On Movements and Cults in Judaism: What Do Har HaMor and Chabad Have in Common? (Column 19)

Originally published: September 18, 2016

📋 In one line

The essay argues that Har Hamor and the so-called line yeshivot, in a sense similar to Chabad, are not merely a strict ideological stream but a cultic phenomenon. The point is not insult but diagnosis: fundamentalism, closure, leadership immune to criticism, and a totalizing interpretation of reality create a cult pattern here, and confusing that with deep religiosity is a dangerous mistake.

Why the essay insists on using the term cult

The essay is fully aware that this term sounds like a cheap shot, harms unity, wrongs an idealistic and self-sacrificing ציבור, and may look like lashon hara. Precisely for that reason it insists: if one cannot argue substantively about first principles, then diagnosing cultishness is itself a substantive claim, not an evasion of debate. The rabbi also stresses that there is no cynicism here, and that he has neither sociological expertise nor exhaustive familiarity with Har Hamor; he is offering a systematic impression and asking the reader to judge by the list of traits.

Why cults thrive out of abundance and not only out of distress

The essay suggests that cults do not grow only out of persecution and poverty but also out of the postmodern void: abundance, lack of meaning, and boredom that generate a hunger for significance, belonging, and leadership. That is why even phenomena that look anti–New Age are part of the same mechanism: they provide group warmth, an all-encompassing narrative, and the sense of taking part in something great. In his view, Har Hamor belongs to that space even though it presents itself as a conservative reaction against it.

Fundamentalism is the core, and everything else follows from it

The essay lists a series of cultic traits, but says the most basic one is fundamentalism: principles that may not be subjected to common sense, reason, or empirical testing. Whoever casts doubt is already marked almost as a heretic, even if the public language speaks about openness and questions. From that follow the attitude toward the leader, the inability to conduct real debate, and the constant need to protect theory from reality.

A supreme leader, a selective canon, and exclusive interpretation

According to the essay, a cult has a charismatic leader whose words acquire an almost superhuman status, as if they come from a higher source and therefore cannot be challenged. Around him a canon is built: the writings of Maran HaRav zt״l as the source of truth, but only through the cult’s exclusive interpreters. When Rav Kook’s texts seem more open or more complex, a doctrine of the righteous figure is activated: either he did not mean the plain meaning, or his words are true only for rare individuals and not for practical life. In that way Rav Kook’s broader legacy is reduced to an internal tradition whose gatekeeper is the leader.

Sealing off from the outside, the Internet as a threat, and discussion that is not really discussion

The essay attributes to Har Hamor a systematic closure toward outside ideas, people, and media. The danger of the Internet, in his view, is not mainly pornography but the bursting of the ideological bubble and exposure to alternative arguments. That is why there are no panels or conversations at eye level, only one-way lectures; contact with the outside requires filtering, supervision, and hierarchy. Cult members receive the world already interpreted and pre-sorted, so there is no real need to test claims or facts outside the framework.

Excuses, esoteric language, and a theory that overrules the facts

When a difficulty arises, the essay argues, they do not ask whether the theory may be wrong; they turn to the leadership to produce a sophisticated explanation for why everything actually fits perfectly. From this emerges an internal, elevated, pompous language that presents itself as a discipline of faith rather than one worldview among others. That language is also collective: we believe, our rabbis have handed down to us, what is our mission, and in that way it replaces personal judgment with belonging. In his view, the larger the gap between theory and reality, the more sermons, dialectics, and mystical formulations multiply in order to cover it.

Total seriousness, a conspiratorial gaze, and redemptive megalomania

The essay stresses that in a cultic consciousness there is almost no humor, proportion, or recognition of ordinary life: every act, study track, institution, or struggle is loaded with cosmic meaning. This outlook is also postmodern in its conspiratorial sense: they do not deal with the argument but with the forces and motives supposedly behind it, and so reality fills up with demons, plots, the sitra achra, and apocalyptic battles. The state, the army, public institutions, and ideological enemies are all read through a redemption-versus-darkness template, and the facts themselves become secondary to the larger process. Cult members, accordingly, are perceived as the sons of light who almost single-handedly carry the fate of the world.

The line as an organizational structure: core, satellites, and emissaries

One of the essay’s main moves is its organizational explanation of the term line: not just a viewpoint but a system of concentric circles. At the center stands the leader; after him his students and spokesmen; after them Har Hamor yeshiva as the core; and around that satellite institutions, preparatory academies, NGOs, field rabbis, and officers who function as emissaries. Going outward is permitted only in a controlled way, after indoctrination, and with constant dependence on the center. Whoever rebels against the leadership, or seeks to mix Torah with other fields of knowledge and other outlooks, is pushed to the margins; whoever is accepted is only someone willing to be a subordinate periphery rather than an alternative.

Why devotion, sincerity, and personal quality are not a refutation

The essay is careful to say that Har Hamor and its people have genuine virtues: self-sacrifice, idealism, education, personal renunciation, and at times full sincerity. He even adds that unlike other cults, it is not clear that there is cynicism, money, or manipulation here; it may be sincere belief, and in his view that may be more dangerous rather than less. Precisely for that reason it is easy to confuse this with more serious religiosity rather than a cult. But the rabbi argues that devotion, sacrifice, and even good intentions are common features of cults, not an answer to criticism of them. He also distinguishes between the individuals, who may be pleasant, intelligent, and worthy, and the collective pattern he is criticizing.

Even when they are partly right, the problem is the cultic frame

The essay does not claim that everything Har Hamor people say is false. Some of their claims about the New Israel Fund, the European Union, or certain cultural processes may contain truth, and at times some of their predictions even come true. The problem, in his view, is the demonization and the proportions: instead of discussing phenomena substantively, they are swallowed into an all-encompassing story of dark forces, plots, and boycotting everything outside the camp. So even a correct claim can become part of a paranoid and cultic outlook.

Why not every religious faith is sectarian

The essay explicitly addresses the question whether this definition turns every religion into a cult. His answer is no: faith and religious commitment do not require fundamentalism. As long as a person is in principle willing to subject his assumptions to reasonable critical examination, he is not operating out of cultishness. So the problem, in his eyes, is not religion, and not even strong commitment, but the mistaken identification of authentic religiosity with the inability to doubt. One of the essay’s aims is to give ideological legitimacy to those who feel that not following the line is not weakness but common sense.

The public conclusion: do not seek their recognition, shake off the automatic deference

At the end the rabbi moves from diagnosis to a public call. In response to complaints by rabbis and female Torah figures from the religious-Zionist world that Har Hamor refuses dialogue, he argues that the real problem is the inferiority complex toward it and the exaggerated importance attributed to it, even though in his view it is an esoteric and marginal group. Instead of seeking legitimacy from them or some Zionist unity, the public should be told that this is a cult, arguments should be judged on their merits, and people should stop being impressed by frock coats, slogans, and claims to holiness. The primary aim of the essay is to free the public from that instinctive respect; the secondary, more naive aim is that perhaps someone on the inside will nevertheless agree to read, consider, and re-examine his basic assumptions.

🤖 This summary was generated automatically using AI.

This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

With God’s help

Rabbi Shach once defined Chabad, rightly, as the sect closest to Judaism. People took that statement as a cynical joke at the expense of his opponents, but it seems to me that he meant it entirely seriously. Despite the obvious reluctance such statements arouse, Chabad really does have quite a number of characteristics of a cult. In this column I want to explain why, in my view, Har HaMor and its daughter institutions (what is called the “Kav” yeshivot) are also a kind of cult. My remarks here, too, are not said cynically or as a joke at anyone’s expense. I ask the reader to go carefully through the list of characteristics that will be presented below and, on that basis, to form his own impression on this issue. It seems to me that until now people have not really grasped the cultic nature of this phenomenon, and that is the importance of what will be said here.

Five good reasons to discuss this

Statements of this kind are regarded as objectionable for five main reasons. First, it seems like a below-the-belt blow. Instead of arguing substantively with positions and arguments, one resorts to labels (cult or not cult). Second, the understandable desire for unity and mutual respect greatly reinforces this feeling. Third, both of these phenomena, Chabad and the Kav yeshivot alike, have quite a few features that deserve very great appreciation. These are people who devote themselves utterly to Torah and to the bond with the Jewish people, each in his own way and according to his own outlook, and so it is no wonder there is reluctance to classify them as cults. Fourth, they are perceived as people who walk the path of us all, but do so with greater seriousness and all the way through, without the compromises customary in our circles. And therefore defining them as a cult in effect turns all believing Judaism into a cult, even if it does not like to see itself that way. I assume that people looking at Judaism from the outside can indeed classify all of us that way. And fifth and last, this is negative speech about a precious and important public of Torah scholars and their students who devote themselves to Torah and its values.

Those five reasons are precisely what caused me nevertheless to pick up the gauntlet and try to define the phenomenon and understand its nature. I want to try here to characterize the cultic phenomenon more precisely. One of the cultic characteristics is the inability to argue—that is, to raise arguments and discuss basic assumptions substantively. These assumptions are not subjected to critical thought, and therefore that option does not really exist in such cases. Moreover, the characterization I will propose will show why this is not a below-the-belt blow but an entirely substantive claim. I truly think this is a cult. As for the desire for unity—I do not have such a desire. I try to discuss things and maintain contact with those who want that with me. Here my feeling is that there is no reciprocity. There is a demand for respect without the corresponding reciprocity one would expect. In addition, I will try to show why the positive features that certainly do exist there are themselves also the result of the cultic character of these phenomena. In the course of my remarks I will try to indicate briefly why a cultic character is not a necessary result of faith and religious commitment as such. And finally, it seems to me that by the end of the reading you will understand why this is not mere negative speech. It is at the very least negative speech for a constructive purpose, and perhaps even a matter of saying something already widely known (though sometimes without people noticing it).

Preliminary remarks

First, I do not have deep familiarity with the Har HaMor and “Kav” phenomenon. It does not seem especially important to me, and therefore I have not dealt with it much. My remarks here should therefore be seen as general impressions meant to stimulate thought. The other side of the equation—the cultic phenomenon—is also not my field of expertise. I have not really dealt with that either, and so I do not feel like an expert on the matter. And yet I feel there is something to these remarks, and indeed let the experts come and point out my mistakes, or alternatively substantiate and formulate the matter more precisely.

I repeat that my remarks are not written cynically or ironically at all. I truly think this is a cult, and I ask readers to follow the descriptions here and form an unbiased position only at the end.

On the cultic phenomenon

My impression is that in the past cults flourished mainly in periods of crisis and distress, persecution, plagues, and poverty. By contrast, today they flourish also because of the crisis of abundance and lack of meaning—in effect because of postmodern perplexity. Postmodern culture carries a feeling of vacuum and lack of meaning, a sense of emptiness that arises precisely because there are no hardships. A need is created to rebel against abundance and lazy, satiated bourgeois life (which is not idealistic). If everyone has his own truth, and if we have already slaughtered all the sacred cows, what is the point of this life? Feelings of futility and tedium bring people to extreme acts no less than situations of objective distress do (poverty and persecution). It seems to me that the rates of suicide and depression can also testify to this.

As in the classical situations of distress, so too in the postmodern condition, these feelings encourage the entry of all kinds of charismatic charlatans who exploit people’s naivete and sweep them along through no fault of their own. This happens on the philosophical plane with the collection of absurdities and nonsense somehow called “postmodern thought,” and it happens also in the spiritual-ideological sense, when crackpot notions and problematic people attain an inexplicable status in broad sectors of the public.

One must understand that a cultic atmosphere gives a person a sense of belonging to a group, meaning for his life and deeds, and a feeling of closeness to a great person (sometimes one who represents something even greater)—all things so sorely lacking in the culture in which we live. Thus all kinds of gurus, in whom I find it hard to understand what people see, flourish (economically, spiritually, and socially) and receive incomprehensible significance and influence over the lives of others. The New Age and the flourishing of bizarre ideas that accompanies it are clear hallmarks of this culture and atmosphere. But in my understanding, the Har HaMor phenomenon, which opposes and ostensibly is very contrary to all this, is also part of the same picture. To explain this, I have to enter into a more systematic definition of the cultic phenomenon in general.

What is a cult?

What characterizes such cults? From a quick search I did, I did not find a truly serious study of the subject of cults, because it is very difficult to characterize them (especially their relation to the phenomenon of religion in general; see below). Any such characteristic can also appear elsewhere, including in places that are not cultic. But like any complex phenomenon, here too one can speak of a cluster of characteristics such that if a considerable portion of them are gathered together, the phenomenon under discussion may be seen as a cult.

Instead of focusing on a general description of cultic phenomena and only afterward moving to our case (the “Kav”), I will offer the description itself already in the context that interests me here. I hope I will be forgiven for the lack of methodological caution.

Leader. Such cults usually have a dominant leader. It is highly desirable that he have intimate proximity to cosmic forces (or to the Holy One, blessed be He), and perhaps even some sort of union with them. His authority and leadership are not to be challenged. He has unfathomable abilities to reach the absolute and unique truth, and all his words are as though uttered by the Almighty Himself. All new physics and modern science are in fact hidden in his words, and if something from outside contradicts them, then obviously the “outside” is mistaken, misleading, and confused. One should feel pity toward it, not necessarily hatred, and draw it near with cords of love to the absolute truth.
Fundamentalism. Members of the cult must have (and usually do have) absolute trust in the principles. They are not to be subjected to any test whatsoever (empirical or otherwise). One who has lost this trust and subjects things to critical examination is, potentially, no longer a member of the cult. He is treated as a heretic with respect to first principles. In many cases all this can indeed come wrapped in a discourse of openness to questions and criticism, and of the importance of independent thought and openness. The message forbidding heresy in fundamentals is in many cases indirect and nonverbal.
Closure. The cult forbids openness to other ideas and other forms of thought, particularly different types of media that might expose the believer to opposing arguments. It is preferable not to be connected to the internet, not to read outside newspapers, and not even books and essays by people who are not part of the in-group. And even if one does do so, it should be under the supervision of leaders and spiritual guides who know how to deal with dangerous materials of this kind. It is important to understand that the main danger on the internet is not pornography and violence. Today there are filters that deal with that reasonably well. But the Haredim and the Hardalim do not permit even filtered internet, because the main danger lies in breaching the walls of the cult and opening up to arguments and other presentations of the facts. From their point of view this is much more severe than pornography and violence. It may shatter the complete and coherent worldview presented to believers inside the bubble.
Meetings and discussion with those who hold other positions are absolutely forbidden (see the case brought at the end of the column). One must filter those with whom one discusses things (only those who served genuine Torah scholars—that is, our leader, who personally brought down Torah from Sinai). Meetings take place as lectures by insiders to others who have not yet been exposed to the light of lights of the cultic truth. Never a panel or an eye-level discussion. Even the leaders themselves generally will not meet with “aliens,” because that would amount to giving legitimacy to something out there. Meetings are based on prior demands intended to ensure the superiority of the cult and to make sure that, heaven forbid, there will be no challenge to its hegemony.
The writings of the cult’s leaders contain comprehensive and all-encompassing explanations for all the phenomena of life, and in effect make actual engagement with them unnecessary. Every phenomenon is presented to the cult believer already wrapped in the relevant explanation that inserts it into the ideological and theoretical framework.
The lives of cult members take place in groups composed mainly of themselves and of those willing to attach themselves to them and accept their leadership (even if not fully their entire teaching). There must be recognition of the superiority of the cult and its leaders; otherwise he is no tolerated resident and should not be permitted to settle among us. The group grants each individual warmth and envelops him in help that aids him in coping with challenges. The phenomenon of the “emissaries” and the satellite groups will be discussed below.
Thus there is created a sense that the life of the cult is a complete bubble that answers everything. There is no need for anything else outside us; all else is mere garnish. The leaders of the generation and its presidents are all members of the cult or their emissaries, guided by them. The cult believer’s picture is as though the world around him is itself the whole wide world, and there is nothing beyond it. Therefore you will hear there statements such as: “After all, all the great sages of the generation said such-and-such (that is, they said what I say),” when in fact these are rather esoteric arguments of people who do not really belong to the relevant league.
Excuses. What does one do when one nevertheless encounters something unsuitable—a social, historical, or spiritual phenomenon, or just a good argument? First, one turns with the question to the guides, who will provide instruction on how to relate to it. In the explanations received from them, intricate excuses of the finest dialectical tradition arise. Every phenomenon or person that does not fit the principles laid down in the cult’s teaching immediately receives a profound explanation of why it nevertheless does fit the principles and what was to have been expected on their basis. By the way, there are fascinating examples of this in communist literature. Here in the Orient, one could see it well in books that came forth into darkness in Sifriyat Poalim’s battle line. I own a book by a specimen named Omeilnitsky explaining how all new physics is contained in the teaching of Lenin, luminary of the world, and whatever is not found there is ludicrous capitalist physics (surely written with funding from the New Israel Fund and the European Union).
The principles are supposed to be drawn from a higher mystical source, and there is no obligation whatsoever that they be connected to common sense or to reality. On the contrary: the more disconnected they are, the clearer it is that their source is exalted and that they are drawn by focused spiritual charisma. Otherwise they might be perceived as the product of the impulse known as common sense, and its fate is rejection.
Esoteric language. The conceptual system and collection of basic principles are formulated in a way unique to them, sounding as though they came from on high. They are accompanied by masses of “empirical confirmations” that do not withstand any critical test, except on a superficial glance. Some of them are based on irrelevant facts, another portion on distorted and twisted facts, and when the facts are presented accurately from other sources it is immediately made clear that this is a distorted and tendentious presentation of the facts by interested parties (world Christianity and the European Union, mediated by the New Israel Fund, the Ministry of Education, and Peace Now).
One must make use of an esoteric language unique to the cult, couched in lofty spiritual formulations (preferably with lots of sparks and light). This language is generally pompous and megalomaniacal (the world central yeshiva, the redeeming Torah, the foundation of God’s throne in the world, and the like). It is desirable that this esoteric language be understood only by cult members. In such cases they can communicate with one another in allusive sentences, such as: “Ah, well, Rabbi Tau already said that in volume 6, chapter 20, when he spoke of the schemes of the spark-demons aspiring to sublime annihilation of the Jewish people from the husk of Amalek and the holy vacuum of the European Union.” Or: “Well, that is already hinted at by Maran HaRav zt’l in Orot, when he spoke of the belovedness of the Jewish people and its supreme and exalted splendor,” and so forth.
This language is presented as a discipline. Therefore one should not use lowly terms such as “Jewish thought,” nor the Haredi term “outlook.” Within the framework of the redeeming Torah we study “faith,” since absolutely everything is connected to faith.
Faith is the root of everything and everything emerges from it, and therefore the great figures of the generation need not necessarily be those who have demonstrated analytical and halakhic ability. It is enough for us to have great figures of the generation in faith. The scholars are subordinate to those who possess the all-encompassing understanding of faith. Moreover, the exposure of the younger flock to the secrets of faith is done slowly and gradually. First one fills their bellies with the Talmud and legal authorities (the “small matter”: the discussions of Abaye and Rava), and only then does one arrive at the great matter (the account of Creation and the Chariot—that is, the faith of our time). One must not expose students to all the writings of the Rav zt’l, which only initiates truly understand. This must be done slowly, with preparation and deep indoctrination (there is an order to things), for quite a few people take them to foreign and distorted places, heaven forbid. Not the account of Creation before two, and not the Chariot before one.
As part of consolidating the sense of belonging and developing complete submission to the collective “correct,” this Orwellian newspeak demands the use of collective language, such as: “We believe that such-and-such.” “We have received from our rabbis (who foresaw everything by their holy spirit and whose writings contain the answers to all questions by means of letter skips) that such-and-such.” And those asking the leadership are to use formulations such as: “Should we do/think such-and-such?” “What is our task at this time?” And of course: “What would Maran HaRav zt’l have thought about such-and-such a situation?”
The cult’s sacred writings often ride on a more ancient tradition. Like the Mormons, who build on Christianity and then choose for themselves a prophet who is the sole continuator of the Christian tradition. So too in Jewish cults: they choose selectively from the broad Torah corpus and focus on the writings of Maran HaRav _ zt’l (fill in the blank), who received Torah directly from Moses at Sinai (for the most exacting: directly from the Holy One, blessed be He). And of course the only ones entrusted with interpreting his words are his exclusive interpreters, namely the leader and his people, who serve as the charismatic leader’s mouthpiece. All the others err and mislead in their distorted and tendentious interpretations of the Rav’s writings (and of reality). They cling to the hem of his garment, which belongs only to us. In truth, they are simply thieves.
Reference to the leader, and certainly to the author of the canonical writings, is only in a general and anonymous form: Maran HaRav zt’l. Under no circumstances is one to add his explicit name and say “Rav Kook,” not to mention “Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook,” for that would contain even the faintest hint that there might be some other Maran of comparable status with whom he could be confused.
The one and only truth is found wholly in the writings and leaders of the cult, of course. True, Maran HaRav already noted that there is goodness and truth in everything, but it is important to understand that this is a theoretical statement suitable only for the greatest of the great (this is Har HaMor’s Hasidic doctrine of the righteous man; see the next item). Therefore in practice everything outside must be rejected, and at most it is some phenomenon that will be explained as part of the messiah’s donkey advancing the aims of the world. Those aims, of course, will be achieved solely through the action of the sons of light, that is, the members of the cult.
The way to neutralize subversive messages often found in the writings of the Rav zt’l is to explain that he did not mean what is written but something else, or that his words are not intended for implementation in this world by simple people like us. His words are a higher vision that we must study because of its holiness and its connection to the Jewish people and the holy Presence, but we are not to implement them in practice in our reality, and certainly not on our own initiative, heaven forbid. This is Har HaMor’s Hasidic doctrine of the righteous man. There is one Torah for the righteous and another Torah for the rest of the people out in the fields.
A somewhat different version of the doctrine of the righteous says that for now we behave in such-and-such a way because of local circumstances, and when those pass we will return to behaving as we should (according to the instructions of Maran HaRav zt’l). Needless to say, those circumstances never pass, and this is only a polite way of saying that we deviate from the official ideology of the cult’s sacred writings because of the instruction of the cult’s current leaders and their vision that penetrates reality. One can see this here[1] (see at the end, regarding the policy of withdrawal. As though in Rav Kook’s day the outside reality was less threatening than in ours).[2]
The importance of seriousness. Every detail in the world, and certainly in the life of the cult, is fateful and meaningful. One must explain how it fits into the overall process (toward redemption), and why it was foreseen in advance in the sacred writings of the cult’s rabbis. It is hard to find even a little humor and healthy irony in the cult’s attitude toward reality. The sacred anxiety that accompanies these foolish analyses is essential to the cultic attitude.
The conduct of the cult and its members is highly ideological. Every one of their steps is determined by deep deliberation and meticulous judgment as to whether it is ideologically right or not right. There is no mere activity for its own sake. If you go to study chemistry or educational administration, or buy a cream cake at a pastry shop, that requires consultation with the guides and clarification of where it will lead you and the whole world. Every such step must be weighed in light of the theory and its principles, and chiefly by those entrusted with that, of course. Needless to say, every small deviation testifies to a deep failure that may lead to fateful consequences whose end only the cult’s leaders are capable of foreseeing.
The cult functions in a very formal way, according to the principles. Common sense is a dirty word and the evil inclination. As is known, Torah wisdom is the opposite of the outlook of ordinary people. The intuitive flow of life is an important value that one learns about in the writings of the Rav zt’l, of course, but it is not to be applied in life except by one who has already reached nirvana (that is, become enlightened). Which is to say: only the leader himself and no one else.
Above I already noted that the cultic phenomenon flourishes in the postmodern era. One of its characteristics is conspiratorial thinking, which is of course considered “deep” thinking. Someone who makes an argument is really trying to seize yet another position of power. One always looks at the deep and unconscious motives and not at the argument itself. There is no point in engaging with that at all. In the postmodern world there are no clashes between opposing worldviews, only narratives and the activity of interested forces. So too the members of the cult and its doctrine, as part of the postmodern phenomenon, tend to look at reality through a “deep” gaze. They ignore what is actually happening, and the facts as they are do not really interest them. The presentation of facts in the media and public discourse (such as the percentage of homosexuals in the public, or the budget of the Ministry of Education and who directs it) is always the fruit of plots and manipulations by forces of darkness. From the cultic point of view, the facts are what ought to be according to the theory, not what they actually are. Thus, the President of the State of Israel who was convicted of rape is in fact a persecuted man because of his lofty and exalted role (the one who sits upon God’s throne in the world and thereby by definition represents the forces of light). Therefore we must strengthen his hands in the sacred burden and go out in his defense against the forces of darkness that persecute him. More generally, Israeli rule (= here the intention is in the Kookist sense, “the Israelite man,” not Israeli in the sense of a citizen of the State of Israel, of course) is a representation of God’s name in the world and the donkey charged with bringing the messiah and redemption. The fact that none of them is aware of this or thinks so does not really matter. In our “deep” contemplation we see it better than they do. From this perspective, the pioneers who drained swamps acted out of commitment to the Rock of Israel and its Redeemer and as part of bringing redemption nearer, and not, heaven forbid, as part of the springtime of nations and because they were sick of exile. So too, IDF soldiers give their lives for spiritual ideas and for the Jewish people (= the medium through which the cult acts to sustain the world), and not, heaven forbid, because of the natural desire to defend ourselves against threats and the understanding that if there is no army we will not live here. Therefore the discourse around the army must also be religious and spiritual (the Military Rabbinate) and not, heaven forbid, secular-civic (the Education Corps). When someone restores things to their natural place (that is, to the Education Corps), there is a massive uproar about religious persecution and discrimination and about the forces of darkness that have taken over the army (God’s army). Thus what an officer publishes for his soldiers on the eve of battle deals with the great spiritual mission and the plots of our enemies to annihilate God’s name. This is not a war over territory but over ideas and redemption, our spiritual role in the world. See Maran HaRav zt’l’s Orot HaMilchamah (what a horrifying title).
As part of this “deep” gaze they see in everything that happens in the real world shadows of the reality that is “truly” real—that is, the activity of hidden demons and dark powers (anti-Muggle) that move all reality toward their dark aims (the European Union, the New Israel Fund, the global Left, the Council of Elders of Anti-Semitism that convenes in the Vatican every evening solely in order to strike us again and again. They deal with nothing except us, of course, since their goal is our destruction and, through us, the destruction of the universe, which stands only upon us and for us).
The less reality fits the theory (that is, the fewer demons one can find to explain it), the more lessons will be given explaining why in fact everything does fit. The theory will develop and become ever more complex, and the connection between it and reality will grow ever weaker. These lessons will also be delivered in the satellite communities that are more exposed to the danger of doubts regarding unwavering faith in the cult’s doctrine. The cult’s rabbis will go out and explain to the general public the meaning of everything happening around us from a “faith-based” perspective.
Only the cult’s leaders, and perhaps to some extent also its members, can see all these worlds of darkness and understand how they operate. All the others are blind to these phenomena. But in truth they are entirely clear to the crystal eyes of those who possess faith and the correct outlook, those endowed with pure Torah wisdom, the great figures of the generation in faith (whose analytical ability is unclear, though there are hair-raising stories, of course, about their greatness and mastery of all the treasures of Torah), and who are entrusted with the “redeeming Torah.”
Megalomania. Standing alone against all these threats are solely the sons of light (the cult’s members, who are persecuted by everyone else), upon whom the world rests. They carry the burden of the universe on their backs, and the universe in its wickedness does not kindly bother to recognize this and thank them for it, or at least acknowledge their unquestioned leadership.
Members of the cult deal mainly with apocalypses and redemption. Their faces are turned toward the future and the spiritual abstract, while ignoring the present and the concrete and real. Just as the concrete is only the donkey of the metaphysical demonic, so the present is merely a means to bring the future. A corridor to the higher light that is to arrive if we do what is incumbent upon us. Though even the corridor is to be viewed with kindness and mercy. After all, not everyone has merited illumination by the light of life, but it will certainly come. Then everyone will see that we were right (then our mouths will be filled with laughter and our tongues with song).
We now arrive at the cultic structure and mode of operation. As I already explained, the members and leaders of the cult are gripped by terrible fear of what happens outside (the world of the Muggles). One must not meet and speak with anyone who has not undergone suitable screening. Such ideological confusion may disrupt the entire process of redemption and bring upon us the horsemen of the apocalypse. People with other outlooks are not even mentioned by name (for example, Prof. L. the Terrible, he-who-must-not-be-named). But in order to realize the aims of the cult there is a need for emissaries who will take the great tidings of the redeeming Torah outward (“your wellsprings shall spread outward”) and influence the outside. Hence there is no escaping a controlled venture into the public domain.
Even one who does go out into the dreadful darkness outside does so only through platform nine and three quarters. That is, such an exit requires preparation and meticulous indoctrination through study of the doctrine of the leaders, who explain to him in advance what he will encounter and what the significance of each such thing is in the “general process,” lest he be harmed (he might still see Moshe Katsav as merely a rapist, and the State of Israel as merely a political entity established as part of the springtime of nations, heaven forfend).
Such an exit requires hierarchy and indoctrination regarding everything outside, while maintaining continuous contact with the spiritual core (the world center of the redeeming Torah) and setting fixed times for reflection on its doctrine (that is, the faith of our time). Thus are created the satellite groups popularly known as Har HaMor’s military arm (the preparatory academies) and the field activists (the NGOs, the preparatory-academy rabbis, the officers, who are the “emissaries,” as in Chabad), all of whom operate, of course, around and by the power of the central world nucleus upon which the entire world stands. The satellite groups are made up of soldiers and spiritual commanders (= political commissars who bring the word of the leader, the sun of the peoples). These are supposed constantly to draw indoctrination from the leadership that will strengthen them on their path, so that they may spread the light of redemption among the wider public.
The NGOs that run the cult’s ideological struggles (see, for example, Libah), usually staffed by those who got tired of studying and constitute part of the military arm and field operatives, are directed and managed by the all-knowing leadership. Their main function is to organize lectures and disseminate publications by the core members and the hard leadership nucleus to the people, in which radiant light will be poured upon everything happening around us from the true perspective (see the interview mentioned in item 19). Thus the general public will understand the light of lights of truth and know how to understand what surrounds it from a lofty spiritual perspective (= it will discern the demons that cause “anti-religious legislation” under the influence of the European Union and the New Israel Fund). This has another not insignificant advantage as well, for in this way the cult’s intellectual and spiritual periphery can also feel that it has a contribution and importance in advancing the aims of the cult.
It is no wonder that anyone among the satellites who rebels against the leadership of the cult’s spiritual core will be met with bans and excommunications and immediately cast outside the camp in broad daylight until he fully repents, kowtows five times, goes to Canossa, undertakes to learn by heart all the umpteen volumes of Le-Emunat Iteinu, and once again recognizes and accepts the unquestioned leadership of the cult leader (see the case of Yeshivat Shevei Hevron and Rabbi Hanan’el Etrog).
In the cult’s doctrine there is generally an absolute negation of the outside, or at least a demand to preserve the “purity of the camp”—that is, not to mix the outside with the inside (wizards with Muggles). The mixing of holiness with the mundane, and certainly with impurity, is the gravest prohibition, and it is the sort of corruption that will bring the apocalypse upon us. Nothing from outside may be introduced into the pure and perfect Torah study (which exists only among us, and a bit among the Haredim) that has no need whatsoever of any addition or assistance from outside, heaven forbid. Everything else is plots that may be studied (or really, only their negation may be studied) solely through the writings of our rabbis, which accompany the matters with explanations that restore them to their true form. For only they can truly understand them and explain the danger within them.
Even if one deals with something outside, it is only for livelihood and various supplementary needs. The sciences may perhaps have some value (so long as there is no deviation from the line and one does not engage in ideas), but under no circumstances should one be exposed to another way of looking at the cult’s own teaching. Therefore the social sciences and humanities, the academic study of the Talmud, Jewish law, and the Bible, or studying at Gush Etzion or Otniel, heaven forbid, are intrinsically invalid. Better death than such deterioration.
The only positive in what lies outside is if the “outside” recognizes its place, that is, understands that it is merely the messiah’s donkey, a satellite group, and does not regard itself as an alternative or, heaven forbid, as better than the sons of light themselves. Only one who is willing to be Har HaMor’s military arm (satellite preparatory academies and hesder yeshivot of various kinds) can be considered a periphery (albeit second-class) of the hard core and attach himself to those who labor with God. What is interesting is that these satellite groups happily and lovingly accept this judgment. Thus, for example, only those who belong to the satellite groups go out to demonstrations against the plots of the Left, the New Israel Fund, the Supreme Court, and the Ministry of Education, for the sons of light themselves must continue sitting and diligently studying Torah and upholding the world. The schools to which they send their children are only schools for insiders, approved by the leaders of the cult and not drawing, heaven forbid, even the slightest trace from the Ministry of Education, which has fallen into the hands of the husks because of our many sins. Others can be joined if they accept the leadership of the cult. Cooperation with others is utterly invalid. The farther away the satellite operates, the greater its obligation to bind itself and its children to the world spiritual center (compare Chabad emissaries, their hekhshers, and their children).
What I have described so far is exactly the phenomenon of the “Kav.” The Kav is the result of the desire to influence the outside without disconnecting from the center, or the spiritual core. In fact, we are dealing with several concentric lines. The inner line surrounds the splendor of His Holiness, the all-knowing leader, who is above all criticism. The next line surrounds his faithful disciples, who know his spirit and bear his word—his faithful mouthpieces, the greatest figure of the generation in faith. The third line defines and bounds the core, the hard nucleus of the redeeming Torah, namely Yeshivat Har HaMor, upon which the world stands (it is the true world central yeshiva). The fourth line surrounds the satellite institutions and field operatives (the military arm and the activists). What lies outside all these is the ultimate “outside,” though even it is divided into those who recognize that they are outside and are full of the feelings of inferiority appropriate to them. Others engage in relatively neutral areas (though at depth there is nothing that is not connected to “faith,” of course, or at least to the faith of our time), and therefore one can ignore them and it is even desirable to draw them near with cords of love to the redeeming Torah. All the others—from the yeshivot of the demonic “other side” of Gush and Otniel, through journalists, the Ministry of Education, the legal system, and the Israeli left in its various shades, and ending with the New Israel Fund, the European Union, missionizing and world Christianity (the elders of the Vatican), the Arabs and especially the Palestinians—all these are nothing but the military arm of the demonic other side, and one must keep away from them and from their crowd. Any contact with them is forbidden, even under the guidance and indoctrination of the spiritual leadership.

Several qualifying remarks

In many cases the cultic phenomenon includes economic and financial elements (the accumulation of money for the cult’s coffers or for the leader). Sometimes it is about power and honor, not necessarily money. The struggle for power and money is always for the sake of ideals and founded on lofty sanctities, for the leaders and the cult have no interests, only pure and refined ideology. It is important to note that in the case of Har HaMor, as far as I know, this does not happen. It seems that they and their leaders probably do genuinely believe in their way and are not merely carrying out manipulative moves out of interest. To tell the truth, I am not sure whether that is better or worse than an ordinary cult. If this is indeed the case, it points to a severe problem in thinking and also to greater dangerousness. In many cases an ideological cult that truly believes in its path is even more dangerous than manipulators are.
Cults are endowed with very great self-sacrifice. Fundamentalists take everything seriously and do not challenge any principle of their doctrine, and so by nature they devote themselves utterly to their ideas. And indeed, in the cult under discussion there is self-sacrifice worthy of very great appreciation, both for their bizarre ideas and no less for truly important things (such as Torah study, involvement in education, forgoing economic status and assets, and more). But it is important not to confuse the great appreciation that they certainly deserve with a correct and unbiased judgment of the outcome, that is, of their path. Not only is there no contradiction; as noted, devotion is characteristic of cults as such.
Everything said here relates to collective cultic conduct. What is very confusing in this matter is that the individuals can be smart and pleasant, really ordinary people like you and me. Incidentally, this is true of many cults—quite literally Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Therefore it is important to distinguish between the judgment of the cult and the judgment of the individuals who belong to it. The people are good and worthy, truly the best of the youth. And still, that does not close the discussion on the collective judgment in the “deep” perspective that relates to what lies behind the people and what motivates them.
One may ask whether these definitions do not imply that religious faith by its very nature is a cult. Apparently most of the things I described here characterize religious faith as such. As I noted at the beginning, the esteem accorded these two cults (Har HaMor and Chabad) stems precisely from the fact that they implement the religious worldview in general with seriousness and devotion.
I will not enter here into all the differences, but it seems to me that the most important among them concerns the question of fundamentalism (which I defined in the introduction to my book Emet Ve-lo Yatziv). It seems to me that fundamentalism is the most basic characteristic of the cultic phenomenon, and all the rest are derivatives of it. So long as the believer is willing to subject his principles to critical examination by common sense and reason and to reasonable empirical tests, he is not a fundamentalist, and therefore it is not right to place him in the category of a cult member. And indeed, the meaning of this is that fundamentalist interpretations of faith and religious commitment always contain a danger of cultism.
There are many who see in Chabad and Har HaMor the correct conception on the principled level, and therefore see themselves as second-rate—as weak and compromising people who fail to live up to the great ideas and their implementation. These people are in fact touched by a cultic conception even if they do not implement it. It is important to me to remark that everyone should examine himself as to whether the reason he does not implement these “great” ideas is merely weakness, or whether something there seems problematic and flawed to him. The rabbinic establishment encourages this cultic conception and leads many people to regard it as the proper utopia. My remarks here are intended mainly to give this “weakness” an ideological seal of approval. It is not weakness but simply common sense. In cult jargon, the counsel of the evil inclination.

An important clarification: about truth and cultism

One should not infer from my remarks here that I think the European Union does not meddle in our affairs, or that the New Israel Fund is among the lovers of Zion and Jerusalem. Quite a few of the claims made by the members of this cult contain something real, and that is probably the secret of their charm. Without any real element in the cultic theory, it probably would not succeed. Sometimes even their predictions come true (although it seems to me rather rarely). But many people understand all this, and the cult’s contribution lies mainly in the demonization of these processes. Even correct claims must be taken in proportion and not used to view all surrounding reality in their shadow (all kinds of New Israel Fund demons steering the Ministry of Education like the protocols of the elders of the European Union). The saying is known that the fact that you are paranoid does not mean they are not persecuting you, but the reverse is also true: the fact that they are persecuting you does not mean you are not paranoid. One can relate to these persecutions substantively, without seeing in them demonic and heavenly powers that leave no place untouched, demanding the boycott of everything that moves and total seclusion from the “tainted” environment.

Summary

When I came to deal with the phenomenon of the “Kav,” I was rather embarrassed, for two main reasons: a. In my view this phenomenon is esoteric and lacking in importance. A handful of people living in a fantasy—what is the point of dealing with it?! What nevertheless requires this discussion is the fact that many people attribute importance to them and their views in an unreflective way. b. My method of discussion reminds me, to my embarrassment, of Hamburger’s book False Messiahs and Their Opponents, which was written entirely only in order to include at its end a chapter on Herzl and Zionism as part of the phenomenon of false messianism. So too my use here of the title of Avraham Korman’s book, Movements and Cults in Judaism, and my discussion here of the phenomenon of cults, is only in order to place the above phenomenon in the cultic context. And yet, it seems to me that even Hamburger’s remarks contain a measure of truth (and I will address that too in my book on theology), and the same applies here.

The incomprehensible importance that this negligible and bizarre cult receives in the Religious Zionist public is, in my assessment, based on two main mistakes: 1. A confusion between the appreciation rightly due to the members of the cult for their self-sacrifice and idealism, and a judgment of them and their doctrine on their own terms. 2. The identification of fundamentalism with authentic and genuine religiosity. Therefore it seems to me that if everything I have written here had been written only for the sake of the last remark above (4 in the section of qualifying remarks), that alone would have sufficed.

For me, the most important lesson from these remarks is that religious faith should not and cannot be fundamentalist. The identification between them, which is widespread both among believers and among nonbelievers, is mistaken, misleading, and dangerous. First and foremost, it is self-reinforcing. By virtue of this identification, whoever is not a fundamentalist is seen (even in his own eyes) as not truly religious, and therefore his words are not taken into account, and so on in a vicious circle. Thus an identity is created between religiosity and fundamentalism. In my book on theology I will explain why the true state of affairs is exactly the opposite (whoever is a fundamentalist is not a true believer).

A current aspect and its meaning

The significance of these remarks can be seen in an article that was sent to me by email a few days ago. The sender asked for my opinion on the dispute with Har HaMor reflected there. In the article, rabbis and women Torah leaders from Beit Hillel and its surroundings complain about the attitude of Har HaMor and the Hardal world toward other rabbis (and women rabbis) from Religious Zionism. That is what caused me to enter this whole issue, and so to complete the picture I will now bring what I replied after reading it.

This is not an article or a description of the dispute, but a collection of whining that expresses frustration and feelings of inferiority.

The main problem, in my view, is the inferiority complex of the more modern public toward Har HaMor and the Hardal world. Every time Rabbi Tau comes out with something regarding the Layers curriculum, the Bible, “anti-religious legislation,” and the rest of his nonsense, the world immediately trembles and boils. And I, for my part, do not understand why it matters at all what they say or think, and whether they want to speak or not. This is an esoteric cult devoid of value and significance. People endowed with the level of thought of small children, and so I am really not interested in what they think or say, or whether they let my books into their study hall or not (full disclosure: they do not). Why is this even an issue? Who cares?

One simply has to explain to the public that this is a cult, in order to shake off the automatic respect given them and the inferiority feelings, and then ignore them. That is all. It is like the attitude a rabbi in a frock coat receives as opposed to a rabbi in sandals. Quite apart from whatever lies behind the frock coat and above the sandals, the attitude is entirely different. The public is not especially intelligent, and the way to deal with this is to try to raise it a little higher, to open its eyes so that it will know to look at the essence and not at the frock coat. One must explain to the public that there is no greatness in Torah in a person endowed with the thinking of a small child and detached from reality, speaking in hollow slogans that are themselves detached from reality. And even if that rabbi knows all of Ketzot by heart, that does not really matter. One can respect him for his efforts, but not for the product. That is all.

Incidentally, that is what I am trying to do on this site. To elevate the discourse a bit on the issues on the table, and to get people out of stereotypes and slogan-thinking. To discuss things on their own merits, regardless of whether their source is Christian, Reform, Hardali, or otherwise. If there is an argument, one can deal with it substantively, agree or disagree. And if there is no argument, why should I care that some frock-coat wearer said it?! Can someone who wears black and goes to a faraway place do whatever he pleases?!

And three more remarks about the complaints of Malka Piotrkowski that are quoted at length in the above article:

First, if she has a halakhic problem for which she has no answer, I am available and would be glad to help her. I hereby solemnly promise her that a conversation with all the rabbis of Har HaMor together would not add to her even the slightest bit of information or one new idea beyond what I would tell her. Does she really think that innovative solutions will emerge from talking to them, solutions one cannot think of on one’s own? Perhaps there are things that have no solution, but talking to them will not change that either.

Second, all the Haredim refuse to speak with her and do not count her or all her colleagues for anything. So why does it bother her that there are a few more Haredim with knitted kippot (whose number and quality are negligible in comparison to the Haredi world as a whole, even by their own lights, since they are full of feelings of inferiority toward the Haredim) who also are unwilling to speak with her? Why is this important at all? So now there are a million and a thousand people who ignore her, and not only a million. Nu, so what.

Third, why does she think that unity on a Zionist basis (Religious Zionism) ought to be important to anyone? Is Zionism even an important issue nowadays? Much more important are modernity and openness and the relation to Jewish law and to the world around us, and on these matters there is no closeness at all between her and Har HaMor. A large part of the Haredim are much closer to her than the Hardal world is in these matters, and those are the issues that truly matter today. So why does she think it is necessary or important to make unity with the people of Har HaMor or to develop discourse with them? On this see my articles here and here and here and here.

In my email I wrote about the need to explain why this is a cult, and that is exactly what I have done here. Perhaps these remarks will somewhat correct the overly respectful and rather strange attitude this bizarre and esoteric group receives, and the frustrations created because of it.

The remarks here have two central aims: the main one is to address the broader public that does not belong to this cult but perhaps esteems it beyond what is warranted, and to present before it another position. But I also have a secondary hope, somewhat naive, that perhaps some member of the cult might be willing to read these words and consider them on their merits (despite the grave prohibition). Since unfortunately many of the people of the “Kav” are not connected to the internet, and even less willing to read sites of heretics like me, I would be grateful to anyone who reads these words if he would pass them on by every possible medium. In my humble opinion there is great importance in disseminating them in order to achieve both of the above aims.

[1] It is worth paying attention to the note at the head of the interview that the words were edited by a student of the rabbi. This is very typical of cultic behavior. There are several reasons for it: first, to heighten awe and exalted reverence. The rabbi, may he live long, does not descend to the people and write by himself, of course. We simple people have no grasp of his sacred words without editing that makes them accessible to us, the people out in the fields. Second, if one finds an error it can be pinned on the student and not on the rabbi, heaven forbid, for he never errs. Third, the impression is created that it was really the student who persuaded his rabbi to descend to the people and explain the truth to everyone, solely for their sake. In his great goodness he agreed, and only in order to illuminate all our lives with the light of lights of truth. There is no need whatsoever for the hard core to consider the criticism and conduct a dialogue with it. At most, it will explain the truth to all of us through proper mediation. Fifth, the student himself is of course not authorized to explain his rabbi’s Torah; he merely edits the rabbi’s words, which are transmitted to us directly from the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

[2] This is another characteristic of cultic thinking: a selective coloring of history so that it fits the goals and ideology. Thus, in the days of the pioneers the world was perfect. Everyone was an idealist, and nothing at all threatened the core of the world central yeshiva. Only in our deteriorating world (a phenomenon of course foreseen in advance in the cult’s sacred writings) is there a need for withdrawal because of the existential threat to the course of the central world redemption.

Discussion

Michi (2016-10-30)

Nadav Cohen:
Everything you said, Rabbi Michi, defines the phenomenon of indoctrination and not sectarianism itself. The most important characteristic of sectarianism—namely, the demand to sever ties with the world outside the sect, including friends and family members—does not exist either in Har Hamor or in Chabad (whereas it does exist to a great extent in classic Haredi society), so these groups do indeed practice indoctrination, but that alone does not make them a sect.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
It seems to me that there are quite a few characteristics of sects here, and many of them are present in the sect under discussion. By the way, in my opinion there is also a certain degree of closure and disengagement there. Even if not physically, the other characteristics cause the ties to have no spiritual-ideological implications.
As I wrote at the beginning, in complex phenomena not all the characteristics have to be present, only some of them. In addition, there are sects that do not separate from their surroundings and family (like the Amish, for example).
But of course this is a matter of definition, and you can define a sect one way or another. It seems to me that there are enough problematic characteristics here, and the terminology is less important.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Yosef:
I know the “Kav” world up close, and this is an accurate description (I’ll try to answer the call at the end and pass this on to a few friends). I only notice that many of the characteristics could ostensibly also be applied to the Haredi public: separation, leader, shared language. In your opinion, is there a substantive distinction between “the Kav” and the Haredim aside from Zionism? Can sectarian characteristics also be seen in the Haredi public? And if so, why devote an article specifically to Har Hamor? Thanks.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Indeed, there are sectarian characteristics in the Haredi world as well. Still, in significant parts of it, in my estimation, there is more ideological openness and willingness to listen than in the core of “the Kav.” There is also much less disconnection from life there, and less mechanical ideology. They are much more flowing, for many reasons. They are also a larger group, and therefore by definition less closed. Still, within the Haredi world there are fully sectarian groups, even more so than Har Hamor (certainly the lunatics from Canada, “Lev Tahor,” if I remember correctly, and others).
I dealt with them because I thought this discussion was more necessary among the readers of this site, since in the Religious-Zionist or modern religious public there is much more confusion on this issue.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Former Academic:
For some reason I seriously think that academia too, in a certain sense, is a sect. I’m serious. In academia there is the inculcation of enlightened opinions that are supposed to bring about the repair of the world. Any different opinion is disqualified on the spot. It has a special language of its own. There are many examples of ruling opinions in academia, such that woe to anyone who presents a different position.
I’m not referring to the “pure science” that academia presents, but to all the “blah blah” around it. Millions of meaningless articles about law, liberty, dime-store psychology, cheap sociology, communication studies and nothingness, political science, and dozens of other hollow doctrines. [Not to mention history and archaeology, where it’s a real festival.]
Of course, in every field above there is much more than a single kernel of truth. But what a quantity of empty verbiage. An incalculable amount. I believe that a thousand years from now people will laugh at it.
Even in the exact sciences there is no shortage of doctoral students wasting their time for nothing. Useless investigations into mathematical problems that have no substance. Delusional investigations and conjectures in fields like chemistry and physics. Obviously here the true core is larger. But truth is what we all hear and learn in schools and academia, as opposed to the millions of doctoral students who waste their time [and our money] for nothing.
And now to philosophy: as a learned man, you know how much nonsense philosophy faculties around the world produce. There are very specific areas in philosophy that are genuinely researchable [logic, ethics, epistemology]; the rest is endless verbiage.
Academia would slaughter anyone who dared tell it the truth to its face. A sect in every respect according to your definitions.

As a man of academia, we would be glad to hear your learned opinion [not sarcastically..]
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello.
I share a large part of your criticism of academia (especially in the pseudo-sciences), and in my opinion there are a few other problematic aspects in the way it conducts itself. Still, that does not make them a sect. Everything you described so far is a certain intellectual closed-mindedness, but that is not enough to classify a group as a sect. Intellectual closed-mindedness is unfortunately a common human failing, but in my opinion its existence at some dosage does not turn a group into a sect.
——————————————————————————————
Former Academic:
Honorable Rabbi, hello,
In light of your sharing these critiques, we would be glad for a learned and comprehensive article on the subject, for all those who wander astray and are misled by “scholars” who are grasping at straws.
I am certain your article will help us in the spirit of “and you shall be to us instead of eyes.” In the secret of “the eyes of the intellect.” As they said, “everything follows the eyes.”
Good night.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Aviya:
Although I am not from the group in question, and am even one of its opponents, I have deep familiarity with “the Kav” and its people, and I must note: everything said above is true only of the younger group among them (below fourth-year shiur; afterward they mature and understand that not all truth is with them, and that the Torah was given at Sinai and not on the Rock of Dispute in Mercaz HaRav, and they become willing to hear other and varied opinions). Most of their rabbis do not chart such a path. It is evident that you have no personal familiarity with Rabbi Amiel and his brother Rabbi Mordechai Sternberg (the heads of Har Hamor Yeshiva), nor with Rabbi Zuckerman, who guides his students to read books by philosophers, nor Rabbi Vishlitzky, and apparently you have never sat for a conversation with Rabbi Tzvi Tau. “The Kav” is definitely a sub-stream within Religious Zionism, but the characteristics of a “sect” do not exist there (among the people who are truly part of the Kav; one cannot judge only by young people who fail to understand the complexity the rabbis are trying to inculcate).
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I disagree. One does not need deep familiarity to see that this group, from top to bottom, conducts itself like a sect. Public statements and attitudes toward other groups come from the mouths of the sect’s leaders, not from the young flock. Beyond that, I do not see the slightest trace of complexity in them. On the contrary: usually they suffer from severe simplism, though it is sometimes hidden behind their esoteric terminology, which can sometimes create an impression of complexity (unjustifiably, in my opinion).
I do not know any of the people you listed, and my remarks are not about specific individuals but about the collective phenomenon. I remind you of caveat no. 3 at the end of my remarks.
——————————————————————————————
Aviya:
Rabbi Michael, you wrote to me as follows: “I do not know any of the people you listed, and my remarks are not about specific individuals but about the collective phenomenon. I remind you of caveat no. 3 at the end of my remarks.”
And to that I ask: how can you judge the group without knowing and hearing the heads of this group?! I assume your familiarity with the phenomenon comes through the media, which has always been looking for provocative and inflammatory statements—and in this study hall you can find plenty of them, because they do not take into account that they will be quoted, since they do not want to be part of a media campaign, and they do not respond because responding is surrendering to the media (in my opinion this is one of their smaller mistakes, for there are much bigger ones). They want to clarify these issues only in the study hall, and the students will receive the balancing element with time… I agree that this is a mistaken path, because until the students receive balance they go after vanity and become vain, and in doing so they make their rabbis appear as shallow as they are.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
As I wrote, I know the phenomenon as we all do, and familiarity with the individuals is not essential in a discussion of the collective phenomenon (which is precisely why I added the above note). I am not nourished only by the media but by reading things that came out of there and hearing from various people, and here and there also from direct contact.
You are repeating the technique of hanging the facts that do not fit the theory on a tendentious and distorted presentation of them in the media. Don’t fall into that. I too am far from trusting the media, but I am also far from the postmodern notion that sees bias and conspiracy in every report. In the article I pointed to the connection between this phenomenon and one of the characteristics of the Har Hamor sect.
——————————————————————————————
Avishai:
Unfortunately, the article really is shallow, and at best is based on a gut feeling.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Prof. Siegfried Abraham:
Mr. Former Academic,
Which disciplines exactly do you mean when you write “pure science”?
——————————————————————————————
Former Academic:
“Pure science,” insofar as such a thing can exist. I meant that in every discipline there is the core of knowledge and there are the research topics that need to be examined. In addition, there is an endless amount of empty verbiage.

Michi (2016-10-30)

jerome_klobbs:
The style of writing is distinctly academic rather than yeshiva-like. The article is an extraordinary demonstration of the claim that Judaism is learned in yeshiva, not in academia.
I know the main figures active in Har Hamor from the time I studied with them in “Mercaz HaRav.” What was described in the article does not correspond—or even come close—to the people I knew.
The author reminds me of the words of a frustrated academic whose remarks I read about a decade or more ago. He was literally weeping over the fact that Judaism did not stop with the Mishnah but continued to develop into the Gemara and beyond. It was clear from his words that at the Gemara stage he simply ceased to understand.
In the Shulchan Arukh it is cited in the name of the Vilna Gaon that he said about Maimonides: “The accursed philosophy led him astray.” (The Nazir, of blessed memory, said that there is testimony that these words never came from the Gaon’s mouth.)
I wonder whether they can be applied here?
Instead of learning Torah or composing novellae on Torah topics, the author devoted much time to vilifying two groups that harm no one and are meticulous about every minor and major commandment.
That says a great deal about the author.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello.
One of the characteristics of the sect in question is to address the writing style (academic or not) instead of its content.
Another characteristic is the launching of slogans, such as: Judaism is learned in yeshiva, not in university. In my opinion, Judaism can be studied anywhere, and every place contributes something of its own. Moreover, the place is not the determining factor. There are those who studied in yeshiva and understand nothing, and there are those who studied in university and still know the shape of a letter.
By the way, I never studied Judaism at university. Only in yeshivot. The academic writing (to the extent that it is such—and it really isn’t, for those who know) is my own personal sin. True, through my sins and theirs (the yeshivot: Gush Etzion, Netivot Olam, the Chazon Ish kollel), they were not the kind that drew from the tradition of our master Rabbi Kook, of blessed memory, and none of them saw itself as globally central. I studied in ordinary yeshivot of various kinds where people learn and don’t babble nonsense. From here it follows that apparently I did not apprentice myself to true Torah sages, and now everything is clear. No wonder I turned out to be an apikores, thank God (apropos Alterman, “the little clerical”).
My remarks are not directed at specific people but at the collective phenomenon, and therefore acquaintance with the people is not essential, to the best of my understanding. See caveat 3 at the end of my remarks.
It seems to me that accusing me of engaging in vilification instead of Torah discussion, when these words are coming to defend the sect in question (which engages in this all the time), is truly absurd. By the way, I did not vilify; I described. If the description came out sounding vilifying, it seems to me that this says something about those being described.
Indeed, at the stage where the Torah passed from Moses our teacher to Rabbi Tau, I ceased to understand. Unfortunately, I am not all that frustrated by it. But if it reminds you of something, who am I to argue with associations? That is a personal matter.
And in conclusion, I hope that the Nazir’s words came from his mouth, and your words from yours, and mine from mine.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Akiva:
Contrary to your usual way, there are long stretches here that are not substantive and are sarcastic (despite the declaration in the opening). There are no characteristics of sectarianism here that are demonstrated on the sect you describe; rather, the opposite—there is a characterization of a certain group that you assume from the outset is here. You do not explain why this is a sectarian characteristic. What you do do is present the modes of behavior and thought in a ridiculous way, without explaining substantively why they are wrong.

As for myself, I think much of the criticism (in its substantive parts, and in the mocking parts—the substantive point) is correct. But one must distinguish between the behavior of the social organism at the macro level and the individuals at the micro level. In the end, there are not a few people with great fear of Heaven, great seriousness in learning, great seriousness in learning matters of faith, who are capable of developing with you a serious, substantive dialogue in many areas.

By the way, you also didn’t explain why it is forbidden to be a “sect.” And what the difference is between a “sect” and a particular school of thought (or perhaps I just didn’t notice that you explained it). In any case, whether one calls it a “sect” or not, there is a current here with many parts of whose path I disagree, with certain parts I do agree, I am capable of conducting a dialogue with many who belong to this current on many subjects—and with others, or on certain subjects, I am not capable of conducting a dialogue. The broad and sweeping definitions seem to me to take this to a place that is not substantive and not justified.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Akiva.
One must distinguish between using sarcasm from time to time and an article that is all sarcasm. What I wrote was that the claim that this is a sect is not intended as sarcasm. The fact that I use sarcasm in my writing is unrelated. It is only a manner of formulation.
When I conduct a systematic study on the subject of sects and Har Hamor, I will need to preface it with theoretical introductions and define sects. I present the patterns of behavior and assume that the reader will be able to judge whether this is indeed a sect. That is what one does in a non-academic essay.
I mentioned the seriousness in learning and fear of Heaven, and that does not touch on my remarks.
Likewise, in caveat no. 3 I distinguished between the individual people and the phenomenon.
There is no prohibition on being a sect. Just as there is no prohibition on being a false messiah or belonging to a messianic movement. Both “sect” and “false messianism” are concepts from the world of sociology, and the negative connotation attached to them (there is of course a connection between them) is unrelated to halakhah and prohibitions. In my eyes this is something much more fundamental than a halakhic prohibition.
I do not know what else needs explaining when I say that a person does not put his ideas to the test of criticism and ignores reality. Do you expect me to explain what is wrong with that?
That is also the reason I dealt in generalizations. A sociological characterization of a group is always a generalization. Therefore it is a mistake to cling to criticism on the grounds that there are some who are different. That is an evasion of the discussion about the phenomenon. Generalizations never fit every individual.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Yaniv:
What is very different in this case is the spread of the broader circles in the rest of society. You ask why they interest us? And you discover that every second yeshiva teacher and almost every pamphlet is steeped, to one degree or another, in the doctrine of “the Kav.” The explanation, in my opinion, is the direction toward the teaching professions and the importance they attribute to that (and on the other hand the obedience of the students), but to my eyes this is not a marginal phenomenon.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Yaniv.
Indeed, their proportion among teaching personnel does not reflect their percentage in the general population. I also agree with the reasons you gave for this (and more could be added). But when I spoke of an esoteric phenomenon, I meant their weight in the population as a whole, and especially their specific weight (in my opinion). One of the reasons I wrote these things is precisely the gap between their proportion in the world of education and their percentage in the population.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Yehuda:
Wonderful! The problem is solved. It’s a sect, nothing more… With one stroke of a sharpened and “scientific” pen there is no longer any need to address the contents, the method, the culture, and its products in all their shades—after all, it is a “sect.” So there is no discussion! No need for one, and no need to waste intellectual energy that sanctifies complexity and tolerance when lying before us is a simplistic, one-celled, extremist creature called a “sect.” Quite a nice trick: from now on, every pluralist who wishes to deny another opinion yet still appear as a tolerant pluralist who contains various complexities—please use the magic word “sect” and everything works out… And now one can also call Rabbi Tau’s words “nonsense,” and of course there’s no slander here, since it’s for a constructive purpose… And precisely because I am not one of those who sit in that study hall, but I am sympathetic to the spirit blowing from there, in all its shades… I find it right to express shock at this article, packed with nonsense. That’s it. “There is no discussion.” It is simply unnecessary. Unfortunately. And if in spite of that one is to approach a few details in the article: 1. To present the book Le’emunat Ateinu as the pinnacle of the attainments in Rabbi Kook’s Torah is completely mistaken and ridiculous; one can ask any first-year student in pre-military academies and “Kav” yeshivot. 2. It is interesting how these people’s going out into academia, the army, and economics fits with the closure and rejection of the outside that the author attributes to them. 3. In this (pseudo-)scientific article one cannot ignore the strong emotions of the author, who uses blunt and personal expressions that do not accord with the declaration supporting an objective and distant point of view, “because he has no deep familiarity with the phenomenon of the Kav…”
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Yehuda.
First, I did not intend to solve any problem but to make the readers aware of existing problems. A substantive argument with their doctrine was not my concern here, since my sole goal was to explain the sectarian characterization that I see there. By the same token you could have asked why I did not answer in this article Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s unresolved point at the end of tractate Beitzah, or why I did not write an encyclopedic entry on migo koach ta’anah. Simply because that is not the topic. My claim here was one and only one: that sociologically this is a kind of sect. That’s all. If you agree or not, that is perfectly fine, but reading comprehension is a condition for discussion.
Anyone who wishes can discuss the ideas and arguments, but that is a subject for other articles and discussions (like resolving Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s questions as well). I will only add that personally I am not very interested in the arguments and ideas raised there, because they do not impress me and are not worth serious discussion in my eyes. But that is of course a matter of taste, and it is clear to me that some think otherwise, and that too is perfectly fine.
As I have already written to previous commenters, a sociological characterization, by its very nature, is generalizing. It also always ignores diversity and particular people one way or another. If you try to describe a gas by the location and speed of every particle, you won’t get very far. Thermodynamics teaches us that when discussing collective phenomena one must ignore the details (average over them) and deal with the collective as such. So too when dealing with social phenomena.
And if I turn to the details you addressed, I am very puzzled by your words. After all, I explained quite well in my remarks about their going out into fields like the army and economics. Regarding going into academia, this exists to a very limited extent, and I explained that too (the attitude of the members of this sect toward academia is well known and famous—and needless to say, foolish, of course). So what exactly are the missing details in my remarks that you wanted to comment on? I really didn’t understand.
I admit without shame that I have no sympathy whatsoever for the phenomenon of the Kav, and I assume readers could tell that from my words, just as you did. By the way, I know it is mutual, and that too is perfectly fine by me. Therefore I did not expect you to be able to ignore my emotions. Why ignore them? I just do not see how they are relevant to the discussion. I made claims, and in my poverty I expect people to address what I wrote—that is, the logic of it—and not the emotions and feelings that accompany it. Perhaps that is a personal defect of mine, and I apologize for it.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Noam Oren:
First I want to thank you for the article; it is simply wonderful and precise (to the best of my knowledge). Some time ago I wanted to write an article comparing “Kavnik” language to that of the “padlachushiyot” (religious feminists with no sense of humor). My intention was to show that both groups created an entire language that allows them to escape any kind of discussion by means of an evasive answer to any possible question that may arise in the future. What do you say?
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Noam.
I don’t know the padlachushiyot well enough, though from the very definition it seems quite similar to me.
I don’t think the language in Har Hamor is there in order to evade problems. They genuinely believe this is the correct language for dealing with reality. Perhaps it enables them to formulate hair-splitting sophistries that help them escape the problems? I don’t know. I await your article.
——————————————————————————————
Noam Oren:
It is clear to me that no one sat down and developed these languages (of the Kavniks and of the padlachushiyot) with the aim that they would be able to evade questions. But like an evolutionary process, the concepts that benefited the group the most survived, and thus a perfect language for evasion was formed for them.
——————————————————————————————
Not a Padlachush:
If I may intervene—
In defense of the padlachushiyot, it should be said that they do not claim for a moment to be engaged in a real discussion. The group rules define it as a kind of support group, and that is of course completely different from what the Kav yeshivot claim about themselves.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Avri:
Hello. I enjoyed reading the article, but at a certain point I stopped being convinced. It seems that in the middle of the article you repeat the same things over and over. As someone who was there for many years and eventually left socially and conceptually, I think you are right in some of the arguments but wrong in others.
In sects, in addition to a charismatic leader, piety, obedience, missionary activity, indoctrination, and religious terminology, there are also secrecy, separation from those who are not members of the sect, and giving up property. In that sense one can say that there are certain sect-like characteristics in Har Hamor, but one should not get completely carried away. Such characteristics exist in quite a few elites, for example throughout the Hasidic movement. There are also anti-sectarian characteristics in those places, which I will detail below, and there is no obligation of secrecy there, no severing from society, family, and friends, and no attempt to take over your property; sometimes the opposite—they take care of people there financially. There is also no cultivation of some idiotic brotherhood feeling among those sharing the path, no hugging and the like. This is not a band of Uzi Meshulam followers. On the contrary, there is education there toward national responsibility, openness toward Israeli society, such as the army (followers of the sect fill command positions in the IDF), an attitude of respect toward the leaders of the state and toward scientists, and more. I too was irritated by the strong hierarchy that exists there, but it seems to me that such things exist in other places too, like the Gush yeshiva.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Avri.
I am puzzled by your words. After all, I explained and wrote about most of your comments in my remarks.
Regarding giving up property, I mentioned that explicitly. By the way, that is indeed a distinctly sectarian characteristic, except that here there is no property expropriated for the benefit of the sect leader (as I wrote in my remarks). I wrote that this is not manipulative, self-interested wickedness but foolish naïveté. This is a sect founded on innocence, and the wickedness only arrives afterward (for the sake of the ideology).
Furthermore, I wrote explicitly that we are talking about a significant portion of the characteristics, not all of them (but in what sect will you find all the characteristics?! Sectarianism is a complex phenomenon, and in such a case even in psychiatry and medicine diagnosis is based on some of the overall characteristics. But I explained all of that.
Indeed, there is quite a bit of sectarianism in Hasidism. Mainly in early Hasidism but also nowadays. If it were relevant to my readers I would have written that. That is also why I mentioned Chabad, which has distinctly sectarian characteristics and is more relevant to our world.
As for the fact that they take care of their members economically—this really does not contradict sectarianism. On the contrary, it is part of the desire to keep people under the sect’s control and focused on the goal. If everyone goes off to build a career, who will spread the light of lights of truth in the world? By the way, this is much stronger in Haredism. There there is a clear and almost explicit policy of preserving society in poverty so that people remain under control. Economic independence is always problematic in ideological societies and in sects, and therefore people must be kept in deprivation and required to make sacrifices and practice austerity, while at the same time being cared for enough to get by, otherwise it won’t hold. By the way, it seems to me that the Mormons are an exception in this regard. There are quite a few successful and wealthy people there, and perhaps that is part of their Protestantism.
Also regarding the feeling of brotherhood, I completely agree that it is less infantile than among Alcoholics Anonymous or Hare Krishna, and yet it is definitely there, and in my opinion it is also quite infantile. But that is of course a matter of taste.
Education toward national responsibility is part of the sectarian values. Notice that the responsibility is only in the sense they give to the nation and to responsibility toward it. That is a principal sectarian value for them. After all, every sect thinks it is responsible for the world and that the world stands because of it. That is exactly what I was talking about.
If it seems to you that there is hierarchy in the Gush like there is in Har Hamor, then apparently you have not really left yet. Have a cup of coffee and wake up (just look at the range of opinions among Gush graduates, its students, and its rabbis). The Gush, by chance or not, I know rather well.
In conclusion, as I wrote, complex phenomena should be judged in a non-binary way. My goal was to point out that there are quite a few sectarian characteristics there. What is the threshold that determines whether they are sufficient to use the term “sect” or not? On that each person will decide for himself. That already leads us to the sorites paradox, and this is not the place.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I will just add that I also addressed the element of secrecy when I spoke about climbing the ladder of the writings and the attitude toward them as unintelligible except to those initiated into the hidden wisdom. The language, too, is part of this secrecy. The ethos that everyone outside does not really understand our master Rabbi Kook, of blessed memory. All these are shades of sectarian secrecy. But it is true that there are sects in which secrecy appears in a different form, such as among the Druze. As stated, not all the characteristics have to appear in every sect, and certainly not in full and not in the same way.
——————————————————————————————
Avri:
Hello Rabbi Michi. If I was not understood correctly, I agree in principle with most of what you said, but I claim that the matter is less severe and less clear-cut, or at least that is how it was in my time. For example, as young students we consulted one of the rabbis about exposure to other opinions by reading newspapers, and his answer was not especially decisive in rejecting it. Regarding the matter of obsessive consultation with rabbis: that stems from people’s dependency and exists in many frameworks. I knew a few rabbis in this stream, like Rabbis Volensky and Aviner, who were not pleased with that, and they educated toward personal independence, that a person should make decisions according to his own learning. On the other hand, there was rejection of other approaches, even close ones. Once one of the rabbis said to me in complaint: “When Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda was alive, Rabbi Amital did not dare open his mouth.” And of course there was rejection of other approaches, including even the close stream of Beit El Yeshiva, who also were not exactly shy, as is known. Also the issue of establishing private educational institutions in which they will study exactly according to the required belief, like Talmud Torah Moreshet and Moriah and for girls Tzofiyah, completes an element of sectarianism.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Avri. As for the dosages, it is hard for me to judge because I really do not know enough. But what you describe fits what I wrote. Beyond that, things may change over the years. One more note regarding your actual words. It seems to me that I did not speak of obsessive consultation with rabbis. I wrote that steps must be taken according to rabbinic guidance and according to ideology (that there are no neutral steps and everything is judged in terms of what is ideologically right or wrong). This is not a psychological component (obsession) but an ideological one (as I spoke about behavior that is very ideological).

Michi (2016-10-30)

Ludwig Wittgenstein
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Immanuel Kantau:
Michi Abraham awakened me from my dogmatic slumber.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Yuval Noah Harari:
The whole article is one big logical fallacy.
It’s obvious that the author of this speculative article hasn’t the faintest clue about logic, mathematics, and philosophy—simply gibberish and nonsense.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Shlomi:
The greatest manipulation is that some of the rabbis of Har Hamor possess broad general education and harness it to their comprehensive worldview (Rabbi Zuckerman, Rabbi Aviner).
An anecdote: Rabbi Blumentzweig has great respect for these people and sees them as educators worthy of his students and flock.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Shlomi.
I did not understand what the manipulation is. Too bad that this education does not help broaden their outlook a bit.
And I did not understand the anecdote either. Rabbi Blumentzweig values them. And therefore?

Michi (2016-10-30)

Moshe:
Immanuel Kantau,
I burst out laughing!
Huge!!!!!!
Michi, what do you say???

Michi (2016-10-30)

Tuvia:
The question is not whether Har Hamor or Chabad is a sect, but what its contribution is to the people of Israel. In my view, a sect with a significant contribution to the people of Israel is preferable to rational, reasoned, sharp, and lucid people whose investment on behalf of the people of Israel is very limited. (By the way, to the best of my knowledge, all the sects in the world ultimately disconnect from advancing the world in a practical way. That is not what can be said about Chabad and Har Hamor, to the best of my judgment.)
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Tuvia. Of course everyone is entitled to ask the questions that interest him. One question is whether this is a sect, and another is what its contribution to the people of Israel is. The answers are not sharply dependent on one another, though there is some dependence between them. By the way, it seems to me there are other sects in the world that have a positive contribution. I assume that even Yoshiyahu Pinto, may he live long, made a significant and genuine contribution to his followers, however incomprehensible that is to me. In my opinion, Har Hamor’s contribution is quite dubious (I have no doubt whatsoever that it has a considerable negative contribution as well, and as for the question of offsetting and the bottom line, I do not know how to answer it), but I assume we will not agree on that. But whether it contributes or not—in my opinion it is a sect. That is what I asked and that is all I claimed. Regarding Chabad, I definitely see it as making a much more significant contribution, and still it is a kind of sect.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Rabbi Y.:
Three comments:

A. Read Rabbi Sternberg’s interview in Kippah.
Their seclusion is explained by him through the need to “enter the cave” at this time, because of the harsh winds blowing outside.
This is not only fear of the European Union and the like, but also a feeling of difficulty with the Israeli public sphere.

B. The problem with every paranoia is that there is always something true in it.
And if there wasn’t—then it is created as a result of the paranoid reactions.

C. In some matters Rabbi Tau is correct in his analysis.
For example: he was ahead of everyone in seeing Europe’s downfall.
In my non-professional estimation, Europe is in a downward plunge, with many Islamizing people among the European public,
and with a quantity of immigrants with which they do not know what to do.

I heard that Rabbi Chaim Navon recently said that Rabbi Tau saw this before everyone else.
And if a flame has fallen among the cedars.

It is also true that European countries (through various organizations or directly)
do everything to strengthen the Palestinians. Is that only paranoia?

You did well to point out the strengths of sects.
It seems to me you did not stress that there are points of truth in their analysis of reality, for otherwise they would have had much more difficulty producing students/followers.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I completely agree. Indeed, I should have sharpened that point.
One more note. The fact that predictions come true proves nothing. The question is how many predictions were made and how many of them came true. Quite a few charlatans who make a living from their predictions “coming true” build on this fallacy. בעקבות your remarks I added a section (before the end, on truth and sectarianism) in which I also wrote that the fact that they’re after you doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid. Note this well.
I spoke implicitly about the need for seclusion when I mentioned the doctrine of the righteous man (that the words of our master Rabbi Kook are intended only for truly righteous people and not for the ordinary person, who will not withstand the difficult trials). But I also added a section on this (section 19). A link to Rabbi Moti’s interview was also added, together with two explanatory notes of my own. It really is a classic interview, and the way it is presented is simply wonderful and enlightening (and also dizzying).

Michi (2016-10-30)

T.:
Hello Rabbi Michi,
I am an ardent reader of yours ever since the days of “Two Wagons,” of blessed memory, and continuously until today.

Precisely as an enthusiastic admirer, and as someone who wants to be your student, I must say that I felt an unpleasant tightening in my stomach in the face of the recent articles you have published on the blog.

(Am I the only one?)

The tightening did not stem from mistakes on the analytical or factual plane, but from the tone. The feeling one gets from some of the recent articles, and especially from the sequence of them (Rabbi Karim + Halakhic State + Har Hamor), is one of contempt, more or less, for everyone. I can understand someone who takes sides, and I can understand someone who shows empathy to everyone, but contempt for everyone strikes me as an unhealthy state of mind.
One paragraph that felt bad to my soul was the wondering about who the spiritual leaders (the ayatollahs!) of the future halakhic state would be. There you listed, in a somewhat sarcastic way, some of the important rabbis of our day in terms of political power. I think that was out of place, not only outwardly but also as an inner state of mind. First of all, I think it is wrong to present important rabbis who are beloved by large parts of the public with disrespect, some of them deservedly. But above all—there are good rabbis, and it is a shame they were omitted from the list, because it creates the false impression that the existing supply on the rabbinic market is stupid or evil or both, and that is not true, and it creates a distorted picture of contemporary Judaism. In just the eight years I have been moving around Jerusalem I have had the privilege of personally getting to know several sweet and fairly influential Torah scholars, and here is a partial list:
Rabbi Avraham Naftali Vig, the halakhic decisor of Bayit Vegan
Rabbi Yehoshua Eichenstein, head of Yad Aharon Yeshiva
Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Faivelson
Rabbi Moshe Shapira
Rabbi Asher Weiss

This is a very partial list, only of Jerusalem rabbis. To that one should add quite a few other pretty decent Torah figures out there, such as yourself, Rabbi Yaakov Medan, Rabbi Rabinovitch of Ma’ale Adumim, Rabbi Dov Berkovits, Rabbi Y.Y. Rimon, Rabbi Chaim Navon, Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, and many others.

One can criticize; perhaps the existing rabbinic figures are not brave enough, or not sufficiently learned in Torah, or do not fully understand the philosophy of halakhah or philosophy in general. But in practice these are good and influential people who are advancing the Torah world (perhaps slowly and cautiously) to a better and truer place. On a more daily plane, these are people who add much Torah, kindness, and fear of Heaven to the world. And more than that, I would gladly live under a regime conducted in subordination to a Sanhedrin composed of the collection of rabbis above, because from my acquaintance with them I have no doubt that mainly good would come from their hands.

Therefore, the general spirit rising from the recent articles—as though everyone is awful—disturbs me.

If we take, for example, a claim that came up in your article following the Rabbi Karim affair (the second one), about why not to burn the New Testament—namely that “from the perspective of most rabbis and the accepted outlooks, this is fear and not moral principles and tolerance”—I think that is not true, and since you used sweeping expressions like “most rabbis” and “the accepted outlooks,” perhaps there is an element of defamation of contemporary Judaism here. It hurts. All the rabbis I mentioned (and others) would not want to burn it, and for the right reasons. They might have difficulty formulating the ruling on the issue in terms of philosophical principles (such as separating halakhah from morality), but one way or another morality would be a very strong consideration in their ruling, and they would find a way to say so, each in his own way. In my opinion, the vast majority of them understand the consideration of “for the sake of peace” not only as a pragmatic consideration but as a value. If so, there is no fear here, but morality and tolerance.

Finally, the latest article about Har Hamor seemed puzzling to me. I do not dispute its analytical correctness, but for heaven’s sake, why devote 36 paragraphs against Har Hamor? Especially in light of the fact that the definition of a “sect” is very continuous and fluid. That is, the conclusion is that Har Hamor is more of a sect than other groups. Nu, so? And by the way—perhaps this too is Jerusalem—but from my sporadic acquaintance with Har Hamor students, many of them are good Jews, also in the sense of being non-sectarian, including the capacity for real conversation, speaking, and listening to people from other streams. And they even have a few rabbis with really good heads (Rabbi Eli Sadan, for example).

In sum, I came away from the combination of these articles with a bad taste in my mouth. The presentation is that everyone is terrible, the majority are wicked or foolish. And this hurt me both because it is not a faithful presentation of reality, and because I felt there is here an excessive focus on the bad and the lacking, when it is possible and preferable to see good, and to criticize with respect and gentleness.

“Whoever disqualifies another disqualifies with his own flaw,” and so it turns out that I myself am occupied with criticism, while 99% of the time I greatly enjoy reading you. These words are written from the depths of the heart, and out of the thought that it is worthwhile to write a few paragraphs to a sage in Israel.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
1. Let me begin by saying that I try not to refer here to specific people in my remarks, and therefore I will not comment on the specific personalities you mentioned (and there is what to comment on). 2. I am indeed angry, and one of my aims on the site is to express that. The leading rabbis today are mostly like that (ayatollahs), unfortunately, and most of those who are not probably will not sit on any Sanhedrin that might be established in our day.
3. Of course there are good people, but I write against those with whom I disagree and whom I criticize. There is no point in writing that I agree with So-and-so, because what would be the point of writing that? Would anyone read it? Am I supposed to issue endorsements to people here?
4. It is clear to me that most rabbis would say the New Testament should be burned, except perhaps for technical reasons (certainly the rabbis of Har Hamor). I will not get into private examples from the list you brought.
5. I distinguished in my remarks between private individuals and their collective conduct. Therefore, the fact that you have a good dialogue with this or that person does not necessarily say anything about their collective conduct. Moreover, pleasant conversation does not necessarily indicate real listening and a person’s willingness to examine himself and his ideas and the ideas of his leaders and rabbis.
6. I try (though perhaps I do not always succeed) to give respect to those who deserve it, and not to give respect to those who do not deserve it (certainly not to those who themselves do not give respect to others).

All the best,
——————————————————————————————
Beni P.:
I don’t think you had the privilege of knowing Rabbi Moshe Shapira if you call him “sweet.” He is a great many things; “sweet” is not one of them. I think he would be offended if you called him sweet to his face.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
As someone who knows Rabbi Moshe Shapira fairly well, he was one of the figures before my eyes when I wrote that I do not want to deal with specific personalities. But since his name has already come up, if you asked him whether one should burn the New Testament, it seems to me he would tell you to do it publicly in broad daylight without paying attention to any other consideration.
——————————————————————————————
Beni P.:
Obviously. Rabbi Moshe Shapira is an exceptionally brilliant and deep person. But he is a conservative Haredi in the fullest sense of the term. Not in the context of da’at Torah or obedience to rabbis, but in the general outlook on the Sages and on halakhah.
By the way, in the specific context of a halakhic state, it may well be that he does not believe in that concept at all (the possibility you raised, that in a halakhic state this is something left to the individual), and at its true core the Haredi outlook in general is like that (theoretical talk about things that will never be realized, and when they are realized the theoretical things will change too, like the whole concept of “we coerce regarding the commandments,” which I find hard to believe ever existed).
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I think Haredi thinking is very pragmatic and not ideological (that sectarian characteristic of Har Hamor does not exist among them). Therefore ideologically they do support a halakhic state, but in practice they understand that it is not feasible today. Clearly, even if you handed them the reins of the state on a silver platter they would evade it. That is unlike Har Hamor, who in my opinion really would take it—and then woe unto us all.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Yosef:
I wondered to myself: is part of your criticism directed also at Rabbi Kook’s doctrine itself? Or do you believe that this entire development is one great distortion and that Rabbi Kook’s doctrine contains no sectarian characteristics at all?
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Rabbi Kook’s doctrine is not systematic (and in my opinion not consistent either, contrary to the assumptions of the sect in question). Therefore you can find in it everything and its opposite. It seems to me that Rabbi Kook absolutely did not intend to establish a sect. On the contrary, he recognized diversity and its importance (truly, not just as a slogan as is customary in the sect in question), and he also did not see himself as an all-powerful and unquestionable leader.
——————————————————————————————
Chaim:
“When it was remarked to him (to Rabbi Kook, Ch. Ch.) regarding certain known people and their participation with them [read: participation] in activities for strengthening Torah and Judaism, [he said], ‘Do not make Kookists for me. Every Jew who comes and engages in a general matter for the benefit of Torah and Judaism—he is ours.’” (Pamphlet for the Third of Elul, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda)
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Very nice. Although one still has to discuss what exactly is meant. After all, members of the sect in question too would certainly say the same thing, and the question is of course only who is called one who acts for the strengthening of the Torah, and what truly constitutes strengthening the Torah. It is like that rebbe (whose name I will not mention because of lashon hara) about whom it was said that he loves the Jewish people with great love; it is only with the individual details that he has quite a few problems.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Chaim:
The description is wonderful and quite accurate in my opinion.
Only regarding the end of your remarks, where you wonder why people (Beit Hillel and the like) take so hard what Har Hamor says.
In my humble opinion the answer is in what you wrote under the heading “On truth and sectarianism.” Most of Har Hamor’s claims come in the name of values that all of us (the religious public) agree with on the principled level—commitment to Torah and tradition, as well as a positive view of the state and the Zionist enterprise. We are uncomfortable with people who come and claim against us that we are not okay in these matters. In that there is a difference between Haredim who attack us from one side or secular leftists who attack us from the other, where from the outset it is clear to us that they and we have values we do not share.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I think that is only part of the truth. In the background there is an emotional inferiority complex (as I explained, because of the genuine strengths they have) and a failure to understand that this is a sect. After all, if a fool or an insane person attacks you, you won’t get upset by it, right? So too if a marginal and unimportant group does so.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Yitzhak:
Michi, do you agree that most of the Religious-Zionist public is neither hardal (the Kav) nor “light,” but somewhere in the middle between those two extremes?
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I can’t say. It depends on definitions, and I also haven’t done any organized statistics.

Michi (2016-10-30)

A.:
Hello Rabbi Michael! I’m not sure you remember me; I studied in your class at the Bar-Ilan Institute quite a few years ago.
I read the article on Har Hamor, and it reminded me of a formative situation from my days at the institute. You raised some issue, and I asked, “What do we think about it?”—you were shocked and said: “We think? I can tell you what I think…” Studying with you gave me a three-dimensional perspective on many areas.
The article gave words to feelings that had accompanied me over the years, although I do not agree with all of it (I assume to your delight..).
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I remember very well. I hope you are well, and I am happy to hear from you.

Michi (2016-10-30)

D.:
Good week, Rabbi Michi.
A relative of mine passed along to me the article you wrote about Har Hamor and Chabad and their relation to sects.
As you know, I am not among the people of Har Hamor (and certainly not among Chabad). I did not have the privilege of studying in their institutions (except for visiting occasionally at Mercaz before the split).
I have a lot of criticism of Har Hamor’s approach, and on the substantive level I identified with and agreed with some of what you wrote.
But it hurt me very much to read the things you wrote, to a great extent because of their style. And precisely because of the great esteem in which I hold you. I will explain:
1. You prefaced that you wanted to offer substantive criticism and to cause people to think as a result. At first I thought that really was what this was, but—you started with a jug and ended with a barrel.
Sentences like (I’m not quoting exactly, forgive me) saying that this is a “group of delusional people,” who are “living in a movie,” and many more like that, are not substantive criticism, and certainly will not bring anyone who doesn’t think like you to begin thinking and identifying with your words.
The comparison to Harry Potter too (even though I don’t know which Har Hamor people know him…) is not respectful. It creates a third group of people—“mockers.” And I think that is not where you would want to place yourself. But that is the impression.
2. In your eyes, there is no value to communal unity. In my eyes (and, I think, in the eyes of many others in the public)—there is value. Unity not in the sense of uniformity but in the sense of finding common ground and acting on its basis. With all the sharp disagreements—there is common ground. True. It is irritating when time after time they are invited to meetings and do not come. One must carefully examine why. It is not entirely clear to me that all the blame is on them. It may be so. I have not had the privilege of being invited to those meetings, and therefore I do not know the tone of the exchanges. And even if it is simply because they are unwilling to come—does that mean that the language in which we speak should be inflammatory and contemptuous?!
3. Between the lines (or perhaps explicitly) you wrote a personal opinion about the title Rabbi Kook of blessed memory chose for the chapter in Orot—“Lights of War.” You wrote there in parentheses—“what a horrifying title.” Are you also putting him into the sect, as a fundamentalist who does not think, who sees himself as “great” because he is great in faith and belongs to the correct Harry Potter camp?! Or is this merely personal criticism you have of the choice of title?
One can think and discuss the meaning of that title. But to write what you wrote—it sounds to me a bit presumptuous and condescending, especially when directed at Rabbi Kook of blessed memory (and not at Emunat Iteinu, with all due respect to its author).
4. Openness to modernity and the relation of halakhah to it is indeed a most important issue. I agree, and you don’t need my agreement… And it must be discussed in a fundamental and profound way, and clearly there are those who think one should be more open and those who think one should be more closed. That is legitimate! But the basis for such a discussion is to respect one another’s thoughts. Not to write in a contemptuous and mocking tone. And again I write: I do not know what experiences you had with Har Hamor people, and whether they spoke in a condescending and contemptuous manner or not. In any case, that does not justify such writing, certainly not in an article published publicly.

Out of great esteem for you, I truly ask that you not use such language. Anger of this sort should be kept within and restrained, and one should address the matter substantively. Otherwise this will lead us nowhere good, and that would be a shame.

Good week, good month, and good tidings.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Rabbi D., hello,
Thank you for your words. I will try to respond according to your numbering.
1. In my opinion the criticism is entirely substantive, even if I use sarcastic language. The arguments are to the point, even though some are said in language that is somewhat mocking. Tactically, it may bring less listening, but in my estimation the respectful attitude toward them is part of the problem that I was addressing. In my view, they and their ideas do not deserve it, and beyond that they do not give a similar attitude to others but invalidate everyone who is not them. Therefore I thought it was actually correct to use sarcasm. One should remember that the article is aimed more at the general public and less at Har Hamor people (who in my estimation are not really open to criticism), and toward the former I specifically had an interest in this mockery for the reasons above.
By the way, I do indeed think they are delusional and living in a movie. That is not a sarcastic expression but an encyclopedic description expressing my true opinion.
The comparison to Harry Potter is not mere sarcasm; it contains something substantive. I really think their behavior resembles that sect there (the way the wizards relate to the Muggles around them. It is very similar). And in general, why do you think the comparison to Harry Potter is contemptuous? In my opinion it is entirely substantive. Is one forbidden to use metaphors from children’s books in such a discussion? In the excessive and abyssal seriousness customary there, it may perhaps seem problematic, but among other things I was arguing against precisely that. I see no problem in it.
2. I have no problem with unity (though it is really not all that important in my opinion), but the question is why unity specifically with them? Unity of which public? When people speak of unity of the camp, one has to define who “the camp” is. What is the relevant fault line around which the struggle is taking place and the camps are defined? In my opinion, most of the Religious-Zionist public is closer to the Haredim than to them. In my remarks I argued against the assumption that the basis on which one should seek unity is Religious Zionism (which is “the camp”). In my opinion, the more relevant basis is modernity and liberalism, and the time has come to update the front lines. The fixation that defines the camps around Zionism is ridiculous in my eyes, entirely anachronistic and unimportant. Moreover, in my opinion it is intended to preserve the leadership status of the hardal rabbis, because if they are part of the public then they are automatically also counted among its leaders (thus they express the Religious-Zionist positions on every issue at hand and speak in all our name without anyone authorizing them to do so, and everyone accepts this). But in my opinion they are not part of the relevant public, and therefore they should not be seen as its leaders or as those who express its positions.
I have absolutely no problem with the fact that they do not come to meetings with anyone. On the contrary, I have a problem with the expectation that they should come and with people whining when they don’t. Why is that important? Do the Haredim come? What is the meaning of this ridiculous groveling?!
3. My remark about “Lights of War” was not intended to mock but to express a feeling I have toward that title. I do not see what is contemptuous about this. It really is a horrifying title in my eyes. The fact that when someone has criticism of Rabbi Kook (it is not even about him, only about a title he chose) it is necessarily contempt, is part of the very attitude I argued against. Hasidim do not dare express a doubtful thought toward their rebbe. I respect Rabbi Kook greatly, and I do not see why that means I am forbidden to say such a thing about a title he chose.
4. Here, in my opinion, the same mistake returns. If indeed openness and the relation to modernity are the important axis for defining “the camp,” and not the question of Zionism, then the discourse should not be conducted with them at all, whether respectful or not.

I see nothing wrong in what I wrote, and it is certainly no worse than what they say publicly and openly. For some reason, whenever one speaks toward them it is improper contempt, but they are allowed to vilify and invalidate everyone who moves. That is exactly what I am tired of, and that is what I tried to express in my words. True, in my language I could not write that their ideas do not descend to the lofty root of the soul of the nation and its supreme purity because I do not use such language. They criticize others in that language (and in worse), and I criticize them in mine. In my opinion, entirely substantive and correct criticism.

In sum, there is a very irritating asymmetry in the relations between the general Religious-Zionist and modern public and the sect in question. They are not careful with the honor of others but vilify and dismiss everything that is not them (except Haredim), while at the same time they are deeply hurt when they themselves are criticized. This recurs again and again, and the public and its rabbis continue to insist on exaggerated respect toward them, which perpetuates their unjustified status and their very belonging to the public (that is, the irrelevant fault line around Zionism).
I am entirely in favor of expressing anger if it exists, and certainly this right is not reserved to only one side.

Thanks again for the comments, and until next time.
——————————————————————————————
Oren:
Continuing what you wrote about unity (that it is not all that important), do you think there are goals connected to religious life that a united public can achieve whereas individuals cannot? Or perhaps you hold that nowadays religious life is expressed mainly on the level of the individual and the public does not have much significance?
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Usually religious life is expressed in the life of the individual. But there are public aspects, and with respect to some of them joining forces can help. But it seems to me that in those cases the unity should be made between groups that want to achieve the same things. That is not the case here. On almost every issue on the table there will be no agreement between me and the sect in question, so why should one unite with them? And furthermore, let them unite with me and not the other way around. Usually unity with them means bringing oneself into line with them.
In any case, I was talking about unity as a value, not as a political instrument.
——————————————————————————————
D.:
Thank you for the words. I’ll continue according to the numbers:
1. Mockery is not a proper way to address a public, certainly not in public, in any forum, and toward any public. You are not speaking only about this or that individual but invalidating an entire public. The only thing you gain from adding mockery (and I do not mean at all to give up the substantive criticism; it is in its place and ought to be said) is to exclude them from the discourse (as you yourself wrote). They will not evaporate, and apparently neither you nor I will… And since we still belong to the same people, it does not seem to me a proper path.
There is a difference between criticism, use of humor, disagreement without blind submission to this or that statement, and mockery. And again I repeat: even if they vilify and speak that way (and I do not know exactly who among “them” does this and who does not, and it is not really relevant)—that still does not justify such speech from the other side. Blowing off steam? Revenge? Releasing anger? Maybe… But that is not what the Holy One, blessed be He, expects of us, it seems to me.
And forgive me, “delusional” and “living in a movie” are not encyclopedic categories… They are pure insults. You would not be willing for someone to say that about you, and then afterward ask you—why were you offended? We only said an encyclopedic category!
2. Who is the public relevant to “our camp”? You think the Haredim are closer to us?! I dwell among my own people (Haredi settlement X), and I would like to tell you a bit just how close they are…
A. We tried (one community rabbi and I) during Operation Protective Edge to organize joint psalm-recitation with the Haredi communities. We met with one of the leading rabbis in that public (incidentally, he is originally from abroad, which made it even stranger to me). I was shocked by the meeting! He was not willing even to organize such a thing because, according to him, as long as the subject of the gathering would not be prayer against the draft decree—we have no common language at all. He took pains to emphasize to us how terrible the situation is in the Holy Land, such that even in France (!!) the situation is better, because there they do not force yeshiva boys to enlist in the army.
B. Another rabbi explained to me that it is impossible for there to be a female mikveh attendant from the Religious-Zionist public (however observant she may be), because someone who violates “be killed rather than transgress” (through national service…) cannot immerse other women…
C. During the municipal election campaign, someone threw in my face (I don’t know whether to call him an avrech or not, but he was certainly perceived as one of the normal townspeople) that until now I had been the only person (!!) from the Religious-Zionist public whom he respected, and from now on (having dared to say one should vote for X)—he sees that I too am worthless… He claimed I was worse than an idol worshiper.
D. Shall I continue?…
I know very well and appreciate the one-on-one relationships and esteem on the individual level with the Haredi public. I encounter this and am exposed to it, thank God. But on the public and declarative level—they are absolutely not with us, and to my great regret, they do not count us. And one of the main reasons (if not the main one) is openness and modernity… The very fact that you and I hold a non-kosher cellphone (one that receives SMS and other such evils) already (according to some of the approaches there, as I heard with my own ears) disqualifies us from testimony. And go and complete the rest yourself.
So I really do not understand how you put them in the same boat together with devotees of modernity and liberalism.
Beyond that, I do not place the relation to modernity as the central and most important axis around which the camps should gather.
What, then, is shared between us and Har Hamor people? In my humble opinion, the attitude to the state, and consequently to everything that follows from it. Should I care only about our own people or about all the residents here? Is the government, the army, the judicial system mine or the gentiles’ and their like? Har Hamor people were educated from the outset in the study hall of Mercaz. And that is definitely a line with which I identify strongly. But what can one do—they have greatly radicalized the matter and taken it in wrong directions, in my humble opinion. That still does not mean I have no common ground with them, to the point that I simply remove them from the discourse.
3. Regarding “Lights of War”—would you say “what a horrifying title” about a heading that Rabbi Akiva Eiger or the Chafetz Chaim would give to an article or book of theirs? Perhaps you will answer me yes. I would not say it, not because I am a Hasid of some sect or other, but because I relate with awe and respect to things written by people of such stature. The title “Lights of War” is meant to express an essential idea—that there is a great divine process revealed through wars (“look forward to the footsteps of the Messiah,” etc.). One can ask, investigate, and try to understand, and also remain unconvinced and disagree. But a statement such as the above is judgmental and, in my opinion, out of place.

I am not an agent of Har Hamor, and I receive no percentages from them. As I wrote to you previously, I did not grow up in their flowerbeds, and I have a great deal of criticism toward them. But both toward them and toward the Haredi public—I will not use mocking and vilifying language, certainly not in public (and such an article is very public). Whether they speak that way against me or not. The moment the discourse is not basically respectful—we have missed everything.

With all due respect.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Rabbi D. We are apparently remaining in disagreement. I too will continue in the same order. 1. In your remarks here two different aspects appeared: speaking about an entire public and the manner of speaking (mockery). A. I am indeed speaking about the public and its conduct. One does not invalidate a public when the defect is that of individuals and the matter is a generalization. But if the invalidation is of the public itself, then what should I do—not speak about the public? My criticism is of their conduct as a public. B. The sarcastic-ironic mode of expression is a mode of expression, and as I wrote I do not see in it a real problem. On the contrary, where there is excessive seriousness there is room to inject a bit of humor. The heaviness with which one is supposed to conduct oneself seems to me entirely exaggerated. In my estimation, it is the criticism that troubles them, not the mockery. It interferes with the aura of lofty reverence they try to create around everything that comes from there, and that is exactly what ought to be shattered. I am not bothered when people mock me, certainly when it is only a mode of expressing real criticism. As I wrote, “delusional” and “living in a movie” seem to me a completely accurate description of how I see them. Therefore in my eyes this is definitely description and not mockery. My criticism is precisely of the movie in which they live, so this is not mere cynical phrasing. The same applies to the comparison to Harry Potter. It says something entirely substantive. I think that when you join in seeing such things as mockery, there is a surrender here to the pomposity they constantly project. I refuse to surrender and cooperate with this nonsense. The “they” who vilify is roughly all of them, headed by their leaders, and those vilified are roughly everyone who does not belong to the sect in question. I do not know how one can ignore that. So the zeal to preserve their honor at the same time as the built-in asymmetry in these relationships is part of the problem I see in others’ attitude toward them. 2. The Haredim are not all of one block; even in X there are more open Haredi communities, and I assume you would receive a different attitude from them. But my intention was not specifically the question of attitude to Zionism, or even to modernity, women, general studies, and the like. My main point was the issues on the table. On all the issues on the table regarding which there is room for coalitions, I find myself at odds with them (not on the question of prayer for IDF soldiers, which strikes me as marginal). Starting with the “anti-religious legislation” against which they launched a crusade and continuing with all matters of religion and state, the attitude toward homosexuals, the Chief Rabbinate (whom to choose and how to act), and more and more—in nothing do I find common ground with them. On nothing at all. Therefore I have no interest whatsoever in any unity with them. The question whether the army is ours or not is exactly the anachronism I am talking about. Those are really not important questions today. They are more slogans than practical questions. On practical questions the Haredim are very pragmatic and much less ideological than the sect in question, and therefore I see much more room for cooperation with them, especially on practical (political) questions. As for prayer for the soldiers—let each person pray as he wishes or not pray.
——————————————————————————————
D.:
Indeed, apparently we will remain in disagreement… Perhaps because of my smallness, it troubles me very much when another person mocks me. There is conveying criticism and there is mockery, and those are not at all the same thing. Regarding the Haredim, I am speaking about many of the “more open” communities, as you put it, and I see the same principle—on the individual level there is esteem; on the public and declared level they are absolutely not with us. And this is not only about slogans but about very practical questions—starting from concern for the whole public in matters of eruvin, mikvaot, summer activities, cleanliness, etc. Are you serving only your own clique or do you see yourself as representing the entire public? Here there is a very substantive disagreement between us that is expressed on the practical plane and not only in slogans. Unfortunately. Good tidings.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Barak:
Just a clarification—of course there is no book called “Lights of War.”
There is a chapter in the book Orot called “The War.”
Therefore there is a mistaken tendency to call it “Orot—The War,”
just as there is a chapter in the book called “Revival,” and everyone calls it “Orot—Revival.”
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, this is news to me now, and now you are my teacher and master (though unfortunately not yet one of my intimates). I am happy to retract that remark.
By the way, from what I saw in Wikisource, Orot HaTechiyah is originally the title there (and not just HaTechiyah as you wrote), whereas with “The War” it is called simply HaMilchamah, perhaps precisely for the reason I remarked on. If so, my mistake is double and redoubled. Though this addition is probably not correct, because all the sub-chapters there are without the word Orot. Only the main books are called with the explicit addition Orot.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Yisrael:
This is the first time I have been exposed to your site, and the first article that caught my eye was this one, and that is no wonder, since I grew up and was educated in Chabad. I was a little disappointed because from the title I expected to read an article much of which would deal with Chabad, but the article is almost entirely about Har Hamor’s Kav, which I know less. Even so, I was able to identify sectarian characteristics similar to Chabad, but many of these characteristics can be found in Judaism as a whole and not only in Chabad, for example:
“A leader. Usually such sects have a dominant leader. It is very desirable that he have an intimate closeness to cosmic forces (or to the Holy One, blessed be He), perhaps even some sort of union with them. His authority and leadership may not be challenged. He has incomprehensible abilities to arrive at the one and only absolute truth, and all his words are as if they came from the mouth of the Almighty.” This reminds me very much of Moses our teacher.

I expected the criticism to be cold and purely substantive, especially in light of your emphasis in the opening of your article that the criticism was going to be substantive.

I cannot help but notice between the lines that your attitude toward the Haredim is somehow more forgiving, perhaps because you studied in their yeshivot for a certain period.

P.S.
I thought perhaps not to comment because I feel enormous feelings of inferiority in comparison with the knowledge and great activity of yours that I have seen from reading about you. But I have a great thirst to investigate and know (a thirst that unfortunately has not been satisfied to this day, and perhaps this stems very much from the society from which I come, which does not encourage critical thinking and education), and if I do not ask I will never know. Therefore I hope I will be forgiven for commenting on this platform, which may be intended only for rabbis and educated people, but what can I do if a simple person like me also thirsts to know. I also hope I will be forgiven if my comment is like that of an ignoramus, for what can I do—such am I by force of circumstances, which I desperately wish to change.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Yisrael.
You have already taken the first step toward change. It is good that you wrote and commented as you think, and there is absolutely no need to ask forgiveness. These are not at all the words of an ignoramus. All these apologies are a pity. Now to your remarks themselves:
1. I did not undertake to write what others expect me to write, and therefore I am not responsible for readers’ disappointments (though I share in their sorrow). When I write (if I write at all) about Chabad, I will pour out what I have to say about them too. About the Haredim (including the Lithuanians among whom I studied) I have already poured out not a little.
2. Regarding Judaism as a sect, see my note D in the article itself. There I pointed out the difference. The sages criticize even Moses our teacher. Nothing he says is immune from criticism (as opposed to the myth of him as all-knowing).
3. The criticism was entirely substantive in my estimation. The use of a bit of sarcasm is only a form of expression.
4. My attitude to the Haredim is far from forgiving, but my topic here was Har Hamor.
5. This platform is intended for anyone who wants it, and you really do not seem to me any less intelligent than anyone else here (including me, of course).
——————————————————————————————
Yisrael:
Thank you very much for your response.
Regarding section 2 of your response, a famous phrase from my earliest childhood immediately popped into my head: “that the Shekhinah speaks from Moses’ throat.” But a quick Google search revealed that this phrase has no source in the Written Torah or in the Talmud; rather its source is the Zohar. (Does that matter?)
Who are those sages? Talmudic sages? Rishonim? Acharonim? etc. Do the sages who criticize Moses criticize Moses, or their understanding of Moses?

The Google search brought up a quotation from Maimonides in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, chapter 9, halakhah 2: “If a man arises, whether from Israel or from the nations, and performs a sign and wonder and says that the Lord sent him to add a commandment, or to subtract a commandment, or to interpret one of the commandments in an interpretation that we did not hear from Moses, or says that those commandments with which Israel was commanded are not forever and for all generations but were commandments for a particular time—behold he is a false prophet, for he has come to contradict the prophecy of Moses,* and his death is by strangulation, because he deliberately spoke in the name of the Lord that which He did not command him.” I understand from this quotation that Maimonides holds that it is forbidden to second-guess Moses.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I mentioned in my previous remarks that the ethos regarding Moses our teacher is indeed that of a leader who cannot err and whose words may not be questioned. But in practice that is not what happens. We interpret the Torah and adapt it to circumstances all the time. It does not really matter whether one criticizes Moses himself or our understanding of him. In practice there is nothing immune from criticism and adaptation to circumstances. That is what matters. The theoretical ethos does not really matter. You can hang this on the Holy One Himself, regarding whom we are fundamentalists—one need not even get to Moses. And to that I would again answer you the same thing.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
And beyond that, everything I told you is after we have already decided that we believe. The belief itself must stand up to the criticism of reason, and one who does not believe in it should leave.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Mordechai:
Hello Rabbi Michi.
Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with your remarks regarding Har Hamor.
It pains me that in the course of the (justified) attack on Har Hamor
you also inserted your views on Rabbi Kook’s own ideas.
You have every right to disagree with his doctrine and analyses, but it is not justified
to lump him together with Har Hamor, when in truth he
was a symbol of a man unafraid to think (and wrote very sharp things
about those who exalt “fear of thought”).
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Mordechai.
Where did I insert my opinion here about Rabbi Kook? I certainly do have criticism of him and of his outlooks, but this is criticism of a completely different kind from what is written here toward Har Hamor (more disagreement than criticism).
And to lump him together with Har Hamor? I find it hard to believe that you saw that in my words. In my opinion, he is absolutely not there. And of course he certainly did not fear thinking against the stream.
Can you point to the sentences in my remarks to which you refer?
——————————————————————————————
Mordechai:
I mainly meant this:
“In this view, the pioneers who drained swamps acted out of commitment to the Rock of Israel and its Redeemer and as an act of bringing the redemption nearer, and not, God forbid, as part of the springtime of the nations and because they were sick of exile.”
and of course also this:
“This is not a war over territory but over ideas and redemption, our spiritual role in the world. See ‘Lights of War’ (what a horrifying title) by our master Rabbi Kook, of blessed memory.”

These are indeed Rabbi Kook’s views, that the pioneers act to bring the redemption nearer even if they are not aware of it, and that war has spiritual significance.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Indeed, luminous naïveté. Among other things, that is what I meant when I said I have criticism of him. But what has that to do with Har Hamor? Is it forbidden to criticize Rabbi Kook? Do you belong to a sect too?

Michi (2016-10-30)

Mordechai:
By the way, regarding the criticism of the title “Lights of War”—
Rabbi David Samson translated the essay into English,
and when he came to ask Rabbi Avraham Shapira, of blessed memory, for an approbation,
he did not agree to have the book published that way, and remarked:
“What, was Rabbi Kook an anointed priest for war?”
Following his words, Rabbi Samson gathered paragraphs on the subject of
peace and published in English the book War and Peace
(Rabbi Kook, not Tolstoy).
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
For that criticism I got hit, and rightly so. See below here in the talkbacks that Rabbi Kook has no such work. In any case, I did not know this story. By the way, if there is such a work, then in my opinion there is no place for corrections by others. Rabbi Kook is not public property, and if he wanted to call his work that, one should not make correcting censures. Unless he too knew that this title was not from Rabbi Kook himself. And as is well known, editors, correctors, and censors have already had their hands in his writings. A phenomenon I really do not like (see the column on holy lies).
——————————————————————————————
Mordechai:
Indeed, within the book Orot there is a chapter called “The War.” But one can criticize
also the content, which seemingly praises war.
Rabbi Shagar, for example, in his book Broken Vessels, argues that Rabbi Kook later retracted
these words, following the horrors of World War I
(a baseless claim, in my opinion).
But acquaintance with the totality of Rabbi Kook’s words puts these things in
the proper proportion. That was exactly Rabbi Avraham’s intention, that printing the material
in this form would take it out of proportion for one who has no acquaintance with Rabbi Kook’s writings.
In my eyes there is no censorship in this at all, but rather doing justice (it reminds me a little of your interpretation
of the Magen Avraham’s words at the end of the article on holy lies).

Michi (2016-10-30)

Chaggai:
Hello Rabbi Michael Abraham, I was very impressed by reading your article and I agree with most of it. I have one question for you.
I saw a great deal of common ground between the Har Hamor public and the Haredi public, mainly in the areas of fundamentalism, closure, and intellectual closedness. Would you define the Haredim too as a sect? If so, does that not make most of Judaism a sect in your eyes? And if not, why not? What is the big difference between them?
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
There are sectarian dimensions in parts of Haredi society as well, but there is a significant difference between them and the hardalim, to the latter’s disadvantage. Most Haredim are much less ideological and more pragmatic than the hardalim. The reason is apparently that hardal has no tradition. It is an outlook invented recently, and like ba’alei teshuvah they examine everything carefully through ideology and slogans. Most Haredim (with the exception of a few lunatics) are more relaxed, moderate, and secure in their path. They are no more attentive to their surroundings, but they examine everything less in terms of conformity to ideology. What my grandmother did is good enough for me too. The grandmother of the hardalim usually did not do all that much.
By the way, for this reason Bnei Brak is more sectarian than Jerusalem. It has already been noted that Bnei Brak is a city of immigrants and therefore new patterns are formed there, with no traditions to impede this, unlike Jerusalem. There is a nice article by Menachem Friedman, the sociologist of the Haredim, discussing the Chazon Ish’s shiur in Bnei Brak and Rabbi Chaim Na’eh in Jerusalem.
True, the militant parts of Satmar really are a crazy sect, and Hasidim in general have some sectarianism in them (the foolish attitude toward the rebbe), but usually they are still much more sane.
——————————————————————————————
Chaggai:
Could you be more specific and detailed? I can’t quite get to the end of your meaning. Slogans by which one examines reality are something I have seen in the Haredi population too, perhaps even at a higher level, as well as lack of acceptance and unwillingness to examine external opinions except through their rabbis.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I said there is a sectarian dimension also in parts of Haredism, but my feeling is that parts of it are less ideological and more pragmatic. But you are right that there is a significant sectarian dimension there. For example, among Haredim you can easily find jokes about the leading sages of the generation together with slogans about their extraordinary holiness and greatness—something you will never find among the hardalim.
——————————————————————————————
Chaggai:
Could you give more examples that would clarify for me what that point of difference is? What do you mean when you say they are more pragmatic and less ideological?
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
I gave the example of mocking the great ones. I explained the calculated attitude toward every event and every detail, which is supposed to fit or contradict the ideology and therefore requires sophistical apologetics (in my opinion this does not exist in the Haredi world). Beyond that, it is hard for me to elaborate here.

Michi (2016-10-30)

Yogev:
Hello Rabbi, I agree very much with a lot of what was said, and I also have criticism of these yeshivot, but sometimes I think to myself that it really doesn’t matter. Not everyone is critical-minded with a discerning and reflective head. There are those who like being part of something big (in this case truly big) and of a certain immense doctrine, and what difference does it make that they are a sect… They are excellent servants of God and they are happy in their service of God, so it works… In contrast, in many other places there are much bigger problems, such as slapdashness, lack of commitment to halakhah, Western postmodern thinking that sometimes overrides the thinking that grows out of the Sages. In short, it seems to me that their sectarianism is not essential; overall it does them good in their service of God, and there is no doubt they contribute greatly in many areas to the collective.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Hello Yogev.
You wrote that you yourself have criticism. Why? Presumably you too understand that someone’s happiness, or even the fact that he keeps commandments and contributes to the collective, is not enough to define him as a servant of God and to neutralize criticism.
As I wrote, religious faith need not be fundamentalist, and it must not be so. If I program someone to keep commandments and also be happy, is he a servant of God? Can a sheep be a servant of God? The service of God is supposed to come from a soberly informed choice.
Beyond all this, there is the question of truth. The service of God is not a path to achieve happiness. It is a path examined in terms of truth or falsehood. Therefore the fact that someone is happy does not make him a servant of God.
I also wrote that the advancement of the collective and the contribution to the collective (which are also bound up with very great harms) are likewise not sufficient criteria. The evaluation of a path of serving God is not consequentialist but substantive.
Beyond all this, we are not dealing with a flock of happy sheep grazing in a meadow. These people are full of a sense of certainty and ridiculous arrogance. They are full of criticism, contempt, and condemnations toward everything around them (together with the mantra of seeing the good and the value in everything. Surely they have thousands of pilpulim explaining why there is no contradiction here). All the time they excommunicate and ostracize, sort and classify everything that is not them as despicable, worthless, and wrong.
Let there be no misunderstandings: in my opinion all this is entirely legitimate. A person should think and say what he thinks. But doing it in a ridiculous way is infuriating. And doing it while at the same time complaining when others do to them what they do to others seems to me absurd. And when they do so in the name of peace and unity it seems to me already downright absurd. I explain my view of them and those like them exactly as they explain their view of me and those like me, and let the chooser choose.

In general, I would not want to belong to a sect, and I assume most “Kav” people would not want that either. Therefore I thought it proper to reflect their situation to them and hold a mirror before their eyes—for their good and for ours.
In particular, it was important to me to draw the public’s attention (and not only that of the sect members themselves) to the sectarian character of this phenomenon. If only in order to prevent the exaggerated importance given to them and their positions, the inferiority complex many feel toward them, and especially the results of these two things—namely, their harmful public influence. And even more so, to make clear that religiosity does not mean fundamentalism and sectarianism (that notion itself is one of the harmful influences they have on the public at large).
——————————————————————————————
Yogev:
I truly believe—though at first it was very hard for me to accept it (I also study in a yeshiva that very much educates toward critical thinking and intellectually sober choice)—that not everyone’s path in serving God is such an intellectual path that observes and critiques everything it sees. There is no doubt that there is truth in their words, and that Rabbi Kook’s doctrine is immense and intellectual and brilliant, and therefore there is no doubt that people cling to it. I really do have some criticism of the absurdity that sometimes they talk terribly about things in theory but in practice the feeling is the opposite, but I don’t know if that is where the emphasis should be placed; overall I think not. If I had something to say, I would sit with the rabbis of the Kav and explain to them what I think is not right in their overall path. But overall, when I meet each student in a Kav yeshiva and imagine the family he will build, I am very satisfied with the results. And again, it is not only that the results are the issue; I simply think each person has his own path, and they chose a path that is somewhat lacking in criticism, but that is okay overall, because I think what caused this is the beauty and brilliance in Rabbi Kook’s doctrine that led them to go somewhat blindly after it and after Rabbi Kook’s students.
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
Fine. Then our opinions are apparently divided.
——————————————————————————————
Yogev:
Could the Rabbi focus on what in my words you disagree with?
——————————————————————————————
The Rabbi:
It is all written there. Go over the exchange and you will see.
I do not think Rabbi Kook’s doctrine is all that brilliant. Certainly not in the interpretation given to it in the Kav yeshivot. I do not agree with fundamentalism and sectarianism even if it improves survival. I do not think that someone who does not think should go after slogans. People should be educated to think, and one who does not think should not be educated toward sectarianism.

Yossi Cohen (2017-07-11)

Yosef: As someone who reads the rabbi’s books and has a lot of anger toward the Kav yeshivot, especially after the way Rabbi Tau wrote about Herzog College, where I had the privilege of studying Torah, it pains me to read these things. I agree with them, but the way they were written pains me. After all, they are great rabbis, not only in matters of faith but also in halakhah and Talmudic learning, and I am uncomfortable with a discourse that is contemptuous and belittling. Why do we too have to divide? Why can’t one write concretely about the problematic aspects without entering into mockery?

Statism Sect? (2017-07-11)

BS”D 15 Tammuz 5777

Every person has guiding principles and “red lines” that mark the boundaries. Even the extreme postmodernist has a line that may not be crossed:
“One must not say anything positive; each shall live by his own truth.” Academic Bible criticism has its own “lines” as well, on the basis of which they failed a student’s paper because she relied on Rashi in interpreting Scripture (as recounted in the book A Tzaddik Shall Live by His Faith)—so why shouldn’t Rabbi Tau, or anyone else, have a line of his own? After all, Rabbi Tau did not invent commitment to Maimonides’ thirteen principles 🙂

Rabbi Tau’s distinctive emphases are specifically in the area of statism.

Both in the political sphere—not to go “head-on” against the policy of the State of Israel, insofar as it represents the majority of the people dwelling in Zion. Our political insights we should convey to the public at large through explanation and personal example, and in the meantime—arm ourselves with patience!

And also in the area of halakhah: insisting on the “statehood of Torah in Israel,” represented by the “Chief Rabbinate of Israel” founded by Rabbi A.Y. Kook, of blessed memory, in which there is broad representation for all parts of the Torah world: Haredim and Zionists, Ashkenazim and Sephardim.

One may agree with Rabbi Tau’s approach or disagree, but to define a statist approach as a “sect” sounds utterly delusional!

Regards,
S.Z. Levinger

Amir (2017-07-11)

I would like to make a comment דווקא on a side remark made in the column [I will not address the main topic of the column]. Rabbi Michael, you wrote that the title “Lights of War” horrifies you. I saw something interesting in the book Reshit Devarcha, written by Rabbi Yitzhak Dadon, about things he heard from his teacher Rabbi Avraham Shapira of blessed memory. He told there about a rabbi [I don’t remember who] who wrote commentaries on parts of the book Orot and received approbations and praise from Rabbi Avraham for them, but when he published a commentary on Orot HaMilchamah, Rabbi Avraham did not want to give him an approbation. When the author-rabbi asked him why, Rabbi Avraham answered that Rabbi Kook “was not an anointed priest for war,” and that there is a difference between writing about matters of war as part of a book and dealing with the subject as a subject in its own right and placing emphasis on it.

From what I understood, Rabbi Avraham did not like the idea of emphasizing war as a subject to be glorified, but rather as a secondary subject [for after all, sadly, there are wars in our world too].

I assume that you are horrified by the title “Lights of War” from a similar perspective, indeed?

Michi (2017-07-11)

Similar, but not identical. What bothers me is that they attribute “lights” to war. It is an unfortunate necessity, not spiritual exaltation accompanied by lights. But see the comments above that people made to me about this.

moishbb (2017-07-11)

Rabbi Sh. Tzin Lin,
When I read your comments,
I always wonder whether you are ignoring the claims Rabbi Michi raised
or simply not reading them and jumping in to comment.
It is rather frustrating, because as someone who comes to respond on behalf of traditional Judaism,
you sharpen the claims about its inability to deal with the substance of arguments,
except by scattering demagoguery around them.

Yakir Tchernin from Alon Moreh. (2017-07-11)

Honorable rabbi, hello.
I’ve heard many things about you—mostly good, in truth—and I was impressed that you are an intelligent man and a Torah scholar with a unique perspective on the world, even if not exactly “mainstream.”
After reading this “article,” I feel that I was misled. I will judge you favorably and assume the article was edited by a mistaken student.
I am not among the admirers of “the Kav.” They frighten me—to the point that I am afraid to serve alongside them in the army, even in reserve duty.
Here and there a few random points of truth crept into the “article.”
But all the rest is a long, childish, inflammatory, demagogic post that, in a way that seems hypocritical, suffers from many of the very defects it supposedly found in those whom the honorable rabbi for some reason does not hold dear.

The rabbi says he does not understand the definition of the concept of a sect, and nevertheless chooses to use a demagogic label arousing demonization, which I am not sure is any less insulting than the title “neo-Reform” that “Beit Hillel” and the liberal “sect” receive. (And more justly, in my opinion, but that is another discussion.)
Why call a group by a title that you do not really understand?
And the “liberals” too suffer from the same paralyzing fear of other opinions. I remember the broken cries and panic with which a little animated video that dared criticize religious girls serving in the IDF was received. Immediately it got labels like “inciting video” and more.
The “liberals” too draw their ideology from a supreme source of values, and that too may not be questioned or examined, God forbid.
And when they clash with the Chief Rabbinate to advance their own organizations and bodies—this is certainly not out of a thirst for power—it stems from a “sincere desire to help the public.”
And you too write an entire “article” without any basis except gut feelings that overall sounds like one big childish insult.
Even the caveat that “personally they may be nice” sounds like a warning about the dark forces in Har Hamor, who wear smiling faces to trap souls, etc.

Using terms from a fantasy series for youth that I love (Muggles here, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named there) also does not really allow one to relate to the article seriously.

I found almost no shred of substance in the article, except for the confession at the end that you simply do not like them.

Yakir Tchernin from Alon Moreh. (2017-07-11)

Of course the terminology matters. Otherwise one might think the honorable rabbi is simply demonizing by means of frightening words like “sect” and “fundamentalism.”

Michi (2017-07-11)

Hello, dear Yakir.

Let me begin by saying that the article was not edited by any student, certainly not a mistaken one. If there was some student who edited it and I didn’t notice, one thing I could say about him is that he is not mistaken.

1. Contrary to what you wrote, I certainly do understand what a sect is. What I said is that it is difficult to give this concept an explicit definition and that its boundaries are not sharp. That is a world of difference. There is almost no concept you use for which you could give me a sharp definition, and yet that does not prevent you (or me) from using it. When I characterized them as a sect, I indeed meant to say that they are a sect in many respects, which I described in detail, and for some reason in your “substantive” words I found no reference to even one point of my description.

2. I did not say that liberals are always substantive. Not at all. Their cries of offense have already earned not a few critiques from me on this site as well. What does that have to do with our matter? As far as I recall, you wanted substance, didn’t you?

3. There is not a single non-substantive point in this article. Sometimes it is written sarcastically at their expense (and they certainly earned that honestly), but every sentence makes an entirely substantive claim. The sarcasm is only the mode of expression, and you should not confuse lack of substance with sarcasm. The two are not close to each other. Lack of substance is when the arguments are directed not to the issue but to the person or to irrelevant aspects. By the way, I clarified this here in the comments, and also in the article in which I explained my way on the site (there is a link on the main page on the left).

4. I did not see the video you mentioned against religious girls serving in the army, but I recall that I was indeed very negatively impressed by the hysterical reactions to it (even without seeing the video). Beyond that, the comparison you made of course requires examination of the question whether the video raised substantive claims in sarcastic or provocative clothing (as mine do), or whether there were no substantive claims there at all, or there were false and sweeping claims. In any case, it seems to me there is no point in hysterical reactions and ridiculous protests like those there.
Now I looked for it and saw it, and indeed, as I anticipated, it is a poor and demagogic video, a significant part of whose claims are irrelevant, and there are also outright false claims. In my estimation the reactions to it did not stem from fear of other opinions, as you wrote (to force the comparison by sheer power), but as a reaction to false and tendentious claims. And still, as I said, the hysterical reactions to it deserve contempt.
(And I write all this as someone who has written and said more than once that he opposes girls’ service, and not only for religious reasons.)

5. And we haven’t yet gotten to the question of why they frighten you, as you wrote, if they are merely people with a different opinion…?

All the best,

Getting the Main Point (to moishbb) (2017-07-11)

BS”D 18 Tammuz 5777

The entire system of “arguments” that Rabbi M.A. brings says only one thing:
You are wrong because you do not proceed according to the “basic assumptions” XYZ detailed in my words. But rabbinic Judaism has its own “basic assumptions,” and if I have proved that a given group stands by the criteria set by Hazal and our great early and later rabbis—then I have no interest whatsoever in satisfying the “basic assumptions” that someone, however wise and great he may be, is trying to plant in the garden of Judaism.

And one of the foundations is “apprenticing oneself to sages.” The fact that a rabbi’s students learn his method and are faithful to it does not make them a “sect.” Consider for yourself: Rabbi Yosef Kapach, of blessed memory (whose yahrzeit is today), follows Maimonides’ approach in everything, and strives to reconcile Maimonides’ method and clarify its sources—would it enter anyone’s mind to define Rabbi Kapach and his students as a “sect,” God forbid?

Personally, although I studied for about ten years at “Mercaz HaRav,” I was not among Rabbi Tau’s students or intimates. My fields of interest and emphases are somewhat different. But a person who knows Rabbi A.Y. Kook’s writings inside out, who attended on Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda for decades, and who was appointed by him to teach faith in his yeshiva—his understanding and guidance in applying Rabbi Kook’s doctrine to the questions of our generation certainly carry considerable weight, though in my humble opinion not exclusive weight.

Rabbi Tau’s foundational knowledge of the modern European world of thought, in which he was at home even before he came to the Torah world, gives him sensitivity to currents such as “Bible criticism” and “positive-historical Judaism” and the like, which proceed from the assumption that Judaism and its sources are human creations, dependent on time and culture, and to the seepage of such directions of thought even into the teachers’ colleges.

And he was not the only one who warned about the problematic nature of these approaches. See Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein’s reservations about academic Talmud study, in his article “The Brisker Conceptual Method in Talmud Study,” Netu’im 18, pp. 30–32. And see the article by his son, Rabbi Moshe Lichtenstein, may he live long, “God Has Spoken Once; This Have I Heard Twice?” in which he criticizes some methods of Bible interpretation practiced by some lecturers at Herzog College.

The difference between Rabbi Tau and other rabbis is in the methods of coping. Rabbi Tau “surfaced the problem” about 15 years ago in his book A Tzaddik Shall Live by His Faith. Other rabbis try to “influence from within” in the world of research in the direction of orcha d’meheimnuta. As Rabbi Yitzhak Shilat (a close associate of Rabbi Tau) does in the study of Maimonides’ thought, and as Rabbi Chaim Weisman (a student of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed) did in his book Clarifications of Beliefs in Maimonides—Creation, Prophecy, and Providence in the Guide of the Perplexed.

And in the field of Bible, several of the teachers at Herzog College are doing important work: Rabbi Yaakov Medan and Rabbi Elchanan Samet, Rabbi Amnon Bazak and Rabbanit Sharon Rimon and others, whose teaching illuminates the Tanakh website of Herzog College.

Such is the way of Torah. There is a need for those who warn about problems, and there are those who will grapple with them and bring them to solution, and the tension between them is a healthy tension.

Regards,
S.Z. Levinger

Amir (2017-07-11)

Regarding the earlier remarks on “Lights of War”—it seems to me that Rabbi Avraham meant the same thing: war as an unfortunate necessity and not something to be seen as a kind of value; and that even if there is a point in writing about war, one should not see it as something standing on its own and glorify it. As he told that rabbi, to whom he refused to give an approbation, even if Rabbi Kook * wrote about the matter, one should not make it appear as though he saw it as a big “matter” **, as Rabbi Avraham put it, that Rabbi Kook was not an “anointed priest for war.”

* I write “Rabbi Kook of blessed memory” not for the reasons you wrote in the article—that this is how he is called and that I also don’t think there are those who really think that. The reason that in the daughter yeshivot of Mercaz and Har Hamor Rabbi Kook is called that is simply that he is the rabbi, par excellence, from whom one absorbs the main influence there [and I myself too, as a graduate of a yeshiva whose rabbis came out of Mercaz or are influenced by it, and who sees Rabbi Kook as one of my guiding teachers]. “The rabbi” in the sense of “the primary rabbi,” just as Rabbi Soloveitchik’s students call their teacher that, and devoted students of any rabbi will call their rabbi “the rabbi” without his name. This is not a phenomenon unique to the students of Rabbi A.Y. Kook and Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda.

** This is not the place to elaborate on the things said in the paragraphs of “The War.” I will only say very briefly that Rabbi Kook indeed did not glorify war [specifically the war in whose days these words were written—World War I], but rather wrote about the blessed effects that come out of wars after the fact. Usually this is indeed so after great and destructive wars—“sweet comes out of the strong”—and from the destruction and ruin, which we would gladly have been without, but after the fact a new and better path emerges from them. This happened after the great destruction of the American Civil War [abolition of slavery and strengthening the status of the United States as one country without even a plausible thought of split], and all the more so after World War II with all its horrors—the great destruction and great shock from what happened also led to a great process of repair: the successful struggles for human rights, the turning of racism into an illegitimate outlook, the conventions against the use of nuclear bombs, the establishment of the UN, the transformation of militaristic states like Germany and Japan into peace-seeking states, and more and more [on the Jewish side—the establishment of the State of Israel as a result of the world’s shock at the Holocaust].

Amir (2017-07-11)

And indeed, those chapters are not really called “Lights of War”; rather, they are chapters from the book Orot under the heading “The War,” and they are called “Lights of War” like most of the chapters from the first part of the book Orot, such as “Lights of the Land of Israel” and the like, because they are taken from the book Orot.

Michi (2017-07-11)

I referred you to the comments above. Among other things, people noted that.

Amir (2017-07-11)

Right, and I simply elaborated a little on the basic idea of the chapters “The War,” which can be misleading and cause one to think that they are about glorifying war ab initio [especially the first paragraph], but that is not the case; rather they are about appreciating the good that comes as a result of wars after the fact.

And the Beginning of Understanding the Importance (to moishbb, continued) (2017-07-12)

It is worth noting that there is a common thread in Rabbi M.A.’s attacks. The goal is destabilization. Slaughtering every “sacred cow” regarded by many in the believing public, and ridiculing it in order to bring the reader to the required conclusion: the cow should be slaughtered and cast, with its hide, flesh, and dung, outside the camp 🙂

Before one deals specifically with each and every argument—some of which are genuine criticism that requires clarification and sometimes also correction—there must be an understanding and recognition of the high value of that very “cow,” which the Torah did not sanctify for nothing. And that is the primary point of my comments.

Afterward, if necessary, there is room for a specific discussion, placing the value or current under discussion in its proper place in the world of Judaism, and in what and how it requires completion. That is the rule, and the rest is commentary. Go and learn.

Regards,
Shimson ben Shmuel Tzvi Roth, my uncle of blessed memory, who dealt in healing cows and not slaughtering them 🙂

Yakir Tchernin from Alon Moreh. (2017-07-12)

1. In the article, in the preliminary notes, you wrote that Har Hamor is not your field of expertise, and also “not the other side of the equation, sects.” That is actually one of the more respectable parts of the article. Even Rashi knew how to say, “I do not know.”
This is demagoguery. It is just like someone trying to say that “The Jewish Home is Hamas, just without terror.” Of course that is only in a “certain sense.” You speak about inability to accept other opinions—is that not a characteristic of every ideological group with a backbone? I do not expect some old Hashomer Hatzair member to fall on his face if I present him with such-and-such proofs of the truth of Torah. Does that make him a member of a sect?
Indeed, they are very extreme in this approach, as in the ridiculous farce they created in the “Yachad” party and sank the already leaking fishing boat. Still—that isn’t really sectarian.
You gave dark descriptions of the demonization they do of other views—isn’t that exactly what you yourself are doing in the article?
Indeed, what a surprise! Rabbis who lead a certain ideological line want to prepare their students to cope with problems and questions liable to shake the educational line they are following.
You accuse them of conspiratorial thinking, while you yourself suffer from conspiratorial thinking toward them. Expressions like “the military arm,” or the assumption that you know better than they do why they prefer to avoid the internet.
2. Because you spoke of inability to accept other opinions as a characteristic of a sect. But that is a trait you will find in every group.
3. With so much sarcasm and low-level writing style, it is hard to notice the substance. I assume that if you had written this as a Facebook status you would have gotten so-and-so many likes. In the introduction you also claim that you are not writing sarcastically or with exaggeration.
But if you want to write an article that will truly cause people to think, it would be appropriate to write in a way that respects both you and the readers.
Sarcasm is a good technique mainly for protecting yourself from criticism… Besides that… I do not see much value in the trait of sarcasm.
4. Again, I am only trying to say that any group with an agenda can be tagged as a sect if you want.
5. They frighten me because it seems they have replaced God with the state. And from personal acquaintance, I am pretty sure they would not hesitate to shoot me if the order were given, even if on the personal level they are my friends, etc. But that is not relevant, because it is my subjective feeling.
What frightens me is this ability to erase everything in the heart, and even in the mind, in favor of what seem to me to be distorted values.
But that is my problem.

Michi (2017-07-12)

Regarding most of what you wrote here, I am truly baffled. It is a collection of slogans, simple misunderstandings verging on outright nonsense. When I read these things I feel as though I am being asked to explain why Noah’s dove is not triangular or why the Atlantic Ocean is not kind-hearted. Some of your words are not claims at all but collections of claim-like words, as if generated by a random sentence generator. I think (and hope) that I am certainly willing to accept criticism, but not every collection of words is criticism. Criticism is supposed to consist of arguments (= premises from which a conclusion follows) and claims (= meaningful sentences that assert something). I found almost none of those in your words.
Just don’t make a mistake—my words do not at all stem from offense. I am trying to express a feeling of helplessness (because I do not manage to see what I am supposed to respond to here). So just to demonstrate on the edge of a spoonful:

A. Have you never dealt with something that was not your field of expertise? What does my statement that this is not my field of expertise have to do with the claim, which for some reason you put in my mouth, that I don’t know what a sect is? Do you think those two claims are identical?
B. Do you think that in order to say such things I have to be a scholar of sects? Apparently yes. But that raises for me the question whether, when you wrote your words, you relied on deep study and expertise in matters of sects. Saying that something is not a sect requires expertise just as much as saying that it is a sect. That is simple logic (for if you know what is not a sect, the complementary set is what is a sect). May the God of logic resolve this.
C. The comparison you made in the first paragraph is simply absurd. You claim my preface is demagogic, and it is evident that you simply do not understand the term (it appears in every dictionary. Worth consulting). This is a simple, clear, and entirely substantive statement that I am not an expert in sects or in Har Hamor. What is demagogic here? And moreover, I really did not understand how you managed to connect it to the statement about the Jewish Home and Hamas. And again, you repeated here the same mistake as in section A: what connection did you find between “not my field of expertise” and “I don’t know”? What has the sabbatical year to do with Mount Sinai?
D. You did not explain what conspiratorial thinking you found in me (which is exactly like theirs). This is an unfounded and baseless accusation.
E. You also claimed that their closure and fear of other opinions is no different from every ideological group. For some reason you ignored your own very remark, since even if there is such fear in every ideological group, when it reaches pathological levels it can become a sectarian characteristic. The question is one of intensity and kind and dosage (and other things I mentioned). Therefore your comparison is meaningless.
F. What do you expect me to say about someone who claims something like this: they are not a sect at all but merely people with a different opinion, but they have replaced God with the state, and may shoot you if they receive an order to do so, and therefore I am afraid to serve with them in the army. Ah, and then adds: but this is not relevant, because it is my subjective feeling. ???

Well, it seems to me I have explained enough to make clear why I will stop here. I felt that the sharpness of my words required some explanation. All the best and much sacred contentment to you, sir.

Y.D. (2017-07-12)

I would note that they have a sect-like characteristic in that they are suspicious of everyone who is not from their own camp.

This is connected to their theological approach, which claims that the process of redemption must from now on proceed through the general institutions of the state and not through a bottom-up, subversive action, as happened in the Jewish underground. Since Zionism came from the bottom up, as the poet said, “Suddenly a man gets up in the morning and feels that he is a people and begins to walk,” therefore everyone who is in a Religious-Zionist consciousness is suspect until proven otherwise.

moishbb (2017-07-12)

Then by all means, pick up the gauntlet.
Prove the lofty value of the cow.
A collection of quotations
or the expression of a bland opinion
do not add any value-weight to it.
Maybe just unnecessary volume.
Meanwhile, the only discussion in which you responded substantively was regarding God’s intervention in creation.
P.S. The argument I raised is a principled one and not specifically related to the substance of the discussion about Rabbi Tau, whose doctrine and community I know only very little about (and what I do know has not added merit points for him or his community in my eyes). It is not enough for me to form an independent opinion one way or the other.

And In Short (to moishbb) (2017-07-12)

BS”D 18 Tammuz 5777

I will briefly repeat the main points:

Rabbi M.A.’s argument is essentially only one thing: a community that has a spiritual leader who guides its way is a “sect.”

This argument is fundamentally absurd. The Torah is built on “make for yourself a rabbi,” and one of the ways of acquiring it is “serving sages.” This is the exact opposite of the conduct of a “sect,” for in Israel a rabbi stands and explains his words in his books and lessons and answers his students’ questions, and naturally students ask and challenge from every possible direction.

When a rabbi teaches for decades, he merits to produce hundreds and thousands of students, each of whom in turn produces hundreds and thousands of students—and thus a rabbi merits thousands and tens of thousands of direct and indirect students, who benefit from his wisdom and counsel in greater or lesser measure. When a rabbi raises students continuously for 40–50 years, he finds himself in old age teaching the many, his words being heard far beyond his narrow circle.

All the more so when a rabbi whose path is founded on “statism,” which demands connection and cooperation in the building and defense of the land with all parts of the people and with its representative political leadership, and on “the statehood of Torah in Israel,” which requires discipline to the decisions of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, representing a broad consensus and a significant part of the Torah world in its shades, Sephardim and Ashkenazim, Haredim and Zionists—could those who advocate statism possibly be a “sect,” God forbid?

Unfortunately, Rabbi M.A. rushed, and instead of dedicating his talents and knowledge to developing ideas and innovations that would strengthen Torah and be accepted in the study hall—he imagines he will attain “kingship” through demolition and mockery. A pity. I can only suggest to him and those who seek his welfare that they should direct their prayer when saying, “And on the elders of Your people Israel and on the remnant of their scribes, and place our portion with them, and let us not be ashamed…”

Regards,
S.Z. Levinger

And a Note (to moishbb) (2017-07-12)

If you accept that God intervenes in the world and influences us with His goodness and kindness—then it is fitting that we acknowledge His goodness and thank Him for His kindness evening, morning, and noon, and ask that His kingship be revealed in the world. In that lies the essence of an answer to your questions about prayer.

Regards,
S.Z. Levinger

moishbb (2017-07-12)

Wise man, may his rock preserve him,
don’t put words in my mouth.
Unfortunately, Michi’s view on this matter seems more logical to me
(with one reservation regarding influence on the soul, where I think frequent intervention is possible).
And His non-intervention does not, in my eyes, contradict the need to give thanks for the wonderful creation He created and from which I benefit.
The question there was not about the need, but about the proper form.
The expression “His kingship be revealed” is not sufficiently clear to me.
And if He desires revelation, the door is open before Him,
and He has no need of me or those like me.

moishbb (2017-07-12)

By the way, I did not see in Rabbi Michi’s words any undermining of the concept of community and rabbi.
Rather, he was attacking the sense of self-nullification and exaggerated reverence that other publics feel toward the Kav people.
Which at times prevents discussion on the merits.
As I said, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about what happens there,
but I have enough indications
of the type of excessive self-nullification that exists in different communities within the Haredi public—for example the Lubavitch sect, Mendele of Vizhnitz’s Hasidim (blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever), and the like.
And the way these sects impose their opinions on the general public, (which fortunately caused Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach to come out against one of them and diminish its influence).
If that is what is under discussion, I can very much understand Rabbi M.A.’s point of view.

Correction moish bb (2017-07-12)

*in a similar phenomenon

Why Ask? (to moishbb) (2017-07-12)

BS”D 19 Tammuz 5777

To moishbb—hello,

You have asked a great question: why does a person need to ask for his needs and for the needs of the collective? הרי God knows what is needed and has no need of “reminders” from us, telling Him what to do and how to bestow.

In my humble opinion, the answer is that thirst is what brings about the feeling of satisfaction when the need is filled. When everything comes easily and without toil, one receives the good with indifference and equanimity, taking it for granted. By contrast, when things come with difficulty and after delays, through countless exertions and prayers—then we know how to appreciate what we have received and to give thanks for it.

So it is between man and God, and so it is between man and his fellow. The more a person experiences the difficulty of loneliness, the more he will appreciate his spouse, who grants him blessing and wholeness; the more raising and educating children involves struggles and challenges, the greater the contentment when matters stabilize on the “king’s highway.” And the more entangled the questions and dilemmas, the greater the appreciation for the “teacher for life” who, through his listening and wisdom, opened and illuminated our eyes.

The greater the sense of lack, the greater the joy at its fulfillment. Not for nothing does the prayer begin with request and end with thanksgiving!

Regards,
S.Z. Levinger

Statism—as Connecting the Line and the Present (Summary) (2017-07-14)

BS”D, ערב שבת קודש, “My covenant of peace,” 5777

Whoever has a “line” seeks to lead the individual, the people, and humanity toward a goal that will be better and loftier than what exists “now.” He sees himself as a pioneering force before the camp, striving to bring even those who doubt him into his vision.

But in order for a vision to succeed and produce lasting results, one must proceed “little by little,” not burn bridges and not break walls. Not abandon long-range vision because of the difficulties, but also not detach from the reality of the space, the here and now. To pay close attention that “we are with the people” and to bear the burden together with our fellows.

A great vision must be broken down into small steps, and then it will pass the “test of implementation.” It is not upon us to finish the work, but neither are we free to desist from it. Command will join command, line will join line, a little here will join a little there, in the hope that the world we leave behind us will remain a bit better and more beautiful, and thus take another step toward its complete elevation.

The zeal of Pinchas and Elijah, who rise up against an unworthy reality, is transformed into the work of turning the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers.

With blessings for a peaceful Sabbath,
S.Z. Levinger

Baalbe’amav (2017-08-24)

And this week they outdid themselves.

Michi (2017-08-24)

Ofek (2017-09-24)

“The pure righteous do not complain about wickedness; they increase justice. They do not complain about heresy; they increase faith. They do not complain about ignorance; they increase wisdom.” (Arpelei Tohar, p. 39)

Moishbb (2017-09-24)

On Purified Souls Street…

Michi (2017-09-24)

Tell that to Rabbi Tau and his friends. It seems to me they haven’t heard of this passage from Rabbi Kook.

David (2017-09-25)

I agree with a large part of what the rabbi writes here,
but in my view there are many paths to serving God. There are, for example, entire publics that give up almost everything מתוך an understanding that serving God and fulfilling the commandments is the most important thing and worth every sacrifice. One can analyze the situation this way: from the moment a person chooses a certain path and feels obliged to devote himself entirely to that path, it is better for him spiritually to abandon other paths and “try to understand” additional approaches, and thereby he fulfills true closeness to God as far as he is concerned (not all of us are “great philosophers”; if today I understand what is incumbent on me as a Jew in a certain way, and I see exposure to opposing methods as things that can completely threaten my whole spiritual edifice, then there is no choice. “Not at any price.”).
Clearly this involves grave dangers of disconnection from the people (the Haredim) or of vilification and negative presentation of the spokesmen of other approaches (the hardalim). But since we are not dealing here with philosophical theories but with things on which Judaism insists—or in any case, for those people who are connected to Torah and mitzvot specifically in the way described above—then what must be done is to try to fight the attendant phenomena by calling to respect all publics and opinions even if they oppose you. Don’t impose postmodernism!
So if you had directed your article against this phenomenon specifically, there would have been room for a good and useful discussion (if only such discussions were held in our Haredi public). But when one takes an entire public, with its rabbis and educators, and puts it outside the discussion altogether, as if there were not one positive thing in the Torah it studies and in the messages by which it is educated, in my opinion this is a much graver danger—to society as a whole in general and to the commandment-observant within it in particular.
And please forgive me in advance for my next words, but I see this problem on other sides of your doctrine as well (of a negative message that includes mockery and contempt, even if unintended, toward other opinions). Thus, for example, if you believe that the Holy One does not intervene in the world, you can create a message that calls for serving God free of talk about reward and punishment in this world. You do not need to make a mockery of the approach on which most faithful Judaism is founded, and turn people who pray to God because they believe their prayer will help here in this world into complete fools and idiots (as in that article about the month of Elul and hysteria).
If you hold that traditional halakhah cannot govern the institutions of the state, you can propose different ideas for somehow trying to find halakhic permission for non-compliance with the laws of the Torah when the needs of the many and the repair of society so require (in this matter, the article on “Modern Orthodoxy, ‘Winks,’ and Meta-Considerations” indeed has wonderful potential to provide an answer to the issue), but you do not need to quote the halakhic view of important rabbis (important, at any rate, to many in the public) on the issue of state witnesses, and mock them in a humiliating way so that someone who does not know their names would think they are complete ignoramuses who do not know the shape of halakhah at all.
The picture that emerges from many posts on this site is a very negative one of battering and complete contempt for the opinions opposed to yours. A lot of prominent “no.” Of course there is also a lot of “yes,” but that you seem not to like highlighting. Beyond the problematic nature of contempt for the sages of Israel and for simple people who serve God innocently, I think that even if you have a positive, orderly doctrine on the question of what the path ascending to the house of God is, the negative style makes it very hard for someone trying (I too!) to find it and shape it. In that sense it seems you are missing the goal, and that is a shame. An orderly approach does not mean creating a “sect”! One can convey messages about what is more important, what is right and proper, and yes—also what is totally wrong in your opinion. But there is no need to mix in rabbis, publics, and ordinary people in a political and divisive way.

Michi (2017-09-25)

Hello David.
It seems to me there are quite a few misunderstandings in your words.
1. Everyone may decide for himself what degree of openness seems proper to him. I too have decided on mine. In itself, ignoring arguments because I already have a position strikes me as an illogical approach (for that is precisely what the arguments challenge. Maybe your position is wrong?), but that is a side issue.
2. I am as far from postmodernity as east is from west. I have written dozens and hundreds of articles and books and essays against it. There is nothing of it whatsoever in my words. This is a total misunderstanding. I have no problem whatsoever with someone who has a position and thinks others are wrong. I too am like that. The relevant question is how you relate to others (not morally but philosophically) and how certain you are of your position (especially in comparison to how reasonable and well-founded it really is). And I have already explained several times that doubt and uncertainty are not postmodernism (but rather a necessary human weakness), contrary to many people’s mistake.
3. I did not put any public outside the pale, if only because for me there is no pale. I criticized approaches and arguments, admittedly with sarcasm, but criticism that is entirely substantive.
4. I do not recall even one place where I argued that someone who thinks God is involved in the world is a fool. What I argued is that there are many who are not honest, because they themselves do not believe this and do not act that way. I criticized the sloganizing and lack of honesty with sarcasm, not the holding of the approach itself (though indeed I do not agree with it, at least not in its sweeping form).
5. The rabbis earned the mockery of their attitude to the issue of state witnesses honestly. And regarding that our sages said: if fools did not lead.
6. An orderly approach is indeed not necessarily a sect (especially since I myself also try to formulate one). On the other hand, not everyone who has an orderly approach is not a sect (hint: among other things, it depends on how you relate to your orderly approach and to other approaches). And as our sages have already said: even if people are after you, it doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.

In general, contrary to your feeling, I do not usually mock opinions different from my own, but rather nonsense and dishonest behavior. With different opinions I argue and disagree, sometimes with sarcasm and irony (see the clarifications of my method in the link “Clarifications and Basic Assumptions” on the site’s opening page).

David (2017-09-25)

Okay, it may be that the term postmodernity (which, because of your well-known sensitivity, I inserted in order to annoy you…) is not really relevant.
The point is that you characterized an entire public here. You took a group of people who consciously chose a certain way of life and presented them as a sect.
A way of life is not a philosophy, and it need not stand up to the strict ethical test examining whether all its characteristics fit well with the philosophical/faith-based approach on which it is founded, especially as long as according to those who hold it, it leads them there.
What you did here was simply to mock their service of God.
As for what I wrote about contempt for opinions different from yours, apparently I went too far and I apologize for that. You do not show contempt for every opinion different from yours, but sometimes when you do so, the impression is created that it is not always only to the point; sometimes it is also directed at the person.

Michi (2017-09-25)

I must say that I do not really manage to understand your bizarre line of argument.
“A group of people who consciously chose a certain path” is a very general description that characterizes almost every sect (as well as groups that are not sects). They also wear trousers and glasses, have two legs, and I assume most of them even eat breakfast and have families. All these characterize sects and non-sectarian groups alike. In fact, they characterize people in general. So what did you want to say with this vacuous sentence?
If you want to discuss my claims and argue against me that this is not a sect, it is not enough to say that I criticize them sarcastically, mock their service of God, or other empty expressions, and certainly not to claim that they consciously adopt some path or other (what does that sentence even mean?…). In order to defend the position that this is not a sect, you need to address the claims I raised. I know it is easier to make do with abstract generalities that say nothing (except trying to annoy me 🙂), and this in the framework of your claims against my method of discussion, but I raised very concrete claims and showed distinct sectarian characteristics of this sect.
And one final note. I expect that if you wish to discuss, you should read what I write to you in response to your words. I explained that I do indeed mock people and not only argue against opinions, and I even wrote when I do so and when I do not. “All mockery is forbidden except mockery of idolatry” (see its meaning at the beginning of Pachad Yitzhak on Purim).

David (2017-09-25)

I read everything.
Indeed it is the stylistic issue that troubles me more.
I wanted to argue that there is nothing wrong with a group of people choosing to live in a certain way; from a Jewish point of view that makes them better, does it not? (“Make for yourself a rabbi” and the like.)
They will not necessarily be able to defend themselves against the defamation that they are a sect, and that was not my own goal. I too completely do not connect to this type of people, and of course not to the approach common in most of the Haredi public to which I belong. But I fully understand them.
There is no doubt that traditional Judaism itself would not necessarily be able to defend itself against a philosophical attack claiming that it is a sect, as you yourself wrote.
People see what their religious faith demands of them as more important than such-and-such philosophical considerations. Take for example the custom to be stringent during the Ten Days of Repentance not to eat pat akum; this contains an essential lack of honesty and self-deception, and yet you will not be able to disparage observant Jews who are careful about it, because observance of halakhah and the feeling of the High Holy Days are more essential to them.
My intent in all this is that people consider the consideration of the “ultimate goal” more important than anything else.
I am not defending them on the philosophical plane but on the religious plane (you may be surprised to hear that for most people this is not the same thing).
P.S. I know very well that I have allowed myself here to assume a few naïve assumptions touching on the question of how much it bothers you that your attacks on a certain public may be interpreted as an attack on faith itself in the eyes of certain people—I know Maimonides did this too, but he also toiled greatly on the positive plane to present a clear outlook on the proper faith. That is why I wrote that the stylistic issue troubles me here.

Michi (2017-09-25)

Well, if so, I really don’t understand what is going on here and what the discussion is about. But this is the place to stop. May you be sealed for good.
(By the way, there is no hypocrisy at all in the matter of pat akum during the Ten Days of Repentance. Not even a trace.)

Y.Z. (2017-10-03)

Hello,
Unlike most of what you write, which is thought-provoking and substantive, here it seems that the author does not know the phenomenon (I don’t know how correct it is to call it a phenomenon). It seems the rabbi is nourished by the media and not by real familiarity sufficient for a critical article. The heights bear witness that I am not one of the Kav’s followers, and I too am not averse to criticizing them, but here it seems exaggerated. I would be glad to know how many times the rabbi has set foot in the study hall of Har Hamor Yeshiva, with how many “Kav rabbis” he has exchanged a word or two, and how many times he has opened and read Rabbi Tau’s pamphlets.
As for the scope, I think the scope is much greater than the rabbi describes. Most of the major yeshivot in the Religious-Zionist public are Kav yeshivot, and there is no need to elaborate regarding the other institutions and the people in key positions (both public and educational).
As for Talmudic and halakhic lomdus, I definitely think the Kav yeshivot have something to offer (although most of the Kav “superstars” are completely overrated, in my humble opinion, and that is enough said). Rabbi Tau, aside from the fact that he is (I assume you will disagree with me [and many others, not necessarily only Kavniks], therefore I add “in my humble opinion”) one of the greatest and most influential Jewish thinkers of our time, is no small Talmudic scholar (I heard testimony that when he gave Gemara lessons at Mercaz, the lessons could sometimes last even six hours). The brothers Rabbi Moti and Rabbi Ami Sternberg are also scholars.
I think the article is shallow and does not meet the standard you set for yourself in your other articles.

Y.D. (2017-10-03)

To Y.Z.,
This does not negate the fact that their social structure (sociological, in foreign parlance) is sectarian, if only in the sense that they do not trust anyone unless he has proved that he understands their whole theological structure or has nullified his own opinion completely. I wonder whether they can tolerate disagreement within themselves (Rabbi Eli Sadan in the last elections was a clear example of this), yet outside themselves they respect no one (Rabbi Avraham Shapira proves it).
This is not to detract from the achievements they have made, but I admit that with all my criticism of the current Chief of Staff I am quite pleased with his move to lower the age for officer training, which in practice filtered out all the career officers who were graduates of Har Hamor. This does not filter out graduates of Eli such as Ofer Winter, but most Eli graduates are not steeped in the Kav approach at a level that would be threatening, and Ofer Winter himself is an odd bird and I find it hard to believe he would accept any authority (see the army’s troubles in dealing with him). Better that sectarian people of this type not gain access to key military positions and the like.

Eilon (2017-10-04)

To Y.Z.,
You are mistaken. The rabbi wrote a long article in order to explain his view. He may be mistaken, but the article is not shallow. I too do not know the people of Har Hamor, but I have read articles by them and even parts of Rabbi Tau’s booklet about the teacher-training institutes. Without getting into the contents of the booklet themselves (to which there is actually much to answer), I must say that the language (and language creates and determines thought, especially on this issue) is childish. He sounds (and not merely “sounds”) like an ordinary Haredi who is frightened by everything he does not know. I know the Haredi form of (non-)thinking very well, and I also studied at the Gush and a little at Machon, and even by Haredi standards the things he writes are not from the same world at all. And this needs a bit of elaboration:

For many people from Rabbi Michael’s world and also from the Gush, the language of Rabbi Kook’s doctrine is foreign (not that they don’t understand it, but the overly exalted language itself is unbearable to them). Not to me. And with all that, although it is clear to me that Har Hamor’s language derives from Rabbi Kook’s own language, and although I understand very well (and even accept) the “doctrine of statism,” Har Hamor are not what they pretend to be. They are in fact Haredi Hasidim of Rabbi Kook’s Hasidism. They are not really statist. Intellectually, Religious Zionism really deals not with the Land of Israel but with the secular world (external reality—science above all, but also technology and politics and the army). Its concern is with the importance of the secular (though among other things the Land of Israel occupies a special place in relation to this, as is known among the kabbalists). And Haredism itself deals with holiness detached from the secular (“Torah without worldly involvement,” and in fact also somewhat without understanding—“Torah without understanding,” and therefore also the Torah of exile). No matter how many articles Rabbi Kook writes about sanctifying the secular and the Holy of Holies, etc., he still wasn’t there. (Though since he aspired toward there—those are genuine articles.) Rabbi Kook did not know physics or mathematics, and despite his greatness (and he was the greatest of the rabbis in recent generations, and in terms of his world of thought he was in an entirely different league from theirs), I doubt whether he even had a desire to learn them. He was not whole. He was partial. And that wasn’t his fault—it was the world in which he grew up and the atmosphere into which he grew up, with all its advantages and disadvantages. And indeed he expanded far beyond its narrow boundaries, but not to the end. He was not the messiah. And the shortcomings in him, which were tiny in his period, have grown to enormous proportions and are now manifest in full force among his students. In practice, in their mentality they are Haredi people with knitted kippot, and even the way their Torah is formulated is in a Haredi-Hasidic language with all its limitations. Even their going to the army is a sort of Hasidic thing, as every Hasidic group has its own thing. The fact that the number of students in their yeshivot is large (I have no idea whether this is true or not) neither adds nor detracts. A person who lacks a critical faculty (reflection on external reality) is like a goat. So you have a lot of yeshivot full of goats. And the matter has nothing to do either with the language opposite the Haredi one—the academic language, which in itself is also narrow and leads to its own constrictions of mind. (Though still less than the Haredi constriction of mind.)

It is important to note that language here is critical. A truly statist person (I do not know if such a one exists) would have a language that unifies (not mixes or combines!) the two languages. A person who speaks Haredi about statism is not statist. He is Haredi. I am also speaking, among other things, about Har Hamor’s obsession (somewhat following Rabbi Kook) with pushing the word “holy” into every place. Even if indeed holiness is everywhere (and it indeed is), one can really feel these people’s primeval fear lest perhaps it isn’t so (that I actually understand, but still, when fear rules—that is childishness). Lest perhaps the ground collapse beneath their feet. It seems as though they have no ability whatsoever to be objective about reality itself, and even about its externality as such (even though there is an inner dimension). I too want true unity among the parts of my world. But the Haredi mentality—even if it speaks in favor of the secular—is still afraid of it. The secular constantly needs to receive grades obsessively from the holy. It is allowed, for a moment, to have an existence of its own. A truly statist person (in the deeper sense of the word and not only the political one) lives these two worlds calmly and waits for the union between them to which he will have no name. Har Hamor people are not like that. The sociological result of this is ultimately this article.

In Short: (2017-10-04)

When they speak in the elevated style of Rabbi Kook, they are a “closed sect”; when they speak in simple Hebrew, they are “childish” and “Haredi” 🙂

And Rabbi Shlomo Yisraeli of blessed memory already said: If only a person would examine himself the way he examines the etrog…

With the blessing “Festivals for joy,”
S.Z. Levinger

Eilon (2017-10-04)

Being closed (not a sect) is not a problem. The problem is being childish. There is no problem with Rabbi Kook (except that there was a bit in him too of that childish Harediness..)

Eilon (2017-10-05)

To S.Z.,

By the way, it seems you did not understand my first comment. There are not two “when they speak” here. Har Hamor have one language and one set of things. There is no simple Hebrew and elevated language here. The language they speak is simple Haredi language (not Hebrew for the simple masses. This is also the language they speak among themselves). It’s just that when they speak about the “ideology” (the “hashkafah”), the concepts they use, which are from Rabbi Kook’s doctrine (the elevated language), are in his wording. Listen to a Chabad Hasid speak and it will sound the same to you, only with concepts from the Tanya. By the way, many times this indicates that the person does not understand what he is talking about. One of the clearest signs of understanding is an independent language—that is, the ability to translate the elevated language into simple words for oneself (as with elevated—professional—terms in academia). If the concepts cannot be translated because they point to essences from higher worlds (and not from our world—that is, fundamental concepts), and understanding there means literally seeing the essence with one’s eyes, then understanding is expressed either in a new word the person invents for himself (parallel to the concept he read in the book) or alternatively in creating a parable from our world that will give a sort of analogous example of that essence (here I would need to demonstrate what I mean, but I no longer have the energy). It would be arrogant of me to claim that the rabbis of Har Hamor do not know what they are talking about, but I can gently suppose that most of the students indeed do not. But again, the criticism is not of the “doctrine of statism” but of the Haredi mentality in disguise (or perhaps not in disguise—I don’t know. But it is known that at Har Hamor the word “Haredi” represents something bad. I myself heard a Har Hamor person accuse the outlooks of Gush Yeshiva [it is a bit complicated to speak of its outlooks when there are so many differing opinions there, but perhaps there is some general atmosphere] of being Haredi, and by that he meant—and in this I think he was right—their pragmatism and “political and religious realism”).

In my words about Rabbi Kook I of course mean the clear difference between Rabbi Kook’s Orot HaKodesh, which is not Haredi (that is, in terms of depth of soaring and thought—let us call it Rabbi Kook’s higher level), versus the Iggerot, in which his practical figure is revealed as somewhat Haredi. Someone once told me that Rabbi Kook was Haredi (because of his prohibition on women voting); I told him nothing was farther from the truth (following the hours I had spent with Orot HaKodesh). He was indeed mistaken from his point of view (when a person forbids something, that does not make him Haredi. One is allowed to think something is forbidden). But years later I was exposed to the letters and understood that indeed, in his practical garb Rabbi Kook really was somewhat (or not somewhat) Haredi (again, I am speaking about a style of thought [and language, and behavior], not about the content of this or that ruling). But I do not know whether in his period it was possible not to be that way at all (that is, a person with a modern practical mind. But perhaps the rabbis of Torah im Derekh Eretz would be an example of this).

Finding the Connecting Ladder (to Eilon) (2017-10-09)

BS”D, the ushpiza of Joseph, 5778

To Eilon—hello,

In the last paragraph you raised the main question: whether the Rabbi A.Y. Kook of Orot HaKodesh and the Rabbi A.Y. Kook of the Iggerot are one and the same, or whether these are different worlds.

I tend to believe that just as Joseph “the dreamer” and Joseph “the provider for all the people of the land” are one and the same—so too Rabbi Kook’s thought is one: a ladder whose top is in an infinite spiritual world, but whose feet are set on the ground in the practical halakhic world. “Abraham was one.”

In my youth at “Mercaz HaRav” (30–40 years ago), I heard that they recommended beginning with Ikvei HaTzon, Mussar Avicha, Orot HaTorah, and Orot HaTeshuvah, and only afterward climbing the rungs of the ladder to Orot and Orot HaKodesh. Presumably that is how they conduct themselves in “Har Hamor” as well, for after all “it is the same team.”

Since you fulfilled “to begin by going over the top” 🙂 and started with Orot HaKodesh, I would recommend Rabbi Uri Sherki’s lessons on Orot HaKodesh, available on “Arutz Meir.” Rabbi Sherki is a Torah scholar with immense knowledge in philosophy and in the various schools of Kabbalah, and also a distinctly halakhic and educational person, who knows how to explain the deepest things in clear and pleasant language, with a touch of humor. Perhaps he is the “ladder” that will help you connect the level of the “lights” with the level of the “letters.”

Much success, and with blessings for joyful festivals,
S.Z. Levinger

Correction (2017-10-09)

Paragraph 4, line 1:
…and you started with Orot HaKodesh…

His Own Contradiction? (2018-04-19)

Here Rabbi M.A. offered the “Beit Hillel rabbis” his help in solving unresolved halakhic problems—whereas in column 136 Rabbi M.A. declares that he has no interest in joining rabbinic organizations, and this requires investigation.

Regards,
S.Z. Levinger

Michi (2018-04-20)

S.Z.L., contradictions belong to the realm of logic, not the realm of emotion or rhetoric. Could you explain to me what contradiction you saw here? I hereby commit that if you succeed, I will carry your tools after you to the bathhouse.

No Contradiction (2018-04-20)

You are willing to join as a leading savior and redeemer, not as an ordinary member.

Regards,
S.Z. Levinger

Michi (2018-04-20)

S.Z.L., let’s try again. Maybe next time will be better…

Disappointed Reader (2018-06-25)

Not sarcastic, just polemical. Not about the carcass-sect from New York, but about the seceders from Mercaz, about whom you wrote that you do not understand. Nor do I, not before and not after reading your list.

Ayal Ze’avi (2019-08-26)

It seems to me that all the characteristics the rabbi listed in the article with respect to Chabad and Har Hamor are also relevant to the Lithuanian public (and presumably to additional publics in religious society), and therefore I do not understand why דווקא Chabad and Har Hamor are perceived as a sect.

And by the way, regarding Chabad in particular, it is hard to say that this is a closed society that prevents its people from being in contact with the outside world. On the contrary, Chabad emissaries, as is well known, are found in every place in the world and literally devote themselves to drawing Jews (even those farthest from Torah and commandments) close to Judaism.
In short—I was not convinced.

The “Kat Rina, Maleh Ditzah” Sect—Enough Already! (2019-08-27)

And what is so bad about being a “sect”? The main thing is to be in joyous fellowship, and then there will be fulfilled in us: “Kat rina, maleh ditzah, padita, dai!” 🙂

You can find the popular Yiddish song that turned the Ukrainian song “Katerina Moloditsa Poydi Suda” into the prayer “Kat rina, maleh ditzah—padita, dai!” on the “Zemer Reshet” website, in performances by Binyamin Unger, Chagit Halperin, Nechama Lifshitz, and Maxim Levinsky.

Listen, and your soul shall live!

Regards,
Shimshon Hershele of Ostropol

Michi (2019-08-27)

By no means all the characteristics. And as for Chabad, anyone who knows them knows that they are very, very closed in on themselves.

Moshe Cohen (2019-09-19)

More on sects in the Religious-Zionist public
http://www.olam-katan.co.il/כתבות/item/5785-מבוטלים

Hillel Bangi (2019-10-08)

I study in a “Kav” yeshiva and there is no connection whatsoever between your definitions of sects and what goes on אצלנו (but maybe you are smarter than me and I’m imagining things because I’m stuck deep inside the “sect”). (And by the way, to spew out abuse and contempt about things rabbis say without addressing their arguments is a bit “sectarian,” don’t you think?) And one more interesting anecdote: I checked Shuv at Har Hamor not long ago, and the first two questions that guys there (relatively older students) asked me were whether I had checked at a Haredi yeshiva or at Mercaz HaRav, but that surely doesn’t interest you, honorable Rabbi Doctor, who surely knows the famous Gemara: “Anyone who mocks the words of the sages is judged in boiling excrement.” May you be sealed for good.

Noam (2019-10-23)

My recommendation is to read Oz Bluman’s illuminating work, “The Return to Metaphysics,” which addresses some of the phenomena you pointed out and explains the rationale behind them, rather than dealing in the grotesque presentation of them as the author here presents them. Obviously, after such a presentation, one can also slanderously claim that this is an “esoteric language.”
The work can be found at the following link: https://ozbluman.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/d794d7a9d799d791d794-d790d79c-d794d79ed798d7a4d799d796d799d7a7d794-d7a1d795d7a4d799.pdf
Though most of the phenomena you pointed out are falsehood and defamation.
I would be glad for a response after you have read the work.
Of course, even after reading it you will have criticism, but then there will be a real discussion here and not a confrontation with the “straw man” you sketched here.
True, not all the basic assumptions are summarized in the work, so I will note them too, because one cannot discuss without laying out the assumptions in advance.
In brief:
1. An organic conception of reality
2. The essence of God (who is not a “higher power,” but who is all and above all [panentheism])
3. Torah and Knesset Yisrael (the concept of repentance and perfection) as the soul of reality (or the “order of the world” in Maharal’s language, and not information or even merely a value system)
4. Anticipation of salvation as the central foundation on which Judaism rests.
5. The meaning and purpose of the commandments

Additional Words of R. O. Bluman on Rabbi Tau’s Method (2019-10-24)

BS”D, 25 Elul 5780

R. Oz Bluman tries to find the roots of Rabbi Tau’s method in Ramchal’s doctrine (in Ariel Horowitz’s interview with him, “Developing the Religiosity within a Person,” on the “Musaf Shabbat – Makor Rishon” site, in the chapter “To Go toward Holiness”). See my comments on his words there.

Regards,
S.Z. Levinger

hmje (2019-10-28)

Does the rabbi really want to say that he truly didn’t know that? After all, the rabbi earlier said he thinks, contrary to the rabbis of Har Hamor, that Rabbi Kook’s doctrine is not consistent. I think that someone who doesn’t know such basic things cannot make claims against dozens of rabbis who have studied Rabbi Kook’s doctrine for decades; it’s like my coming to Darwin and telling him, I feel your theory is wrong…

Michi (2019-10-28)

And let us say amen. In other words: QED (which was to be proven).

Peri (2020-03-24)

An incidental note:
Bamberger’s book False Messiahs and Their Opponents was written to include Chabad and not Herzl; see the introduction there.

Svejk (2020-05-08)

The comparison to the world of Harry Potter is especially apt. Whether it is mocking or not is irrelevant; anyone familiar with the series can identify the correspondences. But since we are already engaged with Harry Potter, the matter should be discussed. If, as the rabbi says, Har Hamor are the wizards and everyone else are Muggles, the question arises whether Har Hamor are Gryffindor or Slytherin (they certainly are not Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff; those houses have no potential for extremism). There is reason to say they are Slytherin; thus one can explain well the distinction in their attitude toward the rest of the believing public (mere Muggles) versus leftists (Mudbloods, even more inferior). But that is a marginal detail. Closer examination reveals that they are in fact Gryffindor. As the rabbi noted, there are many characteristics of a sect, but fundamentalism is the most basic, as expressed in maximal self-sacrifice and minimal variation with respect to the basic principles. Viewed broadly, Gryffindor fits this profile much better. Aside from Peter Pettigrew, they are all good, all do the right thing, and all are willing to sacrifice themselves for the homeland Hogwarts. No one defected to Voldemort’s side, no one betrayed anyone. They all think the same thing and believe in the same self-evident principles. In Slytherin, by contrast, we can find greater diversity, and not a few challenged the principles. Slytherin students even disavowed Voldemort and fought him in the final battle, under the leadership of Horace Slughorn. Who is like Severus Snape, who changed from one end to the other after having been a Death Eater? And even Draco Malfoy eventually wearied of the Slytherin path. Did anyone for a moment think Harry Potter or Dumbledore would change that way? No chance. They are one-dimensional characters, like every Gryffindor—or Har Hamor, in this context.

Now That We’ve Gotten This Far, Rabbi Soloveitchik Is There Too (2020-06-15)

And to Yozef [Svejk] it was said—

After you brought Har Hamor into Mount Potter, one must also say that Rabbi Soloveitchik is there too, namely “the Rav”—the greatest of giants 🙂

Regards,
S.Z. Rowling (anagrammed)

Yishai (2020-09-13)

Hello Rabbi,
The rabbi pretends to write seriously, but most of what was written was cheap demagoguery. You defined the concept of a sect by how you perceive the phenomenon of the Kav; of course the phenomenon will count as a sect according to your method. If you are really interested, there is on the website of the Israeli Center for Victims of Cults a criterion for defining a cult.
Besides that, what does the rabbi define as the Kav? Only graduates of Har Hamor Yeshiva? Or also students of graduates of Har Hamor Yeshiva? In the end, Har Hamor graduates number only a bit over 1,000 people.
And regarding the criticism itself against the phenomenon of the “Kav,” the rabbi presents it in a shallow and populist way. It is obvious that this is not one block in which everyone is the same, and there are different rabbis and different methods. It seems quite clear that the rabbi does not really know the people and the yeshivot. Precisely from you one expects to examine a group seriously (and of course without being afraid to criticize), respectfully, out of appreciation and not out of contempt.

Michi (2020-09-13)

This is the kind of demagogic apologetics I’m fond of. There is no doubt that every group of people is divided into various shades. And still, when discussing social phenomena one uses generalizations. And as a generalization about their ideology and their pattern of behavior, what I wrote is entirely correct.

Arik (2020-12-08)

As for the definition of the military arm: Har Hamor is the human seed, and the pre-military academies are the animal seed.

Michael Abraham (2022-01-04)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kipa.co.il/amp/1124383
If this is not a sect, I do not know what a sect is.

Yehoshua Benjo (2022-08-31)

Har Hamor is not exactly a sect. They are a powerful movement that does indeed cognitively dominate the minds of its believers, but not to the point of inability to criticize and leave, and there is no intentional physical or psychological exploitation there, God forbid. They are more like “a sect unaware of its own sectarianism,” borrowing from Dr. Avichai. As a group they are narcissistic and egocentric (similar to many extreme groups). The story of the Noam party, and especially what is going on with them these days, is a good example: they established a movement whose entire purpose, according to their own view, was Jewish education and fighting progressivism; de facto, at their peak they amount to up to 10,000 people aged 18 and above. A nice number, but worth one-third of a first Knesset seat. If they were pragmatic and modest, they could have registered with Religious Zionism and taken over—or at least become the leading force there—and everything would have been democratic and legal. But no: pride doesn’t allow it, because they are special “in the way of holiness,” and they won’t join a mixed party or one that includes Temple Mount activists. So instead they demand a reserved slot. And what nerve the rest of the knitted-kippah public has—not understanding the magnitude of the hour and the issue. They will radiate to the nation and the globe the eternal truth (egocentrism), and demand a reserved slot without dirtying themselves in the democratic game like everyone else (narcissism). In any case there is no ability to enter another’s head and try at least to understand him, and in certain decisions to compromise with him. I attach an opinion piece reflecting the whole matter from these very days: https://www.inn.co.il/news/575780

“Sect” or “the Reactor Core”? (2022-08-31)

BS”D 4 Elul 5782

To Y.B.—hello,

In my comment above, “The Sect of Statism?,” I showed that Har Hamor’s concept of “statism” is the very opposite of a sect, both on the political level, which obligates caution not to rebel against the government representing the majority of the people, and an obligation to pay attention to whether indeed “the people are with us.”

And also in loyalty to the “Council of the Chief Rabbinate,” which expresses “the statehood of Torah in Israel,” inasmuch as it is elected by a broad electoral body in which most streams of Torah Judaism are represented, along with diverse representation of the public as a whole—its cities and villages and its different streams, religious and Haredi, traditional and “secular.”

Precisely connection to the whole people and all its shades requires that there be a “vanguard group” that expresses clearly and firmly positions that the discourse of political correctness increasingly excludes from the public sphere. Rabbi Tau chose to be the one who says the things that nowadays it is forbidden to say.

Naturally, a standard national-religious party must make “deals” and painful compromises, emphasize topics on which broader cooperation can be achieved. That is perfectly fine, so long as there is also public expression for the voice that sounds “extreme,” “strange,” and “irrelevant.” Perhaps it would have been better to call the party that chose to voice the “not nice” voice דווקא by the name “Sailors” 🙂

Regards,
Ami’oz Yaron Schnitzler

This complexity already existed in Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda’s attitude toward Rabbi Kahane. On the one hand, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda issued a call to vote for the National Religious Party, and on the other hand he wrote that Rabbi Kahane should be allowed to voice his words from the Knesset podium.

It is worth noting that unlike Ben Gvir, who is in a certain measure Rabbi Kahane’s continuator and who was willing to run separately and waste right-wing mandates—Noam withdrew from the race in the Knesset before the current one two weeks before the elections, when it became finally clear that they had no chance of getting in.

The advantage of a party that runs and withdraws at the last moment is also that in election propaganda one can present things that deviate from political correctness. A municipality cannot take down an election ad that claims, God forbid, that “a family is a father and a mother.”

For the sake of full disclosure, I am not connected to Noam. I aspire to join Hadar Muchtar and establish with her the party “Burning Youth and Settled Grandfathers.” If there are developments—you will already be updated in the media.

Yehoshua Benjo (2022-08-31)

The fact that they insist strongly on certain things even if they are “statist” does not disqualify them from being a sect. It’s unrelated. As for Rabbi Tau—vanguard, center-back, defender—that is already your own interpretation.
All I claimed, and it is reflected nicely in the example I brought and the article above, is that they are narcissistic—convinced that all truth is with them—and egocentric: they are “the reactor core” from which everyone feeds, and too bad “the people of Israel” still don’t understand this. By the way, I do not dismiss their strengths; if only all knitted-kippah people invested as much as they do in the time and quality of Talmud study.

There Was Recently a ‘Revolt’ in Har Hamor (2022-08-31)

A good sign for a yeshiva is that among its students and rabbis there can be stormy arguments. Only a few months ago the yeshiva was stormed by a sharp internal dispute between the yeshiva’s president, Rabbi Tau, and the head of the yeshiva, Rabbi Amiel Sternberg, on the issue of Chaim Walder. (See the column on the matter on this very site.)

A stormy argument is a fine sign of a gathering of “burning youth,” so long as it is “crowned with splendor,” with respect for one’s opponents in dispute, and especially for one who is “greater than him in wisdom and number,” and does not degenerate into contempt and hatred. About Rabbi Shach it was related that when he began the general lecture and the students did not attack him with difficulties, he asked them: “What is this—a cemetery?”

I heard that in the beit va’ad in Otniel it is customary that in every lesson there are two ramim whose arguments between them stir the students to “use their heads.” One could define this as a “multi-line yeshiva,” the necessary entrance condition for “Egged” 🙂

With blessings for a balanced combination of “storm” and “ShaSha,”
Chasdai Bezalel Duvdevani Kirshen-Kwas

This Depends on That (2022-08-31)

A person’s feeling that he has some unique message without which the world will not get by is what drives great actions. When a person comes with an aspiration “to change the world,” there is a chance he will at least move something. Of course there must be a proper combination of “If I am here—everything is here” and “If I am only for myself—what am I”…

Regards,
Hillel Feiner-Gluskinos

← Column 18ContentsColumn 20 →

Why the essay insists on using the term cult

Why cults thrive out of abundance and not only out of distress

Fundamentalism is the core, and everything else follows from it

A supreme leader, a selective canon, and exclusive interpretation

Sealing off from the outside, the Internet as a threat, and discussion that is not really discussion

Excuses, esoteric language, and a theory that overrules the facts

Total seriousness, a conspiratorial gaze, and redemptive megalomania

The line as an organizational structure: core, satellites, and emissaries

Why devotion, sincerity, and personal quality are not a refutation

Even when they are partly right, the problem is the cultic frame

Why not every religious faith is sectarian

The public conclusion: do not seek their recognition, shake off the automatic deference

Discussion

שתף

Leave a ReplyCancel reply