Rabbi Zini has an interesting article claiming that the sages of Babylonia (as opposed to the sages of the Jerusalem Talmud) concealed the national reason because they had an exilic mindset (and did the same regarding the Hanukkah miracle and more). He writes this sharply, in his usual style, as criticism of them.

“Intellectual honesty is always required of us”

Let us note that this was written by someone (Michi) who said that he “understands why pogroms were carried out against the Jews of Eastern Europe in the 19th century,”

without having any serious knowledge of the reasons for those pogroms, but rather because of a powerful emotional reaction he experiences toward the Haredi community.

Likewise, let us note that the same person (Michi), who so strongly demands intellectual honesty, claimed that when Nachshon Wachsman was kidnapped, then “almost the entire country prayed.”
This is, of course, complete nonsense. There were, of course, many Jews who prayed. Far more than usual. But to define that as “almost the entire country prayed”—
that is a lack of intellectual honesty aimed at trying to highlight his position. There is no reason to think that almost the entire country (which includes almost all secular people) actually spoke with the Creator of the world and asked Him that we merit the rescue of the late Nachshon Wachsman.

Intellectual honesty?
Michi?

Not really . . .

It’s unpleasant to read such a foolish comment.
I ask that it be deleted out of respect for the site.

Whoever finds it unpleasant shouldn’t read it (and regarding Ehud’s comments, there’s no need anyway, because they’re all copied from one another with no connection to the thread in which they appear).
I allow people to blow off steam, within certain limits. It’s probably helpful to them, and may it be healthy for all of us.

With God’s help, 21 Iyar 5781

To Dvir—hello,

The claim you brought, about a supposed dispute between the sages of Babylonia and the sages of the Land of Israel over the reason for the destruction, is puzzling. After all, the statement “Because of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza Jerusalem was destroyed” is brought in the Babylonian Talmud in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, the leading sage of the Land of Israel, and it is also brought in the Land-of-Israel midrash Eichah Rabbah.

An atmosphere in which a person who was mistakenly invited is thrown out of a feast, and he then goes and informs to the authorities in revenge; an atmosphere in which zealots burn the storehouses that would have made it possible to withstand the siege for twenty years, and hooligans are ready to stab and shove even the greatest of the sages—this is an atmosphere of hatred and division that guaranteed defeat and destruction by preventing the ability to unite against the enemy. Therefore, the statement that baseless hatred brought about the destruction is not merely a matter of punishment. It is simply a natural explanation of reality.

Not for nothing was this reason emphasized specifically by the sages of the Land of Israel, who were committed to conducting dispute in pleasant ways, and the sages of Babylonia agreed with them and established it in their Talmud, in order to teach a moral lesson about how careful one must be that heated halakhic argument should not, Heaven forbid, slide into estrangement of hearts.

And I heard a beautiful idea from Mrs. Bat-Galim Shaer, that the corrective “free love” is not “love without basis,” but rather that “for free” here means “their grace.” Even when there is a need to sustain a sharp dispute with others, one should love their “grace”—the point of goodness and charm within them.

With blessing, Ami’uz Yaron Schnitzler

It is worth noting the Maharal’s words in Netzach Yisrael, that the fact that the destruction came as a result of the ruling of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas, through a rabbi’s halakhic ruling, is the seal clarifying that this was a decree from God.

And perhaps Rabbi Zechariah was right. A society tossed back and forth between a tendency toward contempt for Jewish law—”people will say that blemished animals may be offered”—and excessive strictness, willing to spill blood over “inflicting a blemish on consecrated animals,” needs to be repaired and healed of its sickness in order to be worthy of the Divine Presence dwelling within it.

To commenter A, hello,

In this case I responded by mistake in the wrong thread, and this platform doesn’t allow deleting messages.

Contrary to what Michi wrote, in my humble opinion I do try to respond only in appropriate threads.
There really isn’t any blowing off steam here, but rather a substantive and critical response to what Michi said.

I understand that sometimes it’s unpleasant to read this, and there are people to whom Michi is important, but still, if one chooses to respond to my words (or to the words of anyone), it is better to respond substantively.

If you have a substantive response to what I wrote, I’d be happy to read it and even respond.
That would surely also be very easy for you, since in your opinion this is a super-stupid comment.

All the best, infinite faith and joy!