Thank you, Rabbi.
I definitely know that the Rabbi “opposes” this or that kind of censorship,
and that’s also how the Rabbi always answers this question.
That’s not what I meant (about the content of his comments).

I mean on the technical level: he floods every good plot of land here
and really harms the user experience (UX).
Usually a lot of smart people gather here,
and it’s genuinely interesting to read their back-and-forth with the Rabbi,
and he responds to almost every comment without being asked, making the commenters look ridiculous and spamming the forum,
which makes it very hard to sort out his replies and ignore them—especially in the format here, which generally already makes reading flow challenging.

There is a need for free expression (even if it is pointless),
but why stretch it out when the goal is known in advance?

On the other hand, he presumably represents a lot of people, and in some way he does important work, and in my opinion—surprisingly, and without irony—there is something good and useful in that.

To the recruited choir—greetings,

The problem with “Tam” is not his lack of substance, but precisely the fact that he grounds what he says in facts and solid reasoning, accompanied by links to relevant sources,

His arguments require a substantive answer. And that’s why they really are burdensome, but grappling with them and trying to find substantive counterarguments—that is what creates the “user experience.”

Blessed are you, “Tam,” for having been caught over words of Torah…

Regards,
S.Tz.

It comes to teach and ends up learning.

The problem is that the Rabbi doesn’t just “consider” deleting my questions, but actually does it. I’m aware that some of my questions in the “Haredim” series are hard to answer, but still, it seems to me it would be worth making a bit of an effort…

Shuki, you could have made your ugly request in a private appeal to the Rabbi. Publishing it publicly here testifies more than a thousand witnesses to your flawed personality—and the donkey in the story is you, not Tam. If you had bothered, you would have found substance in what he says, and even if not—go to others prettier than he is and zap onward. Your user experience is irrelevant, because just as the Rabbi wrote about The Jews Are Coming, may its name be blotted out—if it bothers you, you don’t have to look. But it’s not fun for you, it doesn’t make your back feel nice, that Tam goes on at length on the aristocratic stage where you come to refresh yourself. Well, wonderful. So find a way to contact Oren or the Rabbi and whisper to him about it. Right now, for the filth and human nastiness that is dirtying the site—you, Shuki, are the sole one responsible. It’s utterly disgusting to see the character assassination of a person you don’t know and who you just don’t like the look of. Why am I getting involved? How am I different? Both because I know him and because, unlike Tam whose intentions are good, you are just bad all day long. “And he said to the wicked one: Why do you strike your fellow?”

What is wrong with you, Gil? These things have been said to Tam across the whole spectrum, from subtle gentleness to explicit bluntness. If the goal isn’t achieved even with blunt wording, then by rights the wording should be intensified, and the complaints should be directed at the one who is at fault and has it in his power to stop this danse macabre. I also assume that Mr. Shuki wrote this specifically here in order to criticize Tam directly. And I’m not talking only about the contents, which are loaded with embarrassing errors (at least in my opinion), but about the exaggerated gap between the quality of the argument and the degree of bluntness he uses (again, in my opinion), and yes, also about the status differences and the fact that the site is not entirely a public domain. The only point I see in his favor—aside from the reasonable assumption (which in my opinion is irrelevant) that his motive is basically positive, to defend the oppressed and prove their justice openly to all the naive—is that he presumably serves as the mouthpiece for many others who understand and think as he does and just refrain from writing.

gil, I agree with you completely. Shuki revealed his true ugliness here in this question.

And to you, Shuki: only you asked this. Do you know the Talmud in tractate Pesachim? There Rav Yosef asked: “If not for this day that caused it, how many Yosefs are there in the marketplace?”—for there are many people in the market whose name is Yosef. But someone like you, Shuki? There aren’t many with the name, but there are many in the market. I’m ashamed that you are even part of the Jewish people that I’m part of.

And I’m writing this even though I’m totally not in favor of the Haredi public.

You’ve both gone crazy, A. and Gil. Someone who thinks Tam writes sensible things—that’s one matter. But someone who thinks that the ratio of errors to reasonable content is exceptional in his case, and therefore the absolute number of errors is exceptional (since he publishes a lot), and is phrased in a grating way (it’s grating only because of the gap; someone who thinks serious things are being said there will of course think the phrasing is fitting too)—what kind of logic is there in the idea that because of politeness toward him, he should go on feeding people rotten fish? Total confusion between pursuer and pursued. In every forum and every corner there are bores of different shades who spam in huge quantities (maybe someone still remembers Atzbar, of blessed memory too much, from endless discussions on The Well-Read Ayal and elsewhere about mathematics), and someone who has concluded that so-and-so is an excessive bore—and especially if in his view he is not alone in that opinion—absolutely ought to say so. All this apart from the point I mentioned before, that presumably many think as he does and think there is great substance in what he says (I personally don’t think so), and therefore he deserves space.

I only agreed with him about the question itself and that it was done publicly, that’s all. There’s a way to do everything, and this isn’t the way. You don’t need any verse for that; it’s basic humanity.

With God’s help, 7 Elul 5780

To A. and Gil—greetings,

In my humble opinion, however unpleasant it is for a person to see people demanding that he be blocked, there is also an advantage in that a public demand allows him (or others) to speak in his defense and show that there is substance and value in what he says.

However difficult and harsh the discussion here was, it also arrived at certain understandings—for example, the insight that even things that some person thinks are absurd and pointless still have value insofar as they represent the views of many readers.

That is the advantage of a site open to stormy arguments: it is like a “marketplace” where one can find all the currents and shades, the simple one and the provocateur, the wise one and the one who does not know how to ask, and all of them “sell” and “buy,” challenge and dismantle, hear and make heard, innovate and are renewed.

With the blessing of a “cheerful market,”
S.Tz.

Completely unrelated to the discussion in the thread—Rabbi, could the expression you meant be “troll”?

Presumably he meant this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Exactly.

Dear Mr. Shuki, first of all let me wish you congratulations on entering the pantheon of victors, although there is no competition here at all, at least from my side—congratulations.

To tell the truth, now that I’ve seen your beautiful and stylish question, Shuki, and presumably the conformity of the site’s readers, I hesitated whether to respond. I’m not a man of wars and I don’t see value in that. Given your sharp style, nothing I write will help appease your anger. So my response is not for you, because you, as stated, have already won! I’ll also note that I represent no one but my personal opinion. My Haredi brothers simply don’t think it worth responding to every bark of the latest resident sage against them; they wait for him to finish and then just flush the water… I, unlike my brothers, deeply appreciate the Rabbi’s wisdom, and that is how I explain to myself his phobia that heaven forbid he should agree with something Orthodox together with the Haredim—that he is indeed human and not an angel; yes, he has biases, and it’s a real shame that he doesn’t believe in psychologists. Apparently he’s afraid of being perfect.
And yet the Torah commands, “and you shall be clean,” etc.
So I decided to gird my loins like a man and enter this swamp. And to use this platform after all to explain why people like dear Shuki feel anger because of what I write. And since this is also my moral duty as an act of gratitude to the Rabbi for all his columns and answers that are unrelated to the above phobia, so that he should not think I have any interest in trolling away his precious time—I’m only trying to present a mirror image.
And I will open with today’s Daf Yomi as a kind of Torah thought before the lecture. And because of the overload, I ask forgiveness that I haven’t fully edited things and haven’t attached endless links as proof—sorry, but I didn’t have time to make it shorter.
In today’s Daf Yomi, Eruvin 18b, the matter is explained of not saying all of a person’s praise in his presence. (So I will spare you my many praises of the Rabbi’s talents. Ahavat Yisrael on Parashat Vayelekh writes that more than a little of a person’s praise can cause him to deteriorate from his righteousness, and the Maharal writes that one who exaggerates in praising him appears to be doing so in order to gain some benefit from him. So the reason of Ahavat Yisrael alone is enough for me to avoid causing the Rabbi to deteriorate from his righteousness and humility, and according to the Maharal’s reason, I have no chance anyway… so even self-interest is gone.)
In any case, the Talmud learns this from Noah: not in his presence the Holy One, blessed be He, called him “a righteous and wholehearted man,” while in his presence He called him only “righteous.” And seemingly one should ask: “righteous” instead of “a righteous and wholehearted man” is half his praise, so why then does the Talmud learn from here that one says only part of a person’s praise? The answer must be that when not in his presence, the Holy One, blessed be He, called him “a man, righteous and wholehearted”—meaning that “man” is also a virtue. Therefore, when God praised him in his presence only as “righteous,” without “man,” it turns out He reduced two-thirds of his praise, and so we learn that in his presence one says only part of his praise.

After we have learned that being “a man” is a virtue, it follows that not everyone is considered a man; there are those who are not even humane.
And for our purposes, what pained me recently was the presentation of my beloved Haredi brothers—whom I too criticize—as if they do not even possess the virtue of basic menschlichkeit, basic human decency.
And here I am convinced that this stems from a deep and rooted agenda against them, and this is important for me to show here on the site, both to the learned readers and to the Rabbi himself, in the hope that he will come to his senses and understand how desperately these things cry out. The Rabbi has written more than once about great figures, that their greatness lies in the fact that they are people, not angels. One has to shut one’s eyes very, very tightly not to see the agenda embedded in his keyboard—or alternatively to share that same agenda toward this precious public. I proved this in several variations with links: whenever something is done in Haredi society, all the Rabbi’s talents go into high gear in an amazing apologetic mode and do the work for all the agenda-driven people who aren’t good at it. The Rabbi has never really answered mirror images of phenomena that exist in other societies besides Haredi society. Every presentation of such a fact was met with abuse and disdain, whether the one presenting the fact was Tam or whether he was wise. Beyond criticism deliberately focused on Haredi society, the Rabbi frequently strengthens bizarre views just because they are the opposite of what is accepted in Haredi society. See his last ridiculous column on The Jews Are Coming. The obsession to write against, and the phobia of agreeing heaven forbid with a Haredi opinion in anything, apparently causes him in some subconscious way this strange behavior.
Only in the last column mentioned above, I asked innocently: why is Abramovich’s blood redder than that of Moses, and of the Holy One, blessed be He, and of every average religious person? And when the answer was (after plenty of people pouring out slops on me, of course) that holy Mr. Abramovich is still alive, and he also did army service, this all-blue-tallit fellow—and then I asked again: how are the Neturei Karta people different, who mock soldiers by hanging their effigy as a parody of wicked Haman, and no house here fails to be shocked over four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs, and every publicist seeking ratings repeats his annual shock over the desecration of holiness, and of course a delegation of soldiers is sent to remove the horror, and severe indictments are written—and, as expected, the question received no answer. (Parenthetically, I’ll say that my claim was not that Neturei Karta behave properly, but that those who criticize them should also criticize The Jews Are Coming.)

And I’ll give a tiny thought experiment as proof that smart people, including the honored Rabbi, are misled by cursed agendas.
And I’ll attach here a fragment from famous Column 290, in its attack on a certain society that causes harm to the entire people dwelling in Zion—but the players have been changed, and right now this is not about Haredim but about some cute anarchists with an anti-Bibi agenda like the Rabbi’s; everything changes as needed. (Ah, and one more thing: a few days before that column, in Column 284, the Rabbi came out against the kindergarten teachers who staged an Italian strike, when kindergarten teachers and caregivers announced they were sick and didn’t come to work. And the Rabbi wrote that everyone understands that essential services are not shut down, and there no one thinks to complain that his blood is less red than that of others. One also has to understand that essential services are not only services meant for life-and-death situations. See there at length.) And it is a shame, because in this tragic way we have no agreed-upon and known-in-advance rules of the game—as a society, as a collective, as different groups trying to bridge disagreements. The interpretation of the law (on the part of his friends sitting on Salah al-Din Street), and his sharp criticism toward Haredi society, is a rigged game. The Rabbi is not the only player in the attempt to shape consciousness and to purify the creeping creature when it suits the agendas, only that in his case the obsession is mainly against Haredi society. For example: look, just the new and lenient guidelines from yesterday regarding violence by anarchists in protests—which, miraculously and coincidentally, came out specifically during left-wing protests against Netanyahu, and not during Haredi protests for example. It’s just that the judges are the real bosses here in the country. (The Rabbi simply isn’t in the position that determines laws; what can you do, no one is perfect…) Mrs. Esther Hayut, Dina Zilber, Uzi Vogelman, Mandelblit, and Nurit Litman (who signed the new guidelines). Here, for example, you don’t have to be Haredi; it’s enough that you belong to the Religious Zionist public. Let me remind you of the well-known and clear procedure: road-blocking in right-wing protests during the disengagement? Mass arrests, threats of 20 years in prison by Attorney General Mazuz, and Supreme Court rulings explaining that the right to protest cannot disrupt people’s lives; likewise in every Haredi protest.
Road-blocking in left-wing protests? Empathy, effusiveness about the right to protest, practical immunity from indictments, and glorification of “the heat of protest” as part of the very foundations of democracy.
Column 290: and now we come to a tiny piece of criticism in light of the coronavirus crisis—if the Rabbi’s agenda were not against Haredim but against anarchists:
These insane demonstrations every week—no one asks who will answer for all those who will die (and have already died) because of the value of holy democracy, right and left, religious and non-religious, who continue and will continue infecting others at an exponential rate (they know what that is, of course; we’re not talking here about illiterate Haredim)? What about the indirect damages from the hysteria created here along with the economic uncertainty? Do they forcibly want to cause us another lockdown?! And what fault is it of the yeshiva boys who worked so hard to arrange the Elul term in capsules, with a normal Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur without unnecessary restrictions?! And what about the overload in the hospitals (the failure to flatten the curve) that has been and will be caused by this scandalous conduct? Who will answer for the reckless life-and-death decisions that were made with unbearable ease by intelligent judges from the left, from within a stupid worldview and disastrously pregnant stupidity? And who will answer for the terrible division in the people (and justified, this time) that has been created because of this? Who will answer for the miserable elderly shut up frightened in crowded homes and cut off from communication in nursing homes everywhere?
But the great wonder in my eyes is that striking the breast in repentance is not so common in the liberal world itself. (Despite holy pluralism.) There are certain buds of it—Libskind and company, for example—but self-examination of the roots of their worldview and way of life hardly occurs. (Though in my estimation there is also no chance for a blessed break in that world following the events; after we calm down a bit, in the end the Breslovers will be the guilty ones.) It certainly doesn’t happen publicly and in an orderly way. The mantras about “the values of democracy” continue to be proclaimed in the streets of Tel Aviv and in all the strongholds of the media with the same infantile pathos as before. Whether it’s Razi or Rino or Abramovich doesn’t really matter; the enormous distortion, the whining and crying about the Breslovers who want to go to Uman, and the constant petting of the naked anarchists in Balfour, seem like a norm that cannot be criticized. No wonder that on the roadside the wild-man anarchists from the State of Tel Aviv continue their rampage against the legal system; there are no restrictions on parties and hotels that lead to things like the rape of a minor by these cream-of-the-earth types. (Though in La Familia there does seem to be some moderation. Apparently even madness and extreme stupidity like theirs have some boundaries; in the end the coronavirus overcame their love for Bibi.)
For example, here is what an honest and brave journalist writes:
Meni Mautner, Haaretz, Tuesday, 2020.9.31
It was impossible not to recoil in horror (yes, literally so) at the sight of the television report showing how President Hayut, leader of the radical left stream, decided not to limit the demonstrations as the second wave intensified. Several young anarchists petitioned her and said: “Madam, they’re stealing our democracy. Give up holy anarchy for the sake of our democratic heart’s desire?” “No,” ruled the 74-year-old woman in less than a second. The young people turned around and passed on Mrs. Esther’s instruction through all the peace-seekers’ groups, and the black flags protest began proudly. People are collapsing economically and mentally, but if there is no democracy, what is life worth to us?!… There are many problems with the process by which that fateful decision (yes, fateful) was reached. Speedily, without considering or hesitating, and looking at reality from within deep fanaticism embodied in belief in one value, democracy, and mainly from within hatred of the other side of the agenda—an inability to contain other values and take them into account. But the main problem with that decision is the lack of solidarity embodied in it toward all the other citizens of the state. For because of the protesters’ reckless behavior, in the end they—who do not properly follow the Health Ministry’s instructions—will fill the hospitals in their masses and clog them in a way that will prevent treatment for all of us and even for the Haredim who obeyed the instructions. In that there will be not only a lack of solidarity, but also injustice. Much has been written in recent decades about the lack of solidarity of the radical left who do not enlist in the army; after all, pacifism, like democracy, is a value no less important than enlisting. That lack of solidarity is expressed in avoidance, in omission. But leftists who do not keep the Health Ministry’s instructions and gather in masses display active lack of solidarity, in deed. Their active behavior endangers the lives of many others—innocent Haredim and non-Haredim alike—not because of the fear of infection, but because of the possible clogging of hospitals. True, one must always beware of generalizations, and one must remember that the left, like any human group, is divided into many subgroups, and the vast majority of those subgroups obeyed the isolation directives. But one cannot avoid thinking about the reckless way in which the left’s leader, Mrs. Esther Hayut, acted, and of course with the full backing of former chiefs of staff and other learned people, and all the media outlets. And one cannot help but think also about the subgroups among the leftists—even if they are minority groups—that even at this relatively late stage still continue to act in ways that violate the instructions, with the full backing of a media that embraces them and accompanies every violation of business as usual.
Of course, these events will go on to harm the blessed processes of integrating Haredim into the institutions of civil society and politics. What can you do—it doesn’t project seriousness.
But the greatest hallucination is that Mr. Gamzu saw fit to throw all his weight into saving us from total loss of control, on a marginal group of Breslov Hasidim whose heart’s desire is the trip to Uman.

If that’s not an agenda, then I’m not Tam…

Main thing is that we should all have a lovely weekend and a lot of Good Shabbos,
Tam.

(By the way, seriously—if someone wants to talk and offer criticism, feel free to contact me through the Telegram group.)

(I’ll just note that I am not the one referred to here as Shuki. If you didn’t think so, ignore this correction.)

Shuki is the owner of the present question.

One more thing I forgot to mention: in most of my arguments I used examples in order to illustrate the general principle, but the subject was the general principle and not the examples. I’ll note that I usually tend to choose strong and stirring examples—some would say extreme—because such examples allow the point under discussion to be sharpened more. The trouble is that most of the responses (almost all of them) did not deal with the principle but with the examples. Most people argued with me over the comparison between Haredim and Abramovich and the like, and much less over the question whether the media is hypocritical and whether its goal is for the good. The same every time I showed the other side, whether with the rape in Eilat or with Gamzu and the Breslovers; and in the criticism here too, discussions were conducted solely about the wording and the bluntness, not about whether the content is correct or not. And no one discussed the question of whether and how it is right to judge a person who acts according to a disputed position, even though that is the main thing I do here—I respond to a person whose whole life-force is his disputed position. I must admit (and not because the forum here is almost entirely male), that in my experience such responses are more characteristic of women than of men. In my experience, women have a tendency to avoid abstractions, and when I bring an example for a general principle they tend to latch onto the example and not the principle. (Sometimes they get hurt or angry and would like to block me—thus it is proven.) Even when I try to explain that they should leave the example aside, and even if it is not successful it only comes to illustrate something, it is very hard to persuade many of them to do so. Somehow with men it is easier. They tend more toward abstractions and discussions of theoretical issues. Here on the site it turns out to me that men are like that too. For some reason the theoretical, abstract, and general issue gets almost no attention. Usually the examples—perhaps because of their extremity—take up almost the whole screen. (But this happens not infrequently also with non-extreme examples, because of a prior agenda unfortunately; the thing is apparent in the trolling that aligns with the agenda—see Benjamin G. and company.) It may be that this comes from interest in the examples, and that is completely legitimate. It may be that people don’t notice the principle because of the examples (especially the extreme ones) and the lack of precision in wording. (After all, this is a talkback, not a book that has to go through editing.) And it may be that people are just not interested in abstract principles. That seems strange to me. My words are not meant, of course, to belittle comments about an example or examples. To each his own areas of interest, and all should be blessed for the discussion and responses of every kind—yes, Shuki, including you and your angry friends. Especially if a discussion of the examples can also illuminate the general principle (exactly as I meant to do by bringing the example in the first place). But still, the overall picture—that is, the proportions and the lack of attention to the general principles among all the responses—calls for explanation.
Have a great weekend!

With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, Ki Tetze, 5780

To Tam—greetings,

Regarding your statement that this is a “talkback” and not a book requiring editing, in my humble opinion quite the opposite. A book is intended for readers prepared to devote time to analytic reading. “Talkbacks,” by contrast, are read by impatient readers—impatient both with the writer and with the content of what he says. Therefore, the shorter, clearer, and more goal-focused the words are, the greater their chance of being accepted.

With the blessing of a good Sabbath,
Shatzayushi Levingara, a talkbackist from Tokyo

Your words about men’s tendency to use examples explained to me why in Jerusalem there is a “Model School for Boys” and not for girls 🙂 Indeed, bringing Torah examples is something that requires study. Not for nothing did I study for eight years in the “Model School” in my childhood :)n

And I think our own S.Tz. sought out the pursued and identified with him, because he is used to being attacked here on the site.

Our S.Tz. simply agrees with what he wrote (“pursued” is the wrong word). He thought he would deign to honor us, and in my opinion, again, it came to teach and ended up learning.

To Mana—greetings,

Our S.Tz. does not necessarily agree with Tam’s words or with his style. Just now our S.Tz. finished a response in the topic of “the beautiful captive woman,” where he argues with Tam.

Our S.Tz. also defended Shuki against the attacks of Gil and A., because in his opinion Shuki was right to attack his opponent publicly and thus allow him to defend himself, which is preferable to a complaint “behind his back”; and no one will suspect our S.Tz. of agreeing with Shuki’s opinion.

Our S.Tz. made clear his revulsion at the “recruited choir” attacking whoever holds an opinion not to the liking of those who think of themselves as the “masters of the site” and its watchdogs, as H.Z.B. rightly wrote.

However, in the matter at hand, our little Tzeli appreciates Tam for bringing and linking to relevant sources that contribute to the discussion. For that reason, our S.Tz. is also grateful to some of his blunt attackers, for exposing him to a source he did not know, thereby enriching and developing his knowledge.

Regards,
S.Tz.

Pfffff.