Page 15 - HaMizrachi Tisha B'av 5782 USA

us to consider new points of view, including those we can
learn and grow from.
This continues to be true today, as is exemplified by the
debate between Chassidim and Misnagdim. Today, unlike
the situation in the past, the arena for this debate is firmly
inside the beit midrash. Moreover, Chassidim and Misnagdim
have learned from each other; Lithuanian davening and
service of Hashem has become more spirited, while Chas-
sidim have adopted Lithuanian methods of halachah and
Torah pedagogy.
But pluralism has its boundaries. It applies only to dis-
putes “for the sake of Heaven” (Pirkei Avot 5:17). Within this
framework, each party recognizes that the other is making
a serious argument, rooted in Hashem’s Torah. Given this
common assumption, and despite halachic differences that
threatened to undermine the sense of unity, much effort
was invested to ensure men and women of different variant
schools continued to marry among one another (Yevamot
12). But when the debate is “not for the sake of Heaven”, with
one outside the pale of our tradition’s basic assumptions,
matters become altogether different.
The current Charedi approach to the Religious Zionist
community, intentional or otherwise, is akin to the Sages’
attitude to the tzedukim. The attitude is disrespectful and
displays no desire for serious or candid dialogue; a recur-
ring theme in official Charedi media outlets is that fear of
Heaven escapes through the holes in a knitted kippah. Yet,
it is hard to point to a fundamental religious disagreement
between the Religious Zionist and Charedi communities.
Both believe in the same Torah, observe the same halachah,
and espouse similar patterns of authority and instruction. motivated the Charedi perception of being faced with an
The Orthodox approach to the Reform movement is easy anti-traditional movement in traditional garb.
to understand: the gap in basic assumptions is too large
to bridge, and the discussion cannot be characterized as a Alongside the religious concerns, the main motivation for
debate between legitimate options. But why has the Reli- the split between Charedim and Religious Zionists was polit-
gious Zionist world been subjected to similar treatment? ical rather than ideological. The need to establish Charedi
society as an independent and united social movement
Reasons for the rift rallying to a single standard led to the exclusion of many
Orthodox groups and worldviews that previously had a
The short answer to why our communities don’t speak to home in the traditional beit midrash. Rabbi Elazar Menachem
each other is simple: the Jewish state. Charedim considered Shach in particular purged certain elements from the
a secular Jewish state to be a grave threat to Jewish tradi- Charedi world for the sake of a unified communal authority.
tion. The fear of secularization and the resultant refusal The same is true of the Religious Zionist community, which
to cooperate with the state and participate in the project was distanced from the Charedi community for primarily
of its building, in its institutions, and certainly in its cul- non-religious reasons.
ture became a central feature of Charedi Judaism. It is this
feature that separated the Charedim from their Religious The homogenization of Charedi society, which was seen
Zionist brothers. as essential for strengthening its political and educational
institutions in the face of tremendous threats, greatly weak-
Religious Zionism’s close cooperation with the secular wing ened our ability to conduct serious debate on matters of
of the Zionist movement repelled the Charedi leadership. ideology. What used to be grounds for disagreement now
For one, the association led to halachic leniencies of which became grounds for ostracism.
Charedi society deeply disapproved. At the early stages of
the Jewish state, one of the focal points of the rift was the Deep changes
Bnei Akiva movement and the halachic permissiveness of
religious kibbutzim. This suspicion over halachic motivation The good news is that the situation that divided our commu-
deepened during the era of Rabbi Shlomo Goren, who in nities has changed significantly. Over the last few decades,
Charedi eyes symbolized the establishment of a plastic the Jewish state and its religious conflicts have changed
halachah susceptible to the interests of a secular state. Reli- significantly. The state and its population have become
gious Zionism’s accommodating attitude towards the state more religious. There is an affinity – not only rhetorical but

| 15