When Belonging Becomes Confinement

Seeking change without leaving: the internal struggles of ultra-Orthodox life

In December 2014, Rabbi Yonason Herschlag described what a different school had meant for his son, Yochanan. At a new Hasidic academy in Beitar Illit, religious instruction shared the day with English, mathematics, and physical education. His father reported that the combination helped Yochanan learn and concentrate, including during religious studies. Yet the school’s director, Rabbi Menachem Bombach, faced protesters outside his home and unsigned posters denouncing his work. Melanie Lidman’s reporting for The Times of Israel documented both the educational progress and the opposition. The protesters’ affiliations were unconfirmed, and the demonstration had not turned violent. [1]

These were religious parents and an educator trying to serve children within their faith. Their efforts nevertheless drew accusations that they endangered the community. A Jewish reader of this series challenged me to examine such restrictions more closely: in explaining the commitments behind Haredi separation, had I adequately considered the experiences of people constrained by it?

As a Christian, I recognize that related questions arise within my own religious tradition. Some Amish and other Old Order Anabaptist communities likewise seek to preserve a faithful way of life through separation from the surrounding culture. Amish children typically finish formal schooling after eighth grade, and practices of communal discipline, including shunning, vary among affiliations, congregations, and families. These arrangements raise questions about educational preparation, religious authority, and the consequences of choosing another path. [2]

The histories and beliefs of these communities differ considerably. The comparison concerns a responsibility they share: sustaining a religious inheritance while respecting people whose needs or convictions differ from prevailing expectations. I would ask of Christian institutions the same questions I ask here about education, participation, and the freedom to seek change. Close communal ties can provide extraordinary care while also making disagreement costly.

The community seen from within

Haredi society encompasses diverse communities, institutions, and approaches to authority. Its members do not experience communal life identically, and confrontational activists cannot be presumed to represent everyone around them. The experiences examined here illuminate particular conflicts within that diversity.

For someone whose convictions align with prevailing expectations, a closely connected religious community can provide purpose, support, and continuity. For someone seeking a different school, professional qualification, or role in public life, the same relationships can make disagreement consequential. Both experiences matter. Institutional leaders can explain what they believe must be protected, but their explanation must be considered alongside the accounts of people affected by their decisions.

Religious formation necessarily involves commitments and boundaries. Parents teach children what they believe is true; communities establish expectations for membership. The difficulty arises when defending those commitments makes it unnecessarily costly to question an institution, obtain essential skills, or pursue a different understanding of faithful life.

Why educational defenders fear change

The strongest defense of a predominantly religious education begins with the conviction that Torah learning has value beyond its contribution to employment. Parents may want their children immersed in a tradition whose language, disciplines, and obligations require sustained study. They may also fear that government supervision will transfer authority over religious formation to officials who do not share their commitments.

These concerns have identifiable advocates. A December 2021 Shomrim investigation reported a statement signed by senior Shas religious authorities, including Rabbi Shalom Cohen, warning parents against state-Haredi education. It also reported Moshe Gafni’s objection that the framework placed educational control in secular hands. The dispute concerned authority over children’s religious formation as well as the inclusion of general subjects. [3]

That argument deserves a serious hearing. A minority community should not have to surrender its religious identity to secure an education for its children. Nevertheless, preserving religious formation does not establish that every existing restriction is necessary. Religious parents can disagree about what their children need, and the autonomy of a school system does not automatically secure meaningful choices for families within it.

Bombach’s academy illustrates an alternative being developed by religious educators themselves. A 2017 Forward profile described a curriculum combining Talmud, Bible, Jewish law, and Hasidic thought with English, mathematics, literature, computer science, and history. Students prepared for matriculation examinations within a recognizably Haredi environment. Bombach had grown up in Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim and pursued further education as an adult. [4]

His school does not settle every question about curriculum or religious continuity. It demonstrates that educators and parents are already attempting combinations sometimes portrayed as impossible. Their work deserves assessment on its educational and religious merits, including whether it serves children whose needs differ from those accommodated by established schools. Accusations of disloyalty can prevent that assessment from taking place.

What the educational evidence establishes

Research supports concern about restrictions on general subjects in significant parts of Haredi boys’ education. Ariel Finkelstein’s Israel Democracy Institute study of English instruction examines opposition to teaching the language and the difficulty of acquiring it later. Educational practices vary, so descriptions that treat every school or student alike are misleading. [5]

A July 2025 institute review also identified serious weaknesses in government enforcement. Approximately half of Haredi elementary-school boys attended two categories of institutions where, according to the review, the Education Ministry did not enforce core curriculum obligations. Only 6 percent of institutions faced budget deductions for noncompliance in the 2023–24 school year. That figure measures the use of a penalty; it does not tell us what percentage of schools violated the requirements. [6]

These findings establish a problem of education and oversight. They do not prove that every leader intends to keep students dependent. Responsibility, however, also includes foreseeable consequences: inadequate preparation can narrow adult choices even when the stated purpose is religious preservation.

A child’s future circumstances cannot be fully anticipated. He may wish to become a religious scholar, pursue a profession, or acquire a trade; his family may eventually need income no one expected him to provide. Education should give him a reasonable foundation for those possibilities. Respect for Torah learning is compatible with concern for the practical choices he will face as an adult.

Women seeking a voice without leaving

Esty Shushan’s experience reveals another form of the struggle to seek change while remaining. The founder of Nivcharot has advocated greater participation by Haredi women in communal and political decision-making. In a 2022 Jerusalem Post interview, she described writing political commentary under a pseudonym that concealed her gender and facing pressure associated with her activism. She also made clear that criticism did not require her departure: she wanted to remain and help change her community. [7]

Her position deserves attention because it challenges the assumption that reform necessarily represents rejection. A woman may value religious observance and communal life while believing that institutions would make better decisions if women had a greater voice in them. Her disagreement may arise from commitment to the community’s future.

Women also disagree about what change should entail. In August 2026, Shomrim reported on a campaign seeking women’s representation in established Haredi parties. Activist Tzipi Lavie described bringing the issue into Haredi neighborhoods through public discussion booths. The report also interviewed Dr. Malkali Blau Hanuka, who opposed the campaign and objected to her inclusion in an unofficial nomination exercise without her consent. [8]

That objection matters. Respecting women’s agency includes respecting women who reject a reform campaign. Advocates cannot assume that a shared gender establishes shared political preferences or authorizes the use of someone’s name. The same principle protects women seeking participation: disagreement among women does not justify preventing them from making their case. Each should be able to express her convictions without others assigning her a position she rejects.

The freedom to leave—and to remain

Research on people leaving Haredi society helps explain why these choices can carry such weight. A 2025 Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute study describes educational gaps, disrupted support networks, loneliness, and financial and emotional difficulties during the transition. It also emphasizes that leaving Haredi society does not necessarily mean abandoning religious belief. [9]

The study concerns people who leave and cannot describe the experience of everyone who stays. It nevertheless challenges the idea that departure is a simple exercise of preference. A person may need to rebuild relationships, secure housing and employment, and address gaps in education at the same time. The formal ability to leave does not eliminate these practical burdens.

Remaining should also leave room for judgment. Members need ways to question school policies, seek professional advice, or propose changes without automatically placing their belonging at risk. A community can maintain standards while distinguishing disagreement from betrayal and protecting family relationships when members make difficult decisions.

This is an ethical dimension of religious liberty that deserves greater attention. The freedom of a religious minority within the state matters, and so does the treatment of individuals within that minority. Protecting one should prompt careful consideration of the other.

Waiting for redemption and taking responsibility

The reader also questioned whether belief in the Messiah can discourage efforts to improve society. A careful answer must distinguish opposition to bringing national redemption through human political action from opposition to ordinary human responsibility.

Rabbi Tamir Granot’s discussion of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, makes that distinction explicit. In the account Granot presents, Teitelbaum opposed human attempts to bring redemption while affirming the duty to make practical efforts in ordinary life. It would therefore be inaccurate to treat his anti-Zionist theology as a general prohibition on improving earthly conditions. [10]

There is, however, a real internal debate about understandings of providence that diminish human endeavor. Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer has challenged such approaches, drawing on Jewish sources to defend work, practical responsibility, and engagement with the world. His argument shows that the criticism can arise from within religious commitment itself. [11]

The appropriate scrutiny concerns particular teachings and their consequences. When an appeal to providence discourages action on a preventable problem, that argument should be examined. When a practice is defended as indispensable to religious continuity, its effects still deserve consideration. These standards apply equally to Christian institutions invoking divine authority. Religious conviction can provide reasons for institutional correction, and those reasons deserve a hearing alongside arguments for preservation.

Safeguards that preserve religious life

Educational policy should secure the preparation children need while leaving substantial room for religious formation. In Israel, I would argue for age-appropriate competence in Hebrew literacy, English, mathematics, and science, together with preparation for understanding civic institutions, personal health, and everyday financial decisions. These are proposed safeguards for adult participation, not a demand that every school adopt the same cultural environment.

Religious educators should help develop suitable materials and schedules. Intensive Torah study and distinctive school communities can remain central, while credible assessment establishes whether students acquire the promised competencies. Implementation requires trained teachers and support for schools making changes. Clear requirements should be enforced consistently, with remedies proportionate to the failures and attention to the children affected.

Parents also need confidential ways to raise concerns, with protection against retaliation affecting their children. Adults seeking further education need accessible routes to obtain it, including those who intend to remain observant members of their communities. These measures would serve families who wish to preserve their religious lives while expanding their children’s preparation.

Belonging with room for an honest voice

The father in the opening account saw a school helping his son learn. Opponents saw a threat to religious continuity. Any responsible assessment must take the concern for continuity seriously while examining what the child actually needed. An institution may serve many students well and still require alternatives for others.

My earlier essays sought to explain the seriousness of the Haredi effort to preserve a life ordered around God. A fuller account must also examine who decides what preservation requires and what happens when members challenge those decisions. Bombach, Herschlag, and Shushan do not pursue identical goals, but their experiences reveal people seeking change from within religious life.

As a Christian, I owe the same scrutiny to institutions in my own tradition. Religious communities demonstrate confidence in their faith when they prepare children for meaningful choices, allow members to argue for correction, and protect the dignity of people whose decisions they find difficult to accept. For those who want to remain, belonging should leave room for an honest voice in the community they love.

Notes and references

1. Melanie Lidman, “Alternative Yeshiva Draws Protests for Teaching Secular Subjects,” The Times of Israel, December 11, 2014.
2. Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, Elizabethtown College, “Frequently Asked Questions,” especially the discussions of schooling and shunning. Amish practices vary; the comparison does not describe all Anabaptists.
3. Bini Aschkenasy, “Who’s Afraid of the Core Curriculum: Haredi Parents’ Struggle to Bring Secular Content to Ultra-Orthodox Schools,” Shomrim, December 7, 2021.
4. Avital Chizhik-Goldschmidt, “This Hasidic Educator Teaches Secular Subjects to Boys—Despite Violent Opposition,” The Forward, September 4, 2017.
5. Ariel Finkelstein, English and the Ultra-Orthodox: A Very Foreign Language, Policy Paper 194, Israel Democracy Institute, 2023.
6. Ariel Finkelstein, “Executive Summary: (Non-)Enforcement of the Core Curriculum Requirement in Ultra-Orthodox Boys’ Education,” Israel Democracy Institute, July 3, 2025.
7. Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman, “Esty Shushan: Israeli Feminist, Liberal Haredi Woman Fighting for Change,” The Jerusalem Post, October 15, 2022.
8. Lir Spiriton, “Haredi Women Can Vote. Their Parties Still Won’t Let Them Run,” Shomrim, August 25, 2026. The account here concerns the campaign and interviews reported at that time.
9. Irit Inbar, Aluma Levy-Zohar, and Yoav Loeff, “Migration Without a Passport”—Young People Leaving the Haredi Community: Analysis of Needs and Recommendations for Developing Services, Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute, 2025.
10. Rabbi Tamir Granot, “Redemption in Radical Ultra-Orthodox Thought,” Torat Har Etzion, March 25, 2015, discussing Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum’s Va-Yo’el Moshe.
11. Yehoshua Pfeffer, “Haredi Faith: Theology and the Draft Controversy,” SAPIR, August 12, 2024.