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.
In your parable, the prisoner on the phone had no interest in the wrapper plan. But the charedim, on the other hand, are absolutely interested in there being soldiers. They just don't want to be the ones to do that job.
Also, however much you insist that I denied that Torah protects at all, it's still not true. You can look in my book published two years ago where I discuss sources to that effect. The fact that I interpret these sources differently to you does not mean that I deny their existence.
"The same is true for Torah. According the rationalist approach, learning Torah imparts valuable knowledge, improves our character, and teaches us how to improve society (see my post on The Rishonim on Torah Study.) That is it, and that is all."
"There was his statement that the best protection against being blown up on a bus is to learn Torah on the bus, which he derived from the Gemara, but which I argued was (A) not at all what the Gemara is saying, according to several commentaries, and (B) not actually true"
"Practically Speaking, Torah Does NOT Protect"
"It's just as well that the Gemara does not make any such claim, because such a claim is quite clearly not true. All such claims about the protective value of Torah and mitzvos - "Torah scholars do not need protection," "Someone on their way to do a mitzvah (shaliach mitzvah) cannot be harmed," "When you're learning Torah, you can't be harmed," might be true in some abstract or hyper-qualified aggadic sense, but are clearly not true in any practical sense today."
"There is no claim in the Gemara that a yeshivah student learning Torah provides any protection from Arabs."
"In summary: According to classical Judaism, the primary way of defending ourselves against our enemies is with military means. The primary spiritual defensive tool is prayer. You can also create a merit for yourself by learning Torah, and you can pray on behalf of anyone. But you can't export the merit of your Torah to other people."
"Based on the Gemara in Berachos 5a, the protection appears to be from physical illness. Other sources that speak about the protective value of Torah make no mention of specifically military threats, and indicate that it provides protection equally from illness, famine, etc."
"'We will not convince secular Israelis that kollel students protect Israeli society no less than IDF soldiers.'
Never mind secular Israelis - you won't convince anyone of that. On a theoretical level, it has a very shaky foundation. On a practical level, nobody really believes it - not even charedim."
"Second, and most significantly: Regardless of the sources that someone might dig up/ reinterpret to claim that yeshivah and kollel students are protecting Israel, the bottom line is that (a) the facts on the ground demonstrate otherwise, and (b) when push comes to shove, the charedim don't even believe it themselves."
You keep saying that you understand Torah protecting different than me, yet you have not explained how you understand it. I understand it as I've described here:
I agree, the parable wasn't great. I should have used a parable where their efforts at least seemed to play a role in their success. So let's reconstruct it that our protagonist was in cahoots with the prison guards and coordinated with them to not be around when his fellow inmates picked the lock. Or something to that effect.
"This did not go down well with my ideological opponents, who keep the comments section lively and have even started an entire blog dedicated to rebutting this one (the third such anti-Slifkin blog to have been created!)"
Natan, as the proprietor of the aforementioned blog, I can predict with a large degree of confidence that you will outlast our blog as well. Unlike you, the three of us have lives and day jobs and just don't have the same manic hateful obsession over you that you have about us.
Touché. There's another reason why he's outlasted all his critics. When you have a hangup over making only arguments that are internally coherent and generally consistent, there's a finite amount of material you can put out. When you're just throwing words at random, whatever sounds snappy in the moment and with an ever evolving set of underlying principles, you can outlast the energizer bunny.
See downstream where he solemnly informs us that although Rationalism teaches it doesn't, for today Torah does indeed protect but it's selfish to learn Torah (that protects) to protect, and Torah learned selfishly does not indeed protect so therefore it doesn't so it's probably other mitzvos that are doing the protecting despite rationalism teaching that mitzvos are very rational stuff that don't necessarily protect and besides Chareidim are so dumb haha. Or something like that.
Then extrapolate the methodology to twenty years of ever changing yuks. Do you think you can compete with that?
Natan, I'm really in good faith trying to figure out what you're saying (with an ulterior motive of course, I can only argue with you if I understand your position), but I'm completely baffled. You've claimed that:
1. Practically speaking, Torah does NOT protect.
2. Torah in fact does protect.
3. R' Zilberstein is silly for telling a guy not to buy a gun and to rely on Torah protection.
4. Chareidi yeshivos should not have fled the south and should have relied on Torah protection.
5. Saying Torah protects is like the silly old man who 'played with toys' while his friends built a lifeboat.
Now, silly me, of course I thought you were flip-flopping! But you insist that you are not and that I am just putting a 'spin' on things. So maybe you can write a post explaining how this all adds up so I can get back in the ring?
You're telling me that you consider yourself something of a talmid chacham who can learn complicated Reb Chaim but you really don't understand my view? I'll explain how you are misquoting and misunderstanding me if you want but it won't reflect well on your skills at understanding texts. Other people here seem to have no problem understanding what I am saying.
Ok, I never said I'm a talmid chacham. After you've calmed down from your ad hominem attacks, perhaps consider indulging us all with a post clarifying how this all adds up. The only one here I've seen who seems to claim to understand what you are saying is David Ohsie, who actualy went off on a wild tangent about hashgacha pratis and did not at all address how all your statements add up, or how all the maamarei Chazal I've brought fit with what you say. But I've posed the same question to him. If you can't make sense of all of this, perhaps he can.
Yes, I say more. It's not a secret, that's why I published it. You can look it up. You can also read David Ohsie's comment below, like others he is capable of understanding what I write.
I've already written this a few times what the obvious distinctions are, but I'll write it again here:
1) Incorrect. The Jewish Nation Keeping and Studying Torah is part of the reason that the nation receives Divine Providence in general including protection against complete destruction and likely the apparent miraculous establishment and flourishing of the State of Israel despite enemy attacks.
2) Correct as stated above. Not as a substitute for an army.
3) Yes, if in fact buying a gun does provide significant protection from injury, then not buying one because one learns Torah makes no more sense than avoiding the doctor because you learn Torah. (Of course if what R Zilberstein meant was that owning a gun isn't giving significant benefit and the Torah part was just rhetoric, then it could be sensible).
4) From a moral perspective, if you are claiming that your part in the fight is manning the spiritual ramparts while others risk their lives to do the fighting, then you may have a moral obligation to stay where you are to continue to provide that support among all the others that stay there. You will likely not be protected by your Torah any more than anyone else living there, but taking that risk may be part of your moral obligation. Fleeing does inidicate you don't believe the learning is really protecting you directly, if that was your position.
5. A person says his learning is a substitute or even more important than your risking your life in the army or security forces and then claims that your participation in the security forces is actually God's Providence resulting from his learning, then he is like that guy.
I thought you were defending Natan, not disagreeing with him.
2. See ibid.
3. But Natan didn't ridicule him for not wanting to make hishtadlus. He ridiculed him for thinking that Torah protects. He mentions that R. Zilberstein says that one must do hishtadlus but ridicules him anyways for suggesting increasing in Torah study because of terror attacks.
4. I agree that they should not have fled. I just don't get how the man who said "Practically speaking, Torah does NOT protect" can make such a complaint. (Incidentally, I've been doing some research into this claim of Natan, and it seems that most yeshivos did NOT flee. Tifrach and most of the other yeshiva gedolos remained and such was the directive of R' Chaim Kanievsky, but some high schools, where the boys were not mature enough to cope with the situation did leave. Not because the hanhala was scared, just because the yeshivos were not functioning there).
5. Uh, obviously no one is saying that it is a SUBSTITUTE to the army. What they are saying is that it is instrumental to its success, just like the many sources that I bring from Chazal make very clear. As opposed to the guy in Natan's parable, who was portrayed as not doing anything useful.
Come on, David. Natan seems to have given up so we're all counting on you at this point. I hope you don't let us down!
1. You've take that quote out of context. Repeating what I wrote: "There seem to be many confused comments here about R Slifkin's position. He fully supports the idea that the nation observing and learning Torah protects the nation as a whole in a general way. IMO, what he questions is a very specific direct connection between an a group of individuals learning providing protection from military or terrorist attacks. Some people claim that they need not serve in IDF because their specific actions in learning Torah is providing the same or better protection than they would by serving. R Slifkin is questioning that direct connection; he is also questioning whether the proponents of this argument really believe it themselves or are just using it as a cover to avoid IDF service for other underlying reasons."
2. Same
3. He took issue with this statement: “a person who learns Torah knows that when he learns Torah, he spreads the perfect protection of the Torah over himself and his entire city which protects from all harm, like it says in the Gemara in Sotah, that the Torah protects and saves.” This is completely inconsistent with both the Rambam, Rambam, and Ran on how Hashgachah works, and as pointed out by R Slifkin, no one really believe it, and it if was taken seriously, would require Yeshivas to move towards dangerous places instead of away from them.
4. Asked and answered. If you think leaning is your contribution, then you take on the risk to stay where you are helping: "From a moral perspective, if you are claiming that your part in the fight is manning the spiritual ramparts while others risk their lives to do the fighting, then you may have a moral obligation to stay where you are to continue to provide that support among all the others that stay there."
5. Yes they do. They say that this is the real protection and everyone who can learn should do that instead of fighting. I don't want to spend more time on the parable which I already explained and which you did not ask any new question on.
Thank you David for saving me some time that I can use for writing more posts. Though I must say that it seems that Mecharker isn't interested in finding out what my position actually is, he just wants to interpret my statements in the most unreasonable way so that he can accuse me of being contradictory.
Oh dear. If you are the one guy who supposedly understands Natan here, then he is in really bad shape.
1. "You've take that quote out of context." Uh huh. Out of context. He literally said it dozens of times over the last ten years, and even devoted entire posts to it. There is even a post with that very title where he speaks about it at length. See my comment above that I linked to where I compiled a bunch of such statements from him. Nice try though.
I'm quite confused. You write Natan acknowledges that Torah protects, but is questioning if more Torah = more protection? If Torah protects, then why wouldn't it? You can check out the many sources that I've brought in my post they say both that Torah is a way of protecting wars from occurring to begin with, and also that we win our wars in its merit. Does Natan agree with these statements from Chazal? If he does, then what's his question?
3. This has nothing to do with some Rishonim's shita on hashgacha. The fact that you keep trying to spin it as such shows that you are really stuck. What those Rishonim say is that only tzadikim merit personal Heavenly protection (whatever that means, and how it conforms with many statements from Chazal). What we are discussing here is Heavenly protection on AN ENTIRE CITY, or THE ENTIRE JEWISH NATION, a result of limud haTorah clearly described by Chazal. See my post.
4. I agree. But it seems that was not the reason why they left. See what I wrote above.
5. No, they NEVER said that. That's a LIE. The very context that Natan wrote this silly parable was a comment on HGL's post where he specifically wrote that the army is the physical hishtadlus that one must make. Natan posted his comment to ridicule that. The reason why you don't want to discuss it anymore is because you don't have anything to say.
There seem to be many confused comments here about R Slifkin's position. He fully supports the idea that the nation observing and learning Torah protects the nation as a whole in a general way. IMO, what he questions is a very specific direct connection between an a group of individuals learning providing protection from military or terrorist attacks. Some people claim that they need not serve in IDF because their specific actions in learning Torah is providing the same or better protection than they would by serving. R Slifkin is questioning that direct connection; he is also questioning whether the proponents of this argument really believe it themselves or are just using it as a cover to avoid IDF service for other underlying reasons. Incidentally, this aligns with the view of Rishonim such as Rambam, Rambam and Ran of how Hashgachah works. A very tiny percentage of people are directly protected by personal Hashgachah -- according to Rambam only when those select people's thoughts are directed towards God. The rest are protected by a general Providence over the nation and are subject to the impact the evil intentions of other people as well as the general tendency of the physical world to decay. Rambam states the overriding importance of putting effort into physical defense in his letter on Astrology: "This is why our kingdom was lost and our Temple was destroyed and why we were brought to this; for our fathers sinned and are no more because they found many books dealing with these themes of the star gazers, these things being the root of idolatry, as we have made clear in Laws Concerning Idolatry. They erred and were drawn after them, imagining them to be glorious science and to be of great utility. They did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands, but imagined that those studies would help them. Therefore the prophets called them 'fools and dolts' (Jer. 4:22). And truly fools they were, 'for they walked after confused things that do not profit' (I Sam. 12:21 and Jer. 2:8)."
Your assertion that the majority of Torah Observances is performed by Charedi Jews seems false. Also, you are counting a bunch of Eidah Chareidis folks who think that the state is illegitimate and would dismantle if if they had the power. I hardly think that their leaning is contributing to success by the IDF or the Security forces, although no one really understand how Hashgachah works, so I don't want to be too confident. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/
So then you agree that R Slifkin is not contradicting himself as asserted by various commenters when he denies a specific verifiable connection between specific people learning and specific protection. As far as your comment, if you are talking about general Hashgacha, then this classically has been interpreted to mean that all people, whether they are learning or not, can absolutely still be killed by rockets or terrorist incidents and that stopping that requires specific effort towards protection and that this is a matter of Pikuach Nefesh. So drafting up to say 90% of Charedim would be completely consistent with this view as general Torah Learning and Observance protecting in a general way.
You are wasting your time. Happy and his crew are not interested in reasoned arguments. They don't do them. They do insults, word salads and silly pictures. I don't know whether it was 'happy' or the other chap who confidently told me 'yichud' does not mean 'seclusion' (and he did so with the usual insults) to support his incorrect opinion.
It is not just 'yichud' it is 'yichud b'almah' and it can't mean bi'oh (even with kvetching) because that is the next clause. So I'm afraid it means the traditional meaning of the word however many insults you wish to throw.
"Nobody was ever talking about specific people and specific protection." Of course that is the argument. The argument is that if you draft this specific set of people instead of letting them sit and learn, the security level is going to drop. It is a very specific claim about specific people and how Hashgachah works. It's both arrogant and misaligned with the traditional understanding of how Hashgacha works.
I think that you are supporting the thesis of this post and of R Slifkin in general. The real approach here is "we count and you don't, so you go risk your lives while we sit in relative security". You also help explain the the bad feelings that some Chilonim and DL feel toward the Charedim.
One argument is that is made is that it is more important to learn because that is the real protection. I guess then that we agree that argument doesn't stand up scrutiny. That is the one R Slifkin is addressing. The argument you cite is also made by some. But it doesn't stand alone because with the right support from the Rabbis they could easily create Charedi segregated units. It also doesn't explain why people in uniform will not go into charedi areas where they are attacked (both men an women soldiers BTW; my neighbors son's won't go into those areas). The real issue is what you described before: "the people in our shtetl count and others don't so lets learn while they fight and worry about security and the economy which we will ignore and rely on others to solve for us. If they don't want to fight either, let them join our shtetl."
It's not a rebuttal. It's an unhinged rant against me.
(By the way, it's just so strange how they keep insisting that I originally said that Torah doesn't make any claims about protecting. I never said any such thing. You can see my book published two years ago in which I discuss the sources.)
Another graduate from the Bill Clinton School of Technical Truth.
Right: he says Torah protects. But in a "Rationalist" way - it makes people wise and then there's more peace in the world.
Good for making fun of Chareidim and doubles as a ready foil whenever hit by accusations that he is ignorant of basic Jewish texts (which say Torah protect - in a real and practical intrinsic way): "Look I said it protects, right?"
You don't need to subscribe to a rationalist approach to recognize that saying that "Torah protects the nation" is not the same as saying "The particular Torah learned by a charedi yeshivah student instead of going to the army offers significantly equivalent protection."
My God how do get this thing to stop? It's excruciating.
First he says to go check the book. When pointed out that in the book (and certainly on the blogposts which are the actual subject of the discussion) it says essentially what he's being quoted as saying and he's just telling you to check the book to obfuscate the debate by flipping between usages of the word 'protect', he brings up an ENTIRELY NEW argument and throws it back as if that proves him right all along.
It's getting to the point that I'm pretty sure it's unintentional - he honestly has no clue what the conversation is about (other than the fact that Chareidim are bad guys).
The distinction is pretty clear based on the blog posts and comments that R Slifkin has made. I posted something on the main thread in the same vein. But if blog posts are too brief you can go and read his book. The distinction is pretty obvious between these two things: A) "Torah Learning and observance helps generate Providence". B) "Drafting 50% of Charedim will reduce the security of the country because there will be less protective learning". B doesn't follow from A and it is very very easy to see how you can agree with A and disagree with B. In fact most of the DL follow this path.
I don't know what his position is, but I would say that you have an elite, say, 1-5% (not just charedim) that continue to learn and that can be supported by public funds properly (not living in poverty) and the rest serve and work in addition to their learning. Practically speaking, since this isn't going to happen, they should just let Charedim skip the draft and to directly to work or school, then work. Unfortunately the Charedi leadership would prefer they not be able to work to speak nothing of school.
Rabbi Slifkin, you're getting me dizzy with your ever-changing stance on this. You went from the Torah not protecting last week and R. Zilberstein should not be relying on it, to the Torah protecting and the Yeshivos should not have fled the south, to the Torah not protecting and those saying that it does are like the silly old man praying on the rock.
When you figure out what your position really is on this, give me a buzz.
I'm sorry that you don't understand my position. Perhaps take a look at my book, published two years ago, in which I discuss the varied statements in Chazal about Torah protecting, and what they mean.
Yeah, I saw your comment. It did not clarify Natan's position at all. It goes off on to a tangent about Hashgacha Pratis. In the last week and a half, Natan has made the following statements:
1. Practically speaking, Torah does NOT protect.
2. Torah in fact does protect.
3. R' Zilberstein is silly for telling a guy not to buy a gun and to rely on Torah protection.
4. Chareidi yeshivos should not have fled the south and should have relied on Torah protection.
5. Saying Torah protects is like the 'silly' old man who 'sat and prayed' while his friends built a lifeboat.
where I show that Chazal are unequivocally clear in many places that Torah study provides REAL protection from harm. Increasing Torah study translates into increasing Torah's protection. Natan says he never denied that (spoiler alert: he did. Just a week ago https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/guns-terrorism-and-torah).
If you feel you can answer how all this adds up, I'm all ears.
But it seems you're not really adding anything with the parable. This is indeed what chareidim believe - that Torah protects, and armies are often the shliach, so everyone should do their part. The parable puts a negative letzunaus spin on it, but does not seem to address anything substantive.
I thought the discussion was about if the facts are true - does Torah protect? You said no, the people on that blog provided a good deal of evidence that the Torah itself seems to think that Torah protects. Do you have a response for that?
No, much as they tried to spin it, the discussion was not about whether Torah protects (in some sense) or whether the Torah itself says that Torah protects (of course it does). The discussion was about whether charedim believe their own interpretation of what it means - i.e. that anyone learning Torah provides an added degree of protection that is a replacement for their serving in the army. And the fact that they fled the south shows that they don't.
They were the ones who brought up the parable of the drowning man to try to claim that it's about what bitachon really means. I re-cast the parable to show that for charedim it's not about bitachon, it's about getting other people to do the things that you don't want to do.
You appear to be new here. The goal is not to "show" anything. The goal is to vent his bitterness at Chareidim by trying to make them look foolish. He then relies on useful idiots like the guy downstream to cheer "this is so good!" and that's all there is; move on to the next knock.
Asking him to explain why basically repeating himself in a more snide tone in any way serves as a response to the fact that his "arguments" have been effectively demolished in two substantive posts is a total boat miss. Welcome aboard.
Is that Yanki or RCK? Your post provides no sensible response re the guards of Kiryat Sefer. Just a word salad. Some sort of crazy response along the lines off although chareidim believe torah protects mystically, in practice the way they believe torah protects is through them demanding guards every time a security situations warrants it. And the fact that others provide the guarding shows that really they believec torah provides the guarding and are acting in accordance with those beliefs. They are also consistent with same sources and act as if torah provides protection from disease, by, well, still waiting for a response to that one.
Difficult issues like that are addressed by happy and co as 'tzadik v'rah lo'. Just like 'hishtadlus' answers awkward questions about why chareidim never practice what they preach re bitochon/emunah. Dispite all the pas b'melech, Hashem will provide blah blah blah they can hear a $100 bill falling on a carpet 10 miles away, like everybody else. They run after rich families for marriage like everyone else. Why 'hishtadlus' of course. You can never beat a chareidi in an argument because there are three answers to everything. 'Hishtadlus', 'the mesorah' and 'tazadik v'rah lo'.
PS forgot about another one. When da'as torah doesn’t work 'it was a time of hester ponim'. How they know when and when not is a time of 'hester ponim' and hence when and when not can rely on daas torah, I don't know. Maybe the mesorah teaches us that.
In the post you reference you claimed, and I quote, "following the shootings outside a synagogue in Neve Yaakov, there was a dramatic rise in request for weapons permits from charedim to guard synagogues." We're still waiting for the evidence to back that claim up.
"The real reason why charedim don’t want to serve in the army is that it is particularly threatening to their way of life (which is true)."
Why can't it be both?
Chareidim I've spoken to really seem to believe that Torah study is important in its own right, and really protects the country.
Also, there's a terrible problem with the system in which even those who aren't cut out for full time learning are frozen out of society because joining the army is a spiritual death sentence.
Why is one the "real" reason any more than the other?
Army serice is indeed challenging for religious young people, and there is indeed a large attrition rate when young people leave the safe bubble of their home environment. However when you have a mitzvah deoraita on the one hand to fight a milhemet mitzva to save the Jewish nation from their enemies, and the personal difficulty of sticking to your beliefs in an adverse environment, on the other, the choice seems to me to be obvious. And the task of the community and its leadership to first of all to do teshuva and understand why the way of life we taught them is not as compelling as we make it out to be, but always to embrace the brave young men and women who do not shirk their duty to their People, rather than leave them to fend for themselves, treat them as second-rate failures or ostracize them. That is the sure way to lose them.
"And the task of the community and its leadership to first of all to do teshuva and understand why the way of life we taught them is not as compelling as we make it out to be...."
This is answered in the Mishna Sota 1:4
הרבה יין עושה, הרבה שחוק עושה, הרבה ילדות עושה, הרבה שכנים הרעים עושים.
I.e., reason might be compelling but these things are more compelling. The solution, to oversimplify, is just to stay clear of all these things.
If the charedi community was collectively ready to take on its national responsibilities, it would be easy to create a framework in which the spiritual threat could be minimized or even entirely removed.
"... my ideological opponents, who keep the comments section lively and have even started an entire blog dedicated to rebutting this one (the third such anti-Slifkin blog to have been created!)"
IIUC, There are important differences between those two blogs and this one.
1. In those, they were the 'Passelers' and you were the defendant. In the new one, in addition to the posts where again they are the Passelers and you are the defendant, there are also posts where you are the Passeler and they are the defendants.
2. They have a new theme that okay let's say you're right, still Chareidism is way a lesser evil than what is presented as the alternative, so stick to Chareidism despite its drawbacks.
3. (A blend of 1 & 2) They attack the alternative not as Passelers but as defendants. In other words, as a reaction to your Passeling. They were never into Passeling itself, only as an 'offense is the best defense'. Or they were occasional Passelers but nothing on the scale that they are doing it now as a balance to your Passeling.
i have read many, many pieces on concerns about the problem of young people going OTD. I have almost (almost) never heard from say, former IDF who started frum and ended frei. I have never heard them explain why they did it, what they were thinking, what they think now. Do they feel the rabbis lied to them? Do they see the Torah now as a sacred book that is man made? What changed? Did anything stick?
I have heard rabbis discuss the problem ad nauseum. But almost never with a group of representatives of the problem, itself.
I always wonder why that is. Wouldn't it be good to ask? Maybe learn something, from those who left? It seems to be a pretty commonplace thing -- these ex-IDF men and women who go OTD, they could be identified and interviewed. I would love to hear what they have to say.
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.
In your parable, the prisoner on the phone had no interest in the wrapper plan. But the charedim, on the other hand, are absolutely interested in there being soldiers. They just don't want to be the ones to do that job.
Also, however much you insist that I denied that Torah protects at all, it's still not true. You can look in my book published two years ago where I discuss sources to that effect. The fact that I interpret these sources differently to you does not mean that I deny their existence.
So how do you explain the following statements:
"The same is true for Torah. According the rationalist approach, learning Torah imparts valuable knowledge, improves our character, and teaches us how to improve society (see my post on The Rishonim on Torah Study.) That is it, and that is all."
"There was his statement that the best protection against being blown up on a bus is to learn Torah on the bus, which he derived from the Gemara, but which I argued was (A) not at all what the Gemara is saying, according to several commentaries, and (B) not actually true"
"Practically Speaking, Torah Does NOT Protect"
"It's just as well that the Gemara does not make any such claim, because such a claim is quite clearly not true. All such claims about the protective value of Torah and mitzvos - "Torah scholars do not need protection," "Someone on their way to do a mitzvah (shaliach mitzvah) cannot be harmed," "When you're learning Torah, you can't be harmed," might be true in some abstract or hyper-qualified aggadic sense, but are clearly not true in any practical sense today."
"There is no claim in the Gemara that a yeshivah student learning Torah provides any protection from Arabs."
"In summary: According to classical Judaism, the primary way of defending ourselves against our enemies is with military means. The primary spiritual defensive tool is prayer. You can also create a merit for yourself by learning Torah, and you can pray on behalf of anyone. But you can't export the merit of your Torah to other people."
"Based on the Gemara in Berachos 5a, the protection appears to be from physical illness. Other sources that speak about the protective value of Torah make no mention of specifically military threats, and indicate that it provides protection equally from illness, famine, etc."
"'We will not convince secular Israelis that kollel students protect Israeli society no less than IDF soldiers.'
Never mind secular Israelis - you won't convince anyone of that. On a theoretical level, it has a very shaky foundation. On a practical level, nobody really believes it - not even charedim."
"Second, and most significantly: Regardless of the sources that someone might dig up/ reinterpret to claim that yeshivah and kollel students are protecting Israel, the bottom line is that (a) the facts on the ground demonstrate otherwise, and (b) when push comes to shove, the charedim don't even believe it themselves."
- Natan Slifkin
There were many more, but let's start with these.
You keep saying that you understand Torah protecting different than me, yet you have not explained how you understand it. I understand it as I've described here:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/does-torah-protect/comment/13764306
How do you understand it?
I agree, the parable wasn't great. I should have used a parable where their efforts at least seemed to play a role in their success. So let's reconstruct it that our protagonist was in cahoots with the prison guards and coordinated with them to not be around when his fellow inmates picked the lock. Or something to that effect.
"This did not go down well with my ideological opponents, who keep the comments section lively and have even started an entire blog dedicated to rebutting this one (the third such anti-Slifkin blog to have been created!)"
Natan, as the proprietor of the aforementioned blog, I can predict with a large degree of confidence that you will outlast our blog as well. Unlike you, the three of us have lives and day jobs and just don't have the same manic hateful obsession over you that you have about us.
Touché. There's another reason why he's outlasted all his critics. When you have a hangup over making only arguments that are internally coherent and generally consistent, there's a finite amount of material you can put out. When you're just throwing words at random, whatever sounds snappy in the moment and with an ever evolving set of underlying principles, you can outlast the energizer bunny.
See downstream where he solemnly informs us that although Rationalism teaches it doesn't, for today Torah does indeed protect but it's selfish to learn Torah (that protects) to protect, and Torah learned selfishly does not indeed protect so therefore it doesn't so it's probably other mitzvos that are doing the protecting despite rationalism teaching that mitzvos are very rational stuff that don't necessarily protect and besides Chareidim are so dumb haha. Or something like that.
Then extrapolate the methodology to twenty years of ever changing yuks. Do you think you can compete with that?
Lots of luck pal.
Natan, I'm really in good faith trying to figure out what you're saying (with an ulterior motive of course, I can only argue with you if I understand your position), but I'm completely baffled. You've claimed that:
1. Practically speaking, Torah does NOT protect.
2. Torah in fact does protect.
3. R' Zilberstein is silly for telling a guy not to buy a gun and to rely on Torah protection.
4. Chareidi yeshivos should not have fled the south and should have relied on Torah protection.
5. Saying Torah protects is like the silly old man who 'played with toys' while his friends built a lifeboat.
Now, silly me, of course I thought you were flip-flopping! But you insist that you are not and that I am just putting a 'spin' on things. So maybe you can write a post explaining how this all adds up so I can get back in the ring?
You're telling me that you consider yourself something of a talmid chacham who can learn complicated Reb Chaim but you really don't understand my view? I'll explain how you are misquoting and misunderstanding me if you want but it won't reflect well on your skills at understanding texts. Other people here seem to have no problem understanding what I am saying.
Ok, I never said I'm a talmid chacham. After you've calmed down from your ad hominem attacks, perhaps consider indulging us all with a post clarifying how this all adds up. The only one here I've seen who seems to claim to understand what you are saying is David Ohsie, who actualy went off on a wild tangent about hashgacha pratis and did not at all address how all your statements add up, or how all the maamarei Chazal I've brought fit with what you say. But I've posed the same question to him. If you can't make sense of all of this, perhaps he can.
Don't you have my book, Rationalism vs. Mysticism? See pages 113-114.
Believe it or not, I don't. Did you say anything there more than what you've written on the blog? If yes, why is it such a secret?
Yes, I say more. It's not a secret, that's why I published it. You can look it up. You can also read David Ohsie's comment below, like others he is capable of understanding what I write.
Actually, he did not effectively explain your position at all. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of the "others" that understand you.
I've already written this a few times what the obvious distinctions are, but I'll write it again here:
1) Incorrect. The Jewish Nation Keeping and Studying Torah is part of the reason that the nation receives Divine Providence in general including protection against complete destruction and likely the apparent miraculous establishment and flourishing of the State of Israel despite enemy attacks.
2) Correct as stated above. Not as a substitute for an army.
3) Yes, if in fact buying a gun does provide significant protection from injury, then not buying one because one learns Torah makes no more sense than avoiding the doctor because you learn Torah. (Of course if what R Zilberstein meant was that owning a gun isn't giving significant benefit and the Torah part was just rhetoric, then it could be sensible).
4) From a moral perspective, if you are claiming that your part in the fight is manning the spiritual ramparts while others risk their lives to do the fighting, then you may have a moral obligation to stay where you are to continue to provide that support among all the others that stay there. You will likely not be protected by your Torah any more than anyone else living there, but taking that risk may be part of your moral obligation. Fleeing does inidicate you don't believe the learning is really protecting you directly, if that was your position.
5. A person says his learning is a substitute or even more important than your risking your life in the army or security forces and then claims that your participation in the security forces is actually God's Providence resulting from his learning, then he is like that guy.
1. I agree it's incorrect. But that was literally a quote verbatim from Natan himself. See here where I complied a bunch of quotes from Natan where he says this. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-drowning-man/comment/13778765
I thought you were defending Natan, not disagreeing with him.
2. See ibid.
3. But Natan didn't ridicule him for not wanting to make hishtadlus. He ridiculed him for thinking that Torah protects. He mentions that R. Zilberstein says that one must do hishtadlus but ridicules him anyways for suggesting increasing in Torah study because of terror attacks.
4. I agree that they should not have fled. I just don't get how the man who said "Practically speaking, Torah does NOT protect" can make such a complaint. (Incidentally, I've been doing some research into this claim of Natan, and it seems that most yeshivos did NOT flee. Tifrach and most of the other yeshiva gedolos remained and such was the directive of R' Chaim Kanievsky, but some high schools, where the boys were not mature enough to cope with the situation did leave. Not because the hanhala was scared, just because the yeshivos were not functioning there).
5. Uh, obviously no one is saying that it is a SUBSTITUTE to the army. What they are saying is that it is instrumental to its success, just like the many sources that I bring from Chazal make very clear. As opposed to the guy in Natan's parable, who was portrayed as not doing anything useful.
Come on, David. Natan seems to have given up so we're all counting on you at this point. I hope you don't let us down!
1. You've take that quote out of context. Repeating what I wrote: "There seem to be many confused comments here about R Slifkin's position. He fully supports the idea that the nation observing and learning Torah protects the nation as a whole in a general way. IMO, what he questions is a very specific direct connection between an a group of individuals learning providing protection from military or terrorist attacks. Some people claim that they need not serve in IDF because their specific actions in learning Torah is providing the same or better protection than they would by serving. R Slifkin is questioning that direct connection; he is also questioning whether the proponents of this argument really believe it themselves or are just using it as a cover to avoid IDF service for other underlying reasons."
2. Same
3. He took issue with this statement: “a person who learns Torah knows that when he learns Torah, he spreads the perfect protection of the Torah over himself and his entire city which protects from all harm, like it says in the Gemara in Sotah, that the Torah protects and saves.” This is completely inconsistent with both the Rambam, Rambam, and Ran on how Hashgachah works, and as pointed out by R Slifkin, no one really believe it, and it if was taken seriously, would require Yeshivas to move towards dangerous places instead of away from them.
4. Asked and answered. If you think leaning is your contribution, then you take on the risk to stay where you are helping: "From a moral perspective, if you are claiming that your part in the fight is manning the spiritual ramparts while others risk their lives to do the fighting, then you may have a moral obligation to stay where you are to continue to provide that support among all the others that stay there."
5. Yes they do. They say that this is the real protection and everyone who can learn should do that instead of fighting. I don't want to spend more time on the parable which I already explained and which you did not ask any new question on.
Thank you David for saving me some time that I can use for writing more posts. Though I must say that it seems that Mecharker isn't interested in finding out what my position actually is, he just wants to interpret my statements in the most unreasonable way so that he can accuse me of being contradictory.
Natan, he doesn't seem to have been able to shed any light on your opinion. Perhaps you can weigh in and help us out?
You're being deliberately obtuse and trying to waste my time. Not interested.
Oh dear. If you are the one guy who supposedly understands Natan here, then he is in really bad shape.
1. "You've take that quote out of context." Uh huh. Out of context. He literally said it dozens of times over the last ten years, and even devoted entire posts to it. There is even a post with that very title where he speaks about it at length. See my comment above that I linked to where I compiled a bunch of such statements from him. Nice try though.
I'm quite confused. You write Natan acknowledges that Torah protects, but is questioning if more Torah = more protection? If Torah protects, then why wouldn't it? You can check out the many sources that I've brought in my post they say both that Torah is a way of protecting wars from occurring to begin with, and also that we win our wars in its merit. Does Natan agree with these statements from Chazal? If he does, then what's his question?
3. This has nothing to do with some Rishonim's shita on hashgacha. The fact that you keep trying to spin it as such shows that you are really stuck. What those Rishonim say is that only tzadikim merit personal Heavenly protection (whatever that means, and how it conforms with many statements from Chazal). What we are discussing here is Heavenly protection on AN ENTIRE CITY, or THE ENTIRE JEWISH NATION, a result of limud haTorah clearly described by Chazal. See my post.
4. I agree. But it seems that was not the reason why they left. See what I wrote above.
5. No, they NEVER said that. That's a LIE. The very context that Natan wrote this silly parable was a comment on HGL's post where he specifically wrote that the army is the physical hishtadlus that one must make. Natan posted his comment to ridicule that. The reason why you don't want to discuss it anymore is because you don't have anything to say.
1. Out of context had nothing to do with how many times a person says something. The rest of your comment is just disagreeing with him
3. Again just disagreeing.
5. Again just disagreeing.
Nope. Read my post again.
I win!
There seem to be many confused comments here about R Slifkin's position. He fully supports the idea that the nation observing and learning Torah protects the nation as a whole in a general way. IMO, what he questions is a very specific direct connection between an a group of individuals learning providing protection from military or terrorist attacks. Some people claim that they need not serve in IDF because their specific actions in learning Torah is providing the same or better protection than they would by serving. R Slifkin is questioning that direct connection; he is also questioning whether the proponents of this argument really believe it themselves or are just using it as a cover to avoid IDF service for other underlying reasons. Incidentally, this aligns with the view of Rishonim such as Rambam, Rambam and Ran of how Hashgachah works. A very tiny percentage of people are directly protected by personal Hashgachah -- according to Rambam only when those select people's thoughts are directed towards God. The rest are protected by a general Providence over the nation and are subject to the impact the evil intentions of other people as well as the general tendency of the physical world to decay. Rambam states the overriding importance of putting effort into physical defense in his letter on Astrology: "This is why our kingdom was lost and our Temple was destroyed and why we were brought to this; for our fathers sinned and are no more because they found many books dealing with these themes of the star gazers, these things being the root of idolatry, as we have made clear in Laws Concerning Idolatry. They erred and were drawn after them, imagining them to be glorious science and to be of great utility. They did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands, but imagined that those studies would help them. Therefore the prophets called them 'fools and dolts' (Jer. 4:22). And truly fools they were, 'for they walked after confused things that do not profit' (I Sam. 12:21 and Jer. 2:8)."
Your assertion that the majority of Torah Observances is performed by Charedi Jews seems false. Also, you are counting a bunch of Eidah Chareidis folks who think that the state is illegitimate and would dismantle if if they had the power. I hardly think that their leaning is contributing to success by the IDF or the Security forces, although no one really understand how Hashgachah works, so I don't want to be too confident. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/
So then you agree that R Slifkin is not contradicting himself as asserted by various commenters when he denies a specific verifiable connection between specific people learning and specific protection. As far as your comment, if you are talking about general Hashgacha, then this classically has been interpreted to mean that all people, whether they are learning or not, can absolutely still be killed by rockets or terrorist incidents and that stopping that requires specific effort towards protection and that this is a matter of Pikuach Nefesh. So drafting up to say 90% of Charedim would be completely consistent with this view as general Torah Learning and Observance protecting in a general way.
You are wasting your time. Happy and his crew are not interested in reasoned arguments. They don't do them. They do insults, word salads and silly pictures. I don't know whether it was 'happy' or the other chap who confidently told me 'yichud' does not mean 'seclusion' (and he did so with the usual insults) to support his incorrect opinion.
I agree. But it seemed some people were genuinely confused so I want to answer those basic questions.
It is not just 'yichud' it is 'yichud b'almah' and it can't mean bi'oh (even with kvetching) because that is the next clause. So I'm afraid it means the traditional meaning of the word however many insults you wish to throw.
"Nobody was ever talking about specific people and specific protection." Of course that is the argument. The argument is that if you draft this specific set of people instead of letting them sit and learn, the security level is going to drop. It is a very specific claim about specific people and how Hashgachah works. It's both arrogant and misaligned with the traditional understanding of how Hashgacha works.
I think that you are supporting the thesis of this post and of R Slifkin in general. The real approach here is "we count and you don't, so you go risk your lives while we sit in relative security". You also help explain the the bad feelings that some Chilonim and DL feel toward the Charedim.
One argument is that is made is that it is more important to learn because that is the real protection. I guess then that we agree that argument doesn't stand up scrutiny. That is the one R Slifkin is addressing. The argument you cite is also made by some. But it doesn't stand alone because with the right support from the Rabbis they could easily create Charedi segregated units. It also doesn't explain why people in uniform will not go into charedi areas where they are attacked (both men an women soldiers BTW; my neighbors son's won't go into those areas). The real issue is what you described before: "the people in our shtetl count and others don't so lets learn while they fight and worry about security and the economy which we will ignore and rely on others to solve for us. If they don't want to fight either, let them join our shtetl."
Be sure to see HGLs rebuttal
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/are-we-trying-to-convince-the-atheists
It's not a rebuttal. It's an unhinged rant against me.
(By the way, it's just so strange how they keep insisting that I originally said that Torah doesn't make any claims about protecting. I never said any such thing. You can see my book published two years ago in which I discuss the sources.)
Another graduate from the Bill Clinton School of Technical Truth.
Right: he says Torah protects. But in a "Rationalist" way - it makes people wise and then there's more peace in the world.
Good for making fun of Chareidim and doubles as a ready foil whenever hit by accusations that he is ignorant of basic Jewish texts (which say Torah protect - in a real and practical intrinsic way): "Look I said it protects, right?"
You don't need to subscribe to a rationalist approach to recognize that saying that "Torah protects the nation" is not the same as saying "The particular Torah learned by a charedi yeshivah student instead of going to the army offers significantly equivalent protection."
My God how do get this thing to stop? It's excruciating.
First he says to go check the book. When pointed out that in the book (and certainly on the blogposts which are the actual subject of the discussion) it says essentially what he's being quoted as saying and he's just telling you to check the book to obfuscate the debate by flipping between usages of the word 'protect', he brings up an ENTIRELY NEW argument and throws it back as if that proves him right all along.
It's getting to the point that I'm pretty sure it's unintentional - he honestly has no clue what the conversation is about (other than the fact that Chareidim are bad guys).
The distinction is pretty clear based on the blog posts and comments that R Slifkin has made. I posted something on the main thread in the same vein. But if blog posts are too brief you can go and read his book. The distinction is pretty obvious between these two things: A) "Torah Learning and observance helps generate Providence". B) "Drafting 50% of Charedim will reduce the security of the country because there will be less protective learning". B doesn't follow from A and it is very very easy to see how you can agree with A and disagree with B. In fact most of the DL follow this path.
So should we remain with Eilu V'eilu?
In Natans ideal world would all Chareidim go to the army? Or most, but a minority would not in order to get the Torah's benefits?
I don't know what his position is, but I would say that you have an elite, say, 1-5% (not just charedim) that continue to learn and that can be supported by public funds properly (not living in poverty) and the rest serve and work in addition to their learning. Practically speaking, since this isn't going to happen, they should just let Charedim skip the draft and to directly to work or school, then work. Unfortunately the Charedi leadership would prefer they not be able to work to speak nothing of school.
RJ started in 2009. Your math seems off.
Rabbi Slifkin, you're getting me dizzy with your ever-changing stance on this. You went from the Torah not protecting last week and R. Zilberstein should not be relying on it, to the Torah protecting and the Yeshivos should not have fled the south, to the Torah not protecting and those saying that it does are like the silly old man praying on the rock.
When you figure out what your position really is on this, give me a buzz.
I'm sorry that you don't understand my position. Perhaps take a look at my book, published two years ago, in which I discuss the varied statements in Chazal about Torah protecting, and what they mean.
There you go. Can't 'esplain it. See my published works. I wondered when we'd come to that.
See my comment on the main thread. It is pretty clear what R Slifkin is saying. If the Blog posts are not enough, you can consult his books.
Yeah, I saw your comment. It did not clarify Natan's position at all. It goes off on to a tangent about Hashgacha Pratis. In the last week and a half, Natan has made the following statements:
1. Practically speaking, Torah does NOT protect.
2. Torah in fact does protect.
3. R' Zilberstein is silly for telling a guy not to buy a gun and to rely on Torah protection.
4. Chareidi yeshivos should not have fled the south and should have relied on Torah protection.
5. Saying Torah protects is like the 'silly' old man who 'sat and prayed' while his friends built a lifeboat.
Additionally, see my post here
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/does-torah-protect
where I show that Chazal are unequivocally clear in many places that Torah study provides REAL protection from harm. Increasing Torah study translates into increasing Torah's protection. Natan says he never denied that (spoiler alert: he did. Just a week ago https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/guns-terrorism-and-torah).
If you feel you can answer how all this adds up, I'm all ears.
I answered point by point in your other comment.
R' Slfikin of course knows way more than me. However this is not a website of truth and objectivity.
Gut gezugt.
But it seems you're not really adding anything with the parable. This is indeed what chareidim believe - that Torah protects, and armies are often the shliach, so everyone should do their part. The parable puts a negative letzunaus spin on it, but does not seem to address anything substantive.
I thought the discussion was about if the facts are true - does Torah protect? You said no, the people on that blog provided a good deal of evidence that the Torah itself seems to think that Torah protects. Do you have a response for that?
No, much as they tried to spin it, the discussion was not about whether Torah protects (in some sense) or whether the Torah itself says that Torah protects (of course it does). The discussion was about whether charedim believe their own interpretation of what it means - i.e. that anyone learning Torah provides an added degree of protection that is a replacement for their serving in the army. And the fact that they fled the south shows that they don't.
so your argument shifted from "Torah does not protect" with proofs from Wikipedia to "Torah does protect if you are learning it the right way"
bait and switch.....(yawn)
Just reread. Certainly seems like you were claiming Torah doesn't protect, but ok I hear the clarification.
On the blog they addressed the question of the parameters of the protection, and why [they feel] that fleeing south was not a contradiction to it.
Now I'm completely confused. If the discussion is about why they fled south, what does this parable add at all?
They were the ones who brought up the parable of the drowning man to try to claim that it's about what bitachon really means. I re-cast the parable to show that for charedim it's not about bitachon, it's about getting other people to do the things that you don't want to do.
But how have you shown that?
You appear to be new here. The goal is not to "show" anything. The goal is to vent his bitterness at Chareidim by trying to make them look foolish. He then relies on useful idiots like the guy downstream to cheer "this is so good!" and that's all there is; move on to the next knock.
Asking him to explain why basically repeating himself in a more snide tone in any way serves as a response to the fact that his "arguments" have been effectively demolished in two substantive posts is a total boat miss. Welcome aboard.
Ok, so at the very best (for you) it seems to be some sort of machlokas in the chareidi world. Certainly not as clear cut as you pretend.
So are those that flee or insist on armed guards at the gates of kiryat sefer kofrim in the torah's power to protect?
Is that Yanki or RCK? Your post provides no sensible response re the guards of Kiryat Sefer. Just a word salad. Some sort of crazy response along the lines off although chareidim believe torah protects mystically, in practice the way they believe torah protects is through them demanding guards every time a security situations warrants it. And the fact that others provide the guarding shows that really they believec torah provides the guarding and are acting in accordance with those beliefs. They are also consistent with same sources and act as if torah provides protection from disease, by, well, still waiting for a response to that one.
If Torah and frumkeit truly protects, explain the the destruction of many religious communities or Torah communities during the Holocaust?
Difficult issues like that are addressed by happy and co as 'tzadik v'rah lo'. Just like 'hishtadlus' answers awkward questions about why chareidim never practice what they preach re bitochon/emunah. Dispite all the pas b'melech, Hashem will provide blah blah blah they can hear a $100 bill falling on a carpet 10 miles away, like everybody else. They run after rich families for marriage like everyone else. Why 'hishtadlus' of course. You can never beat a chareidi in an argument because there are three answers to everything. 'Hishtadlus', 'the mesorah' and 'tazadik v'rah lo'.
PS forgot about another one. When da'as torah doesn’t work 'it was a time of hester ponim'. How they know when and when not is a time of 'hester ponim' and hence when and when not can rely on daas torah, I don't know. Maybe the mesorah teaches us that.
Judging by the way you asked the question, this blog or any blog is an awful place to ask it. Sit down with a rabbi and talk it over.
I don't need to. it's a very simple question, if Torah protects, then why didn't it
How much have you read on the subject? Iyov spends close to 40 chapters on it, for starters.
In the post you reference you claimed, and I quote, "following the shootings outside a synagogue in Neve Yaakov, there was a dramatic rise in request for weapons permits from charedim to guard synagogues." We're still waiting for the evidence to back that claim up.
"The real reason why charedim don’t want to serve in the army is that it is particularly threatening to their way of life (which is true)."
Why can't it be both?
Chareidim I've spoken to really seem to believe that Torah study is important in its own right, and really protects the country.
Also, there's a terrible problem with the system in which even those who aren't cut out for full time learning are frozen out of society because joining the army is a spiritual death sentence.
Why is one the "real" reason any more than the other?
Army serice is indeed challenging for religious young people, and there is indeed a large attrition rate when young people leave the safe bubble of their home environment. However when you have a mitzvah deoraita on the one hand to fight a milhemet mitzva to save the Jewish nation from their enemies, and the personal difficulty of sticking to your beliefs in an adverse environment, on the other, the choice seems to me to be obvious. And the task of the community and its leadership to first of all to do teshuva and understand why the way of life we taught them is not as compelling as we make it out to be, but always to embrace the brave young men and women who do not shirk their duty to their People, rather than leave them to fend for themselves, treat them as second-rate failures or ostracize them. That is the sure way to lose them.
"And the task of the community and its leadership to first of all to do teshuva and understand why the way of life we taught them is not as compelling as we make it out to be...."
This is answered in the Mishna Sota 1:4
הרבה יין עושה, הרבה שחוק עושה, הרבה ילדות עושה, הרבה שכנים הרעים עושים.
I.e., reason might be compelling but these things are more compelling. The solution, to oversimplify, is just to stay clear of all these things.
If the charedi community was collectively ready to take on its national responsibilities, it would be easy to create a framework in which the spiritual threat could be minimized or even entirely removed.
On a lighter plane, do religious Jews perform Oneg Shabbos because the Torah says so or because their stomach says so? :)
Is it impossible to be both?
This is so good!
I guess, if you enjoy blood sports. For Rabbi Slifkin's followers though, it was probably painful watching him go down like a bag of cement.
In what way did he “go down?” I don’t take his haters’ words at face value, either.
This is a follow-up to an old story that has several updates.
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/industries/industries-culture-society/case-of-father-refusing-save-his-drowning-daughter-at-dubai-beach-is-nearly-20-years-old-602581
Also relied on God to save his daughter, but not at expense of yichud-like violation.
"... my ideological opponents, who keep the comments section lively and have even started an entire blog dedicated to rebutting this one (the third such anti-Slifkin blog to have been created!)"
IIUC, There are important differences between those two blogs and this one.
1. In those, they were the 'Passelers' and you were the defendant. In the new one, in addition to the posts where again they are the Passelers and you are the defendant, there are also posts where you are the Passeler and they are the defendants.
2. They have a new theme that okay let's say you're right, still Chareidism is way a lesser evil than what is presented as the alternative, so stick to Chareidism despite its drawbacks.
3. (A blend of 1 & 2) They attack the alternative not as Passelers but as defendants. In other words, as a reaction to your Passeling. They were never into Passeling itself, only as an 'offense is the best defense'. Or they were occasional Passelers but nothing on the scale that they are doing it now as a balance to your Passeling.
i have read many, many pieces on concerns about the problem of young people going OTD. I have almost (almost) never heard from say, former IDF who started frum and ended frei. I have never heard them explain why they did it, what they were thinking, what they think now. Do they feel the rabbis lied to them? Do they see the Torah now as a sacred book that is man made? What changed? Did anything stick?
I have heard rabbis discuss the problem ad nauseum. But almost never with a group of representatives of the problem, itself.
I always wonder why that is. Wouldn't it be good to ask? Maybe learn something, from those who left? It seems to be a pretty commonplace thing -- these ex-IDF men and women who go OTD, they could be identified and interviewed. I would love to hear what they have to say.
Just a test