Q&A: Haredi Conduct During the Coronavirus Period
Haredi Conduct During the Coronavirus Period
Question
Good morning.
I read the interview conducted with you in Makor Rishon, in which your remarks were brought regarding the behavior of the Haredi public in the midst of the spread of the coronavirus. You said that you understand how behavior of this sort brought about antisemitism in the past. Without getting into the substance of the argument, I want to address the current situation as it is today. Now, after the first wave has passed, and perhaps we are at the beginning of another wave of illness (according to some experts), there are Health Ministry directives meant to reduce the rate of the virus’s spread as much as possible. The secular public, for the overwhelming most part (I work in central cities in the country, and if one can judge by what I see with my own eyes and by media reports), does not follow the directives—that is, does not wear a mask and does not keep distance from one another. In your view, does this behavior justify antisemitism? Since I have read and heard you not for the first time, I do not think your criticism of this public (which you have presumably already understood I belong to) came from an irrelevant place. Still, I think the wording could have been considered, and perhaps said differently, or at least at another time. Until now I have read and heard a great deal of criticism of the Haredi public regarding its behavior during this period. I have no doubt that the motives of the writers and speakers were not only about the matter itself (you can see this in their reactions to what is happening today in the secular public). Personally, since I have no discourse with the secular public and do not believe what it believes, and I do not see partnership with them in almost any area (I understand it is hard to generalize, but still…), it did not bother me at all what was said and written by them (although personally I thought that the Haredi public as a whole was dismissive of the seriousness of the situation, and I also agree regarding the point of blind obedience to one leader or another, which you also criticized). I read what you wrote and my heart was pinched for two reasons. First, because of the generalization you made. I am Haredi, and my family members are Haredi, and so is my entire close and extended environment. The overwhelming majority of them followed the directives, and some were even stricter with themselves according to what seemed right to them, out of responsibility and mutual concern for others. Another reason—in this period, when many are criticizing and disparaging the Haredi public and its way of life, and a large part of that public feels it is being wronged, why add pain to pain? I know and am familiar with a large part of your criticism of us as a public, but couldn’t this wait (besides, if the remarks are meant to be constructive, I believe that at this time they are less constructive)?
Another matter—you appreciate the secular public for not rioting against the Haredi public (if I am not mistaken, that is what was written in your name). Really? To that extent? Why pogroms? I study at a university and see the condescending attitudes of the faculty toward the Haredi public. They think they are the light, and we are stuck somewhere with an outdated Torah and a backward, dark inner world of morality and values. Am I worthy of appreciation for not carrying out a pogrom against them? Why use such language (which of course could create an atmosphere)? You have students, and many people listen to you, so naturally you bear great responsibility for the consequences. As for me, I am not condescending, and I do not think anyone needs to serve me (even though I think my opinion is correct and the secular public is mistaken). I am willing to pay a high price for my values (that is, I do not mind giving up the pleasures of life that Israeli reality provides me for the sake of my values, and I do not want someone else to work for that). There are many, many others like me. In conclusion, it hurt me to see your words—generalizing and offensive, as well as the timing and manner in which they were said.
Answer
Good morning, and blessings.
These claims have come up here again and again, and I already wrote to your predecessors that they indicate a basic lack of reading comprehension. So I will say again that I do not intend even to answer them.
If my criticism hurt you or others—please do something about it instead of coming with baseless defensive arguments. Good luck.
Discussion on Answer
Tzvika, why are you Haredim so sensitive to criticism? Why are you always looking to justify the faults among yourselves? Have you encountered such compulsiveness in justifying wrongs in any other public?
Hello Binyamin. As for your question why we are so anxious about criticism, I won’t address it right now, although I think you are right and that the Haredi public as a public is afraid of criticism. Still, if you read my responses, why don’t you address the substance of what I said? What you raise is a very important issue, but it doesn’t answer me. Rabbi Michael Abraham himself also didn’t answer, but only drew my attention to the lack of reading comprehension that I suffer from. Why not answer? By the way, if you are secular, do you think the secular public would accept similar criticism calmly? From my personal experience with individuals from that public, I can tell you there is the same resistance to criticism.
Tzvika, please pay attention to your own words in the last four lines. I think that is what Rabbi Michi was referring to in the last two lines of his response. There is no point in conducting a discussion when from the outset it is clear that the response will be, “among the secular it’s worse” (by the way, I completely disagree with that; among the secular the situation is in any case much better—see the entry “Amshinov”). In general, one should note that sociomatic and sociopathic reactions indicate antisocial personality disorder, so from the outset there is no need for discussion with the other side. I have no personal intention in my words; I simply want to show you, from your own words, about a “recurring public refrain” and the effect of that refrain on the critical sense of the individual who belongs to the society in question.
Tzvika, there are explicit columns where he answers all these questions.
In short, he argues that if there is any benefit, it will happen now—when there is anger and when some in the Haredi sector have awakened. In his opinion, there is more influence now than there would be in the future, when they will forget the matter, and there is a good deal of justice in that.
Second, he argues that this condescension on the part of the Haredi public, as if they are always the ones who are right, does not justify mutual consideration and leniency.
He generalized about all those who still support the leadership’s words and grant it legitimacy. As long as you are part of that group, the criticism is directed at you too.
To Binyamin: I don’t understand what you’re talking about. I don’t see that I claimed that among the secular it is worse. If you mean what I wrote about what I saw among lecturers at the university, that was so I could ask what I asked afterward. What bothered me was what he wrote regarding pogroms, and I wanted to say that nothing justifies that, and it doesn’t cause me to admire those who don’t respond with a pogrom. As for sociomatic and sociopathic reactions, I didn’t understand what you mean, and I’d be glad if you explained. In any case, of course I’d be glad for a response to the content of the matter, and not an analysis revolving around my personal personality or the way I was influenced by society (important as that also is).
Tzvika, I meant your words as follows: “By the way, if you are secular, do you think the secular public would accept similar criticism calmly? From my personal experience with individuals from that public, I can tell you there is the same resistance to criticism.”
I wrote explicitly that in my remarks I am referring to society as a whole, not to this or that individual, and pay close attention.
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%AA
I didn’t mean to say that among them it is worse, and at the outset I already wrote to you that this problem exists and is significant. Even so, I wrote it in order to provoke thought regarding groups receiving collective criticism that places their entire worldview under that same criticism. Regarding the link: I work in the field of mental health, and I know the phenomena described there and meet people who carry those diagnoses. From there I am trying to infer your intention. If you meant the way the Haredi public perceives the secular public as a public that exists in order to serve it and provide its needs (in any case this is not connected to the phenomena you mentioned, but more to the field of social psychology), then I would suggest a point for consideration. Apparently, from what one can see with the eyes (I haven’t seen research on the matter), within Haredi society there is deep solidarity with one another. People do acts of kindness privately (I’m not referring right now to the organizational level). It is also very common that people actively pursue this. That means one cannot say of them that they suffer from these disorders. If what Rabbi Michael Abraham noted—and it seems you agree with him—is correct, then it seems to me that this belongs to another field and not to these disorders.
Tzvika, exactly the opposite. I meant the way the secular / general public perceives the Haredi public. The way the Haredi public perceives any other public is irrelevant to the discussion. On the contrary, that is exactly the point: the fact that there is a minority group that insists on living its life while demonstratively and aggressively ignoring its immediate and broader surroundings is a general antisocial disorder (when society is viewed as an organic body, as an organic unit).
P.S. In general, the idea that the majority in society is perceived as a “group” is a social mistake. “Groups” do indeed make up a society, but the majority sets the tone. That has always been the case, and always will be.
From this it follows that the majority can grant the individuals who make it up the privilege of conducting themselves personally as individuals with separate personalities and not as part of a parent group. Therefore, collective criticism is not possible at all. Each individual is subject to personal criticism and gives an account of his own actions, and his alone. For example, there is no identity and identification between one secular person and his fellow, in the sense of “one for all and all for one.”
To relate to a society as an organic body and apply to it disorders that are defined and tailored to a case describing the relation of the individual to the environment (mainly the environment in which he lives)—that is a mistake. You cannot call this a general antisocial disorder, especially since it is contradicted by the behavior of individuals, the vast majority of individuals in that society. What is needed here is a sociological perspective that might explain the phenomena you describe. In any case, I understand that this is only figurative language meant to clarify your intention better, so I won’t dwell on it. In order to define an antisocial personality, one needs to see the point of view of the person who bears this diagnosis. Therefore, if you related to the Haredi public as an organic unit (again, which is incorrect for this matter), you must see how it perceives the general public, and I don’t care how another public perceives it. For example—if you perceive me as someone exploitative who sees you only as an object for fulfilling my needs, that is not relevant. But if I perceive you as an object for fulfilling my needs, that can be explained by the fact that I suffer from antisocial personality disorder. The page is not appearing in full for me and I am forced to cut off the response.
As for the insistence on living their lives without considering the environment—I don’t know what you are referring to, but if religious coercion is among the things you mean, then although I have no position on it, I think that whoever supports it does so מתוך a value-based outlook, and therefore, despite how difficult and annoying it is, it does not belong to one disorder or another.
I don’t follow the site regularly, and maybe that’s why I didn’t see it. Why do you think I’m not doing something about it? I’m doing what I think is right. I really asked this out of interest and a desire to understand, not out of provocation, and if I have a problem understanding what you wrote, I have no problem recognizing my mistakes. Of course I’m sorry you won’t answer, because that way I can’t re-examine what I said in light of what you think. As for defensive arguments, I’d be glad to know what in what I wrote is incorrect. My feeling is that you too ignored parts of what I wrote.