Differences between Chareidi and Middle Group
| Chareidi |
Middle Group |
| Anti-Zionist |
Non-Zionist |
| Speaks primarly Yiddish |
| Speaks mostly Ivrit (Modern Hebrew) |
|
| Does not recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel |
Recognizes, de facto, the existence of Medinat Yisrael |
| Does not participate in Elections or the political process; strongly criticizes anyone who does. In Municipal elections only supports Peleg Yerushalmi |
Strongly supports using political power to influence community needs. Political parties include Agudah, Poalei Agudah, Degel HaTorah, Shas, Yahadut Hatorah |
| Refuses to pay any taxes |
Pays Taxes |
| Absolutely refuses Army service |
Defers Army Service until after years in Yeshiva and marriage |
| Refuse Government Benefits |
Receive Government Benefits |
Table 2
Acceptable Standards for Women
| |
Chareidi |
Middle Group |
| Education |
Nothing beyond the most rudimentary |
Young women are schooled in a serious study of Hashkafa, Halacha, Tanach & other subjects, and given a basic secular education |
| Dress |
Shaved head or simple sheitel covered by hat |
Nice Sheitel or Tichel |
| |
No fashionable clothing |
Modest fashionable clothing |
| |
Black stockings |
Other color stockings as well |
| Public Behavior |
Never speak to the other gender in public |
Avoid speaking to the other gender in public |
| |
Never walk with wife in street or sit with her on bus |
May walk with wife in street, or sit with her on a bus |
| |
May not work in an office with men |
May, with caution, work in an office with men |
A Little History of the Middle Group in Eretz Yisrael
These
divisions inhered in the way 18th Century Gedolim saw the nascent
return of Am Yisrael to its homeland. Briefly, most of the original immigrants of
the Old Yishuv, the disciples of the Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov, saw
European Jewry on a spiritual downward spiral, due to the influences of the
Enlightenment and Reform, following the Shabbtai Zvi and Chemilniki
crises. They endeavored to build a
community that would be unsullied by external influences until the Final
Redemption, dedicated only to service of G-d. This ultimately developed into
today's Eida HaChareidis.
Those
who came later, particularly after WWII, did not share this vision. While clearly the Holy Land, Eretz Yisrael
was a place where self-supporting people were to live and participate in
society to whatever degree necessary.
They established non-Zionist, but also not Dati Leumi towns such as
Petach Tikvah, Chafetz Chaim, and Zichron Yaakov, and Jerusalem neighborhoods
such as Shaarei Chessed, Givat Shaul, etc.
Before
WWII, Agudas Yisroel was anti-Zionist, though not as virulently as Satmar. It was not so much opposed to forming a
State, but rather to the fact that the leading Zionists were too often
anti-Religious secularists, who were trying to change the identity of the
Jewish people from an Am HaTorah to that of a nation defined in relation to the
State of Israel. Furthermore, power in
the hands of the secularists threatened the ability of religious Jews to live
and educate their children in the ways of our Mesorah.
After
the Holocaust, of course, attitudes changed.
No longer could Zionism be ignored.
The survivors needed a place to go, and quickly. Most chose to go, if they could, to Eretz
Yisroel. After the State of Israel
provided a refuge for several hundred thousand Jews who Hitler had not managed
to kill, a different calculus prevailed.
It was patently clear to most that refusal to recognize the State of
Israel, and to not help assure protection its citizens, was absurd. It was possible and positive to live in the
State of Israel as a non-Zionist citizen, and as a matter of simple gratitude,
recognize those who, secular or not, had built the place of refuge.
Furthermore,
they recognized that Orthodox Jews could wield political power to great advantage
in procuring financial and governmental benefits, given the form of government
in Israel. Through Agudas Yisroel and
several other parties, non-Zionist
Orthodoxy served in the Knesset, and benefited enormously. Although it would be anathema for many
Chareidim to agree with this statement, it is self-evident that due to the
influence of Orthodox parties (including Mafdal), the State of Israel, through
its contribution of untold millions of dollars and benefits has been the greatest builder of Torah in 2,000 years, often despite itself.
What
Happened to the Middle Group?
In
any case, there developed a very clear demarcation between those who accepted
the new reality (MG), and those who insisted on a total rejection of the State
of Israel (UO). That difference was
evident until, approximately, the mid 1970's.
At that point things began to change.
For some reason, a monolithic group called “The Chareidim” appeared on
the scene that is really comprised of two very distinct groups that have become
intermingled and confused. How did
these groups became so intertwined? Why
has the great middle group virtually disappeared? Why did I awake one morning
and find that my family and I were now considered “Chareidim”? In truth, I don't know. Nevertheless, here are a few possible
factors:
ñ
The influence of certain Gedolim,
who leaned towards more UO views. In
particular, Rav Shach was most influential in Eretz Yisrael, while Rav Elya Svei championed Rav
Shach’s agenda in the USA. .
ñ
- The development of the idea of דעת תורה to heretofore unimaginable levels. I cannot address this important
topic here properly.
ñ The passion
and commitment to serious Avodas Hashem of the UO world. The levels of mitzvah observance, Torah
study, Chessed activities, etc. are
compelling. It is hard to adopt these
values while rejecting those aspects of Chareidi ideology that are unnecessary
for Avodas Hashem, given that they seem so intertwined in what one hears from
its leading expositors.
ñ The difficulty of being secure in a centrist
position, when people of great passion are promoting a more intense point of
view. Rav Joseph B. Soloveichik put it
wonderfully. “All extremism, fanaticism, and
obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an
extremist.”
ñ
An unchecked fear of the extremists. It is unfortunate that the creep towards
extremism continues primarily because of fear. I have heard first hand from
highly respected people about encounters with Gedolim who admitted to them that
they cannot take certain positions, or felt compelled to go along with various
statements, because of pressure from extremists. It is, or should be, a source of great
embarrassment to us that we are often left wondering whether a statement was in
fact authored by Gadol X, or whether it was the product of a cloistered elderly
man to whom direct access is highly restricted, and whose every pronouncement
is filtered through “spokesmen” who may not be accurately reflecting an
unbiased analysis based on access to a fair representation of all sides of an
important issue. I know that many people
will take exception to the previous sentence, but it is, most unfortunately,
the unvarnished truth.
Whether
it is these or other factors that caused the demise of the middle group does
not really matter. The point is that it
is now hurting Klal Yisroel greatly.
Something must be done so that those in the middle could have a
principled disagreement with the Chareidim, for the reasons listed below.
A Compelling
Problem
Even if within the
Chareidi world there is a sense that the two broad groupings have been somewhat
preserved, that is not how the outside world sees it. I could bring innumerable proofs for this,
but an interesting article entitled Where Do Israeli Haredim Stand on
Hareidi Violence by Uriel Heller
will suffice. He notes that there are differences
within the Chareidi world about the appropriateness of using violent methods,
as well as much condemnation of recent events in Bet Shemesh, but nevertheless “there appeared to be just one segment
of the Jewish community that was staying silent about the violence: Israeli
haredim. That’s because there is some ambivalence among haredi Israelis when it
comes to religious zealotry. ”
“The
question isn’t how many Haredim support Haredi violence and how many do not,”
said Menachem Friedman, an expert on Haredi life at Bar-Ilan University. . “The
problem is that most Haredim allow the extremists to act and do not stop them.
Some, perhaps a small segment, really do support the violence; some, perhaps a
larger segment, do not support the violence but understand the extremists,
believing that actions like these, even if they are not pretty, at the end of
the day are a true expression of religious sentiments. And the majority perhaps opposes the violence
and knows that ultimately it’s bad for Judaism but doesn’t have the courage to
go out and oppose it publicly."
Furthermore, “While
to an outsider all Haredim may look alike -- with their black coats, hats, and
beards -- the Haredi community is as fractured as the Jewish community as a
whole. In Israel, the Haredi community is divided between Ashkenazi and
Sephardic, Chasidic and non-Chasidic . . . “But in a world seen by
outsiders as monolithic, all Haredim inevitably are associated with the
extremism of a few, and haredi silence is seen as affirmation of haredi bad
behavior.“It’s something that may irk haredim who are engaged with the
outside world, but it doesn’t seem to matter much to haredim who aren’t.”
Indeed, one can open
any newspaper and understand that outsiders make few distinctions between
Chareidi Jews; they see one monolithic, negative group.
I
do not wish to be misunderstood. The
majority of both groups are good, fine, peace-loving people, who want only to
be left alone to serve the Almighty. If
each were left to follow their own way; if the extremists of the Chareidi group
were clearly לא משלנו
“not from our group”, (as is often said in Israeli circles about
perceived outsiders), less confusion would reign, both internally and
externally. As it is now when both
groups are considered – by themselves and all others – as “The Chareidim”,
several very negative consequences result:
ñ
Attitudes Towards Extremism
– Given that much of today’s Chareidi ideology is based on rejection of the
State of Israel and repulsion of Western values and the modern world, and given
that the dominant culture loudly exudes a very different message, extremist
rhetoric is common amongst the UO as a means of keeping people in line. The following comments and opinions are not
unusual in the Chareidi world today:
◦
The Medina is evil.
◦
Saying a prayer for the Medina, or
even the IDF, is a religious travesty
◦
Secular knowledge is foolish,
corrupt, useless and unholy.
◦
Secularists and non-Jews have
nothing of value to say – any attempt to engage them is fraught with spiritual
danger – and are less intelligent and less moral and ethical than “us”.
These
comments and values might seem harmless from the inside, but can only be looked
at with shock and dismay by those outside the group. Whether political pronouncements, comments
about other Rabbis or on a whole litany of issues, extremist rhetoric is
pervasive.
Unfortunately,
but predictably, extremist rhetoric on the part of the leadership will
encourage the fringe elements to engage in outrageous behavior. The Sikrikim
that caused so much trouble in Bet Shemesh and Jerusalem are a good example of
this. They always cite “Rabbinic
support” for their actions, with few serious Chareidi leaders daring to speak
out against them in a public and unambiguous way.
But
it is not just the hooligans that are disturbing. There is increasing extremism evident
throughout Chareidi society, including those who would never dream of
physically assaulting anyone. A prime
example was Shlomo Fuchs, the avreich indicted for hurling sexually
abusive insults at a female soldier who did not move to the back of the bus.
Several articles in his defense
claimed he is a
respectable scholar, with purportedly mainstream Chareidi views, who believes
it acceptable to call a woman an abusive name for refusing to move. His example is not atypical; I hate to say
it, but I believe that thousands of Chareidim, including many who might have
earlier been considered MG, agree with what Fuchs said and did.
This
is clearly not the way that the middle group used to be educated or conducted themselves. But it is a result, at
least in part, of the confusion between the camps, where the values of the more
extreme are now considered normal in the other.
ñ
Children - As should be fairly obvious, the ones
most likely to adopt extreme behavior and values are youngsters. They are the most impressionable; they tend
to see things in black and white without shades of nuance, and are easily
swayed by passion. Clearly, a confused
message sent to children, e.g. that the opinions expressed by co-Chareidim
Neturei Karta are acceptable, may lead to most unfortunate behaviors. It is not
uncommon for young people from homes that once would have been considered MG to
act in ways that would have abhorred their grandparents. For example:
·
Disrespect for anyone that is not
learning full time or otherwise engaged in Avodas HaKodesh. Simple, pious people are looked down at as
lower class, and not treated with common courtesy.
·
Ridicule of anything to do with
the State of Israel or its institutions, e.g. not standing silent during the
siren on Yom Hazikaron L’Challelei Tzahal.
·
For young boys, an air of
superiority over women, exemplified by telling them to move to the back of the
bus or out of their way with a dismissive, entitled tone. My sister, a grandmother, was seated near the front of a non-Mehadrin
bus with several packages, when several boys came over and shouted at her נשים אחורה!, apparently unaware that it
was not a Mehadrin bus (would it have been proper even on a Mehadrin
bus?). My mother, a great-grandmother, was asked by a Sherut
taxi driver to exit his vehicle when he found, after repeated attempts, that no
male passengers would ride in the taxi if she sat in the front seat, which was
necessary due to her medical condition. This is not unusual behavior.
·
A deep sense of entitlement when it comes to
Shidduchim. This is not the place to
describe all the problems of the shidduch “system”, but clearly one of them the
change in the expectation that a young man would ultimately be willing to
assume responsibility for supporting his wife and family. The demands on potential in-laws, the
assumption that it is the bachurim who must be sought after and that families
of young women must offer large sums for the privilege of being considered as a
potential zivug has caused untold sorrow
and difficulty, and is partly a result of changing values in this community.
·
Most tragically, incidents when Bachurim join
in demonstrations in which they shout “Nazi” or other terrible epithets at
other Jews who are trying to do their work as police officers.
Clearly,
if children from a young age see negative attitudes and stereotypes all around
them regarding anyone who does not hold exactly the same beliefs, values, and
modes of dress as they, let alone if they see the others vilified as enemies
and destroyers of Torah (i.e. anyone associated with the State of Israel or
Zionism), they will perpetuate and deepen this acrimony and שנאת אחים as they mature. This is not the way that we used to be
taught in the “middle group”.
ñ
Confusion regarding
Hashkafic & Halachic Pronouncements
– When
large public positions are taken in the name of “all Chareidim” (the usual
case), it brings a great deal of unease to those who do not identify with these
statements, and thus a denigration in respect for Rabbinic guidance.
A
recent case is illustrative. Much has
been written about the “Ichud Hakehillos” Asifa at Citi Field in May 2012. I attended a meeting of Rabbonim a few days
later, most of whom, in earlier times, would have been considered MG. Almost none of them had anything positive to
say about the Asifa. Rather, they were
deeply offended by statements there such as “All of Klal Yisroel, and all of
its Gedolim, are represented at the Asifa, and therefore our decrees are
binding on every Jew; thus if the proposed recommendations are not followed by
an individual, that person will lose their share in the World to Come”. Those recommendations included a total ban on the internet except for business use; yeshivos are not to accept children from a home with internet access,
even if filtered, etc.
This
is not the place to discuss whether those decrees are wise or necessary. However, it is clear from the reaction of so
many, including Rabbonim, that attempts to enforce draconian solutions
acceptable in the UO world will not succeed amongst many who consider
themselves Chareidim. This is a textbook
example of where two disparate groups, with markedly different hashkafot and
values are being asked to pretend that they are of like mind when reality is
quite different. How much better would
it have been had there been a true “Unity of Kehillos”, in which separate but
equal groups would come together, with each group finding its own way to deal
with what all would agree is the serious problem of unfettered internet use.
ñ
Media and Secular Jews – The problems in this area can hardly be
overstated. As noted above, whatever
distinctions people make for themselves internally are not recognized by the
outside world. Invariably, they write about “the Chareidim” en masse, ascribing
the attitudes and values of the UO to everyone include the MG.
Consequently,
one often hears in the press and from secular Israelis statements such as:
ñ The Chareidim are leeches on society – they refuse to pay taxes or
serve in the Army, while at the same time demanding money for Yeshivos, health
insurance and all other social benefits.
ñ The Chareidim engage in political blackmail – they hold coalition politics
hostage to their parochial concerns while not recognizing the legitimacy of the
State of Israel, and mock it on its most
sacred Days.
ñ The Chareidim are out of touch primitives who insist on living in the
past and refuse to contend with the
modern world, and yet they want the best cars, the finest medical care, and
refuse to compromise.
Obviously,
these are malicious claims. But it must
be understood that there is little that angers Israelis more than feeling like
a frier. (A frier in Israel is what in
America would be called a “sucker”, a naive dupe who is taken advantage of by
others.) They feel that they are being
taken advantage of by the Chareidim –
that they have done so much to provide for the Chareidim financially,
militarily, building the infrastructure that they use, etc. and receive no
gratitude in return, but instead constant ridicule – they are sick and tired
and want to stop being frier-im.
Several
years ago the Shinui party led by Yosef (Tommy) Lapid achieved instant
popularity. The Chareidi press portrayed
him as being anti-religious, and hateful of Chareidim. While that may have been true, it is clear to
me that his appeal was not so much that he was anti-religious, but rather that
he represented the point I am raising, i.e. that the secularists have been friers
for too long and his party was going to see to it that they would stop being
taken advantage of by the Chareidim.
It
will be interesting to see what develops as his son Yair Lapid has decided to enter politics with a similar
agenda. In a
recent article he wrote that his goal was to represent the middle-class and
prevent their money from being taken by the Chareidim. “Israel has been enslaved for many
years by members of a shameless, extortionist, special interest group - some of
whom aren’t even Zionist - who take advantage of our twisted political system
to steal the money of the working class”. Furthermore, “I have no interest in
hating Jews, just in dividing the resources better. I think Chareidi children must learn
the core curriculum and their parents should work. I believe that there are
many Chareidim who agree and would be happy to find out that there is someone
who will struggle against the extremist rabbis and hacks who embitter their
lives.”
The Chareidi parties are, I am
sure, gravely concerned at this development, as they well ought to be.
It
would seem obvious that the best way to counter these claims is to
differentiate between groups who have become conflated and confused in the
public mind. At a minimum,
it would be important for the Chareidi parties to state clearly and
loudly,
“We decry the terrible violence that has
gone on for too long in the name of Chareidi Judaism. We wish to make it clear
that we, the great majority of those who are called Chareidim, have deep
fundamental disagreements with the hooligan extremists. While we are not
Zionists, we recognize that the State of Israel is the homeland of the largest
community of Jews in the world and we pray and hope for its continued success
in providing peace, security and basic services for its citizens.
"As citizens of Israel, we pay taxes, engage in business, and are
grateful for the protection of the IDF and the police and recognize that with
all its faults, the state has made it possible for a tremendous renaissance of
Torah learning and observance. For this we are grateful.
"Please know
the hooligans represent only themselves and are a source of painful
embarrassment and anguish to us, and that we pledge to do all we can to ensure
they are ostracized in our communities. For us, authentic Judaism means living
in a way that sanctifies Hashem at all times, and that is what we seek to
achieve, above all else."
The
larger solution would be to publicly and clearly redefine and contrast the two
broad groups as being of a different mind and world view. It is patently ridiculous and unfair that
the great majority of the “middle group”, abhorred by what transpired in Bet
Shemesh, felt a need to defend themselves from the charge that this represents
them, after having been hurt so many times by that association. It is time that the secular media and public
understand that one cannot tar both groups with the same brush. Let those who
espouse certain views and condone associated actions live with the results of
their choices, while allowing the rest to follow a different path, unencumbered
by that association.
But what about Jewish Unity?
In
the inaugural issue of the late Jewish Observer, Rav Nachman Bulman זצ"ל penned an
important article “What Price Unity”, regarding relations between the Orthodox
and the non-Orthodox. In it he spoke of
the tension between the need for peace and unity among Jews, and the need for
clear distinctions when great matters of principle were concerned, citing Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, who
championed Austritt, the absolute right and requirement of religious
Jews to not be represented by those whose views were antithetical to them. Similarly, Rav Joseph B. Soloveichik in a
famous article described the distinction between כלפי פנים and כלפי חוץ , our internal vs. external disagreements. It is important to stand together against
external threats. But we must not be
cowed into accepting what we perceive as a distortion to our banner of
Torah. While in general Jewish
unity is vital,
our tradition teaches us that it is not always so. We need Achdus, but we also need havdalah,
when unity comes at too great a cost.
Conclusion
A
public identity is needed for what is left of the middle group called something
other than “Chareidi”, for those who no longer wish to be painted with the same
brush as are people with whom they share so few Hashkafic, ethical, political,
and even religious values. Until such
time, at least for present, I will have to self-identify as a non-Chareidi.
If only there was a way to
move things back to the way they were; where the Chareidim were the Chareidim,
and the others were comfortable defining themselves as something other than
that, many of the religious tensions might be resolved. It would restore the self-respect of many of
us who are ashamed of being associated with a group that defends, or is afraid
to effectively protest, the acts of hooligans who seek to define us. It would deprive the secular media a great
deal of the heft of their favorite punching bag. This article, of course, can accomplish very
little, other than hopefully raising an aspiration for like-minded individuals
to reclaim a sensible middle ground, for the sake of Heaven and the ultimate
goal of true Jewish Unity.
This
article does not purport to be academic; it is impressionistic in nature. I cannot claim that I have researched the
topic thoroughly, although it is the product of much thought, reading, and
conversation over many years. But I
believe that it raises a very important, and not much discussed, aspect of
religious tensions in the Orthodox world.
Of
course, nothing is simple in Jewish life.
Some defied categorization such as Lubavitch, although they tend to the
MG. Moreover, several leading Gedolim
were somewhere between the Chareidi and middle camps, notably Rav Yitzchok Zev
Soloveichik, who was anti-Zionist and against participating in the government
while having great influence on Agudah, and the Chazon Ish, also anti-Zionist,
who met with Ben-Gurion and was extremely interested in the religious pioneers
developing the land, authoring many landmark halachic decisions to help them.
It is probably also true that Rav Shach was the most influential Gadol in moving
MG to positions formerly held only by the Chareidi group.
There
are a number of people in Israel who refer to themselves as חרד"ל or Chareidi Leumi, who are probably the closest to the
position described herein.
Unfortunately, without going into the pros and cons of Chardalism (a new
term), חרד"ל are viewed by most others as a small group of those
who fall “between the cracks”, and are not players in the larger politic of
Jewish life in Israel or the Diaspora.
Furthermore, the חרד"ל-niks in general have more
pro-Zionist views than most people in the former middle group are willing to
adopt, certainly those associated with Agudas Yisroel. This is not where the center of gravity of
the middle group that I am missing belongs.
