Please, please, at this time could we focus on achdus and אהבת חינם. There is a proper place for intense Torah debate, even if I don't usually appreciate your tone, but at least at this moment in time when hundreds of jews are being held captive can we tone down the rhetoric and focus on unity.
I agree, see the end of the post. But given the invective coming from him, and taking into consideration that we already had 4 controversy-free achdus and אהבת חינם posts, I think this post was necessary.
I don't think this is a fair treatment of what he wrote. He is not suggesting that chareidim should follow R' Melamed over their own gedolim. He is explaining why making comments to people in the Religious Zionist community based on the chareidi perspective might be received in a different manner than they were intended, as that community has different basic assumptions.
I dont think Natan changed his views. Hes just attacking the validity of the כולו תורה approach. He wants there to be learning, he just disagrees with the proportions. Hes not some ראשון where you can be מדייק in every word.
Because that is the whole basis of the first part of his post, he is conceding that Torah affords protection, but thinks that since it is a mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira, the chareidi Torah does not.
No - He concedes that it has "merit" (whatever he thinks that means) and argues that merit doesn't accrue because of mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira. Where does he concede that merit equals protection. It could be merit is just spiritual points (which I admit is a long way from "that is it and that is all").
Well, he says "I’m referring to the various campaigns and statements like, “the yeshivah students are the soldiers in Hashem’s army, they are providing the merit *by which the soldiers survive and triumph*, they are fulfilling a role of equal (or greater) importance,"
Then he says "This makes perfect sense from a charedi perspective, in which the starting point is that learning Torah automatically creates an unimaginably great merit...But from a religious Zionist perspective...your Torah has no merit."
He doesn't seem to dispute the idea that "yeshivah students are the soldiers in Hashem’s army, they are providing the merit by which the soldiers survive and triumph" but says that charedi yeshiva students do not have this merit, explaining that "...And if you do, your Torah has no merit. It’s not that the spiritual merits are unimportant to religious Zionists;..."
I am reading that he accepts the "merit by which the soldiers survive and triumph" but just holds that it is the religious Zionists who have that merit but not the chareidim.
The first two statement are reflecting the chareidi position so that doesn't really tell us what he thinks or admits the merit may be. He doesn't dispute the idea only because he admits that is what charedim believe. When he explains the RZ position (according to him) he claims that they believe there is no merit - that merit would be protection according to charedim and maybe s/t else according to him. He definitely has plausible deniability to say he never admitted that Torah protects.
Very well presented post and very on target. I will mention though that Slifkins post has some "merit" in the sense that although we know ourselves that we are doing what's right, to people in the Army and don't share this view, telling them that we are equal will come off offensive. (I don't mean this forum where we are just responding to just another guy sitting comfortable behind a screen just like us.)
But that offense is based on the assumption that we are doing nothing, which is incorrect. If the secularists understood the value of yeshivos, they wouldn't be offended (and indeed, we have the previous poster who explained that religious DL soldiers who understand that value are not offended https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-voice-from-the-front-2). And by the same token, we find offensive the claim we are doing nothing. Instead of talking about who is the most offended, it is better to get along.
The analogy from the Gemara in Shabbos is brilliant. A precise comparison.
I expect that momentarily Nathan adherents will start protesting this article, complaining indignantly that NOW IS THE TIME FOR UNITY blah blah (oh, there's one already). Hey all of you, Nathan's article in question is vicious. His only slight concession is that Torah provides protection but his usual malice toward Chareidim is on full display.
When someone demands 'unity' or 'achdus', it usually means בטל רצונך מפני רצוני.
See the elections in Lakewood and the askans constant bleating about achdus, yet never giving anything up in achdus with the tzibur.
What do you mean? They built tons of new developments!
Please, please, at this time could we focus on achdus and אהבת חינם. There is a proper place for intense Torah debate, even if I don't usually appreciate your tone, but at least at this moment in time when hundreds of jews are being held captive can we tone down the rhetoric and focus on unity.
I agree, see the end of the post. But given the invective coming from him, and taking into consideration that we already had 4 controversy-free achdus and אהבת חינם posts, I think this post was necessary.
I don't think this is a fair treatment of what he wrote. He is not suggesting that chareidim should follow R' Melamed over their own gedolim. He is explaining why making comments to people in the Religious Zionist community based on the chareidi perspective might be received in a different manner than they were intended, as that community has different basic assumptions.
As our previous poster explained (https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-voice-from-the-front-2), the religious DL community does not really have different basic assumptions and does not share in Slifkin's resentment.
I dont think Natan changed his views. Hes just attacking the validity of the כולו תורה approach. He wants there to be learning, he just disagrees with the proportions. Hes not some ראשון where you can be מדייק in every word.
Where do you see that he admits that the merit of Torah affords protection?
Because that is the whole basis of the first part of his post, he is conceding that Torah affords protection, but thinks that since it is a mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira, the chareidi Torah does not.
No - He concedes that it has "merit" (whatever he thinks that means) and argues that merit doesn't accrue because of mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira. Where does he concede that merit equals protection. It could be merit is just spiritual points (which I admit is a long way from "that is it and that is all").
Well, he says "I’m referring to the various campaigns and statements like, “the yeshivah students are the soldiers in Hashem’s army, they are providing the merit *by which the soldiers survive and triumph*, they are fulfilling a role of equal (or greater) importance,"
Then he says "This makes perfect sense from a charedi perspective, in which the starting point is that learning Torah automatically creates an unimaginably great merit...But from a religious Zionist perspective...your Torah has no merit."
He doesn't seem to dispute the idea that "yeshivah students are the soldiers in Hashem’s army, they are providing the merit by which the soldiers survive and triumph" but says that charedi yeshiva students do not have this merit, explaining that "...And if you do, your Torah has no merit. It’s not that the spiritual merits are unimportant to religious Zionists;..."
I am reading that he accepts the "merit by which the soldiers survive and triumph" but just holds that it is the religious Zionists who have that merit but not the chareidim.
The first two statement are reflecting the chareidi position so that doesn't really tell us what he thinks or admits the merit may be. He doesn't dispute the idea only because he admits that is what charedim believe. When he explains the RZ position (according to him) he claims that they believe there is no merit - that merit would be protection according to charedim and maybe s/t else according to him. He definitely has plausible deniability to say he never admitted that Torah protects.
That is possible. I would ask him, but I doubt he would respond, maybe somebody else should ask.
Based on his latest post and especially his comments, I fear you are correct. He is still kofer in the basics of Judaism.
Very well presented post and very on target. I will mention though that Slifkins post has some "merit" in the sense that although we know ourselves that we are doing what's right, to people in the Army and don't share this view, telling them that we are equal will come off offensive. (I don't mean this forum where we are just responding to just another guy sitting comfortable behind a screen just like us.)
But that offense is based on the assumption that we are doing nothing, which is incorrect. If the secularists understood the value of yeshivos, they wouldn't be offended (and indeed, we have the previous poster who explained that religious DL soldiers who understand that value are not offended https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-voice-from-the-front-2). And by the same token, we find offensive the claim we are doing nothing. Instead of talking about who is the most offended, it is better to get along.
Agreed, I was just saying that until they understand this first it is offensive. I've also been told by soldiers "thanks for doing your part".
The analogy from the Gemara in Shabbos is brilliant. A precise comparison.
I expect that momentarily Nathan adherents will start protesting this article, complaining indignantly that NOW IS THE TIME FOR UNITY blah blah (oh, there's one already). Hey all of you, Nathan's article in question is vicious. His only slight concession is that Torah provides protection but his usual malice toward Chareidim is on full display.