The army and parnassah are two different things...if the army presents serious spiritual problems to an orthodox jew, that is a very serious thing.
Making a living is very important but its not about contributing to society...sure it helps the economy but nobody makes money for that reason unless they have mental issues.
You employ yourself so you can pay the bills and put food on the table. (And for other non Torah reasons like living a materialistic life or getting rich, if you are a worse person.)
Better people make a living to support themselves and their families, not to move up in society or to help the economy (which is never the reason).
My point is that the chareidi position doesn't require much nuance to understand, you have to be a *real* non-believer in the Torah to even claim that it represents some sort of hypocrisy. As for Natan's contribution to the economy, I guess pretending to serve octopus while begging for money for your entertainment institution counts as a big contribution (https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-kosher-octopus.html)
An IDF soldier was killed as the IDF was leaving Jenin. Yet the chareidi yeshivot still won’t say the Mi Shebairach for Hayalim, not even a Kapital Tehillim asking Hashem to protect our soldiers.
Thoughts: Re army service, being influence by secular life/ideas/society is indeed a problem. Units e.g. Nachal Charedi or a Charedi Hesder might be a solution.
Alternative: yeshiva learners engaing in some type of sherut leumi, chessed run as a charedi branch of sherut leumi or whatever.
Re work: small, or not so small, charedi businesses, hiring charedim, in Charedi communities would create jobs and minimize non-charedi influence.
Except for a few charedim, doubt if any of the above would ever be considered by the charedi masses or leadership.
Religion is full of contradictions before of its founding premise: that the mysteries of how we came about and where we are going are answered by postulating a Being that contradicts all laws of nature and logic, and existed since time infinite. Living in the real world on such a basis creates a mass of contradictions, all answered by saying that the Being is inscrutable. The same goes for using natural means to eradicate rats while simultaneously proclaiming that repentance would do a better job.
To say this is hypocrisy may be missing the mark. It is an intrinsic part of the system.
It was my comment your post refers to, and I appreciate the attempt to discuss it (ahem) "rationally", although you did hurt my feelings by calling it "ridiculous."
Your response is based on the claim that Charedim "justify" not joining the IDF on supernatural notions. In actual reality, that's a false claim you've been peddling for years. The Charedim don't join the army because it doesn't fit their ideology and world view, period. They no more need to "justify" it than you need to justify wearing a blue shirt. It is just as much their land as it is any other Jew's, and they don't believe Johnny-come-lately Zionists have any authority over them on a matter affecting religious observance. The "Torah protects" thing is YOUR concept, not theirs.
In any event, if you really cared to think about "religious hypocrisy", you'd have to do a lot more soul searching of your own, and a lot less mud-slinging against "the other." Can any religious person, of any stripe, really claim to be a "rationalist"? Can the whole concept of Zionism - founded ultimately on the belief that this land belongs to the Jews, by God - be squared with Rationalism? I personally dont see any contradictions in this - but I'm not the guy going around calling Charedim hypocrites.
I think you should take it up with Dovid below, who responds to my saying that "Of course this isn’t actually the real reason why charedim don’t serve in the army" by saying "Ummm, yes it is. We *really* *actually* believe that the Torah protects. For the umpteenth time, Sanhedrin 99b with Rashi. "
When we say 'reason' we can mean many different things. As Feyman said, the 'reason' I fell was because I wasn't being careful, and the 'reason' i fell was also because ice is slippery. And the 'reason' I fell, since we are religious, is because I deserved it, and on and on. The actual 'reason' we don't go to the army is because we really, truly believe that we are doing a big, or bigger part. We have many sources for this. But the 'reason' we don't go to the army is because it doesn't fit with our ideology at all. These are all reasons, but more than that, they are all 'the only reasons,' they are just discussing different aspects. It's nuanced but true, and I'm happy to expound and break down the different aspects and what they are all exclusively coming for, but I'm sure you get what I'm saying
No, Dovid, nobody gets what you are saying. You say so many different things in one word salad, when you get called out you say you mean something else, over and over again. You hardly come over as a very coherent spokesman in anything. I keep telling you, you can be vague, self-contradictory etc when learning with a chavrusoh because nobody keeps a record of what was said 10 minutes earlier (and part of the fun of the chavrusoh is spending half an hour shouting at each other about what the other chap said 10 minutes ago, whilst he says he said something else), it doesn't work when trying to write.
Try writing in numbered bullet points, with an introduction, beginning, a middle, an end and a summary. It will help you learn better too.
As an aside, if charedim were serious about the army, they could set up a 'sheirut le'umi' sort of thing, just with charedim, not for combat, but there are plenty of other ways they could share the burden.
Avodat Hashem is also relating to your responsibilities to the Jewish Nation. Saving lives for example by Army service. Learning with rmy service,Hesder etc..
The only people who would 'understand' are yeshivish trained people, who, in the main, its the garbled leading the garbled.
Once somebody has experienced the professional world, with its structured points, beginnings, middles and ends, definition of terms, summaries and conclusions, bullet points, numbered paratgraphs etc etc, your word salads, frequent self-modifying definitions, and too-quick responses are incomprehensible.
"Did Torah protect Rabbi Akiva and his disciples?"
Obviously not. And Jim Fixx died from a heart attack while exercising. Which presumably demonstrates that exercise is dangerous. Good thing we have freethinkers like you to set us straight.
Which is exactly the point. Practically speaking torah does not protect, because some of the candidates for protection may be sinners. That coupled with 'kiven shenitain reshus l'mashchis', 'oi l'rosho oh lesheceinu' and other similar ma'morei chazal where the tzadik gets swept up with the roshoh, means there is, in practice, no guaranteed protection to rely on.
If Shmuel could not rely on divine protection, how can anybody?
Two thousand years of bitter Galut climaxing in the tragic Holocaust! We certainly need to take logical precautions not just spiritual ones? You live in the real world and must watch your health and your life! Sayeth the Torah.If we had a State before WW
2 we may have saved millions of Jews! We need all Jews to contribute to our defense, and not just spiritually.
"We need all Jews to contribute to our defense, and not just spiritually."
If true, that would be a terrible indictment of the state's promise to bring security. Fortunately, it plainly isn't true. Except for the agaf koach adam and tzva ha'am ideologues, it's becoming clearer and clearer that there's no need to have everyone manning the ramparts. The draft will go the way of the kibbutz eventually. Unless they need a mass call-up for disengagements or something.
Actually, for the record, if we'd take dramatic spiritual ones, all our troubles would over. It's called Teshuva and that is what would bring Hashem closer which would fix all problems. Really, it's a basic tenet of Judaism. Not that we needn't do hishtadlus, but honestly, priorities!
There is an obvious problem with your response, so obvious that only a gemara kop could miss it. The """debate""" over whether "Torah protects" and is therefore a legitimate substitute for military service is not about the next world, it's about THIS world. Chareidi draft dodger apologists constantly say that learning Torah creates real physical protection against real physical harm in the REAL PHYSICAL WORLD. R' Akiva could be in the highest heavens right now and it would be beside the point.
When you're selling a product, it's important to be transparent about what exactly your product does (especially in life-and-death situations) or you can be sued for misleading advertising. So, if by "Torah protects" you really mean "Torah lengthens your days in oylem habe" or whatever, you should say that explicitly, and allow the Israeli populace to decide for themselves if they want to buy your "protection".
That wasn't my response. I'm not 'selling' the claim that Torah protects. [1] I defended the consistency of believing it, with the concomitant belief in doing hishtadlus. This post was about hypocrisy; not efficacy.
" The Charedim don't join the army because it doesn't fit their ideology and world view, period." Correct. That is the real reason. But you'll find many people claiming otherwise. There's no shortage of such people in this very forum, along with some official spokesmen for the charedi world - see e.g. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/when-charedi-spokesmen-misrepresent
Would you rather they state flatly what I just said? Hasbara (Public Relations) is a part of modern life, and even though it may sometimes be a little dishonest, its not such a bad thing. Besides, there is not a single political party anywhere in which one cannot pick holes or point to hypocrisy.
False equivalency. The religious think the land is theirs because of the non rational idea of its kedusha. The zionists identify the land as of historical importance to the Jewish nation. I'm not saying either is better. To a degree, both are irrational (which is why you also have Jews who don't care about Israel, or even being Jewish.) But the claims are not the same.
"The religious think the land is theirs because of the non rational idea of its kedusha." You have not the slightest clue what you're talking about. Why do you even pretend you do?
thanks for the ad hominem fallacy. feel free to correct the assertion - and by doing so, stay on topic. I was using shorthand. I know the Temple and other holy sites and cities are there. I know the Torah describes the land as belonging to the Jews.
Your entire post is premised on either/or. I don't think anyone claims that hishtadlus is unnecessary. What they claim is that 1) Torah learning provides a benefit. 2) Serving in the army has very harmful effects on many who serve's spiritual level. Taken together, it isn't hypocritical in the least to try to exterminate rats using natural means while refusing to serve in the army.
"If chareidim are against secular education in principle, why are so many staunchly chareidi Beis Yaakov graduates so fully qualified in purely secular fields (like architecture, design, [banking, finance,] law, social work, special Ed, O.T. etc)?
If chareidim are against working and prefer kollel in principle, why are there so many popular courses given in safrus, kashrus, rabbonus, dayanus and other WORKING Torah occupations other than strictly learning kollels?"
"The conclusion to be drawn here is that not just any large amount of learning or large number of people learning in a location is capable of defending that specific location. Only a singularly deep and supernal quality of learning has that special capacity to spare a specific location from destruction. Hence the exodus of the Ashdod yeshivah.
"But then," Natan Slifkin would presumably ask, "if today's Torah scholars and students do not have this elevated quality of learning to spare their cities, who says their combined learning can spare Israel from anything? If understood this way, doesn't Rabbi Grylak's examples undermine his very attempt to justify the draft exemption given to today's yeshivah students?"
This kind of question misses the point. The point of these examples was merely to establish the power that the learning of Torah contains in general. One cannot use these or any other anecdotes to arrange some kind of graph on an axis chart and plot some kind of line through the data points to arrive at how much Torah learning is required to thwart how large a threat of danger. It takes much more subtlety and a willingness to listen in order to appreciate the Chareidi argument of draft deferrals for Yeshivah students."
===================
"And what is the response to this? What is the charedi plan? Usually, there is no response at all, just deflection."
The simplest solution would be to eliminate the draft entirely, and with it, cut subsidies.
saying "Torah protects," is non-falsifiable. No way to disprove. "Faith can move mountains." I have faith and can't move mountains. "You don't have enough faith." Not proved, but can't be disproved either. The charlatan's playbook.
Something that is non-falsifiable falls in to the category of hearsay. It carries no weight, one way or another. Those that claim it is true are relying on a charlatan's playbook. Something logically weak can sound strong when those given authority say it -- but it remains nothing more than an empty assertion. Those using it rely on the argument from authority, another fallacy.
another way to see it is the notion that Torah protects is an argument from ignorance (it asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.)
Rabbis are truly going down the well traveled path of charltans, cult leaders, social movement leaders - all beings who cultivate "true believers" - with these tactics.
I would say it is beneath them -- but I honesty think they already know this. They just don't have anything solid to rely on, so this will have to do. On the flip side -- if they keep their adherents and followers away from secular ways of evaluating information, and use a host of other techniques, they might win the intellectual war. It's just that it's been done on false grounds. (Not that there aren't benefits to religious living. They just may not be powerful enough to keep people in the fold without a lot of flawed and false arguments that sound persuasive in the right context. these terrible arguments are just part of a larger strategem for keeping people in the fold.)
Again, non-sequitur. Even if everything you're ranting about were true, it *still* wouldn't have any bearing on what I'm saying.
Also, you're making a whole bunch of non-falsifiable statements yourself. For example: "Something that is non-falsifiable falls in to the category of hearsay. It carries no weight, one way or another."
i have read that logical fallacies like non-falsifiable statements are actually considered "hearsay" in court, and therefore disallowed as testimony by secular and religious courts. My statement is not non-falsifiable. You can read up on how courts reject hearsay as testimony, and how hearsay has the specific quality of being a non-falsifiable assertions.
Regarding your juxtaposition of the "torah protects" with using poison to kill rats, let me start by saying: there are a lot of logical fallacies out there, and I am no expert. There may be several fallacies to describe bad logic being used in an argument.
But, I will say that the argument that Torah protects, but not from rats (who need poison), is an example of an equivocation fallacy. The word "protects" is meant differently from from the first part of the assertion to the second.
How can the rabbis say both? The first part is basically a non-falsifiable argument. If a missile hits a religious town, it gets a shrug from the rabbis. "Who knows why hashem lets such things happen? We can't know." Or, "its the gay pride parade in Tel Aviv!"
The second part is the real problem: it is falsifiable. If the Torah protects, why are we over run with rats, day in and day out? The answer is the equivocation: "the Torah literally protects - but the meaning of that word changes if we see that it does not protect."
It's bad logic, a fallacy - indisputably one of the essential elements of any argument of any political mass movement, religion, cult, or charlatan.
So, is it hypocrisy? I don't know - but it is bad logic. Religious people who are trying to prove things about their religion are deeply indebted to bad logic. That's my non-falsifiable ending..!
Again, still a non-sequitur. A very long and repetitive non-sequitur.
"But, I will say that the argument that Torah protects, but not from rats (who need poison), is an example of an equivocation fallacy. The word "protects" is meant differently from from the first part of the assertion to the second."
No, it's used the same way in both. Protection isn't all or nothing. Medical treatments cure, except when they don't. Sometimes treatments are ineffective, or partially effective. No need to manufacture fallacies.
I'm an HVAC tech for the last 15 years and among my charedi clients I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of kollel yungelight among them. As one hungarian lady once put it : "תורה, סחורה געפיצטע שטיוועלעך" expresses their attitude. Not working is an Israeli phenomenon an has nothing to do with charedi haskofah, but with the situation in Ererz Ysroel. This is very simple. Slifkin's incessant attacks are a malicious misrepresentation of the complex problem and are typical of Haaretz and Der Sturmer.
This is rediculous post in the series of dozens others. The reason for charedi attitude to the state has been clarified beyond any dought. For the benefit of the new readers I will sum it up again.
דוד בן גוריון, ראש הממשלה הראשון של מדינת ישראל, כתב: "הרצל הפך אבק-אדם הנישא על ידי ".רוח מצויה לעם המנסה לעצב את גורלו המדיני
This attitude of the Zionist movement is at the root of the tension between the state and the Torah observant Jews. It's what sustains the distrust between these sectors of the population. It doesn't matter what the charedim or the seculars or the slifkins say. It is the underlying cause. The culture of the country created by the Zionist movement remains inimical to the Torah world. All other explanations are דיברי רוח.
This is nonsense. There is no single Zionist ideology or attitude. There is no single Zionism. And Ben Gurion is passe, and never was fully representative of the various Zionisms, though in his heyday he may have represented more than 50%.
There is no single chareidism either. Ben Gurion is not passe, and his anti-religious attitude is represented by people like Slifkin, which is far more than 50% of non-chareidim.
RNS is a שומר תורה ומצוות and it is ביזוי התורה and plain chutzpah to compare him to Ben Gurion as to belief, devotion,knowledge, and practice of Torah.
He is a complete kofer, plain and simple. We have documented that fact in several places on IM, for example, see here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/qanon-natan He is also constantly trying to spread his kefira and undermine the Torah. The fact that he outwardly observes mitzvos or claims to helps his case very little.
There are Talmedei Chacomim who understand the concept of the "sefirots "in Kabbala in away from by that seems to contradict the Rambam's Ikarim in regard to Rambam's conception of the Incorporeality of G-d and his
The point is that this is how it is percieved by the charedi society. Charedim don't benefit from the inclusion and tolerance like the LGBT sector does and their choices and lifestyle are not celebrated as brave and tought to the toddlers. Imagine what Slifkin or Haaretz would be writing if charedim were spreading the HIV virus?
Also, it's rediculous to accuse charedim of not serving in the IDF out of cowardice or not working out of selfishness. Any evolutionst should know that the genetic traits are distributed evenly in a population and the reasons for the charedi behaviour are ideological. Talkng about hypocricy....
Just a few points: religions can't exist without logical fallacies. All of their boldest assertions only work because they are non-falsifiable. "faith can move mountains," a religious teacher says. "I have faith, and I can't move mountains," says a believer. "Your faith isn't strong enough," says the religious teacher.
There is no way to make heads or tails of the assertion - it can't be proven or disproven, ever. For this reason, it is an indispensable tactic in (badly, but persuasively) arguing for religion.
The next important tactic in religious indoctrination is confirmation bias fallacy. Another systematic error in thinking where we ignore counter evidence, and recall and identify only that which confirms our belief.
All religions (including Orthodox Judaism) are built on these and other errors in thinking and argument. Bedrock tactics used by charlatans, politicians, and cult/religious leaders.
Finally, the desire to conform drives a lot of people who are religious. Not everyone can conform, or belong. But some are powerfully influenced by the need to do both.
There's so much more one could say. Freud gets in here (the father of the "Jewish Science" of psychoanalytic theory who has forever annoyed committed believers in all manner of political movements and religions), many more logical fallacies, psychological fallacies, other stuff.
Before you think I am anti-religious, I am not. Religion is built largely on tactics that are clever and empty, but persuasive chicanery. But religious people are admirable. Their commitment is admirable. And, I think this plays in as well: religious people are lucky to have a better chance at a rich and full community and family life. I think the thin gruel of religious proofs and thought is, for many, a small price to pay (and likely, if this blog is any guide, many religious people quietly understand how weak the proofs and thinking are.)
I am surprised RNS lets you post most of your stuff. Rationalistic Judaism is NOT ABOUT being rational. Rather, it is a style of Judaism that is more or less opposed to the more mystical styles of Judaism. Rationalist Judaism has certain core beliefs that are not based on evidence based reasoning or logic or science. The fact that somebody argues that any version of Orthodox Judaism is not really rational is besides the point, because Rationalistic Judaism followers are believers first and rationalist second.
some commenters don't seem to appreciate pointing out logical fallacies in their arguments. I think, personally, pointing them out does speak to the logical weaknesses in the arguments of every religion. Like you point out - the idea is to be a believer first (however that is defined - an argument for another day, I guess.)
Since you've been throwing out debating terms throughout this thread, ever so politely pointing everyone else's fallacies out along the way, I'll politely throw one back your way: argument from ignorance
1. All of their boldest assertions only work because they are non-falsifiable.
2. The next important tactic in religious indoctrination is confirmation bias fallacy. Another systematic error in thinking where we ignore counter evidence, and recall and identify only that which confirms our belief.
3. Finally, the desire to conform drives a lot of people who are religious. Not everyone can conform, or belong. But some are powerfully influenced by the need to do both.
(The ideas aren't false per se; your application of them to me and my people totally is.)
"torah protects" is non falsifiable. How can you prove or disprove? in court, it would be considered hearsay. Even a beis din rejects hearsay as invalid testimony.
But, in truth, charlatans and cult leaders rely on just such hearsay to make their "arguments."
The argument from ignorance is a faulty argument that relies on a false dichotomy. it says that something is true because it has not been proven false. An example might be "a flying spaghetti monster created the moon and the stars."
I can't disprove that - so the assertion stands as true.
But, this is a trick, and topics in critical thinking address it better than i can here. the important thing to know is it is widely used to manipulate, and it is a logical fallacy.
What I wrote we know to be true: non-falsifiable arguments (charlatanism) are the bulk of religious claims. Prove Noah's Ark never happened! (I can't, and you can't prove it did.) Prove Moses didn't get the Torah on Har Sinai! (I can't, and you can't prove he did.)
The one uncomfortable falsifiable claim? Moshiach will come before the year six thousand.
Uh oh. He'd better -- or, as they say, "the jig is up."
I think that's why I hear rabbis say more and more "well, it doesn't HAVE to be by six thousand," as we close in on it.
Gotta keep the people on board -- and a truly falsifiable argument (meaning it is NOT hearsay, and is suitable for court) just...won't...do!
By the way, while I find deeply flawed and weak arguments dressed up by religious leaders to prove religion -- I don't think being religious is bad, at all. The commitment is admirable.
There are two 'fallacies' with your argument (besides that using debate terms in a debate is super annoying but we'll take it).
But let me actually begin with your ever so polite nicety at the end, "By the way, while I find deeply flawed and weak arguments dressed up by religious leaders to prove religion -- I don't think being religious is bad, at all. The commitment is admirable." It's technically quite insulting. "Your a complete idiot, but I appreciate your commitment." Thanks for such empty kind words. We have a truth claim, not a utilitarianism claim. (I guess the fact that you are trying to be nice to us *sorry* people means something and I shouldn't fault you for it?)
Anyways, the main fallacy with your argument is that you are conflating two things. I never claimed my argument was scientific (though ultimately it is; we are way not up to that point in this preliminary part of the discussion). It is a (an?) historic argument. A claim that Washington was president is also unfalsifiable technically. You can check out my comment here: https://dovber.substack.com/p/if-you-were-wrong-how-would-you-know/comments and my reposted comment here: https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/kuzari-argument-comment - and we can take it from there (none of those links will be the 'end all answer' but they are good beginnings to a discussion).
In short you're arguing against a Judaism which is built on false projectors of its claims, and you are knocking down that straw man at ease. Hence: argument from ignorance.
Fallacy number two:
"The argument from ignorance is a faulty argument that relies on a false dichotomy. it says that something is true because it has not been proven false. An example might be "a flying spaghetti monster created the moon and the stars." I can't disprove that - so the assertion stands as true."
That just means you don't know what I meant by argument from ignorance. Obviously such an argument is in fact a fallacy in many cases. If one argued that there is no France, for example, we can happily employ that he is being fallacious and rightfully claim that he is arguing from ignorance. He should do his research and see if he stills comes out with that same conclusion. You than bring in a non sequitur from Russell's teapot and Dawkins's specific example of it and assume that was our claim, because you already know, and then assume it's wrong. Argument from ignorance. Maybe first study what 'France' is, and what people mean by it, and how people usually determine certain truths, and then we can continue our discussion.
Okay, I was being fallacious as well; the two fallacies I pointed out are really just one. And so I will provide an actual quick second: Deuteronomy 11:13, we say it twice every day. (I'm not sure what your story is, all I have to work with is that you are subscribed to this blog and https://eladnehorai.substack.com/, which tells me you have religious background so I'll leave it at that)
it's hard enough to parse bad arguments - some are probably two fallacies, maybe more.
but, we should at least agree on terms (especially since the fallacies we are identifying are easy to google.)
when you say "that just means you don't know what I meant by argument from ignorance," you are saying (i think) that you have another definition (of argument from ignorance), besides the one offered by the likes of wikipedia. i would ask that you just use another term altogether.
(if we start arguing about whether there is a france, and you don't mean the same thing by france as most of us do, it's going to get hard to talk...)
in terms of my admiration for the religious - I do mean it. i think what you are (probably rightly) identifying is the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. I am using the emotional appeal of my admiration instead of logic to "win" the reader over to what I am saying.
I think you are right. I'd make a good rabbi, huh : )?
but i will stand by the assertion that ALL mass movements (including all religions) rely on weak arguments, and errors in thinking and logic, to "prove" they are true. It really is flim flam, chicanery, and charlatanism. And, it really all works, too - at least in the right environment.
RNS - you're way to eager to mock without appreciating the evolution taking place. His speech is an indication that the charedi world may *slowly* be coming around. Sure there are detractors but that expected. If talk about it, it doesn't work. The first rule of fight club is not to talk about fight club.
I originally began reading the blog expecting to read explanations, clarifications, views & discussions. I even expected some serious disagreements between those with different hashkafot. But what I did not expect are the disgusting uncalled for personal insults and name-calling by some of the contributors which mirrors the sinat achim perpetrated by the 24,000 students of Rabbi Akiva.
Herzl (ym"sh) was a raving lunatic (as were his wife and three children). He vowed to "lock the rabbis in the synagogue" meaning he didn't want their influence in the yuden stat. However, I agree with Ephraim, that there were numerous shades of Zionism, that due to their influence and traditional approach, Herzl's locks on the synagogues were never implemented. However, the Israel Supreme Court, especially under Aaron Barak, sure tried to restore "Herzl's locks on the synagogues."
Ephraim is also being ridiculous again when he stated, "Any Torah oriented criticism of what the end-sum of what Zionism became, necessarily implies a criticism of the failure of Torah true Jews to join and influence the movement." There is tremendous ahavas Yisroel emanating from mainstream Torah Judaism and great efforts at Kiruv of secular Israelis. A small fringe of vociferous troublemakers, convey the wrong message.
"Herzl (ym"sh) was a raving lunatic (as were his wife and three children)."
There you go again, making light of mental illness. It is true that Herzl was quite the character. But "raving lunatic"? Not at all. Again, you've chosen to ignore Herzl's pro-religious sentiments. Of course, such sentiments may not fall under conventional categories- but Herzl was not a conventional person. And Herzl may not have been consistent. But your damning assessment of him suffers from oversimplification and hysteria.
I'm no fan of Barak, and I despise judicial activism. But your assessment of him and his revolution is exaggerated.
"There is tremendous ahavas Yisroel emanating from mainstream Torah Judaism and great efforts at Kiruv of secular Israelis."
Non-sequitor. It has little to do with the failure of the Orthodox to influence the Jewish State in general.
Herzl was insane. Yes, read his diary. Before the idea of a secular yuden stat, he proposed converting the entire young generation to Catholicism. He unabashed descries his whole mongering and his efforts to conceal his gonorrhoeic discharge. He refused to make a bris on his only son. He advocated a yuden stat in Uganda and when the more traditional zionists told him he was crazy, he dropped dead at 44. That is the one thing I agree with him on, a secular yuden stat in Uganda.
It took me a few minutes to realize the truth of the analogy of the issue of Charedi Jews not working, receiving welfare for it working, and not pulling their share for the common good with the story of The Little Red Hen. The Charedi are the farm animals who refused to work to make the bread instead they were too busy “lying in the sun.”
Does that mean that in the end, the secular Jews will say, as did The Little Red Hen, “You didn’t help me plant the seeds, you didn’t help me water the plants, you didn’t help me harvest the crops, you didn’t help me tie the wheat and shake off the grain into the wagons, you didn’t help me take the grain to the miller to make flour, you didn’t help me bake the bread, SO, I am going to eat the bread ALL BY MYSELF.”
Noson (Jesus) Slifkin is back with his biting screed against fellow Jews and Gedolei Yisroel. It just goes to show that when a person who started out L'Shem Shomayim is pushed away with two hands, he will wind up in "drerd". Those who originally pushed him away with two hands won't be far behind him in Gehenom.
The societal problems this modern-day Jesus picks on, were to a great extent the product of Herzlian Secular Zionism. It was their intent in founding Medinat Israel, to see Torah Judaism go the way of the dinosaur. For the most part they weren't going to use Nazi methodology to realize that goal, but a combination of Esau and Bilaam's tactics.
Esau, by building up a replacement for Torah (as the most important aspect of a Jew's endeavors) with military service whose ultimate activity boils down to fighting and killing. Of course, an individual or an entire people must protect their lives from enemies and other dangers, but the Zionist has made military service the "holy grail" of all existence. This is Esau.
Bilaam, by making young women into sex slaves with compulsory military service in which females' main purpose is to service the underpaid male soldiers with motivation during their enslavement (military slaves) for three years with the consolation of constant and readily available sex partners.
One more modality Zionists used to further their goal of the elimination of Torah, was to starve out the Torah learner by forbidding him from making a parnasa on the side. It is the Zionists that created the Kollel culture of mendicancy!
It boils down to the foolish Zionists being responsible for shooting themselves in the foot. They came at the Torah world with antagonism. They could have succeeded at their goal much more by showing love, like the missionaries (Chas v'shalom). In the end, things have worked out just fine. There is a plethora of Torah in E"Y, which is truly a heavenly Zechus and protection for Klal Yisroel, that, as mentioned, to a great extent was created by the antagonism of the Zionists. There are also plenty of brainy high tech and smart military leaders to protect all the citizens (many of the top engineers and scientists are Torah observant) b'derech hateva.
Of course, not all Secular Zionists were of the evil Herzlian track. There were many, even in high places, such as Pinchas Sapir, Mencahem Begin and Zalman Shazar, who fought the Herzlians and did their utmost to perpetuate the culture of Torah.
You admit that a society must have soldiers to protect their lives from enemies but still find really pathetic made up biblical excuses for Charedi draft dodging that have no basis in the Torah. It wasn’t until Jacob left Esau with nothing by tricking him and stealing his birthright and blessings that he became estranged from Israel. Yet Esau proved himself a loving person by forgiving his dishonest brother, who had to go through a lot of suffering to find his way back to humanity. A nation constantly threatened with annihilation needs a standing army, yet you cowards refuse to pull your weight, and then make up ridiculous excuses that have no basis in reality. The fiction that staring at ancient fiction, and ritual and civic laws, and poetry all day actually protects the nation better than actual soldiers is Laughable really. The sad part is that the ancient Israelites (in the Bible stories) that you think you represent actually were invaders who murdered men, women, and children (in the stories, not actually in real history), yet you criticize IDF soldiers who are defenders of a land that was given them by a sympathetic (at the time) world.
As for our daughters that you malign, you should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe you are just projecting your own misogynistic perverted fantasies on them because you can’t get any yourself because you’re a LOSER. The only way you’d ever get a woman (like most Charedi) is to pay some hag to find you a naive girl whose parents are looking to get rid of and then treat her like shit, don’t know how to satisfy, and then keep her a slave by refusing to grant a get. You fear independent women because you know deep inside what a loser you are.
Then you blame the idiotic system of your lousy education system on the secularists??! That’s chutzpah. 😂
"the product of Herzlian Secular Zionism. It was their intent in founding Medinat Israel, to see Torah Judaism go the way of the dinosaur."
This isn't true. Herzl saw continued relevance for Torah in his Jewish State. What is true, is that there were Zionists to Herzl's left, who were not happy with his accommodation of religion.
It may seem paradoxical, that the same secular assimilated Xmas tree lighting Herzl was not only moved (even to the point of megalomania) by traditional messianism, but also respected rabbis and tradition. But there is no law of nature that people need to be consistent.
Zionism, as a convergence of various opposing movements was the sum product of the people who joined the movements. Any Torah oriented criticism of what the end-sum of what Zionism became, necessarily implies a criticism of the failure of Torah true Jews to join and influence the movement. The same tragedy is unfolding today, in which too many in the Torah community refuse to infuse the State & Israeli society with Torah values, and instead retreat into the "caves" (the term is not mine.) And then of course, complain.
Complaints about chareidim. Complaint about chareidim complaining. Funny, I see FAR more complaining from the anti-chareidim/anti-religious than I see from the chareidim. FAR more. It's not even close.
For those of you whose childhood reading did not include "The Little Red Hen," let me give you a brief synopsis. The hen wants to bake some bread, so she goes through all the steps of collecting the wheat, bringing it to the miller, and preparing the flour into dough, etc. At each stage, she asks her fellow barnyard animals if they would like to help her. "Not I," says each one repeatedly. But when at last she takes her new loaf of bread out of the oven and all her pals ask for some, she tells them, "I'll eat it myself," and she does. Ha-meivin yavin.
Like when it comes the time when everyone will be clamoring for their reward of what they accomplished in olam hazeh, for their Tikkun Haolam, and only some people will be able to eat... Ha-meivin yavin.
I love your work, including your Hakirah articles.
I'm glad you posted that explanation of NS's otherwise oblique illustration, but I confess to still not getting the נמשל. I'm sure its a jab of some sort at what NS perceives as hypocrisy on the part of Charedim, but I'm not seeing it. The red hen are the charedim and the other animals everyone else, or vice versa? Can you flesh it out just a bit more? :-)
First, thanks for your kind remarks. Second, I think NS is most likely implying that the people who work for a living are the Little Red Hen, and those who refuse to enter the work force are the other animals. The hen is compelled to do all the work herself, and her friends have no right to demand a share of the results (although an alternative ending might have seen her sharing some of them out of the goodness of her heart). On the other hand, another reader has apparently identified the hen with those who do the "work" of learning. Those Little Golden Books seem to have 70 faces.
Nope. It's just a random pen name, no meaning or significance to it.
(I never read The Red Hen, but I did love those little Golden Books, though. Tootle, Tawny Scrawny Lion, Monster at the end of this Book, Micky Mouse picnic - the books of my youth. Still remember the little train illustration on the back cover. Ever wonder how the Golden Book encyclopedia and Little Golden Books were published at the same time, without lawyers like us screaming about trademarks?)
And let us not forget The Poky Little Puppy! As for copyright or trademark issues, no worries. The books and the encyclopedia were published by the same entities. I must have read every word of those encyclopedias (Chalk to Czechoslovakia! Paricutin to Quicksand!) in my childhood.
Natan, I dare you nah rather I challenge you, to actually do something about these issues.
Compose a Hebrew pamphlet, (which is the language that the majority of your targeted audience reads).
Lay out these arguments with all the chazal etc. And have them distributed amongst the Chareidi population. I'm sure you can get sponsorship for this project. (Just one thing, leave out your name in the pamphlet!)
Have the title be something provocative but innocent sounding........
Use your writing skills for the correct targeted audience......
" Rav Nochum Eisenstein, quoting Rav Chaim Kanievsky, says that there are supernatural miracles which can be relied upon to happen - as long as nobody tries to analyze the situation. "
Are his words representative? I'm not seeing such arguments here in the comments. Has anyone here said that the Charedi economy works on miracles? And has anyone claimed, that any scrutiny of such miracles would cause the miracles to cease? No. The Charedi apologists here have not resorted to such supernatural claims.
Furthermore, RNE said (in a blazing display of etymological fantasy) that teaching אומנות doesn't mean teaching a trade, but teaching the "basics". And yet, here, one commenter said that there's no fulfillment of teaching אומנות by teaching the basic curriculum because such studies are insufficient to learning a trade!
1) Side note: "Of course this isn’t actually the real reason why charedim don’t serve in the army" Ummm, yes it is. We *really* *actually* believe that the Torah protects. For the umpteenth time, Sanhedrin 99b with Rashi.
2) Main point: The purpose of your post is to call Chareidim lazy. At first you just hinted; towards the end you dropped your niceties. Before my critique, there are plenty of those, and I don't condone them (when they go to heaven God will ask them where their shoes are, if you get the reference), but to say that's *who we are* - oh please! God help you!
I'm sure you remember how hard it is to learn a sugya for real (do you?). To go through a difficult Rashba or Shach that seems completely unintelligible and make your way through it time after painstaking time after painstaking time, again and again, with stubborn will and painful clarity, breaking everything down to its finer components, you feel like death itself. And after a few times finally it starts to come together and your effort was all worth it just to understand what Hashem wants from us in this one minute detail of Hashem's halacha; please! Going to work is an easy way out! In our world those who go to work (I refer to Lakewood where such a thing is somewhat acceptable) is mostly because they find such labor too difficult. No problem going to work, but it is a definitely a b'dieved!
Now, if your problem is that the bottom half are using the beis midrash as an excuse, you have a major point, and I'm happy someone would address that. There are many wasting their lives away, nebach, in the coffee room and so on. But if it is the whole system you are after - I promise you our top half is WAY better off than yours, and our bottom half is not HALF as bad as yours.
So let's be perfectly clear, are against the entirety of US, or are you simply pointing out problems within the good community?
I understand that it's hard to learn a sugya but don't force me or anyone else to support your hard work (this is for the top half). The bottom half you refer to have no way out. Just read the previous post.
2. "The bottom half you refer to have no way out. Just read the previous post."
I worry as much as you about the bottom half. I don't know what the solution is. (It's interesting how only outsiders wish to fix the system. This is essentially the conservative-liberal balance we need. Those who hate the system find its flaws, and the flaws are actually real and need to be addressed, but they come from haters who just create more strife. But hating the system really seems to be the only thing fueling the search for flaws. Those who are happy with the system tend to ignore its flaws and push to conserve the system, accepting the obvious flaws. What we need is that a powerful group of insiders, who know not to disturb the system at large because they actually understand its tremendous value - even perhaps at the cost of all the issues - then try to find solutions to the very blaring problems.)
1. Would you say the same for the Kohanim and Leviim during the times of the Beis Hamikdash when they would devote themselves to avodas Hashem and the others were more than proud to at least be privileged enough to do their mitzvah and support them?
If you can't be in the beis midrash, wouldn't you at least want a share by supporting it?
If not, is someone forcing you? Are you referring to your taxes? Please. No one is forcing any individuals to support those learning. They usually come to America - where plenty of people are happy to support them. Again, not that I necessarily condone individuals learning at the expense of leeching on society. But the mosdos, not the individuals, that come and ask for help, מה טוב ומה נעים!
" Please. No one is forcing any individuals to support those learning"
This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Do you know how the charedidim in Israel force everybody to pay for their learning (and general lifestyle) through tax? Do you actually have a clue was is going on, before opining from Lakewood?
Lakewood itself operates similarly. Donors to the big yeshiva get zoning variances against local protest to build developments that they profit from and then donate enough money to get the Vaad( community council ) to endorse the official's who approve the variances ... and raise the taxes to pay for the roads sidewalks and etc.
Of course, charedidom is full of fraud, deception, bribery, protekzia etc. That is one area of torah they find lots of kullos in. Of course, if a Modox would find a kulloh in orach chaim, based on equivalent flimsy or non existant sources, it would be up for ridicule.
Asterix, every citizen of every country pays taxes for policies they don't like. If it helps you, just think of "supporting Torah" as "supporting the environment".
i think this is a red herring. the topic at hand is whether all citizens should be treated the same (ie serve in the army, work if able bodied) and should having a particular ideology exempt some citizens from the duties of other citizens?
That Israel I believe does not have a constitution probably does not help matters.
Maybe. But Dovid is still wrong and totally unable to see the facts. Taxed for policies is still compulsion. Non chareidim are forced here. Calling it taxes doesn't change the facts.
As it happens, I'm not yeshivish in the slightest. But beyond that, you're the one deflecting. Of course it's compulsion, who ever said otherwise? The budget for the Israeli Environmental Protection Agency in 2023 is 639 million shekel, according to Jpost. Where do you think the money for that comes from? You think everyone in Israel supports an EPA???
1. You can't compare, this is a new phenomenon that never existed before (1 generation). You can't make something up, and then expect everyone to go along with it just because your rabeim tell you that this is the torah way. With all due respect, I do not see the charedi system as being anything related to Cohanim and Leviim. If anything I see it as a huge chillul hashem and turn off (I'm referring to the system).
Regarding paying for it... I'm referring to the subsidies that charedim demand and the fact that it takes a secular/mo family to support a charedi family. Someone referred to the charedim as bloodsuckers. I'm not justifying it but I definitely understand the resentment. This is very much a haratzachta vigam yarashta case.
1. I'm thrilled that you worry about Hashem's kavod and that it concerns you that some people are being turned off by a segment of klal Yisroel, but I must say I disagree with your outlook. Hashem is very happy with those that are learning (and I refer to those that actually are really learning) in the beis midrash. That is the very reason why the world exists - call me an ideologue, that is what I firmly believe, based on a truckload of sources (technically anyone with any strong belief can be labeled as such, the only question is which ideology is true but anyways...). If people can't understand that, bending to them is not a kiddush Hashem. Doing what Hashem want is a kiddush Hashem, even when it isn't popular. Standing for Hashem's values is the biggest kiddush sheim shamayim, even if others who don't appreciate it get turned off. Throughout history, as Jews in general, we were always super unpopular. But keeping to our values is what allows our continued existence, which is the biggest kiddush Hashem there is - that His word is still alive through the continued existence of its keepers.
I understand that my comparison to the kohanim etc. isn't perfect (there is no chiyuv of terumah to a talmid chacham) but it still has tremendous value - Yisroel needs those who devote their lives solely to avodas Hashem. Perhaps the mass-kollel-initiative is new, but people learning all day is very much not. And of course the MKI has its issues, besides that many of them should be working and not wasting away, but it also is producing plenty of top tier ovdei Hashem, which is what the world needs only more of. If you have an alternative to produce the worlds finest, please do share! (This last point is really the main one: any alternative is not taking into account the importance of real avodas Hashem which is a very difficult thing to do.)
2. Any government funds you refer to, I'd first make the point that it is a democracy and even if you disagree with another's ideology, and even if they are actually dead wrong, democracy says that even stupid people get to have an opinion. The founding fathers of America, and Aristotle, who were the instigators of democracy in this world, understood the major issues of it at the foundational level. So if we believe in our ideology, as far as government goes, we are entitled to our opinion.
But that being said, I agree that the reliance on a not happy government and public is a bad look, but like I said, I don't know what the alternative is. To change the system is just potentially so much worse (again, for those who care at all about true avodas Hashem).
"Any government funds you refer to, I'd first make the point that it is a democracy and even if you disagree with another's ideology, and even if they are actually dead wrong, democracy says that even stupid people get to have an opinion. " What a strange thing to say. The whole point of democracy is to be able to disagree with the opinion and actions of others. You're claiming that nobody is allowed to disagree with charedim using their political power to extract money from the rest of society to support their lifestyle?!
Chalilah! I love this blog - precisely because of this reason! Of all my 'chareidi ideologue friends' I've been the first to say that you make many a good point.
My point here was just that we are also entitled to argue our opinion, and if you can't understand it because of some preconceived 'rational' slant, that's on you; it doesn't undermine our ideas. And you're ever interested in hearing our side, I'm happy to dialogue, as I have been doing.
But I'm glad you chose this minor detail to respond to and not the main points I make.
Please read the previous post. The current system encourages the bottom half to remain in the system (we both agree that it's a bad thing). Furthermore, if you believe that learning is important, go right ahead and learn but don't demand others to pay for it or to protect you.
Read the post, I agreed with it, see my comments there. But to your points, (A) "The current system encourages the bottom half to remain in the system" - yes I agree, but what is the alternative? (B) "but don't demand others to pay for it or to protect you" - No one is demanding. And if you mean government funding, welcome to democracy where anyone can be what they wanna be. If there were enough people who wanted to pointlessly give ten years of their lives studying the history of art specifically in the 1120s, they can lobby a politician to fund and support them and do as they please. That's even if you disagree with the cause. But I ask again, what cause are you all about? If it is avodas Hashem, please provide a viable alternative. If not, we're just not on the same page anyways.
"To go through a difficult Rashba or Shach that seems completely unintelligible and make your way through it time after painstaking time after painstaking time, again and again, with stubborn will and painful clarity, breaking everything down to its finer components, you feel like death itself"
Except 99.9% of learners do NOT do that. They say, after a few hours, we have got as far as we can, time to move on. And/or the end of seider arrives, and the next day they move on anyway.
I speak for those that do. The fact that there those that are lazy (because it is very hard!) says nothing about this conversation. I'm sorry you never felt this week's אדם כי ימות באהל. I hope you get that opportunity.
Of course this isn’t actually the real reason why charedim don’t serve in the army" Ummm, yes it is. We *really* *actually* believe that the Torah protects. For the umpteenth time, Sanhedrin 99b with Rashi.
It's very easy to believe sitting in Lakewood. Strangely, when it comes to everything else torah, per the talmud, protects against (such as disease), we don't see that 'belief' in practice.
The army and parnassah are two different things...if the army presents serious spiritual problems to an orthodox jew, that is a very serious thing.
Making a living is very important but its not about contributing to society...sure it helps the economy but nobody makes money for that reason unless they have mental issues.
You employ yourself so you can pay the bills and put food on the table. (And for other non Torah reasons like living a materialistic life or getting rich, if you are a worse person.)
Better people make a living to support themselves and their families, not to move up in society or to help the economy (which is never the reason).
I responded to this post here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/selectively-pretending-to-be-religious.
My point is that the chareidi position doesn't require much nuance to understand, you have to be a *real* non-believer in the Torah to even claim that it represents some sort of hypocrisy. As for Natan's contribution to the economy, I guess pretending to serve octopus while begging for money for your entertainment institution counts as a big contribution (https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-kosher-octopus.html)
An IDF soldier was killed as the IDF was leaving Jenin. Yet the chareidi yeshivot still won’t say the Mi Shebairach for Hayalim, not even a Kapital Tehillim asking Hashem to protect our soldiers.
Ezra,
Thoughts: Re army service, being influence by secular life/ideas/society is indeed a problem. Units e.g. Nachal Charedi or a Charedi Hesder might be a solution.
Alternative: yeshiva learners engaing in some type of sherut leumi, chessed run as a charedi branch of sherut leumi or whatever.
Re work: small, or not so small, charedi businesses, hiring charedim, in Charedi communities would create jobs and minimize non-charedi influence.
Except for a few charedim, doubt if any of the above would ever be considered by the charedi masses or leadership.
Religion is full of contradictions before of its founding premise: that the mysteries of how we came about and where we are going are answered by postulating a Being that contradicts all laws of nature and logic, and existed since time infinite. Living in the real world on such a basis creates a mass of contradictions, all answered by saying that the Being is inscrutable. The same goes for using natural means to eradicate rats while simultaneously proclaiming that repentance would do a better job.
To say this is hypocrisy may be missing the mark. It is an intrinsic part of the system.
You nailed it.
It was my comment your post refers to, and I appreciate the attempt to discuss it (ahem) "rationally", although you did hurt my feelings by calling it "ridiculous."
Your response is based on the claim that Charedim "justify" not joining the IDF on supernatural notions. In actual reality, that's a false claim you've been peddling for years. The Charedim don't join the army because it doesn't fit their ideology and world view, period. They no more need to "justify" it than you need to justify wearing a blue shirt. It is just as much their land as it is any other Jew's, and they don't believe Johnny-come-lately Zionists have any authority over them on a matter affecting religious observance. The "Torah protects" thing is YOUR concept, not theirs.
In any event, if you really cared to think about "religious hypocrisy", you'd have to do a lot more soul searching of your own, and a lot less mud-slinging against "the other." Can any religious person, of any stripe, really claim to be a "rationalist"? Can the whole concept of Zionism - founded ultimately on the belief that this land belongs to the Jews, by God - be squared with Rationalism? I personally dont see any contradictions in this - but I'm not the guy going around calling Charedim hypocrites.
I think you should take it up with Dovid below, who responds to my saying that "Of course this isn’t actually the real reason why charedim don’t serve in the army" by saying "Ummm, yes it is. We *really* *actually* believe that the Torah protects. For the umpteenth time, Sanhedrin 99b with Rashi. "
When we say 'reason' we can mean many different things. As Feyman said, the 'reason' I fell was because I wasn't being careful, and the 'reason' i fell was also because ice is slippery. And the 'reason' I fell, since we are religious, is because I deserved it, and on and on. The actual 'reason' we don't go to the army is because we really, truly believe that we are doing a big, or bigger part. We have many sources for this. But the 'reason' we don't go to the army is because it doesn't fit with our ideology at all. These are all reasons, but more than that, they are all 'the only reasons,' they are just discussing different aspects. It's nuanced but true, and I'm happy to expound and break down the different aspects and what they are all exclusively coming for, but I'm sure you get what I'm saying
EDIT just found the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
"I'm sure you get what I'm saying"
No, Dovid, nobody gets what you are saying. You say so many different things in one word salad, when you get called out you say you mean something else, over and over again. You hardly come over as a very coherent spokesman in anything. I keep telling you, you can be vague, self-contradictory etc when learning with a chavrusoh because nobody keeps a record of what was said 10 minutes earlier (and part of the fun of the chavrusoh is spending half an hour shouting at each other about what the other chap said 10 minutes ago, whilst he says he said something else), it doesn't work when trying to write.
Try writing in numbered bullet points, with an introduction, beginning, a middle, an end and a summary. It will help you learn better too.
As an aside, if charedim were serious about the army, they could set up a 'sheirut le'umi' sort of thing, just with charedim, not for combat, but there are plenty of other ways they could share the burden.
Avodat Hashem is also relating to your responsibilities to the Jewish Nation. Saving lives for example by Army service. Learning with rmy service,Hesder etc..
Speak for yourself, I'm sorry you can't understand:(
The only people who would 'understand' are yeshivish trained people, who, in the main, its the garbled leading the garbled.
Once somebody has experienced the professional world, with its structured points, beginnings, middles and ends, definition of terms, summaries and conclusions, bullet points, numbered paratgraphs etc etc, your word salads, frequent self-modifying definitions, and too-quick responses are incomprehensible.
Feyman wasn't quite as yeshivish as you make him out to be... Again, I'm sorry you don't get it:(
Argumentum ad populum (something is true because the majority think so.) All political and religious and social movements heavily lean on this.
Dreying a kup: 8/10. Overall trolling score: 3/10 Passing score: Negative.
You're nuts. I'm gonna eat you!
Yes, both are true. Torah protects (https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/does-torah-protect), and especially when it comes with the mitzvah of preventing our children from going OTD. d
It's סכנת נפשות and לא תעמוד על דם רעך.
Why do you keep repeating this brazen falsehood? Did Torah protect Rabbi Akiva and his disciples? Answer the question, coward.
"Did Torah protect Rabbi Akiva and his disciples?"
Obviously not. And Jim Fixx died from a heart attack while exercising. Which presumably demonstrates that exercise is dangerous. Good thing we have freethinkers like you to set us straight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx
As an aside, your bomb question is dealt with in the gemara.
https://he.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5453901/jewish/page.htm
דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אֵין לָךְ כׇּל מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה שֶׁכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁמַּתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ שֶׁאֵין תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים תְּלוּיָה בָּהּ בְּכִיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם כְּתִיב לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ בְּשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן כְּתִיב לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים
הֲרֵי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אָבִיו עֲלֵה לַבִּירָה וְהָבֵא לִי גּוֹזָלוֹת וְעָלָה לַבִּירָה וְשִׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְנָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וּבַחֲזִירָתוֹ נָפַל וָמֵת הֵיכָן טוֹבַת יָמָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְהֵיכָן אֲרִיכוּת יָמָיו שֶׁל זֶה אֶלָּא לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ טוֹב וּלְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ אָרוֹךְ
וְדִלְמָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב מַעֲשֶׂה חֲזָא וְדִלְמָא מְהַרְהֵר בַּעֲבֵירָה הֲוָה מַחְשָׁבָה רָעָה אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְצָרְפָהּ לְמַעֲשֶׂה
וְדִלְמָא מְהַרְהֵר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֲוָה וּכְתִיב לְמַעַן תְּפֹשׂ אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּלִבָּם אִיהוּ נָמֵי הָכִי קָאָמַר אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׂכַר מִצְוָה בְּהַאי עָלְמָא אַמַּאי לָא אַגִּין מִצְוֹת עֲלֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לֵיתֵי לִידֵי הִרְהוּר
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵין נִזּוֹקִין הָתָם בַּהֲלִיכָתָן שָׁאנֵי
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵינָן נִזּוֹקִין לֹא בַּהֲלִיכָתָן וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָתָן סוּלָּם רָעוּעַ הֲוָה דִּקְבִיעַ הֶיזֵּיקָא וְכׇל הֵיכָא דִּקְבִיעַ הֶיזֵּיקָא לָא סָמְכִינַן אַנִּיסָּא דִּכְתִיב וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אִילְמָלֵי דַּרְשֵׁיהּ אַחֵר לְהַאי קְרָא כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר בְּרַתֵּיה לָא חֲטָא וְאַחֵר מַאי הוּא אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא חֲזָא
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לִישָּׁנָא דְּחוּצְפִּית הַמְתוּרְגְּמָן חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה גָּרַיר לֵיהּ דָּבָר אַחֵר אֲמַר פֶּה שֶׁהֵפִיק מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת יְלַחֵךְ עָפָר נְפַק חֲטָא
Which is exactly the point. Practically speaking torah does not protect, because some of the candidates for protection may be sinners. That coupled with 'kiven shenitain reshus l'mashchis', 'oi l'rosho oh lesheceinu' and other similar ma'morei chazal where the tzadik gets swept up with the roshoh, means there is, in practice, no guaranteed protection to rely on.
If Shmuel could not rely on divine protection, how can anybody?
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-billion-dollars-against-chazal/comment/16382215
Two thousand years of bitter Galut climaxing in the tragic Holocaust! We certainly need to take logical precautions not just spiritual ones? You live in the real world and must watch your health and your life! Sayeth the Torah.If we had a State before WW
2 we may have saved millions of Jews! We need all Jews to contribute to our defense, and not just spiritually.
"We need all Jews to contribute to our defense, and not just spiritually."
If true, that would be a terrible indictment of the state's promise to bring security. Fortunately, it plainly isn't true. Except for the agaf koach adam and tzva ha'am ideologues, it's becoming clearer and clearer that there's no need to have everyone manning the ramparts. The draft will go the way of the kibbutz eventually. Unless they need a mass call-up for disengagements or something.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%99#%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%9C_%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C
Actually, for the record, if we'd take dramatic spiritual ones, all our troubles would over. It's called Teshuva and that is what would bring Hashem closer which would fix all problems. Really, it's a basic tenet of Judaism. Not that we needn't do hishtadlus, but honestly, priorities!
There is an obvious problem with your response, so obvious that only a gemara kop could miss it. The """debate""" over whether "Torah protects" and is therefore a legitimate substitute for military service is not about the next world, it's about THIS world. Chareidi draft dodger apologists constantly say that learning Torah creates real physical protection against real physical harm in the REAL PHYSICAL WORLD. R' Akiva could be in the highest heavens right now and it would be beside the point.
When you're selling a product, it's important to be transparent about what exactly your product does (especially in life-and-death situations) or you can be sued for misleading advertising. So, if by "Torah protects" you really mean "Torah lengthens your days in oylem habe" or whatever, you should say that explicitly, and allow the Israeli populace to decide for themselves if they want to buy your "protection".
Gosh, you really think you're smart. My guess is you're probably in give or take fifth grade. Do your parents know what you do here?
That wasn't my response. I'm not 'selling' the claim that Torah protects. [1] I defended the consistency of believing it, with the concomitant belief in doing hishtadlus. This post was about hypocrisy; not efficacy.
([1] I've previously made a similar point in response to one of your previous comments: https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-billion-dollars-against-chazal/comment/16382346 )
========
I threw in the gemara "as an aside." Explicitly so. You could look it up. I did so simply to note that people like you have been around for a while.
(As a further aside, seeing as you blurbed Breaking The Kuzari.... http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2020/09/reply-to-breaking-kuzari.html )
I would love to read an RG response to ACJA critique of the Kuzari argument. See https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2022/02/kuzari-argument-part-26-national.html
Thank You
And see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/search?q=Miracle+of+sun
And see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2021/12/kuzari-argument-part-24-uyghurs.html
And see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2021/12/kuzari-argument-part-25-armenian.html
It's heartwarming to see how almost all of Natan's support on this post comes from open atheists ❤️❤️❤️ See my latest post on IM.
Yeah you're not really answering me. Best of luck man. I hope you find a way out of this mental prison.
He never does. Just insults.
You didn't answer the question, not here and not in your latest post on IM.
Atheists taste the best!
" The Charedim don't join the army because it doesn't fit their ideology and world view, period." Correct. That is the real reason. But you'll find many people claiming otherwise. There's no shortage of such people in this very forum, along with some official spokesmen for the charedi world - see e.g. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/when-charedi-spokesmen-misrepresent
Would you rather they state flatly what I just said? Hasbara (Public Relations) is a part of modern life, and even though it may sometimes be a little dishonest, its not such a bad thing. Besides, there is not a single political party anywhere in which one cannot pick holes or point to hypocrisy.
False equivalency. The religious think the land is theirs because of the non rational idea of its kedusha. The zionists identify the land as of historical importance to the Jewish nation. I'm not saying either is better. To a degree, both are irrational (which is why you also have Jews who don't care about Israel, or even being Jewish.) But the claims are not the same.
"The religious think the land is theirs because of the non rational idea of its kedusha." You have not the slightest clue what you're talking about. Why do you even pretend you do?
thanks for the ad hominem fallacy. feel free to correct the assertion - and by doing so, stay on topic. I was using shorthand. I know the Temple and other holy sites and cities are there. I know the Torah describes the land as belonging to the Jews.
Keep it up, loser.
Your entire post is premised on either/or. I don't think anyone claims that hishtadlus is unnecessary. What they claim is that 1) Torah learning provides a benefit. 2) Serving in the army has very harmful effects on many who serve's spiritual level. Taken together, it isn't hypocritical in the least to try to exterminate rats using natural means while refusing to serve in the army.
https://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2014/03/refusing-to-serve-in-ideologically.html
"If chareidim are against secular education in principle, why are so many staunchly chareidi Beis Yaakov graduates so fully qualified in purely secular fields (like architecture, design, [banking, finance,] law, social work, special Ed, O.T. etc)?
If chareidim are against working and prefer kollel in principle, why are there so many popular courses given in safrus, kashrus, rabbonus, dayanus and other WORKING Torah occupations other than strictly learning kollels?"
https://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2013/02/yair-lapid-seems-to-get-it-while-natan.html
"The conclusion to be drawn here is that not just any large amount of learning or large number of people learning in a location is capable of defending that specific location. Only a singularly deep and supernal quality of learning has that special capacity to spare a specific location from destruction. Hence the exodus of the Ashdod yeshivah.
"But then," Natan Slifkin would presumably ask, "if today's Torah scholars and students do not have this elevated quality of learning to spare their cities, who says their combined learning can spare Israel from anything? If understood this way, doesn't Rabbi Grylak's examples undermine his very attempt to justify the draft exemption given to today's yeshivah students?"
This kind of question misses the point. The point of these examples was merely to establish the power that the learning of Torah contains in general. One cannot use these or any other anecdotes to arrange some kind of graph on an axis chart and plot some kind of line through the data points to arrive at how much Torah learning is required to thwart how large a threat of danger. It takes much more subtlety and a willingness to listen in order to appreciate the Chareidi argument of draft deferrals for Yeshivah students."
===================
"And what is the response to this? What is the charedi plan? Usually, there is no response at all, just deflection."
The simplest solution would be to eliminate the draft entirely, and with it, cut subsidies.
https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/11/26/majority-of-israelis-support-abolishing-the-draft/
saying "Torah protects," is non-falsifiable. No way to disprove. "Faith can move mountains." I have faith and can't move mountains. "You don't have enough faith." Not proved, but can't be disproved either. The charlatan's playbook.
That's a non-sequitur. I didn't claim it's falsifiable. I said it isn't hypocritical. The 2 have nothing to do with each other.
Something that is non-falsifiable falls in to the category of hearsay. It carries no weight, one way or another. Those that claim it is true are relying on a charlatan's playbook. Something logically weak can sound strong when those given authority say it -- but it remains nothing more than an empty assertion. Those using it rely on the argument from authority, another fallacy.
another way to see it is the notion that Torah protects is an argument from ignorance (it asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.)
Rabbis are truly going down the well traveled path of charltans, cult leaders, social movement leaders - all beings who cultivate "true believers" - with these tactics.
I would say it is beneath them -- but I honesty think they already know this. They just don't have anything solid to rely on, so this will have to do. On the flip side -- if they keep their adherents and followers away from secular ways of evaluating information, and use a host of other techniques, they might win the intellectual war. It's just that it's been done on false grounds. (Not that there aren't benefits to religious living. They just may not be powerful enough to keep people in the fold without a lot of flawed and false arguments that sound persuasive in the right context. these terrible arguments are just part of a larger strategem for keeping people in the fold.)
Again, non-sequitur. Even if everything you're ranting about were true, it *still* wouldn't have any bearing on what I'm saying.
Also, you're making a whole bunch of non-falsifiable statements yourself. For example: "Something that is non-falsifiable falls in to the category of hearsay. It carries no weight, one way or another."
i have read that logical fallacies like non-falsifiable statements are actually considered "hearsay" in court, and therefore disallowed as testimony by secular and religious courts. My statement is not non-falsifiable. You can read up on how courts reject hearsay as testimony, and how hearsay has the specific quality of being a non-falsifiable assertions.
Regarding your juxtaposition of the "torah protects" with using poison to kill rats, let me start by saying: there are a lot of logical fallacies out there, and I am no expert. There may be several fallacies to describe bad logic being used in an argument.
But, I will say that the argument that Torah protects, but not from rats (who need poison), is an example of an equivocation fallacy. The word "protects" is meant differently from from the first part of the assertion to the second.
How can the rabbis say both? The first part is basically a non-falsifiable argument. If a missile hits a religious town, it gets a shrug from the rabbis. "Who knows why hashem lets such things happen? We can't know." Or, "its the gay pride parade in Tel Aviv!"
The second part is the real problem: it is falsifiable. If the Torah protects, why are we over run with rats, day in and day out? The answer is the equivocation: "the Torah literally protects - but the meaning of that word changes if we see that it does not protect."
It's bad logic, a fallacy - indisputably one of the essential elements of any argument of any political mass movement, religion, cult, or charlatan.
So, is it hypocrisy? I don't know - but it is bad logic. Religious people who are trying to prove things about their religion are deeply indebted to bad logic. That's my non-falsifiable ending..!
Again, still a non-sequitur. A very long and repetitive non-sequitur.
"But, I will say that the argument that Torah protects, but not from rats (who need poison), is an example of an equivocation fallacy. The word "protects" is meant differently from from the first part of the assertion to the second."
No, it's used the same way in both. Protection isn't all or nothing. Medical treatments cure, except when they don't. Sometimes treatments are ineffective, or partially effective. No need to manufacture fallacies.
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/Why_Logical_Positivism.html
I'm an HVAC tech for the last 15 years and among my charedi clients I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of kollel yungelight among them. As one hungarian lady once put it : "תורה, סחורה געפיצטע שטיוועלעך" expresses their attitude. Not working is an Israeli phenomenon an has nothing to do with charedi haskofah, but with the situation in Ererz Ysroel. This is very simple. Slifkin's incessant attacks are a malicious misrepresentation of the complex problem and are typical of Haaretz and Der Sturmer.
This is rediculous post in the series of dozens others. The reason for charedi attitude to the state has been clarified beyond any dought. For the benefit of the new readers I will sum it up again.
דוד בן גוריון, ראש הממשלה הראשון של מדינת ישראל, כתב: "הרצל הפך אבק-אדם הנישא על ידי ".רוח מצויה לעם המנסה לעצב את גורלו המדיני
This attitude of the Zionist movement is at the root of the tension between the state and the Torah observant Jews. It's what sustains the distrust between these sectors of the population. It doesn't matter what the charedim or the seculars or the slifkins say. It is the underlying cause. The culture of the country created by the Zionist movement remains inimical to the Torah world. All other explanations are דיברי רוח.
"This attitude of the Zionist movement is"
This is nonsense. There is no single Zionist ideology or attitude. There is no single Zionism. And Ben Gurion is passe, and never was fully representative of the various Zionisms, though in his heyday he may have represented more than 50%.
There is no single chareidism either. Ben Gurion is not passe, and his anti-religious attitude is represented by people like Slifkin, which is far more than 50% of non-chareidim.
RNS is a שומר תורה ומצוות and it is ביזוי התורה and plain chutzpah to compare him to Ben Gurion as to belief, devotion,knowledge, and practice of Torah.
He is a complete kofer, plain and simple. We have documented that fact in several places on IM, for example, see here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/qanon-natan He is also constantly trying to spread his kefira and undermine the Torah. The fact that he outwardly observes mitzvos or claims to helps his case very little.
If you believe that RNS went over red lines then constructive and instruction criticism is in order.
I sometimes question some of RNS's ideas but I believe that he is sincere and committed Orthodox Jew. Hence their is no cause for excessive vitriol.
I don't see Slifkin as a kofer, but his views will lead to the kfira in the next generation.
There are Talmedei Chacomim who understand the concept of the "sefirots "in Kabbala in away from by that seems to contradict the Rambam's Ikarim in regard to Rambam's conception of the Incorporeality of G-d and his
The point is that this is how it is percieved by the charedi society. Charedim don't benefit from the inclusion and tolerance like the LGBT sector does and their choices and lifestyle are not celebrated as brave and tought to the toddlers. Imagine what Slifkin or Haaretz would be writing if charedim were spreading the HIV virus?
Also, it's rediculous to accuse charedim of not serving in the IDF out of cowardice or not working out of selfishness. Any evolutionst should know that the genetic traits are distributed evenly in a population and the reasons for the charedi behaviour are ideological. Talkng about hypocricy....
Just a few points: religions can't exist without logical fallacies. All of their boldest assertions only work because they are non-falsifiable. "faith can move mountains," a religious teacher says. "I have faith, and I can't move mountains," says a believer. "Your faith isn't strong enough," says the religious teacher.
There is no way to make heads or tails of the assertion - it can't be proven or disproven, ever. For this reason, it is an indispensable tactic in (badly, but persuasively) arguing for religion.
The next important tactic in religious indoctrination is confirmation bias fallacy. Another systematic error in thinking where we ignore counter evidence, and recall and identify only that which confirms our belief.
All religions (including Orthodox Judaism) are built on these and other errors in thinking and argument. Bedrock tactics used by charlatans, politicians, and cult/religious leaders.
Finally, the desire to conform drives a lot of people who are religious. Not everyone can conform, or belong. But some are powerfully influenced by the need to do both.
There's so much more one could say. Freud gets in here (the father of the "Jewish Science" of psychoanalytic theory who has forever annoyed committed believers in all manner of political movements and religions), many more logical fallacies, psychological fallacies, other stuff.
Before you think I am anti-religious, I am not. Religion is built largely on tactics that are clever and empty, but persuasive chicanery. But religious people are admirable. Their commitment is admirable. And, I think this plays in as well: religious people are lucky to have a better chance at a rich and full community and family life. I think the thin gruel of religious proofs and thought is, for many, a small price to pay (and likely, if this blog is any guide, many religious people quietly understand how weak the proofs and thinking are.)
"Just a few points: religions can't exist without logical fallacies"
Neither does life in general.
Be sure to see Happys post here:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/selectively-pretending-to-be-religious
as you were featured!!
I am surprised RNS lets you post most of your stuff. Rationalistic Judaism is NOT ABOUT being rational. Rather, it is a style of Judaism that is more or less opposed to the more mystical styles of Judaism. Rationalist Judaism has certain core beliefs that are not based on evidence based reasoning or logic or science. The fact that somebody argues that any version of Orthodox Judaism is not really rational is besides the point, because Rationalistic Judaism followers are believers first and rationalist second.
some commenters don't seem to appreciate pointing out logical fallacies in their arguments. I think, personally, pointing them out does speak to the logical weaknesses in the arguments of every religion. Like you point out - the idea is to be a believer first (however that is defined - an argument for another day, I guess.)
No, you are just a self-inflated pedantic loser that no one can stand. Don't read too much into it.
Since you've been throwing out debating terms throughout this thread, ever so politely pointing everyone else's fallacies out along the way, I'll politely throw one back your way: argument from ignorance
give an example in what i wrote above? Thanks.
1. All of their boldest assertions only work because they are non-falsifiable.
2. The next important tactic in religious indoctrination is confirmation bias fallacy. Another systematic error in thinking where we ignore counter evidence, and recall and identify only that which confirms our belief.
3. Finally, the desire to conform drives a lot of people who are religious. Not everyone can conform, or belong. But some are powerfully influenced by the need to do both.
(The ideas aren't false per se; your application of them to me and my people totally is.)
i'll just take one, make it faster and simpler.
"torah protects" is non falsifiable. How can you prove or disprove? in court, it would be considered hearsay. Even a beis din rejects hearsay as invalid testimony.
But, in truth, charlatans and cult leaders rely on just such hearsay to make their "arguments."
The argument from ignorance is a faulty argument that relies on a false dichotomy. it says that something is true because it has not been proven false. An example might be "a flying spaghetti monster created the moon and the stars."
I can't disprove that - so the assertion stands as true.
But, this is a trick, and topics in critical thinking address it better than i can here. the important thing to know is it is widely used to manipulate, and it is a logical fallacy.
What I wrote we know to be true: non-falsifiable arguments (charlatanism) are the bulk of religious claims. Prove Noah's Ark never happened! (I can't, and you can't prove it did.) Prove Moses didn't get the Torah on Har Sinai! (I can't, and you can't prove he did.)
The one uncomfortable falsifiable claim? Moshiach will come before the year six thousand.
Uh oh. He'd better -- or, as they say, "the jig is up."
I think that's why I hear rabbis say more and more "well, it doesn't HAVE to be by six thousand," as we close in on it.
Gotta keep the people on board -- and a truly falsifiable argument (meaning it is NOT hearsay, and is suitable for court) just...won't...do!
By the way, while I find deeply flawed and weak arguments dressed up by religious leaders to prove religion -- I don't think being religious is bad, at all. The commitment is admirable.
Oink oink. Pig.
There are two 'fallacies' with your argument (besides that using debate terms in a debate is super annoying but we'll take it).
But let me actually begin with your ever so polite nicety at the end, "By the way, while I find deeply flawed and weak arguments dressed up by religious leaders to prove religion -- I don't think being religious is bad, at all. The commitment is admirable." It's technically quite insulting. "Your a complete idiot, but I appreciate your commitment." Thanks for such empty kind words. We have a truth claim, not a utilitarianism claim. (I guess the fact that you are trying to be nice to us *sorry* people means something and I shouldn't fault you for it?)
Anyways, the main fallacy with your argument is that you are conflating two things. I never claimed my argument was scientific (though ultimately it is; we are way not up to that point in this preliminary part of the discussion). It is a (an?) historic argument. A claim that Washington was president is also unfalsifiable technically. You can check out my comment here: https://dovber.substack.com/p/if-you-were-wrong-how-would-you-know/comments and my reposted comment here: https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/kuzari-argument-comment - and we can take it from there (none of those links will be the 'end all answer' but they are good beginnings to a discussion).
In short you're arguing against a Judaism which is built on false projectors of its claims, and you are knocking down that straw man at ease. Hence: argument from ignorance.
Fallacy number two:
"The argument from ignorance is a faulty argument that relies on a false dichotomy. it says that something is true because it has not been proven false. An example might be "a flying spaghetti monster created the moon and the stars." I can't disprove that - so the assertion stands as true."
That just means you don't know what I meant by argument from ignorance. Obviously such an argument is in fact a fallacy in many cases. If one argued that there is no France, for example, we can happily employ that he is being fallacious and rightfully claim that he is arguing from ignorance. He should do his research and see if he stills comes out with that same conclusion. You than bring in a non sequitur from Russell's teapot and Dawkins's specific example of it and assume that was our claim, because you already know, and then assume it's wrong. Argument from ignorance. Maybe first study what 'France' is, and what people mean by it, and how people usually determine certain truths, and then we can continue our discussion.
Okay, I was being fallacious as well; the two fallacies I pointed out are really just one. And so I will provide an actual quick second: Deuteronomy 11:13, we say it twice every day. (I'm not sure what your story is, all I have to work with is that you are subscribed to this blog and https://eladnehorai.substack.com/, which tells me you have religious background so I'll leave it at that)
it's hard enough to parse bad arguments - some are probably two fallacies, maybe more.
but, we should at least agree on terms (especially since the fallacies we are identifying are easy to google.)
when you say "that just means you don't know what I meant by argument from ignorance," you are saying (i think) that you have another definition (of argument from ignorance), besides the one offered by the likes of wikipedia. i would ask that you just use another term altogether.
(if we start arguing about whether there is a france, and you don't mean the same thing by france as most of us do, it's going to get hard to talk...)
in terms of my admiration for the religious - I do mean it. i think what you are (probably rightly) identifying is the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. I am using the emotional appeal of my admiration instead of logic to "win" the reader over to what I am saying.
I think you are right. I'd make a good rabbi, huh : )?
but i will stand by the assertion that ALL mass movements (including all religions) rely on weak arguments, and errors in thinking and logic, to "prove" they are true. It really is flim flam, chicanery, and charlatanism. And, it really all works, too - at least in the right environment.
happy to keep discussing, of course.
RNS - you're way to eager to mock without appreciating the evolution taking place. His speech is an indication that the charedi world may *slowly* be coming around. Sure there are detractors but that expected. If talk about it, it doesn't work. The first rule of fight club is not to talk about fight club.
I originally began reading the blog expecting to read explanations, clarifications, views & discussions. I even expected some serious disagreements between those with different hashkafot. But what I did not expect are the disgusting uncalled for personal insults and name-calling by some of the contributors which mirrors the sinat achim perpetrated by the 24,000 students of Rabbi Akiva.
Herzl (ym"sh) was a raving lunatic (as were his wife and three children). He vowed to "lock the rabbis in the synagogue" meaning he didn't want their influence in the yuden stat. However, I agree with Ephraim, that there were numerous shades of Zionism, that due to their influence and traditional approach, Herzl's locks on the synagogues were never implemented. However, the Israel Supreme Court, especially under Aaron Barak, sure tried to restore "Herzl's locks on the synagogues."
Ephraim is also being ridiculous again when he stated, "Any Torah oriented criticism of what the end-sum of what Zionism became, necessarily implies a criticism of the failure of Torah true Jews to join and influence the movement." There is tremendous ahavas Yisroel emanating from mainstream Torah Judaism and great efforts at Kiruv of secular Israelis. A small fringe of vociferous troublemakers, convey the wrong message.
"Herzl (ym"sh) was a raving lunatic (as were his wife and three children)."
There you go again, making light of mental illness. It is true that Herzl was quite the character. But "raving lunatic"? Not at all. Again, you've chosen to ignore Herzl's pro-religious sentiments. Of course, such sentiments may not fall under conventional categories- but Herzl was not a conventional person. And Herzl may not have been consistent. But your damning assessment of him suffers from oversimplification and hysteria.
I'm no fan of Barak, and I despise judicial activism. But your assessment of him and his revolution is exaggerated.
"There is tremendous ahavas Yisroel emanating from mainstream Torah Judaism and great efforts at Kiruv of secular Israelis."
Non-sequitor. It has little to do with the failure of the Orthodox to influence the Jewish State in general.
Well, Herzel was a remarkable individual, who sacrificed himself for the Jewish Nation. Read his diaries where he speaks for himself. Life is complex.
Herzl was insane. Yes, read his diary. Before the idea of a secular yuden stat, he proposed converting the entire young generation to Catholicism. He unabashed descries his whole mongering and his efforts to conceal his gonorrhoeic discharge. He refused to make a bris on his only son. He advocated a yuden stat in Uganda and when the more traditional zionists told him he was crazy, he dropped dead at 44. That is the one thing I agree with him on, a secular yuden stat in Uganda.
"He advocated a yuden stat in Uganda "
You don't know what your talking about. There was never any proposal to set up a state in Uganda. And you conflate advocacy for diplomacy.
It took me a few minutes to realize the truth of the analogy of the issue of Charedi Jews not working, receiving welfare for it working, and not pulling their share for the common good with the story of The Little Red Hen. The Charedi are the farm animals who refused to work to make the bread instead they were too busy “lying in the sun.”
Does that mean that in the end, the secular Jews will say, as did The Little Red Hen, “You didn’t help me plant the seeds, you didn’t help me water the plants, you didn’t help me harvest the crops, you didn’t help me tie the wheat and shake off the grain into the wagons, you didn’t help me take the grain to the miller to make flour, you didn’t help me bake the bread, SO, I am going to eat the bread ALL BY MYSELF.”
Noson (Jesus) Slifkin is back with his biting screed against fellow Jews and Gedolei Yisroel. It just goes to show that when a person who started out L'Shem Shomayim is pushed away with two hands, he will wind up in "drerd". Those who originally pushed him away with two hands won't be far behind him in Gehenom.
The societal problems this modern-day Jesus picks on, were to a great extent the product of Herzlian Secular Zionism. It was their intent in founding Medinat Israel, to see Torah Judaism go the way of the dinosaur. For the most part they weren't going to use Nazi methodology to realize that goal, but a combination of Esau and Bilaam's tactics.
Esau, by building up a replacement for Torah (as the most important aspect of a Jew's endeavors) with military service whose ultimate activity boils down to fighting and killing. Of course, an individual or an entire people must protect their lives from enemies and other dangers, but the Zionist has made military service the "holy grail" of all existence. This is Esau.
Bilaam, by making young women into sex slaves with compulsory military service in which females' main purpose is to service the underpaid male soldiers with motivation during their enslavement (military slaves) for three years with the consolation of constant and readily available sex partners.
One more modality Zionists used to further their goal of the elimination of Torah, was to starve out the Torah learner by forbidding him from making a parnasa on the side. It is the Zionists that created the Kollel culture of mendicancy!
It boils down to the foolish Zionists being responsible for shooting themselves in the foot. They came at the Torah world with antagonism. They could have succeeded at their goal much more by showing love, like the missionaries (Chas v'shalom). In the end, things have worked out just fine. There is a plethora of Torah in E"Y, which is truly a heavenly Zechus and protection for Klal Yisroel, that, as mentioned, to a great extent was created by the antagonism of the Zionists. There are also plenty of brainy high tech and smart military leaders to protect all the citizens (many of the top engineers and scientists are Torah observant) b'derech hateva.
Of course, not all Secular Zionists were of the evil Herzlian track. There were many, even in high places, such as Pinchas Sapir, Mencahem Begin and Zalman Shazar, who fought the Herzlians and did their utmost to perpetuate the culture of Torah.
You admit that a society must have soldiers to protect their lives from enemies but still find really pathetic made up biblical excuses for Charedi draft dodging that have no basis in the Torah. It wasn’t until Jacob left Esau with nothing by tricking him and stealing his birthright and blessings that he became estranged from Israel. Yet Esau proved himself a loving person by forgiving his dishonest brother, who had to go through a lot of suffering to find his way back to humanity. A nation constantly threatened with annihilation needs a standing army, yet you cowards refuse to pull your weight, and then make up ridiculous excuses that have no basis in reality. The fiction that staring at ancient fiction, and ritual and civic laws, and poetry all day actually protects the nation better than actual soldiers is Laughable really. The sad part is that the ancient Israelites (in the Bible stories) that you think you represent actually were invaders who murdered men, women, and children (in the stories, not actually in real history), yet you criticize IDF soldiers who are defenders of a land that was given them by a sympathetic (at the time) world.
As for our daughters that you malign, you should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe you are just projecting your own misogynistic perverted fantasies on them because you can’t get any yourself because you’re a LOSER. The only way you’d ever get a woman (like most Charedi) is to pay some hag to find you a naive girl whose parents are looking to get rid of and then treat her like shit, don’t know how to satisfy, and then keep her a slave by refusing to grant a get. You fear independent women because you know deep inside what a loser you are.
Then you blame the idiotic system of your lousy education system on the secularists??! That’s chutzpah. 😂
"the product of Herzlian Secular Zionism. It was their intent in founding Medinat Israel, to see Torah Judaism go the way of the dinosaur."
This isn't true. Herzl saw continued relevance for Torah in his Jewish State. What is true, is that there were Zionists to Herzl's left, who were not happy with his accommodation of religion.
It may seem paradoxical, that the same secular assimilated Xmas tree lighting Herzl was not only moved (even to the point of megalomania) by traditional messianism, but also respected rabbis and tradition. But there is no law of nature that people need to be consistent.
Zionism, as a convergence of various opposing movements was the sum product of the people who joined the movements. Any Torah oriented criticism of what the end-sum of what Zionism became, necessarily implies a criticism of the failure of Torah true Jews to join and influence the movement. The same tragedy is unfolding today, in which too many in the Torah community refuse to infuse the State & Israeli society with Torah values, and instead retreat into the "caves" (the term is not mine.) And then of course, complain.
Complaints about chareidim. Complaint about chareidim complaining. Funny, I see FAR more complaining from the anti-chareidim/anti-religious than I see from the chareidim. FAR more. It's not even close.
"I see..."
I don't advise you to spend too time calculating who complains too much. There isn't enough time for that.
Doesn't require much calculation to state the obvious. And I see you have plenty of time to post lengthy anti-chareidi comments.
ad hominem falllacy...
Blah blah blah. Shut up.
what happened to you in high school? serious question...
Boo. Your breath smells like rotten eggs and you have boogies hanging out of your nose.
way to rise to the challenge. stay on topic. you are a trove of red herrings and ad hominems. you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Oooohh. You just inspired a great line, but the proprietor would ban me for it.
For those of you whose childhood reading did not include "The Little Red Hen," let me give you a brief synopsis. The hen wants to bake some bread, so she goes through all the steps of collecting the wheat, bringing it to the miller, and preparing the flour into dough, etc. At each stage, she asks her fellow barnyard animals if they would like to help her. "Not I," says each one repeatedly. But when at last she takes her new loaf of bread out of the oven and all her pals ask for some, she tells them, "I'll eat it myself," and she does. Ha-meivin yavin.
Thanks!
Like when it comes the time when everyone will be clamoring for their reward of what they accomplished in olam hazeh, for their Tikkun Haolam, and only some people will be able to eat... Ha-meivin yavin.
Except, the other critters never complained that the little hen made a lousy loaf of bread.
È questo il Dan Klein che ha tradotto le opere di Shadal??
Sicuro!
I love your work, including your Hakirah articles.
I'm glad you posted that explanation of NS's otherwise oblique illustration, but I confess to still not getting the נמשל. I'm sure its a jab of some sort at what NS perceives as hypocrisy on the part of Charedim, but I'm not seeing it. The red hen are the charedim and the other animals everyone else, or vice versa? Can you flesh it out just a bit more? :-)
First, thanks for your kind remarks. Second, I think NS is most likely implying that the people who work for a living are the Little Red Hen, and those who refuse to enter the work force are the other animals. The hen is compelled to do all the work herself, and her friends have no right to demand a share of the results (although an alternative ending might have seen her sharing some of them out of the goodness of her heart). On the other hand, another reader has apparently identified the hen with those who do the "work" of learning. Those Little Golden Books seem to have 70 faces.
"Those Little Golden Books seem to have 70 faces."
Ein mikra yotze midei peshuto.
Ha-meivin yavin.
Are you by any chance related to Barbara Garvin, co-editor of "The Jews in Italy: Memory and Identity"?
Nope. It's just a random pen name, no meaning or significance to it.
(I never read The Red Hen, but I did love those little Golden Books, though. Tootle, Tawny Scrawny Lion, Monster at the end of this Book, Micky Mouse picnic - the books of my youth. Still remember the little train illustration on the back cover. Ever wonder how the Golden Book encyclopedia and Little Golden Books were published at the same time, without lawyers like us screaming about trademarks?)
And let us not forget The Poky Little Puppy! As for copyright or trademark issues, no worries. The books and the encyclopedia were published by the same entities. I must have read every word of those encyclopedias (Chalk to Czechoslovakia! Paricutin to Quicksand!) in my childhood.
Natan, I dare you nah rather I challenge you, to actually do something about these issues.
Compose a Hebrew pamphlet, (which is the language that the majority of your targeted audience reads).
Lay out these arguments with all the chazal etc. And have them distributed amongst the Chareidi population. I'm sure you can get sponsorship for this project. (Just one thing, leave out your name in the pamphlet!)
Have the title be something provocative but innocent sounding........
Use your writing skills for the correct targeted audience......
" Rav Nochum Eisenstein, quoting Rav Chaim Kanievsky, says that there are supernatural miracles which can be relied upon to happen - as long as nobody tries to analyze the situation. "
Are his words representative? I'm not seeing such arguments here in the comments. Has anyone here said that the Charedi economy works on miracles? And has anyone claimed, that any scrutiny of such miracles would cause the miracles to cease? No. The Charedi apologists here have not resorted to such supernatural claims.
Furthermore, RNE said (in a blazing display of etymological fantasy) that teaching אומנות doesn't mean teaching a trade, but teaching the "basics". And yet, here, one commenter said that there's no fulfillment of teaching אומנות by teaching the basic curriculum because such studies are insufficient to learning a trade!
He's back, baby!
1) Side note: "Of course this isn’t actually the real reason why charedim don’t serve in the army" Ummm, yes it is. We *really* *actually* believe that the Torah protects. For the umpteenth time, Sanhedrin 99b with Rashi.
2) Main point: The purpose of your post is to call Chareidim lazy. At first you just hinted; towards the end you dropped your niceties. Before my critique, there are plenty of those, and I don't condone them (when they go to heaven God will ask them where their shoes are, if you get the reference), but to say that's *who we are* - oh please! God help you!
I'm sure you remember how hard it is to learn a sugya for real (do you?). To go through a difficult Rashba or Shach that seems completely unintelligible and make your way through it time after painstaking time after painstaking time, again and again, with stubborn will and painful clarity, breaking everything down to its finer components, you feel like death itself. And after a few times finally it starts to come together and your effort was all worth it just to understand what Hashem wants from us in this one minute detail of Hashem's halacha; please! Going to work is an easy way out! In our world those who go to work (I refer to Lakewood where such a thing is somewhat acceptable) is mostly because they find such labor too difficult. No problem going to work, but it is a definitely a b'dieved!
Now, if your problem is that the bottom half are using the beis midrash as an excuse, you have a major point, and I'm happy someone would address that. There are many wasting their lives away, nebach, in the coffee room and so on. But if it is the whole system you are after - I promise you our top half is WAY better off than yours, and our bottom half is not HALF as bad as yours.
So let's be perfectly clear, are against the entirety of US, or are you simply pointing out problems within the good community?
I understand that it's hard to learn a sugya but don't force me or anyone else to support your hard work (this is for the top half). The bottom half you refer to have no way out. Just read the previous post.
2. "The bottom half you refer to have no way out. Just read the previous post."
I worry as much as you about the bottom half. I don't know what the solution is. (It's interesting how only outsiders wish to fix the system. This is essentially the conservative-liberal balance we need. Those who hate the system find its flaws, and the flaws are actually real and need to be addressed, but they come from haters who just create more strife. But hating the system really seems to be the only thing fueling the search for flaws. Those who are happy with the system tend to ignore its flaws and push to conserve the system, accepting the obvious flaws. What we need is that a powerful group of insiders, who know not to disturb the system at large because they actually understand its tremendous value - even perhaps at the cost of all the issues - then try to find solutions to the very blaring problems.)
1. Would you say the same for the Kohanim and Leviim during the times of the Beis Hamikdash when they would devote themselves to avodas Hashem and the others were more than proud to at least be privileged enough to do their mitzvah and support them?
If you can't be in the beis midrash, wouldn't you at least want a share by supporting it?
If not, is someone forcing you? Are you referring to your taxes? Please. No one is forcing any individuals to support those learning. They usually come to America - where plenty of people are happy to support them. Again, not that I necessarily condone individuals learning at the expense of leeching on society. But the mosdos, not the individuals, that come and ask for help, מה טוב ומה נעים!
" Please. No one is forcing any individuals to support those learning"
This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Do you know how the charedidim in Israel force everybody to pay for their learning (and general lifestyle) through tax? Do you actually have a clue was is going on, before opining from Lakewood?
Lakewood itself operates similarly. Donors to the big yeshiva get zoning variances against local protest to build developments that they profit from and then donate enough money to get the Vaad( community council ) to endorse the official's who approve the variances ... and raise the taxes to pay for the roads sidewalks and etc.
Faanews.com
Of course, charedidom is full of fraud, deception, bribery, protekzia etc. That is one area of torah they find lots of kullos in. Of course, if a Modox would find a kulloh in orach chaim, based on equivalent flimsy or non existant sources, it would be up for ridicule.
Asterix, every citizen of every country pays taxes for policies they don't like. If it helps you, just think of "supporting Torah" as "supporting the environment".
i think this is a red herring. the topic at hand is whether all citizens should be treated the same (ie serve in the army, work if able bodied) and should having a particular ideology exempt some citizens from the duties of other citizens?
That Israel I believe does not have a constitution probably does not help matters.
Maybe. But Dovid is still wrong and totally unable to see the facts. Taxed for policies is still compulsion. Non chareidim are forced here. Calling it taxes doesn't change the facts.
Typical yeshivish deflective non response.
As it happens, I'm not yeshivish in the slightest. But beyond that, you're the one deflecting. Of course it's compulsion, who ever said otherwise? The budget for the Israeli Environmental Protection Agency in 2023 is 639 million shekel, according to Jpost. Where do you think the money for that comes from? You think everyone in Israel supports an EPA???
1. You can't compare, this is a new phenomenon that never existed before (1 generation). You can't make something up, and then expect everyone to go along with it just because your rabeim tell you that this is the torah way. With all due respect, I do not see the charedi system as being anything related to Cohanim and Leviim. If anything I see it as a huge chillul hashem and turn off (I'm referring to the system).
Regarding paying for it... I'm referring to the subsidies that charedim demand and the fact that it takes a secular/mo family to support a charedi family. Someone referred to the charedim as bloodsuckers. I'm not justifying it but I definitely understand the resentment. This is very much a haratzachta vigam yarashta case.
1. I'm thrilled that you worry about Hashem's kavod and that it concerns you that some people are being turned off by a segment of klal Yisroel, but I must say I disagree with your outlook. Hashem is very happy with those that are learning (and I refer to those that actually are really learning) in the beis midrash. That is the very reason why the world exists - call me an ideologue, that is what I firmly believe, based on a truckload of sources (technically anyone with any strong belief can be labeled as such, the only question is which ideology is true but anyways...). If people can't understand that, bending to them is not a kiddush Hashem. Doing what Hashem want is a kiddush Hashem, even when it isn't popular. Standing for Hashem's values is the biggest kiddush sheim shamayim, even if others who don't appreciate it get turned off. Throughout history, as Jews in general, we were always super unpopular. But keeping to our values is what allows our continued existence, which is the biggest kiddush Hashem there is - that His word is still alive through the continued existence of its keepers.
I understand that my comparison to the kohanim etc. isn't perfect (there is no chiyuv of terumah to a talmid chacham) but it still has tremendous value - Yisroel needs those who devote their lives solely to avodas Hashem. Perhaps the mass-kollel-initiative is new, but people learning all day is very much not. And of course the MKI has its issues, besides that many of them should be working and not wasting away, but it also is producing plenty of top tier ovdei Hashem, which is what the world needs only more of. If you have an alternative to produce the worlds finest, please do share! (This last point is really the main one: any alternative is not taking into account the importance of real avodas Hashem which is a very difficult thing to do.)
2. Any government funds you refer to, I'd first make the point that it is a democracy and even if you disagree with another's ideology, and even if they are actually dead wrong, democracy says that even stupid people get to have an opinion. The founding fathers of America, and Aristotle, who were the instigators of democracy in this world, understood the major issues of it at the foundational level. So if we believe in our ideology, as far as government goes, we are entitled to our opinion.
But that being said, I agree that the reliance on a not happy government and public is a bad look, but like I said, I don't know what the alternative is. To change the system is just potentially so much worse (again, for those who care at all about true avodas Hashem).
"Any government funds you refer to, I'd first make the point that it is a democracy and even if you disagree with another's ideology, and even if they are actually dead wrong, democracy says that even stupid people get to have an opinion. " What a strange thing to say. The whole point of democracy is to be able to disagree with the opinion and actions of others. You're claiming that nobody is allowed to disagree with charedim using their political power to extract money from the rest of society to support their lifestyle?!
Chalilah! I love this blog - precisely because of this reason! Of all my 'chareidi ideologue friends' I've been the first to say that you make many a good point.
My point here was just that we are also entitled to argue our opinion, and if you can't understand it because of some preconceived 'rational' slant, that's on you; it doesn't undermine our ideas. And you're ever interested in hearing our side, I'm happy to dialogue, as I have been doing.
But I'm glad you chose this minor detail to respond to and not the main points I make.
Please read the previous post. The current system encourages the bottom half to remain in the system (we both agree that it's a bad thing). Furthermore, if you believe that learning is important, go right ahead and learn but don't demand others to pay for it or to protect you.
Read the post, I agreed with it, see my comments there. But to your points, (A) "The current system encourages the bottom half to remain in the system" - yes I agree, but what is the alternative? (B) "but don't demand others to pay for it or to protect you" - No one is demanding. And if you mean government funding, welcome to democracy where anyone can be what they wanna be. If there were enough people who wanted to pointlessly give ten years of their lives studying the history of art specifically in the 1120s, they can lobby a politician to fund and support them and do as they please. That's even if you disagree with the cause. But I ask again, what cause are you all about? If it is avodas Hashem, please provide a viable alternative. If not, we're just not on the same page anyways.
"To go through a difficult Rashba or Shach that seems completely unintelligible and make your way through it time after painstaking time after painstaking time, again and again, with stubborn will and painful clarity, breaking everything down to its finer components, you feel like death itself"
Except 99.9% of learners do NOT do that. They say, after a few hours, we have got as far as we can, time to move on. And/or the end of seider arrives, and the next day they move on anyway.
Don't tell me they don't, I have been there.
I speak for those that do. The fact that there those that are lazy (because it is very hard!) says nothing about this conversation. I'm sorry you never felt this week's אדם כי ימות באהל. I hope you get that opportunity.
I promise you our top half is WAY better off than yours...
Just to clarify, it is not half. Halevai it was half.
If you're correct (you're not) take a look at the larger than bottom half of this other group. My point still stands.
But I'm glad you're pining for us!
Of course this isn’t actually the real reason why charedim don’t serve in the army" Ummm, yes it is. We *really* *actually* believe that the Torah protects. For the umpteenth time, Sanhedrin 99b with Rashi.
It's very easy to believe sitting in Lakewood. Strangely, when it comes to everything else torah, per the talmud, protects against (such as disease), we don't see that 'belief' in practice.