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.