Feiglin did disappoint, but perhaps he wasn't ready for far-out wingnut Shapiro.
Shapiro: "Judaism is not a nationality. It's a religion. If you want to call it a nation, it's a question of semantics. But we have our own unity that has nothing to do with any other nation. Not only not only in terms of mission, but in terms of na- (um) in term of nationalism, it doesn't exist."
Note the slip, where he almost admits there is such as thing as Jewish nationalism - but then he catches himself. He plays word games, he talks about "Judaism" but sidesteps a core issue and doesn't mention "Jews". He doesn't like the word עם when applied to Jews, so he borrows a trick from Satmar and plays word games and brings up the פסוק in יואל. He sort of muffs on this one. The word in יואל is גוי, not עם. (And the מפרשים are clear that the word is not used literally. But Shapiro knows better than the ראשונים!) Still, the word עם is used elsewhere us to refer to masses of creatures. Obviously, that poetic use of the term shouldn't be cited as the sine qua non of the word's usage. It's like a zoologist citing the הלכה of יתגבר כארי to describe a lion. Subtleties of meaning do depend on context. A word, though precisely defined, has a broader definition than any particular use of it. So עם has a broad meaning, and under that broad meaning it takes on a more narrow meaning in certain contexts. What Shapiro did is to borrow a narrow (non-literal) meaning from יואל (or actually משלי) and force it back into other פסוקים. It's likely a case of מגלה פנים.
All of this is crank craziness. The utter denial of Jewish nationhood, however unique & distinct, and the near heretical misinterpretation of פסוקים is so beyond the pale (though embraced by cranks like reform rabbi Elmer Berger) that it may have caught Feiglin off guard. It's one thing to debate an opponent, it's another to debate a pathologically dishonest savant lunatic.
Feiglin did disappoint, but perhaps he wasn't ready for far-out wingnut Shapiro.
ReplyDeleteShapiro: "Judaism is not a nationality. It's a religion. If you want to call it a nation, it's a question of semantics. But we have our own unity that has nothing to do with any other nation. Not only not only in terms of mission, but in terms of na- (um) in term of nationalism, it doesn't exist."
Note the slip, where he almost admits there is such as thing as Jewish nationalism - but then he catches himself. He plays word games, he talks about "Judaism" but sidesteps a core issue and doesn't mention "Jews". He doesn't like the word עם when applied to Jews, so he borrows a trick from Satmar and plays word games and brings up the פסוק in יואל. He sort of muffs on this one. The word in יואל is גוי, not עם. (And the מפרשים are clear that the word is not used literally. But Shapiro knows better than the ראשונים!) Still, the word עם is used elsewhere us to refer to masses of creatures. Obviously, that poetic use of the term shouldn't be cited as the sine qua non of the word's usage. It's like a zoologist citing the הלכה of יתגבר כארי to describe a lion. Subtleties of meaning do depend on context. A word, though precisely defined, has a broader definition than any particular use of it. So עם has a broad meaning, and under that broad meaning it takes on a more narrow meaning in certain contexts. What Shapiro did is to borrow a narrow (non-literal) meaning from יואל (or actually משלי) and force it back into other פסוקים. It's likely a case of מגלה פנים.
All of this is crank craziness. The utter denial of Jewish nationhood, however unique & distinct, and the near heretical misinterpretation of פסוקים is so beyond the pale (though embraced by cranks like reform rabbi Elmer Berger) that it may have caught Feiglin off guard. It's one thing to debate an opponent, it's another to debate a pathologically dishonest savant lunatic.