Return from a philosophical perspective.

Okay.

And what about the case where there are two options without a certain decision, and there are probabilities in both directions, of course there is still weight to your understanding of the more likely probability, but it's not a knockout, but the traditional religious implication in the event that you are wrong is serious.
Even if it is not understandable to your understanding, and that is, if you do not understand how it is appropriate to punish a person as long as he acts according to the conclusion he has reached, but on the traditional side if he is right, then you do not need to understand it, and still you will be punished for him, if he turns out to be right.
And for example, if a person made the greatest efforts to understand the law, and he failed to understand it, is that a reason not to punish him?
And so if there is a certain perception that has a fairly serious probability, but your probability increases in your favor, but if you are wrong you will be punished severely even if you do not understand why, is it not worth taking this into account?

Another example, if, for example, in business you come to an insight, and all the experts and economists argue differently than you, and you failed to understand their arguments despite trying and making the most of your efforts, and they warn you that your perception will result in you going to jail and losing all your money and your entire family for the rest of your life, and you already have a history with these people, in arguments about economics, and you didn't understand them and paid for it in cash, wouldn't you be deterred?
After all, in the past they would have sounded like unwise people to you, and it turned out that you didn't manage to get to the bottom of their minds, wouldn't it be worth being afraid at least and thinking a few more times, and still maybe not taking the gamble?

Tam, as your name is.
Tam, a scoundrel who makes endless claims in various forms despite having already received an answer once.
As if you are deliberately trying to drive Rabbi Michai crazy, as did the same person who teased Hillel about the hundreds of thousands of Zuz, with whom did you interfere?
And I wonder why Michai did not stop answering you at all and only stopped on the issue of the Creator's involvement.
I would have forgotten your name a long time ago.
Apparently Rabbi Michai understands the measure of the humble Hillel and never ignores a person.

And seriously, Tam, there is nothing moral in your actions. I protest against the insult to the wise man.

Dear sage.

It's true that I am a fool, but Torah is and I need to learn, I understand the facts and do not understand the implications, see the rabbi's column on who is a fool.

As for the substance of things, if you have any way of enlightening me, I asked about it in the second part, in which I added to the first part, in addition to the examples, another part, and in case you missed it, I will return in summary.

Everything is true regarding what the rabbi said, except that the other side has considerable weight with implications, and if in my life I would not have acted on them, and as I brought up in the example of financial advisors, then in my life I must take this as a serious consideration.

He answered mainly in relation to others, because the first question focused on the impact on others, and now I asked in relation to him, the answer regarding others was a relevant and satisfactory answer, and to that I wrote okay, meaning I agree, except that..

If you, the wise, have insight, share it with me, because Torah is and I need to learn, and it is not good to blame the innocent, but one must learn until he understands, your strength is in advance. A wise and precious man like you.
And I accepted your comment regarding the rabbi, although I do not think I anger him, because I learned the way of conducting myself from him, as well as some of the formulations, I am in the middle of an education workshop with him, hoping to improve slowly but surely.

Correction, fourth paragraph, line 4 “In the life of the next world” and not in the life of Alma

Smart, that was really unnecessary.

Tam,
If I have two balanced sides, I can either not write or write both and say that they are balanced. What's the difference?
I answered what you asked. There's no point in taking that into account. We're not punished for something done in good faith. That's all. What's not clear?
The business example is irrelevant because if the law says it, then I have no choice but to take it into account. But here, in my opinion, the law doesn't say that. In short, there is no obstacle to publishing anything, of all kinds and types, as long as it is reasoned. And the same goes for what the experts say. If what they say convinces me that there are things in the body, then of course my opinion changes and so does my conclusion. But as long as I'm not convinced and I think they're wrong, then I don't really care what they say. Let them say it.

A wise and righteous act

This is a daughter with grace.
In a mix of letters.

Thank you very much for your answer.

I'm asking,
Does the Muslim who murdered according to his perception and faith not need to be punished but put in a quarantine place out of fear that he will continue to murder with his perception and faith? Or should we put him in detention and punish him just so that others can hear and see?

1. If the second option is correct, what is my fault that I use it to deter others. It is true that I am not to blame for there being those who believe that what is right is to murder my people, but is it moral to punish them for that? After all, at the end of the day, they are acting according to their beliefs and the ends of their thoughts. Who allows me to use them for my personal gain?

2. If you understand that they deserve punishment because the purpose of their punishment justifies the injustice done to them, because ultimately the moral consideration is decisive, that it is better to use the punishment of the wrongdoer in order to save others from other wrongdoers, then it is possible and possible that this may be the case, perhaps even in matters of faith.

And I will explain, if and when the damage caused to the innocent believer, and if so the Creator wants that the believer, is significant damage because of the person acting according to his perception and belief, and I am talking about direct damage to another, and even direct damage to that believer, then the fact that he acted to the best of his belief does not contradict the need to save others from him, and perhaps even him from himself.

After all, it is impossible to ignore the fact that there is a very significant side in Judaism, which believes that certain perceptions are perceptions that require punishment, and if the one who holds them is mistaken like that Muslim, then his punishment is deserved.

Of course, I do not ignore your answer above, that you do not take responsibility for those who draw conclusions without reaching a true and complete understanding of your words, but I think that you would also punish the Muslim preacher who led the boy to the conclusion that the right thing to do was to kill the Jew, even if the murderer was convinced of this, if you knew that the one who influenced his thinking to go in the above direction is a senior partner in the results!

In conclusion.
1. You see that there is responsibility and punishment even for those who do what they do in good faith.

2. The perception of those who disagree with you is that you will definitely receive punishment even if you act in good faith, and as in the Muslim parable, this is not excessive.

3. Therefore, in my opinion, your conclusion that if you act in good faith you are not responsible is wrong. If you have an explanation of how you differ from the responsibility of the Muslim who receives his punishment, I would be happy to hear it.

Thank you so much for your patience!

It is a question of assessing what is in his heart. If he does believe in what he is doing, he should be punished only as a defense of society (a persecutor's law. It is not a punishment but a prevention of harm). A persecutor's law also applies to a fool or a minor who does not deserve punishment.
1. I explained that it is a persecutor's law. He is not guilty and it is not a punishment but a prevention.
2. It is not a punishment.
3. If God sees me as a persecutor, He can of course harm me as a persecutor's law, and not as a punishment.
The question about preaching raises the question of incitement versus criminality itself. There is no punishment for incitement in the law (only for the sake of the law). Incitement to other offenses is not (except for the method of the Rema in the issue of the Sanhedrin, there is no point in inciting from the ancient prophet). The preacher will not be punished either, but perhaps as a persecutor's law (guilty of contributing to persecution). And even there, it is only if the persecuted cannot be saved except by killing him. If only the instigators can be harmed, only they should be killed.

Someone who thinks I am harmful may indeed think that it is permissible/appropriate to harm me as a persecutor. I think that raising arguments is not harmful, and in my opinion this is also the opinion of God. I did not say what I said according to the method of those who think I am a persecutor (which even then, as mentioned, is not a punishment but a prevention), but according to the truth.

May the great power of the Rabbi be praised!!
The wise one!

Just a final reflection on the above.
It turns out that even if Hitler acted from a place of his worldview, and he is currently in our hands, and we explained to him and he was indeed convinced of his mistake, and there is no fear that his release will affect the future (there is no deterrent effect).
Would you host him in your living room as one of your fellow humans?

Or if you made a mistake in good faith, you have to bear responsibility, a type of person destined for eternity…

completely.

Thank you very much Rabbi, I think your opinion is crystal clear.
Summary of the method, and presentation of the other side. Only if I summarize incorrectly, correct me, and/or God forbid I misled the reader.

1. The person acting in good faith is not responsible, this can even include responsibility towards others (like Hitler and Co.).

2. If the person acting in good faith sees that for some reason all the wise (the reasonable person) think the opposite of him, as long as he heard their arguments, and failed to understand them, then he is allowed to act according to his understanding, even actively, (for example, even towards others, such as his murderer).

3. There is no point in avoiding, and taking the considerations of the other side, as long as I made the utmost effort to understand, (and this is a kind of impotence not to act).

4. Considerations such as “How is it that you are one against a hundred are irrelevant” Rather, they are only relevant to try and give a chance to understand the century, and after the chance if I still haven't understood, I am obligated to act and destroy and kill.

Summary: According to the above, if I have concluded against everyone, I am probably the only reasonable person on earth.

The other side of the coin!

5. He who acts in good faith, when all opinions differ from him, is obligated to act as the majority, even if he does not understand them.

6. He certainly cannot make decisions towards others, if in the majority's perception it is offensive.

7. If he acts, he will bear the consequences and be punished.

8. His punishment is for having acted even though the majority thought differently from him. (I am the only reasonable person, it is not a legitimate opinion, there is a consensus on this and it is an absolute truth, and there is no need to explain it, or rather it cannot be explained, it is an endless circle).

9. The reasonable person does not kill even if he has come to the conclusion that he is obligated to kill, as long as in the eyes of the majority his conclusion is wrong.

10. Since the reasonable person thinks that the person acting in good faith is wrong, this obliges him to refrain from active action, even if he does not understand why this obliges him, and if he acts he will be punished. (The reasonable person is the absolute truth).

11. The reason why he should refrain even though he does not understand the reasonable person, is that the fact that the reasonable person disagrees with him obliges him not to act, because there is necessarily another option here that he did not take into account.

12. It is true that there is also an option that the reasonable person did not take into account that the person acting in good faith took, but there is no way to prove this, and therefore it is forbidden to act actively, and certainly not against others, and not even against what is perceived by the other party to be against others! (Consensus wins! Where there is a tie).

Clarification!
An argument like "We only follow the majority when in doubt" is unacceptable, because here the reasonable person disagrees and that is a good reason to doubt, even if I don't understand why he believes what he believes, because there is no doubt about the fact that he believes (explained) what he believes!!

The doubt is not about what, but about why, the fact that everyone disagrees with him is a fact, he cannot understand why.

I repeat and emphasize!
The reasonable person is the person who has a broad consensus that he is the reasonable person, and anyone who disagrees with him on things that he lacks information would trust him without fear.

The reasonable person will judge how he would have acted towards Hitler, and how the religious person is obliged to act, seeing that the reasonable religious person sees his fellow man who disagrees as a mortally wounded religion.

Thank you very much for both your patience and your relevance.
Shabbat Shalom, Tam.

Although I am not the Rabbi (miles away), since the things were delivered to be called a brotherhood, I also know. All the sections in the summary are, in my opinion, new arguments and are not a summary of the ones that preceded them. In other words, I accept everything written in the Rabbi's reply and do not agree with anything you wrote.

1. Responsibility is a different thing than punishment. If it were possible to collect compensation from Hitler, I assume that the Rabbi would also approve. There is no place for punishment (and in my opinion, even for a direct choice of evil, there is no place for punishment).
2. There is no point in giving a prohibition and permission for someone to violate a prohibition. Even if it is ‘forbidden’ for the above-mentioned fool to do against everyone, as long as he does it in good faith, believing that he is right, he has the defense of good faith.
3. At the stage of clarification, ad hominem et populum is a useful thing. But we are dealing with a person who has reached a conclusion, and not with advice on how to reach a correct conclusion.
4. Like 3.
The other sections also suffer from the problem of trying to formulate rules of what is permissible and what is forbidden. The innocent person in question does forbidden things when he believes they are right. And it doesn't matter how clear the aforementioned forbidden things seem to us. Adding a meta-prohibition to violate the majority opinion doesn't add much because the innocent person in question also violates them in good faith, and will receive the same protection.

Dear Delilah.
Advice on how to reach the right conclusion. Must enter into considerations, and those that are taken into account, then they are binding and should not be ignored, and responsibility vs. punishment is a result.
And the innocent, your faithful servant, took the reasonable person as a consideration.
The rest of the repulsive clowning, like a thousand reprimands, does not strengthen your claim, although it is legitimate for someone whose arguments are weak to use means that do not support the matter.

I will argue that I am stupid.

What kind of clowning? Mm, I wasn't joking consciously. If you intended to use a vulgar language (on the subject and on you), then it didn't occur to me (surprising me in retrospect). I didn't understand what you were claiming (in conclusion. If that's your opinion, I won't argue). Considerations must be taken into account, so what if he in good faith violates this prohibition of taking the matter into consideration, what is his punishment? I don't see any difference between this and any other prohibition. The punisher here avoids punishment even if the punisher is completely sure of his rightness (and of the mistake of the person in good faith).

Dear Delilah.

See the rabbi's column on a dispute between colleagues.

If and when we are both true meters and there is still a difference, (it means that we both listened to the sides, and both of us are not locked in).

We must conclude that one thermometer is faulty, (in other words, one missed something). And if there are ten thermometers that show A and one shows B. Then I must conclude that the only thermometer is faulty, although it is possible that the ten are faulty, but the probability is that one is faulty and he has the burden of proof, and if he continues to act on it, then he is a criminal!!

Done.

(I am a man). This is all well and good to convince him, and if he violates it then he is a criminal, but he is a criminal even without this argument (because of the very forbidden act he committed, in good faith). Are you saying that there are prohibitions that are more sublime and clearer than the moral or religious prohibition itself? In which if he was wrong, there is an estimate that he is aware of the mistake and acts nevertheless with disgust? In my opinion, for example, the idea that the opinion of most people reflects something ‘correct’ in matters of morality (and sometimes also in matters of fact) is much less clear than the moral prohibition itself. In any case, I have pushed myself enough and will leave the place for others. And you should know that in general I enjoy reading the discussions you conduct here (even if I do not always agree)

Let alone making himself a stain (and enough of a wise man in a hint).
In all the length of your words, in the end you made one and only one claim (as I said before, your way is to repeat your words in different forms without innovation, only with all kinds of emphasis that do not contribute to anything, because they only detract from the main point of the argument and make it difficult to understand the main point of your words, for example: “What? You will also go to murder only according to your opinion?” It is clear that this does not add to the argument but only gives strange emotions that detract from the main point of the discussion (and you call it my business, if it were…)).
Your claim is this: “How dare a person do what he thinks if most of the world says otherwise?” And in support of this you brought evidence from economics.
Correct me if I am wrong. (Of course, I may not have delved into the depth of your words, and so I ask you to correct me if I am wrong, but as mentioned, learn from me – it is your rambling length that contributed to this).

So, as a Jew, I will answer with two questions:
1. How does a person dare to do what everyone else does, even though he himself thinks it is wrong? After all, there will be consequences for each side that takes a stand. With the example you gave with economics, I would indeed do what I think, and this is because I trust my intuition more than the intuition of the majority. If there are indeed people who I know understand more than me in the field, and I know that I do not delve into their minds and therefore do not think like them, then that is a different case, and in which I would probably act according to the experts. (But this is not the case in question, because Rabbi Michi believes that this is how it should be done and he understands where the experts' error comes from, I hope the division is understandable to innocent “as if”like you…).
2. How did our forefather Abraham do something that he would not do in his own region and smash the beautiful and desirable statues in the entire village that everyone admired just because he believed differently from everyone else? Why is this similar? To someone who comes and smashes the idols of the false faith, whose intellect held him in place and was not afraid that everyone disagreed with him! Shame and disgrace!

With blessings, the one who learns from every person (who is the wisest, as is known in the words of the ancestors) (and for the time being -) except you.

To Dilla, and Chakma, and the rest of the stars.

I see that Chakma insists on dealing with a person's body, and so I will try to fulfill his request later.

And to the bodies of things for those who have difficulty with reading comprehension, or who are simply too lazy to read.

1. The example of murder came as a projection on the other.

2. The example of economics came as a projection on yourself.

3. The example of economics also came to check whether there is no room for drawing conclusions, that I am missing something, because even last time I listened to the experts, and thought they were wrong, and discovered that I was wrong.

4. Right now, after refining the arguments, we are at a stage where those who want to convince the naive, have to explain why if there are a hundred thermometers in the same bathroom, and only one thermometer says something different from all of them, (they fail to get to the bug). Is the probability that there is a bug in only one, or that there is a bug with a probability of 99.

And so I turned to the rabbi's column, I don't remember the number, about a debate between colleagues.

5. Regarding Avraham Avinu, who was mentioned, as a projection on Ramada, the division is as follows, Avraham Avinu listened to the arguments of the others and they did not listen to him, and in this too one should consult the aforementioned column, here there is no shortage of heat meters who listened to Ramada's argument and lo and behold, they remained in their arguments, assuming that everyone is locked and only Ramada is not locked, seems less obvious, although there is currently no way to prove this.

6. To the dear sage who so insists on arguing about the body of man, I would recommend, "Let a stranger praise you, not your own mouth." The sage does not call himself a sage, but it is his words that call him a sage, and therefore he who calls himself a sage, will be considered a fool.. etc.

7. Good advice is to not get angry, not only is it unhealthy, it's also not helpful.

‘The wise are the ones who do evil’, we are accustomed to ask Rabbi Mikhi everything, what are you angry about?! There are 2 strong questions in the words of the simpleton
1How is it possible to know anything about life, after all, there are several opinions on everything
2Should a person be punished who did something out of an ideal

1A person can reach a conclusion in 2 options- 1. Study the subject well. 2. Bury your head in the sand and strengthen the emotion in your mind. Of course, you will do this if you think you have reached the truth and only want to convey it to emotion. Option A’ is for people who believe that this is true knowledge [-as the Rabbi thinks], or who are not sure. A person who has studied a subject properly and is confident in the righteousness of his path will clearly behave this way, unlike an economist who thinks that perhaps he lacks information or has not studied the subject well.
If all the experts say no now, I am sure that the simpleton in question will also trust his opinion and on any subject that he has studied in depth. [I will add, there is also an opinion on the question of how many bats there are in the city of Van, but since I do not know whether it is 100 or 100,000, I will not trust my opinion, and even if I check, I will not be sure because I lack data. And the more a person checks, the stronger his conclusion will be if he hears other opinions. And it is because it is profound.]
2 Samson's wife's distinction between bearing responsibility and punishment is generally accepted.
In addition, it is common for a person to reach a wrong conclusion because of instincts [Israel did not serve the law except to permit the law, or because disdain for the sages causes him not to accept their words, etc.], or who prefers to bury his head in the sand even though he should think that he might be wrong, then he will receive the full punishment.

Paragraph 3. Am I missing something?
Paragraph 4. In the end, a bug in all 99

Tam Tamim.
Apparently you didn't get to the end of my words, where I explicitly wrote that the name “wise” that I chose for myself was based on what is written in the Avos in the definition of wise, where it is written that the wise is the one who learns from every person, and in this regard I learn from every person.
I also manage to learn all kinds of things from you, you'd be surprised…
What is certain is that in all your long words you have proven for the two hundredth time that you are not reinventing anything in your repeated answers but are only writing the same thing.
I asked how a person would dare to do like everyone else if he thinks differently, and you answer with an unrelated parable that you have already written.
Regarding Abraham our father, note that you are making excuses that apparently Abraham our father did not listen to arguments… How do you say, "The gates of excuses were not closed," (I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people there who listened and yet were not convinced, and I brought up Abraham as a parable to illustrate the argument, meaning that it is very possible that all the people in the world are wrong except you, according to Boltzmann and so on, there is no shortage of such cases (the fact that most of the world believes otherwise only makes you have to be more confident in your decision, but after you are confident, it doesn't matter. Only people with no self-worth wait for encouragement from the world regarding their personal opinions and conclusions..))

Anyway, as a person, dear Tam, I am not angry at all, even when you write things about me that are not true, I am not angry, I actually love you (even though I think you are doing indecent things).
I am giving you a loving rebuke, as it is written, “Whom the Lord loves, He disciplines.”
I am not really angry, I think you are acting wrongly.
I still believe that you are not trying to reach the truth.

Wise.

It seems to me that we are going too far, and the discussion is really not progressing. This time I will not dwell on what I am and what your opinions are of me, because it simply does not interest anyone, and the readers are in danger if they read it.

And here is your question:
“I asked how a person would dare to do like everyone else if he thinks differently, and you answer with an unrelated parable that you have already written.”

And here is my answer: Indeed, he should not dare, and he is a criminal if he dares, when it concerns others, and when it concerns himself, he will be judged, if and when the test of the state of heat showed that all the state of heat bring a uniform result against him, because the last resort in human heat standards is (after listening to the full arguments). that all the state of heat of humans are “locked”.

This is where the probability comes in, is it reasonable to assume that everyone is locked and only I am not?! The locking can also be in the subconscious, and here the probability is even stronger that out of a hundred thermometers, the locked one is the one.

Moreover, it is not easy and almost inhuman to go back on your old perception, the fact that you go back from time to time is only to strengthen your argument, perhaps, because as we know, a lie that has no truth in it does not exist. (See the Ramban on Atenan Zuna).

And in any case, what appears to be said to a person who aspires to reach the truth and in truth, despite the difficulty, is that if there is a huge number of human truth-tellers against him who have listened to his arguments and thoughts, and yet they disagree with him, apparently and thus it turns out that he is the locked one, and no one else.

Anyone who disagrees with the desired result is nothing but a donkey or a pathologically proud person, as the Ramban says.

And whoever does not understand why the obvious result of a hundred thermometers against one is more probable, (although not empirical but certainly probable, see Ramada's book "Cubes" between the proven and the probable). He is nothing but a stupid man and a friend of basic understanding and certainly should not be accused of anything, but rather seen as a persecutor, the article is even about the small and foolish.

Dear wise man, finally my instincts get the better of me and I will not refrain from answering the "wise man".

Enough of the wise man with a hint, the questioner will ask and do you have to be smart to understand hints?! I wonder! Even the fool can understand hints.
And for this, it is necessary to be precise "enough" To the wise by implication, that is, the wise man is satisfied with a hint in order to deduce the implication arising from the hint, but the fool is not satisfied with a hint, but continues and continues until he is told enough!!

Therefore, I would ask Mr. “wise” openly and not by implication, please let us stop talking to people's bodies because it lowers the discourse!!

In the hope of internalization!
Done.

A necessary and important correction!

Now I noticed that you referred in your question to how he would dare to act against his perception.

And from the above, we can conclude, namely, that as soon as there is a probability, even if you do not understand it, you are obligated to it, because the probability that you are motivated by extraneous considerations, or that you missed something halfway, is completely logical!

And if you do not understand why probability is binding, then you are nothing but a fool, this is the only way to test yourself whether you are objective or subjective!!

Shabbat Shalom.

Thermometer test correction. (The rebellious automatic correction).

Done with Chen.
The answer is simple.
If you are in a situation where others are finding bugs in you, you should listen to those others.
But if the situation is that you are finding bugs in others. They should listen to you.

And look at today's daily paper, (Shabbat No:). On the rare virtue of Josiah, for having returned to it.

And it is proven from the verse there how difficult and almost inhuman it is to completely return to it!!

It does not seem human to me that the Ramada (for the sake of the example, and not to the person of Ramada, but to be hung on him, because we started with him). is able to return to it from all his books and musings, if he is convinced that it is all vanity and eloquence of the spirit.

And if he returns to it, it will be said of him: "You have no greater among the people of repentance than Josiah in his generation and one (the Ramada in our generation).

I will get into it in a little while.

I don't look for my bug detectors under the lamp of the Ramada, but rather in the entire world, and I have already concluded that I am among the correct thermometers as of the writing of these lines!

Shabbat Shalom, you too, the Poisek is late.

That's it.
A bug is defined as something inconsistent. That contains an internal contradiction.
While for you, a bug seems to be anything that makes you feel uncomfortable.

That when I proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that that ”rabbi” with the video you brought lectured on the subject of the high spirituality of witchcraft, at first you continued to argue and then you ignored it.
Bug.

The last posak, peace again.

If you followed my words, I was talking about a type of bugs that cannot be empirically tested.

Regarding that rabbi, (Yehoshua Inbal, his name in Israel).

I definitely didn't look because it seemed unnecessary to me, but without a vow I will look again and if I have something to say, I will say it.

As a Jew, does it seem unnecessary to you to discover something new and important that you didn't know and that didn't occur to you about a rabbi you like to listen to who believes that witchcraft is a higher spirituality?

Your wolfish roars prevented me from examining, and as I said, I will try to examine when the time comes when my soul rests, and I can examine the video without the insight that the last arbiter tried to plant in my tiny mind.

I think I have presented my position. I will briefly address Tam's conclusion, and with this I propose to end.
Almost no section is accurate.
1. Not true. He is definitely responsible. He is just not guilty and not liable for punishment. Like a persecutor of a fool or a child.
2. Not that he failed to understand them, but he does not agree with them. He thinks they are wrong. And he is not allowed to, but he must.
3. Not true. Sometimes you definitely need to consider this, and the position is formed after you have also considered this consideration.
4. Indeed true.
The conclusion: I am the only just person on earth, and not the only reasonable person.
Of course, I have nothing to criticize your method. I assume that you probably present your position well.
And you are a complete idiot.