Day 2 of Slate’s ‘The Unmaking of Israel’ Excerpts
Slate has just posted another excerpt my new book The Unmaking of Israel – this one on how the secular state of Israel created ultra-Orthodoxy as we know it. You can also read yesterday’s excerpt, with groundbreaking new evidence showing that Israel did not plan the expulsion of its Arab population in 1948.
The Unmaking of Israel goes on sale in bookstores today. I’ll be lecturing Wednesday night in Boston, and Thursday night in Brooklyn.
I’m standing in the Kerem Avraham neighborhood of Jerusalem. Across the street is the stone-faced building where Israeli novelist Amos Oz grew up in a small ground-floor apartment. Back then, in the 1940s, Kerem Avraham was home to “petty clerks, small retailers, bank tellers or cinema ticket sellers, schoolteachers or dispensers of private lessons,” as Oz writes in his memoir, A Tale of Love and Darkness. They observed the last vestiges of Judaism—lighting Sabbath candles on Friday night, attending services on Yom Kippur—and avidly argued fine points of secular Zionist ideology.
While I stand on the street, a flock of teenage girls walks by, dressed in blue blouses buttoned to the neck, pleated skirts, and high socks, so that no skin besides their faces and hands shows. A family passes, the husband in a circular, flat-topped black hat, his wife pushing a stroller, three more children younger than age 6 walking with them. The mother wears a wig, the common method for haredi (ultra-Orthodox) married women to hide their hair in modesty. On a cross street, I pass a kollel—a yeshiva where married men receive small salaries to study full-time.
Kerem Avraham today is one neighborhood in the haredi belt of northern Jerusalem, a land of wall posters denouncing television, Internet, and rival religious factions; of life-long Torah study for men and countless pregnancies for women; of schools that provide scant preparation for earning a living and no preparation at all for participating in a democratic society. The neighborhood began changing in the 1950s, after the rebellious young Oz moved to a kibbutz, which he left many years later.
Less than a mile from Amos Oz’s childhood home is an apartment development put up several years ago for better-off haredim. The nine-story buildings surround a courtyard with a playground that is crowded with children in late afternoon. Underneath the buildings is a three-level parking garage, with small storerooms along the sides of the half-lit concrete caverns. The storerooms, a standard feature of Israeli apartments, belong to the residents who live above. But some of the small rooms have doorbells, names on the doors, water meters, and high windows looking into the dark garage. I hear the voices of a couple inside one, and an infant crying. Outside another is a metal rack on which laundry is drying. They’ve been rented out as apartments to young haredi families who can afford nothing else.
The picture above ground is of a thriving community. Beneath the surface one can see one part of the price being paid by the haredim themselves, and by Israel as a whole, for the peculiar development of ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel.
Today’s haredim are known for marrying early and having many children, even as men spend much or all of their adult lives studying Talmud rather than working. When the state was established, haredi society “was entirely different,” says sociologist Menachem Friedman . “It was a normal working society,” similar to the rest of the Jewish population. The fertility rate was about the same. So was the average marriage age, though sometimes haredi men married relatively late if they wanted to extend their religious studies. To get married, a man had to leave Talmudic studies in a yeshiva and find work.
Rather than being a diorama of traditional Jewish life in Eastern Europe before the Holocaust, as many Israelis and visitors believe, Israel’s present-day version of ultra-Orthodoxy is a creation of the Jewish state. Policies with unexpected effects fostered this new form of Judaism, at once cloistered and militant. So did successful measures by haredi leaders to revive a community that was shrunken by modernity and then devastated by the Holocaust. …
Read the rest here.
I am heartened by the inclusion of Gershom’s primers on Israel in slate.com. They evince a nice dose of common sense and reality which is often missing from writing on Israel. But I think you might have proceeded too quickly in this piece on Haredism. First of all, the focus on the Hazon Ish reflects a historigraphical bias towards Brown’s reworking of Haredi history around Hazon Ish– a remarkable testament to the bricklike tome currently sitting on my shelf and to Benny Brown as a scholar. But lets not get carried away. Surely, you are aware that Hazon Ish has a much lower impact on Hassidic streams of ultra Orthodoxy and that Kollel is still not de riguer for some of these folks. An intentionalist fallacy also lurks in the attribution of so much agency to HI– maybe the subsidies had the unintended consequence of fostering dependence on the government and creating a self sustaining cycle of kollel life even more than the desire to absent onesself from contemporary society.
I also wonder why you call Haredism “strict constructionism.” Is this just meant to be cute? Because its obviously untrue and you know it. Haredism is so big that it is hard to say just what its hermeneutics looks like at this minute. But I doubt anyone in Ponoveizh is asking Yaakov Elman for more context for the Bavli to further their originalism. Moreover, there is a major thing called Kabbalah and another major thing called Hassidut that sort of mess with the strict constructionist ideal. The Talmud says to sit in the Sukkah on Shemini– many Haredim don’t. The Talmud doesn’t mention that Hassidic leaders have exclusive access to God. Oops. Haredim often go to Uman on Rosh Hashana– is that mentioned in the Talmud? How about working? Oh wait, the Talmud is in favor of that.
Maybe you just wish all the people you don’t like shared a single coherent agenda so that one rebuttal would suffice? Sadly, there exist multiple bad ideas, probably more than good ideas. So while I sympathize with the desire to find strict constructionists in Meah Shearim, I doubt they exist.