Reconstituting a Torah Nation in the Land of Israel (Part III)

Please note: this is a direct continuation of Reconstituting a Torah Nation in the Land of Israel (Part II). If you have not yet read Part I, please click here for Part I.

Emergency Response: Haredim vs Dati Leumi

In 1948, the State of Israel was founded by a secular elite whose mission it was to redefine Am Yisrael into a nation like any other nation, bereft of a unique relationship with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Both the Haredim and the Dati Leumi did not believe in this vision, but they both realized that the country wasn’t founded by G-D fearing Jews, so they both had to make emergency decisions as to how to relate to the state’s vision.

The Haredim took a clear, simple, decisive approach. They protected themselves by retreating from society, most notably the army, and for good reason. The State of Israel was obsessed with using the army as the means of assimilating Jews into secular culture. Thus the Haredim withdrew from Israeli society: the army, the mainstream workforce, etc., and they created an insular culture. 

On the other hand, we have the response of the Dati Leumi population. Their response is more complicated and will take more explanation. The Dati Leumi crowd decided that they will work within the current system to ultimately change it. Thus, they serve in the army, they are a part of the workforce, and they engage in all the nation’s politics, and culture while observing Torah and Mitzvot. They see engagement in the State as a religious duty and a vehicle for change. This approach does not contain a clear vision on how to actually address changing the system, nor does it carry a clear vision on how to protect oneself from being influenced by it. And yet, engage in the system they must: in their eyes, it is the only way the State will naturally evolve into the religious institution we all truly long for.

It is interesting and perhaps important to note that the Dati Leumi community sees themselves as the students and spiritual heirs of Rav Kook (for more on Rav Kook, please see this website Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook (1865-1935). Thus, it is important to understand who Rav Kook was and why the Dati Leumi community chose the path it did.

Rav Kook was a visionary, a philosopher. He observed realities and tried to make sense of them in light of our tradition. Indeed, he was constantly immersed in trying to see Hashem’s hand in current events and how He guides history towards the ultimate redemption. However, Rav Kook did not necessarily give clear practical guidance on how to behave within the reality he observed. On the one hand, Rav Kook believed that the movement to Zion among the Zionists was playing a part in the final redemption. Simultaneously, he did not believe in working together with the Zionists who threw off the yoke of Hashem’s Torah. In fact, Rav Kook explicitly rejected working with the Mizrahi movement, a religious movement that worked side by side with the secular Zionists. 

Seems contradictory, doesn't it? But when we look a little bit deeper, there is no contradiction at all. For instance, we see in the story of Purim that Haman was most certainly a part of Hashem’s plan. The Jewish nation turned away from Hashem, and Hashem used Haman to bring us back to Him. However, that does not mean we should have worked with Haman. Recognizing Haman to be a part of Hashem’s plan to bring the Jews back to Him is simply an acknowledgement of Haman’s place in history, nothing more, nothing less; this observation does not imply that we should have been working with Haman. So too, Rav Kook recognized the return to Zion for what it was – a revelation of prophecy. The religious world did not prioritize settling and building up Eretz Hakodesh, so Hashem allowed/used the elements of our nation which were divorced from Hashem, His Torah, and the whole reason Hashem gave us Eretz Yisrael, to fill the void that the religious world left. It doesn’t mean Rav Kook believed in working with anti-Torah Zionists, but it also doesn’t mean he couldn’t recognize what role they played in Hashem’s plan. Indeed, Rav Kook was rather displeased with the fact that the religious world was not particularly enthusiastic about returning to our ancient homeland, so he saw the secular zionists as Hashem’s plan B for ushering in the return of the exiles.

As mentioned earlier, Rav Kook’s main objective was observation. He observed patterns in reality and tried to understand what role they played in Hashem’s plan. If the longing for Zion wasn’t going to come from the Torah crowd, then it was going to come from the secular crowd. What was certain was that it was going to have to come from somewhere, for Hashem does not delay the redemption process for eternity. Indeed, I believe (not based explicitly on Rav Kook, this is my personal belief) that it was the fault of the Torah crowd, which lacked enthusiasm and vision, which left a vacuum for the secular crowd to come in, take power, and build the State of Israel as the antithesis to Hashem’s Torah. The redemption process can occur speedily through our teshuva or painfully due to lack of teshuva. How the geulah comes is up to us, but come it shall; and indeed, teshuva we will do, whether of our own volition or due to the immense suffering we endure.

The religious crowd left a void that was filled by the anti-religious crowd. The anti-religious crowd filled this void and established a state; this state is home to 7 million Jews, and for that we must certainly thank Hashem. However, this state and society as a whole is run not according to Hashem’s instructions. Thus, the final redemption is coming about through suffering and pain until we understand our mistakes and do teshuva. Nonetheless, the stage is set for the geula, and engage in this process we must. 

Rav Kook's position, as deep and insightful as it is, does not leave the average person with clear direction as to where to go and what to do. How does one engage in this process? On the one hand, Rav Kook saw the process unfolding as part of the redemption. On the other hand, he believe it was prohibited to work with the very people who are supposedly playing a role in this redemptive process. What to do? 

Well, the Dati Leumi movement, practically speaking, chose the way of Mizrahi, working within the secular structures while maintaining their religiosity and hoping to influence things from the inside. However, while going in the way of Mizrahi, they attempted to attribute their philosophical intentions to Rav Kook…even though Rav Kook refused to work together with Mizrahi exactly because they cooperated with those who denied Hashem’s Torah. 

After all, Rav Kook was a great Rabbi; he was certainly out of the box (and criticized for this), but nonetheless, he was extremely respected among  the gedolim of his time. If the Dati Leumi movement could genuinely attribute its fundamental ideology to Rav Kook, then it could be accepted even among the Haredim. They conveniently ignored the fact that he refused to work with Mizrahi and only focused on Rav Kook's understanding that the redemption process was unfolding through the non-religious crowd. They missed the nuance that Rav Kook was observing reality and not necessarily giving marching orders. Thus, the Dati Leumi decided that since Rav Kook saw the redemption process unfolding through the secular Zionists, it would be prudent to work with them and not miss the vehicle (the State) to redemption. 

Unfortunately, Rav Kook passed away in 1935, well before independence was declared in Eretz Yisrael. He did not live in a time where he could give practical marching orders. We have no clue if he would support working with the state once it was founded (as his son did), if he would side with the Haredi approach of not cooperating with Jews who rejected Hashem’s Torah (while holding a more nuanced view), or if he would encourage his followers to work on a movement that would bring about an authentic Torah society at the grassroots level. In practice, his followers chose the path of working within the secular system, seeing it as the “first flowering of the redemption” and thus a vehicle for change.

As you can see, the Dati Leumi response to the forming of the state was considerably more developed than the Haredi response. This is indeed a reflection of the two camps. The Haredi camp had very clear, practical marching orders: steer clear of engaging in secular society. The Dati Leumi camp’s marching orders were much less clear, and much more philosophical. Indeed, the Dati Leumi movement, in many ways, engages itself in theoretical philosophy a lot more. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when clear, practical vision does not emerge from this philosophy, it becomes problematic. Thus they involved themselves with the state without any clear notion of how they would actually manage to change it, nor how they would steer clear of being affected by it. 

Both the Haredi and the Dati Leumi responses can be understood. However, more importantly, both responses are emergency responses. When one lives according to an emergency response for a year or two, or perhaps even a decade, that is understandable, but when a group of people live according to an emergency response for nearly a century, that group begins to develop a sickness as a result of this response. One cannot live according to emergency measures for a long period of time and expect to come out with healthy notions and perspectives.

The Haredi Response  

Let’s take a look at the Haredi camp. The Haredi camp is defined by its utmost loyalty to Hashem’s Torah and maintaining the purity of their society from secular influences. To achieve this, as mentioned earlier, they secluded themselves from secular society and created their own insular world.  In short, Haredi society can be defined largely by its reaction to the secular state. That is a very understandable, and perhaps very much correct, first reaction to the situation they found themselves in, in 1948.

No doubt, part of a healthy society is knowing how to react to unhealthy elements. However, if the society is predominantly defined by its reaction to unhealthy elements, and doesn’t develop a clear vision of its own, independent of its reaction to unhealthy elements, then that society will stagnate and forever be defined by the society to which it is reacting.

Let’s look at their response to the army as a case study to understand the Haredi emergency response to aggressive secularization efforts and where it landed them today. It’s a known fact that the Haredim, generally, don’t serve in the army. The initial reason given when the state was first founded was that they needed to focus on rebuilding the Yeshivot with full-time Torah learners after the Holocaust.

And yet it is important to note that during the War for Independence, even the famed Rav Hayyim Kanievsky guarded an army post (he still studied several hours a day). Everyone understood, in those days, that in a Milhemet Mitzvah, an obligatory war in which a bloodthirsty enemy seeks our nation's destruction, no able-bodied man is exempt from contributing to the war effort. However, after the founding of the state, army service became mandatory, regardless of whether there was a war or not. There would be a 2.5 year mandatory service in which the purpose was to make sure everyone fell in line with the doctrines of western liberalism, an ideology which is antithetical to Hashem’s Torah. 

The Haredi gedolim did not see it appropriate for men to spend 2.5 years in an institution that actively sought to brainwash the population and push them towards secularism. Thus, they made a case to David Ben-Gurion that they needed to rebuild the Yeshivot following the devastating losses that took place during the Holocaust. David Ben Gurion conceded as there were only several hundred men who would be exempt; he didn’t care too much for this small segment of the population. 

And so, many decades have passed – more than 75 years at this point – and the Haredim still don’t serve. I am not necessarily criticizing them for not joining this particular version of the military. I believe our military is run by men who hate Hashem and His Torah, who kiss up to the west and its interests, and who are ready to sacrifice our men for the sake of enemy "civilians." And too many lives are sacrificed just to give up precious territory of Eretz HaKodesh to the enemy that thirsts for our blood. 

Indeed, if the reason the Haredim are not joining the military today would be because they do not believe in fighting for an institution that is willing to sacrifice its men, all in order to withdraw from and allow foreign nations to control Eretz Yisrael, I would be in wholehearted agreement with them. However, if they were thinking in terms of the need to fight for Eretz Hakodesh and to destroy the Hillul Hashem within the borders of the Holy Land Hashem gives us, they would have likely mobilized a strong force at this point. There are hundreds of thousands of able-bodied Haredi men; in addition, the more hardcore Dati Leumi would probably join them, and also a lot of Sephardi and some Ashkenazi Jews who are not religious per se, but care about Hashem and Eretz Hakodesh, would also join the efforts. 

However, after more than 70 years of not fighting, and more importantly, after more than 70 years of not contemplating what the Torah’s vision is in regards to fighting or nation-building, they have turned their emergency response into their central, defining dogma. At first, they didn’t join the military in order to avoid an aggressive secular institution that would love to make the Haredi men into model secular citizens, G-D forbid. But as the years passed, they began to see fighting as something for the secular population.

Risking one’s life for Eretz Yisrael and Am Yisrael is not for the Haredim; yes, they would admit there is such a thing as a Milhemet Mitzvah, but in their minds, there are enough secular Jews doing the fighting. Haredim believe they should simply continue to sit and learn.

Today, they see themselves as a separate class collectively exempt not just from the military as it is currently, but from fighting itself. They believe that fulfilling the Torah in the form of learning is the only true response to defeating the enemy. 

The truth is, halakhically speaking, there is not one class of people exempt from an obligatory war. An obligatory war, a Milhemet Mitzvah, is defined as a defensive war fought for the salvation of Am Yisrael, and according to the Ramban, it also includes wars fought to take control over Eretz Yisrael. Additionally, a quick preview of Rambam’s Mishne Torah Laws of Kings and Their Wars will show that a Milhemet Mitzvah applies even in galut; a war for survival can take place anywhere. In such a war, no able-bodied citizen is exempt from contributing. All the more so does this status of Milhemet Mitzvah apply to the wars that have been fought over the last 75 years in Eretz Yisrael. 

That being said, as mentioned earlier, I am not suggesting that the Haredim should join the army as it currently operates. I am, however, making the point that their initial emergency response of avoiding the military has stayed at the level of an emergency response for more than 70 years. As a result, this has bred attitudes and notions foreign to the Torah. They should be aware of the notions that crept in and infected their society, notions that are not reflective of our tradition found in Tanakh, Hazal, Rishonim, etc. They should realize that outsourcing the fighting to the secular population, a population that largely does not understand the true gravity of what it’s fighting for, and whose leadership is not fighting for Hashem and His Torah, is not a wise leadership decision on the part of the Haredim.

Haredi Rabbanim have a great many followers who are fully committed to Hashem’s Torah. Perhaps they are misled in some of their ideologies, and indeed have certain foreign notions that infect their worldview, but their intent to keep Torah wholeheartedly cannot be ignored. If a substantial number of Haredi gedolim decided to tackle the aspect of the Torah’s vision, thus mobilizing their population towards fighting Hashem’s enemies, I have no doubt that tens of thousands of bachurim would follow suit. How this can be done practically is a separate conversation. Where there is a will to fulfill Hashem’s Torah, there is a way, Be’ezrat Hashem. The question is if the will, the vision, exists. It would be an awesome sight to behold, and the state would have a hard time contending with a population ready to fight wholeheartedly for Hashem.

Of course, if only one or a few Haredi Rabbanim come out saying this, they will be ousted and ignored. Enough Rabbanim will need to realize that their society has evolved based on a series of emergency responses, and that these emergency responses do not provide a Torah vision for how our nation should behave in Eretz Yisrael. If they are able to entertain these notions, rather than play the political game in order to preserve their lifestyle at all costs, then I believe there is a population from which we might see warriors of Hashem arise from.