Sign in Subscribe

How do Charedim view secular Jewish leadership — are they seen as “resha’im” or simply misled?

• 12 min read
How do Charedim view secular Jewish leadership — are they seen as “resha’im” or simply misled?

A Question Requiring Both Honesty and Ahavas Yisrael — the Charedi World Distinguishes Sharply Between the Spiritual Forces It Names in the Language of the Tradition (Erev Rav, the Klipah of Amalek) and the Individual Jews Themselves, the Overwhelming Majority of Whom Are Tinokos Shenishbu to Be Loved, Davened For, and Drawn Close — Never Harmed, Never Hated, Never Cursed

This is among the most sensitive questions in the entire discourse, and it cannot be answered honestly without holding two truths together at once.

The first truth: the Charedi world does not paint all secular Jewish leaders with a single brush, and does not lightly call any Jew a "rasha." Chazal command: "Hevei dan es kol ha'adam l'kaf zechus" — "Judge every person favorably" (Pirkei Avos 1:6). The default Torah posture toward a fellow Jew is judgment toward merit, not condemnation.

The second truth: the Torah requires us to call falsehood by its name. The founders and leaders of secular Zionism, particularly in its early decades, openly declared their project to be a break from the Torah framework — removing Torah from schools, establishing chillul Shabbos as national culture, redefining Jewish identity as ethnic-national citizenship rather than covenant with Hashem. To pretend these were harmless choices of personal lifestyle would be dishonest.

The Charedi world holds both truths. And it holds them within a theological framework that includes some of the tradition's most severe concepts — the Erev Rav and the klipah of Amalek — which must be understood precisely, because misunderstanding them is dangerous. These are concepts about spiritual forces. They are not, and have never been in authentic mainstream Charedi thought, a license to hate, harm, curse, or seek the destruction of a single living Jew. Understanding why is the entire substance of this article.

I. The Default: Hevei Dan Es Kol Ha'Adam L'Kaf Zechus

The starting point is the Mishnah's command in Pirkei Avos 1:6: judge every person favorably. This is not a sentimental nicety; it is a halachic obligation that shapes how a Torah Jew relates to every other Jew, including those whose conduct he finds gravely mistaken.

The Rambam in Hilchos De'os 5–7 and Hilchos Teshuvah develops the framework. Even toward a Jew who has sinned, the obligation is to seek his return, not his ruin. Hilchos Teshuvah 7:6: "We do not desire the death of the wicked, but that he should return from his way and live." The Torah's posture toward the Jewish sinner is the posture of the doctor toward the patient, not the executioner toward the condemned.

This is the frame within which everything else in this article operates. Whatever harsh concepts the tradition contains, they are bounded by the prior obligation to judge favorably and to seek every Jew's return.

II. The Operative Framework: Tinokos Shenishbu

The single most important halachic concept for understanding how the Charedi world views secular Jews — leaders and laypeople alike — is tinok shenishba: the "captured infant."

The Rambam codifies it in Hilchos Mamrim 3:3. Discussing the children of those who broke from the tradition, the Rambam rules that a Jew who was raised without Torah — "like a child taken captive among the gentiles, whom the gentiles raised in their religion" — is not judged as a willful sinner, even if he violates the entire Torah, because he never knew otherwise. He acts according to the only framework he was ever taught. Halacha treats him with the mercy due to one who errs through no fault of his own, and the obligation toward him is patient, loving outreach.

This is the framework that applies to the overwhelming majority of secular Jews today — including most secular Jewish leaders. They were not raised in Torah. They never sat in a yeshiva, never tasted the sweetness of mitzvos, never encountered authentic Torah life. They are, in the precise halachic sense, tinokos shenishbu — and they are therefore not judged as "resha'im" in the classical sense, regardless of how far their conduct departs from Torah.

This was emphasized by Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l, who ruled across his Igros Moshe responsa that secular Jews in our times must be approached with love and outreach rather than condemnation, precisely because they do not know the truth of Torah life. The Chazon Ish similarly emphasized the need to distinguish carefully between one who knowingly rebels against Hashem and one who never learned Torah at all — and ruled that in our era, the category of the knowing rebel (the mumar l'hach'is who sins specifically to anger Hashem) is exceedingly rare, while the category of the tinok shenishba encompasses nearly the entire secular population.

The operative halachic default toward secular Jewish leaders is therefore tinok shenishba — mercy, love, and the hope of return — not the category of the rasha or the enemy.

III. The Erev Rav — A Spiritual Concept, Not a Personal Accusation

The Charedi tradition does contain a framework for understanding the spiritual force that drives movements away from Torah: the concept of the Erev Rav — the "mixed multitude" that left Egypt together with Bnei Yisrael (Shemos 12:38).

In the Kabbalistic tradition — the Zohar, the writings of the Arizal (Sha'ar HaGilgulim), and the Vilna Gaon's school (Kol HaTor, attributed to his talmid Rabbi Hillel of Shklov) — the Erev Rav is understood as a spiritual category: a force within Jewish history that, while outwardly part of Klal Yisrael, works to draw the nation away from its Torah essence. The Vilna Gaon's framework describes this force as operating in every generation, particularly intensifying in the period before the geulah.

Here the essential caution must be stated with full force, and it is a caution that authentic Charedi thought itself insists upon:

The Erev Rav is a spiritual-structural concept, not a tool for identifying and condemning specific living individuals. Responsible Charedi thinkers have always warned against the misuse of this concept to label particular people as "Erev Rav" — because no human being has the spiritual insight to make such a determination about another Jew's neshamah, and because the concept describes a force operating in history rather than a verdict to be pronounced upon individuals. To weaponize the Erev Rav concept into a personal accusation against named individuals is a distortion of the framework, not its application.

The legitimate use of the concept is structural and theological: it provides a framework for understanding why movements arise within the Jewish people that work against Torah — the same recurring spiritual pattern that produced the Hellenizers, the various heretical movements across history, and the secular ideological movements of the modern era. It is a lens for understanding historical forces, not a license for condemning the human beings caught up in them — who remain, in the overwhelming majority, tinokos shenishbu deserving of love and patience.

IV. Amalek — The Klipah, Not the License

The most severe concept in the tradition, and the one most dangerous to misunderstand, is Amalek.

The Torah commands the eradication of Amalek (Devarim 25:17–19; Shemos 17:8–16). The pasuk "Ki yad al kes Kah, milchamah l'Hashem ba'Amalek mi'dor dor" (Shemos 17:16) — "Hashem's hand is on the throne; Hashem will have war with Amalek in every generation" — is interpreted by Rashi to mean that Hashem's Name and Throne are incomplete until the memory of Amalek is erased.

Several points must be stated with absolute clarity, because the misapplication of this concept is among the most dangerous distortions in all of Jewish thought:

First — we do not know who biological Amalek is today. The Mishnah (Yadayim 4:4) and the Gemara (Berachos 28a) record that Sancheriv, the Assyrian king, mixed up all the nations through his mass deportations, so that the original national identities can no longer be determined. The Rambam and the mainstream halachic authorities hold that we have no way of identifying biological Amalek in our time. The practical mitzvah of mechiyas Amalek therefore has no identifiable contemporary object among the nations — let alone among Jews.

Second — Amalek, when applied within Jewish thought to anything other than the biological nation, is a spiritual concept. The Torah describes Amalek as "asher karcha ba'derech" — the one who "cooled you on the way" (Devarim 25:18). Chazal and the chassidic-mussar tradition develop "Amalek" as the spiritual force of coldness toward Hashem, of doubt, of the cooling of religious fervor — the klipah of Amalek, the internal and historical force that works to chill the relationship between Klal Yisrael and Hashem. This spiritual Amalek is the object of the eternal "milchamah l'Hashem" — a spiritual war against a spiritual force, fought through Torah, mitzvos, and the warming of Jewish hearts toward Hashem.

Third — and this is non-negotiable — mechiyas Amalek has never, in authentic mainstream halacha, been understood to license harm against fellow Jews. A Jew is a Jew. "Yisrael, af al pi she'chata, Yisrael hu" — "A Jew, even when he sins, remains a Jew" (Sanhedrin 44a). No Jew is biological Amalek. To apply the language of mechiyas Amalek — physical eradication — to any living Jew, including a secular Jewish leader, is a grotesque distortion that authentic Charedi thought categorically rejects. The spiritual concept of the Amalek-klipah describes a force to be fought through Torah and teshuvah; it is not, and can never be, a license to harm a Jewish human being.

When harsh sources in the tradition invoke "the seed of Amalek" regarding Jewish anti-Torah movements, they are speaking in the register of spiritual characterization — identifying the klipah, the spiritual force, at work — not issuing a halachic verdict that would trigger the mitzvah of physical eradication against Jews. The distinction is everything. A source that says a movement embodies the spiritual coldness of Amalek is making a theological claim about a force; it is not, and cannot be, a call to violence against Jews, which the entire framework of halacha forbids.

V. The Yevsektsia — When the Harshest Language Was Used, and About Whom

It is worth being precise about the historical record, because it is frequently distorted.

The harshest "seed of Amalek" language documented in the name of the Chofetz Chaim was directed at the Yevsektsia — the Jewish Section of the Soviet Communist Party, which we have addressed in a dedicated article in this series. The Yevsektsia were not secular Zionists. They were not ordinary non-observant Jews. They were Jews who wielded Soviet state power to imprison, exile, torture, and in some cases execute rabbis; to close yeshivos and chadarim by force; to confiscate shuls; and to wage an active, violent campaign to destroy Torah life across the Soviet Union. When the Chofetz Chaim, who lived through this catastrophe, characterized the Yevsektsia in the spiritual register of "the seed of Amalek," he was speaking of active, violent persecutors engaged in the literal destruction of Torah Jewry.

Even there, the language was spiritual characterization, not a halachic ruling licensing violence. And critically: the Yevsektsia are not a model that transfers to secular Zionist politicians or to ordinary secular Jews. The Yevsektsia were violent persecutors. The tinok shenishba framework applies most fully to the ordinary secular Jew raised without Torah; it applies least to one who knowingly and violently persecutes Torah Jews. These are different categories, and conflating them — as polemical collections sometimes do by placing a "Zionists" headline over a quote about the Yevsektsia — is a historical and halachic error.

The honest conclusion: even the harshest sources in the tradition (a) used the language of spiritual characterization rather than halachic license for violence, and (b) were frequently directed at active violent persecutors (the Yevsektsia) rather than at ordinary secular Jews or secular politicians. Neither the language nor its targets transfer cleanly to the question of how to view ordinary secular Jewish leaders today.

VI. The Deeds Have Caused Real Harm — and We May Say So

None of the above means the Charedi world pretends the policies of secular leadership have been harmless. They have not. The honest accounting:

  • Torah study was removed from the state educational framework
  • Chillul Shabbos was established as the normative public culture of the state
  • Jewish identity was redefined as ethnic-national citizenship rather than covenant
  • Public chillul Hashem was given voice and legitimacy
  • And, as we have documented across this series, the current secular establishment has waged an active campaign against the Torah-learning community through conscription enforcement, monetary sanctions, and mass arrests

We may name these harms honestly. The Chazon Ish's framework — distinguishing the knowing rebel from the one who never learned — does not require pretending that harmful policies are harmless. It requires distinguishing the deed from the soul: opposing the action firmly while withholding the verdict of "rasha" upon the individual whose heart and upbringing we cannot judge.

We oppose the ideology and its harms with full clarity. We withhold condemnation of the individual Jew, whom we judge — per the Rambam's tinok shenishba framework — as one who errs through an upbringing he did not choose.

VII. Love the Jew, Oppose the Ideology, Never Violence

The Charedi obligation is therefore twofold and held in tension:

Ahavas Yisrael toward every individual Jew — including secular leaders, including those whose policies we oppose, including those who have caused real harm. Every Jew is our brother. "Yisrael, af al pi she'chata, Yisrael hu." We do not wish them harm. We wish them teshuvah. We daven for them.

Unwavering loyalty to Torah truth — naming falsehood as falsehood, opposing anti-Torah policies, refusing to validate ideologies that lead Jews away from Hashem.

And bounding both: the absolute prohibition of violence, hatred, and revenge against fellow Jews. The spiritual concepts the tradition contains — Erev Rav, the klipah of Amalek — are fought through Torah, tefillah, and teshuvah, never through harm to a single Jewish person. As the Rambam rules (Hilchos Teshuvah 7:6): we do not seek the downfall of the sinner, but his return and his life. As the mainstream Charedi gedolim have consistently taught: we cry for every Jew who has lost his way; we do not curse them — we daven for them.

This is not weakness. It is the strength of Torah, which teaches us to oppose error firmly while loving the erring brother completely — to fight the spiritual force without harming the human being — to name the falsehood while davening for the one ensnared in it.

VIII. The Closing Position

So how does the Charedi world view secular Jewish leaders?

Not, in the overwhelming majority of cases, as resha'im. They are, in the precise halachic sense the Rambam established, tinokos shenishbu — Jews raised without Torah, errant through an upbringing they did not choose, to be loved, davened for, and patiently drawn close.

Not as Amalek to be harmed. The Amalek concept, applied within Jewish thought, refers to a spiritual force — the klipah of coldness toward Hashem — fought through Torah and teshuvah, never a license for violence against Jews, which halacha categorically forbids. We do not know who biological Amalek is, and no Jew is Amalek.

Not as personal embodiments of the Erev Rav to be named and condemned. The Erev Rav is a structural-spiritual concept for understanding historical forces, not a verdict to be pronounced upon living individuals.

But also not as harmless. Their policies have caused real spiritual harm to Klal Yisrael, and we name that harm honestly while withholding judgment of their souls.

The Charedi posture is the posture the Torah requires: oppose the ideology with full clarity; love the individual Jew completely; fight the spiritual forces through Torah and tefillah; never raise a hand or a curse against a fellow Jew; and daven, always, for the day when all of Klal Yisrael — every leader, every Jew, every soul — returns to Hashem and to His Torah.

"Hashiveinu Hashem eilecha v'nashuvah, chadesh yameinu k'kedem" — "Return us, Hashem, to You, and we shall return; renew our days as of old" (Eichah 5:21). We daven this for ourselves and for every Jew, including those who lead and those who have strayed. The geulah we await is the geulah of all of Klal Yisrael — none excluded, none destroyed, all returned.

Sources

The default of favorable judgment

  • Pirkei Avos 1:6 — "Hevei dan es kol ha'adam l'kaf zechus"
  • Talmud Bavli, Shabbos 127a-b — judging favorably and its reward
  • Rambam, Hilchos De'os 5–7 — the framework of interpersonal conduct
  • Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 7:6 — "We do not desire the death of the wicked, but that he should return and live"

The tinok shenishba framework

  • Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Mamrim 3:3 — the foundational ruling on the Jew raised without Torah as a "captured infant"
  • Talmud Bavli, Shabbos 68a-b — the Talmudic source of the tinok shenishba category
  • Igros Moshe, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt"l — the application of love and outreach to secular Jews in our era
  • Chazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 2 — the distinction between the knowing rebel and one who never learned; the rarity of the mumar l'hach'is in our times
  • Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 44a — "Yisrael, af al pi she'chata, Yisrael hu"

The Erev Rav concept (spiritual-structural, with cautions)

  • Shemos 12:38 — the erev rav that left Egypt with Bnei Yisrael
  • Zohar, various locations — the kabbalistic development of the concept
  • Sha'ar HaGilgulim, the Arizal — the spiritual framework
  • Kol HaTor, Chapter 2 (attributed to Rabbi Hillel of Shklov, the Vilna Gaon's school) — the framework of the Erev Rav force in history
  • The essential caution: a structural-spiritual concept, not a tool for condemning named living individuals

The Amalek concept (spiritual klipah, never a license against Jews)

  • Shemos 17:8–16 — the war with Amalek; "Ki yad al kes Kah"
  • Devarim 25:17–19 — "Zachor es asher asah lecha Amalek… asher karcha ba'derech"
  • Rashi on Shemos 17:16 — Hashem's Name and Throne incomplete until Amalek is erased
  • Mishnah, Yadayim 4:4 and Talmud Bavli, Berachos 28a — Sancheriv mixed the nations; we cannot identify biological Amalek today
  • Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 5:4–5 — the mitzvah of mechiyas Amalek (directed at the biological nation, not identifiable today)
  • The mussar-chassidic tradition on the klipah of Amalek as the spiritual force of coldness toward Hashem ("asher karcha")
  • Sanhedrin 44a — the principle that no Jew loses his Jewish status, which categorically excludes any Jew from the Amalek category

The Yevsektsia historical context

  • The documented harsh characterizations by the Chofetz Chaim were directed at the Yevsektsia — the Soviet Jewish Communist persecutors — not at secular Zionists or ordinary secular Jews (see the dedicated article: "The Yevsektsiya: When Jews Wage War on Torah")
  • The historical record of the Yevsektsia as active, violent persecutors of Torah Jewry (Zvi Gitelman, Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics, Princeton 1972)
  • The crucial distinction: violent persecutors vs. ordinary secular Jews raised without Torah

The bounding principle — no violence against Jews

  • Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 7:6 — seeking the sinner's return, not his downfall
  • Eichah 5:21 — "Hashiveinu Hashem eilecha v'nashuvah"
  • The consistent mainstream Charedi position: oppose the ideology, love the individual, fight spiritual forces through Torah and tefillah, never harm a fellow Jew

The honest accounting of harms

  • The documented secular policies: removal of Torah from state education, public chillul Shabbos, redefinition of Jewish identity, and the contemporary campaign against the Torah-learning community (documented across this series)

The structural relationship to other articles in this series