A lot of DL Bashing Charedim Lately

The Emes is they were consistant with Torah and halacha always. Nowadays there is a split between Torah and Halacha that Chareidi Gedolim are not really paskening based on critical halachik analysis בעיון הסוגיה והפוסקים nowadays it’s more based on what the frum way of doing it or they can claim דעת תורה but a proper תשובה הלכתית is not usually written on matters of great importance.

“The ones who if you needed a bracha for something and they would be on your list to get a bracha from were all chareidy.”

I think this is incorrect for many people Rav Ovadia Yosef zatzal was big source for brochas and was not of typical chareidi world view. In addition Rav Dov kook of teveriah many go to him for brochos he is more liberal toward the idf. Also Hagaon Rav Hershel Shachter many go to him for brochos as well. Historically Rav isser zalman meltzer famously said that Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Kook davens on a typical mincha more than most people daven on yom kipur. The Netziv was leader of volozin and was a member of chovevei tzion the predecessor of mizrahi/dati leumi.

All the gedolim who spoke and/or wrote about DL, stated that DL is idolatry and heresy. That’s just the facts.
Rav Elchonon wrote in Kovetz Maamarim that Zionism is idolatry, and “Religious Zionism” is religion and idolatry biShituf.
The Brisker Rav wrote, and the Gerrer Rebbe and others signed on, that the DL education is a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah”.

In this web site, in this Coffee Room, there are people
who insult the Dati Leumi at every possible opportunity.

I will not mention their names.

The further back you go, the more gedolim appear to us as Charedim. The same holds true for most Baal ha-Battim. To a certain extent 21st century Hareidim often act like reinactors (i.e. they are really much modern than they seem, but act old fashioned as an ideological statement – note use of modern medicine, modern engineered fabrics, modern transportation, modern printing). Contrast this with some goyim who for example, refuse modern drugs, only wear natural fabrics (made from plants or animals rather than from petroleum, don’t use automobiles, insist on using scrolls, etc.).

No one was “modern” before “modern” times, almost by definition (e.g. Rashi never had a smartphone, Moshe Rabeinu never browsed the internet, the Maccabees never used rifles, no one before the mid-20th century used antibiotics or frozen foods, etc.). To a 21st century person, all the Gedolim prior to modern times appear to be Hareidi.

PS As we are told to go to shoftim of our times and not to previous times, similarly, “modern” is relative to the science of the time, not of future times.

akuperma, if you read mussar books carefully, you will be amazed
by the wrongdoings committed by Jews of previous generations,
back in the days when every Jew was allegedly a Tzaddik Gamur.

David HaMelech had two sons who attempted to KILL him,
and another son who forced his own sister into physical intimacy.

@Chaim87,
You make me laugh!
The Chafetz Chaim walked out? huh?
The Chafetz Chaim, when being shown a piece written by “rav” kook about playing football to build muscles and boys and girls dancing together having the ma’alah of tikun chatzot – afra lepumei, he wouldn’t touch the paper, instead shoving it with his elbow to the floor and shouting – “kook, shmook drook!” Apikoires!

And then you say “Satmar Rebs and briska Rav were very holy and anti DL. But they weren’t the mainstream of klal Yisroel”.

So quite clearly you outline yourself as DL or MO, because, whether you are a satmar chassid or not, a brisker or not, to say they were not the “mainstream” means only one thing, that what you call mainstream and what most people call mainstream is obviously not the same thing.
The biggest lie is that they wer “da’as yachid” (funny thing to be able to call more than one Gadol in the singular term Da’as Yachid).

Let’s get this straight, if you have an agenda here, than yes, anyone who veers from the path of zionist idol worship (or at least in some way seemed to have a positive view partly even), is not mainstream.
But if you follow and want the truth lets go through this:

The Satmar Rav was NOT a da’as yachid for many reasons but two basic reasons:

1) Many Rabbanim, Posikim and Rebbe’s agreed and followed that way, which only after the war was branded the “satmar shita”. before it was the common core belief of most frum, ehrlich, shomrei shabbat in the world.
It was after the Satmar Rav was machriah a big shailah in the form of his sefer Vayoel Moshe, that many Gedolim either agreed that that was what should be followed, or agreed in principle but in certain specific circumstances argued.
Those Gedolim and Poskim who did agree might have not got that much coverage and backing by hamodia or even the opposite (just like the Satmar Rav who during his lifetinme was cursed and mevazeh by so called “frum” news outlets, but became a kadosh once he was niftar), but the fact remains they were Gedolim alright, e.g.
1) The Veitziner Rav – beforhand the Bergen Belsen Rav, who was the main posek after the war in the area of agunot, and his psakim are used in that area until today,
2) The Pupa Rav, who was both a major Posek and one of the first Marbitzei Torah after the war, opening a Yeshiva after the war in the USA,
3) Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld (- before the war), who sent a sheila to the Satmar rav about what the Da’as Torah on “rav” kook is (at the time Rav Zonnenfeld was probably in his eighties whilst the Satmar Rav was maybe in his early thirties but Rav Zonnendfeld felt that he needed to ask him), and the Teshuva is printed in Shu”t Divrei Yoel 131 or 132,
4) Rav Zelig bengis,
5) Rav Pinchas Yungreis,
6) Rav Avraham Kalmanovitch (Mir USA),
7) Vadislaver rav,
8) Tosher Rebbe,
9) Skulener Rebbes,
10) The Bobover Rebbe’s (although in many areas they mostly didn’t publicly speak, besides for Rav Naftuli of Bobov who was much more vocal),
11) Rav Mottele Vizhnitzer (USA),
12) The Brisker Rav,
13) The Chazon Ish,
and the list goes on an on.
(these examples were not gedolim who followed every word of Vayoel Moshe only, but also who generally agreed with the outlook, even if certain specifics were paskened otherwise).

However they are all not mainstream because of their outright anti-zionism, aha i get it, by you zionism is the mainstream? fine then B”H I am not from the mainstream..

Someone needs to write an article on the Zionist rebbes who settled in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and established courts there starting in the 1920s. Among these were the Drohobyczer Rebbe of Jerusalem (d. 1924), the Husyatiner Rebbe of Tel Aviv (d. 1956), and the Sadigurer Rebbe of Tel Aviv (d. 1972). Also, the Bohusher Rebbe and the Pashkaner Rebbe.

Another buried historical artifact is how a Zionist heir to a very large and prominent Chasidus in Israel was passed over because of his pro-Israel stance.

From the fevered rantings of certain Johnny One-Note commentators, one might think that every Rebbe or Charedi leader shared their views.

Rov Elchonon’s zionism and modern day DL are worlds apart.
You look silly and foolish to equate them.

Moderator: There is a commenter here writing “afra lepumei” (“may his mouth [be filled with] dust”) — a severe Talmudic curse — in reference to Rav Kook zt”l as well as attributing an unsubstantiated opprobrium to the Chafetz Chaim zt”l. The person who wrote this puts the word Rav in quotes when referring to Rav Kook. In addition to possessing very bad middot, this commenter is also an ignoramus, unaware that when Rebbe Alter of Ger zt”l visited Palestine in 1924, the first person he went to visit was Rav Kook. Whatever philosophical differences may separate us from other Jews, these great men were veritable angels who deserve our respect, reverence, and our honesty.

This is not true. It is known that the one who said “Kook Shnook” was not the Chofetz Chaim, and unfortunately, a false version of this story has become widespread. It is well known that Rav Chaim Ozer, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, the Netziv, Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rav Elyashiv and many other gedolim respected Rav Kook immensely. While one can question his approach to secular zionism, and follow gedolim who disagreed with him, there is often a Yetzer Hara (seemingly worse today than a hundred years ago) to bash anyone who one does not see eye to eye with. Please see the Netziv in his Hakdama to Bereishis about suspicion of others being tzidokim, apikorsim etc., and the damage such thoughts can cause.

Regardless of his view of the state, the Chazon Ish sent a shaila to Rav Kook a week after his arrival in EY, which provides clear proof that he valued Rav Kook as a talmid chochom. (There is also a verified story about the Chazon Ish standing throughout an address by Rav Kook at the opening of a yeshiva in Bnei Brak.) Let us learn the lessons of Yoma 9b.

@pure yiddishkeit,

Ill start with syaing that your comment is just from a modern day brainwashing’s of whityewashing facts They never taught you the truth because that would change your narritve.
Chafetz chaim: People are very quick to make a stink of one comment that the chafetz chaim said to one person pirvately. And the turth is he didn’t hold of everything R kook did. But FACTS are he walked out of a convetnion in front of hundreds of people for the kovod of R Kook. This is undisputable vs your one on one comment. It was a public display. Furthermore, R Kook shever helped write the chafetz chaim’s sefer (I believe the one about being drafted and fighting). After the Aderes was nifter he asked R kook to help. Thats a fact.

Birska Rav didn’t even have a yeshiva and had maybe 100 talmidum. Stamar compared to aguda was tiny. Sorry the list of gedolim and followers on the other side was tiny compared to what Stamar had. That’s simply a fact.

Now some of those you list who “agreed” are nonsense. The skulner never did such a thing and nevr tooka stand. Furthermore, let me tell you something aboiut the skulner reba’s rebbe. Do you knwo he was a talmud of the Shtfeneshta reba? Ypu probably neve rheard of him because your narrow world only the kaniom were gedolim. But the shtefenshta reba had a picture of Herzel in his study. Again public knoweldge. Everyone knows that the skulner’s rebbe was a proud Zionist. In fact all Rizyhna rebas were proud zionists.

Now bobov : R shlomola disn’t mix in nor get involved in this.

Most of the other gedolim listed were on the badatz so yes they were against zionsim too. Thats true.
Chazan ish was mixed becuase he was pro voting.
The puppa, Tosha reba and vzhnitza are more modern day rabbonim and don’t count as part of this machlokos.

To the commenter about Punivtcha rav and hallel. Firstly I believe on the first year he said. Secondly, The punvitcha rav was a bit of a politican who said things at all times. But if you look at him in his entity you’ll see he was pro zionsim. in 1952 by the big hanchas even hapinah of the Punvitch grounds he had all the non frum left wing cehvra haknest there some were star speakers. The eidah wrote patchkeviln and hung sings all opver the streets of meah shearim against the Punvitcha. The land of the yeshiva is from his best friend back in telz or the breakoff who became frie and an influential knesset member. So yes he was a zionist.

Now here is the thing. We all agree that- “secularism” is bad. And so once the war ended and the state of israel was formed, the opposition and fights became more about how to we deal with secularism trying to be imposed on our torah in the modern day. The question was no longer should there be a state but rather how do we fight secularism? And so in that sense it became more popular and sensible to adopt the Satmar reba shita to oppose a “secular” govt. But in as much as the actual idea of having a state before moshiach and zionsim itself, its not so clear. And you may have a list of what i count 10 or so gedolim. (ike is aid the post 1960 gedolim don’t count) however, i can list 50 that said a state is is the torah way (Not a secular one but yes a state)

HaGaon HaRav Elchonon Wasserman zt”l sorry specifically made his comments regarding the DL/Religious Zionists. He also made comments directly regarding Rabbi Kook.

AJ: His son has no bearing on his father. Do you also imagine he supported coed schools, like your wife attended? You gotta be kidding. Rav Elchonon refused to even step into the YU building when invited, when he was in the United States.

Litvish > one who said “Kook Shnook” was not the Chofetz Chaim

I just wanted to ask whether Chofetz Chaim was known to use such language towards anyone else. I saw his writings about non-religious organizations and his words are sometimes strong but never silly. I don’t know about oral usage, of course.

@Participant
“The color of the shirt has NOTHING, nor does charedism, for that matter. (although both parties use that term), to do with their non-conscription.”

Give me one other explanation for why they are exempt from service?
They are Jews, just like the rest of the country, who are not exempt.
They are Israeli citizens, just like the rest of the country, who are not exempt.
They learn Torah in Yeshiva, just like the Dati Leumi bochrim, who are not exempt.

So if you can find me any other difference between the Charedim and the rest of the Israeli population apart from cultural self-identification, I will withdraw my statement.

Good luck.

There is no question that in terms of ehrlichkit many of the hesder boys are just as ehrlich and torahdik as ponvitch. Its simply ignoring the facts if you say otherwise. Now there are fair questions such as

1) Is torah protecting us and maybe its wrong for charedim who are learning fight at all? Or maybe the Hesder approach of mixing the two is correct. Both sides are torhadik views.
2) What about the securlairm of the army? Hesder boys have a strong system and upbringing that enables them to insulate in the army without being affected. Can charedim do the same? They don’t have that kind of background nor do they really have a system set up in the army like hesder. They also won’t be sedning the strong leraning boys to the army and only the “weaker” boys will go
3) What about the chasdim? You can’t set up a system in the army that satisfies all of Ger’s takunas etc.

Then there is the ideology.
1) Is zionism and the idea of jews having a state against the torah and its views? Sure there is a list of gedolim and tzadkim who were anti zionism albiet mostly hungarian jews and a minor few ltifish like Briska rav and R Elchnonon. But then there were just a ton of rabbonim (too many too list) who were Ok with zionism too. Mizrachi was even initally part of agudah. So both are the torah view
2) After 1948 and the medina was founded. Now the question of whether we should have a country is no longer a question. Now its how do we deal with the secular threat since its a secular state. Here you now have an interesting turn. Big rebas like R Arela Blezer and the lubvatcha rebas who were previously very against the idea of a statehood now said this is the reality lets be part of it once its here. Meanwhile other rebas who were perhaps more zionistic like the rizyna rebas moved towards the “right” realzing that yes we should be part of the govt but at the same time now its no longer a question of “joining up” with them for the ideal of a state. We got the state and we will be thankful but now we have to watch our from secularism.

And thus its two distinct question. Jews having their own statehood many gedolim held yes. Now how about the secular threat? Thats where charedim and hesder went differnet ways on how to build those walls. But again both follow our torah

@lies2power
How damaged is your soul that you have to contrive stupidities to protect your lies?

The Tal Law exempts full-time Yeshiva students from military draft. The law does not differentiate between the various labels of Judaism, nor their shirt colors.

So there you have it. Yeshiva students do not fight in the IDF because they are full-time yeshiva students.

Why do Hesder yeshiva boys fight in the army?
Because they [or their yeshivos] CHOOSE not to accept the exemption. Were they to attempt, based on the Tal law, to not fight they would [have] succeeded.