Help a goy understand the differences between different Orthodox Jewish sects

When I was a child, I learned that there were three sects, so to speak, of Jews, namely Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.

I was recently reading about the various Orthodox groups in New York, especially the separatist ones. I didn’t realize there was so much division as well as so much separatism - I was under the impression that there had been a lot of integration/assimilation.

What’s a good resource for a non-Jew to understand the basics or even the intricacies of all these sects? For example, what’s the difference between Chabad and Satmar, other than the fact that they have different leaders? Do they get along well, or at least as well, as, say, Lutherans and Anglicans do? Do they proselytize each other? E.g. do Satmar Jews consider Chabad Jews to be heretics and in danger of damnation unless they convert to Satmar? Are Skver Jews discouraged from marrying a Chabad or are Chabad Jews disowned by their parents for “converting” to Skver?

I already know that Jews rarely proselytize non-Jews.

This is a VERY big question. I’m not aware of a good online source to explain it all. I will do my best, focusing on American Orthodox Jews. (I’m one.) It will be long.

The key thing to remember is that, especially when not talking about Hasidic groups, these are not discrete categories. All of them shade one into the next, resulting in the creation of more and more category labels over time to try to neatly categorize individuals, especially for the purpose of setting up single people for marriage. IMO, all such efforts at labeling are somewhat useful but inevitably doomed. To give you an idea of the complexities of this, try this breakdown of the broad categories at one Orthodox dating site: click here, then on ‘How are the Orthodox categories defined?’, then on the link they give. I am reasonably ‘Modern Orthodox Machmir’ in terms of practice, but don’t really see a category there that fits my worldview.

That said: Divide the American Orthodox community into two broad groups: Modern Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox. Both groups seek to maintain a lifestyle that adheres to traditional interpretations of Jewish law (halacha). However, they differ in their approach towards the outside world. MO tries to balance outside influences with living a life in accordance with halacha, while the UO generally tries to remain more cloistered, preferring to live with as little contact with the rest of the world as possible. This manifests itself in different approaches towards secular education (which MO values highly, with essentially everybody in an MO community has a college degree and frequently postgraduate education, while in the UO world they get what is deemed enough to comply with regulations and earn a living, although this varies significantly), the media, the internet, and many other things. Additionally, the two groups view the role of women very differently; all Orthodox groups restrict the role of women in public ritual, but the UO world is very focused on gender segregation, modest attire for women, and idealizing women as mothers and homemakers, while the MO world is generally more integrated and encouraging of women’s career. The MO world still places restrictions on women’s dress/behavior, generally discourages dating except for the purposes of marriage, often forbids physical contact between unrelated people of the opposite gender, and frequently encourages single-sex education, especially for high school. However, gender separation in the UO world is much more wide-ranging, including separate education from nursery onward, separate seating at all functions such as lectures, weddings, etc., and a general discouraging of any unnecessary social contact between unrelated people of the opposite gender. While all Orthodox groups are very family-oriented, and there is no social concept of opting to remain single, or childless by choice, a typical MO family might have 3-5 children, while an UO family will generally have 7-12; UO groups are generally discouraging of birth control.

Of course, there are many people who may identify as Orthodox but who are not committed to being adherent to halacha. It’s a social identifier, rather than a truly religious one. IMO, this group is significantly smaller, in terms of both percentage and numbers, than it was 30-50 years ago. There’s been a huge increase in Jewish education in the interim, and those who identify as Orthodox tend to be much more knowledgeable than they used to be in the US.

There is never any proselytizing of non-Jews. In fact, halacha requires that one try to discourage conversion candidates.

There isn’t a formal proselytizing effort between the two broad groups. However, as working in Jewish education doesn’t pay well, the more highly educated MO group tends not to work in Jewish schools, even MO ones. As such, the teachers, especially for Judaic subjects, are frequently UO, and they may push their viewpoint in ways both subtle and not. A year in Israel learning in yeshiva/seminary is universally encouraged, and it’s not unusual for an MO young person to ‘flip out,’ becoming much more observant and/or much more UO in his/her orientation in a short period of time. Also, Chabad proselytizes to all non-Hasidic Jews, to some degree, but see below - they’re a special case.

Within the UO world, you can broadly divide into two groups, Hasidic and non-Hasidic. This is a more discrete division, although there are those who are ‘Chasidish-ish,’ who like the culture of Hasidism but who may not closely follow the dictates of any one Hasidic sect. The non-Hasidic are referred to as ‘Yeshivish’ or ‘black hat,’ for the black fedoras that have become near-mandatory in those circles for males over bar mitzva. The Hasidic can, themselves, be broken down into two groups: Chabad, aka Lubavitch, and all other Hasidic groups.

Hasidic groups largely emigrated to the US after the Holocaust. Each sect follows a single grand Rebbe, admiring him to such a degree that his table leftovers are considered blessed. The grand Rebbe position is generally hereditary, although it may pass to a son-in-law (who may have been selected for this) rather than to a son. I can think of two current Hasidic groups that have opted not to replace a beloved Rebbe after he died, and who are thus without a single leader: Breslov, who have been rebbe-less for 200 years, and Chabad (see below.) Aside from Chabad, they are very inward-focused, with the entire sect generally living in either one place, or a short list of communities (e.g. Belzers live in Jerusalem, Borough Park, Brooklyn, and I think Montreal.) The lingua franca is generally Yidish; boys, whose Jewish education is prioritized, may receive very little English education and may speak English poorly and with a heavy accent, even if their family has lived in the US for 4-5 generations. The sexes are even more rigidly separated in non-Chabad Hasidic groups than in other UO groups; for example, wedding celebrations are generally held in two separate rooms, rather than in one large room with a divider. The men tend to have distinctive dress, in the style of Eastern European gentry of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and I find that when people think of “Orthodox Jew,” they tend to be picturing “Hasidic man.” Some groups get along quite well (e.g. they may marry across sect lines), and some really don’t. I’m not plugged in at all to the intricate world of Hasidic politics, and can’t really give you a good overview, but it can get fairly ugly, especially in Israel. This tends to be political/financial rather than purely religious, although they may have slightly different interpretations of halacha (and yes, the narcissism of small differences definitely applies here.)

Chabad is a Hasidic group, one currently riven by a division between those who revere the most recent Rebbe, but acknowledge his death in 1994, and those who still consider him the Messiah. (Frankly, non-Chabad Orthodox Jews find the latter group quite disturbing.) The most recent Rebbe charged his followers with bringing all Jews closer to observance of Jewish law and Judaism. These are the Hasidic Jews who may have asked you if you were Jewish at some point. They do not proselytize outside of Judaism, but can be quite aggressive within it. To that goal, they’ve founded centers around the world, and may live far from any established Orthodox community at all. They obviously choose to interact with many outside of their own groups, are more MO in terms of gender segregation, and are big fans of the internet and technology, which allows them greater outreach. Other Hasidic groups tend to be uncomfortable with them, and they don’t have much social mixing between the two.

I have never heard of inter-Hasidic-group proselytizing.

There are also non-Chabad inter-Jewish prozelytization efforts (aka ‘kiruv’), from both UO and MO organizations. My husband became religious in his teens through NCSY, an MO group.

Yeshivish UO Jews are also very inward-focused, although the degree can vary quite significantly by community. The lingua franca is generally English. The major communal value is Torah study, to the point that men are encouraged to spend many years focusing exclusively on full-time Talmud study in yeshivas, while they are supported by their parents and wives. They do not follow a dynastic Rebbe, but over the last 30-40 years, there has become greater communal pressure to follow the dictates of rabbinic leadership of the yeshivas, rather than of the communities.

If I may be less detached than I’ve been trying to be above, in general, MO respect the Judaism of UO, and many even idealize it as more authentic/traditional (which I would dispute), but UO uses the word ‘Modern’ as an epithet. While you will often see UO rabbis invited to speak at MO synagogues/teach in MO schools, you will almost never see the reverse.

That’s the best quick (ha!) overview I can give you. Does this answer your questions?

Just an additional point or two:

Note that Judaism today has no central church or authority, like the Catholic Church and some other Christian churches do. Local Catholic congregations, for example, are basically “branch offices” of the Church in Rome. (Catholics: Am I describing that right?) Judaism has no such equivalent. I don’t think Islam does either. So accordingly, there is no unified doctrine on what “ANSI Standard” Judaism should look like.

Historically, there was a central Jewish authority in the Temple at Jerusalem and the institution of its high priesthood. That came to a final end in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the Temple, leading to a period of Jewish history called the “Diaspora” (from Greek for “Dispersion”), meaning not only the geographic dispersion of Jews throughout the known world, but also to the loss of the central Jewish authority. (ETA: The geographic distribution of Jews around the known world was actually well established long before that.) The Diaspora is an era of Jewish history that continues to this day.

Various Jewish congregations may group together to form semi-centralized organizations, to which congregations may subscribe. For example, many Reform congregations in the United States are members of the UAHC, of Union of American Hebrew Congretations. (Upon looking up the Wiki, I learn that they have changed their name to Union for Reform Judaism (URJ). This organization runs seminaries (where rabbis are trained and ordained) and conducts other unifying American Reform Jewish activities.

Judaism has historically not been overtly welcoming of outsiders joining the club, but it is certainly not forbidden. There is no overt proselytizing, and member wannabees are required to study Judaism extensively before they can be formally converted. One famous convert was Sammy Davis Jr.

Another thing that occurred to me during my commute: Orthodox groups aren’t really parallel to Christian denominations. They generally don’t differ on theological concepts like transubstantiation, predestination, etc. It’s more a matter of different interpretations of the practical law, and differing worldviews. (Worldview and legal interpretation influence each other, of course, in this as in any other legal system.) So generally speaking, it’s not a matter of heresy per se. (The big exception is the Chabad group that thinks their deceased Rebbe is the Messiah. Everybody else thinks they’re heretical.) It’s a matter of disagreeing on interpretation, or combinations of politics and tradition.

Senegoid, thank you for making the point that there’s no central governing authority. It’s an important one. The old saw about ‘two Jews, three opinions’ is most definitely reflected in the fractally nested subgroups you can find within the Jewish community. [Semi-relevant XKCD]

Also, I think I may have overstated the unfriendliness to converts. Orthodox Jews do not proselytize (robert_columbia’s question), but they do accept converts after a lengthy period of study, and a period of at least a year of living as an Orthodox Jew. (In that regard, it’s like undergoing gender reassignment surgery, I guess; both changes are viewed as irreversible, so one has to be very sure that one wants to make that jump. Halachically speaking, once you convert sincerely, you’re as Jewish as anybody else, forever.) My synagogue has a good handful of converts, including a close friend of mine.

As a matter of fact, the Reconstructionist movement is now large and stable enough to be ranked as a fourth “type.” It was founded by Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan, who had the honor of being the first Jew since Spinoza to be ex-communicated by whoever the muckety-muck Rabbis were, and whose daughter was the first girl in history to have a bat-mitzvah (that is, to be formally recognized as one who is aware and responsible for fulfilling the mitzvot, the commandments (perhaps not all 613 of them!) of God–or, as Kaplan would say, by those precepts that a particular group of people, who are these Jews’ ancestors, had the collective insight to establish as being Good for The Jews, and if possible good for everyone. (Caps are to salute the old Jewish mantra, which in this case is precisely the problematic of Reconstructionism.)

It is often derided as for people who pray to a God that isn’t. Titles of Kaplan’s most influential books should give a quick sense of where the branch is comming from: Judaism as a Civilization (1935) and Judaism Without Supernaturalism (1958).

A Reconstructionist synagogue service, liturgically, will at first strike one as essentially Conservative, or borderline Orthodox, but for the complete integration of women.

Yes, I was also going to mention Reconstructionist. My cousin’s daughter was bat mitzva at a Reconstructionist service (not synagogue but actually took place in the Haverford College Friends meeting house). I grew up going to Conservative and then Reform synagogues and I will affirm that it is decidedly Conservative in style.

Not the first. Trotsky was, at least, and probably a bunch of people who weren’t particularly famous.

Yeah, you can get put in cherem (not really the same thing as excommunication, in that one is being expelled from the community rather than from the Church) for, say, ignoring the ruling of your local Jewish court. It’s not like it’s that unusual, although I’ve never known anyone personally who was.

So to use an example that many of us goys might recognize: In The Chosen and The Promise, Reuven is Modern Orthodox, while Danny is a Hasid (but not a Chabad) in a congregation where his father is the Rebbe. Danny’s decision not to follow his father as Rebbe is somewhat unheard-of. And in The Promise, the controversial theology that Reuven encounters is arguably proto-Recontructionist. Do I have that right?

What is the difference between a Rebbe and a Rabbi?

Do the Ultra-Orthodox refer to themselves as “Ultra-Orthodox,” or is that a term used by outsiders? I ask because in political parlance, the “ultra-” designation is often one that is applied by a group’s adversaries (ultraliberal, ultraconservative) to define them as something impliedly “other than normal.”

An orthodox Rabbi has smicha - he’s passed tests and has been granted the title of Rabbi (or Rav in Hebrew). The word itself means teacher. Many Rabbis have a shule (synagogue) pulpit position, or teach, or occupy some position in the Jewish community. Like a chassidic rebbe, out of respect one always speaks to the greatest rabbis in third person.

“Rebbe” can refer to a few different types of positions. One who has a teacher that he respects and is close with will call him “Rebbe.” For example, many who learn in a yeshiva will refer to the Rabbi they spend the most time with as “Rebbe.” It may also be used in the same context if one is particularly close with a shule Rabbi.

Chasidim refer to the leader of their particular sect as “Rebbe.” He is the overall leader of the sect, and receives a vast amount of respect. For example, when speaking with a chassidic rebbe, one always uses third person, never referring to him as “you.” (“Would the Rebbe like a drink?” “How does the Rebbe understand this section of Torah?”) In most cases, the Rebbe’s word is law, and followers who don’t listen can find themselves ostracized from the group.

Often, a chassidic rebbe’s followers will ask his opinion about absolutely anything and everything, and follow his ruling exactly.

By the way, if you happen to be in Israel between now and the end of November, go to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem and see this exhibit. I saw it a few months ago, and it’s an amazing trip into the chassidic world.

It’s a term used by outsiders, generally derogatorily. The term they use for themselves is generally either frum or Haredi

It’s been a long time since I’ve read the book, but I think you have it right.

Which sect is the one which focuses more on a common culture rather than theology?

Without a doubt, Reconstructionist.

This is a bizarre statement. If there is anything in the world that is a uniquely Christian tangle, a locus of Christian theology, it is transubstantiation. Hell, wars have been fought over it. People go to different churches for it’s meaning.

Eucharist? Body of Man and Body of God? As an act of faith in the divinity of a suffering human? That’s a pretty snazzy Kiddush and Motzi (blessing of wine and bread).

I think you misunderstand. He’s contrasting Jewish sects (who don’t have such differences) with Christian sects (who do).

The “they” refers to “Orthodox groups”.

You misread GilaB’s post some how. S/he was clearly saying that Christian denominations do differ on theological doctrines like transubstantiation.

In fact, that would almost define Reconstructionist thought, which would frame it as how theology is a product of culture.

Remember, however, that Jews are lousy :slight_smile: at theology; in fact, except for sporadic efflorescences in the Medieval Scholastic period, examining the ontology of God has always been viewed as getting way too close to the fire.

Kaplan would reframe the statement as follows: Greek culture had the genius and cultural core of philosophy, Jews had the genius and cultural core of God. No valuation between the groups, just a way of looking at what was the defining core.

Note that the “Hellenic versus Hebraic” is an old one, but itself became culturally significant in the 19th century. This is not a simple parallel to Kaplan here.

There is also by no means a consensus among Christians on the nature of the Trinity.

Missed edit window.

Revised graf on looking at ontology:

Remember, however, that Jews are lousy :slight_smile: at theology; in fact, except for sporadic efflorescences in the Medieval Scholastic period, examining the ontology of God has always been viewed as getting way too close to the fire. Currently, only a few severe students of Kabbalism go the limit even to the extent of explicit anthropomorphism. A key text there is an ecstatic vision passage in Ezekiel of “the image” of God. To get a sense of the fences the teachers place on the topic, it is decided in the Talmud that a minimum of three mature adults should delve there, and even then with damn good reason.

I asked this explicit question to a woman on a bus I was chatting with. She was assuredly Hassidic, “ultra-Orthodox,” to the extent of following one particular sub-cult with its own Rebbe, geographic roots, etc. She didn’t agree that she was “ultra-Orthodox”–I pressed her on what she thought the word meant. She thought of herself simply as Orthodox.

The term often used for, say, a male Jew you see wearing a Yarmulke (a kipa)–or he may go bareheaded–but with modern clothing, is “modern Orthodox.” In Israel, where everybody is Jewish and you can’t tell the players without a scorecard, modern Orthodox, who serve in the military and are the vast majority of religious Jews, are termed “knitted kipas”. For the rest of the Hassidim–the charedim, with a vocalized cough of “ch”–sartorial hints can take you only so far. Lubavitchers, who send Jewish missionaries-for-Jews to all corners of the world, and are surely the most visible in the secular areas of major cities, can be spotted by their sporty Borsalino hats.

For the rest, all I can get is the black socks versus the white socks (the knee-high leggings they wear when duded-up for Sabbath).