On Haredim and Singers (Column 309)
Last weekend I was sent an article on YNET that reports on a demonstration held in Tel Aviv in solidarity with workers in the music industry. It stirred a few thoughts in me, mainly in light of the columns I wrote about the behavior of the Haredim during corona (290, 292 and 305). I thought to myself that this definitely deserves a short and concise complementary column. So here is a light interlude from the scholarly pressure of the recent columns.
The article describes a performance by several well-known singers, whose purpose was to gather people for a solidarity demonstration with workers in Israel’s music industry. During the corona period there were no performances by singers, and therefore both the singers and their support staff were left without work and without income. So several thousand people gathered there, ostensibly (or not) in order to support the workers of the industry.
The article also describes the contempt shown by those present for the instructions of the Ministry of Health and the police: no social distancing, masks, and so on. This is quite reminiscent of similar events among the Haredim (prayers, funerals, study in yeshivas, demonstrations and the like), after which I am sure at least some of those present there felt harsh feelings toward the Haredim. This is especially amusing because there are not insignificant lines of similarity between these two populations. So here are eight of them (there are surely more):
A. In both cases we are dealing with a public that is led by charismatic figures. In favor of the Haredi side it should be said that the leadership there is indeed selected on the basis of intellectual abilities, but in terms of contact with reality it cannot be denied that the singers of the Tel Aviv crowd have some advantage. Here I find it hard to decide whom I would prefer.
B. In both contexts the leadership preaches to its flock empty slogans, although once again the scales clearly tilt here in favor of the Haredim. The singers tell us that culture (and of course primarily their performances) is an existential need, and that without it we would not be able to exist here, just as the Haredi leadership tells us that without the Torah study of the Haredim, upon whom the entire world stands, we would not be able to exist here.
Thus, for example, Yoni Feingold, chairman of the Agents’ Association, supplies us with his expert and independent opinion:
“Yoni Feingold, chairman of the Agents’ Association, emphasized the urgent need to return to activity: ‘Without the artists there is no culture in the State of Israel. People here act out of a sense of mission and joy of creation. Now, when a helping hand needs to be extended, the leadership stammers, hesitates, leaving an entire industry in total darkness. People need to earn a living, and it’s fortunate that there are people here who take responsibility for themselves. The state must play a role. We are supposed to receive support from Jerusalem and from the state, like in a proper country. Culture is food for the soul; it is the national resilience. We must provide a response for all those working in the field who are now in distress, because without culture there is no future.’”
Huldai, as mayor of Tel Aviv, cannot allow himself to stand aside. He too joins in:
“From here I call on the government of Israel – do not forget culture. I appeal to the new minister of culture: a serious challenge lies before you. Let us join hands; time is short and the work is great. This is vital for the existence of a democratic and free society”.
Needless to say, even here I see a significant advantage on the Haredi side, since the Torah really is a significant basis for our existence and survival, whereas the singers, with all due respect to them, are nothing more than pleasant fillers of leisure hours. So they should stop making a racket out of proportion to their size. Their pathetic songs, and those of their colleagues, about culture as an existential need elicit a chuckle from me each and every time. The same goes for theater actors or sports players. Each one explains to us that without him, without singers’ performances or without shows, the world would not exist, and that he is an existential need for all of us—even if we ourselves, ignorant people that we are, do not quite understand this. Therefore we must fund them and maintain them, and of course this tune cannot be stopped.
Let’s continue.
G. It turns out that in both contexts the feeling of an existential need justifies trampling the instructions of the police and the Ministry of Health underfoot. Who can stand up to an existential need? These need to pray with a quorum and study Torah, and those need to hear Shalom Hanoch and Aviv Geffen. Therefore these and those allow themselves to trample the regulations underfoot. As Stav tells us: “You can’t expect people to listen to music and not dance or get close to each other.” Very logical, no? I wonder what Stav thinks about expecting people to pray at home, or not to accompany their relatives and friends to their final resting place? As I already said, in this respect as well the comparison clearly tilts in favor of the Haredim. Not to mention that among the Haredim I get the impression that at least after they sobered up, adherence to the rules has indeed been strict—something that did not really appear in that Tel Aviv demonstration.
Onwards.
D. In both cases there is a cynical exploitation of celebrity status for various self-interested purposes. Among the Haredim, the aura of the “great rabbis of the generation” is used to promote value-laden and power-oriented agendas (and sometimes worthy goals as well), and so too among the singers, where celebrities are used to recruit people for some arbitrary cause. I failed to understand why workers in the music industry deserve different treatment from the rest of the unemployed and those placed on unpaid leave (the “furloughed classes”)?! It is hard not to recall the singers who came to recruit masses of youth to the well-known rally in “Kings of the Municipality” Square (where Rabin was assassinated). There, as in many other contexts, singers and actors explain to us what is and is not appropriate to do ethically and politically, as if they were members of God’s Ethics Committee. In this matter too, the scales tilt toward the Haredi side. Rabbis are at least trained in, and authorized for, ethical and halakhic decisions (at least with respect to their flock), something I fail to understand in the case of singers and actors. As for the “Council of Torah Sages of Meretz,” headed by Amos Oz (I don’t know if it still exists today), one could say that these were people with some sort of ethical standing (at least in the eyes of their flock). But why does vocal or stage ability qualify people in the ethical and politico-security realm? Strange.
E. In both cases there is a demagogic appeal against the demons who threaten us, the persecuted group. The Zionists and the army (the “medineh,” in the parlance of R. Chaim Kanievsky and his grandson), or Miri Regev and the government (for the singers). Need and interest get a serious boost when they are presented as a firm stand against the forces of darkness. The anti-Christ who will destroy the world, were it not for us standing in the breach heroically.
and. In both cases the leadership uses pathetic statements that appeal to emotion and stroke their flock, instead of logical reasoning. The appearance of the great rabbis of the generation before all Israel throws their flock into ecstasy, and in exactly the same way the caressing words of the singers of Israel do to their own flock (“How moving it is to see you here,” “It’s moving to see the thousands who came here. It was a very strange and crazy period, but we came here to support our friends and the wonderful crews; without them I don’t know where we would all be,” says Aviv Geffen. Even without being there, I am sure that the immortal Tel Aviv sentence was uttered more than once: “It’s really not to be taken for granted”). No wonder people are moved—after all, they packed themselves up, despite their own will and occupations, and came to hear a performance by the finest singers of Israel. So you won’t appreciate them?!
Z. In both cases, the public’s desire to rub shoulders with the luminaries of the generation and hear their pearls is exploited in order to create the appearance of a demonstration. Thus, for example, two of the furious demonstrators say: “We didn’t find anything to do, so we came to the park with some friends. We brought the beers from a shop nearby, and all in all it’s an excellent evening.” Good thing the regulations are a bit more lenient with demonstrators. After all, a little respect for democracy. People come to hear a show, and they are told how much their efforts to come to a demonstration for the music industry are appreciated. “Kings of the Municipality” Square at Rabin’s peace rally—did we mention that already?
H. In both cases there is a natural warmth in belonging to the monochromatic crowd that surrounds you. People need a sense of belonging, and therefore they feel warm and cozy crowding into a group that looks and thinks like them, especially when they are told that they are saving the world. Both to hear a show and thereby perform a noble, almost scout-like act of self-sacrifice. What could be bad?! So why keep those anachronistic regulations of the Ministry of Health and the police?! So what if the organizers committed themselves, and the spots for standing at the required distances were even marked? After all, our democracy is in danger.
Nothing I have written here is meant to say anything about the regulations of the Ministry of Health, whether one should or should not obey them, or whether they are logical or not. Nor should anything be inferred from this about my fondness for this or that Hebrew singer (I am very fond of a few of them) or about my attitude toward films and plays (ditto). Nor should it be inferred that I retract even one word of what I wrote about the Haredim in the aforementioned columns.
Here I am dealing only with a scientific comparison between the two contexts, meant to support the well-known Talmudic thesis: “Sadna d’ar’a had hu” (the nature of the world is one). Whoever wishes to take this on to a doctorate already has a title and a research proposal. The science of baloney is calling you.
Discussion
I only hope you’re not calling for a pogrom against the singers too….
Is there no difference between the day-to-day behavior of the Haredim and the continuation of routine at the beginning of the crisis, when it was only gathering momentum, and a specific protest toward the end of the crisis?
I’m not justifying it, but there’s a tendency here toward the Tel Aviv crowd..
My teacher Rabbi Michael,
It seems to me that this time your logical analogy has run into a certain obstacle.
There is no doubt that breaking the social-distancing rules at the rally in question was highly reprehensible, and indeed it was condemned in most of the TV reports that covered it (even using your correct argument—that bohemian Tel Aviv should be judged by the same standard as Bnei Brak).
It is also true that one can compare the claim that "the world cannot exist without Torah" to the claim that culture and art are a significant component of every human society. There is one small difference—and that is that poetry / singing / dancing etc. seem to exist and play a significant role in human society generally—from African tribes to all the countries of both the Western and Eastern world, and even in… Haredi society (klezmer musicians, jesters, storytellers, etc. were and still are part of that society). It seems to me that Rambam probably was, to put it mildly, not enthusiastic about cultural activities based on imagination such as literature (correct me if I’m wrong)—but it seems that quite a few great Torah figures (for example, R. Nachman of Breslov and Rav Kook) thought somewhat differently.
One can also distinguish between the reckless conduct of parts of the Haredi leadership (of course only parts, and apparently a minority of them) at the height of the lockdown period and the demands associated with it—and a rally taking place after the "release," when almost the entire economy has returned to full activity, the stores and malls are open, and gradually even the synagogues.
Likewise, the organizers of the rally made an effort and marked places two meters apart from each other.
That is, the "leadership" of this public did try to observe the rules—and it was דווקא the "citizens" who came to the rally to hear music (people over whom this leadership has no control whatsoever) who violated its instructions.
But that is not the main logical failure here. Your mistake lies in the purpose of the rally:
The purpose of the rally was not concern for the singers (and by the way, most of the performers are also the poets and composers of their works—which entitles them to a bit less contempt, even if you yourself are not a devotee of these arts).
They issued a call, the most human—Jewish, if you will—possible (and I know that like me you don’t like this dichotomy)—to care specifically for the daily bread of the "workers" (as they are sometimes called—the stage workers).
We are talking about 150,000 people who do not receive their "allowances" and stipends from the state (unlike yeshiva students, theater managers and museum workers, rabbis, public officials, or university lecturers)—but depend on their work behind the scenes of performances for their sole livelihood.
If the self-employed protest was justified (and it certainly was), then one must understand that these are not salaried workers but "day laborers"—people who do not need to be fired or put on unpaid leave because they have no employer at all.
In that sense they are similar to electricians, painters, plumbers, etc., who were also badly harmed by the shutdown of the economy. But those are gradually returning to work.
These day laborers still have no horizon (I very much hope that my friend, the new Minister of Culture, Chili Tropper, will create a reasonable framework).
Precisely for that reason, and out of acquaintance with many of the artists (who, as is well known, as usual have well-developed egos and, as usual, don’t think much about others), I was moved to see this mobilization on their part (the famous artists who performed are well-off, and are not dependent only on live performances before audiences, since they also have royalties and also appear on television programs and are paid well).
For people who, between us, are fairly invisible most days of the year—even to them.
What do you think the Haredi leadership’s reaction would have been if someone had thought of (and would have had to be a political suicide case)
stopping the funding for yeshivot because of the coronavirus crisis?
How much social distancing do you think would have been maintained?
That is the correct analogy relevant to this rally.
My good friend Shuli Rand wrote the attached song for them. Granted, just a "singer," devoid of spiritual authority—but still worth listening to.
It seems to me Churchill said, when they came to take budgets from culture during wartime, "If there is no culture, what are we fighting for?"
Every person has a threshold point at which he sees something as a supreme value; the question is whether this is a whim stemming from cheap interests that hide materialism, greed, and lust, or whether it stems from true values for which a person pays a high price all his life.
As I recall, after all the Haredim are anxious about comfort; it is a sacrifice, even if they were born that way. That doesn’t mean they don’t live lives of restriction in almost every sphere of life. True, there are embarrassments, but I still haven’t seen someone who wasn’t born Haredi become Haredi because of base desires—unlike all the other sectors.
By the way, all of humanity is built on stupidity and illusions. After all, every advertisement backed by Michael Jordan or Messi and Ronaldo is a stupid advertisement, but they pay a fortune for it because it sells. Same with the other models. That’s how our world works—they pull the wool over our eyes. In this there is no difference between a Haredi person and anyone else, but it is certainly nicer to beat up on the Haredi.
What has happened, though, is that only just yesterday or the day before did the kindergartens begin to return among the Haredim, unlike everyooone else, even though it was already permitted. The same applies in many things: right now the Haredim are being more careful than anyone else, which is a hundred witnesses’ worth of proof that the Haredim really were not aware (perhaps because of the boy-who-cried-wolf effect), and when they became sufficiently aware, they were the most meticulous of all—and that is because the value of life (including that of the elderly) is for them a supreme value.
The column proves that everyone, with whatever inclinations, comes to his own square. I don’t think that if they were to shut down the humanities faculty, at some point you wouldn’t join a protest like this—and if not the humanities, then higher education in philosophy and the like.
We’re all human beings, tipshim or not?! If this is the norm, apparently not….
One thing is certain: there’s no greater fun than making the Haredim look stupid; otherwise it would force me to ask why I’m not like them..
Too bad you stopped with the last columns, which were simply in the category of "to delight in the Lord"; apparently the ratings are a bit lacking, so you have to go back to dealing with garbage—from a lofty roof to a deep pit. (Getting licked up by a few talkbacks is almost Haredi-level foolishness… and enough said) …
Have a good new month and a lovely rest of the week with lots of penetrating columns to our delight; after all, we are on the eve of the 3rd of Sivan, the giving of the Torah.
Tam.
And as for me, I will stand at my watch. The analogy is excellent.
1. The rally organizers marked spots, but when they saw this wasn’t being observed, they didn’t bother to restore order or cancel the event. Marking spots is lovely. I’m sure it added a lot of aesthetics to the square.
2. The time gap really doesn’t matter. If you have given each person his own Torah, then the Haredim too have ukimtot explaining why in their case it is less severe. An outbreak of a second wave is quite worrisome, even if many tend to dismiss it.
3. The universality of culture seems to me a truly absurd argument. Wearing pants is universal too. Is the world sustained by that? The fact that everyone consumes something does not mean that thing has existential importance. Scope is not evidence of fundamentality.
4. Their "human" call really touches my heart. In my remarks I explicitly noted that this is about the whole industry and not only the singers themselves. And still I do not see what the difference is between workers in the music industry and other workers in the economy, apart from exploiting their status to advance their own interest. And let us not forget that the condition of the industry’s workers is a direct interest of the singers. This is not innocent concern for the weak and the other; otherwise I would expect them to care about all the workers in the economy. We also all know that performing in such a place fuels your status, so even if you are not currently in distress, you have a clear interest in being there. So I am far from moved by this "gesture."
5. And if we are speaking of analogies, the analogy to stopping the funding of yeshivot is wretched demagoguery. Nobody stopped funding the music industry. There are health regulations that do not allow performances. The yeshivot too stopped operating, as we all remember.
Of all people, you—who testify about this public that they have inflated egos and little concern for others—should suspect that this is not just concern for others. But, as stated, even if this were pure altruism, almost all of my criticism would still stand. Their impure motives only provide the framework for my discussion.
Honorable Rabbi,
I wondered why you do not address the matter of the timing of the two events.
The first event (the Haredi one)—when the decrees had only just descended upon the head of the people dwelling in Zion (or actually, the people dwelling on planet Earth), and the second event (the singers)—which took place when that same people dwelling in Zion had already accumulated some knowledge about the plague and had also lost patience with obeying the instructions.
It seems to me that the second event would not have happened at the time of the first, whereas the first event certainly could have happened at the time of the second (perhaps once it happened as the first event, no. But without that—certainly yes).
🙂
I answered this above. It is a distinction that I could have raised ten more like it with respect to the Haredim (the scholars there will present you with a thousand sharp ukimtot in their favor). If there is corona and there are regulations and it is important to observe them and not make your own calculations (especially when your behavior affects others), then that is true regarding concern over a second wave as well. If everyone makes calculations for himself, then that is what the Haredim did at the beginning of the process too (which today apparently turns out to have been overly hysterical even then).
I too cut corners now and then (don’t tell anyone), but a mass event of thousands of people (who themselves meet with thousands of others) doing everything openly is not comparable to, say, my meeting with my brother and/or sister (do you know them?).
See you this afternoon,
Senior Dimud 🙂
I don’t think R. Nachman and Rav Kook meant culture of this kind…… and likewise I don’t think they saw in it more value than Torah study
And likewise those singers were not demonstrating for those painters and plumbers but for the stage workers, and not for nothing….
Sometimes the way to calculate a price is not to calculate the worst case on each individual item, but to step back from the items and make an overall assessment.
Since the beginning of the crisis I’ve been hearing screams of gevalt about the unrestrained Tel Avivians who will kill us all. The press is full of wide-angle photos of young people in the park, at the beach, drinking coffee…
And yet by the test of results, the percentage of infected people in Tel Aviv is an order of magnitude lower than in the Haredi concentrations, who as is well known are careful to "guard yourselves" …
Of course, it could be that Bnei Brak really is extra-scrupulous and in Tel Aviv they do indeed flout the regulations, and only special protection from the Creator of the world protects Tel Aviv (which, as is known, is the first metropolis added onto the Land of Israel, and we all know what Omri merited…).
Or perhaps in Tel Aviv people exercise reasonable judgment (for example, I went out running in the open air in the park at night during the lockdown period, but I did not enter enclosed places for many long weeks), a judgment that is not always clear to someone looking from the outside.
Of course the Haredim will claim that they too exercise judgment, except that unfortunately many there are lax in "You graciously endow," so the judgment doesn’t help )
There are simply mistakes here. Bnei Brak is extremely crowded, and there are gatherings of people in everyday life and not only at demonstrations, etc. There are quite a few reasons for Haredi morbidity even without their style of conduct.
I have no gevalt cry here. I simply made a comparison. That’s all.
This is already beyond all bounds!
I read your recent learned columns, but writing a reasoned response explaining what I agree with and what I disagree with and why (with sources, etc.) would take me a lot of time that I don’t have.
On the other hand, writing here "I agree" (like our illustrious judges after some intern writes the ruling for them for starvation wages and in slave conditions) takes less than a second.
Why are you doing this to me?… Just to ruin my joy in argument? (the happiness of a Jew, as is well known)…
Since my son is currently clerking at the Supreme Court, I don’t think the clerks are paid starvation wages. One should remember that this year is part of their professional training and they are paid for their work. Actually, in law firms the situation is worse.
Now I don’t know what should make me happier: that I received implicit agreement, or that I ruined your joy in argument. 🙂
That is exactly what I meant—because Bnei Brak is more crowded, the number of persons per housing unit is higher, and the lifestyle is different, the law of Tel Aviv is not the law of Bnei Brak.
And therefore the whole comparison is irrelevant.
If the goal of preventing deaths and heavy occupancy in the hospitals is achieved in Tel Aviv *despite* real or imagined gatherings, then there is no room for criticism.
On the other hand, at the height of the coronavirus, when the hospitals were filled with residents of Bnei Brak and Jerusalem, there was room for the entire population to criticize their conduct.
At the very least, a cultural pillar is far more meaningful, stable, and national than entertainment in its various forms.
With God's help, 2 Sivan 5780
There really is a common element: both Torah study and music bring a person joy and spiritual elevation. Joy has physical significance in strengthening health and the natural immunity that protects against diseases and epidemics. Social and communal cohesion also intensifies the power to cope with factors of illness, whereas loneliness weakens.
Beyond that, the problem of the people in the music industry is no different from the general problem of all sectors of the economy that suffered heavy financial damage during the period of lockdown and isolation. Idleness from work and worry about the economic future are no less dangerous to one’s health resilience.
It is hard to come with complaints about what was done or what was not done in the past. No one knew, and still does not really know exactly, how to deal successfully with the virus, and how infection can be prevented without destroying the fabric of normal life.
And nevertheless, the respite we have been granted makes it possible to think things through with greater calm, gather the data and examine them carefully, and perhaps they will succeed in outlining courses of action that are more effective and less damaging to the routine of life.
Regards, Shatz
Paragraph 3, line 1
… or what was not done…
There, line 2
… without destroying the fabric of life…
There is no place for mocking artists. Every culture has art, and it is vital to the public; otherwise it would not exist. Where possible, respectable sums are spent on preserving and developing culture. In different countries people are proud, rightly, of the achievements of their painters, architects, writers, scientists, and everyone else. What is unique in Judaism is that for very many years there was contempt for all these things, and to this day there are Haredim who think that Shas and halakhic decisors are superior to painting, for example, or to mathematics. There were Jews who excelled in violin playing or in physics and for that purpose left the shtetl and even Judaism. In my opinion, good for them. If Nathan Milstein had remained in the shtetl, he would not have reached his extraordinary achievements in music. The connection between Haredi Judaism and art is tenuous, and Haredi shabbiness in Israel demonstrates the point. Here, for example, is a work by the German composer Felix Mendelssohn, grandson of Moses Mendelssohn.
Felix was an apostate from the entire Torah and a convert out.
If in your view there is religious justification for violating all the commandments and joining an idolatrous religion in order to succeed in music, I think your religiosity is in a giant paradox.
I’m glad that the scientists managed to squeeze in at the end after all the so-very-essential artists without whom our lives would not be lives. Maybe they too will eventually reach the rank of the glorious architects who gave us creations without which we would not exist, such as Clal Building or Ramat Polin.
I do not agree with most of your arguments (for example, the somewhat puzzling claim from my point of view whereby you argue as though art and culture do not occupy a significant place in human society; from an educated and open person like you I expected more..)
But I will focus on the main point.
Unlike yeshiva students and academics and others—whose full salaries the state continues [rightly] to pay—these are day laborers who, as you said, are not funded by the state [sometimes justifiably, though one might ask why there is a need to fund lecturers in ancient Sumerian, comparative English literature, and so on].
So you are right that they are similar to the self-employed sector—and indeed there were many demonstrations on behalf of state support for that sector (I hope that regarding those demonstrations, as long as distancing is observed, you have no reservation).
The main difference in their case [and also with aviation workers] is that most of the businesses of those self-employed people are gradually reopening and their livelihood is returning.
As for performances—until yesterday (among other things thanks to the demonstration)—there was an absolute prohibition and no framework at all, not even a gradual one, had been presented for returning.
So the economic break for those stage workers was total, and above all desperate!
And a note regarding the cynicism, which has importance even beyond this concluding case:
It seems to me that the halakhic principle of judging your fellow favorably is being violated these days in every sphere of life, and especially in relations to the "other" (of course all rabbis only want power, and leftists only want to harm the State of Israel, and the settlers? and the Arabs?).
It seems to me that repairing the world [and in this case also the halakhah] requires coming out against this sweeping cynical approach.
Does the "presumption" that artists are self-centered people mean that every action they take will always be self-interested? Is there no room to examine, at least, each case on its own merits? Is every sector in Israel not convinced that there is a "presumption" regarding the dark motives of the other?
So precisely as someone who knows them deeply, I would be glad if you accepted my testimony, as an expert witness who knows everything that took place around this demonstration—that in this specific case (at least) you accept my testimony (unless my very acquaintance with them disqualifies me as a witness, so that logically such a witness cannot exist).
And above all—as a person whom I see as my teacher and as someone who contributes importantly to the religious and even public discourse in Israel—I would be glad if you joined the important struggle against disqualifying the motives of others a priori, in the spirit of judging favorably.
Who said they considered it more important than Torah study? One of the ways of demagoguery is to attribute to someone else a claim he never made and then refute it..
And as for Rav Kook—I suggest you study the Rav’s famous introduction to Song of Songs. Or his letter to Bialik (whom, certainly in his time, most of the rabbis of Israel treated worse than the "singers").
And regarding demonstrations for the painters and plumbers—how do you know they didn’t demonstrate? (How do you know rabbis didn’t demonstrate?) Naturally enough, the people who organized this demonstration were people for whom this is their field—just as in any struggle.
Abraham Mendelssohn, Felix’s father, converted to Christianity with his family when Felix was seven years old. I don’t know whether, from a "relatively rational" point of view, it is proper to condemn Felix for that and call him an "apostate" or a "convert out." At the same time there lived the illustrious mathematician Carl Gustav Jacobi, who was born Jewish and converted to Christianity because only that way could he study at the university. He certainly was a "convert out," but I am not angry with him. Anyone who is angry at all the apostates is angry at Jewish history. Rabbi Steinsaltz calculated that if all Jews had remained Jews, today we would have about 300 million of them. Eitan is angry at Clal Building and Ramat Polin, but they too are part of Jewish history—not only Nathan Milstein or Richard Feynman. The kosher Jew Genrikh Yagoda was head of the secret police in Stalin’s time. He was responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of people, Jews and non-Jews alike.
Hi Udi.
I did not say that it does not occupy a central place, but that it is not an existential necessity. With all due respect, two months without singers’ performances is really not a mortal blow to anyone. There is a limit to every prank. I noted that I too need art, both singers and plays, and still it seems to me highly unreasonable to make this into an existential matter on which life depends. Let them sing and not make such a big deal of it.
As for the performances, they will return like other professions. And I see nothing unique there. And to the best of my judgment there definitely are frameworks, just as there are for sporting events (for which dates have already been published).
The claim that artists are self-centered types was raised by you. It did not appear in my words even by hint. I wrote to you that if that is the presumption, then it supports my analysis even more. I certainly do not think a presumption must always hold, and I strongly oppose sweeping generalizations. So I really do not understand this argument of yours.
Following from that, I do not disqualify and did not disqualify any motives a priori. On the contrary, I argued from the conduct itself that there are indications of this. The a priori aspect (hanging on the general character of artists) was raised by you, not by me. My remarks were based on case-specific arguments drawn from the conduct, not on an a priori disqualification.
As for your testimony, I am sure you know them much better than I do. But it is still important to note that people are complex creatures, and sometimes an interested perspective brings them to genuine identification. There are countless examples of this. The interest does not always act consciously. On the contrary, perhaps in most cases it does not. When a person says things that are patently unreasonable (like singers’ performances or plays being the rock of our existence), I have before me one of two possibilities: 1. to think he is a fool. 2. to assume that interest is biasing his view. Since I do not think that the whole public there are fools, my conclusion tends toward 2.
The quotations brought from the crowd that was there, in my opinion, reinforce my point. At least part of the crowd did not come there because performances are the rock of their existence. They came to hear a free performance. In their place, perhaps I too would have come. Therefore the statements of those who were on the stage probably do not represent the feelings of too many people (not even of everyone who was present there, and there were not all that many, despite the attractiveness of a free performance, etc.).
In short, I have not been convinced that singers’ performances are the rock of our existence. I am sure we will stay alive even if for a few months we hear them on discs or on the radio. I am really not belittling people’s livelihood. That is another matter, of course, and I completely hope and wish that a solution will be found for them like for everyone else.
No one claimed that two months of stopping singers’ performances is harm to the "rock of our existence." Just as two months of shutting down academia, and even Heaven forbid the holy yeshivot for two months, are not so terrible a blow (academia is shut down much longer, and the Torah world enjoys a few months of "idleness" willingly).
. The claim was that art in general, and the art of song in particular (though it is not only about song), fulfills a significant role in every culture (just as I certainly think that the Torah world, despite its ongoing and advancing degeneration, is significant.)
I agree with you and do not at all like the use of bombastic terminology. I did not see the expression "rock of our existence" in the article, and the concept "essential" can also be interpreted more or less extremely.
In any case, exaggerated rhetoric is naturally used in demonstrations, and here too there is an additional bias created by drama-chasing media quotations; it seems to me that you too know this from our own sectoral side: the quotations and editing in articles will always come from the edges [the delusional ones?] of demonstrations, etc.—that is what is done when they interview extreme hilltop youth as though they represent the settlers, Shmuel Eliyahu as though he represents the rabbis of religious Zionism, anti-settler actors, etc.
As for the interviews with participants in the demonstration—you are knocking on an open door—it is perfectly clear that a large part of the participants (as opposed to the organizers) came in order to hear free music [especially after whoever truly thirsts for that had really been starved of it for many long weeks]—that has no connection at all to the organizers of the demonstration.
True, I raised the egocentric tendency of artists—what bothered me in your response was that you "took advantage" of my remark to strengthen your cynical arguments, and what especially bothered me was the issue of cynicism versus judging favorably—which even after your latest response, it seems to me that you still hold to in this context.
Is it the case that in realistic terms, in many cases where we judge favorably we may come out looking naive?
Certainly yes. But this disease of cynicism is not only in stereotyping (I illustrated it in a sectoral context because it is easier to understand its defects there].
The problem, in my opinion, is the takeover of cynical discourse, which is very suitable for people with sharp intellects, who know very well how to poke holes in every principled and meaningful statement and find the "interest" behind it.
The danger here is, in my opinion, truly existential for society. This basic lack of trust actually produces a society that believes that "everyone is corrupt" (except me and my friends, of course), and therefore not only harms every possibility of genuine dialogue with someone who does not think like me (for of course he does so because of interest), but worse than that leads to, or at least intensifies, postmodern nihilism.
I repeat that there is no lack of trust in me. Lack of trust is not believing a priori what people say. I do not agree with what they say (not do not believe them), and I do not do so a priori but in light of arguments. They are absolutely welcome to raise arguments, and when they do I will be completely attentive.
I truly do not see how a sober approach interferes with discourse. In my view it only improves it, because it requires the claimant to raise reasonable grounds for his words and not toss out empty declarations devoid of content.
The expression "the rock of our existence" indeed does not appear in the article, and indeed I did not present it as a quotation. It was my description of what I heard and still hear from those groups, and it arises well, among other things, in the short quotations I brought in the column itself. In my view this is a completely faithful description of the source, that is, this is how they see things, even if they do not use the exact expression "the rock of our existence." What difference does it make? If I were to say that they see culture as the breath of our nostrils, would that too be a sin against the truth because the expression did not appear there? Quite apart from one expression or another, in my opinion these statements are very, very exaggerated, even though I too am one of the genre’s enthusiasts (in part), and that is what I wrote. I do not see what the argument between us is about.
If those quotations reflect only a small fringe, I am even more worried. That means that most of the public who were there really see singers’ performances as the rock of our existence (and did not merely come to hear a performance and along
the way do a good deed).
I did not understand (not as a dispute, literally) the end of your remarks:
"If those quotations reflect only a small fringe, I am even more worried. That means that most of the public who were there really see singers’ performances as the rock of our existence (and did not merely come to hear a performance and along
the way do a good deed)."
How do statements by a fringe reflect the majority of the public?
If those who came only to hear a free performance are a small fringe, then all the rest (the great majority) came because they really think this is the rock of our existence. That would worry me.
That is not what I meant. The fringe I am talking about are those whom the media interviews (specifically not those who came merely for enjoyment).
What I am arguing is that the media has an automatic bias to interview the more extreme representatives in every group and sector—in order to create drama.
So if someone wants to say that culture has importance or positive value, a "good" reporter will naturally prefer someone who says that culture is "the rock of our existence."
And therefore a person has to train himself to shave off at least 50% of the sharpness or exaggeration in any group whatsoever, whether it is left or right / religious or secular / Jews or Arabs, etc.
The problem is that we all know this when it comes to distorted representatives of our own sector, but we fail to apply the same transfer to the exaggerations of other sectors.
This really sounds like a dialogue of the deaf.
I do not think these are fringe people, certainly not extremists, and certainly they are not speaking with vehemence. These are people speaking innocently, and I have no criticism of them whatsoever. Everything is fine, and they too are fine. By the way, the media also did not choose them as a fringe and did not bring inflammatory or extreme statements, since they brought their words innocently and calmly, really without criticism of anything.
All in all, I may not be part of the artists’ world, but I certainly know the world I live in, and I think this is a representative sample of the regular mainstream. And by the way, I have no criticism of them whatsoever. But how you took this to be lack of generosity toward people with a different opinion—beats me.
After the Rabbi understood how people came to pogroms against the Jews, I hope that now he understands why pogroms are an expression of antisemitic hatred regardless of Jewish actions, for behold we see with our own eyes that the negligent people now are those who accused the Haredim of negligence (ya habibi, Tel Aviv)!!
Ironically, most of the infected are also from the holy schools (that is stated explicitly in my country, for example).
May we merit a world with neither negotiation nor jealousy nor hatred nor competition. So may it be His will forever.
I am beginning to understand better how people come to pogroms against the Haredim; now I think it is not only because of the coronavirus but also because of the foolish level of the strange and astonishing apologetics they keep writing again and again.
I noticed that every defense offered on behalf of the Haredim is somehow foolish. Recently someone named Tzvika wrote in a clear and reasoned way what many here feel, and the Rabbi returns to this matter of the defenders’ lack of understanding, and the Rabbi does not bother to explain what he means.
Simply put, it seems that the Rabbi is fixated on the lack of willingness to accept criticism, and it seems that unwillingness to accept a defense also suffers from an unwillingness to accept criticism. And the Rabbi apparently fixates on Haredi leadership and herd mentality, and as has been shown here at great length, this phenomenon is universal to humanity. It can come in the form of R. Chaim, or some other figure whose flock follows him blindly, and alternatively it can come in the form of Cristiano Ronaldo in an advertisement, or any other singer who gets an opinion column in the newspapers of the thinking classes, where for some reason herd mentality seems legitimate. And on this many good people lay down their hands. True, most of the defenders are Haredim, because indeed they feel they have been wronged, and again and again the Rabbi dismisses them with a wave of the hand, with claims about stupid arguments. Perhaps the Rabbi would kindly explain once and for all why: in what way are football fans, who care about what the player thinks, or music lovers and the like, whose celebrities they would kiss on the lips, different? We are human beings, and to take human flaws and put them under a magnifying glass only when one sector is involved seems neither serious nor substantive.
I did not understand the Rabbi’s answer. I am not Haredi and not a defender. I simply think such an extreme reaction is ridiculous coming from those who themselves neglect the guidelines (I am not speaking about the owner of this site).
And the reason for opening the schools is the holy mission (essentially equivalent, as is known, to the minister’s guideline a few weeks ago), even contrary to medical guidelines (I am speaking at least about what is happening in my country).
If I had people to praise greatly, there would be much to do (not only with the Haredim).
By the way, extremism helps nothing whatsoever (see Sartre’s essay on the Jewish question).
*to pogrom
With God's help, 24 Sivan 5780
To Abu Najma—salamat,
RMD"A opposes adoration in general; see for example column 273, "A Look at Adoration," where he criticized the adoration of sports stars, such as the excitement that was present in Kobe Bryant’s eulogy).
Regards, Shams Razal, Qubbat al-Najma
By the way, there I mentioned the Chinese doctor who bravely warned about the coronavirus epidemic at a very early stage and himself perished from the coronavirus. This week his widow (who was pregnant at the time of his death) gave birth to a son
Rabbi Shatz"l, may he live long.
Many thanks. Indeed, the Rabbi opposes adoration, and I even read his column about Kobe, of blessed memory. But the problem is this: if the problem is adoration, then one should speak only against the phenomenon, to present the Haredi minority as the problem, and not the strange human phenomenon—this is baffling?!
Where did you mention the Chinese doctor, and what does the Chinese man have to do with the phenomenon?!
With the blessing of alhamdulillah.
With God's help, 24 Sivan 5780
To Avi the star—greetings,
It is RMD"A’s method to illustrate a general issue by presenting a particular case, and see his remarks in column 245.
Regards, Shatz
I mentioned the Chinese doctor in one of my comments on the column "A Look at Adoration," where I argued that not all admiration is invalid, and that it is proper to admire a person for great deeds he performed for the benefit of humanity, and of course without any obligation to accept all of his deeds.
Shatz the moon—greetings to you too, regards from a comet.
Let me summarize your words: are you basically saying that the Haredim are nothing more than a parable that happened to befall the honorable rabbi, owner of the site, as an example of the human failure of admiring people without deep thought about what those people are saying?
Correct me.
With God's help, 24 Sivan 5780
To A.A.N.—greetings,
It seems that RMD"A has a general interest in opposing adoration that leads to self-nullification before the opinions of "authorities," and he also has a particular interest in arriving at that state in religious and Haredi society.
Regards, Shatzam Chanachal
"The Torah really is a significant foundation for our existence and survival"
Really?