- This topic has 181 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
rabbiofberlin,
Avram in MD and others: … but allow to answer the so-called obtuseness that I am accused of and also Avram’s question.
I never intended to imply that you were obtuse.
The Rambam clearly indicates that a person-not yet know as the Melech Hamoshiach- will wage war to free the jews from their oppressors.
So, please pray tell me how anyone can wage war if the sholosh shevuos are applicable.
I think oppressors may be the key word here. From my understanding, I don’t think that even the most binding interpretation of the shalosh shavuos precludes a defensive war against enemies who try to kill us, e.g., the war against the forces of Haman in Persia. If Moshiach comes through war, I think it would be a war of survival against a king “who’s decrees are worse than Haman’s.”
HaKatan,
I think that part of the confusion in this debate is that everyone coming into it has a different definition of Zionism. I think we all agree that the idea of putting our trust in the formation and defense of a secular European style nation state as the goal of the Jewish people is A”Z. I think beyond that there is a wide spectrum of what frum people here mean when they refer to Zionism today, and some or most of those concepts are not A”Z (even if you hold all of them to be wrong). Labels change and evolve, and are notoriously imprecise, so it’s possible that when you quote R’ Elchonon and declare Zionism to be A”Z, you may be drawing a much larger circle than he intended.
Avram in MD: the obtuseness remark was not addressed to you.Sam2 characterized me so. But allow me to deal with your main remark.
The Rambam absolutely allows a war to defend oneself a milchemes mitzvah (see sefer melochim 5-1) so you are correct in your assumption. I am not sure how the crowd who espouses the sholosh shevuos would deal with this. Does that mean that they would have fought against the Germans YM”S but not against the Arab armies? I don’t know. The sad irony of their approach would be that you could fight your enemies in chutz Lo-orets (like in the megillah) but not in Eretz Yisroel. What corruption of this maamar chazal!
HaKatan: As I said, I ceased arguing eith you a long time ago. However, Ihad to decry your bogus quotes about Rav Kook zz’l .The gerrer rebbe zz’l never said what you wrote and every godol in Eretz Yisrel (including R’Yossef Chaim Sonnenfeld zz’l) had the utmost respect for him. He was the mesader kiddushin of Rav Elyashiv , for heaven’s sake!
As far as the quotes from R”Elchonon zz’l,is he the possek acharon on this? he may (or may not) have said what you wrote- but must I be bound by R” Elchonon zz”l for the rest of mankind?
Avram: I made that precise argument towards HaKatan a long time ago. He doesn’t care. No response, just that “Zionism was, and remains, Shmad.”
rob: I didn’t call you obtuse, just that you were being obtuse about this. Your Kasha wasn’t a good one. That’s fine; it happens. Just admit it and move on.
I will attempt to re-word my post so it gets allowed through.
HaKatan, you say Rabbeinu Tam did not abandon his mesorah from Rashi.
As is well known, there is a difference of opinion regarding tefillin between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. Rabbeinu Tam disagreed with the mesorah he had from his grandfather, and changed the order of the parshiyos in his tefillin.
Rashi also held that we should put our mezuzos on the doorpost in a vertical position. Rabbeinu Tam disagreed, and held it should be horizontal.
In both these cases, Rabbeinu Tam argued on the mesorah of his grandfather.
In the case of Israel and Zionism, there is more reason to allow arguments. R’ YB Soloveitchik’s father passed away before the state of Israel was founded. It’s very possible he would have changed his views after the founding. Additionally, while he may have said non-religious Zionism was wrong, he did maintain a warm relationship with religious Zionists (particularly the Mizrachi movement). It’s possible he was in favor of religious Zionism.
In any case, my Rav is a student of R’ Herschel Schachter shlita, who was a student of R’ YB Soloveitchik zt”l. R’ Soloveitchik was a member of the Moetzes of Agudas Yisroel, and was held in high regard by other Rabbonim. There is absolutely nothing wrong with following his halachic opinions.
DaMoshe:
Rabbeinu Tam did not break with Rashi’s mesorah, regardless of halachic differences.
Regarding Rabbi JB Soloveichik, I have already written about this, and you are misrepresenting the facts: specifically, that Rabbi JBS did not remain a member of the Moetzes and instead switched to Mizrachi.
As well, his positions were certainly not held in high regard by other gedolim, and some of those gedolim went further than that: for example, Rav Aharon Kotler.
Either way, Rabbi JB Soloveichik himself admitted that he broke with his mesorah.
If you want to rely on your Rabbi, as I said, that’s your business, but this does not create a legitimate mesorah for “Religious Zionism”.
There is no legitimate mesorah for “Religious Zionism”.
Avram and Sam2:
This is theoretically a fair point, as labels can be broad, but only if you can define what might be halachicly permitted according to our gedolim including Rav Elchonon et al. yet would still fall under the label “Religious Zionism”, never mind secular “Zionism”.
For example, Rav Moshe has a teshuva, as I recall (and I imagine Sam2 knows), that the presence of an Israeli flag in a shul is not A”Z. That this is even a question is certainly illustrative of the topic at hand. Either way, that doesn’t change the reality of the tenets of the religious Zionist faith, which remain assur; but showing the Israeli flag is not A”Z according to Rav Moshe.
Again, the State of Israel and Zionism are shmad, treif, etc. Nothing has changed in this regard. And, if you think objectively about it, it makes no sense (and was roundly forbidden by Rav Elchonon, Rav Chaim Brisker, et al.) to graft secular European Nationalism unto, and in much conflict with, lihavdil, the holy Torah and CH”V fuse the two to make them both into one illegitimate cholent of a religion (and then, on top of that, for some to have the chutzpah to try to pass that off as authentic Judaism).
This is essentially what Rabbi Kook did, as Rabbi Dr. Lichtenstein has more or less admitted in his writings even if he draws a different conclusion, and this is what Rav Elchonon and others called Avoda Zara. That this is forbidden is not a very difficult concept to understand.
So, absent any other definition of “Religious Zionism”, “Religious Zionism” is strictly forbidden.
ROB:
I’m not sure why I’m even bothering, but you are misrepresenting the facts.
The Gerrer Rebbe did indeed say that, and he was the kindest of them all.
Other gedolim in E”Y did not at all “have the utmost respect for him” as you claim. They did, at times, write him nice titles in letters to him because Rabbi Kook had political power and the Klal needed his services.
Come on. What non-“D”L” Yeshiva ever even mentions Rabbi Kook’s name?
As to the Siddur Kiddushin, this is true, but this was for the young man who would much later become Rav Elyashiv.
As to Rav Elchonon, if you can find a legitimate bar plugta, then I suppose he would not be the final word. But there isn’t any.
HaKatan:
As you mention (and as we discussed in other threads), we had agreed that the issue with Zionism is as grouped with other “isms” that replace (or join equally with) Hashem and His Torah. I find it difficult to see that being the case with Talmidei Chachamim shuch as Rav Lichtenstien.
Nationalism in it of itself is not against the Torah. We certainly know that (for example), the Spanish Rishonim (e.g. Shmuel HaNagid) were pro-Spain and its kings. This goes back to Shmuel in Baval and his relationship with Shapur I. Even in the USA, the country is a Malchus Shel Chessed and we have a responsibility to support the country. That is not related at all to the religious aspect and our relationship to the RBSO (except perhaps for Dena D’Malchusa Dena) and does not replace it.
If you believe the issue with Zionism is Nationalism, let’s discuss in a different thread, as that issue has nothing to do with “Zionism” per say over supporting Canada if you are a Canadian, (C”V).
Just Emes:
This is still not emes, and I already pointed this out to you earlier.
If you read the rest of that article, you will see that their “support” for a State was predicated on the assumption that it was going to happen regardless of their support and also based on their expectations of the Zionists.
As the Brisker Rav pointed out, they were wrong on the former point because Hashem doesn’t look at what reshaim do, but at what tzaddikim do and, as you like to quote, the “B”D” of Klal Yisrael” is what caused the State to be created, (and the Brisker Rav seems to agree that this and the tefillos of misguided Jews in meah shearim were the true catalysts).
And as history more than amply pointed out, the conditions these rabbanim set for their acceptance of a State, like the condition how the Zionists would not interfere with religion in the new State, were very much not met.
Again, there is no halachic basis and also no mesorah for any flavor of Zionism.
GAW:
It seems you are confusing Nationalism with Jewish Nationalism.
Of course, the Torah obligates us to be loyal citizens of the country in which we reside and, specifically regarding the USA, Rav Moshe famously called it a malchus shel chessed. This is all fine.
But Jewish Nationalism, however, is assur. We are a nation, as Rav Saadya Gaon wrote, based on the Torah, not any land including E”Y.
HaKatan: The conditions they set shouldn’t matter – they clearly felt it wasn’t a violation of the oaths.
With your definition of mesorah, you may be correct. There was no mesorah for Zionism. Don’t forget that there’s no mesorah for electricity. There’s also no mesorah for banning the internet – how dare people rally against it when there’s no mesorah to do so! There’s no mesorah regarding pretty much anything that didn’t exist at the time of Kabbalas HaTorah! New situations arise all the time, and Rabbonim come up with a derech based on halachah. They may not always agree, and that’s where machlokes comes in. Zionism is one such case. Claiming that views held before the founding of the state of Israel are all valid and unchanged after the founding is not proper. As circumstances change, the application of halachah can change, because the psak may no longer fit the circumstances! R’ Soloveitchik clearly had reason to hold what he did, and his shoulders were sufficiently wide to carry such responsibility.
Your insults against him are pure lashon harah. I honestly can’t believe the mods let them through.
One last question – I’m honestly curious to know, what is your opinion on chassidus? There was no mesorah for that either – the Besht went against the established practice of Judaism when he started it. That’s why many were against him. What do you think about it? Does Chassidus have a valid mesorah?
HaKatan: you, who so vociferously keeps on labeling many other jews as “ovdei avodah zarah” just made a statement that borders on kefirah. You write: “We are a nation based on the torah,not any land,including E”Y” That, to me, is practically kefirah. You sound exactly like the Reform jews of the nineteenth century who claimed that we are a “mosaic religion” and decalred that ‘we have no connection to the land of israel”.This is what you just wrote.
From the meraglim onwards, throught the centuries,klal Yisroel shed its blood to come back to -yes- the land of Eretz Yisroel.Now, you claim we have no connection to it! Kefirah!
DaMoshe:
Your post may be venturing towards kefirah, so you might wish to be careful in what you write.
I did not insult Rabbi JB Soloveichik. I merely repeated what gedolim held of him and/or his positions and that his own words are that he broke from his mesorah.
Regarding Chassidus, ad haYom, Agudah’s moetzes has both Chassidim and non-chassidim. Whereas Agudah’s founding premise was to fight Zionism and gedolim until this day have confirmed that opposition to Zionism has not changed other than in tactics. Clearly, the two (Chassidus and, lihavdil, Zionism) cannot be intelligently compared.
But if your LOR cannot help you answer this, then I guess you will learn the answer regarding the halachic validity of Chassidus and everything else, BE”H, when Eliyahu haNavi tells us all BB”A.
For such enlightened and intellectually well-rounded people, some of you “MO” are way too easily insulted.
ROB;
Who said “no connection to it?” I simply quoted Rav Saadya Gaon that our nationhood is not determined by any land but by the Torah.
It’s really astonishing how you’ve so internalized Zionist kefirah as, lihavdil, Torah.
You seriously believe that this quote of yours is Torah hashkafa?
“From the meraglim onwards, throught [sic] the centuries,klal Yisroel shed its blood to come back to -yes- the land of Eretz Yisroel.”
Contrary to the kefirah in haTikva, we have been davening for the geulah, not for a State at any cost.
And now you’re also arguing with Rav Saadya Gaon.
I’m sorry to hear that.
HaKatan: You did not answer my question. Do you think Chassidus has a valid mesorah or not?
I’m not completely following the discussion any more (to be honest, the acrimony bothers me, especially since I probably contributed), but I want to point out what I seecasxan inconsistency in Just Emes’ post.
JE quotes Hapardes as saying (implying, to be fair) that the majority held that it would be “possible to agree, according to the laws of the Torah, to the establishment of a Jewish State in a portion of the Eretz Yisael”, “if it were established as a religious state” (my juxtaposition of quotes).
However, JE’s conclusion is a huge stretch: “there were many gedolim who held it would be ok according to the torah–but we should try to make it frum-“.
Established as frum is completely different than established as not frum with the frum on the sidelines trying to make it frum.
Hakatan: So can one have non-Jewish nationalisim for the Zionist state as either a resident or general good will (similar to the USA and Great Britain)? And if not, why?
ROB – stick to your arguments and don’t try to catch him on a side point. Your comparison of his statement to Reform ideology is severely flawed; the basic premise he stated can be found in numerous seforim. It is also an important one, because no matter what side of this debate you are, we all agree to the tragic state of the secular nature of the state, and there is no question that an overemphasis on this one mitzvah (great as it may be) was a large factor in swaying people.
DaMoshe:
Why should you care what I personally hold of Chassidus?
My personal opinion is that I don’t know enough about Chassidus in general to espouse an opinion.
Just Emes:
Again, not emes and, it seems, you are the one who “missed the point”.
According to this article, these rabbis somehow concluded that this would not be “denying the belief in the coming of redeemer”.
But this does not at all mean what you claim regarding the oaths.
It absolutely still was a problem of the oaths, even according to those rabbis.
But, again, regardless of this point, read the rest of the article.
There is no justification for Zionism and the State. This is getting beyond absurd.
Just Emes:
You really need a new screen name, in my very humble opinion.
Regarding the rest of your post, you still refuse to understand the basic truth about the State and Zionism that any student of history is well aware and that Rab Chaim Brisker foresaw even in his life time:
no, contrary to your repetitive Zionist propaganda, the State is not neutral and democratic. It is shmad.
As Rav Chaim wrote, it’s not that the Zionists want a State and therefore resort to shmad to achieve that end; rather, the reason the Zionists want a state is that they want to shmad.
Even according to your story, Rav Moshe did NOT hold it was not a problem. All he held was that the reason the State was founded was that the “B”D of Klal Yisrael” paskened that it should be founded. That doesn’t mean that he held that this “B”D” was correct in their psak. All it means is that because that B”D concluded this way, that therefore Hashem did their will.
Just Emes:
The oaths are a big problem, regardless, and, by way of analogy, there is no way to slaughter a pig according to halacha because a pig is simply assur. In other words, having a frum government in Israel would not help the problem of the oaths.
Contrary to your wishes, there simply is no “eilu viEilu” by Zionism and the State of Israel. As I have written, the pikuach nefesh alone is more than enough to have forbidden founding the State liChol haDeios including those Rabbis, as I have written numerous times and as you can see from that HaPardes.
Once again, there is no legitimate halachic basis and mesorah for Zionism and the State of Israel.
GAW:
The problem with that approach is that, unlike the US or Britian, this State of Israel is a chilul Hashem, shmad, etc. and you cannot divorce your being a Jew from anything.
So it’s not possible to have national pride in Israel even in that sense, whereas in the countries of the nations of the world, our Torah commands us to seek the welfare of the country in which we reside so, lichaora, it does not conflict with the Torah to be proud to be living as a Jew as a citizen of the medinah shel chessed, for example.
HaKatan: Thank you for answering my question. I see no further need to comment.
HaKatan: I care because you make a claim about Zionism which also applies to Chassidus, yet you seem to have no issue with that.
Maybe you should apply your reasoning about Chassidus to Zionism, as you seem to know nothing about it either.
HaKatan counsels: ” Iguess you will learn the answer regarding the halachic validity of Chassidus and everything else, BE”H, when Eliyahu haNavi tells us all BB”A.” Ein hachi nami: “everything else” by definition includes Zionism and should preclude the labeling of masses of Jews ‘ovdei ‘avoda zara etc.
I think it’s fair to say that Hakatan distanced himself from the implication of his earlier statement that all Zionists are ovdei a”z.
- The topic ‘Hakaras Hatov for Israeli Soldiers (IDF)’ is closed to new replies.