Again about Haredim…

שו”ת › Category: general › Again about Haredim…

asked 5 years ago

In connection with your criticism of the Haredi.
The main point of the conclusion that there is no truth to the shortcomings in the Haredi public. Similarly, many of the Haredi public are aware of and are pained by this criticism. And one can even find little reference to this criticism between the lines of its thinkers [in Rabbi Volba Ba’al-Shor there is little reference]
But despite the major and painful disadvantages, there is no better alternative.
And a good example of this is Rabbi Kanievsky, who indeed has very little knowledge and understanding of certain subjects [to put it mildly…]
But the reason that caused this apparent weakness is the reason that caused their virtue as a person with rich Torah knowledge, who dedicates most of his life to Torah and piety.
The question is whether religious qualities are preferred even though the reason that builds those qualities will lead to major disadvantages on a human level [and perhaps even religious, but it turns out that this disadvantage is small compared to the virtues, at least religious in the Haredi perspective]
Even if I am inclined to believe that we have reached a situation where the shortcomings of the Haredi perspective have indeed become too great, because the public has become too stupid, and the shortcomings outweigh the virtues.
This does not mean that the Haredi perception is fundamentally wrong, but rather a call for criticism that will lead to a change in dosage. That is, more openness that will lead to more general wisdom, even though this move may lead to a painful deficiency in the lack of Torah and fear.
The principle in my words is that the [at least fundamental] anxieties view recognizes the shortcomings, but we are always in a conflict over whether to prefer the advantages, which are religious qualities, despite the shortcomings of this approach.
And this question is the center of gravity that needs to be analyzed as to what to prefer [Of course, there is an implicit assumption in my words that there is a contradiction between the two things and it is difficult to combine them together. But it seems that this is a fairly proven claim, since I would not deny the moral qualities that exist in the Haredi public]

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 5 years ago

It’s a great question, and I don’t have any clear criteria for it. But I’ll make a few comments anyway (and I’ve written about this many times in the past). 1. The Haredi public sanctifies the shortcomings (ignorance, poverty, lack of connection with the world and the environment) and does not just accept them. This almost does not exist in any other public. The modern public does not accept the need for work and education but believes in it. There is a difference between coming to terms with a situation in retrospect and sanctifying it. 2. I have never doubted the important need for the rabbinical rabbinate who are involved in the study of halacha. Everyone needs to repent, and without the devotion of the Rakh and his ilk to the Torah, it is difficult to grow like this (although in my opinion this is not the main model for greatness in the Torah, and so on). I have written about this more than once. See, for example, the end of my interview with Dr. Roy Yozvitz, and in the obituary of Rabbi Elshayeb Knohl. However, these people should not be given leadership and status to give instructions in daily conduct. Let them sit in their rooms and answer questions in their studies or let them simply study and we will all keep them on a handsome salary as befits such elevated people. 3. Even if the benefit from lying is great, it does not necessarily justify it. The moral costs of ingratitude, living a lie, parasitism, lack of understanding of reality, living on hollow slogans, etc., are a heavy price in my opinion. 4. An incorrect belief cannot be justified by being stable. The value is to maintain the correct belief and not to maintain a belief even if it is incorrect. The question is whether survival considerations do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 5. Benefit does not justify any price. Maimonides says that those who fear that they cannot avoid sinning should flee to the deserts. No one does this, nor does he recommend doing so. If someone cannot refrain from speaking evil or lying, let them live in a cave and that’s it. Why not? Because the Torah was not given to the ministering angels. The Torah is supposed to be applied in life, that is, in the world that God created. And if there are problems, they should be dealt with and not run away. Therefore, the considerations of benefit that arise as an ultimate justification are far from convincing me, even if they were correct. 6. I am not at all sure that the overall benefit is indeed greater than a Haredi life. First, the entire secular world around us has left (lack of coping with the Enlightenment and isolation). Therefore, even if in the short term it seems safer and more survivable, I am a great believer in the survival of an open world. In the long term it is safer and more survivable because it learns to cope. Adaptation. Harediism will pay (and is already paying) heavy prices for its policies, and I am not at all sure that the overall benefit, even the survivable one, is indeed greater. The Sadducees were very conservative and opposed the innovations of the Pharisees (halachaic midrash, etc.). So was the Rabbi, who did not say anything he did not hear from his rabbi and refused to accept the innovations of his friends. Examine the survival of these groups. This is roughly the debate between capitalism (free economy) and socialism (managed and centralized economy). 7. Continuation of the previous point: You have an assumption that a person should preserve himself in the short term even if there are costs (to the Haredi society itself, and also to the people of Israel) in the long term. I advocate for an open education that takes risks in the short term, in order to improve our situation in the long term (even if my children abandon their faith and commitment, the children of all our children will benefit from it). This is of course in direct opposition to the Haredi concept in which everyone preserves themselves and let the world burn. . 8. In several columns in the past, I have argued that if you define a utility function according to the person’s own wishes, then no person is irrational. Every person who does something, no matter how stupid, does it because that is how it is desired. So from his perspective, the utility function is fulfilled optimally. A person invests a million dollars in a lottery that yields a hundred dollars with a 0.01 chance. Is he irrational? He simply does it because he enjoys it. Therefore, by definition, he is rational. What I mean to say is that any nonsense can be justified by the fact that there is an indirect benefit that outweighs the nonsense. The question is whether this holds water. In my opinion, absolutely not. I assume that from the perspective of the ultra-Orthodox here, but as mentioned, it doesn’t matter to me because, as mentioned, it can also be argued that every person is rational from his perspective. 9. The benefit that the Haredim derive is also not a result of Harediism but of the fact that there is a non-Haredi society around them that holds them in very high regard. Therefore, this benefit is not a success of Harediism but an exploitation of the environment. It is a success (insofar as it is a success) of society as a whole. To the same extent, the success of Harediism (which, as mentioned, I do not agree that it exists at all. But I am speaking according to your opinion) shows that I (=the secular, the gentile, the mischievous, etc.) am also right, because without me Harediism would not have succeeded. 10. It would be good to extend this, but this is not the place. In conclusion, I would just like to say that I also do not agree that there is necessarily a contradiction between logical and rational conduct and religious and spiritual success. It is possible to improve at least some of the aspects without necessarily harming success (which, in your opinion, exists there). At least that is how it seems to me. I have tried to outline a few main points. Each one should be discussed in detail, but I think they are enough to show that considerations of utility are not necessarily correct, and even if they are correct, they are not necessarily the right criterion for conduct. I think this is the main point of disagreement between us. In a way, it summarizes the ten points I wrote.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

I hinted, but it is important to clarify:
11. The Torah qualities that exist in the Haredi community are indeed high, but this is only one and limited Torah aspect. In my opinion, a limited horizon is also a limited and limited greatness. In my opinion, today, Torah greatness includes an understanding of the world and broad education. Combining all of these in study and jurisprudence leads to results with much higher qualities than the complex moves of Brisk scholarship (which I suspect is not my favorite and important to me. I have written in praise of it more than once).

דביר replied 5 years ago

You wrote in claim 1: “That the Haredi public sanctifies the shortcomings”
In my opinion, by virtue of this assumption, your claim in claim 3″Living in a lie, parasitism, lack of understanding of reality, living on hollow slogans, etc.,”
You assume that the Haredi public sanctifies its shortcomings. Or rather, the creators of the Haredi concept sanctified the shortcomings even though they were aware of the shortcomings in order to preserve the Haredi public. Therefore, you rightly claim that it is actually living in a lie.
I will not deny that such a public does exist within the Haredi public [in a crude and inclusive form, the public is called the “Bani Barki” who are usually students of the Ponovis yeshiva’ That this is a yeshiva that is the mother of other yeshiva in its image] But there are many in the Haredi community [and even in the Bnei Baraki community who become conservative when they grow up…]
But there is a large community in the Haredi community [again, in a rough generalization, the students of the Hebron Yeshiva and many others in its image] who are indeed aware and pained by the shortcomings. They do not sanctify the shortcomings but rather pain them. And they do not live in lies or on empty slogans. But are aware that a heavy price must be paid on a human level in order to be rewarded with religious qualities.
Such a style of “Haredi” Of course, claims 1 to 4 do not exist.
This claim also greatly refines the criticism in claim 6. If we assume that we are aware of the many shortcomings in the Haredi public. And in a sober way, we prefer the religious advantage over other virtues. Survival will be higher [The examples you gave are of conservative groups that believed that there is a virtue in conservatism itself. And that there are no virtues in the other public. According to the lines I describe, the Haredi public defines conservatism not as a virtue but,
as a necessity. And therefore is aware of the virtues that exist in a public that is not conservative. But prefers the advantages of conservatism. Even though its basis is incorrect [, because society needs development]. But nevertheless prefers conservatism out of necessity to preserve religious qualities.
In claim 7 you wrote “It is in direct opposition to the Haredi concept in which everyone protects himself and let the world burn. .”
Again, I am sorry, but in my opinion you have built a straw man and that is whom you are attacking.
I have heard countless times from strictly Haredi rabbis that a Haredi person is supposed to be in a constant state of conflict. Between the situation where a person is supposed to influence society. And to be a person in general. And between the need to raise a person as an individual.
The conflict between these two extremes, of course, means that a person is supposed to be conservative, that is, not open to his environment, but on the other hand, he is supposed to influence.
This is the true Haredi perception. And not, as you say, that everyone protects themselves. But how can I protect myself and still influence?
A great expression of this perception is the multitude of organizations, both close and distant, that exist in the Haredi sector [in my opinion, even more so than in the National Religious], out of the understanding that a person is supposed to influence and not just protect himself.
Claim 9 - You are right. Indeed, the general public helps the Haredi. What is wrong with that? It is clear that the secular public helps the Haredi public. But why does this show that the perception of openness is right? In my opinion, there is confusion here between assistance that the general public does provide and justice.
In relation to claims 5 and 10 [and also refine claim 11]
I do agree with you [as I mentioned in the question] that there is extremism in the Haredi public, which causes illogicality. But the walls are not intended for illogical or inhumane conduct, and in any case this does not mean that the core of Harediism is wrong. I will elaborate a little:
. Indeed, there is no contradiction between rationality and logical conduct and religious success. Rather, there is a contradiction between a world full of stimuli, both material and mental [at least before a person acquired self-criticism] and religious seriousness. [In the article framed in my opinion, the focus is on materialism [for example, even as an ultra-Orthodox, I would prefer that my adult child access a site that contains claims of heresy [I hope for quality…] rather than porn sites]
Therefore, I believe that the walls should indeed be lowered. In order for there to be logical conduct
but not to shatter them. Lowering the walls to increase wisdom and humanity and not to escape from life. But on the other hand, although the low walls that remain will indeed diminish wisdom [but there will be no obvious unwise people and certainly not stupidity as some in the public have]
But although as a result of the walls there will be shortcomings. The presence of these shortcomings is preferable, in order to increase religious qualities by distancing their stimulation [and not logic as you perceive it to be intended for]. Again, this point emphasizes that a person must always live in a conflict between the two peaks of conservatism as a necessity and the deficiency in conservatism. [In my opinion, this is the explanation in Maimonides' words.]

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

You are falling into a common fallacy here in discussing the characteristics of a society. Clearly, there are exceptions and it is clear that every description is inaccurate and incomplete. The question is whether there are essential characteristics for this public. My argument is that there are.
Regarding 7. Being torn, but not doing anything about it. I spoke about that in detail. This sense of tearing apart is very helpful to the people of Israel.
Regarding the rest, the things are said and the voter will choose.

דביר replied 5 years ago

Regarding your first claim - it is strange that you are building a Haredi society as you wish to build it, and then you attack it. As a person who is thirsty for Haredi society, the essential characteristics that you are building are not at all true for a large part of it.
But that is not my concern here. My claim is that we are not discussing only Haredi society. But rather the Haredi perception as an idea. And for that, we need to formulate what the ideological perception of that way of life really is and then argue with it.
After this stage, it is possible to discuss whether there is indeed a correspondence between the abstract perception and its realization in reality.
My argument to you is invalid, you skip the first stage [not trying to distill what the ideological basis of that perception is or alternatively you raise one possible definition but it is incorrect] and jump to the second [diagnosing how Haredi society actually operates]. And in my opinion, as a result, you have 2 failures:
1. You define the Haredi perception as a certain result and therefore you believe that this is how they behave in a certain way. If you were to formulate their perception differently, you would see their behavior differently…
2. Therefore, you call for the destruction of the conduct of society and not for the refinement of its behavior. Before claiming destruction, you need to define what is being destroyed, also in the ideological basis and not only how that idea was realized. In order to destroy a certain way of society. We need to examine where the basis of society's error is, whether the way the haredi idea is expressed and realized is incorrect [as I believe] or whether the haredi idea and philosophy of life is incorrect [as you believe]
You claim to shatter the conduct and manner of expression of the haredi idea, since you argue with the way it is conducted. But you did not shatter the haredi idea as it is actually formulated, not as it is sometimes formulated by its actual realization [as I answered you to define what the haredi idea is. And for some reason you thought I came to define haredi society and not the haredi idea]
And in any case, the way of life was not shattered either, but needs to be refined, since you did not shatter the abstract concept at the base of haredi society.
As for your second claim that haredi society does nothing with reading, I also do not understand it.
1. The ultra-Orthodox society focuses the world on a religious perception. Therefore, in this area, a lot is active in the general public, as I mentioned, the ultra-Orthodox organizations are active even more than the public in national religions [even if it is possible to argue that they are wrong in their approach. But still, what you claim that they do not do anything with the feeling of being torn is hidden from their activity.
2. If you are looking for them to help with material things. Indeed, the ultra-Orthodox society has less influence. But this is not because it does not care. But because most of its capabilities are religious.
And an expression of this is that there are many charitable organizations that operate in the ultra-Orthodox public, much more than their numerical ratio in the population. And the reason why in ways that they can help, members of the ultra-Orthodox society also help to compensate for the feeling of being torn.