What Do Providence and Messianism Have to Do with the Judicial Reform? (Column 584)

With God’s help

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

The current turmoil in Israel has once again stirred in me somber reflections on the questions of providence and messianism, and I will try to lay them out here.

The Debate About Divine Involvement

More than once I have presented here my view that in our generation it appears that God is not actively involved in the world. Things occur by the way of nature, in accordance with the laws of nature and people’s choices. The conventional religious outlook projects biblical depictions onto our present reality, according to which God is involved in the world to some degree. One can argue that “there is no blade of grass that stirs without an angel over it telling it, ‘Grow’,” meaning that everything that happens depends on the Holy One. There are intermediate views that hold that God is partially involved—for example, that events affecting the Jewish people as a whole, or at least fateful events, are in His hands. The contemporary redemption is a good example, as religious-Zionist views regard the present processes of the ingathering of Zion as the work of God. When the process stalls or regresses (the Disengagement, Oslo), we are told that such is the way of redemption, like the dawn that breaks little by little. There are delays and local reversals, but the direction is clear, deterministic, and irreversible.

I have already pointed out more than once the folly in the notion of “hishtadlut” (the supposed obligation to “do one’s part”), which does not hold water logically, and which even those who swear by it do not truly believe. I argued that it is essentially a cloak for disbelief in divine involvement and providence. It is a kind of mental duality, a phenomenon I discussed in column 199 and in columns 575 – 576. In any case, it seems that the notion of “hishtadlut” drains the belief in providence and divine involvement of any factual content. In practice, those who believe in divine involvement behave like those who do not. This also turns the notion of involvement into an unfalsifiable thesis (for, as we recall, “God doesn’t work for us,” and therefore whenever what is expected does not happen, we have an excellent explanation). As is known, we are forbidden even to put God to the test, so this thesis cannot be subjected to an empirical trial. And even in the one area where testing is permitted—tithing (and perhaps charity)—no one has actually done so, and not for nothing. Without having checked, I surmise that systematic attempts to test it would come up empty. I also suspect that others who do believe in divine involvement do not undertake such trials because, deep down, they know I am right.

Practical Implications

If so, there would ostensibly be no practical implication to the question of divine involvement in the world. There are implications for prayer and petitions to Him, which I have discussed in the past, but not behavioral implications for how we conduct ourselves in the world. Even those who believe in such involvement conduct themselves in practice as if they do not, for there is the “obligation of hishtadlut.” Yet it seems we can nevertheless find practical implications.

There is a well-known story from the beginning of the War of Independence: Rabbi Herzog heard that the Brisker Rav was about to leave Jerusalem and feared a collapse of morale. He went to persuade him not to leave and told him that we have a tradition that the Third Temple will not be destroyed.[1] The Brisker Rav replied: And I have a tradition from my father’s house that when they shoot, one must run. I will not address the validity of inventions that rely on such obscure traditions (like the “tradition” that in the future the halakhah will be decided in accordance with Beit Shammai), though the fact is that many adopt them. In any event, to my mind this story is instructive on several levels.

First, it reflects the difference between religious-Zionist ideology and Haredi pragmatism. But what is more important for our purposes is the implication for the question of “hishtadlut.” The Haredim certainly declare that everything is in God’s hands (except for the founding of the state, which of course is the work of the sitra achra), but when there is shooting, they make sure to run. In other words, their belief in total providence does not contradict the “obligation of hishtadlut,” which empties that belief of content. It reminds me of the notice we received during the Second Gulf War that the small yeshiva where our son studied was about to be closed because of the danger of missiles. We wrote then to the mashgiach that we had naively thought that Torah study protects us all from missiles, but apparently that did not persuade him (if this is “beri heizka”—a clear hazard—I don’t know what isn’t “beri heizka”). In practice, those who declare that everything is in God’s hands conduct themselves like the last of the unbelievers. But that is what we saw above. What is more relevant here is what happens on the religious-Zionist side of the divide. Here we can see a rare practical consequence of belief in divine involvement. Rabbi Herzog in effect proposes not to engage in the hishtadlut that the situation demands, relying on a divine promise that we will not lose the war. That is, his belief in divine involvement led him to adopt a different practical policy. This is a rare case. I assume he would not instruct a private individual in this way (to pray instead of going to a doctor), but his belief in the redemptive process of the people of Israel as a whole was enough to ignore the practical imperative of hishtadlut.

The Current Situation

Amid the stormy debate over the judicial reform, a situation has arisen in which various experts warn of the state’s deterioration—economically, legally, diplomatically, in security terms, and of course socially. Eighty percent of new startups are being incorporated abroad. The shekel’s value is dropping, the stock exchange is plunging, and there are warnings of a credit-rating downgrade. People are moving money and investors are pulling out of investments in Israel. Experts warn that we are on the brink of a severe economic recession. Our foreign relations are in tatters (especially with the United States and the Abraham Accords countries). People are emigrating, and many others are considering it. The army faces a serious readiness crisis and a cohesion crisis. The social rift appears irreparable. And I have not yet mentioned (in my view dubious) warnings of the end of democracy and an emerging dictatorship. These are outcomes that will be very hard to fix, and some of them are already materializing today. These are not merely warnings about the future. The future could, of course, be even worse.

It is important to understand that I do not mean only the reform legislation. I have written more than once that the reform is not the main issue here, but the government’s policy and its considerations. Not a few are now coming to realize this. The ramifications I described are not a direct product of the reform but of this government’s general reckless policy (just yesterday they announced an across-the-board cut in order to transfer another 165 million shekels to the Haredim and the yeshivot).

It is also important to reject the claim that this is the will of the majority and that we must not allow a loud minority to dictate policy and overturn the elections. It is worth looking at the findings of the poll published in Israel Hayom (not in Europe the day before yesterday, nor in Haaretz tomorrow) regarding public support for the government’s moves (it’s worth seeing the full results here):

This is of course just one poll among many. These results have been entirely consistent over months, and as noted it was neither conducted nor published on a typically left-wing platform. Against this backdrop it is clear that the talk about implementing the will of the majority is cheap demagoguery. True, a government has the right to implement policy even if it lacks majority support at a given moment, but when its policy is outrageous both in itself and in the public’s eyes, it cannot shelter behind majority support. Let them not tell me they are implementing the voter’s will, because they most certainly are not.[2]

It is important to understand that even if those who claim that these outcomes are mainly the product of the protest, and not only of government policy and legislation, are right (I also think there is truth to that), it does not really matter. In practice, the outcomes are outcomes that we will all suffer from, and the government bears responsibility to conduct itself with consideration for all the pieces on the board. It cannot shift responsibility onto someone else.[3] Beyond that, I also do not understand how anyone thinks that the paltry gain in passing the curtailment of the reasonableness doctrine (which has almost no legal effect) is worth the king-sized damage.

Others claim that all these warnings are leftist “fake.” (No problem—Tali Gotliv has already explained to us that Golani soldiers can be pilots too.) Sometimes they even bring other experts who claim otherwise. Perhaps they are right, though I very much doubt it (to understate the point). But one must understand: a private citizen can form an opinion about the seriousness of these warnings as he wishes. His opinion has no importance and he bears no responsibility for the results. But a government that makes policy and is responsible for the outcomes must be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that all these warnings are indeed fake. Almost the entire senior civil service (much of it appointed by them) warns against the government’s policy, and to ignore all that they would have to be certain that it is political fakery. Is there sufficient basis for such an assessment? Is the government’s assessment that there is nothing to these warnings itself not political? I greatly doubt it.

Back to Providence

Since in my view, although this coalition is the sum of all deficits and there is no blemish you will not find in it (“You are entirely fair, my love, and there is no blemish that you do not have”), not everyone in our government is a complete fool. I assume that at least some of them (especially Bibi) know that there is substance to these warnings—or at least are not certain there isn’t. So why do they nonetheless insist on ramming through a vacuous curtailment of the reasonableness doctrine and paying all these prices? Is the need not to yield to the “military putsch,” as they demagogically and baselessly dub it, worth these outcomes? Is it really worth plunging us all into the real danger of ruin? We have already become accustomed to their stupidity. To their conservatism and primitivism—of course. To their lies and corruption—obviously. To their trampling self-interest and indifference—this is the defining feature of this coalition. But to the irresponsibility and to the results for which they themselves will be responsible—how is it that they are not afraid of that? Are they counting on the stupid public to keep voting for them even if the state is in utter ruin? Will most of us truly go on casting ballots for “Bibi,” “Deri,” “Ben-Gvir,” “Goldknopf,” “Smotrich,” or “Avi Maoz,” even from the depths of the sea? To tell the truth, in light of what has been so far, I cannot rule it out.

Here we have a wondrous combination of cynicism and a stupid electorate out of the Likud’s school, a captive public of the Haredi parties whose vote for them is in no way contingent on their actions and achievements, and as for the religious-Zionist parties, it seems they and their devotees are following the path of Rabbi Herzog, of blessed memory. They are relying on providence.

It goes without saying, we are reminded, that we have a firm tradition that the Third Temple is not destroyed, and therefore we must not be daunted by economic, diplomatic, social, or security problems. Since we are on a sure path to complete redemption, and since everything this coalition does is “for the sake of Heaven” (that is, for the sake of the desecration of His great name), they are certain that the Holy One will take care of the problems and all will be well. The experts, to be sure, have their place, and their assessments are apparently substantive—or at least cannot be ruled out with certainty—but that is only in the secular fleshly eyes of the ignorant and rational masses. In the spiritual crystal eyes of our saintly rabbis, the “cliffs of the land” (that is, all those responsible for the greatest desecration of God’s name since the creation of the world), it is clear there is nothing to any of this, for such is Israel’s safe and irreversible redemption. Nothing can stop a mystical, meta-historical, supra-natural process like our complete redemption. Certainly not small, earthly economic or security considerations that could halt the “repair” (i.e., wrecking) of the world under the Kingdom of Shaddai.

I have no other explanation for this appalling irresponsibility. It appears to be the result of blind faith that the State of Israel cannot be harmed regardless of what we do—and certainly if it is done “for the sake of Heaven” (that is, the looting of the public treasury in order to sustain and entrench Haredi parasitism that is ruining and will ruin us all). Add to this religious-Zionist ideology the Haredi self-interest and indifference, and the fact that Bibi and the few of his Likud colleagues who remain sane have been taken captive by this motley collection of delusional idiots, and you have the scandalous conduct of this union of abominations.

Two Wrong Assumptions

Behind this deranged policy lie two distinct assumptions: (a) God is responsible for what happens. (b) His policy is clear to us, and He is leading us safely to redemption. From these two assumptions one can derive the conclusion that, should problems arise, He will sort things out for us. Both assumptions are needed to live within this delusion, for even if God is involved in everything that happens, how do you know that He will not destroy the state? After all, He (?) has already done so at least twice in the past. Note that the “tradition” I mentioned is responsible for the second assumption (hence the Brisker Rav, who shares the assumption that God is responsible for everything that happens, still is not sure that the state will not be destroyed, or that we will not be defeated in war).

It is worth remembering that whenever a disaster happened to us—or to any other people—I am sure that a few years earlier no one believed it would happen. Before the destruction of the Temple, I am sure everyone lived in tranquility and did not believe that such a catastrophe could befall them in their days. So too before the Holocaust; and so too in our own times. This is a common mistake: people assume that the familiar situation is necessary and could not be otherwise. In my estimation, unlike previous warnings, today there is indeed a non-zero chance of ruin—or at least a real catastrophe—in our state. It is no longer far-fetched.

I recall an event in Elkana, where I lived with my parents and siblings until I married. My late father, the elder of the community, who in his youth experienced the Holocaust in Budapest, Hungary, was invited to a panel on whether another Holocaust is possible. The other speakers confidently explained that the Third Temple is not destroyed and another Holocaust cannot happen. But he, as one who experienced the Holocaust, said almost matter-of-factly: I see no reason why a Holocaust could not happen again. We would do well to take into account that the situation we are in is neither guaranteed nor necessary. It seems that many components of our coalition of horrors are not truly considering that possibility.

What Is Messianism?

Many accuse this government (and the Kohelet Forum) of “messianism.” Usually what is meant is a tendency to impose a halakhic state here and thereby bring the Messiah. This is, of course, a disconnected discourse. None of the coalition’s components includes such a goal among its near-term objectives. They certainly want to impose more “Judaism” and exclude other ideas, but this is not truly heading toward a halakhic state, at least in the near term (in the coming terms).

In a paper my daughter, Bruria, wrote with my help, she analyzed the messianic features of religious Zionism. To do so, one must define the concept of messianism and distinguish its negative and positive components, and that is what I intend to devote the next column to. Here I will only say that the principal component of messianic conduct is reliance on meta-historical considerations and the (even partial) disregard of realistic, historical considerations. That is what we see here. This is especially true of the religious-Zionist components of the coalition (Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and parts of Likud), but as I explained, they are dragging along all the rest, each for his own reasons (Haredi self-interest and indifference, or Bibi’s coalition constraints).

Therefore I actually agree that there is a very strong messianic component in this coalition’s policy. Their messianism is not expressed in striving for a halakhic state, but in ignoring realpolitik and acting according to meta-historical considerations. What I described above reflects this outlook and conduct. Sadly, this is not only a practical consequence of the belief in active providence but a policy liable to lead us all to disaster.

Smotrich’s “Redemptive Conduct”

Last night, as I was writing this column, I came across this article in which Rabbi Manovitz, head of the Golan Yeshiva, praises Smotrich for his “redemptive conduct.” Unlike Bibi, who conducts himself with historical awareness (this is entirely true in my view, which is why I find it difficult to reconcile it with his current policy, which is manifestly anti-historical), Smotrich and his party conduct themselves in a “redemptive” manner. Do not be mistaken: in Rabbi Manovitz’s eyes, and apparently in the eyes of many like him, this is praise, not criticism. Not only do they conduct themselves thus; they do not even contemplate the monstrous error in such conduct. It is considered praiseworthy.

Here are two paragraphs with the essence of the flaw:

He gave an entire lesson on Messiah son of Joseph and Messiah son of David. The study itself doesn’t matter, nor does it matter that he is well-versed in these things because he is a man of Torah—none of that matters. What matters is that he says to himself and to us: Look, what interests me is my role in this process. I do not live with historical consciousness; I live with redemptive consciousness and ask myself: What does the Master of the Universe want from me in this process?

There is no one here in our beit midrash—neither student nor rabbi—who thinks we are on the eve of destruction. There is no such thing. We are students of the Rav and of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda; we think there is a redemptive process here. The difference between us and those who rejoice in the State of Israel but do not understand that there is a redemptive process is the difference between heaven and earth. We think there is a process that God is leading, and we are joining it.

I am sure Smotrich’s lesson on Messiah son of Joseph and son of David was instructive and profound—after all, he “understands” the topic (well, no one really understands it, which does not stop everyone from giving comprehensive lessons on it)—but I would recommend he stick to such lessons instead of leading us all to disaster. There is no student in the beit midrash who thinks disaster and ruin are possible—but that is precisely the problem. This redemptive fixation, with which they brainwash the youth, and whose products ultimately become our political and rabbinic leaders. Rabbi Manovitz also educates his students to conduct themselves “redemptively,” and blessed be God, it bears fruit. Thus has the messianism we now witness come into being. A pack of rowdy punks are implementing their rabbis’ doctrine under their active guidance and direction and are leading all of us to the abyss. If this is not messianism, I do not know what is.

By the way, Rabbi Manovitz there does not forget to pay the obligatory lip service to the “duty of hishtadlut”:

Rabbi Manovitz emphasized that this does not mean Smotrich has an insurance certificate. “Do not ask whether there is an insurance certificate here, whether you are a person like the finance minister, and I do not know pragmatists like him. Even his fiercest opponents speak of his learning curve at the Transportation Ministry, of how quickly he learned what that ministry is, and how quickly he learned the economic system. No one thinks he receives divine messages and lives by them.”

He notes that this “redemptiveness” does not prevent our revered leaders from weighing realistic considerations, and yet it is still the redemptiveness that guides them. But in practice, it seems they definitely ignore those considerations. And that is no wonder, for the thesis of “hishtadlut” is indeed untenable. If one adopts the belief in divine involvement with the two assumptions noted above, it follows that one should not engage in realistic hishtadlut. If no one thinks destruction is possible and if redemption is guaranteed, as Rabbi Manovitz says, then why fear it and/or act to prevent it?! If there is no insurance certificate, whence the certainty?! Has he anything against logic?! If his analytical Talmudic lessons look like this as well—saying one thing and its opposite sentence after sentence? Religious sloganeering and mental duality will have to answer. But my problem is not people’s logic; I have largely lost hope there. Our problem—all of ours—is the practical outcomes of this harebrained “logic.”

[1] Not that I understand why that promise—even if one takes it seriously—guarantees that the Brisker Rav would not be killed by a bullet, or even that Jerusalem would not fall. The Old City of Jerusalem, as we recall, did fall—until redemption “recovered” nineteen years later, in the Six-Day War.

[2] I have already explained (see for example column 553) that even if this were indeed the voter’s will, that would not delegitimize protest and opposition to changing the rules of the game.

[3] Moreover, this current coalition, when in opposition, tried to torpedo on its own—sometimes successfully—government measures, including those that were to its liking and, by its own lights, good for the country (such as visa-free travel to the U.S., applying Israeli law to settlers in the territories, taxes on disposables and sugary drinks, and much more). And we have not yet spoken of refusing to accept election results, which is not our direct concern here.