More Pleasing to the Lord Than an Ox or Bull (Column 386)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
As is known, the Torah instructs that a court that errs must bring a communal sin-offering (“par he’elem davar shel tzibbur,” Leviticus 4). Since, in my estimation, the dozens of rabbis who signed the proclamation in the “Mishnah Rishonah” of Rabbi Tau and his sect, against relying on an Arab party in a coalition, do not intend to bring a bull, let this column be an atonement for their sin in place of a bull. And I also pray that this column will benefit anyone who erred regarding the mitzvah to heed the words of the Sages (see Horayot 2b), and especially those who erred in diagnosing who qualifies as a sage.
Mishnah Rishonah
As is known, after the last elections (number four in the current series—may they multiply), a political deadlock emerged in which neither side had a sufficient majority to form a coalition except with the assistance of an Arab party (at least so long as the corrupt-liar, may he live long, insists on continuing to serve as the chief of the “Indian tribe” or the Hasidic court known as “the Likud Party”). The only possibility for the enlightened ruler in question to form a coalition is to rely, actively or passively (abstention, or outside support), on the Ra’am party led by Mansour Abbas. This is an Islamic party that in recent months has shown a surprising and uncharacteristic spirit of pragmatism.
The fear of forming an unholy coalition of that court with the Haredim, the Kahanists, and the Hardal camp, with a pinch of Islamic seasoning (admit it—this is a magical composition), somewhat dissipated among the faithful of Israel like myself after the publication of the rabbis’ proclamation of the first edition (“Mishnah Rishonah,” as it is now dubbed), in which they express their opinion—Torah-truth in God’s own name via Moses our teacher, no less—that one must not rely in any way whatsoever on an Arab party, and they even rule that this involves a biblical prohibition. Here are their pearly words:
Note that the number of signatories fulfills the verse “let not the mixture be lacking” (see Ramban, Bava Batra 76b, and elsewhere), and it seems we have here a majority of the “great Sanhedrin,” both in structure and in number. In any case, as your straight-seeing eyes will behold, reliance on the Arabs entails a biblical prohibition of nullifying the positive commandment of “you shall dispossess the land,” as well as a desecration of God’s name (as will be explained below), and therefore one must not budge from this. “No counsel and no wisdom can prevail against the Lord.” That is the Mishnah Rishonah.
Initial Analysis: On Ideology, Pragmatism, and Haredism
One of the most prominent differences between the Hardal camp and the Haredim is the degree of pragmatism. Haredim, contrary to their image, are very pragmatic. In the end they weigh matters with common sense (or crooked sense), and make realistic decisions that will bring about the outcomes they desire (usually not mine). The Haredim do not cling too tightly to ideological declarations. For them, ideology is good for conversations in the beit midrash and synagogue, or for op-ed writing, but not for life. There, they act purposefully and efficiently for their interests. At most they are prepared to supply excuses about “Da’at Torah” for decision-makers whose choices are ideologically inconsistent—depths of thought no mere mortal can fathom—and that’s that.
By contrast, the Hardal camp is a very ideological and very non-pragmatic sect (see on this in column 19). It clings to its slogans, and every step and decision is tested in the crucible of ideological examination (which, of course, is always presented as Da’at Torah, transmitted directly from the Holy One via the Rabbis Kook to Rabbi Tau; see the beginning of Pirkei Avot). What fits is good, and what doesn’t—an uncompromising, tough, rigid ideological jihad. That is true for their conduct as private individuals, and certainly as a group. Naturally, it is quite hard for all of us to deal with consistent, hardline ideologues—but there is indeed something to admire in them (and also something not to admire. Over-attachment to ideology is somewhat childish. Whoever matures understands that life is always more complicated. See The Little Prince, chapter “The Lamplighter”).
This proclamation is a marvelous expression of that mode of conduct. Although the only way to bring their representatives into the government and to form a government in their spirit (at least relatively) is to rely on Abbas, that, of course, is out of the question for them. Relying on Arabs is vile pragmatism that stands in frontal opposition to the sparks of light of the Torah of Israel, founded upon holy mountains—or tiger mountains—which some call Ideology. One must not surrender to the Antichrist, that is, to the unholy combination of the New Israel Fund, the European Union, the detested left, and abominable liberalism (i.e., anyone who is against Bibi), who stand beneath every green tree and behind everything that happens in the universe (as if they were “haters” and “terrorists”). Such pragmatic conduct is dismissed out of hand because it stands in direct contradiction to ideology (sorry—to our eternal Torah, which shall not be replaced).
Note that one could have raised entirely nontrivial pragmatic arguments for this ostensibly “non-pragmatic” policy. Reliance on an Arab party is a problematic precedent, since until now no serious actor in Israeli politics—including centrist and left parties—has dared to establish a government that relies on Arabs. If the right were to do so now, naturally it would grant license to all who follow (speaking according to their view, not mine). Such a step could make the Arabs into the balance of power (like the Haredim), and that could significantly change Israeli politics for a long time to come. And indeed, the right has already been certified—both the man and the amulet—in blazing the trail for surrendering parts of the Land of Israel, in security failures, and in unceasing helplessness; and now it could also blaze the trail for integrating the Arab parties as a major central force in our politics. With such a right, who needs a left?!
But, as noted, that is a pragmatic argument that would never cross the holy lips of our light-sparkling leaders. And indeed, that argument didn’t really surface. What did surface was an ideological argument in rabbinic garb: a strict, grave prohibition of our holy Torah (which apparently harms the soul of the nation, in case you didn’t know). That is faithful testimony to the ideological path of our Hardal cousins.
I am not even speaking of the baseless tendentiousness of their interpretation of “vehorashtem” (“you shall dispossess”), which of course serves as a cloak for a political argument (only one mustn’t say so openly). Just look: it does not bother them that this government is composed of people who transgress every prohibition in the Torah (foremost among them our esteemed prime minister), who promote corruption and lies at every step, full of bowl-lickers, nobodies, and spineless folk. Nor are they troubled that the state as a whole is not based on halakha and that its laws do not truly take halakha into account. None of that includes any prohibition, and certainly none of it harms the soul of the nation the way the passive nullification, by grama and with a shinui, of the positive commandment “vehorashtem” does (i.e., relying passively on Arabs outside the coalition). Their infantile talk about “vehorashtem” is uttered as if the entire rest of halakha were kept here scrupulously, and all that remains is to ensure the little tip of the yod—that there not be outside support from an Arab party. And again: this is not a political consideration, Heaven forbid, but pure Da’at Torah and pristine halakha. The sole cloud shading our kashrut and the purity of the cruse of pure oil of the State of Israel (the foundation of God’s throne in the world) is “vehorashtem.” The whole world will tremble when it hears that in Israel Arabs are allowed to participate in the democratic game, and what a desecration of God’s name will be created thereby. Terrible, terrifying.
No wonder, then, that your faithful servant, after reading this wondrous proclamation—the Mishnah Rishonah (as it was then called)—leaned back in his armchair with great satisfaction, knowing that the righteous person’s work would be done by others. There are those who will see to it for me that a government led by Bibi will be prevented. I wrote then on WhatsApp that the Hardalim are like the Palestinians: they never miss an opportunity to miss opportunities. Excellent, as far as I’m concerned. Except that then, to my surprise, there came a Mishnah Acharonah (final version), and smacked me on the head.
Mishnah Acharonah
Did you think “no counsel and no wisdom can prevail against the Lord”? Well, you were mistaken. There may be no wisdom against the Lord, but counsel—there is. And you’ll be amazed: this counsel, too, was given to us directly from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He (there is nothing not hinted at in the Torah), via the Rabbis Kook to Rabbi Tau. It seems they have exclusivity with Him. And here are his golden words in the later edition proclamation, published yesterday, which with the flick of a hand turned yesterday’s biblical prohibition and harm to the nation’s soul into today’s sanctification of God’s name:
Indeed, a marvelous demonstration of Maimonides’ ninth principle: “And this Torah will not be replaced.” The status of women, Heaven forbid, cannot change by even a hair’s breadth over two thousand years; but the laws of sanctifying and desecrating God’s name, and the commandments of “vehorashtem” and “lo techonem,” undergo a shift from end to end within two days. “The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord performs valiantly.” Happy is the eye that saw all this; our souls faint at the report alone.
By the way, to complete the picture I note that quite a few rabbis oppose this Mishnah Acharonah, which bears only his signature. They hold fast to the Mishnah Rishonah (like Rabbi Druckman).
A Collection of Notes
Beyond the wondrous halakhic and ideological flip-flop—from desecration of God’s name and a biblical prohibition to the lightning-birth of sanctification(s) of God’s name that outweigh all of these with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm (a question remains whether this is merely “overridden” or fully “permitted”)—it is worth making a few remarks about this marvelous riddle-text from the “prince” of our generation (as it is said: “Princes of wind and no rain”):
A. Needless to say, this too is not, Heaven forbid, a political-pragmatic consideration. It is solely a halakhic and Torah consideration in pure Da’at Torah, possible only for one who knows the mind of the Most High and is familiar with the crucible of the God of knowledge. The proclamation begins with a quote from our teacher Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda (Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook), who already foresaw in his holy spirit what was going to happen and warned us. Only, that quote matches the Mishnah Rishonah, and contains a severe prohibition and desecration of God’s name in relying on Arabs, Heaven forfend. But the proclamation also ends with other words of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda that bolster the new Mishnah. “Words of Torah are poor in one place and rich in another.”
B. Next in the proclamation, how could it be otherwise, we come to the events in Meron, which turned the whole Torah on its head. Why? I don’t know—but admit it, some explanation is needed for the fascinating flip-flop that occurred here. Ah, I forgot the war against baseless hatred and the need for unity. Rabbi Tau’s move is meant to bring us unity at this difficult hour. Wonderful—though to be honest, I actually notice much more unity today, after Meron, than last week. But who am I, and what are my insights, compared to the word of the Lord from Jerusalem?
Well then, because of the need for unity within the people of Israel, there is no choice but to unite with the pure cruse of oil—Abbas—who acts in God’s name and for Zion’s sake will not be silent; and this, against about half the members of Knesset who are impure and detested Jews, many of them further to the right than our esteemed and corrupt prime minister. Preventing baseless hatred and fostering intra-Jewish unity—did we say that already?
C. Now, of course, come the expected words of praise and adulation for our above-mentioned prime minister, who stands steadfast against his pursuers (=the Antichrist). This is no surprise, since the man and the amulet were already certified in a letter of praise and encouragement from the author of this Mishnah Acharonah to President Katsav, who was convicted of rape and indecent acts. Still, our esteemed prime minister and proud Jew is merely a liar, corrupt, hedonist, openly adulterous, Sabbath desecrator, eater of non-kosher meat, and one who has relations during a woman’s period. He does not, Heaven forbid, transgress the grave prohibition of “vehorashtem” by grama, which harms the soul of the nation. Oh, I forgot—actually he does transgress it. In the eyes of the author of the Mishnah Acharonah, Bibi apparently descends into the filthy alleyways to rescue all the sparks in the depths of impurity. Therefore, all the faithful of Israel should support him, and not those accursed, spineless leftists like Bennett, Sa’ar, Gantz, Bogie Ya’alon, and their aides. Ah, and I forgot the wicked Ibtisam Mara’ana. How can she be compared to the renowned Righteous Among the Nations—Abbas?
D. Fear of the Antichrist who promotes a “state of all its citizens” leads Rabbi Tau directly to side with bringing an Arab party into the government (at least passively). You have no stronger war against the “state of all its citizens.” In addition, the fear of division that will be sown among the Jewish public now (this very week—last week this fear did not exist) leads him to side with a coalition with Abbas against about half of the Jewish Knesset members. Now an amazing unity will reign among the Jews, and all the Arabs will know their place. Scum that they are. How wondrous are the ways and logic of our master, to whom no secret is hidden.
E. At this fateful hour (meaning right now, not fifty hours ago, when matters were far less fateful), we must remember the words of the Holy One as voiced by Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda (Pirkei Avot there, there), that we do not defer sanctification of God’s name on account of desecration of God’s name. This principle was renewed just now thanks to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, may his merit protect us, and only Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda, in his holy spirit, managed to discern this principle even before last weekend. Not for nothing did our Sages write: “Whoever takes counsel from the elders will not stumble.” True, the criterion for what counts as sanctification and desecration of God’s name is still unknown to us. Likewise, none of us knows the measure—how great is “great” and how not? This was not entrusted to ordinary mortals (those who do not “remember” Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda’s instructions—just as our master, the prince of our generation, himself did not remember three days ago). This is “the secret of the Lord to those who fear Him,” to whom He makes known His covenant.
F. It is further written in this Mishnah Acharonah that we must ensure a government that has proven itself in caring for Israel’s sanctities (see: Meron), that will represent the Holy One, lead the nation with pride, and upon which the name of the Lord is called (=Bibi).
G. The foolish justifications offered in this proclamation, of course, mask a completely political-pragmatic calculation (legitimate and sensible in itself), in lofty and exalted language. This is an attempt to cover for absolute detachment from reality, for a wrong reading of the map, and also for matchless hypocrisy. Beyond all that, it seems to me that these justifications indicate that the main difference between the Hardalim and the Haredim is vanishing. The attachment to ideology remains on the surface; inside they are already entirely pragmatic Haredim (apart from a few chapters of Psalms once a year). In this sense, the map, at least, becomes simpler. By the way, I am in favor of pragmatism—but I prefer it to be open and transparent, honest, and above all without bombast and claptrap.
He should have written candidly something like this: I erred earlier and misread the map. There is no “vehorashtem” prohibition in such a coalition; I was simply wasting your time. Only, I thought it was a politically bad step, and now it has become clear to me that the alternative is worse. There is certainly room to honor one who admits his mistakes—if that were the case. But the continuation of this phraseological discourse guarantees continued conduct as it has been until now.
H. What troubles me most in this conduct is that the writer apparently estimates there will be enough fools to buy the nonsense he is selling here. He assumes there will be many who will treat his words as if there were a halakhic argument here, and will forget all the prohibitions of the Torah that he himself innovated ex nihilo only a few days ago, and will not notice the baselessness of the arguments themselves. They will also continue to listen seriously to the words of the redeeming Torah and to the “faith of our times” issuing from the holy mountain, fresh each morning. I am troubled not by his very assessments of reality, but by the impression that in this case he actually knows reality not badly at all. Among his flock there will apparently be not a few of this sort. “Only a wise and understanding people is this great nation.”
Apropos a wise and understanding people, I can only conclude with a quotation from the end of the words of the author of the Mishnah Acharonah, the prince of our generation, which descended upon us, the masses, directly from the heights of the holy mountain in Jerusalem, in the very formulation of the author of the report:
In the days of the holiness of the counting of the Omer [this holiness prevails only after Lag BaOmer, of course] of this year, let our hearts be purified, and as one man with one heart, let us proceed with strength to our holy abode, and may our independence be elevated and sanctified with the holiness of Jerusalem; may the sanctification of God’s Name in the State of Israel increase and grow great upon us before the eyes of all the ends of the earth, and may all say, “Only a wise and understanding people is this great nation,” “The Lord has done great things with these.”
If there is anyone here who still does not see how, following the Mishnah Acharonah, the name of the Lord is called upon us (via a government of Bibi and Litzman, Ben Gvir, Gafni, and Miri Regev, with the new seasoning Mahmoud Abbas), let him stand. If there is perhaps among us a base fellow who suspects that this people is not really the wisest and most understanding of all the nations—let him stand. And perhaps some even do not see, with their fleshly eyes, the sublime sanctification of God’s name that is created thereby before all nations and the ends of the earth, when all see how all the faithful of Israel, as one man, support a liar, a corrupt man, and an adulterer for prime minister—and even view it as a sanctification of God’s name—and deny Arabs the right to participate in Israeli democracy—let him stand. And perhaps some of those base fellows are not impressed by the zigzags and the excuses uttered with an air of gravitas as if this were a new giving of the Torah—then it is a sign that their eyes are dimmed from seeing. They apparently do not understand the depth of the “faith of our times.”
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Regarding the pragmatism of the Haredim, I used to tend to think in this dichotomy, but over the years I have seen that this is not the case, at least not with the Lithuanians. They have become so ideological that it is truly disgusting. Look at Moshe Gafni and his well-known arrogance. After all, he is dying for Israel to be small and weak and for the Prime Minister to be named Ahmed Tibi (his good friend), especially to justify the ideology of Rabbi Schach, who, for his part, “may the Messiah not come, not even in two thousand years”. I will not argue like my brothers from the yeshiva line for the ”end of the revealed”, but at least I have gratitude for the country for its security and economic success. Last week, an Arab slapped a Lithuanian guy on the Jerusalem train, and the student's father's response was that we were in exile and we are still in exile and accept reality, so we will not travel on the train, because we are not like the nationalists… No gratitude for the reality that sends Mossad agents to blow up laboratories in Iran or to national secret services thanks to which Putz Benny Barki can throw a Santander at his enemy in Ponibaz. In short, it is impossible to argue with a society that leaves its sons as fools, just to preserve ideologies that developed after the Holocaust as pragmatic.
This is not a dichotomy but a general description. Of course there are exceptions, but as a rule it is a correct description. The example you gave is an example of a contradiction (or a slap): The father is not willing for his son to get on the train because it is dangerous. He uses slogans of exile to justify this. This is ultra-pragmatism. The religious Zionist, on the other hand, will get on the train anyway, in an unpragmatic way because that is his ideology.
They despise doctors until they need them and then they hysterically search for the best doctor (because that is the effort required, of course). And so on for many other things.
Woe to the generation whose ridiculous people are childish clowns like Tao and Kanievsky.
A substantive response to what Michi said:
Called Bibi the “corrupt-liar”.
Michi forgets to mention that Bibi is indeed a liar and corrupt (probably so), but this is one of the best prime ministers to have risen for the people of Israel:
Israel, according to many parameters, dealt with the Corona virus very well. The health system was prepared.
The economic situation in the country was very good during Bibi's reign, and it seems that they are also coming out of the Corona economic crisis well.
There are peace agreements with several Arab countries (and probably many more to come later) with Bibi at the head of the system.
Israel's security situation is reasonable. The security problems are not over, but the average Israeli can leave the house and feel safe in the country.
Therefore, it is also possible to some extent to understand why, even though Bibi is a liar and probably also corrupt, 30 seats continue to go with him.
Why did Miki choose to point out mainly the negative sides of Bibi?
Because it suits him for the article.
Intellectual honesty and objective writing?
Not with Miki.
Miki's second lie –
Notice what Miki writes to present the rabbis in an unflattering way:
“That one should not rely in any way on an Arab party. . .”
Well, a little study of the picture Miki himself brings shows the truth well:
“It is forbidden to rely on Arab parties ***with Islamic national ambitions***”
Come on, Miki, it's okay to present a half-truth, but not pay attention to the content of the letter that you yourself posted and which proves how much you are bluffing? You are simply a swindler.
In truth, the rabbis probably wouldn't have any problem with an Arab party without national aspirations on the Holy Land, and that recognizes a Jewish state. Just read critically what Michi writes.
Well, that's enough for now, I'll expose the rest of Michi's nonsense later.
By the way, if anyone wants to respond to what I wrote, write something relevant as a response, and not just something like "You're an idiot and a fool and not worth responding to."
And you are a loyal reader of this site, not because the content interests you, God forbid, but to open the blind eyes of the fans with their eyes closed, right?
Response to ”Aglon”:
I am not the issue here.
The issue here is the content of Miki.
I simply recognize that this is a haltourist.
In this sub-thread, as far as I'm concerned, you are the one and you intrigue me quite a bit. And why do you devote your precious time to diligently perusing the words of a scoundrel in columns and replies? I assume that the content of course adds nothing to you and you are just reading and writing here so that the gullible public here will see the light you shine on him, yes?
Another response to ”Aglon”:
I will answer.
First, let it be clear, Miki, despite being a scoundrel in his columns, is a smart person.
I do not “diligently study” all of his columns (I did not enter the Platonism columns at all), but only certain columns.
These will usually be columns related to political discourse, free choice, and faith (and even then only if they do not drown in endless philosophies and verbiage, most of which are irrelevant to anything)
Miki's content adds to me in the sense that I see how a person can soap up his readership, and I actually enjoy understanding Miki's ability to soap up his readers under the guise of “good and well-defined arguments”. Just like people like to watch TV shows like “The Impostor” etc.
In addition, as you mentioned, I expose Miki's bluffs, and that also gives me a certain pleasure.
It is ridiculous to hear sermons about corruption from the owner of the website who praises the Maghreb and his corrupt friends.
The mockery of ideology is also unclear. From the owner of the rumor, we learned that it is permissible to study Torah above all other wisdom: distilling practical practice in light of abstract principles. It turns out that anyone who actually tries to do this is being punished by a scoundrel.
Because of my commitment to the principle of grace, I tried to decipher this enigmatic text and respond, but in my case I was only partially successful. But from your words I learned that my logic is probably not good, so maybe the problem is with me:
1. Who is this Magister I praise, and who are his corrupt companions? In my case I did not get to understand. Who is the Magister today anyway?
2. Indeed, Torah is supposed to guide us in light of abstract principles, but adhering to abstract principles (as in positivism) is a recipe for disaster. There is no contradiction here to the best of my faint understanding, and I have even explained it more than once. Guidance is not the same as adherence.
Weinrot on Netanyahu:
The highest of the high, a true patriot, not corrupt
Ron Dermer on Netanyahu: Gulliver – all others are Lilliputians next to him.
These individuals knew Netanyahu intimately.
We have their opinion, which demands praise, and the opinion of Rabbi Michael Avraham, who believes otherwise.
And how does he judge each person by his merits?
Indeed, a model of balanced and selective quoting, in the best demagogic tradition. We have never shed a tear from Netanyahu's acquaintances who say he is corrupt. Only I am against Weinroth and Dermer. I am convinced.
For you – A substantive response
The nickname of our revered Prime Minister as a liar and corrupt (and one wonders whether all the achievements of the State of Israel are due to him, and if not, it is better without him, but this is not the place) is intended for rhetorical purposes – a presentation of the distorted scale of values from the House of Tao that lovingly accepts lies and corruption but does not compromise on the thorn of Yod in the law that will not spare them.
Regarding the issue of Abbas's nationalism – Two answers on the matter. One: that the nickname of the Arab parties as having nationalist aspirations is intended only as an additional insult and as a condition that helps the central prohibition – giving Arabs a seat in the government.
And further: nowhere have we seen that Abbas has withdrawn from his nationalist aspirations, so there is no qualification, even if he were in his place, to change the ruling
Response to ”Gra” :
I didn't ask to respond to me. I asked that if someone responds, they respond in a matter-of-fact manner.
I really appreciate you for choosing to respond in a matter-of-fact manner.
Regarding the response itself –
A. It's great that you agree with me that Smichi presented Bibi in a very partial and unserious manner.
What you wrote that legitimately Smichi would write this to show that Herr”G Tao Shalit”a lovingly accepts lies and corruption,
This is of course wrong, and it's not nice and not serious that you write like that.
Herr”G Tao Shalit”a does not lovingly accept lies and corruption.
He accepts Bibi as the best prime minister the people of Israel currently have.
Next time you write, try to go one step further, and not only answer in a matter-of-fact manner,
but also answer seriously.
B. You back up Miki's lies by saying that in the ad the "national-Palestinian" issue is just an excuse,
and on the part of the R”g Tao Shalit”a there is real racism that does not want Arabs in the government at all.
Do you have a shred of evidence for this?
After all, on the other hand, we know that Abbas and his party do indeed have national aspirations for the Arabs on the land of Israel,
so this is certainly not "insulting" them.
Regarding what you wrote in the last two lines, I didn't really understand, and the truth is that what I do understand is
in contradiction to what you wrote above
My opinion was the same as yours, both written and spoken, and I even saw it as a blessing, that there was a softening of the ideological existence of the Rabbis. But after a deeper examination of the text, I think that this is not a pragmatic compromise but a courageous ideological decision.
In the first edition, Tao adhered to the tradition that came from his rabbi (from Mount Sinai, of course) that the value of racism is the most sacred value for us and that we must follow it without compromise until the last emblazoning in Nablus.
After writing all this, Tao recalled the world of values that he himself crowned at the top of the scale of Jewish values (from Sinai, above) – the values of homophobia.
And so in a courageous ruling, the examination of ‘the words of the rabbi and the words of the student’ Rabbi Tau decided that the values of lehtevpoyya outweigh the values of racism and it is permissible to be even a little non-racist, for the noble goal of persecuting feminists and for the better.
In God we are privileged to see the word of God alive and breathing and the spirit of the speaker taking on a new form in his disciple who continues his path, like Rabbi Eliezer who never said anything he did not hear from his master and yet was privileged to say "things you have not heard with your ear"
In the last Mishnah, Rabbi Tau did not retreat from the principled statement that a situation in which the government of the State of Israel is based on Gentiles who deny the land's belonging to the people of Israel is a blasphemy, but from a practical point of view it was clarified that the alternative is the rise of an extreme left-wing government that will harm not only the Jewish character of the state, but will harm the security of the state and the integrity of the country. A government led by Lapid, Gantz, Michaeli and Zandberg will, at best, not withstand the pressures of Biden and Co., and at worst: will rush to make sweeping concessions and to the Palestinians to eliminate the settlement in Judea and Samaria.
Necessity requires, in Rabbi Tao's opinion, to support a right-wing and Jewish government that Netanyahu will establish, and although leaning on the Islamist Mansour Abbas is a terrible "blasphemy", we have no choice, in Rabbi Tao's opinion, but to submit to this necessity, relying on the guidance of the Jerusalemite "Greater is the sanctification of God than the blasphemy of God", which was interpreted by Rabbi Kook, that even where there is a blasphemy aspect in submitting to necessity, the greater is the sanctification of God that will result from it.
Indeed, in the idea of Adam the First, the horns "raising a horn with Israel" precede the "hooves", for practical conduct. But in the life of the deed, the ’ox’ was born in a lowly state, without the rays of majesty and glory, and its hooves, its earthly conduct – precedes the rays of majesty and glory. This is the virtue of ’thanks’, which can thank God even for an incomplete reality, out of a hope in the future that will bring about the completion of the work ‘that God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah and they will dwell there and inherit it and the seed of His servants will inherit it and those who love His name will dwell in it;
With blessings, Amioz Yaron SchnitzelࢭR
Paragraph 3, line 3
… of the’thanks’, the ability to thank her’ also…
Ibid., line 4
… out of faith in the future that will bring…
B ”e Amior is a living example of the method of study in the beit midrash of the president of our generation, Shalit”a.
In response to any question, one should repeat what the rabbi said in slightly different words and spice it up with unrelated verses that will illustrate that the repeater himself did not understand the rabbi's words.
We are blessed that we won!
Bingo 🙂
It is possible that in the first half of the year, Rabbi Tao still expected some kind of compromise in the bad blood between Netanyahu and Gideon Sa'ar and his faction, a compromise that would have made the fundamentally wrong move of relying on the R.M. unnecessary. Since Rabbi Tao despaired of the possibility of forming a right-wing government with Sa'ar's participation, there was nothing left but the inevitable choice between a left-wing government that would rely on the "joint" and a right-wing government relying on Mansour Abbas.
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Different directions for analyzing Mansour Abbas's position and the question of his sincerity, I mentioned in my responses to the column "Confused, Change the System of Delegates." He may have realized that a right-wing government might be more effective in addressing the real problems of the Israeli Arab public. And so on.
What I don't understand the least about the conduct of "religious Zionism" is the firm determination that they will not support the government that Netanyahu will form by relying on the R”M.
After all, even if Netanyahu is wrong and even wrong in relying on the R”M - is this a reason to overthrow his government or at least threaten to do so? And that a small party with 6 seats can dictate to a party that represents a quarter of the people to change its policy?
It would be more accurate to say that we oppose and are very afraid of Netanyahu's move, but with no choice and out of gratitude towards him - we will not overthrow his government, even if we refrain from joining it. We are allowed to recognize our weakness. And our meager political power.
In short: For the record, a strong protest against Netanyahu's move to form a government based on the ”M– is in order, but a vote against such a government is beyond our power and ability.
Best regards, Yaffo”r
In the case of the 21st of Iyar, 5721
It seems that there is room to distinguish between the present case and the precedent set by the speech that denied the authority of the Rabin government, which was established as a 'minority government' relying on the votes of the Arabs.
The Rabin government at that time represented a minority in the Jewish public, a minority that imposed itself on the majority through the votes of the Arabs. Relying on the Arabs distorted the will of the Jewish voters.
In contrast, in the case of Didan, the right-wing bloc led by Netanyahu has a clear majority in the Jewish public. Relying on the R”M only strengthens the choice of the majority of Jewish citizens.
With greetings, Yaffo
But on the other hand, it must be said that although relying on the votes of the majority of Jews only strengthened the choice of the majority of Jews - the very fact of relying on the votes of the Arabs expresses an inappropriate principle, which hands over to the Gentiles the decision and establishment of control in the State of Israel.
And I have already suggested the practical direction of support from outside while strongly protesting the reliance on the votes of the Arabs. This is, for the most part, the maximum that religious Zionism can do in view of its meager political power (the meager of the meager 🙂
With greetings, Yafa'r
In an article he published a few years ago, Rabbi Ronen Lubitz compares the concept of Kiddush Hashem in the teachings of the rabbi's students with the same concept among the students of Rabbi Amital and Rabbi Lichtenstein, at the Har Etzion Yeshiva. The article is academic, well-founded, and very long, and I will praise it in the concluding paragraph:
“The one path was outlined by Rabbi Kook and his students from the ’Mercaz HaRav’ Yeshiva, whose teachings are based on emphasizing national and even interfaith motifs. Those who follow this path believe that the degree of success of the Jewish people in the world is the central parameter that determines the degree of Kiddush Hashem or blasphemy in the world. These rabbis based themselves on the words of the prophet Ezekiel and developed a concept according to which the State of Israel represents the nation as a whole, and as such it also represents the status of the divine presence in the world. In light of this, the state's success in the political and military arenas are the most obvious expressions of the sanctification of the name of God among the peoples of the world.
The other path, emerging from the writings of Rabbi Yehuda Amital and his students from the “Har-Etzion”Yeshiva, as well as from the words of other rabbis close to them in spirit, also refers to the behavior of the State of Israel as having great weight in terms of the index of the sanctification of God in the world. However, from its perspective, it is not the state's successes that are the determining factor, but rather the degree of its morality. This morality is determined in accordance with the accepted rules of human morality. The thinking pattern of this system is not national-international, but is based on universal values and compares Israel before its eyes as a state that must play according to the ethical scale customary among nations.”
And this is the link:
https://toravoda.org.il/%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%95%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9D/
The fact that the issue of gender, identity, and the right to be treated as the top priority on Mount Moriah shows that the sanctification or desecration of God is on the moral plane for them. (I am not claiming that they are right.)
Too much text, wordplay and cynicism. Sometimes it's even hard to understand, but regardless it's just unpleasant to read (even for fans, sorry). What is it about the Kvakniks that drives you crazy? Write something relevant and maybe you can even convince someone
Yoni, when I read your words I stopped for a moment and thought about whether there was any truth in them and perhaps I should examine my attitude towards them again.
I brought up three characteristics that remove the cynicism and mockery from me in relation to this ridiculous gang: 1. Their childish and stupid attitude. 2. The pathos and seriousness that accompany it and the feeling as if they are descending to conquer the world and the Torah and as if the world stands on them (= the central global yeshiva). 3. The fact that despite the above, quite a few fools follow them at least somewhat (even the opponents, usually accompanied by some sense of inferiority). The evidence is the various publications as if this collection of clowns is the “rabbis of religious Zionism”, and not only in the ads that come out of them but also in the general media attitude.
These three characteristics create severe damage to religious Zionist society. Not only to its public relations but also fundamentally. Therefore, in my opinion, it is important to burst the balloon of importance that surrounds these fools.
Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner explained the Gemara “Kel Litznot Asira bar Litznot De”Z”, as follows: The reason why it is permissible and appropriate to joke about Ez is the nature of this sin. Ez is giving enormous importance to something of no importance (wood and stone). Jester sticks a pin in an inflated balloon of importance. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply it to Ez. This is exactly the case here. I am not claiming, of course, that they are worshippers of Ez in the halakhic sense, but the essence of Ez (the enormous consideration of vanity and its transformation into a living God) is found in them in a big way.
And from this you will understand that writing about them in a serious and matter-of-fact tone is really insulting and inappropriate. You are not addressing a stupid little child who is talking nonsense in a matter-of-fact way. In principle, you should not address him at all. You find it appropriate to do so only because some do not notice that he is a stupid child. But addressing him seriously creates a situation as if he is worthy of serious consideration. In my remarks, I wrote completely substantive arguments, but I did so in a cynical way. This is a substantive approach, and in these circumstances it is also very appropriate in my opinion.
In my humble opinion, you are not accurate to say the least. In all the interviews I have heard, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir made the distinction between the possibility of supporting an Islamic party with nationalist ambitions to overthrow us and whose leader supports terrorists (not a decade ago, but a few weeks ago), and their readiness to serve the Arab public as well. If a party were to be established consisting of Arab public figures who are associated with public action and not with violent struggle, then I am convinced that religious Zionism would not be a problem.
Another thing, there is a situation where Netanyahu is corrupt. Although two things must be noted in this context: 1. He has been in the highest position for about 15 years and his corruption is still perceived at the lower level of corruption. 2. Unfortunately, many are infected with the corruption of which he is accused (sympathetic coverage).
Are you sure these are in the right column? The comment at the end about Netanyahu seems related to my incidental comment (although incorrect). But as for the Risha, I'm not clear what it refers to.
It illuminates some things that have probably been forgotten:
“Fear your God’ ” including scholars of Torah.
The article is not written in a constructive manner, but rather cynical and dismissive.
If we disparage our rabbis, what do we expect from the media and their friends?!
Disparagement of rabbis is somewhat reminiscent of the stories before the destruction of the Temple, and when it comes from within our public, it hurts doubly.
If you were during the destruction and you heard Riv”z say “Give me Yavneh and its sages”, what would you say about him?!
It is possible and necessary to criticize, but it depends on how it is conveyed.
Thanks for the reminder. On this occasion, I will also mention two articles of Chazal:
1. Every Tahsin that does not contain a good opinion of a scoundrel is one of them.
2. Where there is blasphemy, one does not show respect to the rabbi.
And especially when someone takes the crown of Tahsin and rabbi for himself and dominates the public.
If I were in the time of destruction and I heard Rivaz's request, I would applaud him. Pragmatism is commendable without any internal contradiction and without presenting glittering and pathetic false representations. Exactly the opposite of what is seen with the Dylan sect.
See also my response to June above.
I'm interested to know, do you have the same attitude towards the rabbi whose entire business is by virtue of the –Ra'i”h
And did the rabbi ever speak to Rabbi Tao directly or attend his class?
And has the Rabbi ever experimented with origami from light blue Bristol paper with gold-toned flower decorations?
Not really. 🙂
No. And to be honest, I don't have much motivation to do so. What I know of him doesn't inspire a strong desire in me to get to know more. A person makes choices in his life and chooses people from whom it is worth learning and with whom it is worth meeting.
Absolutely not.
In column 375 you came out against a trending discourse. Here in column 386 you accepted pragmatism with understanding. What is between these two?
In both there is one mediocre principle that is given up (perhaps temporarily) for the benefit of another, more important principle. This is what Abbas does, as you wrote in the column If that were how Rabbi Tau reasoned, there would be nothing to complain about, and so did Reev”z, who you wrote in the comments that you would applaud. Now why not support personal legislation, or subordinate the status of the High Court to the question of whether the High Court promotes the goals that I want to promote and not to the question of whether it is “right” democratically for judges to take powers of the Knesset, etc.’.
In my opinion, this is not a stupid question and when I try to define a possible answer, I only arrive at differences in shades of a slippery slope.
[When I am by myself, I think it is very right to be in a position. There are important things and there are things that are much less. The important things determine the position and the rest should be subordinate to them. The problem is that all those who discuss in public debates try to portray themselves as if they are discussing everything in its entirety and yet somehow magically it almost always comes out fitting the position. I think it is better to simply say directly that this is my position, these are my fundamental goals and my strategic objectives and everything else is tactical maneuvers. I have already mentioned and will mention again the book ”The Bridge on the River Kwai” because I think it captures important insights.
I am not concerned with pragmatist philosophy but with pragmatic conduct. In politics there is certainly a place (not unlimited) for pragmatism.
I am against positions because they are not honest. Their cost is huge, and therefore, also consequentially, it is a mistake to conduct oneself this way. When everyone speaks from a position, it is impossible to speak. You present arguments and reasons, and the other person does not listen at all and does not answer the question, but lies over and over again. This in itself is damage that exceeds almost any other damage (because discourse is very important for the conduct of a society, and today there is no discourse in Israel. This is worse than adopting a wrong policy that tendentiousness comes to prevent). So you have a pragmatic consideration against tendentiousness and position.
By the way, I can't even accept your claims here as reflecting your position, because you are testifying to yourself that you are speaking from a position, and therefore it is possible that you don't believe everything you say. This empties the discourse of meaning. It's a bit like the permission to say things in the name of a great person because you are a flamboyant person. It has enormous damage, and this permission will become entrenched and will not be said.
I didn't understand. If I don't believe what I said, it means that I think it is important to form an opinion on every issue “on the merits” and not from the position. But if that is my opinion on the merits and even though I spoke from a position, it means that my opinion is really reflected in my words that the position is more important than the local opinion. In any case, my personal opinion is probably less interesting here, maybe when I have grandchildren there will be someone who will bother to listen to my rants. [This reminds me of your argument against determinism. And it is also a problem to believe people who claim to hold the categorical imperative. But that is already an exaggeration].
This chatter is too much for me. If you don't tell me what you think, there's no point in discussing it, no matter what the reason. Even this discussion itself is unnecessary and pointless.
But here I am clearly saying what I think. When you accuse someone of hypocrisy or lying in discussion A, it means that there is something even more important (discussion B) about which there is no general disagreement and which they are trying to protect and hide.
But what I said here, I said that the explanation for the miraculous fact that everyone is in a position all the time is that in reality the positional principles are much more important than all the occasional principles that are argued about every now and then as if without any connection to the main debate. And only in order to streamline the public discourse is it really recommended to honestly say I am in a position, I sacrifice a knight in exchange for the queen and I don't care whether the knight is important or not, you want to eat my queen too and expect me to agree that it is worth defending the knight and that way you will eat my queen but I will not give you, health and peace. This would really streamline most public discussions and save all the troublesome accusations of hypocrisy.
There is no reason to suspect a lie in such a position – Because if I argue for a general position from a particular position, it means that I truly hold the opinion that the position determines. What's the fuss about that?
As I said, if you put it on the table, the problem is less. And I still object to using the law book to promote a local person or idea that is not related to the purpose of the law. The game becomes a ruleless and forceful game. You can't play such a game. The law is supposed to have a more stable and permanent status, as a framework for the political-civic game. As soon as you bend it to beat and trample for some local achievement or another, there is no law in the country. To the same extent, I will break the law to achieve a local achievement, and so of course my opponent will do the same. You can't behave like that.
It's not for nothing that people don't put their position on the table, and therefore the accusations of hypocrisy are certainly true.
You are giving a pragmatic argument here (like the argument in the previous columns against the communist utopia) and not an argument on the merits. In other words, your big argument against positions itself comes from a position of protecting the integrity of society in general and not because the argument itself has anything true in it. Just to clarify.
People don't put the position on the table but in practice they act like it. Actions speak louder than words.
After all, I wrote that my reasoning is pragmatic. But when the benefit in question is the possibility of reasonable discourse and conduct, it carries a very great weight. I think we've exhausted it.
I too only deal with pragmatic conduct and not philosophy. Your words here say that only the lie is the problem and not the position itself. In other words, whoever explicitly says I support this personal legislation because it advances my goals, and if it were against my candidate I would oppose this legislation with all force and vigor, you have no problem with that. Half of the public debate deals with mutual accusations of ”hypocrisy” and in my opinion, this is usually a stupid argument, hypocrisy is precisely indicative of pragmatism and a hierarchy of principles and is worthy of praise.
I have a problem with that, albeit a minor one. Unfair and unequal laws are a problem.
There are always problems in a system. Even giving up Jerusalem in exchange for Yavneh and its scholars is a problem.
On the 37th of Omer, 5752
Lt. C – Shalom Rabbi,
Rabbi Tao clearly explains his practical concerns about the establishment of a left-wing government ‘whose political and security policy will be fundamentally devoid of uprightness and is likely to cause serious damage to our stand against Iran and to our country's integrity while promoting the false idea of ‘two states for two peoples’
Beyond this, Rabbi Tao fears that ’their trend is much more dangerous and serious in all matters of weakening the state as the nation-state of our people… In the repeal of the Nation-State Law and the declaration of the state as the state of all its citizens, in the harm to the IDF as the people's army prepared to defeat our enemies, and in the promotion of postmodern ideas in general, in the distortion of personal and family consciousness in the education system, and in the further harm to the Sabbath, the sacred day in the Jewish state, in the abolition of the Chief Rabbinate and the separation of religion from the state - in a series of destructive laws that will of course include the armoring of the legal system as decisive in every ethical and national question.
In short:
A left-wing government is liable to lead to corruption both on the political-security level and on the moral level, and therefore Rabbi Tao believes that the establishment of a left-wing government is liable to lead to more serious blasphemy than the blasphemy of the rabbi”s collaboration in leading the state, and therefore the Jerusalem ruling is at work here (according to the interpretation of the author of ‘Korban Eda’: ‘In a matter in which there is sanctification of the Lord and blasphemy… we do not postpone the mitzvah of sanctification of the Lord because of blasphemy’, and in other words: ‘This is the doctrine of pragmatics’
With blessings, Peivish Lipa Sosnowitzki Dahari (author of the old platform)
(I don't quite understand why this was directed at me. I'm not interested in what Rabbi Tao says to them.)
To T”G – Hello Rabbi,
My words were written in response to your words (at 12:14, line 3) that if Rabbi Tao had justified his words with pragmatic reasoning – there would be nothing to complain about. And for that I showed that Rabbi Tao does indeed justify his words with pragmatic reasoning.
I have a strange custom, that when we hold a discussion about the words of so-and-so – I look at the things that the discussion revolves around 🙂
Greetings, Philsud (owner of the old platform)
And yet the discussion here is old and old, and Rabbi Yehuda bar Shmuel Ibn Abbas has already concluded: ‘He said: Did you see a light emerging from the top of Mount Morr, and they said: It is not visible only from Morr’ 🙂
With blessings, Philosopher”d
All this discussion is unnecessary
In the end, there is a difficult decision here:
Either sit in a government with an enemy in the flesh, of the Jewish people
Or allow a government of the worst enemies in the spirit of the Jewish people that there are – maybe real traitors – the hard left (the progressives) and those who follow them (Lapid Gantz and Lieberman). In any case, the evil of these is the worst there is (like in the time of David who were righteous and died a lot in wars because of the people who had the tongue in them) + of those enemies in the flesh than the first option.
Although it is apparently clear that the second option is worse, it is still a difficult decision because of its long-term effect and its meaning. I am a liberal myself and not a conservative, but progressives are a hundred times worse than conservatives.
Rabbi Michai has already been fooled by the relentless propaganda day and night (as the laws of heaven) of the left against Bibi, who today represents those who believe in the Jewish state today, by constructing a reality and assimilating Bibi as a "liar and corrupt" and the members of the Likud as a collection of corrupt people like him. This is what they have been doing since Bibi was born. They build a story that they believe in and sell it to everyone who is willing to listen to him. They are the tongues that David talks about in the Book of Psalms all the time, and Rabbi Michai has been fooled by them (the cult of those who accept slander). Bibi is probably no less honest than all those left-wingers who have run the country since the days of Mapai and onwards. And Rabbi Michi joined the progressive left (even though he doesn't really belong to them in his views) and he has already revealed here once his opinion that he is truly in favor of a state for all its citizens. In fact, he only wants (without knowing it) to lower the spirits of the Jewish people who live here. I suggest that anyone who still believes in this should stay away from him and not enter this site like I have been doing for a long time. All the power of the left is in their mouths. Stay away from them and they will evaporate. My entire response here is only for anyone who still believes in a state for the Jews for the Jewish people. As soon as the site belongs entirely to people who (don't) think like him and only they will respond here and talk among themselves about being knights of justice and honesty (as the left always likes to do). Then we (the Jewish people who live here in Israel) won. Then I too will disappear from here forever.
I see all the commenters here on the site trying to apologize and say that maybe Bibi is indeed like that, etc., but still, etc., etc. Just stop it. This is exactly what the left and Rabbi Michi are trying to sell you. But there is nothing here. You don't know anything about Bibi, just like you don't know anything about the effectiveness of conversion therapy because of the strong emotions that all sides have on the subject. Everything you hear on the news is framed and details are omitted. Not intentionally - which is even worse - they simply don't see what they don't want to see - they believe it - because that's just what they see in the first place - and then they tirelessly and amazingly brag about it to anyone who is willing to listen. It doesn't seem like they have any free choice in the matter. It's really an addiction and a mental illness. Anyone who is not willing to resort to the same methods of the left (which is not to lie but to actually live in a lie - in a reality that he constructs in his imagination for his own personal benefit. This is the deep core of the left and progressivism - postmodernism and the world of narratives and failure to recognize the reality of objective truth) must simply stay away from them like fire. Rabbi Michi has become, without his knowledge (self-awareness is his strong point), a part of them.
[I've long understood that you're the "Aylon" who was here once, said exactly the same things, swore by taking an object that he would abandon the site, and in the end you came back. Personally, I'd actually be happy for you to stay because your responses allow me to hone my positions among myself, but these loud threats and the feeling as if you're saving the innocent from going down the drain is a bit ridiculous, sorry.]
There is no threat here. I really have no interest in responding here at all. I hardly visit the site anymore (it is forbidden to be in bad company). I am not at all interested in saving the innocent, but in saving myself. Saving the innocent is the profession of the left, and Rabbi Michi, so I would have no problem saving the “innocents” (the innocent), at least for my own sake. After all, Rabbi Michi explicitly stated, in this article, that this is what he wants to do (it bothered him that innocents are drawn to Rabbi Tao, and rightly so, a little, it must be said). And I am truly and sincerely not interested in convincing Rabbi Michi or you of anything. There is no point in that. I've become convinced that Rabbi Michi is no longer truly interested (he still doesn't know it. But his intellectual dishonesty is increasingly coming to the surface as time goes by. He's really an expert at ignoring claims that interfere with his worldview lately). I just want someone who already thinks like me and is scared and feels bad and afraid of what people like you will think of him. Once there are none of those, then I can calmly not respond anymore (I won't have the itch to respond). Because it turns out that this mental illness of progressiveness is a contagious disease. And what can I do, it affects me even if I'm sitting at home and meditating intelligently. I need to do something small for my own good.
A small note
Anyone who has been on the site for a while and knows me knows that I am not a big fan of Haredim and Mustardim (to put it mildly). I have a lot of comments that show what I think of them. The entire method I described of the left to impose their opinion on the rest also exists among the Haredim and Mustardim (of whom Rabbi Tao is the great leader) but with much less force. In fact, the thing that I really detest is righteousness (the world's various institutions). There are two types of righteousness. Right-wing righteousness - conservative righteousness. And left-wing righteousness - liberal righteousness, which is actually progressive righteousness. And I testify with about a thousand witnesses that the latter is a hundred times worse and more dangerous than the former. All over the world and especially here in Israel. Because the conservatives at least believe in reality and truth because they have something to lose by ignoring it (there are large families for the Haredim. They do not want their children to die in wars). They also believe in the Jewish people and in the shared destiny they have with the non-conservatives. The second-order righteous have no boundaries and will destroy the entire world if it does not align with their views.
In this case, Rabbi Tao has a very strong argument and this can also explain this reversal. I personally have no problem with the Kahanists (except that they are mustard). Racism has become for me, following Rabbi Michi and the left, the least sin in the universe. I prefer a racist a million times over a traitor.
I thought you were from the Haredi movement. For example, what do you disagree with about them or Rabbi Tao?
I am very far from Haredi. In fact, in many ways I am very close to Rabbi Michai in my views:
Although I do not oppose the separation of religion and state, I do not think it is critical (except for the issue of determining Jewishness according to halakha and anchoring it in state laws for the purposes of the laws of return and nationality) and I also agree with him regarding the desecration of the rabbinate created by the control of the haredim or those with a haredi mentality, but not against the institution itself and its goals). I do generally support the Chief Rabbinate
I also do not believe in ruling on halakha as a means of educating the public (what he calls second-order ruling) but rather ruling on halakha in its purest form. However, the issue needs to be discussed further.
I do believe, like Rabbi Michai, that whoever comes to introduce new prohibitions, the burden of proof lies with the one who prohibits, not the one who permits. I also don't believe in holy lies (although I understand that the reality on this subject is more complex)
I believe that there are true and true things that are a way of life that preceded the Torah and there is no need to associate them with the Torah in order to act for them (everyone believes this, but the Haredi mentality tends to turn everything positive into a mitzvah and as if there is no such thing).
I believe in general and scientific education (this also belongs to a part of a way of life. It is part of a person's mind. What is acquired in his transition from child to teenager and from toddler to adult. Those who lack this have a certain type of lack of understanding).
I can't stand sociology (I don't believe in social engineering. The Haredi really love it).
I can't stand the childish Haredi mentality. And it has penetrated deeply into the Haredi stream. And he indeed said in this saying that the Haredi are becoming more and more like real Haredi.
I can't stand the culture of the Pashkvilim and the culture of those who don't like you will be Kufr and Epicurus (This is also a mentality of the left, by the way. The Kufr and Epicurus are the fascist and the racist). I'm talking about the story of 2013 with the rabbinical elections and the move of Rabbi Tao's students to "inform" about him to Rabbi Ovadia.
The whole gay issue doesn't bother me at all (although I oppose such marriages for reasons of common sense and not for Torah reasons (except that I do support that marriages in the country should be according to the Law of Moses and Israel (which of course excludes homosexual marriages) but I don't think the secularists should fight with it to the point of breaking up with them, although this would of course require opening genealogies)). But indeed, their progressive madness and their tendency to forcefully impose their worldview make me suspect that Rabbi Tao is right about this.
I have no objection to private (Orthodox) conversion courts if they are supervised and provide the level of The halakhic aspect of the conversion that they promise to provide (kind of what Rabbi Michi proposed for kashrut matters). I am in favor of a free market in the field of halakhic matters as well.
Following the previous one, I have no objection to kashrut that is not state-run and that does not require approval from the Rabbinate, except that they provide the level of kashrut that they promise to provide.
I could go on and on here…
I am also relatively similar to Rabbi Charlo in many ways, except that I also cannot tolerate his leftist naivety (I have no complaints about him like I do about Rabbi Michi. He is simply naive who believes in left-wing people. I credit him with that. It stems from his easygoing nature).
Correction of an error: In the fourth paragraph:
I believe that there are true and true things that are a way of life that preceded the Torah and that there is no need to associate them with the Torah in order to act for them (Everyone believes this, but the Haredi mentality tends to turn everything positive into a mitzvah and as if there is no such thing as the areas of authority that common sense determines. The Haredi are afraid of anything that God is not mentioned in, even though God created the areas of authority as well. And so they cannot simply study “nature” in their schools and they call it “the wonders of the Creator.” I cannot tolerate this lack of self-confidence)
I don't understand what the problem is with reading the content of things and deciding whether to accept them or not.
I don't automatically accept everything I read, I examine it and decide whether I like it or not.
I won't read sites that don't tell me anything new and don't present things in a way I hadn't thought of. But if there's a site, like this one, that does that, I'll read them even if I don't agree with certain assumptions.
It sounds like you're saying that there's no such thing as examining something in our minds, but that we're automatically influenced by the words we read. I don't know if this stems from some radical view that there's no truth and it's only the form of expression that makes people change their minds, or if you don't delve into the content of things and are content with the headlines.
There is of course no problem. But that is not what I am talking about. This is actually the ratio between the clear truth in matters of slander and the acceptance of slander. And if it is indeed all sorts of matters of faith and thought, etc., then there is no problem here. The rabbi is relatively straightforward in matters but a bit stubborn, which is legitimate. But the website does not do this on every issue. And the issue on which he does not do this is not a side issue but a critical one. The issue is the alleged corruption of Bibi. After all, every issue that Rabbi Michi discusses he assumes it to be some kind of absolute truth (as the media does) and all discussions begin under the assumption of this work. And he pushes it in a propaganda manner time after time, tirelessly, under the threshold of consciousness. And what can be done when a lie that is repeated many times becomes the truth (in the mind of the listener). This is precisely incitement. If there was a discussion on the subject and they defined what corruption is (a meaningful definition - such that not all people would fall under this definition as corrupt) and examined whether so-and-so falls under it, then that's fine. But otherwise it's simply propaganda and has a negative effect. After all, people don't just report dry news, but rather those with a loaded meaning. Does anyone here in Israel listen to Al Jazeera? It's not just because of its lack of credibility, but because of its declared goal of harming the spirit of the Jewish people (demoralization) and inflaming the spirit of the cities.
And not everyone is as critical as you. I am of course addressing those who trust my words and who do not have the strength or sufficient ability to pass Rabbi Michi's words under the banner of criticism. I said that I am not doing this for their benefit but mainly for my own benefit. I am addressing those who already feel that something is wrong and do not know what to say and start making excuses. Those who do not feel this - that is not who I am addressing. He does indeed need to do his research independently, as you described. But after the truth is revealed, then it is forbidden to stay in the company of the wrongdoer or the liar (although there are new reasons to reexamine our ways and we have to think that this person has new information that we have not heard before or missed). I have the feeling that Rabbi Michi is no longer interested in the truth in these matters. Someone like that should be kept away from because he is bad company (one should stay away from people with bad language. And after all, slander is allowed to be feared). In short, reality is complex.
And maybe you should give me a little more credit than to decide something about me when you don't even know me. Saying something similar about you: I have the feeling that you are trying to please the owner of the site and his supporters - to be part of the cool and correct company.
If you were to say that you are shedding light here on some complicated process that is difficult to follow, I would understand, but this is an issue that every Israeli is familiar with, and above all, it is a very emotional issue. Personally, I think that Bibi should be replaced for other reasons, but the corruption is less of a concern to me, and I also have the feeling that he has been “stitched up” for his cases.
There are much more “shocking” footnotes on the site than the one that Bibi is corrupt, but there are not many that are as emotional. I don’t know if you responded to them, but if not, this issue is not a good starting point.
I also don’t find any progressive positions on the site at all, but rather a war that is almost entirely progressive, so I think you are associating things here that are not really there.
There is actually a very complicated process here. Who even knows what is going on in Bibi's private rooms and intentions? Do you know if what they are broadcasting to you on the news is true on the issues he is right about? What criticism is there of them? Don't you have any doubt that if they could lie and make things up (and there is no need for that. All that is needed is appropriate framing and constant preaching) if they thought it would serve their purpose, they wouldn't do it? Who would criticize them? The courts and the prosecutor's office on their side? I claim that on the issue of Bibi, A.A. knows nothing. I wrote in my first response that A.A. knows nothing about Bibi, just as A.A. knows nothing about the effectiveness of conversion therapy, because of the strong emotions that all sides have on the issue. With respect to the other issues, I don't respond if I agree with him or think that the truth can be found out easily and through arguments. Indeed, Miki is not progressive, but he is drawn to them. The whole war on Bibi is essentially about promoting the progressive religion. He will also sign my words (at least that's what Bibi's many supporters think), so he joins this war without knowing it. And besides the fact that he once said that he is in favor of affirmative action, which is the father of progressiveness. So I really don't know what he thinks. You know that people are very influenced by this issue (and in general) by what others think (and no matter how critical they think they are), and there is no doubt that you are among them, even though you live isolated from everyone and are not in personal contact with anyone in the country. The influence of the environment is a powerful thing. Far beyond what people think, both for the better and for the worse. There is a joke that says that if you connect a tree with a serious person at the Technion, then after 4 years he will also have a degree (although the joke can be interpreted as the valuelessness of a bachelor's degree and Akmal). Even in your response, I sense a kind of attempt to be sophisticated so that you will appear smart in the eyes of all sides: On the one hand: “It is clear that Bibi needs to be replaced…” On the other hand, ” I am not innocent and I do not trust the Attorney General”. The issue is not with the accuracy of your words but with the wording. Why use the word “replace”? What is the problem with choosing someone else because you think he will take care of the things you believe in? Why not choose someone you think is more suitable to be prime minister? Why do you think you happened to focus on the negative approach of “removing” Bibi and not on the positive approach of choosing someone you have confidence in? You did not word it that way by chance. I am not trying to tease you, but to really try to understand why you think what you think. Beyond the content itself. This is not empty psychologization. In truly emotional cases, most
By the way, know that fundamentally I tend to be fond of Rav Michai (Rav Michai the first) and I have a sense of gratitude for him (also for Rav Michai the second) and perhaps I should have more. I wish I could write that I write my words out of love and rebuke. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I simply cannot stand by when I see the propaganda against Bibi and the right (I simply do not watch any news from any website) and when Rabbi Michi already joins in on it, I am overcome with rage.
I am very, very sorry for what is happening to him and for the harsh things I write against him here on the website. I wish the Lord would enlighten him on this matter. I sometimes feel guilty and think that maybe people like me are pushing him to the mental position he is in and I should just keep quiet and that is it.
Correction of an error: At the beginning of the first paragraph:
Who even knows what goes on in Bibi's private rooms and in his heart's intentions? Do you know if what they are telling you on the news about these issues is even true? What criticism is there of them? Don't you have any doubt that if they could lie and make things up (and there is no need for that. All that is needed is appropriate framing and constant preaching) they would do so if they thought it would serve their purpose?
At the end of the first paragraph
In truly emotional cases, the absolute majority of people are very much influenced (if not completely) by the opinion of the society to which they are exposed (whether to continue to think the same thing, whether to think the opposite and say the opposite in just about everything (which is a negative image of drifting))
Who are his supporters? I haven't seen a single leftist here for medicine in a long time.
Smolny, you are not up to date. The left today has long been unrelated to economics or society or foreign or domestic policy. The left is anyone who opposes Bibi, such as: Bogi, Sa'ar, Bennett, Hauser and Handel, and even little me. See the entries: ‘Left-wing government’, ‘Left-wing bloc’ and so on.
What kind of supporters are there here? Almost all the commenters just argue with him all day. Strange site
Supporters with a pseudo-intellectual pretension of knowledgeable friends who say, "Everyone who has eyes to see sees that Bibi is corrupt, etc." and flaunt the feathers of fake morality and honesty.
The truth is that I really think that way about Netanyahu (that he is corrupt) but I don't remember seeing anyone like that here. Is there anyone here who votes for a party that isn't G/Shas/Smotrich'/Bennett/Likud? That would be a refreshing change. And if you find one, you probably won't find five. On right-wing issues, you wave your fists along with the rest of the herd but feel like Don Quixote fighting against public opinion. I don't understand it.
This is indeed a code name. Right-wing is anyone who does not belong to the "White Israel". Some of whom are also no less white. I am talking about the Haredim, religious Zionism, the Sephardim and those who were previously called "Herotniks". Many of the latter today (Sa'ar and Bennett, for example) think that the left will accept them into its circle with love (after all, they are also educated whites, unlike the other barbarians (Sefarid Haredim and Mustardim)) but they do not know how jealous the communist left is of its religion. Ben Gurion himself (who is much better than the leftists today and was a true national leader) called Begin a "fascist" and "the same man". The left in the 1980s called him a "murderer". Right now they are tools in the left's war against Bibi (today's Begin), but later their fate will be the failure of Begin (the nobleman) himself. This is exactly the goal of the left (unconsciously for most of them) in all the slander against Bibi. To drive this wedge into the right and divide it between the modern white right and the rest of the barbarians. After all, not many believers in his positions in the country.
But the code name also causes people to act in a way that is truly contrary to their own beliefs, even though they are not aware of it. It is a slow process of drift that occurs below the threshold of consciousness. For most people, their beliefs serve their egos, and in the end they will believe anything (even if it contradicts their initial intuitive beliefs) that will advance them socially, even if they are not aware of it. Won't Bennett give up his positions in order to become prime minister? Won't Sa'ar either? The excuses will come later.
The fact that Rav Tao is willing to go with Bibi even though he is corrupt actually shows pragmatism.
On the 22nd of Iyar, 2021
To Moses, greetings,
Yahav Tau does not believe in the slander against Netanyahu, and this is what he says:
We must reject with disgust the propaganda of hatred and slander regarding our Honorable Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Prime Minister's great success in strengthening the country's resilience, in standing up to our enemies who are out to destroy us here in the country, in changing the regional equation, in standing up to the peoples of the world against Iran's dangerous plot, in the flame of medical and economic relief for the State of Israel against the Corona pandemic, has caused our sorrow and shame for various factors. To create an endless false propaganda, full of personal hatred and good intentions, the sole purpose of which is to oust the Prime Minister by spreading hatred among the public on the one hand, and preparing legal hate crimes against the Prime Minister on the other;
Best regards, Faivish Lipa Sosnowitzki Dahari
That's exactly what I'm saying here.
“To create an endless false propaganda, full of personal hatred and good intentions, whose sole purpose is to oust the Prime Minister by spreading hatred among the public on the one hand, and preparing legal hate letters against the Prime Minister on the other hand”
I agree with every word. It should only be added that there is another goal for this propaganda, which is also the progressive overarching goal. An old world has been completely destroyed………(without further ado)
It is beyond my understanding how Rabbi Michi does not see this. Perhaps his (justified) hatred of the Haredim and the Mustardim is leading him to the idea of undermining the foundation of what keeps the Jewish people here in the land and alive. He will be hurt by this many times more than he was hurt by the (slightly ungrateful) treatment he received from the Haredim with whom he came into contact.
I have no faith in the slander against Netanyahu. And no right-winger should have one. He really needs to To fortify against these evil tongues (the lying tongues). Likud voters and moderate, hardline religious Zionists are supposed to stop going to the army if the left takes control here. Not that I would want the opposite to happen. But even so, the presence of leftists in the army is already hurting it quite a bit. Most of the army is right-wing, only it serves the leftist command center (which takes care to preserve itself as such). In the end, the Arabs are defeated with spirit, not with technology and morality.
By the way, the situation of a government that is half made up of ultra-Orthodox, mustard, and Islamists really gives me severe stomachaches (at the level of extortion). Even though these are not mustard at all and are people I have no problem with except for the mustard cockroach of some of them. I voted for them. And not for Bennett, who is usually my first choice, if only because I was convinced that in order to be prime minister he would give up the war in the courts and everything that is important to the right, but the one who created this reality and fights for it tirelessly is precisely the progressive left that distributes equal voting rights to everyone who has breathed a breath on earth regardless of their level of commitment to the state. This is part of the progressive religion. Until they disappear, the state will always be squeezed to its very core. He is the real problem. There is no point in making excuses for the ultra-Orthodox for their lack of participation in the state. And not even the Arabs (who have a stake in the destruction of the state). They rent out their votes for money. This is a deal that the other side does not have to participate in and chooses to do so consciously. But what can be said about the left, for which there is no state at all (i.e., a people). It is fanatical in its religion many times more than any other religion. And it is also fundamentally morally lacking. Morality will always be constructed so that in the end it will be the righteous and upright (after all, morality is a relative matter and a matter of moral narrative and all sorts of nonsense like that). Therefore, there is the feeling that they are truly always convinced in their opinion that they are right. Their accusations of corruption are unbearable in their level of hypocrisy. In their opinion, they cannot even be corrupt because their narrative will always be adjusted so that they are right. In any case, any immoral action will be qualified as one that serves a great and true purpose so that they are not even corrupt.
These people are simply unbelievable.
Line 4
… By bringing the medical and economic balm…
Indeed, it is true. And so I wrote. But he hides it behind hollow rhetoric in a halakhic or intellectual formulation that is ‘deep’ (alek).
And to distinguish between carnage and depredation, which is permissible and which is forbidden
A strong grip on grammar in matters of carnage
In the 38th of Omer, tashaf
Halakhic note (to the Posk) –
Also, carrion is forbidden, as it is written: ‘And you shall not eat any carrion that is carrion in the field’. The severity of carrion is that it also contains impurity, as it is written: ‘And if any of the beasts that you may eat die, – he who touches its carrion shall be unclean until the evening, and he who eats of its carrion shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening, and he who carries its carrion shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the eveningࢩ (Leviticus 11:33-40).
With blessings, may you be blessed
So it turns out that Ramada has a different Torah in which carrion is forbidden but carrion is permitted.
Although the rabbinical argument depends on the words of the Torah and that is the column. But from the lines it means that you support the integration of the Arabs. Basically, Smotrich's main argument is that they support terrorism, they have an Islamic ideology that they want to implement and they lie as part of practice as we have seen in the past with Hamas, etc. The other Arab parties, among them Palestinian nationalists who mainly want to ride on leftist stupidity in order to achieve goals, in Israel as in the rest of the world - and the left is in a much worse situation than the right these days, are completely stupid in my opinion and are being exploited to the fullest. In short, no one would come out against the Arabs if they were in normal parties, there simply are none. At least I know that a significant number of the rabbis who signed the above proclamation intend what I wrote here. Attributing them to the Moronic mountain messianism is just a wrong generalization.
I do not support the integration of the Arabs. The correct wording is that I do not categorically oppose it. This is a practical question, and as I wrote, I think the practical reasoning against their integration is certainly reasonable and holds water. By the way, the fact that they support terrorism in my opinion is almost meaningless in practice (will they transfer money to Hamas? Bibi does it better than them).
And by the way, I did not attribute this anywhere to their messianism. I was talking about the reasoning they give (prohibitions and laws instead of a legitimate political reasoning)
I read the ”Last Mishnah” twice and did not find any approval there for relying on a Muslim party. On the contrary, there is a call to support Netanyahu to establish a government of Jews only. So what is the fuss about? Where is the difference from the ”First Mishnah”?
Read the letter again. It says this is a preferred solution over participating in a government that would abolish the Jewish identity of the country.