I agree with J. Rabbi Boteach makes a solid point about our collective desire for black/white oversimplifications.
However, he employs a weird example: “We are prepared to love monsters. We tolerate their evil. We think guys like Saddam Hussein ought to remain in power.” Really? I don’t know of anyone who believed Saddam Hussein deserved to remain in power — no one beyond the anti-sanctions neo-Stalinists of Internatioal ANSWER, anyway.
As the Duelfer Report stated, international sanctions were working to weaken the Baathist regime. And the mission of the US and our allies in Afghanistan was (and remains) hardly accomplished enough to responsibly divert the energy and resources from what we had already commited, while casually dismissing the advice of our allied civil democracies concerning the issue.
But, for the sake of argument, if it’s our inability to honestly discriminate between good and evil that would otherwise have allowed us to tolerate and sustain the Baathist regime, then what is it that allows us to tolerate and sustain the human rights nightmare regimes of Uzbekistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.? In his haste to illustrate a valuable lesson on the evil of willful ingorance, I’m afraid that Rabbi Shmuly has lost his balance and fallen over into the “dark side” himself. As Dirty Harry once said, “A man’s gotta know his limitations.”
I think boteach is completely wrong when he says there’s not enough hate in the world and that love is misdirected on undeserving criminals. I would judge his statements as a gross misrepresentation of Judaism. Love is needed more for those who do wrong. If we truly have their best interests at heart, if we really want to help someone we don’t send them weapons to kill their own people, but make them stop, make them better. They still have a soul that originated with God, that may presently be erring but can at any moment make teshuvah. Jesus’s message didn’t break with Judaism, Christianity broke with Judaism when it took his message and made a personality cult around him and elevated him to deity status.
Oy gevalt.
So let’s see here: Rabbi Boteach starts off saying Batman’s Ninja mentors hated criminals too much to the point of injustice, convinces me how wrong those puritanical ninjas got – and then goes on to argue FOR the twisted mentors! Hellooo?? Earth to Shmuly, Earth to Shmuly, come in Rabbi..
And the worst part: it was his weakest argument yet (believe it or not, i’m a fan of the guy).
We should HATE people and based on that hate take action? Hate balances love and creates justice? Now, what makes ole Rabbi here think LOVE is a fuzzy emotion that let’s murderers go about their murderin’? Love can be ruthless, boobie. And sometimes the best examples of love ARE ruthlessness.
Like breaking-up with a girlfriend. So you don’t make each other happy, nu.. Let her meet a guy a who does. Let you meet a girl who makes you happy. That’s love, not “i hate you, get outta my life!” Same just action, different attitiude.
Coming back to Batman, and bouncing off the ninja-theme: in martial arts they always taught us to never hate an opponent. Don’t judge (coz you ain’t so special), don’t swear, don’t get mad. We even respected our competiton-opponents. And then, with a smile on our face, we gave them the ass-whoppin’ of the century (it was full-contact crazy mofo kung fu)..
*good times..*
The point is: you can show Saddam Hussein plenty of love by overthrowing him. You’re helping his people avoid his tyranny. You’re being a man of principle and integrity by protecting innocents. That’s love, albeit kinda stern. And if G-d IS love, then you’re professing that very mandate. Oh and you’re being a responsible member of the world’s community and stuff.
As for murderer dude. It ain’t our job to hate anyone. You can protect your family and support your community’s judgement on a matter without gettin’ busy hating. Such a waste of energy. Though i think 6 years is too lenient. I don’t hate him, but it’s a poor example to set to society.
Rabbi Boteach would do well to read some books on Zen or Taoist philosophy. Them martial arts masters were no push-overs but they certainly didn’t bother with hate. Their love was built of principles and compassion. Needless to say, you didn’t mess about with their principles..
all he nailed was envisioning a world where people like him would never have had the oppurtunity to achieve and become what he has.
ungreatful self righteous turd, he is.
So much comment, so little time.
Zionista finds “black/white oversimplifications” in Boteach’s discussion on hating evil. On the contrary, I think Boteach specifically restricted himself to the worst examples of evil so as to avoid what would likely turn into an oversimplification if more gray-area examples were used. And the “if Iraq, why not Sudan” argument? Please. If I saw two people being murdered, one by a 250 pound rifle-toting thug, and another by an unarmed 95 pounder, does it follow that if I’m unwilling to risk fighting the former that I have to walk away from the latter?
Isaac thinks Boteach misrepresents Judaism. Does he? Why add the second word to “Sinat Chinam”, then? Classic Jewish sources are loaded with expressions of hate toward (the very worst) evildoers. (And recall that the Jews were criticized for singing Az Yashir following the drowning of the Egyptians on the grounds that many relatively innocent people drowned, not because hatred is impermissible.) Regarding teshuva, this is not enough for murderers.
Funny, ben-yamin is a fan of Boteach, but doesn’t like the article; I can’t stand Boteach, but did like the article. Go figure.
Anyway, first: Boteach made clear that in the movie, the mentors went too far (I understand they were affiliated with Ras al Ghul, and if you wasted as much of your childhood as I did, you’d know off the bat (ouch) that that can’t be any good.
In the martial arts, your opponent is typically that – an opponent. Not an enemy, much less a mass murderer. I don’t see the analogy. Regarding overthrowing Saddam Hussein with a kind of tough love, in theory, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but I don’t think this notion takes into account the real world, where soldiers have to get motivated to do the dangerous and painful work of carrying out the mission of love. (In any case, I would argue that hating evil is an expression of love for those harmed or threatened by that evil.)
Maybe Town Crier could elaborate on his statement. I don’t know what he means.
It means I like the movie and I don’t like Boteach. He is typical of all right wing jews who have achieved something in this world, they forget how they got be that way in the first place, and spit on the world that enabled them to rise to those achievements. We’re talking about a man rose to fame being the anamoly clergy man in a beard and hat talking about sex and then hanging out with wacko jacko. Boteach in his writing clearly has a one sided political agenda which is a typical of the self righteous atitude adapted by selfishly egotistical GOP Jews who think they are morally superior – the very tolerance and compassion which he spits on is the same exact aspect of humanity that enabeled a world for us in which we have been able to achieve.
I wonder what Boteach would have written about compassion nd immoral criminals had he been reviewing movies on jewish blogs when Schindler’s List was released.
I too can’t stand the man, but he finally made some sense… It’s perfectly acceptable to hate evil in all its forms. Hannibal Lechter said it best and to paraphrase “…a fair and just society would have killed me long ago…”, I know I butchered it but it’s something along those lines
Please TC, the exact same can be said about the leftist liberal Jews… Oh and ben-Yamin also speaking from a martial arts background ( I studied and fought mixed fighting for many years, and even some WUshoo, in China), J is 100% right about your analogy. Martial arts philosophy revolves around balance, the punishment should match the crime, your intensity at the very least must match your opponents..
Town Crier,
“Right wing” in what sense? Not that we really need a pop rabbinate anyway, but I’ll take Shmuly over Daniel Lapin any time.
J: “Zionista finds ‘black/white oversimplifications’ in Boteach’s discussion on hating evil. On the contrary, I think Boteach specifically restricted himself to the worst examples of evil so as to avoid what would likely turn into an oversimplification if more gray-area examples were used.”
So, in J’s world, shades of gray lead to oversimplification. Serves me right for looking at a broken clock at the right time.
TTC,
Sorry, but I still don’t get it. I admit I’m not all that well versed in Shmuly’s work, but whenever I’ve caught his act on the screaming head shows, he’s usually up against that Donahue character from the Catholic League or yahoos from some outfit like the Family Values Coalition.
I don’t think its necessary to hate someone to oppose what they do, or even to stop them from doing it. If you care about someone you don’t want to see them do wrong. Even if I saw someone I didn’t know torturing someone else I didn’t know I would feel disgusted by it. Not just that I want it to stop, but that I’m dissappointed in the transgressor, I’m angry at them, I see in them unfulfilled potential (which then reflects upon humanity). I don’t want to see a fellow person doing wrong. It not only degrades the victim, but the transgressor, humanity, and me personally. I am of the same cloth as the two people here being used as examples. I don’t deserve to be shown a reflection of myself in them in that way. But my hatred is of the degradation, not the people involved. I see myself in them, and so know that they share a common humanity with me and are capable of better. Because I love humanity, myself, the victim, and the transgressor, I am obligated to put a stop to it. We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are told that even criminals of the worst kind must stand trial before execution, and that they must have scholars present to make sure that the proceedings are fair for the accused, even if they are clearly guilty. An example:
Chassidus: The Commandment to Love
“Question: We are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. How can I do this if my neighbor has wronged me?
Answer: You must understand these words rightly. Love your neighbor as something which you yourself are. For all souls are one. Each is a spark from the original soul, and this soul is inherent in all souls, just as your soul is inherent in all the parts of your body. It may come to pass that your hand will make a mistake and strike you. But would you then take a stick and chastise your hand because it lacked understanding, and so increase your pain? It is the same if your neighbor, who is of one soul with you, wrongs you because of his lack of understanding. If you punish him, you only hurt yourself.
Question: But if I see a man who is wicked before God, how can I love him?
Answer: Don’t you know that the primordial soul came out of the essence of God, and that every human soul is a part of God? And will you have no mercy on man, when you see that one of his holy sparks has been lost in a maze and is almost stifled?”
Isaac is on the money. So even by nice Yiddishe standards, ole Shmuly has lost the plot.. (along with J, Zionista and the rest of the rightwingin’ crew :p )
Rod Serling: “submitted for your approval….”
ben-yamin: “…Zionista and the rest of the rightwingin’ crew….”
Maybe I can pass for an agent provacateur….?
sorry zionista, i re-read your comments: was a mistake to include you with the “hate is okay if you love G-d” bunch. wups. but you’d make a superb double-agent! only i think they’d struggle with your vocabluary.. *chuckle*
Anyway i was reading Isaac’s brilliant argument and the simple arithmatic of it kinda hit me: G-d is love. Thus the practice of hate is clearly an opposition the Divine. End of discussion.
Poor Shmuly, all this time being the ‘Yiddishe Mother Teresa of Pop Culture’ has confused him a bit..
“Anyway i was reading Isaac’s brilliant argument and the simple arithmatic of it kinda hit me: G-d is love. Thus the practice of hate is clearly an opposition the Divine. End of discussion. ”
Glad we settled that. Thousands of years of debate, the theodicy issue, difficult real-world choices, thousands of books, thorny questions about the nature of G-d, all settled and done right here on Jewschool in 2005 in three lines on a message board. Without a single Jewish source, without any argument, just an assertion that sounds like a primitive version of Christianity. Well done. Now go back to snarking about other people’s not being able to understand someone’s vocabulary.
Anyone care to address my argument above regarding Sinat Chinam? (Why add “Chinam” if any form of Sinaah is prohibited?)
“vengeance is mine, saith the LORD.”
I wanted to address this, as it seems to be the sole anti-hate argument taken from Jewish sources (I don’t count the NY Times editorial page) and quoted correctly. However, the quote addresses vengeance, which means an action, while this discussion is about hatred, which is a feeling and/or an opinion, a way of viewing someone else (it doesn’t prescribe any specific action). Just because I say that it’s permissible, in fact, meritorious, to hate mass murderers, doesn’t by itself tell you which actions against them I support. Many other factors, including practical ones, are involved. I supported the war against Saddam, but would be against attacking the equally rotten Chinese government, for example.
As for vengeance, clearly the scripture refers to an act taken purely for vengeance’s sake, where justice would not be served. Otherwise, societies would not have the power to prosecute criminals, and governments would not have the power to deter aggression.
I also want to make clear that this discussion is about hating cold-blooded murderers, not lesser criminals.
“I wanted to address this, as it seems to be the sole anti-hate argument taken from Jewish sources (I don’t count the NY Times editorial page) and quoted correctly.”
Correction – I meant the sole anti-hate argument from Jewish sources presented here so far.
Hasidism isn’t a Jewish source?
I haven’t seen a source supporting the necessity of hate, let alone any reason why the statement that there isn’t enough hate in the world is valid. I agree that there is a place for judgement (not hatred), but only balanced by compassion. This point is shown in the Zohar: Genesis 1:2)
“The earth was (tohu va-vohu) chaos and void over the face of the abyss and the wind of God hovering over the waters.”
(commentary on this verse from Zohar 1:16a)
‘Was’, precisely: previously. Snow[Gevurah and Din, for they congeal and harden the water] in water[Hesed]. Through the potency of snow in water emerged slime[Shekhinah]. Blazing fire[Gevurah] struck it, refuse[primordial matter, the abode of evil, forms into tohu] came to be, and ‘tohu/chaos’ was produced –abode of slime, nest of refuse. ‘Va-vohu’, and void –sifting sifted from refuse, settling upon it [Bohu, form is separated and joined with matter].
‘Hoshekh/darkness’ –mystery of blazing fire[elemental fire is called darkness because it was said to be transparent rather than luminous, both symbolize Gevurah]. That darkness covers ‘tohu,’ over the refuse, and thereby it is empowered[tohu, matter is shaped and empowered by formative Gevurah].
‘Ve-ruach Elohim,’ and a wind of God –Ruach Qudsha/Holy Spirit[Tiferet] emerging from the living God[Binah], ‘hovering over the face of the waters.’ Once this ‘wind’ blew, one film clarified from that refuse, like filthy froth flying off, clarified, refined again and again, till that filth is left lacking any filth at all[after the fire of Gevurah, the wind of Tiferet refines the refuse to separate out bohu, form]. So was ‘tohu’ clarified and refined, from it emerging ‘a great, mighty wind, splitting mountains and shattering rocks (1 Kings 19:11),’ the one seen by Eliyahu. ‘Bohu’ was clarified and refined, from it emerging ‘an earthquake,’ as it is written: “After the wind –an earthquake (ibid.). ‘Darkness’ clarified, embracing fire within its mystery, as it is written: ‘After the earthquake –fire (ibid.,12).’ ‘Wind’ clarified, and embraced in its mystery was ‘the sound of sheer silence (ibid.).'[tohu, bohu, darkness and wind are formed]
‘Tohu’ –a colorless, formless realm, not embraced by the mystery of form. Now within form –as one contemplates it, no form at all. Everything has a garmet in which to be clothed, except for this: though appearing upon it, it does not exist at all, never did.
‘Bohu’ –this has shape and form: stones sunk within the shell of ‘tohu,’ emerging from the shell in which they are sunk, conveying benefit to the world[bohu was concealed within tohu, having only the potential to form. Once separated from tohu, bohu clothes matter, enabling the existence of the world, serving as a pathway for transmission from the sephirot above to the world below]. Through the form of a garmet they convey benefit from above to below, ascending from below to above. So they are hollow and moist[hollow and moist signifies bohu’s role in the emanation], suspended in the air –sometimes suspended in the air, sometimes concealed on a cloudy day, generating water from the abyss(tehom) to nourish ‘tohu,'[tehom/abyss is equated with tohu/chaos, and human sin is understood to evoke harsh judgement, blocking the flow of emanation, causing bohu to slip back into tohu, strengthening the demonic. A cloudy day indicates this blockage, Matt cites Babylonian Talmud Ta’anit 8b: ‘a day of rain is as harsh as a day of judgement.’] for then frivolity and folly prevail as ‘tohu’ spreads through the world.
note: translation and notes from Daniel C. Matt’s edition of the Zohar.
I’ve got more from Chassidic sources that explicitly addresses this issue. But since you’ve already rejected that…
Isaac-
I mentioned Sam’s comment as the only argument presented from Jewish sources because you didn’t say where the piece you quoted in your earlier post came from (is it your own? by someone contemporary? a classic Chasidic source?)
Now that I have some time, I’d like to take your posts point by point.
“I don’t think its necessary to hate someone to oppose what they do, or even to stop them from doing it.”
Hard to say. In the case of extreme evil (the case we’re discussing here) it often is necessary to hate (for example, in fighting wars against the wrongdoers). Even where it’s not strictly necessary, banning hatred would lead many people to not pursue the wrongdoers with the requisite intensity. (If you could go back in time to December 8, 1941, would you try to persuade the American people not to hate the Japanese? If you could and did, are you sure that you and I would be here?)
“If you care about someone you don’t want to see them do wrong. Even if I saw someone I didn’t know torturing someone else I didn’t know I would feel disgusted by it. Not just that I want it to stop, but that I’m dissappointed in the transgressor, I’m angry at them, I see in them unfulfilled potential (which then reflects upon humanity). I don’t want to see a fellow person doing wrong. It not only degrades the victim, but the transgressor, humanity, and me personally. I am of the same cloth as the two people here being used as examples. I don’t deserve to be shown a reflection of myself in them in that way. ”
I agree with all that. And what’s this about being angry? We turn you to the dark side yet…
“But my hatred is of the degradation, not the people involved.”
For most crimes, that’s a fine position to take. But I would argue that when a person descends into extreme cruelty, it defines that person. What good traits they may have, which in the case of lesser crimes could be invoked to counterbalance the bad aspects, become overwhelmed and irrelevant in the face of the evils committed.
“We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves.”
Clearly a concept with numerous exceptions, for example, “those who are merciful to the cruel end up being cruel to the merciful”.
“We are told that even criminals of the worst kind must stand trial before execution, and that they must have scholars present to make sure that the proceedings are fair for the accused, even if they are clearly guilty. ”
Not relevant to this discussion. Just because a guilty criminal is granted the right to a fair trial doesn’t mean we can’t hate him.
“”Question: We are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. How can I do this if my neighbor has wronged me?
Answer: You must understand these words rightly. Love your neighbor as something which you yourself are. For all souls are one. Each is a spark from the original soul, and this soul is inherent in all souls, just as your soul is inherent in all the parts of your body. It may come to pass that your hand will make a mistake and strike you. But would you then take a stick and chastise your hand because it lacked understanding, and so increase your pain? It is the same if your neighbor, who is of one soul with you, wrongs you because of his lack of understanding. If you punish him, you only hurt yourself. ”
Clearly this deals with the case of someone who “wronged me”. “Me” meaning that the issue dealt with here is how should I treat someone I have personal animosity toward (and the answer is, be more objective, see the person from a G-d’s eye view rather than as your antagonist). The quoted paragraph does NOT deal with extreme evil, because if it did, it would be saying that we (our courts) cannot punish criminals, which I doubt you would agree with.
“Question: But if I see a man who is wicked before God, how can I love him?
Answer: Don’t you know that the primordial soul came out of the essence of God, and that every human soul is a part of God? And will you have no mercy on man, when you see that one of his holy sparks has been lost in a maze and is almost stifled?”
No prohibition of hatred here, just a call for mercy. But, as in the quote above about mercy to the cruel, which comes from the Talmud, sometimes mercy is uncalled for. And Chassidic sources must be interpreted in light of, at a minimum, Rabbinic (Mishna, Gemara) texts.
“I haven’t seen a source supporting the necessity of hate, let alone any reason why the statement that there isn’t enough hate in the world is valid.”
There may be such sources; I don’t recall. But it’s not required that there be a direct source; an argument can be inferred indirectly (still waiting for an answer regarding my Sinat Chinam argument). Unless, of course, you have sources that show otherwise. As for “not enough hate in the world”, I took that as kind of a zinger or slogan, not to be taken literally. (I would say the amount of hate in the world is OK, but needs to be better distributed.)
“I agree that there is a place for judgement (not hatred), but only balanced by compassion. ”
Fine. How about viewing hatred of mass murderers as a form of compassion for their past and potential victims?
I don’t see what the Zohar quote adds to any of this.
“I’ve got more from Chassidic sources that explicitly addresses this issue. ”
Please post them.
“But since you’ve already rejected that…”
No, I just don’t think what you’ve quoted so far shows what you say it does. As for other Chassidic sources, while of course many of these sources are respected, they aren’t necessarily reflective of mainstream Orthodox or Jewish thought, or even of Chassidic thought as a whole. If such a source backs you up, you’ll have reached the point where I can’t say your view is contrary to Judaism, but you would still have a long way to go if you want to say that your view is that of generally accepted Jewish thought.
And just think, this all started with Batman.
Your refutations of my arguements make no sense and your arguements are non-existent. I disagree with nearly everything you’ve said and will no longer waste my time on this.
“Your refutations of my arguements make no sense and your arguements are non-existent. I disagree with nearly everything you’ve said and will no longer waste my time on this.”
Then I guess we’ll leave it up to whoever’s reading this to decide whether my refutations are so senseless and my arguments so nonexistent that it’s not worth actally demonstrating why, or whether you’ve got nothing to answer and are sulking in your corner.
“Moshe Leib of Sasov of the School of Rabbi Schmelke of Nikolsburg”
Is that your original quote, or a new source? And which sefer is it in?
J quoting the Big Guy: “Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord”.
right J, now kindly re-read that quote. Vengeance IS G-d’s – NOT YOURS. it’s not for you nor the courts to hate. only to uphold justice. hate isn’t required. this simplistic confusion sets the tone for the rest of your right-wing arguments: a biased interpretation*.
In all your examinations of the passages brought forth originally by Isaac, easily one of the most learned members of our forum, your bias constructs meanings that support your own beliefs. that’s okay i figure because i’ve always believed the Torah reflects the individual’s emotions (Hebrew being the ambiguous language that it is).
now, i’m not going to dredge up more Talmudic or otherwise rationales for you to twist but suggest you rather just consider the above argument. And ask yourself why you hate? does it make you feel more powerful? or justified maybe?
*Note i didn’t say ‘misinterpertation’ because it’s your right to believe what you please without someone denouncing you as being wrong.
Just ain’t my way, bro.
ben-yamin:
“J quoting the Big Guy: “Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord”. ”
Actually, it was J quoting Sam quoting the big guy. And as I explained above:
“However, the quote addresses vengeance, which means an action, while this discussion is about hatred, which is a feeling and/or an opinion, a way of viewing someone else (it doesn’t prescribe any specific action). Just because I say that it’s permissible, in fact, meritorious, to hate mass murderers, doesn’t by itself tell you which actions against them I support. Many other factors, including practical ones, are involved. I supported the war against Saddam, but would be against attacking the equally rotten Chinese government, for example.
As for vengeance, clearly the scripture refers to an act taken purely for vengeance’s sake, where justice would not be served. Otherwise, societies would not have the power to prosecute criminals, and governments would not have the power to deter aggression. ”
Why don’t you try to address that argument?
“this simplistic confusion sets the tone for the rest of your right-wing arguments: a biased interpretation*. ”
Here we go again. All you’redoing is asserting that I (or my arguments) are simplistic, confused and biased. You don’t bother to show HOW. I’ve presented several refutations of the arguments of others and have made some of my own. Why don’t you do the same?
“In all your examinations of the passages brought forth originally by Isaac, easily one of the most learned members of our forum, your bias constructs meanings that support your own beliefs.”
Another assertion. But nothing telling us how or why anything I said shows bias. Not even an attempt to answer my arguments.
“now, i’m not going to dredge up more Talmudic or otherwise rationales for you to twist …”
Yeah, that’s the reason you won’t bring up more arguments or sources. Not because you don’t have any, oh no.
“…but suggest you rather just consider the above argument.”
What argument?
“And ask yourself why you hate? does it make you feel more powerful? or justified maybe? ”
I hate because I have a sense of how things ought to be, and this vision is horribly violated by the behavior of mass murderers. Also because I feel compassion for the victims.
Now, why don’t YOU hate? Let’s cut through the BS. I’d bet if someone harmed you even a fraction of the way murderers have harmed others and their loved ones, you’d hate that someone. You love to preach to others not to hate, because it makes you feel superior. But in the end, all it amounts to is that you have an easy time ignoring the pain of others. What you’re saying is that OTHERS shouldn’t hate, and you say that because, after all, it’s not your problem.
(That’s the problem when you try to psychoanalyze your opponents. I avoided this line of thought up to now, but if you want to dismiss me in such a cheap manner…)
“*Note i didn’t say ‘misinterpertation’ because it’s your right to believe what you please without someone denouncing you as being wrong. ”
A novel new ‘right’: the right not to be denounced.
Another product of our fine educational system: able to throw around the words “simplistic”, “constructs meanings”, and “rationales”, but no concept whatsoever on what an argument is or why they should be made. Demand a refund.
Dear J,
1. Take a chill pill. Hug a tree. Whatever. But calm down. Your patronising ‘i’m-smarter-than-thou’ act is old.
2. arguments HAVE been presented. feel free to scroll upwards and anywhere authored by Isaac, Zionista, Mason or myself oughta clear that up. Literacy and an open-mind required.
3. “i didn’t have time to write a short letter, so i wrote you a long one [sic]”. simple, concise arguments knock the crap outa convoluted and verbose ones.
4. ‘scuse the psychoanalysis. it was a last resort, i admit. i got curious why you were so passionately pro-hate. and you kinda answered it (see point 1, amigo). but since we’re talking about me, let’s clear up a dynamic: i’m not from the US and my country’s crime rate is in the world’s top 3. and i’ve had my fair share of violence. and yeah, it steamed my blood and though i wanted to burn the piece of shit who raped my ex-girlfriend. but you know what? hating him didn’t help. and hating getting beat up didn’t help either. nor did beating up a would-be attacker. it didn’t make me feel better. it didn’t bring back the Saturday night i coulda been relaxing with my friends. it was adolescent and immature, kinda like.. what’s his name again? Oh yeah, President Bush (Junior and Senior).
5. a little re-run of my argument: love isn’t the soft cuddly turn-the-cheek stuff you make it out to be. love’s harsh: ever been in it? find it easy and sugar-coated? bingo). Love means putting the rapist away but not expending any unnecessary energy. hate distorts actions and more often than not i’ve seen it distort the punishment. plus, trying to rehab a rapist probably ISN’T in your mandate of hate.
5. Yitzchak Rabin. While i lived in Israel for roughly 10 years, the man was considered a hawk. an old-school militarist capable of only solving terrorism with tanks. Not to mention his legendary combat strategies in the Yom Kippur War. So why, my terribly learned and highly intellectual J, did this highly combative former IDF General go all soft and peacnick-like? Because hate and the society-condoned violence it spawns doesn’t solve the problem.
A balanced action that doesn’t underestimate your enemy but doesn’t demean them either, not beyond their own crime anyway, is best. It’s easier to get angry and hate, but you effect lasting peace and balance with a well-considered action based on the welfare of all – including the slayer.
hate creates enemies; love bridges divides. too simplisitic for you?
i’m not surprised.
“Your patronising ‘i’m-smarter-than-thou’ act is old. ”
“Literacy and an open-mind required. ”
“this simplistic confusion sets the tone for the rest of your right-wing arguments: a biased interpretation*. ”
“now, i’m not going to dredge up more Talmudic or otherwise rationales for you to twist ”
MY smarter than thou act is old, but yours….
Still a little short on substance, aren’t you? Took the time out to write the fairly lengthy above post, and still none of those sources you said you had. Oh well…
“arguments HAVE been presented. feel free to scroll upwards and anywhere authored by Isaac, Zionista, Mason or myself oughta clear that up.”
YOU presented nothing. I answered the arguments of the others. You never responded to either my arguments or my responses to others’ arguments. Why bother? In some circles, “Literacy and an open-mind required” is considered more clever than actually defending your opinions.
As for your expertise in being victimized by violence (remember this discussion concerns hatred for murderers) , “i’m not from the US and my country’s crime rate is in the world’s top 3. ” seems pretty week. Sorry about your ex-girlfriend incident, but to be relevant here she wouldv’e had to have been your wife or mother.
“and yeah, it steamed my blood and though i wanted to burn the piece of shit who raped my ex-girlfriend. ”
Wow. Imagine what you would have wanted to do if you’d hated him as well.
“it didn’t make me feel better.”
So typical that you’d assume the point of hating to be to make the hater feel better. Me me me.
“and hating getting beat up didn’t help either.”
Very noble and courageous of you.
“a little re-run of my argument: love isn’t the soft cuddly turn-the-cheek stuff you make it out to be. love’s harsh: ever been in it?”
OK, my hatred is a form of “harsh love”. How’s that.
“hate distorts actions and more often than not i’ve seen it distort the punishment. ”
Finally, an actual point. Yes, I agree that hatred can have these negative effects. It must be controlled. But on the other hand, lack of hatred often leads to indifference and not taking action that ought to be taken.
“plus, trying to rehab a rapist probably ISN’T in your mandate of hate. ”
So 1970’s. Where have you been? But in any case, my concern is with mass murderers. No, I don’t care to rehab those.
” So why, my terribly learned and highly intellectual J, did this highly combative former IDF General go all soft and peacnick-like? Because hate and the society-condoned violence it spawns doesn’t solve the problem. ”
I can see why you don’t like to make arguments. You’re not very good at it. First, why does anything one person did show that I’m wrong about hate? Second, who says Rabin didn’t hate? Possibly he continued to hate, but felt that his later actions would be beneficial to his people, so he made the moves he did. How do you know what his state of mind was? Third, in general, what does hate – an emotion or opinion of another – have to do with policy moves? When Hitler and Stalin made their pact, does that mean they stopped hating each other? Fourth, after we’ve all seen where Oslo led, where do you come off preaching to us about what solves the problem?
“Because hate and the society-condoned violence it spawns doesn’t solve the problem.”
Tell that to a World War II vet. Preferably an armed one.
“hate creates enemies; love bridges divides. too simplisitic for you?”
Not at all. I propose that we send you on behalf of the Jewish people to Hamas and neo-Nazi enclaves to give them some of your love. Have a nice trip.
And if only those European Jews had loved the Germans more…
How about “Justified hate, properly acted upon, deters evil; unjustified love to the evil enables them to continue their oppressive ways”?
This has stopped being a debate. Now it’s just a trade of blows. J, relax man. One of the nice things about ‘debate’ is that you argue ideas, not attack people – though it is a common tactic when losing.
try to keep your salvos on the topic, not the man.
also, what doesn’t appear a good argument to you is your perception. maybe you’re not looking hard enough. maybe you don’t want to. that’s fine.
one doesn’t to copy passages from Judaic or philosophical sources to be credible. this isn’t a thesis or a Yeshiva: it’s an opinion forum. so skip the elitism, yeah?
(let me guess: you’re going to cut-and-paste choice excerpts from my entry, dissect them and make yourself feel smarter. amazing.)
Anyway. Nothing to try convince you of really. Namely, because it appears you’re determined not to ‘get it’. Which is a shame because you sound potentially quite intelligent. And we could use minds like yours on the Light Side of the Force.. *chuckle*
Go well.
Content-free, yet again. And entirely cliches, to boot.
“One of the nice things about ‘debate’ is that you argue ideas, not attack people – though it is a common tactic when losing. ”
I would ask anyone still reading this to scroll back and see where the ideas stopped and the attacks began.
“also, what doesn’t appear a good argument to you is your perception.”
Ah, the relativism dodge. If it’s all perceptions, why should anyone ever debate anything? If there is a true right and wrong, why say its my perception rather than making a case?
“one doesn’t to copy passages from Judaic or philosophical sources to be credible. ”
There’s a new one. Just above you praised Isaac for being “easily one of the most learned members of our forum” and you yourself said you had additional sources to offer (though, of course, you never told us what they were). Now, suddenly, there’s no need for sources. Why is that?
“this isn’t a thesis or a Yeshiva: it’s an opinion forum.”
I hadn’t realized that opinions require no reason or evidence. Certainly not your own position until now.
“so skip the elitism, yeah?”
A little late in the game for you to be taking that position. What you really want is to live in a world where you can assert your knowledge against those who know less than you, but can use the “elitist” argument against those who know more than you. Maybe this works if you are the center of the universe. Bit the odds ain’t good.
“Namely, because it appears you’re determined not to ‘get it’. ”
If you could actually back up your opinions, you might be able to persuade more people to “get it”. In the meantime, you’ve shown nothing but a string of cliches and assertions.
I’m no fan of Boteach, but he nailed that one.
I agree with J. Rabbi Boteach makes a solid point about our collective desire for black/white oversimplifications.
However, he employs a weird example: “We are prepared to love monsters. We tolerate their evil. We think guys like Saddam Hussein ought to remain in power.” Really? I don’t know of anyone who believed Saddam Hussein deserved to remain in power — no one beyond the anti-sanctions neo-Stalinists of Internatioal ANSWER, anyway.
As the Duelfer Report stated, international sanctions were working to weaken the Baathist regime. And the mission of the US and our allies in Afghanistan was (and remains) hardly accomplished enough to responsibly divert the energy and resources from what we had already commited, while casually dismissing the advice of our allied civil democracies concerning the issue.
But, for the sake of argument, if it’s our inability to honestly discriminate between good and evil that would otherwise have allowed us to tolerate and sustain the Baathist regime, then what is it that allows us to tolerate and sustain the human rights nightmare regimes of Uzbekistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.? In his haste to illustrate a valuable lesson on the evil of willful ingorance, I’m afraid that Rabbi Shmuly has lost his balance and fallen over into the “dark side” himself. As Dirty Harry once said, “A man’s gotta know his limitations.”
I think boteach is completely wrong when he says there’s not enough hate in the world and that love is misdirected on undeserving criminals. I would judge his statements as a gross misrepresentation of Judaism. Love is needed more for those who do wrong. If we truly have their best interests at heart, if we really want to help someone we don’t send them weapons to kill their own people, but make them stop, make them better. They still have a soul that originated with God, that may presently be erring but can at any moment make teshuvah. Jesus’s message didn’t break with Judaism, Christianity broke with Judaism when it took his message and made a personality cult around him and elevated him to deity status.
Oy gevalt.
So let’s see here: Rabbi Boteach starts off saying Batman’s Ninja mentors hated criminals too much to the point of injustice, convinces me how wrong those puritanical ninjas got – and then goes on to argue FOR the twisted mentors! Hellooo?? Earth to Shmuly, Earth to Shmuly, come in Rabbi..
And the worst part: it was his weakest argument yet (believe it or not, i’m a fan of the guy).
We should HATE people and based on that hate take action? Hate balances love and creates justice? Now, what makes ole Rabbi here think LOVE is a fuzzy emotion that let’s murderers go about their murderin’? Love can be ruthless, boobie. And sometimes the best examples of love ARE ruthlessness.
Like breaking-up with a girlfriend. So you don’t make each other happy, nu.. Let her meet a guy a who does. Let you meet a girl who makes you happy. That’s love, not “i hate you, get outta my life!” Same just action, different attitiude.
Coming back to Batman, and bouncing off the ninja-theme: in martial arts they always taught us to never hate an opponent. Don’t judge (coz you ain’t so special), don’t swear, don’t get mad. We even respected our competiton-opponents. And then, with a smile on our face, we gave them the ass-whoppin’ of the century (it was full-contact crazy mofo kung fu)..
*good times..*
The point is: you can show Saddam Hussein plenty of love by overthrowing him. You’re helping his people avoid his tyranny. You’re being a man of principle and integrity by protecting innocents. That’s love, albeit kinda stern. And if G-d IS love, then you’re professing that very mandate. Oh and you’re being a responsible member of the world’s community and stuff.
As for murderer dude. It ain’t our job to hate anyone. You can protect your family and support your community’s judgement on a matter without gettin’ busy hating. Such a waste of energy. Though i think 6 years is too lenient. I don’t hate him, but it’s a poor example to set to society.
Rabbi Boteach would do well to read some books on Zen or Taoist philosophy. Them martial arts masters were no push-overs but they certainly didn’t bother with hate. Their love was built of principles and compassion. Needless to say, you didn’t mess about with their principles..
all he nailed was envisioning a world where people like him would never have had the oppurtunity to achieve and become what he has.
ungreatful self righteous turd, he is.
So much comment, so little time.
Zionista finds “black/white oversimplifications” in Boteach’s discussion on hating evil. On the contrary, I think Boteach specifically restricted himself to the worst examples of evil so as to avoid what would likely turn into an oversimplification if more gray-area examples were used. And the “if Iraq, why not Sudan” argument? Please. If I saw two people being murdered, one by a 250 pound rifle-toting thug, and another by an unarmed 95 pounder, does it follow that if I’m unwilling to risk fighting the former that I have to walk away from the latter?
Isaac thinks Boteach misrepresents Judaism. Does he? Why add the second word to “Sinat Chinam”, then? Classic Jewish sources are loaded with expressions of hate toward (the very worst) evildoers. (And recall that the Jews were criticized for singing Az Yashir following the drowning of the Egyptians on the grounds that many relatively innocent people drowned, not because hatred is impermissible.) Regarding teshuva, this is not enough for murderers.
Funny, ben-yamin is a fan of Boteach, but doesn’t like the article; I can’t stand Boteach, but did like the article. Go figure.
Anyway, first: Boteach made clear that in the movie, the mentors went too far (I understand they were affiliated with Ras al Ghul, and if you wasted as much of your childhood as I did, you’d know off the bat (ouch) that that can’t be any good.
In the martial arts, your opponent is typically that – an opponent. Not an enemy, much less a mass murderer. I don’t see the analogy. Regarding overthrowing Saddam Hussein with a kind of tough love, in theory, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but I don’t think this notion takes into account the real world, where soldiers have to get motivated to do the dangerous and painful work of carrying out the mission of love. (In any case, I would argue that hating evil is an expression of love for those harmed or threatened by that evil.)
Maybe Town Crier could elaborate on his statement. I don’t know what he means.
It means I like the movie and I don’t like Boteach. He is typical of all right wing jews who have achieved something in this world, they forget how they got be that way in the first place, and spit on the world that enabled them to rise to those achievements. We’re talking about a man rose to fame being the anamoly clergy man in a beard and hat talking about sex and then hanging out with wacko jacko. Boteach in his writing clearly has a one sided political agenda which is a typical of the self righteous atitude adapted by selfishly egotistical GOP Jews who think they are morally superior – the very tolerance and compassion which he spits on is the same exact aspect of humanity that enabeled a world for us in which we have been able to achieve.
I wonder what Boteach would have written about compassion nd immoral criminals had he been reviewing movies on jewish blogs when Schindler’s List was released.
I too can’t stand the man, but he finally made some sense… It’s perfectly acceptable to hate evil in all its forms. Hannibal Lechter said it best and to paraphrase “…a fair and just society would have killed me long ago…”, I know I butchered it but it’s something along those lines
Please TC, the exact same can be said about the leftist liberal Jews… Oh and ben-Yamin also speaking from a martial arts background ( I studied and fought mixed fighting for many years, and even some WUshoo, in China), J is 100% right about your analogy. Martial arts philosophy revolves around balance, the punishment should match the crime, your intensity at the very least must match your opponents..
Town Crier,
“Right wing” in what sense? Not that we really need a pop rabbinate anyway, but I’ll take Shmuly over Daniel Lapin any time.
J: “Zionista finds ‘black/white oversimplifications’ in Boteach’s discussion on hating evil. On the contrary, I think Boteach specifically restricted himself to the worst examples of evil so as to avoid what would likely turn into an oversimplification if more gray-area examples were used.”
So, in J’s world, shades of gray lead to oversimplification. Serves me right for looking at a broken clock at the right time.
right wing american politics
sorry for not being clear
vengeance is mine, saith the LORD.
TTC,
Sorry, but I still don’t get it. I admit I’m not all that well versed in Shmuly’s work, but whenever I’ve caught his act on the screaming head shows, he’s usually up against that Donahue character from the Catholic League or yahoos from some outfit like the Family Values Coalition.
I don’t think its necessary to hate someone to oppose what they do, or even to stop them from doing it. If you care about someone you don’t want to see them do wrong. Even if I saw someone I didn’t know torturing someone else I didn’t know I would feel disgusted by it. Not just that I want it to stop, but that I’m dissappointed in the transgressor, I’m angry at them, I see in them unfulfilled potential (which then reflects upon humanity). I don’t want to see a fellow person doing wrong. It not only degrades the victim, but the transgressor, humanity, and me personally. I am of the same cloth as the two people here being used as examples. I don’t deserve to be shown a reflection of myself in them in that way. But my hatred is of the degradation, not the people involved. I see myself in them, and so know that they share a common humanity with me and are capable of better. Because I love humanity, myself, the victim, and the transgressor, I am obligated to put a stop to it. We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are told that even criminals of the worst kind must stand trial before execution, and that they must have scholars present to make sure that the proceedings are fair for the accused, even if they are clearly guilty. An example:
Chassidus: The Commandment to Love
“Question: We are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. How can I do this if my neighbor has wronged me?
Answer: You must understand these words rightly. Love your neighbor as something which you yourself are. For all souls are one. Each is a spark from the original soul, and this soul is inherent in all souls, just as your soul is inherent in all the parts of your body. It may come to pass that your hand will make a mistake and strike you. But would you then take a stick and chastise your hand because it lacked understanding, and so increase your pain? It is the same if your neighbor, who is of one soul with you, wrongs you because of his lack of understanding. If you punish him, you only hurt yourself.
Question: But if I see a man who is wicked before God, how can I love him?
Answer: Don’t you know that the primordial soul came out of the essence of God, and that every human soul is a part of God? And will you have no mercy on man, when you see that one of his holy sparks has been lost in a maze and is almost stifled?”
Isaac is on the money. So even by nice Yiddishe standards, ole Shmuly has lost the plot.. (along with J, Zionista and the rest of the rightwingin’ crew :p )
Rod Serling: “submitted for your approval….”
ben-yamin: “…Zionista and the rest of the rightwingin’ crew….”
Maybe I can pass for an agent provacateur….?
sorry zionista, i re-read your comments: was a mistake to include you with the “hate is okay if you love G-d” bunch. wups. but you’d make a superb double-agent! only i think they’d struggle with your vocabluary.. *chuckle*
Anyway i was reading Isaac’s brilliant argument and the simple arithmatic of it kinda hit me: G-d is love. Thus the practice of hate is clearly an opposition the Divine. End of discussion.
Poor Shmuly, all this time being the ‘Yiddishe Mother Teresa of Pop Culture’ has confused him a bit..
“Anyway i was reading Isaac’s brilliant argument and the simple arithmatic of it kinda hit me: G-d is love. Thus the practice of hate is clearly an opposition the Divine. End of discussion. ”
Glad we settled that. Thousands of years of debate, the theodicy issue, difficult real-world choices, thousands of books, thorny questions about the nature of G-d, all settled and done right here on Jewschool in 2005 in three lines on a message board. Without a single Jewish source, without any argument, just an assertion that sounds like a primitive version of Christianity. Well done. Now go back to snarking about other people’s not being able to understand someone’s vocabulary.
Anyone care to address my argument above regarding Sinat Chinam? (Why add “Chinam” if any form of Sinaah is prohibited?)
“vengeance is mine, saith the LORD.”
I wanted to address this, as it seems to be the sole anti-hate argument taken from Jewish sources (I don’t count the NY Times editorial page) and quoted correctly. However, the quote addresses vengeance, which means an action, while this discussion is about hatred, which is a feeling and/or an opinion, a way of viewing someone else (it doesn’t prescribe any specific action). Just because I say that it’s permissible, in fact, meritorious, to hate mass murderers, doesn’t by itself tell you which actions against them I support. Many other factors, including practical ones, are involved. I supported the war against Saddam, but would be against attacking the equally rotten Chinese government, for example.
As for vengeance, clearly the scripture refers to an act taken purely for vengeance’s sake, where justice would not be served. Otherwise, societies would not have the power to prosecute criminals, and governments would not have the power to deter aggression.
I also want to make clear that this discussion is about hating cold-blooded murderers, not lesser criminals.
“I wanted to address this, as it seems to be the sole anti-hate argument taken from Jewish sources (I don’t count the NY Times editorial page) and quoted correctly.”
Correction – I meant the sole anti-hate argument from Jewish sources presented here so far.
Hasidism isn’t a Jewish source?
I haven’t seen a source supporting the necessity of hate, let alone any reason why the statement that there isn’t enough hate in the world is valid. I agree that there is a place for judgement (not hatred), but only balanced by compassion. This point is shown in the Zohar:
Genesis 1:2)
“The earth was (tohu va-vohu) chaos and void over the face of the abyss and the wind of God hovering over the waters.”
(commentary on this verse from Zohar 1:16a)
‘Was’, precisely: previously. Snow[Gevurah and Din, for they congeal and harden the water] in water[Hesed]. Through the potency of snow in water emerged slime[Shekhinah]. Blazing fire[Gevurah] struck it, refuse[primordial matter, the abode of evil, forms into tohu] came to be, and ‘tohu/chaos’ was produced –abode of slime, nest of refuse. ‘Va-vohu’, and void –sifting sifted from refuse, settling upon it [Bohu, form is separated and joined with matter].
‘Hoshekh/darkness’ –mystery of blazing fire[elemental fire is called darkness because it was said to be transparent rather than luminous, both symbolize Gevurah]. That darkness covers ‘tohu,’ over the refuse, and thereby it is empowered[tohu, matter is shaped and empowered by formative Gevurah].
‘Ve-ruach Elohim,’ and a wind of God –Ruach Qudsha/Holy Spirit[Tiferet] emerging from the living God[Binah], ‘hovering over the face of the waters.’ Once this ‘wind’ blew, one film clarified from that refuse, like filthy froth flying off, clarified, refined again and again, till that filth is left lacking any filth at all[after the fire of Gevurah, the wind of Tiferet refines the refuse to separate out bohu, form]. So was ‘tohu’ clarified and refined, from it emerging ‘a great, mighty wind, splitting mountains and shattering rocks (1 Kings 19:11),’ the one seen by Eliyahu. ‘Bohu’ was clarified and refined, from it emerging ‘an earthquake,’ as it is written: “After the wind –an earthquake (ibid.). ‘Darkness’ clarified, embracing fire within its mystery, as it is written: ‘After the earthquake –fire (ibid.,12).’ ‘Wind’ clarified, and embraced in its mystery was ‘the sound of sheer silence (ibid.).'[tohu, bohu, darkness and wind are formed]
‘Tohu’ –a colorless, formless realm, not embraced by the mystery of form. Now within form –as one contemplates it, no form at all. Everything has a garmet in which to be clothed, except for this: though appearing upon it, it does not exist at all, never did.
‘Bohu’ –this has shape and form: stones sunk within the shell of ‘tohu,’ emerging from the shell in which they are sunk, conveying benefit to the world[bohu was concealed within tohu, having only the potential to form. Once separated from tohu, bohu clothes matter, enabling the existence of the world, serving as a pathway for transmission from the sephirot above to the world below]. Through the form of a garmet they convey benefit from above to below, ascending from below to above. So they are hollow and moist[hollow and moist signifies bohu’s role in the emanation], suspended in the air –sometimes suspended in the air, sometimes concealed on a cloudy day, generating water from the abyss(tehom) to nourish ‘tohu,'[tehom/abyss is equated with tohu/chaos, and human sin is understood to evoke harsh judgement, blocking the flow of emanation, causing bohu to slip back into tohu, strengthening the demonic. A cloudy day indicates this blockage, Matt cites Babylonian Talmud Ta’anit 8b: ‘a day of rain is as harsh as a day of judgement.’] for then frivolity and folly prevail as ‘tohu’ spreads through the world.
note: translation and notes from Daniel C. Matt’s edition of the Zohar.
I’ve got more from Chassidic sources that explicitly addresses this issue. But since you’ve already rejected that…
Isaac-
I mentioned Sam’s comment as the only argument presented from Jewish sources because you didn’t say where the piece you quoted in your earlier post came from (is it your own? by someone contemporary? a classic Chasidic source?)
Now that I have some time, I’d like to take your posts point by point.
“I don’t think its necessary to hate someone to oppose what they do, or even to stop them from doing it.”
Hard to say. In the case of extreme evil (the case we’re discussing here) it often is necessary to hate (for example, in fighting wars against the wrongdoers). Even where it’s not strictly necessary, banning hatred would lead many people to not pursue the wrongdoers with the requisite intensity. (If you could go back in time to December 8, 1941, would you try to persuade the American people not to hate the Japanese? If you could and did, are you sure that you and I would be here?)
“If you care about someone you don’t want to see them do wrong. Even if I saw someone I didn’t know torturing someone else I didn’t know I would feel disgusted by it. Not just that I want it to stop, but that I’m dissappointed in the transgressor, I’m angry at them, I see in them unfulfilled potential (which then reflects upon humanity). I don’t want to see a fellow person doing wrong. It not only degrades the victim, but the transgressor, humanity, and me personally. I am of the same cloth as the two people here being used as examples. I don’t deserve to be shown a reflection of myself in them in that way. ”
I agree with all that. And what’s this about being angry? We turn you to the dark side yet…
“But my hatred is of the degradation, not the people involved.”
For most crimes, that’s a fine position to take. But I would argue that when a person descends into extreme cruelty, it defines that person. What good traits they may have, which in the case of lesser crimes could be invoked to counterbalance the bad aspects, become overwhelmed and irrelevant in the face of the evils committed.
“We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves.”
Clearly a concept with numerous exceptions, for example, “those who are merciful to the cruel end up being cruel to the merciful”.
“We are told that even criminals of the worst kind must stand trial before execution, and that they must have scholars present to make sure that the proceedings are fair for the accused, even if they are clearly guilty. ”
Not relevant to this discussion. Just because a guilty criminal is granted the right to a fair trial doesn’t mean we can’t hate him.
“”Question: We are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. How can I do this if my neighbor has wronged me?
Answer: You must understand these words rightly. Love your neighbor as something which you yourself are. For all souls are one. Each is a spark from the original soul, and this soul is inherent in all souls, just as your soul is inherent in all the parts of your body. It may come to pass that your hand will make a mistake and strike you. But would you then take a stick and chastise your hand because it lacked understanding, and so increase your pain? It is the same if your neighbor, who is of one soul with you, wrongs you because of his lack of understanding. If you punish him, you only hurt yourself. ”
Clearly this deals with the case of someone who “wronged me”. “Me” meaning that the issue dealt with here is how should I treat someone I have personal animosity toward (and the answer is, be more objective, see the person from a G-d’s eye view rather than as your antagonist). The quoted paragraph does NOT deal with extreme evil, because if it did, it would be saying that we (our courts) cannot punish criminals, which I doubt you would agree with.
“Question: But if I see a man who is wicked before God, how can I love him?
Answer: Don’t you know that the primordial soul came out of the essence of God, and that every human soul is a part of God? And will you have no mercy on man, when you see that one of his holy sparks has been lost in a maze and is almost stifled?”
No prohibition of hatred here, just a call for mercy. But, as in the quote above about mercy to the cruel, which comes from the Talmud, sometimes mercy is uncalled for. And Chassidic sources must be interpreted in light of, at a minimum, Rabbinic (Mishna, Gemara) texts.
“I haven’t seen a source supporting the necessity of hate, let alone any reason why the statement that there isn’t enough hate in the world is valid.”
There may be such sources; I don’t recall. But it’s not required that there be a direct source; an argument can be inferred indirectly (still waiting for an answer regarding my Sinat Chinam argument). Unless, of course, you have sources that show otherwise. As for “not enough hate in the world”, I took that as kind of a zinger or slogan, not to be taken literally. (I would say the amount of hate in the world is OK, but needs to be better distributed.)
“I agree that there is a place for judgement (not hatred), but only balanced by compassion. ”
Fine. How about viewing hatred of mass murderers as a form of compassion for their past and potential victims?
I don’t see what the Zohar quote adds to any of this.
“I’ve got more from Chassidic sources that explicitly addresses this issue. ”
Please post them.
“But since you’ve already rejected that…”
No, I just don’t think what you’ve quoted so far shows what you say it does. As for other Chassidic sources, while of course many of these sources are respected, they aren’t necessarily reflective of mainstream Orthodox or Jewish thought, or even of Chassidic thought as a whole. If such a source backs you up, you’ll have reached the point where I can’t say your view is contrary to Judaism, but you would still have a long way to go if you want to say that your view is that of generally accepted Jewish thought.
And just think, this all started with Batman.
Your refutations of my arguements make no sense and your arguements are non-existent. I disagree with nearly everything you’ve said and will no longer waste my time on this.
Moshe Leib of Sasov of the School of Rabbi Schmelke of Nikolsburg
“Your refutations of my arguements make no sense and your arguements are non-existent. I disagree with nearly everything you’ve said and will no longer waste my time on this.”
Then I guess we’ll leave it up to whoever’s reading this to decide whether my refutations are so senseless and my arguments so nonexistent that it’s not worth actally demonstrating why, or whether you’ve got nothing to answer and are sulking in your corner.
“Moshe Leib of Sasov of the School of Rabbi Schmelke of Nikolsburg”
Is that your original quote, or a new source? And which sefer is it in?
exactly
J quoting the Big Guy: “Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord”.
right J, now kindly re-read that quote. Vengeance IS G-d’s – NOT YOURS. it’s not for you nor the courts to hate. only to uphold justice. hate isn’t required. this simplistic confusion sets the tone for the rest of your right-wing arguments: a biased interpretation*.
In all your examinations of the passages brought forth originally by Isaac, easily one of the most learned members of our forum, your bias constructs meanings that support your own beliefs. that’s okay i figure because i’ve always believed the Torah reflects the individual’s emotions (Hebrew being the ambiguous language that it is).
now, i’m not going to dredge up more Talmudic or otherwise rationales for you to twist but suggest you rather just consider the above argument. And ask yourself why you hate? does it make you feel more powerful? or justified maybe?
*Note i didn’t say ‘misinterpertation’ because it’s your right to believe what you please without someone denouncing you as being wrong.
Just ain’t my way, bro.
ben-yamin:
“J quoting the Big Guy: “Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord”. ”
Actually, it was J quoting Sam quoting the big guy. And as I explained above:
“However, the quote addresses vengeance, which means an action, while this discussion is about hatred, which is a feeling and/or an opinion, a way of viewing someone else (it doesn’t prescribe any specific action). Just because I say that it’s permissible, in fact, meritorious, to hate mass murderers, doesn’t by itself tell you which actions against them I support. Many other factors, including practical ones, are involved. I supported the war against Saddam, but would be against attacking the equally rotten Chinese government, for example.
As for vengeance, clearly the scripture refers to an act taken purely for vengeance’s sake, where justice would not be served. Otherwise, societies would not have the power to prosecute criminals, and governments would not have the power to deter aggression. ”
Why don’t you try to address that argument?
“this simplistic confusion sets the tone for the rest of your right-wing arguments: a biased interpretation*. ”
Here we go again. All you’redoing is asserting that I (or my arguments) are simplistic, confused and biased. You don’t bother to show HOW. I’ve presented several refutations of the arguments of others and have made some of my own. Why don’t you do the same?
“In all your examinations of the passages brought forth originally by Isaac, easily one of the most learned members of our forum, your bias constructs meanings that support your own beliefs.”
Another assertion. But nothing telling us how or why anything I said shows bias. Not even an attempt to answer my arguments.
“now, i’m not going to dredge up more Talmudic or otherwise rationales for you to twist …”
Yeah, that’s the reason you won’t bring up more arguments or sources. Not because you don’t have any, oh no.
“…but suggest you rather just consider the above argument.”
What argument?
“And ask yourself why you hate? does it make you feel more powerful? or justified maybe? ”
I hate because I have a sense of how things ought to be, and this vision is horribly violated by the behavior of mass murderers. Also because I feel compassion for the victims.
Now, why don’t YOU hate? Let’s cut through the BS. I’d bet if someone harmed you even a fraction of the way murderers have harmed others and their loved ones, you’d hate that someone. You love to preach to others not to hate, because it makes you feel superior. But in the end, all it amounts to is that you have an easy time ignoring the pain of others. What you’re saying is that OTHERS shouldn’t hate, and you say that because, after all, it’s not your problem.
(That’s the problem when you try to psychoanalyze your opponents. I avoided this line of thought up to now, but if you want to dismiss me in such a cheap manner…)
“*Note i didn’t say ‘misinterpertation’ because it’s your right to believe what you please without someone denouncing you as being wrong. ”
A novel new ‘right’: the right not to be denounced.
Another product of our fine educational system: able to throw around the words “simplistic”, “constructs meanings”, and “rationales”, but no concept whatsoever on what an argument is or why they should be made. Demand a refund.
Dear J,
1. Take a chill pill. Hug a tree. Whatever. But calm down. Your patronising ‘i’m-smarter-than-thou’ act is old.
2. arguments HAVE been presented. feel free to scroll upwards and anywhere authored by Isaac, Zionista, Mason or myself oughta clear that up. Literacy and an open-mind required.
3. “i didn’t have time to write a short letter, so i wrote you a long one [sic]”. simple, concise arguments knock the crap outa convoluted and verbose ones.
4. ‘scuse the psychoanalysis. it was a last resort, i admit. i got curious why you were so passionately pro-hate. and you kinda answered it (see point 1, amigo). but since we’re talking about me, let’s clear up a dynamic: i’m not from the US and my country’s crime rate is in the world’s top 3. and i’ve had my fair share of violence. and yeah, it steamed my blood and though i wanted to burn the piece of shit who raped my ex-girlfriend. but you know what? hating him didn’t help. and hating getting beat up didn’t help either. nor did beating up a would-be attacker. it didn’t make me feel better. it didn’t bring back the Saturday night i coulda been relaxing with my friends. it was adolescent and immature, kinda like.. what’s his name again? Oh yeah, President Bush (Junior and Senior).
5. a little re-run of my argument: love isn’t the soft cuddly turn-the-cheek stuff you make it out to be. love’s harsh: ever been in it? find it easy and sugar-coated? bingo). Love means putting the rapist away but not expending any unnecessary energy. hate distorts actions and more often than not i’ve seen it distort the punishment. plus, trying to rehab a rapist probably ISN’T in your mandate of hate.
5. Yitzchak Rabin. While i lived in Israel for roughly 10 years, the man was considered a hawk. an old-school militarist capable of only solving terrorism with tanks. Not to mention his legendary combat strategies in the Yom Kippur War. So why, my terribly learned and highly intellectual J, did this highly combative former IDF General go all soft and peacnick-like? Because hate and the society-condoned violence it spawns doesn’t solve the problem.
A balanced action that doesn’t underestimate your enemy but doesn’t demean them either, not beyond their own crime anyway, is best. It’s easier to get angry and hate, but you effect lasting peace and balance with a well-considered action based on the welfare of all – including the slayer.
hate creates enemies; love bridges divides. too simplisitic for you?
i’m not surprised.
“Your patronising ‘i’m-smarter-than-thou’ act is old. ”
“Literacy and an open-mind required. ”
“this simplistic confusion sets the tone for the rest of your right-wing arguments: a biased interpretation*. ”
“now, i’m not going to dredge up more Talmudic or otherwise rationales for you to twist ”
MY smarter than thou act is old, but yours….
Still a little short on substance, aren’t you? Took the time out to write the fairly lengthy above post, and still none of those sources you said you had. Oh well…
“arguments HAVE been presented. feel free to scroll upwards and anywhere authored by Isaac, Zionista, Mason or myself oughta clear that up.”
YOU presented nothing. I answered the arguments of the others. You never responded to either my arguments or my responses to others’ arguments. Why bother? In some circles, “Literacy and an open-mind required” is considered more clever than actually defending your opinions.
As for your expertise in being victimized by violence (remember this discussion concerns hatred for murderers) , “i’m not from the US and my country’s crime rate is in the world’s top 3. ” seems pretty week. Sorry about your ex-girlfriend incident, but to be relevant here she wouldv’e had to have been your wife or mother.
“and yeah, it steamed my blood and though i wanted to burn the piece of shit who raped my ex-girlfriend. ”
Wow. Imagine what you would have wanted to do if you’d hated him as well.
“it didn’t make me feel better.”
So typical that you’d assume the point of hating to be to make the hater feel better. Me me me.
“and hating getting beat up didn’t help either.”
Very noble and courageous of you.
“a little re-run of my argument: love isn’t the soft cuddly turn-the-cheek stuff you make it out to be. love’s harsh: ever been in it?”
OK, my hatred is a form of “harsh love”. How’s that.
“hate distorts actions and more often than not i’ve seen it distort the punishment. ”
Finally, an actual point. Yes, I agree that hatred can have these negative effects. It must be controlled. But on the other hand, lack of hatred often leads to indifference and not taking action that ought to be taken.
“plus, trying to rehab a rapist probably ISN’T in your mandate of hate. ”
So 1970’s. Where have you been? But in any case, my concern is with mass murderers. No, I don’t care to rehab those.
” So why, my terribly learned and highly intellectual J, did this highly combative former IDF General go all soft and peacnick-like? Because hate and the society-condoned violence it spawns doesn’t solve the problem. ”
I can see why you don’t like to make arguments. You’re not very good at it. First, why does anything one person did show that I’m wrong about hate? Second, who says Rabin didn’t hate? Possibly he continued to hate, but felt that his later actions would be beneficial to his people, so he made the moves he did. How do you know what his state of mind was? Third, in general, what does hate – an emotion or opinion of another – have to do with policy moves? When Hitler and Stalin made their pact, does that mean they stopped hating each other? Fourth, after we’ve all seen where Oslo led, where do you come off preaching to us about what solves the problem?
“Because hate and the society-condoned violence it spawns doesn’t solve the problem.”
Tell that to a World War II vet. Preferably an armed one.
“hate creates enemies; love bridges divides. too simplisitic for you?”
Not at all. I propose that we send you on behalf of the Jewish people to Hamas and neo-Nazi enclaves to give them some of your love. Have a nice trip.
And if only those European Jews had loved the Germans more…
How about “Justified hate, properly acted upon, deters evil; unjustified love to the evil enables them to continue their oppressive ways”?
This has stopped being a debate. Now it’s just a trade of blows. J, relax man. One of the nice things about ‘debate’ is that you argue ideas, not attack people – though it is a common tactic when losing.
try to keep your salvos on the topic, not the man.
also, what doesn’t appear a good argument to you is your perception. maybe you’re not looking hard enough. maybe you don’t want to. that’s fine.
one doesn’t to copy passages from Judaic or philosophical sources to be credible. this isn’t a thesis or a Yeshiva: it’s an opinion forum. so skip the elitism, yeah?
(let me guess: you’re going to cut-and-paste choice excerpts from my entry, dissect them and make yourself feel smarter. amazing.)
Anyway. Nothing to try convince you of really. Namely, because it appears you’re determined not to ‘get it’. Which is a shame because you sound potentially quite intelligent. And we could use minds like yours on the Light Side of the Force.. *chuckle*
Go well.
Content-free, yet again. And entirely cliches, to boot.
“One of the nice things about ‘debate’ is that you argue ideas, not attack people – though it is a common tactic when losing. ”
I would ask anyone still reading this to scroll back and see where the ideas stopped and the attacks began.
“also, what doesn’t appear a good argument to you is your perception.”
Ah, the relativism dodge. If it’s all perceptions, why should anyone ever debate anything? If there is a true right and wrong, why say its my perception rather than making a case?
“one doesn’t to copy passages from Judaic or philosophical sources to be credible. ”
There’s a new one. Just above you praised Isaac for being “easily one of the most learned members of our forum” and you yourself said you had additional sources to offer (though, of course, you never told us what they were). Now, suddenly, there’s no need for sources. Why is that?
“this isn’t a thesis or a Yeshiva: it’s an opinion forum.”
I hadn’t realized that opinions require no reason or evidence. Certainly not your own position until now.
“so skip the elitism, yeah?”
A little late in the game for you to be taking that position. What you really want is to live in a world where you can assert your knowledge against those who know less than you, but can use the “elitist” argument against those who know more than you. Maybe this works if you are the center of the universe. Bit the odds ain’t good.
“Namely, because it appears you’re determined not to ‘get it’. ”
If you could actually back up your opinions, you might be able to persuade more people to “get it”. In the meantime, you’ve shown nothing but a string of cliches and assertions.