On style and essence - clarifications and basic assumptions for site readers (column 63)


Lately I have been getting repeated comments about my remarks. People have argued that there is heresy and contempt in our first and ruling rabbis. Some of the comments touched on style and some on essence. Following this I thought I should clarify my starting points, my relationship to the first, to the arbitrators and to tradition in general, and of course the style as well.

This column will be more personal, unlike regular columns, but I think it's important to clarify things. Already here I say that I do not apologize for anything and did not come to interpret my words but to clarify my starting points for the benefit of readers. Of course if they divert my attention to any place where I have deviated from what is written here I would be happy to apologize and get back at myself. Readers are invited and invited to do so.

Writing in the Internet Age

Writing in the internet age has its uniqueness compared to previous times. Things are accessible to all, they can be quoted as a partial quote that comes out of context (cut & paste), and the rapid transition of these partial quotes can result in a distorted picture of things. People are unaware of these characteristics, both reading and writing, so judge things in light of partial quotes without checking the context and the complete picture and without reading the whole article. This is despite the fact that the internet also has an advantage in this sense, as nowadays it is very easy to check things out inside and read them in their source. But the flow of information probably causes people to make a sentence quickly and move on to the next site (I guess I suffer from that too).

Appreciation to our gentlemen

This is for the conscious. I have great respect for our rabbis of all generations, the first and last sages. There were real giants among them. Most of them are people full of talent and knowledge, honest and understanding, seeking the truth, and having an impressive and extensive knowledge. I am proud to be the youngest of their students and their successors. As for the patriarchs, Moshe Rabbeinu and the prophets, it is difficult for me to appreciate, but the sages, the geniuses and the first, and so the latter to this day, are people worthy of immense appreciation. Equally impressive is the collective enterprise they have all created together, and which I the little one hopes to join and be a part of.

Atoll as an example the Maimonides, to whom one of the comments I received concerned my relationship. Maimonides' enterprise has no brother or sister, and it is very doubtful in my eyes how much parallel there is in the whole world to such a huge, wide, diverse and original enterprise. A Jew who alone managed to reorganize all Judaism, Halacha, thought and meta-Halacha, to understand to sort and arrange in his own arrangement all the material accumulated up to his time, and all this in parallel with his work as a physician and his vast knowledge in all fields. This is an admirable phenomenon. The man also showed awareness and reflection on his own methodology. He built his mighty structure on an orderly systematic foundation which he too had built himself out of almost nothing and bothered to lay it out before us. There are no words in my mouth to express my admiration for this man, and he certainly does not need my words. The same is true of the rest of our rabbis, the first and last, and certainly the sages. To think that I despise him is no greater nonsense than that. He who despises him is a man who lacks any understanding.

All these gentlemen that I thirstily drink from their waters and are bound to them in thickets of appreciation and love. I devote a considerable part of my time and efforts to understanding their words with tools from different vessels, and to deciphering their meaning and the meanings inherent in it. To me the Torah in the broadest sense is an existential rock. Out of it and within it I seek my way and formulate my worldview, when here too I attach sources, arguments, opinions, and tools from various tools. This is my extended family, and my worldviews are crystallizing within and within it.

The attitude towards our masters and their authority

But respecting a person does not mean seeing him as an angel who is never wrong. And certainly love should not spoil the line. All of these wonderful people have been human beings like me like you, which is precisely why I respect and love them and relate to them. I have no relation to the server angels (if there are any), and I do not see much connection between them and them. My family is made up of human beings.

I have already quoted several timesMGA In C. Kano who brings the Talmudic halakhah that it is permissible to say something in the name of a great person in order for them to receive it from me. These things are astonishing, for every man can say all nonsense in the name of the great of the generation and stumble the hearers with the most grave sins. How can this permit be understood? I explained that in my opinion the assumption of eMGA It is the opposite of what could be understood. He probably assumes that when I hear things in the name of a great person I will not accept them automatically but will only consider them seriously and respectfully. The reason someone gets hung up on a great person is not because they get his bottom line, but because he feels his reasoning is not being treated properly. The listeners do not seriously consider his arguments out of contempt for him. He intends to get them to take it seriously, consider things, and then decide for themselves. He is therefore allowed to present things on behalf of a great person, because this will cause the listeners to seriously consider the arguments. But in the end the assumption is that everyone does what they think. Even if he hears things from a great person he does not accept them just because of the sayer. He considers the things themselves and forms a position about them.

I have already mentioned in the past the distinction between two types of "visionaries": the first type is the ordinary ones, that is, those who actually do everything that is written in my books Chazon Ish. The second type is the true visionaries, those who do what they themselves think just as most of themChazon Ish Did and ordered to do. I belong to the second type. Respect for us does not mean that I will accept everything they have said, but on the other hand I will definitely seriously consider what they have said before I formulate my own position. And with all due respect to everyone, the bottom line is I will think, say and do, what I myself think.

Of course, there are also formal considerations of authority, such as the authority of the Sanhedrin or the laws in the Talmud over which there is no halakhic possibility to disagree. This is despite the fact that there may well be halakhic and factual errors in the Talmud as well (and there certainly are). The authority says that the halakhic instructions must be accepted despite the mistake. But I have often explained that in the realms of thought, which usually deal with facts, there is no possibility of talking about authority. If I have come to the conclusion that the Messiah will not come (and for the avoidance of doubt: I have not come), then even if all the sages of Israel all stand up and say the opposite it will at most make me reconsider my position. But formal authority is not possible here. And that if I say in my mouth that I believe in complete faith in the coming of Messiah it will change what is in my mind? As long as I am not convinced I can not claim that I believe in it but only say it from the language and stressed. Therefore in the realms of beliefs and opinions one can only persuade and not claim by virtue of authority. Moreover, even in the areas of halakhah where, as stated, authority can be spoken of, it must not be extended beyond its boundaries. He who has authority has and he who does not, with all his wisdom, has no authority. As for his words one can only be convinced of them but not accept them just because he said.

already I have written many times Having value I went to an autonomous decision. After a voice came out of the sky in Yavneh (in the act of Achnai's furnace) - sages did not accept her because even though this is the truth they thought otherwise. They realized that they were wrong, because God in heaven surely knows what the law is. But there is an autonomous duty to rule as I understand it, even if I am wrong. And so the Gemara also says that they did not rule in Halacha Karm because his friends did not come to the end of his opinion. Even though he was so smart, ranked above all others, they did not stop like him. Not because the truth was with them and not with him, but because as long as they were not convinced then that was their position and they were obliged to act on it even though they too understood that it was probably not true.

For respect and contempt

I think the approach that discusses and considers the words of our gentlemen and formulates an independent position, gives them much more respect than the approach that accepts their words as blind in the chimney. The approach that assumes that these are angels who are not wrong and who have absolute authority presents them as someone who is unwilling to accept an appeal and attainment of his position. The second approach which ostensibly gives them a lot of respect actually assumes that matter-of-factly their words cannot be justified and therefore also exempts us from doing so. Around the composition of Maimonides The strong hand A great controversy arose partly because he did not bring sources or reason. Sages felt that this was not a way that gave respect to the Torah and to them. No one is allowed to demand that they accept his words just because he said them. The things said in the court (as opposed to the Sanhedrin) are proposals for discussion and expression of opinion. And they are my words here.

Rabbi Soloveitchik in his essay And you asked from there, Brings a wonderful description of his experiences as a child. He describes how his father (Rabbi Moshe) sits around a round table with Rabbi Akiva, Abi and Rabba, Maimonides, R.T. and the Gra, and deals with the Torah. A question arises about Maimonides and he is in tension whether his father and Maimonides will win or not. He feels part of the gang, and actually sees all of these as his family. When I read the things I realized that my experience is very similar. For me I sit around a round table with all the sage students from all generations and we all study together. I share this discourse, and am not willing to give up on any of them. Giving up on someone out of respect is an expression of disrespect or lack of closeness. More than that, when I talk to family members I am not careful with my words. If any of them are talking nonsense then I tell them so. Sometimes I laugh at him and joke at his expense. But it's all done because I feel an integral part of the gang. I am at home and not in a museum that commemorates the past that one should be careful that nothing is broken there.[1]

A few years ago, when I was teaching at the Hesder Yeshiva in Yeruham, there were several events that angered me. I hung ironic and cynical posts in which I mocked us all. The students went into a state of turmoil because they felt harmed in the yeshiva and especially in its head (Rabbi Blumenzweig). I gathered them in the evening in the dining room and told them that things were written precisely because of my deep appreciation for the Rosh Yeshiva. I got upset because people make fun of all of us (including him) and we go foolishly after them. I added to them that whoever is in the museum walks on tiptoe. He does not want to break anything in this glass house. He wants things to remain whole and pastoral and accompany them in his life when he is already far (in all respects) away from the yeshiva. It will leave him a peaceful and pastoral corner that can be missed (theoretically) but stay away from it. I, on the other hand, feel at home, and at home I do not walk on tiptoe. Whoever does nonsense (in my opinion) will snatch bites and reprimands from me. He is of course also welcome to give me back the same currency. But these things are said and stem from connection and not from distance. They stem from love and respect, but these are the result of a family connection and not of a distant and alienated respect for the exhibits in the museum.

Thus in my sense many times the excessive and unrealistic respect given to us by all generations actually expresses a kind of contempt. People do not dare to honestly discuss and criticize their words, but it does indicate a implicit assumption that this criticism will destroy the status of the critics. Supposedly they have no answers so we have to spare them. I have full confidence in them and their honesty, and in my eyes the real respect for their words is given precisely when we discuss their words honestly and sharply. Whoever shares this discourse, i.e. sits around the table within the group, needs to understand this. Whoever stays outside and sees it as a museum will continue to take care of the dignity of our first and last gentlemen, thus depriving them of the respect and love they deserve.

The connection to people brings closeness. The closeness leads to them being seen as human beings, on the lights and shadows. No man is perfect, and everyone has shortcomings, mistakes, falls and the like. When you are close you see it all, and when you feel close you do not hesitate to point it out. Caution indicates distance. On the admiration for the poster that hangs on the wall and not on life together. With those close to me I joke and sting, get down on them, and then pat them on the shoulder with friendship and a wink. The Torah belongs to all of us, and we all need to take part in shaping and formulating it. He who does not take part in this process has no part in it. He will treat it like a church. With all due respect and at the same time in the distance.

On the style

Here I am back to the internet. Things that are written to a wide audience cannot be said as things that are said within the beit midrash, i.e. within the family. My assumption when I write these things is that readers want to belong and therefore also belong to this family. They sit around the table in this virtual courtroom and are full partners in everything that is done in it. It is true that sometimes things come out, sometimes in a fragmented way, and sometimes you just do not understand or do not pay attention to the context.

Although stylistic is cynical and ironic, and I express things sharply, but contrary to what people tend to think cynicism is not disrespectful. I do not remember a place where I underestimated the former, nor even the latter (perhaps some of the rabbis of our time, and that too now I do not remember). I do remember putting them as human beings who can make mistakes and have flaws, just like me like you. So when I say that I do not care whether according to Maimonides I am a heretic, I mean that the definitions he will give me are not an argument. Anyone who wants to convince me should explain to me where I am wrong. It is therefore not enough to tell me that I am a heretic by the method of someone or anonymous, and therefore I also do not accept comments of this kind. There is not a shred of contempt for Maimonides in these things, the relationship to which I have clarified above. After all, Maimonides himself did exactly what I do. He divided over his predecessors without batting an eyelid, including in things that were perceived as extremely unusual. He forced his logic on the sources (as the Ramban has shown several times in his attainments to the roots), and in some places he also despised and even mocked his predecessors and those who disagreed with him. All this does not necessarily express disrespect. It expresses involvement and a sense of family. Within the family speak freely. It's part of the thing about this family experience.

If there was any expression of contempt for any of the former or great greats (as mentioned, I do not remember one), I invite readers to present it here (preferably with a link). If there are any I'll pull them back here. But if I have expressed my position in a cynical or ironic way, this is my way. This should not be seen as contempt because it does not express contempt. It is a form of expression that comes to sharpen the things and the difficulties that are in them. It is difficult for me to understand an interpretation that sees in my words a disdain for the people to whom I have dedicated my life to find out their place. For me the reader on this site is a partner in a Beit Midrashi discussion. This is how my words should be seen and anyone who interprets them differently is wrong and misleading.

[1] Worth seeing HERE.

84 Thoughts on "On Style and Essence - Clarifications and Basics for Readers of the Site (Column 63)"

  1. Descendant of Rabbi Jeremiah

    These are the 'words of the living God'
    Strengthens Michi, who makes a different, reasoned and intelligent voice (even if I do not agree with everything with him) and at least makes my life (religious? Intellectual?) - more interesting.

  2. Hello Rabbi,

    In my personal opinion sometimes your style offends the purpose for which you wrote the article / post. You may see this as a refinement of your words and a presentation of the irony of the opposite opinion, but you will agree that you are writing to convince others and not yourself. Therefore the way you understand your style is important but I recommend hearing what the readers think about it - and if it hurts their ability to accept your words, because then you yourself have not achieved your goal in the article.

  3. Rabbi Michi

    When you write towards the first in too direct a style it is perceived in a negative way. Take for example the sentence "With all due respect, Maimonides and Rashba do not have the authority to do so and so" (Makor Rishon, Shabbat supplement) immediately creates the impression that you intend to belong to the first offenders.
    If you do publish and write to influence others and certainly if you want conservatives to treat your words in a matter-of-fact way, I suggest that you use language that expresses the respect you feel for Maimonides and the Rashba and the rest of the first

    1. H. Shalom.
      This is actually a good example. What's hurting here? I really think they have no authority and that's what I wrote. How should I have worded it more subtly? I even preface it with all due respect (though maybe people think it's just a polite addition like "if not for Demistapina", and not her).

    2. Rabbi Michi,

      It is indeed a bit ironic but in my opinion the wording ‘with all due respect to Rambam’ is considered condescending and disrespectful. And in my opinion it is simplest to write the same sentence without this phrase or to write 'We have learned from Rambam and Rashba themselves that the Talmud alone is the binding source of authority'.

  4. The virtue of clean language

    BSD B. in Nissan

    To Ramada - hello,

    What to do? What greens, jumps and does 'kove koa' is a frog, what looks like contempt and sounds like contempt - is contempt!

    More than once the blatant and disparaging style masks the paucity of argument. In the exam 'one clown rejects several rebukes'. There will always be rude amarets who will applaud and lick in 'likes' for mockery, thus overcoming the onerous need to reason, bring sources, and seriously discuss the disputing arguments.

    Sages and our first and last rabbis stand out in the clean and respectful culture of discussion. Arrive yourself: In every one thousand seven hundred pages of Talmudic debates, there are a total of about 20 (!) Harsh expressions in which the author of Havat Yair discusses his well-known answer at the end of the book 'Hefetz Chaim', and explains most of it is

    And apart from a few expressions, there is an entire literature that is full of debates about existential matters, serious foundations of faith and laws - and with almost no exceptions, in a matter-of-fact and precise style. The use of pure language is the characteristic (Brush Pesachim) of those who will teach Halacha.

    It is not for nothing that Rabbi Brachia (Yoma AA) describes the disciples of the sages as' personalities', who are like women 'humble and exhausted', but do heroism as men '. The avoidance of the demagogic means of cynical ridicule forces the writer to make a matter-of-fact and reasoned inquiry that focuses on acceptable arguments, which only they can convince the seekers of the truth.

    Regards, S.C. Levinger



    1. Shatzal Shalom. I would love for links to show me examples of it being green and popping like a frog, and then I will admit it is a frog. I deny it.
      In light of the comments here I suddenly realized that in my opinion what makes people jump is precisely the content of my positions and not the form of expression. The positions themselves are perceived as impudence (see the example given above regarding the authority of Maimonides and the Rashba. This is really an example of sensitivity to the content and not to the form of expression). This is my impression, but I would love for examples to understand where I am wrong (if indeed).
      Also regarding the quotes you brought, these are statements about and not an analysis of the material itself. There are certainly quite a few examples of expressions much more acute than mine in the first and last and also in the Talmud itself. And even when a rabbi rebukes his disciple, as you brought from the experience, it should not be done within a canonical text in the eyes of all Israel. So it's hard for me to accept that excuse.
      There are also expressions that speak of the thing from above and describe a different picture, like the sages of Babylon as a sailor stick, etc. Not to mention BS and BH who killed each other, and many slaughtered it for R. Zira (Megillah XNUMX: XNUMX). And every Dayan who discusses the island of Dina Lao Dina is (BM Lu) and much more. In fact, our gentlemen did not really take into account the sharpness of the wording. Therefore, in my opinion, a study of sources is an act of contradiction.
      But I do not see in all this permission, because even if our gentlemen did so I do not necessarily adopt everything they did or said (in my opinion). I just commented on what you said.
      Bottom line, I would love for examples from my remarks that will sharpen the discussion and allow us to be more concrete.

    2. And with regard to the "authority to disagree with the former"

      I do not think that the endless talk of 'my authority to disagree with the former' constitutes an 'injury to the former'. Things just sound pretentious and 'uncovered'… ..…

      There is a joke about a son of a rebbe who turned to the court and said that his father was revealed to him in a dream and ordered him to continue as a rebbe. The dayan said to him: In Shlomo, if your father had come in a dream to the elders of the Hasidim and instructed them to crown you as his heir, there would have been room to discuss. But when it is revealed only to you, you must feel that you see from the reflections of your heart. '

      Even Annan Nima:
      If the great men of Israel had been gathered in our generations - Rabbi Shach and Rabbi Auerbach, Rabbi Elyashiv and Rabbi Wazner, Rabbi Israel and Rabbi Goren, Rabbi Shapira and Rabbi Kafach, Rabbi Soloveitch Yak and Gr. And claims: 'I am first and I am last' - it seems to the court that the place has some reservations 🙂

      I wish we could toil and get tired of understanding the first words of Halacha and Aggadah, and of the solid foundation they laid for us - and to build and innovate real innovations!

      Regards, S.C. Levinger

    3. Shatzal,
      There is no such thing as evidence. After all, I did not crown myself with any special crown. I also claim this for you and for everyone involved (the best bar). This is an argument about tradition and its meaning and not about me. My contention is not that I am a great generation so I state or I can disagree with everyone. My contention is that there should not be a great generation for this. This is a completely different claim. Moreover, I have written several times explicitly that it is not due to a particular greatness but to the array of autonomy. Even if I know that their waist is thicker than my waist, I have the authority (as in everyone's hand) to share. And so we commanded in Shas itself (I brought examples of R.M. And in general, since then my father and grandfather have walked as a warning, and things are ancient.

    4. And regarding 'autonomy' (Ramada)

      In S.D. D. in Nissan

      To Ramada - hello,

      Precisely the affair of the 'furnace of Achnai' is solid evidence that there is an interest 'that the Torah should not be made as two Torahs', and even a giant like Rabbi Eliezer was forbidden to instruct many as he said contrary to the majority opinion.

      The ideal is for one halakhah for all of Israel to come out of the mouth of the great court in the Gazit bureau. The situation of two houses without a decision between them, probably stemmed from Herod's takeover of the Sanhedrin that pushed the sages into the 'private space', a situation that led to the creation of separate schools.

      This situation was rectified by Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, followed by Rabban Gamliel Dibna who rebuilt the 'House of the Committee' as a central framework ,. A situation that existed to a certain extent in the days of the Amoraim, when there were several major yeshivas in Babylon and Israel.

      In any case, a judicial unity was required within a community, in the opinion of a rabbi that there will be no teachers in one court and some teachers in one court, and in Abi's opinion even in 'two courts in one city' there will be 'you will not gather'.

      In practice, I think that until the divorce period of the 15th century, in most places there was only one community in each city (except in Baghdad where for a time the two yeshivas 'Sura' and 'Pombadita' sat, and Cairo where there was a separate community of Palestinians).

      Only in the 15th century, when due to the mass deportations from Spain Ashkenazi and France, did situations increase that entire communities were displaced and continued to exist as an independent community where they found refuge.

      And yet each community was adjacent to a particular city, where there were one community or several communities, but the reality of an 'extraterritorial community', and certainly not the reality of an individual without community affiliation, was unthinkable.

      The reality of an 'extra-territorial community' began to exist only in the 18th century, for several reasons: dissolution 'to four countries in Poland, and later the suppression of communal autonomy in the modern European nation-state, which in medieval times did not view autonomous corporations with self-judgment. .

      Even the great struggles within Jewish society, with the suspects on the Sabbath, and the subsequent struggles between Hasidim and opponents and between educated and conservatives and between Zionists and their opponents - created a completely new situation where the local community has a strong tendency to disintegrate. The absurdity of 'ten courts in one nuclear family'.

      In our situation that every Jew is an individualist, the personal community affiliation constitutes 'necessity will not mourn', but I do not think it was 'the poet's intention' who gave Torah to his people to create a 'kingdom of priests and a holy nation', a nation serving God as a cohesive society, . Therefore there should be an aspiration at the very least to strengthen the common denominator and not crumble any more.

      I think that just as the period of the Tannaim came to be signed in the work of the Mishnah, and just as the period of the aforesaid was signed in the work of the Talmud, which formed an agreed foundation for future generations - so the period of the first was signed around Beit Yosef. The supremacy of the former, which is very rare for the latter to disagree with.

      Just as the former refrained from disagreeing with sages, and were content with interpretation and decision between sages - so the latter accepted the former as the basis and starting point for their halakhic discussions. And with God's help, the period of the Haronim will also be convened and signed by great artists such as Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, Rabbi Ashi and Rabbi Yosef Karo and the Rama, whose work of gathering and editing led to the formation of a new common denominator for the whole nation!

      Regards, S.C. Levinger

    1. And because I'm at home (anonymous)

      And because I'm at home - I'm careful not to undermine its foundations. When I have solid foundations - I can expand and elevate and shape in any direction I like. The stronger the foundation, the wider the horizons!

      Regards, S.C. Levinger

    1. And because I want solid foundations - I will make sure to engage with them and improve them until they are unassailable. Because foundations that I can easily challenge while walking home alone are not solid enough foundations, and they may God forbid collapse if I try to bring other people into my home.

  5. I think you'm right that content is a major issue from what is seen as offensive, but style can moderate what appears to be offensive. If we take the above sentence "with all due respect to Maimonides he has no authority" etc., then the content will really shock a lot of people but the style can reduce it. The insertion of the word 'in my opinion' and since the pair of words 'in my humble opinion' already works wonders - there is no added content here (the pair of words may have a certain added content), but they moderate the impression. When you read the sentence as it is, you get the impression that you are not putting it on Maimonides - then if he did something, he probably thought he had authority, and from the style you can get the impression that his opinion is illegitimate; Adding 'in my opinion' gives the impression that his opinion is legitimate, and you are not trying to flip it off the field of halakhic opinions as an external opinion (and indeed, you and your acquaintances know that you do not want to flip any opinion but only discuss them, but not all readers know it). Rule thus. Another thing - the phrase "with all due respect" is often used for "I have no respect", and when the writer uses cynicism most of the time, of course it is more suspicious. If you want to, you need to invest more in convincing readers of the sincerity of the respect you acquire for Maimonides even though it can be tedious.

    1. Accepts completely. Even your interpretation of "With all due respect" I received today from my wife. Although I really did not mean it but now I understand why it was interpreted that way. I wrote it literally.

    1. And maybe stop beautifying?

      Cynicism and ridicule do not come from feeling 'at home' or from any other anti-postmodern ideology.

      It is a character trait, which sometimes develops out of environmental influence at some point in the past or present, or out of insecurity, which man conceals by respecting the disgrace of another, and the 'fasting' he gains by provocative acts and statements. - And I'm not talking about a cynical statement here and there, but about a regular style that mocks 'everything that moves'.

      The cynic is not a happy person. He has to maneuver all his life between the pleasure of the injury and the mockery, and the constant need to justify peppers that explain how the mockery is the pinnacle of honor 🙂

      We have nothing but to pray and bless the mockery, who will be privileged to come out of the 'Zin Desert' and find his happiness in the good eye, the eye of justice is the 'Holy Desert'!

      With a kosher and happy blessing, Shin Zin Lin

    2. And prove nothing but to the seeker of truth

      And I dare to slam these difficult things, because my impression is also proven by the degree of asking for the truth. A seeker of truth deserves to tell the truth!

      Regards, S.C. Levinger

    3. To Shlomi.
      I also completely accept your words. In the post-mortem analysis of my remarks I would also add another aspect of anti-postmodernist motive: it is meant to say that I have a position and that it is legitimate to formulate a position and not stick with the fact that everyone is right and “this and that” etc.

      I do not agree with your analysis, I do not agree with your analysis. But maybe I'm touching something and forgive me for not doing the post mortem to myself.

  6. Rabbi Michi, straight up your power.

    Only recently did I hear from an author that the reason that the Lord of the world gave an oath to Moshe Rabbeinu for breaking the tablets was because Moshe Rabbeinu understood that in the act of the calf is the problem. He is the one who "disappeared" from the land of Egypt, so when he is not there they need a replacement. Breaking the boards broke the spell. The important thing is the word of God and not Moses the man.
    Following Rabbi Nachman who writes that the students are called teachers and Rabbi Shagar explains that the plight of the generation and the relevant Torah is learned by the rabbi from the students. The students put the rabbi out of action.
    And we will only add that whoever writes here is an opinion in insults and not amiarats who would not bother to write.

    And after we had introduced a few introductions we approached the matter. It seems to me that what bothers the respondents is the question of revelation to which the rabbi does not have a satisfactory answer. The rabbi speaks the truth and therefore he admits that he has no answer, but sometimes just as he is commanded to say things that are heard, so he is commanded not to say things that are not heard.
    It seems to me that the rabbi's assumption is that the revelation was a historical matter. To my taste at least and it seems to me that for most respondents revelation is a matter that goes on and on. Things are obviously not new. Rabbi Yonatan Zacks in his book Crisis and Covenant writes that the only proof that the Torah offers for its truth is that Jews will continue to hold (the book is not under my hand so it is difficult for me to give a source). This is actually also the proof of the Khazari. The fact that the nucleus has become a tree that surrounds most of the world today testifies to the correctness of the revelation to the people of Israel (see Micha Goodman's book on the Khazari). And finally, of course, the sages in the Tractate Yoma set of writers "and these are his horrors that without the fear of God how one nation can exist among the nations." The name of the name on the nation arouses awe among the Gentiles that deters them from harming the people of Israel (and if they ask about the Holocaust, the GRA has already written that when the return to Zion begins, the Shechinah returns to Eretz Yisrael and stops defending Israel abroad). Revelation in this sense is not a historical matter but a practical empirical matter that is everyday.

    It is possible to add more and more but it seems to me that this is the crucial point.

    1. XNUMX I am not sure I understood the matter of revelation. Do you mean by saying that God no longer intervenes as he once did? This is not exactly a revelation but an involvement. Or do you mean faith in Mount Sinai? So what are the two alternatives? What does historical revelation mean in the face of continual revelation? I did not understand.
      By the way, when dealing with arguments one should not remember and bring sources. The argument itself is enough.

    2. I was not clear enough and mixed up a bit.

      The rabbi describes the revelation as a historical event that took place three thousand years ago at Mount Sinai where the Torah was given and since then the Sovereign of the world has not appeared in the world. Halacha to Moshe from Sinai is not really to Moshe from Sinai, the belief in the next world and in Messiah, opinions of sages, on the Torah itself were added later additions, the source of the Book of Zohar is dubious and more. Each of the claims has its own solid foundation but grouping them together raises the question of whether the separation that the rabbi makes between the core of revelation itself that is not supposed to be historical and the rest of the historical components stands.

      There is no doubt about the rabbi's commitment to halakhah, and his belief in it as the name of the Lord and yet from the rabbi's belief in Gd is purely philosophical without giving place to the empirical aspect of revelation while incorporating a historicist approach to Torah it is difficult to understand where the boundary passes. Why is it not said that the whole Torah is the beliefs of human beings (and not just Halacha to Moses from Sinai), late additions starting from the middle of the First Temple period (as the biblical critique claims), medieval philosophical influences (Kabbalah) and more. After all, once a historicist approach to the Torah is taken, where does the border line cross?

      I certainly sympathize with the questions the rabbi faces and the easy life that many people make for themselves on these issues is not acceptable to me. There are definitely annoying questions and issues that getting away from it is not serious. But it is equally important to me to anchor the revelation in some empirical dimension. In my opinion, the empirical dimension that Sages give here is strong. He explains the difference between Israel and the Su tribe (which the Su tribe was slaughtered while the people of Israel survived in the meantime), why there is no interest in Christianity and Islam (since both religions only try to falsify the revelation of God's name in the world of Israel and Torah) and more. What reveals the name of God in the world is not some historical revelation from three thousand years ago but the very existence of the people of Israel and the Torah in the world. To see the name of God in the world for me it is enough to look in the mirror.

      The Lord of the Worlds cannot be touched. He is not part of the world in the simple sense (and I do not enter into a dispute here between Chabad and the Lithuanians). But the Lord of the world has signifiers in the world - Israel and the Torah. After all, they are like a ghetto and his hand comes together. The proven and the proving come alike. It is true that the Lord of the world no longer performs visible miracles in the simple sense, but the very survival of the Jewish people and the return to the Land of Israel is perhaps the greatest miracle there is, and the prophet Jeremiah has already written:
      Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall say no more the life of the LORD, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. For if the LORD liveth, which brought up and brought in the seed of the house of Israel out of the land of the north, and out of all the countries of the land of Edom;
      It is no coincidence that the Orientals receive the yoke of the kingdom of heaven at the end of the Arab prayer of Independence Day. For them, the hand of God is revealed in the resurrection of the people of Israel in their land.

      I will just add that these things have additional implications like the difference between the thought books of Jews that are still considered Torah books as opposed to philosophy books that are considered wisdom books. I agree with the rabbi that there is an elusive difference between books of thought and Halacha and scholarship and still since they are part of the revelation of God's name in the world in my opinion they have a law of Torah and should not be put in the toilets and should be blessed. Gentile philosophy books on the other hand do not have such a fence and therefore are allowed to be read in the toilets.

      I hope the things I accept will not be considered rude and bold.

    3. Dear XNUMXth.
      Why are these words of impudence or boldness? Things like spurs that are nicely written and accepted. What's more, a little impudence and cynicism (which do not exist here to the best of my judgment) are not harmful in my opinion.
      In fact I agree with every word. I did not understand where the achievement was. After all, I wrote in the fifth notebook all these arguments from the unique history and more. But in my opinion it does not necessarily express divine involvement (at least in recent generations) but the Jewish nature planted in us by the Torah and its existence and by our history.
      My belief in Mount Sinai is factual. But its contents are not entirely clear to me (and in my opinion to others as well, except that they do not dare to give themselves a report on it). I have concluded that such a status is based in part on the arguments you have raised here.
      Indeed the boundary between what was received there and what was added is not known to me. What to do, I could not reach a conclusion on this matter. Meanwhile there are presuppositions (such as the assumption that what is written in the Torah is from heaven until proven otherwise).

  7. Thank you very much for the honor. Your heartfelt words are evident. But great is the love. Really really. First of all to any city that in order to distinguish between venom and cynicism and accepted Torah teachings one should take near your early books full of scenery, and your writing on the site. In the doctorates you have to write the early Michi and the late Michi (for now) and some will have to write new doctorates so they will renew another invention: writing in a book and writing online. Is it that web writing also comes up very nicely with the late Mickey? Well, it's a unity of content and form, will answer. B. Note that most of the findings that betray rude language will be found in your extensive answers and not in columns. Precisely in the tired and multitasking writing you tend to release the Nazareth without restraint. Look there, and there you will see the phenomenon of "the devastation (poetic?) Has been released." And in his case, here are a few jarring things, and I can not go into detail because they are many and the time is short from stretching and I try to make it worse by spending time idling:

    1. Regarding the prohibition of ultra-Orthodox rabbis (recent?) To hold a smartphone without pornographic filtering (see the discussion in your answer there), you call on the questioner to overlap. An unclean language for all those who leave religion and the religious lite. There is no rabbinical answer, even the most obedient one that would use this language: “My perception is that no rabbi has the authority to determine anything. … And even if you belong to a community that many forbid, I still think this is not a wall. If you need it for a living or consider it important, then overlap. ”

    There you write, you have no value in the ultra-Orthodox great men of Israel (probably the rabbis Elyashiv Steinman and Kanievsky. Any great that I have not seen with my own eyes flesh and blood becomes a positive myth? The one who eats kegel and wrapped in business no longer ?: "Indeed I do not have much faith in rabbis who are considered great in the ultra-Orthodox world. , And some are also large students (although I usually do not really appreciate the way they think), but unfortunately they do not know the world in which they live and are led to their decisions by small and self-interested activists who are looking for employment instead of studying in kollel (which is quite boring for them) . ”

    2. Regarding the ban on legumes, you indicate to yourself that you are careful to "overlap". You could say that you do not think it should be made worse, but it seems that you enjoy slaughtering cows in the language of rather: ". I write there that I see no point in keeping this custom, and over the years I have become more and more obsessed with it (like most of us),… If they had not long ago no one would have taken care of this ridiculous nonsense. ”(!). Ridiculous nonsense ?! Which of Israel's first and last greats will agree with you on such a statement that actually constitutes an example for your students to overlap and belittle what they in their philosophically educated education (which very likely does not come and will not reach yours) concludes.https://mikyab.net/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%92%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9D-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8-2/

    3. You cancel all the prayers of Beit Yisrael by waving a keyboard, especially in the Haredi gatherings in view of the days of Judgment, and assume that capturing Rosh Hashanah today is "childish." All this even though all the first and last understood this. Childish ?? Are we all retarded ?:
    "Today I will comment on Elul… If we admit the truth, the monsters of this do not really arise in any of us. The constant repetition of these monsters only indicates that none of us possess any monsters… I would like to offer here a heretical alternative: Maybe not? Maybe Elul is a good time and worthy of an annual soul-searching, but the monsters and the terror of the law are not really in us, and maybe they shouldn't be either. The image as if everyone is on trial for every detail of his actions (which he has not remembered for a long time), probably does not sound very convincing to us. Maybe even something childish. ”- Please note, even if you are right, one of the great ways to enter into an atmosphere of mental reckoning on this very day is to assume - at least as a party of doubt - that justice is indeed done on this day, thanks to the fact That is to say, if in Israel Yom Kippur is the holiest, God also gives his heart to it and examines them before the law. This is how myths work, always. And our Gershom Shulam wrote that our scholars of Kabbalah no longer have the ability to renew their teachings despite our proficiency, and this is because we no longer believe in it as a living myth. Available in a network for each burner.

    4. You make Shabbat pleasure for your campers sitting with cakes and drinks to inform them that your private supervision is a bluff. :
    You take a spiritual practice and with the same tools you try to weaken people from their faith and this without proof. It is reminiscent of all those who studied an issue with a cigarette on Shabbat, or ate cholent at a Tel Aviv restaurant on Shabbat, as well as their friends in kibbutzim who had forbidden relations precisely when wearing tefillin. All the same principle. Let's celebrate permissiveness with the tools of a tourist. And in the same matter. Come yourself, you are cold in faith, you have never experienced spiritual / mystical experiences (you can search for your testimony on the site). It is legitimate. But to take the Seder boys, who will soon enlist in the army, and the only thing that will comfort them in the trench in Gaza, in the middle of the battle is the belief in the power of prayer, the call to the father: "Save me!", This is comfort and this is the stronghold. But you with all your scholarly-philosophical weight almost enjoy (the pleasure of Shabbat!) Destroying their world-and-doggers on the believers, without having justifiable proof of it. Just because it does not seem to you. Just like all your fellow scientists who enjoy waving that there is no free choice (because it violates sacred determinism) because it does not seem to them! This is an uneducated and insensitive and inappropriate act:
    Another story was in my mind (prepare the envelopes). One night I get back in my car with my whole extended family (I was treated to a woman and six dwarfs) from a family event… Our car stopped, and as it turned out to me immediately afterwards was not a ride bar. It is 1:00 at night in Gedera, with the whole family (eight people) stuck on the way to Yeruham. What to do? How do eight people move at such an hour to Yeruham, and… do not worry, the story is just beginning. He stops (!) And gathers us all into it, and after we left the key to Gerrist we drove home happily and well. Each exclamation mark in the sentences above signifies another miracle, as will be explained. On the trip it becomes clear to us that the same person, a local political activist from Yeruham who travels to Jerusalem every few days and knows the road well, and yet for some reason he lost his way back (!), Missed the Latrun interchange (!) And got into Ramla (!). He had no idea how to travel and where (even before the waze era), and he found himself in a fence (!). When he passed us (!) Just in time (!) His wife said to him, "Aryeh, here is the family of Abraham, stop maybe they need something" (!). He told her that he saw no reason to stop, because it was not yet clear that there had been an accident and that we needed help (it was right in the second of the incident). She convinced him (!) And he stopped (!), And the rest is history (?).

    Your faithful servant came to the yeshiva in Yeruham and did, as is customary in these cases, a Shabbat delight for his students over bland cookies and crystal cola. There he explained to the astonished ears of the hearers that he sees this as no miracle and wonder but a completely statistically possible event. After all, there were thousands of people who got stuck at night on the way to their homes and were not rescued. There is a small chance that in such a situation one of them will be saved by chance, so this one was me. What does it prove? I think mostly the fact that the statistics work. As long as I have not checked on a broad sample of events how many times people have been stuck and not saved, I can say nothing about the probability that something like this will happen and whether there was something surprising here (God's hand, private supervision, or Mama Ruhel). "

    The style, the overlap, the childishness, the pleasure of shattering myths and everything in rabbinic language — it is the one that is jarring to your many perpetrators and hears your lesson. I personally would not want to be such a person when I grow up in the Torah. Some of her ways are pleasant ways, clean to drink, naked tongue. See Shatz Levinger from your regular readers. Which language is chosen? How handsome his deeds and speeches are. Well I did not ask you to be different like him, your character is different. But writing like Facebook Fukachat is also not a rank to be proud of, even if it is fun at times as an anonymous writer in a talkback (a.k.a. self). As a rabbi and lighthouse keeper, Roni - whether he wants to or not - has the decency that is required.

    I would recommend you take a day off, hoard all the outspoken reviews against your writing. Seclude yourself, sit with a cigarette and think. Let things sink. This is the only chance you have. It is your lovers, your loved ones, your disciples, who can enlighten your eyes (and I believe you desire it as this column implies). The dosometer graph shows that you are down. These things have fairly well-known scenarios in history. Elisha ben Aboyah, Avner from Burgos, and in our generation Yaron Yadan and Nir Stern.



    Honestly many think so about you. After dismissing God from his heavenly ministry, what is left? In most residents you do not really believe. There was a nucleus in Sinai. Well done. Who will please and next to me who will be stuck that in another year or two (when you finish reading on your own the material on the biblical critique you are currently engaged in - as your testimony on the site) will not dissipate this nucleus to heaven and leave us all running to hear your giggle in your Sabbath class around Zolent and fine closure. Do you think I exaggerated ?! You have no idea how many of my fellow listener friends think of you that way. All the clues, and the Freudian utterances, raise the fear that we may all be deceived and remain a desirable and beloved wise student who promotes things, who beautifies the world of faith and morality, and not just destroys and shatters with the stroke of a keyboard.

    Love you and cherish you very, very much


    And I wrote the above.

    1. Hello age.
      Chen liked the work and all the comments. I will try to address briefly:
      1. First, I will preface what I wrote that regarding rabbis of our generation I allow myself more. Indeed the question of the dividing line is a good question. Indeed, I do not have much faith in the ultra-Orthodox Torah scholars. What to do This is the situation. It is not an expression of contempt but an expression of personal opinion. I do not identify with their way of thinking and their decisions and I think they are based on very problematic thinking. I said this because people use them as an authoritative basis for formulating positions contrary to mine. That's why I write that I do not see them as such a basis. By the way, from those places come out much more severe (and much less justified) expressions of contempt towards rabbis from other directions.
      The passage you quoted in section 1: “Indeed, I do not have much faith in rabbis who are considered great in the ultra-Orthodox world. I lost it unfortunately (or happily). I guess these are good people with good will, and some are also big business people (although I usually do not really appreciate the way they think), but unfortunately they do not know the world in which they live and are led to their decisions by small and self-interested businessmen looking for employment instead. To study in the kollel (which is pretty boring for them). ” I completely stand behind him and do not see him as a problem. This is a matter-of-fact and well-reasoned description of my position.
      As for overlap, I do not see it as a problem. This is what you do when there is something you must but do not identify with. Indeed legumes are ridiculous nonsense. I did not say a word about anyone here. I have expressed a position on the matter itself, and the conclusions as to who advocates it remain to the reader. By the way, I think many of those who stick to legumes agree with me. But they do not go out with it for policy and education reasons (against the reform. What I disagree with). Therefore no conclusion can be drawn from what I have written about the custom itself as to who holds it.
      3. Here I really did not see a problematic expression. It is indeed a somewhat childish thought in my eyes, and I think almost all of us feel that way. The fact that we do not feel the obligatory monsters. By the way, Maimonides has already spoken in his introduction about the treatment of sages' legends and himself wrote that whoever sees them as simple is the plague of fools. And again, these would mean that you have to spend for these processes. Maybe he says this for the purposes of education and policy (which I disagree with). The problem is that we continue with this myth even though it no longer really works. The perception of the myth as such and the continuation of behavior according to it is the childishness I have been talking about.
      4. I strengthen their faith and do not weaken it. People who base their beliefs on childish beliefs may abandon it (everyday actions). As I wrote in one of the columns, in an approach that continues these myths we are left with the less courageous and more childish adults and lose the better ones (of course generalization).

      I can understand those who fear a loss of faith. I'm afraid too. But what to do? Ignore the truth and die like last year? I refuse to let fears dictate the way of thinking and its limits. This is one of the perceptual principles. As mentioned, in my opinion it brings more benefit than harm.
      I also do not accept recommendations that aim to save me from heresy or "heresy". I have no interest in it. If I am an infidel then I am. I try to find out the truth, and of course not necessarily succeed. But I refuse to subject thinking to the desired conclusions. If things do not "save" me in the eyes of someone, there is nothing to do. To me this approach itself is of great value, and it is very important that someone presents it within the usual text that surrounds us and does not really manage to deal with problems. People continue to die like last year even though the problems are different and the people are different.

      Thanks again for the comments. That I disagree does not mean I did not pay attention (probably in terms of style and how it is perceived. It is clear to me that even if the explanations I gave are correct, it does not necessarily mean that readers understand it so it affects them as much as I wanted). I took and I think and think about them. Although without a cigarette…

    2. Gil, excuse me but you're a bit exaggerating. And went through a process of maturation (in my opinion not complete he went through a process of transition from childhood to adolescence and still not to full maturity), and after reading the new books you will understand that the line that guided the rabbi in "two carts" still guides his new opinions (in the new books). The style in my opinion is acquired from the Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox world itself where contempt for Tah (not from their current) was acquired with breast milk.

      I personally grew up in religious Zionism and fully admit that all the expressions you mentioned were very jarring to me when I first encountered them (and I still studied in the bloc, but also in the bloc at the time no one spoke such a language). But you know a lot of things In my heart because I felt ashamed that it even occurred to me and even more ashamed to recognize them, for example, like the whole issue of Haredi leaders of the Haredi public. I read the rabbi six years ago regarding He got along with her, and the rabbi stated that his answer was "infantile". Precise.
      Thanks to the rabbi, all these thoughts were released from my heart again to my head (but not yet for good reason) and only that gives me a sense of sanity.

      The religious Zionist Torah world is still in its infancy, so there is a feeling that we have more respect for the Tah.

      And excuse me (and forgive me Shatzel Levinger himself) Shatzel Levinger's words are not a good example. Haredi) Classic. Do not be fooled by the delicacy. This is not a nice style. This is exactly the style that invites the cynical style of the rabbi. It is not an empty dignity (which is what you think Shatach should boast about) which is the property of 95 percent of the rabbis today.

      What emerges from my words is that you need to thank God for the existence of the rabbi and especially in the current phase and pray for its continued existence (which according to the rabbi's method may not have value in this prayer). I have some friends who have become rabbis and I can tell you that these are real calves. The heresy of the rabbi is worth 100 times more than "their faith". Adolescence must not be accelerated.

    3. Coincidentally due to a search for something else I came here.
      I have only to remark that judging a person's belief or non-belief only by how he or she dresses, and how his or her behavior on the issue of social affiliation, is very superficial.
      Also to include the four names you mentioned in Hada Mahta is very superficial. The division of one who is "ours" is certainly fine in the eyes of the Creator, and one who is not.
      I wish it was that simple. Instead of standing alone in front of the Creator who created each person as an individual, and constantly searching and asking and learning and choosing and taking responsibility, and after all continue to not know and worry and rummage and monitor his way and as in MSI, it is much easier to belong to the group and be "we" instead of "I" And thereby resolve the duty of choice and experience for which our souls descended to the Law.

    4. For:
      "And you will remain a desirable and beloved wise student who promotes things, who beautifies the world of faith and morality, and not just destroys and shatters at the whim of a keyboard."

      In my opinion, if someone destroys and shatters, when at least for him he asks for truth and does not come to tease and deliberately dismiss, his words can be dealt with, whether you agree or disagree sharply or see that there are things you do not want to think about, grow and expand horizons. And we become more of a choice and more people think, and in this we become more 'human' according to Maimonides' definition of being intelligent, and according to the Maharal's definition of being a free choice.
      Whoever embellished things that I had already thought so before, did me no good, on the contrary, kept me from re-examining my ways, and as the MSI, not to be a regular horse, etc., and to monitor his ways and actions every day anew. And Rabbi Yochanan, after the death of Rish Lakish, was not comforted by the friendship that his assistant brings to his words, but wanted those who would have difficulty with XNUMX questions about everything he said.

  8. Hello Rabbi Michi.
    I agree with what you said and your evidence, but I still have a hard point, because the sages said in Shabbat "If we are first as angels…" then in some matters we do look at them as angels , And you bring evidence against Rabbi Bar Zimona (the author of the above article) Maram and the furnace of Achnai, but according to we have found an opinion that connects those who disagree with you in relation to the former since it agrees with the second opinion which is less respectful…).
    And will you say the same thing to a person whose level of understanding is very poor, that he should do as he understands, even if it is simple for him that the problem is with him, otherwise we have opened here to all the peoples of the lands?

    1. The question of whether the mimra are first as angels is factual or normative (which is how they should be treated and accepted). After all, sages use expressions in this way. For example, they say of Halacha Durban that it is the LMM, just to strengthen it (so Thos. Writes). Its details and generalities from Sinai is a normative rather than a factual determination.
      Beyond that, even if they are angels it does not mean that they can not be disputed. This is the value of autonomy. See also Rambam R.P.B.
      As for who should decide for himself, in my opinion everyone is responsible for their decisions and there is no permission to make decisions for another person. It is possible to exclude perhaps only those who are insane or ignorant (without legal responsibility). Every person and the mind he received from his Creator. We're not supposed to replace him. He works his Creator and he has to make his decisions. Moreover, even if we make decisions for him it will turn out that he is serving God by mistake, and it is doubtful how valuable his work is. After all, there is an "adata dahchi" explanation here that cancels any contract (if he had known he would not have served God. Therefore, his work is by mistake). This is the danger in every sacred lie (SQ. See column 21). There is of course a pepper in all this, for it can be said that if the true truth is that there is a commitment to the work of God, then we will go on to say that if he knew everything and came to the absolute truth he would want to worship God. But it is a question of whether a double mistake that is offset is considered the absence of a mistake. And ZLA in all this.

  9. So if I understood correctly in a certain examination do you agree that the former should be treated as angels? So what is this attitude expressed in?
    post Scriptum. (Regarding the reference to the discussion on smartphones) The 'education' that he defines does not belong to every generation, and says that BID should go around and correct in their opinion, do you explain that nowadays his words belong to a rabbi? Thus the root of the mitzvah that gives a name (multiplicity of controversies) does not belong (for there will still be Mahin yin communities). Or do you disagree with him?

    1. Their authority must be accepted within the limits set by Halacha. The Talmud has absolute authority, the former and the latter have status but not absolute authority.
      I do not agree with the words of education. In its simplicity the authority was given only to the Sanhedrin or to those agreed upon by the general public (like the Gemara).

    2. On Rishonim, Angels and Sandals (for Reuben)

      In S.D.

      To Reuven - Hello,

      Rabbi Zira's words about 'Rishonim as sons of angels' were said in the Gemara (Shabbat Kib) in the context of Shekla and Tria between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Hezekiah, in which the rabbi admired his student' From what the rabbi himself said about a sandal that was stopped and repaired and stopped and repaired again - that a tool that was repaired again and again does not completely return to its original state but 'new faces have come here'.

      On the student's success in stripping the rabbi of his content from deepening in the words of the rabbi himself - the rabbi praised and said of him:

      The rabbi has a virtue in being a link closer to the source in the chain of recipients of the Torah from man to man to Moses in the mouth of heroism, the authentic vessel that went through fewer crises has a virtue over the 'second vessel', in which all crises and waves of history have already given their signals.

      On the other hand, the second sandal made of 'patch on patch' also has an advantage, being 'new face'. His admiration for the rabbi leads him to deepen and deepen in the teachings of his rabbi, until he finds in the words of his rabbi a 'new face' that the rabbi himself did not stand on.

      Whoever thinks that his rabbi is an ordinary person, will not bother and try to get down to the end of his mind and remain 'like a horse like a mule has not understood'. On the other hand, he who sees the rabbi as an angel, wrestles and struggles, leads and breaks down, until he gains pawns and develops the teachings of his rabbi in new directions.

      With the blessing of Shabbat Shalom, Sh.C. Levinger

  10. Hello Rabbi.

    Just to reinforce Gil's claim that many people think of you as he wrote - I write that I agree with his words.

    You are a big believer in the rationality of the belief, in the synthetics, as opposed to the postmodernism that just breaks down, and yet the resulting feeling is that most of what you say is a breakdown of existing beliefs.

    As a regular reader of your remarks, sometimes I think you - with your amazing mental ability and talent for analysis - enjoy dismantling myths into factors, pointing to the king and saying he is naked.

    1. I accepted that this is what some people think. The question is what am I supposed to do with it? As I have explained, my positions are my positions and it will not help to define them as heresy. To me there is a demolition that is a big construction and there is a construction that is a demolition.

  11. Hello Rabbi
    Honest power over your many contributions in Torah and wisdom, and yet
    I remember in one of the lessons you wrote about Maimonides that he was naive in that he thought it was possible to study his Mishnah Torah and not have to study another book (there were more examples and this is now in my mind, and also the most jarring)
    To me it's a terrible itch
    I do not remember what lesson it might have been about in R. Gedaliah Nadel's series

    1. I also do not remember where it was. But that statement is really naive. Here you do not even need me. Fook Hezi and you will see if the students are really satisfied with Maimonides and move on to study philosophy or if they also make Maimonides a subject that is discussed and rectified and discussed. Is the statement that some sage is naive an injury? Is that an inappropriate statement? I dont think so.

  12. After reading all that has been said here I got to know you and your opinions more. Indeed, things are horrible and terrible to every Jewish ear and mind with little faith. But in fact this is the inner truth in everyone even when he does not express what he thinks for fear of being perceived as an epicurean or rebellious, etc.
    And I have a problem as a true man to leave my sincere thoughts in my stomach (it's like poison bubbling inside).
    And even though this form of expression is difficult, I stood by my opinion.
    And such a question arises in me: it is not found in the Karaites, Ethiopians, etc. Such a situation… they are not influenced by science regarding halakhah and they hold a tradition without controversy. Things are clear. Those who are secular - secular and those who are Jewish Jews.
    Compared to our Judaism today .. even those who want to be Jews and not infidels .. he does not find a place to belong due to the multiplicity of opinions and disagreements that result from disagreements and different interpretations. Something to think about. Especially since no one really knows how absolute the residents' tradition is. (As you mentioned, there are mistakes and there is a lot of missing information)

    1. On the contrary (to Daniel)

      In SD XNUMX in Nissan

      To Daniel - Hello,

      On the contrary, with so many opinions and methods everyone finds their 'niche' and yet remains in the 'frame', when surprisingly with all the diversity there is a common basic infrastructure.

      You will enter the quorum of 'Mizrahnikim' in Beit Hakerem and you will enter the quorum of the followers of Stamar in Mea Shearim - here they may wear shorts and a 'kippah like an olive', and here they will wear a hat and capote, but the prayer is the same prayer, the Torah scroll. And the dates apply on the exact same date, after two thousand years of dispersal.

      It is the unifying power of the Oral Torah, which has the maintenance of a common 'hard core', while giving place to diversity and flexibility around the common core.

      Regards, S.C. Levinger

  13. Suffice it to give an example from what you wrote in the previous post.
    A wise student and an educated man understands that there is no claim that is not in doubt. Even belief in God is not certain…

    An educated and open person knows that even what appears in the written Torah is not certain. Maybe these are late additions? Maybe it was not given at all from Sinai? After all, there is no certainty in anything. All of these are our conclusions, so they should be taken with a limited guarantee….

    1. Yechiel, the question is what do these examples illustrate? Indeed nothing is certain. Is this inappropriate or blatant speech? Is that not true?
      I just reinforce in my mind that the problem is not in the form of expression but in the content. Although I did accept Yishai's comment that the form of expression can sometimes sharpen or dull the reactions to the content.

    2. Comments were removed at the request of the author (Shatzal)

      Although I do not see anything wrong with these comments. Cynicism is perfectly legitimate and even the little selfish uses it. At the request of the writer I removed them.

  14. Another example based on what is written here. Compare the following formulations:
    "Maimonides was naive when he said that"
    "This is a naive statement"
    "There is something naive in this statement of Maimonides"

    Of course you may want to sharpen instead, but if you want to numb I think it is possible.

  15. Hello and blessings Michi, you know there are few differences in the prayers. For example in Djerba and Tunis.
    In the customs of prayer .. and this is not an example because the Arabs also pray the same prayer… and it does not matter what the exterior at all. Regarding the Torah scrolls .. To this day I have not understood if there really is one Torah scroll for everyone without differences. To my humble knowledge there are differences in the form of writing and the tastes between the Yemenites and the rest of the community. In addition, I read about a year ago on the Internet about an ancient Torah scroll from Georgia that has a tradition up to the First or Second Temple (I do not remember exactly). And the information about it disappeared from the internet but in any case they determined that it was invalid .. which is certain that nothing is certain… therefore the darkness will cover a land and the fog of nations and just have to be put aside for sages who lived in past generations and cling to innocent faith with God.
    And let's assume we worshiped Gd not exactly as He wanted… Will we be sued for it in the next world? And if we assume that there is no next world ... and that there is something more enjoyable than studying Torah? More enjoyable than this tremendous wisdom? That contains philosophy, spirit, such tremendous knowledge in addition to the study of Halacha and the legends of sages that shape us?
    The only thing that really bothers me is the matter of tradition .. without tradition .. the Torah is no different from Harry Potter ..
    Both are beautiful and moving books and full of morality of the mind. All the prophecies came true ..
    Indeed, there is a problem when there is evidence with a completely different tradition ... the Ethiopians and the Karaites. In addition there were the Sadducees and the Beitus.
    Etc. it is possible to go on with it indefinitely so there is no knowing where the truth is… In my humble opinion and even my lack of knowledge I would say that the Karaites are closer to the truth .. because they are close to the Kara .. and we are close to the wise rulings in every generation. They rely on the word of God and we on the words of the sages. And so on .. The leadership of Beta Israel is so harmonious and amazing that there are no unnecessary halakhic questions and it is amazing. The connection to God and the laws he commanded. And again the darkness will cover the earth and the mist for the mothers .. I will have to live in doubts until the day I die or until the coming of the Messiah. And I am with you I can say another 1000 times that I believe in the coming of the Messiah but it is not really from the heart .. for it depends on our actions. We fix the world with our own hands by keeping the commandments. And in the Six Day War we won without Messiah. We survived the Holocaust without Messiah. We survived the 2000 years of exile without the Messiah. (Unlike the false Messiahs who harmed). Everything under the supervision of God will be blessed. We must cling to the sages and with God's help we will discover the truth and until then we must not turn away from the Torah and even from one mitzvah because we do not know the size of the reward of a light or severe mitzvah.
    If I'm completely wrong I would love to hear your opinion Michi 🙂

    1. To Daniel
      As for S.T. there are no significant differences between the testimonies, the written differences do not hinder even halakhically, the differences in wording are really few, and are only as a halakhic question, whether to write 'wounded oppressed' or 'oppressed', questions that are not relevant at all in terms of tradition.
      The Karaites are not at all close to the simplicity of the Bible, certainly no more than a sage, as Maayan is known in their writings.
      The question of who brought us back to Israel, whether the Messiah, or anyone else, is irrelevant at all. The main thing that the word of our God that promised 3300 years ago came true, as well as the main thing of the words of the prophets.
      The mind should never be turned off, but it would not hurt to know that there are complex issues, and that there are smart people, and this is not the place to suggest all the complications, and if you want I would be happy to try to sort out some of the complications via email.

  16. Very nice things.
    We will pray for his honor "naked in the mind", which will also strengthen the side of "and set themselves as a beast" and the two matters will be consistent… (see Orot Yisrael XNUMX)

  17. Focus on things.
    There is one point I would love to read your reference to. You write about the mistakes of the ancients. The way our ancestors in the beit midrash were many times was to leave in need of study.
    Where is the line between saying a certain opinion in the first / last / sages that it is wrong and saying that it is a mistake?

    1. It is difficult to determine. Sometimes it's just polite language but sometimes it's really an insecure person. The tongue is part of the tendency to leave the status of the ancients as one who is not mistaken. I oppose this trend both because it is wrong and because it is harmful. So when there is something that clearly seems to me to be a mistake I write about it as a mistake.

  18. Most respondents seem to agree that the claim that direct and aggressive style expresses respect. (Unlike a museum)
    In my opinion this indicates the respondents that they are innocent and stupid people who bought this weak and unconvincing argument
    Does any of the respondents think that the wording in the previous sentence indicates "respect" or "feel at home" that I have towards the respondents?
    This is an argument that reads the word "respect" for a style that is clearly disrespectful. I would expect the rabbi to explain what "disrespect" is in his opinion, since everything can be justified in this way.
    And I also strongly agree with what has been said, that even if the rabbi does respect, what is clear to readers is that the rabbi does not respect.
    (I really respect the rabbi and the commenters, I wrote this to make the point clear)

  19. Most respondents seem to agree that the claim that direct and aggressive style expresses respect. (Unlike a museum)
    In my opinion this indicates the respondents that they are innocent and stupid people who bought this weak and unconvincing argument
    Does any of the respondents think that the wording in the previous sentence indicates "respect" or "feel at home" that I have towards the respondents?
    This is an argument that reads the word "respect" for a style that is clearly disrespectful. I would expect the rabbi to explain what "disrespect" is in his opinion, since everything can be justified in this way.
    And I also strongly agree with what has been said, that even if the rabbi does respect, what is clear to readers is that the rabbi does not respect.
    (I really respect the rabbi and the commenters, I wrote this to make the point clear)
    (To the site editor, the response was mistakenly out of place.)

  20. I just wanted to hear clarification on a few things:

    1) Regarding your relationship with Maimonides, you wrote here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C/
    "For some reason most Gentiles do not think he is such an important philosopher that it is worth studying, at least in our day." I understood from the context there that you identify with what most Gentiles think, was I wrong?

    2) I assume you do not hold from the Rabbi. . ” As you hold from Maimonides, and neither do I. And certainly came out of his mouth several times very wrong things to say the least. Is what you wrote here:
    Also describes the attitude of the one who sits with him and learns?

    3) When you write in 'contempt' towards politicians from all kinds of parties, did you also make a mistake in this and you really do not intend to disparage them but speak as someone who sits and studies with them?

    1. 1. If so I can understand why people think you are underestimating Maimonides. In my opinion he did see himself as an important philosopher, and that it is even more important than anything he has done in the world of halakhah. The statement that his philosophy is mediocre is indeed a very harsh critique.

      2-3. Sorry for the lack of clarity, I will try to fix it in the future. As for the main point, if in the same blog you are used to sharply criticizing Rabbi Y. as well. י. And all kinds of politicians, too, may think that your attitude toward Maimonides and Rabbi Y. י. It's similar, though you can really see from the tone that it's not exactly the same thing.

  21. Regarding the importance of Maimonides as a philosopher.
    Maimonides emphasized in several places that in his writings he does not deal with philosophy, and he has no statement and novelty in it.
    He only came to interpret the Torah. It is like claiming that Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik was not a great philosopher, or Einstein or Yitzchak Perlman. This is a man who dealt with another discipline. It is like saying that Maimonides was not a great pianist. This is a misleading statement. Because if one comes to assess a person's greatness one should examine within the discipline in which he operated.

    For example in a teacher embarrassed in B:
    “Know that this article was not meant for me to compose anything in natural wisdom or to clarify matters of divine wisdom according to some opinions or to bring an example of what the masterpiece comes from them; And I was not called in it that I would shave and cut out the feature of the wheels and not that I would say their number because the books connected with all this are sufficient; And if there are not enough in the matter of the matters there will be no what I say it in that matter is better than all that has been said. And indeed the article was referred to in this article - what you have already announced in its opening is in the light of religious doubts and the showing of hidden truths which are superior to the understanding of the masses. And this is what you deserve when you see me speaking in the setting of the separate minds and their number or the number of wheels and the reasons for their movements or really the matter of matter and form or the matter of divine abundance and so on in those matters most of them; But it is true that I will remember what will be doubted by the providers of the Torah in his understanding and many connections will be made in knowing that matter which Abarhu: and you already knew from the opening of this article And every chapter you find speaks of an interest already in it exemplified in the wisdom of nature or an interest has already been exemplified in divine wisdom or has been revealed to be worthy of all that is unbelievable or matter hung in what has been clarified in studies - know that it is necessarily key to understanding anything from prophecy books And because of this I remembered him and his wells and showed him what would be useful to know from the 'act of chariot' or 'act of Genesis' or to clarify the main point of the prophecy or to believe a true opinion from the Torah beliefs "

  22. There is no philosophical statement in Teacher Embarrassed, which is written almost as verbally in Aristotle or Alfarabi or Ibn Sina or Ibn Alzaig (better known as Baja Stone). Even without proficiency in which one can see in Mahd Schwartz a reference to sources.

    If there was a single philosophical statement of Maimonides, then it would be possible to evaluate her philosophical thinking and learn from it about Maimonides as a philosopher. But the fact is that there is not.

    He knew well and precisely the words of the above philosophers, and for this purpose there were philosophers who used his writings, and from this they valued him in the philosophical world. But have not learned from him any of his philosophies, for there is none. And as he himself testifies that so. And therefore it is not proper to speak of his importance as a philosopher.

    The teacher is embarrassed by enormous innovations in the study of the inwardness of the Torah according to his special way, but no renewed philosophical content in the sense of general philosophy, outside the Beit Midrash.

  23. I did not understand your division between 'general philosophy outside the beit midrash' and 'study of the internals of the Torah,' and in my opinion Maimonides also did not divide between them and did not put general philosophy outside the beit midrash.

    It is certainly true that most of the philosophical statements in the teacher are not innovations of Maimonides, but he also has something to say about them by himself. One example is the rejection of Aristotle's evidence for the primacy of the world.

  24. To Rabbi Michi,

    You have written in several places that you think there is one truth. And if so it is incumbent upon us to ascertain the absolute truth in its purity (Assumption A).
    On the other hand, you wrote in this post and in other places that for you the only thing that requires you to understand the Torah is the intellect, so do not hesitate to disagree on all the first and last if it is clear to you that the truth is with you according to your attainment.
    On the other hand, you wrote in this post that you greatly appreciate the former and the latter as people most of whom are full of wisdom and knowledge, etc. (Assumption C).
    And I stand and wonder how the above three assumptions work together:
    After all, we are looking for the absolute truth (Assumption A). To find it we have two ways - either to be based on our intellect, or to be based on the words of our ancestors. After all, if Way A contradicts Way B, it is much more likely that Way B is the right one, because with all due respect to our minds, the minds of all the ancients together will surely prevail over its wisdom (unless it is a matter of changing reality over the generations) (Assumption C) . So if the absolute truth is important to us - we must go the way we are more likely to reach, according to the first and not according to our intellect! (Contradicts the discount in)
    And from another direction - why be based only on what my mind says in the discussion itself, and not on what the same mind says, which turns out to be itself wrong if all the first ones say otherwise.

    I would be happy to clarify where I was wrong in understanding your words ..

    1. First, even if I'm full of appreciation for someone, that does not mean he's immune to mistakes. When I consider my position I also take into account the opinions of the dissenters and their superiors, and there may still be situations where I conclude that they were wrong.
      But beyond all that, see my articles on autonomy and authority and in the third book in the trilogy, where I explained that halakhic jurisprudence is based on two values: truth and autonomy (the duty to act as I myself understand). I explained there that the value of autonomy instructs me to act in my opinion even in a place where it is clear to me that the partaker is very large than me and probably the one who is right. And in my opinion, this is the meaning of the Gemara in Eruvin, who did not rule according to Halacha Karm because his friends did not come to the end of his opinion.

  25. The first alleged claim does not answer my words. I also conclude that I am right and the first are wrong, this is of course according to my personal understanding. I am aware that my personal understanding is limited and therefore by weighting all the data, i.e., a weighted average of all opinions according to their relative weight, I come to the final conclusion that the former are right. It is true that they may be wrong, but equally I may be wrong, and I am more likely to be wrong.
    I did not understand the second argument. With the GM in Eruvin we will get along, I assume that this is not the evidence for your method but you are based on your logic that states that autonomy is critical in the ruling of halakhah even when it leads to a conclusion against the truth.
    But what is the point of claiming that? If we have to keep the will of God, and his will is the halakhic truth, why should we do against the truth just because it seems so to us?
    Unfortunately I do not yet have the trilogy, so I would be happy if you could explain to me on one foot the rational foundation for your claim. And please do not really push the building ..

    1. If so, what you are supposed to do is measure the intelligence of all in the world and cling to the sage in them. I suppose there is a reasonable chance that he will not be a Jew. I see no point in these skeptical quibbles.
      Regarding your last question, I have already explained that the halakhic requirement is a combination of truth and autonomy. You can read both the article and the trilogy. So I'm definitely pushing you really building. If you want read there.

    2. On the XNUMXth of Tevet XNUMX

      In measuring the value of an opinion that attempts to give a halakhic or intellectual reinterpretation of the Torah, one must take into account not only the 'intelligence' and general knowledge of the speaker, but first and foremost his greatness in Torah study and proficiency, his piety and greatness in Torah property. We will appreciate the owner of the revolutionary opinion, whether 'Tanna is and sailed' or a dilemma only 'vision of a man for several years' 🙂

      If the man has not been recognized as a phenomenal genius other than the sages of Israel as the 'garlic peel before him', there is still room to discuss his arguments as to whether there is conclusive evidence that rejects the judgment of the sages he disagrees with. Naturally this examination is handed down by extreme sages who have come to a teaching who will find that his arguments are the clear truth about which there is no capacity for delay and appeal.

      On the contrary, the one who claims to 'autonomy' will come and offer his halakhic conclusions in a 'tetralogy' that will encompass all parts of the Shulchan Aruch as well as the laws of holy seed, and 'we will see if the clear teachers agree on it and wear it.

      Sincerely, Shatz

  26. There is also a gemara, I do not remember its location, that writes about some condition that he said something in the name of his rabbi so that they would receive it from him.
    However, it seems that it is not possible for a person to check everything, but the person works with trust and of course a critical system. That things from wise people receive and test, but not everything to the end, but it is a set of knowledge that man accumulates. And if so say something in the name of a person I trust and take them seriously, I still wonder why it is allowed

  27. Hello sir, do you have a clear rabbi or rabbis in the light of whom you go, who relied on your method? After all, the whole tradition of passing the Torah on to the people of Israel was done by a rabbi who passes it on to a student (in the first mishnah of Tractate Avot) and this has been the case since the Torah was handed down to this day, None of the famous arbitrators in the SD chose them as the Shiite who will lead the people of Israel for generations, who dares to express themselves in the way you express yourself. Not on the first, not on the last and not on the last last. And if you think first as human beings, then we…
    The way you chose in my opinion is a bit reminiscent of "reform"… This is a new method that our gentlemen have never used. Note that throughout history there has not been a remnant left for anyone who has tried to deviate from the path that Gd has outlined for us in His Torah - written Torah and oral Torah that also includes righteous leadership. Anyone who thought he was wiser than the sages of Israel, present and past, was not part of the Torah dynasty of the people of Israel.
    I guess this is “another comment” that will not move you out of your mind, but I feel the duty to respond rests with me. And if I can save someone who reads this comment, from the false opinions that appear here on the site that there is no comfortable wise spirit right now at all, and it was rewarding.
    I wish you and all of us that we will be able to do the Shiite will completely. Akir.

  28. Although I fully identify with the words of the rabbi on the one hand, but it sounds hypocritical to me to say that this way is equal to the way and faith of the Tannaim and the Amoraim, etc. The non-epic one generation after the generation of the Tannaim have already begun to make it harder for the Tannaim on the Amoraim and Amora did not dare to disagree on Tanna, and this is due to their antiquity alone (and Maimonides' words in this are very strange). And you will never find a condition that disagrees with a condition in the generation before it and we never find Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda the President discuss one issue as friends sitting at one table.
    And I just want to bring to the attention of the members the words of Maimonides Halacha Avoda Zara Chapter XNUMX Halacha C
    And it is not only star work that must not be referred to in thought but any thought that causes a person to uproot most of the principles of the Torah. And if every other person is attracted to the thoughts of his heart is found destroying the world according to his short-sightedness, how sometimes he will give up star work and sometimes he will think especially the Creator whether he is not, what is up and what is down what is in front and what is backwards, and sometimes in prophecy Lest it be from heaven lest it be, and know not the virtues that he will judge until he knows the truth about his ignorance and is found to come out to species, and on this matter Torah warned and said in it The attainment of truth, so the sages have said after your heart it is species and after your eyes it is prostitution, and no it is even though it causes a person to be harassed from the next world and has no lashes in it.

    1. It seems to the rabbi that Rabbi Michael Avraham has already answered this - that ostensibly such a halachah is relevant only to those who already believe and are committed to the Torah + hold of themselves that his opinion is short, and hence it follows that he who does not believe in the first place - Maimonides Can not oblige him to find out the principles of his faith, etc., and on the other hand, he who is convinced that he has the proper philosophical skill, then also about him Maimonides did not say his words.

  29. I think my words are clear but I will repeat the point. Although it sounds right to me from Sabra that it is impossible to believe that my opinion against the opinion of the ancients is not worth anything, but the opinion of Chazal is clearly not true (although they may be wrong) because we see in both Talmud and Mishnah To this, in addition to what the sages themselves said (Eruvin, page Ng, page A), "Rabbi Yochanan said: The son of the former as the entrance of a hall, and of the latter as the entrance of the temple - and we are like a hole in the side of a needle." That is, the opinion of the latter is not important against the opinion of the ancients because the ancients were greater in their opinion.
    I refer mainly (although in my opinion this point is the main one) to Rabbi Michael at the beginning of the column
    "Of course, there are also formal considerations of authority, such as the authority of the Sanhedrin or the laws in the Talmud over which there is no halakhic possibility to disagree."
    And I come to say that it is not true, there is no reason not to disagree about the Babylonian from which matter I went, the reason not to disagree about the Babylonian is because according to the sages' opinion the latter towards the first is a very sparse opinion, Very renewed, for in his opinion there is no validity except for a mishnah arranged by a rabbi, and not for alliances, nor is there any reason for it to be an exception regarding special amoraim like a rabbi, nor does it explain why we never commanded Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, or a rabbi disagrees with a rabbi.

    1. We have certainly found that they disagree, even on occasional terms. And what they wrote great praises about the first should not be read as simple but it is a literary expression for the fact that he hated to disagree with them that their words were as if they had been said from a mouth that was thicker than our waists. This is also how the proverbs should be interpreted that everything was given to Moses at Sinai, which of course is not true.
      However, even if you were right there is no relevant argument here. Even if the Talmud did not do this for the Mishnah I do not see why I would not do it for the former or the latter. What's more, as Maimonides and the Knesset comment (Rafb Mammarim) must have thought as I did. And he is also in the head of the Sanhedrin PD C. and whose words were quoted in HOM C. Kah.

Leave a comment