Expressing Opinions and Silencing Them
This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.
🔗 Link to the original lecture
🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI
Table of Contents
- “Illness” and “deviation” as normative definitions
- Genetics and its irrelevance to defining “illness”
- Jewish law, morality, and the meaning of “forbidden”
- Attitudes toward the community, “acceptance,” and the distinction between a religious transgression and a moral transgression
- The public uproar around Yigal Levinstein, the rabbis’ proclamation, and the silencing claim
- Responsibility of leaders versus freedom of speech and practical consequences
- The Pride Parade in Be’er Sheva, the High Court, and the limits of freedom of expression in public space
- “Liberal terror,” reaction, and political and social radicalization
- State media, representation of views, and the claim of monochromatic discourse
- Ethnic discrimination, the Biton Committee, and politically correct discourse
- The principle of not silencing even extreme and false positions
Summary
General overview
The speaker argues that calling homosexuality an “illness” is not a medical-clinical claim but a normative one, meaning that the speaker sees it as something negative, and he objects to the public uproar and the attempt to silence rabbis like Yigal Levinstein for such statements even when he does not agree with them. The discussion presents a distinction between a halakhic prohibition and moral disapproval, and emphasizes that according to Jewish law the act is forbidden, not the inclination, alongside the claim that terminology and connotations affect social attitudes and delegitimization. The speaker defends freedom of expression in public discourse even for outrageous statements, and argues that silencing and “liberal terror” generate violent and radicalizing reactions such as Lehava and La Familia, extending this also to political and media discourse and to issues of representation and ethnic discrimination.
“Illness” and “deviation” as normative definitions
The speaker says that defining something as an “illness” is determined by what disturbs a person or society, and therefore it is normative rather than diagnostic, illustrating this with influenza, which interferes with functioning, and kleptomania, which harms the public. The speaker says doctors do not “determine” what an illness is; rather, the person or society does, and therefore the discussion about adding or removing categories like homosexuality from the DSM in the 1970s stems from social norms rather than scientific findings. The speaker argues that saying “it’s an illness” or “it’s a deviation” effectively means that the speaker is declaring that it is negative in his eyes, and he stresses that this is a legitimate argument so long as it is not presented as medical fact.
Genetics and its irrelevance to defining “illness”
The speaker argues that there is no solid basis for the claim of a “gene” for homosexuality, citing Danny Cohen and Uzi Motro, according to whom those who attribute it to genetics are not geneticists. The speaker says that no complex human trait has had a gene found for it, and brings Uzi Motro’s example about body weight versus “good sweater-knitters” to show how easily traits get attributed to genetics. The speaker argues that even if something is genetic, that does not determine whether it is an “illness” or not, because there are genetic traits that are not illnesses, and there are genetic illnesses, and a sick person is not necessarily guilty.
Jewish law, morality, and the meaning of “forbidden”
The speaker says that the homosexual act is forbidden according to Jewish law, not the inclination, and tries to translate the essence of Rabbi Levinstein’s statement into that: it is a declaration of prohibition and disapproval, not “medicine.” The speaker distinguishes between whether something is forbidden in halakhic terms and whether it is morally negative, and argues that one can say “forbidden” without necessarily ruling that the thing is morally bad, although in his view the expression “illness/deviation” carries a negative connotation. The speaker raises a discussion about interpreting “abomination” and cites Nedarim 51a, “he is led astray by it,” arguing that the modern connotation of “abomination” is not necessarily the original meaning, though he recognizes that this is a legitimate interpretation.
Attitudes toward the community, “acceptance,” and the distinction between a religious transgression and a moral transgression
The speaker says that “acceptance” means not distancing someone from the community and not denying participation in the synagogue and social life, even if one sees the person as a sinner. The speaker argues that there is a difference between a “moral offender,” who even by his own standards is acting badly and from whom people will therefore distance themselves, and a “religious offender,” whose disagreement in values with the speaker does not make him socially unworthy. The speaker adds that Sabbath desecration is in his eyes more severe, and at the same time he describes the halakhic struggle of a person with homosexual inclination as an almost impossible task, and therefore he tends toward special empathy for him.
The public uproar around Yigal Levinstein, the rabbis’ proclamation, and the silencing claim
The speaker describes a public “Pavlovian” reaction calling for apology, ostracism, and dismissal, and argues that the uproar is unjustified because expressing a halakhic-normative position is legitimate even if it is infuriating. The speaker notes that he would have signed the rabbis’ proclamation calling for expressing an opinion “without fear” and “honestly,” with fairness and respect, and he defines himself as a “liberal” who opposes “the silencing of opinions.” The speaker argues that the attempt to tell rabbis “not everything you think you have to say” surrenders to the threats of the uproar instead of confronting it, and compares this to saying “don’t go up to the Temple Mount” because of violence from the other side.
Responsibility of leaders versus freedom of speech and practical consequences
The other side in the conversation argues that leaders’ words carry responsibility because they can lead to delegitimization, psychological harm, and even suicide attempts, and raises the example of a student in Mitzpe Ramon who almost committed suicide after a lecture. The speaker replies that such logic would require people to stop saying that Sabbath desecration is also a grave prohibition, and he argues that the problem is a culture of taking offense and the demand for sensitivity as a substitute for substantive argument. The speaker agrees that one can approach a leader quietly about wording and desecration of God’s name, but argues that in public discourse the claim should be “right or wrong,” not “be quiet because there will be reactions.”
The Pride Parade in Be’er Sheva, the High Court, and the limits of freedom of expression in public space
The speaker distinguishes between homosexual inclination and the “Pride Parade” as a public practice, and argues that people do not want children to see certain content near a synagogue and that this is a legitimate demand. The speaker says he is “full of appreciation for the High Court” for finding a compromise and not giving in to “LGBT terror,” and compares it to a situation in which people would ask to film pornography on a main street in order to justify limits in public space. The speaker argues that it is permissible not to agree and even to fight, but not to turn a position into an object of silencing and dismissals.
“Liberal terror,” reaction, and political and social radicalization
The speaker argues that public discourse is controlled by “liberal terror” that sticks labels such as “homophobe,” “benighted,” “racist,” and “inciter” onto any unacceptable statement, and says this prevents any possibility of explaining nuances such as the normative distinction in the concept of “illness.” The speaker argues that silencing creates frustration that leads to violence and to organizations like Lehava and La Familia, and also cites Trump as a backlash phenomenon to liberal terror. The speaker says that opening up space for expression and making the discussion substantive would create “catharsis” and reduce violence, whereas silencing pushes positions underground and radicalizes them.
State media, representation of views, and the claim of monochromatic discourse
The speaker argues that in state media outlets such as Reshet Bet and Army Radio there is a left-wing consensus that creates delegitimization of other positions, and he distinguishes this from private newspapers like Haaretz or Makor Rishon. The speaker argues that the problem is not criticism but a mechanism of selection and recruitment that results in almost only one position being heard, and at times people are “interviewed” in order to “make them look ridiculous.” The speaker says that introducing a variety of positions into the media would reduce violence and increase trust, because people are less violent when they feel their opinion is being taken seriously.
Ethnic discrimination, the Biton Committee, and politically correct discourse
The speaker says that silencing claims about discrimination, or silencing criticism of those claims, creates frustration and violence, and argues that expression should be allowed both for Sephardi feelings of discrimination and for harsh criticism of them. The speaker criticizes the Biton Committee and argues that it is hard to present “prostrating oneself on the graves of the Baba Sali and whispering incantations” as an alternative to studying Herzl and Ben-Gurion, and says that today it is forbidden to make such statements without their being labeled “racism.” The speaker gives an example from a lecture in Yeruham about “Eastern literature” and argues that no names or infrastructure of printing presses and demand in Morocco were presented, explaining this in cultural terms rather than as a claim of innate inferiority, while arguing with his interlocutor who raises the possibility of a genetic explanation.
The principle of not silencing even extreme and false positions
The speaker says he does not want to silence anyone, including Hanin Zoabi and even “Holocaust deniers,” as long as there is no “very, very near certainty” of violence, and he prefers to deal with them through arguments and refutation. The speaker distinguishes between morally judging a person who lies and the very right to voice a position in public discourse, and argues that taking offense is “the tool of the weak” and that instead of being offended one should bring arguments. The speaker rejects the claim that speaking against Oslo or defining political acts as a “crime” is illegitimate, and argues that the silencing around such things is what pushes people toward extremism, while enforcement should be directed at someone who picks up a weapon, not at someone who expresses an opinion.
Full Transcript
What?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He explains. Rabbi Lichtenstein explained to the students, or something like that, the meaning of something he had said, and he said that it didn’t come from a judgmental place, but was rather a medical remark. Amazing, amazing, yes.
[Speaker C] Okay, so they’re trying to soften the statement that way.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But this attempt is so revealing of a total misunderstanding of the issue, because all he did was make a value judgment. Meaning, it has absolutely nothing to do with medical matters from any direction, and on that all sides are mistaken. Meaning, when you say—and I wrote this in the previous post—that when you say, for example, that homosexuality is an illness or a deviation or I don’t know, various expressions of that kind, that has nothing at all to do with diagnosis. Meaning, the determination of what is and is not an illness is a normative determination. Meaning, why is the flu an illness?
[Speaker B] Because—
[Speaker C] It interferes with our functioning.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Aren’t there illnesses that don’t kill you?
[Speaker C] It interferes with our functioning, interferes with our functioning.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why? Because it bothers the person, right? It bothers me. And kleptomania, for example—why is that an illness?
[Speaker C] Because it bothers—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Others, because the public doesn’t want there to be thieves, right? Meaning that basically the definition of the concept of illness or deviation—deviation has a bit more of a connotation, but let’s talk for a moment about illness—it’s simply whatever bothers the person or the public, that’s called an illness. Now, who determines that isn’t the doctor. Who determines it is either the person, who says it bothers him, so it’s an illness, or society, which says that such a thing bothers it, as in kleptomania, for example. If there’s a person who isn’t bothered by being a kleptomaniac, he manages quite well with it, society doesn’t want it, because society doesn’t want thieves. So that means that the determination of whether something is an illness or not is a normative determination; it is not a clinical determination.
[Speaker C] He’s basically saying that every so often there’s a discussion whether to remove or include pedophilia. Now clearly it will remain illegal, even though there are psychiatrists, psychologists, and so on who think it’s not an illness and not a deviation.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So what is the discussion about? On what basis do they determine whether it is or isn’t an illness? On what basis, when the DSM sat in the 1970s on homosexuality—on what basis? Because of scientific findings? Of course not. Because it had become normative from the standpoint of American society.
[Speaker D] But there’s also the aspect that supposedly this is no longer social and educational, but rather a gene.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] A gene that was discovered.
[Speaker C] No, there isn’t any geneticist—I asked Professor Uzi Motro, professor—there isn’t any geneticist who thinks it’s a gene, even though you find that all over, even in scientific literature. But what Danny Cohen says and what Uzi Motro says—he searched and checked and found that none of the writers is a geneticist. Now no complex human trait has had a gene found for it yet.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The example—
[Speaker C] that Uzi Motro gives, he says: look at me, I’m heavyset, and my father and grandfather and so on and so on. But he says: I can also tell you that my mother and grandmother and so on were good sweater-knitters. I don’t know how to say that’s a gene, even though that’s a relatively simple trait because it’s just physics, so all the more so—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] psychological traits.
[Speaker C] First of all—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The question whether it’s genetic or not is an open question, contrary to all the declarations of all those people who know everything from every direction, both supporters and opponents. Second, what difference does it make if it’s genetic? Eye color is also genetic, so is that an illness or not an illness?
[Speaker D] No, if it’s a matter of genetics, it’s not even relevant to define it as an illness or not an illness, because it’s a given. After all, the attack is about how you behave. The issue of homosexuality is: how dare you behave that way? But if it’s genes and that’s how they were born—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, it’s not an attack. So what? Then it’s an illness. And if a person is born sick, then he isn’t sick? What does that have to do with anything? Sick does not mean guilty; sick is a description of a state.
[Speaker C] Being a battered woman is the most hereditary thing known, more than eye color. What? Being a battered woman is a phenomenon passed down from generation to generation, from mother to daughter, more than any other phenomenon we know—and still I’m going to put the abusive husband in prison. That’s all. Or educate him, or whatever.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why should I care if it were genetic? So what does that mean? There are illnesses that are genetic. Purely normative. Purely normative, nothing but that. Now when a person comes and says that this thing is an illness, what is he actually saying? That in his opinion society should see it as something negative—that is what he is basically saying. Okay? And someone who says no is saying that in his opinion society should not see it as something negative. A legitimate dispute. But what’s the problem?
[Speaker B] I thought it would be right to ask Rabbi Tzvi—Rabbi Tzvi actually needs to say that when you say it’s forbidden, from my standpoint that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s something negative; from my standpoint it’s a prohibition.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s another question. Right now I’m talking about the question of illness.
[Speaker B] The question—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Whether it’s negative or not negative is another question—whether it’s morally negative or halakhically negative. That’s a different question, but we’re talking now about another question. The question is: what is the meaning of the statement that this thing is an illness? It has no meaning other than my saying that this thing is forbidden, it is negative. That’s all. That’s what it means. By the way, same thing with deviation. If people say it’s a deviation, what are they actually saying? They’re saying that for them this thing is negative. That’s what they’re saying. What is deviation? Of course it has a less pleasant connotation to hear than illness. Fine, so you can discuss whether it was wise to say it, whether it hurts or doesn’t hurt. But essentially what does it mean? All it means is that in my opinion this thing is forbidden, it is negative. That’s all. Forbidden. Now that’s true—it is forbidden according to Jewish law. The act, not the inclination. The act is forbidden according to Jewish law. That’s all he said. What’s the problem with that? What, should he not say that it’s forbidden?
[Speaker D] No, that’s not what he said. The connotation was that this connotation of deviation means these are people who need to be pushed away, people who shouldn’t be related to.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Did you read what he said? I did. And he said the opposite. He said the opposite. He said exactly the reverse—that they should be brought close, and we should help them, and they are in a difficult situation. No, not in Jewish law—even in the original statements. I read, most of what I read was also original material. He did not say it in order to distance them. By the way, I’m defending here someone who is really not my cup of tea. Meaning, all these guys from Yeshivat Kav, Har HaMor, and Levinstein—not half a cult, a full cult. But when I examine this—
[Speaker E] The uproar, cult—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Deviation, yes, there you go—you could even call it by the explicit name, it’s a factual description, that’s the description, we are talking about a cult. But what he said there—immediately some kind of Pavlovian reaction, everyone at once saying, what do you mean, he should apologize and hide and I don’t know what he should do, and depose him and throw him out. All he said was that in his opinion this thing basically—what he said was that in his opinion this thing is forbidden. That is what he said, basically, when you translate the meaning of his words, that’s all. What, is it forbidden to say that? This insane witch-hunt around it is simply crazy.
[Speaker E] But it passes, it—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] changes perception.
[Speaker E] The Rabbi is now also willing to discuss whether it’s a moral problem or not. It could be that 30 years ago, it could be that 30 years ago it was easier for us to say that this is—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Absolutely possible. But you don’t expect me to justify some unjustified uproar just because it works.
[Speaker E] No, you don’t have to, but afterward it will change the perception.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It may change it, but in practice I’m criticizing the statements themselves. What they are meant to achieve and whether they succeed—that’s another question. On the contrary, if they do succeed, that’s even more of a problem.
[Speaker D] Because basically they brought him 300—according to the newspapers, I don’t know if 300, but 300 rabbis who support his words.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, 300—yes, I read that too. Did you read their proclamation? No, I only heard about it. So I happened to read it, and I would sign their proclamation too. And I really do consider myself a liberal. I would sign it too. Because what they said was that they call on all rabbis to express their opinions without fear and honestly, and also fairly—seems to me respectfully or something like that. That’s all. And that they oppose the silencing of opinions. I also oppose the silencing of opinions. And basically what they are trying to do now is silencing. That’s what they are trying to do now. And the silencing of things that are completely legitimate to say, even if you don’t agree with them. It is entirely legitimate to say that it’s an illness. There is no problem with that at all. It’s also true according to his approach, and maybe according to mine too. I wouldn’t use that term.
[Speaker E] You’re saying it’s legitimate for anyone on the side that thinks this is an illness?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, it’s legitimate to say it regardless of which side you’re on. You may disagree, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate. Those are two different things.
[Speaker E] Why? But if I think you’re wrong, and now you define something as an illness even though it isn’t, and now you’re educating toward that, you’re influencing people that way—what?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m educating toward it being an illness. What is illness? Illness means it’s forbidden. In religious schools, in religious schools they teach that this thing is forbidden.
[Speaker E] Granted, if they could, then—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Say that basically what you object to is that he wears a kippah, not that he said what he said.
[Speaker D] Fine, but he is denouncing this public. It’s not like that.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He went further.
[Speaker D] He also went on to attack the IDF for even treating them, this issue, with tolerance. He relates to the fact that society in general treats this matter—maybe there are things—and he was angry at a group. This is simply denunciation of an entire group of people and putting them outside the normative framework.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Again, again, this denunciation is illegitimate only if that group is in fact legitimate. But if there is a criminal group, then I can denounce it. So basically what he’s saying is that in his opinion this group is criminal. That’s what he’s saying.
[Speaker D] Okay, so that’s not—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s true that according to Jewish law they are offenders. Someone who sinned is not an offender?
[Speaker C] Why did no one talk against people who eat rabbits and people who have relations with menstruants and so on—which, unfortunately for Rabbi, is true of most of the Jewish people?
[Speaker D] Fine, he spoke there about the fact that this causes the Jewish people not to be pure and so on. He didn’t come to denounce them, he didn’t come to say, you are outside the framework.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He denounces them very strongly. What do you mean? In Rabbi Shach’s yeshiva too, they educate no less against Sabbath desecration than against homosexual relations. Same thing. If you—now I’m saying again, you can say, you’re talking nonsense, you’re benighted, everything is fine, I have no problem, that’s a legitimate opinion either way. I just don’t understand the meaning of the silencing.
[Speaker D] Because, for example, this example was brought—you surely heard—that when he sat and appeared as a lecturer at a school in Haifa, it caused a student who very much admired his opinion and who is gay to go outside and almost commit suicide. Meaning, with your words, through your denunciation of a group and by taking them outside the boundaries of normativity, you bring people to terrible actions.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And what if there were such a Sabbath desecrator? What? And what if there were a Sabbath desecrator there, in the audience, who gets hurt when people say that desecrating the Sabbath is a stoning offense, very severe. Now there will be a Sabbath desecrator who takes it to heart—what, I desecrate the Sabbath? What does he want from me? This is a rabbi I respect, and he says that what I do is a stoning offense. He goes outside and goes to kill himself. What would you say? That people should stop saying it’s forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath? Rather, what has happened is that a certain sensitivity has been developed—or not developed—there is a sensitivity here that is partly based on the discourse of the supporters. On the discourse that says that anyone who says it’s an illness is a homophobe and benighted and harmful. And suddenly you discover that a rabbi you admired is a benighted homophobe and so on and so on. He’s not a homophobe and not benighted; he is saying his opinion, he is saying that this thing is forbidden, and it is legitimate to say that. With equal legitimacy you can say, okay, I disagree. That’s all. But the silencing, in my eyes, is a scandal. A scandal. There’s this persecution where you can’t get a word out of your mouth. They dragged Rabbi Ariel into it too—I don’t know, I didn’t see all of his words, only the quote of the sentence they attacked. He says there is a serious problem here. That’s the sentence they quoted from Rabbi Ariel. Something like that: homosexuality is a serious problem. I didn’t understand—even that is forbidden to say too?
[Speaker D] There’s a post here by someone—I forgot his name—Tessler. I don’t know who he is, Yitzhak Tessler. He says: Rabbis, start understanding that not everything you think you have to say. Be wise.
[Speaker C] Okay, that’s also what Rabbi Medan said.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Straighten up a bit, for God’s sake. That’s a low blow, and I’ll tell you why. Because why can’t they say it? Because of this uproar. So instead of opposing and dealing with this uproar, you say: guys, pay attention, there’ll be an uproar against you, so think before you speak. That I might say quietly to a rabbi. But in public debate that’s not an argument. Just as I don’t accept in public debate, listen guys, not everything you’re allowed to do is right to do, and therefore don’t go up to the Temple Mount, for example, which is something you often hear. A legitimate claim, by the way. A legitimate claim quietly to a person who wants to go up to the Temple Mount: listen, true, it’s your right, I support your right, those people are savages, those who won’t let you go up, but listen, we don’t want bloodshed here. That you can say quietly to a person. You cannot say it as an argument in favor of the Arabs who want to prevent ascent to the Temple Mount. It’s his right. You can appeal to his common sense and say, fine, it’s your right, but listen, this will get us into trouble. But you can’t side with those who are behaving badly and tell the other person, listen, take them into account because they’re behaving badly. Now what am I arguing? I’m arguing that those who are trying to silence him are in the wrong. And then people come and say, true, they’re in the wrong, but listen, you should know there’ll be such reactions, so don’t say it. That may be true to say.
[Speaker D] The problem is not that it isn’t right. Someone who says you don’t need to say everything, he’s not saying it’s not right, he’s saying—that is, he’s saying Rabbi Levinstein’s opinion is not right, but if he holds it, he doesn’t have to say it. Why? Because he causes here—I say again—what you’re doing is about wording and style—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] of the things, to what’s called— we spoke about, we spoke about reading the text.
[Speaker D] I brought it up as part of the lesson. I didn’t want to—yes, yes. But it’s not like that. Because there is a connotation, there is an effect to these words. And these things were not said in order to explain to someone that it’s forbidden according to Jewish law. Everyone knows that; we read it in the Torah scroll. These things were said because he can no longer tolerate the public atmosphere accepting them as legitimate. Right. He cannot tolerate the fact that in the IDF they do take them and do—huh?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of course, right, that’s what he’s saying, right.
[Speaker D] Because by this, you cause—it’s as if you came and said: I am now unwilling to accept Blacks or Negroes in the IDF.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, it’s not the same thing.
[Speaker D] No, you are taking a population and marking it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But that’s exactly the point. No. Because against Blacks or Negroes you are saying things on a purely racist basis. And here he says it on the basis of his worldview that this act is negative. If someone were to say: I oppose drafting kleptomaniacs into the IDF—what would you say? There’s a whole population of kleptomaniacs that he is putting outside the boundary? What do you mean?
[Speaker D] Same thing—you yourself gave this point, that you defined illness as a matter of how society relates to it. And today you know, and we all know, that society relates—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I don’t know that. I’m part of society. No, there is a part of society that wants to impose its view on all of society and announce to everyone how society relates. But Yigal Levinstein is also part of society, and he relates differently. So now society has to decide how it weighs all of its parts, and then we’ll see how society relates. And if he stays silent because society relates differently, by that very silence he has also caused society to relate differently. He wants to advance the attitude he believes in. What do you mean? These are the people speaking in the name of society—“society relates differently.” That’s what the struggle is about: how society relates. Now I’ll say again: I am in favor of accepting them personally. I think this is part of a problematic campaign that I oppose on the principled level. I am very far from agreeing with the uproar they are making around him.
[Speaker E] What does it mean to accept them or not accept them?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] To accept them means there is nothing here different from someone who desecrates the Sabbath. Same thing. And the impression I get from Rabbi Levinstein is that he thinks there is a difference. Meaning, about Sabbath desecrators he doesn’t say not to draft them into the IDF, because otherwise you could just shut down the IDF, but about this he does.
[Speaker B] Because the Torah calls it an abomination? What? Because the Torah calls it an abomination.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, right, I wrote why I—there are many transgressions that don’t—
[Speaker B] No, but there are several transgressions—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s one of the responses I wrote there on the blog. So should we not draft into the IDF all those who eat meat and milk together? There are several things the Torah says are an abomination, and the moral connotation that comes along with that expression is really not simple. I wrote this in response to someone who raised it, and I cited Nedarim 51a as well: “he is led astray by it”—that is called an abomination. There the word abomination took on a connotation that I’m not sure is really the original meaning in the text. There are places where you can overlay that meaning, like with homosexuals, and there are places where it’s harder to overlay it. And they also brought other examples there. Therefore I’m not at all sure. But fine, I’m saying, he interprets it that way—and many interpret it that way—a legitimate interpretation of the Torah. I’m not inclined to agree with it, because I don’t subordinate the text—and we’ll talk a bit about that today—to my own perceptions. I don’t think that if this thing has no moral problem in it, then I have to read in the Torah that there is a moral problem in it. Because what is moral and what is not moral, in my opinion, is not defined by the Torah. It is a universal definition, not a Torah definition. A universal definition. And if I have reached the conclusion—and it is definitely clear to me that this is a result of these campaigns and struggles—that there is no moral problem in it, then I don’t agree with him. But if someone says there is, and even thinks that this is the Torah’s interpretation and all that, on the simple level he is right. I can say I have other interpretations of the Torah, but it is clear to me that I am not starting from the interpretation of the Torah; I am starting from the fact that I do not think there is a moral problem here.
[Speaker B] Yes, but last time when we talked about reasoning versus verses—why read in one’s own reasoning? So the Rabbi basically—also about the verses, the Rabbi said it could be that one first needs reasoning. So if I remember correctly, the Rabbi explained there that what’s the difference between reasoning I would think on my own and—after the verse—when the Torah reveals something to me in a verse, I now learn a new line of reasoning. That does make sense; you can learn that line of reasoning. Okay, so here too, maybe before that I didn’t think there was a moral problem, and then the Torah came and taught me that there is a moral problem here.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But I can’t learn that, I don’t discover that problem. Therefore I say: if afterward I did understand that yes, then fine, so I learned something new. Do I disagree? No. You can tell me: the Torah forbids eating pork, okay? A sign that there is a moral problem with pork. Have I now discovered some new discovery that eating pork is a moral problem? No. I don’t see any moral problem in it, so I refuse to interpret the Torah’s prohibition as something based on morality, because I think I understand what morality is and what it is not. I don’t think the Torah is supposed to define for me what is moral and what is not moral. In the previous post I wrote about the beautiful captive woman. So again, I fully understand those who understand this differently. There are people—in fact I too was like this, I think, some time ago; maybe all of us, much of society was like that. I’ve undergone a change. I completely agree, and part of it is the result of these public struggles. And I still have criticism of them, despite the fact that they work, as you showed earlier. Fine, I really agree.
[Speaker E] Wait, you were speaking just generally about accepting them—I’m trying to understand what it means to accept them or not accept them.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] To accept means to relate to them like to an offender who desecrates the Sabbath. Same thing, without all the taboos around it.
[Speaker E] No, what does that mean in practice, what is that category, what is the group of people that we relate to like an offender who desecrates the Sabbath, and what group of people—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] An inclination isn’t an offender at all. We’re talking about people who—
[Speaker E] No, because it comes out that the Rabbi is defining that if I saw this as a moral problem, then I certainly wouldn’t accept them. What does that mean? What is the attitude? I can relate to him as a criminal—he sinned from a halakhic standpoint, he sinned from a moral standpoint, he sinned in both, I don’t know, whatever. That doesn’t have to be—meaning, even if someone was not okay—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Accepting him means I’m not going to drive him away from various places; it means he can take part in the community like anyone else in the synagogue.
[Speaker E] Someone who does things—who has moral problems—you really should distance him and you should—right? Obviously. If—there are different levels of—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, exactly, different levels, but each according to his level, yes? Of course. A murderer I won’t invite into my home and sit with over a cup of coffee. Something like that. But also not a thief. Also not a thief—not because murder is so severe, simply because he’s immoral, I don’t want ties with him. Again, not a person who sins from time to time—we all sin from time to time—but a person whose essential way of life is immoral. There’s a difference in the attitude toward such a person as opposed to someone who is an offender in the religious sense. Now I’ll say more than that: Sabbath desecration—there was a long interview with me on the website Kamocha about religious homosexuals.
[Speaker E] Why is a homosexual offender a religious offender, and the moral offender you don’t want near you, while with a religious offender you have no problem with that?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because a moral offender—if we’re talking about a secular person—then if he is a moral offender, he is an offender even by his own standards, he isn’t okay. If he is a religious offender, fine, he doesn’t accept my system. What? According to your own view he also isn’t a religious offender in this case.
[Speaker E] What? A religious offender who is an atheist.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, a religious offender in the formal sense—if he’s an atheist, he didn’t commit a transgression. But his act is an act I regard negatively. Meaning, I wouldn’t want him educating my children, for example, do you understand? Fine—even if he isn’t guilty and shouldn’t be punished, this is his worldview, everything is fine, fine, I accept that. This is a transgression like any other, and certainly one has to think how to deal with it, but I don’t disqualify the person; the person simply thinks differently from me, what can you do? Now I’ll say more than that: Sabbath desecration is in my eyes much more severe than homosexuality. Because homosexuality involves people in such a difficult situation—who could deal with such a situation? A person who has such an inclination has to struggle with his inclination all his life; that’s what the Torah demands of him. It’s an impossible mission, an impossible mission. Now, dealing with Sabbath desecration—just don’t desecrate the Sabbath, what’s the problem? Now true, you don’t agree with that, you don’t think it’s right.
[Speaker E] No, it’s not certain, it’s not certain that that’s so simple either; there’s a broad scale of things—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, let’s say that someone who is on the scale—
[Speaker E] There are areas today where it’s hard to deal with being straight, it’s very hard.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, okay, let’s go back for a moment to normal areas. Within the religious community, certainly it’s not like that, okay? And it’s very hard for him—what, that’s completely obvious. And therefore I think that on the contrary, if there is any offender I would relate to completely as one of us, it would be the homosexual. What do you mean? The person is struggling with something that I don’t know who among us could deal with. I myself don’t think I could deal with it.
[Speaker D] So if that’s the case, then a leader like a rabbi should, in these matters as you are presenting them now, step outside the narrow framework in which he is found in the halakhic world and stop speaking this way, because—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, not stop speaking—
[Speaker D] because he is a leader, he is leading a line, he is leading a line that can cause disasters, that can—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But that’s exactly the difference. I’m saying, I don’t agree with—he doesn’t agree with all—
[Speaker C] the explanation the Rabbi gave in the last three minutes—he doesn’t agree with that explanation.
[Speaker D] Exactly. There is a difference—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] between—
[Speaker D] not agreeing and going out—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] openly—
[Speaker D] and knowing where it leads—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, by the same token there is a difference between saying I don’t agree with him and saying he should be silenced—which I oppose. I don’t agree with Rabbi Levinstein’s approach, with what follows from his approach. But the expression “illness” in itself is not at all—
[Speaker E] Aren’t there other educational approaches that you think should be silenced? What? Aren’t there conceptions and opinions that you think should be silenced?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] As I said earlier, immoral conceptions.
[Speaker D] No, conceptions such as, for example—that’s the reality. If they are accepted in society as benighted opinions and cause desecration of God’s name for the whole Haredi public.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I said, that’s a consideration that I would quietly go to Rabbi Levinstein and say to him, listen, this causes a desecration of God’s name, and you need to think about how to speak. Maybe. But that is not a legitimate discussion in public discourse, because in public discourse two opinions clash. You go to one of them and say, listen, this causes a desecration of God’s name, so be quiet. That’s not an argument. Argue about the issue itself. Tell him: you’re wrong, I disagree with you, I have reasons A, B, and C why you’re not right. No problem. That’s legitimate in public discourse. You can’t say—it’s like I said earlier, going up to the Temple Mount, it’s the same thing. It’s the same thing as this pride parade in Be’er Sheva. It’s part of the same crazy world, just a crazy world in my view. A crazy world. People don’t want this disgusting thing coming into their home. Not the homosexual disgust—this is an inclination, people have that inclination, they live with it. The disgusting thing is the pride parade. Because it puts on colors; if they came with signs and said we’re against discrimination, we want equal rights, and so on, totally legitimate, entirely called for. But that’s not how it happens. That’s not how it happens. There are things there that I would not want small children to see. Certainly not next to the synagogue where I pray. And people want this thing not to be out on the street there next to their synagogue. Completely legitimate.
[Speaker D] About the form of the—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The pride parade, about that, that’s not—
[Speaker D] relevant to the discussion.
[Speaker C] No, the Be’er Sheva judge—I happened to hear him on the radio—the journalists attacked him, and he explained his position in a very conservative way.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Truly a completely legitimate demand. I have a lot of appreciation for the High Court of Justice, which didn’t surrender to LGBT terror and found some more balanced compromise there that everyone criticizes it for. What do they criticize it for? Good Lord, tomorrow morning someone will demonstrate in favor of pornography, and he’ll want to film a pornographic movie on the main street of Be’er Sheva, opposite my synagogue.
[Speaker E] Or draw forms, or draw forms.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, exactly, or things of that kind. So then where is freedom of expression and all that? People have completely lost their minds. Anyone who says something is immediately homophobic, benighted, clerical, and I don’t know what else. Say you’re in favor, fine. Say you’re even in favor of a pride parade in the town square, on the main street. I disagree with you, but I’ll fight for your right to say it too. But you can’t silence someone else when he’s making a completely legitimate argument. You can say: I disagree with you. No problem. But now people aren’t talking about disagreement. They’re saying it’s illegitimate. This person has to be silenced, he has to resign. That’s the claim. In my opinion that claim is completely illegitimate.
[Speaker D] A person who also doesn’t know when to say something and how to say it—maybe he shouldn’t be in public service. That’s irresponsibility in a leader, I’m sorry.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I completely disagree. Because the difference between what to say and what not to say—
[Speaker D] Because it’s also true that a large part of the population would be very happy if all the Arabs got thrown out of here to wherever. And people don’t say that and don’t express that. Why not?
[Speaker C] First of all, in many places there are signs saying “Death to Arabs” and things like that.
[Speaker D] And that’s the interpretation of the text. He can’t say—leave aside for a moment the so-called Talmudic argument over whether the meaning of the text—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, he can. I think part of our struggle has to be—mine, I feel, I don’t know—to purify public discourse. Stop getting offended in every direction already. By the way, both religious and secular, everyone is just offended all the time. Start making arguments, and instead of making arguments everyone gets offended. And after they get offended, then the other person has to show sensitivity: don’t speak, because it offends them. I don’t want anyone to get offended, and everyone should say what they think, and let’s stop already with this discourse of mutual offense.
[Speaker D] That’s true in discourse between private people, not leaders.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I think the line extends much farther.
[Speaker D] It has an effect beyond this little argument we’re having.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m saying that effect can be handled in two ways. You can silence him. You can say to him, listen, clarify your words. You can ask him to rise higher and not lower. This claim—listen, people are offended, it’s inappropriate, it’s not this, it’s not that, don’t say it—that surrenders to the level of discourse accepted in the street today. And I’m in favor of fighting that.
[Speaker D] The reasoning wasn’t that people are offended. The reasoning is that you cause consequences you can’t later be responsible for. You cause the delegitimization of an entire group. And that delegitimization—by the way, when I gave the example of the Black person and you said that was a racist view—I think that coming and denouncing someone in this area of homosexuals has a certain kind of racism to it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, then you can go after him for wearing a kippah. Because by the very fact that he wears a kippah, he is opposing that kind of people.
[Speaker D] No, I know many people who wear a kippah who don’t do that and make peace with it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Not that they don’t do that—no, I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the fact that they think it’s forbidden. What do you mean, he’s against an entire group and thinks it’s forbidden.
[Speaker D] Of course. Every rabbi has the right to say it’s forbidden, as far as I’m concerned. That’s all. So what’s the difference?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So you understand there’s a difference between that and Black people? What? You understand there’s a difference between those things? Is it forbidden to be Black? Is it disgraceful to be Black? Who makes such a claim? Someone who makes such a claim is a racist. But someone who claims that it’s forbidden according to the Torah is someone wearing a kippah. That’s all. It’s not the same thing. This is exactly the confusion that this public discourse causes us—that every population you label—
[Speaker E] Maybe he also claims it’s forbidden by the Torah?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He claims it’s morally forbidden? No problem, yes, he claims that too, correct, and I disagree with him, and I still think it’s a legitimate claim. Unlike the claim that being Black is immoral, which in my view is an illegitimate claim. Because I see no basis for it, no reasoning, it’s just plain racism.
[Speaker D] Is every rabbi or leader allowed to give opinions that, let’s say, today are generally not accepted in society?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Is he allowed to lead a line, an educational and public line? Of course!
[Speaker D] Of course! And he educates soldiers for the IDF, so if he brings them—We—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, he educates soldiers for the IDF; that’s what their education is built on. What do you mean? In the IDF there are all kinds of soldiers. In the IDF there are soldiers educated in Eli, and in the IDF there are homosexual soldiers. Fine. The IDF needs to know how to contain everyone. That’s all. I don’t think anyone should be silenced. And by the way, silencing like that won’t help. It won’t help, because you drive people underground, and it comes out in a more violent way, it comes out more—tactically, I’m just saying. It’s a mistake. There are people who think that by silencing you won’t manage to change it among those rabbis and that group, and therefore even just on the level of—you do manage to change it—
[Speaker E] Huh? I’m claiming that you do manage to change it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no. You manage to change it among people where it would have changed even without those reactions. I’m telling you that today—I’m beginning to see a little bit again, I’m not an internet expert and not some online creature—but even I, as someone who doesn’t have especially high resolution in these things, am beginning to feel that people are fed up with this terror. I have a student from Yeruham, I don’t know if he’s even religious today, maybe yes maybe no, super liberal. I think that—again, I truly think I’m liberal too. And I’m fed up. I’m fed up with liberal terror. And this thing will bring people—
[Speaker E] You’re fed up with liberal terror, but that doesn’t say anything about your opinion regarding whether it’s accepted or not accepted, moral or immoral, to be gay. Those are two different things.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, of course not, but I’m saying that this liberal terror will ultimately also harm itself. You say it works; I say it will harm itself. I see a fact. No, that’s not a fact. The change, the change that we underwent—
[Speaker C] How does Trump manage to climb so high, a man who speaks at the level of a third-grade class with expressions—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why? It’s a reaction to liberal terror. That’s true. And La Familia and all those guys in Jerusalem—that’s a reaction to liberal terror.
[Speaker E] Because everything has shifted—it’s not that thirty years ago this wasn’t extreme. I mean, thirty years ago the way he speaks wouldn’t have been extreme, it would have been an opinion. I mean, maybe not fifty years ago. It seems extreme to you now because everything has shifted.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, but the fact that he suddenly gets such a public echo, that he gets that kind of support—that’s unexpected. Who wasn’t surprised by that?
[Speaker C] He speaks at the level of a child in third grade; that wasn’t the case fifty years ago.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] How can a political leader—All the phenomena we see today in the State of Israel, these phenomena bordering on racism, some of them are racism, most of them are not racism in my opinion—but all these things of “Death to Arabs” and the arson in Duma and everything, where does it come from in my opinion? It comes from liberal terror. It comes from liberal terror. It comes from—That’s too easy. No, I don’t agree. I’m telling you that it—
[Speaker C] As if someone could interpret the Rabbi’s words as though the liberals are to blame—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] for the arson in Duma. Meaning, careful.
[Speaker B] I recorded it, but I won’t distribute it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Record it and distribute it! I’m saying they are to blame.
[Speaker B] I’m unequivocally saying they are to blame.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] They too are to blame. Absolutely. The moment you tell a person that every statement of yours against Arabs is racism, you created Duma with your own hands. Because there is nothing racist in statements against Arabs. It’s a national struggle. They’ve been killing us for a hundred years. And to see it that way—A thousand years.
[Speaker C] A thousand years. Sure—what? The expulsion and the Crusaders and the Byzantines—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The whole Israeli-Palestinian phenomenon—not important, but fine, we won’t get into historical arguments now. But I’m saying: whoever makes an analogy between that and racism, or treatment of Blacks in the United States, or things like that, creates Duma with his own hands. And whoever is now creating this liberal terror is creating the Lehava organization, which I sympathize with about as much as I do with a gay person. Why? Because there is an unwillingness here to distinguish nuances. And this unwillingness to distinguish nuances—suddenly we all want to defend that unwillingness. Look, the public doesn’t understand, so don’t say it. I say if the public doesn’t understand, explain it so they will understand. Not don’t say it. Don’t surrender to the shallowness of public discourse, but improve it. Tell people.
[Speaker D] It could be that what you said was the beginning of some process, but today the process is, in my opinion, that liberalism is fighting for its life. Wow.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So I think liberalism is fighting in a very mistaken way. What? Liberalism is fighting for its existence in a very mistaken way, and that it is losing its last supporters. Could be.
[Speaker D] But it is definitely fighting.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So if we’re talking about who needs to know what to say and what not to say, I have a few recommendations for liberals too.
[Speaker D] That’s always good.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, and therefore I’m saying those recommendations are recommendations I would give them personally. Those recommendations are not recommendations that are part of the arguments in public discourse. The arguments in public discourse have to be about right and wrong. What to say and what not to say is not an argument in public discourse. What to say and what not to say—you say that to the person. It’s like a secular person says to a rabbi, listen, don’t say things like that because they’ll be received this way and that way. You’re secular; of course you want him not to say it. You can argue with him that he’s wrong. No problem. Say your opinion, he’ll say his opinion, everything will be fine. I, as a religious person, will say to him: listen, it’s not worthwhile for you to say that because we’re losing here in the battle. But that’s not criticism I accept from someone who doesn’t believe in it, because obviously he’s using it as a spade to dig with. Someone who doesn’t agree with him says: look, now be quiet because otherwise it upsets everyone—and what you really mean is, be quiet because you’re wrong and I don’t want you speaking. And I don’t accept that. And I think part of all of us making peace with this shallowness of public discourse, with this fixation on slogans and insults, is what cooks up these reactions. That’s what cooks them up. People feel identification with these brave people who dare say what I too would want to say but don’t dare. And that’s how identification is created with La Familia and with Lehava, and the shallowness—
[Speaker E] In public discourse it’s built in, in my opinion. You can’t get to anything beyond that; even in one-on-one discourse it’s hard to get there, in public discourse it’s impossible to get to a deeper layer.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I claim that you can get there, and I think public discourse should be elevated, not drag down those who are trying to say things. Don’t drag everyone down to ground level the way it works today. On the contrary, tell people it’s allowed to speak. All you knights of rights, freedom of speech, and all that—you explain to us, listen, you have to contain even people you disagree with. Even outrageous statements like Zoabi’s and things like that have to be accepted, right? So why don’t outrageous statements by Itamar Ben-Gvir also have to be accepted? No—what you really mean is: the outrageous statements that are in my favor are the ones you have to accept. That’s basically the claim. By the way, on both sides, both sides use the same method. And just as in previous times I opposed things coming from my side, I also oppose things coming from the other side.
[Speaker C] I think demagoguery is the arguments used by someone whose opinion differs from mine.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, exactly. Wherever I don’t have substantive arguments against someone, then I say either that he’s a demagogue, or that I’m offended, or that I declare him a heretic.
[Speaker E] But in the end you want to influence people, and substantive arguments don’t help.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In my opinion substantive arguments help a lot, and this is contempt for public discourse. I’m telling you substantive arguments help a great deal, and people should say them without being afraid of anyone. And if people get used to the fact that a person can say things and justify them, and say this and say that, then you can accept it or not accept it.
[Speaker E] And if you got offended, take a pill. Which politicians succeed? Politicians who speak substantively and go deeply into the discussion?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Politicians succeed when you assume that public discourse is like this—that’s the assumption of all the journalists and those who run public discourse.
[Speaker E] You don’t think that assumption is justified?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No. If I now change that, the platform of the discussion, then maybe it will also succeed in changing which politicians succeed, or who the politicians are that succeed. And the way to change it is to say that I’m willing to hear Hanin Zoabi, even though she irritates the life out of me just by my seeing her, right? And I’m also willing to hear Itamar Ben-Gvir, who irritates the life out of me no less, many times, than Hanin Zoabi. And I think I don’t want to silence either of them, and not Holocaust deniers either—I spoke about that one of the previous times. I don’t want anyone silenced. If you make a substantive and reasoned argument, it can be outrageous, it can be annoying—I want you to say it. By the way, I want that also because I think it’s good for checking myself.
[Speaker E] Don’t you think there’s a moral problem in that? In what? If it’s absolutely clear to me that the Holocaust happened and they murdered my people, and someone comes and tells stories and invents that the Holocaust never happened.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Then he’ll tell stories, and you say that he’s inventing stories and that there’s no basis for them.
[Speaker E] You’ll say whatever you’ll say. But don’t you think that what he says is a moral problem, that saying it is a moral problem?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No—what’s the moral problem in that? If he says one should be a Nazi, that people should be educated to be Nazis, that’s a problem. If he says there was no Holocaust, that’s a historical argument. Maybe he’s a historical idiot, fine, then prove that he’s an idiot, show the arguments, show that he’s a liar.
[Speaker E] I don’t know, what difference does it make?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s permitted to lie; there’s no prohibition in law against lying. Morally—what?
[Speaker E] Morality, in the moral question?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, on the personal level, if he is lying then of course he is committing a moral wrong. Lying is a moral problem. But the opinion he expresses—I want it brought into public discourse. I want it brought in. Who says I wasn’t deceived? We talked, we talked about this then. Who says I wasn’t deceived? So what if all the society around me thinks that way? The whole Palestinian society is also sure that in ’48 we just shot everyone and expelled them all. So what? That’s what they think. So because of that I shouldn’t express my opinion, or they shouldn’t express theirs? Everyone should. Apropos Mahmoud Darwish today as well, on Army Radio and so on—in my opinion that’s completely right, he should be studied.
[Speaker E] But that depends on your degree of certainty.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I don’t think so.
[Speaker E] Now heaven forbid, I don’t know what—let’s try to give worse examples—but something happens now, and now that murderer, or that murderer’s brother, says suddenly it never happened, there was no such thing.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, he says there was no such thing; prove that there was. That’s all. Don’t get offended. Instead of getting offended, bring arguments. Because offense is the tool of the weak. Sometimes the weak use that tool in order to become strong. I’m not talking about being offended, I’m not talking about being offended. You’re taking it morally even without being offended. No problem—denounce it morally. That’s what I’m asking. Fine, I just don’t share your denunciation, unless it’s a lie that I know is intentional. Fine, then I denounce it morally too. But I still want to hear the position and the arguments.
[Speaker E] Obviously he thinks it’s—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] true, obviously he thinks it’s true. No, even if he doesn’t think it’s true. If he raises arguments, I want to hear them, and afterward I’ll say: you’re a liar. Those are two different things. Again, the moral judgment of the person on the personal level—if he lies, then he is immoral, that’s clear.
[Speaker E] But that doesn’t change the position itself.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So the moral thing to do is to silence someone who educates through these lies. He’s not educating, he’s not educating, he’s expressing a position about facts.
[Speaker E] Fine, trying to persuade. To persuade that it didn’t happen? No problem, let him persuade and I’ll bring arguments that it did happen.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But then I’ll say no, I think the moral act is to silence someone.
[Speaker D] No, so as a liberal I oppose that. I oppose that. I don’t silence anyone. But you already know from history, even from the recent past—you speak as though in public discourse people are on your level, and that’s more or less the level we’re talking on. But you need to—and we know this—that the crowd, the people, are not on that level. And the fact is that when there was, for example, legitimate speech against the Oslo plan, and then they began to insert into it also the elements that the leadership leading it had to be removed, that led to the fact that some people—let’s say part of a group—decided someone had to be murdered. Meaning that leadership also has responsibility for its words. No use—it’s not a debate in a lesson about whether my interpretation is correct. I don’t accept that. In my view the street and the classroom are the same thing.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? The street and the classroom are the same thing. The marketplace and the classroom are the same thing. And if a person comes out against Oslo and says the criminals of Oslo should be put on trial—that’s completely legitimate. And if someone then gets up and murders a prime minister, the Shin Bet should catch him and not silence the first person. He is expressing a position, and he has the right to express a position.
[Speaker D] But—but the man took a gun because he was inspired by his leadership. What do you mean—ignore that?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, not ignore it—try to prevent it.
[Speaker D] Words have power, and you have to understand that they have to be used, especially by leaders, with great caution.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Correct, and on the other hand we also need to use the silencing of positions, through the force of these kinds of arguments, with great caution. And I think that very often these silencing moves go beyond the threshold of the caution required. Especially when it’s in one direction. And I oppose that. I think that in order to silence someone you need very, very close to certainty that something will happen, and in the long run I’m against silencing altogether. Because in the long run, in my opinion, we need to work on making arguments influential rather than agitation and insults. And if you had conducted the discussion about Oslo in terms of arguments, then everyone would have raised their arguments. But the moment you silence the one who isn’t willing—the one who opposes—you create Yigal Amir.
[Speaker D] But when someone comes and says that the criminals of Oslo should be put on trial, he has already judged them, he has already ruled. He can’t do that.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] A completely legitimate statement. “The criminals of Oslo should be put on trial”—
[Speaker C] “Should be put on trial” in this context is an expression.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “The criminals of Oslo should be put on trial”—that’s not a legitimate statement? Good Lord, there is no statement more legitimate than that. Regardless of whether I agree or not. What’s illegitimate about it? A person says that this politician committed a crime by putting us in danger because of his own interests. That’s the claim. For example about Ariel Sharon, the disengagement, the way it was carried out because of interests—it doesn’t matter. But all these claims—what’s illegitimate about that?
[Speaker D] To start defining someone as a criminal?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, yes. No, no.
[Speaker D] When people say—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “Put the criminal on trial”—when people say “put this criminal on trial,” they mean to say that such an act is a crime.
[Speaker D] Fine, if for defining a crime you don’t need the court, then you also don’t need the court in order to execute him.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No problem, then let someone say they should decide to execute him. People say “put this criminal on trial”—is it legitimate to say that or not?
[Speaker D] People say that when there is already a police investigation.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But here there is! Here you no longer need an investigation; the facts are completely known. What facts?
[Speaker D] The political facts. I’m talking about before everything was known, when there were demonstrations.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no, it was completely known. No one denied the facts; the argument was over their interpretation. The claim was that the act he was doing—and he agreed that this was the act he was doing, nobody denied the facts—was a crime.
[Speaker C] Simply in order to express their opinion.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s a crime. And that’s what people claimed. What needs to be clarified in court? The facts are known.
[Speaker D] I’ll say again: we keep seeing that the words of leaders lead to terrible results. By the way, the murder of Shira Banki is also the result of that kind of agitation. I don’t agree.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I don’t agree with all these things.
[Speaker D] And we can expect—we’ll get more.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We’ll get more thanks to liberal terror. Because liberal terror causes it so that every time you say something they don’t like, you’re inciting.
[Speaker D] There are liberals in this country who are not committing terror, and today they can almost no longer express their views. Of course not!
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean? I didn’t say every—
[Speaker D] the extreme liberal terror—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no, it’s not extreme liberal terror. Today the entire public discourse is liberal terror. It’s not some extreme fringe. Not that the whole public is there—you don’t understand what I’m saying.
[Speaker C] No—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Not that the whole public is there, and not that all liberals are terrorists. I didn’t say that. I said that public discourse is controlled by liberal terror. You cannot express a position. Try today to say that homosexuality is an illness—you won’t succeed. You won’t succeed in saying it. No newspaper will print it except as a report saying that you should be removed. Nobody will present such an opinion. It will be rejected. In the newspaper’s censorship it will be rejected. That’s liberal terror. That’s liberal terror. Because you can’t explain to them what you mean when you say illness or not illness, what I said here at the beginning of the lesson about the flu and all that. They can disagree—no problem. Maybe I’m wrong. But it’s a legitimate argument. Yet I can’t express it. Nobody will be willing to print it. That’s terror. And this terror is cooking up the Lehava organization. People don’t understand this. This terror is cooking up the Lehava organization. And why? Because people have healthy instincts. And people have healthy instincts—and again I say, not specifically on the substance of this issue, I don’t think the homophobic attitude is healthy—but healthy instincts that understand there is silencing here. Silencing that comes from ideology. And that kind of silencing angers people and creates violence that gets acted out because they are not given catharsis in another direction. People are not allowed to express their opinion, so they’ll express it in actions.
[Speaker B] So Netanyahu against—what?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, among other things. And when they say Netanyahu says that “the Arabs are going to the polls in droves”—that is the most legitimate statement in the world. The most legitimate statement in the world. Today he apologized for it. The media, as one person. There’s almost no one I heard saying it was legitimate—not that it was true, that it was legitimate. What is that if not liberal terror? A super-legitimate statement. Super-legitimate.
[Speaker D] Even about that there’s room to argue.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In my opinion it’s completely legitimate.
[Speaker D] It’s scaring the public.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean, scaring the public? Netanyahu says: my opponents, those who are against me, are going to the polls in droves. I’m asking you to go to the polls.
[Speaker D] No, no, he said the Arabs—those who are going to destroy the state, those who are going—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But I don’t understand. The Arabs, in his opinion—not in his opinion, as a fact—the Arabs are the public, a public that as one person opposes him. Right? There is no other public that as one person opposes Bibi. The other publics are divided. Among the Arabs, that’s how it is. As one person they oppose him. He says, guys, my opponents are going to the polls in droves. Maybe he lied, that’s not the issue right now; often people make spins like that. What’s illegitimate about it? He wants to motivate the public to go vote. Arabs are opponents of Bibi—is there anyone who argues about that? That’s a completely justified and factually grounded generalization.
[Speaker D] That’s all. Listen, I don’t want to drag this argument on, but if I—because I’m getting to a very sensitive point that perhaps it’s forbidden to speak about.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Speak about everything.
[Speaker D] But when in 1934 they stood on every platform in Germany and said that the Jews are the cancer of the state—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So—
[Speaker D] was it allowed to say that? Yes. Yes. It was allowed to say that.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, that’s not what led to it. What led to it was not that they said “the Jews are the cancer of the state,” but “the Jews are the cancer of the state and they must be killed.”
[Speaker D] They weren’t yet saying that in ’34. Of course they were saying that.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] They said that—
[Speaker D] and that they’re causing our bad economic situation and so on. They got to killing them a little bit later.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There are two things, two distinctions. One distinction: when you are dealing with facts, I am against silencing any statement about any fact of any kind. That’s all. False facts? No, I know that “cancer of the state,” “causing trouble”—that is a factual claim. I disagree with it, it’s not true. Let’s examine it, let’s see, let’s do statistics, let’s check what happens, how many Jewish criminals there are—we can check it statistically and see. I’m in favor of substantive engagement with that claim, that’s one point.
[Speaker D] Second, you really attribute wonderful intelligence to the masses, to what they’re capable of doing. The day after they say that the Jews are the cancer of the state, the next day they’re already beating Jews in the street.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean? That’s exactly the point. Because people do not educate the public; they assume the public is idiotic and should be treated as idiotic, and in that way they build up its idiocy.
[Speaker D] It has emotions that can be inflamed and can be brought to terrible actions. When someone comes—when the prime minister comes and says “the Arabs are going in droves” and all that—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And he—
[Speaker D] says it in the context of these being the destroyers of the state and these being against the state, the next day an organization like La Familia can absolutely go and beat Arabs. But that’s the situation, there’s no use.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So if, for example, the prime minister says “the leftists are going to the polls in droves,” is that okay?
[Speaker B] Yes, perfectly fine.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Is it okay to say that? Tomorrow morning La Familia will kill leftists. That can happen too. So what now? Tomorrow morning the prime minister says, listen, maybe there are many Meretz voters going to the polls—is that also forbidden to say? Because tomorrow morning La Familia will kill Meretz voters. Then deal with La Familia. And if you forbid him to say it, and you come down on every statement he makes that is completely legitimate, then you created La Familia.
[Speaker D] It’s not a question of forbidding it, it’s a question of a leader’s responsibility. But I’m saying again, we also need to start accepting the personal responsibility of every leader. Not everything that comes into his head to say and wants to express should be done; it has effects on the country, it has effects on the population.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But I’m saying that those effects are cooked up by the opponents with their own hands. They create those effects; they are not warning about the effect, they are creating it. Part of it—not all the blame is on them—but they have a share in the blame. When you silence a person who says legitimate things, ultimately the reaction of the people who agree with him is that it comes out as violence, because you do not give them any possibility of expressing their opinion. It’s simple, I don’t understand—it seems completely simple to me. On the contrary, deal with it substantively. True, it may lead to harsh actions—but the silencing will lead to no fewer harsh actions. To no fewer. And in my opinion what led to the harsh actions was not Bibi’s incitement; it was Rabin’s incitement that led to the harsh actions. Not only Bibi’s incitement, but even more than that Rabin’s incitement, because he was not willing to allow expression for, or to listen at all to, what a large part of the public was saying. They were silenced systematically, with the full backing of the media. And that’s how it came out, in the end that’s how it came out. And people don’t understand that making peace with a discourse of insults is what cooks up these results. And I say that treating the public as an adult public may be naive, but if we insist and continue and continue and continue, it will turn out better than if we silence and say, no no, these are retarded children, don’t tell them anything because maybe someone there will take a knife or whatever. No. I say the public has to be treated as an adult public. This is the public I live among, and I take the risk. I take the risk that within it there will be people we need to try to deal with. I do not want people silenced, I do not want it. Because if they are silenced, not only do I disagree with it in principle, tactically too it will create more violence than if they are not silenced. Because that silencing creates violence, that frustration among people that their position has no expression in public discourse—that is what creates violence. And when that feeling is the feeling of significant percentages of the public, then of course it creates violence. When half the public feels that in the media there is no—today there is already a bit more, still not enough.
[Speaker C] Is there no silencing of Breaking the Silence? What? That too?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Silencing of Breaking the Silence too? Of course there is, of course there is.
[Speaker C] So maybe that too drags the left in certain directions?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of course! Of course! Of course! That’s why I’m saying I’m against silencing from every direction.
[Speaker C] Today you also have—
[Speaker D] silencing of anything you dare say against the LGBT community.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, exactly, same thing.
[Speaker E] And you too are silencing the silencers.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. In short, I’m saying that even on the tactical level—
[Speaker E] You’re silencing the silencers. I’m not silencing, I’m not silencing, I’m opposing them.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s exactly the point.
[Speaker E] You’re telling them to be quiet, no? No, I’m saying I disagree with them.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Again, that’s exactly the point.
[Speaker E] You too are with the silencers.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, when you say “I oppose them,” that’s what the media—
[Speaker E] No, they silence.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In my opinion they also oppose them. What is silencing?
[Speaker E] You don’t put a patch over their mouth—they don’t put a patch over their mouth. No, they don’t come out with arguments, they don’t do—Of course they do. They spend a lot of media capital on them. No. Gagging people? But they just write against the things they say. Not true, not true. What is gagging? You don’t let them express—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] an opinion, you don’t physically let them express an opinion. They interview La Familia every day.
[Speaker D] How are they not letting them express an opinion?
[Speaker E] How? They prevent them from expressing an opinion so that they can pounce on them in the media. They interview every other rabbi willing to say something about gays.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] They interview—they interview them in order to ridicule them. Right. No, that’s not called allowing an opinion to be expressed. When you—when half the media people reflect half the public, and then there will be this kind of interviewer and that kind of interviewer—that’s called allowing an opinion to be expressed. Then every interviewer can also bring himself into the interview, and fine, he thinks otherwise, he argues that it’s a mistake, and that’s fine. But they bring their opinion in the media.
[Speaker E] Of course, because for some reason their opinion is in any case the same opinion. But they bring their opinion against those who bring their opinion. That’s a problem. So why are you silencing their expression of opinion?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m not silencing their expression of opinion.
[Speaker D] You’re preventing what you call the liberal—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, I call it liberal terror. Because only the sharp expression of their opinion, the expression of the opinion of one hundred percent of the journalists. Right. That’s their opinion—but why are there one hundred percent such people whose opinion that is?
[Speaker D] Why aren’t there fifty percent there who have another opinion? Maybe they’re less talented? Read Makor Rishon.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, there there is expression of opinion, but I’m talking about the state media. I’m not talking about Makor Rishon, all kinds of private media outlets. I have no complaints against Haaretz; Haaretz is a well-known tabloid. I have no complaints against it, just as I have no complaints against Makor Rishon. My complaints are against Reshet Bet and Army Radio. That I do have a complaint about. And therefore the situation has improved; it has definitely improved in recent years.
[Speaker B] Soon they won’t be allowed to.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. No, that’s from above; I’m talking about the journalists, not the minister. I’m talking about the journalists. Why is there consensus among the journalists on Army Radio? Now they already—today it’s better than it used to be.
[Speaker E] What can we—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But who are “they”? Why are they there and not others? What does it mean, “that’s what they think”? Why are those who think that way there and not others?
[Speaker E] Because those who hire them—that’s what they think.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, that’s all. You understand? They are accepted on the basis of opinions. Because they are accepted on the basis of opinions and not on a substantive basis. That is exactly my claim.
[Speaker D] Because substantively they don’t want to. It could be that the situation is—it could be that it will change—but more or less one can say that most writers and most poets and most actors, the majority are on the left. What can you do? Those are more or less their opinions.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Someone who is a good actor is a good actor. That’s not true.
[Speaker C] That’s not true, it used to be true. Today it’s less so.
[Speaker D] I don’t know, after all, that’s the situation, that’s how it was. It hasn’t changed all that much.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Clearly, I agree.
[Speaker D] So what can you do? So apparently the left has some kind of more artistic tendency.
[Speaker C] No, the tendency—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I have no problem with the artistic side. Make actors, take whoever you want—actors are not a political statement. But journalists need to, in some way, reflect the range of opinions in the public. And in the end, the antagonism toward the media, and the fact that the media is perceived as left-wing media, is because of this, by its own hands. It has no right to complain, because that’s what it is. That’s all. And then people go out to other channels.
[Speaker E] And that can still lead to his claim. What? The type of population that goes into communications and media.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s true. It used to be true. Although even then, in my opinion, this wasn’t something that just happened on its own; it was also directed.
[Speaker D] By the way, even someone from the right who gets into the media suddenly becomes more moderate.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. Or—
[Speaker C] I think they deliberately bring low-level right-wing people into the media.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Listen—
[Speaker C] Look at who edits the foreign news section today, Oren Nahari. There was a period with Yitzhak Noi—Yitzhak Noi was very bad, sorry—and he was clearly a right-wing man.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yitzhak Noi was right-wing? I didn’t know.
[Speaker C] From the way he expressed himself about things. But in any case, he didn’t bring amazing talent compared to those who preceded him and those who came after him.
[Speaker D] Or maybe it’s because there’s a male majority in the world of media.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s like saying there’s a male majority, that there’s a male majority in the media, or an Ashkenazi majority in the media. So that same group gets… no, no, that same group will probably get its choices. The talented people were Ashkenazim and men. Of course. But there they don’t accept that claim. But I don’t think they’re right. No, I’m saying, but there they don’t accept that claim. What does that mean? That basically these arguments are a pickaxe to dig with.
[Speaker E] That doesn’t mean they aren’t true, though.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That argument is a pickaxe to dig with. In the end, I agree that it can happen, but on the other hand I also agree that one should try to balance it. That’s all. And the fact that it really is balancing a bit in recent years—it looks better. But this thing is a result of the monochromatic nature of the medium. You can’t prevent something like that, and I think on the contrary, if you put in more people like that, it will simply purify the discourse and reduce the violence, not add violence. If you put in more right-wing journalists, it will reduce the violence on the right. Same on the left. Because when you give people means of expression and they feel their opinion is being weighed, then they’re less violent. I think it’s simple.
[Speaker D] I think that’s true, but not in right-wing broadcasting. Take what’s happening in the Ministry of Culture, the line Miri Regev is leading. Again, they’re not silencing her, and they mustn’t silence her, and she’s allowed to say it. But she’s leading a line that in the end—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In the end comes to balance a line that, until she came, had been led in the opposite direction.
[Speaker D] Why balance? Why balance? To balance and carry out a reform, to lower them in quality. Why don’t we be honest? Let’s look at it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no—
[Speaker D] She’s coming to balance a reality in which, in her view, Eyal Golan is equal to Chekhov, and there’s a problem there.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In the eyes of fifty percent of the population. Eighty percent of the population, not fifty percent—Eyal Golan is better than Sheben, no question. That’s it. And now the question is whether you give them expression or you don’t give them expression. I also don’t like Eyal Golan, but I do think that if he has such broad public support, he should appear.
[Speaker D] Who said he shouldn’t appear?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, appear in the state media. Appear. But until twenty years ago he didn’t appear there. And I hate this professional Sephardi victimhood.
[Speaker D] The issue of Mizrahi music is a different issue.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, it’s part of the matter. It’s part of the same matter.
[Speaker D] It’s part of the same matter. Only balance shouldn’t lead to substandard quality. That’s the problem.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And that—
[Speaker D] Is what’s starting to happen.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Balance often does lead to a lowering of quality, but on the other hand there’s no avoiding it. Part of the public wants that, and culture should provide, among other things, what the public wants, and not only educate it in a paternalistic way. That’s all. And if our public looks different, then too bad. We should try to improve.
[Speaker D] What Ben-Gurion said: I don’t want to hear what the people want, I want to do what the people need.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I agree very partially. Very partially. And I also say that someone deciding what to do as a politician is one thing, and what things are allowed to come to expression is another question. If there are such segments in the public, they need to come to expression. And at the same time, that doesn’t mean that every step I take I’ll do by public vote. Those are two different things. If I was elected, I’ll do what I think is right. But I do think they need to come to expression. I definitely accept that. Only again, I hate this Sephardi professional victimhood. But it infuriates me terribly. But on the other hand, these feelings exist. Ignoring them won’t help. These feelings exist, and if you don’t let them come to expression, they’ll come out in other ways. Everyone you talk to, you see it exists. You can’t deny it.
[Speaker D] It doesn’t manage to prove, after three generations, after fifty—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Percent that it exists absolutely, unequivocally.
[Speaker E] Let’s do a poll showing that this issue is only the fifth issue overall in… never mind.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, it’s the fifth issue that interests people. But ask them not what number issue it is for them, but whether there is discrimination or there isn’t discrimination. You’ll get eighty, ninety percent of the Sephardi public thinking there is discrimination. That’s obvious. Everyone I talk to. Whether I agree or don’t agree, the fact is that this is what people think, this is what people feel. And if they feel it—maybe they’re not right. I don’t think what people feel is automatically also true. But it needs to come to expression. It needs to be expressed. It’s not right to forbid expressing it. It gives proper expression to a great many people, and that needs to come to expression. Whoever silences it and says there’s no such thing is making a mistake. Not because he’s necessarily wrong—he’s making a tactical mistake, because he’s producing violence.
[Speaker C] And anyone who tries to explain why the Sephardi claim of discrimination is mistaken will find himself attacked.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. That’s why I say: if instead of taking their insults into account—after all, that’s exactly silencing. You say what you think, no one will silence you, but I’ll also say what I think. And I’ll say what I think, and I’ll say that they teach Ashkenazim and not Sephardim because there’s nothing to teach about among the Sephardim. The answer is very simple. This whole ridiculous Biton Committee—in my eyes it’s very simple. And that’s what I’d want people to say.
[Speaker C] Just a comment: a week ago they murdered two Jews there.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, that’s a different matter, that’s the danger. But traveling to go up to graves—is that the alternative to learning about Ben-Gurion and Herzl? What, prostrating yourselves on the graves of the Baba Sali and whispering incantations, that’s the alternative? So that’s what I want people to say freely in the media as well. But they shouldn’t silence the Sephardi who feels differently. He’ll say what he thinks; he should say it—that’s what he feels. And I’ll tell him, sir, explain to me what contribution there was from the public in the Atlas Mountains in the Maghreb to the Zionist movement. Not how many road-builders they contributed—there were road-builders they contributed. What did they contribute to Zionist politics? Explain to me what I’m supposed to teach in school in history. Why is it forbidden to say that? It’s forbidden to say that today. No one will say that today. And it’s a simple truth, and we all know it’s true too. We all know it’s true. And the moment it’s forbidden to say something that we all know is true, it can come out in uglier ways. It will come out as racism. It will come out in all sorts of ways. I don’t think it’s for a racist reason. It’s a correct fact. Not because Mizrahim are more stupid; I don’t think they’re less talented. There are cultural reasons, mental reasons, whatever. But I’m saying that’s exactly the point. When I say this, they’ll say I’m racist and they won’t let me say it—they’ll just ridicule me. Because they’ll interview me and then ridicule me. They won’t address these arguments. And that’s where the public discourse of mutual offense and silencing leads. I’m saying: you say what you think, and I’ll argue that you’re talking nonsense. You won’t tell me I’m racist; you’ll tell me your arguments. Why do you think you’re right? Explain to me what they’ll teach my child in school about Zionist activity in Morocco. Explain to me what they did there. I assume there was youth activity, people who immigrated to the Land of Israel, and so on.
[Speaker D] In the Biton Committee, you’ll see they brought all kinds of names we’d never heard of in our lives, and they were there.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, “that I haven’t heard of” is my point. You haven’t heard because you didn’t study them.
[Speaker D] I studied the—
[Speaker B] This unit for matriculation exams, and even I don’t remember exactly all those names.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. Look, is there a matriculation unit on Ashkenazi Jewry? Who teaches about the contribution of Hungarian Jews? Our community is discriminated against. What about our community?
[Speaker B] You had Zionism and you had Hasidism, so they found the broadest common denominator. We learned what they ate, what they wore.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But they were in Ashkenaz. What do you want them to teach about the Hasidism of Morocco? There wasn’t any. It’s so funny. What do they want them to do? Fine, you know, there once was—I see all day on the… there once was—I was in Yeruham, and once a month there they would bring lecturers from Ben-Gurion University, and each time they’d give a lecture on a different topic. One time someone came from the Department of Hebrew Literature at Ben-Gurion. She talked about the discrimination against Mizrahi literature and Mizrahi poets and so on. I asked her, just for me, from the audience, sort of after the lecture: give me a few writers I missed because of my lack of education—Mizrahi writers, Moroccan ones, that I missed. She didn’t give me a single name. Except Burla. Burla is from Iraq. Burla is here in the country. I’m talking about writers there, teaching about the literature from there. I asked her how many books were printed there. She said, “Well, there weren’t printing houses.” I said to her, why weren’t there printing houses? What happened, this technology didn’t reach Morocco? It existed only in Budapest? Because there was no demand. Because it wasn’t important enough. That’s why it didn’t arrive. So what do you want them to teach—the Moroccan literature? There’s no such thing. There’s no such thing. There are folk tales, Baba Sali legends—that’s what there is.
[Speaker C] It may be that there really wasn’t such literature because in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the public in Morocco was disadvantaged. But there really isn’t such literature.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. No, again I’m saying: I’m not claiming they’re more stupid than others. That’s racist. Cultural reasons.
[Speaker C] Yes, there are reasons for it, so—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What, so now I’m supposed to whitewash all the differences because of political correctness? Now many times they’ll complain—here it’s not a danger, it’s not violence—but wait, still you need to say it even though it’s not true in order to encourage them. And you can talk about Yemenite children for that reason too. What?
[Speaker E] If it’s because they’re more stupid than others?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Bring facts; I’m willing for you to say that. Same thing—do a study and show me. If it’s true, it’s true. I have no problem with that at all.
[Speaker E] Are you determining that today based on encounters?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, that’s a biased encounter. I don’t accept that.
[Speaker E] But you’re claiming they’re not less—it’s because of… right, that’s my impression. Okay, that’s your impression.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But someone making a claim that isn’t against something—you understand that the burden of proof is on the one who says there is a difference. Whoever said there is a difference should bring evidence that there is a difference.
[Speaker E] No, we’re looking for a reason why there weren’t, I don’t know, books. Right. So now you’re making some claim about, I don’t know, culture and so on, and I think they’re less intelligent.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, so let’s check.
[Speaker D] Legitimate. Say it. There were Jews—Rabbi Isaac Alfasi and Maimonides were in Sephardic Jewry, and then they were… and afterward…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No—
[Speaker C] I’m saying—
[Speaker D] But afterward too.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] How many Sephardic Jews were there in the world in the last hundred years who engaged in intricate religious analysis? Because it’s not reasoned. You decided that only on the basis of what? On what basis? That you construct otherwise from your encounter, from your impression of the literature in general.
[Speaker E] That impression is very biased.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Which is exactly why it’s a problem to make generalizations based on encounters…
[Speaker E] You make most of your decisions based on—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Based on general impression, and that—
[Speaker E] Doesn’t mean you’re racist, it doesn’t mean that’s the consideration—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s the perspective—
[Speaker E] Of yours, that your common sense tells you.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No problem, but you need to be aware that you may have biases here. And you need to check things, and you need to be careful in applying things. Because when you now make criteria for funding, and for what is taught in school, and all those kinds of things—let’s say I wouldn’t want that done just on the basis of impressions.
[Speaker E] That’s true, that’s true, but in the end when I said I think there weren’t writers and so on because they’re less intelligent… I’m in favor of your saying that.
[Speaker D] No, that makes me racist. To say about an entire ethnic community, on the basis of where they come from, that they’re more stupid—that’s racism. I can tell you that about many groups in the world. I can also publish IQ data—
[Speaker E] Of—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Personally I think that’s unlikely, but fine, if that’s what you think, say it.
[Speaker E] I think that in this case it was a delay in development across an entire continent. On that I agree. So they’re more stupid.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, now—more stupid now doesn’t mean—
[Speaker E] What does “stupid” mean? What does “stupid” mean?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It means they have the intelligence of monkeys. No, I didn’t say—
[Speaker E] And half-monkeys. No, not monkeys.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Somewhere between a monkey and a human being.
[Speaker E] Just like you could say that we’re more stupid than, I don’t know, some other nation that achieved a lot in developing—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, that’s a cultural difference; that I’m willing to talk about. That’s not connected. I’m talking about something built-in, something genetic. I’m not talking culturally.
[Speaker E] Something built-in because the culture for years didn’t… not built-in.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The moment you expose people to something else, you’ll see people in Brazil who don’t know how to count because they have a one-two-many system—we talked about that. Fine, expose them to elementary arithmetic and they learn it very quickly. It’s not a problem that they don’t have intelligence. It’s a problem that the culture there isn’t developed. That’s perfectly fine; that you can say, that’s fine.
[Speaker B] But there’s a claim here that that isn’t true.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, that’s what I think, I don’t know. No, no problem. Bring arguments, that’s perfectly fine. What is based on arguments is fine.
[Speaker E] Is it possible to say in general that if you now have a perception about an entire public, something—it could be true. Meaning, it’s not—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, of course it could be true. It just needs to be backed by data. Otherwise it’s just judgment,
[Speaker E] Prejudices.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine. Okay, we’re…