What's the argument against having a Madina?

YMB: Your logic is flawed. More Jews are killed or get in trouble in Israel than anywhere else because there are more Jews there than anywhere else. The Rubashkin, Madoff, etc. stories all increased anti-Semitism, and they had nothing to do with Jews from Israel causing problems.

More Jews are killed and injured in Israel for being Jewish than Jews in the rest of the world combined. Whether you look at it proportionately or hard numbers.

Sam2 -Naarish! When’s the last time a Jew was blown up or killed by a terrorist in the US?

Avi K: The three shvuos might not be Halachic but they are a reality. If we (or the goyim) are ‘over’ on the shvua there will be consequences. 1) Who said one shvua is talui in another shvua? 2) Who exactly agreed to a jewish state? The Arab countries surrounding Israel never agreed. It could be argued that since the British who were the rulers of Eretz Yisrael at the time, agreed to give their country to the jews, they were not oleh bachoma. However, they only ‘agreed’ because of zionist diplomatic pressure, and terrorist activity by etzel and lechi and others. So that would definitely be oleh bachoma. (Interesting that israel was founded on terrorism and now they are being terrorized. The shvua is reality.)

YD: And Jews didn’t live through Jewish-targeted terrorism (pogroms) throughout our history in Europe?

Sam2: I think the point they’re making is that since the establishment of the state, jews have been killed or wounded in israel because they were jews, more than in any other place in the world.

Longarekel: And the point that they’re missing is that that’s mostly because there are more Jews in Israel than anywhere else.

Longarekel, the League of Nations authorized the UK to hold E. Yisroel till a Jewish state is founded. That was called the mandate.

Plus,Toi and the Gatesheader, do you support UK or France or Finland? Is everything there glatt kosher?

Btw, diplomatic pressure is not ossur.

Longarkel, Emir Faisal agreed to a Jewish state and even signed an agreement with Weizman. The Mufti messed up everything because of his dream of establishing a Caliphate with himself as head – and was financed by the Nazis.

I invite anyone who does not understand the difference between a medina, a regime and a government to open negotiations with me as to tuition for Political Science lessons.

longarekel and YD said everything that needs to be said.

Now, please, everyone, let’s end this…

Toi, I am a BT — I know what’s going on in the world better than all the right-wing chevrah here.

I do not understand what your problem is. For the third time, even if the Medina were abolished and the US took over, the frei comminity would still be there. That community is not dependant on the political independance!

Toi: I’ve never heard them make that claim now.

Sam2 -“Health: I’d guess 9/11. And more Jews died on that day than in a year of terrorism in Israel.”

Because of one incident -that proves Israel is a safer place for Jews to live???!?!? Wake up. Israel is a very dangerous place for Jews to live -in the here and now.

“And Jews are murder victims in this and other countries just like anyone else can be.”

And no Jews are ever murdered in Israel, right?!?!?

Avi K -“Ymb, the three shevuot are null and void (if they ever were obligatory – they are not paskened in any of the halachic codes) for the following reasons:”

The argument that you are always posting is only with regards to the Shevous. You have never answered my argument -How do you and others like you support a Medina based on Kefira?

And don’t tell me come & there and vote. If all the Frum Jews in the world would come there -we still would be outnumbered and it would still be a Freye Medina!

I don’t think anyone follows #2. Nobody views it as Malchus. Do I look at it like Peru? No, because Peru has no kedusha to it. Israel is a holy land, and historically the land of the Jews. Do I believe we have a divine right to have it now? No, that will come with Mashiach. That doesn’t mean we can’t have it now as long as it was done properly, without fighting – which it was, through diplomacy.

As for it being founded on kefirah, true, many of the people who founded it were not frum. So what? The fact is that Torah Judaism is flourishing there in a way it hasn’t probably since the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. Do you honestly think that if Turkey was running it things would be better? When lands were turned over to Palestinians, with assurances that holy sites would be preserved, look what happened! Nothing was preserved. Kever Yosef was ransacked and destroyed.

The founding is irrelevant. The state was founded, and that won’t change. Look at the positive, not the negative.

I don’t think anyone follows #2. Nobody views it as Malchus. Do I look at it like Peru? No, because Peru has no kedusha to it. Israel is a holy land, and historically the land of the Jews. Do I believe we have a divine right to have it now? No, that will come with Mashiach. That doesn’t mean we can’t have it now as long as it was done properly, without fighting – which it was, through diplomacy.

The land? The land belongs to us, always and forever. I’m not talking about the land, I’m talking about the institution.

Is the institution Kadosh? Lets say it was replaced in a method like the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and a new form of government came out (for arguments sake, more of a loose federal system like the Swiss, with states/cantons). Would you care, assuming rights are protected and no blood is shed? If not, you have no specific “loyalty” to the Medinah (which is what Health is currently rapping against, the institution). If yes, why?

Toi, if you really care make aliya, become a citizen and at least vote for change.

Feif Un -“Do you honestly think that if Turkey was running it things would be better?”

Yes, I do.

“When lands were turned over to Palestinians, with assurances that holy sites would be preserved, look what happened! Nothing was preserved. Kever Yosef was ransacked and destroyed.”

Another brilliant idea by the Freye Tzionim to give them Gaza and the West Bank!

First of all, there is no such thing as a Palestinian (In reference to arabs) – they are Arabs! Why would you trust an arab? The Tzionim have been stoking their hatred for close to a hundred years now. (Around the time when Zionism was starting to expand to Palestine.)

We better hurry up and give it to Turkey because Israel has just become their enemy too. So this doesn’t give us much time to hand it over to Turkey because soon their hatred will be as big as the arabs. So giving it to them then will just cause them to take revenge on the Jews. But right now, I feel, the hatred isn’t that strong that if we offer them the white flag -they would take the country without getting revenge on the Jews that will be under their control.

Ymb,

1. Where does the Maharal say that? That is truly amazing as only the big three are yehareg uval yaavor. In any case, in Chiddushei Agadot on the Gemara he says explicitly that all three are the kiyum of the Galut.

2. There is much that you are missing.Obviusly Rav Meir Simcha is talking about a forcible aliya before the time like Ephraim. However, being that the other nations agreed that is a sign that it is not before the time (and certainly not by force) it is not the case so we do not need a navi.

First, The Oaths are quoted L’Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel – the majority of Jews at the time – did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh’s call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon – warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.

Second, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.

Third, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says You may nto do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V’Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)

Fourth, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to makign a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doign so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.

The Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more! Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Ephrain, Chazal say, were all hunted donw and killed in the deset for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.

The Oaths are brought down l’halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years.

The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It’s clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.

The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths.

The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us wuth torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.

And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel).

The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is nto included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing.

R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced SHmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the “shem hameforash” and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.

And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b’chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim’s Oath anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says.

What I wrote above is not rocket science. It’s pretty obvious. Takes no genius or encyclopedic knowledge to understand it. Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violate dtheirs but we still cannot violate ours.

It’s just plain dishonesty that would make people come up with this.

mdd: Nowhere above did I cite the Divrei Yoel. Unless you are trying to tell me that the Maharal was a Satmar Chosid. Or that the Riaz, Rivash, Rashbash, Megilas Esther, Rambam, Ramban, and the others are all Satmar Chasidim.

You live and learn new things every day.

Doswin,

1. Where do Chazal say that is was because of the three oaths? Apparently Rabbi Akva did not hold that way. I was under the impression that it was because he said that he did not want Hashem to hinder or help him.

2. Bavel was a special case (Rambam Hilchot Melachim 5:12 see also Yaavetz Siddur Bet Yaakov and Rav Tzvi Kalisher Derishot Tzion).The Baal HaFlaah says that the oaths only apply to Bavel.

3. The Chafetz Chaim’s son, Rav Leib, disputed the obligatory nature of the three oaths. Rav Chaim Vital wrote that they were only for 1,000 years (Intoducttion to “Etz Chaim” – interestingly that was when the Crusades began). Ramban rules in his Sefer HaMitzvot that it is a mitzva d’Oraita in our time to conquer EY.The Gra says (Shir HaShirim 2:7 in his siddur “Likutim al Derech HaNistar) that the oath not to make aliya “like a wall” only applies to an aliya whose purpose is to rebuild the Bet HaMikdash.

4. The Chatam Sofer says that one who paskens from aggadata makes kelayim (Responsa Orech Chaim end of Siman 51).

5. Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (“Maaseh Yotzer” on the Haggada), Rav Hillel Kolomeia(“Rav Shalom” to Rav Shlomo Adler of Sadigora) and Rav Natan Tzvi Friedman (Responsa Netzer Matai 10:5) say that the fact that the Goyim violated their part absolves us from our part (see Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 236:6).

6. Obviously the oaths were not forever as that would negate the idea of Mashiach. The great Zionist awakening was a sign that it is yom pekadi (Responsa Yehuot Malcho 66 and “Em HaBanim Semeicha”).

Toi, you are preventing them from doing a mitzvat asseh d’Oraita (Rambam Hilchot Melachim 5:1) and making them over on a lav (“al taamod al dam ra’eicha”). By refusing to vote even though you live here you are in fact voting for secularism. Thus you sin and cause the public to sin. See Rambam Hilchot Teshuva 4:1 on the severity o these aveirot.