I was at the Kotel the night Natan Sharansky arrived there. I doubt I will ever see a celebration to rival that, or ever be in such close proximity to a real hero, ever again.
That is beautiful but doesn't answer the question. I volunteered to join the IDF too (they didn't want me) that doesn't mean I support bashing Charedim.
Irrationalist Modox has a view posts mocking Natan's insanity. Although I'm don't know if you are the type to enjoy mockery, although I would consider it ליצנותא דאבודה זרה.
Ah, yes, because nothing says balance like sprinkling a few reptiles and rhinos between his regular Charedi bashing, truly the hallmark of diverse content.
Good point, underrated: " I mentioned to him that I think that this is not always necessarily the case. While people enjoy freedom, they also enjoy emotional security, tribal identity, and purpose. Charedi society has many secret dissidents. But there are also others who prefer to be in a situation where other people do the thinking for them, and in which they are part of a close-knit homogeneous group which valiantly struggles against the rest of the world".
My parents were once sitting behind him on a plane; my mother asked for his autograph for me and he wrote, "Dear Nachum, make aliyah!" Years later I ran into him at an event and reminded him of this and said, "And here I am!" He was quite modest about it.
Just seeing him and Avital walking down the street, as we do not infrequently, is an inspiration.
The army forces Haredim to ‘drop their beliefs’? By what mechanism? All Haredim drop their beliefs when they enter צה״ל? Are the methods to accomplish this known, or is it a secret?
Your assumption #1 is problematic at best. If Haredi standards interfere with battle code, (eg you will have to put your shtreimel on after the bullets and mortar shells have stopped) which gives way?
Are they mutually exclusive??
I would venture that the Haredi reasoning is (and stated proudly!) that you don’t want Haredi 18 yr olds expose to treifine Jews. (Please correct me if I’m wrong- with evidence, not opinion)
As this is HaRav Slifkin’s post, you will finds a lot of evidence that the Haredi feel that way.
I was truly very moved by your account. Can you find a way to publicize this?
P.S.- To anyone thinking that it is public already, it is not. The details of what a Charedi training experience would look like, are shrouded in mystery to most would-be recruits. The majority of Charedim I have spoken to on this topic, are adamant that one cannot emerge as a Charedi "ben-Torah" from army service.
Just to make it clear, Ezra N has expressed in several previous comments that he thinks it would be insane to give chareidim weapons. He clearly agrees that chareidim need to be de-haredified as a condition of military service. Therefore, take everything he says with a grain of salt.
But then you have excluded 99% of chareidim. Because my views are no more extreme than 99% of chareidim. If anything, I am much more moderate. They would all view Slifkin's/fellow chilonim opinions on most things Judaism as total kefira, as they are. If they knew about Slifkin, they would call him a kofer and an enemy of the Jewish people. If they also knew about Jacob Brafman, they would be able to make the obvious parallel. So by excluding me and almost all other chareidim, you just admitted my point! Thank you.
You should read Plato's Republic about censorship, why it isn't necessarily a bad thing - it depends what ideals are trying to be upheld. I'm all for not teaching kids about certain anatomy and bodily functions too early. You can call it censorship but I would call upholding my standards. Even if the gedolim™ were wrong in a personal sense, the values they were upholding were good by all our standards. Yes, conservatism of good ideas tends to go too far until the pushback comes the other way and people truly can accept it, and in fact, that is the only way to run a society! Societies are a complex organism and this is how all the many ideals stabilize themselves.
That said, this doesn't mean those hurt unnecessarily in the process should just roll over and let things go like I, as someone who was not personally burned, do - and I'd add that these outspoken critics are also necessary for creating the proper balance - but those are the facts.
This is a major difference between the gedolim and all the idiot things said about them and, lehavdil elef havdalos, the KGB and their tactics. The comparisons - and contrasts - in this article miss the point entirley, where the lines are blurred Rl.
"Even if the gedolim™ were wrong in a personal sense, the values they were upholding were good by all our standards."
This is one of your deliberately funny posts, right?
You are aware that every North Korean type dictatorship claims that their value are "good by OUR standards" thus justifying the censorship and the dictatorship?
It is entirely arguable the the values being uphold in chareidland are actually good by the general standards required by the torah. Some aspects yes, some aspects no. Like everything else.
I can argue that the 'torah' would not approve values such as papal infallibility given to rabbonim and gedolim, values imparted by the followers of the Gerrer Rebbe in their demonisation of Reb Shaul Alter (leading to violence), values such as banning all forms of mass dissementation of ideas, narrow mindend fundementalism etc etc. If if the torah does approve of these values, it would be nice to have a proper mekor in rishonim or acharonim. But of course a "chareidi standard" and 'value to uphold" is never to question.
As did the soviets; question is if their underlying ideology is right or wrong. Since the USSR was upholding an unacceptable ideology, there censorship was wrong. The chareidi gedolim, even if they were wrong in the individual case, as I am happily conceding, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong on a societal level because that is the pushback necessary in conservatism.
I think I did a fine enough job explaining myself above. But to be even more clear, I'm not defending what happened. I'm just defending why it happened and where the movement was coming from.
Right, out of thin air - No! It's not so complicated if you know anything about how societies work, which is why I suggested reading Plato's Republic first.
I see. The chareidim al d'var Hashem, the goy kodesh and memlachas kohanim, should learn from Plato's Republic and goyshe 'societies' (The irony in a post justifying censorship). It's the old yeshivish 'but the goyim do it to' when alegations of financial impropriety are put to chareidim.
Suffice it to say, a historical philosphor will tell you, that when socities retreat into themselves, fear the unknown, censor and supress the slightest whiff of unhappiness, they cannot grow, thrive and develop. That is why the Arab world now, having retreated into fundemantilsm, is going nowhere, whereas 1,000 years they were boomining. A society that is so fundementalist, that their 'kosher phones' block helplines for bullying and abuse, is going nowhere. Which is why pretty much all we have from the yeshiva world in the last 20 years or so are likut seforim and shallow Artscroll stuff. These things are not unconnected. Kotlerian fundementalism was unknow to yiddishkeit throughout its history.
There is no torah mekor for the banning of ideas (providing they are not k'negged the torah). The reply to the query about chochmas yevonis was not that it is banned, it is that talmud torah takes priority. Only sifrei minnim were banned by chazal. Even Ben Sira, which was very muched frowend upon, we see chazal themselves quoting it and debating it.
The comparison between book banning by rabbonim and the Soviet KGB is ridiculous. The former do not imprison, torture, execute, or sentence to hard labor. Every chareidi is free to purchase and read whatever books they wish. Rabbonim have a right to express their views on what they consider appropriate reading for those who are interested in following them. I am certain that if a member of Slifkin's community published and peddled any of a wide range of material (missionary, et al) the Dati Leumi rabbinate would respond in a similar fashion and he would not categorize it as "brainwashing."
Someone who is willing to give up his freedom and be incarcerated in Siberia for love of the Holy Land (as a Jewish thing) is a hero (not to mention that he inspired many other Soviet Jews to become closer to Judaism)
This conversation sums up the problem with dati leumi ideology, explains why such a huge percentage of their kids go OTD, and explains why chareidim will never, ever send their kids to the army even in a hesder program. Thanks.
He has been an inspiration and I think brought pride to the Jewish nation.
Having said that, calling someone "my hero" isn't simply pointing out the good. "My hero" means he is my personal north star, my example of what is the ideal, the moral highground, of what I value
(Particularly if this individual is famous for ideological reasons and not for practical reasons like saving lives and protecting a nation.)
"My hero" means he represents all that is aspirational for me. And as an orthodox Jew who considers Torah and Mitzvos to be paramount, ignoring the elephant in the room is ridiculous.
You can point out the good he did, but to make it as if he is what you - as a believer that Torah represents the highest truth - aspire to, is very wrong.
It is common knowledge that Sharansky is fully observant. Best you had kept quiet and not let everyone know of your ignorance, not to mention avoided a bit of motzi shem ra.
Based on all the comments here, it does not at all seem that it is "common knowledge" at all. Unless your version of "fully observant" diverges considerably from the mean.
If he didn't keep the Torah and mitzvos you wouldn't see anything wrong with him being the hero of one claiming to beleive that Torah and mitzvos are paramount?
That does seem indicative of one who's own religiosity is pretty watered down.
True, but a more basic difference is that if someone saved your life, he's a hero for you no matter what, and if a leader or politician made your life better, it's ok to call him a hero no matter what. The difference would be with a "moral hero", such as an irreligious refusenik, which I think irreligiosity cannot be overlooked. (I know, everyone will say, "that also effects you" but that's not why he's your hero.)
Here he is Slifkin's personal hero based on ideals and beliefs, not practical things like saving a life. Here a personal hero who does not keep halacha (if in fact he does not) seems inappropriate.
You shouldn't say "my son who happens to be orthodox". No Torah loving mother should talk this way. You should see Torah as the integral aspect of who your son is. Not something that "happens to be".
But this attitude is what we keep on seeing from the best of the dati leumim, and forget about the worst, like Slifkin and his fellow chilonim. And they expect chareidim to join them? The mind boggles.
I said that my son (it will be two sons up North starting Motzaei Shabbat) is [a]/ [one of many] heroes..
Of course being religious is an integral part of who he is. I don't think he would have managed being away from his family for close to 8 of the last 12 months if he wasn't.
However, in the context of this post, he "happens" to be religious, as even if he wasn't, you should still consider him and all the other Chayyalim heroes.
Heroes don't have to be just like us but better, they can be different but still teach us all sorts of middot and behaviors and do mitzvot, that we can't even come close to fulfilling.
If I lived in Israel, I would consider everybody who helps save my life a "hero" to some extent. Doctors, soldiers. Soldiers would get bonus hero points because they risk their lives. Especially if they do so voluntarily, like the hesder students. Ari agrees with this. But this "hero" status would be a function of hakaras hatov, not because I view these people as ideal. A totally different type of "hero" than calling Natan Sharansky a "lifelong hero".
Noach was before the giving of the Torah so there was no Orthodox in the sense of keeping 613 mitzvos back then.
But based on what the equivalent would have been back then...Noach sure was Orthodox! That's why he was saved and all else drowned!
He kept all the laws that Hashem wanted him to keep unlike the rest. And for us Jews it's Halacha.
So, great example of Noach, who had a different set of rules but was loyal to those ideals and views that Hashem demanded of him, and was thus saved, and a true hero.
But once the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, the ideals of a Jew certainly must include keeping basic halacha.
No Orthodox? Whatchya talking about? There was plenty of Orthodox back in them olden days of Torah learning and interpretation. And they were real Orthodox who wore bekeshes and shtreimels back in the day, not like the MO and Zionists. Haven’t you heard of the famous Gedolim שֵׁם וָעֵבֶר
whose eponymous Yeshiva is proclaimed throughout all Orthodox Hashkafas? They had all those Torah and Mitzvoth and rituals back in the days before מתן תורה. I wonder if אברהם אבינו ate only cholov yisroel during the שבועת יום טוב. It’s mystifying how they studied the Halachot of שבועת before the YomTov even came into existence. Must have been some sort of miracle or something.
The idea of Wikipedia is absolutely wonderful. What it has become, much less so. I avoid linking to it when I can. I find myself lately not linking to anything, and leaving the googling to the reader. It might work for you. Write what you have to say. Grown-ups, if they want more, know how to search the internet.
I was at the Kotel the night Natan Sharansky arrived there. I doubt I will ever see a celebration to rival that, or ever be in such close proximity to a real hero, ever again.
I was in the crowd at the airport greeting him that same night. Amazing enthusiasm and pride
Are you incapable of writing a post which does not put down Charedim? I wonder if Sharansky would agree with your sentiment.
Although he was exempt under any definition, Sharansky volunteered for a stint in the IDF as soon as he arrived in Israel. (Hence the cap.)
That is beautiful but doesn't answer the question. I volunteered to join the IDF too (they didn't want me) that doesn't mean I support bashing Charedim.
Irrationalist Modox has a view posts mocking Natan's insanity. Although I'm don't know if you are the type to enjoy mockery, although I would consider it ליצנותא דאבודה זרה.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-real-message-of-tisha-bav
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-reporter-who-was-concerned-about
There's probably more, you can use the search function.
"Are you incapable of writing a post which does not put down Charedim? "
No, he's not. The fact that this makes him look like a raging madman doesn't seem to bother him.
"Are you incapable of writing a post which does not put down Charedim? " R' Slifkin has written a number of recent posts focusing solely on zoology
Ah, yes, because nothing says balance like sprinkling a few reptiles and rhinos between his regular Charedi bashing, truly the hallmark of diverse content.
Great, balanced piece.
Good point, underrated: " I mentioned to him that I think that this is not always necessarily the case. While people enjoy freedom, they also enjoy emotional security, tribal identity, and purpose. Charedi society has many secret dissidents. But there are also others who prefer to be in a situation where other people do the thinking for them, and in which they are part of a close-knit homogeneous group which valiantly struggles against the rest of the world".
This is a hallmark of religious fundamentalists
Indeed, many people *want* to be told what to do.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-meeting-of-natans/comment/73614124
My parents were once sitting behind him on a plane; my mother asked for his autograph for me and he wrote, "Dear Nachum, make aliyah!" Years later I ran into him at an event and reminded him of this and said, "And here I am!" He was quite modest about it.
Just seeing him and Avital walking down the street, as we do not infrequently, is an inspiration.
If you use the army as a way to "De-Haredify" people, that could easily be a form of religious persecution.
If you accommodate their needs and respect their customs, even at the expense of lost military efficiency, that is different.
No one's de-haridifying anyone, except of course as some may define themselves by the lack of service.
“Even at the expense of military efficiency’??? S
Yes. Otherwise, there remains the problem of forcing people to drop their beliefs.
The army forces Haredim to ‘drop their beliefs’? By what mechanism? All Haredim drop their beliefs when they enter צה״ל? Are the methods to accomplish this known, or is it a secret?
Let us analyze what you're saying:
#1) We should not accommodate Charedi standards and practices at a loss of military efficiency.
#2) Charedim should be forced to join such an army.
#3) Charedim will continue to practice their religion as they interpret it, with no issue, while serving with the IDF.
My conclusion is that you must think there is no cost of military efficiency to maintain Charedi standards and practices. Is this correct?
Your assumption #1 is problematic at best. If Haredi standards interfere with battle code, (eg you will have to put your shtreimel on after the bullets and mortar shells have stopped) which gives way?
Are they mutually exclusive??
I would venture that the Haredi reasoning is (and stated proudly!) that you don’t want Haredi 18 yr olds expose to treifine Jews. (Please correct me if I’m wrong- with evidence, not opinion)
As this is HaRav Slifkin’s post, you will finds a lot of evidence that the Haredi feel that way.
"Lost military efficiency" means more dead Jews.
I was truly very moved by your account. Can you find a way to publicize this?
P.S.- To anyone thinking that it is public already, it is not. The details of what a Charedi training experience would look like, are shrouded in mystery to most would-be recruits. The majority of Charedim I have spoken to on this topic, are adamant that one cannot emerge as a Charedi "ben-Torah" from army service.
Just to make it clear, Ezra N has expressed in several previous comments that he thinks it would be insane to give chareidim weapons. He clearly agrees that chareidim need to be de-haredified as a condition of military service. Therefore, take everything he says with a grain of salt.
But then you have excluded 99% of chareidim. Because my views are no more extreme than 99% of chareidim. If anything, I am much more moderate. They would all view Slifkin's/fellow chilonim opinions on most things Judaism as total kefira, as they are. If they knew about Slifkin, they would call him a kofer and an enemy of the Jewish people. If they also knew about Jacob Brafman, they would be able to make the obvious parallel. So by excluding me and almost all other chareidim, you just admitted my point! Thank you.
You should read Plato's Republic about censorship, why it isn't necessarily a bad thing - it depends what ideals are trying to be upheld. I'm all for not teaching kids about certain anatomy and bodily functions too early. You can call it censorship but I would call upholding my standards. Even if the gedolim™ were wrong in a personal sense, the values they were upholding were good by all our standards. Yes, conservatism of good ideas tends to go too far until the pushback comes the other way and people truly can accept it, and in fact, that is the only way to run a society! Societies are a complex organism and this is how all the many ideals stabilize themselves.
That said, this doesn't mean those hurt unnecessarily in the process should just roll over and let things go like I, as someone who was not personally burned, do - and I'd add that these outspoken critics are also necessary for creating the proper balance - but those are the facts.
This is a major difference between the gedolim and all the idiot things said about them and, lehavdil elef havdalos, the KGB and their tactics. The comparisons - and contrasts - in this article miss the point entirley, where the lines are blurred Rl.
"Even if the gedolim™ were wrong in a personal sense, the values they were upholding were good by all our standards."
This is one of your deliberately funny posts, right?
You are aware that every North Korean type dictatorship claims that their value are "good by OUR standards" thus justifying the censorship and the dictatorship?
It is entirely arguable the the values being uphold in chareidland are actually good by the general standards required by the torah. Some aspects yes, some aspects no. Like everything else.
I can argue that the 'torah' would not approve values such as papal infallibility given to rabbonim and gedolim, values imparted by the followers of the Gerrer Rebbe in their demonisation of Reb Shaul Alter (leading to violence), values such as banning all forms of mass dissementation of ideas, narrow mindend fundementalism etc etc. If if the torah does approve of these values, it would be nice to have a proper mekor in rishonim or acharonim. But of course a "chareidi standard" and 'value to uphold" is never to question.
As did the soviets; question is if their underlying ideology is right or wrong. Since the USSR was upholding an unacceptable ideology, there censorship was wrong. The chareidi gedolim, even if they were wrong in the individual case, as I am happily conceding, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong on a societal level because that is the pushback necessary in conservatism.
I think I did a fine enough job explaining myself above. But to be even more clear, I'm not defending what happened. I'm just defending why it happened and where the movement was coming from.
"t doesn't necessarily make them wrong on a societal level because that is the pushback necessary in conservatism. "
Who says? You have just decided that. From nothing. That's exactly my point.
Right, out of thin air - No! It's not so complicated if you know anything about how societies work, which is why I suggested reading Plato's Republic first.
I see. The chareidim al d'var Hashem, the goy kodesh and memlachas kohanim, should learn from Plato's Republic and goyshe 'societies' (The irony in a post justifying censorship). It's the old yeshivish 'but the goyim do it to' when alegations of financial impropriety are put to chareidim.
Suffice it to say, a historical philosphor will tell you, that when socities retreat into themselves, fear the unknown, censor and supress the slightest whiff of unhappiness, they cannot grow, thrive and develop. That is why the Arab world now, having retreated into fundemantilsm, is going nowhere, whereas 1,000 years they were boomining. A society that is so fundementalist, that their 'kosher phones' block helplines for bullying and abuse, is going nowhere. Which is why pretty much all we have from the yeshiva world in the last 20 years or so are likut seforim and shallow Artscroll stuff. These things are not unconnected. Kotlerian fundementalism was unknow to yiddishkeit throughout its history.
There is no torah mekor for the banning of ideas (providing they are not k'negged the torah). The reply to the query about chochmas yevonis was not that it is banned, it is that talmud torah takes priority. Only sifrei minnim were banned by chazal. Even Ben Sira, which was very muched frowend upon, we see chazal themselves quoting it and debating it.
You're on point.!
The comparison between book banning by rabbonim and the Soviet KGB is ridiculous. The former do not imprison, torture, execute, or sentence to hard labor. Every chareidi is free to purchase and read whatever books they wish. Rabbonim have a right to express their views on what they consider appropriate reading for those who are interested in following them. I am certain that if a member of Slifkin's community published and peddled any of a wide range of material (missionary, et al) the Dati Leumi rabbinate would respond in a similar fashion and he would not categorize it as "brainwashing."
Is your hero Orthodox?
He’s sacrificed more for Judaism than you ever did……
Not for Judiasm. For Zionism. He was a Refusnik. I admire him and think he brought pride to the Jewish nation. But it was not about Judiasm per se.
Aliyas not a Jewish thing?
Loving the holy land is a Jewish thing, sure. Your point?
Someone who is willing to give up his freedom and be incarcerated in Siberia for love of the Holy Land (as a Jewish thing) is a hero (not to mention that he inspired many other Soviet Jews to become closer to Judaism)
This conversation sums up the problem with dati leumi ideology, explains why such a huge percentage of their kids go OTD, and explains why chareidim will never, ever send their kids to the army even in a hesder program. Thanks.
He has been an inspiration and I think brought pride to the Jewish nation.
Having said that, calling someone "my hero" isn't simply pointing out the good. "My hero" means he is my personal north star, my example of what is the ideal, the moral highground, of what I value
(Particularly if this individual is famous for ideological reasons and not for practical reasons like saving lives and protecting a nation.)
"My hero" means he represents all that is aspirational for me. And as an orthodox Jew who considers Torah and Mitzvos to be paramount, ignoring the elephant in the room is ridiculous.
You can point out the good he did, but to make it as if he is what you - as a believer that Torah represents the highest truth - aspire to, is very wrong.
Refuseniks were punished for wanting to make Aliyah, a yidesha Zach.
Reread what I wrote and realize you are very much missing the point.
It is common knowledge that Sharansky is fully observant. Best you had kept quiet and not let everyone know of your ignorance, not to mention avoided a bit of motzi shem ra.
And if he wasn't...so?
Based on all the comments here, it does not at all seem that it is "common knowledge" at all. Unless your version of "fully observant" diverges considerably from the mean.
If he didn't keep the Torah and mitzvos you wouldn't see anything wrong with him being the hero of one claiming to beleive that Torah and mitzvos are paramount?
That does seem indicative of one who's own religiosity is pretty watered down.
...and if you go to a non-Orthodox doctor who saves your life, that doctor is not your hero ??
and is my son (who happens to be Orthodox), who has spent much of this year, and is currently in the north in Miluim, your hero?
and if he wasn't Orthodox, he suddenly wouldn't be your hero?
That is sick
The funny/sad thing is, if I would have said that Trump or Jared is my hero, he would probably have been fine with that.
You still would be a loser if either one was YOUR personal hero but last I checked Trump isn't Jewish and Jared is Orthodox so neither compare.
True, but a more basic difference is that if someone saved your life, he's a hero for you no matter what, and if a leader or politician made your life better, it's ok to call him a hero no matter what. The difference would be with a "moral hero", such as an irreligious refusenik, which I think irreligiosity cannot be overlooked. (I know, everyone will say, "that also effects you" but that's not why he's your hero.)
So is Sharansky, you hateful ignoramus.
None of your examples compare.
Here he is Slifkin's personal hero based on ideals and beliefs, not practical things like saving a life. Here a personal hero who does not keep halacha (if in fact he does not) seems inappropriate.
You shouldn't say "my son who happens to be orthodox". No Torah loving mother should talk this way. You should see Torah as the integral aspect of who your son is. Not something that "happens to be".
But this attitude is what we keep on seeing from the best of the dati leumim, and forget about the worst, like Slifkin and his fellow chilonim. And they expect chareidim to join them? The mind boggles.
You totally missed the context of the comment--
I said that my son (it will be two sons up North starting Motzaei Shabbat) is [a]/ [one of many] heroes..
Of course being religious is an integral part of who he is. I don't think he would have managed being away from his family for close to 8 of the last 12 months if he wasn't.
However, in the context of this post, he "happens" to be religious, as even if he wasn't, you should still consider him and all the other Chayyalim heroes.
Heroes don't have to be just like us but better, they can be different but still teach us all sorts of middot and behaviors and do mitzvot, that we can't even come close to fulfilling.
Chag Sameach
If I lived in Israel, I would consider everybody who helps save my life a "hero" to some extent. Doctors, soldiers. Soldiers would get bonus hero points because they risk their lives. Especially if they do so voluntarily, like the hesder students. Ari agrees with this. But this "hero" status would be a function of hakaras hatov, not because I view these people as ideal. A totally different type of "hero" than calling Natan Sharansky a "lifelong hero".
Lol. Was Noach Orthodox? In what world are the only worthy heros Orthodox? Is this something you really believe or are you just trolling?
Noach was before the giving of the Torah so there was no Orthodox in the sense of keeping 613 mitzvos back then.
But based on what the equivalent would have been back then...Noach sure was Orthodox! That's why he was saved and all else drowned!
He kept all the laws that Hashem wanted him to keep unlike the rest. And for us Jews it's Halacha.
So, great example of Noach, who had a different set of rules but was loyal to those ideals and views that Hashem demanded of him, and was thus saved, and a true hero.
But once the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, the ideals of a Jew certainly must include keeping basic halacha.
@Ari,
No Orthodox? Whatchya talking about? There was plenty of Orthodox back in them olden days of Torah learning and interpretation. And they were real Orthodox who wore bekeshes and shtreimels back in the day, not like the MO and Zionists. Haven’t you heard of the famous Gedolim שֵׁם וָעֵבֶר
whose eponymous Yeshiva is proclaimed throughout all Orthodox Hashkafas? They had all those Torah and Mitzvoth and rituals back in the days before מתן תורה. I wonder if אברהם אבינו ate only cholov yisroel during the שבועת יום טוב. It’s mystifying how they studied the Halachot of שבועת before the YomTov even came into existence. Must have been some sort of miracle or something.
No idea what you are saying and what you are attempting to demonstrate.
@Ari,
You have no idea what I was saying?
You sad there were no Orthodox back then. I showed there were.
You need better reading comprehension.
orthodox at what?
By the way, the link has been removed from the Wikipedia piece, with an apt comment.
Wikipedia is not reliable.
That section does not even belong on the page, as it has zero to do with Sharansky. It was probably inserted by the author of the piece himself.
(For a real laugh, check out the author's biography.)
The idea of Wikipedia is absolutely wonderful. What it has become, much less so. I avoid linking to it when I can. I find myself lately not linking to anything, and leaving the googling to the reader. It might work for you. Write what you have to say. Grown-ups, if they want more, know how to search the internet.