Thank you for your service and i hope your son has a refua sheleima.
Whilst I do not subscribe to everything you wrote, I am not sure there is anything there that directly argues or contradicts what I wrote?
I would just comment none of this directly is my experience, I am far from the best example, but I have been zoche to know people who live up to what I wrote, and they far from learnt a wee bit of torah. My friend Elisha Hy"d poured through mishneh torah, in Khan Yunis, better than I did in Yeshiva.
Of course. And when a 'kollel guy' (for some reason they like calling themselves in demeaning language) or 'yeshivah guy' consistently shows up for shacharis 10 minutes late, it undoes hours of learning.
Thank you for your good wishes. My son is fine thank God, his injuries were relatively minor. 5 days after his APC was struck by an RPG, he was already back leading his soldiers in Gaza.
I appreciate your communicating your feelings regarding my essay. It seems like you are focusing on two points, the first is that you are not sure exactly in what way I meant to disagree with you. The second is that you held forth your friend Elisha hy"d as an example of someone who was able to undertake serious learning during combat conditions, and therefore stands in contrast to my use of the term "a wee bit of learning".
Regarding your second point, Rambam famously points out that one cannot apply oneself properly to gaining wisdom while one is constrained by the various obligations of this world. He specifically uses the example of warfare. Even without Rambam pointing this out, this is self-evident from widespread human experience. While Elisha may have been one of those very unique individuals who can apply himself at all under those circumstances, it stands to reason that he would still have accomplished much more had he been applying himself in the rarified environment of the beit medrash. So for the overwhelming majority of people combat conditions are incompatible with any serious learning, and even for the very rare individuals such as Elisha combat conditions are a great constraint on their ability to obtain wisdom. Hence my use of the term "a wee bit of learning".
Regarding your primary question of in what way I meant to differ from what you wrote, I believe that we differ on a fundamental point. While I acknowledge that properly applied, going to war with all that that entails can be a great mitzvah, it is not an end in its own right. It is a means to accomplish a greater end. And that greater end is the revelation of Hashem's glory in this world, primarily through revealing the wisdom that he revealed in the Torah. And so those who apply themselves to studying Torah in the beit medrash, are actually accomplishing the goal which gives meaning to the sacrifice of those who engage in combat. It is true that those who are fighting are performing a mitzvah with מסירות נפש, which greatly enhances its value, but it is still only a means to allow for the greater end of those who are studying Hashem's Torah in the beit medrash.
And therefore the resentment that you seem to feel towards those who are applying themselves to the very goal for which you are making such great sacrifices, seems very out of place.
That is my response to the points that you made. But in addition I think there is another issue here that you didn't express, but may lay at the root of what is disturbing you. It is a vital condition of studying Torah that one study with the intention of fulfilling that which one has studied. You believe that the state of Israel has some sort of religious meaning, which implies an obligation to fight on its behalf whether or not one would define its wars as a מלחמת מצווה. Therefore, it seems absurd to you that one would dedicate themselves to studying Torah, but not to fulfilling one of The commandments that is derived from that study.
While there are great Jewish scholars from the past two or three generations who indeed felt that the political state of Israel has religious significance, they are a small minority of the great Jewish thinkers of the past few generations. The great majority of great Jewish thinkers did not believe that the state of Israel has any Jewish significance, and it is their opinion that is followed by the majority of the Charedi community.
So according to that understanding, that there is no Jewish significance to the state of Israel, then there is no cosmic meaning to its wars. Fighting on behalf of the state of Israel is no different than fighting on behalf of any other state. A position that a Jew may one day find himself in, but not something to seek out by any means. Therefore the obligation to fight in Israel's wars does not derive from any obligation to the state itself, or any desire to promote its greater glory. It derives from the obligation to help other Jews, in other words the mitzvah of chesed, which itself is derived from the commandment ואהבת לרעך כמוך.
There is great significance to this distinction, because the rules of the obligation to fight on behalf of a Jewish state are very different than the rules of the obligation to perform chesed. Without going into the specifics, I think the root of what is disturbing you about the Charedi attitude towards fighting in Israel's wars derives from your fundamental understanding of the significance of the state of Israel. But when you appreciate that they have a very different understanding of that significance, then it all begins to fall into place.
While I don't know you, and haven't had the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, in my experience it has often been the case that when well-meaning people are at a loss to understand the Charedi attitude, the root of their wonderment lies in their not appreciating this distinction. Often times when they come to appreciate this distinction, it makes perfect sense to them and the resentment evaporates. I am speculating that what I have learned from experience with others applies to you as well.
Be well, and may the merit of your מסירות נפש stand by you and keep you safe.
"The great majority of great Jewish thinkers did not believe that the state of Israel has any Jewish significance, and it is their opinion that is followed by the majority of the Charedi community. "
You do know things have moved on a bit, don't you? Have you noticed maybe that the State of Israel today has a small amount more torah learning (I say sarcastically). Maybe just a bit? You know, how many millions of dollars the state of israel gives directly or indirectly to torah learning is more than any other country ever? And you think that has 'no Jewish significance'.
The fact that you happily quote 'the majority of great jewish thinkers' from 150 years ago when things were very different and believe it's not required to take account of events in the world since then, is ho gufo one of the problems with the charidi system. That is not traditional judaism and never has been. When metzius changes, things get looked at again - that has always been the case. Which is why we don't keep women locked up in doors like the rambam writes.
I am at a loss to understand exactly what you are referring to. I think that you are misunderstanding the meaning of "Jewish significance". It has nothing to do with whether or not the state does things that are good for Judaism. It refers to whether or not the state as a political entity is Jewish. So just to clarify by way of an example, if the state of New Jersey were to decide to financially underwrite the study of talmud and thereby bring about a great flourishing of the yeshivot within the state, that would constitute the state doing something that was positive for the Jews. But in no way would it transform the state of New Jersey into a Jewish state. None of the laws unique to a Jewish state would adhere to New Jersey.
It is in that context that we are evaluating whether or not the secular state of Israel has any Jewish significance. Without examining the veracity of your claim, it is irrelevant whether or not the state is in some ways supportive of Judaism. The question is whether the state is a Jewish state in the sense that it takes on the laws unique to a Jewish state. There was a small minority of Jewish ages over the past hundred years who felt that it did, and a large majority who felt that it didn't.
"Jewish significance" does NOT mean the same as 'Jewish state' as you define it later in your comment. 'Jewish significance' means very much whether the state does things that are good for Judaism. And once you concede it does, that leads on to other consequences such as hakoras hatov to the soldiers and the state, participating in its society, not being a kofoi tovah, etc etc.
Continuing to rely on hashkafic pesak from poskim from 150 years ago from gedolim who believed the state would become a spiritual anti-religious torah-empty state when those gedolim were proved totally and utterly wrong (just walk around in 2025 - even the most fanatical yeshiva man cannot deny the evidence of his eyes) is completely non-halachik and just plain stupid.
I still fail to understand what your difficulty is. As far as I can tell you are fixating on two things. In addition, you seem to have accidentally stumbled upon a significant point.
1. I was discussing whether or not the modern political entity known as the state of Israel has any significance as a Jewish state. To describe that I use the term "Jewish significance". You disagree with the use of that term in that way, so fine replace it in your mind with whatever term you consider more appropriate to express the idea under discussion.
2. You seem very concerned that the masters of Jewish thought who did not consider the state of Israel to have religious significance lived around 150 years ago. I don't know why you chose the number 150, but clearly it is ahistoric. Even such giants as the Chofetz Chaim and Reb Elchonon Wasserman who passed away before the founding of the state, lived less than 100 years ago. But more recent authorities such as the Chazon Ish or the Brisker Rav were active during the era that the state existed.
3. You inadvertently brought up a fascinating question when you mentioned that you feel there is an obligation of hakarat hatov towards the state. This is not the proper forum for such a discussion, but there is an extensive discussion among the poskim as to whether a corporate entity such as a state has any halachik standing. In other words, it is an interesting question as to whether or not the entire concept of hakarat hatov (or any other type of obligation that one could potentially have towards ones fellow) can apply to a disembodied entity such as a state. That would indeed have been an interesting and meaningful conversation, but it was not your main point.
Yeshivish nitpicking. The same nitpicking as those that argue there is no technical issur in pirating otzer hachochmoh and nothing wrong at all in a kollel person leaving a young mother with three children under the age of 4 to struggle on an erev shabbos on her own while he goes to learn.
As we know, chareidim dispite claiming to be chored al d'var hashem and being medakdek in halochoh kalloh k'chamuroh, they have no problem in justifying everything they do want to do, however morally wrong.
So replace '150 years' with '100 years' and gratitude to the state with gratitude to the 'citizens of the state'. Happy now?
The Chazon Ish u'dimei would never say it was forbidden to visit wounded soldiers or supply food to the soldiers like some of today's so called 'gedolim'. Many of his chevra served in the IDF. Nor would the Brisker Rav. That sort of fundementalism anto-Israeli stuff is unique to today. In any event, the Brisker Rov and the Chazon Ish were not around in recent years when, due to support and protection of the state, both financial and otherwise, torah has flourished.
"It stands to reason that he would still have accomplished much more had he been applying himself in the rarified environment of the beit medrash."
More walk the walk and talk the talk. In the rarified enviroment of the beit medrash, maybe. In some. Outside the door, much conversation is about money and how to get it.
Thank you for your good wishes. My son is fine thank God, his injuries were relatively minor. 5 days after his APC was struck by an RPG, he was already back leading his soldiers in Gaza.
I appreciate your communicating your feelings regarding my essay. It seems like you are focusing on two points, the first is that you are not sure exactly in what way I meant to disagree with you. The second is that you held forth your friend Elisha hy"d as an example of someone who was able to undertake serious learning during combat conditions, and therefore stands in contrast to my use of the term "a wee bit of learning".
Regarding your second point, Rambam famously points out that one cannot apply oneself properly to gaining wisdom while one is constrained by the various obligations of this world. He specifically uses the example of warfare. Even without Rambam pointing this out, this is self-evident from widespread human experience. While Elisha may have been one of those very unique individuals who can apply himself at all under those circumstances, it stands to reason that he would still have accomplished much more had he been applying himself in the rarified environment of the beit medrash. So for the overwhelming majority of people combat conditions are incompatible with any serious learning, and even for the very rare individuals such as Elisha combat conditions are a great constraint on their ability to obtain wisdom. Hence my use of the term "a wee bit of learning".
Regarding your primary question of in what way I meant to differ from what you wrote, I believe that we differ on a fundamental point. While I acknowledge that properly applied, going to war with all that that entails can be a great mitzvah, it is not an end in its own right. It is a means to accomplish a greater end. And that greater end is the revelation of Hashem's glory in this world, primarily through revealing the wisdom that he revealed in the Torah. And so those who apply themselves to studying Torah in the beit medrash, are actually accomplishing the goal which gives meaning to the sacrifice of those who engage in combat. It is true that those who are fighting are performing a mitzvah with מסירות נפש, which greatly enhances its value, but it is still only a means to allow for the greater end of those who are studying Hashem's Torah in the beit medrash.
And therefore the resentment that you seem to feel towards those who are applying themselves to the very goal for which you are making such great sacrifices, seems very out of place.
That is my response to the points that you made. But in addition I think there is another issue here that you didn't express, but may lay at the root of what is disturbing you. It is a vital condition of studying Torah that one study with the intention of fulfilling that which one has studied. You believe that the state of Israel has some sort of religious meaning, which implies an obligation to fight on its behalf whether or not one would define its wars as a מלחמת מצווה. Therefore, it seems absurd to you that one would dedicate themselves to studying Torah, but not to fulfilling one of The commandments that is derived from that study.
While there are great Jewish scholars from the past two or three generations who indeed felt that the political state of Israel has religious significance, they are a small minority of the great Jewish thinkers of the past few generations. The great majority of great Jewish thinkers did not believe that the state of Israel has any Jewish significance, and it is their opinion that is followed by the majority of the Charedi community.
So according to that understanding, that there is no Jewish significance to the state of Israel, then there is no cosmic meaning to its wars. Fighting on behalf of the state of Israel is no different than fighting on behalf of any other state. A position that a Jew may one day find himself in, but not something to seek out by any means. Therefore the obligation to fight in Israel's wars does not derive from any obligation to the state itself, or any desire to promote its greater glory. It derives from the obligation to help other Jews, in other words the mitzvah of chesed, which itself is derived from the commandment ואהבת לרעך כמוך.
There is great significance to this distinction, because the rules of the obligation to fight on behalf of a Jewish state are very different than the rules of the obligation to perform chesed. Without going into the specifics, I think the root of what is disturbing you about the Charedi attitude towards fighting in Israel's wars derives from your fundamental understanding of the significance of the state of Israel. But when you appreciate that they have a very different understanding of that significance, then it all begins to fall into place.
While I don't know you, and haven't had the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, in my experience it has often been the case that when well-meaning people are at a loss to understand the Charedi attitude, the root of their wonderment lies in their not appreciating this distinction. Often times when they come to appreciate this distinction, it makes perfect sense to them and the resentment evaporates. I am speculating that what I have learned from experience with others applies to you as well.
Be well, and may the merit of your מסירות נפש stand by you and keep you safe.
1. It's not criticism at all - you did a great job laying out the fundamentals of charediism - just a small disagreement, that there are many shevatim and charediism isn't the *only* true form of Judaism
2. A friend mentioned it to me and highly recommended it when it came out. He heard it about it from you, I believe.
I understand that you publish quite a bit, on this website and elsewhere. If you like the book, and felt that it makes a meaningful contribution, how would you like to write a book review? And then publish it in the various places that you publish your essays. From your perspective it would be an opportunity to discuss some meaningful ideas. From my perspective, I'm always looking for ways to publicize the book (in so far as I don't have a budget for advertising/publicity) since I feel that the book makes a meaningful contribution to be intellectual firmament of Judaism.
Regarding your point that there are many shevatim, I'm not certain whether or not you are disagreeing with me. The fundamental thesis of the book is that charedaism flows from a correct understanding of monotheism, such that to the degree that Judaism is identified with monotheism, it would most closely align with charedaism. However, since I use an ideological definition of charedaism rather than a sociological definition, I am using the term quite broadly. So it is entirely possible that some or all of the shevatim that you are referring to would fall under my ideological definition of charedaism, even if they would not classically be thought of as sociologically Charedi.
i hear, we're probably agreeing then, but if so, using the terms charediism is misleading. if charediism just means "religious", i don't see the reason for another term. ("charediism" seems to say that "our" way is "the" way, when, in reality, it's "a" way. (and btw, I also think a person *should* believe his derech is "the" way, and the only approach to avodas Hashem is to have "the" way, but in general there many, many ways and they are all amazing in their own rights.)
as far as book review, i'm not natural at something like that, but i can try. i read it a while back so i'll hafta review but i'll say here that you did a really, really nice job painting your picture and expressing it coherently, communicating some very subtle ideas in a way that can help a lot of intellectual people being raised charedi be proud of their derech despite the loud doubting voices screaming that they are illegitimate. my second big praise is that the way you bring out your points with analogies are actually really good and to the point - the koach hasbarah and koach hamashal is excellent!
First of all, thank you for your effusive compliments. Coming from a serious person such as yourself, that is high praise indeed.
Regarding the gist of the issue, how I am defining charedaism, I will try to sum up the introduction to my book and the first several chapters in a few sentences.
I define a religious person as someone who lives with a sense of obligation to a higher authority. Even a polytheist can be religious. A nominal monotheist is someone who believes that all of creation has its roots in a single creator, and that all sources of power in creation (be the spiritual such as angels, or be the physical such as the natural order of the universe) were created by the single source of creation and derive their power from him.
An absolute monotheist is someone who believes that the single source of creation is the only thing that has real existence even after creation, such that all sources of power in creation are merely expressions of the will of the creator, without any actual power of their own.
The difference then between a nominal monotheist and an absolute monotheist is in the degree to which created powers such as the natural order have any real existence of their own, versus merely being expressions of the Creator's will.
My thesis is that the ideological roots of charedaism lie in the absolute monotheism describe above. So it is certainly possible to be religious, and even a nominal monotheist, without being Charedi. So the term Charedi is not interchangeable with the term religious, or even religious monotheist. So while I do use a broad definition of charedaism because I am discussing its foundations in ideology rather than in sociology, it does not encompass all religious Jews.
Also very curious as to how you found my book. Although has been available on Amazon for a few months already, I have not advertised it at all. So basically those who know about it, heard of it because of word of mouth. So I'm very curious to know how you heard of it.
A quote “To know God is to be intimately bonded with the idea of God. Like the marriage of a man and a woman, this knowledge transforms one’s identity and dictates behavior.”
This article was taken from Rabbi Pesach Wolicki’s new book, Verses for Zion. Verses for Zion offers a profound exploration of devotional Bible teachings, intricately woven around the land, people, and God of Israel.
"Hashem chose the Jewish people to reveal his glory in the world. This is explicit throughout tanach. The primary way that we do this is by studying his revelation (which we generally refer to as the Torah"
Where is it explicit throughout tanach that "The primary way that we do this is by studying his revelation (which we generally refer to as the Torah"
The phrase "k'neged kulam" is a concept in Jewish tradition, often translated as "equal to all" or "corresponding to all." It is most commonly associated with the idea that "Talmud Torah k'neged kulam," meaning "the study of Torah is equal to all [other commandments]".
This concept appears in various Jewish texts and discussions, including the Talmud and other rabbinic literature.
In some interpretations, "k'neged kulam" suggests that the study of Torah is not only equal to but also foundational to the other commandments. For example, one interpretation posits that Torah study is "towards all of these things; out of our learning comes these other things".
This view emphasizes that learning Torah leads to the performance of other mitzvot and contributes to a more just and holy society.
Could one visualize a teeter/totter in playground for children? If the child on one side is the same weight as the child on the other side, there is equal balance. I think also the word “keneged” means opposite. So, the idea that emerges from this picture is if one studies some Torah, one can perform the Commandments in It. If one studies more Torah, one can do more or a better job of performing them. No?
Your last seven lines summarize my view which is hardly learned, the author's view is that there's not a balance, those who study are the weight that provides defense or deflection, thus they are exempt, right?
See Dvarim 22:4 and also note Yissachar , who had rich territory, preferred to give tribute rather than leave his farm and take up the sword.—Dvarim 33:18–and Ibn Ezra:: The tribe would give payments (I Samuel 8: v. 15= ten percent) to the government of Israel so that they would not have to go to war.
The writer's view, although as vague as most of the stuff that comes out of Yeshivaland, seems to be that the phrase means, a torah learner can dispense with any other obligations of mankind, as TT is equal to it all. A complete distortion of course.
AI is not rishonim, mate. You know as well as I do that in Shas you can't translate phrases literally like chatGPT does.
Tell me, do torah learners exempt themselves from all mitzvos whilst they are learning. No. Why not? TT k'negged kulom. Can they steal to fund torah learning? Why not? TT kneged kulom. Can they make copies of otzar hachochmoh to help them in their learning? Why not? TT k'negged kullom.
I think that you should learn the Sefer published by Encyclopedia Talmudis about the Halachos of Milchama There are many Halachos therein that you would be shocked at are adhered to by the IDF
Thank you for your service and i hope your son has a refua sheleima.
Whilst I do not subscribe to everything you wrote, I am not sure there is anything there that directly argues or contradicts what I wrote?
I would just comment none of this directly is my experience, I am far from the best example, but I have been zoche to know people who live up to what I wrote, and they far from learnt a wee bit of torah. My friend Elisha Hy"d poured through mishneh torah, in Khan Yunis, better than I did in Yeshiva.
I would also add Rav Asher Wiess shlita recent comment about the "wee bit of torah"
https://www.inn.co.il/news/672334
Of course. And when a 'kollel guy' (for some reason they like calling themselves in demeaning language) or 'yeshivah guy' consistently shows up for shacharis 10 minutes late, it undoes hours of learning.
Hello Eitan,
Thank you for your good wishes. My son is fine thank God, his injuries were relatively minor. 5 days after his APC was struck by an RPG, he was already back leading his soldiers in Gaza.
I appreciate your communicating your feelings regarding my essay. It seems like you are focusing on two points, the first is that you are not sure exactly in what way I meant to disagree with you. The second is that you held forth your friend Elisha hy"d as an example of someone who was able to undertake serious learning during combat conditions, and therefore stands in contrast to my use of the term "a wee bit of learning".
Regarding your second point, Rambam famously points out that one cannot apply oneself properly to gaining wisdom while one is constrained by the various obligations of this world. He specifically uses the example of warfare. Even without Rambam pointing this out, this is self-evident from widespread human experience. While Elisha may have been one of those very unique individuals who can apply himself at all under those circumstances, it stands to reason that he would still have accomplished much more had he been applying himself in the rarified environment of the beit medrash. So for the overwhelming majority of people combat conditions are incompatible with any serious learning, and even for the very rare individuals such as Elisha combat conditions are a great constraint on their ability to obtain wisdom. Hence my use of the term "a wee bit of learning".
Regarding your primary question of in what way I meant to differ from what you wrote, I believe that we differ on a fundamental point. While I acknowledge that properly applied, going to war with all that that entails can be a great mitzvah, it is not an end in its own right. It is a means to accomplish a greater end. And that greater end is the revelation of Hashem's glory in this world, primarily through revealing the wisdom that he revealed in the Torah. And so those who apply themselves to studying Torah in the beit medrash, are actually accomplishing the goal which gives meaning to the sacrifice of those who engage in combat. It is true that those who are fighting are performing a mitzvah with מסירות נפש, which greatly enhances its value, but it is still only a means to allow for the greater end of those who are studying Hashem's Torah in the beit medrash.
And therefore the resentment that you seem to feel towards those who are applying themselves to the very goal for which you are making such great sacrifices, seems very out of place.
That is my response to the points that you made. But in addition I think there is another issue here that you didn't express, but may lay at the root of what is disturbing you. It is a vital condition of studying Torah that one study with the intention of fulfilling that which one has studied. You believe that the state of Israel has some sort of religious meaning, which implies an obligation to fight on its behalf whether or not one would define its wars as a מלחמת מצווה. Therefore, it seems absurd to you that one would dedicate themselves to studying Torah, but not to fulfilling one of The commandments that is derived from that study.
While there are great Jewish scholars from the past two or three generations who indeed felt that the political state of Israel has religious significance, they are a small minority of the great Jewish thinkers of the past few generations. The great majority of great Jewish thinkers did not believe that the state of Israel has any Jewish significance, and it is their opinion that is followed by the majority of the Charedi community.
So according to that understanding, that there is no Jewish significance to the state of Israel, then there is no cosmic meaning to its wars. Fighting on behalf of the state of Israel is no different than fighting on behalf of any other state. A position that a Jew may one day find himself in, but not something to seek out by any means. Therefore the obligation to fight in Israel's wars does not derive from any obligation to the state itself, or any desire to promote its greater glory. It derives from the obligation to help other Jews, in other words the mitzvah of chesed, which itself is derived from the commandment ואהבת לרעך כמוך.
There is great significance to this distinction, because the rules of the obligation to fight on behalf of a Jewish state are very different than the rules of the obligation to perform chesed. Without going into the specifics, I think the root of what is disturbing you about the Charedi attitude towards fighting in Israel's wars derives from your fundamental understanding of the significance of the state of Israel. But when you appreciate that they have a very different understanding of that significance, then it all begins to fall into place.
While I don't know you, and haven't had the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, in my experience it has often been the case that when well-meaning people are at a loss to understand the Charedi attitude, the root of their wonderment lies in their not appreciating this distinction. Often times when they come to appreciate this distinction, it makes perfect sense to them and the resentment evaporates. I am speculating that what I have learned from experience with others applies to you as well.
Be well, and may the merit of your מסירות נפש stand by you and keep you safe.
"The great majority of great Jewish thinkers did not believe that the state of Israel has any Jewish significance, and it is their opinion that is followed by the majority of the Charedi community. "
You do know things have moved on a bit, don't you? Have you noticed maybe that the State of Israel today has a small amount more torah learning (I say sarcastically). Maybe just a bit? You know, how many millions of dollars the state of israel gives directly or indirectly to torah learning is more than any other country ever? And you think that has 'no Jewish significance'.
The fact that you happily quote 'the majority of great jewish thinkers' from 150 years ago when things were very different and believe it's not required to take account of events in the world since then, is ho gufo one of the problems with the charidi system. That is not traditional judaism and never has been. When metzius changes, things get looked at again - that has always been the case. Which is why we don't keep women locked up in doors like the rambam writes.
I am at a loss to understand exactly what you are referring to. I think that you are misunderstanding the meaning of "Jewish significance". It has nothing to do with whether or not the state does things that are good for Judaism. It refers to whether or not the state as a political entity is Jewish. So just to clarify by way of an example, if the state of New Jersey were to decide to financially underwrite the study of talmud and thereby bring about a great flourishing of the yeshivot within the state, that would constitute the state doing something that was positive for the Jews. But in no way would it transform the state of New Jersey into a Jewish state. None of the laws unique to a Jewish state would adhere to New Jersey.
It is in that context that we are evaluating whether or not the secular state of Israel has any Jewish significance. Without examining the veracity of your claim, it is irrelevant whether or not the state is in some ways supportive of Judaism. The question is whether the state is a Jewish state in the sense that it takes on the laws unique to a Jewish state. There was a small minority of Jewish ages over the past hundred years who felt that it did, and a large majority who felt that it didn't.
I hope that clarifies the issue.
"Jewish significance" does NOT mean the same as 'Jewish state' as you define it later in your comment. 'Jewish significance' means very much whether the state does things that are good for Judaism. And once you concede it does, that leads on to other consequences such as hakoras hatov to the soldiers and the state, participating in its society, not being a kofoi tovah, etc etc.
Continuing to rely on hashkafic pesak from poskim from 150 years ago from gedolim who believed the state would become a spiritual anti-religious torah-empty state when those gedolim were proved totally and utterly wrong (just walk around in 2025 - even the most fanatical yeshiva man cannot deny the evidence of his eyes) is completely non-halachik and just plain stupid.
Test,
I still fail to understand what your difficulty is. As far as I can tell you are fixating on two things. In addition, you seem to have accidentally stumbled upon a significant point.
1. I was discussing whether or not the modern political entity known as the state of Israel has any significance as a Jewish state. To describe that I use the term "Jewish significance". You disagree with the use of that term in that way, so fine replace it in your mind with whatever term you consider more appropriate to express the idea under discussion.
2. You seem very concerned that the masters of Jewish thought who did not consider the state of Israel to have religious significance lived around 150 years ago. I don't know why you chose the number 150, but clearly it is ahistoric. Even such giants as the Chofetz Chaim and Reb Elchonon Wasserman who passed away before the founding of the state, lived less than 100 years ago. But more recent authorities such as the Chazon Ish or the Brisker Rav were active during the era that the state existed.
3. You inadvertently brought up a fascinating question when you mentioned that you feel there is an obligation of hakarat hatov towards the state. This is not the proper forum for such a discussion, but there is an extensive discussion among the poskim as to whether a corporate entity such as a state has any halachik standing. In other words, it is an interesting question as to whether or not the entire concept of hakarat hatov (or any other type of obligation that one could potentially have towards ones fellow) can apply to a disembodied entity such as a state. That would indeed have been an interesting and meaningful conversation, but it was not your main point.
Yeshivish nitpicking. The same nitpicking as those that argue there is no technical issur in pirating otzer hachochmoh and nothing wrong at all in a kollel person leaving a young mother with three children under the age of 4 to struggle on an erev shabbos on her own while he goes to learn.
As we know, chareidim dispite claiming to be chored al d'var hashem and being medakdek in halochoh kalloh k'chamuroh, they have no problem in justifying everything they do want to do, however morally wrong.
So replace '150 years' with '100 years' and gratitude to the state with gratitude to the 'citizens of the state'. Happy now?
The Chazon Ish u'dimei would never say it was forbidden to visit wounded soldiers or supply food to the soldiers like some of today's so called 'gedolim'. Many of his chevra served in the IDF. Nor would the Brisker Rav. That sort of fundementalism anto-Israeli stuff is unique to today. In any event, the Brisker Rov and the Chazon Ish were not around in recent years when, due to support and protection of the state, both financial and otherwise, torah has flourished.
After the Holocaust the opinions of the "revered"
Rabbonim are ( with all due respect" are not relevant . We saw their leadership in operation! Far from a success!?
Test,
You seem to be engaging in a different conversation. Without examining your assertions, they are irrelevant to the conversation that I was engaged in.
"It stands to reason that he would still have accomplished much more had he been applying himself in the rarified environment of the beit medrash."
More walk the walk and talk the talk. In the rarified enviroment of the beit medrash, maybe. In some. Outside the door, much conversation is about money and how to get it.
Hello Eitan,
Thank you for your good wishes. My son is fine thank God, his injuries were relatively minor. 5 days after his APC was struck by an RPG, he was already back leading his soldiers in Gaza.
I appreciate your communicating your feelings regarding my essay. It seems like you are focusing on two points, the first is that you are not sure exactly in what way I meant to disagree with you. The second is that you held forth your friend Elisha hy"d as an example of someone who was able to undertake serious learning during combat conditions, and therefore stands in contrast to my use of the term "a wee bit of learning".
Regarding your second point, Rambam famously points out that one cannot apply oneself properly to gaining wisdom while one is constrained by the various obligations of this world. He specifically uses the example of warfare. Even without Rambam pointing this out, this is self-evident from widespread human experience. While Elisha may have been one of those very unique individuals who can apply himself at all under those circumstances, it stands to reason that he would still have accomplished much more had he been applying himself in the rarified environment of the beit medrash. So for the overwhelming majority of people combat conditions are incompatible with any serious learning, and even for the very rare individuals such as Elisha combat conditions are a great constraint on their ability to obtain wisdom. Hence my use of the term "a wee bit of learning".
Regarding your primary question of in what way I meant to differ from what you wrote, I believe that we differ on a fundamental point. While I acknowledge that properly applied, going to war with all that that entails can be a great mitzvah, it is not an end in its own right. It is a means to accomplish a greater end. And that greater end is the revelation of Hashem's glory in this world, primarily through revealing the wisdom that he revealed in the Torah. And so those who apply themselves to studying Torah in the beit medrash, are actually accomplishing the goal which gives meaning to the sacrifice of those who engage in combat. It is true that those who are fighting are performing a mitzvah with מסירות נפש, which greatly enhances its value, but it is still only a means to allow for the greater end of those who are studying Hashem's Torah in the beit medrash.
And therefore the resentment that you seem to feel towards those who are applying themselves to the very goal for which you are making such great sacrifices, seems very out of place.
That is my response to the points that you made. But in addition I think there is another issue here that you didn't express, but may lay at the root of what is disturbing you. It is a vital condition of studying Torah that one study with the intention of fulfilling that which one has studied. You believe that the state of Israel has some sort of religious meaning, which implies an obligation to fight on its behalf whether or not one would define its wars as a מלחמת מצווה. Therefore, it seems absurd to you that one would dedicate themselves to studying Torah, but not to fulfilling one of The commandments that is derived from that study.
While there are great Jewish scholars from the past two or three generations who indeed felt that the political state of Israel has religious significance, they are a small minority of the great Jewish thinkers of the past few generations. The great majority of great Jewish thinkers did not believe that the state of Israel has any Jewish significance, and it is their opinion that is followed by the majority of the Charedi community.
So according to that understanding, that there is no Jewish significance to the state of Israel, then there is no cosmic meaning to its wars. Fighting on behalf of the state of Israel is no different than fighting on behalf of any other state. A position that a Jew may one day find himself in, but not something to seek out by any means. Therefore the obligation to fight in Israel's wars does not derive from any obligation to the state itself, or any desire to promote its greater glory. It derives from the obligation to help other Jews, in other words the mitzvah of chesed, which itself is derived from the commandment ואהבת לרעך כמוך.
There is great significance to this distinction, because the rules of the obligation to fight on behalf of a Jewish state are very different than the rules of the obligation to perform chesed. Without going into the specifics, I think the root of what is disturbing you about the Charedi attitude towards fighting in Israel's wars derives from your fundamental understanding of the significance of the state of Israel. But when you appreciate that they have a very different understanding of that significance, then it all begins to fall into place.
While I don't know you, and haven't had the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, in my experience it has often been the case that when well-meaning people are at a loss to understand the Charedi attitude, the root of their wonderment lies in their not appreciating this distinction. Often times when they come to appreciate this distinction, it makes perfect sense to them and the resentment evaporates. I am speculating that what I have learned from experience with others applies to you as well.
Be well, and may the merit of your מסירות נפש stand by you and keep you safe.
this you??
https://www.amazon.com/Applied-Monotheism-Chareidi-Response-Modernity/dp/965597054X (great book btw! i disagree with a small portion of it but it is a really clear and thought out piece of work which will help a lot of confused people. the author clearly put in a lot of work to the organization)
Yes that is my book. I would be very interested in knowing which small portion you disagree with. I am always open to criticism.
1. It's not criticism at all - you did a great job laying out the fundamentals of charediism - just a small disagreement, that there are many shevatim and charediism isn't the *only* true form of Judaism
2. A friend mentioned it to me and highly recommended it when it came out. He heard it about it from you, I believe.
Shulman,
I understand that you publish quite a bit, on this website and elsewhere. If you like the book, and felt that it makes a meaningful contribution, how would you like to write a book review? And then publish it in the various places that you publish your essays. From your perspective it would be an opportunity to discuss some meaningful ideas. From my perspective, I'm always looking for ways to publicize the book (in so far as I don't have a budget for advertising/publicity) since I feel that the book makes a meaningful contribution to be intellectual firmament of Judaism.
Regarding your point that there are many shevatim, I'm not certain whether or not you are disagreeing with me. The fundamental thesis of the book is that charedaism flows from a correct understanding of monotheism, such that to the degree that Judaism is identified with monotheism, it would most closely align with charedaism. However, since I use an ideological definition of charedaism rather than a sociological definition, I am using the term quite broadly. So it is entirely possible that some or all of the shevatim that you are referring to would fall under my ideological definition of charedaism, even if they would not classically be thought of as sociologically Charedi.
i hear, we're probably agreeing then, but if so, using the terms charediism is misleading. if charediism just means "religious", i don't see the reason for another term. ("charediism" seems to say that "our" way is "the" way, when, in reality, it's "a" way. (and btw, I also think a person *should* believe his derech is "the" way, and the only approach to avodas Hashem is to have "the" way, but in general there many, many ways and they are all amazing in their own rights.)
as far as book review, i'm not natural at something like that, but i can try. i read it a while back so i'll hafta review but i'll say here that you did a really, really nice job painting your picture and expressing it coherently, communicating some very subtle ideas in a way that can help a lot of intellectual people being raised charedi be proud of their derech despite the loud doubting voices screaming that they are illegitimate. my second big praise is that the way you bring out your points with analogies are actually really good and to the point - the koach hasbarah and koach hamashal is excellent!
First of all, thank you for your effusive compliments. Coming from a serious person such as yourself, that is high praise indeed.
Regarding the gist of the issue, how I am defining charedaism, I will try to sum up the introduction to my book and the first several chapters in a few sentences.
I define a religious person as someone who lives with a sense of obligation to a higher authority. Even a polytheist can be religious. A nominal monotheist is someone who believes that all of creation has its roots in a single creator, and that all sources of power in creation (be the spiritual such as angels, or be the physical such as the natural order of the universe) were created by the single source of creation and derive their power from him.
An absolute monotheist is someone who believes that the single source of creation is the only thing that has real existence even after creation, such that all sources of power in creation are merely expressions of the will of the creator, without any actual power of their own.
The difference then between a nominal monotheist and an absolute monotheist is in the degree to which created powers such as the natural order have any real existence of their own, versus merely being expressions of the Creator's will.
My thesis is that the ideological roots of charedaism lie in the absolute monotheism describe above. So it is certainly possible to be religious, and even a nominal monotheist, without being Charedi. So the term Charedi is not interchangeable with the term religious, or even religious monotheist. So while I do use a broad definition of charedaism because I am discussing its foundations in ideology rather than in sociology, it does not encompass all religious Jews.
Also very curious as to how you found my book. Although has been available on Amazon for a few months already, I have not advertised it at all. So basically those who know about it, heard of it because of word of mouth. So I'm very curious to know how you heard of it.
Thank you for eloquently discussing this topic with great civility and clarity.
A quote “To know God is to be intimately bonded with the idea of God. Like the marriage of a man and a woman, this knowledge transforms one’s identity and dictates behavior.”
This article was taken from Rabbi Pesach Wolicki’s new book, Verses for Zion. Verses for Zion offers a profound exploration of devotional Bible teachings, intricately woven around the land, people, and God of Israel.
"Hashem chose the Jewish people to reveal his glory in the world. This is explicit throughout tanach. The primary way that we do this is by studying his revelation (which we generally refer to as the Torah"
Where is it explicit throughout tanach that "The primary way that we do this is by studying his revelation (which we generally refer to as the Torah"
Have you ever learnt nevi'im acharonim?
"An extension of this idea is the fact that it is only Torah study that preserves the Jewish people as Hashem's unique treasure"
Are you so confident that applies when the 'Torah study' is a norm for a large segment of society, for pay? A job basically.
Devarim 22: V.4. “Do not see your brother’s carrier or worker fallen on the road , and hide yourself from it; you must raise it together.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/moralclaritynewsletter/p/judaism-is-different-from-other-religions?r=9p06v&utm_medium=ios
Where in TaNaKh does It say, “Teach your son a trade (a job to earn pay)”? Bereishis also writes “Six days you should work.”
Many Rabbis in Europe during the past several centuries worked hard and ALSO studied Torah/Talmud.
Where does he differ from this?
The phrase "k'neged kulam" is a concept in Jewish tradition, often translated as "equal to all" or "corresponding to all." It is most commonly associated with the idea that "Talmud Torah k'neged kulam," meaning "the study of Torah is equal to all [other commandments]".
This concept appears in various Jewish texts and discussions, including the Talmud and other rabbinic literature.
In some interpretations, "k'neged kulam" suggests that the study of Torah is not only equal to but also foundational to the other commandments. For example, one interpretation posits that Torah study is "towards all of these things; out of our learning comes these other things".
This view emphasizes that learning Torah leads to the performance of other mitzvot and contributes to a more just and holy society.
“Talmud Torah === keneged kulam.
Could one visualize a teeter/totter in playground for children? If the child on one side is the same weight as the child on the other side, there is equal balance. I think also the word “keneged” means opposite. So, the idea that emerges from this picture is if one studies some Torah, one can perform the Commandments in It. If one studies more Torah, one can do more or a better job of performing them. No?
Your last seven lines summarize my view which is hardly learned, the author's view is that there's not a balance, those who study are the weight that provides defense or deflection, thus they are exempt, right?
https://open.substack.com/pub/moralclaritynewsletter/p/judaism-is-different-from-other-religions?r=9p06v&utm_medium=ios
See Dvarim 22:4 and also note Yissachar , who had rich territory, preferred to give tribute rather than leave his farm and take up the sword.—Dvarim 33:18–and Ibn Ezra:: The tribe would give payments (I Samuel 8: v. 15= ten percent) to the government of Israel so that they would not have to go to war.
The writer's view, although as vague as most of the stuff that comes out of Yeshivaland, seems to be that the phrase means, a torah learner can dispense with any other obligations of mankind, as TT is equal to it all. A complete distortion of course.
AI is not rishonim, mate. You know as well as I do that in Shas you can't translate phrases literally like chatGPT does.
Tell me, do torah learners exempt themselves from all mitzvos whilst they are learning. No. Why not? TT k'negged kulom. Can they steal to fund torah learning? Why not? TT kneged kulom. Can they make copies of otzar hachochmoh to help them in their learning? Why not? TT k'negged kullom.
Where is he drawing from as a Torah learner to conclude what he's concluding or is it conclusively clear that he's confused and wrong?
No, he's just parroting standard chareidi yeshivish dogma. 99% of which will be alien to any traditional Jewish sources pre 1970.
There's a level of sanctimony and because I said so hearing this read out that reminds me so much of the jezeusian mythologists delusional spewings 🤭
hareidim studying are winning wars 🙃
Jewish warriors are and were a thing and in the third millennium of Israel are a normal thing except for those who are abnormal 🙄
"But the primary way that we reveal his glory in the world is by studying his Torah. That is why talmud Torah is keneged kulam."
Source please.
PS none of the rishonim interpret 'talmud torah keneged kulom' like you do.
I think that you should learn the Sefer published by Encyclopedia Talmudis about the Halachos of Milchama There are many Halachos therein that you would be shocked at are adhered to by the IDF
Amen!!! To the third to last paragraph.
Why exactly?
Hey test. I guess you couldn't troll Chananya Weissman's substack anymore, so you're back to your old stomping ground at the first opportunity.
Happy, he was banned there. Pathetic can be grounds for banning here.