Wary in Your Dealings: The Haredi Relationship with Secular Government An Honors Thesis for the Department of German, Russian, & Asian Languages and Literatures John Peter Kaytrosh Tufts University, 2012 “Be wary in your dealings with the ruling power, for they befriend a man when it serves their needs. When it is to their advantage, they appear as friends, but they do not stand by a person in his hour of need.” – Pirkei Avot 2:3 (Translation from the Koren Siddur.) הוו זהירין ברשות, שאין מקרבין לו לאדם, אלא לצורך עצמן: נראין כאוהבין בשעת הנאתן, ואין עומדין לו לאדם בשעת דוחקו. פרקי אבות פרק ב,ג Acknowledgements I would like to use this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to all those who have made this thesis possible, in particular, my thesis committee, headed by Prof. Stephanie Levine, and also including my advisor, Prof. Joel Rosenberg and Prof. Sol Gittleman. Additionally, I must also thank Rabbi Jeffrey A. Summit of Tufts Hillel, for his consistent personal and academic guidance. Finally, I dedicate this thesis to my parents, Gerald and Maryellen Kaytrosh, whose insistence that I pursue my dreams has always been backed up with material and emotional support. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Methodology and Research Notes 5 Organizational Notes 8 The Bureaucratic Dimension: Child Abuse in Haredi Communities 10 The Legislative-Electoral Dimension: Legislators and Jewish Communities 22 The Ideological Dimension: Chabad – The Outliers 35 Conclusion 48 Bibliography 53 We possess a number of qualitative studies and explorations of the lives of Haredi1,2 Jews in the United States. Some authors have even gone so far as to live within these communities for a period of time in an attempt to understand and document their ways of life.3 All of these authors have noted the friction that members of these communities feel in their interactions with the outside world. Unlike some other religious sects, Haredi Judaism does not shun or spurn the use of modern conveniences; in fact, it only rejects it insofar as it may disturb the moral or religious integrity of a community. Certain Haredi groups have more extensive involvement with the outside world than others, for various reasons ranging from business or economics to a sincere desire to perform religious outreach. On the whole, the things from the outside world which present the biggest conflict with the Haredi way of life, then, are not things, but ideas. In Haredi communities, in which the Hatam Sofer’s adage “The new is forbidden by the Torah” is often taken quite seriously, it is difficult to overstate the degree to which the community will separate itself from the world at large to avoid contamination. One of the most powerful (and therefore, possibly dangerous) ideas to emerge since the eighteenth century is the concept of a liberal democracy, or any political system in which individual citizens are engaged. Not enough research has been done to address how Haredi groups interact with secular government. Most studies, if they address government or politics at all, address it as simply another curiosity within the Haredi experience. This is misguided. It is worthwhile to address the 1 The term Haredi is used exclusively in this thesis, except when quoting from sources that use other terms. “Ultra- Orthodox” should be understood in all cases to be a synonym of “Haredi.” The plural form “Haredim” will be used interchangeably with the phrase “Haredi Jews,” as will the term “Hasidim” in place of “Hasidic Jews.” 2 From this point, whenever a Hebrew or Yiddish term is used in this paper, it will generally be with a common transliteration, and a brief, contextual English explanation will appear in parentheses next to it the first time it is used. 3 Stephanie Levine, Mystics, Mavericks, and Merrymakers (New York: NYU Press, 2004). Kaytrosh 1 question of what explains the form of this political involvement4, and that is precisely the goal of this thesis. The paper will take a comparative approach, analyzing the similarities and differences in different Haredi groups’ involvement as compared to each other, and across different dimensions of engagement. Much of the analysis in this thesis will center on the question of how religious philosophy, orientation, emphasis, and practice shape the form of a particular group’s involvement. A fairly reasonable concern about this thesis is about its relevance outside of Jewish studies. Simply put, Haredi Judaism in America is growing. Every Haredi child born means more Haredi adults–and quite possibly, more Haredi voters. Geographer Joshua Comenetz (cited by Aaron Hoover) estimated in 2006 that there were 180,000 Hasidic Jews living in the United States–all of them Haredi–in addition to approximately an equal number of non-Hasidic Haredi Jews, for a total of 360,000 Haredim in the United States.5 Moreover, given the high Haredi birthrates that will be discussed at length in this thesis, it is likely that the proportion of Haredim among Americans and American Jews will grow in the years to come. Even given this growth in Haredi communities, it is unlikely that much will change within the communities, at least from a fundamental perspective; given the theological aversion to modernization found within the Haredi world, it is quite likely that democracy will have to adapt to Haredi Judaism, rather than the other way around. More to the point, Comenetz estimates that the Hasidic population doubles every 20 years; by his measurement, Haredim will constitute a majority of the American Jewish 4 The term “political involvement” should be understood throughout this study to encompass the entire range of an individual or group’s interactions with government or individuals serving in government. While the inclusion of the judicial system may be somewhat controversial, the Haredi world’s involvement with the system has much of the give-and-take that characterizes political involvement in other aspects of government. (Indeed, this involvement or interference is analyzed thoroughly in the section of the paper dealing with child molestation cases in the Haredi world.) 5 Aaron Hoover. 2006. As Hasidic population grows, Jewish politics may shift right. University of Florida News. http://news.ufl.edu/2006/11/27/hasidic-jews/ (accessed 22 January 2012). Kaytrosh – 2 population by around 2050.6 The ways of life of these groups, radically opposed to that of even mainstream Orthodox Jews,7 to say nothing of more liberal groups, gives them an entirely different set of political priorities, and will likely completely reshape entire the political landscape of American Jewry; shifts could include an increased emphasis by American Jews on issues of funding for religious schools or increased emphasis on “culture war issues,” like abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage.8 This has significant implications for politicians and policymakers alike. This relevance could be even more pronounced at the local level, given the propensity of these groups to live in concentrated communities, where their influence can be more easily be felt. Moreover, the successes and failures of policymakers now in creating structures of political engagement amenable to both the Haredi world and the non-Jewish majority will be tremendously instructive as Haredi Jews gain influence in more and more parts of the country. A further reason for the relevance of this thesis is that Jews outside of the Orthodox or Haredi world do not readily understand the distinctions among different Haredi groups, although the distinctions are at least visible (if not glaring) to the Haredim themselves. While differences in thought may not be great, they certainly exist, and explain many rifts and complex relationships among Haredi groups. The guiding question of this thesis will be as follows: to what degree do ideological differences explain differences in political behavior among different Haredi groups? The corollary to this question then, is: to what degree do other factors apart from 6 Ibid. 7 Particularly within Orthodoxy, the divisions between different groups are unclear, and attempts to delineate them are politically and socially fraught. For the purposes of this paper, a shorthand, academic set of divisions might work as follows: Modern Orthodoxy embraces both the modern world as well as observant Judaism as a means of engaging with that world, and will often allow for their intersection and influence upon each other. Mainstream Orthodoxy accepts modernity in secular matters as long as it does not interfere with Jewish practice; Judaism is generally considered unchanging and unchangeable in both theology and practice. Haredi Judaism views modernity as actively damaging to an authentically Jewish way of life. (While further divisions certainly exist, particularly between mainstream Orthodoxy and Haredi Judaism, it is not necessary to explore them here.) 8 Ibid. Kaytrosh – 3 ideology play a role in political strategy and outcomes as they relate to Haredi Jews? The natural corollary to this is an explanation of what other factors play a role, and to what degree. To this end, the thesis will also explore the other factors that contribute to Haredi life, including sociology, economics, and culture, with consistent reference to how religion creates these circumstances in the first place. Finally, a country which is increasingly becoming religiously diverse will need to contend with the intersection of non-standard religious practice and public life. It is hoped that this paper may serve as a basis for comparative studies of minority religious groups. This thesis will naturally bring up some inconvenient questions about the nature of religious and political life in America. In a country which ostensibly works very hard to avoid the entanglement of religion and politics, the dilemma of how the political life of America should handle some Haredi groups, which systematically and unabashedly vote in blocs, when the democratic process is based so heavily on the idea of individual voter choice is significant.