This is what makes R' Yosef's statement of "we'll all just leave" so ironic: the chareidim are the ones are least able to emigrate. They're much less likely to have a foreign passport than secular people in Tel Aviv, they have no marketable skills, they have large families, and they don't have the money needed to emigrate
Yosef has a lot of connections, and might be able to find another place to live, but that's likely not the case for most of his followers, especially those without money. A real גדול would not separate his fate from that of his flock.
Yep. Compare the infamous story of the Belzer Rebbe during the Holocaust, who told his followers in Hungary that they'd be ok, and then escaped to Israel:
I have no problem if someone would say, "Look, this was unprecedented, and we had no idea what would happen." Which would be the truth, in most cases.
Kastner, nebach, couldn't say it because he was a government official and sentiment in the 1950's would be very unforgiving to any hint of collaboration. So he lied, or selectively remembered things. (Of course, he could have simply never brought the lawsuit in the first place- the old Oscar Wilde mistake.)
A chassidish rebbe can never say such a thing because he's supposed to be in direct contact with God. If he couldn't foresee (which somehow others *could* see) that, say, the Nazis would kill half the Jews of Hungary, then how is he supposed to be able to get you brachot?
So yes, I can forgive. Just don't ask me to believe that any of these people are somehow better than me.
1) from those groups, it's generally single young men who emigrate.
2) Africans and Mexicans mostly travel relatively short distances by land and/or rickety boat. Poor people emigrating from Israel don't really have that option.
3) those people aren't heavily invested in a religious community, or strict religious laws, so they're highly flexible.
4) those groups often have a somewhat credible claim to refugee status. Chareidim dodging the draft will likely not be able to claim that.
5) statistically speaking, percentage-wise, in fact a fairly small percentage of those groups in fact emigrate
There are differences, true. The chareidi community also has things to its advantage, such as being more intelligent, better organized, and probably better access to lawyers. I was just taking issue with the characterization that immigration requires money and marketable skills, a very significant proportion of immigration- maybe most- does not have this. I think for #4, chareidim could make a good case for religious persecution, or at least their lawyers could- all in theory- probably nothing like that is happening.
My understanding (after recently reading a book on migration) is that the vast majority of legal migration is by those with marketable skills. Chain migration is the exception. Developed countries don't take in people with no marketable skills, they're quite strict about that.
Re refugee status, that'll be a really tough sell, now that no developed countries are taking in Palestinian refugees. It'll be politically really difficult to differentiate
Ok, but we are not talking about regular legal migration, but people seeking to become refugees- and indeed millions of people emigrate, legally or illegally, without money and skills. The reason why countries aren't taking in Palestinian refugees is because their population is filled with violent terrorists. Although chareidim may have their own set of issues, I don't think they can be compared to Palestinians. It's hard to think of more different populations to each other.
I agree that the populations are quite different, of course. My point is that the Palestinian refugee issue happening at the same time can only make it more difficult for the chareidim. The reality of the current political environment is that developed countries have turned against low-skill immigration quite strongly, it's currently a huge political issue
Indeed. Something that our resident Lakewooders and somewhat relatively more comfortable (as in wealthy) anglo immigrants, 'honeymooning' kollel couples on an all expenses paid jolly in Yerushalayim (perish the thought, they are ALL serious avreichim, benei torah par excellence, walking mussar seforim and yirei elokim etc) can't appreciate.
Hey, Testes great to hear from you again! There are enough people here trying to point out irrelevant flaws in everyone who might own a black hat. You really ought to find another hobby.
Even for those of us with foreign passports, over the past 6 months many of the countries that we have come from have made it abundantly clear that we are not welcome there
Just to be a little nitpicky, you may have another country to go to, but it's not your country. Jews have a talent for thinking that they don't stand out and are part and parcel of their diaspora lands; they never are.
Rabbi J. David Bleich wrote an article many years ago about the problem of "changing" neighborhoods, where often the well-to-do flee, leaving behind the elderly etc. He quoted the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Reb Moshe Feinstein that there actually is an obligation for those able to leave, to try and stay, so as not to abandon those who cannot leave.
"Israel has not yet been, and still is not, the safest place in the world for Jews. But not everyone has the option to live in the safest place in the world - many people just need somewhere that is safer than where they currently live. And in any case, having a homeland is not about attaining the greatest safety - it is about having a home, a place that Jews historically belong, a place that Jews can always come to when they fear persecution or experience discrimination, where we can take responsibility for our own safety, and where we can put being Jewish into action and expression."
This is all very nice, but the idea that Israel is safer than anywhere else is completely irrational, as irrational as it gets. In fact, in 2024, it seems to be one of the least safe places for Jews. And all your talk about "having a home, a place that Jews historically belong, a place that Jews can always come to when they fear persecution or experience discrimination, where we can take responsibility for our own safety, and where we can put being Jewish into action and expression" is also completely irrational, it's just overwrought nationalist sentiment on steroids. So much for "Rationalist Judaism". You should just give up and call it "Nationalist Judaism". But the main problem with all this is not that you are simply wrong, but that you have replaced Judaism with some form of secular nationalism. This is one of the main chareidi objections to Zionism.
You wrote this weird line "many people just need somewhere that is safer than where they currently live". If you are referring to Jews in Poland in 1940, ok, but that's just bizarre in a discussion about a State that only was founded 8 years later and has not proven to be particularly safe compared to most other places where Jews live.
What about all the other places where Jews *don't* live? Virtually all the Jews in the world live in about a dozen countries. That leaves about 180. Jews don't live in those for a reason, and Israel is probably safer than most of them.
Natan, this State of Israel business doesn't seem to be working out too well right now. In rational terms at least, there doesn't seem to be much of a future here for us. I wonder when did you latch onto this ideology? Was it only a result of what haredi rabbis and askanim did to you, so you needed to join another group? California should have been a better option, no? Doesn't seem right now that you put much rational thought into that.
Nachum, this is a bit like how R. Meiselman goes to great lengths to argue all the *problems* with the Noah's Ark story, so that people will buy into his approach that it was completely supernatural. But this is even weirder and sicker. Kleinerman and his friends want to argue for all the *problems* with Israel, because they think that it somehow scores points against me.
Let me tell you a story: Knowing my right-wing inclinations, when I was a kid people would say, "Oh, have you read Perfidy?" I hadn't, and it was hard to find back then. (I own a copy now, of course.) Once, I was on an NCSY Shavuot event and one of the administrators (he now lives in Beit Shemesh) had scooped all his Jewish books off the shelf and brought them so we'd have something to read over the chag. And one book was Perfidy, so I picked it up and began to read it.
One of the advisors saw me and said, "Oh, Perfidy. Good book. Just one thing- don't let the public school kids [that is, the kids not yet religious] see it."
I asked, "Why not?"
And he answered what I think to this day is a perfect line: "Because you have to love Israel before you can hate it."
I actually started my education in a charedi-ish place that was kinda sorta pro-Israel but not too strongly so, but certainly wasn't anti-Israel. And then I got Zionist feeling from home, and from other places as time went on. So by the time Ben Hecht started telling me the ugly stuff, I could take it.
Problem is, lots of charedim- and I think this is getting worse as time goes on- never get that love for Israel before they're steeped in all the problems Israel has. And that poisons them. Israel is of course our land, and it happens to be a wonderful place, certainly deserving our love and worthy of our giving it. The *State* is wonderful. Certainly it far outweighs its problems, its government- all its governments- and a lot of its citizens at the extremes. (Random example, this time from a 1970's campaign poster of Meir Kahane: "If you love the State of Israel, say no to its government!" This is a concept lots of charedim- and sometimes, some leftists- can't *grasp*.) But the talmidei chachamim wasting their time commenting here never got all of that. So they hate.
Maybe you loved his line but its wrong even if it sounded so sweet. Perfidy shows how wicked the secular founders of Israel were. A stench of immense proportions. Loving the holy land and protecting its citizens is not the same thing as being gung ho about the secular political entity. Which in recent history actively collaborated with the nazis to prevent saving hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jewish lives.
The state endures despite the wicked secularists not because of them. It is the ones who keep the Torah and Mitzvot and those coming close to Hashem that keep the country going, not the bad ones. Read tanach and learn all about it.
I see that our existence here is due only to miraculous intervention, not any rational accounting. Rational thinkers should flee. I think that Natan has chosen this ideology only because it is not Haredi, not because rational thinking should lead one here. Certainly, the ideologues who have raised the ire of the entire world against us by settling the West Bank are relying only on the miraculous intervention of G-d to come and save us. I hope and believe that He will do so, but through natural cause we don't stand a chance. Natan can't answer these challenges cogently, so he needs to resort to insults, bring up R Meiselman or other Haredi enemies by association, irrelevant as that may be. Heck, forget about rational thinking, this recently concocted version of Judaism is inconsistent and incoherent.
Good one. But completely irrelevant. So what if Kefar Azza has nothing to do with any point here in this discussion. Bottom line is very simple: no version of Religious Zionism can be squared with Natan's supposedly rationalist Judaism. Neither you nor Natan have been able to address that point directly.
"And in any case, having a homeland is not about attaining the greatest safety - it is about having a home, a place that Jews historically belong, a place that Jews can always come to when they fear persecution or experience discrimination, where we can take responsibility for our own safety, and where we can put being Jewish into action and expression."
This sort of rah-rah Jewish-Agency-speak might work for some segment of world Jewry, but it's hardly convincing to anyone who doesn't buy into the idea in the first place.
Hey, Nachum, G-d also says that if we don't keep to the Torah here, and specifically, if we act like the non-Jews did and violate the covenant in sexual behavior, the land will spit us out. You can look it up. But, didn't you support the gay shame parades?
Didn't I? Why would you say that? You got some file on me?
I count on God to be patient and merciful and to judge us on the whole. He certainly has been in the past.
God allowed Yehoshua to conquer the land on behalf of a people who were literal idol worshippers. Let's keep that in mind. He allowed the return to Zion of a people who were heavily intermarried. You can say what you want about Modern Israel, but its level of sinfulness doesn't *begin* to approach what God tolerated in the past.
Nachum your history is insanely corrupted. You are a sick man too.
The statment about Yehoshua is a bold faced lie. The Jewish nation was the extreme opposite of idol worshippers. You are a low life for writing such a wicked lie. You say Hashem allowed the return to Zion of a people heavily intermarried. You clearly never read because every person who intermarried is listed in sefer Ezra and it's a short list of a hundred something.
In recent history millions and millions of Jews didn't do just one sin, they threw everything away, they even became heretics...the fact that you can compare shows how fake you are.
Gay parades anywhere is vomitable, in the holy land it is even more grotesque. Your counting on Hashems mercy is your way of downplaying the perversion. We should also stand up and make a racket about it. Don't be a wishy washy half Jew. You seem even less than that frankly. You are a secularist apologist and a corrupter of Jewish history.
If the Torah were describing the sins of Modern Israel, it would use much harsher language than whatever was used to describe the דור דעה of Biblical times.
The Torah *does* describe the sins of modern Israel. The Nevi'im are especially good at describing the sins of modern religious Jews.
As to דור דעה...they saw Yetziat Mitzraim and Keriat Yam Suf *with their own eyes* and heard, with their own ears, *God Himself*, w say "Don't make idols" and then within forty days made a gold idol and said, "This is what took you our of Egypt". And couldn't stop worshipping idols for almost a thousand years after that. Bear that in mind.
Nachum, you sound like a heretic reading the Torah from a christian bible for the first time.
You ARE an am haaretz.
By the way, where does the Torah describe the sins of modern Israel? That would be a list 1000 times greater than any sins mentioned about the great generation of Moshe
This one is going to be fun. Nachum please expand on this.
I think you have unwittingly revealed your own perspective. You are involved in Tanach studies at the expense of Gemara. We don't have the same Torah, sorry.
But you said "ladies" plural. So you watched the first, and then continued to watch another?
In any case, if you're the kind of person who is worried about sexual arousal from a few seconds of seeing a woman sing about the challenges of life in Israel, you're probably the sort of person whose rabbinic authorities state that you should not be reading this blog, or even have internet access. So why are you here?
1. YOU disagree that they meant that in an absolute sense. Because Chazal use the phrase to refer to speech, not singing. If you'd like to learn more about this topic, see https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/can-my-daughter-sing. This thread is not the place for such a discussion; it's about living in Israel, not your obsession with sexual arousal.
2. You didn't respond to my point. If you are the kind of person that feels that the video is halachically problematic, I'm sure that you are also the kind of person whose rabbinic authorities state that you should not be reading this blog, or even have internet access. So why are you here?
I'm sorry that this is off topic, I would rather post on the original post, but I'm not currently a paid subscriber.
I understood you to be saying that no rishonim mentioned singing as being the problem, shulchan aruch in orach chaim 75,3 does mention singing in the context of kriyas shma, as does ritva in brachos.
The beis yosef in siman 75 quotes raavad and rabenu yona as both saying that it's about singing as well (albeit still only regarding kriyas shma). I think it is reasonable to understand from the fact that shulchan aruch poskins this way in orach chaim and then quotes Rambam (whose language is ambiguous as to what he means by "listening to her voice" in perek 21 of hilchos issurei bi'a) in siman 21 of even ha'ezer, and the fact that beis yosef there sources the issur as the same sugya in brachos, which, as established, he understood to be about singing, that that's how he understood Rambam and therefore is poskining that a woman's singing voice is what is forbidden. (There are rishonim who seemed to think that the issur is only during kriyas shma, so I guess if one wants to rely on them there might be basis to do so, but since shulchan aruch in even ha'ezer poskins a broader issur, it would seemingly be "better" halachically to poskin like him. Thus, although one can perhaps reinterpret Rambam to be like we know rashba to say, I think there is a strong argument to say that this is not shulchan aruch's view.)
(I also understood rashba to be saying even speaking voice as a chumra, that even certain types of speaking are a problem besides the implied assumption of singing voice, but I acknowledge that that isn't necessarily clear in rashba and the point of this post is not to give my view on Rav Mosheh's article in general, just to mention that I think there's more basis for interpreting it as singing than I understood you to be suggesting.)
I recognize that I'm violating etiquette by posting on this post where kol isha is not the main topic and I do apologize again for that. I also want to say that I have a lot of respect for your work and have learned a lot from your many articles and appreciate your raising awareness of various social issues, I just strongly disagreed about the way the sugya seemed to be represented in your posts on this topic and wanted to explain why. I hope that it didn't come off as too disrespectful. (On the original blog post, when it was the other format, I was able to comment and wrote a couple of defenses of Rav Mosheh from people who decided to attack what they perceived as his motives and yiras shamayim, although I do disagree with a bunch of his points)
Thats not true at all. Most poskim prohibit men from hearing women sing. You yourself said most acharonim ban it. Rav Rabinovitch and Rav Lochtenstein are notable exceptions
Wait. You are saying chazal pointed out that kol beisha erva merely for speech but singing is par for the course?
Everyone knows it's a smokescreen, and a bad one at that. You did it, like the last post, to get em. As if it's accomplishing anything. But my question remains. Is this proper for a rabbi? I guess I will answer since you won't.
Typical of you to distort rabbinic teachings merely to prove your points. While Chazal say that קול אשה is ערוה and prohibited, they do not say the reason is only because it leads to sexual arousal. It is prohibited independently of any results.
My husband pointed out to me today that people who suffer from lack of sexual gratification are the most likely to obsess about the minutiae of others' improprieties.
There's probably something to that. As well as the fact that the trolls always need to find something to criticize, no matter how unsubstantial and irrelevant
Super intelligent response probably because you couldn't enter a talmudic or halachic debate if your life depended on it, or sometimes you can but know the commentor has the upper hand.
Which is why you continually resort to silly responses, calling people names, or highlighting unimportant linguistic points, as if somehow an intelligent rejoinder was made.
The geulah will be the greatest happiness because living among the umot haolam is a tremendous misfortune for us. Even in Eretz Yisroel we live among Jewish goyim.
And therefore, today the galut is weighing on our minds and neshomot; we’re imprisoned by gentile attitudes. Of course, we learn Torah and that helps to free the mind from all the wickedness and foolishness. But no matter, all around us the avirah, the atmosphere, is saturated with shtuyot and lies and it has an effect!
Evolution, liberalism – you see how silly their ways are, and how they are ruining themselves because of all these lies. And the problem is that we live among them, and we are being spoiled too.
It is a tremendous loss for us; that’s what galut means. But not only suffering physically – even if they are good to us and will tolerate us, and we are thankful and respectful, but it's worse.
When they persecuted us that was the wall between them and us. But when they gave us liberty and tolerance, that was the worst gezeirah; worse than the gezeirah of Hitler. Historically millions went lost because of the toleration and equality!
In the good old days when the Jews were in ghettos we couldn’t mix. When a Jew went out into the street, they spat on him and they threw him into the gutter. A terrible thing, but the result was that the Jew had no desire to mix. Thus, the galut today is worse than it was once upon a time. We’re more in a galut today than ever!
And once upon a time we only had galut among goyim; today we are in galut among yidden too. In Eretz Yisroel, we are in galut among the reshaim. In America we’re in galut among the reformers and the amei ha’aretz. It’s a galutl
Of-course we do our best to fight against spoiling, but it is a very great galut.
Why should a rabbi seem enamered with female singers and composers - who I believe are not even shomrei Torah umitzvot, based on a quick google check?
And again, since no reply, isn't it better for an orthodox Jew who titles himself rabbi to not link to a video with kol Isha issues?
Nachum please quickly point out a grammatical error in my typing or comment that my hormones are clearly raging because that really answers the questions masterfully and is not remotely a deflection by the less talented.
We've lost our land multiple times (with the destruction of the Israelite and Judean kingdoms, and the collapse of the Hasmonean state), and we're at risk of losing it again. This doesn't mean all Jews will be cast into the sea. Some will perish, some may convert to Islam, and the rest will likely be marginalized as second-class citizens.
One thing is certain, particularly after the events of October 7th: Israel isn't ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו, despite any messianic beliefs.
According to the Tanach, G-d punishes the majority for the transgressions of the minority, such as the sin of Achan. In Israel, only a minority observes the commandments.
Nothing to disagree with here, but this is not an approach that will work. Many of the Israelis who have the economic skills needed to keep the country afloat do have other options and will take them despite the fact they risk their lives now to fight this war. The fact that the RZ have been taken over by Kahanists and entered the govt (+ Netanyahu’s various indictments) means that a forever war against the Arabs is now in the interests of those in charge. One thing that is going to need to be done is to take the country back from those who have an agenda other than making Israel a safe place to live, whether those people are Charedi, RZ or those being prosecuted.
1. I see more and more Jewish Democrats turning on Israel. Even Orthodox ones are saying that Israel is to blame and maybe should stop and blah blah. Of course, they, as you, disguise this all as criticism of "Bibi" (as Democratic talking points have instructed them). But trust me, to those of us not so beholden to amnesty, acid, and abortion, what's going on is pretty transparent.
2. I don't care how popular or unpopular Bibi is. I am responding to *your* assertion that he is not wrapping up the war out of political considerations, which is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that can only be believed by someone who hated Bibi to begin. (For the record, I am not a fan of Bibi, but I'm also not one of the deranged haters screaming into a megaphone down the block from me at this moment.) In any event, what do you want? There are two ways to wrap it up: Complete surrender- which of course many want, but is still disgusting- or to have turned Gaza into a piece of glass on day one. Bibi isn't doing the latter because he's weak, and because of pressure from the Democrats and the high-ranking Israelis whose strings they pull.
You can't have it both ways.
3. Like it or not, the Kahanists are just about the *only* people not responsible for this mess.
This is what makes R' Yosef's statement of "we'll all just leave" so ironic: the chareidim are the ones are least able to emigrate. They're much less likely to have a foreign passport than secular people in Tel Aviv, they have no marketable skills, they have large families, and they don't have the money needed to emigrate
Yosef has a lot of connections, and might be able to find another place to live, but that's likely not the case for most of his followers, especially those without money. A real גדול would not separate his fate from that of his flock.
Yep. Compare the infamous story of the Belzer Rebbe during the Holocaust, who told his followers in Hungary that they'd be ok, and then escaped to Israel:
יציאת האדמו"ר מבעלז מהונגריה
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%22%D7%A8_%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%96_%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94
I suppose he could have begged ignorance, but what's really damning is that they edited that part out of the published speech.
It's actually *not* particularly damning. You should read the whole wiki article Ezra Brand linked to. https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%22%D7%A8_%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%96_%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94#%D7%A1%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94
I have no problem if someone would say, "Look, this was unprecedented, and we had no idea what would happen." Which would be the truth, in most cases.
Kastner, nebach, couldn't say it because he was a government official and sentiment in the 1950's would be very unforgiving to any hint of collaboration. So he lied, or selectively remembered things. (Of course, he could have simply never brought the lawsuit in the first place- the old Oscar Wilde mistake.)
A chassidish rebbe can never say such a thing because he's supposed to be in direct contact with God. If he couldn't foresee (which somehow others *could* see) that, say, the Nazis would kill half the Jews of Hungary, then how is he supposed to be able to get you brachot?
So yes, I can forgive. Just don't ask me to believe that any of these people are somehow better than me.
Of course, almost all of his followers serve in the IDF.
As we see from millions of Africans and Mexicans, it doesn't take much money or marketable skills to emigrate.
That's fairly different:
1) from those groups, it's generally single young men who emigrate.
2) Africans and Mexicans mostly travel relatively short distances by land and/or rickety boat. Poor people emigrating from Israel don't really have that option.
3) those people aren't heavily invested in a religious community, or strict religious laws, so they're highly flexible.
4) those groups often have a somewhat credible claim to refugee status. Chareidim dodging the draft will likely not be able to claim that.
5) statistically speaking, percentage-wise, in fact a fairly small percentage of those groups in fact emigrate
There are also obvious political and racial reasons Africans and Latin Americans would be admitted and Jews wouldn't.
There are differences, true. The chareidi community also has things to its advantage, such as being more intelligent, better organized, and probably better access to lawyers. I was just taking issue with the characterization that immigration requires money and marketable skills, a very significant proportion of immigration- maybe most- does not have this. I think for #4, chareidim could make a good case for religious persecution, or at least their lawyers could- all in theory- probably nothing like that is happening.
My understanding (after recently reading a book on migration) is that the vast majority of legal migration is by those with marketable skills. Chain migration is the exception. Developed countries don't take in people with no marketable skills, they're quite strict about that.
Re refugee status, that'll be a really tough sell, now that no developed countries are taking in Palestinian refugees. It'll be politically really difficult to differentiate
Ok, but we are not talking about regular legal migration, but people seeking to become refugees- and indeed millions of people emigrate, legally or illegally, without money and skills. The reason why countries aren't taking in Palestinian refugees is because their population is filled with violent terrorists. Although chareidim may have their own set of issues, I don't think they can be compared to Palestinians. It's hard to think of more different populations to each other.
I agree that the populations are quite different, of course. My point is that the Palestinian refugee issue happening at the same time can only make it more difficult for the chareidim. The reality of the current political environment is that developed countries have turned against low-skill immigration quite strongly, it's currently a huge political issue
Indeed. Something that our resident Lakewooders and somewhat relatively more comfortable (as in wealthy) anglo immigrants, 'honeymooning' kollel couples on an all expenses paid jolly in Yerushalayim (perish the thought, they are ALL serious avreichim, benei torah par excellence, walking mussar seforim and yirei elokim etc) can't appreciate.
Hey, Testes great to hear from you again! There are enough people here trying to point out irrelevant flaws in everyone who might own a black hat. You really ought to find another hobby.
Even for those of us with foreign passports, over the past 6 months many of the countries that we have come from have made it abundantly clear that we are not welcome there
You have an american passport and the Israeli locals are being mean to you?
Just to be a little nitpicky, you may have another country to go to, but it's not your country. Jews have a talent for thinking that they don't stand out and are part and parcel of their diaspora lands; they never are.
שׁתֵּי גָדוֹת לַיַּרדֵּן: זוֹ שֶׁלָּנוּ – זוֹ גַם-כֵּן!
Or as Noam Chomsky might say, 'why do the Jews need Israel when they have NYC already?'
What does either of that have to do with anything?
Rabbi J. David Bleich wrote an article many years ago about the problem of "changing" neighborhoods, where often the well-to-do flee, leaving behind the elderly etc. He quoted the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Reb Moshe Feinstein that there actually is an obligation for those able to leave, to try and stay, so as not to abandon those who cannot leave.
And both of them did stay. Of course, the Rebbe had chassidim who stayed where he did; R' Moshe was not as fortunate.
"Israel has not yet been, and still is not, the safest place in the world for Jews. But not everyone has the option to live in the safest place in the world - many people just need somewhere that is safer than where they currently live. And in any case, having a homeland is not about attaining the greatest safety - it is about having a home, a place that Jews historically belong, a place that Jews can always come to when they fear persecution or experience discrimination, where we can take responsibility for our own safety, and where we can put being Jewish into action and expression."
This is all very nice, but the idea that Israel is safer than anywhere else is completely irrational, as irrational as it gets. In fact, in 2024, it seems to be one of the least safe places for Jews. And all your talk about "having a home, a place that Jews historically belong, a place that Jews can always come to when they fear persecution or experience discrimination, where we can take responsibility for our own safety, and where we can put being Jewish into action and expression" is also completely irrational, it's just overwrought nationalist sentiment on steroids. So much for "Rationalist Judaism". You should just give up and call it "Nationalist Judaism". But the main problem with all this is not that you are simply wrong, but that you have replaced Judaism with some form of secular nationalism. This is one of the main chareidi objections to Zionism.
What on earth is wrong with your reading comprehension? I literally wrote that it is NOT the safest place!
You wrote this weird line "many people just need somewhere that is safer than where they currently live". If you are referring to Jews in Poland in 1940, ok, but that's just bizarre in a discussion about a State that only was founded 8 years later and has not proven to be particularly safe compared to most other places where Jews live.
What about all the other places where Jews *don't* live? Virtually all the Jews in the world live in about a dozen countries. That leaves about 180. Jews don't live in those for a reason, and Israel is probably safer than most of them.
Gosh, you're right, I didn't mention the places where Jews *don't* live. That's an important and oft-overlooked point.
Not everyone lives in Lakewood, you know. But the issue arises from how exactly you define 'safe'.
If it's personal perception, than yes, many people still feel safer in Israel.
Many people feel 'safer' in a car than a plane, but statistically a plane is far safer.
Natan, this State of Israel business doesn't seem to be working out too well right now. In rational terms at least, there doesn't seem to be much of a future here for us. I wonder when did you latch onto this ideology? Was it only a result of what haredi rabbis and askanim did to you, so you needed to join another group? California should have been a better option, no? Doesn't seem right now that you put much rational thought into that.
"Doesn't seem to be working out too well"? Have you ever even *visited* Israel?
Nachum, this is a bit like how R. Meiselman goes to great lengths to argue all the *problems* with the Noah's Ark story, so that people will buy into his approach that it was completely supernatural. But this is even weirder and sicker. Kleinerman and his friends want to argue for all the *problems* with Israel, because they think that it somehow scores points against me.
Let me tell you a story: Knowing my right-wing inclinations, when I was a kid people would say, "Oh, have you read Perfidy?" I hadn't, and it was hard to find back then. (I own a copy now, of course.) Once, I was on an NCSY Shavuot event and one of the administrators (he now lives in Beit Shemesh) had scooped all his Jewish books off the shelf and brought them so we'd have something to read over the chag. And one book was Perfidy, so I picked it up and began to read it.
One of the advisors saw me and said, "Oh, Perfidy. Good book. Just one thing- don't let the public school kids [that is, the kids not yet religious] see it."
I asked, "Why not?"
And he answered what I think to this day is a perfect line: "Because you have to love Israel before you can hate it."
I actually started my education in a charedi-ish place that was kinda sorta pro-Israel but not too strongly so, but certainly wasn't anti-Israel. And then I got Zionist feeling from home, and from other places as time went on. So by the time Ben Hecht started telling me the ugly stuff, I could take it.
Problem is, lots of charedim- and I think this is getting worse as time goes on- never get that love for Israel before they're steeped in all the problems Israel has. And that poisons them. Israel is of course our land, and it happens to be a wonderful place, certainly deserving our love and worthy of our giving it. The *State* is wonderful. Certainly it far outweighs its problems, its government- all its governments- and a lot of its citizens at the extremes. (Random example, this time from a 1970's campaign poster of Meir Kahane: "If you love the State of Israel, say no to its government!" This is a concept lots of charedim- and sometimes, some leftists- can't *grasp*.) But the talmidei chachamim wasting their time commenting here never got all of that. So they hate.
Maybe you loved his line but its wrong even if it sounded so sweet. Perfidy shows how wicked the secular founders of Israel were. A stench of immense proportions. Loving the holy land and protecting its citizens is not the same thing as being gung ho about the secular political entity. Which in recent history actively collaborated with the nazis to prevent saving hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jewish lives.
The state endures despite the wicked secularists not because of them. It is the ones who keep the Torah and Mitzvot and those coming close to Hashem that keep the country going, not the bad ones. Read tanach and learn all about it.
I live in Israel with my family.
And you don't observe what you see?
I see that our existence here is due only to miraculous intervention, not any rational accounting. Rational thinkers should flee. I think that Natan has chosen this ideology only because it is not Haredi, not because rational thinking should lead one here. Certainly, the ideologues who have raised the ire of the entire world against us by settling the West Bank are relying only on the miraculous intervention of G-d to come and save us. I hope and believe that He will do so, but through natural cause we don't stand a chance. Natan can't answer these challenges cogently, so he needs to resort to insults, bring up R Meiselman or other Haredi enemies by association, irrelevant as that may be. Heck, forget about rational thinking, this recently concocted version of Judaism is inconsistent and incoherent.
Last I checked, Kfar Azza isn't the "West Bank." And I'm pretty good at geography. Huh. I should go check.
Anyway, I get where you're coming from with that line. Talk about irrationalism.
Good one. But completely irrelevant. So what if Kefar Azza has nothing to do with any point here in this discussion. Bottom line is very simple: no version of Religious Zionism can be squared with Natan's supposedly rationalist Judaism. Neither you nor Natan have been able to address that point directly.
"And in any case, having a homeland is not about attaining the greatest safety - it is about having a home, a place that Jews historically belong, a place that Jews can always come to when they fear persecution or experience discrimination, where we can take responsibility for our own safety, and where we can put being Jewish into action and expression."
This sort of rah-rah Jewish-Agency-speak might work for some segment of world Jewry, but it's hardly convincing to anyone who doesn't buy into the idea in the first place.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/pure-gold/comment/18304433
Jewish Agency? Try the word of God Himself. You could look it up.
Speak, your servant is listening.
Hey, Nachum, G-d also says that if we don't keep to the Torah here, and specifically, if we act like the non-Jews did and violate the covenant in sexual behavior, the land will spit us out. You can look it up. But, didn't you support the gay shame parades?
Didn't I? Why would you say that? You got some file on me?
I count on God to be patient and merciful and to judge us on the whole. He certainly has been in the past.
God allowed Yehoshua to conquer the land on behalf of a people who were literal idol worshippers. Let's keep that in mind. He allowed the return to Zion of a people who were heavily intermarried. You can say what you want about Modern Israel, but its level of sinfulness doesn't *begin* to approach what God tolerated in the past.
Nachum your history is insanely corrupted. You are a sick man too.
The statment about Yehoshua is a bold faced lie. The Jewish nation was the extreme opposite of idol worshippers. You are a low life for writing such a wicked lie. You say Hashem allowed the return to Zion of a people heavily intermarried. You clearly never read because every person who intermarried is listed in sefer Ezra and it's a short list of a hundred something.
In recent history millions and millions of Jews didn't do just one sin, they threw everything away, they even became heretics...the fact that you can compare shows how fake you are.
Gay parades anywhere is vomitable, in the holy land it is even more grotesque. Your counting on Hashems mercy is your way of downplaying the perversion. We should also stand up and make a racket about it. Don't be a wishy washy half Jew. You seem even less than that frankly. You are a secularist apologist and a corrupter of Jewish history.
If the Torah were describing the sins of Modern Israel, it would use much harsher language than whatever was used to describe the דור דעה of Biblical times.
The Torah *does* describe the sins of modern Israel. The Nevi'im are especially good at describing the sins of modern religious Jews.
As to דור דעה...they saw Yetziat Mitzraim and Keriat Yam Suf *with their own eyes* and heard, with their own ears, *God Himself*, w say "Don't make idols" and then within forty days made a gold idol and said, "This is what took you our of Egypt". And couldn't stop worshipping idols for almost a thousand years after that. Bear that in mind.
Nachum, you sound like a heretic reading the Torah from a christian bible for the first time.
You ARE an am haaretz.
By the way, where does the Torah describe the sins of modern Israel? That would be a list 1000 times greater than any sins mentioned about the great generation of Moshe
This one is going to be fun. Nachum please expand on this.
I think you have unwittingly revealed your own perspective. You are involved in Tanach studies at the expense of Gemara. We don't have the same Torah, sorry.
Thanks for linking to a YouTube clip with ladies singing. Is that a rabbi thing to do?
Did you do that because you imagine it spites Jewish men who avoid that wrongfulness? It doesn't. It just makes you look immature.
There were ladies singing in it? How many?
I dont know. You posted the video so you should know.
Again, is posting such a video a rabbi thing to do?
But you said "ladies" plural. So you watched the first, and then continued to watch another?
In any case, if you're the kind of person who is worried about sexual arousal from a few seconds of seeing a woman sing about the challenges of life in Israel, you're probably the sort of person whose rabbinic authorities state that you should not be reading this blog, or even have internet access. So why are you here?
I skimmed through it with the bar tab ...I suppose I saw more than one but didnt stop to listen. I guess i should have stopped one second earlier.
You are saying really weird things. A professed rabbi should post such things? Why are you dodging the repeated question?
I don’t understand. Chazal say קול באשה ערוה. Do you disagree?
1. YOU disagree that they meant that in an absolute sense. Because Chazal use the phrase to refer to speech, not singing. If you'd like to learn more about this topic, see https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/can-my-daughter-sing. This thread is not the place for such a discussion; it's about living in Israel, not your obsession with sexual arousal.
2. You didn't respond to my point. If you are the kind of person that feels that the video is halachically problematic, I'm sure that you are also the kind of person whose rabbinic authorities state that you should not be reading this blog, or even have internet access. So why are you here?
Hi Rabbi Slifkin,
I'm sorry that this is off topic, I would rather post on the original post, but I'm not currently a paid subscriber.
I understood you to be saying that no rishonim mentioned singing as being the problem, shulchan aruch in orach chaim 75,3 does mention singing in the context of kriyas shma, as does ritva in brachos.
The beis yosef in siman 75 quotes raavad and rabenu yona as both saying that it's about singing as well (albeit still only regarding kriyas shma). I think it is reasonable to understand from the fact that shulchan aruch poskins this way in orach chaim and then quotes Rambam (whose language is ambiguous as to what he means by "listening to her voice" in perek 21 of hilchos issurei bi'a) in siman 21 of even ha'ezer, and the fact that beis yosef there sources the issur as the same sugya in brachos, which, as established, he understood to be about singing, that that's how he understood Rambam and therefore is poskining that a woman's singing voice is what is forbidden. (There are rishonim who seemed to think that the issur is only during kriyas shma, so I guess if one wants to rely on them there might be basis to do so, but since shulchan aruch in even ha'ezer poskins a broader issur, it would seemingly be "better" halachically to poskin like him. Thus, although one can perhaps reinterpret Rambam to be like we know rashba to say, I think there is a strong argument to say that this is not shulchan aruch's view.)
(I also understood rashba to be saying even speaking voice as a chumra, that even certain types of speaking are a problem besides the implied assumption of singing voice, but I acknowledge that that isn't necessarily clear in rashba and the point of this post is not to give my view on Rav Mosheh's article in general, just to mention that I think there's more basis for interpreting it as singing than I understood you to be suggesting.)
I recognize that I'm violating etiquette by posting on this post where kol isha is not the main topic and I do apologize again for that. I also want to say that I have a lot of respect for your work and have learned a lot from your many articles and appreciate your raising awareness of various social issues, I just strongly disagreed about the way the sugya seemed to be represented in your posts on this topic and wanted to explain why. I hope that it didn't come off as too disrespectful. (On the original blog post, when it was the other format, I was able to comment and wrote a couple of defenses of Rav Mosheh from people who decided to attack what they perceived as his motives and yiras shamayim, although I do disagree with a bunch of his points)
Thats not true at all. Most poskim prohibit men from hearing women sing. You yourself said most acharonim ban it. Rav Rabinovitch and Rav Lochtenstein are notable exceptions
I’m happy to see that what in 2022 was ‘a difficult adjustment’ you now consider to be perfectly permissible.
He's looking for cheap thrilz.
Wait. You are saying chazal pointed out that kol beisha erva merely for speech but singing is par for the course?
Everyone knows it's a smokescreen, and a bad one at that. You did it, like the last post, to get em. As if it's accomplishing anything. But my question remains. Is this proper for a rabbi? I guess I will answer since you won't.
No.
Typical of you to distort rabbinic teachings merely to prove your points. While Chazal say that קול אשה is ערוה and prohibited, they do not say the reason is only because it leads to sexual arousal. It is prohibited independently of any results.
Wow, still with the sex on the brain.
By the way, we usually say "women' these days.
My husband pointed out to me today that people who suffer from lack of sexual gratification are the most likely to obsess about the minutiae of others' improprieties.
There's probably something to that. As well as the fact that the trolls always need to find something to criticize, no matter how unsubstantial and irrelevant
Thanks for sharing.
Notice you are the only who continuously hankers on this point. You need a doctor. A lot of them.
Super intelligent response probably because you couldn't enter a talmudic or halachic debate if your life depended on it, or sometimes you can but know the commentor has the upper hand.
Which is why you continually resort to silly responses, calling people names, or highlighting unimportant linguistic points, as if somehow an intelligent rejoinder was made.
Nobody is willing to pay for me to go to the Short Bus Yeshiva, either. Now I will never learn to play pool.
The geulah will be the greatest happiness because living among the umot haolam is a tremendous misfortune for us. Even in Eretz Yisroel we live among Jewish goyim.
And therefore, today the galut is weighing on our minds and neshomot; we’re imprisoned by gentile attitudes. Of course, we learn Torah and that helps to free the mind from all the wickedness and foolishness. But no matter, all around us the avirah, the atmosphere, is saturated with shtuyot and lies and it has an effect!
Evolution, liberalism – you see how silly their ways are, and how they are ruining themselves because of all these lies. And the problem is that we live among them, and we are being spoiled too.
It is a tremendous loss for us; that’s what galut means. But not only suffering physically – even if they are good to us and will tolerate us, and we are thankful and respectful, but it's worse.
When they persecuted us that was the wall between them and us. But when they gave us liberty and tolerance, that was the worst gezeirah; worse than the gezeirah of Hitler. Historically millions went lost because of the toleration and equality!
In the good old days when the Jews were in ghettos we couldn’t mix. When a Jew went out into the street, they spat on him and they threw him into the gutter. A terrible thing, but the result was that the Jew had no desire to mix. Thus, the galut today is worse than it was once upon a time. We’re more in a galut today than ever!
And once upon a time we only had galut among goyim; today we are in galut among yidden too. In Eretz Yisroel, we are in galut among the reshaim. In America we’re in galut among the reformers and the amei ha’aretz. It’s a galutl
Of-course we do our best to fight against spoiling, but it is a very great galut.
Why should a rabbi seem enamered with female singers and composers - who I believe are not even shomrei Torah umitzvot, based on a quick google check?
And again, since no reply, isn't it better for an orthodox Jew who titles himself rabbi to not link to a video with kol Isha issues?
Nachum please quickly point out a grammatical error in my typing or comment that my hormones are clearly raging because that really answers the questions masterfully and is not remotely a deflection by the less talented.
We've lost our land multiple times (with the destruction of the Israelite and Judean kingdoms, and the collapse of the Hasmonean state), and we're at risk of losing it again. This doesn't mean all Jews will be cast into the sea. Some will perish, some may convert to Islam, and the rest will likely be marginalized as second-class citizens.
One thing is certain, particularly after the events of October 7th: Israel isn't ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו, despite any messianic beliefs.
Gali Atari?
Yes, not Etri.
Right. Though when I think of Atari, I think of what I had as a teenager.
Please correct it, though.
This is the only land given to us by God
Yes, but at the same time, G-d promises to drive us out of this land if the Jewish people fails to obey the commandments.
How do you know what the number is? There are all types of Jews in israel.
According to the Tanach, G-d punishes the majority for the transgressions of the minority, such as the sin of Achan. In Israel, only a minority observes the commandments.
how pessimistic of you
Her name is Atari
Nothing to disagree with here, but this is not an approach that will work. Many of the Israelis who have the economic skills needed to keep the country afloat do have other options and will take them despite the fact they risk their lives now to fight this war. The fact that the RZ have been taken over by Kahanists and entered the govt (+ Netanyahu’s various indictments) means that a forever war against the Arabs is now in the interests of those in charge. One thing that is going to need to be done is to take the country back from those who have an agenda other than making Israel a safe place to live, whether those people are Charedi, RZ or those being prosecuted.
Some Jews are so beholden to the Democratic Party that they have taken to attacking Israel in this war.
Other hate Bibi and religious Jews (sorry, "Kahanists") so much that *they* have taken to doing the same.
Neither is a good look. The latter is of course a good example of שנאה מקלקלת את השורה.
Your comment is pretty irrelevant to what I wrote, but let me address your points the best I can.
1) Most US Jews are liberal and support the Democratic Party while also supporting Israel. So you first comment seems factually incorrect.
2) Netanyahu is very unpopular now in Israel. Everyone understand that he needs to keep his coalition because of his court cases and changed his policy to include Kahanists in order to form a coalition. This is not remotely controversial. https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-71-think-netanyahu-should-resign-either-immediately-or-right-after-war/
3) I don't accept your assertion that most religious Jews have become Kahanists.
1. I see more and more Jewish Democrats turning on Israel. Even Orthodox ones are saying that Israel is to blame and maybe should stop and blah blah. Of course, they, as you, disguise this all as criticism of "Bibi" (as Democratic talking points have instructed them). But trust me, to those of us not so beholden to amnesty, acid, and abortion, what's going on is pretty transparent.
2. I don't care how popular or unpopular Bibi is. I am responding to *your* assertion that he is not wrapping up the war out of political considerations, which is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that can only be believed by someone who hated Bibi to begin. (For the record, I am not a fan of Bibi, but I'm also not one of the deranged haters screaming into a megaphone down the block from me at this moment.) In any event, what do you want? There are two ways to wrap it up: Complete surrender- which of course many want, but is still disgusting- or to have turned Gaza into a piece of glass on day one. Bibi isn't doing the latter because he's weak, and because of pressure from the Democrats and the high-ranking Israelis whose strings they pull.
You can't have it both ways.
3. Like it or not, the Kahanists are just about the *only* people not responsible for this mess.