As much as I hesitate to disagree with my dear friend Rabbi Gil Student, I must do so on a number of points. (To read Rabbi Student’s article, click here.) First, it is he who is smarter, more knowledgeable, and more pious, and while I may be a week older, he long ago overtook me. The second relates to the subject at hand; in that, however, I must first emphasize where we very much agree.
I am in extreme concurrence with R. Gil regarding what he terms “the spiritual toxicity of mockery,” and in particular its close cousin, cynicism; in fact, the corrosive effect of the latter was a major theme of my most recent book. To go further, despite the apparent Talmudic license, I would even hesitate to direct mockery at much of what would be deemed overt idolatry, for a number of reasons that may require more space than is allowed here.
More so, as much as I feel there is an important role for humor in religious life, some types can be unhelpful if not overtly deceptive, and this has often been the case with the mocking style adopted by much of the contemporary satirical “news” media, the consumption of which has been correlated with cynicism in studies (see Jamil Zaki’s Hope For Cynics, p. 220).
I would also agree that when a substantive argument is being offered, it is best to confront that argument in kind, with reason and rationality.
Nonetheless, despite the truth of all of the above, there are times when mockery is not simply permitted, but appropriate and likely necessary.
My endorsement of mockery was very narrow, and was not necessarily directed at all “anti Israel protesters whose positions seem morally reprehensible.” The comments were specifically in the context of the recent activities of Greta Thunberg and her fellow travelers. In that context, the comments had two parts.
The first part was to establish the technical justification based on the Talmudic passage, which prohibits all mockery (we will assume for now the accuracy of that translation) except for that directed toward idolatry. So that we should not be deemed in violation of Talmudic law, and also to take the opportunity to make an important point of a different nature, it can be noted that idolatry should not be assumed to refer only to those who worship multiple gods. This is especially (but not exclusively) true in light of the position of the Meiri, who ruled that (for some purposes) Christianity should not be considered idolatrous due to the moral and disciplined behavior of its adherents. This logic indicates that the concern with idolatry is not necessarily about theology exclusively but about the behavior that it engenders. As such, there can be no more egregious idolatry than a religious movement that believes it is glorifying G-d – even if it claims to believe in only one – by slaughtering innocent people, raping, brutalizing, and kidnapping. Any supporter of Hamas is well covered by the idolatry standard.
Nonetheless, as noted above, even when dealing with idolatry, there may be good reasons to not rush to mockery. This brings us to the second point, which is a consideration of the reasoning behind the Talmud’s advocacy for mockery of idolatry, as explained by Rav Yitzchak Hutner (Pachad Yitzchak, Purim, 1). Mockery is a denial of importance, and the ultimate importance is worship, and the ultimate misuse of worship is idolatry. In this case, the disgraceful distortion of priorities displayed by those who would claim to be “kidnapped” in these circumstances, while hostages are being held in the cruelest of conditions for more than 600 days, and who are not even willing to watch a fraction of what happened on the day that those victims were actually kidnapped, is why mockery was invented. It is very hard to imagine something more deserving of mockery than this.
More to the point, the mockery is not simply deserved, but necessary. Miss Thunberg, in the eyes of many, carries moral authority, without any need to actually articulate a moral argument. The mistaken assumption of gravitas and moral wisdom is very dangerous and has real-world consequences.
It’s important to note that any “permissible” mocking remain on point. In the case of Thunberg, for example, on-point could mean a direct response to her cynical use of the word “kidnapped” – as opposed to those memes going around that present Thunberg, who is 22, as a young child.
Just to be extra clear, I am not saying that one can or should mock all bad things, or rejoice in the downfall of an enemy, which is a more complicated topic. In this specific case, where presumed moral authority is being invoked to give material support to murderers, and to detract from the ability of Israel to defend itself from those murderers, with the real-world effect that more innocents on both sides will die, because people actually take seriously the notion that Israel is “kidnapping” people, while genuine hostages suffering for close to two years don’t even exist, and the events of Oct. 7th are “propaganda” that “can’t compare” to Gaza, it is necessary to hold that up for the absurdity that it is.
Were it to be the case that any rational arguments were being offered, a reasoned rebuttal could be provided in response. Were it to be the case that voices such as those of Ms. Thunberg were simply ignored, without the risk and reality that millions actually take her inverted perspective seriously, thus emboldening Hamas and endangering Israel, no response would be necessary, mocking or otherwise. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the case, and we are denied the luxury of avoiding spiritual toxicity.
As my brother-in-law Dr. Tal Becker recently pointed out, the impact of international criticism in this conflict should be measured not only by whether either Hamas or Israel is influenced by it, but by whether it will reward terrorism. Put another way, Hamas does what it does so that Greta will do what she will do, and so that she will be taken seriously. It is our grave responsibility to make sure that she is not.
