How can you say Chareidim--even generally speaking-- are against secular studies and are underemployed when nearly all chareidi girls get an excellent secular education and go on to have gainful employment? Combine that with the small percentage of men who obtain a secular education and/or are gainfully employed, and you have well over HALF the chareidi population in favor of secular education and gainful employment.
Why are you just discounting all these chareidi women and girls?
Are you a male chauvinist who severely undervalues women's contributions in society?
Of course it is significant. No-one is denying its significant.
The question is if you can generalize on the basis of a minority behavior of the group? Earlier, this post says you should not, but at the very end, it does!
The fact that all chareidim advocate most of their boys learning instead of getting a secular education (not apologizing for that) while at the same time advocate all their girls getting a secular education just means that the society has a nuanced view towards secular studies.
My question to you is, what do you consider 'excellent secular education'? Enough to to get 'gainful employment'? Or does it mean to actually walk away with a basic knowledge of world history, chemistry, biology, a grammatical knowledge of language of the country in which they live, a basic knowledge of the government of the country in which they live, peripheral subjects?
I don't believe that Charedi society has a 'nuanced' view on the subject. Rather, it makes an allowance for girls so that they can get 'gainful employment'.
In addition, I would say that regardless of how the society regards secular education, it is certainly true, in addition to being a generalization, that the Charedi educational system (based on Torah Umesorah's overall hashkafic principles and the reality of the schools themselves) is against secular education for its own sake.
What is relevant here is Rabbi Dr. Slifkin's desire to generalize. There is the perception that chareidim IN GENERAL do not carry their share of the economic burden in Israel due to their lack of secular education and underemployment.
Yes, chareidim is against secular education for its own sake, but that is completely irrelevant.
No-one is trying to claim that this justifies despising chareidim.
The issue at hand is why chareidim are despised by the secular leftist in Israel. Is it for good, justifiable reasons? Or simply bigotry and anti-religious sentiment? Rabbi Dr. Slifkin is trying to make the case that it is indeed justified to despise chareidim and he is out to justify the generalizations made about them.
In this regard--the issue of chareidim not carrying their share of the economic burden due to lack of secular education and employment--I contend that it isn't because chareidim completely deny ANY value to secular education and employment. They appreciate the value of not being a financial burden on others. It is that they value Torah learning for their sons MORE than not being a burden on the rest of society. Like most things in life, it is a matter of weighing one set of values against another.
So first that "they appreciate the value of not being a financial burden on others." But then you seem to claim that charedi Torah is an asset to the country that should therefore be supported. Which is it?
I'm sure you apreciate the value of not being a financial burden on others which is why you give ALL your children a good secular education. Yet at the very same time, you think your museum is an asset to the country culturally.
I assume you would have no problem--and would absolutely thrilled--if the Israeli government would suddenly decide to exclusively fund your entire museum operation and give you a nice big six figue salary.
Right?
Even if a lot of secular Israelis would object to such exhorbitant funding because they think the entire Bible is a myth (and not just the first 11 chapters of Genisis like you believe).
Just when I thought it was getting interesting, this thread seems to have fizzled out. SO let me add some more food for thought.
Although I have mentioned it before in similar posts, it is worth repeating that most western societies have various cultural enterprises they are committed to supporting financially despite being a net drain on the economy.
One prominent example from the Israeli government is the Kibbutz movement. The kibbutz movement was never self-sufficient economically. It could not survive without constant heavy government subsidies and hand-outs and even bail-outs. But the government of Israel--using taxpayer money from all its citizens including those who were vehemently against the movement--kept bankrolling the kibbutzim for purely ideological reasons. They wanted to show the world that communal living on a large scale was possible and successful as a social experiment--even if not economically viable.
Then we have government sponsored cultural productions of actors, playwriters, musicians, singers, and artists of all types--mostly secular. They are funded largely or entirely by government funds because the government feels it is valuable to supply these cultural products to their citizens. They drain the economy, but the secular public values their contributions more than they value economic self-sufficiency from these people.
The Religious public certainly doesn't want their taxes going to support such productions, but they live in a democracy and they can't always have it their way.
Then we have many liberal arts and humanities departments in academia which are heavily funded by government investment in higher education. This includes museums. Again, these departments and museums have very little economic value and actually are a drain on the country's financial resources since their admission fees do not cover their operational costs and salaries by a long shot. But secular society values these departments and museums so they get their funding regardless of their lack of economic productivity.
And the Chareidi public surely isn't interested in having their tax money funding these academic departments, but we live in a democracy and you can't always get your way.
I'm sure Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin would gladly accept government funding for his museum if it was offered to him. Why? Because he thinks it has great value--more important that economic self-sufficiency and not being a burden on the rest of society.
I explained clearly why your question of secular studies for their own sake wasn't relevant to the topic at hand--of hareidi society's level of secular education that contributes to the economy and self-sufficiency.
It's when lies and half-truths enter the picture that we know that the generalization is false.
For example - the so-called demand for a Charedi exemption from the army. That was never the Charedi platform, not since the early days of the State, and nobody has ever demanded that in the coalition negotiations. Charedim never believed that Charedim are exempt from army service. It is a canard pushed by the Kano'im and the anti-Charedim.
The only demand was an exemption for those who learn Torah, be they Charedim or non-Charedim.
But without lies, the platform falls apart. I guess אונס רחמנא פטריה
You are ignoring one "small" detail: the ORIGINAL תורתו אומנותו program was for only 400 students and was only a temporary exemption. So how did this lead to a situation where any "full-time" student could claim a permanent exemption from the army while the majority of the population not only served but also had to FUND the freeloaders with their lifestyle choice?
At least now there is a law that should lessen this egregiously unfair policy.
The original deal was never limited to 400 students. It was for all who learn Torah. At the time, it was only 400 people.
You forget why the status quo was necessary. There was a quid pro quo involved. To draft Yeshiva students now means the zionists are the freeloaders, grabbing what they could at the beginning, then reneging on the deal when they no longer needed the Charedim.
Funding is something else, not connected to the status quo.
“You forget why the status quo was necessary. There was a quid pro quo involved. To draft Yeshiva students now means the zionists are the freeloaders, grabbing what they could at the beginning, then reneging on the deal when they no longer needed the Charedim.”
For those of us not as familiar with this historical / political point as you seem to be, please explain the quid pro quo involved. And how it differs from most other arrangements in political discourse and governing a nation which change when circumstances change.
I don't have a problem with generalizations as a rule, of course it goes both ways, we can also generalize the mechallelei Shabbos, rabbit-eating "Jewish" secularist majority population, but the following comment from my good friend Mekarker is increasingly relevant. Don't forget to see the follow-up comments! 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, I think he's having an episode again. This latest manic string of posts from him is leaving me breathless! I thought I would be able to counter on my new anti-MODOX blog with a steady drip of anti-MODOX posts, but I could never keep up with this! I don't think I would be able to obsessively hate people as much as this even if my life depended on it! Doc, maybe Avital can squeeze you in an appointment?
Are there really a large population of Jews who eat rabbits???
I suppose it’s possible, but I am completely unaware of this even in the non-Jewish populations in the neighborhoods where Jews tend to live (based on menu items at restaurants which are advertised heavily in the media)
When people generalize about people in other categories than themselves, they should ask themselves the questions: who is my audience? What am I trying to achieve?
If the audience is people in your own group, and you want to be popular with them, then it is easiest to make broad generalizations about others. Pointing out how great you are and how not-great Others are is a sure-fire recipe.
If, on the other hand, you want to actually change the way other people think, then you need to see things from the perspective of that other person before formulating the argument. Otherwise the audience puts up defensive shields, and nothing - besides sinas chinam - will be accomplished. In general, people could work on this. I know that I always have to keep reminding myself!
What Chareidim object to is being treated with contempt and disrespect. Nobody should treat others with the kind of overt resentment and nastiness that is all too common when people have an axe to grind, or otherwise reject the "Other."
I disagree. Chareidim have contempt for secularists, if not for them personally, at least for their secularist ideology, so it is only natural that they receive contempt in return. כמים הפנים אל פנים כן לב האדם לאדם. We should not expect respect from our ideological enemies.
I am just stating a reality. But also, I think it does accomplish certain positive things. For example, most people would be proud to say they have contempt for racists. Do you? But I agree that chareidim should project a more nuanced view - "hate the sin, not the sinner" אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה.
Really? Chareidim should project a more nuanced view, and THEN you are willing to consider doing the same?
Wow.
I don't have contempt for racists. Racism is scientifically defensible and logical (just as different breeds of dogs have different traits, just as Kenyan runners are better at distance, just as Jews have been breeding for intelligence (and madness) for millennia.. It is also evil and wrong. So the conversation with racists is not merely contempt. It is a conversation about what it means for each person to have a divinely-gifted soul, and why each person is deserving of respect for that reason even if for no other.
I don't have contempt for anti-semites either. My job is is persuade them in positive directions, not try to ban them or keep them from talking.
I'm very sorry, but the writer of this article seemingly never actually spent time with real Chareidim, and is completely and totally clueless about mainstream Chareidim in 2022 or 2023.
The biggest issue facing Chareidim these days is the utter disconnect between the leadership and the people.
The leadership are interested in producing ignoramus after ignoramus who not only has no secular education, has little Jewish education.
On the other hand, most (not all) of the Charedi people ( not only immigrants or בעלי תשובה) are interested in the ARMY and WORKING not kollel etc........
The author of this article should spend more time in many Charedi neighborhoods of ירושלים where almost everyone has a Smart Phone.
Please do not rely on media coverage which is completely and totally biased.
Rather someone should look at the facts on the ground as they are in actuality.
Just to be clear, I am not a Charedi myself and I have never been one. I am someone who tries to make up his own mind without being influenced by bias propaganda.
Ponovezh Yeshivah flies the Israeli flag on Yom Ha’Atzmaut. Ponovezh Yeshiva and at least one other yeshiva (hesder) fly the Israeli flag. Ergo, to say that “some Israeli yeshivos” (yeshivot?) fly the flag is true.
I don't disagree with any of this except for your use of "parasites". I know you were just using it in an example, but please consider using a less historically loaded term, especially for Jews! For example, "freeloader"
True - but then consider how much time haredi women spend way from work to have so many children. I am not making a right/wrong point, just saying that even factoring in female haredi participation in the workforce leads to a much lower economic contribution than is provided by the secular population.
First define the term If a chareidi is someone who quakes at Hashem's word, then one should also take into account many religious Zionists, but not those who wear black suits and hats but commit serious sins.
What is that reality? It is hardly a monolithic group. Many Israeli chareidim do not even consider the Anglos chareidim even though the Anglos so identify. There are also many religious Zionists who learn full-time, did not serve in the IDF, or barely served.
The reality is that nit-picking at the biblical usage of the word is not the same as the colloquial usage of the word, and that, unless they state otherwise, people speak colloquially.
Reality is what happens if you walk out onto any Israeli street and ask any Homo-sapien (that isn't a foreigner, tourist, or non-Jew) what Charedi means, or to whom the term refers, you will get the same answer across the board.
Hmm. It sounds like you are equating somewhat between charedim and charedi political parties. I think it would be difficult to prove that a majority of charedim "seek ways to get the rest of the country to finance their lifestyle".
Yes, but not all those who vote for a party agree with every position of that party. I certainly have disagreements with some of the party that I voted for, but it was "the lesser evil".
How can you say Chareidim--even generally speaking-- are against secular studies and are underemployed when nearly all chareidi girls get an excellent secular education and go on to have gainful employment? Combine that with the small percentage of men who obtain a secular education and/or are gainfully employed, and you have well over HALF the chareidi population in favor of secular education and gainful employment.
Why are you just discounting all these chareidi women and girls?
Are you a male chauvinist who severely undervalues women's contributions in society?
I have pointed that out before - I think Natan's point is that removing almost 50% of the population from the work force is still significant.
Corrected.
Of course it is significant. No-one is denying its significant.
The question is if you can generalize on the basis of a minority behavior of the group? Earlier, this post says you should not, but at the very end, it does!
The fact that all chareidim advocate most of their boys learning instead of getting a secular education (not apologizing for that) while at the same time advocate all their girls getting a secular education just means that the society has a nuanced view towards secular studies.
It means you cannot generalize.
Not college for Chareidi girls. Many can't work with many kids.
My question to you is, what do you consider 'excellent secular education'? Enough to to get 'gainful employment'? Or does it mean to actually walk away with a basic knowledge of world history, chemistry, biology, a grammatical knowledge of language of the country in which they live, a basic knowledge of the government of the country in which they live, peripheral subjects?
I don't believe that Charedi society has a 'nuanced' view on the subject. Rather, it makes an allowance for girls so that they can get 'gainful employment'.
In addition, I would say that regardless of how the society regards secular education, it is certainly true, in addition to being a generalization, that the Charedi educational system (based on Torah Umesorah's overall hashkafic principles and the reality of the schools themselves) is against secular education for its own sake.
What is relevant here is Rabbi Dr. Slifkin's desire to generalize. There is the perception that chareidim IN GENERAL do not carry their share of the economic burden in Israel due to their lack of secular education and underemployment.
Yes, chareidim is against secular education for its own sake, but that is completely irrelevant.
No-one is trying to claim that this justifies despising chareidim.
The issue at hand is why chareidim are despised by the secular leftist in Israel. Is it for good, justifiable reasons? Or simply bigotry and anti-religious sentiment? Rabbi Dr. Slifkin is trying to make the case that it is indeed justified to despise chareidim and he is out to justify the generalizations made about them.
In this regard--the issue of chareidim not carrying their share of the economic burden due to lack of secular education and employment--I contend that it isn't because chareidim completely deny ANY value to secular education and employment. They appreciate the value of not being a financial burden on others. It is that they value Torah learning for their sons MORE than not being a burden on the rest of society. Like most things in life, it is a matter of weighing one set of values against another.
That's what makes the issue nuanced.
So first that "they appreciate the value of not being a financial burden on others." But then you seem to claim that charedi Torah is an asset to the country that should therefore be supported. Which is it?
Its both. Hence my use of the word "nuanced".
Let me give you an example you can relate to:
I'm sure you apreciate the value of not being a financial burden on others which is why you give ALL your children a good secular education. Yet at the very same time, you think your museum is an asset to the country culturally.
I assume you would have no problem--and would absolutely thrilled--if the Israeli government would suddenly decide to exclusively fund your entire museum operation and give you a nice big six figue salary.
Right?
Even if a lot of secular Israelis would object to such exhorbitant funding because they think the entire Bible is a myth (and not just the first 11 chapters of Genisis like you believe).
So which is it?
Just when I thought it was getting interesting, this thread seems to have fizzled out. SO let me add some more food for thought.
Although I have mentioned it before in similar posts, it is worth repeating that most western societies have various cultural enterprises they are committed to supporting financially despite being a net drain on the economy.
One prominent example from the Israeli government is the Kibbutz movement. The kibbutz movement was never self-sufficient economically. It could not survive without constant heavy government subsidies and hand-outs and even bail-outs. But the government of Israel--using taxpayer money from all its citizens including those who were vehemently against the movement--kept bankrolling the kibbutzim for purely ideological reasons. They wanted to show the world that communal living on a large scale was possible and successful as a social experiment--even if not economically viable.
Then we have government sponsored cultural productions of actors, playwriters, musicians, singers, and artists of all types--mostly secular. They are funded largely or entirely by government funds because the government feels it is valuable to supply these cultural products to their citizens. They drain the economy, but the secular public values their contributions more than they value economic self-sufficiency from these people.
The Religious public certainly doesn't want their taxes going to support such productions, but they live in a democracy and they can't always have it their way.
Then we have many liberal arts and humanities departments in academia which are heavily funded by government investment in higher education. This includes museums. Again, these departments and museums have very little economic value and actually are a drain on the country's financial resources since their admission fees do not cover their operational costs and salaries by a long shot. But secular society values these departments and museums so they get their funding regardless of their lack of economic productivity.
And the Chareidi public surely isn't interested in having their tax money funding these academic departments, but we live in a democracy and you can't always get your way.
I'm sure Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin would gladly accept government funding for his museum if it was offered to him. Why? Because he thinks it has great value--more important that economic self-sufficiency and not being a burden on the rest of society.
Well, I think my questions were relevant, too. So... then, dodge the questions?
I certainly didn't dodge the question.
I explained clearly why your question of secular studies for their own sake wasn't relevant to the topic at hand--of hareidi society's level of secular education that contributes to the economy and self-sufficiency.
It's when lies and half-truths enter the picture that we know that the generalization is false.
For example - the so-called demand for a Charedi exemption from the army. That was never the Charedi platform, not since the early days of the State, and nobody has ever demanded that in the coalition negotiations. Charedim never believed that Charedim are exempt from army service. It is a canard pushed by the Kano'im and the anti-Charedim.
The only demand was an exemption for those who learn Torah, be they Charedim or non-Charedim.
But without lies, the platform falls apart. I guess אונס רחמנא פטריה
You are ignoring one "small" detail: the ORIGINAL תורתו אומנותו program was for only 400 students and was only a temporary exemption. So how did this lead to a situation where any "full-time" student could claim a permanent exemption from the army while the majority of the population not only served but also had to FUND the freeloaders with their lifestyle choice?
At least now there is a law that should lessen this egregiously unfair policy.
The original deal was never limited to 400 students. It was for all who learn Torah. At the time, it was only 400 people.
You forget why the status quo was necessary. There was a quid pro quo involved. To draft Yeshiva students now means the zionists are the freeloaders, grabbing what they could at the beginning, then reneging on the deal when they no longer needed the Charedim.
Funding is something else, not connected to the status quo.
@Zichron,
“You forget why the status quo was necessary. There was a quid pro quo involved. To draft Yeshiva students now means the zionists are the freeloaders, grabbing what they could at the beginning, then reneging on the deal when they no longer needed the Charedim.”
For those of us not as familiar with this historical / political point as you seem to be, please explain the quid pro quo involved. And how it differs from most other arrangements in political discourse and governing a nation which change when circumstances change.
Thanks!
I don't have a problem with generalizations as a rule, of course it goes both ways, we can also generalize the mechallelei Shabbos, rabbit-eating "Jewish" secularist majority population, but the following comment from my good friend Mekarker is increasingly relevant. Don't forget to see the follow-up comments! 🤣🤣🤣
http://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2022/09/more-tzedaka-shenanigans.html?showComment=1664481844402#c3832195196737315851
Yeah, I think he's having an episode again. This latest manic string of posts from him is leaving me breathless! I thought I would be able to counter on my new anti-MODOX blog with a steady drip of anti-MODOX posts, but I could never keep up with this! I don't think I would be able to obsessively hate people as much as this even if my life depended on it! Doc, maybe Avital can squeeze you in an appointment?
@Happy,
Are there really a large population of Jews who eat rabbits???
I suppose it’s possible, but I am completely unaware of this even in the non-Jewish populations in the neighborhoods where Jews tend to live (based on menu items at restaurants which are advertised heavily in the media)
When people generalize about people in other categories than themselves, they should ask themselves the questions: who is my audience? What am I trying to achieve?
If the audience is people in your own group, and you want to be popular with them, then it is easiest to make broad generalizations about others. Pointing out how great you are and how not-great Others are is a sure-fire recipe.
If, on the other hand, you want to actually change the way other people think, then you need to see things from the perspective of that other person before formulating the argument. Otherwise the audience puts up defensive shields, and nothing - besides sinas chinam - will be accomplished. In general, people could work on this. I know that I always have to keep reminding myself!
What Chareidim object to is being treated with contempt and disrespect. Nobody should treat others with the kind of overt resentment and nastiness that is all too common when people have an axe to grind, or otherwise reject the "Other."
I disagree. Chareidim have contempt for secularists, if not for them personally, at least for their secularist ideology, so it is only natural that they receive contempt in return. כמים הפנים אל פנים כן לב האדם לאדם. We should not expect respect from our ideological enemies.
Do you hear yourself?
How on earth does mutual contempt accomplish anything positive?
I am just stating a reality. But also, I think it does accomplish certain positive things. For example, most people would be proud to say they have contempt for racists. Do you? But I agree that chareidim should project a more nuanced view - "hate the sin, not the sinner" אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה.
Really? Chareidim should project a more nuanced view, and THEN you are willing to consider doing the same?
Wow.
I don't have contempt for racists. Racism is scientifically defensible and logical (just as different breeds of dogs have different traits, just as Kenyan runners are better at distance, just as Jews have been breeding for intelligence (and madness) for millennia.. It is also evil and wrong. So the conversation with racists is not merely contempt. It is a conversation about what it means for each person to have a divinely-gifted soul, and why each person is deserving of respect for that reason even if for no other.
I don't have contempt for anti-semites either. My job is is persuade them in positive directions, not try to ban them or keep them from talking.
I'm very sorry, but the writer of this article seemingly never actually spent time with real Chareidim, and is completely and totally clueless about mainstream Chareidim in 2022 or 2023.
The biggest issue facing Chareidim these days is the utter disconnect between the leadership and the people.
The leadership are interested in producing ignoramus after ignoramus who not only has no secular education, has little Jewish education.
On the other hand, most (not all) of the Charedi people ( not only immigrants or בעלי תשובה) are interested in the ARMY and WORKING not kollel etc........
The author of this article should spend more time in many Charedi neighborhoods of ירושלים where almost everyone has a Smart Phone.
Please do not rely on media coverage which is completely and totally biased.
Rather someone should look at the facts on the ground as they are in actuality.
Just to be clear, I am not a Charedi myself and I have never been one. I am someone who tries to make up his own mind without being influenced by bias propaganda.
Ponovezh Yeshivah flies the Israeli flag on Yom Ha’Atzmaut. Ponovezh Yeshiva and at least one other yeshiva (hesder) fly the Israeli flag. Ergo, to say that “some Israeli yeshivos” (yeshivot?) fly the flag is true.
I don't disagree with any of this except for your use of "parasites". I know you were just using it in an example, but please consider using a less historically loaded term, especially for Jews! For example, "freeloader"
True - but then consider how much time haredi women spend way from work to have so many children. I am not making a right/wrong point, just saying that even factoring in female haredi participation in the workforce leads to a much lower economic contribution than is provided by the secular population.
First define the term If a chareidi is someone who quakes at Hashem's word, then one should also take into account many religious Zionists, but not those who wear black suits and hats but commit serious sins.
Why would I use the word charedi in a way that does not reflect the reality of how the word is used?
What is that reality? It is hardly a monolithic group. Many Israeli chareidim do not even consider the Anglos chareidim even though the Anglos so identify. There are also many religious Zionists who learn full-time, did not serve in the IDF, or barely served.
The reality is that nit-picking at the biblical usage of the word is not the same as the colloquial usage of the word, and that, unless they state otherwise, people speak colloquially.
Reality is what happens if you walk out onto any Israeli street and ask any Homo-sapien (that isn't a foreigner, tourist, or non-Jew) what Charedi means, or to whom the term refers, you will get the same answer across the board.
"It’s ironice"
Great post!
It should also be "there are 20%".
Hmm. It sounds like you are equating somewhat between charedim and charedi political parties. I think it would be difficult to prove that a majority of charedim "seek ways to get the rest of the country to finance their lifestyle".
Most of us do VOTE for those charedi political parties.
Yes, but not all those who vote for a party agree with every position of that party. I certainly have disagreements with some of the party that I voted for, but it was "the lesser evil".