On Conservatism, Rationality, and Style of Expression (Column 263)
With God's help
This coming Sabbath an ad for the trilogy is scheduled to appear in the newspaper. We posted it in several forums in order to receive reactions, and quite a few of the responses claimed that it was condescending, dogmatic, and overly provocative. To tell the truth, that surprised me greatly, since from my point of view there was nothing of the sort in it. I thought it proper to explain the matter, if only out of appreciation for all those who participate in the discussion and engagement with these issues in the various groups. I will do so relatively briefly, because I have already discussed almost all of these matters more than once.
First, here is the ad:
The objections that were raised were directed mainly at the headings in red. As noted, the claim that religious conservatism is failing struck some people as rather stinging. There is sharp criticism here, perhaps even something provocative, and of course also dogmatism, as though all the truth were in my possession. All this instead of offering a matter-of-fact and measured position, as befits a discussion that respects itself and its participants.
At first I thought that perhaps I had missed something here. I took the criticisms on board, heard the tone of the respondents, and thought that it was probably too blunt. In a conversation with an advertising professional, he argued that such bluntness is actually important for advertising effectiveness and for stirring up conversation and debate. But after several hours of deliberation (between one class and the next), I reached the unequivocal conclusion that I do not agree with this criticism at all—not for reasons of advertising and public relations, but for substantive reasons. I will now try to explain why.
By way of background, I should note that many conservative spokesmen are accustomed to speaking about liberal rabbis and liberal public voices as though they were deniers, heretics, unfit to be counted toward a prayer quorum, agents of the forces of evil (the New Israel Fund and the European Union), ignoramuses, lacking fear of Heaven, enemies of Israel, obstacles to redemption, and so on and so forth. Not to mention efforts to prevent their appointment to various offices and positions. These are not rare claims, but everyday ones. Conservative circles engage in silencing, and in denying any possibility of expressing oneself and conducting oneself in liberal ways in various institutions and communities, and of course there is no room even to speak of legitimizing different ways of thinking. These are everyday occurrences. I have already written more than once (including in the last column) that I have nothing at all against firmness. I have often been called a heretic, and I saw that as a completely legitimate expression. If that is what a person thinks of me, why should he not say so?! But even if I have no problem with such statements, it is hard to deny that these are blunt, dogmatic statements (all the truth is with me), and perhaps also condescending (about that, actually, I am not so sure).
Against all this, I write the following "blunt" sentence: "Religious conservatism is failing". For the life of me, I cannot understand what on earth is blunt here. This is exactly what I think: conservatism is failing. There is no provocation here, no blunt statement, and no condescension. It is a simple description of my claim, and a call for all of us to wake up. There is certainly firmness here, but I am indeed firm in my view that conservatism is failing. Is a person forbidden to believe something or to express his beliefs? Am I expected not to say this? Why? What is wrong with expressing a substantive position of this kind? Group X has failed. If I said this about liberals, would that also be offensive? When people say that liberal education has failed (for example, there are higher rates of secularization there, a lack of modesty in relations between men and women, looser observance of the commandments), is that an offensive statement? In my eyes, absolutely not. It may be true or false, but there is nothing in it beyond the expression of an entirely legitimate position. I truly cannot understand the claim that this is bluntness and disrespect.
By the way, the original proposed wording of the ad was that conservatism has failed, and I insisted on correcting it to the present tense: is failing. My intention was that it should not appear as though this were a final verdict, taking an overall view of an entire process from God's throne (which really would be a bit megalomaniacal), but rather a description of a process happening now (as I understand it), one that requires all of us to examine other tracks (that is the subtitle of the ad). By the way, examining other tracks is precisely the one thing conservatives are unwilling to do. I was also careful not to point to any specific community or any specific rabbi (because I truly do not mean anyone specific), but rather to criticize a principled approach/outlook (conservatism). In my eyes, nothing could be more legitimate or more substantive than that.
And yet, the fact is that many readers of the ad felt that the language was too harsh. It was difficult for me to understand why so simple and legitimate a statement was perceived by them as so harsh. The answer I gave myself is that this is an expression of a demagogic technique that conservatism has employed from time immemorial. Muslims murder people all over the world, but take offense when someone dares to make some parody of Muhammad or say what he thinks about them and their deeds. Therefore, as is well known, liberals are forbidden to offend Muslims ("Most Muslims in the world are peace-seekers," which is true. "Most Arab citizens of Israel are loyal citizens of the state," which is less true. And so on). Religious and Haredi Jews, in a different register, are offended when one describes them as they are, and therefore one must not say that they lack education, or that they do not contribute to the economy, or that there is no equality there and no proper treatment of women (not to mention abuse within the family, and many other such phenomena). They, of course, are free to lash out at whomever they please.
It seems to me that in such cases taking offense is a tool used by the party under criticism once the arrows in his quiver have run out. When he has no substantive arguments, he simply announces that he has been insulted, and thereby silences the critic. For some reason liberals tend to accept this criticism, and by force of the rules of political correctness they become even more careful about the honor of the offended conservative. Thus the Puah Institute allows itself not to include women in a conference on medicine and Jewish law (including issues of women's medicine), and a journal like Asif allows itself not to publish articles by women, and in both places they explain to us that this is only in order to create a shared platform with conservatives. "We ourselves do not agree with this," they say, "but if women are included, the conservatives will stay away from this platform." No one worries about the liberals or the women who will stay away, because all of us are obliged to protect the honor of conservatives so that, God forbid, they should not be offended (do not forget that we are dealing with a persecuted minority). By the way, lately this has already begun to stop somewhat, because the liberals too have understood that they are being manipulated, and they have begun to behave like the religious and the Haredi. They too are offended by exclusion and religious coercion and do not permit them. They too insist on their own "religious" principles, just like us. They too have now learned to use this ultimate weapon.
Sometimes this taking offense is done deliberately and cynically; instead of addressing the matter itself, people prefer to take offense and thus silence the critics. But sometimes people internalize political correctness and the excessive consideration for the feelings of the persecuted (the conservatives) so deeply that an authentic sense of injury develops in them. Banal and simple statements like "conservatism is failing" become a forbidden and blunt affront. But there is no justification for this whatsoever. One may say to a conservative, like to any other person or group, that he is failing. There is nothing non-substantive about that. It is certainly no worse than the much harsher statements (which in my opinion are entirely legitimate) that the conservative himself usually permits himself to make about liberals.
But in the background there is another plane here. This excessive consideration and sensitivity also stem from a sense of inferiority and lack of confidence. After all, we all "know" that conservatives are the authentic religious Jews. A real rabbi is only someone with a frock coat, prayer sash, and hat, not someone with sandals and a knitted skullcap. Therefore the former must not be offended, and certainly one must not tell him that he is failing in his religious path—which, of course, it is treated as a great commandment to say to the latter. In my eyes, this is a kind of internalized Stockholm syndrome on the part of the victim, which leads him to give considerate, sympathetic, and sometimes even admiring treatment to the aggressor.
So I am not willing to surrender to this. In my view, this statement is not blunt, and in fact it is an essential part of my message in the trilogy. I argue that conservatism is mistaken, and that conservatives do not serve God correctly. My problem with them is not desecration of God's name, nor the lack of popularity of religion and Torah, nor an inability to connect, nor the loss of the younger generation. Not at all. My problem with them is the truth. To the best of my understanding, this is not what God wants (yes, I too am allowed to conjecture about His will and express it). Therefore I feel that enough is enough with the excessive politeness and the insulting overcaution regarding the dignity of the one who is failing. This self-silencing in the name of consideration and political correctness is part of the problem (the lack of confidence, as noted above), and therefore it is very important to me to oppose it. My claim is that conservatism is failing, meaning that religious liberalism is precisely the correct service of God. I am not proposing a new path in order to bring Judaism closer to the masses, but because this is what seems right to me even if it would distance many people (see the end of the last column, and Bauder's fine comment in the comments section, who brought this from Moreh Nevukhim). My claim is that conservatism is transgressive, since a conservative interpretation of the commandments is mistaken (in my view). It follows that one who observes them according to a conservative interpretation is mistaken and therefore also does not observe Jewish law (translation: he is failing). I see no reason in the world not to say this. Of course, that does not mean that others do not fail, or that conservatism has no virtues. It certainly does. But the focus of my claim is the failures of conservatism and the discussion of them. Certainly in the framework of a newspaper ad, where there is no room for a detailed and painstaking theoretical discussion. My claim may be firm, but that firmness does not come from condescension; it comes from a sense of urgency. It expresses not condescension but protest.
Here I come to the question of rationality. Another criticism that was raised concerned the fact that I placed conservatism at the center of the discussion, rather than rationality. According to this claim, I should have used a heading that deals with rational thinking and faith, not with presenting an alternative to conservatism, because that is not my main concern.
Here there is a mistake, because it is indeed my main concern. Conservatism means an unwillingness to criticize existing positions (this is not, of course, an absolute unwillingness. No one is completely extreme. But someone who holds such a fundamental position is a conservative. See on this in column 217). In the previous column, as well as in Rabbi Moshe Rat's comments and in my reply, one can see that the main thrust of his criticism of my words is that many people do not think as I do. This is pure conservatism, unwilling to accept logical criticism of accepted beliefs, and it is against that that I set out. By the way, as I explained in column 217, I criticize innovation to the same extent. In my view, one should not choose a position or a path because it continues the existing situation, or conversely because it changes the existing situation. Every claim or position must be examined on its own merits. Conservatism is objectionable not because one must always make changes. Absolutely not. A considerable portion of my positions could be considered conservative in that sense. But that too would be a mistake. That is not conservatism, but the result of a substantive examination, which in those cases showed, in my opinion, that the existing position is more correct. In such cases I favor continuing what exists (because I am not an ideological innovator). But it is certainly not right to continue something merely because it is a continuation of the existing situation.
You can now understand that rational thinking is the other side of the same coin. The willingness to examine every position and every state of affairs is the anti-conservatism that I propose. Conservatism means an unwillingness to put things to a logical and rational test, and that is what I opposed. The tools of examination used by my anti-conservatism are the tools of rational thought. As stated, rationality is nothing other than the other side of the anti-conservative coin. Therefore, speaking out against conservatism is a precise formulation of my main claim, and it is not correct to say that I am focused specifically on rationality rather than on conservatism.
Another claim that was raised is that placing conservatism at the center gives off a smell of Reform. Indeed, that is true, but that is precisely my point. Reform is a label, not an argument. Every argument must be examined on its own merits. The main part of the second book is devoted to the claim that not every change is Reform, and as I already wrote above, by the same token not every conservatism is legitimate or correct religiosity (that is, aligned with God's will). Each case must be judged on its own merits. The identification of calls for change with Reformism is demagoguery that avoids substantive engagement with calls for change and with criticism in general.
Well, that is enough by way of preparation for this Sabbath's ad. I assume that it will arouse responses of the types I have described, and therefore I thought it right to get ahead of things and explain my words. And may it be pleasing to the listener.
Discussion
Apparently you haven’t read it yet. The third book argues this no less, and perhaps even more so.
Hello, why don’t you allow the trilogy to be sent by courier, even at extra cost?
If it really is only pickup from a collection point by prior arrangement – that is astonishingly cumbersome, a waste of precious time, and sometimes simply impossible.
It seems to me that the reaction stems from the fact that, in the opinion of many, these questions are currently being answered with great and difficult effort by many educators and teachers today (Rabbi Uri Sherki, Rabbi Tzvi Yisrael Tau, Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, Rabbi Aviner, and others who write about faith, etc.). And, on the other hand, all sorts of nonsense like Zamir Cohen’s “The Revolution” books, or thinkers from the religious left like Goodman and Avi Sagi or David Hartman. (Those I mentioned first do not really deal with questions of authority and fundamentals of faith, but more with grounding and explaining them, and also giving them a different interpretation, and perhaps also refuting various things that the writer sees as myths that would make things easier for the wavering believer, like Hayim Navon’s book 101 Common Mistakes.) It seems to me that among the latter (the academics and liberals) there are some who have touched on the issue, such as Menachem Kellner with a book he published on the Thirteen Principles, or Israel Knohl, who tries to present a picture of observance of the commandments after he had already personally lost belief in the events of the Bible. (Although with Goodman and Kellner the question of authority is more connected to grounding liberal positions and morality vis-à-vis the Torah, etc.) And apparently the message of the ad gives the feeling as if there is contempt for the enterprise of the former group in addressing these matters. (I don’t know to what extent the commenters are familiar with your worldview, and perhaps they think this is just another book that comes to offer a way to strengthen faith and give a proper explanatory picture of the principles of faith.) And then the sense of contempt they feel is understandable.
Okay, but isn’t there a point, in this case, in being wise rather than right? After all, the purpose of an advertisement is to sell, and if it arouses antagonism (even if unjustified), then our gain will come out as our loss.
We’re trying to open such an option on Amazon Israel, but that will still take a little time.
In my opinion that does not necessarily arouse antagonism. Besides, even in terms of sales I’m not sure this is a more harmful option.
As far as I know, none of the above really conducts a straightforward examination of the system. They engage in apologetics, and usually not in the foundational issues.
Michi, you are completely mistaken. It is truly naive to think that such headlines do not arouse antagonism (and not unjustifiably, as stated). A pity. Sometimes one has to be pragmatic.
With God’s help, 21 Kislev 5780
In my humble opinion, the ad is far too anemic. What’s the big novelty in one more person who “fell out of bed” and decided to create a “revolution” and “renewal” that will redeem us from halakhic and intellectual stagnation?
After all, we are full of rabbis and men of spirit who innovate. The Tzohar rabbis who open “a window between worlds,” the Beit Hillel rabbis who offer attentive Torah leadership; Elhanan Shilo with “existential Judaism,” and Yoav Sorek with “the Israeli covenant”; Kolech, redeeming women from their subjugation; and Shira Hadasha and the Hadar Institute, founding egalitarian prayer groups; Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah and the Yaakov Herzog Center, heralding renewal; Mizrach Shemesh and the Eastern Yeshiva, recruiting Eastern sages into the new discourse; and Siach Yitzhak and Machanayim, etc., enlisting postmodernism for our revolutionary renewal. Yeshivat HaKibbutz HaDati and Otniel, the Hartman Institute, Midreshet Lindenbaum, and Matan. Innovation has long since become routine, so what’s the novelty in yet another rabbi joining the “trend”?
The ad should present the real innovation:
In an exclusive “scoop,” the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed to Rabbi Michael Abraham that He has decided to retire from His position! Henceforth, declared the Holy One, blessed be He:
Not only does Shai Nitzan deserve some rest at last – so do I. After about six thousand or six billion years, I’ve decided to retire; now manage on your own! Even if you multiply prayer, I do not hear. Not because I’m angry with you. On the contrary, I discovered that you are “grown children” who can manage on your own. You no longer need “Daddy’s apron strings.”
So I am setting out on an adventure through the Caribbean islands and the Pacific Ocean, to India and Africa, to places that really need Me desperately. I have left you in the trustworthy hands of Rabbi Michael Abraham. If something is unclear – consult the trilogy. And if that still does not satisfy you – send him a question through the site and you will be answered without delay.
So bye-bye, beloved children. I’m flying out tomorrow. With great love, your Father in Heaven, who loves you and trusts that you’ll get along excellently without Me. Bye. Have fun!
Submitted as a public service by Samson Latz, the explosive innovator, first to jump in, and climbing trees,
slaughtering sacred cows with a wink, chopping up their flesh, smashing their heads, and even stuffing their hides
Mazel tov on the birth of the triplets. May they bring pleasure to their Father in Heaven.
Rabbi Dr. Michi has failed! Isn’t that blunt? I saw a translation of the word “bluntness” as boorishness. The opposite of politeness and proper conduct. To come and declare of an entire public that its path has failed, across the pages of a newspaper – is that polite? Tact is fitting. I remember that once the rabbi didn’t understand something along these lines and then his wife explained it to him. The rabbi should ask the rebbetzin this time too. Or did the advertising consultant no longer say to do that…..
P.S. A question: Since when does the rabbi count other people? (A question that would truly be asked were it not for the advertising aspect of it.)
Answer: Since the rabbi counts (writes books for) others! (A joke I heard from Shmerel Log-of-Wood.)
It may be true that God entrusted Michi to our care, but if he does not answer as required, God said: I will attach to him a bothersome watchman and call him Sh.Tz.L., who will respond to every single post with aggadic remarks and claims unrelated to the matter…
Haim, much as I do not like the claims of Rabbi Sh.Tz.L., that writer usually writes claims as long as the sea, full of references and arguments that are not to the point. Here he has (almost) sinned in none of those things.
He claims that the problem with the headline is not its provocativeness but its banality; the headline speaks of refreshing and fighting conservatism, something many people – both good and less good – are engaged in.
I think Rabbi Michi has a novelty that none of his predecessors had, in that he also deals with proofs for the existence of religion and its strengthening, and also with a clear-eyed view of the irrelevance found among those carrying its torch.
That, in my opinion, is Rabbi Michi’s innovation: pure intellectual honesty that gives no discount to any side, and fights to cling honestly to the truth as it is.
And in my opinion, the headline truly does not reflect the revolution and the enormous innovation these books present.
In my opinion, the inability to understand and identify with the sense of bluntness in the headline indicates an emotional disconnect on the rabbi’s part from the world of ordinary mortal human beings. I am a sales representative for the book and one of those who pushed to create an ad for synagogues – and I do not feel comfortable hanging something like this with a referral to my own contact details.
The problem with the ad is that in my opinion it will not make people interested, but rather make them content with the information the ad itself gives:
1. For the conservative religious person, the ad will arouse antagonism (because no one wants to be told that he has failed), and he simply won’t read further.
2. For the secular person, the ad will simply confirm his feelings – he already thinks conservative Judaism is failing, so why should he read more about it?
3. The “perplexed” religious person – as people already wrote in the comments, will think this is just another kind of “mini-Reform” that talks about how dark religion is and how it needs to be adapted to the public, and he also won’t be too interested, because there are already enough such things.
The ad somehow needs to reflect that there really is something new and smart here.
As for the tendency to label change as Reform – even if that is not factually correct, that is what people have in their consciousness, and an ad is not the place to explain it. The ad needs to make use of people’s consciousness and preconceptions, not change them.
Absolutely right.
The ad is not intended to be hung up, and certainly not in a synagogue (after all, we discussed that an ad in a synagogue should be primarily informative and not polemical). And also in a more proper design. I have such notices for those who are interested.
Hello,
1- I don’t think the words “religious conservatism is failing” are blunt or out of place. That said, the red color is too aggressive and reminds me too much of an election sticker.
2- My problem is different: it seems to me that the statement is incorrect in two respects:
1- You too are conservative in a certain sense, and that is good, because you are committed to the sources from Sinai. On the other hand, no one said a conservative has to be blind to contemporary reality: one can think that an ancient legal system binds us and still want to use precisely those mechanisms in order to create the adaptations we need – that is conservatism, but it has life in it and is not fossilized.
2- The statement is simply incorrect: when I look around me and hear how people speak, it does not seem to me that conservatism is failing; rather, it is doing fairly well, with lots of demagoguery and lots of intimidation to preserve its position of power over the masses. The problem is that they speak to the masses, whereas you are putting out a message that requires the reader to be open, to invest effort, to be critical, to be able to hear from his surroundings that his opinions are heretical…
To my mind, the problem with this headline is that this is not the message I usually hear from you… religious conservatism causes failure…?
Well, in the group of collection points it was posted as a flyer to be hung up. By the way, your wife wrote that she would ask you, and only then uploaded a PDF.
God does not leave us and will never leave us, as it is said: “The Glory of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” And the Holy One, blessed be He, loves even those who do not believe in Him, dear Samson Latz.
I accept your arguments, but I still think the ad is not good on grounds of usefulness.
You say that you are also not in favor of innovation as a value in itself; in my opinion that is not what the ad reflects. “It’s time for a new route” reflects looking for something new because it is new, and not necessarily because it is right. In my opinion, that is what people mean when they say it smells Reformist: they mean that new is good without much consideration.
If the wording had been more along the lines of “recalculate the route,” then in my opinion it would have reflected more the idea of renewed thinking and not innovation for its own sake.
In conclusion, in my opinion the ad will cause antagonism and make it easy prey for conservatives, and that is not what an advertisement should do.
Personally, I have already bought the books for myself and three others, but this ad I would have preferred not to show to others.
There is one word in this ad that provokes disgust: “brave.”
Whenever you buy from Tzomet Sfarim, do you order by courier? I very much doubt it. So here it’s the same thing, except that you enter someone’s house and not a store. And there is a collection point in almost every city in the country. Amazingly simple.
We have heard that in our country there is a company called “Israel Post.” Perhaps it would be possible to send it through them?
With regards, the Israeli gazelle
With God’s help, 21 Kislev 5780
Indeed, the conservative conception (in the foreign tongue: “conservative”) that places all its trust in “halakhic commitment” without grounded faith and without “warmth” in the service of God and in an emotional bond with God – is liable to fail in the long run. It is beneficial in the short run, in that even one whose faith has been shaken will continue to live a religious lifestyle and thereby remain connected to the religious world. But the question is how long that will hold up in the next generation.
Children, after all, pick up on the emotional attitude of their parents toward what they do. If the parents see Judaism as a burden that should be slimmed down as much as possible, they may take the “lean” position their parents reached as a starting point on which they themselves will impose a slimming diet and cut back still further. If we have cut back on the principles of religion – why not also cut back on the demanding yoke of the commandments?
Conservatism works well when things are going as they should. In the normal state, the force of inertia supports habits and pleasant tradition. But what will happen when things become more difficult? When one is under the pressure of military life or demanding work, and the like? And what does one do when one meets a charming non-Jewish young woman and falls in love with her? Here inertia is not enough. Here one needs grounded faith in order to withstand the test and not be swallowed up in every new “trend” and passing spirit.
In my humble opinion, pushing the entire world of Jewish thought aside will not save us. On the contrary, we need to invest in studying the various approaches of our sages, at the same level of depth and clarification that we devote to halakhah. When we delve into the teachings of Maimonides and Nahmanides, Saadia Gaon and Judah Halevi, Maharal and Ramchal, the thinkers of Hasidism together with the disciples of the Vilna Gaon and the people of the Mussar movement, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Rabbi A.Y. Kook and Rabbi Soloveitchik and their students – when we deepen our understanding of their reasoning and justifications, the reasons for their disagreements, and the foundations common to them all – then we will know how to find the path suited to each of us according to the unique character of his soul, and we will build within ourselves a solid and grounded structure of faith.
With regards, Sh.Tz.
The rabbi means that it is failing among the right people… but I actually agree with that. I say outright that in this sense human beings are not equal. The great majority of the people among whom conservatism succeeds are small children at best, and sheep and goats at less than best. The ad is not meant for them anyway. And I say this as someone who does not at all agree with the rabbi’s approach in his second book (the first, in my opinion, is unnecessary – it does not seem to me that there is anyone in the world who will believe in God because of proofs. Faith – and in this case I mean observance of commandments – is a relationship with God. But for the rabbi it is a one-sided relationship). But he is valuable. He managed to draw water from a rock on a worn-out and trite subject. The third book is a professional halakhic question, which is of course influenced by worldviews, so it simply follows from the second. I am not an authority who can rule on it, although I do have a slight inclination toward the rabbi’s view on this matter.
You are mistaken. Before that, it was written that something has failed (conservatism); in such a case one really does need to recalculate the route if one wants to succeed. Reform, as you said, is innovation for its own sake (from its perspective, the old has failed simply by virtue of being old, pure and simple). In any case, although the ad itself also strikes me as childish and a bit overexcited, this is a matter of advertising and subject to the professional judgment of advertisers (I don’t know how much judgment they have to begin with).
Anyone who wants the next generation not to aspire to be more “lean” than he is – should set a personal example of an appreciative and respectful attitude even toward someone less “lean” than he is. He should internalize that in the service of God, not only “one who offers little” is good, but also “one who offers much”…
With regards, Sh.Tz.
Brother, if this is that same Samson or Shimon the saffron-seller or something of that sort who used to comment obsessively on the blog of the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon – man, you urgently need treatment. Your obsessiveness is funny. But you should really deal with it….
“To look the Right in the eye – that takes courage!” (Stav Shaffir, there there)
To Shlomi – hello,
Why have you rejected the expression “brave”? Why shouldn’t you be “Shlomi of the brave”?
With regards, Avi Amar
Hello, Michi,
I would like to know whether you intend to change the ad if you come to understand that there is something objectionable about it. If not, there is no point in reading further.
If yes, then see my words below:
A. Someone who wants his book to be well received should try not to prepare the reader for resistance. The ad is inflammatory from the outset when it says “religious conservatism is failing.” There is a challenge being thrown down to the religious reader before he has even had time to read and see what this is about, who it is about, and what the book’s aim is. Therefore I would recommend a different headline…
B. On the right side, all the talk about outdated and fossilized Judaism, etc., is text that insults those who are devoted to the traditional Judaism familiar to us, which you intend to refine. In order for people to identify with your ideas, you need to make them understand that the book is coming for them with the aim of sharpening things, not changing them; of proposing something new, undermining existing things, and erasing what was there out of contempt for it. After the reader actually reads, he will understand that there are things he must abandon, cease believing, and that he must formulate for himself a more grounded faith, etc., as you propose – but that he will understand from reading the book. Until then, you need to get him to approach the book.
C. Of course, there is also the issue of stirring up public opposition to you and your books, and that is a pity; there is no point in it. On the contrary, for the sake of usefulness, you too are interested in spreading your ideas, and so are we.
Let us not forget: once everyone tells you it doesn’t smell right, apparently it doesn’t smell right. (Of course, about the book itself you would not get such criticism; that is already a matter of claims and proofs and opinions, where one has to see how correct, reliable, and solid they are, etc. But right now I am talking about the advertisement.)
Many thanks. There is room to argue, but in any case right now it is no longer relevant (the ad was finalized long ago).
With God’s help, 21 Kislev 5780
To Eilon – hello,
The “conservatism” against which Rabbi Dr. M.A. is speaking out is the worldview of the Holy Scriptures, of the Sages, and of the earlier and later authorities. Is everyone who upholds Maimonides’ opinion, who established the Thirteen Principles of Faith – which include the belief that the entire Torah in our hands is from Heaven and eternal, and that there is divine providence and reward, redemption, the World to Come, and the resurrection of the dead – “a child at best, or a sheep or goat at less than best,” as in your emphatic determination?
With regards, Sh. Tzvi
And in general, what business does “Ayalon” have disqualifying his brothers as being “from the sheep and from the goats”? 🙂
Are additional trilogies expected in the future?
In my opinion, the rabbi’s logical conservatism
caused the ad to fail.
The rabbi wants his outlook to shine forth and break through already in the text of the ad,
and justifies this by saying that it indeed reflects the main innovation in the trilogy.
But the ad is supposed to address the purchasing audience,
so why not wrap the message in its language?
Even more so, why belittle and lower its method?
The first rule of advertising is “to answer the customer’s need,”
and not to explain to him how hugely mistaken he is!
The decision that “religious conservatism is failing!!!”
is the presentation of a legitimate position, but not one that is crystal clear,
and it is still being weighed in the eyes of the observer.
The onlooker from the side actually thinks it is quite flourishing and thriving
until proven otherwise. (And the ad doesn’t really answer that.)
What amused me most was that after all the verbiage in strips of text closing off every option and place for discussion
(you are certainly mistaken, frozen, lacking foundation, fossilized, and more slogans from the hardline vocabulary of the Edah Haredit),
and then come the one-sided words:
“Come open-minded.”
The rabbi truly rolls up his sleeves and is full of courage – more power to him!
But I don’t understand who put himself at risk and put his name in the credits.
In my opinion, even if it is already too late,
still every ad like this hurts sales,
and even more the connection of the launch with the readers.
Your logic needs major improvement. What connection is there between the demand “come open-minded” and the statement “you have failed”? I too am open-minded, and if they convince me they have not failed, I will acknowledge the truth.
I know very well that if proven otherwise, the rabbi will acknowledge the truth (it’s just a shame there is not even an echo or hint of that in the ad).
And I did not set the statement “you have failed” against “come open-minded.”
Rather, after the definition/accusation –
fossilized, refusing to update itself, and more –
come open-minded???
And still, we are talking about advertising and marketing, need (a little less logic),
so really, why attack and generalize “by pure logic” already on the first date?
Even more so, why aim messages at such very broad and general things
like religion, Judaism, halakhah, Jewish thought, etc.,
instead of focusing on the advantage for the individual person or the bold seeker?
The book is first of all a personal solution before its cosmic correction,
so it is a shame to skip over that right at the starting point.
Blessings and success.
Conservatism for its own sake and innovation for its own sake are both two sides of the same coin. Neither is rational.
Is there a way to allow cash payment at the collection points?
With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “Behold, here comes that dreamer” 5780
To Y.D. – hello,
And perhaps both traits – conservatism and innovation – are rational and necessary for building a better and more repaired world. Without the aspiration to innovate, the world would remain stuck forever at its starting point, without way out and without hope. However, without a generous measure of conservatism, the aspiration to improve and advance may lead to the breaching of every boundary and the trampling of every value and person who seems to stand in the way of the “breakthrough.”
The right path is to create a proper combination containing a balance between the dream “to change the world” and bring a better future, and the great caution that obligates us always to examine whether we are not trampling and destroying all the good that exists. And as Edmund Burke showed in his reflections on the French Revolution, it is precisely the cautious and moderate path that brings effective progress.
Joseph learned this lesson. His dreams of leading the house of Jacob, and later the whole world – “the sun and the moon and eleven stars” – were good dreams. But in the heat of the dream he created antagonism among his brothers. That is not how one builds and repairs. Joseph’s correction was to come to a state of slavery and imprisonment, in which no one was interested in his dreams. His success was tested by his ability to “put his aspirations aside” and devote all his strength to fulfilling the desires of others. And it is precisely his loyalty and dedication to his superiors and his companions that turns him into their leader.
The dreams should not be put away. Aspirations for a brilliant future are the foundation of all progress and creativity. But the tool that ensures the realization of the dream is דווקא caution and humility, by means of which a person builds one more layer upon the existing good and succeeds in creating trust and cooperation.
With Sabbath blessings of a dream fulfilled in pleasantness and peace, Sh.Tz.
Cash? By the most conservative payment method? For such groundbreaking books one should pay in the most modern way, and every Torah portion that was dear to [Michael] David opens with credit and closes with credit, as it says: “Happy is the man whose strength is in You” 🙂
So it seems in my humble opinion.
With regards, Sh.Tz.L.
To Sh.Tz.,
I have nothing against “the worldview of the Holy Scriptures, of Hazal, and of the earlier and later authorities, and Maimonides’ opinion, who established the Thirteen Principles of Faith, which include the belief that the entire Torah in our hands is from Heaven and eternal, and that there is divine providence and reward, redemption, the World to Come, and the resurrection of the dead,” as you put it. I myself believe in them too, as you know. My problem (it’s not a problem; it’s reality. It’s not a problem to be a child) is that people live in fantasies and do not know what they believe in. They believe in nothing. They have little children’s pictures in their heads. That is what makes them children and sheep and goats. Has anyone bothered to clarify for himself what the coming of the Messiah is, and what the resurrection of the dead is, and how it is connected to the reality in which we live? If people were studying Kabbalah and wanted to understand, attain, and see the upper worlds and God’s providence, then they would not be sheep and goats. But the overwhelming majority of them (including rabbis and yeshiva heads) are occupied with brainwashing and recitation and spreading slogans, not with understanding. It is evident that their whole aim is sociological – to win souls for their camp, and in fact to glorify their own social standing (unconsciously). Rabbi Michael at least wants and tries to understand, even if he is mistaken, but he is on the path. He wants sensory perception, and not naive, blind, and meaningless faith.
No. If it is necessary to pay in cash, then only through me in Lod or at Bar-Ilan. But it is much preferable to use the store and pay by credit card.
You yourself declare that you hear many expressions such as Reformist, heretic, and the like. When you come with an approach of undermining established concepts, people will not want to listen to it at all. Again, you are completely right. But the goal is to reach as many people as possible, and with this approach you have seen for yourself that you have become untouchable in certain circles. Isn’t that so?
Do you really think those people are my audience?
Deleted. Inappropriate personal comment. (Michi)
And thus said King David, peace be upon him: “Happy are those who dwell in Your house” – when one pays by credit, one can sit at home and pay; but with cash one must wander far away, all the way to the holy city of Lod, and weigh out the money by the sharp-witted merchants there 🙂
In my opinion, it’s indeed not blunt; rather, it is less defining of the entire trilogy. It only defines the second book. There are many additional layers beyond the critique of conservatism.