Science reveals the mechanics of the observable universe, it is natural to want to understand how things work. Perhaps the Creator of the miraculous and intricate universe is disappointed that some of his creations do not make an effort to understand the beauty of it all? He is like "Why did I even bother to create all of this when they are not curious about how it works!". How many of his creations ever look up at the cosmos and marvel at its beauty and complexity?
That's actually an underratedly important comment.
The charedi viewpoint is that we are here to learn Torah and understand God as He prescribes to us in His Torah. Questions like these actually don't bother us as much, because (a) we know there are answers and (b) we aren't confident to know that we will know the right answers. The only thing we are and can be confident about is the truth of the Torah and the halachos we delve into to understand the mind of the Creator. Science, while it has it's place in avoda, especially when discussing ahavas Hashem as the Rambam discusses, is not the main way we get to know God. We can gaze at the beauty of evolution or the theory of relativity or the incredible complexity of the mitochondria in the bathroom because that isn't learning His will and His essence, it is just a shell. So we leave it to those who have less appreciation for Torah and think they are the height of mankind for having a "knowledge" of the shell, but leaving their "trust" of the intricate details of Hashem's word to the "rabbis" who they hardly respect. The rabbis do the opposite - the love and cherish every word of the gemara and spend hours becoming intimate with its nuances, while the questions of the shell, they leave it to the scientists.
And no, there's nothing wrong with being a scientist, and in fact Jewish scientists are commendable for many, many reasons, but who is higher on the totem pole in Judaism? It's not and shouldn't be an insult to be lower on the totem pole; we all have different roles, but flipping the script and losing sight of what's really important in life is very easy to do, which is why we have the rabbis leading the way for anyone who's interested.
The problem is your Rabbis want people to live off others, while real honest Rabbis want everyone to do his own histadlus, and go shoulder to shoulder with the rest of K'lal Yisroel
Is where one Rav says you have to hold 2 days yom tov in Israel, and another says one day is also fine.
However, if one says you are allowed to steal from others, and the other says it is not allowed you have to work for your money. Exactly what kind of Elu V'elu is that? One is a crook and the other is an honest person.
gocha. You know better than 1000's of תלמידי חכמים, who study יומם ולילה. Not just a different שיטה but explicit moral authority. No wonder your culture runs after army service. Militant superiority complex drives you.
No My Friend. it is indeed so sad to see 1,000 Talmdei Chachmem using Hashem Torah to hoodwink the rest of "Hashems People"
Try to Imagine how Hashem feels?
These people are using my Holy Torah "Anu Nafshe Kashvis Yehuvis" I put my own-self in the Torah, and they use it to become Draft Dodgers, getting out not protect MY very own land.
Practically speaking, that's mostly true, but it's not so simple. There is a line of thought popularized by the Ishbitzer Rebbe, R' Tzadok, and others that Hashem created two Books, Nature and Torah, and they reveal and compliment each other. The Nefesh HaChaim even compares the Earth to the "body" of Hashem. Thus physical reality need not contradict ruchniyus, but is rather a reflection of it. Hashem didn't "mess up" when He created teva!
Those who know how to delve into this might find it more worthwhile than trying to spend hours trying to figure out who said what braisa. Hence דָּבָר גָּדוֹל" — מַעֲשֵׂה מֶרְכָּבָה. דָּבָר קָטָן — הֲוָיוֹת דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא".
I agree, but I don't think they were talking about evolution and atoms which were only revealed to mankind later; they are discussing the way nature looks to the naked eye which does compliment the spiritual realm. I'm sure these other aspects of modern science have their place as well in that picture but I'm not sure how.
But either way, like you said that's for the really giant people like the Gr'a to figure out. For simple people like me, science is purely about seeing His majesty, while Torah is seeing His actual will.
"Science, while it has it's place in avoda, especially when discussing ahavas Hashem as the Rambam discusses, is not the main way we get to know God.""
What about science's place in הלכה and keeping us from dying prematurely?
True, and I agree that at some point people should take their heads out of the sand, but only after building a solid foundation of what Torah is. The amount of people I know who's Judaism has failed them because of science and other worldly intellectualisms are really coming from a weak foundation of what Torah can be. I feel like the MO community feel like everything is equal and it really messes people up. Science has its place, but Torah is our connection to Him and is what really matters, in a whole different way that isn't even in the same league!
I'm talking about people that are now off the derech completely, some in practice, some just in their beliefs. If that's not a failure by you, that's a different story.
War if not a מצוה in itself, is wrapped up with many מצות.
And after the רמב"ם paskens:
וכל הנלחם בכל ליבו בלא פחד, ותהיה כוונתו לקדש את השם בלבד--מובטח לו שלא ימצא נזק ולא תגיעו רעה, ויבנה לו בית נכון בישראל, ויזכה לו ולבניו עד עולם, ויזכה לחיי העולם הבא
...it's preposterous to denigrate war and its accompanying מצות as mere השתדלות.
And then there's the description the גמרא of an ideal soldier:
עדינו העצני - כשהיה יושב ועוסק בתורה היה מעדן עצמו כתולעת, ובשעה שיוצא למלחמה היה מקשה עצמו כעץ
The Rambam and the sages of the Talmud lived in times when there was no sovereign Jewish state. Consequently, their perspectives on war, maintaining an army, and related matters were shaped by mystical and midrashic interpretations rather than practical governance. To understand how things truly worked, look to the Tanach. There, you won't find yeshivas or the notion of Torah study providing "divine protection." Instead, wars were fought conventionally. For example, David asks God whether he should attack the Philistines, receives a positive response, and then leads his men into battle. He doesn't request Torah study on his behalf, nor does he seek blessings or amulets from prophets.
You conveniently forgot one (and there are other similar ones):
Hishtadlus for joining the workforce: Charedim highly prefer to work in insulated environments, even at the cost of earning less, in order to not have to mix with cultures that they feel are harmful and/or antagonistic to their way of life
It never makes sense to me to speak for the whole of chareidim as one single entity where everyone thinks and does the same thing. So yeah, I'll grant you that point.
My point is just that there is a significant segment that lives with this belief, and avoids army service for the same reason which is consistent and not a contradiction as the author is suggesting.
Yeah, back when the whole contretemps erupted I asked my Mancunian sister-in-law if she knew this "Nosson Slifkin". "Oh, Nati?" she asked. (I think she was your babysitter or something.) "Well, if he called himself that..."
More to the point: If we're talking individually, then most of us "offload" quite a few of those things: We're not all doctors or soldiers and so on. (Of course we *go* to doctors, lock our doors, vote, and so on.) If we're talking communally, then you have a very good point. To take one: We all pay taxes, some of which comes back to us as benefits. But if a community chooses not to work, it's going to pay a lot less taxes, while at the same time, ironically, it will require *more* government benefits. And so on.
The other day I read an article in The Atlantic about Israel at war. It was pro-Israel- we take what we can these days- but at one point the author, visiting Israel, mentioned that one change he saw was that dati leumi friends and family of his were suddenly a lot less tolerant of charedim than they may once have been. He cited one such person summing it up with one word: "Cowards." And looking back at what I just wrote above, I suddenly think that that may be one big thing at the root of all this: No one wants to die, of course. No one dies by taking government benefits or voting; people die in battle. (I still stand by my belief that at the root is a fundamental communal disconnect from anything outside of their narrow circle.)
Now, that makes sense. Again, no one wants to die, no one wants their child to die. There's just one little problem: 90% of Israelis have somehow risen above that. Because they have to, because we need it. Who are charedim, living here and benefiting from that, not to do so? George Patton, "Old Blood and Guts" himself, in his famous "pep talk" to his men, would tell them that they shouldn't be ashamed of being scared. Every normal human being would be, going into battle. Only a lunatic wouldn't be. (Patton was a lunatic, but that's another story.) The question, he told them, is what they do *next*. Bravery isn't a lack of fear; if one had no fear, one wouldn't be brave. Bravery is rising above it.
Charedi insulation always was and will be about safety and security. But security from ideas. An orthodox rudimentary predictable system of values. AKA psychological safety. This was threatening to them even not at times of war. It's hard for us to appreciate this but we need to.
The premise of this post is that belief is voluntary and demonstrates beautifully how ridiculous this approach is to attempt to sway Charedim to change their minds. However, many great thinkers feel that belief in a given proposition is simply the result of the evidence available to the person on the topic.
For example, no one is free to believe that they are an animal. Additionally, we are not even free to believe a proposition with CERTAINTY even if it is likely. For example, say you typically weigh between 180 and 181 lbs., you are not free to believe in the truth of the claim that you currently weigh precisely, 180.5 lbs. and not 180.3 or 180.4.
Therefore, I think that given the inclusive environment Charedim reside in, they are not choosing to believe this, they really feel that HIshtadlus in the context of war is different or some other excuse.
The impression I get when talking to Bts and those who "flipped out" is that the whatever the Gedolim say is the only way to approach the matter.
There's a great book called How Minds Change which goes through how people who've changed their minds on long held beliefs did so. I think you would be well served in reading that book and implementing it if you actually want to change people's minds.
By the very nature of that book, groupthink and a culture of non-open-mindedness is a recipe of resisting change no matter how rational the arguments are. Charedi life is the epitome of Western tribalism. It's the definition of groupthink in the deepest sense (mate selection - shidduchim based on status).
Completely agree. The average Charedi has no choice in front of him. The familial, communal, and cultural systems are set up for him not to have that choice. The cost would be too great. Not many people can pick up and leave like Natan did.
This may be one of your most important posts. You’ve highlighted a clear pattern in how hishtadlut is applied selectively, and your examples make it hard to ignore the inconsistency. The contrast between taking action for immediate needs and avoiding responsibility for national defense is striking.
That said, framing it as purely “convenient” might oversimplify the issue. After years of raising this point, perhaps it’s worth exploring why these contradictions persist and what might truly drive this worldview. Your continued effort to address this topic is important, and deeper engagement could inspire more honest reflection.
I think intellectual honesty is based on ones priors and evaluating evidence. Even a conspiracy theorist can have intellectual honesty if he trusts Infowars more than mainstream news.
It's not just lack of intellectual curiosity, this extends to squelching ideas because their conclusions are unacceptable, not the logic used to get there.
Here is a pet peeve. The chareidim think they are entitled to have others subsidize their lifestyle. This includes getting tax payer funds by hook or crook. It includes chareidim not doing their fair share in Israel's wars.
Without picking sides, I would just point out they (chareidim) do not feel those other activities come together with the risk of losing ones "level of yahadus" while joining the army they feel is spiritually bad for them.
Oh, please. You haven't brought any sources or new material, and very few readers need you to translate those that you have. This isn't even an argument, it's begging the question again.
In spite of your very nice use of spacing, you are definitely the one who "doesn't get it".
I won't even bother to reply to specific points because it will be clearly unnecessary after replying to the overall idea.
There is a machlokes in Brachos 35b between R' Shimon and R' Yishamel about how much hishtadlus one should do for parnassah. And elu v'elu divrey Elokim chayim - they are both correct.
Different people need to do different amounts of hishtadlus. An individual person needs to do different amounts of hishtadlus in different areas. And an individual person's required hishtadlus even in a single issue can change, depending on numerous factors. And two very similar circumstances (maybe even whose differences are completely undiscernible to the non-Torah mind) may require very different amounts of hishtadllus.
Anybody who is not aware of what I wrote in the above paragraph has not even begun to understand the complex inyan of hishtadlus vs bitachon and certainly has not struggled with the issue l'maaseh from a Torah perspective.
And Slifkin thinks he is going to point out places where Charedim do hishtadlus and thereby prove that they don't really believe what they say they believe.
The Yiddish word for this type of Slifkin behavior (if done in innocent wonderment) is "narishkeit". Unfortunately, because Slifkin does this derisively (and also very repetitively), the word for this is "leitzanus", a very serious averah. It is also leitzanus on the biggest Chachmey HaTorah of the generation which is a particularly grievous averah.
In Mishley (9:8) it says "Al tochach leytz pen yisna'eka (Do not rebuke the leytz lest he (come to) hate you)". The Shaarey Teshuvah 3:176 understands that the a leytz does not receive rebuke, and that the reason for this is that he is a "chacham b'eynav" which means that he thinks he is wise, and of course is not wrong, and subsequently hates the rebuker for "wrongly" rebuking him.
More importantly, the Shaarey Teshuvah explains that this midah of "chacham b'eynav" has no hope. He literally says "eyn lo tikvah" (I guess he means unless the person works hard and davens to get rid of this midah), and he quotes the psuk (Mishley 26:12)
I'll summarize your "rebuttal" of my post: "Yes, charedim act in a way that appears hypocritical, but it isn't, because you don't understand the complexities of this issue."
Thank you for that extra bit of leytzonus. I never said that they seem to be hypocritical. Do you ever treat your child differently at different times - sometimes more lovingly and sometimes a little stricter. Does that make you a hypocrite? V'hamayvin yavin to apply this to what I wrote about hishtadlus/bitachon above.
You don't believe in hashgacha pratis (as evidenced by many of your posts). So no - you don't understand the issue. Not that you can't. You choose not to because you everything (in your mind) is up to your hishtadlus, your kochi v'otzem yadi. So you have no interest in learning about balancing bitachon and hishtadlus. And therefore you remain ignorant on this topic.
But I assure you, that even if you won't agree, I do believe that you could understand it if you actually wanted to.
My comments are on the current leiytzonus made by someone who has publicly denied (without having been publicly chozer), schar v'onesh, hashgachah pratis in the simplest sense (even without miracles), and a number of other things about Torah including being mezalzel in the kavod of Chachmey haTorah. According to Slifkin, we should trust his mesorah(?) more than those who have actually received a mesorah from the previous generation who received it (etc.), and if he is correct, then he does not hold of the masorah of Torah being passed down from generation to generation, just some writings that have been passed down that everyone can interpret for themlselves (and even that does not require extensive knowledge of the whole Torah - i.e., he does not even know if other parts of Torah contradict what he is saying).
The reason why this particular writing of his is leytzanos I explained above (in an earlier comment in this thread). To briefly explain without details, he is oversimplifying the topic of hishtadlus to the point of absurdity, like one who oversimplifies the definition of "borer" as "separating components of a mixture", and then screaming "Don't do that! It's borer!" to someone removing the desirable components from the undesirable (which is mutar), or screaming so on Wednesday.
If he were a fresh ba'al teshuvah, it would be understandable. But for an FFB who boasts about having learned in Charedi Yeshivos for as long as he has and accuses others of cherry picking parts of Torah for their own benefit, and then goes and cherry picks for the purpose of being motzi la'az on shomrey Torah who are not kofrim (even if they are not perfect), leytz is an appropriate appellation (and that is being moderate).
You just redoubled on the personal attack. When someone laughs off an ad hominem anonymous commenter, that seems a poor example "leiytzonus". It's not even clear you are doing anything other than trolling.
The "leytzonus" I explained in the paragraph starting "The reason why ...". I can understand why you think I was responding to his "laughing off of an ad hominem anonymous commenter" and therefore you think it was not leytzonus because he was making fun of what he considered trolling.
I didn't consider this as such. I didn't consider my comment an ad hominem attack because even if I did called him a "leytz" or the like, I think I always include a serious response to the comment; I don't think I ever responded with just an ad hominem. And I hadn't considered his comment just "laughing off a troll" because he often says these types of things even in a serious response or even in a post that is not a response to anyone's comment.
1. The Acharon there, Abaye, does not say "Elu v'Elu". It says that in practice, you need to work.
2. It doesn't say anything about different individuals, different levels of hishtadlus etc. In fact it says nothing about hishtadlus. It says it if Israel fulfills God's will (not if you learn all the time), then other nations will do our work.
3. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, you didn't address the post. The point is that it is very odd that this claimed "hishtadlus" is always done when it is for something that the Charedi sector needs and can't get out of doing, but suddenly in this area where the Charedi sector gains from a public good (you can't protect only part of country and it would not be considered moral to do say even if it was possible) and gets to avoid risking life and limb, then suddenly no hishtadlus is needed. And unlike your assertion, there is no person by person evaluation. Even batlanim are included. This is quite strange. It seems possible then that what is really happening is that the sector does what it needs to so for its own wellbeing but then free-rides where possible. Could you address that?
Thank you for your respectful and intelligent response. (To anyone else reading this that has honestly and respectfully responded to my comments (whether you agree or not), I say thank you and ask mechilah for not thanking you on the spot.)
"1. The Acharon there, Abaye, does not say "Elu v'Elu". It says that in practice, you need to work."
Abaye is making an observation and says "harbeh assu..." but not not what is mutar and what is assur. For a more rounded understanding of this statement see Beur Halachah (O"Ch 156 d"h sofah bteylah), Nefesh HaChayim (1:8), Ruach Chayim (2:2), and Aley Shur (Vol.1, p270-271), and others who explain Abaye to mean that "the whole" of Israel can not do like R' Shimon but individuals who choose to can. But Abaye certainly does not say "everyone needs to work."
Abaye doesn't say "you need to work", he observes that most people were not successful with one of the two drachim.
Either way, he does not need to say "elu v'elu" because it's a klal (said by at least Acharonim if not also Rishonim) and not just limited to the few places that it is mentioned in Shas. Machlokes is almost always about how to pasken the halacha where opinions are mutually exclusive - not becuase one is false but because even though both are true we can not be mkayem both in this world (RaMa"K, ShLa"H, Others). And even then it sometimes happens that both are l'halacha lmaaseh depending on the circumstances (e.g., Rashi and R"T tefillin - shall we say that one of them never wore tefillin in his life? And the Shu"A says specifically "nahagu" like Rashi, amd other places it accepts both opinions with a "hacha b'maiy askinan".)
"2. It doesn't say anything about different individuals, different levels of hishtadlus etc. In fact it says nothing about hishtadlus. It says it if Israel fulfills God's will (not if you learn all the time), then other nations will do our work.
I'm not sure if you introduced to this discussion this machlokes between R' Yishmael and R' Shimon (followed by Abaye's comment) or if I forgot that it is mentioned somehwere higher in this thread (which I could not find). But (A) this is not the only source; for example there is also Avos 2:2 vs 3:5. Also, both of these machlokesim are ostensibly regarding parnassah only and if we are also referring to the war, there are many other mareh m'komos regarding hishtadlus.
In any case, I'll address your comment about the mareh makom you mentioned. What you wrote "It says it if Israel fulfills God's will (not if you learn all the time), then other nations will do our work," is R' Shimon's opinion. His bar plugta, R' Yishmael, seems to be saying that one needs to do work in any case - regardless of whther we're doing ratzon HaShem or not. And the Nefesh HaChayim and Michtav Me'Eliyahu (as well as others) explain that R"Sh and R"Y are referring to different levels of bitachon. Interestingly, the Michtav Me'Eliyahu explains that even the madregah of R' Yishmael (who says to do hishtadlus regardless) is actually a very high madregah significantly above most people who do hishtadlus for parnassah. Their explanation fits very well with many many other Chazal's that are difficult to explain otherwise, even though Chazal do not mention this explanation explicitly.
If you don't accept their explanation of this gemara, you at least are unable to prove it wrong and say that others can not hold of it.
"3[a]. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, you didn't address the post. The point is that it is very odd that this claimed "hishtadlus" is always done when it is for something that the Charedi sector needs...."
I was addressing the ignorant oversimplification that Slifkin repeatedly implies that their hishtadlus (or lack thereof) should be equal in all places. I can not address why they do hishtadlus in one place but not in another if this false oversimplification is a premise of the discussion.
3(b)
"... And unlike your assertion, there is no person by person evaluation. Even batlanim are included."
Yes there is a person by person evaluation. I have answered this above and also in other comments, and
to add to the Chachmey HaTorah who hold of this:
- Rashi.
- Rambam has the famous Hil' Shmita v'Yovel 13:13. Even though this halachah does not necessarily address the particular issue(s) being discussed here, it does show that even the Rambam has different levels of hishtadlus for different people.
- Ramban
- Rabeinu Bachaye on Chumash intro to parshas Mikeytz, lists different madregos of bitachon vs hishtadlus for different people (i.e., for an individual person as he grows in maturity and bitachon).
If you want to go with the other shitah that all are obligateed in the same hishtadlus (a shitah which only exists in the minds of those who literally ignore parts of Torah (even things written by the very people they quote (e.g., Rambam)), that is your choice. But you can't say that those that disagree with you on this topic are wrong, for they have a large majority (if not all) of the Rishonim and Achronim on their side. And with those Rishonim and Achronim they can answer up the apparent stiros in Chazal which the other shitah can not.
And in the Slifkin parlance of the mystic/rationalist dichotomy, you will have to admit that a "mystically" inclined person is likely to be more developed and ready to depend on in his bitachon in HaShem (even if you believe such bitachon to be a mistake) because despite how much he may or may not have actualized his bitachon, he at least has some living connection with it, unlike a supposed "rationalist" who believes that everything works only according to the "natural" order.
In any case, the issue here is that the Chachmey Hatorah have said that nobody should join the IDF, and this will be addressed in the next section.
3(c)
"This is quite strange. It seems possible then that what is really happening is that the sector does what it needs to so for its own wellbeing but then free-rides where possible. Could you address that?
Bear with me.
A secular person in a democratic country chooses the political candidate that best represents the person's values. And even if that candidate has some policies that the person disagrees with, the person goes along with the candidate because he best represents the person. (Of course, if the person can vote against particular single policies with which he disagrees he will do so, but such is often not possible.)
Now consider that a Charedi person believes that the Torah is actually the ultimate truth given by the Creator of the world, so much so that he is willing to die to uphold the Torah and sanctify HaShem's name. He repeats 3 to 5 times per day the commandment that he "shall love HaShem ... with all his soul", which Chazal explain to mean even if he must give up his life. And even if he unfortunately does not think about this much because of the tirchos of life, when brought to his attention he will have to admit that he believes this, and if forced to, he will give up a lot of things (including life) to uphold the Torah. It is also clear that -all things being equal and even according to natural laws- someone who literally spends almost all his waking hours (say 16-18 hours/day) studying the Torah is likely to understand the Torah and (therefore) HaShem's will better than someone who spends, say, even 12 hours a day studying the Torah. Furthermore, we have a mesorah that hasmadah brings special siyata dishmaya to a person both in understanding of Torah and remembering the Torah that he learned. So the Charedi person truly believes that such a Chacham is more qualified to understand both the Torah's mitzvos and how to interpret circumstances according to the Torah. And so Charedim, on big issues, will usually do what the Chachmey HaTorah say. On smaller issues, the Chachmey HaTorah usually do not speak out much anymore and people often don't go ask them for a variety of reasons.
All the talk about not joining the IDF is really a discussion either
about
(A) the fact that the Chachmey HaTorah are saying not to join the IDF,
or about
(B) that Charedim, instead of listening to what others say their consciouns should say- listen to the Chachmey HaTorah who (ostensibly without thinking).
Both options (A and B) are answered by what I wrote above and shows that it is not a matter of free-loading but rather following the Torah as explained by the Chachmey HaTorah of the generation (unless it is the Chachmey HaTorah that you suspect of free-loading the Charedim onto the rest of the country).
4.
Note that much of what I wrote here are different premises that the Charedim are starting with. You may not agree with them, but these are more the crux of the disagreement than joining or not joining the IDF. If Charedim start with your premises on the above issues, Charedim would agree with your conclusions. If you would start with the Charedi premises, you would agree with their conclusions. (Bear in mind that there may still be more differences in premises to flesh out. But it is clear how differences in premises is key to understanding the different conclusions.)
What bull. elu v’elu. Now there’s a definitive vehicle for discerning chareidi trustworthiness in their hishtadlus structure. Let’s use the same thoughtful framework to determine the distance between the earth and sun. Astronomers say it’s 93 million miles. Some say it’s only 25 million. Neptune is 3 billion miles away but others say only 2 billion. Who is right? Why, they’re both right — elu v’elu. Not much difference between Gedalya’s profound calculations and those that I proffered. Except that his is unfalsifiable and mine is. Cherry picking ancient rabbinic missives to authenticate modern life and death decisions is pure folly. His findings result in kollel yumgeleit coming home to their wives for Shabbos mitzva night while Chiloni and hesder men come home in bodybags.
You missed the point entirely. Even a single person can require different levels of hishtadlus at different times, or even at the same time for different issues. The rest of what I wrote follows from there.
If you don't believe the first sentence in this respnse, then you nothing about the topic.
I'd be very happy if the chiloni and hesder men would also come home to their wives for Shabbos, but unfortunately they are (willing) captives of the state and do its bidding.
"Even a single person can require different levels of hishtadlus at different times, or even at the same time for different issues."
This is not the Charedi position. None are to go.
"I'd be very happy if the chiloni and hesder men would also come home to their wives for Shabbos, but unfortunately they are (willing) captives of the state and do its bidding."
So you are extremist Neturei Karta. Obviously if you think that the state should be dismantled, you aren't going to agree with anything here. You also aren't agreeing with mainstream Charedi positions.
"This is not the Charedi position. [The Charedi position is that] None are to go."
You are correct. And if the decision was up to each individual Charedi, many probably would-have chosen or would choose to join the IDF because of their level of bitachon.
But this decision was not left up to the individual. This was a hora'a for all, unanimously from the Chachmey HaDor, which does happen.
For example, Mordechai (unsuccessfully) was moreh the Jews not to go to Achashverosh's public mishteh even though the normal hishtadlus of pikuach nefesh would have seemed to be to go to the party. (Megillah)
Another example: when threatened with the coming of Sancheriv and his Assyrian army, Chizkiyahu ordered neither a conscription and call to arms nor an attempt at a diplomatic solution; rather he ordered everyone to the beis hamidrash and said whomever does not learn Torah will be stabbed by the sword. (Sanhedrin 94b)
And then when the Assyrians had put a siege around Yerushalayim with 185,000 soldiers, Chizkiyahu still ordered neither a conscription and call to arms nor an attempt at a diplomatic solution nor a surrender; rather he went to sleep trusting in yeshuos HaShem, and in fact, Yerushaliym was saved (Eicha Rabba, Intro (I think piska 30).
I am neither extremist not Neturey Karta. I understand that the state (certainly in the way that it was created) should not have been created as many many of the Chachmey HaTorah of that generation agreed (almost unanimously).
A dismantling of the state is far beyond my ability to know about, and if such a thing were technically possible, that would be for the Chachomim to decide as it would definitely seem to be causing B'YADAYIM an imminent danger. That is not something I ever heard from or in the name of any of the Chachmey HaTorah that I know of.
1. This contradicts your whole argument. If it is about bitachon, and as Abaye points out the majority of those who think they have enough bitachon actually don't, then a blanket ban is not consistent with that. Even if you claim that a Rabbi has to evaluate your bitachon and you can't decide, that still requires a person by person evaluation which is not happening.
2. You contradict yourself a second time when you say that everyone should just come home from the army if they want. Then the state ceases to exist. This places in your position with the extreme neturei karta. The mainstream charedim very much want the non-charedi yeshivah students to continue to fight along with the other Torah observant and Chilonim. They don't think that those who fight are dupes of the state.
Your history is very wrong also. There was a split among the Rabbis as to whether the state was a good idea; you are doing the typical Charedi move of not recognizing any non-Charedi Rav as a Rav. Yet by the 1937 agudah convention after a lot of fighting, even the agudist anti-zionists came around to accepting and participating in the state even if it was not their first choice. There were a few holdouts like R Aharon Kotler. Only the most extreme today think that it would be good for the army to shut down.
WRT Chizkiuyahu, I would suggest you reread melachim 2 18. He stopped paying tribute the Assyrians (a mistake) and took his army to capture the territory of the Pelishtim. And so Sancheirev later arrived captured "all" of the fortified cities of Yehudah save Yerushalayim. That means those Jews were lost to Assyrian slavery or death. Realizing he could not defeat Sancheirev, he then emptied out the treasury and Beis Hamikdash including tearing out the gold plated doors of the mikdash to pay a huge tribute of gold and silver to Sancheirev and then ALSO did various things to beg God for help.
Thanks very much for this respectful conversation.
"1. This contradicts your whole argument. If it is about bitachon, and as Abaye points out the majority of those who think they have enough bitachon actually don't, then a blanket ban is not consistent with that. Even if you claim that a Rabbi has to evaluate your bitachon and you can't decide, that still requires a person by person evaluation which is not happening."
You have been asking me a lot of different questions and I am trying to answer them all. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure why Abaye's meymra was brought up. But I answered your question about Abaye's meymra. That, however, was not the answer to the blanket ban.
That which I originally mentioned about different madregas etc. was just to show that nobody here seems to know what they are talking about when they make general statements about why Charedim do more hishtadlus here and less there. (Military non-hishtadlus was not the only non-hishatdlus being mentioned.) On the question specifically about military non-hishtadlus, then the answer is that that is what the Chachmey HaTorah have paskened for all (a la Mordechai etc.) regardless of madrega of bitachon. And as I said, you are correct that many individual Charedim may truly not be on the madrega to have been able to choose that for themselves - so the Chachmey HaTorah had to tell them that that is their avodah.
"2[a]. You contradict yourself a second time when you say that everyone should just come home from the army if they want. Then the state ceases to exist. This places in your position with the extreme neturei karta."
I answered the Neturei Karta thingn above. To clarify, I think (if I am not mistaken) that Neturei Karta would want all the soldiers to certainly quit no matter what. Such a decision (if it would be a real possibility) would be for the Chachmey HaTorah to decide. Here is an example of why its noto contradictory (and this is only a theoretical example): If all the soldiers would say we want to quit and come home, but we don't want to follow the Chachmey HaTorah, then it may very well be that they should stay and fight because they don't have a chelek in the Charedi avodah - and if they are kochi v'otzem yadi-niks then they are given over to the laws of teva (see Chovos HaLevavos, Shaar HaBitachon, Hakdamah). But if they would all say we want to come and sit and learn Torah etc. etc. it may very well be that that would be great even if it means no IDF. You see from the two possibilities of examples that I gave that there is no specific answer without an acutal case with all its details.
"[2b] The mainstream charedim very much want the non-charedi yeshivah students to continue to fight along with the other Torah observant and Chilonim. They don't think that those who fight are dupes of the state."
That may be. But that is because they, as individuals, are not on the madrega of bitachon for this avodah, and they are doing it al y'day their bitachon in da'as Torah. Do you think that if the Chachmey HaTorah said Charedim need to join the IDF that they Charedim would not?
[3a.] Your history is very wrong also. There was a split among the Rabbis as to whether the state was a good idea; you are doing the typical Charedi move of not recognizing any non-Charedi Rav as a Rav.
You are correct. I was not counting non-Charedi Rabbonim. I am sorry to say that in general (MAYBE with a few exceptions) they did not hold a candle to the likes of the gadlus of the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Brisker Rav, etc. etc. etc. (even if they were very very very learned); being a Gadol is more than knowing lots of Torah.
Whether we aggree on this or not is not relevant because, just for example, it is assur to be mitztaref with a rasha even for a dvar mitzvah (etc. etc. etc.), so even if a state were theoretically persmissable, with the way it came about it was assur to be mitztaref with such a thing. There is no way around this and numerous other things.
[3b.] Yet by the 1937 agudah convention after a lot of fighting, even the agudist anti-zionists came around to accepting and participating in the state even if it was not their first choice.
It is somewhat misleading to say that the Agudah "participated" in the sate without qualifying. Their participation, from then and until today, was solely so the Charedim do not get "eaten alive" so to speak. Rav Shach also said this. And even with the Agudah's participation, the majority of the biggest leaders of the Litvishe olam (incl. Chofetz Chaim, R' Elchonon, Brisker Rav, etc.) did not were not part of Agudah because they disagreed with some (many?) of their policies (as you are about to mention).
[3c.] "There were a few holdouts like R Aharon Kotler."
It was more than a few, and they also happen to have been the majority of the biggest of the Gdolim of the Litvish Torah world.
[3d] "Only the most extreme today think that it would be good for the army to shut down."
I do not know. I honestly believe that the Chachmey HaTorah are not even considering whether they want it to or not because it's just not on the radat=r now. Somebody asked a big person once (maybe it was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I can't remember) if Israel should give land for peace. He asked, "Is the government really asking me? Are they going to consider doing what I say?" He meant don't ask me these types of questions if they're not l'maaseh. (This is also similar to what I said above about answering should all the soldiers quit like the Charedim.)
[4] "WRT Chizkiuyahu, I would suggest you reread melachim 2 18. He stopped paying tribute the Assyrians (a mistake) and took his army to capture the territory of the Pelishtim. And so Sancheirev later arrived captured "all" of the fortified cities of Yehudah save Yerushalayim. That means those Jews were lost to Assyrian slavery or death. Realizing he could not defeat Sancheirev, he then emptied out the treasury and Beis Hamikdash including tearing out the gold plated doors of the mikdash to pay a huge tribute of gold and silver to Sancheirev and then ALSO did various things to beg God for help."
I believe that Chazal criticized Chizkiyahu for giving the treasuries of the Beis HaMikdash, meaning that Chazal held (probably by mesorah from the neviim) that he should not have done that and he should have continued relying on HaShem and not his own hand.
I will try to check out what you said.
BTW, what you wrote that Chizkiyahu "ALSO did various things to beg God for help," that seems to be a completely separate incident as Chazal are clear that Chizkiyahu did not even daven for salvation but relied on HaShem completely without tfillos.
Hishtadlus to solve the contradictions between Torah and Science - Chareidim offload it to someone else (named Nosson or Natan).
Science reveals the mechanics of the observable universe, it is natural to want to understand how things work. Perhaps the Creator of the miraculous and intricate universe is disappointed that some of his creations do not make an effort to understand the beauty of it all? He is like "Why did I even bother to create all of this when they are not curious about how it works!". How many of his creations ever look up at the cosmos and marvel at its beauty and complexity?
True!
A similar argument is made in Shabbat 75a https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat.75a.4?lang=bi
That's actually an underratedly important comment.
The charedi viewpoint is that we are here to learn Torah and understand God as He prescribes to us in His Torah. Questions like these actually don't bother us as much, because (a) we know there are answers and (b) we aren't confident to know that we will know the right answers. The only thing we are and can be confident about is the truth of the Torah and the halachos we delve into to understand the mind of the Creator. Science, while it has it's place in avoda, especially when discussing ahavas Hashem as the Rambam discusses, is not the main way we get to know God. We can gaze at the beauty of evolution or the theory of relativity or the incredible complexity of the mitochondria in the bathroom because that isn't learning His will and His essence, it is just a shell. So we leave it to those who have less appreciation for Torah and think they are the height of mankind for having a "knowledge" of the shell, but leaving their "trust" of the intricate details of Hashem's word to the "rabbis" who they hardly respect. The rabbis do the opposite - the love and cherish every word of the gemara and spend hours becoming intimate with its nuances, while the questions of the shell, they leave it to the scientists.
And no, there's nothing wrong with being a scientist, and in fact Jewish scientists are commendable for many, many reasons, but who is higher on the totem pole in Judaism? It's not and shouldn't be an insult to be lower on the totem pole; we all have different roles, but flipping the script and losing sight of what's really important in life is very easy to do, which is why we have the rabbis leading the way for anyone who's interested.
Which is why we have the rabbis leading the way
You hit the nail on the head. Which Rabbis?
The problem is your Rabbis want people to live off others, while real honest Rabbis want everyone to do his own histadlus, and go shoulder to shoulder with the rest of K'lal Yisroel
"honest"? Please. Where's at least your elu v'elu?
ELU V'ELU ??
Is where one Rav says you have to hold 2 days yom tov in Israel, and another says one day is also fine.
However, if one says you are allowed to steal from others, and the other says it is not allowed you have to work for your money. Exactly what kind of Elu V'elu is that? One is a crook and the other is an honest person.
gocha. You know better than 1000's of תלמידי חכמים, who study יומם ולילה. Not just a different שיטה but explicit moral authority. No wonder your culture runs after army service. Militant superiority complex drives you.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
No My Friend. it is indeed so sad to see 1,000 Talmdei Chachmem using Hashem Torah to hoodwink the rest of "Hashems People"
Try to Imagine how Hashem feels?
These people are using my Holy Torah "Anu Nafshe Kashvis Yehuvis" I put my own-self in the Torah, and they use it to become Draft Dodgers, getting out not protect MY very own land.
"we all have different roles"
Who's role is it to do electioneering and campaigning for subsidies, grants and discounts?
Practically speaking, that's mostly true, but it's not so simple. There is a line of thought popularized by the Ishbitzer Rebbe, R' Tzadok, and others that Hashem created two Books, Nature and Torah, and they reveal and compliment each other. The Nefesh HaChaim even compares the Earth to the "body" of Hashem. Thus physical reality need not contradict ruchniyus, but is rather a reflection of it. Hashem didn't "mess up" when He created teva!
Those who know how to delve into this might find it more worthwhile than trying to spend hours trying to figure out who said what braisa. Hence דָּבָר גָּדוֹל" — מַעֲשֵׂה מֶרְכָּבָה. דָּבָר קָטָן — הֲוָיוֹת דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא".
I agree, but I don't think they were talking about evolution and atoms which were only revealed to mankind later; they are discussing the way nature looks to the naked eye which does compliment the spiritual realm. I'm sure these other aspects of modern science have their place as well in that picture but I'm not sure how.
But either way, like you said that's for the really giant people like the Gr'a to figure out. For simple people like me, science is purely about seeing His majesty, while Torah is seeing His actual will.
"the totem pole in Judaism?"
That doesn't make sense.
"Science, while it has it's place in avoda, especially when discussing ahavas Hashem as the Rambam discusses, is not the main way we get to know God.""
What about science's place in הלכה and keeping us from dying prematurely?
"The charedi viewpoint is that we are here to learn Torah and understand God as He prescribes to us in His Torah."
What about מצוות?
What about 'em?
"mitochondria in the bathroom"
That doesn't make sense.
Haha
He means youre allowed to study the mitichondria in the bathroom
Hahaha
The slight issue is that it leads to less respect for Torah, not more.
True, and I agree that at some point people should take their heads out of the sand, but only after building a solid foundation of what Torah is. The amount of people I know who's Judaism has failed them because of science and other worldly intellectualisms are really coming from a weak foundation of what Torah can be. I feel like the MO community feel like everything is equal and it really messes people up. Science has its place, but Torah is our connection to Him and is what really matters, in a whole different way that isn't even in the same league!
How do you KNOW that those people failed because of weak foundations?
Maybe they just have just been exposed to other areas of knowledge and now truly believe otherwise?
I'm talking about people that are now off the derech completely, some in practice, some just in their beliefs. If that's not a failure by you, that's a different story.
I understood that.
But just because they are OTD does not necessarily mean they had weak foundations. They might have been convinced by anti-religious claims.
You didn't answer the question. I know people with deep knowledge of Torah who went off due to science questions
"Hishtadlus for war"
War if not a מצוה in itself, is wrapped up with many מצות.
And after the רמב"ם paskens:
וכל הנלחם בכל ליבו בלא פחד, ותהיה כוונתו לקדש את השם בלבד--מובטח לו שלא ימצא נזק ולא תגיעו רעה, ויבנה לו בית נכון בישראל, ויזכה לו ולבניו עד עולם, ויזכה לחיי העולם הבא
...it's preposterous to denigrate war and its accompanying מצות as mere השתדלות.
And then there's the description the גמרא of an ideal soldier:
עדינו העצני - כשהיה יושב ועוסק בתורה היה מעדן עצמו כתולעת, ובשעה שיוצא למלחמה היה מקשה עצמו כעץ
Does this sound like mere השתדלות?
The Rambam and the sages of the Talmud lived in times when there was no sovereign Jewish state. Consequently, their perspectives on war, maintaining an army, and related matters were shaped by mystical and midrashic interpretations rather than practical governance. To understand how things truly worked, look to the Tanach. There, you won't find yeshivas or the notion of Torah study providing "divine protection." Instead, wars were fought conventionally. For example, David asks God whether he should attack the Philistines, receives a positive response, and then leads his men into battle. He doesn't request Torah study on his behalf, nor does he seek blessings or amulets from prophets.
Yes. Those are helpful because it works within that framework as well
I think this is ur most powerful post on the topic yet.
It's concise but hits hard and has a surprising hook: u used to be on the opposite side of this argument! 😅
The comment that wins: Torah can save us from Iran no problem, but the draft? No chance - protest in the streets! Tustus Lo Ya'avor!
https://daastorah.substack.com/p/why-cant-torah-protect-from-the-draft
Not bad. A link that summarizes itself.
But does תורה protect from גזירת המעונות?
You conveniently forgot one (and there are other similar ones):
Hishtadlus for joining the workforce: Charedim highly prefer to work in insulated environments, even at the cost of earning less, in order to not have to mix with cultures that they feel are harmful and/or antagonistic to their way of life
How do you know? Maybe their job options in non insulated environments is limited due to their characteristics?
I know from personal experience
How? I'm not disputing the facts, I'm disputing the reason. In any event, you can't know for the whole of chareididom.
It never makes sense to me to speak for the whole of chareidim as one single entity where everyone thinks and does the same thing. So yeah, I'll grant you that point.
My point is just that there is a significant segment that lives with this belief, and avoids army service for the same reason which is consistent and not a contradiction as the author is suggesting.
There is a difference between no work and some work.
Yeah, back when the whole contretemps erupted I asked my Mancunian sister-in-law if she knew this "Nosson Slifkin". "Oh, Nati?" she asked. (I think she was your babysitter or something.) "Well, if he called himself that..."
More to the point: If we're talking individually, then most of us "offload" quite a few of those things: We're not all doctors or soldiers and so on. (Of course we *go* to doctors, lock our doors, vote, and so on.) If we're talking communally, then you have a very good point. To take one: We all pay taxes, some of which comes back to us as benefits. But if a community chooses not to work, it's going to pay a lot less taxes, while at the same time, ironically, it will require *more* government benefits. And so on.
The other day I read an article in The Atlantic about Israel at war. It was pro-Israel- we take what we can these days- but at one point the author, visiting Israel, mentioned that one change he saw was that dati leumi friends and family of his were suddenly a lot less tolerant of charedim than they may once have been. He cited one such person summing it up with one word: "Cowards." And looking back at what I just wrote above, I suddenly think that that may be one big thing at the root of all this: No one wants to die, of course. No one dies by taking government benefits or voting; people die in battle. (I still stand by my belief that at the root is a fundamental communal disconnect from anything outside of their narrow circle.)
Now, that makes sense. Again, no one wants to die, no one wants their child to die. There's just one little problem: 90% of Israelis have somehow risen above that. Because they have to, because we need it. Who are charedim, living here and benefiting from that, not to do so? George Patton, "Old Blood and Guts" himself, in his famous "pep talk" to his men, would tell them that they shouldn't be ashamed of being scared. Every normal human being would be, going into battle. Only a lunatic wouldn't be. (Patton was a lunatic, but that's another story.) The question, he told them, is what they do *next*. Bravery isn't a lack of fear; if one had no fear, one wouldn't be brave. Bravery is rising above it.
Charedi insulation always was and will be about safety and security. But security from ideas. An orthodox rudimentary predictable system of values. AKA psychological safety. This was threatening to them even not at times of war. It's hard for us to appreciate this but we need to.
The premise of this post is that belief is voluntary and demonstrates beautifully how ridiculous this approach is to attempt to sway Charedim to change their minds. However, many great thinkers feel that belief in a given proposition is simply the result of the evidence available to the person on the topic.
For example, no one is free to believe that they are an animal. Additionally, we are not even free to believe a proposition with CERTAINTY even if it is likely. For example, say you typically weigh between 180 and 181 lbs., you are not free to believe in the truth of the claim that you currently weigh precisely, 180.5 lbs. and not 180.3 or 180.4.
Therefore, I think that given the inclusive environment Charedim reside in, they are not choosing to believe this, they really feel that HIshtadlus in the context of war is different or some other excuse.
The impression I get when talking to Bts and those who "flipped out" is that the whatever the Gedolim say is the only way to approach the matter.
I'm inclined to agree - people just assume that this is the correct approach. But once you point the truth out to them, they ought to recognize it.
hahahahahahahahahanabahaha
People changing beliefs just based on a reasonable and strong argument?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Thanks for giving me my laugh for the day.
But they'd say the same about you though.
There's a great book called How Minds Change which goes through how people who've changed their minds on long held beliefs did so. I think you would be well served in reading that book and implementing it if you actually want to change people's minds.
By the very nature of that book, groupthink and a culture of non-open-mindedness is a recipe of resisting change no matter how rational the arguments are. Charedi life is the epitome of Western tribalism. It's the definition of groupthink in the deepest sense (mate selection - shidduchim based on status).
Completely agree. The average Charedi has no choice in front of him. The familial, communal, and cultural systems are set up for him not to have that choice. The cost would be too great. Not many people can pick up and leave like Natan did.
This may be one of your most important posts. You’ve highlighted a clear pattern in how hishtadlut is applied selectively, and your examples make it hard to ignore the inconsistency. The contrast between taking action for immediate needs and avoiding responsibility for national defense is striking.
That said, framing it as purely “convenient” might oversimplify the issue. After years of raising this point, perhaps it’s worth exploring why these contradictions persist and what might truly drive this worldview. Your continued effort to address this topic is important, and deeper engagement could inspire more honest reflection.
Just curious, was this comment aided by an AI chat?
Do you think that R Nosson Slifkin didn’t have intellectual honesty?
I think he had been taught intellectually dishonest ideas and had not yet recognized the flaws in them.
So then it's not the case that anyone with intellectual honesty will agree with R Natan.
I think intellectual honesty is based on ones priors and evaluating evidence. Even a conspiracy theorist can have intellectual honesty if he trusts Infowars more than mainstream news.
Honest but stupid?
What about the lack of intellectual curiosity?
It's not just lack of intellectual curiosity, this extends to squelching ideas because their conclusions are unacceptable, not the logic used to get there.
Here is a pet peeve. The chareidim think they are entitled to have others subsidize their lifestyle. This includes getting tax payer funds by hook or crook. It includes chareidim not doing their fair share in Israel's wars.
@RNS Don't go throwing stones in glass houses - you believe in offloading Israel's hishtadlus to America!
Without picking sides, I would just point out they (chareidim) do not feel those other activities come together with the risk of losing ones "level of yahadus" while joining the army they feel is spiritually bad for them.
Rabbi Slifkin,
A good point.
Do you think the original you would have been convinced by the current you if not for your personal story?
Rabbi Slifkin,
Happy you saw the light - some sooner some later!
Oh, please. You haven't brought any sources or new material, and very few readers need you to translate those that you have. This isn't even an argument, it's begging the question again.
In spite of your very nice use of spacing, you are definitely the one who "doesn't get it".
I won't even bother to reply to specific points because it will be clearly unnecessary after replying to the overall idea.
There is a machlokes in Brachos 35b between R' Shimon and R' Yishamel about how much hishtadlus one should do for parnassah. And elu v'elu divrey Elokim chayim - they are both correct.
Different people need to do different amounts of hishtadlus. An individual person needs to do different amounts of hishtadlus in different areas. And an individual person's required hishtadlus even in a single issue can change, depending on numerous factors. And two very similar circumstances (maybe even whose differences are completely undiscernible to the non-Torah mind) may require very different amounts of hishtadllus.
Anybody who is not aware of what I wrote in the above paragraph has not even begun to understand the complex inyan of hishtadlus vs bitachon and certainly has not struggled with the issue l'maaseh from a Torah perspective.
And Slifkin thinks he is going to point out places where Charedim do hishtadlus and thereby prove that they don't really believe what they say they believe.
The Yiddish word for this type of Slifkin behavior (if done in innocent wonderment) is "narishkeit". Unfortunately, because Slifkin does this derisively (and also very repetitively), the word for this is "leitzanus", a very serious averah. It is also leitzanus on the biggest Chachmey HaTorah of the generation which is a particularly grievous averah.
In Mishley (9:8) it says "Al tochach leytz pen yisna'eka (Do not rebuke the leytz lest he (come to) hate you)". The Shaarey Teshuvah 3:176 understands that the a leytz does not receive rebuke, and that the reason for this is that he is a "chacham b'eynav" which means that he thinks he is wise, and of course is not wrong, and subsequently hates the rebuker for "wrongly" rebuking him.
More importantly, the Shaarey Teshuvah explains that this midah of "chacham b'eynav" has no hope. He literally says "eyn lo tikvah" (I guess he means unless the person works hard and davens to get rid of this midah), and he quotes the psuk (Mishley 26:12)
רָאִיתָ אִישׁ חָכָם בְּעֵינָיו, תִּקְוָה לִכְסִיל מִמֶּנּוּ
which says that even a fool has more hope than this "chacham b'eynav".
I'll summarize your "rebuttal" of my post: "Yes, charedim act in a way that appears hypocritical, but it isn't, because you don't understand the complexities of this issue."
Thank you for that extra bit of leytzonus. I never said that they seem to be hypocritical. Do you ever treat your child differently at different times - sometimes more lovingly and sometimes a little stricter. Does that make you a hypocrite? V'hamayvin yavin to apply this to what I wrote about hishtadlus/bitachon above.
You don't believe in hashgacha pratis (as evidenced by many of your posts). So no - you don't understand the issue. Not that you can't. You choose not to because you everything (in your mind) is up to your hishtadlus, your kochi v'otzem yadi. So you have no interest in learning about balancing bitachon and hishtadlus. And therefore you remain ignorant on this topic.
But I assure you, that even if you won't agree, I do believe that you could understand it if you actually wanted to.
Why is your personal attack on R Slifkin kosher, but his argued position in the post "leitzanus"? I think the reverse fits better.
My comments are on the current leiytzonus made by someone who has publicly denied (without having been publicly chozer), schar v'onesh, hashgachah pratis in the simplest sense (even without miracles), and a number of other things about Torah including being mezalzel in the kavod of Chachmey haTorah. According to Slifkin, we should trust his mesorah(?) more than those who have actually received a mesorah from the previous generation who received it (etc.), and if he is correct, then he does not hold of the masorah of Torah being passed down from generation to generation, just some writings that have been passed down that everyone can interpret for themlselves (and even that does not require extensive knowledge of the whole Torah - i.e., he does not even know if other parts of Torah contradict what he is saying).
The reason why this particular writing of his is leytzanos I explained above (in an earlier comment in this thread). To briefly explain without details, he is oversimplifying the topic of hishtadlus to the point of absurdity, like one who oversimplifies the definition of "borer" as "separating components of a mixture", and then screaming "Don't do that! It's borer!" to someone removing the desirable components from the undesirable (which is mutar), or screaming so on Wednesday.
If he were a fresh ba'al teshuvah, it would be understandable. But for an FFB who boasts about having learned in Charedi Yeshivos for as long as he has and accuses others of cherry picking parts of Torah for their own benefit, and then goes and cherry picks for the purpose of being motzi la'az on shomrey Torah who are not kofrim (even if they are not perfect), leytz is an appropriate appellation (and that is being moderate).
You just redoubled on the personal attack. When someone laughs off an ad hominem anonymous commenter, that seems a poor example "leiytzonus". It's not even clear you are doing anything other than trolling.
I think I got it.
The "leytzonus" I explained in the paragraph starting "The reason why ...". I can understand why you think I was responding to his "laughing off of an ad hominem anonymous commenter" and therefore you think it was not leytzonus because he was making fun of what he considered trolling.
I didn't consider this as such. I didn't consider my comment an ad hominem attack because even if I did called him a "leytz" or the like, I think I always include a serious response to the comment; I don't think I ever responded with just an ad hominem. And I hadn't considered his comment just "laughing off a troll" because he often says these types of things even in a serious response or even in a post that is not a response to anyone's comment.
Sorry. Didn't understand. Would appreciate if you would explain.
And my initial rebuttal stands despite your dishonest caricature of it.
Gdalya agrees with himself.
Shall I rephrase. Rebuttal rebutted.
And Gedalya agrees with his agreement, too.
1. The Acharon there, Abaye, does not say "Elu v'Elu". It says that in practice, you need to work.
2. It doesn't say anything about different individuals, different levels of hishtadlus etc. In fact it says nothing about hishtadlus. It says it if Israel fulfills God's will (not if you learn all the time), then other nations will do our work.
3. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, you didn't address the post. The point is that it is very odd that this claimed "hishtadlus" is always done when it is for something that the Charedi sector needs and can't get out of doing, but suddenly in this area where the Charedi sector gains from a public good (you can't protect only part of country and it would not be considered moral to do say even if it was possible) and gets to avoid risking life and limb, then suddenly no hishtadlus is needed. And unlike your assertion, there is no person by person evaluation. Even batlanim are included. This is quite strange. It seems possible then that what is really happening is that the sector does what it needs to so for its own wellbeing but then free-rides where possible. Could you address that?
Thank you for your respectful and intelligent response. (To anyone else reading this that has honestly and respectfully responded to my comments (whether you agree or not), I say thank you and ask mechilah for not thanking you on the spot.)
"1. The Acharon there, Abaye, does not say "Elu v'Elu". It says that in practice, you need to work."
Abaye is making an observation and says "harbeh assu..." but not not what is mutar and what is assur. For a more rounded understanding of this statement see Beur Halachah (O"Ch 156 d"h sofah bteylah), Nefesh HaChayim (1:8), Ruach Chayim (2:2), and Aley Shur (Vol.1, p270-271), and others who explain Abaye to mean that "the whole" of Israel can not do like R' Shimon but individuals who choose to can. But Abaye certainly does not say "everyone needs to work."
Abaye doesn't say "you need to work", he observes that most people were not successful with one of the two drachim.
Either way, he does not need to say "elu v'elu" because it's a klal (said by at least Acharonim if not also Rishonim) and not just limited to the few places that it is mentioned in Shas. Machlokes is almost always about how to pasken the halacha where opinions are mutually exclusive - not becuase one is false but because even though both are true we can not be mkayem both in this world (RaMa"K, ShLa"H, Others). And even then it sometimes happens that both are l'halacha lmaaseh depending on the circumstances (e.g., Rashi and R"T tefillin - shall we say that one of them never wore tefillin in his life? And the Shu"A says specifically "nahagu" like Rashi, amd other places it accepts both opinions with a "hacha b'maiy askinan".)
"2. It doesn't say anything about different individuals, different levels of hishtadlus etc. In fact it says nothing about hishtadlus. It says it if Israel fulfills God's will (not if you learn all the time), then other nations will do our work.
I'm not sure if you introduced to this discussion this machlokes between R' Yishmael and R' Shimon (followed by Abaye's comment) or if I forgot that it is mentioned somehwere higher in this thread (which I could not find). But (A) this is not the only source; for example there is also Avos 2:2 vs 3:5. Also, both of these machlokesim are ostensibly regarding parnassah only and if we are also referring to the war, there are many other mareh m'komos regarding hishtadlus.
In any case, I'll address your comment about the mareh makom you mentioned. What you wrote "It says it if Israel fulfills God's will (not if you learn all the time), then other nations will do our work," is R' Shimon's opinion. His bar plugta, R' Yishmael, seems to be saying that one needs to do work in any case - regardless of whther we're doing ratzon HaShem or not. And the Nefesh HaChayim and Michtav Me'Eliyahu (as well as others) explain that R"Sh and R"Y are referring to different levels of bitachon. Interestingly, the Michtav Me'Eliyahu explains that even the madregah of R' Yishmael (who says to do hishtadlus regardless) is actually a very high madregah significantly above most people who do hishtadlus for parnassah. Their explanation fits very well with many many other Chazal's that are difficult to explain otherwise, even though Chazal do not mention this explanation explicitly.
If you don't accept their explanation of this gemara, you at least are unable to prove it wrong and say that others can not hold of it.
"3[a]. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, you didn't address the post. The point is that it is very odd that this claimed "hishtadlus" is always done when it is for something that the Charedi sector needs...."
I was addressing the ignorant oversimplification that Slifkin repeatedly implies that their hishtadlus (or lack thereof) should be equal in all places. I can not address why they do hishtadlus in one place but not in another if this false oversimplification is a premise of the discussion.
3(b)
"... And unlike your assertion, there is no person by person evaluation. Even batlanim are included."
Yes there is a person by person evaluation. I have answered this above and also in other comments, and
to add to the Chachmey HaTorah who hold of this:
- Rashi.
- Rambam has the famous Hil' Shmita v'Yovel 13:13. Even though this halachah does not necessarily address the particular issue(s) being discussed here, it does show that even the Rambam has different levels of hishtadlus for different people.
- Ramban
- Rabeinu Bachaye on Chumash intro to parshas Mikeytz, lists different madregos of bitachon vs hishtadlus for different people (i.e., for an individual person as he grows in maturity and bitachon).
- Chovos HaLevavos Shaar Hayichud chapter 7, ditto.
- etc. etc. etc. by Rishonim.
- Ramchal (Adir baMarom).
- Gr"a (several places at least).
- N'tziv.
- Malbim.
- etc. etc. etc.
- Beis HaLevy.
- R' Dessler.
- R' Chaim Shmuelevitz.
- Rav Wolbe.
- etc. etc. etc.
If you want to go with the other shitah that all are obligateed in the same hishtadlus (a shitah which only exists in the minds of those who literally ignore parts of Torah (even things written by the very people they quote (e.g., Rambam)), that is your choice. But you can't say that those that disagree with you on this topic are wrong, for they have a large majority (if not all) of the Rishonim and Achronim on their side. And with those Rishonim and Achronim they can answer up the apparent stiros in Chazal which the other shitah can not.
And in the Slifkin parlance of the mystic/rationalist dichotomy, you will have to admit that a "mystically" inclined person is likely to be more developed and ready to depend on in his bitachon in HaShem (even if you believe such bitachon to be a mistake) because despite how much he may or may not have actualized his bitachon, he at least has some living connection with it, unlike a supposed "rationalist" who believes that everything works only according to the "natural" order.
In any case, the issue here is that the Chachmey Hatorah have said that nobody should join the IDF, and this will be addressed in the next section.
3(c)
"This is quite strange. It seems possible then that what is really happening is that the sector does what it needs to so for its own wellbeing but then free-rides where possible. Could you address that?
Bear with me.
A secular person in a democratic country chooses the political candidate that best represents the person's values. And even if that candidate has some policies that the person disagrees with, the person goes along with the candidate because he best represents the person. (Of course, if the person can vote against particular single policies with which he disagrees he will do so, but such is often not possible.)
Now consider that a Charedi person believes that the Torah is actually the ultimate truth given by the Creator of the world, so much so that he is willing to die to uphold the Torah and sanctify HaShem's name. He repeats 3 to 5 times per day the commandment that he "shall love HaShem ... with all his soul", which Chazal explain to mean even if he must give up his life. And even if he unfortunately does not think about this much because of the tirchos of life, when brought to his attention he will have to admit that he believes this, and if forced to, he will give up a lot of things (including life) to uphold the Torah. It is also clear that -all things being equal and even according to natural laws- someone who literally spends almost all his waking hours (say 16-18 hours/day) studying the Torah is likely to understand the Torah and (therefore) HaShem's will better than someone who spends, say, even 12 hours a day studying the Torah. Furthermore, we have a mesorah that hasmadah brings special siyata dishmaya to a person both in understanding of Torah and remembering the Torah that he learned. So the Charedi person truly believes that such a Chacham is more qualified to understand both the Torah's mitzvos and how to interpret circumstances according to the Torah. And so Charedim, on big issues, will usually do what the Chachmey HaTorah say. On smaller issues, the Chachmey HaTorah usually do not speak out much anymore and people often don't go ask them for a variety of reasons.
All the talk about not joining the IDF is really a discussion either
about
(A) the fact that the Chachmey HaTorah are saying not to join the IDF,
or about
(B) that Charedim, instead of listening to what others say their consciouns should say- listen to the Chachmey HaTorah who (ostensibly without thinking).
Both options (A and B) are answered by what I wrote above and shows that it is not a matter of free-loading but rather following the Torah as explained by the Chachmey HaTorah of the generation (unless it is the Chachmey HaTorah that you suspect of free-loading the Charedim onto the rest of the country).
4.
Note that much of what I wrote here are different premises that the Charedim are starting with. You may not agree with them, but these are more the crux of the disagreement than joining or not joining the IDF. If Charedim start with your premises on the above issues, Charedim would agree with your conclusions. If you would start with the Charedi premises, you would agree with their conclusions. (Bear in mind that there may still be more differences in premises to flesh out. But it is clear how differences in premises is key to understanding the different conclusions.)
@Gedalya,
What bull. elu v’elu. Now there’s a definitive vehicle for discerning chareidi trustworthiness in their hishtadlus structure. Let’s use the same thoughtful framework to determine the distance between the earth and sun. Astronomers say it’s 93 million miles. Some say it’s only 25 million. Neptune is 3 billion miles away but others say only 2 billion. Who is right? Why, they’re both right — elu v’elu. Not much difference between Gedalya’s profound calculations and those that I proffered. Except that his is unfalsifiable and mine is. Cherry picking ancient rabbinic missives to authenticate modern life and death decisions is pure folly. His findings result in kollel yumgeleit coming home to their wives for Shabbos mitzva night while Chiloni and hesder men come home in bodybags.
That’s your elu v’elu.
You missed the point entirely. Even a single person can require different levels of hishtadlus at different times, or even at the same time for different issues. The rest of what I wrote follows from there.
If you don't believe the first sentence in this respnse, then you nothing about the topic.
I'd be very happy if the chiloni and hesder men would also come home to their wives for Shabbos, but unfortunately they are (willing) captives of the state and do its bidding.
"Even a single person can require different levels of hishtadlus at different times, or even at the same time for different issues."
This is not the Charedi position. None are to go.
"I'd be very happy if the chiloni and hesder men would also come home to their wives for Shabbos, but unfortunately they are (willing) captives of the state and do its bidding."
So you are extremist Neturei Karta. Obviously if you think that the state should be dismantled, you aren't going to agree with anything here. You also aren't agreeing with mainstream Charedi positions.
"This is not the Charedi position. [The Charedi position is that] None are to go."
You are correct. And if the decision was up to each individual Charedi, many probably would-have chosen or would choose to join the IDF because of their level of bitachon.
But this decision was not left up to the individual. This was a hora'a for all, unanimously from the Chachmey HaDor, which does happen.
For example, Mordechai (unsuccessfully) was moreh the Jews not to go to Achashverosh's public mishteh even though the normal hishtadlus of pikuach nefesh would have seemed to be to go to the party. (Megillah)
Another example: when threatened with the coming of Sancheriv and his Assyrian army, Chizkiyahu ordered neither a conscription and call to arms nor an attempt at a diplomatic solution; rather he ordered everyone to the beis hamidrash and said whomever does not learn Torah will be stabbed by the sword. (Sanhedrin 94b)
And then when the Assyrians had put a siege around Yerushalayim with 185,000 soldiers, Chizkiyahu still ordered neither a conscription and call to arms nor an attempt at a diplomatic solution nor a surrender; rather he went to sleep trusting in yeshuos HaShem, and in fact, Yerushaliym was saved (Eicha Rabba, Intro (I think piska 30).
I am neither extremist not Neturey Karta. I understand that the state (certainly in the way that it was created) should not have been created as many many of the Chachmey HaTorah of that generation agreed (almost unanimously).
A dismantling of the state is far beyond my ability to know about, and if such a thing were technically possible, that would be for the Chachomim to decide as it would definitely seem to be causing B'YADAYIM an imminent danger. That is not something I ever heard from or in the name of any of the Chachmey HaTorah that I know of.
1. This contradicts your whole argument. If it is about bitachon, and as Abaye points out the majority of those who think they have enough bitachon actually don't, then a blanket ban is not consistent with that. Even if you claim that a Rabbi has to evaluate your bitachon and you can't decide, that still requires a person by person evaluation which is not happening.
2. You contradict yourself a second time when you say that everyone should just come home from the army if they want. Then the state ceases to exist. This places in your position with the extreme neturei karta. The mainstream charedim very much want the non-charedi yeshivah students to continue to fight along with the other Torah observant and Chilonim. They don't think that those who fight are dupes of the state.
Your history is very wrong also. There was a split among the Rabbis as to whether the state was a good idea; you are doing the typical Charedi move of not recognizing any non-Charedi Rav as a Rav. Yet by the 1937 agudah convention after a lot of fighting, even the agudist anti-zionists came around to accepting and participating in the state even if it was not their first choice. There were a few holdouts like R Aharon Kotler. Only the most extreme today think that it would be good for the army to shut down.
WRT Chizkiuyahu, I would suggest you reread melachim 2 18. He stopped paying tribute the Assyrians (a mistake) and took his army to capture the territory of the Pelishtim. And so Sancheirev later arrived captured "all" of the fortified cities of Yehudah save Yerushalayim. That means those Jews were lost to Assyrian slavery or death. Realizing he could not defeat Sancheirev, he then emptied out the treasury and Beis Hamikdash including tearing out the gold plated doors of the mikdash to pay a huge tribute of gold and silver to Sancheirev and then ALSO did various things to beg God for help.
Thanks very much for this respectful conversation.
"1. This contradicts your whole argument. If it is about bitachon, and as Abaye points out the majority of those who think they have enough bitachon actually don't, then a blanket ban is not consistent with that. Even if you claim that a Rabbi has to evaluate your bitachon and you can't decide, that still requires a person by person evaluation which is not happening."
You have been asking me a lot of different questions and I am trying to answer them all. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure why Abaye's meymra was brought up. But I answered your question about Abaye's meymra. That, however, was not the answer to the blanket ban.
That which I originally mentioned about different madregas etc. was just to show that nobody here seems to know what they are talking about when they make general statements about why Charedim do more hishtadlus here and less there. (Military non-hishtadlus was not the only non-hishatdlus being mentioned.) On the question specifically about military non-hishtadlus, then the answer is that that is what the Chachmey HaTorah have paskened for all (a la Mordechai etc.) regardless of madrega of bitachon. And as I said, you are correct that many individual Charedim may truly not be on the madrega to have been able to choose that for themselves - so the Chachmey HaTorah had to tell them that that is their avodah.
"2[a]. You contradict yourself a second time when you say that everyone should just come home from the army if they want. Then the state ceases to exist. This places in your position with the extreme neturei karta."
I answered the Neturei Karta thingn above. To clarify, I think (if I am not mistaken) that Neturei Karta would want all the soldiers to certainly quit no matter what. Such a decision (if it would be a real possibility) would be for the Chachmey HaTorah to decide. Here is an example of why its noto contradictory (and this is only a theoretical example): If all the soldiers would say we want to quit and come home, but we don't want to follow the Chachmey HaTorah, then it may very well be that they should stay and fight because they don't have a chelek in the Charedi avodah - and if they are kochi v'otzem yadi-niks then they are given over to the laws of teva (see Chovos HaLevavos, Shaar HaBitachon, Hakdamah). But if they would all say we want to come and sit and learn Torah etc. etc. it may very well be that that would be great even if it means no IDF. You see from the two possibilities of examples that I gave that there is no specific answer without an acutal case with all its details.
"[2b] The mainstream charedim very much want the non-charedi yeshivah students to continue to fight along with the other Torah observant and Chilonim. They don't think that those who fight are dupes of the state."
That may be. But that is because they, as individuals, are not on the madrega of bitachon for this avodah, and they are doing it al y'day their bitachon in da'as Torah. Do you think that if the Chachmey HaTorah said Charedim need to join the IDF that they Charedim would not?
[3a.] Your history is very wrong also. There was a split among the Rabbis as to whether the state was a good idea; you are doing the typical Charedi move of not recognizing any non-Charedi Rav as a Rav.
You are correct. I was not counting non-Charedi Rabbonim. I am sorry to say that in general (MAYBE with a few exceptions) they did not hold a candle to the likes of the gadlus of the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Brisker Rav, etc. etc. etc. (even if they were very very very learned); being a Gadol is more than knowing lots of Torah.
Whether we aggree on this or not is not relevant because, just for example, it is assur to be mitztaref with a rasha even for a dvar mitzvah (etc. etc. etc.), so even if a state were theoretically persmissable, with the way it came about it was assur to be mitztaref with such a thing. There is no way around this and numerous other things.
[3b.] Yet by the 1937 agudah convention after a lot of fighting, even the agudist anti-zionists came around to accepting and participating in the state even if it was not their first choice.
It is somewhat misleading to say that the Agudah "participated" in the sate without qualifying. Their participation, from then and until today, was solely so the Charedim do not get "eaten alive" so to speak. Rav Shach also said this. And even with the Agudah's participation, the majority of the biggest leaders of the Litvishe olam (incl. Chofetz Chaim, R' Elchonon, Brisker Rav, etc.) did not were not part of Agudah because they disagreed with some (many?) of their policies (as you are about to mention).
[3c.] "There were a few holdouts like R Aharon Kotler."
It was more than a few, and they also happen to have been the majority of the biggest of the Gdolim of the Litvish Torah world.
[3d] "Only the most extreme today think that it would be good for the army to shut down."
I do not know. I honestly believe that the Chachmey HaTorah are not even considering whether they want it to or not because it's just not on the radat=r now. Somebody asked a big person once (maybe it was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I can't remember) if Israel should give land for peace. He asked, "Is the government really asking me? Are they going to consider doing what I say?" He meant don't ask me these types of questions if they're not l'maaseh. (This is also similar to what I said above about answering should all the soldiers quit like the Charedim.)
[4] "WRT Chizkiuyahu, I would suggest you reread melachim 2 18. He stopped paying tribute the Assyrians (a mistake) and took his army to capture the territory of the Pelishtim. And so Sancheirev later arrived captured "all" of the fortified cities of Yehudah save Yerushalayim. That means those Jews were lost to Assyrian slavery or death. Realizing he could not defeat Sancheirev, he then emptied out the treasury and Beis Hamikdash including tearing out the gold plated doors of the mikdash to pay a huge tribute of gold and silver to Sancheirev and then ALSO did various things to beg God for help."
I believe that Chazal criticized Chizkiyahu for giving the treasuries of the Beis HaMikdash, meaning that Chazal held (probably by mesorah from the neviim) that he should not have done that and he should have continued relying on HaShem and not his own hand.
I will try to check out what you said.
BTW, what you wrote that Chizkiyahu "ALSO did various things to beg God for help," that seems to be a completely separate incident as Chazal are clear that Chizkiyahu did not even daven for salvation but relied on HaShem completely without tfillos.
To calrify:
the reason for this is that he is a "chacham b'eynav" which means that he thinks he is wise, and of course is not wrong,
I meant: he thinks "he is wise, and of course is not wrong".
I did not mean: "he thinks he is wise", and of course he is not wrong about being wise.