When I read Slifkin's quote from some Professor that the Charedim have 'abandoned Klal Yisroel' or something similar, a dialogue began in my mind as to how to answer him.
In his world, the Zionist movement and the State of Israel, in its current form, are 'Klal Yisroel', and the Charedim have separated themselves from Klal Yisroel.
I began to think about the history of Zionism and the opposition to it, and how we reached this point. Moshe and Aaron of the generation, as represented by the Yere'im lidvar Hashem at the time, refused to join Nordau and Herzl. Although a minority were somewhat willing to join forces, in the mistaken hope that they would influence them positively, the vast majority saw them as a danger to Torah and Jews.
The Meraglim of the time wrote sharp polemics against the יושבי חשך, yet the Chafetz Chaim, Reb Chaim Brisker, the Rashab of Lubavitch, and later Reb Chaim Ozer and other Gedolei Yisroel refused to subjugate themselves to them.
The idea that Klal Yisroel is represented by Ben Gurion and now Netanyahu is no different to the belief that Nordau and Herzl were our leaders.
Personally, I subscribe to the non-Zionist school of thought, not so much the anti-Zionist school of thought. But if I had to join Klal Yisroel in all of its hues and shades, it is comprised of Skver and Belz, Ponovezh and Lakewood, Gateshead and Cleveland, Beis Hatalmud and Ner Yisroel, Ohr Yisroel and Eitz. With all of the differences between these groups, some of which are quite vehement, the common theme is the side of Moshe Rabbeinu. If the DL community thinks that the State is more central to their identity as Jews than their kiyum hamitzvos, I would argue that they have abandoned Klal Yisroel.
I didn't write this and Zichron can speak for himself, but my understanding is that this is a genuine attempt to explore the mentality of the meraglim and their followers, which has obvious parallels to similar things today. It definitely doesn't frame the efforts of the meraglim negatively, as Simon claims.
Childish. No different to a couple of Gerrer teenagers who assured me thar anybody who follows Reb Shaul Alter is a korach rebelling against Moshe and will end up like Korach.
Anybody can just pull bits and pieces out of tanach to support their agenda. It's not torah and has never been the torah way. Just modern chareidim who don't really have proper reasoned arguments to support their position. Historically poskim wrote clear reasoned texts to support their position, both in halochoh and hashkofo. No rhetoric. No hyperbole. Proper torah. But from chareidim today - nothing. Just soundbites like 'kedushas shabbos' 'kedushas hayeshivos' 'kedushas hatorah' etc etc.
Yeshivaland is constantly threatened by broad-mindeness and knowledge that their fundamentalist view is not as holy as it appears to be. Why else ban SMS text messaging? Only because it can be used for mass messaging of ideas, with ease. The modern chareidi lot would almost certainly have banned the printing press back in the day, had they been around.
הא חלום והא פתרונו
When I read Slifkin's quote from some Professor that the Charedim have 'abandoned Klal Yisroel' or something similar, a dialogue began in my mind as to how to answer him.
In his world, the Zionist movement and the State of Israel, in its current form, are 'Klal Yisroel', and the Charedim have separated themselves from Klal Yisroel.
I began to think about the history of Zionism and the opposition to it, and how we reached this point. Moshe and Aaron of the generation, as represented by the Yere'im lidvar Hashem at the time, refused to join Nordau and Herzl. Although a minority were somewhat willing to join forces, in the mistaken hope that they would influence them positively, the vast majority saw them as a danger to Torah and Jews.
The Meraglim of the time wrote sharp polemics against the יושבי חשך, yet the Chafetz Chaim, Reb Chaim Brisker, the Rashab of Lubavitch, and later Reb Chaim Ozer and other Gedolei Yisroel refused to subjugate themselves to them.
The idea that Klal Yisroel is represented by Ben Gurion and now Netanyahu is no different to the belief that Nordau and Herzl were our leaders.
Personally, I subscribe to the non-Zionist school of thought, not so much the anti-Zionist school of thought. But if I had to join Klal Yisroel in all of its hues and shades, it is comprised of Skver and Belz, Ponovezh and Lakewood, Gateshead and Cleveland, Beis Hatalmud and Ner Yisroel, Ohr Yisroel and Eitz. With all of the differences between these groups, some of which are quite vehement, the common theme is the side of Moshe Rabbeinu. If the DL community thinks that the State is more central to their identity as Jews than their kiyum hamitzvos, I would argue that they have abandoned Klal Yisroel.
I didn't write this and Zichron can speak for himself, but my understanding is that this is a genuine attempt to explore the mentality of the meraglim and their followers, which has obvious parallels to similar things today. It definitely doesn't frame the efforts of the meraglim negatively, as Simon claims.
Childish. No different to a couple of Gerrer teenagers who assured me thar anybody who follows Reb Shaul Alter is a korach rebelling against Moshe and will end up like Korach.
Anybody can just pull bits and pieces out of tanach to support their agenda. It's not torah and has never been the torah way. Just modern chareidim who don't really have proper reasoned arguments to support their position. Historically poskim wrote clear reasoned texts to support their position, both in halochoh and hashkofo. No rhetoric. No hyperbole. Proper torah. But from chareidim today - nothing. Just soundbites like 'kedushas shabbos' 'kedushas hayeshivos' 'kedushas hatorah' etc etc.
You can take a story and use it to emphasize a point. But since it's an exercise in interpretation, it absolutely cannot be used to prove a point.
I'm having a hard time understanding the point.
I assume it's a response to the article "What if we don't just believe" but I fail to see how.
It's just a polemical effort to frame all the attitudes the author disagrees with negatively, and maybe even juvenile
Indeed. Have you noted that that style is 99% of chareidi output these days?
It's the response of a threatened wolf.
Sad thing is, the chareidi world for the most part isn't actually under attack. These writers just have to get the hell off substack.
Yeshivaland is constantly threatened by broad-mindeness and knowledge that their fundamentalist view is not as holy as it appears to be. Why else ban SMS text messaging? Only because it can be used for mass messaging of ideas, with ease. The modern chareidi lot would almost certainly have banned the printing press back in the day, had they been around.