A Look at Haredi Ideology (Column 533)

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 the previous column I discussed the new coalition and, among other things, argued that it is not as right-wing and national as it portrays itself. Thus, for example, I argued that it is hard to treat the Haredi components as national components (though in Column 500 I noted that this doesn’t have many practical ramifications today). To illustrate this, I pointed there to an article by Eliyahu Levy, titled “Why Did You Sit Among the Sheepfolds,” in the online journal ‘Tzrich Iyun’ (“Needs Examination”), which addresses Haredi ideology’s attitude toward participation in government and the responsibility that entails, in light of an editorial in Yated Ne’eman.

A few days ago someone sent me that article on WhatsApp and asked for a column addressing it. I replied that the views discussed there are so outlandish, unfounded, and childish that it seems a bit superfluous and even insulting to parse and debate them as Levy does. But on second thought, I realized it is still worthwhile to address this, if only because on the ideological plane there are quite a few people who truly believe this nonsense—among them intelligent people and Torah scholars (that’s what fixations can do to people). Moreover, there is seemingly a practical implication here of the ideological difference between Religious-Zionism and Haredi-ism (non-Zionist or anti-Zionist). Therefore I decided to devote a column to look at these matters a bit more deeply. In the last part of the column I simply quote a considerable portion of Levy’s article, since he formulates the points excellently.

The article in ‘Yated Ne’eman’

The discussion revolves around the editorial in Yated Ne’eman, the house organ of the Degel HaTorah party, from Friday, the 29th of Kislev of that year. For your convenience, I scanned the article here:

Granted, we are dealing with a Haredi-Lithuanian propaganda pamphlet that, naturally, is replete with slogans and grandiose proclamations that do not really reflect reality; hence it is not very reasonable to parse them and look for well-defined meanings. Still, I think it certainly reflects Haredi ideological discourse (regarding practice, see below).

The editorial staff argues that the question of whether their party is right or left is based on a misunderstanding. Such a question is relevant only for someone driven by one ideology or another, and who is a citizen of the State of Israel and subject to its authorities (the Knesset, the courts, and the government). But the Haredim are citizens of the Land of Israel, and their sovereign is the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself (no less). They act solely according to the “Da’at Torah” of our great rabbis, the shepherds of the Haredi flock (that is, the “Urim and Thummim,” no less).

It turns out that those Urim and Thummim long ago instructed them not to take ministerial positions, because by law the government’s responsibility for its decisions and actions is collective. Since government decisions are made not according to the Shulchan Aruch but according to politics (Heaven forfend), and therefore include actions that do not align with Halacha, it is impossible for a Haredi representative to serve as a minister and be responsible for those decisions and actions. In addition, at times the government must decide on going to war and on matters of life and death, which depend on subtle, delicate, and fateful considerations; therefore there is an additional, special prohibition for a Haredi minister to enter the political-security cabinet that makes such decisions.

Naturally they do not spare us colorful descriptions of how decisions are made by our military and political establishment, claiming they are driven mainly by considerations of honor and prestige—something that prevents G-d-fearing Haredim from sharing responsibility for them. It is hard to deny that, unfortunately, at times authorities make decisions based on extraneous considerations, but that happens in every human society. In a democracy there is at least an attempt to grapple with this, to expose and criticize it, and at times even address it. By contrast, the Haredim try to create a false impression that their decisions are made differently. They can do so thanks to their renowned insistence on freedom of information and expression and on denying all the ills of Haredi society while persecuting anyone who dares point them out. As we all know, the municipalities of Bnei Brak, Modi’in Illit, or Beitar Illit—not to mention the Haredi parties—are run in perfect purity of outlook; you won’t find, even under a microscope, considerations of prestige and honor, or interests and money. Anything you hear to the contrary is merely antisemitic propaganda by secular leftist antisemites (actually, if you listen to them internally as well, then not only leftists—rather all secular people). The fact that MKs go to prison, lie, act against fundamental values—all of that is secular nonsense. “Among our own” such things do not exist. In the Haredi world it’s all pure Torah and nothing else, conducted by ministering angels. Straight from Sinai to the Bnei Brak municipality and to the battles of the Mitla Pass. Well, as for their exemplary management of wars, it’s a bit hard for me to judge for obvious reasons (though their political wars, which are plentiful, are not bad examples of their purely “Torah-true” conduct). Fine—let me not wade further into this propaganda garbage and instead touch on what there passes for arguments.

In any case, the conclusion there is that the only roles permitted to them by the sages and shepherds of the flock are positions that allow them “to snatch from the lion and the bear,” or, in plain Hebrew: to look after their narrow sectarian interests at the public’s expense, and let everything else burn (I’ve written about this ideology in Column 507 and elsewhere). Haredi ideology—at least in the internal discourse, which they don’t even bother to hide (in outward discourse you won’t find even one true word)—is essentially to take as much of everyone’s money as they can with no responsibility for anything else. That way they can point to the faults of those who actually do something, distance themselves from their corruption, and continue exploiting them shamelessly. The shamelessness does not only accompany their actions; it turns out they even write this in black and white in the paper with not a gram of shame and without blinking. In fact, you can sense the wondrous pride in their “pure” conduct. Well, to their credit it must be said they have never run a war corruptly. Unbelievable.

A bit of history

It has always been the norm that Haredim do not participate in the government. They only siphon funds, look after their interests, and bear no responsibility for anything—per the guidance of the shepherds of the flock, the Urim and Thummim. But in 2015 something happened in Israel. Litzman wanted, as usual, to have his cake and eat it too. He decided to serve as Deputy Health Minister with no minister above him. Thus one can not only siphon resources from the public but also take part in the executive branch with no responsibility whatsoever. Admit it—this is a truly ingenious invention, and in my estimation, without shepherds of the flock and Urim and Thummim, no one would have come up with this brilliant trick.

Except that our Urim and Thummim failed to notice that behind the Basic Law: The Government, which imposes responsibility on those who run things here, there is some rationale. Their “lamdanut” (casuistry) disappointed this time. The rationale is simple, and I’m sure the “eyes of the congregation” could see it from miles away: you cannot receive authority without responsibility. Responsibility is imposed on the government because granting authority without responsibility is a tried-and-true prescription for Haredi-style conduct, i.e., acting based on interests without being accountable to the public. It is no wonder that this of course contradicts the basic principles of our system of government (I don’t know whether they leaned there on the reasonableness doctrine or directly on the Basic Law: The Government, but for me it’s the same). So the antisemitic High Court, purely out of persecution of Haredim of course, announced to the whole world that such a thing is impossible (don’t worry, the reasonableness doctrine will soon be abolished—shortly after reasonableness itself). No wonder the Haredim rose up against this antisemitism. Those leftists on the Court are interfering with their ability to rob us illegally and without bearing responsibility for their actions. Tfu.

What happened after the Court’s decision? You’ll surely be surprised, but it turns out that part of the “eyes of the congregation” decided that there is no choice: if they cannot rob us without responsibility, then they will rob us with responsibility. And presto, as if by magic, a special dispensation was found for Litzman to serve as a minister (don’t worry—the reasonableness doctrine will soon be abolished and all will be well). But it turns out that this dispensation is acceptable only to one “eye” of the congregation. The other “eye” of the congregation—that is, the Lithuanian leadership—did not accept the evil decree and did not permit its representatives to serve as ministers. Well, that’s what the Finance Committee and other positions are for, and of course various agreements with the criminals (the secular, the religious, the Hasidim, and the Mizrahim) who do serve. Not to worry.

And so to our days. We are left only to ponder their current takeover of positions of power, and their systematic siphoning of state resources with no accountability and no concern for anyone else—done openly and brazenly. Now even the Hasidim are unwilling to enter the government and the cabinet; something has changed among the “eyes of the congregation,” apparently, and they have decided to return to the good old method of robbery without responsibility. It is strange to me how, despite this, there are still broad segments of the public who are angry and unwilling to make peace with the “election results” and accept the will of the majority. Truly inconsiderate of them.

The meaning of all this

We must understand that Yated Ne’eman, exactly like Pravda or Al-Ahram, is not a newspaper in any relevant sense. It is a house organ, because it does not present the personal positions of any given individual, it is not obligated to journalistic ethics—not even as a fig leaf—and of course truth is the last thing that interests it. It is a propaganda mouthpiece of Haredi ideology. To be sure, anyone with a runny nose who is familiar with the inner workings of Haredi society knows that the pretense as if their “Gedolei HaDor” set the principles and the organ merely disseminates them is a lie—one of the many among them. This shoddy house organ has a significant part in shaping the ideology, and it even wages fierce battles against any “Gadol” who deviates from it (see R. Aharon Leib Shteinman, a bit before he was appointed “Gadol HaDor” and toed the line). To a large extent, the house organ is the one that appoints the “Gedolim.” Thus there is a wonderful symbiosis between its function in producing the ideology and the false impression it tries to create as if it is merely the mouthpiece of those who determine it—“It wasn’t me, it was him.” And if you ask the “luminaries” for their opinion on this corrupt and depraved ideology—well, first of all you won’t succeed because they don’t give interviews. And even if you do succeed, they will explain that they personally are not really in favor, but not everything is in their hands.

In any event, from this you can understand that precisely when this house organ publishes an editorial dealing with the foundations of Haredi ideology, it indeed reflects—and actually shapes—the public’s ideological conception, rather than the position of one person or group. There, usually, there are no lies (the lies are when speaking to outsiders, not internally). That is also how the pamphlet above should be read.

That’s regarding ideology. To the credit of our Haredi cousins it should be said that, as I described in Column 507, in practice it does not actually operate entirely this way, for several reasons. After all there is reality, and one must take it into account. Sometimes they even feel a twinge of conscience and realize that they cannot actually function that way. So they make do with grandiose ideological declarations about being citizens of the Land rather than of the State, with the Holy One—via the shepherds of the flock, not an angel—constituting the three branches of government; while in practice the conduct is somewhat different. What can cause confusion is the mistaken feeling that Haredi-ism is an ideological movement. I have written more than once that Haredi-ism of course has an ideology, but it is a very non-ideological movement. Unlike the Hardalim (national-Haredim), they are very pragmatic and possess an almost endless readiness to live with dissonance. They can proclaim something with devout fervor and act in practice in a wholly different manner, and there is indeed room to interpret that to their credit (pragmatism is a sound approach to life) and also to their discredit (lying and conservative ossification are somewhat less recommended)—“these and those are the words of the living God.” When someone nevertheless points out some contradiction, there is no need to be alarmed. It is simply a product of the vastness of the minds of the “torch-bearers of the exile” and the shepherds of the flock—and as is known, Urim and Thummim are not subject to the government of logic and are not expected to be consistent or reasoned, nor moral, and certainly not accountable to anyone. How convenient.

And still, although in practice they are not entirely a gang of bandits (only partially), I nevertheless find it very disturbing to hear that this is their declared ideology. To hold, without shame and openly, an ideology of a gang of bandits—even if not implemented fully—is an expression of ethical and human baseness. Where this ideology is indeed implemented (as in these very days, when you can practically feel it with your fingers), it is certainly disturbing. And what is most bizarre and troubling to me is that we have all gotten used to including these anti-Zionist, anti-national, and anti-ethical groups within what is currently called “the national camp.” If these parties are “national,” I don’t know what a “non-national” stance is. It seems to me that even Ahmad Tibi is more committed to the good of the state than they are. As for Mansour Abbas, I have no doubt of it.

Critique

What exactly is the problem with this ideology? Beyond the bandits’ morality and shamelessness I already noted, there is also rather infantile thinking here. There are wars being fought here, and they threaten the Haredim as well (even though R. Chaim Kanievsky promised that no harm will befall any Haredi), and in them people fall for all of us. So who exactly is supposed to run them? As Eliyahu Levy notes, the question is not whether the secular can run wars, but why shouldn’t the Haredim run them—and can they? He cites there a question by Rabbi Goldvicht posed to the Haredi leadership of the time (early 1950s), and in response a dispute arose between the Brisker Rav (the Griz), who claimed that we have neither the authority nor the ability to conduct wars even if the Haredim would control the state (may God protect us), and the Chazon Ish, who claimed that when we are given authority we will discover the abilities as well. I’m not at all sure that these statements were indeed said as quoted, since I esteem these two figures too much to believe they said that. This seems to me downright slander against them—especially regarding the Griz’s words. Perhaps he uttered it as a witticism or sharp remark, but in the Haredi public one must be careful, for every such witticism becomes “Da’at Torah” and turns into an ideological principle that is cited with reverence and blind devotion to this very day and forever (though, as noted, its implementation is more flexible).

What is the problem with such statements? If you have criticism of the way the war is being conducted (especially when this comes from expertise and rich experience in the field, accumulated through yeshiva casuistry throughout history), why don’t you do something to improve it? Please tell us how, in your opinion, it ought to be conducted. Is the proper way to send others to die—or even yourself to die—because of improper decisions made by the authorities? Where did the vaunted “snatching from the lion and the bear” disappear to? A small child faced with a threat may sometimes bury his head in the sand and declare that there are no wars and there is no need to deal with them, neither to participate nor to manage them. As if, by hiding, the war will vanish. But from someone older than five—certainly if he is a shepherd of the flock, a “light of the congregation,” “Urim and Thummim,” and other modest and realistic epithets of this sort—I would expect a slightly more mature approach. It turns out that I’m apparently unrealistic—apparently because there is no word about this in the Ketzot.

It seems that, according to their view, if someone comes at you pointing a rifle, you will say you have no authority to defend yourself and will accept the decree submissively. What is this nonsense? It recalls the dilemma of “until it is subdued” regarding waging war on Shabbat. Does defense and saving our lives require special authority and expertise? You do what you can. Moreover, does anyone seriously think that in the past Jews had higher abilities in conducting (modern) wars? Is there a “decline of the generations” in strategy as well? Or perhaps someone thinks we should conduct war based on midrashic hermeneutics, and that skill has been lost to us—so we are orphans with no father?

I marvel at how anyone older than two is willing to buy the bundle of nonsense about being citizens of the Land of Israel but not of the State of Israel, and about our being under the sovereignty of the Holy One and not of the governmental authorities (which, by the way, are now under their control—sometimes it seems that includes the Holy One as well). Are you sure this isn’t a leaflet from Tzili’s kindergarten but words uttered or written by an adult? Can anyone imagine that these are the words of the living God delivered to us straight from on high? If so, then it is time the Holy One grew up already. A bunch of people, some with high intelligence, who spend most of their days on scholarly analysis of complex sugyot, spout childish nonsense that would insult little Rivki in Tzili’s kindergarten, call it “Da’at Torah,” view it as a coherent and systematic ideological doctrine, believe that even the Holy One Himself believes in this childish and malicious drivel—and the public follows them like the blind in a chimney. I have written more than once about the phenomenon of excellent scholars who can deliver a highly impressive “general lecture” and, at the same time, speak childish nonsense and issue shocking moral directives in other domains (see, for example, my remarks on the constructive role of “balabatim” in Column 62). It is not only the content that is inconceivable here, but no less the reverence it receives.

To conclude, I will bring verbatim the final part of Eliyahu Levy’s article:

It is hard to level claims against the ‘Yated Ne’eman’ editorial board. The situation is indeed very confusing. The outlook in which we were raised was shaped and formulated under conditions entirely different from today’s. The debates between the Chazon Ish and the Brisker Rav took place at a time when even the wildest imagination did not conceive that the Haredim would be a majority here. Rabbi Goldvicht’s question was indeed a kind of “halacha for the messianic era.” The current state of affairs, in which Haredim are being offered to join the political-security cabinet, catches us unprepared.

We know very well how to conduct ourselves when we are persecuted. We are superbly trained for emergencies. Even before the siren begins to sound, we are already marching in column toward the shelters. And from there, from the shelter, from behind the trenches, we know how to make excellent use of our elaborate defensive arrays, which we cultivated over many generations. The present situation—where not only are we not persecuted, but the power is in our hands—is truly dreamlike. We were like dreamers. We wander about like somnambulists, unsure whether this is a trick meant to trip us up or a real promise. And above all, we do not know what to do with this new power.

Therefore we go back to the old and try to cling to the familiar. We reopen the Chazon Ish, but the Chazon Ish’s words do not fit the situation. So we close the Chazon Ish and turn to the Brisker Rav. Well, the Griz’s words do not quite fit either. So we try to mix the Chazon Ish with the Brisker Rav, and what comes out is “Lot’s shepherds.” And “Please separate from me”…

Is this serious? Is it what those great leaders intended—to make us “Lot’s shepherds”? What sort of negligence is this? In that same column it was written that questions “on which human life depends, life-and-death questions” are questions that cannot be decided offhand; rather, great Torah scholars must address them and issue judgment according to Halacha. Are we not now in precisely such a situation, where life-and-death questions lie at our doorstep? The time to answer this question is now.

‘Yated Ne’eman’ evades, in a not-very-elegant fashion, the question of what we will do on the day we become a majority. It prefers to blame “the heads of the anti-religious regime” instead of admitting that it has no answer to that question. Who are those “heads of the anti-religious regime” by whose hand ‘Yated Ne’eman’ exempts itself from responsibility? Are the Likud members “anti-religious”? The members of the Religious-Zionist party? Or is it referring specifically to the members of Shas? The great enemies of religion, Meretz, did not pass the threshold, and the rest of the anti-religious camp is licking its wounds in the opposition. Which “anti-religious” people exactly is it talking about?

There is no escaping the admission that ‘Yated Ne’eman’ recycles old arguments to avoid responsibility. It refuses to look reality in the eye and deal with the hard questions: What is our principled stance on security? What is our principled stance on the economy? What is our principled stance on domestic affairs? These are life-and-death questions, and our decisions on them have weighty consequences. We are making decisions on these matters. We do not enlist in the army—this is a decision on security. We do not direct our children to employment—this is a decision on the economy. We take budgets from the state as though they were “a lion and a bear”—this is a decision on domestic affairs. These are difficult choices, and it is hard to say they are a choice of life. We roll our eyes in self-righteousness and hang on the words of great leaders that were said in a wholly different context; we pretend that we are in the same situation as in the days of the Chazon Ish and the Brisker Rav, and deny the fact that, willy-nilly, we are making life-and-death decisions—not according to Da’at Torah.

But even if ‘Yated Ne’eman’ continues to ignore reality, reality will not ignore it. The idea of “please separate from me” is impossible. The idea of “Lot’s shepherds” is not viable either. ‘Yated Ne’eman’ seeks to rescue “from the sea’s spillage and the river’s puddle,” and that is indeed a wonderful image, because according to the conduct it recommends, the public coffers will indeed become a whirling vortex that quickly swallows anything entering it. If we continue to behave as ‘Yated Ne’eman’ recommends, we will discover very quickly that nothing remains in the lion’s and the bear’s den. They will have departed and gone, and we will be left with the coffers entirely—only, sadly, there will be nothing left to rescue from them.

Who will fill the coffers when there are no more lion and bear? ‘Yated Ne’eman’ refuses to answer. Who will defend the state when there are no more lion and bear? ‘Yated Ne’eman’ refuses to answer.

No, ‘Yated Ne’eman’, the question is not “Why do you show yourselves?” The question we must ask ourselves now is, “How long will you keep hopping between two opinions?” We cannot simultaneously hold both the Brisker Rav’s position and the Chazon Ish’s position. If we are loyal to the Chazon Ish’s path, we must begin to bear responsibility. If we are loyal to the Brisker Rav’s path, we must stop taking state budgets. You cannot have it both ways.

Levy is careful to preserve the honor of the Chazon Ish and the Brisker Rav, and directs his protest only at Yated Ne’eman, which continues to cite them and write as if their words are applicable to this day. For my part, I cannot believe that this is what they said even then. These were two extraordinary Torah figures and, of course, very wise men, and therefore I am very doubtful that they truly said what is quoted in their names (the words brought in the name of the Chazon Ish somehow seem a bit closer to plausible, but the words brought in the name of the Griz are sheer drivel). In any case, the content itself—and those who treat it seriously—have certainly earned this criticism.