Who is Haredi?
In light of Column 731, it seems to me that some of your claims about the Haredi public are exaggerated and generalizing. The feeling is that you are basing your knowledge on certain groups—perhaps those you met in Bnei Brak a few years ago—and from there you are drawing conclusions about the general public. In practice, the reality I encounter on a daily basis is much broader and more diverse.
However, I agree that it is very difficult to define such broad streams of ultra-Orthodox people.
Indeed, in the Haredi community there are extremists, closed-minded people, opponents of Zionism, refusers of military service and even those who show tolerance towards problematic behavior towards the state and many more… However, alongside these there is a very large group – certainly not a minority – who do not behave this way, alongside many who agree with some. These are people who maintain a distinctly Haredi lifestyle, define themselves as Haredim, and their environment also sees them as an integral part of Haredi society. Are you aware of the matter and only refer to people who are not like that? Do you think that the characteristic is such despite so many (in my opinion) that it is not?
It seems that you are offering your own new definition of "modern religious," and including many people who define themselves, and actually live, as Haredi. The majority of the Haredi public — both outsiders and Israelis — identifies them as Haredi in every sense. It is possible that only by your personal definition are they not Haredi, and on the extreme side they would even be called "gentiles," but in reality they are not marginal. Do you think that most outsiders are not Haredi?
Regarding secular studies, for example — I do not believe that most Haredim are opposed to this in principle. Their absence stems mainly from a preference for other values (like you, if I am not mistaken), such as the level of Gemara studies. The preference to send a student with a high level of “sacred studies” creates a situation in which any institution that wishes to be considered “quality” refrains from introducing full core studies. There is also a social phenomenon here of fear of differentiation or exclusion — a real fear that has a basis — but it does not necessarily indicate a deep ideological opposition to general studies. It is difficult to see this as an “essential Haredi characteristic,” but rather as a result of social pressures. Perhaps fear really is a characteristic….
I agree with you that belief in science as an essential value, and not just as a means, is indeed a characteristic that is not Haredi. However, it seems that in your articles in general you tend to exaggerate your criticism in order to sharpen your arguments, and sometimes this exaggeration undermines accuracy and fairness. Do you think this is true?
It is also important to remember that for many Haredim, "leaving the public" or leaving what they grew up with for years entails a very heavy price compared to the reward they receive outside. Therefore, even if a person identifies with some of the things you describe, they may prefer to remain in the Haredi circle. After all, the Third Path still does not have institutions and communities... Should all these phenomena be included in the definition? (If Harediism is a sociological phenomenon and most of them act and do not think this way, it may have an impact...)
PS If your goal is also to bring people from the Haredi community closer to your perception of the “modern religious movement,” a more gentle and respectful presentation of things may serve this purpose better. Harsh criticism may be discouraging, even when the intention is positive. I think that in a class or an interview, you would present things in a slightly softer way… Is this really an exaggeration for the sake of the argument?
Hello.
First of all, I didn't see any criticism of the Haredi in this column. I just described what a Haredi is, and I argued with Rabbi Navet about his proposal. Therefore, this is not a discussion that is relevant here.
Regarding my own claims, you have a fundamental error in the angle from which you look at the issue. When I characterize a group and criticize it, I do not mean to say that these are the characteristics of all its members. In principle, not even of the majority. My claim is that this is the group characteristic. In other words, this is how Harediism operates (and not how the Haredim think). It is absolutely not the same thing. You yourself say that you and those like you think differently on some of these issues but are afraid to act accordingly for all sorts of reasons. What are you afraid of? Simply, because the group to which you want to belong (= the Haredim) will not accept it. After all, you also agree that this closed approach does characterize the group as a whole.
If I thought this was characteristic of all Haredim, we wouldn't have established the Third Path. The whole idea there is based on the assumption that there are many Haredim who think differently but don't act differently. Our goal is to help them act as they think. If there weren't such Haredim, what was the point of establishing the movement?
Therefore, we have no argument about the facts. And from this you will understand that I did not exaggerate at any point, neither for polemic purposes nor for any other need. I described the Haredi group as a whole and its ways of conducting itself, and not what each Haredi thinks individually (there are about a million of them. And would it occur to you that I think they are all the same?!).
1. It's true that at the beginning of my remarks I meant more about columns 720 and 722 and more.
I agree with a good portion of your arguments, except that the language you use is a bit harsh.
I wanted to know if you really stood behind every word and every description or if it was more to illustrate things.
2. I don't fully understand. Let's say that the majority of the public doesn't think in a certain way. Can it still be defined in essence by a result of which it is merely a victim? And why doesn't this result also enter the definition?
3. Do you think that the best, utopian society is the modern religious one. Or is it just the best alternative to the ultra-Orthodox or the national religious?
4. If I succeed as an ultra-Orthodox in every way, serving, studying in academia and sending my children to high-level institutions with reinforcement at home for things they won't learn there, and being part of a very diverse community... why should I "move" to the third path?
What about the fact that you don't have institutions, do you propose to stay in the existing institutions for the time being? Go for institutions on the border, with the price involved?
5. Do you distinguish between Israeli Haredim and the "hotznyakim"? In defining Haredim, you seem to ignore them... Do you agree that if they and the Haredim in Israel define them as Haredim, then they are Haredim in every sense?
Thank you in advance for your time.
Everything has been explained. I don't understand what you are asking.
1. I am not exaggerating anything. My description is completely accurate in relation to the public. The language is not harsh at all. Your behavior is harsh. I am only describing it. You remind me of the rebuke of the Rabbi in Yeruham when I came out against the community that was conducting itself in terrible corruption, and he claimed against me that I was committing slander. I told him that the problem is in the things I am describing and not the description itself.
2. I have explained this several times. You want to dance at all the weddings. To belong to the Haredi community and not be responsible for its actions and conduct. You are supposedly forced. You are not forced in any way. You chose to belong there and submit to the norms practiced there. See column 723.
3. I am not concerned with utopias.
4. You will decide if you want to belong and where. You choose to belong to a distorted, harmful and immoral society. Your decision. What do you want from me? Beyond that, the third path is a movement and not a society, at least for now. Those who joined did not leave the society to which they belong. Why do I need to establish institutions for you? You want such institutions, then establish them. Again, the Haredi attitude that everyone should solve your problems. You are just "rapists". This is the attitude of a little child. Grow up. If you think there is no better option, then you choose to be Haredi (because that is the lesser evil), then don't complain about my descriptions of you.
5. I do not differentiate between anyone. Anyone who belongs to the Haredi community, no matter what their color, is in the whole matter. This is a collective description and not an individual description of any person or group.
I don't claim to be a compulsion. I try to improve myself even though I am Haredi, which is why I serve and study at the academy. I don't think it counts to dance at all weddings.
In the end, if I stay in such a society and such a community and use Haredi institutions, just joining the third path, isn't it still being Haredi? What's the difference between that and what I'm doing now?
In my argument about outsiders, I argue that you define Haredi Israelis at most. In the eyes of a Jew living abroad, these are descriptions of Israelis, and in the eyes of a leftist, these are right-wingers, and in the eyes of secularists, these are religious, etc. And perhaps in the eyes of the Haredi from the north of the country or from certain neighborhoods in Jerusalem, these are the Bnei Barakim, and among the Bnei Barakim, these are the… In the end, if these are part of the group, it is impossible to blame it on the entire group…
I ask systematically, assuming that most Haredim from all over the world are not like that, is it permissible to define Harediism in general in a way that characterizes only a minority in Bnei Brak or Kiryat Sefer? I agree that Harediism can lead there, but perhaps it is a phenomenon of mixing Harediism with Israeliism?
Are you talking about the core, the hardcore, of the Haredim, and therefore all Haredim from all over the world, when they choose to be part of it, are they partners in it? Is it possible that there is another hardcore than the Bani Barki hardcore?
I'm curious about your opinion on aliens in general, can you share it with me?
Thank you again.
I don't understand where this discussion is going. If you are Haredi then you are Haredi and if not then you are not. If you are not Haredi then I really wasn't talking about you.
Ner, it seems to me that you attach too much importance to "what Miki thinks of me" than it really should matter to you. You make your own choices, you and only you should judge and rule on whether you think they are good or not.
If you don't agree with Mikhi in his arguments against the Haredim – after hearing them – or in the conclusions he draws from them (such as that being part of this society is bad and corrupt), that's your right. You don't have to try to change his mind to feel good about yourself.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer