The Anguish of Kivelevitzism

A rabbi debates the phenomenon of "Slifkinism"

I was fascinated to hear that a recent podcast discussion between two rabbis was all about something that the host of the podcast, Rabbi Avramel Kivelevitz, calls “Slifkinism." In a recent episode, his guest was Rav Mayer Schiller, a respected and unique Skver Chassid who is a devotee of the Hirschian approach and taught at YU. Rabbi Kivelevitz is on the offense against me, while Rav Schiller bravely takes up my defense. But what’s interesting is that Rabbi Kivelevitz - who has written pleasant and complimentary emails to me in the past - is not criticizing me from a hardcore charedi perspective, but rather from the perspective of a moderate American charedi who is deeply anguished by my writings.

The title of the talk is “From ‘Saf’ to ‘Tough’ - Natan Slifkin's Critique of Contemporary Charedi Judaism.” It’s a clever and funny title! R. Kivelevitz laments about the transformation that I have undergone. He says that I used to be “Nosson,” with a saf, and I was a “soft” person. Then I changed my name to Natan, with a tav, and that’s when I became “tough” and defiant!

The episode begins with a discussion about what they see as my primary goal: arguing that while charedi Judaism claims to be the sole authentic representation of Judaism, this is not actually the case. R. Kivelevitz takes issue with this. As a moderate American charedi, he claims that charedim are fully aware and accepting that there are other legitimate approaches within Judaism. As an example, he mentions the respect that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach had for Rav Aharon Lichtenstein.

Rav Schiller is incredulous at this claim, and correctly so. R. Kivelevitz is living in a fantasy past; Rav Shlomo Zalman is long gone. The charedi world does not acknowledge the legitimacy of a non-charedi worldview, and by and large completely negates the dati-leumi and YU world. This has been extremely clear since Oct 7th, where all the charedi proclamations about yeshiva and army completely ignore the very existence of hesder yeshiva students.

R. Kivilevitz then takes issue with my critique of Mishpacha’s interview with Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz, in which the latter defended the charedi insistence on wholescale exemption from the IDF. R. Kivilevitz does not mention any specific problems with what I wrote; rather, he is appalled that I could publicly challenge someone like Rav Berkowitz, who is such a nice person.

Rav Berkowitz is indeed a very “nice” person. Nevertheless what he wrote was not very nice at all. It was highly offensive and deeply morally flawed (aside from being nonsensical). So why on earth should that not be pointed out?  What is the reason? The harm to the honor of nice rabbis? Is that more important than correcting false claims?

Like many moderate charedim who are deeply uncomfortable with the statements of the charedi Gedolim, R. Kivilevitz claims that the Gedolim are secretly much more "normal" than they appear to be in public. But even if that is true (and I don’t believe that it is significantly true), so what? People influence others with their public statements, not their private beliefs. And they are accountable for their public statements, not their private beliefs.

R. Kivilevitz was greatly distressed by my critique of the Purim video of the children dressed as half soldier, half yeshiva bochur, which he thought was a beautiful thing. But those costumes were presenting a message that our nation is comprised both of a Zionist community that serves in the army and a Charedi community that does not serve in the army and instead learns in yeshivah, and both are valuable parts in the war. Even if you think this is the wrong interpretation, that’s certainly how many people are taking it. As the chareidi person who sent out the video that I saw wrote, B’yachad nenatzeach! This is a message that some have been continually promoting since October 7th, specifically with regard to charedi yeshiva students and non-charedi soldiers both playing a crucial role in the war. Now, some people - generally those in communities that do not send their children to the army - see that as a correct and valuable and wonderful message. But others - especially those in communities that do send their children to the army - see it as wrong, dangerous, and offensive.

Then we go back to 2005 and the ban on my books, and in particular, my response to the ban. That was nineteen years ago, but apparently there are people who apparently still haven’t gotten over it! Like many moderate charedim at the time who couldn’t bring themselves to accept that the views of prominent Torah authorities on Torah-science topics were being declared heresy, but nevertheless had to defend the Gedolim’s ban, R. Kivilevitz insists that the problem with my books was about the “tone.”

As I learned, purported objections to "tone" are actually something else. Some of the time, they are objections to the rationalist approach. As R. Kivelevitz himself says, what he really feels is that the rationalist approach should be rated as "outside the mesorah." By which, of course, he means specifically the charedi “mesorah.” And it’s not a “mesorah” in terms of a historic tradition, but rather a recent policy to censor much of the historic tradition.

Amazingly, R. Kivelevitz claims that Rav Hirsch would rebuke me for following discarded views of Rishonim. Whereas the truth is that it's Rav Hirsch's very own positions on Torah and science that I adopted in my books, and which the charedi Gedolim deem to be heretical! (When challenged with the writings from Rav Hirsch, the Gedolim either claimed them to be forgeries, or declared that Hirsch was not “from our Beis HaMidrash,” or said that his position has since been declared an unacceptable approach to Torah.)

At other times, objections to "tone" are about protecting charedi self-image. I suspect that my "tone" would not bother R. Kivlevitz in the least if the target were, say, progressive liberals. If you listen to his words, it’s clear that what really bothers him is that there are people who he thinks are really, really special, like "haGaon haTzaddik Rav Chaim Kanievsky," people who he believes are above any criticism, and I am challenging that image. He says that Rav Chaim Kanievsky was "kulo Torah" and therefore should be absolutely immune to any criticism regarding his public statements. This strikes me as something perilously close to avodah zarah. It's certainly against Chazal, who stated very clearly that nobody is above criticism - bemakom chilul Hashem, ain cholkin kavod leRav. And they decried talmidei chachamim (who were surely kulo Torah) who have no daas as being worse than a stinking carcass.

R. Kiveleviz then laments that I didn't try to influence the charedi world from the inside, like R. Yehoshua Pfeffer does. He just can’t understand why I didn’t agree to defer to the Gedolim, and I could have remained part of the charedi world. What he doesn’t seem to be able to grasp is that I didn't want to! I realized that the charedi world was just not for me, and later I eventually realized that the charedi world is fundamentally broken. If leaving it made me less effective at influencing it, so be it.

R. Kivilevitz just can’t come to terms with my not wanting to be part of the charedi world. He talks about how he personally believes that the charedi world is the best place to be, that he loves charedi Gedolei Torah. It’s just so fascinating that he can’t imagine that I don't agree, that I think that charedi society is problematic on a very fundamental level, that I think that the dati-leumi world is the best place to be.

Between that, and his deep distress at my having the temerity to criticize The Gedolim - even though he clearly thinks that my criticisms have some merit - it seems that there is a deep psychological issue going on here. Like many people, R. Kivilevitz draws his sense of identity and self-worth from The Gedolim, but he is very insecure about all this because he knows that there are serious problems. And when someone such as myself declares that the emperor has no clothes and jumps ship, it’s traumatizing.

R. Kivilevitz concludes by expressing regret at the purported divisiveness that I have created, and he talks about ve'ahavta lereyach kamocha. But such alleged concerns ring hollow when a person has nothing to say about the ultimate in divisiveness and a lack of ve’ahavta - namely, the charedi lack of participation in the war to defend the Jewish People against our enemies. It's not divisiveness that upsets him - it's criticism of the charedi society that he reveres and from which he draws his self-worth.

(Meanwhile, if you want to read about Lag B’Omer, see my post from last year, “Are You a Lag B’Omer Grinch?”)