- This topic has 181 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
If the 3 oaths are still binding, why were they not included in the sefarim hakeodshim of the Rif, Rosh, Rambam, or Beis Yosef?
ROB:
Whatever interpretation you have of my posts, which I incidentally do not agree with, you have no right to personally attack anyone, my humble self included.
As to the oaths, why do you continue to bring up Melech haMashiach with regards to the three oaths?
You are still trying to claim the oaths don’t apply because of Melech HaMashiach, who will reign post-galus?
Perhaps Sam2 or some of the other learned ones here can explain this.
Simcha613:
There are practical implications to understanding that the State was and is assur to have been founded.
For example, when those misguided Jews realize that this State was indisputably founded in severe sin, they are less likely to continue doing as Rav Elchonon wrote and as Rabbi JB Soloveichik quoted from his father, which is to fuse the A”Z of Zionism with, lihavdil, their Judaism.
Instead, they will, presumably, revert to their pre-Zionist unadulterated Judaism as do the portion of Jewry who have B”H seen past the lies of Zionism.
rationalfrummie:
Actually, they are. The Rambam himself warned in Igeres Teiman that the Jews there should not violate the oaths.
rob: Your Kashya from Mashiach isn’t a Kasha. The oaths are binding (if they are at all) only until the Ikvisa Dimshicha. Everyone agrees to that. It’s from the Passuk, “Ad SheTechpatz”.
HaKatan and also Sam2 : your reasoning is faulty. If the sholosh shevuos would apply today (especially the one not to revolt against the gentiles) then how can the Rambam assert that Melech Hamoshiach will wage war,especially against our oppressors. According to the Rambam (and Shmuel in the gemoro), Melech Hamoshiach comes before the so-called kibbutz goluyos. You may disagree with the Rambam and “pasken” like Rav but from the Rambam himself, it is crystal clear that the sholosh shevuos do not apply today and we will wage war against our oppressors. And, Sam2, we are in “ikvese demeshicha” right now.
Sam2:
Thank you.
Just Emes:
Your premises and historical understandings are simply not emes.
Once again, “we” did not declare a state; the Zionists did so against “our” will.
It would also be wise for Pro-Zionists to avoid mentioning the Holocaust and collaboration and issues like that, unless they want Zionism to be exposed for what it truly is: thoroughly anti-Jewish (and inhumane) to the core. See the other threads (and historical sources).
Just Emes:
I already mentioned that your UN sevaras are faulty. No, the UN vote to partition did not bind other nations and, in fact, the British abstained from that vote.
Regardless, the Arabs did not agree.
Further, the Zionists knew perfectly well that it would take a war and sacrifice of Jewish lives at the idolatrous altar of founding their State, which it, unfortunately did.
They knew it was AT BEST a 50/50 chance that their foolish war would NOT CH”V be a massive bloodbath of Jewish blood which, B”H, Hashem spared His people.
As well, the Zionists aggressively and offensively took more than even the UN voted to allow them and against the wishes of the chareidim living there as well.
Just Emes:
It is historical fact that the chareidi leadership did not want the State of Israel and tried hard to prevent the Zionists from hijacking our faith and national identity.
You are simply making things up and contradicting the halachic (and practical) opinion of gedolim who lived in Eretz Yisrael in 1948. Surely the Brisker Rav and others were quite aware of “haba liHargicha” and just as surely were quite certain that this had zero to do with declaring a State which they ruled was assur and a massive sakana and worse, R”L L”A.
Your post is not emes.
Zionism and the State are an unparalleled disaster, and the founding the State – regardless of who runs it – was against halacha in numerous ways.
The Zionists have no answer.
rob: You are making contradictory arguments. Saying we’re in a near-Mashiach period and therefore the Shevuos don’t apply is fine. Saying that the Shevuos couldn’t have existed (even as an Eitzah Tovah) because Mashiach has to come is silly.
Sam2- sorry but I have no clue what you are saying. The question is whether the ‘sholosh shevuos” became binding-like any other halacha. It is not an ‘eitzah tovah” whatsoever.
My question is simple: how can the Rambam actually “pasken” (remember, this is Moshne Torah that ratifies halochos)that the Moshiach will wage war against our opressors (he calls them “milchamos Hashem)if the “sholosh shevuos” that prohibit rising up against the gentiles is halacha? Clearly, the Rambam did not accept that the shevuos are halacha and that we are bound by them,as he explicitly paskens against them.
The only point I want to make here is that the general position HaKatan is espousing is not a minority view but rather the majority view of gedolei yisroel. I’m not speaking the oaths specifically but rather of the overall impermissibility of the state, its formation and its subsequent actions.
The only point I want to make here is that the general position HaKatan is espousing is not a minority view but rather the majority view of gedolei yisroel. I’m not speaking the oaths specifically but rather of the overall impermissibility of the state, its formation and its subsequent actions.
Yes, but the tone is not mainstream, nor the kfiyas tovah towards individuals who risk their lives to protect Yidden, nor the referring to MO/DL as kofrim/ovdei a”z. The hashkafah is wrong, and is on the spectrum, but not to the extent that those who believe in it are classified that way. We do drink their wine and trust their eidus.
DY: Yes, the tone may not be mainstream but the tone is certainly within the realm of the Torah world with various gedolim using that same tone on this issue, even if they are the minority – which they may be insofar as the tone is concerned. . . . As far as referring to MO/DL as kofrim/ovdei a”z, I agree with you that is wrong to call them that but did not notice him referring to them that way, only to the beliefs espoused.
Hashtorani,
1) To their own followers, yes, but I don’t think directed at others.
2) In the past, I recall him taking pains to disassociate the beliefs from the believers, but then this: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/hakaras-hatov-for-israeli-soldiers-idf/page/2#post-512273
hashtorani,
As far as referring to MO/DL as kofrim/ovdei a”z, I agree with you that is wrong to call them that but did not notice him referring to them that way, only to the beliefs espoused.
HaKatan wrote this extrapolation of Rav Elchonon earlier in this thread:
So, according to Rav Elchonon, if you are a proud Zionist (which, according to their theology, includes “MO”) then that makes you a proud oveid A”Z.
While Rav Elchonon may have declared secular Zionism to be a form of A”Z, I highly doubt he pointed fingers at specific groups of Jews and declared them to be idol worshippers. Furthermore, it is clear from HaKatan’s analogy with the worshipers of the baal in the days of Eliyahu HaNavi that he believes the majority of Jews today are infected with this A”Z.
If this were truly how we hold, then since U.S. vaads likely don’t use Zionism as a litmus test to screen out mashgichim, one could not trust any U.S. hechsher. Since the vast majority of rabbonim in the U.S. don’t ask eidim at weddings if they are Zionists before accepting their testimony, then we cannot trust the majority of kesubos.
Somehow I doubt that HaKatan really holds that way, so it might be a good idea to be more cautious with the rhetoric.
I think HaKatan should clarify that point, since my impression is that he intended to be referring to the beliefs not necessarily to the religious believers (as far as carrying the personal status as heretics.) As you both pointed out, that one comment seemed to against the grain of most of his other comments.
DY: Vayoel Moshe, to take the most prominent example, was certainly directed at other than just his own followers.
DaasYochid and Avram (and others):
As I have written many times, I do not wish to condemn anyone.
I have never concluded from that Rav Elchonon or anywhere else that this therefore means that a person who unfortunately believes in Zionism as part of, lihavdil, his Judaism is any less neeman, or that his yayin is yayin nesech, etc.
But Rav Elchonon said what he said, as did the Brisker Rav and others. This is not a chidush.
If it is true that halachicly their yayin is yayin nesech, etc. then this is something for a posek to decide. Again, I have never said anything like that. Ask your LOR.
I simply attempted to repeat the Torah hashkafa on the matter, as expressed by gedolim, so that people do not base their Torah view on “misinformation”.
Avram:
CH”V, I do not wish to accuse and do not wish to speak L”H about anyone and certainly not about the majority of Klal Yisrael.
The only frum segments of Klal Yisrael, in my understanding, who themselves profess to believe in Zionism as a part of their faith are “MO” and “Religious Zionism”. Of those who identify with one or both of those, many probably don’t even realize what it is they are being taught, R”L, which is part of the reason for my humble posts here, to clarify the matters and not, CH”V, to accuse anyone.
I very much regret if I implied otherwise.
However, it does seem that many frum Jews from other segments are woefully misinformed about Zionism. Again, this, too is part of the reason for my humble posts here.
Hakatan, you wrote unequivocally that based on R’ Elchonon, a person who believes in Zionism is a kofer and oveid a”z. The halacha is, unequivocally that an oveid a”z or kofer’s wine is assur. That’s not a question you need to ask your LOR.
So you need to either retract (or at least somehow clarify) your unequivocal assertion that any Zionist is an oveid a”z and kofer, or admit that you contradict yourself.
Just Emes:
You put Hashem’s signature of “Emes” in his screen name, yet you still refuse to accept simple truths that are both historical record and, in the halachic realm, that our gedolim hold ad haYom haZeh.
For instance, not that long ago, Rabbi Y. Reisman wrote in a (front-page piece in a) Flatbush, NY “neighborhood-type” Jewish paper that even post-founding of the State, nothing changed regarding the applicability of the oaths.
The only change was tactical, whether or not it was even permitted to work within the framework of the State to help the Jews there. This is a legitimate machlokes between the Satmar Rav and others. But Zionism is not even a hava amina, according to all of them.
Just Emes:
I already mentioned, again, that your understanding of the facts and your halachic interpretations of the same are wrong.
Do you really think that anyone holds that the UN is some sort of Sanhedrin? The British, of all nations, abstained from (not agreed to) that vote and the Arabs living there obviously did not agree. This was clearly not biShalom, as you yourself admit, and certainly not with universal permission. Why do you persist in promoting what is clearly not emes?
As well, do you really think the Brisker Rav and others who were living there at the time were not aware of this principle of “haBa lihargicha” when they themselves were living that danger? Yet he and the others there at the time were VERY MUCH against founding the State.
You also continue to maintain your mistaken conviction that the State is “neutral in principle”. Our gedolim for over 100 years have clearly stated that Zionism and the State is shmad in principle (and not even as a side-product but in principle), and not at all “neutral”.
There was and is no halachic justification for Zionism. Does that wording satisfy you?
Regarding the comparison to the Baal:
We have already spent three pages dealing with this topic. Other than my own humble posts, I have seen very few here (or elsewhere) that call out Zionism for what it is and what it is not.
Regardless of the numbers, however, the mashal to Baal is still instructive because it underscores how so many otherwise fine people could, in this very important inyan, be so wrong. So even though religious opposition to Zionism might not be viewed as “mainstream”, this does not at all make it any less correct, just as the NON-baal worshippers were also not the overwhelming majority in those times.
Consider why Eliyahu haNavi had to make this very public Kiddush HaShem on Har haCarmel when any school child could have told you which way was obviously right and which way was very wrong.
rob: Why are you being obtuse here? Everyone, even those that hold by the oaths, hold that HKBH is Mattir them for us at such a time as Mashiach will come. Your Kasha isn’t a Kasha.
DY:
Again, I simply quoted Rav Elchonon. And, for that matter, Rabbi JB Soloveichik said the same thing in his father’s name. As did others.
There may be a distinction between “being a kofer” and believing in kefira, so please don’t claim I said something that I did not say.
To clarify, if Poskim A,B and C hold that pork is treif, and you eat pork, then you have eaten treif. As I wrote, you might hold (rightly or otherwise) that you are indeed allowed to eat pork. But there is no question that you have eaten treif, and that is the extent of what I wrote.
Any kasha you may have beyond that is on these great Rabbis, not on my humble self.
Thank you, again, Sam2.
HaKatan: Don’t thank me. I don’t need (or want) your approval. I can point out someone making a silly argument. I still think you are dead wrong on the Shevuos and rejecting a bad Kasha doesn’t change that. I’m an Oveid Avodah Zarah but you’ll use me when I say something you like? I don’t need that. Or want it. You have nothing to thank me for and I’d rather you didn’t. Frankly, it’s insulting.
rabbiofberlin,
My question is simple: how can the Rambam actually “pasken” (remember, this is Moshne Torah that ratifies halochos)that the Moshiach will wage war against our opressors (he calls them “milchamos Hashem)if the “sholosh shevuos” that prohibit rising up against the gentiles is halacha? Clearly, the Rambam did not accept that the shevuos are halacha and that we are bound by them,as he explicitly paskens against them.
I do not know enough to get into the discussion about the practical applications of the shalosh shevuos. From what I understand, however, the vows are in effect only when the Jewish people are ruled by non-Jewish nations. In the days of Moshiach, the Jewish people will not be ruled by non-Jewish nations, but by Moshiach, so the vows would no longer apply.
Based on the logic in your question, you would also have to ask how it is possible for a nazirite to cut his hair and place it on his korban, when the halacha clearly is that a nazirite does not cut his hair?
Sam2:
I was neither “approving” nor disapproving; I had requested of you in a prior post to respond to ROB and you did. As any decent person would, I simply thanked you for fulfilling my request with your post. Not to mention this thread is about hakaras haTov. Please do not feel insulted and “used”.
Regarding your contention that I consider you to be “an Oveid Avoda Zarah”, this is not accurate; please refer back to my most recent post to DY.
I have referred to you in particular as erudite and learned. Although I believe that the “MO” and “Religious Zionist” position on Zionism is wrong and unjustifiable, this doesn’t lessen my respect for you, for whatever that respect is worth.
There may be a distinction between “being a kofer” and believing in kefira,Well then, say so. Not maybe.
so please don’t claim I said something that I did not say.
What did I claim you said that you didn’t? Again, your very own words:
“So, according to Rav Elchonon, if you are a proud Zionist (which, according to their theology, includes “MO”) then that makes you a proud oveid A”Z.”
Then, showing utter lack of understanding of human nature, you clumsily add, “I fail to see the reason for anyone taking offense to this.”
And don’t give me your slippery, “ask your posek”. Answer directly, please, do you or don’t you drink a MO/DL’s wine?
HaKatan: As I asked you before, why can’t you accept that there are legitimate shitos which hold that Zionism is ok? Rabbonim such as R’ Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik zt”l, R’ Herschel Schachter shlita, R’ Aron Lichtenstein shlita, R’ Kook zt”l and many others held it’s fine. I’m not asking you to say you think Zionism is ok. Just realize that there are other shitos which are perfectly legitimate, from major Rabbonim, that say Zionism is perfectly fine.
HaKatan:
The problem is that many people understand Rav Elchanon’s statement to be similar to modern day statements by Satmar and Rav Aurbach regarding Shmad and learning in Israel.
. . . Slight edit . . .
The Zionists at the time of Rav Elchanon and the Brisker Rov wanted to replace Hashem and the Torah with the “Jewish state”. There are a few “Religious Zionists” that may have believed that (e.g. the army’s directives outweigh halacha”), but even back then they were few and far in between, and certainly after Gaza. The “Religious” Zionists wanted to use the “state” as a tool so that Yidden would be Shomer Torah, and the (pre-war) issue was they were Mishtatef with Reshaim who wanted to destroy Klal Yisroel as Ovdei Hashem. At this point (post-Begin certainly), the vast majority of Torah Yidden hold similar to Rav Shteinman against the Brisker/Satmar Mehalech that some degree of cooperation is allowed. At no point did the Poskem of any Torah group who were mishtatef with Zionists do so by giving up the primacy of Hashem and His Torah, even pre-war, to be considered to be Ovdei Avodah Zara.
I liked the Joke!!!! Is was meant to be in the spirit of Purim. No one actually belives Haman did not try to actually kill us.
That part wasn’t the problem. Just felt your point flowed better without it.
Maybe try one of the joke threads
P.S. I believe even Satmar and the Briskers use the Israeli health care system, so even they are mishtatef with the Zionist state.
DaMoshe, can you accept that there are legitimate shittos that it’s kefirah?
Yes. Even though I don’t understand them, I do realize that there are legitimate Rabbonim behind them, and they are therefore legitimate.
DaMoshe: So by your own admission you must respect talmidim of those Rabbonim when they publicly share and espouse their Rabbonim’s shitta.
hashtorani: There is a difference between following the shita of your Rav and claiming that other opinions have no standing, and that those who follow them are following avodah zarah. HaKatan does not need to always claim “The Zionists have no answers!”. We have many answers. The Rabbonim I listed above hold Zionism is perfectly fine. HaKatan attacks Rabbonim who hold like them. Just follow your Rav, and don’t attack others who hold differently.
DaMoshe:
I probably answered you before, too, though I imagine you weren’t thrilled with the answer then, either.
The Gerrer Rebbe said that because Rabbi Kook was so in love with the land that this caused Rabbi Kook to rule “al tahor tamei viAl tamei tahor”. This is obviously a very serious charge, in itself. But other gedolim went much further in their condemnation of Rabbi Kook and his shitos.
For instance, Rabbi Kook made statements, like the one about secular soccer players being on a higher level than neviim because of their service to the land, that gedolim said were clearly impossible to reconcile with Torah.
Of course, Rav Elchanan Wasserman, Rav Chaim (and descendant) Brisker(s), Rav Aharon Kotler and others have called this (“Religious Zionism”) Avoda Zara (mixed with Judaism), Kefirah and Shmad. Even Rabbi JB Soloveichik admitted that his father held the same, as I have posted numerous times.
So, especially given what we do know from our gedolim, you would have to first find a legitimate mesorah for Religious Zionism before you can claim that there is one.
DaasYochid:
I have reread my post (again) and I see now that it may have indicated more than I intended.
As I have indicated numerous times, I don’t mean to condemn anyone.
I am not branding anyone a kofer, oveid A”Z, or anything else, as I have indicated numerous times.
To review, according to our gedolim:
As we all know, if one chooses to eat pork then one has chosen to eat “treif”. If one CH”V believes in Zionism then one is worshipping idols. I only repeated what should be common knowledge.
So, if one claims to be proud to eat pork then one is proudly eating treif. So, too, if one claims to be proud to be a Zionist then that person is, according to our gedolim, proudly worshipping idols.
What I did not clarify in that post but, in retrospect, I should have clarified, is that this speaks only to the act, not the person, as I wrote above.
If anyone misunderstood me to be labeling or branding anyone, please accept my apologies as this was not my intent.
DY:
This being the case, I still don’t understand why anyone would take offense to this Rav Elchonon or my repeating it. To those who act contrary to this Rav Elchonon, I would think they would be at least interested to know that these great gedolim hold that they are making a big mistake.
HaKatan: The fact is that R’ Soloveitchik held it was ok. It doesn’t matter what his father held – he is still a legitimate shittah to follow! Rabbeinu Tam was Rashi’s grandson, and he often argues on Rashi. Your quote from the Gerrer Rebbe is nice – for Gerrer chassidim. Many others held R’ Kook to be a gadol. There are also many others (I’ve named some) who hold Zionism is perfectly fine. Again, why can’t you accept that people can follow a shittah other than yours?
If you’re going to argue your way, then you pasul chassidus as a whole.
GAW:
I have written above that the issue of working “within the state” for the benefit of Torah and Jews is a legitimate halachic dispute between the Satmar Rav, who forbade it, and others, who permit it, which is why there is no Satmar MK but there are other frum MKs. Incidentally, the Brisker Rav advised a certain frum MK in certain matters, for this reason. But there is no dispute that Zionism is assur.
And any observer of the news, even as we write our posts here, should be quite aware that Zionist shmad has certainly not ended. The Zionists themselves admit it when they speak of making chareidis into Israelis, etc.
Zionism was, and very much still is, shmad.
Actually, HaKatan, there very much is a debate. We’re having a debate right now! As I wrote before, there are many Rabbonim who hold Zionism is fine. How can you say there’s no debate?
Again, Zionism may be shmad – according to some people. According to others, it’s not. Why can’t you comprehend that? Is it really so difficult?
Sam2 , Avram in MD and others: I’ll let others continue the arguments with HaKatan (although many of quotes are bogus) but allow to answer the so-called obtuseness that I am accused of and also Avram’s question.
The Rambam clearly indicates that a person-not yet know as the Melech Hamoshiach- will wage war to free the jews from their oppressors.That is BEFORE he is recognized as the melech Hamoshiach. As a matter of fact, one of the “simonim” (signs) that he is indeed the melech Hamoshiach is the fact that he will wage those wars and free us.
So, please pray tell me how anyone can wage war if the sholosh shevuos are applicable. For you to say that they will not apply in “jemos hamoshiach” is a paradoz,because how do we know that he is the Moshaich? After all, he is just transgressing the sholosh shevuos!
However, if the sholosh shevuos are not applicable , there is nothing wrong in a person waging war ( like Bar Kchba) and THEN, if he is successfull, we may call him Melech Hamoshaich. That is the logical explanation of the Rambam.
ROB: That is precisely why I said Ikvisa D’mishicha in my first post.
HaKatan: So your apology is that “MO” and “DL” are people who routinely commit Avodah Zarah but you are not commenting on their personal status as Ovdei A”Z. Got it.
Sam2:
I will quote your post and respond inline.
“So your apology is that “MO” and “DL” are people who routinely commit Avodah Zarah”
Not quite.
1 – I did not say “routinely commit A”Z””
2 – Rav Elchonon and others said that “DL” is A”Z mixed with, lihavdil, Yahadus. I thought that someone had mentioned being proud to be “DL” so I addressed this obvious point in that context as well.
Of course, if my saying over any of this was hurtful to anyone, this was obviously not my intention and I certainly apologize for any hurt that was or is caused by anything I have written or will write.
If anything, as I wrote, I would think that “MO” and “DL” would appreciate these facts, especially since they are surely intellectually honest.
“”but you are not commenting on their personal status as Ovdei A”Z.
It was for this that I specifically apologized because some people seemed to think that I had intended to comment on their personal status when this was certainly not the case.
ROB – it’s worth noting that you admitted on these boards that even if you saw Rav Elchonon’s holy words in black-and-white that your opinion would still not change. They’re freely available on the Internet.
You wouldn’t be able to prove anything I’ve quoted is “bogus”, much less “many of the quotes”, but I guess you feel it’s okay to claim anything you want about my posts for the sake of Zionism and the State.
After all, a prominent MO posek is on record holding that defending the State, irrespective of the Jews therein, is docheh pikuach nefesh which is, of course, docheh almost everything else. So you probably draw a kol shKein from that to allowing sheker, too, to defend the State.
I am trying to be dan liKaf zechus…
DaMoshe:
Perhaps you missed my prior answer to you.
As well, your comparison of Rabbi JB Soloveichik to (really?) Rabbeinu Tam is not valid.
Rabbeinu Tam may have come to a different conclusion than Rashi in various sugyos but NOT by CH”V abandoning the mesorah he had from Rashi. On the other hand, Rabbi JB Soloveichik himself admitted that he was breaking from his Mesorah from his father and grandfather, et al.
There is also the uncomfortable matter (especially for “MO”) of what gedolim held of Rabbi JB Soloveichik (read Agudah’s JO magazine obituary, for starters, and that is also available online) which also makes the comparison to Rabbeinu Tam a complete non-starter.
Right or wrong, if you wish to rely on the Rabbis you quoted against the gedolim that preceded them and also against the gedolim who were their contemporaries, then that’s your business, of course. But that does not create a legitimate mesorah.
Again, there is no legitimate mesorah for “Religious Zionism” (and “MO”, as well, for that matter, though that, too, has already been discussed in other threads).
- The topic ‘Hakaras Hatov for Israeli Soldiers (IDF)’ is closed to new replies.