I’m trying, and hoping, to phrase my question properly.
Which stream in Judaism is the right one, in the Rabbi’s view, the one about which he has no criticism at all? Or at least only very little criticism?

I have criticism of everyone, but most criticisms are disagreements on this or that point, as is the way of Torah. Here we’re talking about those whose very path is distorted and harmful—not that they merely have some point or another that is problematic or disputed.

To Israel—many greetings,

It seems to me that Rabbi Michael Abraham is granting himself permission to denigrate entire communities, because it helps him find marriage matches for his children. Thus, when he frequently attacked Har Hamor, he merited having his daughter Bruria become engaged to the son of Rabbi Yaakov Levanon, a lecturer in the Har Hamor yeshiva.

Perhaps Rabbi Michael Abraham still has more children waiting for matches, and therefore he is also attacking the Haredim and the Breslov Hasidim, in order to increase the matchmaking options for his children.

Regards,
Samson Tzviblinger, Knight of the Onions and Garlic

Sh”tz, would you express yourself as above also regarding Nachman of Uman?

More power to the Rabbi.
And still, I would like to know—in the Rabbi’s opinion, what is the path a person should choose for himself in order to become the complete Jew?

To B.G.—many greetings,

The phenomenon I illustrated—that when a person talks nonstop against X, he may arouse the interest of his children or students in that same “demon,” to check “what it’s really about”—deserves the attention of educators, so as not to overdo speaking against X and thereby create interest in it. You too, as a father of children, would do well to take note that your obsessive engagement in demonizing the “Haredim” should not lead to the opposite educational result: a desire to check whether the “demon” is really all that terrible 🙂

Regards,
Sh”tz

Regarding Rabbi Nachman

Issues of guarding the covenant were not invented by Rabbi Nachman. Their severity is explained in Scripture (Genesis 38:9), in the Talmud (Niddah 13), in Maimonides (Laws of Forbidden Relations 21:18), in the Shulchan Arukh, and in the books of the kabbalists and the moralists. Naturally, someone who failed in this would be miserable.

Rabbi Nachman introduced ways of coping, and taught how to avoid falling, and how to get up and keep going even if a person has fallen. In order not to fall, Rabbi Nachman suggested that a person be joyful most of the time, and always be occupied with positive activity; to keep himself constantly busy with Torah and prayer, to fill himself with study of Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, and halakhic decisors, and to act with alacrity and lightness.

For the brokenheartedness of one who has fallen into sin, Rabbi Nachman allotted a daily time for secluded personal prayer, in which he should confess with a broken heart over his flaws and ask God to help him escape them. If he failed in the area of the covenant, he should say ten chapters of Psalms and immerse in a ritual bath. Beyond that, he should distract his mind from it as much as possible and “begin a new beginning,” and not be “stuck” in what was in the past. I heard from a Jew who teaches Hasidism that someone who is stuck in the past is a “past-offender” 🙂

A person should fulfill, “I will sing to the Lord while I still exist,” rejoicing in the “still”—in the little good that exists within him, מתוך faith that “a little light drives away much darkness”; and the main thing is not to fear and not to despair, and to use every moment of life joyfully and energetically to do good things. Then no time at all remains for improper thoughts (and as Pharaoh advised: “Let heavier work be laid upon the men… and let them not pay attention to false words” 🙂

Paragraph 1, line 3
… so as not to create interest …

Tzachi, do you really want me to cram the whole building I have in hand into here?
We started with the question of why I speak slander about everyone, and now I’m being asked to write out my entire Jewish and general worldview in the slot of this thread. Go to the trilogy; that’s what it was written for.

Another thing to pay attention to is
that excessive engagement in “speaking against,” especially speech against people known as Torah scholars and God-fearing, may turn like a boomerang against the speaker, who gets labeled in public as one who demeans Torah scholars, and may cause a drastic drop in public interest in his Torah and his books (as seems apparent from the response about “sales of the Rabbi’s books,” where it seems to be fulfilled in them: decreasing steadily like the festival bulls 🙂

Regards,
Sh”tz

In the book I Wanted to Ask You, Professor Leibowitz, on page 222, when he was asked about Rabbi Nachman of Breslov he answered that he was a psychopath. After reading his endless, simply endless musings of Nachman of Breslov about himself, I think he actually suffered from megalomania. I agree with Rabbi Yirmiyah Cohen that he had delusions and that his religious path runs contrary to the path of Judaism. Rabbi Ovadia defined Nachman’s teaching with a certain contempt as “musings,” and said: “Many disputed his methods. I don’t really know his books at all, maybe I look at them once a year, I don’t study from them. They’re not halakhic rulings, not anything like that, just ideas, just like that—as they say, musings. What are musings? We don’t have these things; we have Jewish law.” His followers nowadays are foolish pietists, and their echo speaks for itself.

With God’s help, 1 Elul 5780

To A.—many greetings,

The words you quoted are brought in Avishai Ben Haim’s article on the Ynet website from 17.10.2000. From his words, “We don’t have these things. We have Jewish law. Do we have so much to study that a person has nothing to learn except Likkutei Moharan?” it clearly emerges that his concern was about a situation in which study of “ideas” becomes the main thing and pushes aside the main thing, namely practical Jewish law.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was on friendly terms with Rabbi Shalom Arush of Yavne’el, who visited him at home and brought him books of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. See the article: “Special documentation: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s Breslov books revealed,” on the Breslev City website. Two notes written by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef are brought there about the value of “the General Remedy.” One is a reference to the words of Rabbi Chaim Palaggi on this remedy, and the second in the name of the Baba Sali on the value of the remedy together with preserving modesty.

Rabbi Shalom Arush too merited an approbation from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef on his book In the Garden of Faith, about which Rabbi Ovadia Yosef says: “Its contents are interwoven with collected passages together with ethical teachings on matters of faith, sayings of the Sages and pleasant insights, the work of a craftsman… the distinguished righteous Rabbi Shalom Arush, may he live and be well, who composed, innovated, and gathered like one gleaning at the threshing floor, and this pure man collected wonderful words of moral exhortation and awakening, arranged and ordered… every word in its proper manner.”

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef strongly opposed traveling on Rosh Hashanah to Rabbi Nachman’s grave in Uman while leaving one’s family behind, saying: “A man will leave his wife and go off alone? … You have a wife, you are obligated to make her happy… A man leaves everything and goes to Rabbi Nachman’s grave. Where is that written? Let him go on the Ninth of Av, I agree… It is not proper for him to abandon his wife and leave her alone with the sons and go.” (Sermon from 4 Cheshvan 5771, Ben Haim, Maran Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, p. 259)

On this firm stance against traveling to Uman for Rosh Hashanah while leaving wife and children at home, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef repeated himself many times, but clarified that this was not opposition to Rabbi Nachman, about whom he said (25 Elul 5767, Ben Haim, pp. 268–270):

“Far be it from me to speak about the rabbi himself, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. He was righteous. He was upright, wise. He was among the first rebbes who began to conduct themselves according to the Shulchan Arukh. The Vilna Gaon went out against the Hasidim… because they had begun to belittle the laws of the Shulchan Arukh, reciting the Shema not at its proper time, prayer not at its proper time…

But among the first of the rebbes who truly saw that they were mistaken was Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, who commanded all his Hasidim not to budge from the Shulchan Arukh right or left: time for prayer separately, time for Torah separately, every individual is obligated to do as it is written in the Shulchan Arukh… They began to listen, and little by little he brought them back to repentance.”

You can watch and listen to this sermon on YouTube under the title: “Rabbi Ovadia Yosef clarifies: I am not against Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, heaven forbid.” And a summary in the article: “Rabbi Yosef: Rabbi Nachman was righteous, but there is no need to travel to Uman.”

Regards,
Sh”tz

As for Rabbi Yirmiyah Cohen: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef honored him to be the introductory rabbi at his sermon and praised him and his yeshiva in Safed, but regarding his pamphlet against Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef wrote: “I do not agree with anything written there, and I am not pleased by anything that was written.” (Ben Haim, p. 265, note 74)

Hello Rabbi,

If your claim that this is not slander stems from the fact that you think it is “for a constructive purpose”—that is, for the benefit of the Jewish people, so that they know to distance themselves from those sectors—

then please consider whether, in your statements about those sectors, you meet the seven cumulative conditions formulated by the Chafetz Chaim for permitting slander for a constructive purpose, which are listed below:

A. The speaker himself must see the wrongdoing, not merely hear about it from others.
B. He must examine carefully that there really is wrongdoing or harm here, and that there is no way to judge favorably.
C. He must rebuke the one causing the harm or wrongdoing before telling others.
D. He must report the matter as it is, with maximum precision, without adding or subtracting.
E. The speaker’s intention must be solely for constructive purpose, and he must derive no pleasure from it.
F. The speaker must have no other way to solve the problem without speaking slander.
G. The report must not cause the wrongdoer greater harm than would have been ruled against him in a religious court.

If your claim that this is not slander stems from your thinking that when one is speaking about a public group rather than an individual, there is no prohibition of slander here (the less likely possibility in my view),

then please see, for your consideration, an article on slander against a public group, final section of the attached article by Judge Noam Sohlberg.
http://www.daat.ac.il/mishpat-ivri/skirot/155-2.htm

In any case, as I wrote above, the severity of the prohibition of slander stems from the fact that it causes division among the people, which is the complete opposite of what the Torah commands us—unity—and I won’t elaborate, because if you think about the person who is exposed to your words (out of thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of readers) against those communities, it is obvious that the words can influence him very, very negatively, to the point that he may truly come to despise and shun those communities, with all the attendant harms. And now I ask you, hand on heart, is this God’s will???

One final sentence that may sound a little kitschy but contains some truth: whenever I am not completely sure of the correctness of my path, I have a general rule—consult my wise wife. I, the small one, warmly recommend that to you, especially in this matter.

I devoted my precious time to this matter only out of great love and appreciation for you. All that remains for me is to hope that my words will enter your heart.

I very much appreciate and value the time you devoted, but in the future, if you’re already investing time, it’s advisable to do so with some sense and thought. Otherwise it’s a waste of time (I’ll spare you the collection of sources about neglect of Torah study that you would no doubt bring now).
I explained my claim, and you completely ignore that. Your sources are not relevant in any way to the discussion (this is a wonderful example of using sources as a demagogic tool to muddy things instead of clarifying and sharpening them).
But one piece of your advice I’m definitely willing to accept: I’d be happy to hear what your wife says about it. 🙂

With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “that his heart not be lifted above his brothers,” 5780

To Rabbi Michael Abraham—many greetings,

Why go far? What Israel’s wife would tell you—your own wife is already telling you.

Regards,
Itzik son of Reb Shayeh from Krakow,
who went to search under the bridge in Venice, only to find what he was seeking in the courtyard of his own house 🙂

With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “They listen to diviners, but as for you…” 5780

To Rarash”tz—many greetings,

People go far in order to receive reward for their steps—on the heads of the holy people.

Regards,
Dvir Yinon Levi Herzl Tzefania Yaakov Kimberlullo,
who says enough already 🙂

“I’d be happy to hear what your wife says about it.”… hahaha…

Dear Israel, a point to think about: why did you choose to rebuke Rabbi Michi on the site and not by email?

And see the saying of Jalal ad-Din Rumi (to which the Rabbanit referred) and Rabbi Michael Abraham’s response, in column 274, “On Sayings and Rules.”

Regards,
Sh”tz

Hello,

I didn’t address your claims because in my opinion not only are they incorrect, but they also indicate, in my view, that you are somewhat missing the essence.
See below my response to your claims:
It is unclear why you assume that if these things are known to everyone, then it is permissible to go on discussing them; all the more so since your analysis and explanation of the matter add insights that were not known to those hearing your lesson.
You were not asked to respect, but not to vilify.
Your criticism is not only of the “methods”—one can disagree about methods and discuss them—but also of the people who follow them.

I’m done.
Unfortunately, you were not convinced, and based on my acquaintance with you through your writings and your site, I have reasonable grounds to assume that this time too you will not be convinced. All that remains for me to hope is that perhaps by some miracle, somehow, sometime, these words will touch you—and that will be my reward and a prevention of loss of your reward.

And by the way, to Binyamin Gorlin—I debated whether to write to the Rabbi by email or on the site, and I chose the site because in my view it is important that these things be discussed publicly.

Sh”tz, the quotes you brought are out of peaceful relations and probably politics. I don’t know exactly what led him to contradict himself, but don’t forget he also had a party that needed support.

Israel, hahaha, from the sidelines I’m always amused by how he spins you around like a dreidel. I didn’t look closely at the legal details of whether this counts as slander or not, but he permitted The Jews Are Coming, so do you really think the laws you brought here speak to him? They did research long ago on how mockery is the strongest card when you want to bring something down, and the Sages wrote about this even more forcefully. But carry on, carry on, don’t let me interfere too much, because just as I enjoy and crack up from The Jews Are Coming, I enjoy myself here too.

But you should know that I see Michi as continuing the path of the Sages and our forefathers. The Sages included the book of Ecclesiastes in the canon—is there anything funnier and more entertaining than that? And as Ernest Renan summed us up: “A strange people, seemingly created to display every mode of contrast! And yet it is this people that gave the world God, while scarcely believing in Him. This people created religion, yet it is the least religious of all peoples. This people founded humanity’s hopes on a kingdom of heaven, while all its wise men keep telling us that we should concern ourselves only with the affairs of this world. The children of all the most enlightened races take seriously the things this people preached, while it itself regards these things with a smile. Its ancient literature stirred the enthusiasm of all nations, yet it recognizes its weaknesses better than any other people.”

With God’s help, 1 Elul 5780

To A.—many greetings,

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef regarded Rabbi Nachman of Breslov as a genius and a righteous man, and especially valued his instruction to his followers not to deviate by a hair’s breadth from the rulings of the Shulchan Arukh. He was on friendly terms with leaders of Breslov Hasidim, such as Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schick of blessed memory and Rabbi Shalom Arush, may he live and be well.

However, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef strongly opposed traveling to Uman for Rosh Hashanah while leaving one’s wife and family alone on the holiday, for a husband is obligated to make his wife and household happy on the holiday. He expressed this opposition many times. This approach was adopted, for example, by his student Rabbi David Shalom Nakki, who is a Breslov Hasid but never traveled to Uman. And as is known, there were also among Breslov Hasidim those who held that Rabbi Nachman did not intend that people should leave the Land of Israel for the Diaspora in order to pray at his gravesite on Rosh Hashanah.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef also expressed, in one of his sermons (in 5761), reservations about excessive study of Likkutei Moharan as a central study that pushes aside the main thing, which is practical Jewish law. He also wrote an approbation to Rabbi Arush’s book In the Garden of Faith and praised it as full of words of ethics and awakening based on the words of the Sages, in a clear and orderly form. In his handwritten glosses in the margin of The General Remedy, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef pointed to the words of Rabbi Chaim Palaggi and the Baba Sali on the value of the remedy.

In short: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef related in an objective way to the teachings and practices of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. There were things he praised and things he criticized, as is the way of Torah.

With blessings for a peaceful Sabbath and a good new month,
Sh”tz

In short: he contradicted himself. The question is what his real position was.

Israel, in Rabbi Michi’s view too there is value in having these things discussed publicly, and I find it astonishing how you rebuke the Rabbi and in the same breath commit the very sin of which you accuse him—terrifying.