Should Maimonides also apologize?

‘Anyone who sets it upon his heart to engage in Torah
and not do work, and to support himself from charity, behold he:
profanes God’s name
and disgraces the Torah
and extinguishes the light of religion
and causes evil to himself
and forfeits his life in the World to Come’

End of his holy words.
Should Maimonides apologize too?

Look carefully at the following Jewish law (11): “It is a great virtue for one to support himself by the work of his own hands, and this was the trait of the early pious ones; through this he merits all honor and good in this world and in the World to Come, as it says (Psalms 128:2), ‘When you eat the labor of your hands, happy are you, and it shall be well with you’: ‘Happy are you’—in this world; ‘and it shall be well with you’—in the World to Come, which is entirely good.” Emphasize the first two words and you get a glorious contradiction. If you don’t want to remain ignorant, you should look into it and search for the answer in the relevant halakhic sources. Hint? Igrot Moshe.

Without getting into halakhic arguments, first of all the numbers need to be brought, and then we can discuss who is living off whom.
Does anyone have figures that properly encompass the entire budget of the State of Israel and can present them to us?
This is really an important question, and it would be fitting to properly open the budget book and present the data publicly for all to see.
After all, at the end of the day there is a large public here that believes in and wants a certain ideology; how can one deny it to them without a solid basis?

After all, it is entirely possible that the scope of payment by the public that is interested in the parasitism of Torah learners actually covers what they receive. (And that’s without even getting into all the indirect profits from Haredi society that are a product of their ideology.)

There is a fierce dispute on this matter.
Maimonides contradicts himself (or more precisely leaves us to make the balance required by his words), and from this we understand on our own that there is a claim against those who merely warm the benches—which is not a negligible number at all—but regarding those who truly excel, it seems to me that even Maimonides would explicitly permit earning a living from the community, no less than the ten idlers of the town whom they would hire to be available for completing prayer quorums.
There really are no true arguments regarding the serious ones; the argument is only about the legitimacy of being a non-serious kollel fellow, and that’s it!
So in effect we are left with an unfocused argument against Haredim, like against lazy people in general: why should you let others work for you?
There are those who justify themselves through the Haredi claim (“they are afraid to go out to work lest we become secular”), and there are those on the secular side who curse work all day because so much of the money goes to a state that robs them (and all sorts of other empty claims)—the common denominator is that they want to remain in their comfort zone and not exert themselves—in other words, to be lazy.
Therefore I say to Galit Gutman:
Whoever generalizes is usually shallow!
And whoever does not, that’s a sign he is wise.
And a hint is enough for the wise!

To the one whose comment was deleted, it should be pointed out that quite apart from discussing your person rather than the issue—which is what led to your deletion—in the Haredi world the parasitism does not stem from a matter of preferences but from a lack of choice. The Haredim actively prevent the possibility of a normal livelihood, military service, etc. In that situation, parasitism is not a question of whether society willingly supports the activity in question because it sees value in it, but a compulsion that leaves the parasites no other way except to make use of it, and in its name they will justify any wrong against society. I see value in Torah study, but Torah study that stems from compulsion and not from choice because of faith is at the very lowest level of Torah study, if it even counts at all. It becomes for him a potion of death and not a potion of life, and it would be better for his placenta to have turned over onto his face.

It should also be emphasized that the reason Haredim do not work or do not share in the burden of society as a whole is that their leadership at the beginning of its path (if I remember correctly, the Chazon Ish—among its leaders) decided, as a temporary emergency measure during the early establishment of Haredi society, to radicalize things in order to create a separate society that would embody and represent the supreme value of preserving Torah and its commandments in the loftiest way, and therefore it had to be that everyone in that society would be learning and not working or drafted, etc.
But today, ideologically, it seems to me that things have changed. They understand very well that that period of time, when there was a need to act by a temporary emergency measure, has passed, and right now they are slowly returning to the accepted norms of “conduct yourself in the way of the world,” which by the way was ruled as Jewish law. And the fact that they do not go to the army is today a more complex matter, since in all the proposals and frameworks the army offers there is in any case a threat to the level of Haredi education, and so there is more reluctance about it, ideologically too.
In short, Haredim today understand very well that there is no escaping going out to earn a living, each according to his own path, and the little that remains in the kollels, as I mentioned above, divides into two groups, and the claim is not so much against society as against the feeling that there is some turning of a blind eye to a situation in which kollel men are allowed to go on warming benches without any rebuke from society. Or in other words, that there is some silencing in the sense of passive omission lest things get worse—but that is not the opinion of most of the public in Haredi society, maybe only a small part of it. From here to saying that Haredim suck blood is not fitting or accurate for someone who looks at detailed reports of the Haredi market.

In my opinion, most Haredim in kollel are not studying. I was never Haredi or religious, and I studied only a little Talmud, but I have a degree in mathematics. At the end of the first year, only half the students remained in our class at the Hebrew University. For all the others, mathematics studies were too difficult. I assume that Talmud is difficult for most kollel students, but I am not aware of many kollel students who dropped out and enlisted in the army. My conclusion is that they receive wages for kollel study, but they are not studying Talmud, and some of them (and perhaps most of them) are working off the books.

Studying Talmud is not like advanced university mathematics, which is beyond the ability of 95% of the public.
Talmud is much more similar to law studies, which are within reach of half the public in my opinion (especially if they study at a college).

Of course, this still leaves half the public who are in yeshivas and are unable to understand, and for them the study is “like the chirping of a bird.”

Michi,
forgive the question… I myself don’t quite manage to explain to myself why it interests me, and still…
What is the theoretical and practical gain in calling the Haredim “bloodsuckers”?
I myself think that Haredi society—not necessarily individuals within it—is indeed exploitative (you can also call it parasitic).
But when someone calls such a society “bloodsuckers,” I can’t understand the benefit in such a description, though I definitely do see the harm.

Doron—who said there is some theoretical or practical gain and benefit and so on in this metaphorical description? Besides, if it fits reality, meaning its sharpness matches the level of exploitation and egoism, then it is called for and reasonable to say it, so that the exploited will know and fight, and also so that the exploiters may perhaps be deterred.

When discussing the Haredim, it is proper to note that we are not talking about a monolith but about a society with different wings. For example, the Hasidim are working people (and among them there is no idea of a kollel-society), and among the Lithuanians the women mostly work, and there are also modern Haredim, and even among the Lithuanians there are some who work—so the whole discussion has to begin with recognizing reality. Only after acknowledging this division can one begin to talk. And to this it should be added that Simcha Rothman showed last year in one of the committees (based on research by the Knesset Research and Information Center) that the budget in question accompanies a registered kollel fellow for only about 5 years, and after that the kollel fellow needs their benefactors (that is, wealthy Haredim—there’s another category).
In addition, I definitely think one must compare the money that goes to yeshivas with the money that goes to gender studies, Chinese philosophy, English literature, and the rest of the humanities in bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees, which produce no productive person, keep people in the university, and dump them on society.
After all, it should not occur to anyone that the treasures of Jewish culture should receive less consideration than the spiritual treasures of other peoples.
Only after all this can one begin a real discussion of the economic problem (if it can even be called that) involved in maintaining a kollel society.

By the way, my personal opinion is that an unlimited kollel society should not be encouraged—but rather a way should be found so that only those who are truly talented and truly want it will remain there. Like in Religious Zionism: very many enter study for a few years, but most go out to lives of labor that incorporate Torah into their personal lives. That is how a balance is created between our holy obligation to Torah and its study and the laws of nature and economic reality.

The issue is not only direct budgets for kollel men, but general exploitation of welfare policy, namely differential taxation by income and tax credit points, municipal tax discounts, day care, price-controlled products, balancing grants. In addition to enjoying all public services in general, such as the army and police budget, the courts, health regulation (which ensures, for example, that dangerous products won’t be imported), sanitation, road paving and public transportation, the Foreign Ministry, highly subsidized health services (and in advanced health insurance, Rabbi Litzman, may he live long, arranged that whoever pays for three children gets the rest of the children on the same insurance for free. What is the logic in that? Very interesting. I wonder when it will also be that way with cheese—whoever buys cheese for three children gets cheese for the rest of the children for free). Everything is necessary and all citizens benefit from all of it, but payment for it comes from taxes and fees that come from labor productivity. Tax from money that does not come from work but from other forms (such as VAT and real-estate purchase tax that comes from money that came from allowances or from money that was not properly taxed as a result of tax credit points or not reaching the tax threshold or off-the-books work) is tax whose value is greatly reduced.
In general, the discourse with the Haredim has long since been exhausted. Now the stage has come in which the exploited public needs to sharpen for itself and clarify the level of exploitation, and then respond with the maximum aggression. What degree of compensation and fine and punishment they will have to impose on Haredi society for generations because of enormous theft and ongoing multi-generational brazenness, and whether they will succeed in this task against such a cohesive group as the Haredim—that is indeed a good question. But recognizing reality correctly is the first of first steps.

John,
my expression “theoretical gain” was aimed at the question of truth. If the expression “bloodsuckers” is true/correct, then in principle I’m for it. It seems to me that it is not correct…

Ashi,
of course there is sub-division and variety.
I think an important part of the criticism of the Haredim from the secular direction (and sometimes also the religious one) is not only about work, but goes against the general tendency of most Haredim (including the various Hasidic groups) to turn their backs on modernity: economics, media, science, etc. I completely agree with that criticism. Haredi society on the whole lacks self-criticism and is convinced that it carries the entire cosmos on its shoulders.
As for the treasures of Jewish culture, I am quite sure that one can maintain a small scholarly elite that will continue to carry the torch for those who see value in it, without enabling the current problematic Haredi civilization.
Regarding the other point you raised: I have no sympathy whatsoever (quite the opposite…) for gender studies departments, but the population that goes there, by and large, is not guilty of turning its back on modernity.

In my opinion it is obvious that such an expression (regardless of the substantive opinion) does not stand up to the principle of “it just isn’t done” that you usually present.

This is fascinating. I don’t know whether you are Haredi, but this is a classic Haredi response. You are allowed to do anything, and when someone describes what you did, suddenly it “just isn’t done.” By contrast, if someone says the Nazis were evil and murderous, is that also “just isn’t done”? If they really are like that, then it is not “just isn’t done.”
You remind me of what happened in Yeruham about twenty years ago, when we went out to struggle against a local council head who was corrupt to the core, and of course the coalition with him included the Haredim. I was a member of the Haredi community there, and when I joined this struggle the rabbi rebuked me that it was a desecration of God’s name (because I described what they were doing). I told him that in my eyes the desecration of God’s name is doing such things, not describing what he is doing. The same applies here. Sucking blood is fine, but saying that they suck blood is “just isn’t done.” Fascinating.
And as an aside, the principle of “it just isn’t done” that I talk about has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It is a halakhic or meta-halakhic principle of acting against the rules of Jewish law without explicit justification.

What’s missing here is “but.” Or even “however.”

Words of abuse are boring when they completely ignore the other side. Even when they are correct.

Well, what can I say, the Rabbi has progressed.
I had already thought you were going to pull out some impressive argument from Yonatan Geffen or a punchline from HaGashash.
And indeed, if the words of Maimonides (and they are not) actually encourage antisemitism, then it would be advisable for him to apologize, and quickly.
They do not, because Maimonides speaks “only” about the person receiving,
who causes evil to himself (and only to himself) and forfeits his life in the World to Come.
He does not refer at all to the sucker who feeds and supports that same freeloader,
simply because he has a choice in the matter, and if he so badly wants to be “sucked dry,” good for him.
What was so obvious to Maimonides is apparently inconceivable today.
Everyone is searching for the nearest antisemitic dictionary in order to attach vile labels to the check-cashers,
and they don’t understand that something has been signed off on with eyes wide shut.

// A land flowing

Here the udders never die
Here only the minorities change
Sometimes it’s the Haredim and Shas
And sometimes it’s Mansour Abbas
And sometimes it seems
That more than they want to suckle
The government wants to bestow
And in between
The citizen comes out as a ravine
Works all day like a donkey
And then the deaf ones with the pimples come,
and take the money from the money-hole

Where in my words did you see any reference to Maimonides? Before responding and quoting poems, it is proper to read what is being discussed.
You are also mistaken: nobody pays them willingly. The minority that produces most of the money in the public purse pays against its will to the parasitic majority that feeds off it (sucks its blood). That is true in the economy and also in security.
Regarding religious coercion, you are more right, and indeed I have said and written more than once that the secular people are the ones to blame for that.

The Maimonides mentioned in the first comment of the thread.
And indeed I didn’t say it was by our will.
Our elected representatives… who were elected by our free will.
Like Benny Gantz, “Take a page and fill it in, I’ll sign for you,”
Lapid, Bennett, Bibi, Rabin in his time—
all of them gave to them of their own will… and that is definitely a fault that hangs on us.

That is a very dubious kind of will. Three people are chained in handcuffs to one another, walking thirsty in the desert, and they come to a fork in the road. The one on the right says, in my opinion the spring is to the right; the one on the left says, in my opinion the spring is to the left; and the one in the middle says, well, I have no idea where the spring is, but I’ll go with whoever carries me on his back and lets me look at the stars.
Immediately the one on the right and the one in the middle decide by majority vote that the one on the left will carry the middle one on his back, sometimes with a little help from the right one who gives a hand with the carrying, and that’s how they walk in the desert and turn right.
Of course, the one on the left would be just as willing to carry him if only they went left.
Presumably the right and left should have agreed between themselves that neither would give the middle one what he wants, but that is a matter of game theory, and each side prefers to concede to the demand of the middle one. And that is how this calf came out.

I disagree.
Bound and handcuffed is a result, but not a decree of fate.
Likud voters (a large part of them) and Lapid/Gantz voters are much closer ideologically (not politically)
than they are to Ben-Gvir and the Haredim. The gaps between left and right—from the center today—are the overwhelming majority here.
And for some reason every elected official, no matter from which side,
over and over again after being elected by us,
sticks out his udders to the Arabs or to the Haredim.

But the right-wing and left-wing public do not currently desire one another; it is like their having a disagreement about where the spring is—that is a given, and a separate problem. Then the middle one arrives, and together he and the right-winger enslave the left-winger into becoming a working taxpayer. And since each side fears that the other will stick out its udders (or: generously offer up the left-winger’s udders), it rushes to do so itself. If you are suggesting that Likud, Gantz, and Lapid should form a large unity government, that has already proven unstable, and perhaps precisely because the right has the alternative of a narrow government with the Haredim and Smotrich in which it controls all the positions and all the moves and feels very heroic. That is, the forbidden gun of a government of plunder and darkness that is always lying on the table will always threaten a broad centrist government.

Nicely, you are illustrating exactly what I wrote.
It is a mistake, in my opinion, that the right does not desire the center or the soft left—not at all.
The problem is with its elected representatives, who are petty and in favor of personal quarrels.
They heap up the entire public pot and pour it out to whoever demands it:
Take it and let us govern. And we choose them time after time.
Bennett, for example, was a certain kind of hope even though he signed on air that he would not go with the Arabs.
He got up and acted to save us from the deadlock,
but again it was at the expense of public money that he granted to the Arabs,
and that is no longer really heroism.

And so we find ourselves like a battered woman,
sitting and expecting some understanding from the Haredim or from the Arabs,
sectors which, as a rule, show no understanding or any collective responsibility,
and laugh at us while they squeeze the lemon one more turn
(“Bibi, you promised me this money, it’s my money.” Meir Porush speaking there.)
It is a waste of 75 years in which they keep scoring goals
against an open net, while our representatives—who did not fall into the Knesset from the moon—
are busy with nonsense about yes-Bibi or no-Bibi.