Rav Silman has reportedly instructed the Haredi community to not rent or sell property to a secular person in a Haredi area even if they would be willing to pay well above the regular market value. He said this would definitely be prohibited.
This caused a stir for obvious reasons. People call it racist, discriminatory, uppity, elitist, or any of many other bad attitudes.
Personally, I am not sure it is really an inappropriate attitude. At least not in Israel. While I am in favor of letting the market forces work and letting people buy wherever they want at the price they are willing to pay, and I don't consider mixed neighborhoods to be problematic, I do realize that this is not unusual in Israel. While cities are far more open, there are many communities that are not just open to the public. People cannot just get a home in a kibbutz, or a moshav, or even any of many yishuvim. There are acceptance committees, there are limitations and there are restrictions.
So, while Bnei Braq is a city and not a closed community, the Haredi community itself prefers to be insular and closed, and if others can do it, I would not accuse them of being horrible people because they also want to filter who can live among them.
That being said, I find it interesting, and a bit hypocritical, that Haredim can put forth efforts to move in and "haredize" secular neighborhoods, yet at the same time organize and talk about not letting any secular into haredi areas. If Haredim have no problem moving into Kiryat Hayovel, for example, they shouldn't have a problem with secular moving into Bnei Braq, for example. Not that I understand why any secular person would want to, but that is besides the point. And, if Haredim do move into secular neighborhoods and then demand allocation of all the normal resources and facilities, as is due them, and accuse those attempting to stop them of being anti-haredi, how can they then turn around and be anti-secular and stop the secular from going into Haredi neighborhoods and doing the same?
And the reverse is true as well. If the secular in Kryat Hayovel, for example, can legitimately work to prevent a Haredi influx of residents into the neighborhood and nobody cries boo about it, why can't the Haredim of Bnei Braq, for example, work to prevent an influx of secular residents? Yet when the Haredim do it, it upsets people.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
It's kind of ridiculous because generally when secular people believe that a neighborhood "is charedi" or becoming charedi, they stay away on their own. They just don't want to take the risk of buying somewhere where eventually charedim will gain numbers and perhaps control. It's why there are about zero secular people moving into Ramat Bet Shemesh for example. In 1997 when my wife and I looked at a bunch of projects in RBS (it was entirely new then), nearly every kablan specifically stated "1/3 dati leumi, 1/3 chiloni, 1/3 charedi". Obviously it didn't quite turn out that way, and it is the 1/3 chiloni part that is most distant from the originally predicted number.
ReplyDeleteYup. Bought my apartment from a nice-seeming if hysterical couple with 4 kids who were staunchly "not religious" (oddly that did not mean that they didn't keep Shabbat, kosher or know the orlah status of every tree in the yard). They said they loved the neighborhood, the schools, their (mixed) neighbors but they were hystercially afraid the neighborhood was going chareidi (its stayed mixed religious but there may be secular people here. Nobody suggested they go anyplace)and they were moving to a neighborhood they hated, couldn't afford and didn't know anyone in. We kept asking them if they were sure they wanted to do this. They stayed hysterical (of course there may have been something off about them anyhow as the wife threw a fit when she returned to pick up a valuable of hers I'd found and pitched a fit when she'd discovered I'd repainted the walls to match my furnishings). What we found fascinating was the way they and other Israelis rant about Hareidim to your (Hareidi/Hardal) face with no self-conciousness whatsoever.
DeleteHe's right. This word 'racism' is getting ridiculous. There is nothing racist in observant Jews, moderate or extreme, for wanting to live in their own communities. That is what is called normal. Thus, if the community is inhabited by ultraOrthodox, then they have a right to be near their own; just as much as when it is a very non-religious neighborhood and they want the freedom to do as they please, it is expected that the same types live there. Why make machlokes? Who, anyway, if they are not observant would want to live in an ultra chareidi neighborhood and vice versa? The Rav is absolutely right.
ReplyDeletePrice of housing and proximity to something else. There's a severe affordable housing shorttage driving all the population sector to buy or rent where they can afford. We hae enough enemies. We don't need to be each other's enemies.
DeletePrice of housing and proximity to something else. There's a severe affordable housing shorttage driving all the population sector to buy or rent where they can afford. We hae enough enemies. We don't need to be each other's enemies.
Delete"The Rav is right" - you mean to forbid people from renting to secular? Why is that "right"? "Who, anyway, if they are not observant would want to live in an ultra charedi neighborhood..." The one who, in the story, is willing to pay above market rates. Maybe he runs a store in the area (since the charedi neighbors all live in kollel, someone has to run the businesses) - maybe he wants to live near his grandchildren. Why is the Rav "right" to forbid it? It's one thing to encourage landlords to rent to keep the neighborhood homogenous, but to forbid it?
DeleteIt doesn't have to be called racism, that doesn't make it "right" either.
When I studied at Bar Ilan, it would not be rare to meet people who claimed to live 'on the border of Ramat Gan and Bnei Brak'. Later, I realized that this meant that they actually lived in Bnei Brak, but since they were not religious and embarrassed to say they lived in Bnei Brak, they used that excusable vague description. Obviously, they really did live on the fringe area of Bnei Brak which is not such a small area. In hindsight, they were all non-religious and single or newlyweds so registering for a non-religious nursery was not an issue yet and I assume that these apartments for them were rental and temporary.
ReplyDeleteHeh heh! You know that there is a part of Bnei Brak on the other side of Jabotinsky. And *that* part has a pretty bad reputation (or at least used to have a bad reputation) for being filled with criminals. So it could also be that people said "border of Ramat Gan" so as not to embarrassingly be associated with the criminal element :-)
DeleteWhen secular Jews are thought to be a different race, we're in new territory, but who actaully believes that?
ReplyDelete1. The term "racist" has no application. Race means an in-born ethnic group affiliation. You cannot change your race. Being Charedi or Religious or Secular is a belief system and a lifestyle. If someone refused to rent to, say, Mizrahim or Ethiopians that would be racist. (Presumably, this Rav would have no problem renting to a family of baalei teshuvah who were once secular.)
ReplyDelete2. This is discriminatory. Whether that is benign or not is debatable. I understand that some Charedim (and perhaps some DL) want to live in homogeneous neighborhoods.
3. You are right that this works both ways -- a secular neighborhood has the right to be concerned that its neighborhood won't turn Charedi.
Don't several charedi schools refuse to admit baalei tshuvah families? Especially americans. (If its americans, it would fit the above definition of racism, too.)
DeleteWell, we're both American baalei teshuva (at least we're trying to be) and our kids are in the most chareidi schools around.
DeleteAmerican, by the way is a country not a race.