This may be silly question but I would appreciate an answer.
As I understand it the charedim claim that their learning protects the people of Israel. From wither is there proof of this ? Using precedents to the contrary:
- Joshua, Saul, David all fought physical battles. None of them claimed that their Torah protected the people.
- Rabbi Akiva apparently supported Bar Kochba in his rebellion against the Romans. No one claimed that that their Torah protected the people so negating a requirement to fight the Romans as far as I can see.
-Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakai negotiated with Vespasian to try and save what he could from the beseiged Jerusalem. He did not claim that his Torah would protect the people from churban hayis.
Given the Torah of Rashi, Tosfos etc for generations where was the Torah protection against the crusades, Chemielinski, the Holocaust etc etc.
If the claim is new is it because it is only now justifed in that the current learning results in a greater spiritual level than previously and therefore, unlike the above forebears, no army is necessary -then why did 7 October happen. Also where is the proof of that ?
And if an Army is required given that the Torah apparently does not provide complete protection (or we would not be where we are) then everyone has to contribute. As an analogy - even a poor man is required to give tzedaka.
The idea never meant that nothing bad, difficult, or terrible will happen. It means that learning is better than not learning, for all outcomes. The travails of history needed to happen, for unknown reasons. They would have been worse if not for learning.
You are right in the fact that the scientific method cannot prove or disprove the claim. But once we accept that the Torah says it, the scientific method is irrelevant. Only someone with blind belief in the scientific method, a decidedly non-rational approach, can decide that the lack of the ability for science to prove something deems it non-existent.
Yes, Michael. This is indeed a very silly question, and not well thought-out. Haredim do not believe that the army should be disbanded, nor do they make the claim that Torah protects us and we don't need to engage in worldly efforts. Yes, there may be poor communication in disseminating what Bnei Torah actually believe. In the vacuum looms the master pen of Dr. Slifkin, who simply distorts Haredi belief to suit his 'knock them down' agenda. I suggest that you go into a Yeshiva and discuss the matter with serious Talmidei Chachamim in real life. Obviously, we are all aware of the Biblical stories that you cite, but that is not how Halacha and observance are decided. There is a balance between Hishtadlus and Bitachon that we always need to navigate .
Sadly you avoid my point that all the examples I gave show that Jews went to war and did not rely solely on the view that Torah totally protects and so no army is needed.
BTW I omitted the example of the Chashmonayim who went to war and defeated the Greeks. Despite their Torah they went out to fight and did not solely rely on their Torah protecting them which is the convenient view of those who apparently want to sit and learn and not help the fight against those who want to murder us.
Sadly you seem to miss my point which perhaps I did not explain well.
I have no doubt that Torah and especially personal midot (even amongst those without Torah,) help protect a person.
However one needs to apply one's own effort which is to go out and fight. If one does one's utmost than IY'H one will be successful.
I imagine many soldiers whether charedi or not can testify to ezrat hashem in battle or in my case, other areas of danger in life.
Unlike many charedim who appear to think that "their Torah" will protect them and they need do nothing more (whether this is an arrogant view or not is not for me to suggest) , I think that one needs to work to one's utmost bederah hateva and also pray for siyato dishmayo.
The examples I gave and which you in no way you dispelled show that this seems to be the way that Joshua, David, Saul, the Jews fighting thev Romans, the IDF (yes - many so called chilonim in my view do believe although they may not show it) the Hashmonayim etc acted.
When faced with spiritual war, we fight. Because that is our Mitzvah. The same Mitzvah to follow Torah demands we stop people preventing that. But those who fight us for physical issues, such as our lives, homes, or money, are better defeated with Torah learning.
So then why did we fight against amalek (just one example) with actual warfare and not simply learn in front of them? (Yes I know Moshe's hands/bitachon, etc but that was accompanied by war)
It reminds me of the comic strip "Peanuts", where Linus has this irrational belief that he has to remain awake in a pumpkin patch the entire night of Halloween, to summon the appearance of "The Great Pumpkin".
When the anticipated revelation doesn't occur, he always has a justification: he fell asleep, he expressed doubt whether the Great Pumpkin will appear, etc.
I'm not trying to generalize to all Charedim. Speaking as a Lubavitcher chassid, I can identify similar behavior amongst our own אנ"ש...
Sometimes it's good to inject a little more rationalist thought into our thinking, and stick with things that are written out clearly, rather than speculating "what did the Rebbe mean when he said x".
Torah Protects - okay, there are many references, half references, and others sayings that some people stick it in, but in reality that is just not there.
Here is my question - every mitzvah protects!! Read any Loshen Hora book, on how the greatest merit for Jews is not speaking bad about some one else. They have 50 or so saying by this one and that one to prove this.
Take a mitzvah like shabbos. I can show 20-30 saying, how it protected the yidden throughout the generations. The word "shomer' is said countless times only by shabbos etc. Question, now I myself am shomer Shabbos am I exempt from serving and protecting my people. I understand I do things that protect us in a spiritual manner, and then I must do something more obvious and protect in a physical manner.
Why don't we just argue every shomer shabbos does not have to serve??? Anyone think of that?
Hi Saul, nice to see you again! You are right that every mitzvah protects. And every sin brings retribution. By doing mitzvos and keeping the Torah, you are contributing to the defense of the Jewish people. However, somebody who is more attached the Torah is doing more protecting than somebody who is less. And the primary protection of Eretz Yisrael (or of Jews anywhere else) is from those Jews who follow the Torah, not the mighty warriors who otherwise forsake the Torah.
But in any case, that itself is not the reason why chareidim don't serve. It's just a true statement that any Torah-observer knows and believes, and expresses the great contribution the benei yeshivos are making. But all else equal, it wouldn't be enough to exempt somebody from service.
Aha. I see. And you think that the chiloni units are sufficient to protect EY for the past 75 years (or whenever you want to count from) if every other guy is in Yeshiva? And the charedi bachur that is not singleminded in their learning should serve then?
Id really appreciate it if you didn't get so terribly TRIGGERED every time you see them deliberately misusing /abusing that possuk. They are doing it deliberately to wind up people like you, and by getting wound up you are playing into their hands
The United States of America has always allowed conscientious objectors to military service to avoid military service. In the first wars, the country faced, starting with its war of independence, there was no conscription. Not until well into the American Civil War was conscription introduced. If one had enough money, one could pay a substitute. Future President Grover Cleveland did just that. Conscientious objectors did alternative service, usually in military hospitals. Conscription returned for World War I and then again shortly before World War II. It continued after WW2 until 1973. Again, alternative service was always provided as an alternative for conscientious objectors. I remember once hearing from a minister in one of the peace churches that its members had become active advocates for mentally ill persons because so many had done alternative service in mental hospitals, seeing firsthand the horrible conditions in many.
The Confederate States of America adopted conscription about a year before the USA did during the Civil War. The law didn't provide for conscientious objectors to get out of serving, although just five days after enactment a long list of exemptions by occupation were added and ministers were among them. The CSA allowed paying a substitute -- for a while.
Conscription was very unpopular in the South, especially after another exemption was enacted which allowed anyone overseeing twenty enslaved people to get out of the draft. (And there are still people who deny that the American Civil War was about preserving slavery!) There was at times violent resistance to conscription in both the North and the South; the July 1863 Draft Riots in New York City was probably the most famous example, quickly turning into a race riot against the free Black people in the city who had been exempted from the draft as they were not US citizens! (That would change in 1868.) A fictionalized portrayal of the Draft Riots is in the movie "Gangs of New York". There weren't such big riots in the CSA; its only large city, New Orleans, was captured by the Union Army and Navy without resistance just two weeks after the draft law was enacted. New Orleans experienced not conscription but a rather brutal occupation.
There was a lot of resistance to the World War I draft as well. Socialist leader Eugene Debs, who had gotten six percent of the vote in the 1912 Presidential election, was particularly outspoken against the war effort and served almost three years in prison, primarily for obstructing the draft. There was much less resistance to the World War II draft, as the United States had been attacked. I lived through the sometimes violent anti-war protests during the Vietnam War, largely stimulated by the draft.
The Vietnam "anti-war" protests only began when college deferments were threatened. The "principled" hippie pacifists were fine with the war right up until the point that it seemed *they* might have to be shot at. So they weren't so much "anti-war" as "don't draft privileged white people" protests. The fact that some of the hippies began engaging in violence is just icing on the cake- they were fine with violence for *certain* reasons, so long as it wasn't employed against Vietnamese Communists.
Conscientious objection is OK in a country with a hundred million people and a small percentage of actually pacifist Quakers and Adventists, and especially if the objectors are still conscripted into the war effort or some other public service, as they are in the US. (Desmond Doss was a conscientious objector who actually *went into combat* and won the Medal of Honor.) And the US has not faced an existential threat since about 1814.
Israel has population less than a *thirtieth* that of the US, and 20% of even *that* are Arabs who are logically not called up, and faces far greater threats. To grant a blanket, and total, exemption to a *further* 10% of the population, calling them "conscientious objectors", especially when they are no such thing*, is impossible.
*Technically the charedim *are* objectors of a sort in that they object to Zionism and the State, period. But they will never admit that out loud, and of course are fine with getting *benefits* from the State.
You know which group of Americans gets a blanket exemption? Amish. You know what else Amish don't do? Pay, or collect, Social Security.
More on the conscientious objector program in the US during WW2. 43,000 compared to 16 million serving in the military. And the majority did non-combatant service in the military.
One could argue that leaving Yeshiva to protect Torah is acceptable because the bnei Torah can't rely on anyone else to fight for Torah. On the other hand, since the vast majority of the country is not observant, there are enough people to serve in the army.
Once charedim concede that the army is necessary to do things that Bnei Torah cannot accomplish via Torah, then they need to get into a discussion of how many soldiers are needed, and at what point the number/percentage of people with exemptions needs to be capped.
No, that's not quite true. The chareidim can say that army service is harmful to our identity, and there is clearly no emergency right now except people complaining about fairness- an emotional complaint.
It is precisely an emotional complaint. Why is he richer than me and I work harder, not fair. Why does he get to go to Florida for winter vacation, not fair. Not fair, not fair, not fair. Didn't anybody ever tell you life is not fair? I haven't seen a single rational thing from you since the war.
There is? Is it fair that I have to pay more taxes than the next guy just because I make more money? Life is not fair, and the faster people learn that the better off they are. Certainly, there is nothing rational at all about pumping out constant articles about how unfair things are. I don't blame somebody for the occasional gripe, but it's just ridiculous that a guy who has made his entire life mission to whine and complain calls himself a "rationalist".
You said "Time for chilonim to start having more kids if they are so concerned about that" in response to the comment that "There aren’t enough people now and the percentage of exempt is growing." So you seem to be suggesting that if chilonim are concerned about there not being enough soldiers, at least partially because chareidim are not doing their fair share, they should have more children so they can serve. In other words, have more children specifically to serve in the IDF, to potentially die or be seriously wounded. Cannon fodder. There may be certain groups that have more children primarily so they can be used as soldiers/sacrifices in their "holy" wars, but that's not something Jews do, and it's a disgusting suggestion.
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. I think it's disgusting that you call soldiers "cannon fodder". I never heard a chareidi talk about soldiers in such disgusting terms.
Years ago I had a student in one of my classes who was an Israeli draft dodger. He couldn't return to Israel because he faced prosecution. I actually had the chutzpah to ask him why he didn't just declare himself to be charedi.
He responded directly to your (false) assertion that there is no Charedi exemption. His suggesting it to a chutznik was a riposte not a serious suggestion.
So it's to the benefit of charedim that others do not become charedim and they should logically discourage the non-observant from doing so or there won't be enough to serve as soldiers? Does that sound right?
What about frum non-charedim who certainly daven 3 times a day, but serve in the IDF? If thousands of them became (non-serving) chareidim, that would decrease the number of soldiers without "a corresponding lessening of preventable dangers to the Jews of Israel" since there's nothing for them to do teshuva for.
Learning leads to practice….Lol that’s a good one. You mean like blocking traffic and throwing stones on Shabbat? Ripping down any pictures of women no matter how modest? Referring to soldiers as pigs?? Yeah they learn real well how to practice…
you seem to have missed the point of my post, which is that Torah does protect, but only the individual from sinning, not national borders or the Jewish People. However, the vast majority of Charedim do not do any of those things you enumerate above..
You really believe that the social group acknowledged to be the most moral and ethical in history, and in the world, would be prepared to suffer all the vicious vilification and abuse heaped upon them by ignorant, shallow, self-centred and interested politicians and "journalists" - and their useful idiots - if what they were fighting for was not vitally and critically important?
Perhaps you should all try to look further than your nose and at least make some attempt to understand.....
I have seen plenty of evidence that the institutions of haredi Jews in Israel are not necessarily either moral or ethical when it comes to perpetuating themselves according to the status quo. Rioting, blocking public thoroughfares of citizens who are not even involved in deciding the issues is neither moral nor ethical.
Uh, yeah: We're frum Jews, and thus we realize that not every frum person is ethical and moral, nor that black hats are required for one to be ethical and moral or even guarantee it.
Although chareidim are acknowledged to be the most moral and ethical in history, they should be expressing more gratitude to the chilonim! Thus says Jerry Steinfeld!
Letting your fellow citizens fight and die on your behalf while simultaneously taking welfare payments from them might strike you as "moral and ethical"; however, in my mind, it raises a few questions.
This may be silly question but I would appreciate an answer.
As I understand it the charedim claim that their learning protects the people of Israel. From wither is there proof of this ? Using precedents to the contrary:
- Joshua, Saul, David all fought physical battles. None of them claimed that their Torah protected the people.
- Rabbi Akiva apparently supported Bar Kochba in his rebellion against the Romans. No one claimed that that their Torah protected the people so negating a requirement to fight the Romans as far as I can see.
-Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakai negotiated with Vespasian to try and save what he could from the beseiged Jerusalem. He did not claim that his Torah would protect the people from churban hayis.
Given the Torah of Rashi, Tosfos etc for generations where was the Torah protection against the crusades, Chemielinski, the Holocaust etc etc.
If the claim is new is it because it is only now justifed in that the current learning results in a greater spiritual level than previously and therefore, unlike the above forebears, no army is necessary -then why did 7 October happen. Also where is the proof of that ?
And if an Army is required given that the Torah apparently does not provide complete protection (or we would not be where we are) then everyone has to contribute. As an analogy - even a poor man is required to give tzedaka.
It is all very puzzling.
Your question is not very well thought out.
The idea never meant that nothing bad, difficult, or terrible will happen. It means that learning is better than not learning, for all outcomes. The travails of history needed to happen, for unknown reasons. They would have been worse if not for learning.
You are right in the fact that the scientific method cannot prove or disprove the claim. But once we accept that the Torah says it, the scientific method is irrelevant. Only someone with blind belief in the scientific method, a decidedly non-rational approach, can decide that the lack of the ability for science to prove something deems it non-existent.
Yes, Michael. This is indeed a very silly question, and not well thought-out. Haredim do not believe that the army should be disbanded, nor do they make the claim that Torah protects us and we don't need to engage in worldly efforts. Yes, there may be poor communication in disseminating what Bnei Torah actually believe. In the vacuum looms the master pen of Dr. Slifkin, who simply distorts Haredi belief to suit his 'knock them down' agenda. I suggest that you go into a Yeshiva and discuss the matter with serious Talmidei Chachamim in real life. Obviously, we are all aware of the Biblical stories that you cite, but that is not how Halacha and observance are decided. There is a balance between Hishtadlus and Bitachon that we always need to navigate .
Hey dear fellow, it seems you doubt the fact that Torah protects! Here is some good reading material to set you straight!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/does-torah-protect
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/by-what-merit-do-we-succeed-in-battle
These should answer all your doubts and questions!
Eli
Thank you for your detailed and lengthy response.
Sadly you avoid my point that all the examples I gave show that Jews went to war and did not rely solely on the view that Torah totally protects and so no army is needed.
BTW I omitted the example of the Chashmonayim who went to war and defeated the Greeks. Despite their Torah they went out to fight and did not solely rely on their Torah protecting them which is the convenient view of those who apparently want to sit and learn and not help the fight against those who want to murder us.
Sadly you seem to miss my point which perhaps I did not explain well.
I have no doubt that Torah and especially personal midot (even amongst those without Torah,) help protect a person.
However one needs to apply one's own effort which is to go out and fight. If one does one's utmost than IY'H one will be successful.
I imagine many soldiers whether charedi or not can testify to ezrat hashem in battle or in my case, other areas of danger in life.
Unlike many charedim who appear to think that "their Torah" will protect them and they need do nothing more (whether this is an arrogant view or not is not for me to suggest) , I think that one needs to work to one's utmost bederah hateva and also pray for siyato dishmayo.
The examples I gave and which you in no way you dispelled show that this seems to be the way that Joshua, David, Saul, the Jews fighting thev Romans, the IDF (yes - many so called chilonim in my view do believe although they may not show it) the Hashmonayim etc acted.
The Chashmona'im is a different story.
When faced with spiritual war, we fight. Because that is our Mitzvah. The same Mitzvah to follow Torah demands we stop people preventing that. But those who fight us for physical issues, such as our lives, homes, or money, are better defeated with Torah learning.
So then why did we fight against amalek (just one example) with actual warfare and not simply learn in front of them? (Yes I know Moshe's hands/bitachon, etc but that was accompanied by war)
See Chazal on that, as quoted in the Ramban on Chumash there.
But you do know that this was prior to Matan Torah, right?
What does prior to Matan Torah have to do with anything? Yaakov Avinu learned whatever Torah was considered to be?
Yes it's obvious bulls**t. The claim that Zionism protects Jews is also obvious bulls**t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
there are usually two choices, either admit error or double down
Bsorot tovot
It reminds me of the comic strip "Peanuts", where Linus has this irrational belief that he has to remain awake in a pumpkin patch the entire night of Halloween, to summon the appearance of "The Great Pumpkin".
When the anticipated revelation doesn't occur, he always has a justification: he fell asleep, he expressed doubt whether the Great Pumpkin will appear, etc.
Brilliant. Now charedim are all compared to Linus. Add it to the list of Slifkin's infantile mocking analogies...
I'm not trying to generalize to all Charedim. Speaking as a Lubavitcher chassid, I can identify similar behavior amongst our own אנ"ש...
Sometimes it's good to inject a little more rationalist thought into our thinking, and stick with things that are written out clearly, rather than speculating "what did the Rebbe mean when he said x".
I was so excited to read this. I almost had hope.
Torah Protects - okay, there are many references, half references, and others sayings that some people stick it in, but in reality that is just not there.
Here is my question - every mitzvah protects!! Read any Loshen Hora book, on how the greatest merit for Jews is not speaking bad about some one else. They have 50 or so saying by this one and that one to prove this.
Take a mitzvah like shabbos. I can show 20-30 saying, how it protected the yidden throughout the generations. The word "shomer' is said countless times only by shabbos etc. Question, now I myself am shomer Shabbos am I exempt from serving and protecting my people. I understand I do things that protect us in a spiritual manner, and then I must do something more obvious and protect in a physical manner.
Why don't we just argue every shomer shabbos does not have to serve??? Anyone think of that?
Hi Saul, nice to see you again! You are right that every mitzvah protects. And every sin brings retribution. By doing mitzvos and keeping the Torah, you are contributing to the defense of the Jewish people. However, somebody who is more attached the Torah is doing more protecting than somebody who is less. And the primary protection of Eretz Yisrael (or of Jews anywhere else) is from those Jews who follow the Torah, not the mighty warriors who otherwise forsake the Torah.
But in any case, that itself is not the reason why chareidim don't serve. It's just a true statement that any Torah-observer knows and believes, and expresses the great contribution the benei yeshivos are making. But all else equal, it wouldn't be enough to exempt somebody from service.
He can be Shomer Shabbos in the Army too. So that is no contradiction.
But true Torah, as the Rambam explains, needs single-minded focus. The Army is a contradiction.
Therein lies the difference.
And please, don't compare Shay Agnon to Chazal.
Who mentioned Shay Agnon?
Those who know, know.
If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, shut up.
Those who don't know, tell others to shut up.
So should the Hesder yeshiva bachurim leave the army and go back to learning?
If they can change their lifestyle to a singleminded focus on learning, they certainly should.
I wouldn't call it 'back' when they never believed in it in the first place.
Aha. I see. And you think that the chiloni units are sufficient to protect EY for the past 75 years (or whenever you want to count from) if every other guy is in Yeshiva? And the charedi bachur that is not singleminded in their learning should serve then?
Id really appreciate it if you didn't get so terribly TRIGGERED every time you see them deliberately misusing /abusing that possuk. They are doing it deliberately to wind up people like you, and by getting wound up you are playing into their hands
I really don't think so. I think they sincerely believe in how they are applying it.
I am convinced they do not see the irony.
I knew what to expect to read.
I lost faith and trust in the Haredi Olam years ago. I'm trying to cling to respect - whatever remains of it.
The United States of America has always allowed conscientious objectors to military service to avoid military service. In the first wars, the country faced, starting with its war of independence, there was no conscription. Not until well into the American Civil War was conscription introduced. If one had enough money, one could pay a substitute. Future President Grover Cleveland did just that. Conscientious objectors did alternative service, usually in military hospitals. Conscription returned for World War I and then again shortly before World War II. It continued after WW2 until 1973. Again, alternative service was always provided as an alternative for conscientious objectors. I remember once hearing from a minister in one of the peace churches that its members had become active advocates for mentally ill persons because so many had done alternative service in mental hospitals, seeing firsthand the horrible conditions in many.
The Confederate States of America adopted conscription about a year before the USA did during the Civil War. The law didn't provide for conscientious objectors to get out of serving, although just five days after enactment a long list of exemptions by occupation were added and ministers were among them. The CSA allowed paying a substitute -- for a while.
Conscription was very unpopular in the South, especially after another exemption was enacted which allowed anyone overseeing twenty enslaved people to get out of the draft. (And there are still people who deny that the American Civil War was about preserving slavery!) There was at times violent resistance to conscription in both the North and the South; the July 1863 Draft Riots in New York City was probably the most famous example, quickly turning into a race riot against the free Black people in the city who had been exempted from the draft as they were not US citizens! (That would change in 1868.) A fictionalized portrayal of the Draft Riots is in the movie "Gangs of New York". There weren't such big riots in the CSA; its only large city, New Orleans, was captured by the Union Army and Navy without resistance just two weeks after the draft law was enacted. New Orleans experienced not conscription but a rather brutal occupation.
There was a lot of resistance to the World War I draft as well. Socialist leader Eugene Debs, who had gotten six percent of the vote in the 1912 Presidential election, was particularly outspoken against the war effort and served almost three years in prison, primarily for obstructing the draft. There was much less resistance to the World War II draft, as the United States had been attacked. I lived through the sometimes violent anti-war protests during the Vietnam War, largely stimulated by the draft.
The Vietnam "anti-war" protests only began when college deferments were threatened. The "principled" hippie pacifists were fine with the war right up until the point that it seemed *they* might have to be shot at. So they weren't so much "anti-war" as "don't draft privileged white people" protests. The fact that some of the hippies began engaging in violence is just icing on the cake- they were fine with violence for *certain* reasons, so long as it wasn't employed against Vietnamese Communists.
Conscientious objection is OK in a country with a hundred million people and a small percentage of actually pacifist Quakers and Adventists, and especially if the objectors are still conscripted into the war effort or some other public service, as they are in the US. (Desmond Doss was a conscientious objector who actually *went into combat* and won the Medal of Honor.) And the US has not faced an existential threat since about 1814.
Israel has population less than a *thirtieth* that of the US, and 20% of even *that* are Arabs who are logically not called up, and faces far greater threats. To grant a blanket, and total, exemption to a *further* 10% of the population, calling them "conscientious objectors", especially when they are no such thing*, is impossible.
*Technically the charedim *are* objectors of a sort in that they object to Zionism and the State, period. But they will never admit that out loud, and of course are fine with getting *benefits* from the State.
You know which group of Americans gets a blanket exemption? Amish. You know what else Amish don't do? Pay, or collect, Social Security.
Well said.
More on the conscientious objector program in the US during WW2. 43,000 compared to 16 million serving in the military. And the majority did non-combatant service in the military.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/conscientious-objectors-civilian-public-service
the guys that object to joining idf are put in jail and then go on leftist tv to serve as proof that the israel is bad.
Nice, edifying comment, but I dont really understand what it has to do with this post, exept its penultimate sentence.
I'm all for a professional army in Israel (with the slack picked up by conscription).
Until then, it's academic.
"I'm all for a professional army in Israel (with the slack picked up by conscription)"
That's basically what Israel *has*.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6hHmsoNwUecEDXZTsanrX5LvX5TDl_Pf
One could argue that leaving Yeshiva to protect Torah is acceptable because the bnei Torah can't rely on anyone else to fight for Torah. On the other hand, since the vast majority of the country is not observant, there are enough people to serve in the army.
Once charedim concede that the army is necessary to do things that Bnei Torah cannot accomplish via Torah, then they need to get into a discussion of how many soldiers are needed, and at what point the number/percentage of people with exemptions needs to be capped.
No, that's not quite true. The chareidim can say that army service is harmful to our identity, and there is clearly no emergency right now except people complaining about fairness- an emotional complaint.
How on earth is fairness just an "emotional" complaint? How about if you pay all my taxes.
It is precisely an emotional complaint. Why is he richer than me and I work harder, not fair. Why does he get to go to Florida for winter vacation, not fair. Not fair, not fair, not fair. Didn't anybody ever tell you life is not fair? I haven't seen a single rational thing from you since the war.
There's a difference between fairness of outcome and fairness of obligation
There is? Is it fair that I have to pay more taxes than the next guy just because I make more money? Life is not fair, and the faster people learn that the better off they are. Certainly, there is nothing rational at all about pumping out constant articles about how unfair things are. I don't blame somebody for the occasional gripe, but it's just ridiculous that a guy who has made his entire life mission to whine and complain calls himself a "rationalist".
Life not being fair, doesn't make a complaint about fairness "precisely" an emotional one.
"On the other hand...."
--------
"There is no 'other hand'!" - Tevya
There aren’t enough people now and the percentage of exempt is growing.
Time for chilonim to start having more kids if they are so concerned about that.
You mean intentionally create more cannon fodder? That's a disgusting suggestion.
Huh? Why would you call soldiers "cannon fodder"? When did I ever suggest something like that?
You said "Time for chilonim to start having more kids if they are so concerned about that" in response to the comment that "There aren’t enough people now and the percentage of exempt is growing." So you seem to be suggesting that if chilonim are concerned about there not being enough soldiers, at least partially because chareidim are not doing their fair share, they should have more children so they can serve. In other words, have more children specifically to serve in the IDF, to potentially die or be seriously wounded. Cannon fodder. There may be certain groups that have more children primarily so they can be used as soldiers/sacrifices in their "holy" wars, but that's not something Jews do, and it's a disgusting suggestion.
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. I think it's disgusting that you call soldiers "cannon fodder". I never heard a chareidi talk about soldiers in such disgusting terms.
Do you like it when people recommend chareidim have less kids?
This is about likes and dislikes now?
Years ago I had a student in one of my classes who was an Israeli draft dodger. He couldn't return to Israel because he faced prosecution. I actually had the chutzpah to ask him why he didn't just declare himself to be charedi.
Because unlike your bigoted fantasies, there are no Charedi exemptions, deferments, or anything else from the army.
Only a Torah learning deferment. Going to Chutz La'aretz invalidates that.
Charedim who aren't learning aren't getting drafted.
$45 for another irrelevant comment.
He responded directly to your (false) assertion that there is no Charedi exemption. His suggesting it to a chutznik was a riposte not a serious suggestion.
So it's to the benefit of charedim that others do not become charedim and they should logically discourage the non-observant from doing so or there won't be enough to serve as soldiers? Does that sound right?
No, because if the non-religious did Teshuva, there would be a corresponding lessening of preventable dangers to the Jews of Israel.
Did you say Shema today?
What about frum non-charedim who certainly daven 3 times a day, but serve in the IDF? If thousands of them became (non-serving) chareidim, that would decrease the number of soldiers without "a corresponding lessening of preventable dangers to the Jews of Israel" since there's nothing for them to do teshuva for.
Becoming Charedim would do nothing for them. Charedim should also go to the Army.
I am talking about full-time learning. If they turned to full-time learning, we would have a corresponding increase in merits.
"there are enough people to serve in the army"
Actually there aren't, even when women are conscripted.
Which is why the terms of service are being lengthened.
If the chareidim leave the coalition, that spells the end of the war. So Bibi is being blackmailed to find a work around.
repeat 100 times.
Learning Torah leads to practice and protects one from sin.
Everything else is speculative feel good commentary
Learning leads to practice….Lol that’s a good one. You mean like blocking traffic and throwing stones on Shabbat? Ripping down any pictures of women no matter how modest? Referring to soldiers as pigs?? Yeah they learn real well how to practice…
David Ilan,
you seem to have missed the point of my post, which is that Torah does protect, but only the individual from sinning, not national borders or the Jewish People. However, the vast majority of Charedim do not do any of those things you enumerate above..
Cheers,
mb
The VAST majority do support those who demonstrate, and act how shall I say non religiously in their violence
This is a tragic topic but u made it pretty funny. Shkoaych!
You really believe that the social group acknowledged to be the most moral and ethical in history, and in the world, would be prepared to suffer all the vicious vilification and abuse heaped upon them by ignorant, shallow, self-centred and interested politicians and "journalists" - and their useful idiots - if what they were fighting for was not vitally and critically important?
Perhaps you should all try to look further than your nose and at least make some attempt to understand.....
I have seen plenty of evidence that the institutions of haredi Jews in Israel are not necessarily either moral or ethical when it comes to perpetuating themselves according to the status quo. Rioting, blocking public thoroughfares of citizens who are not even involved in deciding the issues is neither moral nor ethical.
The rioters and blockers are distinct minority groups
No they are supported by their majority in thier actions
"Acknowledged to be"? By who??
Well, not by antisemites, for one.
And I in my naivete actually thought that the posters here were frum Jews.....
Uh, yeah: We're frum Jews, and thus we realize that not every frum person is ethical and moral, nor that black hats are required for one to be ethical and moral or even guarantee it.
Although chareidim are acknowledged to be the most moral and ethical in history, they should be expressing more gratitude to the chilonim! Thus says Jerry Steinfeld!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-gratitude-attitude
Morality and ethics do not allow for living off of others while denigrating them. They are pretty unethical…
Letting your fellow citizens fight and die on your behalf while simultaneously taking welfare payments from them might strike you as "moral and ethical"; however, in my mind, it raises a few questions.
I don't follow Israeli Charedi news much, but US Charedim seem to have their fair share of scandals.
Solid!