- This topic has 119 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 23 hours ago by .
-
Posts
-
somejew, Yes, there are some rabonim in old and recent history woh declare each other kofrim, etc. At the same time, there are others who disagree with each other (sometimes implicitly) but respect each other. See Chaim’s posts, for example. I think we should not be machmir on machlokes, and accept those who are accepted by at least some of other T’Ch.
I think we need to appreciate who complex und uncertain the modern world is. I guess Hashem thinks we are ready to take on such challenges. Nobody had a good answer to haskala, to Reform, to communism, to Zionism, … For example, here was an opinion in another thread that religious Jews could have lived peacefully under Arabs without Zionists. Is this a reasonable supposition for 1920s? Absolutely, yes. But now 100 years later – is it? Of course, no, seeing all the terrible regimes that existed in Arab countries in the last 100 years. So, T’Ch may express different opinions and not know which one will be right. I know at least, R Eliashiv who responded “I do not have ruach hakodesh” when another Rov pointed a mistake. Maybe some T’Ch thought they did, but this example shows that at least some did not. So, don’t be so harsh on those _you_ think are wrong.
@somejewiknow
There are tons of sefarim that are pro Zionism. You just don’t read it . Bpashtis the whole chovevi Zion movement was that. Again don’t confuse Zionism with secularism . In most of the anti R Kook and Chazon ish it’s about secularism. That’s different than opposition. To Zionism.I’ll repeat it again and keep it simple. Make believe I am a rizyna chusid . Is that anti Torah ? Yes or no? Just answer that question.
somejew > please provide me any ANY Torah defense of the zionist state, published by any of Gadolim you mentioned
While Chaim has names of more aguda-style rabbis, there are, of course, openly pro-zionism talmidei chachamim, but you might simply revert to saying they are not T’Ch because “no true Scotsman” would support zionism. At the risk of going this way again, I’d refer you to works of R Soloveitchik, who is, I think, less controversial than R Kook in terms of his relationship with secular Jews, and whose good relationships with such people as R Feinstein, are well document, as well as his earlier learning with his father and w/ Rav Ozer Grozdinsky (of whom he writes: I would visit him during vacation time at the Berlin University, I’ll present my chidushim that I worked out during the semester and R Ozer would typically point to a sefer on the shelf where this “chidush” is discussed). I challenge you to take a sefer by R Soloveichik and see whether he is a T’Ch and learn of his position on Israeli government and religious zionist organization – that he generally supported but often castigated when disagreeing with them.
@Chaim87 you keep promoting kefira, claiming it is kosher with NO SOURCE. please explain your claimed “rizyner” Torah that defends the kefira called “Zionism”. Please send the source for this nonsense.
@always_ask_questions, with due respect, nothing you wrote is relevant to the conversation. There simple isn’t a “Zionist” shita in Torah, and if there is please point me to it. Your “nuance” can be used to defend any kefira like Reform, and I would like you to consider how there is any difference between your attempt to validate Zionism vs validating Reform or Catholicism.@somejewiknow;
The Avir Yakov fered tish on tom hatmzut as per eyewitness testimony.
The Shtefenshta Reba (Rebbe of skulen and Ribnitz) has a picture of Herzel in his study and was open about zionsim.
Bohusha Rebbe was part of the mizrachi movement and openly supported them.
The other sadiguyra rebbes were openly supportive of the medina as well..This is all well known if you don’t live in a cave. There are also plenty of pro zionsim sefarim too. No its not kefira unless you are narrow minded.
@somejewiknow;
Furthermore on top of Rizyn,We know R isser Zalman supported the medina. His son took over Hesder after R kook Zl R tzvi pesach Frank as well as the tzitz elizer.
R Shraga Feviel mendlovithc made a bracha when the state was foudned. As per an eyewitness. yes Stamar reba was upset at that but he made that bracha.
First year of the statehood Punvitcha rav said hallel yom hatzmut. And they still raise the flag every year. in the groundbreaking cermeony in 1952 where the chazon ish attended many leadig kennest member’s were present. In fact there wre patchkavialln all ove rmeah sheraim against him. for that. Yes you can wash this all up and say hey the punitcha rav was just a politician. But if its all total kefira why go to such an extent like he did? I don’t think it would have been Ok for him to invite leading kofrim like reform rabbis. So why is zionsits different?
I heard from R Moshe wolfson ZL that 1948 was an eis rotozn for moshiach. nebach we weren’t zochah so instead we got “shiveri kelim” the medina. He also gave us a whole shuir how in 1967 the six day war was a miracle. Again very much not in the spirt of zionsim as kefira.
There are tons of pro zionsit sefraim out there too. Again don’t conflate zionsim with secularism. Zionisim has strong fondations in our torah. Secular zionsim has no place
Chaim87. i know you will continue to fail as you deny the emes.
If there is a Torah shita that supports zionist kefira (as if), please point to any of these rabbunim’s published Torah works. All you have is meaningless hearsay that you leverage to promote a false Torah against clear published psak from Gedolim.You are claiming a fraudulent shita shat doesn’t exist.
There are tons of sefarim. Read the rziyna sefarim. And torah works isn;t the deciding factor. Actions are. Facts are they openly said they support zionsim and freed tish on yom hatzmot. (Same with punvitch). If I listed sefarim you’d mach that avek too. But there are plenty . you just refuse to look at them,
Here is one published sefer which I gurantee you will mach avek like you always do because you are one sided.Rabbi Yaakov Friedman, the third Husiatyn Rebbe and a great-grandson of Rabbi Yisrael of Ruzhin, was a passionate Religious Zionist. He actively supported the Mizrachi movement and moved with his family to Israel in 1937. Many of his sermons in support of Religious Zionism, delivered between 1937 and 1956 in Tel Aviv, are collected in his sefer “Ohalei Yaakov.”
There are mnay more sefarim but you can’t deny actions either. Its not just about whats written. its how people acted. facts are a reba fered tish yom hatzmt. Facts are punvithca rav had all these kneset members by his ground breaking. facts are R Shraga feivel made a bracha for the medina. Facts are R Wolfson ZL said the 6 day war was a nes. i heard it from the tzadiiks mouth. You have excuses galore. Because you are a hothead where only one side is right. Its not a good midah. There are mnay ways to torah.
Chaim gives a wider list, but I suggested looking at r Soloveitchik, who was recognized by enough gedolim, some disagreeing, he was on moetses early on but then quit. Maybe he is not a Z in r Kooks sense, but he writes a lot about related issues. I would suggest this book: Community, Covenant and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications, it had a number of letters on political issues so that you can see his shitah. I would also open one of his less political seforim for balance so that you get an idea of his lomdus.
@Chaim87 and @always_ask_questions
I’m looking for a mehalech in Torah, and I am asking sincerely.
When chaim points to “how they acted” and tries to prove they supported what is clear kefira, I cannot take it seriously.
I am happy chaim at least attempted to provide a source, but even that is empty. This is a sefer that is not clear it’s contents, is not available or mainstream, and does not on the surface seem to be a serious Torah work that explains a “shita”.
Furthermore, the author is not someone of stature that demand anyone taking him seriously. Who acknowledged his supposed zionist shita? who argued with it? What is the the explanation of his understanding? Did he give (or even have the ability to give) psak? Was he put into cherem like kook, or was his stance not full of kefira, and if so how was it distinct?
I’m sincerely looking for a way to understand, but I sense chaim’s whole stance is both completely dishonest and a mockery of Torah.
None of the above questions are small, and their answers should (if Chaim was presenting an honest answer) be readily apparent in the Torah world.
Instead, chaim is grasping at any straw he can find, and then saying “see, great men in Israel also worshiped Baal! There is nothing wrong with this path! join the church of zionism! join the army of death!”@Always_Ask_Questions:
Once you go that route the list gets beyond huge. I mean you really think R Herzog, the next cheif rabbi after R Kook zl was also a CVS a kofer? Look at how much torah he learned. look at how many jews he saved during the war. Then there are all the talmidm of R Kook ZL like the nazir and R isser Zkaman Meltzer’s son. R isser zalman himself was very close to R kook. This list of chashuva mizrachi rabbonim who even most tratitonal charedim won’t call a kofer is huge. But my point is even many rabbonim who we’d consider charedi or accepted in Charedi circles were pro Zionist. The idea that we must follow the shlosh shevous was refuted in many sefarim.. Firstly its an aggadta and our mesora is not to pasken like an agaddta. Secondly, the 3 shavous is only if the goyim keep their deal and don’t start up with jews. There are other refutations too.But the key point is many charedi leaders held of Zionism. Our torah is not in conflict with Zionism according to many. However it is in conflict with secularism. And so being opposed to the current state of Israel because its secular is pretty much the viewpoint of all frum jews. How to deal with that is the big question. And should we try to find a frum path or charedi path that shields us within the system (even in the army) so we aren’t influenced? Those are fair debates within the debate of secularism.
How did I know you’d push aside the sefer I provide?
Re “how they acted” Thats the point first you need to stop saying its kefira. Have an open mind. Look at their action. Then say OK these were big people and supported it so its NOT clear kefira. Its only Kefira according to some poskim. If big rabbis ferred tsih on yom hatzmut or said a bracha on the medina its not clear kefira. First establish the facts.
the author is not someone of stature that demand anyone taking him seriously
Yes he is. Why is he not someone of stature? because you decided? He was a holy chasdisha reba.Who acknowledged his supposed zionist shita?
Umm nearly every Rizyna reba. As i told you the actions of sadygura rebas , Shetfenesht , Bohuash etc all clearly follow this path. Even if you don;t want to judge by actions once you have a sefer to back it up, its now clear. By the way if you know anything about Rzyhn its generally one cohesive chasduis even with different rebas . When one of the ruzyhna rebas speaks he speaks for all of them.He was not put in cherem. How did he differ from R kook? Well R Kook zl issue was that he accomdated the non frum seculars too much. The criticism against R Kook zl by some like the Imeri emes was due to secularism and not zionsim. (yes some were against both but not all). The reba in this case was purely talking about zionsim. He wasn’t suggesting that we accommodate or validate secular forces.
Side bar This cherm of R Kook is partliy fake news. Made up by hot heads like you. Its not clear how serious the cherem was. After the cherem was signed R Chaim sonnenfeld still sat near him by events. So yena cherem. And based on what you are saying why would R Shloma Zalamn learn by someone in cherem and have him be mesadr kiddushin? So this alleged cherem is to be taken with a grian of salt. I speak the emes
So for all the readers lets make this clear: The question of whether torah conflicts with zionsim is a debate among big gedolim. Both sides are holy. Zionists are not koferim and are jews like the rest of us. Meanwhile Satmar and other anti zionsits are also holy jews. Zionsim is not clearly anti torah. There is a place according to many gedolim.
Sorry but you are the mockery of torah. You make a pre concieved fact as a given and refuse to look at the obvious on the ground. None of my fcats are grasoing on straws.
Here is one more sefer: Eim habnim semicha by R Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal. I am sure you” say he is nobody too. LOL
@somejewiknow, I am not familiar with Chaim’s sources, but I gave you a reference to a T’Ch who have connection to both Litvishe lamdus and to modern & zionist movements, check his writings how he balances them together and see whether his argument makes sense to you. Beats arguing with us.
@Chaim87 you continue to make a bizuyon of the Torah. I continue to ask you: who and who are these people?
“stature” is not something to be taken lightly, and it is something obvious.
When influential Jewish leaders, who we might call gedolim, make a move who do they turn to for Torah guidance, whose teachings do they consider?This is not complicated.
Does the Lubavitcher Rebbe zatzal quote R Techetel or R Friedman and struggle feel obligate to consider their stance, or rather does he turn to the Rambam and Rav Kotler? The answer is the later.
Did Rav Elyashiv zatzal consider the reactions of the Shevet Halevi or Rav Chaim in giving psak? Did the Shevet HaLevi consider the Satmar Rav reactions? Did the Satmar Rebbe consider the teachings of the Munkatcher Rebbe? All these are answered “yes”, because these were all people of stature.
Being a Gadol in Torah, someone whose you can claim defined a “shita” in Torah, is a well defined “boys club” of our leaders who peer review each other. Anyone can join if they can master the Torah and yiras shamayim required and seek out that peer review.
And, beyond that specific question, if there would, chas v’shalom, be a Gadol who tried to defend the kefira of zionism and of @Chaim87, he will still be called out for that clear lie and disgrace of our Torah and be put in cherem. The Torah is a very real and very clear body of thought. Acting like “anything goes” because “there’s two sides” is a fraudulent evil and heresy.
When there are indeed “two sides” to a sugya, it is not hard at all to point to soild sources and defenders of both sides.
You are a stubborn hot head who refuses to creep out of the bubble you live in. I make no bizyun hatorah. I speak the emes and don’t just fall for how I was barinwashed.
You continue to ask me who are these people? And then you keep on moving thse goal posts and making up new corooked “boch sveros” on who has an opinion in this. But lest talk about your “peer review” shallow argument. So lets see who “peer reviewed”?
R Kook had many who “peer reviwed” him and stood on his side. R Isser Zalman Meltzer, R Tzvi pesach Frank, the titz elizer , the nazir, and many many more. These were big gaonim. Furthermore, he had talmidum who were huge. Sometimes you can see from ones talmidim. Notice how Shabis Tzvi didn’t leave over lasting talmdim who were our gedolim. But R kook did. They range from R Shloma Zalman, R Elyshav and many others that were older.
Re Rabbi Freidman who peer reviewed? Well the entire rizyna dynasty did. They include the shtefenstha reba, (Talimdim , Skulner reba and ribntza), Sadygur, Bohaush, Chortkov, Boyan etc. Rizyahn was huge pre war. They all agreed with him and in fcat followed in his ways. he wrote a sefer and the sadigura fered tsih yom hatzmut. Thats peer review.
Let move to Punvitcha rav, At that ground breaking cermeony, secular left wing leaders from the knesset spoke. The chazon ish was there with him. Take a look at the agudah syuim hashas where they are scared to put up H Hersechel Shachter who is barely even MO, because they will get in trouble. If its mamesh kefira would he have done that woth the chazon ish? (I mean yes the badatz held it was kefira and they posted patchkivillan against the punivtcha rav for that. But obvioulsy it wasn’t widely accepted). He also raised the flag on yom hatzmut. Imgaine if I raised a Hamas flag. would I get away with it?
Now lets move to R Elyashiv and R Yosef, both worked for the govt with R Yosef as chief rabbi for the state. If the state is all kefira how can they do that?is it OK to be a rebbe in JTS? I think we all agree that Sol Liberman who was gaon and aside for maybe R Moshe knew more torah than anyone else in the USA. Yet being a rebbe for the conservative movement completely passuled him. He himself was frum but we ex-comminincated him becasue his work was defactor endorsmenet of the movement. This is all as you say a “peer review” to the idea that zionsim is not clearl;y against our torah.
Now lets turn to Rabbi JB who was the head of mizrachi. R Aron speak harshley against him. But at the same time, they both ran chinuch atzmui. Theyw ere very close. I heard from an eyewitness that R Aron walked into YU to ask Rabbi JB to give a talmid a job there. He came to his levaya. R Aron did not agree with his hshkofoes. That’s clear. But a kofer?? Is it OK to run an organziation that teaches torah with a “kofer”?
Oh and yes 75% of frum jews who were pro the state of Israel were all kofrim. Oh I am sorry there aren’t as many sefarim quoting these people so they must be a kofer. Actions don’t matter only whats in a narrow sefer.
I could go on and on. And I have no doubt that you’ll drei akup. This is what liars like you do. You are so stuck in your own kool-aid. The evidence smacks you in the face that there are two sides. You’ll never see the truth. But I refuse to ever let you get the alst word on this. I won’t stand for bullies like you. You could contin ue to write and I wil always repeat the following.
The Issue of zionism is a debate among our holy sages. Some held its against our torah while others held its very much within our torah and whats wanted from us. Almost all agreed that seculrism is trief although there is a debate how much to tolerate that. The majorty of oppostion to the state of israel was because they are secular but not because ideally we can’t have a state.
Again, you claim a shita in Torah that isn’t there.
As you mentioned, working with the Conservatives doesn’t per se make one a certain kofer, so too working with Tzionim doesn’t per se make you a kofer. That doesn’t mean you support them! And if you, @Chaim87, insist that working with kofrim (like you claim about that evil masis imadiach Sol Liberman) makes one also a kofer, so that is how you are learning out the situation with any of the names you’ve mentioned.
The point, and I’m sure @Chaim87 will miss it but other readers won’t, is that we have already clear psak from accepted Gedolim that Zionism is kefira. Additionally, there is no counter psak. So, if you demand to box in any Ruv into being a advocate for that kefira, you are simply pasuling him.
You are puting the cart before the horse if you claim otherwise: Our Torah guides us and defines who is a Gadol in Torah. You don’t say a someone can be a Gadol if he rejects the Torah. And, again, there is no shita in Torah that kashers the trafine kefira of zionism, so it’s one or the other.several minor points to ^:
I am interested – is Lubavitcher Rebbe quoting R Kotler? I never saw/heard of that, but who knows. The only connection I know that Lubavitcher Rebbe was advising how to convince R Kotler to honor engagement between R Shneur and future Mrs Shneur and how to win beis din case for spending some on the hatzola money in Shanghai on chabad students….Also, RJB was not the “head of Mizrachi”, he was a supporter, but he always drew a line between that organization and his own views and rabbinical organizations he worked with.
R Kotler and R Mendel Zaks visited r Soloveichik (R Kotler called him “Bostoner Rav”) in 1950s trying to convince him to join protest against drafting women to Tzahal, but RJB refused. Soon after R Kotler invited RJB to a fundraiser for Chinuch Atzmai, and RJB spoke so highly about R Kotler that the latter was begging him to stop.
RJB was menahem avel to Kotlers, but it seems that nobody form Lakewood came to his funeral.
@somejewiknow
There isn’t a “psak” about Zionism. You made that up from bodeim. It’s an ideology where people were against it . You make things up. Baloney.
Now if you want to call it a “counter psak “, I quoted many and yes we do have many more counter pasaks. I told a few above on top of R Kook who in his own right can hold it.I don’t get your point re conservatives. My point is, those that joined it were ex communicated from our community even if religious. Are you going to belittle R elysshav and R Yosef? It’s Clear that it’s not kefira or they would not have worked for them. It sounds like you are belittling them a little. That talks to your hot head close minded nonsense . That everyone is a kofer but you. Who do you think you are to belittle these great people ?
Furthermore, it’s been proven in history that movements who are kefira become not religious and don’t observe mitzvas after 1-2 generations. Look at shabasi tzvi and the reform movement. Now go take a look at hesder the mizrachi movement founded by R kook 100 years ago. It’s even more religious and frummer now . Look at how ehrlich its soilders are. Kefirs doesn’t stick. R kook stuck
You’ve been calling various Rabbanim “כופרים, מסית ומדיח, אפיקורסים” for the last month or so. Your vitriol has in particular been toward Rav Kook. You’ve called Zionism heresy and IIRC, you declared a significant part of the Orthodox community as being the worst of the worst. If you think no one noticed, we did. You referred to Rav Kook by only his last name. You wrote שם רשעים ירקב in connection with his name on at least two different threads.
But I digress. It is my belief that people should know what they are talking about, especially when they throw out Halachik terminology like the terms you’ve used. So tell me something, do you know what those terms mean? Do you undertand the implications of the words you’re using? If you do, explain them and explain the application of those terms to Zionism. If you don’t and are just firing off whatever you were taught, it may be time to be quiet.
A few mistakes
1) The issue of Zionism isn’t a “psak”. Its not based on daled chelcki shlachan aruch. Its hashkafa.
2) Actions of holy people count as being supportive of that hashkafa and they don’t all need to “write” sefarim.
3) many sefarim are around and were peer reviewed by others that are pro zionism.
4) Talmidum of R Kook who also supported him while continuing to be marbatz torah count.
5) Kofrim don’t have a kyuim hadoros. Noone form shbasi tzvi or the reform movements grandchildren stayed frum. Same thing with the conservative movement. Hesder yeshiva is extremely frum and torahdik. That proves its emeskit.
6) Oppostion to secular zionsim (like the imeri emes was) isn’t oppistion to zionsim@zsk is there any forum to have an open conversation?
@somejewiknow
Here is the place for your open conversation. Lets not create goal posts that zionism is “halacha” and you need seforim and poskim. Its hashkafa and we look at how gedolim acted. We have chasdisha reba who fered tsih yom hatzmut, holy jews who made brochos and declared they’d fight for EY if they can like R shrage feivel., holy jews who raised Israeli flags, holy talmidum of r kook zl..Zionism is a hashkafa question in which many rabbonim supported it as the torah way.
This is a place for open discussion.
However, that doesn’t allow you, or anyone else for that matter, to refer to Rabbonim outside the Yeshivishe and Chassidishe Velt by their last name without the title they rightfully earned. Open discussion most certainly does not allow you to use an abbreviation that means “may he rot in the depths of Gehinom” in connection with said Rabbonim.
You, like many others, need to learn to differentiate between RZ and ideologically secularist Zionism. They are worlds apart. Just like you and others like you need to get that you’re completely ignorant of who Rav Kook actually was, what his actual stances were on things (i.e. he was adamantly opposed to coed schools), and the era he was living and the issues at that time. Reading what he wrote would change that. You’re not going to go OTD from reading his works, statements, piskei Halacha, etc.
And I am still waiting for you to explain the terms you so flippantly throw around and how they apply to the things and persons you claim they apply to.
@ZSK I’m not sure what information toy are missing that you need me to provide. Kook was masis i’madiach to promote blatent kafira in the Torah. As mentioned above, this is discussed at length by contempotaries of Kook, notably the aforementioned essay by Rav Yosef Yedid, where he specifically addressed the kefira in Kook published heretical books. Those books were put into cherem for this reason during kook’s putrid life.
Like Yashkeh or Sha”tz, Kook was a big talmid chuchem who earned the epithet “yimach shemo”. After kook’s death and the full disaster of his heresy made inroads into the Jewish world, Hashem yerachem, Gedolim like the Satmar Rebbe doubled down on the obligation for Jews to distance ourselves from him and his students.
For those who are pulled after Zionism and yearn to sacrifice your sons to die for its glory, I can only ask you to stop calling your new religion Judaism.
That was R Yedid postion. But if you look letters from the Imeri emes even we speaking sharp he only has the biggest kovod for him and does not call him a masis i’madiach . I told you already that the chafetz cahim held the same. In additon are you telling me that R Elshyav & R Shloma zalman learned by a masis i’madiach ? All R Kook’s supporters like R Isser Zalman meltzer, the titz elizer ,, R tzvi pesach frank, the nazir etc all supported a masis i’madiach ?
Your porbelm is you have one narrow shita and you’ll find that one gadol that says like you and that become toras moshe . meanhwile everyone else doesn’t count. Good so you have R Yedid and Satmar Reba. Big deal. Who are you to open your fat trap and decide because of those few. Shame on you. Wash your mouth out. R Kook was holy jew.
Zionsim has a place in judiasm accodring to many views. And the overhleming majorty held R Kook was a GADOL. (Albiet some held he was mistaken) Enough of your lies and nonsense.
@Chaim87 . as I have mentioned. I have not seen any substantive Torah defense of either Kook, Yashkeh, or Zionism, and this is all obvious.
Again with the refusal to address Rav Kook by his title. It’s very clear that hominem attacks and throwing out names of Rabbonim are the best you can do. Note that I gave you a mild rebuke (far less than you actually deserve, בלשון המעטה ביותר) and asked a question.
I’ll ask again:
1) Please define the terms you use.
2) Apply them to Rav Kook.
3) You claim there are Seforim that criticize Rav Kook other than that of the Satmarer. Name them – then I’ll verify what was actually said. In addition, statements from various Rabbonim don’t count unless you can give a date and name the individual who heard the statement made.You made the claim, you back it up
somejewiknow, did you look at R Soloveitchik’s works? He is not as ideological as R Kook and is not always agreeing with religious zionists (and kal vehomer with non-religious zionists), so maybe you will be able to relate to his Torah views of modern Israel, whether you agree with him or not. Let us know what you think.
@somejewiknow
I showed you torah reponses and pointed you to it. But you dismss it because you are a close minded naive jew who thinks only your way is right.
Furthermore, you make it sound like oh you need a “torah response” like in a sefer written down. Thats baloney and your own made up lies to push yourself ion this box you create.. The Torah reponse is the way other gedolim responsed with ACTIONS. Its not just what they write in a sfer. You make up your own rules as they go along. Now how did other big leaders REACT. Well lets see, some made a barcha when the israel was founded, some said hallel and some ferred tish. Another r Action is the talmidim R Kook ZL: had. Many many huge gedlom. That’s the proof and unless you deny those proofs you are lying. Your goalposts are your own made up lies.mods continue to not publish my Torah-only response. i would sure like to know why.
somejew > mods continue to not publish my Torah-only response
Was it the one where you read and analyzed Rav Soloveitchik’s essay and discussed what you agree with and what you do not?
I did not see it.I must acknowledge thanks to the mods for at least publishing my calling out their strong editorialization…
I wlll attempt to submit my answer in @ZSK in 4 parts.
(Part 1/4)
1) masis is someone who pushes an individual towards kefirah or avoda zureh, madiach is someone who does that to a single group. “yimach shemo” is the common language used to fulfil the concept of “shaim rashuyim yirkav” when mentioning certain type of evil people, especially those who might be, G-d forbid, influential in turning the hearts of Jews against Hashen.@somejewiknow
Because it isn’t torah only. Its your biased narrow view. As we noted, ACTIONS by many leading gedolim that are crystal clear arethe clear torah proof. You don’t need seforim published to establish facts. If a gadol raises an Israeli= flag or says halell, or ferrs tisch, or makes a bracha,in front of many mnay people those aren’t “questionable acts” where maybe they meant something else. Those are clear statements that they meant to support zionsim and that its a torah view as well.
Furthermore, when a gadol like R Kook ZL has holy tamidim like R Elyashiv and R Shloma zalman who never renounced him and were holy jews. you can’t call him a heretic. Again these are like ACTIONS.(Part 1/4) masis … madiach … “yimach shemo” …
Thanks, this is a great start for a Torah-only response! A freileche chanuka and all the best wishes to the mods who had to read the rest of it.
Seriously, rather than focusing on some Rabonim that you find so objectionable, look at the bright side. We provided you here with several names of Rabonim who are less controversial than the targets of your wrath. Could you look at their writings and see how your position corresponds to theirs. You may be better capable of having “Torah only” discussion when you look at texts that you consider Torah.
An interesting story from a biography of R Ysroel Meir Lau, Israeli chief rabbi. After WW2, he was an orphan in case of his uncle and was learning in R Shlomo Zalman’s yeshiva. The uncle wanted him to prepare to pass bagrut. R Shlomo Zalman said that while there are no secular studies in the yeshiva, he can study on his own in the evening in the dorm. Some time later, Rav asked Yisroel how are his preparation for bagrut are going. He answered that he became interested in philosophy and history, but does not like physics and other sciences. R Shlomo Zalman was shocked – you are not interested in how Hashem runs the world. When on a bus, I often hear Hebrew Univ students talking about science and I am fascinated by it, how could you not be?!
btw I sent all 4 parts of my response above.
@Chaim87 what you are describing is not Torah. The whole sugya of a nuvi sheker and masis imadiach is regarding an otherwise gadol in Torah who is an influential posek and fiers tish and wears rebbishe or rosh yeshivishe clothes and also flies a zionist flag or a tzlav around his neck.
If fling the flag of an otherwise heretical movement and they DON’T give the published Torah reasoning according to our mesora then they would certainly also be considered a heretic especially if after being called out by a famous sefer like vayoel moshe and STILL not publish their Torah response than they are almost certainly a kofer.
This is all obvious and is well known as the system of our (not yours) Holy Torah.
Now, if you will respond with “are you calling so-and-so a kofer”, my answer will be “no”. I am not looking into anyone. If someone flew a zionist flag, it’s not my business to figure out if he ever explained himself. If he did, good. If he didn’t he may, at best, be an unintentional “madiach” and/or kofer.
None of this changes the Torah.If we were talking about just one perosn then you can say navi sheker. But there is a huge list of gedolim who both the chazon ish, satmar reba and others were close to who did ACTIONS that were pro zionsit. So many navi shekers? Its you who decided its sheker based on your narrow view. If you start with an open mind and see what they did before you decide then you’d relaize hey we have great people that did like this, it must not be sheker.
Why do people have to PUBLISH sefarim to answer to the Satmar Reba ZYA? Firstly many of these gedolim were older and they certainly don’t have to “publish” sefarim. here again you just make up stuff. You made up that unless its in a sefer it doesn’t count. That’s your own false purim torah. Stop making stuff up. And the few that did print sefarim like we pointed to don’t count.
If someone raises an Israeli flag then you doesn’t need to “explain ” himself. you decided this nonsense that a person must “explain” themselves. As they say ACTIONs speak louder than words. He has no need to expalin himself. Its obvious from his actions. In the case of R sharga fievel who made a bracha on the state he did explain himself loud and clear. I heard the explanation from his talmidim. And he held a statehood is a good thing. No he didn’t write a “sefer” But so what.
I’ll just repeat again, typically by a navi sheker like Shabsi tzvi, the reform or conservative movement etc. the next generation doesn’t stay frum. Neither does the students of the funder. Here you have R Kook ZL who established Hesder yeshiva which is sold frum, he had talmidm that were from the biggest poskim like R Elyshaiv amd R shloma zalman.
When you have so many ACTIONS that did things to support the medina that was Intentional” because they are very specific actions. I don’t buy that torah of “unintentional either
And again R elishav and R Yosef worked for the state of israel. if thats against our torah how did they do it? Can i go work for JTS or in a reform temple?
Bottom line stop making up your own goal posts . No such thing that one has to write a “sefer” . Or that one needs to answer to the Satmar reba.. They are just as holy and don’t need to answer.
So lets repeat so that the audience hears the truth. ZIONISM HAS A STRONG ROOT IN OUR TORAH. MANY HOLY JEWS SUPPORTED THE IDEA OF SATEHOOD. AND R KOOK Z’L WAS A VERY HOLY TORAH TZADIK.
@Chaim87
I don’t mean to say anyone must write a response, especially if there is no Torah response, and that is exactly the point.
“so many kofrim” does not change the Torah.
If somebody does something that is against any part of the Torah, the kasha is on that person not on the Torah.
This is the crux of my argument and highlights the absurdity of yours.If somebody does something that is against any part of the Torah, especially kefira like explained in Vayoel Moshe, the kasha is on that person not on the Torah.
@somejewiknow
Correction so many “gedolim “ not kofrim did ACTIONS that clearly without a question support Zionism. To call all of those holy people kofrim makes you the odd one and a kofer. You can deny that one person was a gadol but not when it’s a long list. So you have veyol Moshe and Rabbi Yedid yippy! When so many Torah gedolim do Actions in support of Zionism that makes it part of the Torah . Who are you to decide what’s correct Torah. You only know that by looking at the gedolim. Sometimes one gadol can error but not tons.
Furthermore, you look at a person Talmudim and that tells you if that person was a kofer. Let’s look at R kook talmidim who were gedoli olam.somejew > If somebody does something that is against any part of the Torah, the kasha is on that person not on the Torah.
Despite all our references, you continue in your circular thinking: everyone who disagrees with Satmar Rebbe is against Torah and thus needs to prove himself. We showed that many Rabonim that you disapprove had some level of approval or personal respect from important rabonim that you presumably respect. Note that those rabonim do not always agree 100% with Satmar shita also… So, it seems that the world of Torah is not neatly divided into two camps, one of which miraculously agrees with you, and the other – kulo kofrim.
I do agree with your desire to have all rabonim express clear opinions about each other so that we have it on record. It is, perhaps, a Jewish ideal – and this is how it was when we had a Sanhedrin, where Talmidei Chachomim were able to argue their positions and come either to an agreement or to, at least, understanding their differences. I also wish we could put pro- and anti-Z and any other topics in the same room in the presence of the students of their yeshivas and have a learned discussion. For some reason, this is not happening for quite some time. Vilna Gaon, for example, left his house when Alter Rebbe tried to have such a discussion… In our times, it may be that each of the Rabonim does not see value in arguing with each other, but rather in pursuing activities he finds productive. Would it help anyone to R Kotler argue with Lubavitcher Rebbe or R Soloveitchik? Maybe it is to the best that one od them grew yeshivas, another looked for Baalei Teshuva, and third one organized day schools for children of colleege-educated … we need all of the above ….
@somejewiknow
Let’s go back to basics please just answer yes or no to the below:
Was R Elishav zl a gadol?
Was R Yosef zl a gadol ?
Was R shloma zalman Orbach zl a gadol?Was R isser zalman meltzer zl a gadol?
Was R tzvi pesach frank zl a gadol?
Was the punvitcha rav zl a gadol?
Were the rizyhna rebas like the Aver Yaakov, Shtefenesht (the skullner and ribntza Reba Reba ), Bohush zl a gadol?
Was R shraga fievel mendelovitch who helped so many yeshivas in the USA a gadol?
Was R Moshe Wolfson zl a gadol?Yes or no will suffice . No torahs please
@Chaim87
you will need to provide your definition of the term “Gadol” and what the implications of that title might be. That would enable me to answer your questions.@somejewiknow
Someone with whom we emulate to do what they do and believe they made no mistakes in their actions. And/or leading poskim. We consider them to have the purest hashkafa. That will be a yes or no to my list.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.