Another Look at the Identity Seamline (Column 665)
On Two Types of Rapprochement between Haredim and Religious-Zionists
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
In column 500 I presented my manifesto, in which I tried to define a modern alternative to the dichotomous division of religious identities between Religious-Zionists and Haredim. A few months ago I read an article by Tamar Katzir in the journal Tzarikh Iyun, which dealt with “people of the seam.” She points to a process of rapprochement between the National-Religious public and the Haredi public that has been occurring in recent years. She described it through “seam people” who exist in both groups, whose positions are drawing closer and closer to one another. She also expressed optimism and noted the importance of this phenomenon for solving various problems in our time.
At the beginning of my reading I identified very much with the description and found in it an echo of thoughts that have been percolating within me for a long time (and of the manifesto). But as I read on, I realized that Katzir went in quite the opposite direction from what I am speaking about, in a way that is in some sense even harmful. In this column I wish to comment on her remarks and thereby sharpen my own words in the manifesto. This article was originally intended to be published in Tzarikh Iyun, but I was told that the editorial policy is to publish only articles by Haredim. I therefore decided to publish it here on the site as a column.
Before I address Katzir’s remarks, I would like to preface a schematic description of the existing ideological map—the one that the “seamline” cuts across (I will do so briefly, since the matter is elaborated in the manifesto). From this I will try to clarify why, in my opinion, the importance of the “seam” lies not where she locates it but elsewhere—indeed, almost the reverse. Finally, I will also point to the practical implications of this analysis and connect it to the Third Path movement that has been taking shape in recent months. On this occasion I invite my readers to join the movement (see there) and to invite others to join.
An Ideological Identity Map of the Religious World
For several generations we have been accustomed to identifying ourselves according to the division of Haredim versus Religious-Zionists (or National-Religious). This is the division that we all perceive as the identity watershed (“seamline”). Although of course there are different shades on each side, still almost every religious person identifies himself on one side of this line. This identity determines almost our entire religious way of life. It determines whom we will marry, what clothes we will wear, where and with whom we will send our children to play or study, which newspapers and books we will read, which rabbi we will consult, in which synagogue we will pray, where, how, and with whom we will socialize, which party we will vote for (lately this is a bit less clear, mainly on the non-Haredi side), and the like. Yet on a second look one can see that this seamline is anachronistic, and it is not clear why it is still seen as the relevant watershed on the map of our religious identities.
To understand this better, let us look a bit at the concept “Haredi.” In a very schematic and general way one can say that two main ideas shelter under Haredi-ism: opposition to Zionism (in various shades) and opposition to modernity and its ideas (perhaps to the surrounding world altogether; Judaism as “Noah’s Ark”). Clearly there are different shades (certainly today), and different forms and degrees of opposition to these two ideas, and yet to my understanding this is an accurate description of Haredi-ism. In every Haredi person or group there are, in different degrees and shades, these two directions. For simplicity, I will refer to these two axes below as the Zionism axis and the modernity axis (with modernity including the adoption of contemporary values of equality, attitudes toward “others,” a favorable view of the sciences and the arts, halakhic flexibility and openness, and the like).
Consequently, one would expect that in the non-Haredi religious world there would be two subgroups: Religious-Zionists (not necessarily modern) and Religious-Moderns (not necessarily Zionist). Overlap between the groups is of course possible, and therefore in principle there should be three distinct non-Haredi groups: Zionist–Modern, Zionist–Non-Modern, and Non-Zionist–Modern. The fourth group, Non-Zionist–Non-Modern, is the Haredi world. In practice, the division I described assumes only two groups: Haredim and Religious-Zionists (or National-Religious). In recent years, groups with diverse characteristics are indeed coalescing on this more complex map, and therefore today one can discern three non-Haredi groups and not just one; yet the basic identity division remains that between Haredim and National-Religious. There are Modern Haredim, New Haredim, Haredi-lite, and more, but all of these still see themselves as Haredi groups (just as there are different Hasidic courts and groups with different views that all see themselves as shades within the Haredi world). Among the National-Religious as well there are right and left, more or less messianic, more or less liberal/modern, more or less statist (“mamlachti”), and the like, but all of these still define themselves as groups within the National-Religious world.
The conclusion is that despite the (welcome, in my view) decentralization that has been occurring in recent years, the principal identity seamline continues to stretch between Haredi and National-Religious—that is, around the Zionist axis (and not the modernity axis). We are still divided around it in all the parameters I described above (matchmaking, education, reading material, communities and rabbis, parties, and so on). When a religious person is asked about his identity, the first words he will say (or that others will say about him) will be “I am Haredi” or “I am National-Religious,” and only afterwards may he add various shades. Note that when the identity watershed is presented thus (internally or outwardly), this means that our identity is stretched along the attitude toward Zionism (Haredi versus National), whereas the modernity axis does not appear here. Modernity is a collection of shades within the two subgroups on either side of the seamline. There are modern and non-modern Haredim, and modern and non-modern Religious-Zionists, but the moderns (and likewise the non-moderns) on both sides see themselves as belonging to two different identity camps, albeit with lines of resemblance such as can be found between any two different groups.
Current Situation: This Map Is Anachronistic
If we look at the current situation in religious society in Israel and beyond, we will find that this division is anachronistic. Almost all of the issues on the agenda about which a person is required to form a position do not touch Zionism. There is no longer a debate about whether to say Hallel on Independence Day. Those who want to say it do so, and those who do not—do not. This hardly looks like an important question, and certainly has no impact on our lives. Nor is there any sane person who does not want the success of the state, regardless of whether it is the athalta de-geula (the beginning of redemption). That is the interest of every reasonable citizen, Haredi or not. The same applies to theological conceptions such as athalta de-geula, ikveta de-meshicha, and other terms that, to my judgment, no one really understands. Even participation in the institutions of the state (and in recent years even in the government) is no longer a matter of dispute between Haredim and Religious-Zionists. Moreover, in the current coalition there seems to be a remarkable harmony between the Haredi parties and the non-Haredi religious parties. On almost every issue they vote together and act together (apart from marginal matters).
The main difference between them is the question of where the money is allocated and whose interests are served, but it is very odd, logically, to build the identity of camp X or Y on the question of whether money is transferred to camp X or to camp Y. There must be some substantive, value-laden difference between the camps in order to define these identities in a non-circular way, and only then can one argue about where the money should go. Yet substantive and value differences are hardly to be found. There still remain differences in clothing, newspapers, matchmaking, rabbis and communities, educational institutions, and the like, but all of these are supposed to be expressions of a difference, not the difference itself. What, then, is supposed to be taught in the various schools and yeshivot? What are the different clothes supposed to express? The content and the values on both sides are not essentially different. The differences between the Haredim and the Hardalim (Haredi-Religious-Zionists) are rather minor, and certainly do not find real expression in ideology and politics. In my estimation, the differences between them are smaller than the differences between various Hasidic courts, or between Hasidim and Litvaks or Sephardim within the Haredi camp.
So what do the disputes in the religious world revolve around? Attitudes toward women, equality, the “other,” democratic and liberal values, moderation, halakhic flexibility and openness, attitudes toward various branches of knowledge and the arts, and so forth. Note that all these controversies revolve around points on the modernity axis and not on the Zionist axis. With respect to these controversies, one can indeed find substantial identity between the modern streams on both sides of the seamline: Modern Haredim and Modern Religious-Zionists. Opposite them stand the conservatives (=the non-moderns) on both sides: conservative Haredim and conservative Religious-Zionists (broadly, those who are currently represented politically in the coalition).
We therefore learn that the identity seamline around the attitude toward Zionism is no longer really the principal line. That line reflects a state of affairs that has mostly passed and vanished—a relic of a period when we still argued about whether to establish a state and whether to cooperate with the Zionist enterprise. As is known, we have had a state for almost eighty years, and the debates today, almost without exception, revolve around questions of modernity and not Zionism. I would expect that today the identity seamline would cross the modernity axis and not the Zionist one, but at least in terms of consciousness this is not really happening. We continue to identify ourselves primarily around the Zionist axis.
A Schematic Presentation of the Shift
We can clarify the picture and my claim more pictorially. The accepted (and anachronistic) identity map looks like this:
But the real map I described above is apparently the very same map, only rotated by 90 degrees:
This is a rotation of the axes,[1] and ostensibly it is only a change of perspective. We still have four quadrants—so why should it matter whether we place one above the other or to the right of it? Seemingly it does not matter which we choose to be the X-axis and which the Y-axis. But on a closer look you will notice that there is nonetheless an important difference between the diagrams, one that is easy to miss: in the top diagram, the bold line that defines the principal identity seamline divides between Zionism and anti-Zionism, whereas in the bottom diagram the bold line remains vertical (the Y-axis), except that now it divides between modernity and anti-modernity (conservatism). Therefore this is not merely a rotation, i.e., a change of perspective alone. These are different identity maps. What has changed is the seamline (the bold line).
The top diagram shows us that we live with a false consciousness. Our feelings of partnership and identification at the sociological level are divided around the Y-axis. That is, Modern Haredim see themselves as part of a common group with conservative Haredim. Modern Religious-Zionists see themselves as part of a group with the non-modern Religious-Zionists. Our identification revolves around the attitude toward Zionism, and thus turns toward groups that are distant from us in the relevant value-ideological sense (those separated by a bold line), while those who are close to us ideologically (those between us and whom there is only a thin line) are perceived by us as belonging to a different identity group. My claim is that we must rid ourselves of the false consciousness according to which the Zionist identity axis is the principal seamline, and we must redefine our identity groups and religious consciousness around the modernity axis. This is the relevant seamline, and therefore it should be the bold line. The identity groups should be rearranged such that the coalitions are between moderns on both sides and between conservatives on both sides. Each of these two coalitions is bisected by a thin line. Far more sensible.
This false consciousness enables the conservative leaderships to lead both camps. The conservative rabbis and the politicians who represent them are considered the representatives of the entire identity group. The Haredi parties, all of which belong to conservative Haredi-ism, are the representatives of Haredi society. Modern Haredi-ism has no representation and no voice—not only in the Knesset but in public discourse generally. The same holds for Modern National-Religious, whose members find themselves voting for parties that are not clearly religious. I should note that my claim is not political but social-ideological. Recourse to politics serves only to illustrate the claim.
This situation enables the leadership (rabbinic and political) on both sides to label the moderns as a fringe group that deviates from the path. Modern Haredim are presented as “Haredi-lite” (not truly Haredi), and similarly modern religious people are presented as “Dati-lite” (not truly religious). All this is because they insist on belonging to the Haredi and the National-Religious groups respectively, and therefore condemn themselves to be considered a religiously weak periphery. Time and again we can see protests and dissatisfaction with this labeling, but it does not really change. In my view, the reason is that we insist on constructing the ideological-identity map around the old and irrelevant seamline.
The Third Path
The necessary solution is to synchronize the reality on the ground with the discursive consciousness. On the ground, these groups already exist, but they do not identify themselves correctly. We must, at long last, rotate the axes, as I did above. If we redefine our identity, this time around the more relevant axis—the modernity axis—there will emerge a Modern Haredi group that is not a (marginal, “lite”) part of Haredi-ism, and a Modern Religious group that is not a (marginal, “lite”) part of National-Religious-ness. If these two join together into a single group—Modern Religiosity—with two different hues (Haredi and non-Haredi), they will stand together as an alternative in their own right, rather than being two fringe groups in opposing camps. This of course requires from each of us the willingness to put on the table our dissatisfaction with the existing ideology and leadership (rabbinic and political), and to stop grumbling behind closed doors. Courage is needed to reorganize, to declare publicly that we do not accept the existing religious-rabbinic and political leadership, for we belong to a different ideological direction. From now on, the fact that Rabbi Landau says something is not a knock-down argument for me, if I am a Modern Haredi; and even if Rabbis Lior or Tau say something, that does not really interest me, as a modern religious person.
It is important to understand that this identity does not require someone to stop being a Zionist, nor someone else to stop being Haredi (in the theological sense). Each person can retain his previous identifications, but see them as marginal shades rather than the central seamline. A journal like Tzarikh Iyun is not an organ for Haredim in a modern hue (a subgroup of the Haredim) but for moderns in a Haredi hue (a subgroup of the moderns). It may even become somewhat superfluous, since at least part of this thought already exists on the modern National-Religious side (apart from theology), and vice versa.
This brings me to an initiative I have been involved with in recent months: establishing a movement called “The Third Path – Torah with Derekh Eretz.” This movement is meant to connect the modern groups on both sides—those who are interested in education, who believe in the values of democracy and equality (as much as possible and in varying degrees), who reject religious coercion, who consume art and value science, who relate to our tradition in a more critical and open and less dogmatic way (but not necessarily less committed), and who are prepared to make adjustments to it for present circumstances (which are not necessarily negative in their eyes)—into a third identity alternative alongside the two existing ones. This is a union of the two upper quadrants in the first diagram; in effect, a rotation of the consciousness to the second diagram and taking up position to the right (above or below) of the new seamline.
The attitude of this group toward phenomena such as LGBT or secularism, or toward women or non-Jews, is not a simplistic application of existing halakhic and theological categories, but a complex position that arises from awareness of and sensitivity to the factual and value situation in contemporary society, and also to the scientific knowledge accumulated over the years. To give a sense of what this means, I will add that its conceptions regarding providence, security, and human effort are not adherence to slogans so disconnected from common sense as those cited in Rabbi Pfeffer’s article on the subject. Judaism is not exhausted by modesty and eating kosher; it has moral dimensions and is obligated also to contemporary “external” values.
Such a perspective is presented by conservatives—Haredi and non-Haredi alike—as “lite.” “What, do you not believe that everything is in God’s hands and that human effort is false? After all, so said our sages.” They of course did not say so (at least many of them), but this has become a new Haredi article of faith. Contrary to the tendentious “lite” labels that people try to attach to these processes and this approach, this is neither a compromise nor an attempt to curry favor with anyone. There is here a different religious stance, which claims that the Torah and our tradition require today a different treatment from what was customary in the past. This is part of the reason why the existing religious leadership cannot provide an answer for this group, since by its nature it relates to reality in a more fixed and conservative way and is committed to accepted dogmas. Therefore it leads an anachronistic path that does not suit the will of the Torah in our circumstances. This obligates us to detach from the existing rabbinic leadership, not only from the political representatives who represent it and its path. It is important to understand that this is not Reform in any sense whatsoever. On the contrary, the claim is that those who conduct themselves today according to a simplistic interpretation of accepted past references are the ones who deviate from the will of the Torah—they are, essentially, the reformers. This is neither a slogan nor an apology. I have dealt at length elsewhere with the question of Reform versus modernity (see, for example, the third book in my trilogy, Walking Among the Standers), but this is not the place to elaborate.
The establishment of “The Third Path” is joined by figures and groups from the Haredi side and from the National-Religious side, and I suggest that readers who identify with what is said here join us as well. Our feeling is that if and when this alternative is put on the table, and it is clear that it is halakhically and Torah-based—and it is—many will find that within themselves they identify with this direction and will join it too. We are speaking of not a few people who are perceived, and perceive themselves, as “lite,” simply because no other model has ever been placed before them to show that their stance is a well-grounded religious and Torah stance. They repeatedly measure themselves against conservative standards set by the conservative leadership, and therefore feel “lite” and peripheral. At least in the Haredi world this is a relatively small number of people, but my sense is that this is the result of the anachronistic map presented to us. When people understand that there is another religious identity, and that if they identify with it this does not mean that they are “lite” but rather that they have a different religious conception, I suppose that many others who support this path will come to light.
Back to Tamar Katzir
In recent years a similar process has been unfolding on both sides of the ideological (and political) spectrum. The conservative extremes on both sides are drawing very close, but so too are the modern extremes. The Hardalim and the Haredim act together on the political plane, and their positions are drawing very close to one another, to the point of forming one conservative group (which contains different shades). From time to time proposals to merge (at least politically) are raised, and in the past the heads of the Hardali camp (mainly Rabbi Tau) even called for voting for Haredi parties. Tamar Katzir describes this process. She is very pleased by the rapprochement between conservatives from both sides. In her words I saw that certain Haredi groups are beginning to believe in the miracle of the establishment of the state and that it is part of the redemption. Factually, I am not sure of this, though I do not know enough about the groups she describes. I do not think that the rapprochement of her “seam people” is on the level of Religious-Zionist theology. The convergence is mainly in the sense of recognizing the value and similarity between the groups, and the understanding that the attitude toward Zionism is no longer the essential identity line (in my view this is happening mainly from the Haredi side toward the Hardali side, and not the other way around). They understand that the current battle is about conservatism and not about Zionism, and therefore it is right and proper for them to unite and struggle together.
I fully agree with the basis for this rapprochement, since as I explained the line regarding the attitude toward Zionism is indeed anachronistic. In any case, it is important to understand that Tamar Katzir describes a rapprochement between the two conservative groups, from the Haredi side and from the Religious-Zionist side (Hardalim). In terms of the upper diagram, she describes a rapprochement between the two lower quadrants and their becoming one group (with shades). In contrast, what I described above is precisely the mirror image. I am speaking about a rapprochement between the two modern groups on both sides, that is, a union between the two upper quadrants in that same diagram. There too there is very significant convergence, and there it is even more substantive. It seems that these two groups genuinely believe in closely aligned values, the essence of which I described above. Note that after uniting the two lower quadrants into a single conservative group and the two upper quadrants into a single modern group, one essentially gets the lower picture. The bold line there separates these two groups, and the faint line describes the internal split within each of the two groups (the moderns split into Haredi and non-Haredi, and the conservatives split into Haredi and non-Haredi).
From my perspective, the process that Tamar Katzir describes is very saddening and very worrying, since it strengthens the conservative component in religious Judaism and produces the terrible desecration of God’s name (hillul Hashem) that has been occurring in recent years. This is what creates the perception, in Israel and throughout the world, that Judaism’s image is that of its leaders (both rabbis and politicians): conservative, closed and intolerant, rigid and non-adaptive, acting in corrupt ways, immoral and focused on narrow interests, disconnected from common sense and from realistic considerations, and caring mainly for itself. It is important for me to note that I do not agree with all of these accusations. In my view, many of them are exaggerated and unjustified, and they stem from political tendentiousness. But as is told about the Chafetz Chaim: they do not say this about me and you. The religious rabbinic and political leadership has “earned” these accusations—both those that are true and those that are not—fair and square. Their outrageous conduct truly suffers from many of these flaws.
By contrast, the rapprochement that I describe around the modernity axis (the two upper quadrants in the first diagram) is very encouraging, and it is important to strengthen it and to join it. This is a sane and balanced voice that can save Judaism itself and also its image in the eyes of others, in the face of the problematic alternatives that represent it today. The rapprochement between conservatives on both sides should encourage the rapprochement between moderns on both sides. For this we must stop complaining and start taking action. We must put things honestly on the table and define ourselves anew and openly, and be prepared to detach ourselves from parts of the education we received and from the pressures placed upon us, and from the tendentious labels attached to modernity by the conservatives. We must stop apologizing and stop seeing ourselves as a fringe group within a “more religious/Haredi” world, and understand that we are talking about an alternative—a third path, different from the two existing ones.
A Note on Sociology and Essence
This article is written through the prism of ideology. I do not ignore the fact that the definitions of Haredi-ism and National-Religious-ness are saturated with sociology, and one cannot ignore that. Therefore I am also not proposing to manufacture a third sociology. That may develop over time, or it may not. What I am proposing is to stop enslaving ideology to sociology. Let each person remain where is comfortable for him socially and sociologically, but it is important that we examine what ideological prices we are willing to pay for that, and whether we have crossed the reasonable threshold. Each of us must ask himself how much he is willing to compromise on his truth and his values for the sake of belonging to the anachronistic ideological comfort zone (Haredi or National-Religious). People have a tendency to enslave essence to sociology, and in my view the prices this exacts from all of us—and especially from the Torah truth itself—are enormous. It is important that we muster courage and examine this honestly, and also draw conclusions. It is possible to remain in the existing sociological camp without giving up one’s value and ideological backbone. But even if this is not possible, one must draw the necessary conclusions.
Conclusion: Three Forces in Our Camp
There is nothing more fitting than to end such an article with the words of Rabbi A. I. Kook in Orot Ha-Techiyah 18 (see detailed discussion here):
“Three forces are currently wrestling in our camp; their struggle is most apparent in the Land of Israel, but their action extends from the life of the nation as a whole, and their roots are fixed within the awareness that penetrates the expanses of the human spirit. Wretched will we be if we leave these three forces—which must be unified within us, each assisting the other and perfecting it, with each one fortifying the extremity that its fellow could bring in a corrupted form if its path is not bounded—to remain scattered, in rebellion against one another, divided, each into a separate camp standing as an adversary to the other camp.”
“The holy, the nation, and humanity—these are the three principal demands of which all life, ours and every person’s, of whatever form [of human life], is composed. Whatever the proportions of this composition may be, and even if one part occupies a more central place for a given individual or public, we shall not find and cannot find any form of life that is not composed of all three.”
“The necessary blending of these three great demands must come about in every group that has hope for future life. And whenever we survey our lives and see how these forces, instead of being destined to blend, are going and separating, we are called to come to the rescue.”
“Wretched will we be if we allow these three forces—which must be unified within us, each assisting his fellow and perfecting him, each one fortifying the extremity that his fellow could bring in a corrupted form if his path is not bounded—to remain scattered, in rebellion against one another, and to be divided, each into a separate camp (=party), standing as an adversary (=a bitter rival) to the other camp.”
“The three most official factions in the nation are:
First, the Orthodox, as it is commonly called, which bears the banner of the holy, and argues with courage, zeal, and bitterness for the Torah, the commandment, faith, and all that is holy in Israel;
Second, the new national faction, which fights for everything that the national tendency aspires to, which includes within itself much of the pure naturalness of a nation that wishes to renew its national life after it was long concealed within it by the harsh hand of exile, and much of its desire to acknowledge for the good what it has absorbed from the spirit of other peoples, to the extent that it recognizes that these are good and suitable for it as well;
Third, the liberal faction, which bore the banner of enlightenment in the not-too-distant past and still has a strong hand in broad circles. It does not confine itself within the national framework, but demands the human content of enlightenment, culture, morality, and more.”
“It is obvious (!) that in a healthy state there is a need for all three forces together. And we must always strive to achieve this healthy state, in such a way that these three forces together will rule us in all their fullness and goodness, in a corrected harmonious state in which there is neither deficiency nor excess; then the holy, the nation, and the human being will cling together with a noble and practical love, and individuals and factions alike—each of which has found its talents more suited to one of these three parts—will convene together in the proper friendship, recognizing with a generous eye each the positive role of his fellow.”
“And this recognition will continue to develop, until it is not enough to recognize the positive side that each force has for a worthy and accepted matter and that is worthy of being put to use… but that we go further, to the point that we also recognize for good, according to the proper measure, the positive content that exists in the negative (=critical) side of each and every force; for the sake of the benefit of the particular force to which one tends more, one must also be influenced, to some extent, by the negating (=critical) force opposed to it, because in its negation it sets it upon its proper measure and saves it from the dangerous defect of excess and exaggeration.”
We must understand that the relationship among the three forces develops over generations. At first, religious Judaism held only to the holy (=Orthodoxy). The nation and universality were left to the secular. Thereafter Religious-Zionism came and established the striving for the nation (nationalism) as part of its religious world, while leaving Haredi-ism focused only on the holy. Universality remained at this stage for the secular (and for the non-Jews). In recent years, another step in this process has been unfolding. The time has come to recognize it—to “convert” universality as well and bring it under the wings of the Shekhinah. Modern religiosity in the spirit of “The Third Path” seeks to do precisely this.
When the National-Religious movement began, it was criticized by the Haredim for expanding the religious circle into the profane. This was seen as secularization and desecration of the holy. Today the Haredim and the (conservative) National-Religious criticize the moderns in exactly the same way, and try to block the necessary further expansion in the universal direction. The time has come for another rebellion/liberation, and for a further expansion of the Torah toward the universal.
This is not a spreading thin of Torah values but, on the contrary, a deeper understanding of them and their proper application in the realities of our time. Our concern is the selective and calibrated adoption of universality—sifting the wheat from the chaff—and its insertion into the Torah world. Universality need not remain outside, as the conservatives (on both flanks) claim. That claim is itself part of their conservatism, which prevents us from moving forward by presenting today’s Torah as a sad, anachronistic blot cast on the margins of history.
These forces are wrestling today more than ever in our camp, but the time has come to bring this struggle into the holy itself. There is tension between commitment to our religious tradition and openness to the contemporary world and its values, but we should not fear a tension that is fertile and beneficial. Not every external value is “progressivism” (or “leftism”), God forbid, as the conservatives try to persuade us. Indeed, there is wheat and there is chaff there; but they throw everything out, whereas what is more correct is to sift the wheat from the chaff.
I have nothing left but to conclude in the words of Rabbi A. I. Kook at the end of his discussion there:
“Only in this manner can we hope for a state of life worthy of one nation in its land.”
[1] The mathematicians among us are surely squirming. So for their sake I will add that it is indeed not really a rotation (but also a reflection). But for our purposes here the simplistic description suffices.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very nice. It is also worth reading Tehila Gadu's article, which distinguishes between two streams of modern Harediism, a distinction that has significant implications for what is written here, where she also mentions and uses your theory about the “third identity”.
https://www.leshem-shinui.sites.tau.ac.il/%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA
How do you join? What does joining mean?
See the website. For now, only for WhatsApp groups. Later there will be activities and cells, etc.
Very nice, just one central comment, unfortunately I am very skeptical. The unity of moderns on both sides seems impossible because of the gaps in modernity, it really does not come down to not accepting Rabbi Lando's words, there are many of them, but rather in books, in dressing up in those things that are indeed not essential but have already become such, in general, where Haredi modernity ends (for example, Yehoshua Pepper, who is an academic, is a modern extreme, the top percent of Haredi people, among the religious, he would be considered very conservative). There are really modern Haredi people, but these are devoid of ideology. It is not progress, science, that motivates them, but what is called "they simply do not have God"; there is nothing to work with.
The system of "Need a Study" does not tell the truth. There are non-Haredi writers (Aharon Ariel Lavi, even Rabbi Chaim Navon). Apparently the Rabbi was afraid of them.
A. In my opinion, it is absolutely not true that the question of Zionism is not important today, or that there is no significant difference between Haredim and Haredim. It is much more than reciting or not reciting Hillel. After all, Haredim enlist in the army and Haredim do not, and the main reason for this is that Haredim – unlike Haredim – do not see the state as “their” project, and therefore do not feel any responsibility to participate in this project, even if in principle they are interested in its success (studying Torah is not the real reason for not enlisting, because in the Haredi mainstream, even those who do not study do not enlist. Nor is the fear of secularism the real reason, because if they saw enlistment as something important in itself, they would at least try to find solutions for it). Similarly, the Haredim as a public invest heavily in settling in Judea, the Negev and the Galilee, out of national considerations, and the Haredim are not interested in this at all. The same is true of all other national tasks, such as encouraging and absorbing immigration. Even the struggle for Jewish identity in the country has become primarily a Haredim project (along with the traditionalists), and the Haredim have stopped participating in any struggle that does not directly concern their shtetel. Therefore, the seam line between Haredim and the Haredim is still very significant.
B. It should also be noted that opposition to Zionism among the Haredim, or more precisely – opposition to participation in the Zionist project, is also actually only one of the aspects of opposition to modernity, since Zionism itself is a modern phenomenon. Deep down, opposition to Zionism stems from conservatism and the perception that “new things are forbidden from the Torah.” The other side of the coin is that even the Haredi are actually modern, although mainly on national issues and less on social and religious issues.
C. According to the above, it is also possible to understand why the Haredi can also be innovative on certain issues. Tekhel on the tzitzit, for example, is practiced mainly among the Haredi (except for the Haredi circles), while among the Haredi it is “fast nicht”. The ideas of updating the halacha receive much more attention among the Haredi public than among the Haredi public, although among them it is not out of acceptance of modern values but for other and more subtle reasons.
D. In practice, also from a cultural and social perspective, most Haredi are very different from the Haredi mainstream. Almost all of them study in high school yeshiva and complete their matriculation exams, and many also have an academic education. Despite their principled opposition to secular media and culture, their exposure to the secular world and general culture is still much greater. There is also a big difference in terms of self-consciousness: the Haredim see themselves as members of the modern world, but they criticize it by virtue of the ancient tradition they have. This is in contrast to the Haredim, whose self-consciousness is that of the 18th century who somehow fell into the modern world and are trying to survive in it. Therefore, the statement that “the differences between them are smaller than the differences between different Hasidisms, or between Hasids and Lithuanians or Sephardim within the Haredi camp” seems to me very far from reality.
Well, that's not really the issue. That's the topic of Column 500. But I'll address it briefly.
I'll start by saying that when I talk about identity, I'm talking about the watershed. There are differences between each person and another, and certainly between groups. The question is where the lines of identity cross and what is most essential in all these differences.
In my opinion, conscription is not really a fundamental difference. And the evidence is that the Haredim support the Haredim's evasion. And regarding the conscription itself, there are already Haredim who conscript, and if it weren't for politics, there would be more. And the Haredim (those who study) conscript to a fairly minor extent. Therefore, I repeat that there is no fundamental difference between them even on the issue of conscription. These are two Hasidisms within Agudat Israel.
The rest of the differences are really trivial. There is also a difference between me and my neighbor who belongs to the same identity. The differences are completely negligible. If you want to build an identity around the attitude towards Techelet – health.
In addition, of course, you have to distinguish between different shades of Haredi. This is the whole thesis of the third path, that there are many sociological Haredi who actually don't really belong there. So even if you're right about the Haredi core, the thesis still stands. The question is what about the people of the seam.
I agree with Yosef's words, with 2 small additions:
A. The mustards support the non-conscription of Torah students, those who truly study and teach Torah as a way of life, their Torah is their true art. It seems to me that even the most lite religious and even secular people agree with this, except that technically almost only mustard-minded guys choose this way of life.
B. The claim that modern religious people are considered lite religious is not true, at least in the religious society I live in. Lite is simply less strict about halacha (for example, praying in a minyan or in general, arbiter on Shabbat, etc.).
It is true that there are areas in which the modern-halakhic dispute causes modern religious people to be considered less strict about the details of halacha, for example in the area of leisure culture or modesty, but (again, according to what I know) there are quite a few modern rabbis who, in their own eyes, are the most “conservative”.
This may be the case with the traditionalists, which is a combination of conservatism with lite in halacha. Many of them may look down on modern religion and think that its behavior stems from hypocrisy, a kind of “all that is rejected in Momo”
The entire thesis (I mean column 500) is built on the false premise that there is no connection between the attitude towards Zionism and the attitude towards modernity.
In fact, there is a very deep connection between the two approaches, which stems from the deep connection between Judaism (at least Orthodox) and Zionism (except for 2 marginal groups that I will talk about at the end)
Eretz Yisrael, redemption, ingathering of exiles, a Jewish kingdom - all of these are the principles and foundations of the Torah, from the time of Chazal, and even among the thinkers of the Rishonim period, there was no one who tried to unravel this connection.
Therefore, seemingly, we would expect to see religious Judaism harnessing all its strength to realize the Zionism of the Zionists and Herzl, but a "mistake" occurred and the Zionist movement is distinctly secular and "modern" (Initially socialist, and later liberal).
Therefore, the test of the religious connection to Zionism is in direct proportion to the connection with modernity – Those who see modernity as a “act of the devil” terrible and terrible cannot accept Zionism even though it is fundamentally Jewish, simply because it is modern.
On the other hand – Those who are willing to be Zionists, even in a basic way to cooperate with the State of Israel, see modernity as a problem that does not overshadow the good (from a Jewish perspective) that Zionism leads to.
In my opinion, the path of the modern Haredim is precisely the path of Zionism – It turns out that the Zionist state is actually good for Judaism and the Torah (in contrast to the situation in the 1950s that led to the Israeli Haredim's separation from the state) so maybe modernity is not so terrible.
Who is exceptional?
So there is a group of believers in the “Three Weeks” for whom this non-halakhic midrash is equivalent to an explicit Mishnah, and therefore Zionism is a transgression for them.
And there is another group (apparently) that defines itself as religious but secular Zionists, it is not clear to me how they sever the connection between Judaism and Zionism, I would appreciate explanations.
This discussion is irrelevant because it is clear that conceptually the ideas can be separated. And it is also factually clear that you can hold onto the anti-Zionist Haredi theology and be modern, and there are quite a few of them. It is not just the three weeks and the secularism of the Zionist movement, but there is also the question of whether the task is ours or not. But as mentioned, this discussion really doesn't matter. Even if it were only because of secularization, there is still a separation between the attitude towards Zionism and the attitude towards modernity.
In fact, there is a connection and it is very strong – both among the Modern-Orthodox, who surprisingly are all (as far as I have found out) Zionists to one degree or another, and also among the religious in Israel.
I do not agree with the excuses of “they are actually modern but they do not like the rabbis” as someone who grew up his whole life in a religious-lite society, the last thing that can be said about her is that she is heard or is ignored towards rabbis.
This reminds me of the claims that the Likudniks vote according to sociology, since it is clear that they are all socialists, so how can it be that they do not vote Labor???
I'm trying to understand where the gospel is in the third path beyond the fact that the laity will start to feel more comfortable with themselves, which is important, but it doesn't actually change anything in the religious and Haredi hegemony. The institutions and communities will abandon the status quo, and so will all the nuances and social and cultural codes, and especially – education in institutions that will continue to preach the ideologies of the sector to which it belongs and will continue to cultivate the ethos of their society and the heroes of their culture (in the Torah Talmud they will tell about the prophet and Rabbi Steinman and in the religious schools about Herzl and Zabotinsky).
Another thing, when I look at the staff that makes up the forum, it is clear that there are some lite of the lite there, those who I am convinced are overlapping in Halacha not out of a systematic Torah, but because they are very far from this world, or their motive is mainly to instill progressive values (Efrat Shapira Rosenberg, for example) into the religious strongholds and less to re-establish Halacha.
Hey, in my opinion you forgot an important distinction between modern Haredi and religious lite. A modern Haredi is not so critical to him of modern values and he really thinks that the most important value is studying Torah and observing Halacha, whereas religious lite makes an ideal of himself and crowns himself with rabbis of his own..
See why everyone donates their money, see who dresses more modestly and adheres to minyanim, and on the other hand who volunteers in all sorts of things and who is more against religious coercion, etc.
I agree with the third identity you mentioned, but the answer has nothing to do with religious lite. What you are talking about from the religious side is supposed to be ‘commitment to Halacha + modernity’ and for religious lite it is just modernity, and there is no attempt to whitewash it. Your definition of the third identity seems more appropriate to the ‘Yeshiva University’ style that an American friend told me about on Independence Day they split up so that half say Hallel and half don't, which is exactly the definition for people who don't see the state's institutions as ‘sacred institutions’ but want it to succeed like any sane person, and the commitment to Halacha and to studying there is very strong. And in Israel, the examples of this are the spectrum of Hesder yeshivahs from Kerem to Yavneh to Gush.
But again, not religious lite. Think about it..
You'd be surprised, but I thought about it before. I don't suppose you thought I didn't know about light ones. But a little reading comprehension never hurt anyone. My argument is that many of the so-called light ones aren't really light ones. They're classified as such just because they're not mustard. Others became light ones because they were only presented with the Haredi/Lite alternative.
And finally, your rosy description of modern Haredim is a sad and trending joke.
Come and show you who is more strict about praying in Menenin, you'll be surprised.
The response may sound like a joke, but still.
Since it seems that the world is moving towards Islamic rule in large parts of it, and we can already see the buds in Europe, then perhaps the concept of humanity should be Islamic humanity and not Western humanity.
For example, in a few years, the more universal elements will preach the abolition of the boycotts of the exiled Jews and the conservatives will be in favor of them. The universal elements will preach the hijab and veil and the conservatives will oppose it.
And things have already happened before.
Hello,
I find myself very much connected to the idea of the Third Path movement from a religious perspective. However, in our situation in the State of Israel, unfortunately, politics, for many, including me, is not a matter for amateurs, but is very significant in the meaning of life. Political polarization and the almost inevitable preoccupation with political discussions, cause discomfort for members of one group of people from both sides of the political fence.
I opened the Third Path website and saw the names posted on the website. I don't know everyone, but everyone I know is to one degree or another on the political side that I don't belong to (it's obvious which side I belong to). Except for you, whose position is more complex. Ostensibly, what do politics and religion have to do with it? However, the current situation is that I, as someone who supports a certain political side, feel uncomfortable belonging to a group that mostly supports another side. And this is not because I am not willing to hear left-wing opinions, but for another reason. Speaking of your article on Prof. Fogel's podcast, I'm going around in the plays that left-wing opinion dominates there, and my feeling is that their attitude towards those with right-wing opinions on the issues at hand in recent times is terrible. They treat them as barbarians at best, or as corrupt, evil and Nazis at worst.
I am unable to belong to any group that treats me this way, even if the group's center of gravity is not in the political sphere. Ultimately, political issues in Israel are always on the table. I am even less naive and tend to think that some of the people whose pictures are posted on the site have political goals and not just religious ones. It is enough that in such a sensitive time, the movement's manifesto on the site opens by calling rabbis in the name of "national" values They seek to trample on religious and moral values, in order to link the current controversy over the return of the hostages (which in itself is not related to religious issues, but to security perceptions), or to other disputes that concern security issues more than religion and morality. As someone who does not support a deal for hostages in exchange for an end to the war, I have already heard from some that I am almost a Nazi, and recently they went so far as to claim that I am not Jewish either.
I think that the above description may reflect the position of many today (although I must admit that most of those who ideologically support the third path probably have political opinions opposite to mine on the burning issues at hand). And so it seems to me that in the current situation they would do well, and not just talk, if they put the political issue on the table, and clearly prove that there is no connection between this movement and any political positions. And even those who, not us, think that Netanyahu is a good prime minister and not corrupt, have the same place among the members as those who think the opposite. This cannot be swept under the table because it will eventually erupt. Some of the movement's basic values, as I understand it, are even political tolerance, which is not found in the political arena today (mainly because of one side, but I am affected).
You are making assumptions that have no basis. Probably a result of the social brainwashing that we are all in, according to which anyone who opposes Bibi or Smotrich is a leftist.
The biased and dismissive attitude towards the other side is common to both sides of the fence. But you yourself suffer from this fallacy, since you are not willing to sit with those with other political positions with whom you agree on the issues at hand (those who seem to you to be so) just because of their political opinions. You also blame everyone for the statements and comments of a few people around you. This is truly a glorious case of dismissing Momo. You should look in the mirror every now and then.
In any case, no one is going to prove anything to you. A person needs to deal with their own delusions.
I brought my case as an example of something broader. Since the goal of the movement (as I understood it) is religious and not political, and as someone who identifies in principle with the idea of the movement and wants it to succeed, I came to give general advice based on my test case. If you believe that my case is an individual one, or you believe that the movement does not need to prove anything even if it is a broad phenomenon, then great. In any case, as it appears from your words, you did not really read my words, or did not understand them. I only hope that you will read this message more carefully, if only because of its brevity.
There seems to be a fundamental problem in the ideological process of the ”Third Path”, a problem that has existed in all ideological movements of a similar style, in Judaism and beyond, since time immemorial. The problem is that the main source of influence on those who associate themselves with this stream is the majority culture that surrounds us, and this influence is stronger than the influence of tradition. This fact leads us to a reality in which the values of tradition are increasingly being pushed aside by the values of the surrounding culture.
In this reality there is a double problem – both philosophically and practically. Philosophically, if we want to examine external values in a neutral way, we must neutralize the strong social influence of the culture in which we live, which is impossible when we see ourselves as part of this culture; And from a practical point of view, the values of tradition will not survive for long when they are put under strong pressure from the worldview and mindset of the surrounding culture, which are usually contrary to the perception and values of tradition.
Rabbi Michi writes his words from a purely philosophical perspective, and from this perspective there is much truth in adopting many values of the modern world, and integrating them into the Jewish spiritual world (which is also happening in the field in all circles); the problem is that if we adopt his approach from a practical perspective and strive for social and ideological integration into the surrounding culture, what will actually happen is that we will very quickly lose the ability to examine things from a purely philosophical perspective, and to preserve the appropriate values of tradition, and instead find ourselves surrendering to the culture of the majority. This is not a futuristic prediction, but a reality that has happened again and again throughout our history.
The reason why it is very difficult to find Torah workers and meticulous mitzvot among the people of the Third Path, who see themselves as part of Western culture, while they can be found in abundance among the public that differs from this culture, is not related to the dichotomous division surrounding Zionism, as this reality existed long before Zionism. The reason is simply that the surrounding culture is stronger, and sooner or later overcomes the values of traditional Judaism that are not compatible with it.
Well, here is a typical collection of slogans. I will briefly address it.
First, the Third Path was created to incorporate modern values that are appropriate for the Sevda in our religious world. That is why they are mainly discussed. The Third Path was not created to strengthen the prohibition of the Borer on Shabbat or the N”Y bar N”T, not because they are disdained but because they are agreed upon and not discussed.
Your assumption that tradition is minor compared to the Sevda is a completely empty statement. What do you base it on?
Your assumption that tradition will not survive this way is also unfounded in my opinion. The opposite is true: it will not survive without it. We have already seen what a collapse there was in the Jewish people because of conservatism and the aversion to the Enlightenment and Reform. This is also what is happening today, but the conservatives continue to fatten their minds and our minds by saying that the innovators are the culprits.
The assumption that among the conservatives there is more grammar in the commandments is also incorrect. It depends on what you call grammar in the mitzvot. In their narrow religious world, it may be true. But in the real world, it certainly is not.
In conclusion, the surrounding culture is indeed strong and attractive, but it also stems from strengths that are in it. It is not just an instinct (although that is there, of course). The way to deal with it is to recognize it and adopt in a controlled manner what is worth adopting, and not to boycott and differentiate like the mistake made during the Enlightenment. Just as you don't run away to caves in the desert to avoid slander or transgressions between one person and another, because the Torah is supposed to be applied in life and in the world, not in the world of ideas, nor in monasteries or Noah's Arks. This is simply a distorted, although unfortunately very typical, perception of the Torah.
The third path comes to mop up the excrement of the other two paths, so it is no wonder that it also gets a little dirty.
A. I base my statement on the well-known reality that the average person has difficulty holding on to his personal values in the face of strong social influence surrounding him from every direction. I would be very surprised if you denied this well-known reality.
B. Note that I did not speak of conservatism but of separation. I agree with your statement that fossilized conservatism is dangerous to Judaism (apart from the fact that it is wrong on its own part). My argument is that since, from a social point of view, someone who integrates into the majority culture will not have the strength to oppose it when it contradicts his values (and even if he succeeds - the next generation will not succeed), then if we want to bring about changes, we must make sure that we are as immune as possible from the social influence of the majority culture, since without this immunity, the changes will not strengthen Judaism but will collapse it.
C. “Grammar in the commandments” That is, a serious attitude towards observing the commandments because of the commitment to the ’, not because of a commitment to the values of the general culture. A person who enlists in the army because of national values or donates to the needy because of socialist values is not meticulous about the commandments but about nationalism and socialism. It is the intention that defines the act.
It is unnecessary to argue about the question of what percentage of those integrated into the general culture meet the above definition compared to those who differ from it at least partially (and don't ask me about your personal leadership, since you have a unique personality that does not represent the general).
D. I agree that the surrounding culture has many good things to offer, and that it is appropriate to adopt in a controlled manner what is appropriate to adopt. But in order to do this in a controlled manner, one must minimize as much as possible the emotional impact, which tends to greatly weaken the control system, and for this one must socially differentiate oneself from the general culture. Attempting to live within this society while constantly monitoring its perception and values is doomed to clear failure.
A. Read my comment again before you respond to it.
B. Conservatism and separatism are different terms but denote the same society and ideology. Conservatives maintain the status quo and separate themselves from what is happening around them, so that it does not affect them. If you recommend separatism without conservatism, then it is possible to adopt all the values of the West and only do so within a closed Haredi group. This is just empty talk.
C. Commitment to the commandments includes blasphemy, failure to bear the burden, parasitism, lies, failure to address problems (such as sexual harassment and deviance), abuse of individuals who do not fit into the system, harassment of anyone who thinks differently. And all of this is done in the name of the commandment from Mount Sinai. So we have different concepts about strict adherence to the commandments.
D. Here I did not see anything that was not answered.
I make a simple argument: if you want to make positive changes and updates and adopt good ideas from the outside, and at the same time seriously preserve the values of tradition - you need to neutralize as much as possible the powerful emotional influence of the surrounding culture, otherwise what has happened to all movements of this type in the past will happen: gradual surrender to the general culture until the complete abolition of the values of tradition that are contrary to this culture.
The only way I know to neutralize the emotional influence of a society is not to be a part of it. Do you think there is another way?
It's a childish dichotomy. It's like saying that the only way to stay alive is to not eat cake (because it makes you fat).
Aviad, I applaud your words. I connected with your way of thinking.
I just remembered my column 597. It's worth looking there.
https://mikyab.net/posts/83136/
After strongly identifying with the manifesto at the time, I rushed to look at the Netiv Teresh website as soon as I read the recommendation about it here. And again, I definitely identified with the chapter “Our Values” until I came to the following sentence: ”
Out of deep identification with the importance of Torah study, there is room for exempting an agreed-upon proportion of Torah students from conscription. This group will be built by screening according to skills, motivation and diligence, according to transparent criteria. It is also appropriate to reward its members appropriately and allow them significant Torah growth.”
I did not understand how this sentence aligns with the idea of Torah with a path to the land, which according to the chapter “Come Get to Know Us” the movement is based on.
I will hang it on a large tree and quote the famous words of Rabbi Amital “regarding the question of whether people who serve in the army can grow in Torah…. In my opinion, there is something in this ideology that is a minority in the respect of the Torah.”
And now in my language – Torah that does not have a derech eretz (i.e. at the age of 18, service in the army and then academic studies in some field or even a general higher education autodidactically) is a deficient Torah. The talented, diligent and motivated Torah students should be encouraged to become officers in the army and then return to the world of Torah while doing significant reserve service (according to ”the religious Zionist candidate for the position of Chief Rabbi) – and not be exempted from military service. And this is out of deep identification with the perception that Torah study has added value if it is accompanied by engagement in ”derech eretz”.
Please clarify this matter.
You are using empty slogans. Already about the words of the Maimonides, who wrote his well-known words about those who think of making a living from charity from the city of wealth, which many have done and failed to achieve. It is clear that it is possible to grow in Torah even if one is engaged in military service and in the way of the land, and yet there is no doubt that there is a great advantage for those who invest all their time in study, and their growth can be greater. By the way, Rabbi Amital himself dismissed several of his students from service under the title of "essential".
Beyond that, there will be no priestess as a hostess. If those who excel in other fields are dismissed from service, there is no reason not to dismiss outstanding Torah students.
As a rule, the division of tasks is not the responsibility of an individual person but of the public, and the public can set aside people to engage in Torah and this will still be a general framework of Torah with the way of the land. It is not necessary for every person to engage in both Torah and the way of the land. This fanaticism is childish, stupid, and unnecessary.
You and all the other scholars whose names and pictures are on the Third Path website, and like you all the important Zionist yeshiva leaders (I don't know who Rabbi Amital Peter is, I know to whom he handed over the leadership of the yeshiva) served in the army and acquired wisdom and education - and it is only thanks to these that you have reached the correct conclusions in the framework you have established.
You are the proof that the advantage is precisely for those who do not invest all their energy in studying Torah.
And conversely, the fact that there is not a scholar among you who has invested all of himself in studying and evaluating who would not also identify with the values of the Third Path, shows that your statement that there is no doubt, etc., is wrong.
You may not have noticed the catch-22: those few students who will want an exemption from service will be exactly those who are unable to grow and develop without investing themselves completely and those who are already inferior in motivation, skills and diligence to those who are able to - the less good will receive the exemption, so why do they deserve an exemption?
Of course, the public should set aside people to engage in Torah and support them more and not less than they support the general academy, but after and during military service. Therefore, the words of the Kassam as well as the words of the Maimonides are irrelevant - they deal with the question of livelihood and not with the obligation to contribute to the public.
Are those who invest themselves entirely in Torah study exempt (or prohibited) from starting a family and raising children?
It is not necessary for every person to engage in both Torah and the way of life, but the great ones (like you, the founders of the Third Path) are the ones I have no interest in nurturing the not-so-great ones.
And regarding the innkeeper, the argument of "so why should they" is not a value-based argument (as the expression originally stated, and as is well known, the sages rejected this argument there as well), what's more, I don't know of any "other fields" that receive exemptions besides musicians and athletes, and the divisions between these and Torah scholars are many here, if there is any justification for this exemption for them.
And by the way, how can one even identify the motivation and skills of a young man under 18-20? Who will be given the authority to exempt how many will be dismissed (400 young men?) And we can go on and on, there is no greater opening for corruption and embezzlement than this, and we are back to square one. Did someone mention the expression "empty slogans" here?
And a final note, I think it's still too early for you to adopt the style of Professor Leibowitz in his later years, and Torah with Derech Eretz (in the other sense of Derech Eretz) is good even for young students like me.
I repeat again that this is childish fanaticism that is typical of the “young students”. If you think a little, you will surely understand that this is idle chatter. The fact that those who sign are army graduates does not mean that they came to this because of military service, but the opposite. They came to military service because of it.
In fact, it is impossible to deny the advantage of someone who invests his entire being in Torah (in the haftza), at least in terms of knowledge. Of course, he also has shortcomings, like all of us, and there is no general hierarchy based on one parameter. That is why we need such and such.
If someone does not serve but recognizes the importance of service and does not disdain those who serve, there is no reason why he cannot grow in Torah also in broader aspects such as those who serve. He can grow more.
By the way, all those Torah scholars who are signed up for the third path and who grew up in Torah (because of military service) have reached the conclusions that you criticize. Did anyone mention a catch-22 here?…
And one more thing: It's not true that everyone served in the army. There are also many Haredim there.
Oh now I understand (what to do when someone explains something to me in a roundabout way, I understand slowly)
Combining all your answers and especially the repetition of the phrase "zeal" (childishly enough – it's just a meaningless word, but “zeal” I didn't understand what the connection was – after all, the bewilderment I raised did not stem from jealousy for equality for all and the recruitment of haredim, but from a perception of the concepts of Torah/Torah study/greatness in Torah and their derivatives – and don't you also on the Third Path demand that higher education be enforced for all, even by way of sanctions – so what value exactly am I childishly jealous of?).
I realized that the paragraph I referenced from the chapter “Our Values” on the Third Path website, is not a formulation of the value, but the opposite! A list of conditions (consent, filtering, transparency - perhaps even utopian conditions that are not possible in practice) aimed at preempting the possible criticism that the value as formulated before: "The state will demand from every citizen and group compliance with obligations, such as military and/or civilian service in an equal manner" as fanaticism, or criticism that people of the Third Path have no respect for studying Torah (while with regard to higher education, "accessibility of higher education to all" is explicitly required), etc.
Shkoih
I'm probably explaining very crookedly because you didn't even understand slowly.
So I'll try my best again, and if I don't succeed this time either, I'll probably move on to talking to Kir.
You are jealous of a very specific model of Torah and growing up in it. And that's childish. There is no single model, and certainly not one way of practical conduct to realize the model(s). There is a general value orientation, but it can be realized in many forms with division among different people.
Regarding the quote you brought, it seems that your reading comprehension is also similarly childish.
"I have written more than once that there is great value in individuals who are locked in their rooms and devote themselves completely to Torah and its study ("Everything is necessary for Mary Hatia", see the instructions of the 14th chapter of the book of the Torah and similar ones), but this is only as long as they and we know their place and do not allow them to make decisions, pronounce halakha, or lead the public as leaders. When they themselves do not understand that they should not engage in such areas, and enter areas in which they have no understanding, their value as scholars is greatly diminished. When they express themselves in areas of thought and express ideas there at the level of small children who naturally receive an aura of holiness by virtue of the authority of the speakers, when they make delusional and irresponsible decisions and perceive their surroundings with abject childishness, they are despising themselves, their Torah, and all of us. This is a terrible and terrible blasphemy, right in the realm of a "scholar who has no knowledge" (See the motto for this column). In short, what is said in this column should provoke new (and correct) thoughts in us about what greatness in Torah is and who are great Torah people.” (Rabbi Dr. Mikhi Avraham column 655)
It is good that a company is exempted from conscription so that they can devote themselves to Torah but know their place not to make decisions not to pronounce laws not to lead as leaders - very important.
You have grown up in 9 columns, and only I have remained childish in my zeal for demanding that people be complex people (oops, I think it is an oxymoron)
But in fact, this is my childish understanding of what is called again….
Or maybe, but just maybe, it's all because the “ring of the wording on the Third Path website is no longer recoverable”?
Have a good and blessed new year
I agree with modern religiosity, but it is difficult for a modern society to maintain itself as religious. (This is related to the debate between you and Moshe Kopel about I was and Shimon). Therefore, I think it is appropriate to stop the connection between the two groups, which is a connection based on the conservative component (there are also many more conservatives among the Haredi) and from within the religious society, national or Haredi, people like you – moderns will make a change. The change will be longer but much more certain.
Isn't that so?
It's a tactical consideration. For us, connection is essential.