A Few Words Following the Funeral of Ruth Dayan (Column 368)
In memory of Ruth Dayan, of blessed memory
Last weekend, Ruth Dayan, the former wife of Moshe Dayan, passed away at nearly 104. Ruth was a singular personality whose biography is tightly interwoven with the history of the state. She lived through and experienced many of the central events we went through and was acquainted with remarkable figures in Israel (such as Wingate, Yitzhak Sadeh, and many others) and around the world. She initiated important enterprises in the social, artistic, and economic spheres, such as “Maskit,” Variety, and more; she worked with new immigrants and other vulnerable populations, and of course she was a pronounced woman of the Left, in her quiet way. Thus, for example, she maintained a close friendship with Suha Arafat and her mother until her final days, and she devoted no small effort to Palestinian groups and to Jewish–Arab relations. That is probably what worked against her as a candidate submitted year after year for the Israel Prize, which she never received. The all-embracing “position” I discussed in Column 362 operates on these playing fields as well, and that’s a pity (cf. Israel Prize for Yeshayahu Leibowitz).
My wife, Dafna, was in close contact with her in recent years, and so we felt the need to attend the funeral held this past Sunday at noon in Nahalal. The funeral was a fascinating experience for me, and in Ruth’s memory I will write here a few reflections that arose for me around the event.
The participants at the funeral were a combination of two groups: the minority who organized the event were rugged, tanned moshavniks from Nahalal—callused hands, dressed in jeans, T-shirts, and work shoes. Alongside them was the majority group composed of family and friends, most of them pampered Tel Avivians, generally younger. To me this symbolized Ruth’s biography and that of her family (which likewise moved from Nahalal to Tel Aviv in every sense), but perhaps also the trajectory of the Israeli Left in general—from the pioneering settlement movement and the Labor movement (national and militarist, worshipping strength and persistence) into the bosom of left-wing liberalism, softer and alienated.
I was surprised that the funeral proceeded with a religious hue. Her granddaughter recited the Kaddish translated into Hebrew (an excellent idea—I am completely in favor, just as should be done with the ketubah), without the presence of members of the burial society (hevra kadisha), without the customary murmuring of Psalms and other stultifying rituals as is common in our parts. Instead, several songs of the Land of Israel were played (“Perhaps These Things Never Happened at All,” “Will There Indeed Yet Come Days,” and the like), which certainly suited the atmosphere. The feeling was that a piece of history was being buried here and gathered back to Mother Earth and to the Land of Israel (at the event, as with Ruth herself, one felt deep leftism and universalism together with a profound connection to the land and the state, as once characterized the Labor movement). It was hard not to think how much we all owe this group, which in recent years has undergone such a deep—and at times exasperating—transformation.
The speeches at the funeral sounded like an internal discourse of fanatical, iron-willed Balfour-protest warriors, speaking among themselves and sharing with one another their Balfour adventures and their dogged war for the state that was “stolen” from them. There were oaths of loyalty to the path and adherence to the legacy. To me it sounded exactly like at a Haredi funeral, where it does not occur to anyone that among those present there might be someone who does not fully identify with these statements, with this atmosphere, and with the conceptions it reflects. It is fitting and proper at such an event to speak about her views and also those of her family, and to describe them to the listeners as lines in her portrait and in her memory; but my sense there was that this was not description but preaching, as if these were principles that should be self-evident to everyone. I have been through similar events before, and I have concluded that there are all kinds of religious types who live in their own bubble and cannot see a meter beyond it.
It is instructive to view these matters against the backdrop of the immense and unusual complexity of the Dayan family, filled with highly talented figures, complicated and conflicted with themselves and with others, kicking and rebelling against anything that moves—and all, of course, in full public view (through the media, literature, journalism, and cinema). And despite all this, the discourse at the funeral reflected a picture of family and friends forming a completely uniform group, without a drop of complexity and/or rebellion. The atmosphere was entirely monochromatic (= single-toned), without grating notes or unusual voices (true, there is also Uzi Dayan, the “black sheep,” who was not felt there). My sense was that these folks constitute a religious-ideological group in every respect. I must say that this uniformity somewhat put me off on the one hand, but on the other side of the coin I was very impressed by their success in passing the torch and this heritage to the next generations. The “religious” education apparently works for them. In the population at large in Israel this group is almost an endangered species (and one could feel there the sadness and even a bit of despair over that), yet it turns out there are groups and families in which they manage to preserve this atmosphere and these values and transmit them well to their descendants. I felt they succeed in this no less—and perhaps more—than the staunchest of the “dossim” (religious types), among whom there is usually, nevertheless, some rebellious segment.
And returning to Ruth Dayan, of blessed memory: it is regrettable that her passing and her funeral received no place in the media, which is occupied mainly with Big Brother, with Bibi and anti-Bibi, and with other uninteresting and unimportant trivialities. Figures of her sort apparently do not interest anyone, and that is a pity. Incidentally, a similar feeling has come over me when great rabbis passed away, whose names meant nothing to the general public. Even when the media dedicates space to one rabbi or another, it is usually a rabbi who held a public role or voice (preferably political). Intellectuals and singular personalities are not news in our milieu, and that is a pity.
It seems to me worthwhile for all of us to take this opportunity to strengthen the antithesis to everything I have described here: to develop a focus on matters that are important and beneficial instead of the nonsense that fills our daily public discourse in this country; to engage with interesting and exceptional people and not with political or media celebrities; to listen to different voices and let them be heard; not to let “position” take an exclusive place in our considerations and in our attitude toward people and events. True, Ruth was, in my view, a leftist to the point of near-derangement—almost inconceivable to me. Friendship with the family of a mass murderer like Arafat is, for me, shocking. And yet, anyone who knew her knew that this came from an authentic place and a radiant personality, and it is not right to let our stance overshadow that (see Columns 29–30 on complex appreciation of people). She was a true lover of humanity, a woman of integrity, a role model for her family and for many other groups, endowed with impressive and distinctive traits. Her roots were planted deep in the land and the state, in harmony with her personality and her universalist outlook. It is a pity for those who are gone and will not be replaced.
May her memory be a blessing.
Discussion
I very much enjoy reading your articles.
There is a kind of religion—the religion of "the opposite seems more likely." The symptoms of these religious types are that they are even terribly smart and intelligent; they type themselves to death, purify the impure and defile the pure, forbid what is permitted and permit what is forbidden, and never miss an opportunity to strike at someone who acts like they do but from a different position, with values and tradition, and enough said.
A. Even the “opposite-seems-more-likely” person agrees with others on 90% of things in the world. It’s just that the 10% under dispute are the things that stand out.
B. It’s nice that you’re joining the trend that attributes a “religion” to every group (or person) you disagree with, but the accepted use of the term “religion” as criticism refers to the uncritical acceptance of principles without applying effective personal scrutiny to the foundations of the system. When something is presented in a reasoned and open way, calling it a religion is just a faulty use of the term.
C. You strike me as an idiot.
Bezalel, although this may look like a glaring lack of intelligence, since he is writing from a position on a post directed against positions, let me update you, on the basis of personal knowledge, that this is not idiocy but a tendentious Haredi position. Sometimes gut reactions look like something written by someone who is plainly unintelligent, but that is a bias of defensive tendentiousness and not necessarily lack of intelligence. Let it be known that this “Itamar Ben Gvir” is our old acquaintance, the troll “Tam,” who from time to time appears under a different nick, as is his way.
At first it occurred to me to attach this response to the post as an example of the phenomenon of non-substantive bias that I wrote about. Tam never disappoints me when I need an example of the phenomenon I’m writing about. Later I decided to let it go and not address it at all (“Do not answer a fool according to his folly”). But now that I see people don’t know what and whom this is about, I wrote this to save people time on a pointless discussion.
Bezalel.
A. If the ninety percent consists of abstract things like day and night, then clearly they should not be brought into the equation; only the ten percent you mentioned are the full one hundred percent in the equation. After all, neither the radical left nor the Haredi from Mea Shearim argue about the simple reality of the world; the dispute revolves solely around the ten percent you mentioned.
B. Just as the site owner attributed religiosity to anyone who clings to his position and disregards the opinion of others, so too one should call someone convinced that the truth is the opposite of the accepted norm—that is, someone with a lust for “the opposite seems more likely”—a religion.
C. I don’t know you well enough to know whether to be offended or flattered by the impression I make on you, but one can say that from your non-substantive response, the second option certainly seems more plausible to me.
And a mental challenge for anyone interested in examining things not from fixed positions:
A. Imagine Michi speaking gently to Itamar Ben Gvir the way he spoke gently about Arafat’s friend. Yes, Ben Gvir too is convinced he is doing justice, and unlike Arafat he only hung a murderer’s picture in his house and did not murder anyone (yet).
B. Did the funeral take place according to the rules in force during the pandemic? And did it even cross the post-writer’s mind for a moment to see this as a blatant violation of the rules and leftist autonomy?
C. Why is it that every time the above-mentioned person is asked about things that do not fit his comfortable position, the questioner gets, at best, a cynical and non-substantive reply? Only recently, when someone asked him about the difference between mass funerals and demonstrations (the argument between Dana Weiss and Amit Segal, who is not suspected of being Haredi), namely that the only difference is the language of the law and not the danger arising—or not arising—in the two cases, the questioner got a disproportionate and non-substantive response from which the bias screams out.
Bottom line: Michi can call those who disagree with him retarded trolls and so on and so forth—it won’t change anything, and it will only prove the position he is in. Only his deeds and his posts, when they are truly objective, will clear him of bias and allow him to criticize people who do speak from bias. Speaking from a position and criticizing others for speaking from a position does not make you objective and free of position.
(A final note: when Michi has something to answer, he answers instead of attacking and exposing the writer to his followers so that their sycophantic, bootlicking bias will help them escape a substantive discussion of the claim. Many times he likes to mention the Magen Avraham issue with the lie about the plague, but he runs from it whenever convenient and makes sure to expose the claimant so his arguments will not be heard. Bias, did I already say?)
Let’s move on to the flaws in Michi’s response:
“Although this may look like a glaring lack of intelligence, since he is writing from a position on a post directed against positions”
He claims that the post was written from a position, not that he himself is not writing from a position. I never claimed that I don’t write from a position, unlike you; I only presented a mirror image showing that you too are in the same boat, speaking from a deep-rooted and profound position!
After that, of course, our acquaintance came in and dove deep into his beloved demagoguery instead of responding substantively. Well, that’s no longer a flaw—it’s character.
And let us say amen!
And you too, as a devoted disciple and ardent follower, have crossed into the realms of demagoguery. Keep it up and maybe you too will have followers.
I deleted non-substantive continuations, and I will continue to do so.
Tendentious nonsense, on the other hand, I leave up, in keeping with my policy of not censoring.
This whole story really looks ridiculous. When I hear about people who are lovers of humanity, I always say that “lover of humanity” is code for “hater of Israel” (except for Rav Kook, who really was something else). True, this is a eulogy and I didn’t know the person, but I know the type, and usually (I don’t know of a case where it isn’t so) it’s simply a kind of modeling and nothing more. And I’m not impressed by help for the “weaker sectors” and the like. People are willing to invest a lot of time, money, and effort in making themselves look good. And I’m guessing these “weaker sectors” are usually Arabs. Apparently my concept of an “honest person” is also very different from the rabbi’s. Apparently for him truth comes cheap. For me, an honest person is someone who acts from a “motive” of truth. More precisely, someone who does not act from motives but to achieve goals. Most human beings lack self-awareness and do not ask themselves at all why they do what they do. And in that situation I would guess that she was no exception in this regard. The motive of posturing (+ unholy naïveté) is what is at play here. It is interesting how people “with radiant personalities” can at one and the same time love the enemies of Israel who seek their destruction and also hate those who want to defend themselves effectively against those same enemies (Itamar Ben Gvir). After all, if there is a war of one people against another, then on the one hand there is no terrorism and no terrorists, only enemies, period; but on the other hand there is no such thing as harm to innocent Arabs. There is no such thing as “innocent Arabs,” only enemies, period. There is also no “crime” here, only a war in which one side is right and the other is not. Or perhaps neither side is right. In any case, even if the rabbi thinks he is mistaken, that is a legitimate position). She certainly justified Arafat’s war against the people of Israel if she had such a relationship with his family. And presumably her personality did not “radiate” toward Kach people.
In short, it’s all a bluff. If I think my side in this war is right, then she was an enemy of the people of Israel, period. And about this it was said (paraphrasing): “Should one help the wicked and love the enemies of Israel?”
Regarding the transition in “the path of the Israeli left in general, from the workers’ settlement movement and the labor movement (nationalist and militaristic, worshipping force and stubbornness) into the bosom of leftist, soft, and alienated liberalism.” The rabbi should note that this is exactly the same transition (which the rabbi described in “Two Wagons”) that the West underwent from modernism to postmodernism, and which showed that postmodernism had always been there (within secular modernism) at its core. Here too, socialist-communist universalism always stood at the foundation of the Israeli left that founded the state. This schizophrenia between Jewish nationalism and socialist universalism (which is really postmodern at its root) was always a source of tension and division on the left and was the basis for the two parties, Mapai and the communist Mapam. For the latter, the State of Israel was a branch of the USSR, and they saw it as part of a larger project of communist takeover of the world (there were even some among them who spoke of Canaanite nationalism), whereas in Mapai the national foundation prevailed. But that was when nationalism was fashionable in the world. In fact, this Israeli communism was a continuation of Jewish exile-mentality in a new form, because the eyes of diaspora-type Jews of this sort are simply fixed on the Gentiles, learning from their ways, and not from genuine faith in the people of Israel. From the moment nationalism went out of fashion, nothing remained of the national foundation in Mapai, and today the Labor Party is the twin of Meretz (the successor to Mapam—the mem in Meretz is Mapam, for those who don’t know). In fact, it is now even to the left of it. I recently read the book “Scapegoat,” and you can see that all the nonsense of today’s left was already there from the very beginning of the settlement enterprise. The parties Yesh Atid and Yisrael Beiteinu are also, in essence, no different regarding the Jewishness of the state from Meretz and Labor. Deep down, these people (without knowing it) either really ought not to vote for these parties, or else they do not share a common fate with us at all. Today I very much understand the Haredim in not enlisting in the IDF. This is not their state, and they have no reason to die and be wounded in wars for it. It turns out retroactively that this was never the state of the Jews, and those who founded it did not found it in order for it to be one. They founded a state for themselves and for their religion. Today there is no point, as long as these guys control the media, the courts, the prosecution, and the army, in enlisting at all. This is their state, established for their religion. Jews have nothing to look for in their army. Let them enlist and fight their wars. We need to fight ours. Here, rabbi, is the arrival at the mature stage of universalist and anti-national postmodernism.
Emanuel, usually I don’t respond to the foolish and baseless remarks you scatter here into thin air, but because this is exactly the subject of the post, I thought I’d deviate from my custom. Take from me one genuine remark. Believe it or not, this was not written in order to mock you, but for the good of the matter and for your own good.
Since I know you fairly well, in total contrast to your “deep” acquaintance with Ruth Dayan and with people in general, whom you tend to classify with the rod of your tongue through childish and absurd stereotypes that exist only in your fevered imagination, I’ll tell the readers that you are not as foolish as it seems from what you wrote here and in other messages on the site.
And to you I strongly recommend trying to get out of your narrow little world. In particular, you should not use emphatic declarations when you are writing nonsense and speaking about things of which you do not have the slightest clue, and about people with whom you have not the slightest acquaintance. It is better to focus on arguments, or at least on well-founded and direct impressions. This dogmatism will probably pass with age (even I have already passed it a little, although there may be some who do not see it that way), but it’s a shame for you.
And in conclusion, I will remind you that one of the topics of this little post is a complex evaluation of people, and it seems that this does not exist for you at all. You are incapable of detaching yourself from your dogmatic and emphatic positions, and incapable of seeing anything beyond the tip of your nose. Really a shame. And I repeat, as my witness is Heaven, that these things are truly written for benefit.
I definitely agree with your views on complexity, a variety of voices, and stepping outside one’s position—but Ruth Dayan? Really? The close friend of the monster? Is there room for an infinite spectrum of legitimacy?
That is the difference between direct acquaintance with a person—if you identify him as a good person, then even if he has problematic decisions, you remain uncertain. And by the way, in my opinion there is no limit to complexity. If a person is an angel on one side, then he deserves credit for that even if he is a devil on the other.
Rudolf Franz Höss also did not like Jews very much (like Ruth’s friend), but on the other hand he was full of love and tenderness for dogs.
On the one hand—and on the other. That is unlimited complexity.
To Rabbi Michi,
I am utterly astonished at how you manage to gather people to read your words who are evil, haters of humanity, and above all hate you. What do they have to do with following you? Let them go graze in other fields. Their words are steeped in the venom of their desire to humiliate you and portray you as a traitor to Israel and a fool—does that fulfill their every craving?
As Shtisel says: Cursed wicked men!
You may be surprised, but I am not offended at all. I have enough self-confidence that my opinion does not depend on what you do (or do not) think of me. Actually, I know this type of people quite well. My father’s entire side of the family, including he himself, are of these people (left-wing kibbutzniks, strongly anti-religious), and I also grew up with them. I meet them from time to time at family celebrations, and ostensibly
I am on good terms with them, but they have no idea what I really think of them. As for the complexity of reality, I do not disagree, but in the end sometimes reality is simple. That too is part of its complexity. Ultimately, inside they are hard and bitter people, and I cannot stand them. I also studied with people like that in Gush and even served with them in the IDF in combat, and I do not retract. Today these people are in crisis, and a large part of them are on the verge of actual betrayal. They just don’t know it yet. Actually, the rabbi is the one who grew up in a religious-Zionist family and thinks his world is broad and great. Believe me, these things are not written lightly. I am not interested in an internal war here in the land. True, usually these people are more infantile than evil, but their evil (which also clings to the rabbi) is that they are slanderous people (they follow the ways of the media). Perhaps not consciously. But malicious talkers are like a disease in the body of human society; therefore I stand by my words. In fact, the one who does not understand what is happening here is the rabbi himself. He has already been in a situation where people he thought were his allies turned their backs on him (the Haredim), and did so without even noticing it. What more needs to happen for him to see that this is the situation here as well?
Let the boys play.
Exactly
Hello Rabbi.
I find it difficult to understand your response to Emanuel.
A. Maybe Ruth of blessed memory was different, and I doubt it. But still, the vast majority of peace people, etc., who are full of empathy toward our enemies, toward refugees who are causing great joy in south Tel Aviv, toward the Bedouin, and more—
they are completely devoid of empathy toward settlers, hilltop youth, Haredim, families harmed by terror, and more.
(I’m afraid that if you don’t agree with this, then your world is somewhat narrow, and if necessary I can gather a bit of support for my words from events that happen every day.
Moreover, from personal acquaintance—army, studies, trips, family—I must say that indeed this is how it is: full of compassion outwardly until you move their cheese. Go speak to them about compassion toward girls harassed by Arabs, about silencing right-wing people, about stone attacks in Judea and Samaria, etc., etc.—a kind of Christian compassion full of hypocrisy.
B. Where is the limit in complexity?
Is being on friendly terms with a mass murderer something we are supposed to swallow?
This is cruelty beyond measure. How can one look the families of the murdered in the face after being “friends” with such scum? (And if you come and say Bibi or Rabin, I’ll answer: A. they were not friends with him, B. it was within the framework of their role.) I am sure that in one-on-one conversations one can find good sides in the worst people. Still, I think the boundaries ought to be clear, and there is no point or purpose in getting close to such people.
In fact, from my perspective the main discussion here about reality is not only about reality today, but about what reality will be tomorrow. The rabbi looks at what he thinks reality is today, but the main wisdom is to foresee what is coming—that is, the future. To see where today’s reality is leading and to see how that future is already embodied in the present. The rabbi is somewhat stuck in the past. He lives off the fumes of solidarity that existed when he was in the army, etc., and I look at the next generations, and they are simply different people. And I claim that, on a non-shallow view, this already exists today and even existed in the past.
In fact, the rabbi is guilty of what he himself accuses me of (disqualifying others with his own flaw). I claim that part of the complexity of reality is that it is sometimes simple. Otherwise, there would be one simple thing about it (that is, it would not be completely complex)—namely, that it is complex. This is a well-known joke among Gush people about themselves (paraphrasing the Breslovers): “You put on a grave face—everything is complex.” The rabbi is guilty of this simplism that reality is always complex. So I disagree with that simplism and claim that sometimes reality is simple (that is, that reality really is “super-complex”), and this is one of those cases. There is no point in justifying this lady’s friendship and that Nazi’s friendship. In the end, sometimes you need to ask yourself whether the person is an enemy, a friend, or indifferent (yes, sometimes after we have weighed all the sides we need to decide. To decide is not a dirty word. Most of the time you don’t have to, but sometimes you do. And in these cases I think the time has come to decide). In my estimation, she was not among the friends of Israel (or else she was crazy, but that’s not what we are discussing), or at the very least she was not a friend of mine.
In addition, a methodological note: I know that to some of the site’s readers, the things I write may seem strange. Well, they are definitely not things familiar to the broad public. His claim that these are baseless things is simply the claim, “I don’t see what you see—therefore it doesn’t exist” (he assumes what is familiar), and therefore they also seem foolish to him. If he does not understand, then indeed he will not relate, just as he knows how to do, and that is perfectly fine. As for me, many times I know that he does not respond because he has nothing to answer (and not because it is foolish, but because he is wrong), and the rabbi has a tendency to ignore things that do not fit his worldview. I am not the only one here to whom this has happened (sometimes he ignores people because they really say foolish things, but saying that is not a counterargument against someone like that). And that is fine. It is a common human weakness. I am really okay with that. But since the rabbi himself testified that I am not such a fool (to my great joy and relief), I have some expectation that they will try to understand what I am saying, even if in the end they do not understand. There is no need to be emotional and foolish in relation to everything unfamiliar. One is allowed to apply critical sense. And I truly always hesitate whether to write or to fulfill within myself the verse, “Do not speak in the ears of a fool, lest he despise the wisdom of your words.” But in the end I do not write these things for them. I write for the innocent people who come here to the site and have not yet lost their common sense, which tells them that something is not right with the rabbi and his opinion on various matters, only they do not know what is not right.
In addition, a bit of self-awareness. There is no point in the rabbi writing or pretending that he is doing something for my benefit. Between us, that mode of expression is childish. The rabbi does it for his own benefit, or to protect the world from me (according to his view), and that is perfectly fine. There is no point in pretending. I respect enemies. I have a problem with imaginary friends.
What is the meaning of the connection between you and Bina?
The ending of your remarks surprises me a bit. The tone in which you rebuke the current march of life on the basis of focusing on trivial matters, when the alternative you propose attributes significance דווקא to the form and not to the content of the matter.
And if we relate to the matter in a more prosaic way: the emphasis on whom we are talking about, rather than on what and how we analyze things, surprises me, especially coming from you. What is the great wisdom and advantage in speaking about an ideological group that believes in one set of beliefs or another, as compared to speaking about reality-TV culture and the deep insights that can be gained from observing and analyzing the phenomenon and the people within it?
Recently I saw a thought-provoking and fascinating analysis of the series Rehearsals. A series that is entirely in dialogue with the “shallow” world. To say that it is lesser just because there is no rigid religion there with rigid people seems very strange to me, as if Rabbi Michi did not write those words.
Moshe, are you sure you’re with us? What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the discussion? Where did you see in my remarks what you are arguing against?
“It seems to me that it is worthwhile for all of us to use the opportunity to strengthen the antithesis to everything I have described here: to develop a focus on important and useful matters instead of the nonsense that fills the daily public discourse here in the country; to engage with interesting and unique personalities and not with political or media celebs.” How exactly does focusing on the life and work of this lady contribute to what you long for? Why is focusing on her better than focusing on so-and-so who bought X in store Y? Why does the fact that she embraced child murderers make her a higher-quality and more important factor to reflect on?
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous—both alike are an abomination to the Lord.” I recommend that the rabbi review the prohibition against flattery toward the wicked. With all due respect to “a deep and positive look at every person,” to “bringing hearts closer,” and to all kinds of slogans that the rabbi himself rejected in several articles. (And with all due respect to all these pilpulim about how a person who truly believes his path is the right one is not really wicked, and that there is a difference between tolerance and the infinite containment of every opinion without a backbone—the space between the two is very narrow and slippery indeed.) And it seems that today the rabbi is very close to moving from a view of normal tolerance toward people with different opinions to postmodern behavior, in which he contains, accepts, likes, loves, every “nice and good person,” even if according to the Torah’s definitions he was utterly wicked. And let it be a supposedly enlightened caricature of a kibbutznik woman whose entire business is
contributing to weakened populations (work out of admirable and amazing Zionism, which in my humble opinion is nullified sixtyfold. A person who truly wants to contribute to the average person and help the weak does not go to meet and give legitimacy to mass murderers who orphan little children of their fathers and cause fathers to weep over their sons—what kind of person who wants to help and promote aid to the weak behaves this way?)
Let us not forget that according to halakhah there is a very severe law regarding an informer. And giving legitimacy to mass murderers can come very close to that definition. And even if the rabbi of course disagrees with her cosmopolitan outlook, which I assume that in these cases of friendship with murderers of her own people even you would agree is a moral abomination, and of course also disagrees with all her religious transgressions and secular worldview—what friendship and shared discourse can he find with a person whose deeds really bring him close to the definition of a complete wicked person? And what bothers me even more is the fact that with all these enlightened cultural figures the rabbi sees fit to meet, discuss, chat, and judge favorably; whereas the Haredim as a population—despite their uncompromising devotion to Torah, despite their many charitable organizations, despite their love and efforts to bring hearts closer in order to bring every Jew back to repentance—he judges entirely unfavorably. And Torah personalities such as Rabbi Ovadia, of blessed memory, and his son, may he live long—whom I assume even the rabbi would agree contribute much more to the people of Israel than that woman—the rabbi also judges unfavorably. I assume that on the day of passing (may God preserve him) of Yitzhak Yosef, may he live long, the rabbi will not write an apologetic post (for his unrestrained attack on him as “the chief idiot of Israel”), will not visit his home and see his children, and will not tell of friendly ties that developed, will not praise him for the values he instilled in his children and the next generation, and will not praise him for his endless devotion in giving Torah classes, in bringing Jews closer to observing Torah and halakhah. Again, a classic syndrome—in which it is not the substance of a person’s deeds that matters, but his style, how cultured and enlightened his style is. And it does not matter at all how, according to the Torah, the first is almost completely wicked and the second is almost an angel and an exalted righteous man. How unfortunate that the rabbi has fallen into these places and this mode of conduct. See this response as constructive and gentle criticism. Who knows—perhaps if you go over it a few times, you may find something there.
Have a good day.
A simple question: does the rabbi also make a practice of going to the funerals of great Torah sages such as Maran Rabbi Steinman, Maran Rabbi Elyashiv, and the like? I don’t recall insights from the rabbi regarding them, which very much intrigues me far more than the aforementioned Ruth, whom, as it happens, I never knew at all (for some reason I did hear of her husband, but his world does not interest me at all either), and within my narrow world I find no particular desire to know her (though I had a leftist grandmother of exactly that same sort who impressed me greatly with her noble traits). By contrast, I feel a strong desire to cleave to and know every bit of insight regarding the great Torah sages. I would be happy to know if I am mistaken and the rabbi does indeed have a post about them.
A clarification, lest God forbid it be understood from me that I am expressing an opinion to the rabbi about what to write a post on and what not to; rather, I am revealing my own desire, like a student who asks his teacher which tractate he wishes to study and his soul desires.
Why are you bothering yourself and us with nonsense? Rabbi Michi is a traitor, writes from a position, condemns the righteous and legitimizes cursed wicked people, goes to funerals or doesn’t—what business is it of yours? Did you learn something from his words? Good for you! You don’t agree with his words? Bless you. What is this obsession with vomiting all your penny’s-worth knowledge in thought, halakhah, and cheap philosophy all over us???
Relax! We read Rabbi Michi, and we have no interest in the shallow waters from which you are peeking out!
You are wearisome!
Shmuel,
Each person has his own interests. I am certainly interested in Torah scholars and I also go to the funerals of some of them, at least those to whom I feel connected. By the same token, you could ask why go to the funeral of a relative of mine and not to the funeral of this or that rabbi. There is closeness that is unrelated to the degree of greatness. I assume I would not have gone to Ruth’s funeral because of her personality. I went because we (my wife) had a connection. I absolutely think there was room in the media to relate more to the event and to her death because of her personality. And this is true with respect to important rabbis as well, of course.
Ariel, I assume your remarks are directed at the caricature and not at the last commenter. Beyond that, there’s no point in getting heated. Everyone writes his position, and as long as it is said within the rules of discussion, it has a place. Each person will decide whether to accept it or not.
With God’s help, 3 Adar 5781
Another common denominator between Rabbi M. A. and Ruth Dayan is that both were born in Haifa 🙂
Regards, Menashe M. S. H. L. HaLevi Zochmir
More power to you.
Her husband was a phenomenon on a grand scale, and his wife was a phenomenon on a small scale.
A string of pearls. Wonderful.