What Kind Of Headline Is “Chareidi Murderer”

It seems that Jews are more concerned with this than the increasing depravity among the secular Israelies, which creep into the Mizrachi spectrum.

Both are troubling but Mizrachi and secular spiritual decline is definitely worse, like a spreading cancer.

If this charedi man won a billion dollar lottery , would you have an issue with the headline?
Charedi man wins billion dollar lottery?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

I mean a Chareidi murderer is troubling, not the headline.

Agreed. More accurate to characterize him as a “Sick Animal Dressed in Charedi Lvush”.

To No. 1…..yes we are more concerned about a murderer than debating alternative lifestyles in EY. If it was your daughter who happened to be the victim, I doubt if you would be giving musar to the tzibur about Toevah lifestyles.

I hope to not have a daughter not attend a toeiva parade

Unfortunately, “Chareidi” has become an quasi-ethnic group complete with identification politics (see the complaints about Judge Freier) as has “Chiloni”. Rav Kook decried this in Massa haMachanot and wrote that it prevents teshuva as the former think that they are without sin and the latter think that a religious concept does not apply to them. IMHO, this may have been Acher’s mistake.

Although with my username CS I should clarify that this is highly unusual and is not the typical Chabad approach at all (to condone extremism in the name of kanaus). That’s why it stuck with me until today.

Yeah the Rav said it was an act of pinchas in shul the week after it happened

Would it be brave to say it if you disagreed with it, Joseph?

So, if ,as some commenters are maintaining, he is not chareidi by committing murder, then he doesn’t belong in the Torah wing of the prison, nor should he be allowed to have a beard or nonstandard prison garb.
You can’t have it both ways.

CS: How would you explain the difference between saying that Yishai Schlisel did an act of Pinchas versus saying that Yishai Schlisel is like Pinchas?

Joseph, I appreciate the compliment but I have not been attacked. I think the reason is that people find it unacceptable when they sense someone is out to look for the bad in other communities or enjoy violence and are eager to use Torah to condone extremism, cause conflict or strife, violence or judgment when in truth the ways of Torah are peaceful. In truth we are meant to overlook individual faults of others and focus on where we need to grow so that Hashem will look at klal Yisrael in the same light.

However sometimes urgent situations arise which may necessitate extreme actions, even cause conflict by taking a stand against what is popular and what the community pretends is fine when it isn’t.

Since there are such legitimate situations which are not ideal, people get all the more upset when people who just enjoy violence and conflict try to guise their own character flaw by finding a source in Torah to condone it.

Generally the Rebbe’s approach was not to condone extremism, conflict or violence (pinchas was a rare instance that happened once, not an everyday desert
occurrence), and the Rebbe constantly looked and empowered the good in every Jew and person although there were situations where the Rebbe had to take a strong stand against popular notions.

I and the others were quite surprised when we heard of the Ravs words, because he is not an extremist who enjoys violence / machlokes at all and is a very special holy person. Precisely because it was so out of character it opened us to seeing that this may be the truth in this situation, an exception to the usual rule.

Avik he was not referring to thus instance rather by the stabbing at the immoral parade in the heart of the holy city. Sorry I thought that was obvious. Glad I clarified.

Schlissel certainly believed he was following in the footsteps of Pinchas and doing a good deed. He was not wantonly killing to willfully indulge his yetzer hara to murder someone. He may have been misguided and wrong, and if so it is certainly his fault that he did not better educate himself, but how does this mistake make him not Chareidi?

It sounds like it is obvious to most of the posters here that there is no comparison between Schlissel and Pinchas, yet do any of you have a source which explicitly says that the halacha of “kana’im pog’im bo” does not apply nowadays? If not, what kind of acts would you agree do warrant someone killing the perpetrator of? If a prominent Jewish leader were to publicly and willfully have relations with a non-jew (exactly what Zimri did), and someone who is genuinely motivated leshem shamayim would kill them, would that be wrong? If so, how is that different to what Pinchas did?

He might have been wrong, but the abominable acts being committed by secular Israelis, which is slowly creeping into the “religious Zionist” spectrum, should make every religious Jew mad. Things don’t end pretty when people sin in the land if Israel. Review the last 2 parshas.

ChadGadya, see http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=53344&pgnum=236

According to Rav Charlap (Mei Marom Bamidbar vol. 11 p. 167)

עצם הדין שהבועל ארמית חייב מיתה אינו אלא בזמן שיש קנאים. שאלה מתוך הרגשתם בקדושת ישראל ורוממותם, באים לגלות את הקדושה הזאת, ומתוך זה מתחייב הלה מיתה. אבל כאשר אין קנאים, ואין כאלו המתעוררים על עומק קדושתם של ישראל, באמת אין הלה חייב מיתה. חיוב המיתה מכח הקנאי הוא בא, ולא מצד הבועל. ובזה מובן … כיצד היה מותר לו (=לזמרי) להרוג את פינחס, עד שאפילו לא יתחייב על כך. אבל לדברינו שחיוב המיתה בא דווקא כאשר הקנאים פוגעים בו ולא קודם לכן, נמצא שלפני שנהרג זמרי, לא היה הוא באמת חייב מיתה

In any case, the deed must be done in front of ten Jews exactly at the time of the deed (Rambam, Hilchot Issurei Biah 11:4). If the boel kills the kanai he is exempt from punishment. I would imagine that there would have to be a trial to determine if the killer is really a kanai. There might even be a determination by the authorities in their right and duty to maintain public order (mishpat hamelech) that no one today is on that level, as Rav Charlap suggests.