- This topic has 225 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 4 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
@somejewiknow
“I would rather speak about psak and torah instead of, lhavdil, zionism and kook”Rizhyin is Pask and torah not stories. You just lie and dri akup.
Rav Shmuel Auerbach, not a zionist by all accounts , refused the attempt to take out rav kuk’s haskama in me’orei ha’eish by r shlome zalman.
Look at the new edition published just a few years ago.
Rav kuks haskama is first.Because rav’kuks powerful political influence of some 100 years ago ?
.Some Hungarian Rabbanim in their zealousness to preserve yahadut , threw logic and fact based judgement out of the window. They thought that following this greatest of the greatest of Hungarian Jewry , the Hatam Sofer , necessitates to jettison fact based thinking ,rationality and proportionality.
And truth be said , it could very well be a matana from heaven , as our generation after the war, was so diminished in so many ways, that’s exactly what that generation needed. Otherwise they would all drown in the zionist tsunami which flooded every Jewish community.
But now when the zionist ideals are long hollowed out already, it is time to return to the shvil hazahav of logic and facts. Coupled with yir’at shamayim and based on torah.
So taking those rabanim literally will have a not so different result to taking ,lehavdil elef havdalot, every word of this big and fat basar vadam DJT literally ….
.@somejewiknow
We see your MO. Everything had in erorr , everything was a mistake or forgery unless its your sources. Oh and all those that held R Kook in high esteem in their letters, they were just bullied into it. And paskim said in public in front of 100’s of people over and over again like haschlata degulah those are merely “stories” up for interpretation.I think its time you look within and see what a pretzel you are twisting. You passul everyone on the other side and then you create your own rules as to whats valid so that you can say noone who was a gadol or tzadik held of zionsim. Its time to stop the bullying and passuling whoever you disagree with. Deep down you know that the rleigous zionists are not koefrim or apikrosim. Maybe they are misguided and thats fine. But to passul other jews or say that they have no source and are just heretics? Its clearly not true. Stop this bullying and mishagsim.
somejew, I looked up this article, thanks, it seems to be written by a total outsider, zeroing on some inconsistencies in the reports.
Let’s look at a bigger picture: Ohr Sameach was a rav in a large city, Dvinsk that was full of political activities. I’ve read a couple of articles, it seems that Ohr Sameach was generally pro- yishuv eretz yisroel but wary of anti-religious groups involved, still having some sympathy. I’m putting below some quotes. Given where and how he lived, I don’t think his activities and letters would go unnoticed by contemporaries, he was not always outgoing with his positions, but he was not hidden in a desert. In particular, the letter ^ was published in 1922, there are his responses from right after Balfour in 1917-18. He was niftar in 1926, surely an actual forgery would be noticed during his lifetime. The quotes below are from a long article A Light Unto Our Nation: R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk’s Approach to Nationhood and Zionism in Meshekh Hokhmah By: JONAH STEINMETZ – you would be better off reading the original than my random quotes to understand complexity of Ohr Sameach views.
From the day our holy Torah was given, prophecy has never ceased to command us to settle the land [of Israel]. There is no section in the Torah which bears no mention of the Land of Israel… From the day that Zion and Jerusalem were singled out, David in his praises [i.e., Psalms], Isaiah in his visions, Jeremiah in his rebukes, and Ezekiel in his parables never ceased to stress the commandment of settling the land… So too in the Grace after Meals, we pray for the land and Jerusalem… Indeed, in this century, rays of light have shone through the efforts of activists… but many rabbis have opposed it… However, providence has intervened, and at a conference… it was decreed that the Land of Israel will be [given] to the nation of Israel… [And so,] the command to settle the Land of Israel which is as weighty as all the Torah commandments [combined] has returned to its place. It is [therefore] incumbent upon each person to support, to the extent that he can, the fulfillment of this command. The words of the one who awaits seeing the salvation of Israel, Meir Simhah Kohen Ha-Tor, Vol. 3 (1922)
Eulogy from R. Hayyim Zev Harash
Everyone claimed him as their own. Agudath Israel says he was theirs, the Hasidim say he was theirs, and the “Zionists” say he was theirs. And this is the truth, because he would find positive aspects in every group. And so, he once said to me in conversation… that in every group and in every organization, there are found good aspects and evil aspects… [A] person who stands on the side, a neutral person, is able to truly know and understand the good aspects found even in the lowliest of the groups; and to find the evil aspect which exists even in the finest of the groupsYou asked me… to express my opinion regarding the new movement which came to be in our times… by the name of “Hovevei Zion” are they called..
[F]or one who looks at the history of the Jewish people in exile with open eyes sees that at some times crazy, imaginative people arise from among our nation… and place their trust [in the idea] that the redemption is close in coming. And being that their words are [destructive] and all their acts are [ensnaring], many from the nation of God left the religion and the nation and denied the hope of the future… Behold! How terrifying is the sight of the enthusiastic [people] who go out saying: “This is the way which leads to the ultimate redemption From R. Meir Simhah’s letter to Slucki.
I see also ref to
Meshekh Hokhmah, Bereishit 12:5; Devarim 11:31.
Meshekh Hokhmah, Bereishit 50:24. where he supports oaths
after Balfour, he supported yishuv, but does not join Zionist movement Iggerot R. Hayyim Ozer, vol. 1, pp. 311-12 (no. 289).
see also She’eilot u-Teshuvot Avnei Nezer, Yoreh Deah 454:56“On Friday, November 29, 1947, the United Nations
debated the issue of partitioning the British Mandate
for Palestine into two countries, one Arab and on Jewish.Reb Shraga Feivel [Mendlowitz] prayed fervently for partition.
He had no radio in his house, but that Friday he borrowed one
and set it to the news, leaving it on for Shabbos.He waited with such tense anticipation to hear the outcome
of the U. N. [United Nations] vote that he did not come to shalosh seudos.When he heard the U. N.’s decision to establish a Jewish state,
he stood up and recited the blessing HaTov VeHaMeitiv,
Who is good and Who does good.Without losing sight of the anti-religious nature of
the leaders of the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael,
he nevertheless saw the creation of a Jewish state
as an act of Providence and as a cause for rejoicing.At the very least, there would now be one country in the world
whose gates would be open to the thousands of Holocaust survivors
still languishing in Displaced Persons Camps in Germany and Austria.”SOURCE: Reb Shraga Feivel: the life and times of Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
the architect of Torah in America (chapter 26, page 331) by Yonoson Rosenblum
for Artscroll / Mesorah, year 2001, based on Aharon Sorasky’s Shelucha DeRachmana,
ISBNs: 157819797X, 9781578197972, 1578197961, 9781578197965__________________________________________
Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz was the founder of Torah U’Mesorah
and became principal of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas in year 1921 CE.His career in Yeshiva Torah Vodaas lasted 25 years.
He was known as “the premier architect of Torah in American history.”
He left this world in 1948 CE at the age of 62 years.
__________________________________________
PERSONAL COMMENT:Please, DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
just because he was the founder of Torah U’Mesorah.Please, DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
just because he was principal of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas,
and taught there for 25 years.Please, DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
just because he was known as
“the premier architect of Torah in American history.”?
“In [year]1948 [CE], after the Arabs attacked the newly declared
Jewish state and soldiers were falling on the battlefield,
several Roshei Yeshivah taunted Reb Shraga Feivel [Mendlowitz]
for having recited the blessing [HaTov VeHaMeitiv].Reb Shraga Feivel turned to Rabbi Aharon Kotler,
who agreed with him that the U. N. resolution
[to establish a Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael in year 1948 CE]
was indeed worthy of the blessing.”SOURCE: Reb Shraga Feivel: the life and times of Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
the architect of Torah in America (chapter 26, page 331, footnote 3,
heard from Rabbi Nesanel Quinn) by Yonoson Rosenblum for Artscroll / Mesorah,
year 2001 CE, based on Aharon Sorasky’s Shelucha DeRachmana,
ISBNs: 157819797X, 9781578197972, 1578197961, 9781578197965__________________________________________
PERSONAL COMMENT:PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Aharon Kotler,
just because he founded Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood.PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Aharon Kotler,
just because he worked day and night to save Jews from The Holocaust.PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Aharon Kotler,
just because he wrote Shu”t Mishnas R’ Aharon (responsa).PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Aharon Kotler,
just because he wrote the Mishnas Rabbi Aharon commentary on the Talmud.PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Aharon Kotler,
just because produced many highly distinguished talmidim,
including: Rabbi Shlomo Brevda, Rabbi Moshe Heinemann,
Rabbi Moshe Hillel Hirsch, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky,
Rabbi Shlomo Miller, Rabbi Yechiel Perr,
Rabbi Gedalia Schorr, Rabbi Elya Svei and many others.__________________________________________
PERSONAL COMMENT:Please read this quote together with the quote that preceded it.
@ somejew
You wrote: “I would rather speak about psak and torah”
We have been waiting with baited breath, spanning multiple threads, for you to start doing that
@ somejew
You wrote: My opening post was a long explanation of my understanding and open ended question for response about the Torah’s system of psak and halacha. as mentioned, I didn’t see anyone challenge it.
It seems most respondents didn’t see, in what you outlined, the Torah system of psak and halacha
@somejewiknow
The challenge to it is that you have a misconception as tow hat the rules are. of course if you make up your own rules then noone can challange it. But its fixed. Us torah jews know that mesorah and a psak not written in a sefer but said over to 100’s of people is just as strong if not stronger. And that not every issue is halcha . Some are Hashkafa.Again wshen you make your own rigid rules so that only your way is correct then yes you can’t dispute it but your rules are made up and are not al pi torah. Bottom line there is a strong side to say zionsim is the torah way. of cirse not secular zionsim which agudah opposed.
somejew,
I am going back to your OM (opus magnus). You seem to be proving that we need to go over and thoroughly learn Vayoel Moshe because of his godlus. I don’t think it is a bad idea, but I don’t think you have to force people to do that.As many here posted, there are other respectable opinions out there – from those who are now cooperating with Medinah while barely tolerating to those who appreciate Israel’s role in giving homes to those who lost their homes to those who would hang the flag just one day a year to those who have hopes that Medinah will lead to something good in the future to those who think there is redeeming value in the Medinah despite shortcoming to those who were willing to work with Medina lehathila hoping to make it better to those, at the extreme, who think that Medinah can do nothing wrong. You may claim that some of the listed are not of sufficient stature, especially at the extreme, but there were many names posted here that are not disprovable by, for example, their association with other Talmidei Chachamim that you respect.
Thus, if I am not a Satmar, I do not have to rely on Vayoel Moshe if I am already following other mesoras. Same way, I don’t need to know all kavonos of all chassidishe rebbes before davening shacharis. I can rely on Gaon who did not learn those kavonos also. Now, if I were to insist that Vayoel Moshe is incorrect and a wrong shitah and makes a mistake – then I will be obligated to go research each of his heilike arguments one by one. But I am just not interested right now, no offense, but I have other lakunas in my Torah that I need to cover first. I might have done it were I to live in the time he published it. But right now, Medinah exists, it is full of religious Jew, b’h, so there are lots of other issues to deal with, such as whom to vote for in WZO elections. (can you write in Vayoel Moshe?).
Now, you insist that Vayoel Moshe is correct and every other gadol is not. To say that, you need to go and learn original sources of those you think are wrong and review their arguments. Thankfully, people here provided you a lot of references. Let us know which one you are starting with and let’s have a substantive discussion.
@some jew
You seem to exclude one the most greats of klal yisrael .Avnei Nezer end of yoreh de’ah who befeirush states [learn it a few times – otherwise you might miss it] that 3 shavu’ot are not binding halach lemaaseh nowadays.
I cannot see any reason why anyone , and befrat someone whose mesorah is from poskim from Poland should not rely on his shitah.
.Yankel Berel is NOT the only person who understands the Avnei Nezer,
at the end of Chelek Yoreh Deah, as clearly stating that The 3 Oaths
[Gimmel Shevout] are *** NOT *** binding Halachah LeMaaseh, in our times.Other people read Avnei Nezer the same way that Yankel Berel reads it,
and those people outnumber the brainwashed and dangerous
anti-Zionist fanatics who endanger the lives of many Jews
and shmad many Jews by driving them away from the Derech HaTorah.The anti-Zionist fanatics have shmaded more Jews,
by driving Jews away from the Derech HaTorah,
than the worst Secular Zionists ever did.@somejewiknow
Nope its not shulchan aruch, its your own made up interpretation of it. of course you twist our torah to find a source. Furthermore. Zionism isn’t a halcha issue, its hashkafa. Everyone knows Mesora and psak is strong. Zionism has strong mesora. And R kook ZL was a huge gadol.@somejew
I’ll bln find you the exact quote in Avnei Nezer. It is very clear.Re your claim that Zionism is against ikarei emuna. Logic does not necessitate this at all.
One can fervently believe in schar va’ onesh and also advocate for a Jewish state. Not a contradiction at all.
Ditto for believing and awaiting mashiach. Why is a state , necessarily- a mashiach sheker ? It is nothing more than a way of achieving a temporary outcome until mashiach will come and redeem the yidden build the bet hamikdash and eradicate the yetser hara and shib’ud malhuyot. Put an end to wars on the whole planet.
No realistic person can deceive themselves that there is no shibud malhuyot in the present . Even after the medina [and in many instances – because of the medina] there is plenty of it r’l.One can support the medina without going against any of major tora problems you mention.
One can adhere to the torah viewpoint re mechalalei shabbat and kofrim who to a certain degree [!] are al pi torah not part of klal israel. E.g. their yayin is nesech etc. And still give them a right to vote , not worse than a nochri who lives and votes in the state.Re hithabrut larsha’im , there is plenty of materiel in ba’ayot hazman by r grozovsky and karyane de’igrata by the steipler where the parameters are clearly delineated.
So this is nothing more than a great deal of illogical and baseless hype and exaggeration, with the noble intention of stopping of innocent victims losing their yahadut by following those irreligious and anti religious people.YWN front page has an article with a video of some Omar on Times Sq who does not like Zionists but is not very good at defining who they exactly are. I wonder whether this is one of the participants in this thread went outside to vent his frustration. Next time you are passing times Sq make sure to ask Omar’s opinion on jimel shevuot.
Looking clamly at the debate – it is not believable that the right position on Medinah can be discovered through pilpul of this gemorah. Even gemorah itself does not always come to conclusions based on pilpul – even if it looks like that. Think of cases where someone is consistently more machmir or more meikil than others – does he happen to always find the meikel psukim – or maybe he starts with a position and then tries to defined it…
But in this case, where we are discussing major issues related to millions of Yidden – the right position is probably discovered thru analysis of Torah principles, politics, psychology, effect on future generations .., And maybe 100 years later … So, I think it is legit to have different opinions at this point, but it is not legit to use simplistic shortcuts to delegitimize serious positions of others.
somejew > We cannot paskin based of actions of a presumed tsaddik to go against halacha
I think this explains our disagreement. I (and others here) do not see a pre-existing halakha that those who were tolerant to Z or cooperated with them were violating. See discussion of Ohr Sameach who seemed to be tolerant to both sides of the debate and did not denounce anyone.
There were often Jews of different social opinion. At modern times, there were communists, socialists, bundists, reform, conservative. There are lots of different decisions on how to behave towards them under different circumstances. Often, we decide not to cooperate with such groups. But, in some cases, we do. Depends on lots of factors. And different gedolim can come to different conclusions. R Salanter writes with owe about ladies who join serious Torah classes in Germany and says – if I were to try this in Lita, I’ll be excommunicated…
somejew > his psak is binding because of the authoritative sources his psak stands on until there is another countering psak that fulfils the requirements of SA: 1) gadol b’minyan and/or chochma, 2) someone who goes in a “good way, 3) paskins specifically because of his the contents of shas and poskim, and 4) who has publicized his halachik reasoning for peer review.
Truly, I am with you, I’d love to be in the bleaches of the Sanhedrin, seeing Satmar Rebbe debating R Kook. I really do not understand why we do not see modern Rabbis meeting for such discussions. They don’t have to be opposite of each other, just slightly disagreeing. We have stories of someone encountering someone at a chasunah or something and raising an issue. We have teshuvas, but not real debates. Sad. As R Steinsaltz used to say – gemorah says that if all gedolim gather on the same street in Yerushalaim and daven together, Moshiach will come. Why don’t they? We misunderstand the gemorah: only when Moshiach will come, such gathering will be possible …
Until then, you just can’t obligate me, a litvishe guy, to go learn shitah of a Chassidishe Rebbe from St. Mary of Hungary. You can interest me by quoting him in a good way, and so far you didn’t.
> there is no one who has even attempted a countering psak.
You have a problem with peripheral vision. you are looking at posts quoting various rabbis and still thinking “where are the gedolim”. Just because they are not standing on the shelf in your yeshiva, does not mean they are not. I don’t want to answer for others, but I was bringing shita of RJBS. He is of comparable learning & effect on Jewish community to Satmar Rebbe. You may not see that because his students do not march in uniform – and probably outside of your neighborhood. For example, when he was a student in Berlin, he was coming back to Vilno during vacations, bringing his “chidushim” to R Ozer. R Ozer would usually smile and turn around to his bookshelf and find the source of the “chiddush”. This story says not only that R Ozer was ready to talk to RJBS, but also when RJBS was in Berlin; that RJBS was actually learning during his university studies; that he was attempting chiddushim, and that they were quite grounded in mesorah – and maybe that it requires R Ozer to see that what RJBS is saying is actually according to mesorah. RJBS was definitely respected by his contemporaries, some disagreed, some not much. And he definitely published a lot of books with references. Maybe, you read either other authors quoting him in short, or his most famous short articles, then you need to go and read more – as we are discussing a comprehensive issue that can not be resolved in one paragraph.
@somejew
Have not forgotten re the exact quote of avnei nezer.
And your other comments.
Simply did not have the time.@Always_Ask_Questions
Somejew made up that this is Halacha when it’s really haskafa. Repeated stories and paskim from gedolim done in front of 100s of people is mesora. Of course that’s good enough to clearly say Zionism has Torah foundations. But he makes up rules to squeeze into his agenda.Chaim> made up that this is Halacha when it’s really haskafa.
Well, the boundaries are not always clear, so he is within his rights to argue a certain position.> Repeated stories and paskim from gedolim done in front of 100s of people is mesora.
what is more concerning that he can not find “gedolim” within all texts written by others. Because, I presume, in his definition, a gadol is someone who teaches in certain yeshivos, lives in certain towns, writes in a certain way … I think if he were to bump into R Shimshon Hirsh in the street, he would think he met a university professor.In a conversation with the Satmar Rav, shortly after his talk
on the U.N. declaration, Reb Shraga Feivel [Mendlowitz]
was subjected to the sharpest criticism for his “Zionist leanings.”Later he told his family,
“I could have answered him [the Satmar Rav]
Chazal for Chazal, Midrash for Midrash,
but I did not want to incur his wrath,
for he is a great man and a tzaddik.”He added with a twinkle, “And besides, he has a fiery temper”…
SOURCE: Reb Shraga Feivel: the life and times of Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
the architect of Torah in America (chapter 26, page 335 to 336)
by Yonoson Rosenblum for Artscroll / Mesorah, year 2001 CE,
based on Aharon Sorasky’s Shelucha DeRachmana,
ISBNs: 157819797X, 9781578197972, 1578197961, 9781578197965__________________________________________
PERSONAL COMMENT:Please DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
just because he was the founder of Torah U’Mesorah.Please DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
just because he was principal of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas,
and taught there for 25 years.Please DO NOT LISTEN to Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
just because he was known as
“the premier architect of Torah in American history.”@somejew
Have not had time for avnei nezer yet.But re the other comments. It is as clear as day that the overwhelming majority of rabbanim disagreed and still disagree with satmar rav in vayoel moshe.
There are reasons they did not publish a sefer against, one of them possibly as rav shach is reputed to have said- it is always good to listen to criticism from the right as in between ten things they say , they might be right on one of them. And if we start arguing back, the battle lines will have been drawn and that one precious thing will be lost to us.
There were other reasons too.
Beside the above, in kayane de igrata and in ba’yot hazman there are clear differences of opinion with satmar rav, backed up by precedence and torah logic.
So there is no inference to made by the fact there are ‘no sfarim’ against satmar , that satmar remains halacha lemaase.
In fact the exact opposite is true . Not only did the majority not accept satmar shitah, even satmar itself did not accept satmar shitah all the way.
Think about the following:
1] There is a huge difference between reform or jews for j, on one side and zionism on the other.
No one [besides fringe coockoo’s] will passel a get or kidushin with fully frum believers in zionism as edim. Whereas even fully observant reform and jews for j’s gittin vakidushin will be nifsal even with serious ,generations long repercussions of mamzerut.2] I remember rav aharon from satmar speaking to his hasidim after the pigu’a in the yeshiva lits’irim in merkaz harav when murderers killed boys in the yeshiva.
I remember how he said that even when we have rightful hilukei dei’ot with merkaz harav , nevertheless we should be mitsta’er betsa’aram etc.
Could you have ever imagined him saying this about jews for j lehavdil ???
For sure not.
So all the rhetoric about the kfira of zionism is nothing more than …. rhetoric .
I am talking about the consensus of Orthodox Judaism here.This not to be taken literally and halacha lema’aseh-
this is rhetoric , designed to pull people away from zionism..
Anyone looking for emet will see the truth in what I have written.@yankel berel
The reasons no sefarim were written to answer Satmar were the follwing
1)Its hashkafa not halcha
2) You only need to write sefarim if you are against zionsim because how else do you make your point. Its the only method of protest. If you are pro zionism all you have to do is acts of zionsim. by acting in certain ways or joining govts etc, you are in essence exclaining your shita. But what do you do when anti?
3) The reba zya wa s a holy jew but had alot of power and the chasdim were strong. Its very hard to debate him. if you did you were considered less pure. Just ask Klausenberg. (I know of someone who did write a sefer defending zionsim and his warehouse of sefarim got burned down). So do then say why didn’t people write sefarim after the bullying that went on, is in itself a bully tactic. To be clear the reba zya wa sa holy man and he meant lshem shomaim. Especially at a time when so many were going off both before and right after the war, a strong tough stance was needed. But in the spirt of fighting to be pure that was the outcome
4) By the time the reba zya wrote his sefer, Zionsim was a bit of a mute point. The medina was already defacto and the ideology of whether we should go along with the fight to establish a medina was a done deal. Furthermore, the new issue of the day was that it was secular. Till Began came along, not only was it secular which is bad enough but Ben Gurion YMS was out there to shmad every frum jew and was a Lehachis jew. So anyone charedi had to fight those things like gyuis bnos. It wasn’t a time to start defending the idea of zionsim since we needed to oppose the govt anyhow because of its shamd.We can only rebut something that was logically stated with proof and cold logic.
Zionism being necessarily kfira has NEVER been proven , not from logic neither from hazal.
So, what should we rebut exactly ?
The issue is not whether some / all / the majority of the founders and promotors were kofrim .
Thats irrelevant.IS ZIONISM IN ITSELF NECESSARILY KFIRA ?
That is the question.
Answer is very clear – no.
It is you who has not supplied any proof nor logic.
The matter seems to be settled, then . At least till further notice …. .
.@ somejewiknow
Torah rebuttal come in many fashions such as public declarations by tzadkim and stories that occurred over and over again. The standard you get forth by Shulchan aruch is bogus. You twisted the shulchan aruch to fit your standards. But yes these tzadkim did go in good ways whether it’s r kook or rizhin.The LIAR or FRAUD is that you don’t “want “ to believe two sides exist so you make up your own rules.
Bottom line is there are two sides to Zionism and shikul hadas or mesorah is needed. Don’t let anyone bully you into passuling one side . That person who does is a pathological liar
ok, I searched around, here are some references that relate to 3 oaths. Note that I personally don’t want to debate this, just helping out with quotes, so you can shoot at each other with better precision. I am trying to omit agadic material and sources that one of the sides may not respect.
Rashi: it’s only a problem if the Jews come all at once
Avnei Nezer (Y.D. 453, 456) do not derive halakha from agada;
“Avnei Nezer” (Y.D. 456) once the nations of the world give permission for all the Jews to go up to the land of Israel, the oath is annulledYoma 9 says that we davka must (!) “rise up as a wall
Shir HaShirim Rabba 8, 9 (3), where R. Zeira, the author of the aforementioned “three oaths” in Ktuvot, changes his mind explicitly, and adopts the contradicting opinion mentioned in Yoma!
Pnei Yehoshua (on Ketubot 111a) points out that Yoma 9b implies the opposite
Hafla’ah (Ketubot,same), the “wall” only relates to the immigration to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia.
Vilna Gaon, Commentary on Shir HaShirim 2, 7, in his Siddur: we swore not to rebuild the walls of Yrushalayim and the Beit haMikdash
commentary on Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 75, 17, “the mitzvah is upon him to ‘toil/work’ (לטרוח) to fulfill”.San. 97b – does redemption depend on teshuva
For a comprehensive treatment of this issue, see Naĥalat Yaakov by R. Yaakov Zisberg, vol. 2, pp. 715-815.
There seems to be a major point of agreement between those who believe in 3 oaths and those who believe in Medinah:
Both sides agree that mass aliyah is only possible b’zman Moshiach.
They only differ on how they see the facts: Oathists see the Zioni crowd as apikoiresim despite the good they do for Jewish people; and Medinists presume that they’ll turn out to be the sign of Moshiach coming despite their philosophy.
Basically – is the cup half-empty or half-full?
To anyone who wants to know why somejewiknow will never accept any of the many legitimate Torah detractors of antizionism, please look up the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
“I don’t believe one exists and therfore anyone who claim there are “two shitas” and that a yid can do “shikel daas” between them is a LIAR and FRAUD.”
“I don’t believe one exists.” This is the problem right here. Do you not concede that many Jews, unlike you, DO believe one exists? YOU might believe that they are mistaken, but that is THEIR honest opinion – so how can you label them as LIARS and FRAUDS? What gives you the right to attack their integrity? Are you that self-centred and delusional that you think that what YOU believe is so self-evident that anyone who thinks otherwise MUST be a LIAR?!
I say this without getting into the issue at hand at all, because it’s clear that there is zero openness on your part to hear anything you don’t already believe and I wouldn’t waste my time.
@1a2b3c
The problem with @somejewiknow is that he will tell you, that he isn’t deciding this rather the shulhcan aruch is. The bully has a twisted way of outsmrating you. He takes a random shulchan aruch up for interpretation blows it up and twists it the way he likes to. Then he sets rules around it that we must take as a given. And then he disqualifies anyone so that its in accordance with his rules. (Like who decided R Kook wasn’t a gadol even though R elyshav said he was and he was his shadchan + mesader kiddushin and rebbe)
And so just to preempt his response, He will deceive you and say its the shulchan aruch and not me. I bet if he asked a real adom gadol even a kanoi and anti Zionist (maybe r Malkiel Kotler shlita ) to look into his heart and tell us if mizrachi jews who are ehrlich and follow torah umitzvois are really kofrim and not part of our torah what do you think he will say? To be clear, I am sure he will say they are misguided and thatsa fine argument. I am also sure he will say the govt itself and secular zionism are wicked people. (I don’t necassirly feel so but I have a hunch he will) Thats fine too. but he wouldn’t say R Kook was bad or that mizrachi are kofrim.123abc> No True Scotsman
indeed. The problem (for him) is that there are verifiable connections between true and false Scotsmen – they are from the same klan!
maybe that is why he refuses to say that, but continues repeating “I did not see any names”.the CLAIM of Vayoel Moshe is that the author PROVES that Zionism is NESSESARILY kefira!
The long sefer labors tirelessly to prove the opposite from every angle possible, and the author spells out his every step as well as the practical halachik ramifications of the Torah teachings he lists. He says in his intro that the long maamarim are meant to be psak halacha, halacha l’massah vis a vis Zionism when it was published in the 1950s. The author followed up in doubling-down in his 1968 sefer explaining why the status has not changed and no one should be confused from the 6-day war.
IS ZIONISM IN ITSELF NECESSARILY KFIRA ?
That is the question.
[somejew]
———————————–
I have gone through most of vayoel Moshe and I have not seen any clear proof that zionism is inherently kfira.
He writes at great length and sometimes the main message can get lost like the proverbial tree in the forest.You seem such an enthusiastic proponent of the ‘zionism is necessarily kfira’ approach , that it should be easy for you to formulate in a few short sentences why this is necessarily so .
We are ready and waiting to hear your pearls.
@somejewiknow
Your premise is that we need find a Torah source that responds to the Torah arguments within vyoel Moshe. This is where you are dead wrong and a pathological liar. We don’t need a Torah source to say Zionism is al pi Torah and do not to respond to the holy Satmar Reba Zya. You made that up.Us ehrlich Jews believe in mesorah and tzadkim. If tzadkim proclaimed and clearly acted in a certain way in public that’s enough to say that it’s the Torah way . This is our strength. We don’t do bible debates. Your trick is to twist it in a pretzel, and we won’t do that . If a tzadik said it was a haschalta degula then that’s what it is.
I will post another 195 comments and will not stoop to have to answer vyoel Moshe.
Folks many tzadkim held that Zionism is the Torah way. But There are two sides and you need shikul hdas or mesorah. Don’t let bullies tell you orherwise .
(P.S. we did quote sefarim that address it as well but you disqualify them like eim habonim simcha. So don’t you mislead us in saying we didn’t quote anyone that refuted the Reba arguments. But it’s not the point anyhow)
Zionism is a Torah way
3 brief points (I’m done arguing with you):
1) It is patently false that you have not rejected one Sefer. You’ve rejected anything that is authored by an individual who supports Zionism, Chibat Tzion, Chovevei Tzion, Mizrachi, HaPoel Mizrachi, etc. That means you’ve rejected works by: 1) Rav Reines; 2) Rav Alkalai; 3) Rav Kalischer; 4) Rav Teichtal; 5) Rav Kook; 6) Rav Soloveitchik; 7) Rav Yeshayahu Shapira (Brother of the Piacezna Rebbe); 8) Rav Aviner – These are all Rabbonim who backed Zionism to varying degrees and/or have works supporting such (I’m not sure about Piacezna’s brother). The last one wrote a work that is a direct challenge to Vayoel Moshe.
2) You absolutely are using the no true scotsman fallacy. To you, no true Rav/Gadol could possibly be a Zionist, therefore any pro-Zionist work is heresy or a forgery and its author is a heretic. Which is why you reject all the Rabbonim above and their works (and in some cases, actions).
3) I don’t think anyone here rejects the sources used by the SR, or the sources in general. It is a rejection of the methodology used – You cannot rule Halacha based on Aggada. Because R’ Teitelbaum founded his entire Magnum Opus upon Aggada, it contains a fundamental error impeaches its authority. Its conclusions can be questioned.
Hellooooo, are there any anti-Z out there who actually read R Kook or R Soloveitchik in the original? It appears that writings of these Rabonim are more powerful than I thought.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.