The Dov Lipman Response�Controversial?

Dov Lipman is a very naive person. Lapid is not looking to help the charedim. What he and his party are afraid of is that the charedim that have more of-springs than the secular(that have a kid and a dog) will eventually be in the majority. That’s why they try very hard to give the charedi a hard time starve them and possible drive them out of the country.

Learning math and English in talmud torah is not a bad thing, in Europe all gedoiley Israel learned the language of the land and math. However the gedoleh Israel are afraid that this will give the secular “educators” from the secular ministry of Education a foot in their door. Next thing they will need to learn other subjects like zionism and the secular Zionist writers and thinkers.

Cutting off the funds for a talmud torah that does refuse to learn what they command is wrong . The religious Jews pay a lot of taxes to the government that is also a misconception that the charedi don’t pay taxes. As you know most taxes that are collected by the government is in form of VAT (mass erech musaf) and charedi people that have large families pay much more than the secular ones, so why have they to pay taxes to fund secular schools (that get 100% funding and they should get none? The second leader in yesh atid party called the charedim “leeches” why is Dov Lipman so upset when the charedi call Lapid an Amalek? It’s written about amalek “asher karcha baderech” the chasidish sefarim write karcha from lashon korr (cold) they wanted to bring in the Bnei Israel a ruach kefirah and that’s what Lapid wants. Just like a pig showing off his hoops to show that he is kosher so does Lapid show off his two “religious” members Lipman and Piron (and his good friend with the miniscule kippa , el duce ,Naftali Bennetto) to show that he is not anti-religious. Give him time when he does not need them anymore he will kick them out of his party so it will be Yudden-Rein.

HaKatan,

You will need to define Zionism. I am talking about Religious Zionism, i.e. those who believe that Jews should strive to gain and maintain sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel as a religious obligation.

On the other end of the spectrum there were Gedolim such as Reb Elchonon, the Brisker Rov and the Satmar Rebbe who held that such a mission was the opposite of what a Jew should do and was in fact and aveirah. (Of course we don’t really know what Reb Elchonon would have held after the state was established).

In the middle were many other Gedolim, who may have opposed the Zionists of their times (who were mostly secular) or who may have felt that even if it is a mitzvah to retake E”Y it could not be done through hischabrus with reshaiim. Others changed their positions before and after the founding of the state.

I have no idea how one could “rank” the Gedolim of the previous generation(s). I do believe however that the names I mentioned were all great, great Talmidei Chachamim or Tzaddikim or both.

ROB, +1.

Regarding the 1967 6-day war, please Google CIA 1967 war and click on the link to the CIA’s own web site.

Here is a brief selection:

[5]”

So much for “miracles”. But even if it were, even if Rav Yaakov held the 1967 was was miracles, that doesn’t make the A”Z of Zionism muttar; it just means the Jews in Eretz Yisrael were, B”H, zoche to nissim. It speaks nothing about their theology, as the Torah clearly warns about.

ROB (cont.):

As for looking at the “results” to see what was right:

This is more amazing that the rest of your post. You imply that, say, the Chazon Ish, would look at Israel and its bloody and shmad history and deem all that worthwhile.

Zionists call the tens of thousands of Jews who lost their lives for this idol “worthwhile”. Any grade school kid who is not brainwashed by Zionism could tell you that the Torah does not agree with them and you. It doesn’t take a gadol to do so.

As well, the Zionists have shmaded generations of our people and still are doing so and they still have a mandatory draft, day-to-day reliance on a missile system which is proven not close to fully effective.

Their Zionists quotes from before and during WW II are well known. The nazis ym”Sh used similar language and even used some of those quotes for their propaganda. Herzl himself said anti-semitism would become the friend of Zionism to justify their idolatrous existence.

No matter how much Torah is thriving there by those who were not shmaded (or not completely shmaded in the case of “Religious Zionists”), Zionism has been a disaster for Jewry from a physical and Jewish spiritual perspective. Since Zionism is more important to you than either of those, you simple don’t care and write about pink elephants and living under Arab rule. Under Arab rule, the Yemenites had their mesorah from bayis roshon. We all know what the Zionists did to them and their mesorah once the Zionists fooled them into coming to Israel.

As for why the Brisker Rov lived there, at least one thing is certain: unlike yourself, he understood Zionist shmad for what it was. So, given his knowledge and greatness, why should he not live on a higher level being in Eretz Yisrael? You live there because you believe in this A”Z; lihavdil, he did not.

The more you bring up, the worse you make Zionism look to any objective observer. You really should just give it up and rejoin the original and true Jewish faith.

benignuman,

Religious Zionism, striving to “gain and maintain sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel as a religious obligation” is not held as being in force by any major gadol to justify violating the oaths. Aderaba, it’s a severe violation of the oaths. Again, even the Zionist Rabbis struggle (futilely) to explain away the oaths.

Regarding after the state was established, there is no reason to believe Rav Elchonon would have held any differently except, like gedolim other than the Satmar Rov did, they joined in the State to save what they could from within. But, as Rabbi Resiman wrote, it was only the tactics that changed, not the ideals. The oaths were still in force and were being violated by Zionists.

Outside Zionists, this is universal, not “just” the Brisker and Satmar Rabbanim.

Zionism and the State were and are a terrible aveira and, besides that, a horrific disaster.

HaKatan,

You asked for Gedolim who authored universally accepted seforim who also held that Zionism was not avoda zara. Here are a few (not previously mentioned):

R’Eliezer Waldenburg, the “Tzitz Eliezer.”

R’Reuven Margolies, author of “Margolies HaYam” on Sanhedrin

R’Tzvi Pesach Frank, author of “Har Tzvi”

With regard to the “oaths” the simplest answer is that the oath is battul because the League of Nations/United Nations/British permitted the state. This was the position of the Ohr Sameach.

Another simple answer is that the oaths are part of an Aggadata gemara. They are not brought down in the Rambam, Tur or the Shulchan Aruch. They are therefore not l’halacha.

benignuman, no, that was not the position of the Ohr Sameach. We discussed this already. The UN is not representative of the entire world, much as they wish they were, and the Arab locals very much did not agree. Neither, for that matter, did the UK, who said that the Zionists were reading far more into their permission than they had intended. The Zionists clearly rebelled against the nations, and “Religious Zionists” struggle to find a heter for that rebellion, which they can’t.

Regardless, even if it were with everyone’s permission, this would only address the oaths of rebelling against the nations, not the oath of going up en mass.

As for the false claim of the oaths not being halacha, we covered this already also. The oaths are brought lihalacha by other poskim. (The lack of presence in Shulchan Aruch does not indicate its Halachic status.) The Rambam certainly believed it’s halacha when he wrote about it in Igeres Teiman. The Maharal said not to violate the oaths even if the nations forced Klal Yisrael to do so.

The Tzitz Eliezer also thought it was with everyone’s permission, etc. and not to establish a political rulership, only to live there.

Religious Zionists spill much ink trying to explain away the oaths. Just look at the Ohr Sameach you quoted, who clearly did hold of the oaths (until the Zionists mistakenly claim they became battel with some nations’ permission). This is a very basic distortion of the Ohr Sameach, as I wrote.

But the Zionists don’t have any reasonable answers to justify their idolatry and against the oaths because there are no such answers.

WOW! WOW! HaKatan: I must have hit a raw nerve with my few words.You spemd TWO long entries trying -quite unsuccesfully, I may add- to show how evil the medinah is and ho bad it is for the jews in the medinah and all the ills of the jews are due to them….any reasonable person will read your post with incredulity, as it depicts a world that only exists in your mind.

As far as “hot air”, I tried (unsuccesfully) to find R’Elchanan’s essay in hebrewbooks but, for some reason, I could not find it. As far as the Brisker Rov, if indeed he considered Zionism sch an avodah zoroh, you can- for sure- find some written comments, won’t you?

HaKatan, we have discussed the Three oaths before but i am willing to repeat it 400 times if necessary.

1. They are not found in any of the Codes. Not in Ramabm, bot in the Tur and not in the Shulchan Aruch.Rav Asher Weiss says that something lie that is NOT halacha pesuka.

2. Rav Chaim Vital (introduction to “Etz HaChaim” says that they were only for 1,000 years.

3. The gentiles violated their part of the bargain repeatedly (Crusades, expulsions., Chmielnitzky massacres, Holocaust).See Sota 9b-10a and Rashi10a d’h huchal shevuato shel Avimelech)that this nullifies the whole deal

4. The Ohr Sameach wrote in a letter to the JNF (to which he contributed from his own pocket) that if they ever existed the San Remo Conference repealed them.

5. Rav Soloveichik says in “Kol Dodi Dofek” that the Hashem has called and nullified them.

6. Rav Kahneman flew the Israeli flag at Ponevich every Yom HaAtzmaut so obviously he did not hold like you.

BTW, being that we are discussing Ponevich, Rav Edelstein says that one who does not vote in the Israeli elections is a poresh m’darchei tzibbur.

MDD, that has nothing to do with the halachic issues.

Just Emes:

Your sources are not fitting your screen name. You are using Zionist propaganda as a basis for your statements. Read what really happened in 1948 and then try again. The Zionists had no reason other than Zionism to attempt to take Yerushalayim in 1948. This was a clear violation of shelo yaalu biChomah as they were not given Yerushalayim.

Besides, the entire Zionist ascension was clearly anything but peaceful; it was definitely not biShalom. If you really want to get technical about who did and did not give permission, the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine were not members of the UN and they very much did not agree with Zionist aspirations. The UN, even if all its members agree, has no power to nullify the oaths.

Regardless, this all only addresses the shelo yaalu biChomah oath. The political rule in Eretz Yisrael is a separate violation of not forcing an early end to the galus.

Regarding Rav Moshe, even the Zionists admit that he was against flying the Israeli flag, both inside and outside shul and he called the founders of the State wicked, etc. and that if the Israeli flag were to be considered “holy” by Zionists then it would be like a keili of A”Z.

mdd, I understand you’re attempting to defend the indefensible, but please do not take cheap shots at me by mentioning other posters ot Tehran, etc.

I am discussing Zionism’s many halachic failings, not giving support to Ahmadinejad.

Regarding the WZO, membership in an organization does indicate halachic rulings on Zionism. Ponovezh flies the Israeli flag on their Independence day but that also does not mean they are, CH”V, Zionists.

correction: “membership in an organization does indicate halachic rulings on Zionism” should read “…does not…”

Can you cite to single psak prior to the advent of Zionism as a political movement that brings the oaths as halacha l’maysa?

Benign: You should consider though, that before the advent of zionism, there was no need for a discussion halacha l’maysah, because it simply wasn’t l’maisah.

Shulchan aruch and its progeny only discuss halachos that are relevant today. I suppose you wonder why Rambam didn’t discuss it in his mishneh torah.

HaKatan and Benignunan,

1. Nmae these “early poskim” and cite the places where they make these statements. Rambam in “Iggeret Teiman” says explicitly

“derech mashal” and does not bring them in Mishna Tora.

2. The Oaths did not do a very good job of protecting us.This menas that the deal is off. Other opinions, such as Rav Chaim Vital’s, are snifim, as anyone who has learned Halacha knows.

3. If rav Soloveichik’s opinion is no raaya because he was a Zionist, the Satmar Rebbe’s and Brisker Rav’s are also not raayot as they were anti-Zionists.

4. The forgeries were committed by the anti-Zionists. They censored the Chatam Sofer’s statementr (Sukka 35a) that any work one does in EY is part of the mitzva of building hte land and forged various letters (see “Forged Letters Against Zionism”).

5. Anyone can make up terutzim regarding Rav Cahaneman flying the flag. The fact is, he flew it.

6. On the contrary, Rav Moshe allowed of flying the flag even in shul (although he did not approve of it in the shul itself – but he would have had no problem with it outside) and said that it was to show love for the state (Iggrot Moshe Orech Chaim 1:46). Rav Soloveichik said that it is kadosh.

7. You are the ones who have nothing on which to stand. You are simply looking straight at the truth and saying “no, no, it can’t be”.

Two words : Rav Moshe. That is all. I see that the the only way to counter you on this issue is to pull the ‘gedolim card’ which then puts us out of the realm of argument and rather just a history of the shittos haposkim. Rav Moshe was the Posek and gadol Hador and he said that the states creation was not a problem halachickly. Also the rest of the moetzes gedolei hatorah of the Agudah- which the Brisker rav called the Beis din of klal yisrael – voted that it was also not a problem . So yes it was a machlokes but when the Gadol Hador and the Beis din of klal yisrael say muttar it’s not just that its a machlokes rather now its decidedly muttar for all of klal yisrael. Plus these gedolim were anti the zionistic ideals of the secular- only allowed real political state on the assumption of Torah borders and would be frum. Further even in mitzrayim we have hakaras hatov because we were there as the Torah states- so why is Israel any different if not more so because they protect Jews and allow us to do mitzvos whereas the mitzrim killed us and brought us to 49th level of Tuma. Once again: just emes

Naftush -“(“the Zionists” = the State of Israel and its secular population)in two of the three worst crimes in our Book: A”Z and murder. In my opinion, the quotations and views that they present to support this are outdated, irrelevant, taken out of context, or all or some of the above.”

It’s funny how you deny the truth because s/o brainwashed you.

I’ve proven by historians that early Zionists were terrorists during English rule. Therefore they are Rotzchim. Sorry if this doesn’t jive with your view of Zionism/Zionists. Again I’ve brought down historians who have documented the irradication of Religious Judaism from Olim to Israel from the Arab lands (Sefardim). This is considered the worse type of AZ to force s/o to become Frei. Again, I’m sorry that this also doesn’t jive with what you have been brainwashed your whole life.

Just Emes:

Regarding the Moetzes, I read that the Brisker Rov was not at all in favor of having a moetzes, for a number of reasons. Wasn’t he the one that said a line about how the secretarin will be calling the shots? He certainly did not agree with that decision to condone the State, and neither did Rav Aharon and others who were there.

Regarding that meeting, the ones who opposed those Torah giants felt that “it is possible to agree, according to the laws of the Torah, to the establishment of a Jewish state in its portion of the land of Israel without denying the belief in the coming of the redeemer. There is no need to be concerned that the non-religious will chase, through the Jewish state, the religion.”

They were very, very wrong about that last line. As the Brisker Rov said, the Zionists need a state to shmad, not that they shmad for their State. In hindsight, this is pashut. The shmad they have perpetrated is ayom viNora and still ongoing. So, given the benefit of history, it is highly unlikely that they would have voted as they did if they would have known.

As for hakaras haTov, mitzrayim is not at all an appropriate comparison. The Zionists are (nominally) Jews. Should they not let Jews practice their faith? Every civilized nation allows this. How is this worthy of Hakaras haTov?

As for protecting Jews, I really don’t want to get started listing the myriad things they have done to endanger and worse, CH”V, Jews. So the pathetic amount of protection that their mandatory draft shmad army and American anti-missile system which they know is not fully effective pales in comparison to what they’ve done to Jews. In Mitzrayim, we came to their land and they hosted us, despite the many terrible things they did to us. BiNidon diDan, the Zionists came to Eretz Yisrael and made a terrible churban. There is no comparison.

In reality, a better analogue would be an arsonist who, after setting a complex of buildings on fire and the fire rages powerfully, then runs to his little fire truck. That is, lichaora, the extent of the hakaras haTov due Zionists.

Avi K,

1. If the oaths were not halacha why, for starters, did the Or Sameach and the Avnei Nezer, both of whom the Zionists distort and misquote, bring them as such.

2. Who claimed “the oaths did not do a very good job of protecting us”? And why would that mean “the deal is off”? Which god told you that, Herzl?

3. I really would prefer to not discuss this, because I respect his Torah. One obvious difference is that the gedolim were speaking prior to the State’s establishment when the question of a State was a theoretical one. They were not “anti-Zionist”; they were pro-Torah. Another big difference is that there were major gedolim who held Rabbi JB Soloveichik was influenced by his secular studies. No such claim was made against the great sages like Rav Chaim and Rav Elchonon.

4. The Zionist forgeries of Rabbi Kasher were documented in MiKatowitz ad 5 B’Iyar.

5. The fact that he flew it still has no bearing on Zionism. No Terutzim are necessary to this non-kashya.

6. What I wrote came from a “Religious Zionist” site; I don’t recall the original source. As for Rabbi JB Soloveichik (again), he said lots of things that many gedolim disagreed with. He also said that traditional Orthodoxy would become a museum piece/relic. Yet, now, MO decries the non-MO “triumphalism”. So, even according to MO, he clearly was mistaken about that prediction. Regardless, it seems pretty obvious, though, at least in the Jewish faith, that there is nothing holy about a secular flag, much less one that represents the likes of Herzl and the others, not to mention the oaths issues. While on the topic, Rabbi JB Soloveichik also said he was unimpressed with Rabbi Kook’s scholarship. Still hold by either one 100%?

Rav Moshe held it was ok because the UN gave reshus.

HaKatan, according to your logic, the opinions of the Rov and the Satmar Rebbe don’t count — they were anti-Zionists.

Chacham Ovadia and Shas are official memebers of WZO. If they did not hold of Zionism why they would be there?

mdd, your latest cheap shot about 2+2=9 is less cheap than the other one, but still not appreciated.

Regarding WZO, maybe ask them why they’re members. My point, which you refuse to accept, is that you can’t infer their position on the oaths and halachic issues of Zionism just because they’re members of a political organization. As they’re “working from within”, it actually makes sense that they’re members of WZO. It’s not a kashya, to me.

Regarding Rav Moshe, please see my earlier post to Just Emes.

First off, the quote about moetzes that “it is possible to agree, according to the laws of the Torah, to the establishment of a Jewish state in its portion of the land of Israel without denying the belief in the coming of the redeemer” is exactly my point- that it is not kefira bemunas mashiach and not a violation of the oaths( for whatever reason -either not applicable due to Nations Permission- or- despite some poskim saying assur it is not the generally accepted halacha). The last line about the religiosity of the state has nothing to with the halachick allowance of the state regarding the shalosh shavuos. Plus regarding the Brisker Rav- while he many not have agreed in principle to their decision he clearly stated that they are the Beis din of Klal Yisrael and because they paskened its ok- it will happen( ie Hashem will make it happen) that was how great their koach Hatorah vikedusha was.

As per Rav Moshe – he said it was not a problem- end of story – and i have that directly from Hagaon Harav’ Elya Weintraub tzk’l known as one of the greatest mekubalim of our generation who asked Rav Moshe directly. Rav Moshe was the Gadol and Posek Hador and a Gadol amongst gedolim-and if Rav Elyashiv was mevatel his daas to Rav Moshe than seemingly he would agree too. Whether Rav Moshe’s reasoning was because of nations approval/shalom/defensive war etc- or- because it is not a clear cut halacha according to all poskim only some poskim)is irrelevant- he said it.

Regarding Hakaras Hatov to mitzrayim there is no difference to Israel we thank those who do any good despite their general stance- Also regarding the IDF soilders who put their life on the line to allow jews and even yeshivas to learn day and night while they patrol day and night – we all have tremendous hakaras hatov to them – Rav Chaim Shmulevitz(mir) and Rav Gershon Edelstein (ponovich) also say we must have tremendous hakaras hatov to the soilders and that they are like the ‘harugei lud’ and have a special place in the olam ha’emes. Do we want the state to be better- of course- but can we be blind to the good we have received -absolutely not- see Rav Dessler (M.E.) who says one must see the hashgacha of Hashem in EY after churban of the Jews. The argument that the jews would be ok without state that Hashem allowed- is not the case- even during the holocaust the british and american’s even sent boats of jews back to europe to the nazis. saying that since there are terror attacks and wars against israel is nothing new- and not due to oaths as per the above din of Moetzes and Rav Moshe- we had a holocaust,pogroms,libels,killings,expulsions etc long before the state was ever discussed – we would be persucuted anywhere anytime because of galus. So i grant you that there were difference among great gedolim on the issue- and eilu vi’eilu however we pasken one way and the Beis Din of Klal Yisrael and the Posek Hador said we pasken that its ok.

Just Emes:

Regarding the Holocaust and Zionists having allegedly done good things:

Your “ain lomar”, the argument that the Jews would have been okay without a State and would have been better off without Zionism and its “favors”, is the most historically sound and also halachicly convincing possibility, provided you understand just how antithetical to Torah is, lihavdil, Zionism, and that you do not accept Zionist lies as historical truth, which you seem to do.

There are some gedolim who claim the Holocaust happened precisely because of the lack of protest against Zionism and that the Holocaust was the terrible result of violating those oaths, of Ani Mattir es Bisaarchem, CH”V. I’ve even read the “middah kinegged middah” explanations, too, according to that shita.

But let’s say one holds like the other gedolim who did not claim this, who say the particular aveira or aveiros that caused this is inexplicable.

Beyond the Holocaust, do you know the shmad they have perpetrated and still do perpetrate on our people? Did Chazal not say “gadol haMachtio yoser min haHorgo”?