#The Jews Are Coming# If It Upset You, Grow Up! A Conversation with Michael Abraham – Dr. Roy Yuzovitch
This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.
🔗 Link to the original lecture
🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI
Table of Contents
- Opening and presenting the context
- The Doryanov joke and the connection between faith, emotion, and humor
- The protests against “The Jews Are Coming” as an internal mechanism of “the public square”
- Freedom of expression, democracy, and satire directed at holiness
- Mockery, Rabbi Hutner, and seeing religion as “idol worship” in the eyes of others
- “The Left” as a general demon and the demand to discuss a specific person
- The comparison to joking about Muslims and the idea of “shooting only in safe directions”
- Penal Code section 173 and the claim that taking offense is manipulation
- Tatiana Soskin, Charlie Hebdo, and the distinction between principle and constraint
- Public funds, “thin democracy,” and banning “consensus” as state culture
- Avri Gilad, “sacred things,” and Rabbi Abraham’s response to the idea of tiptoeing around them
- “You shall surely rebuke,” ventilating hatred, and discourse versus cover-up
- “The Jews Are Coming” as a didactic tool and as a midrashic use of biblical figures
- Fear of Heaven, watching the program, and the right of personal choice
- Amnon Abramovich, disability, and the limits of satire
- “Sacred cows,” permissible questions, and the danger of “holiness” as a gag
- Conclusion: writing, productivity, and discipline
Summary
General overview
The text presents a conversation between the channel host and Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham בעקבות an article he wrote about the protests against “The Jews Are Coming,” and places the protest mainly as an internal phenomenon driven by a felt need to display “religious feeling” rather than by authentic hurt. Rabbi Abraham argues that freedom of expression and the possibility of mocking even sacred things are conditions for mature discourse, and that trying to silence satire through claims of offense, public funding arguments, or laws against “hurting religious feelings” is a manipulative mechanism that pushes society toward cover-up instead of coping. Within that, he distinguishes between satire that conveys a message and hurting a living person over a disability, emphasizes that claims should be attributed to a specific person rather than to the collective “demon” of “the Left,” and concludes with a practical explanation of his high writing output as a matter of skill and habit.
Opening and presenting the context
The text opens with a statement linking a book’s becoming a bestseller to its being placed on the Church’s “Index of Forbidden Books,” and from there to the idea that the uproar around “The Jews Are Coming” functions as a kind of “gift” that boosts the program. The host presents his YouTube channel as dealing with education, intelligence, and satire, mentions the book “Success in Studies” and the existence of Zoom courses, and hosts Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham as the main guest.
The Doryanov joke and the connection between faith, emotion, and humor
The host tells a joke from “Doryanov: The Book of Jokes and Wit” about Hasidim and Mitnagdim and asks whether writing like that requires secularity. Rabbi Abraham says there is no need to be secular in order to joke about sacred things, and separates commitment to Torah and commandments from “religious feeling,” which he says usually has no independent importance and is at most a limited tool for understanding others. Rabbi Abraham says he is willing to joke about the things most sacred to him as long as the humor is good, and adds that in his view the humor in “The Jews Are Coming” is not successful, for reasons of taste, low language, and sexuality or crudeness, but that does not create any justification for silencing it, and he simply chooses not to watch.
The protests against “The Jews Are Coming” as an internal mechanism of “the public square”
Rabbi Abraham explains that the fact that the protest only erupted in the fourth season indicates to him that the hurt is inauthentic, because if the shock were real it would have arisen much earlier. Rabbi Abraham describes a process in which people convince themselves that if they are not shocked, then they are “not religious enough,” and so they go out to protest in order to awaken the feeling through “hearts are drawn after actions,” until the offense becomes real. Rabbi Abraham presents this as an unintentional social manipulation that generates the protest out of an internal need for emotional religious identity.
Freedom of expression, democracy, and satire directed at holiness
The host quotes Rabbi Abraham’s position that the religious public cannot demand that others speak only in ways it approves of, and that every person decides what to talk about, how to respond, and whether to listen at all, as a principle of democracy and freedom of expression. Rabbi Abraham distinguishes between agreeing with the content of criticism and morally condemning the critics, and says that someone who mocks something he genuinely thinks is distorted is not “wicked,” because he is not acting against his own moral understanding. Rabbi Abraham presents opposition to pluralism as an ontological position and an “inconsistent” one, while on the other hand declaring social tolerance and openness that protect the right to express a position in order to allow discourse.
Mockery, Rabbi Hutner, and seeing religion as “idol worship” in the eyes of others
The host brings the “Pachad Yitzchak” of Rabbi Hutner, according to which mockery “lets the air out of the balloon” and lowers the importance of things to which excessive pathos has been attached, and sets that against the attitude toward mocking idol worship in the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Rabbi Abraham explains that in a certain contemporary secular cultural outlook, religion is seen as anachronistic and distorted, and associated in their minds with chauvinism, discrimination, violence, corporal and capital punishment, improper treatment of gentiles, and monarchy, and therefore they may use mockery in order to “put it in proportion.” Rabbi Abraham says that moral judgment of those who mock should be made from within their own worldview and not by imposing a religious worldview on them, and stresses that one may argue and respond rather than demand silencing.
“The Left” as a general demon and the demand to discuss a specific person
Rabbi Abraham argues that the tendency to see “the other” as having “one face” produces inaccurate claims of collective hypocrisy, because the one who is offended and the one who laughs are not necessarily the same person even if both vote for the same camp. Rabbi Abraham asks people to identify a specific person among the creators of the show who on the one hand says “don’t laugh at me” and on the other hand laughs at others, and argues that usually this is an unfounded generalization when the same person is not being pointed to.
The comparison to joking about Muslims and the idea of “shooting only in safe directions”
The host argues that the program does not mock the sacred things of Israel’s Muslim population and asks whether that reflects fairness or fear, mentioning “Charlie Hebdo.” Rabbi Abraham explains that people joke more comfortably about “their own,” like jokes Jews tell Jews, and presents that as a psychological explanation. Rabbi Abraham adds that the program is called “The Jews Are Coming,” so naturally it deals with Jews, and that even if the creators have a secular-left ideological tendency that is more sympathetic to Muslims than to “religious guys,” there is no obligation to “make fun of everyone,” and anyone who wants can create a program called “The Muslims Are Coming” and see whether the creators of “The Jews Are Coming” protest.
Penal Code section 173 and the claim that taking offense is manipulation
The host quotes Penal Code section 173, “hurting religious feelings,” and asks whether the program meets the criteria of “gross offense.” Rabbi Abraham calls the law “stupid,” but adds that he is not sure the legal criterion is met, because the late eruption of outrage casts doubt on the authenticity of the hurt, and he describes being offended as a tool for achieving gains when one lacks the ability to “hit back.” Rabbi Abraham criticizes the law on the grounds that it allows manipulation and turns the decision into something subjective and dependent on the composition of the judges, and he prefers almost complete freedom of expression except in cases of imminent violence.
Tatiana Soskin, Charlie Hebdo, and the distinction between principle and constraint
The host raises the conviction of Tatiana Soskin over the “pig poster” alongside the possibility that the court might permit the broadcasting of “The Jews Are Coming,” and asks how such a gap can exist. Rabbi Abraham answers that on the non-legal level he supports freedom of expression in both cases, and on the legal level the court may or may not be convinced of the authenticity of the offense, which in his view demonstrates the problematic and subjective nature of the law. Rabbi Abraham says that states sometimes yield because of difficulty in coping with violence, but that this is an after-the-fact compromise that he opposes in principle.
Public funds, “thin democracy,” and banning “consensus” as state culture
Rabbi Abraham argues that the “taxpayer money” argument against the program is dangerous because it can be used just as easily against religious content, and he defines taxes as a tool that funds goals citizens do not necessarily agree with. Rabbi Abraham warns that a policy that permits only what lies within the consensus leads to “a state without national culture” and to “thin democracy,” and argues that such a bargain is not worthwhile for parts of the public, especially the Haredim. Rabbi Abraham stresses that the solution is not to “walk on eggshells” but to educate for public maturity, in which people hear blunt opinions, respond through discussion, and choose for themselves whether to consume them or keep away.
Avri Gilad, “sacred things,” and Rabbi Abraham’s response to the idea of tiptoeing around them
The host quotes Avri Gilad as saying that in the public sphere there are different rules and that in Israel one does not make a sketch about God, and adds the example of the absence of cooking shows with non-kosher foods on major channels as a matter of solidarity and preventing alienation. Rabbi Abraham agrees factually that satire about “sacred cows” creates anger and alienation, but rejects the avoidance approach as a social model and refuses to depend on the “mercy” of protectors. Rabbi Abraham presents shared life as the ability to live with open disagreements instead of hiding them, and argues that silencing will only increase resentment.
“You shall surely rebuke,” ventilating hatred, and discourse versus cover-up
The host cites an interpretation attributed to Maimonides according to which “you shall surely rebuke” brings hatred out of the heart so that it will not work inside. Rabbi Abraham adopts that direction and argues that prohibiting expression only intensifies negative feelings, whereas open discourse allows coping, response, and the creation of a possibility to live together. Rabbi Abraham attacks the childish approach of running to the “kindergarten teacher” to silence those who offend, and sets up an ideal of adults who will “swallow hard” and answer with a counterargument.
“The Jews Are Coming” as a didactic tool and as a midrashic use of biblical figures
Rabbi Abraham says that despite his aversion to the style, the program sometimes quotes verses and gets people to open a Bible, and he identifies in it a tendency toward visual-humorous teaching that fits learning trends in the media age. Rabbi Abraham argues that some of the sketches do not laugh at biblical figures but rather make “midrashic use” of them in order to convey messages about the present, and he compares this to the technique of the Sages, who take the text away from its plain meaning. Rabbi Abraham declares that he opposes midrash as “worthless games” rather than “study,” but says that anyone who accepts midrash cannot criticize the program over the technique itself without confronting that same principle, and that none of this justifies gagging people.
Fear of Heaven, watching the program, and the right of personal choice
The host asks whether watching “The Jews Are Coming” harms “fear of God” or “fear of Heaven.” Rabbi Abraham replies that fear of Heaven is not necessarily a matter of emotion, and that one can be committed to the Holy One, blessed be He, and at the same time laugh, and if someone feels it harms him he can choose not to watch. Rabbi Abraham rejects the claim that possible harm to reverence justifies silencing, and compares it to the desire to forbid Sabbath desecration or other content that harms a religious person’s worldview.
Amnon Abramovich, disability, and the limits of satire
The host presses on the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Abraham’s support for freedom of expression and his statement, “therefore one could argue that it is improper to rub salt into their wounds,” regarding mockery of Amnon Abramovich. Rabbi Abraham emphasizes that the wording “one could argue” is meant to present a possibility rather than a binding view, and proposes a distinction between satire that conveys a message and hurting for the sake of hurting. Rabbi Abraham says that mocking the disability of a living person is below the belt and similar to mocking a disabled person in the street, whereas a caricature that uses external features in a reasonable dose to identify a figure and criticize his message can be legitimate, so the difference is mainly one of degree and purpose.
“Sacred cows,” permissible questions, and the danger of “holiness” as a gag
The host raises the idea of a joke as something that captures a social truth, the possibility of laughing “from within” when loyalty is not in doubt, and the claim that the Talmud has no “sacred cows” and puts everything up for questioning. Rabbi Abraham defines a “sacred cow” as a situation in which it is forbidden to ask or to laugh, and says there is nothing that may not be raised for discussion, even if there is a hierarchy of center and periphery. Rabbi Abraham opposes using labels like “heretic” or “harm to holiness” as a mode of discussion, and sees that as gagging, while distinguishing between personal offense and the demand to silence others.
Conclusion: writing, productivity, and discipline
At the end of the conversation, the host expresses amazement at Rabbi Abraham’s pace of writing, his lack of spelling mistakes, and his availability on WhatsApp and email even at early hours. Rabbi Abraham explains that the secret is typing speed, thought patterns that have already been “cooking” in his mind for a long time, and a habit of writing a lot, which enables him to produce texts quickly. The host closes by presenting the episode as one from which one can learn about order, habits, self-discipline, concentration, and focus in writing, and invites viewers to share it and continue watching future episodes.
Full Transcript
[Speaker A] The Sages said that the best way to turn a book into a bestseller is for the Church to agree to put it on its Index of Forbidden Books. That’s the best thing that can happen to a book, and it seems, as Rabbi Michael Abraham says, that this is exactly the gift that “The Jews Are Coming” got from Heaven—or from the Flying Spaghetti Monster—and that’s exactly why we’re having this conversation. Hello everyone, and welcome to my channel, a channel that talks about education, intelligence, and also how to make you more satirical at your next living-room conversation. If you haven’t joined yet, you’re welcome to join. I’ll remind you that the book Success in Studies is going to be ready for the beginning of exam season, so anyone interested is welcome. And today I have the honor and pleasure of hosting one of my absolute favorite philosophers in twenty-first century Israel, namely Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham. Anyone who knows and follows the channel knows that Michael was among the very first to come here, and since then a lot of water has flowed and a lot of people have come through, but he really was the first. So first of all, good morning, thank you so much for coming—how are you? I’m—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Excellent. I’m glad to hear that the channel is developing.
[Speaker A] Yes, yes, not only developing but actually generating discussion. On videos with a thousand views, we get a hundred comments or two hundred comments, so it’s totally crazy. We’re speaking following a post—Rabbi Michael Abraham has an amazing blog, which I recommend everyone take part in—and we’re talking about a post of yours that you published against, or following, the protests over “The Jews Are Coming.” Right, so this is the article that was published two days ago about the protests against “The Jews Are Coming” and about protests in general. Unrelated to that, anyone who’s watching can see that we have courses here, there are Zoom courses being run, so it’s worth your while to go into the channel and check that out. But what I’d like to start with is a joke. You know that one of the books I love most and have read dozens of times is Doryanov’s The Book of Jokes and Wit, and it’s a question of Jewish law whether you’re allowed to read it in the bathroom or not. And Doryanov, who was a master of jokes, basically gathered in three volumes all the Jewish jokes there are, and divided them into three volumes. Danny Kerman, who wrote the blurb on the back, wrote: “You do not have to be Jewish to begin reading The Book of Jokes and Wit, but when you finish it, you will be a better Jew. You may not repent, but you will certainly be occupied with the question of why Doryanov wrote only three volumes.” And in the first volume, with your permission, I’ll start with a joke, okay? About Hasidim and Mitnagdim, and it goes like this. They asked a Mitnaged why Hasidim customarily refer to the death of their rebbe as “departure.” The Mitnaged replied: rightly so, for we learned, “If someone robbed one of five people and does not know which one he robbed, he places the stolen item among them and departs.” So, a wonderful joke, and it really seems that Doryanov didn’t leave any sacred cows untouched here. And my question is: did he leave no sacred cows because he was secular, or because in the end he was simply collecting jokes that Hasidim told about Mitnagdim and Mitnagdim told about Hasidim?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Or both answers are correct. The question is whether he has to be secular for this—not whether he was secular. Whether he was secular is a historical question that interests me less. The question is whether, in order to write something like that, you have to be secular. And my view is no. I think people connect—incorrectly and unconvincingly, in my opinion—between being a believer, or being committed to Torah and commandments and to Judaism, and the question of your religious emotion. And consistently, in a number of posts and places, I’ve written that in my view emotion is generally something of little importance, and certainly of no importance in itself. Sometimes it’s some kind of means for sensing the other person and so on, so yes, it gives certain tools for grasping certain dimensions, but it’s not something to which one can assign value in and of itself. And therefore my feeling is that, especially around these protests and the objections to “The Jews Are Coming,” there are people who feel they’re not Jewish enough if they don’t rise up in protest. And so very often these protests somehow build themselves. Meaning, after you announce to everyone, “Look, they’ve harmed the sacred things of the nation,” a person says to himself, “Wait a second, but inside I don’t feel anything—in fact I laughed and it was nice.” Then he says, “Wait, does that mean there’s something defective in my faith? Because faith has to be connected to strong feeling, as we know from our rabbis over there somewhere.” And if that’s not the case, then “hearts are drawn after actions,” so I have to go to the protest, object, cry out, and then maybe a healthy sense of offense will awaken in me too. And I deny that. Meaning, I think that—I’m willing to joke about all the things that are most sacred to me, I have no problem with that, as long as the humor is good. Which is something I have a bit of trouble saying about this program. In my opinion their humor isn’t all that successful. But that’s another discussion—that’s already a discussion—
[Speaker A] So I want for a moment to separate between two things—which is really, kind of, between actually three things that you say in your article. The first is the idea of the public square, right? Meaning, the importance of protests as something directed inward rather than outward. The second is religious emotion, which maybe deserves a separate conversation; I’ll only say that on my list of interviewees I always have written down “Michael Abraham—thin theology,” and we’ll get to that, we’ll get to a conversation about thin theology in general. Meaning, this idea that faith in God, or religious practice, does not require emotion—that’s something very counterintuitive to many people, certainly in the twenty-first century. But I want to get maybe to the beginning of that idea, and I’ll simply quote from what you write. I think there are some very important things there, because I was among the people who watched “The Jews Are Coming,” and I thought there were some very amusing things there. The Esther sketch, right? Where she says to him—she’s basically telling him that if you want me to go to Haman, then I’m a prostitute. Then they dressed up as Esther—well, they only dressed up as prostitutes in high school. I think that’s a wonderful statement about what goes on in schools in Israel. I think there are genuinely beautiful observations there. The idea that the Maharal wakes up the golem and says to him, “Protect us, we are the chosen people,” and then the golem says, “If we’re the chosen people, then why does God—then why does everyone hate us?” Right? There are really some very, very, very fine observations here. But you basically say the following, right? You say there’s something very strange here, because in the end people—wait, I’ll quote it from here, I wrote it down in Word—in the end people are saying the following. These are people who don’t watch it. Basically, the religious public is saying: we are not willing for so-and-so to think or speak in a way we don’t approve of, or to speak with someone else without us in a way we don’t like. Everyone can decide what to talk about and how, and everyone can also decide whether to listen and how to relate to what is said. That is the essence of democracy and freedom of expression, the way you talk about it. And first of all, that claim is correct, right? In the end, if you don’t listen, then what’s the problem? And really, what is the problem? And more than that—why does this only explode in season four? Was everyone fine with it and now suddenly it blew up? It—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It connects to what I said at the beginning, as I understand it. Let me maybe preface with what I also prefaced in the column I wrote. I saw very few excerpts from the program. It is absolutely possible that there are wonderful pieces I missed, I don’t know exactly. The few pieces I did see—I don’t know—I didn’t laugh, and not because of my sensitivity. I simply didn’t like the humor. The language was a bit too low, too sexual or too crude. I didn’t like it. But that’s a matter of taste. I certainly don’t think they should be silenced because of that. I just don’t watch. That’s just a necessary preface. As for—wait, what did you ask? Remind me for a second.
[Speaker A] Why does it—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why does it erupt specifically in the fourth season, so late? That’s one of the indicators of what I said earlier. If people were really so shocked, I would expect it to arise—not the first time, okay, the first time you say it slipped through; the second time too. By the fifth time, by everyone’s standards, there’s already an established pattern, right? Both according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Gamliel, after five times there’s already a pattern. Nobody wakes up. Why now? Because people are dripping this idea into them—that if they’re not shocked, then they’re not religious enough. Now, a person says to himself—and he’s really convinced that this is so—so he mobilizes, he comes, and hearts are drawn after actions, and in the end he really will feel hurt, even though I think this whole business is a kind of manipulation. Again, not manipulation in the sense of some mastermind directing it, but somehow it still manipulates people. And therefore I think that this late awakening is one of the indicators of what I said earlier: that this is not really a genuine phenomenon.
[Speaker A] I’ll say something that I think is important. And again, I do have criticism of this program, but it comes from a slightly different place. One of the most important things that, in my opinion, you say in your column is the following. We know that mockery is a very serious thing, right? And you quote Rabbi Hutner in Pachad Yitzchak, that the purpose of mockery is—you tell a joke and you let the air out of the balloon, right? Meaning, there’s something with very great pathos, and you make fun of it, and then all the feeling—or by the way, there is certainly feeling in it—you basically deprive of importance what ought to be important. And therefore, with regard to idol worshippers, that’s exactly what should be done. Anyone who knows the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal—there’s definitely something there, he says: shout louder, let’s see, maybe use less water, more water. He really is mocking them. And that’s okay, because idol worship means attributing importance to what should not be important, and mockery basically reduces it to its proper size. And here you say the following: from the point of view of the creators, or from the point of view of part of contemporary secular culture, religion is exactly that. Religion is exactly that. Meaning, it’s something very old, right, I mean—we’d probably say ta-ta-ta. Jewish faith and the values transmitted in our tradition are, in their eyes, something distorted. It educates toward chauvinism, harm, discrimination, violence, corporal and capital punishment, improper treatment of gentiles, monarchy, and so on and so on. So in the end, what do you want? Now the question is this: obviously, according to their approach—or according to the approach of someone who sees things this way—it’s fine. But Rabbi Hutner also says, wait, mockery is forbidden. So is there some kind of pluralistic method here, where anyone who sees something as attributing importance to what is not important should use mockery? Or is there some objective criterion that there are things that really are important? Because from what you say it sounds like, for each person, whatever seems important in his own eyes is what matters or doesn’t.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] For me, both answers are correct here too, like the judge’s wife. Meaning, in the end—I’m not talking about whether I agree with them. I’m as far from pluralism as east is from west. Very much so. I’ve written against pluralism. I oppose pluralism. It’s an inconsistent view, not only a false one.
[Speaker A] I recommend to everyone the book Truth and Stability, which is also part of the trilogy, but Truth and Stability dealt almost only with that question.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. But here’s the point. When I criticize them, it’s not—if the question is whether I agree with them, no, I don’t agree with them. I relate to the figures of the Hebrew Bible differently. In my eyes they are not conveying distorted things, although in our tradition there are quite a few distorted things that come down to us, and I share some of the criticism. But the criticism of them is anachronistic. They acted in their own environment, and that’s why I wrote my trilogy—to say what we’re supposed to do with that today. I have no interest in criticizing them back then; that’s not the point. So regarding the content of the criticism, I do not agree in principle. But what does that have to do with moral condemnation? When you morally condemn someone, of course you have to judge him by his own standards. That has nothing to do with pluralism. Meaning, if someone thinks a certain view is distorted—really thinks so—and now he mocks it, are you going to say he’s wicked? Absolutely not. What does that have to do with pluralism? He’s not wicked, because “wicked” means acting in a way that you understand to be wrong. But by his own understanding, he thinks he’s acting rightly. Not because he’s correct—he’s mistaken—but he’s not wicked. So there’s a difference between the two things, and therefore I’m pluralistic in the social sense. Meaning, I think it is right and very important to allow everyone to express his opinion.
[Speaker A] Isn’t that tolerance? Sorry for saying so, but after all you distinguish between tolerance, which is a value claim, and pluralism, which is an ontological claim. So basically you’re saying: I’m tolerant until these people realize that Joseph wasn’t gay, and until then let them do whatever they want. I’m a tolerant person. Right? Is that the distinction you’re making now?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s almost the same distinction. Meaning, tolerance is an attempt to contain the other. Here I’m saying more than that. I stand on his right to express this. I’m not merely permitting him; I want him to do it because that’s beneficial. And that’s what I called openness, which was the continuation of tolerance in that article, because I think that’s how discourse can function. If I don’t allow a person to express a position just because I disagree with him, then how exactly are we supposed to have a conversation? I’m allowed to mock—not to mention that we constantly allow ourselves to mock everyone who disagrees with us. After all, as for idol worshippers, we have Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner and the Talmud permitting it for us. Why? Because we are right. But they—when, from their point of view, we are the idol worshippers—for them it is forbidden to mock us because it offends us, because it’s not nice. And we are allowed to impose our positions on them in the name of that very Hebrew Bible that they are mocking, while they are not even allowed to laugh at that Hebrew Bible in whose name all sorts of things are imposed on them. There is something distorted here. Not because I’m a pluralist and think everyone is right, but because moral judgment, even for the non-pluralist, has to be made on the basis of the outlook of the person I’m judging.
[Speaker A] I spoke with Steve Enix last week, and one of the things that came up regarding political correctness—so he said two things, I mean I raised two claims. One was flat-earth theory and the second was Holocaust denial. These are two very different things. Now people always ask me what I think about the flat earth, and I say my doctorate dealt with GPS, so I’m very invested in the earth being round, so I have no interest there, right? But he says both of these things have to be inside the discourse. Meaning, if there are good arguments, then let the people with the good arguments come against flat-earth theory and against Holocaust denial and lay out their arguments. Which brings us back to John Stuart Mill, right? You think that if someone relates to Ecclesiastes this way or relates to Mahlon and Chilion this way—though Mahlon, “Mahlon” is a very funny name; Mahlon and Chilion, who died, that’s very amusing—if you think there’s something wrong in that, then fine, put your things on the table. Right? That’s the point. Any truth that needs force in order to be true is less convincing. Before I go and attack you, there’s one more claim you make that I think is very, very, very important and needs to be put on the table. You say that in the end, don’t tell me “they don’t laugh at this and they don’t laugh at that.” Usually in the discussion—and I think there is something to this—you see that “The Jews Are Coming” has sacred cows that it doesn’t laugh at at all. I can give some of them, right? But for example, mockery of the Muslim community, which is twenty percent of the State of Israel—there could have been wonderful sketches there—they don’t mock it. About very problematic things that were done here at the beginning of the state—they don’t mock those either. They certainly mock Ben-Gurion and Sharett, but lightly, right? It would have been very funny, very amusing, to see a sketch where Ben-Gurion knows about the Holocaust of European Jewry and does nothing so that the Haredim will go there, right? That would have been very amusing—and they don’t do it. But what you say is, in the end, don’t say “leftists” as some all-inclusive thing. Did the producer, did the scriptwriter of this program silence someone, yes or no? Don’t paint me some grand overall agenda of all leftists against this. No—deal with person מול person. So I’d be happy if you’d expand on that for a few words, and then I’ll move on to the questions I have about it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] All of us have some sense that “they,” this general demon, the other side, has one face. And then it’s natural, by the way—we all have this, I feel it too. And therefore obviously he doesn’t laugh at this and this and this, and he gets offended when I laugh at this and this and this. So why is he laughing at my—now, the one who gets offended is Reuven, and the one who laughs at me is Shimon. True, they both vote Meretz or the Joint List, okay? But they’re not the same person. And it may be that there’s a person who really does say everything should be laughed at, and he really also doesn’t protest when you laugh at him. That’s why I asked: bring me a person from among the creators of the program who said, “Don’t laugh at this,” but he laughs at that. Maybe there’s such an example—I don’t know one, and I said I also haven’t seen many clips from the program—but usually I think that’s not the case. They brought me all kinds of far-fetched analogies on the site—you know how it is—they brought me examples, though still not about a specific person, but there were examples there, like about Amnon Abramovich.
[Speaker A] We’ll get there, we’ll get to Amnon Abramovich. We’ll get to Amnon Abramovich because satire, in the end, is supposed to laugh. I’ll tell you what my problem is with your response against the reactions about Amnon Abramovich. You say the following: “therefore one can argue that it is improper to rub salt into their wounds, even if I have the right to do so.” Is there anyone—this is something new, right? Meaning, there’s a significant difference between laughing at Abraham our father and at Lot and at Job, okay? And laughing at someone who is alive right now. Job, who never was and never existed.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Job, who never was and never existed.
[Speaker A] By the way, there’s a wonderful sketch there where Noah comes out of the ark and tries to, like, start life over again, and then a lawyer comes to him and says he’s suing him for copyright infringement because he took the whole story from Gilgamesh. And Noah says to him, what are you talking about, this is my story. And he says to him, listen, come on, it’s written earlier in Gilgamesh. So Noah says, okay, so what do we do? And he says, well, maybe cut off your organ. And Noah says, what are you talking about? He says, fine, then we’re going to court now. It’s wonderful—there are really some terrific observations there. But okay, let’s really start with the criticism. In your opinion—and I’ll start with this—it seems, and let’s assume that what I’m saying is correct, so go with me for a moment. In the end, the Muslim population is twenty percent of the State of Israel. We haven’t seen a single sketch mocking the Muslim population, certainly not its sacred things, the way it mocks—you know. Now, it may be that whoever does that is clever, because we’ve already seen what happened with Charlie Hebdo, right? We’ve seen what happens when people mock the Muslim population. But are you saying there isn’t some element here of: we’re not really shooting in all directions, we’re shooting only in the safe directions, and because of that there is some conduct here that is not really fair? Or are you saying: yes, we shoot only in the safe directions, there’s a population here that is out of its mind, and therefore we don’t laugh at it because—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m afraid they’ll burn my car. I’ll tell you two things about that. First, a person laughs more comfortably at his own group. So even for me personally it’s less comfortable to laugh at Muslims, even though in terms of worldview I tend rightward, let’s say. And I’m also angry at Muslims for many reasons. But it’s much more comfortable for me to laugh at Abraham our father than at Muhammad—certainly in public. Since it’s not my house. Like when people tell jokes about Jews: Jews are allowed everything with Jews. But when a gentile tells jokes about Jews, that can be antisemitic.
[Speaker A] Only Black people in the United States can say the N-word.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. So it’s a common effect and a common psychological effect—you can accept it or not—but the psychology here is part of the issue.
[Speaker A] You could also say that the program is called The Jews Are Coming and not The Muslims Are Coming, so according to your view that matters too.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. They could have called it The Israelis Are Coming, and then they could have laughed at everyone. That’s one thing. Second, I’m not denying that the creators of the program come from an ideological direction, apparently—I don’t know them well enough—but probably from the secular-left direction, which of course is more sympathetic to Muslims than to Haredim or religious guys. Okay? Fine—so what happened? Are they obligated to laugh at everyone? Do they owe you something? You want to laugh at Muslims? Make a program called The Muslims Are Coming. I also wrote there in my article that we prefer to whine and be offended, just like the Muslims who were mocked—whom I simply said were primitive, childish people who don’t understand that it’s okay, you can laugh, so laugh back. Suddenly I see that my own crowd is responding in a similar way. Granted, still without grenades and things like that, but still the level of offense and emotion reminds me very much of their primitiveness and childishness. And the second thing is that instead of being offended and saying, “Why aren’t you laughing?”—you get up, make a sketch about Muslims, make satire at a high level, and let’s see whether they protest. “They” meaning the creators of The Jews Are Coming, not the general demon called the left.
[Speaker A] Okay, second question. Second question. And again, for the sake of discussion, here you go. Penal Code section 173. One hundred seventy-three. Now again, we can do this—you can dismiss my question by saying this law isn’t relevant—but I’ll read the law. Offending religious feelings. Anyone who does one of the following is liable to one year in prison: publishes a publication that grossly offends the faith or religious feelings of others, or utters in a public place and within earshot of a certain person a word or sound that can grossly offend his faith or his religious feelings. My question is, according to your view—before I ask further—do you think the program’s publication contains one of these two things? And it’s okay if afterward you tell me yes, but it’s a stupid law. That’s fine.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of course, so I’ll say that right now in advance. But beyond that, I’m not entirely sure. And it connects to the point where we began. The fact that people only rise up after four years means I have a certain doubt about the authenticity of the offense. Among ourselves we tell a lot of jokes about Abraham our father, even inside the study hall. Okay? We don’t use crude words because that’s not our jargon, but jokes—sometimes very sophisticated ones. Okay? But the most convenient thing for us is to be offended. That’s the Muslim trick. Only we don’t throw grenades; we just get offended. So we get offended in order to get the program removed from our heads. And therefore I say, even on the legal plane, after the preface that you already made for me and that I completely endorse, I’m not at all sure how much I’m convinced of the authenticity of the offense. And the fact that there are people who are offended—of course there are people who are offended. But the question is where the boundary lies. Meaning, every time someone says to me, “Wait, what you’re saying hurts me,” and maybe I’ll be convinced that it really does hurt him—then will it become impermissible to say in public? I would not want to live in such a country, and therefore even on the legal plane I’m not sure this meets the criterion, not to mention what I think of this law in general.
[Speaker A] So what you’re basically saying is—I’m kind of setting it up for you here—when the court convicts Tatyana Suskin, the distributor of the pig flyer in Hebron, it does it immediately. What? It does it immediately. No, but wait, hold on, there are two things here. You’re saying: if they’re really offended, like we saw with Charlie Hebdo, we made the Muhammad cartoon, and a week later there was an explosion, right? It didn’t wait four seasons. A week—explosion.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Four seasons is one indication. You know, there can be other indications too.
[Speaker A] No, wait—so you’re saying, okay, but maybe what you’re saying here is that with The Jews Are Coming, according to your observation, there wasn’t really an injury here, among other things based on that indication. As for Tatyana Suskin distributing the pig flyer—I don’t even know where exactly—distributing the flyer… the pig flyer—she really did offend them. She went and took a pig reading the Quran, put it inside a Muslim neighborhood. But you’re saying, all the same, even if she insults, even if she insults, then she insults. And there was also a ruling that there shouldn’t have been, because my question is: how do these two things happen together?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean, how do they both happen together?
[Speaker A] How can the court come and say, folks, this is fine, and then when Tatyana Suskin does it, give her two years of actual prison time?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So I said: on the non-legal level, I think both things can be said—they both shouldn’t happen. On the purely legal level—and I’m not a jurist—but on the purely legal level, it could be that the court, I don’t know if this was the court—did this already reach the courts? I don’t know if there’s actually a court decision about it.
[Speaker A] That was in ’97, so I—it was a long time ago, so I—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, but you mean The Jews Are Coming. When was there a ruling, you said? No, I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so. If the court, say, were to say that The Jews Are Coming may be broadcast, there could be legal justification for that despite the conviction of Tatyana Suskin, because the court was not convinced that the offense was an authentic offense. A lot of times people use offense as manipulation. They use offense as manipulation in order to gain something. We know this from interpersonal relations too. A weak person often gets what he wants through passive-aggressive behavior. He just gets offended because he doesn’t know how to hit back. So he gets offended. We don’t really know how to do satire at a high level. It’s improved in recent years, but we’re still not there. So we prefer to be offended in order to fight, because that’s the tool we have. And I’m saying this is part of my criticism of the law too, because aside from the fact that it’s wrong in itself, it also enables manipulation. Now go know whether the judge will be enough of a psychologist to detect manipulation, and to what extent everyone will agree whether there is or isn’t manipulation here, and it becomes subjective. Then it depends on who the judge is, and the verdict depends on who composes the judicial panel. This whole business makes no sense. Like Holocaust denial—I’m in favor of total freedom. Only things, of course, that lead to some very immediate violence or something like that. Everything else—swallow your saliva, you’re an adult, and if you’re offended, stick your nose in your handkerchief, like Ezer Weizman and his uncle.
[Speaker A] Chaim Weizman—no, Weizman, right? Who said that the only place Ezer Weizman—not Chaim—that I, as President of Israel, can stick my nose is into my handkerchief. So okay—then I think from here I maybe want to get to what is, to my mind, the most significant question. In the end, this law is meant to create some kind of social solidarity. Now you also refer to what Avri Gilad says—and again, it’s not Torah from Sinai—but I want to touch on that point. And he says the following. He says—where does he say it? Here. When we enter the public sphere, there are different rules. Now you’re talking about this idea—and in a moment I’ll get to it—not to use the public funding card, because the public funding card will come back against you. There’s no license to use money—if you say there’s no right to use money for purposes that offend some group in the public, then in the same way secular people will resent funding for programs that try to create a connection to the history of the land. And the last thing you say is: if we only want things that are in consensus, we’ll end up with a state with no national culture, and basically with no content at all—what’s called a thin democracy—and it seems to me that such a bargain isn’t really worthwhile for some of us, at least for the Haredim. So first of all, that. I think in that context you’re absolutely right. Don’t bring the taxpayers’ money argument, because we all use taxpayers’ money for things other people don’t want. So that, I accept.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] By the way, that’s what taxes are for. That’s what taxes are for. Because for goals we all wanted, we’d pay even without coercion. Taxes are only meant to take money from me for goals I don’t agree with.
[Speaker A] And now I want to add something here about Avri Gilad and ask you about the establishment of some national corpus of sacred values. Right? He says—now, maybe he’s wrong and maybe he’s coming from an apologetic stance of wanting to be okay with everyone—but he says this: you don’t do a sketch about God in Israel, just as you don’t do a sketch about Muhammad in Egypt. By the way, he doesn’t write, just as you don’t do a sketch about Jesus in Europe, right? Or anywhere else. In my opinion, you also don’t make food programs with non-kosher food on mainstream channels, and certainly you don’t eat non-kosher food in reality-show challenges. It’s not just gross; it weakens them, it creates estrangement and alienation, distance and anger. What for? For one more dish? So leave aside the apologetic side. Is this idea of sacred values for a society—or things beyond that—in other words, is the fact that slaughtering sacred cows by definition isn’t something that creates estrangement and alienation, distance and anger? That’s my question.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] First of all, factually, yes. I can’t argue with facts. Factually, yes. The question is only how to deal with it. And in my view there are two ways to deal with it. One way: walk on eggshells, tiptoe, not hurt anything—what Avri Gilad is suggesting. And as I said before, no thanks. I don’t want pity, I don’t want to be in that position at all, where I need Avri Gilad’s pity and Avri Gilad’s defense. Offend me, laugh at me, do whatever you want. I’ll laugh too if it’s good. I’ll laugh at you too—same thing. That’s one. Two: the second option is to work on people, to tell them: folks, we’re adults, there are people here with different worldviews. Do you want them to hide them? Is that more respectful to you? To me, it’s more respectful if someone disagrees with me and says it to my face, bluntly. And now let’s argue. I’ll make a sketch in response, I’ll explain why I disagree with you, whatever you want, it doesn’t matter. But the most sensible thing is to air it out, to give it ventilation. And if I educate the public—again, it sounds a little utopian—but if I educate the public toward a more mature, more intelligent attitude, in my view that’s a prescription no less good, and maybe even better, for creating—I don’t know if social unity—but at least some possibility of living together, precisely by not hiding these disagreements. And if they forbid The Jews Are Coming from doing this, that will only create more resentment and anger. Unity will not be created with the creators of The Jews Are Coming if you don’t let them do what they want, just as unity won’t be created if you don’t let me do what I want. Same thing. In my view, unity has to be created—or I don’t know, I hate the word unity—living together is supposed to be created in such a way that people learn to live with things they disagree with, including blunt things. Including flat-earthers and including Holocaust denial, whatever you want. Don’t decide for me what I will hear and what I won’t hear. I’ll decide whether I want to hear it, and even if I hear it I’ll decide whether I agree. And I’ll also decide whether I’m offended, by the way. And if I’m offended, I’ll ask the doctor for a pill.
[Speaker A] So first of all I want to sharpen a few things here. I heard at a conservatism conference a year ago that some pre-military academy head said that people come to the academy—it was a secular pre-army academy—and then there’s a discussion, and someone says something, and the other says, “I don’t want to disagree with you, I’m sorry that I disagree with you, but…” He said, what is this nonsense? What is this “I’m sorry that I disagree with you”? Don’t be sorry, and forget the rest of it. The idea is that in the end the alternative isn’t that you’ll agree. The alternative is that there will be rage and anger beneath the surface. And that’s what there’ll be in the end. There’s no other way. Right?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s… Maimonides says, “Do not hate your brother in your heart; surely rebuke your fellow, and do not bear sin because of him.” Maimonides has a very interesting interpretation of that combination. He says that the purpose of “surely rebuke” is not to solve the problem of hatred or to solve the problem of sin, but to bring the hatred out from inside to the outside. “Do not hate your brother in your heart.” Therefore, you need to rebuke him with your mouth so that it won’t stay inside and ferment inside. And that is exactly what I’m saying here. What they feel toward tradition and toward me—that’s what they feel. If you forbid them, it’ll only intensify. I’m saying: if that’s what you feel, put it on the table, let’s talk. I’ll make a sketch in response, I’ll explain why I disagree with you, whatever you want, it doesn’t matter. But the most sensible thing is to ventilate it, to let it out. What kind of childish approach is this—shutting the other person’s mouth because he insults me or makes me angry? It’s like kindergarten: you go to the kindergarten teacher, “He insulted me,” and she says, “Tut tut tut, don’t insult him.” Three-year-old children—I understand, I can’t demand that they swallow their saliva. But adults, with all due respect, should swallow their saliva.
[Speaker A] By the way, I think there are things in that program that are so absurd that a secular person who doesn’t know the tradition actually opens a Bible. I mean, in a lot of cases they say—they quote the verse. Come look at us, right? We didn’t touch it. Meaning, and maybe there’s actually something good in this story of bringing very unusual stories. There’s that story there with Jezebel, right? Elisha and Elijah come to Jezebel, and then Elijah says to her, “Listen, you’re a very bad person, you stopped the rain for three years.” Then Elisha says to him quietly, “But that was you.” Then she says to him, “Yeah, but you’re just a prophet of Baal,” and he says to her, “But you did that too.” And it’s wonderful! In the end, it’s the text—that’s Elijah, you know, Elijah is Pinchas. In the end there may actually be something right about that.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There’s this trend today, in the age of media, the internet, and so on, where people teach things in a very visual way, very graphic, and very humorous. And in a certain sense this often draws criticism not because of offense but because of shallowness. Like those stories about Eva, you know, from the Holocaust—there were all sorts of ways of teaching the Holocaust through stories. That’s how people teach today. You can like it, you can dislike it. I belong to another generation; I think you need to learn in an analytical way, and all this graphics gets in the way of learning, in my opinion. But fine—it’s a matter of taste. I think The Jews Are Coming is part of that phenomenon. I think that to a large extent even the few sketches I saw—they teach Bible, whether you like it or not. Meaning, even if you disagree with the interpretation, and even if they put in things that never happened and they know it never happened, that doesn’t matter. You place the characters and the events there, and you acquaint people with these things in a very graphic way—and that’s how things are taught today. This illustration and visuality, which I like less—again—but it’s part of that same trend: this is how things are taught. And in my view there are definitely educational goals here. Because in order to teach, you also need to laugh, and you need all sorts of didactic tools, and to tell jokes, like they teach teachers to do.
[Speaker A] Right, a little joke.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. That’s one. And two: another point that I also wrote in my column, that at least some of the sketches I saw—and maybe even all of them—aren’t laughing at Bible figures at all. They use Bible figures in a midrashic way to convey messages relevant to us today. They aren’t necessarily claiming—again, I haven’t seen enough to determine this—but here and there, they’re not trying to claim something about what Abraham our forefather was or what Joseph was. They use Abraham and Joseph in order to make claims about today.
[Speaker A] And you’re saying that’s what midrash does anyway.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s what the Sages do at every turn. Entirely regardless of what actually happened—taking the text out of its plain meaning—that has nothing to do with what happened. All these accusations could have been leveled against the Sages just as well. It’s a technique. By the way, I also accuse the Sages of this, because I’m against that sort of thing. I think that’s why midrash is not learning. Midrash is play—valueless play, in my opinion. And precisely because of that…
[Speaker A] By the way, wait, I just want to sharpen this for the audience that doesn’t know your theory. What you’re basically saying is that midrash is some kind of plastic, or rubber, that you can take wherever you want. And your strongest claim about this matter is that we have never seen someone who held certain views and then, because of a midrash, became convinced otherwise, right? I think that’s your strongest claim about this whole thing. In other words, anyone—for example, any feminist woman or any feminist person—to whom you bring misogynistic things from midrash, they’ll arrange it in whatever way suits them, right?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] They’ll arrange it, or they’ll ignore it. But learning means that I draw conclusions from the thing, understand what it says, and now adopt it—at least in the religious context. Other kinds of learning, you don’t have to adopt, but in this context… Here, it’s none of that. You’re just playing with it in order to convey the messages you want. But that’s what the Sages do, that’s what people do today in all the pluralistic study halls and all the non-pluralistic study halls, and everybody shouts about what a heretic I am for saying that such a thing isn’t learning. And now The Jews Are Coming comes along and does the same thing. They’re simply using these materials to convey—they’re using them as a medium to convey messages that have nothing to do with what happened there, messages that concern us today. So what’s the problem? Again, I don’t like it. I don’t like it, and that’s why I don’t watch it. And I don’t see it as learning either. But to shut them up? You may as well shut down Bible Study Days at Beit Tzion and Aggadah Days everywhere in the world if you shut down The Jews Are Coming on the basis of that argument. That’s what people do in midrash.
[Speaker A] So now I want to ask you one more question. Suppose a person comes along, a religious person, who on the one hand enjoys The Jews Are Coming very much—or at least there are certainly sketches there, especially the biblical sketches, I think—where it’s like seeing reality, seeing the same text you know, in a way of “wow, cool, I hadn’t thought about it that way,” and now he feels uncomfortable, right? Let’s say by force of this idea of “Bible at eye level,” right? Now that’s a very interesting question: is Bible at eye level preferable to no Bible at all? But suddenly he feels some sort of disrespect, right? So I’m not talking about religious feeling—so can one be… let’s put it this way: if a person watches The Jews Are Coming, does it harm his fear of God, or his awe of Heaven? My feeling is yes, but your answer would be: too bad—if his awe of Heaven is that shaky, better that it be harmed.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I would say—I’m not sure I’d phrase it that way. I would say, first: I don’t know that awe of Heaven is a matter of feeling. I wrote about that too. Things that seem to us connected to feeling are often—for at least some approaches—it can be shown that they don’t really appeal to feeling. And therefore the fact that it awakens some emotional dimension in me regarding the matter isn’t necessarily a flaw. Fine—I’m God-fearing in the sense that I’m committed to the Holy One, blessed be He. I think what He says should be done, it matters to do it, and together with that I’m prepared to laugh about it wholeheartedly. That’s one. And two: there’s a difference—even if I decide that no, this does stir something in me—then I just won’t watch it. But because it stirs awe of Heaven in me, should I shut their mouths? Why not forbid them from driving on the Sabbath? Why not forbid them from—I don’t know what? That also stirs awe of Heaven. What do you mean? They think differently from me. Do you want everyone who thinks differently from you to shut… you want to shut his mouth because he offends your feelings or challenges your worldview? Deal with it.
[Speaker A] So explain to me why making fun of Amnon Abramovich, in your view—and that was a big part of the criticism—is not okay. Why do I hear what you’re saying now—you’re saying, shut up, deal with it, what else are you saying? Stick your nose in your handkerchief, and so on and so forth. And here, on the other side, you yourself—right, I’m not demanding responses—write: therefore one may argue that it is not proper to throw salt on their wounds even if I have the right to do so. I don’t understand. Again, I get it here—because here you’re basically drawing a comparison between what happened long ago, or didn’t happen at all, because Job never existed, and what’s happening today. Fine, I understand the comparison. But now let’s talk about what’s happening today. Entertaining satire that talks about what’s happening today, like Eretz Nehederet. Why is Eretz Nehederet making fun of Sara Netanyahu okay, but making fun of Amnon Abramovich something different? I truly don’t understand.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So I’ll tell you. First of all, I’m not sure it is different. First of all. Second, if—
[Speaker A] But sorry, wait—but do you agree that it is perceived as different in Israeli public life and in the media to an extraordinary degree?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Look at the section you highlighted earlier. I was careful to phrase it there: one may argue. Did you notice that’s how the sentence began?
[Speaker A] That’s a real scholar, a real Litvak, Lord have mercy, do you understand?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You can’t get anything out of him.
[Speaker A] Therefore one may argue—you see? Believe me, you’re a fox.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no—I deliberately use that phrase because I remove myself from the question of whether I agree. I’m saying: here one may argue that it’s something different. I’m not sure I agree with that, but I understand that there is a difference. That’s the meaning of the phrase “one may argue.” Now I’ll tell you what the difference is. There are two differences. One difference is that when satire comes to convey a message and uses a person, that is different from simply making fun of the person. Just because he’s out there—come on, let’s strip him in the street. What’s wrong with that? As satire we’d all laugh at it, right? So why not strip him in the middle of the street? Because it humiliates him, and there’s no message there—even if there were some message, it still wouldn’t be okay. It humiliates a living person who is here, and without any value-based or substantive need to convey a message through him. So just hurting people who have suffered and are here—not people who feel sentimental attachment to people who suffered, or to Abraham our forefather, but those people themselves—to mock a disabled person in the street is something completely different from mocking Abraham our forefather or using him to convey subversive messages for today. Abraham our forefather isn’t watching the program and getting offended. Do we know of Abraham our forefather having disabilities? We know about decisions he made.
[Speaker A] I don’t understand, though, how that’s different from mocking Bennett’s ears, his crooked teeth, and taking Sara Netanyahu and using tape to make her nose like this.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That, I simply don’t understand. The difference is… here it’s only a difference of degree. A difference of degree. If, for example, they were mocking Amnon Abramovich’s messages, and as part of the caricature they slightly exaggerated defects in his face or something like that, that would be parallel to what they do with Bennett and Sara Netanyahu. But to mock the defects themselves—that’s below the belt. And that’s mocking a disabled person walking in the street for the disability itself. So that is something completely different. If you’re criticizing Abramovich’s messages, but you want to portray Abramovich—you want to indicate to the viewer that you’re talking about Abramovich—how do you do it? Often, you do it through caricature, as they do on Eretz Nehederet. So the caricature of Abramovich will probably use Abramovich’s visual characteristics. That’s fine, I’m saying. On that I’d be willing to agree—again, there are certain measures of sensitivity even there that maybe could also be debated. Everything is “one may argue”; everything is under that “one may argue” that I said earlier. But that is completely different from taking biblical events and inserting subversive messages through them. Is Abraham our forefather watching the program and getting insulted? Do we know anything about Abraham our forefather’s disabilities? We know about decisions he made.
[Speaker A] By the way, I’ll say according to your approach—I just want to say according to your approach—that in Eretz Nehederet, when they did a sketch about the Bible Quiz and basically put in Avner Netanyahu, they left Avner Netanyahu totally clean. Because the issue really wasn’t him. Meaning, they put Avner Netanyahu there with nothing, nobody tried—they did absolutely nothing to him. And I think one of the things is that this actually brings us back to the point that when Eliraz Sadeh wants to mock the left, when that really was the source of the evidence, the joke is stupid. If you want to mock Amnon Abramovich, mock the fact that he’s undermining Israel, mock the fact that he’s against anything with even a whiff of Judaism—go mock the content itself. But you bring the joke down to the level of a stupid child and then you say, “You’re fat.”
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly, exactly. That’s exactly the claim. I’ll say more than that. If you were mocking the things Amnon Abramovich says, I’d even be willing to accept that you make some use of his appearance—again, within reasonable limits—but you need to show that we’re talking about Amnon Abramovich, and it’s hard to demonstrate that if you don’t use his visual features. So I could even swallow that. But to go after his disability—that really is the same thing. Does this even need explanation, what the difference is? It’s simply heaven and earth. And by the way, it has nothing to do with the fact that he was a soldier and a wounded IDF veteran. Just that he suffers from something or is disabled—you don’t mock that. Just a basic level of humanity. Now, are there human demands about how one must relate to Queen Esther? This comparison is absurd.
[Speaker A] I maybe want to—first of all, fine, accepted. I want to end with this idea of a joke as describing something real, right? I don’t know if it’s a joke or satire, but at one point I wanted to give a lecture on the history of Hasidism and the opposition through Dorianov’s jokes. There’s something in a joke that captures a certain essence, right? That captures reality. Someone who reads Dorianov’s jokes—say, about the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim, which I really, really love—it’s true. The joke is funny, but this idea of—one person asks his friend: what would happen if there were no money in the world, how would the rebbes collect redemption payments? So he says to him: idiot, if there were no money, there wouldn’t be rebbes in the world either.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, there’s something there. You know the one—how do you dress up as a rebbe on Purim? Do you know that? Why is it impossible to dress up as a rebbe?
[Speaker A] Because the moment you put on all of it and start collecting redemption payments…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The moment you put on the gartel and have two thugs in front of you, then you really are a rebbe.
[Speaker A] You can’t dress up as a rebbe, yes.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So that really is true.
[Speaker A] Or one where someone says that one day the rebbe came to his attendant and said to him: tell me, could you replace me? So the attendant says: look, to put on the gartel and bring two thugs and sit and write blessings—I could do that. But at the end of the day, to put all the redemption money in my pocket and not smile—that I wouldn’t be able to do. So you see? There’s something inside this that really describes something.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And I’d worry—think about if someone told that joke but he was Muslim or Christian or someone else, even secular, you know what? It’s perceived differently. People get more hurt. Because there’s something about someone from the outside not being allowed to laugh at the things that are sacred to me. Within Hasidism, believe me, they tell these jokes in a more venomous way than you do. The Hasidim themselves, I’m sure, even though I’m not that close to Hasidic courts.
[Speaker A] But the question is this. Right—but Michael—they tell these jokes because their loyalty to the system is not in doubt. I’d be worried that that’s the issue. Now, anyone who studies Talmud knows that the Talmud constantly has no sacred cows. It doesn’t. It really slaughters everything. Really. Nothing. The first move always begins with why, and how, and I disagree. Do you see within some kind of Jewish conception—I don’t know what a Jewish conception is, I really like what Ravitzky says, that if Judaism writes a book I’d be very happy to read it—but within some kind of Jewish cultural conception, do we have sacred cows, or in the end is the world of learning a world that really has none, where truly everything is open to question?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Sacred cows are something a bit different from something that you’re sure is true. A sacred cow means you’re not allowed to raise the questions, not that you have an answer to them. None. In my opinion, none. That you’re not allowed to raise the questions and not allowed to laugh about it. There are things I can defend within that framework, and I’m absolutely certain they’re true, and I’m absolutely certain that someone who disagrees with them is wrong. And there are things where there is room for other conceptions, or room—or they’re simply not true. So in the sense of how close you are to the core of the thing, there is a hierarchy. Some things are closer to the core, some things are less so. But even the things that are most at the core—what’s the problem? You want to ask why they’re true at all, or propose an alternative that they aren’t true? What’s the problem? In that sense—meaning, to use labeling like “heretic,” or labels of holiness, or injury to holiness, in a discussion—in my view that’s gagging speech. I would never do that about anything. About anything. Everything is on the table for discussion.
[Speaker A] So basically you’re saying that those people with religious feelings who are offended are actually against the Jewish tradition and culture whose whole point is to put everything up for examination and testing, whereas the creators of The Jews Are Coming, who take biblical characters and give them an allegorical interpretation according to what suits them, are continuing the tradition of the Sages who did the same thing?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes—that’s too extreme a formulation. I’ll tell you why. Because I’m not talking about someone who is offended; I’m talking about someone who wants to shut them up. Those are two different things. A person may be offended—fine, he’s built differently from me. I’m not offended by these things and he is. Fine, everyone has their own psychological makeup. But because of that, do you want to shut their mouths? That really is problematic. And that’s the important point—not the fact that you’re offended. And by the way, The Jews Are Coming, as Yedidia Meir writes there—I referred to his article—and rightly so, he writes that they became cultural heroes there because of this protest, in my opinion far beyond what they deserved—again, from the little I saw. So to say they’re continuing the Jewish tradition—that’s too pathetic a statement. But yes, we laugh about everything, and that’s all fine. And sometimes it’s very venomous, and very often touches painful, sensitive points, even the very core—and that’s all fine. At the same time, you can answer, you can argue, there is truth. It’s not true that everything is equally true or equally false, but it’s allowed to mock even something that is true, and it’s allowed to offend.
[Speaker A] And if the French government had—sorry, one second—if the French government after the attack had said to Charlie Hebdo: I don’t understand, freedom of speech is a very great thing, but I’m stopping this—just don’t mock this—would you understand them?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Would I understand such a decision by the French government? I could understand it because they don’t know how to handle the violence from the other side. But that’s all a bediavad situation; in principle I am categorically against it. I’m against it. I’m against surrendering to all kinds of offense and violence. By the way, same thing with the Intifada and going up to the Temple Mount on one side, and on the other side with rape and women’s immodest dress here, where it’s always the victim’s fault in that sense—I think the victim really does bear some part of the blame in these contexts, even though you’re not allowed to say such things today. And on the one hand, on the other hand—fine, get over it. Meaning, everyone is allowed to do what they want, and the other person is allowed to be offended. What is forbidden is not to gag speech and not to use violence. The only problem is that there are challenges that a government feels it cannot withstand. Meaning, if you don’t manage to control violence even though it is unjustified, then you need to prevent it in some other way even though that way is not just. Necessity is sometimes not to be condemned. Sometimes we do it too easily and too quickly because it’s convenient for us to keep the peace instead of deploying more police forces and demanding that the Muslims or the religious zealots swallow their saliva and get over it. So we choose the easy solution and ban it. And I’m saying that it’s not right to do that.
[Speaker A] Or as they say: where there is truth there is no peace, and where there is peace there probably isn’t always truth.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And I think that is exactly the statement I disagree with. Where there is truth, there will be peace. In the end. No—even at the beginning. I have complete peace with a person who offends everything sacred to me if he is willing to listen to me and I am willing to listen to him, and neither of us shuts the other up, and we discuss the truth. That is real peace. Peace won’t come in a place where—certainly not when he agrees with me, though I’m in favor—and definitely not when you shut his mouth. That isn’t peace, that’s whitewashing.
[Speaker A] No, I completely—I was just referring to the midrash that says truth didn’t want to be part of the world, and I think there’s something in that midrash that really touches on a certain point.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Psychologically that’s true. Essentially, I oppose it. I completely oppose this contrast between truth and peace—absolutely not, it’s exactly the opposite.
[Speaker A] If only. Listen, this idea of religious feeling as something that doesn’t have to bind the believing person in practice—that’s a super interesting area, but in my opinion it’ll have to be included in our future conversation about thin theology and the trilogy. So I want to say a huge thank-you for coming and laying out these ideas, and really, for those who don’t know, highly recommended: the blog, all the YouTube videos they upload about the pluralism of Jewish law—there’s something new now, what’s it called? The periphery of Jewish law?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The series, the lecture series. The new series. Peripheral categories, yes.
[Speaker A] Peripheral categories, and really amazing stuff. I have to ask you this, really—and this is what I asked you last time, no, I didn’t ask you, this is my last question. Listen, this channel originally dealt with productivity. I’m successful—I run a YouTube channel, right? So I know how long it takes to upload a video. You upload at least once a week, if not more, super, super significant articles. My wife just told me, listen, there are almost no spelling mistakes here, it makes no sense. And besides that, you’re on WhatsApp all the time—WhatsApp. You sent me an email at four in the morning. Now, I’m willing to understand people who are totally immersed in their world of research and do that. And I’m willing to understand people who waste time on WhatsApp, and fine, that’s fine. But I don’t understand the combination. I deleted WhatsApp now—I can’t manage it. And my question is: how does this happen?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And Facebook—I don’t have Facebook.
[Speaker A] I don’t have Facebook.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Oh, you don’t?
[Speaker A] I don’t have Facebook, I don’t—I really deleted it, switched to a kosher phone, I swear to you. Okay. And not because I’m ultra-religious—I mean, I am religious, but not because of that. It’s a waste. How do you manage to answer me on WhatsApp immediately and send me an email at four in the morning?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m one of the keyboard acrobats, as they say. Meaning, it just goes fast for me. That’s the whole secret. No special abilities—just that these things also occupy me, so it goes fast because it’s already been cooking in my head for a long time. I already have patterns that I know how to apply to many topics, and I also write fast—I’ve simply gotten used to it. I’ve written a lot and it’s… I really have to disconnect now because a technician just got here.
[Speaker A] Thank you very, very much, Michael Abraham. Thank you very, very much. You’re welcome, all the best. That was Rabbi Michael Abraham in a really interesting conversation about writing. I spoke with him a few weeks ago about other topics, but this time we focused on writing. I think there’s a lot to learn here, both from the way he structures his sitting and work habits, his self-discipline, and his skills of concentration and focus in the things he does. It really is something that can be very useful to anyone who writes in any field. So I hope you enjoyed this episode. Feel free to send it to friends, share it further, and we’ll hear each other in the next episode. All the best.