- This topic has 296 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yes, but there is so much more that we are missing without Moshiach, so that I think our yearning is supposed to be for Moshiach to come so that our avodas Hashem can be complete – not just one aspect.
Simcha613-“If I have a rabbi? You sure get mean when you disagree with someone. I actually asked the Rov of my shul (who is not a Religious Zionist) and he told me that many have asked the question and he personally does not have a firm grasp of what R’ Moshe meant.”
Well maybe your Rabbi should ask his son – R’ Dovid?
“You may need to relearn history if you think EY was safer in the 1300s than it is today.”
You make up stories. I was talking about nowadays!
“And I don’t know if it’s definitely worse now than it was when R’ Moshe wrote the teshuvah. But even if it is, you can’t assume he would say it’s assur to go nowadays because it’s too dangerous.”
Of course it is. No one knows when the next terrorist attack will be!
DY- Of course we should yearn for Moshiach. I never said we shouldn’t. I meant a person saying “I feel bad I can’t move to EY, I can’t wait for Moshiach to come so I can go” is not accurate because one does not need to wait for Mashiach to go to EY. In other words, yearning for Mashiach and all the Mitzvos that come with it is not the same as yearning to live in EY.
Health- At first I thought you meant the 1300s and I wrote my response that way. When I realized I misunderstood I edited it quickly and added the last paragraph. But you miss my point, even if it is more dangerous nowadays than it was 30-40 years ago, does not mean R’ Moshe would now say that is assur to go because of venishmartem. You can’t assume and make up a shitah like that that R’ Moshe never said.
Avi K -“Health, who says that most poskim hold like Rav Moshe.”
Now let’s see: There’s the Litvish Poskim and also the Satmar Poskim & the Brisker Poskim and you’re saying “Who says”?
I don’t think that “Religious” Zionism has that many Rabbis.
“In any case, halacha k’rabbim is only when there is a discussion and vote, as in a din Torah or on the Sanhedrin.”
Who says? Prove it!
Health- Please stop putting religious in quotation marks. It is very insulting to many Religious Zionists and the halachos of loahon hara apply to them also.
Simcha613 -“does not mean R’ Moshe would now say that is assur to go because of venishmartem. You can’t assume and make up a shitah like that that R’ Moshe never said.”
No one is going to Assur living in EY. I’m really clueless what you’re getting at! There are even Satmar Chassidim living there.
Since the times are – that we have no peace there, certainly Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen’s opinion should be considered when contemplating moving to Israel!
I posted this before:
“Rav Moshe concludes that since no one rules that there is an absolute obligation of Aliyah, Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen’s opinion should certainly be considered when contemplating moving to Israel.”
You quoted the din of venishmartem when it comes to EY. Usually venishmartem forbids us from doing something dangerous. I understood you to mean, that since venishmartem applies to the dangerous situation in EY, it is assur to go. If you don’t think it is assur to live in EY, don’t quote the possuk of venishmartem which may give someone the wrong impression.
a person saying “I feel bad I can’t move to EY, I can’t wait for Moshiach to come so I can go” is not accurate
Of course it’s accurate because whatever prevents us from moving there now will not prevent us when Moshiach comes (may it be soon).
What would be inaccurate is if someone would say, “It’s impossible for anyone to move to Eretz Yisroel until Moshiach comes”. I haven’t heard that, though.
DY- Fair enough.
There was an article on YWN where a Gadol did not want the french jews to make aliyah
Health,
1. Who are these anonymous “Litvish Poskim & the Brisker Poskim”? Are they the “gedolim shlita” who sign pashkevilim?
2. RZ does not have “that many Rabbis”? What about, Rav Kalischer, the Netzviv, Rav Kook, Rav Uziel, Rav Meir Simcha, Rav Soloveichik, Rav Avraham Shapira, Rav Goren, Rav Tzvi Yehuda and Rav Mordechai Elaihu? You can add Rav Ovadia, who called himselfa Zionist. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach who said that when he wanted to go to kivrei tzaddikim he went to the military cemetery on Har Herzl and Rav Asher Weiss paskens shailot from IDF officers so maybe they can also be considered Zionists.
3. I think that it is obvious that this only holds when there is a discussion and vote. Otherwise how do we know? Moreover, there is the question of who is included. This was the Rema’s reason for rejecting the Mechaber’s two out of three (Rambam, Rif and Rosh) sheeta. BTW, sometimes we pasken like a yachid. For example, we often pasken like Rabbi Yossi against Chachmim because his reasoning was with him (nimuuko imo).
By listing non tzionim as tzionim, you really weaken your case.
Avi K: Your #2 is problematic for many reasons. Citing names of rabbonim who were niftar before the establishment of the state is somewhat disingenuous, because no one knows what they would have said had they actually seen the extreme secular nature of the state and the anti-religious stance taken by the state’s representatives and functionaries. Such as the shmad of the sefardi immigrants, the rampant chilul Shabbos that the state encouraged, or trying to draft chareidi girls into the army, to name just a few.
The matter of the rabbonim in your list of RZ rabbis is also something of a non-sequitur. You cite names of rabbonim who do not or did not wield much if any authority in the chareidi world. Now, you can kick and scream and rail against “the chareidim” for not accepting these rabbonim. But, it will not become a rational argument to which a chareidi person will listen. Because, ultimately the issue boils down to “who is a gadol?” The chareidim always publicly proclaimed that they follow the directives of the gedolei Torah. In the recent past, RZ decried and denied the validity of the entire concept of “gedolei Torah.” Remember the “mered ha’kadosh” (an oxymoron if ever there was one) from a few decades past? RZ leaders and politicians took pride in the idea that they do not need to ask rabbis’ opinions on politics and matters of state; rabbis were needed only to answer ritual questions, such as kashrus and saying kaddish. I believe Naftali Bennet has recently announced in public that he still follows this formula. This is part of the reason for the split between the Mercaz Harav community and the (for lack of a better phrase) “mainstream” dati-leumi (the bnei akiva) crowd. Nowadays, some RZ people have realized the contradiction between claiming to be religious and not listening to rabbonim. So, many (but not all) RZ people are now trumpeting “we have our own da’as Torah.” This belated, rearguard decision is probably a positive one for the RZ community. However, you surely cannot expect a typical chareidi person to suddenly abandon the da’as Torah of those who were acknowledged to be gedolei Torah, and decide that the movenment that denied the very concept of gedolei Torah and da’as Torah — is now all of a sudden really the true da’as Torah. Just as a chareidi will have to accept the fact that an RZ person will cite rabbonim that he might not consider to be gedolei Torah, similarly, an RZ person must understand that the tzibbur ha’chareidi is not going to turn their backs on those who have always been considered gedolei Torah who espouse da’as Torah.
Simcha613 -“If you don’t think it is assur to live in EY, don’t quote the possuk of venishmartem which may give someone the wrong impression.”
Stop Dreying A Kopp!
I quoted Venishmartem for this reason:
Since the times are – that we have no peace there, certainly Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen’s opinion should be considered when contemplating moving to Israel!
AY
Many charedim use the arguement of gedolim who before the war rejected zionism (Like Rav Elchonan Wasserman) and compare with post war Rabbanim
Some did change their mind. The Maunkatcher Rebbe was famously against zionism, but his son after the war changed his mind and became and zionist (and left his chassidic Yishua , but remained charedi) because of it
Avi K -“Health, 1. Who are these anonymous “Litvish Poskim & the Brisker Poskim”? Are they the “gedolim shlita” who sign pashkevilim?”
Stop trying to make fools of Anti-Zionists!
We’ve been arguing this for years. Do a search in the CR.
Many times posters have listed the names.
“I think that it is obvious that this only holds when there is a discussion and vote. Otherwise how do we know?”
Your wrong again! That’s why Bais Hillel & Bais Shammy married each other!
On a personal note, I wouldlike to suggest to the Moderators to impose a ban (or at least a limitation of the number) of exclamation marks per post employed by Health.
I have no good reason for this but still I submit it for your consideration.
Some did change their mind. The Maunkatcher Rebbe was famously against zionism, but his son after the war changed his mind and became and zionist (and left his chassidic Yishua , but remained charedi) because of it
A son not following in the ways of his father does not constitute a change of mind. Unfortunately, it is a phenomena that can be applied to many ‘sons of gedoilim’.
ZD: you mean to say that Reb Elchonon Wasserman — had he actually seen the state in action after 1948 — might have changed his previously held opinion and supported the state of Israel’s anti-religious stance?
What I meant in my OP was that knowledgeable yirei Hashem rabbonim who subscribed to the idea of zionism at the beginning of the 20th century might have revised or rescinded what said or wrote in 1915 after seeing what, in fact, actually transpired after 1948. Besides, in some cases their words need careful examination exactly what they supported and advocated in the first place.
American Yerushalmi, Rav Zalman Baruch Melamed says that Bennett does ask rabbis. However, according to the Rema (Choshen Mispat 163:1) he is not required to listen and neither are the voters:
?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??”? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???”? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?”? ???? ????? ???? ?????’ ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? (???’ ????”? ??? ???? ??’ ?”? ?????”? ??”? ?????) ??’ ??”? ??’ ??”? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????:
???? – his opinion and not his rav’s
??? ???? – for the sake of Heaven and not for the sake of some personal or subgroup interest
As for the nature of the State, calling it extremely secular is libelous. Shabbat and yamim tovim are official days of rest, government offices are even closed during Chol HaMoed, food in government institutions is kosher, during Sukkot the President receives visitors in his sukka, etc., etc.
As for the Chareidi tzibbor, it is difficult to say what their leaders tell them as what they say publicly is not always what they say when the extremists are not listening (the latter even threw rocks at Rav Eliashiv when he reached an agreement on moving graves). A case in point is the proliferation of Chareidi professional training programs and colleges (sometimes even tracks within secular colleges).
Health,
1.I don’t have to. You do a good enough job.
2. Wrong again. They informed each other as to who were pasul according to the other’s opinion (Yevamot 14a). Their stalemate was due to an argument over whether we go according to the greater number or the greater amount of wisdom. I heard an opinion that that was why Rabbi Eliezer would not accept the majority vote. He was from Bet Shammai and he was greater in wisdom than all of them put together (Pirkei Avot 2:8) so he held that he was the rov.
AY, why wouldyou expect a. Haraidi to accept the peak of an RZ Rabbi? Similarly, you act surprised that a non charaidi Jew doesn’t accept charaidi Daas Torah.
As an aside, Rav Wasserman’s grandchildren , including the boy named for him, attended Zionist yeshivas in Brooklyn.
The main gadol who was a Zionist before 1939 was Rav Kook. I see no evidence he would have changed his mind had he lived to 1948.
In 1948 the choices of places for jews to live significantly changed and the 2 main choices to live were either Palestine or the United States, both places forbidden by the gedolim in 1939
The main gadol who was a Zionist before 1939 was Rav Kook. I see no evidence he would have changed his mind had he lived to 1948.
Yes, Rav Kook was a gadol, but really the only one of that caliber, but not only was his opinion not agreed upon by his contemporaries, it was forcefully rejected – “????? ?????? ?? ?????”.
As for the nature of the State, calling it extremely secular is libelous….
What a ridiculous thing to say. The State of Israel is irreligious. They are not ???? ???? ??????. The Leaders of the State do not follow Halachah. The founders of the State famously did everything in their power to ensure that Yiddishkeit would be forgotten. “Secular” – according to the first translation that came up on google – means “not subject to or bound by religious rule”. The State of Israel does not – by any stretch of imagination – follow Shulchan Aruch, or any other Code of Jewish Law. The State of Israel is irreligious at best; many would call it anti-religious.
You can support Zionism, you can believe in whatever you wish, you can convince yourself of any philosophy that pleases you – but please don’t let that blind you to the Chillul Hashem that considers itself representatives of the Jewish Nation.
As an aside, Rav Wasserman’s grandchildren , including the boy named for him, attended Zionist yeshivas in Brooklyn.
?? ????? ???? ?? ????. Why do you think that the decisions of grandchildren reflect on the opinion of their grandparents?? Many, many gedolim had children who strayed from the Torah path.
So now someone who became a Zionist after the Holocaust is considered OTD?
Zd:
So now someone who became a Zionist after the Holocaust is considered OTD?
That would depend on whether the outlook and Hashkafos of “Zionism” are compliant with Torah or not, which is altogether a different discussion [- a discussion that has been rehashed in various forms in the CR, generally ending “Closed” because posters unfortunately find it difficult to discuss without getting personal]. I never insinuated that it is against Torah, I took issue with bringing proofs from children or grandchildren of Gedolim.
Yekke, you are simply incorrect. In fact, Ben-Gurion said that our title deed to EY is the Tanach and sponsored a Tanach circle. While he many others were not personally observant they recognized that Israelihood (as opposed to a galut “Yiddishkeit”) requires a grounding in the Tanach and the Talmud and even made them part of the HS graduate exams (bagrut). As I previously posted, the Jewish character of the State has always been an integral part of the consensus (social contract). Even liberals try to co-opt Jewish concepts. For example, the anti-animal cruelty group is called Igud Tzaar Baalei Chaim and when the Knesset codified the obligations of bailees Shulamit Aloni (!) insisted that it be called “Chok Arba’ah Shomrim”. For that matter, Yossi Sarid (!) was instrumental in establishing the Hesder yeshiva in Kiryat Shemona. There is also a law against lashon hara and a law requiring one who can to proffer assistance called “Chok Al Taamod al Dam Re’eicha”. For that matter, Halacha is enshrined by a basic (quasi-constitutional) law and is frequently quoted by both observant and non-observant judges.
Okay.
I see the Moderators don’t want to throw out perfectly useful exclamation marks. Well then
how about we take them from Health’s posts and donate them to zahavadad’s posts?
He could use some.
That takes work. I’m lazy. -79
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here are some more, ?? ?????
Feivel, you forgot your keys???
They grabbed ’em away, one dark ally, these guys are dangerous!! -80
Avi K – Look me in the eye and answer this one question honestly: Do you believe that the State of Israel follows Shulchan Aruch?
I think we are missing the point, zionists and anti-zionists alike. The zionist movement has no impact on the halachik status nor the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel. For those of us who wear tzitzis, stay in a succah as much as possible on succos, etc., living in Eretz Yisroel has the same status (although there are some poskim who hold that it is a chiyuv and not just RZ ones). And please stop with the “Boo hoo – Eretz Yisroel is so secular, the govenrment doesn’t follow halacha” excuse –
Picture this – ALL frum yidden denounce the gashmius and goyishkeit of Chutz La’aretz and move to Eretz Yisroel to await the geulah – what do you think the government would look like then? What kind of nachas ruach would that give Hashem?
As far as danger goes – I lived in NY – here my children can play in the park at night, travel by bus independently – enough excuses – you sound like the meraglim – we need to be very careful about dibbas haaretz
yekke2: No one claims that the state is Frum. Some will say that that does not make them “irreligious”. They are certainly not Shomrei Torah, for the most part. There certainly is a “Hatzala Purta”, which one has to willfully blind himself not to see. The point of contention, in my opinion, is whether that modicum of religiosity by many of the state’s leaders and institutions (some more than others) is a good thing, completely irrelevant, or a bad thing. (I more or less hear all three, though I’m not such a fan of those who say it’s bad because people might think that being slightly religious but not completely Frum is okay. In my opinion, those who want to be Frum and can do it will, and Halevai everyone else comes as close as possible or as close as we can get them.)
Oh!
Nowwwwww I get it!
That’s funny froggy.
yeah, some catch on…
yeah, and some get banned from the CR for impersonating a Moderator.
(A retired Moderator is a type of Moderator)
To Avi K – I seldom hear such drivel. Honestly, you’re deducing from the fact that halacha allows for a community organization, led by a lay leader, which is responsible for tax issues(and tax issues only), that one may not listen to a rov in matters of leading klal yisroel? The rema did not say that if a Rov in the town would pasken, that the aforementioned lay leader would not have to listen; we are talking about when the rov is not involved. The rema is also referring to mundane matters; running klal yisroel as a nation, must be done only by its leaders, like rashi says in chumash ‘ain yisroel oseh davar bli gedoleihem(i’ll have to find the source, but i remember the lashon)
Brisker, you never listen to your own drivel? Not to mention Health’s? Who says that it only involves tax issues? If you study the history of the keillot you will see that rabbanim only became involved when someone raised an objection after a decision (usually about taxes, which no one has ever liked, as Rehavam ben Shlomo discovered) was made. Their function was basically judicial review. However, if no one objected they did not invalidate a decision on their own.FYI, the Netziv says that the mitzva to appoint a king is conditioned upon the people asking for one as they must believe that the system of government is appropriate for them.Rabbi Chaim David HaLevi says that there are no halachot regarding economics, only goals but the economists decide how to achieve them. Rav Moshe said that military decisions are made by the military leadership. In fact, when Rav Kook and Rav Solovechik were asked for advice they only set forth the choices and their ramifications but left the final decisions to the questioners. Rav Tzvi Yehuda never endorsed any political party but gave anyone who asked a beracha as he believed that each one had part of the truth.
Avi K:
I’ll try leave it to those already involved in this discussion to argue with you on the general topic, as they’ve done a pretty good job of putting forward a case so far. Generally, if I have nothing to add, usually because what I wish to say has already been said, I simply follow the discussion with interest.
Which leads me to my question. Could you please answer Yekke2’s earlier question? I’ve been waiting eagerly to hear your reply.
Avi K -“Brisker, you never listen to your own drivel? Not to mention Health’s? Who says that it only involves tax issues? Rav Moshe said that military decisions are made by the military leadership. In fact, when Rav Kook and Rav Solovechik were asked for advice they only set forth the choices and their ramifications but left the final decisions to the questioners. Rav Tzvi Yehuda never endorsed any political party but gave anyone who asked a beracha as he believed that each one had part of the truth.”
Your posts are getting more illogical by the minute!
So you probably had no problem when the Nazi party came to power in Germany. After all, they were elected by the German people.
Let’s go through this slowly. You asserted that the Rema is a source for not listening to rabonim if they would argue with the lay leaders. The Rema says no such thing. He simply states the binding nature of a community-led decision. He does not say that the community need not defer to any potential rabbinic involvement.
Also, bringing proofs from sources that are from your community, which do not hold of the concept of DT, is like a christian missionary bringing proofs from the new testament. I do not know the position of R. Kook, but some one-sentence overview of what you think was his approach is not goingto do much for me, all the more so when his seforim were forbade by the chazon ish. R. Soloveitchik was greatly influenced by his time in the hotbed of german intellectual haskalah, which (surprise?) despises the idea of deferring to authority in general, and certainly that of a religion.
For the record, it is ridiculous that you bring a proof from reb Moshe. He said often(see the artscroll reb moshe book) that those who do not believe in the concept of DT, and who think that rabonim are only there to answer shailos in halacha, and not run klal yisroel, are not part of klal yisroel. The chazon ish writes similarly that this is the ‘shitah yeshanah of the haskalah’ (this is in igros chazon ish)
So, you brought proof from both those who oppose you, and those who are, well, you yourself.
NeutiquamErro, to which question are you referring?
Health, take a remedial reading course. I wrote that the rabbanim exercise judicial review (although if you look at the responsa literature they also exercised judicial restraint, especially when the case involved an established minhag).
Brisker,
1. I can say the same thing about you bringing proofs from your community.
2. Regarding Rav Soloveichik, I can counter-claim that rabbanim who said otherwise were influenced by the clerical parties in Europe. In any case, he was very definite about listening to rabbanim on halachic matters.He even wrote an essay on Korach’s rebellion called “The Common Sense Rebellion against Torah Authority”.
3. Rav Lichtenstein has an essay on the concept of daat Torah which can be read on-line. It seems to me obvious that just as one does not bring in a plumber if one has an electrical problem one does not ask a rav about economics (unless, of course, he is Rav Prof. Israel Kirzner or someone similar).
4. I do not know how much of a source Artscroll books are. In fact, Rav Moshe Tendler was very upset with that bio as it presented Rav Moshe as one-dimensional and did discuss the way he acted in his personal life. I also do not know what is meant by “running” Klal Yisrael. As I posted, the rabbanim set the legal and moral parameters. This perforce limits the secular professionals. For example, it might save a great deal of money to put everyone age 60 and up on an ice floe and send them out to sea but obviously the rabbanim would paskin that they must find another way (full disclosure: I am over 60).
avi K: you are over 60 ? wow-puts you in my age group ! I admire your erudition but you do realize that you will not be able to change some people’s mind,even if you just said that the sun rises in the east -they will say that the sun rises in the west-especially if they find some “godol” to confirm this. This is why I have stopped posting-it ends up being a waste of time. Nonetheless- ‘yasher kochacho-you are doing a magnificent job !
Avi K:
That’s pretty disingenuous. Allow me to make it clearer: His most recent question, the one asking you directly whether you honestly believed the State of Israel adheres to the Shulchan Aruch. I was following the discussion up until that point, and was disappointed, if unsurprised, to see that this simple, direct question didn’t receive an answer promptly, out of character with the prompt manner in which you’ve addressed most of your dissenters.
Perhaps answering a question which requires a simply Yes or No answer, especially when we all know the honest answer is one that would contradict the main thrust of your argument, is less agreeable to you than posting highly questionable meandering diatribes that rarely adress any issue head on. This is an issue I have come across often in my relatively short time on the CR, which is that there is a certain kind of poster whos’s views clearly contradict yiddishkeit, halacha or common sense, who waffle for an intermediate period of time before, when addressed with these kinds of easy-to-answer queries, the ones that require an unambiguous straight answer, either waffle around the topic, ignore the question, or cease posting. This perhaps may go some way to explaining why solid, controversial yet fair discussions have become a rarity on this forum. Not that I’m specifically accusing you of possessing these traits.
But I’ve made this a lot more long-winded than it had to be, so if I may. Kindly begin your answer with a yes or no, and then feel free to qualify that answer in the ensuing paragraphs. You seem like an intelligent chap, so this shouldn’t be too difficult:
As Yekke2 asked, do you honestly believe that the State of Israel adheres to the Shulchan Aruch? Yes or No?
NE: I don’t follow this thread (anymore) since it is going in circles. I did read your post and have this to say:
First you make it perfectly clear that you think Avi K is “pretty disingenuous” and “was disappointed, if unsurprised, to see that this simple, direct question didn’t receive an answer promptly”
Then you describe a ‘type’ of poster: “who waffle for an intermediate period of time before, when addressed with these kinds of easy-to-answer queries, the ones that require an unambiguous straight answer, either waffle around the topic, ignore the question, or cease posting”
Then you tell him:”Not that I’m specifically accusing you of possessing these traits.”
Sir, you absolutely accused him of that.
I’m not judging here whether that accusation is true or not. Simply pointing out that after judging him, you say that you are not.
Why?
Nutiquam- I hav long ago already quit this kin of forum-because the vast majority of posters come to this with minds already made up. But I will give a very straight answer and it is :YES. In many spheres, the law of he land is based on halacha. The laws of marriage and divorce, in many towns the laws of shabbos , In all of official Israel the laws of kashrut, and many other instances. So your inference that it is not based on halacha is wrong.
But, why does this matter? There were plenty of non-religious kings in Baiys rishon and others in Bayis Sheni and yet it did not invalidate the legitimacy of Eretz Yisroel. Why should this matter now?
Avi K -“Health, take a remedial reading course. I wrote that the rabbanim exercise judicial review”
The following is your quote:
“that rabbanim only became involved when someone raised an objection after a decision Their function was basically judicial review. However, if no one objected they did not invalidate a decision on their own.”
So basically your saying the government can do what they want! It doesn’t matter whether the thing is against Daas Torah or Not.
So therefore I posted this:
“So you probably had no problem when the Nazi party came to power in Germany. After all, they were elected by the German people.”
NeutiquamErro, I must have missed that one in the multiplicity of comments. First of all, we do not always pasken like the Shulchan Aruch. Certainly not Ashkenazim but eevn Rav Ovadia sometimes paskened against him because of another klal (e.g safek berachot l’hakel). If the question is does the State of Israel act 100% accordingto Halacha, the answer is “not yet but it does substantially act according to Halacha”. So it depends on whether you are an “all or nothing” person or if you praise what is good and try to fix what is not. Phil Chernofsky of the OU Israel Center compared this argument to three brothers who were hit by a car while playing in the street and required hospitalization. Even after they were released they still required physical therapy. One brother thought that being released was enough, one thought that having to undergo p.t. meant that there was nothing to celebrate and the third thanked Hashem for bring him this far and prayed for the future.
Health, your command of the English language is worse than I thought.Judicial review means that they can knock down a law.Thus the government cannot do whatever it wants. However, if no one objects than they do not get involved. This is highly unlikely in a Jewish community but if it happens this then becomes a minhag and poskim are generally loathe to overturn minhagim. As for the Nazi party, I was not around to have a problem with it.In any case, it never received a majority of seats in the Reichstag. After it was named to form the government it suppressed all other parties and ended judicial review and independence. Thus, if I had been around I would have had a problem with it even before it started to persecute Jews. I would also like to take this opportunity to give you a lesson in Political Science (my B.A.). The government is not the state (Louis XIV notwithstanding). Neither is the regime. The government is a group of people who run the entity known as the state according to a set of rules (regime/constitution). Governments and even regimes come and go but the state remains. For example, France is now on its fifth republic (constitution) and has also had kings and emperors but it is the same state.
The Queen:
Certainly, I anticipated this question, and am happy to clarify my earlier statement. In that post, I noted at how, by appearing to avoid the question, despite being prompted, Avi K seemed to be acting in an evasive manner, something he has done before during this discussion. He has at times acted disingenuous, and by so doing he was acting in a manner similar to a particular type of poster, a type I described as waffling, indirect and evasive. I was not, however, saying he perfectly fitted the profile, merely that he was in danger of doing so. I think he deserves slightly more credit than that, as he has, at times, been reasonably fair and thorough, if occasionally being frustratingly evasive and indirect. For example, in his answer to Brisker’s question, he seemed to be point-by-point and fairly logical, not that I’ve examined it closely. That’s why I didn’t accuse him of ‘specifically’ possessing those traits, as hasn’t, as of yet, been all that bad. I think he just holds a very difficult viewpoint to defend, which is a difficult task to do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.