- This topic has 128 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Jewish feminist, wrong mosholim can be very misleading, and are often a way of making a really off the mark point.”
What, exactly, is a “wrong moshol”?
My point (which I do not think has been understood by anyone, but in my opinion should have been obvious) was that when Hashem gave us the political power to create and defend a state for ourselves, we was offering us a lifeboat. Many of us eagerly boarded the lifeboat; others prefer to continue drowning in golus based on the assumption that “Hashem will save us”. Well, guess what? Hashem is right here under our noses trying to save us and we’re too busy name-calling to notice!
yichusdik- the tzionim have made kivush/the state into an over-riding mitzva. they make anything that has to do with the state kadosh vitahor. biggest raaya is the fact that tzionim and mizrachis are makpid to eat it even though its status is not even questionable, its downright bad. the rabbanut is mi’asher anything with a hechsher from CHU”l, even stuff you wouldnt eat at home. and they eat it. because the state says its ok.
yichusdik:
Read Ikvesa DiMishicha.
Nationalism, including Zionism, is Avoda Zara. Period.
Yes, emphasizing Yishuv HaAretz over other mitzvos is also wrong, but it pales in comparison to this.
jfem:
Your point was obvious, but also, unfortunately, obviously wrong.
Jews are forbidden from rebelling against the nations and hastening the redemption; Zionism and the State of Israel are in violation of both of these oaths. Many great Rabbis refused to speak even a word of “Modern Hebrew” and castigated the State and Zionism in the harshest and severest terms.
But you think you know better, that it was Hashem giving us an “opportunity for political power”. This “opportunity” anways turned out to be an unparalleled major disaster, both physically and spiritually, just as the Torah greats, from the Chofetz Chaim and on, had predicted.
We would be much better off without all those tens of thousands of Jewish human sacrifices at the altar of this idol (and that’s before the Zionist shmad of countless others, still ongoing).
To use your “mashal” more correctly, it is Zionism that was and is “drowning” the Jews; whereas living as Torah Jews, free of Zionism and other isms, throughout the world, whether among the Nations or in Eretz Yisrael, is the “lifeboat” that has sustained our people since the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash. May Hashem redeem us all BB”A.
yichusdik: I have stoped reading the rantings of HaKatan, Toi and others a long time ago. They take most of everything out of context and continue an argument that was settled long ago-with the Holocuast and the establishment of medinat Yisroel.
However, to your point- about “retzoin hashem’ . We do not live in the time of the neviim and therefore there will not be any oracle from heaven. Check the Rambam in hilchos melochim who clearly assumes that Moshiach and the return of malchus dovid will be driven by human beings. We never know exactly what HKBH wants- but we cannot trun our back on trying to re-establish the Jewish sovereignity over Eretz Yisroel.
G-d helps those who help themselves. The idea that the Mashiach will drop out of the clouds on horseback is a Christian one. The Jewish concept of redemption posits, as says the Rambam, that humans will act as partners with G-d in bringing about geulah. As much as we seek G-d, G-d seeks us.
ROB-what i wrote wasnt a rant. i generally do not rant, unless i am drunk when i post. what i wrote is entirely true, so much so that a small group of mizrachis actually were mocheh at this trend and tried to start a new hechsher. the fact is, they did make the state into the biggest mitzva and anything that conflicts with their nationalistic values takes a backseat.
The state of Israel is no unique salvation. While we have the benefit of a country under Jewish sovereignty, applying messianic or prophetic significance to the secular state of Israel is dangerous; who are any of us to know that the medinah is reshit tzmichat geulateinu? None of us are prophets.
There’s a reason why even in Yerushalayim they say LeShanah haBah. The Jerusalem envisioned by our neviim (see Yeshayahu 65, for instance) is a place and time where all illness, injustice, and inequality will give way to a peaceful, joyful world order where we enjoy perfection. That is a world we hope and pray G-d will deem us worthy of soon. We still live in a shattered world devoid of redemption. and while the founding of the Medina seems to be a step in the right direction, the world has only succumbed to more violence, more injustice, more poverty, and more suffering in the past 60+ years. It’s obvious we’re still a long way off from the geulah.
rebdoniel:
It so happens that I humbly believe your understanding of the Rambam is not correct. But this is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
What is certainly clear from many great Rabbis (and the Rambam would certainly concur) is that Zionism was and is forbidden. One of the three oaths is to not hasten the redemption before its time. This applies even to excessive prayer, and certainly to actions on the ground. There could be other practices that help bring the redemption that are permitted. But founding a State far exceeds that which is halachicly permitted.
Seeking G-d in a manner that is very much against His will is obviously not a bright idea, no matter how much you wish to seek G-d.
ROB:
While Israel is indisputably a geopolitical fact, Zionism and its State is at least as treif now as it was in the past. Thus said many far greater Rabbis than, I daresay, even yourself, “Rabbi of Berlin”.
Your latest line that “we never know exactly what Hashem wants” as if to excuse Zionism because of that, is, at best, deception. You know very well what Hashem does NOT want. Yet because Hashem’s wishes, that are known from his Torah, conflict with your Zionist agenda, Zionists have this agenda take precedence over the Torah.
Zionists, yourself included, have no answers other than avoiding the truth, uncomfortable (for Zionists) as that truth may be.
HaKatan paskens: “There could be other practices that help bring the redemption that are permitted. But founding a State far exceeds that which is halachicly permitted.” So HaKatan concedes that founding a State helps to bring the redemption. But where does he draw the line on what’s “halachicly permitted”? In davening for redemption, is there too much kavana? How about sinat hinam: should I keep some of it around just in case? Does talmud torah have a shi’ur after all, and I’d better not breach it?
Well, i did not know that we are back in the time of the neviim! According to HaKatan, there are individuals who know, who KNOW!, what HKBH wants us to do!
Toi; the state is the biggest mitzvah? I am not aware of that- although I am aware that living in Eretz Yisroel is a big mitzvah and the chazal were very dismissive of anyone living otuside of Eretz Yisorel. And, I also know that protecting Jews is one of the biggest mitzvas!
Naftush:
You are writing “liShitascha”, and drawing conclusions that aren’t there in my words; you are confusing that which will be done at redemption and that which helps bring the redemption. Founding a State falls into the former only, not the latter.
I did not write that founding a State could bring the redemption. According to our gedolim, this State even did just the opposite: it pushed off the geulah.
Among its many problems, founding a State before Mashiach is Dechikas HaKeitz, which means doing something which may only be done at the Keitz.
rebdoniel seemed to imply that it was necessary to help Hashem in bringing the redemption and, therefore, in founding a State, in the form of the State of Israel.
In response to that, I merely pointed out that if your goal is to “help Hashem” then there may be other things (like simply doing the ratzon Hashem) that are permitted and help bring the geulah.
But even if you believe (against what our gedolim have stated) that founding a State would be helpful in bringing the geulah, founding a State is very much forbidden (for starters) as dechikas haKeitz because this will only be done during the keitz.
ROB, other than false prophets of Zionism, we do not have neviim today, as you write. We do, however, have the Torah, B”H. Our gedolim have taught us that the Torah, (and not Zionism), is our sole source of guidance (and not just a “rules book”, CH”V, as some mistakenly believe).
Let’s take your attempt at humor to its obvious conclusion: if someone were to ask the great rabbi of berlin if one should commit a sin, your answer, then, would be that we don’t have neviim and so we don’t know what Hashem wants of us.
Once again, while we may not always know for certain what is the ratzon Hashem, there are many times when it is quite clear what is or is not the ratzon Hashem and others that may require a sheilas chacham, etc. to determine the Ratzon Hashem there. You love to quote (when it’s convenient for you, of course) Yiftach biDoro kiShmuel biDoro.
HaKatan: If I have an actual question on halacha that is covered in the shulchan aruch, I do not need a novih and ,indeed, I can ask a possek. However, as the matters wev are discussing are not mentioned in shulchan aruch, I don’t see how any Possek can pasken at all.
ROB: As PBA and others have mentioned to you before, and as you well know, the Shulchan Aruch is not intended to be the sole source of every single halachic area.
But the three oaths are brought liHalacha by many, including the Rambam who applied them in his Iggeres Teiman to the suffering Yemenites who had written to him, and all the way down through the ages.
Zionist Rabbis try (unsuccessfully) to come up with all sorts of reasons as to how, in their opinion, Zionism escapes violating these most severe prohibitions (at least their consequences, R”L L”A, are most severe). Our gedolim would not have any of it.
You know all this, and your opinions on the matter are on these boards.
You prefer the Zionist “answers” to the unanswerable questions.
So your attempt at using the Shulchan Aruch in your defense is also disingenuous as you know it’s not because the matter is not halachic when matters of Zionism very much are halachic issues, despite that the State is already a reality for decades now.
Ask a posek if it is permitted to rebel against the nations. Ask a posek if it’s permitted to be oleh biChoma to Eretz Yisrael. Ask a posek if it’s permitted to sacrifice even a drop of Jewish blood for even a millimeter of Zionist ownership of Eretz Yisrael. Ask a posek if one may support the State of Israel financially or otherwise. Ask a posek if one can give precedence in halachic matters to IDF officers and their orders over one’s own Rav, as IDF officers have already instructed the yeshiva boys who have gone to their induction into the IDF, CH”V.
Are you implying that these and others are not questions for a posek?
HaKatan: I don’t usually engage in a dilaogue with you- we will never agree and I find your incessant comments on Zionism ultimately boring. However, as you mentioend Poskim and the gemoro end of kesubos,I might as well respond.
It is certainly not halacha and therefore any Possek cannot find solace in his Piskei halocho based on this gemoro. You will have to find me a Rambam or a Se’if in shulchan aruch that refers to this gemoro as halocho.
ROB- i hear, dont reply to what i actually said. nice.
Toi- I answered your assertion that the state is the biggest mitzvah by saying that it is not. No one knows what the biggest mitzvah is. I did say that saving Jewish people is a very big mitzvah! do you disagree with that?
ROB: Your disapproval does not make that gemara non-halachic and, specifically, non-binding. Numerous gedolim, min haYom ad haYom haZaeh based their piskei halacha on the three oaths, so your attempt to disregard the oaths as being non-binding is odious.
Even the “Religious Zionists” love to distort the Or Sameach’s line about the “fear of the oaths having passed”, in a failed attempt to justify their Avoda Zara. If the oaths weren’t binding (i.e. halacha), there would be nothing to “fear” in the first place.
The answer, of course, is that the fear of the oaths, that the Or Sameach wrote, is, of course, very real. And, unlike Zionist distortions, the oaths are very much still binding, even according to the Or Sameach who, while he permitted moving to Eretz Yisrael based on the Blafour Declaration, he was addressing only the oath of aliya biChoma. He certainly did not permit Zionism and its many problems like violating the other Oath with political rule, endangering Jews, CH”V, etc.
In brief, you deny a bifeirush gemara that is brought down Halacha liMaaseh by numerous gedolim throughout the ages, and you do so because it’s merely not mentioned in S”A and Rambam’s respective codes of Jewish law.
I’m sure it didn’t occur to you that there could be a reason why this whole sugya was not mentioned in the S”A and Rambam, and that same Rambam used them as a basis for an halachic psak he, himself, gave, as I mentioned.
As we have both agreed, you want to be a Zionist, and nothing will convince you otherwise. As in, “don’t confuse me with the facts; my mind is already made up”.
HaKatan: To be fair, not being mentioned in the Rambam is kinda a big deal. There are plenty of places for the Rambam to put the Shevuos in Hilchos Melachim. If he didn’t bring them down, it means he held they have no Halachic relevance.
ROB- my assertion was basedon the fact that people who subscribe to zionist/mizrachi hashkafos are willing to eat food with very questionable status, simply because it has a rabanut. nisht nor dem, they bidavka eat it because it has a rabbanut. I’m not referring at all to the schar of mitzvos, rather those given precedence in the face of other mitzvos because of zionism.
Toi- I have no clue what you are talking about. Regardless whether you are right on the facts, what is wrong relying upon the rabbanut hechsher?? You don’t have to eat it but you cannot broadly say that ‘it is questionable status”. And since when does that fact have anything to do with zionism ?
the problem with relying on the rabbanut is that eid echad doesnt help when their is serious chashud. rabbanut places have been found to be compromising on halacha time and again, and their standards and mashgichim are shvach to begin with. but if you believe the state is kadosh vitahor ie mizrachis, then one must eat the hechsher as part of ones commitment to the state. this is common knowledge in israel, if youre not familiar with it, im sorry.
Toi, your logic about rabanut hechsher could be equally applied to charedi yeshivos – i.e. since three charedi yeshivos in Yerushalayim were investigated and found to be defrauding the government with fake id’s of nonexistent kollel learners, therefore all yeshivos are “of questionable status”.
You and I and most people would call such an assertion absurd, but you seem to be OK with the same assertion being made about the Rabanut.
ONE MAIN POINT to the letter writer.
If you are looking to be published as a ‘letter to editor’ you can NOT submit a thesis, book long letter. Good luck to your future writing career. Try AMI they are more up your alley.
TOi: So, there was never any problem with hechsherim from chareidi rabbonim? hechserim are a business and ,at times, problems arise, but I would never cast aspersions on the whole hechsher industry.
TOi: So, there was never any problem with hechsherim from chareidi rabbonim? hechserim are a business and ,at times, problems arise, but I would never cast aspersions on the whole hechsher industry.
I will. They are all either after Gelt or pulling politics. I would not trust a single one completely, only after investigation.
Edit: That is not to say anything about a specific org., but rather that all of them need to be checked.
ROB- im not saying there have never been problems. what i am saying is that the standards they set to obtain a hechsher are remarkably higher. but we digress.
Sam2:
Your academic question as to why it’s not in in Hilchos Melachim is a fair one to an extent: it’s only academic, not a “kushya” on the sugya. Regardless, there are also answers to that question.
But I disagree with the logic of your conclusion. Having “plenty of space” to list the halacha yet not having not done so does not conclusively demonstrate that such-and-such is therefore not a halacha.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, this same Rambam issued a psak based on the Oaths. This conclusively demonstrates that the Rambam himself held them to be in force. Many other poskim also brought them down liHalacha. Even the RZ rabbis grapple with the oaths. So to deny that gemara’s practical applicability outright is, at the very least, simply foolish.
But your academic question does arise, then. One answer I have seen can be found if you Google “A Response to Gil Student”.
Here is a partial quote:
“The fundamental reason why Zionism is wrong is [that] it violates the Three Oaths. That is unchangeable. Now, there is the academic question of why the Rambam did not mention the Three Oaths in Mishneh Torah. The Satmar Rav proposed that the Rambam did not need to mention them because he held that to violate them would be an act of heresy.
If there are other Rishonim who held that all or part of the geulah could happen without teshuva, then they obviously disagree with the Rambam. If they were writing a code of law, they would have no choice but to include the Oaths.”
So that explains the Rambam.
But, again, it’s anyways just pilpula biAlma. But it is interesting (and Torah study), nonetheless. Yasher Koach.
That is among the weakest answers to a question that I’ve ever heard and I sincerely doubt the Satmar Rav ever said it. The Rambam lists what he considers Apikorsus as well. He lists everything. A simple dismissal like that is disrespectful to the Rambam and anyone who’s ever attempted to learn him.
And HaKatan, it is the exact opposite. The Rambam brought down every single line in Shas and other Midrashei Chazal that he felt were Halachically relevant. If he didn’t bring this line down, it’s because he felt that they weren’t Halachically relevant. It’s not a simple dismissal of the Gemara. The Rambam assuredly had reason to dismiss the Gemara. We may never know what it is, but we can try and figure it out. It is clear, though, that the Rambam didn’t hold that the Shevuos were Halachah L’ma’aseh.
And your dismissing of this type of question as “academic” and not actually relevant is a gross insult to the Rambam. According to your line of thinking, you can Pasken like any Gemara you want because the Rambam not bringing it down does not demonstrate that he thinks it isn’t Halachah. That’s absurd. It’s beyond absurd. It’s a mockery of actual learning.
No one says that the Shevuos aren’t brought down by anyone. The Maharal that you love to cite certainly held that they are valid Halachic concerns. Why can’t you just admit that there are Shittos (the Rambam included) that don’t hold of them? Are you so insecure in your anti-Zionism that you have to be Megaleh Panim BaTorah just to think that every Rishon and Acharon ever agreed with it?
Hakatan, i know Rav Gil Student. The work he has done @ the OU Press, Through his Hirhurim halacha blog, through his anti missionary work, and through his tireless efforts to bring Jews together brings more strength to any of his assertions to the palpably weak argument you put forward in the name of the Satmer Rov that Rambam didn’t need to mention them? Hey, remember R’ Yishmoel? 13 principles of interpretation? we say it every day? Remember the gezeiroh shovo? Why wouldn’t it apply here? why would rambam leave it out but discuss and describe similar heresies elsewhere? ayn al ma lismoch
Sam, it does sound very week. However, what if it’s not Halacha per se but something meant to be followed, as are countless other Medrashim? The Rambam does mention that Gemara in his letter. He says to follow the advice of Shlomo Hamelech. In other words, it’s like a so-to-speak Shvua. It is a warning that Shlomo Hamalech is giving with Ruach Hakodesh.
The Satmar Rebbe, as we know, referred to the Shalosh Shvuos like a De’oraysa of the strongest caliber. His answer to why the Rambam doesn’t mention it, IIRC, is that the Issur of Shalosh Shvuos is a form of Kefira in the Geula. Therefore, the Rambam didn’t mention this particular Gemara that outlines an Onesh once he mentioned Moshiach and the Emuna in a Geula.
I don’t think the problems began and ended with the Shalosh Shvuos. The Communists and Zionist groups pulled very large numbers of our youth away from Torah and Yiddishkeit. Most European non-Frum Jews left the fold during that period. The Rabbanim witnessed this first-hand. There was basically not a household that was not affected by the new Ruach. This is obviously the driving force behind all the Lamdus.
Yichusdik:
Your entitled to your opinion, of course, but we aren’t allowed to derive any new gizeira shava. But read the whole piece, even though you like Rabbi Student, if you want to be intellectually honest about the matter.
Sam2:
I believe there are other answers, in addition to the one I gave. It would be nice if a talmid chacham could post, rather than myself.
But I still maintain the question is pilpul simply because the Rambam himself used it as a basis for a major psak that he, himself, gave. So how could you claim the Rambam pasken differently than his own Mishne Torah?
Regarding others, it’s not just the Maharal who brings the oaths liMaaseh but many others. Please don’t insinuate that this gemara is some fringe belief when it is not so.
So, again, the Rambam himself paskened from those oaths, poskim and rabbanim throughout the ages applied them liMaaseh, and even RZ Rabbis grappled with them as halacha liMaaseh.
So how can anyone accuse me of CH”V being migaleh panim baTorah sheLo kiHalacha when I have simply stated that the Rambam must hold liMaaseh a widely-held halacha from a gemara which he, the Rambam, himself paskened from?
Why, if you wanted to be intellectually honest, would you not admit that there is no way the Rambam disagreed with that gemara’s applicability given that he himself paskened from it, despite your question of why it’s not in Mishne Torah?
The Satmar Rebbe, as we know, referred to the Shalosh Shvuos like a De’oraysa of the strongest caliber. His answer to why the Rambam doesn’t mention it, IIRC, is that the Issur of Shalosh Shvuos is a form of Kefira in the Geula. Therefore, the Rambam didn’t mention this particular Gemara that outlines an Onesh once he mentioned Moshiach and the Emuna in a Geula.
Might I also posit that the Satmar Rebbe saw that having a community in Eretz Yisroel under Jewish rule, if viewed positively by his sect, would be the end of the “Shtetel” that he had in Europe, as well as was trying to create (and created) in America (with the insular communities of Williamsburg & Kiryas Yoel). Therefore, in order to forward his vision of a separate community, not only from non-Jews but also from non-Satmars (or better put, those not willing to live like Satmars), he had to make the Jewish Yishuv a non-starter as an issue, and so made opposition to it a cornerstone of Satmarism.
Of course, this is just speculation, but to create as strong of an issur that Satmar did on the state (I feel) has to have more to it than Halacha.
(P.S. I don’t believe this is disrespectful to the Satmar Rov, rather the opposite, as it shows the depth of his vision).
HaLeiVi: And we all know the Rambam’s famous comment about Midrashim. 🙂 But on a serious note, I have never once claimed that Secular Zionism was a good thing or that it was good for the Jewish community. It had its tragedies, for sure. But I am of the opinion that something positive (not perfect, but positive) came out of the early Zionist movements and that we have to be thankful for what HKBH gave us in Eretz Yisrael now. I am not attempting to be an apologist or to defend Secular Zionism in any way. I am just forced to appear that way because of the ridiculous extreme assertions being made here.
Sam, I see that bigger picture of you. To put it in HaKatan’s words, I am discussing the academic. As HaKatan pointed out, we know that the Rambam did not dismiss that Gemara, although that is still far from calling it a corner-stone in Judaism. I’m personally not convinced they were violated, albeit there was intention to do so. Even if so, the Steipler said that what happened, happened. I think that is the majority outlook, that was drowned out by the louder one. I don’t think the Chazon Ish’s problem was the Shalosh Shvuos. He had bigger issues with them than that.
GAW, for that you should have quoted my last paragraph, instead. I don’t think you’re right, though. He was in America. Although people here had strong feelings for Israel, the Shita wouldn’t really separate them from the general society. For that he could have yelled more about secular education. Besides, saying that he invented a whole Shita out of thin air,a as a trick, is surely disrespectful. This is a large leap from what I said, that the organisation was Passul and he backed up the Psul with Lomdus.
GAW, for that you should have quoted my last paragraph, instead. I don’t think you’re right, though. He was in America. Although people here had strong feelings for Israel, the Shita wouldn’t really separate them from the general society. For that he could have yelled more about secular education. Besides, saying that he invented a whole Shita out of thin air,a as a trick, is surely disrespectful. This is a large leap from what I said, that the organisation was Passul and he backed up the Psul with Lomdus.
HaLeiVi: The insularity of Satmar did not start in New York, but in Europe. Placing the extreme p’sul on the entire movement made it unable to enter the discussion.
The Shitta of Shalosh Shevuos is not “out of thin air”, but the emphasis on it is extreme. The Satmar Rov seems to have forced the Kefirah issue because he had no answer for the Rambam in Yad. However, once you call something “Kefirah”, it creates other consequences (which (I think) current day Satmar doesn’t hold of) that makes for an extremely insular community (for example, Eidus of a Kofer that something is Kosher may not be acceptable, so Satmar should not use the national Hashgachos).
As far as the Secular eductaion is concerned, the Satmar Rov (as well as others, including myself) believed that someone has to bring in money and work. Satmar is not into “secular education” similar to YU. They do believe that the husband should work and the wife take care of the children, similar to how Klal Yisroel has been doing it for hundreds of years.
I posit that one crucial element of the gemoro in kessubos (sholosh shevuos) is missing from all of the talk and commentaries on this post. The fact is that the sholosh shevuos were said by Yirmijohu Hanovih and – even if they were valid ad the time- the Jews returned to Eretz Yisroel for the second Bayis! Why wouldn’t those shevuos be valid then if ,indeed, they were “halocho”? (R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher zz’l makes that speicific point).The standard answer that you hear is that they returned “al pi novih”. But there is no evidence of any divrei nevuoh on that. Ezra and Nehemia were not neviim and returned to Eretz Yisroel because they received permission from the emperor! not that different than today! For the ones who will try to catch me, I know that, according to some shittos, Malachi is Ezra but it does not detract from my questions.
The Shvuos are from Shlomo Hamelech, as I quoted from the Rambam. The explanation is from the Amoraim, after the Churban Bayis Sheini. The problem is Ad Shetechpatz. Navi or not, the issue is going up before the Zman Geula. All the Jews knew that the Galus Bavel was over. There were Divrei Nevua about that long before. Ezra is considered a Navi, and whether or not he is Malachi, Malachi was around to be asked. The Jews went, or were supposed to go, because it was a Zman Geula. As per the Rambam, and anyone else who wrote about Moshiach, the Zman Geula has not come yet.
So, when exactly were the Shvuos valid? Until when? Where is this visible or alluded to in that Gemara?
HaLeivi: I do not have the time to go over the whiole sugyah but I did some learning last night and it is pretty clear that the mjority of POskim and meforshim do not think that the “shlosh shevuos’ are applicable and ,in any case, the fact that the UN gave the grren light for a state takes away the oen shevuoh (Lo taalu bechomo) that might make a difference. (see Maharsho, Divrei hajomim, Ezra)
ROB cannot help but defend his idolatry even at the expense of the truth.
This has been discussed earlier and the oaths are applicable according to various poskim throughout the ages and Rabbi Reisman recently stated lifnei am viAida that the difference of opinion was only regarding working from within, not regarding the oaths which remain applicable even the State’s founding.
And the UN does not take away either oath. The Zionists took far more than the UN allowed and the Arabs never allowed it at all. The UN is not, lihavdil, the Sanhedrin.
And, at the end of the day, the Zionists needed and still need wars, not a peaceful ascent.
Zionism violated both oaths, shelo yaalu bichoma and shelo yidchaku es haKeitz.
And there are answer for Bayis Sheini, too, but I wasn’t going to protest that particular post. But this one is simply false.
You probably mean that it takes away Lo Sirdu Ba’umos. Perhaps. I am not arguing on that. Lo Yaalu Bejoma still might be an issue, since that has nothing to do with the Umos.
If you want to use the famous, not too powerful, argument that since the Umos broke their part we don’t have to keep our’s, I won’t argue on that either. It is the idea of disregarding a Gemara as irelivant that I take issue with.
I call it not too powerful since it didn’t help the B’nei Efraim.
HaKatan: As a side point, do you eat from the national Hashgachos (OU, OK, Star-K, CRC, etc.)? Are you aware that the Mashgichim are probably Tzionim and therefore (L’shitascha) are Passul as an Eid Echad?
HaKatan, how do the Arabs come into the picture? The land was never theirs. It was in the hands of the Brits who decided to give the Jews both sides of the Jordan, and retracted more than half of that to placate the Arabs. The land was mostly uninhabited until Jews came in the 19th century, which opened job opportunities for Arabs.
If anything, the fact that they made trouble against the occupying British can be pointed to.
It’s hard to say they were Dochek the Ketz. They did not Daven too hard for Moshiach. This Shvua is not a carbon copy of the other two.
HaKatan: I am going to violate my own mini-promise: never to respond to you!
You can continue to misrepresent the facts and to quote some Rabbonim of previous generations; the fact still remains that there is not one iota of evidence that the so-called sholosh shevuos are applicable today. They are not mentioned in the Rosh, the Rif or the Rambam- the three standard sources of our halocho. Of course, there is not an iota of mention in the Tur or the Shulchan Aruch. Other halochos from the same sugya (as far as whether a wife is obligated to follow her husband wherever he goes) IS mentioned in Rambam and Joreh Deah- so the Poskim knew this sugya pretty well-yet never mentioned the sholosh shevuos.
Additonally, the Maharsho explicitly says that, if you have permission to go to Eretz Yisroel, you are NOT transgressing the “lo jaalu bechomo” and this is confirmed by the Pesukim, end of Divrei Hajomim and beginning of Ezra, that quote Cyrus’ permission to the Jews to go back to their homeland. There are other sources too that ‘lo jaalu bechomo” is not applicable in our case. It certainly is not applicable when given the authority by a superior power. It is not the Sanhedrin at all who matter here, but the rulers of the land. And the UN vote is plenty sufficient to do away with this. As far as ‘being dochek the ketz”, what does that mean? It has no relevance on living in Eretz Yisroel or building a state there.
It is clear to me that that the sources that you rely upon are a small minority and that there are plenty of other, better sources to rely upon.
HaLeivi:
The Arabs come into the picture for at least two two reasons:
The first is that Arabs lived in Eretz Yisrael and they did not agree to Zionist rule over them.
The second is that the Zionists fought (the Arab country) Jordan, an established government, in 1948.
As to the British “giving the land to the Jews”, the Brits themselves said that the Jews read much more into the Balfour Declaration than they had intended.
They never intended to turn over the entire “Palestine” to Zionist control, not even the part remaining after they gave away Trans-Jordan to the Hashemites.
And, in the end, the Brits never gave it to anyone but simply left the area.
The dechikas haKeitz is creating their own sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael, even if every Goy on the planet told them to, because this is something that Mashiach will do.
By the way, I don’t dispute the possibility or even likelihood that Arabs came to Eretz Yisrael because of Jewish progress in the 19th Century. But it’s not relevant to this.
The Zionists violated both oaths.
HaLeivi:
As far as the umos not keeping their oath making any difference regarding us keeping our oaths, there is nothing to argue; it is nonsense.
The purpose of the oaths is to keep the Jewish people alive in galus. Regardless of what the goyim do, we need those oaths for our own protection in galus.
The Rambam, in Igeres Teiman, told them that even though they were heavily oppressed, they were still bound by the oaths.
GAW:
Deos Kozvos, even heresy, do not necessarily invalidate the believer himself.
ROB:
Once again, as Rabbi Resiman (not from previous generations, incidentally) said bifnei Am viAida, the issue of the oaths never changed even after the State’s founding; only the tactics on the ground did.
There is no disagreement regarding the oaths, only regarding the tactics post-establishment of the State, like working from within, etc. I am not discussing tactics.
So I am quoting not, as you struggle to convince yourself, a “minority opinion”, but rather the only opinion.
I also won’t bother to ask you to read the answers to your questions because, as I wrote, you will not give up your idol, no matter what.
The Zionists violated both oaths.
HaKatan: This is why I never respond to your comments. Rav Reisman may be a choshuvo Rov but I have no duty to follow him especially as I have bigger people than him to follow and who dismiss his ideas (if this is what he actually said-I don’t want to be “choshed bikesherim). And, lastly, by not answering my questions, you show that you don’t have any answer, except diatribe!
i would like to point out that R shamshon R hirsch’s issue with zionism was also because of the 3 oaths.
Toi- I spend the shabbos learning this sugya in kesubos and researching the rishonim and acharonim. And, guess what, the more I delved into this, the more it became clear that the sholosh shevuos were NOT applicable (if they ever were). Check the “Shittoh mekubetzes” and what he brings downc from the talmidei Horashbo (a rishon,of course).Check the ‘Pnei jehoshua ” on this sugya. Check the MAHarsho, check the meforshim on the possuk in Shir Hashirim from where these shevuos are derived. You will see, pretty clearly, that the sholosh shevuos are not halacha and that there are plenty of responses to what the anti-zionists maintain.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.