Analytical and Synthetic within Religion, or: A Multiplicity of Full Carts

Hello,
In your book Two Carts and a Balloon, you drew a spectacular and convincing distinction between the analytic and the synthetic, with the former’s cart full of positive values ​​and recognizing one truth, compared to the latter’s cart empty of true values ​​that stand on their own and bind everyone, and whose values ​​are nothing but negative, with the value of liberalism and let them live (in a big way) at the center.

I tried to advance this diagnosis into the religious public as well. To this day, I am very annoyed that there are a few narrow-minded, fanatical people who rape the entire public for their views. It is indeed annoying, and we must admit that much of the annoyance is influenced by the general spirit of liberalism, but not only that. In light of your words, I thought that perhaps those who really impose their will on the public, perhaps they really believe more in their values ​​than I do, and if they really believe that these are the values ​​at the top, they should sweep the entire public towards these values. In contrast, I live for myself without driving anyone crazy, or I am indifferent to the fate of others, or I do not believe enough in my own way.

Despite this, I think there is a difference between a religious-secular and a religious X-religious Y. I may sound a bit mystical, but it is clear to me that God is too great for there to be only one limited way to worship Him, and all the changes between communities are not accidental. If we take the example of Hasidim and dissenters or Da’tal and Haredim, it is clear to me that everyone eventually reaches the goal – adherence to God, even if in a different way. I am willing to accept that “God needs” even marginal groups with a very strange position in our eyes, as long as they do not contradict the principles of tradition and halacha. As far as I am concerned, God wants both those who emphasize prayer for many hours, and also those who are immersed all day in careful study with complete closure, and also those who work for the settlement of the Land of Israel, those who make a great deal of joy, those who make a great deal of redemption, and those who make a great deal of words of thanksgiving to God all the time, and also in the content of the study, those who study in Babylon carefully, those who have grasped the The Jerusalemite and those who captured the Maimonides and so on and so forth.
I think Judaism is so great and there is a personal place for everyone, so that ultimately in heaven a complete picture is obtained, like a fragrant fragrance. Perhaps as a kind of couple system in which the man and the woman, each give their contribution from their place and ultimately reach the perfect destination.
I do not have clear sources for this. But I synthesize several sources that deal with related matters, such as the words of the Ari regarding the twelve chapters of the formulas of the twelve tribes, or the words of Rabbi Wasserman that the Jewish people are divided into different armies and each one contributes his contribution, or even the words of the Maharal that during the exile there is no completeness and therefore there are “seconds” and the kingdom is divided, like different members of one body. There is no room here to elaborate further.

In any case, the bottom line is that in religion, when there is no head-on clash in the principles of halakha or faith (and even if it seems that there is, every community knows how to deal with its own clashes in halakha, it needs love for others to accept their “excuses”), tolerance towards others does not stem from an analytical approach, but from an understanding that religion itself supports a plurality of truths. A person needs to know their own truth, but at the same time accommodate complexities on a national level.
You might scoff at these things as if they were Hasidic words, but I think they are more than well-founded. Moreover, overall, it is not about abolishing all values, since the vast majority of values ​​are common to all and everyone is willing to fight for them, and it is only about less principled nuances.

Do you agree with my words or do you think we should come out and demonstrate a view… (if, of course, we become confident in the righteousness of our path)?