Q&A: Who Is Haredi
Who Is Haredi
Question
In light of column 731, it seems to me that some of your claims about the Haredi public are exaggerated and overly sweeping. The impression is that you are basing yourself on familiarity with certain groups—perhaps ones you met in Bnei Brak a few years ago—and from there deriving characteristics about the entire public. In practice, the reality I encounter day to day is much broader and more diverse.
That said, I agree that it is very hard to define such broad streams within the Haredi world.
Indeed, in the Haredi public there are extreme, closed-off people, opponents of Zionism, people who reject military service, and even some who show tolerance toward problematic conduct toward the state, and much more… At the same time, alongside them there is a very large group—certainly not a minority—that does not behave this way, alongside many who agree only with some of it. These are people who live a clearly Haredi lifestyle, define themselves as Haredi, and whose surroundings also see them as an integral part of Haredi society. Are you aware of this and simply referring only to people who are not like that? Do you think that this is still the defining characteristic despite so many people who, in my opinion, are not like that?
It seems that you are proposing a new definition of your own for “modern religious,” and putting into it many people who define themselves, and in practice live, as Haredi. Most of the Haredi public—both people from abroad and Israelis—identify them as Haredi in every respect. It may be that only in your personal definition they are not Haredi, and on the extreme side some would even call them “gentiles,” but in reality they are not marginal. In your opinion, are most people from abroad not Haredi?
As for secular studies, for example—I do not think most Haredim oppose them in principle. Their absence stems mainly from giving priority to other values (like you, if I am not mistaken), such as the level of Talmud study. The preference for sending children to a cheder with a high level of “sacred studies” creates a situation in which any institution that wants to be considered “high quality” avoids introducing a full core curriculum. There is also a social phenomenon here of fear of standing out or being pushed out—a real fear that has a basis—but this does not necessarily indicate a deep ideological opposition to general studies. It is hard to see this as an “essential Haredi characteristic,” but rather more as a result of social pressures. Maybe fear really is a characteristic….
I agree with you that belief in the sciences as an essential value, and not only as a means, is indeed not a Haredi characteristic. Still, it seems that in your articles generally you tend to sharpen the criticism in order to sharpen your claims, and sometimes that sharpening hurts the accuracy and fairness. Do you think that is true?
It is also important to remember that for many Haredim, “leaving the public” or abandoning what they have grown up in for years involves a very heavy price compared to what they gain outside. Therefore, even if a person identifies with some of the things you describe, he may still prefer to remain within the Haredi circle. After all, the Third Path still does not have institutions and communities…. Should all these phenomena also be included in the definition? (If Harediness is a sociological phenomenon and most of them act this way without thinking this way, that might affect things…)
P.S. If your goal is also to draw people from the Haredi public closer to your view of the “modern religious movement,” a gentler and more respectful presentation of things might serve that goal better. Sharp criticism can be off-putting, even when the intention is positive. It seems to me that in a lecture or an interview, you would present things a bit more softly… Is this really exaggeration for the sake of the argument?
Answer
Hello,
First, in that column I did not see criticism of Haredim. I only described what a Haredi is, and argued with Rabbi Navet regarding his proposal. So this is not a discussion that is relevant here.
As for my actual claims, you have a fundamental mistake in the angle from which you are looking at the issue. When I characterize a group and criticize it, I do not mean to say that these are the characteristics of all its members. In principle, not even of the majority. My claim is that this is the group characteristic. That is, this is how Harediness operates (not how Haredim think). That is really not the same thing. You yourself say that you and others like you think differently on some of these issues but are afraid to act accordingly for various reasons. What are you afraid of? Simply this: the group to which you want to belong (= the Haredim) will not accept it. So there you have it—even you agree that this closed approach does indeed characterize the group as a whole.
If I thought this characterized all Haredim, we would not have established the Third Path. The whole idea there is based on the assumption that there are many Haredim who think differently but do not act differently. Our goal is to help them act the way they think. If there were no such Haredim, what would be the point of establishing the movement?
Therefore we have no disagreement at all about the facts. And from this you will understand that I did not exaggerate at any point, neither for polemical purposes nor for any other purpose. I described the Haredi group as a whole and its patterns of conduct, not what each Haredi thinks individually (there are about a million of them. Could it even occur to you that I think they are all identical?!).
Discussion on Answer
Everything was explained. I do not understand what you are asking.
1. I am not exaggerating in the slightest. My description is completely accurate with respect to the public. The language is not harsh at all either. Your behavior is what is harsh. I am only describing it. You remind me of the rebuke from the rabbi in Yeruham when I spoke out against a community that was behaving with terrible corruption, and he claimed against me that I was violating the laws of evil speech. I told him the problem lies in the things I am describing, not in the description itself.
2. I have explained this several times. You want to dance at all the weddings. To belong to the Haredi public and not bear responsibility for its actions and conduct. As though you are coerced. You are not coerced in any way. You chose to belong there and to submit to the norms practiced there. See column 723.
3. I do not deal in utopias.
4. You decide whether you want to belong, and where. You are choosing to belong to a warped, harmful, and immoral society. Your decision. What do you want from me? Beyond that, the Third Path is a movement and not a society, at least for now. Those who joined it did not leave the society to which they belong. Why do I need to establish institutions for you? If you want such institutions, then establish them. Again, this Haredi approach that everyone needs to solve your problems for you. You are only “compelled.” That is the attitude of a small child. Grow up. If you think there is no better option, then you choose to be Haredi (because it is the lesser evil). If so, then do not complain about my descriptions of you.
5. I do not distinguish between anyone and anyone else. Whoever belongs to the Haredi public, no matter what shade, is part of the matter. This is a collective description, not an individual one for each person or group.
I am not claiming that I am compelled. I am trying to improve myself even while being Haredi, and that is why I serve and study in academia. I do not think that counts as dancing at all the weddings.
In the end, if I remain in such a society and such a community and use Haredi institutions, and only join the Third Path, is that still not being Haredi? What is the difference between that and what I am doing now?
In my claim about people from abroad, I am arguing that you are defining at most Israeli Haredim. In the eyes of a Jew living abroad these are descriptions of Israelis, and in the eyes of a leftist these are the right-wingers, and in the eyes of secular people these are the religious, etc.; and maybe in the eyes of Haredim from northern Israel or from certain neighborhoods in Jerusalem these are the Bnei Brak people, and among the Bnei Brak people these are the…. In the end, if these are part of the group, you cannot pin it on the whole group…
I am asking methodically: suppose most Haredim from all over the world are not like that—would it still be permissible to define Harediness in general in a way that characterizes only a minority in Bnei Brak or Kiryat Sefer? I agree that Harediness can lead there, but perhaps it is a phenomenon of mixing Harediness with Israeliness?
Are you talking about the core, the hardcore, of the Haredim, and therefore also all Haredim around the world, when they choose to be part of it, are partners in that? Is it possible that there is another hardcore beyond the Bnei Brak hardcore?
I am interested in what you think about people from abroad in general; could you share?
Again, thank you
I do not understand where this discussion is going. If you are Haredi then you are Haredi, and if not then not. If you are not Haredi, then indeed I was not talking about you.
Ner, it seems to me that you are attaching too much importance to “what Michi thinks about me” beyond what really ought to matter to you. You make your choices yourself, and the results are for you and only you to judge and decide whether, in your opinion, they are good or not.
If you do not think like Michi regarding his claims against the Haredim—after you have heard them—or regarding the conclusions he draws from them (such as that being part of this society is bad and corrupt), that is your right. You do not need to try to change his mind in order to feel good about yourself.
1. Right, at the beginning of what I said I meant more columns 720 and 722 and others.
I agree with quite a substantial part of your claims, it is just that the language you use is a bit harsh.
I wanted to know whether you really stand behind every word and every description, or whether it was more to illustrate the point.
2. I did not completely understand: suppose the majority of the public does not think in a certain way—can you still define it in essence by an outcome of which it is only a victim? And why does that outcome itself also not enter into the definition?
3. Do you think the utopian society, the best possible one, is the modern religious? Or is that only the best alternative for a Haredi or for a Religious Zionist?
4. If I manage, while being fully Haredi, to serve, to study in academia, and to send my children to institutions at a high level with reinforcement at home for the things they will not learn there, and to be part of a very diverse community… why should I “move” to the Third Path?
What about the fact that you do not have institutions—are you suggesting that for now one should remain in the existing institutions? Go for borderline institutions, with the price that involves?
5. Do you distinguish between Israeli Haredim and people from abroad? In your definition of Harediness it seems that you ignore them… Do you agree that if they and the Haredim in Israel define them as Haredi, then they are Haredi in every respect?
Thanks in advance for your time