New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

The return to metaphysics

שו”תThe return to metaphysics
asked 5 years ago

Did the rabbi read Rabbi Oz Lumen’s work on Rabbi Tau’s teachings?
For a long time, as someone who studied in the institutions of the line, I have been critical of the outlook and the way the line is conducted, as well as with the feeling that the Torah there is imagined and disconnected from reality, and that the people there are suffering from arrogance and narrow-mindedness. And I must say that after reading the above work, such a well-reasoned and profound systematic Mishnah suddenly appeared before me.
I know, of course, that the regular students there probably don’t understand the roots of the Mishnah they are following, and in truth, quite a few of them are indeed narrow-minded and arrogant, but the figure of Rabbi Tao suddenly doesn’t seem so small and dark to me…
I know that this is not a short article, and yet it is on the side and the rabbi has not read it. Will he be able to see it and express his opinion?
 
Thank you, Yehuda.


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 5 years ago
I haven’t read it, and it’s been recommended to me in the past. I have to say that I don’t really feel like reading it because the subject doesn’t speak to me. I also don’t think it’s necessarily a minor character (I don’t know him) but rather a wrong character. Is there a link to the article? Maybe I’ll try to take a look when I have time.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אבי replied 5 years ago

Interestingly, the old links no longer work and I couldn't find it on his website either.

https://ozbluman.wordpress.com/

יהודה replied 5 years ago

I couldn't find it either..
I have it in a PDF file.. I can send it to Rak by email if he wants.

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

If you can, I would love to take a look at it.
mikyab@gmail.com

Thank you

יהודה replied 5 years ago

I sent it... the rabbi who received it will confirm.

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

Thanks. This is a long master's thesis. I'll try to take a look.

דורון replied 5 years ago

Yehuda
Can you send it to me too?
godorpor818@gmail.com
Thank you

יהודה replied 5 years ago

I happily sent it 🙂

דורון replied 5 years ago

I have already managed to accept, thank him for his honor, read, extract the essence of Rabbi Tao's position (it's not difficult, the author presented it in a brief summary) and find the main weak point in the background of Taoism, in my opinion.
I will upload it here soon.
Chen Chen

דורון replied 5 years ago

This is the key paragraph in my opinion to approach the Taoist doctrine (if due to haste I have misidentified it, I invite those who are versed in Taoism to correct me):

“While tracing the ”gaze of the sacred” and the concepts ”sacred” and ”consciousness”, an entire metaphysical canvas was unfolded in the second chapter about ”man-as-he-should-be”: how he is able to recognize additional
layers of reality, which are not visible to him in his current state; how these layers relate, among other things, to spiritual impulses operating in the socio-cultural space around him and even in his own soul; how the recognition of these
layers depends inextricably on ”holy scriptures” – both because the “Holy Scriptures” contain the precise set of concepts required to describe them, and because studying the “Holy Scriptures” leads to a comprehensive change in the cognitive system required to become familiar with them; and how this person will ultimately be more moral and sensitive, while being more Israeli and more Jewish.

Subject to the limitations of an initial cursory reading, the basic premise of Tao can be summarized as follows:

Holiness, a concept that I understand to be more or less parallel to a kind of metaphysical alertness that man is called to cultivate, is the main category for the spiritual development of man, especially the Jew.

The difficulty: the recognition of these levels of holiness “depends without exception on the Holy Scriptures”. The Jewish scriptures are probably meant, but even if Rabbi Tao had insisted that they were the Vedas or the Quran, the problem would have been the same.

From a philosophical point of view, this position expresses an anti-dualistic (“analytic”) position because it presents only one “king's way” to bring us closer to that “holiness”. If Tao admits other ways, they are necessarily less important to him. In doing so, he effectively denies the very idea that only the intuitive faculty in man can serve as that “king's way”.

What seemingly supports the interpretation I have given is the author's comparison between Tao and Shel. The latter is not content with ”searching for metaphysics” But from the beginning he aims higher for the ”search for God”. Tao, on the other hand, from the beginning, shoehorns himself and limits his actions to the search for holiness. As mentioned, this is identified with a topical text for him.

The things written above do not, of course, express any position on the entirety of Tao's subtext and its details. Certainly not on the person himself. From what I have heard about him from other sources, it seems to me that there is a complicated problematic hidden here…

תפילה ומלחמה replied 5 years ago

You said that according to Tao, the most important way to approach holiness is (also) through the Jewish scriptures and not (only) through intuitive ability. Where is the ”problematic” in this matter?

דורון replied 5 years ago

You didn't get me right.
I said that according to Tao, approaching holiness or recognizing it can be done first through the Holy Scriptures (and only then perhaps in other ways).
Tao establishes a wrong hierarchy here that is not consistent with what Michi calls a “synthetic” position. The intuitive faculty in man precedes in terms of recognition all other ways. Certainly before the Holy Scriptures.

Tao may have a way out of this in another direction that I will not detail right now, but in my opinion this way out is also an illusion

תפילה ומלחמה replied 5 years ago

A. What is the difference between “approaching can be done first” and “the most important way to approach”.

B. You write that the intuitive faculty precedes (in terms of recognition) any other way, while Tao says that the Scriptures precede. But where is the problem here. The intuitive faculty is like our eyes, all interpretation is done through it and on it. Tao claims that the way is to activate the aforementioned faculty in studying the Scriptures and then reach the destination. There is no reason to think that it is possible to activate the faculty in the free space and also reach the same destination.
Or that Ok Tao will tell you that really No. 1 is the faculty, and No. 2 is the Scriptures. Then you will probably tell him what happens if there are contradictions between them. The answer is that instead of a contradiction between direct observation of the fit and a result from the Scriptures (which, like everything else, is based on an interpretation based on the fit), the result from the Scriptures is decisive. Is this really the statement you are preparing for the next stage? (If so, then I will take the trouble to justify the “answer”)

דורון replied 5 years ago

A. There is no difference. My main thesis is that Tao reverses the hierarchy and is therefore wrong.

B. The difficulty stems from the fact that a consistent interpretation of the Taoist thesis necessarily leads, in my opinion, to the conclusion that intuitions cannot be held at all. To hold the position that intuitions do exist and are the basis (as you yourself admit) requires that this be asserted: there is a minimum requirement for the Scriptures to present themselves, even if only implicitly, as subject to our intuitions (and not just acknowledge their existence, if they do). If they did so, they would admit that “holiness” is found first and foremost in God and perhaps also in his direct relationship with man, and from this it would follow that they are not really necessary as Tao would like to think. The problem is that they do not do this and Tao does not claim this either.

C. Note that I a priori rule out any medium as a way to approach holiness and certainly do not rule out the Scriptures. I am merely setting out the correct hierarchy in my view.

תפילה ומלחמה replied 5 years ago

The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is indeed subject to our intuitions. Why does it follow that ”‘holiness’ is found first and foremost in God and perhaps also in His direct relationship with man”?
Please give your opinion on the following analogy. The image of the table in my mind is mediated through my eyes, but in my eyes themselves there is no table, and if in the room (the Holy Scriptures) there is no table (information about holiness and means to approach it, or holiness itself) then my eyes (the intuitive faculty) will not be able to create in my mind the correct image of the table itself.

דורון replied 5 years ago

More caution: Any theory that wants to "maintain its innocence" from the accusation of analyticity must present an a priori condition according to which all of our bodies of knowledge (including itself) are contingent on reality (in fact, on God) and rely on the intuitive faculty (which is in fact the royal road to "getting to know" God).

דורון replied 5 years ago

I don't understand the analogy you made and in any case I don't see how it serves you.
If the analogy should be like this:
There is a table (God).
There is his image that wanders to us (some kind of “holy” acquaintance with God or at least with his “presence”).
There are eyes that perceive this (the intuitive faculty).
Only then does the mind arrive (the Holy Scriptures or in fact their interpretation) and tries to understand what it saw.
Tao says otherwise: There is a mind and it tells us all sorts of things that oblige…!!!! us to believe in them (sense of sight, tables, pictures of tables, etc.). This claim contradicts what we have both already agreed on, namely that intuition precedes the mind/the Holy Scriptures

תפילה ומלחמה replied 5 years ago

Why do you compare the Holy Scriptures to the mind and not to a specific room where it is possible to see the table? One could argue that the Holy Scriptures (the room) are the most important means by which, if the faculty acts upon it (the eyes look at the room), it will be possible to reach holiness (the image of the table will wander into consciousness through the eyes). Anyone who says that only in a specific room is there a table and only there can one see it, is saying that the eyes are not the only means of vision?

דורון replied 5 years ago

I really don't understand your analogy. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem to fit the discussion in my opinion.

The Holy Scriptures convey certain information to us (that there is a God, that there is holiness, etc.).
Therefore, they are likened to our faculties of cognition, for example, to reason. And after all, the faculties of cognition also perform the same function.

The image of a room that you use is really strange to me. “A room” is likened to the faculty of cognition…? Does a room - in which there are all kinds of objects (for example, tables) “convey” us with one kind or another of information about those objects…?

In any case, there is no need to get bogged down with the image to understand the argument: Rabbi Tao needs to decide what comes first - intuition or the Holy Scriptures? In my opinion, he has already decided, against both our knowledge, against what reason says. That is the heart of my argument.

תפילה ומלחמה replied 5 years ago

Instead of making it difficult what comes before what and all sorts of definitions, come up with a practical test case in which you think Rabbi Tao will say conclusion A, and you tell him that this is a mistake and that there should be something else. I'll try my best: Let's assume that the person directly feels that it is possible to reach holiness by scratching the back. Let's assume that the Holy Scriptures say that the way to reach holiness is by biting one's nails. My intuitive ability interprets to me that by biting one's nails, you mean biting one's nails. Now your argument comes and says (in that person's world and according to his opinion) that scratching the back is a good and right way to reach holiness, just like biting one's nails, while in your opinion Rabbi Tao says that only biting one's nails is. Do I understand your argument correctly?

דורון replied 5 years ago

Well, my friend, you are getting further and further away from the plane of our discussion.
First you brought an analogy that is not relevant and now this…?

Neither Rabbi Tao nor I, the little one, are addressing concrete practical questions, at least not in this discussion.
Clearly, Tao is in correspondence with the Gothic traditions that attempt to formulate universal claims about the a priori conditions for achieving holiness. For example, his claim that one must turn to the Holy Scriptures. I claim that these conditions he formulates are flawed. If you are looking for “case studies” or “prescriptions” you will not find them with me. I suspect that Tao does have some, but even with him they only appear on the second floor and not in the place you just climbed to…

Read my opening argument again, even before you addressed me, and see for yourself what I am discussing.

תפילה ומלחמה replied 5 years ago

Can you formulate a hypothetical example of a case in which your different positions (yours and Rabbi Tao's) would lead to different conclusions? What exactly is the problem with drawing such an example?

דורון replied 5 years ago

This is not my main concern in life, but you ask so nicely…
Rabbi Tao will choose as a source of holiness and as an expression of it the Torah and everything that stems from it in his opinion from a normative, principled and probably also historical point of view. I do not. More concrete than that? I assume that he sees the Land of Israel and the State of Israel as the seat of holiness. This of course has concrete psychological, political, economic, etc. implications. In my opinion, such a position contains not only holiness (perhaps also) but mainly “impurity”.

How does this relate to the question of whether or not intuitive ability precedes scripture?

דורון replied 5 years ago

It is clear that you are really tired…

You tried to complicate my philosophical argument against Rabbi Tao's position (which is philosophical in itself).
You answered.

Then you turned to ask about a concrete example. Even though it was not my topic, I answered you.

Now you are making it difficult: How is the concrete example related to the philosophical platform with which I started?

Answer 27: When Tao sets for himself (and us) a concrete religious norm regarding the concept of holiness but he does not understand that in the first place he does not understand either the subject or himself because of the matter of intuition and its precedence over the Torah, then there is reason to doubt the status of the proposed norm.

י.ד. replied 5 years ago

Doron,
Now I understand you (in the responses to the column on Halacha you were completely silent).
It seems to me that the problem is this. We assume that we do not have the ability for direct intuition with the infinite God because otherwise our finite reality will collapse. In Lurianic language, the reduction will collapse. In Aristotelian language, matter will reveal its nothingness. For this reason, it is truly impossible to come into direct contact with God and receive holiness from Him.
On the other hand, God cannot be an object in this world. That would turn Him into an idol. This is also the problem with the God of Stanislav Lem's Solaris. God is a subject who expresses freedom and not an object that is subject to scientific research and technological manipulation.
On the other hand, there is no world without divine revelation for moral reasons and perhaps also a high need, as Rabbi Michi calls it.
What is the solution?
The Torah. On the one hand, it reveals God in the world. On the other hand, it is not an object that imprisons God within itself. If you want, you will receive it, if not, you will not. So it is true that we have an intuition of the holiness of the Torah that emanates from God beyond the Torah. On the other hand, we have no way to bypass it or the people it creates by its very command for the reasons I mentioned earlier. So that is what it is.

Why does this mean that there are no additional revelations? I don't know. I once read in Hanan Porat that there is only one revelation to express the uniqueness of God.

This is what I called the theory of God's signifiers that you asked about at the time, but until you explained yourself here (and it took at least 3 years) I didn't know how to present it.

דורון replied 5 years ago

3 whole years… and then it arrived. Give me a moment to digest the magnitude of the situation 🙂

Well, I guess your words are wrong in my opinion.

First, I'm not sure that we don't have direct acquaintance with God or with certain “qualities” in Him (the Holy Spirit, the Shekhinah, I don't know).

Second, if you're really right and we don't have such acquaintance, the solution is indeed a mediating factor between us.

But as I've argued countless times here, the Torah is a disastrous mediating factor. A consistent interpretation of its very existence inevitably leads to what happens with any body of analytical knowledge that takes over - or rather tries to take over - reality. In this case, it's an attempt by the Torah to take over God. Putsch.
I've explained this at length in the past (as mentioned, not only with regard to the Torah).

Third, the mediating factor proposed by the Christian model (the Son of God) is more successful philosophically. On the contrary, it relies largely on the truths of the Torah.

Of course, we may be able to think of even more successful mediators.

In the 2nd of September, 2017,

Common sense leads to the conclusion that whoever produces a sophisticated machine like the world – will attach written ‘operating instructions’ to it, and at the same time will train a qualified ‘technical team’ of ‘engineers and technicians’ who will receive in-depth instruction from the manufacturer on the purpose and proper methods of operation of the ‘machine’

Human logic not only requires that there be individual divine guidance, but also serves as a tool for understanding and deepening the ‘manufacturer's instructions’ in order to understand the principles and rules and thus enable dealing with new situations. But the interpretive logic must be based on the foundations expressed in the ’manufacturer's instructions’.

From the knowledge given to us in the written and transmitted Torah, we can reach with our intellect insights that we would not have reached without the knowledge given to us in the sources. For example, when modernity broke out and many of the religious leaders left it, we could understand that ’the business was over’ האשר אתן כצען.

But when Daniel revealed to us that ’in the end’ there would be severe crises, but &#8216it is a time of trouble for Jacob and from him shall be salvation’, and when Chazal revealed to us that ’in the time of the Messiah, Chazpa Yasga… the kingdom will turn into a minotaur and the house of the assembly will become a harlot’ But it is the spiritual crisis that will bring about redemption - Rabbi Kook can come and analyze the situation with his intellect, and explain (in the article "The Generation") that the crisis and rebellion stem from the desire of the generation not to accept things as "the commandments of learned men," but rather to strive for understanding and identification, and following this optimistic insight - to build tools to resolve the spiritual crisis by building a higher level that will translate the faith of the Torah and its values into a more complete life for all and for the individual.

With best wishes, Tao-te-ching Ish Le-wing

דורון replied 5 years ago

Levinger, are you sure you're not Foster?

בטוח (לדורון) replied 5 years ago

To Doron –

If I were a poster you would start worshiping me like you worship the man nailed to the cross 🙂

With greetings, Yehuda from Kiryat

In short:
Man finds before him a sophisticated and ’sweet’ world and understands that there is a ‘leader for the capital’ he can, after prolonged research, know a little about the ways of operation of the ’machine’. But in order to know what the purpose of the machine is and what the ‘operating instructions’ are that lead to the purpose set by the ’man’man–in this, man must receive operating instructions from the manufacturer.

These instructions are given to him both in a written document, in the Holy Scriptures, and in detailed and in-depth instructions that were passed on to a ’technical team’of &#8216engineers and technicians’ They are the prophets and sages, who received the foundations of information in the tradition, which they complete and develop with an understanding and intellectual analysis of the principles, an analysis that allows them to draw conclusions even about new situations that were not explicitly mentioned in the ancient sources, and for which a ‘word-for-word analogy’ is needed.

It seems that the intellectual consideration based on the foundations of the written and transmitted Torah – is the view of the holy’ that Rabbi Tau speaks of.

With greetings, Yaron Fish”l Ordner

דורון replied 5 years ago

Well, Foster can't see himself from the outside. As Wittgenstein said, he only "shows himself" (performance). But perhaps the Bible will someday send you a third dimension (depth). We'll wait patiently.

אתה משתפר (לדורון) replied 5 years ago

To Dorus –

You are really improving. After writing a complete response without mentioning a word in Latin – finally the Latin arrived: ‘Perfumation’ from Wittenstein

With greetings from ‘Atem Piritush Kneirt…Item Otan Yu Frisch Hideg Wizt, Yui De Yu Volt’, Shatius Livinggros

י.ד. replied 5 years ago

I don't have a revelation of the Divine Presence. If you do, then that's fine, but it seems to me that most of us have no way of crossing the distance from the finite physical world in which we exist to it. By the way, I'm not sure the Torah is against it. Moses is the one who says, "And who will give all the people of the 'prophets'?" And the prophets prophesy about giving a heart of flesh and filling the earth with knowledge of the 'God.'

You assume that the Torah is an unsuccessful mediator. I don't know, but if that's what there is, then that's what there is (and on that see the next section).

The Son of God originally in the prophecies of Isaiah was directed at the people of Israel, will you now cling to the nation as Rabbi Kook suggests in order to reach God? I'm ignoring the pagan aspects of Christianity (accepting Jesus as God, etc.). The fact that we can think of more successful revelations does not make them true. Ultimately, it's about intuition, as you noted. Intuition does not allow us to cross the gap on our own, but it does allow us to identify whether a claim of revelation is true or not. Meanwhile, neither Christianity nor Islam do this for us. As the proverb says, “He who has tasted Hungarian wine will not confuse it with any other wine,” the Torah is our Hungarian wine, and meanwhile no other wine confuses us.

I agree that certain laws in the Torah are perceived as taking over the mind and therefore God, but this only points to the problematic nature of studying law from the Mishnah and to the superiority of the Gemara author over the Mishnah author (i.e., the superiority of scholarly understanding over simplistic understanding).
The fact that a Karaite, i.e. simplistic, reading of the Torah presents us with a form of the Torah as analytical does not make it so. The prohibition on reading in various books does not really prevent us from investigating ways of thinking, since the validity of the Torah itself stems from its intuition. The prohibition must be understood in a different way. Perhaps as a precaution, mechanical materialistic approaches that lead a person to transgression (like the evil spirit that comes upon a person as a result of dealing with the mechanical aspects of a person such as haircuts, nail clipping, sleep, sexual intercourse, and the like that require washing hands afterwards). And again, one must look. What is certain is that if a person recognizes God in other places as well, such as Kant or Aristotle or perhaps Buddha in his original approach, then there is no prohibition in the matter.

On the 11th of Tevet 15th

To Doron, Shalom Rav,

All of Doron's arguments about the need for a "mediator" between man and God, by virtue of which he argues "which is a more successful mediator, the Torah or the cross?" are the result of the pagan concept that there is a need for a "mediator." The Torah believes in a direct connection. The Creator reveals himself to the prophets, headed by Moses, and gives them the "operating instructions" for the world, and since these are the Creator's instructions, they are eternal because "no man can lie, nor a son of man be comforted."

Any additional revelation - whether in prophecy to the prophets or in the Holy Spirit revealed in the writings of the sages - will not come to uproot the divine will conveyed in the Torah, but rather to add guidance on how to strengthen and apply the principles of the Torah in eternal situations.

With blessings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel

י.ד. replied 5 years ago

You're right, Schl. I clicked my tongue for the names.

דורון replied 5 years ago

Y.D.

It took you three years, according to you, to understand what I want and here it is. In light of your recent words, I fear that you did not quite understand, K.Z.
What are your plans for the next three years?

My claim about a direct (non-mediated) connection with God was not the main point of the argument. That is not what I am building on in the current discussion.
K.Z. The existence of such a direct connection is a reasonable assumption, although it requires more serious substantiation than I can provide here. If there is such a connection, it will be anchored in the concept of possibility: as humans, we face in our daily lives not only actual entities and events but also the possibilities for the realization of all of these. Possibilities are indeed “empty” entities; but to deny the relevance of that “empty” In our lives, we will have to play the skeptic's stupid game.

But as mentioned, this is not the main point of my argument. The main point is in mediation, and I have already explained my argument to the hilt and provided examples and reasoning (for example, in a debate with Mikhi a few years ago about the Torah's opinion on its necessity in possible parallel worlds).

In any case, the model of a Torah from heaven is not really a disastrous model, as I expressed it earlier. It is more accurate to see it as a tragic model. This is a model in which God is contingent on the text that he himself created. As the saying goes, the cucumbers rose up on the gardener.
Therefore, I also have nothing to do with your claims that neither Christianity nor Islam “do this to us” (with the addition of the parable of the Hungarian wine). What is my business what does this or that do to such-and-such an anonymous person? What do I care about the psychological state of the believer? I am concerned with philosophical arguments. There are more successful and less successful ones…

I also don't care if the Torah (or the insights hidden in it) prohibits or does not prohibit reading the books of the species? How does that relate to our discussion? How does your position on the supposed superiority of the author of the Gemara over the conditions that preceded him relate to the discussion? In the same breath, what do I have to do with the prophecies that appear in the Bible that supposedly refer to Jesus? The historical Jesus is completely marginal to the discussion. And even if you prove to me that there was no such figure - human or “divine” - you have not (almost) damaged the explanatory power of the model it represents.

Regarding the last Hasch”li remark. Well, it seems that his honor insists on denying both himself and the Torah in which he believes. In one sentence he introduces a frontal contradiction that he is not at all aware of: According to him, according to Judaism, there is no need for a mediation mechanism, and the Torah also says so… Walla?

In the margins, I will make a comment that is not really related to the discussion, but in my opinion it is interesting. There is a common position that sees the essence of Judaism in memory. Starting with the giving of the Torah, the Jewish people were commanded to remember and to relive this memory throughout history. I tend to agree with this view, but I think that in Judaism there is something more important than memory, and that is precisely forgetting or actually repression. An example of such repression is Shtzel's words. In any case, repression has tremendous vitality, and therefore Judaism is indeed very vital. The one who pays the price, of course, is the truth. “Torah of Life”? Yes. Torah of Truth? Much less…

In the name of the Lord, the Lord has made us a people of Israel, and the spirit of Jacob their father, 10th of Tevet 5771

Judaism does indeed place an emphasis on remembrance. The Torah commands the Sabbath on which we remember the creation of the world and the exodus from Egypt. Even the festivals and fast days remind us of the troubles and hardships that the people of Israel went through throughout the generations.

However, remembering the past is not an end in itself, but is intended to stimulate us to action, as it is written: “That you may remember and do it,” for the purpose of the creation of the world is to make man a partner with his Creator in his nurturing and development, as it is written: “That which God created to do.”

The Maimonides explains the commandment to fast on days when calamities befell the people of Israel by the need to pay attention to the fact that troubles are not a “destiny” but come as a result of sins, and we must awaken to correct our ways and actions, in order to adapt our ways to the will of God as revealed to us in His Torah.

The Tenth Fast came on the day when the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar began, but in our generation this day has taken on additional significance as the “General Kaddish Day” for the victims of the Holocaust. The “Kaddish” expresses the Jewish way of responding to loss. In the “Kaddish” we do not speak about what was, but about what we expect to be. Loss encourages us to strengthen ourselves in anticipation of a better future, in which the name of the Creator will be magnified and sanctified in His world.

The memory of the destruction encourages us to strengthen ourselves in a way that will bring about a resurrection. And Yosef instructs Ay, “Do not be angry on the way.” Do not wallow in the mud of guilt over your past failures, guilt that will lead you to quarrels and mutual accusations. The correction of the sin of sibling hatred will come through the strengthening of brotherhood, and when brothers are united among themselves, “then their father’s spirit will live.”

It is worth emphasizing in this context a point that is perhaps more significant in Rabbi Tau’s method, besides the “gaze of holiness” that Rabbi Lumen emphasized. The unique emphasis that characterizes Rabbi Tao's method is the emphasis on statehood,

On the political level, Rabbi Tao calls for strict adherence to ‘alignment’ with the entire nation, and that even if we think that the country's leaders are wrong in their ways – we must act to convince the rest of the public and not ‘judge for ourselves’. And on the Torah level, Rabbi Tao calls for strict adherence to ‘statehood of the Torah in Israel’, strengthening the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, in which coordination and cooperation are created between representatives of the entire Torah world – Haredim and Zionists, Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

If the destruction of the Second Temple came due to division and hatred – then its building will come by returning to functioning in a united nation.

Best regards, Yaron Fishel Corinaldi

דורון replied 5 years ago

Have mercy on Rabbi Kook. His teachings were indeed a failure from the start (too much sentiment and ”harmonies” and too little self-criticism), but despite this, when it came into the world it served as a bold intellectual option and authentic spiritual inspiration. In the years that have passed since, the religious-national society has grown and prospered, and in the process, its intellectual world has become institutionalized and petrified. Babies who are increasingly being blown away of their own accord. The Schutzstaffel thought is an example of this. Plakat, beautiful, sparkling but so thin… poster.
I confront him head-on with a blatant contradiction in his words, at least in my opinion, and instead of addressing it concretely, he brings me a fiery speech about the eternity of Israel and similar eulogies. I have no doubt that he will succeed in moving the girls of the ulpana near where he lives. On the other hand, it is much more than I will be able to do.

I don't need to repeat myself endlessly. The Torah is the word of God, the operating instructions of the Creator of the world, who, being God, are eternal and stable, and from the stable principles – it is possible to deal with any renewed situation. An idol hanging on the wall, like the one you worship – cannot guide us and teach us how to behave. What to do? 🙂

In my last response, I addressed what you mentioned about the emphasis on memory in Judaism, and I linked it to the main point of the discussion here: Rabbi Tau's method of thought. For the memory of the destruction that came as a result of separation and hatred – leads to the need for broad cooperation and hence the derivative of ’statehood’ that Rabbi Tau calls for

With greetings, Yaron Fish”l Corinaldi

דורון replied 5 years ago

First, based on your behavior here, you probably do think you need to repeat things over and over again. As long as you avoid dealing with the contradictions of things, you will probably continue to do so.

For the benefit of the readers who follow us, I will point out the contradiction (or at least the paradox) in your words again:

“The Torah believes in a direct connection”.

It takes a lot of faith in a person to think that I will receive a substantive answer to the problem I raised. I am not sure that a wretched soul like me has it

דורון replied 5 years ago

Now, the point of the discussion here is not, as you said, Tao's way of thinking.
The point of the discussion is whether Taoism is based on a flawed premise or not.
In Victorian England, such sloppy wording would have earned you a public flogging. Another exciting element you could add to a possible performance in front of the lively Ulpenna girls

You received a letter from God; you received messages and explanations that God gave to Moses and the prophets and they were faithfully transmitted to us by the sages of the generations;

And you received divine guidance: ‘This book of Torah will not depart from your mouth, but you will meditate on it day and night, for then you will make your ways successful and then you will become wise’, i.e.: For every dilemma that arises – you will find a solution by studying in depth the foundations that were given to you in the Torah? You received a promise ‘That God will give wisdom from His mouth, knowledge and understanding’, God's help to those who truly desire to understand His Torah., and in the event of differences of opinion, you received guidance ‘After many to incline’

Do you have a more direct connection with the Creator of the world?

Best regards, P’ Leket

רק הצלפה פומבית? replied 5 years ago

On the occasion of the General Kaddish Day 5771

To Doron – Hello,

I am glad to hear that the Christian propagandists have moved on and are only fantasizing about public floggings for disobedient Jews. In the good days of Christianity, there were a host of torture devices, and at the end of the road, the ’auto de pê’ at the stake.

What to do? You did not succeed, and we are alive and well…

With greetings, the eternal Jew

אגף התברואה replied 5 years ago

You dug, souls.

דורון replied 5 years ago

Compassionate Jews
Is there anyone here who can help the embarrassed Israelis in their distress? The task: to explain to them what the discussion is about and what the criticism of their position is.
There is no need to agree with the criticism or accept it, certainly no need to convince the embarrassed that they are wrong. We are not there at all, yet.
Right now the barrier is reading comprehension.

Sanitation Department, did you hint that you are willing to volunteer?

אגף התברואה replied 5 years ago

The definition of my sniffing nose is tomato volleys. Reading comprehension and fluent writing discussions are for those more advanced than me.

דורון replied 5 years ago

? Nice to meet you.
The tomato sector seems more attractive

Leave a Reply

Back to top button