With God's help

Michael Abraham

The Haredi public had the good sense to unite in the face of the threat of losing the Chief Rabbinate… By contrast, the Religious Zionist public, which displayed division and quarrelling, was left with nothing in its hands.

(Journal headline, Makor Rishon, 26.7.2013)

I will begin with three prefatory remarks, because this is not a standard article, certainly not in this distinguished supplement. First, although a substantial part of what will be said here touches on contemporary politics, heaven help us, the purpose of the article is to draw attention to a point of very great moral and spiritual significance. Please read these remarks in that context. Second, my comments about the outlooks of the various rabbis do not stem from personal acquaintance with them, and therefore there may be errors. Third, some of the remarks will be somewhat polemical and rather sharp, but at their core they are not written as criticism of any particular position (even though there is criticism here, and it is by no means concealed), but as an attempt to clarify an important point that is apparently hidden from the eyes of many of us.

Following the mass demonstration against conscription on Sunday, thoughts again came to me that had accompanied me during the race for the Chief Rabbinate elections (without entering into my general opinion of the institution, which has already been expressed in these pages as well). I most definitely do not mean to say that the demonstration is a necessary consequence of the results of the recent elections for chief rabbis, or of the failure of Religious Zionism in those elections. What I wish to say here is something entirely different: there is an aspect of the events surrounding this demonstration that reflects the fundamental mistake in understanding what happened in those elections.

It will be illuminating to begin with the summary sentences so typical of those elections, such as those quoted here at the top of the page. Nothing better expresses the depth of the fixation in which we all remain trapped, both in those elections and in our lives and discourse generally. The public discourse following the elections to the Chief Rabbinate, both among those pleased with the result and among those lamenting it, expresses a consensus as though what happened here was a failure of Religious Zionism vis-à-vis Haredism. The struggle throughout was presented as a struggle over the Zionist character of the Chief Rabbinate. In addition, the prevailing view is that this failure was the result of the split among the candidates of Religious Zionism as against Haredi unity. Both of these claims are mistaken. To the best of my judgment, they also express a very deep misunderstanding in reading the map. This is an error that accompanies us in many additional contexts as well, and does not allow us to understand who here is really against whom on the spiritual plane. It seems to me that most of the public, including some of those who participated in the struggle and the controversy around it, do not really understand what it was and is truly about.

Let me say in advance that in fact there were no genuinely Haredi candidates in these elections (nor in the previous ones). Haredi society rejects the Chief Rabbinate, and does not participate in elections to it directly (that is, it does not field its own candidates, although it of course tries to exert influence in various ways). For example, the three Ashkenazi candidates who stood for election are Zionist rabbis in every practical sense I can think of. As far as I know, all of them recite Hallel on Independence Day (the ultimate expression of Zionism in religious society), all of them are partners in building the state and society and wish for their success, all are in good contact with broad sectors of the public of every shade, and it seems to me that this time they were all good and worthy people. The same is true of the Sephardi candidates.

If so, contrary to what we are constantly being fed, the Haredi-Zionist axis is not relevant to those elections, and as I will argue below, it is in fact already hardly relevant to our lives at all. So what is? What was the struggle about? To hang everything on personal interest, on each candidate's desire to be elected, is too easy and not accurate. There is one difference, and in my assessment the main struggle revolved around it: the question of liberalism and modernity versus conservatism, and really the question of one's attitude toward Jewish law and Torah in general. A clear expression of this is the debate over how far one can and should make changes in the mode of operation of the Rabbinate and the rabbinical courts, and how far contemporary norms and the current social environment are parameters that ought to be taken into account when issuing halakhic rulings. Does one adopt the methods that I once called here "first-order rulings," or only second-order rulings (reliance on precedents, with little willingness to take changes in reality into account)? The status of women and of the non-Jew, attitudes toward literature and art, and so forth, are additional expressions of the question of conservatism of which I speak here.

Once one understands that the struggle over the Chief Rabbinate was conducted along this axis, and not along the Zionist-Haredi axis (that is, attitude toward the state), one immediately sees that on the two sides of the barricade there are not Haredim facing Religious Zionists. There are Zionist rabbis who are conservative in their halakhic approach and entirely non-liberal. We hear quite a few halakhic rulings by Zionist rabbis regarding the place of women, or the status of the non-Jew (among them the candidate for Sephardi chief rabbi who called for not renting apartments to non-Jews), and on the other hand there are also Haredi rabbis who lean more toward liberalism and are willing to make changes. But that is not relevant, since as stated the Haredim are not really on this playing field. In this sense, Rabbi David Lau (the "Haredi" candidate) and Rabbi Yaakov Shapira (head of an important and veteran yeshiva in Religious Zionism) are on the same side. It seems to me that both are beholden to a considerable degree to the Haredi rabbinic leadership, both do not advocate liberalism and halakhic flexibility, and as far as I know both issue second-order rather than first-order rulings. Opposed to them stands Rabbi Stav, who in my view is not some great revolutionary (that is also how he describes himself), but it appears that he is nevertheless willing to consider necessary adjustments, at least of procedures and standards and perhaps also of various laws, to the reality of our day, and it seems to me that sometimes this is even contrary to the position of the conservative decisors and rabbis. It is no secret that there were organized groups of Zionist rabbis whose purpose was to prevent Rabbi Stav from being elected to the position.

Let us now shift our gaze to the recent demonstration. I cannot elaborate here at length, but any reasonable person understands that this demonstration expresses moral corruption, lack of gratitude, cynical manipulation, and many other defects that I will not detail here. But what matters to me here is not the moral and Torah-based condemnation of this demonstration, but its description as a distilled expression of the Haredi approach (at its worst). The demonstration arose because of the demand to impose criminal sanctions on those evading conscription. Now think: if one truly agrees to the very imposition of quotas but opposes imposing sanctions on those who exceed them, what does that mean? It means that those quotas will in fact be a dead letter. That there will be scandalous inequality before the law, according to which those in black coats will be permitted to violate the law without punishment, simply by virtue of being dressed in black. The law will establish a draft quota, but it will be a quota not intended to be implemented. It is important to understand that this is the principal declared demand of this demonstration (forgive me, this prayer assembly and event of sanctifying God's name). There is Haredi agreement that a law be legislated and quotas established, provided that the law will be a dead letter. That is the essence of the Haredi demand in this demonstration.

The quota of 1,800 students out of an age cohort of 7,000, which is the target of the law in its current wording, is by all opinions a fine and respectable quota (for peace of mind I will leave aside here the absurd term "geniuses"). There simply is no such number of Haredi students in each cohort who are likely to develop into long-term Torah scholars, and I say this From a fairly solid familiarity with the Haredi Torah world (I was there). But as stated, the dispute is not over the quota, but over the sanctions. So if this is an appropriate and agreed-upon quota, how can one demand that no sanctions be imposed on someone who violates the law and does not enlist? Is there an honest intention here to reach an agreement? Certainly not. This is throwing sand in people's eyes, characteristic of a minority that feels persecuted and therefore permits itself to adopt such deceptive methods.

Haredi rhetoric proclaims from every rooftop that this is a time of religious persecution and a matter over which one must die rather than transgress, a persecution of the Torah world by the wicked Bennett and Lapid. Bennett is Haman, as is well known. It is true that, as Amnon Levy says at the opening of his book on the Haredim, in Haredi discourse there is no event that is not a Holocaust. Whatever is not a Holocaust simply does not happen. Everything that happens is a decree of religious persecution against the Torah world, requiring rending of garments and hysterical cries of self-sacrifice. And yet this shocking discourse cries out for interpretation. The ingratitude toward the inconceivable consideration and tolerance shown by the general public toward the Haredi world, which has evaded sharing the burden for many years, is a distinctly Haredi characteristic. The Haredi public is carried by the money of the broader public, makes use of medicine, security, social and psychological assistance, and enjoys subsidies for education and vocational training (usually very makeshift). The service that is already being done almost brings no benefit, costs a great deal of money, and requires not simple adjustments in the army. In return for all this and more, the Haredim grant Israeli society their gratitude in the form of insults, abuse, and derogatory labels.

And I have not yet mentioned that this pure motive also justifies demanding that the lovers of Torah and its devotees in all purity call for lengthening the service of students in hesder yeshivot at the expense of their Torah study (equality in sharing the burden, as we said?). All for the glorification of Torah, of course. And I have not yet mentioned the report, one among many, on the "B'Hadrei Haredim" website (dated 3.3) about the words of the Vizhnitz Rebbe, and this was his golden formulation: "I recently heard that a party has arisen that calls itself 'The Jewish Home.' I do not know why they chose this name if their entire purpose is against the Jews; it is a home that is not Jewish. Heaven forfend, they are fighting everything holy: Torah, the Sabbath, and everything else; poor things, they are like children captured away from Judaism in the most severe sense." And immediately afterward he adds the following pearls: "One must know that all the people who, due to circumstances, try to speak to them softly – and to give in a little here and a little there, we tell them clearly: absolutely nothing. My father, the 'Yeshuot Moshe,' of blessed memory, used to say that compromises exist only in monetary law and not in the fundamentals of religion; he will neither kneel nor bow." Truly the author of "Ohev Yisrael" of Apta. An item appearing literally one line below the previous one on the same site is adorned with the following headline referring to Rabbi Shai Piron: "Teaching hatred: "Israel is less Jewish because of the Haredim" ". Well, at least we have found who is teaching hatred here. But have no fear, it does not seem that anyone there on the website's editorial staff even blinked at the sight of this absurdity (again, just one among very many). I am not even mentioning here the headline that explained that a certain Religious Zionist rabbi was "separating himself from the community" (yes, exactly that wording!) because he had called not to participate in the demonstration.

But my purpose in all this is not to explain my opinion of this demonstration (which is called, with the utmost cynicism, an "event of sanctifying God's name"), and of everything surrounding it. My purpose bears directly on our subject. It is important to understand that this belligerence, and the approach underlying it, are an expression of a distinctly Haredi approach. Not specifically Haredi in the sense of opposition to the state, but Haredi in the sense of a distorted relation to Torah. Haredi in the sense of bombast and hysteria as the only mode of discourse. A Haredi approach in the sense of a total lack of attentiveness to the other. This is Haredi in the sense of complete disregard for general society, of seeing only themselves and no one else, Haredi in the sense of sacrificing the Haredi collective, which suffers from so many maladies, for the sake of a few who can grow over many years in Torah study. This is in fact the essence of the approach of the Haredi core, for good and mainly for ill. One may argue about all this, but there is no doubt that this is a distinctly Haredi approach.

Why is it important for me to describe the Haredi dimension in this conduct? Because, to my surprise, I read in the press that Religious Zionist rabbis called for joining this demonstration, and even did so in practice. Among those issuing such calls were Rabbi Yaakov Shapira and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, both of whom, as noted, were candidates on behalf of Religious Zionism for the Chief Rabbinate. What are candidates of Religious Zionism and their students doing at a demonstration that is pure, unadulterated Haredism? What do these rabbis and the demonstrators have in common (I read that Rabbi Lau was also among them)? I want to hope that these rabbis (as well as Rabbi Lau) did not join in the expressions of hatred and the belligerence, nor in the other blatant distortions, but the fact is that they found themselves belonging to this uncompromisingly Haredi framework. Let us remind ourselves: these are the rabbis over whose failure to be elected to serve as chief rabbis on its behalf Religious Zionism mourned. It seems to me that this phenomenon sharply highlights their Haredi approach (not necessarily in the anti-Zionist sense, but in the conservative sense), and especially their attitude to the structure of state, society, and Torah.

Now I ask: is this not precisely what ought to define the relevant criteria for someone serving as chief rabbi on behalf of Religious Zionism? Is all this not more important than reciting Hallel on Independence Day? For even at a simple glance one can see that between them and their Haredi counterparts there lies no more than a few chapters of Psalms once a year (on the 5th of Iyar). That is all. Ironically, in fact even that difference does not really exist. I am told that Rabbi David Lau, the "Haredi" candidate, also recites Hallel on Independence Day (although this is not really important). If so, he too is Zionist for our purposes (regarding Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef's position I do not know, although his father, of blessed memory, apparently recited Hallel, at least in certain periods).

So what exactly was supposed to be the difference between the approach of Rabbi Yaakov Shapira and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu and the approach of Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef and Rabbi David Lau, had they served at the head of the Chief Rabbinate? Can anyone point to anything that would be done differently there if Rabbi Shapira or Rabbi Eliyahu were there, as opposed to Rabbi Lau and Rabbi Yosef? In my assessment the answer is clear: almost nothing. At the margins I will add that it seems to me that Rabbi David Lau has, since being elected, shown good conduct, with a tendency toward improving the operation of the Rabbinate. Certainly no less than what would have been expected of any other Zionist candidate. With my dim eyes, I do not really succeed in discerning a substantive difference between him and the "Zionist" rabbis who ran against him.

It is important to me to clarify that I do not come here to criticize these rabbis for their halakhic approaches, or even for their decision to cooperate with the Haredi demonstration (as stated, I believe that they were not partners in its distorted elements). Their approach is legitimate (even though I do not agree with it), but it is very important to open our eyes to the underlying currents. The time has come for all of us to understand the relevant axis around which the discussion ought to be conducted. It is certainly not the Haredi-Zionist axis, but the Haredi-liberal-modern axis.

The meaning of this analysis is that in our arena and around it there stand three groups, not two: Haredim of various kinds, conservative Religious Zionists (sometimes called Hardalim, nationalist Haredim), and the modern camp. The relevant watershed in almost all the issues currently on the table (apart from the unimportant question of Hallel on Independence Day) runs not between Zionists and Haredim, but between conservatives and moderns. This is true not only in the elections to the Chief Rabbinate, but in almost all the other public controversies as well.

And indeed, in the elections to the Chief Rabbinate, modernity (not Zionism) suffered a resounding defeat, but it was certainly not the result of a split or of this or that political conjuncture. It was the result of the real situation on the ground: the modern camp is a small minority within the rabbinic establishment, and especially among the leadership of that establishment. Ironically, the split in the Chief Rabbinate elections was actually among the conservative candidates (for example between Rabbi Lau and Rabbi Shapira), and even that did not prevent Rabbi Lau from winning those elections, simply because he rested on a genuine and very large majority (and of course also on the power of representatives of the secular public, who cooperate with the conservative camp and then complain about the conservative manner in which the Chief Rabbinate conducts itself). This was a predictable story from the outset, and not the result of any particular split.

Incidentally, during the race the Jewish Home Knesset members read the map correctly when they called on Rabbi Shapira not (!) to withdraw his candidacy, precisely in order to assist (yes, yes, you read that correctly) Rabbi Stav. They understood that he was taking votes from Rabbi Lau and not from Rabbi Stav. And despite that, after the elections they themselves took part in the detached discourse that attributes the matter to the split and to the Zionist-Haredi struggle. There is a blatant and systematic error here in reading the map, but it seems to me that there is also an element of deliberate misdirection. The conservative group has an interest in diverting the discussion to the Zionist-Haredi plane, and in concealing its other dimensions (the more relevant ones), so as to present the more modern camp as the one that prevented Religious Zionism and the general public from winning the elections.

The conclusion that emerges from these remarks is that the time has come to change religious-political discourse from the ground up. It seems that we are still arguing about whether to establish a state or not, or whether to recite chapters of Psalms on Independence Day, as though we were living at the beginning of the previous century. Have we not noticed that the state has already existed for almost seventy years? Instead of the Zionist-Haredi fixation, we must update the discourse and our perspectives. The question truly on the table is: what kind of Jewish law do we want? Do we want first-order rulings (in the sense I defined in a previous article in this supplement), or must we remain with a Rabbinate that operates at the second order (according to precedents whose relevance is doubtful, and under the guidance of the Haredi-conservative rabbinic leadership)? That is the real and important question. Zionism, and also the color of the skullcap or the clothes, or the question of Hallel, are no longer relevant in our world. The time has come for spiritual coalitions different from those that currently exist. True, there is a surprising inertia to the existing ideological lines, but it seems to me that the time has come to get rid of it and update the discourse and the subjects of debate. The first step is at least to understand the map and read it correctly.