The introduction seems to be at odds with the history section; they both probably contain elements of the truth. Anyone able to clear this up? -- Eliyak 07:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What does OCJ mean? The acronym OCJ is used five times throughout the article, but it's never defined. I'd fix this myself, but I don't recognize the acronym. Steveklein ( talk) 11:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The article says "The Edah Charedis has both Askenazi and Sephardi branches.", but I was under the impression that the Sephardi group was a different organization entirely. Either way, all the names listed here seem to be Ashkenazim, so the article could definitely use some more info. -- Keeves 11:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the term Chief Rabbi is used to indicate who is the leader from among all the rabbis in a specific geographical area. That is not the case here, where it is the leader from among all the rabbis in a specific organization. Given that this organization is a beis din, or court, I suggest we change the wording here to be Chief Justice. Any comments? -- Keeves 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Was he both Av Beis Din and also Nasi, both at the same time? If not, can someone supply dates? -- Keeves 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he was the Nasi. There were a few AB"D in that time, including the Gaon from Munkatch, Minchas Eliezer. Shia1 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that story is relevant. (In an unrelated note, it isn't an example of the EH at its best...) -- Meshulam 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The article does not mention Edah at all. I'm tempted to put the "citation needed" sticker back, but perhaps you can explain the significance of this article. -- Meshulam 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading about some kashrus scandals involving the Badatz where they routinely threaten to remove their hechsher unless they get some freebies. Also, not that it matters, but those in the know, know that Badatz is not necessarily "the best" hashgacha, it's just that, just like with the CRC (which is not a very good hashgacha), you can't publically state that, unless you don't mind being on the receiving end of a "chaptzem." Yossiea 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Let me rephrase it. I know that the following groups in general consider the Edah to be the most reliable hechsher in the world:
Let me make this clear: I have never in my life met a single Orthodox Jew who did not consider the Edah the highest standard, which all others are to be compared to. Clear? -- Daniel575 | (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you know what is important to the converts? It is unverifiable. Furthermore, it is irrelevant. In an article about the Edah Charedit, what does it matter what the converts of the EH think about making aliyah? It is enough to say what the Edah policy is (which you must verify with an actual source). -- Meshulam 02:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Since those who convert through the Edah are required to follow Halacha and according to the view held by the Edah the above rules are absolute Halacha, the Edah will only convert people who are willing to abide by their view of Halacha which includes a ban on accepting money from the Israeli government. (Sefer Vayoel Moshe, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum)
Yes, I have extensive personal knowledge of the matters involved. That is OR. I know that the Edah converts 2 or 3 people a year at most, they very much dislike doing conversions and converting through them is rather difficult. The demands potential converts face are very high. Since the Edah views Vayoel Moshe as Halacha, and it says that accepting Zionist money is modeh l'kefiroh (giving in to wickedness), it is forbidden to accept the money. Only in extremely extenuating circumstances will cases occasionally be permitted individually, but never by the dayonim themselves. This is more like "don't ask, just do it". For example, someone who loses his job, has no financial means at all, has a big family to support and is on the brink of extreme poverty. Yes, in such cases, common sense is applied now and then. This also differs by movement. For example, Sanz-Tshakawe, of Rav Moshe Halberstam, was known for being lenient in these matters. The more modern factions of Satmar also. In other movements it varies. But yes, the Edah is not going to accept anybody who is going to violate Halacha by submitting himself to wickedness. No rav would do that. Since according to the Edah Zionism is wicked, I assume that that should be sufficient for anyone to deduce that they are not going to accept such people, without needing OR. Same reason why someone who declares "Osama Bin Laden is a hero" at the US Immigration Service will not receive US citizenship. Or why someone who wants to receive Turkish citizenship and declares "the PKK are heroes" will not get it. That's not so difficult to understand, is it? -- Daniel575 | (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Vayoel Moshe *is* a handbook of Edah HaChareidis policy. Not 'a', but 'the'. Now, I will agree to deleting the part about their (non-)acceptance of converts who accept state money. The Edah carries out at most 2 or 3 conversions a year, so this is not quite notable information, regardless of whether it is true or not. As far as I'm concerned it can be deleted. The main disagreement here is about the fact that Vayoel Moshe is the Edah's absolute and binding manual. I have a wonderful haskomoh of the entire Badatz to the sefer Yalkut Amarim Vayoel Moshe, in which they praise it and its writer zy'a with all possible forms of praise. That haskomoh is only a few years old. My rav is one of the Badatz members who signed it. Maybe you want me to copy it. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they do reject people on that basis. 1. My rav is one of the chevrei habadatz involved in giurim. 2. I personally know several Badatz gerim. 3. I have personal experience with my rav requesting me to stop accepting the 'sal klita' (absorption basket) money which I received. My rav is HoRav Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman shlita of Dushinsky. Accepting state money, according to Vayoel Moshe, is being modeh lekefiroh (submitting to heresy). I'm not sure whether it is an issue of yaharog ve'al ya'avor. In any case, I can assure you, the policy of the Edah is exactly, down to the points and commas, that which is written in Vayoel Moshe. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the chassidishe world can confirm this. Further, you are completely right about your point regarding OR. This is what I have been criticizing Meshulam for over the past months: he is completely focused on preventing any form of OR. I have already said this before: according to Meshulam's norms, we can delete 90% of all articles on Chareidi Judaism. All of them are OR. Nearly all of the articles about all of the chassidusen were, at least partially, written by chassidim. A lot of them are totally unsourced. There is NOTHING wrong with this: this is in my eyes the beauty of Wikipedia. Everyone can throw in what he knows. And as long as these are uncontroversial and entirely common things, such as the Edah holding by Vayoel Moshe, I see no reason to censore such things. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
A friend of mine converted with the Edah and he said that there were representatives from the Rabbanut there to make sure it was acceptable to the Tzionim. Itzik18 ( talk) 17:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this subject so I'd prefer to not edit the article, but I'll note;
-- Zero talk 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back to Satmar instead of Satmarer. Satmarer does not flow and I've not really seen or heard it used. Yossiea 17:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
When referring to the Rebbe, people usually say "the Satmar Rebbe".
, so why did you change it to Satmarer Rebbe? Satmar Rebbe is what most people say and it sounds smoother than Satmarer Rebbe. I'm not talking about the Satmerer shittah, I'm talking about this specific edit, IOW, Satmar Rebbe. Satmar Rebbe has over 16,000 Google hits, Satmarer Rebbe has under 500. True, Satmarer alone has lots of results, but not Satmarer Rebbe. If you want to include Satmarer in the article when referring to Satmar shittos that's one thing, but like you yourself wrote, when referring to the Rebbe, it should be Satmar Rebbe. Yossiea 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And I think it should be Satmarer, like Belzer, Bobover, Gerrer, Munkatcher. I know most people say Satmar Rebbe, because it is easy to say, and so do sloppy newspapers. But this is an encyclopedia, which should observe some norms of consistency. - Redaktor 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Colloquielly, he is always called the Satmar Rav, not Satmarer. Similarly, the hasidim are usually called Satmar not Satmarer. It's almost a shiboleth. If someone says Satmarer he's most likely a Baal Teshuvah and dizzy. SOmetimes chasidic groups don't get the -er suffix. Vishnitz usually doesn't but does sometimes, Biale rarely does, Dushinsky is another example, Ungvar nother one, Spinka, Tosh. 88.155.212.99 10:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article called HaEdah HaCharedis when everybody calls it Edah HaCharedis or Edah Charedis?-- Redaktor 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Precisely my point. Wikipedia articles do not begin with 'The'. (And the kashrus logo says "Beis Din of the Edah …"-- Redaktor 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody changed it a long time ago. I also don't understand why. Redaktor, I agree. Let's move it back to to 'Edah HaCharedis.' I personally prefer 'Edah HaChareidis,' though. What do you think? -- Rabbeinu 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support 'Edah HaChareidis'.-- Redaktor 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It would have to be Eidah HaCharedis or even Eida Cheraids. Ha is the, and in naming articles one does not put 'the' at the beginning. Just common sence, otherwise the 'T's would be filled up. Similarly all the articles with Hebrew names would be in the Hs. HaMedinas Yisrael, HaMaccabes, HaRibbon Olam, HaTzahal. It could get stupid. Really really unconscionably stupid. 88.155.212.99 11:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
When exactly did the Edah declare war on anybody? This is journalistic hyperbole and does not belong in the intro. And another point. Fighting Zionism is not what the Edah exists for. The Edah is a community (kehila) which does not recognize the state or the Chief Rabbinate. Its main purpose is to provide the services of a kehila.-- Redaktor 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"If you asked them what they wanted to be known for, I doubt they'd mention their anti-Zionist attitude in the first few paragraphs of their discussion with you." Of course they would. The organization was founded to combat Zionism, and then broke away from Aggudas Yisroel because the Aggudah was being too light on the Zionists for their taste. The EIdah is anti-Zionism. That's its point. Everything else it does it does as a crutch for anti-Zionist Jews in the holyland. The Beis DIn - so they can register marriages without the Rabbenut, or file lawsuit without the courts. The heksher - to get food from elsewhere but the rabbenut heksher. The gemakhim - cheap stuff for people who can't get welfare. And the NAsi of the Edah declared war on Zionism in 2005. His words were, "We are now at war with Zionism." Understandably there was some confusion in the Jewish press as that language is a bit vague. Shia1 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that there was also a sign behind him reading, "At war with ZIonism," and he put out numerous press releases regarding halachic issues which began, "Regarding our war against Zionism." 88.155.212.99 11:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/872677.html . I quote: "The organization consists of several ultra-Orthodox and anti-Zionist groups including Satmar, Toldos Aharon and Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok hasidim and Perushim." Note that this is exactly as it is written in this article (with the Ashkenazi names). -- Rabbeinu 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i'm working about the french article about neturei karta. I don't know exactly if Neturei Karta a official members of the edah. Perushim yes, and somme members of perushim are Neturei karta, but the organisation itself ? I somebody have the information, i'm interested. Please answer me on my page here.
Some of your edits are factually incorrect and others are unsourced. Please provide sources or discuss on the talk page before changing large amounts of the page. Yossiea (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
History section has a serve mistake. Chief Rabinate of Israel wasn't elected by the British Goverment, but by the Jewish community itself. Edah HaChareidis was seperated itself from the main community because of some reasons, and as today, Edah HaChareidis is not the main group of Religous jewish people. Netanel h ( talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this move should have happened. While Wikipedia uses Haredi to write Charedi, the Edah is a proper name, the name of the organization is Edah ha-Chareidis. You can write the EC is a Haredi organization, but the name should not be changed. Yossiea (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
14:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
this line: "It [the Edah] has declared an ideological war against the "heretic Zionist government"." is it possible to rephrase it so as not to have two double quotes one after the other?
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/fanning-the-flames-1.317909
Zero talk 03:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I found to my suprise here that Toldos Aharon is considered part of the Edah? Is this really so?
BTW, a notable point about the Edah is their unusual perchant for inviting Rabbis more moderate than they to be their leaders. But this would be synthesis without sources, not that the article has a lot of same. Mzk1 ( talk) 18:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone doubts this exists: http://www.oin.co.il/%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1-%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%93%D7%A2/%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93/%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%94/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%A1 , http://blog.tapuz.co.il/citytour/images/%7B9FE03116-F763-4419-871E-19DC256D1D7D%7D.jpg , http://imageshack.us/g/855/130420111469.jpg/ (by me), http://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php?title=%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3_%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%95_%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%9F , http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA#.D7.A1.D7.A4.D7.A8.D7.93.D7.99.D7.9D .
העדה החרדית הספרדית ועדי כשרות ארצי ירושלים; עזרא 2 ת.ד. 5387, ירושלים Assume that should be enough. The fact that you don't know it exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... I wish people would realize that. -- Piz d'Es-Cha ( talk) 11:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point: should Wikipedia, being neutral, use 'died' instead of 'passed away'? The question is whether 'passing away' is an expression solely used in religious circles. It is clear that in Judaism, we prefer 'passing away' rather than 'dying'. However, as mentioned in this discussion, a simple search of The Guardian, which certainly qualifies as a reliable source, uses the phrase "his passing" on a quite regular basis as well. CNN does the same.Therefore, I see no reason to change 'his passing' to 'his death', where Judaism clearly prefers the former and there is nothing linguistically wrong with that expression. -- Piz d'Es-Cha ( talk) 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The introduction seems to be at odds with the history section; they both probably contain elements of the truth. Anyone able to clear this up? -- Eliyak 07:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What does OCJ mean? The acronym OCJ is used five times throughout the article, but it's never defined. I'd fix this myself, but I don't recognize the acronym. Steveklein ( talk) 11:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The article says "The Edah Charedis has both Askenazi and Sephardi branches.", but I was under the impression that the Sephardi group was a different organization entirely. Either way, all the names listed here seem to be Ashkenazim, so the article could definitely use some more info. -- Keeves 11:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the term Chief Rabbi is used to indicate who is the leader from among all the rabbis in a specific geographical area. That is not the case here, where it is the leader from among all the rabbis in a specific organization. Given that this organization is a beis din, or court, I suggest we change the wording here to be Chief Justice. Any comments? -- Keeves 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Was he both Av Beis Din and also Nasi, both at the same time? If not, can someone supply dates? -- Keeves 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he was the Nasi. There were a few AB"D in that time, including the Gaon from Munkatch, Minchas Eliezer. Shia1 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that story is relevant. (In an unrelated note, it isn't an example of the EH at its best...) -- Meshulam 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The article does not mention Edah at all. I'm tempted to put the "citation needed" sticker back, but perhaps you can explain the significance of this article. -- Meshulam 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading about some kashrus scandals involving the Badatz where they routinely threaten to remove their hechsher unless they get some freebies. Also, not that it matters, but those in the know, know that Badatz is not necessarily "the best" hashgacha, it's just that, just like with the CRC (which is not a very good hashgacha), you can't publically state that, unless you don't mind being on the receiving end of a "chaptzem." Yossiea 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Let me rephrase it. I know that the following groups in general consider the Edah to be the most reliable hechsher in the world:
Let me make this clear: I have never in my life met a single Orthodox Jew who did not consider the Edah the highest standard, which all others are to be compared to. Clear? -- Daniel575 | (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you know what is important to the converts? It is unverifiable. Furthermore, it is irrelevant. In an article about the Edah Charedit, what does it matter what the converts of the EH think about making aliyah? It is enough to say what the Edah policy is (which you must verify with an actual source). -- Meshulam 02:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Since those who convert through the Edah are required to follow Halacha and according to the view held by the Edah the above rules are absolute Halacha, the Edah will only convert people who are willing to abide by their view of Halacha which includes a ban on accepting money from the Israeli government. (Sefer Vayoel Moshe, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum)
Yes, I have extensive personal knowledge of the matters involved. That is OR. I know that the Edah converts 2 or 3 people a year at most, they very much dislike doing conversions and converting through them is rather difficult. The demands potential converts face are very high. Since the Edah views Vayoel Moshe as Halacha, and it says that accepting Zionist money is modeh l'kefiroh (giving in to wickedness), it is forbidden to accept the money. Only in extremely extenuating circumstances will cases occasionally be permitted individually, but never by the dayonim themselves. This is more like "don't ask, just do it". For example, someone who loses his job, has no financial means at all, has a big family to support and is on the brink of extreme poverty. Yes, in such cases, common sense is applied now and then. This also differs by movement. For example, Sanz-Tshakawe, of Rav Moshe Halberstam, was known for being lenient in these matters. The more modern factions of Satmar also. In other movements it varies. But yes, the Edah is not going to accept anybody who is going to violate Halacha by submitting himself to wickedness. No rav would do that. Since according to the Edah Zionism is wicked, I assume that that should be sufficient for anyone to deduce that they are not going to accept such people, without needing OR. Same reason why someone who declares "Osama Bin Laden is a hero" at the US Immigration Service will not receive US citizenship. Or why someone who wants to receive Turkish citizenship and declares "the PKK are heroes" will not get it. That's not so difficult to understand, is it? -- Daniel575 | (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Vayoel Moshe *is* a handbook of Edah HaChareidis policy. Not 'a', but 'the'. Now, I will agree to deleting the part about their (non-)acceptance of converts who accept state money. The Edah carries out at most 2 or 3 conversions a year, so this is not quite notable information, regardless of whether it is true or not. As far as I'm concerned it can be deleted. The main disagreement here is about the fact that Vayoel Moshe is the Edah's absolute and binding manual. I have a wonderful haskomoh of the entire Badatz to the sefer Yalkut Amarim Vayoel Moshe, in which they praise it and its writer zy'a with all possible forms of praise. That haskomoh is only a few years old. My rav is one of the Badatz members who signed it. Maybe you want me to copy it. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they do reject people on that basis. 1. My rav is one of the chevrei habadatz involved in giurim. 2. I personally know several Badatz gerim. 3. I have personal experience with my rav requesting me to stop accepting the 'sal klita' (absorption basket) money which I received. My rav is HoRav Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman shlita of Dushinsky. Accepting state money, according to Vayoel Moshe, is being modeh lekefiroh (submitting to heresy). I'm not sure whether it is an issue of yaharog ve'al ya'avor. In any case, I can assure you, the policy of the Edah is exactly, down to the points and commas, that which is written in Vayoel Moshe. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the chassidishe world can confirm this. Further, you are completely right about your point regarding OR. This is what I have been criticizing Meshulam for over the past months: he is completely focused on preventing any form of OR. I have already said this before: according to Meshulam's norms, we can delete 90% of all articles on Chareidi Judaism. All of them are OR. Nearly all of the articles about all of the chassidusen were, at least partially, written by chassidim. A lot of them are totally unsourced. There is NOTHING wrong with this: this is in my eyes the beauty of Wikipedia. Everyone can throw in what he knows. And as long as these are uncontroversial and entirely common things, such as the Edah holding by Vayoel Moshe, I see no reason to censore such things. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
A friend of mine converted with the Edah and he said that there were representatives from the Rabbanut there to make sure it was acceptable to the Tzionim. Itzik18 ( talk) 17:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this subject so I'd prefer to not edit the article, but I'll note;
-- Zero talk 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back to Satmar instead of Satmarer. Satmarer does not flow and I've not really seen or heard it used. Yossiea 17:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
When referring to the Rebbe, people usually say "the Satmar Rebbe".
, so why did you change it to Satmarer Rebbe? Satmar Rebbe is what most people say and it sounds smoother than Satmarer Rebbe. I'm not talking about the Satmerer shittah, I'm talking about this specific edit, IOW, Satmar Rebbe. Satmar Rebbe has over 16,000 Google hits, Satmarer Rebbe has under 500. True, Satmarer alone has lots of results, but not Satmarer Rebbe. If you want to include Satmarer in the article when referring to Satmar shittos that's one thing, but like you yourself wrote, when referring to the Rebbe, it should be Satmar Rebbe. Yossiea 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And I think it should be Satmarer, like Belzer, Bobover, Gerrer, Munkatcher. I know most people say Satmar Rebbe, because it is easy to say, and so do sloppy newspapers. But this is an encyclopedia, which should observe some norms of consistency. - Redaktor 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Colloquielly, he is always called the Satmar Rav, not Satmarer. Similarly, the hasidim are usually called Satmar not Satmarer. It's almost a shiboleth. If someone says Satmarer he's most likely a Baal Teshuvah and dizzy. SOmetimes chasidic groups don't get the -er suffix. Vishnitz usually doesn't but does sometimes, Biale rarely does, Dushinsky is another example, Ungvar nother one, Spinka, Tosh. 88.155.212.99 10:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article called HaEdah HaCharedis when everybody calls it Edah HaCharedis or Edah Charedis?-- Redaktor 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Precisely my point. Wikipedia articles do not begin with 'The'. (And the kashrus logo says "Beis Din of the Edah …"-- Redaktor 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody changed it a long time ago. I also don't understand why. Redaktor, I agree. Let's move it back to to 'Edah HaCharedis.' I personally prefer 'Edah HaChareidis,' though. What do you think? -- Rabbeinu 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support 'Edah HaChareidis'.-- Redaktor 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It would have to be Eidah HaCharedis or even Eida Cheraids. Ha is the, and in naming articles one does not put 'the' at the beginning. Just common sence, otherwise the 'T's would be filled up. Similarly all the articles with Hebrew names would be in the Hs. HaMedinas Yisrael, HaMaccabes, HaRibbon Olam, HaTzahal. It could get stupid. Really really unconscionably stupid. 88.155.212.99 11:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
When exactly did the Edah declare war on anybody? This is journalistic hyperbole and does not belong in the intro. And another point. Fighting Zionism is not what the Edah exists for. The Edah is a community (kehila) which does not recognize the state or the Chief Rabbinate. Its main purpose is to provide the services of a kehila.-- Redaktor 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"If you asked them what they wanted to be known for, I doubt they'd mention their anti-Zionist attitude in the first few paragraphs of their discussion with you." Of course they would. The organization was founded to combat Zionism, and then broke away from Aggudas Yisroel because the Aggudah was being too light on the Zionists for their taste. The EIdah is anti-Zionism. That's its point. Everything else it does it does as a crutch for anti-Zionist Jews in the holyland. The Beis DIn - so they can register marriages without the Rabbenut, or file lawsuit without the courts. The heksher - to get food from elsewhere but the rabbenut heksher. The gemakhim - cheap stuff for people who can't get welfare. And the NAsi of the Edah declared war on Zionism in 2005. His words were, "We are now at war with Zionism." Understandably there was some confusion in the Jewish press as that language is a bit vague. Shia1 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that there was also a sign behind him reading, "At war with ZIonism," and he put out numerous press releases regarding halachic issues which began, "Regarding our war against Zionism." 88.155.212.99 11:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/872677.html . I quote: "The organization consists of several ultra-Orthodox and anti-Zionist groups including Satmar, Toldos Aharon and Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok hasidim and Perushim." Note that this is exactly as it is written in this article (with the Ashkenazi names). -- Rabbeinu 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i'm working about the french article about neturei karta. I don't know exactly if Neturei Karta a official members of the edah. Perushim yes, and somme members of perushim are Neturei karta, but the organisation itself ? I somebody have the information, i'm interested. Please answer me on my page here.
Some of your edits are factually incorrect and others are unsourced. Please provide sources or discuss on the talk page before changing large amounts of the page. Yossiea (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
History section has a serve mistake. Chief Rabinate of Israel wasn't elected by the British Goverment, but by the Jewish community itself. Edah HaChareidis was seperated itself from the main community because of some reasons, and as today, Edah HaChareidis is not the main group of Religous jewish people. Netanel h ( talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this move should have happened. While Wikipedia uses Haredi to write Charedi, the Edah is a proper name, the name of the organization is Edah ha-Chareidis. You can write the EC is a Haredi organization, but the name should not be changed. Yossiea (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
14:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
this line: "It [the Edah] has declared an ideological war against the "heretic Zionist government"." is it possible to rephrase it so as not to have two double quotes one after the other?
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/fanning-the-flames-1.317909
Zero talk 03:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I found to my suprise here that Toldos Aharon is considered part of the Edah? Is this really so?
BTW, a notable point about the Edah is their unusual perchant for inviting Rabbis more moderate than they to be their leaders. But this would be synthesis without sources, not that the article has a lot of same. Mzk1 ( talk) 18:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone doubts this exists: http://www.oin.co.il/%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1-%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%93%D7%A2/%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93/%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%94/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%A1 , http://blog.tapuz.co.il/citytour/images/%7B9FE03116-F763-4419-871E-19DC256D1D7D%7D.jpg , http://imageshack.us/g/855/130420111469.jpg/ (by me), http://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php?title=%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3_%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%95_%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%9F , http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA#.D7.A1.D7.A4.D7.A8.D7.93.D7.99.D7.9D .
העדה החרדית הספרדית ועדי כשרות ארצי ירושלים; עזרא 2 ת.ד. 5387, ירושלים Assume that should be enough. The fact that you don't know it exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... I wish people would realize that. -- Piz d'Es-Cha ( talk) 11:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point: should Wikipedia, being neutral, use 'died' instead of 'passed away'? The question is whether 'passing away' is an expression solely used in religious circles. It is clear that in Judaism, we prefer 'passing away' rather than 'dying'. However, as mentioned in this discussion, a simple search of The Guardian, which certainly qualifies as a reliable source, uses the phrase "his passing" on a quite regular basis as well. CNN does the same.Therefore, I see no reason to change 'his passing' to 'his death', where Judaism clearly prefers the former and there is nothing linguistically wrong with that expression. -- Piz d'Es-Cha ( talk) 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)