The Rise and Fall of Bennett and Their Meanings (Column 486)


This morning (Friday) I read the Torah by Rabbi Daniel Sagron (I think he used to flirt and be very angry with me in the atonement) at the expense of the soul that the national-religious society is supposed to do after Bennett's fall and the disintegration of a right-wing party. In essence, his argument is that the root of the problem is the hyphen between the religious and the national. He explains that (religious) nationalism has no chance unless it relies on religiosity (rather than just being tied to it in a hyphen), in the way of Rabbi Kook. I thought this was an interesting argument, and it gives me an opportunity to discuss this important issue.

Already here I must make it clear that the use I make of the hyphen is the opposite of its own. To me the hyphen reflects a substantial connection between the two sides, exactly what Daniel Sagron preaches to him. I argue that the hyphen should be abolished precisely because it is important to abolish the dependence between Zionism (and other values) and religiosity. The difference in terminology of course is not important, but the argument that lies behind it, and about that in this column.

Between religious-national and Orthodox-modern

In the series of columns on modern Orthodoxy (475 - 480, Skipping 479. And now this column joins as well) I tried to define this concept, and to distinguish it from religious-national or Zionist-religious (for me here these are synonymous expressions, and should be “synonymous” in other senses as well). I argued there that under the heading 'Haredi' there are two independent claims: 1. Opposition to Zionism. 2. Opposition to modernity. In any case, a distinction must be made between two groups within non-Haredi religiosity: 1. Those who advocate Zionism (what is it anyway?) But do not necessarily adopt modernity. The core of this group is the mustard, or what is called in the national-religious quarantine. These advocate religious and halakhic conservatism, but advocate Zionism. 2. Those who advocate modernity but not necessarily Zionism. I called these modern Orthodoxy (which of course can be Zionist, and it usually is).

I defined modern Orthodoxy there through a characterization of the halakhic arguments they raise (a conservative midrash based on values, and not just factual). I explained that the basis of her conception is the attitude towards modernity and the values ​​of modernity. They are willing to incorporate in their halakhic and religious conception values ​​that come from outside without apologizing and without presenting lame words that explain to us that these values ​​come from (like democracy, following the majority, equality, human rights, etc.) in the Torah. It seems that even in relation to these groups it is possible to distinguish between modern-Orthodox with a dash, for which modernity has a religious value, and modern orthodoxy without a dash, which combines the two systems but does not see modernity as a religious value.

It is important for me to make it clear that in my view there is no place for holding any values ​​that do not originate in God's will. This is not philosophically valid (see column 456) And it is also illegitimate halakhically and theologically (it is a kind of foreign work in collaboration). And yet in the modern Orthodox the origin of these values ​​is not in Torah sources (the Bible or Sages) but in the conscience of the person who is of course influenced by the pattern of the landscape of his homeland. He assumes that it is God's will from him, but does not draw it from sources given to us from above. Therefore there is always some dash in the background, but it connects to the will of God and not to the Torah or religiosity in the particular sense. Anyone who holds any values ​​is necessarily religious. While this is a universal religiosity that believes in a philosophical God and not necessarily theism in its fullest sense.[1] So for me there is no hyphen here. I am committed to the commandments by virtue of what is written in the Torah and committed to the will of God because that seems to me to be what he wants. There is no direct connection between the two, and this is the missing hyphen.

The contemporary watershed in religious society

I stood there briefly (and elsewhere in more detail) also about the political distortion that exists in religious society, which has been divided for about a century between religious Zionists and ultra-Orthodox. The religious society sees the political watershed around the Zionist axis, as if the state had not been established 75 years ago, and as if a discussion is taking place as to whether to establish it and whether to cooperate with it. This debate is hot and feverish to this day as if we are at the beginning of the process, and it is he who distinguishes between the various political parties that represent the religious public. Note that in fact there is no difference in relation to the state between the two. At most, this is a different sentiment. But for some reason this seems to everyone to be the relevant watershed around which the debate in the religious public is supposed to be abandoned, and around which the various religious identities are supposed to be formed.

But the real watershed that actually crosses religious society today is actually the second line: modernity. The real debate is not between Zionists and anti-Zionists but between modern and anti-modern, or between liberal and open to non-Zionists. But for some reason in Israel the idea of ​​modern Orthodoxy fails to be absorbed, which is why we are repeatedly thrown into a discussion about national-religiosity or religious-Zionism versus ultra-Orthodox. This happens again and again in the elections for the Chief Rabbinate (see my remarks on this HERE), That even in relation to them there is great embarrassment and fog. People talk as if the struggle is whether there will be a Zionist or ultra-Orthodox chief rabbi, while the struggle should be whether there will be a modern or anti-modern name. An open and liberal rabbi or a conservative rabbi. It is important to understand that this axis is not really parallel to the Zionist axis. On the contrary, most of the Zionist-religious rabbis who are candidates for the office of chief rabbi are ultra-Orthodox conservatives for everything (except for one blessing and a few psalms on one day a year). Their attitude towards women and personal status, and in theory in general, is very similar to the attitude of the ultra-Orthodox rabbis. To my impression, it is precisely among the ultra-Orthodox rabbis and dayanim that you will find a more liberal attitude, but this requires examination. Moreover, the ultra-Orthodox candidates for the office of chief rabbi (probably those currently serving, rabbis David Lau and Yitzhak Yosef) act in relation to the sale permit much like a religious Zionist rabbi and both even say praise on Independence Day (I think not only during their tenure as chief rabbis). So what's wrong with them being chosen? Why did the mourners mourn after the election results became known? Because they have a fairly conservative attitude to halakhah, but in this context they are very similar to most of the other candidates, including the religious Zionists. The struggle there was not between ultra-Orthodox and Zionists but between conservatives and liberals. Needless to say, the Conservatives won, as always with us.

The same is true of politics. The name of the ideological clash also takes place around the Zionist axis, when in fact the more important and significant axis is the modern axis. Think for a moment, what is the difference between the ultra-Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox? To the best of my judgment you will not find such a difference even in an electron microscope (except for the color of the dome and one such blessing). So why do they have different parties? How is Smutritz's Religious Zionist Party different from the ultra-Orthodox parties? On what issue do they vote differently? There may be something small like that, but I would not go for it in a world war. No wonder they also always go together politically (and for some reason are called 'right'. The Likud talks about a Zionist coalition and anti-Zionist elements in the coalition, with its coalition based on elements that define themselves as non-Zionist. Of course, an empty definition). Even with regard to budget targeting, recruitment, conversion, the Chief Rabbinate and the decentralization of its powers, their positions are very similar. So why are there two different parties here? Just inertia, and of course interests of power and status. Both sides have an interest in perpetuating this distortion, because on it both are built. Without it they have no existence.

My contention is that for many years there has been no political representation of modern Orthodoxy in Israel. Although this perception also on its own does not take root here, but in my opinion it is only a matter of identity. There are many people who hold to it, but there is no orderly leadership and religious doctrine that gives it legitimacy and therefore they themselves do not identify themselves as such. It is intuitively clear to them that the Zionist-religious model is their model, even if they do not identify with it in every Ramach and Shasa. When you ask such a person what his religious identity is, he will answer that he is religious-national and not that he is religious-modern. This is how a collection of completely ultra-Orthodox rabbis was formed, such as Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, Rabbi Druckman and Rabbis Tao, Lior and Melamed, "elders of the rabbis of religious Zionism" and leaders of the religious Zionist public, which also includes modern Orthodoxy. Really hocus pocus, which is all about conceptual confusion. A collection of ultra-Orthodox rabbis who, for the most part the general public (except for a small minority) do not believe in their way or in them and of course also practically do not follow their path, are repeatedly crowned as the words of the national-religious and modern public. It always reminds me of the "dignitaries" of an Arab village or Moroccan development town. In Tel Aviv there are no 'dignitaries' but the public and its elected representatives, but in religious and traditional society and certainly in Arab society there are 'dignitaries'. The uniqueness of those that they should not be elected. They have a privileged status from heaven, and everyone should recognize them as such. It is the result of a conceptual assimilation, and therefore also a sociological assimilation, of modern Orthodoxy within and under the heading of national-religious. Attempts to get out of there, such as the Dimension movement, or Torah and Labor loyalists, have repeatedly failed politically and socially. As stated, in my opinion it is not because there is no such public but because there is no such identity.

The ultra-Orthodox Zionist-religious propaganda succeeded in assimilating to the public the false and erroneous assumption that the religious world is divided between religious Zionists and the ultra-Orthodox. All the rest are lite (i.e. not really religious, and certainly do not constitute a third model). Thus there is no room left for the orthodox-modern niche, of more open and liberal religiosity, but not lite. One that believes in an alternative religious model to these two. There is currently no political and social expression for the third path between religious Zionism and the ultra-Orthodox, and this is their great success and a colossal failure of us all. This failure stems from conceptual ambiguity and walking after the bad habits and education we have received. Hence my deep conviction in the importance of a conceptual and intellectual analysis of these phenomena, for without it they have no existence. Many people hold these positions, but as long as they do not define them and put them on the map and give them religious legitimacy, they will have no political and social expression, and they will not be able to influence and change.

Back to Bennett

I think the secret of Naftali Bennett's success in recent years has been that he has managed to be an expression of modern religious sentiment. He himself may be worthy of the nickname Lite (I do not know him, but that is my impression), nor is he a great scholar of Halacha and Judaism, and therefore neither has he attained and defined for himself the concepts he promotes. This is also the reason why the ultra-Orthodox rabbis of the Zionist-religious public have (or have had) considerable influence over it. It is also the fruit of their education and embodies in it the feeling that they are the leadership and they are the ideal model, even if I myself (Bennett) is not really there. But it is clear in his discourse that at least subconsciously he is aiming for it, and this is coming to fruition with Bennett's creation and his liberation from the shackles of the religious Zionist party into the political space to the throne of the prime minister and his broad coalition.

I think that's the secret of his success. Many followed him because they realized that he represented, even if not consciously, a fairly broad position that has not had significant representation to this day. He connected more easily with secularists, which classical religious Zionism has been trying to do for years without success, because classical religious Zionism is led by the ultra-Orthodox. These can not create a real connection with secularists. How many people like Ayelet Shaked will be willing to vote against the recruitment of ultra-Orthodox and in favor of budgets for yeshivas and the continuation of ultra-Orthodox parasitism, just because some black wearers instruct them to do so?

A modern party that opposes ultra-Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox conservatism can more easily form coalitions with secularists who are interested in a stronger but non-ultra-Orthodox tradition and religious and religious identity (which usually goes with the political-political right as well). We also talked about a coalition with Arabs who are interested in reasonable coexistence with the State of Israel. These, together with the liberal left, pose a real threat to the Zionist-religious conception that sees the state as an embodiment of Judaism and Torah. God's chair in the world. It is therefore clear that anyone who does not allow the formation of such a coalition, even though it is a pragmatic Arab party (thunder, which the Likud was already willing to join) and that there is no possibility of a right-wing religious coalition without it, means that Smutrich and the Religious Zionist Party (which has a nice name. It really represents religious Zionism, as distinct from modern Orthodoxy). Such a coalition is not possible from a Zionist-religious point of view, but is certainly possible from a modern point of view (whose Zionism is not religious, and it does not see the State of Israel as a Jewish-halakhic-religious person). The problem is that Bennett does not know how to define all this for himself, so he himself is in a fog that drags him repeatedly into the realms of conventional discourse. He tries to justify himself in terms of conventional discourse and does not understand that he needs to produce another, alternative discourse.

The struggle against Bennett and what he stands for

It is no wonder that the struggle against Bennett and against what he represents has risen to insane levels at stages where he would have seemed to be able to form a public around him and get out of ultra-Orthodox rabbinical control into the political space. The ultra-Orthodox rabbis who lead religious Zionism and their spokesmen politicians have realized that the Bennett phenomenon may drop the ground under the greatest propaganda achievement in Judaism of the last two hundred years, and give expression to a very broad public that does not really stand behind them even though they repeatedly try to explain it. It is no wonder that they began to use the same propaganda and incitement against Bennett and his friends against modern Orthodoxy (neo-reforms, lite, leftists, anti-Israel, the new foundation and the European Union, handing over Israel to the left and the Arabs and Muslim Brotherhood), in order to bring it down by force From the map. They made every claim against him, from the threshing floor and from the winery, and presented him as the greatest traitor in human history, with all the mistakes he made made by others whom they themselves support (and in my opinion for much less good motives). All his nonsense was presented as a threat to Judaism and Zionism and the destruction of the state. holocaust.

The reason for this hysterical and wild attack is very simple. Bennett is the greatest threat to the ultra-Orthodox hegemony, and to the perpetuation of the Zionist axis as the watershed in religious society. In this sense, there is a common interest here for the ultra-Orthodox parties and religious Zionism, since both feed on this propaganda distortion and therefore also promote it together. If the public suddenly understands that most of them are not with these nor with these, what will happen to them ?! If the public realizes that they are being drawn to one of the two sides when in fact it belongs to the silent majority in the middle, those sides may disappear from the map, and surely lose their continuing control over the public. It is no wonder that hysterical and violent demonstrations, incessant harassment and threats, social exclusion (failure to raise Torah in the synagogue, failure to serve a glass of water, failure to invite the Prime Minister to the Rabbi's Center on Jerusalem Day) and other vegetables began. It was directed at any member of Bennett's party who dared to stay and express loyalty to him and his way, but first and foremost against Bennett himself. Invented claims against him from the source and from the winery, true and false. Make him the most greedy corrupt people who have been here, with of course in the background their old friend Netanyahu (who is really the great corrupt, but it really does not bother them). It was a propaganda machine from which Goebbels could learn a considerable chapter, run by the corrupt and lying Bibi with the cooperation of the ultra-Orthodox of course, and no less so of the ultra-Orthodox rabbis and activists who lead religious Zionism. In short, the ultra-Orthodox and Bibi against Bennett. The confused religious public, who for the most part do not belong to them did not understand this. He was misled into thinking that Bennett had strayed from the path and so he was betraying religious Zionism. This is of course true, because he has come up with another way, but this way is perfectly legitimate and worthy. Only the dark forces are not willing to let us acknowledge this. The thing in their minds.

There were politicians who endured this incitement, but there were also those who broke down. I was very angry with Idit Silman and other scoundrels like her, even though she was presented by Smutritz's ultra-Orthodox and by Bibi Kafar in Repentance. Her ridiculous, demagogic and mysterious false arguments have been given the status of glorious thought and commendable courage. Well, I understand that it's really hard to stand firm in front of the educators and teachers and your milestones that you yourself grew up on. They are the ones who explained to you how important it is to be a religious Zionist, after all they are also the elders of the rabbis of religious Zionism to whom you also belong, and who are you, Ben-Shalulit, who will stand up to them ?! Who can honestly stand and draw conclusions in a situation that reveals to him that his educators worked on him, that the beliefs he grew up with and for which he fought are nonsense, and that his revered leaders are cheap demagogues ?! The long-standing propaganda bore fruit (in Oshim), as many members of modern Orthodoxy were unable to free themselves from the feelings of inferiority and belonging to religious Zionism that had been instilled in them since the dawn of their childhood. Anyone who is not a philosopher or a wise student or a serious thinker can hardly resist the incessant propaganda that explains to him that he is betraying the Jewish heritage, violating the halakhah and the tenets of the Zionist faith, and a future of hell. How can a person like Bennett or Silman deal with sayings that are said in the name of Torah and Halacha when he is with the land from Dauriyta and Zorba from Durban who is always educated to hear the rabbis who are the ones who determine what the Torah and Halacha say ?! These are the ideas you grew up on and breastfed with your mother's milk. An ordinary Jew cannot resist this.


The apparent conclusion is that at least at this stage Bennett should have recruited rabbis and thinkers, those who have the ability to conceptualize and formulate an alternative political and religious sub-discipline. These may not admire the propaganda and the "religious-religious" demagoguery (ie, ultra-Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox) and may succeed in freeing themselves from the rotten education they received and the concepts assimilated into it. But he chose and appointed activists, and these probably could not withstand such attacks, at least as long as they have no ideological, intellectual, halakhic and religious backing.

Although I suppose that even if he had been intellectuals and rabbis, the ultra-Orthodox-Haredi attack would have turned against them, and even if it had failed to break them, it would have broken the general public who voted for them. These are simple people who want to be true to the values ​​they grew up with. Therefore even if the thinkers of propaganda were appointed they would break their electorate. So it is very doubtful in my eyes if this would also have helped.

The lesson is to start with theory and field education. To develop a system of concepts that presents an alternative to ultra-Orthodox propaganda on its two wings (ultra-Orthodox and religious-Zionist), which will provide spiritual and intellectual backing to the hearts of a very broad public that is currently unable to find an answer. Contrary to many people's beliefs, I think there is and is such a public, and it is very broad. A considerable part of the ultra-Orthodox public and the public that defines itself as national-religious, actually belong here. But until there is a sub and leadership that represents him, he will not be able to organize and be politically and socially expressed. There will be no such religious identity. This is the nature of a religious society, which even if it has common views, as long as they do not have leadership and theoretical-theological backing, they will not rise to the surface and hold water. By the way, this is the case with the blue-collar in ultra-Orthodox society, which many believe in, but it fails to organize because it has no recognized or rabbinical religious-rabbinical leadership. The same is true of modern Orthodoxy, which today inadvertently belongs to the national-religious public despite the stark contrast to their views. Thus the sense of home and the instinctive loyalty of the modern Orthodox turn to religious Zionism, and the watershed remains the Zionist line. Instead of realizing that this silent majority is facing the ultra-Orthodox pole that includes religious Zionism and the ultra-Orthodox, we continue yesterday's struggles between religious Zionists and the ultra-Orthodox.

The main point where it is important to start is a war on conservatism. Conservatism is the main tool used by ultra-Orthodox propaganda. We have become accustomed to a particular religious model, and it is so deeply ingrained in us that we have no ability to truly break free from it. Even when we no longer believe in it, we can not say it to ourselves honestly and loudly. Religiosity is almost a synonym for conservatism, and it is very difficult to break free from it. In order to break free from the destructive grip of ultra-Orthodox politicians and rabbis on religious Zionism, one must first and foremost shake off the commitment to what we were educated on. It is not for nothing that there is an educational ideal to say that I am religious because that is how I was educated. To me, a serious and distorted statement. The correct statement is: I am religious because I believe in it, even though I was educated that way. The conservatism that sanctifies traditional religiosity because that is how we were educated is what preserves the models, views and leadership to which we are accustomed. She needs to be shot first.

Back to Daniel Sagron: Canceling the Dash

It was Sagron's article above that prompted me to write this column. There are some failures and some right points in his words. I agree with his analysis that the root of Bennett's phenomenon is the abolition of the hyphen (in his view: the hyphen), that is, the position of Zionism not on a religious basis. Bennett represents a group that is Zionist and is religious, but there is no hyphen between the two. But it deals with the axis of Zionism. How does this relate to my talk about modern Orthodoxy? That brings me back to the column 477. In a note in there I argued that religious Zionism with a dash is a non-modern Orthodoxy, whereas religious Zionism without a dash is essentially a modern Orthodox conception.

Religious Zionism places its Zionism on intra-Torah values. The conquest and settlement of the land are Torah values, and this is the only basis for Zionism. In this sense there is no conservative midrash here that is based on external values ​​but an interpretation (quite reasonable) of Torah and halakhic sources. On the other hand, religious Zionism without a dash advocates Ben-Gurion's Zionism, that is, values, identity and national aspirations, not only because it is written in the Torah (although this is also true), but also because the Jewish people have the right to join the Spring of Nations and establish a state for themselves. He therefore has no problem forming coalitions with secular Zionism, and he does not see it as the 'donkey of Messiah'. This is exactly what is happening in our politics today in terms of coalitions.

For me, as someone who holds such a position, Zionism stands in parallel with faith and religious and halakhic commitment but does not necessarily stem from them. I do not see in the country the fulfillment of the vision of the prophets (because I have no idea if it is such), but a blessed phenomenon in itself, with nothing to do with redemption and observance. This is not Aqaba Damascus and not the beginning of Degula, but just a country that I want to live in and that I have the right to do so. Therefore, I also do not have high expectations about the way she conducts herself religiously, and in any case I do not have any major disappointments from her. I explained there that such a conception is essentially a conception of modern Orthodoxy, as it adopts an external value (nationalism), not necessarily because it originates in the Torah or Sages but by the very fact that I identify with it (and even explicitly and openly influenced by the environment in which I live). To me as a modern Orthodox this is enough to take into account my practical and even religious conduct.

In the XNUMXs, there was a group of journalists from abroad who conducted a poll among intellectuals on the question of why they were Zionists. Isaiah Leibowitz told them: because we are fed up of the Goyim (we are Zionists because we are fed up with the Gentiles). The rabbi from Ponivez held a rather similar view. He used to say that he is a Zionist like Ben-Gurion, he also does not say praise or beg on Independence Day. Beyond the joke, as far as I understand there is an important idea here: the rabbi from Ponivez was a secular Zionist, but did not see it as a religious matter. Such a perception is icing on the cake in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox (his yeshiva students repeatedly tried to lower the flag he used to hang on the roof on Independence Day. This is what the late journalist Dov Ganchovsky, who was sitting next to him, told me) and religious Zionists. These and those are not willing to recognize values ​​outside the Torah. The ultra-Orthodox see Zionism as a movement that promotes external values ​​and therefore reject it, and religious Zionists see it as a movement that promotes religious values. But these and those are not willing to accept a modern-orthodox conception that is willing to promote values ​​outside the Torah. Modern values.

By the way, because of this failure, quite a few people in the religious Zionist public without a dash, who actually intend to say that they advocate modern Orthodoxy, speak in ordinary discourse and try to explain that their values ​​are drawn from the Torah. This is how all kinds of 'enlightened' people from the religious left explain to us that democracy is a Torah value, equality, the treatment of the other, feminism, the treatment of the gentile, peace, all these are the values ​​of the Torah. Well, it's not really convincing (great warts for seven blessings). It is difficult for the public to accept, and quite rightly, that for some reason and in the extreme case exactly what you believe in is what you find in the Torah (unlike all the others who do not find it there). It is clear to everyone that these values ​​are not drawn from the Torah but from external values ​​to which this group is committed. So why this strange discourse? Where does the confusion come from? Why not say it honestly? It turns out that they too have inadvertently internalized the assumption of their opponents from both wings (ultra-Orthodox and religious Zionists) that everything is supposed to begin and end with the Torah. Is what I said, when there is no thought and orderly theological and halakhic mishnah that substantiates the matter, a conceptual confusion is created that ultimately leads to political failures as well.

Sagron sees Bennett's downfall as evidence that he has no public. That Zionism without a religious basis does not last and therefore does not actually exist. But his words are about the same public that is not. It is the public that brought Bennett to power and made him successful. On the contrary, until Bennett religious Zionism was in a continuous political decline and he was the one who got him out of it, at least temporarily. So it is not true that there is no such public. On the contrary, the conclusion is that there is definitely such a public, and it is even much wider than you can imagine. But he is unsuccessful and cannot succeed politically, because without an orderly matter he cannot honestly withstand the pressures exerted on him from all sides. Those who educated him and led him and accustomed him to the fact that they carry the word of God in the world and that there is nothing outside the Torah and that the Torah is them, do not allow him to see that this education is forceful propaganda that lies in its foundation. Such a person cannot stand against the propaganda machine I have described, of which Daniel Sagron's article is a part (and also a product of it).

As for the disintegration described by Daniel Sagron, I completely agree. Although it is completely an exaggeration to say that she was not like her. The political disintegration of the national-religious public is a monotonous process that has been going on for a very long time, and Bennett was actually a temporary deviation from it. This disintegration is not because of Bennett but despite Bennett. The one who causes it is the one who is in the arena long before and after Bennett, that is, the ultra-Orthodox leadership of religious Zionism (Sagron's colleagues). It is true that there is a loss of way here, and in my opinion this is a repeated expression of the fact that the Zionist-religious leadership has most of its power in destruction and disintegration. He destroys and insists on her right to continue destroying and fights anyone who tries to mend. That is why this process has been going on for quite a few years, long before Bennett.

For many years, the representation of religious Zionism in the Knesset has been disproportionate to its electorate, as masses of voters go to other parties (this is not necessarily a bad thing. I am too). Any phenomenon that succeeds in creating an alternative to disintegration that this leadership itself is to blame for, that is, will gather some of these voters back into the lap of a religious or traditional and national party, will be enshrined in Baba by the machine of destruction and propaganda it itself operates. It is a little strange and dishonest in my eyes to blame the one who came to repair the destruction that you yourself are causing, and that you yourself perpetuate in your war against it.

Sagron's conclusion is that the author's hyphen theory should be buried deep. I totally agree, but not in his sense. He proposes as an alternative a theory in which there is only religiosity, and nationalism (and modernity) are at most its derivatives. Whereas I argue that the two should remain side by side, and indeed there should be no hyphen connecting them. Moreover, his conclusion is strange to me, for if he intends to say that the dash should be buried politically because he has no public demand, then here he is buried. But as I explained the politics of recent years say it definitely has a public. If he meant that this public should give up the hyphen (i.e. leave a theological world where there is only Torah), I think the conclusion is the opposite: there is a broad public that is such, and a theological subdivision should be created that will give it backing. What they do today is bury him in a grave burial. The dissolution of the party that represents him without success does not mean that the hyphen should be buried (in its sense) but that it should be given an authentic and stable political expression. If at all, then we must bury the propaganda machine that Sagron himself shares.

Something about religious parties

I have written many times that I do not see much value in the existence of religious parties. To me they do far more harm than good, and almost every one of their votes goes against my views (they exist mostly to promote coercion). My remarks here are written because the political phenomena that accompany these parties reflect processes that are important to consider.

My remarks here are not intended to save the political representation of the religious public and religious parties, as all of this has little value to me. My remarks are intended to explain why it is important to build leadership and a theological and halakhic mishnah that will provide a theoretical basis as well as social (and perhaps political) expression to a significant portion of the religious public today that is mute and muted (at its own fault of course). It is worth concluding by pointing the blame in the right direction. Those who are to blame are not the rabbis. I guess most of them are babies who have been captivated within the view that they themselves are educating and educating her. They probably really believe in their nonsense. The blame is on us. As long as we continue to be stupid and deceived by the propaganda we grew up on and succumb to it, we will be ourselves guilty of the shameful fruits it grows. Let us not come with complaints but to ourselves.

[1] Although this is not really Daism, since it is a God who demands and commands.

126 Thoughts on “The Rise and Fall of Bennett and Their Meanings (Column 486)”

  1. I did not understand. Rabbi Yoel is not a conservative (although he does present as if all his values ​​are from the Torah). Beyond that, an example here or here does not matter when it comes to an overall picture.

  2. Don't you think this column is a bit postmodern? That is, your argument is that the rabbis actually want to preserve their hegemony and their power and that is why they set up a propaganda campaign to clash with Bennett. There is a bit of a conspiratorial argument that ignores the allegations against Bennett.

    1. Postmodernism does not assume a theory of power. It belongs to neo-Marxism or progressives. Postmodernism is closer to the post-structuralism that Ramad loves so much. That there is no way to reach the truth and that everything is the constructions. But not paving to control another.

    2. Indeed, one of the rabbi's hallucinatory columns. All conspiracies of the rabbis, not at all the biggest crook in the history of Israeli politics by a wide margin, destroying the basic democratic idea and a dangerous piece of megalomaniacs. Emoji grabs your head!

  3. I wrote that they probably really believe in their nonsense. But the power of propaganda and destruction and its stupidity and inconsistency clearly point to a deliberate and deliberate conspiracy. And even if it was subconsciously, they still had to understand and stop it.
    In general, Marxism hangs everything in conspiracies instead of dealing with candidacy arguments. But when you deal with the arguments and see that they are not really allowed to be concealed here, there are hidden motives.

      1. I have no interest in doing so either. This is not the topic of the column. By the way, these are not claims by the right-wing public but by Bibi-Smotritz who for some reason label cheating as right-wing (right-wing = pro Bibi) and then accuse others (partially rightly) of cheating.
        In the margins of my words, I will add that the great "disappointment" of his right-wing voters with him, which you take for granted, for some reason is not reflected in the polls. It exists mainly in the false propaganda of Bibi-Smotritz, the ultra-Orthodox-corrupt coalition. Who the unholy covenant doesn't like is my cup of tea.
        Even from the supporters of this alliance I would expect minimal reading comprehension. But these are probably excessive expectations.

        1. Your Honor, you are wrong.

          After the deed of fraud (and with all due respect, no Bibi, a fraud or not, can train this creep by himself) there were repeated polls, including those carried out within 'Yimina' (perhaps the rabbi should also advise Bennett not to make a conceptual mistake on this level, to call the party Yamina, or Maybe instead of the Rabbi he will be convinced of the clear line of riding on obvious lies) which showed that about two thirds of the public who elected him were disappointed and surprised by the government that was formed.

          It should not be confused that Bennett did annex other mandates to himself, indicating a public that saw this as a move of unity, a public that apparently does meet the rabbi's description. See the number of mandates in polls immediately after the formation of the government, when the image of the blocs remained stable, compared to polls that examined the move itself.

          Regarding the inability to hold these mandates - I think you solve Bennett's responsibility and guilt.

          He was an absent prime minister, who collapsed again and again into extortion by extremists in his own government, and in general was like a leaf blowing in the wind to the various forces, no crisis was managed in his hands, Corona was not dealt with, he found himself conducting negotiations between Russia and Ukraine when he really did not have A real strategy, trapped inside a government that is unable to pass basic laws such as the citizenship law, all this after statements about a government '10 degrees to the right', unable to run a restrained and synchronized government when the minister of defense quite manages a political line that crosses security in front of the settlements, hitting them repeatedly A market on your hip, and a rather successful political process of its own accord that equips Abu Mazen and all kinds of other powerful people, while riots that seem like a matter that became a calendar while thunder turned into silent fish...

          So which opposition party are you talking about exactly???

          In short, we can expand further with many facts, but what actually happened here is that Bennett's government destroyed the dream itself, not just the obvious campaigns of the other side (you can think that an opposition that tries to overthrow governments is a new thing, a really dangerous coalition...).

          In my estimation, you are right in the philosophical division of the various currents, and greatly mistaken about what led to Bennett's rise and fall.

          My personal opinion - we are blessed that we were freed from this punishment, and we should wish that a party would arise that would indeed fall under the rabbi's definitions.

          1. I've always loved polls. But for some reason, despite the colossal disappointment, support for Bennett only increased over time. This is just the continuation of the lies of the Bibists. It is very easy to answer a poll I voted for Bennett and I am disappointed. For some reason I hardly ever meet people who are disappointed with Bennett, but of course this is not necessarily a representative sample. The polls are not a bad sample, and they of course say exactly the opposite of what you say. After Bennett retired the situation changed of course, but it is a temporary trend.
            My political interpretation can of course be debated, but I think it is very correct.

            1. Unfortunately, he is mistaken or unaware of the results of the polls.

              Take a look back in this account, centering the results along the way -

              The support for Bennett certainly did not increase, here and there there were jumps and also falls as a result of the circumstances in the background, but in total I was stable around the 6-8 mandates on average (Yamina finished with 7 as mentioned).

              The results stand, and it is everyone's choice how to reconcile these facts (assuming you accept polls as a tool. I don't see how assertions about an increase in support, and bibists' lies based on private impressions, are claims of better quality than a collection of polls).


              1. As for the question about the formation of the government, in polls conducted close to and after the date of the decision, about two-thirds of Bennett's voters said they were disappointed with the move (there were some who also said they would not have voted if they had known)
              2. The number of mandates remains stable, Grosso admitted, and most polls agree

              How do you settle?
              It is possible starting from the rabbi's interpretation of a community that has no other home, to the exchange of support from another community, through Bentists, and all the way to Rabbis.

              I don't see what lies of bibists can displace these facts.

              In one interpretation and in the best case the right (until the retirement of Bennett, which says something about Bentists) remained more or less on its strength, and in the other case there was a *permanent* movement between the blocs that began in 62 'for change' and 51 'for the Netanyahu bloc' and now (and more days will say) stands at 55 and 60 respectively.

              One of the explanations that I think is the most likely is that Bennett's supporters returned to the opposite bloc, and he maintained his strength in the movement within the 'change' bloc. Why? Because Zionism went up and down all the way, and so did the Likud, so why assume that these are the voters of New Hope, or Lieberman, or Labor or Mertz?

              I don't see how this interpretation works. Sorry, that sounds more like wishful thinking, than a position that aligns with reality.

  4. To RMD-
    A. I think Ido Pechter speaks explicitly like you. Maybe you should join him and form a political movement
    B. This is a bit petty, but I think when people like Daniel Sagron say that nationalism stems from Torah, they do not mean that it implements the commandments of the Torah, but the trend of the Torah. And where is this trend written? It is not written but they assume it is the will of the e, just like his honor. The difference between you is in the awareness that it is not written in the Torah (you are aware and it is a little less), and in the values ​​themselves that you want (freedom versus coercion, etc.)
    If you have known from the days of your dogmatics (if you have had such days at all) the passage as in the lights of the resurrection, about the contradictory national and universal holiness and the general holiness that includes them all, it is a similar idea to yours.
    third. It is known that religious Zionism is made up of Rabbi Kook's students and students of the Gush and the like, and that the political representation in recent years has tended toward Rabbi Kook's students. But it seems to me that the old Pedal was actually a kind of modern orthodoxy of Torah and work in parallel
    Cheers - Rabbi Yoel Ben-Nun is really not conservative in my eyes

    1. A. I think we have opposite trends despite the similarities. I have no interest in the accessibility and friendliness of the Torah and Halacha. That's not my motive, and to me it's a wrong motive. Anyway, I took the theory on myself. Politics will remain for others.
      B. Huat which I have written both in columns and here.
      third. The old NRP was just Orientalists with no real theory, and with a lot of emotion inferior to the ultra-Orthodox (and of course Sally her own rabbinical leadership).

      1. A. It seems on the face of it that Rabbi Pechter's method (in addition to the trend) is indeed the opposite. Following the columns on modern Orthodoxy I began to read Rabbi Pechter's book mentioned there (Judaism on the Sequence) and there at the end of the introduction he writes:
        In this essay I will try to show that a decrease in the depth of the consciousness of Halacha, in its most primitive sources - written Torah, Mishnah and Talmud, reveals that what is perceived by us today as a modern consciousness is in fact the primary foundations of Halacha. Therefore there is no need to innovate or invent anything in it to reconcile it with modern consciousness. What is required of us is just to reach out and pull out the relevant approaches for us that exist in it. Thus we will base the modern halakhic consciousness on the foundations of halakhah itself, and maintain its continuity, and thus we will prove that the halakhic consciousness currently accepted in many districts of Orthodoxy is not the original way of halakhah but its distortion. Modernity is not the enemy of halakhah but its best friend. While those who oppose modernity in the name of halakhah, those who detach it from real life and the contemporary world, are in fact its greatest enemies. "
        If from the above paragraph it is possible to understand in general Pechter's method (I have not yet read enough to understand his method and claim and his use of the term modern) then it is understandable that it is the object of criticism of the column in question.

  5. post Scriptum. Criticism of the election of the Chief Rabbi depends on how one looks at him. If you look at him as the highest religious official in the country then it is not narcissistic what his attitude to the country is. But if you look at him as someone who is supposed to lead the State of Israel from the religious side, it is a bit strange to appoint a person who opposes the state for such a position.
    The reason why what the rabbi calls modern Orthodoxy (which is not what the United States is) does not become a political and ideological movement is simply because many of the people the rabbi calls a common denominator are just lite. I know you'll say it's just conservative demagoguery, but really look at the public you're talking about. These are most of the time people who do not take care of the easy as well as the serious (of course not everyone is like that) and the law is not in the forefront of their minds. Maybe the rabbi will find what he is looking for in the ultra-Orthodox public, it could be that there are more serious and liberal people there (I say this as a hypothesis, I do not know enough).

  6. Correction of omission in the transmission of the words of Isaiah Leibowitz (and something about Bennett and the 'Dash')

    In S.D.

    God forbid Leibowitz says that 'we are tired of the Gentiles', you can find 'any obscene measure' in him, but as Snoopov he was not. What Leibowitz said is: 'We are fed up from Bying Rold Bay by Gentiles' he said in English and he translated into Hebrew: 'We are tired of being ruled by Gentiles'.

    And as for Bennett. Bennett and Smutrich are one side of the same coin. Two principles guide both: a. We are tired (= religious Zionism) of being led by the secular. Religious Zionism should lead the country. B. I am the leader the worthy leader to lead the country, I am the commander who will call ‘after me’ and lead everyone.

    On the other hand, I (the HM) prefer the classic 'Mizrahnik' concept, which was beautifully expressed by Dr. Yosef Burg. We do not have to 'stand at the head' and be 'the commander'. We are blessed to be the 'dash' of the author, we will be strengthened in the Torah and we will also be integrated into the action and thus we will create connections. We will try to bring the world of Torah closer to Zionist action, and we will try to bring the distant ones closer and strengthen their connection to their heritage, and the old 'Kima' Kimaa will be renewed and the new will be sanctified.

    Whoever wants to be the leader of the nation, must constantly check with the 'followers' wanting in his leadership, and he may reach a bitter disappointment when he discovers that he is a 'king without a people'

    On the other hand, those who walk patiently - find themselves and their circle in the perspective of decades as more and more influential. It is enough to see how much he strengthened in the quantity and quality of the world of Torah. Even in the secular public there is a growing interest in heritage and tradition. How many religious people are today in key positions in security and politics, economics and science, law and education.

    Bennett's failure was in his attempt to catch a ride on the political representation of the national religious public that sees importance in promoting religious education and Torah institutions and the Jewish identity of the state. This is the unique plot that no other party will take care of. It would have been better for him to join the Likud and climb to the top without marking his age at the age of 30 as head of state. Maybe Bennett should have led the Likud and the state after Netanyahu, 'but she ate Pega' 🙂

    In short: leading a nation and in particular a nation of opinionated Jews - requires the ability to patiently connect with the general public in order to create as broad a consensus as possible. Perhaps Ayelet Shaked, who has finally freed herself from Bennett's forceful method, will be more successful in promoting things from broad connections.

    Regards, Yekutiel Shneur Zehavi

    1. A ‘right’ restoration will allow for two political houses for both shades of the national religious public

      The restoration of 'Yimina' led by Ayelet Shaked, will prevent the joint existence of two political houses, of the two shades of the religious-nationalist public. The Torah public will find its place in the 'religious Zionism' of Smotritz (along with 'Otzma Yehudit', 'Noam' and ultra-Orthodox), while religious, traditionalists and right-wing secularists - will find their place in the renewed 'Yimina'.

      If Ayelet Shaked overcomes the sediments of the past and brings back Amichai Shikli as well, and attracts the 'Jewish Home' to her - there is a good chance that the two closest parties will succeed. It would have been desirable for the right to take a census and create an elected leadership that would bring stability and public trust.

      Sincerely, Yaknaz

      1. Those who have a strong opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu and/or the hegemony of the Chief Rabbinate - there is a place in Yesh Atid, Blue and White, New Hope, etc. But they should take into account that the Biden administration will exert heavy pressure to move towards a Palestinian state. And so they should ask what is better? The removal of Bibi and the Chief Rabbinate, or preventing the establishment of a terrorist state in the heart of our country?

        Sincerely, Yaknaz

          1. Indeed, the words of Ofir Sofer and Yariv Levin were published today (on the Channel 7 website), who do not believe in the sincerity of Ayelet Shaked's return to the Gush Hamim and they suspect that she will follow Bennett's path and join the left and the Arabs. We'll see, maybe the future will make it clear to us if there really was a 'opening of a new page' here

            Sincerely, Yaknaz

            And perhaps as long as things do not become clear, it is better for the moderate, traditional and right-wing secular religious public to 'play it safe' and find their political home in Likud.

            1. Did not abandon the option of joining a left-wing government

              In SD XNUMX in Tammuz P.B.

              However, Michael Hauser Tov's letter, 'Shaked believes that Kara and Pinto will remain on the right, and wants to be the tip of the scales in the elections' (Haaretz 2/7/22) implies that the option of joining a left-wing government is alive and kicking, the same lady with the same glory 🙂

              Regards, Yekutiel Shneur Zehavi

              1. And perhaps Bennett retired because he realized he could not stand up to Biden's pressure

                It is possible that Bennett realized that in the face of Biden's pressure to promote the peace process - he would not be able to stand, he would prefer that the 'honor' of making 'painful concessions' fall to Yair Lapid, and the responsibility in the eyes of the public will not be placed on Bennett who 'retired on a high'

                Perhaps he also hopes that during the election period there will not be heavy American pressure for concessions, so that this does not damage the political power of the left, and in the meantime we will gain a few months in which the American pressure will not be exerted in full force.

                Although one must feel that slowly and secretly Lapid and Gantz will agree with the Americans on the revival of the peace process, and if they succeed in establishing a stable government - then the peace process will gain destructive momentum

                Best regards, I'm sending it to Anzam-Kimal

              2. Continues to navigate behind the scenes

                BSD XNUMXth in Tammuz PVB

                Her letter published today on Channel 7 reveals that Ayelet Shaked continues to regularly consult with Bennett, and 'the article Naftali Ayelet does when she was in a contract with him' 🙂

                And in short: what was will be and there is nothing new under the sun. And our consolation is that the Prime Minister has returned to live in Jerusalem. He will live in 'Villa Salama', in Jabotinsky corner Balfour, the building currently belongs to David Sofer. The great-grandson of Rabbi Shmaleka of Selish will live in the house of the great-great-grandson of Hatam Sofer 🙂

                Best regards, XNUMX

                1. It would have been better for them to make internal choices

                  This system - a one-man party - is not healthy. A single ruler who tweets at his electorate and 'flips' from party to party - ultimately loses the public's trust, it would be better to invest in building a solid public base.

                  When the members of the party and its voters know that the leader and with him the scholarship representatives in the Knesset are elected by the party members, and stand under the supervision of the elected party institutions - then the trust of the members of the party and of the entire public is created and they are sure that their messengers are faithful to the will of their senders

                  Best regards, I am shipping Kimel-Langzem

                  1. But the Likud also has something to improve

                    Likud is in a much better position. Both the speaker and members of the Knesset are elected in primaries by all party members, and there are also elected institutions - the conference and the center. But it would have been better for the party chairman to have a political leadership that would 'carry with him in the people's affairs' in accordance with the Sage's instruction: 'Do not be a single judge'.

                    Best regards, I'm sending it to Anzam-Kimal

                2. The control over Yamina's budgets is in the hands of Matan Kahana

                  בכתבה ‘שקד חוששת? השליטה על כספי ימינה בידי מתן כהנא’ מסופר על מסמך רשמי שנחשף ובו נאמר שהשליטה על תקציבי ‘ימינה’ תימסר למתן כהנא.

                  הווה אומר: לא פרישה ולא נעליים. בנט ימשיך לשלוט בימינה באמצעות שליטת שלוחו הנאמן בתקציבי המפלגה. הוא יהיה ‘בעל המאה ובעל הדיעה’ ואיילת שקד – פלאקט בעלמא.

                  Regards, Yekutiel Shneur Zehavi

                  נראה שאותו תרגיל עשה בנט ל’בית היהודי’, כאשר פרש אך השאיר את נאמנו ניר אורבך כמנכ”ל המפלגה…

  7. I feel like I've been looking at all this from the outside for quite some time. It just does not interest me so much - if someone wants to form a leadership, he will form, if people want a party that fits what they think, they will form such a party. There are rabbis or secular people who say nonsense and I am interested to hear what they say and there are those who bore me. I do not see any need for this or that leader to tell me what to think or to "formulate an orderly mishnah." For the most part I have no orderly sub and I am fine with that, each matter to its body and I see no need to organize all my opinions into one body, even if it means my worldview is frayed at the edges. To me, the very attempt to make someone like that is conservative and useless. I see the anti-thinking and hysterical discourse that exists on the radical right and the radical left and it does create a feeling that I have no “political home” anywhere, but also makes me not want such a house. Such houses tend to become prisons, and prisons - apart from the lack of freedom in them - are really boring places.

    1. I sign every word. The question is how do you bring many more who feel in the fluff and do not know how to conceptualize it, to gain legitimacy for their way and opinion? Once upon a time the two major parties were a union of one and the other and the other and non-partisan. I'm talking about the non-partisan party that will blow the hell out of the various parties that control our lives. This requires political and social organization.

      1. I feel - honestly - that life is too short to waste it on seeking legitimacy. It's not that I'm completely over these things, I also have opinions that I am less inclined to share because I do not want to quarrel or even sometimes do not even want to be tagged as one or the other, but by and large it does not seem so important to me.

          1. This is something else. You talked about seeking legitimacy and to that I answered 🙂 Anyway I tend to hope and think that reality is smarter than trying to describe and frame it. All the descriptions show a torn reality where it is impossible to live together and we are all doomed, but on the face of it, reality seems to allow in the end. The things that are important to me are freedom of thought and freedom of speech, as long as they exist life finds a way, as the Jurassic Park article.

      2. In addition - it seems to me that the truth has been told, there are already such non-partisan organizations: they are called "there is a future", "blue and white" and all their cousins ​​who grow overnight and tend to win more than ten seats in each election - what are called center parties. They are often viewed with contempt because they have no ideology, and they include people who seem to have no common denominator (secular, religious, left-leaning, right-leaning, etc.), when in practice, their main common denominator is the so-called "slime" in the vernacular. . They are reasonable people who want to live reasonably and are willing to give up reasonable concessions and they also have some things that are less suitable for them to give up but in general in dances do not suit them well. They are not sophisticated thinkers, and yes - they have no orderly subdivision, certainly not as a collective. It's not that impressive, but maybe it's all it takes to be able to * run * this country instead of trying to make it the Lord's throne in the world or a libertarian or socialist paradise of one kind or another. People who have no power for utopias. In my humble opinion (really poor and not just as an expression, I just can not bring myself to be interested in these issues), such an approach was also part of the glue that united Bennett's supposedly strange government (apart from "just not Bibi" which is in my eyes a worthy and justified glue).

  8. Why is the rabbi not affiliated with Rabbi Ilai Ofran since he is also dissatisfied with the religious party (he has a podcast on the matter) and all the opposition rabbis in modern religious Zionism such as Torah and Avodah faithful Sheikh Yitzchak and another modern ultra-Orthodox rabbi like Yehoshua Pepper needs study
    The rabbi himself said that there is a huge public that is modern and I also agree that there are many so you rabbis are to blame because the same people if they see that there are rabbis if a regular mishnah will want to vote for her including me the little one who has been shouting about lack of alternative for some time Recommends to the rabbi to stay away from the stupid group Beit Midrash Anshei Chayil who are a group of activists, etc. After I saw their video that the rabbi was there, etc. and things are simple

    On behalf of all my modern ultra-Orthodox brethren, I ask the rabbi to give us an alternative right now

    Best regards
    People of truth and faith

    1. As I wrote, I am not connected to anyone because I am not a political activist. In the past, I also refused to join all the rabbinical organizations that approached me, because I do not agree that they should speak on my behalf as a collective.

  9. No rabbi no !!

    We will ignore the completely wrong political analysis in my humble opinion, and deal mainly, I do not know how much the rabbi studied and knows Rabbi Kook's beit midrash but to call this conservative beit midrash is simply a mistake! Rabbi Kook as a whole was a novelty and a development, he saw the freezing of the place as one of the worst ills there is. Melamed and Druckman .. maybe you should meet with them and understand their worldview ..

    PS Comment on politics Almost all the rabbis (Tao, Druckman, Eliyahu and others) fell like you in their thinking about RAAM. We know that he was right and that he saved us.

  10. It is interesting how a detail disappeared from the eyes of the writer and other respondents that Smutritz's religious Zionist party differs from the ultra-Orthodox parties in that it was the only one that was not willing (except for Rabbi Tao's representative) to sit with Arabs (who are natural partners of the Arabs). It is a huge difference of heaven and earth. Because this is Zionism. This is loyalty to the Jewish people. And that was a difficult dilemma. And Smutrich was right and ruled to the right. It turned out that even the modern religious public (which I also belong to) has no loyalty to the Jewish people. Lucky I voted for Smutrich in the last election (I realized that Bennett would go with the left to be prime minister. Although I did not imagine that he would go with the Arabs as well).

      1. I corrected the mistake immediately (it took me a few minutes to notice the mistake and also write the correction) but indeed it is a significant difference between religious Zionism and the ultra-Orthodox. Smutrich may believe in God's throne in the world but he is also one who has studied history and has a historical perception that Jews cannot lean on and trust anyone but themselves - sharing destiny (this is what mine has and I put it on him). Walking with strangers is a betrayal of the Jewish people sitting here. And I am currently as a modern Orthodox starting to cast a very serious doubt on myself and to think whether values ​​outside the Torah are really true values ​​(that people who hold on to them really believe in). They are (the values) in general a way of life that preceded the Torah (or in general opinion) but in themselves they do not last (if there is no Torah there is no way of life. That is, human beings who wave their flags are liars).

        It seems that modern Orthodox (especially the Ashkenazi secularists, including the right. Probably the left), have no loyalty to the Jewish people. Their interest will always be first. The progressive left leads the liberal left (there is one more.) While the liberal right flatters the left in general and is led by it and the modern Orthodox try to please both of these (out of long-term feelings of inferiority from the NRP legacy) and are led by them. The non-Haredi and non-Haredi Ashkenazi public is simply not loyal to the Jewish people (without being aware of it, apparently. Because of the progressive leadership that denies allegiance to any rule). The ego of the individuals that make it up is what leads them. Not that the ultra-Orthodox have no ego, but the Torah dictates to them - their leaders - loyalty to the Jewish people. This is probably the real reason why the ultra-Orthodox do not enlist - they understood that this is not really the state of the Jewish people. They realized that they were alone in their fate and the rest of them were not loyal to them. The ultra-Orthodox do not understand this yet. Or they have a faith like that of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in the rest of the Jews language. They realized that they were alone in their fate and the rest were not loyal to them

    1. Correction of a mistake: that they (the Arabs) are natural partners of the ultra-Orthodox… and vice versa, as is understandable, he noticed the fact that Smutrich refrained from sitting with them, but not because of the chair of God in world 0 that the representative of this concept was actually willing to sit with the Arabs. The representative of Rabbi Tao) but because he believes that the State of Israel should be the state of the Jewish people. And that the Arabs belong to an enemy people (and in any case it does not belong to them to sit with them and have some kind of government lean on them. No matter what they declare that the state does belong to Jews. Loyal to the state, makes army, efficient and taxes more than anyone. Jews must learn to cooperate)

  11. Not on the conceptual level but on the behavioral level, Elyashiv Reichner describes Rabbi Amital as a modern Orthodox in a book he wrote about him. He, too, is fed up with Pedal

    To my surprise you were angry with Silman. Whoever signs with the same man a document in the morning to secure her future, is a tiny polythruite who goes only after her eyes and after her core which she is xxxx after them. There are no values ​​and no thoughts about betraying what grew up on him.
    The same man won. Hopefully the justice system or medical reasons will lead to his downfall. And better yet if that happens in the next election

    1. As part of the study of the sources, I suggest that you review the platform of Smutritz and the ultra-Orthodox: among other things, they are in favor of stoning off Sabbath-breakers and adulterers, lowering infidels into the pit and not raising them, killing Amalekite babies, and more.
      You should also check out the Christian platform according to which the second cheek is served, so who talked about murder and persecution in the name of Christianity?
      The smart people who quote bedding just do not understand what they are talking about. Movements and groups are not examined in their substrates but in their practice. Both Judaism, Christianity and Ram.

      1. Attached is the platform of the Religious Zionist Party. I managed to browse it from a freezer and found no trace of what you attribute to them. Maybe things slipped out of my sight - I would appreciate a detailed reference to at least one reference.

        Proper Disclosure: I have no problem with these things, after the establishment of the Sanhedrin and the sitting of the judges as first in the B.A. This is the commandment of God and please Abda Dekodsha Brich is. (At least try…).

        1. I guess you understood my intent. Their platform is based on Torah and Halacha, and there are very firm tenets. If you were to judge them on the basis of these tenures you would not go far. The example of the Christians and the Second Cheek makes this very clear (there is no political platform of a political party).
          As for Abda Dekuba, Sages were also his slaves and yet did not exactly implement the words as they were. It is I who said that there is a difference between the formulation of a principled and theoretical substrate and the practice, and my argument is that groups should be examined through the practice and not through the substrate.

          1. In the Supreme Court, you give too much credit to my understanding. (At least that's how I understood, if not please fix). In their platform I found no trace of it. It is true that the legal adviser of "Yemina" went on to claim that a platform does not bind a party in the Knesset, but I still assume that they will not consider anyone before the establishment of the Sanhedrin and the restoration of the law of souls, so in the meantime everyone can relax…

            It does not occur to me to compare myself to Sages, but they are really irrelevant to the discussion. They lived under foreign, or Sadducee rule (except for short periods) and were probably limited in their ability to institute Torah law. However, sometimes they implemented things not in their own words but even with excessive severity (like the one who rode the horse in Greek times, and Shimon ben Shetach who hanged eighty women in one day and more). I do not have a clear model for the state according to the Torah (greater and better than me will be seen approaching the work of drafting it). All I have said is that in principle I have no problem with the desecration of Sabbath-breakers and adulterers, so the Great Sanhedrin will find it appropriate after Gd answers our judges for the first time in Gd. I assume that both religious Zionism and the ultra-Orthodox understand that even if a miracle happens and they receive an absolute majority in the Knesset, things are not practical today. As far as I know some of them, they are pretty sober.

            In short, it is not appropriate to put in the mouth of a political opponent what he has never said, just because you appreciate that he thinks so. (And if he did say, I will thank you for the reference).

            1. Dear Mordechai. You are not as stupid as you present yourself. I did not say they would weigh in if they came to power. I said the exact opposite: that despite the platform they will not scale even if they come to power.
              But the wonders of the ways of trending blindness.

              1. Perhaps the trend is blind to me, but for God's sake, our dear Rabbi, where do the things you attributed to them appear in the Tzaddik platform? (What they will do with their platform when they come to power is another point).

                1. Do you really not understand or do not read what I write?
                  It appears in the Torah and Halacha, which are definitely their substrate. I thus demonstrated the distortion that exists in the examination of the bedding instead of the practice.

  12. A. The ultra-Orthodox and Smutritz go right because the division between right and left is really - in our districts - between old Jewish conservatism and a new horizon
    B. The "knitters" choose to crown their conservative rabbis because they have feelings of appreciation for the Torah (not that they always know its identity). Do not worry - it will run out in a generation.
    third. All the rest are labeled as "Latvian" because those who are not have the feeling that they are less willing to invest in Jewish religious values ​​specific to Judaism, whether this is true or not - this is not the place.

  13. Why are the divisions only conservatism and Zionism? It is true that both the ultra-Orthodox and the religious-nationalists are conservative, but Hillel on Independence Day is by no means the only one of Rabbi Kook's teachings that the rabbis you mentioned follow in her footsteps. Even if this is how it looks in the extreme way in Rabbi Tao, in the end it is an approach that touches all areas of life, very different from the ultra-Orthodox.

  14. Even if I agree with most of what you say, what is outrageous (and puzzling, because it is obvious that you are not indifferent to the phenomenon, to say the least) - is the attitude in which you "sit on the fence":
    The very conceptual order is important and blessed.
    Then, she deserves a public address, flogging, for not organizing according to this ideological understanding and definition (which really stands as the common ground for the details that make it up) - without suggesting or pointing to a process and a person or group that will be flag bearers.

    I am sure you have not lost sight of the fact that most revolutions and political and national changes occurred not only because of ideologies and ideas, but only after a leader arose (who more than once, not by chance, was one of their thinkers) - who united a large enough public and cared for a systematic process.

    It is therefore puzzling to hear how on the one hand you complain about the lack of organizing under the relatively common characteristic you have defined, the gap lies in the fact of the lack of ideological-gothic leadership (which established it as an undefined complement to other defined methods). Which makes him feel type B, lite, etc.) - and on the other hand, sits on the fence and you do not suggest (or motivate) yourself to take a practical position and not just gothic. The acceptance is actually from getting to know Torich and your work. If it was a person who moves away from practice, that's fine, but it seems to me that the need in question does not fall short of volunteering with the impromptu Civil Guard in Lod during the riots - a beautiful personal example that also indicates a willingness to roll up our sleeves when necessary.

    It seems to me, therefore, that founding a method and leadership (activist, even if not parliamentary at the moment) was a necessary step. And from the column and your responses to the questioners it sounds that you do not see such an obligation, and is waiting for some Messiah to take your ideas and put them into practice. Why?

    Not that I do not recognize the necessity of thinkers and ideological infrastructure. But you probably understand that if only yesterday you achieved the definition and with it the desire to make it a method (and not just the "lack of method" as mentioned) - a little puzzling to expect that the next day Man Dhao will rise and excite the masses around him.

    I do not see how your approach differs from that of the public you complain about (even if you include yourself in the name of politeness) for not referring to the fact that his method is a method and not the legitimate fringe of the methodless.
    On the contrary. The public did its part by voting for Bennett and not for Smutritz for example. (Or stays at home etc.). Those who folded in the face of pressure were just those "sluts" on the game board, on whom the pressure was exerted. Not the public that sent.

    1. [Incidentally something though came out long, I saw a message I remembered an act. At some point as a junior teenager I sent my hand into baking cakes for the family and would leave behind a trail of dirty dishes. My mother saw the situation once or twice and then composed a hymn to say "he who prepares and does not clean as if he did not prepare." Of course I gossiped against her vigorously because I did the preparatory work and why and why I would also do the cleaning work, and that whoever stopped eating garlic should also go back and stop eating ambala. At first I thought she meant that this cake was not necessary, and it was good for her to have a clean kitchen without a cake from a dirty kitchen and a cake in it. And Nafka appointed that if they decided to make a cake such as Shabbat then surely whoever bothered to make here hired with him and his action before him and does not even commit to the hassle of cleaning. So I waited for the opportunity to be asked to prepare and I hurried to prepare and leave dirty. How amazed I was to hear the familiar chant "You prepared and did not clean as if you did not prepare" coming from the mouth of a high priest. I immediately pulled out my thumbs and went back to peppering all of the above and also wondered how it was done as if I did not prepare and what is the meaning of this as if and that a person is told who called the grandmother but in the morning did not get up for prayer as if he did not call the grandmother. And to this day I rub against the intent of the proverb. Is this a perception of the task as a whole and since there is no complete task there are no points on it. Or perhaps a tactic in ignorance to earn cleanliness and simplify the division of tasks. Or the one who knows how to breastfeed will get less dirty. Or that it is more pleasant for a man to clean up his filthiness than one of his friend's filth. Or baking is a handsome and easy craft and is not about other slave jobs. And the end of it is said miraculously from you do not demand what you have inherited observe you have no business in the hidden (buy). ]

      1. Commentary on 'Your Mother's Theory (LTG)

        In SD XNUMX in Tammuz P.B.

        TG - Hello,

        It seems to the court that the person who made the cake, which is one of the mother's duties (since baking is one of the seven crafts that a woman does for her husband) - thinks that in doing so he helped his mother and saved her hassle. And to this your mother rightly replied, that the hassle of cleaning the dishes and the kitchen exceeds the hassle of making the cake, so that he did not spare preparing the cake a hassle from his mother.

        On the contrary, the mother's hassle of cleaning up after a man who bakes is much greater, since the woman does the baking and cooking in an orderly manner, without all the marble and the kitchen becoming a 'Sodom and Gomorrah revolution' and chaos. The very work of preparing the cake also gives the woman 'creative joy' that brings great mental satisfaction. Which is not the mess with dirt and 'clutter'.

        And perhaps that is why washing the house and the dishes is not included with the 'seven crafts that a woman does for her husband', on the contrary, sages said that 'a woman does not become a dishwasher, because it is said:' People go out and wash '🙂

        And therefore it is good for a man to bear the burden of washing and testing the lettuce or to make himself steaming tea. And if he still has a desire to bake and cook - he will learn to do so in a clean and orderly manner.

        With the blessing of 'Support and Kitchen for the Righteous', K. Kalman Hanna Zeldovsky

  15. If I decide to read the article by Rabbi Michi Yarom India with great seriousness, and indeed it deserves it.
    It turns out that all the persecution, the defamation, the harassment and finally the ones that broke from it in practice and led to his downfall (2 his party is part of the religious community and 61 minus 2 = 59 it is clearly over) it is a fact of being religious and part of the religious community.

    That is: the religious overthrew the religious prime minister only because he was religious (and in fact symbolized the possibility of being religious without being subject to the accepted institutional mechanism)

    Now a question:
    I K. claimed all the time that he (the religious) is persecuted due to his being religious.
    Did the commissioner, too, to the extent that they were slandered (again, religious) mainly due to his being religious? (Beyond what is expected of babysitting)
    And the Attorney General was slandered to the extent that they (the religious) have in their hands mainly due to being religious? (Etc. beyond what is expected from a common bubbly)
    As well as the head of the State Attorney's Office, Shai Nitzan, as well as religious judges at the Supreme Court, and probably also a religious chief of staff when he is in office, and any executive position in the state.
    If you are religious and do the job properly will you be mostly persecuted by the religious establishment?

  16. Seudat D. David Malka Moshiach

    In the past, I understood that Attorney Weinroth was asked by his friend then Supreme Court Justice Prof. Barak to run for the Supreme Court and refused.
    And probably the reason was that he would suffer mostly in his stabbing from the rulings,
    And preferred to live normally rather than suffer.

    In fact, Bennett suffered mainly from his stigma, just as the late Weinroth expected.

    1. The late Adv. Dr. Weinroth was not afraid of his stable but of his conscience and of the accountability he would give when his day came before God. He said this in very explicit words.

      I was privileged to know some of the Weinroth brothers (including the late Jacob) as honest and righteous people (one of whom represented my mother Shachat with a symbolic salary against the state that robbed her of her miserable pension in an indignant and shameful way). Comparing their reverence to the reverence of the members of the "right" does them a great injustice.

  17. The difference between religious Zionism and ultra-Orthodoxism

    Hello, reporter, think for a moment, what is the difference between the ultra-Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox? To the best of my judgment, you will not find such a difference even in an electron microscope (except for the color of the dome and one such blessing). ' The case has a very large difference in the question of the attitude to the sand. You will hardly find ultra-Orthodox boys who do matriculation, in contrast even among the 'ultra-Orthodox' - you can count on one hand institutions that do not approach matriculation at one level or another. As a result, among the ultra-Orthodox there are masses of relatively older students, however, even in yeshivas such as 'Merkaz' or 'Har Hamor' you will find only a few older students. Even those who remain a student will be for a few years until he goes out to work in the world if in a Torah profession and those who are not suitable go out to work. The difference, of course, stems from the Zionist value - which considers the practice of sand for the purpose of building the country as a mitzvah. As well as the Zionist meaning that sees it as wrong to sit in an embrace and engage in Torah, while watching things come down from heaven, and giving value to the desire to act and influence the world. This seems to me to be the watershed. Legitimacy is an outgrowth and price that religious Zionism pays for its intervention in the building of the land and secular life. People who leave the world of Torah on the one hand find it more difficult to observe and be meticulous in keeping the mitzvah, on the other hand they feel that their activity in the secular world also has a dimension of mitzvah that covers and justifies the religious price. The ultra-Orthodox, of course, do not agree or accept this possibility. No wonder modern Orthodoxy can flourish in the United States since without it a religious person cannot justify an occupation in the first place (not for a living) in the sand. In Israel, on the other hand, Zionism and religious Zionism are the ones that give this justification, and therefore there is no need to reach the districts of modern Orthodoxy (which must be admitted that it is at least perceived as farther away from original Judaism)

    1. These are general and not really unambiguous characteristics. More and more ultra-Orthodox are doing matriculation and less and less ultra-Orthodox are doing it. This is really not a fundamental difference. Sand accounting is an empty password, as are many other passwords in which they can be distinguished. The question of what happens in practice is important and there is no difference. There are ultra-Orthodox groups in which the number of students is small, so the doses are not a significant difference.

          1. Hahahahahahahahaha. “Does not the murder of Jews just because they are Jews differentiate between Nazi Germany and the Palestinians (who want Jews because they have settled in the country they claim is theirs)? Definately not. It is partially present in both populations (there were also Nazi Germans who killed Jews only because they received an order, and not because they were Jews) ”. This is about the equivalent of the nonsense you wrote here.

      1. The statement that the difference between matriculation (and extraction data for employment) between ultra-Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox religious Zionists is not something unequivocal surprises me. The data regarding the ultra-Orthodox are quite clear, and arise in any Internet debate concerning the economy and the ultra-Orthodox. I have not seen similar claims arise towards the Mechinat Ali or even Mount Moor.
        The attempt to say that since the boundary between the publics is blurred then there is no similar difference would be to argue that because the boundary between the Orthodox and traditional public is blurred then there is no significant difference between them (and the whole column here is built precisely on the debate over accepting halakhah as the sole source of values).

        And since it is in my opinion related, I will reduce it a bit and correct that Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef does not say praise on Independence Day even now.

        1. In the heart of Mount Moor it is not customary to teach English to children and the results accordingly; Low matriculation rates and the preservation of children in the ultra-Orthodox model for the next generation. The only escape route is in the army, but this is also true for ordinary ultra-Orthodox.

  18. What about the Beit Midrash in religious Zionism that are not descendants of the students of the Harzia (center and Mount Mor), such as the Yeshiva of the Gush and the Yeshiva of Ma'ale Adumim?

    It seems that they provide what you want, and after all, these two yeshivot took out from among them sages' students and yeshivot Bat (you were R.M. in one of them… in Yeruham, which is a kind of Bat Yeshiva of the bloc)

    It seems that there is a rabbinical-yeshiva alternative that you are looking for and that you claimed in the article that it does not exist.

  19. You simply define the foundations of the national religious public differently and in any case all the rabbis you mentioned are ultra-Orthodox in your opinion.
    The answer from the other side will be simple: Religious Zionism is not defined in relation to modernity (necessarily) but in relation to Zionism. By this criterion, which seems to me to be more acceptable, the above rabbis are supremely national and supreme.
    And a word about the lovable derogatory nickname today "Haredal" - you can go right and left with excuses, but this nickname was originally invented by those who said gently do not take lightly as seriously and saw in front of their face a sight of those I will hire committed to halakhah. This look was very unpleasant because he put them in a position that they were as if wrong. What to do? Invent a derogatory nickname. It's not that I'm Hafifnik (and of course I do not blame you for that, but in the profit sense it's usually there), he's a mustard! Now it is possible to return to being a gentile with a dome and a clear conscience.

    1. I do not know you think that you have read my words or that you have read and did not understand. Do not know which interpretation is less flattering.
      I did not define the national-religious public differently. I define him just like you. I just argued that it is part of the ultra-Orthodox (because the question of Zionism is meaningless, probably nowadays), and the watershed should be around modernity and not around Zionism. That is, modern Orthodoxy against ultra-Orthodoxism. Around this line, the Idim I mentioned all belong to the ultra-Orthodox.
      Therefore, the nickname mustard, no matter what its origin, is accurate and precise. They are ultra-Orthodox (i.e. anti-modern) and national. All this was written and explained in the column itself of course. The fact that you are incorrectly labeling and generalizing does not constitute a supportive argument for anything.

      1. Well, second time: they disagree with your assumption that the significant dividing line is around modernity, and even more disagree with the statement that the question of Zionism is irrelevant.
        There is controversy over the attitude towards the state and its institutions, whether we are in redemption, etc. that raises fundamental questions such as military service and more.
        Your right to shred differently and in your division the above rabbis are indeed ultra-Orthodox, but it seems to me that the majority of the public does not define them as such precisely because it disagrees with you in the initial definition of the watershed.

        As for the Haredi - the first time I saw this nickname was around those who did not agree to hear women sing live, something that even the great liberal rabbis forbade.

  20. The above analysis would have been 100 percent accurate, if Levant had been called Shivi Reichner or Shmuel Shetach. What to do The retired prime minister's resume suggests that he is more of a hitchhiker who cares about his own prose than an ideologue in which to apply his orderly doctrine to the welfare of the electorate. He never had an orderly mishnah, but ego - yes.

    Bennett is similar to someone who works according to American motivation books. The sky is the limit, you can enlist in the General Staff patrol, marry a secular beauty, become a high-tech millionaire and then think about the next step. Climb Everest? To take a box office photo? To become prime minister? Bennett chooses the third option and for a while plays with the concept of the Israeli party (for all good, against all evil, here is what is good and what is pleasant, Shabbat Ahim both). He then does some thinking and carries out a stock market takeover right over the skeleton of the NRP.

    All this is not to inspire some new ideological spirit in the interpretations of religious Zionism, but to promote itself, and at any cost. This is the reason for the placement of Eli Ohana, the brotherhood with Lapid and the zigzags before, during and after the last election. It is clear that there is room for some utopian party in the spirit of the Mount Etzion Yeshiva and to the left, but Bennett has mostly wind and ringing.

    1. Strange that this is what you came up with about Bennett. If already an American Pike based on Bibi's resume. He even married a gentile and later a mentally ill person. And also betrayed all his wives, I think. And what did he make his money from? From Pike and more Pike and another hidden rabbi on the revelation.
      Simply put, Bennett has worked hard all his life and has done everything he knows how to do excellently. And the best thing that came out of him was that he managed to flip the juggling hitchhiker a bit out of the sight of Bibi. The first to have the courage and resourcefulness. Nachshon.
      No reason to assume flaws in motivation, and irrelevant.

      1. First, "But Bibi" is not an answer to Bennett's exploits. Bibi has a lot of shortcomings, I would be happy to see him retire from political life, if only because of his relatively extreme age. Second, the actions of a person (of every person) are largely an outgrowth of his origin, education and even outward appearance.

        Bibi, who in many media was born with a teaspoon of gold, or at least, money in his mouth, did not have to prove anything to anyone. His career, including ups and downs and betrayals of women and voters, looks pretty natural. On the other hand, Bennett struggled to prove to himself and those around him that a relatively short Khurchik could enlist in the patrol, that a son of the aliens who belonged to the Reform community, could become a darling of the settlers and the elders of the NRP, and so on.

        When a leader is driven by Napoleon Syndrome, it is dangerous in itself.

        1. What a condescending and distorted attitude towards people who started from scratch and built themselves with their own hands.
          Bibi is allowed because he is exalted from the people. Half G-d. But one of the people? Why is it who dares to succeed at our expense? You can not.
          Not worth mentioning at any other time, the problem is that you are not the only one making this miraculous argument today.

  21. Every time you translate your doctrine of faith into politics, it will simply negate, with the obligatory differences, the ultra-Orthodox 'Torah opinion'. Smart people, with an orderly and important subtext (though yours is more innovative and original) who rape their teachings on specific political moves out of lack of familiarity and often also deep lack of understanding. I demand this in praise, because both they and you are engaged in far more important matters than the twists and turns of politics and all the disgust that takes place there, but to finally express an opinion without acquaintance is not serious.

    The unfortunate Naftali Bennett, for example, when he made stinking deals with Yair Lapid while swearing upside down in all that was dear to him under every fresh microphone, was not exactly driven by all the noble descriptions here, but much more by uninhibited cynical megalomania, and it is a good father house for all other interpretations.

    Forgiveness, really forgiveness because I am petty in front of your goth, when you write about politics it is usually just embarrassing to those who are in business. Sure to delete, but it was important for me to unload anyway.

    1. It means that you are "in business", can you describe what is meant?
      Does your presence in matters mean that you surf the accepted news sites and swallow the propaganda from your side as its format or do you are exposed to secret and special information that is known only to a few of you?

    2. It's a little strange to me that someone reading my words is afraid I'll delete this post. Why should I delete? And that I do not allow here a critique of my words? I protest this wild and baseless slander.
      As a matter of fact, I did not write anywhere that this was Bennett's motivation (although I do think so, despite the dark 'deals' you describe here. But I am not dealing with Bennett man but with the processes he reflects). I said he was successful because he surpassed that sentiment and many of his voters expected him to act in those directions. Adam Bennett's intentions do not really interest me, nor have I dealt with them. As stated, I use the political processes as a demonstration of ideological and social processes.
      If this is the kind of embarrassment you feel at reading my other words in politics, then I'm totally calm. I guess in other places too you just do not understand what you are reading. Perhaps someone who is too knowledgeable in politics has a vague understanding and he lacks reading comprehension. This is part of the mess you mentioned there.
      With such praise sermons, there is no need for derogatory sermons.

  22. Michi I do not think there are modern orthodox who in the declaration will admit that some of their values ​​come from another set of laws that is not the Torah. It is based on human sabra only. It turns out that we are enslaved to * our * mind *. To * our * intuitions.

    Even those who say that some of the modern values ​​do not contradict the Torah. They justify that they had a basis. There were feminists. Or if you already excuse it that even if you have to consider natural morality. .

    Not that I personally think it is a foreign work or against God's will to hold on to more human values. Again in situations where they do not conflict with the Torah. And who among us does not do that? Natural emotions first of all. And a sense of obligation. Even the average feminist is shocked by rapes, for example. Both because of incest and because of human compassion

    But the question is the weight it takes as soon as a person for so long tries to be 100 percent modern and 100 percent Torah working for the name. And I know that is not your direction. The same person convinces himself that there is no contradiction or conflict. Dissonance. In general.

    But my main point is that I do not think that such a modern orthodoxy exists even abroad in large quantities. And if it had not been written in it, they would not have held it. "The rabbis of the Enlightenment." And it is not neural that we are left with spiritual or biological descendants

    1. Definitely has and has. The question of how many there is is another question. Moreover, even those who do not admit it is only because they are not aware of the option of holding two value systems at the same time, but really this is their real situation. Because of the intense preaching many people who in my opinion hold this position are unaware of it even within themselves. I think there are a lot of them.
      By the way, holding two sets of values ​​is not the same as sharing unless one of them is not related to Gd. But if they are both related to him there is no problem with that. I have explained this many times, and also in this column itself. When I speak of holding values ​​outside the Torah it does not mean a value system outside of Gd. These are two completely different things.

  23. It is more correct to distinguish between religious conservatism and practical religiosity
    There are many who do not like conservatism and on the other hand move away from modernity when it goes too far

    In the reality of life here in Israel, there is no place for the party (emphasizing as a party and not for private life) of modernity as an ideology, because again if it is ideological then it will inevitably go to an extreme place with modernity and have an orderly mishnah called 'religion'.

    At most, there is room for a less ideological and more tactical and practical representation in the face of secularism in terms of Let me build and be wise
    On the table there are lots and lots of unresolved questions that modernity has nothing to answer or that it answers ridiculous responses and gives kosher in the name of religion to all sorts of phenomena in short root problem of conservatism and ideological modernity come from the same place

    On the other hand, practical religiosity knows how to distinguish between what is desired and what is found
    In fact, it was the role of the heads of the communities in each generation to conduct themselves with the practice and the ideology. The rabbis gave as a guideline only that in recent generations it has mixed a little.

    Trying to give an example of the distinction between practical religiosity and modern religiosity
    Suppose the entire cabinet table is a proposal to instill ‘family values’ according to a progressive secular worldview
    So the modern religious will try to give it kosher for the sake of accepting the different and the weird and the rest of the nonsense
    The conservative religious will fight a bitter war against it
    And the practical religious will ignore the charged and ideological issue and will try to minimize damage in terms of the scope of the plan and its details
    (The ultra-Orthodox in a sense are both conservative and practical religious as in the recruitment law they oppose under any fresh tree and on the other hand they send their representatives to committees to try to minimize damage)

    1. The example you gave shows that your distinction is empty of content, or that you are attacking a straw man. Modern Orthodox does not automatically adopt any modern value. He only allows himself to do so, if the value seems right and worthy to him. He who just embraces everything around him is just sluggish.
      The description of your ultra-Orthodox should also be discussed, and there is no place for it here. It is true that they are pragmatic, but this is not a different perception but a way of conduct. I am talking here about perceptions and not about tactics.

  24. Peace,

    Hopefully it's not too late to respond (there was some family interest that caught me).

    First I must point out to a column I once wrote about this idea of ​​yours,

    So, eight years ago, this was the first time I was exposed to this argument and it infuriated me. But today I actually think you are very right and the fault line is exactly what you describe. On a practical level these issues are much more relevant and impact on life.

    But on the gothic-ideological level I think the root is still in the classical division.

    In the ultra-Orthodox conception, nothing essential has changed since returning to Israel. The same way of life of exile.

    In Rabbi Kook's view, returning to Israel is a return to the days of the Bible, it is an aspiration to connect halakhah and aggadah and thus change the whole world of halakhah from end to end (Rabbi Shagar claimed that this is Rabbi Kook's most radical innovation). It is an aspiration to see in all the historical-philosophical-cultural processes, part of a complete and comprehensive historical process of building the people of Israel, as Rabbi Kook described in the course of ideas.

    It is true that Rabbi Kook's practical implication is recognition of the secular world and therefore the people of the Mizrahi hung on to it and thus were influenced by the secular, so Rabbi Tao made a backward turn and tried to re-establish everything. But Rabbi Tao is still entirely loyal to Rabbi Kook's principled view.

    According to this view we have a historical role to play in building a kingdom of priests. Do not focus on D. Amot of Halacha. This means that T.H. is being built to promote the nation religiously and when that happens it will be possible to return to the Temple, prophecy, compose halakhah and legend, and so on. This is Rabbi Kook's vision.

    The essence of Rabbi Kook's innovation lies in the world of Kabbalah, which Rabbi Kook renewed is likened to the Aryan writings according to which the meaning of the order of descent is in the view of human creation part of the divine process and thus Rabbi Kook dealt with philosophy and education from Kabbalistic ideas. In this, Rabbi Kook is different from the Ga'a and the Ramchal, in which the ultra-Orthodox world is following in their footsteps, who saw the parable in God's leadership in the world and not in the creation of man.

    It is true that he is currently an ultra-Orthodox, even more closed than the ultra-Orthodox, but this is a temporary situation. His overall trend, of mustard, was and remains the trend of Rabbi Kook.

    Those who are hung on the national religious view to provide kosher for Western values ​​then you are absolutely right, that mustards are no different from the ultra-Orthodox and therefore need the national religious public to unite and grow confident leadership in itself and its way, but who understands that the whole purpose of establishing the state Our argument with the ultra-Orthodox waiting for it to come from heaven, and kosher for the sand world is the practical thing but not the heart of the debate, so he is very pleased with the current situation and just waiting for us to reach this stage the religious will internalize that the state is built One on his way

    1. Rabbi Kook's theories are indeed different, and their interest is Zionism, and this may also have implications for religious perceptions (a certain modernity). This has no bearing today, so it is an industry of the ultra-Orthodox. They may be properly waiting for the Messiah to realize a different model, so there may be a difference in the future utopia of the two groups. In our practical matter there is no difference between them. I guess you will also find ultra-Orthodox who will tell you that their anxiety is practical and their utopia also includes other sciences and values. As long as it has no practical touch to us they can be very open and liberal, but have not yet qualified Dera. This is a modern text of the ultra-Orthodox.
      Beyond that, your surgery is the same as mine and I totally agree with it (with a different conclusion of course).

      1. Indeed, I'm just not sure this is the halakhah for the Messiah. The Temple is an integral part of the vision of universality that Rabbi Zacks spoke about and Rabbi Shreki talks about, and the change in the form of study is also an integral part of it. The future, the Messiah, is already completely around the corner

  25. Michi's article is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty.
    Michi talks about the fact that mainly the ultra-Orthodox and the mustard were against Bennett.

    Michi is invited to read about the huge demonstration "in favor of government survival" in the days before Bennett's final decision.
    For the information of the readers - a total of about 2,000 people (several hundred) came to a demonstration in the government.

    Where are all the non-ultra-Orthodox or mustard religious?
    Why did they not take to the streets in tens / hundreds of thousands?

    Invent the writer of the article to check himself before he publishes such nonsense.

    1. Our Rabbi Shlita is right. He who defies our savior in the Bennett Yerach - is mustard at least in his heart, even if his appearance is different. A sign to speak of Nir Orbach and Idit Silman, who have already touched the anxieties in their inner selves.

      And vice versa, people with large dome, tassels outside and long beard, who support Bennett are not infected with mustard, examining 'the generation of Messiah, Dayahu Bish Malbar and Tev Malgao' 🙂

      Regards, Gilad Chaya Gavriyahu-Grushinsky

      1. Between 'cherishing rabbis' and confirming no

        In SD XNUMX in Tammuz P.B.

        Even those who do not grind easily as serious, and even those who define themselves as 'secular' - there is a situation that has a positive affinity for the Torah and its sages, cherishes Rabbanan and Rachim Rabbanan.

        He was a religious man who retired from the Jewish home due to the 'control of the rabbis', and was his 'secular' partner who, even though she was forced to retire by her senior partner, praised the wise advice of the rabbis with whom she liked to consult.

        It seems that Bennett's retirement - returns the 'right' to a public that turns affectionately to the right, to tradition and to the rabbis. Matan Kahana and his ilk - will find themselves as Elazar Stern Nakinli Turpez, members of the "Trustees of Torah and Labor" whose war on "religious extremism" precedes their right-wingness - will find their place in "Yesh Atid" and the like, while Torah lovers will find themselves again in the "right" For more connection with the Torah public.

        Sincerely, Galgag

  26. Yes, it is as meticulous as cod

    Shatzal, Matan Kahana loves Torah no less than the lovers of the Torah you are talking about. He did not fight religious extremism. He fights religious corruption, and will do nothing against halakhah. He is a religious man, honest, as meticulous as many others, and his intentions are for heaven's sake.
    I have also read things you have written in the past against the kosher reform. Please note that the decision-makers in the rabbinate today regarding kosher matters are not rabbis, but officials. Despite this, their decisions are final regarding very essential things in its kosherness and procedures. Decisions that are not necessarily halakhic and matter-of-fact, and cause quite a bit of damage. Both for kosher and your private pocket.
    Even if there are some failures in the reform that have not yet been resolved, it comes from a good place that wants to solve difficult problems that exist today.
    In many places in the world there is no 'Chief Rabbinate', and yet the Jews who are interested in eating kosher, eat in excellent kosher. No rabbinical institution is the ultimate guarantee for the quality of kosher food.

    1. Hence his place in Yesh Atid

      Certainly Matan Kahana loves Torah, because that is why he bothered to 'save' it from the rabbis, and therefore he will have a place of honor in Gaza in the only party whose leader wrote the book of musings on Torah passages, which is 'There is a future' 🙂

      However, I spoke of 'Mukir Rabbanan', of those who like to listen to the rabbis and enjoy their advice and resourcefulness even if they do not agree with them at all, and unlike those who saw the rabbis as a 'burden and therefore dismantled the' Jewish House '. And in contrast to those who thought of dictating to the rabbis of Israel procedures and laws kosher and conversion.

      On the reform of kashrut fraud that Kahana tried to dictate, according to which the last arbitrator in matters of kashrut will be an official appointed by the Minister of Religions to be called 'Kashrut Commissioner in the Chief Rabbinate' to mislead consumers, and open kashrut to organizations with business interests. - I extended in column 427 on the privatization of kosher food, etc.

      Following the discussion there, I proposed to the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi David Lau, a proposal that was accepted: to improve the level of kashrut of religious councils by establishing regional kashrut courts that will guide and guide local kashrut departments and thus raise the professional level of kashrut, and increase public confidence. In the system. Rabbi Lau forwarded my proposal to the Minister of Religious Affairs, and as expected, 'Kahana Station does not respond' 🙂

      All that is left is to hope that in the fifth election the Ba'alat will win a 'Minister of Religious Services' instead of a 'Minister of Religious Affairs' 🙂

      Regards, Gilad Chaya Gavriyahu-Grushinsky

  27. "But just a country that I want to live in and that I have the right to do so."
    I'm missing a point in your lesson, maybe you wrote about it somewhere else? In your opinion, is there no halachic obligation to live in Israel?

    1. A. Not in the country but in the Land of Israel. And there it is not necessarily a mitzvah but a kosher mitzvah (because only here is it possible to fulfill the mitzvahs that depend on Israel).
      B. I think I was accurate and wrote that even without the religious value I have the right to live in the country I want. This does not mean that there is no value but that it is not needed to establish our support for the state and Zionism.

    1. A. It depends on the controversy between Rambam and Rambam.
      B. I did not understand the question. Zionism is a movement that strives to create a Jewish state for Jews in the Land of Israel. Don't ask me what the definition of Judaism is in this context. nothing.

  28. I don't understand what Bennett's success you are talking about. The man did not pass the blocking percentage, then miraculously passed only thanks to the corona and his marketing-demagogical ability to leverage it. The common denominator of his supporters that I have gotten to know is not modern orthodoxy but rather intellectual shallowness and a fondness for slogans and clichés of all kinds.

  29. You divide too sharply between "Zionism" and "modernity". The very adoption of Zionism, even by the spiritual leaders of religious Zionism such as Rabbi Kook, stemmed from modernity and the internalization of the value of nationalism external to the Torah, and went hand in hand with the adoption of other modern values. The purpose of Zionism, including the religious one, is the modernization of the People of Israel (neglecting the "exile" = a non-modern view of the People of Israel). It is true that over the years, and with the sanctification of the state and its symbols, there has been confusion, but at the core of things, religious Zionism is just a version of modern religiosity.
    The writer is not a Zionist, nor is he a modernist.

    1. We have not heard in the modern world about returning to an ancient homeland after thousands of years (LHB)

      BSD XNUMX in Tammuz P.B.

      Melody - Peace be upon you,

      The idea that a nation returned to its ancient homeland after thousands of years of exile - does not exist in the modern world. There was an awakening of enslaved peoples to achieve political independence, but to return to a distant land after thousands of years - this is an idea that has no equal, and its only source is the Torah which promises 'And the Lord will return and sanctify your captivity and return and gather you from all the peoples'. The hope that was interwoven by the prophets, was recited in the prayers that men of the great Kahasath prepared in which the desire for Zion took a central place, and took a central place in the words of the Sages and the sages of the ages.

      Indeed, immigrating to Israel was mainly the property of people who grew up in the lap of tradition. The immigrants of the first aliyah were for the most part religious Jews, and also the immigrants of the second aliyah, some of whom removed the yoke of the Torah and mitzvot - mostly came from Eastern Europe where they grew up on a living and vibrant religious tradition. They grew up on 'Vani babai mapadan' by the teacher Haider, on the father's midnight correction and the pennies that the mother dropped into Rabbi Meir Baal Hans's coffers before lighting the candles. And so the thought of returning to Israel was strongly present in their minds.

      This means: the idea of ​​returning to an ancient and distant homeland is clearly not modern. From modernity they took the tools for execution.

      Best regards, Amiauz Yaron Schnitzer.

      1. And some came to Zionism out of disappointment with modernity

        And there are many, such as Moshe Hess, Pinsker, Smolenskin and Herzl, who came to Zionism out of their disappointment with modernity. They thought that the solution to the problem of hatred of the Jews and their persecution would be solved when the spirit of the Enlightenment conquered Europe. The enlightened world will begin to accept the Jews when they stop being different, acquire European education and lifestyles, and then the enlightened Europeans will welcome them with open arms.

        To their astonishment, 'enlightened' Europe continued to hate the Jews. On the contrary, their integration into cultural life, economics and science - was seen in the persecution of the Gentiles as a 'Jewish attempt to take over the world', and the more we tried to be more European and more modern - the more anti-Semitism grew.

        And so those educated Jews came to the insight that we need to establish a Jewish state where we would be more 'enlightened' and be a 'light to the Gentiles' in our enlightenment, and imagined that the Western world that was not ready to accept them as individuals - would accept them as an independent nation. A thought that is becoming more and more delusional. Even as a nation they will not love us, however enlightened and moral we may be.

        However, those who immigrated to Israel in droves were actually the Jews of Eastern Europe and the countries of the East, whose connection to the Land of Israel would be cleansed of tradition. They came en masse to the land of their forefathers and flourished its land with devotion and love.

        Regards, Real sent a floral

    2. I'll start by saying that I really don't care who the writer is. Claims must be addressed and not the claimants.
      I clearly divide the concepts because they are indeed independent. It is true that there can be a sociological psychological effect of the Spring of Nations on the awareness of the Torah value of establishing a state, but the reasoning used in the comment is the religious reasoning. All of us have these and other influences, but what is important is our reasons and not the influences that created them. The religious Zionists do not explain that there is a modern value of sovereignty and therefore one must be a Zionist, and this is not their claim against those who are not Zionists. That is why it is religious Zionism and not modern orthodox.

      1. But Zionism is not only the immigration to the land or the aspiration for sovereignty, but the whole project of "revival" of the people of Israel, behind which stand modern reasons par excellence, also and especially with Rabbi Kook, who is a modern thinker in every way. Even today in ultra-Orthodox circles phrases like "Torat Eretz Yisrael" are often code names for modern forms of Torah study and reading.

        A religious-Zionist is one who shares the modern national project of Zionism, and is in fact a religious-Israeli in the same way that a modern-Orthodox is a religious-American (or in a broader view, a religious-Western). In my eyes, only the natural difficulty of holding both ends (the religious and the modern) created the distinction between the concepts.

        Your claim "We all have such and such influences, but what is important is our reasons and not the influences that created them" apparently contradicts one of the main points of the article, in which you mock those who present artificial religious justifications and are forced into positions that what really stands behind them is modernity.

        1. This is a psychoanalytic analysis and it is not relevant in my eyes even if it is true. At most you say that they are all modern Orthodox and not religious-cynics. OK. I'm talking about positions and not people. Beyond that, I have already explained my opinion on justifications and psychological effects. They are not interesting and not related to the discussion. I am dealing with arguments that people put forward and not with a psychoanalytic analysis of what is behind it.

        2. 'Torah of Israel' is the opposite (melody)

          BSD XNUMX in Tammuz PB

          There are indeed trends based on reformist and conservative views, according to which we accept the modern or post-modern views as 'Torah from Sinai', and the Torah must be 'adjusted' to the current trend.

          This is not Rabbi Kook's Torah AI. He perceives that every renewed 'ism' has a correct 'point of truth', but it is mixed with negative slag. The Torah, when it is studied in depth and breadth - allows us to 'separate' the good from the bad, and therefore to find out the good from every renewable shield and throw away the waste.

          And the people of 'Torah and Derech Eretz' showed that it is possible to be a scientist of the first rank without giving up a 'comma' from Torah and reverence for God. And so religious Zionism strives to prove that it is possible to do great things in the building of the state and its development, while being faithful to the instructions of the Torah.

          Torat Ai is a complete Torah that encompasses all areas of the Torah - Talmud and Halacha, Hasidic thought, revealing and concealing - therefore it is able to deal with all currents of renewed life and give them an adequate halachic and intellectual response.

          Regards, Real sent a floral

              1. I showed that Zionism is a special case, or an Israeli version, of modernity. At the level of the position and not at the level of the psychological motive (?!). This directly relates to your argument in the article. And it is not clear to me what kind of psychoanalysis (?!?!) you found in my words.

                In addition, and as a side note, I argued that in your article you clearly refer not only to the stated position but also to the motive (not the psychoanalytical one - there is no connection - but the ideological one). But this is just a passing comment because my words specifically referred to the stated position.

                1. We just go around ourselves. If today there is a person whose argument against the ultra-Orthodox is that they do not conform to modern values ​​(nationalism, sovereignty and democracy, etc.), then he is indeed a modern Orthodox (and I said that many religious-Zionists are also modern. My argument is not about the religious-Zionists but about the idea of ​​religious-Zionism ). But if he claims in the name of the mitzvah of Yishuv without mutual guarantee, etc., then he is not modern. that's it. Now decide for yourself which of the people belongs to this and who belongs to that. I don't understand what is being discussed here.
                  I will add that as far as I remember I really do not refer to motives but to reasons. Sometimes I comment that you see motives through the reasoning (especially when the arguments don't hold water). I don't criticize people and I don't favor them because of their motives.
                  As mentioned, it seems to me that we are repeating ourselves.

  30. I don't know who are the modern orthodox you are talking about?
    The most important rabbis of YU are Hardelim (according to your definition). Most of the moderns (who integrate into society) are ultra-orthodox (=conservative) or layites.
    As a former chutnik, I know few such rabbis and I do not know a 'modern' Yeshiva in Europe.
    (And the liberals such as YCT went much further than here in Israel. Although they also secretly ordained many in Israel, etc.)

  31. אהלן הרב מיכי לגבי מה שאתה אומר שיש ציבור גדול בישראל שהוא דתי ליברלי זה אכן נכון אבל חושבני שהציבור הזה לא באמת מעניינת אותו כל התפיסה הדתית ליברלית שאתה מייצג. הוא ליברל לא בגלל שהוא חושב שכך ראוי לנהוג מבחינה הלכתית ומנסה לעגן את זה בכל מיני חשבונות הלכתיים אלא הוא ליברל כי ככה הוא גדל וככה נוח לו .הדת הרבה הרבה פחות מעניינת אותו והוא מרכיב די שולי בחייו והוא לא טרוד משאלות הלכתיות למינהם כך שהציבור שהרב מדבר אליו שהוא גם ליברל אמיתי וגם דתי אמיתי הוא מאוד מצומצם ובנט בהחלט ייצג אותו (ההערכה שלי שהציבור הזה מייצג 6 מנדטים לא חושב שיותר מזה )

Leave a comment