- This topic has 214 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 16 hours, 17 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
@AAQ – No, there aren’t. Because they consider Z and MO to be heresy of the highest level, they’ll never engage seriously.
AAQ: Should we read Herzl’s writings, too? Reputedly, is also powerful.
Marx, as well, from what I gather.
@somejew
“With the exception of Aviner and Solevetchik, the other names are those who where nifter (I think) before Vayoel Moshe was published” So now it needs to be in a sefer that was written after Vyoel moshe was published? It can’t be someone that addressed the issue before him? As I told you that’s an unfair rule for many reasons. But Ill relist them
1) Satmar didn’t let anyone publish sefarim against them
2) By the time the rebas sefer was published, the questions about zionsim weren’t “lmasa” anymore. Its after the fact. Why would a posek be busy with the theory?
As I noted you make up and twist your own rules. I will note to many look how he refuses to debate me. You know why? because I don’t fall for bullies or people that make up rules to squeeze me. I don’t think anyone else should fall for this fraudseter either. Do not let him builly you and dnmever let him have the last word.ZIONISM IS AL PI TORAH. Yes its subject to shikul hdas.
@somejew
No problem.Zionism is – support for a homeland for Jews in order to better their lot.
Ujm, if you are a serious student of history, you would of course read both Hertzl and Marx ad many others.
If you are not comfortable in your emunah, you can read R Berel Wein, he read them for you.But here we have a different case. Some jew paskens that r Soloveitchik needs to answer Satmar rebbe, despite r Soloveitchik writing multiple books on is own. How about asking whether doing reverse: read r Soloveitchik and then go see whether Satmar rebbe ever responded.
Zsk, that is why I am suggesting to discuss rabbis who had first hand respect from other well-known rabbis. U wonder whether some jew would dare addressing r Soloveitchik without the title in the presence of R Moshe.
@somejew
We have mesora and psak from tzadkim period. That’s how yiddishkiet works. We don’t need to answer vyoel Moshe. It’s that simple. I won’t stand for your bullying or making up your own standards.Zionism is al pi mesora and both sides are Torah. Listen to what tzadkim say or said. (I trust R Moshe Wolfson zl before some bully on YWn) . We need not know why even though we do know!
@some jew
Did you get my message about definition of zionism ?Both Eim habanim smeicha and vayoel moshe , [bemhila of their illustrious authors] are emotional sefarim.
The emotion of yearning for the geuoula and tsa’ar of tsaratan shel yisrael in the case of the EHS on the one side, and the anger and outrage at hatslahatan shel resha’im [besides the yearning for the g] in the case of VM in the other case, are very recognizable in both sfarim, notwithstanding of their quoting of numerous torah sources.
Their readers should be warned not to ignore these clear overwhelming emotions. They will do so at their own peril.
.
.somejew to yb:
you wrote: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 .
the longest part of a conversation is defining what means Zionism. I have a specific definition in mind that was novel in the late 19th century and is still alive an well by all self-proclaimed zionists, showing Zionist ideology alive and well today, R”L.
I can offer my definition or you can start with yours. Once we have that anchor, I can answer your question as to why Judaism rejects Zionism as heresy.
——————-yb to somejew :
No problem.
There we go :Zionism is – support for a homeland for Jews in order to better their lot.
.somejew, I have no idea what you are asking. I suggested reading up on R Soloveitchik books and see what you think about that. Others suggested other authors. Maybe the disconnect is that you are looking for a one-page disproof of Vayoel Moshe? I don’t think this is fair to anyone including Satmarer Rebbe. If he were an unknown person from St Mary, publishing his interpretation of a gemora, it will be as well known as any CR post. He developed a certain philosophy and raised thousands of students, and that is why his opinion is important. So are other Teachers that we mentioned. So, good read up their writings, try to understand what they are writing about, and then come back and tell us what you think, and we can have a discussion. And, again, onus is on you because you deny validity to whole large group of observant Jews. I am not accusing Satmar Chassidim of kefirah, I do not need to prove anything.
Once full-scale war broke out after the State of Israel declared
its existence on May 14, 1948 [CE] Reb Shraga Feivel’s [Mendlowitz]
thoughts were never far from Eretz Yisrael.A group of students saw him outside the Mesivta building one day,
talking excitedly with Rabbi Gedaliah Schorr and
gesticulating rapidly with the newspaper held in his hand.“If I were your age,” he [Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz]
told the students, “I would take a gun and go to Eretz Yisrael.”SOURCE: Reb Shraga Feivel: the life and times of Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz,
the architect of Torah in America (chapter 26, page 338) 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
“Again, to be clear, the Shulcha Aruch (and the general derech hapsak) demands a posek explain his novel reasoning for the public and show the talmudic sources that he claims obligate the public to listen. ”This is dishonest . You made this up. No such requirement exists when its a Hashkafa question. Zionsims is hashkafa. Mesorah is enough and as long as the person is a tzadik thats enough. You refuse to respond because I won’t stand to you makin up the rules. Here are the rules, if a ztadik says hashkafa in public thats enough.
One more fallacy with @somejew argument.
So we know that there are sefarim out there that answer the basic arguments such as sholsh shavous.
But then after most of those authors were nifter vyoel Moshe came, and refuted the prior authors answers on the 3 shavous . And so his flawed argument is why didn’t anyone come after the Reba and answer that up ? You can’t ask why it wasn’t addressed before the Reba came along because nobody was a prophet and they didn’t know the Reba arguments to address it. They knew the basic anti Zionist argument but not the Reba argument on their response. And so the question is why didn’t anyone refute the Reba after he wrote his Sefer? Well by then the question of Zionism was basically not relevant any more.Mr somejew is a good pretzel maker but the whole premise of the argument is flawed.
Of course it’s also flawed because you don’t need to write a sefer or defend hashkafa. If a tzadik says or displays open public support in a way that’s not subject for interpretation that’s a psak and mesora
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.