About Mr. Shoshani
There is a fascinating and exciting article here 11 about “Mr. Shoshani,” who knew 40 languages, was a Torah genius, and “the Jewish Socrates.”
Who did not leave a single written word.
And people have difficulty even reproducing his insights. (Apparently there is no Jewish Plato on him)
In interviews with religious philosophy professors, it seems that they have their own world of content, and perhaps their own writings,
But they refuse to let go.
As someone in the field, are you familiar with the circumstances? Have you heard about it? Does the rabbi have any insight that is wiser than him?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, in short, to close the chapter. I received a lot of responses. I'll add something. Out of the hundreds of thousands of words in Shoshani's notebooks, diligent people managed to find some relatively understandable pearls. Those who invested and tried to decipher and interpret are worthy of appreciation. Dr. @+972 50-865-5776 directed me to an interesting article of his (and others) around Shoshani's idea (https://did.li/Tjyrl). As early as 2011, I was exposed to the figure of Shoshani in a thread that was opened on the Otzar Hochma forum, where they began to discuss his rumors and affairs. This thread was attended by both Greenspan and Yael Levin and other sages who dealt with and wrote about him (https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5740), where you will also find attempts to decipher his innovations. They also wrote to me about a series by Hodia Samet-Har Shefi, and I managed to find a lecture by her on YouTube.
But I suggest a simple test. Take all these pearls, present them to people in the name of a well-known rabbi or scholar. I make no promises, but I have the impression that you will not see a twinkle in their eyes, but rather boredom and a polite nod. In other words, the big story here is the mystery, the challenge, the detective, and the aura. To support the excitement a little, we also need theoretical material, and therefore we must be “ready” to accept every bit of his statement. See also what Miki Avraham has to say on the subject (https://mikyab.net/posts/70387/). I believe Rosenberg and Levinas that he is a phenomenon, but unfortunately they fail to pass on his teachings. I also do not belittle any effort to trace the man and his teachings, but I think that things should be taken in proportion.
If you wish, then psychological analyses have also been written about the human need to believe in some omniscient genius, quite similar to the familiar need to believe in ancestors or pagan healers, etc. (see in our context Menachem Nabet's post: https://did.li/5Lbx5). It seems to me that we can continue on, unless you bring something that refutes the conclusions of my test.
And this is my response:
I didn't remember this column at all.
I saw the film in the cinema and also had a conversation with the director.
I've been struggling with the questions you raised for years. I greatly appreciate Shalom Rosenberg and his testimony about Shoshani impressed me, but I didn't see anything from him in the substance of the matter.
The conclusion seems to be that the mystery made the man here. All sorts of morons are easily impressed by a person's Torah and intellectual stature if he articulates himself well, or raises very moral ideas (even if not original). This is how Leibowitz became a thinker and even a scholar in the eyes of many. In my opinion, he is not a very impressive thinker and is quite superficial and childish, and certainly not a T.H. So maybe Shoshani is like that too. Rosenberg's testimony is indeed valid, because he was both.
Although there is also Rabbi Heshil, of whom only crumbs remain through his students (the Torah dedication and the Shulchan
https://mr-shoshani.co.il/
Miki,
Why do you value Shalom Rosenberg so much?
Because he is a wise man with a lot of knowledge.
What is your assessment based on?
I was his student, his ideas were confused. A man with knowledge but not intelligence.
On hearing and reading. His speech was indeed not organized.
What are other examples of "resident people"?
Miki, you wrote: "His speech was indeed not orderly." So how did you conclude from his speech that he was a "wise man"?
Here is an example of a man of oath
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%92%27%D7%99%D7%95_%D7%A6%27%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%91%D7%99%D7%93%D7%90%D7%A7%D7%94#%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%95
And here is another example of a man Such
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%92%D7%93%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%9C#%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95
Rabbi Michi, who wrote “I just keep telling myself that there are people of Toshve”p and when you read their written things you really won't be surprised, there are some examples I know”, offers another explanation based on some examples I know:
There are elohim who, due to their knowledge and connections between different subjects, have a great deal of difficulty saying what is true, and especially know how to say what is not. They are not creative (or self-confident) enough to find a way that will fit between all the things they know, but they have enough knowledge and understanding to explain to you why what you said cannot be. It's a talent of the annoying kind, but you can't ignore their arguments, which are well-founded.
Maybe Shoshani was like that.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
