- This topic has 244 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
a good tziyur for what im saying is if lets say the ben ish chai told you personally to do xyz, you would have to listen unless…
@somejewiknow
Thats right and if a tzadik says it’s the Torah then that’s what it is . So if rizyhin says this is the Torah that supports Zionism then that’s what it is.
Re shluchan aruch, I told you this isn’t a halcha question. Jews follow the 4 chelekim of shulchan aruch for halcha and the 5h one for hashkafa. That’s what this is. Its source is from Gemara many that were quoted here. But a tzadik need not qoute the Gemara or defend it. If he is a tzadik that’s enough. And if ten all say like him that further enforces it.
Vyaol Moshe isn’t a world wide accepted hashkafa. That was the Satmar Reba opinion. He isn’t the shulchan aruch . Other tzadkim can argue and they can argue without answering him or proving . They can just say they argueSo to conclude no rizhin isn’t a made up Judaism . It’s Torah Judaism and Zionism is In our Torah.
@
yankel berelBullies make up their own rules. Some Jew decided that it’s halcha and there is shulchan aruch. And if you argue you need to defend yourself in Sefer. And then he decides who is good and who is not. He makes things up.
Our Torah tells us with hashkafa you listen to your gadol and it need not be that he says a thesis from Gemara. If he is a tzadik and a gadol that’s enough. (Of course there are plenty of answers that they have but some Jew won’t accept that, so let’s keep it simple and say when a tzadik says a hashkafa thing that’s what it is)
Chaim > It makes you wonder if perhaps a bully tactic of spamming is being used.
I admit I never saw them together in one room. But I think they are 2 different humans, just happened to have drank from the same source. If they tell us how is their rosh yeshiva, or their rosh yeshiva’s rosh yeshiva, you can then go and talk to the latter and see whether he actually holds everything they do or they misinterpreted their teacher. One of them is actually responsive to the arguments. but you can try asking chatgpt.
Somejewiknow and HaKatan are likely different people. HaKatan is most likely the reincarnation of a user who used to post here called Joseph. He and that prior user both have/had Neturei Karta/Satmar leanings, if not being outright supporters of such. His arguments tend to be the same statements we’ve heard on this forum before (quoting REW, SR, GR, Brisk, etc.) and from every other Charedi organization. Most unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any substance to those arguments, because there is no elaboration thereupon (by the way, the Aguda engages in the same tactics). That was the reason why I wrote those long winded posts – to attempt to force a substantive, material response. As of yet, neither one has answered substantively and I suspect they won’t. “מסית ומדיח” and weak arguments from authority is probably all we’ll get from them.
Somejewiknow, based on his responses, is most lkely a knee-jerk reactionist Satmar Chossid (his constant use of “מסית ומדיח” makes this fairly clear). FWIW, I suspect he posts on Reddit under a similar sounding name (with the same writing style).
I don’t think either one of them are using bullying tactics. Their tactic seems to be continuing to repeat variations on the same thing until you lose your patience, at which point they look sane and you look loopy for losing your patience.
On a different note:
@somejewiknow – If the statement “any masis imadiach can say “well, rabbi, that’s what YOU say! haw haw haw!” is directed at me (and I suspect that is the case), well, a few things: (1) That’s an ad hominem attack – now try arguing substantively (you have not done so yet); (2) what I said about you and HaKatan answering to הקב״ה after 120 stands; (3) again, you’ve demonstrated an inability to deal with the various challenges raised against Satmar and those like them in this forum.The R”Z community has provided lengthy תשובות, שיעורי תורה וכו׳ regarding Zionism. They provide all the reasons for “deviating” (as you would call it) from the “established” precedent and norms, even though they don’t have reason to do so. You just ignore such because you don’t like it – and because your Rebbe’s שיטה insists that such opinions are heresy.
Answer Non Political’s question about רב שלמה אבנר or רב אליעזר מלמד. Let’s add רב רימון and the ראשי ישיבה of ישיבת מרכז הרב. I suspect you would question the Torah they teach, as well as their legitimate authority.
To be even more blunt (and keep in mind the internet doesn’t forget): Would you consider wine I’ve touched, or wine that others who are R”Z have touched, or wine that those who have disagreed with you here, to be יין נסך? Answer the question. Yes or no will do. That will tell us everything we need to know. Keep in mind that such a thing has never happened.
my last statement was a response to chaim87, and that is why i address the response to him at the top of that comment. However, I wasn’t per se claiming he is or is not a masis imadiach, rather I was pointing out the obligation specifically to follow what the torah teaches as is well established in our mesorah, as shas and poskim.
to reiterate, Jews are obligated to keep that Torah. Not because it was taught by a specific person, rather because that is what Hashem told us to do at Sinai. Now, there is much to add about the obligation to listen to certain established authorities, most obviously Moshe Rebaini. So too the aforementioned shas and poskim. But, the point I made before and would expect any Jewish person to agree with is that the authority of those authorities is specifically because they are teaching the Torah that G-d gave us at Sinai.
I don’t understand why you wrote “try arguing substantively (you have not done so yet)”. Is the above not the most substantive thing?
Regarding the specific authority of the Satmar Rebbe. There are two parts to that conversation: 1) the authority of the previously established Torah he mentions and 2) the authority of his own established expertise and/or influence. As outlined in SA, a “Gadol” is someone who is greater in expertise and/or influence (students). A “Gadol Hador” would be someone who is the top-tier in his generation as per that mesure. Again, this is not me, this is Shulchan Aruch.
While there is indeed an argument to be made that the Satmar Rebbe has significant expertise and influence and would be considered the “greatest in his generation” by either of those measures. I don’t hinge my argument here on that, if only because it is not a necessary point to the core of the argument. Additionally, by framing this conversation that is really about Judaism vs clear heresy as a conversation about the Satmar Rebbe dishonestly turns it into an argument over shitas or schools or whatever.
The sefer Vayoel Moshe is explicitly a halachik sefer that was written (as per the author) for all of klal yisroel. That being said, if we ignore the authority of the author, we are still obligated to the sources he brings and perhaps obligated in the authors conclusions.
It goes without saying that the Satmar Rebbe didn’t say anything novel ,neither in his sources nor in his conclusions, as there is much documentation of his points in earlier works. However, what he did (attempt to) do was distill the halachik axios and apply them to the post ’48 reality of zionist heresy in the form of a self-procaimed “Jewish” state. In case there was any ambiguity as time went on, the Satmar Rebbe again published a follow up “Al Hageila. val HaTemira” in ’68, strengthening the Torah and halacha in light of the heretics and their violence.
The length of Vayoel Moshe is in part to the authors constant self questioning of his sources and conclusions as he asks many of the common challanges to what was written before him. He spends most of the sefer “second-guessing” each step. You, @zsk, wrote “The R”Z community has provided lengthy…” but I have asked multiple times for any meaningful Torah response to the halachik conlusions of Vayoel Moshe. I have not recieved one from you. To be clear, I would expect such a resource to have read and dealt with the pilpul of Vayoel Moshe both because of the authors lifelong expertise in the subject as well as to produce a meaningful work. What I mean to say is that if someone says “Jews are not bound by the shevios because the non-jews broke theirs”, they would need to at least address the clear multiple responses to that which are in Vayoel Moshe. I suppose, I could compile an incredible pro-heresy (zionist) “sefer” by just compiling all of the Satmar Rebbe’s kashas, and not include his answers, but that would be very dishonest and hollow.
While I don’t learn Torah from kofrim, I am still bound by – lehavdil – the shulchan aruch even if they quote it. So too, if a kofer (chalila they should learn) mentions a Torah source that informs something about the status of zionism or out relationship to it, I would of course be obligated to those Torah sources as per the Jewish mesorah.
Regarding yayin nesech, none of this conversation has to do with “what I consider”. Ask your rabbi what the halach is. As per the Satmar Rebbe and his psak in Vayoel Moshe, I never heard him paskin that R”Z have a din ovdei avoda zureh. But, you would have to ask a Satmar chussid who might know if their rebbe addressed your question.
@ZSK
I prefer that other route. Philosophy and substance can always be debated and twisted against you. I like to stick to a narrow pointer first and then you can expand. For starters when you say that no true gadol ever held zionsim is al pi torah and then you find a whole chasdius of leaders clearly gedolim who said over and over and over that zionism is al pi torah, thats where a conversation needs to start. To say utter nonsense that its just stories or they didn’t publish sefarim nor refute it, doesn’t change facts. Every single rziyna chusid head and know this. Its an undisputable fact that they held of Zionism.
And then there are also tzadkim who i heard from in todays days that it was a haschlata degula. These tzadkim heard of the stamar reba, r Elchonan and Brisk. To say they don’t count or only work with emotions on such big tzadkim is borderline kefira. Who are you to know better?And so once we establish that zionsim is a machlokos then one can fairly argue that one side seems to have more soruces and be more grounded. But without knocking the other side or defaming jews.
Regarding yayin nesech, none of this conversation has to do with “what I consider”. Ask your rabbi what the halach is. As per the Satmar Rebbe and his psak in Vayoel Moshe, I never heard him paskin that R”Z have a din ovdei avoda zureh.
[somejew]
—————
Thanks for your honesty [unlike hakatan] stating the obvious.
If athaltah d/g would be heresy , then frum believers in this heresy are heretics.
Like lehavdil frum Reform or frum jews for ‘j’.So the reverse also applies.
Since they are al pi halaha not heretics , athalta d/g is not heresy.So all of hakatans preaching about heresy is to be taken , not in a literal sense.
Those with honesty will agree.
The others will robotically repeat their mantra, without supplying any logical rebuttal to the very simple logic of these few lines.
.ard > lets say the ben ish chai told you personally to do xyz, you would have to listen unless…
I don’t know whether any ashkenazi ever travelled to get psak from ben ish chai, but, if I recall correctly, R Akiva Eger refused to answer a shailah sent from another country, replying – go to your country’s posek.
somejew, you say well – but then you don’t follow up on your own pronouncements. We had here several people talking to you and referring each to a different source. It does not look like you bothered to read on and analyze any of them, while calling upon all of us to take Vayoel Moshe seriously. Why can’t you take R Soloveitchik (the one I was referring) or any of others mentioned here seriously? Why are we often having detailed discussion on respected “charedi” rabbis, but not on others? Keep it up.
aaq- my point was just if lu yitzur he came to you and told you to do xyz
@yankel-berel
afaik, @hakatan never said what you are claiming he said.
Zionism is very obviously kefira. That doesn’t make every zionist a kofer. This is something @hakatan expresses very clearly above, and it fits very well to at least the shita of the Raaved. All that I added to this point is that I never heard a psak about yayin nesech. I have seen poskin oser, at least lechatlchila, taking a R”Z as witnesses to a kesiba, may we Jews be saved from their wicked ways.@somejewiknow
The mistake you make is that you establish this is a Halacha question or that one needs to defend it in a Sefer. There is no requirement in our Torah that another gadol needs to defend his hashkafa or approach. It’s not a core of Judaism. Centuries ago sefarim didn’t even exist . But that’s beside the point. A tzadik need not defend himself. I think the rizyna Reba’s were just as much gedolim and knowledgeable. It’s not a story up for interpretation when it’s declared in public like that over and over again. (This is also beside the point that as it pertained to Zionism people were scared to debate the Satmar Reba or they’d pay the price. I am not saying it was him CVs but his chasdim were tough when you tried to dispute him. I know chashuva yidden who tried.)@somejewiknow
Just to add, how do you know if a shita is real if its not in a sefer and just said over by numerous tzadikim many times and held as an ideology. The answer is we look at future generations and see are its descendants shmoer torah umitzvas@chaim87
I didn’t “establish this is a Halacha question”, the many many Gedolim that fought against Zionism as a matter of halacha.You can see the sefer “Tikun Olam” on hebrew books, printed well before the holocaust that compiles the many many kol koeres and psak dinim from gedolim – belz, lubavitch, munkatch, ger, chofetz chaim, etc etc.
Beyond that, the specific sefer “Vayoel Moshe” written by one of those Gedolim was a lengthy and explicit halachik sefer that solidified the sugya in the Torah world.
So certainly the halachik “question” has been asked. It has also been answered, but that is beyond the point you are foolishly making.
1) No, it is not a substantive argument. It would be – if you were not actually appealing to the authority of very specific Rabbonim that *you* approve of while rejecting the very clear authority of other legitimate Rabbonim who held differently, by way of accusations that those differring Rabbonim are guilty of the worst forms of אפיקורסות and therefore outside the מסורה. That *isn’t* a good faith argument.
Spell out the arguments you’ve heard that came from the 3-4 Rabbonim you constantly cite. I learned Vayoel Moshe and quite a few anti-Zionist seforim and am familiar with their positions vis a vis the state, the R”Z community, the IDF, etc. I’m not demanding you do so for me. I’m demanding it for everyone else.
2) I reject the premise that the Satmar Rebbe was a global authority. He was an authority for Satmar and those like them (i.e. Vizhnitz). He never was authoritative for the Litvish community, even though the Litvish community widely agreed with many of his views and showed him the necessary respect due to a Rav (because the SR’s views aligned with the views of REW, the Chazon Ish, Rav Schach, etc.). However, the Litvish community asks Litvish Rabbonim their questions, not Chassidishe Rebbes. He did not have שררה over them. He was never an authority for יהדות עדות המזרח, and certainly not for קהילות קודש דתי לאומי למיניהם. It is true that he wrote the most well known work about that אגדתא, but he was most definitely questioned. Which leads to my next point.
3) Re: works. Yes, I know you asked. However, when the starting premise is that anything that comes out of the R”Z community is טמא and full-on אפיקורסות from the start, there is no point. You wouldn’t seriously consider or engage with the sources even if I provide them. But anyway, here you go:
Sources that directly question the SR:
(1) Rav Aviner wrote עלה נעלה – מענה לספר ויואל משה and קונטרס שלא יעלו בחומה.
(2) Rav Chaim Drukman wrote a response in קמעא קמעא פרק ז.Others:
(3) A quick Google search reveals Shiurim on VaYoel Moshe and responses thereto on websites belonging to ישיבות הסדר הר עציון וכרם ביבנה – at the minimum. I am sure a more detailed search (which I don’t realistically have time for until מוצאי שבת קודש) will show more.Rabbonim who spoke positively of Zionism: Google the origins of the Mizrachi movement. There are far too many to mention, but many of them learned in the Volozhin Yeshiva and were part of Chibat Tzion. That speaks volumes inof itself. The Litvish derech clearly does not share your negative view of the state.
By the way, there are also Charedi Rabbonim who wrote works that at least partially questioned the Satmar Rebbe while also pointing out the issues with ideologically Secularist Zionists, the IDF and the State itself, problems that R”Z public agree with (certainly חרדלי״ם agree, considering they only left the Charedi community because Rav Schach kicked them out). Lev Avraham comes to mind as one of such seforim.
4) I reject the premise that VaYoel Moshe is Halachik in nature. I refer you to my prior comments about such. Even if it is, it is not binding upon all of כלל ישראל, it is at most binding upon Satmar and those who accept the authority of the SR. As I have said, the SR was not a widely accepted Rav, neither were his פסקי הלכה nor his השקפת עולם. (Parenthetically, you have in the past devolved into actual slander of הרב קוק זצ״ל, I have refrained from doing the same about the SR- and there is plenty I could say about him. I have merely questioned the contents of his book (more like magnum opus) – admittedly more disrespectfully than I should have.)
4) Jumping back to authority, as Chaim said, Ruzhin Chassidus stands in stark contrast to Satmar as a Charedi/Chassidish community that does not agree with the Satmarer and views Zionism positively.
5) You said “I have seen poskin oser, at least lechatlchila, taking a R”Z as witnesses to a kesiba, may we Jews be saved from their wicked ways”. Name the Rav who said that. If you can’t, you made it up and it’s what *you* would do if *you* had the authority to do so.
5) As for your last two responses, you’ve finally answered, albeit in a roundabout manner. You believe the R”Z community is heretical, and you will answer HKB”H after 120 for the slander. You believe anyone who disagrees with Satmar is a heretic. You’re a coward and won’t say it. There’s no other explanation for the condemnatory side comments in the following:
– “I have seen poskin oser, at least lechatlchila, taking a R”Z as witnesses to a kesiba, may we Jews be saved from their wicked ways”.
– “I suppose, I could compile an incredible pro-heresy (zionist) “sefer” by just compiling all of the Satmar Rebbe’s kashas, and not include his answers, but that would be very dishonest and hollow.”
– “While I don’t learn Torah from kofrim, I am still bound by – lehavdil – the shulchan aruch even if they quote it. So too, if a kofer (chalila they should learn) mentions a Torah source that informs something about the status of zionism or out relationship to it, I would of course be obligated to those Torah sources as per the Jewish mesorah.”
@somejew
Where is this raavad ? Do you have the exact address please ?
Which poskim don’t take RZ for kesuba ?
Is it because their not fully frum ? Or are they fully frum and just believe in athaltah d/g ?What katan says – if without proof , is that an authority to rely on ?
He claims that someone who believes in kefirah is not a kofer .
But on the other hand , he compares athaltah d/g to reform and jews for ‘j’ where everyone agrees that their believers are kofrim.
So he can’t have it both ways ?Chaim > There is no requirement in our Torah that another gadol needs to defend his hashkafa or approach.
I think you are right, and even more: when an important gadol takes a controversial position, others would surely join if they want to support him. So, if they politely stay quiet, it means they all do not agree with Satmar, just don’t want to openly contradict him.
1) No, it is not a substantive argument. It would be – if you were not actually appealing to the authority of very specific Rabbonim that *you* approve of while rejecting the very clear authority of other legitimate Rabbonim who held differently, by way of accusations that those differring Rabbonim are guilty of the worst forms of אפיקורסות and therefore outside the מסורה. That *isn’t* a good faith argument.
Spell out the arguments you’ve heard that came from the 3-4 Rabbonim you constantly cite. I learned Vayoel Moshe and quite a few anti-Zionist seforim and am familiar with their positions vis a vis the state, the R”Z community, the IDF, etc. I’m not demanding you do so for me. I’m demanding it for everyone else.
2) I reject the premise that the Satmar Rebbe was a global authority. He was an authority for Satmar and those like them (i.e. Vizhnitz). He never was authoritative for the Litvish community, even though the Litvish community widely agreed with many of his views and showed him the necessary respect due to a Rav (because the SR’s views aligned with the views of REW, the Chazon Ish, Rav Schach, etc.). However, the Litvish community asks Litvish Rabbonim their questions, not Chassidishe Rebbes. He did not have שררה over them. He was never an authority for יהדות עדות המזרח, and certainly not for קהילות קודש דתי לאומי למיניהם. It is true that he wrote the most well known work about that אגדתא, but he was most definitely questioned. It is your own ignorance which had led you to believe otherwise. Which leads to my next point.
3) Re: works. Yes, I know you asked. However, when the starting premise is that anything that comes out of the R”Z community is טמא and full-on אפיקורסות from the start, there is no point. You wouldn’t seriously consider or engage with the sources even if I provide them. But anyway, here you go:
Sources that directly question the SR:
(1) Rav Aviner wrote עלה נעלה – מענה לספר ויואל משה and קונטרס שלא יעלו בחומה.
(2) Rav Chaim Drukman wrote a response in קמעא קמעא פרק ז.Others:
(3) A quick Google search reveals Shiurim on VaYoel Moshe and responses thereto on websites belonging to ישיבות הסדר הר עציון וכרם ביבנה – at the minimum. I am sure a more detailed search (which I don’t realistically have time for until מוצאי שבת קודש) will show more.Rabbonim who spoke positively of Zionism: Google the origins of the Mizrachi movement. There are far too many to mention, but many of them learned in the Volozhin Yeshiva and were part of Chibat Tzion. That speaks volumes inof itself.
By the way, there are also Charedi Rabbonim who wrote works that at least partially questioned the Satmar Rebbe while also pointing out the issues with ideologically Secularist Zionists, the IDF and the State itself, problems that R”Z public agree with (certainly חרדלי״ם agree, considering they only left the Charedi community because Rav Schach kicked them out). Lev Avraham comes to mind as one of such seforim.
4) I reject the premise that VaYoel Moshe is Halachik in nature. I refer you to my prior comments about such. Even if it is, it is not binding upon all of כלל ישראל, it is at most binding upon Satmar and those who accept the authority of the SR. As others have said, the SR was not a widely accepted Rav, neither were his פסקי הלכה nor his השקפת עולם. (Parenthetically, you have in the past devolved into actual slander of הרב קוק זצ״ל, I have refrained from doing the same about the SR- and there is plenty I could say about him. I have merely questioned the contents of his magnum opus – admittedly more disrespectfully than I should have.)
4) Jumping back to authority, as Chaim said, Ruzhin Chassidus stands in stark contrast to Satmar as a Charedi/Chassidish community that does not agree with the SR and views Zionism positively.
5) You said “I have seen poskin oser, at least lechatlchila, taking a R”Z as witnesses to a kesiba, may we Jews be saved from their wicked ways”. Name the Rav who said that. If you can’t, you made it up and it’s what *you* would do if *you* had the authority to do so.
5) As for your last two responses, you’ve finally answered, albeit in a roundabout manner. You believe the R”Z community is heretical, and you will answer HKB”H after 120 for the slander. You believe anyone who disagrees with Satmar is a heretic. You’re just unwilling to say it outright. There’s no other explanation for the condemnatory side comments in the following:
– “I have seen poskin oser, at least lechatlchila, taking a R”Z as witnesses to a kesiba, may we Jews be saved from their wicked ways”.
– “I suppose, I could compile an incredible pro-heresy (zionist) “sefer” by just compiling all of the Satmar Rebbe’s kashas, and not include his answers, but that would be very dishonest and hollow.”
– “While I don’t learn Torah from kofrim, I am still bound by – lehavdil – the shulchan aruch even if they quote it. So too, if a kofer (chalila they should learn) mentions a Torah source that informs something about the status of zionism or out relationship to it, I would of course be obligated to those Torah sources as per the Jewish mesorah.”
the Raavah is on the Rambam hilchos tshiva perek zuyin where he mentions ” וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו ” that mistakenly believed in Divine physicality, chas v’shulem.
regarding the tshiva i saw, it was many years ago… seriously, but don’t take my word for it. i was reading some american journal in halacha from mid 20th century. I don’t recall enough about it to find it again. regardless, none of this conversation hinges on that the question of what is kefira and who is a kofer are note bound one to the other.
@somejewiknow
Nope nobody established it as a halcha. it was hashkafa. of course Stamar made it into a hard core halacha but so what. A kol Korah doesn’t make it halacha. Furthermore, the imeri emes never gave a kol kora against zionism. It was against secularism and cooperating with secularism. (particularly r Kook). Furthermore, he states R kook was a gadol. But again key point, a kol korai doesn’t make things halacha.@somejewiknow
I have to be careful how I say this as the holy Satmar reba zya was far beyond my reach. But Ill just say in his zealousness to project pure athetnic judaism in its most loftiest form he tended to silence anyone who disagreed. he built the first large chasdus after the war and it was used as kind of a pulpet. I know writers of sefarim that disputed vyole moshe whose warehouses got burned down in additon to other kind sof things that made it very difficult to argue with the holy reba while maintaining one’s own. And so your arguement that one needs to write a sefer to dispute it is kind of mute too because most people physically couldn’t without consequences..But to repeat my main point, you made up that this is halacha. A couple of Kol Koreas doesn’t make things halacha. its Hashkafa. Halcha are things clearly in shulchan aruch like halchos shabbos or gitten etc.
@ YB
You wrote: Where is this raavad ? Do you have the exact address please ?
He probably means the famous Raavid in Hilchos Teshuva about hagshama. It’s not hard to to see why he thinks the Raavid is relevant. Nebach.
@non political
Will try have a look.
Ty@ Square Root
You have ALOT of work to do before you get
from: The FIRST MITZVAH that G*D gave to Avraham Avinu was making aliyah by moving; to Eretz Yisrael;
to: Religious Zionism has a basis in THE TORAH.For starters Avrohom Avvinu was a Navi. So, the instructions he received from Hashem where unambiguous. You would have to show that it is equally clear that their is a Mitzva Chiyuvis k’hayom to settle in Eretz Yisroel. You will not be able to do this because, for starters, R’ Chaim HaKohen (one of the Baalai Tosafos) and HaRav Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is not. Now, I am not claiming that other Poskim do not disagree. But the argument directly from Avrohom Avinu is a non-starter.
I respect that you take the time to call out HaKatan and Somejew on their Orwellian Two Minutes of Hate tantrums. L’man HaEmes, I’m telling you the above does not serve you well in what is otherwise a worthy undertaking.
@square root
There was an article in Mizrachi’s magazine sometime in the last year. You can find it through Google pretty easily using “Ruzhin + Mizrachi”.
There was also an article in Makor Rishon in May 2022 (in Hebrew) about Ruzhin Chassidus in Tel Aviv, and says exactly what Chaim87 argues.
The consensus amongst the majority of gdolei yisrael before and after the War , was clearly that Zionism is bad.
Bad , does not necessarily mean heresy.
So both sides on this thread are wrong.
Its not heresy, but it is bad.
It is not a choice between heresy on one side and “good / part of thora” on the other side.
It is a choice between
1] heresy
2] good and part of thora
3] not heresy but wrong and obviuosly no part of the thora.yankel, thanks for trying to find a consensus. You need to define what “zionism” is and what “bad” is. If we talk about pre/poast war period, we are mostly talking about pre/early Israeli government. I think everyone agrees that they are “not part of Torah”. R Soloveitchik describes how a non-Jewish kid was watching with them an Israeli minister during 1950s pre-war events saying that he has faith in British minister and “Arab youth” that they’ll not savagely deal with Jews. The kid remarked “I would put more faith in G-d of Abraham” …
related questions are
– is it appropriate to cooperate with them to achieve better outcomes. In one narrative: Mizrachi thought so from the beginning and achieved a lot by both being in the government and quitting it when they could not agree. And Rav Schach and others agreed to that policy many years later. (I think this narrative is too simplistic, but still has something to think about).– are there any redeeming qualities in the Z leaders and their followers? I think this is where opinions differ the most.
@Square root
That goes without saying.
Einah tsricha lifnim.
Thats pashut.
There is a HUGE difference between secular zionism and religious zionism.
.
But — Zionism is wrong but NOT heresy.
In a nutshell this line above sums it up.
that is the consensual majority opinion amongst gdolei yisrael and haredi Jewry.
.
Satmar and katan’s musings are nothing more than fantasy.
.yankel > But — Zionism is wrong but NOT heresy.
Yankel, what is “wrong”?
Are we talking about bringing Yidden into Palestine under a guide of non-religious Zionists? Imagine, Aguda would have called for more observant Jews to join that movement. In hindsight, not only this would have saved those Yidden from death under Nazis and Soviets, but would also make Yishuv much more observant. We know now that first Mizrachi and later Degel HaTorah joined government, so it was not a lost cause. Think if there were way more religious Jews in Israel, how different Israeli government and policies would be. Of course, we can’t blame gedolim of Europe that they did not predict the terrible future awaiting the community, they were not neviim. But also, I think, they saw immediate danger from engaging with non-religious Zionists, and it was hard to foresee how democracy is going to work in future Israel, with ability to influence the government even when you are in a minority. Jews did not have experience of democratic self-government, so it was a huge risk.@AAQ
Rambam found ‘redeeming qualities’ in xtianity and islam.
They are ‘wrong’ nevertheless.RZ is not at the same level , but still is wrong.
Our brothers .
Our misled brothers.yankel, a great point about Rambam.
So, a similar approach can be applied to non-religious Zionists (not RZ as you say): those were people who grew in the middle of assimilation, and, instead of fighting for “better world” in Russia and Germany like many other Jews did – they directed their efforts to help their Jewish brothers. Take Hertzl, for example. He is a pure tinok shenishba, grew up totally assimilated. In our times, he might have walked into a chabad house on campus and would be dancing for Moschiach right now. But there was no Chabad house in Vienna …So, were RZ wrong when looking with such redeeming attitude towards non-religious Zionists? I don’t think there is no clear right or wrong here. Depends on a person, it is one or another, and in some middle cases, both attitudes may be legitimate. I suspect the hardened attitudes pro- and contra- go back to European scene where there was a political fight between different groups – and we inherited those attitudes even if there is no good reason for us to fight about it.
Matzav and YW are both carrying ads for Eretz Hakodesh and the WZO elections.
Here’s what the Agudah had to say before the last elections. Please bear in mind that the heilige Novominsker Rebbe ztvk”l was stilla live and likely wrote the nusach for this:
@too-tired
what a shame that statement frames the conversation as a fundamental “charedi” stance, when really, as the statement ends, the rejection of Zionism and Ztianity and Islam is a fundamental Jewish stance@somejewiknow
Nope you made that up . Many holy Jews including the ryzina Reba’s has a stance that Zionism is the Torah way.To repeat, no this is not via a story or inferring. They proclaimed it like a psak not open for interpretation in public. It was said over and over again in public.
It’s not a story . It’s Mesorah and psak.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.