The Philosophical Roots of the Haredi-IDF Impasse
The Mishnah in Avot 4:2 quotes Ben Azzai that “one good deed leads to another good deed, and one evil deed leads to another evil deed.” In the same manner, conflict begets conflict. This can be seen in the way the Hasidic–Mitnagdic controversy led to the current impasse between the Haredi sector and the State of Israel.
The Hasidic movement began in the eighteenth century in Medzhybizh in southwestern Ukraine with the Baal Shem Tov’s introduction of a new religious framework. The Baal Shem taught the idea of divine immanence, that God is present within the material universe and the world is sustained by God. God could be encountered in the mundane and could be served in mundane acts when done with the correct intention. The practical goal was devekut, attachment to God. Prayer was intended to create devekut. Devekut could also be achieved by attaching oneself to a “tzaddik,” a righteous individual. In this system, an unlearned Jew could pray sincerely, give charity, work honestly, rejoice in a commandment, or serve God through ordinary life and attain genuine closeness to God, even beyond that of the scholarly elite.
The traditionalists of the time placed rabbis and educated Torah scholars at the top of their hierarchy, and they saw Hasidic practices as unconventional and a threat. These traditionalists became known as the Mitnagdim – opponents – because they opposed the new Hasidic movement. The leading opponent of the Hasidic movement was Rabbi Elijah ben Solomon Zalman, the Vilna Gaon. The Vilna Gaon signed a ban against the “new Hasidim,” and refused to meet with Hasidic leaders.
The hard line approach of the Mitnagdim did little to slow the advance of the Hasidic movement. Rav Chaim Volozhin, a student of the Vilna Gaon, took a more constructive approach to reassert the primacy of the traditional Torah centered path. He established the Volozhin Yeshiva, an institute for advanced Torah study for elite students, to reassert the preeminence of the Torah scholar. He also wrote the Nefesh HaChaim, in which he presents an argument against Hasidic values and argues instead for the primacy of Torah study. In the Nefesh HaChaim, Torah study is the highest human activity. It is the central sustaining force of creation. If Torah disappeared worlds would collapse. As long as some Jews remain deeply attached to Torah, the worlds continue. A person should think that at this very moment the entire world depends on his own learning. Torah study had always occupied a central place in traditional Judaism. In the Nefesh HaChaim it is elevated to a new level.
Volozhin’s Torah learning-centered approach and philosophy took root and the yeshiva became a prototype. New yeshivas opened in Europe modeled on the Volozhin Yeshiva. These yeshivas did not physically survive the destruction of European Jewry, but the system lives on in yeshivas in Israel and the diaspora that were designed to emulate these institutions. Further, the introduction of mandatory primary and secondary education means that the philosophy of the Volozhin and the Nefesh HaChaim, of the centrality of Torah study and its role in sustaining the world, is now taught not just to a Talmudic elite but to all children within this system of schools.
The conflict between Hasidim and Mitnagdim gradually dissipated. New threats to traditional Jewish practice and belief from the Jewish Enlightenment, Jewish Emancipation, Reform, and Zionism challenged both equally. Gradually they came to more resemble each other as variations of traditional Judaism. Both became more insular. The ethical Mussar movement introduced self-examination into the yeshiva curriculum, beyond the sole goal of Torah learning. Hasidut became less ecstatic and more focused on Torah study. By the twentieth century, Hasidim and descendants of the Mitnagdim had become divisions within a common Haredi society.
Zionism emerged in the nineteenth century as a Jewish nationalist movement. Early on, there were various Orthodox responses to Zionism: Zionist, non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist. Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, Zionists wanted the support of the non-Zionist Agudat Israel. An agreement was reached to protect Orthodox concerns, including and educational autonomy for the Haredi sector. Separately, in 1948 an arrangement was made to exempt four hundred yeshiva students from military service, in part to rebuild a Torah world that had nearly disappeared during the Holocaust.
How a draft deferral intended for four hundred students became deferrals for up to 100,000 Haredi men between the ages of 18-29 is its own story. But the Haredi philosophy behind this reluctance to serve has its roots in Rav Chaim Volozhin’s response to Hasidut.
Traditional sources require Torah study to be interrupted for a mitzvah that cannot be performed by others, place saving life above almost every commandment, and require universal participation in a milchemet mitzvah, an obligatory war. Beyond national duty, this is the religious rationale for the National Religious camp’s willingness to join the IDF and defend the country.
Rav Chaim Volozhin created a philosophy that elevates Torah study above all. In this worldview, Torah learning sustains Israel and the world. Someone studying Torah sustains creation and supplies protection and blessing to the Jewish people. Torah scholars maintain the spiritual merit upon which the success of all military matters depends. Removing learners from Torah may itself weaken the protection of Israel. This is a position that becomes unassailable. The argument lies beyond what is physical and observable.
This philosophy is one born of division, as a response to the challenge of Hasidiut in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. An attempt to restore the primacy of the traditional emphasis on Torah study created the philosophical backing for the Haredi position and the current impasse between the State of Israel and the Haredi sector.
The lingering effects of a hundreds of years old debate demonstrates that conflicts in the past do not necessarily stay confined to the past. Later generations inherit the response without inheriting the original circumstances. Greater care must be exercised in disputes. Conflict begets conflict.
A fuller treatment of this topic can be read on the Substack page The Common Magpie.
