On Intellectualism, Greatness in Torah, and Wisdom (Column 655)
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.
“Any Torah scholar who lacks discernment—a carcass is better than he.”
(Vayikra Rabbah 1:15)
“The sharper the mind, the bigger the blunder.”
(lefûm ḥurfa shibsh’tâ; Bava Metzia 92b)
In the previous column I discussed the virtues and shortcomings of intellectuality. I analyzed it through paradoxical situations in which an intuitive claim stands opposite a logical argument. I noted there that intellectuals tend to dismiss intuition and common sense and to give great weight to logical and philosophical arguments, whereas ordinary people tend to weight intuition and common sense more heavily. Hence George Orwell’s remark that there are ideas so foolish that only intellectuals could believe in them, and in the Sages’ phrase cited above: “The sharper the mind, the bigger the blunder.” I explained there that the proper path is the middle way, in which both sides are taken into account and a decision between them is made according to a second-order intuition (what strikes us as more convincing). It is not right to grant a sweeping a priori preference to either side.
I concluded the previous column with an implication concerning the rabbinic distinction between lamdanim (analytical scholars) and poskim (decisors), and explained that the lamdanim are intellectuals whereas the poskim are balebatim (practical laypeople). Here too the proper path is the middle way: do not grant an a priori preference to either side; in each case, discuss the matter on its merits. In this column I will try, using that distinction, to explain several pathologies in Haredi modes of thought and conduct. My basic claim is that Haredi thinking is “intellectualist.” Do not be misled by this: I do not mean that Haredi thinkers/publicists/rabbis are intellectuals. Far from it. An intellectual—apart from sometimes having childish modes of thought as I described in the previous column—is also equipped with broad knowledge, a wide education, and open-mindedness. None of these exist in Haredi thinking. What we have here is not intellectuality but intellectualism—intellectuality only in its shortcomings (like the difference between science and scientism). Gabriel already noted this in a comment to the previous column, and I replied that I agree and would explain it more here.
I will preface by saying that the description presented here is, of course, generalizing and broad-brush, as is the way of any theoretical analysis. Yet I think it captures a very essential component of Haredi conduct and thinking. So as you read, don’t immediately hang on to counterexamples. Of course you will find some. I suggest you try to consider whether the features I describe here are in fact typical of Haredi conduct. I am convinced they are.
Haredi intellectualism: the relationship between “the people in the fields” and the beit midrash
I have brought here in the past (see columns 277, 422, 501, 565 and others) my interpretation of the halachic rule that a decree which does not spread among the majority of the public is nullified. My claim was that this is not a compromise with reality but a criterion for truth. The fact that most of the public does not adopt such a decree indicates that something is wrong with it—that it is not halachically correct. The assumption is that what is decided in the beit midrash must receive feedback from the street, from “the people in the fields.” Why? Because the determinations of the beit midrash are intellectual and thus sometimes detached from common sense and intuition. They can be the product of a brilliant, consistent logical structure—very reasonable and persuasive—but not necessarily correct in the real world. In order to determine that the beit-midrash determination is correct for practical reality (and the assumption is that Torah is meant to be applied in the world—“the Torah was not given to the ministering angels”), it must be passed through the crucible of the balebos, the simple person. He can tell us whether the intellectual determination “makes sense,” or whether it is a brilliant idea with no connection to reality and truth.
In those columns I cited Rabbi Beni Lau’s claim that in recent generations religious leadership is generally given to yeshivah heads rather than to rabbis of communities. He argues that roshei yeshivah are accustomed to building magnificent logical edifices, and their young and talented students evaluate them by consistency, originality, and intellectual sparkle. That is the way of the young. But community rabbis speak before a more mature public, and there if they say something implausible—even if it is consistent, brilliant, and very logical—they immediately receive feedback that it does not “make sense.” Therefore, the thinking of a rabbi is more appropriate than that of a rosh yeshivah for halachic ruling and for making decisions about the practical world.
From here we can understand the pathologies in Haredi society’s conduct. New norms are periodically generated in various batei midrash. They descend to the street, where they are supposed to be tested in the balebatish crucible. But in the Haredi world, one who does not accept the new norm is a balebos, and therefore his opinion is discounted (“the view of balebatim is the opposite of daas Torah”). Thus everyone clings to these new stringencies, and there is no feedback from “the people in the fields” back into the beit midrash to balance them. This is a process of positive feedback: every stringency is adopted without the simple folk’s screening and control. The stringencies and new norms pile up without filtration, and matters reach an absurd explosion. Haredi intellectuality, in effect, makes decisions for the public unilaterally, top-down. More precisely: the entire Haredi world becomes one big beit midrash. Everyone there thinks like intellectuals and does not let common sense and reality interfere. What is sorely lacking is the balance that the Sages insisted on when they formulated the rule that a decree which does not spread among the majority of the public is voided.[1]
No wonder that in the Haredi world the assumption is that everyone should sit in the beit midrash, and going out is only bediavad. For them there is no world outside the beit midrash. The surrounding reality is the flood, and we must all shelter in Noah’s Ark inside the batei midrash to protect us from the threatening world. As I have shown, this outlook radiates into their modes of conduct and decision-making.
Haredi intellectuality: the character of the arguments
I think anyone can notice this strange phenomenon when discussing current issues with Haredim. One hears the most bizarre arguments—perhaps logically consistent within their own frame—but barely connected to the world. In column 629 I brought several examples of such arguments regarding conscription and sharing the defense and economic burden; they reflect this phenomenon well. These are preposterous, utterly detached arguments, and often they are advanced as if they were a trump card pulled from the sleeve guaranteeing a crushing victory over all opponents. You can see such arguments and their refutations also in column 649. These arguments recur among rabbis, politicians, and ordinary kollel men and yeshivah bochurim. You can encounter them frequently on this site as well (more than once I have reached saturation with this propaganda and with the smugness and certainty with which these ridiculous arguments are repeated again and again under the pretense that they have not been answered. When they overdo it, I am forced to delete them as trolling, despite my well-known loathing for censorship).
Not infrequently I feel embarrassed in the face of such childish arguments, especially given the smugness, the triumphal crowing, and the absolute confidence of those who present them (“Look, I’ve found an argument no one has thought of—knockout!”). It is hard to know where even to begin to address them. Try to think of arguments that would persuade Zeno that there really is motion in the world. Does anyone have a way to argue this and convince him? He experiences what I experience, but he is an intellectual, and as such he presents a brilliant logical argument and is sure that reality is an illusion. With his crushing, brilliant, consistent arguments he wins the debate by knockout (he adopts “Way A” of dealing with paradoxes from the previous column: the argument trumps common sense and intuition). It does not occur to him that someone (a balebos) might reject his brilliant arguments even if he cannot put a finger on the flaw in them (“Way C” there). And certainly he does not imagine that many can explicitly point out the flaws and show that the arguments really don’t hold water (“Way B” there).
For intellectuals, analytic ability is everything. Some are endowed with dazzling analytic ability, and they are captivated by it. But intellectuality is precisely what trips them up. In the Sages’ phrase: “The sharper the mind, the bigger the blunder” (see the column’s motto), which is the Talmudic counterpart to Orwell’s dictum cited there. Haredi leadership—political, journalistic-publicistic, and rabbinic—leads Haredi society down this crooked path on the basis of these outlandish arguments. They make decisions detached from common sense and from the grassroots, present biased and/or false facts and absurd premises, and cause their flock to march after them and accept the conclusions as if they were pearls of wondrous wisdom. Everything is very consistent, but completely detached from reality and plain reason.
Moreover, the more outlandish and disconnected the claim, the more exalted and sublime it appears; then it is even easier to hang it on “daas Torah” and the profound wisdom of the gedolei hador, whose minds no mere mortal can fathom, and “one who seeks their counsel will never stumble.” This reminds me of the Rambam’s words (Guide III:31) about those who refuse to give reasons for the commandments in order to magnify God and the Torah, but in fact debase them:
Among people are those for whom giving a reason for a commandment is onerous; the best, in their view, is that no meaning at all be intelligible for a commandment or prohibition. What brings them to this is an illness they find in their souls, which they cannot articulate, namely, that if these laws have benefits in this world and therefore we were commanded concerning them, they would be as if derived from human reasoning. But when something has no intelligible meaning and brings no benefit, it must surely be from God, for human thought would never produce such a thing.
So too with us: the sense that logical reasoning is a human affair accessible to all leads to the expectation that the gedolei hador will specifically say things detached from common sense; the greater the detachment, the greater their greatness. But, continues the Rambam, the opposite is true:
It is as if, in the eyes of these feeble-minded, man is more perfect than his Maker. For man says and does what leads to an end, but God, they think, does not act so. Rather, He commands what will not benefit us and warns against what will not harm us.
Such a thought is that of the feeble-minded. Acting without reason is a deficiency, not a virtue. Decisions detached from common sense are, in many cases, mistaken decisions (though not always—sometimes the argument overcomes the intuition).
Childish thinking and conduct
We have seen that young yeshivah students evaluate ideas by their brilliance and consistency, whereas older people evaluate them by looking at reality (common sense and intuitions). Following arguments detached from common sense and reality characterizes those who have not matured (the Rambam’s “feeble-minded”). Note that a deaf-mute, an insane person, and a minor are exempt from commandments—all due to lack of daas. What does “lack of daas” mean? Does a minor lack intelligence? And what of a very smart minor who advances brilliant arguments, has completed Shas, studies mathematics at university, and understands things in depth? Beyond intelligence, mitzvah-obligation requires maturity. A minor is exempt not because he is stupid or does not understand, but mainly because he is not yet mature. Even if he understands something, he lacks the responsibility to understand its implications, what will happen if he does not do it, and to act responsibly accordingly. A child will also follow a logical argument without noticing that it is detached from common sense and reality. He is captivated by the charm of logic and not really aware that there is reality in the world.
There is another feature of childish thinking: egocentrism. A child sees mainly himself. For him, his entire environment is merely a collection of mannequin-like targets that form the backdrop for his own conduct. His father and mother are meant to serve him; their entire concern is to care for him and supply his needs. He cannot grasp that they have lives of their own unrelated to him. More generally, a child evaluates every action and thought by its consequences for him, and analyzes everything someone does as if everything relates to him. It is hard for him to step into another’s shoes and see things from a different point of view. Therefore, it is also hard for him to display true empathy. Empathy entails understanding the other’s perspective and stepping into his shoes—very difficult for a child. Part of a child’s education is to bring him to understand the other and internalize that there even is an “other” with thoughts and desires of his own. He does not understand that not every time he is hurt was it done in order to hurt him; sometimes people act due to their own considerations and interests, unrelated to him. Not everything in the world relates to him.
A clever child will also develop all sorts of theories that explain why people acted as they did—all centered on his own point of view. He is the center of the world and everything revolves around him. He cannot understand that other people have worlds of their own and considerations not necessarily connected to him. His theories can be coherent and—so it seems to him—persuasive, and it is hard for him to see that this is very detached from what is actually happening in the world around him. His bubble is very intellectualist, coherent, and persuasive—but very detached from reality. Reality is complicated, and when one is aware of how it works, it is hard to reach a coherent understanding, for perhaps there simply is none. But for the child everything is coherent and clear; everything that is done is either for him or against him.
The childishness of Haredi thinking
It seems to me the description of childishness above can help explain Haredi modes of thought and conduct. I have already written in the past about Rabbi Kanievsky’s decisions during Corona (see column 305). We are dealing with a person who had no clue how epidemics spread or what an exponential process is (see column 290 and more). Add to that the notion that Torah study protects instead of natural measures (medicine, the army, etc.), and you have irresponsible, negligent conduct suited to children who have not yet matured. He relied on a dubious Talmudic passage and on slogans about Torah study, and that sufficed for him to make life-and-death decisions—contrary to what reality indicated and to the opinion of experts in the field. No wonder that much blood is on his hands.
I am sure that now the familiar excuses will arrive: in the end it turned out they were right and saw far ahead (to my understanding, absolutely not), and the experts were wrong (oh, and they did it intentionally to kill us all), for by definition one who seeks the elders’ counsel never stumbles. Again, this is intellectualism that maintains that theory trumps facts and reality. I see no point in entering the question of whether the directives at that time made sense and were reasonable in hindsight. It is enough for me that they were the best that could be done given the state of knowledge at the time, and that is what the experts determined (even though, as usual, there were disagreements among them). In such a situation, that is what we should have done. To ignore this and instruct the public otherwise—that is childish irresponsibility. You have some detached arguments that seem to you very persuasive, and on that basis you allow yourself to ignore reality entirely with some blind confidence in your own rightness. And when an entire society follows ninety-year-old “children” who issue directives on the basis of detached intellectualism—this is a recipe for disaster.
Or take another example, from just these days: the Haredi rabbis’ crusade led by Rabbi Dov Landau in the U.S. They go from place to place and cynically, absurdly, and detachedly slander the government and society in Israel, claiming they act out of hatred of Torah and of Haredim and merely persecute them. Thus they call on donors to save them with cries of gevald. Pogroms in the Land of Israel—truly! Persecution of Torah in the streets. I am not speaking of the slander and falsehood in this. Nor am I speaking of the distorted, delusional, baseless conceptions they express concerning the meaning of Torah study, the army, the economy, etc. Their conception regarding conscription has no foundation—neither in sources nor in logic and facts (see column 649). I am also not speaking of their refusal to allow even those who do not study to be drafted (the cat is finally out of the bag)—even less justifiable and even less reflective of “persecution of Torah” by secular people and by the Supreme Court. Let us say I am prepared to accept all this nonsense and rubbish. What is inconceivable to me is the inability of those rabbis to step into the other’s shoes—just like newborn infants.
Assuming my readers have already passed the age of two, try to look at the situation through the eyes of a reasonable person who understands reality. The facts are that from the secular perspective, Haredim constitute a growing percentage of the population, most of whom eat and do not do—i.e., do not bear the burden. They do not carry the defense burden, nor the economic burden, and they demand significant resources that do not return to the market nor contribute anything to it. No wonder that in their “heretical fleshly eyes” it appears that within not many years this will constitute an existential threat to the state, and it must be stopped now. All this while Haredim participate in government, make decisions, and of course demand more and more resources—ignoring the cruel war currently underway, which may expand and truly endangers us existentially—and in which they have no share. That is the secular point of view, even if you as a Haredi do not accept any of it. Agreed? Then how can someone who successfully completed kindergarten fail to understand the secular (and religious-Zionist) reaction, and attribute it to hatred of Haredim and persecution of Torah? Again, I am not speaking of the substantive disagreement—on which Rabbi Landau expresses a delusional position—but of his childishness, chiefly his inability to step into the other’s shoes. If a four-year-old child did not understand this, I would suspect a serious developmental delay. And a towering Torah scholar (I know this firsthand) over ninety, like Rabbi Landau, is unable to understand it? How does he not see that in non-Haredi eyes this is the inevitable way to view Haredi conduct—even if he himself disagrees with that view? His assertion that this is persecution testifies, a thousand testimonies over, that we are dealing with a person who thinks and behaves like a nursery-school child. And this is a leader of a public that follows him like a blind man in a chimney—after him and his detached slogans—leading us all to ruin.
This “secular” view of Haredism produced the controversial “caricature” by Shay Charka about Haredim:
I assume you remember the uproar, the offense, and the apologies. The Haredim of course accused him of antisemitism and whatnot. Offense and victimhood have always been the favorite weapons of Haredim when substantive arguments run out (and they always run out, because they have none). I must say that, to my judgment, this is not a caricature at all. A caricature is usually defined as a disproportionate exaggeration of reality. But this image is nothing but a simple snapshot of reality. Even if Rabbi Landau thinks this is not reality, I would at least expect him to be able to understand that others see it this way. This is basic empathy required even of a child.
The conclusion is that we are dealing with a man who is a brilliant lamdan, but whose grasp of reality is childish. This is a live example of the lack of correlation between maturity and intellectual sparkle. We are dealing with a person whose faith in nonsense likely stems from his being an intellectual. I can attempt to reconstruct his detached train of thought. For him there is a crushing logical argument that proves he is right:
- Of course the Torah is true.
- Moreover, every Jew—indeed every person—understands this within himself, for it is a simple truth (he has of course never read my arguments against this, for that is forbidden under “lo taturu”).
- Therefore it is clear that every secular person certainly knows that Torah study (and wearing a suit, even if one is not studying) is what protects the state and brings economic prosperity.
- Moreover, everyone also “knows” that only Haredi Torah study does this, whereas someone who is not Haredi, even if he studies Torah—and especially if he serves in the army, God forbid (even if he belongs to that small percentage who did not go there to apostatize)—contributes nothing to our protection.
- And from here the conclusion immediately follows: if a person or institution nevertheless expects us to take part in the defense and economic burden and makes decisions accordingly, he is presumably driven by hatred of Haredim and persecution of Torah (“the hatred of the am ha’aretz for the talmid ḥacham”).
- Q.E.D.
Admit it: this is a crushing, consistent, and wonderfully intellectualist argument. It rests on premises as solid as rock, and no wonder it is presented as if it were Sinai-given Torah. Who can argue with logic? For the intellectual, all reality is subordinated to this logical frame. Therefore there is no need to look around and try to understand what secular people actually think and why they actually object. We have a proof—so why would we need observation?! No need to think about the constraints within which the Supreme Court operates and what led it to its decision. No need to notice the unimaginable patience of the Court and of the entire public toward Haredi draft-dodging, which for many decades up to this very day has not really been stopped (the Court merely expressed an opinion about the current legal situation and said nothing about a draft law). Observation, common sense, and attention to reality are the paradox’s other side. But the Haredim have a splendid argument, which proves that all of these are wrong—end of story. From here follows the conclusion that the Court and anyone non-Haredi are simply antisemites who hate Torah and hate Haredim.
But it is not just Rabbi Landau and the colleagues in his delirious tour to spy out the lands and spread an evil report about all of us worldwide (which these days does not exactly love us). It turns out that donors abroad are indeed persuaded and donate generously (see here; since then, there has been further “progress”). How can one stand idly by when the wicked here persecute your poor brothers and stage pogroms against them for no wrongdoing?! So too with Haredi society as a whole. It conducts itself childishly and “intellectualistically,” for it chooses such a person to lead it and make decisions for it, and marches by his “ruach ha-kodesh-infused” directives completely detached from common sense. The average Haredi repeats these slogans again and again as if they were knockout arguments. The fervor in their words indicates that many of them even believe this. Fear not: after Rabbi Landau’s 120 years, there will be volumes of wonders proving how he was right about everything and understood everything better than all of us.
Note that all this describes the “moderate” part of the Haredim. The wild Jerusalem Faction that blocks our roads (with no fear of bitul Torah or of the theft involved—“It is time to act for the Lord!”) is utterly certain we are in the midst of the decrees of 1648–49. They demonstrate with great fervor (and courage—without fear of those murderous Zionists, may their name be blotted out) on the basis of complete detachment from reality. They throw out outlandish slogans about being ready to die and go to prison (of course as long as there isn’t a whiff of real danger). I long ago stopped expecting anything of that group; it is a sect whose proximity to Judaism is tenuous. But now it turns out that the differences between the two sects are not so great. The mainstream Haredi camp thinks and speaks in a very similar way. The goals and perception of reality are the same. The difference is mainly tactical: whether one may cooperate with the wicked, accursed Zionists to exploit them optimally, and how loudly to say what every yeshivah bochur knows inside the Haredi batei midrash and only occasionally slips out by mistake (see, for example, here, and more). That is the difference between the two sects, akin in my eyes to the difference between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
Nor have I yet spoken about their childish religious conceptions: starting with taking every source literally, just like children. It is reported in the name of the Brisker Rav that if the Sages said Mashiach will come on a white donkey, he will not come in a Mercedes or a helicopter but on a donkey—and that donkey will not be black or brown but white. The holy words of the Sages, all spoken with divine inspiration, are absolutely true; one may not budge from them. Someone decided that the Amoraim had ruach ha-kodesh—therefore one may not doubt it. From here, of course, follows that in the world of halachah and Talmud there are no disputes about reality (for if so, one side errs—God forbid). Oh, but there are such disputes? Do not bother me with facts and reality. There was also someone who decided one must wear a suit and gartel, and that becomes an article of faith (preferably with a midrash: “they did not change their dress”). Another tells us that thus our ancestors dressed in Egypt—of course, otherwise someone must have changed in the middle; let it not be spoken or mentioned. The theories are piled one atop another, creating a delusional but very tight and coherent structure. It is not tested by its connection to logic and reality. No one there is bothered by how childish such a conception of continuity and commitment to tradition is. Thus they have created a theological halachic system in which “lo tasur” applies to every rabbi in every place and time, certainly to the gedolei hador. It is clear that working for a living or engaging in other fields of knowledge is strictly forbidden (except bediavad for the weak who need livelihoods and do not understand that everything is in Heaven’s hands), and this is exactly as it has always been (for we are continuing our ancestors’ tradition). There prevail there bizarre religious metrics by which one may violate every halachic and moral prohibition in the world—but not Haredi social taboos—all with deep conviction that this sect is authentic Judaism from time immemorial. There is not a drop of critical thinking about their own principles, but a great deal of criticism of others. Thus we arrive at draft-dodging as a value and parasitism as a moral pinnacle, just as Orwell wrote: “Ignorance is strength; slavery is freedom,” etc. Sectarian attitudes like this characterize children’s thinking; they fall for any nonsense that goes in—and then it does not come out (“once it goes up, it won’t come down”). And of course anyone who dares deny these “principles of faith” is immediately excommunicated as a heretic and an apostate—as befits any self-respecting kindergarten. That is how children usually treat those who look or think differently: they ostracize them.
Now I will allow myself to enter another, particularly outlandish example: the issue of bitachon (trust in God) and hishtadlut (human effort).
More on detached conceptions: the question of bitachon and hishtadlut
I have addressed hishtadlut more than once in the past (see columns 279, 280, 281, 305, 575 and more). I return to it here because it is an excellent example of detached Haredi intellectualism. I have explained my “radical” view on the matter many times, and clarified why the slogan about divine involvement “within nature” is empty. There is no such thing, for any divine involvement is by definition a departure from nature. I further argue that since there is no indication of deviations from the laws of nature, it is reasonable, in my opinion, that there is no divine involvement (perhaps only in sporadic cases). But this is only my view; I will not insist on it here. Many have responded that I am attacking a straw man. No one, they say, truly believes our actions have no effect and that everything is in God’s hands. The common claim, they tell me, is that divine involvement also has an effect—at least in some cases—and that is what I must address. I have dealt with this more than once, but now I will ignore that discussion, for I wish to present a selection of quotations from leading Haredi thinkers on the matter, and you can judge how much they recognize our influence on reality—and thus how connected to reality they are.
We are dealing with a collection of categorical assertions that faith means treating reality as an illusion. Believers are to be “intellectuals” and ignore their intuitions and experiences. We must focus on the logical and theological argument (“there is none besides Him,” “everything is in His hands,” etc.), and common-sense conceptions are the counsel of the evil inclination. This is the posture of a mystical sect that sees reality as a challenge—an illusion to be overcome—nothing more. This is an exalted expression of the Haredi intellectualism I described. The following quotations are taken from an article by my friend Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer, editor of the journal “Tzarikh Iyun”. Here is the first:
Rabbi Aharon Schwab, mashgiach of Yeshivat Beit Meir, published several volumes of va’adim and lectures given to his students. In one volume (“Sha’arei HaAliyah,” p. 157), he writes that when we pray “we must clarify to ourselves that all the practical actions we perform do not bring us any result; at most they are a form of ‘labor’ decreed upon us as a duty of hishtadlut following Adam’s sin. There is no connection between the ‘labor’ and actions and the outcomes brought about by the Blessed Creator.”
“There is no connection.” Meaning: if you take acetaminophen, don’t think the fever’s drop is thanks to the pill. Taking the pill is merely a religious duty. The fever goes down—or not—only by a direct divine decision (for some reason He always decides the fever should drop). No wonder there is no point in studying chemistry or medicine. Even if they give you cough syrup, your fever will drop only if God decides (“He who told vinegar to burn…”). You have fulfilled your duty of hishtadlut even with cough syrup.
Rabbi Pfeffer writes of this:
[…] It seems that R. Schwab saw nothing explosive (or even new) in his words. The premise that earthly action does not affect the outcome he received from his own teachers, and it became accepted and widespread in Haredi education. It is very likely he never questioned it.
And here is another—this time R. Chaim Shmuelevitz and the Chafetz Chaim:
In the book “Sichot Mussar” (1971), recording the talks of R. Chaim Shmuelevitz ztz”l, it is stated: “Quantity is nothing at all; each person receives what he is to receive and what has been decreed for me to receive.” In the name of the Chafetz Chaim he even compared one who toils for his livelihood to a person hurrying on his way and pushing with his hands against the walls of the train car in which he rides. To think there is a causal link between them is absolute folly.
“Absolute folly”—no less. This strongly recalls David Hume’s analysis of causality: that the principle of causation has no empirical source, and the link between cause and effect is merely a hypothesis (true or not) of the intellect. Let us continue.
If R. Chaim Shmuelevitz and the Chafetz Chaim are not enough for you—here is R. Dessler:
R. Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler ztz”l, the first mashgiach of Ponovezh, expanded this approach, decrying excessive hishtadlut and stating there is no benefit in it: “A person will never gain more because he exerts himself more” (“Mikhtav Me’Eliyahu,” vol. I, essay on Bitachon and Hishtadlut). Nature, he writes, is not a real thing; its entire purpose is to mislead man and distance him from his trust in God: “There is no substance in nature at all; it is only a test, for it is the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, alone that acts.” That is, although it seems that hishtadlut helps, the truth is it has no substance. However, a person may not rely on a miracle; he must make minimal effort—“the least effort”—to ensure that his sustenance does not arrive miraculously. As an example, he cites R. Zundel of Salant, who contented himself with buying a lottery ticket only, “for if I win, it can be attributed to the way of nature.”
Want more? Here is the Steipler:
“The rule,” the Steipler wrote similarly, “is that all human actions and stratagems will not help even the slightest to add or detract from what was decreed upon him on Rosh Hashanah” (“Birkat Peretz,” Parashat Shemot). R. Reuven Melamed, a leading student of R. Yechezkel Levenstein ztz”l, summarized: “The falsehood of hishtadlut—besides not helping, it also harms” (“Melitz Yosher,” Parashat Vayishlach).
All existence, R. Dessler emphasizes, is a constant product of God’s will. He, and none besides Him. The result of his approach—and of the other gedolei Torah above—is an ideology that utterly empties action in the secular sphere of value. All “hishtadlut,” all action within the secular realm, is merely a “fine,” in the Ramchal’s language in “Mesillat Yesharim”—a consequence of Adam’s sin that we are forced to pay. In inner truth it has no benefit or meaning.
In the next section, Rabbi Pfeffer sums up what follows from these quotations and writes:
The approach above—certainly when it becomes widespread and accepted, as has happened in Haredi education—is quite new. One can indeed find sources decrying excessive hishtadlut insofar as it reflects diminished faith in God, like Chazal’s critique of Joseph’s efforts in prison (“Because Joseph relied on the butler to remember him, he was required to remain imprisoned two more years”). But it will be very hard to find assertions that hishtadlut changes nothing; that it is merely a fine renewed with Adam’s sin; that it has no substance. To the best of my study, such an approach is absent entirely from Chazal and the Rishonim; to the contrary, many sources and the whole thrust of Chazal indicate the very opposite.
Despite the lack of foundation and the blatant lack of logic, this monstrous theological chimera has taken root in Haredi thought—and in the religious world more generally—and today one who deviates from it must answer for his “weak faith.”[2] Well, it is understandable that these arguments are bizarre and detached enough to be considered the deep daas Torah of gedolei hador. No wonder they are indeed taken as such.
In his article, Rabbi Pfeffer—characteristically gently—points to the need to “update” the conception of hishtadlut and bitachon due to “the thought of our generation” (not, God forbid, because these are nonsense that never had any place). The outlandish bundle of quotations presented here—like those you can hear and read from almost any Haredi mashgiach—shows you the nature of the prevailing conception. It looks like a mystical sect of children who follow a pack of Pied Pipers; instead of flutes they hold a theological Mishnah composed of a bundle of detached and bizarre logical arguments (in this case not even consistent), by virtue of which they instruct their flock to ignore reality. To consider reality, in their eyes, is merely the counsel of the evil inclination. In the Haredi world, everyone is an “intellectual,” a denizen of the beit midrash, and therefore they do not let reality confuse them. As befits true intellectuals—already described by George Orwell (cited in the previous column’s motto)—in a conflict between theory/arguments and reality/intuition, the upper hand goes to the arguments. And reality? Let it go to hell.
Note that solipsism—a philosophical view that does not accept the world’s existence—is considered in philosophy an anecdote, a kind of intellectual pastime. It is a hypothetical possibility whose value lies mainly in its very existence and inner consistency, but it has no real significance relative to the world. In the Haredi world, by contrast—as you can see from the quotations above—solipsism is the plain reality. Realism is heresy and the counsel of the evil inclination—not to mention science, as Rabbi Wolff (of the well-known seminary) writes at the beginning of his book: “Science is false and our Torah is true.” Once upon a time the Misnagdim (Lithuanians) held that tzimtzum is literal and only the Chassidim opposed it; today everyone is a Chassid (though not exactly men of action). This is a clear example of Haredi intellectualism: the hypothetical logical argument is reality, and there is none besides it. Direct observation of reality—even when it ostensibly contradicts the logical argument—is not to be mentioned. Only a heretic like me dares pay attention to reality. In his article, Rabbi Pfeffer offers Haredim a revolutionary possibility: the courage to recognize that there is also reality in the world. Lo, what a thing!
Incidentally, note that this outlandish conception, in Rabbi Landau’s eyes, is so simple and self-evident that every person—Haredi or not—is expected to understand and accept it. And if, perchance, I do not think that Torah study and wearing black protect us, but rather the army and the economy—and especially if I even suggest limiting them for the sake of army service and contribution to the economy—then clearly I am merely a vile antisemite driven by hatred of Torah and of Haredim (synonymous terms, of course).
Can one truly aspire to a covenant or partnership with such a delusional group?! If so, then only because it seems they themselves do not really believe it, for none of them actually act that way (see my columns above; see also column 649 about how people actually behave—despite “Torah protects and saves”—when it concerns the individual). In their inner consciousness, they delude themselves that they do believe it and, at most, occasionally suffer from a weakness of faith—God have mercy—that brings them to recognize that reality exists. Truly a worrisome weakness. This is the phenomenon of “the heart does not reveal to the mouth,” for who wants to consider himself a heretic?! And certainly the Chafetz Chaim should not say it aloud (see column 575 on suppressed beliefs).
This tension between suppressed beliefs (that our actions are decisive) and conscious, official beliefs (that God does everything and we have no influence) is not apparent in people’s daily conduct. Haredi people act entirely like secular people, solving problems in the usual way (hishtadlut may be false, but if it won’t help, it won’t harm). There the suppressed belief rules; therefore one goes to the doctor and chases after the best physician to the ends of the earth, and seeks to obtain funds and financing by any means—to sustain this exalted “trust” (certainly not to go to work). I once heard of a Chassidic group that requires every bochur to raise money, under the rubric “A man is obligated to teach his son a trade” (Kiddushin 30b). That is in the individual’s daily life. But in the big decisions touching directly on ideology and on Haredi society—conscription, education, joining the workforce—there decisions are made according to the conscious (illusory) beliefs: diligence is false and our Torah is true; whoever thinks our actions have any causal link to outcomes is a despicable heretic. The reason for this difference is that in the big cases, decisions are made publicly; thus they are made with awareness and accountability to ideological and theological principles. When Haredi individuals or a Haredi group act consciously, they will not dare say aloud that hishtadlut is what determines.
On the conscious level, hishtadlut is false—a punishment imposed upon us since Adam’s sin—and of course it has no causal effect on what will happen to us. In life itself, of course, it is another matter. There one winks and moves on—stringent indeed about the “duty” of hishtadlut and pursuing the best doctor, despite the fact that all this has no effect on our fate, of course. Living by an ideology one does not really believe is childish. Children think they will run their lives by pure, logical principles; they do not understand that life is stronger than all ideologies.
And perhaps all these are “holy lies”?
At some point it occurred to me that perhaps all these Jews are simply lying. As intelligent people they surely know this is nonsense, but they write and say it to educate the public to trust in God. Perhaps they wish to balance a public error (no trust in God) by its opposite (absolute trust), hoping the public will arrive at the middle way. On this proposal, all these are “holy lies” rather than the true beliefs of those thinkers. This might save these statements from the bleak conclusion that emerges from the picture I have described—but I doubt it is true. In fact, if I wish to judge them favorably, I am torn: should I present them as childish “intellectuals” detached from reality and common sense, or as liars for a good cause? I do not know which is better.
As for me, I am principledly opposed to holy lies (see column 21). But in any case, even if this is holy deceit, it amazes me that these lies work on the public. The Haredi public buys them and lets itself be led astray—and drags all of us with it to the brink. Thanks to these lies, Haredi leaders travel the world and spread an evil report about the land, and even merit generous donations from naïve people. Thanks to them people go out to hysterical demonstrations and cry out detached slogans as if a sword were at their throats. Even if it is only holy deceit, it seems these figures fell into the pit they themselves dug.
Note: between Haredim and Hardalim
We have seen that one Haredi hallmark is ignoring reality and clinging to detached theoretical arguments and structures. This is Haredi intellectualism, which also has a childish dimension. I will now briefly note where and how the national-religious ḥarda”l stream fits this picture.
Unlike Haredim, they ostensibly do look at reality and attend to it. On the contrary: their entire concern is to examine it and explain it using theological models. Is this redemption? At what stage are we? How should we relate to everything that happens, to every person, idea, or movement? Yet regardless of what happens, they will never draw any conclusion leading to a change in their basic conceptions. They will always explain reality in terms of their theory, and never consider switching paradigms when reality does not fit. It always fits; and if not—they force it a bit. In their view the Third Temple cannot be destroyed; redemption is on the way; everything follows the deterministic path ascending to the House of God; the rest are mere perturbations of this foreknown process. Even if we sink into the abyss, they will explain it as a local dip for the sake of ascent. If President Katsav is convicted of rape, they send him a letter of encouragement. His conviction is part of the divine plan, or the work of the Sitra Achra (the counter-revolutionary forces—in communist terms—or the Antichrist, in Christian terms), but it cannot erode their full confidence in him. On the contrary: the court that convicted him is an arm of the demonic forces of darkness (the New Israel Fund, the EU, LGBTQ organizations, and the Council of Elders of Global Progressivism). If there is an agreement with Egypt under which Sinai is to be handed over—so what? “It shall not be!” It simply will not happen, for it contradicts the theory—that is, what must occur. Reality is wholly subordinated to theory, as befits intellectualists.
This means that, unlike Haredim, the Hardalim indeed attend to reality in a very particular and intensive way—but they never learn from it. It does not change their conceptions one whit. In this sense we are dealing with the same childish intellectualism I described among Haredim. The difference is that Haredim ignore reality whereas Hardalim obsessively explain it. The common denominator is that the reverse process never occurs: from reality to theory. Between the two sides of the paradox, in both camps the theoretical argument always trumps reality and common sense.
Who is a gadol baTorah?
After writing these things, it occurred to me that I do not recall statements by Torah scholars from the non-Hardali religious-Zionist camp that struck me as such outlandish, detached nonsense. There are certainly many statements one can argue about. Some will see them as heresy, lack of faith in sages, lack of commitment to Torah, and so on—lavish compliments. But nonsense of this magnitude I truly do not recall. When you compare this with so many outlandish, detached statements from the Haredi (and Hardali) side, it raises questions.
Naturally this arouses the question: who deserves the title “great in Torah”? Who is a talmid ḥacham? As in the childish arguments over “who has more Torah scholars and who is greater”—Haredim or religious-Zionists? Hardalim or non-Hardalim? It is quite clear that Haredim have many more certified Ketzot reciters. There are people there with broad Torah knowledge, and some have excellent analytic ability. But I think there are few rabbis in the Haredi world whom I would regard as great in Torah. To be great in Torah, knowledge is not enough—not even analytic ability. One also needs common sense and sound reasoning. One must be attentive to reality and to life and understand them well—and perhaps it is better not to be cloistered within the four cubits of halachah.
I have written more than once that there is great value in figures who are cloistered in their rooms and devote themselves entirely to Torah and its study (“everyone needs those who sin inadvertently”—see Horayot 14a and parallels)—but only so long as they and we know their place and do not let them make decisions, issue halachic rulings, or lead the public. When they themselves do not understand that they must not engage in such domains, and enter arenas where they have not a whit of understanding, their value as Torah scholars greatly diminishes. When they express ideas in matters of thought at the level of small children—ideas that receive an aura of holiness via the speakers’ authority—when they make outlandish, irresponsible decisions and grasp their surroundings with shocking childishness—they demean themselves, their Torah, and all of us. This is a terrible chillul Hashem—precisely “a Torah scholar who lacks discernment” (see the motto of this column). In short, what is written here should provoke new (and gloomy) thoughts regarding what Torah greatness is and who are gedolei Torah.
[1] I do not mean to say that all Haredim are intellectuals. There are very few of those among them. But they conduct themselves in an intellectualist manner.
[2] In the second book of my trilogy I cited an article by Rabbi Shmuel Ariel, “Is Every Event Directed from Heaven?”, which aims to show that Chazal and the commentators also include views that not everything is in God’s hands—only some things. Several of the sources in Chazal and the Rishonim are cited later in Rabbi Pfeffer’s article. If one needs an article to make this point, you can understand what the prevailing view is.
The article deals with a critique of intellectualism and the way in which Haredi thinking is conducted today, while referring to the distinction between scholars and poskim and their effects on the conduct of Haredi society. The author emphasizes the importance of a balance between logical arguments and intuition, and criticizes Haredi thinking that is disconnected from reality, comparing it to extreme intellectualism that neglects common sense and reality.
The author cites various examples of this, including the Haredi attitude towards decrees that are not accepted by the majority of the public, the selection of yeshiva heads as leaders, and the attitude towards advocacy and security. He emphasizes that the Haredi approach suffers from childish, egocentric, and disconnected thinking, which is expressed in decisions that are disconnected from common sense and reality on the ground.
The article presents a sharp critique of the fundamental perceptions and assumptions of the Haredim, as well as the inability to step into the shoes of others and understand the secular point of view. The author also notes the difference between the Haredim and the Haredim, with the Haredim relating to reality but not learning from it to change their fundamental perceptions.
In conclusion, the author argues that the criteria for greatness in Torah and for being a scholar should be reconsidered, emphasizing the need for common sense and sound logic in addition to Torah knowledge and analytical ability.
I don't understand. Who is this extract for?
Maybe a product of artificial intelligence
By the way, intellectualism
Does your method of studying Halacha give more weight to “scholarship” (analytically) or “ilba dahalka” (“halacha in practice”) i.e. which is better?
I personally prefer to study Shas and poskim in a way from which I deduce “practical halachic insights” i.e. what is there in scholarship? True, it is nice and beautiful, but what is the practical value in it? Apart from writing some doctoral thesis on the claim of “migo” and the like.
There is no such thing as “aliba dahalka.” All study is aliba dahalka. If you mean studying the poskim, it is not aliba dahalka. You cannot draw halakhic conclusions from it if you have not analyzed it in a scholarly manner. Judging one against the other is an error (although very common, unfortunately).
This post raises questions for me regarding the moral judgment of this sector.
1) The rabbi wrote that they have a repressed faith in which they rationally understand that their nonsense is baseless (and an indication of this is that they go to the doctor, etc.) So, when we judge them, doesn't that actually mean that they are wicked? After all, there is no judgment here of a person ‘according to his system’ because perhaps their entire private conduct is indeed an indication that this is not really their system, and then there is proper wickedness here?
2) Even under the assumption that this is indeed their system, and they do indeed believe in the unfounded basic assumptions. The rabbi wrote about childish egoism and the inability to put themselves in the shoes of the general public. Doesn't this express wickedness even under the assumption that they do indeed accept all the basic assumptions of Harediism?
Are they normatively babies who have been captured at all?
I think so, at least most of them are babies who have been captured. It is an evil and twisted society, but whoever grows up in it is a baby who has been captured. We probably all have unconscious views, and it is still impossible to judge a person based on them. Both because they are unconscious, and also because that person believes (in his consciousness) that these views are the advice of instinct or his weakness.
This is a truly evil and twisted society, not only towards the secularists, Rabbi.
This is a society that, on the one hand, sees the world outside the court as Sodom and Gomorrah, a flood, and other evils, and sends its wives and daughters into that flood in order to maintain Noah's Ark.
This is a society in which, until a decade or so ago, babies raised in the Lithuanian community would be sent, with the encouragement of their yeshiva heads, to extort apartments from people who had a daughter born to them.
What I'm saying is that they don't just treat the secularists this way, but also among themselves.
I suggest that you treat the ultra-Orthodox with at least the same compassion that you treat secularists (assuming you are not one). The inability to understand that they are truly and sincerely convinced of their system is no different from the inability of some ultra-Orthodox to understand that infidels are truly and sincerely convinced of their system.
Whether the system is correct is another matter. But belief in it does not stem from malice but from a lack of independent and critical thinking.
First of all, the Haredim also have an excuse that trying is the very root of the so-called reality that they are accusing the mitzvah! Religious in that they try.
And even today, young men demand crazy sums of money encouraged by the head of the yeshivot.
And I don't think that in a discussion about public morality, if morality is being slaughtered, there is room for inclusion. You can include the person and even respect him and disagree and even be angry about what he thinks, the same goes for the secular.
I once thought that the definition of Harediism was to worship the Sh”a instead of the Holy One. In fact, it is also Torah that precedes the Derech Eretz, in the ways you show in the column.
There is some truth in this definition.
But it is worth remembering that according to this definition, modern religiosity is to worship yourself and your desire to integrate into Western society. Both the Sh”a and the Almighty are out of the picture.
I once saw a ruling that permits calling on a holy Sabbath to ”help from a doctor” to consult about which doctor to go to.
When it comes to a Haredi's body, he is not satisfied with a simple effort like a secular person who goes to the hospital or the doctor, but must find who the best/most suitable doctor is for what ails him.
This ruling always seems bizarre to me because there is too much ”maybe” – Who said there is a difference in treatment between doctors that can affect success? And even if there is a difference, who said that Rabbi Fuhrer would recommend the right doctor to you, whether due to lack of knowledge or error (especially since I have often heard that the list of recommendations is based on who ”donates” more money to Rabbi Fuhrer), and even if you say that there is a doctor who is the only one who can save you and Rabbi Fuhrer will give you the right name, who said that he is available to treat you specifically?
Your message combines hatred of the ultra-Orthodox and giving a bad name to a man of great kindness in an astonishing way. The main thing is that you have enough love left for the wicked and haters of religion.
When will you write about the left in Israel?
There are no more left-wing Haredi women who follow the method of Rabbi Marx – from each (non-Haredi) according to his ability and each (Haredi) according to his needs.
The social state that the Haredi love has generous benefits, free medical care, free education, housing assistance, subsidized daycare for children, subsidized public transportation and more according to the communist model
First of all, what the Haredim have is not socialism but the commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" which is not socialism but capitalism in which the individual is like a cell and the whole is a multi-cellular organism (female). So every investment by the individual in general is an investment in himself. That is, the expenditure will also pay off materially at some point. In the giving of the Torah, this organism was created through a covenant between the collective and God, and the covenant created a biological, spiritual reality. The Shekhinah (the kingdom of the world of nobility) is, by the way, the soul of the organism (and therefore actually the organism itself) and God (a tiny creature of the world of nobility) is its husband. Indeed, communism is the essence of loving your neighbor as yourself, only it is altruistic communism (meaning that it is backed by God and his help and is conditional on correcting human nature, which is selfish) in contrast to Marxist communism, which was secular, materialistic, and selfish, and was therefore the greatest evil religion ever, and that is why it collapsed.
Besides, I meant today's left, which is like a herd that races (into the abyss) after the hollow and crazy lawyers in particular and the rest of the academics from the vain sciences in general. Let him write about intellectualism in his place. There, in general, the majority are religious pseudo-intellectuals of the religion of emptiness and equality.
What is not clear to you?
The money that sustains the Haredim does not come from the commandments and love for your neighbor as yourself, but from taxes that the socialist government collected from the working public (from each according to his ability) and transferred to the Haredim (to each according to his needs).
The money was collected by force according to the communist principle that the works of man's hands belong to the government.
The Haredim live in the communist paradise promised by the Rebbe Marx, and if that is not leftism, then there is no leftism in the world anymore
What is not clear to you? The Haredim among themselves live according to the communism I described (capitalist communism. Which belongs only among Jews – “Love your neighbor as yourself”). But they use the socialist mechanisms of the state to their advantage (like everyone else. And certainly like the Arabs) but they do not believe in the secular communism that is at its foundation. And certainly not in progressive equality. No one on the right believes in this even if they are not aware of it. You are welcome to look up Rabbi Ashlag in the article ”Freedom” What is the difference between these two?
David, you are talking into the air. In practice, the Haredim are extreme leftists.
I actually replied to you but for some reason it got deleted.
I answered Gabriel and we took it from there. And why wouldn't they use it? If the Arabs can, even though we have no shared destiny with them (to put it mildly)
I think the best thing about this column is their empty threats to leave the country if they are drafted.
For the average Haredi, leaving the country is a process that is equivalent to a bus ride from Jerusalem to Bnei Brak. They really imagine themselves getting on a plane and landing in some Western country of their choice and there things will just work themselves out. All sorts of obstacles posed by the annoying entity called reality are not a consideration at all. And they believe it completely; they don't do it themselves.
Funny, when I was in Slobodka at the time when Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky became the leader of the Haredi community, Rabbi Dov claimed that Rabbi Chaim could not be a leader because a leader should at least know how to pay an electricity bill, and so Rabbi Chaim's son replied that Rabbi Chaim leads us in the Holy Spirit, and so Rabbi Dov twisted his mouth.
Maybe Rabbi Lando really knows how to pay the electricity bill and doesn't think he's a leader in the Holy Spirit.
Do secular people also have such failures – Does the struggle (of wise people) to free the kidnapped stem from the same failure?
What do you think about Torah study from an ultra-Orthodox rabbi who suffers from these failures – Does this impair the study or is the study theoretical – yeshivah, and therefore free from these failures?
There are failures in every person and every group. But not all failures are based on the failure of intellectualism. I think that those who struggle to free the kidnapped at all costs are not intellectualists but usually over-emotional.
You can learn from anyone, assuming that the learner is critical.
Want a clear example of childish ultra-Orthodox intellectualism in its purest form? Here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%aa%d7%92%d7%95%d7%91%d7%94-%d7%9c%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8-%d7%91%d7%a2%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%99%d7%9f-%d7%92%d7%99%d7%95%d7%a1-%d7%97%d7%a8%d7%93%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%93%d7%99-%d7%aa/
“After writing these things, the thought crossed my mind that I don't remember statements by Torah scholars from the Zionist-religious wing (not Haredi”li) in which I saw such delusional and disconnected nonsense.”
Are you serious?!
Just today I read a column by Hagai Lundin about how the national religious public has no need to be held accountable because they warned about Oslo and the disengagement and the rest, etc.
The fact that Ben Gvir the brat and the economy with the help of the ’ are at their head is fine, of course. The fact that they promised security only if the left-wing government falls is fine. The main thing is that they have no need to be held accountable.
The fact that rabbis from religious Zionism signed the boycott of Strauss because of Channel 14 and called the channel a “clear and distinct voice that is faithful to the tradition of Israel” is the height of discretion. It's not bad that one of the faces of the channel is Yinon Magal, who started with a married woman according to publications, and as Akiva Novick said about him and Shimon Riklin: “Lives like Eyal Golan and tweets like Rabbi Kanievsky”.
You wrote about Haredim, the attempt to find solace in broken ignorance is not serious.
If that's not crazy enough, I'll find you other statements.
What's going on with your reading comprehension? Worth checking.
And about the blatant biases in your comparisons? Also.
I'm waiting for you to find out.
The main thing is that Channel 14 is kosher, Glatt, under the supervision of the rabbis with the sandals of the root.
Exemption without anything is impossible, so I'll just mention your statement that you don't judge Hitler negatively if he did what he did because he believed in it wholeheartedly. You probably forgot to check that with ordinary people like me who will explain to you how absurd it is.
Wow, how did you manage to find so many examples? If you search here you'll find that I also wrote 2+3=5. A kid like you should be completely exempted from the army just for sitting down to study. It's a shame to lose.
Haggai Lomdin and his delusions and his group of friends are exactly common mustardism
This is exactly what the rabbi wrote about
The question is whether Rabbi Landau really thinks that the secularists are acting out of persecution of the Torah, or perhaps he understands that this is not the case, but uses this card to raise funds for Torah study and justifies it to himself by claiming that lying is permissible in order to preserve the world of the Torah.
I talked about the possibility of white lies. Of course, beyond the lies, the problem lies with the listeners who buy this nonsense. That's why I went on to say that the problem lies with them too.
Bottom line, we have a problem, and it's called the Gemara. It is the one that attributed magical powers to the Tannaim and the Amoraim, forbade contemplating them and their followers, and turned Torah Judaism (not the party, but the Pentateuch) into a popular, mystical religion, full of serious issues that cannot be canceled and detached from reality.
The Gemara often mentions criticism not only of the Tannaim and Amoraim but also of biblical figures. The attribution of magical powers is part of a general magical perception of the world that is clearly visible in the Shas, and which was very widespread in their time, and is not specific to the Tannaim and Amoraim.
The strictures can certainly be canceled or changed according to the rules of the system, and the Amoraim and the Rishonim did so many times. The problem is that we do not have a Sanhedrin or any other authority that is accepted by the entire nation, and also that the rabbis of our time are much more conservative than the Amoraim or the Rishonim.
In conclusion (natural intelligence, not the same as the conclusion of artificial intelligence) they feel like Rabbi Shimon who came out of the cave, only they are not Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and they know it. Let's say – they do not do what Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai did but ask for a reward like him. Does that sum up the article? I think so. Everything else is ramifications, how does it manifest itself in practice.
By the way, regarding the conviction of President Katsav for rape, this is one of the most delusional cases of false conviction. You are welcome to read what Udi Perlsman (also a physicist by training) wrote, who has been investigating this for years. The fact that you believe in an Israeli court is a failure, there are too many false convictions in Israel.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100010877222835
I understood that what the sages of Israel wrote regarding effort that there is no connection between effort and the result, is in the way of someone who told the oil to burn, telling the vinegar to burn, meaning that to the same extent that the oil burns, there can be another world in which the vinegar burns, and in principle there is no reason why the components of the oil cause it to burn and the components of the vinegar would not cause it to burn, only God created (and perhaps does every moment) a world that related action to result, operating in a very specific and uniform manner, which we call nature, and therefore the oil burns and not the vinegar, but it is clear that after God decided to lead the world in a certain way, effort is related to the result, but all of this is only because of the presence and action of God in all of reality and nature.
Do you think this is possible? Or is it precisely this perception that you call childish obsession?
This is not their intention. Read the quotes again. According to this, it really does depend on our efforts.
This is a trivial statement of course. The laws of nature are not logic and could certainly be different.
I must point out that I too often do not understand you, or disagree with you, or think that you contradict yourself.
In general, your philosophy is very similar to mine, to the things I have thought since my twenties and did not find anyone who thinks like me, until I came to your blog (I have since found another one, https://www.lesswrong.com/), and most of it is actually a sharp criticism of intellectualism and analyticity, and an understanding of the ways in which they create distortions in the knowledge of reality. Today I discovered that you also think like me about paradoxes: that they arise from two different and contradictory ways of looking at the world.
But the main difference is that you are religious and I am secular (although not an atheist). And also the fact that you are 1000 times more educated than me, so there is a good chance that I simply do not understand.
Your argument against the Haredim here, “Ketn will also follow a logical argument without paying attention to the fact that it is disconnected from common sense and reality. He is captivated by the magic of logic and is not really aware that there is also a reality in the world, which is also true in the Gemara. According to this, in the story of Akhnai's oven, only R. Eliezer is a mature man, who sees the reality in which God Himself says that He is right, in contrast to the lesser rabbis who agree only on the Torah, on "following the crowd" and on their intellectualism.
And this is the ethos of the Talmud and of all Jewish law that it inherits from it. To the best of my knowledge, only in modern times have (few) begun to interpret the myth of Akhnai's oven differently.
Isn't that right?
I see no connection to Akhnai's oven. The main religious and halakhic thinking is sober and attentive to reality, although you can always find exceptions.
I was amused by the comparison to David Hume (the atheist). To me, it also reminded me of the Christian theory (Lutheran, I think, but don't take my word for it) that a person has no influence over his fate, but that success in life indicates that he is a good person to whom God has shown favor.
There is indeed a similarity to Protestant thinking. Both are brain fog.
Regarding Rabbi Lando, I don't think your analysis is correct. It doesn't take much intelligence and maturity to understand what the increasing economic burden of the Haredi society that doesn't mobilize through secular eyes looks like, and he's certainly not that stupid. He simply claims the simple truth that this whole story wouldn't have happened if the Haredi had voted for the left and a left-wing government with Haredi members had been formed (Gafni said that Yair Lapid offered him "everything" in exchange for forming a left-wing government after the 2022 elections). All the claims against them would have been nullified. And I agree with this: all the petitions wouldn't have been submitted, the money would have flowed. Yair Golan, in a surprising way, claimed a week ago that he was ready to form a government with the Haredi (who don't donate) and not with Likud voters and the "Messiahists" from religious Zionism (who do work for their livelihood and there's nothing to talk about military donations at all). It's just that his ideology is religion or that he's only interested in the lust for power. And if Yair Golan is like that, then surely Gantz and the other haters of Bibi and religious Zionism are... Then surely the story here is persecution out of hatred, although more hatred of religious Zionism and the traditional Sephardic public (although hatred of right-wing secular Ashkenazi “fascists” like Begin, still exists). Although certainly the secular left hates the haredi public without a doubt and the dominance of its religion is more important to it than any economic or security burden.
Because I saw a lot of responses on websites to articles about this fundraising campaign, and the vast majority of the leftist responses, instead of being happy that the Haredim are funding themselves instead of the state (and it doesn't matter that it's a one-time thing - the very idea itself), for some reason they were even angrier at them and more worried that they might manage to manage financially on their own without the state and be able to avoid conscription without anyone being able to come to them with demands or claims. Instead of wishing them success in walking this path, they wished them failure in the mission. It really seemed more important to them to recruit the Haredim - and to make them feel better - than not to rely financially on the state.
It's truly amazing to discover over and over again what trendiness does to people. Silly arguments peppered throughout, with complete disregard for the facts and the text being interpreted. Truly a beautiful demonstration of the ultra-Orthodox intellectualism discussed in the column.
First of all, I am not biased because I have no shares in the Haredi and I have no interest in defending them and I also really think that the Haredi public is childish (if in every paragraph and clause the things are said one by one by the left (which I really despise). Especially by the legal left).
Secondly, I am sure, like many like me, that the opposition parties would have added the Haredi to them at the prices they demand and somehow the High Court would have smoothed it over for them.
Thirdly, you are instilling into the heads of the High Court judges what you think about the situation while it is clear that they do not care at all about equality (because they rejected petitions to explain why Arabs should not be recruited) or about any future of the state (except for the crooked judges).
Fourthly. I really have no idea why Rabbi Landau thinks the way he does, which is why I said that the interpretation of your words is not necessary at all. Has the fact that the majority of the Jewish people will become secular disappeared from their sight? Didn't he notice that this is probably related to secularization in the entire West and the apparent lack of God's care in the world? (That is, he probably gave some thought at some point to why secularism attracts people beyond their usual desires. After all, books are constantly being written to excuse contradictions between Torah and science, and he has probably heard of them.)
Here is evidence for the second point:
https://www.srugim.co.il/1013893-%d7%99%d7%a9-%d7%a2%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%93-%d7%9c%d7%a9%d7%a1-%d7%96%d7%95%d7%96%d7%95-%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%94-%d7%95%d7%aa%d7%a7%d7%91%d7%9c%d7%95-%d7%97%d7%95%d7%a7-%d7%92%d7%99%d7%95%d7%a1
David
You live in an alternative world to the simple reality.
R’ Dov does indeed suffer from a problem, but at least he learned a lot of Torah…
Good advice.
Keep up to date with reality as it is, whether good or not
And conspiracies and trolls, as we know, are not at all reality as it is.
And from that moment on, all your big and mighty questions will resolve themselves
Some comments:
1. I feel that this claim that "from afar, a fool will come to nothing," and that intellectuals are liable to come to distorted things, due to the neglect of common sense, is a claim that is also very true regarding things that the Israeli left promotes, which often seem to contradict common sense. For example, the release of Hamas hostages at any cost, while ignoring the future damage that the release of murderous terrorists will cause, and encouragement of additional kidnappings in the future, etc.
This desire to release the hostages at any cost, seems to me to also come from some disconnection from common sense and common sense and is more characteristic of educated people …
And there are other things in the progressive left's approach that deviate from common sense and the ACM.
2. Personally, it seems to me that common sense is the one that should be our guiding light, not as a middle path, but as a true path. With (not honest) reason, one can reach all sorts of towers that bloom in the air, and it is not always possible to find what is wrong with these arguments, but common sense will feel that there is a fake here.
3. I will also mention that I personally have a certain point in studying the Gemara (and I have not studied much Gemara, but from what I have learned, and at least how I learned at the time), that when they come to clarify a certain point, they look for ancient Tannaim/Amoraim who spoke about it, and begin to argue about their words. And they do not first use common sense, what makes sense to say about it. It somewhat forces thinking into something forced that is far from common sense. Isn't it? As if the main thing is the quote from some unknown person (as wise as he was), and whether he meant the case we are talking about or not.
I would be happy to address this.
1. This is true for every group and almost every intellectual. But "smael" is too big a word. There are parts of it that are not as crazy as the extreme progressives. There are also those who oppose liberation at all costs. But I have already written here that I think even those who support it are not because of intellectualism but rather the opposite: slavery to emotion.
2. Your reasoning is only half the picture, as I also explained in the column. Common sense sometimes deceives us, and we need to control it as well.
3. There are those who do prioritize a priori thinking. But even if they don't, when you want to explain some position, regardless of whether it is correct, sometimes you have to deviate from your common sense. See columns 304 and 431 here on the site.
Some pearls from Nadav Shnerb's seminary:
https://woland.ph.biu.ac.il/?download=1633
Indeed, pearls
If I understood correctly, it could be made much shorter
Assumption 1 – The classic Haredi arguments are claims that contradict common sense
Assumption 2 – Anyone who holds such positions is childish
Conclusion: The Haredim (or at least the Haredi mainstream) are childish
And there is also proof: they really think these claims! (which, as I recall, contradict common sense). And not only that, they are not lying, they really really think it.
What you actually did here is show that sometimes common sense prevails over logical arguments, and from this you concluded that if Haredi positions are backed by logical arguments, this is a point for them to make, because adhering to a logical argument in the face of common sense is childish.
And what if the common sense of the Haredim supports their positions? I am not interested in entering into a specific discussion, and the truth is that I cannot, because you yourself assumed that logic stands (or may stand) on the side of the Haredim, and yet it is childish and ’intellectual’.
What common sense are you appealing to? Common sense is a product of education, of a worldview that is formed from countless sources of information that we experience throughout our lives. Until science discovered that the world was round, this fact was contrary to the common sense of many, and yet their minds straightened out again after science proved it (we're talking about a world where there were no photographs of the Earth from space… ordinary people simply believed the scientific position, and their minds straightened out. Or was it only Euclidean before that? 😊)
It is clear that the common sense of someone who is not accustomed to giving value to the words of the Torah, (self-value, not just as a product of logical thinking), of someone who has never heard of a worldview that holds that a person's actions have no influence on their fate, and in short, someone who has not been exposed to these ideas. It is clear that they are innovative to someone who has never heard of them.
But to the same extent, the theory of evolution is contrary to the common sense of an ultra-Orthodox child (or just a 17th-century child) who has never heard of it. And also the paradoxical idea of putting a ball in the goal while someone else is trying to stop you, or people are willing to do a lot of things just to take a picture with a celebrity, or there is even such a book about a boy who went to school to learn magic.
Quantum mechanics also contradicts the common sense of everyone except physicists who are already used to it. But obviously we will not appeal to the common sense of someone who did not study physics to express an opinion on such a question.
I agree that there is a point in criticizing people who are unaware of positions that contradict their own, in people who wave gum bazooka sentences with a victorious smile, and indeed, it makes sense that the Haredi public has a larger percentage of these. And yet, as someone who knows many Haredi rabbis, including those you mentioned, it is very easy to show that there is also a lot of common sense and simple wisdom behind their decisions. And let it be clear to you that Rabbi Landau knows very well what secular people think of his conduct. The fact that he does not openly confront these claims is simply because he has no interest. (It will always be possible to argue that his words are flawed by intellectualism and childishness)
Honestly, it is very difficult for me, as someone who was so influenced by you, from my youth as a hardcore Haredi yeshiva student to this day, to read an article like this, and there were many articles that I did not like or disagree with, that is natural and I have no problem with that. But in this article, unfortunately, there was no argument, only “Well, of course they are stupid…” and also “They are stupid, aren't they?”
That is why I wrote these things with pain, and yet I hope that my words will resonate with them.
(The response was mistakenly posted somewhere above as a response to someone, so I'll post it here again, sorry)
If I understood correctly, it could be made much shorter
Assumption 1 – The classic Haredi arguments are claims that contradict common sense
Assumption 2 – Anyone who holds such positions is childish
Conclusion: The Haredim (or at least the Haredi mainstream) are childish
And there is also proof: they really think these claims! (which, as I recall, contradict common sense). And not only that, they are not lying, they really really think it.
What you actually did here is show that sometimes common sense prevails over logical arguments, and from this you concluded that if Haredi positions are backed by logical arguments, this is a point for them to make, because adhering to a logical argument against common sense is childish.
And what if the common sense of the Haredim supports their positions? I am not interested in entering into a specific discussion, and the truth is that I cannot, because you yourself assumed that logic stands (or may stand) on the side of the Haredim, and yet it is childish and ’intellectual’.
What common sense are you appealing to? Common sense is a product of education, of a worldview that is formed from countless sources of information that we experience throughout our lives. Until science discovered that the world was round, this fact was contrary to the common sense of many, and yet their minds straightened out again after science proved it (we're talking about a world where there were no photographs of the Earth from space... ordinary people simply believed the scientific position, and their minds straightened out. Or was it only Euclidean before that? 😊)
I agree that there is a point in criticizing people who are unaware of positions that contradict their own, in people who wave gum bazooka sentences with a winning smile, and indeed, it makes sense that the Haredi public has a larger percentage of these. And yet, as someone who knows many Haredi rabbis, including those you mentioned, it is very easy to show that there is also a lot of common sense and simple wisdom behind their decisions. And let it be clear to you that Rabbi Landau knows very well what secular people think of his conduct. The fact that he doesn't openly confront these claims is simply because he has no interest. (It will always be possible to argue that his words are intellectualistic and childish)
Honestly, it is very difficult for me, as someone who was so influenced by you, from my youth as a hardcore Haredi yeshiva student to this day, to read an article like this, and there were many articles I did not like or disagree with, that is natural and I have no problem with that. But in this article, unfortunately, there was no argument, just “Well, of course they are stupid...” and also “They are stupid, aren't they?”
That is why I wrote these things with pain, and yet I hope that my words will resonate with them.
Oops, it's back here…
I tried🫣
Sorry
So how can someone who successfully passed Gan Rivka not understand the meaning of the secular (and religious) attitude, and attribute it to hatred of Haredim and persecution of the Torah?
Simple. They remember. There were periods when there were almost no Torah students in the country – in particular, there were no “communists” most of the public
The Haredi worked – and yet there was an anti-Semitic atmosphere in the country. This was said by Haim Be'er, who must also be acceptable to you.
The interviewer asked him if he was not exaggerating – and he answered “No. I am not exaggerating”.
A righteous person like me – his work was done by others. This week, Rubik Rosenthal wrote in ”Haaretz” that two wars are currently underway. One with the external enemy, and the other – the more significant – A war over the “image of the state”.
And he doesn't mention at all in ”image of the state” – the economic and military issues (the ”less important” ).
A retired judge saw a presenter with a scythe on her head presenting a Rashi ceremony and was quick to tweet
” What is this – Get her out of our sight”.
In this cultural war, Rabbi Michael Avraham will also be disqualified. The title of Dr. will not save him.
My situation is probably dire if I agree with what is said in the column.
The interesting thing is that the Haredim are actually returning to the doctrine that the Rambam fought against in the Confused Teacher. They were very religious and denied a logical connection between action and result and between a certain moment and the moment that followed.
First line, first word – “my situation” , should be corrected – “our situation”
In the 2nd of Tammuz,
The ‘intellectualism’ of super-educated people, who believe that ‘value is reality’ no matter what, we found in the conduct of the legal elite on the issue of conscription. If we take the principle of ‘equality of burden’ to the end, and add the assumption that studying Torah is a private need of the person – then everyone should enlist at the age of 18, and there is no room for postponement or shortening.
The entire world of Torah, Zionist and non-Zionist, is built on a different premise, according to which studying Torah is a national value, and just as there is a security value for fighters in battle, who guard the body of the nation – so there is a security value for those who diligently study Torah, who guard the soul of the nation.
Hence there is room for various combinations. There are those who serve in the army as permanent personnel who dedicate many years to intensive military service, and there are those who have made their mark in the yeshiva and develop the Torah in depth and breadth. And alongside them there is room for various shades of combination, such as the ‘Seder’, the ‘Central Hesder’, the ‘Shelve B’, and so on. All of this is based on the basic assumption that Torah study is a national value.
***
The gap between the two perceptions – the one that sees Torah study as a private, personal matter and the other that sees Torah study as a national value – cannot be bridged at the level of principle, but it can be bridged at the practical level.
An attempt at a bridge was made by the ‘Tal Law’ which spoke of the possibility of serving a year in the army after six years in a yeshiva, which would have encouraged yeshiva students who wanted to go to work to serve a year in the army, which would have given them training for further service in the reserves. The law was drafted by Supreme Court Justice Zvi Tal (and was also supported by Justice Edna Arbel), but the majority of the members of the High Court voted against it and invalidated it.
Another attempt at mediation is the ‘Conscription Law’ proposed by the government now, according to which the postponement of conscription will continue for those who diligently study Torah and ’Torah is his art’, and significant quotas for conscription will be set for those who do not study in a yeshiva. The proposal was raised in the previous government by Defense Minister Gantz, and for some reason he is now strongly opposing the bill he himself proposed.
And the High Court, instead of welcoming the bill that talks about recruiting 3,000 ultra-Orthodox people a year, something that is quite difficult for the IDF to absorb, issues a decree on Passover Eve that cancels the allocations for all Torah scholars and intensifies the pressure and shortage. They haven't even issued a draft order yet, and they're already imposing collective punishments.
If they had acted wisely, they would have allowed the new draft law to pass, in addition to the existing initiatives, such as Tomer, Chatz, Netzach Yehuda, Haredi Seder Yeshivas, and civilian service in the Shin Bet and the Mossad. The army is currently talking about establishing a Haredi brigade (under the command of Colonel Avigdor Emunah, see the article “Brigade with Emunah,” on the Channel 7 website). If this “pilot” and others like it succeed, there is a good chance that it will inspire more confidence in Haredi society and help those who don’t find their place in studying all day “do something with themselves” that is beneficial to themselves and the state, but with most of our legal system’s adherence to the “sacred value of equality,” instead of encouraging positive trends, “they issue decrees.”
We can only appreciate the Torah luminaries, who, while continuing their activities to pass the ‘Conscription Law’, are simultaneously working to increase donations to yeshivas, so that they do not collapse, God forbid, due to the decrees. It is not a small thing for a 94-year-old Jew to knock on the doors of benefactors, but a Torah luminary cannot remain in the ’ivory tower’ but must harness all his strength to save the ship of Torah.
Best regards, Fish”l
There is room for optimism after the Simchat Torah events. The army, which until then was captive to the concept of a ‘small and smart army’, understood that quantity also becomes quality, and on the other hand, the understanding that they have something to contribute in the army has also grown among the Haredi public. The chances are greater that they will begin to prepare seriously for the absorption of Haredim in the IDF under the appropriate conditions, and, exalted by ‘integrating women’, they will begin to think about ‘integrating Haredim’…
Best regards, Fish”
Great article Rabbi as always
I suspect that the Haredim are not retarded they are simply spoiled they have found a useful way to an easy life through the Torah.
In the name of the Lord, the Son of Man
To Yossi, greetings,
It does not seem to me that a person who diligently studies Torah from morning until night for decades, while supporting a family with many children on a meager scholarship that at best amounts to much less than the minimum wage, finds it an easy life. Studying Torah for decades out of poverty and hardship shows a willingness to be adventurous and make sacrifices for the sake of a great ideal in which he believes.
Of course, one can argue against this path, that a great Talmud is when it leads to action, and cultivating the Torah in depth and breadth It needs to be expressed in practical life, and according to this there is logic that after building and establishing the ‘spiritual level’ by studying from the yeshiva – the great content should also be poured into the world of military action.
But to claim that Torah students are looking for an ‘easy life’ – I don't think so.
Best regards, Fish”
Messed up again messed up
When was the last time you met ordinary ultra-Orthodox boys or people who enjoy the good of the country, eating from the fruits of the taxpayers of the country?
I understand that you mean some kind of minority that is ignored by the majority and fantasizes that these are the hundreds of thousands…
Wake up to reality
In the context of the issue that the decree should be accepted by the entire nation, Harediism proves itself in this regard.
The Haredi sector is large and growing.
What is not so, this can be said about you and the sector to which you belong, with high dropout rates.
I say, isn't that so?
Did you manage to come up with this brilliant argument on your own? See column 609.
There was also the column in which this question was compared to a competition between an eagle and a duck. The Haredim swim well in the water, but do they dare to fly in the sky in the army, academia, and culture?
In the same way, it can be said that beginners swim beautifully in the sea, but do they dare to fly in the sky, in Torah, in work and in acts of charity?
This is simply a question of what is called water and what is sky, or who is the eagle and who is the duck.
There is no evidence here that either side is right.
He is not here to argue why not to enlist, but (as far as I understand) about the rationale that the Haredim go with, which is that it is a working class, and apparently there is consideration in the end for the marginalized as well.
Of course, this does not justify their argument against the religious, there are sects in a pretty difficult situation if there is zero dropout. (Google).
In the margins of the column, the statement that the High Court only expressed an opinion regarding the current legal situation, and did not say anything about the conscription law ignores the overall context.
It is true that at the moment the High Court only said what the law is in a situation where there is no conscription law, but the reason there is no conscription law is that the High Court has invalidated and will invalidate any law that is not sufficiently equitable in its opinion.
Indeed, and he would be right about that.
Yes, but they think that he does not take their view into account, and they do believe to one degree or another in the value of Torah study, but it is their problem that they did not read the unambiguous column on the subject of conscription.
This is an intellectual statement that really, really doesn't correspond with common sense.
A note regarding the discussion with the Haredi public, in terms of their rationale they are the world. And this is true considering that only infidels actually get to have conversations outside the Haredi world (in its entirety), but it changes the perception of the individual there on political/social issues in points against the rest of society that he really has no way of looking at it differently, and does not necessarily indicate a mental failure.
Regarding the perception of security there, I was told (I did not see) that the Hazon Ish is quite limiting, even after that they are still all like that, or is it just an extensive collection of quotes, based on the tone, the author of the article can be suspected of lacking objectivity regarding the Haredi.
Here's a great example from today:
Knesset member Moshe Roth also told the Times of Israel website:
“The Haredi public donates more than it receives, and in the end there is no difference between those who work and those who don't. In terms of the amount of tax revenue they generate.” According to him, “They are defaming the Haredi, delegitimizing them.”
*Then he added: “There is no need to go into the nuances of economics, income, budgets or basic physical intelligence. Things work by themselves. The country is already reformed.”*
*”Those who work and those who don't, each in his own way. The one who brings a paycheck and the one who brings a Gemara leaf both contribute equally. Sometimes, it is precisely the one who doesn't work who saves us more. If we completely eliminate work and sanctify unemployment, we will very quickly reach a budget surplus. Because there will be no reason to spend. ”*
As for service in the IDF, Roth said: “There is a surplus of soldiers. There are tens of thousands who sit around and do nothing. Wasting their time. Therefore, instead of recruiting yeshiva students, maybe we should send the soldiers to kollels. Let them start serving for real. The problem is not a lack of manpower but a lack of faith in the power of studying Torah in yeshiva.”