- This topic has 285 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sam, are you claiming that R’ Moshe’s teshuvah was based on misinformation?
DY
I think what Avi Gordon is trying to tease out, and what I think is clouding your judgement is trying to remove the issur from the equation.
I for one dont fully get those who ascend, most Poskim including many zionist ones forbid going. Why mess with a possible kares?
I think you cant move past that (admittedly large) hurdles, and thus you view ascending har habayis as something “wrong”. You are having trouble seperating the issur of ascending from the conversation.
Consider another example say the kosel was being used as the excuse, should we stop going? ASH above claimed he would stop going to kever rachel if it was used as an excuse. Sadly he may no longer go in keeping with kol hayotzeh mepicho (arguably). Do you agree? Mearos hamachpela has been used as well, is it wrong to go?
In the 20’s and 30’s riots and deaths were blamed on benches at the kosel, mechitzahs, blowing the shofar etc. Were they to blame? (careful the they in that sentence includes the edah who protested the removal of the mechitzah)
Sam, are you claiming that R’ Moshe’s teshuvah was based on misinformation?
I dont have an answer here, but Many times I see the exact same quote in regards to tshushvas. For example There was a Psak recently from Rav kanivesky regarding Eiden and Smart phones and many said it was based on misinformation.
Ubiquitin, I am aware that the issur of tumah could be a bias, but I have come to my position having considered that. If the balance of positives vs. negatives (even absent tumah) of any of the other m’komos you’ve mentioned were the same, I would take the same position regarding those. I don’t believe (or am at least unaware of the case being that) the balance is the same.
DY, the Rosh on “Shenaim Ochazim” explains that the rationale of “kol d’alim gevar” is that someone will fight harder for what is his. This was shown in the Kotel controversy. When the Arabs saw that the Jews were willing to fight over it they backed down. Tzvi Fishman has an excellent parable about this in his anthology “Days of Mashiach”. A man knocked on someone’s door and informed him that he was the true owner of the TV. Not wanting to make a fuss the man handed it over. In the weeks that followed the same individual made similar demands. He then demanded the man’s wife. Finally he demanded the whole apartment. This is known as “give him an inch and he will take a mile”
ubiquitin, do you think the PA leadership that incite and encourage attacks are at all responsible for terrorism?
mw13
yes because inciting and encouraging attacks is wrong
(this was covered earlier)
incidently I dont think you replied to my question to you: when the shooting of “innocent” palestinian stabbers is used to incite terrorism, does that make the police responsible?
ubiquitin:
yes because inciting and encouraging attacks is wrong
If the only one who are responsible for an attack are those who actually perpetrate it (which is what I believe you said earlier), no body else can be at all responsible. Why does the ethical nature of an action change this black and white equation?
when the shooting of “innocent” palestinian stabbers is used to incite terrorism, does that make the police responsible?
No. Even if this action did play a role in causing an attack to happen, since that action was entirely justified self-defense, they are not responsible for any negative consequences.
(However, the truth is that I disagree with your premise; I don’t believe that the shooting of the terrorists is a contributing factor in the current round of terrorism. Sure, Abbas and the UN might give angry speeches about it, but I don’t think this issue is what is driving the average Palestinian rioter or terrorist.)
However, one who acts without that level of justification (such as ascending HHB) would indeed be responsible.
But I think all this debate the issue of who is responsible for what, and to what extent (which may come down to a question of semantics), misses the larger question:
Putting aside the halachic prohibition, do you think that it is a good idea for Jews to ascend HHB? Should these actions be encouraged or discouraged?
Let me try yet another moshol (#DejaVuAllOverAgain):
If somebody runs into traffic and gets killed, is he responsible for his own death?
His running into traffic is certainly the cause of his death. But if he was running away from somebody chasing him with a knife, then he is not responsible. If he is running to retrieve his Frisbee than he is.
But this distinction can only exist if one acknowledges that the driving (no pun intended) forces behind an action have influenced the action. If one insists that anyone who hasn’t actually carried out an action is entirely blameless, what their motivation was ceases to be relevant.
MW13, your traffic analogy is totally fallacious. There is no aveira in merely driving a car. If the road was clear and the driver ran a red light the driver alone is responsible. If the driver could nt stop (e.g. the pedestrian ran in front of him on a highway) the pedestrian is solely responsible.
As for going up on HHB, I personally prefer shev v’al taaseh because of the possible severe halachic prohibition. However, according to those poskim who allow and even encourage it, it is indeed proper as is going to the Kotel or the Maarat HaMachpela (and Bnei Beraq – remember they have made abundantly clear that they will not countenance any Jewish presence anywhere in EY
As a clarification, if one’s personal Rav were to theoretically give a psak that it’s mutar to ascend parts of Har Habayis, then the person hasn’t done an issur.
Regardless of contemporary Gedolims’ position to prohibit ascending any part of Har Habayis, the da’as yachid is legitimate as long as it follows the halachic process.
In Yiddishkeit, we don’t have the halachic equivalent of a “Pope” to heed. Torah lo ba’shamayim hi.
(I am nevertheless NOT advocating ascending Har Habayis).
MW13
“If the only one who are responsible for an attack are those who actually perpetrate it (which is what I believe you said earlier), no body else can be at all responsible. Why does the ethical nature of an action change this black and white equation?”
the inciter is not responsible for the attack. He is not tried as a murderer not in olam hazeh nor in olam hames. He is responsible for inciting the attack.
“No. Even if this action did play a role in causing an attack to happen, since that action was entirely justified self-defense, they are not responsible for any negative consequences.”
whole heartedly agree! And to me it sounds pathetic and desperate when terrosits (including Abbas) use it to “justify” further attacks.
Bottom line is as you said ” Even if this action did play a role in causing an attack to happen, since that action was entirely justified…, they are not responsible for any negative consequences.”
This is the case for “inciting attacks” by shooting terrorists, walking on har habayis, drawing cartoons or being Jewish. Since all of these are entirely justified (even if they did lead to an increase in attacks) there is ZERO blame to be had by those commiting the justified acts.
“However, the truth is that I disagree with your premise; I don’t believe that the shooting of the terrorists is a contributing factor in the current round of terrorism.”
I provided quotes to that affect earlier
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/har-habayis-revisited/page/4#post-583884
“Putting aside the halachic prohibition, do you think that it is a good idea for Jews to ascend HHB? Should these actions be encouraged or discouraged?”
Its hard for me to put aside the halachic prohibition against ruba deruba of gedolim but I’d have to say encouraged. (though I am neutral about it).
“If somebody runs into traffic and gets killed, is he responsible for his own death?”
a better moshol wold be, then the motorist then is so enraged at the dent caused in his car by this guy who ran in front of him so he starts stabbing people who look like the guy. Is the jaywalker responsible for all their deaths? (even in an imaginary world where the driver doesnt kill people on other days)
This is the case for “inciting attacks” by shooting terrorists, walking on har habayis, drawing cartoons or being Jewish. Since all of these are entirely justified (even if they did lead to an increase in attacks)
This is where you err. Inciting terrorists is not justified unless the action which does so is necessary to achieve a greater potential benefit than the potential damage.
This is the case with 1&4, but not 2&3.
The flaw in your enraged motorist moshol is that his actions were completely unpredictable, whereas arab terror isn’t.
DY
There is another flaw. Because while the pedestrian may have been wrong to cross against traffic, The driver is completely wrong for swerving in order to hit him.
Could you imagine the conversation the next day
“Did you hear about the crazy driver who saw somebody jaywalking and drove right into him, then was so enraged at the dent in his car that he started stabbing people who looked like the jaywalker?”
DY, Joseph, Mw13, and media “Weeeeeeeeeeell you have to understand the guy really shouldn’t have been jaywalking, he is partially responsible…”
And keep in mind, jaywalking is more wrong than ascending har habayis.
BTW as far as the cartoons
So should governments ban offensive cartoons in order to protect their populace?
And keep in mind, jaywalking is more wrong than ascending har habayis.
No it isn’t, because it is not something expected to lead to violence.
BTW as far as the cartoons
So should governments ban offensive cartoons in order to protect their populace?
Query if the benefit of free speech outweighs the danger.
DY
“Query if the benefit of free speech outweighs the danger.”
Yes I know the tzedadim.
Same query regarding freedom of worship.
and not capitulating to terror
DY: Yes, but it’s not predictable in this case. There isn’t an increase in terrorism every time Jews go onto HHB. Jews go up there every day. The terrorism only increases when the Beheimos doing it want it to increase. HHB is just a pretext, always.
This is much worse than all of the other things mentioned. To quote from the article I linked earlier:
“Rav Elyashiv called on the president to prevent Jews from visiting Har HaBayis, stating it is an act that that is viewed as extremely provocative by the goyim. Maran stated everything possible must be done to avoid a religious war, and the provocateurs are playing with fire.”
DY, Rav Eliashiv held that in general it is prohibited to go up so this may have been a way to strengthen his position. Not to mention the fact that very often askanim lied to him in order to get statements they wanted (Rav Simcha Kook said that this is how his agreement to support the Sharon government during the preparations for the expulsion from Gush Katif was obtained).
I didn’t merely post that as an appeal to authority (although appeal to authority is a fundamental Torah tenet).
You’re right, Joseph. The government should crack down more. A good idea would be to find out if Moslems believe that some disposal of the body will cause torment to the soul and then do it. This will get to the root of why they do not care if they die.Perhaps burying them with dogs.
You’ve got it backwards. It’s nationalists who use their idealogy to rationalize away the issur and the sakanah.
I guess it depends on who you include as gedolei hador. Rav Lior (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/313612/rav-lior-israel-must-exercise-sovereignty-over-har-habayis.html), for example. Rav Mordechai Eliahu took a middle position, prohibited going to all areas but calling for a shul to be built in a place that is definitely permitted.
Health, YAWN.
Avi K -“Health, YAWN.”
Is this referring to me? Btw, I don’t personally care if s/o goes up, just you should know – you’re putting your life in danger. Did you ever hear of a guy named Glick?!?
Sorry, Health. I meant DY. You guys seem to be alter egos.Tell me, did you ever hear of a man named Menachem Stark?
Okay, I admit it. I am Health. I’m surprised it took so long for anyone to realize, since my posting style on both accounts is precisely the same.
DY – “Okay, I admit it. I am Health.”
Please DY, don’t make jokes! These zionists will believe it. I live in Lakewood & you live in Brooklyn? Anyways your posts are much nicer than mine.
What about HaKatan? Is your last name Howard? Or perhaps Marx?
DY, mw13 and whomever else
Do you agree with kerry’s comments here?
No, and the fact that you asked means that you still fail to understand what we are saying (or at least what I’m saying, as I can’t definitively speak for others).
What he said justified (to an extent) the Hebdo attack. That is wrong. That doesn’t mean the Hebdo people were smart, or correct, but regardless, the attack was 100% unjustified.
The fact that it is wrong, provocative and dangerous to go up to Har Habayis in no way shape or form mitigates the evil or justifies the murderous terrorism. But it is still wrong to provoke, and the inciters do take some level of responsibility.
You, and others, skewed my (and others’) view into somehow removing some of the blame from the reshaim who kill our brethren, but that is not at all what I said.
What Kerry said implies that there was more than just provocation, but some level of justification. That is wrong, and he does need to retract and apologize (don’t hold your breath).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.