Pilpul [which probably derives from the Hebrew word pilpel-- pepper] refers to a technique of Talmudical study. To find out what pilpul has to do with Obama, we need to go on a bit of a side track. More beneath the fold.
According to Rabbinic Judaism, God gave Moses two Torahs – a written text and an oral text. The written text is preserved in the first five books of the Jewish Bible. The oral text, according to the Rabbis, was handed down from generation to generation, until it too was written down in the time of the Mishnah (second century CE). Since it is the word of God, the oral text must be perfect. However, the long years of oral transmission apparently led to various and contradictory traditions of the text. The Talmud is essentially a commentary on the Mishnaic text which attempts to find the “true” version of the oral law.
Since any human attempt to find perfection is ultimately doomed to failure, the Talmud itself is rife with contradictions. Over the centuries, Jewish scholars continued their Sisyphean task, adding commentary upon commentary in an attempt to reach the perfect and divine version of the oral law. In the late fifteenth and sixteenth century, a technique was developed which involved complex textual analysis and intellectual pyrotechnics — not unlike post-modern textual deconstruction, except the goal of pilpul is to expose the absolute truth beneath the text.
Daniel Jeremy Silver, in his book A History of Judaism argues that the rise of pilpul actually became a motivating factor in the rise of Hassidism. Pilpul came to be seen as a barren intellectual exercise, completely detached from the day to day reality of most Jews in the 17th and 18th century and lacking any connection to devotional practice. The simple parables and songs that the Hassidic movement placed at the center of devotional life had universal appeal and was accessible to every Jew, not just the scholarly and learned. In time, pilpul became a mostly derogatory term referring to a barren intellectual exercise in hair splitting which is detached from the truth.
The term came to mind when reading an article today in the NY Times, about a McCain attack on Obama. Ahmed Yousef, a political adviser to the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, recently said in an interview “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election. I do believe that Mr. Obama is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principles. He has a vision to change America, to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance.”
Playing off these comments, McCain said: “I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States, If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.” McCain also said: “Well, Iran is obviously an important supporter of Hamas. Senator Obama wants to sit down and have negotiations and discussions with the person who just yesterday called Israel a quote ‘stinking corpse,’ [quoting Iran's President Ahmadinejad] who continues to advocate quote ‘wiping Israel off the map.’”
McCain (again, according to the NY Times) is trying to appeal to those “hard working Americans, white Americans” Hillary was talking about the other day. According the the Times these “hard working” Americans don’t have too much truck with smart people, whom they see as “city slickers.” Which might explain why they might find McCain and his comments about Hamas so appealing. And of course, a Black smart person must be really unappealing to them, especially if said Black person is beloved by “terrorist” ragheads.
One would think that said Harvard educated Black person could come up with an intelligent response to such inanities. More precisely, one would hope that Obama would live up to Yousef’s flattering comments and show that he is indeed a man of great principles, with a vision to change America. But unfortunatly, Obama and his campaign resorted to pilpul. More from the Times:
“Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that ‘for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed’ his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet ‘unconditionally’ with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called ‘rogue’ state. Mr. Obama believes ‘that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,’ Dr. Rice said. ‘But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.’
Ok, so let me get this straight. When Obama says “America has to talk with its enemies” (and he has said that quite often) he doesn’t necessarily mean that he has to talk with its enemies. Sure he’ll talk with enemies, say like the President of France. But enemies which are “rogue” states, those he won’t talk to. Not without a whole lot of preparation and not unconditionally. So say if he can twist Ahmadinejad’s arm and get him to sing the “ha’Tikvah” then maybe he will talk to him. But wait, there is more:
“Mr. Obama has been clear in making a distinction between his willingness to talk ‘not just to countries we like, but those we don’t,’ as he puts it, and Hamas and other political movements similar to it. ‘Hamas is not a state,’ Mr. Obama told a Jewish group last month. ‘Hamas is a terrorist organization.’”
Yes that’s true, Hamas is not a state, just like the Likud is not a state. It’s a political party. just like the Likud. It engages in terrorist activities, but so did Herut (a major component of the Likud) before israel became a State. And so did the PLO, of which Abbas is a member, and yet with whom both Israel and the US are engaged in a “peace process.” Note too, that Ismail Haniya, whom Ahmed Yousef advises, is the duly elected Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. He was in fact elected in a process endorsed by the United States and which all objective observers declared to be a fair and honest election. While the PA is not a full fledged state like Israel, it is a recognized political entity, and not a terrorist organization. Under Haniyeh’s rule, Obama may view it as a “rogue” political entity, but it far more than a terrorist organization.
“Responding to Mr. McCain’s accusations in an interview with CNN on Thursday, Mr. Obama elaborated on that position. He again called Hamas a terrorist group and said that ‘we should not talk to them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence and are willing to abide by previous accords’ that Israel has negotiated with its neighbors and with the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
So Obama is all for talking with enemies, except when those enemies are heads of “rogue” states, in which case he won’t talk to them unconditionally and without groundwork. But if those enemies are elected officials in political entities which are not yet states, then we will never talk talk to them or even prepare to talk to them until they unconditionally surrender to our demands. In other words, we will never talk to them. And by the way, why should Hamas have to abide by accords signed with Egypt and Jordan? Does the United States abide by treaties signed by Canada and Mexico? And why should Hamas have to abide by treaties signed by the PLO, which is not a state, but a terrorist organization, by Obama’s definition? How can a terrorist organization sign a treaty?
But enough on this topic. All this pilpul is giving me a headache.