Haredi Reactions at the Corona Turning Point (Column 305)
Haredi Reactions at the Corona Turning Point
First, a report on developments. In Column 290 I sharply criticized Haredi society and its conduct, in particular in light of the phenomena that were revealed during the corona period. My criticism was met with harsh attacks not only in the talkbacks here on the site, but also in the newspaper Haaretz,[1] in Makor Rishon, and more. The peak was an organization that calls itself “B’Tzalmo” (“in His image”) – in whose image, exactly? I am offended on behalf of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is here implicitly accused of extreme lack of intelligence – which sent a letter of demand to the Attorney General and to the Government Unit for the Coordination of the Fight against Racism (apparently there is such a thing), to investigate me for incitement to antisemitism, violence, and racism. As you can see, that letter is a splendid collection of nonsense, with arguments on the borderline of mental retardation, seasoned with a pinch of lies (to the glory of the State of Israel). But this is understandable: simple folk need livelihood and ratings (and mainly justification for their existence), and not all of us graduated pre-preschool with honors. So I wish them all the best of luck.
And now to the next chapters. My criticism was of course not unique. It joined many other criticisms, including in the press and media overseas, which shows that there is here a substantive failure of Haredi conduct and not a random, incidental case of some particular Haredi community in a particular place. In that column I cited an article by Rabbi Farkash that adopts sharp, courageous, and honest self-criticism regarding the Haredi attitude to corona, although in my view he does not put his finger on the full range of deep phenomena that I pointed to. The difference between us is that, as I explained in that column, in my opinion the crisis that arose in corona is connected to the essence of Haredi-ness and to its conceptual and ideological foundations, and not just to incidental failures. Interestingly, Rabbi Farkash’s article was written as a critical response to an article by Rabbi Pfeffer, which looks like a defense of Haredi conduct (although he writes that it is not). Ironically, it is specifically Rabbi Pfeffer who puts his finger on the fact that this conduct is not an incidental failure but something essential to Haredi-ness itself. He indeed presents this as an explanation and not as criticism, but from his words as a whole it emerges that the crisis is connected to Haredi-ness as such (that is, it is not an accidental phenomenon). Therefore, of the two, I tend to agree specifically with Rabbi Pfeffer even though he is seemingly less critical of the Haredim.
Clearly it is still too early to draw conclusions, and already then I wrote that I hope (though I am not sure) that these phenomena and the criticism will bring about some change in the Haredi attitude to the world, to leadership and even to the sources of halakhah. But of course this will have to be examined over many years, and I assume that even from a long distance in time it will be difficult to conclude whether the corona crisis caused any change. Still, at what is (I hope) the turning point of the corona phenomenon, I thought that it is worthwhile to try now to examine how the Haredim themselves are reacting. I wish to point out a few initial lines of the process of drawing lessons in Haredi society and of the proper attitude to it.
First Reactions: Eliyahu Levy
I mentioned that there was criticism of my words also in the newspaper Makor Rishon. I meant an article by Eliyahu Levy (editor of the journal Tzarikh Iyun, in which the two articles by Rabbis Pfeffer and Farkash were published), which appeared in the Shabbat supplement dated 11.4 (Parashat Shemini). His article looks like a courageous self-criticism by a Haredi man about the society to which he belongs. As mentioned, within his words he inserted criticism of me, but here I wish to focus on the nature of his self-criticism, because we can see in it an initial model for possible (expected?) lesson-drawing in Haredi society. On the following Shabbat I published there a response to his words that dealt mainly with the general aspect (and less with his criticism of me, which only reflected that). Here I will bring a more detailed version (there I had to be brief). Before reading, I recommend reading Levy’s article and forming your own impression.
Eliyahu Levy presents his words as criticism of Haredi society, focusing that criticism on its hubris and intoxication with political power. Within his words he criticizes the critics (those full of malice and inciters, in his description) who relate to this society patronizingly and accuse it of ills that it does not have, thereby spoiling things and heightening the walls between the societies instead of building a bridge between them. Among other things, he quoted a passage from things I wrote in two columns on my site (290–291) that were devoted to Haredi conduct during the corona period, in which I argued that this conduct expresses a collection of quite a few inherent and most fundamental failures in the way of thought and conduct of Haredi society in general. Among other things, I said there that such conduct leads me to understand how pogroms broke out against Jews (and I fully stand behind that statement of mine).[2] In the next column I explained at length, for those who have difficulty with reading comprehension, the difference between understanding and justifying, and also between malice and hatred on the one hand and anger on the other. This of course does not prevent Haredi spokespeople in various places from saying that I called for carrying out pogroms against Haredim and adding that I am also flooded with primal hatred of them. To my mind there are so many failures in Levy’s article, and his criticism of me is just an expression of them. Here I will try to sketch a few of the main lines.
I will begin by noting that the title of my first column (290, the one he quoted from) dealt with the importance of critical thinking (especially self-criticism), and the main accusation I leveled at Haredi society was its lack of ability and lack of willingness for self-criticism. I meant deep criticism of some of the main principles of their faith and outlook. I think Levy’s article, which purports to present self-criticism, is a splendid expression of this. Instead of standing on the roots of the failures, which, as I showed, are rooted in the thinking and most basic principles of the Haredi worldview, he prefers to ignore all this and to present a wonderfully rosy picture that is nothing but a façade, and to focus on… political hubris. As if that were the main problem and, by implication, the only one. His article is an enthusiastic defense of Haredi-ness and its conduct, under a thin guise of self-criticism. Whoever reads his words feels that he lives on a completely different planet. What he describes are not the Haredim I know. It is convenient for him to ignore and deny the fact that this is a society that is backward economically and educationally, that is borne on the hands of the surrounding society while disparaging and patronizing it without pause and without cover. He of course does not relate to the characteristic cries of the “robbed Cossack” that accompany the aforementioned disgraceful Haredi conduct, which cynically and manipulatively pluck at delicate strings of malice and antisemitism (whose heart does not break when he sees a Jew being persecuted who looks like his grandfather?! That’s what they are counting on). Levy also ignores the fact that decisions there are made in a scandalous and frivolous way by people who do not know their right from their left and who are fed tendentious and unprofessional information. He also prefers to ignore the fact that the educational and other systems there are far from exemplary, as he describes, and that Haredi society would long since no longer exist were we not all carrying them on our shoulders (economically, in security, medicine, education and welfare, law, and more) with tolerance that, in my eyes, is incomprehensible.
Among other things, I mentioned there in the column the well-known joke that used to be told about Nixon: what is the indication that Nixon is lying? When he moves his lips. Let this rule be fixed in your hands: Haredi spokespeople are always defenders (I am using here an exceedingly mild expression). Even when they ostensibly present criticism of their society, in fact their main concern is defense. The “criticism” they present (after all, you don’t air dirty laundry in public) usually comes in order to enable them defense, or at least lack of self-criticism, regarding their fundamental ways of thinking and conduct. Let me remind you, in the case of corona these failures apparently cost human lives and led to a terrible desecration of God’s name throughout the world (including the foreign press), which in any decent society would have led to the immediate resignation of the leadership that caused this. According to Torah standards and just plain common sense, that leadership ought to go into exile to a distant place and repent, and we ought not to see them again; but there, in Haredi realms, that very same leadership continues to issue directives (at the next stage they were actually extremely strict, beyond the Ministry of Health). See below as well for interpretations by Rabbi Edelstein of the events.
All this, Levy hangs on political hubris. That and nothing more. He even goes so far as to present this as courageous and honest self-criticism by a Haredi of his community. By the way, was his article published in Yated Ne’eman or HaModia? (When was the last time criticism of Haredi leadership was published there?). Why is such “courageous” criticism published in Makor Rishon? Perhaps because even such anemic, apologetic, and dishonest words as his cannot be published in those bastions of critical thinking and straight thinking, as he himself describes them. This façade reminds me of that job candidate who is asked about his faults, and he answers (after deep thought and a slight hesitation): perhaps I am too much of a perfectionist. The Haredi spokespeople who appear in general forums tend to exploit the public’s lack of knowledge and lack of familiarity with the Haredi world, and so they can sell them tall tales about exemplary conduct, about an enlightened, deep, and critical worldview, or about extremist minorities that do not represent the law-and-order-loving majority. Levy’s article is another clear example of this sad phenomenon.
There is a natural tendency (especially among people on the left, who have recently enlisted energetically in defense of the Haredim) to support the underdog. In their eyes the underdog (Mizrahim, Palestinians, or Haredim) is always right. Well, no. The underdog is not always right. Moreover, the underdog is often himself to blame for his situation (at least as contributory negligence), and as such it is very important that he internalize that he must bear the consequences and pay the price. After he will vocally express his understanding of this and repent, then it will be appropriate to assist and support him as much as we can. But not before. If we continue to support the underdog simply by virtue of his being such, then in my view the bridge with the Haredim will be built on foundations as sound as the peace that our left-wing people are fashioning with the Palestinians. As our Sages said: whoever has mercy on the underdog, in the end will perpetuate his situation (there, there).
Of course it is possible and fitting to present and praise the free-loan funds (gemachim) and volunteerism, the acts of kindness, dedication to Torah, frugality, and all the other good aspects of the Haredim. But one must not allow these to whitewash the deep problems. Now is the time to deal with the problems, not with the virtues. As I wrote in Column 291 and also said in oral interviews, my words were written and are written out of deep empathy for the Lithuanian Torah world and its milieu, of which I feel, to a great extent, a part. Precisely because of that I am so angry (and not hate-filled), and precisely because of that I saw it as an obligation for myself to fulfill: “Those whom He loves… He rebukes.”
So much for the things I wrote about Eliyahu Levy’s article.
Rabbi Edelstein’s Explanation
A continuation of this same type of criticism can be seen in the words delivered by Rabbi Gershon Edelstein, which were published in the press and online (and also abroad), and here too the sense was that we finally have some courageous self-criticism. Seemingly, a refreshing breeze in the usual Haredi discourse. So let us examine this “self-criticism” a bit as well. Again, before reading the continuation, I recommend listening to or reading the report of his words and forming your own impression.
Rabbi Edelstein asks:
There is something here that has to be understood. Here in the country, the percentage of Haredim who passed away relative to the general public is much higher than in any other sector. Also abroad, the percentage of Haredim who died is higher than that of any other sector. And what does this mean?
You would expect him to give the obvious answer: because they did not obey the regulations, because they live in poverty and crowding and without means of information and coping with such situations, because they have no trust in the authorities, and no less than that because they have unintelligent leadership (which includes himself). But Rabbi Edelstein posed here a tremendous question. “Something that has to be understood,” not every mind can grasp it. No one can conceive of a possible answer to this question. Now you are ready to hear his answer. So perhaps you will be surprised, but no, he does not attribute this to the natural and obvious reasons mentioned above (irresponsible and unwise leadership, poverty, crowding, lack of information and communication channels, and the like). Here is his answer as quoted in the report there:
The Chazon Ish says as follows. It is written in the Chazon Ish: today, those who have not yet repented are inadvertent sinners, they are like children taken captive (tinokot shenishbu), they are not to blame, they did not receive an education, they are not to blame, they are inadvertent. Their sin is the sin of inadvertence. But Haredim, a Haredi who has a sin is not inadvertent.
After that he repeats and sharpens the point (for indeed not everyone can grasp the depth, and then we might, Heaven forbid, remain with a question):[3]
The sins of one who is not Haredi are inadvertent, but a Haredi who has a sin is not inadvertent. That is the point. Therefore, in a public in which there is sin, “the attribute of judgment” strikes more at the Haredim; that is the reason.
So he attributes the harm to the Haredim to the fact that among them the sins are intentional and not inadvertent. So now we have an explanation. From the day the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the sages. Happy are we, how good is our portion, and blessed is He who entrusted His flock to such shepherds.
What I Will Not Deal With Here
I will not enter here again into the wearying and frustrating sugya of bitachon (trust in God) and hishtadlut (human effort), that strange invention that every Haredi rabbi (and also non-Haredi) repeats with devotion as if it were divine truth. It is worthwhile to see Column 279, which was devoted entirely to this strange matter of hishtadlut and the double attitude to it.[4] It is interesting to bring here a joke I once heard in the name of a well-known Haredi rabbi, that a certain kollel scholar whose car was stolen asked him in what he had sinned and what he must correct. That rabbi answered him: in being too careful about locking the car door. Now guess who that rabbi was? Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky. No less. By the way, why is it clear to all of us that this is a joke and not serious words? For this is really the correct answer. That itself already demands explanation. But our concern here is with self-criticism following corona.[5]
Another thing I will not deal with, but I nevertheless cannot refrain from a brief comment on it, is the wonderful logic in these words. He has a decisive proof for the words of the Chazon Ish, for otherwise how will you explain that more Haredim were infected and died than others? A question for which there is no answer. It is good that Rabbi Edelstein updated us about the Chazon Ish. The didactics are also very impressive. You begin with a tremendous question, and we all stand in wonder as to how we did not think of it ourselves, and are shaken by what on earth the answer could be. And then comes the revelation that only Haredim sin intentionally, and we bless: blessed is He who chose them and their teachings, or “who shares His wisdom with those who fear Him” (and there are those who say: blessed is He who changes creatures). I, in my innocence, thought that if there is a simple and obvious answer, then even if, for some reason, you do not wish to accept it and insist rather on a crooked and illogical answer, in one thing you must at least admit: you cannot bring a proof for your position from such a question. And certainly not open your words with it, as if we are facing some towering intellectual challenge. Leave aside this strange worldview, which sadly is very widespread. At least as far as the logic and learning go, from the head of the Ponovezh yeshiva I would expect a bit more.
So What Will I Deal With?
But let us leave the logic aside as well. I ask myself: what about religious people who are not Haredim? And what about non-Haredi heads of yeshivot, who also are presumably not total inadvertent sinners (after all, they too have learned something, in hours that are neither of the day nor of the night)? Rabbi Edelstein, apparently from deep familiarity, assumes that the heads of the “Mizrochnikers”’ yeshivot are total inadvertent sinners (ignoramuses and brainwashed people, worse than the secular). So it is no wonder that Mizrochnikers were not harmed as much as Haredim, for they too are inadvertent. Here you have proof that one must repent and return to Haredi-ness (and then die as an intentional sinner). By the way, has anyone thought perhaps to check this brilliant answer empirically? Is there really no population in the world in which there are more deaths/infections than among the Haredim? Did Rabbi Edelstein check, or did he discover this through letter-skipping in the Torah? Moreover, I would expect that the percentage of deaths would be higher the greater the Torah scholar in question. Haredim more than Mizrochnikers (who are all, as is well known, ignoramuses, though less so than the secular), Mizrochnikers more than secular people, heads of yeshivot more than ramim (lecturers), ramim more than kollel scholars, kollel scholars more than balabatim (laymen). Surely you have wondered why women, as is known, were harmed less than men? Now everything is clear. They are forbidden to study Torah, and therefore they are all inadvertent. Indeed, there is room for inquiry as to whether, among secular people, women were harmed less than men (since there they are all ignoramuses). And what are the results regarding religious-Zionist women as opposed to secular men? This requires investigation for now. Indeed, almost everything can be resolved smoothly, for the greater one is than his fellow, the less he sins than his fellow, and almost everything is nicely in order.
I truly stand in amazement before this great spectacle. The bush burns with fire and is not consumed. Is this the intelligence of the Lithuanian Haredi leadership? Is this what the judgment of the “great one of the generation,” whose every word people yearn to hear, looks like – and they even publish his foolishness under every green tree as if some new giving of the Torah has taken place? Let me remind you, we are speaking of the head of a very central yeshiva, one of the largest, most important, and central ones in the world. Is this the man whom everyone must obey and accept his decisions and not deviate from anything he tells them? In Column 290, written at the time of corona, I criticized him and Rabbi Kanievsky for their decisions, and the Lithuanian public for following leaders who do not have the tools to make such decisions. Now I am no longer speaking about tools for making decisions and relevant educational background, but about basic logic. How can one even listen to a shiur klali (a major Talmudic lecture) from such a person? I recall the previous column, where I cited the words of Rabbi Shimon Shkop in his introduction, about the a priori esteem that one must have for the rabbi from whom one learns, otherwise we cannot receive from him anything new. Perhaps in Ponovezh they skip the introduction and start from Gate 1?…
Is There Self-Criticism Here?
Seemingly, despite all that I have said so far, there is one thing that cannot be taken from Rabbi Edelstein: he raised here courageous self-criticism. Perhaps the logic is lacking, and the fit to the facts and common sense even more so, the didactics are lousy, and the fact that he managed to pack all these failures into two sentences. But at least in one thing you must admit: there is in his words courage and intellectual honesty, no? Well, not really; I didn’t really find that either.
Exactly as I described above with regard to Eliyahu Levy, here too we see Haredi apologetics under a thin mask of criticism. If he had criticized the Haredi dogmas that led to this result (among others, the dogma of bitachon and hishtadlut and that Torah protects and saves, obedience to unworthy leadership, and so on), there would indeed have been here courageous criticism. But what he does is exactly the opposite. In order to forestall the arguments of “Sadducees” and Mizrochnikers, who could, Heaven forbid, incite the hearts of Israel (=Haredim) against their Fathers in Heaven and on earth (=Rabbis Edelstein and Kanievsky) and cast doubt on Haredi dogmas, Rabbi Edelstein preemptively applies preventive medicine and explains that all these blows came upon us because we were not Haredi enough.
Did you hear that, Shashon? (Gashash, “Sham, sham”.) The way to deal with the harms of corona and prevent their recurrence is to become even more Haredi. That is, not only to become stronger in the observance of mitzvot, for that is not unique to Haredim, but to become stronger in Haredi-ness itself. And this is Rabbi Edelstein’s “courageous self-criticism” (I have a failing: I am a bit of a perfectionist). Just as with Eliyahu Levy, our “courageous critics” latch onto a marginal point or just some absurd argument, as if there were here a drawing of lessons from the events and their results, and in this way they save the Haredi core from criticism. Thus no one will dare to think that perhaps the king is naked. Perhaps the Haredi way that comes to expression in all these infantile explanations not only does not offer an explanation for the events and their results, but is itself an important part of the cause that brought them about.
Rabbi Edelstein’s words seem bold and original, with self-criticism and taking responsibility, but the subtext is exactly the opposite: a defense of the conception, at the cost of life and limb, a conception for whose failures he himself bears responsibility. Let no one dare think that anything depends on nature, reality, science, education, economic situation, free information and critical thinking, independent walking and not as a flock after blind shepherds. No, no. Everything depends solely on the mitzvot and on preserving the Haredi way of life. Your car was stolen because you neglected Torah, not because you didn’t lock the door. Sick people become infected and die not because there is a virus and not because they did not protect themselves from it under the directives of the “great ones of the generation,” but precisely because you did not obey the “great ones of the generation.” And reality? Don’t confuse us with facts. Worst of all, let no one dare draw conclusions about the Haredi dogmas themselves, for then truly some terrible corona will befall us.
And this is the lesson that Rabbi Edelstein draws from corona (instead of going into exile to a distant place and keeping silent after all the blunders he made). It is not just one of the lessons. It is not a footnote. It is presented as an essay he delivers before his flock, in which he presents the main lesson. So who said there is no drawing of lessons and no critical thinking? Eliyahu Levy, are you still on the line?…
So What Should the External Critic Do at This Time?
If the “courageous self-criticism” of the Haredi leadership in the wake of the events, which include, let me remind you, the illness and death of people and a cosmic desecration of God’s name because of their personal blunders, is to obey even more strongly this very same failed leadership, it is a bit hard to expect wonders and changes that will befall Haredi society as a result of this crisis. Einstein (the secular ignoramus, a waste of talent) already said that only a fool thinks that if he continues to try again and again the same thing he failed at, he might succeed.
But perhaps salvation will come from below and not from above (for that itself is part of the problem, that the directives always descend from above). The breaking of Haredi trust and discipline toward its rabbinic and political leadership would be a wonderful and necessary lesson from the crisis, and the question is whether the broad Haredi public, the people in the fields, will be wise and courageous enough to draw the necessary conclusions and send their leadership to its proper place.
In this context I found it relevant to link to another article, this time by Gil Slovik, a decidedly non-Haredi author, who writes how we should relate to the Haredim following the crisis. Slovik is optimistic. He argues that the Haredi public is not stupid and we must allow it to draw its own conclusions. It is not right to pounce on it at this difficult time, for that will only bring about contraction and isolation and prevent the desired change. He claims that the physical and even more so the ideological crisis that Haredi-ism is undergoing will apparently yield results even without our kind help, which is only liable to hinder this. Many argued this also against my words in that column (that sharpness actually prevents the drawing of lessons). As I wrote there, I think differently. In my opinion, the stronger and more uncompromising the criticism, the more we will cease to accept this scandalous conduct and carry it on our shoulders, the more we will cease being like leftists who always stand with the underdog (and therefore do not achieve results), the greater the chance that this criticism will find an echo in the hearts of the people in the fields, even if not in the hearts of the politruks and the various “great ones of the generation.”
Concluding Words
I am too small to foresee the future. I think that even now we can already hear some sane and more moderate voices calling for genuine self-criticism. At present these are marginal, and the establishment makes sure that they remain so, but the nature of margins is that they creep slowly toward the center. One must remember that the necessary conclusions are not only to improve Haredi-ism but, in a certain sense, to eliminate it, or at least an essential part of it. If they draw the necessary conclusions, Haredi-ism will no longer be Haredi-ism in the sense it was in the past. It is not easy to draw such conclusions, and it is no wonder that this meets resistance and takes time. Clearly, the more criticism grows, the more the conservative (counter-revolutionary) voices will grow, and the struggle will become more violent and extreme.[6] But that is the nature of revolutions. As I keep telling my Haredi friends who complain about the situation (always in back rooms, for fear of judgment), there are no free revolutions. The communists paid with their lives for the ideas they wanted to promote. So too the pioneers who promoted Zionism, or the republicans in Spain who defended their freedom. One cannot make revolutions without a willingness to pay a price. There will not always be others who will do the work for you (while you demonstrate against them and define them as antisemites).
To conclude, I cannot resist presenting a few anecdotes that were sent to me by my friend Nadav Shnerb. Nadav, thank you for granting us this wonderful Torah.
Appendix: Q&A of R. Chaim Kanievsky about Computers and Cell Phones
We are dealing with the venerable book Ali Sich by Rabbi Wiener, which contains answers from Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky. It is particularly interesting to open with a question and answer regarding whether a computer is muktzeh (forbidden to move on Shabbat):
 |
Wonders of wonders. That righteous man does not know what a computer looks like, due to his intense focus on Torah. I am truly full of admiration, but why is he the man whom people ask halakhic questions on such topics? If he is unfamiliar, then he should not be asked and should not answer. In my opinion, even in other fields it is not appropriate to ask someone who is so detached from the realities of the world.
Well, but for this there is a wonderful “answer” given by Rabbi Wiener, the book’s editor, may he live long, who wrote the following essay as an introduction before answer 40:
 |
We thus learn that perhaps in fact the rabbi does know what a computer is, and only wishes to educate us. Or perhaps not?… But surely this conjecture suffices for us so that we can continue to bombard him with questions on such topics (for perhaps he really does know what this is about, and if not he can surely extract the correct answer by letter-skipping in the Rambam).
Fine, but what will you say now about question 43? It deals with the status of fluorescent lights:
 |
Does he also know fluorescent lights and merely wish to educate us not to be involved with them? I begin to suspect that soon fluorescent lights will be ruled unfit and they will put out a line of fluorescent lights kosher for Haredim (without internet and without SMS).
And were I not afraid, I would suggest that with regard to fluorescent lights Rabbi Wiener’s answer is not to be said (that the rabbi wishes to educate us not to be involved with fluorescent lights), and the conclusion is that the rabbi truly does not know what a fluorescent light is. And then I wonder whether there are no light fixtures above him? Perhaps he is learning entirely by candlelight? (See in the introduction to the Tur, where he writes that in the World to Come everyone will have a candle and a Gemara, but no fluorescent light, Heaven forbid). And I ask myself: is this the man whom people ask questions and who rules halakhot about the conduct of the masses in our world? The man does not know what a fluorescent light is (and perhaps not what a computer is either)!!!
As you know me, when I read these things I could not restrain myself, and this is what I wrote:
| And there is room to inquire whether muktzeh applies on a weekday but was simply not prohibited, or whether on a weekday there is no muktzeh at all. And I thought to resolve this precious inquiry from the case of decorating a sukkah and an etrog during Chol HaMoed, where some prohibited them due to muktzeh on account of their being set aside for the mitzvah. This proves that muktzeh does apply even on weekdays, but generally it was not prohibited.
And since we have merited this precious pearl, let us again consider Maran’s words: is a computer muktzeh because it is forbidden to turn it on on Shabbat, or perhaps because it is forbidden to use it even on a weekday? And there is a large practical difference regarding its being muktzeh also on weekdays. And in this, we can make it depend on whether the prohibition on weekdays is because of a prohibition to use it, in which case it is a Torah prohibition that is a prohibition of the object, and then Maran rightly wrote that he does not know what a computer is, for a prohibition of the object is as if it does not exist. But if its prohibition is from the law of muktzeh, then it is a prohibition on the person (even according to those later authorities who hold that rabbinic prohibitions are prohibitions of the object, for all Shabbat prohibitions are certainly prohibitions on the person, as the Chatam Sofer and Magen Avraham wrote regarding instructing a non-Jew, and surely a rabbinic Shabbat prohibition is not stricter than a Torah Shabbat prohibition). And from then on the computer is as if it exists, and what Maran wrote is only because he wished to educate that one should not use it, for it is muktzeh on weekdays, and this is clear. However, we still must consider the case of the fluorescent light, for there it is certain that there is no prohibition on weekdays, and therefore it is muktzeh only on Shabbat, and there it is certainly a prohibition on the person. And again I do not know why Maran did not know what a fluorescent light is. May God enlighten my eyes. About two weeks after writing this column, the summary of the corona results was published: 70% of those infected were Haredim. Deri calls for a Haredi soul-searching. Perhaps this really is the expected cry of man?… [https://www.themarker.com/coronavirus/.premium-1.8840658](https://www.themarker.com/coronavirus/.premium-1.8840658) |
I am waiting for someone to publish all my writings and responsa (any volunteers in the audience?).[7] It will be interesting to see what he will write in the introduction to this inquiry.
[1] I have already pointed out the unholy alliance of leftists with Haredim and other moralistic types who come out in defense of the Haredim against sharp criticism (see below).
[2] Apropos pogroms, it seems to me that those who come closer to carrying out pogroms in Israeli society are not necessarily the secular who attack Haredim, and the wise will understand.
[3] I remind you of the Raavad’s comment on Maimonides, Hilkhot Teshuvah 5:5, cited in previous columns, that one should not raise a question that has no answer, and if it has already been raised it is better to offer it at least a weak answer. There is nothing that is not alluded to in the Torah.
[4] In that column I pointed out that Rabbi Steinman himself (like many of his colleagues) is aware that this is not a thesis that can truly be accepted, but he is bound to the accepted mantras and dogmas and cannot say openly (and perhaps not even to himself, in the sense of “the heart does not reveal to the mouth”) his opinion of them. The story about Rabbi Kanievsky mentioned here immediately afterward, about the locking of the car door, is another example of this.
[5] The question of a simpleton here concerns mainly these topics, but as noted they have already been thrashed out by me until the blood flowed.
[6] People think that Haredi violence in Meah Shearim and Beit Shemesh is a reaction to secularism, lack of modesty, etc. In my view this is nonsense. Haredim fight only with forces from within. The outside does not really interest them, except insofar as it threatens to enter the holy of holies within. By the way, the struggle becomes more extreme and blatant when the rebellious voices begin to be heard inside, and not because of the intensification of the opposing forces outside.
By the way, also the strange and hysterical war of the Haredim against the internet and smartphones is, in my view, mainly not about lack of modesty, but about exposure to opinions and arguments and openness to criticism that the net brings with it. With the evil inclination the Haredim know how to cope. They are quite a pragmatic society (much more than the Hardalniks). What bothers them is the breaking of the hegemony of the rabbinic-political leadership and the traditional power centers, and essentially the breaking of the top-down structure that is so characteristic and essential to Haredi society. In my opinion the central threat that the Haredi leadership sees in the internet is decentralization, and nothing else. If it were up to them, they would block my site there long before the porn sites.
[7] True, they appear almost all of them in the computer, but the computer is as if it does not exist (and certainly what is found on the internet, which our forefathers did not see naked), and therefore we must bring them out into the darkness of a book, in the holy way established for us by our holy forefathers and rabbis of blessed memory.
Discussion
After the trilogy comes the issue of trust in God and human effort, then knowledge and free choice, and after that criticism of Haredi society.
Ahem—is it just me, or is the rabbi planning some kind of putsch for us?
Personally, this sequence of posts arouses my suspicions, although in each post on its own I don’t find any innovations beyond your usual line. And maybe I’m mistaken.
Rabbi Edelstein did not mean that the Mizrachi people are inadvertent sinners like the secular. He was simply speaking only about the groups that have a sin—meaning, the Mizrachi were not affected because they did not sin, so there is nothing to discuss regarding them. The question now is about the secular, who were spared, and the Haredim, who were harmed, although both sin; and to that his answer is that the Haredim sin deliberately.
What shall we write in the introduction? Shall we write that once we used to read his words and books thirstily, and today, sadly, he is a senior partner in the competition of provocative type-D talkbacks—but wins first place in it.
And causes masses to leave religion, and perhaps is not aware of the scale.
And apparently also doesn’t care all that much.
And that paragraph is as pure as the red heifer.
As for the substance of the criticism, I already pointed out to you in the past that you suffer from naivete (of optimistic Mizrachi people; apparently the feeling that you are part of the Lithuanian public is not enough), as though you could fix something. I fully believe you that you write out of love, but which of the responsible Haredi people at the top even reads these things or sees fit to respond to them?!
One can only try to awaken the Haredi public from within, and even send letters to people at the top—not in the form of public criticism. The Haredi leadership will not change from the outside. The Haredi public is sure that the truth is in its pocket and that nobody will tell it what to do. You can aim at the margins of the public, who in any case do not identify with what happened now with the coronavirus; they completely agree with every word of the criticism, and indeed they are removing themselves from the Haredi mainstream. Those you do not need to persuade, and the Haredi public you cannot persuade.
In this case, the criticism and the understanding of the pogroms are not really helpful. They can only cause harm to the individual Haredi who is trapped in his place, and most likely is also innocent, and may now encounter violence because of a misunderstanding of your words!
Akavya ben Mahalalel testified to four things.
They said to him: Akavya, retract the four things you used to say, and we will appoint you head of the court of Israel.
He said to them: ***Better that I be called a fool all my days than that I should be wicked for even one moment before the Omnipresent, so that they should not say***, “He retracted for the sake of power.”
There are two very important things you missed about the Haredim, and therefore your conclusions are mistaken.
A. The Haredim sanctify foolishness—or more accurately, simplicity. They have a principle of turning away from evil, which is a principle worth upholding even if they are called fools all their lives. (As opposed to the study of halakhot and Gemara, where things are studied with very great depth.)
B. Haredi economics means money as a means and not as an end. Western culture has also infected them, and they see it as inflation, which has killed them, and which they are trying to fight. Don’t bring us a life of luxuries as a goal, and we will not need your economic assistance.
If there were a real alternative without doing evil, the Haredim would steal it like they know how, better than anyone!!
[Since Rabbi Wiener wonders whether Maran knows what a computer is, it requires investigation why he did not ask this very question; is it inferior to the other questions there? It follows that Maran himself is also in doubt whether he knows what a computer is. Now doubt is like an external prohibition even according to the one who says that doubt concerning a Torah law is biblical doubt (and therefore in a doubtful case of indirect causation the slaughterer is exempt from payment, Sha"A I, 9), and it is not an object-based prohibition, so he should in fact have known perfectly well what a computer is, and therefore it can only be because of education, and if so it is very difficult: what is he doubtful about? It follows that part of the commandment of education is to educate him in this very thing—that he does not know what a computer is. And thereby it is explained that he also did not know what fluorescent means, in order to educate that if he knew what fluorescent is we would certainly understand that he knows what a computer is, and that is an educational principle branching off from the law of a computer. And now I no longer know why you did not know why Maran did not know what fluorescent is, and may God enlighten my eyes.]
1. I think you misunderstand the context of Rabbi Edelstein’s words.
His words are written on the basis of the assumption (which you do not accept, as you have explained at length on many occasions) that if 400 barrels of your wine turn sour, you need to examine your deeds and find out from whom you stole. The discussion is not taking place at all on the level of the natural causes of the disaster, but on the theological causes. And on that level, in his opinion, the sin of disregarding the instructions is not so severe that we should attribute this great storm to it. In my humble opinion he is right about this (assuming we agree with him that there is room to search for sins in such cases).
Besides that, I did not merit to understand what flaw you found in the logic of the argument. He does not present his words as proof for the words of the Chazon Ish. On the contrary: he mentions the Chazon Ish as support for his own claim that indeed the sin of a Haredi is greater than that of the secular person.
2. A key sentence in the column, in my opinion, is:
“It should be remembered that the required conclusions are not only to improve Haredi society, but in a certain sense to eliminate it, or at least an essential part of it.”
Correct. Your criticism is not criticism; it is a demand for collective suicide. You are demanding the elimination of Haredi society. True, you justify that demand, and it is legitimate to raise it. But still, it is wrong to call it criticism, and very naive to expect it to achieve its aim when it is directed at the ears of the Haredi public. You offer the culture you are criticizing only one option: to eliminate itself. Even if you are right, it is absurd and futile to turn to its people with such a demand.
By the way, regarding this whole matter I have in my arsenal a story than which I know no finer one. Two men were walking along and from afar saw black dots. One said, “Ravens”; the other said, “Goats.” One of them took a stone and threw it toward the dots. The dots flew away. He said to him, “See that they are ravens.” The second replied, “Never in my life have I seen flying goats.”
In Michi’s opinion, one must not keep things bottled up.
Unfortunately, that apparently includes bile.
Pil, for your consideration: the rabbi decides to ignore theological arguments.
Correction: theological arguments
The Meiri’s comments on the Gemara’s statement, “And why did they call him one of the sons of the holy ones? Because he had never looked at the image of a coin,” are interesting. On the face of it this sounds like unimaginable greatness, but the Meiri writes that they mocked him as a “son of the holy ones,” while he himself was not fit to lead because he did not know the world.
A. More power to you. Although I am no prophet nor a prophet’s son, I knew the rabbi would write about this matter. B. In that the rabbi hopes that Haredi society will ultimately learn a lesson, then as one who lives among them (but not in them), it does not seem that this will happen. This is a captive public, in the silence of the lambs. And even if someone tries to say the slightest word of criticism, he will have a great problem marrying off his sons and daughters down to the fourth generation. And perhaps it may be possible דווקא in Hasidic society, but even that is a very remote possibility.
As Pil wrote in his comment, Rabbi Edelstein was not coming at all to bring proof for the Chazon Ish, but simply to explain the situation in light of the Chazon Ish’s words. It seems Rabbi Michi read the line where he says, “The Chazon Ish says such-and-such,” as if the Chazon Ish had already said everything Rabbi Edelstein says here. But that is not so; it is an opening to bring the Chazon Ish’s words immediately afterward, and in the post it should have been punctuated with a colon after that sentence.
Besides that, after everything, Rabbi Michi still did not explain why Rabbi Edelstein’s words are so foolish, as he makes them out to be, in the body of the theological explanation, irrespective of the logic with the Chazon Ish.
A characteristic story about R. Chaim Kanievsky:
http://onegshabbat.blogspot.com/2016/08/blog-post_31.html
“Our great teacher Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky was asked… whether Coca Cola is considered ‘a regional beverage,’ and he answered that he does not know what Coca Cola is, and they informed us of this.
Therefore, when we came in the evening to pray Ma’ariv with our master the rabbi, may he live long, we bought a bottle of cola at the grocery next to the rabbi’s house, and after the prayer we showed the rabbi the bottle. We said to him: ‘There is a sweet black drink here that everyone likes and that is found in every wedding hall,’ and we asked: ‘Does it have the status of a regional beverage?’ And the rabbi answered: ‘Nowadays there is no regional beverage’…
And we further asked the rabbi: ‘There is cola under the supervision of the Edah HaChareidis and cola under the supervision of Rabbi Landau—which should one buy?’ And the rabbi answered: ‘Why buy cola?’ And we said to the rabbi: ‘After all, drinking this beverage is an Oneg Shabbat or Oneg Yom Tov,’ and the rabbi answered: ‘Drinking water is more pleasurable than drinking cola.’”
Last week I watched again the film ‘The Name of the Rose,’ based on Umberto Eco’s wonderful book, and the discussion reminds me of Brother William’s futile struggle (the marvelous Sean Connery) to persuade his 13th-century opponents by means of logical arguments.
The Haredim today enjoy that same brilliant intellectual ability that characterized medieval Christian theologians—there is a collection of battered dogmas, and whenever reality contradicts the dogma it is a sign of Satan’s deeds (that is, reality is not real), and of course every heretic like Galileo must be burned, because the very raising of doubt regarding the dogma is the most terrible sin of all.
The irony is that after Luther kicked the pope in the backside, the medieval Christian mode of thought found a warm and loving home in Bnei Brak on the corner of Kiryat Sefer.
Why does the chief censor on the site censor my words from time to time when I let my tongue run free, while on the other hand, when Rabbi Michi lashes out at the Haredim, the matter becomes legitimate and is not censored? Why this discrimination and deprivation, which cry out for censorship and yet their voice is not heard?
I am very glad that Rabbi Michi accepted my words in note 6.
Regards, Binyamin
I agree with every word, but the original quote (or at least the more familiar one) from HaGashash is—Did you understand that, Baruch?
If I may add to this column and malign the Sephardi Haredim, whom you sinfully did not address. The pious and brilliant Rabbi Aryeh Deri said that not a single Mizrahi received the Israel Prize this year. And I wonder how much Deri and his fellow “transparent ones” educated their children toward fields in which one could receive the Israel Prize.
Rather, Deri sins through lies and calculated manipulations, and therefore from him of all people I would indeed take a general lecture, because stupid he is not.
To Binyan Goyerlain,
Because the rabbi does it for a very clear purpose, whereas you enjoy the very act of lashing out.
For the rabbi, the intention is in the result; for you, in the act.
An expression of this can be found in the percentage of your references to Haredim out of your total comments, compared with the rabbi’s percentage of references to them out of all his posts and answers.
Another expression can be seen in your style of wording toward them as compared with the rabbi’s style of expression.
Regards, One who restores the minds of the naked.
Pil is right in every word.
I fear that the brilliant author is beginning to suffer from Leibowitz-ism, namely an addiction to the pleasure of provocations that comes at the price of having no influence on the relevant target audience.
Leibowitz’s provocations earned him sympathy among extreme circles on the left, but unfortunately there nobody had any interest in or understanding of his insights regarding Judaism, and people who could have learned from him and accepted from him in matters of Judaism shut their ears because of the provocations (Judeo-Nazis, etc., as is well known). Thus at the end of his days he was bald on both sides: neither disciples who serve God nor influence where he truly wanted and could have influenced.
Does the brilliant author think that the (temporary) pleasure from the witticism about the pogroms is worth losing the audience that had some chance of being influenced? Does the brilliant author think that a public (already conservative and fearful of any change) that will be accused of pogroms (and the nuances between understanding and accusation are not relevant in such public discourse) will incline its ear like a funnel to hear rebuke? Does a declaration that Haredi society should be abolished really advance such abolition, or only increase the closing of ranks?
As the brilliant author himself noted, “You can’t make revolutions without being willing to pay a price,” so perhaps your price should be not to make provocations? Is that loss not worth the gain?
Honestly, I always find in Michi’s words substantive arguments that analyze the case in depth.
But on the Haredi issue something goes wrong.
Or maybe…
Michi,
In your opinion, did Haredi society become absurd only in the last 50 years?
Or were the Chazon Ish and R. Chaim Ozer also absurd,
and also the Ketzot and the Netivot?
From your words in column 290, that you don’t understand why they don’t carry out a pogrom in Bnei Brak today (you are not encouraging the pogrom, but you don’t understand why they don’t do one), and you also understand the pogroms that took place in Europe, I assume that in your view Haredi society was always absurd and unworthy… but I just want to make sure that this is indeed your position?
Akavya ben Mahalalel could not have grown up among the Haredim.
The Haredim—most of them, practically all of them—would retract any logical argument in order to gain office (a position among their own people) and obtain a match for themselves or their family.
And note carefully: Akavya says better to be called a fool, not to be a fool.
He is a kind of stubborn elitist who refuses to change his mind because it contradicts the majority opinion.
I cannot imagine a Haredi of our day who would come out against “the great ones” even if he were one hundred percent right.
A Haredi prefers to be an absolute fool rather than be in a situation where members of his group (the fools) might think for a moment that he is the fool.
The thing that amused me most in this letter was the claim that someone might go out and murder Haredim because you have acquired hundreds of admirers in recent years.
I doubt that even if, theoretically, you really were to legitimize pogroms, someone would actually go out and murder Haredim because of that. As far as I know, there is no Michi Hasidic sect today.
With your permission, I’ll answer for him. Let us assume that columns of this kind do indeed give him pleasure—so what? What difference does it make what the interest of the article’s author is? If the things are correct, accept them even if they were said because of certain interests; and if they are not correct, then what difference does it make whether they were written for the sake of Heaven or not?!
By the way, I forgot to include this correction in the column. The term “Haredim” used in the past to denote the observant, unlike today when it denotes people with a certain ideology within the religious public. It is possible that Rabbi Edelstein used it in that older sense. Even according to this interpretation, he remains very difficult, and this is not the place to elaborate.
And I have already answered this, also in the body of this very column.
Hello Rabbi Dr. Michi: I am a young Haredi kollel man, living abroad and belonging to the Satmar Hasidic group. I follow your articles, especially when you kick us, and it gives me a wonderful feeling (masochist!) because there are still people willing to fight and heal this sick society. And as one who lives it, I can only agree with what you concluded: “It should be remembered that the required conclusions are not only to improve Haredi society, but in a certain sense to eliminate it.” [Sorry for the clumsy language; in cheder we did not learn to write properly in any language (even Yiddish only a little)]
Huge thanks
Pil,
But there is no support in the Chazon Ish’s words for his claim, because it has not been proven at all that the Haredim were harmed more (except for the natural causes). You reverse the direction of the argument, but you do not change its essence.
In my view it is absolutely not futile to expect criticism of the roots of the worldview. If that is what is needed, then that is what must be done. Compare the kibbutzniks, who engaged in very courageous self-criticism and also drew conclusions.
Nur, a wonderful source. Many thanks.
The theological question has already been dealt with here at length. That is not what I was discussing here.
Binyamin, I have already explained my policy to you more than once. This column conforms to it admirably. Note this well.
Indeed. Sasson is from a different sketch.
I missed this gem. 🙂
Completely.
The fact that the Ketzot and the Netivot were excellent talmudists does not necessarily mean that they understood reality well. I have no idea what their views were, so I do not know how to answer that. I am almost certain that neither they nor R. Chaim Ozer would have made the foolish arguments of the kind heard today.
The fact that there were natural causes changes nothing. The wine also turned sour because of natural causes. The fact is that more Haredim died, and therefore from his point of view there needs to be soul-searching.
The support from the Chazon Ish is only for the claim that Haredim are more culpable for their sins.
In my opinion, in cases such as this there is only a chance for internal self-criticism. Criticism from outside of the most fundamental characteristics of your culture is perceived, justly, as a desire to abolish the culture rather than improve it.
But this really is not an essential discussion.
Many thanks, to Aristotle the Satmarer. May his name endure and flourish.
It does not just reverse the direction. It saves Rabbi Edelstein from your contempt for his logical ability.
Can I get a precise reference for the Meiri in question? I tried looking a bit and was unsuccessful, and I’m very interested in reading his exact wording. Thank you very, very much in advance.
Gabriel, you missed the point. The Haredim say: better to be called fools because of occasional foolish acts, so long as overall we succeed in preserving the principle of turning away from evil. So in the final result they see this as a successful preservation achieved by sometimes using foolish arguments. The Haredim prefer a simple public to a public that transgresses the Torah in serious sins. They simply do not see a real alternative that would both avoid simplicity and still remain servants of God. I am speaking, of course, about the public and not the individual.
Gal.
I wanted to argue that there are circumstantial ad hominem arguments here, and that they indicate a failure in analyzing the totality of the matter.
No, not at all.
The argument of the four hundred barrels of wine already existed in the time of the Gemara, from the sages. Rabbi Edelstein is simply upholding the words of the Gemara.
Why doesn’t it save him? It leaves only the criticism of the theology—which you also do not explain.
Wow, Gabriel, you managed to convince me. So what now—what should be done? Is there any chance of getting out of this warm home?
David, perhaps here you will find a theological explanation.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%97%d7%a9%d7%91%d7%95%d7%9F-%d7%A0%D7%A4%D7%A9-%d7%AA%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9C%d7%95%d7%92%d7%99-%d7%97%d7%A8%D7%93%d7%99
The problem in the logic was that they raise a difficulty about something that has no explanation, not about something that has a much simpler explanation.
Even on the theological plane one can interpret that the sin of arrogance (in Rambam, Laws of Character Traits) is what led to the disaster. Perhaps one could argue that this is the sin that Haredim commit deliberately…
What is harder for me are the harsh expressions (about the pogrom, etc.). I’ve already gotten used to the style, but I’m not sure that in this case it was entirely fitting.
Tam,
I accept that the Haredim prefer to be fools in certain modes of conduct for the sake of the lofty goal, but the example of Akiva ben Mahalalel, who goes with his truth against all who disagree with him, is not relevant to the story.
The Haredi model is that of Rabbi Nehorai.
Rabbi Nehorai says: I set aside every trade in the world and teach my son only Torah.
No, the problem was that Rabbi Michi mistakenly understood him as trying to bring proof for the words of the Chazon Ish, and that is not so.
Actually, no. The Christians had a route out (terribly slow, but it existed) from ignorance and dogma, in that they did not forbid involvement with the world, and whoever lives in the world gradually discovers the rules according to which it works (Galileo, Newton, and others).
The Haredim have abolished reality, as each generation becomes more and more distant from the world and lives in a disconnected matrix.
I assume the only thing that can get them out of the matrix is when they become an absolute majority and there is no one left to provide all their needs…
Gabi.
If you go with the full picture, and the Haredim arrive at the place toward which they were striving, then their actions are the actions of wise people, even though the masses see them as fools, because they do not understand the lofty goal of turning away from evil. And to this the statement fits: “Better that I be called a fool all my days than that I should be wicked for even one moment before the Omnipresent.”
And there is certainly also an honored place in the Haredi worldview for Rabbi Nehorai.
An answer which, on your own method, is like one of Rabbi Kanievsky’s answers.
Pil writes to you with excellent arguments, in my humble opinion.
The answer: “No, not at all.”
The rabbi still has not addressed the essential question that was raised here:
The basis of Haredi society rests on the assumption that it is preferable to be a foolish God-fearing person than a wicked wise one (of course in the religious context).
All the claims against the Haredi public are recognized by much of the Haredi public itself (it is a bit naive to think that such a large public, which is perceptive and critical in certain areas, forgot to criticize the center of its life and worldview), but their answer to them is one.
Indeed, as a result of separatism there are many disadvantages. But there is still a benefit, namely greater fear of Heaven and a higher Torah level.
An excellent example is Rabbi Kanievsky. Indeed, as a result of his separatism, he expresses himself and acts on certain issues (such as the coronavirus) like a person who is not wise (to put it respectfully).
But it would seem that the reason that caused him not to be wise on these subjects also caused his great knowledge in Torah and his fear of Heaven.
It is a pity that there is total ignoring, in the columns where you attack Haredi society, of this argument, which is the sole reason for their outlook.
Even if one argues that the gain—greater Torah and fear of Heaven—is not worth the damage, namely the deficiency in wisdom, one could certainly expand greatly on this.
I would expect from you, as someone whose analytical ability I greatly appreciate,
that you would base the center of gravity of your attack not on describing the disadvantages of the Haredi outlook (for many in that public know these claims, certainly the Haredim who read your articles and books…)
but rather on proving that these disadvantages are greater than the gain achieved in greater Torah and fear of Heaven.
I wrote at length about the theology and will not return to it. A brief logical clarification for the stubborn among us:
When one raises difficulty X and offers answer Y to it, then one may regard that difficulty as evidence for answer Y (for otherwise X would still remain difficult). And if the difficulty was nonexistent to begin with, then there is no evidence for answer Y. Therefore, saying that the difficulty is foolish is equivalent to saying that it provides no evidence for the answer.
It is like asking why someone who jumped into fire was burned, and answering according to the Chazon Ish that this proves he took up unnecessary space in the world. He was burned because fire burns, so there is no need for explanations.
And I have not yet spoken of the fact that in our case there are thousands of alternative answers to Y. Nor have I spoken of the fact that the difficulty is not based on verified facts. For he did not investigate whether indeed the Haredim were the ones harmed so much throughout the world, as he claimed. And he also did not examine the answer—whether it really explains all the numbers of those harmed.
It is nice to judge favorably, but there are limits to that as well. See the commentators on the Mishnah (Rambam and Rabbenu Yonah) on Avot regarding “Judge every person favorably.”
Gabriel, if not for the inflation of Western culture that they brought into the Haredim, they could have managed very well with a kollel stipend and a kindergarten teacher’s salary.
People are made to work hard so they can buy an apartment in the center, where it is expensive because it is close to the workplace, and then you need to put in extra hours to finance the commute in traffic, etc., etc.
The original Haredi could have managed very well in the periphery—like Yeruham, Safed, Arad, and so on—with the bare minimum and a happy life. They dragged them into the world of material culture against their will, and then complain that they cling to others, bellowing like the robbed Cossack.
But it is well known that every good general lecture is built from several difficulties, an answer, and then “and by this it is explained” to resolve additional difficulties. And the wonderers wonder what the difference is between stage A and stage C. And the difference is that in stage A there are hard difficulties (“neither clear, nor bright, nor shining”) that are powerful enough to carry the answer; and after the answer is established, one can then “for free” solve easier difficulties (“not clear”) that indeed could also be solved by other answers. Rabbi Edelstein is dealing only with stage C.
Honorable rabbi.
The question is why the person, whom we know as a sane man, suddenly decided to jump into the fire; or, for example, why the owner of the barrels did not notice that the room temperature would ruin the barrels—after all, that is irresponsibility.
The question is not about the “what” but about the why.
By the way, another point worth paying attention to regarding the coronavirus is the words of Sh"T in the responsum in question (recommended reading for anyone who hasn’t seen it), regarding the high numbers in Efrat, so it seems that the coronavirus definitely has different rules and is not like jumping into fire.
I will attach again the link to Sh"T’s words for anyone interested.
It seems that the stubborn one here is actually you, Rabbi Michi.
Apparently you did misunderstand one of the sentences in Rabbi Edelstein’s words as though he were coming to prove the Chazon Ish’s words. Let it go—just say “I made a mistake,” and that’s it.
Who are those scoundrels who “dragged them into the world of material culture”? And what does it even mean to “manage very well” with a kollel stipend, while one is supposed to share the burden of the budget (army, police, courts, foreign relations, transportation, health, bureaucracy)? I would dismiss you as a bizarre eccentric unlike any other, but I fear far too many in the Haredi sector are floating on this cloud of absurdity out of genuine inner conviction, and you represent them faithfully. I do not see how it is possible to negotiate when standing מול such an exalted degree of brazen, self-pitying detachment.
Why is it that regarding Amoraim in the Gemara you accept that they said things that are not logical in an educational way, but regarding Rabbi Edelstein you insist that he is lacking in logic? Perhaps he too intended a non-logical-educational statement?
Dear Y.K.,
I was not talking about scoundrels but about a reality—you are entitled not to agree with it.
The reality is that the Haredi worldview sees money as a means and not as an end, and therefore in such a situation the Haredim really could have supported themselves with kollel stipends from donors who desire to do so, usually foreign money, and jobs within the society itself such as kindergarten teachers and the like.
The theological worldview in which Haredi society believes is that were it not for the reality of secularization, there would not be such a great need for a large military budget either.
The same goes for the enormous police budgets and other expenses caused by the consumption of free culture. You can throw dust in your own eyes, but violence and other social ills exist mainly outside this closed society.
The hedonistic culture of the West leads people to chase money as though it were everything and to lose the reason for their lives. Moreover, this causes tremendous inflation and the bar of pleasures rises. This culture certainly penetrates even Haredi society despite its attempts to fight it. Therefore they certainly cry out bitterly: you ruined our peaceful life, increased the budgetary hole, and afterward you complain that we are to blame for destroying the economy.
Take, for example, people who burn down a building and cry out against the person who tried to prevent them from setting it alight, accusing him of not participating in the firefighting.
Note: I am talking about what the Haredi worldview is. You can disagree with it, but if this is its worldview, what do you want from them? So long as you do not produce for them an alternative that suits their worldview without a religious cost, they will take it with all ten fingers, believe me!!
A good piece of advice: if you continue attacking Tam, your arguments will not look better, but the opposite.
Y.K., just a small flourish: after Yekum Purkan it continues, “From Heaven—grace and kindness and mercy and long life and sustenance, etc.”
I haven’t seen it inside; I assume it is on one of the aforementioned sugyot.
If the Haredim acknowledged the disadvantages and argued that the righteous fool is preferable, one could discuss “what is preferable.” But when they explain that R. Chaim Kanievsky is the wisest of all and that “the Torah contains everything,” and that what appear to be mistakes are due to the sins of the “deliberate sinners,” then one has to attack and clearly show the disadvantages.
Fortunately, I am not Rabbi Michi and therefore I do not have the patience to argue with you. If you were a prominent public leader I would make an effort to open your blind eyes, but now that you and I are just ordinary people, I have no special interest in exerting myself here. In my opinion you urgently need to tie weights to your legs in order to return to the ground. You are welcome to say that I am throwing dust in my own eyes and scattering roses for myself. Each will help his fellow, and to his brother he will say, “Be strong.”
Unfortunately, I share a large part of the criticism in the article. At the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, the generation was led by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who was the youngest of Hillel the Elder’s disciples, while the greatest was Yonatan ben Uzziel. That is, the greatest in Torah is not necessarily also the one fit to lead. There is a saying attributed to the Chazon Ish that the Holy One hid the matter of the Holocaust from him, for then he could have acted about it (perhaps like Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, who said he could exempt the world from judgment…).
So perhaps, God forbid, we are like the flock of the shepherd who is angry with the herd and puts a blind ram at its head, who falls into pits? I am too small to say.
But there is one thing I hope people will notice: of many kabbalists (with and without quotation marks) and known sages it is said that they have “divine inspiration.” So apparently divine inspiration is not something that works all the time (or perhaps it can also mislead—Elisha ben Avuya heard from behind the curtain…) because none of them uttered even a hint of a warning (and likewise all the “communicators” and warnings published by the brain-damaged).
And if so, the conclusion is as the sages said: “When there is plague in the city, keep your feet inside!!”
Your criticism of the Haredi leadership and of the ridiculous responses voiced by leaders and additional scribblers is correct and painful, but in my opinion the cynical writing (not to say the disdainful writing) misses the mark completely.
I am Haredi and “I dwell among my own people.” It is clear to me that no change will grow from top to bottom as you wrote, but if the goal is to arouse change specifically from bottom to top, one cannot use language that distances that very “people in the fields.” It causes the ordinary Haredi—who is still loyal to the Haredi system but open to criticism—to dismiss your words with the claim “Mizrachi” and “let my soul be at peace.”
I am in favor of criticism—even as sharp as can be—even in difficult times for Israel, but the wording and style create distance (even among a veteran site reader like me) more than identification and a desire for change.
Rabbi Farkash’s article, for example, generated very broad echoes in the Haredi public (probably much more than your first critical article), and in my opinion also stirred and will stir a certain change—and not only because the criticism came “from within,” but mainly because of the use of respectful language to convey sharp criticism (every Haredi who read the article immediately understood that the criticism was not only of Rabbi Kanievsky’s “household”…). True, his article presented the problem only in the context of the coronavirus, but the discerning reader understands that criticism was cast here on the entire foolish obedience in which the Haredi public has specialized for years, and slowly change is beginning to move.
Dear Yekum Purkan.
This isn’t a competition, but you won!
May you continue to live happily, and only good all your days.
(One more good piece of advice: enough with the ad hominem against Tam. Otherwise others may suspect that he is indeed right—not advisable.)
It’s a pity you are not answering substantively.
Did you check and verify that most of the Haredi public does not criticize R. Chaim?
By the way, in this example you are mistaken. For after his unfortunate statement to keep the yeshivot open, R. Chaim was silenced and they no longer brought him to issue instructions to the public. If you were familiar with the Haredi public, you would know what I am talking about.
I am not saying—and many of my friends in the Haredi public also do not claim—that there is no great and justified criticism of the Haredi public.
What we do claim is that the cause that gives rise to the justified and well-known criticism is the same cause that gives rise to the virtues of the Haredi public.
As a believing public with much Torah (I estimate also more fear of Heaven, though that is not measurable),
this is the point that needs to be clarified: for a believing public, is it preferable to be a possessor of Torah and fear of Heaven despite the grave disadvantages that may result from this?
Of course, my remarks are directed toward public leadership and not the individual.
Nur.
It seems you missed the point. Even if we assume their words are nonsense, so long as they advance a goal, necessity is not to be condemned.
And your attacks, however strong, will not succeed in undermining the benefit for which their words were intended, so it’s a pity to waste the energy.
And if others come to fear that Tam is right, what difference does that make to me? Let him rejoice in them and let them rejoice in him, and he shall dwell on high, his stronghold in the rocky fortress. To return for the one-thousand-and-one-th time to the same worn-out discussion from the beginning until those who err in spirit gain understanding and those who murmur accept instruction—that is business for people with public standing or a developed sense of responsibility. I have a share in neither.
Following the anecdotes of Schnarb, and especially regarding Rabbi Wiener’s interpretation of Rabbi Kanievsky’s answers, I could not help remembering a similar case of typically Hasidic interpretation of their Rebbe’s deeds. In 2016 a book called ‘Malchut Shlomo’ was published, edited by the grandson of R. Ben-Zion Chaim Shlomo Meshulam Zusha Twersky, of the Hornosteipel dynasty of rebbes. The book details deeds and practices of the said Rebbe. In section 3, dealing with the practices of the Passover seder, there appears in subsection 58 the following wording: “After Chad Gadya they would sing this song: ‘Wind, wind, wind, wind, from the tree fell an apple, it fell from the top of the tree, it fell and burst; alas, alas, alas for the apple that fell, that fell from the top of the tree, that fell and burst,’ end quote; and these matters stand at the height of the world according to the secret.” Thus far the words of the book, and in the explanatory notes (note 62) it is written: “Who can fathom the secret of the holy ones? But according to the plain meaning one may say that the song laments the exile of Israel, who are compared to an apple, as stated in Shabbat 88a, and they fell from a lofty roof to a deep pit.” The aforementioned song, as is known, was written by the poet Aharon Ashman, who is also responsible, among other things, for the songs ‘Kad Katan’ and ‘Uga Uga.’ Indeed, who can fathom the secret of the holy ones….
Dvir,
Correct. I was not precise. The criticism was great.
It is just that the criticism is not sufficient. Even when they criticize R. Chaim, they want Rabbi Edelstein to be the leader rather than R. Chaim, who does not know what a computer is. This article, and all the criticisms like it, are about changing things from the root—the capacity for leadership does not depend on the degree of righteousness, perhaps quite the opposite.
Every criticism is useful and necessary, especially for a public some of whom are wavering a bit, in which case they are receptive to hearing the other side.
Besides the important criticism, there is the issue you raise [righteous fool or wicked wise man], and with all my heart I join the request that the rabbi address this matter as well, since I too am very torn about it.
Tam,
I did not understand your words sufficiently.
Find the differences:
What is the difference between a Haredi spitting on a secular person and a secular person spitting on a Haredi woman? Apparently you never heard of the second one at all (the first one we all remember).
This is substantive criticism of general society, which does not distinguish between self-criticism and criticism of the other… let the viewer judge.
See my words above at the beginning of the talkbacks.
He studied and then abandoned it…
Tam, very nice, all due respect for carrying the burden all along the way…
If this educates the public, then the state of the public is very bleak. Since the Talmud, some fifteen hundred years have passed.
Although, clearly, there is a kernel of truth in part of your radical criticism, still:
1. The attack on Eliyahu Levi suffers from a severe logical fallacy. You stereotypically claim that “like all Haredim” he only “comes to justify and defend” the Haredim.
Yet, as you yourself wrote, he edits an online journal called “Tzarich Iyun” that publishes many pieces of internal Haredi criticism that, by the nature of the internet medium, are open to everyone…
2. In fairness, one should also bring the words of Rabbi Leibel, who does go in the direction Michi aspires to—
here
https://www.kikar.co.il/356581.html
and here:
https://www.kikar.co.il/358959.html
Yechiel, take a deep breath and then read; may you have a lovely night and all good to you.
Press release
A coalition agreement has been signed between the ‘Likud’ faction and the ‘United Torah Judaism’ faction.
The heads of ‘United Torah Judaism,’ Minister Yaakov Litzman and MK Moshe Gafni:
After a difficult and complex period of repeated election campaigns, with God’s help we have reached, at a good hour, a coalition agreement between ‘United Torah Judaism’ and Likud, as the basis for partnership in the 35th government. United Torah Judaism worked all along for the establishment of a right-wing government headed by Netanyahu, as we indeed succeeded in doing. The agreement received the approval of the Councils of Torah Sages. The faction preserved its principles in the present agreement just as in the previous one, in safeguarding the rights of the Haredi public, the world of Torah, the Haredi education system, maintaining the status quo, the Jewish character and heritage of Israel, solving the housing crisis, preserving Shabbat, and the holy things of Israel.
Tam, a kollel stipend does not descend from Heaven.
National health insurance, free of charge, comes from the taxes of the general population.
Talmud Torah schools and small yeshivot almost entirely live at the taxpayer’s expense (who tends to be less Haredi).
The day the Haredim become a majority and there is no one left to pay taxes in the state, there will be no kollel stipends, no health funds, and no one to pay salaries for teachers and kindergarten workers.
The Haredim, similar to the Arabs, live in a world where all good descends from the Zionist heavens or emerges from the bowels of the earth in barrels.
That is how a society develops such as our fathers never knew—a wholly new society made entirely of falsehood.
A society in which children enter an education system made entirely of brainwashing and the erasure of every shred of individuality or thought. An education system that produces obedient golems.
And I am speaking of both the Haredi and Muslim education systems, because in principle there is no difference between them.
If this is what you meant, I’ll say what I think of your words.
They certainly make sense. You represent the Haredi public wonderfully.
The problem is that you have not solved all the problems:
1. The belief that everything comes because of sins is written in the Gemara. True. One may also believe this if one values Hazal a bit more. When Rabbi Edelstein speaks about how because of sins there is more coronavirus among the Haredim, he is arousing attention to sins [which is important], but forgets the criticism regarding the insufficient obligation of practical effort, lack of leadership, and distrust of professional bodies.
2. They sanctify foolishness. True. One must show the problems created by this. There are Haredim who believe only superficially, whereas they could have believed genuinely; there are many problems of extremism, violence, lack of understanding of the other, the different person, even of women[!], lack of awareness of the development of halakhah, and many other things, some of which Rabbi Michi discussed at length.
3. Money as a means and not an end. True. A most important value. But if everyone is a kollel man, they will not even have a stipend. There are also many who remain in kollel because of social pressure. They would learn much more if they had the satisfaction of work they love. They would be many times more value-driven. Besides that, after Western money culture penetrated the Haredim, they need to cope with it and not flee from it or live at the expense of others, even if those others brought the culture.
Even the most extreme understand that Haredim need an army [King David served in the army…], except that the Torah also protects, and sins also cause more casualties and wars and a greater need for an army. Therefore, those who do not study clearly need to serve. “To remove the idlers from the yeshivot”—and there are many such people.
If one points to all the problems and sees the many disadvantages, one can compare the disadvantages to the advantages. But it is important that the Haredim not conceal the disadvantages, neither from themselves nor from the general public. If they conceal or deny them, it is important to emphasize the truth on every possible platform.
Let me know if I missed anything.
We agree that the Haredim are complete fools in material matters, and you think this collection of fools is capable of understanding what the lofty goal is?
Only a fool would think that a leadership which every schoolboy sees is a leadership of fools will lead him safely on the right path.
Of course, if we make sure the entire Haredi society becomes a society of fools, then there is no problem with such leadership (that is, there is, but the collection of fools will not understand it).
I did not understand what flaw you found in his words. As far as he knows, the Haredim were not very careful, and the secular were also not very careful. And nevertheless the Haredim were harmed more than any other group. It may be that he is mistaken about the percentage of secular people who did not observe the rules, since accurate information on this marginal issue did not reach him. He indeed did not check before delivering his talk whether the data on which he relied were correct, and I do not understand what flaw you found in that? (He, unlike you, deals with other subjects too—more important ones than Haredim, seculars, coronavirus.) He also did not check whether there might be other explanations for the matter, because this is the primary and basic explanation (in his eyes).
If regarding the Haredim you have an obsession, then regarding Rabbi Edelstein it is truly extreme and truly psychotic. For the first time one sees in the Haredi public self-examination, an attitude toward secular people as human beings, (in addition, as is known, on the coronavirus his opinion was that one should observe the rules), and many other blessed things under his leadership. So your obsession with him exceeds the bounds of good taste.
We’ll write that in the afterword….
(Apparently that too is supposed to prove something about the beforehand.)
With God’s help, the twentieth of the second month, 5780
More power to ‘Tam’ for linking here to my words there… It is also worth noting Rabbi G. Edelstein’s remarks about the virtue of those who sacrifice themselves for the defense of the people and the land, even if it did not stem from faith and commandment-observance (see his Wikipedia entry, note 10),
There he describes a young man he knew from Ramat HaSharon (where his father, the brilliant Rabbi Zvi Yehuda, served as rabbi, and after him his brother, the brilliant Rabbi Yaakov) who refused to say Kaddish after his father died, but sacrificed himself as a Haganah activist in bringing illegal immigrants to the Land, and in that action was killed by the British. Even “such a Jew, whose self-sacrifice did not come from faith,” is considered by Rabbi G. Edelstein to be among “those slain by the kingdom,” before whom no creature can stand.
Rabbi G. continues the tradition of his father, the rabbi of Ramat HaSharon (about whom the Chazon Ish said that he was among the few on whom he relied in halakhah), to walk in Aaron’s path, “loving people and bringing them close to Torah.”
Also in Rabbi Edelstein’s words toward the Haredi public, the criticism is mixed with appreciation. His rebuke to the Haredi public says that precisely their superiority in Torah knowledge obligates them to higher standards, much beyond what is demanded of others.
He does not enter here into detail about what specifically needs correction; it is better that each person conduct his own self-examination and find what he needs to improve. To beat one’s chest over the other’s clothing while hanging his troubles on “we told you so” is no great trick. But Aaron proved that often it is specifically words spoken by hint that have an effect.
Regards, Sh"T
Rabbi Michi,
Regarding Rabbi Edelstein’s talk: I greatly doubt whether he himself truly believes these things. I have a feeling he was trying to strengthen Torah observance and said these things only for educational purposes. It really does seem foolish to me to say such a thing… It doesn’t seem plausible that such a Torah scholar would make such foolish arguments.
Paragraph 2, line 6
… before whom no creature can stand in their presence.
Paragraph 3, line 3
… among the few in the land on whom he relied…
Paragraph 5, line 4
… that is no great trick. From Aaron we learned that often specifically…
Gabriel,
For some reason you assume that the Haredim do not pay taxes, or at least not enough to support themselves. About half of Haredi men work and pay taxes like every citizen, and most kollel wives also work (a large portion of them in high-tech jobs) and pay taxes as usual. The yeshiva budget, like the culture and education budgets, comes from the money of all taxpayers, including the Haredim.
One can debate whether someone who chooses to be a kollel man and live accordingly at a lower standard of living should be subsidized, but I do not think one can force him to maximize his earning capacity in order to support the needs of the rest of the state. In the end, there are values that matter to him more than money, and if he wishes to live at a low standard of living, that is his right.
If there is something worrying, it is the army. If the Haredi public becomes a majority, there probably won’t be anyone left here anyway; on the other hand, perhaps in a situation of no choice, the Haredim will finally have to grow up.
Grisha did not use it in “that” sense; that is clear.
Dear B.,
The taxes the Haredim pay are not enough to support themselves.
An average Haredi has an education at the level of a third-grade child, and the salary is accordingly.
Haredi women study secular subjects at a fair-minus level and therefore can earn the median salary במשק, which is about 7,500 shekels.
Of course they work part-time, in peripheral communities, through manpower companies that take a tithe, and are left with a salary of 5,000–6,000 shekels a month, on which the taxes are negligible.
According to Bank of Israel data, the direct tax revenues from a Haredi family are one-third of those from a non-Haredi family.
Add to that the minor detail that the average Haredi family has 7 children, compared with fewer than 3 in the general public, and you will understand the gap between reality and imagination.
A Haredi family puts one-third into the common pot of what a non-Haredi family puts in, and then takes out twice as much.
That means five-sixths of a Haredi family’s livelihood comes at the expense of the general public.
And that is before we even get into balancing grants for local authorities (to give some sense of it—Bnei Brak gets almost a billion a year, and our eternal capital has long since passed the 3-billion mark).
Add kollel stipends, child allowances, subsidized day-care, and birth grants (I know everyone gets them, but a grant for 7 children is larger than a grant for 2–3 children).
In simple words—the Haredi society does not support itself, and the level of skills produced by the Haredi education system guarantees that if and when they are left here alone, they will all die of hunger and disease (assuming the Arabs do not spare them unnecessary suffering and throw them into the sea).
G.
With God’s help, 20 Iyar 5780
On this day, when our ancestors began their journey from Mount Sinai to the promised land, it is worth noting the advantage of the Land of Israel in the struggle against the plague, which Rabbi Y.G. Edelstein also noted when he pointed out that the rate of casualties in the Land of Israel was incomparably smaller than the rate of casualties in the Haredi concentrations abroad.
It is possible that besides the merit of the land, “upon which the eyes of the Lord your God are,” there also stood here the merit of the much greater internal Haredi cooperation here in the land. In the video ‘Plague in Brooklyn’ (viewable on Arutz 7), one of those interviewed spoke of the problem of the immense fragmentation into groups and subgroups that led to contradictory and bizarre directives, each community leader proposing his own to the flock under his care, according to the hand of “halakhic autonomy,” for which there is someone here who yearns 🙂
In our land the situation is different. Among other things because of the political reality, which dictates greater cooperation among the different streams in the Haredi public. The draft threat and the possibility of obtaining budgetary assistance from the state require close cooperation among the heads of the Haredi public—Lithuanians, Hasidim, and Sephardim—and between them and the state authorities.
Thus we reached a situation in which, after the first two weeks during which there were certain differences of opinion on the question of stopping studies, the Torah leadership of most Haredi circles—Lithuanian, Hasidic, and Sephardic—broadcast a uniform and clear line calling for observance of the Health Ministry’s instructions. And only certain marginal circles did not accept the position of the mainstream.
So that to the singular merit of the land there was added also the merit of the relative unity dictated by the existence of an organized Jewish public in its own land. And who is like Your people Israel, one nation “in the land.”
Regards, Sh"T
If Vered Noam received it, almost anyone can get it.
Direct tax revenues—one third. Most revenues overall are from indirect taxes (mainly VAT), and note that money sitting in the bank as savings does not generate VAT. I agree that the Haredi public as a whole is subsidized, but the rate of subsidy is far from what you present.
How stupid can one be. You apparently are not familiar with her research.
Honorable Rabbi, I will ask what people commonly call a “straight” question.
Do you not derive some enjoyment from the provocations your column causes, whether it is about Haredim or anything else, and if so, should this not be seen as a subjectivity that causes you to see reality in a very particular light?