Talk:Edah HaChareidis

Confusion

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)

Undefined Acronym: OCJ

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 "Orthodox Council of Jerusalem". See first few words of article. Ohnonotyou (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sephardi branch?

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)

I don't know anything about the Sefardi side either. --Daniel575 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I do know. See article. Yes, it is OR. I just asked the gabbai of R' Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman. --Daniel575 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There most certainly is a Sephardic branch, but you rarely hear from it. They're totally controlled by the Ashkenazi branch; the only Kol Korehs I've seen from them have been around yom haatzmaut time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.105.115 (talk) 20:04, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Chief Rabbis (גאב"ד) of the Edah Charedis of Jerusalem

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)

No, I think Chief Rabbi will do just fine. --Daniel575 23:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum

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)

Baby Murderer

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)

In so far as the Edah was involved in organizing and stirring up the protests, it is relevant and should be included. I'm not however convinced that it should have a full section. JoshuaZ 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needed expansion somehow. The Vales case, which caused a huge public outcry and about which tens and tens of newspaper articles and thousands of talkbacks were written, is definitely noteworthy. If it does not belong here, it should get its own article. I propose leaving it here and adding other materials also. And it is not a negative thing, it is completely positive. I, for one, think the Edah was much too lax. The protests should have been much stronger. Call me a kanoi, I guess I am. Please add more information instead of removing the information present. The article needs to be expanded somehow. It's shameful that we only have so little information on it here. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well we agree on one thing, the murder and the surrounding protests/riots should have their own article at minimum. JoshuaZ 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What name do we give that article? --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this case relevant to an encyclopedia? What you have here is one single case of an incident where the police have a certain suspect under arrest, and an organization which came to his defense. The incident, especially if we're going to be NPOV about it, says as much about the Israeli police as it does about the Edah, so if you mention it in one, it must also be in the other. Therefore, it should actually not be in either one. Rather, it must either not appear at all, or it must be its own article, with links to it from both here and there. As for what to title it, I'd suggest using the Tawana Brawley article as a precedent, and call this one Yisroel Vales. --Keeves 17:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Keeves. There are a number of reasons not to include the article. (And if you think its complimentary, perhaps you should be sparing about complimenting others). --Meshulam 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. For many Israelis and non-Israelis the only way they ever noticed the Edah was due to its involvement in the protests. It deserves at least a mention here. JoshuaZ 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

First, the assertion that this incident got some attention for the Edah does not necessarily mean that the incident is important enough to be covered by an encyclopedia. Second, this is far more than "at least a mention". If you insist, then write one or two sentences (not paragraphs) about the Edah's involvement in community activism, add a similar point to the Israeli police article, and link both to Yisroel Vales. --Keeves 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put the Edah on the same plane as the Israeli police for this purpose. This wasn't nearly as significant for the public perception of the police as it was for the Edah. But I agree that a shorter version here might make sense. JoshuaZ 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the best place for it, since an article for the case is not necessary. But it deserves mentioning here, because as I said, many people know the Edah primarily because of this case. Also, calling this 'community activism' sounds a little weird to say the least, for those involved. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the incident should be removed entirely, given that it is not notable. Failing that, it should be limited to a sentence at the most. --Meshulam 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes 2 votes to remove, one to keep, and one to shorten. Both of the votes to remove have agreed that shortening the piece would be acceptable. Since deleting the incident won out, I think that action should be taken. But obviously there is room for a compromise. --Meshulam 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose. And apparently you forgot to count my vote, since I never said that shortening it is acceptable. It can either be made into a specific separate article, or it can be here the way it is. I do not think it is worthy of an entire article, so a section here will do fine. It is a major thing in the current ongoings of the Edah and it is an affair that made the Edah known to the public at large. It most certainly has to be mentioned here. Now if you want to turn it into an article on its own, go ahead, but you are not going to tell me that a subject which has led to millions of shekels of damages to public property, demonstrations involving thousands, and tens of newspaper articles, is 'not notable' for Wikipedia. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I should preface my words by saying that it has been almost 25 years since I was last in Eretz Yisrael. When I was there, I was in Aguda-aligned yeshivos for about 4 years, and even worked for the Edah for about one year, taking tru"m from the produce each morning at a nearby supermarket. Much of the news I get nowadays is from the Jewish Press and the American edition of Hamodia, and if anything was reported about this incident, I don't remember it. My point is that while from your perspective this incident made many people aware of the Edah, there were other places and communities where this incident did not get nearly that much coverage. -- JoshuaZ asked why I'm putting the Edah and the police on the same plane, and my answer is that I have no idea who is right and who is wrong here. "Trial by press" has never been good for anyone, and I refuse to take sides simply on the basis of a few a articles in the news. Especially when one of the sides (the Edah in this case, as reported here on Wikipedia) reverses an earlier position, I don't know whether to consider the original position as more or less honest that the newer position. -- Daniel575 asked why I used the phrase "community activism", and my answer is that this is exactly what it sounds like to me: Vales was not charged and brought to trial in Beis Din, so why is the Edah involved? I don't mean to suggest that they are wrong for getting involved, only that it seems to be a case an organization who is supporting one of its members that was charged with a crime. That's what I meant by "activism". -- Regarding Daniel575's point that you are not going to tell me that a subject which has led to millions of shekels of damages to public property, demonstrations involving thousands, and tens of newspaper articles, is 'not notable' for Wikipedia, okay, fine, I will concede that it is sufficiently notable to be included, provided that you will concede that there are plenty of other demonstrations of similar size, and perhaps they ought to be included too. --Keeves 01:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, can someone clarify the language of the second paragraph? Who was threatened with deportation, Rav Weiss or Vales? --Keeves 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I did count Daniel's vote. He was the one to keep. The only one. Then there was one to shorten, and two to delete. --Meshulam 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Edah Conversions

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)

Seems pretty clear. What's the difficulty in understand what it says here?

"The Interior Ministry recognizes only conversions through state institutions, which is done through special courses and rabbinical courts identified with religious Zionism."

I am personally familiar with several such cases. One also went through Rav Karelitz. For him it didn't matter, since then already he had gotten involved in Satmar, and he didn't plan to 'make aliyah' in any case. He has been in Israel on a tourist visum for two years now - after his conversion. This article contains the single sentence above. The Edah is not a state institution (ch'v) and it is not affiliated with Religious Zionism. So, it's clear and voila, there you have your source. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-Zionist Batei Din in America can convert people, who then qualify for the right of return. I don't see how the above is true. --Meshulam 04:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. From outside of Israel all conversions are recognized, with the exception of 'Messianic Judaism'. That means Reform, Reconstructionist, Liberal, Conservative, Modern Orthodox, Yeshivish Orthodox, Chabad, Chassidish, Neturei Karta. And anything else.

Inside Israel, only the Rabbanut, the official Israeli state rabbinate, is accepted. Any other conversions are not accepted. It does not matter even if the conversion was done by Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Yosef Sholom Eliashiv and Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg themselves. It will not be recognized by the government for any purpose. The above-quoted Haaretz article clearly confirms this, so there you have your source. Again, what is your problem?

By the way, we are not talking about having it recognized for the purposes of getting married or getting buried. Somebody with a conversion by the Edah, or by Rav Karelitz, can get married or buried as a Jew in Israel with the approval of the Chief Rabbinate. We are talking here about the Interior Ministry, which determines whether somebody can make aliyah or not. The Interior Ministry and the Rabbanut have totally different guidelines. Perhaps you are mixing them up. For example, the recent uproar about Rav Shlomo Amar's requirements for foreign conversions do not mean that those converts who are now not recognized will not be able to make aliyah. They can make aliyah. But they will not be recognized as Jews by the Rabbanut and will not be able to get married or buried as Jews - just like Reform converts, for example. Is it clear now? Sorry for being a little harsh. Maybe this was what you didn't get, I hope it's clear now. --Daniel575 | (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kashrus

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)

I know that 99% of Orthodox Jews around the world consider the Badatz to be the most reliable hechsher in the world. That's enough. If you know of any scandals, with a source (in Hebrew, English, Yiddish), please add them, since we need to expand this page. Positive and negative things, as long as they conform to NPOV, as long as they are true. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the source off-hand, it was a chapter in a book. As for your claims that 99% of OJ's consider the Badatz to be the most reliable, all I can say is that it's not true, perhaps 99% of the OJ's in your circle consider it the best, but overall, it's not a very reliable hashgacha. Yossiea 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, gentlemen! Unless you've done a survey of ALL circles -- and no one has! -- no one really knows what the real percentages are. We all only know about our own circles. So let's stop quibbling over the numbers, okay? Every hashgacha has people who think it's the best, and every hashgacha has people who can tell stories about its problems. No one really knows everything. --Keeves 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the Central Rabbinical Congress is distinct from the Chicago Rabbinical Council, whose hechsher is well-respected in the Midwest. --Eliyak T·C 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, sorry about that, the Chicago CRC is very respected. Yossiea 12:50, 30 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:

• All Chassidim
• Chabad-Lubavitch
• Litvishe world of Bnei Brak
• Dati Leumi (Merkaz HaRav, Machon Meir etc)
• Sefardi chareidim (Shasniks)
• Extreme-rightists (Kach etc)

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)

Its a very reliable hechsher, but I wouldn't say that all of the above call it the most reliable hechsher. That's pushing it. But this discussion is fairly unimportant...--Meshulam 21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not important to the converts...

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)

• sigh* The policy of the Edah is what is written in Vayoel Moshe. More precisely: the policy of the Edah is the policy that was set by the President of the Edah and the Chief Rabbi of the Edah. That was one certain Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum who wrote these things down in a book called 'Vayoel Moshe'. Just WHAT is your problem?

Anybody who converts through the Edah, ACCEPTS the official policy of the Edah. I am getting sick of explaining this a thousand times. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that it is the official policy of the EH only to accept converts who promise never to accept money from the Israeli government? Can you even verify, according to Wikipedia's standards, that it is EH's policy that one should not accept any money from the Israeli government? Now, can you verify that, in fact, converts of the EH follow the policy as you have asserted? #2 you may be able to verify (but probably not). #1 and #3 you cannot verify, and you certainly have not verified. --Meshulam 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE, LOOK IN SEFER VAYOEL MOSHE where you will find the exact answers to all your questions. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And as I have said many times, VaYoel Moshe has nothing to do with the opinions of people that EH happens to have converted. You can't credibly claim that folks converted by the EH share your opinion about accepting money from the state. To date, all you have done is demonstrate that (according to a Neturei Karta website) the EH was founded over 50 years ago to oppose Zionism. That has nothing to do with 1.) Their position now about Zionism generally 2.) Their position regarding making Aliyah and accepting government money or 3.) the opinions of their converts regarding Aliyah and accepting government money. The last one especially is not verifiable. You simply cannot allege one way or the other in a Wikipedia article (unless you can cite to a credible poll of EH converts, which I doubt).--Meshulam 23:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I think part of this communication problem is that (as I see it) there are three different views listed here: The opinions of the VaYoel Moshe are not necessarily identical to those of the Edah, and the opinions of the Edah are not necessarily identical to those of individuals who happened to convert under auspices of the Edah. While it is true that at one time, the VaYoel Moshe was a leader of the Edah, that does not in and of itself prove that the shitos in his sefer were adopted by the Edah. (For example, even in Vilna, not everything was done like the Gra.) And even if the Edah did adopt his shitos at that time, it is certainly conceivable that they might have modified their position since then, for any of several reasons. (Please note: I am not claiming to know what the Edah holds on any particular issue; I'm only saying that references to the VaYoel Moshe are insufficient. On the other hand, if someone can quote from an official Edah publication, that would be different.) Similarly, individuals have different opinions, and it is quite possible that a person converted via the Edah, yet does desire Israeli citizenship; I'm not saying that there are many such people, only that it is a real possibility. Daniel wrote Anybody who converts through the Edah, ACCEPTS the official policy of the Edah., but I do not know why he thinks this is so obvious. If someone converts via Rabbi XYZ, is he forced to follow every single psak that Rabbi XYZ holds? Of course not, just like a typical person is not required to follow the psakim of whoever it was that he followed 20 years ago. When a new question comes up, you ask whoever it is that is your go-to person now. In any case, it is quite legitimate for this article to discuss what the official Edah policy is, but this article should not conjecture about the policy of their adherents. --Keeves 01:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel's latest version is:

:::::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)

Okay, this is a phrasing that I can accept, on two conditions, which I hope you'll respond to. First, I hope that this is not merely a logical conclusion you've drawn, but that you have personal knowledge that the Edah will refuse to convert someone who plans on accepting government money; previous versions of this paragraph made it sound like it was merely your logic, and that was unacceptable. Second, why did you include the parentheses at the end? I suspect it was just a typo, in which case please delete it. But perhaps your intention was that the sefer VaYoel Moshe explicitly contains a directive to the Edah to reject such converts; if that is the case, it could have saved a lot of arguing over the past days, and I suggest that a page or siman reference be included. --Keeves 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

And I will b'n try to look up some more specific sources over shabbos. My Hebrew is not quite excellent and Vayoel Moshe is really difficult, so that's not so easy... I'll find it. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. That's good enough for me, despite official policy about OR. If someone can find something in print, that would of course be best. Good luck and Good Shabbos! --Keeves 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not good enough for me. I don't like to do things here "despite official policy." OR is no good. All "facts" have to be verified. Vayoel Moshe is not a handbook of Edah Charedit policy. This isn't enough of a source. Unless you can come up with an actual source, I'm putting the "citation needed" stamp after that sentence. I understand that if some Kach supporter walks into the Edah office with "Kahane was Right" T-shirt, the Edah may turn him away. But do they specifically ask their converts to promise not to associate with the Israeli government? A.) I doubt it, B.) You haven't verified it. Until you do, the "citations needed" sticker should stay. Lets try to get a concensus here. --Meshulam 13:17, 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)

I'm sure they have given a haskoma to that sefer. But to call it their handbook? I don't see anything that suggests that, and certainly nothing that verifies it. That makes it Original Research, and it doesn't fall under Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. But I am happy that we have agreed as far as the non-acceptance of converts. --Meshulam 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is exactly one statement in this article (about the Law of Return) which cites a source. The entire rest of the article could be attacked as being Original Research. In fact, the great majority of Wikipedia articles are similarly lacking in sources. My personal preference is for articles (and seforim, such as Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa and similar works) which give sources for almost every statement. And, let's be honest, that is the official policy here. But the reality is that this is rarely adhered to. Usually, we accept what people write, presuming that if someone else knows it to be untrue, it will get edited out. Again, I refer you all to the vast majority of this article. No one has asked for citations about who the avos beis din were, or which years they served, for example. But this business about rejecting converts if they take gov't money has bothered some people. It bothered me too, because the way it was originally written sounded like truly original research. Paraphrasing, the text had been to the effect that "Since a convert has to accept halacha, and Vayoel Moshe specifies a particular psak on a particular issue, therefore the Edah will reject any convert who does not accept that psak." That sounds pretty logical, but the "if-then" phrasing makes it sound like someone was drawing their own conclusion. And drawing one's own conclusion is Original Research of the very worst kind. Now, Daniel575 seems to have personal familiarity with Edah policies, and if he says that Vayoel Moshe is *the* handbook of Edah HaChareidis policy (his words, not mine), then I'm willing to accept that. I can also sympathize with Meshulam's request for a citation, but I strongly suspect that this is the sort of policy which is never actually written down, much less published. I doubt the Edah ever published a "Guide to Converts" which specifies that they had better not plan to accept government money. So here's my suggestion for a compromise: Daniel, please don't cite haskamos if they merely say what a wonderful sefer it is. But if it says something about official Edah policy, that's a different story. On 1 Sept, Meshulam asked But do they specifically ask their converts to promise not to associate with the Israeli government? This question has not been answered. If someone can answer this question in the positive, even if only from personal knowledge, then we ought to accept it. But unless someone knows that this is indeed their policy, then any statement about rejected converts is just conjecture, and Original Research. --Keeves 16:09, 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)

Daniel575 seems to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. There are many facts in this article that do not have a source but are nonetheless verifiable. Better to bring a source, but the facts can stay. The "fact" in question is not veriiable (that is, unless a source is brought). Daniel's "personal involvement" is not a source, according to Wikipedia policy. In fact, his involvement brings into question whether his additions to this article or the Ullman article (that is, the article about HaRav HaKadosh R' Ullman, Espakalaria HaMeira Shlit"a... as per Daniel's complaint) are essentially vanity pieces. I am unconvinced. --Meshulam 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That is RABBI Ulman for you. I do not see what anyone who refuses to name such big gedolim just like that has to do with any article on chareidi Judaism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough already! I think you need to take a break from Wiki for a while. And for the record, I never heard of Rabbi Ulman before you started to use him as your source in various articles. Also, there is no reason to tell people they can't contribute to Wiki if they don't follow your naming conventions. I don't think somebody like yourself who claims to be chareidi, yet is on the internet, is the right person to dictate who can and can't edit Chareidi articles. Yossiea 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Meshulam wrote There are many facts in this article that do not have a source but are nonetheless verifiable. Where would you go to verify, for example, the many dates in this article? Or that the Edah's hechsher "is often simply known as the hechsher of the Badatz"? I can't imagine where to look. But let's try something simpler. The article states that the Edah "was - and still is - strongly anti-Zionist". That ought to be simple enough to find a source for. But it is not listed here, and I want to know if that bothers you as much as not having a source for their conversion policies. There are currently five articles listed in the "external links". The first claims to be "Statements against Zionism by the Edah Hacharedis", but I could not find anything on that site which mentioned the Edah by name and was also more recent than 1980. The other four articles do not contain the word "Zionism" at all, and contain the word "Zionist" only twice. (One said that Dayan Weiss "was a well-known figure among anti-Zionists", and the other referred to "Dr. Yisroel Yaakov Dehan, the holy zealot who was murdered by the Zionists.") --Keeves 02:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keeves has a very good point. Perhaps the article should beput to harsher scrutiny. I was merely reacting to statements taht seemed to make logical conclusions based on inferences that themselves were unsourced. I can appreciate, for example, that a certain Rabbi in anti-Zionist. That doesn't mean that Vayoel Moshe is the official handbook of the EH. And even assuming that VM is the handbook of the EH, that still doesn't mean that converts are asked this and that question. The bottom line is that its original research any way you look at it. So far, that hasn't been controverted. --Meshulam 03:36, 24 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)

Mazal tov to your friend! May he be matzliach in building a proper Jewish life of Torah and mitzvos, and yiras shomayim, and may he be zoiche to build a bais neeman beyisroel soon. It's good to hear that there is some cooperation in this, if this is really true (I doubt whether they would voluntarily cooperate - probably your friend arranged this himself, somehow). Converts shouldn't become the victims of our agreements of these versus those and those.... As long as they are mekabel Torah u'mitzvos kedin, it shouldn't matter at all who converts them. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems

I don't know anything about this subject so I'd prefer to not edit the article, but I'll note;

1. The History section has "in 1919" twice in the first sentence.
2. It says "The Edah was founded in 1919" then "Rabbi Sonnenfeld was named the first Chief Rabbi of the Edah Charedis...during the time when the Ottoman Empire's control over Palestine was weakening", but the Ottoman empire ended in 1918 so this is impossible. According to Chief Rabbi he was Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem from 1909. Certainly 1909 matches "the time when the Ottoman Empire's control over Palestine was weakening" but he couldn't have been Chief Rabbi of the Edah before the Edah was founded.

--Zero^talk 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Satmar Rebbe

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)

And I changed it back. There is nothing strange about it. When referring to the Rebbe, people usually say "the Satmar Rebbe". But when we are talking about other things, it becomes, "the Satmarer shito on Zionism", for example. Regarding your edit summary comment about the fact that it ends on an r: so does Ger, and Gerrer is also a very well known adjective for them. The fact that you never heard of this term doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. --Chussid 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Google gives more than 3,000 results for "Satmarer": [1] --Chussid 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote that

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)

You're right. I'm sorry. My apologies for my behavior here. I was mixing things up. --Chussid 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. Yossiea 21:38, 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)

Indeed. From the one side, you are right. From the other side, Yossiea is right. I'm not sure. Both voices have what to rely on. Indeed, it really should be "Satmarer Rebbe", just like it is Belzer Rebbe, Bobover Rebbe, Gerrer Rebbe etc. On the other hand, few people write it like that for Satmar. Again, I'm not sure. --Chussid 23:11, 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)

Title:HaEdah HaCharedis

Why is this article called HaEdah HaCharedis when everybody calls it Edah HaCharedis or Edah Charedis?--Redaktor 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's THE Edah of THE Charedim. Check out the kashrus logo on the page. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:26, 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)

The hebrew says HaEdah HaCharedis, in the kashrus logo. I'm not sure about the "the" though. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:38, 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)

Ideological war

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)

The Edah most definitely did declare war on the state, on the kofrim and apikorsim and minnim (ie, the tzionim). Plenty of pashkevilles about that and just take a look at Vayoel Moshe.

Also, people keep insisting on 'reliable sources.' Well, we have those now. Indeed much of it is total nonsense: *who* relies on Ynetnews for information on the chareidi world, and *who* relies on Arutz Sheva for information on anti-Zionists... but that is Wikipedia policy.

The Edah is simply a continuation of the Vaad Ha'ir, which existed long before the tzionim came to Eretz Yisroel, bringing bloodshed, disaster, war and death to our holy land, R"L. May HKB"H soon have rachamim on us and be mevatel the ol of the tzionim, may we be zoiche to see Moshiach ben Dovid and the binyan beis hamikdosh, bimheiro veyomeinu, omein. </Edah-mode> ;) --Rabbeinu 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, I understand that the Edah is anti-Zionist. But your language both here and in the article are not encyclopedic. I understand that English is not your first language. Perhaps you miss some of the subtleties of the language, and also what constitutes "encyclopedic" language and what does not. Regardless, the way the intro was is problematic under WP:NPOV and WP:V. To say the lest, defining the Edah just in terms of its anti-zionism is a big mistake. --Meshulam 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Daniel? First of all, the fact that English is not my mother tongue has nothing to do with this. My English is perfectly fine and a lot better than that of many native speakers. I do not miss any subtleties of the language. Please leave such accusations away. I am completely aware of what I write.

Now. The Edah is, outside of the chareidi world, mainly known for its anti-Zionism. This is what every article about the Edah in the secular media is about. Further, if you would take a look at the publications of the Edah which refer to the tzionim in the terms which I used above, you would understand that what you are doing is to minimize any mentioning of this opposition - which is POV. The fact that the Edah is careful with gittin and with hashgocho is not relevant, since the article already says that it is a Haredi rabbinical body. Haredi by definition includes such things. It does not by defition include being virulently anti-Zionist on the level of the Edah.

The Edah is more anti-Zionist than Satmar, in fact. The Edah forbade voting in the Zionist municipal elections - while the Satmar rabbonim do tell their people to vote. In Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon and other groups, this would be out of the question. --Rabbeinu 07:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reb Yid, Satmer as a kriez ossered voting in municipal elections, but the loophole is that individual rabbunim could give a heter to individuals dependent if they work for the municipality (Thats mutter by all kriezen excepting NK, but their in cheirem and even nutjob chilonim will give them a job.)--Shuliavrumi 13:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel is the guy who has been banned from Wikipedia 4 times and has just resurfaced as User:Rabbeinu, but that is perhaps not entirely relevant to this discussion. You say "Please leave such accusations away." A.) I made no accusation B.) That's not remotely proper English... so you've made my point very well. Thank you.

What is this article about anyway? Is it about Edah's anti-Zionist attitude? 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. I know very well that their attitude towards Zionism is stronger than even Satmar in the United States. That does not mean that it deserves such attention in the headline. Frankly, I think their attention to detail in matters of Gittin and Kashrus is more important (though, by some, a pork-eating anti-Zionist is more worthy of comment then a Shomer Shabbos who does not call down the State at every chance). That having been said, I don't know that Hareidi necessarily means careful in Gittin and Hashgocho... there have been plenty of abuses even in the such circles, v'ein l'harich.--Meshulam 14:14, 12 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)

Our reliable sources are using *us* as a source

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)

Neturei karta

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.

Piz d'Es_cha

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)

And how would you know? What is that based on? Are you so familiar with this world, which I myself am part of? I will get you your sources, don't worry. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1) WP:AGF, you need sources. 2) Yes, I have seen a letter from R' Sonnenfeld where he states that he is not the Chief Rabbi and that other people are being manipulative. 3) It doesn't make a difference if you are part of that world. That would make it easier for OR to creep in. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

mistakes

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)

Move to Edah ha-Haredis

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)

Please explain what you mean by "Edah HaChareidis is the proper name of the organization"? Chesdovi (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The haredi organization is called Edah Hachareidis, not Edah HaHareidis. You can write it's a haredi organization because of wiki standards, but the title of the article should be the proper name of the organization. If you look at the naming standards it should say that. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this to do with pronouciation of the "ch" sound? Chesdovi (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That could be why the Charedidi article is called haredi, but here it's the name of the organization, so the name of the article should match that.

How do you know that in English the organisaiton is spelt with a "CH"? Chesdovi (talk)

14:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how they spell it, but it's irrelevant how it's spelled. The name of the organization is Edah Hachareidis.

Yossiea is right and has my full support in reverting this change. HaHareidis does not make any sense - it is ההרדית or is it חחרדית? How is anyone (who does not speak Hebrew) supposed to understand it? And in any case, in the English-speaking chareidi world, it is nowadays common to translate the ches and chaf with 'ch' and not 'h'. Check Artscroll, Feldheim, HaModia, Mishpacha, Yated Ne'eman, and numerous other English-language chareidi publishers/media. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You have made a valid observation. Maybe it's time to move the Haredi page to Charedi? Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

grammar

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?

article on political extremism

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/fanning-the-flames-1.317909

Zero^talk 03:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There was something similar in HaModia recently, including the statement that the Toldot Aharon Rebbe (do not know which one) had prohibited violence. Most English Internet versions of Israeli papers tend to have rather low standards, though, and should be used with caution. I recently asked some questions on the WP:RSI about "major newspapers", and some welcome changes were made to that article.Mzk1 (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Haaretz is by far the best, and it's absolutely my favorite. They have published plenty of high-quality factual articles about the Haredi world, including the above. The one that must be taken with a ton (rather than a grain) of salt is Ynetnews. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha'aretz? Are you serious? I would question any english-language Israeli internet source (expect maybe JPost), because they are not newspapers; they do not differentiate opinion and fact. Speaking of Ynet, did you see the one on the army religious freedom issue where the sub-header said, "Rabbi sugggests firing squad" which directly contradicted the content of the section it headed. This is below al-Jezeera and competing with Ma'an news.Mzk1 (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Reb Aryeleh is part of the Edah?

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)

Yes, Toldos Aharon is one of the main groups of the Edah, as is Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok. And indeed, your observation is right - many leaders have been great rabbis from other countries (England, South Africa, Belgium, the US); a logical explanation would be that they have more abilities to communicate with the outside world (foreign politicians, for example) when needed. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking even of those from Eretz Yisrael; the Briskers have always been somewhere in the middle.Mzk1 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It's probably the way the elders want to go. The Edah has, as the article explains, a 'civil' and a rabbinical leadership. It's the 'civil' leadership, a council of wise and respected elderly men (not great rabbis!), who decide who the next rabbinical appointments (including the Gavad) will be. They're like a parliament, with the rabbinical judges being the ministers - who set and execute policy, checked and chosen by the parliament. It's not an exact comparison, but close. I think the civil leadership tries to keep the 'extremism' under control this way. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Edah HaChareidit HaSefaradit - proof of existence

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 .

Or feel free to contact them yourself:

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)

I have some questions about your recent edits

* In your comments your mentioned "Mordechai Eliyahu followers". Former Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu is the most respected rabbi among Sephardi Dati Leumi; this is pretty much a "sun rises in the East" thing. Where do Chareidim come in?

* You state the the Eidah reperesents a substantial part of the Chareidi community. What percentage would you consider substantial?

* BTW, I've seen the Hebrew "Chareidi" article. It is horribly POV. I got as far as the Dahan part ("treason") and gave up. I realize that because we are on opposite ends of the Chareidi world, our idea of anti-chareidi POV is quite different, but what do you think? My written Hebrew is just not good enough to deal with this.Mzk1 (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! What I meant with "it doesn't present the Mordechai Eliyahu-followers" is simply that what Tritomex said, "such organization cant represent Sephardi Jews, as whole" is correct - for example, those who follow the opinions of Eliyahu would not accept the Edah HaChareidit HaSefaradit as being an authority for them.

About how many the Edah exactly represents, I don't know, but having lived in Jerusalem for 6 years and having been closely involved in it I do know it is significant. Being chareidi, you know chareidim don't usually hold countings or anything like that. But I assure you the combined numbers of Dushinsky, Satmar, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, the Brisk and Breslov factions that affiliate with the Edah, and many others, most certainly constitute a significant part of the chareidi population of Jerusalem, and, in a larger way, of the world. Wait - this is about the Ashkenazi Edah; are you perhaps talking about the S fardi Edah? If so, check the imageshack link, you'll see some pictures of a paskevil about mechiras chometz listing numerous affiliated rabbanim. The Edah HaChareidit HaSefaradit is a 'small' group comparatively but the reason for you and many others not knowing it too well is that, like the Ashkenazi Edah, they and their followers do not use the internet or modern media and you would be very unlikely to ever hear about them at all. Numbers I don't have; a couple of names I can find, and clear 'evidence' that it exists.

And about the Hebrew article - unfortunately my written Hebrew isn't all that amazing either (actually it's very good but not fluent) so I tend not to edit there unless there is something specific that needs editing. I don't do entire rewrites or improvements of articles... --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Passing away vs dying

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)

Please stop reverting edits that bring articles into accordance with the Manual of Style. You say that "in Judaism, we prefer 'passing away' rather than 'dying'". Yes, and in many cases other religions, and people of no religion, prefer the same wording. I have edited articles on Catholic bishops, Protestant elders, Islamic imams, Buddhist priests and others to change "passing on", "passing away" and "passing" to "death" or "dying". The phrase "passed away" is used very often in obituaries, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board for posting death notices or obituaries. The guideline (WP:EUPHEMISM) alludes to that: "Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided". And Wikipedia strives to take a neutral view, not favoring views of this religion or that one. Bear in mind that not all readers of Wikipedia are Jewish, so articles should be understandable by all. If you disagree with the guideline, please discuss this on its talk page, where a similar discussion recently took place, but as long as the guideline says to "avoid euphemisms such as passed away", please stop reverting contributions of editors who are following it. Chris the speller ^yack 11:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Chris. I checked a few of the linked you googled and they all used "passed" after they uses "died" or "death" a few sentences prior. They are clearly using "passed" only for less awkward reading by repeating the same word. Similarly I would not protest the use of "pass" where it is used to avoid a redundancy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)