A Look at Adulation – In the Wake of Kobe Bryant, of Blessed Memory (Column 273)
With God's help
As someone who devotes quite a few hours of his nights to the astonishingly athletic activity of watching NBA games, and enjoys them enormously (this is art of a wondrous order. Truly uplifting), it is impossible not to address the tragic and untimely death of the revered Kobe Bryant, one of the greatest basketball players we (= citizens of the world) have had. He perished in the crash of his helicopter, together with his daughter and seven other people, apparently because of bad weather and poor visibility. In the wake of this tragic event, the whole world is in turmoil. Almost two weeks have already passed, and the Kobe Bryant carnival refuses to die down. In the first days we received hourly updates on all the networks (one example among thousands here), an open broadcast for days on end. Eulogies by celebrities and political leaders from all over the world were constantly being published (including Bibi, and even Erdogan and Ahmadinejad, who simply do not know how they will be able to go on living without Kobe, of blessed memory).
There is no doubt that the fellow was an impressive basketball player, and probably worthy of professional appreciation and perhaps personal appreciation as well. He helped quite a few young players, and beyond the talent, I understand that he was also devoted to his profession and worked hard to reach his achievements (as our sages said: no free lunch). All of these certainly entitle him to full credit. At the same time, the man also has stains in his past, such as the dubious closing of a rape case, which a journalist at the Washington Post who dared mention it at precisely these holy moments was immediately suspended for (there are limits to freedom of speech even in our great friend across the sea),[1] his problematic treatment of teammates in the locker room, and other troubling points that this difficult hour is not the time for (as it is said, It is a time of distress for Jacob (Kobi), but from it he shall be saved.).
Why am I rousing elephants from their lairs? Why not let the Jew rest in peace on his couch? Because with all the respect I have for the man, and all the sorrow over his untimely passing, and no less so over the other eight people killed in the helicopter crash, the whole business seems to me somewhat deranged and hysterical. I prefaced this with my warm feelings toward the field of basketball, and the NBA in particular, so that I not be suspected of indifference, unfamiliarity, or lack of concern about the subject (in the sense of He too would withdraw and weep.). Even so, something here strays a bit beyond good taste. The world is full of disasters and miserable people, and almost nobody opens his mouth. Some of you are surely thinking that at least a few hundred of those miserable people around the world do not die while flying in a private helicopter with their daughter to basketball practice in order to save time in traffic, and even when they do die, it is not always in circumstances that, on the face of it, look somewhat reckless (the reports say that helicopter takeoffs were forbidden in Los Angeles airspace at that time because of the weather). There are quite a few people in the world who are murdered or die under torture or from hunger. Others live in terrible suffering for years, perhaps their whole lives. There are places where this happens on a massive and agonizing scale, but the world and its leaders are currently occupied mainly with Kobe, of blessed memory.
What is the meaning of this strange phenomenon? My feeling is that it is an expression of a troubling, though probably unavoidable, human phenomenon called adulation, and that is what I would like to touch on a bit here.
The trigger
I thought of writing about this subject about two months ago, when in our Middle Eastern province two cosmic events occurred that stirred in me gloomy thoughts about the adulation that some mortals feel toward other mortals.
The first was the arrival of Leo Messi, the greatest of them all (except for LeBron James, with forgiveness from Kobe and from my wife Dafna), in the Holy Land. The stormy carnival around him included people wrapped in flags as if they were prayer shawls, sleeping all night outside the hotel so that they might merit to behold the face of the king. It really felt to me like the carnivals around various Hasidic rebbes, albeit with one important difference: unlike many of the rebbes, Messi really does possess special talent (and perhaps also worked hard for it. I assume so, though I do not know enough. His problem is that he does not play in the NBA).
The second cosmic event was an appearance by Bibi, King of Israel, in which he again warned against the 'existential danger to the State of Israel' if a minority government of Gantz were formed with Arab support (I no longer remember whether this was in election round A, B, C, or D. There you have it: we still exist. The Eternal One of Israel does not lie.), Heaven preserve us from such thinking.[2] There too one saw hysterical displays of adulation among the tribal crowd, who roared battle cries against the enemies of the aforesaid King of Israel and cries of adoration toward him from the depths of their bleeding hearts (see for example here).
Beyond the question whether Kobe, Messi, or Bibi deserve the adulation shown toward them these days (at least on the sporting plane, in my opinion there is room for no small amount of appreciation for all three of them—especially Bibi), the phenomenon of adulation as such is worth discussion. Its causes belong mainly to the field of psychology and mass communication, as well as the psychopathology of the individual, in which, to my sorrow, I am not sufficiently skilled, and so here I will only touch on them. But its meaning and its consequences, in my opinion, also require discussion, and that already belongs to the plane of values.
The phenomenon of adulation: a description
Never in my life have I managed to understand the phenomenon of adulation, especially in these contexts. An athlete, actor, model, politician, or one artist or another wins adulation from people who literally go into ecstasy upon meeting them. Every word they utter makes hearts tremble and changes worlds. Paparazzi photographers chase after them and leap over the coffins of the dead to behold the kings of Israel or of the nations of the world—who, if they are fortunate, may perhaps barely distinguish between such figures and the grass of the field (Berakhot 19b).
It may be proper to divide the discussion between adulation for people who were simply endowed with some gift—beauty, talent, or physical power of one kind or another—and people of exceptional achievement or exceptional intellectual, moral, or spiritual level. Or perhaps it is better to divide between those endowed with some gift, spiritual or otherwise, and those who acted in ways worthy of appreciation and consequently reached achievements. The mere existence of such a gift does not at all justify adulation, and in my opinion not even appreciation. But even in cases of special achievements (athletic, spiritual, or intellectual), and even if those achievements involved work and toil worthy of appreciation, the matter still justifies appreciation, not adulation.
Adulation is not appreciation. Adulation contains an element of worship and excitement, and that is a completely different phenomenon from mere appreciation, which at root is a matter of sober intellectual judgment and can even be cold. Adulation is something that I doubt is worthy of being felt or bestowed on anyone at all, and certainly its contemporary manifestations (some of which were described above) are problematic.[3]
Take, for example, our attitude toward politicians. What is there to adore in them? Why seek their proximity at all?[4] I truly cannot imagine a reasonable and rational person who bothers to come to some party's ’emergency rally' and enthusiastically bellows, in a hoarse voice trembling with excitement, while vigorously waving one flaglet or another as King Bibi, or some other emperor, delivers his nonsense from the stage. In whom, for heaven's sake, do these things arouse such emotions and such excitement? How are we to portray that mysterious creature belonging to those sweat-soaked herds of cattle and sheep? What sort of psychological makeup must this admirer have in order to arrive at such degraded conduct?
All this is true even if the politician in question were saying sensible things (that too can happen on rare occasions). But it is certainly true when what is involved is manipulative and baseless nonsense, in Bibi's manner and that of others. How does it happen that the same hoarse-throated admirer does not ask himself how even this 'tangible and immediate existential danger' to the State of Israel somehow does not suffice to persuade the King of Israel to vacate his royal chair, which would apparently solve most of the problems and at a stroke remove this terrible existential threat from over all our heads? For if the adored King Bibi, who is so deeply concerned for the State of Israel because of dependence on the Joint Arab List, were to vacate his chair, then immediately the verse would be fulfilled among us: And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid.. If he resigned and there were another Likud candidate, there is a very decent chance that candidate would be elected. But even if not, a national unity government of Likud with Blue and White would probably come into being fairly quickly, exactly as he himself claims to want. So what is the problem? Perhaps the danger that he himself, in his own honor, will not rule over us is greater than the terrible danger that would be brought upon us by the government of the leftist tyrant Gantz,[5] Gabi Ashkenazi, Bogie, Lapid, and their 'helpers,' Heaven preserve us? I am not raising these questions for their own sake, but only as a basis for wondering at the conduct of the herd that fails to notice them.
This phenomenon is astonishing to me. Thousands of excited creatures come to these gatherings gripped with excitement and adulation for Bibis of all kinds—indeed, for bibim, sewers. A cynical manipulator plucks at the emotions of the herd of beasts before him and plays them like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, and all of them answer after him amen, excited and bright-eyed. This idiotic adulation prevents anyone who belongs to that howling herd from understanding things that every child understands. The herd mentality and infantilism I described are only symptoms of the essence of adulation and its consequences. The first question that troubles me is how a reasonable person can descend to so low a human, spiritual, and intellectual level.[6] This is part of the wonders of the human psyche, and to understand it requires a psychopathological and anthropological inquiry (though perhaps it would be more accurate to call my feeling here a zoological question). The second question is what is so bad about it? What are the consequences of this phenomenon?
Defining adulation
As I wrote above, adulation is different from appreciation. This is not only a quantitative difference, but a qualitative one. Appreciation is (or at least ought to be) the result of critical judgment. A person has reached achievements and/or taken actions worthy of appreciation, and so that appreciation is due to him by right. Beyond the fact that he deserves the appreciation, its existence is also important for us. He may teach us and serve as a model that advances us in proper directions. Human beings of flesh and blood succeeded in reaching such goals, so perhaps it is proper—and possible—for me as well to strive toward them.
My point of departure is that evaluating phenomena and personalities is important. This can be seen in two similar verses that appear in the book of Proverbs. One is in chapter 17, verse 3:
The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests hearts.
And the second is in chapter 27, verse 21:
The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, and a man is tested according to his praise.
The Holy One, blessed be He, examines a person's heart according to what he praises. Praise is the symptom that refines the person of his dross and reveals his hidden treasures. Thus the Holy One examines what is in his heart. Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner cites Rabbeinu Yonah, who explains that these verses teach us that from what a person praises one can understand what is important in his eyes. If he praises wisdom or kindness, those are apparently the things important to him. If he praises celebrities, then fame is apparently what matters to him. Appreciation is due to the person or phenomenon that deserves it, but it is also an important educational tool and a means of advancing the one who appreciates.
But again I must say that adulation is something else. You see some person and your heart begins to beat quickly. Adrenaline pumps the blood, the pulse rises, and you hang calf-like adoring eyes on him and pine for every word that comes out of his mouth. Everything he says is holy in your eyes, and you answer amen after him. You use bizarre superlatives about him (emperor, god, King of Israel), and when it comes to a god, critical judgment is of course left aside. You always judge him favorably (even when that makes no sense). You obey him without rational control, and in certain ways act simply because he told you to.
The problem with adulation: the figure of the leader
Unlike appreciation (at least the kind worthy of the name), the phenomenon of adulation is problematic in several senses, especially on the two planes I mentioned above. First, without critical judgment you have no control over whether the adulation is being given to someone who truly deserves it. Beyond that, adulation will not advance you to places worth advancing to, since you do not choose the object of your adulation by any criteria or exercise of judgment. You go with the herd and howl together with everyone else. The belly leads you, not the head.
I have always wondered at the phenomenon whereby in various music groups the members speak of the 'leader of the band,' as is customary in packs of animals and flocks of birds. Perhaps I do not know the phenomenon well enough and in fact this means a person who guides and leads them, rather than adulation in the sense described above, but the expression has always bothered me. The impression is that at least in some cases this is mere charisma. Needless to say, as part of the phenomenon of adulation, a 'leader' is also a problematic phenomenon in my eyes. What a person says should be judged through our cognition and our tools of judgment, not by virtue of the fact that he, as a 'leader,' said it, nor because of his charisma. Charisma is a negative phenomenon, because it gives a person tools to sway others emotionally and irrationally in directions that interest him. People should form positions on the basis of arguments and reasons, not on the basis of someone's charisma.
A brief comparative glance: adulation and love
Love of a person is a phenomenon similar to adulation. Thus, for example, a man sees a beloved woman and feels his heart pounding; adrenaline courses through his body, just as in adulation. There too he loses the ability to judge critically, and judges favorably.[7] Love and adulation both describe one person's relation to another that does not pass through critical thought. Love too is opposed to intellectual appreciation and judgment in ways similar to those we saw above. So why does adulation seem problematic to me and love less so? If you think about it for a moment, you will discover that this question is rather embarrassing. It is very far from simple to explain why love is all right while adulation is not.
The obvious explanation is, first of all, the consequences. Adulation is directed toward a person who moves us to action and causes us to think differently and act differently. He plants values and ideologies within us. Love, by contrast, usually remains on the personal plane. Therefore the consequences of adulation are more problematic than those of love. But my feeling is that beyond that there is also a difference in the very phenomena themselves. Love is not supposed to be based only on cool calculation. A couple choose to love one another because there is a psychic bond between them. That is perfectly fine, for such is the nature of love. Love is a kind of contract between two people, and as is well known there is freedom of association. A person may choose a partner as he wishes.[8] But adulation, beyond the question of consequences, is problematic even as a phenomenon in itself. Although in both cases we are following the heart without passing through rational control, there is something more problematic in adulation. I will now try to clarify this a bit further.
Two sources of adulation: ideology and collectivism
It seems to me that adulation of a person can come from two places: the ideological and the psychological. On a second look, one can also point to a connection between them.
The ideological aspect is based on attachment to an idea. People adore a person who represents an idea. Marx in relation to communism, Hitler in relation to Nazism, or one rebbe or another who represents the color of the socks customary in the faction that he inherited from his father. Adulation of that person expresses attachment to the idea. In such a case, seemingly, the consequential damage does not exist. A person chooses an idea that speaks to him and with which he identifies, and from that the person who represents it wins his adulation. According to this description, the direction in which that person will go as a result of the adulation is the direction he himself chose. Therefore, apparently, there is no consequential problem here. And yet, in my opinion the dimension of adulation here is itself problematic, and in the end it has consequences as well. After all, one could adhere to this ideology because one believes in it, even without resorting to intermediary figures.
The power of symbols as expressions of ideas is very great. It is somewhat hard to believe, but soldiers have died and do die for the flag. The flag began as a symbol of something greater, but in practice the flag has become the concrete object for which people die. Afterwards people create ad hoc justifications (morale and so on), but in practice that is the situation. The anthem makes hearts tremble and the flag makes them quiver. So too with the president of the state or the chief of staff (cf. Mercaz HaRav on Jerusalem Day). All of these are symbols that ostensibly merely express ideas, but in practice they receive an emotional relation, and as such it is very problematic. If I were to hear that my son gave himself over for the flag, I would kill him. Not only because in my opinion symbols are a degraded matter (beastly; see below), but first and foremost because he died in vain.
The psychological aspect is built in a very similar way. If the ideological aspect rests on an idea, then at the basis of the psychological aspect stands the herd and the collective. There is a herd instinct embedded in almost every human being. People have a strong need to belong to some collective (herd), and a herd needs a leader. The king is 'one of the people' because he makes the people one. Perhaps here too this is a concretization of something abstract. The collective is an abstract thing (beyond the individuals who compose it), and the king is its concrete expression. Only when we see Bibi before our eyes do we understand that we are part of the herd he shepherds. Thus we feel ourselves part of something larger than we are.
In that sense, the king functions in relation to the collective exactly as the symbol functions in relation to ideology. The king begins as a servant of the collective, but at some point his status becomes detached from that instrumentality. The king becomes an adored person in his own right, period. At the base, the sense of belonging was the reason for the adulation, but in the end it becomes its result. The symbol, which is itself devoid of importance, suddenly acquires self-standing importance detached from the idea it symbolizes. This brings us to the idea of idolatry and the importance of the struggle against it.
Mockery as a response to idolatry
The description I gave above greatly resembles the beginning of the Laws of Idolatry in Maimonides. He describes there how people began to accord honor to the heavenly bodies as representing the Holy One, blessed be He, until in the end they received independent standing. Therefore the prohibition of idolatry, in his view, exists even when we worship the idol or heavenly body while being aware that it is only a representative of God. There is still idolatry here. The common understanding of his words is that the prohibition of such a situation stems from the concern that in the end people may come to worship the idol itself, but in my opinion the very state of needing a concretization is problematic (not only because of its consequences). When one needs a concretization of an abstract idea, that means that the connection to the idea itself is weak. The idea itself would not have moved us to action. Therefore we enlist the beastly dimension within us. Concretizations arouse emotions and enthusiasm in us that the idea itself fails to arouse, and thus we are moved to action. I think that the very concretization and the relation to the symbol as possessing value in itself are problematic both because here our lower dimensions are being harnessed toward a direction (which may in itself be positive) and because of the consequences (the distortions that emotions create in us).
Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner, at the beginning of his book Pahad Yitzhak – Purim, cites the saying of the sages (Megillah 25b):
Rav Nahman said: All mockery is forbidden except mockery of idolatry, which is permitted, as it is written: “Bel bows down, Nebo stoops,” and it is written: “They stoop, they bow down together; they could not save the burden,” etc. Rabbi Yannai said: It is derived from here: “The inhabitants of Samaria tremble for the calves of Beth-aven, for its people shall mourn over it, and its priests shall rejoice over its glory, because it has departed from it.” Read not “its glory” but “its heaviness.” Rav Huna bar Manoah said in the name of Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika: It is permitted for a Jew to say to an idolater, “Take your idol and put it in your shin tav.”
He explains that the essence of idolatry is attributing importance to something that is devoid of importance in itself. The essence of mockery is puncturing a balloon, that is, deflating the importance of the thing. Therefore mockery, which in principle is forbidden, is permitted with respect to idolatry. Deflating importance is permitted only with respect to things whose problematic root lies in giving importance to something unimportant.
By the way, this provides a paradigm for my own mockeries. When a person is mistaken, that is not a reason to mock him. But when a person gives importance to something unimportant, in many cases (though I agree not always) the way to deal with it is mockery: to puncture his balloon in order to return him to his real dimensions.
The connection between the two aspects
There is a connection between these two aspects, the psychological (belonging to the herd) and the ideological. Ideas are generally driven by collectives (see the questions I received here and here—on the very day I began writing this column). Sometimes the proper order is reversed: it is not that the idea leads to adulation, but that adulation leads to adoption of the idea. The need to belong is what constitutes attachment to the ideological infrastructure. The need for belonging and adulation can cause a person to adhere to an idea not because he really identifies with it, but for emotional reasons. Adulation and the sense of belonging serve as a substitute for a critical and rational view, that is, for arguments and reasons. Moreover, beyond the plane of consequences, the very conduct of a person who acts on the basis of adulation and a sense of belonging instead of on the basis of judgment is conduct according to our beastly part (the beastly soul; see below), and therefore I see this as a problem in itself (even without regard to the consequential effects). To act like an animal is problematic, even if all you are doing is grazing grass and not doing anything bad. In this perspective, the possibility that you may come to do something bad without rational control is an indication of the problem, not its very essence.
Many of us are inclined to think that if charisma, adulation, and the sense of belonging lead in positive directions, then they are good and worthy instruments. I disagree. The moment all these are used as the engine for adopting values and courses of action, positive or negative, that itself is problematic conduct, even if the values and directions in question are good and worthy. People who are moved to do good only because there is a charismatic person who spurs them on to do so, or because of a desire to belong—they are a herd not worthy of appreciation. Once collectivism and adulation turn from instruments into values or path-determiners, the conduct is beastly.
Beastly soul and divine soul
The boundary is fine. Sometimes a person can use emotions as a motor for action. So long as he is aware that they are a motor, and the action itself is based on judgment, this is reasonable and perhaps unavoidable; the intellect is a rather weak engine for activity. Emotional reinforcement will move us more effectively and more quickly toward our goals. Therefore it is reasonable to harness the emotional dimension so that it drives us more powerfully toward our goals and values. But if emotion is not only the engine but also the steering wheel, that is a loss of direction.
The author of Tanya, at the beginning of his book, distinguishes between what he calls the 'divine soul' and the 'beastly soul.' In my book Enosh Kaḥatzir, in the first intermezzo (p. 205), I explained this distinction, and I will briefly repeat it here. In contrast to the accepted distinction between good and evil as the basic struggle of human beings, the author of Tanya argues that the fundamental struggle is between cognitive-intellectual motivation and emotional-instinctual motivation. A person who acts from the divine soul performs his deeds, for good or ill, on the basis of judgment. Emotion serves as an auxiliary, a motor that helps him move toward the goals set by the intellect. By contrast, a person who acts from the beastly soul is one whose emotions and impulses move him. For him the intellect is an instrument used to rationalize his impulses and spontaneous feelings. But it is these that choose the path and steer him. Not for nothing is the latter mode of conduct called the 'beastly soul.' A person can do good all his life and still conduct himself like an (intelligent) animal.
Adulation likely derives from a positive evolutionary source. It is an expression of each of our desires to take part in greatness. One can say that it has evolutionary value in promoting people to achievements. It is the rivalry of scholars that increases wisdom. But envy also removes a person from the world. One must be careful to use these tools as instruments and not as the fundamental motor (or the steering wheel).
Years ago, when we established the journal (Meysharim) in Yeshivat Yeruham, an astonishing phenomenon was brought to my attention. People did not want to write articles lest the urge of pride grow stronger within them. When I heard this I became very angry and delivered a short talk in the study hall. I told people that in this way they were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yetzer (impulse) shares a root with yetzira (creation), and without impulse there is no creation. The aspiration to greatness, even if it stems from the urge of pride, is the engine that leads to achievement and creativity. The Talmud relates that when the Men of the Great Assembly abolished the urge for idolatry, they could not find a single hen's egg anywhere in the Land of Israel. Without impulse, nothing is created. People who work on the trait of pride in this way castrate themselves.[9] They will not reach achievements. Usually they will remain righteous ignoramuses with no connection to Torah. A connection to Torah is created through creativity and connection. But on one point they are right. It is important not to cross the fine boundary between using the impulse as an engine that will lead us toward positive directions that we have chosen, and acting from impulse and for the sake of impulse. Not for nothing do the sages expound: "With all your very being"—with both your inclinations.. And similarly in the midrash Bereshit Rabbah (9:7):[10]
Rabbi Nahman bar Shmuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Nahman: “And behold, it was very good” refers to the good inclination, and “and behold, it was very good” refers to the evil inclination. Can the evil inclination really be very good? This is astonishing! Rather, were it not for the evil inclination, a person would not build a house, marry a woman, beget children, or engage in business. And so Solomon says (Ecclesiastes 4): “for it is a man's rivalry with his neighbor.”
Adulation is a state in which emotion is usually what moves us. It is not a use of emotion in order to move toward goals that the intellect set before us. In my opinion, a person is required to overcome his psychology and emotions. Ideology should come from the head, not from emotional fervor. It is the intellect that should lead a person, not emotion. Emotion is at most a necessary instrument. A person has a divine soul, and he is supposed to conduct himself in accordance with it, not to behave like an animal.
Examples
We certainly do not lack examples of the dangers inherent in adulation: beginning with Moti Elon and Shmuel Tal (see, for example, column 224), continuing with the Rebbe of Gur, Vizhnitz, Bibi, and the rest of the celebrities. All of these create herds, or even private individuals, who conduct themselves problematically and believe nonsense solely because of their adulation for the leader. My claim is that the same mold is at work in all these cases, and therefore it does not matter whether the actions are for positive or negative ends, for the state of affairs itself is problematic. Following a leader leads to the loss of rational control, and that naturally leads to problematic conduct. Therefore I vigorously oppose adulation even toward exemplary figures, from the sages of the Talmud through all the great figures of the generations and spiritual personalities in the world. It is worthwhile to awaken rivalry of scholars, and perhaps to use the impulse in order to spur ourselves to advance there. The moment rational criticism is lost, we are no longer ourselves, but rather an animal ruled by external forces.
On adulation and fundamentalism
The point of departure for the entire discussion here is that nothing on earth ought to be immune from rational criticism. Not the Torah, not the sages, and not even the Holy One, blessed be He. In the end, the human being must make his own decisions and determine his own path. My trilogy tries to present a faith that is subject to rational criticism, and in that way to oppose religious fundamentalism. It is customary to educate religious youth toward uncritical devotion to faith. According to Kierkegaard, the lack of rational control is the essence of faith (living in paradox, the ability to sacrifice reason and morality before faith, are what characterize, in his view, the 'knight of faith'). This is what I define as fundamentalism. It is commonly thought that fundamentalism means extreme and violent actions, but from a philosophical perspective that is only a result of fundamentalism. In its philosophical sense, fundamentalism is placing faith, or any other principle/value, above rational criticism.[11] Zealotry and extremism are consequences of philosophical fundamentalism (see my discussion of this in the introduction to my book Emet VeLo Yatziv).
Fundamentalism, even when it is religious, has no justification. Action on the basis of religious values does not justify acts done in its name. The ability to criticize ISIS is based on the demand that a person also criticize his religious beliefs. Whoever thinks religious beliefs are immune from criticism should not be surprised by phenomena of fanatical zealotry in the style of ISIS. Responsibility for your misdeeds does not rest on God but on you. About a year ago there was a conference of religious leaders at ORT Ramla High School (an Arab school near us). There were imams, priests, rabbis, Druze religious leaders, and others. In my talk there I told the students that in my view the root of evil is fundamentalism in the philosophical sense. My problem is not with extremism and zealotry, because these are only symptoms of the problem. From here I also expressed opposition to the imams telling the students that extremism is evil (that was generally the sort of thing said there). The root of evil is obedience to leaders as such, not the content of what they say. Our fundamental duty is to educate people not to obey other people automatically, however charismatic and righteous they may be. Responsibility is always upon the individual himself, and he cannot hang on and seek justification in instructions he received from a religious leader.[12] Contrary to the prevalent conception, according to which leadership (religious or otherwise) has a moderating effect, in my opinion, if each of us feels personal responsibility and makes his decisions by himself, the world will look better and more moderate.
This is really a mathematical effect. Extreme phenomena are built out of the sum of many individual extremisms operating together in the same direction. How do they all synchronize and create the large-scale phenomenon? It is the phenomenon of the herd that goes after the leader. By contrast, when each person acts independently there is mutual cancellation among actions in different directions, and therefore it is highly unlikely that an extreme phenomenon will emerge.[13] Once again we have moved from the problem with the phenomenon itself to its problematic consequences.
A concluding note: the 'candle youth'
I cannot refrain from a brief discussion of the phenomenon of the 'candle youth.' After Rabin's assassination there were many boys and girls who lit candles in Rabin Square,[14] their eyes awash in tears and their hearts torn with grief. They looked utterly broken, as though they had just lost their beloved grandmother. Their guide had gone never to return, and they were left as orphans without father and without rabbi. I understood why people opposed the murder and thought it problematic (though even that got out of proportion). But it was difficult for me to understand the intensity of the feelings expressed there. As I understood and assessed it, they were not crying over the murder or over the social phenomenon it represented (which can itself be discussed), but over Rabin the man. They mourned the death of their god, or their collective father. It was an expression of adulation (which, admittedly, was created mainly after the murder and the brainwashing that followed it).
When I saw this heartrending (and somewhat horrifying) phenomenon, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Secular culture tried to develop a free and autonomous person, liberated from the chains of the authority of religious leadership. What it succeeded in creating was a herd with a cultural vacuum, muttering slogans in a manner that casts into the shade the greatest of the religious fanatics, with a deep lack of father figures and leaders, which is filled by figures that have nothing of their own. The brainwashing those miserable people underwent truly aroused pity in me. Not for their mourning and sense of loss, but for the low human level to which they had descended. I felt shocked by this herd phenomenon and brainwashing, which has not entirely passed even to this day. The cult of Rabin in general is an example of adulation (which, as noted, was created mainly after the murder) that leads to conduct and activity that do not pass through the rational filter. Rabin became a religion, and Rabin's assassination became a myth that gives rise to distorted attitudes toward various groups in the population, as well as principles that, through no fault of their own, have become sacred. This religion created taboos regarding what may and may not be said, and how one is supposed to relate to personalities and phenomena. Just think, in all these contexts, of the sanctified combination of words on the lips of every media figure and politician, that 'words can kill'; their attitude toward incitement and democracy; the talk about the 'murder of democracy,' or the 'murder of the peace process'; and the varied uses that have since been made of these expressions.
In my eyes this was, and still is, an indication of a troubling vacuum. When there is a vacuum of values and culture, figures enter it and receive mythical status through no fault of their own. Rabin stopped being the redheaded flesh-and-blood man that he was, and became a rebbe, or a myth. He receives the status of a father figure whose word is binding as if it came directly from the mouth of the Almighty. People cry over his absence and feel that their world has been destroyed without him, although they almost never heard anything intelligent or useful from him (though they certainly could hear from him a fair amount of malicious nonsense). He became holy, a man of peace and moderation, a symbol of taking responsibility, even though there were quite a few points in his life where he acted in precisely the opposite way to all these values (but of course one must not say this). And I have not yet spoken of his wondrous military achievements, which Uri Milstein already discussed in his book The Rabin File – How the Myth Swelled (and thereby became untouchable, a patricide, an apikores, and a traitor).
As stated, I would not endorse such an attitude even toward Amos Oz or other spiritual figures (I am against adulation as such), but there the adulation might at least have been tolerable in my eyes. That is adulation on the ethical-spiritual-ideological plane. But when such a phenomenon appears in relation to an average person devoid of substance like Rabin, it already belongs to psychopathology, and therefore it is heartbreaking and arouses pity. In truth, if I had any trust in what are somehow called 'professionals,'[15] I would say that this requires treatment.
[1] By now these matters are already surfacing a bit more. Mainly on feminist websites, but not only. The journalist in question has already been reinstated. Perhaps there is hope even for Yigal Amir and his partner Larissa Trembovler, may she live long.
[2] The only situation that seems worse to me than that is a government headed by Bibi.
[3] And yes, I assume that a person has some control over his emotions and feelings, or at least over the ways they are expressed.
[4] As for figures like Churchill, for me the relevant category is not politician but intellectual. There there is certainly justification for great appreciation. When I speak here about a politician, I mean a person who holds political office and wins adulation or appreciation only because of that, without regard to any achievements whatsoever (celebrity adulation). The psychopathology of the masses, as we have already said?
[5] Do not worry, I am not among his fans and certainly not among his admirers. But I do not see him as a tyrant, only as a rather anemic and pale person. He even seems to me positive at root, someone who probably does not have much to offer and is driven by PR people and the like. Simply the wrong man who found himself, against his will and without intending it, in the right place.
[6] In the background of these remarks, I should note that these are the people who influence the shaping of our leadership and policy. The collection of operatives and voters, the members of the party machines and party centers, determine who will hold which office and what the policy will be. But, as stated, my concern here is not the influence of this on us but the fascinating phenomenon itself.
[7] See also column 269 on friendship.
[8] Although, see my remarks in column 22, where I argued that love too must pass through the crucible of rational testing. In any event, even someone who agrees with me on that should agree that even if it does not undergo rational control, there is no intrinsic disgrace in this as there is in the case of adulation.
[9] This reminds me of an interview I once heard with a school principal in Tel Aviv, who proudly announced that he had abolished computer studies in his school because girls succeed in them less than boys. A true story!
[10] It is quoted at the end of the opening page of each of the books in my quartet. It is worth looking there in the midrash at all the homilies on this verse.
[11] One may ask why logic has a special status. Seemingly, it too should not be placed above critical examination, and uncompromising devotion to it would also be fundamentalist. But this is a mistake, because, as I have explained here several times in the past, the laws of logic are not laws in the same sense as the laws of physics or the laws of the state (which is why even God is 'subject' to them). Logic is the criterion by which positions and conceptions are to be criticized. It is not itself a conception (it is an ’empty' structure). Of course, if arguments or reasons are presented against my 'logic,' I must take them into account, but not because logic is also subject to something above it, but because perhaps that is not what logic says (not correct logic).
[12] By the way, I was surprised by how much resistance my words aroused among Muslim and other religious leaders (most of them moderate and preaching moderation). 'Da'at Torah' is apparently a universal idea.
[13] This is actually the basis for why quantum phenomena do not appear on the scale of our everyday lives. In quantum theory, when there is a body or a system composed of many particles, each of which has a quantum character, the complete system behaves classically (as a deterministic body that averages all of them). This is what is called the 'smearing' of quantum phenomena on large scales (decoherence).
[14] 'Kikar Malchei Yisrael' was its name then. But that is roughly the same thing. It is not the square's name that changed, but the king after whom it is named.
[15] Have you ever wondered why specifically psychologists are called 'professionals'? Why not plumbers, or physicists? It is probably connected to the phenomenon I once mentioned here in the name of my sister, who studied criminology. She told me that at the beginning of every course there, the lecturer devoted time to clarifying the question of what science is. I told her that with us in physics, for some reason, they never did that (which is a pity).
Discussion
Interesting. Proofreading – they did not find a hen as a result of abolishing the sexual impulse, not the impulse for idolatry.
The comparison between Bibi and Bryant is really out of place, in my opinion. As someone who has actually watched the NBA (and quite a lot of it, unfortunately), I can say that he truly moved and brought billions of people (probably not less) over about 20 years to emotional experiences at quite high levels.
Bibi is something else; from a very young age he has invested a large part of his life for the sake of the People of Israel and the nation of Israel. Here we are talking about admiration that comes from an intellectual place, not from a place of emotional experiences we had because of him.
No. There was something fairly short, the gist of which is brought here.
Indeed. My mistake.
Indeed. The Indians shrieking about Emperor Bibi apparently arrived at that after deep study of the tendencies of the People of Israel in light of Kantian epistemology and the thought of Buber.
It really bums me out to read the contempt and condescension that you can plainly see are truly preventing you from clarifying the issue you’re talking about. As I understand it, even when there is a lot of herd mentality, at the base of that appreciation that becomes admiration there are ideas and intellectual judgment. Yes, the place where a person consciously ignores someone’s flaws just because of his talents in a certain area is a problematic place for that person, but even here there is rationalization.
I think that if one looks at admiration as a psychic movement grounded in a quest for greatness, as you indeed wrote, then one can feel a bit more forgiving toward it, and less mocking. A person never really admires the singer or the basketball player; rather, he hangs on them some human pinnacle he yearns for. Because most people do not have those abilities, all that remains for him is to see the object of admiration as the embodiment of that greatness to which he aspires. One really can judge this favorably: man was created aspiring to greatness. I suppose there will be those who would identify in this even an aspiration for cleaving to the Greatest of all great beings: God. A person projects onto the object of his admiration his longing for that great something that would rise above the gray routine of his days. So in its lower forms this will appear in admiration for various stupid celebrities (a person confuses the fact of publicity itself with the quality that led to that publicity), and in its higher forms it will appear in the excitement that could also have been your lot had you been invited to meet Maimonides, or Kant. A manifestation of awe before genuine human-intellectual greatness. See also Ayn Rand, etc.
The rabbi has free choice whether to write in such a condescending style. One has to take into account the implications of that.
I assume there are secular people here who read the rabbi’s words.
By the way, I’m not sure a smart person (even a very smart one) has an absolute advantage over a rich, strong, attractive person who evokes emotion like Kobe Bryant.
Jordan is more famous than Einstein probably because he is also a more all-around human being.
Thank God we are not just one walking block of intellect, period.
You began with criticism of the admiration for Kobe Bryant (specifically) and ended with a division between appreciation and admiration in general. With the latter one can completely agree, but if the problem is specifically with the field of sports, for example, what distinguishes it from any other artist? If we are talking about an elite athlete capable, in a critical moment when millions of dollars depend on him, of integrating his ability, his capacity to suffer, the mental pressure, etc., and scoring in a way that has artistry in it, how is that different from sculpture? It’s a matter of taste, but the ability of an artist to express emotion through sculpture and the ability of an elite basketball player to express his professionalism on an artistic level are not essentially different. I belong to the former, but I can absolutely understand seeing Messi as a kind of art. I assume your problem is not specifically with sports. And also in politics, one can appreciate rhetorical abilities, the ability to carry people along (a somewhat circular argument… ), decision-making ability, etc. When someone does this well, he is good at what he does. Admiration is a different matter.
Very precise, Chayota. And Rabbi Michi, in a kind of contempt and mockery, is simply unable to see the rationalization that is actually quite immediate, as you presented it so well here. You can really see with your eyes how emotion here interferes with logos from arriving at the correct analysis of the phenomenon.
Rabbi Michi does not need my defense, of course, but he wrote something quite similar in the post; I only sharpened it. There is Beit Hillel and there is Beit Shammai; there are those whose role in the world is to point out the problems, with the attribute of judgment and without whitewashing, and there are those whose role is to judge favorably and forgive. The world probably needs both these and those.
There is an extremely significant point in the article that, in my opinion, is being missed. In fact, the people who abandon enriching their world of imagination are only looking for it in other places (like watching basketball, for example). While I identify with the content of the things said, which presents the problematic side of a life devoid of critical thinking, the other side is no less dangerous. The culture that strengthened the individual’s rational thought and founded everything on it is the one that invented stadiums and foolish admiration. It is true that dealing only with imagination without an intellectual infrastructure is problematic, but rational thought devoid of an imaginative and emotional world is no less problematic. This call to develop the world of imagination is, in my view, no less important than the opposite call for an emotional world that has content.
Aside from that, I do not understand what path a person who is not so smart, in your view, is supposed to follow. Which is most of the world. After all, not everyone is capable of deepening and criticizing, and so they hang their hats on the critical thinking of other people who are smarter and worthy in their eyes.
In my view, no. He took pains to emphasize with great vehemence his contempt for the phenomenon and the people involved, so much so that there wasn’t even a drop of room left for analyzing their rationale. Yes, there was room left for him to rationalize his own contempt… fine.
BS"D 10 Shevat 5780
Not all admiration leads to evil. When the object of admiration is violent and harms others, whether in deed or in an attitude of hatred and contempt – then there is great danger that his admirers will follow in his path and even go further and do even more negative deeds. By contrast, when a person is admired for his positive deeds – this is healthy admiration, which leads the admirer to strive to attain the great achievements of the 'role model,' in the spirit of 'When will my deeds reach the deeds of…'..
It seems that the Torah guides us to value others’ exalted qualities. Even over the kings of the nations of the world one recites the blessing, 'Who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.' And over sages from the nations of the world one recites, 'Who has given of His wisdom to flesh and blood.' Even for one who excels in beauty a blessing was instituted for one 'Who created beautiful creatures in His world.' The basis for acquiring the trait of a 'good eye' is the ability to appreciate and be impressed by the achievements of other human beings.
And there is value in noticing a good quality even where in other respects a person is far from perfection, as the author of Duties of the Heart brought about a pious man who saw his students disparaging a carcass and saying: 'How foul this carcass is,' and their teacher responded: 'See how white its teeth are.'
In the case of Kobe Bryant, worthy of appreciation are the investment and dedication required to attain achievement. Natural talent was only a small part of the reasons for his success. The main success came from endless perseverance in grueling training, day after day.. But more than that, even when Bryant reached the heights of success, fame, and wealth – he had a good eye and took care to train and encourage young people to excel in various sports, and he perished on his way to a training session of the 'Mamba Academy' that he founded in order to train young people to follow in his footsteps.
And to distinguish between the profane and the holy, even our forefather Jacob excelled more than his fathers in his ability to pass on the way of the patriarchs to the younger generation. Whereas Abraham and Isaac left only one son to continue their path – Jacob left twelve sons, seventy grandchildren, and countless great-grandchildren who continue his path. And therefore the prophet tells Jacob, 'who redeemed Abraham' from the anguish of raising children: 'Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now grow pale; for when he sees his children, the work of My hands, in his midst, they shall sanctify My name…' (Isaiah 29:22).
With blessings, Shatz
Paragraph 2, line 3
… the basis for acquiring the trait…
Paragraph 5, line 4
… when he sees his children, the work of My hands…
Chayota, I was so upset and confused by the post until I read your response, and my mind was put at ease.
More power to you.
Paragraph 3, line 1
… even if in other respects…
The first paragraph is completely meaningless; there is no such reality as admiring a person because of his deeds; the object is always the person himself.
A case in point: the admiration of the 'great ones of the generation'—is there any admirer of the 'gedoylim' who will distinguish between their bad deeds and their good deeds?
Answer: certainly not. From the admirer’s perspective, the 'gedoylim' are goodness incarnate and nothing else exists beside them.
Redundant message. Deleted (Michi)
And to Benjamin he said –
On the qualities that lead students to admire a rabbi – see Rabbi Avi Rat’s article, 'Make for yourself a rabbi,' on the Arutz 7 website).
With blessings, Shatz
I think that maybe part of the carnival around Bryant really is more a matter of herd mentality..
But beyond that I can describe what I experience and infer from that to the surroundings, perhaps.
Kobe Bryant was one of the people I hated most at first—an egoist, a suspected rapist, disgustingly competitive, and what not.
On the other hand, I enjoyed watching him play from time to time and do impressive things. No more than many others… and I was even very happy when they lost to Detroit in the finals.
But when I heard about his untimely death, it was very hard for me; it really hurt me, and it still hurts. And I think that this does not stem from great appreciation for him as a person but from the connection—from simply 'meeting' him on the screen almost every day (me personally, at least on YouTube) and learning and getting to know his personality.. It’s something beyond appreciation; it’s a human bond.
I don’t appreciate many people and I don’t admire them either, but I would be very sad if, God forbid, something happened to them.
That is my opinion, in any case, and my perspective on the event that happened
Tzvika, I’d be happy for any help that would open my blind eyes. You repeat what I say and at the same time write that my condescension prevents me from reaching the truth.
Chayota of Berdichev. Even if you are right (and in my opinion you really are not), you are talking about the motivation to admire while ignoring the problematic nature of admiration, which is my main claim. My problem is not admiration itself as a psychic-physiological phenomenon (increased heart rate).
Ron,
I didn’t understand what upset you and what calmed you. What did you think at first, and what do you think now?
If you were upset that I think such problematic things, why does the fact that Chayota thinks differently calm you? I still think that way.
If you were upset by the ideas themselves (independently of me), what did Chayota add? You had already understood that I was mistaken.
What remains is that you were upset by someone telling the truth to your face, and calmed by the fact that there are also people who whitewash it and judge it favorably. Well, I’ve calmed down…
Moshe,
Are you sure you read the column? Or perhaps you are responding to another column of mine? Then it would be best to place the response under the relevant column.
I criticized all admiration, with Kobe as one example among several. I wrote nothing against sports, and still less did I distinguish between sports and art (sculpture). Where did you see even a hint of all that in my words? And when at the end you yourself draw a distinction between admiration and appreciation exactly as I do, that is where I completely stopped understanding what you want from me.
Eran,
I did not get to the bottom of what you mean. You spoke of a missed point in the article. What is it? Is this not what you wanted to say here?
Everything you wrote has no connection to my column in any way that I can detect. Who spoke about developing or not developing the imagination? Where did you draw the conclusion that not developing the imagination leads people to watch basketball? Why would it not lead them to stand on one foot every morning at sunrise? And where did you get the notion that strengthening the intellect leads to admiration and stadiums?
Your words are a genuine riddle to me. But perhaps I need to develop the imagination more.
The only thing I understood in your message is the question at the end, and so I will answer it. Quite apart from wisdom, every person is supposed to formulate positions according to his own mind and logic. Each according to his ability. And if he wants to make use of help, blessings upon him. That is true for those who are wiser and less wise alike. But if he wants to hand over his decisions to another person—I oppose that. Even the choice of to whom to hand over his thoughts is his choice. And if he is so foolish, who can tell him that he chose the right person? A person cannot escape responsibility for his views and actions.
Shatz"l,
As usual, you are completely ignoring what I wrote. So why write your compositions as a response to my columns? 🙂
With that I can completely identify. Losing a familiar person who accompanied you is very saddening. Even the mere loss of a person is saddening. Certainly.
Rabbi Michi,
I was confused..
Because the rabbi’s words accord with my thinking. But it is hard for me to connect, in an absolute way, admiration with bestiality—the loss of reason. Chayota suggested the possibility that admiration can exist without any problematic element other than an increased heart rate.
I was upset..
Because I saw that the rabbi also hates Bibi. It is evident from the post that the rabbi loathes him with absolute loathing.. and perhaps there is room to ask what the difference is between admiration for a leader and absolute hatred and loathing of the leader (= the state’s CEO)?
Does intense and bitter hatred not also come from some emotional motive?
But my anger has also subsided by now(:_
And by the way, if there’s anyone I’m close to admiring, it’s the rabbi.
Happy am I that I was caught uttering words of piety.
In practice, for me this is less Berdichev and more Rabbi Kook, who grew on the basis of the Hasidic approach that emphasizes motivations.
In the sterilized Litvak space being offered here, it doesn’t really matter. Right?
BS"D 11 Shevat 5780
And in short: there is no room for the post author’s decree that from admiring the good a person will slide down the 'slippery slope' to admiring the bad. Admiration is a kind of 'Rorschach test' for the admirer’s personality. One who inclines toward the good will admire people in whom that is a trait of soul, whereas one who inclines toward evil will admire people in whom that is a trait of soul, and the two do not come near each other. One who admires the Chafetz Chaim will loathe Hitler with all his might.
With blessings, Shatz
Ron, I think your diagnosis is mistaken. I really do not hate Bibi. I hold him (and his admirers) in contempt, and I also feel a bit sorry for him (and for them).
Chayota, נכון. 🙂
Shatz"l, now at least I understand the claim. But as I explained in the column, I do not agree with it. If admiration were an expression of a person’s values ('a person is praised according to his intelligence'), then it would usually be appreciation and not admiration. Admiration in many cases works the other way around. And factually as well, in my opinion you are not right. There are many who can admire good and bad figures alike. And of course I also criticized admiration itself, irrespective of slippery slopes.
In my opinion, the psychological side—the inborn human tendency toward admiration—is the dominant component, and the ideological side serves only as an excuse or as a stage in reaching the state.
To my mind, the main sin of the phenomenon is the loss of the autonomy and individuality of the individual. Truly a loss of the 'image of God' in a person.
An important article. Thank you!
I read it, and indeed I am glad I understood correctly – because you distinguish between appreciation and admiration (and I wrote at the beginning and at the end of my words that I agree with you). I thought, based on the superlatives about basketball, that there was something specific here against sports.
It seems to me that the difference between appreciation and admiration lies in the desire 'to partake.' As long as a person relates to the attributes with which the object of his appreciation is adorned, yet is able to separate them from taking part in the personality itself (he does want the parts of sportsmanship and courage, etc., in Kobe Bryant, but understands that the figure itself is not him—both because of the rape, and because he would not want his daughters hanging around with a tattooed man, etc.), then he only appreciates. Is it permitted to admire God? Certainly ('We shall revere You,' etc.). Because at his core, a person partakes in God, and his personality separates only psychologically between himself and God in order to enable him to live. Therefore, breaking through the separation and admiration directed heavenward are permitted. Also, when a person stands before Rabbi Lichtenstein, for example, he may feel that he wants to partake in the figure itself and merge into it. That may be the difference between Maimonides and great Torah scholars or scientists, and the figure of an artist or athlete, with whom there is often combined a figure not free of criticism—and therefore admiration toward him is invalid, because you do not truly need to want to merge with his personality.
Like Bill Russell, Jerry West, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan; Kobe Bryant had determination, a high work ethic, charisma, and loyalty to his team. Kobe even imitated Michael Jordan’s style of play perfectly, and at the beginning of his professional career lived with Jerry West. People are not only mourning Kobe Bryant’s regrettable passing, but understand that the 'last Mohican' is gone—the one who, after Michael Jordan, represented more than anyone else how to play basketball correctly,
and therefore the authentic feeling of basketball fans is, 'We have no one like him, and we never will.' If playing basketball correctly reflects good qualities of decent conduct, then this is more appreciation than admiration.
To the rabbi
First of all, I know that my last comments on matters concerning Bibi were sharp (though in my view still respectful). But open rebuke is better than hidden love (whatever that may be), and since the rabbi too has a herd that he leads here on the site, I also see a need to challenge the confidence in the rabbi’s words. And so I ask the rabbi’s forgiveness also for the slight sharpness (perhaps almost nonexistent) that this time will be in my words:
First, for the sake of balance, the Israeli left as a whole is also an enthusiastic herd (as the rabbi himself already noted in 'The Candle Youth'), and it admires one ideology after another with blind eyes. But today there is also a new man whom the left admires, and I fear that the rabbi admires him too, as Tzvika said (though this must be discussed, because the rabbi said he feels only contempt for him, and we will discuss that later). He is the 'Anyone but Bibi' figure (hereafter: 'the ABB'). This is the left’s new leader, or perhaps let us call him the anti-Bibi (hereafter: the 'anti-B'). He is like the Antichrist. This is a new leader who has no body and no bodily form; he is only a form and needs a human body to clothe himself in, and therefore nonentities (Gantz, Lapid) fight to fill him. Although the rabbi said he only despises Bibi, the rather obsessive preoccupation with him specifically hints, in my humble opinion, at admiration for the anti-B. In any case, I do not understand why the rabbi has special contempt for him more than for the rest of the Knesset members. The rest of Likud are a bunch of dwarfs, and justly the right would want Bibi at its head and not one of them. True, Bibi is not Begin, Shamir, or Sharon, but he is still a bit closer to them than the rest of those people: (who are they בכלל) Erdan, Edelstein, Katz, Sa’ar (how the man thinks he is even fit to be prime minister is beyond my understanding), etc., who are functionaries rather than statesmen. Bibi is a statesman, and perhaps the rabbi does not think he is such a good statesman because it seems he lacks policy in general on a host of issues (Gaza, drafting Haredim, etc.), and only the prime minister’s seat matters to him. So first of all, for every human being who reached such a position, the first thing that would matter would be the seat. The rabbi is naive and does not understand human nature, but even in the Gemara there is mention of a case of two Tannaim who said they did not want authority, and once they received it they said they would try to harm anyone who tried to take it from them. And just think that this means he at least loves his work, because he could have made far more money outside the Knesset. Besides, Bibi does have policy when he is able to implement it. After all, he was finance minister in 2003 and implemented economic policy that was his. The democratic reality (where every party has its own demands) simply does not allow implementation of policy beyond his narrow domain as prime minister. There is also an external reality and external constraints that sometimes do not allow implementation of policy, as in the matter of Gaza. The rabbi is deluding himself if he thinks someone else instead of Bibi would have acted differently (Gantz, who said Palestinian civilian lives are more important than Jewish soldiers’ lives? Maybe he would also withdraw from the Gaza envelope communities. It seems they themselves want that. They are leftists living in a paradox: when they are shot at, they ask that it be dealt with, but only by means of an arrangement). Besides, the rabbi himself noted that he is talented in his profession and apparently far beyond the rest of the existing Knesset members.
And if what bothers the rabbi is that he is occupied with political maneuvers all day, then welcome to democracy and the media world. What can be done if the people are stupid, and if you do not give them slogans and tidings and promises of new days, they will not come to the polls at all or will flock after someone who does. Do you think Bibi would say in an election broadcast or at an election rally: 'I am good at what I do and know how to make good decisions, but I have responsibility and therefore cannot promise you anything'? Great slogan. And הרי he reaches the public through the media, whose entire role is to create dramas and messes, and you want him to paint himself as gray? And with respect to his political rivals, it is the same. If they were a bit more talented at the game and in the media, they would do the same to him. The rabbi is looking for Begin, but such people no longer exist in the world at all. If the rabbi thinks there are people who truly want the good of the state more than their own good, he is living in a childish fantasy. At most, private and public interest can coincide. But not that the public one overcomes. And there has never been a leader on earth who behaved differently (and I invite the rabbi to present me with counterexamples, and I will refute them). In short, it is impossible to separate contempt for Bibi from contempt for the rest of the Knesset members. They are no better than he is.
And if what bothers him is his supposed dictatorship and the fact that many people did not get along with him and the fact that he seems to think the state is his—then again I invite the rabbi to reality. Anyone who reaches any position at all, and is several levels more talented than those around him, behaves dictatorially toward them (does not consider their opinion. It does not have to be so and it is not the right thing to do, but it is very understandable. Does the rabbi have patience for fools?). Shelly Yachimovich was similarly accused of acting dictatorially toward the other members of her party when she was elected chair. And Lapid behaved this way with one of his female Knesset members. And so now Gantz was accused by a Blue and White MK who did not receive a place on the list that he thought he deserved. It seems to me that today a dictator is anyone who exercises any authority whatsoever. In addition, anyone who has been in a position a long time thinks in a certain sense that the position is his. Even if that is not true, it is understandable. On this basis all sorts of presumptive rights were created for shofar blowers and synagogue readers. Someone who invests more of himself in his position has a deeper emotional connection to it. It is like his child. Would the rabbi give up his child? And if what bothers the rabbi is that he thinks the state is his, then I say to the rabbi that whoever reaches that position will at some point think that way. It is impossible to have special contempt for Bibi on this matter. Do the courts and the prosecution not think the state is theirs? I did not see that the rabbi despises them.
Since the rabbi is talented enough to think all this through by himself, one must conclude that he has been incited by the herd of the left, which calls itself 'we are not a herd,' 'we are thinking people,' but they are a herd like all herds (also saying no to everything the other side says is a kind of imitation). 98 percent of people are a herd, so the rabbi will have to recalculate his route on this matter. Right now he is a wolf preying on sheep (so am I now); he needs to advance to becoming a shepherd. It will never be otherwise. You will never be able to educate people to be critical thinkers (at the same level of critical thinking as the rabbi, which, by the way, he lacks a bit with respect to himself. Many times it seems that the rabbi lacks self-awareness, at least from my point of view), pipe-smokers, puffed up with self-importance, sitting around a round table, blowing smoke and 'correct' opinions, and about to rise to heaven from so much self-importance. Every time the people advance, the previous 2 percent will also advance, but in such a way that the 98 percent will still be considered a herd.
BS"D 11 Shevat 5780
A basketball player is an 'artist.' An artist whose role is to excite the crowd with his special performances as a player. The admiration toward him is essentially the excitement, the experience the viewer receives from watching him play. No one expects a 'sports star' to be 'my father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen.'
By contrast, a prime minister needs to be a 'craftsman,' a man of practical skill who can run the country and bring it economic welfare and a life of relative security, and by that he is judged. If the choice is between a person who may be 'a pleasant man of good character,' but who did not manage even to run a business like 'The Fifth Dimension' – can one possibly place in his hands the management of an entire state?
To run the country one needs a person with a proven record. A person who succeeds in withstanding enormous pressures, from within and from without, and despite the heavy pressure manages to prevent a diplomatic deterioration that would place us opposite a dangerous terror state, and on the contrary succeeds in bringing the state to economic and diplomatic prosperity – this is a 'man of practical skill' who knows how 'to get the job done'..
If there is room for criticism of Netanyahu, it is that unlike 'Kobe,' who understood that there is no 'eternal glory' for a person and that he must prepare a young generation of successors who will follow in his path – Bibi did not succeed in establishing successors who could continue on the path without upheavals even if he were prevented from continuing his work.
With blessings, Shatz
Because it is quite clear that the contempt here spoils the line. Your analysis begins from a starting point of enormous contempt, and you devote so many words to it that on its face it does not seem that there is a cool and precise analysis of the problem. You present perfectly reasonable and sensible cases as a total suspension of judgment; this is a false and distorted presentation that leads to sweeping and incorrect conclusions. I find this true both with respect to Kobe and with respect to Netanyahu, in your analysis. Because of your private judgment, which mixes in all kinds of nuances of personal taste, of the kind that one does not argue about, you conclude that whoever, despite everything you feel toward the figure, nonetheless behaves in an admiring way, is guilty of all sorts of sins bound up with blind admiration (and indeed there are many sins in it), whereas I think one can say categorically that the overwhelming majority of what you call admirers are not at the level of blind and problematic admiration as you describe, but something much closer to the psychic movement Chayota describes, which is also very rational and also very trivial. The people who completely lose themselves in these things are very few. Something negligible.
And furthermore, suppose your article does have the capacity to enlighten, and to awaken awareness in people who have gotten a bit too swept away in admiration – the contempt dripping from many words in the article causes them to lose attention. What have you achieved by that? There is very much a feeling here of hatred that spoils the line.
And in short one can say:
support for Netanyahu in most cases does not come from admiration for him, but from fear—the fear of someone else coming in his place and failing to 'fill his shoes'; and your mnemonic is 'they will give a crown' without 'they will admire you' 🙂
With blessings, Shatz
When a person decides on admiration מתוך a desire to cleave to values, that is indeed more reasonable. In such a state it is also driven intellectually and not emotionally. I also wrote in the column that the main problem with admiration is that it does not come from values, and even if it does, it becomes detached from its source.
By the way, Kobe Bryant’s favorite book was The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, which is actually similar to the story of the treasure under the bridge, which Rabbi Simcha Bunim used to tell, a story that has parallels in the collection of tales One Thousand and One Nights and earlier in the Jerusalem Talmud (Second Tithe 4:6): A man came before Rabbi Yosi and told him that in his dream he saw that he had to go to Cappadocia to find his father’s fortune. He said to him: Did your father go to Cappadocia in his lifetime? He said: No. He said to him: Go ten steps in your house and you will find your father’s fortune under the edge of the roof beam (kappa d’koria). And as is known, the law follows Rabbi Yosi, whose reasoning is with him 🙂
I think the central difference between admiration and love is that love is something a person needs; at some point it will be hard for him without it, to the point of impossibility, and therefore it is only natural that he devote himself to that emotionality. Not so with admiration, which contributes nothing at all other than a number of momentary adrenaline sensations whose end is bitter, as noted in the article. One can overcome the tendency to admire, and therefore it is indeed proper to do so.
BS"D ערב שבת קודש Vayehi Yadav Emunah 5780
In any event, our Sages instructed us: 'Do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place.' Let us thank God that He did not place us in the prime minister’s position, with all the pressures from every direction and the constant deliberation over what is the right path to take. A leader of the People of Israel is beset in all his decisions by opposing camps: these say we should fight and those cry out; these ask to withdraw and those to advance, so that any decision he makes will arouse anger and resentment among a significant part of the public—and after all, they are all opinionated Jews who are certain of their righteousness.. It is no accident that we pray to God that He send His light and truth to 'its heads, ministers, and counselors' and set them right with good counsel from before Him.
With blessings, Shatz
How dared you claim that LeBron is greater than Messi? That LeBron the beast is greater than Jordan?! Chutzpah.
That is a hard question.. LeBron is a scorer at better percentages than him and produces more total points per game.. because he gives a higher number of assists and rebounds too, even if he does not necessarily score the points himself. The disadvantage is that he is not as clutch as Jordan, which in basketball terms is worth a great deal
Forgive the question, but Torah is Torah…
At first I was sure the rabbi was writing sarcastically that he spends many hours watching the NBA. But later in the post I understood that this was written seriously.
I am trying to understand what interest, value, benefit, meaning, or purpose there is in such a waste of time. How does an educated person, especially a rabbi in Israel, spend his time on such nonsense and trivialities? Are there really no more important things to do in life, only to stare at a few people running from one side of a court to the other in futile pursuit of an inflated piece of leather?
So okay, playing basketball or any other game has health benefits, mental benefits, and more. But to sit for hours watching others play? What does that give??
In my childhood and youth I watched a few games, but very quickly I understood that it was not taking me anywhere and I stopped.
There are other and more useful ways to unwind, change the atmosphere, and refresh oneself. But I see no logic in this waste of time, from which, aside from supporting a billion-dollar industry of sports channels and commentators and reporters and chatterboxes, nothing comes out.
In my humble understanding, this phenomenon itself is blind following after the blind lead sheep at the head of the herd.
It is an extraordinary wonder to me that the rabbi too wastes his time on such nonsense. The intellect is certainly not the part of the human body that is being activated while watching sports, so if we are complaining about being drawn after emotional admiration instead of intellectual examination, what right have we to complain if we ourselves cast reason behind our backs and get excited like toddlers over every three-pointer or rebound on the screen.
I hope I am mistaken and that the rabbi did not really mean what came out in his words…
Sorry to disappoint: I do indeed watch games. For me this is art, and there is nothing wrong with consuming art. It is no different from reading literature or going to a museum. On second thought, it is more similar to a museum than to reading. In reading literature you also learn and sharpen insights. Art in a museum is not learning but enjoyment for the soul and its expansion (for one for whom it indeed does that. For me it usually does not). And beyond all that, one is also allowed simply to enjoy oneself.
What was missing from your remarks was the immortal line about 22 crazies chasing after a ball. They should give them another 21 balls…
In my youth it was a stock phrase in the mouths of rabbis, who did not know that its source was the Third Isaiah (Leibowitz)
About basketball, the masters of musar wondered: if all the players’ toil is to put the ball into the basket – why not sew up the hole in the basket so the ball will stay and not fall out? After all, it is Sisyphean labor to shoot into a basket with a hole in it 🙂
Yet our Sages expounded (in Ecclesiastes Rabbah): 'The words of the wise are like goads'—like the girls’ ball that is passed from hand to hand and does not fall to the ground'—and thus the words of Torah are passed from hand to hand and from generation to generation. In this spirit one may say that we learn from the basketball that even though a person forgets what he has learned, he should try again and again, and even in the toil and effort themselves there is great value.
With blessings, Shimshon Lev-Ron
BS"D ערב שבת קודש Vayimteku HaMayim 5780
To Rabbi Michael Abraham – greetings,
Man is not only a 'separate intellect'; he also has an emotional world, and it is permitted, and even desirable, that he be enthused and moved by what is good in the world and in man. Certainly there should be criticism and careful self-examination as to whether it is fitting to be enthused by a given person, but in my humble opinion the 'good measure' should be greater, and if we know how to recoil from and rise up against what is unworthy – all the more so should we be enthused by the good in the world and in man. The excitement and joy over the good in a person are what breathe hope into us and give us the strength to accomplish great and small things so that our world may be more beautiful and better.
And of course there should also be levels in being impressed by the good. With all due respect to Kobe Bryant’s virtues and his devotion to sports – our enthusiasm for a person such as Dr. Li Wenliang, who gave his life to warn and alert against the coronavirus epidemic and fell in this struggle, should be many times greater. May his memory be blessed!
With blessings for a peaceful Sabbath, Shatz Li-Wang-er
Paragraph 1, line 5
… and it is what gives us vigor and strength to do great things…
A few years ago, an American teenager wrote: 'There are a thousand students with me at school, and I am the only one who loves Bach. How is it possible not to love Bach?' About 90 years earlier, the eight-year-old Jewish boy Yehudi Menuhin performed classical music before an audience of 6,000 children, and a few years later performed music by Bach and other classical composers in concerts before enthusiastic audiences throughout the U.S.
About one of those concerts, in the presence of violinists, accomplished artists, and famous people, a music critic wrote: 'It did not seem possible that such an authoritative melody could come from the fingers of a child. When he played the Mendelssohn concerto, the astonishment felt by the audience deepened into awestruck wonder. The conception of what music means was so mature, and the execution so artistic, as though the performer did not exist and they were listening to a proven artist.'
So what changed between then and now? To love Bach’s music requires seriousness, the ability to concentrate, intellect, noble emotions, appreciation for learning, effort in listening. Then there were quite a few astonishingly talented youths who already at a very young age were mature in soul and diligent in their art. And there were many adults, both educated and simple people, who appreciated and encouraged this. Today, many more adults behave like youths. Consequently mass culture encourages consumption, and sometimes even admiration, of mediocre things. At least effort is still appreciated.
BS"D מוצאי שבת קודש Az Yashir Moshe U'vnei Yisrael 5780
To M80 – greetings,
If there are no kids, there are no goats. Encouragement of the 'kids' is brought about, among other things, by the encouragement of adults. When in Yehudi Menuhin’s childhood an esteemed music critic would come listen to a child playing before thousands of children, the children received the message that this is important. The problem of the education system today is that it places 'high-tech,' which brings economic success, at the center, and matters of culture and spirit are perceived as secondary.
And in short: perhaps it would be worthwhile to establish a children’s ensemble called 'Bach Blossoms' 🙂
With the blessing of a 'good week,' Shatz
In paragraph 1, line 2
… an esteemed music critic would come to listen…
Shatz, good week,
Notice the things one can learn from Bach. First, he came from a family of musicians for many generations and trained five of his sons to be composers. Second, although Bach studied in a general school that was relatively good compared to the education children of musicians would get in that period, he saw his vocation as a musician, and from childhood dedicated most of his time to studying music and performing it in appropriate institutions. Third, he said that he was compelled to be diligent, and that anyone who is diligent as he was will succeed just as well. That is to say, he did not rely on the general education system of his day, but chose the tradition that suited his talents. And since he was compelled to be diligent, it follows that his father and his music teachers instructed him in the importance of discipline and diligence.
There can be other reasons to mourn Kobe Bryant more than some anonymous person.
My wife wondered aloud to me why I was taking Kobe’s death harder than the death of an anonymous person in a terror attack. I explained to her that although I 'hated' Kobe Bryant both professionally and personally, I felt that I already knew him personally (even though, to the best of my knowledge, he did not know me). The mourning was for a person I know well, and whose death I did not wish.
This reason is, in my opinion, the main one in the way a celebrity’s death is perceived differently by the masses, and not admiration for him. And this despite the fact that I am also not a fan of idolization, and so I was happy to read the post on the subject.
That is certainly a reason to mourn him more than any anonymous person. But it does not explain the phenomena surrounding this mourning. Those, in my estimation, depend on admiration.
The most pathetic admirers are the admirers of Michael Abraham. A wicked man seeking attention, a disgusting, repulsive, condescending, smug Tourette’s sufferer who thinks the sun shines out of his backside. His power is in his mouth like Balaam the wicked, a juggler of words, pilpul, and philosophizing, but his conclusions are always trivial or mistaken. Tries to be Leibowitz, but in practice reminds me more of Brainy Smurf. I despise the man and pity them.
Hello.
I had not visited the site for a long time; I peeked to see whether the long-awaited trilogy had already come out, and I was delighted—'a new light shone upon Zion'—and I find this opportunity to wish you a double mazal tov, both on the publication of the trilogy and on your reaching the midpoint of your life (relying on the well-known blessing and on the scientists’ promises to lengthen our days for the good; as is known, they never disappoint).
As a veteran dime-store psychologist, it is a phrase on my lips that a person admires only himself, for he admires only one who does what he himself would like to do or what he already does and the other does better than he; that is, he stands before the mirror of himself and applauds himself. These things connect with what Chayota, may she live, said.
True, your declaration that you watch basketball games (if I understood correctly, and in my few sins, which are almost nonexistent, I have no clue) would ostensibly constitute a contradiction to my words, but then I understood and remembered that our admired rabbi is, after all, the tallest in his generation (in both senses), and thereby my mind was put at ease.
With the blessing that your wellsprings spread outward, and that we run to your words.
Many thanks.
And let us say Amen!
The missed point, in my opinion, is that there are two sides to the problem presented, and the article deals with only one side. The side presented is the problematic nature of the lack of critical thinking and following an imaginary and problematic world. On the other side (and this is the missed point), critical thinking and following reason alone, without enriching additional sides such as emotion and imagination, for which the soul yearns, also creates a void and a search for those things in foolish places (for example, watching and getting excited over sports and the like). Since there is no development of that emotional world, people seek it out cheaply and easily. So even if we think in a purely critical way and avoid rushing after nonsense of a certain kind, so long as we do not develop our capacity for emotion and imagination, we will fall into nonsense of another kind, which is also devoid of content and meaning.
Amen, may the earth swallow you like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, your teachers and rabbis, for mocking the leader
You mentioned in your remarks that admiration is in itself invalid even without the negative consequences it causes.
There is here a consistent principle that you hold, which sees in abstract intellect an essential contradiction to any emotional mental reality… In this article you intensify that tension in that you see emotion as a positive tool (in its teleological, not functional, existence), or at least as legitimate so long as it is disconnected from a rational purpose.. Under this category fall love and art in general, and sports appreciation as a parable.. The ability to surrender emotionally and experience the existential splendor reserved for watching an NBA game (just one example) is positive דווקא because of the absence of an ideological and value-based meaning lying at its basis.
Abstract intellect, in my eyes, resembles the apprehension of the laws of nature; just as the laws of nature are not an independent 'entity' but exist in the way we perceive the natural system, which is itself concrete—so the intellect echoes in its abstract language absolute mental experiences whose self-existence is expressed in our emotions and in the concrete form that imagination enables us to apprehend.. Why do I think so? Because self-examination of our intellectual content comes up empty; beyond the analytic there is only emotional intuition. When I try to explain values such as 'why' not murder, I will in the end be forced to make do with an answer in the style of the 'what,' whose only source is subjective experience.. Cold reason can only find contradictions within itself and make mathematical calculations; it has no power to ground the perception of values themselves.. Emotion enables us to experience the value itself directly and to become acquainted with its inner content; from here it follows that the true existence of values is in the mental-psychic experience.(emotion)
I’m not sure I understood your intention, but if I understood correctly, you are aiming at the distinction between emotion and intuition, which I have discussed at length in quite a few places (Two Carts, Truth and Stability, and others). In your terminology, intuition is emotion, and it is not. If it were such, it would have no epistemic or intellectual standing whatsoever. Therefore your second assumption as well—that only our logical component deserves the title 'intellect'—is not correct. Logic derives conclusions from premises, but the premises themselves do not come from it.
In the end this is probably only a semantic dispute, but it creates confusion.
One of the more interesting articles! And here is the forecast: within a day or two, hundreds of comments will flood the post. Consider yourself warned.
By the way, have you printed/published anywhere the talk you gave about pride and the impulses? Sounds interesting.