In my opinion, the right way is to challenge and raise difficulties against every idea that comes up. Not to try to prove things, but to refute them. You think something, and then try to refute it or raise objections to it. If that can’t be done, there’s a good chance it’s true. But of course you shouldn’t dismiss out of hand controversial things for which there is no clear evidence against them; rather, set them aside.

With God’s help, 24 Sivan 5782

To Yishai — greetings,

The distinction between “rational thinking” and what is not is simple: whatever makes sense to me is “rational,” and whatever does not seem right to me is not rational 🙂

In the end, there really is no escaping the fact that a person must weigh with his own mind what is logical and what is not. Even so, one should be careful not to reject too hastily what does not seem convincing at “first glance.”

What can save a person from a hasty and superficial decision is trying to apply the “principle of charity” even toward an opinion that does not appeal to him.

Usually, a careful thinker will discover that even in opinions he disagrees with there are logical and justified aspects, but they are mixed together with mistaken considerations. Therefore, they should not be accepted as they are, without refining and clarifying the sparks of truth from the dross of error.

So, for example, Korach’s view that “the entire congregation are all holy” contains a great deal of truth. Every Jew should feel that he has something unique in which he is the “great one of the generation,” and in which he can innovate and contribute. Korach’s mistake was that the uniqueness and importance of each individual is not supposed to stand in opposition to Moses’ leadership. On the contrary, on the foundation of the Torah of Moses, each individual can “find the letter” that is uniquely his.

Best regards, Yekutiel Shneur Zahavi

This was the way of the House of Hillel, who would state the words of the House of Shammai before their own. The Hatam Sofer explained that this was not merely a matter of politeness, but a sincere attempt to understand the reasoning of the opposing view as well, מתוך a willingness to accept it if it were found to be correct. In this way, the view of the House of Hillel emerged strengthened, since it became clear that the opposing line of reasoning was not foreign to them, and yet they still ruled differently.

In short: the attempt to understand the opposing view as well enables a person to grasp the full system of complex considerations, and therefore the decision is more secure, since it comes after deep deliberation of all sides.

Best regards, Hillel Feiner-Gluskinos