Reflections on the Resignation of MK Guetta (Column 92)

More power to you for these remarks!

As always, a pleasure to read.
I think the root of the problem here is, as you noted, seeing the role of an MK as a “prize.” That perception places the event in the category of “fired from work because he is religious/an atheist/black/gay/a lover of classical music,” and it is automatically classified as an injustice.

Begging the rabbi’s pardon, your comparison is misplaced.
Attending a demonstration in support of values that contradict your party’s values is not the same as going to a relative’s wedding despite such values.
A more precise analogy would be, for example, Zehava Galon attending a cornerstone-laying ceremony for a building in Judea and Samaria because her son (a settler, heaven forbid) donated it. Presumably she would have taken criticism, but if she had said that she opposes the move and only came in order to honor her son on this emotional day, I doubt anyone would have demanded her resignation. Likewise if her son had chosen Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu to officiate at his wedding. It is reasonable to expect a public representative to distinguish between fighting for certain values and totally boycotting in their name, including within the family. Of course there is also an issue here of a religious command and not only a moral one, and that is what makes the difference, but journalists are entitled not to respect that distinction.

A correct and important distinction, and still, the journalists’ right not to respect it has nothing to do with their criticism of Shas. Shas does not respect it because it contradicts its values. They also have the right to think that Shas’s values are nonsense, as most of them indeed do. For my part, I think LGBT rights should also be anchored in law. But by the same token I understand that (also) because of this, I cannot be an MK in Shas (thank God).
Let me sharpen the point further. In the view of the people of Shas, going to honor such a ceremony is problematic in itself, not only the homosexual marriage. (Perhaps this is part of the fact that the matter is religious and halakhic, as you wrote.) Therefore it is not comparable to Zehava Galon going to honor a cornerstone-laying in a settlement.
Beyond that, even if there were some who would not demand her resignation, I do not think any of them would see such a demand as problematic on its face. Certainly there would not be full consensus around such a view.

Yes, but…
One has to remember that even Shas did not stand firm in this affair in the face of Guetta’s foolishness. Shas itself behaved in a herd-like way – politics – the son of Hacham Shalom against Deri – pressure from Haredi websites, etc. That is at the very least circumstantial evidence that it was not at all clear that he had to be thrown out…
I really do agree that there is a certain herd mentality here (as in the sorites paradox, it’s not that either there is a herd or there isn’t. There is a certain level of herdishness), especially in the media outlets you mentioned – Kol Yisrael and Channel 2.
Still, this time I agree that it was very reasonable to go to the event for family reasons while clarifying that this does not justify the sin (I’m not sure I myself would do it, but it seems reasonable to me). At first I wanted to comment and say that the comparison to Bougie going to a right-wing demonstration is incorrect; rather, the correct comparison would be if he were to go to his niece’s wedding to a right-wing activist (not sure whether on the level of Arieh Eldad or Baruch Marzel). I retracted the “correct” comparison because in Guetta’s case the wedding is connected to the sin, unlike the case of the right-wing activist, where the wedding is not connected to his right-wing views. In any case, in my view your comparison is not correct. One has to think what exact case to compare it to.
In any event, since this is a complex issue with arguments in both directions, I disagree with your assertion that everyone formed an opinion without thinking.

1. See my response above to Avrum. I accept that a person can think there is a distinction between this case, which has a personal background, and a principled position. But the consensus as though there is something here that is on its face incomprehensible, immoral, and irrational—that is what stands at the center of my remarks. Especially since this is apparently a halakhic conception (in their view).
2. In any case, one can never determine that everyone formed an opinion without thinking. But such a broad consensus shows that many among them did do so.
This is similar to my favorite example of spurious correlations (see column 1 and column 41). There too, all that can be shown is that there is a significant group that did not form a serious opinion, and that is not true of every individual.
3. As for the conduct of Shas and its “sages,” I would have been very surprised if it had conducted itself properly in this case. As I said, I did not mean to say that they are better than their critics. Far be it from me to say such a thing about that holy movement.

I want to emphasize—going to a wedding for family reasons and only for them is a matter-of-fact act. No matter how radical and extreme Shas may be, matter-of-fact actions belong to the whole spectrum. Even a Nazi, pardon the comparison and with all due distinction, can be matter-of-fact. So can Satmar. So can a leftist. So can a policeman with a thief. So can a thief with a policeman (“respect”). Therefore people support that step because of its matter-of-factness.

This is the opportunity to stress another point that I did not emphasize. The main claims were not that Shas should have had pity on him because of the conflict he was in. If that had been the claim, fine. The claims were that he went “to gladden groom and groom” and because of that he was thrown out (in the 21st century).

Why do you call a gay wedding a celebration of prohibitions? After all, the wedding has become a symbol of fidelity and not necessarily testimony to the existence of relations.

Everyone knows why a bride enters the bridal canopy 🙂

First a response to the content, and afterward to the style:
The fact that there was protest here over Guetta’s ouster is first and foremost indeed because, in the eyes of the protesters, this was seen as an immoral act, and so they protest. Does the fact that there are people who are perceived from the outset as immoral grant them industrial quiet to continue perpetrating injustices? For example, if some antisemitic party in Europe were to do some antisemitic act worthy of condemnation, would we claim that one should not protest because they are consistent in their own view???
As for the style, the rabbi makes sensible points, which is rare in our region; was it not appropriate to make them more moderately? Is the discourse here not heated enough already (and therefore also at times herd-like and stupid, as mentioned)? In fact, this is an issue that is not only stylistic, because it is better to understand and explain phenomena, not to label them with derogatory names.

And what about Bennett’s spokeswoman who was publicized as a lesbian:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5004109,00.html
?

Just a small correction –
It is not true that no one made this comparison. Haggai Segal, editor of Makor Rishon, in his lead article from two weeks ago (if I’m not mistaken) made exactly the same comparison (“if Bougie Herzog goes to his nephew’s housewarming in Kiryat Arba”).

Me too, me too!
https://www.facebook.com/yakov.feiglin/posts/10156593811029056?pnref=story

Very nice. I hadn’t thought in that direction, and there is no doubt that it is correct.
And yet…
Is there not some way we are supposed to behave? Is this not a case of “Bar Kamtza,” of the sages’ silence in the face of public humiliation?
Let us draw a hypothetical example. Guetta and his sister are only siblings. They were orphaned at a young age. Guetta raised his sister and is her patron. His presence at the wedding is vital to his sister despite her son who “went astray.” Would we still rush to denounce and humiliate? Is there not room to appreciate his restraint for the sake of other, greater values?
So why rush to cut the verdict. And in the public square no less. This is not participation in a demonstration but at a sister’s wedding. Is it not proper at least to summon him for clarification? Could this not be “smoothed over”? Must everything be done in such a crude way.
Can no proof for all this be brought from the great desecration of God’s name that was created by it….

A. Why should Guetta bend his values because of his sister’s distress? Maybe his sister should show magnanimity and understand him? Why is it obvious that his values are pushed aside because of his sister, for whom it is vital? Maybe it is also vital for him not to come?
B. One should remember that his nephew can live as he wishes even without a wedding, and it is quite possible that holding the wedding itself is a declarative act.
C. If Guetta had been less crude and not shouted in a radio interview, nothing would have happened. But in Shas, everything is like Shas.

Mordechai,
First, do you have information about Guetta and his sister? Maybe in Shas they did check and decided accordingly (or they know him and there was no need to check)? Second, the other journalists had no such information either. Third, their claims were not because of this but because of their opposition to the very behavior of Shas and its values. Do you think journalists are permitted to pass judgment in the public square without checking, and with such complete consensus no less?
As for the humiliation and desecration of God’s name, when there is desecration of God’s name from the very observance of halakha, it changes nothing. There is also desecration of God’s name in not donating organs (which in my opinion is indeed a halakhic obligation), and also in keeping Shabbat and eating kosher. So because of that should we stop doing so? It is a strange argument.

I agree completely with most of the things.
Mainly I agree that those protesting Shas’s conduct in this case are gravely mistaken in their criticism. But one thing seems strange to me. Why is the simple argument you raise really “beyond their understanding” for most of those speaking on the matter? What caused this mistake?

The explanation you propose—that this is a marvelous combination of stupidity and hypocrisy from which they all suffer—does not really make sense to me. I would like to suggest another explanation for the existence of this rare consensus.

I start from the assumption that it is crystal clear to the critics that opposition to homosexuality is an act that does not stand on the border between moral and immoral, but long ago descended to the level of a despicable crime. Anyone who opposes homosexuals is a vile criminal and also primitive and benighted. There is even a derogatory term invented specifically for him (=“homophobe”).

The true motive behind the outcry is the revulsion they feel in the face of the despicable act of Shas, which dared to behave publicly in a “homophobic” way. This motive in itself is not an illegitimate one. What they really want is to re-educate opponents of homosexuality, who in their view sin against objective morality.
Strong motives of this kind can certainly distort judgment and cause the protesters to make an argument that misses the point (as though Shas’s sin lies in firing a person who goes against its agenda).
I have no better example, so I am forced to use a sensitive one. Suppose we heard that a Nazi was thrown out of his party because he helped a Jew in some way. I am convinced that even though this fits perfectly with the ideology of the party, we would still be outraged and would see in this further proof of the wickedness and despicableness of the protesters. It is likely that we too would drift into arguments of the type: look how cruelly they treat even their own members, and was it really proper to throw him out for such a terrible “sin.”

What causes you, in my humble opinion, to see things relatively objectively is that you lack the moral motive. Whereas most of those dealing with the issue hold an extreme position (homosexuality is an abomination / homophobia is darkness and ignorance), your position, as I understand it, is that even if homosexuality is not a morally reprehensible act, that still does not mean homophobia is darkness and ignorance. In short, opposition to homosexuality is not a crime in your eyes, and neither is homosexuality itself.

And following in the footsteps of Mark Twain, of blessed memory, I too apologize: I would have written more briefly, but I did not have enough time.

This is not the main issue in the article, but since the topic has already come up, I will ask: should the fact that halakha forbids any realization of homosexuality lead us to formulate a negative moral stance toward homosexuality?
In many places you have written that Torah is one thing and morality another, but is there not here a fairly clear indication as to a moral question, one regarding which, were it not for the Torah, we might have reached a different conclusion?

Phil, I completely agree (this was already noted above). And still, using this case to protest the homophobia itself is hypocrisy in my view. Admit that even if homophobia is blatantly immoral, it is problematic to accept the existence of Shas and then protest that it throws out a wayward MK who expresses Meretz-like positions.

I did not understand the question. You wrote, correctly, that in several places I maintain that one cannot infer morality from halakha, since these are two separate and almost independent categories. So what is the question?

What I mean is that if we had to formulate moral rules according to what we know today, there is a reasonable chance that we would find nothing wrong with same-sex relations, and we would view them like ordinary marriage. Does the fact that the Torah forbids them tip the scales, such that we would also choose to see moral fault in same-sex relations?

I repeat my previous message.

Begging the rabbi’s pardon, from between your eyelashes it is evident that you are Ashkenazi… for among Sephardim, members of the communities of the East and West, it is very widely accepted that there is no greater virtue than good personal relations within the family, including the extended family (and even the very extended family, in the sense that all Israel are brothers, as anyone who has prayed in Sephardic synagogues knows, where one can find so broad a spectrum of people on the religious continuum who manage to get along while turning a blind eye, on the one hand, to the question of how so-and-so got to synagogue on Shabbat and, on the other hand, to the rabbi’s lack of military service—something that would never be possible in its Ashkenazi counterpart). For that purpose one should even occasionally ignore this or that ideological issue that may cast a shadow over those relations. Since that is so, it is likely that most Torah-observant Sephardim whom Shas purports to represent would also show up at the wedding of the “crazy nephew” and would refrain from tearing the bond of brotherhood with Aunt Carmela, may she live long; therefore, as for participation in the event itself, it seems there is absolutely nothing in it that conflicts with the Shas agenda on the matter. (It should be noted that one of the MKs of United Torah Judaism also has a daughter who went astray, and he does not refrain from participating in her celebrations.) So from this perspective Shas indeed erred in distancing a man who was perceived as representing the broad Shas public, which on the one hand declares loyalty to halakha but on the other hand is careful not to boycott family members. That said, Guetta’s boastfulness on air and his remarks that he forced his children to join him are probably the main problem, and in addition there is the arm-twisting between the son of Hacham Shalom and Aryeh Deri, of whose associates Guetta is one, and the (stupid) branding of Shas as a strictly Haredi party representing only the yeshiva world (specifically—not even the Sephardic Torah world…) of Sephardim and not all Torah-observant Sephardim, as is claimed on its ballot slip.

Rabbi Michi,
What about participating in a brother’s Reform wedding? Would you also not take part in that?

It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Many Ashkenazim would act that way as well (and you already brought the example from the sister party). The question is a principled one and not a question of temperament.

In my opinion there is no principled problem with a Reform wedding. It is not forbidden to marry in a Reform ceremony. At most it is not valid (and if they perform it according to halakha then it is even valid). True, there is room to discuss the issue from the standpoint of granting legitimacy, but here there is definitely more room to be lenient when it is a brother or a close friend.

You wrote that an MK who represents a party with a certain agenda cannot behave publicly in a way that contradicts that position.

Do you also join Rabbi Ariel’s opinion in the latest interview in BeSheva, where he says that a religious party ought to include in its ranks only Sabbath-observant MKs?

(I did not read the interview, only its headline; I assume he is coming out against the justice minister’s membership in the Jewish Home party.)

I did not write that. I wrote that if a party decides to remove an MK who behaves contrary to its values, there is no room to criticize it for that (even if there is criticism of its values themselves), and certainly not for the sweeping critical consensus that existed here.

As for the Jewish Home, the big question is what that party’s values are. Unlike Shas, here the matter is not clear. In Shas there is an institution of those whom they for some reason call the “Sages of the Torah,” who determine the agenda. In the Jewish Home there is a battle over the agenda. Is it Likud B, or perhaps a Haredi party that says Hallel on Independence Day, or maybe a compromising party without a backbone, or perhaps a collection of operatives who take care of their own people, and so on (incidentally, in my opinion at the moment it is a Haredi party in every respect, among other things because of the influence of Rabbi Ariel and his colleagues).

But as stated, even if some agenda is decided upon—it is legitimate to bring in people who identify with the agenda and work on its behalf, even if they do not look, and do not even behave, exactly according to it. By the same token, it is legitimate to criticize this.

In our family there are religious and secular people, and good relations prevail, and of course they participate in one another’s events. And twice, when there were weddings of that sort, they did not let the religious folks know and did not invite them, in order from the outset to avoid awkward situations.
Quite apart from that, this reminds me of two situations in which I was in a situation that in the eyes of others looked puzzling…
Once, when I was a young man, I was walking with my older brother who did not wear a kippah. Suddenly one Haredi man called me aside—he saw that I had a kippah and my brother did not—and whispered to me, asking whether this was a missionary and whether perhaps I needed help?!
To draw a thousand distinctions—
More than once I participated in Memorial Day events in the military cemetery, everyone around me in uniform and me in hat and suit with a beard. Then the siren or the anthem came, and everyone looked toward me…. They even told me that it was not appropriate to come to the event dressed like that.. .

A somewhat side question.
I accept that gays deserve all civil rights, but it is not clear to me why the state needs to recognize gay marriage. Let me explain: in principle, the state is not supposed to intervene in the private sphere unless this is an essential need for the survival of the state. So, for example, if I have a regular partner for playing chess, that is simply none of the state’s business and it will not intervene in it. Of course it will not interfere, but it also will not recognize it; it simply will not deal with it, and any demand of mine that the state recognize so-and-so as my chess partner is pointless. The same thing with a man who wants a male partner for intimate life: of course the state will not interfere with him, and he can perform a wedding ceremony, but why should the state recognize it? And if you ask why the state recognizes a male-female couple, it is because a state has to care for its survival, and for survival one must bring the next generation, and a male-female couple is an efficient way to do that.

Hello Moshe.
What can one do—quite a large part of the public (I estimate the majority) supports recognizing such marriages. I oppose the state imposing the opinion of one part on another, and certainly the opinion of a minority. To recognize a marriage does not mean to give it halakhic approval, but to recognize them as possessing rights like any married couple. You (and I) can continue to say that this is like a chess couple, but the state has nothing to say on the matter.

None of us are rational, and not by accident, but it’s not so terrible..

Michi, I do not see the difference between a Reform wedding and a gay wedding; neither has halakhic validity. The phrase “to gladden groom and bride” is not relevant, since there was no bride there, and he did not fulfill a commandment. He went to make his sister happy. I do not see any halakhic prohibition that he transgressed. And regarding Sephardim and Ashkenazim, it seems to me that you are not correct. See the responsum of one of the Sephardic sages (I do not remember now who), from the early days of the state, when he came to explain why one should convert a woman who would not observe Torah and commandments; among his reasons was mutual participation in family celebrations. It seems to me that I have not found such a description and reasoning among Ashkenazic sages.

Who spoke about a halakhic prohibition? Who spoke about the question of whether it is valid or not?
And regarding Ashkenazim and Sephardim, apparently we have different impressions. This or that quotation does not add or detract.