- This topic has 30 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
For the wildly speculative, imagine that in 50 or so years, the charedi population share has risen to a super majority, and lo alenu, the Torah world and culture in EY were to be threatened or subjugated by a foreign force. Would the masses take up arms and other forms of direct resistance?
No, Some would claim its against the Tzniomim to fight the non-jews.
Others would say I am fighting them by learning torah
More likely the fight would be against the chilonim, to be precise.
Recall that the chashmonaim’s fight was against the yevanim, and also the misyavnim.
In the scenerio presented it seemed like the Chiloniom disappeared either left the country or died out
There wouldnt be any chilonim to argue with
If I remember correctly,
according to the Brisker Rav, a physical threat calls for a spiritual response, as in the case of Purim, and a spiritual threat calls for a physical response, as in the case of Chanukah.
If forced to fight to survive, haredim would, but there are usually alternatives. At the time there were really no Torah centers outside of Israel (those wanting to learn Torah in Bavel and Egypt turned to Israel, and political conditions in Egypt and Bavel were problematic anyways). Under current conditions, hareidim would flee Eretz Yisrael rather than go to war with the hilonim.
Remember that at the time of the Hashmonaiim, the problem was primarily with the secular Jews who when defeated called in their Greek sponsors -this could happen again. However one has to remember that the other two regional powers at the time, Egypt (also Greek, but not friends with the Greeks based in Syria) and Rome (growing but not yet trying to conquer the eastern Mediterranean) supported Israeli independence as a way of weakening the Greek regime in Syria. Because the Arabs are scared of Israel, Israel isn’t likely to be buffer state in their eyes (though that explains most western support Israel – as a way of keeping the Arabs disrupted).
Very clear testimony that the Chofetz Chaim said that this should have been done in Russia, and it certainly would have weakened their effect on Klal Yisroel.
That wasn’t in response to a threat – that was just
because we could. The threat had already been dealt with.
(Do you think the Brisker Rav didn’t know the Megillah?)
I don’t know what you mean with the rest of your post.
If the enemy wants to destroy us, they’re a physical threat.
If the enemy wants to destroy Yiddishkeit, though they may use physical force to that end, they’re a spiritual threat.
There is an appropriate response to each situation.
The secular and DL are withered into irrelevancy. The enemies have massed and it is all hands on deck to preserve or restore Jewish sovereignty. Would they adopt the militaristic elements of Chanuka as did the early hiloni Zionists, or other options and avenues.
That isn’t half as interesting or likely as my scenario:
The Israeli government consisting of Yesh Atid, the DL parties, and the left wing parties pass laws mandating that all children must attend courses at the gymnasium.
Do the chareidim rise up in arms as did our forebears?
It’s funny (and sad) because some hold that a Chanukah-like miracle happened 66 years ago while others hold it was a pre-Chanukah-like tragedy.
So, to answer the question, no, it can’t happen again. Because even if it does no one will agree on whether it actually happened or not.
Oh, those are the rules?
Why would chareidim fight to keep a Jewish government in
control of Eretz Yisrael? That’s a Zionist ideal…
Sam, maybe not everyone agreed last time either. History is written by the victors.
Here’s hoping not to look ignorant…
Sam, what did you mean by “a pre-Chanukah-like tragedy?”
The charedim did not rise up in 1939
I was not using “Zionist” as a pejorative.
See my next post, if the mods approve it.
The possibility should not have entered your mind any more
than I assume it would have if I’d posted the following:
“Why would Zionists fight to keep kollelim in operation?
That’s a Chareidi ideal…”
A self-governing Jewish country is something that
Zionism believes in and believes in fighting for.
I don’t think it’s possible to disagree with that.
(Supports:
1. Did anything other than Zionism motivate the fight
for Israeli independence?
2. The term used in Hebrew for Religious Zionists literally means “Nationalist Religious.”)
Herod, who murdered the chachomim, was not part
of the Hasmonean dynasty. (So says Wikipedia.)
I don’t think his rule can be considered Jewish
self-governance, seeing as he got his authority
from the Romans.
To clarify my view in this discussion:
Hashem fights for our physical survival (this does not mean that
there’s no rule of “Habo l’harg’cha hashkeim l’hargo”), and we fight when He presents us with a violent challenge to our Yiddishkeit. (That’s the ideal, anyway – see Logician’s post.)
“[T]o preserve or restore Jewish sovereignty” is not something
Chareidim believe in fighting for as an ideal, and historically
speaking, lack of a Jewish government in Eretz Yisrael has not
prevented us from living there, so the country in question being
Eretz Yisrael doesn’t matter.
So, were a foreign power to give a Chareidi government,
in Eretz Yisrael or elsewhere, the option of peacefully
surrendering to them (becoming subject to foreign taxation, etc.),
I think we’d take it. Does anyone here disagree?
For the wildly speculative, imagine that in 50 or so years, the charedi population share has risen to a super majority, and lo alenu, the Torah world and culture in EY were to be threatened or subjugated by a foreign force. Would the masses take up arms and other forms of direct resistance?
The premise is flawed, there were only brief periods where the majority of Israel was religious and the period that Chanukah occurred was not one of them.
Herod, who murdered the chachomim, was not part
of the Hasmonean dynasty. (So says Wikipedia.)
So if I edit that page to say that he was, then you’ll change your mind?
When I first saw the title of this thread, my immediate reaction was, SURE, it’s coming back next year and the year after that, and so on, and so on.
twisted:
Clarification (possibly unnecessary): The possibility that I assume you would not have considered in that case is that I was using “Chareidi” as a pejorative.
(Also, I wrote “if the mods approve it” because
a previous response had been rejected.)
I did not cover the option of leaving in the face of foreign
demand because I just didn’t think of it at the time, and I
realize now that it’s a good thing I didn’t mention it.
I’m not done with you yet (unless the mods say so, anyway)…
>>
Sam:
Having thought it over, I assume that by “pre-Chanukah-like tragedy” you meant a desire by Jews to be accepted by and/or
similar to the other nations.
>>
zahavasdad:
Weren’t the Chareidim (and everyone else) unaware of the full threat in 1939? Also, it is a spiritual response that is called for in the face of a physical threat in the chareidi mind.
(Theoretical aside:
I doubt one from Europe’s chareidi minority alone would have been enough, and wonder whether by the time the war started it would
already have been too late.)
>>
For a premise to be flawed, it must be illogical, not merely not
have usually been the case before. Also, if when there wasn’t a
religious majority they took up arms, why couldn’t they do so if
they were the majority?
Or am I not getting something?
Did you perhaps mean that this situation would not be
the same as the one at the time of the Chasmonaim?
In case you haven’t seen it, I’ve responded to an old post of yours here:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/nechama-cohens-new-single#post-550522
(I’m not sure you’d check that thread without this notice.)
>>
Popa:
I considered questioning your use of “gymnasium,” but
according to You-Know-What, Israel has five of them.
To answer your question about Herod, I’d revert it. And seeing
as I don’t know how reverts are counted for the three-revert rule, if it was locked on your version, I’d check the edit
history and cite the primary source instead.
>>
oomis:
>>
Mods:
Please delete only the specific section(s), if any, you deem unfit for publication. You wouldn’t make me break this into six parts (seven with this) and wait 60 seconds between putting up each one, would you?
I think that the situation of Chanukah of old could happen again if we are not careful. Most Jews are assimilated already. Those who are not, are still exposed on a daily basis to many of the issues that were prevalent then, the immorality, the obsession with looks and fitness, etc.
There are countries that have tried to prevent Jews from shechting meat and from doing bris milah, under the guise that both of those are INHUMANE. This, while they are busy doing G-d knows what to the Jews and other minorities in their countries. Yes, I do believe if we are not careful, Chanukah could most certainly chas v’sholom happen again. the question is – are we up to the challenge?
twisted:
taxation was one of the reasons cited for the revolt
The revolt that was not supported by the chachomim and
eventually led to the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash?
That’s not a very good argument for fighting.
the need to define what is ezras yisrael mitzar haba aleihem
If you’re interested, go ahead. Patur Aval Assur might be willing to help.
would a non halacha sanctioned malchut
(government for example) have a mitzva to act
Wouldn’t anyone who could act have a mitzvah to?
We still have at least part of the mitzva of bet din based government, which today is oppressed by the PTB, this alone is reason for a mini chanuka
Seeing as the gedolim have not called for revolution,
they apparently do not agree with you on that.
Even if it is true, it would not require endangering our lives.
see sefer magid meisharim on parshas mikeitz.
see also kovetz ikvasah d’meshicha from reb elchanan zyz”l.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.