Theological Interpretations of Reality (Column 543)
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu on the Earthquake in Turkey
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
I get the impression that the satire section of the propaganda pamphlet Olam Katan (“Small World”) has undergone a significant upgrade. A few days ago I was sent a parody written by Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu about theological interpretations of history, which presents those interpretations in the ridiculous and malicious light they deserve. It was so successful that it’s no wonder B’Sheva also saw fit to publish it (“Courtesy of ‘Olam Katan,’” as they put it), thereby saving me the effort of creating a PDF from the photo that was sent to me. Following those righteous folk, I too—small as I am—have decided to pitch in to spread Torah in our generation, and the column before you is courtesy of B’Sheva.
I write these words very briefly, since they are not worth even a single word of attention, and I have elaborated on all these points elsewhere. Meanwhile, the web has filled up with more detailed responses, and we even merited (ridiculous) clarifications from Rabbi Eliyahu himself. But the level of foolishness in these statements, and the dullness of the readership that fails to realize the degree to which they themselves are complicit in such statements, leads me to think I should contribute here. Still, I will suffice with sketching only the big picture, so that those many who are outraged by Rabbi Eliyahu’s nonsense can take stock of where they themselves stand with respect to his basic approach.
A Graph of Dung in All Its Glory
First, so that your eyes may behold straight paths, in words of truth and in this masterpiece, I will transcribe it here in full:
| There is no doubt that anyone who would see the Egyptians drowning in the sea and did not remember the entire event from beginning to end would feel great compassion for them and try to save them from drowning. But the Israelites sang a song because they knew the Egyptians and understood that those drowning wished to kill some of them and continue to enslave the rest as slaves.
They sang because they understood that this was divine justice meant to repay the Egyptians who had drowned the children of the people of Israel in the Nile, so that all the wicked in the world would see and fear. They understood that this was a rectification of the world from the tyranny of the Egyptians, who thought the Hebrews ought to be their slaves forever, to continue working for them with hard labor for hundreds more years. Since that is the whole story, Israel at that moment sang a great song—a song that brought upon them the Holy Spirit and merited them an exalted prophecy. The State of Israel is in the midst of an event that has lasted at least twenty years—an event about which the prophet Ezekiel speaks, saying that after the ingathering of the exiles will come vengeance upon all the nations around us who harmed us and did not stop: “Thus said the Lord GOD: When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they were scattered, etc., and they shall dwell upon their land, etc., and they shall dwell securely when I execute judgments upon all those around them who despise them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God.” (Ezekiel 28:25). God is executing judgment upon all the nations around us who, time and again, sought to invade our land and throw us into the sea. This concerns Syria, which for hundreds of years tormented its Jewish residents with the Damascus blood libels and others; which invaded Israel three times in order to annihilate, kill, and destroy; which for years shelled the farmers living at the foot of the Golan Heights; which abused prisoners; which hanged Eli Cohen, may God avenge his blood. We look at Lebanon, which today pays a very heavy price for all the terrorist cells that infiltrated Israel and murdered women and children. Especially in Safed we remember the cell that came from Lebanon and murdered 22 schoolchildren from Safed who were on a trip in Ma’alot. Lebanon fired thousands of rockets at us during the Second Lebanon War and is now preparing hundreds of thousands more to fire indiscriminately at our wives and children. There is no doubt that the country that was “the Switzerland of the Middle East” has turned into hell on earth, and such things do not happen by chance. We do not know the heavenly calculation with Turkey, which slandered us in every possible arena. But if God reveals to us and tells us that He is going to exact judgments upon all our enemies, we need only look and understand what is happening around us. If God says, “And the LORD your God will put all these curses upon your enemies and upon those who hate you, who pursued you” (Deuteronomy 30:7), we must understand that this is for our benefit. If He said, “Therefore all who devour you shall be devoured; and all your adversaries, all of them, shall go into captivity; and those who plunder you shall be plunder; and all who prey upon you I will make a spoil” (Jeremiah 30:16), we shall know that everything that happens is to cleanse the world and make it better. It is true that it is written that the angels did not sing when the works of God’s hands were drowning in the sea. And the Gemara in Berakhot also says that an earthquake is an expression of God’s tears over the people of Israel who are still in exile. But we are not angels, and to this day we recite the Song of the Sea in every single prayer in synagogues. It is not that we are insensitive to human suffering. Far from it. But if, Heaven forbid, we fail to give thanks to God, who protects us—that is ingratitude. If we think it is coincidence—that is hardness of heart. If we think we are more compassionate than He— that is wickedness and stupidity. The Song of the Sea directs us to know that God is more compassionate than anyone. To understand that the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea is the rescue of the world from evil and the deliverance of the world from tyrannical regimes of exploiters who know no satisfaction, the rescue of the world from the idolatry of those who invented the gates of impurity. Therefore we will say aloud the words from the evening prayer: “The God who exacts recompense for us from our oppressors; who repays all the enemies of our souls; who keeps our soul among the living and has not let our feet slip; who leads us upon the heights of our enemies and exalts our horn above all our haters.” We will give thanks in Nishmat Kol Chai for all the goodness, miracles, and wonders that You have done for us and for our ancestors. We will give thanks in the Sabbath afternoon prayer and say, “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth.” Courtesy of “Olam Katan.” |
First Thoughts
On a first read one might get the impression that this is a serious article—ah, sorry, not a serious article, certainly not that, but an article meant in earnest. But then I caught myself and told myself this cannot be. Even stupidity has its limits, even among rabbis who have been known for this since time immemorial. The very possibility of thinking this is a serious article testifies a thousandfold to the degeneration of that stupid, ancient genre of theological interpretations of history with its insertion of the “hand of God” into it. Such things have been written for millennia by rabbis and thinkers, and many of them mean it quite seriously. It is good that Rabbi Eliyahu decided to jolt us in this way, to highlight the folly, infantilism, and malice of this popular genre.
I will not deny that the thought crossed my mind that it is neither nice nor polite to write a parody about a terrible event still unfolding, in which so many thousands suffer and die—events that set the world on its feet in great sorrow and genuine solidarity with the victims. I thought he could have chosen an event like the election of the new government and coalition—about which it is still permitted and desirable to mock and explain, with cynicism, why the Holy One, blessed be He, did all this to us (hint: as a punishment for choosing them—blessed is He who chose them and their doctrine). But in my estimation Rabbi Eliyahu simply thinks the coalition really was made for us by God, and perhaps he does not even understand that these events are a terrible punishment that has brought upon us a union of Israel’s tormentors (Bibi, the Haredim, Smotrich, and the rest). My conclusion was that Rabbi Eliyahu, known for his integrity and courage, decided to wean us from these childish and foolish notions with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and therefore chose precisely this terrible event. I recalled that more than once he has bravely (and here I am speaking seriously) taken a stand against sexual harassment and has made no allowances for rabbis and other important figures, and therefore decided here, too, to mount his Rosinante and ride out to battle. Credit to him for his courage.
Wait—another thought passes through me: is it possible that he actually means this seriously?… It cannot be. Even infantilism has a limit. True, we have grown accustomed to the fact that the village idiot was appointed city rabbi—pardon me, the municipal functionary on behalf of the Chief Rabbinate for Ishmael. We have also become accustomed to many people asking his opinion (or lack thereof) on various matters. But newspaper editors are not rabbis. From them I would indeed expect a bit of critical sense and straight thinking. Well, I would have expected it. Then I remembered that the genre is not new. It has always struck me as an infantile parody, but we cannot deny its prevalence in our milieu—even among types more serious than the aforesaid nincompoop. For hundreds of years religious thought has suffered from the musings of retarded children, with the logic of arguments worthy of broken wooden clogs, and no one opens their mouth to chirp a protest. Fools have ruled over us, and there is no deliverance from their hands. Great rabbis and halakhic authorities—Jews well-versed in Torah and casuistry—when they open their mouths to think, to contemplate reality—one’s ears should tingle. Could it be that all the greats of the generations were, in fact, such “Rabbi Eliyahus”? All those Jews on whose words we live—were they such dunces? I must admit that thoughts bordering on heresy passed through me as I read, but I shall bite my tongue here.
I will conclude the preface with Rabbi Avraham Stav’s response (he was among the first to respond), in his wonderfully gentle post (see also here). He is more polite than I am. But I must add a recommendation regarding the article’s headline. It deserves the understatement medal of the year:
Rabbi Avraham Stav’s response to Rabbi Eliyahu’s explanation: “He felt discomfort.”
So allow me nonetheless to express my discomfort at the outpouring of stupidity written in the piece above. Perhaps the fellow is not with us. Or perhaps, once again, it was a revelation of “Mama Ruchel”, who toiled and responded to Rabbi Eliyahu’s repeated appeals and this time appeared to him while awake to save us. Or maybe it was indeed in a dream, and Rabbi Eliyahu simply forgot to wake up before passing it on to us verbatim, so graciously? Time will tell. When the Tishbite arrives to save us, I won’t forget to clarify it with him—and if I forget, I will, God willing, bring a fat sin-offering. In short, I am nevertheless addressing this intellectual garbage in order to register my protest against the aforesaid idiot, and mainly because this stupidity is so prevalent in our milieu and, sadly, even exemplifies a very typical mode of thought in religious philosophy through the generations. My words are written so that you may see where this infantilized approach—whose basic premises, if you are honest, many of you share—can lead. As noted, there are conclusions here on which each of us must reflect. It is not enough to be outraged at the statements, for they are rooted in a mode of thinking. What matters more is to examine that mode of thinking, and that only a few do.
So what do we have here? A concise list of fallacies.
His starting point is a foolish comparison to what happened in Egypt and at the sea. There, however, we had prophecy telling us it came from God, whereas here it is only Rabbi Eliyahu’s fevered imagination. There, it was soldiers who drowned in the sea as they pursued us to destroy us; here, men, women, and children die—many of whom have nothing against us. The plagues in Egypt that struck the Egyptians themselves did not elicit praise and jubilation, even though there Israel was under a direct threat from which they were saved by the plagues. I have written more than once about the notion of a “pursuing collective,” and I have explained that based on understanding that we are at war against a collective, there is permission to harm innocents if necessary to save ourselves. But from there to rejoicing and giving thanks for the fact that innocents died—the distance is vast. Exulting that infants perish by suffocation and under collapsed homes; that thousands of families are in mourning, freezing from cold and lacking food—this attests to a callousness bordering on stupidity (on the underside of that border).
Beyond that, there is the theological fallacy. Rabbi Eliyahu assumes that God is doing this, and therefore says that we must not be more compassionate than He is. One must understand that he is suggesting that we ourselves ought to do the same. For example, drop an atomic bomb on Turkey, or poison their wells. One must understand that this is the direct conclusion of what he writes. There is no way around it. But I must tell you that in this he is entirely correct: if indeed all this is the handiwork of God, then this is true compassion and this is apparently the proper way to act. Let all those who share this view of divine involvement in the world take note. Of course, one can respond that we do not understand, and I will address the diagnostics below. In any case, according to Rabbi Eliyahu’s approach, we too should do similar things. Whoever recoils from his words—and I assume there are many—must re-examine whether he agrees that these are the acts of God. Here too there will be many. I leave you to reconcile that contradiction.
As noted, there is also a diagnostic fallacy, namely, the assumption that we have tools to assess God’s motivations and why such things occur—who receives which recompense and for what. A few remarks: first, we certainly have no such diagnostic capacity, and many would surely agree. But if so, what is the point in trying to understand and learn from what happens? In the second volume of my trilogy I pointed out that if God is trying to teach us something through what He orchestrates in this world, He is decidedly failing at it. The disgraceful pedagogical failure of an omnipotent teacher tells us that He is probably not trying to teach us anything at all. In my view, not only is there no pedagogical attempt here—He is not involved at all. He is not causing any of this; hence the question does not arise to begin with.
Regarding diagnostics I will add the logical-scientific problem. If he were right, I would expect the world’s all-powerful manager to exhibit at least minimal consistency. What about the tsunami in Japan? And the earthquakes and cyclones in the United States? Are those also punishments because they are against us? And what of all our enemies who do not receive such punishments upon their heads? How about a small earthquake in Egypt, in Iraq, or in Jordan—so that we can see a few infants buried alive there as well, and have a wonderful reason to rejoice and give thanks to God.
Part of the diagnostics involves a logical fallacy. Rabbi Eliyahu and his fellow-travelers take a single event from among countless similar events—where no pattern whatsoever is visible—and derive conclusions from that one event. It is like saying that Highway 417 is prone to disaster because there was an accident there yesterday, without relating to the fact that on that same road there are far fewer accidents than on other roads. This is precisely the level of inference of the adherents of that foolish approach exemplified above. Note: I am not merely arguing that these statements are unscientific because they do not meet tests of falsification—there are, after all, domains not accessible to the scientific method. Unscientific statements can still be reasonable. My claim is that these are nonsense and stupidity because there is no indication whatsoever of their truth. Pure hallucinations.
In the same vein there is the ethical fallacy. To malign God and claim that He slaughters infants and buries them alive through no fault of their own merely because there are some adults in their country who trouble us—that is outright slander of God. Not to mention the obligation to rejoice and thank Him for it, for which it is hard to find adequate words. But those who do not accept this must draw broader conclusions—not merely be outraged at foolish things that fell from the lips of a “high priest.”
Next comes the hermeneutical fallacy. To take passages from the Bible spoken by prophets who had information about what was happening behind the scenes and a diagnostic capacity to interpret reality theologically, and to apply that as-is to a completely different reality merely because you read it in the Bible—this is childish infantilism. To adopt a talmudic or later rabbinic approach despite its utter lack of logic, because of “faith in the sages,” even as you yourself sense that it makes no sense at all—that is childish thinking (or non-thinking).
And, of course, there remains the tactless fallacy. The whole world is in mourning, and the idiot exults publicly. This was all we needed in these days so that the whole world could identify Judaism with malicious and corrupt stupidity. It is not enough what his agents do in the Knesset; the sender himself must show us that “it is presumed that an agent performs his mission” to perfection. The gang of desecrators of God’s name that has taken over the government and does whatever it pleases serves as the faithful agents of their rabbis, who ensure full backing—lest the desecration of God’s name be incomplete. And the Name is not fully desecrated until it is desecrated to the very end.
Conclusions
I must say that this article again arouses in me gloomy thoughts. Jewish thinking about reality and about God’s governance—especially in recent centuries—is generally childish and rather foolish. It turns out that great scholars and decisors, who display impressive intellectual acuity in talmudic and halakhic analysis, can speak sheer nonsense when it comes to understanding reality and how to conduct oneself within it. We have abundant examples in our time, but this raises in me a serious suspicion that so it was in the past as well. Many of those thinkers—from the Sages onward—whom many of us labor to study, may also, in fact, have been such “Rabbi Eliyahus.” A few generations from now students will surely come and study Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu’s essays in depth, and will find in this very article, through letter-skips, wondrous ideas. It is merely a matter of investing sufficient energy in interpretive effort to discover those pearls.
This brings us to drawing conclusions about the Bible and Aggadah, and to the lack of value and significance in studying those fields. That is a direct consequence of the hermeneutical fallacy. If this is the level of conclusions rabbis derive from Aggadah and Scripture, then in my view it becomes much harder to dispute my radical positions in these areas.
We have seen an impressive list of fallacies in this short article: theological, ethical, diagnostic, logical, hermeneutical—topped off with a shocking lack of tact that leads to an awful desecration of God’s name. But we must understand that Rabbi Eliyahu was courageous enough to take these foolish notions to their conclusion and present the implications. Others who share them do not dare to draw those conclusions. Even those who disagree with these statements must hold themselves to account regarding the entire theological picture. And finally, one must rethink the rabbinic figures whom people consult, read, and follow together with their teachings. If such an idiot can serve as a city rabbi and be an influential figure for a broad public, this is the bankruptcy of the rabbinate as an institution altogether.
Conclusion:
The day is not far when we can create articles for "Small World" using ChatGPT.
First of all, your writing is interesting and thought-provoking.
Although Rabbi Eliyahu is probably a scholar, and therefore he should be treated with respect even if he was wrong in your opinion
I wrote about this:
A. Turkey is not a declared enemy state and is bordering on Israel
B. In Judaism there is also: The work of my hands drowning in the sea and you say poetry and also the beloved of man who was created in the image of Israel, even though Israel is the children of the land and also in the fall of your enemy do not rejoice
So caution is needed on this subject and if an important rabbi writes to say the soul of every living thing and to give thanks and rejoice in that, it is problematic
C. It is not certain that it is possible to know the accounts of heaven despite the sages who say that disasters occur due to these sins, which is considered a thought for repentance
Attaching two comments written by Rabbi Avraham Stav as a clarification to the post in question:
“For those wondering about the understatement in the opening, consider this rule: When there is a text or a person that I have harsh criticism of, I do not hesitate to write it in its full severity. But when I have really, really harsh criticism, one that could really drive me crazy, I use an understatement.”
Question from another surfer: “Avraham Stav, if you had written this clarification as an opening to an opening, it would have been possible to believe it.
With the forgiveness of his Torah, perhaps he is afraid to openly confront such a popular figure in the sector?”
Answer from Rabbi Stav: ” That is a possibility that I am considering. But it is more likely that it caught me at the beginning of the workday and I do not have the time to write a proper and thorough response article as I should have done, so I do not want to surf.”
So it seems to me that it would be appropriate to delete the section you wrote about it.
By the way, it is interesting to note that the writer of the satirical column in Small World actually changed this week. So apparently this column is also part of divine providence.
But also the Rabbi's approach made me think that on Shabbat, when I heard the commandment, "You shall not covet," I thought that according to the Rabbi's thought, it would be possible to go beyond the prohibition of "You shall not covet," and then, with "You shall not steal and you shall not murder," you are probably rubbing your eyes. What is the connection? Well, "You shall not covet," have the commentators failed to understand how it is possible for a person to be commanded about the feelings of the heart? He covets because his heart is His beloved. What do you want him to say out loud, "I shall not covet," when he knows in his heart that the Creator is the Creator? God created him, and according to the opening data, he is very greedy, until Ibn Ezra came and did psychoanalogical therapy, that since we know that everything is managed to the end by God, then everything that has come to him, this is what God gave him, with deliberate intention and what is not, there is no possibility in the world, that it will be his, and many paths to the place, therefore there is no point in this greed, because it is not a desire that can take shape, but a delusion in the dark, but according to the thought of the rabbi who left the land of Hadra Kushiya to Dukhta, we are left to answer how this is related to not stealing, etc. because there are commentators who say that you shall not covet is a restriction and a boundary for not stealing and not murdering, because if a person violates you shall not covet, it is a slippery slope to arrive at not stealing and not murdering.
According to Maimonides (Theft and Loss, 10), if one is greedy and does not intend to commit a ruse, he does not commit a crime.
Column format:
The above article is idiocy like no other.
Reasons: There are no good reasons, just a mixture of rage and terrible feelings to read someone who doesn't think like me.
Very mature.
I assume you won't be too offended if this Delphic response constitutes a minor protest, compared to the one you wrote against the above article.
And regarding the reasons. Of course, here again is your consistent method, in your books and columns, of ignoring the book, on which, incidentally, you base complicated (and sometimes meaningless) halachic values, which tells long stories about analyzing realities of destruction, ruin, prosperity and flourishing, and frequently analyzes them as the result of providence and the hand of God.
It is difficult for you to accept the concepts of providence, intervention, in contrast, by the way, to the laws of grace and sanctification of the half, which you research with enthusiasm and constantly. I understand that you have a hard time with the stories in general. I also have a hard time, by the way, I am invited to a workshop on the subject.
Therefore, you distort, as usual, the meaning of the prophecies of God that deal with the connection between actions and natural and general occurrences. From your point of view, when God spoke about breaking vows, He spoke with the utmost seriousness, but in the parshah “And it was, if I heard,” He spoke a little less seriously. That was once. Later it will change. Something. Like that.
So some man in Safed sits down and writes down the analyses that come to his feverish mind, after reading many pages of history (according to him), and reading many chapters of the books of the prophets (unlike you), and overall making the transition from analytical to synthetic. I heard something about this once, I hope I don't knock over a few pillars of philosophical teaching along the way. He connects dots, and draws conclusions. Every third Jew (including you) draws conclusions from happenings and events, only he connects to it knowledge and information that you choose to ignore regularly.
Leave him alone.
On this, Kabkina. Those who deal with biblical interpretation come to these stupid conclusions. So leave it to me and us.
After all of Jeremiah's words about the destruction that is expected due to sins, Jeremiah says to Zedekiah:
If you go out to the king of Babylon's officials, your life will be spared, and this city will not be burned with fire; you and your household will live. 18 But if you do not go out to the king of Babylon's officials, this city will be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they will burn it with fire; and you will not escape from their hand. {s}
As the saying goes, – Jeremiah's wise political behavior would have saved him and the city – despite all the
prophecies of destruction.
The sages say that the First Temple was destroyed because of fornication, bloodshed, and idolatry.
But from Jeremiah's words it emerges that it could have been spared.
Rabbi Eliyahu also contradicts himself.
He begins with ”We do not know how to explain the heavenly accounts” And ends with knowing the Supreme Being.
Hello Rabbi Michi.
I would like to make a final point:
. I think the shock is not yours. What is said in the words of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu. Comes from a problematic place in a final way.
I will explain what I mean. You wrote in a column that in your opinion describes a way of thinking that was also common among both Chazal and Orthodox Jews in general in the general history of the last few centuries.
Even if we ignore for a moment the presumptuousness of knowing why a specific event happens from the end and attributing a mythological significance to a specific event from the end. The general statements of "No calamity comes to the world except for Israel" and "The whole world was not created except for Israel and for the Torah," which were called the beginning, are two clear statements of Chazal, through which the path to reaching conclusions of this kind is very short. After all, there is no event of significance or at all in the world that takes place except for Israel, who will benefit from it. Whether it is in a revealed way or in a hidden way - and as you said again, this is a trend of theological thinking that has existed in all kinds of fields among rabbis in general for the last 200 years. The shock from the words of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu came from many liberal or more tolerant circles, if we can call them that, that the joy of condemning or attributing collective or merciless punishment to God Almighty is shocking in their eyes. Here we are in intellectual dishonesty on this side. .who brings quotes about His mercy for all His actions and the beloved of man who was created in His image and will not lift a sword against a nation, and so on, and ignores many other sources.who call for vengeance on the nations and expect the Holy One to do such things.Famous commentators such as the Light of Life, who expresses himself in a classical way that in principle every nation of the world is a shell that hides within it sparks in the form of righteous men...and the moment its sparks are drawn from the shell, the Holy One condemns that nation to...death and destruction.Where does the Light of Life derive this bold idea from?The exegesis of Ruth the Moabite, after which every Moabite was destroyed (and Rashi, for example, writes in a similar style).Many, such as the author of the Tanya, for example, saw the French Revolution precisely when emancipation arrived as an act of Satan whose purpose was to corrupt the Jews.Our Rabbi Yonah believed that the burning of the Talmud was Punishment for calling for the burning of the confused teacher. Theological explanations for the Holocaust are often very embarrassing and leave the reader speechless - but my point is that in principle there are many more quotes in favor of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu from our tradition, those that do refer to God clearly as a figure who desired collective punishments of this kind, whether it is about punishments against the people of Israel who will repent, whether it is about collective punishments against nations that look down on the people of Israel, it is worth sanctifying his name and showing that there is providence and justice in the world, or whether it is just disasters, it is worth moving things in history here and there in the ideal direction for which the world was created.
So it seems that what bothers the screamers mainly is not the infinite concept of providence or the prophecies of wrath. After all, which camp in our country today does not have prophecies of wrath? And that Asa Kasher did not write a ridiculous lament about the loss of humanity in the Jewish people and how he predicts that after the elections everything will end? And that in the very left camp, some of which even define themselves as completely secular or atheist, there are no prophecies of wrath with ease and religious enthusiasm that the country will surely go to hell and be destroyed in a moment by political isolation. Anarchy of government. And a bloody massacre that will come through a civil war as a kind of karma for the wrong choices that the public decided to make? And that on the more liberal and tolerant side of religious Zionism there are no parallel prophecies of wrath? We do not have Benny Lau who warns above all that the unfair treatment of the stranger living among us will result in punishments, expulsion From the land and the like, as can be learned from the Gibeonites' deed, which he usually brings up as a parable?
But it is not infantility or immaturity that bothers people, but the value that emerges from the words of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu: The essence of creation is the people of Israel. The rest of humanity has turned its back on this people. Therefore, when ideological countries that interfere with it in its great mission - abduct a disaster, one must rejoice because it is an unparalleled evil on their part. Innocent? Is this a bit of a coincidence, because how many Syrians or Turks have been killed and wounded compared to the enormous and huge value of sanctifying God in the eyes of the children of Israel?
Therefore, in my opinion, there is nothing else to do but take this discussion and any discussion of its kind and return to the fundamental disputes at the root of things: Do the people who come out against Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu... also accept the Halacha and Torah as binding? But add to this the fact of modernity, some of whose values they accept, and therefore they deny the necessary attribution of the killing of many people, among whom are also babies who were captured and innocent to God, and certainly deny joy to God. Do they deny the exclusive importance of the Israeli nation and see value also in other cultures and peoples, and even more so in other people who are not Bani Brith? And do they, after they have accepted a modern religious worldview of this kind, feel disappointed that not everyone who observes the Torah and mitzvot accepts it? And do they expect and, most importantly, believe that even great rabbis like Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu are capable of adopting such a religious perception? And do they aspire to reasoned dialogue? Or is there only a recurring pattern here of shock but without No desire to change or do anything. After all, being the beautiful and smart boy of the class who, unlike the other children, does not engage in stupid and violent beatings and shouts: I have nothing to do with them, I have nothing to do with them!! I am a few levels above. It is no less pathetic than attributing to God the harm done to the Turks, in my opinion.
(And my words are not directed against you, God forbid, because I do not see in your column an outcry of this kind, but it is clear to me from your words that intellectual dishonesty bothers you more). But to those commenters. (I am posting this here because I assume that there are some of them who will also read the column and perhaps reach my response, and it is also worth giving you food for thought as to why statements like his happen at all - in my opinion, this is also a lot of a counter-reaction to the trends I described above)
I did not provide any sources, so please direct your comments to those who did. If I find such statements in Chazal or Rishonim, I will oppose them to the same extent (and I also commented on this here that this is accepted Torah thinking from before Dana). I explained that here it is more serious, since we live in a different era and I would expect that we would improve.
As for seeing everything around the Jewish people, there is clearly more to it here, and I certainly oppose that too. This is the usual and accepted chauvinism, but I did not think to comment on it here because it is just a joke but not stupid and evil like the rest of his words, and also because it is not the main point here.
Bottom line, I did not understand what your criticism of my words is.
In general, this is not a criticism.
But a statement that the anger of most people around his words, in my opinion, stems from a value dispute, or even a long-standing interpretive dispute, and that in my opinion his words are deliberately directed in this way against more tolerant trends, among other things.
Regarding the rest of the things - yes, you are right that there is no necessary connection. I was just commenting that if a person thinks that everything revolves around the people of Israel and the rest of the world is a setting, if you take it literally, coming to the conclusion that many Syrians or Turks are killed so that a Jew can enjoy the sanctification of God, it is completely logical (although not necessarily required).
This is not a criticism, but rather an exploitation of the stage and the column to bring this angle. It is worth reminding readers on both sides of the fence to check their sources and basic assumptions.
When they put small children inside the building, it was hard for Moses' eyes to see such a thing. God told him to pull out one of them. He pulled out and Micah came out of it. He would have been better off without him if he had died righteously. It's the same with all these children who died. Perhaps these are the terrorists of the next generation, but we don't know what, so we save, but towards God it's clear that we can't know the reason.
Genius. That's why we must thank and praise God for killing all these little terrorists. And even when a Jewish child is injured, we must thank and praise God because maybe a terrorist will come out of him who will murder his fellow Jews (otherwise why did he die?!). How did I not think of that?!
You did not think of this. Our sages, blessed be their memory, thought of this.
"May one be obliged to bless for evil just as one blesses for good, but just as one blesses for good, the good and the benevolent, so one blesses for evil, the good and the benevolent, and upon good tidings, the good says, and upon bad tidings, the good says, and upon bad tidings, the good says, Blessed is the judge of the truth, said Rava. We are not required except to accept it with joy."
Berachot 60:
Don't you see the difference between accepting the law and admitting and rejoicing over what happened? Are you serious? It's hard for people to understand what bias does to people.
Regardless of matters of supervision and interpretation of the rabbis' teachings, what can we do that the Turks are our enemies (who isn't? Maybe the Republicans in the US aren't) and there's certainly nothing to be sad about them. The "mourning" of the rest of the world over them is a bluff stemming from a lack of self-awareness. In truth, no one in the world cares about anyone else (except for a few special individuals. Rabbi Kook, etc.). In relation to the other peoples, the vast majority of them as individuals, and all of them as collectives, hate us, and in this respect, not a milligram has changed from the past. They will look for any excuse to hate Jews, and even if they don't find one, they will end up taking out their hatred on us for no reason (we have to learn something from history, right?). All that holds them together today, in contrast to the past, is a matter of their own image of civilization (in the West). That is, aesthetics. And not true morality. In their interiority they are the same animals as before. And this civility is like the training of the cat to be a waiter (of the cat that was trained to be a waiter and the moment it saw a mouse forgot about it, threw the tray and chased the cat). And I say this from knowledge that stems from observing the (sub)human species and not from an interpretation of Chazal.
In fact, this internal subhumanity is also associated with the vast majority of the Jewish people (as individuals) but those who still choose the Jewish people (and do not believe in ”equality”) at least choose to belong to a collective that is internally human.
Likewise, there is no such thing as an innocent individual who belongs to a collective that is not innocent (and therefore is fought against as a collective). By choosing to live among this collective, he has already chosen evil (even if he is not aware of it. Which is even worse than consciously choosing evil. It is like being an animal, which is, as stated, the absolute state of the vast majority of the (sub)human species. There is a kind of paradox here because he chooses (?) without being aware not to choose (i.e., being an animal in that he chooses to stay in the company of animals). In fact, most of the choice between good and evil for most people is the choice of which company to hang out with because the vast majority of people draw their thoughts (?) from the environment in which they hang out. In fact, in such a bad company, children do not really have a free choice to grow up and become different people from those around them (“little terrorists”. Like the 13-year-old terrorist from two weeks ago) What's more, children are crueler and more evil than adults (and internally, this is not as I said. With adults, it is only externally, unless you are Rabbi Kook and the like’ or at least aware of this whole reality Then there is a chance that you will be like Rabbi Kook one day) so that really all the pity for them is an animal instinct (the she-wolf also raised Remus and Romulus) and does not necessarily indicate any moral truth. He who is weak is not more moral
And with all due respect, it does not seem to me that Rabbi Michai is more moral than Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu.. You feel much more angry and resentful and bitter than him. There is a better chance that he will pick me up in a hitchhike in the middle of nowhere than you…. Like most of the harsh, bitter and evil leftists who have morality and truth beyond them and are simply haters of the ultra-Orthodox and religious right (or who do not even recognize their existence) and are ”moral” only towards the enemies of the Jewish people. I believe that many of the readers of this site will agree with my words…
Why does the fact that a certain rabbi studies the Bible with many errors mean that we cannot draw conclusions from it?
Why does the fact that a certain rabbi applies the concept of providence in a distorted way mean that there is no providence? (We don't have to say that everything is providence, we can believe that God is working in reality when He warns about it in prophecy before. Redemption, the Land of Israel, etc.)
Where did you see in my words that the example proves anything? It demonstrates and does not prove. I have published my claims that try to ‘prove’ all the theses you hinted at here in detail in the second book of the trilogy and also here on the site in other places. This stupid example was brought up only to demonstrate where things can go and to show people that there are conclusions here that are necessary from their own position (reduction ad absurdum).
Response to Micki's nonsense:
“Theological Fallacy” – It is not necessary to conclude that Rabbi Eliyahu thinks we should destroy the Turks. His is nonsense. Just your hollow statement without any support.
The ”Diagnostic Fallacy” – Who determined that we do not have a certain diagnostic ability? The second book in the trilogy?
We read the Bible, and it is legitimate for everyone to conclude what they want. The fact that there are different interpretations does not mean that no one is right.
It is complete nonsense to claim that because everyone concludes something different from the Bible, then it is impossible to learn anything from the Bible
Of course, God is consistent, and we can also see that the countries that are our enemies (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc.) are suffering greatly.
In contrast, countries like the US and Japan are actually very successful and productive countries, even though they occasionally have natural disasters (which are also part of the problem).
It is legitimate to claim that what Turkey went through is because of what they did to us (there is no need for that), and the natural disasters that Japan or the US are going through are also due to calculations that we do not understand.
Of course, this also provides a response to the ”logical fallacy” – As I mentioned above, we see that all of our ancestors are backward.
What to do, Mikhi, the truth is with Rabbi Eliyahu Shalita and not with you.
“The ethical fallacy” – It is amazing to see Mikhi write this.
Note, Mikhi claims that God created the world, and He can also save babies who were buried alive under the rubble. But he doesn't do it, because he doesn't watch.
So Rabbi Eliyahu Shlita actually claims that all of the ’ actions are providential and that babies buried alive in Turkey may be the souls of wicked people from the Sea of Marmara.
That's probably better than Michi's approach, which claims that God created the world and that there is suffering in it without purpose.
So who is the ethical failure here, right Michi?
The “interpretative failure” – again, like the diagnostic failure.
Rabbi Eliyahu emphasizes that we have no knowledge of the divine accounts, but his interpretation is completely legitimate.
There is nothing negative about it.
The “tactful failure” - Rabbi Eliyahu did not wince. He gives credit to the’.
There may be a feeling of discomfort in reading Rabbi Eliyahu's words. But the words are completely legitimate.
I wish I could reach Rabbi Eliyahu's ankles in terms of morality.
Well, friend, was it that hard to answer that for you?
Absolutely not (= the friends). Easy. It's good that Rabbi Eliyahu has brilliant students who beat the heretics like me to the punch. The student is superior to his teacher.
This collection of nonsense really doesn't deserve a response, but what can I do, I'm a very polite person. So in short, what can I say.
1. If God is our moral model, and if this is what He does, then this is the most appropriate moral path. And hence we are supposed to do it too. Proverbs.
2. Indeed, the second book in the trilogy. It didn't state but showed. Long live the small difference. In the trilogy I also explained why the comparison to the law is incorrect.
3. Of course it is consistent. All our enemies kidnap and everyone who kidnaps is our enemy. Proverbs.
4. The explanation I offer for these disasters is that they are not the work of God, and therefore your argument is not against them, and we certainly should not act that way. Go ahead and do the trilogy.
5. We have no knowledge of the heavenly accounts, but we have a firm position on what exactly is happening there. Indeed, an oxymoron is very common. Every idiot who offers heavenly accounts presupposes that we have no knowledge of the heavenly accounts (it's about the same as "If it weren't for Demisphina") and then pours the blame on us. But it's good that Rabbi Eliyahu Shalit, the symbol of morality and logical interpretation, has students like him who will buy into this nonsense. Not in vain, my brother Hatzbet.
6. You write "there may be a feeling of discomfort." I understand that you are trying to dethrone Rabbi Avraham Stav from the crown of the understatement of the year. Well, then you succeeded.
7. Indeed, I wish you could reach the ankles of Rabbi Eliyahu from an ethical, tactical, logical, interpretive, scholarly, and other standpoint. From the flow of your words here, it is clear that you are far below that, although until recently I had a hard time believing that such places even existed. At least in terms of the ability to spout nonsense unbecoming of a child of etiquette and to do so with complete unawareness and the determination of a Nobel Prize winner, you have truly reached lofty peaks in this field. Congratulations.
Good luck (it seems you have a lot of work).
I will answer to the point.
1. Not true. We have no right to attack Turkey. G-d knows down to the last detail which soul is where, and celestial calculations are precise,
and therefore He knows for sure which babies should be buried alive. We have no knowledge of the grammar of celestial calculations.
2. In the trilogy you showed things at a very low level. This book is a joke, and it is not in vain that it failed.
3. Fact. Everyone who messed with the people of Israel is no longer in the world. On the other hand, the people of Israel are alive and kicking. What do you have to say about that?
4. Here you are simply lying for two reasons:
a. He is responsible for the laws of nature (earthquakes) so it is probably his responsibility.
b. There is a recording of you in which you say that G-d is very interested in what is happening in the world. Z”A, according to your (evil and full of injustice and stupidity) system, God does not manage reality by actively intervening, but He does take an interest and watches. He hears the cries of babies trapped under tons of bricks, and does nothing.
So according to Rabbi Eliyahu, God is righteous - he is not wronged. And according to your system, God is cruel (oh, that's not actually God).
You have nothing to answer for this argument at all.
5. Simple observation can solve the enormous "problem" that you present -
We have very general knowledge - all enemies of Israel are fleeing the world (and those who did not harm the people of Israel are the ones who survive - the Chinese, for example).
We have no precise knowledge of which baby is the soul of an evil person who tortured Jews in a previous incarnation, and who deserves to be buried alive.
Complicated, Miki?
7. Somehow it turned out that you are a doctor of physics, and I, a truly ordinary person with only a high school education, really feel much smarter than you.
Well, that's really not worth responding to. This is not a question of education, but of common sense. So don't make life easy for yourself. Common sense is not dependent on education, but I understand that the concept is foreign to you. Good luck.
Section 7. of Mizzou is the most successful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
that I have ever seen
“..somehow it turns out that you are a PhD in physics, and I, a truly ordinary person with only a high school education, really feel much smarter than you…”
Hello Rabbi, as long as Rabbi Eliyahu is the target, it is a terrible waste of ammunition. First, his extremist opinion is well-known in many ways and there is nothing new in this, although it is true that from time to time he prevails over a friend and there are surprises. Second, the content, or rather the crossfire, was directed at the symptom more than the cause of the disease. The Rabbi did insist that there is and that the view of our sages throughout the generations was deficient in understanding the reasons for what is happening and that in each and every case they knew how to accurately point to cause and effect. And that is precisely why I think that Rabbi Eliyahu is not guilty and that he is not really an exception in the Jewish-Torah landscape (except for the cruel version, which smells somewhat like a blunder at the crossroads, but many and good people from him gave reasons for the Holocaust case, etc.). Rabbi Eliyahu sits among his people and there is nothing new under the sun. After all, we have always been like this. And for that matter, it is not possible to point to anything at all that "anyone" has thought or thinks differently. There is not a single sage (almost, and with the exception of Bialik in "The City of Murder") in the world who would say that bad or good things that happen to the world are only the hand of nature or man's choice. Rabbi Eliyahu is a logical/necessary result of many years of Jewish interpretation, he is another link in the golden chain that wraps around everything that falls under the heading of "reality". Starting with the Holy Torah itself, which claims that everything has a reason: "If you walk in my laws, and if you abhor them, etc., I have set my bow in the clouds, etc. Even the prophets among the people who promise famine and drought, wealth and satiety in accordance with the people's proper behavior with their God. The sages are burdened to the point of exhaustion with cause and effect: a fever is caused by children dying in sin, the first and last of whom are filled with grief over the bitter reality (for example, the death of his children because he lived above a synagogue) and often adorn their words with wonderful, "tried and tested" virtues. Even the realist of the House of Israel Maimonides often states that whoever attributes disasters to chance and does not correct his actions borders on cruelty. And I still haven't mentioned Rabbi Kook and his teachings, which time and again shattered on the rock of reality and forced him to pick up the pieces and recalculate his course (his opinion on the cause of World War I, etc.). And he still didn't say no, but continued to cast a reason for everything he saw fit. Even the last of the last, Rabbi Edelstein, spiced up his lesson with a bit of piquantness this week and claimed that everything that happened in the earthquake was to awaken us to repentance. "Us," he explained, are the Haredim, for their sake only! Because they believe "that everything is from Him, blessed be He." The impression we get is that these are also people of character and brains that are too big for everyone, who have overcome and conquered their instincts frequently. They never let reality take its course, and as usual, they were tempted time and again to draw conclusions about reality and attach causes and triggers to it as if they were hanging by a thread. Even though in a moment, like a flash, their sleep would be claimed in the depths and they would already be singing a new song. So what was the rabbi's anger at rabbi Eliyahu about? From the giving of the Torah to what a veteran student will do on top of Givat Ponivez (except for matters of halakhic law) is included in this view of cause and effect. This is the classical Jewish tradition for generations that holds this despite the fact that reality repeatedly calls for asking about its well-being. It is true that there are those who take circumstances to frightening levels, but permission was given to demand and receive a reward. So one says such nonsense and another says such nonsense. In the end, it is difficult to ignore the fact that Judaism as a religion always reacts to what is happening from its perspective and is required (who even asked) to provide convincing explanations for everything. In conclusion – what did Rabbi Eliyahu innovate here?
I have no idea what you're talking about. People believe that there are no coincidences and try to understand why bad events happen. Not necessarily as a punishment, but as a stimulus for correction and repentance. You claim that reality is coincidental? I'll vouch for you. That's not their belief, so they'll look for an explanation, and either it's good or it's not. Saying that reality shatters in the face of someone who is looking for meaning is like saying that reality shatters in the face of science every time they find some disproof of a theory that's good when it is. After all, it's really impossible to prove a scientific theory, no matter how successful it may be. It can be confirmed or refuted. According to your method, there's no reason to believe in science at all. Who said that every physical phenomenon has a reason or explanation? Maybe it's all arbitrary and coincidental? A bad theory about why bad things happen to people who don't seem bad doesn't in the slightest increase or decrease the existence of providence. Then try better and more accurate explanations (with predictions) for the way in which the providence of good and evil is conducted. On a historical level, we see that after a while (in the long term) the wicked collapse. The problem at the level of explanations is only with the intermediate times.
Your symmetry is truly enviable
Does His Eminence go to the doctor and take medicine or, if he feels like it, does he engage in Torah study?
If not, there is probably a reason despite our provocative and unfounded science.
Everyone seeks to explain the cause of coincidences and finds exactly what they knew and thought before
Well, who really asked you for this? May they defeat you.
Reading comprehension.
I do believe in science (I have an academic education in physics) and I also believe in God's providence. But what can I do, the matter of God's providence is a hundred thousand times more complicated. Just as biology is complicated (at the level of behavior and prediction of biological systems) many times more complicated than physics. By the way, I usually take medication only as a last resort. I usually ask myself what caused the disease (I want to treat the root) and I'm not going to treat the symptoms straight away. I didn't claim that the theories are good (the ones advertised on every website are not at all. All the wisdom is the precision in providing for the details, and that is usually lacking. Therefore, they are not even wrong, but simply not good), although I would not dare to ignore, for example, the connection between the Holocaust and the resurrection of the Jewish people in the Land. Without even giving any theory, it is clear that there is a causal or purposeful connection to the Holocaust in this matter (i.e. that the resurrection of the land was the purpose of the Holocaust). Or for example, Arik Sharon's coma immediately after the expulsion from Gush Katif. Even without making any claim, I have a strong feeling that this is not a coincidence). But there is indeed a science dedicated to matters of providence, and that is the doctrine of Kabbalah. I do not understand it too much and therefore I have no ability to examine any such theories.
You are like someone who rejects science in light of reading the ancient Greek theories (Thales, Heraclitus, Aristotle, Plato, etc.) about reality that preceded modern science and that formed a platform (pre-science) for it.
He didn't innovate anything. As I wrote in the column, this is an example that aims to make an ad absurdum argument about the accepted view. But other people, who are more sane, don't say what he says and find elaborate excuses for why not to say them. They understand that these conclusions are delusional and have no basis or logic. They just don't dare to draw the necessary conclusions about their entire view. But he goes with it to the end, with the courage and honesty of an idiot who ignores the obvious.
By the way, regarding the tact and mourning for the innocent among the Turks. About two years ago, Rabbi Michi did not bother to hide the feelings of joy that arose in him (like Yaron London) upon hearing of the Meron disaster.
Anyone who shows mercy to the cruel ends up being cruel to the merciful (mercy on the Gentiles was still there before, of course). This is precisely a midrash of the sages that time after time reality proves well
And by the way, I am sure that among the Haredim, they asked carefully, "What is this that God will do to us?" Beyond their understanding of their widespread disregard for the laws of this world and orderly and organized conduct. In other words, they probably asked what caused us to so disdain the laws of nature. What makes us so naive and think that it will be okay if we ignore physical reality. And no. Belief in the words of Chazal is not the reason. And it is probably because they did not delve deeper into the words of Chazal about confidence in God and the relationship between them and respecting the laws of nature and the laws of this world. And so they asked how it happened that we did not delve deeper. How did God not help us awaken to this inquiry of ourselves before disaster befalls us.
Anyone who comes out against Rabbi Eliyahu is truly and primarily an infidel. There is no free love here, no free hatred, on the other hand, there is plenty. Rabbi Eliyahu is a righteous man, a righteous man, compared to Seto, who is a right-wing man like Bennett and like Kahana, nothing more.
And we say Amen.
This morning I heard an interview with a relative of the two children who were murdered in the attack on Friday. He repeated the mantra that they are God-fearing and know that everything is from God, and does not depend on the government and the terrorists. If it were not for this government and this terrorist, it would have happened in a different way. This is shocking Druze fatalism. In other words, he and his friends in the opinion (or lack of opinion): God decided to murder these children in any way possible for his own unknown reasons. And this Druze madness is seen as a refined expression of God-fearing. Incomprehensible. Note that this is an act that is the result of a person's choice and not the forces of nature, meaning that the fatalism here is at its most extreme. Absolute madness. As we know, this is the accepted approach in the religious and ultra-Orthodox world. And yes, I know that now the denials will come.
The widespread stupidity regarding those who died for their Judaism as being sanctimonious to God whose place is in the highest heaven, etc., etc., is also not absent. What has already been called "mistaken sacrifices" (there is a chapter on this in the second book of the trilogy), is a delusion.
Regarding the reference to Rabbi Avraham Stav's article
There are unclear sentences:
1. “When Nineveh, the great city, disappears completely, with over one hundred and twenty thousand people, then we find a tendency to disconnect the Holy One from the suffering that occurred”
Can someone refer to the source? Where is this disconnection mentioned? (The biblical story is of course the other way around)
2. “In our places we hear probing and preoccupation with the question of why this happened… it is a matter for the sages, and not for people like us” – What does he mean by a matter for the sages?
Rabbi Eliyahu's response:
Of course we are in favor of compassion and helping the victims. Our hearts go out to everyone who is affected. The purpose of this article is to understand that such events do not happen in the world by chance, just as the sun does not rise by chance and the rain does not fall by chance. Similarly, earthquakes that unfortunately plague the world do not happen by chance.
We are trying to learn from the way Abraham, the man of mercy, treated the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. He prays and tries with great compassion to save Sodom and Gomorrah from the judgment that is about to come upon them.
God answers Abraham and says to him: If you can correct the behavior of these cities with fifty or ten righteous people – I will save Sodom and Gomorrah.
When Abraham fails to save the city, he does not say that the destruction of Sodom was an accident. He also does not say that God is cruel. Abraham understands that there is a divine leadership that is many times higher than him.
Abraham teaches us that we must be full of compassion, kindness, and help. To pray for the salvation of the world. And also that the world does not run by chance, and that God runs His world with much greater mercy than ours.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord’: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts”.
Of course. Even the idiot, with immense compassion, thanks God for the murder of babies in Turkey. Well, it turns out that there are fools who accept such explanations for the evil words of foolishness spoken by him. You don't do business with fools.
Rabbi Hutner, zech”l
” It is unnecessary to say at this stage that since the destruction of European Jewry was a decreed rebuke that the people of Israel carried on their shoulders as an inseparable part of being the chosen people, we have no right to interpret these events as a specific punishment of any kind for a specific sin. Rebuke is an inseparable part of the life of the people of Israel until the coming of the Messiah and is imposed on all Israel by the will of God. And for reasons known and understood only to him, a person needs to be a prophet or a Tanna in order to be able to claim that he knows the specific reasons for what is calling us. Anyone who is of a lesser degree than that who claims to know is in vain stepping on the corpses of saints who died for the sanctification of God and abusing his power to interpret and understand Jewish history ”
As if they were written for this time, according to Rabbi Eliyahu
The rabbi wrote “Conclusions I must say that this article again evokes sorrowful thoughts in me. Jewish thinking about reality and God's guidance, especially in recent centuries, is generally childish and rather stupid. It turns out that the greatest scholars and poskim, who display impressive intellectual acuity in the field of Talmudic and halakhic scholarship, can talk complete nonsense about understanding reality and dealing with it. We have plenty of examples in our time, but this raises a serious suspicion in me that this was also the case in the past. Many of those thinkers, from the Sages to the general public, that many of us bother to study and their teachings, may also have actually been such Rabbis. A few more generations will surely come and study carefully the articles of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, and will find in this article, in a letter-by-letter manner, wonderful ideas. It is just a question of investing enough energy in an interpretive effort to find these pearls.
Don't you think that in order to sweeten these harsh statements a little
No. These reflections are warranted.
Today I studied the verse in Megillah 17:1-2: “She weighed it for her clothes, she clothed it for her clothes. I said to her: Sack and saddlebag. I said to her: She will not be able to bear it, when I have lifted her up from the days of her affliction. She will be mocked and scorned. For she is scorned, for she is a little while in her.” I said to her: Is it not written: “Do not rejoice in the fall of your enemy”? I said to her: Behold, I am from Israel, but in the Book of Revelation it is written: “And you shall tread on his dead bodies.”
Apparently, this means that it is permissible to rejoice over enemy nations, and specifically over enemies, which the Turks were not.
Protesting the honor of the Torah😡
The donkey carrying the books who responds here does not write his name, which is a shame.
As it is written: For your word will come and we will honor you.
And in fact his words come, one after another, again, without change or thought.
Regarding the ethical fallacy, how do you explain the flood and the overthrow of Sodom and the ten plagues that were there for the little ones to suffer?
I don't know. One could perhaps think of directions (perhaps he had no other response option, or religious and non-moral considerations), but that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Do you mean to say that God is immoral? Or is that morality?
I want to say that in the same way that is explained there, one can also excuse what Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu said (at least regarding this difficulty), and it is not about him that you complain.
Do you mean the English-English dictionary: If we have a problem, it's worth showing that there are other problems and then everything is resolved amicably because nothing needs to be resolved? Wonderful explanation.
I didn't try to give an explanation. All I said was that the issue is not about Rabbi Eliyahu, but about punishments for the nations found in the Bible in general. And the first ones have already dealt with this.
His Honor is just blowing things up
I think His Honor is completely blasphemous in some of the tenets of faith
The amount of nonsense you write is misleading the people and also the way you write it
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu did not celebrate the earthquake in Turkey and bring out champagne for it. He also wrote explicitly that he was not happy that something like this happened. He only brought a religious perspective on the fact that our enemies (like Syria and Lebanon) are collapsing, as are the other Arab countries around us, and we are only immigrating
And regardless of your political views, whatever they may be - calling Smotritz, Ben Gvir and the Haredim Israel-haters is impudence and borders on incitement (especially in light of the article on the demonstration, etc.)
You wrote
“Is it possible that all the great men of the generations were actually such Rabbi Elihuites? Were all the Jews from whom we live such fools? I must say that heretical thoughts crossed my mind when I read these words, but I will summarize my thoughts here…It turns out that the great scholars and poskim, who display impressive intellectual acuity in the field of Talmudic and halakhic scholarship, can speak utter nonsense in relation to understanding reality and dealing with it. We have plenty of examples in our time, but this raises a serious suspicion in me that this was also the case in the past. Many of those thinkers, up to and including Chazal, that many of us bother to study them and their teachings, may also have actually been such Rabbi Elihuites”
Asks a question that is not For example, did the companions of Rabbi Huna, who had 400 Dani Dahmer, not so, for example, Rav Chiya bar Abba d”Nehemiah” to the Rabbi on the death of his son in the Ketubot, not so? And I will slow down because I am a peddler and load here examples of the many rabbis who were supposed to be aware of them?
And where on earth do all the scholars and rabbis (and even simpletons like me, until they reach the point of dharma) not only in this generation but throughout all generations (and have you not read their moral books?) actually have such a view?
(Actually, on 12/2 Rosnik commented like this)
B- So the obvious question from the above, and which has a “actually”
So if I understood what you said, if they were indeed like that, then there is also formal halachic authority, we are not obligated to accept from such infantiles?
C- So, is everyone who is about to be sheared/burned as if they were sheared/burned as blood (i.e., someone who, if it turns out to him that the sages are indeed like that, then he is not obligated to them, so even now that he does it, it is as if he did not do it)?
Thank you
First, I wouldn't state this categorically. Second, I have explained more than once that their authority does not stem from their wisdom but from our acceptance of them.
A- So what is the meaning of the above stories? It's not Elihu'im
B- Yes, I didn't think there was validity in accepting Anaptili and Elihu'im fools, are you sure about that?