news

Rabbi Zini has an interesting article that claims that the Babylonian sages (as opposed to the Jerusalem Talmud sages) hid the national cause because they were exiles (and they did the same regarding the miracle of Hanukkah and more). He writes this sharply, as usual, as a criticism of them.

“Intellectual honesty is always required of us”

We should note that this is written by a person (Miki) who said that he “understands why pogroms were carried out on the Jews of Eastern Europe in the 19th century”,

without having any serious knowledge of the reasons for those pogroms, but rather because of a powerful emotional interest he experienced in the Haredi community.

We should also note that the same person (Miki) who so demands intellectual honesty claimed that when Nachshon Waxman was kidnapped, “almost the entire country prayed”.
This is of course also complete nonsense. There were of course many Jews who prayed. Much more than usual. But to define it as ”almost the entire country prayed”,
is intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to highlight his position. There is no reason to think that almost the entire country (which includes almost all secularists) really spoke to the Creator of the world and asked Him to release the late Nachshon Waxman.

Intellectual honesty?
Why?

Not really . . .

It's unpleasant to read such a stupid comment
I request to delete for the sake of the site's honor

Anyone who doesn't like it shouldn't read it (there's no need to read Ehud's comments, because they're all copied from each other without any connection to the thread in which they appear).
I allow people to let off steam (with certain limitations). It's probably beneficial to them and good for all of us.

On the 21st of Iyar, 5721;

To Devir, Shalom Rav,

The claim you made about a supposed dispute between the sages of Babylon and the sages of Israel over the cause of the destruction is puzzling. After all, the phrase "Akmetzah and Bar Kamtzah destroyed Jerusalem" is quoted in Babylon in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, the head of the sages of Israel, and it is also quoted in the Midrash Icha Rabbah of Israel.

An atmosphere in which a person who was invited by mistake is thrown out of the banquet, and he goes in revenge and informs the government; an atmosphere in which zealots burn the treasures that would have allowed them to withstand the 20-year siege, and thugs are ready to stab and push even the head of the sages. It is an atmosphere of hatred and division, which guaranteed defeat and destruction, preventing the ability to unite against the enemy. Therefore, the statement that gratuitous hatred led to destruction is not just a matter of punishment. It is simply a natural explanation of reality.

It is not for nothing that the sages of the Land of Israel, who are committed to the obligation to argue in a pleasant way, emphasized this reason, and the sages of Babylon agreed with them and established it as a law in their Talmud, in order to teach a moral lesson about how careful one must be lest a heated debate in law degenerate into a division of hearts.

And I heard a beautiful idea from Mrs. Bat-Galim Sha'er, that the corrective ’free love’ is not &#8216love without cover’, but ‘free’ meaning &#8216their grace’. Even when it is necessary to have a sharp disagreement with others, one must love the "free" ones, the good and the graceful ones.

With greetings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel, Rabbi

It is worth noting the words of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael that the fact that the destruction came as a result of the teaching of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkolas, by a ruling of a Rabbi, is the clear seal that this is a decree from God.

And perhaps Rabbi Zechariah was right. A society that oscillates between the tendency to disregard the law, "the faithful will say, 'Krabbin'," and excessive strictness that is ready to shed blood for "defacing the holy places." It needs to be repaired and healed of its ailments so that it will be worthy of the inspiration of the Shekhinah within it.

To commenter A, hello,

In this case, I accidentally responded in the wrong thread, and this platform does not allow you to delete messages.

Contrary to what Smichy wrote, in my humble opinion, I do try to respond only in appropriate threads.
This is not really a venting of steam, but a critical and substantive response to Smichy's words.

I understand that sometimes it is unpleasant to read this, and there are people to whom Smichy is important, but still, if you choose to respond to my words (or to anyone's words), it is better to respond in a substantive manner.

If you have a substantive response to what I wrote, I would be happy to read and even respond.
This will probably also be very easy for you because you think this is a super stupid response.

All the best, endless faith and joy!