Of Monkeys and Men – More Pearls from Maran Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef (Column 133)

With God's help

Several days ago I suddenly saw, to my astonishment, a pearl explicitly issuing from the mouth of the High Priest. How splendid was the appearance of the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, may he live long (son of my revered teacher and father Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, of blessed memory), in his lesson, which graced us with the heartening innovation: Black people are monkeys (translation for those who do not understand the old dictionary: kushim are Africans, or African-Americans). And indeed my heart quailed and swelled at the sight of this miniature revelation at Sinai, issuing as if from the mouth of the Almighty Himself. And the saying of our sages was fulfilled in us: You have only the sage of your own time. (you have only the sage of your own day).

Beyond a few innovations in the laws of the blessing "who makes creatures different," in the way of Torah, the rabbi moved from one matter to another within the same matter, probed deeply into the topic of Black people, and even supplied us with a learned halakhic and scientific opinion regarding rare genetic phenomena that appear in this population (he apparently relied on the findings of a study conducted at "El HaMaayan" University in cooperation with the academy named "Ba Gdi Katan" adjoining the Bir Zeit institutions for the study of the exact sciences of gender, funded by UNESCO and the Iranian delegation to the Human Rights Council, and in the interest of restoring the crown to its former glory—that is, to the Middle Ages).

I must say that when I saw these things I was left somewhat speechless for a moment (yes, be surprised, but that too happens sometimes), and I thought that such a pinnacle of stupidity and racism had not yet been scaled even by our Chief Rabbis, long may they live and flourish, and therefore the matter requires a response. I wanted to use sharper words to describe this fellow, but I decided nevertheless to wait until the air returned to my exhausted lungs, my pulse steadied, and I calmed down a bit. So I waited, held out until after the holiday (and probably violated Do not make yourselves detestable. [do not make yourself loathsome]. Though, as you see, I could not wait too long), and now I am writing.

Introduction: Media and political critiques of racism

As I have already written more than once (see, for example, Column 5 and Column 10), the subject of racism has undergone grave cheapening in our parts. Anyone who opens his mouth in a way that does not fit the fashionable bon ton accepted on Channel 2 or on some other lofty intellectual summit in our province is immediately accused of racism, unenlightenment, scientific ignorance, exclusion of women, homophobia, and the rest of the produce from the rich and infantile slang of the new criticism (and "scientific," of course) of political correctness. Entirely innocent and legitimate things, sometimes right and sometimes not, are immediately assigned to those dark precincts whose name must not be mentioned (Satan, or in the vernacular, Voldemort). Groundless gut feelings become categories and sit in judgment on people and views in the public square. The whole choir clicks its tongues in anger and scolds the dark-minded villain of the day for daring to express such unenlightened and racist opinions. This collection of pot-bellied worthies keeps favoring us, again and again, with the pearls of their paunches for no fault of our own.

By a cautious estimate, about 95% of the cases that enter public discourse as racism have not the slightest connection to racism (the remaining 5% perhaps have only a tenuous connection), and so I am quite sick of hearing these "discussions" (= self-righteous shrieking). Even if the speaker being criticized is not always the sharpest pencil in the box, and even if sometimes his remarks are not especially well-founded or pleasant, those criticizing him usually seem far less sharp than he is. In our salons, news broadcasts, and interview programs, expressions like "the Arabs are flocking to the polls," the "Garbuzes," and so on and so forth—utterly legitimate statements with not even a whiff of racism—are repeated as though we had before us a clear and unequivocal model of racist and unenlightened darkness. Because of this herd of fools, these expressions have become fixed assets, common idioms in the language referring to everything low and outdated in our renewed Hebrew culture. By now they are part of all our slang, and the judgment carried in the subtext is taken for granted (one person says, "this is really 'the Arabs are flocking to the polls'," and another seconds him: "that guy is such a 'Garbuz'," and so on).

Against this background, it is no wonder that I automatically suspected the criticism of Yitzhak Yosef as well. I assumed that it too fell into the same trap. Presumably harmless things had been said there too, and presumably the fools were barking again (while the caravan passed yet again). Everything as usual. All that lasted until I heard the remarks myself, and then, after I got my breath back, I thought to myself: here is something that belongs to that exceedingly rare 5 percent. As someone who collects rare cases for pleasure, I pounced on the matter like one who has found treasure.

Background: the blessing "who makes creatures different"

The Talmud in Berakhot 58b says:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who sees people with white patches recites, "Blessed [are You] who varies His creatures." An objection was raised: If one sees a black person, or a very red person, or a very white person, or one with an unusually large belly, or a dwarf, or one covered with warts, he says, "Blessed [are You] who varies His creatures." If he sees an amputee, or a blind person, or one with a misshapen head, or a lame person, or one afflicted with boils, or people with white patches, he says, "Blessed [are You] the true Judge." This is not difficult: in the one case, it is from the mother's womb; in the other, it developed after birth. This is also precise from the fact that it teaches it by analogy to an amputee; learn from this. The Sages taught: One who sees an elephant, a monkey, or an ape says, "Blessed [are You] who varies His creatures."

This blessing was instituted upon seeing unusual creatures (for explanation of the terms see here, and for a description of the laws here). Note well: unusual, not necessarily inferior or anything of the sort. We are speaking of beings that were not common in the Land of Israel at that time, such as Black people, elephants, and monkeys. That does not mean the Talmud is equating them (though I would not have been terribly surprised even if it did, but for the sake of precision this should be made clear). Among other cases, the blessing is recited over what the Talmud calls kushim—Black people (forgive the departure from political correctness, which will continue a bit below; that is the halakhic-Talmudic term), albinos, people with white blotches, very red people, and so forth. One can see that there is no reference here to any race or ethnic origin as such, but to a person's external appearance, which is unusual at least in our parts. And if an illegitimate scholar takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest (cf. Yitzhak Yosef), there is no reason to think an albino or a Black scholar does not take precedence over him.

And thus the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 225:8, rules:

One who sees a black person; or a very red person, that is, one who is extremely red; or a very white person, that is, one who is extremely white; or one with an unusually large belly, that is, whose stomach is so large that because of its thickness his stature appears shortened; or a dwarf; or one covered with warts, that is, someone covered with warts; or one with a misshapen head, whose hair is all stuck together; or an elephant; or a monkey, recites: "Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who varies His creatures."

It should be understood that this blessing is part of ordinary religious praxis, a normal response to various situations. It is the natural response to encountering phenomena that call for religious acknowledgment, from lightning and thunder, to returning to a place where a miracle occurred, to encountering unusual beings (people with deformities or simply unusual people). The underpinning of this blessing is presumably the need to recognize that these creatures too were made by the Creator of the world, and perhaps one may even infer from this (with due caution, of course) that they too deserve humane treatment and respect like any other person. One can easily see this as a way of coping with expected racism and contempt toward such beings (though that is not a necessary interpretation, of course). But that is apparently not what our master Yitzhak Yosef thinks about it.

Preliminary discussion

I am sure that, on hearing the remarks made in the above lesson, many recoil already from the very law of the blessing who makes creatures different. They may feel as though a Black person and an albino are being compared here to an elephant and a monkey (racism, racism). But that is nonsense. As I explained, we are talking about unusual beings of different kinds, and no comparison between them is being made here. As noted, the blessing itself does not come to demean, but perhaps even the opposite (and perhaps not). Therefore Rabbi Yosef's very discussion of this subject involves no special problem. It is an ordinary halakhic topic, and there is no impediment to learning and discussing it. For that alone I would certainly not bother you.

Whatever the purpose of this blessing may be, several halakhic decisors wrote that one should not recite such blessings in a way that hurts those people, and whoever does so is a pious fool. Hardly something that needed saying, so obvious is it. Therefore it seems to me that there was room to be careful even when these laws are taught in public, since there may be listeners present who would be hurt, and it would have been proper to note this. I did not hear it in the recording of the lesson, but perhaps it was said there at another point. But that is not our subject, and perhaps there is even value in not surrendering to political correctness, in the sense of It is Torah, and we must study it. (it is Torah, and we must study it).

Yitzhak Yosef's remarks

In his lesson he explains that the blessing was instituted only over a Black person born to two white parents. I have no idea where he drew this bizarre idea from (I did not check. Perhaps it appears in the words of some decisor, but in the Talmud it is of course a very strained reading). More relevant for us is that he adduces as evidence for this claim the fact that it is not reasonable to recite a blessing where there are many Black people. Is it reasonable, he wonders, that on a street in the United States every five minutes we would stop and make the blessing?! Indeed, a marvelous proof.

His august genius apparently did not think of another creative solution: if the blessing was instituted over unusual beings, then in a place where they are not unusual there is nothing to recite a blessing over. And indeed some halakhic decisors wrote that nowadays redheads, Black people, and the like are common, and there is no point in reciting it over them. Certainly that is so in a place where they are very common, such as the United States. To see a Black person there as unusual is truly infantile. But even in our tiny country, when we have immigrants from Ethiopia and migrants/infiltrators from Africa among us, I see no logic at all in reciting this blessing. Moreover, through newspapers and films every one of us sees dark-skinned people day in and day out, and no one feels he is seeing something unusual or strange. This is already an evident part of our world. Well, Yitzhak Yosef does not watch films or television. He apparently thinks they are aliens from the moon, until he heard that in distant America, among the wonders of the world, there are also some dark-skinned two-legged beings. How manifold are Your works, O Lord. (How manifold are Your works, O Lord)…

True, what I have suggested here is of course a strange and highly unnatural solution, and hard to force into the language of the Talmud; certainly it cannot compete with Yitzhak Yosef's brilliant solution (that the case is of a Black person born to two white parents), but perhaps it is nonetheless worth considering even this before making a wild forced reinterpretation of the Talmudic passage, no?!

I also found myself wondering, upon hearing this wondrous innovation, why one should not make the blessing over a white person born to two Black parents. Is that not equally unusual? Or perhaps, in his view, one does not make a blessing over racial improvement (after all, a white person born to two Black people can only bless his good fortune. A real evolutionary upgrade). Perhaps the blessing "who makes creatures different" was, in his view, instituted only over a disgraceful evolutionary decline (from white to black. Yuck!).

It seems that Yitzhak Yosef, may he live long, feared that among his listeners there might be some who were unaware of the findings of the exalted research institute of "El HaMaayan" University, and perhaps also some who might doubt the wonders of his creative interpretation, and therefore some might mistakenly think that the Mishnah meant a plain ordinary Black person, heaven forbid, and then a problem would arise in the United States. After all, one cannot demand that a white person stop every five minutes and recite a blessing. It is forbidden to abuse human beings (especially if they are white), and Jewish law, after all, is ways of pleasantness. Therefore he innovates his startling genetic theory. And not only that, but in the course of his remarks he casually emits the main pearl: it can happen that two white parents (=normal) can give birth to a monkey (=a Black person). What is unclear here?! Do not tell me that now you are still not convinced that this is, in fact, a plausible interpretation.

Which is exactly what I said above: in his view, the blessing is over an encounter with evolutionary degeneration (apparently it expresses joy at the proof of God's existence, since evolution has here been refuted before our very eyes). I only wonder what, in his view, one blesses when one encounters Mitochondrial Eve, who emerged from a union between a human being and a monkey? In my opinion, for an evolutionary reversal like that, complete with a backward flip, one should gather a minyan, recite Hallel, and make a blessing publicly, with God's name and kingship, over reaching our actual evolutionary root.

Enough joking. There is something very serious and deeply troubling here, and it is important to understand it and put it on the table.

What exactly is the problem?

What is wrong with this dark approach of Yitzhak Yosef in question? I see several problems here:

• That he is a fool. There are Black people around the world whose education and abilities are such that Yitzhak Yosef's abilities are those of a monkey by comparison. On second thought, it seems to me most of them are.
• That he is also a racist. A fool can think all sorts of incorrect thoughts. He need not arrive specifically at racist conclusions. So beyond the foolishness, there is racism here as well.
• That he has no feel for ordinary human society. A person who lives in our world knows that one does not speak this way in public. Even if you do not like it and think everyone else is wrong, and even if for some reason you live in La La Land and are convinced that a kushi is indeed a monkey, you are still obliged to be alert to people's sensitivities. And I am not speaking only about the term kushi, which today is considered especially offensive (which definitely annoys me too, but I am at least aware of it). That one might forgive, and even allow the commissars of political correctness to get a little upset. I am speaking mainly about his comparison to a monkey. Even if this witless man somehow believes that it is true, he should have understood that his intelligent opinion on this sensitive issue was not supposed to be displayed on the internet and in the media before all Israel, all Ishmael, and to spread to the four corners of the earth.

One of the conditions for appointing a rabbi is that he be in tune with people. He must understand what world he lives in and how people in this strange world think (a world that for some reason assumes, in a great mistake, that a Black person is not really a monkey, and that some of them are even endowed with some talent, at least on the level of an Indian elephant, and perhaps even with exalted character traits—which are apparently unknown in the world of the above-mentioned fellow). You cannot be a rabbi, still less a Chief Rabbi and public figure, if you live in a conceptual universe so detached from the world in which you are supposed to act. All the more so if we are talking about a judge who is supposed to judge people and determine their fate. How can you judge people when you do not understand what they are talking about, and do not know them, their values, or their way of thinking? True, the Chief Rabbinate has long since ceased to be a relevant institution, but even so I would have expected them, at least on their own terms, to try to project a cultural image somewhat above that of an ordinary baboon. Oops, I was disappointed again.

Yes, I know that after pointing out that the fellow is a fool and a racist, to accuse him of not being in tune with people is really making fun of the poor. It is like accusing a mass murderer of failing to return politely the greeting of a charming lad in the street.[1] But still, the issue here is not the accusations against him. He and the rabbinate he heads are like an earthenware vessel whose purification lies only in its breaking. In their case there is no room for constructive criticism, only for destructive criticism. But I write these words as a public service, in the hope that the public may mend its ways in the future and not allow these creatures to go on running our lives.

Sallah, This Is Africa

I wonder what Yitzhak Yosef would say if someone publicly declared that immigrants from Morocco are monkeys. There is no need to risk speculation, because in the very days when he was spewing his excrement into the public domain, the broadcast of the series "Sallah, Here Is the Land of Israel" came to an end. The series stirred public shock, especially at the remarks of the Israeli leaders of the 1950s about immigrants from Morocco. Needless to say, among the most shocked were, of course, the people of Shas (Aryeh Deri took part in the closing panel of the series, in which I too was supposed to participate, and there expressed deep shock at the remarks. Too bad they did not invite Yitzhak Yosef to be shocked as well).

Did anyone among us really wonder how it was that we did not see them reeling in shock from five hundred miles away at the remarks of their leader, the aforementioned Yitzhak Yosef? It is obvious enough. Yitzhak Yosef and his circle are above the accepted standards that they themselves demand of others. One must understand that the statements of the leaders of the 1950s quoted in the series pale beside the gaseous emissions of this fellow. Not to mention that fifty years have already passed since then, and in the meantime some water has flowed in the Yarkon and we have by now understood and internalized a few things over those years. At that time many thought in essentialist and labeling terms (except that they did not have the good fortune of having their words catalogued and stored in the state archives), but today we have already understood that this is a baseless conception, have we not? Ah, I forgot that this crowd is busy restoring the crown to its former glory. They are not especially fond of the crowns of the present day.

And for dessert, a small lie

In the Chief Rabbinate's response to media inquiries they say that Rabbi Yosef merely quoted the Talmud. What, after all, do people want from him? Antisemites, the lot of them! Well, I take it for granted that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel does not issue anything uncorrected from beneath its hand. Therefore I looked into the books, and, alas, at least in the uncorrected version before me, I found nothing of the sort in our Talmud. True, a Black person appears there, and so do a monkey, an elephant, and an ape. But where in the Talmud is there any identification between the two? In Yitzhak Yosef's version of the Talmud, something is apparently different from mine (perhaps a manuscript discovered by the Talmud department of "El HaMaayan" University?…). And our version? An erring student must have written it in.

So either there is a lie here or ignorance. Neither of those traits is recommended in a Chief Rabbi, or indeed in any human being. True, I am not among those who hold Yitzhak Yosef in especially high esteem (I have already heard no small number of foolish things from him, which are of course always said in a decisive tone and with the confidence of one who knows everything. It is a family matter there, and I must admit that it is not foreign to me either—apart from the foolish things, of course), but even so, in my assessment, when he deals with the topic of the blessing "who makes creatures different," surely he did not overlook the precise short Talmudic passage that deals with it (it is cited above). The unavoidable conclusion is that we have here either a brief loss of consciousness or a crude lie. So here is a fourth defect in our Chief Rabbi: he is willing to lie, profane God's name, and disgrace the sages of the Talmud in the eyes of the public, just to get away safely from the nonsense he blows into the public's face. I think those too are not recommended traits in a rabbi in Israel. Though, on second thought, for the head of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel they are actually fairly fitting…

A note on freedom and liberty

In the series of columns that dealt with freedom and liberty (126–131), I distinguished there between liberty and freedom. I explained there that Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi, who wrote Slaves of time are slaves to slaves; the servant of God alone is free. (The servants of time are servants of servants; only the servant of God is free), probably meant that a free person is only one who acts autonomously, as a free person, within constraints. I explained that the giving of the Torah places constraints around us and sets for us a framework, within which lie what is fitting and unfitting, forbidden and permitted, and now we must decide for ourselves on interpretation and priorities within that framework—how it should properly be applied in the circumstances of our lives. This is part of the meaning of our being free people and not slaves to slaves.

In that sense, even if these things had been written in the Talmud (and we must honestly admit that the style of thought of that era is not foreign to its spirit), still, to follow the plain sense of the Talmud and not understand that a different reality requires a different interpretation and application of the laws, is a kind of enslavement to constraints. Yitzhak Yosef lets the plain sense of the Talmud dictate to him what to think, banging his head against the wall, without noticing reality and without using his head and whatever is in it (if indeed anything is in it). If in his opinion the Talmud says that a Black person is a monkey (as stated, the Talmud does not say this), then he will proudly repeat it before all Israel. It does not really matter to him what reality is. A Jew committed to Torah and Jewish law, who conducts himself as a free person, is supposed to examine these things, interpret them, and apply them reasonably in the circumstances under discussion. One who does not do so, and hangs everything on the fact that it is written in the Talmud, is still a slave of slaves. As I explained there, our being servants of God enables us to be free people, but that is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. We must also choose to be such—that is, to act with a measure of liberty within the Torah and halakhic system. That is apparently not Yitzhak Yosef's strong point. The Torah tells that Noah says of his son Ham, He shall be a slave of slaves to his brothers. (a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers). Yitzhak Yosef, when he speaks about the sons of Ham, behaves himself like a slave of slaves.

So what do we have here? The Chief Rabbi of Israel is a fool, a racist, a liar, devoid of independent thought, a profaner of God's name, and yes—also not in tune with people. Truly a magnificent Chief Rabbi. If a man like this is not immediately removed from his post (including the dismantling of the corrupt institution at whose head he stands), then this is not only the face of the Chief Rabbinate, but above all the face of the religious establishment, and even more so the face of our state, which appointed creatures like this to stand at the head of the Chief Rabbinate on its behalf.

One of the astonishing things is that this vile statement did not even make all that much noise. There was a small headline and everyone moved on. That only shows us what the expectations are of the creatures who stand at the head of the Neanderthal zoo known as the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.[2]

I am filled with shame that someone might imagine that this pathetic creature and I both believe in and are committed to the same religion, the same God, and the same Torah. Woe to that shame. And disgrace as well…

Some time later, a decision regarding Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef came into my hands, and I thought it could add some understanding regarding my attitude toward him: Decision of the Commissioner for Complaints against Judges concerning the Chief Rabbi.

 

[1] As is well known, Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion.

[2] This reminds me of a story a good friend of mine told me after his girlfriend committed suicide. When they came to Kiryat Shaul to arrange for her burial near her father, who had died years earlier (the family wanted the graves to be close so they could visit them together), they were told that this was impossible. There was no more room, and she would have to be buried at Yarkon. He told me that although he had no experience at all with the religious establishment and no familiarity with the procedures, it was immediately obvious to him that the question he had to ask now was "How much will it cost us?" Surely you will not be surprised to hear that in exchange for a few symbolic thousand shekels, a place was found. Without entering into the question of whether this was justified and what the background was, he told me that what troubled him was the very fact that it was obvious to him from the outset, without knowing anything, that it was only a matter of money. This indicates the level of expectations and esteem the public has for the religious establishment.