"“Agudas Yisrael.” What an ironic name for a charedi political party! "
You're a century late for that critique:
הנה מרגלא בפומי דאינשי לקרוא להארבעה מינים אלו בשם אגודה, אכן את השם הזה כבר אנו שומעים בזמן האחרון לא רק בחג הסוכות אך גם בכל השנה, אבל כמה רחוקים הם אלה שלקחו להם את השם הזה במנופול מהאגודה הישנה המתקיימת מיום שעמדו אבותינו על הר סיני. האגודה הישנה כל תהלתה ותפארתה היא בהד' מינים השונים.., ואילו ה"אגודה" החדשה יודעת רק ממין אחד, ולא חלה ולא מרגישה כלל, כי זהו הנגוד הגמור מהאגודה הישנה.
(משה אביגדור עמיאל, דרושות אל עמי. published 1926)
You're being sloppy. Why not beat the ערבה on day one?
No matter. Rav Amiel explains the מנהג in the same drasha:
כי אמנם הערבה היא יחסנית רק כשהיא באגודה יחד, אבל כשמוצאים אותה בהושענא רבא מן האגודה, אז חבוט ערבה הוא מנהג נביאים עתיק, כי כשהיא מתבודדת לנפשה, אז אין לה תקנה אלא חבוט לבד
It's drush. Though, some drush is more authoritative than others. So while you can put aside the beating of the ערבה, you can't really ignore the concept of אגודה since that drush is based on חז"ל.
(Though, having not gone through every מדרש, I wouldn't be surprised if Rav Amiel was preceded by חז"ל in regards to the ערבה on הו"ר.)
All that pedestrian pablum, but he's wrong. The agudah doesn't contain kofrim and meshumadim. Sinners, yes. Apostates and people who threw off the yoke of Heaven, no.
Please cite the relevant sections of the drashah where he explains exactly who he is referring to whom the Agudah is excluding but ought to be included. You can't because you're just being evasive. Based on the historical context, he is obviously talking about the kofrim and meshumadim, ie the secular zionists.
Relative to standard charedi rhetoric, it's great. Relative to any normal understanding of Torah and of life, it's a disgrace. And the "elef lemateh" thing is one disputed view of a drush, certainly not halacha or history. His whole idea of what charedim need to do is learn and daven and cry more. Not actually help with the war.
Here's my problem with it. Bear with me, because I have a few pet peeves. Basically, as soon as he mentioned charedim "making a kiddush Hashem," the peeves arose, and then I realized the real problem with his argument:
1. People talk about doing things so as to "make a Kiddush Hashem" or avoiding things that "make a Chillul Hashem."
Neither should be the main motivation of why we act or don't. We do things because they *are the right thing to do," not because of how we will look.
2. "Kiddush Hashem" means "makes God look good." Unfortunately, no one thinks like that anymore. (Maybe because many of us don't even think about God anymore.) Instead, these days it means "makes Orthodox Jews look good." That's also not a good thing.
3. More specifically, it means, here, "makes charedim look good." And here's the real problem: What he's really saying is, "Be nice to non-charedim so that they won't mind that you don't serve in the military." I mean, it's pretty obvious.
But here's the fundamental problem: People aren't upset at charedim because they're not nice (even if at times they are not nice). They are angry with charedim *precisely because* they don't serve. So no amount of being nice will correct that- and especially if the main or sole purpose of being nice is to try to get people to get over the non-service. It's cynical, and doomed to fail from the start. And not to realize the real problem perpetuates it, and is telling as well.
So when will we hear your 'normal understanding of Torah' regarding מסככין בנסרים, or perhaps something about טומאת התהום? How about any sugya in Shas, based on primary sources, not some internet phenomenon rabbi?
All hail Rabbi E. Nir (if you have heard of him in the past, let us know), but Rabbi Lopiansky is the disgrace.
How about an actual halachic or primary source that charedim don't need to serve, and not a lone interpretation of a drush which clearly has no basis in halacha or history?
I assure you R' Ahron Lopiansky's strong words will have a greater affect on any charedi than the divisive political cartoon you love so much. Are you trying to effect change or just scream your hate and frustration? Your inability to see the bigger picture is shocking, and it hurts your very cause.
And that goes for anyone in that community. You make some excellent points, but if you expressed them better, I really think people would actually listen.
You need all types of voices. You need the kiruv voices who don't say the full truth, but say something that will be mekarev charedim a little. Then you also need people who say it straight. Both for charedim who are capable of hearing it, and for non-charedim who understand what we need to be fighting for.
So basically, you are the Yaron Reuven of the chilonim. Not to insult Yaron Reuven, I'm sure he's much better than you in every single way, certainly in Torah knowledge.
Referring to an article written by RAL as "a disgrace" reflects a lot worse on you than it does on him and/or his article. RAL is highly intelligent, highly educated and it is clear his talks and articles are products of his heavily working through the issues at hand. You may disagree with him, but I'll take RAL over you any day unless you present something very compelling.
The fact that RAL is on the other side of your worldview is a big comfort to those of us who sometimes feel we are on the wrong side of the fence.
Thank for that link. I shed a tear inside while reading those strong words of mussar. And I just upped my donation to Zaka to take a significant bite out of my income.
I'm not sure what your problem is to begin with, but I happen to be a clueless young American who doesn't know the many other organizations in Israel. You can share some names and I'll gladly donate to them as well!
Zaka has numerous problems (you can look online for a certain expose), but ultimately it's funding people in the charedi world to continue a charedi lifestyle. R. Lopiansky's article was about having feelings for soldiers. So why not fund help for soldiers? You can donate to one of Lemaan Achai's projects here: https://www.lemaanachai.org/en/all-projects.php
I’ve heard of Lemaan Achai, but I had the impression they’re more "small scale"—not to diminish their importance, but Zaka’s services seem more impactful. I’ve read some rumors about Zaka as well, but my impression was that the tzedakah I’m giving to them is being put to very good use. I'll add that if you don't have anything more than the rumors I've seen, you should be careful what you say.
Meanwhile, I'll look into it more bl'n, and I just gave a generous donation to Lemaan Achai.
Pedestrian pablum with the following little filth thrown in:
"Many in the dati-leumi camp have written sharp critiques about our world... We bristle and shout back. Why is it that we can’t understand their pain? Iyov blasphemed and expressed doubts about hashgachah yet was not held accountable because he was in such pain (Bava Basra 15b). Is it so hard to understand why someone whose husband hasn’t been home in months, or whose 18-year-old son is in the hellhole of Gaza, is crying out in pain? Can we not understand the anguish of those whose loved ones have come back shattered for life, physically and mentally? "
The comparison to someone who "blasphemed and expressed doubts about hashgachah" is way off base. In the subsequent paragraphs he laments responses that are "coarse and vulgar, dripping with venom". The strain is palpable.
You've lost the plot. Instead of staying focused on what was written in the article, you focused in on what I didn't write.
I never addressed the issue of Iyov's righteousness- it's not relevant. I addressed the following sentence "Iyov blasphemed and expressed doubts about hashgachah yet was not held accountable because he was in such pain". That sentence was made in comparison to "someone whose husband hasn’t been home in months, or whose 18-year-old son is in the hellhole of Gaza" and those who "have written sharp critiques about our world". He is not saying they are צדיקים like איוב. He is saying they should " not [be] held accountable because [they are] in such pain".
As I pointed out before, your reading comprehension is really terrible, and this is no exception. He never equated sharp critiques with blasphemy. He said that just as we don't blame the great tzadik Iyov, even as he blasphemed, so too we can't blame those who have written sharp critiques, even though that too is an evil act. He never said it's an evil act on par with blasphemy. Although all too often, those who write sharp critiques are completely on board with blasphemers like Slifkin, which is unfortunate.
My newlywed sister and her husband finally back to America for the first time since the war to visit their (and my) family. Lo and behold, she calls me today that he was called up and immediately booked the first flight possible. He’s flying back tomorrow night (simchas Torah night) and my sister will now spend sukkos alone while her husband is in Lebanon. They’re obviously not getting the money back for their flights and they ended up spending a ton extra to get last minute tickets for him (and for her to change her return flight date). He would be learning all day if he didn’t have a war to attend to…
The prayer "that everyone will become agudah achas, one unit" isn't about Jewish Unity. Nor are the 70 bulls brought for the Qorban Mussaf over the course of Sukkos. It's about unifying all of humanity, a confederation of all "Seventy Nations".
Shemini Atzeres is particularist. specifically about the Jews' relationship to the Creator. Sukkos isn't.
"Real Agudat Yisrael"? Are you trying to replace the Chareidim? It sounds like you've gotten bitten by that Replacement spirit known to all too many of our Xn offshoots!
I could hear you if you simply point out the weaknesses in the Chariedi ideology, and how it hurts you and your newfound community. But you're on such a belligerent ideological run, with such smug assurance that you're the authentic Jew, and the other guy is the usurper ... I just can't take you seriously. Since when does achdus mean ONLY " nosei b’ol im chavero"? That's a wonderful aspiration, but its not the only way of achdus. If your sibling is not helping you wash the dishes after a big family seuda, does that mean license to trash him for being anti-family???
Give it a break, and start trying to really be rational.
Considering that charedism is only about a hundred years old, tops, while claiming to be the only authentic Judaism, it's a bit of a reach to say that the authentically Orthodox Jews are trying to replace *them*.
The issues he's raising are pretty intense as well; in context, I'm not sure he's so overboard. I'm not here to defend him and his polemic against charedim, but I wish there was a way to discuss these points with unity - yes, on both sides.
Again - what gives you the impression I'm polemicizing? It is certainly not my intention. I'm just pointing out his demonizing zeal is undermining whatever valid issues he's championing
" R. Dov Landau, the Godol HaDor of the Litvishe charedi world, who condemns Shai as a mazzik gamur, apparently because he directs efforts to helping soldiers instead of yeshivos. "
Has HaRav Lando been consistent in such critiques or was this condemnation a unique one-off? While he has been "coronated" as The Gadol HaDor™®, it seems that the concept of devaluing מצות other than Torah study has not gained that much traction in the general Charedi world. To be sure, there is a devaluation of the soldiers and the military- much of it approaches a deviation from tradition. But is it accurate to continually to refer to the Rav Lando episode? (Implicitly, if Rav Lando's statements and their non -acceptance by the general Charedi world does bring into question the whole דעת תורה thing.)
I meant that this particular incident does not seem to mean to be representative. I meant to ask whether the notion of negating the מצוה of helping soldiers is mainstream in the Charedi world. It doesn't seem to me to be the case- at least not that pervasive. Sure, there's that toxic word חרדק. But is its use really that representative?
But if the Charedi world does not accept the extreme condemnation of Rav Lando, what does that say about the notion of דעת תורה?
I would assume that, as with many other topics (including Zionism itself), the Charedi community simply doesn't give it much thought. They don't have a strong opinion either way
Close. They don't give it much thought, but they have a strong opinion.
Nevertheless, I have some skepticism of the ability of deep thought to solve transcendent problems such as צדיק ורע לו, free will vs. omniscience, בטחון and השתדלות etc.
Similarly, I don't need to philosophize the (im)possibility that both the scholar and the soldier can both contribute, and neither should be negated. And I don't need deep thought to reconcile the concept of a scholar-warrior. We see them in תנ"ך, hear them praised by חז"ל, and there are quite enough contemporary examples that there's no need to מפלפל away that which we can see with our own eyes.
"Rosenblum then makes the following extraordinary claim:
"War has always brought out the best in Israeli Jews ... "
I wrote to him and pointed out that aside from the fact that charedim do not fulfill the basic mutual responsibility of serving in the army, the war didn’t even “bring out their best” in other ways"
Wow! This brought me to tears. I'm an atheist but very much identify with being a Jew. This concept of a Torah for life, which emphasizes life rather than only study and service to god, in my eyes makes Torah much more relevant for today.
Sorry it took so long to respond. Well, I love the Jewish "nation", the Jewish people. By "nation" I don't only mean Israel, although I do love Israel; I love the collective Jewish spirit, the philosophic foundation of Judaism that prizes life above all else, as well as justice and caring for others. I'm proud of all we've accomplished through history and given to the world, making it a better place. I love our way of looking at life (the self-deprecating / ironic humor is a part of that), the willingness to question and argue and wrestle with "god" and each other in order to reach better and better conclusions. All of this is Jewish, along with a reverence for our cultural traditions which color every aspect of my life. And then, of course, there's bagels and lox (and matzoh balls in chicken soup).
Yeah, Judaism values submission to God's will a bit more than it values arguing with Him. The list you give reads like the average assimilated American Jew's list of what he likes about Judaism- food, humor, etc. Just not the things that require a little sacrifice.
Israel means "wrestling with god" so I don't know about submission. The Talmud is all about questioning and wrestling with how to apply the laws to everyday life. I was observant of 22 years; not raised that way, but married into it and raised the kids that way, learning myself along the way. Funny, but I never considered any of it a sacrifice; I was raised loving lobster and clams and bacon and never missed any of it once I made the decision to observe kashrut. That's just one example. I loved Shabbos and all that went along with it. I didn't mind not being able to watch TV on Saturday. None of it was a sacrifice to me, although it sounds like you consider it such.
As for being the average assimilated American Jew, although I no longer observe I don't consider myself "assimilated" -- maybe because of all I learned over those 22 years. There's more to being a Jew than not mixing linen and cotton, or making sure you live within an eruv. I respect it if you choose that for yourself. It's wonderful. But there's more to it. I tried to capture what that was, but apparently I was not successful.
From where comes the idea that "the philosophic foundation of Judaism" "prizes life above all else"? I never heard of that before, and I am quite certain that it is not Jewish. If Jewish philosophy values life above all else, then for what have so many Jews been voluntarily giving up their lives for thousands of years? They should have been choosing life over that for which they were giving up their lives.
I was an observant Jew for 22 years; not raised that way, but married into it and raised the kids that way, learning myself along the way. Numerous example of valuing life above all: I know of specific cases where a rabbi instructed a man to eat that which was not kosher in order to survive in the armed forces; I know a Chabad woman who drove on Shabbat to stop her niece from doing what she thought would be extremely harmful to her, and on and on. IF you're talking about martyrdom, I suppose that's an individual choice, OR perhaps the ethos has changed some over the centuries. Many Jews did convert and secretly practice Judaism, so apparently that was also a possibility. If we had all been martyrs, Judaism would have disappeared, no?
(1) Ethos? Do You mean that whatever Jews do becomes "Jewish"?
(2) Martyrdom does not seem to be a personal choice. There are at least three sins which Jews must avoid on pain of death. And they have been doing so for more than two thousand years.
(3) The fact that Judaism values life so much that Jews (even the religious) transgress (most) mitzvahs to save a life does not mean that life is the most valued thing. Even the place where the Sages teach this says that the reason is because the Torah says "v'chai bahem", that we should "live by the mitzvahs" and not die by them, which means we save a life so that that life can continue to observe mitzvahs, not for the sake of the life itself.
"“Agudas Yisrael.” What an ironic name for a charedi political party! "
You're a century late for that critique:
הנה מרגלא בפומי דאינשי לקרוא להארבעה מינים אלו בשם אגודה, אכן את השם הזה כבר אנו שומעים בזמן האחרון לא רק בחג הסוכות אך גם בכל השנה, אבל כמה רחוקים הם אלה שלקחו להם את השם הזה במנופול מהאגודה הישנה המתקיימת מיום שעמדו אבותינו על הר סיני. האגודה הישנה כל תהלתה ותפארתה היא בהד' מינים השונים.., ואילו ה"אגודה" החדשה יודעת רק ממין אחד, ולא חלה ולא מרגישה כלל, כי זהו הנגוד הגמור מהאגודה הישנה.
(משה אביגדור עמיאל, דרושות אל עמי. published 1926)
Hoshana Rabba is when we show the Arava what we really think of them
You're being sloppy. Why not beat the ערבה on day one?
No matter. Rav Amiel explains the מנהג in the same drasha:
כי אמנם הערבה היא יחסנית רק כשהיא באגודה יחד, אבל כשמוצאים אותה בהושענא רבא מן האגודה, אז חבוט ערבה הוא מנהג נביאים עתיק, כי כשהיא מתבודדת לנפשה, אז אין לה תקנה אלא חבוט לבד
There is the big aravah of the Mizbeach, but that's not one of the four.
It's drush. Though, some drush is more authoritative than others. So while you can put aside the beating of the ערבה, you can't really ignore the concept of אגודה since that drush is based on חז"ל.
(Though, having not gone through every מדרש, I wouldn't be surprised if Rav Amiel was preceded by חז"ל in regards to the ערבה on הו"ר.)
All that pedestrian pablum, but he's wrong. The agudah doesn't contain kofrim and meshumadim. Sinners, yes. Apostates and people who threw off the yoke of Heaven, no.
"but he's wrong."
Before you jump to conclusions you should demonstrate that you actually understood what he wrote. Your subsequent sentences show that you don't.
That's wild. It went right over his head.
Also, I fail to see how a drush can be "wrong."
Sure. He thinks that the "agudah" of the lulav include kofrim and meshumadim. It doesn't.
Please cite the relevant section of the drasha where he states that "the "agudah" of the lulav include kofrim and meshumadim."
You can't because he doesn't. You can't because you haven't read it.
So I'll repeat my earlier advice:
"Before you jump to conclusions you should demonstrate that you actually understood what he wrote. "
Please cite the relevant sections of the drashah where he explains exactly who he is referring to whom the Agudah is excluding but ought to be included. You can't because you're just being evasive. Based on the historical context, he is obviously talking about the kofrim and meshumadim, ie the secular zionists.
"Based on the historical context, he is obviously talking about the kofrim and meshumadim"
Why refer to "historical context", which you know little of, when you can read the דרשה yourself?
Did the אגודה include Torah True Zionists?
So you don't know what you're talking about.
Very interesting
What did you think of R Lopiansky's article? https://mishpacha.com/the-little-teivah-and-the-foolish-shepherd/
Relative to standard charedi rhetoric, it's great. Relative to any normal understanding of Torah and of life, it's a disgrace. And the "elef lemateh" thing is one disputed view of a drush, certainly not halacha or history. His whole idea of what charedim need to do is learn and daven and cry more. Not actually help with the war.
Here's my problem with it. Bear with me, because I have a few pet peeves. Basically, as soon as he mentioned charedim "making a kiddush Hashem," the peeves arose, and then I realized the real problem with his argument:
1. People talk about doing things so as to "make a Kiddush Hashem" or avoiding things that "make a Chillul Hashem."
Neither should be the main motivation of why we act or don't. We do things because they *are the right thing to do," not because of how we will look.
2. "Kiddush Hashem" means "makes God look good." Unfortunately, no one thinks like that anymore. (Maybe because many of us don't even think about God anymore.) Instead, these days it means "makes Orthodox Jews look good." That's also not a good thing.
3. More specifically, it means, here, "makes charedim look good." And here's the real problem: What he's really saying is, "Be nice to non-charedim so that they won't mind that you don't serve in the military." I mean, it's pretty obvious.
But here's the fundamental problem: People aren't upset at charedim because they're not nice (even if at times they are not nice). They are angry with charedim *precisely because* they don't serve. So no amount of being nice will correct that- and especially if the main or sole purpose of being nice is to try to get people to get over the non-service. It's cynical, and doomed to fail from the start. And not to realize the real problem perpetuates it, and is telling as well.
'Normal understanding of Torah'.
So when will we hear your 'normal understanding of Torah' regarding מסככין בנסרים, or perhaps something about טומאת התהום? How about any sugya in Shas, based on primary sources, not some internet phenomenon rabbi?
All hail Rabbi E. Nir (if you have heard of him in the past, let us know), but Rabbi Lopiansky is the disgrace.
The hubris of the ignorant beggars belief.
How about an actual halachic or primary source that charedim don't need to serve, and not a lone interpretation of a drush which clearly has no basis in halacha or history?
So nothing about any Talmudic topic under the sun.
Got it.
Not that I, or anybody else, expected anything else.
https://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/RebChaim.pdf
I assure you R' Ahron Lopiansky's strong words will have a greater affect on any charedi than the divisive political cartoon you love so much. Are you trying to effect change or just scream your hate and frustration? Your inability to see the bigger picture is shocking, and it hurts your very cause.
Indeed, it may well be that his words will have a greater effect on Mishpacha readers than mine would.
And that goes for anyone in that community. You make some excellent points, but if you expressed them better, I really think people would actually listen.
What audience are you catering to?
You need all types of voices. You need the kiruv voices who don't say the full truth, but say something that will be mekarev charedim a little. Then you also need people who say it straight. Both for charedim who are capable of hearing it, and for non-charedim who understand what we need to be fighting for.
So basically, you are the Yaron Reuven of the chilonim. Not to insult Yaron Reuven, I'm sure he's much better than you in every single way, certainly in Torah knowledge.
I guess I can hear that. But if so, you can't be angry at any of the "trolls" who can't understand your side at all...
Referring to an article written by RAL as "a disgrace" reflects a lot worse on you than it does on him and/or his article. RAL is highly intelligent, highly educated and it is clear his talks and articles are products of his heavily working through the issues at hand. You may disagree with him, but I'll take RAL over you any day unless you present something very compelling.
The fact that RAL is on the other side of your worldview is a big comfort to those of us who sometimes feel we are on the wrong side of the fence.
He's not on the same page as me, but I'm pretty sure that he's also not on the same page as the charedi rabbinic leadership.
In what sense do you suspect he's not on the same page as the charedi rabbinic leadership? Army service?
Thank for that link. I shed a tear inside while reading those strong words of mussar. And I just upped my donation to Zaka to take a significant bite out of my income.
Zaka??? Why not to a non-charedi army cause?
I'm not sure what your problem is to begin with, but I happen to be a clueless young American who doesn't know the many other organizations in Israel. You can share some names and I'll gladly donate to them as well!
And does Zaka only help charedim???
Zaka has numerous problems (you can look online for a certain expose), but ultimately it's funding people in the charedi world to continue a charedi lifestyle. R. Lopiansky's article was about having feelings for soldiers. So why not fund help for soldiers? You can donate to one of Lemaan Achai's projects here: https://www.lemaanachai.org/en/all-projects.php
I’ve heard of Lemaan Achai, but I had the impression they’re more "small scale"—not to diminish their importance, but Zaka’s services seem more impactful. I’ve read some rumors about Zaka as well, but my impression was that the tzedakah I’m giving to them is being put to very good use. I'll add that if you don't have anything more than the rumors I've seen, you should be careful what you say.
Meanwhile, I'll look into it more bl'n, and I just gave a generous donation to Lemaan Achai.
I just donated to Lemaan Achai.
But now, Does anyone here remember the site to donate that Shai Graucher was in charge of?
Pedestrian pablum with the following little filth thrown in:
"Many in the dati-leumi camp have written sharp critiques about our world... We bristle and shout back. Why is it that we can’t understand their pain? Iyov blasphemed and expressed doubts about hashgachah yet was not held accountable because he was in such pain (Bava Basra 15b). Is it so hard to understand why someone whose husband hasn’t been home in months, or whose 18-year-old son is in the hellhole of Gaza, is crying out in pain? Can we not understand the anguish of those whose loved ones have come back shattered for life, physically and mentally? "
The comparison to someone who "blasphemed and expressed doubts about hashgachah" is way off base. In the subsequent paragraphs he laments responses that are "coarse and vulgar, dripping with venom". The strain is palpable.
Iyov was a great tzadik. It's a very favorable comparison, but you eloquently call it "filth", with your filthy little mouth.
You've lost the plot. Instead of staying focused on what was written in the article, you focused in on what I didn't write.
I never addressed the issue of Iyov's righteousness- it's not relevant. I addressed the following sentence "Iyov blasphemed and expressed doubts about hashgachah yet was not held accountable because he was in such pain". That sentence was made in comparison to "someone whose husband hasn’t been home in months, or whose 18-year-old son is in the hellhole of Gaza" and those who "have written sharp critiques about our world". He is not saying they are צדיקים like איוב. He is saying they should " not [be] held accountable because [they are] in such pain".
As I pointed out before, your reading comprehension is really terrible, and this is no exception. He never equated sharp critiques with blasphemy. He said that just as we don't blame the great tzadik Iyov, even as he blasphemed, so too we can't blame those who have written sharp critiques, even though that too is an evil act. He never said it's an evil act on par with blasphemy. Although all too often, those who write sharp critiques are completely on board with blasphemers like Slifkin, which is unfortunate.
My newlywed sister and her husband finally back to America for the first time since the war to visit their (and my) family. Lo and behold, she calls me today that he was called up and immediately booked the first flight possible. He’s flying back tomorrow night (simchas Torah night) and my sister will now spend sukkos alone while her husband is in Lebanon. They’re obviously not getting the money back for their flights and they ended up spending a ton extra to get last minute tickets for him (and for her to change her return flight date). He would be learning all day if he didn’t have a war to attend to…
The prayer "that everyone will become agudah achas, one unit" isn't about Jewish Unity. Nor are the 70 bulls brought for the Qorban Mussaf over the course of Sukkos. It's about unifying all of humanity, a confederation of all "Seventy Nations".
Shemini Atzeres is particularist. specifically about the Jews' relationship to the Creator. Sukkos isn't.
"Real Agudat Yisrael"? Are you trying to replace the Chareidim? It sounds like you've gotten bitten by that Replacement spirit known to all too many of our Xn offshoots!
I could hear you if you simply point out the weaknesses in the Chariedi ideology, and how it hurts you and your newfound community. But you're on such a belligerent ideological run, with such smug assurance that you're the authentic Jew, and the other guy is the usurper ... I just can't take you seriously. Since when does achdus mean ONLY " nosei b’ol im chavero"? That's a wonderful aspiration, but its not the only way of achdus. If your sibling is not helping you wash the dishes after a big family seuda, does that mean license to trash him for being anti-family???
Give it a break, and start trying to really be rational.
Chag sameah, brother
"Washing the dishes"???? The house is on fire and they are getting burned, you moron!
moron. Good one
Yes, I become intemperate with those who demonstrate such utter cluelessness about the nature and magnitude of the situation.
intemperate? Its called childish insulting. Not so rational. Try sticking to the issues...
Considering that charedism is only about a hundred years old, tops, while claiming to be the only authentic Judaism, it's a bit of a reach to say that the authentically Orthodox Jews are trying to replace *them*.
Try to listen to his concerns without the annoying inflammatory rhetoric. He does have a point.
Dont know why you think I didnt. He has "a pt," for sure. A few of them. But the trashing and catastrophizing is way overboard
The issues he's raising are pretty intense as well; in context, I'm not sure he's so overboard. I'm not here to defend him and his polemic against charedim, but I wish there was a way to discuss these points with unity - yes, on both sides.
Again - what gives you the impression I'm polemicizing? It is certainly not my intention. I'm just pointing out his demonizing zeal is undermining whatever valid issues he's championing
If that's all you mean, I agree!
All the bickering below is, frankly, offensive. Talk about a "holier than thou" attitude. Geez!
" R. Dov Landau, the Godol HaDor of the Litvishe charedi world, who condemns Shai as a mazzik gamur, apparently because he directs efforts to helping soldiers instead of yeshivos. "
Has HaRav Lando been consistent in such critiques or was this condemnation a unique one-off? While he has been "coronated" as The Gadol HaDor™®, it seems that the concept of devaluing מצות other than Torah study has not gained that much traction in the general Charedi world. To be sure, there is a devaluation of the soldiers and the military- much of it approaches a deviation from tradition. But is it accurate to continually to refer to the Rav Lando episode? (Implicitly, if Rav Lando's statements and their non -acceptance by the general Charedi world does bring into question the whole דעת תורה thing.)
"it seems that the concept of devaluing מצות other than Torah study has not gained that much traction in the general Charedi world".
What do you mean by this?
I meant that this particular incident does not seem to mean to be representative. I meant to ask whether the notion of negating the מצוה of helping soldiers is mainstream in the Charedi world. It doesn't seem to me to be the case- at least not that pervasive. Sure, there's that toxic word חרדק. But is its use really that representative?
But if the Charedi world does not accept the extreme condemnation of Rav Lando, what does that say about the notion of דעת תורה?
I would assume that, as with many other topics (including Zionism itself), the Charedi community simply doesn't give it much thought. They don't have a strong opinion either way
Close. They don't give it much thought, but they have a strong opinion.
Nevertheless, I have some skepticism of the ability of deep thought to solve transcendent problems such as צדיק ורע לו, free will vs. omniscience, בטחון and השתדלות etc.
Similarly, I don't need to philosophize the (im)possibility that both the scholar and the soldier can both contribute, and neither should be negated. And I don't need deep thought to reconcile the concept of a scholar-warrior. We see them in תנ"ך, hear them praised by חז"ל, and there are quite enough contemporary examples that there's no need to מפלפל away that which we can see with our own eyes.
The Achdut crisis is a legitimacy crisis. If in your ideal world a group no longer exits, you don't have acdut with them.
"Rosenblum then makes the following extraordinary claim:
"War has always brought out the best in Israeli Jews ... "
I wrote to him and pointed out that aside from the fact that charedim do not fulfill the basic mutual responsibility of serving in the army, the war didn’t even “bring out their best” in other ways"
Where does Rosenblum say anything about charedim?
He's including them, and especially them. He's not talking about how it brought out the best in people going to fight. And he's writing for Mishpacha.
“be as separate from everyone else as possible” I know this quote and it was for us in galus to be separated from the nations. Not from each other!
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/397858
Wow! This brought me to tears. I'm an atheist but very much identify with being a Jew. This concept of a Torah for life, which emphasizes life rather than only study and service to god, in my eyes makes Torah much more relevant for today.
If you are an atheist, what about yourself do you identify as Jewish?
Sorry it took so long to respond. Well, I love the Jewish "nation", the Jewish people. By "nation" I don't only mean Israel, although I do love Israel; I love the collective Jewish spirit, the philosophic foundation of Judaism that prizes life above all else, as well as justice and caring for others. I'm proud of all we've accomplished through history and given to the world, making it a better place. I love our way of looking at life (the self-deprecating / ironic humor is a part of that), the willingness to question and argue and wrestle with "god" and each other in order to reach better and better conclusions. All of this is Jewish, along with a reverence for our cultural traditions which color every aspect of my life. And then, of course, there's bagels and lox (and matzoh balls in chicken soup).
Yeah, Judaism values submission to God's will a bit more than it values arguing with Him. The list you give reads like the average assimilated American Jew's list of what he likes about Judaism- food, humor, etc. Just not the things that require a little sacrifice.
Israel means "wrestling with god" so I don't know about submission. The Talmud is all about questioning and wrestling with how to apply the laws to everyday life. I was observant of 22 years; not raised that way, but married into it and raised the kids that way, learning myself along the way. Funny, but I never considered any of it a sacrifice; I was raised loving lobster and clams and bacon and never missed any of it once I made the decision to observe kashrut. That's just one example. I loved Shabbos and all that went along with it. I didn't mind not being able to watch TV on Saturday. None of it was a sacrifice to me, although it sounds like you consider it such.
As for being the average assimilated American Jew, although I no longer observe I don't consider myself "assimilated" -- maybe because of all I learned over those 22 years. There's more to being a Jew than not mixing linen and cotton, or making sure you live within an eruv. I respect it if you choose that for yourself. It's wonderful. But there's more to it. I tried to capture what that was, but apparently I was not successful.
From where comes the idea that "the philosophic foundation of Judaism" "prizes life above all else"? I never heard of that before, and I am quite certain that it is not Jewish. If Jewish philosophy values life above all else, then for what have so many Jews been voluntarily giving up their lives for thousands of years? They should have been choosing life over that for which they were giving up their lives.
I was an observant Jew for 22 years; not raised that way, but married into it and raised the kids that way, learning myself along the way. Numerous example of valuing life above all: I know of specific cases where a rabbi instructed a man to eat that which was not kosher in order to survive in the armed forces; I know a Chabad woman who drove on Shabbat to stop her niece from doing what she thought would be extremely harmful to her, and on and on. IF you're talking about martyrdom, I suppose that's an individual choice, OR perhaps the ethos has changed some over the centuries. Many Jews did convert and secretly practice Judaism, so apparently that was also a possibility. If we had all been martyrs, Judaism would have disappeared, no?
(1) Ethos? Do You mean that whatever Jews do becomes "Jewish"?
(2) Martyrdom does not seem to be a personal choice. There are at least three sins which Jews must avoid on pain of death. And they have been doing so for more than two thousand years.
(3) The fact that Judaism values life so much that Jews (even the religious) transgress (most) mitzvahs to save a life does not mean that life is the most valued thing. Even the place where the Sages teach this says that the reason is because the Torah says "v'chai bahem", that we should "live by the mitzvahs" and not die by them, which means we save a life so that that life can continue to observe mitzvahs, not for the sake of the life itself.