I have an issue or maybe it's just a question about what you said. Most of your comments differentiating the charedi from the dati leumi life-style related to each one's relationship (or lack thereof) with respect to military service, and in particular, as related to the current war.
But let's assume, for a moment, that today is before October 7; there is no war yet (or than the never ending terrorist attacks). Without that factor, how would you articulate the differences between the two sides? Would your comments still be the same? Different?
The chareidim claim that learning Torah is a primary value of their community but that's hard to accept given that it only applies to 50% of the community. While today's charedi women may be more learned than their great grandmother's, it is not because Limmud Torah has suddenly become a value for them but rather because compulsory education has and they would rather they learned Torah than read secular novels as their ancestors did. It is amazing that when discussing themselves, charedi men seem to forget about all the women in their community, especially given all the sacrifices that they make.
If a value is primary to a community, it applies across the board and separation is exactly that as preached by the first proto-charedi leaders from the Chatam Sofer onwards.
There are nuances that should be examined.Jonathan Rosenblum and Yitzchok Breitowitz are very thoughtful,as well as both being balei Tchuva.Each is an attorney with outstanding pedigree.Each is connected to Ohr Somacyach in Jerusalem as was Berel Wein,whose nephew is the editor of Yated Neeman.
They welcome all Jews as their work attests.The idea of military service in the state of Israel is contested because of it being a secular founded entity and even broadly more radical as time passes.The hard left political apparatus with the secular humanist ideology is untenable to Eastern European style chareidim.
It is based on the three oaths,one of which was against any mass movement as settlement,particularly from radical socialists to form a state after the Zionist settlers had a foothold.Only small groups as from the Vilna Gaon or a few from Chabad were permitted.
The chareidim are not willing to submit to secular atheist pressure,not as achdus,but commingling is not permitted,except for kiruv.
In the U.S. more than 80% of non orthodox are fully secular,assimilated and intermarried.Their parents, grandparents or great grandparents all were observant from Eastern Europe.
They vote 60 to 80% radical left as contemporary democrats.They have no reference point of Jewish knowledge.These previous generations abandoned observance and now if connected to Jewish institutions have inclusive “rabbis” that perform homosexual and intermarriages.
The attorney’s of the ilk of Rosenblum and Breitowitz are now few and far between as beacons of potential American Jewish survival.Though there is no fear of military service,the few Jews that remain are as my nephews and nieces and cousins’s families without any future at all.
The first group of German reform Jews in the U.S. from the 1850’s have vanished bichlal.Now their lowly East European brethren are almost there.
The only group that survives are the modern orthodox,modest in numbers,but pro Jewish nationalism and in pro state of Israel,and Eretz Yisroel in the tefillos,and the chareidi in urban outposts who are anti Zionist but pro Jewish,but at heart identical to their Israel counter part.
I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of the DL world as a whole. My entire family - mother, all my siblings and all there army or post army and a free pre army age kids, same with a while bunch of cousins are DL and all active in their respective communities, where I have spent a meaningful amount of time. I am afraid you are speaking for yourself (and a relatively small minority) when you downplay the significance of the state as Jewish in the DL ethos. Classic examples are the almost universal trust in the rabbanut kashrus as a matter of pride in the Jewish state and unwillingness to question it, refusal to accept our discuss the army's lack of interest in halacha (my niece has been in the army for a while fighting for a skirt for maybe a year and ignored, see milk and meat together routinely and no regard for shabbos. She was once forced to drive on shabbos, ostensibly for pikuach nefesh but did not have a driver's license and was therefore not allowed to drive. She could drive safely but they were more concerned about the law requiring a license than shabbos. This was a more frum niece who is a recent olah and serious about halacha but believed in the army. But all the other family members accept all this because the army is the representative of the Halachic State and therefore following orders is ipso facto Halachic. This culture dominates the national community of DL and elevates their lives and commitment to the state. It's not just pragmatic and you say. It's always been deeply ideological.
I agree. In native-Israeli dati-leumi public discourse, it's accepted as axiomatic that the State of Israel is tz'michat reishit ge'ulateinu. It's simply not up for argument. Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook's ideology has defeated old Mizrachi ideology hands down in its hold over the dat-leumi community. I'm not saying I like it, but it's what I see.
While Kookian mamlachtiut took a beating with the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, it's still dominant. The CEO of Tzohar Kashrut recently bemoaned the fact that Kosharot, under the auspices of Rav Elyakim Levanon, won't even speak to him because it views Tzohar as attacking the authority of the Rabbanut, which Kosharot sees as sacrosanct (even though it's now a plaything of the Shas party).
I wrote "native-Israeli" because many Anglos, especially in the Gush world, are more influenced by Rav Soloveitchik, who was agnostic on the question whether the state is tz'michat reishit ge'ulateinu. But my impression is that that view is still marginal here in Israel.
The Anglos on the world I'm a part of are less focused on the status as ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו, as important as that is, as they are on the general pride of the status of the state as "our state," properly constituted as representative of the Jewish people such that it is axiomatic that datiim integrate with them, even if "small" overlooking of halacha or certainly routinely grasping at and happily adopting unlikely leniencies becomes necessary. It's a tiny price to pay to be a full participant in the gloriously historic significance of finally having Our State as full, unhesitating participants. To question this is to let all the air out of the entire enterprise of their ideology. The gush type are more nuanced and capable of maintaining both attitudes at the same time. It's our state and we're thrilled about it and committed to it but we also have a Torah we're committed to for real and we need to satisfy both.
Bottom line is the interviwees said it right. The organizing force giving life to the dati leumi community is the religious and full political status of the state as a legitimate Jewish authority that defines the framework of Jewish identity within which some are dati and follow the rush and some are not and don't.
The title suggested that a rep of Modern Orthodox would also be interviewed. Who was that? I'd be interested in a comparison of Modern Orthodox and Dat-Leumi. I assume that it's not just the connection to the State of Israel and Eretz Yisrael that differentiate them.
Thanks, Rabbi Slifkin, for sharing your views. You are uniquely placed to have insights on both worlds, though it also means you'll get arguments from both sides
Thank you for your comments about that podcast.
I have an issue or maybe it's just a question about what you said. Most of your comments differentiating the charedi from the dati leumi life-style related to each one's relationship (or lack thereof) with respect to military service, and in particular, as related to the current war.
But let's assume, for a moment, that today is before October 7; there is no war yet (or than the never ending terrorist attacks). Without that factor, how would you articulate the differences between the two sides? Would your comments still be the same? Different?
(Hopefully, I'm making myself clear.)
Interesting question. I think that the answer is the same, but it's just that it found so much stronger expression since the war.
The chareidim claim that learning Torah is a primary value of their community but that's hard to accept given that it only applies to 50% of the community. While today's charedi women may be more learned than their great grandmother's, it is not because Limmud Torah has suddenly become a value for them but rather because compulsory education has and they would rather they learned Torah than read secular novels as their ancestors did. It is amazing that when discussing themselves, charedi men seem to forget about all the women in their community, especially given all the sacrifices that they make.
If a value is primary to a community, it applies across the board and separation is exactly that as preached by the first proto-charedi leaders from the Chatam Sofer onwards.
There are nuances that should be examined.Jonathan Rosenblum and Yitzchok Breitowitz are very thoughtful,as well as both being balei Tchuva.Each is an attorney with outstanding pedigree.Each is connected to Ohr Somacyach in Jerusalem as was Berel Wein,whose nephew is the editor of Yated Neeman.
They welcome all Jews as their work attests.The idea of military service in the state of Israel is contested because of it being a secular founded entity and even broadly more radical as time passes.The hard left political apparatus with the secular humanist ideology is untenable to Eastern European style chareidim.
It is based on the three oaths,one of which was against any mass movement as settlement,particularly from radical socialists to form a state after the Zionist settlers had a foothold.Only small groups as from the Vilna Gaon or a few from Chabad were permitted.
The chareidim are not willing to submit to secular atheist pressure,not as achdus,but commingling is not permitted,except for kiruv.
In the U.S. more than 80% of non orthodox are fully secular,assimilated and intermarried.Their parents, grandparents or great grandparents all were observant from Eastern Europe.
They vote 60 to 80% radical left as contemporary democrats.They have no reference point of Jewish knowledge.These previous generations abandoned observance and now if connected to Jewish institutions have inclusive “rabbis” that perform homosexual and intermarriages.
The attorney’s of the ilk of Rosenblum and Breitowitz are now few and far between as beacons of potential American Jewish survival.Though there is no fear of military service,the few Jews that remain are as my nephews and nieces and cousins’s families without any future at all.
The first group of German reform Jews in the U.S. from the 1850’s have vanished bichlal.Now their lowly East European brethren are almost there.
The only group that survives are the modern orthodox,modest in numbers,but pro Jewish nationalism and in pro state of Israel,and Eretz Yisroel in the tefillos,and the chareidi in urban outposts who are anti Zionist but pro Jewish,but at heart identical to their Israel counter part.
I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of the DL world as a whole. My entire family - mother, all my siblings and all there army or post army and a free pre army age kids, same with a while bunch of cousins are DL and all active in their respective communities, where I have spent a meaningful amount of time. I am afraid you are speaking for yourself (and a relatively small minority) when you downplay the significance of the state as Jewish in the DL ethos. Classic examples are the almost universal trust in the rabbanut kashrus as a matter of pride in the Jewish state and unwillingness to question it, refusal to accept our discuss the army's lack of interest in halacha (my niece has been in the army for a while fighting for a skirt for maybe a year and ignored, see milk and meat together routinely and no regard for shabbos. She was once forced to drive on shabbos, ostensibly for pikuach nefesh but did not have a driver's license and was therefore not allowed to drive. She could drive safely but they were more concerned about the law requiring a license than shabbos. This was a more frum niece who is a recent olah and serious about halacha but believed in the army. But all the other family members accept all this because the army is the representative of the Halachic State and therefore following orders is ipso facto Halachic. This culture dominates the national community of DL and elevates their lives and commitment to the state. It's not just pragmatic and you say. It's always been deeply ideological.
I agree. In native-Israeli dati-leumi public discourse, it's accepted as axiomatic that the State of Israel is tz'michat reishit ge'ulateinu. It's simply not up for argument. Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook's ideology has defeated old Mizrachi ideology hands down in its hold over the dat-leumi community. I'm not saying I like it, but it's what I see.
While Kookian mamlachtiut took a beating with the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, it's still dominant. The CEO of Tzohar Kashrut recently bemoaned the fact that Kosharot, under the auspices of Rav Elyakim Levanon, won't even speak to him because it views Tzohar as attacking the authority of the Rabbanut, which Kosharot sees as sacrosanct (even though it's now a plaything of the Shas party).
I wrote "native-Israeli" because many Anglos, especially in the Gush world, are more influenced by Rav Soloveitchik, who was agnostic on the question whether the state is tz'michat reishit ge'ulateinu. But my impression is that that view is still marginal here in Israel.
It's accepted but many/most people don't think about it too much and it's not a major decisive part of their lives. It's not what being DL is about.
The Anglos on the world I'm a part of are less focused on the status as ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו, as important as that is, as they are on the general pride of the status of the state as "our state," properly constituted as representative of the Jewish people such that it is axiomatic that datiim integrate with them, even if "small" overlooking of halacha or certainly routinely grasping at and happily adopting unlikely leniencies becomes necessary. It's a tiny price to pay to be a full participant in the gloriously historic significance of finally having Our State as full, unhesitating participants. To question this is to let all the air out of the entire enterprise of their ideology. The gush type are more nuanced and capable of maintaining both attitudes at the same time. It's our state and we're thrilled about it and committed to it but we also have a Torah we're committed to for real and we need to satisfy both.
Bottom line is the interviwees said it right. The organizing force giving life to the dati leumi community is the religious and full political status of the state as a legitimate Jewish authority that defines the framework of Jewish identity within which some are dati and follow the rush and some are not and don't.
"I certainly am not at all confident that the state is reishis tzmichas geulaseinu!"
Neither was Rov Soloveitchik z'tz'l.
Very true, but that view of Rav Soloveitchik has minimal influence in the native-Israeli dati-leumi scene.
The title suggested that a rep of Modern Orthodox would also be interviewed. Who was that? I'd be interested in a comparison of Modern Orthodox and Dat-Leumi. I assume that it's not just the connection to the State of Israel and Eretz Yisrael that differentiate them.
Thanks, Rabbi Slifkin, for sharing your views. You are uniquely placed to have insights on both worlds, though it also means you'll get arguments from both sides