Discussion about this post

User's avatar
sender zeyv goldberg's avatar

I don’t have a blog of my own, but the kind of readers here are most likely the ones that would be interested if I had one. Thus this post will be a little long.

I like to think of myself as a Rational Jew, like Noson. I have carefully learned Moreh Nevuchim and I must thank Noson for opening my eyes on numerous issues of Jewish Thought. I have been close with Rav Aharon Feldman since 1969. I highly respected the fact that he, at one time, tried to plead in Noson’s defense. But I was taken aback when he jumped ship and wrote his ill-founded response in the summer of 2005. He showed me the first draft and I wrote a critique of it. He responded to my critique, seemingly to agree with many of my points and disagree with some. I responded to his response and sent it to him. He then went ahead and published his original article without modifying it by addressing my cogent arguments. I then shared my critique with Noson who published it. After that Rav Feldman broke ties with me for a few years. We have since then sort of reunited.

I have published four Historical/Hashkafa/Halacha novels and one sefer on Torah subjects (in Hebrew). In the past two years I was encouraged to translate a long piece I wrote on Hashgocha from a rational perspective. I added to it three other pieces from my sefer that I translated and rewrote in English and put them together in a 60 page book, Creation and Divine Providence.

When you feel you have come to an understanding of something, often that becomes a springboard for another thought, and that one for another, etc. My thoughts on how Divine Providence works from a rational perspective gave me an insight into a new (for me) conclusion.

We all have heard that Ben Gurion predicted in 1948 that within a few generations there wouldn’t be any Torah Jews left. Hah! Seemingly, there is more Torah being learned today by more Jews than ever before in history.

I asked a question: What is the one most significant factor that has generated the plethora of Torah study, Yeshivos, and Kollelim in Eretz Yisroel as of today?

My answer: The Israel Army Draft! I’m not comparing the phenomena to the upsurge of Yeshivas in America to evade the idiotic Viet Nam war draft. In E”Y, the Gedolim (from Agudah and on right) insisted on exemption from the draft for full time torah learners to create (concomitant with the Zionist state) a “culture” of Torah learning. It was “Zeh L’umat Zeh.” The Zionists morphed the Army Draft into a “national culture,” that has become the “holy grail” of Zionism. Torah learning has always been recognized by the elite stratified class of Torah Sages in past generations as the focal point of Judaism, but now that the Zionist wanted to change that to “Nationalism” it had to be countered in the most effective and extreme manner to prevent Zionism from making Ben Gurion’s erstwhile prediction a reality.

Thus I am contending that it is two way street (in a sense). The ardent Draft as a Zionist cultural artifact, has strengthened the resolve of the Torah world to save, preserve and grow its culture of Limud HaTorah.

On the other hand, the potent opposition to the army draft by the “Torah World” has worked to harden the resolve of the Army culture. That means, the Army must be the most moral army in the world (which I think it is), it must be the most potent Army in the world (for its size) and in successful defense of its people, which I think it has proven to be. Thus, the Torah world in its opposition to the draft has been a major factor, by its cultural war in making the Israeli army so formidable. In that case, it is indeed very true that sincere Torah learning acts to protect Klal Yisroel by its indirect impetus making the IDF the best it can be. Kinas Sofrim Tarbeh Chochmah. The Kulturkampf between Torah and the Draft, has strengthened both.

At this point in history, I think both are highly sophisticated as institutions and have momentum and motivation to continue without the animus of all-out Kulturkampf. That means each should respect the other, and allow this successful formula remain in place as it is.

Expand full comment
מכרכר בכל עוז's avatar

No, you got the parable wrong. Here it is:

Once upon a time, in a high-security prison filled with the most hardened of criminals, a group of convicts hatched a plan to escape. They started collecting the wrappers from their prison meals, as one does when they're preparing to break out of jail. After much brainstorming, they decided to use the wrappers to pick the lock of their cell door. It was a brilliant plan, or so they thought.

But there was one prisoner who instead spent his days on the phone, speaking with his mysterious friend named "DA". While the others were busy planning their escape, he was busy schmoozing with this guy. When the big day finally arrived, the other inmates were ready. They had managed to mold the wrappers into a giant key that they hoped would unlock their freedom.

As they inserted their makeshift key into the lock, the door suddenly swung open. The prison warden stood before them and announced that all charges had been dropped, thanks to the DA's intervention. The DA's friend was thrilled, but his fellow inmates were less than pleased.

"Chutzpa!" they cried. "You freeloading ingrate! We worked tirelessly to plan this escape and you just sat there on the phone all day. You should have helped us, instead of just mooching off our hard work."

Natan, it's amazing how much you're lacking in self-awareness not to realize how big a theological fraud you are. You've spent the last 10 years DENYING THAT THE TORAH OFFERS ANY PROTECTION. AT ALL. I can show many posts where you've written that very clearly. Just over a week ago, you were ridiculing R. Zilberstein for telling someone that the Torah protects and he does not need to buy a gun. But now you're saying that the Chareidim don't believe that the Torah protects or else they would not have fled the south. So then why did R. Zilberstein tell the fellow not to buy a gun??

After we showed you the overwhelming evidence from the contrary, you've completely changed your tone. The parable that you wrote above is from a secularist standpoint which denies the essence of Torah and Mitzvos at all. As my friend HGL wrote, you could have replaced "sat down to pray" to "played with toys".

At least you're starting to show your true colors and don't claim to be representing "classic Judaism" anymore. I'm glad we're making progress.

Expand full comment
221 more comments...

No posts