Medinah

I’m sorry to say it to the yeshivish-come-lately crowd, but the Litvishe yeshivaliet that survived the war were more patient with the Zionists than the yeshivaliet today. There is more to being a goan than having an ideology.

Avirah

I think you are playing down the Palestinians abilities

They have captured soldiers and the soldiers went into the lion’s den where the terrorists can shoot from roofs etc. they went in the middle of the day and they gave a warning beforehand

I’m extremely surprised no one got even injured especially if there were hundreds of Arabs surrounding them

What difference does the chomer make? It’s a demonstration that Jewish people abrogate the ratzon Hashem.

Which answers your other question about chu”l vs. EY – the main issue is that the state claims to be the representative nation and people of the Jewish people. That makes it a massive, heretofore unmatched chilul Hashem of worldwide proportions, committed every second of every day, when the states officials are seen as representative of all of us, while most of them are not frum and many are anti frum.

However, it is worse that it happens in EY, as aveiros and mitzvos are weightier there, as it is Hashem’s land. It also adds the additional violation of the oaths and an element of false redemption.

I’d feel very similar if secular jews made a country elsewhere.

MDD: It is definitely a far far greater chilul Hashem to be frei in Eretz Yisroel than in Chutz L’aretz.

The Three Oaths [Gimel Shevuot] are misused by Satmar, because we did not come and conquer Israel by force (לא עלינו כחומה). Rather, it was given to us by the nations.
Now that we are in Israel, we have an obligation to defend ourselves.

Also, Arizal stated that the Gimel Shevuot [Three Oaths] did not apply after 1,000 years of exile. Meaning we could have come up by force to conquer Israel after that.
But we did not even do that.

The 16th Century Kabbalist, Rabbi Chaim Vital expressed the view that the Three Oaths were only binding for the first thousand [1,000] years of Exile.

Rambam [Maimonides] in his Epistle to Yemen specifically states that the Three Oaths are “metaphorical”.

It appears that Nachmanides [Ramban] implicitly REJECTS the Three Oaths as Halachically binding.

The Three Oaths are Agadic Midrash, and therefore they are not Halakhically obligatory [they are not legally binding].”

If the Three Oaths are Halachically obligatory, then where are they mentioned in Rambam or Shulchan Aruch?

as for the land “being given to us” – what happened the day the state was declared? arab armies swarmed EY. they clearly didnt want to give it to us. And the UN’s decision hadn’t been implemented; it was still pending when the zionists made trheir declaration of a shmad state.

And who says that the UN are baalei batim over the whole world? The arabs were opposed; thats enough to no longer conisder it “permission”

one of the oaths is not to fight goyim, too, which would mean it’s better for us to flee EY if we’re under attack than to fight.

In practice, however, many poskiim allow fighting nowadays for self defense, for a variety of reasons; while it might be better to run away, how would we take millions of jews, including elderly, babies, etc…? it would be pikuach nefesh.

square…where do I begin.

The rambam in the letter you quoted tells the taimanim NOT TO VIOLATE THE OATHS…why do you care that he calls it “al derech mashal” when he clearly, black and white, says not to break them..this cutting out of a sentence of the rambam is the height of dishonesty.

But chazal already said that wherever the apikorsim find a source for their kefirah, the answer is be’tzidah, next to it. And here, next to the words “al derech mashal” is the rambam’s clarion call never to violate them.

The rambaN also cites the oaths in mamar al hageulah, so any shtikel torahs you can read into the fact that he holds that yishuv EY is a chiyuv nowadays is invalid. Zionists like to say, well, if the ramban holds that the mitzvah is obligatory, how can the oaths be halacha, if everyone does the mitzvah, wont that break the oaths? The kasha is good, but the terutz is krum, The avnei nezer answers the kasha and says that individually, the rambaN holds that everyone should try and go, but Hashem will ensure that not everyone will in practice go.

The oaths are in the gemara, how are you suppposed to ignore them, especially when chazal say that the bnei efraim were killed because they violated them – if it were “just aggadata” (whatever that means) why would the bnei efraim be killed in their violation?

As for why the shulchan aruch and mishneh torah dont quote them, there are many answers. One is that the shevuous arent a special din, but rather part of denying bias hamoshiach; they’re a way of doing so, and not indepedently forbidden. The same way poskim dont have to cite every possible way of blaspheming Hashem’s name; the idea is there already.

As for the rambam’s “al derech mashal” – what he means is that we don’t apply things like ain shavuah chal al shavuah, etc…it wasn’t a literal oath, but rather it was placed on us.

Avira, what about people talking during chazoras ha’shaztz, also a public abrogation of the will of H’ — are you as upset? What about if there are groups of frei Yidden in chutz la’Aretz — are the anti-Zionists as outraged as they are about the medinah?

Avira, Reb Yoel held that Zionism was a pirtza and he was allowed to say things which are not emes to fight it. Get it?
And do not make out of him a big mekubal either.

Re, rav meir simcha – he reportedly said after the Balfour declaration that the pachad of the shevuos has passed, because the sole baalei batim of the land at the time had given expressive permission. However, he likely was referring to mass aliyah and not a government, which is what the declaration promised, in the word “homeland”.

As for the tzitz eliezer, you’ve got to understand that many, many rabbonim were sympathetic to the state, including yeshivish ones. It doesn’t mean it’s what the gedolei olam held, and their own talmidim went on to be as anti zionist as the rest of the Yeshiva world once the fantasies had faded and the reality of the horrific chilul Hashem had set in. I cannot imagine the olam haba of a person like the TE who sat and learned bekedushah all the days of his life and wrote dozens of seforim, but it doesn’t mean we are supposed to listen to his opinions stated at a time when there was mass confusion and a powerful urge to leave the oppression and violence that we, BH cannot imagine.

As for rav shlomo kluger… Source? The idea doesn’t add up – the shevuos were not made between us and the goyim, they were made between us and Hashem. And further, the goyim definitely broke their oath when they killed Jewish boys in mitzrayim, yet the bnei efraim were killed when they left early.

This whole “they broke theirs so we break ours” is a non starter.

Satmar is wrong. The Three Oaths are not Halacha. This will all be shown clearly when Moshiach comes. Being a weak & wimpy is not yiddishkeit. We have a mitzvah to Occupy the Land and to Displace the Inhabitants there. It is a Moral Obligation and it comes from the Torah.

– Chutz Laaretz has a din of Tumah. Eretz Yisroel is din Kodosh.

– Hashem is only our God if we live in Eretz Yisroel – His land that He gave us.

– Mitzvahs only fully apply in Eretz Yisroel. All else is just training/chinuch.

– The mitzvah of living in EY does apply to today, מדאורייתא – Rav Chaim Kanievsky said so; and it’s clear from how much the Torah focuses on it, that it is and should be the focal point of Jewish life. We have been in Golus for so long that we have forgotten the basics of what it means to live a Jewish life – living a life of torah in our land – the holy land.

– There is a Mitzvah DeOraisah of Yishuv Baaretz, living in Eretz Yisrael. You must settle all of the land and openly take/stake your claim so that the goyim and others cannot take it from you to use for their own benefit. Goyim may not benefit from the land that Hashem gave to Am Yisrael without the express permission from the Yidden.

– You must live there and learn Torah there and raise your children there breathing the holy air of the land with the special protection of Hashem.

– Moshe Rabbeinu – the greatest person who has ever lived, fervently wanted to have the merit to step foot in the Holy Land, and he davened & begged Hashem over and over again to allow him to enter, but Hashem did not let. And here we are today deliberately choosing to stay in Chutz La’aretz (many of us) because of some self righteous ‘chareidi’ anti-zionist avodah zarah and not partaking in this great mitzvah which our grandparents and great-grandparents fervently dreamt about and begged hashem for…. a big insult to Hashem and to his torah.

– There are hundreds of thousands of Yidden who are עוסק בתורה in the land under the protection of Hashem, and the country is a strong military and nuclear power.

בא ורשו את הארץ

MDD: Provide a source, if it exists, regarding your claim about Rav Yoel zt’l.

AAQ: Do you deny the validity, importance or existence of the Rambam’s Igerres Teiman?

Avira and Ujm, I replied, but the Mod did not let it through.

Aaq, even according to rav belsky’s pshat, it’s still very much theological, just like anything else the gemara tells us to do and warns us of the consequences should we not do so.

Actually, according to his pshat, the state presents a constant danger to the security of klal yisroel, as the government is constantly provoking the anger of foreign nations.

What a jew should do in galus, is what rav yosef chaim zonnenfeld wanted; a goyishe state with jewish communal autonomy. Let America take over the land and use it as a base like the russians used Cuba during the cold war… it’ll be better for everyone all around.

> Do you deny the validity, importance or existence of the Rambam’s Igerres Teiman?

Avira just brought his Rebbe as an authority on this. Question him first.

Aaq, rav belsky was very anti zionist and did not mean to downplay the shevuos; he said they’re real, and very important. And what he says fits into what the “derech moshol” might mean in the iggeres, but in no way has any authority ever said that the shevuos just don’t matter, or we can disregard them because they’re “just agadeta”, again, whatever that means.

Mdd, the elements of satmar shitah that are a minority opinion are his(and basically all other Hungarian poskim) stance on voting and taking money from the state(in this he is joined by bais brisk). In all other ways, rav Reuvain grozovsky, of agudah, famously wrote that there’s really no difference between satmar and the rest of the torah world. The difference is mainly in those 2 practical issues.

Satmar also spends more time on zionism than other groups; others don’t regard it any differently than reform, or any other “ism” – in this, there’s a mixed bag… Every circle of klal yisroel has its things that it emphasizes more… Satmar holds very strongly about spending time on zionism.

Avira, My point is they have not been following the Satmar shita either. Stop pretending not to see it. They were not as madly opposed as you and your Satmar chavierim are.

Avira > he said they’re real, and very important. And what he says fits into what the “derech moshol” might mean in the iggeres, but in no way has any authority ever said that the shevuos just don’t matter, or we can disregard them because they’re “just agadeta”, again, whatever that means.

I think we now agree here that the shevuos are, on one hand, important and are there to guide our attitudes but, on the other hand, not simplistic halachik conclusion that any movement towards EY is verbotten unless it is fully in conformance with Beis Shammai. In fact, I recall Vilna Gaon’s commentary on Hagada HaLachma Ani is that Jews will first go to EY and only later become Bnei Chorin.

You follow Rav Belsky on this?!? Really? I also knew him. Ok?

Avira > they’re excluding themselves from the yeshiva worlds definition of the term gadol. So why are they upset when we don’t call them gedolim?

more true scotsmans here.

> there were gedolim who had positive views of the state early on, including the ponevezher rov. That doesn’t mean that they would say so now,

again. So, you easily presume that some “gedolim” were holding to their opinion due to the pressure of time. Then, others can say that Chazon Ish would change his opinion now, seeing how many kosher things happen in Israel. Your belief in daas Torah seems to be pretty shaky.

> But that view doesn’t mean that they believed in nationalism, or other foreign ideologies – they viewed the state as a Hatzolah, not as an ideal.

agree. And you deal with non-ideal reality, not withdraw from it. Jews are surrounding by “non-ideal” surroundings for centuries.

Avira, I am not going to argue with you whether it is night or day now. Enough is enough!

Aveirah, R’ Shlomo Kluger wrote about it in Maasei Yedei Yotzer.
Regarding R’ Meir Simcha, he actually says specifically that he is referring to the oath not to rebel against the nations, not about mass migration to Eretz Yisrael. None of the Oaths specifically refer to creating a Jewish country. The 2 Oaths that pertain to the Jews are not to rebel against the nations, and not to have a mass, forced migration to Eretz Yisrael. R’ Meir Simcha wrote that after the Balfour Declaration, there was no issue of rebelling against the nations. I’d say that after the UN vote, that opinion is even stronger, as the vote had more weight than just the declaration.

Aveirah, the third was against the other nations, that they should not subjugate the Jews excessively.
IIRC (it’s been a long time since I learned Kesuvos), there was another opinion that there were 6 Oaths, the additional 3 being not to hasten the geulah, not to push it away, and not to share the secrets with the other nations.

Regarding the quotes from R Meir Simcha and from R’ Kluger, they are brought down in the sefer HaTekufah HaGedolah.

Aveirah, I hate to say it, but you are committing the same sin as the miraglim.

I really admire and respect Avira for his breadth of knowledge and insight on hashkafah and halacha. I would like his understanding of the following sources: First is the Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De’ah 454 section 6 where he was asked whether there is a mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael suggests that even according to the Rambam the mitzvah is a full D’oraisa. he explains that the reason the Rambam did not count the mitzvah is because when one mitzvah is intended to facilitate the performance of another, the Rambam lists only the first of the two.
The mitzvah in Devarim of destroying the nations hindering the Jewish conquest and settlement of the Land was given to enable settling the Land. Having specified this mitzvah, which facilitates yishuv haaretz, the Rambam does not mention the actual mitzvah of conquering and living in the Land. Also, I would like Avira’s opinion on the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim 11, 2 who brings the Bar Kochba rebellion which was supported by R. Akiva and his many students as part of the advent of the hoped for ymos hamashiach. Therefore it would seem clear that the Rambam feels that the oaths are not halachic, for Bar Kochba (with Rabbi Akiva’s support) rebelled against the Romans and tried taking the Eretz Yisrael by force. Also, what about the gemora on Yoma 9b which seemingly contradicts the 3 Oaths and says that we should “rise up as a wall”, and that we were punished for not doing this in the time of Ezra where we were supposed to build the Bais Hamikdash. Also, Avira I would like your take on Shir HaShirim Rabba 8, 9 (3), where Rav Zeira, the author of the 3 Oaths in Kesubos seems to change his mind explicitly when he adopts the alternative opinion mentioned in Yoma 2. Also, I see that Rav Meir Simcha was mentioned in this thread. In his letter to the Keren Hayesod, he apparently interpret the oaths as aggadita, and says that, after the Balfour Decleration in 1917, (which was ratified internationally in San Remo) whereby the nations of the world officially recognized the right of the Jews to create a national home in Eretz Yisrael, “it removes all ‘fear’ of those oaths”. Rashi had explained not to take the land by force, but once the nations gave us permission, as in this case, it seems not to be a problem. Also, I would like Avira’s understanding of Rav Shlomo Kruger. It’s my understanding that R. Kluger explains that if the gentiles don’t observe their oath, we are exempt from ours. After the Holocaust, where the goyim did oppress us ‘too much’, it would seem that we would no longer obligated by our oath, and it is no longer “before its time”. Also, what about the Gra who appears to explains that not to “rise up on the wall” means we swore not to rebuild the walls of Yerushalayim and the Beis haMikdash, which does not appear relevant to declaring a state (The source for this would be Vilna Gaon, Commentary on Shir HaShirim 2, 7, in his Siddur). Regarding the process of aliya, the Vilna Gaon’s torah on is’arusa dilitata is discussed in Kol HaTor, written by his talmid Rav Hillel MiShklov and the mass aliya of hundreds of the students of the Gaon appear to reflect the Gaon’s position.

I’m not coming from a place of worship or adoration for the State of Israel. We are a nation because of the Torah Hakedoshah. I value Avira’s thoughts and opinions as I see him as real talmid chocham who wants the best for our brothers, klal Yisrael. I have no vested interest in any hashkafa, pro- Zionist or anti-Zionist. I’m just here to be educated by different viewpoints on stated sources so I can further my knowledge base.