What wearing black and white does to people…

With the Rabbi’s permission, I’ll try to phrase this less generally. I’ll bring an example not דווקא of “extremism,” but on the contrary, of an action that is usually perceived as normative, yet with regard to Haredi society it serves, in my opinion, as a detail that teaches about the whole. I mean “volunteering.” Here is a quote from correspondence with attentive friends:
The entire Haredi volunteer system has its roots in anarchism: the ideal of creating a society based on volunteer frameworks and abolishing every governing institution whatsoever. This is a result of extreme anti-authoritarianism, which, together with the nullification of individual personality, creates fertile ground for tribal power struggles. At the same time, war is a phenomenon not unique to Haredim (it also exists among ants), and it is not necessarily driven by rational considerations.
The wars of the Haredim are not only an expression of culture but also a factor that determines social patterns; in fact, one can say that war is the very essence of Harediness.
The cause of Haredi wars is irrational; it stems from anti-real Haredi needs while ignoring the actual reality. Its main point is the need to establish and balance economic-biological needs.
War in the Haredi sense is a necessity of crooked logic that tries to organize the tribe with pseudo-sovereign force.
Volunteering in general society is essentially different from its Haredi step-sister. It can indeed be defined as a supportive action by an individual, perceived by him as valuable, and not aimed directly at personal financial or social gain, not imposed by others, or required by law, and above all not used for self-congratulation.
Volunteering in general society means choosing to act out of recognition of an existing need, and out of an approach of broad social responsibility, without expectation of financial reward or propagandistic reward. Action that goes beyond a person’s basic obligations simply as a human being.

Sorry for the length,
Benjamin

Barely funny. Crooked logic. If you can say something sensible, that would be interesting [and there’s a bit of that here], but you think about the Haredim more blindly than they think about the general public.

With God’s help, 11 Iyar 5780

Mr. Benyomin Goyerlin has nicely shown us that extra caution in protecting one’s health and volunteering to help the needy, especially in the medical sphere, are a clear expression of anarchism.

I would like to add that even opening a response with “Hello Rabbi” and ending it with “Regards,” as is customary in a letter, is likewise a clear sign of anarchism. Someone who comments in the style of a letter is showing that he does not rely on the state-run Israel Post, and does not regard the postal service as a proper and trustworthy body for delivering letters, and therefore sends his letters on this site.

This site was chosen by those who protest against postal services because the site owner too is among the anti-postal crowd, and therefore distributes his books only through pickup stations and firmly refuses to send them by mail. Thus, in both the guests and the host, the saying is fulfilled: “each kind has found its own kind” 🙂

May it be God’s will that we all find our place in the state Israel Post and not need all kinds of virtual postal substitutes.

Regards, Aner Hist

And for lovers of anarchism, I would suggest looking at Prof. Amnon Shapira’s book, “Religious” Jewish Anarchism — Did Judaism Sanctify Political Rule?, Ariel University Press, 2015. The book can be viewed on the “Kotar” website.

Regards, Shatz

Benjamin, as usual you’re offering a tendentious interpretation for which I see no basis at all. One could just as well suggest lots of other explanations that have nothing to do with anarchism. Especially since even if this is anarchism, it isn’t anarchism as a philosophy but opposition to our particular state. And if so, one should examine the extent of volunteering and kindness in Haredi communities elsewhere in the world. Even there, it could be the result of communality and distrust of the state because of a long history of poor treatment of Jews. In short, this is a nice thought for a wedding celebration, not a well-founded thesis.

Rabbi Michi, the United States is known as a “kingdom of kindness.” According to your approach, would the Haredim’s blatant disregard for the laws of that kingdom be able to prove an anarchist outlook?

No, as I explained.

Anarchism would be proven if they rebelled against every form of discipline and every institution. That is really not Harediness. By the way, their attitude toward the law of the kingdom in the Diaspora (aside from little tricks driven by temptation) also proves otherwise. So do the claims about rebellion against the nations.

Benjamin, hello,
Wouldn’t it be simpler to assume that the Haredim gather under the banners of their communities and separate themselves (and to some extent thumb their noses at its laws) because they see the state as a heretical state? And perhaps the parallel phenomenon abroad can be explained simply by a conservative way of thinking that keeps distance from the gentiles and their institutions.

Why did you have to go all the way to the anarchism hypothesis?

Donald Trump too, president of the United States, at first thumbed his nose at the coronavirus — so is he Haredi or an anarchist?

Regards, Sim-Shoin Leitz

Benjamin,
I believe one of the (Haredi) charity organizations can arrange a new keyboard for you…

It’s fairly simple: when people don’t respect the government, it’s very hard for them to accept its position in trust.
As long as people [including some commenters on this site] are not aware of the fact, repeated on this holy site, that one should address the substance of the claim regardless of who says it, they won’t be able to accept things from someone they don’t admire [discussed at length in one of the columns about blind admiration].

Hello and blessings, Rational (relatively). Seemingly, every collectivist society is based on an ideology that drives its wheels, inwardly and outwardly. Inwardly, there is a need to preserve the unity of the individuals that make up that society so that it will not fall apart. Outwardly, there is a need to prevent harm from factors that seek its destruction. The inwardly directed need for preservation is completely understandable: lack of cooperation מצד the individuals will quickly lead to its disintegration; in fact, it will lose its value in the eyes of its members. By contrast, the need to prevent harm from outside depends on the view of others. I mean that there must be an objective reason that activates the need for preservation. One cannot conduct an imaginary war, a make-believe war. For example: “the coronavirus decree” — the virus is not the problem; rather, the decree by the authorities to uproot Torah is the real problem. The virus is only an excuse, camouflage. The only way to conduct a real war is denial of the law, which serves as the fuel that turns its wheels. As a result of denying the law, the individuals will come to violate it, and the violation will trigger a response from the authorities, and thus a perpetual war will be conducted, whose result is the law of preservation of the society. Outward conformity is in effect an admission of the truth that there is no external enemy, and if there is no external enemy then naturally there will be cooperation with people outside the society, so that in the end it will fall apart into fragments and cease to exist. The needs of the individuals will be supplied by outside agents, by the Home Front Command.

Benjamin — I agree with every word.
Apropos “the coronavirus decree,” as ridiculous as it sounds, it exists! People who are convinced that by decree of the Creator the ignoramus hates Torah scholars, and all the thoughts of their hearts all day are about how to close synagogues — and now they found an “opportunity”…
I don’t know whether it even reaches 100 people who still [!] believe this with all their heart. At the beginning of the “decree,” there were many more.
The matter of volunteering was and still is a pure emotion that exists in the hearts of Haredim too, hard as that may be to believe.

There is also great value in anarchism, that is, in the position that holds that the state is not the last word.

This has two positive implications:
A. It allows different positions to emerge, creating a free market of ideas and approaches. This free market brings social, moral, and of course economic and political growth.
B. It forces the state to be more modest and less tyrannical. There is a direct connection between the first anarchist in history — Elijah the Prophet — who did not hesitate to devastate the Kingdom of Israel with famine for three consecutive years (read his argument with Ahab over the question of who is troubling Israel), to the sanctification of God’s name by the Jews, to the phenomenon of the Christian martyrs who followed the Jewish phenomenon of sanctifying God’s name, and to the reality of the Inquisition, which ultimately led to the modern reversal of freedom of religion and conscience. We live today in a largely liberal state thanks to Elijah the Prophet and generations of zealots, his disciples. So true, there is no quality whose excess does not ruin it, and Elijah the Prophet was afterward dismissed at Horeb by the Holy One, blessed be He (who apparently was on Ahab’s side in the argument), but it is still worth paying attention to the positive sides of religious zealotry as well.

The value in anarchism is very clear. In my eyes, anarchist is a word of praise (though in practice that needs qualification). I just don’t think the diagnosis here was correct.