Some Rishonim are of the opinion that the mitzvah of remembering Amalek must be performed every year. R. Moshe Sofer, the Chasam Sofer, (Even HaEzer no.1: 119) suggests that the reason for the annual requirement is based on a comment of the Gemara, Berachos 58b, that certain events are forgotten after twelve months. The frequency of mitzvas zechiras Amalek is based on a requirement to prevent forgetting the battle of Amalek. Therefore, one must remember the battle of Amalek every twelve months.
The Chasam Sofer adds that even though in a leap year there is a thirteen month lapse between readings of Parshas Zachor, there is no need to institute an additional reading of Parshat Zachor in a leap year. The reason why twelve months is significant in the context of memory is because over the course of twelve months, a person experiences the entire range of events in the annual cycle. These events cause him to forget experiences from the previous year. In a leap year, it actually takes thirteen months to create this phenomenon. Only after a complete yearly cycle does the human weakness of forgetting take effect.
Harav Aaron Leib Shteinman, gave a shiur on this topic, he added, that Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid is the Amalek of our generation for his actions in uprooting the Torah from yeshivos and one should also have this in mind when hearing the parsha of zechiras Amalek.
During the current propaganda war, it is very important to remember that a principle of reciprocity must be in play. An earlier example was when a Haredi spokesman said that Haredim were entitled to exemption from military service in Israel on the basis of "freedom of religion", I pointed out here that, in the modern liberal, pluralistic world, freedom of religion has to apply to EVERYONE, not just one group and that group demanding it for themselves has to acknowledge everyone else's right to it as well. Thus, when the Women of the Wall say they also demanding the right to pray at the Western Wall in the way they desire or the Reform movement is demanding recognition in Israel on an equal basis with the Orthodox, all in the name of "freedom of religion", the original group really has no basis for denying it to them.
ReplyDeleteSame here with declarations made against opponents of that group. When a Jew or group of Jews are denounced as being comparable to the worst enemies of the Jewish people, the group making that declaration is now defining the terms of the discussion, and so when the same type of terms are used back at them, and harsh criticism is directed against them by their opponents, there is no moral basis for suddenly denouncing their opponents for supposedly breaking the bounds of civilized debate, nor for demanding they be silenced. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. That's the way it is in the modern world....equality and reciprocity for EVERYONE.
I doubt if RALS actually said that.
ReplyDeleteBut the broader point (of the prior comment) is a good one. And worth remembering when contemplating fights about gay marriage or the like. The concept that everyone should be able to do what they want without others imposing their views on them has been a very important one for Yidden in golus. Once you abandon that principle, it's harder to argue it in favor of yourself.
So - for example - arguing in favor of religious freedom from any outside interference in the case of MBP, while demanding that the govt impose a moral viewpoint when the issue is gay rights, is a tough sell.
Not that the position of the government and public at large is determined by what the frum oilem decides in this or that case. Still, talking out of both sides of the mouth is not helpful.
The flaw in Y Ben-David's argument is that we Jews don't believe in freedom of religion. A glance at the Torah shows that the notion is absurd. The most important mitzvah in the entire Torah is to exterminate avoda zara, and the penalty for AZ is death.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of religion is, however, a value secular people claim to cherish, so we are entitled to hold them to it. If they really believe in freedom of religion then they must give us that freedom; failure to do so makes illegitimate their entire claim to rule.
I see you didn't understand what I wrote. The propaganda battle in Israel is to persuade the the SECULAR public that Haredim should not have to serve in the IDF. The SECULAR public is the majority in Israel. They make the decisions democratically. You can talk to them until you are blue in the face about the "inviobility of the halacha" and they won't understand what you are talking about. You can tell President Eisenhower about how a mixed swimming pool is offensive to your religious feelings but he won't understand, either. If you are going to demand rights on the basis of THEIR value system, then they are going to expect you to grant the same rights to everyone else, including the Women of the Wall because they believe in EQUALITY for everyone. Using the "freedom of religion" argument to justify avoidance of military service is going to open a whole can of worms.
DeleteIt is important to clarify some points about the current struggle. The Haredi world is facing the same type of crisis the Religious Zionist camp faced with the proposal to destroy Gush Katif. Both camps amassed considerable political power by manipulating the Knesset and political system without making an effort to canvass support among the population, because in Israel, the system was generally authoritarian...leaders made the decisions and the public generally was docile in accepting them without asking questions. That is breaking down...the public is much more involved and informed today. Thus, when the RZ's tried to rally public opinion against destroying Gush Katif, most people simply sat on the sidelines, even if there wasn't a clear majority in favor. Today, it is the same with the proposals to cut financial benefits to the Haredi sector and to increase Haredi participation in the IDF. In spite of opinions I have seen, the demand for increased conscription of Haredim to the army HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING "ANTI-RELIGIOUS". Most secular Israelis respect sincerely religious people and are willing to accomate their needs as long as religious restrictions are not forced on them. This applies to the IDF. While it was true 6 decades ago that there was a lot of anti-religious pressure in the IDF, that period passed long ago and the IDF goes out of its way to accomodate religious soldiers, including building synagogues on base, providing Mehadrin food for those who request it, making kiddush on Shabbat and the such.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the Haredim have completely failed to explain their position to the general public, and the Haredi spokesmen, including some of the Knesset members have said incredibly damaging things which boomerang back. For instance, one MK has insisted that "the IDF doesn't need the Haredim" or "the IDF doesn't want the Haredim". This sounds truly infuriating to a lot of people. They rightly ask "why is there mandatory conscription if they don't need a large group of people? Why do they need my son but not the Haredi boys?". The "not wanting Haredim" because it is supposedly difficult to set up accomodations for Haredim makes no sense because plenty of yeshiva boys from Hesder do serve in the army successfully, so people see that religious people do manage to maintain their lifestyle.
Even more damaging is the claim I repeatedly heard the "Haredim can't serve because their Torah learning will be permanently damaged" or that "Haredi boys will give up being religious if they come in contact with non-Haredim". Do you realize with this says.?...it is a clear admission by Haredi spokesmen that their education system is ineffectual and unpersuasive if years of yeshiva education are thrown out with the first encounter with a non-Haredi! People also know that the claim that "Torah learning will be harmed if a yeshiva bochur has to serve" is not true because there are many dayanim and talimdei hachamim who DID serve in the IDF.
Also, the general public is really turned off by the continual demonization of people like Bennet and Lapid and the categorization we keep hearing that everyone who is critical of certain aspects of Haredi society is "anti-religious" or an "enemy of Torah" which is simply not true!
If the Haredi world wants to convince the secular Israelis who are the majority and have the ultimate political power it is VITAL for the Haredim to explain to the Jews of Israel WHY Torah learning is important, why Israel's very existence is predicated on Judaism and the Torah. They have completely failed to do this. I have encountered any number of people who have spent YEARS in learning and yet are incapable of explaining the importance of Judaism and the relevance of Torah in modern Israel to a non-oberservant Jew. This is the real challenge the Haredi world faces today. It is not clear whether they are up to the challenge.
The problem with the official Chareidi response to the draft is that it has created a horrible perception of the community from the outside. To wit:
ReplyDelete1) We should not have to do anything to benefit the state. But the state has to give us all the money we want.
2) We can insult and demonize you but if you so much as look at us with a frown we will scream about how insulted we are.
In summary: we are entitled, you are not.
Now, it just might be that some in the Chareidi community really do believe that Chareidim are entitled to special treatment, free money and unlimited exemptions from serving the State simply because they are Chareidim. The problem is that outside the community no one sees it that way. The more the Chareidi leadership continues on this path the more antagonistic they will make their opponents and a lot of the patience the secular side has shown with these temper tantrums will evaporate.
ISTM that the official position of the charedim is that we ARE benefiting the state by learning, and should be supported and exempted from other obligations on that basis.
DeleteThere is actually some basis for the concept at least, in the Leviyim being supported by the rest of the community in exchange for religous obligations.
Whether that extends as far as modern day Charedim are pushing it is another question.
And of course, this argument is obviously going to be a very hard sell to a chiloni audience.
Freedom of religion means that while we have our opinions about churches and their "services", we don't enter and harass those congregants, and if anyone did, police would deal with disturbances. We also may not necessarily like other meetingplaces, such as a gay disco, but in a democracy we don't enter and disturb the patrons. In the same way I expect a democracy to deal with "women of the wall" who come and disturb at a Jewish religious site.
ReplyDeleteIf it is democratically decided that the "Jewish" country does no longer wish to support Torah learning, I would understand it. Next, let Israeli citizens vote, whether it is reasonable to keep wasting money, resources and lives for the sake of settlers. Last time, the support for Disengagement was overwhelming. Do you like democracy? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Equality and reciprocity, we purchased lands and homes instead of dispossessing previous owners, we set up businesses among competition - Jewish and gentile competition - instead of exploiting unfair advantages and tax breaks. When the unavoidable will happen, please don't whine and don't ask for compensation.
Israel has demoncratically decided to REDUCE somewhat the support for the Haredi community, so I presume that you understand it. I don't understand the rest of your comment. The settlements in Gush Katif were built on empty sand dunes...they were not private property, and no one was dispossessed.. It would be interesting to see if the land Kiryat Sefer and Beiter Illit, which are also "settlements", albeit Haredi, were involved in "dispossessing anyone". BTW-there never was majority support for destroying Gush Katif...polls always showed aroun 1/3 for, 1/3 against and 1/3 didn't know, regarding a unilateral withdrawal. That is why Sharon refused to call either a national referendum (he lost a Likud party referendum he called) or national elections in order to get a mandate to do it, he knew he would probably lose.
DeleteI should point out that the agitation being expressed here is because the gov't is carrying policies the Haredi parties strongly object to because they are outside the governing coalition. You must remember that in 1999 and 2006, SHAS entered coalitions with Leftist Parties, (Barak in 1999 and Olmert-Kadima in 2006) that excluded the National Religious Party and which cut back funding for their institutions and for the settlements. If that was acceptable for the Haredi parties then, what is the problem with the tables being turned?