Rabbi Aviner on Rabbi Tau – Your response?

In particular, the approach of claiming that someone is a genius in Talmudic scholarship but hides it is irritating. Especially since the person claiming it is probably hiding himself.

To Tirgitz
The irritability is yours alone. It certainly could be. Not that he hides it, he just doesn't teach classes on it because there's someone else who will do it. Rabbi Mordechai Sternberg. He simply, in his own way, deals with what he thinks no one else deals with and perhaps what he believes is his greatest strength. I heard that he once gave a class with a thorough examination for six hours. Not that this says anything about the level of the class, but it does say that the subject interests him. In short, it makes sense that he's not a loser of thoughtfulness and transparency. And I'm the last person you could say is a follower of Rabbi Tau.
And Rabbi Aviner doesn't hide anything about himself. He really calls himself Enoki Kachkin and not out of false humility (at least that's what it seems to me) but out of recognition of his place. He really isn't one of the students of the greatest sages of the generation, and that's fine. It's not a denigration of his dignity.

He may be an ordinary thinker (and not just concerned with thought and perspective, which is pretty obvious), but it is unlikely that he is an extraordinary thinker. Don't you agree with that?

Rabbi Zvi Yehuda asked Rabbi Tau to teach Gemara Iyun in the yeshiva, and indeed he taught for several weeks and then stopped.
The comparison to Rabbi Sternberg is not good and incorrect. We know about the latter, and those who don't know can listen to recordings or read lessons. We don't know about Rabbi Tau, so is it reasonable to claim that he is a world genius in Talmud who is self-deprecating? Come on. We know enough Jews over the age of 60 who studied at the Rabbi's center while Rabbi Zvi was there, I haven't found one who claimed to be a world genius in Shas.
Of course, this says nothing about his qualities, righteousness, philosophical depth, or the rabbi's writings.
Just don't invent inventions or make assumptions.

And as for Rabbi Aviner, it is clear that he is not hiding anything. I meant that the weight of such testimony (which does not testify in my blood) is based on the greatness of the witness and the evidence.

Rabbi Aryeh Bina claimed at the time that Rabbi Zvi Yehuda was not a Tahsin (or at least not a scholar). This had repercussions when Rabbi David Stav came to the Rabbinical Center and raised this claim and caused a commotion. This did not affect Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's status, but when Rabbi Zvi Yehuda died, Rabbi Avrom Shapira used this claim to prevent any status from Rabbi Tau; which ultimately led to the split of the yeshiva and the establishment of Har HaMor.

As for Rabbi Aviner, for years I read various writings by Rabbi Aviner and I never encountered anything scholarly from him. All kinds of rulings, messages, yes, sermons, yes. Ideas, yes, and even a book examining superstitions lost their scientific value, but nothing scholarly. Maybe I missed something. I did not see clear scholarship among his students either. Rabbi Avi Rontzky was not a scholar, and Rabbi Krim, in the book Responsa that he published on the army, adhered faithfully to a clear Mishnah (only in part 3 did he expand a little). The only thing I got that may have come from him was the claim that turning on a boiler on Shabbat that was heated on Shabbat Eve does not cause the cold water that enters the boiler to boil, since the boiler's structure is such that there is a layer of lukewarm water between the cold and the boiling water, which prevents the cold water from boiling. But that's really a matter of engineering (and Rabbi Aviner really is an engineer) and not necessarily of a rabbi.

To Tirgitz

I don't agree at all that he is a regular rabbi. And all the testimonies say the opposite. This is just classic Haredi disdain (which has no basis). Don't forget that Rabbi Aviner heard Rabbi Sternberg teach a class, probably, and the one I heard the testimony from. They also heard other rabbi classes and understood both him and them, so they have the ability to compare between a great and a small one (maybe not between a great and a small one). These are testimonies from yeshiva students who probably know how to distinguish. I have never heard him and only read a little of his article about his opposition to the teaching institutes in yeshivahs, and this is classic Haredi opposition. I do not tolerate Haredi righteousness, but on the other hand, don't forget that he foresaw Bennett's deception years before everyone else, even when Rabbi Aviner was still supporting him. And the weight of Rabbi Aviner's testimony based on the greatness of the witness is irrelevant to the distinction between a small and a large one. What is based on the greatness of the witness is only a distinction between great and great. Do not forget that the greatness of a T.H. is not only a talent for learning, not even genius (which is super rare. Rabbi Soloveitchik was a genius, and so was his grandfather Rabbi Chaim of Brisk). It also requires a certain greatness of personality, which is also very rare. Usually, people who have a great personality do not so much emphasize their scholarly part. Usually, such emphasis arises in smaller people. Dry intellectuality is a characteristic of autism and low social intelligence (this is the more successful name for the ridiculous name of emotional intelligence. In short, to understand people) who do not have introspection of themselves (lacking self-awareness). And this is a necessary condition for the greatness of a T.H. It is not to be a great T.H. and a small person. A math major is not a mathematician (most of them are stuck at age 8)

By the way, regarding concealment (or failure to highlight scholarly ability), I can give you the example of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. His talented part of learning was not highlighted and his main publication was in his leadership part and his Hasidic teachings, but I think he also studied the writings of Rogochober and read them extensively (and he also knew the teachings of Rabbi Chaim of Brisk and he also had his own way of learning (I don't remember where I read it).

Emanuel,
There is no doubt that Rabbi Tau is a thinker of stature and even a T.A., but that does not make him a distinct scholar (and this is in contrast to Rabbi Mordechai Sternberg, who could have been a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva in any Lithuanian yeshiva). And unlike Rabbi Mikhi, I do not think he is abnormal. From what I hear from people, given his status as a leader of an ideological approach, he remained very normal in both his personal and public life. After he was widowed, he married another woman and did not play the same monastic role. When his divorced son invited him to have meat over a fire with friends on Independence Day, he came and celebrated with them without being arrogant or critical. He simply celebrated Independence Day with his son like the rest of the Jewish people.
As an ideological figure, he is a bit of an officer, but first of all, his opinions on the Supreme Court have many supporters. Today, it is difficult to distinguish him from a typical B.I.B. In addition, I think that starting from his radicalization, it is intentional and is mainly against what he identifies as the national religious tendency to be nullified in the face of the secular majority. Sometimes the religious do not understand to what extent the fact that they are a minority causes them to be nullified in the face of the secular. Usually there is enormous power over the minority. The French thinker Tocqueville called this the tyranny of the majority; the situation in which, in the face of the majority opinion, it is difficult to imagine even a different intellectual and spiritual position. And so there are those who slip the kippah into their pocket in order to continue to be popular. There are those who remain with the kippah but their positions are constantly shifting to what is accepted by the public opinion makers, etc. etc. Rabbi Tau recognizes this and, as a counterbalance, deliberately places himself in an extreme position in the opposite direction. He pays a price for this - and he is aware of the price he is paying - but it is important to him in order to prevent a complete slide into submission to secularism.

Emanuel, I'm not sure we have a debate about the extent of Rabbi Tau's scholarly greatness, and even if we did, we don't have the tools to clarify it here and now. Besides, I have all sorts of opinions on the subject (for example, what is the importance of scholarly greatness, and what is a "great personality"), and I'll try to sort them out on another occasion.

L.D.

My views on the legal system and the Supreme Court in particular are exactly the same as Rabbi Tao's. I think that some of the progressive religious leaders are the greatest enemy of the Jewish people. Not Iran or Beit Shemesh.

And likewise regarding the religious public's indifference towards the secular. I admit that I did not appreciate how poor and spineless the liberal religious public that I am a part of (even the liberal Torah public. Graduates of the Gush Yeshiva, etc., not to mention the Hapifnik public) is in relation to the Ashkenazi secular public, especially the leftist one. It is really a character that they suckle with their mother's milk. I am not Haredi or Musteli at all, but I agree with him on this one hundred percent. I am really ashamed to be part of this public.

Just to note, that someone named Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, in his article on the vision of individuals and methods, mentions the speaker, his modesty, and his being a scholar of Torah.

Regardless of the argument,
A person who studies only one subject and no others does not deserve to be called a scholar.
And,
A person who is smart in one thing and stupid in other things does not deserve to be called a scholar.

Maybe we could call him a Babylonian Talmud geek

To Mr. Y.D. Are you claiming that Rabbi David Stav arrived at the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva at the age of 18 and claimed that the head of the yeshiva was not a Talmid Chacham?!
Likewise, regarding Rabbi Aviner - if you look at the general lessons he gave in his yeshiva, you will see that he is a much greater scholar than most heads of yeshiva.
Regarding Rabbi Tau - Rabbi Mordechai Sternberg said that he was less learned than him in Talmudic issues, even if you say that he spoke exaggeratedly, that is very far from your arguments.

That's what the rumor says. I heard from Rabbi Stav himself the claim that Rabbi Zvi Yehuda was not a scholar (he still holds to this day). That he claimed this at the age of 18 I heard from other people who claimed that Rabbi Avrom used it against Rabbi Tau.

“Rumor.. I heard..” Although the opinion of the great men of Israel about his renewed instructions is known, to say that he behaved with such impudence in the yeshiva where he began studying in his youth still sounds exaggerated. In any case, in the meantime, the gaon who has ”Marah Mocham” on the Shas prefers to use the lecturer's investigations even though he was a Zionist.. You are also invited to read his comments on his father's teachings and see for yourself.