You have to admire the sheer hubris. You don't have an "answer" to the Maharsha? You know full well that if there was something that agreed with your weltanschauung, you would accept it wholeheartedly and say that anyone who even suggested arguing with it was an apirkores. But if it's something that doesn't sit well with you...well, there must be an "answer" somewhere and "it's not so simple."
ummm, did you read the questions? it's not as simple as you think. besides i hardly care if the maharsha means what slifkin says it does. if he's right, there' a maharsha to know about. i have no problem with that, nor a bias in any direction. i never hanged my whole ideology on magni umatzli. i based it on teshuva tefila utzedaka. but whatever brother, not sure what you're hung up about
That's just yeshivish learning style. As opposed to the more Mordenish approach that approaches every sugyoh and halochoh with an open mind, not the results must fit in with chareidism before you start.
I've finally lost patience with people who constantly troll here, not saying anything of substance, throwing out extreme insults, and moreover doing so while hiding behind pseudonyms so that they don't need to take responsibility for their words.
One addition to what you said: in both the maamarei Chazal that you cited, there is certainly no assumption (at least according to the simple pshat) that even if these statements are meant as a practical guide, that Torah would protect anyone other than the person learning it. The Gemara doesn’t ask, why did ANYONE die early in Doeg’s day; the only question was about him.
So: 1) it’s not a practical guide because it’s not a halachic gemara; 2) even if it is a practical guide, it doesn’t say what people want it to say if they read it with mefarshim like the Maharsha; and 3) even if it did say what they want it to say, and we ignore the Maharsha etc., and someone wanted to implement it practically… it’s extremely selfish. It’s basically saying, “I’ll go protect myself and leave you soldiers to die."
Many of the sources stated in the relevant post on IM indicate clearly its only the tanoim/ amoraim themselves that were protected. There are few exceptions.
Natan, if you would've posed this as an interesting question on people who you know are greater in Torah than you, you would've gotten a lot further. Instead you were snide, decisive and know-it-ally. Come on, chabibi, you're better than that
"Boom. In a single sentence, Maharsha has completely and utterly neutralized those who cite “Torah protects” as a reason for yeshivah to replace army service. It doesn’t save you from being killed."
3) Your point has been responded to already. (Not specifically the maharsha, but the rebuttal is just as relevant anyhow.) https://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2015/12/practically-speaking-torah-protects.html "Reasonable people do not consider the cited cases as evidence that the IDF does not provide practical protection for the people of Israel. "True, sometimes terrorists slip through despite their efforts. But does this render the assertion that the IDF protects Israeli citizens "not unequivocal," or only true "in some abstract or hyper-qualified sense, but clearly not true in any practical sense today"? Does it lead to "the bottom line that there is no practical truth or ramifications" for the assertion that the IDF protects Israeli citizens? Obviously not.
And just as obviously, when Chazal say that Torah protects, they naturally do not mean that Torah is a 100% barrier against any harm. Only a fool (or a person with an agenda) understands Chazal that way. Chazal, who were painfully aware of the death of almost every talmid chacham in Eretz Yisroel by the Romans in the war of Beitar, knew that Torah does not provide protection unconditionally."
Rabbi Slifkin: Kol hakavod for banning those who engage in hate speech. It's bad enough when they use ad hominem attacks, or just have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. It's amazing your patience allowing comments that disagree with you in the spirit of open debate. Thanks for maintaining this forum
There's a part of Klal Yisrael announcing that they don't need to serve in the army because their Torah protects. That announcement should not be allowed to go unanswered.
Would you be able to find someone who could write a consistent, articulate and well-documented summary of the mainstream Hareidi view? I think that would lend itself to a higher level discussion than a lot of people snarking at each other.
Personally, I would be interested in understanding:
1- How the Hareidim justify their stance to the dati-leumi community, who are also committed to mitzvot and to Torah, but have very different priorities in terms of their relationship towards the army.
2- How they would justify their stance to the general secular community, for whom "we [Hareidim] believe that.." is a non-starter.
Finally, I will note that the very small number of Hareidi soldiers killed in the current war, versus the very high price that the dati community has already paid, is not due to the protection afforded by Torah study...except the protection provided by the law that allows them to stay far from the line of fire.
Do you read Hebrew? There's a wealth of material, including by non-chareidim. (Note that this isn't about the army specifically. It's a general outline of chareidi beliefs. It also makes clear that there's a lot of sub-streams within chareidi society.)
(This is more of a scholarly work which provides a lot of philosophical sources underlying a bunch of 'radical' groups- from Satmar to R Tzvi Yehuda Kook to Chabad to Aguda.)
I never said it should , generating anti Chareid Hate on this blog , is certainly not a way to "Answer" , Do you honestly think that the major chareidi Rabbonim over the last 50 years were oblivious to your claims??
No shim, this is what's important now. Obviously. Nm the rise of antisemitism around the world and all of the other huge problems-the people learning "too much" Torah, that's what needs to be fixed. From God's mouth to our ears
Literally of all the things that need to be fixed right now lets pick on the a group(Whether you beleive are correct or not) who are actually trying more then most to keep the Torah.
Natan, if you would've posed this as an interesting question on people who you know are greater in Torah than you, you would've gotten a lot further. Instead you were snide, decisive and know-it-ally. Come on, chabibi, you're better than that
All these explanations miss what is going on with Ra'atan sugya. While no one is quite sure what disease Ra'atan is (Preuss thinks it's leprosy), the various Rabbis give increasingly superstitious ways of avoiding the disease which result in a greater and greater level of shunning the sufferer. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi realized one should be ministering to the ill rather than shunning them and that ministering to people the way the Torah wants you to is generally not going to be harmful. RYBL was extraordinary in that he rejected the superstitions of the era and took his job as a Rabbi seriously. This Gemara is either directly referring to or is a good parallel to leper colonies which were and are largely based on superstition.
Not to mention, even if Torah did generally protect, serving in the army would be a case of מצוה שאי אפשר לעשותה על ידי אחרים which overrides Torah study. Anyone who chose Torah study over this mitzvah would be doing an averah.
Your post exemplifies the problem of "source sheet learning", which typifies your adopted Modox community. You discover a new (to you) source, and you think "gotcha". That's quite childish. Mature talmidei chachamim dont learn from source sheet hand outs, and dont get over excited at sources cherry picked in isolation. They view the totality of the output and circumstances. When you know the proper sitz im leben of things, you dont get all excited over a single new "source".
You made a “big mistake” in your understanding of what Rav Leuchter was saying. How do I know? Because he said so explicitly: “There were people who heard this [idea, referring to a different time he said it] and made a big mistake. Leuchter just said that the ONLY things we can do are to daven and to learn. People make a mistake and understand that in the context of “us” and “them”. “Us” meaning the Yeshiva world, and “them” meaning the soldiers. So, people think that Leuchter is saying that even though the soldiers are going into Gaza, really, it’s all about “us”, with our Torah and Tefillah. Charedim think that way at times. “Really, we are the real thing!” And now Leuchter is saying it too: only two things help, Torah and Tefillah.” [from a published shiur] I don’t think it’s my place to drag him into this here so I will not copy the rest of what he said. However, whatever message he was was sharing in that Mishpacha article was not what you thought it was.
"Maharsha also points out, in the account of Rabbi Akiva learning Torah under threat of death from the Roman Empire (Berachot 61b), that Rabbi Akiva was deliberately sacrificing his life by doing so. He was not relying upon his Torah to protect him."
RNS, can you please link the citation for this?
Putting one's life at risk is not equivalent to sacrificing one's life. Perhaps his Torah did protect him, for a long time. Technically one puts themselves at risk every time they cross the street.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that no where does Rabbi Akiva imply that Torah does NOT protect- the the contrary, he says "A Jew without Torah is like a fish out of water"
Slifking doesn't care what the Maharsha or any other gadol says. He's just picking cherries. When the Maharsha says something that doesn't work for Slifkin, he'll ignore the Maharsha or make fun of him.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/hareidi-hasbara
don't love the tone, but there are plenty of points there worth reading
No, there aren't.
o, my bad
i thought the point about the maharsha was good. i don't have an answer to the maharsha but it clearly not as simple as you made it out to be
You have to admire the sheer hubris. You don't have an "answer" to the Maharsha? You know full well that if there was something that agreed with your weltanschauung, you would accept it wholeheartedly and say that anyone who even suggested arguing with it was an apirkores. But if it's something that doesn't sit well with you...well, there must be an "answer" somewhere and "it's not so simple."
ummm, did you read the questions? it's not as simple as you think. besides i hardly care if the maharsha means what slifkin says it does. if he's right, there' a maharsha to know about. i have no problem with that, nor a bias in any direction. i never hanged my whole ideology on magni umatzli. i based it on teshuva tefila utzedaka. but whatever brother, not sure what you're hung up about
That's just yeshivish learning style. As opposed to the more Mordenish approach that approaches every sugyoh and halochoh with an open mind, not the results must fit in with chareidism before you start.
A yeshivish learning style that nowadays only goes one way.
mirrors have been around for a while
natan, that was definitely not a nice response, but deserving of a ban?
it's your platform dude...
I've finally lost patience with people who constantly troll here, not saying anything of substance, throwing out extreme insults, and moreover doing so while hiding behind pseudonyms so that they don't need to take responsibility for their words.
Cant really blame you. Must not be pleasant to be proven as a fool, time and time again.
Btw, Sender Goldberg is not a pseudonym.
You have no idea whether it is or isn't.
i hear you bro
Intelligent.
Why not ?basically the equivalent of me just saying ''you are wrong'' without justification
What was wrong with the tone?
One addition to what you said: in both the maamarei Chazal that you cited, there is certainly no assumption (at least according to the simple pshat) that even if these statements are meant as a practical guide, that Torah would protect anyone other than the person learning it. The Gemara doesn’t ask, why did ANYONE die early in Doeg’s day; the only question was about him.
So: 1) it’s not a practical guide because it’s not a halachic gemara; 2) even if it is a practical guide, it doesn’t say what people want it to say if they read it with mefarshim like the Maharsha; and 3) even if it did say what they want it to say, and we ignore the Maharsha etc., and someone wanted to implement it practically… it’s extremely selfish. It’s basically saying, “I’ll go protect myself and leave you soldiers to die."
This comment deserves to be put up as a guest post
lol
True
Furthermore, we don't see yeshivot moving to the front lines to add a spiritual iron dome
Many of the sources stated in the relevant post on IM indicate clearly its only the tanoim/ amoraim themselves that were protected. There are few exceptions.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/hareidi-hasbara
Natan, if you would've posed this as an interesting question on people who you know are greater in Torah than you, you would've gotten a lot further. Instead you were snide, decisive and know-it-ally. Come on, chabibi, you're better than that
You can ask and write it up.
That the best you got?
If you have an issue with it please do share
ummm, yah...?
"Enter Maharsha...,"
"Boom. In a single sentence, Maharsha has completely and utterly neutralized those who cite “Torah protects” as a reason for yeshivah to replace army service. It doesn’t save you from being killed."
1) This is so juvenile.
2) The idea that there's some game-changing effect of citing the maharsha reminds me of your comical 'discovery' of the zmanim book. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/mission-impossible/comment/39665469
3) Your point has been responded to already. (Not specifically the maharsha, but the rebuttal is just as relevant anyhow.) https://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2015/12/practically-speaking-torah-protects.html "Reasonable people do not consider the cited cases as evidence that the IDF does not provide practical protection for the people of Israel. "True, sometimes terrorists slip through despite their efforts. But does this render the assertion that the IDF protects Israeli citizens "not unequivocal," or only true "in some abstract or hyper-qualified sense, but clearly not true in any practical sense today"? Does it lead to "the bottom line that there is no practical truth or ramifications" for the assertion that the IDF protects Israeli citizens? Obviously not.
And just as obviously, when Chazal say that Torah protects, they naturally do not mean that Torah is a 100% barrier against any harm. Only a fool (or a person with an agenda) understands Chazal that way. Chazal, who were painfully aware of the death of almost every talmid chacham in Eretz Yisroel by the Romans in the war of Beitar, knew that Torah does not provide protection unconditionally."
Um, the maharsha doesn't think Torah protects -at all- from death, rather from "pain".
On the statement "Torah Shields and protects" he says -not from death-.
Not " it protects conditionally " from death.
Rabbi Slifkin: Kol hakavod for banning those who engage in hate speech. It's bad enough when they use ad hominem attacks, or just have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. It's amazing your patience allowing comments that disagree with you in the spirit of open debate. Thanks for maintaining this forum
Why the incitement you are creating a forum in which people are literally just bashing a part of klal yisroel .
There's a part of Klal Yisrael announcing that they don't need to serve in the army because their Torah protects. That announcement should not be allowed to go unanswered.
Rabbi Slifkin-
Would you be able to find someone who could write a consistent, articulate and well-documented summary of the mainstream Hareidi view? I think that would lend itself to a higher level discussion than a lot of people snarking at each other.
Personally, I would be interested in understanding:
1- How the Hareidim justify their stance to the dati-leumi community, who are also committed to mitzvot and to Torah, but have very different priorities in terms of their relationship towards the army.
2- How they would justify their stance to the general secular community, for whom "we [Hareidim] believe that.." is a non-starter.
Finally, I will note that the very small number of Hareidi soldiers killed in the current war, versus the very high price that the dati community has already paid, is not due to the protection afforded by Torah study...except the protection provided by the law that allows them to stay far from the line of fire.
Do you read Hebrew? There's a wealth of material, including by non-chareidim. (Note that this isn't about the army specifically. It's a general outline of chareidi beliefs. It also makes clear that there's a lot of sub-streams within chareidi society.)
מדריך לחברה החרדית
https://www.idi.org.il/books/17580
(This is more of a scholarly work which provides a lot of philosophical sources underlying a bunch of 'radical' groups- from Satmar to R Tzvi Yehuda Kook to Chabad to Aguda.)
הקץ המגולה ומדינת היהודים
https://www.am-oved.co.il/%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A5-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D
=====
There's also apologetics. (I don't mean that in a pejorative way. I agree with a lot of said apologetics.)
למה הם שונים מאת הרב מרדכי נויגרשל
https://www.kodeshbook.co.il/product.asp?productid=4756
This is in English:
The Haredim: A Defense
https://azure.org.il/download/magazine/1725az25_Rose.pdf
There's also a lot of material here, available in both Hebrew and English translation.
https://iyun.org.il/sedersheni-categories/%d7%a7%d7%94%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%94-%d7%96%d7%94%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%97%d7%a8%d7%93%d7%99%d7%aa/
Thank you very much.
I do read Hebrew. I will take a look.
I was suggesting that a guest post here giving a coherent presentation of the Hareidi view might raise the level of discourse.
IDF FAILS, thousands of Jews killed and injured, IDF takes forever to respond.
Slifkin's brilliant conclusion: See, Torah doesn't protect and haredim are evil.
I never said it should , generating anti Chareid Hate on this blog , is certainly not a way to "Answer" , Do you honestly think that the major chareidi Rabbonim over the last 50 years were oblivious to your claims??
There's plenty of people in the charedi world who read this blog.
And the answer to your second question: Some are oblivious, and some never use the claim that "Torah protects" as an exemption from army.
So what if charedim read it ? Do you have an example one of them actually saying that this is THE reason they dont go to the Army?
Read the first paragraph.
As for other reasons, you may not want to go there. They were covered in the previous RJ article or two on the subject.
I don't recall Rav Leuchter saying it was THE reason they don't go to the Army ,I dont even see anything about not going to the Army there
Considering how long it took the IDF to arrive they might as well have been studying Torah instead. What do you have to say about that?
I think that they eventually came and saved thousands of lives, unlike people in kollel.
No shim, this is what's important now. Obviously. Nm the rise of antisemitism around the world and all of the other huge problems-the people learning "too much" Torah, that's what needs to be fixed. From God's mouth to our ears
Literally of all the things that need to be fixed right now lets pick on the a group(Whether you beleive are correct or not) who are actually trying more then most to keep the Torah.
Yah:(
Natan, if you would've posed this as an interesting question on people who you know are greater in Torah than you, you would've gotten a lot further. Instead you were snide, decisive and know-it-ally. Come on, chabibi, you're better than that
All these explanations miss what is going on with Ra'atan sugya. While no one is quite sure what disease Ra'atan is (Preuss thinks it's leprosy), the various Rabbis give increasingly superstitious ways of avoiding the disease which result in a greater and greater level of shunning the sufferer. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi realized one should be ministering to the ill rather than shunning them and that ministering to people the way the Torah wants you to is generally not going to be harmful. RYBL was extraordinary in that he rejected the superstitions of the era and took his job as a Rabbi seriously. This Gemara is either directly referring to or is a good parallel to leper colonies which were and are largely based on superstition.
Not to mention, even if Torah did generally protect, serving in the army would be a case of מצוה שאי אפשר לעשותה על ידי אחרים which overrides Torah study. Anyone who chose Torah study over this mitzvah would be doing an averah.
you probably meant שאי אפשר, but he way you wrote it is more accurate, which answers your q:)
Yes, that's what I meant, I was tired
So where was the holy army when everyone was being killed and taken hostage?
That's the point. The army isn't holy, it's flawed and understaffed.
Where was the protection of the holy torah?
"If only people who champion the overriding importance of Torah study would take their Torah study more seriously. " So unneccesary
If it's so simple, why would the gedolom not see it.
The Gaonim such as Rav Sherira Gaonand Rav Hai Gaon
stated that אגדות לא מחייבות.
You can accept them or not. They are just Drash. So.use common sense when learning in Aggadot.
Your post exemplifies the problem of "source sheet learning", which typifies your adopted Modox community. You discover a new (to you) source, and you think "gotcha". That's quite childish. Mature talmidei chachamim dont learn from source sheet hand outs, and dont get over excited at sources cherry picked in isolation. They view the totality of the output and circumstances. When you know the proper sitz im leben of things, you dont get all excited over a single new "source".
You made a “big mistake” in your understanding of what Rav Leuchter was saying. How do I know? Because he said so explicitly: “There were people who heard this [idea, referring to a different time he said it] and made a big mistake. Leuchter just said that the ONLY things we can do are to daven and to learn. People make a mistake and understand that in the context of “us” and “them”. “Us” meaning the Yeshiva world, and “them” meaning the soldiers. So, people think that Leuchter is saying that even though the soldiers are going into Gaza, really, it’s all about “us”, with our Torah and Tefillah. Charedim think that way at times. “Really, we are the real thing!” And now Leuchter is saying it too: only two things help, Torah and Tefillah.” [from a published shiur] I don’t think it’s my place to drag him into this here so I will not copy the rest of what he said. However, whatever message he was was sharing in that Mishpacha article was not what you thought it was.
A least provide a link.
"Maharsha also points out, in the account of Rabbi Akiva learning Torah under threat of death from the Roman Empire (Berachot 61b), that Rabbi Akiva was deliberately sacrificing his life by doing so. He was not relying upon his Torah to protect him."
RNS, can you please link the citation for this?
Putting one's life at risk is not equivalent to sacrificing one's life. Perhaps his Torah did protect him, for a long time. Technically one puts themselves at risk every time they cross the street.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that no where does Rabbi Akiva imply that Torah does NOT protect- the the contrary, he says "A Jew without Torah is like a fish out of water"
Since when do you care what the Maharsha says?
Is Maharsho the only one who explains this Gemora? I haven't looked, but generally one brings multiple meforshim.
Slifking doesn't care what the Maharsha or any other gadol says. He's just picking cherries. When the Maharsha says something that doesn't work for Slifkin, he'll ignore the Maharsha or make fun of him.