On the Protests Against “The Jews Are Coming” — and a Bit About Protests in General (Column 329)
Why he sees no real insult here
The column opens by saying that he is not impressed by the show artistically at all: it is weak, not funny, and at times crude. But that is precisely not the point. In what he saw, the creators are not offering degrading interpretations of biblical figures; they are using them to convey messages about the present. He says this is similar to the midrashic anachronism of the Sages, who attributed sayings and deeds to biblical figures that never happened in order to speak to their own generation. So the very choice of the Bible as a medium points more to a connection with it than to contempt for it. At most, there is criticism here of believers and of the status the tradition has in their eyes.
Public funding and free speech do not justify silencing
The column also rejects the public-funding claim. In a democracy, tax money endlessly funds controversial content: religion and tradition, Zionism, rabbinate institutions, yeshivot, military heritage, and more. If only what sits in the consensus were allowed, we would get a thin democracy with almost no state culture and almost no content. Beyond that, even if there were offensive satire here against the tradition, that would still be a permitted position. Whoever does not want it should not watch. Fighting the very existence of the program because others watch it is, in his view, an attempt to silence speech in the name of sensitivity.
Mockery of idolatry teaches what legitimate criticism looks like
From there the column moves to the issue of mockery of idolatry. The Talmud permits, and even encourages, ridicule of idolatry, and Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner explains that mockery reduces exaggerated importance and is therefore fitting precisely toward something that is being treated as important when it does not deserve it. The column asks whether we would stop mocking idols because their worshippers are offended. Obviously not. We would say that their offense stems from a distorted value system. From there he asks readers to step into the shoes of secular people who see Jewish tradition, or parts of it, as chauvinistic, violent, homophobic, coercive, and primitive. From their point of view, satire about the Bible and the tradition is exactly the natural tool of criticism. Even if he himself does not accept that diagnosis, he does not see why we may mock what is sacred in others' eyes while they may not mock what is sacred in ours.
Why the claim that only religious people are mocked is weak
The column lingers on the argument from comparison. In his view there are three mistakes here. First, religious and Haredi people have also always mocked secular people, religious Zionists, Zionism, and heretics. Second, secular satirists also mock other targets: state symbols, Zionist leaders, political correctness, and at times even the Holocaust and the use made of it. Third, some of the parallels are simply absurd, especially the analogy to the Holocaust: there we are dealing with an event of real human suffering, so there is a reason not to add pain to actual victims. Abraham, Bathsheba, or Eli's sons are not watching the program and are not being harmed by it. He also stresses that speaking about one camp that supposedly always demands immunity mixes together different people and different positions.
If satire is unbalanced, the answer is to create counter-satire
The column admits that it may be true that most of the satirical sting is directed more at religious people and the right, but in his view this follows from who makes the shows and from the fact that Jewish history is populated mainly by religious figures. Zionist leaders, most of whom came from the left, also take plenty of blows. So the important question for him is not why there is not enough right-wing satire, but why the right and the religious public are not producing better satirists of their own. Instead of taking offense, they could create strong shows about leftists, secular people, LGBT people, or Arabs. The fact that they expect talented people from the left to do that work for them as well strikes him as ridiculous, and even if the other side were offended that still would not justify silencing anyone.
Faith does not require an emotional bond with biblical figures
Against the claim that tolerance for such satire reveals religious estrangement, the column answers that emotion is not the heart of religiosity. The show's creators are entitled not to feel close to Abraham or David. That is their worldview. But a believer, too, can lack a deep emotional bond with biblical figures and still believe in God, the Torah, and halakhic commitment. He notes that some sages already read parts of the Bible allegorically, so historical authenticity is not a necessary condition for Jewish faith. From a nonbeliever's standpoint, these may really be literary figures. To demand that they relate to them as a believer does is, in his view, a basic failure of reflection and of understanding the other.
Yedidya Meir is right that the protest turned a weak show into a banner of free speech
The column presents Yedidya Meir's article, which describes well how such a protest only enlarges the show: the creators are presented as brave fighters for freedom, while the protesters appear as self-victimizing censors. He agrees not only with the media description but also with the value judgment: when people choose the path of offense instead of the path of argument, counter-creation, or better humor, that is weakness rather than strength. He therefore compares this protest both to the discourse of political correctness and, at the level of the mechanism, to Muslim protests over cartoons of Muhammad. He stresses that even if they were making fun of his own grandmother, he would not go demonstrate in order to stop others from speaking.
Many demonstrations are aimed mainly at strengthening the demonstrators
From here comes his main claim about demonstrations in general. In his view, organizers often know that the demonstration will not achieve its declared goal and may even achieve the opposite. Its real purpose is what the Mishnah in Ta'anit calls bringing the ark into the city square: not only to act outwardly, but to show inwardly and heavenward that people care, and to bind the group together around a sense of distress, righteousness, and shared persecution. In that sense, the protests against 'The Jews Are Coming' were aimed less at taking the show off the screen and more at strengthening attachment to Judaism and tradition, creating the feeling of a large injured public, and making clear that not the whole country is leftist, secular, and anti-Semitic. He therefore suspects that the protest did not only express offense but also produced it, and that leaders use it as a device for shaping their public's consciousness.
Why he hardly ever goes to demonstrations
At the end, the column explains why he has taken part in very few demonstrations in his life. Even when a demonstration has some chance of influence, he is unwilling to join when its main point is consciousness-shaping, collective warming, and preaching by self-appointed leaders. In his view this erases individuality, turns people into a herd easily manipulated, and replaces thinking with slogans and absurd analogies. So precisely the point that Yedidya Meir eventually identifies as an advantage, closing ranks, only deepens his opposition. His conclusion is that the ark should remain in the synagogue, not roam the city square.
The furor over “The Jews Are Coming” hasn’t died down, and I’ve been asked about it on the site more than once. I’ve already written what I had to say on this “weighty” subject, and I felt it was better not to express my opinion about the protests against the show out of consideration for readers whose emotions are inflamed as it is.
Now someone sent me a piece by Yedidya Meir about the demonstration held against the show, known in Israel as “Brit HaMa’aminim” (“Covenant of the Believers”). His article deals with the benefit such a protest supposedly yields, and it sparked a thought for me about protests in general. I highly recommend reading the article, because he speaks sensibly and accurately describes relevant phenomena and consequences of the show and of the protests against it. Still, I do have a few comments on his argument, and since we’ve come to it, I feel I can’t avoid a brief discussion of the subject itself as well.
Is There a Reason to Protest?
Before asking whether a protest is useful, it’s worth asking whether there’s any reason to protest and to be offended. I’ll preface by saying that I’ve seen very few clips from the show, and all were rather weak and, to my taste, not funny at all. That of course wasn’t due to some famed religious sensitivity—if only because I have none. Quite the opposite: I am entirely in favor of self-deprecating and other humor, and entirely in favor of free-wheeling satire about the Bible and the Sages (it’s worth reading about this in Column 63). But what can I say—the show simply wasn’t funny.
But the question of the satire’s quality isn’t my topic here. My claim is that, at least based on what I saw, there’s simply nothing here to be offended by. Most of the sketches I saw used figures from Scripture and our history to convey messages about the present, with a few jokes at their expense. What’s wrong with that? As noted, the show isn’t funny and uses language that’s too crude and sexual for my taste, but that’s a matter of taste and style. I don’t see any problem here in terms of insult or disparagement.
I could perhaps understand people taking offense if the sketches offered insulting interpretations of biblical figures or situations. But as far as I can tell, the clips I saw don’t pretend to interpret those figures and their actions (though even if they did, that would be legitimate in my eyes). Rather, they mainly aim to convey messages relevant to us, our world, and our lives. The sketches use biblical characters and events to convey those messages. The Sages do something similar in Midrash with various figures (this is called anachronism, a very common midrashic tool). In Midrash, the Sages often ascribe to biblical figures deeds, statements, and opinions they never actually had or did, solely to convey messages to their own generation. That is also what the creators of this show are doing. Therefore, using biblical figures and events to convey messages actually testifies to a connection with the biblical world, not disdain for it. After all, they chose it as their medium. But even their connection to the Bible seems to me not especially relevant. I don’t see disrespect here. At most there’s contempt for believers who view those figures and events as a foundational myth on which one ought to educate, and that is presumably the show’s creators’ worldview; it’s no surprise they express it through the show (see more on this below).
There are also claims that the show is taxpayer-funded, and that public money shouldn’t be used for content that harms any segment of the public. But just as well, a secular person could complain about budgets for programs on faith and tradition, or a post-Zionist (or an Arab citizen) could object to programs seeking to create connections to history, the land, and Zionism, to state symbols, or to military heritage. Likewise, many (myself included) are upset about money funding the IDF’s Chief Rabbinate and the Chief Rabbinate in general, or supporting yeshivot and Haredi education that many see as mistaken, harmful, and coercive. Part of our social contract, as unfortunate and infuriating as it is, is that tax funds sometimes go to controversial purposes. So this “knock-down” argument is far from persuasive in my view. If we want to do only what’s consensual, we end up with a state without civic culture and effectively without any content (what’s called a “thin democracy”). I suspect such a deal isn’t very attractive to some of us, at least to the Haredim.
And in general, even if the show truly expressed contempt for the Bible and tradition—so what? That’s their right. That’s their worldview. Anyone who dislikes the show can simply not watch it. I assume most of the protesters in fact don’t watch it (to the extent they watch television at all), as it contradicts their values. So what’s the problem? Who’s being harmed here? They’re offended by the very existence of the show and by the fact that others watch it and enjoy it. But that’s a straightforward attempt to muzzle speech. Essentially, you’re unwilling for So-and-so to think or speak in a way you dislike, or to speak with someone else without you and in a manner you don’t like. Everyone can decide what to talk about and how, and everyone can also decide whether to listen and how to relate to it. That is the essence of democracy and freedom of expression. By the way, instead of this, you’re welcome to watch the dozens of excellent satire programs broadcast on Channel 20 or on the Hidabroot channel. Good luck.
Mockery of Idolatry
The Talmud (Megillah 25b) says:
Rav Naḥman said: All mockery is forbidden except for mockery of idolatry, which is permitted, as it is written, “Bel bows, Nebo stoops … they stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden …”; and Rabbi Yannai said: from here, “The inhabitants of Beth-Aven tremble for the calves; indeed, the people of Samaria shall mourn over it … over its glory, for it is departed from it”—do not read “its glory (kevodo)” but “its heaviness (kevdo).”
The verses ridicule the idols, and from here the Talmud learns that mockery of idolatry is permitted (and desirable). Likewise, later there, regarding one about whom evil rumors have spread, it permits denigrating him (even his mother, apropos the famed Jewish sensitivity and the feigned consideration for others’ feelings).
The explanation is that mockery is forbidden only when done for its own sake. But here the mockery serves to convey a vital moral message, and therefore it is permitted. R. Yitzchak Hutner, in his Pachad Yitzchak on Purim, explains further: the essence of mockery is letting air out of a balloon—reducing the importance of something. Idolatry’s essence is attributing importance to what does not deserve it; therefore, mockery directed at idolatry is permitted, for it corrects the distortion, lowers the misplaced importance, and returns it to its proper size. Wood and stone remain wood and stone; they do not become gods.
Now we should ask: what would we say to idol-worshipers who are offended by our mockery? After all, we’re belittling and harming what is most precious to them. Not only is this permitted; it’s desirable. We would certainly say to them that their “precious thing” is distorted, and we refuse to cooperate with the importance they ascribe to it—even at the cost of offending them. We would also claim a right to criticism and satire. Now try stepping into the shoes of those who see Jewish faith and our traditional values—or at least part of them—as distorted. In their view, it inculcates chauvinism, harm to and discrimination against women, violence and corporal and capital punishment, improper attitudes toward non-Jews, a repressive monarchical regime, imposition of religious values, a rigid sexual regime, opposition to and persecution of homosexuality, killing Amalekite infants, and more. Perhaps even belief in God, in miracles, in prophecy, and in the historical truth of biblical stories (in light of archaeological findings and biblical criticism) seems to them primitive and irrational. Yes—this may be news to you—but some people see Jewish tradition this way. Moreover, by virtue of this ancient (to them, anachronistic) tradition, various behaviors are imposed on them today (conversion, halakhic marriage, non-recognition of same-sex unions, etc.). If they wish to voice their critique of this (in their view) distorted value system through mockery, that is only to be expected. Regardless of whether I think they’re right—why should what’s permitted to us be forbidden to them? Remember: they see before their eyes a system that grants importance to vanities (as they see it), and our tradition itself teaches that when you see something accorded importance it doesn’t deserve, the right way to respond is to make fun of it.
So I ask: even if there were mockery and derision of the Bible and tradition here—what exactly is wrong with what they’re doing? That it offends us? Weren’t the idol-worshipers mocked by the prophets also offended? Weren’t the prophets of Baal offended when Elijah the prophet mocked them, urging them to keep calling on Baal to answer them while he continued to remain silent? The purpose of criticism is to change and to test the distorted values it opposes, and that’s what’s being done here. Is the claim “it hurts my feelings” relevant?
Comparisons
As usual, religious folks (especially Haredim) on the defensive are champions of comparisons. They always find a way to show that the other side is at fault because “they” do this only to us and not to others. Thus we’re told that no one ever jokes about LGBTQ people, about leftists, Arabs, Zionism, state symbols, the Holocaust, etc. To that I’ll say three things: First, everyone does this (including us). Second, they do in fact joke about other groups and phenomena as well. And third, some of these comparisons are ridiculous on their face. I’ll get to the issue of proportions below.
The first claim is that we do the same thing. I’ve already shown that the Talmud recommends mocking idol-worshipers. But throughout history down to the present, Haredim have mocked the “Mizrahnikes” (religious-Zionists), the secular, and Zionism, and have defamed them vigorously (with some claims blatantly false). The religious have always mocked the foolish heretics. Everyone mocks his counterpart, and secular and leftists do this too—and that’s fine. If there were a corresponding satire show on television from the right or the religious side, I assume it would mock figures on the other side to the same degree—though, unfortunately, they don’t have figures from millennia ago who could protest their insult (maybe Nimrod, Esau, and Terach). You ask why there isn’t such a show (that would satirize Nimrod and Terach)? See below.
The second claim is that even from the few clips I saw, it’s evident they do mock state symbols and Zionist leaders, including those on the left (most Zionist and state leaders were on the left). There is also satire there about political correctness, which is a distinctly left-wing phenomenon (at least until the protests against “The Jews Are Coming,” when the religious and the right eagerly joined the discourse of political correctness aimed at silencing others). Moreover, there is satire (I don’t know if on this show) even about the Holocaust and its instrumentalization. So the claim that there is no satire aimed at other sides is simply false.
Before you explain to me that “they” are offended when criticized, so why do they do it to us—show me one of the show’s creators who was offended by criticism aimed at him or at those sharing his ideology (left, LGBTQ, etc.). These sweeping generalizations about “them” are evasions. If you find someone who opposes satire in one direction and supports it in the other, we can discuss that. General statements blur together different people and thus amount to nothing. Just a reminder: the show’s creators aren’t the heads of LGBTQ organizations who engage in silencing. Don’t lump all leftists together; there, too, are different people with different views and approaches.
The third claim is that some of these comparisons simply don’t hold water. If the yeshiva-world’s learning looked like the apologetic analogies they use in these contexts, we’d be in very bad shape. COVID provided us with innumerable examples of “learned” Haredi argumentation expressed in absurd analogies (see the comparisons that came up following my posts about Haredim and COVID, and the claims of “Look, they do this too, and you don’t criticize them”—see here, and much more). For example, the claims that, for some reason, even according to the show’s creators one may not joke about the Holocaust—this analogy is truly an insult to intelligence. Beyond the fact that satirists do joke about the Holocaust, the Holocaust was a tragic event and people suffered there. It is therefore possible to argue that it’s inappropriate to rub salt into their wounds, even if it is one’s right to do so. Does anyone here have new information about the traumatic experiences of Abraham our forefather, of Bathsheba, or of the sons of Eli, of which I am unaware? Are they watching the show (on HOT broadcasts in the Heavenly Academy) and likely to be offended?
Proportions, or: Why Isn’t There Religious Satire?
One could raise claims about the proportions—the targets of the mockery and satire. That is, claim that most of the mockery, and the most biting parts, are directed at religious targets and perhaps also the right, and not at the left, the secular, Arabs, LGBTQ folk, etc. I don’t know if that’s true (as noted, I haven’t watched enough), but I assume it is. The mockery at issue in these protests isn’t of the right, but mainly of biblical and religious figures (as well as Zionist leaders, etc.). I’m trying to think whom exactly from our history they could have mocked who wasn’t religious—Korah? Spinoza? Perhaps Esau, Terach, or Ishmael? Do you really think they avoided mocking them because of their views? Even if there weren’t sketches about them (I don’t know), that’s probably due to their relative weight in our history. As mentioned, Zionist leaders were mostly left-wing, and they certainly get their share.
But beyond all this, the proportion and the targets are of course a function of who staffs the teams that make these shows. If, instead of taking offense, the right and the religious public developed high-quality satirists, they could make satire shows about the left, the secular, the LGBTQ community, Arabs—from Terach and beyond. As it happens, shows from the right and the religious side tend to come out pretty lame and attract ratings accordingly. In recent years there’s been some improvement in these areas, and I hope that soon this will render unnecessary the pitiful protests against this satire show. By the way, even if leftists and LGBTQ people were offended and protested against those satire shows in an attempt to muzzle them—nothing would happen. The shows would go on, as would the protests (only this time they would look pitiful and self-victimizing), and that would be perfectly fine.
We expect the talented leftists (those from “Eretz Nehederet,” who are indeed talented—not those from “The Jews Are Coming,” who in my view are better suited to the level of satire on Channel 20 and Hidabroot) to do the work for us. We basically want them to satirize themselves, since we’re unable to do it. Is that serious?!
Sensitivity and Offense
Many raise the claim that if they did this to my mother or grandfather I wouldn’t remain silent. The ability to mock, they say, stems from the show’s creators being disconnected from the Bible and its figures; likewise, the indifference of those willing to accept such satire (like me) indicates a rupture and alienation in their religious world. As for the show’s creators, they might indeed say they don’t feel a deep emotional connection (at least not of the religious kind) to biblical figures. That’s their worldview, and they won’t see it as an indictment. That’s their right. Must they feel your feelings?
But even regarding religious people who accept such satire—like me, for example—I’ve already written on the site that I don’t see such a disconnect as a religious problem. Why should I feel an emotional bond to biblical figures? I believe in God and in the Torah and try to fulfill what’s written in it. Is there an obligation to feel a deep emotional connection to someone? In Column 22 I noted that even the halakhic commandments relating to love do not address emotion. I reject the centrality of emotion in faith and the necessity of an emotional dimension for the believer. As a believer, I feel no injury whatsoever and no problem in the face of satire dealing with biblical figures (so long as it’s of high quality; otherwise I simply won’t watch it).[1]
I’ll add that there were sages who viewed biblical events and some of its figures allegorically; that is, they did not regard the Bible’s historical authenticity as a necessary condition for a Jewish religious outlook. So if one may say that our forefather Abraham and our mother Sarah never existed and that they represent the relationship between matter and form—why is it forbidden to poke fun at those fictional characters?! This point becomes even sharper when the protest is directed at things said by non-believers, who apparently do not accept the biblical figures—or at least some of them—as historical. From their perspective, they’re mocking literary characters. Now those who see these figures as historical accuse them of insulting people dear to them. To them, this is akin to someone mocking Sir Galahad (one of the Knights of the Round Table), and a loyal Brit coming to protest the offense against the nation’s sacred figures. Or someone mocking Achilles or Thetis, and the Greeks protesting a violation of the sanctities of their mythology. Or perhaps someone who is certain he studies at Hogwarts hears someone belittling Professor McGonagall and protests an offense against J. K. Rowling and the muggle canon.
Interim Summary: A Bit of Self-Reflection, Please!
From everything said so far, it follows that these protests express a desperate inability to put oneself in another’s shoes and see things from their point of view. The protesters demand that the entire public see the Bible as they themselves see it, or at least relate to its figures in the same way. That seems strange to me, especially when the content of the protests is mainly a demand that the show’s creators be considerate of others and their feelings.
Now I come to Yedidya Meir’s article.
The Gist of Yedidya Meir’s Argument
Yedidya Meir, an experienced journalist and satirist, describes the foolishness of holding such a protest. He shows how protests like these only strengthen the show’s standing—which in itself is rather weak—and give it might and vigor. Because of the complaints and protests, the show’s creators and actors become culture heroes for no good reason. They are portrayed as biting and daring freedom fighters, invited onto every panel and interviewed on every stage in a sympathetic, admiring tone. Facing them stand a few pitiful, self-victimizing muzzlers who whine and take offense in the name of their grandmother (Mama Ruchel) and try to shut the mouths of those knights of freedom and satire. Yedidya Meir writes that this is how it is perceived and therefore it’s not worth doing—but in my opinion it’s not only perceived this way; it’s the truth. These are indeed weak and pitiful people who choose the path of taking offense instead of confronting the real front (creating other satire, for example). Thus Palestinians or Mizrahim/women/LGBTQ folks prefer to be offended and to silence others rather than to engage. Offense is the weapon of the weak—and especially of those filled with inferiority complexes and lacking substantive abilities and arguments. This is precisely a kind (or secret) of political-correctness discourse, with everything I’ve written about it.
These protesters put themselves in the position of Muslims who respond with violent protests to cartoons of Muhammad. When I heard about those Muslim protests (I’m not talking about acts of violence and murder), I thought to myself how fortunate we are not to be like them: childish primitives who can’t understand satire or step into others’ shoes and who prefer to be offended and play the victim rather than confront the real front. Now I feel that we Jews are apparently no better. We, too, are helpless in the face of another worldview and wallow in victimhood because we’re incapable of dealing with it in a mature way. It’s simply pitiful and evokes pity. We ban proselytizing (unless it’s Jewish), we ban reading philosophical literature with heretical arguments (only Jewish religious outreach to secular people is allowed), and now we also ban mocking the “sanctities of the nation” (unless it’s the sanctities of the secular).
You know what? Statements by people like Avri Gilad, who pity us poor offended Jews and call on the show’s creators to take a step back, to behave sensitively and not to hurt us—those only strengthen this feeling in me. I don’t want anyone to pity me and I don’t need anyone’s pity. Whoever wants to—let them lay into me, with all their might, and let them do it to everything sacred to me, and good for them. If it’s good (which usually isn’t the case here), I’ll even happily watch and laugh out loud. You know what? I’ll let you in on a secret: if they did this to my grandmother, I would probably still watch and laugh—or, if I were weak and emotional, I would keep quiet. In any case, I wouldn’t go out to protest in an attempt to shut the creator’s mouth.
Carrying the Ark into the Public Square
Yedidya Meir’s words prompted me to think about why such protests and demonstrations are really held. After all, they make us look like primitive children and greatly ennoble the show for no good reason. These protests make the chances of taking the show off the air plummet. If these actions don’t achieve the goal for which they are held—and actually achieve the opposite—why do the protesters go out and protest? Are they unaware of this? In my view, even if part of the public doesn’t understand it, the protest organizers are well aware. The purpose of this protest—and perhaps many others—is entirely different.
The Mishnah (Ta’anit 15b) describes that in times of drought they would “carry the Ark into the public square,” that is, pray outdoors rather than in the synagogue. Why? Does God not hear the prayer said in the synagogue? There is an issue of visibility. When the situation is dire, there is a value in making it public. This turn of phrase is very common in the Haredi world. When there’s a phenomenon that greatly bothers them (there’s always some current persecutor), they call to “carry the Ark into the public square,” i.e., to go out en masse and demonstrate in the streets. The purpose of such a demonstration is not to stop the phenomenon that bothers them, but to show God (and ourselves) that we care—and perhaps also to raise public awareness that this is a problematic phenomenon. Carrying the Ark into the public square is a matter of propaganda aimed mainly inward and less outward. Its purpose is to strengthen the group’s consciousness and values and to unite it around them—to give believers a sense of confidence and power and belief in the justice of their cause. The organizers use it as a manipulation to shape the consciousness of their flock. Thus politicians and public and rabbinic leaders blather at these demonstrations into the ears of the captive audience present. Indirectly, there is also hope that God will see how much we care and, in that merit, save us.
I think the protests against “The Jews Are Coming” are also primarily meant to strengthen attachment to Judaism, to tradition, and to the Jewish religion—to show that it matters—not to take the show off the air. They want to show that not everyone in the country is a secular leftist antisemite (as portrayed at the demonstration). That, the protests certainly accomplished: the strengthening of the collective consciousness of the “persecuted” right-religious public. Think about it: the show has been running for years, and suddenly now tens of thousands of people remembered that it offends the sanctities of the nation. Until now it didn’t bother them? I assume the awakening of the protest contributed greatly to creating the very sense of offense that ostensibly causes the protest. This is carrying the Ark into the public square, and it does work.
So the purpose of this protest—and, as noted, of many others—is not only to change the situation being protested, but to carry the Ark into the public square. It is conducted more inward than outward. I think the literal meaning of the Hebrew word for “demonstration” (hafgana) is to bring the inner distress outward—to display it outside. The goal is to create a unified collective around those values and ideas: to give people the feeling that they’re not alone and that they have great collective power; to shape the individual’s consciousness and embed it within the angry, offended collective. The target is the protesters themselves, not the supposed addressees of the protest.
Throughout Yedidya Meir’s article I felt he was missing this point. He treats this protest as a tool to get the show off the air, and as such he explains, with good reason, why it is absolutely ineffective. My sense was that he doesn’t understand that the goal of this protest is entirely different: to carry the Ark into the public square. Indeed, at the end of his piece, Yedidya Meir also realizes this, and suddenly reverses himself and feels there is a point to this protest (unity and faith in the justice of the cause). He realized this in light of the results (it indeed achieved that goal), but upon reflection it seems that from the outset this was likely the intention behind this and many other protests.
Why Don’t I Go to Protests?
Over the course of my life there have been very few protests I’ve joined. In retrospect, it seems those were protests that had some chance of influencing things. One thing is clear: even if a protest had a chance to influence, if I thought its main goal was to carry the Ark into the public square—that is, to shape my consciousness, close ranks, and strengthen the collective—those were protests I didn’t join. I don’t need that cozy collective feeling. On the contrary—it repels me. I don’t want various manipulators and self-appointed leaders to fill my head with their harangues. This is true of many protests, perhaps the vast majority. The protests I remember attending were ones where I did not at all identify with the milieu present there (like a protest against live animal shipments; see Column 51).
You can attribute this to a psychological tendency: I recoil from the erasure of individual personality and from the collectivism that pervades such protests. But I think there’s substance here as well. I truly think it’s harmful. It turns people with a certain worldview into a collective herd that can be manipulated by “leaders” (who usually appointed themselves). It leads people to recite slogans instead of thinking, and to draw absurd analogies simply because they are filled with anger and hurt. Then it truly becomes an insult to intelligence and integrity.
In short, Yedidya Meir is right that these protests do excellent service for this weak show. He’s also right that they are held to “unite the ranks” (to carry the Ark into the public square). Except that he sees this as an advantage and changes his mind about the protests, whereas for me it only strengthens my opposition to them. In my view, the Ark should remain in the synagogue and not parade through the public square.
For those interested: after this column was published, Dr. Roy Yozvitz held a conversation with me on these topics.
[1] There are others who do feel such emotions and are hurt; but that hurt is a different claim, which I addressed in the previous sections. In this section I am concerned only with whether there is a problem in my kind of religiosity.
Discussion
J, you’re simply brilliant. It’s a miracle we have you. In my opinion, with your humor you could be a serious candidate; you’re being wasted.
The criticism being voiced is indeed a case of taking the ark out,
but also a case of “remove the beam from between your eyes.”
As a reminder, this was the response to an unsuccessful imitation of a holy man named Amnon Abramovich.
“Anyone who has the nerve and audacity to hurt a person who paid a heavy price for military service is someone unworthy of representing any citizen in the State of Israel,” Bar attacked. “If this is how they treat a disabled IDF veteran, in this case Abramovich, they must not be in a place where they are supposed to defend and protect disabled IDF veterans, and it doesn’t matter what Amnon Abramovich said. Thanks to him, those people are sitting in the Knesset and continuing to babble.”
A quick Google search turns up endless criticism from all corners of the media, and of course the miserable Eliraz Sadeh was forced to apologize in a long post.
So whoever thinks that hurting people with a slap is something that should shock the country should not use that same tool to hurt others, even if they are hurt merely because they’re sensitive.
By the way, it’s interesting to see that even at Kan 11 itself they were shocked by the desecration of the holy, apparently they too are against parodying sacred values like the handsome Abramovich; it’s just that in their view the holy ones of Israel are not holy.
Here is the item on Kan
https://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemid=49055
Another thing: it seems that the honorable rabbi indeed did not watch the program, because otherwise your whole opening apologetic defense of the series’ intentions would have been duly thrown into the nearest toilet.
Bottom line: even if we assume satire is blessed and good, those who criticize it have no right to use it against others, since according to them the country is supposed to be shocked.
Thought-provoking as always, thank you.
Two comments:
1. It doesn’t seem especially essential to me, but I think that anyone who has watched the show beyond a few scattered sketches would say that the claim that the biblical figures only serve as a medium for criticism of contemporary issues is wrong, or at least inaccurate. There are quite a few sketches (in my estimation, most of them) whose entire purpose is to ridicule the biblical event/figure under discussion, like for example the sketch on Ecclesiastes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCRQbS43Ndk) for those who know it. Though of course, with enough interpretive acrobatics, you can understand whatever you want.
2. The offhand dismissal of the argument about public funding for the program does not seem justified to me. True, under the current economic system of the State of Israel, controversial goals are funded too, but in my opinion it is proper to distinguish between one kind of non-consensual goal and another. Also in terms of necessity—the Chief Rabbinate, for example, for religious Jews, is a critical national need whose “public” character is vital for various reasons (the unity of the people through preserving the monopoly over marriage and divorce law). The Jews Are Coming could exist in the free market as well. Haredi educational institutions are not looking to mock the cultural heroes of secular society (are there any, anyway?), even though secular people will try to claim otherwise.
Also in the context of the motivation for protest, it seems reasonable to me that it would come from the “chutzpah” of content funded publicly. Meaning—fine, in our system we also fund your needs, but there is a limit to that too. Don’t take my money and make fun of me with it.
By the way, a few years ago there was some public uproar over Miri Regev’s desire (then Minister of Culture) to cancel funding for some Arab theater that presented IDF soldiers in a degrading way. I don’t remember the details, but I think that was the issue.
On the left they were of course outraged, but in the sane center-right there was some consensus that it was a fair step. Not because there is some interest in avoiding all funding for culture, but cultural funding should be done in a sane way.
Personally I think there is no need whatsoever (for any public) for a public broadcasting corporation, or for a military radio station. Redundant and foolish. But that’s less relevant to this discussion.
Just for the intelligence… there’s also Holocaust humor, sort of… on this unfunny program https://youtu.be/NtG4NVdUcgk
Tair, indeed, anyone who watched the show would know that the claim that the biblical figures merely serve as a medium for criticism of contemporary issues is absurd. Here is a gentle example showing there is no connection between the rabbi’s apologetics and what actually happens on the show.
https://youtu.be/SSsf6X_e1yE
and many more like it.
By the way, it is important and proper to mention the whining and crying every single year when an IDF soldier is burned in Mea Shearim as satire on Haman, or alternatively an Israeli flag on Lag BaOmer; this usually ends with indictments and lots of arrests, and above all the cries of outrage from all the media outlets, which teach us how to do satire on the cheap at all our expense. Just imagine if they took the soldier effigy from taxpayers’ money—how that would end.
Ah, one more thing (remembered in passing in the middle of the column) regarding the haredi apologetics: it’s important to note that every time criticism has been written here on the site accompanied by a comparison to how the haredim were treated in analogous cases, the writer was met with a string of insults and contempt and no engagement with the substance of the argument. That proves more than anything that one bit of mockery repels a thousand rebukes—apropos satirical clowning: when the truth hurts and there’s no answer, they slander and laugh.
And since we are dealing with haredi apologetics, I’ll attach a little link to a response showing how it really should have been written about the left’s demonstrations every week. The writer is of course the honorable Rabbi Michi; the names of the Torah-world players were changed from haredim to leftists by Mr. Tam. (Unedited, and only a tiny fraction of what could have been done with it. I’m sure the honorable rabbi, who likes humor as he took care to note several times, will indeed laugh when the humor is about him too and not only about his grandmother, as has been proved.)
Have a lovely rest of Elul with all the bren and the palotses.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%A0%d7%99-%d7%92%d7%9e%d7%96%d7%95-%d7%95%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9E%d7%9F
The truth hurts.
Tam, each time you outdo yourself again with your absurd analogies. Amnon Abramovich lives among us (and was also wounded as a soldier). Therefore mocking him, and especially his injury, is not similar to mocking historical events concerning our father Abraham.
It is hard for me to give much weight to your evaluations and interpretations of the series in light of the analytical abilities and blatant tendentiousness you display here.
Every time anew I wonder whether it is worth answering this nonsense at all.
All right, at this point I stopped replying. It is hard and ineffective to talk to walls.
Exactly what I said.
The writer was met with a string of insults and contempt and no engagement with the substance of the argument, which proves more than anything that one bit of mockery repels a thousand rebukes—apropos satirical clowning: when the truth hurts and there’s no answer, they slander and laugh.
What about the whining and crying every single year when an IDF soldier is burned in Mea Shearim as satire on Haman, or alternatively an Israeli flag on Lag BaOmer? This usually ends with indictments and lots of arrests, and above all cries of outrage from all the media outlets, which after all taught us how to do satire on the cheap at all our expense. Just imagining what would happen if that soldier effigy were funded by taxpayers. Here it’s no longer some specific Amnon who is alive today.
Hello Rabbi,
Thank you for creating a conversation of clarification.
In Rabbi Zamir Cohen’s explanation there is a live example from the series and a reference to the halakhah about tearing one’s garment when one hears someone “pronouncing the Tetragrammaton as it is written.”
(from 1:00)
There is simply a determination here regarding the inner stance of a Torah-and-mitzvot-observant Jew, with the tearing being the practical halakhic implication.
All this without entering into the question of how one should wisely act, or the degree of severity, or the understanding appropriate to different cases of degrading the Torah or criticism (respectively).
Tair,
1. As I said, I didn’t watch much, but in light of what I saw I think you are mistaken. One must remember that even mocking Ecclesiastes is mocking those who see it as a holy and exemplary educational book. In the end there is always something substantive. But it doesn’t really matter, because even without the claim about a message for the present, I do not accept the claims against the program.
2. Here I really don’t understand your argument. Everything was answered in my remarks. How is mockery different from any other kind of harm? To demand that I fund coercion imposed on me is legitimate, but to demand that you fund mockery aimed at you is not? Why? Whoever shows me one need for which a Chief Rabbinate is required, I’ll follow him carrying his basin. There is not the slightest need for a Rabbinate for anyone, except for those who use it to make a living and coerce others. Nothing besides that. Ah, and also increasing the desecration of God’s name in the world.
And to that I already replied in an answer on the site that in my opinion this is an anachronistic attitude. Tearing one’s clothes today is a joke.
Tam.. you totally rule the genre… for someone who is “simple”…
For many secular people this is their first encounter with the Bible since their 12th-grade matriculation exam.
Which shows the great power of all the various “Hidabroot” movements of every kind.
To my taste—there are sometimes brilliant interpretations of the text there, and it’s clear that whoever wrote the sketch knows the small nuances.
Highly recommend:
Regarding the demonstrations themselves, it is worth adding Kundera’s description – https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJAdMjYRm7IODhfZHdpbWtZZjg
No one who tried to hurt Abramovich did so against a disabled IDF veteran, but against a man whose entire adult life was devoted to poisoning wells and commissariat-style enforcement (which he himself explicitly admitted several years ago).
It is certainly nice that a person enlists legally in the IDF and also serves in a combat unit.
It is fitting to remember that not only does he do this by force of law, but he does it directly for his own sake and for the society (family/friends) in which he grew up and lives, and in which everyone without exception did exactly the same thing. (At least at that time, apart from the haredim who decreed for themselves an exemption.)
From all this, whoever disdains him or harms him is doing something that the aforementioned Abramovich fully deserves, without a drop of charity.
And so it is fitting for that loathsome man.
P.S. And if he hadn’t been injured? Then would it be permissible to disdain or hurt him?
Yoram, the rabbi says it’s an absurd analogy—deal with it!
I think that beyond the question of whether the imitations bother me or don’t bother me as a person, there are sketches in the program that really degrade the Holy One, blessed be He. So beyond the personal-emotional issue, there may be a halakhic question here. Clearly this question does not arise with respect to idolatry, other religions, or even biblical heroes, for the simple reason that there the dispute is ideological (and of course you can laugh at whoever you want), but once one is speaking about the Holy One, blessed be He, this is already on the halakhic borderline.
The Holy One, blessed be He, also doesn’t like broadcasting on Shabbat. That too is halakhically forbidden. Why don’t people go demonstrate over that? This is a detached statement. We live in a world where those norms were breached long ago.
I think that in this specific case the rabbi is wrong.
Although regarding demonstrations in general the rabbi is right (I wouldn’t dream of demonstrating except for the demonstrations in the yeshiva high school against the Oslo Accords, when the yeshiva organized buses and it was an opportunity to skip school that I did not miss. I always hated fake togetherness. Though indeed I was against the Oslo Accords like everyone else. But that was high school. It doesn’t count). And I myself even laugh at the rabbi himself about how ridiculous he was for going to a demonstration over the “animal holocaust” (which itself is no less ridiculous. Maybe someone should do satire on the rabbi himself. I wonder if it would make him laugh), and also that really there is no need whatsoever to relate to this series, certainly not to demonstrate. Once they already mocked the explicit name of the Holy One, blessed be He, at that point one can no longer be from the U.M. That is already a desecration of God’s name that cannot be funded by public money. I have always been, and still am, in favor of a thin democracy, with all its implications—including education that is not free, and certainly not higher education.
Indeed both these publics (the haredim and the hardalim, and the leftist artists—the Meretz left. I’m not impressed by the high-tech people; they really are a productive public) are basically unproductive publics, and I also believe the left will be hurt the most by this separation from state money, especially by separating academia from the state. And the rabbi too will be hurt along with them (even though he is productive). At most they will have to earn their bread directly. The haredim too, who disdain the state, should not enjoy it. Nor the hardalim and the other funded yeshivot whose followers cling after them. They too will have to stop producing little sermonettes and instead produce a true understanding of Torah, and thus we will shed all the fixers and idlers who demand sermons and pilpul at the expense of the productive public. And last but not least, the public sector, which burdens us with its yoke.
If the rabbi feels comfortable hearing the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, being degraded, then that really is already autism. The Holy One, blessed be He, is no less than Amnon Abramovich. And I don’t care that they don’t think so. By the same token, I can deny the existence of Amnon Abramovich. You cannot put yourself in the other person’s shoes on every matter. Sometimes the other person is simply wicked. Just to remind the rabbi, there was a woman here in the country who got two years in prison from the court for insulting Muhammad on the grounds of harming the “religious feelings” of Muslims. And although the haredi public is indeed similar to Muslims (except for the murderousness), this inconsistency (is degrading the Holy One, blessed be He, no less than degrading Muhammad?) is simply the wickedness of the leftist public.
Oh certainly, I was simply trying to present a less victimized and offended approach to the demonstrations (and by the way, sometimes people do still demonstrate here over halakhic issues—public transportation on Shabbat, for instance).
A wonderful article as always. The question is then what do we do with the Gemara, which actually does tell us that there is an idea of going out into the city square, perhaps to prove to ourselves and to others our pain. Do we disagree with the Talmud, say it’s not relevant to our times, or interpret it differently?
First of all, The Jews Are Coming is the best show I’ve seen lately. I was laughing almost to tears. As far as I’m concerned, Michi, you are still a mystery to me. Maybe we just grew up with a different religion, or perhaps the change you underwent is connected to that. But answer me one simple question: how did you even watch forbidden mockery?
“The best show you’ve seen lately”? I hope the emphasis is mainly on lately. Because if it applies to the first part, then either you haven’t passed age 25 or you didn’t grow up in a secular / knitted-kippah world. What’s going on there is less than idiotic.
Try more Etgar Keret, Hanoch Levin, Samuel Beckett, François Rabelais.
I turned 25 this year, is that enough? I’ve seen some of the best series. This is the best series I’ve seen lately, if I’m considering all the bits from all the seasons together. As for the other names you wrote here, watch them yourself and have a nice boring time, bro. I’m looking forward to another season of theirs, but one that tops all the previous seasons.
Haha, so a little boy. Let us hope that with age wisdom will also come. And that all the pestering from you will evaporate. I’m not sure. Let us hope.
After “little boy” you should have put a comma, not a period, and after “wisdom” you shouldn’t have put a period. And as for what you wrote, it won’t happen. I’m with you till death, as one man with one heart.
The question whether I feel comfortable or not is a personal one. My main concern here is the question whether one should demonstrate and protest. I did not see any degradation of God’s name, but as I said I saw very little. I saw use of biblical figures and various events. But even degradation of the Name is a matter of context, and in our world, unlike in the Bible and the words of our Sages, the attitude has to be different. This is a world most of which does not believe (at least not in the conventional religious sense), and to be shocked by Sabbath desecration or degradation of God’s name is a disconnection from one’s surroundings.
I already wrote in earlier comments that in our time this is a ridiculous and anachronistic step. The Gemara speaks about the environment and culture in which its sages lived. We are in a completely different world.
A.,
I do not know of any halakhic prohibition on mockery. This is a recommendation, not a prohibition. I think in our world it is not relevant. Furthermore, I am not sure this is mockery. As I wrote, what I saw was social criticism through biblical figures.
Fine, I actually enjoy you. I take you in good spirit 😉
With God’s help, 4 Elul 5780
A simple Buzaglo test. If someone were to mock figures from the Gospels or the Qur’an, he would find himself in prison (see Tatyana Soskin). Only the Bible may be mocked in the state of the Jews. After all, it’s ours 🙂
Whether the protest helps or not, one must protest the humiliation of the Torah and the humiliation of our fathers and our prophets. In this case, it seems the protest had an effect, since the Minister of Education ordered that several of the especially extreme episodes in this series be removed.
With blessings, S.Z.
A
There are some who are indeed emotionally attached to the figures in the program, and for them mockery of our father Abraham is exactly like mockery of their great-grandfather. I read these things in posts and articles. A similar spirit blew from posts by Rabbi Chaim Navon on Facebook (who can be said to represent the mentality of traditional Israeli bourgeois society in these matters). That is, many do not even get into the issue of whether people have a right to mock or not mock, whether it is intended as humor or intended as degradation, and so on. For them it is exactly as if someone were simply shamelessly mocking them or their relatives.
B
Another conception against this program and in favor of the protest goes in the direction that the figures of Torah and the Bible are holy ones of the world and supernal angels, the very justification for our existence and the figures we aspire to be, the righteous who are the foundation of the world. (Of course, the positive figures in Scripture, not Og or Balaam or Nebuchadnezzar.) To harm or mock them, or even to joke about them in good humor—that is terrible lowness, a terrible sin, insolent heresy and incomparable wickedness. And the very fact that this is broadcast in the state, and the Torah-observant Jewish public, whether religious or haredi, does not protest against it, constitutes silence as consent or legitimacy (which might perhaps also bring collective punishment?). Therefore one must protest and make sure it is taken down. Perhaps also so that young people will not think it is permissible to speak this way about the righteous who are the foundation of the world.
C
Of course, all this does not mean that satire, morally or ethically, from the point of view of secular people and people who do not believe in the sanctity of the Torah, is something invalid that should be forbidden. Just as from my point of view humorous satire about Zeus or the Virgin Mary is not something invalid. And even so, one can understand those from whose point of view this shows criminal and sinful moral degeneration, going out to protest.
D
I saw one episode of the program following the uproar, and there it seemed that the things were in the realm of good-humored humor and were not coming to mock or belittle. I do not know what the uproar was about now, years after the program has been airing. Perhaps there was a certain sketch that broke the camel’s back? (A question for those among us who know the program well.)
What does the rabbi think about the fact that they avoided covering the demonstration?
Who avoided it? If there is a public news broadcast that didn’t cover it, that really is not okay.
The same public broadcasting corporation that covers the Balfour demonstrations morning, noon, and night with hysterical breaking reports on the news didn’t mention or cover the Hidabroot demonstration against them.
All the news broadcasts that air the Balfour demonstrations live didn’t even bother to mention that the demonstration existed.
Not true. What is happening is not really the demonstrations and the protest. What is happening here is public funding of this thing. Who cares what a post-Zionist or an Arab thinks? This is the state of the Jews, and they have nothing to look for here; let them go with their taxes—not their taxes and not their citizenship. And it is permissible to try with all one’s might to fight them if there were any chance of success against them, even if the Chief Rabbinate exists (although I truly believe in as little state intervention and as few clerks as possible). The leftist public is not that honest (it is not honest at all). It is absurd that the secular person should be hurt by everything he doesn’t like. Nothing is really sacred to him (he is secular after all), and sometimes coercion is permissible. Every secular person knows from childhood that one does not say God’s name, not even the name Adonai. If it was said, then this really is contempt that crossed the line for the religious public. And one also cannot detach the personal to such an extent. And the rabbi has a very great problem if his personal realm is so detached from the public one (to the point that his urge for provocation is so great?). What public is even left here? What connects the religious public with the secular leftist one anymore (which deep down really is already post-Zionist)? As Rabbi Shach said, what is Jewish about them anymore? And what have I to do with the rabbi at all? What do we have in common? Why should we even live together? And I don’t believe in being shocked at all. In this case, it is better for the religious public to detach from all state institutions, and indeed for culture too to detach from the state in this case. Whereas Sabbath desecration is indeed something that people are no longer shocked by because of modern reality (and truly, a religious person cannot remain indifferent in the face of desecration of the holy; it is just that holiness does not exist in modern consciousness, but a religious person who believes in holiness must not accept that consciousness as normative), there still exists some minimal respect for the religious public. With all due respect, pronouncing God’s name in its letters does not contradict personal freedom the way Sabbath observance does. There is a limit to how much one can justify the other side.
And it seems that it really doesn’t bother the rabbi. Let’s see him say here from this public platform that it bothers him. I believe it would be hard for him even to get the words out onto his keyboard.
I feel that this article is apologetics in the purest sense. An attempt to make the impure pure. Many correct arguments defending a mistake. Let me explain:
There is no precedent for a public corporation funding, from the taxpayer’s money, the humiliation of the taxpayer. After all, Kan does not care about the Patriarchs. The Patriarchs are merely the way to humiliate the religious public. That seems clear to me (I hope I am wrong).
The attempt to present this as freedom of expression seems ridiculous to me. The protest, in my view, is over the fact that this is a corporation funded by state money. If it were a private corporation, I personally would have no claim. And as for freedom of expression—this is criticism? It is not criticism; it is humiliation and demonization. Common sense dictates that a public corporation should not humiliate anyone, neither an individual citizen nor a public. In my view, Eretz Nehederet too is a moral wrong. Does freedom of expression override every moral claim regarding humiliating a person to the point that he cannot show his face in the street? Shlain’s monologues are sharp criticism with flashes of satire. Fine. But descending to the levels of Eretz Nehederet is an injustice that I cannot understand how the rabbi, as a spiritual figure (in his own way. I am not being cynical; I have received much from the rabbi, honestly), can justify, even by their own lights. It is a crime under the protection of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is not a positive value in itself. The alternative is worse, that is all.
The fact that in the secular public this seems legitimate only testifies to the moral low it has reached (though it is clear to me there are many secular people who recoil from such programs). And the counterargument is irrelevant. Indeed, a thin democracy is certainly the straightest path. I would be happy if the rabbi convinced me otherwise. But beyond that, even if we are not engaged in extremely libertarian discourse, there is a marked difference between taking state money and using it to fund things a citizen does not believe are important, and a program whose purpose is to humiliate an entire public (as above—in my opinion the program is meant, and succeeds from what I know, to turn religious people into demons).
P.S. The article, as always, is very interesting. More power to you.
Tam… see an article with coverage of the Likud side in the demonstrations…
Ohev, apparently your reading comprehension is deficient. There is no coverage of the Hidabroot demonstration against The Jews Are Coming, whereas every left-wing demonstration is covered in an insane way.
Hello to Rabbi Michi –
https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=658045741471551&_rdr
Is this worthy in your eyes too?! What is the intellectual message? And the vulgarities there. A public that is not knowledgeable will think the Torah encourages rape, etc.
Likewise regarding Hanukkah – a sketch at whose end the all-knowing narrator declares that “the revolt ended in the defeat of the rebels; Judah Maccabee died.” I found no academic backing for that (not even a minority opinion; we are not talking about the revolts against the Romans, which were unsuccessful).
And when an angry public comments to them on YouTube—they remain silent.
https://youtu.be/XImrpJkciLM
I don’t think the creators have depth or understanding of the messages they are conveying.
In satire, the author is as though one who knows the truth beneath the surface. They do not have that kind of responsibility, and the younger generation may believe them and become alienated.
What brilliant interpretation of the text do you see in this piece?
I don’t know why people are demonstrating specifically now (I don’t think it’s “specifically”), but there are some very disgraceful sketches. The sketch about Joseph the righteous, for example.
An additional value in the protest is the call to viewers not to watch this series, which demeans all that is sacred and dear to the people of Israel, and likewise the call to actors and various stage workers who take part in the program out of financial need—not to be partners in this degrading program. After all, only a tiny tiny minority are anti-religious out of spite. To the viewing public and the actors comes the call of Rabbi Zamir Cohen, which ‘Tam’ shared in this discussion.
With blessings, S.Z.
The whole attempt to neutralize criticism of humor and satire with intellectual tools is simply funny.
Suppose I made some mistake and my friend comes and says I’m naturally stupid; naturally I, or any mortal, is supposed to be hurt.
And so in every other situation where someone is mocked.
Although with intellectual tools one can neutralize any hurt and explain and interpret, etc. etc., and therefore usually intellectual people are not hurt by everything,
but in the bottom line there is hurt, and when it exists one should get up and apologize, and that is much simpler than the long article you wrote.
A very interesting response:
https://heb.hartman.org.il/how-the-jews-are-coming-make-people-angry/
“The question of ownership is critical not only in the sense of ‘who has permission,’ but because of the basic rules of satire—we laugh at what is ours, not at what belongs to others. If the Torah belongs to the religious, to the haredim, then laughing at it is ‘punching down’ at minorities. And that is precisely the claim of the protesters (as evidenced by the comparisons to mocking LGBTQ people or Muslims that keep coming up in discussions I have seen). But the holy scriptures are not ‘minorities’; in fact they are the power.
The holy scriptures act upon us, and religious authorities act upon us in many ways in the State of Israel today. The holy scriptures are part of the power equation in the state. Every child in kindergarten studies them as part of compulsory education, every soldier receives them in basic training, and the laws of the tradition built upon them have been embedded in the legal system of the State of Israel (in matters of marriage and divorce or conversion, for example). This is exactly where the equation of satire enters: the stronger something is, and the more power it has that is exercised over us, the more permissible and appropriate it is for us to laugh and joke about it. This is the countervailing power of citizens vis-à-vis the authorities, and vis-à-vis the things that exert control over them ‘from above,’ whether those things are people, institutions, or traditions.”
I do not understand these questions. Did I say the program is good? Did I say it has important or worthy messages? Intellectual ones? Did I write that they have understanding, deep or otherwise, of the Bible? What does the sabbatical year have to do with an omelet? The question discussed here is whether its mouth should be stopped or not.
But since you are already making these irrelevant comments, plainly the Torah indeed does not punish for rape and does not prohibit it. Such criticisms have already been raised, and they are very relevant and highly legitimate. You have to work pretty hard to claim that halakhah prohibits rape.
And regarding the question whether the Hasmonean revolt ended in defeat—even without seeing it, this seems to me mere babble. Do they claim that the revolt ended in defeat? I assume they meant something else there. You relate to it as though this were a history lesson, and that is a childish approach. Exactly as I wrote: it is time to grow up instead of whining.
I truly apologize. (By the way, you hurt me with these remarks.)
Completely right.
Yedidya Meir wonders what all the demonstrators have in common, and the simple answer is that they are all exposed to the internet. In the 1990s, when haredim had no television, such a demonstration could not have been imagined.
The Israeli ethos of Hanukkah (and elsewhere Bar Kokhba) somewhat exaggerated the successes and hushed up the failures.
What can you do—the Zionists needed exemplary figures in order to shape the Hebrew youth in their image…
So regarding the Maccabean revolt—the only one of Mattathias’s five sons who died a natural death was Simon Thassi; all the others died in battle or were murdered.
At the end of the revolt Judah did not become a truly free state, but a kind of vassal with partial autonomy.
Simon Thassi’s genius lay in his ability to choose which current ruler’s shadow to shelter in, in a period when no ruler managed to hold power for a period approaching Bibi’s achievement.
His son John Hyrcanus continued threading the needle—sometimes supporting this one, sometimes another. When he got into a battle he could not withstand, he gave the Temple treasures as ransom and swore loyalty to a new ruler…
His son Alexander Jannaeus was the first and only Hasmonean king who succeeded in establishing an independent and strong kingdom.
After his death, the Pharisees who had suffered under him persecuted the army officers (of the strongest army in the Middle East), executed many of them in lynchings, and the rest fled and attached themselves to enemy armies (who said David and the king of Lachish?)…
There is truly a lot to learn from history.
Anyone who defends the creators of “The Jews Are Coming” is invited to perform the following thought experiment: suppose they were to produce a witty and funny sketch about one of his children, and to that child they were to attribute ugly and disgusting deeds that he never did and was never even suspected of. Still funny? Still ready to absorb the insult in the name of artistic freedom?
Beizer and Markus have a very clear line: “We are deep in the radical left bordering on the Joint List; therefore Arabs who do not cooperate with the government will always come out in our program as good and innocent, see Erekat; right-wingers will come out murderers and sadists; the pioneers are just murderers; Mapai people are irredeemable racists; Dan Ben-Amotz is ideologically fine, but failed in his fondness for minors, so we’ll joke lightly about that,” and so on. Their tendency is crystal clear: they laugh at those whom they want to vilify.
About as much as “Der Stürmer” is the most important magazine on earth. Yes, Elijah the Prophet is a pedophile, because Beizer & Markus saw it says “and he stretched himself upon the child”; Maimonides was called in childhood Ramba”kh (Rabbi Moshe ben Flatulence-Cutting), because he played pranks. Truly brilliant satire that is raising a generation of Jews proud of their Judaism.
Regarding the position in the article, I will express my opinion later—or perhaps not. Just technical remarks: why have all the demonstrators only remembered now? Because of exposure to the program via viral WhatsApp. Even those who don’t watch the program are exposed to it against their will through WhatsApp groups. Virality is the key. Another point: why should only the left-Nazis demonstrate at Balfour? We too want to demonstrate. To prove that there is another voice—right-wing, religious—more than the lachrymose arto-sociopathic whining of the Ashke-Nazis in Rehavia and toward Mount Scopus.
With God’s help, 5 Elul 5780
The ethos of Hanukkah was intensified long before the Zionists by the sages of Israel, who established the festival of Hanukkah as a festival for all generations with Hallel and thanksgiving and publicizing the miracle, a festival that did not lose its value even after the decline of the Hasmonean kingdom.
The Greeks and the Hellenizers sought to erase Judaism and assimilate the Jews into pagan Hellenistic culture. For that purpose they defiled the Temple and decreed decrees of religious persecution.
Judah Maccabee had already achieved these two goals. With his victory in the battle of Beth-zur, the Greek army was forced to retreat and the Temple service was renewed. When the Greeks returned with a larger force, the Greeks won at the battle of Beth-zechariah, but were forced to return home due to disputes over the throne in Antioch, and reached an agreement with the Jews to cancel the decrees of persecution. Judaism continued and continues to exist to this day,
Politically, independence increased. When Judah was killed, Jonathan arose in his place, and became the decisive factor in the conflicts over the throne in Antioch. And when Jonathan was murdered by Tryphon, Simon arose in his place, and in his days the de facto independence of Judea was recognized by the Seleucids, and Simon established a dynasty that lasted three generations.
About 130 years of independence is a respectable achievement. And had it not been for the civil war of Jannaeus’s sons, who invited Pompey the Roman to be an ‘arbiter’ between them, the Hasmonean kingdom could have continued much longer.
Judaism was not destroyed, as the Greeks and the Hellenizers desired. On the contrary, it increased its influence on the world religiously and culturally, and in a long-term process brought about the collapse of paganism in the cultural world.
With blessings, S.Z.
By the way, Simon was murdered by his son-in-law, but his son and grandsons continued his path. Jannaeus succeeded militarily, but failed socially. He himself murdered hundreds of Jews, and his sons, who continued the civil war, thereby brought about the destruction of the kingdom.
Paragraph 1, line 2
… a festival that did not lose its value also…
Paragraph 3, line 2
… the Greeks won in the battle of Beth…
Yes, honorable rabbi, you did write that!
I’ll attach a quotation from you. Then you’ll understand what the sabbatical year has to do with an omelet.
***I could perhaps understand people’s offense if the pieces were offering offensive interpretations of the biblical figures or situations.***
So you do now understand that it offers offensive interpretations etc.?
***But to the best of my understanding, the pieces I saw do not purport to offer interpretation of those figures and their deeds (although even if they did, that would be legitimate in my eyes),***
and here come the important messages to us.
***but primarily to convey messages that are relevant to us, to our world, and to our lives. The pieces used biblical figures and events to convey those messages.***
So important, in fact, that they took a model from our Sages.
***This is similar to what the sages do in the Midrash with various figures (this is what is called anachronism, which is a very common midrashic tool). In Midrash our Sages quite often attributed to biblical figures deeds, statements, and opinions that never occurred to them and were never actually done, solely in order to convey messages to the people of their own generation. This is also what the creators of the present program are doing.***
So much apologetics—simply a professional, to the point that it indicates a connection to the Bible.
***Therefore the use of biblical figures and events to convey messages דווקא indicates a connection to the biblical world and not contempt for it.***.
After all this, let us summarize:
You asked:
Did I say the program is good?
Your answer: Yes, it conveys messages to us, a model to imitate from our Sages.
You then repeated and asked:
Did I say it has important or worthy messages? Intellectual ones?
Your answer: Yes, it indicates a connection to the biblical world, and conveys messages relevant to us.
And again you asked:
Did I write that they have understanding, deep or otherwise, of the Bible?
Your answer: that the use of biblical figures and events to convey messages actually indicates a connection to the biblical world and not contempt for it. To convey messages requires depth, no?
And what you asked:
What does the sabbatical year have to do with an omelet?
It seems your whole position requires study, or perhaps… your constant desire to be the counterintuitive side, even when it is terribly difficult, has misled you.
As you yourself have said more than once, there are things so idiotic that only geniuses can say them.
P.S. Don’t take it to heart—a bit of satirical but true humor, without distortions, a mirror image, nothing more.
Have a lovely rest of Elul.
Under the heading “After all,” line 4
… a model to imitate from our Sages.
And a remark:
If indeed the program The Jews Are Coming goes in the footsteps of the midrashic methods of our Sages, then there is an unforgivable sin here: religious indoctrination, heaven forbid 🙂
With blessings, S.L. [= Sabbatical year and omelet]
The claim that they are trying to convey messages and are using the method of our Sages does not mean that the messages themselves are worthy like the messages of our Sages. All the other claims are refuted just as easily.
The Bible is not a “small and miserable child.” The Bible is a very powerful instrument. It is a “force” that acts upon and influences millions of Israelis today in the present, and as such it is not a “minority” that should be treated with the corresponding sensitivity:
“The question of ownership is critical not only in the sense of ‘who has permission,’ but because of the basic rules of satire—we laugh at what is ours, not at what belongs to others. If the Torah belongs to the religious, to the haredim, then laughing at it is ‘punching down’ at minorities. And that is precisely the claim of the protesters (as evidenced by the comparisons to mocking LGBTQ people or Muslims that keep coming up in discussions I have seen). But the holy scriptures are not ‘minorities’; in fact they are the power.
The holy scriptures act upon us, and religious authorities act upon us in many ways in the State of Israel today. The holy scriptures are part of the power equation in the state. Every child in kindergarten studies them as part of compulsory education, every soldier receives them in basic training, and the laws of the tradition built upon them have been embedded in the legal system of the State of Israel (in matters of marriage and divorce or conversion, for example). This is exactly where the equation of satire enters: the stronger something is, and the more power it has that is exercised over us, the more permissible and appropriate it is for us to laugh and joke about it. This is the countervailing power of citizens vis-à-vis the authorities, and vis-à-vis the things that exert control over them “from above,” whether those things are people, institutions, or traditions.”
Well said! R. Shatz
With God’s help, 5 Elul 5780
To Aharon – greetings,
You made me laugh with your talk about ‘citizens against the authorities.’ The radical leftists from whose circle come the creators of ‘The Jews Are Coming’ rule unchecked over the media, culture, academia, and the judicial system, while excluding and persecuting every other voice. So they whine about their right as the ‘wronged Cossack’ to mock the Torah of Israel as though they were ‘the authorities’?
If they want to mock Bibi, Likud, and the right to their heart’s content, fine—provided equal screen time is given to people of the right and the religious to mock leftists, the ‘culture people,’ and the people of the ‘High Court’ in the public media. But to lay a hand on the Torah of Israel, which sustained the people of Israel throughout the generations, in a way they would never dare do toward the holy scriptures of Christianity and Islam?
From our experience throughout history, mockery of Judaism does not end with mere words. When Yitzhak G. filled his mouth with words of hatred and incitement against religion and the religious, his son Eliezer already implemented the matter in practice with murderous beatings of the ‘clericals’ he so hated. The violence of the Balfour demonstrators against the rule of the ‘Jews’ is an inherent result of the mockery and incitement of those who ‘shape their minds.’
With blessings, S.Z.
Paragraph 2, line 3
… but to scorn the Torah…
Who said anything about whether the messages are worthy? What does the sabbatical year have to do with an omelet?
The connection is that from Tam’s mind the correct and simple understanding of the post slipped away, and therefore he received from me a gentle whack. [If this comment is a response to Tam and not to my modest comment, then let this comment of mine be as though it were not.]
Sorry. I thought you were making that claim against me. I completely agree.
By the way, “the mind of Tam” is an expression whose meaning I wonder about, but this is neither the place nor the time.
It seems that humor causes hurt even to one of the most gifted people of our generation, to the point that he erases the understanding of his critics even though they are using irony, so simple folk like the Hidabroot crowd can certainly feel comfortable being hurt. The discerning will understand.
Are you functioning as a parodist of yourself or what? A good caricature is usually only an exaggeration of elements that exist in the original face, or at least a basic awareness of them. But in your case it is as clear as the sun that you understand what is written in such a shallow and twisted way, and there is no humor at all except that in your poverty of mind you are sure you understood correctly and you cheer with cries of jubilation like the last of the cranks. If you have a strong urge to relieve yourself, go to your own house and gather your admirers to come sniff around there, not in a private courtyard that has been made available for the benefit of the public. No one here is your elementary-school teacher, and if he should come into my hands I will flatten him against the pillar, because he does the work of the Lord deceitfully. No one said that the Hidabroot crowd were not hurt.
And if I behave as you do and proclaim publicly, I will note that hearing you call others “simple folk” is in fact highly amusing. Keep trying, and perhaps one day you too will manage to reach the level of humor.
Dear Achor. It’s not a competition, but you won!
Indeed true, and without any effort.
What can be said in favor of the creators of ‘The Jews Are Coming’ is that their hatred of Judaism is not ‘baseless hatred,’ but ‘hatred for pay’—they receive full and inflated wages for their hatred from the public purse 🙂
And from here there is an opening of hope: since this is ‘hatred dependent on something,’ on the wages they receive in order to arouse it, there is hope that in their case it will be fulfilled: ‘when the cause ceases, the hatred ceases.’ If they find themselves a more kosher source of income, they will not need to make a living from mockery and hatred of their ancestral heritage.
With blessings, Samson Tzviblinger, Knight of the Onions and Garlic
By the way, R. Achor, after your mind is at rest I’d be happy to speak with you by phone. If you like, we can connect through the rabbi—ask him for my email.
(There is an obligation to be innocent and clear…).
Afterward.
By the way, I myself think it is proper and fitting to prevent the program from being shown on public broadcasting (although I have seen only the sketch about Bethel and Luz that was posted here; I rely on what I have read). And if not by law, then by a ‘spontaneous’ public boycott of the creators and actors in every series and product they advertise and the like. But my opinion is not relevant to the matter—only to clarify where I am coming from.
I ask forgiveness and pardon.
Taking an “esoteric” verse in the story and turning it into something current and relevant to our day—to my taste, that is a distinctly interpretive act.
The struggle of the settlers of Bethel over control of the land (through the names of the places) versus the local “losers” (regardless of what my personal opinion of that is) is exactly what the forefathers of ‘The Jews Are Coming’ did.
And here is a use of the Bible to laugh at our own times (published yesterday):
With God’s help, 6 Elul 5780
To M. – greetings,
It seems that what you meant to write was: ‘I ask forgiveness and pardon.’
But here I am puzzled: forgiveness and pardon for what? Your criticism of the post author’s words is substantive and correct and without a drop of mockery. Why should the writer be hurt by substantive criticism directed at him?
With blessings, S.Z.
S.Z., you are writing incorrect things.
In my view the media and the judicial system are not controlled by the left. But never mind.
You are simply ignoring the very simple but precise argument of the article’s author, Professor Ishay Rosen-Zvi (a graduate of a hesder yeshiva, by the way), whom I quoted:
The Bible is not a “minority”; the Bible and the Jewish tradition that rests on it are “the power.” A power that is exercised over millions of Israelis without their choice—in marriage and divorce law, in burial, in birth, in conversion, and so on.
In a state in which that power is operative, there is no reason whatsoever not to create critical satire, more successful or less successful, about that power.
Your feigned innocence and your cries of anguish about leftists are ridiculous…
I recommend that you read the link to Professor Ishay Rosen-Zvi’s column.
And about this it was written above: “If instead of being offended, the right and religious society would develop satirists of a good standard…” The discerning will understand 🙂
Come on, what offended and what shoes? He simply meant to say that if everyone is offended by every criticism (or declares himself offended), you leave no life for any creature, and it is ridiculous that everyone joyfully criticizes others and leaps as if snake-bitten when someone touches the hem of his fluttering dress.
I understand that Pharaoh’s daughter, who saved a Hebrew baby from death, is a crazy woman opposed to washing and soap. Presumably Pharaoh commanded that the children of Israel be cast into the Nile in order to preserve their cleanliness, since their dirty Jewish parents refused to wash them. Of course, a Jew is filth 🙂
In disgust, the Jew
By the way, the creators of ‘The Jews Are Coming’ also mocked Schindler, a ‘Righteous Among the Nations’ who saved many Jews from death. Even a gentile who saves Jews is loathsome in their eyes…
Paragraph 1, line 3
… since their dirty Jewish parents refused …
Link to the mockery of Schindler, the rescuer of Jews, in the comment by ‘Tam’ above (4 Elul at 12:01).
It is beyond me how someone so precise as you (as testified by your countless comments and comment-responses correcting corrections to yourself) does not understand crude and unsophisticated satire like the above. We can agree that it is not funny satire. But your failure to understand the interpretation (whether more successful or less so) and your cries of anguish about antisemitism are themselves satire (in a certain sense, more successful than the program itself).
To Aharon – greetings,
I am astonished that someone with such a “good eye that sees well” as yours did not notice that I substantiated the idea of the creators of ‘The Jews Are Coming,’ namely that Bithiah was “bath-resistant,” while Pharaoh was an ardent lover of cleanliness. And there is great proof for this, for he commanded: “Every son that is born you shall cast into the Nile,” because their Jewish parents refrained from washing them.
The Jews’ refusal to wash is proven countless times. Moses had to split the Red Sea for them so that the Jews would not, heaven forbid, have to enter the water. It was their aversion to water that brought the children of Gad and Reuben to beg Moses: “Do not bring us across this Jordan,” and in the end Joshua had to halt the waters of the Jordan for the Jews so that they would not, heaven forbid, have to enter the water.
Moses managed to obligate only one Jew to wash—namely his brother Aaron, who was warned not to enter the sanctuary except after five immersions and ten sanctifications of the hands and feet. Even so, the Egyptian spirit of cleanliness managed to influence the wild Jews a little, so that they would wash at least once a year.
A further stage was Ezra’s ordinance—under Babylonian influence, no doubt—to immerse before Torah and prayer, but unfortunately the Jews’ aversion to washing turned this important ordinance into “a decree the public cannot abide,” and it was annulled. However, worthy of remembrance are the Hasidim, who insist on daily immersion in a mikveh. It seems that just as they imitated the clothing culture of the nobles of Ukraine, so too they adopted their fondness for washing and bodily cleanliness.
Finally, one Hungarian Jew, who also lived in the cultural capitals of Europe—Vienna and Paris—revealed to the Jews the secret of deodorant, namely Doctor Deodorant Herzl. But unfortunately the Jews refused to apply Herzl’s deodorant, and he died heartbroken in the prime of his days, while hoping that within five years, at most fifty years, the nation would recognize the importance of cleanliness.
With the blessing “in their righteousness, grant cloudy waters,” Lewingeorge Wash-ing-claim
But this still requires study, for of Bithiah it is said, “and she went down to bathe by the river,” so perhaps the Priestly source got mixed in here :).
To Aharon – greetings,
I actually did substantiate their interpretation, that Bithiah was bath-resistant and Pharaoh a cleanliness enthusiast, for Pharaoh commanded that the Jewish children be cast into the Nile in order to wash them.
The refusal of Jews to enter water forced Moses to split the sea for them so they would not touch water, and the children of Gad and Reuben beg Moses, “Do not bring us across the Jordan.”
Only Aaron did Moses manage to force to wash with water when he came into the sanctuary. Later Ezra would try (under Babylonian influence, of course) to require the Jews to immerse every day before prayer, but would discover that this was “a decree the public cannot abide.” Only later did the Hasidim (under the influence of the nobles of Eastern Europe) adopt daily immersion.
Indeed it is difficult to get Jews to wash!
With blessings, Lewingeorge Washeng-claim
But it remains difficult, for it is said of Bithiah that she went “to bathe by the Nile.” And this must be reconciled with difficulty…
Clearly.
The gist of your words is that the right to be offended is subject to the discretion of the offender….
With God’s help, 6 Elul 5780
At first glance (double meaning intended…) there is an objective test: if a person’s face turns red, or conversely “the redness departs and paleness comes,” then in practice he is offended, and therefore it is best not to bring another person to such a state…
With blessings, A.G. Binyah
Hello, I happened upon the site by chance, and I read, and I am perplexed.
“And the explanation is that mockery is forbidden only when it is done for the sake of mockery itself. But here the mockery serves to convey a vital ethical message and is therefore permitted.”
And after that: “R. Y. Hutner in his book Pachad Yitzchak on Purim wrote to explain further. He explains that the essence of mockery is letting air out of a balloon, that is, reducing the importance of the thing.”
And after a few paragraphs: “So I ask: even if there were in their words disrespect and mockery toward the Bible and tradition, what is wrong with what they are doing?”
It seems to me that written here in black on white is that the writer did not really think about what he wrote.
How sad to encounter shallow writing from a man considered educated. Surely it is clear from the writer’s own words in explaining Pachad Yitzchak that the mockery here does not serve an “ethical message,” much less a “vital” one! The role of the mockery here is to diminish the presence and importance of the Book of Books in the eyes of the masses, the simple people who come to synagogue with holy awe, kiss the Torah scroll, and listen to the Torah reading with the joy of a commandment.
Mockery is a bad phenomenon, but stupidity and shallowness masquerading as education is a catastrophe.
First, from reading the post one can get a sense of how immense the gap is between Rabbi Michi and the rabbis of Hidabroot and the various speakers at the demonstration. The latter are simply puppets lacking independent thought; press a few buttons on them and like marionettes they begin to shriek… It is impossible for me even to imagine them thinking, all the more so writing, such a post.
Second, I support Rabbi Michi’s hands for the reference to our Sages, who acted similarly. I expected an example to be brought in the post, but the rabbi did not bring one, so I will do so in his place, in light of the Midrash in Megillah 14a on the meeting of David and Abigail. According to our Sages, Abigail lifted her skirt, and David, with absolutely no capacity for delayed gratification, chased after her for kilometers until he told her explicitly that he simply had to, absolutely had to, sleep with her. Now close your eyes, imagine for a moment that all this did not appear in the Talmud… Instead, ‘The Jews Are Coming’ would stage a sketch in which Abigail is in a miniskirt and David is chasing after her (please be honest with yourselves, hand on heart). That would be terribly insulting, right? You didn’t think of that, did you???
And on a personal note to Rabbi Michi: like any program, there are good and bad segments. It’s a shame you fell on the failures, because there are some really brilliant ones. The piece where the Bible is published and Isaiah pokes fun at Obadiah for getting only one chapter is simply genius. Also the piece with Moses and Aaron in the Tent of Meeting, where Aaron convinces Moses that he has split personality and that Aaron is his alter ego—that’s brilliant (it echoes the scene from David Fincher’s film ‘Fight Club,’ if you’ve seen it). And the pieces where Jonah tries to dodge this job that God dumped on him and he really doesn’t want to go. And Nahmanides, who is upset that he isn’t a celeb like Maimonides….
In short, there are some really good bits, come on.
Here, I’ve made life easy for you:
And I’ll conclude with the blessing: Open the plane door!!!!!
And usually, mockery and degradation do not add to rebuke, but detract from it and prevent the rebuke from being accepted, as the wise man instructed: “The words of the wise are heard gently,” and “A soft tongue breaks the bone.”
There are situations where one must rebuke and protest sharply, but usually one should ensure that even when fulfilling “You shall surely rebuke your fellow,” there is also fulfilled “and you shall not bear sin because of him,” meaning not to bring the rebuked person to public humiliation.
And Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin already testified that words of rebuke spoken with honor and pleasantness are accepted more.
With blessings, S.Z.
I am embarrassed to defend a program I do not watch, but it seems to me that the purpose of the program is to awaken thought about the Bible so that it will not be like the chirping of a starling (as opposed to Rabbi Michi’s claim that nothing can be learned from the Bible).
Indulge us with an example (a new thought, not just a historical comparison. Even if there is no binding authority here).
“Rebuke” is generally not really aimed at the addressee but mainly at the rest of the listeners. Therefore, from the standpoint of utility, it is better to say in a clear and ringing voice exactly what one thinks.
With God’s help, 7 Elul 5780
To ‘Ma’aneh’ – greetings,
If the statement is not directed to the listener, but rather to express the speaker’s feelings of pain and outrage—why does it need a ‘clear and ringing voice’? A groan and a wail or a great cry express the pain much better 🙂
We need the ‘clear and ringing voice’ when we come to prove (in the sense of proof, persuasion) something to our fellow. A person who is fundamentally good and upright and possessed of reason, but on a certain point we think he is mistaken, and therefore we try to persuade him and prove his error to him.
Obviously, someone fixed in his position is very difficult, almost impossible, to move even a millimeter from his entrenched view. But ‘most people’ are usually found ‘in the middle,’ listening to the words of both sides in the argument and trying to form an opinion for themselves one way or the other.
For those ‘good people in the middle of the road,’ attempts at persuasion can be beneficial. And the more calmly and substantively we speak, while addressing the arguments and reasons of both sides and providing a fitting answer also to the ‘counterarguments,’ the greater the chance that we will succeed in persuading one who is still ‘wavering and not locked in one direction or the other.’
With blessings, S.Z.
By the way, in my humble opinion this is the reason the various leftists have secured ‘tenure’ in the opposition. The more arrogance and contempt they show for the intelligence of their rivals, the more points they lose among the public in the ‘middle.’
The Jews Are Coming is the most important program of our generation.