Yeah, but Ashkenaz Jewry was always pretty much what you might term "charedi". In fact, all organized ashkenaz Jewry was "charedi" until the German englightenment era. Each town, shtetl, whatever had it's Rav or Rebbe and followed his poskening. Why does the "charedi translation" bother you?
Actually, the average Jewish experience in Ashkenaz, and elsewhere, for most of Jewish history, is less what we today would call Haredi, and more what in Israel they refer to among the Sefardim and Mizrahim as Shomrei Masoret. They consider themselves observant, they are strict about some mitzvot, and lax about others, without much official halakhic process; but if there are questions of communal importance, they will always defer to their Rav.
I've done quite a bit of reading in the correspondence of Jews in the period of the Rishonim, from the Genizah and from elsewhere. It seems to demonstrate pretty convincingly that what one can read between the lines of many teshuvot from the Middle Ages and Renaissance is probably true: that while rabbis have consistently asked and answered questions of halakhah with minute detail, quite often,
amcha (the mass of the people) were far less punctilious about details, and much more observant in broad strokes; and they tolerated a great deal of variation in halakhic interpretation, ritual practice, communal standards, and variations in
nuscha'ot (liturgical rites)-- far more than any Haredi communities would tolerate today.
That said though, what I really don't care for in modern Haredi treatments of liturgy, theology, or halakhah, is that they have an entirely ahistoric tendency to say "this is how it has always been," when, in fact, liturgy, theology, and halakhah have all evolved and changed considerably over the past 2000 years. Halakhah especially has been far more vigorous and flexible than Haredim have permitted it to be over the past 200 years or so. For example, while there has certainly always been a guideline that, if possible one should pasken
hilkheta kevatrei (according to the most recent authoritative halakhic responsum), for most of our history that was a guideline, not an ironclad rule. And this notion that our halakhic authority degenerates and weakens with each succeeding generation is completely modern. While the Rishonim, for example, certain would have hesitated to change the psak of a Gaon, it was known to happen. It is only the Acharonim who began to get fidgety about the authority of post-Talmudic rabbis prior to themselves, and only Acharei Acharonim (late Acharonim) that have come to believe that merely being born earlier automatically qualifies one as a better
dayan (judge).
Likewise, there is a perverse notion I have seen amongst many Haredim that the
matbe'a tefillah (liturgy) of the current
nuscha'ot is somehow inviolable, cannot be altered in any way, as though it had been handed down from Sinai, and anyone who does so is heretical and not Orthodox. Yet this is not so. There are relatively few ironclad rules in halakhah about what cannot be changed in the
matbe'a tefillah, and many learned rabbis and lay Jews have made variations, altered, added, taken away, and otherwise created variant
nuscha'ot without harm or impropriety over the years, long before there even were movements.
I don't care for Haredi Judaism, because it is deliberately rejectionist of its own history, and takes the halakhic, liturgical, and ritual choices of previous generations of Jews whatever it doesn't happen to like, and pretends they never existed. Haredi Judaism embraces strictness for no good reason, merely for the sake of strictness: It criticizes any halakhic choices that are
kulot (leniencies), while itself making equally radical halakhic choices about
chumrot (stringencies) that are said to be beyond question. Haredi Judaism, in its strictness, its rejection of history, its refusal to permit halakhah and liturgy and practice to evolve naturally, as our system was built to do, has become a movement of
nevalim bi'reshut hatorah (those who follow the letter of the law, yet do so in a way that does not curtail unethical behavior). It oppresses women; it is unmerciful toward gay and lesbian Jews; it is frequently racist; it fosters poor care for the elements of kashrut about cruelty to animals, while at the same time choosing to emphasize ridiculous kashrut chumrot that nobody should ever be held to (washing broccoli in bleach, anyone?); and it turns a blind eye toward the unethical business practices of Haredi Jews who exploit non-Jewish workers and cheat the fair business practice laws of the US and Israel. Not only that, but they subvert and ignore the principle of
machloket l'shem shamayim (dispute for the sake of Heaven), and they relentlessly spread
sinat chinam about non-Haredi Jews, deepening and widening the hurts of Am Yisrael, instead of trying to create
shalom bayit (domestic peace) in Beit Yaakov.
I'm not saying that each and every Haredi individual does all these things: I've met some who don't, who are really good, open, tolerant, critically-thinking people, who simply choose to live a Haredi lifestyle. But the majority of the Haredi movement doesn't seem to be that way. It seems to be what I described above.
So I don't usually recommend their materials to anyone I teach or to any of my friends and acquaintances.
