The questions that haunt them

As a reader of the site, I too have to agree strongly with Y’, certainly being open-minded is the right thing to do, but the Rabbi is already in the middle of a debate, of course this tactic may be correct in a personal debate – “even in your opinion”, but it is not clear that it is suitable for the public

I don't tend to think that there is an “over” in relation to openness. Openness means that we discuss every question in its entirety and don't hide it. Therefore, I don't see where to draw the line. If there was something that I was convinced was harmful and of no use in publishing, perhaps there would be room for discussion (and even then I'm not sure). But I don't think that's the case.
In general, I think that we need to distinguish between three types of criticism:
1. There are questions that should not be brought up for discussion.
2. There are answers that should not be written openly (even though they are correct).
3. There are incorrect answers, so it's a shame to write them because they are harmful and incorrect.
Criticism 3 is just an argument about my positions and not about openness itself. Criticism 2 can only arise where the answer brings harm without benefit. Criticism 1 is only relevant if I make up the problems and no one else is bothered by them (otherwise it is important to discuss them in detail and not leave people to deal with them alone).

To dear Rabbi Michael Avraham.

I finally found time to write to you what I have wanted to write for a long time.
My name is Y., a second-year student at one of the yeshivahs, and I am the one who published (together with a friend) the article on the Datlash on the Srougim website and on other websites (the article that you followed with the post about the repeaters in question). At the time, we spoke briefly on the phone.
I am sending this letter to express my immense appreciation for you and your special work (of course, Oren, the editor of the website, is also included in this praise), which unfortunately I do not know as well as he does, or even close to it.
I frequently enjoy your wonderful website, the lessons and articles, the intellectual honesty and the way things are presented.
I wrote the article on the repeaters in question following my experiences in the high school yeshivah, where I saw before my eyes how my classmates were fed up with “old Judaism,” and since no alternative was presented, they left the religion full of sky-high self-confidence and pride in their “dark” religious friends who could not even understand why they They repeated the question.
Their choice was between Judaism full of unacceptable ideas (mysticism, “heresy” in science, extreme right-wingism, “prohibition” of using thinking alone, etc., the last generations are necessarily complete fools compared to the first, the sages said all the legends and laws in the Holy Spirit, so they must be true, etc.), and “enlightened” atheism, and without a doubt the latter prevails.
While I was still studying, following exposure to all the rustic views brought by the aforementioned students, I was forced to slowly build a more and more “rational” Judaism for myself. I jumped at every rational opportunity, and I had to find out for myself.
One of the difficulties that bothered me (among many others) was the issue of the “Okimitot” that is crammed into the Gemara (although this is not a serious theological difficulty, I was bothered by the fact that things that are not written in it are inserted into the Mishnah).
I began to think of an idea that would solve the issue, and it is similar to what you say in the series of lessons on Okimitot (it was still far from the complete picture that the rabbi managed to present in the lessons).
I don’t understand why a young man has to go through 20 years of his life before he encounters (if at all, because most people will never encounter them) your lessons on Okimitot (I am taking this as an example, since this is not a sensational innovation from a traditional perspective, such as knowledge and choice, providence, etc. It is a subject that I have no Explain how it took us 1500 years to solve it), my feeling is that we have long since abandoned independent thinking, which on the one hand makes it easier for us to preserve Judaism from generation to generation (which seems good in the short term), and on the other hand prevents us from reaching in-depth explanations on many topics (dangerous in the long term) such as your explanation of the existence of the law, topics that do not have the scent of “Reform” that could explain our lack of progress on them.
I remember how during the discussions in Israel about the words of the Rabbinate regarding the woman of good looks, I was left without a decent explanation for myself (I felt this with other people as well), although sometimes rabbis explain this topic in a tiny bit here and there, but I have never seen an organized, systematic and consistent approach to these topics like yours.
From a survey I conducted with very famous rabbis who are considered good in the field of answering questions of faith, almost none of them are knowledgeable about the issues that really bother young people (revelations in other tribes, Torah and morality) and do not dare to express “new” opinions (such as the Shelah’s method regarding free choice, which almost no one knows, and even one of the rabbis who mentions this opinion rejects it immediately at the beginning of his article). Not to mention “proofs” for G-d.
Since I studied for years with these friends of mine, I have no doubt that they would have become acquainted with your character at an early stage – they were in a completely different place (at least some of them).
I know exactly what issues bothered them, and these are the issues you are talking about.
Two of my questions that I asked on the site were about the Exodus from Egypt in archaeology and the mass revelations in other tribes, as the rabbi himself can see, these questions are placed first in the ‘Popular Responsa’, I knew that these are central issues that are very disturbing To people, so I asked them.
Personally, the rabbi shaped a central part of my faith, and I hardly find anyone else who can quench my thirst (maybe the rabbi can refresh me).
I sometimes wander through youth forums and refer people to your site. Several of them have already told me that they have changed their minds about faith, etc., in addition to people to whom I have given individual ideas from your teachings and this has helped them, so that the rabbi's hand will be strengthened in his important work of answering questions on the site.
Your teachings are a unique solution for many people, and I regret that many of them take the step of repeating the question before acknowledging it.
In connection with the criticisms raised against your openness, I think that there are enough semi-conservative rabbis, a third and a quarter, and we cannot give up on a rabbi who will fully open up all the most difficult issues.
We don't have anyone else who does this the way the Rabbi does, and despite the cost this may have caused some people (it is debatable whether it is a cause or a catalyst), the benefit outweighs it tenfold, and the Rabbi constitutes a very strong rear line of defense for many people.
With immense appreciation and gratitude for your extensive investment in youth (on the website and in the books) and in general, and with great anticipation for the release of the trilogy,
J.

Thank you very much. Indeed, things are necessary for me (and perhaps for others as well). I take the criticisms raised here very seriously, but my feeling was that there is still justification for this discussion and openness, and beyond simply telling the truth, its benefits outweigh its harm. Your words certainly strengthen my opinion. Chen Chen.

“The conclusion is that there is no safe way. Therefore, one must do what is true and not seek the beneficial way at the expense of the truth (because there is no such way).”
Perhaps the way that will bring profits without the risks is related to style. It will perhaps be less interesting to those who are only looking for action. (The cynical writing does not stem from a desire to do interesting things, but from a cynical nature, but again, in order to profit without risks, it is perhaps worth making an effort and changing the style of presentation)
Another great benefit is that the target audience will be multiplied by a lot. (I know of many who are eager to read and hear and yet refrain, also for the reasons mentioned by Y’, but not only, but also for the style.)

Rabbi Michi, you wrote:

“I am debating about the principle of openness. It has obvious disadvantages, but it also has advantages. Some use it to get by, but others find it a solution to the hardships that would otherwise make them want to get by (and I know of several of them). So what should I do now? Should I consider one or the other? My principled argument is that since there are disadvantages and advantages here and there, I will do what the truth (to my knowledge and understanding) says. If doubts were only beneficial and telling the truth (in my opinion) were only harmful, there would be a dilemma: truth versus benefit. But if both truth have benefits and harms and doubts have benefits and harms, it is unreasonable in my opinion to prefer lying to truth. Lying is better than telling the truth.”

It seems that this is a false dichotomy, Y’ did not suggest that you tell and spread holy lies, but that you restrain yourself a little, and not kill all the cows, not at once, and not to everyone openly, if you write shallowly like Zamir Cohen, for example (and I apologize in advance for the parable, that's what came to my mind in the first second) then you will be Zamir Cohen and not Michi, and there is already a Sapir Zamiri Cohen.
And if so, the comparison is out of place, and in choosing your balance and restraint, the harm in holy lies is irrelevant, because you will not use them anyway.
Attacking everything that is holy actually helps, most people who are not for it will not reach you, but those who do turn to you for wisdom and because you are right in some of your words may have a negative impact on them when you did not have to talk and write so much, and even more so in such a dismissive tone.
Sorry for the late response
Y. B.