With God’s help

Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.

In my last two columns I discussed two of the greatest centers of Chillul Hashem in our generation: the Chief Rabbinate and Haredism (true, the previous column addressed only the issue of military conscription and not the other problems there). In this column I continue my self-anti-Semitic journey and move on to another center, the Hardal camp. It is not really another center, since this is one courtyard among the various courtyards of the Haredi world. There are Haredim who wear white socks, other Haredim who believe in one Rebbe or another, there are the “Lithuanians” and the “Hasidim,” and the Hardalim are Haredim who say Hallel and wear a knitted kippah (see, for example, my Manifesto, especially around the discussion of the elections for the Chief Rabbinate, and more below).

I cannot resist mentioning here Meir Porush’s guest appearance at “Merkaz HaRav” on the most recent Jerusalem Day, and recalling how they treated then-Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on the previous Jerusalem Day. For them, a corrupt prime minister, an adulterer and one who devours non-kosher delicacies with gusto is of course welcomed. Even someone who impudently attacks their Rosh Yeshiva will be blessed and invited (after all, it’s hard to take a stand against those who surpass you on your own turf. Their justified feelings of inferiority toward the Haredim are well known). But anyone who dares not to cooperate with these corrupt figures, these critics, and the other riff-raff of the current coalition (and the then-opposition)—he is to be persecuted and shunned as disgusting. And what of their famed “statism” and “the foundation of God’s throne in the world”? Let it go to hell. All these are indicators that they are one of the Haredi sects. In this column we will see a few more such characteristics.

“The Rabbis of Religious Zionism”

For a long time I have wondered who decided that a collection of black-clad men who say Hallel on Independence Day are “the rabbis of Religious Zionism.” Leaving aside the question of their suitability, or whether they are accepted as guides by most of the national-religious public. Even assuming they are suitable (they are very much not), who appointed them? Who decided that these are the rabbis of Religious Zionism? Were there elections for “the rabbis of Religious Zionism”? How is it that every newspaper and media outlet reports every gathering of this group as an assembly of “the rabbis of Religious Zionism,” and the punctilious add that these are “the great/senior rabbis of Religious Zionism.” I am speaking about the time before the expression “Religious Zionism” became the name of a party that appropriated the name of the sector or group undeservedly. The answer is that they appointed themselves. They did this through their agents in the press, in educational institutions and in the yeshivot, who pumped into us again and again the mantra of “the rabbis of Religious Zionism.” Now it was easy for the party to appropriate the name of the entire public, to declare that rabbis it appoints (not even it—the appointment is Smotrich’s alone) are “the rabbis of Religious Zionism,” and from there their path was paved to go far, don black clothing and do as they please (see Mo’ed Katan 16).

Thus we can read in newspaper headlines or hear in the media that “the rabbis of Religious Zionism” convened and decided this or that (usually not decisions to my taste, to say the least). These decisions are made by a collection of almost identical people who represent very particular outlooks (Haredism with Hallel, as noted), nearly esoteric within the national-religious public (see their statements and positions regarding women, gentiles, LGBTQ people, and a thousand and one other matters), and yet the label implies as if this is the general leadership of the public and a wondrous consensus across the national-religious leadership. I will just note that a court is careful to separate the words of the rabbi from those of the student and to ensure independence between them, out of concern for downward pressure and the fear that original positions of the participants won’t be voiced, thereby harming diversity and sound judgment. In capital cases, decisions made unanimously are invalidated, and the reason is that when an issue is complex, unanimity is unlikely; if it occurs, something was probably flawed in how the judges formed their positions. But none of this exists here, of course. There is wondrous unanimity among identical people, many of them a rabbi and his students (see also the column before last on the Chief Rabbinate where I brought how Yitzhak Yosef boasts that they make unanimous decisions). Beyond that, the formation of these positions and decisions is done in a closed room, without transparency, and apparently without any orderly decision-making process. As noted, without investigation of the facts, without hearing different positions and arguments, without hearing experts—rather, an echo chamber of the same opinion and the same way of looking at things shared by them and their students all in one breath. No wonder that the decisions and positions that emerge from there usually look as they do (see, for example, a few among the very many examples, here). In this way, a considerable portion of the “children” of Religious Zionism are captured by the Haredim as they follow Haredi rabbis merely because they say Hallel on Independence Day and pump us full of talk about the Right, the Land of Israel, and Redemption as if these were the whole Torah, thereby managing to permit every creeping creature. They explain to us loftily in the name of Rabbi Kook how every ideological stream and every field of knowledge has value, but this remains suspended in the air of the beit midrash—or in the restroom at an hour that is neither of the day nor of the night. On the ground, those “rabbis of Religious Zionism” think and act like full-blown Haredim, with complete obtuseness and alienation to everything outside.

To ensure the continued Hardali-Haredi hegemony over Religious Zionism, they periodically send out the ugly mantra of their rabbi, the late Rabbi Avraham Shapira, who referred to rabbis who espouse a path slightly different from his (some of them his students) as “ra’abalach.” How pleasant to repeat the old man’s words, so that even if you are a young hothead who barely knows how to read and write, you are not even accused of chutzpah. On the contrary, you disseminate the pure and pristine “da’at Torah” and “hashkafah” (translated from Haredi to Hardali: “emunah”). To this one could apply Nahmanides’ phrase: “ancient things from the mouth of a newly old man.” Note that at least in the public sphere these expressions have somewhat diminished in light of criticism, but they still recur to this day (see for example here), and I assume that behind closed doors much more so. All this, when those “ra’abalach” have long since surpassed their defamers in age. As for their halakhic standing, integrity, and level of thought, it has always been five levels above that of their defamers, both the young and the old. I must say that Rabbi Avraham Shapira, who was certainly a great Torah scholar (unlike some of his successors), was (and remains) one of the great producers of “ra’abalach” on earth (various young rabbis and yeshiva men who voice “da’at Torah” on their own behalf and serve as strident megaphones for their senders in order to attack all others— you can find them on every sector website and newspaper). He disqualified here with his own blemish.

You already know me well enough to understand that I am not overly sensitive to tirades and sharp criticism. You won’t believe it, but even I myself sometimes suffer from this defect. My problem with these treatments is twofold (beyond the fact that this is sheer lying demagoguery): the lack of reasoning and the hypocrisy. Beyond the lack of reasoning and the use of labeling without substance in place of arguments, there is hypocrisy here, since all this is done in the name of the Torah while taking the name of unity and peace in vain. The “ra’abalach” (in quotation marks) are accused of harming unity and peace, and of attacking the honor of the Torah and the honor of Torah scholars, as if these were the private domain of the Hardalim. They are also accused of having “no paternal house” for their Torah. But the accusers—the real ra’abalach (without quotation marks)—again disqualify here with their own blemish. Their Torah has no paternal house and is entirely an invention of the last generation (which is legitimate in my eyes—but not in theirs): I have written more than once that for them, Moses received the Torah at Sinai and handed it to Rabbi Kook.

The unity that is repeatedly sought in the national-religious camp (which has long been nothing but a façade for Hardalism) is about rallying around the Hardali “rabbis of Religious Zionism,” while strictly maintaining their hegemony. The naïve seekers of unity from the more liberal and modern wings of Religious Zionism fall for the propaganda and the saccharine syrup that characterizes it, and because of their politeness and moderation they again and again lose the battle and the war. So allow me to be their mouthpiece here.

I will do this through two examples. The first demonstrates how this Hardali-Haredi mechanism operates. The second illustrates the demagogic “honeyed syrup” that characterizes them. And yes, save your time. I know I am inflicting a mortal wound on unity and on the honor of the Torah and the “greats of the generation” (self-declared).

Hardali-Haredi Conduct

I chose an example I only just saw, and I must say it raised my temperature to a worrying degree. It’s a piece by Yaki Admaker on Walla about a meeting of Smotrich with “the rabbis of Religious Zionism.” I expected to see the familiar names, but to my surprise I found completely different ones:

I will preface by saying that my position regarding the prisoner deal that was then on the table (now less so, following yesterday’s joyful operation) was negative. I have no concrete information, of course, and it is unwise to take a definitive stance for or against the deal, but on the face of it, it seems a very bad deal that constitutes capitulation to protests within Israel and abroad, and above all to Hamas, against Israel’s interests. I also get the impression that the heads of the security establishment and the politicians are following the evil wind blowing on this issue from the street and the world (“bring everyone back now, at any price”). On this plane— I can’t believe I’m writing this—I actually quite identify with the direction of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.

But regardless of my position on the substance, it is worth noting how, and by whom, the decisions of the “Religious Zionism” party are made. A collection of this or that avreichim gathers, Smotrich consults them in some closed room, I assume they lack a great deal of relevant information and have not heard positions contrary to Smotrich’s. They certainly did not speak with the heads of the security establishment (IDF Chief of Staff, heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad, Military Intelligence, etc.) and with politicians holding a different view, and after all this they are supposed to instruct him how to vote regarding the deal. From the text it is not clear who is to decide whether the deal is dangerous—he or they. Ostensibly he, but they asked (!?) him to return and consult them after the details of the deal are known. Meaning, they are the bosses. On what basis will they decide? Da’at Torah?

Again, regardless of my view on the deal, is this reasonable conduct? This is a critical decision for the state and for the hostages, a decision that touches the soul of a very large public in Israel, which is already seething (not always justifiably) about the conduct of the government and the coalition—and of course together with them, about all of us (who remembers that “Religious Zionism” today is the name of a party and not an entire public?). Is it not fitting to be angry at ministers and parties that make their decisions on such a dramatic issue in this scandalous, hooligan fashion?[1]

And now to our point. Does all this remind you of a mode of conduct described above? Don’t say it doesn’t. This is classic Haredi conduct, in which people who understand nothing sit in a closed room and make hasty decisions for all of us on critical issues, without hearing the facts, without considering other positions. And all thanks to a mystical “da’at Torah” they possess that enables them to make any decision in any field perfectly. Does that strike you as serious? Well, they are, after all, the “greats of the generation” (“the rabbis of Religious Zionism”) and they possess da’at Torah. As is known, from Yated Ne’eman (ibid., ibid.), “one who seeks counsel from elders does not stumble.”

But are they really “elders”? Or perhaps sucklings who fancy themselves wise? Here we move from the mishaps in Smotrich’s conduct and that of those “rabbis of Religious Zionism” to the conduct of the press. The newspaper crowns them in the headline as “the rabbis of Religious Zionism.” Not only in the headline and sub-headline of the article, but within it as well. The expression recurs several times. It is hard not to sense that this repetitiveness is intentional and pointing in a very clear direction. True, this is not B’Sheva but Walla, and yet I cannot understand the compromise of such repetitiveness. It seems to be the result of Hardali propaganda (I believe the reporter, Admaker, is Haredi, and therefore he apparently feeds off them. Haredim truly think that what these black-clad men say is the position of the national-religious public). When you see the list at the end of the article, you wonder since when were these appointed to be “the rabbis of Religious Zionism”? I had already grown used to the takeover by the older generation and their undeserved seizure of this crown, even though the lion’s share of Religious Zionism does not believe in them and certainly not en masse. But in the list here, a younger and lesser-known generation is already included—even in circles that do bother to get to know such unique figures. Since when were these appointed to be “the rabbis of Religious Zionism”? Just as I grew used to the older generation’s seizure of the crown, the crown has already passed to them and I did not hear?

Since everything happens in darkness, I can only conjecture that events unfolded thus. The “Elders of Zion” (the older generation of “the rabbis of Religious Zionism”) sat and pondered to whom to pass the crown they themselves placed upon their heads. For if they do not care for the next generation, the crown might pass to the “ra’abalach” (in quotation marks), God forbid. So they found a plan and acted: we will crown with this thorny crown the younger generation, who will do as we instruct them. We will take a few avreichim, the true ra’abalach (without quotation marks), crown them as “the rabbis of Religious Zionism,” and in a few years everyone will dance before them, “May You add days to the king’s days.” It has worked until now and there is no reason it will not continue to work. Is the world lacking fools?!

In one counsel, Yated Ne’eman and company decided and acted and took their reward like Pinchas (there is reward for a mitzvah in this world). They instructed their agents in the press that from now on these are “the rabbis of Religious Zionism.” Just like the previous generation, within a year or two we will all dance before them and ask them for signatures and greet them on the festival. We will proclaim that one who seeks counsel “from the new elders” (to use Nahmanides’ phrase above) does not stumble. This is exactly Yated Ne’eman’s method: to use headlines and the power and influence of the paper to appoint the system’s agents as “the great of the generation” (and to assassinate any rabbi—great as he may be—who does not comply with the newspaper editors’ sordid “da’at Torah”). Recall Rabbi Kadouri, who was appointed by the press as the “greatest of the kabbalists,” thereby (not necessarily consciously) providing sustenance for his descendants and household for many years.

It may be that the sector press and various “Judaism” reporters (like Admaker) are more moderate than Yated Ne’eman. Perhaps they truly do this at the behest of the older generation and not on their own initiative. So maybe it is not Admaker who crowns kings. He is nourished by other hidden crowners. Well, the sector’s newspapers and journalists still have room to grow. But it is clear to me that we have here a directed and well-orchestrated campaign to appoint the next generation of “the rabbis of Religious Zionism.”

As someone well acquainted with Yated Ne’eman’s modus operandi, I can only proclaim in the public square: meet the next generation of “greats of the generation” warming up on the sidelines. Begin to recount their wonders, their exalted character traits, the miracles they have wrought, their far-reaching vision, their sober understanding of reality (how with their crystal eyes they succeed in exposing all the schemes of the global left, the New Israel Fund and the European Union, LGBTQ organizations and the global progressive movement on behalf of Samael). I can only surmise that the next president convicted of rape will receive his expected letter of support from this group, which will follow in the footsteps of its teachers. Happy are we, how good is our portion and how pleasant our lot. Happy the generation in which the great heed the small, and the rabbis heed the ra’abalach.

But I do have something that may slightly cool their joy. I assume that the copying from the Haredim will be more complete in the next generation, in the sense that Smotrich too will merely use them to do what he wants. Just like Gafni and Eichler with their council, and Deri with his council of “wise men.” You will ask: if so, why consult them at all? Very simple: Smotrich needs “the rabbis of Religious Zionism” to lend his decisions legitimacy and an exalted spiritual aura, and to deflect criticism by claiming that he is not the one deciding—just like the Haredim. The script is known in advance. Gafni too does as he pleases, and when he receives criticism he says that everything is directives “from above” and not up to him. Remember that unlike politicians, the Haredi rabbinic councils are not exposed to the media and are not subject to criticism. There is no one to talk to. It’s a marvelous technique, and I see that Smotrich is learning from the very best. And I assume these rabbis too will learn their lesson from the very best (i.e., they will get slapped in the face by Smotrich and understand he is only using them—just like among the Haredim).

So much for the comparison between Smotrich-Hardali conduct and Haredi conduct. Now for a brief look at the Hardal’s marvelous propaganda methods, foremost among them the technique of “Nofet Tzufim” (honeyed rhetoric).

The “Nofet Tzufim” Syndrome: Background

A few days ago I read with interest a column by Itamar Segal, this time in the sector press, B’Sheva. I immediately noticed that it was a very typical example of the “Nofet Tzufim” phenomenon I will describe here. Already when reading the title, “The Unifying Rabbi” (as is known, the title is usually given by the editorial staff, not the writer), I prepared my sensitive palate for the expected dose of honey, and indeed I was not disappointed.

The trigger for that column is the elections to the Chief Rabbinate. I will remind you that about a year and a half ago, the “Religious Zionism” party (not Religious Zionism) decided to convene a committee in which rabbinic figures of different outlooks would be represented in order to decide on an agreed-upon candidate from the national-religious camp for Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi (see here). I believe the assumption was that it would be possible to reach an agreement with Shas to divide the spoils, with the Ashkenazi rabbi being from “Religious Zionism” (the party) and the Sephardi rabbi of course from Shas (by the law of “an inheritance shall not pass,” as explained in column 648). Thus it is fitting and proper to arrive at a broadly accepted rabbinic leadership for all Israel between the Deri family and the “family” of Smotrich. On the committee there was a rather limited representation of more liberal rabbis (and in the committee’s leadership the situation was even worse), and this matter has already been discussed. Surprisingly, the decision at the end was to nominate Rabbi Meir Kahana (full disclosure: a friend of mine; we taught together at the yeshiva in Yeruham). Apparently they thought he was a middle figure who would be acceptable to all (incidentally, something similar happened to him in the elections for dayanim, and I won’t expand).

It is worth emphasizing that all sides agreed that after a candidate was chosen—whoever it might be—none of the partners to the decision would submit another candidacy or support a different candidate.

And lo, about two weeks ago we were informed that Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, who served as chairman of the committee, notified Smotrich after about a year and a quarter that the selection was canceled because there was no agreement. In other words, there would be a Hardali candidate competing with—or replacing—Rabbi Kahana (I believe this refers to Rabbi Misha Halevi, the rabbi of Petah Tikva, who was a party to the original decision and to the accompanying agreement—apparently he simply assumed he would be chosen. This is precisely what the Gemara calls an “asmachta”—you agree to a lottery under the optimistic assumption you won’t lose; therefore there is no genuine consent). As far as I understand, the claims were that he is a candidate who would be more acceptable to the Haredim and has a better chance of being elected. Translation for those not sensitive to what is written between the lines: the Hardalim will not agree to Rabbi Kahana even though he was chosen by the agreed committee, and will go with a Haredi candidate who fits their outlook (just as happened with Rabbi Stav in the previous elections).

And what of the prior agreement before the selection? It was written on ice. After all, these are the “great/senior rabbis of Religious Zionism”; one should not expect them to accept the curse of “Mi Shepara” (He who exacted punishment from the generation of the flood will exact from those who do not keep their word), that is, to keep their word. They “in good faith” tried to arrive at an agreed Hardali candidate (who was expected to win due to the composition of the electoral body), and to their surprise did not succeed, so they canceled the matter. “We tried!” As is known, unity and keeping agreements are obligations that rest only upon the liberals. The Hardalim are correct by definition, and even if you have questions about them you must suppress them, since they possess da’at Torah and you are also harming the unity of the national-religious camp. Unity is always a matter of uniting all forces under the leadership and full authority of the Hardalim. And the useful idiots and naïfs from the other side (“the sitra achra”) fall into this trap again and again.

Well, no wonder the decision aroused a storm—even among some Hardalim in whom a bit of integrity still remains (there are such). There was, of course, criticism by journalists and many others of canceling the decision. Segal’s column addresses that criticism and—of course, how could it not?!—calls for unity of the camp and respect for the rabbis, may they live long.

My Critique

Again I must preface that my words here are unrelated to my position on the content. Our concern here is only with form, method, and clarifying the Hardali-Haredi conduct. There is no need to tell you what I think of the Chief Rabbinate (see column 648). I also think that uniting the national-religious forces in the Chief Rabbinate elections (and also in the general elections) is folly born of a failure to understand reality. On all the questions at issue, the Hardalim are identical to the Haredim, and standing opposite them is the more liberal wing of Religious Zionism. The Chief Rabbinate elections are not about whether to recite Hallel on Yom Ha’atzmaut (that is almost the only subject common to all shades of the national-religious public). What is at issue there are questions of liberalism and modernity, attitudes toward women, gentiles, converts, and the like. Therefore there is no reason in the world to expect a coalition between Hardalim and liberals for a chief rabbi on the basis of their Zionism. Coalitions are always between Hardalim and Haredim, and indeed so it should be.

The only reason the Hardalim tried to reach a broad agreement within the national-religious camp was their assessment that their candidate would be chosen and would also garner liberal votes, thus erasing the liberals from the map (see below on the Trojan Horse effect). Well, this time they were proven wrong. Moreover, in my estimation, even if Rabbi Kahana is elected, he will not succeed in changing anything substantive there. This institution “has no purification but with the sword—and its breaking is its purification.” Rabbi Kahana holds halakhically conservative views in my opinion, and therefore even on the substantive planes it is doubtful how much salvation will grow from him (at least the salvation needed according to my view). But he is a good, brave, wise, and honest man, and I am sure he truly (and in my view, very utopianly) hopes to change the situation. For precisely these reasons, he is probably not a suitable candidate for the position.

After he was chosen I wrote to him on WhatsApp:

To the dear Rabbi Meir, may he live long. In my wildest dreams I never imagined I would wish success to a candidate for Chief Rabbi—to be elected and to serve. Life has surprises, so my congratulations. No one will be happier than I if, at long last, it is proven that I was wrong—in other words, that not only the breaking of this institution is its purification. More power to you!

It seems the vision has shattered earlier than expected (well, we’ll see what happens next).

The “Nofet Tzufim” Syndrome

I didn’t want to bring the column here in full, both because of its length and for fear of sugar poisoning, but in the end I decided not to spare you.

So I’ll begin by quoting the sub-headline:

“Contempt for Torah scholars is like drilling a deep hole in a ship. In a debate you may win, but the ship—the general public’s attitude to the Torah and its bearers—you will sink deep into the abyss.”

Who can argue with such lofty, peace-seeking words that even allude to the rabbinic parable about a hole in the ship? If so, it must be true.

He opens by saying that we learned nothing from October 7, since every reasonable person should have concluded that criticism must be phrased on the issues and not ad hominem. In my sins I did not understand how October 7 is related here. Perhaps “unity of Israel,” etc. In any case, one does not respond to homiletics (ugh, I am so October 6…).

After a few more words about the left not being monolithic (except Kaplan and the “Brothers in Arms,” at whom one must go head-on because they are disgusting), and that there are actually a few good people there (in the sense of “some of my best friends are…”), he goes on to outline the proper way to criticize:

There is another rule for effective and proper criticism: as few personal attacks as possible, and a preference for criticism of the subject matter. Instead of attaching derogatory epithets, it is better to focus on a negative description of the actions, the opinions, or the phenomena.

For us religious people there is another very important rule: we should always honor Torah scholars wherever they are. Even if after further thought we decide to disagree with them, we must be doubly careful with their honor, with whispering and with biting. Contempt for Torah scholars is like drilling a deep hole in the ship. In a debate you may win, but the ship—the general public’s attitude to the Torah and its bearers—you will sink deep into the abyss.

So I will add here a first rule of demagogic writing: first choose a completely different issue and explain that our own criticism of others there (in that other issue) was too sweeping and vitriolic. Thus you place yourself under criticism. Then add a few words about the proper way to criticize—especially rabbis (the right ones, those who are “ra’abalach,” not “ra’abalach” in quotation marks), of course—and then you can move on to the point that is our main goal in the whole “honeyed rhetoric” maneuver.

He complains about journalists who write harsh and disrespectful criticism of rabbis, heaven help us:

Precisely for this reason I had to rub my eyes several times when reading a text printed in one of the religious right’s newspapers in an article dealing with the Chief Rabbinate elections and published on the front page: “If the disappointed candidates had a drop of fear of Heaven,” it said among other things, without much shame toward great Torah scholars, alongside the claim that “if they would put their ego aside… but demanding fear of Heaven from rabbis is sometimes an exaggerated demand.” That’s how a religious journalist simply writes, without any fear, about a judge on the Supreme Rabbinical Court and a notable city rabbi in Israel, both some thirty years his senior.

Horrible, isn’t it? The fact that those rabbis are indeed lacking fear of Heaven and indeed do not keep their word, and that they behave opportunistically and dishonestly and cause a terrible Chillul Hashem (as usual in these days)—that’s perfectly fine. After all, they are the rabbis (the right ones). Don’t forget that we’re talking about the Chief Rabbinate elections. That is the nature of this institution.

You won’t believe it, says Segal, but it continues:

And it continued: “One can understand Rabbi Ariel’s feelings,” he explains, disappointed as he is with Rabbi Yaakov Ariel’s leadership, “he is not made of the materials required for strong public leadership.” Another religious journalist, who broadcasts on one of the television channels and also writes in one of the Shabbat pamphlets, knew to proclaim in public that the rabbi of Petah Tikva is actually a “Hardali political operator” and nothing more, and one religious commentator wrote that in fact it is better to lose the elections entirely rather than ultimately promote a different candidate than the one the committee first chose. Another religious journalist even dared to call Rabbi Yaakov Ariel and rebuke him sharply for how he dared to retract the committee’s decision.

What is wrong with this criticism? What is untrue about it? In any case, Segal provides us here a diagnosis—entirely “issue-focused” for the sake of Heaven, of course (after all, we are already long past October 7). All the probing into the hearts of these impudent keyboard heroes and their motivations draws on the crystal eyes of the Torah itself, and contains nothing personal or irrelevant, Heaven forbid:

These impudent keyboard warriors share one common denominator: more than they want a strong Chief Rabbinate, they do not want a Haredi Chief Rabbinate. When they say they want a national-religious rabbi, what they really mean in their hearts is primarily a non-Haredi rabbi. It seems that in their view, nothing would be more harmful than electing, Heaven forbid, a national-religious rabbi whom the Haredim also sign off on and to some extent accept his halakhic authority. For all these keyboard heroes, unity, healing, and all the messages so important and omnipresent since Simchat Torah—none of these apply to the Haredim. Go and see: when it comes to the extreme left, to violent opponents of judicial reform and of the right-wing government, to road blockers and promoters of refusal to serve, it is a mitzvah to do everything by mutual agreements and compromises so as not to tear the nation apart. But when it comes to something connected to the Haredi public, it is a mitzvah to stick a finger deep, deep into the eye.

There is no goal in itself that a non-Haredi rabbi be appointed here. On the contrary: the goal is to find specifically the unifying rabbi—above all a great Torah scholar who also recognizes the spiritual stature of the State of Israel and the process of revival, but at the same time serves as a bridge between the national-religious world and the Haredi world, at least part of it, because it is reasonable to assume that Neturei Karta and the Jerusalem faction will remain outside, like the religious liberals, who also de facto do not recognize the Chief Rabbinate.

This is much more than a goal; it is the need of the hour, and it is also possible. Whether rightly in their eyes or not, and it does not matter at all, it would be very sad to discover the day after the elections that the Haredi public is turning a complete cold shoulder to the Chief Rabbinate, ignoring its very existence, feeling it has no share or portion in it. In the past we had chief rabbis who succeeded in serving as a bridge and to some extent were accepted by both Haredi and national-religious streams, among them Rabbi A. I. Kook, Rabbi Yitzhak Herzog, Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman, Rabbi Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, and others.

With all due respect—and there is a great deal of respect for the national-religious Torah—the Torah does not belong only to us. It belongs to all Israel, to Ashkenazim and Mizrahim, to secular and traditional Jews, and yes, also to the Haredim, who maintain magnificent batei midrash and Torah. Identifying and promoting a national-religious candidate who is also acceptable to them is a goal in itself and not just a strategic compromise in order to get through the electoral body.

Before you puke, a brief explanation. The main claim in these paragraphs is that the Torah belongs to everyone, including the Haredim. It might be worthwhile to remind him that the discussion here is not about the Torah but about the Chief Rabbinate. Does it belong to everyone as well? The Haredi public itself despises it (quite rightly) and sees not a drop of importance in it, as is known. The Haredi public constantly prevents the election of rabbis who do not suit them, and takes over all positions by force and revolting nepotism. That too is perfectly fine. The Chief Rabbinate serves the Haredim as a source of jobs for a few families and their cronies (see column 648), a vehicle for inculcating corruption and creating a terrible Chillul Hashem. This is wonderful, since this is the role of the Chief Rabbinate. It is truly interesting why you think the Torah belongs only to you and not also to the Haredim. By the way, since we’re on the subject, the Chief Rabbinate is mainly for the secular (even regular religious Jews don’t really relate to it; they have their own rabbis).

There are two possible interpretations for this feigned “honeyed rhetoric.” Perhaps his intention is actually to say that the Torah belongs only to the Haredim (and not to them as well). This expresses the usual feelings of inferiority of the Hardalim that I noted above. A second possibility (not necessarily contradictory) is that when he speaks of Haredim he actually means Hardalim. His claim is not that Rabbi Kahana is not acceptable to the Haredim, since for them no one who is not Haredi is acceptable. It seems more that he means he is not acceptable to the Hardalim. Essentially his claim is that Rabbi Kahana is not acceptable to the Hardalim and therefore must be replaced. So why not say this openly? Because of course that would raise the question about the agreement that the Hardalim (including their candidates) were partners to. Therefore it is preferable to say that he is not acceptable to the Haredim and then preach to us about the Torah belonging to all of Israel and not only to chutzpah-mongers like us—including the Haredim. The fact that this is irrelevant to the discussion of the Chief Rabbinate does not matter when one deals in honey-dripping propaganda.

The Haredim are trying to gain jobs and positions of power here, while the Hardalim are trying to impose a conservative, ossified halakhic stance and neutralize the liberals (in their view, of course; if Rabbi Kahana is a liberal, I am a Christian). This unholy confluence of interests leads to an unholy coalition that repeats itself again and again—in the Chief Rabbinate elections now as in the past, as well as in the political coalition in the Knesset and the government. The façade of uniting national-religious forces is very useful to this purpose. They try to gain the support of the moderate, useful idiots in Religious Zionism so that the whole system will be Haredi. This is the Trojan Horse effect. Feiglin tried to integrate into Likud and Smotrich into the Mafdal in order to take over the rival party and cancel it from within (Smotrich also succeeded). It is worth reading my analysis in column 11, where I discussed the Trojan Horse effect. In any case, this is exactly what happened here. The moment the Hardalim were to pass their candidate as the candidate of all Religious Zionism, all the candidates for Chief Rabbi would be Haredi, and we would have completely removed the liberals (so-called) from the map—and Zion would be redeemed, amen.

Returning to Segal, he is very careful about the honor of rabbis, even though he is of course entirely in favor of substantive criticism. Therefore, for example, you will not see a word here about the disgraceful act committed by those rabbis he defends with such fervor. After all, they are the “great rabbis of Religious Zionism,” and the others are impudent keyboard knights (admit it—he didn’t mention names, so this is “issue-focused” and reasoned criticism. True, he quotes and everyone knows who is meant, but without names). They might even cast doubt on the Hardali hegemony over Religious Zionism. This is carried out exactly like calls for unity that you will find in Yated Ne’eman and the rest of the Haredi press (true, they are less troubled to cover their ugliness with honeyed syrup; apparently they are less hypocritical).

This is the “Nofet Tzufim” phenomenon in all its wretchedness: to act like Zimri and seek the reward of Pinchas. You begin with exalted values that no one can argue with (the honor of the Torah, knightly manners, the lessons of October 7, and so forth). Then you seemingly apply them by scoring an own goal against yourself (look—you even defend the wicked left funded by the European Union and the New Israel Fund), and immediately you slide to apply them only in the direction convenient to you, while ignoring any possible criticism of your side (you are “all Israel.” You are not a “side”). I assume that in the next article, after he finishes this matter and the Chief Rabbinate has been conquered—since anyone who is not Hardali no longer has the strength to vomit from their vileness—he will move on to criticize the left in the same manner (and then, presumably, he will speak of the need to consider all opinions in the Chief Rabbinate elections and to keep agreements. That will be the opening issue because that is not what is being addressed at the moment. Remember Rule No. 1 in the “honeyed rhetoric” method).

In this way you emerge righteous and the others wicked. Your rabbis—or your ra’abalach—are “the great rabbis of Religious Zionism,” despite their ugly deeds and despicable conduct, and the others are impudent keyboard heroes. And thus you have managed to take over the city with a brilliant Trojan Horse maneuver, to remove all others from the city, and to feed them rotten fish as well. Checkmate!!

[1] This reminds me of Ben-Gvir’s Jerusalem Day decision—made in a single moment to the cheers of the fascist youth around him—to change the status quo on the Temple Mount. It simply suited him at that moment to excite them with it. I too think the situation on the Temple Mount is scandalous, but that is not how decisions are made: without staff work, without a prudent decision, without consulting security officials, without the agreement of the government itself. Bibi immediately denied it, and he simply made a fool of himself (he didn’t even manage to set the world ablaze, though he really tried). This is the hooligan fashion in which our representatives/ministers conduct themselves.