexual intercourse cannot take place while the woman is having a menstrual flow, and she has to count seven "clean" days and immerse in a mikvah (ritual bath) following menstruation.

Life-cycle events

Life-cycle events occur throughout a Jew's life that bind him/her to the entire community.
- Brit milah - Welcoming male babies into the covenant through the rite of circumcision.
- Bar mitzvah and Bat mitzvah (B'nai mitzvah) - Celebrating children's reaching the age of majority, becoming responsible from now on for themselves as adults. This is done by having the new adults lead the congregation in prayer and publicly read from the Torah -- two things only Jewish adults may do.
- Marriage
- Death and Mourning

Community leadership

Classical priesthood

Judaism does not have a clergy, in the sense of full-time specialists required for religious services. Technically, the last time Judaism had a clergy was prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, when priests attended to the Temple and sacrifices. The priesthood is an inherited position, and although priests no longer have clerical duties, they are still honored in many Jewish communities.
- Kohen (priest) - patrilineal descendant of Aaron, brother of Moses. In the Temple, the kohanim were charged with performing the sacrifices. Today, a Kohen is the first one called up at the reading of the Torah, performs the priestly blessing, as well as complying with other unique laws and ceremonies, including the ceremony of redemption of the first-born.
- Levi (Levite) - Patrilineal descendant of Levi the son of Jacob. Today, a Levite is called up second to the reading of the Torah. Levites also have a number of other minor duties in traditional synagogues, including washing the hands of the Kohanim (priests) before they say the priestly blessing.

Prayer leaders

From the times of the Mishna and Talmud to the present, Judaism has required specialists or authorities for the practice of very few rituals or ceremonies. A Jew can fulfil most requirements for prayer by himself. Some activities -- reading the Torah and haftarah (a supplementary portion from the Prophets or Writings); the prayer for mourners; the blessings for bridegroom and bride; the complete grace after meals -- require a minyan, the presence of ten adults (Orthodox Jews and some Conservative Jews require ten adult men; some Conservative Jews and Reform Jews include women in the minyan). The most common professional clergy in a synagogue are:
- Rabbi of a congregation - Jewish scholar who is charged with answering the legal questions of a congregation. Orthodox Judaism requires semicha (Rabbinical ordination). A congregation does not necessarily require a rabbi. Some congregations have a rabbi but also allow members of the congregation to act as shatz or baal koreh (see below).
- Hassidic Rebbe - rabbi who is the head of a Hassidic dynasty.
- (cantor) - a trained vocalist who acts as shatz. Chosen for a good voice, knowledge of t

Category:United States Supreme Court cases

Articles and categories related to cases argued before the United States Supreme Court. :Cases organized by subject are at :Category:United States case law and :Category:United States constitutional case law. Cases 1 Supreme Court cases

Category:1994 in law

Category:United States First Amendment case law

This category is for court cases in the United States dealing with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Amendments-01

Debattieren

Eine Debatte (französ. débattre: (nieder-)schlagen) ist ein Streitgespräch auf gehobenem Niveau. In einer Debatte werden die Für- und Wider-Argumente zu einer These in kurzen Reden vorgetragen. Das Ziel des Debattenredners ist es, die Zuhörer von den eigenen Argumenten zu überzeugen. Deshalb zeichnet sich eine gute Debatte nicht nur durch gute Argumente, sondern gerade auch durch den Stil des Redners aus. Der Unterschied zur Diskussion ist, dass einer Debatte in der Regel eine Abstimmung folgt. Der Begriff wird heute meist im Zusammenhang mit Aussprachen im Bundestag verwendet, z. B. als Haushaltsdebatte. Eine Debatte ist eine zu einem Sachthema oder zu Personalfragen geführte Aussprache unter den Mitgliedern eines politischen Gremiums. Die Geschäftsordnung der entsprechenden Körperschaft regelt die Richtlinien und den Verlauf einer Debatte. Für den Deutschen Bundestag sieht diese die Eröffnung der Plenardebatte durch den Bundestagspräsidenten vor, der auch die Rednerliste abruft und schließt, die Aufeinanderfolge der Redner festlegt und den ordnungsgemäßen Ablauf der Debatte überwacht. Es existieren zwei Wettbewerbe, der sich dem Redewettstreit des Debattierens verschrieben haben:
- Als Projekt der Hertie-Stiftung richtet sich Jugend debattiert an Schüler der Sekundarstufe eins und zwei.
- In Kooperation mit der Wochenzeitung "Die Zeit" veranstalten Debattierclubs in ganz Deutschland unter dem gemeinsamen Dach des "Verbandes der Debattierclubs an Hochschulen e.V." (VDCH) Verband der Debattierclubs an Hochschulen regelmäßig Debattierturniere: Die ZEITDebatten. [http://www.zeitdebatten.de/]

Siehe auch

- Disput
- debating
- Debattierclub
- Verband der Debattierclubs an Hochschulen
- Schlagfertigkeit Kategorie:Kommunikation ja:ディベート simple:Discussion

ebay Hotele w Warszawie wagi elektroniczne penisy dog breeders

:: RELATED NEWS ::

Tipo (biologia)

Classificazione tassonomica
- Regno - Sottoregno - Superphylum - Phylum (o Tipo o Divisione) - Subphylum (o Sottotipo o Sottodivisione) - Superclasse - Classe Read More...

Terra del Fuoco (arcipelago) La Terra del Fuoco è un arcipelago nell'estrema punta meridionale del continente Americano. Suddiviso amministrativamente tra Cile e Argentina (70.500 km², 20.000 abitanti) tra Oceano Atlantico e Oceano Pacifico, separato dal continente dallo Read More...
Terra del Fuoco (provincia) La Terra del Fuoco è una provincia dell'Argentina (21.263 km², 50.000 abitanti, capoluogo Ushuaia). Composta da parte dell'arcipelago della Terra del Fuoco: Isla Grande (la parte orientale), Isola degli Stati, più una serie di piccole isole. Altra città importante è Read More...
The legionary - Fuga all'inferno Tr Read More...
Titanic (film 1997) Sulla t Read More...
Test non parametrico I test non parametrici sono quei test di verifica d'ipotesi usati nell'ambito della statistica non parametrica. - test binomiale, per variabili dicotomiche - test chi quadrato di Pearson, per la bontà dell'adattamento o per k campioni indipendenti - test dei ran Read More...
Torre (scacchi) La Torre (valore = 5) è un pezzo nel gioco degli scacchi. Ogni giocatore comincia la partita con due Torri, ognuno nell' angolo della prima traversa. In notazione algebrica le Torri bianche iniziano la partita in posizioni a1 e h1 mentre le ‘’Torri’’ nere iniziano nelle posizioni a8 e h8. Possibilità di movimento della torre. La Torre si muove sia orizzontalmen Read More...
Totò sceicco Totò s Read More...

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

Facts

Opinion of the Court

Dissent

External link

Court Citation

United States

United States Supreme Court

Lower federal courts

State courts

Unpublished decisions

Vendor neutral citations

Pinpoint citations

Types of Citations

England and Wales

Law Reports

Simple Examples

The Internet

External links

Canada

Reporters

Neutral Citation

Reference

Australia

Reporters

Reference

See also

External links

United States Supreme Court

History

Composition

Size of the court

Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices

Qualifications for membership

Other functions

Current membership

Ages of current justices

Quarters

Jurisdiction

Procedure

Court reports and citation style

Checks and balances

See also

References

Suggested Readings

External links

Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)

Name

History

Outline

Background to the dynasty

Aaron-Zalman Conflict

Important Books to the Satmar Sect

External links

Ultra-Orthodox

Practices and beliefs

Views of halakha

Lifestyle and family

Dress

History

Modern origins

Effects of the Holocaust

Present day

Israel

United States

United Kingdom

Organisations

Rabbinical leaders

See also

External link

Jewish

Introduction

Monotheism

Practical worship and the laws

Traditional view of the development of Judaism

Critical historical view of the development of Judaism

Religious doctrine and Principles of Faith

The traditional Jewish bookshelf

Jewish Law and interpretation

What makes a person Jewish?

Tr

Read More...