Jerusalem Tachtonim: A Reply to “Yerushalayim Shorts”
By Rabbi Michael J. Broyde
Dear Rabbi Adlerstein,
I always look forward to your posts on Cross-Currents, and “Yerushalayim Shorts” certainly caught my attention. The middle one, in particular, surprised me. You lament an anonymous letter writer’s take on the Charedi community written to an anonymous friend, summarizing it as follows:
It is a sad and sobering read. It should inform those of us who look to Charedi leadership to show a genuine interest in letting the rest of the country know that they, too, are looking for solutions and do not regard themselves as a nation apart. While the sentiments expressed are not held by the majority of those who call themselves secular, there is plenty of deep-seated hatred of Torah left in high places.
I couldn’t help but raise an eyebrow at how effortlessly you wrote that, as if the disdain towards the Charedi perspective isn’t reciprocated with even more zest by some Charedi leaders. Do you really need a footnote for the top 10 zingers they’ve thrown at secular Israelis? I won’t list them here; we both know them too well. Plus, I’m sure you’re familiar with many gedolim who have perfected the art of subtle and not-so-subtle digs at the secular community in Israel. I remain unconvinced that the hatred of torah is any more common or greater than the hatred of the secular in the Charedi community
If we only allowed those who genuinely seek solutions that respect the other sides view to lead us, we might be leaderless. Who among the Charedi leadership truly respects the secular view? Go on, I’ll wait—other than Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer, who else? Why demand something from the other side that you know your own side is unwilling to offer? I suspect, sadly, that the real reason is that on the whole Charedi leadership refuses to negotiate with anyone who doesn’t start by acknowledging their absolute correctness. Compromise? Not in that community, at least until the donors start to withhold funds – only then will a true reconsideration take place.
Furthermore, I was genuinely taken aback by this line:
We cannot minimize the genuine hatred of Judaism among survivors of the State’s founding generations. Nor can we allow it to occlude the genuine openness of others, who are amenable to real solutions.
Once again, I find myself repeating the same point. “Hatred of Judaism” is not how I would characterize any of the important founders of the state – lovers of Zion is a better term. Some detested halacha, and some weren’t exactly fans of Charedi leadership, no doubt. And yes, this was reciprocated – and I am not sure who fired the first shot. Are you? Secular Israelis could just as easily point to the disdain—and maybe even with a pinch of envy—from Charedi leaders toward the founding generation that dared to establish a state for everyone, not just a select few and consistent with western democratic values and not governed by halacha. Who in that generation of Charedi leadership had “genuine openness of others” that were amenable to real solutions, then or now. Compromise is not a word commonly heard in the Charedi community, and why should it then be expected by its opponents? Indeed, even the letter writer who you oppose does not seem ‘hell-bent’ on people not being observant (“Whether they keep their faith or Mitzvot will be their individual free choice” is what he says, something you or I could even agree with in the right moment) but on providing people who a secular education so that they can choose – I mean, even Phi Beta Kappa members can choose to be religious; why oppose choice?
I hate to say it, but your column feels more like it’s fanning the flames than putting out the fire. You seem eager to overlook the faults of your own community while refusing to extend that same intellectual courtesy to others.
Israel faces some pretty significant challenges, and if I weren’t a believer, I’d be downright petrified:
- Israel is still surrounded by enemies, and despite years of hoping that hatred would diminish, it hasn’t. Nations surrounded by enemies sometimes fail.
- Israel is grappling with a deep left-right divide that’s eroding trust in the government. Nations with governments that aren’t trusted sometimes fail.
- Israel is wrestling with the core question of how Jewish it should be and who should bear the burdens of that identity. Nations that argue about fundamental values sometimes fail.
Even as a believer, I am scared. Nations fail when confronted with internal and external threats at the same time.[1] Solving the nation of Israel’s internal problem are vitally important and compromise is needed. I have no idea what that compromise is and I am not proposing one. But, I think that only harm to the Jewish nation will come if all refuse to compromise.
So, I don’t claim to have the solution, but I do know what won’t help: blaming the other side for sins that we, too, are guilty of. What’s needed is the kind of compromise that no one seems willing to offer—and sadly, your column read like part of the problem and not the solution.
Instead of calling it “Yerushalayim Shorts,” may I suggest renaming it “Jerusalem Tachtonim”? After all, we all have them on, but the wise among us know better than to show them off. Maybe “Jerusalem Unmentionables” if we were speaking the King’s English.
With friendship,
Michael Broyde
[Rabbi Broyde is a former rabbi of Young Israel in Atlanta, director of the Beth Din of America, and Torah Mizion Rosh Kollel. He now serves as a Professor of Law at Emory University and the Berman Projects Director at its Center for the Study of Law and Religion.]
-
For example, Abraham Lincoln worked exceedingly hard to prevent the American civil war from escalating to any external battles with England, France or other nations. For more on this, see the excellent work “The Global Lincoln” Richard Cardwardine (ed) and particularly Chapter 6 by Lawrence Goldman “A Total Misconception”: Lincoln, the Civil War, and the British, 1860–1865.” ↑
Rabbi Broyde, I would be a tad more charitable. I see both Rabbis Adlerstein and Pfeffer, in different ways, trying to influence the Hareidi world while desperately staying within the community. I doubt either of their efforts will cause Hareidi leadership, either rabbinic or political, to moderate their positions. However, they do provide rationale for nascent efforts within the community that are taking concrete steps to change.
I remain an admirer of both of you, both your scholarship and mentchlachkeit.
Right now the question isn’t even if the Chareidi leadership can make some of compromises with the secular world. Rather, can the Chareidi leadership make peace with Chareidi rabbis like HaRav Leibel.
To answer the question “who else asides for Rabbi Pfeffer”, I’d suggest Rav Dovid Leibel is the de facto leader of the charedim interested in constructive engagement with Israeli society.
I really wish the entirely innocent title of the previous post hadn’t been turned into a potty-mouthed joke. The point of this post could have been made just as well without that sort of “humor.” I think no one else looked at the word “shorts” and thought of undergarments, and…I will stop there.
Nachum, you are correct. Thank you. I regret the title. It seemed funny at the time.
Thank you.
“Modern Orthodox philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz considered Ben-Gurion “to have hated Judaism more than any other man he had met”.” (from Wikipedia)
Considering Leibowitz’s rather idiosyncratic and strict definition of “Judaism,” that can be taken with a large grain of salt.
Leibowitz himself tells a charming story of Berl Katznelson’s devotion to Judaism.
How long will Religious Zionists in government play second fiddle to secular elites? Are there demographic data showing an evolution in the right direction? Strategic alliances aside, does any planning process exist to plot the course of a transition, or do they just sit tight and try to recruit until the End of Days?
Rabbi Broyde takes issue with the founders “hatred of Judaism.” Yet, he agrees that they
detested Halacha. So which part of Judaism did they admire-Gefilte Fish?
Yossi,
I am surprised by this comment. They loved the land and the idea that the Chosen People should return to the land directed to them by God. To quite the generative AI of google “David Ben-Gurion, the leader of the World Zionist Organization, proclaimed the establishment of Israel on May 14, 1948, as a homeland for the Jewish people, or the “chosen people”. Ben-Gurion based his proclamation on the idea that the establishment of Israel was the fulfillment of an ancient promise to Abraham, Moses, and David.” The diminishment of the contribution of those who set out to found the modern state of Israel and their commitment to that idea by Orthodox Jews is scandalous. No Israel would be without their contribution. Does that make them Orthodox? No! But do not diminish the love of Zion that they felt and the deep feelings of “Israel for the Jews”. But for their work, modern Israel would not be. We should be grateful for what they did in the name of Judaism.
Wouldn’t it seem somewhat difficult for an atheist to do work for a state on the premise the land was promised by God. Also, upon reading the text of Ben Gurion’s proclamation, it does not seem to make mention of the forefathers. Also, it would seem difficult for someone in denial of God, the Torah, and Mitzvos to do anything in the name of Judaism, as without those three ideas it is difficult to see what remains of the word. Thank you.
I knew someone who came in on the Altalena who was rather unhappy about Ben Gurion. I believe some of the Declaration was politically motivated to gain international support.among believers.
Benjamin, Bob, Ben Gurion’s expertise in Tanach, makes him being an atheist difficult, if not impossible, to believe; a non-halakhic / rabbinic Jew, he certainly was.
As a second-place finisher in the early days of the chidon ha-tanach, i was privileged to answer questions thrown at me by Ben Gurion.
Your comment, representative unfortunately of how many think, creates a yet greater divide in klal yisroel. Visit the most secular of neighborhoods on tisha b’av evening and notice how few bars are open. Observe the level of circumcision among non-halakhic Jews. There are numerous such examples that reflect what the Rav ztl called brit avot versus brit sinai. There is much more than gefilte fish to brit avot.
Secular Israelis, perhaps subconsciously, tend to be stricter about issurei karet. They won’t eat or even do melacha on Yom Kippur, a substantial number keep taharat hamishpacha, treif restaurants don’t serve bread on Pesach, brit milah is nearly universal, etc.
Interestingly, these are *not* things policed by the State. Sadly, that may help.
I tend to agree. About a quarter century ago, I bought a significant number of items at a Sephardi Jewish art dealer in Paris. Though his store was open on Shabbat, he indicated that his wife practiced taharat hamishpacha j and he put on teffilin daily. A rather secular Israeli work associate stuck in Seattle on YK, only ate fish before the fast, acquired sneakers, and walked a fair distance to an orthodox shul.
Given the relative size of the traditionally practicing Jewish population in Israel versus the US, the level of kiruv appears to be well below par.
I agree that state mandates tend not to help.
OTOH, the one time I spent Pesach in Israel, we had to fly home unexpectantly on chol HaMoed. The liquor displays in the airport and the hametz meals consumed (at least in Business class) were disturbing, to say the least.
Once again, I find myself repeating the same point. “Hatred of Judaism” is not how I would characterize any of the important founders of the state – lovers of Zion is a better term.
While you can ask the Charedie community to stop blaming secular Israelis today for the behavior of the founders of the state of Israel don’t whitewash who they were or what they did. While some of their crimes MAY be debatable the general saga of how they dealt with e.g. the Yemenite immigrants to Israel is not . And in general asking the Charedie community not to look with hostility at what the founders of Israel did by founding the State of Israel when they (particularly the ones who had been there first) strongly opposed doing so is an outrageous demand. Particularly coming from someone who is complaining about his opponents lack of understanding of the oppisite view
Fast forward to today. Even the most sympathetic Charedim to the secular view can and will not be OK with the change of status quo and the forced draft of Yeshiva Bochurim. (But of course not the Arab population of Israel.) If the way this proposed draft was being proposed was that there were equal sanctions against ANY Israeli citizen who does not register for the draft or civil service and that there would be special privileges for those who served (those who registered but were rejected would receive neither) that would be understandable and acceptable. The current edict is not.
Evidently, the socialist/atheist founders of the State are now immune from reasoned criticism in some “Orthodox” circles, despite these founders’ glaring offenses against national unity. As true authoritarians, this group of founders shut Begin and Herut out and demonized them for years. Labor Party politicians viewed all formal understandings with Chareidim as temporary measures until they could make Chareidim disappear by attrition and youth indoctrination.
“I have no idea what that compromise is and I am not proposing one”
Below are two recent articles which suggested compromise. Yet each has a problem, as I note below.
R. Reuven Taragin, educational director of World Mizrachi and the RZA, wrote an article this May in which he says in part that “the answer lies in focusing on the significant segment of the Chareidi community that is not learning Torah, at least not full-time.” The problem, as he himself says, is that “the Chareidi community is afraid that these young men will lose their religiosity, or at least their Chareidi identity, in the army.” See his article which besides for its analysis, is notable for its respectful approach:
https://www.5tjt.com/the-chareidi-draft-crisis/
R. Moshe Hauer of the OU wrote a few weeks ago: “Many – though certainly not all – of the leaders and decision makers on both sides, including Gedolei Yisrael and army leaders, are working diligently to find ways to include haredim in the material efforts for Israel’s defense in a manner that respects and preserves their haredi way of life and that does not force enlistment of those who are Toraso Umnaso, full-time yeshiva students.” The problem with this is that the gedolim quoted by R. Hauer are anonymous, and, to the contrary, the Charedi public rabbinic voices have been critical of R. Dovid Leibel’s efforts to integrate Charedim in the army(even though Rav Shach and other gedolim stated that non-learners who don’t serve in the army were “rodfim” of those yeshiva students who study Torah diligently).
https://www.ou.org/this-erev-shabbos-am-yisraels-response-to-crisis/
R. Yehoshua Pfeffer advocates for more Charedi involvment in Israeli society, as mentioned by R. Broyde. He also said this July that there “needs to be work from the other side of the fence too. The army is not ready, has not been readied over the years for real Haredi participation.” See interview and transcript on 18Forty podcast:
https://18forty.org/podcast/yehoshua-pfeffer-israel-army-haredim/
Let me add to this the unmentioned current status quo as of September 2024 in Israel — what is called the American solution — which is that anyone can choose not to serve in the IDF as a rabbi in training (as they always were in America), but there is no government support for such institutions. That approach has many advantages as well even as it is not discussed much in Israel. Those who want to force change in the Charedi community recognize that the economic force is more powerful that the threat of the draft, and those who do not want to serve do not have to, but will not be paid by the state not to serve. I am not endorsing this, just adding it to the list.
I don’t know what you mean by “respects the secular view”?
Do you mean their political view, their understanding of history? I cannot imagine a religious jew who will say he “respects” a non-religious viewpoint that espouses heretical thought.
Nonetheless, one can respect them as human beings, and we are obligated to love every Jew.
While Rabbi Adlerstein certainly doesn’t need me to defend him, i believe that was his the context of his comment.
BenShaul, This is a good and important question. Respect comes from three ideas interrelated and acted on. One is “expressing ideas politely” so that one does not engage in a spitting match, but an exchange of ideas. The second is a recognition that the other side makes important contributions in areas that we do not. In this areas, particularly, there needs to be growth on both sides, but much on the Charedi side. The army serves an important function and people who serve in it need to be respected even by those who do not serve. The third is more complex yet, and it is the idea that we have a well established view that can not be disproven, but so does the other side who we want to live together with.
Let’s assume for the moment that the secular elites over many decades wanted non-student Chareidim AS SUCH to volunteer for, or at least accept conscription into, the IDF. Wouldn’t they then have created IDF options and protections to make this possible? There are some more recent signs of changed thinking, but years of blatant IDF use as a vehicle for secular assimilation have taken their toll.
Secular Israelis could just as easily point to the disdain—and maybe even with a pinch of envy—from Charedi leaders toward the founding generation that dared to establish a state for everyone, not just a select few and consistent with western democratic values and not governed by halacha. Who in that generation of Charedi leadership had “genuine openness of others” that were amenable to real solutions, then or now
This is really a hateful screed but to be blunt the Satmar argument of “had you listened to us and not made your state, you wouldn’t be coming to us asking for soldiers” make a lot more sense than some of what is written here. A place like Kiryas Yoel does seem to be a very good solution to many of the problems facing the Jewish world back then.
I personally am very far having the Satmar view. Even so seeing this horrible attack on the Chardie leadership of the 1940s requires a response. “Real Solutions” is a relative term. What some may consider a solution other may consider a problem. But one thing is certain. From all the Jewish leaders , religious or secular, who were around in the late 1940s when the state of Israel was created , none can come close to the Charedi leadership of that time in relation to the fulfilment of their vision for what the Jewish world should look like today. None can come close to the Charedi leadership of that time in relation to their views taking hold among the future generations. None can come close to the Charedi leadership of that time in relation to their opinions still being considered relevant today even by the people who still subscribe to current format of the movements they led back then. etc.
I did not understand this reply. Kiryas Joel was established in 1975 and not the 1940s. It was not on anyones mind in the 1940s. If you mean the basic Brooklyn Satmar model of Williamsburg — an areas where many Jews and Gentiles live together and always did — I did not understand your comment and you need to say more. If you mean Satmar opposition to the establishment of the state, I suspect that there is not much of value in the conversation, as the starting point of this is that the State of Israel is good.
Herzel’s Zionist experiment is an absolute and total failure at every level. Jews have a homeland that cannot protect them. Jews are as defenseless as ever. And every other goal of his utopia is equally unmet. Why should anyone who believes in The Torah sacrifice any ideal to prop up this failure.
Is it ideal to not defend one’s country?