To the Editors:
Thank you for another excellent issue of Jewish Action. It would be truly wonderful if your magazine could be a weekly instead of a quarterly; it presents perspectives and voices that are sadly lacking from the existing Orthodox weekly magazines. There is, however, to be some frustrating ambiguity in one important article and some disinformation in another.
Rabbi Hauer’s lead article was about the importance of unity and bemoaning the lack of it. While he did not specify which deficiency exists today, he described the situation as reverting to the acrimony over the judicial reform and differing visions of Israel. Yet in fact, that dispute has barely resurfaced. Instead, one of the leading disputes in Israel today is with regard to the wholesale avoidance of army service by the charedi community. And certainly this is the dispute most relevant to readers of Jewish Action, many of whom support the charedi way of life and/or its institutions financially and politically (either deliberately or effectively).
It is unclear if this is the dispute about which Rabbi Hauer says that we should live with a “pragmatic pluralism.” Rabbi Hauer powerfully speaks about how it is with the soldiers of the IDF that we find commitment to the wellbeing of every Jew, and he states that participation in the defense of Israel is invaluable. As Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky demonstrates in his excellent article about milchemes mitzvah, participation in the current war is not merely invaluable but halachically obligatory. And certainly even aside from a technical halachic standpoint, it is a basic traditional Jewish value, as Rabbi Hauer notes, to come to the aid of Jews in distress. This has not happened with the charedi community, whose response to the war has largely been one of inaction.
The reader of Jewish Action is therefore left with a question. When Rabbi Hauer says that “genuine respect is due to the approaches of others faithful to Orthodox halacha and mesorah,” does he mean to include or exclude the charedi community? Surely an issue as critical as this requires clarification.
Likewise, Rabbi Hauer says that pluralism reaches its limit only in situations where it “will change the character of the State or community in a way that affects all of us.” Yet this is most certainly the case with the charedi avoidance of army service (and of deliberate under-employment), which enormously affects everyone else. The IDF is experiencing a serious manpower shortage, which due to the charedi refusal to enlist, means that everyone else has to spend much longer away from their yeshivot and jobs and families, and will have to do this on a growing basis. In the case of an armed uprising by millions of Palestinians, the charedi refusal to enlist would spell absolute disaster. And none other than charedi journalist Jonathan Rosenblum has warned that the chareidi lack of participation in the professional workforce threatens to make Israel’s economy unable to fund its defense needs.
So is this a case where Rabbi Hauer is saying that pluralim has reached its limit? Again, surely this requires clarification.
But if Rabbi Hauer’s article contains ambiguity, Rabbi Lawrence Keleman’s article can only be described as disingenuous. He begins with an inspirational description of all the reservists who flew back to Israel to fight, and the material support for the IDF provided by Jews both around the world and in Israel. But then he states that “kindness flowed bidirectionally between Israel’s religious and secular populations.”
Now, the word “religious” is far too ambiguous to use in reference to Jews in Israel. Religious Jews in Israel fall into two very different categories: national-religious (dati) and ultra-Orthodox (charedi). And while the dati community excelled at showing kindness to everyone, with both outstanding military sacrifices and material support for families affected by the war, the charedi community did not. There were no charedim flying back to Israel to fight. And there was very little material support extended. Indeed, while there were some extraordinary charedi individuals who rallied material support for the IDF, these were very much the exception rather than the rule. Rabbi Dov Landau, the leading Litvishe charedi rabbinic authority in Israel, condemned such individuals rallying material support for the IDF and even objected to visiting injured soldiers in hospital (while in the US, most charedi rabbinic leaders opposed rallying support for Israel in Washington). Support for the IDF, support for the families of reservists, support for injured soldiers in hospital, support for bereaved families, support for the farms without workers, even support for the families of hostages, was overwhelmingly provided by secular and dati Jews, with barely any charedi participation.
When Rabbi Keleman later talks about religious (by which he then means charedi) kindesses for the rest of Israel, he talks about kiruv - giving out Shabbat candles and challot. While that’s a nice thing, it is farcical to compare it to the type of kindness done by non-charedim. And when Rabbi Keleman quotes a charedi woman who says that “this is called unity, brotherhood and connection,” that’s adding insult to injury. No, giving out challot while the families in your community insist on continuing life as normal without any military or material responsibilities (and being paid to do so) while everywhere else people are leaving their yeshivot and jobs and families for months at a time to risk life and limb is not called unity or brotherhood or connection.
There is a critical and very dangerous lack of achdus in the Jewish people, and it’s between the charedi community and everyone else. There can be legitimate differences of opinion about how best to tackle it, but obfuscating its existence does not help.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin
NOTE TO MY READERS: Change does not happen as a result of one person saying something; it happens as a result of lots of people saying something. You can contact Jewish Action on this page.
Please forward my posts to people for whom you feel it would be beneficial. A full list of my posts on the topic of IDF service is at Torah and Army: The Big Index
Just sent the following email:
To the Editor-
As the mother of several combat soldiers in the Israel army reserves, two of whom are starting their third round of reserve duty in the North (in other words they have been away from their wives and families this year for more days than they have been home), I found aspects of Rabbi Kelemen's article "Tshuva after October 7th", deeply disturbing on several levels.
I do agree that there has been something of a religious awakening in many parts of Israeli society in response to the events of the past year.
However, Rabbi Kelemen creates a false dichotomy- he refers to two types of Jews, the "Orthodox" (by which he means Hareidi) who provide Challot, Shabbat candles and moral support, and the "secular" who serve in the army, provide material support, and comprise the bereaved. This presentation totally marginalizes the Dati Jews, who are Shomer Torah U'Mitzvot, serve in the army, and have suffered a disproportionate number of the casualties in Iron Swords. One of my sons lives with his family in a Yishuv in the Shomron. Of their community of 100 families, over half of the husbands are currently serving in active reserve duty, while an additional 20% (mainly those who have already "aged out" of reserves), are serving by guarding their own communities. They don't need Challot or Shabbat candles.. they have their own. What they could use is help with laundry and childcare, as they run their households in the absence of their husbands, and in the long term, *a larger combat force* so that 70% of the adult males aren't away from home at a given time.
One would think that the O-U and its affiliate organizations would identify with those Orthodox Jews who both serve in the army, and maintain an Orthodox lifestyle. It is deeply disturbing that this does not seem to be the case. Even the organization highlighted in the article "Kesher Yehudi" is a Hareidi initiative, for secular/Hareidi (not "religious" but Hareidi-- see their Hebrew website) dialogue.
As Eliyahu Hanavi said in a different context עד־מָתַ֞י אַתֶּ֣ם פֹּסְחִים֘ עַל־שְׁתֵּ֣י הַסְּעִפִּים֒ There is no room for neutrality here. The O-U can no longer pretend that in wartime there is a single "Orthodox" community in Israel, when one sub-community carries a disproportionate defense burden, and the other part considers giving out Shabbat candles to be a serious contribution to the war effort.
[signed]
Thank you for writing this letter to the OU, and for calling out the obfuscation. The modus operandi of today's journalism is to rewrite the narrative in a way that suits your outlook, regardless of the factuality of that narrative. This proposed narrative of achdus is disingenuous: the Charedi culture does not encourage nor desire achdus. There were many anglo Charedi shuls that made no mention of the war nor nary a tefillah for the soldiers on Yom Kippur (from firsthand reports). In general, there is no sense in that world of the need to share in the war burden, of the need to even acknowledge that there might be a place for Charedim in the defense of the country. I don't know how this will change, but as we come up on a year I pray that it does.