Why was the National Anthem or G-D Bless Ameirica not sung by Siyum Hashas?

If you check Siyums that take place in other countries you will see that there are Nationalistic themes that are brought up. For instance in two Siyum Hashas that occured in Israel, a tefillah for Israeli soldiers, terror victims and those lost at sea (In the Dakar sub), these are Nationalistic concerns.

An anthem should have been said just as a special tefillah for southern residents of Israel should have been said.

Yichusdik, according to most anti-zionists there have ben nisim gluyim going on.

Saying a Tefila for our brethren is not a nationalistic theme. So just as in EY they davened for our brethren in trouble, so too we here in NY davened for our brethren in trouble. In addition to davening for our brethren languising in prison in NC, IA & Bolivia, there was a general Tefila at the Siyum for all our Yiddishe brethren in prison to be released.

B”H for the organizers. It was perfect.

Englishman, many gedolim such as Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Rav Yitzchak Herzog, Rav Kahaneman, Rav Yechezkel Sarna, Rav Meshulam Rata, Rav Menachem Kasher, Rav Yosef B. Soloveichik and Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook were in favor of the Medina. The Chairman of the Aguda in EY, Rav Yehuda Leib Levin signed the Declaration of Independence.

I don’t understand why this discussion has degraded into who is pro- or against the medina. It’s totally irrelevant! I am very pro the medina, but I hold it’s krum as a pretzel!

It’s not a paradox to wish for the continued well being of the de-facto State of Israel, but at the same time to realize the establishment was against our promise to the nations (as is brought down in maseches Ksubos), and to admit that the current character of the country is a far cry away from Torah ideals. We don’t support the methods of the Israeli government, but we wish for their continued existence for the sake of the lives of all of the Jewish inhabitants there who are in a tremendous makom sakana 24/7.

The national anthem is a man-made (not Torah based) song of praise to the democratic establishment of the state. The Torah does not believe in democracy, and therefore neither should we. When Mashiach comes and the gedolei hador write a national anthem in honor of the reestablishment of malchus Dovid, we can sing that song at the Siyum Hashas. Deal?

englishman- I Knew Rav Hutner better than you ever will. I know his articles in the jewish Observer- yet he still lived in eretz yesroel and never,ever,ever asked for its dissolution!!!! Neither were any of the other Gedolim you name. The argument about a medinash is don and buried. All the gedolim you mentioend voted in elections and supported all the chareidi parties. The medina is here and now, it is our duty to make it better.

to curiosity- please dont’ bring up the old chestnut about sholosh shevuos. Only The satmarer rebbe learns it that way. No one else did or does.

rabbiofberlin – I disagree. I learned in a non Satmar, Litvish Yeshiva, and the way we were taught the mesorah is that it was against halacha to take the land away from the goyim to build a state on it. Especially a non Torah observant state in the name of Jews. But, since it de facto stands today as a country with many Jews living in it, we must do our hishtadlus to ensure their well being by supporting the security of the state. We also do everything we can to help Torah authorities take positions of power in its government. Lastly, I’ve heard a respected rav from the yeshiva call it “reishis tzmichas geulateinu” when saying mi sheberachs for Jewish soldiers, and I feel as though it is safe to assume he was acting in line with the Yeshiva mesorah. I’m not sure how other Yeshivas understand the Gemara.

curiosity: I am burning the midnight oil after melava malka…

First of all, you cannot- CANNOT- use the sholosh shevuos as “halacha”. It is not mentioned in ANY of the Poskim, so whoever tells you that it is “halacha’ is plain wrong. It is aprt of aggadah and hence, it has less authenticity. Secondly, it does not say anything about “taking the land away from to build a state on it”. All it mentions is that “shelo jaalu bechomo”-they should not go up (to israel) with violence . This clearly was not the case as far as the medinah- it was given back to us by the Balfour declaration and the United nations resolution .

Lastly, the fact that it is “non-Torah observant’ (your words) is irrelevant- look at how the kingdoms of Jehuda and Yisroel were. Many of the kings were much worse than our present governemets in israel.

But all of the above is just a debating point- the medinah exists, more than six million live there and we must support them.

Vochindik: With all due respect to the Maharal, his works are Aggadic, not Halachic. Therefore, quoting him in a Halachic argument is not as powerful. Also, this position is seemingly against a Gemara. One Amora on Kesuvos 20a (if I recall correctly) tries to answer up an opinion by saying that R’ Meir must hold that lying on a Shtar is Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor for the Eidim. The Gemara rejects this opinion by saying that we know that only Shfichus Damim, Giluy Arayos, and Avodah Zarah are Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor, so it can’t be that even a Tanna (who we don’t hold by, in this case) holds that there is another one. Thus, it is very problematic for the Maharal here to be adding a fourth.

First, 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 not 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.) The poskim cite the oaths as halacha, as I cited above. The Oaths are brought down l’halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real.

And secondly, there is no such thing as “just” an aggadic passage. Aggadah informs our religious outlook and cannot be ignored. Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah. Third, 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 making a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doing 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 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 with torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them. 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. 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.

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. 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 not 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.

vochindik – Thank you for explaining the Halacha so people won’t be manipulated by the Zionist lies!

Englishman is correct. Living in the land is undisputedly a big mitzva.

1.See Mishna Berura 561:1 that being that in his time we did not have independence the cities of Yehuda were considered desolate even though Jews were living in them.

2. Common sense states that if the Jews were able to make the deset bloom the Land was waiting for its People and we are now in the beginning of the Geula.

3. The Three Shevuot are aggadata and are not paskened in any code. Even if they did have some halachic standing that was obviated by the Goyim violating their end of the bargain (several times) and then giving permission in the San Remo Conference (Rav Meir Simcha, who was an ardent supporter of the JNF, said this explicitly).

There’s a valid reason why nobody except the Satmarer Chassidim hold of the Satmarer Rebbe’s sheeta. Besides, the zionists of then are not around anymore. I think all that psak does for us today is lead to derision, machlokes, and sinas chinom, and it causes non frum Jews to hate chareidim and feel alienated from traditional Judaism. It makes it very hard for non frum Jews to associate with frum Jews and prevents their tshuva. It’s a very destructive and irrelevant sheeta all around.

Curiosity -“There’s a valid reason why nobody except the Satmarer Chassidim hold of the Satmarer Rebbe’s sheeta.”

You’re in a dream world. Many Frum Yidden hold this way, not just Satmar. I’m not Satmar and I agree with them about the Medina.

Go to the website called – Jews against Zionism and there they have a list of Gedolim/Rabbonim against the Medina. They have three lists -one around the First WW, another around WW2, and the third later on.

There was never such an incident in Meah Shearim with the Rebbe.

Curiosity -“Health that website is frighteningly similar to Neturei Karta’s website, and in the same manner as NK they refer to themselves as “True Torah Jews”; as if anyone who holds of a different sheeta is an imposter. Krum krum krum.”

What you’re saying that it’s NK in order to Passel them. Kol Hapoisel B’momo Poisel. You just can’t admit that there are real Gedolim who are against the Medina.

I looked into the website and even though I can’t say for sure that it isn’t NK, because I don’t know who are the members of NK, all I can say is they have Haskomos from across the board. The Karlsburg Rebbe is one. Harav Hagons Reb Dovid & Reb Mayer Soloveitchiks are others and there are many more.

Stop trying to marginalize this Shitta by calling it NK. Lots of big Gedolim hold like the Satmar Rebbe Zt’l.

How about you listing some of your Gedolim who hold of the Medina? And I’m talking about the here and now within the last 40 years.

health: You say someone can’t admit that there are big gedolim who were against the medinah. Yet you can’t admit that there were/are big gedolim who are very in favor of the medinah!

No gedolim were in favor of Jewish sovereignty prior to ’48.

Health:

“I’m a little confused, but where in Hatikva does it mention -thanks to the IDF?”

The predominant theme in the stanzas is the establishment of a sovereign and free nation in the Land of Israel. This is a freedom that the IDF works every day to protect.

rabbiofberlin -“health- your long excerpt from the satmarer rebbe’s sefer proves my point. At no time does he mention even one psak halacha. It is not halacha. Incidentally, what do you think would have happened if the jews did not defend themselves in the Six Day war??”

You obviously didn’t read it! He doesn’t say a Jew can’t defend himself. He says it’s Ossur to have wars with the Goyim, even the 6 day war – where Israel won – if they could avoid them. He says these wars in Israel can be avoided if they give up the State!

And what do you think this quote is, if not Halacha?

“Every single moment that they hold on to their State and government they are reviling G-d in their violation of the Three Oaths through their provocation and rebellion against the Nations, which is prohibited by the Torah, and which brings about the severe punishment for violating the Oaths, as it is written in the Talmud in the tractate Ketuboth, p. 111:”

The only primarily difference between the Satmar Rebbe and the Litvish gedolim is regarding taking, where possible ex post facto control of things in Israel from a governmental direction. Rav Aharon Kotler and those who followed him held being a member of the Knesset, voting for the most Torah-dik parties, and things like that are a Mitzvah, because they constitute damage control. The Satmar Rav held they are an aveirah because they make you an accessory to the crime after the fact. The Gedolei Yisroel who disagreed with the Satmar Rav held that fighting the Zionists is better done not by open confrontation but by doing, say, what Reuven did when he wanted to save Yosef, or what Aharon HaKohen did when he tried to stop the Egel from being made: Deal with them on their turf – use the State of Israel, and manipulate the political process to make it as frum as possible, thereby accomplishing hatzolah purtah.

There were disagreements between Satmar and Rav Aharon (and other gedolim), but none of those invovled whether Israel was a good or bad thing. On that, there was no disagreement. On that they all agreed it was bad. But the Satmar Rav himself said that handing Eretz Yisroel back to the Palestinians is not a good idea – halvai it would be! The Satmar Rebbe says that there is no other solution for the undoing of the State except our prayers, or, in the case of Vayoel Moshe, the State should only be undone via G-d’s power from above. He says the ONLY solution is prayer, not giving the State to the Arabs; Not negotiation, not fighting, not anything except prayer – except G-d intervening from On High. Of course Satmar would like to see the State abolished – so would the other Gedolim – Rav Shach ZTL used to pray every day for the peaceful disappearance of the State of Israel. And above all, the Satmar Rav never, ever joined with Arabs in any of his anti-Zionist activites, nor were Arab interests invited to his anti-Zionist rally in Washington, or any of his anti-Zionist activities.

At Rav Aharon Kotler’s funeral in Lakewood, the Satmar Rav gave the most amazing hesped, and when the Satmar Rav was offered the job of Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem (after the petirah of Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld), he declined, and when they asked him for a recommendation, he told them to ask the Brisker Rav. They surely disagreed – very strongly sometimes – but they did agree that they are all authentic Gedolei Yisroel.

One of the things all the gedolim agreed on was that there should not have been be a State of Israel altogether. No Godol ever said that if we give Israel back to the Arabs the problem will be solved. On the contrary, the Satmar Rebbe ZTL made it clear in writing that we dare not , in the current situation encourage any political dismantling of Israel, because it will lead to a bloodbath r”l. Only Mochiach, he says will have the ability to get us out of the mess that the Zionists made. And he says the reason that politics and peaceful dismantling will not work is – Divrei Yoel Parshas Bo p.250 – because the Arabs do not distinguish between one type of Jew and another, unfortunately.

A) Prior to 1939 there was no reason to think of mass emigration.

and besides

B) The U.S. wasn’t accepting mass Jewish immigration from Europe. (And the British weren’t accepting mass immigration to Palestine.)

And come to think of it, Chazal weren’t advocating mass emigration prior to the massacre by the Romans.

There WAS mass emigration prior to 1923 when quotas were placed and it was Assur to emigrate to the US

Shlishi – Prior to 1939, Hitler (Y’S)was in power FOR SIX YEARS. He had written Mein Kampf in 1925 and 1926, so it was 14 years since his hatred and his plans were public.

Winston Churchill started to warn about a resurgent Germany in the early 1930’s.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky was talking about this to everyone he could reach in the mid 1930s and by 1936 he was bringing his “Evacuation Plan” to the public.

It is 100% accurate to say that the Western nations clsoed their doors. At the Evian conference in 1938, they made it very clear that they wouldn’t even try. The Immigration minister in my own country, to its shame, said of Jewish immigration from Europe “None is too many.”

However, it is completely inaccurate to say that no one saw it coming. If Ze’ev Jabotinsky could, so could the gedolim of the time. They didn’t.