It is massively disappointing that a Talmid Chocham ( I give the benefit of the doubt - I am not justified to judge) uses such emotive and accusatory language.
Where is the Hakoras Hatov (recognition of the good someone does to / for you - which is a religious mandatory action) for the millions of Israeli tax payers who massively subsidised those sitting and learning in safety and relative comfort for over 70 years ?
Where is the Hakoras Hatov (recognition of the good someone does to / for you) for the Israeli soldiers - many of whom are not traditionally religious - who put life and limb at risk for over 70 years to protect religious and non-religious Israelis.
And what is at risk ? A few thousand boys or young men being called up for a short period to protect their families and the country.
Where is the proportionality ?
There seems to be a gulf between Torah requirements and practice.
I agree completely with Scott. The greatest hillul Hashem is this type of language. It is said out of anger and frustration not of love and peace. The Torah scholar especially a leader should not hit the rock when Gd says speak
This is the sinat chinam and lashon hara that destroyed the nation and can do so again
There are better ways to respond to something you disagree with that serves to state your opinion and preserve the love and compassion for your people
Maybe Rav Landau was exaggerating, but I find it tiresome to demand precision when the entire atmosphere surrounding this question is charged with this type of incendiary rhetoric. There is no concern about "normalizing the discourse and corroding civil society", the anti-chareidim have already done that and more. If it's ok to routinely slander the chareidi community with charges of selfishness and parasitism (and apparently it is ok), it's ok for Rav Landau to hit back by stating the apparent motivations of the aggressors.
I don't understand your point here. Because those who don't have access to the Torah's guidance speak in a way which is inappropriate, Rav Landau should do so as well?
L'hefech - society seems to have lost the ability to disagree respectfully and speak with care and respect even while making strong points, and this is recognized as a negative development. How positive it would have been for Rav Landau to have spoken in the way R' Scott advocated for, whether because of Chachamim hizaharu b'divreichem, or because of deracheha darchei noam, or because of yesodei hatorah 5:11 (both the specific examples of daato meurav im ha'briyos and ne'elav meihem v'aino olvan, as well as the overall message of the halacha). That would have been an impressive demonstration that we have a Torah that teaches derech eretz and develops impressive moral character.
Additionally, it would have conveyed a strong sense of confidence in Hashem's ability to provide for the bnei yeshiva, rather than a feeling of panic - imagine if he had even thanked the state for providing hundreds of millions of shekel a year until this point, serving as Hashem's shliach in supporting the yeshivos, and expressed confidence that Hashem would continue to provide. I could see that generating respect, admiration, and maybe even yielding reactions like "Ashrei aviv she'limdo Torah, ashrei rabo she'limdo Torah!" (To me, Rabbi Tamir Granot's sichah after Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef's statement about leaving the country is a prime example of speaking from a place of great pain but still maintaining great precision and respect.)
Unfortunately, so much of the rhetoric from Chareidi gedolim has prompted the opposite reaction.
To be clear, I think what Rav Landau said was exaggerated, but not inappropriate or untrue. It was a true and necessary critique of the secularists who would like nothing more than to rid the country of Torah. The fact that they wear fancy robes and sit on the Supreme Court shouldn't make them immune to criticism. As for the complaints about his rhetorical style, there is a time and place for different styles. When he was speaking to the disturbed soldier, Rav Landau spoke softly, which is his typical manner. In this instance, he felt a need to speak sharply. I don't think your suggestions would have helped accomplish what he was seeking to accomplish, raising funds for the sudden dire need of the Olam Hayeshivos, which he is currently the defacto head of and feels responsible for.
It's not just what they said and how they said it, but what they left out. They made it seem like it's a black and white issue (you are either for Torah or against it!) and did not mention the need for army service. As if Israel is like the USSR banning Torah study for no good reason. These kinds of obviously misleading and hyperbolic statements may in the past have stirred people's hearts, but in light of 10/7, I think people (probably even some Haredim) see through them which causes their words to be taken less seriously.
The chareidim are willing to let 3,000 bnei torah to go to the army. The army says they need 3,000 chareidim. So what's the issue? Why are the leftist cutting off funding and demonizing them.
The ruling by the Supreme Court, though it may be somewhat correct in its intent, is TOTALLY wrong from the perspective that courts, Supreme or otherwise, do not MAKE laws. Rather they rule on the judiciousness of the laws, based on the existing laws of the land (i.e., constitution, basic laws, etc), and not on the basic of 'reasonableness'. That was the premise of the Reform Legistation over the past 2-3 years.
The court seemingly failed to take into account that, despite that Jewish Law does mandate all people to participate in a 'milchemet mitzvah' (a Torah obligated war), the Haredi community members are sorely lacking in 'real world' skills. They need training in those types of skills BEFORE being tasked with being part of a military force.
The court seemingly put the proverbial 'cart before the horse'. And that's another reason for a legislature to clearly define a proper constructed law, and not an unelected court.
The reason you wouldn't use this language about your enemies is that you live in the twenty-first century. Sadly, too many Haredi gedolim still live in nineteenth century Europe and genuinely can't see the difference between a government mostly elected by, and accountable to, Jews (even if mostly not frum) on the one hand and the government of the Czar on the other. I don't know how we change this.
What sort of a rabbinical authority person can even think and write using such cruel and bad expressions? Even were it against an individual and not against our government, such words should be seen as distinctly unfitting for use by anybody who professes to be endowered with a heavenly inspiration to do good. This suggests to me that there is a limit that is applicable on the effects of deep Torah study and a resulting loss of reality beyond which it is forbidden to go.
It is massively disappointing that a Talmid Chocham ( I give the benefit of the doubt - I am not justified to judge) uses such emotive and accusatory language.
Where is the Hakoras Hatov (recognition of the good someone does to / for you - which is a religious mandatory action) for the millions of Israeli tax payers who massively subsidised those sitting and learning in safety and relative comfort for over 70 years ?
Where is the Hakoras Hatov (recognition of the good someone does to / for you) for the Israeli soldiers - many of whom are not traditionally religious - who put life and limb at risk for over 70 years to protect religious and non-religious Israelis.
And what is at risk ? A few thousand boys or young men being called up for a short period to protect their families and the country.
Where is the proportionality ?
There seems to be a gulf between Torah requirements and practice.
Massively disappointing and disheartening.
I agree completely with Scott. The greatest hillul Hashem is this type of language. It is said out of anger and frustration not of love and peace. The Torah scholar especially a leader should not hit the rock when Gd says speak
This is the sinat chinam and lashon hara that destroyed the nation and can do so again
There are better ways to respond to something you disagree with that serves to state your opinion and preserve the love and compassion for your people
Maybe Rav Landau was exaggerating, but I find it tiresome to demand precision when the entire atmosphere surrounding this question is charged with this type of incendiary rhetoric. There is no concern about "normalizing the discourse and corroding civil society", the anti-chareidim have already done that and more. If it's ok to routinely slander the chareidi community with charges of selfishness and parasitism (and apparently it is ok), it's ok for Rav Landau to hit back by stating the apparent motivations of the aggressors.
I don't understand your point here. Because those who don't have access to the Torah's guidance speak in a way which is inappropriate, Rav Landau should do so as well?
L'hefech - society seems to have lost the ability to disagree respectfully and speak with care and respect even while making strong points, and this is recognized as a negative development. How positive it would have been for Rav Landau to have spoken in the way R' Scott advocated for, whether because of Chachamim hizaharu b'divreichem, or because of deracheha darchei noam, or because of yesodei hatorah 5:11 (both the specific examples of daato meurav im ha'briyos and ne'elav meihem v'aino olvan, as well as the overall message of the halacha). That would have been an impressive demonstration that we have a Torah that teaches derech eretz and develops impressive moral character.
Additionally, it would have conveyed a strong sense of confidence in Hashem's ability to provide for the bnei yeshiva, rather than a feeling of panic - imagine if he had even thanked the state for providing hundreds of millions of shekel a year until this point, serving as Hashem's shliach in supporting the yeshivos, and expressed confidence that Hashem would continue to provide. I could see that generating respect, admiration, and maybe even yielding reactions like "Ashrei aviv she'limdo Torah, ashrei rabo she'limdo Torah!" (To me, Rabbi Tamir Granot's sichah after Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef's statement about leaving the country is a prime example of speaking from a place of great pain but still maintaining great precision and respect.)
Unfortunately, so much of the rhetoric from Chareidi gedolim has prompted the opposite reaction.
To be clear, I think what Rav Landau said was exaggerated, but not inappropriate or untrue. It was a true and necessary critique of the secularists who would like nothing more than to rid the country of Torah. The fact that they wear fancy robes and sit on the Supreme Court shouldn't make them immune to criticism. As for the complaints about his rhetorical style, there is a time and place for different styles. When he was speaking to the disturbed soldier, Rav Landau spoke softly, which is his typical manner. In this instance, he felt a need to speak sharply. I don't think your suggestions would have helped accomplish what he was seeking to accomplish, raising funds for the sudden dire need of the Olam Hayeshivos, which he is currently the defacto head of and feels responsible for.
It's not just what they said and how they said it, but what they left out. They made it seem like it's a black and white issue (you are either for Torah or against it!) and did not mention the need for army service. As if Israel is like the USSR banning Torah study for no good reason. These kinds of obviously misleading and hyperbolic statements may in the past have stirred people's hearts, but in light of 10/7, I think people (probably even some Haredim) see through them which causes their words to be taken less seriously.
The chareidim are willing to let 3,000 bnei torah to go to the army. The army says they need 3,000 chareidim. So what's the issue? Why are the leftist cutting off funding and demonizing them.
The ruling by the Supreme Court, though it may be somewhat correct in its intent, is TOTALLY wrong from the perspective that courts, Supreme or otherwise, do not MAKE laws. Rather they rule on the judiciousness of the laws, based on the existing laws of the land (i.e., constitution, basic laws, etc), and not on the basic of 'reasonableness'. That was the premise of the Reform Legistation over the past 2-3 years.
The court seemingly failed to take into account that, despite that Jewish Law does mandate all people to participate in a 'milchemet mitzvah' (a Torah obligated war), the Haredi community members are sorely lacking in 'real world' skills. They need training in those types of skills BEFORE being tasked with being part of a military force.
The court seemingly put the proverbial 'cart before the horse'. And that's another reason for a legislature to clearly define a proper constructed law, and not an unelected court.
The reason you wouldn't use this language about your enemies is that you live in the twenty-first century. Sadly, too many Haredi gedolim still live in nineteenth century Europe and genuinely can't see the difference between a government mostly elected by, and accountable to, Jews (even if mostly not frum) on the one hand and the government of the Czar on the other. I don't know how we change this.
Isn't ascribing malicious intent on the Supreme Court a form of lashon hara?
What sort of a rabbinical authority person can even think and write using such cruel and bad expressions? Even were it against an individual and not against our government, such words should be seen as distinctly unfitting for use by anybody who professes to be endowered with a heavenly inspiration to do good. This suggests to me that there is a limit that is applicable on the effects of deep Torah study and a resulting loss of reality beyond which it is forbidden to go.