Two Different Religions

A solution to religious tension

This post recognizes fully the efforts and mesiras nefesh of the heroic soldiers, for which we are eternally grateful, but explains how the disputes around the draft of yeshiva students can be resolved.

From the discussions and polemics about the draft for yeshiva students, I have come to a certain epiphany, which is probably obvious to many of you, but it’s the first time I thought of it this way.

Superficially, most of the dispute around the draft seem to be about interpretation of Jewish/Torah values. The ones who advocate for drafting yeshiva students point to Moshe’s dictum “Shall your brothers go out to war while you remain?” as an enduring moral argument¹, and claim that halachically, Israel’s wars qualify as “Milchemes mitzvah” which admits no exemptions. Those against point out to the many sources for the overwhelming importance of Torah study, which they maintain overrides the obligation to join the military, claim that Torah study itself defends the Jewish nation, and cast doubts as to the halachic status of the IDF and its wars, and the assertion that there are no exemptions for a halachic war. The entire dispute deigns to be around Torah sources and values, as we all supposedly unquestionably believe in the same Torah, and the question is only what does the Torah demand from us? But after spending countless hours researching this question and discussing it with both sides, I have realized that this is all a big mistake. Most of these discussion are futile, for the following reason:

Our secularist, Modox brothers do not believe in the same religion as us.

That is, when it comes to secularists (as opposed to religious Datiim) this is not a matter of two competing interpretations of Judaism, like a halachic dispute among poskim. Rather, the secularists profess that they have the “real” Judaism, and chareidim have corrupted it irredeemably, whereas we believe that we have the “real” Judaism, and secularists have corrupted it irredeemably. Obviously, we are correct, and can easily demonstrate our correctness through Torah sources, but in the end of the day, even according to them, we are two separate religions.

This is manifested in many, many more ways than just the question of the draft. Our secularist friends are generally what we would consider heretics. That is, while they claim to accept the Torah, they reject Divine Providence, reward and punishment, miracles, the supernatural, the World to Come, the idea of a spiritual realm, the power of prayer, the truth of the Torah, the special knowledge of Chazal, and the unchanging nature of halacha. And although there may be variances in our friend’s beliefs, and perhaps not all of their beliefs are heretical, this is the general picture. And according to our secularist friends, we are generally considered gullible fools, stuck in a medieval mindset, clinging to superstitions, and our extremist, fundamentalist approach to halacha is reminiscent of ISIS. Two different religions.

I will illustrate the connection to the draft issue with the following example. There is a certain popular secularist “rabbi”, Dr. Michael Avraham, who has written several books and maintains a blog. Unlike our dear friend Natan Slifkin, Michael is not a total am ha’aretz. In fact he seems to be quite learned, displaying a broad and deep (in his own peculiar way) understanding of many areas of Torah. Also, unlike our dear friend Natan, he is not completely consumed and obsessed with hatred of chareidim, despite having quite a low opinion and deep resentment of them. In all his blog posts about the war, only one of them was about the draft of yeshiva students (compared to almost every single one from our dear friend). I will use this post for the purpose of illustration.

Michael begins by declaring it so obvious that yeshiva students must serve, he initially didn’t even want to write a post about it, and only succumbed to pressure from his audience. He claims that there is really no need for Torah sources or halachic arguments for drafting yeshiva students, and in fact they are mostly irrelevant. It is simply the most basic morality, fairness, and justice that demands that everybody, everybody, everybody, share the national responsibility, and it is disgusting selfishness to act otherwise.

Now, right off the bat, Michael has shown us all his cards. Torah doesn’t matter, halacha doesn’t matter, all that matters is secular notions of fairness and responsibility. And while Michael does bring Torah sources and does make halachic arguments against the chareidi position, he makes it clear that this is all “extra”, against the background that the the chareidi position is completely repugnant from the start, even without taking Torah into account, and so whatever halachic counterarguments chareidim would have would be irrelevant. This is a very revealing approach.

Let us continue.

Michael writes that there are four justifications that chareidim use to “evade” the draft:

1. The fear of secularization in the army

2. The illegitimacy of the Zionist state

3. The overwhelming importance of Torah study

4. Torah study protects the nation

Of all of these, Michael asserts that only #1 is the true, honest reason, whereas #2 is not generally used, and #3 and #4 are embarrassing bald-faced lies that even chareidim themselves don’t truly believe.² Michael writes that although #1 is superficially a valid justification, it is is in fact not. This is because he maintains that the basic responsibility to share the burden easily supersedes the chareidi value of maintaining a pure anti-secularist, Torah lifestyle. After all, every single person has his own all-important value in life- not to die!- and yet obviously, he cannot use this to evade his basic responsibility of army service. Clearly the value of equal sharing of the burden overrides all else.

While Michael’s objection sounds compelling, it is in fact absurd. The reason why the value of preservation of one’s own life does not supersede the responsibility of army service is because society considers it an honor to die for one’s nation. “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.”- “It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country”. For somebody who does not profess this value, we would indeed not blame him for evading the draft. But “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” is such a universal value among all cultures, all over the world, that we would consider somebody who doesn’t share it to be abnormal. However, the exception would be a religious minority. Religious people believe that it is sweet and fitting to die for their own religion, for the sake of God, and not to lose one’s religion to secular values or to a different religion. That would not be sweet and fitting at all. Therefore, it is common for religious minorities all over the world to claim, or attempt to claim religious exemptions from army service when it conflicts with their values.

When somebody in the comments to his blog pointed out that chareidim consider Torah to be the supreme value, even more so than their own lives, Michael dismissed it contemptuously, asserting that if chareidim don’t share in the burden, all their religious devotion is worthless. Here we observe the great disconnect in action. Michael simply doesn’t agree with the chareidi religion. Chareidim consider observance and study of the Torah to be the fundamental value, the essence of their faith, more important than life itself, but Michael simply doesn’t accept this value. His supreme value is “sharing the burden”, rather than adherence to the Torah. This is not just a matter of competing interpretations of Judaism, it is two separate religions, with two separate value systems.

And when we look at Michael’s other scholarly output, it is even clearer that he is of a different religion. Michael is outspoken in his opinion that God does not interfere in the affairs of men, that “God has abandoned the earth”, and has written a trilogy of books advocating a “skinny theology” of Judaism, that does not include belief in Divine providence, in miracles, in the power of prayer, special knowledge of Chazal, or the importance of religious beliefs themselves. He is definitely what we consider a heretic, and has even all but admitted it.

Michael’s “skinny theology”, while it would seem unrelated to the draft issue, is very much connected to it, because besides for the fact that he doesn’t believe that Torah protects, it represents somebody with a completely different worldview and value systems than ours. Therefore it is utterly unsurprising that he is so dismissive of the chareidi hierarchy of values that places adherence to the Torah above “equal sharing of the burden”, and feels that Torah and halacha doesn’t matter in this whole discussion, since he places very little stock in Torah values in the first place. Of course, he will claim that his values are the Torah values, and it is chareidim who have corrupted the Torah values, but either way, in the end of the day, we are dealing with two different religions.

Similarly, this is Natan’s Slifkin’s whole dichotomy between “Rationalism” and “Mysticism”, which he believes are two vastly, irreparably separate paradigms of Judaism, and that “chareidism” is a yet more extreme, recent corruption of mysticism. Natan has even gone so far as to compare chareidism to Reform Judaism, which is exactly the way we feel about his “rationalism”. And while from our perspective, his “rationalism” is a corruption of Judaism, no different than Christianity, Karaitism, or Reform Judaism, and we can easily demonstrate so from the Torah itself, at the end of the day, the fact remains- we are brothers, but of two separate religions.

Ironically, I believe this epiphany itself can be the solution to peace. Once we concede that chareidism is its own religion, chareidim are a religious minority and ought to be able to claim a religious exemption without needing to justify their particular religious interpretation to secularists.³ And secularists should no longer presume to engage in Torah disputations against us, since we both agree that we represent not two different interpretations of Torah, but two different religions. Lehavdil, would we demand a Catholic justify his religious beliefs to a Protestant? Would we take a Protestant seriously who claims to know Catholicism better than the Catholics? This is no different. The secularist’s arguments lose all relevance, since it is highly inappropriate for somebody of one religion to presume to interpret somebody else’s religion. How this will work practically in the future as the chareidi population grows is its own issue, with its own potential solutions, but the tension that comes from competing interpretations of religion and value systems should be significantly diminished.

1. The response to this is that while it is true that the Torah invokes “basic” moral arguments from time to time, and this is likely one of those instances, this doesn’t mean that these “basic” arguments override every other consideration. For example, although the same rebuke could have applied to the Leviim, who also benefited from the conquest of the land, nevertheless, they were still exempt from taking part in it due to the overriding consideration of their special mission.

2. The real truth is that #1, #3, and #4 are all inextricably tied together. Modern chareidi chinuch expects men to be in yeshiva/kollel until well into their twenties (which is also the time when the military wants them), as experience has proven that this is the greatest buttress against secularism that exists, and it is this commitment to the Torah that ensures the survival of the Jewish nation.

3. This doesn’t mean that chareidim don’t need to justify their interpretation to non-secularist Datiim, who generally make use of halachic arguments in favor of the draft, rather than coming from a secular perspective. This is a genuine dispute, rather than clash of opposite values, as with the secularists.