Felt the same thing many times. My kids had more friends killed in one day than I had in my entire life. Yet Israel is still ultimately a safer place for Jews.
"My kids had more friends killed in one day than I had in my entire life. Yet Israel is still ultimately a safer place for Jews."
I feel very sorry for your kids, their friends, and their friend's families. This war is a real tragedy, for us younger people, the biggest tragedy to happen to the Jewish people in our lifetimes. And yet, remarkably, you make a statement of faith that Israel is ultimately a safer place for Jews. This demonstrates the amazing power of faith in Hashem, that even in the darkest of circumstances, the Jewish people rely on Him.
You don't have to keep your head down and not wear a kippah in Stamford Hill or Gateshead or Prestwich. This is just nonsense. There are places in the UK that you do *but that is only a result of the decision to build a country in a place where it would mean endless warfare*. It's not clear what can be done about this vicious cycle where Zionism makes it increasingly untenable to live outside Israel except in a Charedi bubble, while existence in Israel becomes increasingly dangerous, leading to even more war which makes it even harder to live in the diaspora etc.. Probably nothing. But it's not something for Zionists to gloat about. More something to apologise for.
I grew up in Manchester. The non-Jews who were spitting on me and cursing me and punching me did not know or care about what was going on in Israel. You're far more obsessed with Israel than they were.
I grew up in Derry, Maine. The neighborhood kids said I'm "nothing but a bignose mockie kike". They made me feel oilie, long-nosed, sallow skinned, like a mockie sheenie kike. They made me feel dirty. They made me feel *Jewish*. They laughed and laughed at me. But now I make six figures, and live in Atlanta's richest neighborhood. They sure don't laugh at me any more, when I'm preparing their tax returns.
Yes, when I was growing up in suburban New Jersey, the goyim used to call me "kike on a bike" and "little pissy jew-boy". Then they hung me up by the seat of my underwear on a flagppole in the park, and all the neighborhood kids shot at me with paintball guns until I turned the colors of the rainbow. In school I got something called "the toilet treatment". You know what that is? Trust me, you don't want to know. This happened regularly. But I didn't call the cops, no siree. Instead, I got a star of david tatoo and learned myself some krav maga. Next time they tried that trick, they didn't know what hit them. Broke one kid's nose, another kid's jaw. Rich dad, tried to sue the school district, until I produced evidence of their bullying. Turns out it was all over the CCTV cameras. I sure showed them. That's diaspora for you.
Wow, their hatred of Israel leads them to mock actual anti-Semitic attacks. I still have scars on my face (small, thanks to a good doctor) from an attack in one of the most Jewish neighborhoods in New York, in broad daylight on a Shabbat on the main street. My brother-in-law made aliyah after being assaulted on a London bus. "Things that never happened," he'd say.
He said "Things that never happened" because the above comment was mocking, his username is "Stanley Uris from King's It" and he is writing as a fictional character from Stephen King's book "It." So it did not, in fact, happen. Hope that clarifies.
This is just a non-sequitor. Only a completely crazy person would deny that the reason Jews in England right now feel unsafe is because of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The fact is that the Zionists promised they would make Jews more safe. They made Jews less safe in Israel and less safe around the world. They meant well, but they messed up. An apology is in order.
Bear in mind that charedim- personified by R' Hutner, a very mainstream charedi figure, writing in the Jewish Observer, a very mainstream charedi publication- actually blamed the *Holocaust* on Zionism. And not in a spiritual "God was angry" sort of way (which itself wouldn't make sense) but in an actual historical manner, that the Nazis had to be talked into it by the Mufti.
(Hitler himself, take it for what it's worth, which is probably nothing, initially blamed his anti-Semitism on charedim.)
So obviously they have no problem blaming Zionism for everything else.
ועל הזעק הבא מארצנו, צריכים אנו לדעת כי כל העמים בני ממלכות הברי" שופכים דם לרוב, ואם אנו לא נביא קרבות במה אפוא נקנה את הזכות לגשת אל השלחן בשעה שיעשו את החלוקה של העמים והארצות אחר המלחמה, ואם כן שטות ואפילו חוצפה הוא מצדנו לשאול מאת הגויים ששופכים את דמם, שהם יתנו רשות להביא את כספם למדינת אויבם, להגן על הדם שלנו - - כי רק "בדם תהיה לנו הארץ.
If it's not "Cow in Palestine" Sunday, or "Uganda Scheme" Monday, it's got to be "Only With Blood" Tuesday. You present them as if you just discovered some super secret information. No, it's been known for decades, and when these tropes are examined for veracity, context and relevance- they are revealed to be rather inconsequential.
Leaving aside whether the quote in genuine or not- there's no hard evidence of its existence- only the testimony of a single person. It's a quote that at best represents the opinion that one person at one time wished to present to one person or group. To me it sounds like the desperate hope of a despairing man who felt powerless. Do you have other quotations from Schwalb that show that he consistently felt this way- both before and after the Holocaust? No you don't. Do you have evidence that the letter and its contents were vetted by official Zionist organizations? No you don't. Do you have evidence that Schwalb was representing the sum total of Zionists? No you don't. Do you have other correspondence from Schwalb that shows he attitude was consistent before, during or after the Holocaust? No you don't. Do you have correspondence from anyone else with "only with blood" or similar formulation? No you don't.
In short, you've got nothing but a one-off unverified unvetted out of context quote. And you've built a mountain of slander upon it. You haven't done research, you've cited a worn out trope.
The people who cite the quote, conveniently neglect another tidbit from Rav Weissmandl זצ"ל. He instructed people to testify in favor of Kasztner. That indicates it's all about pushing an agenda and not seeking the truth.
Zionists never claimed Jews would be safer around the world. They specifically wanted a Jewish state because they realized that Jews around the world would *never* be safer, not even in "liberal" countries like France.
" Only a completely crazy person would deny that the reason Jews in England right now feel unsafe is because of the Israel-Palestine conflict. "
Reason? The correct word is "excuse".
" The fact is that the Zionists promised they would make Jews more safe. "
Herzl may well have said "Only a completely crazy person would deny that the reason patriotic Jews in France right now feel unsafe is because of the lack of a Jewish State. "
How did you determine that the reason Jews in England right now feel unsafe is because of the Israel-Palestine conflict? Scientific statistical studies? Newspaper articles, blog opinions? Or is it just your viewpoint?
And even if in fact British Jews feel unsafe, many folks in the world feel unsafe. Just look at the crime waves in various U.S. states, they feel unsafe too. If Israel is fighting an awful retaliatory war to eliminate their intractable enemies, folks are going to feel unsafe. Live with it. Just feel fortunate that Hamas wasn’t able to attack Gateshead or BoroPark NY.
“The record total of antisemitic hate in 2023 is due entirely to the surge in incidents following the 7 October Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, and the scale of the increase is unprecedented,” it said in a statement.
...
The surge recorded after October 7 alone exceeded all previous annual totals, said the CST, which has been recording antisemitic incidents in Britain for 40 years."
"If Israel is fighting an awful retaliatory war to eliminate their intractable enemies, folks are going to feel unsafe. Live with it."
This is a weird answer. No one is claiming it's unreasonable to be scared. Quite the opposite. The point is that having a state hasn't helped that feeling.
So the Zionists were wrong in their claim that the world would be safer, but that is not what is being discussed with you right now. What is being discussed is your claim that Zionism lead to anti-semitism. Do try and follow a conversation.
Good news for the Jews! Good news for the Slifkins and Scott Kahns of the world! The Irrationalist Modoxer has another post from the dear pro-Torah soldier! Hot off the press from yesterday! Read about it here!
"Yes, I grew up in a very, very safe environment. But taking Jewish history as a whole, it was a bubble. For nearly four hundred of the past thousand years, Jews were banned from England. And only two generations ago, things had been very different for the Jews in the rest of Europe."
Therefore what? Jews were being slaughtered in Europe in the 1940s, so it's better to die now in Israel that stay safely somewhere else? Is that actually your argument?
"Today, there is no serious threat to life for Jews in England. But you have to keep your head down, and it’s best to wear a hat to hide your kippah. The next district over from Manchester is Rochdale, whose parliamentary representative is an open supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas. And universities in England and the USA can be equally hostile to Jews.
Contrast that with how my children are growing up in Israel. They are so proud and outgoing with their Jewishness. They are involved with the country, with the nation, in every way. They are leading a life that involves youth movements and army or national service. They have met thousands more Jews their age than I ever met."
I don't know if you've ever heard of this place called 'Lakewood,' but there are a tremendous amount of extremely proud frum Jews living there. Also, there's an Israeli member of Knesset who literally served as an advisor to Yasser Arafat, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Tibi and another one who isn't quite sure whether he thinks Palestinian militant groups should disarm. https://www.timesofisrael.com/raams-abbas-urges-armed-palestinian-factions-to-disarm-before-softening-statement/ (The latter was a member of a coalition which you celebrated because- what else?- it excluded those icky charedim. But I digress.)
"She knows that she is named after a woman who at her age was in a concentration camp and how significant it is that her great-granddaughter is in the IDF."
I don't doubt the poignancy of her feelings or the sincerity of her belief in taking her destiny into her own hands, but it's not a particularly compelling argument to anyone who doesn't already buy into your worldview.
The point should be obvious: There are all sorts of considerations, but the fact that living in Israel is a mitzva outweighs them. People have risked their lives for mitzvot and are rightly applauded for doing so, but for some reason Israel is...different.
Time to step away from your computer and read some books about Jewish spiritual sacrifice. Believe it or not, Jews have risked their lives for mitzvot. You just live in a very comfortable bubble and can't see beyond it.
Sorry to rain on everybody's parade. This is beautiful (in its own way) but sad. The way you grew up is much better. Whatever this thing that you replaced Judaism with is, it's not Judaism.
What's sad is how your understanding of Judaism is the result of a very narrow phenomenon that emerged very recently and has very little to do with traditional Judaism, certainly nothing at all to do with the Judaism that was practiced last time we had sovereignty. Not to mention incredibly dangerous for all the Jews in Israel.
Set up charedi hesder yeshivos. But again, the risk of spiritual harm is irrelevant. If you think that it's dispositive, you're confirming that the charedi hashkafah is fundamentally selfish.
Rabbinic Judaism is not a very narrow phenomenon that emerged very recently. When you say "the Judaism that was practiced last time we had sovereignty", you are probably referring to the Judaism of King Menashe and King Achav. There were commenters here who though that these are good precedents to emulate for the type of sovereignty Israel has today, and I suspect you are in agreement.
No Judaism today is exactly the Judaism of the Mishnah/Gemara, but broadly speaking, chareidi Judaism is the closest. Certainly "Rationalist Judaism" has no shaychus to Rabbinic Judaism, or the Judaism of the King David, or the Rambam, or any Judaism at all- except for maybe Menashe and Achav's.
King David was a warrior and Rambam was a physician who forbade taking money for Torah. It's funny that you think that charedi Judaism is the closest thing to them.
King David the warrior was the one who said אֵֽין־הַ֭מֶּלֶךְ נוֹשָׁ֣ע בְּרׇב־חָ֑יִל גִּ֝בּ֗וֹר לֹא־יִנָּצֵ֥ל בְּרׇב־כֹּֽחַ׃-. That shittah of the Rambam is irrelevant, because everybody argues on him, just like hundreds of other halachos from the Rambam or other Rishonim. But your so-called "Judaism" is not like King David. It is not like the Rambam. It is not like anybody.
Indeed, they had many great and righteous kings. But these kings had a hashkafa and commitment to Torah that the chareidim emulate, and the "rationalists" abhor.
And is chareidisism, with its minyan factories, reliance on benefits and tzedoko in many many cases, and gourmet Pesach hotel programmes any more Judaism? And chassidism, with its rebbe worship, tichen, ancient Polish clothing and furry headwear etc etc is certainly not Judaism. Are the 'Gerer takonos' Judaism?
Who gets to define 'Judaism'? Shemiras torah u'mitzvos is all that counts. You may argue that NS and his family are lax in that, but that is a different argument.
Indeed. My poinr being every group can accuse every group of not being real Judaism. Nobody has a monopoly here. Plenty in Chareidiland is not real Judaism either.
Not quite. You critiqued DL and defended contemporary Charedism. He responded with an off base critique of the latter. I think he's mostly incorrect, but it wasn't whataboutism.
It is not proper according to halacha for your daughter to have a boy friend. In your words he "was a friend of hers."
Are you sincerely orthodox? Or with your changes, did adherence to halacha decline? It seems pretty obvious to me. And it makes it hard to accept many things you say as honest rather than an excuse to be less religious.
And folks here we a perfect example of certain jews putting sinas chinam before ahavas yisrael. Please stay in your closed, shtetl lifestyle of only torah and yiras shamayim but nothing else. We dont need you ruining eretz yisrael.
Is that the same one that demands that grocery-stores have separate checkout aisles for men and women or the one that forbids women to drive cars? Or the ones that require married women to shave their heads or wear only triple denier tights with hats on top of their shaytels?
Rav Slifkin was referring to friends in a strictly platonic sense. But in your Halachcally twisted, priggish society, male/female friendship can only lead to sexually immoral outcomes. Your religion is no differently assembled than fictional Islam’s and equally as goofy.
Um, the cases you bring are recognized as chumros even by those who practice them while the cases I discuss are halacha.
Thanks for the taunts about immoral outcomes hurled by someone who unbelievably goes by the title Uriah's wife! You have issues and you need help. If you give me your full name I can daven for you.
The cases are chumros and not halacha? A trivial difference without a distinction. They both are prohibitions and both are enacted by the religious authorities and reflect badly on the transgressors. Quite a mangled religion you’ve got there.
And please don’t daven for me . Tefilos didn’t help Uriah’s Wife back in Dovid Hamelech’s days and I don’t want to wind up a widow(er)like Uriah’s Wife . Better daven for Dovid Hamelech. He’s probably atill suffering in Gehenim for what did to her husband.
A trivial distinction? Are you on cocaine or were you born that way? I should have realized. You dont sound Jewish frankly.
I should daven for Dovid? Talmud discusses this topic at length. Dovid received a full kaparah in this world. The way you talk, you seem either a massive ignoramus, not Jewish, severely intellectually compromised, or high on weed. Probably more than one of the above but certainly weed.
A halachic injunction has the same effect as a chumrah. They both prohibit certain activities. The outcome is exactly the same. So effectively there’s no difference. The distinction is a fantasy.
As for Dovid Hamelech’s vile pursuit against Uriah, the Talmud might be correct that he received a full kapparah in this world but he still isn’t suffering enough in Gehenim.
But if you want to allay his agony, do not daven for him. you’d be the last person to whom Hashem might listen.
You have no idea what you are talking about. If you keep quiet only your stupid name shows you up. When you type, it reverberates.
There are most certainly differences, practic differences, between halacha and a chumrah.
In Nach news, you seem to have a personal vendetta against King David which is hysterical.
Oh, and in normative Judiasm, Talmud isn't merely perhaps correct. We follow its conclusions. If Dovid received full forgiveness in this world then he is not suffering in that world.
Seriously, lay off King David, will you? Pick a fight with someone your own size. What's next, horrific hatred toward Moshe for hitting the rock? Don't let it eat you up.
Um... depending on the kind of "friend", it can be totally appropriate. (Or inappropriate, but there is no reason to assume it's that kind of friendship.)
And even if it were inappropriate, why would you criticize Rabbi Slifkin for something which a different person (his daughter) is choosing to do?
Isn't it frequent nowadays in the charedi community for young people to stop being religious? Isn't the expression they use "ki ein bayit asher ein sham met"? Does that mean all charedim are non-religious?
It is fair to criticise Rabbi Slifkin for this, because he chose to raise his daughter in a community where this kind of thing is normal. Though one could argue that he is an oness; he had no choice but to leave chareidi Judaism after his books were banned. The trouble is he doesn’t even realise that יצא שכרו בהפסדו.
Oh he realizes it very much! That is why he made a very conscious choice to post a picture of his daughter in attire that is against halacha. He thinks somehow it's a "got you" which is laughable. All it does is show that his nonstop arguments are empty. If he remained as orthodox as ever, I would respect his arguments. (There are sincerely religious datiim who serve and I respect their views). But when the end result is - not sad decline - but in your face flouting halacha and also screaming about army and how all day learning is terrible etc...it's becomes a sad story that nobody should fall for.
As expected, instead of evaluating arguments based on their logic and merit, you choose to dismiss them based on the person who states them. (And actually in this case, not even that.)
Right. Because the one who yells about what is proper for Jews and Judiasm openly flouts Judiasm (such as posting a picture of his daughter in halachically unacceptable attire - which, by the way, is about him).
We also see he sort of agrees his Orthodoxy is compromised. Only we should focus on the logic not him. Oh, so lets listen also to reform rabbis because it's all about the argument. The answer is obvious to healthy minds. RMBM said his famous line about truths that are not impacted by the one who says them. You sir are not in a lab. You are pontificating views about Judiasm while flouting Judiasm. That makes what you say not worth being taken seriously.
1. My daughter is her own person. She does not agree with everything I do, and I do not agree with everything she does.
2. My daughter openly admits that there are religious challenges in the IDF, and points out that these would be considerably lessened if there were more religious soldiers.
Hence, your comments on this topic are irrelevant.
He doesn’t dress his daughter. She dresses herself. As for your concern that she is dressed unhalachically, she is actually wearing bigdai kodesh, unlike the hot Chanie’s strutting around your neighborhood.
RNS is a sad story you say. What is really a sad story is Roshei Yeshiva who reject Army service in Chareidi units when we are in a war! Shall we lose total respect for them!?
No we should lose total respect for someone who posts a picture of his daughter improperly clad according to halacha on purpose - thinking it somehow shows people up, but which really is the dumbest move as far as trying to convince people goes because everyone sees that the one shouting about what Judiasm truly is doesn't even practice authentic Judiasm himself.
Her uniform has long sleeves, a skirt, and you can't see her collarbone. Do you want her to wear a veil? Are you happier with the depiction of how her great-grandmother was dressed in the concentration camp? We can't see where her skirt ends! Maybe stop reading internet websites that show pictures of women at all, because you are seemingly obsessed with looking at them in detail.
See the very end of Hilchos Yomtov in shulcahn oruch and commentaries thereon.
חייבים ב"ד להעמיד שוטרים ברגלים שיהיו משוטטים ומחפשים בגנות ופרדסים ועל הנהרות שלא יתקבצו שם לאכול ולשתות אנשים ונשים ויבואו לידי עבירה וכן יזהירו בדבר זה לכל העם שלא יתערבו אנשים ונשים בבתיהם בשמחה ולא ימשכו ביין שמא יבואו לידי עבירה אלא יהיו כולם קדושים :
4. The court must appoint officers who will walk around patrolling gardens, orchards, and rivers, so that men and women will not gather there to eat and drink and end up sinning. They should similarly warn the whole nation about this - that men and women should not joyously mix in houses and overindulge in wine, lest they come to sin. Rather, all should be holy.
See also hilchos ishus about how far a man is supposed to distance himself from women. Now, in modern settings in the world of work and oputside, unfortunately we need to interact with women. But certainly before that stage, there is absolutely no hetter to voluntary engage in a friendship with the opposite sex.
I understand - because of the omission of the translation of the word "Regalim" – "The Three Pilgrimage Festivals" - that the words were copied from some source that translated incorrectly.
The full and exact translation: Paragraph 4 - The court must appoint officers "on the Regalim, The Three Pilgrimage Festivals" (-not: the Hagim, Shabatot and Semahot, but only on the Regalim, The Three Pilgrimage Festivals-) who will walk around patrolling gardens , orchards, and rivers, so that men and women will not gather there to eat and drink and end up sinning. They should similarly warn the whole nation about this - that men and women should not joyfully mix in houses and overindulge in wine, lest they come to sin. Rather, all should be holy".
Mishna Berura 4: "(22) And they will warn about this matter to all the people, etc. - here is really the obligation to always warn and rebuke those who have it in their hands, except that the Regalim has the most corruption".
The Shulhan Aruh and Mefarshim, go out against woman and man wine drinking together, in picnics in nature and in private homes. The act is transparent, the goal is marked, and the situation is very clear.
And this is what the judges forbid. Beyond that, there is no ruling that forbids social gatherings - boys and girls; women and men. This includes meals and shows together. Look for pictures of semahot and events in ultra-Orthodox society from 80 years ago or more in the Western countries, and you will find there Rabbis and Roshey yeshivas sitting together with women and men at the same table, at semahot shows and events.
Re your comment on simchot and events, can you really compare married adults with unmarried adolescents? Are you familiar with how chazal darshen 'bris kerusah leynayim pen esbonen al habesuloh' from Iyov? What about 'lo sosuru acharei einichem - Al yehorer odom b'yom v'yavo lidei tumoh b'lelah; - you really believe DL male teenagers are immune to such things?
"Beyond that, there is no ruling that forbids social gatherings - boys and girls; women and men"
Ok try this, wise guy.
צריך אדם להתרחק מהנשים מאד מאד ואסור לקרוץ בידיו או ברגליו ולרמוז בעיניו לאחד מהעריות ואסור לשחוק עמה להקל ראשו כנגדה או להביט ביופיה ואפילו להריח בבשמים שעליה אסור ן:
A person must stay very far from women. He is forbidden to signal with his hands or his feet, or to hint with his eyes, to one of the arayos. He is forbidden to be playful with her, to be frivolous in front of her, or to look upon her beauty. Even to smell the perfume upon her is forbidden.
How do these teenage boys and girls interact with each other? Solemnly only discussing serious things facing the world? No element of playfullness at all? No flirty behaviour ever?
Albeit, not from one of the books you ask for, but igros Moshe even haezer 4 siman 60 does directly address the issue (as well as quote shulchan aruch if I recall correctly and those shulchan aruchs would also be in aruch hashulchan in the relevant place I believe)
I do want to say that I'm just providing a source with no intention of getting involved in the personal attacks and unsolicited mussar
That's true, Rav Moshe references that, only that he quotes from Rambam. The reason why I referenced the Rav Moshe tshuva instead of that is because Rav Moshe is specifically dealing with this issue. I also referenced even haezer 20 and 21 in the following comment
Looking back at the tshuva, it seems I was mistaken. He quotes nosei keilim on shulchan aruch, but the lines that he quotes that also appear in shulchan aruch even haezer simanim 20 and 21, he quotes from Rambam instead
"Slifkin writes an innocent post about his own community and the pack unleashes a personal attack on him. This is a mad world."
Please. This isn't Imamother. It's a blog. A blog where the host writes endlessly about the failings of charedi society. *He* chose to bring his kids into his posts. Including one https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-tale-of-two-tefillin-bags where he wrote this grotesque thing: "The charedi yeshivos that I learned in were exclusively about personal spiritual growth and personal intellectual growth in Torah study, preferably for one’s entire lifetime. They were all about detachment from wider society and essentially taught selfishness. When the financial support of others enables you to spend your entire life in the comfort and security of the Beis HaMidrash and you don’t need to think or care about national responsibilities, the only requirement for your tefillin bag is to be beautiful."
===
You don't get to trash whole communities and then expect 'my-gosh-how-charming!' bouquets from said community when you post one occasional non-vitriolic post.
If there are substantive issues to address in the post, but to personally attack a British eccentric who is trying to make the best of his predicament is low.
Oh yes! The chasid shoteh is not just the one seeing a girl drowning refusing to help. It's the one who enters a spiritually dangerous place when there IS already a full fledged army in place....he does NOT take any precautions..
He even states that considerations like proper frameworks for religiosity in the army is not important - because of war...yes that properly IS a chosid shoteh. A chosid shoteh indeed! Thanks for helping me flesh this out.
Have you ever wondered why I let people like you and Bandana comment here? The reason is that nothing delegitimizes the charedi perspective more than charedi apologists.
You just said literally nothing. I happen to deeply respect those serving, especially the religiously committed. But I'm not on a war path against everything charedim like you. If you argued with one ounce of sincerity you would never say that spiritual harm is irrelevant. If you cared about judiasm, you wouldn't post a halachically immodest picture of your daughter on your blog.
All you want is clicks and revenge. You want to remain relevant. I just hope nobody falls for your prank.
"Have you ever wondered why I let people like you and Bandana comment here?"
If I didn't know you better, I would have said it was intellectual honesty, but the simple truth is that you don't let people comment. You tried very hard to prevent people from commenting. You banned all your opposition until you realized that it doesn't work- they just keep on coming back.
Not as sad as perpetually angry secular Zionists, who perseverate in hundreds of articles and posts about their enemies! (That goes for both Slifkin and yourself, in case you were wondering. But Slifkin has a much worse case of the illness than you. Probably the biggest compliment you ever got.)
No , the חסיד שוטה is not one who foolishly rushes into danger. The חסיד שוטה is a paradigm for an indecisive ditherer who's prime motivator is שב ואל תעשה עדיף. It's not a position that can be argued with, because שב ואל תעשה is a real thing. (And the רמב"ם does offer a model for fleeing to the caves and deserts.) The חסיד שוטה is allied with the פרוש קיזאי who shuts his eye, preemptively preventing himself from seeing anything which may threaten his spiritual well being and in doing so endangers himself.
Some balance is necessary. The Charedi approach of merely passively avoiding the possibility of spiritual harm, while demanding the opposite from others is unbalanced. The potential spiritual harms of the army, education or working (all of which are obligations under הלכה) needs to be met with the mitigation of those challenges too. Avoidance is not a complete solution.
Today there was a multi-school choral assembly in Jerusalem. Our son (ten years old) was one of the singers; one of their songs was dedicated to the graduates of their school (about four, I think) who have fallen in this war. They join the roughly *forty* others, listed on a plaque at the school entrance, who have fallen in various wars since the school was founded about eighty years ago.
I once put up a picture of the plaque and American friends were shocked that there would be such a thing in a school. Of course, *every* school in Israel has such a memorial.
But as you said, that's because we've been living in a bubble for a few decades. Just to take an example from Orthodox Jews: During World War II, Yeshiva University's yearbooks, each year, began with a very long list of students, alumni, and faculty who were serving- with memorials to those who had fallen at the top. That's more of what the world is really like.
Israel resembles the Jewish diaspora enclave, but on a larger scale. A devout Jew could face hostility in an Arab neighborhood or even at a leftist protest. A uniformed soldier might be barred entry to an Arab-run café or a lecture by a leftist professor at a university. Israeli generals, lacking in resolve, adhere to idealistic "ethical guidelines" and shy away from pursuing victory. And the cycle continues.
My viewpoint is validated by current events. Have swastikas appeared on synagogues in Israel? Absolutely. Have public prayers been disturbed? Indeed. And let's not overlook openly anti-Semitic, not just anti-religious, cartoons in publications such as Haaretz.
Furthermore, it's crucial to remember that in the Torah, specifically in Ki Tavo portion, there's a promise that in the event of failing to fulfill the commandments, a sovereign state will transform into a gradually deteriorating ghetto, where inhabitants live in fear even of their own shadows.
Don't worry, Avi and Banana have permission to be on the internet commenting on blogs. In their "yeshiva", they also have a pool table, snack bar, and frequent field trips.
When you read here the repeated personal humiliations of ultra-Orthodox people about the fact that the national religious is not life according to their worldview, and that their "religious" life is much different from that of the national religious, the conclusion is that they are unable to see things from a different perspective than their own. They wave "laws" that do not exist and are convinced that this is how the people of Israel ruled from time immemorial. Therefore, there is also no point in reacting to their personal evil towards the other. They are simply unable to think differently than they were brought up. And their attitude towards anyone who does not fit into their "bed of Sodom" is that the man sins.
Really beautiful, thanks
In England one exists. In Israel one lives
Felt the same thing many times. My kids had more friends killed in one day than I had in my entire life. Yet Israel is still ultimately a safer place for Jews.
It's not safer for most Jews as individuals. But it's better and more important.
"My kids had more friends killed in one day than I had in my entire life. Yet Israel is still ultimately a safer place for Jews."
I feel very sorry for your kids, their friends, and their friend's families. This war is a real tragedy, for us younger people, the biggest tragedy to happen to the Jewish people in our lifetimes. And yet, remarkably, you make a statement of faith that Israel is ultimately a safer place for Jews. This demonstrates the amazing power of faith in Hashem, that even in the darkest of circumstances, the Jewish people rely on Him.
My grandparents had dozens of family members killed in one day by the Germans. We tend to forget these things.
Dov and I are right there with you.
Love this piece. Every word.
You don't have to keep your head down and not wear a kippah in Stamford Hill or Gateshead or Prestwich. This is just nonsense. There are places in the UK that you do *but that is only a result of the decision to build a country in a place where it would mean endless warfare*. It's not clear what can be done about this vicious cycle where Zionism makes it increasingly untenable to live outside Israel except in a Charedi bubble, while existence in Israel becomes increasingly dangerous, leading to even more war which makes it even harder to live in the diaspora etc.. Probably nothing. But it's not something for Zionists to gloat about. More something to apologise for.
I grew up in Manchester. The non-Jews who were spitting on me and cursing me and punching me did not know or care about what was going on in Israel. You're far more obsessed with Israel than they were.
I grew up in Derry, Maine. The neighborhood kids said I'm "nothing but a bignose mockie kike". They made me feel oilie, long-nosed, sallow skinned, like a mockie sheenie kike. They made me feel dirty. They made me feel *Jewish*. They laughed and laughed at me. But now I make six figures, and live in Atlanta's richest neighborhood. They sure don't laugh at me any more, when I'm preparing their tax returns.
I know exactly what happened to me on numerous occasions in the first 18 years of my life. I had to go to the police. I've had enough of you.
Yes, when I was growing up in suburban New Jersey, the goyim used to call me "kike on a bike" and "little pissy jew-boy". Then they hung me up by the seat of my underwear on a flagppole in the park, and all the neighborhood kids shot at me with paintball guns until I turned the colors of the rainbow. In school I got something called "the toilet treatment". You know what that is? Trust me, you don't want to know. This happened regularly. But I didn't call the cops, no siree. Instead, I got a star of david tatoo and learned myself some krav maga. Next time they tried that trick, they didn't know what hit them. Broke one kid's nose, another kid's jaw. Rich dad, tried to sue the school district, until I produced evidence of their bullying. Turns out it was all over the CCTV cameras. I sure showed them. That's diaspora for you.
Wow, their hatred of Israel leads them to mock actual anti-Semitic attacks. I still have scars on my face (small, thanks to a good doctor) from an attack in one of the most Jewish neighborhoods in New York, in broad daylight on a Shabbat on the main street. My brother-in-law made aliyah after being assaulted on a London bus. "Things that never happened," he'd say.
He said "Things that never happened" because the above comment was mocking, his username is "Stanley Uris from King's It" and he is writing as a fictional character from Stephen King's book "It." So it did not, in fact, happen. Hope that clarifies.
It clarifies not at all.
I prefer to have discussions with people who write what they mean.
.....but that is only a result of the decision to build a country in a place where it would mean endless warfare....
Nonsense. Anti-semitism existed long-before anybody even thought about Zionism.
This is just a non-sequitor. Only a completely crazy person would deny that the reason Jews in England right now feel unsafe is because of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The fact is that the Zionists promised they would make Jews more safe. They made Jews less safe in Israel and less safe around the world. They meant well, but they messed up. An apology is in order.
You know what non-Jews used to scream at British Jews in the early 20th century? "Go back to Palestine!"
Bear in mind that charedim- personified by R' Hutner, a very mainstream charedi figure, writing in the Jewish Observer, a very mainstream charedi publication- actually blamed the *Holocaust* on Zionism. And not in a spiritual "God was angry" sort of way (which itself wouldn't make sense) but in an actual historical manner, that the Nazis had to be talked into it by the Mufti.
(Hitler himself, take it for what it's worth, which is probably nothing, initially blamed his anti-Semitism on charedim.)
So obviously they have no problem blaming Zionism for everything else.
https://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=2316
ועל הזעק הבא מארצנו, צריכים אנו לדעת כי כל העמים בני ממלכות הברי" שופכים דם לרוב, ואם אנו לא נביא קרבות במה אפוא נקנה את הזכות לגשת אל השלחן בשעה שיעשו את החלוקה של העמים והארצות אחר המלחמה, ואם כן שטות ואפילו חוצפה הוא מצדנו לשאול מאת הגויים ששופכים את דמם, שהם יתנו רשות להביא את כספם למדינת אויבם, להגן על הדם שלנו - - כי רק "בדם תהיה לנו הארץ.
Wow. There is just no way to respond to a non sequitur like that. I am in awe.
We're always told that charedi education somehow enhances critical thinking skills and comprehension, but I see no evidence of that here.
If it's not "Cow in Palestine" Sunday, or "Uganda Scheme" Monday, it's got to be "Only With Blood" Tuesday. You present them as if you just discovered some super secret information. No, it's been known for decades, and when these tropes are examined for veracity, context and relevance- they are revealed to be rather inconsequential.
Leaving aside whether the quote in genuine or not- there's no hard evidence of its existence- only the testimony of a single person. It's a quote that at best represents the opinion that one person at one time wished to present to one person or group. To me it sounds like the desperate hope of a despairing man who felt powerless. Do you have other quotations from Schwalb that show that he consistently felt this way- both before and after the Holocaust? No you don't. Do you have evidence that the letter and its contents were vetted by official Zionist organizations? No you don't. Do you have evidence that Schwalb was representing the sum total of Zionists? No you don't. Do you have other correspondence from Schwalb that shows he attitude was consistent before, during or after the Holocaust? No you don't. Do you have correspondence from anyone else with "only with blood" or similar formulation? No you don't.
In short, you've got nothing but a one-off unverified unvetted out of context quote. And you've built a mountain of slander upon it. You haven't done research, you've cited a worn out trope.
The people who cite the quote, conveniently neglect another tidbit from Rav Weissmandl זצ"ל. He instructed people to testify in favor of Kasztner. That indicates it's all about pushing an agenda and not seeking the truth.
Zionists never claimed Jews would be safer around the world. They specifically wanted a Jewish state because they realized that Jews around the world would *never* be safer, not even in "liberal" countries like France.
" Only a completely crazy person would deny that the reason Jews in England right now feel unsafe is because of the Israel-Palestine conflict. "
Reason? The correct word is "excuse".
" The fact is that the Zionists promised they would make Jews more safe. "
Herzl may well have said "Only a completely crazy person would deny that the reason patriotic Jews in France right now feel unsafe is because of the lack of a Jewish State. "
If you are a Jew your place is in Israel as the Haxon Ish said it's a מיצווה דאורייתא of יישוב הארץ.
Tell me more about the 'haxon ish'
Not everyone has nimble fingers or uses a DVORAK keyboard.
@משכיל ביצים
How did you determine that the reason Jews in England right now feel unsafe is because of the Israel-Palestine conflict? Scientific statistical studies? Newspaper articles, blog opinions? Or is it just your viewpoint?
And even if in fact British Jews feel unsafe, many folks in the world feel unsafe. Just look at the crime waves in various U.S. states, they feel unsafe too. If Israel is fighting an awful retaliatory war to eliminate their intractable enemies, folks are going to feel unsafe. Live with it. Just feel fortunate that Hamas wasn’t able to attack Gateshead or BoroPark NY.
"How did you determine that the reason Jews in England right now feel unsafe is because of the Israel-Palestine conflict?"
I can't speak for him, and he can't speak for himself since he got banned. But googling took me about 30 seconds to find this.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-jewish-group-records-all-time-high-in-antisemitic-incidents-after-october-7/
“The record total of antisemitic hate in 2023 is due entirely to the surge in incidents following the 7 October Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, and the scale of the increase is unprecedented,” it said in a statement.
...
The surge recorded after October 7 alone exceeded all previous annual totals, said the CST, which has been recording antisemitic incidents in Britain for 40 years."
"If Israel is fighting an awful retaliatory war to eliminate their intractable enemies, folks are going to feel unsafe. Live with it."
This is a weird answer. No one is claiming it's unreasonable to be scared. Quite the opposite. The point is that having a state hasn't helped that feeling.
עוד לא אבדה תקותנו,
התקווה בת שנות אלפיים,
להיות עם פליטים
בארצנו במלונות בשדרות
So the Zionists were wrong in their claim that the world would be safer, but that is not what is being discussed with you right now. What is being discussed is your claim that Zionism lead to anti-semitism. Do try and follow a conversation.
Good news for the Jews! Good news for the Slifkins and Scott Kahns of the world! The Irrationalist Modoxer has another post from the dear pro-Torah soldier! Hot off the press from yesterday! Read about it here!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/voice-from-the-front-about-machlokes
Make sure to see his previous article, here!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-voice-from-the-front-2
"Yes, I grew up in a very, very safe environment. But taking Jewish history as a whole, it was a bubble. For nearly four hundred of the past thousand years, Jews were banned from England. And only two generations ago, things had been very different for the Jews in the rest of Europe."
Therefore what? Jews were being slaughtered in Europe in the 1940s, so it's better to die now in Israel that stay safely somewhere else? Is that actually your argument?
"Today, there is no serious threat to life for Jews in England. But you have to keep your head down, and it’s best to wear a hat to hide your kippah. The next district over from Manchester is Rochdale, whose parliamentary representative is an open supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas. And universities in England and the USA can be equally hostile to Jews.
Contrast that with how my children are growing up in Israel. They are so proud and outgoing with their Jewishness. They are involved with the country, with the nation, in every way. They are leading a life that involves youth movements and army or national service. They have met thousands more Jews their age than I ever met."
I don't know if you've ever heard of this place called 'Lakewood,' but there are a tremendous amount of extremely proud frum Jews living there. Also, there's an Israeli member of Knesset who literally served as an advisor to Yasser Arafat, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Tibi and another one who isn't quite sure whether he thinks Palestinian militant groups should disarm. https://www.timesofisrael.com/raams-abbas-urges-armed-palestinian-factions-to-disarm-before-softening-statement/ (The latter was a member of a coalition which you celebrated because- what else?- it excluded those icky charedim. But I digress.)
"She knows that she is named after a woman who at her age was in a concentration camp and how significant it is that her great-granddaughter is in the IDF."
I don't doubt the poignancy of her feelings or the sincerity of her belief in taking her destiny into her own hands, but it's not a particularly compelling argument to anyone who doesn't already buy into your worldview.
I'll explain it in a future post.
If you're so frum, you might have noticed here and there that Jewish people belong in Israel, period.
Not sure what point you're trying make. But you ended by saying 'period,' so I guess you must *really* be sure of yourself. Nekuda.
The point should be obvious: There are all sorts of considerations, but the fact that living in Israel is a mitzva outweighs them. People have risked their lives for mitzvot and are rightly applauded for doing so, but for some reason Israel is...different.
No. People don't generally risk their lives to shake lulav. And they certainly don't upraid 'arba minnim dodgers' for not doing so.
But, as you said, 'for some reason Israel is...different.'
Wow. You have no clue, do you?
Time to step away from your computer and read some books about Jewish spiritual sacrifice. Believe it or not, Jews have risked their lives for mitzvot. You just live in a very comfortable bubble and can't see beyond it.
"Believe it or not, Jews have risked their lives for mitzvot."
I know that. Not relevant to my point. I said generally. And I noted that they don't yell at others for shirking their duty to do so.
Write your own post. That is not what Slifkin wrote.
Excuse me?
"but there are a tremendous amount of extremely proud frum Jews living there. "
How many?
Sorry to rain on everybody's parade. This is beautiful (in its own way) but sad. The way you grew up is much better. Whatever this thing that you replaced Judaism with is, it's not Judaism.
What's sad is how your understanding of Judaism is the result of a very narrow phenomenon that emerged very recently and has very little to do with traditional Judaism, certainly nothing at all to do with the Judaism that was practiced last time we had sovereignty. Not to mention incredibly dangerous for all the Jews in Israel.
Is girls refraining from boy friends a new fangled idea that is dangerous to Judiasm?
Avoiding national responsibilities based on a groundless fear of that is certainly dangerous both to Judaism and the Jewish People.
Groundless fear that they might become less religious like you?
Set up charedi hesder yeshivos. But again, the risk of spiritual harm is irrelevant. If you think that it's dispositive, you're confirming that the charedi hashkafah is fundamentally selfish.
"the risk of spiritual harm is irrelevant."
Never forget that statement!
Proof that you are a fraud and renegade of epic proportions.
"based on a groundless fear"..."the risk of spiritual harm is irrelevant" LOL!!!
Rabbinic Judaism is not a very narrow phenomenon that emerged very recently. When you say "the Judaism that was practiced last time we had sovereignty", you are probably referring to the Judaism of King Menashe and King Achav. There were commenters here who though that these are good precedents to emulate for the type of sovereignty Israel has today, and I suspect you are in agreement.
Chareid Judaism is not rabbinic Judaism.
No Judaism today is exactly the Judaism of the Mishnah/Gemara, but broadly speaking, chareidi Judaism is the closest. Certainly "Rationalist Judaism" has no shaychus to Rabbinic Judaism, or the Judaism of the King David, or the Rambam, or any Judaism at all- except for maybe Menashe and Achav's.
King David was a warrior and Rambam was a physician who forbade taking money for Torah. It's funny that you think that charedi Judaism is the closest thing to them.
King David the warrior was the one who said אֵֽין־הַ֭מֶּלֶךְ נוֹשָׁ֣ע בְּרׇב־חָ֑יִל גִּ֝בּ֗וֹר לֹא־יִנָּצֵ֥ל בְּרׇב־כֹּֽחַ׃-. That shittah of the Rambam is irrelevant, because everybody argues on him, just like hundreds of other halachos from the Rambam or other Rishonim. But your so-called "Judaism" is not like King David. It is not like the Rambam. It is not like anybody.
"but broadly speaking, chareidi Judaism is the closest"
Ladies and gentleman, an utter ignoramus or a troll, take your pick.
Nothing of substance to add, I take it?
Thank you for the insult, sonny. And for completely missing and distorting my point. Par for the course.
You do know that Israel was sovereign for centuries and had many great and religious kings, right?
No, probably not.
Indeed, they had many great and righteous kings. But these kings had a hashkafa and commitment to Torah that the chareidim emulate, and the "rationalists" abhor.
And is chareidisism, with its minyan factories, reliance on benefits and tzedoko in many many cases, and gourmet Pesach hotel programmes any more Judaism? And chassidism, with its rebbe worship, tichen, ancient Polish clothing and furry headwear etc etc is certainly not Judaism. Are the 'Gerer takonos' Judaism?
Who gets to define 'Judaism'? Shemiras torah u'mitzvos is all that counts. You may argue that NS and his family are lax in that, but that is a different argument.
Whataboutism
Indeed. My poinr being every group can accuse every group of not being real Judaism. Nobody has a monopoly here. Plenty in Chareidiland is not real Judaism either.
Still whataboutism.
Not quite. You critiqued DL and defended contemporary Charedism. He responded with an off base critique of the latter. I think he's mostly incorrect, but it wasn't whataboutism.
Thanks, but no need. Of course it wasn't whataboutism. He knows that well himself.
It is not proper according to halacha for your daughter to have a boy friend. In your words he "was a friend of hers."
Are you sincerely orthodox? Or with your changes, did adherence to halacha decline? It seems pretty obvious to me. And it makes it hard to accept many things you say as honest rather than an excuse to be less religious.
Ah yes, putting your life on the line is all about looking for an excuse for the easy way out.
That's not what I said
How do you manage to take the least relevant line from the story and reframe the narrative around it?
Last I checked, no one was asking for you to accept anything, but thanks for letting us know.
And folks here we a perfect example of certain jews putting sinas chinam before ahavas yisrael. Please stay in your closed, shtetl lifestyle of only torah and yiras shamayim but nothing else. We dont need you ruining eretz yisrael.
If there was no need to be mikorev amei haaretz like you, some of those types would have an easier time.
"Mikorev"?
@Ari,
Which not-proper Halacha is that?
Is that the same one that demands that grocery-stores have separate checkout aisles for men and women or the one that forbids women to drive cars? Or the ones that require married women to shave their heads or wear only triple denier tights with hats on top of their shaytels?
Rav Slifkin was referring to friends in a strictly platonic sense. But in your Halachcally twisted, priggish society, male/female friendship can only lead to sexually immoral outcomes. Your religion is no differently assembled than fictional Islam’s and equally as goofy.
Um, the cases you bring are recognized as chumros even by those who practice them while the cases I discuss are halacha.
Thanks for the taunts about immoral outcomes hurled by someone who unbelievably goes by the title Uriah's wife! You have issues and you need help. If you give me your full name I can daven for you.
@Ari,
The cases are chumros and not halacha? A trivial difference without a distinction. They both are prohibitions and both are enacted by the religious authorities and reflect badly on the transgressors. Quite a mangled religion you’ve got there.
And please don’t daven for me . Tefilos didn’t help Uriah’s Wife back in Dovid Hamelech’s days and I don’t want to wind up a widow(er)like Uriah’s Wife . Better daven for Dovid Hamelech. He’s probably atill suffering in Gehenim for what did to her husband.
A trivial distinction? Are you on cocaine or were you born that way? I should have realized. You dont sound Jewish frankly.
I should daven for Dovid? Talmud discusses this topic at length. Dovid received a full kaparah in this world. The way you talk, you seem either a massive ignoramus, not Jewish, severely intellectually compromised, or high on weed. Probably more than one of the above but certainly weed.
@Ari,
A halachic injunction has the same effect as a chumrah. They both prohibit certain activities. The outcome is exactly the same. So effectively there’s no difference. The distinction is a fantasy.
As for Dovid Hamelech’s vile pursuit against Uriah, the Talmud might be correct that he received a full kapparah in this world but he still isn’t suffering enough in Gehenim.
But if you want to allay his agony, do not daven for him. you’d be the last person to whom Hashem might listen.
You have no idea what you are talking about. If you keep quiet only your stupid name shows you up. When you type, it reverberates.
There are most certainly differences, practic differences, between halacha and a chumrah.
In Nach news, you seem to have a personal vendetta against King David which is hysterical.
Oh, and in normative Judiasm, Talmud isn't merely perhaps correct. We follow its conclusions. If Dovid received full forgiveness in this world then he is not suffering in that world.
Seriously, lay off King David, will you? Pick a fight with someone your own size. What's next, horrific hatred toward Moshe for hitting the rock? Don't let it eat you up.
Did somebody mention boyfriends? Somebody already wrote up a halachic justification for boyfriends! Enjoy!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-halakhic-endorsement-of-coed-schools
Um... depending on the kind of "friend", it can be totally appropriate. (Or inappropriate, but there is no reason to assume it's that kind of friendship.)
And even if it were inappropriate, why would you criticize Rabbi Slifkin for something which a different person (his daughter) is choosing to do?
Isn't it frequent nowadays in the charedi community for young people to stop being religious? Isn't the expression they use "ki ein bayit asher ein sham met"? Does that mean all charedim are non-religious?
It is fair to criticise Rabbi Slifkin for this, because he chose to raise his daughter in a community where this kind of thing is normal. Though one could argue that he is an oness; he had no choice but to leave chareidi Judaism after his books were banned. The trouble is he doesn’t even realise that יצא שכרו בהפסדו.
Oh he realizes it very much! That is why he made a very conscious choice to post a picture of his daughter in attire that is against halacha. He thinks somehow it's a "got you" which is laughable. All it does is show that his nonstop arguments are empty. If he remained as orthodox as ever, I would respect his arguments. (There are sincerely religious datiim who serve and I respect their views). But when the end result is - not sad decline - but in your face flouting halacha and also screaming about army and how all day learning is terrible etc...it's becomes a sad story that nobody should fall for.
As expected, instead of evaluating arguments based on their logic and merit, you choose to dismiss them based on the person who states them. (And actually in this case, not even that.)
Right. Because the one who yells about what is proper for Jews and Judiasm openly flouts Judiasm (such as posting a picture of his daughter in halachically unacceptable attire - which, by the way, is about him).
We also see he sort of agrees his Orthodoxy is compromised. Only we should focus on the logic not him. Oh, so lets listen also to reform rabbis because it's all about the argument. The answer is obvious to healthy minds. RMBM said his famous line about truths that are not impacted by the one who says them. You sir are not in a lab. You are pontificating views about Judiasm while flouting Judiasm. That makes what you say not worth being taken seriously.
1. My daughter is her own person. She does not agree with everything I do, and I do not agree with everything she does.
2. My daughter openly admits that there are religious challenges in the IDF, and points out that these would be considerably lessened if there were more religious soldiers.
Hence, your comments on this topic are irrelevant.
You, sir, are yet another sexual pervert.
I just had to get that out there.
He doesn’t dress his daughter. She dresses herself. As for your concern that she is dressed unhalachically, she is actually wearing bigdai kodesh, unlike the hot Chanie’s strutting around your neighborhood.
RNS is a sad story you say. What is really a sad story is Roshei Yeshiva who reject Army service in Chareidi units when we are in a war! Shall we lose total respect for them!?
No we should lose total respect for someone who posts a picture of his daughter improperly clad according to halacha on purpose - thinking it somehow shows people up, but which really is the dumbest move as far as trying to convince people goes because everyone sees that the one shouting about what Judiasm truly is doesn't even practice authentic Judiasm himself.
Her uniform has long sleeves, a skirt, and you can't see her collarbone. Do you want her to wear a veil? Are you happier with the depiction of how her great-grandmother was dressed in the concentration camp? We can't see where her skirt ends! Maybe stop reading internet websites that show pictures of women at all, because you are seemingly obsessed with looking at them in detail.
"It is not proper according to halacha for your daughter to have a boy friend" help me please with a citation from the Shulhan Aruh or Aruh Hashulhan
See the very end of Hilchos Yomtov in shulcahn oruch and commentaries thereon.
חייבים ב"ד להעמיד שוטרים ברגלים שיהיו משוטטים ומחפשים בגנות ופרדסים ועל הנהרות שלא יתקבצו שם לאכול ולשתות אנשים ונשים ויבואו לידי עבירה וכן יזהירו בדבר זה לכל העם שלא יתערבו אנשים ונשים בבתיהם בשמחה ולא ימשכו ביין שמא יבואו לידי עבירה אלא יהיו כולם קדושים :
4. The court must appoint officers who will walk around patrolling gardens, orchards, and rivers, so that men and women will not gather there to eat and drink and end up sinning. They should similarly warn the whole nation about this - that men and women should not joyously mix in houses and overindulge in wine, lest they come to sin. Rather, all should be holy.
See also hilchos ishus about how far a man is supposed to distance himself from women. Now, in modern settings in the world of work and oputside, unfortunately we need to interact with women. But certainly before that stage, there is absolutely no hetter to voluntary engage in a friendship with the opposite sex.
Thanks.
I understand - because of the omission of the translation of the word "Regalim" – "The Three Pilgrimage Festivals" - that the words were copied from some source that translated incorrectly.
The full and exact translation: Paragraph 4 - The court must appoint officers "on the Regalim, The Three Pilgrimage Festivals" (-not: the Hagim, Shabatot and Semahot, but only on the Regalim, The Three Pilgrimage Festivals-) who will walk around patrolling gardens , orchards, and rivers, so that men and women will not gather there to eat and drink and end up sinning. They should similarly warn the whole nation about this - that men and women should not joyfully mix in houses and overindulge in wine, lest they come to sin. Rather, all should be holy".
Mishna Berura 4: "(22) And they will warn about this matter to all the people, etc. - here is really the obligation to always warn and rebuke those who have it in their hands, except that the Regalim has the most corruption".
The Shulhan Aruh and Mefarshim, go out against woman and man wine drinking together, in picnics in nature and in private homes. The act is transparent, the goal is marked, and the situation is very clear.
And this is what the judges forbid. Beyond that, there is no ruling that forbids social gatherings - boys and girls; women and men. This includes meals and shows together. Look for pictures of semahot and events in ultra-Orthodox society from 80 years ago or more in the Western countries, and you will find there Rabbis and Roshey yeshivas sitting together with women and men at the same table, at semahot shows and events.
Re your comment on simchot and events, can you really compare married adults with unmarried adolescents? Are you familiar with how chazal darshen 'bris kerusah leynayim pen esbonen al habesuloh' from Iyov? What about 'lo sosuru acharei einichem - Al yehorer odom b'yom v'yavo lidei tumoh b'lelah; - you really believe DL male teenagers are immune to such things?
"Beyond that, there is no ruling that forbids social gatherings - boys and girls; women and men"
Ok try this, wise guy.
צריך אדם להתרחק מהנשים מאד מאד ואסור לקרוץ בידיו או ברגליו ולרמוז בעיניו לאחד מהעריות ואסור לשחוק עמה להקל ראשו כנגדה או להביט ביופיה ואפילו להריח בבשמים שעליה אסור ן:
A person must stay very far from women. He is forbidden to signal with his hands or his feet, or to hint with his eyes, to one of the arayos. He is forbidden to be playful with her, to be frivolous in front of her, or to look upon her beauty. Even to smell the perfume upon her is forbidden.
How do these teenage boys and girls interact with each other? Solemnly only discussing serious things facing the world? No element of playfullness at all? No flirty behaviour ever?
Come on, be real!
Albeit, not from one of the books you ask for, but igros Moshe even haezer 4 siman 60 does directly address the issue (as well as quote shulchan aruch if I recall correctly and those shulchan aruchs would also be in aruch hashulchan in the relevant place I believe)
I do want to say that I'm just providing a source with no intention of getting involved in the personal attacks and unsolicited mussar
Shulchan oruch in Even Hoezer (I believe from memory in two different places) is full of admonishment for men to stay apart from women.
That's true, Rav Moshe references that, only that he quotes from Rambam. The reason why I referenced the Rav Moshe tshuva instead of that is because Rav Moshe is specifically dealing with this issue. I also referenced even haezer 20 and 21 in the following comment
Looking back at the tshuva, it seems I was mistaken. He quotes nosei keilim on shulchan aruch, but the lines that he quotes that also appear in shulchan aruch even haezer simanim 20 and 21, he quotes from Rambam instead
Slifkin writes an innocent post about his own community and the pack unleashes a personal attack on him. This is a mad world.
"Slifkin writes an innocent post about his own community and the pack unleashes a personal attack on him. This is a mad world."
Please. This isn't Imamother. It's a blog. A blog where the host writes endlessly about the failings of charedi society. *He* chose to bring his kids into his posts. Including one https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-tale-of-two-tefillin-bags where he wrote this grotesque thing: "The charedi yeshivos that I learned in were exclusively about personal spiritual growth and personal intellectual growth in Torah study, preferably for one’s entire lifetime. They were all about detachment from wider society and essentially taught selfishness. When the financial support of others enables you to spend your entire life in the comfort and security of the Beis HaMidrash and you don’t need to think or care about national responsibilities, the only requirement for your tefillin bag is to be beautiful."
===
You don't get to trash whole communities and then expect 'my-gosh-how-charming!' bouquets from said community when you post one occasional non-vitriolic post.
If there are substantive issues to address in the post, but to personally attack a British eccentric who is trying to make the best of his predicament is low.
"the risk of spiritual harm is irrelevant."
Statement made by the man himself in these very comments!
All his arguments are worthless sewage. Complete stop. Do not rely on anything he says.
Case closed.
Ever heard of "chassid shoteh"?
Oh yes! The chasid shoteh is not just the one seeing a girl drowning refusing to help. It's the one who enters a spiritually dangerous place when there IS already a full fledged army in place....he does NOT take any precautions..
He even states that considerations like proper frameworks for religiosity in the army is not important - because of war...yes that properly IS a chosid shoteh. A chosid shoteh indeed! Thanks for helping me flesh this out.
Have you ever wondered why I let people like you and Bandana comment here? The reason is that nothing delegitimizes the charedi perspective more than charedi apologists.
You just said literally nothing. I happen to deeply respect those serving, especially the religiously committed. But I'm not on a war path against everything charedim like you. If you argued with one ounce of sincerity you would never say that spiritual harm is irrelevant. If you cared about judiasm, you wouldn't post a halachically immodest picture of your daughter on your blog.
All you want is clicks and revenge. You want to remain relevant. I just hope nobody falls for your prank.
Wow, a troll accuses someone *else* of wanting clicks.
"Have you ever wondered why I let people like you and Bandana comment here?"
If I didn't know you better, I would have said it was intellectual honesty, but the simple truth is that you don't let people comment. You tried very hard to prevent people from commenting. You banned all your opposition until you realized that it doesn't work- they just keep on coming back.
What sad lives they must have.
Not as sad as perpetually angry secular Zionists, who perseverate in hundreds of articles and posts about their enemies! (That goes for both Slifkin and yourself, in case you were wondering. But Slifkin has a much worse case of the illness than you. Probably the biggest compliment you ever got.)
Your Rabbanim have rejected Army Service even in hareidi units so why are in you arguing"...proper frameworks for religiosity...".
No , the חסיד שוטה is not one who foolishly rushes into danger. The חסיד שוטה is a paradigm for an indecisive ditherer who's prime motivator is שב ואל תעשה עדיף. It's not a position that can be argued with, because שב ואל תעשה is a real thing. (And the רמב"ם does offer a model for fleeing to the caves and deserts.) The חסיד שוטה is allied with the פרוש קיזאי who shuts his eye, preemptively preventing himself from seeing anything which may threaten his spiritual well being and in doing so endangers himself.
Some balance is necessary. The Charedi approach of merely passively avoiding the possibility of spiritual harm, while demanding the opposite from others is unbalanced. The potential spiritual harms of the army, education or working (all of which are obligations under הלכה) needs to be met with the mitigation of those challenges too. Avoidance is not a complete solution.
What's the risk of spiritual harm to you, in reading this blog?
Why do you continue to do so?
This is a wonderful post. Agree with your sentiments completely.
Today there was a multi-school choral assembly in Jerusalem. Our son (ten years old) was one of the singers; one of their songs was dedicated to the graduates of their school (about four, I think) who have fallen in this war. They join the roughly *forty* others, listed on a plaque at the school entrance, who have fallen in various wars since the school was founded about eighty years ago.
I once put up a picture of the plaque and American friends were shocked that there would be such a thing in a school. Of course, *every* school in Israel has such a memorial.
But as you said, that's because we've been living in a bubble for a few decades. Just to take an example from Orthodox Jews: During World War II, Yeshiva University's yearbooks, each year, began with a very long list of students, alumni, and faculty who were serving- with memorials to those who had fallen at the top. That's more of what the world is really like.
Nachum, not every school, of course.
Right, not every. I left out a word there.
I don’t know why Americans would be shocked. My little town has a memorial for all its fallen veterans.
Indeed. On Memorial Day we used to go to the Washington Heights memorial down the block from our school.
My many American *Jews*, and many Americans who live in big cities, and so on, would indeed be shocked. And a school is not the same as a town square.
Israel resembles the Jewish diaspora enclave, but on a larger scale. A devout Jew could face hostility in an Arab neighborhood or even at a leftist protest. A uniformed soldier might be barred entry to an Arab-run café or a lecture by a leftist professor at a university. Israeli generals, lacking in resolve, adhere to idealistic "ethical guidelines" and shy away from pursuing victory. And the cycle continues.
What a warped perspective.
My viewpoint is validated by current events. Have swastikas appeared on synagogues in Israel? Absolutely. Have public prayers been disturbed? Indeed. And let's not overlook openly anti-Semitic, not just anti-religious, cartoons in publications such as Haaretz.
Furthermore, it's crucial to remember that in the Torah, specifically in Ki Tavo portion, there's a promise that in the event of failing to fulfill the commandments, a sovereign state will transform into a gradually deteriorating ghetto, where inhabitants live in fear even of their own shadows.
Don't worry, Avi and Banana have permission to be on the internet commenting on blogs. In their "yeshiva", they also have a pool table, snack bar, and frequent field trips.
When you read here the repeated personal humiliations of ultra-Orthodox people about the fact that the national religious is not life according to their worldview, and that their "religious" life is much different from that of the national religious, the conclusion is that they are unable to see things from a different perspective than their own. They wave "laws" that do not exist and are convinced that this is how the people of Israel ruled from time immemorial. Therefore, there is also no point in reacting to their personal evil towards the other. They are simply unable to think differently than they were brought up. And their attitude towards anyone who does not fit into their "bed of Sodom" is that the man sins.