Regarding the debate with Yaron Yadan

Hello. Thanks for the comments. I must say that I disagree with almost all of your claims, and I will explain this briefly. A. In my opinion, Yaron Yadan is not evil and does not know his Lord and rebels against him. This is really what he thinks and these are the conclusions he has reached. The fact that he has Torah knowledge does not make him know his Lord. What is decisive is the understanding that this knowledge is binding. If this understanding does not exist, then even if he is a world-class Torah expert who knows every detail of Halacha and Talmud, he is like a captive infant. From his perspective, Torah knowledge is like the knowledge of a researcher of Native American culture in their culture. B. His comments were relevant to his method, and some of them certainly have some substance. Moreover, many think it is convincing. That is why it is actually important to present the counterarguments and why in my opinion he is wrong. Ignoring them leaves the stage for him and his ilk and leaves the public embarrassed, because the feeling is that there are good arguments there (and indeed there are), and there is no answer to them. By the way, in my opinion, those who usually take the path of ignoring are those who do not have good answers to the questions, and then it is easiest to fortify themselves with quotes that exempt them from addressing the difficulties. If there are any, they must be presented. C. The situation today is that those who respond to these claims are usually very low-level apologists, explainers, or rabbis, and thus the image created on the Internet is of wise men against fools and those without answers. The time has come for intelligent answers to be presented as well, and not to leave the image as if a religious worldview is foolish and without answers. D. Even if there are those who will be convinced by him and not by me, if I don’t respond they can still read his arguments and be convinced. So why not respond and try to convince them? And even if they are not convinced, then there are others who would have been convinced and because I responded they were not convinced. And here is an important point: In my opinion, it is not right to always fear those who don’t understand at the expense of those who do. This appeals to the lowest common denominator, and unfortunately this is the prevailing approach in religious advocacy. Therefore, we lose the talented and are left with the less talented and less courageous (those who don’t dare to take the step and leave). E. In general, I see your words as an underestimation of the public. As if they don’t understand complex arguments. I don’t share this assessment. If you present arguments clearly, many will understand. And even if they don’t, then as mentioned, I’m not willing to pawn the wise for the benefit of the foolish. F. The statements of the sages you quote are not relevant to the discussion, and this is mainly for two related reasons: 1. Because I do not consider them binding statements. This is not a law. 2. These are guidelines that need to be applied according to reality and contemporary considerations. They were written in a completely different reality, in which completely different problems prevailed, people and arguments were completely different. A simplistic application of the Talmud’s guidelines in our day is a serious conservative error, both in terms of truth (because it is not right to do so) and tactically (because it is harmful in terms of results).