Thank you for publicizing this interview. Anytime you think the Charedi leadership/public can't possibly sink any lower, they go ahead and do just that. What a selfish, nauseating worldview. Truly.
I find it noteworthy that Dati Leumi Roshei Yeshiva don't need spokespersons and are highly capable of rational articulation of their views on important public issues, while haredi Giants of our Generation are personally incapable of articulating their views via rational argumentation and require spokespersons.
Yep. That's because haredi "leaders" aren't leaders in any real sense, they're figureheads. They're simply figureheads for the status quo, or the "mesorah" as they call it (meaning, the system as it currently exists)
This interview with the PR spokesperson of the leitzanei hador Landau and Hirsch is similar to the recent softball interview with the Satmar Landau in Mishpacha magazine (that was discussed in a previous post). The claims come across as obviously repugnant to outsiders, but to charedi-sympathizers, the claims (unfortunately) come across as reasonable
Have any Chareidi Gedolim put out a tshuva that articulates in classic lomdus , the halachic basis for their sweeping edicts - that no chareidi m even those not learning, should join the IDF ?
Hashkahah must follow Halacha not the other way around.
I’ve heard “ what they want
I’ve heard the practical issues
I’ve heard the History
I haven’t seen or heard the Halachic basis citing all the מקורות and their reasoning
Why not demand they submit , in writing a formal document with the pure Torah - Halacha basis for their position?
Since when does a Ben Torah start with “ what I want” rather than “ what dies the Torah - Halacha demand of me” “ what is my halachic obligation “
After 120 years won’t can’t wiggle from not keeping a חייוב דאורייתא with “ my Robbie told me I don’t have to …keep Shabbat , put on תפילין, go to war when enemies are killing Jews in the Holy Land
I suspect they know they have no Halachic basis for their position
They’ve controlled the discussion
They demand , and then Rav Slifkin and others debunks them and argue on their terms
Attack them from a learned position first
They look absurd acc to Halacha which they claim to be the only guardians of
The Halacha probably / likely applies to Jews in the Diaspora
I have read the “Lord of the Rings“ many times over the last 50 years; perhaps too many times.
Toward the end of the trilogy, a character appears known as “the Mouth of Sauron,” who speaks for the destructive overlord who yearns to be the master of Middle Earth, and have his will be done.
I can only think of these publications and their editorial staffs as “The Mouths of the Charedim.” The message they are delivering is not “my way or the highway,” it’s “my way only.” There is no other truth, valid opinion, or ideology worth considering.
Let them bring peace and security and enlighten secular Israelis by sitting on the front lines and learning the Heligge Toyrah while Israeli soldiers take shelter behind them, holding onto their meaningless and insignificant weaponry while Hamas and the “Palestinian people,” overwhelmed by the spiritual sanctity and purity of the Charedim, lay down their arms, turn their swords into plowshares, and their tunnels into profitable mushroom farms, abandon their Koran, and embrace the Jewish people with brotherly love and devotion.
You keep repeating your argument that Israel managed in earlier battles without thousands of people learning. While I agree that charedim need to participate in the army (with proper provisions and exemptions, etc.), your argument is surprisingly faulty.
A. They could easily argue that had thousands learned in '48 and/or '67, the entire Arab world would have been defeated outright and there would have been no more terrorism.
B. They could argue that all the charedim who could learn then did and all those who can learn now should.
C. You know they believe that it's our job to do our part and God does His. The outcome is not for us to control. Sometimes He runs the world in ways we don't understand.
D. To appeal to a Torah source, the Midrash says that when God "smelled the aroma of Noach's offering" and decided never again to destroy the world he was "smelling" the Jewish people saying naaseh v'nishma. I.e., the state may have had siyata d'shmaya in anticipation of all the Torah that would be learned in the future.
Bottom line: please drop this argument. You don't need it and it doesn't work
All of these "arguments" are clearly special pleading/motivated reasoning. Anyone can "easily argue" anything to justify their current lifestyle and beliefs post hoc, the question is if the straightforward reading of the sources actually back them up. And R' Slifkin has shown that all their sources are weak, and collapse under the most basic scrutiny.
For a another somewhat analogous example, Christians "easily argue" that Jesus is indicated in the Hebrew bible in many verses, but their arguments are clearly post hoc
Thank you for your reply but I find it confused. Arguments have nothing to do with sources. I acknowledged that I agree that I agree charedim should participate in the army and it's in no small part due to the true meaning of the sources. My point was about the argument that the claim "we need tens of thousands of charedim to learn full time" is clearly wrong because if it were true, Israel would have necessarily failed in 1948 and 1967 without such numbers. My response was to offer a variety of alternative, reasonable explanations for what occurred then, proving that they would not have necessarily failed. Maybe it was a miracle to set the stage for their future Torah, for example.
Again, this does not mean I believe that - it's a point of logic. RNS keeps trotting out this argument and it's breathing on me because it's a failed argument. He doesn't need it. The charedim are wrong for lots of other good reasons.
I understand, but my point is that your "devil's advocate" arguments aren't in fact reasonable.
>"My response was to offer a variety of alternative, reasonable explanations for what occurred then, proving that they would not have necessarily failed. Maybe it was a miracle to set the stage for their future Torah, for example."
Again, someone motivated enough could argue anything. It's not hard to come up with arbitrary post-hoc arguments for anything. The question is if those arguments are reasonable, and stand up to *reasonable scrutiny*, even within the worldview of the Charedim.
So when a Charedi person claims that studying Torah is a one-to-one replacement for being a soldier, that claim easily falls under scrutiny, without special pleading.
For example, your first devil's advocate argument:
"A. They could easily argue that had thousands learned in '48 and/or '67, the entire Arab world would have been defeated outright and there would have been no more terrorism."
Sure, one can make up all sorts of arbitrary fantasy counterfactuals. Maybe if enough people had sung Hatikvah with proper passion in 1948 and 1967, the entire Arab world would have been instantly overcome with love and there would never have been another war. But the question is if the counterfactual is reasonable, taking into account their worldview ("in-universe", as they say)
For me, the main point is not that they can't contrive an answer to my question. It's that my question is so darn obvious and they've never even thought about it.
Thank you for publicizing this interview. Anytime you think the Charedi leadership/public can't possibly sink any lower, they go ahead and do just that. What a selfish, nauseating worldview. Truly.
And now it's on record.
I find it noteworthy that Dati Leumi Roshei Yeshiva don't need spokespersons and are highly capable of rational articulation of their views on important public issues, while haredi Giants of our Generation are personally incapable of articulating their views via rational argumentation and require spokespersons.
Yep. That's because haredi "leaders" aren't leaders in any real sense, they're figureheads. They're simply figureheads for the status quo, or the "mesorah" as they call it (meaning, the system as it currently exists)
This interview with the PR spokesperson of the leitzanei hador Landau and Hirsch is similar to the recent softball interview with the Satmar Landau in Mishpacha magazine (that was discussed in a previous post). The claims come across as obviously repugnant to outsiders, but to charedi-sympathizers, the claims (unfortunately) come across as reasonable
Have any Chareidi Gedolim put out a tshuva that articulates in classic lomdus , the halachic basis for their sweeping edicts - that no chareidi m even those not learning, should join the IDF ?
Hashkahah must follow Halacha not the other way around.
I’ve heard “ what they want
I’ve heard the practical issues
I’ve heard the History
I haven’t seen or heard the Halachic basis citing all the מקורות and their reasoning
Why not demand they submit , in writing a formal document with the pure Torah - Halacha basis for their position?
Since when does a Ben Torah start with “ what I want” rather than “ what dies the Torah - Halacha demand of me” “ what is my halachic obligation “
After 120 years won’t can’t wiggle from not keeping a חייוב דאורייתא with “ my Robbie told me I don’t have to …keep Shabbat , put on תפילין, go to war when enemies are killing Jews in the Holy Land
I suspect they know they have no Halachic basis for their position
They’ve controlled the discussion
They demand , and then Rav Slifkin and others debunks them and argue on their terms
Attack them from a learned position first
They look absurd acc to Halacha which they claim to be the only guardians of
The Halacha probably / likely applies to Jews in the Diaspora
Welcome to the wonderful world of "Da'as Torah" ©®™, no halachic reasoning required
I have read the “Lord of the Rings“ many times over the last 50 years; perhaps too many times.
Toward the end of the trilogy, a character appears known as “the Mouth of Sauron,” who speaks for the destructive overlord who yearns to be the master of Middle Earth, and have his will be done.
I can only think of these publications and their editorial staffs as “The Mouths of the Charedim.” The message they are delivering is not “my way or the highway,” it’s “my way only.” There is no other truth, valid opinion, or ideology worth considering.
Let them bring peace and security and enlighten secular Israelis by sitting on the front lines and learning the Heligge Toyrah while Israeli soldiers take shelter behind them, holding onto their meaningless and insignificant weaponry while Hamas and the “Palestinian people,” overwhelmed by the spiritual sanctity and purity of the Charedim, lay down their arms, turn their swords into plowshares, and their tunnels into profitable mushroom farms, abandon their Koran, and embrace the Jewish people with brotherly love and devotion.
Problem solved….
Thank you for translating the article and publicizing it. And for your commentary.
You keep repeating your argument that Israel managed in earlier battles without thousands of people learning. While I agree that charedim need to participate in the army (with proper provisions and exemptions, etc.), your argument is surprisingly faulty.
A. They could easily argue that had thousands learned in '48 and/or '67, the entire Arab world would have been defeated outright and there would have been no more terrorism.
B. They could argue that all the charedim who could learn then did and all those who can learn now should.
C. You know they believe that it's our job to do our part and God does His. The outcome is not for us to control. Sometimes He runs the world in ways we don't understand.
D. To appeal to a Torah source, the Midrash says that when God "smelled the aroma of Noach's offering" and decided never again to destroy the world he was "smelling" the Jewish people saying naaseh v'nishma. I.e., the state may have had siyata d'shmaya in anticipation of all the Torah that would be learned in the future.
Bottom line: please drop this argument. You don't need it and it doesn't work
All of these "arguments" are clearly special pleading/motivated reasoning. Anyone can "easily argue" anything to justify their current lifestyle and beliefs post hoc, the question is if the straightforward reading of the sources actually back them up. And R' Slifkin has shown that all their sources are weak, and collapse under the most basic scrutiny.
For a another somewhat analogous example, Christians "easily argue" that Jesus is indicated in the Hebrew bible in many verses, but their arguments are clearly post hoc
Thank you for your reply but I find it confused. Arguments have nothing to do with sources. I acknowledged that I agree that I agree charedim should participate in the army and it's in no small part due to the true meaning of the sources. My point was about the argument that the claim "we need tens of thousands of charedim to learn full time" is clearly wrong because if it were true, Israel would have necessarily failed in 1948 and 1967 without such numbers. My response was to offer a variety of alternative, reasonable explanations for what occurred then, proving that they would not have necessarily failed. Maybe it was a miracle to set the stage for their future Torah, for example.
Again, this does not mean I believe that - it's a point of logic. RNS keeps trotting out this argument and it's breathing on me because it's a failed argument. He doesn't need it. The charedim are wrong for lots of other good reasons.
I understand, but my point is that your "devil's advocate" arguments aren't in fact reasonable.
>"My response was to offer a variety of alternative, reasonable explanations for what occurred then, proving that they would not have necessarily failed. Maybe it was a miracle to set the stage for their future Torah, for example."
Again, someone motivated enough could argue anything. It's not hard to come up with arbitrary post-hoc arguments for anything. The question is if those arguments are reasonable, and stand up to *reasonable scrutiny*, even within the worldview of the Charedim.
So when a Charedi person claims that studying Torah is a one-to-one replacement for being a soldier, that claim easily falls under scrutiny, without special pleading.
For example, your first devil's advocate argument:
"A. They could easily argue that had thousands learned in '48 and/or '67, the entire Arab world would have been defeated outright and there would have been no more terrorism."
Sure, one can make up all sorts of arbitrary fantasy counterfactuals. Maybe if enough people had sung Hatikvah with proper passion in 1948 and 1967, the entire Arab world would have been instantly overcome with love and there would never have been another war. But the question is if the counterfactual is reasonable, taking into account their worldview ("in-universe", as they say)
For me, the main point is not that they can't contrive an answer to my question. It's that my question is so darn obvious and they've never even thought about it.
I very highly doubt that (for those that know how to think at all). How could you possibly know something like that? Have you ever asked?
☹️
Only one word for him….slime….