Always_Ask_Questions

Netziv Meishiv Davar 1:44
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1096&st=&pgnum=52&hilite=
https://www.sefaria.org/Teshuvot_Meshiv_Davar%2C_Volume_I.44?lang=bi

here are some discussions about this work:
hate was not limited to those who “wronged” a person. Rather, it extended to those who served Hashem differently. If one would see a halachic leniency, he would brand it heresy, and distance himself from that person. He would then mistakenly justify attacking that person, even to the point of murder. The Netziv laments that such internal hatred within the observant community existed in his time (the late nineteenth century) as well. Hating someone who “wronged” us is necessarily limited. With how many people can we fight over money or honor? But if we hate those who differ with us on matters of halacha or hashkafa, the sinas chinam is unlimited.
——
[A] review of Neziv’s writing reveals his advocacy of contemporary religious coercion, his description of the non-Orthodox Jew as theologically worse than an idolator, his instructions to separate from Sabbath violators in the religious and social spheres, and a justification for slandering those Jews who “deny the Torah of Moses.”
——
related sources:
Sifrei Naso 42: Great is peace, for even if Israel worships idols, if they live in peace, the Holy One, as it were, says that the Accuser (‘Satan’) cannot touch them, as it is stated (Hosea 4:17) “Ephraim has bound himself to idols—leave him alone.”
Kalla Rabbati (Chapter 5): “As long as they are joined together, even to worship their idols, leave them alone.”

So, Rav Landau explains why previous Rabonim (R Chaim?) permitted voting: they were not presented with the right information and they were too engrossed in their learning.

That is, he confirms that R Chaim actually permitted voting, the video is not a forgery and not a rumor. I wonder whether his assumption that previous Daas Torah can be dismissed because they did not get the right info and they were not paying attention can be applied to other Rabbis, including R Landau himself? Could someone ask him (without distorting the question)?

GH > how certain little people think that the “isms” are more powerful than Torah!

Isms _are_ powerful and were extremely pwerful in 19th-20th centuries, and affected a lot of Jews. First, secular Z is the best of all isms at least judging by the outcome to the participants – their grandchildren live in Israel and speak ivrit. Grandchildren of other isms were not born, go to church, or ran communist departments in Russia.

Second, whose fault is it? We habitually blame reform, commies, even Moses Mendelssohn… but really, did all these Jews have adequate support from their Jewish communities to stay Jewish in the face of so many opportunities? R Kotler was protected by his rosh yeshiva who intercepted letters from his communist sister who wanted him to go study math. On the other hand, R Kamenetsky and R Ruderman wonder how many of their friends from a Litvish shtetl did not become Talmidei Chachamim because of an insensitive rebbe in 2nd grade. … How many other Yidden had insensitive rebbes or rabbis who could not argue against all isms?

R Salanter at the end of 19th century despairs of ongoing downfall of Litvishe Jews and goes to Paris to work with people who “are already at the bottom” . Chofetz Chaim laments about assimilation in 1920s of Poland but he is not offering adequate solutions.
Bais Yaakov was started at that time, and R Soloveitchik started teaching secularly-educated Jews at that time – but what about previous generation?
So, we can’t solely blame outsiders for so many Jews going after isms. Observant Jewry did not provide them with an attractive alternative.

HaKatan > In fact, much of Europe was assimilated by then (thanks to Zionism and other -isms).

I don’t think non-R Z were the significant source of assimilation. They mostly recruited among people who were already assimilated. And followers of Z ended up way better than followers of the alternative isms – communists, bundists, etc. Many former ended up in Israel and their grandchildren are Jewish and may be religious, and the latter were either assimilated or killed, or ended up behind iron curtain.

so those who actually looked at the platform – could you list things you agree with, and things you disagree with? this platform is helpful by defining a lowest common denominator that multiple groups signed to and making into into bullet points for us to analyze. What’s your score?

non political> I would like to understand on what grounds joining the WZO is permitted.
to answer this, we need to understand your objections to their platform.

I am very puzzled by the enigma of whether R Chaim allowed WZO voting. I did not watch the video, but apparently the question was repeated to him in Hebrew omitting the word “world” (olami) and he responded with one word.

What I am puzzled about is – so many people had this question. Was it just one who asked and got it on video? Others did not care about R’ Chaim’s opinion or presumed they know his position? R Chaim answered the question without fully understanding it? People did not understand his answer as yes or no, and did not ask again? If you could not figure out his answer in this case, how about 1000 of other times when R Chaim replied yes or no?

If an esteemed Rav holds that R Chaim’s answer is misinterpreted or is unclear, then what does it mean about all people who went to R Chaim with their questions? Were they all dupes? Then, why esteemed Rav did not warn people not to go to R Chaim after he reached certain age? Or did he?

toonapish, thanks for the list.
I am not really bothered by this list. Are you bothered by “unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael”, etc?

Some of that is mushy, indeed, and it is not clear what it stands for.

As to your concern about what is _not_ mentioned, this platform is to unity all Jews, and we do know that there are non-religious Jews, right? Are we not allowed to join them in discussing politics and security of millions of Jews in Israel?

Note, btw, that the platform _does_ mention Torah – about as much as your wedding declaration “al dat Moshe veIsrael”. Platform includes:
– by furthering Jewish … education, fostering spiritual and cultural values [das Yisroel]
– Strengthening Israel as a Jewish … state and shaping it as an exemplary society with a
unique moral and spiritual character [mussar] , marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people [ahavas Yisroel],
rooted in the vision of the prophets [including Moshe]
striving for peace [shalom] and contributing to the betterment of the world [tikkun olam, if you will]

if this list is not enough, you should not get married under that vague declaration either.

I think the just published kol koreh firmly resolves the issue- in favor of ambiguity. Before listing their opinion, esteemed authors say: we don’t want to impugn the Torah of talmidei chachamim that permitted.So, you should not also

somejewiknow > There is wide space between “go learn and figure it out on your own” and “you expect a one-page proof?”.

Here a couple of small books by/based on Rav Soloveitchik
The Return to Zion. Addresses on Religious Zionism and American Orthodoxy, 2021 – in Yiddish or English
Community, Covenant And Commitment: Selected Letters And Communications, 2021

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.

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.

> Ran in Nedarim

Again, they are free to live there and defend themselves. In all your postings, you seem to have profound confusion between what a person can do on his own and what he can do by taking from others without their permission. I suggest reviewing R Dessler’s essay on taking and giving personalities and maybe Maseches Nezikin.

> I’ve been very clear that I oppose any mitzvah observant Jew from joining the chazer-treif IDF,

so, then why are dreining my kopf with talking about T’Ch? trying to get more sympathy? Using gnevas daas to support your “Torah-based” views? what could be more chazer than being not honest when pretending to defend Torah positions?!

somejew, I have no idea what you are asking. I suggested reading up on R Soloveitchik books and see what you think about that. Others suggested other authors. Maybe the disconnect is that you are looking for a one-page disproof of Vayoel Moshe? I don’t think this is fair to anyone including Satmarer Rebbe. If he were an unknown person from St Mary, publishing his interpretation of a gemora, it will be as well known as any CR post. He developed a certain philosophy and raised thousands of students, and that is why his opinion is important. So are other Teachers that we mentioned. So, good read up their writings, try to understand what they are writing about, and then come back and tell us what you think, and we can have a discussion. And, again, onus is on you because you deny validity to whole large group of observant Jews. I am not accusing Satmar Chassidim of kefirah, I do not need to prove anything.

Zsk, that is why I am suggesting to discuss rabbis who had first hand respect from other well-known rabbis. U wonder whether some jew would dare addressing r Soloveitchik without the title in the presence of R Moshe.

ujm > “it is unfair that the Torah scholars are exempt from the army”

so, you are in favor of charedim who are not Torah scholars to go to the army. Maybe, there are several questions here (1) those who are not learning and (2) those who cannot pass a test on their learning (3) those who pass the test but do not show Torah attitudes in their behavior towards other Jews?

As one ger, former rapper, wondered – if we have more students now than at the time of Rambam, then our generation would have 100 Rambams. Where are they?

somejew > who are the “rabunim” you would want at such a meeting that are pushing Jews to vote

EH seem to have at least 2 rabbis on their board, maybe not at the level of those who werfe talking at the asifah. Otherwise, there are a number of rabonim at RIETS who could express pro-WZO line, such a R Schachter, R Willig, R Lebowitz, R Mayer Twersky. I really really do not understand why we-all do not insist of having our leaders express their opinion in the presence of others at their level. We should all learn from their debates, the same way we learn from debates of Tannaim and Amoraim.

123abc> No True Scotsman

indeed. The problem (for him) is that there are verifiable connections between true and false Scotsmen – they are from the same klan!
maybe that is why he refuses to say that, but continues repeating “I did not see any names”.

Avram > Well, saying “just keep the computer in the living room and tell your kids to be good. There, I’ve solved children and tech for you!” doesn’t sound appealing to me either.

I am NOT saying that this is just one thing to do. I am saying it is one of the things to do!

>> admin account.”
> They’ll have my bank account, email account, and photos, but at least they can’t update my drivers!

again, this is just one of the things to do, not the only one. With admin rights, all accounts on this computer will be compromised, your hard drive will be encrypted until you pay ransom, and your computer will be used as a server to do more illicit activities. I’ll stop here so not to give people more ideas.

and yes, why not have your email separate from your bank?

> So the Zionists caused a hundred years of wars and terrorism

I can understand Jews from Old Yishuv complaining, but most of the charedim came to EY when Zionists “were already in the Land”.
So, what rights do they have to complain? Just move to Iran or Russia, explain to them that you are anti-Z, and live happily thereafter.

ujm, I don’t have the primary source right now, quoting from secondary sources. It appears that your assertion is not correct and RJBS continued in SCA despite all opposition and his own reservations.

RJBS sees two expressions of Jewish unity – (1) as covenantal community “You shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” and
(2) based on joint historical fate “, it is a people that shall live alone”. This second one unites all Jews, religious or not, including in the eyes of our enemies. From this, it follows, as we mentioned above, (1) a need to be separate from non-religious groups/non-O groups in issues of religion and (2) a need for joint action/unity in communal issues.

now secondary analysis:
The Synagogue Council of America had been organized in 1926 by the six organizations comprising the three mainstream Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox rabbinical and congregational associations, including the RCA and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America…SCA often found itself crippled by differences among its member organizations, and survived as long as it did on the strength of a one-organizational veto, which allowed the Orthodox groups to reject any joint action (particularly one that might be perceived as straying into the “spiritual” realm) they disagreed with.
…
In 1956, the Rav’s support for the SCA came under attack both from within his community (the RCA) and from without (the Lithuanian yeshivah world). Just days before the RCA’s Halakha Commission, of which the Rav was the chair, was to meet to address a petition from the RCA’s leadership to require withdrawal from the SCA, the ultra-Orthodox Rabbinical Alliance issued a public ban on all Orthodox participation in the SCA as well as other joint rabbinical boards. Neither the Rav nor the Halakhic Commission ever formally ruled on the question, despite repeated efforts by the RCA leadership to force the issue.[11] Indeed, the issue continued to simmer, but despite a widening of the gap between the “two camps,” the RCA and UOJCA remained members of the SCA until the Rav’s death in 1993…dissolution of the SCA in 1994 simply put a punctuation mark on a completed era. With the Rav gone, it was as if the last remaining force (within the Orthodox world) trying to maintain the tension between unity and separation, to restrain the deep separatist forces at work within Orthodoxy, within the larger Jewish world, and in the wider society, was released. It was in fact a watershed. [16] What the Rav’s death marked was not so much the end of the Rav’s influence, but the end of the milieu in which Conservative as well as Orthodox rabbis (and to some extent even Reform rabbis) came from (and in some cases adhered to) traditional roots and perspectives that made debates among them still possible.
[9] Rabbi Walter Wurtzburger, in an essay on the Rav’s life and writings, writes unequivocally that the Rav strongly supported continuation of RCA and UOJCA participation in the SCA, recounting that he and the Rav, along with Rabbi Klavan had strategized how to keep the SCA status quo from falling apart. See, “Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern Orthodoxy,” in Angel, Marc D., Exploring the Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, at 14 (1997).

> The filibuster is anti-democratic. In a democracy a majority of the legislature should be able to pass laws without a minority having veto.

You see how greek culture crept into the yiddishe shtetl of Monsey! It took just 2000 something years.

Who said we are looking for democracy?! Surely, american founding fathers did not. History assimilated lessons of Greek direct democracy and even more stable Roman Republic and decided that democracy is unworkable – for centuries. Indeed, how could you expect uncultured masses to participate in deciding complex matters of the state. Better left to the experts, appointed by the King. The idea was looked upon again in 18th-19th century and it started working after a number of trials-and-errors that cost millions of lives. US as a far-away huge province had luxury to think a little bit and then practice a little, and worked out a system that slows down democracy to make it manageable. By now, some of these safeguards are weakened (senators are not elected by legislators, states lost lots of powers, politicians have more information about voters than voters about politicians…), so stop picking on remaining ones, like filibuster, independent courts.

“On any computer, you should always have an admin account controlled by parents”
Avram > And what about the parents?

first, fyi – basic cyber practice on any computer you use: have an admin account and then a local account where you do your normal work. In this case, an intruder might take over a local account but not necessarily of the admin account. Then, just let each parent be an admin for the other parent. Or, have parent’s parents do that 🙂 Feel free to outsource this to local rav or rebetzin or to any third party.

Maybe, a fool-proof method would be a company that takes snapshots of private accounts every 10 minutes and then use a combination of AI and indian labelers to look for offending images. You want to start this?

> they don’t just focus on filters. Their stated services include hashkafic guidance and a 52-week curriculum geared for young women. My guess is that responsible usage comes up at some point in those 52 weeks and in that guidance.

I did not do thorough analysis, but I looked at a number of their and affiliated pages. I do not see the basic info that we are discussing about organizing the house and talking to children mentioned. 52-week course on hashkafic guidance does not sound appealing if they are not willing to put some basics upfront, and we don;t know what kind of guidance it is. Again, if I missed something, please let me know

ok, I searched around, here are some references that relate to 3 oaths. Note that I personally don’t want to debate this, just helping out with quotes, so you can shoot at each other with better precision. I am trying to omit agadic material and sources that one of the sides may not respect.

Rashi: it’s only a problem if the Jews come all at once

Avnei Nezer (Y.D. 453, 456) do not derive halakha from agada;
“Avnei Nezer” (Y.D. 456) once the nations of the world give permission for all the Jews to go up to the land of Israel, the oath is annulled

Yoma 9 says that we davka must (!) “rise up as a wall

Shir HaShirim Rabba 8, 9 (3), where R. Zeira, the author of the aforementioned “three oaths” in Ktuvot, changes his mind explicitly, and adopts the contradicting opinion mentioned in Yoma!

Pnei Yehoshua (on Ketubot 111a) points out that Yoma 9b implies the opposite

Hafla’ah (Ketubot,same), the “wall” only relates to the immigration to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia.

Vilna Gaon, Commentary on Shir HaShirim 2, 7, in his Siddur: we swore not to rebuild the walls of Yrushalayim and the Beit haMikdash
commentary on Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 75, 17, “the mitzvah is upon him to ‘toil/work’ (לטרוח) to fulfill”.

San. 97b – does redemption depend on teshuva

For a comprehensive treatment of this issue, see Naĥalat Yaakov by R. Yaakov Zisberg, vol. 2, pp. 715-815.

Dr Pepper > I actually disagree with you on the part about a non-professional being responsible for damage caused when they had permission to work on something.

I probably missed out some important caveats. You can look at, for example
YD 336:6 – liability of doctors – experts v not
liability for advice – expert/not, paid/not – Nesivos Mishpat (306:14) CM 306:6-7
indirect loss CM 386:3