Several questions

Answer in the body of the text in bold:
Rabbi, peace and blessings. Recently, I have had a few questions that I would be happy if the Rabbi could give me his opinion on:

1. Kabbalah. At the time, I asked the Rabbi what he thought about Kabbalah and what its validity was, and the Rabbi replied (as far as I remember) that these are spiritual intuitions, and those who ‘hear’ it [1] can/should act on them, and those who don’t – don’t. I wanted to ask whether the Rabbi still thinks what I remember, and if so, does the Kabbalistic intuitions resonate with the Rabbi in general and does he act according to the customs of Kabbalah, or perhaps only partially – what is and what is not [2] ?

Yes. I am talking about the Kabbalistic ideas and not the customs. I do not think there is a necessary connection between the two. Where a Kabbalistic custom enters into Halacha, it has a place. Otherwise, I am not afraid of it.

2. The Rabbi’s opinion on the question of ‘knowledge and choice’ In the book ‘Two Carts’, the Rabbi speaks towards the end about the unity of opposites in the context of the question and we hear from there that he certainly believes that this is a reasonable answer [3]. On the other hand, I remember that in the book ‘Sciences of Freedom’ the Rabbi presents his opinion that it is certainly logical (and reasonable?) to say that God does not know the future in detail. In the event that the possibility of the sciences of freedom is correct, the Rabbi wrote in ‘Two Carts’ that we do not make statements about God, but only about the possibility of our faith as human believers. And I understood that this is related to the fact that we do not know whether it is possible to talk about logical limitations in the context of God, because we do not have access to Him at all. Is this true? And if so, how can we say that God does not know the future in detail [4] ?

It really doesn’t represent my opinion. The unity of opposites is a fatomi mille blama. Such a statement has no meaning and therefore I cannot agree or disagree with it. It’s like asking whether I agree with the claim that blah blah blah blah.
We certainly know that there is no place for such talk. Since our entire discussion is about what we believe, there is therefore no place for talk outside of logic, even in relation to God Almighty. This is what the Maimonides wrote in the Mo’n and the Rashba wrote in the Teshuva and more (I cited this there).
Hence, if knowing the future is a logical contradiction, it is not possible to attribute it to God. In my books on the Sciences of Freedom, I explained why in my opinion this is a logical contradiction (as the Shelah wrote).

3. In the book ‘Sciences of Freedom’, the Rabbi spoke about the dualistic possibility that presents the creation of electrical circuits by the will of man. Is it possible to identify the appearance of these circuits in the laboratory? (It is possible that the Rabbi addressed this issue at the end of the book, and then I apologize, the book is simply not in front of me in the yeshiva but at home…)

Theoretically yes. But in practice it is difficult to pinpoint the exact place and time when this is happening.

4. In the rabbi’s book, ‘Sciences of Freedom’, the rabbi criticizes the concept that understands desire as something that does not exist on the level of details, but ’emerge’ in general. For example, he brings up the fluidity that, although on the general level, one can talk about concepts such as density, viscosity, etc. that do not exist on the level of the individual, they clearly do not emerge from nowhere, but simply describe the dynamics of a group of individuals, which is why they do not belong in a single individual [5] . On the other hand, in the book ‘Two Carts’, in Chapter 4, Chapter 2, the rabbi brings up the fluidity of a tangible existence of a general. It seems exactly the opposite?! Why does the criticism from ‘Sciences of Freedom’ not belong here?

See in the books of the sciences of freedom the difference between weak and strong emergentism. A public is weak emergentism and it is possible.

5. Now, to be specific, a question about this part of Two Carts [6] – Why even (on the level of explanation [7] ) think that there is such a thing as a ‘rule’ in reality? After all, I can gather and disperse a group of people with the flick of a finger, do I really create and destroy something with the flick of a finger? (Let’s say I create a group for creative writing and disperse it. Was there really something here beyond a gathering of people?)

Not every collection of people who gather in a certain place is a group. Only a public (like the people of Israel). When you destroyed the group of Israel, you destroyed not only individuals but also the public. So when you replace all the cells in a body, it is still the same person (the ship of Theseus). Incidentally, in the third notebook I talk about how in order to transform a body into an organism, a soul is needed, like a king to a people, and like God to the world. So the leader of a people (in the language of the sages, this is the angel of that people) turns it into a people.

6. Swallowing utensils in our time. I understand that there are several discussions on this issue, the most famous of which is the article in Tecumin (by Dror Pixler Narali), and the question is what the rabbi thinks – does he think that most utensils today do not fall under many of the usual kashrut laws? Like Rabbi Dov Lior (according to what I heard) or that it is impossible to renew the laws of utensils, etc., and that we only have the categories that were familiar to the early ones – pottery, glass, and iron – as I heard Rabbi Yaakov Ariel say?

These are factual determinations and there is no obstacle to innovation and change.

7. Regarding a change in custom:

• I heard an interview with the rabbi on the subject of legumes – but I didn’t listen to him until the end (the lunch break was over). Is it possible to change a custom practiced by a community? I saw an article by one rabbi (I don’t remember his name) who wrote that there is no way to change a community custom. No breaking of vows or anything. Does the rabbi agree? And if it is permissible to change, is it necessary to dissolve vows? Does the one before Rosh Hashanah help?

This is not a custom but a concern. See here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%92%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9D-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8-2/

• In the same vein – regarding changing the distance between meat and milk [8] – is it possible to change a custom of observing 3 hours to an hour? Is it simpler to do the opposite (from an hour to 3/6) or is it the same thing in the essential sense? Is it necessary to break vows? Is it similar/different from legumes?

It is necessary to waive vows because it is a custom and not a fear. However, if the practice began because of a mistake (you thought it was a halakhah and it turned out it was not), there is a place to waive the waiver of vows.

• The text of the blessing for food by Rabbi Saadia Gaon. I have seen people recite the blessing from the text of the blessing that appears in the Siddur of Rabbi Saadia Gaon (which is much shorter). Is it possible to do such a thing? And if we have accepted upon ourselves (as is the rule in recent generations) a different text – is it possible to change this reception [9] ?

This is a custom and requires the dissolution of vows.
This is it for now, Rabbi.
Thanks in advance – Ofer Gezbar.
PS – Finally, I would be happy to ask a technical question – what regular classes does the rabbi teach during the week that are possible for me to attend?
[1] In the sense of ‘hearing’…
[2] For example, does the Rabbi say the entire text of the New Moon Blessing, which I understood to be based on the Kabbalah… Does the Rabbi think it is ‘correct’ to say 3 times ‘fall upon them’ etc…. or is it no longer related to the Kabbalistic intuitions that the Rabbi receives?
[3] Or perhaps this is just a metaphor for the unity of opposites and does not represent the Rabbi’s opinion?
[4] Or maybe this is just a statement about our limited faith as humans, but could it really be that God knows the future in every detail?
[5] The field around each atom must be taken into account (is this related? I just remember the Rabbi mentioning it, but maybe I’m confusing a few points…) But in principle, all the concepts that describe a rule, such as pressure, temperature, etc., can be calculated even at the atomic level – if we just do enough work…
[6] Chapter 2, Section 4 – ‘The Centrality of the Individual’.
[7] On the level of proof that Judaism regards the rule as ‘existing’, I understand, but I don’t understand Judaism…
[8] Without addressing for the time being the question of whether it is appropriate or not…
[9] They said – Why could Rabbi Saadia Gaon recite a blessing from this and we cannot? Is the whole difference some formality (general acceptance of a different version) that needs to be permitted so that we too can recite a blessing or is there something fundamentally better in the version we have?