Anti-Zionists Criticized in Matzav Inbox

@ HaKatan

You wrote: However, anyone can easily see that the establishment of any state before Mashiach comes is a violation of at least…

No, obviously everyone cannot see that. Your proposition is based on a number of premises which we do not accept. I will spell these out for you.

You claim a violation of (8) The belief in the divine origin of the Torah

This is premised on a claim that the Torah clearly prohibits the establishment of a state so to do so must reject the Torah is of Divine origin

First of all, even if I grant you (and I do not) that such a clear prohibition exists, I submit that the very notion of the 13 ikrim per the Rambam is that one can transgress a particular prohibition and still accept all the Ikrim (including that the Torah is of Divine origin). I am aware that this point is debated in philosophy but that need not concern us here because we are learning the Rambam (not points of dispute in Platonic and Aristotlian epistemology, l’havdil).

You claim that this clear prohibition has 2 reasons:
Establishing the State violates the 3 oaths
Establishing the State embraces secular nationalism (and is therefore kfira or a”z)

The grounds for rejecting reason 1 have been amply provided in multiple posts on this subject so I see no reason to rehash them here.

Regarding Reason 2. I understand that you think that Judaism is a religion and that our common ancestry from the Avos, Lashon HaKadosh, and the land of Israel are merely incidental to our Jewish Identity. However, here your position disagrees with R’ Yehuda HaLevi (Kuzari), The Ramban, and the Maharal. Take note that I do not claim that there are no Religious Zionists who embrace secular nationalism. My claim is that it is not necessary to embrace secular nationalism to embrace a Jewish national identity based on classic sources.

Furthermore, it is not actually necessary to embrace a Jewish national identity to endeavor to establish a state. One can adopt a religion-only Jewish Identity and still do so. This is because, providing that there is no prohibition in establishing a state, one might have practical reasons for so.

This is all I have time for at the moment

@Always_Ask_Questions

In a Secular Marriage aka Civil Union the “wife” is halachically a penuya which results in non mamzeirim. When they are forced into a Halachic marriage which is an institution they don’t respect it’s more likely to create mamzeirim.

Since the attention span is small, I am resorting to simple posts.

There is no obligation nor source that we need “sefarim” for something to be al pi torah. Mesora is even stronger (especially if its not a halcha question rather hashkafa at best). You also don’t need what modern day calls a “gadol” to decide. A mesora based on multiple tzadkim are just as strong. And if the mesora is backed by actions and eyewitnesses testimony of course that keeps it going.

We have strong tzadkim in Rizyhin that all held zionsim not secular zionsim but zionsim is based on the Torah. This is cahsdisu with thousands of chasdim and tens of tzadkim.

haktan = somejew cannot deny rizyn’s mesora

pekak > In a Secular Marriage aka Civil Union the “wife”

an interesting point. What would be in Israel without Rabanut weddings? Would they be in the same state as Americans and Russians? Maybe different as Israelis will have less problems with intermarriages. Still, do you NOT think it is a good thing that millions of Jews were married correctly? I am not talking about some card-carrying communists who addressed their sheva brochos to Stalin, but about normal Israelis who have certain Jewish feelings and will cherish the memory of their wedding thru the years, maybe affecting them and their children through their life.

Incidentally, status of publicly known long-term marriage as non-marriage is not that pashut, even as it may be pasken l’kula. Also, when was R Moshe’s teshuva on non-recognition of non-O marriages issued? I think somewhere around 1970. Not sure it affected non-religious weddings also, but if you are thinking as you were in 1950 – you could presume that in the absence of Rabanut non-O marriages will be eventually imported and become a problem.

@hakatan

None of the rabbanim in mainstream Orthodoxy .
None . [maybe some extremists within satmar]

1] Have ever declared wine touched by a fully frum believer in athalta d/g as Yayin Nesech .

2] None have ever declared kidushin formed with the edut of a fully frum believer in athalta d/g as invalid .
None have ever declared subsequent kidushin to the same kalla by a strange man as valid and binding .

All mainstream rabanim would not require a get , even lehumra , from the second mekadesh.

They would ALL , totally invalidate the second kidushin , on the basis of the validity of the first kidushin.
Which is valid only b/c of the edut of our fully frum athalta d/g believer.

3] EVEN IF OUR ATHALTA D/G BELIEVER IS AN EX SATMAR HASID WHO ONCE KNEW THE ‘TRUTH’ AND CHANGED HIS HASHKAFA.

So much for halacha’s acceptance of the so called ‘heresy’ of athalta d/g.

For contrast – lehavdil , if our ed for the first kidushin would be a fully mitsva observant conservative jew , or a fully mitsva observant member of Jews for “j” , it is clear that all Orthodox rabanim would invalidate the first kidushin and need a get from the second one.

Which gives a clear illustration that even those who do talk about ‘heresies’ , do so in a theoretical manner only , but not in practical hahacha manner.
Leharchik et ha’adam …
Etc .

Maskana lehalacha :
Athaltah d/g is not heresy.

CHAIM87:

The fact that R Kook was pro zionism is no chiddush, he was always a standalone gadol in the matter as well as many other matters regarding the issue. Even though his hashkafos werent accepted by the bulk of frum, and for sure bnei torah, the gedolin were machshiv him for who he was. His hashkafos werent ever simple either, some things he said were taken too far by those with an agenda desperate to find a gadol to pin their shittos on to. These things that he said were came from someone who was living in the holy kabbilistic realms and wasnt necessarily in touch with many of the ramifications of the things he said. But even that aside, he was a daas yachid in hashkafah

Regarding R Elyashiv, just because he sat on a beis din that was goreis the state doesnt mean he supported it, he for sure didnt have a satmer outlook but that is true for most gedolim after the state was created. In fact it is the exact opposite, R Elyashiv had a clear chareidi approch to the state as is clear from his family(R chaim kanievsky, the steipler, chazon ish and r yitchok zilberstein – his son in law) confidents and letters. When R Elyashiv sat on the BD hagadol it was all chareide and yarei shamayim all qualified to judge properly. He even stepped dowm when a certain person was appointed av BD who didnt align w the chareidi world in psak and hashkafa.

Their is a common mistake made about R Shlomo Zalman, many think that just because he had a more warm and accepting mehalech that means he was a major zionist chas vishalom, just take a look at his sons and sons in law, R shmuel and R ezriel are strong anti zionist with r shmuel even nearing satmer territory, he raised his children with a charedi mentality and its clear from anyone who knew him that he had those hashkafos. I personally met R avigdor nevinsal shlita, his talmud muvhak and longtime chavrusa and he mentioned to me that the famous story about him telling bachurim to go to har hertzel isnt even confirmed as true, likewise r yitchok kolidetzky told me that the story is ” sheker vichazav” but even if the story was true that isnt a contradiction to chareide hashkafah.

I could go on about all the things you made up about gedolim but I’ll just mention a few proofs against you
r yitzchok kolidetzky also told me about the steiplers hashkafos agaist zionsim and look in his sefer “kreina diigrisa” and its abundantly clear.
he also mentioned to me that the letter from r ahron leib is forged, and similarly a big well known posek told me he spoke to him bisof yamav and that he lamented on the forged letter and put out letters correcting his possition, and this wasnt even on zionism but on non learning bachurim going to the army.
It is also true that as soon as the state was created R shraga feivel reacted closer to positve, however after a few years when saw what happend he was opposed.

Also I wouldnt bring proofs about zionism from what one gadol said 6 yrs before the state in a ghetto in ww2 when everyone thought this was gog umagog

-come on, really?

@hakatan

Regarding ikar 12 –

How is establishment of medina a denial of mashiach ?? Why can’t they both exist ???

He still yearns for and believes in Mashiach who will restore the Bet hamikdash , metaher klal yisrael and meishiv them bitshuva, take away the lev even mibsarhem ,bring back malhut bet david , take away the nations’ hate of the yehudim , bring the shechina back down to this world and the kiyum of all of the nevu’ot of the nevi’im.

and in the meantime, while he awaits and yearns for all this , he brings parnasah for his family … and he governs himself too.
Does that HAVE TO BE contradictory ???

How so ?
.

@ HaKatan

You wrote: Non-Political and all the other Zionists

Nothing in any of my posts would indicate that I am a Zionist (I’m Non-Political 🙂

You wrote: If you don’t like my explanation of how it is obvious, then you’re welcome to find anyone who argues with the Brisker Rav (and all the others)

I think you should go back and re-read YB’s last post a couple of times. You need not bother with my post, I don’t think it will help you

Have a wonderful Shabbos

I’ll just say this again. There is no rule that sefarim are needed to support an issue of hashkafa. Only people who bully make up their own rules . (And then of course discredit anyone who did write what they don’t like)

Mesora is just as much of a proof if not more than sefarim. And similarly one story or vort may not be proof but tens of stories told by thousands of eyewitnesses over and over again establishes a clear proof that’s greater than a Sefer. Henceforth all of rizyan who were gedolim

Chaim:
You can repeat that as much as you’d like, but it doesn’t make it any less false than it is. Your interpretation of actions by Rebbes has zero relevance when compared to black-and-white sefarim by the greatest gedolim that Klal Yisrael has had in the past century.

If you want to be honest, you can take those sefarim to those rebbes and ask them if they disagree. Looking forward to hearing how that goes.

Square Root:
It’s in the Brisker Rav books by Rabbi Meller; I don’t recall chapter and verse, but you’re welcome to read those and find it there.

Yankel Berel:
It would take very long to respond to all of your posts, and you could just resolve this easily by speaking to an LOR.
But Zionism and its “State” are heresy, idolatry and remain no less of the same today as they always were, as all the gedolim stated and as is obvious to anyone not fooled by that idol. The only thing that changed was the tactics in dealing with them.

A response about the 3 שבועות:

If our disputants look at כתובות 110-111, the entire subject is derived from שיר השירים. We do not derive Halacha from נ״ך, also known as דברי תורה מדברי קבלה לא ילפינן. If our disputants learned any גמרא, they know this. I will be דן לכף זכות that they aren’t so mindnumbingly stupid as to argue otherwise. Our disputants therefore need to find another source for banning moving to Israel before Moshaich’s arrival that is sourced in הלכה, תושב״ע, הלכה למשה מסיני, מפי מסורת or the תורה itself, not נביאים or כתובים. Their only resort is to insist on a divine decree akin to that in ירמיהו 27:22, which also happens to be in the relevant section of the בבלי. But that isn’t a strong enough argument considering the source being נ״ך.

In addition, that section of כתובות is clearly אגדתא or מדרש אגדה. We do not rule הלכה based on אגדתא or מדרש אגדה per the above maxim.

So the premise has major problems to begin with.

Rambam doesn’t mention the 3 שבועות anywhere in his writings other than in אגרת תימן, where they are referred to as being metaphorical, not actually binding. In fact, a simple reading of the relevant הלכות in משנה תורה does not line up with our disputants’ position. To get to our disputants’ position, we would have to intentionally misread the הלכות and אגרת תימן to reflect positions that are simply put, not there.

We can also argue that even if the 3 שבועות were in fact binding throughout most of Jewish history – and it indeed appears to have been the case, considering the long, bitter גלות since חורבן בית שני – they are now null and void due to the Holocaust. That horrific treatment by nations of the world was an absolute violation of the oaths on their part; per the Shulchan Aruch, we no longer need to maintain our part. The Maharal’s commentary on כתובות also applies here.

Those are strong arguments in our favor.

I will also point out – and this is after learning ויואל משה, that the author himself says the שבועות are metaphorical and not actual oaths, yet he still argues it is essentially heresy to leave גלות before Moshiach’s arrival.

Sorry, that’s a really weak argument, בלשון המעטה ביותר.

Our disputants’ primary source admits the שבועות are metaphorical and not actual oaths. Ergo, if the oaths are indeed metaphorical and not actual oaths, then they don’t apply, and at most constitute a stern warning or food for thought. Certainly that is the case if they are אגדתא or מדרש אגדה. If they aren’t and are instead binding Halacha, then the only questions to be discussed are whether they are currently void or not, and how to act based on such. Our disputants argue the שבועות are not void. We argue otherwise or lean in the opposite direction. But even that argument is moot because the State exists. Both positions are valid, but the trajectory of history is בלי עין הרע tending to show that our disputants’ position is increasingly untenable. אי״ה ובלי עין הרע that shall continue, and our disputants will eventually repent.

Second, essentially being heresy is not actual heresy. Leaving גלות before Moshiach’s arrival is not heresy, especially if you consider Rambam’s position in משנה תורה. It doesn’t violate any עיקרי אמונה despite the insistence that such does. I’d like our disputants to prove such, something they have avoided doing up until now. Quotes from REW, Brisk or Satmar without any explanation or expansion thereupon are inadequate, and may be considered simple hyperbole to keep students in line.

To those who consider this heresy and will invariably call me a heretic: You can answer הקב״ה for that accusation after 120. “כל הפוסל במומו פוסל” applies to you.

That’s all I have time for at the moment.

while i dont usually get involved in this squareroots comment abou the satmar rebbe disturbed me- the satmar rebbe was an extremly great man who was accepted by all the gedolim, yes you are obligated to listen to the satmar rebbe, you may have another gadol whom you follow but you still have to listen to the satmar rebbe, thats like saying i dont have to listen to r’ ovadia yosef since im not sefardi

@ard

Don’t try to strawman my argument.

I didn’t misuse anything. בבא קמא is the precedent I’m using. I am well aware of how the כלל is used. The oaths originate in אגדתא, which in turn is derived from נ״ך. Vayoel Moshe aims to issue an entire Pesak Halacha surrounding Zionism that is partially based on a subject not Halachik in nature. I’m saying that’s a problem, and pointed out issues with it. Note that I am only addressing the three oaths. I didn’t even get into “מסית ומדיח” and the charge of Religious Zionists being guilty of actively worshipping עבודה זרה (a ridiculous accusation to be sure).

You may not want to admit this, but it is in fact a weak argument to claim something is not a true, enforceable oath, and at the same time argue anyone who doesn’t follow such is a heretic who should be punished by divine decree or worse.

Either the oaths are real or they are not. If they are not real oaths, then it appears it was a matter of Jewish history and our general position which prevented us from returning to E”Y. If they are real oaths, then the question is whether they are in effect or not. If they are still in effect, then I would have expected the entire State to R”L be annhiliated already. Modern history seems to imply that the oaths may have been permanently abrogated by the nations of the world during the Holocaust and other past horrific events (i.e. the Inquisition, obliteration of the Rhineland communities during the Crusades, etc., the progroms in Czarist Russia), which would mean that we are absolved of our side of the oaths. That would mean HKB”H does not necessarily consider the existence of the State to be something heretical.

And again, the author of Vayoel Moshe himself admits the oaths are metaphorical. Do you really not see the issue here?

Even more than that, there has been a constant trickle of Jews returning to E”Y prior to the massive waves of Aliyah in the 19th and 20th centuries, the most notable being תלמידי הגר״א. If the oaths were real, enforceable oaths, that would not have happened. Unless you want to claim it’s a national oath not incumbent upon the individual. However, at a certain point, a critical mass of Jews would have constituted a violation and a calamity R”L would have occurred. Do you really believe HKB”H is waiting for all Jews to return to E”Y just to R”L wipe us all out for violating oaths that are metaphorical in nature?

All this is a question for Satmar and their ilk to address. They have not in any meaningful manner. The response is instead “You’re all heretics for disagreeing with us”.

As for “who are you call a gadols shitah a “really weak argument”? Nice try appealing to authority. Do you really think I’m the first person to “upshlug” Satmar?

You can call me a kofer if you want. However, if you do so, you’re not going to be forgiven before next Yom Kippur unless you find a way to contact me in real life to ask for forgivemess.

Let me ask this, which Square Root already asked you: Do you think the Satmar Rebbe was greater than the Rambam?

TD;DR:
We do not rule Halacha based on אגדתא. There is therefore a major problem with the oaths being treated as authoritative Halacha, as Satmar does.
Do you think the Satmar Rebbe was greater than the Rambam?

@ard,
What does “accepted “ mean? Many people did not accept his ideology. It’s a fact that even klausenberger Reba Zya who was indisputably the one who brought klal Yisroel back to yiddishkit in the DP camps, greatly contested the holy Satmar Reba Zya as did many others. It’s revisionist history to say the Reba was accepted by all. There were many differences at the time. Unless you just mean “accepted” as in a leader that was respected enough to sit on the Dias and to listen to.

@ ard

You wrote: which ikar emunah does someone violate by calling you a kofer

Since you seem to be accusing SR of being disrespectful towards the Satmar Rebbe you probably meant to call his an apikoris not a kofer.

Second of all, the fact that a Rav of a particular community is held in high esteem by other Gedolim does not mean that all of Khal Yisroel must learn his seforim or follow his psakim and hadracha. And one certainly doesn’t have to follow the psakim and hadracha of his Chasidim. Asserting this obvious point, as SR has done, is not apikorsis.

If anything you ought to be more concerned about the blatant disrespect (both expressed and implied) coming from the other side.

@SQUARE_ROOT

“ Another problem with Satmar is:

They do not live in Olam HaZeh; they live in their
own little world, that excludes everyone except them.”

If you indeed live in Olam HaZeh as you claim you are susceptible to Olam HaZeh problems such as illness (lo aleinu). As such you or a family member can need hospitalization. You are certainly welcome to turn down the delicious home made meals.

[Hakatan to YB]
It would take very long to respond to all of your posts, and you could just resolve this easily by speaking to an LOR.
But Zionism and its “State” are heresy, idolatry and remain no less of the same today as they always were, as all the gedolim stated and as is obvious to anyone not fooled by that idol. The only thing that changed was the tactics in dealing with them.
————
Repeating rubbish does not make it any less rubbish.
Even if you keep on repeating it like a robot.

If you want to have a semblance of a reputation , the way to start is … to offer a refutation .
Or an attempted refutation at least.

Ignoring so many open proofs against your shitah , risks of giving the [mistaken ?] impression that you DO NOT HAVE a real answer …
.
.

zsk and others- first of all, i dont have a side in this argument and i never called anyone a kofer (look at my post, i was asking how someone who was calling you a kofer would be one as you indicate through “כל הפוסל במומו פוסל”) my point was you cant say that about the satmar rebbe. and you did not show how you used the klal correctly

and my point about listening to gedolim was that beetzem you have to listen/accept/follow to anything that comes out of the mouth of a gadol. UNLESS you have a mesora/gadol saying otherwise. square root said “Since Jews who are not Sephardic totally ignore Sephardic Rabbis, Jews who are not Satmar should totally ignore the Satmar Rebbes” the idea of totally ignoring a gadol is very twisted

@ard

Per my above clarification, “כל הפוסל במומו פוסל” is in reference to those same individuals I mentioned, those who continue to denigrate and slander the R”Z community despite being proven otherwise. It was more a rhetorical point meant to preemptively stop those individuals from doing anything other than responding to the substance of the arguments and questions raised, as well as to make them consider their words before firing off another round of false accusations. Considering such, it should be obvious I was not referring to the Satmar Rebbe.

As for the Klal, yes, it was used correctly. Please reread what I wrote.

@chaim87

as i’ve said before: Jews follow the Torah, i don’t know or care what strange religion you follow is.
I didn’t write the Shulchan Aruch nor Vayoel Moshe nor the gemaras and mishnayos that underpin their teaching.

Any child can their rav “do I have keep shulchan aruch?”

any masis imadiach can say “well, rabbi, that’s what YOU say! haw haw haw!”

somejew,
I am not 100% sure that you are right about Gedolim required to prove everything they write. They typically do, but when application is to something that did not exist during Sh’A times, as it often is, that proof also refers to modern facts and also to often intuitive considerations. But, more generally, we are commanded to listen to judges of our generations. And there are circumstances (some listen in Gemora) where a psak can be given on purpose without a reason, at least temporarily. The weight of such pronouncement would depend on speaker’s reputation. So, if R Moshe says something without fully explaining his reasoning, you would weight the fact that majority of his psak is accepted by the community and take it into consideration.

I am also not sure how this relates to the debate here: most poskim in our times indeed explain their reasoning, whether they are pro- or anti-zionist. For example, R Soloveitchik explains his approach in the following way (my paraphrase): we are claiming that we inherited Hashem’s Torah and have unique insights in how world is run and how Jews and other people should behave. Therefore, we should address issues raised by changes of the society with our Torah knowledge instead of “hiding in the caves” (his expression).

This explanation convinces me. It also, in my mind, leaves space for others to say that their priority is not to engage with the world, but to preserve their Torah. Maybe it does not convince you, it is fine. I would be interested what fault you find in this argument.

Fact is and remains [as mentioned before]

Not one Rav [ranging the entire gamut of Orthodoxy considers wine touched by a frum believer in athalta di’geoula as Yayin Nesech.
Not one.

That suffices. It is an hashkafik issue. Not a halachik one.

Athalta d/g is NOT HERESY AL PI HAHALACHA.

Period.
.