Thanks for the reply.
So—
1—As someone who in the past studied in several of the Kav yeshivot (Mitzpe Ramon and others), and on the other hand is a person whose soul longs for broad horizons and intellectual integrity, I can say that there is a huge gap between the things they are trying to convey to the broader Israeli public and the meaning those things actually receive among the public. Of course, the style of discourse contributes to this, but not only that. The underlying intellectual foundations really are different, and if you know them from the inside, things take on different proportions and a different meaning (almost completely). What do you know about their attitude toward women and toward education? Have you ever actually sat and listened to what they say, and not just to what you think they mean??
Have you done this with anyone other than the media, which takes things out of context and is astonishingly tendentious??

The claim that homosexuality is an illness is like saying that cancer is an illness. It is a statement relating to a natural phenomenon that exists. An illness is something we regard as harmful and destructive to life, and every society defines what is harmful to its life and what is not.
There is a real problem in expanding and laying out the intellectual ideas (deep ones, it should be said) that produce the negative attitude toward this phenomenon in the mass public sphere, because that sphere is used to hearing only snippets of thought, and anything that requires some ability to hold a broad account in mind unfortunately no longer makes it through the screen. This is a problem in a culture that casts this group in darkness, not that they are dark.

2—You said you identify inconsistency in their doctrine, in that on the one hand they say the world is ascending and the trend of holiness is increasingly becoming clarified, yet on the other hand they speak and act differently. It is evident that you do not really have the faintest idea what their doctrine actually is. A bit surprising, in light of the impression that you cannot stand empty and unfounded declarations.

3—You said these people obey and admire a man (Rabbi Tau) who doesn’t understand what he is talking about—I’d appreciate an explanation.
After all, you don’t really know how to explain what he says or what the roots of his outlook are—so how do you know he’s living in a movie? Just because you don’t like the style? Talk about substance, not style.

And one more thing—the esotericism of Jewish theology, which calls on a seemingly marginal and tiny society within the world population to lead everything toward one particular purpose, does not prevent you from demanding that people listen and deal with it honestly and substantively, even if that creates mockery and contempt among the listeners.

To reinforce Yehuda’s point, I join the above.
It is evident from your words that you do not properly know their doctrine.
As someone who knows you through your books and writings found everywhere, and likewise I know that same Jew who is “living in a movie,” I have to say that you do not reach his ankles. There is no belittling of you here, Heaven forbid, for I value you very much, but rather a very great appreciation for that Jew.

Yehuda and Shlomo, you are completely right 🙂
From Column 19:
“First, I do not have a deep familiarity with the phenomenon of Har Hamor and ‘the Kav.’ It does not seem especially important to me, and therefore I have not dealt with it. So what I say here should be seen as general impressions meant to provoke thought. The other side of the equation as well, the sectarian phenomenon, is not in my area of expertise. I have not dealt with that either, and so I do not feel like an expert on the matter. Still, I feel there is something to these points, and indeed, let the experts come and correct my mistakes, or alternatively support them and formulate them more precisely.”
That is just before defining the Kav as a sect.

I too, in my small way, join all the above,
and I too, as someone who values you very much, Rabbi Michi, and thinks he knows more or less the main points of your doctrine and your respectful attitude to Jewish law,
wanted to ask why your words here do not constitute slander, since these things you wrote (here in the answer and also in the famous Column 19 🙂 ) certainly do not meet all seven conditions written by the Chafetz Chaim (such as describing reality accurately and without exaggeration). And again, truly out of appreciation (if I didn’t value you, I wouldn’t bother commenting).
Have a kosher and joyous Passover holiday.

Rabbi Michi does not accept the seven conditions of the Chafetz Chaim because they have no source whatsoever.

I would be very glad if the Rabbi would respond to these points… his opinion matters to me, and his silence….

I have nothing to say in response to declarations. I know enough to write what I wrote.

Success to our rabbi..

Can I ask why you get upset that they call LGBT people “not normal”? After all, a norm is ultimately just a matter of statistics; a religious person is also not normal. I don’t understand what is so infuriating about that.

I don’t know who this angry person is that the comment is directed at; I still haven’t seen anyone getting angry at the Har Hamor people. I’ve seen people surprised, I’ve seen people chuckle, I’ve seen people mock, I’ve seen people scorn, I’ve seen people wave them off with a dismissive hand motion, I’ve seen people laugh, I’ve seen people sigh over the degraded generation in which the Kav people live—but getting angry at those clowns, that I still haven’t seen. Maybe I’ll yet merit to see it.
As for the matter itself, your words are cheap feigned innocence. They don’t call redheads or Kav people “not normal.” Words have meaning beyond the dictionary definition.

Yehuda, by all means, I’d be happy if you’d tell all of us about the “deep” ideas taught in the Kav against LGBT people. There is here, after all, a group accustomed to learning systematic and comprehensive things, not just snippets of thoughts.

I’d be surprised if there are such ideas, but here you have an opportunity to present them, even under a pseudonym.

The attitude toward LGBT people (and it is important to note that it is not directed toward the people themselves but toward the underlying idea and its roots) is only one projection of an entire and extensive outlook on life (and perhaps I will go so far as to say: of a theology)…
It will be hard for me to compress these things into a form orderly and clear enough for someone who does not know the mode of thought from the inside, and all the more so for someone used to a somewhat different mode of thought. I invite you to a more personal conversation where we can examine the matter more accurately and seriously.
Of course, one can disagree with the basic assumptions that produce the practical position, but it is definitely a conception with inner order and systematization, which is not what appears at first glance. As a start, you are invited to read Rabbi Oz Bluman’s thesis, “The Return to Metaphysics,” which deals with the thought of Rabbi Tau and its foundations. (But be patient enough to listen until the end :))
I have to say that the contempt evident in your words toward this study hall “somewhat” reminds me of the shallowness and narrow-mindedness that many people (including you, apparently) attribute to it (and perhaps justifiably)…
Just a point for thought…

Do you have a link?

I’ll jump into a discussion that isn’t mine and on a topic not directly related, and say that from my impression Rabbi Tau is a very deep person. I looked through Oz Bluman’s thesis and also read about the man and his background. Besides that, he operates within a decidedly comprehensive, original, and serious Kookian “paradigm.”
True, in the final analysis my opinion of the basic pattern of thought is very negative, as far as I understand it, but to say that he is not deep seems to me a bit problematic.

Why is it interesting to give the man grades? Deep, clear-eyed, a plastered cistern that does not lose a drop—what difference does it make? By the way, Mr. Shoshani was probably also a wise man.

It really isn’t interesting.

M—I’ll send it to you by email..

To Doron—by the way, I think a very important distinction should be made between Rabbi Tau himself and his students (and even more so his students’ students).
Rabbi Tau himself (like several other leading rabbis of the Kav) has an impressive broad education in philosophy and thought in various languages.
I studied in the Kav for several years, and harsh criticisms awoke in me regarding the intellectual rigidity that characterizes this study hall, but afterward I understood that mostly this is only the students and not the method.
One must understand: Rabbi Tau presents a thought whose finished and explicit part is very unequivocal and very certain—in an extremely fluent language, as if heard from the mouth of the Almighty. These things grant stability to the soul, and what happens is that very many students (I don’t want to say most), among whom there probably truly are people with simple souls that do not strive for integrity on the intellectual plane and lack the courage to examine their beliefs, are captivated by its charm. And so an association is created between “Kavnik” and narrowness and cowardice. But that does not mean that the roots of the approach are devoid of systematization and courageous engagement with approaches not its own.

Yehuda,
First of all, I see that my familiarity (limited indeed, but enough to identify the central tendency) with Rabbi Tau’s “method” is thanks to you… you are the one who sent me Oz’s master’s thesis.
But the criticism is not so much directed at Tau as at Tauism.
The problem with Tau’s method—though in my opinion the problem with Judaism in general—is that it is necessarily gripped by the text of the Torah and grants it a status that comes at the expense of God Himself. The “holy writings” (the Jewish ones…) are supposed to serve as the Archimedean point for consciousness as such, and this “methodological” demand is, in my opinion, a grave flaw in the entire worldview built on top of it.
I have not delved deeply into Tau’s negative attitude toward the phenomenon of homosexuality (it seems to me that his struggle is not so much with it as with the intellectual-value spirit behind it—which he surely interprets as idolatry).
But in any case, I have trouble placing trust in an idea that grants too much metaphysical weight to phenomena that are mainly “earthly” (the Torah itself), and then uses that invented metaphysical charge to color social phenomena like homosexuality.

In any case, the best test in my opinion for evaluating systems of thought is how much they allow self-criticism. I am not speaking about the author of the method but the method itself.
Does Tauism allow one to call into question the “metaphysical” status of the “holy writings”? Does the method allow one, on the basis of such an assumption, to reach conclusions different from the ones it reached?
I would be very surprised if so.

To this is added a relatively marginal argument but one that still has weight: to what extent does the author of the method himself actually allow criticism of his path (and of the entire path of Judaism) by his students? From what I understand, even from your words, he does not really encourage his students to go in that direction. If that is true, then trust even in the man himself, despite his proven abilities, does not really hold up.

I think there is a real problem here that is difficult to solve.
On the one hand, there is the straightforward and legitimate demand to allow our positions to stand the test of criticism and to be prepared to go with whatever conclusions emerge—which is minimal integrity, without which we arrive at the phenomenon spreading in our circles of dogmatic and empty beliefs.
But on the other hand (and since you said you looked a bit at The Return to Metaphysics, I trust that you will understand what I mean here), this very demand itself is founded on the assumption that our cognitive tools as they are right now are qualified to serve as the measure of what is true and what is not, and it begs the question by assuming there is no other cognitive framework more qualified for that.
Whereas Rabbi Tau’s method explains that it is impossible to examine these things only within the framework of the existing cognition. And not because there is cowardice or intellectual rigidity here, but because in his view putting things to the test of ordinary criticism is not “scientific,” since there exists an additional cognitive framework that demands development and exposure, and within it we measure more correctly what is true and what is not.
Therefore the negative judgment of his approach, on the grounds that it does not allow (and does not educate toward) putting things up for criticism by our existing reason, actually ignores the very thing he is trying to explain.

But on a third hand, it seems that the burden of proof is on him, and therefore it is hard to take his words with the proper seriousness, since they are apparently equivalent to Russell’s teapot.

I truly do not know how to solve this loop (which at least arises for me because I do not suspect Rabbi Tau and his thought of shallowness and lack of understanding regarding the complicated issues involved).

The negative judgment of his approach**

Yehuda, there is no problem here that cannot be solved. In fact, you yourself already solved it in your last response, and it is not clear to me why you portray it as though there is some kind of “loop” here with no way out.
The world is full of “methods” of smart people (and also people who are less smart) who are full of genuine critical thinking—until it reaches their own doorstep.

On the contrary, even if we accept Tau’s claim (or anyone else’s), that there is an additional and more “elevated” cognitive framework than the natural and ordinary one, that still does not validate the method. After all, the claim itself about a “higher” cognitive framework is formulated in “natural” language and with tools of logic accessible in principle to every person. Especially when we are dealing with someone who is expert and skilled in Western philosophy and himself tries to defend his method by means of “natural” arguments.
Let Tau kindly explain in natural language why his own method is more “elevated” (or even why the Torah is more “elevated”).
good luck with that

P.S.
And see recently Michi’s series of columns on the supposedly hidden abstract layers of the Torah.
Michi’s position falls into roughly the same failure.

Apparently we’ll remain divided..

Possibly. I still think that you mainly disagree with yourself, at least according to your previous response.