The first student who got infected at the Gymnasia really was infected by a Haredi person; that's open, known, and famous…

The fact that now people don't even dare say they were out of line, and that if they had been Haredim they would have poured out endless contempt and scorn, puts things a bit in proportion: even though it's true that the Haredim weren't okay, the incitement against them was still greatly exaggerated.

It's a shame that the Rabbi brushes off criticism with cynicism.
Sometimes you have to admit to the lack of proportion that comes from places that aren't rational!

What can be said about the guys at the Gymnasia is that even if they weren't Haredi before – today, after the infection, they are very Haredi 🙂

Best regards, poor and humble in spirit

What's a shame is that this "criticism" is idiotic. No lack of proportion. And I also don't intend to explain.

The Gymnasia did not follow the Health Ministry's safety rules and that's why everyone got infected!!
This is not a case that happened by mistake and in good faith!!
So your evasion, as though this is different from the Haredim, is probably because of serious bias, or an inability to retract your unrestrained incitement against the Haredim!!
The column about the singers was just a bit of truth to prop up the lie.
There is no doubt that if the Gymnasia had been Haredi, they would already have imposed a lockdown even on all the Haredi neighborhoods in between!!
Apparently antisemitism is thriving just as you presented it in your column 290, and what remains unclear here is how it is that citizens haven't risen up and carried out pogroms on the people of the Gymnasia "justifiably"…..

Your lack of argument for why the criticism is idiotic proves you're fleeing from the truth by means of dirt-cheap demagoguery; if you had a logical answer you wouldn't spare the ink on your keyboard and you'd lay it out before your devotees

Tam,
You are putting me to a not-so-easy test. I have imposed on myself, as much as possible, not to censor, and certainly not just because things are aimed at hurting me personally and exploiting the platform I provide for that purpose.
There are some who have already brought me to deviate from that policy, unfortunately. Reading your words, I keep asking myself whether stupidity is sufficient grounds for censorship, especially brazen stupidity. For now I still think not. But trolling is grounds, and you are definitely approaching the danger zone.

The Health Ministry's safety rules were that there was no need for masks.
Then suddenly they changed their mind after two months.
So on the face of it, the Health Ministry is the main culprit in this story, and no other factor.
And beyond that, the Health Ministry spreads information through secular channels that the Haredim don't know, so why are they guilty of anything.

A formal notice to the place.

A bit about my history with the Rabbi.
1. The beginning of my acquaintance with the Rabbi's books many years ago was like a huge meteor in the darkness in which I lived, and it provided tremendous answers to my doubts.
2. I became a kind of devotee, and whatever I didn't understand in the Rabbi's words I attributed to my own deficiency.
3. My rabbis (the Haredim) warned me to flee from the Rabbi as from fire, but I considered them fools and cowards, on the principle of accepting the truth from whoever says it, and if they had something to answer they would answer.
4. The Rabbi's video with Yaron London about "blocks" (it's on YouTube) caused a change in my thinking. Yaron ended the dialogue with one light bit of mockery that pushed aside thousands of proofs… He said something like, "After you finish the Rabbi's wonderful book, read Richard Dawkins's book 'Is There a God?' because usually what you read last is what persuades you."
That made the penny drop for me: a small person like me, and like not a few other small people Yaron was addressing, cannot cope with arguments (arguments בכלל, and especially on matters about which they have hardly the faintest clue) because of their unfamiliarity with these topics, and so they can absolutely think they were convinced and received the truth only because it is the truth, while in the end their own thought process alone is what caused them to reach their conclusion, and in practice they are captive, perhaps even misled. That frightened me. Maybe after all my rabbis were right, and I would pay a price for it.
5. I took a pretty big break of several years in order to abstain from devotion to the Rabbi, hoping that one day I would return (maybe after I matured a little or got a bit wiser; I promised myself I would return), in order to try to examine things as objectively as possible.
6. I returned and read the Rabbi's words thirstily, refrained from commenting due to lack of time, and mainly because I thought I probably hadn't understood enough.
7. (I really love psychology.)
8. The coronavirus era gave me a lot of time that I hadn't had before for reading, and of course the holy site helped me a lot to pleasantly pass the time, but there are laughs and there's enough already, as the prophet said, and in column 290 I felt that there were (apparently) a lot of psychological motives behind the Rabbi's rationality; others thought so too. In any case, I commented for the first time, tried to answer point by point, and got a terribly dismissive and irrelevant response.
9. I thought to myself: when the Rabbi says things that are plainly unreasonable (to a reasonable person) and runs away and dodges the piercing questions he was asked, there were three options before me. A. To assume that interest and bias distort his view, and bring him to genuine identification with his words because of those biases. B. To think that I am a fool and do not understand. C. To think that the Rabbi is a fool.
And as before I assumed that apparently option C was the correct one, and because of that I contacted the Rabbi by phone. It was a good conversation and there were definitely understandings, at least about what the point of dispute was (holy lies, broadly speaking).
10. I continued eagerly reading the Rabbi's wonderful words, mainly in Torah discussions; the Rabbi also enjoyed what I wrote there (there is proof in the columns), only from that point on I had already become a talkbackist – I got addicted.
11. Then came columns touching on the foundations of faith according to Maimonides, and as is known my rabbis ingrained in me that "a poor little heretic is a top-grade heretic" (and in plain language, even a coerced heretic is a heretic whom one lowers and does not raise), and as a student of the Rabbi (no longer a devotee but a student), I nevertheless wanted to understand the Rabbi's words, and for some reason I received no answers, only comments on wording that was beside the point and on my lack of understanding of many concepts. I defended myself by attacking, in a style shaped by the Rabbi's own wording – a bit of cynicism and a lot of bluntness – mainly because I respect him and feel at home around the round table with the Rabbi.
Although for some reason the Rabbi thought I was a troll, I contacted him by email in order to try to understand where my mistake was (in the column about double causality), because again I was inclined toward the third option, that I was probably the problematic one who didn't understand the Rabbi's intention. And for some reason the Rabbi told me by email that he was not interested in talking with me. (That was very strange to me – an obvious ad hominem logical failure; I did not expect it from the Rabbi.) And nevertheless I referred several people I know – including smart people – to the Rabbi's claims and to my arguments (like Yehoshua Inbal and many other fine people, some of them devotees of the Rabbi who apparently prefer anonymity), and they agreed with my claims.
12. As a result, the third option (that I am a fool making foolish arguments) dropped out of the picture, and only the first and second remained: (A. To assume that interest and bias distort his view and bring him to genuinely identify with his words because of those biases. B. To think that I am a fool and do not understand.) And since I do not think the Rabbi is a fool, and apparently no sane person thinks the Rabbi is a fool, my conclusion leans toward A.

So much for the history of Tam, who understands the facts but does not always manage to understand the implications, and tries to understand the implications as the wise man does.

Drawing conclusions:
From then on I took everything with a grain of salt, trying to enjoy the food and throw away the peels. Meanwhile the Rabbi turned me into a complete fool with sharp expressions at almost every response or question. As far as I was concerned, as long as I had made a mistake in wording it didn't bother me, although the Rabbi's devotees (mainly bootlickers) – yes, he has a few – turned me into an object of ridicule, and I swallowed that too. In the end, when there was something to respond to, I got an answer (not always; still, it had an effect), so despite the Rabbi's lack of engagement I continued with my truth, despite the many insults, and the moment I defended myself by attacking I received an angry response from the Rabbi (apparently after a mistake by the Rabbi, which I thought had been done intentionally – deleting a question).
And I asked the Rabbi's forgiveness by email (I am not looking to troll).
But the moment one person (apparently one of his foolish devotees) went even further, in a twisted reverse move, and made me out to be a fool by pretending to be a girl, I realized I had no choice but to switch names from time to time in order to uphold the Magen Avraham that the Rabbi often quotes – so that if there is any substance in my words, they will be heard without the name Tam causing a reaction even before people read what was said.

Bottom line, the Rabbi has the emails behind the names, and therefore the Magen Avraham did not help, unfortunately. I regret that the Rabbi departs from his practice and exposes the person behind the pseudonyms (as here), and apparently the Rabbi's goal is as in the first option, so that by exposing "Tam," the words will take on a different meaning. I say again before the whole public and Twitter: I do not intend to troll. I am definitely not highly intelligent, but it is Torah and I need to learn. I have learned a great deal from the Rabbi and hope to continue learning much more. I do not want to be a devotee of the Rabbi because that is a contradiction in terms, and also because devotion is foolishness.

If the Rabbi "really" knows how to accept criticism, things will do their work; and if not, apparently deep down the Rabbi suffers from an inability to accept real criticism, as also seems from the recent columns that present Yifrah, Mordechai and company in a dismissive way. The tactic works very well on the devotees, and on the other hand strengthens in others the first option, and that's a shame.
By the way, because I like psychology, it seems to me that this is the reason the Rabbi so often attacks the Haredim for being unable to accept criticism – because whoever disqualifies others does so with his own blemish..!!

In the hope that we will continue to receive many more pearls from the Rabbi, with a little peel that will serve as the "galbanum" helping the good fragrance that comes from them spread further afield.
What can you do – the Rabbi is not autistic; nobody is perfect in this world… (the Rabbi there, there)?
Again, this isn't a competition, but the Rabbi won…
(The cynicism is in humor, hoping for a new page.)

Have a lovely rest of the day, everyone. Tam.

Like a meteor*

As the messages progressed, I too recognized pretty easily that it was you. There is a style of claims and of phrasing, and since from the tone it's clear this isn't someone new here, it's very likely that it's you. Even without digging through email.

Tam. With charm.
You were always like that.

Tam, let me tell you how this looks from the side. My impression was that the discussions with you never reached closure. That is, after hundreds of sentences (that both of you wrote), in the next column (or in comment number 8) you start from the beginning. It wasn't even possible to set out the point of disagreement clearly. In addition, in my impression, you wrote a great many comments, long ones, and mixed together a lot of different claims. Such a phenomenon, together with the feeling that no matter how much people write they always remain in the same place, is exhausting. If you personally suddenly had, with God's help, so much free time, then invest it in sharpening and refining the criticism and writing it in a precise way, with maximum attention to the answers and without starting all over again next time. In addition, you didn't miss an opportunity to jab and accuse (I won't go into details here). In my opinion, by the way, a very characteristic example is the comparison between the criticism in those coronavirus columns and the Gymnasia case. If after all the precision and explanations and refinements you still don't manage to grasp the difference, to the point that you stand there waving it like a triumphal banner (a declared violation by a large group, openly, at the height of the distress, decisions affecting everyone without authority, negligent decision-making), then you can understand why certain people might be too exhausted to discuss things with you.
In purely analytical/Torah subjects, you write things as reasonable as the other commenters.

Gnemin.
I have no interest in being a nuisance, and it may very well be that my comments are not orderly enough; I'll try to work on that. I'll just note that your assessment of my comments, both the analytical ones and the others, doesn't make much impression on me because I don't know you or your comments. I didn't put supreme effort into hiding myself to the point of changing my phrasing, because after all these are talkbacks and not Maimonides. But if you "figured me out," huge kudos.

I've already agreed with quite a few people that I'm not in a competition…

don't*

Whether you want to be a nuisance or not is less relevant. The question is whether your behavior is too similar to the behavior of people who do want to be a nuisance. I at least completely believe you that in your opinion you are right, that you didn't get answers, and that you were attacked for almost no wrong of your own, and so on and so on. In my opinion that worsens the problem.

The "assessment" was meant to give you a direction for checking. From the options above, you omitted the correct option (in my opinion): you have biases (and also self-regard that is a bit too high). But the theory is less relevant because it can be checked practically: can you point to a discussion between you that converged – in the sense that at least both sides understood what each one thought and what the point of difference was, and didn't go over it again? If you can find one, two, three such discussions, I'll admit I was wrong. Otherwise – and no matter who is to blame – will you agree that such discussions are exhausting, and not everyone is willing to invest unlimited time in them?

And I haven't even addressed your repeated accusations of low motives (hatred, falsehood, etc.). In that, for example, you were unique; I don't recall them accusing you back. That is annoying. Plain and simple. I'm starting to think that admittedly the Rabbi isn't perfect, but you're pretty close.

Important correction: in item 9 above,
instead of:
option C, which was written by mistake, I meant option B.

Apparently there was a mix-up in my words between option B and C.

By the way, if we're talking about Inbal, he really is smart and talented and knowledgeable and sharp, but with him too long arguments are doomed to fail. If you visited back in those days (Dinozarus, Ve'amai, and various other assorted names) and got into the body of his scroll-like comments (I did), you would see – or at least I saw and got the impression – that he too heaps up all sorts of strange claims, his bow never retreats from anything, very few discussions converge to anything clear in the end, and most sink into a muddy deep of clarifications and clarifications of clarifications. Meaning, even if your level were multiplied fourfold to Inbal's level, you should still know that it is exhausting to conduct such a discussion. And yet, in his analytical articles he is a real and excellent professional (on Three Disputes in the History of Jewish Law, on Brown, on Rabbi Schneur, on the Mishnah Berurah and the Hazon Ish, on Rabbi Greineman, and many more. Also on the Otzar HaHokhmah forum he wrote interesting things, not only under his main nickname named for his book – which I did not study, but I heard praise from several Torah scholars. But since Beit Vaad LaHakhamim was founded, he withdrew to the sidelines there).

Dear Gnemin.
As for self-regard that is too high – indeed, that's an option. I have no way to know; I'm subjective.
As for exhaustion – agreed.
As for an argument between us.

See the column on double causality.
See the series on divine foreknowledge and free choice, and also the column on Rabbi Edelstein; I did not receive engagement with the main claim regarding the Haredim.
And more…

Gnemin.
As for Inbal.
I know him personally; I've spoken with him a lot. I have no opinion about him (regarding the character traits you described), because regarding him too I am biased. In my opinion he is an honest man, but I am subjective. What is certain is that he is humble.
What I read from his books generally seemed reasonable and logical to me, but I am no indication of anything. I am not highly intelligent, not even a little; just a person trying to learn and grow wiser.
His analytical books – one who shines light teaches, I have learned quite a bit. Definitely enlightening.

I asked for references to discussions that were exhausted, meaning ones where in your opinion you got an answer, or at least you can describe the opposing opinion in such a way that there is no point in repeating the question/difficulty/claim again. I'm not talking right now about places where you did not receive engagement. In the column on double causality, will I find an argument that became clarified?

And I didn't say Inbal isn't honest. I don't know him personally, admittedly, but I read a really, really large amount of what he wrote (and not just read), on all sorts of sites and forums and journals. I definitely appreciate him – very much, mainly on internal halakhic subjects and not in the war commandment to fend off every questioner – but it can't be denied that there is something troll-like and exhausting about him (or at least there was. It's been yearsss since I encountered him on forums). That isn't necessarily connected to honesty. Maybe he is personally humble, but there is nothing humble at all in his writing on forums (and that's a good thing). And humility doesn't interest me (it's only an indication; I can judge for myself from the content whether I like it or not).

Let's leave Shuki aside for a moment. He is definitely exhausting.

I didn't notice that you asked for columns where we did reach agreement. For example, column 295 and columns 306/7.
And more.

There are also quite a few in the responsa section

And besides, by the way, I very clearly prefer reading tendentious people. As far as I'm concerned, the more tendentious the better. Let him be tendentious to the heavens, and then he'll find every far-fetched excuse, every possible idea, criticize every tiny detail, and try to persuade. And when two tendentious people argue, that's better for me as a bystander-reader than two balanced people who focus only on the main essentials and in the end all that's left is a discussion about thin gradations. But that's on condition that the discussion moves forward.
But as someone who also debates in certain places, I don't always have the energy to debate in a parasitic way – where each side latches onto every tiny point in the other's words and raises it to the height of celebration, especially if the misunderstandings (perhaps mutual ones) increase in an "exponential" way.

Here is something from the responsa section very recently. https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%91%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa

And see at length in column 293.
You promised you'd retract if and when, Mr. Gnemin; I'm waiting and looking forward to your response.

Going to look at column 295, thanks

It seems that most of the site's devotees would prefer that I disappear from here, and not for your reasons. As far as I'm concerned, not to use cynicism at all – but I used it as self-defense.

Fine, "Jacob" I understand, since there was a "plain man," but what is the connection of "the Gatherer"? In these coronavirus days, dispersal is preferable in order to keep distance, as it is written: "and rescue and healing and relief and deliverance" 🙂

Best regards, the prayer leader

My dear prayer leader.
At this coronavirus time of ours, gathering is possible even without bias by way of the websites, as it says, "And Amalek came by way of the websites" – Amalek skipping over is the acronym of my name – and in response the prayer leader will reply upside down!?, in the language of the people who dwell in Zion.
What can I do, I just don't have it…

I looked at the "responsa section very recently" regarding sovereignty. Nice. A useful discussion that converged. (In its halakhic part.)

In column 295 I didn't get into all the details right now (in the past I read everything there. I can't get into it now because it's too long), but I'm not sure I understood what you're bringing from there. There is a very prolonged discussion there in which the respondent thought he had answered, and in his opinion the questioner keeps asking the same question. I'm looking for successful discussions – meaning a difficulty/claim that is answered with a response or a counterclaim, and it is clear to the debaters and the readers what the point of disagreement is, and maybe they even reached common ground, heaven forfend.

In column 293 there is one of your comments and one response from Michi, and that's it. Did you mean to bring from there an example of a discussion that was exhausted, meaning that you accepted the answer, or that you know how to describe the point of disagreement (and declare that you did not return to it elsewhere at length, though of course one can mention it briefly later as well).

And look, I exaggerated. I am by no means saying that there are no sensible points scattered through your messages, and I'm not saying you're a fool (it's easy to see you're not), or anything like that. I am saying that there is something unproductive in the discussion between you. And the consistent accusation of low motives (as the sole explanation for how someone could think such strange things) is also annoying. The point is that you are not an only child here. And this isn't your site. And you aren't of equal standing. Therefore, at least in my opinion, the duty lies on you (and on us) to distill and sharpen the discussion and strive quickly for closure. And above all, to give the other person the sense that his words were understood and that there is reward for his effort (the easiest way to do that is actually to understand, even if you don't agree). It's not really my place to offer odd suggestions, but as a suggestion – take it or leave it – I suggest you consider the following idea: limit yourself to 1000 words per week on the site. That will force you to be very focused, and at least from your side to strive for closure and mutual understanding of the other's point. Not that I always fulfill the above, and sparks have flown from me too in places of contention (not here yet), but it seems to me that if I felt as you do and still wanted to keep commenting, I would take this path.

By the way, let me tell you one more thing. It is known that every dictator or good CEO keeps a deputy who does the dirty work for him and absorbs the public blame, so that the public can go on thinking that the deputy and his wicked servants are to blame while the dictator and his throne are clean. Here there is no one to do the dirty work for anyone else. Maimuni has no assistant administrators to hide behind with graceful humility. And I'm not saying that the Maimuni here (in terms of general conduct, not comparing anything else) needs assistant administrators, only that one must understand that such an absence exacts a price.

Gnemin, it was a pleasure speaking with you.
I will think about your words and try to take insights from them.
One thing clearly emerged for me from your words: there is no smoke without fire.
Who is the smoke and who is the fire – let the judge judge.

More power to you

.

With God's help, 13 Sivan 5780

To Yankel, the expert on the opening of chapter "The One Who Gathers" – greetings,

From the passage especially associated with you, learn that specifically the innocent one needs superior guarding so that he remains innocent and does not become forewarned. Even in a place where the norm is that most participants do not guard themselves from causing damage in the ordinary course of things, a special duty is placed upon the innocent one to preserve his innocence even from an "unusual wind" and not descend to the level of his surroundings.

And as a Hungarian, I will suggest to you the Hatam Sofer's "tip" for arguments in the study hall.
A participant in a discussion should not aspire for his words to be "a word that will be accepted," because that is almost hopeless. The main goal of argument should be self-examination of one's position against the arguments of one's counterpart, so that if he becomes convinced, he will accept the position of the one who disagrees with him; and if, after listening to the other's arguments, he remains of his original opinion, then he has gained by having his opinion now strengthened more.

In this way the discussion is much calmer, because the debater always finds satisfaction in the fact that the matter is now clearer and more understandable to him as a result of the discussion.

Best regards, the prayer leader

And therefore the debater also cares less if people scorn him or attack him. First of all, he has "done his daily task" in clarifying the issue to its depth.

And secondly, among the site's hundreds of readers, it is likely that there are quite a few whose judgment accepts his words. One should not forget that the commenters are a very small minority within the reading public.

Much appreciated, Rabbi prayer leader.
Still, I'll bring a small link about what I meant in the question about the Gymnasia.

https://www.kikar.co.il/362632.html