An Erev Tisha B'Av Disgrace

A major lecture in Beit Shemesh about charedim and army

Last night, on erev Tisha B’Av, I attended a lecture at a big Anglo-charedi shul in Ramat Beit Shemesh. It was delivered by R. Mordechai Neugroschel, a leading charedi outreach figure and spokesperson, and the title was "Gaining Clarity in Confusing Times: Perspectives on Chareidi Army Conscription and an Incisive Outlook on Events in Eretz Yisrael." (Note the first two words in the title, “Gaining Clarity,” and keep them in mind as you read this post.)

When the lecture was announced on a local Facebook group yesterday morning, I pointed out that R. Neugroschel’s position on this is well known: He believes that charedim should not go the army, even if they aren’t in yeshiva. A friend of mine, Rabbi R., who argues with me on this issue, urged me to attend, claiming that Rav Neugroschel is an outstanding broad-minded scholar and I should at least listen to his arguments. I was skeptical, but I couldn’t in good faith refuse, and I also looked forward to an opportunity to pose questions, so I decided to attend.

The shul hall was packed. There must have been several hundred men there, and while I couldn’t see over the enormous mechitzah, the women’s section was the same size and also sounded crowded. Almost all were Anglo-charedi olim, which if you understand the sociology, means that are lot of them are sort of quasi-charedi-wannabees - very idealistic people who may not fully be internally comfortable with everything that the Israeli charedi world features, but would never dream of challenging it.

R. Neugroschel began with a bunch of jokes, and the atmosphere of the entire lecture was jovial. Now, I also include jokes in my talks. However, it occurred to me that if a Dati-Leumi rav was speaking in a Dati-Leumi shul about the very difficult topic of the war, and participation and lack thereof, the atmosphere would be somber, not jovial. And the reason, of course, is that in the Dati-Leumi community, there is actually a war going on, a war that exacts a terrible price, while the charedi community is leading their lives exactly as they did last year.

With the jokes over (temporarily), R. Neugroschel gave a brief introduction by saying that the army is important, and it’s about defending the Jewish People, and that contrary to the claims of some, it’s not the State that’s responsible for the persecution of Jews by Arabs. Then he spoke for a few minutes about the importance of feeling hakaras hatov to the soldiers, which was all very heartwarming for the audience, but I noticed that he didn’t give any examples of how that hakaras hatov should be practiced or demonstrated. And, of course, hakaras hatov is no substitute for actually sharing the responsibilities.

After twenty minutes had elapsed, R. Neugerschol announced that he would discuss the topic of charedim and the army. And he said that it all comes down to accepting five principles: 1) That Hashem exists, 2) that there are both physical and spiritual dimensions, 3) that there are interelationships between these dimensionts, 4) that man is able to operate these relationships, and 5) that the Torah tell us how to operate these relationships. Of course, these principles are equally accepted by the dati-leumi world, so what on earth is the point of discussing them? It's not as though the argument about charedim and army is just between charedim and chilonim! Bizarrely, he spent the next fifteen minutes talking about proofs for these concepts, and digressing with stories and jokes.

Finally, after over half an hour, he got to talking about why charedim don’t go the army. He spent about five minutes on it, in which he discussed precisely two sources.

The first was a Zohar which says that just as Zevulun supported Yissacher materially, while Yissached only learned Torah and did not work at all (a fallacy that I have analyzed elsewhere), so too Zevulun fought on Yissacher’s behalf. R. Neugroschel did not explain why this astonishing alleged historical fact was not mentioned in Tanach, or in Bavli, or in Yerushalmi, or any Midrash, and was not codified in any halachic literature, nor whether Zevulun’s alleged offer means that anyone can choose to be an honorary Yissacherite and demand everyone else to be a Zevulun.

The second was a Gemara which says that the Jewish people suffered the exile in Egypt as a punishment for Avraham Avinu doing “angariya with talmidei chachamim,” which he interpreted to mean that 150,000 charedim should be exempt from a war of national survival. This is taking considerable interpretive liberty both with the word angariya (which usually means taking advantage of people for menial work) and with the definition of talmidei chachamim.

Then he spent about one minute saying that there are lots of other sources, and listed a bunch of references that elsewhere I have analyzed and shown that they do not remotely mean that every yeshiva student can absolve himself of the responsibility to fight. But - here’s the rub - he didn’t even discuss what the sources say!!! It was positively insulting.

This was the end of the Torah content of the lecture, which lasted about five minutes and discussed exactly two sources.

Then he claimed that has a list of piskei halacha from Dati Leumi rabbonim who agree with him. I’ve seen his claims about this list elsewhere; he generally distorts the context enormously, such as citing Rav Kook who was actually talking about avoiding serving in the British Army, or Rav Herzog who was talking about rebuilding the losses of the yeshiva world after the Holocaust. (Note that he also denies that the famous letter from Rav Zevin about the requirement for yeshiva students to serve was actually written by Rav Zevin, even though there is conclusive proof that it was.)

Then he went on about following the Gedolim, specifically Rav Dov Landau, and the chutzpah of people who’ve never opened a Gemara arguing with him.

That was the end of his discussion about why yeshiva students shouldn’t go to the army. He then went on to discuss charedim who are not learning in yeshivah. And he stated that they too should not go to the army, because the army is a spiritually dangerous environment, in which the genders mix, and the army is hostile to accommodating the needs of charedim, and if there was really the manpower shortage that they claim to exist then they would accommodate charedi needs.

Finally, R. Neugroschel wrapped up by saying that it ultimately all boils down to one point: We have to follow the Gedolim, who have supernatural guidance and cannot make mistakes, and this is what R. Dov Landau tells us to do.

And that was the end of his presentation.

Rabbi R., who had urged me to attend to be enlightened with serious scholarly arguments for the charedi position, looked a little stunned.

Although it had been advertised that R.Neugroshel would take questions, everyone got up to leave. But one young man in the audience - a hesder yeshiva student that I know - stood up and issued a challenge (below is a video clip of his exchange). He pointed out that he himself would very much like to stay in yeshiva and learn Torah, but he has to care about the nation, and he noted that R. Neugroshel had not addressed the ethical aspect.

R. Neugroshel responded that whatever the Torah says is by definition ethical; if the Torah says that a third of the men need to be learning Torah (pulling that absurd ratio from a misreading of a disputed aggadic Midrash), then that by definition is ethical. And he further went on to say that 80-90% of the people in the army are not in dangerous combat roles. I called out that that the point is that the community serves in the army, even if various individuals are allocated to different roles (and most of which involve a considerable degree of sacrifice), while the charedi community entirely absolves itself. R. Neugroschel responded that this is irrelevant, without any explanation why. He then claimed that since many of the country neglect their responsibility to keep mitzvot, there can be no complain against charedim not serving.

The hesder soldier proceeded to talk also about the basic chareidi lack of concern in general, correctly noting that the charedi community is not even interested in attending the funerals of soldiers who have died to protect them, or to visit wounded soldiers in hospital, or supporting the rest of the nation in any meaningful way. R. Neugroschel meaninglessly replied that charedim should indeed be supportive - of course, without offering any discussion of how this should be accomplished.

At this point I stood up and spoke up (below is an audio recording of my exchange). I said that my son is learning in a yeshiva with hundreds of students and a kollel and people who come to learn from the community, and that it’s part of a network of many such yeshivos. And that the yeshiva students and avreichim and community members love learning Torah, but that nevertheless over the last ten months, many of them had to leave yeshiva, because there was a war, there was a shortage of soldiers. And they had to taken on all the sacrifices and risks of army service - the spiritual risks, the parnasa risks, the risks of injury and even death - because they feel a need to share in the national responsibility to protect the nation. And, I said, does R. Neugroshel feel that they should NOT have been doing that? (Surely not, because he said that the army is important.) Or should only the dati community have to take these risks and make all the sacrifices, while the charedi community does not have to do anything?!

He “responded” by claiming that again that many Dati Leumi rabbanim agree with him (which is both irrelevant and false), that the entire situation would be different if everybody in the country is religious (which is utterly irrelevant to what I said), and repeating that nobody should ever take spiritual risk. I shouted, “Should datiim go the army or not?!” Again ignoring my point, he said “the IDF does not want us charedim.” I said, “It’s not true! And even if it was true, so what? We want you to join the IDF. Why should it be only in our community that people have to leave their yeshiva, have to lose their parnasah, have to get injured, have to die?” Again ignoring my point, he replied, Go to the army and tell them to make units that are suitable for charedim. I pointed out that there are suitable frameworks, such as R. Karmi Gross’ charedi hesder yeshiva and others that are under development. And, I continued, even if you think that satisfactory frameworks don’t yet exist, what should happen in the meanwhile? Only our men should lose their parnasa, only our boys should be injured, only our boys should die?!

R. Neugerschol responded: “If you want me to say you are right, I will say you are right. But you are not right.”

And that was that.

It was a total disgrace. As everyone gathered out, I was absolutely fuming at the lack of content, the avoidance of addressing the questions, and the utter selfishness of the charedi approach. The only good thing is that it seemed that a number of other people were also less than impressed by the lecture, and a friend of mine who was there told me that he got the impression from people around him that what I said shook them and made an impact on them.

And the greatest tragic irony? Outside the shul, affixed to the fence, was a gigantic sign for a local charedi tzedaka organization helping poor charedi families: “They Can’t Carry This Burden Alone.”

Well, as one severely disappointed attendee told me, at least it helps put one in the mood for Tisha B’Av.