A Contemporary Look at Teshuva (Column 507)
At the beginning of the previous column I wrote that this one would address teshuva from a different and current angle. It concerns a particular kind of teshuva that people do, and the obligation upon us to do teshuva regarding our own attitude toward the phenomenon. I will return to this at the end of the column.
Rabbi Bunim Schreiber on Haredi Ideology
I will begin with an article I read a few days ago, which reported statements by Rabbi Bunim Schreiber regarding the cooperation of the Haredi parties with Netanyahu and the Likud. The piece stirred quite a few unexpected reflections in me, and here I will try to lay some of them out for you.
Rabbi Bunim and his brother Rabbi Yossâle Schreiber (sons of the late Rabbi Pinchas Schreiber, who was a dayan in Ashdod and also sat on the court of the late Rabbi Nissim Karelitz) are two outstanding scholarly prodigies of this generation of Lithuanian yeshivot. I donât know them in depth, but from what I have seen and heard their thinking is original and broad, and they address varied topics from unconventional angles. I preface with this precisely because the words Rabbi Bunim wrote hereâhe is, as noted, a Lithuanian rosh yeshivaâdo not necessarily reflect those virtues.
In his remarks he warns his flock about Netanyahu, explaining that he is a wicked man and an enemy of Israel (well, donât worry, this is not about Bibiâs corruption or lack of integrity, but about his attitude toward the Haredim and Judaism). Such words may surprise a public accustomed to placing the Haredim in the national camp (yeah, right), as natural allies of Netanyahu. He warns the public, as well as outsiders, not to be seduced by the ongoing coalitions with the Likud and the right, which, he claims, are nothing but politically necessary conjunctures for practical needs. In their view, Netanyahu is wicked and causes the many to sin, no less than his counterparts on the left. There is no reasonâand no licenseâto feel any shared path with him, nor to see this cooperation as anything beyond a practical necessity.
But itâs not only about Netanyahu:
Those sinners and corrupters who stand and run the state are such that they have lostâand year after year continue to loseâmillions of Jewish souls, uprooting them forever; they caused those Jews to forget and have done the worst thing on earth. Their wickedness is not comparable to those who merely tried to kill the body and remove it from this world. They entered the entirety of Israel and destroyed it from within, took out of the collective countless souls who will never return and cast them down to the nethermost pit. Who can define in words the magnitude of the devastation they have brought upon us and the intensity of the hatred we ought to feel toward them.
He inveighs against identification with the state in general and with the right-wing parties that have long gone with the Haredim. He even writes that the hatred toward them should be harsher than the hatred toward the seed of Ishmael, for the latter pursue only the body while these pursue the soul.
He sums up his âin-depthâ essay with the words:
So even when we sit against our will in the company of the people of the state and rescue from the lionâs paw, it is not appropriate to feel that there is any thread that connects them to us.
The key expression is ârescuing from the lionâs paw.â This is the classic, time-honored expression of the Haredi policy that justifies involvement in politics (usually cast as a duty, or a mitzvah, to heed the voice of the gedolim who instruct us with this âincomprehensibleâ directive. A veritable decree). Voting is a kind of obligation, a burden and an irreproachable necessity in order to extract what we can from themâbut certainly not an act done out of identification. Rabbi Bunim says that we are essentially dirtying our hands and feet in Zionist and secular mud (not the political filth, as a secular ear might infer. As noted, corruption does not bother them at all), and we cooperate with them only to extract whatever we can, to rescue from the lion and the bear.[1] The main intent is to preserve Haredi education, the bubble, and separation, but also a bit of religious coercion (to save the lion and the bear from themselves).
Itâs hard for me to refrain from noting the gap between the intellectual abilities of Rabbi Bunim and his ilkâtheir depth and originalityâand the nonsense they utter whenever their heads deviate even a millimeter from the Talmudic page. Foolish comparisons, a distorted and agenda-driven view of reality, kindergarten-level preaching, clinging to slogans that donât really hold water, and so on and so forth. True, one can find this among intellectuals in other fields as well (as the saying goes: only from intellectuals can you hear such great nonsense). I have noted more than once (see, for example, in column 62 and many others) that seclusion in the ivory tower is a tried-and-true recipe for detached thinking and a lack of understanding of oneâs surroundings.
Double Talk
Back to us. For all those surprised to hear such talk from the mainstream of Lithuanian Haredi society, it is worth noting the double talk common in the Haredi world. Internally, slogans are repeated again and again about the mitzvah to vote (with the requisite grimacing, âas they instruct you,â which does not quite match the enthusiasm invested in promoting this âburdensome mitzvahâ) in order to rescue from the accursed Zionists (it suddenly occurs to me that Khamenei may have learned from them). Externally, the discourse is of cooperation and loyalty. Internally, drafting into the army is prohibitedâboth to avoid spiritual corruption and because why should we cooperate with the Zionists; let them eat what they cooked. Externally, the Torah protects and saves, and of course only those who study are exempt, and everything is done for the sake of the people and the State of Israel, etc., etc. One must understand that, as expected from a defensive minority, a Haredi speaking outward is first and foremost a propagandist (often not consciously), and that is how everything he says should be treated.
I recall one clear day when I was studying at the Netivot Olam yeshiva in Bnei Brak (for baâalei teshuva). Suddenly I saw a lively movement of all the guys toward a bus waiting outside. When I asked, they explained that we were going to demonstrate in Jerusalem against the âslanderâ that Haredim donât enlist. These were, of course, baâalei teshuva who by nature had served in the army, and some continued in the reserves (especially those who failed to evade it), but the offended righteousness on their faces was instructive: how dare âtheyâ say that Haredim donât enlist? Iâm a combat lieutenant colonel, a pilot, a commando, I serve here and there, I do several weeks every year, etc., etc. When I naively asked whether these data also apply to a Haredi from birth, and whether this service is not merely a residue of his previous biography, he didnât understand what I wanted. They refused to admit that Haredism opposes military service and that Haredim do not serve. They knew the facts exactly as I did, but the sacred zeal washed their brains entirely. The self-persuasion with which everyone spoke was astonishing to me.
Returning to Rabbi Bunim, I am quite sure that his yeshiva students, after hearing his talk, surely said: âWell, tell us something new.â Although outside such things may sound surprising, to a Haredi ear they are trivial. This is the basic Haredi ideology on which everyone was raised and in whose name oaths are still made today (internally, of course. The âslanderâ that Haredim are there mainly for the money will be met with stormy protests). There is not a shred of novelty in them; they express the prevailing view since forever (actually since Sinaiâthe stage at which the hat, the shtreimel, Yiddish, and the gartel were invented).
The Other Side of the Coin
You probably think my goal here is to bash the Haredim. Actually, noâquite the oppositeâand here I get to the punch line. Why did Rabbi Bunim feel the need to deliver his fiery essay precisely now? What exactly provoked his ire? What does he fear? Itâs quite clear that he and his cohort, the guardians of the pure worldview, noticed that the public is slipping away and seeping outward. Not in the sense of leaving Haredism or religionâthose are phenomena that are relatively easy to handle (simply deny their very existence, impose sanctions, and intensify the war for pure education and core studies). Iâm speaking of men and women at the very heart of Haredi society who suddenly feel identification with the state, with the public at large, and stop seeing everything in black and white. They no longer buy the picture of wicked versus righteous, schemers versus persecuted, and the like. In politics, as well as a bit in study (though, of course, that is greatly prevented) and in the workplace, unmediated encounters arise with all the âwickedâ around. And suddenly it turns out that here and there thereâs also a reasonable secular person, pleasant, empathetic, with values and good aimsâwhose entire existence is not dedicated to destroying Judaism and Haredism. There they also encounter the troubles of others. They suddenly understand that the army has other goals besides mass religious persecution of Haredim. There are also some minor security problems we have to deal with. They begin to understand that there are people who bear this burden, who serve in mandatory and reserve service, who risk their lives, who pay with their time, money, business, and livelihood. As politicians they see that needs exist and that budgets donât grow on trees, and that there are those who shoulder the economic burden. Suddenly the complaints about failing to share the burden begin to sound a bit less antisemitic.
For years it has been clear to me that Haredi representatives in the Knesset do not truly believe the very beliefs they themselves recite so emphatically (especially internally) about ârescuing from the lion and the bear.â They are partners in political conduct, and they understand that they themselves are no better than others (warning: understatement). In their roles as ministers, director-generals, and committee chairs, they also look after the general public (at least from time to time). Each one sees phenomena requiring treatment within his remit. If you are not stone-hearted, you rush to act. You can continue to preach about rescuing from the lion and the bear, but that is mainly to convince your senders and voters that you havenât lost your humanity and havenât surrendered to the Zionist system, heaven forfend. You are still âone of usâ (unzerer). Sometimes you say it out of inner conviction because those are the slogans you grew up on (the âpure worldviewâ), even though you understand very well that itâs nonsense.
And yet, truth be told, deep down something like that does happen to you. Your outward talk, beyond the complaints of ongoing discrimination (sometimes even you understand they are false nonsense, but that is your job), your participation in what is done also for the lions and bears around youâthis leads you to really mean it. A person who is inside a system and takes part in it becomes identified with it and starts to feel empathy toward it. MK Avraham Shapira, the legendary chair of the Finance Committee (âthe stateâs CEOâ), was the first to alert me to this phenomenon. But I believe it applies to most of them. I even somewhat believe Gafni and Deri that sometimes they truly intend to act for the vulnerableâand not always as a pretext for funneling money to the Haredim (though that too, of course).
In the Haredi world a division is customary between the political representation, which muddies its feet in secular-political mud, and the Councils of Torah Sages, who remain inside the old beit midrash and are responsible for doctrinal purity. One of the main reasons for this split is the need to keep the representatives from slipping outâi.e., from becoming Zionists, heaven forfendâand beginning to identify with the environment rather than attending to their senders. This is the cord tying them to the Haredi world within and guarding the purity of their outlook and ideological conduct. It is well known that Rabbi Shach would have each of his Knesset representatives sign a contract that if he failed to obey, he would be immediately removed. Itâs not only about decline due to interests but about the expected development of identification with the surroundings.
My claim is that Rabbi Bunim Schreiber and his colleagues keenly sense this process of destabilization. It is happening not only to Knesset members but to substantial parts of the Haredi public. The more they become involved in public life in the state (of course efforts are made to prevent this at all costs), in education, in the economy and work, and of course in politics (in recent yearsâactually in government), the more they develop identification and lose a bit of the sense of siege and of rescuing from the lion and the bear. The lions and bears suddenly acquire concrete human faces, and it turns out they are not so vicious. In my view, this is the reason for this outburst and others like it (voiced mainly internally, but here they leaked out). Those who remain in the yeshiva ivory tower feel that the outside world is slipping from their grasp, and Haredism is changing its character and its sentiments. Suddenly Netanyahu and the secular are not such great wicked people (in the Haredi senseâunrelated to corruption, which, as noted, does not really interest them). Haredi sentiment is changing all the time. Therefore they try to preserve the sense of discrimination, mount barricades over silly and incidental issues (like the Belz education issue), attempt to close off and block any connection to livelihood, study, and the secular world in general (see under: internet, mobile phones, and the like), and in particular remind everyone of what we received at Sinai: we engage only in rescuing from the lion and the bear. Heaven forbid to develop genuine identification.
But it is very hard to do this in our global world. Haredism is slowly slipping from the hands of its ideological politruks, and Rabbi Bunimâs outcry reflects this well. I tell my friends who know the Haredi world less well, again and again: the wars there are almost always internal.[2] The harsher the war with the outside, the more it means that something inside is destabilizing and beginning to look like the âoutside.â In fact, they are fighting internal Haredi elements and the legitimacy of âsecularâ elements being expressed within Haredi society itself. The outside is merely a target for psychological projection of the internal factor.
If so, my claim is that despite the invective, Rabbi Bunimâs words are, in my eyes, praiseworthy. The more the ideological war intensifies and the rhetoric grows extreme, the more it means the public is moving in the right direction. Something is changing in not insignificant segments of Haredi society, and the desperate struggle to stop it is not very successful and, in fact, reflects the existence of this blessed phenomenon. Not for nothing did I write in my manifesto (column 500) that the Haredi mainstream is already Zionist in every practical sense.[3]
Since weâre judging favorably, Iâll add that even the indifference toward Netanyahuâs corruptionâand corruption in generalâis not necessarily due to anti-Zionism or moral failings. There is a mix here of distrust in the modern values of the state (democracy and integrity, transparency), distrust of the press (âthere is no corruption; itâs all lies and persecutionâ), and, above all, distress. According to Maslowâs hierarchy of needs, when youâre fighting for your life and money you have neither the time nor the mental bandwidth to root out corruption and purify morals. On the contrary, at times you use it to solve your own predicaments.
The Dissonance Between Ideology and Practice
Thus, Rabbi Bunimâs quotations, which seem to express separatist and alienated positions, actually reflect the opposite and blessed processes occurring in Haredi society. Letâs not be mistaken. They accurately express the ideology, and that has not changed at all. But they reflect the fact that practical conduct, both among the public and its representatives, is changing constantly. These words are an expression of a deepening dissonance between ideological conceptions and declarations and the practical conduct on the ground. Moreover, the more practice distances itself from outlook and ideology, the more extreme the ideological counter-expressions become. I have written in the past that, in my opinion, extreme phenomena such as the shawl-women, the hilltop youth, the âLev Tahorâ cult, and the Lithuanian Jerusalem faction constitute a reaction by those who cling to ideology against the normalization of the mainstream and its practical distancing from ideology. I wrote that precisely because these phenomena fit the ideology and seemingly express it more fully and honestly than is customary, the mainstreamâs war against them is more severe. How can a person who holds an ideology but compromises on its application go to war against one who applies it in the most straightforward and complete manner? For him it is a mirror reflecting his weaknesses and pragmatic compromise.
This is the dissonance I described above. On the practical plane and in peopleâs inner feelings there is no significant distance between the Haredim and the national-religious. But the declarative and ideological differences remain for most as they wereâonly on paper. You will not hear a conscious renunciation of them. We continue to swear by the old slogans and the pure worldview, even though we ourselves have long not been there. By the way, this duality of planes exists in many places, but among Haredim it is a very pronounced feature. Haredim are a very pragmatic group, and they have no problem living with such duality. They can mock the conduct of the courts of Rabbis Elyashiv (and, as they would say, âthe great R. Y.S. Efratiâ), Steinman, or Kanievskyâand at the same time submit to their instructions and regard them as binding daâat Torah. Haredim are accustomed to theoretical talk detached from practical conduct. They declare that appearing in civil courts and cooperating with them is like planting an Asherah by the altar and raising a hand against the Torah of Moses, and at the same time send their best sons and daughters to study law.[4] Women on religious councils was once âbe killed and not transgress,â until the Shakdiel High Court ruling decided otherwiseâthen suddenly the law changed as if by magic. I have shown before that this is also the case regarding their attitude to the obligation of hishtadlut (see, for example, column 279): on the one hand, of course, it is invalid and does not affect our lives (for everything is in Heavenâs hands), and at the same time one must not take it lightlyânot even a shred. In the past I noted that the hardalniks (especially the âKavâ groups) are very ideological and not pragmatic. In this sense, the Jerusalem faction is closer to them.
So who is right? Whom should we esteem more? Seemingly those who apply ideology in life more honestly and fully. But here I want to argue otherwise. There are complex human processes in which ideology follows practice. The feelings that arise from life itself initially stand opposed to ideology and theory, but gradually those bend and adapt themselves to practice. After actions, hearts are drawn. Our direct grasp of lived experience sometimes hits closer to the truth than our ideological conceptualizations. Those perhaps sound correct and logical, but life tells us otherwise. I take these processes very seriously; I do not see in them ideological deviation but a blessed change in the ideology itself done âfrom below,â through practice. There is something in unmediated encounters with life and with other opinions that can influence in a way no theoretical analysis can. The people in the fields are sometimes more right than the smart alecks cloistered in their ivory towers.
There are theoreticians who will always be careful to point to this gap and to âidentify deep processes,â that is, to show us that nothing has really changed and that we are in a war according to the doctrine of stages. The Haredim want to conquer us and therefore issue consensus statements outward, but lookâsee what they really say and write internally (=Rabbi Bunimâs words about rescuing from the lion and the bear). Various researchers of Haredim explain to us that they are deceiving us, that their aim is to seize another goat and another dunam, and they quote the sacred writings of Haredi ideology. But I do not buy this. On the contrary, even if they bring me dozens of citations about rescuing from the lion and the bear, practice in my eyes is stronger than anything. It merely means that the ideological declarations are an anachronism they cannot yet deny and confrontâi.e., changeâexplicitly. The change is taking a more winding path, for that is the way of an ideological society (but not too ideological).
Similar Phenomena in the National-Religious Camp
In a similar way we are told that Smotrich wants to establish a halakhic state here. They claim that for now he speaks relatively moderately and improves his attitude toward LGBTQ people, etc., but that this is merely the doctrine of stages. After securing his place he will establish the Sanhedrin and begin executing heretics, destroying houses of idolatry, and blowing up the al-Aqsa Mosque. The learned among us will bring articles and ideological writings in which such ideology and theory are explicitly stated. Moreover, Smotrich himself will speak thus internally even if he denies it externally. After all, he cannot deny simple, undisputed halakhot.
Many believe that what is said internally and anchored in ideology is what truly matters and reflects the beliefsâand, by extension, the risks they pose. Practical conduct is merely tactical (the doctrine of stages). But here, too, I say that practice is stronger than any ideology, and if Smotrich does not conduct himself in that way, it is reasonable that he probably no longer fully thinks that way either. Contact with the âotherâ and with the life of action has a magical effect on ideologues and ideologies, and therefore, in most cases, I think movements and groups should be judged by their conduct in practice and not by their ideology (this too is a generalization, but I think the point is clear).
Needless to say, the same applies even more to Itamar Ben-Gvir and his âOtzma Yehuditâ party. In recent days a lively public discussion has been underway about him. In the past he identified very clearly with Rabbi Kahaneâs extremist statements, hung a picture of the âholyâ Baruch (Hu) Goldstein in his living room, and was a central activist of Kach. In recent years he has been going through normalization, which has gained recognition in the media as well. They frequently interview him and thereby, of course, grant him legitimacy. Many criticize this media conduct and claim there is no real change here but a doctrine of stages. They quote his Kahanist theory, say it has not changed, and therefore conclude that he is merely adopting a tactic of niceness to garner support, legitimacy, and political power. Ben-Gvirâs current positions lie well within the legitimate domain, but his critics refuse to accept this. In a deterministic fixation they keep seeing it as dishonesty and staged behavior, for they will not ignore his ideological sources and his past, and they subordinate his practical behaviorâthough it factually appears quite differentâto those sources.
And indeed, Ben-Gvirâs associates, like Baruch Marzel, Michael Ben-Ari, and others, say otherwise. In their view he is truly deviating from the Kahanist doctrine and is in fact betraying the âJewish ideaâ (the name of Kahaneâs yeshiva). It turns out that Ben-Gvir himself agrees precisely with his critics on the right (i.e., he claims his positions truly have changed), although, of course, his critics on the left will say this is only a tactic. I have even seen the conjecture that this is a joint scheme planned with his critics on the right to lend credibility to his normalization.
But in my unlearned impression (I donât know him), Ben-Gvir is undergoing a genuine change. Practice and the encounter, in the arenas of action, with other groups (leftists, Arabs, LGBTQ folks, and so on) are doing something to him. He does not sit in an ideological ivory tower but gets his hands dirty in politics and even seeks senior executive positions. He works in cooperation with colleagues from other parties and groups, meets with them, and reports to them. This brings him to the conclusionâor feelingâthat his ideology is detached and likely incorrect. Unlike the Haredim, he even dares to voice this aloud.[5] In my estimation he is already further to the left than what he himself expresses out loud. As noted, ideology always lags behind practice.
The Implications of This Tension
The path of practical progress without touching ideology has power. In this way one can effect deep changes without hopeless wars. On the other hand, ideology has a very strong force that is hard to withstand. A person is constantly measuring himself, and being measured by others, against his ideology and theirs. This tension constantly challenges those who are bringing about the change, placing them before the ideological mirror. This is especially true at the stage when the changes in practice have not yet been translated into the ideological plane (this is the stage of double talk). In the initial state the ideology remains unchanged but practice is already elsewhere; then a practical person may sometimes feel that he is in fact a compromiser and weakling, and that he is required to return and cling to his ideology (to do teshuva). For this reason, militant and extreme groups succeed time and again in overcoming the pragmatism of the majority, for they are perceived as more credible and honest representatives of the correct ideological path. At the same time, ideological voices crying out truth against practice (like Rabbi Bunim) also serve critics standing outside to prove that the process is not real. Thus leftists prove that Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and Gafni are extremists in disguise. Thus they ground the thesis regarding the doctrine of stages or the âsalami method,â by making comparisons to ideology and accusing them of double talk inward and outward. They sound moderate in Hebrew and extreme in Yiddish, and critics prefer, of course, to relate to the Yiddish.
It is important to understand that the representatives and people on the ground themselves sometimes use the terminology of the doctrine of stages to describe their own mode of operation. They say our hand is not strong, the time is not ripe, we must rescue from the lion and the bear, and so on. These are ex post facto justifications for the gap between ideology and practice. But in many cases, I think, they do not actually intend to proceed to the next stages. Even when our hand is strong they will not stone Sabbath desecrators, will not destroy houses of idolatry, and will not outlaw leftism. In my view such expressions are often intended merely to calm the ideologues and tell them that for now our hand is not strong and therefore we focus on this stage. Afterwards (may that âafterwardsâ never arrive) we will talk about the next stage. My claim is that in many cases this is in fact a move toward substantive moderation, and the talk of stages or the salami method is merely a way to justify it vis-Ă -vis the ideology (which they do not dare to touch). Therefore, I think it is more correct to judge such groups and representatives by practice rather than by ideology and their internal written sources.
Incidentally, hence the importance of conceptualizationâthat is, translating practice back into the ideological plane. Until that is done, the process is reversible, for the tension between practice and ideology can pull us to either side and even reverse the direction of progress. When one succeeds in translating the practical change into a corrected and moderated ideology, the direction becomes more stable. Of course, the guardians of the ideological flame will oppose this, for it robs them of their power and leadership (rescues the lion and the bear from their hand), but this is a very necessary stage for stabilizing such blessed changes. Ideology possesses a charm and force that practice sometimes cannot withstand. This is my modest contribution in several arenas, where I try to conceptualize and formulate changes that everyone already tacitly agrees to but is unwilling to admit (regarding changes in halakha, foundational thought, the attitude to democracy, and more). But even if one fails to change the ideology, that does not necessarily mean the practical change does not express a real change.
Mansour Abbas
I assume it is relatively easy for readers of this site to understandâand perhaps also identify withâmy claims, in particular with the interpretation that sees practice as substantive and not merely tactical, insofar as we speak of religious Jews and Haredim. What if I propose applying this also to Arabs? Please, before you jump, try to compare the situation to what we saw so far within our own camp. What is happening outside looks very, very similar.
Most Arab citizens of Israel do not identify with the state. Their ideology is surely based on the Nakba and discrimination, on alienation and claims of inequality; there is also not insignificant support for terror and violence against the state, its citizens, and its institutions. Their connection to the Palestinians living outside Israel as a minority dictates this inevitably. A Palestinian today can hardly declare Israel a reasonable democratic state that grants its citizens reasonable treatmentâeven if not fully equal (just compare to what they receive in Arab countries, or under the Palestinian Authority and in Gaza). This is the declared ideology, and its guardians labor over it. Whoever speaks otherwise will be attacked and presented as a compromiser and a traitor to the âPalestinian ideaâ (the name of Abu Mazenâs yeshiva).
Traditionally, Arab parties do not enter coalitions, they oppose any security (and not only security) activity of the state, and the impression is that they are hostile to the state as such. Their members identify with terrorists and terror (with faint condemnations, mainly outward) and, of course, with enemy states, and so on. This is likely one of the reasons why the condition of Israelâs Arabs improves too slowly. The main reason is that those who engage in these processes are principally Jews. The Arab representatives deal with the Palestinian problem, remain ideologically pure in the opposition, and thus ignore their votersâ needs. At times one feels they have an interest in perpetuating the sense of discrimination rather than solving problems, in order to advance Palestinian politics. For some reason, they do not see themselves as obligated to enter a coalition, to shoulder the burden, and to effect change, but demand that Jews who are in the coalition solve the issues for them. When that does not happen, the easiest and most convenient (and politically-diplomatically beneficial) move is to accuse Israel of racism and discrimination.
Against this backdrop, Mansour Abbas (and a significant part of his Raâam party) is a new and refreshing voice on the bleak map I have described. His very willingness to participate in a Zionist coalition that includes right-wing parties, to cooperate in all actions, and thereby also assume responsibility (though not yet as ministersâthis is a matter of time, as with the Haredim), is highly unusual. Mansour Abbas belongs to the Islamic Movement and yet speaks in a more moderate and cooperative language, which makes it all the more surprising. He does not declare a renunciation of fundamental Palestinian ideas (statehood, right of return, discrimination, etc.), but he focuses on rescuing from the lion and the bearâthat is, on improving the situation of Arab citizens of Israelâeven at the price of ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian problem. During the last Gaza operation he remained a member of the coalition contrary to apocalyptic predictions from the right (that he would prevent the government from acting), even as many of his people (including uninvolved civilians) were harmed. No wonder he was harshly attacked by the guardians of the Palestinian flame (see, for example, here), yet he stood firm in an impressive way.
In my eyes this is a revolutionary novelty on our political map. No less revolutionary is that, despite ongoing prophecies that he has no electorate in the hostile Arab streetâthat he will not pass the electoral thresholdâhe consistently receives not a few votes in the Arab public. He has his four seats (far more than the extremist Balad), despite harsh attacks on him and despite the cooperation that until a year or two ago was unthinkable. It seems, therefore, that this is a broader social phenomenon in the Arab public, not merely one courageous individual. He also has not insignificant achievements. He has managed to secure substantial government budgets, to spur police and other activity addressing violence in Arab society, and more and moreâthings all the shouters in the other Arab parties never succeeded in doing, and which all the shouters on the right protest against.[6]
How to Interpret the Abbas Phenomenon
With respect to Abbas and Raâam, precisely the same voices and interpretations arise as we saw regarding his Jewish counterparts (the Haredim and Ben-Gvir). His Palestinian critics (the guardians of the flame) accuse him of betraying the ideology. He himself does not deny the ideology, and explains that he is merely rescuing from the lion and the bearâand Jewish critics on the right latch onto this. Motti Kedar explains to us morning and evening that this is lip service (he shows us that Abbas and his colleagues speak differently in Arabic and Hebrew), and therefore it is the doctrine of stages and the salami method. He anchors this in written Islamic sources, in the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and of Palestinians in general, and, of course, in quotes and decisions of the Shura Council (the Islamic âCouncil of Sagesâ of Raâam). It sounds very persuasive, for the man knows the material and quotes scholarly citations.
But in my view exactly what happens with the Haredim and with Ben-Gvir is happening here. What I described in the previous paragraph is a one-to-one match with the picture on the Jewish side. You will not find a single element missing. There is a gap between practice and ideology; there is criticism by flame-guardians and the religious ivory tower; there are suspicions from outside that this is the doctrine of stages; and there is no denial by the representatives themselves of the ideology (apart from their practical conduct otherwise). They, too, speak differently inward and outward (in Arabic or Hebrew, as in Yiddish or Hebrew). Therefore, here too I, as someone who is quite a minor expert on Islam and the Palestinians, read the map differently from all the so-called experts.
My claim is that here, too, practice is very important, even if one can find very emphatic and rigid ideological quotations. Citations from the Shura Council and from Abbas himself (especially in the past) neither impress nor threaten me. I do not ignore them, but I take them with a grain of salt. My conclusion from the gap between practice and ideology is not that this is necessarily a doctrine of stages and a tactic, but that here, too, practice precedes ideology, and the path to changing ideology can pass only through practice. Therefore I am not impressed by the quotes (though some are correct), nor even by the fact that Abbas does not deny them and does not disavow them. We have seen this with Ben-Gvir and with Gafni. In my eyes Abbasâlike Ben-Gvir, Gafni, and Avraham Shapiraâis a person involved in political action and in the broader society; thus, identification with his surroundings emerges in him and in the society he represents, and it is stronger than ideology. As a coalition partner Abbas suddenly understands Israelâs security predicament and the limited options we have to address it without harming his Palestinian brethren. The lion and the bear are no longer such great villains, for he himself shares the dilemmas and decision-making. To Abbas, who sits in the room with them, you can no longer sell the claim that his coalition partners are all mass murderers for no reason.
As a thought experiment, try to imagine people assessing religious Judaism by quotations from its halakhic sources. There is no dispute about the halakhic rulings concerning the treatment of idolators, the annihilation of Amalek, the âir hanidachat,â saving a non-Jew on Shabbat, the prohibition of granting gentiles a foothold in the Land of Israel, and certainly not their rights (e.g., not being appointed to positions of authority). The law of âlower him and do not raise him,â destroying idolatry, etc. Not to mention the attitude to LGBTQ people, women, non-Jews, or secular Jews. A religious representative cannot deny these halakhic sources, and for most (those who are not reformers like me) they are fully binding and relevant (this Torah will not be replaced). So how will the religious politician explain that, practically, he does not espouse all this? He has no choice but to say internally that we are rescuing from the lion and the bear, that our hand is not strong, and externally to issue denials (âwe invented equality, democracy, and morality, and our women are daughters of kingsâ) and other crooked excuses he himself does not believe. The alternative is to present himself as a reformer not bound by halakha. I want to believeâand truly believeâthat they mean seriously what they say outwardly, i.e., that even when our hand is strong they will not do all this. We will already be in a very different place. How will they then justify it? The gates of creativity have not been locked.
In short, despite the tendencies of âdeepâ thinkers and researchers who prefer to examine roots and foundational depth theories, it is more correct to examine groups precisely on the âsuperficialâ planeâthat is, by their actual conductâand not by their theoretical ideological sources. In light of what I have described, this is, in fact, the deeper plane, for over time it will emerge and change the theories, which are actually what lies on the surface.
It follows from what I say here that double talk is an inherent feature of groups belonging to rigid ideologies, and precisely for this reason I am not perturbed by it. The way to address ideology and change it is precisely by focusing on practice and ignoring ideological quotations. They are not very important and not very influential. Of course it is advisable to try to narrow the gap, to conceptualize and embed these changes in ideology as well, but that is a difficult and painful process, and in many cases unnecessary; therefore it is not right to insist on it (cf. changing the Palestinian charter, or renouncing the idea of Greater Israel).
Implications and Conclusions
I think this is precisely the way to try to reduce the alienation between Israelâs Arab citizens and the state and Jewish society. I am not sure there will be tremendous success here, and I am quite sure the baggage will not disappear and that hostility and identification with their people outside will likely accompany us further. I also agree there is an element of the doctrine of stages here, for Abbas himself declares as much (just like Gafni and Smotrich). Nevertheless, there is a new direction here that, in my eyes, is very important to give a chance and to encourage. In any case, we have no other way to move forward on this front, and the alternatives are much worse (they have already proven themselves valueless). I also do not see what could be so bad in cooperating with and encouraging this direction. Even if Abbas brings budgets to his constituents, I do not think this will create a greater threat to the state. After all, a truly democratic state should care for equality among all its citizens. And, instrumentally, closing these gaps may improve our situation on the internal front (and perhaps consequently on the external one as well).
I am not calling for naivetĂŠ, but I am calling to open ourselves to an unconventional interpretation of the gaps and tension between ideology and practice and of double talk. It is not right to be led astray by experts, becauseâas Ben-Gurion saidâexperts are experts in what was, not in what will be. Let them continue to talk about Nakbas and discrimination and the right of return, and let us continue to try to narrow the gaps and integrate them into the work. This is, I think, a path well worth trying.
As an aside, I will only say that if you wish to vote for Raâam in the upcoming elections, I will not tell you that this is a foolish idea. All the other parties are more of the same. You will not find any new message there, and I assure you faithfully that nothing will change after the upcoming elections compared to what has been until now. By giving a vote to Raâam there is at least a real chance to advance one front in positive directions. True, there will be declarations about the Nakba and the Shura Council. So what? We have that today as well.
Is This Leftism?
It is hard to ignore the claim that this is classic leftist thinking. Our leftist cousins are always accused of ignoring citations and ideology and placing hopes in practice. So first of all, sometimes leftists are right (a stopped clock, etc.). Beware of ad hominem fallacies. Beyond that, leftists generally also want to make far-reaching concessions based on those hopes. A sane right, by contrast, can act in a âleftistâ manner to realize those hopes, as I suggested here, but without making significant concessionsâat least until we see them realized. This sounds to me like a very sober and logical way to manage things, whether you label it right or left. Names and labels really donât matter. The two other ways are either naive (classic left) or despairing, demoralizing, and without horizon (classic right).
Connection to Notions of Teshuva
I began by noting that this column relates to the Ten Days of Repentance. The connection is in two aspects: first, the groups I described here are doing a certain kind of teshuva. They are moving from a problematic ideology toward more worthy directionsâbut sometimes it happens âby accident,â that is, without realizing it. Sometimes not. The second aspect concerns everyone else. They must do teshuva regarding the rigid and distrustful attitude they direct at these groups and processes. We must be prepared to accept that different groups undergo changes and that not everything is fixed and deterministicâeven if their ideological discourse still lags behind their practice. I have had my fill of quotations from ideological sources purporting to prove that nothing has changed, is changing, or will change.
Oneâs fixation on clinging to his own ideology demands teshuva, and it is being done by the very groups I have described. But to the same extent, our fixation on clinging to the otherâs ideology and not looking at his practice demands teshuva from us all. Perhaps now is an auspicious time for that.
If I may, this Yom Kippur it might be worthwhile to focus a bit less on general, stirring, theoretical declarations, and a bit more on practical changes in our conduct in the coming year and beyond. In addition, it is not always advisable to examine our practice by comparing it to ideology. Sometimes the teshuva we must do is not from practice to ideology but precisely from ideology to practice. Sometimes it is our Torah that needs to do teshuva, not we.
Gmar Chatima Tova to us all.
[1] This expression is based on various rabbinic phrases about rescuing a lost item from the mouth of a lion or a bear, but its source is already in Scripture (see, for example, 1 Samuel 17:37; Amos 3:12).
[2] In the past (see columns 90 and 330) I illustrated this through the character of Tsemach Atlas, the hero of Chaim Gradeâs novel.
[3] Admittedly, there are still infuriating remnants of their crooked worldview. See, for example, an article about purchasing gentile produce during the Sabbatical year. The Haredimâwho, recall, are an inseparable part of our blazing national and Zionist campâdiligently ensure the livelihood of Gazaâs farmers at the expense of Israelâs farmers. All this, of course, from fear of the âlo techonemâ prohibition in the heter mechira, which could grant gentiles a foothold in the Land of Israel. There is no limit to the absurd.
[4] In column 448 I noted that, in fact, everyone understands that we have no real option to boycott the courts, and that all the halakhic discussions are pilpul, nothing more. It is hard for people to admit that in our situation halakha is not applicable; as noted, they do not go out against the ideology but simply act against it, period. Thus a façade of a quasi-halakhic discussion is created. In practice, almost all think it is forbidden, yet nevertheless go to the courtsâsome more, some less. From time to time a Jew like Rabbi Avraham Yosef comes out with a tasteful explanation that lawyers and judges are sinners who should not be counted in a quorum and should be ignored as if they were air (he dared say aloud what everyone thinks), and then all fall silent in embarrassment. After all, in practice he, too, like all of us, will need the courts in many cases.
[5] It seems to me the reason is that the principles for which he fights are not halakha and do not belong to the hard core of Judaism. This is a kind of ideology, and therefore it is easier to say that it is inapplicable and irrelevant today.
[6] By the way, honesty requires acknowledging that Bibi has a share in this phenomenon. He was the first to invite Abbas to his coalition, which did not come to fruition (and is now, of course, vehemently denied. Bibi, as is his way, is meticulous to fulfill the verse âHe speaks truth in his heartâ). That, of course, does not prevent Bibi and his friends from crying out that the last government cooperates with âparties that support terror and are not Zionistâ (and no, this does not refer to Gafniâs and Litzmanâs parties). Even when he finally does something positive, he denies that too and cries foul. Well, Bibi also strengthened Hamas economically and militarily and did nothing against it (except the disgraceful capitulation in the Shalit deal), and still can cry that he is Mr. Security and that they do nothing. Facts confuse no one there.
Discussion
Speaking of repentance and the need to conceptualize practice back into ideology, I was prompted to think, following study of Rabbi Tzadokâs Takkanat HaShavin (section 3), where he explicitly lays out the position of âHasidic determinism,â that ××××§× there one finds what in my view could be a solution to the conceptualization problem. That approach, which appears many times in different forms in the books of the Sefat Emet, Pri Haâaretz, Rabbi Nachman, Mei HaShiloach, and others, holds broadly that even a personâs actions, including commandments and transgressions, are decreed by the Creator; and a personâs purpose in this world (which can exist only in the sphere where he has free choice) is to recognize that it is the Creator who does everything. Hence, for example, the sharp opposition between faith and pride or depression, which are essentially taking credit for success and failure. When this is taken as an âoutlookâ ideology, it has direct implications for attitudes toward secular Jews, Zionists, and even LGBT people. And I will quote here a few sentences from Pri Haâaretz (parashat Shoftim), after a long passage explaining the above position â âThe sum of the matter is that one who serves God in this way loves everyone and elevates all those connected to him according to his level; and conversely, one who hates even the wicked thereby clearly shows that in his righteousness and strength his heart is lifted up, and he is righteous in his own eyes, and not that the Lord has wrought all this, and he is more crooked than all⌠and certainly he is lesser and worse than all the wicked, and adds strength to the husk more than all the wicked, and descends lower and lower; and he is a grumbler who separates the Master, for he separates fear from the Living One of life, saying that this is not from God and that his own hand has done it.â So here we have a fully ordered ideological doctrine, not reformist and not even âlite,â that places Rabbi Bunim Schreiber below Bibi (by way of example) on the ideological ladder itself!!! I know this is 180 degrees opposite to the rabbiâs theological approach, but in my humble opinion it answers the problem much better.
A small sharpening: the ideological innovation here is that a person is not measured by his actions, but by his consciousnessâhow much he recognizes the kingship of God, and to what extent his consciousness is a dwelling place below for Him, blessed be He, in that he does not attribute his actions to himself (both the good and the bad). In such a world, seeing people in black-and-white terms is out of place; in such a world, it is impossible to judge people by their outward appearance, or even by the degree to which their actions are synchronized with your value system.
I expected that the column, and especially sentences like these, would provoke comments about me. Usually I belong to those who conceptualize and act according to theory, and here I am seemingly criticizing such conduct. But that is not precise. I am definitely attentive to situations in which reality strikes theory, and then that must be taken into account, and it is preferable to conceptualize it and incorporate it into the theory too, if possible. But I am speaking about situations in which being swept along by reality is not justified. Beyond that, it is not true that theory has no significance, nor did I write that here. Conduct is a delicate interplay between theory and utopian models on the one hand and reality on the other, and each side in this interplay has an important role. Neglecting theory is no less bad, and perhaps worse, than neglecting the intuitions that arise from reality.
As for voting, I wrote (albeit briefly) that ordinary votes will change nothing regarding the poor of your city. What has been is what will be. They are all the same. But voting for Raâam has a chance to change something, if only on this particular front. Incidentally, progress on that front also indirectly helps the poor of your city a great deal. Reducing the gaps and creating a better atmosphere are in all our interest.
The sages of logic have already established that contradiction and nonsense are a perfect solution to every difficulty. If you cannot criticize a person because he has no responsibility for his actions and views, but you can love him for that despite the fact that he has no influenceâgood for you. If you think that you yourself have choice in your attitude toward others but he does notâgood for you. If you think that our relation to events is different from the events themselves (and that also seems to follow from the Book of Principles)âgood for you. All of these are logical contradictions, and from a logical contradiction anything follows, of course. Problems have vanished from the earth.
I propose a much more efficient, simple, and short thesis. Assume that 2+3=-17. That will solve all the problems in the same way, and there will be no need to cut down forests in Brazil in order to write whole books of nonsense.
First, a preface: several good years ago I studied for a degree in Middle Eastern studies at the university, and wrote a few papers on the Muslim Brotherhood. Those were many days before the wedding with Abbas, and those teaching were ××××§× left-wing lecturers. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood has been a gradualist strategy for at least 100 years.
Itâs impossible to claim regarding the Muslim Brotherhood what you claim regarding the Haredim or Ben Gvir, since the latter two are not based on a written and clear doctrine of gradual stages that has succeeded across the Western world (many countries in Europe) and the Arab world (Egypt, for example). It really is a method, and not, as you portray it, a change in practice following some ideological development. The ideology remained the same and the practice remained the same too (itâs just that we in Israel have until now not been exposed to it).
I completely disagree. That is exactly the claim of the experts with whom I disagree. Even if that has always been their method, it does not mean that there is no change now. The fact is that others do not act like Abbas. Beyond that, ×׌×× × too this is a completely written method. And even older than theirs.
R. Levi Yitzhak is jealous of you
Over time I have actually become convinced that regarding the State of Israel (and not modernity), the Haredim were right. This is not really the state of the Jews. It is the state of all its (progressive) officials. People who are prepared to do anything to rule over other human beings. And if they canât do it over gentiles (Dreyfus, assimilated Jews), then letâs find sucker Jews over whom they can rule under the cover of fake nationalism. As it looks, someone who has no loyalty to the Holy One, blessed be He (fear of Heaven), also has no loyalty to the Jewish people. He is loyal only to himself, and in that name they are even prepared to defend the state of Ishmael. So not only is the left disloyal, but also the secular right (even Shikli), and also the liberal religious public. For them, the army exists for personal and professional advancement, and thatâs it. Possibly also the traditionalist right. So there is no reason to serve in the army. Even for right-wing people, it only strengthens the rule of foreigners (the left) over us. The Haredim (their leaders) grasped this already at the establishment of the state. I am only now grasping it (and I should have grasped it when I discovered the opposition to amending the Law of Return to define a Jew according to halakhah).
And this post is proof of it. The man votes for a party of our enemies. Even after the Holocaust he still has faith in gentiles and thinks their antisemitism depends on our behavior toward gentiles. In what world does it seem to him just to give equal rights to this public of barbarism, crime, and wickedness (the Arabs), which has proven its hostility to us in riots, and specifically after Raâam was about to enter the coalition for the first time (and by a public represented by themâthe Bedouin). Doesnât he understand that the nicer one is, the more they will interpret it as weakness? They value national loyalty and will despise him for his lack of loyalty to his brothers. It is interesting that he has complaints about Bibi and the Likud on matters of truth and falsehood, when those who invented falsehood (âthere is no objective reality; what doesnât fit is not absorbed by the tools of consciousnessâ) are the left in general. Likewise the Arabs. ×׌×× there is no reality at all. A reality that doesnât suit them they simply do not perceive (with the left this also exists, but only ideologically). And they are even worse because they are like animals and have no free choice in this at all. When the right finally learned the rules of this game, suddenly he cries out. Heaven forbid they should succeed at it. Why, the father of all swindlers in the world is Bennett, but for that Rabbi Michi has good excuses. Everything is kosher if it helps bring down Netanyahu. He has complaints against Bibi supporters (Bibists), but they are the majority of the Jewish people here in the land. I wonder when the left will actually join the enemies of the Jewish people. He regards the newspapers Yediot and Maariv as objective. Why not. Plain Jew-hatred. It doesnât bother him that budgets from Jewish money go to enemies, to crime and wickedness (the right-wing screamers).
Emmanuel, I was surprised you werenât the first to jump in with the usual slogans that you feel obliged to produce, which completely ignore what I write and do not address it at all.
I did in fact hesitate whether to respond at all. It took me a whole day (when I read the article there was only one comment) to decide that it was worth it. Amazing that the advertising companies still havenât descended on me because of my slogan-producing ability. It seems to me that âproducing slogansâ is the rabbiâs own fixed slogan. At least my slogans are original. Maybe for once the rabbi will try to think how I arrived at these conclusions? Why I think this way? The connection to the article is that there is no importance to life here in the state and to Haredi integration into society if this is not a state that serves the Jewish people. And someone who cares about Arabs (!) at the expense of Jews (a reminder: you support âaffirmativeâ discrimination) cannot be said to care about the Jewish people.
One note: ânew angles of thought, broad vision, and original thinkingâ are really not the characteristics of Rabbi Bunim Schreiber, but of his brother Rabbi Yossel, who indeed is not busy spouting such nonsense.
Rabbi Bunim Schreiber has in recent years been occupied with rebuilding the image of the classic kollel scholar, which has been rather falling apart, through incessant preaching of abstinence, asceticism, speech fasts, and so on; so his attack on this subject is part of an entire set of values that he is trying to promote.
The idea itself in the article is correct and enlightening, certainly in relation to the Haredi public as a whole, but I fear that by the time such things reach the yeshiva ivory tower they come as a distant rumor, and not always a well-founded one. I mean that this does not necessarily find expression in the aggressive essays that are published from time to time.
And again: a wonderful and important idea for life in general. More power to you.
I was speaking about his learning.
It seems to meââfrom the height of my ageââthat these things are supposed to be new and refreshing, but unfortunately there is nothing new in them. The new has not innovated, and the old is known. It grates on me a bit, as a Jew, Heaven help us, the overt and covert mockery of Torah scholars (and that is the writerâs right by virtue of being a human being with free choice, or being programmed to do soâlet the chooser choose the definition he finds pleasant). It grates a bit, but that is probably my own psychological problem. Perhaps as a former atheist (a newly religious one, on the model of newly secular) and a person who currently leads a religious lifestyle, it seems to me that the reflections in the column do indeed have a place of sanity. It seems to me that one should shake free of the people and relate to the views and deeds actually present in the here and now and their impact on the near future (the ancients said, âAccept the truth from whoever says it,â or as our Sages taught usâthough they were not born in the enlightened 20th centuryââwhere he isâ). The emphasis is on what is said, not the speaker. I do not know to what extent the writer believes what he writes (I am too small to know the recesses of the minds of such sophisticated amoebas as ourselves), but there is no doubt that he writes from an inner and sincere placeâand for that he deserves appreciation. Let me note, with your permission: sometimes great Torah scholars are also right, and if you like, by mistakeâbut that common mistakeâeven though they are absent from the âbig worldâ that the enlightened among the nations, children of that charming European continent, created for us.
With blessings for a final sealing for good (assuming the writer and readers believe that there indeed is a Creator who judges and decreesâŚ)
Thank you for the article/column.
In my humble opinion, my impression is that there are two contradictory, opposing processes here. One is the tendency to be practical and pragmatic, which brings Abbas and Ben Gvir from the extremes toward the center; but on the other hand there is the intensification of opposition from âtheirâ camps to this process. It seems to me that you are actually optimistic about this. Personally I find it very hard to adopt this optimistic approach when I see the filth being poured out in every public square on anyone who dares say something pragmatic and sensible that does not conform to the âline.â And may you be sealed for good on the Day of JudgmentâŚ
You missed the main thesis. The more extreme the filth becomes, the more it testifies to success and to the growing concern of the extremists because of it. Look how many supporters vote for Ben Gvir and Abbas. That shows there is a broad public that follows them and supports them despite the filth. The filth awakens because of that, and that itself is the reason for my optimism. Exactly as with Rabbi Bunim.
I agree that there is a parallel between Ben Gvir/Smotrich and Abbas in this sense of the double game between ideology and practice, only that with Smotrich the gap between ideology and reality is much smaller than with Abbas. For if Abbas and his colleagues in the Islamic Movement think it is a commandment to murder a Jew as such, and that one thereby merits paradise, etc., then even in practice you will not hear from them condemnations of terror, only phrases like âwe oppose violence as such,â but they will never explicitly condemn it. With Smotrich, by contrast, even his ideology does not require murdering any Arab, and there is no commandment in that. And regarding the Jewish state, Smotrich indeed says that this is his plan, but he says so explicitly on the assumption that most or all of the people will want it; that is, Smotrich does not hide his positions, and he says openly, even outwardly, that his plans are meant to be realized in the future, only that right now he understands that he is a minority and does not have the moral right (not merely practical/technical inability) to impose his way of life and his will on the whole people. That is not the case with Abbas, whose views are too deeply opposed to reality, and that is why he deters many more people among the public. But certainly, I agree there is a parallel; itâs just that there is a difference in the intensity of the gaps.
Here, these are the people you are going to vote for, and they are not so âmoderateâ after all:
https://news.walla.co.il/item/3533001
I disagree on both counts. Factually: if you take halakhah as Smotrichâs ideology, the distance is no longer so small (Smotrich should supposedly support killing Sabbath desecrators, destroying houses of idolatry, not allowing gentiles to reside in the Land of Israel, and more). Essentially: but that distance, even if it is great, really doesnât matter very much. It is a product of the difference between ideology and reality. In the end, reality is stronger.
They sent this to me this morning, and I was really not impressed. This is once again the same fallacy of resorting to ideology instead of looking at actions.
Today I read a bit about Qaradawi, and he really is a very impressive person. A very important Muslim leader and decisor on a global scale, with many millions of followers, and surprisingly I discovered that he is also moderate. He supports womenâs advancement, opposes terror (he called for handing over the terrorists of the Twin Towers), and much more. Itâs worth reading his entire Wikipedia entry.
True, within all that he also supports terror against Israel. From our point of view that is the whole picture and one cannot ignore it, but from the point of view of an ordinary Muslim it is a small detail within it that does not change the big picture. Think of a situation in which Maimonides, or some thinker and leader of immense stature, also supported terror against Spanish civilians because of the expulsion (or, for example, supported killing Amalekites including infants, and a few other halakhic details that exist among us). Do you think other rabbis would not eulogize him? Incidentally, those two supported kidnapping a child from his parents, an act of terror in every sense. Rabbi Lior declared that Goldstein is a supreme holy one. So in your view other rabbis would not eulogize him after 120? Do you think Ben Gvir would not eulogize Rabbi Kahane if he died today?
When you eulogize a certain personality, that does not mean you agree with all his statements. Rabbis eulogized the Satmar Rebbe and R. Amram Blau, despite sharply opposing their policy and outlook. They spoke about their devotion to Torah and their leadership. That is exactly what Abbas said about Qaradawiâabout his devotion to Islam and his leadership. Abbas did not endorse terror; he eulogized the man, and that is entirely understandable when a leader of such stature passes away. I am really not moved by this. This is exactly the fallacy to which I devoted the column: clinging to declarations instead of looking at actions. Abbas is part of the world of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that imposes on him (willingly) a certain discourse. But there is a gap between the declarations and the ideology and the actions in practice. Your deeds will draw you near, and your deeds will distance you.
And one more important point. All Palestinians, and indeed almost all Muslims, think that we are a militaristic people that dispossesses the Palestinians of their land and murders them. I of course completely disagree, but that is a fact. I assume that Abbas thinks so too, and therefore in his eyes this terror is not as morally reprehensible as it seems to us. I obviously disagree with him, but one must understand that according to his view such statements are not so severe. Now go back to my example of Maimonides encouraging terror against Spanish civilians because of the expulsion. Is that impossible to understand?
Abbasâs disagreement with Qaradawi is on the practical plane, because Abbas lives here and Qaradawi did not. But for me the practical plane is the important one. Even if a person thinks this way about us, if he lives with us and acts together with us he will moderate and understand that reality is different. He understands very well that his coalition partners are not bloodthirsty murderers. That will not translate into ideology so quickly, but it sinks in and has an effect.
With Godâs help, on the eve of Yom Kippurâmay this be a year of redemptive pragmatics
In light of the general vision of moderation, one may optimistically anticipate the following scenario: the moderated Ben Gvir will expel only the extremist Muslims who aspire to eliminate the state of the Jews here and now. With the expulsion of the Islamic extremists, Mansour Abbas will be able, through his moderation, to influence the moderate âsilent majorityâ of the Arab population.
Then the process of moderation in Haredi society too will continue and intensify, since a state in which Arab citizens are full partners in government has ceased to be a Zionist state that provokes the nations. The strengthening partnership of Abbas and the leaders of the Shura Council will prevent progressive legislation and encourage preservation of tradition in the public sphere. Alongside the news presenters wrapped in hijab on television, their Jewish counterparts who make do with head-covering will also be accepted. When the state is less secular, it will be more accepted even in Haredi circles. And thus everyone will be satisfied.
All the rest days of the monotheistic religions will be respected in our stateâFriday, the Sabbath, and Sunday. Merav Michaeli will call for suspending trains and cars on all three days of rest, and boys and girls will ride freely on their bicycles on the roads and highways. Everyone will work energetically four days a week and rejoice with their families on the three days of rest. Not only Haredim and kollel scholars will grow in Torah, for all Jews will have three whole days to invest in growing in Torah. Happy are the peoples for whom this is soâŚ
With blessings for a final sealing for good, Matanya Chai Kimmelman-Shiloach
With Godâs help, eve of Yom Kippur 5783
The gap between âideologyâ and pragmatism does not necessarily indicate abandoning great aspirations and making peace with âwhat is.â Rather, there is here an understanding that the maturation of processes requires much time and great patience. The âideologyâ charts the distant goal, while pragmatism makes it possible to advance toward the desired goal in small stepsâslowly but surely.
Best regards, Matanya Chai Kimmelman-Shiloach
The insight that ârepentance preceded the world,â that the world and the human being were not created complete and perfect but rather are continually ascending, falling and rising againâthis is what enables a believing person to accept patiently the flaws of the here and now, ×ת×× faith and confidence that we are moving toward a better future.
Best regards, Mahsha”k
In the comment âGreat aspirations and small steps,â line 2
âŚan understanding that the maturation of processes requiresâŚ
With Godâs help, on the eve of Yom Kippurâmay this be a year of great deeds
Even in religious-Zionist circles that saw cooperation with the distant as obligatory in order to build the people and the land, they stressed the need for caution not to nullify oneself before them or bend Torah values to the secular outlook.
Thus wrote Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Five Sermons, p. 30), that one should learn from Abraham, who took his two youths with him on the way to Mount Moriah, but when he went up the mountain he left them âwith the donkey,â as if saying to them: âIn material matters we accept your counsel, but in all that pertains to the spiritâwe preserve our unique spirit.â
Although âit is clear that alone, without the secular, we would not have succeeded in establishing the state, yet not in everything can we be partners with them. And when matters reach the laws of marriage, education, Sabbath observance, forbidden foods, rabbinate and religious rulings, or âWho is a Jew?ââhere we say to the âyouthsâ: âRemain here with the donkey.â In all the enterprises we cooperate with you, but there are no compromises concerning âthe place of which God told him.ââ
However, Rabbi Soloveitchik adds that separation is not the end of the road: â…the separation is not for the sake of parting, but âuntil hereâ; in the end we shall return to you and bring you up as wellâ (his words were cited in an article by Rabbi Yaakov Filber, âRemain here with the donkey â is it preferable to be unique or together?â, on the Kipa website).
Best regards, Achiyah Petahyahu Kloizenburger
Along similar lines, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook said that the ideal is a âfaithful publicâ in which the righteous lead, but even in a situation of a âcrouching beast,â in which the distant lead, we are commanded not to abandon them but to help and lead, little by little, toward spiritual repair.
Similarly, the mayor of Ramat Gan, Avraham Krinitzi, related that he heard from Rav Kook that our generation is like an old man who forgot the aleph-bet and was seated with children in a cheder to relearn the aleph-bet. The old man began also to join in the games of his child companions and in their mischief. At that point the teacher remarked to him that although you are studying with children, you are an adult and not a child.
So too we, who have forgotten how to run a state and an army, etc., must learn this from them, but we must not forget that we are âthe adult among the nations,â the one who taught humanity faith and values; therefore in this we must continue to lead and not be dragged along.
Best regards, Af”ak
So you are basically saying they are enemies⌠and you have no problem voting for them?
The question is how you define an enemy. Even someone who thinks I am dispossessing him is not necessarily an enemy. It depends whether he is prepared to move toward shared life or whether he only fights me. That is exactly the difference between ideology and declarations on the one hand and practice on the other.
If the âstrategy of stagesâ and practical repentance look the same from the outside, how can we nevertheless distinguish between them? It is not right to believe that Abbas is ârepentingâ merely because that is a possibility.
There are no unequivocal criteria. There is an impression and various indications. I mentioned some of them. In any case, it is certainly important to be careful and to take into account that there may also be a mistake. Therefore it is not advisable to take very high risks. In any event, here no significant risk is involved.
With Godâs help, 11 Tishrei 5783 (49 years since awakening from the âconceptionâ)
In the article âMansour Abbasâs strategic plan to fight Zionism through politics has been exposedâ (Arutz 7 website, 19 Elul 5782), excerpts are brought from the âIslamic charterâ approved in September 2018 at the conference of the âSouthern Branchâ (at which Mansour Abbas was elected chairman of Raâam).
There it is stated explicitly that Raâamâs integration into Israeli politics is intended to promote: a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital, the return of the refugees to the territory of the State of Israel, and national, civil, and religious rights for the Arabs within the territory of the State of Israel.
That is to say: in addition to a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, millions of Arab refugees will be streamed into the shrunken State of Israel within the 1967 borders, and will be granted ânational, civil, and religious rights.â
These are Raâamâs declared goals!
Best regards, Shomer Informansky
It is of course clear that a coalition of Jewish parties will not give Abbas everything he wants, but a coalition that aspires to a âtwo-state solution for two peoplesâ (as Lapid declared at the UN) will find in Abbas an enthusiastic partner.
If Abbas were to join a right-wing government, his demands would be far lower. But if a situation is created in which a left-wing government depends on the Arab vote, then there will be a headlong rush toward a Palestinian state.
Best regards, Shama”i
Honorable Shatzal shlita, it is already becoming somewhat hard for me to restrain myself, so forgive me for writing these things now.
In most cases I do not respond to your comments, because they contain mainly verbal sharpnesses and very few arguments. And even when there are arguments, they are not always connected to the discussion or address it.
What one sees in your words here is a clear example of something that looks like an argument but is not one.
If for some reason you are unable to see this, I will explain briefly. In the column I pointed out precisely that their ideology has not changed, and I explained why in my view it is not right to take ideology too seriously, and why it is more important to look at practice. Just for comparison, the âHaredi charterâ also says that they are in politics in order to save from the lion and from the bear. So it says.
Mansour Abbas certainly wants a Palestinian state, and I assume he also wants Jerusalem as its capital. As far as I understand, all Palestinians want this. And incidentally, I do not see anything wrong with that. It is his right to want that, certainly so long as he does not seek our destruction but life alongside us. But either way, I explained in the column that this is not the subject under discussion. The question is what he actually does, not what he wants. For example, I asked why he did not bring down the government when there was an operation in Gaza. After all, his purist colleagues told him, âAnd who knows whether for a time like this you have attained royalty?â
But you ignore the entire discussion and go on tossing out slogans and sources, when the whole column is intended to explain why quoting sources is not relevant. Perhaps you disagree and think it is relevant, and that is entirely legitimate. Then write that and explain why. But merely quoting more sources is not a substantive discussion.
And more generally: your style of writing on the site has already elicited comments here saying that this is trolling, and if I did not know you, sir, I would join those assessments. But I know that you mean well.
Therefore I will conclude with a request: I would be glad if from now on you would try to have the verbal sharpnesses illustrate substantive arguments rather than replace them. And please make sure that the arguments address the substance of the discussion and do not simply repeat irrelevant claims again and again.
A good final sealing.
As usual, on the level of logic your words are logical and convincing, even (God forbid) the Raâam part.
Also in relation to the manifesto there is indeed a similarity in the practical aspect between the streams as you described. And from an intellectual point of view I agree.
Similar things, incidentally, can be heard from Micah Goodman, who compares the Haredim and Raâam and describes the gap existing in both between the dream and pragmatism. And how interesting: specifically among the most religiously strict (Jews and Muslims) one can find practical pragmatism.
As is your habit, you ascribe decisive importance to the intellect. As for emotional matters and anxietiesâone should give pills for them and they have no place.
In my opinion, statements are drawn after sectoral belonging. And belonging to some sector (there are studies about this too) is ultimately emotional and not intellectual. Therefore the choice of the average person will, in the overwhelming majority of cases, be group-based and emotional.
Few peopleâthose with the power of âradical listeningâ (also a term I heard from Goodman)âwill read your article and be persuaded.
Fear (which is actually quite justified, to tell the truth) is what decides the various âHaredim,â and therefore your words sound like a provocation to those ears.
As usual, your words are thought-provoking. But probably many long years will still pass before they are internalized (if at all).
Michi, are you seriously and in all innocence asking our Shatzal that âverbal sharpnesses should illustrate substantive argumentsâ⌠how optimistic of you! Good for you!
To Rabbi M.D.A.âmany greetings,
The âIslamic charterâ adopted by Raâam in 2018 is not âlaw for the messianic age.â The ideal aspiration is that the whole world accept Islam, and non-Muslims have a place only as âprotected peoples.â
However, here we are speaking of an operative plan, which does not de jure proclaim the abolition of the State of Israel, but brings about a situation in which the Jewish state will collapse on its own. With indefensible borders, and with millions of Arabs streamed into it who receive ânational rights,â the Jews are left with only a tiny ghetto. After all, even âbetween Gedera and Haderaâ there will be many autonomous Arab concentrations.
But in the plan, as I mentioned, there may be immediate significance: joining a government that will advance the âtwo-state solution,â as Lapid declared at the UN.
In the current government, Raâam advanced de facto the plan of Arab autonomy by means of wholesale legalization of illegal construction and connecting it to electricity. The âright of returnâ was advanced through agreements to admit thousands of Arabs from Judea and Samaria under the cover of âfamily reunification.â Clearly, Raâam has an interest in maintaining a government that plays into its hands.
Best regards, Shemaryahu Informansky
That is exactly what an enemy is. But what is his interest, even practically speaking? Money. He represents a non-productive and criminal society and wants to sell its fingers in the Knesset in exchange for budgets (which in the end will go to crime organizations). What is our interest in this whole story? Isnât the citizensâ money important? Do you hate Netanyahu so much because he went with the Haredim that you are willing to go with the Arabs, who suffer from everything the Haredim suffer from and are also our enemies? This is simply mental illness.
And if all you want is quiet from the (Israeli) Arabs, then you are simply surrendering to protection money. What is the point of having them integrate into society? Do you want to distribute weapons to them that one day will be turned against us? The IDF exists to protect the people of Israel, not the State of Israel. You want resources directed to them at the expense of your Jewish brothers? What is the logic??
Anyone interested will find much material on Mansour Abbasâs worldview and on the ties of the âIslamic Movementâ to Hamas and the âMuslim Brotherhoodâ in the articles of Yehonatan Dhoh-Halevi on the website of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Policy (and in an interview with him on the Mida website).
For distinctions between Mansour Abbasâs approach and Qaradawiâs approach, see Pinhas Inbariâs article, âHow will Qaradawiâs death affect the Muslim Brotherhood,â on the Zman Yisrael website.
With holiday greetings, Shama”i
It is fine to use Raâam in an attempt to get rid of Benjamin Netanyahu.
What Bibi and Arab culture in general share is the complete absence of any value attached to truth. Truth is a trivial and insignificant detail in life; lying is legitimate in every matter. One can reverse oneself again and again according to convenience, interest, and impulse.
It is hard to infer normal social processes there, and certainly not to draw a parallel to processes in Haredi society. One can try, but one must take into account that there everything can reverse itself.
Even the best friends and neighbors slaughtered people in the riots of 1929.
Meanwhile one can make use of Raâam. Cautiously. Like leaning on a broken reed. Also because otherwise, he will make use of them, and he, after all, has no boundaries.
https://fb.watch/g1HWmLECTB/
Here is an excellent demonstration of the tension between ideology and practice, and also of the significance of the eulogy for Qaradawi.
Michi.
I think there is a certain difference between Ben Gvir and the Haredim and our other extremists, and the extremists of Islam and the Arab public.
And it is this: Jewish halakhah, even in its most fundamentalist interpretation, recognizes the gap between reality and implementation.
The attitude toward secular Jews, for exampleâas people one does not actively save from danger, and perhaps not even raise out of a pit, yet one tries to draw them near pleasantlyâwas already determined by the Hazon Ish. Likewise the Orthodox split from the other communities in the nineteenth century. And the reasoning for that claim is itself pragmatic: so long as there were only a few isolated secular Jews and anti-religious people like Spinoza, there was no problem applying the strict law to them. Once secularism gained momentum, treating so many people that way would not yield positive results; it would cause alienation, corrupt the world, and cut them off forever from the source of life.
And similarly regarding women. Iâm not a great scholar and I donât remember all the sources by heart, but one can say that so long as society was primitive, and everyone accepted the self-evident division that âall the glory of the kingâs daughter is within,â that she is only a vessel to help her husband, everyone lived with it peacefully, and no woman even saw it as an insult. It seems to me that every Haredi would agree that if they started to treat women literally as those whose role is secondary relative to the man and who have no purpose in themselves, and that it is forbidden for them to have occupations of their own, society would collapse because no woman would accept it. The matchmaking market and the institution of marriage would decline (and it also seems to me that the attitude toward women in the sources is far less unequivocal and really open to wide interpretation, unlike the issue of attitudes toward villagers or toward those who violate the prohibition of homosexual intercourse).
So too regarding gentiles. After all, halakhah was never ashamed to say that in principle the life of a gentile who has not reached his ideal state (the seven Noahide commandments, resident alien status, and the like) is not very important; for even on a weekday, in principle, a Jew is forbidden to save him from death or help him. And yet it always added an asterisk: as long as you assist him because of fear of enmity, so that anger will not be aroused against the Jews and lead to conflict, that is fine. And everyone will admit that today implementing such laws in practice would cause conflict, instability, and enmity toward the Jews.
The point is that I am not sure that Islam contains this principle of holding fast to the ideal wholeheartedly and unapologetically, while also recognizing that in current reality, for pragmatic reasons, one need not and cannot apply that principle.
I donât think thatâs the point. Even if there is no pragmatic principle in Islam, a principle in the sense of an idea or abstract model, there is still a certain practice on the ground. Whether conscious or not. The suggestion here is to pay very close attention to that practice and to its effect.
This exists everywhere. The question is not one of religion, Islam or Judaism, but of people. Both ×׌×× × and among them there are those who are more pragmatic and less so.
Among us too, all the rulings you mentioned were born from the field and not from theoretical sources. There is no essential difference.
The big mistake.
In general, the analysis is accurate: practice moderates, etc.
But that does not mean that the moderate practice is not dangerous and problematic for the State of Israel.
Even the relatively compromising Haredi practice is a practice that harms both the Haredi public internally and the State of Israel.
Whether it is core studies, or the attitude toward the Chief Rabbinate, or conversion, or public transportation on Shabbat, or budgets that finance idleness, and so on.
So yes, it is indeed compromising in relation to rigid ideology.
So what? It is also harmful.
The exact same thing applies to Raâam.
Its joining does indeed moderate and almost seems magical.
But it contains so much damage of the same kind.
Security operations that will depend on Walid Taha and on internal pressures, money that will be directed to Salafi Islamic renewal, and apparently many other examples of which I am simply unaware.
Are we capable of absorbing that damage?
Is it greater than the benefit? I am not sure.
Thank you for the excellent article
No one knows what the future holds. But moderation is always better than the current situation. If you wait for perfection, you will never progress. Therefore the reasonable policy is to invest in these directions without taking overly large risks. In my opinion, that is the situation today, at least with regard to Raâam.
Well, in Oslo too they tried to convince us that Arafatâs words in Arabic were, all in all, just lip service stemming from a gap between ideology and reality, and that his deeds in practice were what should serve as evidence of his intentions (and really, who could until then have imagined partnership at the negotiating table between a Palestinian leader and Jewish statesmen, etc. etc., and all the rest of that kind of nonsense). I hope Raâam will not have enough political power to prove that this drivel is the same drivel Arafat proved it was.
Iâm glad that apparently in this issue too, as usual, your voice of reason will remain isolated (although on other issues I agree with you a great deal) and no one will listen to this nonsense.
Michi.
How can one say that this pragmatism grew only from below, out of circumstances?
I do not think that is correct.
You are a scholar. You know Torah. And I do not have much memory, or much Torah knowledgeâcertainly not on the level of a Torah scholar.
Only the basics.
But from the basics that I do remember,
it is explicit that all the pragmatic halakhic precedents are already found in the Talmud.
And everyone agreesâfrom the greatest Jewish fundamentalist to the most open modernist, at least on the declarative level and in the way they issue rulings and actâthat halakhah, when circumstances change, changes because of precedents from the Talmud, the Mishnah, the Gemara, the Rishonim, and the Acharonim.
Precedents that are created because of clashes of values or principles within halakhah itself.
After all, in early halakhah it is already written that one should lower an apostate Jew into a pit and not raise him out, and already in the original halakhah it is also written that with regard to a child captured among the gentiles that law does not apply to him. And already in earlier halakhah there is a distinction between an apostate and one who sins out of spite, and one who sins out of appetite.
And therefore the dispute concerning them stems only from the question of what the secular are: apostates and spiteful sinners, or whether most of them are children captured among the gentiles and people who sin out of appetite.
There are ostensibly several principles, according to my superficial understanding of the matter: the duty to compel every Jew to observe Torah and mitzvot, and the punishment of one who does not observe themâthe sinner and the wicked; and the principle of the importance of Jewish life, even if he sins and does not fulfill his role. Therefore, once a Jew sins deliberately and intentionally out of wickedness, one is obliged to punish him and not raise him out from there. That is, in principle there is no value to the life of a deliberately wicked person. And in principle I think every Torah scholar would agree with this, and that in principle everyone would be forced to admitâfrom Bnei Lau, for example, to the head of the Edah Hareditâthat if a Jew arose and said, âI know my Master and I intend to rebel against Him,â then as believers we would be forced not to support him, not to host him, and not to have any connection with himâunless there is a chance that he will repent. And all the outreach is based on the assumption that even the anti-religious secular person of today does not know his Master and is not acting deliberately.
There is indeed a dispute among certain publics about how much modernity and pragmatism affect borderline cases (such as the attitude toward dialogue with Reform Jews, whose leaders are admittedly not children captured among the gentiles, but on the other hand clearly do not intend to provoke out of malicious intent). Regarding gentiles, I think it is the same point: even the Torah scholar who hates gentiles the most will admit that a resident alien who has attained human and religious completeness is someone whose life we are commanded to sustain and to whom we must cause no harm; that his life has value even on the level of principle. And the greatest lover of humanity among Torah scholars will admit that there is no equality between the value of a gentileâs life and that of a Jew, and that in principle idol worshippers or gentiles corrupt in their characterâwe are not to support them, initiate medical treatment for them, or save their lives when they are not under our authority, unlike in the case of a Jew.
So too regarding the unlearnedâlike me, for example. I do not think that even the greatest admirer of the ânoble traditional savageâ and of the singular Jewish people from the school of Rav Kook would recommend that his daughter marry me. On the other hand, even the greatest mocker and snob toward the unlearned would not issue a ruling saying that they are forbidden to pray in the local synagogue, donate charity to it, or serve as prayer leader there because they have not reached a high level of scholarship.
As for relations between the sexes, again there are detailed laws and major precedents. The discussion begins, if I remember correctly, with the prohibition of sexual immorality by touch because of the verse from which the prohibition of touching a menstruant is derived; and from there a halakhic give-and-take about how severe touching is when it is not affectionate touching. And again, all the decisors will admit that kissing on the cheek or hugging between the sexes, as well as seclusion, is forbidden; while on the other hand almost all will admit that a handshake in certain circumstances, or conversation for the purpose of study / analysis / delivering a lesson / work, is permitted in certain cases.
In all this verbosity I wish to point to one important specific point. I think what enables Jewish pragmatism is not specifically the trait of religious moderation or broad-mindedness, but rather that Judaism from the outset demands sharp intellect and immense intellectual richness. Anyone who wants to advance in religious devotion, to become learned and God-fearing, will necessarily have to develop the ability to see issues from a number of different and strange angles, to analyze, connect, and separate between them. And that is what cultivates, in my humble opinion, a great pragmatic capacity. I do not find that in Islam or Christianity. There the texts, from my comparison to pages of Talmud, are much more flat and simplistic; it is hard to extract complex statements from them. Therefore I do not expect a Muslim cleric to be able to arrive at positions of âtrue but unstableâ like yours, for example, because of a cultural and religious difference.
And here, in my opinion, lies the second fundamental difference between types like Ben Gvir, for example, or types like Marzel and Gopstein. True, they tend toward simplicity and fundamentalism, but the written letter, the qualification, will never let them take that tendency too far to one side. They can praise Goldstein, call for killing rioters and terrorists even without trial, pressure the state to encourage and initiate a tacit social boycott, and so on.
But they will not call on people to go out and simply murder Arabs in the street, even if in their view every Arab is like one of the seven Canaanite nations, as Kahane held, because they know that in realistic reality, without an army or a strong government initiating it, this would cause more damage than benefit, and that there is no halakhic permission for such provocation.
The Talmud is indeed binding, but it too cannot invent things. When a law is brought without a source, like all those you mentioned, this is a result of circumstantial influences. And indeed one can learn from the Talmud that reality has standing. There is no principled difference from what happens in Islam.
I find it very hard to understand what that distinction is based on, according to which âHaredism is slowly slipping from the hands of its ideological politruksâ and âthe public is moving in the right direction.â It seems there is no dispute about the facts: the language is growing ever more extreme; the stories about studying at university or military service are fake and built on distortions; voting for Haredi parties in Haredi-populated areas is 98%. Nothing measurable is moving, and if it is moving, it is in a more closed, more hateful, and more damaging direction.
Do extreme statements like that of Rabbi Schreiber show, by inversion, that he is in distress and the flock is slipping through his fingers? In my opinion that is very weak evidence. Extreme statements were also heard from Neturei Karta 60 years ago, and today the Haredi public dances to the tune of those statements and even tries to outdo them. What tangible fact shows any positive change among the Haredim? I do not see even one. On the contrary.
Now, it may be that your distinction is based on personal familiarity, which I assume is much broader than mine, and even so, in the end this is an impression that is biased by its very nature.
Of course this is an impression, but for me it is quite clear. Things are definitely moving. Voices are being heard that you would not have heard in the pastâabout including women in politics, about dealing with sexual abuse. Military enlistment is already fairly legitimate in a significant part of the public (without getting into your claim that quantitatively it is fake; Iâm not at all sure of that), and of course also academic studies, art, social criticism, and the like. There are masses of people leaving, forums of hidden doubters, amazing rabbinic opinions about the proper and inclusive attitude toward those who leave (where once there was sitting shivah and tearing oneâs garments). You hear the extremist voices, which are the reaction to these changes, and in my eyes that only strengthens the thesis. Haredi society is very diverse today, and it has a modern periphery in not insignificant numbers.
Incidentally, the hysteria of Neturei Karta too was a reaction to the success of Zionism and to the surrender of the mainstream Haredi stream. So that is really not a counterexample.
As a Haredi who belongs to one of the groups mentioned in that comment (the one about the forumsâŚ), I can say that it is detached from reality on levels that are hard to describe.
But Abbasâs ideology also includes doing it today, whereas Smotrichâs ideology is waiting for a Sanhedrin.
See there in the column.
Rabbi Elikim Schlesinger, may he live long, writes in his memoirs that the Brisker Rav, of blessed memory, said regarding elections that to put one of our own into the Knessetâfine; but the moment he enters there, he is no longer one of our own. Apparently in this regard you are a Brisker too, only you interpret it positively.
Absolutely.
Schreiber in his proper timeâhow good it is
I very much enjoyed the column and the analysis in it. I wrote down for myself the following important sentence: "Our direct perception from the experience of life is sometimes more accurate and more truthful than the ideological conceptualizations we make." Congratulations on leaving the laboratory! Itâs warm and pleasant out there. Isnât it? As for voting, I understand the despair over the current options, but Iâm afraid that my prior commitment to the poor of my own city will in no way allow me to vote for an Arab party.