What are you, the (anonymous) religious inquisition? Is this second grade where you're going to catch me in some transgression of some sacred belief that your little sect of Judaism happens to believe at this particular point in history? Grow up. I believe whatever I think is true. Truth is my god. I'm not gonna play some juvenile game of gotchya on what I do and don't believe.
As far as your views, your view of hasgacha pratis, is in all likelihood, not in accord with the majority of rishonim who do NOT believe that God dictates everything happens on a person by person level. Ramban and Rambam for two, certainly don't believe that. But you're ultimately not interested in truth, whether ontological or historical, all you care about is the reflexive defense of attitudes that you grew up with regardless of their veracity or palatability. Your'e as biased as they come. If you grew up amongst the Taliban, you'd be a Taliban fundamentalist stoning women.
In your view, you'd rather believe in hashgacha pratis, and believe that God somehow has a justification for allowing a terrorist to blow up a father with a grenade in front of his children. I'd rather believe in no hashgacha pratis then in a God that divinely ordained such a horrible thing. If you'd rather believe in the opposite, please explain to me why, in your own words. God gave you a mind, you do no honor to him by failing to use 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."
Note that "B’yachad nenatzeach" is a very common message in Israel since October 7, but primary *not* in respect to charedim. Rather, for several years prior to the attack the political left and right wings were at each other's throats, and the message says that we need to set that aside in order to defeat Hamas. If charedim are using it to describe their alleged contribution to the war effort by learning, that usage is not something most Israelis are aware of.
"- 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."
That's like saying "how can you have a an original thought about politics? That should be left to political scientists". We're on a forum for discussion, we can have an opinion about something without needing a PhD in the specific field relevant to the discussion
Literally, "כופרים בעיקר" means "deniers of the basic principle". The basic principle is that the number of gods that exist is exactly one. Not zero. Not more than one.
"because chas veshalom to listen to those who have some of the deapest understandings of Torah and halacha in the world".
Slifkin doesn't even accurately know the charedi halachik approach to this war.
Charedim hold there is no halachik milchama, based on the Rambam in sefer hamitzvos who says there is no such thing as a milchama nowadays, as we have no sanhedrin, melech and Cohen gadol. This means that the only chiyuv to fight is Pikuach nefesh which is yachol la'asos al yedie acherim. Slifkin has never addressed this viewpoint, as he does not know how to refute it.
The hypocrisy of slifkin is that even as he decries the age old charedi approaches to halacha, he himself doesn't follow his own worldwiew; if there is a milchama going on, why hasn't he joined the war effort? He has a chiyuv to join the war up until he's 50!
Don't know if others mentioned this but Rabbi Elyashiv wrote to Rabbi Sheilat, a ry of the hesder yeshiva in Maaleh Adumim, during the Yom Kippur. He stated that it was a milchemet mitzva. The teshuva first appeared in RS book Beurin D' Esha on Berachot which he composed on the front after the cease fire. It was dedicated to fellow hesderniks who fought and fell
You know, not every action you take in life is about "fulfilling a chiyuv", like eating a kezayis of matza on pesach. Think about that, if you can . . .
Very cute, you played the halachic flow-chart game very well. Maybe tell your wife and kids that if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night.
"It's not a milchemes mitzva, and the only chiyuv is Pikuach nefesh, you are not allowed to risk your own life to save others. Sorry kids, you're on your own!"
You've now touched into the sugya of ba bemachteres, which, as a ba'al habayis, is considered a risk to your own life even if they don't explicitly target you, and you are therefore allowed to kill him.
"Charedim hold there is no halachik milchama, based on the Rambam in sefer hamitzvos who says there is no such thing as a milchama nowadays, as we have no sanhedrin, melech and Cohen gadol. "
Sources? And if possible, a Rishon? And if you can't find a Rishon, can you find an Achron before 1900?
It's such a bizarre claim. Everyone is calling it a war. You probably have called it war. And what about מלחמת גוג ומגוג? That's also not a war, even though it's called a war?
Hmm. Ok, so you are saying that the Hesder students and non yet religious chayalim are the acharem. What if they decided that the Chareidi guys are the Achareim?! Maybe no one should fight in that case.
It's not about "someone deciding". It's "is there someone already doing the job". In hacha nami, if the da'ati Leumi and non religious soldiers stopped fighting, the charedim would take up arms, like R Chaim Kanievsky did in 1948.
It's more than this though. It's the fact that they could be fighting instead of/alongside the current chayalim without a special invitation. Thus sharing the burden.
If the only chiyuv to join the IDF is that of Rodef, which is currently being fulfilled by acherim, it's assur for someone else to join the effort due to the unnecessary risk to life.
It is not the only chiyuv at play here. See the Minchas Chinuch that says that by Milchama we do not say Pikuach Nefesh is a concern. This is a Milchemes Mitzva according to many authorities and by plain svara.
While I agree in general that your approach is the correct one in explaining the charedi position from an halachik perspective (not an emotionally charged one) with regards to why charedim are NOT OBLIGATED to fight, I think when you argue that Charedim are NOT ALLOWED to join there are a few points you missed.
1. The מנחת חינוך מצוה תכה says that there is no problem of sakana in any war, even milchemes reshus, because G-d allows for war and sakana is the way of all wars. Now you may argue that this only applies to halachik Jewish wars where there is a king, but you would have to prove that and it certainly is not the mashmaus. You may also argue that we don’t pasken that way, but you would have to prove that as well.
2. The Netziv (עמק שאלה סי קכט ס"ק ד) says clearly distinguishes between chiyuv and issur and says that even though one is not obligated to endanger oneself to save another he is allowed to and even calls it midas chasidus. Rav Oshry relies on the Netziv and paskens this way in ממעמקים חלק ב סי א. (Also see ערוה"ש חו"מ סי תכו ס"ק ד).
This would explain how there are charedi rabannim, who don’t hold it is not milchemes mitzvah, yet still allow Charedim to join the IDF.
I also think your criticism of Slifkin for not joining the army himself falls flat. Those who hold it is a milchemes mitzvah still have to deal with the Rambam that you still need a king. R Kook took care of this by stating that the government replaces the king. (Whether he would agree that a majority-secular govt would also qualify is a good question – but not for now). If you take this approach, then certainly the “king” has discretion on exempting people that are not needed. No one will argue that a milchemes mitzvah requires everyone to go to the battlefield even if they just watch from the sidelines. So if the IDF/king decides the age is 40 and not 50 then he doesn’t have to go. Granted, Slifkin doesn’t seem to go with R Kook (probably he’s not even aware of it), rather he goes with RAL’s quasi-halachik position that if you live in EY then you’re obligated to endanger yourself and fight – king or no king, milchemes mitzvah or no milchemes mitzvah – but I would think that according to this postiton as well the IDF would decide who is needed and who isn’t.
1) In regards to the minchas chinuch; A) Charedim don't need to pasken this minchas chinuch. There is no correct way of paskening these things, as we have no mesorah on how to pasken these things. Any coherent and logically sound mehalech can be paskened as halacha lema'aseh.
B) The minchas chinuch IS talking about Jewish wars, and Jewish wars only. My entire point agaisnt Slifkin is predicated on the fact that the current situation has no דין מלחמה bichlal, meaning that this minchas chinuch isn't even shayach here.
C) He ends in a צריך עיון, meaning even he is unsure how this idea applies practically in milchama.
2) In regards to the Netziv, his entire piece is based on "safek sakonas nefesh". I don't know if you could bring that as raiyah to a case which is vadai sakonas nefashos. I also think it's very mistabra to say that to save your friend by vadai sakonas nefashos is assur, due to the svara of "mai chazis", which requires shev ve'al ta'aseh.
I will also add that joining the IDF combat units (which is what slifkin is calling for) is vadai sakonas nefashos.
I will also clear up something at this point; I don't have a problem with people following the da'ati Leumi mehalech, if its what there rabanim told them to do. Since there is no mesorah on how to pasken these things, I don't have an issue with da'ati Leumi people paskening agaisnt this mehalech.
The last thing on this point; there probably are charedim who pick and chose which rishonim and acharonim they hold like; whilst most will hold of the Rambam and be nidche the Netziv, some might hold of the Netziv etc. However, I'm talking about the mehalech I learnt from my rabe'im, which does not seem to hold of this Netziv.
3) Does a milchama need a melech?
I am aware of the R Kook who gives the memshalah a din of shofet (not melech). However, A) it doesn't deal with the requirement for a Cohen Gadol or sanhedrin that the Rambam seems to requite and B) there are other mehalchim besides for Rav kook in the Rambam.
Both the Ramban and meiri hold that there is milchama nowadays, especially with conquering old Eretz Yisrael.
Slifkin hasn't specified his approach, although even if he would hold of R Kooks approach, he hasnt even attempted to join any part of the army, whether combat, logistical or intelligence. He has also never indicated if he has taken the third role in a halachik milchama; praying and learning constantly on behalf of a soldier.
D) Lastly, we are getting caught in the nitty gritty of the mehalech. My main issue is that slifkin keeps attacking the charedim based on the premise that what is currently happening is a milchemes mitzva. Most of his many criticisms of the charedi stance on the war can be knocked out once he realises that there are a substantial amount of charedim who don't hold it's a milchama.
When I presented this mehalech to him, he quickly dismissed it as "one of the most crazy" presentations of the charedi mehalech (he also seemed unfamiliar with it, which is weird because it's pretty well know), purely based on the argument of "the charedim aren't sharing the burden". Whilst this an emotional argument, it's not an halachik argument with any halachikly enforceable outcomes.
"My main issue is that slifkin keeps attacking the charedim based on the premise that what is currently happening is a milchemes mitzva. " Nope.
"Whilst this an emotional argument, it's not an halachik argument with any halachikly enforceable outcomes." It's a TORAH argument, voiced by none other than Moshe Rabbeinu (!!!), and it is basic middos. The fact that you don't grasp that speaks volumes about the charedi world.
So are you saying that even w/o milchemes mitzvah there is an obligation for everyone to risk their lives? RAL again? You do realize that R Kook (and presumably his followers) and R Herzog did not agree with this. They said its MM and the govt is the shofet/melech..
Make no mistake, I most certainly believe that it's MM. What I'm saying is that even if you believe that it ISN'T, there is STILL an obligation to serve.
You obviously haven't grasped that the charedim don't hold it's a milchemes mitzva, otherwise you wouldn't keep using "ואתם תשבו פו", as its not shayach to the charedi mehalech.
Moshe was telling the bnei Gad and Reuven "how can you sit there whilst your brother go to war?", with the keyword being למלחמה - war (and specifically מלחמת כובש הארץ).
The charedim don't agree that there is a war - a מלחמה - happpening, so Moshe Rabbenu 's ע"ה tainah doesn't apply.
I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand and internalise it: Charedim don't agree that what is happening is בגדר מלחמה. Neither does the Rambam, who says in his hakdamas Minyan hamitzvos that for something to be considered a מלחמה, you need a Melech, Cohen Gadol and Sanhedrin, and therefore there is no such thing as milchama until the Beis Hamikdash is built, bimhera biyamenu.
Again, you don't even appear to understand what I'm saying. There are people who are attacking us and killing us. There are basic Torah and human values here. And you're getting lost in minutae of how according to certain shittos it doesn't fall into a technical category. To quote R. Elchanan Nir: "…In its charedi version, the Torah was deprived of being an elixir of life. It has lost its connection to its surroundings, to the wide avenues of the nation, to the reality to which it is supposed to turn and influence it from its spirit. It is not for nothing that the Sages said, "Whoever says he has nothing but Torah – he does not even have Torah" (Yevamot 19:12). There can be no true Torah with those who are not involved in life itself. From being a Torah of life, which provides an answer and light to its surroundings, a Torah has instead developed that does not deal with reality, that does not have responsibility and simple humanity, lending a shoulder to collapsing agriculture or a partnership with the soldiers who fight for it… Suddenly, many in the national-religious public are internalizing the truth: This Torah that our charedi brothers boast about is not the Torah we are studying. In our community, we don’t believe in a Torah that absolves one of responsibility and of sharing the burden with one’s friend, a Torah that is not a Torah of life."
After reading the Minchas Chinuch again I would concede that he is only talking about Jewish wars and is not relevant.
RE Netziv – my only point is that this is a valid shittah for allowing joining the IDF even if its not a milchemes mitzvah. So your contention about not being allowed to serve is not shared by all Charedim – even though they all would agree that they’re not obligated to serve.
RE safek sakona v vadai sakona – how do you qualify something as vadai rather than a safek? In R Oshry’s case the vadai sakona was someone who was sentenced to death by the nazis. So the question was possibly being killed (safek) in order to save someone who was 100% going to be killed (vadai). You are saying that a higher percentage of being killed is also called vadai. How do you know that and what is the threshold?
RE R Kook - A) “He doesn't deal with the requirement for a Cohen Gadol or sanhedrin that the Rambam seems to require” – Read the Rambam again – not required for milchemes mitzvah.
B) “there are other mehalchim besides for Rav kook in the Rambam.” – Well yeah… the simplest one being that there is no MM w/o a melech.
You seemed to miss my point in bringing R Kook which was to say if the IDF replaces the Melech/shofet then they can exempt people over 40 too.
Again, overall I agree with you that the lack of milchemes mitzvah is the correct reason for exemption. It is pretty well known, very rational and understandable as long as you leave emotions out of it. Once you get into the emotional realm you hear things like “voiced by none other than Moshe Rabbeinu (!!!)” and “it is basic middos”. I think the reason Slifkin can’t remove himself from the emotional aspect of this is because it is too painful for him personally. After all, he chose this way of life which now puts his children in a dangerous place – something that he was not obligated to do and according to some - like yourself – he was not allowed to do. So how does he deal with it? – an all-out attack on anyone who disagrees with him. The more sensible an opposing idea is, the more it is ridiculed and vilified (“the craziest presentation I've ever heard”). Very similar to his reaction to the ban on his books.
What you call "emotions" are actually VALUES. Torah values. Your position is similar to what is called Naval b'rshus HaTorah. The idea that one community should entirely exempt itself from a difficult obligation that others are taking on for the safety of EVERYONE, which you call "very sensible," is an affront to basic values.
You are being close minded and unable to accept another mehalech in Torah, which is ironic, because your entire online agenda is based on the attack of charedim being close minded and unable to accept other forms of Judaism.
It's not navel brishus hatorah. It's a mefurash Rambam. Unless you hold that the Rambam was navel brishus hatorah (c"v)? Slifkin, get your act together, be honest to yourself, and admit that the problems you have with this mehalech are emotional and not logical. Unless you are ready to say that you hold that the Rambam was navel brishus hatorah.
In hakdamas Minyan hamitzvos (page 202 in the frenkel safer hamitzvos) the Rambam says that milchama and conquering E"Y cannot be unless there is a melech, eytzos sanhedrin hagadol and a Cohen gadol.
Thank you. The Rambam doesn’t explicitly say Eretz Yisroel but he does seem to say milchemes mitzvah. Two issues though:
1. It is mashma from the Mishnah in Sanhedrin and poskined in Hilchos Melachim 5:2 that the Melech doesn’t need reshus from anyone for a milchemes mitzvah.
2. The Rambam also says these halachos are only when there is a Beis HaMikdash. However it seems pretty clear that Yehoshua led Klal Yisroel in a milchemes Mitzvah and there wasn’t a Beis HaMikdash then.
As such, I have no idea what the Rambam is saying.
While we are at it, we can also mention that the Gemara in Sanhedrin seems to reject the pasuk the Rambam cites as dealing with Milchama so further tzarich iyun. Maybe there is a Yerushalmi.
The Rambam is referring to going and conquering, but the mitzva to defend does not require sanhedrin. A melech needs reshus for milchemes hareshus, but not milchemes mitzva. This is also clear from the gemara in the beginning of sanhedrin and sota.
So while I agree that even מלחמת מצוה has the exception of אפשר לעשות על ידי אחרים, and חתן מחופתו is only when he is needed a well, I disagree with the extent Uri is taking this to.
I understand the da'ati Leumi sugyos, and why they have come out that it is a milchama.
My point was that most of the charedi poskim argue on these poskim based on a mefurash Ramban. They are allowed to, since we have no memory on how to pasken these shailos.
R' Slifkin, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you always "Natan"? Apart from the covers of your books, that is.
Last night the charedim blocked all the buses and trains on Rechov Yaffo. I (and my daughter, when I got her) had a very, very long walk home. They were chanting that they'd rather their children die (i.e., now, at the hands of the State) as charedim than ever be drafted, which is just wrong on a whole bunch of levels. As I waded through them, I yelled "עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו, אין יום הכיפורים מכפר", but of course they paid no attention.
What's disturbing is the way that the chucklehead commenters out there- not charedi themselves- immediately jump to defend them: "They're religious Jews! You can't criticize them!" Oh, so religious Jews can harm other people? "Oh, and it's OK for leftists to block the streets?" Um, no, it isn't. So what?
I was not in R' Schiller's shiur, but in my senior year of high school I sat right in front of him during Shacharit, and we had very interesting conversations as we wrapped up our tefillin. I was very fortunate. The man is remarkable.
These responses are all ad hominem. Yes, these is no shortage of your detractors guilty of this. But you never seem to comment about the claim itself. Are you really blind to the derision and condescension in your tone whenever you write about charedim? Do you not realize that you are virtually alone in this among other academic-type critics of theirs? Are you unaware of the glee that comes through in your writing when you find something juicy to skewer them about? Do you not believe in good midos being vital in public discourse?
Respectfully, in the sense of “mum sheb’cha al tomer lachaverecha”, chareidim (and their defenders) are the last folks who should be lecturing others about “good midos” in “public discourse”.
Sorry, but I'm not defending them. Charedim who happily smear other communities should be called out as well. I am replying to the defense of RNS and pointing out that all seem to be ad hominem and that RNS hides behind this to avoid addressing the valid points being made.
I have read CTI. (Somehow he left out some many examples. On purpose?)
In any case, I compiled most of my list well before I read his book.
I wouldn't add that line to the list, because it's the most honest of them. It admits that the uncomfortable position is genuine and authentic and has been accurately quoted as real. Not so, the other items on my list.
I’m sure R’ Shapiro left out many possible examples (a book can only be so long after all).
My point was simply that one phenomenon he does explicitly cite is that of too-frum descendants seeking to censor/change the uncomfortable words of an illustrious ancestor (offering the posthumous justification I mentioned).
Like you said "a book can only be so long". I found two or three possible other cases of censorship, and I'll assume that since publication, he's received correspondence on other examples - enough for another book.
As far as my comment "on purpose"- it was meant ironically. Think about it.
R' Hirsch can be pretty blunt sometimes. Some of his criticisms of charedim (avant la lettre) in Nineteen Letters were later censored out. ("Censor" isn't quite the right word- better, in translating from German to English, the language was smoothed out a bit.)
I am honored to be a neighbor, friend and student of Rabbi Kivelevitz and can attest to his deep concern for the Jewish people. His own sons reside in Israel; at least one of them served in the IDF. Personally I am not haredi and do not share unquestional devotion to haredi leadership although I deeply respect their dedication and scholarship. If the haredi world is broken, then so is the rest of the Jewish world. One can push his agenda at the expense of others only this far: the result is chaos. I believe that all citizens of Israel must serve in the IDF, provided there is overwhelming respect for everyone's lifestyle and beliefs and a shared faith in democracy. The problem is tribalism and shiekhdoms are sadly natural conditions for Jewish society, not unlike other ethnoteligious groups in the Middle East. Go try construct a modern state with that, especially without external threats, and even then...
The problem with your tone is real, substantive and damning. It is full of cynicism, mockery and disdain. You don't just disagree with charedim, you humiliate them - not with your arguments, which tend to be valid, but yes - with your tone. Your do not write like a mensch. You write to stir things up and get eyeballs on your blog. I share most of your distress about charedim and have no need to defend them but I still decry your ceaseless attacks and how much pleasure you obviously take in "pulling their pants down" in public. You have a lot to learn about public discourse and as I've pointed out before, no one else in the community of dati leumi/YU scholars is nearly as guilty of all this as you are.
I am a complete outsider, but I think he is actually somewhat soft on the Charedim. If I or my children were fighting in a war of national survival while my coreligionists were refusing to take up arms, insisting on using taxpayer dollars to sustain their lifestyle, and at the same time claiming they are more righteous then the people dying to defend the Jewish people, I can assure you that my response would make Rabbi Slifkin's look mild and well tempered.
A couple of comments (note I have not listened to the podcast):
(1) Why did R' Kivilevitz not have you representing you in his podcast relying on someone else to defend you? Seems a bit weird to me.
(2) Could part of R' Kivilevitz's problem be that he is a charedi living in the States and as we all know, there is a big difference between chareidism in Israel vs USA (I'm assuming he lives in the States based on reading bio on his web site)?
I can't say that I disagree with this article on a factual basis unfortunately it does remind me of what I observe to be the fundamental issue with this blog:
"The purely righteous do not complain of the dark, but increase the light; they do not complain of evil, but increase justice; they do not complain of heresy, but increase faith; they do not complain of ignorance, but increase wisdom." - Rav Kook
For many years I heard this quote without truly understanding it. Sadly it is due to this blog that I now believe I understand what Rav Kook meant and what type of mindset he was criticizing.
That quote has been taken out of context and in fact has caused much long term damage to the DL community, preventing it from properly engaging in realpolitik for close to 100 years.
What was the original context of the quote and what makes you think that it is being misapplied? (I'll admit that I don't know when/where Rav Kook said/wrote this)
Also, what do you mean when you say that this quote has 'prevented the Daati Leumi community from engaging in realpolitik for close to 100 years?' I've scratched my head on this for a while and I really have no idea what you are referring to
Update: I found the quote in Arpilei Tohar and I personally don't see why you think the quote has been taken out of context but I am interested to hear how you understand it
1. Is Brian Hogan correct that at least one of Rabbi Kivelivetz's children served in the IDF?
2. Can you make a poll of how many people heard of Rabbi Kivelevitz prior to this post?
3. I enjoy the intellectually honest parts of your blog, Rabbi Slifkin. My husband and I really like the Encyclopedia. It's pretty chareidi. It's weird to read that and then go to this blog.
4. I'm hoping to write a post about Biblical Criticism. Have you ever covered this topic?
Never heard of him before this post. And from one podcast listen, all I can say is that I’m underwhelmed. As we said in yeshiva days “what’s the big gedilla?”
Nothing particularly unusual in Rabbi Kivilevitz's mindset.
RNS has moved on, but still lives in a Chareidi neighborhood.
To: RNS
Maybe it's also time to move to another neighborhood. Judging by your blogs, living in your existing neighborhood causes you serious aggravation and may not be good for your blood pressure.
He got burnt when he was younger for not retracting, at the minimum, pretty questionable views, and has now gone as far as to change his hashkafoh and worldview to justify them.
He is not doing this leshem shamayim, he's doing it lehachis against the multiple Gedolie Yisrael who renounced his books.
Yes. You used to be charedi, got questioned and rejected based on your hashkafa, so you became da'ati Leumi because they are much less protestive to questionable views
Don't worry. Rabbi Breitowitz mentioned you in passing in a recent Q+A and while he alluded to the controversy he said nothing personally negative about you. That's good enough for me
Rav Kivelevitz is one of my best friends. It is obvious that you have no idea who he is. His own son served in the IDF. He is quite liberal about a lot of things and recognizes the beauty of the Dati Leumi world and has high respect for their rabbinical leadership. Anyone who wants to learn about him directly instead of from a kli sheni can just listed to his prolific podcast platform where his wide-range of interests go from the deepest levels of all levels of Torah to the most secular aspects of life and culture. https://jewishpodcasts.fm/podcasts/yeshivaofnewark
Rav Elazar Shach’s son also served in the IDF. So I guess that means IDF service isn’t against Daas Torah. Why are the charedim not being drafted then?
The people who say they're against your "tone," not the substance, sound like the people who hide behind anti-Zionism to defend their antisemitism.
So do you not believe in hashgacha pratis?
What are you, the (anonymous) religious inquisition? Is this second grade where you're going to catch me in some transgression of some sacred belief that your little sect of Judaism happens to believe at this particular point in history? Grow up. I believe whatever I think is true. Truth is my god. I'm not gonna play some juvenile game of gotchya on what I do and don't believe.
As far as your views, your view of hasgacha pratis, is in all likelihood, not in accord with the majority of rishonim who do NOT believe that God dictates everything happens on a person by person level. Ramban and Rambam for two, certainly don't believe that. But you're ultimately not interested in truth, whether ontological or historical, all you care about is the reflexive defense of attitudes that you grew up with regardless of their veracity or palatability. Your'e as biased as they come. If you grew up amongst the Taliban, you'd be a Taliban fundamentalist stoning women.
In your view, you'd rather believe in hashgacha pratis, and believe that God somehow has a justification for allowing a terrorist to blow up a father with a grenade in front of his children. I'd rather believe in no hashgacha pratis then in a God that divinely ordained such a horrible thing. If you'd rather believe in the opposite, please explain to me why, in your own words. God gave you a mind, you do no honor to him by failing to use 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."
Note that "B’yachad nenatzeach" is a very common message in Israel since October 7, but primary *not* in respect to charedim. Rather, for several years prior to the attack the political left and right wings were at each other's throats, and the message says that we need to set that aside in order to defeat Hamas. If charedim are using it to describe their alleged contribution to the war effort by learning, that usage is not something most Israelis are aware of.
Great piece. Love this point:
"- 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."
Shouldn't psychological analyses be left to the psychologists?
That's like saying "how can you have a an original thought about politics? That should be left to political scientists". We're on a forum for discussion, we can have an opinion about something without needing a PhD in the specific field relevant to the discussion
Rav Kivilevitz is exemplifying the Haredi deification of the Gedolim. Haredim are כופרום בעיקר. QED.
you obviously don't know him at all
I'm still learning Hebrew, the Hebrew part means "heretical students," right?
Literally, "כופרים בעיקר" means "deniers of the basic principle". The basic principle is that the number of gods that exist is exactly one. Not zero. Not more than one.
Thank you.
"because chas veshalom to listen to those who have some of the deapest understandings of Torah and halacha in the world".
Slifkin doesn't even accurately know the charedi halachik approach to this war.
Charedim hold there is no halachik milchama, based on the Rambam in sefer hamitzvos who says there is no such thing as a milchama nowadays, as we have no sanhedrin, melech and Cohen gadol. This means that the only chiyuv to fight is Pikuach nefesh which is yachol la'asos al yedie acherim. Slifkin has never addressed this viewpoint, as he does not know how to refute it.
The hypocrisy of slifkin is that even as he decries the age old charedi approaches to halacha, he himself doesn't follow his own worldwiew; if there is a milchama going on, why hasn't he joined the war effort? He has a chiyuv to join the war up until he's 50!
Don't know if others mentioned this but Rabbi Elyashiv wrote to Rabbi Sheilat, a ry of the hesder yeshiva in Maaleh Adumim, during the Yom Kippur. He stated that it was a milchemet mitzva. The teshuva first appeared in RS book Beurin D' Esha on Berachot which he composed on the front after the cease fire. It was dedicated to fellow hesderniks who fought and fell
It also appears in RE first volume of teshuvot
If the army doesn't want to take you, there's not much you can do about it.
Firstly, who says Natan applied to join? He should at least do his histadlus to join the army.
Secondly, the IDF isn't the only way to help the war effort.
The Israeli army is not the only way to help the war effort.
He supports his kids who are in the army.
Not a halachik army position. He's not fulfilling his chiyuv milchama.
You know, not every action you take in life is about "fulfilling a chiyuv", like eating a kezayis of matza on pesach. Think about that, if you can . . .
You're supposed to help fight to save your friend's life whether or not it's a milchemes mitzvah.
Not true.
If it's not a milchemes mitzva, and the only chiyuv is Pikuach nefesh, you are not allowed to risk your own life to save others.
So nobody should be in the army?
Since there is no milchama, there is no such entity as a halachik army.
There should however been working defenses put in place, with minimal risk to those who operate it.
Right now. Should anyone be in the army?
Very cute, you played the halachic flow-chart game very well. Maybe tell your wife and kids that if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night.
"It's not a milchemes mitzva, and the only chiyuv is Pikuach nefesh, you are not allowed to risk your own life to save others. Sorry kids, you're on your own!"
Talk about naval b'rishus hatorah!
" naval b'rishus hatorah!"
Then there's נבל שלא ברשות התורה.
This is very much brishus hatorah. Unless you are saying that the Rambam isn't a valid marei makom?
Do you think a ba bemachteres is a melchemes mitzva????
You've now touched into the sugya of ba bemachteres, which, as a ba'al habayis, is considered a risk to your own life even if they don't explicitly target you, and you are therefore allowed to kill him.
Ok, let's say he just wants to harm to harm you wife and children (ch"v). So you just stand aside?
Dog est dog.
"Charedim hold there is no halachik milchama, based on the Rambam in sefer hamitzvos who says there is no such thing as a milchama nowadays, as we have no sanhedrin, melech and Cohen gadol. "
Sources? And if possible, a Rishon? And if you can't find a Rishon, can you find an Achron before 1900?
It's such a bizarre claim. Everyone is calling it a war. You probably have called it war. And what about מלחמת גוג ומגוג? That's also not a war, even though it's called a war?
EVEN YOU don't believe such nonsense.
But I'll wait for a non-contemporary source.
Wait a second. La'asos al ydei acharem.
Hmm. Ok, so you are saying that the Hesder students and non yet religious chayalim are the acharem. What if they decided that the Chareidi guys are the Achareim?! Maybe no one should fight in that case.
It's not about "someone deciding". It's "is there someone already doing the job". In hacha nami, if the da'ati Leumi and non religious soldiers stopped fighting, the charedim would take up arms, like R Chaim Kanievsky did in 1948.
It's more than this though. It's the fact that they could be fighting instead of/alongside the current chayalim without a special invitation. Thus sharing the burden.
You still haven't understood my point then.
If the only chiyuv to join the IDF is that of Rodef, which is currently being fulfilled by acherim, it's assur for someone else to join the effort due to the unnecessary risk to life.
I'm confused...
How are these "acherim" defined? Who are those who are allowed to risk their lives and who are those who aren't?
How does someone transform from a regular person who you say is not allowed to risk their lives by fighting, to an "acher" who should be fighting?
How were my kids identified as "acherim"? Is it a genetic thing?
It is not the only chiyuv at play here. See the Minchas Chinuch that says that by Milchama we do not say Pikuach Nefesh is a concern. This is a Milchemes Mitzva according to many authorities and by plain svara.
Uri,
While I agree in general that your approach is the correct one in explaining the charedi position from an halachik perspective (not an emotionally charged one) with regards to why charedim are NOT OBLIGATED to fight, I think when you argue that Charedim are NOT ALLOWED to join there are a few points you missed.
1. The מנחת חינוך מצוה תכה says that there is no problem of sakana in any war, even milchemes reshus, because G-d allows for war and sakana is the way of all wars. Now you may argue that this only applies to halachik Jewish wars where there is a king, but you would have to prove that and it certainly is not the mashmaus. You may also argue that we don’t pasken that way, but you would have to prove that as well.
2. The Netziv (עמק שאלה סי קכט ס"ק ד) says clearly distinguishes between chiyuv and issur and says that even though one is not obligated to endanger oneself to save another he is allowed to and even calls it midas chasidus. Rav Oshry relies on the Netziv and paskens this way in ממעמקים חלק ב סי א. (Also see ערוה"ש חו"מ סי תכו ס"ק ד).
This would explain how there are charedi rabannim, who don’t hold it is not milchemes mitzvah, yet still allow Charedim to join the IDF.
I also think your criticism of Slifkin for not joining the army himself falls flat. Those who hold it is a milchemes mitzvah still have to deal with the Rambam that you still need a king. R Kook took care of this by stating that the government replaces the king. (Whether he would agree that a majority-secular govt would also qualify is a good question – but not for now). If you take this approach, then certainly the “king” has discretion on exempting people that are not needed. No one will argue that a milchemes mitzvah requires everyone to go to the battlefield even if they just watch from the sidelines. So if the IDF/king decides the age is 40 and not 50 then he doesn’t have to go. Granted, Slifkin doesn’t seem to go with R Kook (probably he’s not even aware of it), rather he goes with RAL’s quasi-halachik position that if you live in EY then you’re obligated to endanger yourself and fight – king or no king, milchemes mitzvah or no milchemes mitzvah – but I would think that according to this postiton as well the IDF would decide who is needed and who isn’t.
1) In regards to the minchas chinuch; A) Charedim don't need to pasken this minchas chinuch. There is no correct way of paskening these things, as we have no mesorah on how to pasken these things. Any coherent and logically sound mehalech can be paskened as halacha lema'aseh.
B) The minchas chinuch IS talking about Jewish wars, and Jewish wars only. My entire point agaisnt Slifkin is predicated on the fact that the current situation has no דין מלחמה bichlal, meaning that this minchas chinuch isn't even shayach here.
C) He ends in a צריך עיון, meaning even he is unsure how this idea applies practically in milchama.
2) In regards to the Netziv, his entire piece is based on "safek sakonas nefesh". I don't know if you could bring that as raiyah to a case which is vadai sakonas nefashos. I also think it's very mistabra to say that to save your friend by vadai sakonas nefashos is assur, due to the svara of "mai chazis", which requires shev ve'al ta'aseh.
I will also add that joining the IDF combat units (which is what slifkin is calling for) is vadai sakonas nefashos.
I will also clear up something at this point; I don't have a problem with people following the da'ati Leumi mehalech, if its what there rabanim told them to do. Since there is no mesorah on how to pasken these things, I don't have an issue with da'ati Leumi people paskening agaisnt this mehalech.
The last thing on this point; there probably are charedim who pick and chose which rishonim and acharonim they hold like; whilst most will hold of the Rambam and be nidche the Netziv, some might hold of the Netziv etc. However, I'm talking about the mehalech I learnt from my rabe'im, which does not seem to hold of this Netziv.
3) Does a milchama need a melech?
I am aware of the R Kook who gives the memshalah a din of shofet (not melech). However, A) it doesn't deal with the requirement for a Cohen Gadol or sanhedrin that the Rambam seems to requite and B) there are other mehalchim besides for Rav kook in the Rambam.
Both the Ramban and meiri hold that there is milchama nowadays, especially with conquering old Eretz Yisrael.
Slifkin hasn't specified his approach, although even if he would hold of R Kooks approach, he hasnt even attempted to join any part of the army, whether combat, logistical or intelligence. He has also never indicated if he has taken the third role in a halachik milchama; praying and learning constantly on behalf of a soldier.
D) Lastly, we are getting caught in the nitty gritty of the mehalech. My main issue is that slifkin keeps attacking the charedim based on the premise that what is currently happening is a milchemes mitzva. Most of his many criticisms of the charedi stance on the war can be knocked out once he realises that there are a substantial amount of charedim who don't hold it's a milchama.
When I presented this mehalech to him, he quickly dismissed it as "one of the most crazy" presentations of the charedi mehalech (he also seemed unfamiliar with it, which is weird because it's pretty well know), purely based on the argument of "the charedim aren't sharing the burden". Whilst this an emotional argument, it's not an halachik argument with any halachikly enforceable outcomes.
"My main issue is that slifkin keeps attacking the charedim based on the premise that what is currently happening is a milchemes mitzva. " Nope.
"Whilst this an emotional argument, it's not an halachik argument with any halachikly enforceable outcomes." It's a TORAH argument, voiced by none other than Moshe Rabbeinu (!!!), and it is basic middos. The fact that you don't grasp that speaks volumes about the charedi world.
So are you saying that even w/o milchemes mitzvah there is an obligation for everyone to risk their lives? RAL again? You do realize that R Kook (and presumably his followers) and R Herzog did not agree with this. They said its MM and the govt is the shofet/melech..
Make no mistake, I most certainly believe that it's MM. What I'm saying is that even if you believe that it ISN'T, there is STILL an obligation to serve.
You obviously haven't grasped that the charedim don't hold it's a milchemes mitzva, otherwise you wouldn't keep using "ואתם תשבו פו", as its not shayach to the charedi mehalech.
Moshe was telling the bnei Gad and Reuven "how can you sit there whilst your brother go to war?", with the keyword being למלחמה - war (and specifically מלחמת כובש הארץ).
The charedim don't agree that there is a war - a מלחמה - happpening, so Moshe Rabbenu 's ע"ה tainah doesn't apply.
I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand and internalise it: Charedim don't agree that what is happening is בגדר מלחמה. Neither does the Rambam, who says in his hakdamas Minyan hamitzvos that for something to be considered a מלחמה, you need a Melech, Cohen Gadol and Sanhedrin, and therefore there is no such thing as milchama until the Beis Hamikdash is built, bimhera biyamenu.
Again, you don't even appear to understand what I'm saying. There are people who are attacking us and killing us. There are basic Torah and human values here. And you're getting lost in minutae of how according to certain shittos it doesn't fall into a technical category. To quote R. Elchanan Nir: "…In its charedi version, the Torah was deprived of being an elixir of life. It has lost its connection to its surroundings, to the wide avenues of the nation, to the reality to which it is supposed to turn and influence it from its spirit. It is not for nothing that the Sages said, "Whoever says he has nothing but Torah – he does not even have Torah" (Yevamot 19:12). There can be no true Torah with those who are not involved in life itself. From being a Torah of life, which provides an answer and light to its surroundings, a Torah has instead developed that does not deal with reality, that does not have responsibility and simple humanity, lending a shoulder to collapsing agriculture or a partnership with the soldiers who fight for it… Suddenly, many in the national-religious public are internalizing the truth: This Torah that our charedi brothers boast about is not the Torah we are studying. In our community, we don’t believe in a Torah that absolves one of responsibility and of sharing the burden with one’s friend, a Torah that is not a Torah of life."
After reading the Minchas Chinuch again I would concede that he is only talking about Jewish wars and is not relevant.
RE Netziv – my only point is that this is a valid shittah for allowing joining the IDF even if its not a milchemes mitzvah. So your contention about not being allowed to serve is not shared by all Charedim – even though they all would agree that they’re not obligated to serve.
RE safek sakona v vadai sakona – how do you qualify something as vadai rather than a safek? In R Oshry’s case the vadai sakona was someone who was sentenced to death by the nazis. So the question was possibly being killed (safek) in order to save someone who was 100% going to be killed (vadai). You are saying that a higher percentage of being killed is also called vadai. How do you know that and what is the threshold?
RE R Kook - A) “He doesn't deal with the requirement for a Cohen Gadol or sanhedrin that the Rambam seems to require” – Read the Rambam again – not required for milchemes mitzvah.
B) “there are other mehalchim besides for Rav kook in the Rambam.” – Well yeah… the simplest one being that there is no MM w/o a melech.
You seemed to miss my point in bringing R Kook which was to say if the IDF replaces the Melech/shofet then they can exempt people over 40 too.
Again, overall I agree with you that the lack of milchemes mitzvah is the correct reason for exemption. It is pretty well known, very rational and understandable as long as you leave emotions out of it. Once you get into the emotional realm you hear things like “voiced by none other than Moshe Rabbeinu (!!!)” and “it is basic middos”. I think the reason Slifkin can’t remove himself from the emotional aspect of this is because it is too painful for him personally. After all, he chose this way of life which now puts his children in a dangerous place – something that he was not obligated to do and according to some - like yourself – he was not allowed to do. So how does he deal with it? – an all-out attack on anyone who disagrees with him. The more sensible an opposing idea is, the more it is ridiculed and vilified (“the craziest presentation I've ever heard”). Very similar to his reaction to the ban on his books.
What you call "emotions" are actually VALUES. Torah values. Your position is similar to what is called Naval b'rshus HaTorah. The idea that one community should entirely exempt itself from a difficult obligation that others are taking on for the safety of EVERYONE, which you call "very sensible," is an affront to basic values.
You are being close minded and unable to accept another mehalech in Torah, which is ironic, because your entire online agenda is based on the attack of charedim being close minded and unable to accept other forms of Judaism.
It's not navel brishus hatorah. It's a mefurash Rambam. Unless you hold that the Rambam was navel brishus hatorah (c"v)? Slifkin, get your act together, be honest to yourself, and admit that the problems you have with this mehalech are emotional and not logical. Unless you are ready to say that you hold that the Rambam was navel brishus hatorah.
Thank you for being respectful about this.
By the way, the Rambam says you need a Cohen gadol, sanhedrin and melech for both milchemes mitzva and reshus.
מלחמת מצוה אינו צריך ליטול בה רשות בית דין אלא יוצא מעצמו בכל עת וכופה העם לצאת אבל מלחמת הרשות אינו מוציא העם בה אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד.
May I ask, what are you referring to in the Sefer HaMitzvos?
Sure.
In hakdamas Minyan hamitzvos (page 202 in the frenkel safer hamitzvos) the Rambam says that milchama and conquering E"Y cannot be unless there is a melech, eytzos sanhedrin hagadol and a Cohen gadol.
Thank you. The Rambam doesn’t explicitly say Eretz Yisroel but he does seem to say milchemes mitzvah. Two issues though:
1. It is mashma from the Mishnah in Sanhedrin and poskined in Hilchos Melachim 5:2 that the Melech doesn’t need reshus from anyone for a milchemes mitzvah.
2. The Rambam also says these halachos are only when there is a Beis HaMikdash. However it seems pretty clear that Yehoshua led Klal Yisroel in a milchemes Mitzvah and there wasn’t a Beis HaMikdash then.
As such, I have no idea what the Rambam is saying.
While we are at it, we can also mention that the Gemara in Sanhedrin seems to reject the pasuk the Rambam cites as dealing with Milchama so further tzarich iyun. Maybe there is a Yerushalmi.
The Rambam is referring to going and conquering, but the mitzva to defend does not require sanhedrin. A melech needs reshus for milchemes hareshus, but not milchemes mitzva. This is also clear from the gemara in the beginning of sanhedrin and sota.
So while I agree that even מלחמת מצוה has the exception of אפשר לעשות על ידי אחרים, and חתן מחופתו is only when he is needed a well, I disagree with the extent Uri is taking this to.
The Rambam says both milchemes reshus and milchemes mitzva.
Rav Asher Weiss שליט"א says that this a מלחמה halachically.
The טור mentions that, similar to not travelling 3 days before שבת, one should also not start a war 3 days before שבת.
Please learn the סוגיא before shooting from the hip (no pun intended).
I understand the da'ati Leumi sugyos, and why they have come out that it is a milchama.
My point was that most of the charedi poskim argue on these poskim based on a mefurash Ramban. They are allowed to, since we have no memory on how to pasken these shailos.
You don't understand the dati leumi sugyos if you think that the only reason to join the army is if it is a milchmes mitzvah.
Thats the main reason given in most ישיבות הסדר
I don’t think that is accurate.
"and why they have come out that it is a milchama."
It's a מלחמה. You yourself have called it a war.
Still waiting to hear something of substance from you, e.g. names of the Gedolim and what they said.
Please quote your source.
R' Slifkin, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you always "Natan"? Apart from the covers of your books, that is.
Last night the charedim blocked all the buses and trains on Rechov Yaffo. I (and my daughter, when I got her) had a very, very long walk home. They were chanting that they'd rather their children die (i.e., now, at the hands of the State) as charedim than ever be drafted, which is just wrong on a whole bunch of levels. As I waded through them, I yelled "עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו, אין יום הכיפורים מכפר", but of course they paid no attention.
What's disturbing is the way that the chucklehead commenters out there- not charedi themselves- immediately jump to defend them: "They're religious Jews! You can't criticize them!" Oh, so religious Jews can harm other people? "Oh, and it's OK for leftists to block the streets?" Um, no, it isn't. So what?
I was not in R' Schiller's shiur, but in my senior year of high school I sat right in front of him during Shacharit, and we had very interesting conversations as we wrapped up our tefillin. I was very fortunate. The man is remarkable.
I once copied a direct quote from Rav Hirsch into the comments of a thread on an orthodox internet site and got trashed for doing that.
Quote the gadol, but don't mention his name, so it sounds like you're saying it. Then sit back and wait for the hysteria.
Then mention the name of the authority and cite chapter and paragraph.
Response:
1) Forgery
2) He changed his mind before he died
3) He only said it דרך דרוש (Or דרך סוד, and we don't know what he really meant.)
4) He only meant it as a הוראת שעה
5) He only said it משום איבה
6) He only said it for קירוב purposes
7) He was allowed to say it, but not us.
8) He's not part of our בית מדרש
And when all else fails:
9) I don't like your tone
That's a great list!
I would like to see such quotes.
These responses are all ad hominem. Yes, these is no shortage of your detractors guilty of this. But you never seem to comment about the claim itself. Are you really blind to the derision and condescension in your tone whenever you write about charedim? Do you not realize that you are virtually alone in this among other academic-type critics of theirs? Are you unaware of the glee that comes through in your writing when you find something juicy to skewer them about? Do you not believe in good midos being vital in public discourse?
Respectfully, in the sense of “mum sheb’cha al tomer lachaverecha”, chareidim (and their defenders) are the last folks who should be lecturing others about “good midos” in “public discourse”.
Sorry, but I'm not defending them. Charedim who happily smear other communities should be called out as well. I am replying to the defense of RNS and pointing out that all seem to be ad hominem and that RNS hides behind this to avoid addressing the valid points being made.
Please give an example.
This is brilliant! I’d add one more:
Surely he must have changed his mind *after* he died and went to the “oilam ho’emes”.
(See R’ Marc Shapiro’s “Changing the Immutable”)
I have read CTI. (Somehow he left out some many examples. On purpose?)
In any case, I compiled most of my list well before I read his book.
I wouldn't add that line to the list, because it's the most honest of them. It admits that the uncomfortable position is genuine and authentic and has been accurately quoted as real. Not so, the other items on my list.
I’m sure R’ Shapiro left out many possible examples (a book can only be so long after all).
My point was simply that one phenomenon he does explicitly cite is that of too-frum descendants seeking to censor/change the uncomfortable words of an illustrious ancestor (offering the posthumous justification I mentioned).
"CTI"?
Presumably an acronym for the book mentioned in Just Curious's comment, "Changing the Immutable"
What do you mean by “On purpose?”, btw? R’ Shapiro is not known for pulling punches…
Like you said "a book can only be so long". I found two or three possible other cases of censorship, and I'll assume that since publication, he's received correspondence on other examples - enough for another book.
As far as my comment "on purpose"- it was meant ironically. Think about it.
R' Hirsch can be pretty blunt sometimes. Some of his criticisms of charedim (avant la lettre) in Nineteen Letters were later censored out. ("Censor" isn't quite the right word- better, in translating from German to English, the language was smoothed out a bit.)
Isn’t everything harsher in German? 😂
No, just longer....
I've never heard this before - i would appreciate a couple examples, if you have any
IIRC, In letter 18 of the 19 letters, he says something about Polish melamdim. R Elias softened up the tone in his version.
One of the Hebrew editions also omits his criticism of the Rambam. IIRC, because the chazon ish told the translator R Wolf to do so.
I am honored to be a neighbor, friend and student of Rabbi Kivelevitz and can attest to his deep concern for the Jewish people. His own sons reside in Israel; at least one of them served in the IDF. Personally I am not haredi and do not share unquestional devotion to haredi leadership although I deeply respect their dedication and scholarship. If the haredi world is broken, then so is the rest of the Jewish world. One can push his agenda at the expense of others only this far: the result is chaos. I believe that all citizens of Israel must serve in the IDF, provided there is overwhelming respect for everyone's lifestyle and beliefs and a shared faith in democracy. The problem is tribalism and shiekhdoms are sadly natural conditions for Jewish society, not unlike other ethnoteligious groups in the Middle East. Go try construct a modern state with that, especially without external threats, and even then...
There's another Boris Kogan with a soviet past, writes on Substack as PostKahanism, check it
The problem with your tone is real, substantive and damning. It is full of cynicism, mockery and disdain. You don't just disagree with charedim, you humiliate them - not with your arguments, which tend to be valid, but yes - with your tone. Your do not write like a mensch. You write to stir things up and get eyeballs on your blog. I share most of your distress about charedim and have no need to defend them but I still decry your ceaseless attacks and how much pleasure you obviously take in "pulling their pants down" in public. You have a lot to learn about public discourse and as I've pointed out before, no one else in the community of dati leumi/YU scholars is nearly as guilty of all this as you are.
"... no one else in the dati leumi is nearly as guilty of all this as you are. "
Who decides whose guilty?
Rather arrogant. Try drinking some humility.
And it's not like it's a matter of life and death.
Oh sorry, it is.
I am a complete outsider, but I think he is actually somewhat soft on the Charedim. If I or my children were fighting in a war of national survival while my coreligionists were refusing to take up arms, insisting on using taxpayer dollars to sustain their lifestyle, and at the same time claiming they are more righteous then the people dying to defend the Jewish people, I can assure you that my response would make Rabbi Slifkin's look mild and well tempered.
A couple of comments (note I have not listened to the podcast):
(1) Why did R' Kivilevitz not have you representing you in his podcast relying on someone else to defend you? Seems a bit weird to me.
(2) Could part of R' Kivilevitz's problem be that he is a charedi living in the States and as we all know, there is a big difference between chareidism in Israel vs USA (I'm assuming he lives in the States based on reading bio on his web site)?
"That was nineteen years ago, but apparently there are people who apparently still haven’t gotten over it!"
Probably the most hilarious and tragic lack of self awareness I've ever seen from you.
I can't say that I disagree with this article on a factual basis unfortunately it does remind me of what I observe to be the fundamental issue with this blog:
"The purely righteous do not complain of the dark, but increase the light; they do not complain of evil, but increase justice; they do not complain of heresy, but increase faith; they do not complain of ignorance, but increase wisdom." - Rav Kook
For many years I heard this quote without truly understanding it. Sadly it is due to this blog that I now believe I understand what Rav Kook meant and what type of mindset he was criticizing.
That quote has been taken out of context and in fact has caused much long term damage to the DL community, preventing it from properly engaging in realpolitik for close to 100 years.
What was the original context of the quote and what makes you think that it is being misapplied? (I'll admit that I don't know when/where Rav Kook said/wrote this)
Also, what do you mean when you say that this quote has 'prevented the Daati Leumi community from engaging in realpolitik for close to 100 years?' I've scratched my head on this for a while and I really have no idea what you are referring to
Update: I found the quote in Arpilei Tohar and I personally don't see why you think the quote has been taken out of context but I am interested to hear how you understand it
1. Is Brian Hogan correct that at least one of Rabbi Kivelivetz's children served in the IDF?
2. Can you make a poll of how many people heard of Rabbi Kivelevitz prior to this post?
3. I enjoy the intellectually honest parts of your blog, Rabbi Slifkin. My husband and I really like the Encyclopedia. It's pretty chareidi. It's weird to read that and then go to this blog.
4. I'm hoping to write a post about Biblical Criticism. Have you ever covered this topic?
Never heard of him before this post. And from one podcast listen, all I can say is that I’m underwhelmed. As we said in yeshiva days “what’s the big gedilla?”
"My husband and I really like the Encyclopedia. It's pretty chareidi. It's weird to read that and then go to this blog."
Yeah, no kidding. https://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2015/03/stop-lies-part-ii.html
@rationalistjudaism
How does the name "Kivelevitz" form the word "Kiveletzivism"?
Darn. That was a mistake.
The “ziv” of Kivelevitzism!
Nothing particularly unusual in Rabbi Kivilevitz's mindset.
RNS has moved on, but still lives in a Chareidi neighborhood.
To: RNS
Maybe it's also time to move to another neighborhood. Judging by your blogs, living in your existing neighborhood causes you serious aggravation and may not be good for your blood pressure.
He got burnt when he was younger for not retracting, at the minimum, pretty questionable views, and has now gone as far as to change his hashkafoh and worldview to justify them.
He is not doing this leshem shamayim, he's doing it lehachis against the multiple Gedolie Yisrael who renounced his books.
I changed my hashkafa to justify my hashkafa?
Yes. You used to be charedi, got questioned and rejected based on your hashkafa, so you became da'ati Leumi because they are much less protestive to questionable views
Ah, you mean I changed my social affiliation to continue my hashkafah.
No, you changed your entire worldview (coloqually know as hashkafa) to fit a minority of views you had which didn't fit your worldview.
Views of Chazal and Rishonim are questionable? Are you a Reform Rabbi?
In your opinion; unless of course, you are a mind-reader.
Life isn't black and white like that.
Don't worry. Rabbi Breitowitz mentioned you in passing in a recent Q+A and while he alluded to the controversy he said nothing personally negative about you. That's good enough for me
https://www.podbean.com/ea/dir-y2kjj-1e1edddf
Starts from 49:55
That because he likes to remain unpolitical.
Rav Kivelevitz is one of my best friends. It is obvious that you have no idea who he is. His own son served in the IDF. He is quite liberal about a lot of things and recognizes the beauty of the Dati Leumi world and has high respect for their rabbinical leadership. Anyone who wants to learn about him directly instead of from a kli sheni can just listed to his prolific podcast platform where his wide-range of interests go from the deepest levels of all levels of Torah to the most secular aspects of life and culture. https://jewishpodcasts.fm/podcasts/yeshivaofnewark
Rav Elazar Shach’s son also served in the IDF. So I guess that means IDF service isn’t against Daas Torah. Why are the charedim not being drafted then?