Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Haimy on empirical studies –
you have to be careful extrapolating statistics from average population with 1.5 kids per family where parents are not involved with kids and kids watch whatever they want online with, byh, large families with dedicated families.Just a practical thing – many families got a chance to discontinue medications that schools required kids to take and the kids had a chance to learn how to function on their own. Not all families used that chance, of course. Some doubled down so that kids do not bother them too much.
If we learned anything from the last century, we should be humble in our (collective) ability to predict what will happen in the world, and we should be observing and reacting to what is happening, trying to do it together rather than fighting each other. Nobody won cultural and religious wars of 1930s Poland.
YYA, I agree on polls especially on such specific edgy issues. Still, there are some core convictions that people hold pretty steady. It might look “ironic” and frustrating that 5% of people who change their minds based on some silly news article decide elections, but it is really part of the “mechanics” of a modern democracy. Given that politicians have more information about voters than other way around, we usually get roughly two competing groups, each of them is capable of calculating a set of competitive positions that add up to about 50% of votes. So, they fight for that remaining 1% and everyone is focused on that, but the bottom line is that we get a government that is reflective of at least 45% of population if you disregard hot topics. In essence, the system works such that both candidates are acceptable. This is way better than what Chinese or Iranians get. We should be modeh on that. In US, you can see the other alternative – in state and city elections, you get non-competitive 70-30 elections, leading to corrupt and lazy governments. Or fractured elections, where an extreme candidate get enter without having large support (see Weimar Republic and NY City).
But, the original question was whether Israeli SC will be able to overcome a large majority opinion of public or they are truly stiffling of democracy, as muslim overseers are in Iran. I don’t think we decided this one way or another. Maybe like yir hanedahet this never happened yet. Then, the best way to check, as I mentioned before, try to take a position that large majority of Israelis support (if this even possible) and see how it goes. Just saying – SC will overturn it anyway, we should not even try, is a childish position – used to excuse irresponsible behavior.
Right, is it a given that kids need to be in company of similar age kids, so that they learn things from each other? The class based learning is simply to enable teachers to say a lecture to multiple students at the same time. Something that technology already solved. Maybe a kid can benefit more from being around mature adults plus siblings?
rambam’s brother chose to become a merchant. He was raised in the same family as Rambam, so surely he had an option to zitz and learn.
passport taken away – I already quoted a sefer that if the czar knew how valuable Torah learning is, he would put a soldier with a bayonet near each Yid, and when the Yid gets distracted by reading YWN, the chayal will kick him with the bayonet.
YYA, right, that is why I asked whether anything changed in last 6 months.
I don’t see better answers. I also see Israeli trust on courts being consistently low for number of years without much change. It might be that any change that increases confidence of some part of population, it decreases confidence in the other.Here are a couple of tidbits I found:
gallup collected in Jul-Aug 2025:
confidence in courts 43% (v 46% a year before) – all at the expense of Bibi’s supporters (fell from 47% to 37% in a year)israeli voice index – confidence in democratic rule in mid-40s for last 15 years
I am obviously further away from the events, but I also have contact with all of these groups. Our town has representatives of all, maybe except NK, BH.
I agree on differentiating between simply using secular knowledge and getting involved in research. And also that there is a lot of bad stuff in and around science. If you are interested in psychology, start with works by R Twersky. In economics or game theory, start with Prof/R Aumann. You can probably find a kosher scientist in any area š
The first issue is more of a social one – what can we introduce into our homes without generating negative effects.
The 2nd one is also of two parts: applied research and “real” research. Applied research is similar to to simply “using” secular knowledge, except this “usage” happens at professional level – developing better iphones is not much different from using iphones.
As to actually participating in science as Jewish thinkers (as opposed to just being Jews who do science) – R Hirsh highlighted probably two most significant persons – Rambam and MM (or RAMAD as Hasam Sofer calls him – Rabbi Moshe from Desau). R Soloveitchik studied philosophy and tried to integrate it with his Jewish views, but I don’t think he is known in philosophy outside of Jewish circles. Maybe Einstein can be counted – it seems that his complex formulas were guided by a principle that the whole world needs to be described by one set of equations. His rejection of quantum physics was based on “God does not play dice”.
I found an interesting story reported by R Moses Schick in response to rumors that he saw Hasam Sofer throwing MM’s Biur to the ground. He says the real story was that Hasam Sofer was giving a dvar Torah at his house while visiting and asked for Chumash to quote psukim. Rav’s other chumashim were in shul and he had only Biur in the home. Knowing HS’ attitude, someone told him that “there is no chumash in the Rav’s house” … when HS later commented to someone about lack of chumashim in Rav’s house, Rav Schick explained to him what happened and explained that he is basing himself on another Gaon who studied Biur [maybe R Akiva Eger? AAQ]. R Schick also said that he went through whole chumash and did not find any problems. Hasam Sofer referred him to a particular verse in Devorim [presumably 2:10-12].
I agree that R Hirsh insists in primacy of Torah v science. What unites him with MM, I think, is the strong position that Torah can co-exist with modernity, that we can speak the language of scientists – at the times where so much scientists were attacking religion. I’ll take it as homework to look at what R Hirsh thinks of Kant and of relationship Torah v science. I can only recall his grandson R Breuer saying that Kant came to the border of Judaism but did not cross in.
My suggestion on MM and Kant was that MM had a first-hand exposure to what the new ideas are. So, he could predict what these ideas will do to Jews unprepared to meet those ideas (as R Hirsh discusses about Avraham raising Yitzhak near Gerar to get exposure to the non-Jewish thinking). This is my sevorah, not something I can proof from texts so far, but it makes sense (to me).
YYA, on R Hirsh on MM, I would have to ask you to trod to sefaria and read the 18th letter. It is not long. I posted new threads twice, once with my comments, 2nd with just quotes from R Hirsh, but this did not show up. I hope it is because of MM name in the subject, not because R Hirsh is not frum enough. I’ll be interested in hearing your opinion on that. He indeed criticizes, as you are suggesting, both Rambam and MM for not making Torah primary viz-a-viz sciences.
Interesting you mention lubavitch. I heard the following moshal from a chabad rabbi, not sure what the origin is: an assimilated Jew came to MM and said that he almost succeeded at emancipating himself from Judaism, but sometimes he has very severe doubts that make his life hard – and asked for an advice how to deal with these doubts. Sure, said MM, here is a simple advice: in the morning do natilas yadayim, then take this water that has tumah, and drink it. And this will help you rid of the doubts. The Yid did that and indeed had no more doubts! Then, he thought about it and realized that this means that the tumah that he drank was a real thing, therefore … etc. So, he did teshuvah, and, indeed, never had any more doubts, as MM predicted.
This story probably summarizes at the uncertain place of MM in Jewish history.
Katan> What other opinions?
Stop pretending that R Elchonon is the only Torah opinion. As I mentioned, please consider Chofetz Chaim’s opinion, including his apparent lack of statement on some topics.
YYA, MAG is a good example: a quick check shows a poll 6 months ago – 41% for, 42% against, 17% unsure. Did this change by now? Maybe
If not, this is something you feel everyone is against because everyone around you is against …
This phenomenon is attributed to a Manhattan (Democratic) socialite: how could Nixon win the election, I don’t anybody who voted for him!SQRT> Reb Yaakov: The Life and Times of HaGaon Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky by Yonason Rosenblum, based on the research of Rabbi Noson Kamenetsky (chapter 11, page 209), Mesorah Publication
I noticed lately a couple of books “based on” R Nosson’s work. I did not check how good the secondary sources are, but I highly recommend the original work by R Nosson. It is full of well-researched details that should give you an unbiased of the times.
YYA, good questions.
R Hirsh does not necessarily sees his times as unique, he traces MM approach back to Rambam (both in positive and in criticizing both of them).I think you are over-simplifying when saying that R Hirsh came to the rescue, while MM created problems. Chacham einav b’rosho. MM saw first-hand the new questions and tried to answer.
And, btw, this is a typical thinking error people do in their lives: they consider the benefit v price of a possible action, but they do not consider the costs of inaction. (true if the options are similar, then shev vlo taase might be legit). In this case, all others who criticized MM provided help to a limited number of Jews who were willing to fully isolate, but did not provide any help to the rest. It is not only reformim and assimilations who are at fault for what happened to those Jews, but also those in the leadership who did not provide an alternative (say, something similar to what R Hirsh provided a generation later). Again, I am really “blaming” leaders of that generation, but trying to explain from our later knowledge what the options were.
R Soloveichik observed something similar in US 1940s – he was talking to american-born children of immigrants and answering their questions, observing that their pitiful choice between american reform clergy and NY European rabbis that could not relate to them.
Haimy, I think you are right, but do we do with “one who saves one person, saves the whole world”?
I think it is possible to raise a kid with just his family and online chevra. I talked with one rav who went to a far-flung place some decades ago but could not stay there for a long time. He said that he was in shluchim homes in such places now with online schools and the kids seem to be doing fine. It may be things are more challenging in mid-sized towns where kids of shluchim get involved with other Jewish kids, including other chabadnikim, and many are not doing well.
YYA, I agree with most of you posted. And with NP that R Hirsh had more aspirations for modernity than just save Yidden from it.
a couple of comments:1) Some things may be hard to judge from historical perspective: we might think that Jews were not yet influenced by modernity during MM times. He might have seen it differently – first, he was among the more modern ones, 2nd, he might have seen where things are going. For analogy (hey, you went to skiing) – suddenly in 2025 everyone is talking about effect of “AI” on human condition. Those who worked in the area had these discussions for about 50 years already. So, with MM not just being exposed to “universities” but talking directly to Kant, surely saw better what is coming.
2) R Hirsh explains his view on MM in the 18th of “19 letters”, including where he thinks MM made mistakes. I tried posting, it did not appear, I’ll try again. His view is clearly NOT that MM was doing something wrong, he just did not reach correct derech.
3) we recognize that Goyim have chochmah. Modernity brought that chochmah to new levels. T’Chachomim were always interested in Chochmah. Should we ignore it? I understand that we may not want to introduce medical studies in yeshivos, but should we at least integrate that cochoma in our behavior – use technology, measure our students with standardized tests, use psychology to improve learning …
4) Abstract for a minute from a need to protect ourselves from danger. Do we have any responsibilities in this world besides learning? Avraham thought so. R Soloveitchik suggests that “if we claim to know the truth, then we should not hide in the caves”. I presume most of opposition to this come from the “protection” paradigm – that then expands into justifications why we should not. What do you think?
Katan> [REW] And that was universally accepted because it is the simple truth.
it is not a problem that you are respecting REW &Brisker shitah, but it is a problem that you are rejecting other opinions. We just discussed that REW’s teacher Chofetz Chaim did not seem to publish against same groups that REW did. Why don’t you follow Chofetz Chaim and write about some of the topics that were dear to him?
yankel, I am not well versed in SC decisions beyond a couple of the ones in the news –
please give me an example where SC ruled against a large majority of public opinion.yankel, I meant that Rambam had no problem with his brother “driving” to dangerous places, but YYA clarified already – this is only about unmarried bochurim.
Maybe this is where roshei yeshivos and haverei knesset can find common ground: both would prefer students to be really studying and they can both agree with taking driving licenses/passports away. Bonus for yeshivos, they don’t have to take these measures, medinah will do it for them.
participant> I should have better pointed out Trumpās tariffs causing inflation
I suggest going to your local library to peruse WSJ. It has a lovely discussion over last several months on whether this is actually the case. Turns out:
1) empirical data is inconclusive
2) tariffs are not static, they are being updated as we speak, many are being reduced and effect changes
3) and, most obvious, it is pure avoda zora to worship just one part of the issue. The tariffs are in place to (a) change long-term economic relationships, (b) affect power relationships with enemies.yankel> not the extreme voters , but the voters in the middle … the power does not lie with the voters anymore
baruch shekevanti. Your attitude has very serious implications – you feel you deserve power (you live in a “modern democracy”) but you are denied your “rights” by the evil entities. Note that this was not a thing pre-modernity – as YYA argues, Jews have a lot of experience surviving under dictatorship. Indeed, one can argue that we have the best score here over centuries. So, your attitude is very “modern”.
So, when you feel self-righteous and entitled – then what are you supposed to do? Maybe you can clarify what is your other options if you don’t want to pursue your goals democratically.
Possible “solutions” go back at least to Dostoevsky (“if there is no G-d, everything is permitted”) – who traces it back to Napoleon; and to marxists – working people are permanently “exploited” therefore they need to destroy everything to save it. The dumb-down version for US it is “no justice, no peace” …
But I wonder whether you can demonstrate that you are indeed right – do you have examples where Israeli SC blocked significant super-majority?
YYA, funny. Notice the clickbite does not say “VP”. That is why it is important to use correct titles – Mr, Mrs, PhD, JD (sic!) Sen, VP …
I believe there were cases in US elections where the other side launched independent candidates with same or similar name as the sitrah ahera.
MK Porush > Not to abandon children aged zero to three to unsupervised daycare centers or family daycares without any regulations or safety guidelines.
Where are all anti- and non-Zs protesting this invitation to deliver our precious babies to the Zionist state?! From age ZERO – worse than the Teimeni affair.
This sounds like he is advocating state supervision of the daycare centers, but I would presume he is really demanding the state to pay for all daycare and schools and not much state supervision.
> Court emphasized that promises of future legislation cannot serve as an excuse for nonaction today.
this sounds like a straight legal ruling. How can one argue with this, whether you agree or not with the previous actions. Hopefully, this will lead to a faster agreement on the new law.
YYA> Those regimes didnāt exist in ā48.
And, again, like in Europe, zionist movement acted in advance of the danger. Whether it is their political wisdom, siyata d’shemaya, random luck (that we do not believe in, I presume) – I do not dare to speculate, but we need to acknowledge the facts before trying to analyze.
Comparison w/ Latin America is strange. Most dictatorship there count thousands or at most 10s of thousands victims, nothing comparable to 100,000 and more of victims in almost each arab country. And I dont know any sephardi, even most charedi ones, who contemplate moving back to any of the arab countries to avoid Israeli or American decadence.
I am not even sure this denial of what happened with sephardim is germane to defend your position overall, it sounds like you just don’t want to give any credit to people you don’t like.
An interesting question about “culpability” of Jewish leaders at the time. I absolutely recognize great things many rabbonim did at the time creating asnd preserving certain communities. Same goes for more modern cases of Israeli and American charedim. At the same time, so many Jews assimilated at the time – conventional thinking is to blame Reformim, MM, “the times” … but surely we can also contemplate why rabbonim of the time were able to save only small minority.
In theory, all institutions we have now – schools, communities, bays yaakovs, a yeshiva year in EY, moetzes … could have been implemented at the time.
More realistically, R Hirsh’s and R Salanter’s approaches might have worked in 18th century Germany. The approach that was used (and still used by some) is to preserve saving minority by abandoning the rest, as is done on submarines where the safe sections are sealed off from the ones that are already damaged even if there are people still there.I am in no way “blaming” those rabbonim from my “hindsight” position. But the objective result was far from perfect and we should not discard efforts of those who tried to save the remaining Jews through other means.
YYA, you also helped me clarify why Lubavitcher Rebbe (a pioneer of “kiruv”) and, l’havdil, AAQ do not like the word “kiruv” – not only it is too presumptuous that you are closer to Hashem that the recipient is (that I understood before) but also that all you need to guide the recipient in your own derech – you need to help him discover his own derech. Sounds a little new-age, sorry for that.
YYA, thanks for a long exposition on MM. Your explanation of Biur is new to me, but sounds plausible, and I am aware of the rest. I think your reasoning shows where we look at things differently: you presume that the only possible type of interaction of a frumer Yid with modernity is “kiruv” – that is we just need to show “them” how wrong they are. Hadash asur min haTorah, to quote the MM antagonist. Others, that I think include MM, R Hirsh, R Soloveitchik and l’havdil AAQ, think that we need to address the changing world – as did all generations of Jews and other tzadikim. Adam worked the fields instead of remembering the life in gan eden; Noah built the ark and took care of the animals instead of writing memoirs about the destroyed world; R Yohanan b Zakkai predserved what he could instead of ignoring presence of Romans. As R Soloveitchik writes, if we claim to have Hashem’s Truth about Life, we should not be hiding in caves. (I am ignoring here cheap ideas of Reform and such as “adaptation” to modernity, I am talking of true Torah response).
So, from this POV, German Jews were on the way to modernity one way or another. Hasam Sofer saved some in Hungary, but, to my knowledge, had not much effect on his native Frankfurt. Only R Hirsh did. So, my imperfect understanding is that MM tried to find compatibility of his Jewish views and his views of modernity. I am in no way saying that he had success, I am saying that he made an honest effort. And he was in a good position for the effort – both solid Jewish background, personal integrity, and advanced understanding of modernity (Kant was the major figure of Enlightment and he had great respect for MM). Besht indeed was born earlier – but he did not have direct contact with modernity. Even R Salanter, way later, said at some point that he can not do much for Litvishe Jews as they are sliding down the slope, and he sees more hope in talking with a French professor who is at the bottom but is at least stationary.
agree with the complainer, sheheyanu. Even for me, it is very startling to see YYA saying such apikorosus until I realize he is stam quoting AAQ. H’V others will think you wrote that and your einekels will have problems with shidduchim, H’V. Use “” or >>
YYA> If Stalin ××דש would have been OK with that, then we would have been OK with him.
Abraham Hershel wrote about German Jews who would be ok with nazis except that nazis rejected them – in the 1930s in a nazi-censored publication. He wrote a “historical” article about Sephardi Jews who were kicked out right before Spaniards went into Americas and showed some brutality there. He concludes – it is better to be a victim than a perpetrator… I know you did not mean that, you just hoped to live as a dhimmi, but I could not miss a chance to reference this idea.
Maybe you can pursue your logic further – if you would be ok to live under commies (more realistically, an oppressive but non-ideological czar), then you should be at peace living in modern Israel. After all, you always have a chance to go to a neighboring country, like Jordam and now even Suria. As only several crazies tried doing that, it means that most of charedim appreciate zionist protection.
YYA> The Chareidi parties as a matter of principle donāt interfere in issues not related to Torah and Mitzvos.
again, agree. This started when observant Jews were a minority – and over time, this position shifted, with stronger community and friendlier government after 1977. There were reasons given to to those shifts. It is not inconceivable that when your leaders see a good reason to be further involved, they will.
Maybe you can use R Soloveitchik’s shitah in US that allowed cooperation with non-O and other religions on social issues, but no compromise or even discussions about religious issues.
YYA> Most of those groups despise the SC Deep State, for their own reasons.
Exactly, with the caveat of “most”.
> They donāt fear or even care about public opinion, because they arenāt elected and can do as they please,
This seems to be the key, necesssary, part of your position: SC has absolute power, thus Israel is not a democracy and there is no way around it. Therefore, we need to fight against the state. I do not agree. I don’t know how to prove that. From what I am reading, (1) SC is trying to prevent reform that weakens institutions and general character of the state, however imprecisely defined. It seems that updated version of judicial reform are sensitive to this concern and keep in place various supermajority requirements. So, this might pass the future reviews and is also, in my humble opinion, a healthy thing. (2) SC itself recognizes that major changes can be accepted when they are a result of compromise/super-majority between different groups. I don’t think I can absolutely “prove” it to you, just providing some basics for bitachon if you wish to indulge.
A better argument is Trumpian “what do you have to lose” argument (that he used to call Blacks to vote for him, and some of them heard him). Try forming a super-majority coalition and see what SC will do. Either it will work or it will not – in the latter case, an even larger part of population will be on your side in any of your arguments against the “elite”. So win-win. But, no – it is much easier to simply declare that you live under dictatorship and do nothing .. “the lion is outside”
YYA 2 SQRT> You made an outrageous claim in the name of the Chazon Ish,
He was transparent, quoting a specific article. there is no indication that he tried to mislead anyone. It would be great if people simply add other information they have.
Haimy> doesnāt need Chareidim to survive.
This might be so from your point of view – we are busy learning Torah and “they” can do the army. And we are not well-trained anyway!
I think you should also try to understand other positions of your brothers: they experience the hardship and they do not appreciate that a portion of population refuses to participate.Our ideal of zevulun/yassachar partnership (in that order) is a contract that both sides sign. You can’t force it on the zevulun. Maybe you can teach him and show him your erliche behavior and then some people might sign up.
Thinking of that – mabe we can organize “zevulun bank” – every Israeli can sign up to do extra military duty and those who do not serve will assign a learner who can partner with him (and maybe share some things they learned)?
Haimy, first could you bring those quotes from Chazon Ish and R Kanievsky? Printed material often are from politically motivated sources from both sides: one claims that all Rabbis were against the state because they support that and others claim that to denounce them. It would be good if we show real respect to talmidei chachamim by learning what they actually said!
That said, it is not clear that modern Israel is in some sense “worse” than before. True, the external sakanah at that time was apparent, but also the people in power were in large part very anti-religious. Right now, a majority of Israelis are positive towards Judaism and anti-religious group is smaller in numbers.
yankel> a driver license for a yeshiva bachur, is an opening to many āother thingsā where his mind could be, and should not be
See R Hirsh’s opinion that full isolation leads to lack of immunity (I presume he writes about it not theoretically but pondering how so many people went OTD in his generation). So, if you start with isolation, then you logically come to this conclusion that having a driving license; maybe having legs that can move you around; having eyes and ears are a source of danger. You don’t have to agree to R Hirsh’s approach yourself but at least you might agree that his opinion is a legitimate Torah approach and thus, maybe, some people, some place, could try it out.
YYA> the way, the Gemara there, and hence the Chazon Ish, ISNāT talking about ×Ŗ××××× ×××××, ONLY about a Chosson during Shana Rishona, or someone who built a house or planted a vineyard.
Thanks for providing context to the quote. Things should be quoted in context. This raises a question about halochos of talmidei chachamim.
I was recently learning a teshuva by Noda Bin Yehudah about a “hoshuv” “learning” person in his time getting entangled into inappropriate relationship with his no-less-hoshuv in-laws and then asking for leniencies based on his status. I asked why certain points in the teshuva do not match what gemorah assumes of talmidei chachomim and maggid shiur suggested that clearly Noda bin Yeuhudah does not consider these gemoras applicable to people in his generation.
yankel> rambam writes that to truly acquire the crown of torah , one should not take his mind of the torah towards other things
can we look in detail at this citation? Clearly Rambam was not against having a driving license – he was supported by his brother, a merchant.
To the esteemed chevra trying to convince me that you can’t find common language with the HCJ. I am not asking you for that. Maybe R Kook could have done this, maybe not, but this is not what I am suggesting.
I am suggesting finding common position with others that are close to you, not the furthest enemies. With non-charedi religious Jews; with traditional sephardim; with political centrists, who can be convinced with the argument that HCJ stiffles democracy; with Russians whose anti-religious views are shaped in several generations by their prosecutors .. and I am not talking necessarily about their leaders, as most politicians are driven by self-interest, but by the voters themselves – find positions that unite you all. They might require some compromises – not of the Torah as you suggest, but of politics.
Those who talk about r Schach responses to idf, is this your personal knowledge or you saw it in print?
Mickey, you can be justified in being suspicious of an academic author, but he is not a rando, he is writing about Orthodox jews for quite some time. It would help if you can point to his specific mistakes and what is a better source.
Also notice that this was an article quoting the professor, not everything in the article is a direct quote. So you will be better off reading his original articles or books.
Theu are different people, one is triggered by just one topic while the other one responds to multiple topics albeit in a similar manner.
I am confused with responses here: some deny chazon ish would let anyone into the army, others saying that army changed, then a hint that this material is correct but there is something else. Why is it so hard to bring up relevant information from the most famous leaders?
I think some disrespectful sentences inop are not from Prof. Brown but from the article, follow quote marks. Professor is at Hebrew University and is studying various charedi and general Orthodox topics. There is 2013 lecture on chazon ish on yutorah.
Yya, I understand your argument and I don’t defend anti religious activities. Still, your defence of Arab regimes is a sign that there are weaknesses in your position. The idea that it was ok for jews to live under “secular ” socialist dictatorships is very insensitive. Those regimes prosecuted a lot of groups not just zionists.
It is a difficult question why zionists were zoche to understand the dangers of 20th century and others tragically didn’t. I am not proposing theological explanations, just suggesting we look honestly at the facts. Note that zionists were not always so proactive. It took them some time before they stood by jews in the soviet union, who were in harder and longer suffering than Sephardim.
Yya, I am saying that in order to achieve a reform, you need a support of supermajority. If your current attempt to change is supported by 51% vote, it might not happen. Don’t get bogged down in details of who voted for what and what was blocked. Try to create a position that unites more people around it. That might mean changing yours a little bit. It is not easy, I understand. It is easier to say, like Yankel does- we are going to fight each other our way, don’t interfere with your lessons from other places. Then take the lessons from the times of BM2 and how it was impossible to stop all groups fighting each other.
Yya, I am glad that you criticized just one person on my list! Or maybe you are just starting.. the reason Mendelssohn is first on the list is because he was earlier. I believe r Hirsch is respectful of him, if I recall correctly. Is downfall of his generation his fault? Maybe those rabbis who opposed him but didn’t offer better solutions are also at fault? They were all confronted with new challenges, we can agree at that. Mendelssohn tried to offer something to respond to the situation the best way he knew. Those who did nothing didn’t really help more. If you or I were there, we would not do better. Just try to put yourself into that situation without your current knowledge.
some> He specifically brings the avnei nezerās statement
so, what is Satmar Rebbe saying about the argument about halachik codices that do not include discussion of 3 shevuos?
yankel> you can have 60 % of the knesset voting with you and the evil SC will strike it down regardless
This is not how complex democracies work. If you have a super-majority for certain position, then the politics change. One of the major goals of these systems is to prevent minor majorities from doing big changes, and then next year changing back because 2% of population switched their minds. It is a feature, not a bug. If you were to have a position supported by super-majority, then the politics will change. It is not simply votes in Knesset, it is how PM can make his decisions without being afraid that the government falls, how various appointments are made … so, whether political system reacts to large majority is not an issue; the issue is that Israelis do not seem to be interested in achieving such consensus, but rather prefer to push their views through on others. In that sense, you totally assimilated in the Israeli culture, despite your claims of opposing it.
YYA> Your conflating naĆÆvetĆ© with laxity in observance is another example of misreading. In the shtetl in Europe 200 years ago, or in the Middle East 100 years ago, one could āgo with the flowā passively and still remain a fully observant Jew. The challenge of Haskalah and modernity etc. forced a need for more proactive education and being more careful about things that used to be taken for granted.
I agree here. But even if you think that Sephardim were in urgent need of charedization, does not mean that it was natural for them and only tricksters lead them astray.