A Short Exercise in Reading Comprehension: What Is Diversity? (Column 535)
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.
Today I came across a column by someone named Livnat Ben Hamo, who presents herself as a religious musician. I’ll reproduce it here in full, and I recommend reading it before continuing:
| My eldest daughter is entering first grade, and I’m torn—what school to register her for next year. I’ve already visited three schools and counting. We’re religious and live in Ashdod, so we want to register for a religious school. The question is which kind of “religious,” and that’s where the problem begins.
At the moment my daughter is in a kindergarten defined as “Torani” (an intensified religious track). Boys and girls are still together, but the education and atmosphere are a bit more religious than in the regular state-religious track. This is reflected in the content and in the character of the families. From first grade that Torani track becomes separated—one class for boys and one for girls. For me that’s a bit harsh. As a religious woman, and even simply as a woman, I do believe in separation—but from high school age, not from such a young age. It seems to me there should be ongoing interaction between boys and girls in elementary school so as not to create gaps and deficiencies that could later be expressed in the quality of relationships with the opposite sex after age 18. But separation isn’t my only issue with Torani schools. Not long ago I was sitting outside my daughter’s dance class and met one of my teachers from when I studied at an ulpana (religious girls’ high school). Her children study in a Torani school, and I asked her how her experience has been. She told me a bit and then paused and said—But, Livnat, it’s a Torani school. Yes, yes, I know, I told her. But you’re not “Toranit”! she answered. What do you mean? Torani is from the word Torah—and I keep Torah and mitzvot. Yes, she said. But you don’t cover your hair and you wear pants. At that moment I’d had enough and told her I wasn’t going to have that discussion with her. I finished the ulpana 15 years ago. So go to the state-religious track, you’re probably thinking. What’s the problem. Truth is, there isn’t a problem and that’s probably what will happen in the end. But in the state-religious track there are families of all kinds: religious, traditional, and secular. And for someone looking for a religious environment—so that the afternoon playtime with friends is also in a religious atmosphere—this raises questions and thoughts. I know that in other places there’s more variety in terms of streams, certainly in communities that are religious in character, and certainly in a city like Jerusalem, for example. But we chose to live in Ashdod, the city where we were born and raised. I ask myself how it can be that if you want “religious,” your only option is Torani—which is basically a kind of Hardali (national-Haredi)? What happened to that stream of “regular religious” people? Those who keep Shabbat but don’t believe in separating boys and girls from elementary school age? Those who are strict about family purity but have no problem listening to a woman sing? Those who pray in the morning but encourage their daughters to realize themselves in any path they choose—including military service? What happened to us? Has this stream of “regular religious” disappeared from the world? I open newspapers, read websites—today, “religious” equals Avi Maoz. But wait, friends. How can it be that the extreme has become the whole picture? I know that around me there are quite a few people like me—regular religious folks but open to the world and respectful of the vast diversity within it. Could it be that we’ve curled up into ourselves? Why aren’t we speaking up more, making our presence and the values by which we live felt? We mustn’t let one stream take over the religious field. Anyone who thinks that an analysis of the political landscape and the results of the last elections leads to the conclusion that our stream—the normal religious—has disappeared, is wrong! We haven’t disappeared numerically, only in our presence in the world. By nature we’re not separatists but integrators. And therefore Chili Tropper and Michael Biton, for example, aren’t in a religious party but in the National Unity camp. We’re too quiet. And maybe that’s the mistake. Maybe we too need to make noise or at least start speaking loudly and clearly—so everyone hears. |
The Questions
Now I’ll ask you a few preliminary questions (without going back and rereading): What is the author’s religious outlook? What is her attitude toward religious separatism versus integration? Against whom and what is she speaking out? And what is the educational model she recommends and would like for her children? Please take a few seconds and try to answer briefly.
The Answers
The writer presents herself as a kind of “religious-lite,” in common parlance, and I’m not making value judgments here. She wears pants (in my view, halakhically legitimate) and doesn’t cover her hair (in my view, not halakhically legitimate), and I understand that she sings before a mixed audience (also legitimate in my view). Without knowing her, I allow myself to surmise that she doesn’t meticulously observe every single halakhic detail. So, all in all, we’re dealing with a run-of-the-mill religious woman—“a regular religious woman,” as she herself puts it. She laments that this group—the “regular religious”—has disappeared.
I now wonder, which groups are still on the map? Well, of course there are the “Torani,” the Hardalim (national-Haredim), who are ostensibly the ones she is pushing back against. But that’s not the only kind of religious educational institution. What else is there? I don’t know specifically what’s happening in Ashdod, but the other kind that surely exists there too is the regular state-religious track (mamlachti dati), within which there are all kinds of religious people, regular or not, and in addition there are also other elite institutions (not necessarily in a Torani direction).
So why does she think the group of “regular religious” has vanished? Aren’t these precisely the religious folk who send to the regular state-religious system? She asks what happened to religious diversity, when to my understanding it very much exists in the regular state-religious system. Well, it turns out not—apparently it doesn’t have the kind of “diversity” she’s looking for. Here is her key sentence:
But in the state-religious system there are families of all kinds: religious, traditional, and secular. And for someone looking for a religious environment—so that afternoon playtime with friends is also in a religious atmosphere…
Ah, I get it: in the state-religious system the problem is that there’s diversity. But actually now I don’t get it: what diversity exactly is she missing? What is she looking for? No need to guess, because she explains very well: she wants a school in Ashdod that contains only children like her own children—no more and no less. Not Hardali but also not traditional. In what sense is what she herself describes different from traditionalism? Her intention is apparently a school intended for families where the mother doesn’t cover her hair and wears pants, performs before men, but not one who watches television on Shabbat (using a Shabbat timer?). Maybe she also doesn’t want a mother who says the Morning Blessings but not Grace after Meals, only one who recites Grace after Meals but cuts corners with the Morning Blessings. That ultimate mother of the children in her school must also be one who says the Asher Yatzar blessing exactly twice a day—not once and not three times. And what about a mother who listens to Tunisian music but eats Hungarian food? I don’t know.
Of course, all types are worthy and good, and all are included in the desired diversity as part of the blessed variety—but in another school. Ben Hamo’s children should play only with that diverse group of mothers without head coverings and with pants who perform before men, recite blessings over enjoyment only on apples, say Asher Yatzar twice a day, and speak Polish in Casablanca slang—that’s it. Everyone else can diversify themselves respectfully in other schools. Those that include traditional, religious, and others (as part of general diversity we also need “non-diverse” schools that include all the diversity).
Suddenly I realize she’s not talking at all about diversity within the religious community in her children’s school, but about diversity among schools themselves—whose principal aim, from her perspective, is to prevent diversity within her own school. The “diversity” she’s talking about is that we should have a varied offering of schools, each different from the other, but within each school the population should be entirely homogeneous, so she can send her children without fear that after school they’ll play with the child of a woman who behaves slightly differently from her. Maybe someone who favors separating boys and girls only from fourth grade (what a prude), or alternatively only from tenth grade (an accursed heretic), or isn’t willing to separate at all (perish the thought). Or heaven forbid someone who wears a partial head covering (so pious), or alternatively goes sleeveless (tsk). They will play only with children whose mother goes without a head covering but with long pants, says the Morning Blessings on every odd day but not the blessings over Torah on weekends, and of course wants separation to begin precisely at the start of high school. Diversity, did we say?…
In other words, what this Livnat wants is that we take the entire set of halakhot, divide them into subsets, and for each subset create a network of schools. Note: not a single school per subset but a network for each subset, since she expects that her subset will have a school in Ashdod—not only in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. I assume she understands that there’s nothing special about Ashdod per se. It should be like this in every city and town in Israel, for every subset.
Let’s do a somewhat simplistic calculation. Suppose there are a thousand relevant halakhot (of course there are many more). How many defined population groups exist over this set? Well, that’s easy: 21000 (2 to the power of 1000). We’re talking about a number with roughly 300 digits. Note, this isn’t the number of students, nor even the number of schools. It’s the number of school networks she wants spread across the country. Meaning that in Ashdod there would be roughly a billion billion billion billion (repeating the word “billion” about thirty times) different schools—and that’s just in Ashdod. Likewise in Ashkelon, Jerusalem, Haifa, Kiryat Shmona, Yeruham, Kiryat Gat, Acre, Shlomi, Safed, and more. Admit it, that’s some diversity—and indeed she’s absolutely right: we really aren’t there yet (thank God). But a bit more education budget and we’ll be right there any minute. As she writes: “We mustn’t let one stream take over the religious field,” especially when there are another 21000 streams besides. By the way, this is precisely the model accepted in Haredi education. There, schools are determined by the parents’ origin, the color of the father’s socks (schools for fathers with white socks—Vizhnitz Hasidim—and schools for fathers with black socks—Gur Hasidim), the length of the gartel, and other essential articles of faith and tradition for education. I’m sure they’d be happy to open in Ashdod a school for sons of mothers with transparent head coverings and fathers with brown corduroy jackets. In effect, this is a merger of households who want to give their children homeschooling with the Haredi education stream. I don’t see a principled problem with that. It’s even quite administratively efficient.
Reading-Comprehension Conclusions
I wouldn’t have bothered writing a column about this nonsense if it weren’t an excellent example of misdirection and thus a necessary exercise in reading comprehension. On a superficial reading it clearly seems that the author wants religious diversity for her children, that she is speaking out against extremism, and that she would be happy for her children to encounter the whole spectrum without rejecting anyone. Seemingly she would really want her children to study with the children of Chili Tropper and Michael Biton (that’s what she writes). Well—no. Their children study in the state-religious system, and there is no reason her children can’t study there with them. But she doesn’t want that. Indeed, I wonder whether Ilana, the wife of MK Michael Biton, meets her criteria? (As it happens they are very close friends of ours, and I know their norms are not necessarily identical to those of Livnat Ben Hamo.) I suspect that Chili Tropper’s norms also aren’t identical to hers. (Statistically that’s almost impossible.)
On a second, not-very-deep reading it turns out she wants precisely the opposite: to prevent possibilities of diversity for her children. She wants her children to see—both in school and in the afternoon at the playground—only children identical to themselves, neither a bit “more frum” nor a bit “less frum” than they are. She calls on Chili Tropper and Michael Biton and all members of the National Unity camp to make noise and show up on the field—but not in order to create a stream that suits them. On the contrary: to split the state-religious system into billions of different streams so that everyone can choose his own bespoke stream—but separately. Admit it: that’s not what you took away from your first impression and first reading. That’s exactly what’s striking about her column and what moved me to write the column before you.
By the way, I’m quite convinced that Livnat Ben Hamo herself isn’t aware of what she wrote. I’m pretty sure that if I asked her, she would say that what she wrote is indeed a demand for diversity and a stand against Hardali monochromatism. If I’m right, then she would do well to reread her own words. But in the age of slogans and existential declarations—the age of moods—people are led astray by atmosphere instead of examining arguments, even regarding their own positions.
A Side Note: Two Types of Filtering
As an aside, note that at least the Hardalim filter on an ideological-educational basis. Whether you like it or not, they fear influences that would lower their children’s religious level, and this is the basis for the filtering they do in their schools. One can argue about whether it is effective or beneficial, but to my taste it’s entirely legitimate, since it is filtering for educational purposes. Livnat Ben Hamo, by contrast, seeks filtering whose aim is to ensure that the entire environment looks like her and her children, so that heaven forbid they won’t have to meet someone who looks even slightly different. She writes about “regular religious” people: “By nature we are not separatists but integrators,” and apparently by “integrators” she means integrating within ourselves—each family optimally integrated within itself, as it were: “and he saw the people dwelling by their families.” I take comfort that at least in her schools there won’t be a problem of separation between boys and girls, because it’s a school intended for brothers and sisters only. Homeschooling. Truly an enlightened and wonderfully diverse approach. Is this worthy of the lofty title “the regular religious”? I very much hope not. In any case, I gather that this is indeed an endangered species—and in my view, it’s good that it is.
But as noted, my aim here isn’t to bash the position itself. Although I don’t like it, it’s also semi-legitimate in my eyes (though less so than the Hardali position, as I explained). My aim here is only to conduct a reading-comprehension exercise and to recommend a second thought about what we read—not to follow gut feelings and first impressions. It’s easy—and highly recommended—to apply this in other fields as well, such as assigning positions and/or actions to “right” or “left,” where you’ll find plenty of examples of initial impressions that are the product of atmosphere and, upon a second look, turn out to be the exact opposite of the truth.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As far as I understand, this woman would be happy if her children grew up with religious children of all kinds. From the devout to the mildly religious.
She would be very unhappy if the school/other parents tried to educate her too. And of course she would like the teaching staff to be teachers who are relatively close to her in worldview.
Why this spectrum? I don't know.
I'm actually happy with the spectrum being expanded, but it's not fair to present it the way you presented it.
The question is not what you estimate she wants, but what she wrote. I can estimate that she wants to build the Sea Canal and create an underwater school within it.
This is not poetry
I'm sure if you send my interpretation and yours to the author, she'll say I interpreted it more correctly
It seems to me that you didn't read not only her, but me as well. I wrote that I also bet on it. But it says something else here, and I think she doesn't understand herself.
I agree that she doesn't put it well.
But I understand what she's saying because I also experienced something like this when I enrolled my son in school.
On the one hand, we have a Torah school (Hardeli). With classic teaching methods, complete separation, lighting candles for the memory of Maimonides, etc., and on the other hand, a regular MM school.
The problem is that MM had a lot of secular families enroll.
Now, the fact that the school defines itself as religious is all well and good, but if more than half of the children are secular, then in reality the atmosphere there is not religious.
I can understand the argument, but the question is where is the line that defines a religious atmosphere? Why is a mother who does not cover her head okay in her religious atmosphere, but a mother who turns on the TV on Shabbat is not okay? If you demand full but open religiosity (not ultra-Orthodox) - fine, but that's not what she describes.
Sounds a bit like the paradox of stacking to me.
But if I try to analyze it anyway, it seems to me that Shabbat is in a much broader religious consensus than head covering.
To me, it doesn't sound like the stacking paradox, but more like Fifty Shades of Grey. Similar but very different. In any case, the column isn't here to argue anything against her (I wrote that her opinion is legitimate), and I have no problem with anyone who claims that Shabbat is more significant than a headscarf. There are another 2 to the 1000th power of possibilities for determining what is more or less significant.
It can be said that open religiosity is not something defined in terms of halakhic logic, but there is some convention in the traditional and general public about the hierarchy of commandments, and most of them are strict about the same things and do not observe the same things, and not as you presented, that there are many types who define themselves as religious based on a different hierarchy (a decent person will not generally define himself as religious if he does not observe Shabbat and eats pork). The question of why this is so is a good question without an answer, but in reality it exists and it is legitimate for someone to ask to educate her children according to the accepted religious hierarchy.
It's very simple.
She wants a certain religious spectrum. And that's it.
You're trying to present her in a ridiculous way, as if her words are hollow, and there's really no serious argument behind them.
You're just creating a straw man, puffing up your chest, and running to attack him. Too bad
Really simple. It's just that unlike Chabadniks, I don't have the Holy Spirit, only logic and reading comprehension. Oh, and a puffed-up chest. Well, arguments are for the weak. Statements are in, arguments are out.
Wow, it turns out that sometimes it's a curse. The lady wants open religiosity, not secularism. What's all this nonsense about 2 to the power of 1000? I assume you don't think she wants such crazy diversity either, and you're doing it the way preachers do, building a fuss about a topic that's not so obvious.
In my opinion, she doesn't want to be labeled and is looking for the Grail, which means a kind of pluralistic school where all religious types live in harmony without judgment on the type of clothing and intrusion into the private lives of teachers. Sorry, inside the outsider, we understood a long time ago that the days of the Messiah have not yet come and the lamb and the lion do not yet live next to each other. The educational institutions in the country did not understand the difference between education and enlightenment. And this confusion causes many distortions that destroy the education of parents who are not. Religious enough. Let's focus on finding schools for our child where they do not destroy the education of the parents and focus only on learning without brain confusion
It is implied, but not explicitly stated, that she was angry with that mustard girl because the Torah school refused to accept her, even though she wanted to be accepted. (It was not explicitly stated there – she may even actually be accepted there, but they will look at her askance). What does she want? To refuse to accept traditionalists, which is a more vague definition that is probably similar to what you meant – not exactly religious like me, and this is with the full thought that it will spoil her children's education. After all, she wants a more Torah atmosphere.
Here she enters into a contradiction – I don't think she wants the diversity you are claiming in an exaggerated way, but rather a very specific diversity – a school for mustardists, a school for secular and traditionalists (possibly two) and a school for the boundaries of the sector she wants. That is, she is also willing to accept mothers who wear headscarves but not pants or vice versa, and might even be willing to compromise on a year or two of separation here and there.
That is, she did write that she wants diversity in her school, simply the diversity that she is willing to accept, and that the school be in her image more than it is now. Why in her image and why she assumes that everyone is like her, I don't know, and I agree with you that it supposedly entails opening more networks (2^2^1000, because everyone also has the networks that they are willing to compromise on) but in practice what she wants is diversity in her network, she simply has problematic assumptions
Thank you for the article, which is so true and necessary.
She doesn't know how to articulate well.
You're a verbal punctilious person, which is great when studying Rambam, not so good when trying to understand a person. I bet you shawarma and tap water that she definitely meant a man whose 70% of families observe Shabbat (do not knowingly desecrate it), eat kosher, and are satisfied with the rabbinate, and whose father wears tefillin. If 30% are traditionalists, and a minority are secularists, that's fine. (I brought a picture, a parable. As in the Mishnah, not a precise definition at all.)
I'm sure of it.
As a free rabbinical educator for over a decade, my students claim that I understand their thoughts and desires even without them speaking and articulating themselves well. Unfortunately, most of them are incapable of this. There are other ways to understand a person, even if they are really bad at verbalizing. .
I'm sorry, but this is not a verbal problem. There are enough of these kinds of things, so what's the complaint about?
I think this column is a bit clever – it is clear that she is referring to the religious education system on its spectrum, not on a discrete point.
If I were to guess, it is a spectrum of Sabbath observance, kosher, prayers, tefillin…
Less scholarship, less modesty grammar and less hatred for the ’elites’/’small’/lethav and other demons that serve to frighten the average mustard child.
One might wonder what the meaning of a religious education system is that does not scruple about every mitzvah, but if we look for an education system in which all the mitzvahs are scrupulously observed, we will have to settle for homeschooling.
Does everyone scruple about defamation laws?
Slander?
In my circle, I have noticed that the higher a person goes on the mustard spectrum, the higher the amount of political slander and lies (all of which are, of course, for a good cause).
You shall not hate your brother in your heart does not exist (or the concept of your brother is defined in a distorted way).
In the Haredi circle in the family, I see people who take pride in tax evasion and finding crooked ways to obtain public funds.
The father's duty to teach his son a trade does not exist, and of course all Haredim are lazy as soon as they come to the issue of earning a living from Torah study …
In short, the spectrum that the lady is asking for is not substantially different from any other spectrum – it is not exhaustive, but it is clear to those who live within it
And how does all this relate to my statement? Almost every commenter here repeats the same claim, and they all have the same reading comprehension error. Instead of sending you to a homework entity (formulate exactly her claim, and what counterclaim she attacks) I'll move straight on: ask yourself whether she's calling for more diversity or less diversity. That's all.
She clearly has her own diversity, just like 2 to the power of 1000 other variations. That's exactly what I wrote. So why does it smell like a question mark (as if it's an argument against what I said) at the end of your statement?
Meanwhile, the talkbacks clearly prove the need for reading comprehension exercises. But they also prove that the exercise fails. People are simply not willing to try to understand what is read even in the exercise itself
This puts us in a loop that is a little too big for me.
Hahaha don't worry it's just that those who agree don't bother sending a message
I haven't read the responses, but I understand from her words (and especially her reference to the diversity of the dimensions) that when she says secular and traditional, she is not referring to their actual actions (the child can pray in the dimensions), but to the way they perceive the world and Judaism. The question is not whether you observe everything, this will be a group without any students for sure, the question is how they perceive religion, do they believe in God and do they see the halacha as binding. Secularists certainly don't, traditionalists are a slightly more diverse group, but certainly not everyone believes in God and sees the halacha as binding. And if that's the point, then it's clear why the diversity in which there is a group (large or small, it's already a matter of environment, in Ashdod it's perhaps more common in the dimensions) of children from infidel homes would be a problem for her.
I definitely agree (at least partially, I suppose that the actual existence is also important). But all my words still stand. Does she perceive the halakha as obligatory? So why doesn't she cover her head? It doesn't seem like it's just her failure (which does happen to everyone). It's an ideology that they don't make a big deal about, because she's no longer in the ulpana. So why is it different from someone who is used to watching television on Shabbat? To my amazement, I found out when I got to Yeruham that there were quite a few religious families who watched television on Shabbat. It was as normative for them as not covering her head. It turns out that it's just a question of environment and norms. By the way, in my opinion, television on Shabbat is a more halakhically complicated issue than covering her head.
If there aren't many people like her in Ashdod, then what does she want? She should move somewhere else. In general, M&D looks exactly as reflected in her words, and therefore everything should be perfectly fine from her perspective.
The focus of the discussion is not on asking my opinion on her position. I wrote that it is legitimate (or semi-legitimate). The question is in the reader's understanding, whether her goal in the article is to increase diversity or to reduce it. On initial reading, it seems to increase, and on second reading, it appears to reduce. After realizing that it is actually more about reducing than expanding, I also criticize her demand, simply because it is unrealistic.
My reading comprehension of the text is that diversity is a field with boundaries, when you cross them it is no longer a shade (in her case, as mentioned, it is about traditional and secular), but a different color. Who decides on the boundaries? The majority. The overwhelming majority will agree with the boundary I wrote (which I understood from her post). Regarding “…So why doesn't she cover her head? It doesn't seem like it's just her failure (which does happen to everyone). It's an ideology that doesn't make a big deal out of it, because it's no longer in the Ulpana”
Here I think you've failed in your reading comprehension. Notice that she doesn't bring up a single act as a partial definition of secular or traditional. She writes “…And for those who are looking for a religious environment, that even the afternoon hours of playing with friends will be in a religious atmosphere” What is a religious atmosphere? Is it a TV off on Shabbat? It's a set of things, headed by the understanding that there is a binding framework and that God demands it. Not necessarily looking at a person's tits, but understanding that the fear of God exists. And if it does exist, then come join in and further diversify the range of shades that exist in the religious education framework that her daughter was supposed to study in, even if you don't listen to women's singing.
Well, I disagree. She didn't go into definitions almost at all, so the lack of definitions doesn't prove anything. The definition you propose is empty, or just arbitrary, and in any case very narrow: religious is someone like me.
The diversity she offers here is not greater in any sense than the diversity that exists in a regular Haredi institution. Even there, they are willing to accept those who focus on the faith of our time, part one, part two, or part ten. Green or yellow kippah. Two-hour Torah studies a day or ten hours a day. Accountants or yeshiva graduates. I don't see any fundamental difference. The composition of the MMD is unacceptable to her, even though there is a religious-traditional diversity there (with a small secular minority).
And by the way, she does make distinctions, such as the age of separation in school. Not too early and not too late (precisely in elementary school, not before or after). The M&M school completely meets your description, and she rejects it.
In short, it seems that she came to speak in praise of increasing diversity (we tend to integrate) while her argument is in favor of reducing it (compared to M&M). And by the way, Michael Biton is a traditionalist, so if she wants to integrate with him, why does she exclude traditionalists from the proper integration?
Ambiguity does not solve anything, it only obscures it. My words in the column were intended to dispel this ambiguity, and I think I dispelled it correctly.
Okay, last first
A. I don't know Michael Biton, and it's not clear to me if he was cited as an example of a traditionalist who does fit the definition I gave, maybe she meant him specifically because of the acquaintances, maybe not (maybe she's in the Marxist religion at all, and then he's completely there?).
B. Regarding the claim that M”M”D meets my description, I'm not at all sure that's the case in Ashdod (and saying “then you move somewhere else” is not a serious suggestion. It's possible to stay in a certain place for certain reasons, and complain about other difficulties related to the decision).
C. I disagree with the claim that Haredi education meets the same diversity criteria.
In Haredi education, they will certainly emphasize aspects (very specific and limited) in the halakhic actions of the students (and perhaps their parents).
She tries to detach the religious definition from one act or another (head covering/pants or women singing and studying in seclusion) and let the person who decided that everything is obligatory, be under the educational framework. It may seem abstract, but I think in a blind cross-examination questionnaire among many religious people, you will get fairly close answers about actions that do or do not fall under the definition of religious.
D. I read the rest of the column, and I saw that you are attaching the motives to some of the responses in an attempt to be kind to her. So I once heard an acquaintance say that ”at the end of the day, most of those people that Rabbi Yitzhak of Berdichev scolded about, are sitting together in hell”
We have found out. The voter will choose.
I accept everything you wrote in the column regarding her words. There is no doubt that the root of the problem is consciously and publicly giving up certain laws and also calling oneself (in self-justification) “ordinary religious”.
But does this justify demanding that this huge portion of the population living in Zion today bear sole responsibility for the many secular families who seek religious education for their various reasons?
If it were up to you, what would you do? How would you define religious education? How would you determine the criteria?
On the 24th of Tevet, I saw the list of elementary schools in Ashdod. There are 9 ‘state-religious’, 3 ‘Torah’, and one ‘special-traditional’. So it seems that Mrs. Ben-Hamo will find the one that suits her
However, it is worth noting that in education it is appropriate to strive for excellence, in knowledge, thinking and good qualities, and that is how ‘ordinary people’ can emerge
With the blessing of ‘Targilinu Torahtach’, Hanoch Hanach Feinschmecker-Palti
And the question is about the author's intention:
"Diversity" in the language of liberals is a concept of "a man shall live by his faith", in which each person chooses where he stands on the continuum of affinity with tradition, while recognizing the legitimacy of different paths.
Basically, according to this concept, anyone who holds to the view that there is a binding halakhic norm, and especially when the determiner is a rabbi, is advocating a non-pluralistic framework. Although there are many shades among those who view halakhic law as a binding framework, they are all non-pluralistic.
Best regards, Hafs
And there is advice to season mustard: to put an egg in a mustard strainer, which only serves to season it (Shabbat 14:1). Perhaps it would also be beneficial for the Jews to throw eggs on the mustards that are being strained.
This advice is also good for the mustards that serve as the heads of the mustards and their advisors, over whom we pray: ‘And let us prepare a good egg before you’…
With blessings, Yeshua HaLevi Zwiblinger-Dizvensky
The mistake is yours. She is not arguing against diversity, she has no problem with her children studying with mustard or with people who are less religious than her, she wants them to study in a religious school that has religious families but at the same time diversity within the religious world.
The definition of religious I assume she means definitions that have a broad consensus - like keeping the Sabbath, like a personal definition as ’religious’.
zxz