https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-do-israels-haredim-really-live-off-the-state-1001359942
In an election period, attacking the haredi orthodox community yields political gains, but the figures show the attacks are off the mark.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-do-israels-haredim-really-live-off-the-state-1001359942
The claim made against hareidim goes against Zionism.
ReplyDeleteThe Zionists always wanted Jews to come to Israel, and also politically, were worried about demographic threat of Arabs. Religious Jews have bigger families, especially in the hareidi and gush emunim sectors.
So in a not so obvious way, hareidim are contributing to the growth and security of the State, and paradoxically to the fulfillment of the Zionist program.
They also consume food, fuel, services etc. So they contribute tax to the government, as well as helping to employ people.
Income, even if part is from donations, is from benefactors who are multi millionaire or billionaires. So investment is coming to Israel, which may have stayed in the West.
Also, from each hareidi family there could be one or 2 kids who become modern or even secular.
It's easy to scapegoat the other, especially in times of crisis.
I wonder how the unemployment numbers break down between the Chasidim and the Yeshivish. Chasidim generally work. It's the Yeshivish that shout "Learn! Don't earn!"
ReplyDeleteI more than once pointed out to my hareidi hosts that the Talmud teaches that not being modern orthodox is theft ( not teaching a trade).
ReplyDeleteThe standard answer is that if the gedolim say it's OK, then it's OK.
But that explanation is not OK. For example, the majority of charedim do not accept heter mechira.
So is hareidism violating the oral law /Talmud?
Modern Chareidism(tm) works with by using contradictions and hoping you won't notice.
ReplyDeleteChareidism opposes religious innovation but is itself a religious innovation.
We are not allowed to question the Rishonim and Acharonim but the Gedolim can complete contradict them and tell us to do the opposite of what they say.
nonsense!
ReplyDeleteIgros Moshe (O.C. 01:109): This that you apologize for disagreeing with me in a halachic issue – this is totally unnecessary. That is because this is the way of Torah that it is necessary to establish the truth. Chas v’shalom to silence one who disagrees with you – whether he is being more lenient or more strict. [While there is a discussion about disagreeing in a formal court session Sanhedrin 36 where the court is deciding on the guilt or innocence…] it is not a problem to disagree with the gadol (greatest scholar) when he is saying something in the course of teaching the material or even if he is making a practical halachic ruling but he is not part of a formal court. We see this in many places in the gemora where students question their teacher’s view. … It is obvious in these cases the rulings were not part of a formal court session. Furthermore it is apparent that there is no one today who has the status of gadol for this law that no one can disagree with him… Therefore even if you consider me to be a gadol – it is permitted to disagree with me and consequently it is required that you express your opinion and there is no need to apologize. Nevertheless regarding the halachic question that was raised, my view -that I wrote that it is prohibited - is the correct one.
Igros Moshe (Y.D. 01:101): .... There is no question that we have the right even to disagree with Achronim and also on occasion with certain Rishonim when there are proper proofs and more important with proper reasoning. Concerning this and similar matters the gemora says that a judge can only make a decision based upon what he sees (Bava Basra 131, Rashbam). This is true as long as the ruling doesn’t go against the well-known poskim such as the Shulchan Aruch which has been accepted in all countries. This is what is meant by the saying that there was a place left to make a fence. And this is in fact what the majority of teshuvos of the Achronim do – they decide many practical issues on the basis of innovations. However it is important not to be arrogant in making rulings. Thus one should avoid using innovations when possible except in situations of great need and surely in situations involving aguna such as the case under discussion. Thus we are obligated to make a ruling if it appears to us that there is a basis for a heter. It is prohibited for us to show false modesty and cause a Jewish woman to be trapped as an aguna or to cause a stumbling block with prohibitions or even to cause loss of money. Look at Gittin (56) where it condemns the humility of R Zechariah for causing the destruction of the Temple! The obvious question is what does humility have to do with the destruction? Look at Maharetz Chajes who gives a proper explanation. This is exactly what we are concerned about. Thus we must make halachic rulings according to what appears correct with proper proofs and understanding – and in particular in cases of aguna like this – to save from this difficult situation.