Haredi Woman Passes Away At 99, Leaves Behind 1,400 Descendants

Due to their great numbers, the family is not quite clear on precisely how many descendents there are. "The estimate in the family is that we are about 1,400 people since almost all of those from the family line were blessed with many children."

Woman dies at 99, leaves behind 1,400 descendants
One of Jerusalemite Rachel Krishevsky's grandchildren says with pride, 'Grandma knew all of her descendents'
Nissan Shtrauchler • Ynet

The commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" the Krishevsky family follows quite closely. Last Saturday, the great grandmother, Rachel Krishevsky passed away at the age of 99, leaving behind no less than 1,400 children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and even great-great-grandchildren.

Krishevsky got married to her cousin, Yitzhak, just before turning 19. The couple brought seven sons and four daughters into the world. In accordance with haredi custom, Krishevsky brought up her children to see children as a great joy. Her children subsequently adopted her outlook and produced 150 children of their own.

These 150 children continued the commitment to be fruitful and multiply and themselves had no less than 1,000 children. From here, the lineage continued even further, and Rachel Krishevsky was blessed with a few hundred great-great-grandchildren.

Rachel Krishevsky died on Saturday surrounded by loving descendents.

Due to their great numbers, the family is not quite clear on precisely how many descendents there are. "The estimate in the family is that we are about 1,400 people since almost all of those from the family line were blessed with many children," said one of the grandchildren Wednesday.

Though she lived a full and long life, the family is saddened by Rachel's passing. Krishevsky lived nearly her whole live next to Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda open-air market.

"Grandma was a God-fearing woman her whole life, and her door was always open to the homeless and poor near the market who were looking for a place to eat," added the grandchild.

"She knew the entire book of Psalms by heart, and participated in all the family events, happy and sad, up until two years ago. She knew all of her descendents. We are sad about her death, but proud of what she achieved in her life and her righteousness and compassion."

Though Krishevsky certainly produced many offspring, she did was not a record-breaker. In the haredi sector, there are two well-known cases of living people having great-great-great-grandchildren. One such case is in a Hassidic family living in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Mea Shearim. Another such family is that of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the leader of the Lithuanian branch of haredi Judaism. A few months ago, his great-great-grandson had his first child.

Comments

[ah-pee-chorus]

this is the height of selfishness. we live on a planet with limited resources which can only support a finite number of humans and animals. while a brief period post holocaust of jewish replenishment is defendable, the concept of 2 people flooding the earth with 1400 variants of their DNA in a mere 100 years is greed of the greatest magnitude. if every inhabitant of our home did the same, earth's ability to sustain us all would be surpassed in a very short span of time. maybe even in the lifetime of one of her descendants. only in the fun-house mirror that is religion does this appear to be a laudable act.

[Yisroel Pensack]

ah-pee-chorus: Your comment is pure Malthusian propaganda -- not an analysis. Read Henry George's "Progress and Poverty," which is a book on political economy, not theology, for a thorough disproof of the Malthusian theory.

[WoolSilkCotton]

How many of those 1400 are on welfare? How many of them married each other?

[Yisroel Pensack]

WSC: You could ask the same questions about the descendants of Adam and Eve.

[norm]

And I hear that ten of them have jobs!

[nachos]

How many of them served in the army?

[WoolSilkCotton]

Yisroel Pensack, I have asked, and here's what I found out:
Most non-haredi Jews are not on welfare. They work and contribute wonderfully to society.
Most haredi Jews ARE on welfare, and are leeches on the rest of Jewry and society at large.
That's what I found out about the descendants of Adam and Eve.

[A. Nuran]

YP, I suggest you learn a little bit of biology and economics, rather than relying on pure ideological screed. Pay special attention to the concepts of carrying capacity and the dirty little secret of classical economics, the "natural wage". It's always dangerous to dismiss Malthus.

I'm not defending apc. But you are making an even bigger mistake.

[A. Nuran]

YP, nachos and norm raise serious questions.

How many of these people contributed to the defense of their fellow Jews by serving in the IDF? I don't mean serving by themselves on the back for sitting in yeshiva and kollel until they were too old to serve.

How many of them got educated or learned a skilled trade and supported themselves? How many lived off welfare or charity? Our own traditions tell us that a man who does not teach his son a trade teaches him to steal and that a man should first learn a trade, build a house, plant a tree and only then find a wife.

[harold]

What a bunch of sick people here. A woman passes away and is branded as an evil person responsible for the unsubstantiated crimes committed by her decedents. Maybe many of them are good and even great people.

You people are sick and should be ashamed of yourselves! Yech!

[ah-pee-chorus]

Yisroel Pensack -
while it might be expedient for you to strawman me into a position of malthusian proponency, you are either incapable of distinguishing between what i wrote and malthusian theory, despite the complete lack of overlap. or you dishonestly associated the two. the theory speaks to what is likely to take place in the long run vis a vis population and resources.
what i said, which should be blatantly obvious to all, is that IF EVERY INHABITANT did the same.. .... even those that disagree with the theory would concede that IF all were as greedily selfish as these people, the worlds resources would be overrun shortly. the point of the rejectors of the theory is that this is unlikely to happen. that has no bearing on my point which was conditional.

[Ben]

APC, the world will never be overpopulated because the nature will always take care of itself. If everyone had 1400 descendents then famine, war and epidemics will take care of restoring the ballance.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Ben : absolutely, but pushing towards that by having 10 + kids and encouraging them to do same is highly selfish and irresponsible.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Re A. Nuran (09:17 AM): Carrying capacity and the true natural wage are indeed the concepts to focus on.

The earth's carrying capacity (its ability to support human population) increases over time as technology advances, as the arts of production are improved, and with increased specialization of labor -- all of which enhance productivity.

These advances in productivity enable greater production of goods and services that is ultimately transmuted into higher land rents and, in the absence of heavy land value taxation, higher selling prices for land.

Without heavy land value taxation, the natural and inherently beneficial growth of rent engenders land speculation (systemic underuse or non-use of valuable land) and land monopoly, which together deprive labor of free or low-cost access to highly productive natural opportunities which, were it not for the existence of speculatively bloated rents and land prices, would actually yield a naturally high level of wages. Instead, land speculation and land monopoly cause a systemic, legally-sanctioned, access-price-based lockout of would-be producers from natural opportunities. It is this de facto combination of landlords that artificially drives down wages and is the underlying cause of low wages, poverty, involuntary unemployment, recessions and depressions.

We've seen a clear illuatration of these phenomena at work in causing the current severe recession.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Re ah-pee-chorus (09:40 AM): I was not trying to "strawman" you "into a position of malthusian proponency."

Your comment at 07:14 AM says,in part: "this is the height of selfishness. we live on a planet with limited resources which can only support a finite number of humans and animals...the concept of 2 people flooding the earth with 1400 variants of their DNA in a mere 100 years is greed of the greatest magnitude."

That itself is purely Malthusian, even without your conditional statement that "if every inhabitant of our home did the same, earth's ability to sustain us all would be surpassed in a very short span of time."

The selfish and greedy people are not those who have large families but the landlords who monopolize the world's abundant resources and valuable locations without paying market rents or equivalent land value taxes to the community.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Harold 9:31, I think you're right.
This woman, as a teenage girl, married her cousin, then had 11 children. She lived to a ripe old age, having fulfilled what she felt was her mission from God and her purpose here on earth. Let her Rest in Peace.

There will be plenty of other threads with opportunities to criticize the haredi life style. I apologize for my 9:06 posting, because the correct thing to have said on this thread for this deceased elderly woman was Rest in Peace, or its Hebrew equivalent.

[R]

All her desecendants are also her cousins.

[Yisroel Pensack]

WoolSilkCotton: One other thing worth mentioning about your 09:06 AM comment in response to mine at 08:16 AM is that most descendants of Adam and Eve are not Jewish.

[Successful Messiah]

"Your comment is pure Malthusian propaganda"

Its not - it is pure racism.

[Nachum]

Any overpopulation problem the world might have isn't going on in First World countries like Israel.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Yisroel Pensack, may we all live in good health to 120, and see our future generations, as well as the true and ultimately successful Messiah.
A Happy, Healthy and Sweet New Year to all.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Re Successful Messiah's 11:52 AM comment in response to mine at 07:38 AM, and without accusing anyone here of "racism," it's worth noting that the Malthusian doctrine conveniently dovetails with the ideas, beliefs and goals and of those who desire to rid the world of its presumed excess populations of allegedly "inferior" peoples.

[Yisroel Pensack]

WoolSilkCotton: Thank you for bracha and New Year wishes at 12:19 PM and for your 11:38 AM posting in which you took the high road and apologized for your 9:06 posting.

You are obviously a tzaddik, a gentleman and a scholar (or a tzedekess, a gentlewoman and a scholar).

[ah-pee-chorus]

"" it is pure racism""
Successful Messiah and YP-

stop the childish and laughably unsupported charges. it makes zero difference to me whether she would have been mormon, as with the family on TV with 18 kids, or any other ethnicity.
but i wonder how quick you would have been to defend against my assertion if this story was about a muslim woman in israel. i suspect i wouldnt have heard a peep. so who is the racist?
my comments hold true for ALL inhabitants of our incredible planet. no one has a right to ignore the impact of their actions on the rest of the world.

[ah-pee-chorus]

""Any overpopulation problem the world might have isn't going on in First World countries like Israel."

Posted by: Nachum | September 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM
if anything, the more advanced the country, the greater draw on resources for each person.
1400 extra people in israel use far more water, oil, food than 1400 people in a third world country as per capita use of resources rises with wealth.
secondly, does meah shearim qualify as a first world location? and if these demographics continue, israel will lose its place as one.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Re ah-pee-chorus at 12:53 PM, I didn't make any charge of racism against you. What I wrote at 12:21 PM was specifically "without accusing anyone here of 'racism.'"

It's best to read what I wrote, before responding to what someone else wrote and blaming me for that.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Re ah-pee-chorus at 01:00 PM, the more dead the person, the smaller the "draw on resources for each person."

[ah-pee-chorus]

no, but you categorized my position dishonestly as malthusian and then stated that the doctrine dovetails with racist policies. i read it very carefully.
and thanks for clarifying that the deader the person the less they require. truly illucidating.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Re ah-pee-chorus at 1:47 PM: I already explained why your position is Malthusian in my posting at 11:25 AM. I was not being dishonest then or in my comment at 7:38 AM. Yes, the Malthusian doctrine does dovetail with racist policies. That's just a fact.

Are you for or against high levels of consumption of natural resources -- levels of resource consumption associated with widespread prosperity? I'm for it.

Your statement at 1:00 PM is also pure Malthusianism: "does meah shearim qualify as a first world location? and if these demographics continue, israel will lose its place as one."

Combining alarmist warnings of resource scarcity while promoting baseless fears of overpopulation makes you a doctrinaire Malthusian in my book, regardless of your reluctance to self-identify as one.

Apparently you believe that people who have large families are therefore selfish and greedy, but people who have small families or no children at all are therefore kind, generous and giving.

[A. Nuran]

YP, there have certainly been increases in carrying capacity. But it isn't nearly as rosy as the Julian Simon Cornucopians would have us believe. Thousands of pages have been written on the subject. I'll just throw out a few of the harsher points...

1) The amount of potable water, ocean fish stocks and arable land has been shrinking for at least the last forty years. The rate of this deterioration is increasing.

2) Much of the increase in productivity has come from spending fund resources rather than capturing flow.

3) We are still in an exponential population growth phase. The human population has more than quadrupled since the beginning of the 20th century. The fact that the third derivative of population recently (and only arguably) went negative is not a great consolation.

4) Twenty years ago we passed the 50% threshold. For the first time ever more than half of all photosynthesis on Earth is directly accounted for by agriculture. The benefits of the Green Revolution were engulfed about a decade ago.

5) Ingenuity does not imply that that capacity will be used in a productive, sustainable manner.

6) The fact that something is necessary in no way guarantees that it will appear at need. Civilizations have collapsed many times.

7) The natural wage is that which provides bare subsistence. Absent political action to ensure the creation of a vibrant middle class - and laissez-faire of the current predatory sort is absolutely inimical to this - almost everyone will be poor, sick and on the edge of starvation with no surplus to invest in household wealth. Without counterbalancing forces such as a strong Labor movement or a political economy which returns to labor much of the surplus which it creates the increases in wealth will and inevitably have entered a positive feedback loop which rewards only an ever-smaller fraction of increasingly wealthy oligarchs.

8) In a developed economy the single greatest predictors of increased household wealth are female education and reduction in family size. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine what effect artificially increasing family size and actively discouraging female education will yield.

[Ben]

The reason why we should not be worried about this fenomena is that it is not wide spread. There will be no overpopulation, because families like this are few and far between in contemporary Israel.

Furthermore, most of these population explosion was made possible by non-Haredi Jews paying for it through taxes (welfare, child support, free healthcare, free eductaion) and through charities. With depletion of non-Haredi Jewry these sources are coming to an end.

So our discussion here is purely theoretical.

[WoolSilkCotton]

++Yisroel Pensack | September 17, 2009 at 12:51 PM++

Thanks Yisroel. I just checked, and my gender is masculine.

All best wishes to everyone, regardless of religion or politics, for a Happy, Healthy and Sweet New Year.

[Asa]

Nicely done, WSC. Shanah tovah.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Re A. Nuran at 4:46 PM:

Thanks for admitting "there have certainly been increases in carrying capacity."

If you oppose the loss of farmland, you should be advocating land value taxation to combat sprawl.

Your point 2 has no intelligible meaning without further explanation, and I doubt that even then your point would be both meaningful and valid.

This statement by you proves my point, not yours: "The human population has more than quadrupled since the beginning of the 20th century."

Re your number 4, please ditto my above response to number 2.

Re point 5, so what? "Sustainability" is a high-sounding but meaningless Malthusian catchword/slogan.

Re point 6, Henry George devotes the 10th (and last) "book" or main division of "Progress and Poverty" to a discussion of the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, which includes a chapter titled "How Modern Civilization May Decline." Civilizations generally fail because they become overloaded with accumulated privileges, the greatest of which is the private pocketing of land values.

You opening statement in point 7 is false, although it may correctly describe what Malthus considers to be "the natural wage."

This is the central, fundamental question George puts forth in italics on page 17 of "Progress and Poverty": "Why, in spite of increase in productive power, do wages tend to a minimum which will give but a bare living?" The book was written primarily to answer that very question.

On page 282, in a chapter titled "The Persistence of Poverty Amid Advancing Wealth," George provides the answer, also in italics: "The reason why, in spite of the increase of productive power, wages constantly tend to a minimum which will give but a bare living, is that, with increase in productive power, rent tends to an even greater increase, thus producing a constant tendency to the forcing down of wages."

Failing to see the true, fundamental, underlying cause of low wages, you advocate socialistic-sounding remedies, whereas George, on page 328, in a chapter tiltled "The True Remedy" writes: "This, then, is the remedy for the unjust and unequal distribution of wealth apparent in modern civilization, and for all the evils which flow from it: We must make land common property." (The last sentence also stands in italics, as a separate paragraph.) On page 405, also in italics, George explains that "It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent." He writes: "We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all." On p. 406, again italics , he proposes "to appropriate rent by taxation." And, further on page 406 he sets forth his remedy in practical form, again in italics, by proposing "To abolish all taxation save that upon land values."

As Henry George wrote in his 1880 preface to the fourth edition of the "Progress and Poverty": "What I have done in this book...is to unite the truth perceived by the school of Smith and Ricardo to the truth perceived by the schools of Proudhon and Lasalle; to show that *laissez faire* (in its full true meaning) opens the way to a realization of the noble dreams of socialism; to identify social law with moral law, and to disprove ideas which in the minds of many cloud grand and elevating perceptions."

Your number 8 re "female education and reduction in family size" is fine with me so long as they develop through free choice of individuals rather than by fiat.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Re WoolSilkCotton at 7:30 PM: Don't spend too much time checking or we'll have to notify the Breslover authorities.

[Yisroel Pensack]

My Georgist friend Frank Walker just wrote me:

Consider that each of the children of Rachel & Yitzhak Krishevsky had at least one mate to produce 150 children, and each of those 150 children who reproduced had at least one mate to produce 1,000 children, and so forth. It is extremely unlikely that any of these mates was a lineal descendant of the Krishevskys.

Thus, this is not a case of two people multiplying into 1,400 descendants -- such a thing is impossible. The creation of 1,400 lineal descendants likely required reproductive activity by over 200 people who were not in the Krishevsky genetic line. When this is considered, the actual rate of increase of the total number of individuals involved is not nearly as striking as suggested by the story's headline.

[reuven sabel]

mr richard pensack:
you hate landlords but you forced me to remain a landlord by forcing me to put all of my inherited real estate in a trust instead of letting me sell my share of my family's real estate.