- This topic has 41 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 hours, 45 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
Three Oaths (“Shalosh Shavuot”) essay
from Rabbi Avraham Rivlin of Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh
__________________________________________The Gemara in Ketubot (page 111A) derives from the triple mention of the pasuk,
“I have bound you in oath, O daughters of Jerusalem” (Shir Hashirim),
that Hashem bound Am Yisrael and the nations of the world with three oaths.The first oath is, “shelo yaalu bachoma,” that the Jews should not forcibly,
“break through the wall,” and enter Eretz Yisrael.The second [oath] is that the Jews should not rebel against the nations.
The third [oath] is that the nations of the world should not
oppress Yisrael too much over the course of the exile.The Gemara concludes with the threat that if Israel violates these oaths,
their flesh will be made free like wild animals in the field, i.e.,
Hashem would bring upon them great suffering and physical destruction.
__________________________________________
The Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, claims in “VaYoel Moshe”
that Hashem brought about the Holocaust because
the Zionist movement caused the Jews to violate the “Three Oaths.”Since the Jewish people forcefully went to resettle Eretz Yisrael,
Hashem brought upon them massive destruction,
as the Gemara warns in its conclusion.
__________________________________________
Rabbi Shlomo Aviner compiled thirteen answers
to this claim, amongst them the following:
__________________________________________(1) Rav Teitelbaum’s claim rests on the fact that there was a “choma,”
that the nations of the world prohibited the Jews from settling in the land of Israel.
The Avnei Nezer writes that this oath does not apply
when the nations give Yisrael permission to return.Following the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference,
in which the nations of the world determined that the Jewish people
have a right to settle the land of Israel, the oaths do not apply.The Midrash hints to this idea, that if Bnei Yisrael have permission
to enter the land they do not violate the oaths.(2) Another answer is that once there is a sign from Hashem
to return to the land, the oaths no longer apply.In addition to the permission given by the nations,
the national reawakening and birth of modern Zionism
can be viewed as a sign from Hashem
that it is permissible to return to the land.The [three] oaths were not an “issur” (absolute prohibition),
but rather national tendencies that Hashem instilled within
Klal Yisrael which would cause them to remain unmotivated
to return to their land. Also, throughout most of the exile,
it was very difficult physically for Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael.Once a wide scale movement with an objective to return to
Eretz Yisrael began, and it was physically possible to begin Aliya
to Eretz Yisrael, it became clear that the oath was no longer in effect.(3) The Gemara in Sanhedrin (page 98A) says that when Eretz Yisrael
gives forth fruit abundantly, it is a sure sign that the redemption is coming.Eretz Yisrael, in the time of the Zionist movement, began blooming
and giving forth fruits unlike any previous time since the destruction of the land.
This sign of redemption showed that the oath was no longer in effect.(4) Rabbi Teichtal, in his work, “Em HaBanim Smeicha,” offers another explanation:
Although the Jews were sworn not to enter Eretz Yisrael forcefully,
the nations of the world were also sworn not to persecute the Jews too much.Over the course of the exile, the Jews were severely persecuted by the gentiles.
Because the gentiles violated their oath, the Jews were no longer bound by their oath.(5) According to some opinions, the only way to violate the oath
would be if people came to Eretz Yisrael in very large groups.Since the Jews entered the land slowly, and over the course
of many years, they did not violate the oath.(6) The author of the “Haflaah” maintains that the oaths
only apply to those who are in the exile of Bavel [Babylonia],
and not in other lands.(7) Rabbi Chaim Vital explains that the oath only applied for 1,000 years, not longer.
PERSONAL COMMENT:
Nobody in this Coffee Room has ever refuted this, or even attempted to refute this.(8) The Gra [Vilna Gaon] writes that the oath applies only
to building the Beit HaMikdash, not to entering Eretz Yisrael.(9) Elsewhere in the Gemara there are other, conflicting, sources.
(10) Furthermore, the Gemara regarding the “Three Oaths”
is agadah, and we do not decide halachah based on agadah.Based on all of these explanations, there is ample basis to say that
the movement to return to Eretz Yisrael was a positive, not a negative, one.In fact, others maintain just the opposite, that the Holocaust was because
Jews became entrenched in galut [exile] and did not return to Eretz Yisrael. [Wow!]Since we are not living in a generation of prophecy, it is very difficult for us
to determine exactly why Hashem brings specific punishments to the world.However, the Gemara does teach us that when we are afflicted with punishment,
we should look into our actions, and try to fix our bad deeds.PS: Pischei Tshuvah Shulchan Aruch Evan HaEzer 75:6 clearly states
that all the rishonim and achronim held there is today
a mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz [Jews living in the land of Israel].Shiur ID: 3970
__________________________________________
FULL DISCLOSURE:I did not personally verify the accuracy of the Torah quotes shown above.
Sorry about that!
__________________________________________
PERSONAL COMMENT:The Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, claims in “VaYoel Moshe”
that Hashem brought about the Holocaust because the Zionist
movement caused the Jews to violate the “Three Oaths.”That explanation MIGHT have been logical, if, at the time of The Holocaust,
there were no Jews abandoning Shabbat, and no Jews eating forbidden foods,
and no Jewish atheists, and no Jews intermarrying with non-Jews.But since there were many Jews committing those sins at the The Holocaust,
it is very difficult to believe that The Holocaust happened because of the Three Oaths.Harav Aharon Feldman is currently in BMG speaking to the yungeleit about NOT voting for EHK.
Fact.
is this meant to be am harutzis? or did the author mean this to be taken seriously?
if whover actually wrote this nonsense meant it to be a response to Vayoel Moshe, perhaps they should have mentioned that Vayoel Moshe askes many (if not all) of these questions and answers them, k’derech haTorah. While the author of Vayoel Moshe is “forced” to each of his conclusions based on the teachings of Chazal that he is obligated to follow, the author of THIS obligated seems happy to ignore those them all and offer nonsensical “others maintain”.
Such is the pull of the yester hureh when someone doesn’t like Torah, “well, maybe not?” is tells you.
A person with integrity would not teach Torah like this. For this reason, no so-called Gadol b’Yisroel has ever tried to claim the nonsense that the Three Oaths are not obligatory.
I am embarrassed yet again by the fraudulent “Rabbis” of the RZ movement.
Why would someone mix really poor excuses with valid ones?
Square: Being that you’re bigger than the Satmar Rebbe ztvk’l and you can easily shlug him up, I think you should put his Sefer V’Yoel Moshe in Cherem and have them discarded anywhere they are.
By the way, the Tosfos Yom Tov attributed Tach V’Tat (aka the Khmelnytsky Massacres of 100,000 Yidden in 1648-1649) to talking in shul.
Now, you, Square can shlug up the Tosfos Yom Tov and tell him (and throw out his Seforim) “That explanation MIGHT have been logical, if, at the time of Tach V’Tat there were no Jews abandoning Shabbat, and no Jews eating forbidden foods,
and no Jewish atheists, and no Jews intermarrying with non-Jews and no Jews doing much worse things than merely and simply talking in shul.”My Daas Torah has an orthogonal opinion.
> Vayoel Moshe askes many (if not all) of these questions and answers them, k’derech haTorah.
as I said, I don’t think this scholarly debate will convince anyone, but you can as well mention how Satmar Rebbe answers these questions, especially those that are from classical sources, such as
(1) Avnei Nezer
(5) According to some opinions, the only way to violate the oath would be if people came to Eretz Yisrael in very large groups.
(6) The author of the “Haflaah”
(7) Rabbi Chaim Vital
(8) The Gra [Vilna Gaon] writes that the oath applies only to building the Beit HaMikdash, not to entering Eretz Yisrael.
(9) Elsewhere in the Gemara there are other, conflicting, sources.this post did not provide references, but I presume the original article did – or maybe Satmar Rebbe quotes them.
ujm > Square: Being that you’re bigger than the Satmar Rebbe
To be fair to square, he is simply quoting someone else.
> Tosfos Yom Tov attributed Tach V’Tat (aka the Khmelnytsky Massacres of 100,000 Yidden in 1648-1649) to talking in shul.
Please stop bad-mouthing Ukrainian Jews. I am happy to inform you that not all of 100,000 talked in shul. About 50,000 were not even there (current estimates of Jews in Ukraine at the time is 20K to 50K, I think). And maybe about half of them did not survive – and of those probably many not directly from the uprising, but from resulting diseases, etc.
I also wonder: most of these Jews were “arendators” – paying annual rent to Polish owners and then extracting product from local peasants. So, presumably many of them lived in very small places, with or without minyan. So, maybe “talking” relates to their relaxed attitudes towards their overall observance – when they decided to move from population centers in Poland proper… Maybe, even, when Jews who rarely came to shul would finally meet, either on shabbos or on yomtov – they had a lot of things to talk about, especially after the uprising started.
Were the yehudim in the time of tosefot yom tov atheists ?
Were they intermarrying with non jews ?
Were they doing ‘worse things’ ?Do you have a source for that ? Or do you simply suppose that they did ?
.@ujm
Were jews in time of TYT abandoning Shabbbat ?
Were they eating forbidden foods ?Do you have sources ?
.somejewiknow:
It’s not really that the “rabbis” of “Religious Zionism” are fraudulent. It’s that “Religious Zionism” is “a sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah” (Brisker Rav) or “Religion and idolatry biShituf” (Rav Elchonon). They’re just preaching that religion.SQUARE_ROOT:
Why don’t you just hang out on “Religious Zionist” websites rather than polluting this one with more “Religious Zionist” nonsense that is heretical and idolatrous?Aviner’s “answers” (and the rest) should embarrass any “Religious Zionist”.
1. Obviously, the only oath that would not apply with the nations’ permission, if true, is the oath about rebelling against the nations. That permission has zero to do with the other oaths, like aliyah baChoma (ascending en masse) and dechikas haKeitz, taking political rule like the Zionists did. The Balfour Declaration was essentially rescinded, or at least greatly curtailed, by the “White Papers” that followed. Moreover, the reality is that the Zionists terrorized and fought both the British and the Arabs and also then founded their “State” against the express will of the UN. So, the Zionists clearly violated that oath, too.2. This “answer” is even bigger nonsense, only promoted by Zionists like Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik, Rabbi Kook and Rav Teichtal. But there is no source for their emotional inventions, and (of course) there is no gadol who agreed to their respective nonsense inventions.
3. The Satmar Rav addresses this one, too. It means when it gives its fruits in a supernatural way.
4. Ditto. The oaths are for our benefit, not mutual. He brings numerous examples. The Rambam told the Teimanim then that the oaths are in force despite the terrible oppression they were under. And even if it were mutual, which no gadol approves, that would apply only to the oath of “rebelling”, not the other oaths, like aliya baChoma and dechikas haKeitz. The Zionists flagrantly violated all the Oaths, of course.
5. This is nonsense.
6. Interesting how, as brought in today’s daf, the midrash notes that shevet Efraim who left Egypt early were slaughtered in the desert because they violated the oaths by leaving Egypt early. And there were many other examples of non-Babylonians who were punished for violating the oaths, including a Zionist favorite: Ben Koziva, which caused the spilling of oceans of Jewish blood, far more than even the Holocaust.
7. The Satmar Rav addresses this, too. That was not about these Oaths.
8. There are at least three oaths. Whichever oath you claim applies to only the Temple, obviously has zero to do with the other oaths.
9. The gemara actually uses the oaths as halacha, and the poskim bring it down on the spot, as the Satmar Rav points out.
10. This is a popular Zionist meme. First of all, you have zero source for that assertion. Regardless, aggada clearly shows us what G-d wants, even if it’s written in a deep way. As well, please see #9 and the other points, too.
Based on all this nonsense, “Religious Zionists” violate the oaths which has unimaginably severe punishments associated with those violations.
PS. That’s totally irrelevant. Individual Jews can choose to live in Eretz Yisrael and, if that Mitzva is in fact still available, then they will fulfill that. But that’s for individuals.
So please don’t waste time with “Religious Zionist” nonsense.
Regarding your personal comment, you have zero basis to even think you could argue with a gadol like the Satmar Rav. To try to help you understand, though, I would humbly submit that although Rav Miller points out that there was indeed assimilation and chilul Shabbos in pre-war Europe, Zionism (which started in the late 1800s) was one of the main reasons for that, as Zionism is all about changing Jews and Judaism into godless Nationalists and Zionism. So, if one believed in Zionism, then, in addition to worshiping idols, by definition they did not believe in the Torah. If you didn’t believe in the Torah, then nothing would stop them from doing anything against the Torah, including intermarriage and violating Shabbos. Until Hashem decided to save His people from being lost.
As well, you’re arguing against basic facts. “Ani mattis es besarchem” is the punishment listed for violating the oaths. That’s obviously what happened in the Holocaust. It was literally open season on Jews like never in history.
So please revert to actual Judaism rather than “Religious Zionism” and all its nonsense and heresy and idolatry.
HaLeiVi:
None of them are valid, of course.@ujm
the overwhelming majority of rabbanim of klal yisrael rejected satmar shitah .It not square who ‘shlugged him up’.
It is klal yisrael with most of its rabbanim.
.These questions are from an article titled:
Dignity for Singles by Chananya Weissman,
that was published on September 8, 2017, in The Times of Israel:1. It is acceptable for someone on the very fringes of a single’s life
to deliver unsolicited “constructive criticism” on how he is running his personal life.
Why is it not similarly acceptable for a single to walk into someone’s house
and critique how a couple is raising their children, spending their money, or managing their home?2. Why are singles often told by someone with a seemingly random
shidduch suggestion to trust the would-be matchmaker’s hunch,
but singles are discouraged from trusting their own hunches?4. If a relationship works out, why does the shadchan get the credit,
but if it doesn’t work out, it’s the fault of the singles?8. Why is there such delicateness when trying to help childless couples (rightfully so),
but not for singles, who lack not only the opportunity to procreate,
but also companionship in their journey?
Why do people who approach the former issue with sensitivity believe anything goes with singles?12. Singles are often told, “That’s why you’re not married.”
to somejewiknow: If I am not mistaken, Rav Rivlin is a 10th generation Yerushalmi who is descended from a long line of Talmeidei Chochomim. He is a Talmid Chochom and Yerei Shomayim. To call his Torah “am haratzus” and to refer to him as “rabbi” (with quote marks) is an indication of a lack of Yiras Shomayim on your part.
the satmar rav zatzl was an “ARI” and was recognized by all the gedolei yisroel , AND THOSE SAME gedolei yisroel chose NOT to answer the veyoel moshe although ofcourse there were very good answers. that is “the answer”.
The Gedolei Yisroel explicitly agreed with the Satmar Rebbe regarding the Zionist issue and the State, overall. The *only* exception was some disagreed how to deal with the State post facto, after it existed. But, in principle, they all agreed with him.
Explain this: We can’t Pasken from Aggadeta, but you can Pasken against basic Pshat from a mention by Rav Chaim Vittal about the other half of those oaths.
yankel berel:
Nobody “shlugged up” the Satmar Rav (though the “Religious Zionist”=Idolaters have made pathetic attempts to do so), and the gedolim also agreed the Satmar Rav on the core issues and more. They differed with him only on minor things like voting in Israeli elections and visiting the Kosel.Of course, none of that is in any way relevant to the nonsense that the OP spewed in attempting to defend Zionism, as Zionism is simply indefensible.
@ujm
The Gedolei Yisroel explicitly agreed with the Satmar Rebbe regarding the Zionist issue and the State, overall. The *only* exception was some disagreed how to deal with the State post facto, after it existed. But, in principle, they all agreed with him.
————–
WRONG
You are guilty of blatant misinformation.
.Approximately 7.7 million Jews now live in Israel. May G-d bless and protect them now and always. This is what should be in our hearts. As for some BT on this forum who has found his métier in beating the anti-Zionist drum until his own ears are deaf to anything else, he deserves our pity, and our prayers for his full and speedy recovery from the mental illness that has overtaken his life.
Ujm, it is absolutely not true that all the Gedolim agreed with the Satmar Rebbe on the issue.
You can engage in silly disagreements over the nuances, positions and tactics between the Satmar Rav and the rest of the gedolim.
But it is indisputable that Zionism is idolatry, heresy and (therefore) of course against the Torah, despite the nonsense cranked out by Zionists of all types, like the OP posted from one of their “rabbis” here.Just drop the idolatry already, and stop with the abysmally stupid meme that “everyone but Satmar” holds of Zionism, when the reality is that everyone (including Satmar) holds that Zionism is idolatry and heresy.
Koifer BIkur:
The drivel posted in the OP is a disgrace, even to an am haAretz, let alone to a rabbi/tenth-generation Yerushalmi/whatever. But that’s what Zionism and other idolatrous forces naturally do: they make people invent the silliest things in an attempt to defend their idolatry which is, of course, indefensible. Throughout history, there were a few rabbis, far greater than anyone known to be around today, who wrote things even more anti-Torah than the OP’s drivel.mdd1: Please share the names of any Gedolim, if any, who disagreed with the SR on the general issue of Zionism, aside from the issue of how or whether to interact with the State or vote in elections. And very specifically tell us which position he (or they) disagreed with.
@hakatan
You can engage in silly misrepresentations [or falsifications] of the position of the rest of the gedolim.
But it is indisputable that Zionism is not idolatry and heresy perse, and (therefore) of course not perse against the Torah, despite the nonsense cranked out by zealous emotion driven kana’im who are unable to distinguish between cold torah logic based on hard halahik facts on one side and divrei mussar ve’hit’orerut on the other.Just drop the idolatry argument already, and stop with the abysmally stupid meme that everyone holds of the “Zionism is heresy” fallacy , when the reality is that everyone holds that Zionism , while responsible for much mischief and evil , is inherently not idolatry and heresy.
Even Satmar , while talking the talk of the ‘Zionism is heresy’ fallacy , is not fully walking the walk of this fallacy.
Even they only use it as a divrei mussar vahit’orerut tool.You are silly for pretending otherwise.
.@ujm
Please share the names of any Gedolim, if any, who disagreed with the SR on the general issue of Zionism, aside from the issue of how or whether to interact with the State or vote in elections. And very specifically tell us which position he (or they) disagreed with.
[ujm]
=============1] Emrey Emet in osef mihtavim clearly disagrees with SR about zionism.
He writes that zhuyot in EY which tsionim extracted from the British and the League of Nations should not be protested or resisted , “ki yavo hatov mikol makom”
2] Karyane de’igrata – Steipler vol 1 – believing that the state is athalta degeula is NOT kfira. It is a mistake – but not kfira.
There are many many more.
.
Ujm, Rav Moshe Feinstein held there was no violation of the 3 shvous because the Nations gave their reshus. Reb Ya’akov also did not agree. AND THE REASON WHY THE OTHER GEDOLIM DID NOT AGREE WITH THE REBBE ABOUT WHAT TO DO le’ma’ase is because THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH HIS SHITTA IN HIS SEFORIM. Stop dreing the kup already and dispute the obvious and well-known. And I am not even talking about Chacham Ovadia who made Shas a part of WZO. ENOUGH already!
Yankel Berel, secure Zionism is based on kefira. They deny that the golus and the punishments are min Ha’Shamaim. They say it is all derech ha’teva. And that they can save the Jews by having a strong army and a medina (which is also silly in addition to the apikorsus). And they say that the golus could have been prevented by having a strong army and a strong medinah (shoitim!!).
yankel berel:
You pathetically imitate my post while bringing zero sources in attempting to defend your idol.
The fact is that Zionism is absolutely both heresy and idolatry, even without the gedolim saying so. But they did say it: the Brisker Rav wrote that Zionism is a kefirah in the entire Torah, not just the oaths (which are also brought by poskim liHalacha, as it happens), as did Rav Elchonon and the Chazon Ish and all the rest.Just in case you actually care for logic which you brought up – every form of Zionism believes in at least two things:
1. Judaism is a Nationality, not (only) a religion, and Zionism is the current manifestation of that Nationality..
2. The Zionist “State” is the Nation-State of that religion.The Torah vehemently disagrees.
You are beyond silly for pretending otherwise.
HaKatan, chill out! Do us all a favor.
@hakatan
You pathetically imitate my post while bringing zero sources in attempting to portray my shitah as accepting an idol chv’sh.
The fact is and remains , that katan brought zero proof that Zionism is absolutely both heresy and idolatry, by logic and proof only, even without the gedolim saying so.According to katan , every form of Zionism believes in at least two things:
1. Judaism is a Nationality, not (only) a religion, and Zionism is the current manifestation of that Nationality..
2. The Zionist “State” is the Nation-State of that religion.the facts however speak for themselves.
1a] The Torah recognizes that Judaism is a nationality. Multiple times klal yisrael are being described with the moniker of ‘am’ . Which translates as ‘Nation’.
1b] I disagree that Zionism believes that they themselves are the sole manifestation of that nationality. I myself happen to know many Zionists who would clearly disagree with you on this point. And who consider themselves to be proud Zionists.
2] The furthest I can go towards you , is to state that according to Zionism , this State is the only one on the planet where Jews are the majority , and therefore govern themselves, without nominal jurisdiction from non Jews.
So, the torah does not disagree with the above stated points [1a-1b-2] . Vehemently or non vehemently .
There is no proof for any disagreement at allYou are beyond silly for pretending otherwise.
.
.You pathetically imitate my post while bringing zero sources in attempting to portray my shitah as accepting an idol chv’sh.
The fact is and remains , that katan brought zero proof that Zionism is absolutely both heresy and idolatry, by logic and proof only, even without the gedolim saying so.According to katan , every form of Zionism believes in at least two things:
1. Judaism is a Nationality, not (only) a religion, and Zionism is the current manifestation of that Nationality..
2. The Zionist “State” is the Nation-State of that religion.the facts however speak for themselves.
1a] The Torah recognizes that Judaism is a nationality. Multiple times klal yisrael are being described with the moniker of ‘am’ . Which translates as ‘Nation’.
1b] I disagree that Zionism believes that they themselves are the sole manifestation of that nationality. I myself happen to know many Zionists who would clearly disagree with you on this point. And who consider themselves to be proud Zionists.
2] The furthest I can go towards you , is to state that according to Zionism , this State is the only one on the planet where Jews are the majority , and therefore govern themselves, without nominal jurisdiction from non Jews.
So, the torah does not disagree with the above stated points [1a-1b-2] . Vehemently or non vehemently .
There is no proof for any disagreement at allYou are beyond silly for pretending otherwise.
.
.@mdd1
Secular Zionism is based on kefira. They deny that the golus and the punishments are min Ha’Shamaim. They say it is all derech ha’teva. And that they can save the Jews by having a strong army and a medina (which is also silly in addition to the apikorsus). And they say that the golus could have been prevented by having a strong army and a strong medinah (shoitim!!).===
You are correct , but religious zionists would disagree with you.
So , even though the secular were the majority, nevertheless , one could be a Zionist without accepting all these divrei minus.
.Hakatan > Judaism is a Nationality, not (only) a religion
thanks for specifying your concerns that we can discuss!
Is it not true? What does it mean for you that you deny that there is “am yisroel” and “goy kadosh”? and “am chacham venavon”?
What does it mean in practice – that you don’t care about any non-religious or “traditional” Jews in Israel and do not consider them your brothers?
Please specify what is exactly wrong with saying that Judaism is a goy/am in addition to dat (word not in the Chumash, I think)> . The Zionist “State” is the Nation-State of that religion.
here, I think, opinions differ, although again not clear what are you denying. That Israel exists? that it has a “right to exist”?
How is it different from any other state that Jews live in? There is a difference that there is rov yehudim in the country, at least,
so if you find a lost gold bar, you should look for the owner – as opposite to US Senate (where you give it straight to Sen Menendez)Hakatan
“Explain this: We can’t Pasken from Aggadeta, but you can Pasken against basic Pshat from a mention by Rav Chaim Vittal about the other half of those oaths.”
Its called mema nefshasch
to oppose Zionism you need to ignore classic way haalcha has been decided (igeres teiman is now halacha leMoshe Misnai) and ignore history.
These posts highlight the absurdity of the Anti-Zinoist position
It is wrong for so many reasons it is hard to begin.So yes we dont typically pasken from agadata
Even if we did within the Agadadta there isnt necessarily a violationEven if there would be , The nations allowed it etc etc etc
sure ignoring all that
and adding in an 14th ani maamin
and ignoring what is otherwise taken as a given “Judaism is a Nationality, not (only) a religion,”Was that ever a controversial take? Of course Judaism isnt “just” a religion. This has been always taken for grnted, but now to butres the unsupportable antiZinosit position we rewrite halacha.
Yisroel im chata hu lo nikra Yisorel , this has not been normative halacha . But you need it to support your untennable position
All this has been discussed again and again
Has there been any new update in the past 2 decades on thsi subject?
(except for the last point thatI think you made up or misunderstood some netruei karta talking point)yankel > Multiple times klal yisrael are being described with the moniker of ‘am’
This might be where the problem is. Some people are eager to exclude everyone who disagrees with them from am yisroel. This is understandable going not so far back to various anti-religious groups – from reform to zionists to bundists to communists. I heard from some old people in NY showing to a place near their shul – “this is where communists were bringing food on yom kippur”. And this is in US, think how things were in Russia or Eastern Europe.
R Berel Wein traces antagonism between early Israel leaders and religious communities back to Russian under Czar forcing (religious) kahal to select (mostly poor) children to be recruited into the army. So, attitudes survive for long time …Still, it seems this attitude is not relevant in these times, especially after Shoah and after Soviet Jews coming out in large numbers and next generations of both American and Israeli Jews being more ignorant than antagonistic … R Steinsaltz writes that Jews are not a nation, nor a religion, but a “family” – where people sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, but still stick together over long time … And we can see here that even those who don’t see others as “am”, still come to argue their point! hypocritical, but still in the family.
All these remarks are currently irrelevant. For better or worse, the state of Israel exists as a fact on the ground. Yidden of all sorts are now living here and heavlly invested in Israel. So what’s the point of the discussion? The battle now is having more frumkeit placed in the soceity.
R Moshe Feinstein:
Igros Moshe, Orech Chaim vol I, chap 46 whether it is permissible to pray in a synagogue which displays an Israeli flag: “Even though it is improper to bring the flags into shul, and all the more so not to keep them there permanently, and all the more so, not near the Aron Kodesh, and one should try to remove it peacefully. However, to make a fight over this is forbidden.”response to his grandson who enlisted in the Israeli army, which is published in T’chumin 5, pp.11, and so it seems also from his response in Or. Ch. 4, 70, 11, which was written in the year 1979/5739.
R. Moshe Feinstein was asked about the prayer for the state of Israel. He said that it should be modified to indicate a Hopeful Zionist view, instead of a Messianic Zionist approach. The text, as he recommended, is as follows: “Our Father in heaven, the rock of Israel and its redeemer, bless the state of Israel that it become the beginning of the sprouting of our Redemption (she-t’hei reishis tzemihas ge’ulaseinu).”
R Ovadia Yosef:
– forbade the flying of the Israeli flag in synagogues, calling it “a reminder of the acts of the evil-doers”. While serving as Chief Rabbi, he allowed the recitation of psalms of praise after prayers without a blessing on Israel Independence Day; he did not permit saying Hallel either as a part of the prayer service (where it is normally recited on holidays) nor with the customary blessings before and after that are only said on holidays.– acknowledged that the Jewish people experienced a miracle with the establishment of the State of Israel; however, since the miracle did not include all of the Jewish people, If the congregation wishes to say Hallel without a blessing after the prayer service, they should not be prevented.
– What is anti-Zionist? It is a lie, it is a term which they have concocted themselves. I served for ten years as a Chief Rabbi – a key public position in the State of Israel. In what way are we not Zionists? We pray for Zion, for Jerusalem and its inhabitants, for Israel and the Rabbis and their students. What is Zionist? By our understanding, a Zionist is a person who loves Zion and practices the commandment of settling the land. Whenever I am overseas I encourage Aliyah. In what way are they more Zionist than us?
– Yosef’s grandson points out his grandfather’s positive attitude towards the IDF, in that whenever the Torah Ark is opened, Yosef blesses “mi sheberech” for IDF soldiers
In 2010: Yosef and Shas’ Moetzet Chachamei HaTorah (Council of [Wise] Torah Sages) approved Shas’ membership in the World Zionist Organization
in order to be accepted to the WZO, Shas had made some significant changes in its charter – including adopting the “New Jerusalem Program” that recognizes the foundations of Zionism. The New Jerusalem Program is a plan that recognizes the centrality of the State of Israel and of its capital Jerusalem in Jewish national life. The program was formulated over a long period by the various members of the WZO, and was formally accepted in 2004. It was also reported that the World Likud, long a WZO member, and Shas had agreed to become a joint WZO faction that will be “World Likud-Shas.”several more references I found online, I am selecting the ones that look more plausible, but of course requires double-checking
.R Ya’akov Kamenetsky writes in his Emes Le-Ya’akov Al Ha-Torah (Exodus 12:2 n. 17):
It is incumbent on us to understand that the establishment of the state of Israel in our day, after the the great destruction and despair that overtook the remnant, and given the desperate and destroyed status of Russian Jewry, God caused the establishment of the state of Israel in order to strengthen the connection to Judaism and to sustain the link between the Jews in exile and the Jewish nation.R. Eliyahu Dessler has two relevant letters, from 1948 and 1949, that were published in Mikhtav Me-Eliyahu, vol. 3 pp. 349-353. He writes that he is hesitant to call the establishment of the state of Israel and the ensuing military victory the beginning of the Redemption, but he considers it a possibility (i.e. a Hopeful Zionist position). He also has harsh words for anyone who refuses to see God’s miraculous intervention in this, considering them heretics who reject Divine Providence.
Another time [R. Eliezer] Silver was in a quandary within himself and with his associates [was] regarding a Bonds for Israel dinner in his city. Every year Silver publicly supported this event and attended the dinner. In 1964 the guest of honor was to be Nelson Glueck, the president of the Hebrew Union College. Many Orthodox Jews felt that Silver should not be present at an affair honoring such a prominent Reform Jewish personality. Nevertheless, Silver did attend, since his concern for the cause and feeling of communal responsibilities won out. At the affair, when questioned about his presence, Silver declared, “How could I stay away from a dinner aiding the State of Israel?…”
Silver also exerted his influence in the determination of Agudat Israel and Agudat Harabanim policy towards the formation of the Jewish State. Silver himself had always been in favor of such a state, despite his Agudat Israel ties. Following the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Silver marched in a New York Zionist parade in its support. When Chief Rabbi Abraham Kook visited the United States in 1924, the Agudat Harabanim invited him to adress its convention…
Silver’s letter [in opposition to Satmar anti-Zionist activities] did not abate the course of action of the Satmar element. It did, however, strengthen the more moderate forces in American Orthodoxy. His viewpoint was widely cited in Mizrachi circles. Silver later participated in a Mizrachi conference. Afterwards, at an Agudah conclave, there were those who desired to disbar Silver. It was reported that Rabbi Kotler opposed this request…
R. Teitz left a radio on in his study over Shabbat, November 28/29, 1947, in order to hear the vote in the United Nations… In ten years, we suffered a concentrated exile equal to that of all the preceding centuries. Now it is time to go to a city of refuge… in an essay for the New Year 5709 [October 1948] on “The State of Israel and the Torah-Jew.” He asked, “Will we be a generation of mourners for the great destruction” or “a generation of redemption, of builders who establish the foundation for the Jewish future?”… He thought that the founding of the state of Israel eliminated most of the differences between Agudath Israel and Mizrachi, which had centered on the question of whether there should be a Jewish state at all. Once this question had been answered with a fact, the parties should cooperate. R. Teitz met regularly in 1948-49 with a group trying to create a united religious front in Israel, but the two groups elected to remain separate.
Square Root, I heard it from one of his sons.
@ YB
It’s funny that you get called a Zionist after making your position on the matter crystal clear in multiple posts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.