Q&A: On Personal Attacks Against Groups and Individuals
On Personal Attacks Against Groups and Individuals
Question
Hello and blessings, Rabbi,
As someone who greatly appreciates you, including on the personal level,
I wanted to share something that has always bothered me in your posts. Heaven forbid this is not being said against you; precisely because I appreciate you, I want to share my thoughts with you (“Reprove a wise man and he will love you”).
You have come out very forcefully against groups (such as the circles of Mercaz HaRav, Har Hamor, and the Haredim) and also against individuals (Rabbi Druckman, may he live and be well, as well as many others). And I have to admit that almost all of your criticism was accurate, but the style really, really makes the atmosphere repulsive. In the eyes of many, you are not only a publicist and philosopher but also a sharp and attentive Torah scholar, and “the words of the wise are heard gently,” and a person who studies Torah should be refined by it. (Surely you know the Chazon Ish’s words about the importance of gentleness in a Torah scholar.) And I know you said that this is your style, and precisely for that reason you say everything without embarrassment—but I am really asking: is this the right way?
I’m not telling you to silence any of your views, however sharp they may be, but at the end of the day there are human beings behind these attacks, many of them people with hearts of gold who do not want to do harm.
I’m also sure that if you spoke in a more respectful way, your words would be accepted by more people and you would succeed in spreading more truth.
It is precisely because of my love for you and for your thought and Torah that I am saying this to you. I look forward to your answer.
Answer
Greetings.
Many people have commented to me about this, and I answered them what I will now write to you.
- Indeed, this is my style, but that in itself is not an excuse. A style can be changed.
- This politeness is not symmetrical, and for some reason it is always demanded of me and not of those whom I criticize. All these people are really not careful to relate politely and respectfully to those who disagree with them, and therefore being punctilious about their honor sends a problematic message.
- In my view, politeness is an important part of the problem. Being careful about the honor of people or ideas that do not deserve honor sends a problematic message. There are mistaken ideas, or individuals who deserve respect, but there are also ideas and individuals who do not deserve it. About this people commonly say: “Where there is a desecration of God’s name, no honor is given to the rabbi.”
- At the margins, I’ll just say that using sharp words is not the only measure of whether an expression is proper. A person can speak in moderate language and still relate in a very inappropriate way. For example, someone who raises no reasons or arguments and only uses labels is giving improper treatment, even if his nicknames and labels are not especially severe.
- And finally, in my view politeness is a marginal issue. I know there are those who think otherwise and take it hard, but that itself is part of the problem—that people focus on style instead of substance. That is one of the messages I try to convey through my style.
Discussion on Answer
**** deleted ****
True, I am not fond of censorship, and therefore stupidity and even illiteracy are permitted here on the site (or at least not deleted), but I am quite repelled by lies, even if they drip with self-righteousness, and even if it is quite clear that their author has the reading comprehension and judgment of a preschool child and therefore may not really be to blame.
So if you want to raise criticisms, you are certainly welcome, as long as you make sure to write your nonsense without lies. But while you’re at it, it would be worth improving the elements that are not deleted as well: reading comprehension, judgment, actually raising arguments, and it is highly advisable to avoid ad hominem and ad populum (you can look up what that means on the internet).
Good luck (M.A.)
Well, Mr. Michael Abraham claimed that I am lying.
First of all, it is important for me to say that I do not have any knockout argument. What I am trying to show is that overall Mr. Abraham is mainly a provocateur, which is far beyond merely being “impolite.”
Now that I have clarified my point, I will try to show that I did not lie.
I assume this comment too will be deleted or at least edited; that is because Mr. Abraham has a hard time with the truth, and you can learn that from his foul mouth as well (but that’s okay, it only shows how right I am :))
First, I will bring a quote from Mr. Abraham himself:
“Clearly there is a lot in my character that loves provocation. But I try not to say things just for the sake of provocation. I sometimes sharpen things, but that too is not for the sake of provocation; rather because it is genuinely important to me to sharpen a certain point, and then the provocation is really only a tool for sharpening messages.”
Notice that Mr. Abraham admitted that he is a provocateur.
I claim that provocation is his main driving force, and the arguments are just ‘along the way’ (exactly the opposite of what he thinks—or perhaps he suffers from a lack of self-awareness).
Proof for my position: what gets published and catches on among the public is mainly the provocations. As for the arguments themselves, they are mostly good for wrapping fish in the market (or when moving apartments).
As for the righteous Rabbi Yitzhak Shilat, and Mr. Abraham’s statements about him.
Here are quotes from what Mr. Abraham wrote:
“The ABC of an Intro to Calculus 1 course at the university is that you cannot define an interval as a collection of isolated points standing side by side (you also need the property of density). I would expect a person who studied mathematics at the university (and not only from books by medieval authorities who did not understand modern mathematics and therefore made quite a few such mistakes) to know this.”
And Mr. Abraham also wrote:
“I will conclude here with a remark to the editors of the journal Asif. I would expect a respectable journal to point out to an author that it is unwilling to publish a chapter that contains declarations, preferences, and personal recommendations without reasons and arguments. A journal is supposed to be a platform for reasoned articles, not a rewrite of a rabbi’s personal moral talk to his student.”
Really, Mr. Abraham, is that how one speaks about such an enormous Torah scholar just because he disagreed with you?
As for Mr. Abraham’s claim that Religious Zionists and Haredim ‘are taking over our money’ (there is more than a slight hint here of robbery and theft by religious public representatives)
Well, he wrote it himself in one of his recent columns. Here is the quote:
“At a time when those who pretend to be followers of Rabbi Kook, together with the followers of Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, are conducting for their own pleasure a renewed ‘journey to the moshavot’ and, in marvelous cooperation, taking over all of our money”
If most of the Religious Zionist and Haredi sectors support their public representatives who are ‘taking over our money,’ that means they are partners to the robbery and theft that Mr. Abraham hinted at.
As for his statements about the late Rabbi Kanievsky of blessed and holy memory and Rabbi Edelstein, may he live long.
The full quotes can be seen here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99
Of course, we should note again that in the end it turned out that the approach of the Haredi rabbis was more correct.
And now let’s add another provocation to the list: Mr. Abraham called Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, the Rishon LeZion, ‘the chief idiot of Israel.’
So, Mr. Abraham, who is the liar?
Two weeks ago an interview with Rabbi Druckman was published in Israel Hayom, and I was simply embarrassed by the style:
https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/politics/article/13323496
The problem is that ever since Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda entrusted him with the political side, it has been impossible to budge him. His aggressive political style against Moshe Unna was, alongside Rabin’s murder, the main motive behind Sefi Rachlevsky’s writing the book The Messiah’s Donkey.