Why is he nuts?

And what’s the reasoning for saying it’s an obligation? Sounds a bit far-fetched.

He’s nuts because he’s exulting over the deaths of innocent people (even if they are citizens of an enemy state). Especially in Lebanon, where the citizens and even the government have no control over what’s going on. I don’t see what here requires explanation. Isn’t that obvious?
The obligation is to help people not die. What exactly is the question? If the aid endangered us—that would be different. But that isn’t the situation.

He wasn’t happy that they died, only that it’s better that the warehouse blew up there and not on us. That’s all. And that’s completely legitimate; no need to exaggerate unnecessarily.

Indeed, no need to. You just need to direct that to Feiglin:
“If it’s us, and I hope it’s us, then we need to be proud of it and create a balance of deterrence.”
In the future, worthwhile read the article too and not just the headline.

Right, and his point is that it’s good if we eliminated a warehouse of missiles that otherwise would later have exploded on our civilians. Sad about the civilians who died, but even sadder if it had been sent here.

Everyone has strengths and screwups.
When it comes to the LGBT community or Jewish masochism, Michi behaves like the worst kind of sycophant. There’s no point even arguing with him.
(On this too he was preceded by that mosquito, namely Aharon Barak, in his ruling against torture. As Mishal Cheshin put it: “He (Barak) prefers that 50 people die so long as the murderer’s human rights are preserved.”

“See how quickly the mayor of Tel Aviv lost the distinction between the private plane and the national plane and announced that the city hall building would be lit up in Lebanon’s national flag. No less. Huldai did not ask to display pictures of the individual victims, but the flag of the State of Lebanon.”

Smotrich: https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/446111

Michi, I don’t think he really meant joy in the sense you think.
He was trying to distinguish between what is called Christian-Western morality, which grieves and cries over the death of enemies, and doesn’t take into account that you yourself could have been harmed. Such a morality blurs the distinction between your fellow and a stranger, and between your fellow and someone on the other side of the street. In the end it blurs the healthy distinctions that the Torah makes between caring first of all for those close to you—for family, for community, for your people—and the concern that is only supposed to come afterward for others, and in a limited way for enemies. I’m sure that Feiglin, from his deep faith in the form of Israel, grieves for every private, personal, innocent creature that was lost. Ask him and he’ll confirm what I’m saying.

Is Christian-Western morality Tolstoy’s, which advocated universal love and strongly opposed every kind of violence, or perhaps Tasso’s, who regarded Christians as God’s emissaries fighting the Muslim sons of Satan, or maybe Aeschylus’s, who treated the suffering of the Persians sympathetically while portraying them as an inferior nation, or is it actually Kant’s “Perpetual Peace”?

“Beloved is man, for he was created in the image. Beloved are Israel, for they were called children of the Omnipresent.” Rabbi Reines explained: “For all human beings were created in the image of God, and that is a sign that in the end mankind will unite in its views. However, the people of Israel are more distinguished, and so long as the foundations of pure faith have not spread throughout the world, only they are called children of the Omnipresent, through the bond and connection among them; and that connection comes only through the Torah, whose ways are all peace and brotherhood.” Seek peace in your own place and pursue it elsewhere.

Hello Rabbi!
If there really were missiles there aimed at us, would it not have been proper to bomb the place? Would it not have been right to be proud of that and create a balance of deterrence?
Thank you very much!

With God’s help, 16 Av 5780

To Simcha — greetings,

Presumably, if there had been a stockpile of missiles and weapons there aimed at us, the IDF would know how to handle and neutralize it without harming thousands of civilians,

Therefore it is unlikely that the explosion was caused by the IDF, and it was probably negligence on the part of Hezbollah, which got them into this mess and turned the entire Lebanese people against them.

What Feiglin could have caused by his jubilation and his hints “as thick as a beam in an oil press” that Israel had a hand in the explosion, would have been removing the blame from Hezbollah and placing it on us—in plain words: getting the State of Israel into trouble and getting Hezbollah out of that trouble.

Is that what you want?

Best regards, S.Tz.

Hello S.Tz.!
In practice I didn’t state any fact, I only asked a question. I don’t know who bombed there, if anyone did, and I too think that apparently it wasn’t Israel; nobody in Israel has the courage to do such a thing, even if that’s what would have been ethically appropriate to do. My question was whether it would not have been proper to bomb there if there really were missiles there, and of course if bombing were the only option.
In addition, in my opinion, if as a state you think another state should be bombed, then you should be proud of that in your heart, and often it is also worthwhile to say so openly in order to show your enemies your strength and your determination to defend your people.
If Hezbollah had an interest in saying it was Israel, I believe they would say it whether Feiglin hinted at it or not. It seems Hezbollah prefers to say there were no weapons there, only some random stockpile of innocent chemical materials. I’m sure that even if another country bombed there, Hezbollah would still take a serious blow to the legitimacy the people there grant it. In the end, it is the one that got them into this situation, and it really doesn’t matter whether by inviting other forces to fight it and bomb it, or by mistake because they didn’t know how to guard their weapons.
Regards.

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB14XF1B.img?h=656&w=758&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=302&y=171

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/5841265125052170380?sqp=4sqPyQQ7QjkqNxABHQAAtEIgASgBMAk4A0DwkwlYAWBfcAKAAQGIAQGdAQAAgD-oAQGwAYCt4gS4AV_FAS2ynT4&rs=AOga4qmurzYmQVBYopXTjXqtVDyPzzVJcA

With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “No man shall stand before you,” 5780

The Middle East scholar Dr. Mordechai Kedar (“What Really Happened at the Port of Beirut,” on the Arutz 7 site) does not trust the official Lebanese version speaking of an explosion of “ammonia.” In his opinion, this was missile fuel, ammunition, and explosives imported from Iran for Hezbollah, and improper storage led to the explosion.

What happened to the terrorists fulfilled King Solomon’s words: “He who digs a pit will fall into it.” According to Dr. Kedar, even the Iranians see Nasrallah as directly responsible, and he predicts that he will soon be removed “for health reasons” and the like.

With blessings for a good Sabbath, S”Tz

And Kedar’s area of expertise is relevant to that hypothesis because…?

To T — greetings,

Besides being a PhD in Middle Eastern studies specializing in Israel’s enemies, he served about 20 years in Military Intelligence and was discharged with the rank of lieutenant colonel. In any case, look at his detailed reasoning in the article and judge for yourself. He describes three explosions one after the other in different colors, and therefore he conjectures that the event began with missile-fuel vapors that led to an explosion that caused nearby ammunition and explosives warehouses to explode.

Also Captain (res.) Moshe Feiglin, a combat engineering officer, speaks of a large quantity of explosives that brought about the enormous blast. Kedar only adds the point about missile-fuel vapors starting the chain reaction, and I assume he consulted experts in explosives familiar to him from his past in Military Intelligence and the like.

Regards, S”Tz

Dr. Kedar’s ancestors worked in copperwork, as apparently indicated by their original family name “Kupershmidt,” and perhaps the merit of his ancestors also helps him understand flammable and explosive materials 🙂

The possibilities that these were military explosives or an Israeli attack came up (all over the world) more or less as fast as that mushroom cloud there. I read the article and there’s no use there of familiarity with Arab culture, Arab history, Islam, or any intelligence matter requiring broad vision. It looks like plain speculation (certainly possible, but we haven’t gotten beyond speculation of the kind sold by weight at market stalls). Personally I have a lot of respect for the scoundrels of Hezbollah, unlike some of our other dear enemies, and it’s hard for me to believe that in something critical under their responsibility they would be so negligent. Though I definitely hope they really are guilty (or that they’ll be falsely blamed—that’s even nicer from my perspective), and maybe this will weaken this octopus-like, successful, loathsome organization.

You hinted to me, and I’ll hint back:
I misspelled the name of Dr. Mordechai Kedar, may God preserve him and grant him life, by mistake (that is, it was unintentional).

With God’s help, 16 Av 5780

To T — greetings,

Indeed, in the Bible it is written “Kedar” with defective spelling. Nowadays in unvocalized spelling it is customary to mark the vowel tzeirei by a yod between the qof and the dalet. You used the biblical defective spelling, “Kdr.”

Regards, S”Tz

By the way, in Hebraizing his name he probably intended also to indicate his professional occupation with Arabs, the sons of Kedar (besides the similar sound to “Kupershmidt”).

By the way, my son Avichai did likewise, Hebraizing his name on my advice from “Levinger” to “Lavi,” which is similar both in sound and in meaning, since the source of the name “Levinger” is “Löwe,” which is “lion” in German.

Paragraph 1, line 1:
…in unvocalized spelling to mark…

A similar process of a yod marking tzeirei happened to the Canaanite city “Be’erot,” which became “Beirut” (pronounced: Beyrut). The holam became a shuruk, apparently because Arabic has no holam (Arabic has only three vowels: patah, hiriq, and shuruk).

Regards, S”Tz

A nice suggestion.

What exactly is the idea behind a preserving Hebraization or a pen name that hints in some sophisticated way? I sampled answers from quite a few people and my tired mind still hasn’t settled.

With God’s help, 16 Av 5780

To T — greetings,

Hebraizing a family name is done from ideology that aspires to use a Hebrew name. Why should we be called by German, Slavic, Arab, or Spanish names and the like—all nations that hated and persecuted us to the bitter end? Better for us to adopt a Hebrew name from our own sources.

Sometimes the Hebraization comes from a prosaic reason (dentological 🙂 )—a desire not to break one’s teeth. Thus, for example, Rabbi Menachem Posvetnyansky of Nevel, one of the founders of Herzliya, Hebraized his Russian tooth-breaking name to “Urieli,” because the meaning of “Posvetnyansky” in Russian is connected to “light.”

Since the one Hebraizing wishes to express in his name also the connection to his close family—his father, grandfather, uncles, and so on—of whom he is proud and to whom he feels connected, therefore he chooses a name that recalls the original family name.

Thus, for example, the sons of Rabbi Natan Milikovsky, who was one of the leaders of the Revisionist movement, wanted to preserve in their Hebraized names the memory of their revered father. So one Hebraized to “Netanyahu,” preserving the father’s first name, while another Hebraized to “Milo,” which resembles the grandfather’s family name in sound.

Regards, S”Tz

In Ben-Gurion’s day and after, Hebraization was imposed on senior officers and diplomatic personnel. It seems to me that the first chief of staff who was allowed to keep his foreign name as well was Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who was certainly proud of his lineage to the founder of the Mussar movement, and since then “the leash has been entirely loosened,” and along came “Ganz” and “Eizenkot,” who remained with their foreign names.

Though about “Eizenkot” I said that it is a “Hebrew” name: “azen” [= weapon] “kot,” which would certainly be the command of the Messiah to his army minister, that he should beat his weapons into plowshares. “Azen” means “weapon,” as proven by the verse: “And you shall have a peg upon your weapon,” and the Aramaic translation: “upon your war-gear.” I was very disappointed when Gadi Eizenkot finished his term without receiving the command “weapon—beat [it]” 🙂

And in short: from “Beirut” we rolled into “Hebraization” 🙂

And now that we’ve come to this, let us recommend that “Nasrallah” Hebraize his name to “Neser-Elah” 🙂

Regards, Shem Shine

Hebraization I understand (today mainly convenience, once also a matter of national renewal and a melting pot). It’s the preservation (in family names) and the hidden hint (in pen names) that I wonder about. “Preservation,” “connection”—fine as a description of what they think, but it’s hard for me to understand it as anything more than a pointless gimmick. What especially amused me was the thing with Eizenkot. It also reminded me that in that verse the source annotator in Machberet Menachem (the son of the Arukh LaNer!) made a mistake (relatively rare). Menachem wrote under the root z-n: “And the harlots washed… (I Kings 22:38), upon your weapon (Deut. 23:14)—according to their sense it appears they are implements of war and chariot implements.” And I read this and couldn’t understand what the verse in Ezekiel, which deals with earrings, has to do with weapons. But the source annotator, as soon as he saw “oznayikh” with a yod (so too in the manuscript displayed on the British Library site), immediately concordanced himself to death and cited Ezekiel, whereas of course Menachem meant the verse you brought, “and you shall have a peg upon your weapon” (without the yod). I once collected quite a few examples of different kinds of errors by editors who relied on databases (especially many in Chavel), but afterward I understood that on the contrary, it is to their credit that they did not waste their lives remembering things of no importance to remember, and also that it really doesn’t matter if there’s such a marginal mistake.

I pointed out someone else’s mistake, and in the process stumbled in my own memory, because the annotator is not the son of the Arukh LaNer but his student. As the huge dew that falls on the mountains of Zion.

Before the establishment of the state, the Agency’s representative in one of the Latin American countries was Mr. Bino Weiser. When the state was established, Bino Weiser was called back to Israel, and the leaders of that country were promised that within a few months Bino Weiser would return to them as the ambassador of the State of Israel.

But before his appointment as ambassador, Ben-Gurion demanded that “Bino Weiser” Hebraize his name into a Hebrew one. His friend Professor Ephraim Urbach’s argument did not help him—that “Bino” means “his son,” and “Weiser” is also a Hebrew word, as it is written: “and he scattered over the surface of the water.” So “Bino Weiser” became “Binyamin Veron” (named after a biblical city).

And then the country’s leaders in Latin America receive a telegram: “Tomorrow the ambassador of Israel, Señor Binyamin Veron, will arrive,” and they immediately cried out: “But you promised us that Bino Weiser would be the ambassador!” Try explaining to them that Bino Weiser had become Binyamin Veron 🙂

Regards, Samson Gil-Ron

T,

What you say seems right. And that is exactly how Rabbi Yonah Ibn Janach and Radak explained it.

Or perhaps “a peg upon your ears” means the mask that attaches to the ears and prevents the emission of corona viruses in the air and saliva coming from a person’s mouth and nose from contaminating the camp.

And so too the “Rephaim,” careful about preserving health, have practiced from ancient times; some of them were called “Emim” because they cast fear upon the public and threatened a total lockdown, but the more proper among them were called “Zamzummim” because they put a muzzle on their faces and made sure not to communicate closely except through “Zoom” alone.

By contrast, the Avvim, although they were careful not to gather in houses but rather “in open settlements,” were not careful about distancing and mask-wearing—and they were struck by corona viruses that resemble in shape “small knobs protruding from a large knob.”

May it be His will that we follow the ways of the medical Zamzummim, who put a muzzle on their faces and communicate by “Zoom,” and through their merit may “Roni Gamzu for the good” be fulfilled for us.

)Regards, “Relief and Rescue, Mask and Capsule,” S”Tz

The popular distinction nowadays between the state (which is in practice our enemy) and the citizens is nothing but an illusion. The state is the sum of its citizens. For example—why should I feel sorry for the citizens of Gaza who chose Hamas, which shoots at us?
I would expect from such logic that in two weeks, when there may be mass infection in Belz and maybe worse, Tel Aviv city hall will be painted in the shape of a shtreimel.

It seems that really something is not right with Rabbi Michi. His words are simply appalling nonsense. What kind of bizarre distinction is this between the regime (Hezbollah sits in the Lebanese parliament) and the “citizens”? Who cares that this regime is unwanted by them? Should we have assisted the Iraqi population under Saddam Hussein’s rule because his regime was based on terror and fear? Could we not have fired missiles back at Iraq because the “citizens” were not involved (?)? What kind of nonsense is this? Rabbi Michi, what is wrong with you? What kind of mental illness is this? Who exactly is the lunatic here? It seems the word “citizen” in leftist-speak means “holy person”—someone untouchable and not involved in anything of the collective to which he belongs. A leftist hears the word “citizen” and an aura of holiness is smeared and poured over his face. They’re simply in love with a procedural word. They worship the god of democracy (there is no people, there is democracy. That is what matters. A system of government), and the believers are the citizens. They spend all their days dealing with forms of government and empty molds (laws and procedures). Self-righteous people. Rabbi Michi, are you one of them? Who cares about this nonsense? The only question here is whether Lebanon is an enemy state. And the answer is: certainly yes.

By the way, true, this isn’t about aid, but it’s a good example of why the idea of helping them is infantile
(I don’t understand it at all—at best they’re indifferent to our fate. Why should we help people who are indifferent to our fate?):

https://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/1097191-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%95%D7%95%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%AA/

For many years now Lebanon has not been a sovereign state, but rather an arena of struggles between different sects, and a trampled doorstep of Syria, Israel, and Iran. Although for many years Israel has had security demands of Lebanon that have gone unanswered,
on the contrary one can distinguish between pursuers (Hezbollah) and pursued (helpless Lebanese), and then there is reason for aid that strengthens the pursued.

This is not aid to the pursued, but to innocent people who are suffering greatly. You are talking about military aid to overcome the persecution, whereas the discussion here is humanitarian aid.
The foolish claims raised above here with such great certainty are not really worth answering. They are full of logical and moral failures alike, and they mix apples and oranges, so I see no point in addressing them.

It’s worth reading what Moshe Feiglin says here.

To Yehuda,

Lebanon is a state. And its residents bear collective responsibility toward everyone outside it. The number of sects and their internal struggles is their internal matter. Syria too is a mixture of three sects. In a certain sense all Arab states are like this. After all, they are an artificial creation of the division of the Ottoman Empire between France and Britain, and the independences given to the Arabs they ruled. That is also why all the regimes there are dictatorial (beyond the fact that they are not sufficiently developed for a democratic culture). Only terror and fear succeed in imposing order there. And they are at peace with this way of life and even happy with it (I even heard Chinese people claim that democracy is not for them—how much more so Arabs). The only leaders they respect are the kind who cast fear. An alpha male. Like wolves in a pack.

Even Arab culture here in Israel reaches only the level of the village and the clan, and they fight each other until it comes to the Jews, and then they unite to fight us (unless they get benefits from us). And when it comes to independence for the Palestinian people, then for the sake of a state they become a people. I see no difference between them and Lebanon. Maronites, Shiites, Sunnis, Christians—they are all Arabs living in the same state, and they have collective responsibility (insofar as they constitute a state) for what takes place from within their state’s territory. It’s the same as in Gaza. There is no difference between responding to missile fire from Gaza by firing missiles into Gaza and helping people there. You don’t help an enemy (humanitarian aid or otherwise). Certainly not a barbaric enemy. Anyone who doesn’t understand this lacks sense.

Rabbi Michi can say the word “foolish” (what nonsense—the only question here is whether they are enemies or not; there is no foolishness here at all) until tomorrow, but it won’t help him. He thinks that if he says a few magic words that’s supposed to persuade someone. So good for him. These people are not innocent. They are barbarians and they hate us, and helping them is folly. I can’t understand such blindness at all. As if we learned nothing from the Holocaust. No one will care for us if we do not care for ourselves. And helping enemies is already beyond human comprehension. Especially barbaric, savage, bloodthirsty Arabs lacking any human image.

I do not see Rabbi Michi, or any other leftist, as being in any position to preach morality to me or to anyone else. If there is one saying of the Sages whose truth can really be felt even today, it is: “Whoever is merciful to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the merciful.” Usually one can see that leftists of the moralizing type are not good people at all, but full of bitterness, rage, and hatred of humanity. See for example Leibowitz, who preached morality to the whole world but had a Nazi character of his own. Not someone who would pick you up for a ride if you were stranded somewhere remote, but would let you die by the roadside. Many of these lovers of humanity are usually just haters of Israel in secret (with me it is completely out in the open), that’s all. At best it is simply a lack of self-awareness.

Someone who wouldn’t help me if I got into trouble (and on the contrary would probably hand out candies), I won’t help him either (though I won’t hand out candies).

Hillel says: “Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah.” In order to love people, one must pursue peace, and in order to pursue peace one must love peace, and in order to love peace first of all one must relate to every single person as an individual and remember that every person was created in the divine image. That is how Hillel the Elder related both to every Jew and to every non-Jew. “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”

And now let philosophers come and organize a moral theory that fits with this basic assumption. If a different conclusion follows from their theory, they are welcome to stick it where gentlemen do not mention in public.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3238328046246288&id=230709873674802

https://m.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-782421?utm_source=whatsapp

Was this meant to be used against us?
“Certainly, this material is the most readily available material for semi-military and terrorist organizations to achieve blast explosions. This material was supposed to be used against us in the Third Lebanon War, that’s clear. Who keeps such quantities of explosive material? Hezbollah has a history with this material; they’ve been looking for it around the world since 2011 in various collapsing states.”

To Yehuda,

Just to give you some sense of how foolish your words about Lebanon are, think about the Jewish State of Israel. After all, it too is made up of four tribes (Sephardim, Haredim, religious people, and secular Ashkenazim (leftists)). They too are on the basis of internal war. According to some of them, the government is corrupt. Suppose tomorrow Bibi decides to launch missiles at Egypt, and Egypt responds with missiles back at Israel (at Tel Aviv, say). Would you hear the left coming with complaints to Egypt that they should attack only the army or only the residents of Haredi and Sephardi cities? Or alternatively would you see them blaming Bibi (as usual) and justifying the Egyptian response? Somehow all this (il)logic instantly disappears when it comes to Jews. Then somehow logic starts functioning again. This inconsistency lies at the root of the disease of the leftist mind (which Rabbi Michi too seems to suffer from). Or alternatively, that the left is simply Israel-hating in disguise like the rest of humanity. And that is actually the option I prefer.

And now the truth is that the material that exploded belonged to Hezbollah, financed by Iran, and thank God it did not explode over our heads.
The sorrow over the dead and injured is justified, but so is the great joy over the great miracle that happened to us. https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/447699