- This topic has 100 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
The polls and online discussions in secular sources suggest the biggest objections were to funding yeshivos, and especially to funding yeshiva students who weren’t serving in the army. The ire of the public appears focused on a stereotypical yeshiva students who is very Israeli, very hawkish and pro-settlement, and dependent living well on government money while not serving in the army. When you move away from that stereotype, the ire dissipates. It doesn’t appear most Israelis favor throwing anti-zionists in jail as long as they don’t accept or solicit government funding, which will probably lead to a compromise. It also appears there isn’t opposition to funding yeshiva students who have served or are serving in the army.
This deserves to be repeated.
This also deserves to be repeated:
I just want to point out the chain of events, as I saw it. For months, since it was announced that They were going to cut finding, the leaders started complaining. However the first word I heard of this emergency atzeres was only AFTER boys were JAILED for learning Torah.
I didn’t see it in any way to be about the money bec a) they would have gathered months before and b) everyone is being targeted, not just chareidim. The way I see it is that they obviously want money but to be criminalized for learning Torah is intolerable.
I was thinking of responding to just interjection, but decided not to. Now that Torah repeated it, I’ll make a point I made in an earlier thread.
No one is being jailed for learning Torah. That is rabble-rousing rhetoric. They are (potentially) being jailed for not joining the army. There is a huge difference. Yes, they happen to be learning while not in the army. But the jailing isn’t for learning. It isn’t illegal to learn Torah. The government will still be supporting tens of thousands in Kollel. It would just be illegal to not go to the army, no matter what you are doing instead-learning Torah included.
Sam,
That is not completely clear. I read an op-ed on an israeli site today (perhaps the one ROB has been reading), which argued that the new law is not good enough, inter alia, because the quota of chareidim could be satisfied only through ones who were anyway not learning. It seems there are some who davka want the chareidim to stop learning and view that as a goal in itself.
If that is in fact part of the motivation for the law, then it would be fair to state they are trying to put people in jail for learning.
Sam2; your words are worth repeating. And although I, too, did not agree to criminalizing draft evasion, it was done purely to equate it with the law for every citizen, so as to avoid any problems in court.
And, as I showed in another post, the law is actually very advantageous to chareidim- especially for a large part of them whoe are well into their thirties and will be totally free from army service.
Sam2: A Jewish country needs to appreciate that learning Torah is not comparable to anything else.
Sam2: I know that it is semantics, but as a Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos (I hope?) I can’t support stopping anyone who wants to learn Yomam V’Layla from doing so, army or not.
Torah613Torah: That is why I commented on that point. see earlier in the thread.
Sorry, just don’t get it.
Firstly, I specifically said that if you’re just throwing out the question, and don’t mean to say that due to your understanding otherwise you don’t have to listen (which I did feel was implied in your post), then I’ve no issue. So no straw man – I explicitly excluded that possibility from my comment.
As to the issue itself – you can go on ad on about how sick it is, but you’re not answering my point: if you DESERVE an explanation from someone, and feel entitled to disregard what they say due to your having imbibed enough wisdom to decide things for yourself, then you simply cannot claim to be believing in, or following, anyone. They’re just there to rubber-stamp your position, or at best provide occasional input.
PBA: If that were true, I would agree. I think we all agree that there are people out there who hate Torah. That doesn’t mean that is what this law is doing though.
Torah: Not being comparable doesn’t mean that there need to be exceptions made in every instance. You can appreciate learning Torah and still say that one is obligated to fulfill their duty as a citizen (by doing some form of army or Sheirut L’umi) because that’s an obligation of living in a country and nothing, not even learning Torah, can exempt you from that.
PBA: Nothing to do with the army, or even learning. Everything to do with support. There is no reason to put a plan together that does not lessen the number of families that will still require state support.
Sam2: They are jailing boys for refusing to leave the bais medrash. No, they are not making Torah learning illegal but they are making it illegal for these boys to dedicate their lives to Torah. I do agree that many of the chareidim should join the army because many are goofing around and learning because it’s the only thing they know how to do and it’s the only way they’ll be accepted in the community. There is a difference though between them, and say, the men who learn in my husbands kollel. These chareidim cannot breathe without the Torah. They are true tzaddikim and if half a day would pass without them learning Torah they would be depressed. When I think chareidi, they are who come to mind. I think it would be a tragedy if they were forced away from the bais nedrash, even if the IDF allows them to learn half a day.
Interjection: Well, at some point most people, no matter how much they love Torah, have to leave the Beis Midrash to support a family. But that aside, the law isn’t (and never will) force everyone to join the army/service. They’re asking for a certain number. These people who can’t live without a day of learning will still be able to learn anyway.
Once again, if I commit a crime and then run to the Beis Midrash and they come to arrest me, am I being jailed for learning? No, I’m being jailed for the theft/assault/whatever I committed. They might have to drag me out of the Beis Midrash to get me, but I’m not being jailed for learning. Same thing here. People would be jailed for having violated the law (not completing service). Not for learning.
A few weeks ago a young man was arrested for not reporting to an induction center. He was not arrested for learning.
Afilu omrim luch al yemin ahe’hu smol.
Who do I think that applies to ? Not relevant. According to you, nobody.
Logician:”afilu omrim al yemin she-hu smol” is not a reference to “milei d’alma” but to halocho. It is a modern invention that this applies to every saying of a Rov. It does not.
1) Ah, so Halacha has no bearing on the question of entering the IDF ?
2) I assume you’re you referring to the Torah view on Divrei Rshus as ‘milei d’alma’. In which case you’re simply falling for the common error that “there is no pask in Hashkafa/Agadata”. In which case I withdraw from this conversation, because it will be pointless to try to hash that out here.
3) It is a modern invention that this applies to every saying of a Rov.
Nor did I say so. I said that the way I understood yichusdik’s post, I saw no room for such a mehalech.
There is room for the Likud and Bayit Yehudi to back down. However they are pressing for penal sanctions (as opposed to cutting off subsidies), and that means a de facto war with the hareidim. Likud and Bayit Yehudi could stop demanding criminal sanctions for those refusing to serve in the army, but they have certainly not been acting that way. Labor could offer to cancel the penal sanctions, and make long lasting ally with the hareidi parties (much to the detriment of Likud and Bayit Yehudi).
It should be noted that many on the left also don’t want to serve in the army, so Herzog can please two groups by ending conscription (or allow ing exemption for any religious or moral reasons), and that in economics and increasingly matters of national security, the hareidim are “left” to begin with (especially since the hawkish pro-zionist hareidi were stabbed in the back by their former allies in the Dati Leumi/Settlements camp).
Apropos for Purim – A lesson in Emunas Chachamim from the Megillah
Recommended reading: Michtav M’Eliyahu Vol. 1, page 75-77.
I will happily follow the ‘modern invention’ of R’ Dessler, despite the alarming reservations of one ROB.
Logician: I thank you for your measured response. You are quite right, we cannot discuss this adequeately because I do believe that aggadata is not binding. So, if you withdraw, so be it.
You may have to show me where it says that it is binding.
As far as Rav Desslerzz’l goes you are welcome to follow his path. I am neither talmid nor follower, so we’ll part ways on that.
Lastly, Halacha absolutely has a great bearing on joining the IDF, but then the halochos everywhere are totally on my side. See Rambam hilchos melochim and mishne Sottah. I’d also be very eager to hear your halachic explanations how to justify not working but learning your whole life, which is contradicted by every Possek (and that includes the Rambam hilchos Shemitta about levi’im)
golfer -“Come on Health, you know better than that.
When oomis suggests a little respect and understanding on both sides, the correct response is Not for you to attack the lack of respect and understanding on the part of the Other side! They’re responsible for their actions; you’re in charge of your own. That means you start by showing some respect and consideration for the other guys, however misguided you may think they are.”
You didn’t understand my point! Don’t come along and say -Lets all be friends and at the same time pass laws that will put Frum Yidden in jail. The Frum community will not stand idly by when this will happen.
ROB -“Health: Your facts are wrong. In the “milchemet hshichrur” -1948- plenty of chareidim fought in the haganah and etzel. Even after the founding of the medinah, many chareidim went to the army.”
I believe you are mistaken. Those weren’t chareidim, but Mizrachists. In those times even the Mizrachists looked chareidy!
Health: That depends on how you define “hareidi”. Most Israelis define “hareidi” in part by not serving in the army (so if a hareidi serves in the IDF, he isn’t hareidi), along with not being employed (so if a hareidi works other than in a yeshiva, he’s not hareidi), dressing “funny” (so if a hareidi wears a modern suit, he’s not hareidi), and so on. Needless to say, the typical Israeli is a bit confused. That’s without getting into the fact that many Dati Leumi learn full time in yeshiva and some where funny clothes (okay, at least a frock and a homburg, both of which went out of style a long time ago in the western countries).
I prefer to use terms such as pro-zionist (supports the state), non-zionist (tries to ignore the state but will work with it as necessary), and anti-zionist (wishes the state would go away) ,
Logician,
“Afilu omrim al yemin she-hu smol” is referring to rulings by a Sanhendrin, which are binding even if they are wrong. It does not apply to the statements or rulings of modern poskim/gedolim.
Has anyone considered the implications in Beit Shemesh?
Boruch Hashem that Abutbol won. Had he lost, it would have been a massive Chillul Hashem. This way, it was only a major Chillul Hashem.
I’ll make a point I made in an earlier thread.
No one is being jailed for learning Torah.
and from the earlier thread:
However, this emotional straw man frustrates me to no end. No one is going to be put in jail for learning. They (might be) put in jail for avoiding army service, which they do by learning. But no one is making learning a crime.
You were wrong then, and you’re wrong now.
Aside from PBA’s point that there are definitely many who want to completely wipe out Torah, chalilah, and Torah613’s point that a Jewish run state should have more appreciation for Torah, I think your point is so semantic that it’s meaningless, and if I wouldn’t be dan you l’kaf z’chus thbat you haven’t thought this out properly, I would say disingenuous.
The image you think is portrayed in the rhetoric, that of people being dragged out of the bais midrash for the crime of learning, reminiscent of communist Russia or the Chanukah story, is so obviously not literally true that there’s no emotional straw man here.
Although I’m sure there are those drafting the law who would like nothing more than banning Torah study for all, no matter their military eligibility, that’s obviously not what being legislated, and nobody has any hava amina that it is.
The objection is to criminalizing the choice for a bochur or yungerman to stay in full time learning, which as Gavra says, should be repulsive to any shomer Torah u’mitzvos, and nobody is trying to fool anyone into thinking otherwise.
The only straw man I see here was manufactured in Las Vegas.
I must also be moche about something you wrote earlier, “ I think the country has a right to ask the Chareidim to give back (with more than just Limud HaTorah) “.
More than Limud HaTorah? I expect better than that from you, Sam.
gavra at work; + 1 !!!
Daas Yochid, thanks for an excellent post.
The objection is to criminalizing the choice for a bochur or yungerman to stay in full time learning, which as Gavra says, should be repulsive to any shomer Torah u’mitzvos, and nobody is trying to fool anyone into thinking otherwise.
Exactly.
DY: I’m not saying that joining the army is more important than learning. I’m not saying that it does more than learning. I’m saying that any community, whether a neighborhood, city, state, or entire country, has a right to impose certain expectations on its members. A neighborhood can strongly request that you join the block watch and take care of your lawn. A city can force you to pay taxes and follow normal building codes and such. A state can force you to show up for jury duty. And a country, if it determines that it is necessary, can obligate you to perform some form of national service, be it army, volunteering, or anything else. So while learning might be infinitely more important than any of these, I do believe that the country, as a community that comprises far more than just Chareidim, has a right to make demands of them. And if the country determines that Limud HaTorah is not enough, then the country has the right to make that determination, whether or not they are correct.
Sam2:
1: Just because the country has the right to do so doesn’t mean they should.
2: A main (and I believe only convincing to a non Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos) part of the Charaidi argument is that they don’t agree to the state as a whole, and are therefore “conscientious objectors” to any service done for the state.
DaasYochid: While at present the only arrests of hareidim are for not properly requesting military exemptions (and they are released quickly), the Kenesset has enacted a new law for serious penal sanctions (equivalent to what in the US is a felony) for any yeshiva student who refuses to serve in the military, and would also allow prosecution of their rabbanim and the yeshiva as accessories to the crime. If your support of zionism was based on the idea they didn’t throw people in jail for learning Torah, it is now time to change sides.
Sam2; Your view that a country can decided that your religious practices are illigimate is very unAmerican (sounds very European, the Romans were like that and it shows to this very day). In American, if you have a religious objection to jury service (your example), you will routinely be exempted (at worst you’ll have to show up for voir dire). Under the law in most states and federal law, a statute that interferes with religious practices is unacceptable in most cases. Persons with conscientious objections to military service (similar to Israeli hareidim who hold that the medinah is contrary to Torah), are exempt in virtually all western countries, and persecution of a religious minority for refusing to serve in the military would violate international human rights standards. The rulers of Israel, heavily from a European “state-centered” background, regard individual liberties as something to be ignored in favor of the supremacy of the state – to most Americans, that is how one defines fascism.
GAW and Akuperma: That’s a second issue. The country has a right to make these demands. What they should do when the Chareidim refuse is a separate issue. Hopefully some middle ground will be reached. How to deal with conscientious objectors is an issue the state will have to deal with after. But they do have a right to make this law.
And Akuperma: If they want to be conscientious objectors to the state existing, a perfectly logical and fair response would be to put them in their own area (let’s say Meah Shearim), cut off all economic support, and allow them to run their own country. Something tells me that wouldn’t go over very well. So they can call themselves conscientious objectors, but as long as they take money and use the infrastructure, Israel can demand that they be part of the country.
Sam2: I don’t think anyone is arguing they don’t have the “right”. They also could tax anyone with red hair at 100% and they would have the “right” to do so.
akuperma – Israel has no religious rights law (that I am aware of). It comes from not having separation between Church & state.
Akuperma, I don’t know where you get the notion that I am or ever was a supporter of zionism. I am not, and I do not need to “change sides”.
benignuman –
Sigh. Did you actually follow the discussion ? I didn’t say otherwise. I questioned how yichusdik balances his opinion with what gedolim say. My comment was an answer to his response – I did not say that he has to follow any particular person due to that rule.
-And yes, the concept has been applied to at the very least a attitude towards their opinions, in myriads of seforim for eons.
-And the statement is explained Iin Rishonim) both in the sense of being binding when they’re wrong, and to a wise assumption that usually the error will be on your part.
ROB – I believe you misunderstand the Rambam’s comments about Agadita, and so I believe YOU’d have to show me otherwise. We’ll save it for the next time a slifkin thread surfaces, eh ?
-You can do what you want with R’ Dessler, butif you’re taking sources like that into account, I don’t think its quite right to make snide remarks about ‘modern inventions’. [ARE you familiar with that and similar essays, or are you saying you just don’t care ?]
-There aren’t enough threads with you debating those topics ? My point was simply not to blow me away by saying there’s no need to follow directives on the topic by blaming it on being a purely Hashkafic discussion.
OK, I’ll try not to interrupt any more, this thread can go back to its stated topic.
Logician,
I did not follow the discussion, I just don’t like that statement being used out of its proper context.
“-And yes, the concept has been applied to at the very least a attitude towards their opinions, in myriads of seforim for eons.”
Please cite some seforim, preferably halachic or non-chasidishe seforim, applying that concept to statements by post-Talmudic gedolim. I have never seen it applied as such. Sources discussing requirements to follow a psak when you ask a rav a specific shaila are not really relevant.
“-And the statement is explained Iin Rishonim) both in the sense of being binding when they’re wrong, and to a wise assumption that usually the error will be on your part.”
I am fine with starting with a presumption that they are correct prior to examining the issues yourself. But if you examine the issue yourself and you conclude they are wrong, then I don’t think you are allowed to listen to them.
Logician: as per your topic.
Let me repeat what I said: what you (and so many of the present chareidim) consider “emunas chachomim”-a blind acceptance of every word of a Rov, even a Godol- is a modern invention. It has not been written “in myriads of seforim and eons”. Prior to the recent century, there was no such thing as infallibiity of Gedolim. Sure, you had a person you were close to and listened to his advice but to say, as you maintain, that the words of the gedolim are infallible and must be followed is not “emunas chachomim” at all. It is a modern invention.
Please show me where this is even discussed in such terms prior to the last hundred years.
As far as aggadata goes, why is aggadata binding on us? If yes, how is that differentiated from halocho? I am not sure what you mean by me not understanding the Rambam. The Rambam does not codify aggadata and specifically codifies halocho only.
I am not sure what the reference to Rabbi Slifkin means!
I would like to take issue with the term HaKatan uses for the army which is shmad, or to destroy. The term has historically meant to make someone not observant anymore. It is probably true that the army causes one to lose his or her chareidi culture (or furthers a decision by one to do so) but it is not fair to call someone who is no longer chareidi as destroyed. I do not mean to minimize the loss of someone’s chariediness as someone who has a deeply-held, sincere, religious belief should not be forced to walk away from it. For someone who is chareidi it is a tragedy to make them no longer chareidi. But it is not shmad or destruction for that person to become an observant non-chareidi. nor do i take any position about the “share the burden” legislation as I hear both sides, am not intimately involved or familiar with the law and am confused about the whole thing myself. but calling it shmad is wrong. i grew up in a chassidishe environment and have rachmunu litzlan seen many of my classmates/friends go on to completely lose their religion. these kids’ parents would be thrilled if their children were now no longer chassidic but observant. what has happened to them is shmad. losing your chareidiness, while tragic in its own way, is not shmad. since so many of those who serve in the army come out observant using the term shmad is offensive because it suggests that anyone who is not chareidi is “destroyed.” this is not fair and inflammatory.
Besalel:
Perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant. I meant shmad in the fullest sense of the word and this is what the IDF is about.
Of course, losing their “chareidi-ness”, whatever that means, is not (necessarily) shmad. But being changed from Oveid Hashem to Oveid Zionism is shmad.
I just noticed I got a subtitle. I would certainly have left out the last part, given the choice.
better?
or is this better?
Besalel – the part that is shmad is the fact that the government is trying to take care that the idea of someone devoting their life completely to torah in the kosalei beis medrash should be obliterated (reminiscent of the yevanim – you can “keep torah” as an intellectual pursuit as long as its translated etc, as long as the yidden take part in “sports”, etc) – just not to be an exclusively kadosh Jew
(I’m not saying that a person who works can’t be mekadeish everything he does, though admittedly the outside world makes that more and more challenging – BUT as far as I understand it, THAT is the concept that they are trying to fight and arguing that they are trying to “shmad” that kind of Yid – and they’re probably right. Lapid and his cohorts have said so blatantly and then follow up with “and its better for them too” (when who knows if they’re trying to force their value system on us, or really as some suggest, are trying to make sure they won’t be outnumbered in elections in the near future…) )
ROB – I never said a word about infallible. We just read last week about the special korbanos of a Nasi and of Beis Din that errs.
[Of course, this is even without taking into account the (very logical) assumption that a person with greater spiritual heights, plus a communal responsibility, will have more siyata dishmaya.]
Did you really not get me ? One of the main topics stirred up by the Slifkin affair was the binding nature of Agadda. He, and many others, quote several Rambams in Pirush haMishnayos, which they understand to mean that he won’t pasken divrei Agada. Of course, in Yad HaChazaka he paskens several of those same issues…
The basic problem with the position is that it is very halachically significant to know if someone is a kofer/min etc, and that depends if their beliefs are correct – but the issues of correct beliefs are (mostly) Agada!
Incidentally – if I quote you seforim from this past century, that’s not ok. If you decide not to follow, that’s your issue, but to say there’s no basis to – are you claiming that these many seforim (written by people whom, even if you don’t follow their opinions, I assume you acknowledge to be men of great stature) are therefore just foolish ?!
If you’d like to continue to discuss, lets move this out of this thread. I’m also reading the main topic, and its confusing!
(And do read the R’ Dessler I referenced – he puts forwards the ideas clearly, and you won’t be challenging me on points I’m not actually saying).
dveykus613-I cannot let your incendiary comments pass without a rebuttal. Did you know that the new law has plenty of opportunities for people to learn forever? Please check the law!Just not for every Tom, Dick and Harry who, in any case, should be out working to feed their families ( shulchan aruch orach chaim 156). There is not a smidgen of truth in what you are saying about “shmad”,”jevonim”,”their intentions” and more.
Sadly, your comments have become so widespread that everyone believes it. s they say, “lies travel around the world before truth has time to get out of bed.”
I know that what you write has become ‘halocho lemoshe misinai” but it is a blatant lie.
“One of the main topics stirred up by the Slifkin affair was the binding nature of Agadda. He, and many others, quote several Rambams in Pirush haMishnayos, which they understand to mean that he won’t pasken divrei Agada. Of course, in Yad HaChazaka he paskens several of those same issues…”
Why are we assuming that the fact that something is written in Yad HaChazaka makes it a “psak”? All it means is that the Rambam feels it to be true. In fact the Tosfos Yom Tov [on the Mishnah in Sotah(3:5)where the Rambam says that he doesn’t pasken these types of things] says exactly what I just said, to answer why the Rambam brought down Rebbe’s position in the Yad HaChazaka.
“The basic problem with the position is that it is very halachically significant to know if someone is a kofer/min etc, and that depends if their beliefs are correct – but the issues of correct beliefs are (mostly) Agada!”
Just because the Rambam couldn’t “pasken” what the correct beliefs are doesn’t mean that he couldn’t determine what they are, and thereby determine who is a heretic.
ROB -“Even after the founding of the medinah, many chareidim went to the army.”
I wasn’t there, but I can tell you from an article in the anti-charedi rag -“The Forward” that Ben-Gurion did exempt Bnai Torah from the draft!
Mods:
Thanks, that’s better.
In my view, it’s simply pro-Torah, not specifically anti-Zionist.
No sub-title is needed, in my humble opinion.
Logician,
You wrote:
It is my understanding that Emunas Chachomim means trusting that the Chachomim are being honest and doing their best to preserve the mesora and apply the halacha. In other words, to say that the “rabbis” are just trying to control the people, or “where there is a rabbinic will there is a halachic way” is a failure of emunas chachomim. Similarly if someone says that Chazal made up the story of the pach shemen, chalila, in order to give the Chanukah story a religious spin (like some historians claim), that is a failure of Emunas Chachomim.
I have unfortunately met people who lack Emunas Chachomim and they are always coming up with conspiracy theories as to why the Gedolim are doing X or Y, or why Chazal said X or Y. But learning up a sugya in halacha or hashkafa and happening to conclude differently than the majority of the Gedolim of nowadays is a good thing not a bad thing.
benignuman and Patur avol ossur :at logician’s request, I opened a new thread for this disucssion “infallibility and chachomim”.You are welcome to join us there.
Health: your report is correct but that is the issue. At the time, the exmption may have been desperately needed, as it was after the Holocaust and European Jewry with its Rabbonim had been decimated. Additionally, you had a tiny percentage who were exempt. Today, you have a huge tsibbur that is exempt and a large amount of them don’t deserve the exemption. That was my point.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.