Yes, I usually am pretty busy. That's why I comment so infrequently. You troll non-stop. And last I checked, the workday in England is over right now. So go learn something and gimme a break.
Now, even though Nathan reveals in his parable that he believes Tefilah is useless (surprise, surprise), I think we can modify his parable to make it historically accurate.
1. The irreligious workers, after many fruitless searches, had not yet found the power saw or materials.
2. Meanwhile, they repeatedly tried interrupting the religious man's prayers.
3. Furthermore, the religious man had several sons and daughters. The irreligious workers constantly tried to influence them to abandon the religion, and constantly tried to seduce the daughters. Unfortunately, they were successful with some of the children.
4. Eventually, in the merit of the religious man's prayers, they found the power saw and materials.
5. Once they found the materials, they asked the man to send the rest of his sons and daughters to live with them so that they could help with the labor. Meanwhile, they became even more audacious in their attempts to interrupt his prayer and get the remaining children to abandon religion. He refused, and he and his family kept praying.
6. After the boat was built, it was found that the irreligious workers had actually STOLEN many of the materials. The workers, who were ethnically Jewish, begged the judge to be able to keep the boat, on the grounds that Jews had historically been discriminated against. They originally were not going to let the useless religious man on the boat, but now, in desperation, they begged him to join in order to bolster their case.
7. He agreed, and thanked God that his prayers had been answered.
Amazing post, and hilarious to watch Natan do some more double twists to try and salvage a shita that never meant anything in the first place, with his useful idiots breathlessly cheering him on at every turn.
I'll take issue with one line: "Yes, he really believes this".
Natan does not really believe anything. He's a tragic, bitter shell of a man who espouses whatever it is that he feels at the moment would make chareidim and traditional Torah scholarship look silly. Period.
More pathetic is his cohort of followers who run after him because it makes them feel more intellectually serious. They do not appear to have noticed that his entire contrived façade of 'rationalism' is an intellectual dead end, has no anchors or even internal coherence, and that they have sold their ideological associations to one man's self serving vendetta to get back at some people who hurt him 20 years ago.
You even parody yourself. The message of that story is NOT to rely on divine intervention (or as you would put it, the torah's protection) but instead to rely on bosor v'dom. The complete opposite of the point you are trying to make! The point of the story is to MAXIMISE hishtadlus.
A group of people were stranded during a rising flood. They were all trying to figure out how to survive. But one man said, "We don't need to do anything! God will save us." And he sat down to pray.
The others said, "Look, God has already given us the means to be rescued! There's all kinds of materials lying around, there's even a partially-working power saw, we could build a boat!"
But the praying man refused to help. He said, "No, I want to rely on God! He will help us!"
So the others worked to build a boat. It was hard work. But the praying man refused to help. He said, "No, I want to rely on God! He will help us!"
Building a boat with the partially-working power saw was a little dangerous, and nobody was thrilled about using it. They agreed to take turns doing it. But the praying man refused to take a turn. He said, "No, I want to rely on God! He will help us!"
Finally, as the flood waters rose ever higher, the boat was ready. The others got into it. And the praying man said, "Hold on, I'm coming with you!"
The others said, "But didn't you say that you were relying on God to save you?"
The praying man replied, "I sure did! And He did! He sent you schlubs!"
The others had some harsh things to say, but the praying man rebuked them harshly for disrespecting religion.
Would be accurate if the working guys said "send your sons to work with us so we can unteach them all your heebie heebie irrational stuff". And the religious man said, "Uh, no".
They also had a rule that every boat had to have a woman in it so the men can enjoy themselves. But they called themselves religious like some want to say about the army when they tried to have the same rule with tanks. (and many other issues)
The other version of this parable is that the other men were religious; they went to build a boat but he chose to make the oars. Some boor didn't understand and said "when we were working are bodies off you think you get away with just getting these sticks ready?! What good are they any way? And then you want to join the boat as well? That means you realize the boat is what's helping you and all along you were just busy with these sticks!" I hope the nimshal is self evident.
It amazes me how lacking in self-awareness you and Mecharker are. You seem to have no idea that you come across not only as theological frauds, but also as arrogant, entitled, selfish people who believe that others are inferior and exist to serve you.
Wow, off comes the rational mask and out comes all the pent out emotional trauma. Let it out Nathan! It's good for you! Or as Daniel Tiger says "Mad, mad, mad, it's good to say you're mad".
Sorry, the secularists may not be inferior but they are definitely doing very bad things and have no right to be in the Land of Israel at all, and only can stay in the merit of the righteous. This is bog standard Torah ideology. Not my fault you are kofer in it.
Theological fraud? Who's the guy who's been going around for the last ten years (and as recently as last week) speaking in the name of "classic Judaism" that Torah does not protect, and when presented this past Tuesday of the overwhelming evidence from the Torah to the contrary, changes on a dime and says, "oh, I never said that Torah doesn't protect! I was just castigating Charedim for not acting like they believe that it protects!"
And it's hard to take accusations of arrogance seriously from a guy who completely writes off R. Chaim Volozhiner as having missed the boat. But I guess seeing the esteem to which you hold yourself, it kinda makes sense why you perceive people disagreeing with you as arrogant.
We know he doesn't like chareidim and thinks they're sapsucking leeches who take advantage of the hard work of others. I'm pretty sure he mentioned that once or twice in the past. Not sure how that particular point adds anything to the current discussion, but I guess we should never say no to some comic relief.
I agree that his perspective is exactly the way secularists view the chareidim. But it only makes sense from the perspective of somebody who is completely kofer in the Torah. For that purpose, you can replace "praying to God" with "playing with toys", and every chareidi would agree with it. Playing with toys is useless, adults should not be playing with toys. Similarly, Nathan thinks praying is just as useless, and secularists who don't pray and violate the entire Torah are saving the Jewish people, while chareidim who pray and follow the Torah are doing nothing.
Perhaps I will have another post next week to deal with his fallacy. Especially if he wants to continue by making another stupid post about this on RJ. Otherwise, stay tuned for my next exciting post on feminism!
I agree that Slifkin's parable is very powerful. But as Mecharker pointed out, from the eyes of a chiloni who does not believe in the Torah to begin with. Slifkin was saying that from a theological standpoint the Torah does not protect and as Mecharker and Happy have shown, it definitely doesn't seem like that!
Why can't you write a coherent comment to explain why instead of just dropping a soundbite to create an artificial side to make it look like someone won here? Basically HGL speaks to you less than NS does. So what?
That's a pretty good parable to explain how it looks through the eyes of a secularist who does not recognize the Torah. But I'm confused, I thought you were making the claim that the TORAH does not support the idea of Torah protecting. Weren't you?
Right. And that R' Yitzchok Zilberstein is nuts for telling someone that he can rely on the Torah's protection. Makes tons of sense.
Where do you see that they do not believe it? Because they don't rely on supernatural protection? Because they are timid from bombs falling? You still have not answered this.
And for some strange reason, this parable was totally irrelevant to that point and just sounds like you are viewing things like a secularist that the Torah does not protect.
We just spoke about this an hour ago. I don't think that's a proof at all. One may not endanger themselves, and they obviously felt like they were in danger. Whether or not you feel that to be objectively the case.
Yes, and I pointed out that this was nonsense. One may not rely on a miracle. It didn't need a miracle to be in Ashkelon. There were tens of thousands of people living there. Nobody else left.
You seem very focused on promoting “Charedism” as Hashem’s ideal sect, as if Hashem cares that you call yourself a Charedi. Rather than saying that Charedim are the best, you should focus more on qualities that are actually important, such as the desire to become close with Hashem, the desire to understand His Will, the desire to observe His laws, and to act how Hashem wants you to act, etc. There are plenty of people who have these qualities and don’t identify as Charedi. “Eved Hashem” or “Yarei Shamayim,” for example, are more descriptive and accurate terms for what you’re trying to convey.
True, but most of those people happen to be chareidi. It's not a coincidence. There are some fundamental reasons why LW MO is so antithetical to those things, as we discuss in many posts.
Maybe. In any case, there are certainly many charedim that are not like that (whom you are including), and there are many non-Charedim that are (whom you are excluding). By the way, non-charedim don’t necessarily have to identify as LW MO or even MO. Many people don’t identify as any sect, and just strive to be the best person and Jew they can be. Promoting your sect at the expense of what truly matters makes you appear like you are motivated by ego, rather than by a genuine desire to spread what Hashem wants.
And I know my friend HGL feels this way as well. We never meant to imply that all Chareidim are perfect, and there are definitely a lot of RW MO who are very careful with mitzvah observance. But what Chareidim officially stand for is to keep to the Torah and follow mitzvos in the truest form possible, and that is what Natan takes issue with.
Here in Chutz La'aretz, the term "Chareidi" is rarely used, and most people just identify as good Jews. But being that Natan uses the term to besmirch us, we use it here as well.
I would say the Charedi hashkafa in general is superior and more internally consistent.
I am not FFB. I lived most of my frum life among Charedim, and the ones I lived among really lived the hashkafa. I now live in a DL stronghold, and much to their communal detriment, they really live their hashkafa too. There are some more serious families here, who do share these qualities like you mention, but they are exceptional, not the norm.
That’s fine - you may be right. But Charedism comes with its own unique set of expectations, norms and beliefs that a perfectly G-d fearing Jew does not have to accept. In general, I’m not a big fan of defining oneself by a sect within Judaism. But I appreciate Mecharker’s clarification.
Well presented Rabbi HGL. Only the neturei karta stuff looks a bit out of place. I know Zionists are mentioned and that Slifkin doesn't want chareidim relying on them, but I don't get the comparison of kissing up to terrorists. (Does that have to do with his families purim-costume-theme this year?)
The Satmar have a shittah (which the Brisker Rov allegedly held might be kefira) that all the hatzlacha that the Zionists have is not min Hashomaim and is a "maaseh soton".
Apparently, Natan also doesn't think it's min Hashomaim.
I'm not a satmerer, far from it in fact but if you look in al hageula vial hatemurah the satmar rebbe clearly says that the wars they fought were NOT a maaseh soton and explains why not. He does say that it was no miracle which is a basic satmar hashkafa and possibly even others as well (see the following link).
I'm not taking sides in this argument and don't follow the rabbi in the podcast but if your trying to upshlug a one sided fraud than you have to be honest.
I'm pretty sure he does actually. The restoration, existence and survival of the state of Israel, all exactly as predicted in the Torah, is, according to him, the number one proof towards the truth of Judaism.
I don't believe that's the case anymore. As I said in my last paragraph, the most bizarre thing is that he used to be the guy who claimed to see Hashem in nature, but now he claims that Hashem is entirely absent from the success of the IDF. That is the meaning of his comment "There were no examples of them relying on Hashem. Only of them relying on Zionists." In other words, it cannot be that a soldier could be the Hand of Hashem. Hashem doesn't *practically* help anybody (עפ"ל).
Satmar I understand. But aiding the sonei yisrael like that was against the will of the Satmar Rav as well. A regular Satmar figure would've been more belonging.
HGL, you've done it again. Thanks for the incredible post!
Don't you two have anything better to do? Me, I'm bored at work. What's your excuse? Go learn some gemorroh.
Yes, I usually am pretty busy. That's why I comment so infrequently. You troll non-stop. And last I checked, the workday in England is over right now. So go learn something and gimme a break.
Better than write a 10 word comment? Do you realize he didn't author the post? Retard.
Update!
Nathan responded with his own parable, here
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-parable-of-the-drowning-man/comment/13680028
Now, even though Nathan reveals in his parable that he believes Tefilah is useless (surprise, surprise), I think we can modify his parable to make it historically accurate.
1. The irreligious workers, after many fruitless searches, had not yet found the power saw or materials.
2. Meanwhile, they repeatedly tried interrupting the religious man's prayers.
3. Furthermore, the religious man had several sons and daughters. The irreligious workers constantly tried to influence them to abandon the religion, and constantly tried to seduce the daughters. Unfortunately, they were successful with some of the children.
4. Eventually, in the merit of the religious man's prayers, they found the power saw and materials.
5. Once they found the materials, they asked the man to send the rest of his sons and daughters to live with them so that they could help with the labor. Meanwhile, they became even more audacious in their attempts to interrupt his prayer and get the remaining children to abandon religion. He refused, and he and his family kept praying.
6. After the boat was built, it was found that the irreligious workers had actually STOLEN many of the materials. The workers, who were ethnically Jewish, begged the judge to be able to keep the boat, on the grounds that Jews had historically been discriminated against. They originally were not going to let the useless religious man on the boat, but now, in desperation, they begged him to join in order to bolster their case.
7. He agreed, and thanked God that his prayers had been answered.
Amazing post, and hilarious to watch Natan do some more double twists to try and salvage a shita that never meant anything in the first place, with his useful idiots breathlessly cheering him on at every turn.
I'll take issue with one line: "Yes, he really believes this".
Natan does not really believe anything. He's a tragic, bitter shell of a man who espouses whatever it is that he feels at the moment would make chareidim and traditional Torah scholarship look silly. Period.
More pathetic is his cohort of followers who run after him because it makes them feel more intellectually serious. They do not appear to have noticed that his entire contrived façade of 'rationalism' is an intellectual dead end, has no anchors or even internal coherence, and that they have sold their ideological associations to one man's self serving vendetta to get back at some people who hurt him 20 years ago.
It goes back much further.
https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2022/05/arachnophilia.html
If you're relatively recent to RJ, this story is informative.
You even parody yourself. The message of that story is NOT to rely on divine intervention (or as you would put it, the torah's protection) but instead to rely on bosor v'dom. The complete opposite of the point you are trying to make! The point of the story is to MAXIMISE hishtadlus.
😀😃🙂🙃😊😇😀😃🙂🙃😊😇😀😃🙂🙃
"By the majority secularist population, which hates their guts"
The majority in Israel (in this generation) is not secular but masorti (i.e. traditional, not CJ ch"v).
There is also a siazable DL community
Neither hates Charedim (a small minority of extreme LWDL unfortunately does hate them, but they are not representative of the vast majority)
Glad to hear that. I guess I get overexposed to people like Natan.
I second this. Unfortunately extreme LWDL have an overly loud voice on the net.
You hear that, Natan? Sounds like you're doing a good job!
You got the parable wrong. Here it is:
A group of people were stranded during a rising flood. They were all trying to figure out how to survive. But one man said, "We don't need to do anything! God will save us." And he sat down to pray.
The others said, "Look, God has already given us the means to be rescued! There's all kinds of materials lying around, there's even a partially-working power saw, we could build a boat!"
But the praying man refused to help. He said, "No, I want to rely on God! He will help us!"
So the others worked to build a boat. It was hard work. But the praying man refused to help. He said, "No, I want to rely on God! He will help us!"
Building a boat with the partially-working power saw was a little dangerous, and nobody was thrilled about using it. They agreed to take turns doing it. But the praying man refused to take a turn. He said, "No, I want to rely on God! He will help us!"
Finally, as the flood waters rose ever higher, the boat was ready. The others got into it. And the praying man said, "Hold on, I'm coming with you!"
The others said, "But didn't you say that you were relying on God to save you?"
The praying man replied, "I sure did! And He did! He sent you schlubs!"
The others had some harsh things to say, but the praying man rebuked them harshly for disrespecting religion.
Would be accurate if the working guys said "send your sons to work with us so we can unteach them all your heebie heebie irrational stuff". And the religious man said, "Uh, no".
The working guys were also religious. They were happy that God had provided them with materials.
They were not. They were like you, but...worse.
They also had a rule that every boat had to have a woman in it so the men can enjoy themselves. But they called themselves religious like some want to say about the army when they tried to have the same rule with tanks. (and many other issues)
The other version of this parable is that the other men were religious; they went to build a boat but he chose to make the oars. Some boor didn't understand and said "when we were working are bodies off you think you get away with just getting these sticks ready?! What good are they any way? And then you want to join the boat as well? That means you realize the boat is what's helping you and all along you were just busy with these sticks!" I hope the nimshal is self evident.
It amazes me how lacking in self-awareness you and Mecharker are. You seem to have no idea that you come across not only as theological frauds, but also as arrogant, entitled, selfish people who believe that others are inferior and exist to serve you.
Wow, off comes the rational mask and out comes all the pent out emotional trauma. Let it out Nathan! It's good for you! Or as Daniel Tiger says "Mad, mad, mad, it's good to say you're mad".
Sorry, the secularists may not be inferior but they are definitely doing very bad things and have no right to be in the Land of Israel at all, and only can stay in the merit of the righteous. This is bog standard Torah ideology. Not my fault you are kofer in it.
Did you thank a chareidi yet?
Theological fraud? Who's the guy who's been going around for the last ten years (and as recently as last week) speaking in the name of "classic Judaism" that Torah does not protect, and when presented this past Tuesday of the overwhelming evidence from the Torah to the contrary, changes on a dime and says, "oh, I never said that Torah doesn't protect! I was just castigating Charedim for not acting like they believe that it protects!"
And it's hard to take accusations of arrogance seriously from a guy who completely writes off R. Chaim Volozhiner as having missed the boat. But I guess seeing the esteem to which you hold yourself, it kinda makes sense why you perceive people disagreeing with you as arrogant.
Only to you Natan, and those you speak for, which is not many. Do you even speak for your family?
Happy, face it. You were burned. Slifkin won this round.
Take the L gracefully.
Here's how it works: You win a round when you respond to a point.
Natan says Torah doesn't protect.
Mecharker showed that it does.
Natan says yeah how come I can't see it?
Happy says you can, just look.
Natan says chareidim are phooey.
Ash says Natan won.
New rule: you have to actually address the fact that you were disproven in order to be called the winner. K?
Ash says Natan won in this round. His parable was great and funny. I think he lost the previous round, by a lot.
My apologies. I thought what you meant by 'won' was that he said something insightful, intelligent, and relevant.
Yeah, I also find him funny.
We know he doesn't like chareidim and thinks they're sapsucking leeches who take advantage of the hard work of others. I'm pretty sure he mentioned that once or twice in the past. Not sure how that particular point adds anything to the current discussion, but I guess we should never say no to some comic relief.
I agree that his perspective is exactly the way secularists view the chareidim. But it only makes sense from the perspective of somebody who is completely kofer in the Torah. For that purpose, you can replace "praying to God" with "playing with toys", and every chareidi would agree with it. Playing with toys is useless, adults should not be playing with toys. Similarly, Nathan thinks praying is just as useless, and secularists who don't pray and violate the entire Torah are saving the Jewish people, while chareidim who pray and follow the Torah are doing nothing.
Perhaps I will have another post next week to deal with his fallacy. Especially if he wants to continue by making another stupid post about this on RJ. Otherwise, stay tuned for my next exciting post on feminism!
Darn, no feminist post now, after the latest RJ post. I was looking forward too!
You WILL get it! But first things first!
Jynx, you owe me a coke!
How was he burned? Because you said so?
I agree that Slifkin's parable is very powerful. But as Mecharker pointed out, from the eyes of a chiloni who does not believe in the Torah to begin with. Slifkin was saying that from a theological standpoint the Torah does not protect and as Mecharker and Happy have shown, it definitely doesn't seem like that!
Are you on Slifkin's payroll by any chance?
I wish. I am on nobody's payroll. I just liked his parable.
Why can't you write a coherent comment to explain why instead of just dropping a soundbite to create an artificial side to make it look like someone won here? Basically HGL speaks to you less than NS does. So what?
That's a pretty good parable to explain how it looks through the eyes of a secularist who does not recognize the Torah. But I'm confused, I thought you were making the claim that the TORAH does not support the idea of Torah protecting. Weren't you?
No, I wasn't. I was saying that charedim don't really believe their interpretation of what the Torah means.
Right. And that R' Yitzchok Zilberstein is nuts for telling someone that he can rely on the Torah's protection. Makes tons of sense.
Where do you see that they do not believe it? Because they don't rely on supernatural protection? Because they are timid from bombs falling? You still have not answered this.
And for some strange reason, this parable was totally irrelevant to that point and just sounds like you are viewing things like a secularist that the Torah does not protect.
Because they fled the South during the Gaza operation, instead of staying to give chizuk to the population and to protect them with their Torah.
So the chareidi yeshivas that didn't flee the (not-so) danger zone demonstrate that Torah protects. Thanks.
We just spoke about this an hour ago. I don't think that's a proof at all. One may not endanger themselves, and they obviously felt like they were in danger. Whether or not you feel that to be objectively the case.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/does-torah-protect/comment/13678092
Yes, and I pointed out that this was nonsense. One may not rely on a miracle. It didn't need a miracle to be in Ashkelon. There were tens of thousands of people living there. Nobody else left.
This was very on-point. Ouch!
You seem very focused on promoting “Charedism” as Hashem’s ideal sect, as if Hashem cares that you call yourself a Charedi. Rather than saying that Charedim are the best, you should focus more on qualities that are actually important, such as the desire to become close with Hashem, the desire to understand His Will, the desire to observe His laws, and to act how Hashem wants you to act, etc. There are plenty of people who have these qualities and don’t identify as Charedi. “Eved Hashem” or “Yarei Shamayim,” for example, are more descriptive and accurate terms for what you’re trying to convey.
True, but most of those people happen to be chareidi. It's not a coincidence. There are some fundamental reasons why LW MO is so antithetical to those things, as we discuss in many posts.
Maybe. In any case, there are certainly many charedim that are not like that (whom you are including), and there are many non-Charedim that are (whom you are excluding). By the way, non-charedim don’t necessarily have to identify as LW MO or even MO. Many people don’t identify as any sect, and just strive to be the best person and Jew they can be. Promoting your sect at the expense of what truly matters makes you appear like you are motivated by ego, rather than by a genuine desire to spread what Hashem wants.
100%. I've pointed this out many times. See here for example:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/does-torah-protect#footnote-1-108230049
And I know my friend HGL feels this way as well. We never meant to imply that all Chareidim are perfect, and there are definitely a lot of RW MO who are very careful with mitzvah observance. But what Chareidim officially stand for is to keep to the Torah and follow mitzvos in the truest form possible, and that is what Natan takes issue with.
Here in Chutz La'aretz, the term "Chareidi" is rarely used, and most people just identify as good Jews. But being that Natan uses the term to besmirch us, we use it here as well.
I am not charedi (I'm chardal), and I agree with you.
I would say the Charedi hashkafa in general is superior and more internally consistent.
I am not FFB. I lived most of my frum life among Charedim, and the ones I lived among really lived the hashkafa. I now live in a DL stronghold, and much to their communal detriment, they really live their hashkafa too. There are some more serious families here, who do share these qualities like you mention, but they are exceptional, not the norm.
That’s fine - you may be right. But Charedism comes with its own unique set of expectations, norms and beliefs that a perfectly G-d fearing Jew does not have to accept. In general, I’m not a big fan of defining oneself by a sect within Judaism. But I appreciate Mecharker’s clarification.
Well presented Rabbi HGL. Only the neturei karta stuff looks a bit out of place. I know Zionists are mentioned and that Slifkin doesn't want chareidim relying on them, but I don't get the comparison of kissing up to terrorists. (Does that have to do with his families purim-costume-theme this year?)
The Satmar have a shittah (which the Brisker Rov allegedly held might be kefira) that all the hatzlacha that the Zionists have is not min Hashomaim and is a "maaseh soton".
Apparently, Natan also doesn't think it's min Hashomaim.
I'm not a satmerer, far from it in fact but if you look in al hageula vial hatemurah the satmar rebbe clearly says that the wars they fought were NOT a maaseh soton and explains why not. He does say that it was no miracle which is a basic satmar hashkafa and possibly even others as well (see the following link).
https://torah.buzzsprout.com/1190621/8685842
I'm not taking sides in this argument and don't follow the rabbi in the podcast but if your trying to upshlug a one sided fraud than you have to be honest.
I'm pretty sure he does actually. The restoration, existence and survival of the state of Israel, all exactly as predicted in the Torah, is, according to him, the number one proof towards the truth of Judaism.
I don't believe that's the case anymore. As I said in my last paragraph, the most bizarre thing is that he used to be the guy who claimed to see Hashem in nature, but now he claims that Hashem is entirely absent from the success of the IDF. That is the meaning of his comment "There were no examples of them relying on Hashem. Only of them relying on Zionists." In other words, it cannot be that a soldier could be the Hand of Hashem. Hashem doesn't *practically* help anybody (עפ"ל).
"Hashem is entirely absent from the success of the IDF."
I don't think he means that at all. You are interpreting his words in a twisted manner. I'll ask him in the comments of his blog.
Satmar I understand. But aiding the sonei yisrael like that was against the will of the Satmar Rav as well. A regular Satmar figure would've been more belonging.
Satire. It's effective because it has a kernel of truth to it. It doesn't have to be literally true to be capture something essentially truthful.