Theological Interpretations of Reality (Column 543)
I get the impression that the satire section of the propaganda pamphlet Olam Katan (“Small World”) has undergone a significant upgrade. A few days ago I was sent a parody written by Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu about theological interpretations of history, which presents those interpretations in the ridiculous and malicious light they deserve. It was so successful that it’s no wonder B’Sheva also saw fit to publish it (“Courtesy of ‘Olam Katan,’” as they put it), thereby saving me the effort of creating a PDF from the photo that was sent to me. Following those righteous folk, I too—small as I am—have decided to pitch in to spread Torah in our generation, and the column before you is courtesy of B’Sheva.
I write these words very briefly, since they are not worth even a single word of attention, and I have elaborated on all these points elsewhere. Meanwhile, the web has filled up with more detailed responses, and we even merited (ridiculous) clarifications from Rabbi Eliyahu himself. But the level of foolishness in these statements, and the dullness of the readership that fails to realize the degree to which they themselves are complicit in such statements, leads me to think I should contribute here. Still, I will suffice with sketching only the big picture, so that those many who are outraged by Rabbi Eliyahu’s nonsense can take stock of where they themselves stand with respect to his basic approach.
A Graph of Dung in All Its Glory
First, so that your eyes may behold straight paths, in words of truth and in this masterpiece, I will transcribe it here in full:
| There is no doubt that anyone who would see the Egyptians drowning in the sea and did not remember the entire event from beginning to end would feel great compassion for them and try to save them from drowning. But the Israelites sang a song because they knew the Egyptians and understood that those drowning wished to kill some of them and continue to enslave the rest as slaves.
They sang because they understood that this was divine justice meant to repay the Egyptians who had drowned the children of the people of Israel in the Nile, so that all the wicked in the world would see and fear. They understood that this was a rectification of the world from the tyranny of the Egyptians, who thought the Hebrews ought to be their slaves forever, to continue working for them with hard labor for hundreds more years. Since that is the whole story, Israel at that moment sang a great song—a song that brought upon them the Holy Spirit and merited them an exalted prophecy. The State of Israel is in the midst of an event that has lasted at least twenty years—an event about which the prophet Ezekiel speaks, saying that after the ingathering of the exiles will come vengeance upon all the nations around us who harmed us and did not stop: “Thus said the Lord GOD: When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they were scattered, etc., and they shall dwell upon their land, etc., and they shall dwell securely when I execute judgments upon all those around them who despise them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God.” (Ezekiel 28:25). God is executing judgment upon all the nations around us who, time and again, sought to invade our land and throw us into the sea. This concerns Syria, which for hundreds of years tormented its Jewish residents with the Damascus blood libels and others; which invaded Israel three times in order to annihilate, kill, and destroy; which for years shelled the farmers living at the foot of the Golan Heights; which abused prisoners; which hanged Eli Cohen, may God avenge his blood. We look at Lebanon, which today pays a very heavy price for all the terrorist cells that infiltrated Israel and murdered women and children. Especially in Safed we remember the cell that came from Lebanon and murdered 22 schoolchildren from Safed who were on a trip in Ma’alot. Lebanon fired thousands of rockets at us during the Second Lebanon War and is now preparing hundreds of thousands more to fire indiscriminately at our wives and children. There is no doubt that the country that was “the Switzerland of the Middle East” has turned into hell on earth, and such things do not happen by chance. We do not know the heavenly calculation with Turkey, which slandered us in every possible arena. But if God reveals to us and tells us that He is going to exact judgments upon all our enemies, we need only look and understand what is happening around us. If God says, “And the LORD your God will put all these curses upon your enemies and upon those who hate you, who pursued you” (Deuteronomy 30:7), we must understand that this is for our benefit. If He said, “Therefore all who devour you shall be devoured; and all your adversaries, all of them, shall go into captivity; and those who plunder you shall be plunder; and all who prey upon you I will make a spoil” (Jeremiah 30:16), we shall know that everything that happens is to cleanse the world and make it better. It is true that it is written that the angels did not sing when the works of God’s hands were drowning in the sea. And the Gemara in Berakhot also says that an earthquake is an expression of God’s tears over the people of Israel who are still in exile. But we are not angels, and to this day we recite the Song of the Sea in every single prayer in synagogues. It is not that we are insensitive to human suffering. Far from it. But if, Heaven forbid, we fail to give thanks to God, who protects us—that is ingratitude. If we think it is coincidence—that is hardness of heart. If we think we are more compassionate than He— that is wickedness and stupidity. The Song of the Sea directs us to know that God is more compassionate than anyone. To understand that the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea is the rescue of the world from evil and the deliverance of the world from tyrannical regimes of exploiters who know no satisfaction, the rescue of the world from the idolatry of those who invented the gates of impurity. Therefore we will say aloud the words from the evening prayer: “The God who exacts recompense for us from our oppressors; who repays all the enemies of our souls; who keeps our soul among the living and has not let our feet slip; who leads us upon the heights of our enemies and exalts our horn above all our haters.” We will give thanks in Nishmat Kol Chai for all the goodness, miracles, and wonders that You have done for us and for our ancestors. We will give thanks in the Sabbath afternoon prayer and say, “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth.” Courtesy of “Olam Katan.” |
First Thoughts
On a first read one might get the impression that this is a serious article—ah, sorry, not a serious article, certainly not that, but an article meant in earnest. But then I caught myself and told myself this cannot be. Even stupidity has its limits, even among rabbis who have been known for this since time immemorial. The very possibility of thinking this is a serious article testifies a thousandfold to the degeneration of that stupid, ancient genre of theological interpretations of history with its insertion of the “hand of God” into it. Such things have been written for millennia by rabbis and thinkers, and many of them mean it quite seriously. It is good that Rabbi Eliyahu decided to jolt us in this way, to highlight the folly, infantilism, and malice of this popular genre.
I will not deny that the thought crossed my mind that it is neither nice nor polite to write a parody about a terrible event still unfolding, in which so many thousands suffer and die—events that set the world on its feet in great sorrow and genuine solidarity with the victims. I thought he could have chosen an event like the election of the new government and coalition—about which it is still permitted and desirable to mock and explain, with cynicism, why the Holy One, blessed be He, did all this to us (hint: as a punishment for choosing them—blessed is He who chose them and their doctrine). But in my estimation Rabbi Eliyahu simply thinks the coalition really was made for us by God, and perhaps he does not even understand that these events are a terrible punishment that has brought upon us a union of Israel’s tormentors (Bibi, the Haredim, Smotrich, and the rest). My conclusion was that Rabbi Eliyahu, known for his integrity and courage, decided to wean us from these childish and foolish notions with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and therefore chose precisely this terrible event. I recalled that more than once he has bravely (and here I am speaking seriously) taken a stand against sexual harassment and has made no allowances for rabbis and other important figures, and therefore decided here, too, to mount his Rosinante and ride out to battle. Credit to him for his courage.
Wait—another thought passes through me: is it possible that he actually means this seriously?… It cannot be. Even infantilism has a limit. True, we have grown accustomed to the fact that the village idiot was appointed city rabbi—pardon me, the municipal functionary on behalf of the Chief Rabbinate for Ishmael. We have also become accustomed to many people asking his opinion (or lack thereof) on various matters. But newspaper editors are not rabbis. From them I would indeed expect a bit of critical sense and straight thinking. Well, I would have expected it. Then I remembered that the genre is not new. It has always struck me as an infantile parody, but we cannot deny its prevalence in our milieu—even among types more serious than the aforesaid nincompoop. For hundreds of years religious thought has suffered from the musings of retarded children, with the logic of arguments worthy of broken wooden clogs, and no one opens their mouth to chirp a protest. Fools have ruled over us, and there is no deliverance from their hands. Great rabbis and halakhic authorities—Jews well-versed in Torah and casuistry—when they open their mouths to think, to contemplate reality—one’s ears should tingle. Could it be that all the greats of the generations were, in fact, such “Rabbi Eliyahus”? All those Jews on whose words we live—were they such dunces? I must admit that thoughts bordering on heresy passed through me as I read, but I shall bite my tongue here.
I will conclude the preface with Rabbi Avraham Stav’s response (he was among the first to respond), in his wonderfully gentle post (see also here). He is more polite than I am. But I must add a recommendation regarding the article’s headline. It deserves the understatement medal of the year:
Rabbi Avraham Stav’s response to Rabbi Eliyahu’s explanation: “He felt discomfort.”
So allow me nonetheless to express my discomfort at the outpouring of stupidity written in the piece above. Perhaps the fellow is not with us. Or perhaps, once again, it was a revelation of “Mama Ruchel”, who toiled and responded to Rabbi Eliyahu’s repeated appeals and this time appeared to him while awake to save us. Or maybe it was indeed in a dream, and Rabbi Eliyahu simply forgot to wake up before passing it on to us verbatim, so graciously? Time will tell. When the Tishbite arrives to save us, I won’t forget to clarify it with him—and if I forget, I will, God willing, bring a fat sin-offering. In short, I am nevertheless addressing this intellectual garbage in order to register my protest against the aforesaid idiot, and mainly because this stupidity is so prevalent in our milieu and, sadly, even exemplifies a very typical mode of thought in religious philosophy through the generations. My words are written so that you may see where this infantilized approach—whose basic premises, if you are honest, many of you share—can lead. As noted, there are conclusions here on which each of us must reflect. It is not enough to be outraged at the statements, for they are rooted in a mode of thinking. What matters more is to examine that mode of thinking, and that only a few do.
So what do we have here? A concise list of fallacies.
His starting point is a foolish comparison to what happened in Egypt and at the sea. There, however, we had prophecy telling us it came from God, whereas here it is only Rabbi Eliyahu’s fevered imagination. There, it was soldiers who drowned in the sea as they pursued us to destroy us; here, men, women, and children die—many of whom have nothing against us. The plagues in Egypt that struck the Egyptians themselves did not elicit praise and jubilation, even though there Israel was under a direct threat from which they were saved by the plagues. I have written more than once about the notion of a “pursuing collective,” and I have explained that based on understanding that we are at war against a collective, there is permission to harm innocents if necessary to save ourselves. But from there to rejoicing and giving thanks for the fact that innocents died—the distance is vast. Exulting that infants perish by suffocation and under collapsed homes; that thousands of families are in mourning, freezing from cold and lacking food—this attests to a callousness bordering on stupidity (on the underside of that border).
Beyond that, there is the theological fallacy. Rabbi Eliyahu assumes that God is doing this, and therefore says that we must not be more compassionate than He is. One must understand that he is suggesting that we ourselves ought to do the same. For example, drop an atomic bomb on Turkey, or poison their wells. One must understand that this is the direct conclusion of what he writes. There is no way around it. But I must tell you that in this he is entirely correct: if indeed all this is the handiwork of God, then this is true compassion and this is apparently the proper way to act. Let all those who share this view of divine involvement in the world take note. Of course, one can respond that we do not understand, and I will address the diagnostics below. In any case, according to Rabbi Eliyahu’s approach, we too should do similar things. Whoever recoils from his words—and I assume there are many—must re-examine whether he agrees that these are the acts of God. Here too there will be many. I leave you to reconcile that contradiction.
As noted, there is also a diagnostic fallacy, namely, the assumption that we have tools to assess God’s motivations and why such things occur—who receives which recompense and for what. A few remarks: first, we certainly have no such diagnostic capacity, and many would surely agree. But if so, what is the point in trying to understand and learn from what happens? In the second volume of my trilogy I pointed out that if God is trying to teach us something through what He orchestrates in this world, He is decidedly failing at it. The disgraceful pedagogical failure of an omnipotent teacher tells us that He is probably not trying to teach us anything at all. In my view, not only is there no pedagogical attempt here—He is not involved at all. He is not causing any of this; hence the question does not arise to begin with.
Regarding diagnostics I will add the logical-scientific problem. If he were right, I would expect the world’s all-powerful manager to exhibit at least minimal consistency. What about the tsunami in Japan? And the earthquakes and cyclones in the United States? Are those also punishments because they are against us? And what of all our enemies who do not receive such punishments upon their heads? How about a small earthquake in Egypt, in Iraq, or in Jordan—so that we can see a few infants buried alive there as well, and have a wonderful reason to rejoice and give thanks to God.
Part of the diagnostics involves a logical fallacy. Rabbi Eliyahu and his fellow-travelers take a single event from among countless similar events—where no pattern whatsoever is visible—and derive conclusions from that one event. It is like saying that Highway 417 is prone to disaster because there was an accident there yesterday, without relating to the fact that on that same road there are far fewer accidents than on other roads. This is precisely the level of inference of the adherents of that foolish approach exemplified above. Note: I am not merely arguing that these statements are unscientific because they do not meet tests of falsification—there are, after all, domains not accessible to the scientific method. Unscientific statements can still be reasonable. My claim is that these are nonsense and stupidity because there is no indication whatsoever of their truth. Pure hallucinations.
In the same vein there is the ethical fallacy. To malign God and claim that He slaughters infants and buries them alive through no fault of their own merely because there are some adults in their country who trouble us—that is outright slander of God. Not to mention the obligation to rejoice and thank Him for it, for which it is hard to find adequate words. But those who do not accept this must draw broader conclusions—not merely be outraged at foolish things that fell from the lips of a “high priest.”
Next comes the hermeneutical fallacy. To take passages from the Bible spoken by prophets who had information about what was happening behind the scenes and a diagnostic capacity to interpret reality theologically, and to apply that as-is to a completely different reality merely because you read it in the Bible—this is childish infantilism. To adopt a talmudic or later rabbinic approach despite its utter lack of logic, because of “faith in the sages,” even as you yourself sense that it makes no sense at all—that is childish thinking (or non-thinking).
And, of course, there remains the tactless fallacy. The whole world is in mourning, and the idiot exults publicly. This was all we needed in these days so that the whole world could identify Judaism with malicious and corrupt stupidity. It is not enough what his agents do in the Knesset; the sender himself must show us that “it is presumed that an agent performs his mission” to perfection. The gang of desecrators of God’s name that has taken over the government and does whatever it pleases serves as the faithful agents of their rabbis, who ensure full backing—lest the desecration of God’s name be incomplete. And the Name is not fully desecrated until it is desecrated to the very end.
Conclusions
I must say that this article again arouses in me gloomy thoughts. Jewish thinking about reality and about God’s governance—especially in recent centuries—is generally childish and rather foolish. It turns out that great scholars and decisors, who display impressive intellectual acuity in talmudic and halakhic analysis, can speak sheer nonsense when it comes to understanding reality and how to conduct oneself within it. We have abundant examples in our time, but this raises in me a serious suspicion that so it was in the past as well. Many of those thinkers—from the Sages onward—whom many of us labor to study, may also, in fact, have been such “Rabbi Eliyahus.” A few generations from now students will surely come and study Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu’s essays in depth, and will find in this very article, through letter-skips, wondrous ideas. It is merely a matter of investing sufficient energy in interpretive effort to discover those pearls.
This brings us to drawing conclusions about the Bible and Aggadah, and to the lack of value and significance in studying those fields. That is a direct consequence of the hermeneutical fallacy. If this is the level of conclusions rabbis derive from Aggadah and Scripture, then in my view it becomes much harder to dispute my radical positions in these areas.
We have seen an impressive list of fallacies in this short article: theological, ethical, diagnostic, logical, hermeneutical—topped off with a shocking lack of tact that leads to an awful desecration of God’s name. But we must understand that Rabbi Eliyahu was courageous enough to take these foolish notions to their conclusion and present the implications. Others who share them do not dare to draw those conclusions. Even those who disagree with these statements must hold themselves to account regarding the entire theological picture. And finally, one must rethink the rabbinic figures whom people consult, read, and follow together with their teachings. If such an idiot can serve as a city rabbi and be an influential figure for a broad public, this is the bankruptcy of the rabbinate as an institution altogether.
Discussion
I’m attaching two comments that Rabbi Avraham Stav wrote as clarification regarding the post in question:
“To those wondering about the understatement in the opening, here’s a rule: when there is a text or a person I have sharp criticism of, I don’t hesitate to write it in all its sharpness. But when I have really, really sharp criticism—of the kind that could truly make me lose my temper—I use understatement.”
Question from another surfer: “Avraham Stav, if you had written this clarification as a preface to the preface, one could have believed it.
Begging your Torah’s pardon, perhaps you are afraid to confront openly such a popular figure in the sector?”
Answer from Rabbi Stav: “That’s a possibility I take into account. But it’s more likely that this caught me at the beginning of a workday and I don’t have time to write a proper and precise response article, as should have been done, so I don’t want to get carried away.”
So it seems to me that it would be appropriate to delete the passage you wrote about.
By the way, it’s interesting to note that this week the writer of the satirical column in Olam Katan was indeed replaced. So apparently that column too is part of Divine providence.
But even according to the rabbi’s approach, this Shabbat, when I heard the commandment “You shall not covet,” it occurred to me that according to the rabbi’s worldview one could end up violating the prohibition of “You shall not covet,” and after that also “You shall not steal” and “You shall not murder.” You are probably rubbing your eyes—what is the connection? Well, the commentators struggled greatly to understand how it is possible to command a person regarding an emotion of the heart. He covets because his heart desires it; what do you want him to do, say out loud, “I do not covet,” when he knows in his heart that the Holy One, blessed be He, created him, and given his starting point he very much does covet? Then Ibn Ezra came and gave a psycho-analogical treatment: since we know that everything is managed to the very end by the Holy One, blessed be He, then whatever has come to a person is what God gave him, deliberately and intentionally, and what has not—there is no possibility in the world that it should be his, and the Omnipresent has many ways. Therefore there is no point in this coveting, because it is not a desire that can ever take on flesh and blood, but mere fantasy. But according to the rabbi’s worldview, in which God has abandoned the earth, the original question returns to its place. We are left to explain how this connects to “You shall not steal,” etc., because there are commentators who say that “You shall not covet” is a fence and safeguard for “You shall not steal” and “You shall not murder,” for if a person violates “You shall not covet,” it is a slippery slope to “You shall not steal” and “You shall not murder.”
The form of the column:
The above article—a matchless piece of idiocy.
Arguments: there are no good arguments, only a mixture of rage and horrible feelings at reading someone who doesn’t think like me.
Very mature.
I assume you won’t be gravely offended if this meager response serves as a mild protest, compared to the one you wrote against the above article.
As for the arguments: of course here too, your consistent method—in your books and your columns—is to ignore the book, on which, incidentally, you base hair-splitting halakhic frameworks (and at times meaningless ones), a book that tells long stories analyzing realities of destruction, ruin, prosperity, and flourishing, and regularly analyzes them as the result of providence and the hand of God.
You find it difficult to accept the concepts of providence and intervention—unlike, incidentally, laws such as ḥanan and partial kiddushin, which you investigate enthusiastically and incessantly. I understand that you have a hard time with the stories in general. I do too, by the way—you’re invited to a treatment workshop on the subject.
Therefore you will distort, as usual, the meaning of God’s prophecies dealing with the connection between actions and natural and general occurrences. In your view, when the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke about annulment of vows, He was speaking in complete seriousness, but in the section “And it shall come to pass, if you surely hearken,” He was speaking a little less seriously. That was once. Later it will change. Something. Like that.
So some man sits in Tzfat and writes analyses that rise in his fevered mind, after reading many pages of history (in his method), and reading many chapters of the books of the prophets (unlike you), and all in all makes the transition from the analytical to the synthetic. I once heard something about that; I hope I won’t collapse a few pillars of philosophical instruction along the way. He connects the dots and draws conclusions. Every third Jew (including you) draws conclusions from events and occurrences; only he connects it to knowledge and information that you consistently choose to ignore.
Leave him alone.
In the Rambam’s view (Robbery and Lost Property 1:10), if one coveted but did not think of using a scheme, he does not transgress.
Hello Rabbi Michi.
I would like to comment on one final point:
.מ
I think the shock is not necessarily yours. What is said in Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu’s words comes from a problematic place in a certain way.
I’ll explain what I mean. You wrote in the column that in your opinion he is describing a mode of thought that was also common among Hazal and among Orthodox Jews generally in the broader history of the last several centuries.
Even if we momentarily ignore the presumption of knowing why a certain specific event happened and attributing to a certain specific event mythological significance—the general statements that “calamities come to the world only for Israel” and “the entire world was created only for Israel and for the Torah, which are called ‘first’” are two unmistakably rabbinic sayings, and the path from them to conclusions of this kind is very short indeed. After all, no event of significance—or any event at all—in the world exists except for Israel to derive some benefit from it, whether openly or in a hidden way. And as you again said, this is a theological thinking pattern found in various areas among rabbis in general over the last 200 years. The shock at Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu’s words came largely from more liberal or more tolerant circles, if one may call them that, for whom gloating or attributing collective or merciless punishment to the Holy One, blessed be He, is something appalling. Here, from that side, we are dealing with intellectual dishonesty. They bring quotations such as “His mercies are upon all His works,” “Beloved is man, for he was created in the image,” “nation shall not lift sword against nation,” and the like, while ignoring many other sources that call for vengeance upon the nations and expect the Holy One, blessed be He, to do this. Famous commentators such as the Or HaChaim express themselves in a classic way that, in principle, every nation of the world is a shell concealing sparks within it in the form of righteous converts; and once those sparks are drawn from the shell, the Holy One, blessed be He, judges that nation to… death and destruction. From where does the Or HaChaim derive this bold idea? From the story of Ruth the Moabite, after whom all of Moab was destroyed (and Rashi too, for example, writes in a similar style). Many, like the author of the Tanya for example, saw the French Revolution—specifically when emancipation arrived—as a satanic act whose purpose was to assimilate the Jews. Rabbeinu Yonah held that the burning of the Talmud was punishment for his having called for the burning of the Guide for the Perplexed. The theological explanations for the Holocaust are often very embarrassing and leave the reader gaping—but my point is that, in principle, there are far more quotations in favor of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu from our tradition, ones that do indeed relate to the Holy One, blessed be He, clearly as a figure who desires collective punishments of this kind—whether punishments directed at the people of Israel so that they return in repentance, or collective punishments directed at nations that oppress Israel so that His name be sanctified and so that it be shown that there is providence and justice in the world, or even just disasters to move things around in history here and there toward the ideal end for which the world was created.
If so, it seems that what mainly bothers the outcrying people is not the infantile conception of providence, or the prophecies of doom. For in what camp in our country today are there no prophecies of doom? Did Asa Kasher not write a ridiculous lament about the loss of humanity among the Jewish people and how he foresees that after the elections everything is over? And in the very left-wing camp, part of which even defines itself as completely secular or atheist, are there not prophecies of doom, with calmness and religious enthusiasm, that the state will surely go to hell and be destroyed any moment now by diplomatic isolation, governmental anarchy, and a bloody massacre that will come through civil war as a kind of karma for the misguided choices the public decided to make? And on the more liberal and tolerant side of Religious Zionism, are there not parallel prophecies of doom? Don’t we have Benny Lau warning on every platform that the unfair treatment of the stranger dwelling among us will bring punishments of expulsion from the land and the like, as can be learned from the story of the Gibeonites, which he is accustomed to cite as a parable?
Rather, what disturbs people is not the infantilism or lack of maturity, but the value that emerges from Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu’s words: the main point of creation is the people of Israel; the rest of humanity is secondary to this people. Therefore, of course, when hostile countries that interfere with it in its great mission are struck by disaster, one should rejoice, because they are guilty of incomparable wickedness. Innocent people? That’s handled rather casually, because what are a few dead and wounded Syrians or Turks compared to the immense and enormous value of sanctifying God’s name in the eyes of the children of Israel?
Therefore, in my opinion, one can only take this discussion and every discussion of its kind and return to the fundamental disputes at the root of the matter: do the people who come out against Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu also accept halakha and the Torah as binding, but add to that the datum of modernity, some of whose values they accept, and therefore reject the necessary attribution of the killing of many people—including blameless innocents and children captured among the nations—to the Holy One, blessed be He, and certainly reject rejoicing at others’ downfall; reject the exclusive importance of the Israelite nation and see value also in other cultures and peoples, and all the more so in other human beings who are not members of the covenant? And after having adopted a modern religious worldview of this kind, do they feel disappointment that not everyone who observes Torah and mitzvot accepts it, and do they expect—and most importantly, believe—that even major rabbis such as Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu are capable of adopting such a religious outlook, and so they draw on reasoned dialogue? Or is there here only a recurring pattern of shock, but without any desire to change anything or do anything? After all, to be the beautiful and clever child in the class who, unlike the other children, does not engage in blows, nonsense, and violence, and shouts, “I’m not connected to them, I’m not connected to them!! I’m several levels above”—that is no less pathetic, in my opinion, than attributing to the Holy One, blessed be He, harm done to the Turks.
(And my words are not directed against you, Heaven forbid, because I do not see your column as a cry of that kind; rather, it seems to me from your words that what bothers you more is the intellectual dishonesty.) Rather, they are directed at those commenters. (I’m posting this here because I assume some of them will also read the column and may reach my response, and also to give you food for thought as to why statements like his happen at all—in my opinion it is also very much a backlash against the trends I described above.)
When they put small children into the building work, it was hard in Moses’ eyes to see such a thing. The Holy One, blessed be He, told him: pull one of them out. He pulled one out, and out came Micah, and the world would have been better off without him, had he died innocent. The same applies to all those children who died: it is possible that these are the terrorists of the next generation. Only, we do not know, and therefore we save them; but as for God, clearly it is impossible to know what the reason is.
This is what I am crying over. That those who engage in interpreting the Bible arrive at these idiotic conclusions. So leave me and us alone.
Brilliant. Therefore we must thank and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, for killing all those little terrorists. And when a Jewish child is harmed, we too should thank and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, because perhaps a terrorist would have come from him who would murder Jews of his own people (otherwise why did he die?!). How did I not think of that?!
I didn’t bring any sources, so please direct your words to those who did. If I find such statements in Hazal or the Rishonim, I will oppose them just as strongly (and I also noted here that this is a common Torah mode of thinking from time immemorial). I explained that here it is more severe, since we live in a different era and I would have expected us to improve.
As for seeing everything around the people of Israel, clearly there is some of that here too, and I definitely oppose that as well. It is the usual and accepted chauvinism, but I didn’t think to comment on it here because it is merely megalomaniacal, but not stupid and wicked like the rest of his words, and also because that is not the main point here.
Bottom line, I didn’t understand what your criticism of my words is.
Quite apart from issues of providence and interpretation of rabbinic midrashim,
what can one do—the Turks are our enemies (who isn’t? Maybe the Republicans in the U.S. are not), and there is certainly no reason to be sad for them. The “mourning” of the rest of the world over them is a bluff stemming from a lack of self-awareness. In truth, no one in the world cares about anyone else (except for a few select individuals, Rav Kook and the like). As for the other peoples—in their overwhelming majority as individuals, and all of them as collectives—they hate us, and in this not a milligram has changed from the past. They will look for any excuse to hate Jews, and even if they find none, in the end they will vent their hatred on us for no reason at all (one ought to learn something from history, no?). What restrains them today, unlike in the past, is only a matter of their self-image as cultured people (in the West). In other words, aesthetics, not real morality. Inwardly they are the same animals as before. And that culture is like the cat trained to be a waiter (the cat that was trained as a waiter and the moment it saw a mouse forgot all about it, threw down the tray, and chased after the cat). And I say this from knowledge that comes from observing the (sub-)human species, not from interpretation of Hazal.
In fact this inner subhumanity also characterizes the great majority of the Jewish people (as individuals), but one who still chooses the Jewish people (and does not believe in “equality”) at least chooses to belong to the collective that inwardly is in fact human.
Likewise, there is no such thing as an innocent individual who belongs to a collective that is not innocent (and therefore is fought as a collective). By his very choice to live among that collective he has already chosen evil (even if he is not aware of it, which is even worse than consciously choosing evil. It is like being an animal, which, as I said, is the absolute state of the vast majority of the (sub-)human species. There is a kind of paradox here, because he chooses (?) without awareness not to choose (that is, to be an animal by choosing to remain in the company of animals). In fact, most people’s choice of good and evil consists in choosing what society to move among, since the overwhelming majority of human beings draw their thoughts (?) from the environment in which they move. In truth, in a case like this of a bad society for children, there is really no free choice to grow up and become different from one’s environment (“little terrorists,” like the 13-year-old terrorist from two weeks ago). Also, children are crueler and more evil than adults (though inwardly that too is not really so, as I said; among adults it is only external too, unless you are Rav Kook and the like, or at least aware of all this reality, in which case there is a chance you will one day become like Rav Kook). So in fact all compassion for them is an animal instinct (the she-wolf too raised Romulus and Remus) and does not necessarily point to any moral truth. One who is weaker is not more moral.
And with all due respect, Rabbi Michi, it doesn’t seem to me that you are more moral than Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu… You sound much more enraged, angry, and bitter than he does. There is a better chance that he would pick me up for a ride in the middle of nowhere than you would…. Like most hard-leftists, bitter and evil, from whom morality and truth are far removed, and who simply hate right-wingers, Haredim, and religious people (or do not recognize their very existence), and are “moral” only toward the enemies of the Jewish people. I believe that very many readers of this site would sign onto my words…
Why does the fact that a certain rabbi learns from the Bible with many flaws mean that we cannot draw conclusions from it?
Why does the fact that a certain rabbi applies the concept of providence in a distorted way mean that there is no providence? (One need not say that everything is providence; one can believe that the Holy One, blessed be He, acts in reality when He warns of it beforehand in prophecy. Redemption, the Land of Israel, etc.)
A response to Michi’s nonsense:
“The theological fallacy” – there is no necessity to conclude that Rabbi Eliyahu thinks we need to destroy the Turks. Utter nonsense. Just an empty statement of yours with no support whatsoever.
The “diagnostic fallacy” – who determined that we have no certain diagnostic ability? The second book of the trilogy?
We read the Bible, and it is legitimate for everyone to infer whatever they want. The fact that there are different interpretations does not mean none of them is correct.
It is utter stupidity to claim that because everyone derives something different from the Bible, therefore one cannot learn anything from the Bible.
Of course the Holy One, blessed be He, is consistent, and we also see that the countries that are our enemies (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc.) suffer greatly.
By contrast, countries like the U.S. and Japan are in fact very successful and productive countries, even though from time to time they have natural disasters too (which are also from God).
It is legitimate to claim that what Turkey went through is because of what they did to us (though that is not necessary), and the natural disasters that Japan or the U.S. go through are also due to accounts we do not understand.
Of course this also answers the “logical fallacy” – as I noted above, we see that all our enemies are failures.
What can you do, Michi—the truth is with Rabbi Eliyahu, may he live long, and not with you.
“The ethical fallacy” – it is amazing to see Michi write this.
Note well: Michi claims that the Holy One, blessed be He, created a world, and He can also save babies who were buried alive under the rubble. But He does not do so, because He does not provide providence.
Whereas Rabbi Eliyahu, may he live long, actually claims that all God’s acts are under providence, and babies buried alive in Turkey are perhaps the souls of wicked people from the Mavi Marmara.
That is surely preferable to Michi’s approach, which claims that God created a world in which there is suffering without purpose.
So who is ethically deficient here, eh, Michi?
“The interpretive fallacy” – again, like the diagnostic fallacy.
Rabbi Eliyahu emphasizes that we have no knowledge of Heaven’s accounts, but his interpretation is entirely legitimate.
There is nothing negative about it.
“The tact failure” – Rabbi Eliyahu did not exult. He gives the credit to God.
There may perhaps be a feeling of discomfort on reading Rabbi Eliyahu’s words. But the words are entirely legitimate.
If only I could reach Rabbi Eliyahu’s ankles in moral stature.
Come on, guys, was it really that hard to answer Michi?
Where did you see in my words that the example proves anything? It illustrates and does not prove. My claims that try to ‘prove’ all the theses you hinted at here I laid out at length in the second book of the trilogy and also here on the site in other places. This stupid example was brought only to illustrate where these things can lead and to show people that there are necessary conclusions from their own position (reductio ad absurdum).
Not at all (= the guys). Childishly easy. Good that Rabbi Eliyahu has brilliant students who will strike the heretics like me on the crown of the head. The student surpasses his master.
This collection of nonsense really does not deserve a response, but what can I do—I’m a very polite person. So, briefly.
1. If the Holy One, blessed be He, is our moral model, and if this is what He does, then this is the most proper moral way. And it follows that we too are supposed to act this way. QED.
2. Indeed, the second book of the trilogy. It did not determine; it showed. Long live the small difference. In the trilogy I also explained why the comparison to halakha is incorrect.
3. Of course He is consistent. All our enemies get hit, and everyone who gets hit is our enemy. QED.
4. The explanation I offer for these disasters is that they are not acts of the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore your claim is not against Him, and certainly we are not supposed to act that way. Be off with you to the trilogy.
5. We have no knowledge of Heaven’s accounts, but we do have a firm position on exactly what is happening there. Indeed, a very common oxymoron. Every idiot who proposes Heavenly accounts begins by saying that we have no knowledge of Heavenly accounts (it’s roughly like “were I not afraid to say it”), and then pours his nonsense over us. But it is good that Rabbi Eliyahu, may he live long—the symbol of morality and logical interpretation—has students like him who buy this nonsense. Not for nothing did your brothers quarry you…
6. You write, “there may perhaps be a feeling of discomfort.” I understand you are trying to dethrone Rabbi Avraham Stav from the title of understatement of the year. Well, you succeeded.
7. Indeed, if only you could reach Rabbi Eliyahu’s ankles ethically, tactically, logically, interpretively, in scholarship, and more. From the drivel you write here it is evident that you are far beneath that, though until not long ago I found it hard to believe there even were such places. At least in your ability to invent nonsense unfit for a kindergarten child and to do so with complete lack of awareness and with the certainty of a Nobel laureate—you have truly reached lofty peaks in that field. Fortunate are you.
Much success (it seems you have a lot of work ahead of you).
Basically, this is not a criticism.
Rather, it is a statement that the anger of most people around his words, in my opinion, stems from a value dispute, or even a certain interpretive dispute, and that in my opinion his words are intentionally aimed in this way also against more tolerant trends, among other things.
As for the rest—indeed so. You are right that there is no necessary connection. I merely noted that if a person thinks that everything revolves around the people of Israel and the rest of the world is scenery—if one takes that literally—then reaching the conclusion that many Syrians or Turks are killed so that a Jew can enjoy sanctification of God’s name is entirely logical (though not necessarily required).
This is not a criticism, but rather making use of the platform and the column to present this angle, in order to point out to readers on both sides of the divide that they should examine their sources and basic assumptions.
Hello Rabbi, as long as Rabbi Eliyahu is the target, this is a shocking waste of ammunition. First, his extreme opinion is publicly known to all, and there is nothing new in it, although one might say that from time to time there are surprises. Second, the content—or rather the crossfire—was directed more at the symptom than at the cause of the disease. The rabbi indeed noted that our sages’ outlook throughout the generations has been deficient in understanding the reasons for what occurs, and for every single case they knew how to point precisely to cause and effect. And precisely for that reason I think Rabbi Eliyahu is not to blame, and he is not really exceptional in the Torah-Jewish landscape (except for the somewhat cruel wording with a baklava-at-the-intersections flavor, but many greater and better than he have given reasons for the Holocaust, etc.). Rabbi Eliyahu sits among his people, and there is nothing new under the sun. After all, from then until forever we have been like this. In my humble opinion, one cannot point to anything at all “from our own camp” that thought or thinks otherwise. There is not even one sage (“almost”—except Bialik in ‘In the City of Slaughter’) in Chelm who will say that bad or good things that occur in the world are merely the handiwork of nature’s choice or of man. Rabbi Eliyahu is a logical/necessary outcome of a many-years-long Jewish interpretation; he is another link in the golden chain wound around everything that falls under the heading of ‘reality.’ Starting with the holy Torah itself, which claims that everything has a reason: “If you walk in My statutes” and “if you despise…”; “I have set My bow in the cloud,” etc. And likewise the prophets among the people, promising famine and drought, wealth and satiety, according to the proper conduct of the people with their God. Hazal are loaded to weariness with cause and effect: the sun is eclipsed because… children die because of… The Rishonim and Acharonim are full of mourning over bitter reality (for example, the Taz on the death of his children, because he had lived above a synagogue) and adorn their words with wonderful segulot, “tested and tried.” Even the realist par excellence in Israel, the Rambam, determines more than once that one who attributes disasters to chance and does not mend his deeds borders on cruelty. And I have still not mentioned Rav Kook and his doctrine, which time after time shattered against the rocks of reality and forced him to gather the fragments and recalculate the route (his view on the cause of the First World War, etc.), yet he did not despair, but continued to cast reasons for everything he saw fit. And even the latest of the latest, Rabbi Edelstein, seasoned his lesson this week with a bit of piquancy and claimed that everything that happened in the earthquake was meant to awaken us to repentance. ‘Us,’ he explained, means only those who tremble at God’s word—the Haredim alone! For they believe “that everything is from Him, blessed be He.” The impression one gets is that even when dealing with people of good character and great minds, for whom it is clear that they have constantly overcome and subdued their inclination, they never left reality alone, and continually, in regular order, they were tempted again and again to draw conclusions about reality and attach to it causes and triggers like mountains hanging by a hair. Even though in but a moment their doctrine sinks into the depths and they are already singing a new song. If so, why has the rabbi’s wrath gone out against Rabbi Eliyahu, seeing that from the giving of the Torah to whatever a veteran student will one day innovate on the heights of Ponevezh (except in matters of halakha), all is included in this outlook of cause and effect? This is the classic Jewish tradition throughout the generations, which holds this way, even though reality repeatedly checks in from Sheol. True, there are those who take the circumstances to frightening places, but permission has been given to the expositor and he receives reward. So one says this nonsense and another says that nonsense. In the end it is hard to ignore the fact that Judaism as a religion always responds to what happens from its own angle of vision and is called upon (who asked this of you at all?) to provide persuasive explanations for everything. In conclusion—what did Rabbi Eliyahu innovate here?
I will answer substantively.
1. Not true. We have absolutely no right to attack Turkey. God knows at the bit-level what soul is where, and Heaven’s accounts are precise,
and therefore He also knows with certainty exactly which babies need to be buried alive. We have no knowledge of the fine details of Heaven’s accounts.
2. In the trilogy you showed things at the very lowest level. That book is a joke, and not for nothing did it fail.
3. Fact. Everyone who messed with the people of Israel is no longer in the world. By contrast, the people of Israel are alive and kicking. What do you have to say to that?
4. Here you are simply lying for two reasons:
A. He is responsible for the laws of nature (which generate earthquakes), so obviously it is His responsibility.
B. There is a recording of you in which you say that the Holy One, blessed be He, is very interested in what goes on in the world. That is, according to your view (wicked and full of injustice and folly), God does not manage reality by active intervention, but He is interested and watches. He hears the cries of babies trapped under tons of bricks and does nothing.
So according to Rabbi Eliyahu, God is righteous—“The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice… righteous and upright is He.” And according to your method, God is cruel (ah, actually that’s not God).
To this argument you have no answer at all.
5. Simple observation can solve the mighty “difficulty” you present—
we have very general knowledge: all the enemies of Israel are swept out of the world (whereas those who did not harm the people of Israel—some survive, the Chinese for example).
We have no precise knowledge regarding which baby contains the reincarnated soul of a wicked person who tormented Jews in a previous incarnation and deserves to be buried alive.
Complicated, Michi?
7. Somehow it turned out that you are a PhD in physics, and I, truly a simple person with only a high-school education, genuinely feel much smarter than you.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Believers think there is no randomness and try to understand why bad things happen—not necessarily as punishment, but as a spur to improvement and repentance. You claim reality is random? Enjoy yourself. That is not their faith, so they will look for an explanation, and either it will be a good one or it won’t. To say that reality explodes in the face of someone looking for meaning is like saying that reality explodes in the face of science every time some refutation is found to some good theory. After all, one cannot really prove a scientific theory, however successful it may be. One can corroborate or refute. According to your method there is no reason to believe in science at all. Who said that every physical phenomenon has a cause or explanation? Perhaps it is all arbitrary and random? A poor theory for why bad things happen to people who do not seem bad detracts nothing from the very existence of providence. So try better and more accurate explanations (with predictions) for the way providence over good and evil is conducted. On the historical level, in the end one sees that after time passes (in the long run) the wicked collapse. The problem on the level of explanations is only with the interim periods.
By the way, regarding tact and “mourning” for innocents among the Turks: about two years ago Rabbi Michi did not bother to hide the feelings of gloating (as with Yaron London) that arose in him when he heard of the Meron disaster.
“He who is merciful to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the merciful”—that is actually a rabbinic saying that reality proves well time and again.
Anyone who came out against Rabbi Eliyahu denies the truth, and above all there is no baseless love here; by contrast there is plenty of baseless hatred. Rabbi Eliyahu is a righteous man, son of a righteous man, whereas Stav is a man of the right like Bennett and like Kahane, no more.
Your symmetry really arouses envy.
Do you go to a doctor and take medicine, or if your head hurts do you study Torah?
If not, apparently there is a reason despite our shaky and ungrounded science.
Everyone tries to explain the cause of random events and finds exactly what he already knew and thought beforehand.
Nu, well—really, who asked this of you… enjoy yourselves.
And by the way, I am sure that specifically among the Haredim they thoroughly asked, “What is this that God has done to us?” Beyond their understanding regarding the common disdain among them for the laws of this world and orderly and organized conduct. That is, they presumably asked what caused us to belittle the laws of nature like this. What causes us to be so naïve and think everything will be fine if we ignore physical reality. And no, belief in the words of Hazal is not the reason. Most likely it is because they did not deeply investigate the words of Hazal about trust in God and the relation between them and respecting the laws of nature and the laws of this world. And about that they asked: how did it happen to us that we did not investigate deeply? How did God not help us awaken ourselves to that inquiry before disaster struck us.
This morning I heard an interview with a relative of the two children murdered in Friday’s terror attack. He repeated again the mantra that they are God-fearing and know that everything is from the Holy One, blessed be He, and does not depend on the government or on terrorists. If it had not been this government and this terrorist, it would have happened some other way. This is appalling Druze fatalism. In other words, he and his like-minded associates (or those of no mind): the Holy One, blessed be He, decided to murder those children by whatever means, for His hidden reasons. And this Druze madness is perceived as the purest expression of fear of Heaven. Inconceivable. Note that here we are talking about an act that is the result of human choice and not the forces of nature, meaning that the fatalism here is as extreme as can be. Absolute madness. And as is known, this is the accepted approach in the religious and Haredi world. And yes, I know that the denials will now come.
Nor is the prevalent stupidity absent regarding those who died for their Judaism, who are supposedly sanctifiers of God’s name and whose place is in the highest heaven, etc. etc.—what has already been called “mistaken martyrdom” (there is a chapter on this in the second book of the trilogy). Delusion.
And let us say Amen.
All right, this truly is no longer worth a response. This is not a matter of education but of common sense. So don’t make life easy for yourself. Common sense does not depend on education, though I understand the concept is foreign to you. Good luck.
Reading comprehension.
I do believe in science (I have an academic education in physics) and also believe in God’s providence. It’s just that the matter of God’s providence is a hundred thousand times more complicated—just as biology is far more complicated (at the level of behavior and prediction of biological systems) than physics. By the way, I usually take medicine only as a last resort. Usually I ask myself what caused the illness (I want to treat the root) and do not go straight to treating the symptoms. I did not claim the theories are good (those published on every website are not at all; the whole wisdom is precision in providence in the particulars, and that is usually lacking. Therefore they are not even wrong; they are simply not good). However, for example, I cannot ignore the connection between the Holocaust and the reestablishment of the Jewish people in the Land. Even without offering any theory, it is clear there is a causal or teleological connection to the Holocaust in this matter (that is, that the reestablishment of the Land was a purpose of the Holocaust). Or, for example, Ariel Sharon’s coma immediately after the disengagement from Gush Katif—even without making any claim, I have a strong feeling that this was not random. But there is in fact a science devoted to matters of God’s providence, and that is Kabbalah. I do not understand it very well, and therefore I have no ability to examine such theories.
You are like someone who rejects science after reading the ancient Greek theories (Thales, Heraclitus, Aristotle, Plato, etc.) about reality that preceded modern science and served as the substrate (pre-science) for it.
He introduced nothing new. As I wrote in the column, this is an example whose purpose is a reductio ad absurdum argument about the accepted outlook. Except that other people, more sane ones, do not say what he says and find hair-splitting excuses for why not to say it. They understand that these conclusions are delusional and have no basis or logic. They just do not dare draw the necessary conclusions about their general worldview. But he goes with it all the way, with the courage and honesty of an idiot who ignores the obvious.
Regarding the referral to Rabbi Avraham Stav’s article:
There are unclear sentences there:
1. “When Nineveh, the great city, goes and vanishes entirely, more than one hundred and twenty thousand people, then we find a tendency to detach the Holy One, blessed be He, from the suffering that occurred.”
Can someone point me to the source? Where is there talk of detachment? (The biblical story is of course the opposite.)
2. “One hears in our circles probing and engagement with the question of why this happened… this is a matter for Hazal, and not for people like us” – what does he mean by “a matter for Hazal”?
You didn’t think of it. Our Rabbis of blessed memory thought of it.
“‘What is the meaning of: A person is obligated to bless for the bad just as he blesses for the good? If you say: just as he blesses for the good, “Who is good and does good,” so too he blesses for the bad, “Who is good and does good” — but we learned: for good tidings one says “Who is good and does good,” and for bad tidings one says “Blessed is the true Judge.” Rava said: It was only necessary to teach that one must accept them joyfully.’
Berakhot 60b.
Don’t you see the difference between accepting the judgment and thanking and rejoicing over what happened? Are you serious? Sometimes it is hard to understand what tendentiousness does to people.
Rabbi Eliyahu’s response:
Of course we are in favor of compassion and in favor of helping the victims. Our hearts are with every person who was harmed. The purpose of the article is to understand that such events do not occur in the world by chance, just as the sun does not rise by chance and the rain does not fall by chance. So too earthquakes, which unfortunately strike the world, do not occur by chance.
We are trying to learn from the way Abraham, the man of kindness, related to the overturning of Sodom and Gomorrah. He prays and tries, with great compassion, to save Sodom and Gomorrah from the judgment that is about to come upon them.
God answers Abraham and says to him: if you can correct the behavior of those cities by means of fifty or ten righteous people—I will save Sodom and Gomorrah.
When Abraham does not succeed in saving the city, he does not say that the overthrow of Sodom was random. He also does not say that God is cruel. Abraham understands that there is a divine governance far higher than he is, many times over.
Abraham teaches us that one must be full of compassion, kindness, and helpfulness. To pray for the salvation of the world. And also that the world is not run by chance, and that God governs His world with mercies far greater than ours.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”
Rabbi Hutner of blessed memory:
“There is no need to say at this stage that since the destruction of European Jewry was a chastisement-decree that the people of Israel bear on their shoulders as an inseparable part of being the chosen people, we have absolutely no right to interpret these events as a specific punishment of any kind for any specific sin. The chastisement is an inseparable part of the life of the people of Israel until the coming of the Messiah, and it rests upon all Israel by God’s will and for reasons known and understood only by Him. A person would need to be a prophet or a tanna before he could claim to know the specific reasons for what is happening to us. Any person on a lower level than that who claims to know is treading in vain upon the corpses of holy ones who died for the sanctification of God’s name and abusing his power to interpret and understand Jewish history.”
As if these words were written for this very hour about Rabbi Eliyahu’s words.
The rabbi wrote: “Conclusions: I must say that this article again arouses sad thoughts in me. Jewish thinking about reality and about God’s governance, especially in the last several centuries, is usually rather childish and foolish. It turns out that great scholars and halakhic decisors, who display impressive intellectual sharpness in Talmudic and halakhic analysis, can talk utter nonsense regarding understanding reality and how to conduct oneself in it. We have examples aplenty in our own time, but this arouses in me a grave suspicion that this was also true in the past. Many of those thinkers, from Hazal onward, whom many of us make the effort to study and whose teachings we learn, may also basically have been such Rabbi-Eliyahus. In another few generations, students will surely come and study Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu’s articles in depth, and in this article they will find wondrous ideas through equidistant letter sequences. It is only a question of investing enough energy in the interpretive effort to find these gems.”
Don’t you think these harsh statements ought to be softened a bit?
Of course. The idiot, with immense compassion, also thanks the Holy One, blessed be He, for the murder of the babies in Turkey. Well then, it turns out there are fools who accept such explanations for the wicked words of folly that he uttered. One does not deal with fools.
No. These reflections are called for.
Today I learned a Gemara in Megillah 16a: “After he took his hair, he dressed him in his garments, and said to him: Mount and ride. He said to him: I cannot, for my strength has failed me because of the days of fasting. So he bent down and he mounted. When he mounted, he kicked him. He said to him: Is it not written for you: ‘Do not rejoice when your enemy falls’? He said to him: These words apply to Israel, but regarding you it is written: ‘But you shall tread upon their high places.’”
Seemingly this implies that regarding hostile gentiles one may rejoice, and specifically only regarding enemies—which the Turks were not.
I protest the honor of the Torah 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
Section 7 of Mitsu’s comment is the best example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
that I have ever seen in my life.
“…Somehow it turned out that you are a PhD in physics, and I, truly a simple person with only a high-school education, genuinely feel much smarter than you…”
First of all, more power to you. You wrote something interesting and worthy of thought.
Though Rabbi Eliyahu is presumably a Torah scholar, and therefore one must treat him with respect even if, in your opinion, he erred.
I wrote about this:
A. Turkey is not a declared enemy state; it is borderline.
B. In Judaism we also have: “My handiwork are drowning in the sea, and you are saying song?” and also “Beloved is man, for he was created in the image,” even though Israel are children of the Omnipresent; and also “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls.”
So one needs caution on this subject, and if an important rabbi writes that one should say Nishmat Kol Chai and thank and rejoice over this, that is problematic.
C. It is not certain that one can know Heaven’s accounts, despite the sayings of Hazal that for these sins disasters happen—which is food for thought to return in repentance.
After all of Jeremiah’s words about the destruction to come because of sins, Jeremiah says to Zedekiah:
If you will indeed go out to the officers of the king of Babylon, then your soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned with fire; and you shall live, you and your house. But if you do not go out to the officers of the king of Babylon, then this city shall be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and you shall not escape from their hand. {Samekh}
That is to say: wise political conduct on Zedekiah’s part would have saved him and the city—despite all the prophecies of destruction.
Hazal say: the First Temple was destroyed because of sexual immorality, bloodshed, and idolatry.
But from Jeremiah’s words it appears that it could have avoided destruction.
Rabbi Eliyahu also contradicts himself.
He opens with “We do not know how to explain Heaven’s accounts” and ends as if he knows the mind of the Most High.
The donkey carrying books who comments here does not write his name, and that is a pity.
As it is written: when your words come, we shall honor you.
And in fact his words come, one after another, again, without change or thought.
Regarding the ethical fallacy, how do you explain the Flood, the overturning of Sodom, and the ten plagues, where there too there were little ones who suffered?
I don’t know. One can perhaps think of directions (maybe he had no other possible response, or there were religious rather than moral considerations), but it is not relevant to the matter at hand. Do you want to say that the Holy One, blessed be He, is not moral? Or that this is morality?
I want to say that in the same way those cases are explained, one can also justify what Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu said (at least regarding this difficulty), and so your complaint is not against him.
You mean an English-English dictionary: if we have a difficulty, it is worthwhile to show that there are other difficulties too, and then everything is nicely settled because there is no need to settle anything? Wonderful explanation.
I did not try to give an explanation. All I said was that the difficulty is not specifically with Rabbi Eliyahu, but more generally with punishments of the nations found in the Bible. And the Rishonim have already dealt with that.
You are simply blowing things out of proportion.
I think you are, all in all, denying part of the principles of faith.
The nonsense you write leads the public astray, and also the way you write it.
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu did not celebrate the earthquake in Turkey and pop champagne over it. He also explicitly wrote that he was not happy that such a thing happened. He merely brought an outlook of faith about the fact that our enemies (such as Syria and Lebanon) are collapsing, while we only rise.
And irrespective of your political opinions, whatever they may be—to call Likud, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and the Haredim haters of Israel is insolence and borders on incitement (especially in light of your article about the demonstration, etc.).
You wrote:
“Could it be that all the great ones of the generations were basically such Rabbi-Eliyahus? Were all the Jews from whose mouths we live such idiots? I must say that thoughts of heresy passed through me upon reading this, but I will cut short my words here… It turns out that great scholars and halakhic decisors, who display impressive intellectual sharpness in Talmudic and halakhic analysis, can speak utter nonsense with regard to understanding reality and how to conduct oneself in it. We have examples aplenty in our own time, but this arouses in me a grave suspicion that this was also true in the past. Many of those thinkers, from Hazal onward, whom many of us trouble ourselves to study and whose teachings we learn, may also basically have been such Rabbi-Eliyahus.”
I ask innocently:
A. Do you have any initial assumption that Hazal indeed were not like this? Is not your very question itself not really an innocent question?
For example, were Rav Huna’s colleagues, whose 400 barrels of wine turned sour, not like this—see there? Was Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba, who “comforted” Reish Lakish over the death of his son in Ketubot, not like this? Must I go like a peddler and load here example after example from Hazal that you ostensibly should have been aware of?
And from where on earth indeed do all the scholars and Torah scholars (and even simple people like me, until one reaches this site) have such a worldview—not only in this generation but throughout all the generations (have you not read their ethical books?)
(Actually, already on 12/2 Roznik remarked something like this.)
B. So the question that follows from the above, and that has practical ramifications:
If I understood you correctly, it sounds from your words that if they indeed were like this, then even their formal halakhic authority imposes no obligation on us to accept from such infantile people?
C. If so, then seemingly “anything destined to be shorn is considered as shorn / to be burned as burned” (that is, one who, if it becomes clear to him that Hazal are like this, would then not be bound by them—even now when he acts, it is as though he does not act)?
Thank you.
First, I would not say this so categorically. Second, I have explained more than once that their authority does not derive from their wisdom but from the fact that we accepted them upon ourselves.
A. So what is the meaning of the above stories? Are those not Eliyahu-like positions?
B. Yes, I did not think there was any validity to accepting fools, infantile people, and Eliyahu-like figures. Are you sure about this?
Conclusion:
The day is not far off when we’ll be able to create articles for “Olam Katan” using ChatGPT.