Q&A: Sorry for the Nuisance — A Note About Wording
Sorry for the Nuisance — A Note About Wording
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I apologize in advance — this is not really a question but a comment, and it may be out of place, but it is important to me to say these things.
[And I assume this is not such a fatal breach that it might cause you to limit the format of the questions, especially in light of the fairly broad patience you show in answering them].
The background to the comment: a few years ago I held very different views from the ones I hold today — across the entire spectrum of opinions — economic, political, attitudes toward postmodernism, and many other issues (many of them connected to Judaism). One fine day my father (a student of yours from your Yerocham days) suggested that I read Whatever Exists Exists. I was tremendously enthusiastic, and from there — go and learn the rest — I read several more of your books and hundreds of your articles. My outlook changed from one extreme to the other, and a great deal of that is thanks to you. And above all — I was granted the most precious gift of all — clear and critical thinking itself. (Recently a law student told me that he comes out of David Enoch’s course having received the ability to think. I immediately thought of your panel together and how one really can see that the two of you think in a similar way — clearly and systematically.)
In light of all this, I feel compelled to note the following — personally, I am very glad that I started reading you with Whatever Exists Exists, then Two Wagons, and only afterward the trilogy, because that built a kind of “trust” in the writer — that he thinks straight — and then when one gets to more explosive topics, where emotion and habitual opinion have more influence, one gives more weight to the writer and does not immediately dismiss what he says (something like Rabbi Shimon’s remark in his introduction about a head-covering cloth). Clearly one cannot write only about non-explosive topics, but in my opinion something that strongly affects this same direction is the style of wording. I read, for example, the recent articles on the enlistment of Haredim, and one can say the following: someone who opposes the current situation will certainly identify strongly with what is written and enjoy reading his thoughts presented in an orderly way, and at most will object to the wording with various arguments like “you’re trying to please the left,” etc. But someone who supports the current situation — it is very hard to believe that he will be persuaded by your words, because the wording itself already raises the emotional tone and causes the points to be weighed less seriously. Obviously, you are not in the education profession, and obviously in principle the obligation is on the reader not to get carried away by the wording and to think about the substance of what is being said. But since it seems to me that your goal is to get people to reconsider their views and assumptions, to try to challenge them and think seriously about them, in my opinion moderating the wording could add a great deal, increase Torah and magnify it, and perhaps even somewhat advance serious discussion of the issues themselves, and continue to be like an island and a lighthouse of serious discussion amid the heaps of nonsense that keep rushing into the world.
Thank you, and sorry if this is out of place. Your student.
Answer
Everything is fine. The comment is entirely in place, and you are not the first to make it, and there is really nothing to apologize for.
As for the comment itself: I also have an interest in showing when a certain position is morally or logically absurd. Sometimes substantive criticism leaves things looking as though there is really something here to discuss. In such cases there is also tactical justification for sharp language.
Discussion on Answer
I’ll note that I am very much against the current situation, and I connected with every word in the last article on draft evasion.
The jab about the charitable loan and aid organizations seemed unnecessary to me, especially “Hatzalah,” “Yedidim,” and “ZAKA.” Of course, the criticism of contribution devoid of obligation must remain. But in my opinion it was not right to get bogged down in specifics with one particular organization or another. Especially since the treatment struck me as not precise. Truly, many of these organizations are an Israeli phenomenon (for example, Yedidim), and I know they have no equivalent anywhere else in the world. More than once I received help that at a garage would have cost hundreds of shekels, for free (of course it is proper to give the volunteer a tip; from my acquaintance with volunteers I know that the overwhelming majority of those helped make do with a simple thank-you). “Hatzalah USA” has impressive statistics and is a significant auxiliary force in New York — there is no doubt that they save lives (I don’t think that if they ceased to exist, some replacement reinforcement would appear in their stead). In Israel too, there are areas where it is known that Hatzalah will show up long before Magen David Adom because of the volunteer network and the scooters. In certain areas, almost every building has a volunteer. And there are many other examples.
In my opinion this weakens the point. Because all of this is worth nothing to me for the reasons discussed in the article.
When credit is due, it’s due — the argument is: “Good for you, so what…?”
It’s like making the cosmological argument and then adding that there is also a Bible code and testimonies about Elijah the Prophet — it lowers the level a bit after a strong point.
Still an excellent and important article. Thank you very much!
Student, perhaps, but I’m not sure — certainly not with regard to an audience that does not yet have a position. But my target audience is not only those on the other side. Even among the audience that thinks as I do, or has no position, it is important to make clear that this position is outside the bounds of legitimacy.
David, I didn’t jab at anyone. I presented facts that reflect the problematic nature of volunteering.
I was not talking at all about the problematic nature of volunteering (when it comes without the other obligations); that is an important and correct point.
I was talking about the things written at the end of the chapter “On the Ills of Volunteering.”
About your puzzlement at the organizations themselves and whether there is perhaps no need for them (since things got along before them).
You also wrote, “How are they volunteering if they are supposed to be sitting and learning?” and again, that is not precise, and it is also somewhat arguing with them on an irrelevant plane that they themselves invented — these volunteer activities are in no way a full shift job (those who do work full-time [mainly clerks] receive a nice salary and are just ordinary employees like anyone else).
The comparison to service in the IDF is like the difference between someone who worked all night and someone who got up in the night to drink a glass of water.
It is just casual, on-the-side volunteering. Therefore, on the one hand, you cannot argue (as you wrote), how are you volunteering? You’re supposed to be learning. (Since after all it comes down to a brief outing once in a while.) On the other hand, and much more importantly: “What is this comparison, so lacking in self-awareness?”
And in addition, you cannot ask how they have time to volunteer, because the overwhelming majority are people long past draft age. Most of them were pushed out of the kollels because they were not suited to them, and this is how they quiet their conscience — and now, in their own eyes, they are no longer parasites.
You are repeating my argument. That is exactly the whichever-way-you-cut-it point that I made. Don’t present volunteering as a substitute for the army if it is done on your lunch break. And if not — then how do you have the time?
By the way, the fact that they are past draft age is irrelevant. The obligation to study Torah, in whose name they were exempted from the army, does not stop at age 26.
Thank you. I mainly apologized because in the end this is a forum for questions and not ostensibly for comments.
From what I understand, the tactical justification is what was said in the preceding sentence — the goal is to show that there is not really anything here to discuss. Certainly I, and many of your readers, agree with you on the matter and think the other side’s position is plainly unfounded. But the point is that if the goal is to get people to criticize their current position, saying that there is nothing to discuss generally does not help, and in any case the tactical justification does not hold. In the end, in many debates both sides believe that the other side is completely baseless, and therefore the only way to advance the discussion and try to persuade is not to tell the other side that it is baseless, but rather to calmly point out its mistakes so that they will reconsider their view.
And I write all this because even though the Chazon Ish wrote that it is not his way to engage in arguments, because differences of opinion have causes that were formed over many years, it is clear to me that there is some young fellow out there (and even several) whose opinion can change as a result of your writing — and if not on this issue, then on others.
Do you disagree with my practical assumption that generally, in order to advance the above goal, the better way is with gentleness? Or is the above goal not the goal of the post(s)?
Thank you very much!