Could one of the reasons in todays day that there is two different groups of catagory of jews (Ashkenazim and Sephardim),be because the jewish nation cant be under one class, because of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel have to be separete and cant unite untill Moshiach.
And i am refering to the Kingdom being split between Yeravam ben Nevat King of Israel and Rechavam ben Shlomo King of Judah

david im not saying that the Ashkenazim are from Judah, and that the Sephardim are from the tribes of Israel; or vice-versa
im trying to say that maybe we have different catagorys because we cant be united under one kingdom untill moshiach

B"H

Dear "Anonymous Member,"

Are you assuming that the Ashkenazim are from Judah, and that the Sephardim are from the tribes of Israel; or vice-versa, that the Ashkenazim are from the tribes of Israel, and that the Sephardim are from Judah? If this was your import, let me assure you that the communities are a mixture of both. Rather, the dispersion of the Jewish people in exile has given way to Ashkenazim (German) and to Sephardim (Spanish). By the way, the Yemenite Jews fit into a category of themselves, and are neither Ashkenazim nor Sephardim.

Whether or not there must always be two vying groups in any given community in order for it to become viable, and mutually beneficial, is a thing that only G-d by His infinite wisdom can know. What we do know, however, is that at the coming of the Messiah, there will no longer be differences between us in our interpretation of the Torah. All of us will practice one and the same Judaism.

David

I would like to qualify that today both groups, Ashkinazim and Sephardim, have little to do with Germany and Spain, respectively. The two may have originated there centuries ago, but today, these are ethnic labels for various communities with ther own distinct cultural imprints. A Bukharian Sephardi is definitely not a Syrian Sephardi, an an Askinaz from the Ukraine is not one from Germany. I do not see how these old categories help explain anything significant about the Jewish people in modern times.

Shalom Joseph,
I agree with you about modern Jews. However, the traditions (minhagim) emanating from the original groupings have important halachic implications today. The issue is not an ethnic one but rather one of tradition. Halacha does not recognize race or ethnicity but it recognizes minhagim and halacha. I know black people who are Ashkenazim and I know white people who are Sepharadim or Teimani. It has nothing to do with ethnic origins but has to do with the traditions one assumes in one's Jewish observance.

About the kingdoms of Judah and Israel; it's a huge and evolving story. Much has been written about it. Many groups have been identified around the world as being descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel. But, again, if they don't have the tradition they are "lost". A process of recognizing them as "seed" of Israel is initiated and then they can convert.

Conversion brings them into the tradition again. A good example is the Ethiopians. Rav Ovadia Yosef issued a ruling recognizing them as "seed" of Israel, allowing them to make aliyah and making formal conversion.

Do the tribes exist today and can they be reconstituted according to the ancient groupings? I don't know. Jewishness is not genetic and the gedolim say that Jewish souls will come back to the fold, so when they do, we will all know we've been accounted for.

Moshe, Shalom.

Unfortunately, I do not know much about minhagim. However, I have heard that the Chabad minhag (perhaps it pertains to hassidim in general)is much closer to Babylonian traditions, i.e. Sephardi, than it is to Litvish, i.e. Ashkenaz. If this is true, then we are back at my original point.

Joseph

Joseph,

If we are going to push the purity of minhagim issue, clearly the Teimani (Yemenite) are closest to the original. But I'm not even sure that it matters. The important thing is that we have living minhagim today. The multiplicity of minhagim can also be considered a good thing. It means a Jew can be a Jew so many different ways and that's okay.

The Chabad have created a hybrid Sephardic/Ashkenazic/Hassidic minhag in pursuit of a standard universal minhag. They did a pretty good job as long as the Teimani were hidden in Yemen. But since the Teimani came to light during the past century or so, all that has changed.

The Teimani don't need a hybrid, they are the closest to the original.

Moshe,

On the contary, my inquiry was not about "purity". The only thing I know about minhagim is that the Ashkenaz traditions come from the rites administered in Jerusalem, while Sephardi traditions were influenced by the Babylonian diaspora. But again, this is not my question.

I was only wondering if the terms "Ashkenaz" and "Sephardi" are relevant today with regards to various minhag traditions. Hence, my question about Chabad, which you agreed, subscribes to a fusion of both Ashkenaz and Sephardi traditions.
Is Chabad then neither Ashkenaz, nor Sephardi, nor Teimani? How do we define the Ashkenaz then? Or what about the Bukharian minhag? Is it so similar to other Sephardi minhagim that we can classify them all as Sephardi on the basis of their similarities?

Joseph

Joseph,

You raise an important issue. Chabad minhag is technically neither Ashkenazic nor Sephardic, however, most Chabad identify themselves as Ashkenazic....go figure. I think they feel that way ethnically. Herein lies the problem; different Jews define themselves differently. The more learned they are the more halachic their definition is. But being that the majority of Jews are not learned enough to appreciate halacha, the definitions on the street sound more ethnic so that's where our confusion lies.

In the US the majority of Jews are Ashkenazic and most of them think if you are not Ashkenazic you must be Sephardic. But, as David pointed out, that can't be farther from the truth. The Mizrahi, Teimani, Bukharian and other groups are not Sephardic. Some groups such as the Mizrahi have acquiesced to being called Sephardic because they are tired of explaining.

As a general rule, the less learned the Jew is, the more he looks at these as exclusive ethnic groupings. The more learned, the more he looks at them as inclusive minhagim trajectories....since Jewishness is defined halachically, not ethnically. I could be wrong too.

Moshe,

I agree with you absolutely. I like your reference to "definitions on the street".

Joseph

Joseph,
A very good friend of mine once asked,
"What are you going to do about kitniot when Moshiach comes?"
I asked him, "What do you mean?"
He said, "Are you going to give them up?"
I told him, "Why would Moshiach give up kitniot, I'm just assuming he is Sephardic."
Well, he was surprised, because he, being Ashkenazic, just assumed Moshiach would be Ashkenazic too. I guess we will have a lot of fun when Moshiach is revealed.