Regarding answers in faith

Most rabbis in previous generations used to refute scientific theories as if they were a crow, so I can only conclude that you are a “progressive”rabbi, but if you do not wish to do so, I will take that title back from you. Perhaps the intention is not to divide but rather to complement each other. Because as far as I understand, you claim that the world in the early evolutionary version was indeed primitive and that as time progresses, there is less need for heavenly intervention in the world because we progress and improve independently. You once even argued in response to a question I asked that perhaps one day we will not need heavenly help from outside at all and we will be completely disconnected. Which means that human progress in the material aspect goes hand in hand with the heavenly. In any case, I did not specifically touch on the point of morality, which is exactly the point. The questions of faith dominate all topics and types of refutations from the beginning of the world, and the story of Genesis continues with morality and ends with dualities of laws and contradictions (such as the laws of freeing slaves). Therefore, the question is whether there is not one comprehensive answer here that points to a certain direction. By the way, when the Torah commands to kill transgressors, it is because it sees them as corrupting/spoiling the good in the world, so how can morality be completely separated from the Torah? I understand that the Torah is a collection of laws and instructions more than the teaching of morality, but that behind the rulings one can discern a path, and it is the exclusion of weak populations, including death in certain cases. Moreover, the Torah itself tells of the flood that followed the Chasm.

I didn't understand the question. I answered everything.
Here you assume that there is a correspondence between Halacha and Musar, and then you make it difficult. I disagree with this and in any case, to K”M. But that's a different discussion and I've already explained this in several places (column 15 and more).

I understand that from your perspective, the excuses and answers are completely acceptable to the extent that you don't see them as answers but as 100% complete facts. But I see your way as a kind of interpretation and explanation (that's how you're supposed to treat it, apparently) and not necessarily as the simple and correct one. And so with the number of years of the world and the story of creation, you have an interpretation and explanation that are not the simplest of things, and even on every subject that raises a question, there is some explanation and assumptions to justify it. And it's terribly difficult for me to accept dozens of assumptions (and again, in the matter of morality, let's assume there is one explanation for everything - although even there you have to "bend" several explanations to fully understand it) when the Torah itself taught us that more than three cases prove a hypothesis. And here too, they show little of an ancient and old concept. That is an explanation that helps to understand the story of creation and the laws of the Torah that correspond to the spirit of the time. Although this would not be exactly logical, it seems to me that there is a more intuitive question here. If you don't see it that way, then there's no point in grinding water.

I really lost you. Nothing in my opinion is certain and not a 100% fact. But if I have an assumption that the Torah was given from heaven and I have a reasonable explanation that satisfies it – I will indeed adopt it even if there is another possible explanation. Why do you need 100%? If you think the law of gravity is true, and now you see an exceptional case (dark matter), will you give up on the law or will you look for an “excuse”?
By the way, the Torah did not teach us anywhere that three times is a strong force. Perhaps it has its origin in the bull, but the ancients did not understand it that way (and even the conditions were divided as to whether the strong force is in the first or in two). This is normal scientific and legal logic, no. And of course this number changes according to the circumstances. In the saying "Vatan Tal Va Matar" some people set it at 90 (3 months) and not at 3. And I am talking about those who do associate the saying "Vatan Tal Va Matar" with a strong bond like a fattened ox.
And regarding Torah and morality, I do have one explanation that reconciles everything and everything is in order.
Well, we are really grinding water.

Sorry to interrupt, but I have the impression that the premise of Y’'s question is incorrect.
The questioner complains that rabbis are busy making excuses for difficulties in the Torah. That is, it is a matter of ”hindsight” wisdom.
I think the approach is the opposite: serious rabbis (and there are too many …whispers…) are busy studying the Torah properly and are not busy resolving contradictions, they simply prevent them by studying correctly and not childishly.

If you're not a rabbi, why don't you tell the website editor to delete the word "rabbi" from the website name? God forbid you mislead people.

Shai Zilberstein, seriously? Did the rabbi's "correct learning" lead him to think that the act of Genesis was not as simple as it seems, or should the findings of science be blamed for this?

By the way, I agree with you, but in questions of science and Torah, this is not true in my opinion.

Gentlemen, the matter was explained in detail in God Playing Dice in the chapter on logical and practical tautology. See there.

It was a joke. I'm not bringing evidence from the Torah to prove its untruthfulness, that's quite understandable. I came to say that many cases prove a point, and not one exceptional case because it's not one case. But I understand that salvation will not come from here. I always feel that the discussion moves to arguments that are “next” to what I'm talking about. I'm dealing with the fact that there are too many bugs and doubts and you're caught up in my law and give it a whirl. But thanks anyway.

It seems we speak different languages. I think I answered everything for you.
All the best

Delusional delusional delusional.
(I don't know if this is a strong statement, but that's what's going on here).

Response to B’'s statement:
Indeed, it is not science that makes me regard the Genesis account as a myth. Would you really believe that man was created from mud if you had not studied biology? Or would you believe that a snake spoke to Adam and Eve?
You see that this is a myth. Even before modern science, there were wise men who did not think that this was a historical description.

A reference to the words of the ‘Rabban’ (?):
If Amnon Yitzhak and Zamir Cohen are called ‘Rabbi’ I think Michael Avraham could be called ‘Rabbi’.
‘Rabbi’ Today, it is not just someone who has been ordained as a rabbi and serves as the rabbi of a synagogue or community. This rabbi is a title for a person who is learned in the Torah.

Zamir Cohen and Amnon Yitzhak did not say, "I am not a rabbi." I am puzzled that the website of a person who is not a rabbi (according to him) calls him a rabbi.

A quarrelsome person,
It seems to me that he spoke ironically. You can take a person out of the rabbinate, but you can't take the rabbinate out of a person.

To the instigator of the quarrel, who seems to me to be a braggart, and to the others who are answering him:

This is a sociological discussion (and therefore it would be appropriate for me not to address it at all, but let's say): I don't think the one who opened the website was the rabbi, but rather a student of his. And I suspect that this student is still involved in its management, if not actually managing it. I don't think the rabbi had the time or interest to learn how to open a website on the Internet.

And as for the actual matter of this nickname of “rabbi” There is a lot of contempt (I heard that among the Haredim there is a joke that the nickname "Rabbi Gaon" is actually a nickname for someone of the male gender). Therefore, I assume that the rabbi does not see much respect in belonging to the group that receives these names (this has also developed a bit for me in recent years due to my sins). Regardless, I studied in a high school yeshiva (which is generally really good, relatively speaking) and there was a rabbi there who once asked a student to explain Tosafot to the class, apparently because he did not understand him. I also heard of a Haredi avrechit who bragged to an acquaintance of mine that he learned all the physics he knew from the Rambam. He was surprised when he discovered that since then they have discovered that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. I assume this is not an isolated case. And this is just an indicator of Haredi naivety. It seems to me that this is included in the concept of a rabbi who has no knowledge. Should we call someone like that a rabbi? Is there also a commandment to respect rabbis in those who have no knowledge (in my opinion)? I don't know. Indeed, this includes, according to such a definition, tens of percent of the Haredi rabbis (and I think even the Mustard ones). Therefore, in K. K.'s son, if you call them rabbis, you should call Rabbi Michi (I never liked that nickname) a rabbi. There is even a famous Rosh Yeshiva in religious Zionism who, in relation to a rabbi (and many others), is literally from the land and no one would dare not call him a rabbi.

And if we're talking about Amnon Yitzhak, I never really knew what to call him. (Not out of disdain. I just really didn't know. And I assume it's the same as the second one you mentioned. That is, those who return to repentance. By the way, I also saw that Hanan Porat is called the Rabbi, and I don't do that) But I saw that in both carts the Rabbi himself called him "Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak." (In the story with the funeral for the lamb) and here on the site he already called him without that title. I assume that this expresses his metamorphosis since then. Back then he was still a bit Haredi in fact. (He learned his Torah in their yeshiva world) Since then he has matured a bit and realized what kind of people he was dealing with. I myself discovered in the last decade that among the Haredi people, you call someone the Rabbi if you like him (and for external marketing purposes, that is, in conversations and debates with "Mizrochniks" they will call all the rabbis from their stream Rabbis and their rule is that no Rabbi from Mizrochnik deserves that title. And I even saw someone who called Rabbi Kook "Kook" and that's it. It's lucky he didn't add "Shar”Y”). I didn't need this discussion at all, except that the Haredi plague spread to religious Zionism through the Haredi people, especially after the elections for the Chief Rabbinate. The last. And this scourge should be hung on the heads of the Haredi public because of the “shuta binuka shuka or davu or daimiya”. In any case, it should be discussed whether there is a regular mention of the rabbi today by name only, because of the rabbi's disrespect.

I am indeed always afraid of the rabbi's disrespect and therefore I would not call the rabbi by name without his title in front of Amnon Yitzhak's students, and therefore also in front of any Sephardi Haredi. They should indeed call him that. I would probably not talk about him and if they did mention him I would refer to him as “he”.

Ayalon,
There is no need to enter the corners of students. The rabbi knows that he is a rabbi even without entering into a sociological discussion. And he will not lie to himself and think that he is not a rabbi. His answer to the questioner was ironic in the form of a tongue-in-cheek remark (I am not progressive and I am not a rabbi). In other words, do not put me in categories.
I will summarize this. Even if the rabbi is an apocryphal heretic, as Tama claims, he will still be the rabbi of the heretics. And even if he becomes a reformer, he will still be the rabbi of the reformers. Therefore, I repeat what I wrote before: You can remove a person from the rabbinate, but you cannot remove the rabbinate from a person. A court of law will not help. The moment the rabbi opens his mouth, everyone will shut up and listen (this happened to me once during the mourning consolation of my teacher and rabbi). Blessed are we.