בטור חדש מספר מאיר אטינגר על מה שהביא אותו לחברותא משותפת עם האנתרופולוג עידן ירון ועל ההבדל בין מחקר אובייקטיבי לשיח בין אנשים שונים
Meir Ettinger May 3, 2019
In a new column, Meir Ettinger tells of what brought him to a joint partnership with anthropologist Idan Yaron and the difference between objective research and conversation between different people
In the past year and a half I have been studying regularly with Dr. Idan Yaron, who sees himself as "a researcher of the extreme and radical right." In the joint study we learned a number of articles from Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg's book "Malchut Yisrael" Which I believe to be at the heart of the debate between the religious right and the secular left.
The first issue I chose to study was "War Ethics," a subject that Idan went to many times as a military psychologist, and naturally preoccupies me too. Over time the study became profound, challenging, and in my personal opinion also original, this is why despite my firm opposition at first I finally agreed to put things down in writing and publish.
The connection between us is not easily created, the fears and doubts - is this true? Is there much benefit to the damage - the existing one -? I do not have a complete answer to these questions, and certainly I do not want anyone to look at this as a role model without thinking good to himself whether this is the right step.
Over the years, many journalists and researchers have approached me who wanted to write about the world of hilltop youth or the extreme right.
I think that the gap between the worlds is so great, so that even if we assume that these are people who are not politically biased (and such cases are very rare) without translating the language and the basic assumptions without going into the depths of Jewish life. Even if they can accurately paint the external appearance of reality, the image that the reader will see it will look strange and distant.
Because I truly believe that the logic of the Holy Torah is based on a completely different view of the world, of the values that guide it, and any attempt to 'explain' our world, especially public affairs in the democratic language, is impossible.
This is the response I answered to Idan the first time he approached me, and sent [me] a passage he wrote about me, which included a description taken from the press. I explained to him that such work is superficial to me, and that ultimately - despite his explanation for creating understanding and connecting different parts of the Jewish people In fact produces only separation and hatred.
We talked about how work like the one he did on the so-called "Bat Ayin underground" is superficial to me, since she is trying to learn about a completely foreign world, from that particular world view.
I argued that it is precisely an understanding of the size of the gap between "Jewish" and "democratic" that will eventually be able to establish a stable bridge, without having to lie or blur our positions. Idan continued to insist that he was really interested in learning and knowing, and was ready to interview me in the "Jewish language." After consultation with a friend, and with the consent of [my] Rabbi I suggested that he study, and this is how our Chavruta was born, which also led to a joint trip to Rosh Hashanah in Uman.
As I wrote earlier, the study and cooperation did not come easily to me and I have been deliberating about it until now. Among other things, the claim was made that this reflects a non-Jewish world view that there is no single truth, and all opinions are equal. I completely agree with this argument. I will have a lot to discuss on this point with Idan: The external view is foreign to Judaism. The Torah is a Torah of life.
CORRECTION: ...we believe that it is absolute truth, a tree of life, and when we disconnect it from "the Giver of the Torah," from complete faith, it's really impossible to taste it [the Torah], or understand its depth and secrets.
CORRECTION: This view of the research world, the claim of "objectivity," stands in complete opposition to the world that I believe in; like people whose dream is a renewal of the connection and love of the Land, I believe that the "hilltop youth," among other things, sprouted out of an understanding that not by "coincidence" is the same wind of heresy blowing in the academic and the media worlds. The disconnection from the real world, from the connection to nature, and an excess of sophistry, cause the loss of natural faith and the love of the Land "because G-d made man upright, and they sought many intrigues." [Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 7:29, translated from the Stone Edition of the Tana"kh - HDG]
We talked about it a lot during the course of the study and tried to emphasize that in my opinion the problem is not what the results of the study will be, but the research itself. Among other things, during a joint conversation [in] Uman, I came to the conclusion that R. Nachman, who was undoubtedly a great sage, can summarize his central advice in the sentence "Do not talk about, talk to ..." Do not talk about the Creator, speak to him.
It was not for nothing that Rabbi Nachman objected to research and the educated. The external investigation stands in contrast to the internal attentiveness, the position of the examiner and the observer places the person in a distant position that never enables real attachment. In the language of Hasidism it is called 'If there is no opinion - a separation from a minyan'. [?] Knowledge is interpreted as communication and connection. Indeed, when essentially any connection is remote, there is no need for differentiation or reservation. Only a relationship that has an opinion based on separation (similar to a marriage relationship whose beginning is the act of marriage)
So far, one side that mainly emphasizes why not,
And, in my opinion, there is a tremendous mission, to stop talking about public affairs as political issues, and to continue to apologize and stammer in the media when the Torah is submissive to Western thinking. I believe we should start treating public affairs as 'spreading Judaism', talking about the Eretz Yisrael just as we talk about putting on Tefillin, and security matters just as we talk about prayer work, speaking Judaism, speaking to the soul of the Jew.
There is a constant dilemma, on the one hand, we are interested in spreading and explaining, and there is no doubt that "spreading your
On the one hand we are interested in creating a dialogue with distant Jews, especially with very distant Jews, which is "the greatness of HKB”H”.