Q&A: A Haredi man who confused me about drafting the Haredimmmmm
A Haredi man who confused me about drafting the Haredimmmmm
Question
Hello Michi, I spoke today at work with a friend whose brother-in-law is a Haredi kollel student, and we drove with him to Beit Shemesh, and he explained to us in a mesmerizing way why Haredim do not enlist. I can’t recover from it; I came out terribly confused. I’m a graduate of hesder yeshivot… I’d be glad if you’d respond whether you agree or not, and why. (And without the hatred you have toward the Haredim—not that I have a problem with it, just that in my view it reduces the clarity of the arguments, and also because it’s hard for me to accept ad hominem arguments.)
From a halakhic perspective, he explained that throughout the Torah we see that there is a security value to a core group of Torah scholars during wartime, and he brought halakhic sources for his claims. (See Sanhedrin 49: were it not for David, Joab would not have been able to wage war; Makkot 10a: “What upheld the feet of Israel in war? That the gates of Jerusalem were occupied with Torah”; he quoted and opened up the Zohar for me, the Maharal… he had everything there in place in his house, etc.)
And regarding the segment of the Haredi public that did not fit into the yeshiva world, that Haredi man argued that indeed, by strict law, they should have to be sent to the army so they can contribute their part to the war effort in the technical, physical sense. But since the IDF is not a purely military-security body, but an educational body, trying in a progressive way to shape the outlook and worldview of those who enter its ranks, the rabbis will not send even the non-learners, because repayment of a commandment that comes through a transgression is important, especially when the transgression uproots recognition of and commitment to Judaism as a whole—“secularization”—and we are not dealing here with some side transgression. In addition, also from a security perspective, because there is no greater security wrong to the Jewish people than causing Jews to cool off and become spiritually coarse—something that certainly can and should be expected to happen to a young Torah-observant Jew who enters a framework whose spirit is not Jewish. In short, he concluded: “We are not part of the ethos of Israeli society (though we are part of the Jewish people), and therefore we will not take part in any body that is a fruit and product of Israeli society, and there is no greater ideological fruit of Israeli society than the IDF, as the common saying goes: ‘A people builds an army, an army builds a people.’”
And why don’t the Haredim promote frameworks within the IDF with a proper kosher Jewish spirit? He argued, first, that they tried in the past in several projects, and the IDF is presumed unreliable when it comes to promises in matters of Jewish observance, and he claimed that we “Mizrachi types” know that very well too. In addition, he argued that there is no shortage of soldiers in the sense of saving life, but rather in the sense of a shortage that creates severe inconvenience, but we are not talking about a lack in troop numbers connected to rescue—which is in fact an accurate point. And if we say there is a shortage in the sense of saving life, the Haredi argued—then why don’t the honorable national rabbis send the first- and second-year students in their hesder yeshivot?? And he also said there are enough secular people who can make up missing troop numbers, and arguments about work, family, and livelihood are not matters of saving life but of convenience. And he said that the Haredi rabbis’ obligation to protect the non-learners from spiritual corruption takes precedence over their obligation to care for the welfare of secular non-draftees, who indeed can fill the shortage in soldiers if such a shortage exists.
In short—I came away hazy and confused. I had never heard such an orderly, fluent, non-inflammatory Haredi position. I suddenly felt brainwashed by the public in which I was raised. How had I never before noticed the cold Torah-based analysis of the Haredi public, covered over by secular and Religious Zionist populism?
Answer
I have to say I’m genuinely stunned by this. To be so impressed by a pile of recycled and inferior arguments that every Haredi spokesman says in exactly the same way, and to see this as some exceptional and persuasive discourse—that’s really strange. Maybe because the guy spoke in a mesmerizing way, you’re still under the influence. It’s really embarrassing to have to address such childish and malicious arguments. Still, I decided to respond, but I need one more introduction first.
It’s hard for me to decide whether the way you addressed me, and the instructions you gave me on how I’m supposed to answer, and the not-so-subtle accusation of ad hominem, stem from chutzpah or stupidity. Just as with the Haredi arguments like the ones you quoted (regarding the quality of Haredi arguments on this issue and in general, I’ve already touched on that in several columns), it’s very hard to decide whether it’s malice or stupidity—or perhaps both. Or maybe just brainwashing and life in a bubble, like children captured among non-Jews. As for you, I judge you favorably and assume you’re under hypnosis.
Now you’re surely saying to yourself: there he goes again with his ad hominem, making arguments about the person instead of the issue. So here’s the first lesson on ad hominem. An ad hominem argument is one that relies on irrelevant characteristics of the person making the claim in order to reject the claim. If Reuven says X and I say that Reuven is evil or an idiot or a woman or a gentile, and thereby reject X—that is an ad hominem argument (though the claim that he is stupid is not entirely ad hominem). But if I present arguments showing why X is incorrect, and conclude by saying that the person making the claim is evil or stupid, that is not ad hominem at all. That is the conclusion of the discussion: whoever advances such a stupid/malicious argument is stupid/evil. I don’t remember ever having used ad hominem arguments about anything. I certainly do refer to people and groups, but their characteristics are presented as conclusions drawn from arguments, not as arguments in themselves.
Beyond that, I’d be glad if you point to an example where my ad hominem and my hatred blur the clarity of the answer itself. I usually write quite clearly. Even if I attack someone, I don’t think it affects the clarity of the arguments or the phrasing. But I’d be happy to see examples on that point too—unless that accusation also stems from the hypnosis mentioned above.
So that I shouldn’t, God forbid, be suspected of the ad hominem fallacy, I chose nevertheless to address these ridiculous arguments. I’ll do so in stages. In the first stage I’ll ignore the question of spiritual corruption and deal with the learners and with the outrageous claim (and I’m speaking very gently) that there is no situation here of saving life.
Let’s begin with the slogan that Torah protects and saves. In most cases it is taken out of context (I’ve pointed this out here on the site more than once). But beyond that, the Haredim themselves don’t actually believe it. Do they rely on Torah study instead of going to a doctor, or in any other distress? Would they not leave the kollel to take their feverish son to the doctor? If a thief or murderer enters their home, will they deepen their learning or try to call the police or escape? If so, then I have a new proposal: instead of the law of the burglar who breaks in, rather than killing the thief, sit and learn and everything will be fine. And please spare me the nonsense about “human effort,” which I’ve also dealt with here more than once (you can search the site). Nobody really believes this. But even if they do, it doesn’t touch the discussion: if one must make practical efforts, then one makes them in all areas, even when it’s inconvenient (you don’t leave kollel only for a doctor). And if learning is a substitute that makes practical effort unnecessary, then act that way in every area too (don’t go to the doctor).
Let me just note that learning can protect us even if every kollel student studies his whole life except for a year and a half of service, as with hesder soldiers. At any given moment there would still be thousands of learners protecting us, even if all of them enlisted for a period of service. So why is “Torah protects and saves” relevant?
Moreover, everyone agrees that a certain number of Torah scholars can be exempted from military service. But they need to be screened so that they are serious learners, who will persist in it all their lives (and not only during the years of military service—somehow Torah protects and saves only then), and also during the vacation periods. The wholesale exemption currently given to everyone registered in a yeshiva or kollel is not an exemption for Torah scholars but for idlers and liars.
The claim of why we don’t draft hesder soldiers in their early years, or older civilians, or extend service to ten years instead of three, is a truly malicious argument. I didn’t see yeshiva students canceling the vacation periods in order to protect us in the last war. After all, we all remember that it’s Torah that protects, right?
And in general, a society cannot exist if all of it is mobilized for military service. There is also a state and an economy to sustain—otherwise where would the Haredim be able to extort money from?! That is why service was set at three years, and otherwise people go about their affairs unless there is an emergency like a war, when reserves are called up. This is another indication that Haredi thinking has not progressed beyond age four, and they are incapable of understanding the difference between managing an army and a state and questions of saving life on the level of individual human beings. A state distributes tasks among its citizens in such a way that it can exist on all planes (that’s why money is invested in culture and in kollels, even when the state is in danger and even when there isn’t enough budget to save all the sick). By the way, nobody asked the Haredim to enlist for life either. Let them serve for a year and a half. They don’t want to give even a single day, and for that hesder soldiers are supposed not to learn even one day. Does that sound reasonable to you? The mocking formulation that the honorable hesder rabbis should kindly draft their first- and second-year students is simply bizarre and malicious. They are supposed to stop their Torah study (which, as we remember, protects and saves) and not study even one day, so that the Haredim can avoid serving even one day. Why shouldn’t the Haredim enlist for one year, and then study all the rest of their lives? That would free the hesder students to study in their first year. Doesn’t that sound more reasonable? Without that one year of Torah in each kollel student’s life, we’ll collapse and not be saved? Did your eloquent friend ever hear the expression “correct yourself first,” or did they not get to that in his kollel?
As for the claim itself that this is not a case of saving life: think of two people living in some house, and now someone comes and threatens to kill them both. It is known that if one of them goes out and fights him, he will win but die. If both go out, maybe one of them will die and maybe both will be saved. Reuven knows that Shimon will go out in any case, so he says to himself: there is no saving-life issue here, because Reuven will win even by himself. And anyway, going out to help Reuven is dangerous, since I may pay with my life, God forbid. Would you accept such an argument? Leave aside for the moment the implications and whether it is similar to our case or not. For now, answer me whether you would accept the argument. Note that of course Reuven is speaking about danger to his own life. The fact that Reuven will die (in order to protect him too) doesn’t bother him at all. Do you think he is right that this is not a case of saving life? Is the argument that it’s dangerous relevant as a way to evade his obligation to share the burden? When thousands of soldiers die in a war, that’s not saving life? Why not—because the state (and the parasitic Haredim within it) remains alive? Who says your blood is redder?! To sharpen the point: if this were true, then every secular person or Religious Zionist could also evade the draft on exactly the same grounds.
Now I’ll ask about a situation where Reuven can study Torah instead of going out to help. Does it sound reasonable that he says to Shimon, “You go outside and I’ll study Torah”? Especially since there are also many Shimons (the Religious Zionists) who want to study just like he does. So why is he specifically the one who gets to sit and learn? Let him enlist, and you be the one who sits and learns.
Beyond that, I’ve explained more than once that childish Haredi thinking does not understand what it means to run a state and an army to defend it. They think about this situation as if it were a saving-life problem of three kollel members. What’s the problem? Right now everything is fine; if a life-threatening situation arises, then we’ll drop everything and enlist. But on the state level, by then it will already be too late. When the situation arises in which all our lives are in danger, then we’ll decide to enlist, we’ll persuade all the smart alecks from Beit Shemesh that this is indeed the situation, and then we’ll train everyone. And all this will be done while the enemy is at the fences and our condition is critical. Is that how you think to run a state and an army? Is there anyone over the age of four who takes such a way of thinking seriously? So why don’t we all sit at home—not only the Haredim—and when the enemies come, let them call us. Just like in the Bible, when the enemies come, you draft all the guys to fight.
Now we come to the question of concern over spiritual corruption. I’ll address it briefly, because I’ve already answered that several times here on the site as well. First, the corruption of those who enlist is in many cases (in my view, most cases) not created by the army. They entered already corrupted to begin with. An uncorrupted Haredi does not end up in the army. Therefore this myth that the army corrupts is very exaggerated. Go see what happens to students of Mercaz HaRav who enlist on their own (not in a yeshiva framework) for short service. How many of them become corrupted? Compared to how many Haredim who do? Why is there a difference? Because the army only brings out into actuality what already exists inside. If you educate for service as a calling, you can prevent the corruption.
Furthermore, work and academic studies also corrupt (we won’t get into the intensity and scope of the corruption right now; the question is principled). Go see what happens to someone who leaves kollel—some more, some less. So why is it permitted there? Because one needs to earn a living. Fine—but we also need to defend our lives. The difference is that regarding livelihood, others won’t do the work for you, whereas in the army there are suckers who do it for you (and yes, this is indeed a matter of saving life).
In addition, when there is danger to life, concerns of spiritual corruption are set aside. The Beit Yosef brings a dispute among the medieval authorities whether one desecrates the Sabbath for my daughter who was kidnapped by gentiles who will raise her as a gentile all her life. Some of the medieval authorities forbid desecrating the Sabbath for that. And even those who permit it do so because there is a definite concern here, not a mere doubt, and she loses her Judaism totally. It is highly doubtful whether those same halakhic decisors would permit desecrating the Sabbath if there were a concern that she might eat rabbinically supervised food and stop wearing a gartel. Therefore the a fortiori argument from danger to life to spiritual danger—even if there really is such a concern—is far from self-evident.
The obligation to organize the army for Haredi service falls first and foremost on them. The stupid slogans that the army is progressive are the weapon of those who have run out of arguments. There are problems in the army, and it doesn’t always conduct itself properly, in all areas, not only the Jewish one. Picking on that is simply childish. Beyond that, we have a government with lots of Haredim; they’ve been in the coalition for many years. Let them force the army to organize itself properly. By the way, now it really is organizing seriously, but it’s convenient for the Haredim to point to local defects as an excuse. One of the reasons the army didn’t organize itself properly is that the Haredim simply don’t come. Everyone understands that this has nothing to do with the army’s organization. They want separation in order to preserve Harediness, not to preserve Judaism.
It doesn’t work that others do all the work for you and you sit and wait until everything is to your satisfaction. I enlist even though the army endangers my life. Sometimes it also conducts itself quite stupidly in ways that endanger lives. So are you suggesting that I not enlist because the army is progressive and has pity on the Arabs? Do you have an alternative army? By all means, establish a Haredi army that will save us. I’m sure it will be run perfectly (like all Haredi institutions and municipalities). To sit in the armchair and expect others to do all the work to your satisfaction and pay for it with their blood so that you may graciously deign to give your share—that is malicious evasion, not an argument.
And now I’ll conclude with what before the beginning of the current lesson you would have seen as “ad hominem,” and I hope you now understand that it isn’t: the very fact that things this simple need to be explained, that it has to be explained why these are foolish and malicious arguments, the fact that someone in the universe sees them as fluent and innovative, and sees whoever opposes them as brainwashed—all that says something very bad about the thinking ability of the Haredim and of those who buy their nonsense.
I hope I was clear despite my attitude toward the Haredim. I must repeat that it is really embarrassing and insulting to conduct such an unnecessary discussion against such stupid and malicious arguments.
Discussion on Answer
Michi, first of all thank you very much for the reply, and sorry if I caused you trouble or made extra work for you. More power to you.
I’ll share with you that honestly, since yesterday I haven’t been calm, and I drove back to him, to that same Haredi man, to make sure I really hadn’t been hypnotized—but unfortunately, really unfortunately, he is simply right: cold, respectful, straightforward analysis. I showed him your long response… and he answered calmly, and almost with pity for you and for our whole public, captive in such a populist nationalist conception. I’ll write the main points:
So I’ll respond to your answer in a focused way, God willing, for the sake of investigating God’s will.
First, regarding the ad hominem point: I can’t understand your need, as a grown and older man, to attack all the time and speak so sharply. You’re debating whether I’m rude or stupid? (What, brother…?) If I tell you it’s hard for me to acknowledge messages delivered in a way that not only or even also addresses the person rather than the argument, in your eyes that’s rudeness or stupidity??? Brother, I was taught at home to speak respectfully to older people, but you simply write like an offended child or a patronizing, condescending professor… (forgive me, I hope you understand what I mean)…
2 — Rabbi Michi, sorry, but you’re asking me for examples of cases where you did not write in an ad hominem way? Man—everything you write against the Haredim is based first of all on a preface of crude and patronizing smears, and only then content relevant to the matter… I don’t understand what you don’t understand…
3 — Regarding your argument against “Torah protects and saves,” pay attention to how mistaken you are, dear man (sources I only learned today from that Haredi Jew from Beit Shemesh, and I’ll present them):
Source A (against your mistake) — Tractate Makkot 10a: “What upheld the feet of Israel in war? That the gates of Jerusalem were occupied with Torah.”
Source B (against your mistake) — Sanhedrin 49a: “Were it not for David, Joab would not have waged war.” Rashi explains there: were it not for David, who was occupied with Torah; and likewise the Maharsha there on the spot.
Source C (against your mistake) — Baal HaTurim on Numbers 27:23 — he instructed him not to neglect Torah and the daily offering because of war. And we clearly see that Torah study is indeed an integral part of the war effort.
Source D (against your mistake) — a very forceful source! I was shocked to the depths of my soul to see this Zohar. Well then, the holy Zohar, Beshalach 58a-b—from the sheer fluency of the wording there is no need even for commentary, and this is what it says: “There is nothing in the world that breaks the strength of the nations except when Israel engages in Torah; Torah is strengthened and the force and power of the nations is broken.” There is nothing in the world that breaks the strength of the enemies of Israel like the Torah study of the Jewish people, which breaks them and protects Israel in wartime…
See there the words of Rabbi Elazar the holy one—that the thing that protects Israel is study halls and synagogues full of Torah study and prayer… [Apparently the Haredi outlook that I was dismissing until yesterday is based on an explicit Zohar and other direct and clear sources. This is insane—it’s honestly embarrassing me.]
Source E (against your mistake) — Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 3 — it tells of Moses, who sent twelve thousand armed soldiers and opposite them stationed twelve thousand who prayed (not exactly Torah, but the same idea of protection in the spiritual sense).
Source F (against your mistake) — Zohar, Beha’alotekha 159a — Zebulun went out to battle and Issachar remained in the tents of Torah, and after the war Zebulun gave Issachar part of the spoil they had taken from the enemies, while Issachar gave Zebulun a share in the merit of Torah study, which surpasses all, as the holy Zohar writes there.
Source G (against your mistake) — see the responsa of Or Sameach, siman 67, and also Hilkhot Medinah by Rabbi Waldenberg of blessed memory.
So from my perspective, as someone searching for truth and not wanting to get stuck in a certain conception just because that’s how I was educated, what I care about is what the Torah of the One who spoke and the world came to be says—and it seems absolutely clear that there is a security contribution, integrally, to the security of the Jewish people and to the success of Israel’s soldiers.
Now, regarding your claim that the Haredim themselves don’t believe this, because after all they go to the doctor and so on—when I showed that to the dear kollel student, he smiled and said, “What a pity—see how anger blinds even sharp eyes” (because I showed him material of yours, and he said you are definitely a sharp person, but captive at the level of consciousness). And why is that? Because either you didn’t read what that kollel student said, or you simply didn’t understand. What’s the connection???? Who said you only need Torah scholars??? The Haredim are not claiming that soldiers aren’t needed… brooooo!! All they are claiming is that the Torah of Israel guides and teaches us that the war system is composed of two fronts: (a) the front of the fighting soldiers, (b) the front of the learning corps. So of course you go to the doctor, but with the awareness that a doctor without prayer and the merit of Torah study heals much less…
As for your arguments and analogies that are so unlike the actual point, I don’t have much motivation to address them—I don’t know, your writing style really bothers me—but if it will sharpen the issue so that we can walk in God’s way more precisely, I’ll trouble myself, as your honor apparently also did:
The claims that this is cruelty and so on are emotional claims stemming mainly from lack of contemplation, inclusion, and understanding. The Haredim are not saying, “What do I care—there are the Mizrachi types and the seculars who’ll die in my place…” absolutely not. Rather, the question asked here is: how do we (that is, the Haredim) express God’s command in the world in a time of war and danger like now? We need two fronts, both spiritual and physical, so let’s go create them. And here the Haredi leadership stops and says: “Wait. The physical contribution to the security of the Jewish people (which is made up mostly of soldiers who are not risking their lives but are in various support roles, etc., and not as you presented it in such a demagogic and baseless way)—thank God, that front is functioning. There are enough combat troop numbers; there are those who are paying that debt. And as stated, leave aside emotional claims of secular media people such as ‘people are dying and being killed.’ First of all, if so, then you should also make that argument about all the rough cooks in the IDF, the mechanics who could hold a machine gun, and the fitness instructors who could be effective machine-gunners! Yet you don’t make that argument, because you understand that the parameter and metric is not whether one dies or doesn’t die, risks oneself or doesn’t, but whether one contributes, is effective, or not. So just as you define the mechanic in the Gaza Division who replaces an axle on the wheel of the armored truck of Battalion Rotem or 890 as contributing, even though he isn’t risking himself, and even though he could have been, physically and intellectually, a combat soldier—”
And here the Haredi Torah greats ask (I became convinced today from my conversation with that kollel student that there are no “greats” who are not Haredi, and that Rabbi Kook of blessed memory, crown of our head, was the last “great one of Israel” whose outlook was not Haredi): if so, who will volunteer to fill the ranks of the “learning corps”? After all, we hold that there must be one-third Torah scholars in wartime [and as for what Rabbi Haggai Lundin quoted from the Jerusalem Talmud in Peah, that Jewish law is not learned from aggadah, pardon his honor, but he overlooked the words of Maharatz Chayes that of course we do learn from them, and many actual bodies of Jewish law are learned from the midrashim and aggadot, etc., and the intent of the Jerusalem Talmud that “Jewish law is not learned from aggadah” refers to aggadah stated as homiletics to strengthen the people… and similarly explained by Tosafot Yom Tov, that of course we do learn, except where there is a contradiction to the known plain meaning]. Therefore, who will volunteer for the learning corps? The Haredim say to themselves: “We will.” And truly, I prayed evening prayer with him in some evening kollel in Beit Shemesh, and I have never in my life seen such fire of Torah. Sorry to say it, but unlike our study halls, where people sit with unfiltered tablets reading a halakhic article on the Kipa website while ads with women pop up, or they learn but like in a municipal library, low voices, academic atmosphere :(( yes, there is fire of Torah among us too, thank God, but there is no comparison at all to what my eyes saw today… It always saddened me, but I comforted myself that after all, our great rabbis with the unfiltered smartphones don’t protest… and also because I thought that’s how it is everywhere, until now. Up to this point, that’s the halakhic consideration and technical analysis of the Haredi rabbis.
And I asked him: what will you do if all the projections come true and you receive the keys to the state when you become the majority? Who will be in the army? So he told me that of course most of the army, like most of society, will come from the Haredi public, and in addition they will establish a corps of learners.
Now regarding what you dismissed by calling it malicious, foolish, and other insults that really do not flatter you as an adult and even a genius, I would say… when they argue that the army is secular and progressive, and therefore they won’t send even the “non-learners”—I have no motivation to argue with facts. It’s a fact that I myself experienced in my own flesh. The data are known, the issue has been chewed over from every direction. The IDF is a social-educational melting pot before it is a security organization (and if I exaggerated by saying before, then at least alongside)…. You argue that you and I also had complaints against the IDF and we enlisted even though we recognized the fact that we might pay with our lives—so why are they playing nice and refusing to pay, especially when we are talking about damage to spiritual life (and especially since, according to your definition, we’re speaking of only a doubtful harm) and not damage to actual life, meaning death.
So here there is an argument built on a mistaken assumption, namely that bodily death is more severe than spiritual death. So why are we willing to pay even the bodily one, while they are not willing to pay even spiritual death???? Good argument—but a distorted assumption. That kollel student explained that the Torah outlook is that there is no purpose or value in bodily life except as a vessel and means for spiritual life; that is, without Jewish observance, “what do I need life for?” And he brought many supports for this, and the best known of them is what is stated in Midrash Rabbah 21:4: “Greater is one who causes another to sin than one who kills him,” because this one (the murderer) drives him from this world, whereas that one (who causes sin) drives him from both this world and the world to come…. Therefore, Rabbi Michi… pardon me…
One last thing the kollel student told me to answer you: throughout your whole response you use concepts like “maintaining a state,” “economy,” “industry”… but we (the kollel student told me) do not see any value at all in a state establishment of this sort, whose main aim is to shape the Jewish people and bring onto the stage of history the new sabra Jew. On the contrary, we long for this institution to fall apart, just as every Religious Zionist would long for if he were freed from the ideological bubble he is in and understood that this is an auto-antisemitic society, whether consciously or not. They openly proclaim heresy and unbelief. Just go see what they did to our Sephardic brothers; with the Yemenites there is nothing even to talk about… we ourselves partly came already damaged from Europe… the Ministry of Education raises Jewish youth—boys and girls, righteous boys and girls, children captured among non-Jews—on its pyres every day, and shapes their consciousness into a Western, secular, permissive one. But this is not the way of our forefathers, dear Michi. Therefore all your arguments that it is malicious to claim that if there is a shortage there are enough secular people in the economy to fill the role (“so why are you picking on us?”), because there is a state need for them, only creates a dialogue of the deaf. Because the Haredim not only do not recognize the value of the state, they even long for the day when this cursed institution will fall apart—the institution that burned and burns Jewish souls every day more than all the bodies and organizations in the world!!!!!!!!!!!! In the sense of “Those who destroy you and lay you waste shall come forth from you” (even though the verse means something different from the way I’m using it)…
One claim did challenge that claim—(the kollel student said) truly a serious argument, one that even troubles him: “Provide an alternative,” “make your own army,” “initiate Haredi frameworks.”
Fair enough… it really is interesting why our Haredi rabbis don’t initiate such a thing… He told me there once was talk of autonomy… and that perhaps this can somewhat explain that the IDF is presumed unreliable in its promises, as testified by the empty promises your public (that is, our Religious Zionist public) got from the IDF [I’m remembering now how they sent us a secular female fitness instructor with a blatantly sexual appearance—I’m uncomfortable describing how embarrassing and painful that was for us… and my platoon commander, some stupid American from Gush Etzion, maybe from Efrat, I don’t remember, said that training was so we’d be strong enough to fight, and after all saving life overrides the entire Torah, so it also overrides and permits fitness training with a gorgeous Russian female instructor, may God have mercy on us, how much that bothered me already back then….] In addition to that, there was the “Shahar Kachol” project in 2007 for recruiting Haredim (not dropouts), which did succeed and gain momentum, and was cut off due to a petition by the gender adviser that it could not be that in the IDF, the army of a democratic state, there would be a place women do not enter…..
But still, the kollel student argued that he himself doesn’t understand why the Haredim don’t become a kind of autonomous entity, like the Palestinian Authority, and establish minimal defense systems, high-tech, and an employment economy in a Jewish atmosphere, etc….
In conclusion, I appreciate you, Michi. You are a dear man and even sanctify God’s name. I even had a friend in the army who went off the religious path and said his recognition of God’s existence returned to him because of your content. I appreciate you—but in my eyes at least, because of the awakening I’ve been going through over the last month, and especially from the meeting with that kollel student yesterday and today…
You are misleading the many and slandering the segment most faithful to the Torah of Israel—the Haredi public.
–
Erez Rubin, thank you for bringing these things. You strengthened my view that the arguments against the draft are empty.
You/he keeps recycling baseless claims. I’ll answer one more time and that will be the end of it.
As for my anger, if you didn’t understand the obvious—I’ll explain. It is written, “Those who hate You, O Lord, I hate,” and from here they learned that there is an obligation to hate the wicked. And since the Haredim (as a public) are utterly wicked (and the stupidity of their arguments apparently stems from the need to defend their absurd and malicious doctrine), it is a commandment to hate them, and reason supports this as well. You do not discuss Nazis or ISIS calmly about their doctrine (although I am in favor of answering them according to their folly in a substantive way, as long as they raise arguments). But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the claims and their clarity, contrary to your demagoguery and his.
Most of your words are just a recycling of previous and very common claims, and very unintelligent ones. There is nothing new under the sun here. Even so, I decided to respond because you write that it matters to you and you don’t understand basic things (the hypnosis?…).
2 — So you didn’t bring examples. Apparently you didn’t understand the lesson on ad hominem.
3 — The sources you brought are familiar and irrelevant. Even though I wrote that I see no point in discussing “Torah protects and saves,” I’ll address it briefly.
Some of the sources speak about a description of a situation and not about a general directive (like source B. There is no instruction there about what to do, only a description of what happened there).
Some of the sources (like A) speak about the value of learning as such, without any connection to setting aside fighters who will learn instead of fighting. The intention is that the help by which we are victorious is so that there will be Torah study among us in general. That is the merit of the Jewish people. What does that have to do with setting aside fighters to learn instead of fight?
There are sources from which it emerges that this is true even during wartime itself. But there too the basic principle is that when fighters are needed, you draft everyone needed. Beyond that, it is desirable also to station learners. From where did you derive the absurd idea that when fighters are needed, we nevertheless waive some of them so that they can learn?
Beyond that, I explained that we have enough learners even if the Haredim enlist for one year and learn the rest of the time, and there are also the hesder yeshivot. I’ll just remind you that King David himself fought quite a bit. So to bring proof from him that one needs to learn instead of fight is a joke. And all this is only about someone who truly studies seriously, and that is a small minority in the Haredi public, even among those sitting in yeshivot and kollels. The vast majority leave the kollel as soon as they are freed from the burden of the draft, and for some reason then there is no longer any need to contribute to our defense through learning.
And finally, I explained that almost everyone accepts the exemption that would be given to a screened number of serious learners. So what is the argument even about? It is about those who do not study seriously or do not study at all, and that is an overwhelming majority of the Haredim. You may have prayed evening prayer in Beit Shemesh, but I lived among them for many years. So please don’t sell me stories. Just as an example: after I studied for half a day for five years, I began giving a lesson in a kollel to married kollel students who had been there from birth.
I’m glad I brought a smile to the lips of that hidden righteous man. If practical effort and study are both needed, then one must fight when there is a need. And right now there is a need to fight. As for proportions and timing, I already discussed that.
The claims that this is cruelty are not emotional. The emotion expresses the essence. One who recoils from the slaughter of innocents is not making an emotional argument but expressing a moral argument emotionally. The same applies here. You keep repeating the mantra of two fronts, and I already explained to you that this is irrelevant. Especially since the division of fronts somehow leaves them in the study hall and the others to die for them. I brought the example of the two people in the house, which you chose not to address (and not by chance).
The fact that there are soldiers who do not risk themselves is known and obvious. They try to screen things so that those who serve there are people without a combat profile. In any case, in the IDF the ratio between combat and support is the best among the armies of the world (!). And there is certainly no justification for placing an entire population group in the branch that does not take risks. Those who are suitable will go to Golani, and the others, Haredim and non-Haredim alike, will study Torah.
And indeed I make this claim also against others who do not serve where they could contribute more. But here it is an entire population evading service as an ideology.
As for the claim that there are no greats who are not Haredi, I can only laugh. It is evident that you are a complete ignoramus who has neither read nor learned, and so is your conversation partner. In my estimation, as someone who knows the Haredi world (and apparently also Torah) far better than you, there are almost no Haredi Torah giants. There are Haredim who hold quite a few sources and some of them even have good analytic ability. But greatness in Torah is far beyond such donkey-like book carriers.
As for learning Jewish law from aggadah, you’re talking nonsense. But I won’t get into that here.
As for “progressivism,” I already answered and there is no point repeating it. What you experienced personally is irrelevant, and I explained why. I also experienced similar things.
As for “greater is one who causes sin than one who kills,” I already explained the absurdity in that.
As for maintaining a state and an economy, that fool really does not understand what people are saying to him. He doesn’t want the state but milks it for all he can. So whom will he milk if everyone is in the army to defend him? Who will support his kollel and subsidize daycare for his children? What does this have to do with the state’s secularity? Even in Belgium one ought to act this way. This is the infantile thinking of the Haredim that I spoke about. Ah yes, how could we forget the Tehran Children? Truly, “I will sing Your praise among the nations.”
The fact that you partially accepted the claim that they don’t initiate Haredi frameworks testifies regarding all the rest. From the fact that this doesn’t happen, it is clear that all these stupid and malicious arguments are merely excuses for parasitic and malicious conduct.
If this is “the segment most faithful to the Torah of Israel,” then you apparently belong to one of the sects not very close to the Torah of Israel. Their crooked “Torah” is the last thing that can protect anyone (except for protecting their own lives, since they do not enlist).
I hope you bought a subscription to Beit Shemesh. Have a good trip.
Of course, there was no response to the example I brought, and nothing at all about the lame excuse of concerns over corruption.
And we haven’t even begun talking about the terrible desecration of God’s name in this—how Torah and its learners are presented to the public (“See so-and-so who learned Torah, how pleasant are his deeds”). The sacred and invented halakhic obligation to preserve one-third of the soldiers in the Torah corps overrides a desecration of God’s name the like of which has not existed since the creation of the world. An entire public, in the name of Torah and under rabbinic leadership, behaves in a parasitic, dark, anti-moral way, and defends it with malicious nonsense arguments. This has never happened before. How pleasant are the deeds of these Torah learners…
If I may, I’d like to make a few comments. I’ll just note that I agree with a large part of what you said.
A. There is no doubt that if going to the doctor would clearly cause people to go off the religious path, then Haredim would think ten times before every visit and would do it only in an extreme situation. So I don’t understand this example each time—you’re speaking about a hypothetical case. There is no proof that Haredim behave differently in a situation similar to the army.
B. True, the sources he brought speak about an existing situation and not an instruction, but if the existing situation is that because of Torah study people were saved in war, isn’t that an existing reality from which one can learn?
C. Following the first two points—we need to discuss whether the army today really needs more regular manpower and whether this is saving life or not. Such an extreme case of war on several fronts is very rare, and it is very doubtful it will happen again. It wasn’t for nothing that they closed several divisions a few years ago.
D. It’s not at all certain that the Religious Zionists would want to trade places with Haredim in Torah study. For them it is an ideal to fight and defend the land alongside learning.
E. You are completely right regarding the massive idleness in the Haredi sector. It’s very sad. The question is whether because of that we now need to draft everyone, or rather raise this problem and create stricter and more measurable frameworks in order to strengthen Torah study (you can inform the Ministry of Religious Affairs about this and it will tighten its checks for funding eligibility; it would work beautifully).
**with
You may. 🙂
A. The doctor example was not brought as an analogy to our case, and is not connected to the question of corruption. It was brought within the framework of discussing “Torah protects and saves” and the obligation of practical effort. These are two different claims and should be discussed separately.
B. The existing situation is that learning is important, and each person handles that as he handles it. To derive from here practical and general directives for all situations is a joke. Especially since the whole treatment of aggadot is the typical stupid Haredi treatment. Aggadot must be understood in context. This is not a factual description of what happened, nor a halakhic instruction. It points to a general direction. See Maimonides’ introduction to the Mishnah on the three groups in understanding aggadot.
C. War in general is also a rare case. So maybe we shouldn’t prepare for it. And again, childish Haredi thinking that doesn’t understand how to run an army and a state. In the public sphere, a doubtful life-threatening situation is a certain one.
Besides, almost nobody disputes an exemption for a screened group of learners. The discussion is not about that.
D. I suggest asking them. There are also secular people who would want to trade places. And the fact that for them fighting is an ideal—that is a problem of Haredim, who distort the ideals, and therefore for them it is not an ideal.
E. Nobody is talking about drafting all of them, except the Haredim, who use that argument as passive-aggressive rhetoric (though there certainly is justification for drafting all of them).
As stated, I agree with some of the things, I’m not saying that because of these points one shouldn’t enlist, only trying to sharpen some of the things you exaggerated.
C. War happened, happens, and will happen, and a multi-front ground war definitely will not necessarily happen (and as said, the state also did not prepare for it—because it closed divisions; maybe others also suffer from childish thinking).
D. I suggest that you ask them too…
E. I meant all those idlers.
You’re just being stubborn. Especially after it’s already clear that closing the brigades was a grave mistake.
Thank you for the patience to answer fools according to their folly.
It is completely obvious that the questioner “Erez Rubin” is a Haredi in disguise who thought himself some great genius and savior. His response to Rabbi Michi’s answer is beneath all criticism. And maybe it is worth noting how talented he is, to the point that he remembered by heart the entire content of that convoluted conversation he “had” with that anonymous “kollel student.”
Dear Erez,
There is an important piece of knowledge worth knowing when one comes to deal with issues that depend on worldview: worldview never stems from the sources. It stems from the heads and hearts of the great Torah scholars, and the sources serve as support for it.
The source of worldview is intuition, common sense, strategy, and whatever else you like—but not the words of the Sages.
I’ll give two examples of this:
1. Marriage age — in certain Lithuanian-style yeshivot they are strict that the boys not get engaged before sixth-year committee or the end of fifth-year committee. There are good and innocent Jews who gather sources, from the Sages onward, that one is obligated to marry by age 20, and they cannot understand those yeshiva heads, who are violating what is explicitly written in the sources. But the explanation is that the sources do not determine the conduct (when we are not dealing with clear and explicit Jewish laws), but other considerations do.
2. When the dispute between Degel HaTorah and the Jerusalem Faction was raging, it was interesting to read the articles published by both sides. Both are wise, both are discerning, both know Torah, and each side recruited the Sages to its aid. And of course it was all hot air. This is a dispute of worldview that has nothing to do with the sources.
So too in the issue of drafting yeshiva students. The source and reason for the Haredi opposition to drafting yeshiva students is in no way found in the aggadot of the Sages, neither the ones you mentioned nor others. It is found somewhere else entirely.
I’m not saying they aren’t right; I’m only bringing this to your attention, because it is important and necessary knowledge for someone trying to understand the issue.
A small note to Rabbi Michi,
I also think that your sharp words toward the Haredi public, and in general, leave a bad taste and distract the reader from the substance of the arguments. In my humble opinion, your claims and reasoning would be much stronger and more persuasive if you refrained from expressing your opinion about a person or public as such (“fool,” “simpleton,” “wicked,” “stupid,” and the like). It adds nothing to the discussion and even lowers the level a bit. The Mishnah says that one who hates someone is forbidden to sit in judgment over his fellow whom he hates, because judgment depends on discretion, and discretion can be biased when there is personal hatred. The same applies here: your arguments, some of which rely on reasoning and discretion, can be interpreted as if they stem from personal hatred of the Haredi public rather than from pure judgment, and therefore they lose some of their force. And I say this דווקא because I like reading your articles, but recently I feel that you write words that are too sharp.
For your consideration 🙂
Taken. Thank you.
He kisses the lips of one who gives a straight answer.