slander

I am trying and hoping to phrase my question correctly.
What is the correct school of Judaism that, according to the Rabbi, has no criticism? Or, unfortunately, little criticism?

I have criticism of everyone, but most of the criticism is disagreement on one point or another in the path of Torah. Here we are talking about those whose path itself is distorted and harmful, and not about those who have one or another problematic or unconventional point.

Israel – Shalom Rav,

It seems that Rabbi Shmada”a has the right to condemn entire communities, because this helps him find a match for his children. And so, when he often cursed the ‘Har HaMor’, his daughter Bruria was blessed to be engaged to the son of Rabbi Yaakov Levanon, R”Mr. of the ‘Har HaMor’Yeshiva.

It is possible that Shmada”a has more children waiting for a match, and therefore he is also attacking the Haredim and the Breslov Hasidim, in order to increase the options for a match with his children.

With greetings, Shimshon Zweiblinger, the Knight of Onions and Garlic

Shat, would you also express yourself as above towards Nachman Meoman?

May the rabbi be blessed.
And yet I would like to know – in the rabbi's opinion, what is the path that a person must follow to become a complete Jew?

To B”G – Hello,

The phenomenon I demonstrated – that when a person constantly speaks against X – he may arouse the interest of his children or pupils in that ‘demon’, in order to check ‘its severity’ – deserves the attention of educators, not to overdo the speaking against X so as not to lose interest in him. You should also take into account the pain of children that your obsessive preoccupation with the demonization of the ’Hareidim’ will not lead to the opposite educational result, to the desire to check whether the ’Sheid’ is so terrible 🙂

With blessings, Sh”t

Regarding Rabbi Nachman

Rabbi Nachman did not invent the issues of keeping the covenant. Their severity is explained in the Bible (Bereishit 38:9), in the Gemara (Nida 13), in the Rambam (Iso 2:18), in the Shulchan Aruch (Shulchan Aruch), and in the books of the Kabbalists and the Mosar. And naturally, whoever failed in this was “disappointed.”

Rabbi Nachman innovated ways of coping, and taught how to avoid falling, and how to get up and continue on even if one fell. In order not to fall, Rabbi Nachman suggested that one be happy most of the time, and always be busy with positive activity, to occupy oneself without interruption in Torah and prayer, to fill oneself with the study of the Mishnah, Gemara, Midrash, and Poskim, and to act with agility and lightness.

For the broken heart of one who has fallen into sin, Rabbi Nachman set aside a daily time for “solitude.” In which he will confess with a broken heart his faults and ask God to help him overcome them. If he fails in a covenant fault, he will recite ten chapters of Psalms and immerse himself in a mikveh. And beyond that, he will distract himself from this even more and will start a new beginning, and not be stuck in what was in the past. I heard from a Jew who teaches Hasidism that someone who is stuck in the past is a criminal 🙂

A person should keep the "Izmara Ha" while he is still alive, rejoice in the "more", in the little good that exists in him, with the belief that "a little of the light" will be revealed to him. It drives away much of the darkness, and the main thing is not to be afraid or discouraged, and to joyfully and quickly utilize every moment in life to do good things, and then there will be no time left for unworthy thoughts (and as Pharaoh advised: Let the work be honorable for the people… and let them not dwell on falsehood’ 🙂

Paragraph 1, line 3
… so as not to create interest…

Tzachi, do you really want me to push you out of the building I have?
We started by asking why I speak to everyone, and now I am required to write my entire Jewish and general mishnah in the rubric in this thread. Go ahead, go to the trilogy, that's what it was written for.

Another thing to keep in mind is that excessive preoccupation with speaking against, and especially speaking against people known as devout and God-fearing, may turn into a boomerang towards the denier, who is labeled in public as despising scholars, and may cause a drastic decline in the public's interest in his Torah and his books (as seen in the reply to the "selling of the Rabbi's books," which seems to be taking place in them: decreasing and growing like the villages of the holiday 🙂

With blessings, Sh.

In the book ‘I Wanted to Ask You Professor’ Leibowitz’ on page 222, when asked about Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, he replied that he was a psychopath. After reading some of Nachman of Breslov's endless, simply endless, musings about himself, I think he actually suffered from megalomania. I agree with Rabbi Jeremiah Cohen that he had delusions and that his religious path was contrary to the path of Judaism. Rabbi Ovadia defined Nachman's teachings with a certain disdain as ’the musings’, and said ‘A lot of it was about his methods, I don't know his books at all, maybe I see them once a year, I don't learn from them. Not halachic rulings, nothing, but just ideas like that – as they say, the musings. What are the musings? We don't have these things, we have laws.’ His followers today are foolish followers and their echo speaks for itself.

On the 1st of Elul 5771

Hi,

The things you mentioned are mentioned in Avishai Ben Chaim's article on the y-net website from October 17, 2000. From his words: We don't have these things. We have laws. We have a lot to learn. A person has nothing to learn except the laws of Mohar? This clearly means that his fear is of a situation in which the study of ideas becomes the main thing and suppresses the study of Halacha.

The rabbi was on friendly terms with the rabbi Sheik of Yavneel, who visited him at his home and brought him books from Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. See the article: ‘Special Documentation: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’'s Breslov Books Revealed’, on the ‘Breslov City’ website. There are two notes written by the rabbi on the virtue of ‘general correction’. One is a reference to the words of the rabbi Plaji on this correction, and the other in the name of Baba Sali on the virtue of correction along with maintaining modesty.

Rabbi Shalom Arush also received approval from the rabbi on his book ‘Bagan Ha'Amunah, about which the rabbi says: ‘It is full of collections combining moral statements on matters of faith, sages' teachings and butterflies, the work of a master… When the great Rabbi Shalom Arush Shlita, who composed Hadash and Kibbetz as Amir Gurna, and collected a pure man's wonderful, arranged and orderly moral awakening words, a word of mouth on his bike,

The rabbi strongly opposed the trip to the grave of Rabbi Nachman in Uman, leaving the family, as he said: Will a man leave his wife and go alone? You have a wife, you must make her happy. A man leaves everything and goes to the grave of Rabbi Nachman. Where does it say? He will go on Tisha B'Av, I agree. It is not good for him to abandon his wife and leave her alone with the children and go. (Horse from the day of the 4th of Bashan 5771 (Ben-Hahim, Maran Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, p. 259)

The rabbi repeated his strong position against traveling to Uman to the rabbi while leaving his wife and children at home, many times, but made it clear that this was not an objection to Rabbi Nachman, about whom he said (25 Elul 5777, Ben-Haim, p. 268-270)):

Forbid me to speak about the rabbi himself, the rabbi of Breslov. He was righteous. He was honest, wise. One of the first rabbis who began to act according to the Shulchan. The Gaon from Vilna came out against the Hasidim. Because they began to disregard the laws of the Shulchan Aruch, reading the Shema out of season, praying out of season.

But one of the first among the Rebbes to truly see that they were wrong was the Rebbe, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, who commanded all his followers: not to move from the Shulchan Aruch to the right or left, prayer time alone, Torah time alone, each and every one must do as it is written in the Shulchan Aruch. They began to listen, and slowly he brought them back to repentance.

You can watch and listen to this sermon on YouTube under the title: Rabbi Atvadia Yosef Clarifies: I Am Not Against Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, God forbid. And a summary in the article: ‘Rabbi Yosef Rabbi Nachman was a righteous man, but you don't have to go to Uman’.

With blessings, Sh”t

Regarding Rabbi Jeremiah Cohen, the rabbi honored him as the ‘forerunner’ in his sermon and praised him and his yeshiva in Safed, but regarding his pamphlet against the R”n of Breslov, the rabbi wrote: ‘I do not agree with anything that is written, and my opinion is not comfortable with anything that is written’ (Ben-Haim, p. 265, and note 74)

Shalom Rabbi,

If your claim that it is not slander stems from the fact that you think it is ”for the benefit” – that is, for the benefit of all Israel who would know how to stay away from those sectors.

Then see if in your words towards those sectors you meet the seven cumulative conditions that the Chofetz Chaim formulated for the permissibility of speaking slander for the benefit, which are presented below:

A. That the narrator himself sees the injustice, and not that he heard it from others.

B. That he carefully examines that there is indeed an injustice or harm here, and that there is no way to turn it into a right.

C. That he proves the harmer or the wrongdoer before telling others.
D. That he tells the things as they are, with maximum accuracy, without addition or subtraction.
E. That the narrator's intention is only for the benefit and that he does not derive pleasure from it.
F. That the narrator has no way of solving the problem without telling the slander story.
G. That the story does not cause the harmer greater harm than if it were ruled upon in court.

If your claim that it is not slander stems from the fact that you think that when it comes to the public and not an individual, there is no prohibition of slander here. (The least likely possibility in my opinion)

Then see for your reference an article on slander against the public, the last paragraph in the attached article by Judge Noam Soldberg.
http://www.daat.ac.il/mishpat-ivri/skirot/155-2.htm

In any case, as I wrote above, the severity of the prohibition of slander stems from the fact that it causes division among the people, which is the great opposite of what the Torah commands us to be united and compassionate. After all, if you think about the person who is exposed to your words (out of thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of readers) against those publics, it is clear that the words will have a very, very negative effect on him in that he may actually detest and exclude those publics, with all the attendant harms.. And now I ask you what is called – With a hand on my heart, this is the will of the ’???

A last sentence that may sound a bit kitschy but there is some truth in it, when I am not entirely sure of the righteousness of my path, I take the initiative to consult with my wise wife. I, the little one, strongly recommend this to you, especially in this matter.

I have devoted my precious time to this matter only out of great love and appreciation for you. All that remains for me is to hope that my words will enter your heart.

I really appreciate and cherish the dedication of the time, but in the future it is better if you are already investing time to do it with some intelligence and thought. Otherwise it is a waste of time (I will spare you the collection of sources on the abrogation of the Torah that you would surely have brought now).
I explained my argument and you completely ignore it. Your sources are in no way relevant to the discussion (this is a great example of using sources as a demagogic tool that comes to obscure instead of clarify and refine).
But one piece of advice from you I am definitely willing to accept: I would love to hear what your wife says about it. 🙂

In the month of Ramadan, he did not raise his heart from his brother 5751

Ramada – Hello,

Why go far? Whatever Israel's wife tells you – tells you, it's already your wife.

With greetings,
Itsek R’ Sha’s from Krakow,
who went to search under the bridge in Venice, to find his seeker in the courtyard of his house 🙂

In the name of the Lord, the magicians will listen and you will be saved

To the Rarash, peace be upon you,

We go far to receive the reward of walking on the heads of a holy people.

With greetings,
Dvir Yinon Levi Herzl Zephaniah Jacob Kimberlolu,
Shamer Khalas 🙂

“I'd love to hear what your wife has to say about that. ?”… Haha…

Dear Israel, a point to ponder, why did you choose to challenge Rabbi Michi on the website and not by email?

And I will look into the proverb of Jalal al-Din Rumi (to whom the Rebbetzin referred) and in the reply of Ramada, in column 274, "On Proverbs and Rules."

With greetings, Sh.

Hello,

I did not address your claims because I believe that not only are they incorrect, but also that they show that you are missing the point.
See my response to your claims below:
It is not clear why you assume that if things are known to everyone, then it is permissible to continue to discuss them, especially since your analysis of the things and their explanation adds insights that were not known to those who listened to your lesson.
You were not asked to respect, but not to discredit.
Your criticism is not only about the “methods” – it is possible to disagree with methods and discuss them – but also about the people who practice them.

I am finished.
Unfortunately, you were not convinced, and in light of my acquaintance with you through your writings and website, I have reasonable grounds to assume that you will not be convinced this time either. All that remains for me to hope is that perhaps by some miracle, the things will somehow touch you someday, and it will be my salary and the prevention of the loss of your salary.

And by the way, to Benjamin Gorlin - I was debating whether to write to the rabbi by email or on the website, and I chose the website because I thought it was important for things to be discussed publicly.

Sh”t, the quotes you brought are from peace relations and probably politics. I don't know what exactly prompted him to contradict his words, but don't forget that he also had a party that needed support.

Israel, hahaha, I'm always amused by how he spins you around like a spinning top. I didn't pay attention to the details of the laws whether it's slander or not, but he allowed the Jews to come, so do you think the laws you brought here really speak to him? They did some research a long time ago on how clowning is the strongest card in the path you want to overthrow and the sages wrote about it more firmly. But keep going, keep going, don't let me interrupt you, because just as I enjoy and tear up over the Jews coming, I enjoy this too.

But let me tell you that I see Micha as continuing the path of the sages and our ancestors. The sages included the Book of Ecclesiastes in the canon, is there anything more funny and entertaining than that? And as Ernest Renan summed us up: ‘A strange people, as if created to present all the forms of contradictions! And yet this people is the one who gave the world God, and it barely believes in him. This people created religion, but it is the least religious of all peoples. This people based humanity's hopes on the kingdom of heaven, while all its sages keep telling us that we should be concerned only with the affairs of this world. The most enlightened people of all races take seriously the things that this people preached to them, while it itself treats these things with a smile. Its ancient literature has aroused the enthusiasm of all nations, but it recognizes its weaknesses better than any other people.’

On the 1st of Elul 5771

No, my dear,

The Gerayi valued Rabbi Nachman of Breslov as a genius and a righteous man, and in particular his guidance to his followers not to deviate even a single iota from the rulings of the Shul. He was on friendly terms with the leaders of the Breslov Hasidic movement, such as Rabbi Shik Zach and Rabbi Arush Neri.

However, the Gerayi strongly opposed the trip to Uman to the Re, leaving the wife and family alone on the holiday, since it is the husband's duty to make his wife and family happy on the holiday. He expressed this opposition often. And this leadership of his was adopted, for example, by his student Rabbi David Shalom Neki, who is a Breslov Hasid but has never traveled to Uman. As is known, there were also among the Breslov Hasids who believed that the Rabbi did not intend for them to leave Israel to pray for their son in the Lord.

The Rabbi also expressed reservations in one of his sermons (in 5761) about the exaggeration in studying the Likutei Moharan as a central study that suppresses the main thing, which is to teach Halacha in practice. He also wrote an agreement with Rabbi Arush's book, The Garden of Faith, and praised it as full of moral and awakening words according to the words of the Sages, in a clear and orderly manner. In his handwritten glosses in the issue of the ‘General Correction”, the rabbi noted the words of R”h Plaji and Baba Sali on the virtue of correction.

In short: the rabbi addressed the teachings and practices of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov in a matter-of-fact manner. There are things he praised and things he criticized, in the manner of the Torah.

With blessings of Shabbat Shalom and a Happy New Year, Sh”t

In short: he contradicted himself. The question is, what is his real position?

Israel, in the eyes of Rabbi Micha Gach, there is an interest in discussing these matters publicly, and it amazes me how you rebuke the Rabbi and in the same breath commit the sin of which you accuse him, Moyyyradik