The Wonders of Bias – Between Folly and Hatred (Column 458)
After receiving this morning Rabbi Zeini’s marvelous column, I couldn’t resist. So I wrote a short column of my own on the matter.
An Initial Glance
Rabbi Zeini is, by all accounts, a very wise man: a profound and original Torah scholar with broad education in many fields. I have read quite a few of his writings in the past and enjoyed them greatly. Precisely because of that, I am, time and again, astonished to read the nonsense he writes—especially when he touches current events. Here he laments Bennett’s flight to Russia in the midst of Shabbat, and says it was a desecration of Shabbat and a desecration of God’s name. He is flying to save a few Jew-haters from a death they deserve, thereby proving himself worse than every explicitly secular prime minister (for he, too, is of course a secularist with a kippah) who preceded him.
I was just waiting to see him call on Bennett to supply Russia with weapons to assist it in its blessed work of exterminating the antisemitic Ukrainians—the seed of Khmelnytsky and Petliura (of blessed memory), and their successors throughout the generations, down to Nazi collaborators and even to our own day (I’ve read the testimonies of several émigrés from Ukraine who wrote that they themselves experienced no small measure of antisemitism there even in recent years). I will add that I am willing to concede that the fact that a Jew currently stands at their head does not necessarily cleanse them of their historical guilt, though in my view it is a step forward that cannot and should not be ignored—even if it is quite convenient for us to go on playing the victim forever, as in “Happy am I, an orphan.” Americans, too, who treated Blacks disgracefully—and sometimes still do even after a Black president served there—cannot escape the fact that it marked impressive progress in the right direction.
Reading the column was embarrassing and infuriating, and I hesitate whether there is any need to explain why. Still, I will do so—before I go on to say what I think of it.
A Second Look
All that was only an initial glance. To form a position on something—certainly before leveling such harsh criticism at a prime minister—it is advisable to give the matter another look. So here are a few points that may help Rabbi Zeini in this sacred task.
First, I must draw his attention to the fact that neither he nor I have any information regarding the purpose of Bennett’s trip. There are rumors and vague reports which, in these days—when fake covers the land and fog the nations—are hard to treat as solid information. Taking a stance on something so complex when you do not have a shred of information is itself an absurd step.
But just for sport, let’s take into account the information that has been published, and suppose there may be something to it. So what do we have? (a) An attempt to enable the humanitarian exit of Jews from Russia and Ukraine. (b) An attempt to mediate between the parties to stop the fighting (which could spill over into a humanitarian disaster and a global clash between superpowers). (c) Matters relating to the nuclear agreement with Iran. And, to top it off, (d) issues of our security coordination with Russia in Syria (strikes on Hezbollah and Iranians along our northern border). Perhaps there were other matters; I did not really collect everything, and of course I don’t know everything, and I assume not everything was published.
For some reason, Rabbi Zeini chose to focus on a tiny part of item (b) in this list: stopping the fighting. Within that, he chose to focus on saving the lives of Ukrainian gentiles. And within that, he chose to focus on saving the antisemitic portion among them. That sufficed for him to explain to us all that this is a desecration of Shabbat and a desecration of God’s name, and evidence of the deterioration of a kippah-wearing secular prime minister who has become worse than all his heretical predecessors.
There is no need to note that even among the items I listed above, each one on its own justifies a public desecration of Shabbat on a Torah level by an entire battalion:
- There is the saving of Jewish lives—Jews who might be enabled to leave and be rescued. Perhaps it will even bring them to immigrate to Israel, which could affect their Jewishness and that of all their descendants for generations to come.
- There was talk of gaining additional options for action in Syria. I assume that even Rabbi Zeini shlit”a would agree that pilots are permitted to carry out strikes there on Shabbat (they already have, according to foreign reports). So the one who enables them to do so is forbidden to desecrate Shabbat? Is the rabbi shlit”a willing to take responsibility for Jewish lives and for the existential threat that would be created here if there were no coordination with the Russians? Alternatively, will he resolve our confrontation with the Iranians while our hands in combat and negotiations are tied because of an existential threat on our northern border?
- Also on the table was the emerging nuclear agreement. Suppose that, in light of the situation and his status as mediator, Bennett has the opportunity to achieve something on this issue—would that not be saving life (pikuach nefesh) that justifies desecration of Shabbat? Would Rabbi Zeini permit bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities on Shabbat? If so, then to prevent the bomb, is it forbidden to desecrate Shabbat?
- Until now I addressed only the Jews, and I assume that should suffice to soothe Rabbi Zeini and the other haters of Ukrainians shlit”a (the haters, not Heaven forbid the Ukrainians). Here it is worth adding that saving the lives of non-Jews also warrants desecration of Shabbat—according to all halachic authorities because of darkei shalom (“ways of peace”), and in my humble opinion (like the Meiri) even as a matter of law proper. I imagine there are among Ukrainians also some who are not antisemites, no? Oh, right—what about Zelensky himself? Well, he’s a collaborator with the wicked—may their names be blotted out—so let him die, and that’s that.
- Beyond all this, I explained in my essay here that one cannot and should not run a state according to the Shabbat-desecration calculus of an individual. It is inconceivable that the basic functioning of a state would be shut down, even if there is no (direct) life-threat involved. And not only because such considerations generally engender indirect life-threat in the long run (which is obviously true here as well), but because the proper functioning of public life is itself public pikuach nefesh (the existence of the public as a public is the existence of a collective organism; endangering it falls under the rubric of saving life). See my reasoning there.
- The point is all the more true when it comes to global politics. A confrontation liable to deteriorate into a world war between superpowers—which would certainly affect us and the world—will not be averted because, according to Rabbi Zeini, Bennett should have flown with a “shinui” (an unusual manner), or because he should not have missed Pesukei deZimra before “Baruch She’amar.” In the realm of global politics, all such considerations are as the dust of the earth.
Just to sharpen the absurdity of Rabbi Zeini’s words, think of a situation in which the life of a single Jew is in danger in Russia. You know what? Think of Naama Issachar, who was sentenced there to seven and a half years in prison (not death). Would we have opposed the prime minister flying there on Shabbat to rescue her? I suspect there would have been quite a few halachic decisors who would have urged him to go (yes, presumably those who, in Rabbi Zeini’s parlance, are amei ha’aretz who call themselves religious Zionists—but what makes them religious?! If that’s what he calls “religious,” then I very much hope I am not among them). So when it comes to the danger of a world war that is already claiming thousands of victims and creating millions of refugees—Jews and non-Jews alike—this would be forbidden?! Earth to Rabbi Eliyahu: do you copy?! It seems you’ve left the Shabbat boundary of our planet.
Perhaps He Should Fly with a “Shinui”?
On third thought, I have an original, innovative suggestion for Bennett: let the pilot hold the control stick (do such things still exist?) in his mouth instead of his hand—then the flight is done with a shinui (and we can debate the laws of techumin above ten handbreadths). True, one might question whether a rabbinic prohibition may be set aside to prevent a world war and save thousands of people and millions of refugees. Perhaps in Rabbi Zeini’s view “there is no wisdom nor counsel against the Lord,” and therefore even this would be forbidden. Well, he demonstrated quite well in his words that there is indeed no counsel against the Lord.
It reminds me of a story I believe I’ve already mentioned on the site (I just found it here). After Operation Defensive Shield, the head of the Halacha Department in the Chief Rabbinate (an amusing title—what does the Chief Rabbi deal with: Aggadah and philosophy? Or perhaps global strategy? Oh right, I nearly forgot: he coordinates the supply of wine and candles for Shabbat), a colonel, came to the yeshiva in Yeruham. He spoke in the beit midrash under the title “New Lessons from Operation Defensive Shield.” I expected lessons on the questions that then arose in full force (and angered me greatly—see here), such as: what do we do when terrorists hole up in areas with a civilian population—may we bomb from the air, or must we endanger soldiers’ lives so as not to harm civilians (cf. Jenin)? But that fellow did not dream of addressing such questions. That, it seems, belongs to philosophy and Aggadah and thus to the Chief Rabbi’s expertise. He dealt with more innovative and urgent questions such as one that had never before reached the table of kings—until Defensive Shield: You receive a call-up order on Shabbat. May you pack your soap, and how? (I’m not joking. That was one of the questions discussed there.) His far-reaching conclusion was to pack it with a shinui—for example, to grip it in your mouth and drop it, oh-so-casually, into the duffel bag. Good thing we have a colonel on salary to produce cutting-edge halachic lessons. Truly the Torah of the Land of Israel in all its glory. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry, but I held myself back (and believe me, it was very hard). You can understand that the following Purim, the soap cried bitterly (over being so contemptuously dropped into the duffel) from the yeshiva’s stages.
The Parade of Folly—or the Wonders of Reason
In conclusion, I cannot imagine even a shred of a consideration that supports Rabbi Zeini’s foolish conclusion—especially remembering that his words are written without a trace of real information, and that everything publicly available says the opposite. I ask myself: how can it be that a wise and learned man, an eminent Torah scholar like Rabbi Zeini, prattles like the most benighted of fools?
I can think of one of two possibilities, and I find it hard to decide in which of them I should fulfill the duty to judge him favorably: either the lust for publicity and provocation has driven him out of his senses, or hatred of Bennett and his government has done so. Love/lust and hatred both warp judgment. And, by the way, in my opinion neither is the first time with him. I will only add that the “or” in my words here is OR, not XOR.
I’ll end with two relevant sayings of our Sages. The first: “Any Torah scholar who lacks judgment—carrion is better than he” (Leviticus Rabbah 1:15). How can he be a Torah scholar if he lacks judgment? It turns out this can certainly be: he is a scholar, but his judgment is distorted (due to bias). And the second, to silence the predictable critics: “Wherever there is desecration of God’s name, we do not accord honor to the rabbi” (Eruvin 63a and parallels).
Discussion
A little light drives away a lot of darkness. Thank you for this column (which seems self-evident even to poor me). Which raises the thought: are all the other objections to Yamina and the various reforms they are promoting also a product of folly?
Taking great pleasure in Michael Abraham’s writing. Sharpened irony alongside scholarly arguments.
It should be emphasized that even a possible life-saving situation overrides the entire Torah.
Indeed, a crooked defense. If he thinks that despite everything on the table it is obvious that Bennett will achieve nothing and is just flying for nothing, that is bias no less grave than the one I described.
Let’s not get carried away in the opposite direction. Every objection must be examined on its own merits. After you reach the conclusion that it has no substance, you may conjecture that it stems from those motives. I agree that quite a few of the objections to him are of that kind.
This whole issue raised for me many questions that I’ve had in the past regarding diplomacy and Shabbat. Suppose the only reason for flying on Shabbat was to prevent a leak that might blow up the meeting. Do you think that would still justify desecrating Shabbat?
A gentile prime minister would solve the entire halakhic problem.
That depends on what is at stake. How important is the meeting? Your question is too general.
Rabbi Zeini claims we already have one.
Yamina people are made of lies. Therefore, there is a presumption regarding everything that comes from their hands that it will lead to a stumbling block, even if on the face of it it seems proper and fitting.
There are two Rabbi Zeinis – the one from the Jewish thought course and the one from the lesson between Mincha and Maariv, and the two do not come near one another.
Thanks for the visit. Hope you found something nice in duty free for your wife (who I am sure has no tendencies whatsoever).
“When in practice the data show the opposite – the Haredim are the public that volunteers the most and contributes the most to the state.”
Apparently (digital) paper can endure anything!!
So let me try a few old truths:
..In practice the data show the opposite – war is peace and peace is war, freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom…
You spoke about a Torah scholar who lacks understanding – and here I think another article is needed explaining what understanding is. How does one attain it? Why is it not a natural byproduct of being a Torah scholar, and how do we distinguish between someone who has it and someone who does not? How will we know whether we are people of understanding or devoid of it? It seems this is the main thing. Sources for expansion: Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe’s chapters on the acquisition of understanding, the concept of da’at in Chabad thought – and its spillover into Rabbi Hutner, and of course the thought of R. Moshe Shapiro, whose central axis is precisely the matter of da’at. But what is it?! Rabbi Michi, do you have a place where you addressed this? As is known, in the book Man is Like Grass you raised your hand to explain with excellent taste the matter of wisdom versus understanding, and later kindness versus severity. But what about da’at, which mediates between them? Have you written about it? (As is known, between wisdom and understanding dwells da’at. And da’at itself is composed of “da’at of kindness and da’at of severities,” which are the very essence of wisdom and understanding; and in the language of the kabbalists: every chochmah and binah of the higher becomes chesed and gevurah of the lower.) The mediating da’at is the horizontal mediation between the intellects themselves and between them and the traits/emotions (Tanya, ch. 3), and it is the central flow in all kabbalistic literature – it is the irrigation of the tree, the abundance flowing from the intellects to the foundation. So what is it? How can one acquire it? And when does the Torah scholar fail to notice that he is losing it? Should its loss be compared to a feeling of spiritual vertigo (a state in which the righteous man does not notice, like that pilot, that the waters are the heavens and vice versa, and gently ascends into the ocean)? In that context – how do the rabbis explain Rabbi Melamed’s loss of direction, in their opinion?
What has happened to me that I rather agree?
At long last, you have merited to align with the truth 🙂
You wrote such a long piece here; you really ought to complete it into a full thesis.
“Although it is very convenient for us to go on victimizing ourselves forever, in the spirit of ‘Happy am I, I am an orphan’” –
Begging the rabbi’s pardon, although the quotation does not concern the main point, it is somewhat jarring –
Among far too many intellectuals there is a tendency to ignore hundreds and thousands of years of pathological, deranged, cruel antisemitism in Ukraine and elsewhere – in Ukraine especially, its scope and ferocity make the Germans, may their name be blotted out, look gentle.
This disregard is very troubling and raises many moral questions about those intellectuals –
By that logic, Samuel of Ramah and King Saul, peace be upon him, should not have gone on an annihilation campaign against Amalek hundreds of years after they attacked us from the rear – apparently it was also convenient for them to go on victimizing themselves forever, in the spirit of “Happy am I, I am an orphan”…
The comparison between antisemitism and racism against Blacks in America is also quite outrageous and would never occur to anyone with a shred of historical awareness.
I wasn’t lazy and read both columns (both Rabbi Zeini’s and the present one).
The matter is terribly simple – now, at 17:28 on Sunday, that is, almost 24 hours after Shabbat ended, it can be stated unequivocally that there was absolutely nothing, nothing at all, that could not have tolerated a delay of those 24 hours. Moreover – even before those 24 hours, the matter was clear. Shame on you and all your friends.
How can you state that unequivocally? Do you even know what they talked about at the meeting?
Sorry for interrupting the convenience of your self-victimization. Samuel and Saul fought Amalek by divine command. There is a commandment to blot out Amalek. In your opinion, should everyone who harmed us have all his descendants killed for all generations to the end?
The comparison to Blacks is very good, quite apart from the severity of the acts. If you read again, you’ll see that that was not what I was discussing.
Good that you informed me. I’m running to the corner to be ashamed and humiliated. Yasher koach. (Hope there’ll also be room in the corner for my friends. By the way, who are they?)
Ah, I found one friend. Eitan, you are invited to be ashamed and humiliated together with me forever and ever.
Just one important correction – it should be “Planet Earth to Rabbi Zeini” and not “to Rabbi Eliyahu,” which I assume you wrote by mistake.
You don’t need to kill the descendants of our persecutors beyond the moral imperative (acts of vengeance) or some security or other need, but you should keep as much distance as possible – mental and physical.
Rabbi Eliyahu Zeini.
I didn’t understand. Are you learning from Saul and Samuel or not? Or perhaps only I am obligated to learn from them?
And where did I write that one should not distance oneself from them?
Interesting,
On this point you are right that Michi is definitely a verbally violent person who sprays and verbally eliminates anyone who doesn’t think like him.
This is a very unfortunate fact and I don’t know where it comes from, perhaps from the thought that he is the smartest person on earth and anyone who disagrees with him
is just a foolish parasite who hasn’t reached the level of wisdom of His Excellency, perhaps it is some violence rooted in him that he still hasn’t managed to overcome
and it bursts out from time to time when people disagree with him.
Sometimes I wonder, maybe it really is better for me to be a dummy and understand nothing than to be smart, enlightened, and a philosopher like Michael Abraham.
But even if one disagrees with the style, each case still has to be judged on its merits, and many times Michi really is right.
You’re probably right that in such a situation it is permitted to desecrate Shabbat, but unfortunately Rabbi Zeini is also right in saying that even if there had been no permission at all, Bennett would probably have jumped at this trip.
The divine inspiration that rested upon him rests upon you too. Fortunate are you, Israel.
But you still have room to progress, for he went even further than you did (beyond the halakhic nonsense in his words): he decided that Bennett is capable of desecrating Shabbat for no reason, and then accuses him of desecrating Shabbat for no reason. That is like accusing you of raping your neighbor, just because I’ve decided that in light of my (deep) acquaintance with you, you surely did it.
Fair enough to write: in my opinion Bennett would not hesitate to desecrate Shabbat without reason (as you did, with no basis whatsoever), but to decide with no basis that he actually did so and then accuse him of it – that sounds a bit absurd, doesn’t it?
With Bennett, matters of nationhood and the macro level come before matters of religion. I didn’t say without reason, only without a halakhically justified reason such as life-saving.
According to my divine inspiration, Bennett is overall an idealistic person, but halakhah is not a guiding light for him.
Maybe you are “a wise man preferable to a prophet” and know that Bennett is more righteous.
As for Rabbi Zeini, he probably errs in the facts and thinks there is no benefit whatsoever. It isn’t clear to me that there is really any halakhic dispute or error here.
By the way, not a very gross mistake. It is clear that a large part of the meeting is Putin using Bennett for his own interests, as senators in the U.S. have already argued, but in negotiations there are usually some gains for both sides, and that is what Rabbi Zeini is ignoring.
Only a fool believes every word, and believes that there is any substantive reason for Bennett’s desecration of Shabbat, apart from his giant ego.
A wretched boaster and stupid pious supporter of Bennett – the mind cannot tolerate him.
As far as I know, violent provocation was done only by a prophet’s instruction.
The rabbi writes that appointing a Jewish president indicates progress – it is not clear what progress is meant and in what direction: liberal, progressive, egalitarian, pluralistic, spiritual, atheistic, nihilistic?
Seventy-something percent of Ukrainians chose Zelensky and even more support him – to say this is progress has a certain affinity with the Ukrainian ethos/agenda – it is hard to determine the social/political significance.
Among Hazal we find a negative interpretation of a positive act by a person.
“And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, and his possessions, and went their way; and he was dwelling in Sodom. And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; now he dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram.”
Rashi brings the Midrash:
“And Midrash Bereshit Rabbah: this was Og, who escaped from the generation of the Flood, and this is the remnant of the Rephaim, as it is said, ‘The Nephilim were in the earth…’; and he intended that Abram be killed and he would take Sarah.”
On the simple level, Og is concerned for Lot, and Hazal interpret that he had ‘ulterior motives.’
I know very well that the rabbi is not dealing with interpretation.
Only that one can associate the statements against Bennett’s trip not as a ‘halakhic statement’ but as a kind of ‘some of our rabbis interpret it unfavorably.’
A. I assume you meant the Chief Military Rabbinate. Had I not served in the military rabbinate, I would not have known to guess…
B. If I understand correctly, that lieutenant colonel is apparently today the Chief Military Rabbi, and since then he has been the halakhic man of the rabbinate. Today he really does set the tone in halakhic rulings there. In any case, much as it is not really to my taste, it is hard to ignore the fact that Orthodoxy has chosen to move in the direction of a halakhah that is entirely interested in these details, and I still think it is the role of the Chief Military Rabbi to provide a halakhic response to such questions. Though I can tell you about him that he is present at serious exercises, and that he also deals with questions which, from the standpoint of halakhic authorities, I think are more complex and more dominant (for example, saving the lives of military attack dogs on Shabbat? Does that count?)
By the way, I have also heard in the Chief Rabbinate of an adviser to the Chief Rabbi on halakhic matters (a friend of mine held that position).
It is clear from my words that I was dealing with the military rabbinate. I didn’t understand what was unclear there.
This is definitely not about the current Chief Military Rabbi. Long before him.
I wasn’t talking about whether packing the soap is a halakhic question, but whether that is the new lesson they learned and the one important to engage in. And whether that is the flagship issue through which the rabbinate should demonstrate its relevance.
If today it is different, I am very glad. But even saving military attack dogs is not a strategic question and does not touch the army’s overall moves at all.
Whether connected or not connected to this article, I want to attach an insight I wrote in WhatsApp to my brother last night toward dawn regarding Bennett.
Shmuel: What is the difference between a fool and a wise man? This year we need to add to the Passover Haggadah a fifth son, and he is the “fool,” called nowadays Bennett (people always immediately compare and add opposite the wise son Bibi; maybe he is the wicked son, but surely not a fool). Is there anyone who would not want to do absolutely everything to stop this terrible bloodshed? Personally, I would gladly put all our hatred for his government aside and praise him for life, let him be prime minister forever, if he could arrange such a huge thing.
But as stated, the difference is exactly at that point: Bennett says there is a slight chance to mediate, and therefore he bursts in and throws himself in, sticking his bald head between world powers, while wise Bibi would know clearly that there is no chance at all (and therefore, even if there is life-endangerment here, there is no life-saving here). So when you do something that if it doesn’t help, it won’t hurt, then fine; but a hopeless action that if it doesn’t help will harm (it’s hard for me to elaborate right now how great the harm is; for now it’s enough for me to mention the harm vis-à-vis the United States, which in any case sees Israel as deviating from the line of everyone else regarding the West, and that is more than enough) – that is a stupid, broken Shiite suicide bomber who went to desecrate Shabbat openly, for the first time in history under the name of an Israeli prime minister, and a religious one at that. At the very least he should first remove the patch from his head. Oh, how stupid can this rabbit be? Does he not understand that Putin is using him in order to normalize himself vis-à-vis the West, which already sees Putin as insane?
At the moment the media have been swept up in this delusion, praising the move (I haven’t seen criticism even on the Haredi sites). I’ll sign for you that it’s only a short matter of time until they come to their senses from this delusion, and then they’ll skewer the rabbit for his stupidity (perhaps also his final downfall).
By the way! If this rabbit traveled in my name on the basis of being a swindler who knows how to deceive well, just as he deceived his voters, I’d rather send the “Tinder Swindler.”
Shmuel,
There is certainly a connection, but you are compounding the sin beyond Rabbi Zeini’s nonsense. You’ve already decided that this will harm us. How do you know? You’ve also decided that Bibi only does useful things that have no diplomatic price. So why did he go speak in Congress against the Iran deal and drive our relationship with the U.S. into the abyss, without achieving anything? By the way, I’m actually not opposed to his move, but I’m asking according to your own method.
There are two kinds of fools: one who believes everything, and one who believes nothing. And the second is worse than the first, for he decides in his broad mind what motivates So-and-so and then accuses him of ulterior motives. And the listener will find it pleasant.
What is most amusing here is that Bennett learned from the very best. He made a classic Bibist move, and if Bibi had done it all his supporters would have marveled at his genius: how he manages to preserve the relationship with both the U.S. and Russia and maneuver himself, and them, into the center of diplomatic action. A real political and diplomatic genius (and as for morality, let it go to the place appropriate for it, which is neither of the day nor of the night). Marvelous are the ways of hatred and bias, have I said that already?…
Sorry that I am now using a weapon with which you will not be able to attack me, and that is foreseeing the future (only “with the eyes of the mind,” as you said in your debate with David, which by the way I’ve been waiting for for years; blessed are He who has kept us alive and sustained us, no more than that). By the way, when everyone here and in the world wrote that Putin would not dare attack all of Ukraine, I also wrote to my brother on WhatsApp: don’t bring logic into Putin here, because in the yeshivas they taught us what destructive power corrupt character traits have, above all pride and honor. And I wrote to him: you’ll see, you really will see, that he will indeed attack. And I don’t want to continue writing here what else I think, so as not to cause people sorrow, although I am usually a dyed-in-the-wool optimist. Therefore, I’m sorry to tell you: wait a bit patiently to see what will happen, and in proportion to the failure (which in practical terms will turn out to have helped like a dead man’s cupping glasses) so too will be the depth of the long-term damage (unless this is Gog and Magog, as lecturers keep warning us every other day in the name of kabbalists whose kabbalah is recognized by the tax authority, and then the Messiah (the child prodigy??) will probably pop up in the middle and presumably receive divine power to solve all the problems).
Indeed, I am too small to contend with prophets, especially such expert and tested ones whose prophecy has been checked against reality as a solid rock.
I will only dare, in my poverty, to remark that in my assessment Bennett too is not a prophet, and therefore even if you are found correct in the future, that says nothing about his decision in the present. See Rabbi Shach’s Letter 2 on Entebbe.
Let Bennett use that to defend himself when they skewer him for this recklessness. If you are too small to play in the prophets’ league, then take a journalist’s quote from this morning on Ynet: “The Blinken-Lapid meeting today will be critical in this regard; if Blinken expresses displeasure, even the slightest, by the flicker of his left eye, it would be likely and advisable for Israel to execute a U-turn from the mediation attempt and begin conducting a damage assessment.”
By the way, the other needs you listed there as benefits of the meeting are correct, but they don’t seem to me connected at all to the matter at hand unless time is a factor and every moment of delay is critical, which is clearly not so (as in the matter of the war in Ukraine).
The whole amusing story about the rabbi who lectured about the soap is a very strange sort of disparagement. Judaism is built on halakhah and on what one does at every point and issue, however marginal it may be (though in this case, the laws of muktzeh are really not a marginal issue in halakhah). The focus on issues of morality and thought (which do have a place, but not as a substitute) is very enlightened, but it does not stem from the accepted Jewish sources.
That disparagement, to uneducated ears, echoes the old claims (Christian and later Reform) against Judaism, that it deals with trifles instead of spirit and conscience.
To what you said in the name of Rabbi Shach I will answer you with a question (along the lines of what you argue with David about, whether there is value to morality that comes as a motive to act merely out of emotion, like a sheep, as against an act that comes as a decision grounded in the force of a command): if two people committed an act which in practical outcome caused themselves and their people immense harm, one did it out of a feeling of heavy responsibility and special determination and daring, and the second did it out of sheer foolishness (which is evident to all the wise among us, and not only from today) – is there a difference in your judgment, after the fact, of the two of them?
Is this journalist also one of the disciples of the prophets? Shmuel, do me a favor. Think a little before getting so excited about yourself. You are really talking nonsense.
Your ears apparently really do lack halakhic education. Questions of life-saving are not questions of morality and thought but extremely severe halakhic questions.
And it would also be worth investing a little in reading comprehension. I was not dealing here with the question of what to focus on. I am far from disparaging the prohibitions of muktzeh, and I have studied and taught them quite a bit. Go out and see for yourself.
Of course there is a difference. I’ve written that more than once. What does it have to do with the discussion?
I do not mean to defend Rabbi Zeini (he does not need me). If the column was written as “Purim Torah,” fine (although the language of disparagement toward a Torah scholar jars me, but that is your way of wrinkling your nose at the good and the better). But if one relates seriously to what was published, then it was also published that this visit had been planned about a week in advance. That somewhat takes the sting out of the great urgency to fly דווקא on Shabbat in mass Shabbat desecration.
Likewise, the man (the eminent Rabbi Bennett, may he live long) has already established himself in desecrating Shabbat in the Gilboa Prison escape affair, without any operational need whatsoever. (As was expected in advance and confirmed after the fact.) Therefore my trust in the purity of his halakhic judgment is, well, somewhat damaged.
And in general, my trust in the various knitted-kippah statists who travel on Shabbat for “life-saving” has been damaged ever since Raz Nizri traveled on Shabbat to participate in some discussion (at the moment I’ve forgotten what the issue was), as if operational decisions cannot be made without some attorney general in the vicinity. Even on weekdays the legal bureaucracy only gets in the way and is unnecessary. It seems Shabbat is light in their eyes.
It’s a good thing he doesn’t need you. With a defense like that, no prosecutor is necessary.
Did you check whether Putin agreed to meet him on another day? Are you claiming he deliberately scheduled it for Shabbat? That he actually enjoys desecrating Shabbat for fun? Well, with the all-knowing people here, there is no need to talk about presumption of propriety and false suspicions.
And the same regarding Gilboa Prison. Do you have information that the presence of the prime minister or legal adviser was not needed? Ah, I forgot. It was confirmed (from the mouth of the Almighty).
Fortunate are you that you can formulate categorical positions on factual questions with no information whatsoever. That is truly a rare ability, worthy of blessing.
Indeed, as I wrote in the column, marvelous are the ways of hatred and bias. Intelligent people babble nonsense like utter fools. Many thanks for one more example of my point.
For decades, highly sensitive operational decisions were made without any legal adviser in the room. (I know this firsthand, including from my late father, who was a senior officer.) The juridification of everything that moves is a grievous ill that began to spread only in the last two decades, and has more than once cost innocent Jews their lives.
The escape of the terrorists from Gilboa Prison was not the first escape in the history of the prison service. In none of the previous cases was the prime minister required to be in the operations room, and certainly not to desecrate Shabbat. A legal adviser? What was he there for?
And the one who forms categorical positions without information is actually you. Do you know me? Have you examined me? How do you know I have no information? Everything I wrote here and in the previous response is backed by solid information.
I too have the feeling that Shabbat is light in the eyes of liberal knitted-kippah people…. But for the moment it is only an impression. Indeed, there is a presumption of propriety. But still, it is hard to escape this feeling, especially against the background of the obsession of liberal religious Zionism with finding favor in the eyes of the secular Ashkenazi public (an inheritance from the days of the National Religious Party’s sycophancy toward the Mapai people).
Are you the rabbi who preached in praise of laying down the wanted man?
Where are Abraham our father and the kippah?
1. Everything Bennett does is on the worst possible side in every respect (worse than him cannot be imagined)
2. Bennett flew on Shabbat to Russia
QED
Following your recommendation, I am trying to practice some reading comprehension, and I’d be glad for help.
What exactly is the message of the joke about holding the soap in one’s mouth? From a purely halakhic standpoint, surely there really is a problem with a reservist called up on Shabbat who wants to take some soap for himself; there is certainly nothing funny about that. Taking it in one’s mouth is an unusual manner, and that is a reasonable solution in the circumstances. There may perhaps be other solutions, but halakhically speaking there is nothing funny in that either. Why was this story brought here as mockery of that lecturer, and why is it obvious to all the readers here that it is an amusing story?
Because the title of the lecture was “New lessons from Operation Defensive Shield.” On the halakhic level, the question seems fairly simple (I admittedly don’t know the answer, but it doesn’t sound to me like a complex question). And on the practical level too, the question isn’t significant (why does a soldier need to pack soap himself? Is there a shortage of soap in the IDF?). And the conclusion (to pack it in an unusual manner) sounds like something standard or merely extra-stringent. If he wants the soldiers to know practical halakhah, let him tell them practical halakhah; and if he wants to give a lecture, then let him choose a topic that at that moment stands forcefully on the agenda.
Rabbi Zeini’s response to similar arguments:
Indeed. How did I not think of that?! 🙂
Well said.
So now Rabbi Zeini also turns out to be a liar, and not only a fool and a slanderer and defamer. He is even more foolish when he does so in a matter bound to be exposed. What he wrote is there for all to see, and every reader can see that those considerations were not at all what interested him. In the original column he proceeded from the premise that Bennett established a bad coalition, and that was enough for him to draw his crooked conclusions. He also knows that Bennett’s only purpose is to compete with Bibi. He also writes that there is no point in saving Ukrainians, and for some reason ignores the Jews. And now he explains to us that all his words are based on consultations with experts who told him that obviously there is no benefit in this and that it could have been done on a weekday. For some reason, this fiction slipped his mind in the original column.
So whichever way you look at it: if this won’t save anyone, then what does saving Ukrainians have to do with the matter here?! And if it will save, then there are Jews too. Or perhaps traveling on Shabbat does bring benefit, but only for saving Ukrainians and not Jews. Jews are killed on weekdays.
In addition, he has also decided that it could have been done at another time, without a shred of evidence for this (apart from confirmations from our own Mordechai, may he live long, from this site, knight of information and hatred). And on top of that he assumes that Bennett just flew on Shabbat for no reason and no benefit whatsoever. So why did he do it? Just to desecrate Shabbat for no reason? After all, he could have gained the political profit from a weekday meeting too, and even more so. So what is the logic? Not only is he slandering without evidence, but it is illogical slander. He invents an illogical theory and treats it as fact. This is truly stupid and malicious defamation.
In short, it turns out that the man is a liar and a fool and wicked as well, a defamer and slanderer, and also writes halakhah like an ignoramus. Truly the complete package of shortcomings. Good that he issued clarifications. Now everything is clear.
With God’s help, 5 Adar II 5782
To L.T.G. – greetings,
What you wrote in the second paragraph, that perhaps Rabbi Zeini judged Bennett unfavorably in the affair of the Shabbat trip because his overall opinion of the man is negative – fits well with Maimonides’ guidance in his commentary to Avot on the mishnah “Judge every person favorably” (and likewise in Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 177), that this refers to an average person, regarding whom if the doubt is evenly balanced one should judge him favorably. However, one established as righteous should be judged favorably even if the facts tilt more toward guilt; and one established as wicked should be judged unfavorably even if the facts tilt more toward merit.
In my humble opinion, it seems that Bennett’s very trip, in an attempt to bring about a calming of the war, constitutes life-saving also for many Jews located in the battle zones, and it may be that in the heat of action Bennett thought there was urgency to do this even on Shabbat; and even if he erred, he should be seen as “one who errs in a matter of a mitzvah,” especially since he seems like one of those for whom “intentional sins become like unintentional ones” 🙂
In any case, I have no desire to judge the prime minister, lest Heaven forbid I reach his place 🙂
Regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Regarding the diplomatic benefit of the Bennett-Putin meeting, experts disagree. For example, Dr. Emmanuel Navon argues that “Bennett went too far” and there is no point in talking with Putin, who outmaneuvered the French president and the German chancellor. By contrast, David Meidan, a former senior Mossad figure, believes that the chances of successful negotiations with Putin are slim, but nevertheless it was worthwhile to try to promote such negotiations and to take advantage of Putin’s invitation to Bennett.
Regards, Yafa"or
It is worth noting that Putin has an affection for religious Jews, due to such neighbors who were good to him in his childhood. It seems he is less exacting about Bennett’s fringes 🙂
And this nicely explains why a king neither judges nor is judged specifically in the case of the kings of Israel, whereas the kings of the House of David are judged; and according to what emerges from your words, the reason is that a wicked king is not judged lest one come to his place, while a righteous king, on the contrary, they hasten to judge. And perhaps on this they disagree: Bennett’s attackers hold that he is righteous, and therefore in this particular case they judge him unfavorably; while those who do not attack him hold that he is wicked (or an ignoramus, as you wrote), and therefore they do not judge him. And thus the matter is explained. 🙂
Since you mentioned me by my title, then please be precise. I am not a knight but a baron. (Great-grandson and grandson of a baron less famous than Rothschild and Hirsch, but a baron is a baron.) In my noble and hatred-filled grace, I exempt you from having to rise in my honor whenever I enter the site, and permit you to address me as “Mordechai” without my title of nobility. (But if a title – then don’t demote me!…).
As for the rest – had I not seen it, I would not have believed it. A rare moment of self-awareness in Rabbi Michael Abraham. Truly an overturning, just in time for the approaching Purim.
To L.T.G. – greetings,
What I meant was that I do not want to judge the prime minister lest I reach his place, that is, his role as prime minister with all the heavy responsibility of the office, and then discover that I am really no wiser or more successful than he is.
The only office-holder I am prepared to be judgmental toward is the “President of the State,” whose place I am already close to even now, since only the road separates us 🙂 And I am also prepared to reach his “place” in the sense of “his role,” since speaking without executive responsibility – that I know how to do.
Regards, Yafa"or
Does the critic have to be more successful than the one criticized? It is enough that the one criticized did not do the best he could, or that there is an alternative to him. This happens every day; for example, managers criticize workers for their professionalism even though in his field the worker is much more professional than the manager, except that he did not do what is expected of him according to his abilities and salary – meaning that he can be replaced by someone more successful.
How does Rabbi Zeini know so confidently that Putin was willing to wait a few more hours for Bennett?
By the way, Rabbi Zeini gives here a sort of future justification for Putin’s use of nuclear weapons: “What could it be? That Mr. Putin was about to drop a nuclear bomb on Kyiv?! It is not impossible that such a thing could occur to Mr. Putin if he feels himself pushed into a corner.”
To Mordechai the Jew, who sits at the king’s gate – abundant peace.
If your great-grandfather was a “baron” and your father a senior officer – the title “knight” should suffice for you, and many blessings to the head of the provider.
Regards, Reuel Chiya Shepsil Zigler
What mental feebleness. What does future justification have to do with this? It is an assessment of reality that this is how Putin would behave. Everyone assesses it that way.
What moment of self-awareness did you see here? I am still looking for it. It truly would be a wondrous moment.
Michi and I are sons of Hungarian Jews, known for their cynicism (the paprika effect).
With Yekkes I have less of a common language…
And happy Purim.
With God’s help, 6 Adar II 5782
To the knight of the shepherds, R. M. – greetings,
Why, your ancestors received their title of nobility from Emperor Franz Joseph, who was a Yekke, so it seems you do get along with Yekkes 🙂
Even the one who established the yoke of Torah in Hungary, the author of the Chatam Sofer, would sign: “Moses the insignificant Sofer of Frankfurt am Main.” And after all, all are descendants of the first man, to whom his Creator said, “Where are you?”
Indeed, there was a difference in Hungarian Jewry between the “Oberland,” such as the Pressburg region (now in Slovakia), and the “Seven Communities” (now in eastern Austria), which tended toward Ashkenazi customs and spoke German Yiddish.
As opposed to them, the people of the “Unterland” (such as the Marmaros region, now in Romania, and the Carpatho-Rus areas, Munkacs, Ungvar, and Chust, now in Ukraine), where there was a strong Hasidic influence because of the proximity to Galicia (which is itself now in Ukraine).
Regards, Agur ben Yekke, a man of Debrecen
On the root “y-k-h” Radak wrote that it means “obedience and acceptance of the yoke,” and on that basis he explained the verse “and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be” as meaning that all will accept the discipline of King Messiah (and Ramban likewise cites this in the name of “the grammarians”).
In the last paragraph, line 2
… the verse: “and unto him shall the obedience…”
By the way, our current government is distinctly Central European:
Naftali Bennett is apparently from the family of Rabbi Mordechai Benet, rabbi of Nikolsburg in Moravia (Czechia). Rabbi Mordechai received the family name “Benet” from his mother’s parents in Nikolsburg, who were descendants of the kabbalist Rabbi Naftali Katz, author of Semikhat Chachamim.
Lapid’s paternal side comes from the Ujvidek district (today Novi Sad in Serbia), and on his mother’s side he is descended from Rabbi Shmuel Shmelke of Selish (then in Hungary, today Vynohradiv in Ukraine).
Benny Gantz’s father came from the town of Sovata in the Marmures region of Romania, and his mother, Malka née Weiss, from the village of Mezőkovácsháza in Hungary. He is called Benjamin (Benny) after my cousin Benny Roth, who was an intelligence officer and fell while on patrol near the Gaza Strip. His parents, Natan and Devora, were neighbors of Nachum and Malka Gantz in Kfar Achim.
Merav Michaeli is, as is known, the granddaughter of the Hungarian Dr. Israel (Rezso) Kastner; Avigdor Liberman’s family originates in Romania, and his parents fled during the war to neighboring Moldova (then in the USSR and today an independent state between Ukraine and Romania).
As for Eastern European Jews, one remnant remains in this government: Gideon Sa’ar, whose family name “Zaricinsky” indicates origin in “Zaricha,” a suburb of Vilna.
After all, Zionism began with the First Aliyah, most of whose immigrants were from Romania, and became a political movement through Dr. Herzl, born in Budapest, whose grandfather R. Shimon Leib Herzl was among the members of the community of Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai in Semlin in Yugoslavia.
We have merited in our government to restore Zionism to its founders, the people of Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, Czechia, and Austria. This is truly a “restoration of the crown to its former glory” 🙂
Regards, Ben-Zion Yohanan Korinaldi-Radetzky
Yes. I don’t know how I missed the irony. And I am not a Yekke. I am from Polish stock (and on my mother’s side also from Hungarian stock). And we too eat a lot of paprika.
To E. – greetings,
And that is precisely the point, for “paprika” is “pepper-yekke,” an improved version of the Yekke, precise to the finest degree, in the spirit of “You turn man to contrition” and “put him back in the mortar so that he become finer than the finest” 🙂
And some say that “pepper-yekke” is named after Karl Popper, a sign of Yekke-ness whose scientific character is proven after passing Popper’s strict “tests of falsification,” as it is written: “Take counsel, and it shall be Popered” 🙂
Regards, Shamshon Hirsch
Our sprawling family begins in Spain (descendants of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi), passed after the expulsion to the “Seven Communities,” and from there spread over the whole earth (from Russia – the wife of Yuri Andropov, who was himself also Jewish, to America – Donald Trump, a descendant of converts out of Judaism), though the great majority was destroyed in the Holocaust. By the way, the baroness from whom I descend was, I think, a niece of the philosopher Moses Mendelssohn (or of his wife; in matters of genealogy one must ask my aunt, may she live long, a certified genealogist…). The Hungarian branch is a story in itself, but among us there is no one from the Unterland, Heaven forbid.
As for Dr. Rezso Kastner, I have a story about him involving my late father, but we will leave that for another time (perhaps around Holocaust Remembrance Day, if Michaeli once again dares try to cleanse the foul name of her grandfather, may his name be erased).
Many years ago, when I was a regular army soldier, I served some Yemeni lieutenant colonel who was visiting my base a salad with spicy Hungarian paprika (in a generous dose), and as a gesture he invited me to eat with him. I enjoyed it, actually; for him I had to call the fire department…
Once I rode with a taxi driver who identified himself as Hungarian and went on at length about various recipes he makes, and in one of them he said, “…and then you put in paprika, regular or sweet…” It’s like: tell me who your “rabbi” is and I’ll tell you who you are.
And therefore they read in the Budapest manuscript: “Bread with paprika – two” 🙂
Regards, Yaakov Kurt Chaltitovski
With God’s help, 7 Adar II 5782
In honor of the anniversary of Moses our Teacher, who put a coal to his mouth, and whose Creator kissed him with the kisses of His mouth. The words of his Torah are sharp like fiery coals, and sweeter than honey and the honeycomb; he was exalted above angels and seraphs, and His kindness is preserved for thousands,
and in honor of the rabbi, sharp and proficient, whose teaching is measured and pure, who increases wisdom and knowledge, like Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the honorable Rabbi Eliyahu Azeini, may his lamp shine forever, and may his crown blossom upon him; may the God of his father be his help, and guard him like a shepherd his flock,
we shall bring from the tradition of the Jews of the western lands (Maghreb in the vernacular), who tell of a Jew and a Muslim who competed between themselves over who could eat a spicy dish without groaning. The Muslim began, tasted it, and immediately felt his mouth burn, and immediately began groaning.
Then the Jew stood up and tasted, and burst into song: “My name is Tzemach, and I live in the mellah, and I sell salt, and it is clear and excellent; blessed be the Lord and praised be He, may He forgive our sins, and may He send us His Messiah,” and thus he groaned “ah, ah, ah” without the listeners noticing.
With a blessing of ‘a refreshing intoxication,’ Bernard Zusha Pepperman
According to another version, the Jew sang: “At the departure of rest, grant Your people relief, send Elijah for our sighing, and let grief and sighing flee,” and thus swallowed his groan within his song.
There is no competition here. We eat a lot of paprika, but not hot paprika. And plain paprika in my world is not hot. We are very sensitive to spicy food. In Moroccan fish they throw in one tiny hot pepper just to fulfill the obligation of the dish, and everyone fears it lest it reach his plate. We eat goulash, lecsó, rakott krumpli, bundás kenyér, and on Passover paprikás coffee. And my mother and her sister even speak Hungarian with my grandmother and with each other (when they don’t want us to understand what they’re saying…) But I never knew in my life that Hungarians (or any Europeans…) like spicy food… What a decline of the generations. Now it is clear why I did not identify the irony in Mordechai’s words. I shall go and put on black and wrap myself in black.
To Immanuel – greetings,
If you “put on black and wrap yourself in black,” then you can be chosen for the High Court, whose members meticulously fulfill “let him wear black and wrap himself in black… and do what his heart desires” 🙂
Regards, Yaakov Kurt Halevi Chaltitovski-Harif
In the article “Israel’s card vis-à-vis the Russians,” the interviewee, Dr. Eli Karmon, estimates that Bennett did not really expect to be able to influence Putin to moderate his stance toward Ukraine. In Dr. Karmon’s opinion, Bennett’s main aim was to meet with the German chancellor on the subject of the Iranian nuclear issue, and the meeting with Putin was only the “scenery” for the trip.
Regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
However, it should be noted that even regarding the Iranian nuclear issue itself, there was a need to talk with Putin in order to ensure continued freedom of action against Iran in Syria, and therefore there is room to think that the meeting with Putin was more than mere “scenery,” and did also contain an element of life-saving.
It is possible that before Rabbi Zeini there stood an assessment by a strategic expert similar to Karmon’s assessment, that the meeting with Putin was only “scenery,” and therefore Rabbi Zeini sharply criticized the Shabbat trip to Putin.
And since we mentioned the President of the State: because he has no diplomatic authority, but does possess rich diplomatic understanding and experience, which previously served him in an attempt to thaw the ice with Jordan, and now in an attempt to thaw the ice with Erdogan – perhaps he is the man who could find a common language and mediate between Russia and Ukraine as well?
Regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Hungarian humor is the opposite of “cynicism.” It is not mockery born of contempt and hatred, but of love. Hungarian humor laughs at defects and weaknesses, but its sharp criticism is expressed with a smile, making it easier to identify with it without being hurt.
Examples of Hungarian humor of this kind were Ephraim Kishon (Ferenc Hoffmann/Kishont), who did it with words, and “Dosh” (Karoly Gardos), who did it in caricatures. They laughed at the flaws of society and the state, but out of love and identification. See the article “In word and illustration: on the ‘Hungarian mafia’ at Maariv that shaped the state” (on the Maariv website).
Perhaps Hungarian humor is connected to “Hungarian wine,” with which the “land of Hagar” was praised, gladdening God and men. This is truly the task of Purim day, on which the transformation in a person toward the good comes not from fear, as on Yom Kippur, but out of love and joy.
With the blessing of ‘a refreshing intoxication,’ Simcha Fishel Halevi Plankton
By the way, even the Hungarian language has a sense of humor. “Arslan,” the Turkish word for lion, the Hungarians turned into “orosz lány” [Russian girl], because of the shared blond mane of hair of the lion and the Russian girl 🙂
To laugh and cry over the article and the responses.
With God’s help, 7 Adar II 5782
To Itamar – greetings,
On the face of it, Putin, who is in isolation vis-à-vis the entire Western world, needed this meeting no less than Bennett, and it stands to reason that if Bennett had insisted on holding the meeting on Friday or on Saturday night, Putin, who is known for his affection toward Jews in general and religious Jews in particular, would have found a suitable time on a weekday.
And in any event, even if our prime minister has an adequate answer – the question and wonder are in place. And it would be fitting for some Knesset member(s) to submit a parliamentary query to the prime minister demanding an explanation, if not in the plenum because of confidentiality, then at least in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
Regards, Bernard Zusha Peppertsan
I apologized and warned in advance that I was using a weapon you would not be able to attack; it seemed the warning had done its work and been understood properly, since you immediately wrote, “Indeed, I am too small to contend with prophets, especially such expert and tested ones whose prophecy has been checked against reality as a solid rock” (true, you wrote it sarcastically, but even the whole title of prophet that I clothed myself in is sarcastic; the central point is that the fool cannot foresee the future that the wise man foresees, and since Bennett has already been proven a fool regardless of this Torah-related episode, then presumably this move too of “the ignoramus jumps to the front” was done out of his foolishness, and there is no point in twisting our minds and trying to defend and dignify his moves; and therefore too what you wrote in the name of Rabbi Shach is irrelevant to our matter; let us return to our matter). But suddenly, after some time in the lesson of “two responses,” you came back to attack in the arena where you had already admitted you were too small to contend. So what is left for me to do? Even a prophet can at most prophesy, but cannot make his interlocutor actually see the future like God. So all that remains for me is to wait a bit until signs of the damage from this ignoramus begin to ripen somewhat and become visible to the little people from contending in this arena, by your own definition. So all that remains is for us to wait and each time drip-feed the indications showing that indeed this is the direction. And indeed I waited and will continue to wait. Take, for example, an indication like this from reactions now coming from Kyiv today, a week after we spoke here.
(the article here in Hebrew)
https://m.maariv.co.il/news/politics/Article-903724
And by the way, what this ignoramus did on this Shabbat, Parashat Zakhor, when his office gave a briefing to foreign journalists in the very midst of Shabbat on trivial matters, unrelated to life-saving of course – its end proves its beginning, that he did not do so for life-saving but because Shabbat is cheap in his eyes.
And therefore Rabbi Zeini should be praised for being the first to raise the question whether it really was impossible to move the meeting earlier or postpone it. Following him, Haredi Knesset members raised the same question. And the question was intensified on the following Shabbat, when the prime minister’s office briefed journalists on Shabbat. The need for that briefing is understandable, but what “life-saving” required it not to wait until Saturday night?
Regards, Shealtiel Binyamin Quack
I join your determination, Tzvika. See what one “ignoramus who jumps to the front” can cause normal people, unwittingly, to do: occupy themselves with his childish kindergarten games and try to explain his psychotic, childish ravings. I would say that Israel imposed the harshest sanction against Putin: 3 hours with Bennett (some say with a con-man Bennett) in the same room.
And for the glory of the “halakhic” matter here, I would add a topic for discussion that the rabbis with sandals considered (after the fact, once they learned of it): regarding this ignoramus who desecrated Shabbat publicly, should he have left the patch on his head at home out of concern for carrying unnecessarily, in the spirit of “minimize the prohibition as much as possible,” or since there is not even the minimum measure of a kippah in this pin on his head, we do not say regarding prohibitions anything analogous to “half a measure,” etc., that one should minimize the prohibition as much as possible.
It remains for us to add a tiny remark before we conclude this matter: the fact that to our shame he dragged along the only kippah-wearer in his government, Housing Minister Elkin, on his desecration trip under the pretext of needing a translator – today, now that the wickedness of this housing minister has become clear to us, having cheated the Haredim in the Shafir project in Kiryat Gat and dumped them in wheelbarrows to the dogs in a project adjacent to the Bedouin in Negev Kasif (Kseifa?) – this reason too, that he traveled as a translator, is probably a wild goose chase, and his whole business there was probably “deals at the price of an explosion in Ukraine.” A bunch of foolish goats.
Natan Sharansky’s concerns about the conduct of the State of Israel in the Russia-Ukraine war were expressed in an interview with him in Israel Hayom; see the article “Sharansky on Bennett’s mediation” on the Kipa website.
Regards, Yafa"or
Haha, what a spoiled stew he cooked up for us, and as time passes it is only “shriveling and getting worse.”
Here are the latest reports:
https://mobile.srugim.co.il/article/655345
Did you understand that, Baruch?
With God’s help, eve of Community Day 5782
To Shmuel, as his name is called – greetings,
And on the other hand, in the Srugim article to which you linked, there is also a link to the article “In Israel they assess: there is movement in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine,” which says that the two sides are beginning to “climb down from the tree” they climbed up. Putin is no longer demanding Zelensky’s removal and the demilitarization of Ukraine, and the Ukrainians too have begun to “climb down from the tree.”
And this makes sense, and not necessarily because of Bennett’s genius talents at all. Bennett is in effect serving as an “open vein” of the Western countries, which alongside “the left hand pushes away” toward Putin – sent Bennett to speak with him as the “right hand draws near” (or “Yamina draws near” 🙂
In a situation where both sides are “stuck deep, deep in the mud” militarily – a crafty mediator like Bennett, who knows a thing or two about managing negotiations, can be the man who brings the sides to agreements. And who knows whether it was not for such a time that he “attained royalty”? 🙂
In his good days Bennett succeeded in uniting and reconnecting religious Zionism, fractured and divided as it was. Here he spoiled what he had repaired by himself being a “side” in the conflict, a drawback that perhaps does not exist in the Russia-Ukraine issue. Perhaps we will merit to conclude: “And Bennett too is remembered for good” 🙂
With a blessing for a fruitful fast and ‘a refreshing intoxication,’ Chasdai Betzalel Duvdevani Kirshen-Kvas
The cat is out of the bag. Now it becomes clear what the urgency of the con-man Bennett was in rushing secretly off to Russia. Now the rabbi of Uman reveals that Zelensky approached him as an emissary to Bibi, because Zelensky believes that only he truly has the power to mediate. The rabbi turned to Elkin and Bennett, and Bennett, who cares about saving lives, but only until Bibi – unbelievable to relate – the fellow rushed quickly to Putin trying to scrape together honor by means of his lofty foolish experience so that, God forbid, Bibi would not merit eternal glory as the one who succeeded in bridging things. Woe to such shame.
In Ukraine too they value Bennett’s mediation and are impressed that the Russians are ready for compromises; see the article: “Senior official in Zelensky’s office: Bennett is a fair mediator. It seems the Russians are ready for compromises,” on the Arutz 7 website.
The religious-Zionists are, after all, known for their willingness to compromise. No wonder Bennett merits to be “the connecting hyphen” between Russia and Ukraine 🙂 And for this may he be blessed: “May your strength be for Torah.” Just as you succeed in getting Putin down from the tree – so too, with God’s help, bring your colleague Matan Kahana down from his determined war against the Chief Rabbinate in the fields of kashrut and conversion.
Regards, Simcha Fishel Halevi Plankton
Haha, I told you not to contend in my arena, which is foreseeing the future (with “the eyes of the mind”). I opened at the beginning of the thread by saying that this year we will add to the Passover Haggadah the fifth son, who is the fool Bennett. You strained to fight me in an arena where you are weak, and today you got the answer. I hope that this year you will say together with all of us, “The Torah speaks of four sons” – no, of five sons, etc. (This is not a prayer, neither about the past nor the future; it is reading the present with open eyes.) Or perhaps you still believe in the mediation of this fool who pushes aside Shabbat because it is life-saving? Take Amnon Abramovich on Channel 12.
To Shmuel, as his name is called –
Bennett cannot be the “fifth son” because he has to be “the one at the head,” so how can he be a “son”? 🙂
One achievement we cannot take away from him: thanks to him, the Jerusalem municipality was able to renovate “France Square” and put up a beautiful fountain there.
As long as Netanyahu sat in Balfour, the municipality could not close the nearby “demonstration square.” The moment Bennett “moved” Netanyahu from Balfour, “France Square” ceased to function as a national “demonstration site,” and the municipality was able to close it for renovations.
Once the square’s renovations were completed, and lawns and a wonderful fountain were planted there – Bennett’s historic mission ended, and another prime minister can be brought to Balfour. That’s the whole story…
Regards, Taste of the Square
As for Abramovich’s claim that Bennett does not know how to choose people: I was actually amazed by the loyalty of his group, who were willing to follow him through fire and water, “to lie on the fence for him,” and absorb the justified humiliations for joining the left. Thank God, they too have finally had enough…
Even on Eretz נהדרת they chose to laugh at this village idiot precisely on this point. It seems to me his shame is only growing as the days pass after what Silman did to him. I hope for his sake that he does not take his own life the way Chaim Walder ended his.
The soap also needs to be discussed.
Just to put in a bit of a crooked defense – it seems clear that Rabbi Zeini is not judging Bennett’s Sabbath desecration as the Sabbath desecration of an individual (as if they had discovered Bennett hiding in the bathroom and sewing two stitches on Shabbat. It seems pretty clear to everyone that there isn’t a single Shabbat that Bennett, as prime minister or previously as defense minister, does not violate many times over (permissibly)). Rather, he sees it as a public and official desecration of Shabbat. And just as matters of public life-saving are especially weighty, so too public desecration of Shabbat is especially weighty. So the issue is probably whether the flight could have been moved earlier or later.
Another point: this really does depend somewhat on one’s assessment of Mr. Bennett, so the bias here is justified. Someone who thinks Bennett is (a) a nonentity and an incompetent, and (b) sold everything important to him (and to the country) for personal honor and power – which is apparently how Rabbi Zeini and many of Bennett’s critics view his political decision to establish the current government – will naturally think that (a) Bennett can achieve nothing in a meeting with Putin, and (b) that he flew and desecrated Shabbat only for his own honor.