Let me understand this. When we are called to “gather for a day of prayer on the Fast of Esther”, we should do so to prevent the “draft the students of the Torah”? I would have thought we would be summoned to pray for the release of those suffering over a year in the dungeons of Hamas. I guess I have to have my priorities adjusted.
I am quoting a definition from Shaulson's blog today regarding "Haredi" soldiers: "'Haredi' is someone to whom 'Zionism' is foreign, 'nationalism' is forbidden... If the army allowed soldiers to declare that they are not 'Zionists' because 'Zionism' is Judaism without religion, its source, I would treat you differently." His words say it all: to be Haredi means it is forbidden to be nationalistic. Is it halachically forbidden to be nationalistic? No!! On the contrary, the Rambam establishes it as a positive commandment to appoint a king. And important halachic authorities—including Haredim—have ruled that when it is not possible to appoint a king, the elected government of the Jews functions halachically as a king. Therefore, the entire Haredi world is built on politics and fights against the Halaha
No, that’s a complete misrepresentation. When a Charedi person says that it is forbidden to be nationalistic, they mean that Judaism fundamentally rejects nationalism as the Zionists define it. The sources you quote aren’t discussing nationalism in the Zionist sense—they refer to the obligation to have a king or governing body, which is an entirely different concept.
The core issue is that Zionist “nationalism” attempts to redefine Judaism as merely a cultural or national identity, stripping it of its essence—the Torah. That is what is absolutely forbidden. As R’ Amram Blau put it: “Zionism is counterfeit Judaism, for it seeks to transform the Jewish nation from a people of the Torah into just another nationalistic group interested in state and territory.”
Charedim don’t reject leadership or governance—they reject the distortion of Judaism into a secular nationalist ideology. That’s the nationalism they oppose, and it is completely antithetical to Judaism.
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with nationalism. It's about civic duties and shared responsibility. There are millions of Arabs trying to kill us all. And charedim want everyone except themselves to do the hard work of dealing with this threat.
Slifkin, if your entire argument is based on civic responsibility and not religious nationalism, why is this situation any different to Kantonist Russia, where the religious Jews tried to avoid army service at all costs, much like the chareidim are doing nowadays?
Well, for one thing, the so-called khapers were recruiting for the Cantonists by kidnapping people (normally) at the age of 12, but as young as eight or nine. Then they were trained until reaching 18, and forced to stay in for 25 years, while never being allowed to study Torah. R' Slifkin's argument (as I understand it) is that able-bodied Haredi should adopt a hesder-like system, where they would start to serve as adults and serve for 18 months (in an environment where they could legally study Torah) before returning to learning Torah full time. Comparing mass Haredi adoption of Hesder to the Cantonists is a serious false equivalency.
I am not comparing the brutality of the Canonists to the IDF.
I am saying that the Jews have avoided military service for centuries despite having a civil responsibility to join the army, so why should they suddenly change when it comes to the IDF?
Indeed, my anger ( and that of many others) has nothing to do with charedim rejecting nationalism or zionism as an ideology. I don’t care one whit what ideology the chareidi population accepts or rejects. I just want them to give as they receive. It’s called equity and justice. Or more crudely “pay to play”. They can curse me all they want, but they better “show up” to share burdens. It’s far more simple than theoretical ideological issues. If they continue to be פורש מן הציבור then they should expect nothing from the ציבור (but contempt and hate).
The concept of Poresh min Hatzibur does not apply when the tzibbur is doing something that is halachically incorrect, which, rightly or wrongly, is how the charedim view army service. Otherwise all of us are being poresh min hatzibur from the much larger liberal Judaism groups, such as reform Judaism, which is a position I will safely assume you do not want to take.
If regards to sharing the burden, it has been the position of orthodox Jews throughout the past thousand years to avoid military service at all costs (e.g. the cantonists), which is the same way the charedim are acting now. Meaning, there is a precedent to the actions of the charedim from past generations.
Without coming onto a religious nationalistic/messianic reasoning because charedim disagree with them, why would the charedim view the current situation any differently than the cantonist drafts in the Russio-French war?
Jews DID serve in militaries to defend their secular country.
Cantonist Russia was the exception. The reasons are fairly clear. Russia did not need the Jews serving in the army, and in fact most did not serve on the front lines. The policy to serve 25 years after six years in military academy in the army past the age of 12 was designed to be onerous and incompatible with religious Judaism. Tzar Peter spoke openly of Russifying the undesirable minorities.
In practice, children as young as 6 were abducted from their families, and the policy was that even after the 31 years of service, former soldiers were not sent back to the city or town they were recruited from. How is that remotely similar to a draft into an army with mostly Jews, that has kosher food and allows time for prayers and torah study, that does not seek to permanently cut bochrim from families, and where the need for soldiers to defend Jews lives is great and the danger is obvious? Frum Jews DID historically serve in secular armies in times of war and danger. For example, my grandfather served in WWI, and beyond the need for kosher food and shabbat and chaplains, I did not find any protests against it from chareidim of the time.
That's ridiculous. Zionism does not define anything other than "support the State of Israel." There are at least ten Zionist parties in the Knesset alone, all with very different views. The vast majority of Zionist Israelis are not secular. No soldier is asked to pledge to any ideology.
Problem is, you're living in the 1920's with 1920's definitions and 1920's quotes. Charedim never realized that the world changed in 1948.
I am not talking about political zionism. I am talking about religious Zionism. Religious Zionism is a religious support for the state of Israel, viewing it as part of religion, which is what the Charedim disagree with. When you describe Zionism as merely ‘supporting the state of Israel’ that is not describing Zionism as a religious tool, in any sense
"The core issue is that Zionist “nationalism” attempts to redefine Judaism as merely a cultural or national identity, stripping it of its essence—the Torah."
"I am not talking about political zionism. I am talking about religious Zionism"
You already got it wrong when you attempt to give a single definition of the many different Zionisms. You chose (or just repeated a trope) a definition that is clear to all as one of the variant of secular Zionism. Then you say you were "talking about religious Zionism".
Please stick to one topic, and keep away from plot twists.
You do realize you just changed your entire argument, right? So either you're a troll, or you don't know how to argue. Either way, it's not worth engaging with you. Buh-bye.
I don’t know where Haredim today get this perception of "Zionist" Jews in Israel. The numerical majority of these "Zionists" strive to uphold the halachic tradition of the Jewish people. They relate to the state in the same way they relate to their workplace. 100% of those who work treat their profession as entirely devoid of any "religious" factor, and their being "religious" is expressed in interpersonal relationships according to halacha at work, in keeping kosher, Shabbat and holidays, and Tsenius
This is also how most "Zionist" halacha-observant Jews relate to the laws of the State of Israel and to the state itself. Students of Rabbi Kook see the state as an opportunity provided by divine providence to the Jewish people to establish a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, and to atone for the sin of baseless hatred that brought upon us the disaster of the destruction of the Temple and exile.
The obligation to establish a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" is the covenant of the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. Therefore, it is the primary obligation of the nation. At every moment when the political reality allows for it, the duty is to strive to establish it. According to my understanding of the Sinai covenant, anyone who does not direct their entire life toward fulfilling this obligation denies the Sinai covenant and thereby removes themselves from the Jewish people, God forbid.
I have not heard, read, or seen any Zionist Jew today—even those who do not observe most of the commandments between man and God—who claims that the secular State of Israel is Judaism.
Moreover, let’s assume the Haredi argument about today’s Zionists is correct. What does that have to do with the obligation to establish a state, "Mamlehet Cohanim veGoy Kadosh", work, and serve in the army?
In this context, Shaulson is lying brazenly. The army does not demand any Zionist declaration or oath. What does it demand? Loyalty to the State of Israel, which provides it with weapons.
Your argument contains an inherent contradiction. On one hand, you claim (Point 1) that religious Zionists relate to the state pragmatically, just as they do to a workplace, without seeing it as inherently religious. Yet, in Point 2, you assert that the state is a divinely ordained opportunity to establish a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” making it a central religious obligation. If the state is just a practical framework, why assign it such theological significance?
Furthermore, “Mamlechet Kohanim v’Goy Kadosh” refers to the spiritual mission of the Jewish people, not the establishment of a political entity. The Torah presents it as a national identity defined by divine service, not sovereignty over land or governance through a modern state.
Lastly, regarding military service, the issue is not about swearing allegiance to a piece of paper but about immersing oneself in a system built upon a nationalist ideology. The army is not just a defense force—it actively promotes the Zionist worldview, shaping soldiers’ identities accordingly. For many, joining the IDF is not merely about defending lives but about participating in a nationalist project that aligns with a specific ideological framework. That is the real concern.
Correct me if I misunderstood you. Because according to your argument, if in Israel your mother, wife and daughters were raped and then everyone, including the sons, were murdered, you would not call the IDF to save them. Why? Because "the IDF is not merely about defending lives but about participating in a nationalist project that aligns with a specific ideological framework. That is the real concern." If you behave like this, you have a very serious halakhic problem. And if you call for your immediate family but not your distant family, you have the same halakhic problem
But, there is no real argument here, YP is talking about another matter. Society, or if you prefer the Jewish community, can be discussed separately from the State. But they are, for better or worse, connected. The obligation of מלחמת מצוה is not negated by the existence of an undesirable government. Certainly, the Gafni/Deri coalition is no worse than מנשה!
The issue of rapes, murder, hostages, economic devastation and homelessness is not what YP is concerned with here. He's talking about the government and the State as a political entity. And he can do so because there is a connection between the State and the community. YP implies that obligations to the latter are negated by the connection to the former.
Thanks. The Halakha does not differentiate but rules categorically on the obligation to defend society within the framework of the state's army. The evidence from all the books of prophecy on this matter is unequivocal: on the one hand, prophets accuse kings of idolatry, but the prophets never forbade the people from enlisting in the armies of those kings and defending against the invasion of foreign armies into the territories of the kingdoms, Judah and Israel.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here, but if I understand correctly, then you have in a way cottoned on to my entire point. What I am trying to say, is that one cannot disregard religious positions on the army and Israel, from nationalistic/political standpoints. The charedi belief can only be challenged in the realm of Torah. So any claim of ‘National Responsibility’ ‘No Representation without Participation’ and the like, is not an important arguement, toward the charedim - their veiw is religous not political. To argue that ‘thousands are dying’ ‘the army needs you’ is an ineffective arguements when the charedim do not beleive that joining the army is the way to change that - they will just learn more, and fight harder against those who push them away from that
It turns out you have no idea what is happening in Israel from a security perspective. Citizens are enlisting and fighting for their homes and families. Where did you get the argument that enlisting is for ideological reasons to establish an anti-religious state that only expresses Judaism? Besides, what does it matter what others do and think?
In my reply, I divided between the position of the vast majority of "Zionists" who observe the mitzvot and the approach of the disciples of Rabbi Kook, who see the return to Zion as a divine providence that requires the establishment of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. You did not pay attention to the distinction.
"Mamlechet Kohanim v’Goy Kadosh” refers to the spiritual mission of the Jewish people, not the establishment of a political entity" is the Christian argument and it was precisely this argument that was the breaking point for Jesus following his master's attitude towards him (B. Sanhedrin). If you are expressing an ultra-Orthodox position here, then it turns out that they are the new "Minim".
I see. I think that there are three levels. The middle being what you describe as ‘Zionists’ who view the state like a job. Then you have the followers of R’Kook, who think that the state is Reshis Tzmichas Geuloseinu and divinely ordained. The third is the charedi approach - that the state is evil, and wrong, and joining it in partnership is wrong
Every person has the right to think about what is important to them and what is not. If the Haredim believe that the State of Israel is evil and that one must not join it, then they should not join. This means: they should not live here because the state has built and maintains the roads, electricity, water, gas, communication systems, and sewage. They should not receive anything from the state—no money, no healthcare, education, welfare, burial services, or anything else. No national insurance, no health insurance. Nothing. They should not vote or be elected. This is almost the Satmar approach. Therefore, every Haredi who lives in the State of Israel has a problem: if you don’t give, you cannot take. If you don’t serve in the army, it is unacceptable for you to determine how much weaponry I should have, what kind, and when and how I should serve in the army and go to war.
So get the h--l out of there. why live in an evil country? While you are leaving make sure to take all you Rabbonim with the ideology, They also can't stay in an evil country.
That will be the best thing to happen to Israel. Halivay, with Hashems help Bikorov Mammish!
"That is a very kabbalistic/hasidic interpretation of Torah, which is, unfortunately, what has predominated in the last centuries. "
I'm not sure whether it's been exactly that way for exactly that long. But your point is generally correct and concerning. But I'm not too bothered by the rise in mystical thinking. It is a part of our מסורה. What does bother me is when סוד drives out and negates נגלה.
RNS's post here illustrates how Charedi activists have appropriated פסוקים and have nullified the פשט meaning and seem to be unaware of the perverse irony.
Another case in point is a recent pashkevil citing "שמע ישראל אתם קרבים היום למלחמה". (The irony there is that רש"י explains that the mere merit of קריאת שמע is sufficient for Hashem to provide salvation.)
When I read between the lines of these pronouncements, I can only see them as an attempt to prevent the collapse of the Yeshiva economy at all costs. It's all about money. Nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Yesterday, someone here responded to me that the Sinai Covenant, in which the Israelites committed to being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to God, is a spiritual kingdom.
I don't know who the person was who claimed this, but his words echo the attacks of the Christian Church against Rabbinic Judaism. I debated for a long time whether to write the sources here, and eventually decided to do so. I asked ChatGPT to summarize for me a number of such quotes that I remember learning about in a course on Christian antisemitism. I didn't verify every quote word for word, but this is the essence of what I learned in that course.
The concept of the "spiritual kingdom of the Church" versus the "Jewish kingdom of flesh" has been discussed in various writings, especially in early Christian theology, where the Church is often seen as the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel, while the Jewish kingdom of flesh is associated with earthly or temporal power.
Here are a few quotes from Church writings that may reflect this theme:
1. St. Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John)
St. Cyril of Alexandria was an early Church Father who wrote extensively on the nature of the Church as a spiritual kingdom.
• "The kingdom of heaven does not consist in earthly things, but in the power and presence of God. Christ has come to establish a kingdom, not of this world, but a spiritual one, in which He reigns in the hearts of the faithful." (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, Homily 11)
This quote emphasizes the idea that Christ's kingdom is spiritual and not tied to earthly, fleshly realms like the kingdom of Israel.
2. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica)
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, addresses the relationship between the Old and New Covenants and the nature of Christ’s kingdom.
• "Christ's kingdom is not of this world, for it is a spiritual kingdom. The kingdom of Israel was a temporal one, a shadow of the eternal kingdom that Christ would establish through His Church." (Summa Theologica, III, Question 35, Article 3)
Aquinas contrasts the temporal kingdom of Israel, which was bound to earthly concerns, with the eternal and spiritual kingdom established by Christ.
3. St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies)
St. Irenaeus discusses the transition from the old covenant, given to Israel, to the new covenant in Christ, which is realized through the Church.
• "The Church is the place of the true and spiritual Israel, where we are made heirs to the promises made to the fathers, not through flesh, but through the Spirit, by the grace of God in Christ Jesus." (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 31)
St. Irenaeus highlights that the promises to Israel are now fulfilled in the Church, not through physical descent or earthly kingship, but through spiritual rebirth in Christ.
4. Pope Pius XI (Encyclical "Divini Redemptoris")
Pope Pius XI's encyclical reflects the Church's view of the distinction between the earthly and spiritual realms, though it primarily deals with atheistic communism, it also contrasts the temporal with the spiritual.
• "The Church is the kingdom of Christ. It is spiritual and not of this world, and it has its own laws, authority, and kingdom distinct from the earthly powers. The Jewish nation, with all its temporal concerns, was but a precursor to the spiritual kingdom which Christ has established." (Divini Redemptoris, 1937)
In this, the Pope underscores the distinction between Christ’s kingdom and earthly kingdoms, which include the temporal concerns of the Jewish nation.
Conclusion:
These quotes reflect the traditional Christian teaching that the Church is the spiritual kingdom that fulfills the promises of the Old Covenant, contrasting it with the earthly kingdom of Israel, which was focused on fleshly and temporal concerns. Early Church Fathers provide a rich theological framework for understanding the nature of the Church as a spiritual, eternal kingdom, while the Jewish kingdom is seen as temporary and pointing forward to the true kingdom of Christ.
Haredi "leadership" seems to think they can hunker down and ride out the storm of the demand that they take on equal responsibilities for equal rights. War is always a powerful engine of social change off the battlefield as well as on it. Israeli haredi society has addicted itself to major government support, and they cannot see the backlash that is coming.
I used to think that think that Israel is doomed when the Charedim become the majority, and then I received the following email from a Charedi acquaintance, which changed my perception:
Charedim have nothing against leaving Yeshiva and protecting and helping Jews everywhere, as evidenced by the many organizations we created and continue to staff, in the US and Israel. (think Yad Sarah, Hatzolah, Zaka, etc.) Charedim also created and staff organizations like Shomrim all over NY and NJ, which acts almost like a second police force.
The only issue Charedim have with army service in Israel, is with the IDF as it is currently constituted. Charedim will never join the IDF because we don't want the IDF to affect our level of religion and culture.
Charedim will join an Israeli army and begin protecting Israel when one of two things happen:
1 - A separate army is created that is run entirely by charedim. Charedim will join in droves.
2 - The charedim become the majority in Israel, take over the existing IDF and make it entirely charedi. The charedim will then join in droves.
Either way, Israel will thrive when the charedim become the majority and join the charedi army. So don't worry about the future of Israel. We'll be okay.
If that were true, they would have asked for changes in the IDF as a condition to enlist. They haven't. The argument is that Torah protects instead of fighting. Why would they go and fight, even in a Charedi army, if staying learning helps more?
Sorry but you're mixing up charedim in the States with charedim in Israel. There is nothing like shomrim in Israel.
And if "Charedim will join an Israeli army and begin protecting Israel when one of two things happen" that does happen, then, chas v'shalom, we will definitely lose the war.
Israel is doomed and gone, the day the charedim become the majority as every one can see one day that will happen
However all the 'Yodeah Itttem" claim it will be a civil war - do you REALLY think the chlonim are just going to lay down, roll over, and let outsiders take over the Zionist land their parents fought with blood to get. Do you think they will live under some Rebbe or some Safardi Chacham that will tell them what shows they can watch on TV.
"A separate army is created that is run entirely by charedim"
Suppose it's early morning and it's שבת and חג. It's so early that חסידים on base haven't gotten to מקוה yet. Surprise attack. Who goes out to battle, the חסידים, the מתנגדים or the חילונים.
The answer of course: the סרוגים and some token Frenks.
The claim that Charedim have “seceded” from the wider Jewish nation assumes a particular definition of “Am Yisrael”—one that includes all Jews equally, regardless of their ideological or halachic positions. But if a segment of the Jewish people holds that another segment is fundamentally mistaken in their understanding of Torah and Jewish destiny, then their perspective is not one of secession but of defining the Jewish nation differently. This is not unique to Charedim; every ideological group in Judaism draws its own boundaries of legitimacy to some extent.
Furthermore, the Charedi community does not merely refuse military service out of self-interest; they sincerely believe that their Torah learning is what protects the Jewish people. From their vantage point, leaving yeshiva for the IDF is not an act of service but an abandonment of Klal Yisrael’s true source of strength. This perspective extends even to hesder students, who split their time between Torah study and military service—since, from a Charedi point of view, any voluntary departure from full-time Torah learning in favor of military service is a deviation from the true path of Jewish survival and responsibility.
Ultimately, expecting Charedim to conform to a broader definition of Jewish national responsibility, while disregarding their own deeply held convictions, is itself an act of narrow-mindedness. If one criticizes them for failing to fit into a particular ideological framework, without acknowledging that their framework is fundamentally different, then one is guilty of the same insularity that one attributes to them.
I am not saying that this is what the gedolim think. I am not saying that this is what the rov am think. I am saying that the intelligent, thought-through people within the charedi community, do believe this.
How many time does it end like this that you can still argue it doesn't disprove anything. Look at our history - Only one tie we one during Purim and we make such a celebration. The rest of the lime we lost bad.
How many times do we have to suffer, before we pick up a gun a defend ourselves?
If you want to say that almost every halachic authority from the destruction of the second beis hamikdosh until now where stupid, then you can claim this. I personally don’t think they were stupid, so it is not an argument. It is an untenable position to argue that from the Purim story we should learn that the response to an attack is to fight back - never mind the fact that the Megillah doesn’t support such a reading (for example, the decree was declared about halfway through the Megillah, and the attack back happened after much prayer, learning and other such activities) but the hundreds of years since the second temple no one learnt that way should make it very hard to believe that is pshat
I am happy to discuss the views - I believe there is an intelligent and thought through process to them. And I think that the majority of any community has views that are wrong, and only the intelligent, thought-through people truly understand the views of the community.
Have the intelligent, thought-through people published a detailed, comprehensive halachic analysis demonstrating the halachic rationale why this is not a milchemes mitzvah? In other words, comparing and contrasting the shittos that say it is with their own analysis that it's not, just as they would with any other issue, for instance when the best time would be for the Purim seudah this year? Please point me to the detailed written teshuva or to the comprehensive shiur.
They don’t feel a need to publish such a teshuvah, because it is a fait acompli. Their beliefs about the state in general inform their specific beliefs about this war. They are not going to start up a debate that was discussed, and concluded (in a sense) in 1948.
If Torah learning is so fundamentally important that it supersedes even the obligations of a milchemet mitzvah, please explain the rationale behind the Bein Hazmanim and other vacations, which add up to at least 8 weeks per year.
1) Charedim do not believe there is currently a milchemes mitzvah. And as much as you may argue, and try and prove them wrong, until they agree that there is a milchemes mitzvah here, to bring it up is a straw man of their arguement
2) If one spends their time in bein hazmanim chilling by the beach then I agree that they are wrong. If one learns eight hours a day, helps their mother clean for another two hours, and spends some evening singing at a barbecue with friends, and you still think that is wrong - I point you to hundreds of so-called zionists who do the same thing
Do the majority of the 70,000 “full time” learners actually spend every day of bein hazmanim learning?
Not sure if you have any concept of the day in the life of a combat soldier, but I can assure you from personal experience that it lasts longer than eight hours. And showers/beds can be hard to come by.
I concede the point about accepting milchemet mitzvah, which of course they won’t because otherwise their entire edifice would crumble and they would be exposed for what they really are.
Maybe not, but then your problem is not with the system, and what actually happens within the system. And the milchemes mitzvah point, even if you make an argument that it is motivated reasoning, it is still a viable halachic opinion, and ignoring it because you think it collapses halachically is a misunderstanding of Halacha
I’m not knowledgeable enough to discuss these Halachic intricacies, but Rav Slifkin is. I suspect he would disagree with the inevitably self serving extremist charedi interpretation. In fact I think he has written extensively on this exact point.
In the end they can believe and behave as they wish. The question is how the government and country as a whole should respond. Citizenship has both privileges and responsibilities, and one should not be able to claim the first without fulfilling the second. If these communities are so antiZionist, they have no business voting , and should have no issue with a “no representation without participation“ law.
But to try to justify two months a year of vacation from Torah study while simultaneously insisting that Torah study is the highest value is so patently ridiculous that it’s probably best to bow out gracefully.
Arguing for a ‘no representation without participation’ law is fine in a political or philosophical context. However, it is incredibly arrogant to assert that such a law should exist religiously. If you claim that your interpretation of Yiddishkeit defines participation—and therefore, anyone who does not conform is disregarded—you undermine your own position. I’m not saying the state must fund all those in full-time learning (though I will always vote for it). I’m simply stating that this is a political debate, not a religious one.
The point isn't thinking that it's "wrong" to combine learning with helping your mother or sing at a barbecue. It's about the hypocrisy of the chareidim themselves. "So-called Zionists" obviously don't think that's wrong, but by the chareidi logic it should be considered wrong. The irony of quoting the megillah to not stand up to defend the Jewish community is so mind boggling, and yet you either purposely ignore it or legitimately don't seem to understand. Note that Mordecai does does tell one group to defend themselves and the other to sit and learn all day.
As far as I understand, you are making two points:
1. Chareidim claim that Torah should be a total occupation and that it protects us, yet they do not fully commit to this themselves, making them hypocritical.
2. The Megillah seemingly supports fighting, yet Chareidim quote it to support learning instead.
In response to the first point: Believing that Torah is the highest priority does not mean that every moment of life must be spent learning without any breaks. The idea that there is something wrong with spending ten months of the year in rigorous 13-hour learning days and then having a short period with eight-hour learning days alongside some cleaning and singing is a misunderstanding of the Chareidi perspective. Everyone—including Chareidim—acknowledges that people need breaks. As I have said before, and I will say again: if you view Bein Hazmanim as simply a time to relax, you are not presenting a Chareidi viewpoint; you are arguing against a strawman. There is no hypocrisy in this practice, as it aligns with the belief that rest enhances learning rather than detracts from it.
Regarding your second point: When a gezeirah (decree) was placed upon Klal Yisroel in the Megillah, Mordechai did not respond by calling for an army to fight the enemy. Instead, he agreed with Esther’s proposal to fast for three days and focus on prayer and Torah. Only after the tide had already turned—when Haman was executed and the threat had essentially passed—did he instruct the Jews to defend themselves. This was not an uncertain battle; rather, it was comparable to the Jews leaving Egypt and collecting the spoils of their captors. The fight was a result of divine intervention, not a human-initiated military effort.
I'll ignore the first point, because I was simply trying to explain someone else's comment.
Regarding # 2:
1) Please direct me to where Mordechai tells the people to focus on Torah. Prayer, yes. Learning, no.
2) Please direct me to where the megillah indicates that the threat has passed. The straightforward reading, including the very verse that was quoted, indicates that the threat has NOT passed. There were no emails to notify the population that they should not follow through with the original plan, and killing everyone after the threat has passed does not constitute "defending oneself."
3) People who advocate for Chareidim to join the IDF and defend the people and country are not advocating for abandonment of prayer. Jews who serve in the IDF pray a lot, and continue to do so. Jews who are unable to serve for whatever physical or age reason also pray a lot. Your response implies that we are not at the point of needing to fight, which is plainly ridiculous.
4) Mordechai directed them to prayer while he and Esther tried the diplomatic route. The day of the lottery has not arrived and nobody had yet attacked them. When the day arrived, they needed to fight. Are you going to argue that Israel has not reached the fighting stage vis-a-vis Hamas?
No. If torah protects they should rotate bein hazmanim such that not all yeshivos are on holiday at the same time.
And if torah protects, why do the holy cities of Kiryat Sefer and Beitar insist on enhanced security at times of hightened alert? Why do they run around to doctors (including quacks), chazal say torah protects from disease too? Why do they run around collecting and scream in the knesset 'you are starving our people' when benefits are cut? Strange torah that can only protect from enemy soldiers but cannot protect against child poverty?
I don't think those are considered "holy cities.: The four holy cities are the cities that the Old Yishuv was concentrated in, Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Tzfat.
You can fumpf and kvetch, but only Haman was dead. His genocidal minions were still ready to implement the king's evil & indelible decree. It's ignorant and callous to dismiss Esther's concerns.
ה וַיַּכּוּ הַיְּהוּדִים בְּכָל־אֹיְבֵיהֶם מַכַּת־חֶרֶב וְהֶרֶג וְאַבְדָן וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְאֹיְבֵיהֶם כִּרְצוֹנָם׃
Doesn’t sound to me like the Jews were in a terrible place with genocidal minions about to kill them, and nothing left but to fight. It is possible to understand both ways, I just don’t think it is מוכח
I am a charedi. i have spent time with many charedim. I have many charedi Rabbonim. I have seen these teshuvos and so have they. We still don’t beleive that there is a milchemes mitzvah. Saying that ‘charedim don’t believe’ because you have found some people who argue another way is ‘crackpot nonsense’
You have avoided the question. I gave you the sources which affirm that Charedi Gedolim hold it's a מלחמת מצוה. You haven't addressed them. You haven't explained why the modernishe crackpot reading of the Rambam makes any sense.
"I have seen these teshuvos"
I doubt that. Because the תשובות state it's a מלחמת מצוה. And you have the temerity to claim otherwise. So either you didn't read them or you don't understand them.
"so have they"
And they're arguing with RMF, RYK, RYSE and all the rest? Based on a strained reading of a not-so-halachic Rambam (because it's not in the יד or the main body of the ספר המצות) which is (the strained reading) not in consonance with ש"ס?
"you have found some people"
I have cited גדולי ישראל. They are not "some people". Have some respect for Torah.
So instead of engaging in hyperbole, why not address the sources I provided? Why not explain how that Rambam actually can be understood in consonance with the מסורה that he always upheld?
I do not feel that this is the place to have an arguement about Halacha and hashkofoh. I am not confident that I can make the judgement calls in this case. All I am stating, is that having seen these, and discussed them with my rebbeim, they still don’t think that there is a milchemes mitzvah. You don’t need to agree, you just need to accept that it is a legitimate view. I am not willing to engage in a halachic arguement, since my credentials on this are non-existent, and yours are unknown to me
(And I apologise for the ‘some people’ statement. It was a mistake, and I should not have said it. I meant only that brining some views, when there are many who loudly disagree, is not a solution - one of my rebbeim once said ‘I can find you a source for anything’. The consensus view is what is important, no matter what Chazal/teshuvah/achron you can find to support it, whether or not the point you find argues)
It’s all about self interest, they use Torah as an excuse. It’s their spade to dig with and we know what Chazal say about those who use Torah as a spade…..
I agree with that, but defining Israel as am yisroel is a problem. That is the arguement’s core, in some sense - whether Israel is a religious entity that we have a responsibility to, or whether it is not
But there's definitely הצלת נפשות involved. Not just some abstract political entity. I also have serious issues with the state and its values. Dosent mean that eretz Yisrael is not my homeland and I am responsible for my fellow jews (theoretical situations from 100 years ago which also could have allowed the jews to live here).
As regards to the exemption claim, "there's a Rambam" and that said Rambam ends the discussion (not milchemes mitzvah and therefore exempt " , see the following :
(Presumably) written by Yehoshua to strengthen our national resolve before conquering ancient Israel, and put at the end of davening fortify us before going out to work (imagine that!), but now taken as a mindless gratuitous swipe at non-Jews.
"There is Torah, and then there is Daas Torah. The two are diametrically opposed."
I think this is quite an exaggeration. The Charedi approach to this issue (and others) has numerous flaws, but this implies that their entire hashkafa represents the opposite of Torah. Most hashkafot will quibble with other approaches as to what they think is a more authentic or desirable approach to Torah. And there is a certain line, that when crossed, represents a fundamental deviation from Torah, called kefirah. It is problematic and counterproductive to describe other hashkafot in similar terms.
Well said, but what is the plan to fight this mentality the day after? One day, please God very soon, the war will be over and the "gedolim" will take a victory lap say, "seen we told you yeshiva bochrim didn't need to serve. We won by staying in the beit midrash". That message will have a profound effect on many.
Yep. Or Israel will be destroyed and the charedim who escape will say, "See, it's all because of the anti-Torah campaign."
Fighting this mentality is about a massive education campaign, and most importantly about removing the financial and political crutch that enabled this mentality to come into existence.
Let me understand this. When we are called to “gather for a day of prayer on the Fast of Esther”, we should do so to prevent the “draft the students of the Torah”? I would have thought we would be summoned to pray for the release of those suffering over a year in the dungeons of Hamas. I guess I have to have my priorities adjusted.
I am quoting a definition from Shaulson's blog today regarding "Haredi" soldiers: "'Haredi' is someone to whom 'Zionism' is foreign, 'nationalism' is forbidden... If the army allowed soldiers to declare that they are not 'Zionists' because 'Zionism' is Judaism without religion, its source, I would treat you differently." His words say it all: to be Haredi means it is forbidden to be nationalistic. Is it halachically forbidden to be nationalistic? No!! On the contrary, the Rambam establishes it as a positive commandment to appoint a king. And important halachic authorities—including Haredim—have ruled that when it is not possible to appoint a king, the elected government of the Jews functions halachically as a king. Therefore, the entire Haredi world is built on politics and fights against the Halaha
No, that’s a complete misrepresentation. When a Charedi person says that it is forbidden to be nationalistic, they mean that Judaism fundamentally rejects nationalism as the Zionists define it. The sources you quote aren’t discussing nationalism in the Zionist sense—they refer to the obligation to have a king or governing body, which is an entirely different concept.
The core issue is that Zionist “nationalism” attempts to redefine Judaism as merely a cultural or national identity, stripping it of its essence—the Torah. That is what is absolutely forbidden. As R’ Amram Blau put it: “Zionism is counterfeit Judaism, for it seeks to transform the Jewish nation from a people of the Torah into just another nationalistic group interested in state and territory.”
Charedim don’t reject leadership or governance—they reject the distortion of Judaism into a secular nationalist ideology. That’s the nationalism they oppose, and it is completely antithetical to Judaism.
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with nationalism. It's about civic duties and shared responsibility. There are millions of Arabs trying to kill us all. And charedim want everyone except themselves to do the hard work of dealing with this threat.
Slifkin, if your entire argument is based on civic responsibility and not religious nationalism, why is this situation any different to Kantonist Russia, where the religious Jews tried to avoid army service at all costs, much like the chareidim are doing nowadays?
Well, for one thing, the so-called khapers were recruiting for the Cantonists by kidnapping people (normally) at the age of 12, but as young as eight or nine. Then they were trained until reaching 18, and forced to stay in for 25 years, while never being allowed to study Torah. R' Slifkin's argument (as I understand it) is that able-bodied Haredi should adopt a hesder-like system, where they would start to serve as adults and serve for 18 months (in an environment where they could legally study Torah) before returning to learning Torah full time. Comparing mass Haredi adoption of Hesder to the Cantonists is a serious false equivalency.
Thank you for strawmanming my argument.
I am not comparing the brutality of the Canonists to the IDF.
I am saying that the Jews have avoided military service for centuries despite having a civil responsibility to join the army, so why should they suddenly change when it comes to the IDF?
The Cantonists were the only example you brought, and you asked the question "why is this situation different from Kantonist Russia?"
You're being silly, or callous, for downplaying the cantonist decrees.
That is not what I am arguing here at all. I am discussing nationalism as viewed by the charedim, not the army issue at all.
Indeed, my anger ( and that of many others) has nothing to do with charedim rejecting nationalism or zionism as an ideology. I don’t care one whit what ideology the chareidi population accepts or rejects. I just want them to give as they receive. It’s called equity and justice. Or more crudely “pay to play”. They can curse me all they want, but they better “show up” to share burdens. It’s far more simple than theoretical ideological issues. If they continue to be פורש מן הציבור then they should expect nothing from the ציבור (but contempt and hate).
The concept of Poresh min Hatzibur does not apply when the tzibbur is doing something that is halachically incorrect, which, rightly or wrongly, is how the charedim view army service. Otherwise all of us are being poresh min hatzibur from the much larger liberal Judaism groups, such as reform Judaism, which is a position I will safely assume you do not want to take.
If regards to sharing the burden, it has been the position of orthodox Jews throughout the past thousand years to avoid military service at all costs (e.g. the cantonists), which is the same way the charedim are acting now. Meaning, there is a precedent to the actions of the charedim from past generations.
Without coming onto a religious nationalistic/messianic reasoning because charedim disagree with them, why would the charedim view the current situation any differently than the cantonist drafts in the Russio-French war?
Jews DID serve in militaries to defend their secular country.
Cantonist Russia was the exception. The reasons are fairly clear. Russia did not need the Jews serving in the army, and in fact most did not serve on the front lines. The policy to serve 25 years after six years in military academy in the army past the age of 12 was designed to be onerous and incompatible with religious Judaism. Tzar Peter spoke openly of Russifying the undesirable minorities.
In practice, children as young as 6 were abducted from their families, and the policy was that even after the 31 years of service, former soldiers were not sent back to the city or town they were recruited from. How is that remotely similar to a draft into an army with mostly Jews, that has kosher food and allows time for prayers and torah study, that does not seek to permanently cut bochrim from families, and where the need for soldiers to defend Jews lives is great and the danger is obvious? Frum Jews DID historically serve in secular armies in times of war and danger. For example, my grandfather served in WWI, and beyond the need for kosher food and shabbat and chaplains, I did not find any protests against it from chareidim of the time.
"rightly or wrongly"
Wrongly.
"cantonists... which is the same way the charedim are acting now."
So you're (they're?) saying that צה"ל=cantonist. That's sick.
"there is a precedent"
Not everything that comes before is a precedent.
"why would the charedim view the current situation any differently than the cantonist drafts in the Russio-French war? "
Because they're not that stupid to make such a ludicrous comparison.
I used the expression פורש מן הציבור in a non-technical sense. Ignore it if you like. Nothing in my argument depends on it.
That's ridiculous. Zionism does not define anything other than "support the State of Israel." There are at least ten Zionist parties in the Knesset alone, all with very different views. The vast majority of Zionist Israelis are not secular. No soldier is asked to pledge to any ideology.
Problem is, you're living in the 1920's with 1920's definitions and 1920's quotes. Charedim never realized that the world changed in 1948.
I am not talking about political zionism. I am talking about religious Zionism. Religious Zionism is a religious support for the state of Israel, viewing it as part of religion, which is what the Charedim disagree with. When you describe Zionism as merely ‘supporting the state of Israel’ that is not describing Zionism as a religious tool, in any sense
"The core issue is that Zionist “nationalism” attempts to redefine Judaism as merely a cultural or national identity, stripping it of its essence—the Torah."
"I am not talking about political zionism. I am talking about religious Zionism"
You already got it wrong when you attempt to give a single definition of the many different Zionisms. You chose (or just repeated a trope) a definition that is clear to all as one of the variant of secular Zionism. Then you say you were "talking about religious Zionism".
Please stick to one topic, and keep away from plot twists.
You do realize you just changed your entire argument, right? So either you're a troll, or you don't know how to argue. Either way, it's not worth engaging with you. Buh-bye.
I don’t know where Haredim today get this perception of "Zionist" Jews in Israel. The numerical majority of these "Zionists" strive to uphold the halachic tradition of the Jewish people. They relate to the state in the same way they relate to their workplace. 100% of those who work treat their profession as entirely devoid of any "religious" factor, and their being "religious" is expressed in interpersonal relationships according to halacha at work, in keeping kosher, Shabbat and holidays, and Tsenius
This is also how most "Zionist" halacha-observant Jews relate to the laws of the State of Israel and to the state itself. Students of Rabbi Kook see the state as an opportunity provided by divine providence to the Jewish people to establish a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, and to atone for the sin of baseless hatred that brought upon us the disaster of the destruction of the Temple and exile.
The obligation to establish a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" is the covenant of the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. Therefore, it is the primary obligation of the nation. At every moment when the political reality allows for it, the duty is to strive to establish it. According to my understanding of the Sinai covenant, anyone who does not direct their entire life toward fulfilling this obligation denies the Sinai covenant and thereby removes themselves from the Jewish people, God forbid.
I have not heard, read, or seen any Zionist Jew today—even those who do not observe most of the commandments between man and God—who claims that the secular State of Israel is Judaism.
Moreover, let’s assume the Haredi argument about today’s Zionists is correct. What does that have to do with the obligation to establish a state, "Mamlehet Cohanim veGoy Kadosh", work, and serve in the army?
In this context, Shaulson is lying brazenly. The army does not demand any Zionist declaration or oath. What does it demand? Loyalty to the State of Israel, which provides it with weapons.
Your argument contains an inherent contradiction. On one hand, you claim (Point 1) that religious Zionists relate to the state pragmatically, just as they do to a workplace, without seeing it as inherently religious. Yet, in Point 2, you assert that the state is a divinely ordained opportunity to establish a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” making it a central religious obligation. If the state is just a practical framework, why assign it such theological significance?
Furthermore, “Mamlechet Kohanim v’Goy Kadosh” refers to the spiritual mission of the Jewish people, not the establishment of a political entity. The Torah presents it as a national identity defined by divine service, not sovereignty over land or governance through a modern state.
Lastly, regarding military service, the issue is not about swearing allegiance to a piece of paper but about immersing oneself in a system built upon a nationalist ideology. The army is not just a defense force—it actively promotes the Zionist worldview, shaping soldiers’ identities accordingly. For many, joining the IDF is not merely about defending lives but about participating in a nationalist project that aligns with a specific ideological framework. That is the real concern.
Correct me if I misunderstood you. Because according to your argument, if in Israel your mother, wife and daughters were raped and then everyone, including the sons, were murdered, you would not call the IDF to save them. Why? Because "the IDF is not merely about defending lives but about participating in a nationalist project that aligns with a specific ideological framework. That is the real concern." If you behave like this, you have a very serious halakhic problem. And if you call for your immediate family but not your distant family, you have the same halakhic problem
"Because according to your argument"
You're conflating "argument" with "tropes".
But, there is no real argument here, YP is talking about another matter. Society, or if you prefer the Jewish community, can be discussed separately from the State. But they are, for better or worse, connected. The obligation of מלחמת מצוה is not negated by the existence of an undesirable government. Certainly, the Gafni/Deri coalition is no worse than מנשה!
The issue of rapes, murder, hostages, economic devastation and homelessness is not what YP is concerned with here. He's talking about the government and the State as a political entity. And he can do so because there is a connection between the State and the community. YP implies that obligations to the latter are negated by the connection to the former.
Thanks. The Halakha does not differentiate but rules categorically on the obligation to defend society within the framework of the state's army. The evidence from all the books of prophecy on this matter is unequivocal: on the one hand, prophets accuse kings of idolatry, but the prophets never forbade the people from enlisting in the armies of those kings and defending against the invasion of foreign armies into the territories of the kingdoms, Judah and Israel.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here, but if I understand correctly, then you have in a way cottoned on to my entire point. What I am trying to say, is that one cannot disregard religious positions on the army and Israel, from nationalistic/political standpoints. The charedi belief can only be challenged in the realm of Torah. So any claim of ‘National Responsibility’ ‘No Representation without Participation’ and the like, is not an important arguement, toward the charedim - their veiw is religous not political. To argue that ‘thousands are dying’ ‘the army needs you’ is an ineffective arguements when the charedim do not beleive that joining the army is the way to change that - they will just learn more, and fight harder against those who push them away from that
It turns out you have no idea what is happening in Israel from a security perspective. Citizens are enlisting and fighting for their homes and families. Where did you get the argument that enlisting is for ideological reasons to establish an anti-religious state that only expresses Judaism? Besides, what does it matter what others do and think?
In my reply, I divided between the position of the vast majority of "Zionists" who observe the mitzvot and the approach of the disciples of Rabbi Kook, who see the return to Zion as a divine providence that requires the establishment of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. You did not pay attention to the distinction.
"Mamlechet Kohanim v’Goy Kadosh” refers to the spiritual mission of the Jewish people, not the establishment of a political entity" is the Christian argument and it was precisely this argument that was the breaking point for Jesus following his master's attitude towards him (B. Sanhedrin). If you are expressing an ultra-Orthodox position here, then it turns out that they are the new "Minim".
I see. I think that there are three levels. The middle being what you describe as ‘Zionists’ who view the state like a job. Then you have the followers of R’Kook, who think that the state is Reshis Tzmichas Geuloseinu and divinely ordained. The third is the charedi approach - that the state is evil, and wrong, and joining it in partnership is wrong
Every person has the right to think about what is important to them and what is not. If the Haredim believe that the State of Israel is evil and that one must not join it, then they should not join. This means: they should not live here because the state has built and maintains the roads, electricity, water, gas, communication systems, and sewage. They should not receive anything from the state—no money, no healthcare, education, welfare, burial services, or anything else. No national insurance, no health insurance. Nothing. They should not vote or be elected. This is almost the Satmar approach. Therefore, every Haredi who lives in the State of Israel has a problem: if you don’t give, you cannot take. If you don’t serve in the army, it is unacceptable for you to determine how much weaponry I should have, what kind, and when and how I should serve in the army and go to war.
Beautiful said !!
The 3rt approach is Israel is Evil and wrong
AGREE
So get the h--l out of there. why live in an evil country? While you are leaving make sure to take all you Rabbonim with the ideology, They also can't stay in an evil country.
That will be the best thing to happen to Israel. Halivay, with Hashems help Bikorov Mammish!
"contradiction" :
1) relate to the state pragmatically
2) the state is a divinely ordained opportunity to establish a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” making it a central religious obligation.
You're conflating complementarity with contradiction.
"Furthermore, “Mamlechet Kohanim v’Goy Kadosh” refers to the spiritual mission of the Jewish people, not the establishment of a political entity."
So you're against מלך משיח establishing a political entity?
That is a very kabbalistic/hasidic interpretation of Torah, which is, unfortunately, what has predominated in the last centuries.
When the Torah says to go to war, it means a physical war.
When it says to be a 'mamlechet cohanim ve goy kadosh', it means a political entity (kingdom, state, etc.).
When it says the 'hand of God', in this case, it is not a literal hand and we can assume it's a metaphor.
"That is a very kabbalistic/hasidic interpretation of Torah, which is, unfortunately, what has predominated in the last centuries. "
I'm not sure whether it's been exactly that way for exactly that long. But your point is generally correct and concerning. But I'm not too bothered by the rise in mystical thinking. It is a part of our מסורה. What does bother me is when סוד drives out and negates נגלה.
RNS's post here illustrates how Charedi activists have appropriated פסוקים and have nullified the פשט meaning and seem to be unaware of the perverse irony.
Another case in point is a recent pashkevil citing "שמע ישראל אתם קרבים היום למלחמה". (The irony there is that רש"י explains that the mere merit of קריאת שמע is sufficient for Hashem to provide salvation.)
רש"י brings a lot of Midrashim, which are not to be taken at face value and require interpretation, as many of them contradict each other.
Remember Ibn Ezra's commentary on Rashi: "He's right 1 in a 1000".
Yehudah Paster, you made me laugh. Quoting Amram Blau! Hilarious.
When I read between the lines of these pronouncements, I can only see them as an attempt to prevent the collapse of the Yeshiva economy at all costs. It's all about money. Nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Yesterday, someone here responded to me that the Sinai Covenant, in which the Israelites committed to being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to God, is a spiritual kingdom.
I don't know who the person was who claimed this, but his words echo the attacks of the Christian Church against Rabbinic Judaism. I debated for a long time whether to write the sources here, and eventually decided to do so. I asked ChatGPT to summarize for me a number of such quotes that I remember learning about in a course on Christian antisemitism. I didn't verify every quote word for word, but this is the essence of what I learned in that course.
The concept of the "spiritual kingdom of the Church" versus the "Jewish kingdom of flesh" has been discussed in various writings, especially in early Christian theology, where the Church is often seen as the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel, while the Jewish kingdom of flesh is associated with earthly or temporal power.
Here are a few quotes from Church writings that may reflect this theme:
1. St. Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John)
St. Cyril of Alexandria was an early Church Father who wrote extensively on the nature of the Church as a spiritual kingdom.
• "The kingdom of heaven does not consist in earthly things, but in the power and presence of God. Christ has come to establish a kingdom, not of this world, but a spiritual one, in which He reigns in the hearts of the faithful." (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, Homily 11)
This quote emphasizes the idea that Christ's kingdom is spiritual and not tied to earthly, fleshly realms like the kingdom of Israel.
2. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica)
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, addresses the relationship between the Old and New Covenants and the nature of Christ’s kingdom.
• "Christ's kingdom is not of this world, for it is a spiritual kingdom. The kingdom of Israel was a temporal one, a shadow of the eternal kingdom that Christ would establish through His Church." (Summa Theologica, III, Question 35, Article 3)
Aquinas contrasts the temporal kingdom of Israel, which was bound to earthly concerns, with the eternal and spiritual kingdom established by Christ.
3. St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies)
St. Irenaeus discusses the transition from the old covenant, given to Israel, to the new covenant in Christ, which is realized through the Church.
• "The Church is the place of the true and spiritual Israel, where we are made heirs to the promises made to the fathers, not through flesh, but through the Spirit, by the grace of God in Christ Jesus." (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 31)
St. Irenaeus highlights that the promises to Israel are now fulfilled in the Church, not through physical descent or earthly kingship, but through spiritual rebirth in Christ.
4. Pope Pius XI (Encyclical "Divini Redemptoris")
Pope Pius XI's encyclical reflects the Church's view of the distinction between the earthly and spiritual realms, though it primarily deals with atheistic communism, it also contrasts the temporal with the spiritual.
• "The Church is the kingdom of Christ. It is spiritual and not of this world, and it has its own laws, authority, and kingdom distinct from the earthly powers. The Jewish nation, with all its temporal concerns, was but a precursor to the spiritual kingdom which Christ has established." (Divini Redemptoris, 1937)
In this, the Pope underscores the distinction between Christ’s kingdom and earthly kingdoms, which include the temporal concerns of the Jewish nation.
Conclusion:
These quotes reflect the traditional Christian teaching that the Church is the spiritual kingdom that fulfills the promises of the Old Covenant, contrasting it with the earthly kingdom of Israel, which was focused on fleshly and temporal concerns. Early Church Fathers provide a rich theological framework for understanding the nature of the Church as a spiritual, eternal kingdom, while the Jewish kingdom is seen as temporary and pointing forward to the true kingdom of Christ.
Thank you. Seems appropriate to discuss at Purim. Hm.
Haredi "leadership" seems to think they can hunker down and ride out the storm of the demand that they take on equal responsibilities for equal rights. War is always a powerful engine of social change off the battlefield as well as on it. Israeli haredi society has addicted itself to major government support, and they cannot see the backlash that is coming.
I used to think that think that Israel is doomed when the Charedim become the majority, and then I received the following email from a Charedi acquaintance, which changed my perception:
Charedim have nothing against leaving Yeshiva and protecting and helping Jews everywhere, as evidenced by the many organizations we created and continue to staff, in the US and Israel. (think Yad Sarah, Hatzolah, Zaka, etc.) Charedim also created and staff organizations like Shomrim all over NY and NJ, which acts almost like a second police force.
The only issue Charedim have with army service in Israel, is with the IDF as it is currently constituted. Charedim will never join the IDF because we don't want the IDF to affect our level of religion and culture.
Charedim will join an Israeli army and begin protecting Israel when one of two things happen:
1 - A separate army is created that is run entirely by charedim. Charedim will join in droves.
2 - The charedim become the majority in Israel, take over the existing IDF and make it entirely charedi. The charedim will then join in droves.
Either way, Israel will thrive when the charedim become the majority and join the charedi army. So don't worry about the future of Israel. We'll be okay.
You're hilarious or ignorant or both. A separate army under separate command? What planet do you live on?
If that were true, they would have asked for changes in the IDF as a condition to enlist. They haven't. The argument is that Torah protects instead of fighting. Why would they go and fight, even in a Charedi army, if staying learning helps more?
Sorry but you're mixing up charedim in the States with charedim in Israel. There is nothing like shomrim in Israel.
And if "Charedim will join an Israeli army and begin protecting Israel when one of two things happen" that does happen, then, chas v'shalom, we will definitely lose the war.
There is simply no reality to your statements.
Wishful thinking -
Israel is doomed and gone, the day the charedim become the majority as every one can see one day that will happen
However all the 'Yodeah Itttem" claim it will be a civil war - do you REALLY think the chlonim are just going to lay down, roll over, and let outsiders take over the Zionist land their parents fought with blood to get. Do you think they will live under some Rebbe or some Safardi Chacham that will tell them what shows they can watch on TV.
Keep imagining - there is no law against that .
"A separate army is created that is run entirely by charedim"
Suppose it's early morning and it's שבת and חג. It's so early that חסידים on base haven't gotten to מקוה yet. Surprise attack. Who goes out to battle, the חסידים, the מתנגדים or the חילונים.
The answer of course: the סרוגים and some token Frenks.
The claim that Charedim have “seceded” from the wider Jewish nation assumes a particular definition of “Am Yisrael”—one that includes all Jews equally, regardless of their ideological or halachic positions. But if a segment of the Jewish people holds that another segment is fundamentally mistaken in their understanding of Torah and Jewish destiny, then their perspective is not one of secession but of defining the Jewish nation differently. This is not unique to Charedim; every ideological group in Judaism draws its own boundaries of legitimacy to some extent.
Furthermore, the Charedi community does not merely refuse military service out of self-interest; they sincerely believe that their Torah learning is what protects the Jewish people. From their vantage point, leaving yeshiva for the IDF is not an act of service but an abandonment of Klal Yisrael’s true source of strength. This perspective extends even to hesder students, who split their time between Torah study and military service—since, from a Charedi point of view, any voluntary departure from full-time Torah learning in favor of military service is a deviation from the true path of Jewish survival and responsibility.
Ultimately, expecting Charedim to conform to a broader definition of Jewish national responsibility, while disregarding their own deeply held convictions, is itself an act of narrow-mindedness. If one criticizes them for failing to fit into a particular ideological framework, without acknowledging that their framework is fundamentally different, then one is guilty of the same insularity that one attributes to them.
Baloney, they do not believe that Torah replaces hishtadlis for anything else whatsoever. Only for things that they can offload to others.
I am not saying that this is what the gedolim think. I am not saying that this is what the rov am think. I am saying that the intelligent, thought-through people within the charedi community, do believe this.
How did the plan work out in WWII???
Why didn't the Torah learning of so many Yeshivas protect the yidden and the 1,5 million babies that died in chambers of gas?
צדיק ורע לא is a legitimate question, but I don’t think that it disproves anything.
Also, the charedim can easily argue what was argued in R’ Avigdor MIller’s ‘A Divine Madness’
How many time does it end like this that you can still argue it doesn't disprove anything. Look at our history - Only one tie we one during Purim and we make such a celebration. The rest of the lime we lost bad.
How many times do we have to suffer, before we pick up a gun a defend ourselves?
If you want to say that almost every halachic authority from the destruction of the second beis hamikdosh until now where stupid, then you can claim this. I personally don’t think they were stupid, so it is not an argument. It is an untenable position to argue that from the Purim story we should learn that the response to an attack is to fight back - never mind the fact that the Megillah doesn’t support such a reading (for example, the decree was declared about halfway through the Megillah, and the attack back happened after much prayer, learning and other such activities) but the hundreds of years since the second temple no one learnt that way should make it very hard to believe that is pshat
And how many of those are there?
And that's leaving aside that the views you presented are the opposite of intelligent and thought through.
I am happy to discuss the views - I believe there is an intelligent and thought through process to them. And I think that the majority of any community has views that are wrong, and only the intelligent, thought-through people truly understand the views of the community.
Have the intelligent, thought-through people published a detailed, comprehensive halachic analysis demonstrating the halachic rationale why this is not a milchemes mitzvah? In other words, comparing and contrasting the shittos that say it is with their own analysis that it's not, just as they would with any other issue, for instance when the best time would be for the Purim seudah this year? Please point me to the detailed written teshuva or to the comprehensive shiur.
They don’t feel a need to publish such a teshuvah, because it is a fait acompli. Their beliefs about the state in general inform their specific beliefs about this war. They are not going to start up a debate that was discussed, and concluded (in a sense) in 1948.
That's not inconsistent.
ואידך זיל גמור
If Torah learning is so fundamentally important that it supersedes even the obligations of a milchemet mitzvah, please explain the rationale behind the Bein Hazmanim and other vacations, which add up to at least 8 weeks per year.
Two things:
1) Charedim do not believe there is currently a milchemes mitzvah. And as much as you may argue, and try and prove them wrong, until they agree that there is a milchemes mitzvah here, to bring it up is a straw man of their arguement
2) If one spends their time in bein hazmanim chilling by the beach then I agree that they are wrong. If one learns eight hours a day, helps their mother clean for another two hours, and spends some evening singing at a barbecue with friends, and you still think that is wrong - I point you to hundreds of so-called zionists who do the same thing
Do the majority of the 70,000 “full time” learners actually spend every day of bein hazmanim learning?
Not sure if you have any concept of the day in the life of a combat soldier, but I can assure you from personal experience that it lasts longer than eight hours. And showers/beds can be hard to come by.
I concede the point about accepting milchemet mitzvah, which of course they won’t because otherwise their entire edifice would crumble and they would be exposed for what they really are.
Maybe not, but then your problem is not with the system, and what actually happens within the system. And the milchemes mitzvah point, even if you make an argument that it is motivated reasoning, it is still a viable halachic opinion, and ignoring it because you think it collapses halachically is a misunderstanding of Halacha
I’m not knowledgeable enough to discuss these Halachic intricacies, but Rav Slifkin is. I suspect he would disagree with the inevitably self serving extremist charedi interpretation. In fact I think he has written extensively on this exact point.
In the end they can believe and behave as they wish. The question is how the government and country as a whole should respond. Citizenship has both privileges and responsibilities, and one should not be able to claim the first without fulfilling the second. If these communities are so antiZionist, they have no business voting , and should have no issue with a “no representation without participation“ law.
But to try to justify two months a year of vacation from Torah study while simultaneously insisting that Torah study is the highest value is so patently ridiculous that it’s probably best to bow out gracefully.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to discuss these Halachic intricacies, but Rav Slifkin is.
We all need some entertainment PUrim time. Thanks for providing it.
Arguing for a ‘no representation without participation’ law is fine in a political or philosophical context. However, it is incredibly arrogant to assert that such a law should exist religiously. If you claim that your interpretation of Yiddishkeit defines participation—and therefore, anyone who does not conform is disregarded—you undermine your own position. I’m not saying the state must fund all those in full-time learning (though I will always vote for it). I’m simply stating that this is a political debate, not a religious one.
The point isn't thinking that it's "wrong" to combine learning with helping your mother or sing at a barbecue. It's about the hypocrisy of the chareidim themselves. "So-called Zionists" obviously don't think that's wrong, but by the chareidi logic it should be considered wrong. The irony of quoting the megillah to not stand up to defend the Jewish community is so mind boggling, and yet you either purposely ignore it or legitimately don't seem to understand. Note that Mordecai does does tell one group to defend themselves and the other to sit and learn all day.
As far as I understand, you are making two points:
1. Chareidim claim that Torah should be a total occupation and that it protects us, yet they do not fully commit to this themselves, making them hypocritical.
2. The Megillah seemingly supports fighting, yet Chareidim quote it to support learning instead.
In response to the first point: Believing that Torah is the highest priority does not mean that every moment of life must be spent learning without any breaks. The idea that there is something wrong with spending ten months of the year in rigorous 13-hour learning days and then having a short period with eight-hour learning days alongside some cleaning and singing is a misunderstanding of the Chareidi perspective. Everyone—including Chareidim—acknowledges that people need breaks. As I have said before, and I will say again: if you view Bein Hazmanim as simply a time to relax, you are not presenting a Chareidi viewpoint; you are arguing against a strawman. There is no hypocrisy in this practice, as it aligns with the belief that rest enhances learning rather than detracts from it.
Regarding your second point: When a gezeirah (decree) was placed upon Klal Yisroel in the Megillah, Mordechai did not respond by calling for an army to fight the enemy. Instead, he agreed with Esther’s proposal to fast for three days and focus on prayer and Torah. Only after the tide had already turned—when Haman was executed and the threat had essentially passed—did he instruct the Jews to defend themselves. This was not an uncertain battle; rather, it was comparable to the Jews leaving Egypt and collecting the spoils of their captors. The fight was a result of divine intervention, not a human-initiated military effort.
I'll ignore the first point, because I was simply trying to explain someone else's comment.
Regarding # 2:
1) Please direct me to where Mordechai tells the people to focus on Torah. Prayer, yes. Learning, no.
2) Please direct me to where the megillah indicates that the threat has passed. The straightforward reading, including the very verse that was quoted, indicates that the threat has NOT passed. There were no emails to notify the population that they should not follow through with the original plan, and killing everyone after the threat has passed does not constitute "defending oneself."
3) People who advocate for Chareidim to join the IDF and defend the people and country are not advocating for abandonment of prayer. Jews who serve in the IDF pray a lot, and continue to do so. Jews who are unable to serve for whatever physical or age reason also pray a lot. Your response implies that we are not at the point of needing to fight, which is plainly ridiculous.
4) Mordechai directed them to prayer while he and Esther tried the diplomatic route. The day of the lottery has not arrived and nobody had yet attacked them. When the day arrived, they needed to fight. Are you going to argue that Israel has not reached the fighting stage vis-a-vis Hamas?
No. If torah protects they should rotate bein hazmanim such that not all yeshivos are on holiday at the same time.
And if torah protects, why do the holy cities of Kiryat Sefer and Beitar insist on enhanced security at times of hightened alert? Why do they run around to doctors (including quacks), chazal say torah protects from disease too? Why do they run around collecting and scream in the knesset 'you are starving our people' when benefits are cut? Strange torah that can only protect from enemy soldiers but cannot protect against child poverty?
I don't think those are considered "holy cities.: The four holy cities are the cities that the Old Yishuv was concentrated in, Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Tzfat.
"it was comparable to the Jews leaving Egypt "
ה' יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם, וְאַתֶּם תחרשון
אם החרש תחרישי בעת הזאת
"Only after the tide had already turned—when Haman was executed and the threat had essentially passed"
Revisionism.
כִּי אֵיכָכָה אוּכַל, וְרָאִיתִי, בָּרָעָה, אֲשֶׁר-יִמְצָא אֶת-עַמִּי; וְאֵיכָכָה אוּכַל וְרָאִיתִי, בְּאָבְדַן מוֹלַדְתִּי.
You can fumpf and kvetch, but only Haman was dead. His genocidal minions were still ready to implement the king's evil & indelible decree. It's ignorant and callous to dismiss Esther's concerns.
ג וְכָל־שָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת וְהָאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנִים וְהַפַּחוֹת וְעֹשֵׂי מְלָאכָה אֲשֶׁר לַמֶּלֶךְ מְנַשְּׂאִים אֶת־הַיְּהוּדִים כִּי־נָפַל פַּחַד מָרְדֳּכַי עֲלֵיהֶם׃
ד כִּי־גָדוֹל מָרְדֳּכַי בְּבֵית הַמֶּלֶךְ וְשָׁמְעוֹ הוֹלֵךְ בְּכָל־הַמְּדִינוֹת כִּי־הָאִישׁ מָרְדֳּכַי הוֹלֵךְ וְגָדוֹל׃
ה וַיַּכּוּ הַיְּהוּדִים בְּכָל־אֹיְבֵיהֶם מַכַּת־חֶרֶב וְהֶרֶג וְאַבְדָן וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְאֹיְבֵיהֶם כִּרְצוֹנָם׃
Doesn’t sound to me like the Jews were in a terrible place with genocidal minions about to kill them, and nothing left but to fight. It is possible to understand both ways, I just don’t think it is מוכח
ובבזה לא שלחו את ידם
That was a bad wording from my side. My point is not to do with the spoils themselves, but the fact that there was no effort in that ‘battle’
" point you to hundreds of so-called zionists who do the same thing"
Yes, and when chareidim commit fraud the response is similar 'the goyim do it to'.
Conveniently forgetting that chareidim claim to be the holiest of the holy.
"Charedim do not believe there is currently a milchemes mitzvah."
Crackpot nonsense.
See here: https://hebrewbooks.org/67788. Read the פרק citing גדולי ישראל who hold that it's a מלחמת מצוה.
See also RMF- you know that תשובה that states it's a מלחמת מצוה but the goon squad say it doesn't.
Also look up what RYK ruled during the 1970 hijacking.
You're attempt to retcon has failed.
I am a charedi. i have spent time with many charedim. I have many charedi Rabbonim. I have seen these teshuvos and so have they. We still don’t beleive that there is a milchemes mitzvah. Saying that ‘charedim don’t believe’ because you have found some people who argue another way is ‘crackpot nonsense’
You have avoided the question. I gave you the sources which affirm that Charedi Gedolim hold it's a מלחמת מצוה. You haven't addressed them. You haven't explained why the modernishe crackpot reading of the Rambam makes any sense.
"I have seen these teshuvos"
I doubt that. Because the תשובות state it's a מלחמת מצוה. And you have the temerity to claim otherwise. So either you didn't read them or you don't understand them.
"so have they"
And they're arguing with RMF, RYK, RYSE and all the rest? Based on a strained reading of a not-so-halachic Rambam (because it's not in the יד or the main body of the ספר המצות) which is (the strained reading) not in consonance with ש"ס?
"you have found some people"
I have cited גדולי ישראל. They are not "some people". Have some respect for Torah.
So instead of engaging in hyperbole, why not address the sources I provided? Why not explain how that Rambam actually can be understood in consonance with the מסורה that he always upheld?
I do not feel that this is the place to have an arguement about Halacha and hashkofoh. I am not confident that I can make the judgement calls in this case. All I am stating, is that having seen these, and discussed them with my rebbeim, they still don’t think that there is a milchemes mitzvah. You don’t need to agree, you just need to accept that it is a legitimate view. I am not willing to engage in a halachic arguement, since my credentials on this are non-existent, and yours are unknown to me
(And I apologise for the ‘some people’ statement. It was a mistake, and I should not have said it. I meant only that brining some views, when there are many who loudly disagree, is not a solution - one of my rebbeim once said ‘I can find you a source for anything’. The consensus view is what is important, no matter what Chazal/teshuvah/achron you can find to support it, whether or not the point you find argues)
Do these "so called zionists" join the army? If not, screw them. Most Israelis don't tolerate משטמתים.
If they believed that they would not demand government money, military protection, and all the rest. Their prayers and learning would provide
It’s all about self interest, they use Torah as an excuse. It’s their spade to dig with and we know what Chazal say about those who use Torah as a spade…..
"Ultimately, expecting Charedim to conform to a broader definition of Jewish national responsibility, "
Nothing broad about it. It's a rather narrow definition.
It’s a narrow definition of political responsibility, not national responsibility
There's nothing political about defending עם ישראל against her enemies. It is a national responsibility.
I agree with that, but defining Israel as am yisroel is a problem. That is the arguement’s core, in some sense - whether Israel is a religious entity that we have a responsibility to, or whether it is not
But there's definitely הצלת נפשות involved. Not just some abstract political entity. I also have serious issues with the state and its values. Dosent mean that eretz Yisrael is not my homeland and I am responsible for my fellow jews (theoretical situations from 100 years ago which also could have allowed the jews to live here).
What do they think would happen to them if Hamas had their way?
Perversion of Torah and Judaism is right….
As regards to the exemption claim, "there's a Rambam" and that said Rambam ends the discussion (not milchemes mitzvah and therefore exempt " , see the following :
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/laws-state-and-society/chovat-hagiyus-latzava-ugedareha
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/laws-state-and-society/giyus-talmidei-chakhamim
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/56012
Good, then the coherent position is to leave Israel and wait for the Mashiach in Galut.
Unfortunately, we have a history of using pesukim and applying them with great fervor in contexts where they were never meant to be applied.
Two quick examples:
שֶׁלֺּא עָשָֽׂנוּ כְּגוֹיֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת, וְלֺא שָׂמָֽנוּ כְּמִשְׁפְּחוֹת הָאֲדָמָה; שֶׁלֺּא שָׂם חֶלְקֵֽנוּ כָּהֶם, וְגוֹרָלֵֽנוּ כְּכָל הֲמוֹנָם. שֶׁהֵם מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לָהֶֽבֶל וָרִיק וּמִתְפַּלְּלִים אֶל אֵל לֹא יוֹשִֽׁיעַ.
(Presumably) written by Yehoshua to strengthen our national resolve before conquering ancient Israel, and put at the end of davening fortify us before going out to work (imagine that!), but now taken as a mindless gratuitous swipe at non-Jews.
"אָנוּ רָצִים וְהֵם רָצִים. אָנוּ רָצִים לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְהֵם רָצִים לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת."
Written by Dovid Hamelech about people who were trying to kill him, not to be recited at a siyum to gloat and make us feel better about ourselves.
"There is Torah, and then there is Daas Torah. The two are diametrically opposed."
I think this is quite an exaggeration. The Charedi approach to this issue (and others) has numerous flaws, but this implies that their entire hashkafa represents the opposite of Torah. Most hashkafot will quibble with other approaches as to what they think is a more authentic or desirable approach to Torah. And there is a certain line, that when crossed, represents a fundamental deviation from Torah, called kefirah. It is problematic and counterproductive to describe other hashkafot in similar terms.
What is the line?
The line (or at least as useful of a line that there can be in a discussion about differing hashkafot) is probably the Rambam's 13 Principles.
I like posts that use the word “forfend”.
Well said, but what is the plan to fight this mentality the day after? One day, please God very soon, the war will be over and the "gedolim" will take a victory lap say, "seen we told you yeshiva bochrim didn't need to serve. We won by staying in the beit midrash". That message will have a profound effect on many.
Yep. Or Israel will be destroyed and the charedim who escape will say, "See, it's all because of the anti-Torah campaign."
Fighting this mentality is about a massive education campaign, and most importantly about removing the financial and political crutch that enabled this mentality to come into existence.