GS, what was the fellow’s argument? How about mshebairach for the soldiers held prisoners by Hitzballah and Hamas? No go? How about J. Pollard? CC requested us some time ago to notify them of interesting topics or articles we came across. I called their attention to two articles on Pollard, one in the Jerusalem Post, the other in Jewish Observer. I wonder whether CC felt J. Pollard and his fate are not newsworthy, or that it is not “American” to show sympathy for him.

The law of a Yifas Toar is only during the fighting, its not a general exemption given for joinging the army. Any other heterim are also undoubtedly according to the need - the army cannot serve non-kosher just because its cheaper or easier. I am also not sure that there is a mitzva to join when the army has enough manpower. (Keep in mind that we no longer have general conscription, and I would imagine that in a professional army there is no demand for every able-bodied man to join.) If you thought it was a milchemes mitzva, you would sign up regardless of your citizenship, and you would serve beyond the standard three years.

The IDF clearly does not need any more manpower, so the issue comes down to a question of social fairness - why should the chareidim not fight. On this point it is entirely legitimate for them to say that as long as the army will not accomodate them where it can, they do not have to serve. Their social responsibility does not mean that the secular army can dictate the conditions under which they serve.

That being said, I think that the chareidim would be better off to arrange units that allowed them to serve without presenting any needless religious challenges.

I was on CC during the period in question, so I can provide the following:

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/08/02/gedolei-yisrael-on-bein-hazmanim

Comment by Gary Shulman — March 9, 2007 @ 3:15 am”

I sense some skepticism here. Surely, Gary Shulman will now offer documentation of his own actions during the same period.

Yes, actually. R. Elyashiv and R. Steinman did indeed call for cancellation of ben ha-zemanim. I know this, because I know some boys whose yeshivos did just that.

Comment by S.

Assuming this is true S, Please provide documentation of the above eg. date text and where reported in the media.
Question What Pecentage of army deferred Yeshiva Bochrim listened to this Kol Koreh. 1% 5% 10% 50% or upwards of 90%. In todays wired world of instantaneous communications an event like this should have been covered if an overwhelming majority of army deffered yeshiva bochrim returned during bain hazmanim to the front lines of the bais hamedrish.
Please provide documentation of both the possible Kol Koreh and the alleged en masse return of vacationing yeshiva bochrim to their battle stations in the bataei medresh during the Melchemet Mitzvah Lebanon Summer 2006.

Some feel that their derech(path) only has only strengths; this, I think, is often the public posture taken(although privately some will be more open to discussing these topics frankly). Whether that is correct or not , this strategy has the benefit of “ein simcha k’hatoras hasefiekos”(there is no joy like the resolution of doubt).

Others see both strengths and weaknesses in their particular path in Yiddishkiet, but see the weaknesses as a trade-off for a lifestyle and hashkafa that they feel is overall correct, and they are therefore willing to live with any weaknesses. Still others may hold that the weaknesses are not actually weaknesses, but they at least can perceive why others may see weaknesses in their chosen path. The fact that one thinks in these terms, should make one able to understand why another person made a different choice in derech hachayim.

It is clear that we have all lost our way by buying into particular Shitot Hachayim which don’t really work for many of us, but which we feel obligated to endoirse, whether because we feel that they are the least of all evils, or becuse we think that a person who occupies a certain level on the “public frumkeit” scale has to occupy a certain idealogical pigeon hole as well.

The real soluition is that a Jew who believes in our mesorah has a moral obligation to learn as much as possible so he can come to as many conclusions as he can about what a Torah way of life should look like, while at the same time respecting different points of view. If one wants to be honest with himself this was always the way of Gedolei Yisroel.

Regarding the secular community, there is no point in arguing with them, because they simply are not programmed to understand what we are talking about. However, it cannot be that we have to be right just because they are wrong.

If we believe that there is a place in Jewish life for blogs whicgh discuss issues that bother us, I think it imperative that we beguided by these rules, although I am sure any number of you would be happy to disagree with me

“ No one educational model can possibly satisfy the needs of all the children in a large community, and the attempt to force one model upon all can only result in many being lost altogether to the religious world. Not every boy, for instance, is suited, by temperament or ability, for long-term kollel learning. And the effect of not providing respectable alternatives is felt in the small percentage of those who drop out, and the larger number who remain, without enthusiasm, in yeshivot.The challenge the Chareidi community confronts today is how to preserve the ideal of Torah learning as its paramount value while adjusting to changing circumstances, both internally and externally.
That will not be a simple task…Any efforts to assist in helping the Torah communities of Eretz Yisrael become more economically self-sufficient must be accompanied by great efforts to ensure the preservation of the great yeshivot and kollelim of outstanding
scholars.”

Regarding the applicability of Torah im Derech Eretz to Israel, I noticed that Rav Shimon Schwab writes that only the local Torah leaders in Eretz Yisrael may rule on the applicability of TIDE in that country(1966 Hamayan, translated in Spring 1997 Tradition article by S.Z Leiman). Another important point is that of Rav Dessler(MM Vol. III), that Gedolim were aware that a pure Litvshe Torah-Only model, whose purpose is to produce gedolim, often carries with it the very heavy price of negatively affecting average students, although obviously one tries to minimize such casualties(“lo nachshov she-lo yodu me-rosh, ki be-derech zeh chas ve-shalom yekulkelu kamah”).

Some further points to consider are A) any necessary change in the Israeli model would be evolutionary, and that rapid change will be rejected, as pointed out in Jonathan Rosenblum’s article; B) the army issue, unique to Israel; C) ensuring that any Israeli TIDE yeshivah or program will not “poison” Bnei Brak, in the same way that the existence of Torah Vodaath and Ner Yisrael don’t negatively impact on Lakewood(they actually mutually benefit each other); this latter concern is pointed out in the above essay from Rav Dessler.

Less directly related issues are A) the fact that many attempts to provide balance in Israel, are seen in light of the polarized, entrenched positions previously taken up in response to the Kulterkamf of Israeli society, going back to the Old Yishuv , and even previously, in response to the European Haskalah, and B) what effect militant secularists have on preventing necessary change(e.g., attempts to draft yeshivah bachurim, and the effect of the organization which sends charedim material containing questions of faith, with the goal to secularize them).

http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5764/5764summ/

Additional point- there are vast numbers of Charedim who do not use the internet. The opinions of many, many Charedim will never be seen on cross-currents.

Of those who are not Charedi, my guess is that the majority does have internet access. My suspicion (which cannot be proven, and thus will need to remain suspicion only) is that a good number of the lovely bloggers are indeed not Charedi.

This might explain the skewed balance of cross-currents.

A more interesting issue is a distinction between two types of criticisms. We can point out behavior that is objectively a problem (e.g. trying to live way beyond one’s income), and behavior that we do not agree with, but those who do it think it is fine (e.g. encouraging everyone to stay in kollel as long as they possibly can). It seems that people are much more agressive when making the second type of criticism (”How can they possibly think they are right?!”) then when they are dealing with the first (a less personal “the system can’t last”). It would be more appropriate to do the opposite. We can respect that they have their own opinion, however problematic it is, but we do not have to sympathize with any denial of reality. I think that comments of the second type are generally less useful, especially if they are just presenting the alternate opinion without trying to discuss the issues or to understand why the chareidim think differently. Such comments, with all do respect to the opinions they express, do not contribute to a discussion of the issues of the chareidi community. The more useful comments are those that explain why something is wrong, or at least point to an objective problem. Even better are comments that help us understand why there are problems, and suggest ways that things can be changed.

This post is difficult to respond to. It somehow challenges us to explain why we are so critical, which just leads to more criticism. I will still allow myself to suggest why I think people have a hard time defending the chareidi line. I think that the chareidi community [like most other communities] has not managed to develop a consistent hashkafa, that can be defended to those who do not believe in it. I can talk all day about how Torah is everything, and everyone who accepts that attitude will love it, but anyone else will just not understand what I want. Perhaps the chariedi attitudes are too axiomatic, so there is a chasm between those who do and do not accept the basic axioms. [The only alternative I know of that I belive does not have this failing is RSRH's writings on TIDE ]

Regarding the Israeli Charedi economic situation, one can argue that both reality and Hashem’s plan might very well necessitate that the community evolves into a more “balanced” point on the Torah Only vs. TIDE spectrum, while simultaneously acknowledging the role that toras eretz yisrael has played in preserving the Jewish people, and while also acknowledging the pain involved in changing, as in the quotation from the Alter of Slabodka(parenthetically, I don’t see any hashkafic problem with the vort, as long as it is presented in the spirit of “Hakadosh Baruch Hu medakdek im chasidav k’chut hasarah”, similar to the criticism of “kach onim es hameukos” concerning Yaakov’s dilaouge with Rachel, or even RSRH’s nuanced analysis of some incidents in Bereishis; ironically, it was in fact Slabodka, that was known for emphasizing the greatness of the Avos, and perhaps this had an influence on Rav Aharon Kotler who wrote about this topic).

Critics and questioners can take as their model Rav Shimon Schwab’s “These and Those” or the Seridei Aish and others, who did not ignore reality concerning these types of issues, but at the same time, certainly valued greatness in Torah(the quote about R. YY Weinberg on the OU website is that “[a student] had never seen an individual of comparable stature who admitted the validity of a question or criticism or acknowledged the insightful comments of students with such regularity”). Or one can take as an example, the statement made at the recent Agudah convention that “we have no complaint against anyone asking questions about our convictions, or even disagreeing — agreeably —with stances we have seen fit to take”.

I also feel similar to Rabbi Frazer’s(comment #37) point regarding the need for reciprocity of acknowledging another’s pain. Fair is fair—if non-Charedim need to see things from Charedim’s perspective as this post points out, then the reverse is true as well; there is danger in the attitude of “bittul”(the latter point has been made at two Agudah conventions). This includes, in my opinion, being respectful concerning Israeli secular memorial and independence days even if one doesn’t recognize them, being sensitive when referring to or writing about a more modern group’s Torah leaders, seeing something good in another group whose philosophy one generally rejects, and putting one’s self in the shoes of those whose legitimate needs are sometimes sacrificed for the greater good of Klal Yisrael, when a particular item or behavior is proscribed in a uniform manner. Hopefully, the pain of all groups will be transformed in the spirit of the Megilah– m’yagoen l’simcha u‘meveil l’yom tov.

Some commenters are so fixated on some Topic A (such as the badness of the group they don’t belong to) that every discussion thread ends up veering off onto Topic A. The Cross-Currents management is not as tolerant of apikorsus or chareidi-baiting as some, but these sneak through with appalling regularity.

Blogs often choose hot-button topics to get a good response, but often the only result is to get people more riled.

Baruch Horowitz has often suggested (as I understand it) some type of off-line forum to establish a really productive conversation among Orthodox bloggers (or ex-bloggers!) and decision-makers, and I hope this idea gets some traction.

The fact is, many of the most eloquent defenders of Chareidi Judaism (Bari, Jak Black, and others with whom I have been in contact) simply cannot stand the J-Bloggosphere any longer. It takes a truly thick hide to wade through the daily doses of hatred, vitriol, and heresy, hoping agaist hope to find the occasional pearl of real wisdom.

And this is, of course, beside the fact that Chareidim are outnumbered, even proportionally; it is usually the majority, the most shrill, or the ones with the most time on their hands that tend to “control” the discussions, rather than the voices of rationality and truth.

“Some of the Zionists mentioned would roll over in their graves if they ever found out that their efforts later enhanced Torah life in Israel. I assume that the hakaras hatov would not be owed to this kind of Zionist.”

Or maybe, given our understanding of what happens to us after death, they are dancing in their graves knowing the *truth* and our Hakat Hatov all that much more appreciated.

Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz zt’l writes in Sichos Musar that Amalek’s heresy, brazenness and hatred resulted from Avrohom Avinu rejecting Timna’s request that he accept her as a proselyte.

I think that no one would doubt that the Alter was an outstanding Gadol whose insights and statements continue to resonate in our current reality.

Let us all think carefully about what he said: namely that Yaakov Avinu did not feel the pain that he caused Eisav. Now, no matter how horrible our Jewish brethren might be, they are nowhere near as ghastly as Eisav was (or, alternatively, as Amalek does).

What I hear the Alter saying is that we all need to consider the pain of others, and in light of it strive to reduce it as we build our own lives and institutions. What this means is that Rabbi Adlerstein is absolutely right that non-Charedim (whether Dati Leumim or Chilonim) should respect what Charedim have achieved, and sympathize with the pain that significant changes would cause.

Similarly, Charedim should respect what non-Charedim (whether Dati Leumim or Chilonim) have achieved, and sympathize with the pain that they feel at being called on to shoulder both the economic and military burdens of Israeli society.

What we all need is a competition in being Mekadesh Shem Shammayyim through reducing the pain of those who are not “us”, and being seen by them as doing so.

Rabbi Chaim Frazer

“Do the chilonim give a moment’s thought that the productivity and existence of the State is anything but for the work of their own hands.”

This is a red herring which davka does not “cut both ways”. We have received incalculable concrete benefit from the work of their hands. This is indisputable. However, as Jews who are not as spiritually enlightened as we are it’s not within their frame of reference to think as you suggest.

The *some* Chilonim can’t see the intangible benefit provided by b’nei (b’not) Torah doesn’t in any way lessen our obligation to give thanks for what have tangibly received from them.

“As long as they won’t recognize the protection and even economic success that our (Chareidi, Daatei Leumi, etc.) learning and mitzvos – and ultimately Hashem’s kindness – provide, it is anathema to show any appreciation for their efforts.”

Such tit for tat mentality can only ensure further disunity, distrust, and animosity. The guidance of Torah should allow us to take the “high road”.