About the war on Torah rhetoric, I agree with Plonis that it's aimed at the Supreme Court and other secularists who are not responsible for supporting yeshivos in the first place, but are responsible for the threat to draft yeshiva students and upheaval of the yeshiva world. Unfortunately, much of the non-chareidi religious have been recruited in support of the secularist cause, and although their intentions cannot be said to be anti-Torah, they are nevertheless unwittingly supporting the anti-Torah side. I am inclined to think it was probably a mistake for yeshivos to take government money in the first place, any money comes with strings attached, and now they have dug themselves into a hole that they will struggle to climb out from.
Even so, it's demonstrably not a "war on Torah" because there has never been a Supreme Court ruling that directly limits the amount of Torah any Israeli is permitted to learn. To my memory at least, it's **always** been about either the legal status of draft exemptions in the context of inequality before the law and about funding.
Sure, there's no shortage of individuals on both sides who have weaponized the legal issues for political reasons. And I suppose there might be leftists who - deep down - hate it when they see Jews learning Torah. But I've never seen a shred of direct evidence to prove it.
I think we are probably talking past each other. The rhetoric about war on Torah means anti-Torah actions by people who don't value the Torah (as opposed to the Religious Zionists, who do value the Torah, and are merely taking the wrong side). It's rhetoric, not a finely prescribed statement. I doubt there are many leftists who hate it when they see Jews learning Torah, but I'm sure almost all don't value it any more than, say, eating donuts (or even less). Whereas to us, it's our lifeblood, and somebody who treats it like donuts and takes action to harm our yeshivos in the name of equality is engaging in a "war against the Torah". This is especially since not an isolated struggle about the draft, but the secularists have taken anti-religious positions on countless other issues, ever since the founding of the State, and even before.
I appreciate the distinction you're making. But I still feel that, while "war on Torah" may not strictly speaking be all that incoherent when used as a metaphor, it cheapens discourse and invites terrible behavior (like diaper throwing and highway blocking). It's also irresponsible because many of the people who use that language should be aware of the consequences. And, as a community, we should develop a lot more emotional toughness when it comes to engaging with people who don't see everything quite the way we do.
Also, the scope and intensity of the anti-Torah policies and nastiness of the 1950s are long gone now. Things are far from perfect, but it's a different world.
I can't argue with that. I suppose if I lived in Israel, I could have a more informed opinion on what type of rhetoric is more expedient/appropriate, and which is less.
To me, the main question is what the chareidi yeshiva world will do in the future. It's clear that the current model of government support is at its end, whether one blames the "war on Torah" or anything else. I don't think bachurim will be so affected, as they are cheap to support, but I do forsee many more married chareidim going out to work, and much earlier- I predict we will see something closer to the American model. And if so, a lot of those people will probably end up going to the army as well (if the army is willing to take them).
I wonder if the change will come slowly or as a sudden "preference cascade" where thousands of yungeleit will feel free to talk about how they've been wanting change for years. I obviously have no clue, but I would love to be able to peer just a few years into the future.
I don't think being anti-welfare is a regular Torah value. Maybe a middas chassidus, like שונא מתנות יחיה. Nobody ever suggested that one is not allowed to accept gifts, and that's not what almost anybody does. It's a middas chassidus. I agree that practically speaking, it's not a good idea for our yeshivos to rely on secular government funding, as the Satmar Rebbe astutely observed (although it's a mystery to me why that only applies to the Zionists. As we see, it applies to New York State just as much).
It's definitely middas chassidus and not halacha. But I think the attitude is pretty deeply entrenched in mainstream Jewish thought. (עבד לוה לאיש מלוה and so on.)
It's true it's better to be self-supporting, but in a modern economy, nobody is even remotely close to that, so I don't think it's relevant to the question about kollel lifestyle. Especially since as the Tashbetz showed (against the Rambam), Chazal had a positive attitude towards support of Torah scholars, and it is only a middas chassidus for a Torah scholar to support himself, and only if he is able.
That's true. But it's not a binary choice, but a sliding scale: we're far better off minimizing our dependence **wherever possible.** The weaker our cultural memory of the "שונא מתנות יחיה" mindset, the harder it will be to orient ourselves properly to the ideal.
And I'm not convinced the Tashbetz is really arguing against the Rambam who, after all, did write: לא לשבט לוי בלבד...
Are you sure 30% funding cut means the other 70% is government support? For the Mir yeshiva, for example, more than 2/3s of the budget is by non-government sources. Are you sure that the rest of the Olam Hatorah is not like that?
I'm not quite 100% sure, but I think that's the simplest reading of the language on the posters etc. And, when you consider that the government only cut funding for the proportion of students of draft age (there are around 65,000 of them) the number also makes sense.
But it would be great if someone could confirm one way or the other.
"Exactly how is a government that still spends more than $200 million a year on charedi yeshivas and still fully supports Hesder yeshivas “at war against the Torah and Yahadus”?"
These are not mutually exclusive. The Canadian Govt (especially in Quebec) gives a lot of social support to Chareidi families, and at the same time does it best to secularise them, especially via the education system. Same with the NY State govt.
It has become increasingly clear the The Supreme Court in Israel is sovereign over the Knesset, and there is little doubt the Justices are at war with Yahadus and Torah. The hyperbole is aimed at them. It's true that there are factions in the Govt that are friendly to Torah and Yahadus, and Chareidim should perhaps make a greater effort to show their gratitude.
With regards to 'Toraso Umnaso', I'd suggest Igros Moshe Y”D chelek 4 siman 36, and שו"ת תשב"ץ חלק א סימן קמח - both of which allow for the current system of mass learners relying on others for parnassah.
> "These are not mutually exclusive. The Canadian Govt (especially in Quebec) gives a lot of social support to Chareidi families, and at the same time does it best to secularise them, especially via the education system. Same with the NY State govt."
At most, that might be characterized as a **culture war**. But the thing about culture wars is that, unlike the Nazis' war on the Jews, culture wars tend to be a lot less violent and bi-directional: both sides engage in the "war" with equal enthusiasm, bad faith, and bad middos. There may be exceptions where it's clear who the aggressor and victims are, but the leftist vs. charadi brawl is not among them.
And Quebec isn't a great example, because it provides near-complete funding for yeshivas so no frum kid needs to go to public schools - or, for the most part, even learn to speak French.
> "both of which allow for the current system of mass learners relying on others for parnassah."
The practice is certainly permitted. But, from a mussar perspective, it's also a huge בדיעבד.
ואם הוא חכם ששואלין אותו דבר הלכה בכולה תלמודא ואומ' ראוי למנותו פרנס על כל ישראל וריש מתיבתא וכל ישראל חייבים לגדלו ואם שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו דבר הלכה ואומר ראוי למנותו פרנס בעירו והם מגדלין אותו ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (שבת קי"ד ע"א).
It's clear that the most kollel/yeshiva yungerman are on the level of שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו and kal vachomer שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו
Actually, the Tashbetz himself (just a few lines down) writes that the way of talmidai chachamim is to greatly prefer NOT receiving support:
זהו חיוב הצבור. אמנם החכמי' והתלמידים אם נהגו סלסול בעצמם שלא ליטול ושיתפרנסו מיגיע כפם או בדוחק יש להם שכר טוב בעמלם וחסידות הוא להם ומוטב הוא להם שיבטלו קצת עתים מלקיים והגית בו יומם ולילה מלסמוך על הצבור במזונותם
Read that paragraph carefully. after first asserting that responsibility lies upon the public to finance the learners, he says that if they choose to work a bit, or bedochek, that is middas chassidus and better for them.
And indeed, many full time learners do do that, tutoring and other forms of working. Not all do.
The clear upshot is that the Chareidi leaders who have set the standard for most, are doing according to these Poskim.
As for a culture war - ערקתא דמסאנא is a stereotype of a culture war where not even an inch is to be given. But of course, bad middos should be avoided at all costs.
Public support of Torah institutions is a mitzvah derabbanan, at least. But I agree that people certainly do have interesting delusions.
"Pulling yourself up by the boot-straps" is a joke; we all need other people to accomplish anything.
Receiving tzedakah might be "embarrassing" because a person takes pride in being able to take care of themselves. But that doesn't compare to the shame heaped upon "welfare queens" and "lay-abouts" by American society. I was talking to a friend one time about levels of tzedakah. The highest, of course, is finding them a job, he said. "If you're saying that as a Jew, the way the Rambam meant it, absolutely," I said. "If you're saying it as a Republican, absolutely not." And he conceded.
About the war on Torah rhetoric, I agree with Plonis that it's aimed at the Supreme Court and other secularists who are not responsible for supporting yeshivos in the first place, but are responsible for the threat to draft yeshiva students and upheaval of the yeshiva world. Unfortunately, much of the non-chareidi religious have been recruited in support of the secularist cause, and although their intentions cannot be said to be anti-Torah, they are nevertheless unwittingly supporting the anti-Torah side. I am inclined to think it was probably a mistake for yeshivos to take government money in the first place, any money comes with strings attached, and now they have dug themselves into a hole that they will struggle to climb out from.
Even so, it's demonstrably not a "war on Torah" because there has never been a Supreme Court ruling that directly limits the amount of Torah any Israeli is permitted to learn. To my memory at least, it's **always** been about either the legal status of draft exemptions in the context of inequality before the law and about funding.
Sure, there's no shortage of individuals on both sides who have weaponized the legal issues for political reasons. And I suppose there might be leftists who - deep down - hate it when they see Jews learning Torah. But I've never seen a shred of direct evidence to prove it.
I think we are probably talking past each other. The rhetoric about war on Torah means anti-Torah actions by people who don't value the Torah (as opposed to the Religious Zionists, who do value the Torah, and are merely taking the wrong side). It's rhetoric, not a finely prescribed statement. I doubt there are many leftists who hate it when they see Jews learning Torah, but I'm sure almost all don't value it any more than, say, eating donuts (or even less). Whereas to us, it's our lifeblood, and somebody who treats it like donuts and takes action to harm our yeshivos in the name of equality is engaging in a "war against the Torah". This is especially since not an isolated struggle about the draft, but the secularists have taken anti-religious positions on countless other issues, ever since the founding of the State, and even before.
I appreciate the distinction you're making. But I still feel that, while "war on Torah" may not strictly speaking be all that incoherent when used as a metaphor, it cheapens discourse and invites terrible behavior (like diaper throwing and highway blocking). It's also irresponsible because many of the people who use that language should be aware of the consequences. And, as a community, we should develop a lot more emotional toughness when it comes to engaging with people who don't see everything quite the way we do.
Also, the scope and intensity of the anti-Torah policies and nastiness of the 1950s are long gone now. Things are far from perfect, but it's a different world.
I can't argue with that. I suppose if I lived in Israel, I could have a more informed opinion on what type of rhetoric is more expedient/appropriate, and which is less.
To me, the main question is what the chareidi yeshiva world will do in the future. It's clear that the current model of government support is at its end, whether one blames the "war on Torah" or anything else. I don't think bachurim will be so affected, as they are cheap to support, but I do forsee many more married chareidim going out to work, and much earlier- I predict we will see something closer to the American model. And if so, a lot of those people will probably end up going to the army as well (if the army is willing to take them).
I wonder if the change will come slowly or as a sudden "preference cascade" where thousands of yungeleit will feel free to talk about how they've been wanting change for years. I obviously have no clue, but I would love to be able to peer just a few years into the future.
I don't think being anti-welfare is a regular Torah value. Maybe a middas chassidus, like שונא מתנות יחיה. Nobody ever suggested that one is not allowed to accept gifts, and that's not what almost anybody does. It's a middas chassidus. I agree that practically speaking, it's not a good idea for our yeshivos to rely on secular government funding, as the Satmar Rebbe astutely observed (although it's a mystery to me why that only applies to the Zionists. As we see, it applies to New York State just as much).
It's definitely middas chassidus and not halacha. But I think the attitude is pretty deeply entrenched in mainstream Jewish thought. (עבד לוה לאיש מלוה and so on.)
It's true it's better to be self-supporting, but in a modern economy, nobody is even remotely close to that, so I don't think it's relevant to the question about kollel lifestyle. Especially since as the Tashbetz showed (against the Rambam), Chazal had a positive attitude towards support of Torah scholars, and it is only a middas chassidus for a Torah scholar to support himself, and only if he is able.
That's true. But it's not a binary choice, but a sliding scale: we're far better off minimizing our dependence **wherever possible.** The weaker our cultural memory of the "שונא מתנות יחיה" mindset, the harder it will be to orient ourselves properly to the ideal.
And I'm not convinced the Tashbetz is really arguing against the Rambam who, after all, did write: לא לשבט לוי בלבד...
Are you sure 30% funding cut means the other 70% is government support? For the Mir yeshiva, for example, more than 2/3s of the budget is by non-government sources. Are you sure that the rest of the Olam Hatorah is not like that?
I'm not quite 100% sure, but I think that's the simplest reading of the language on the posters etc. And, when you consider that the government only cut funding for the proportion of students of draft age (there are around 65,000 of them) the number also makes sense.
But it would be great if someone could confirm one way or the other.
"Exactly how is a government that still spends more than $200 million a year on charedi yeshivas and still fully supports Hesder yeshivas “at war against the Torah and Yahadus”?"
These are not mutually exclusive. The Canadian Govt (especially in Quebec) gives a lot of social support to Chareidi families, and at the same time does it best to secularise them, especially via the education system. Same with the NY State govt.
It has become increasingly clear the The Supreme Court in Israel is sovereign over the Knesset, and there is little doubt the Justices are at war with Yahadus and Torah. The hyperbole is aimed at them. It's true that there are factions in the Govt that are friendly to Torah and Yahadus, and Chareidim should perhaps make a greater effort to show their gratitude.
With regards to 'Toraso Umnaso', I'd suggest Igros Moshe Y”D chelek 4 siman 36, and שו"ת תשב"ץ חלק א סימן קמח - both of which allow for the current system of mass learners relying on others for parnassah.
> "These are not mutually exclusive. The Canadian Govt (especially in Quebec) gives a lot of social support to Chareidi families, and at the same time does it best to secularise them, especially via the education system. Same with the NY State govt."
At most, that might be characterized as a **culture war**. But the thing about culture wars is that, unlike the Nazis' war on the Jews, culture wars tend to be a lot less violent and bi-directional: both sides engage in the "war" with equal enthusiasm, bad faith, and bad middos. There may be exceptions where it's clear who the aggressor and victims are, but the leftist vs. charadi brawl is not among them.
And Quebec isn't a great example, because it provides near-complete funding for yeshivas so no frum kid needs to go to public schools - or, for the most part, even learn to speak French.
> "both of which allow for the current system of mass learners relying on others for parnassah."
The practice is certainly permitted. But, from a mussar perspective, it's also a huge בדיעבד.
On your second point, you must look at the sources I mentioned - it is absolutely lecatchillah (on a mass society level).
https://www.sefaria.org/Sefer_HaTashbetz%2C_Part_I.148.1?lang=bi
Here's an excerpt:
ואם הוא חכם ששואלין אותו דבר הלכה בכולה תלמודא ואומ' ראוי למנותו פרנס על כל ישראל וריש מתיבתא וכל ישראל חייבים לגדלו ואם שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו דבר הלכה ואומר ראוי למנותו פרנס בעירו והם מגדלין אותו ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (שבת קי"ד ע"א).
It's clear that the most kollel/yeshiva yungerman are on the level of שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו and kal vachomer שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו
Actually, the Tashbetz himself (just a few lines down) writes that the way of talmidai chachamim is to greatly prefer NOT receiving support:
זהו חיוב הצבור. אמנם החכמי' והתלמידים אם נהגו סלסול בעצמם שלא ליטול ושיתפרנסו מיגיע כפם או בדוחק יש להם שכר טוב בעמלם וחסידות הוא להם ומוטב הוא להם שיבטלו קצת עתים מלקיים והגית בו יומם ולילה מלסמוך על הצבור במזונותם
Read that paragraph carefully. after first asserting that responsibility lies upon the public to finance the learners, he says that if they choose to work a bit, or bedochek, that is middas chassidus and better for them.
And indeed, many full time learners do do that, tutoring and other forms of working. Not all do.
The clear upshot is that the Chareidi leaders who have set the standard for most, are doing according to these Poskim.
As for a culture war - ערקתא דמסאנא is a stereotype of a culture war where not even an inch is to be given. But of course, bad middos should be avoided at all costs.
Public support of Torah institutions is a mitzvah derabbanan, at least. But I agree that people certainly do have interesting delusions.
"Pulling yourself up by the boot-straps" is a joke; we all need other people to accomplish anything.
Receiving tzedakah might be "embarrassing" because a person takes pride in being able to take care of themselves. But that doesn't compare to the shame heaped upon "welfare queens" and "lay-abouts" by American society. I was talking to a friend one time about levels of tzedakah. The highest, of course, is finding them a job, he said. "If you're saying that as a Jew, the way the Rambam meant it, absolutely," I said. "If you're saying it as a Republican, absolutely not." And he conceded.