Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
His “views” can be seen in “the Political Theology of Rabbi Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch, The Torah u-Madda Journal 18 (2021), 1-32. by Rami Schwartz”
Afra lepumei
That reminds me of a story about the noda beyehudah(i think..could have been someone else). He was first rov in a small town, and when asked about saying “av harachaman” on a certain shabbos, he replied by saying that there were different minhagim and that he didn’t know which minhag the shul had been following. The townspeople were horrified that their new rov couldn’t answer a shailoh about something as simple as the recitation of “av horachaman”, so they fired him. He went on to become extremely famous and once spoke in a town that was close to the first place he was a rov. Some of the yidden from that town heard that one of the gedolei hador was nearby, so they came to hear him. They were shocked to see it was their former rov, now venerated rightfully as a gadol beyisroel. They asked him how he got to where he is, and he said “the same av horachaman who took me out of your town put me here”
Nahum Rabinowitz believed in: ordaining women and abolishing even the small amount of laws that the state of Israel has regarding mitzvah observance, such as the law of selling chometz, kashrus and shabbos related laws. He wishes for there to be separation of church and state, because of some philosophical garbled nonsense about the state of israel being the domain of the “body” and the batei din being the “soul”.
In this, his judaism is more depraved than the mainstream religious zionists, who wish for israel to be a theocratic halachik state. His opinions are as worthwhile as a professor in JTS.
Reb E, thanks for sharing what Vien does – I assumed they (and most other heimishe) changed to hand matzos because of generally becoming more chasidish – are there still entire kehilos from oberland that eat machine, or is it individuals?
I prefer the machine matzos because I don’t like to always have to check the hand matzos for possible shailos; kipulim etc. Machine matzos come out close to perfect, and are usually shlaimim (for shabbos and last days lf YT) – doesn’t hurt that they’re about 30-40% cheaper than hand matzos.
Gadol; rav belsky was talking about the situation in the time and place of the divrei chaim – not currently.
Reb E, rav belsky said that the divrei chaim’s main concern was taking away the parnosa of almanos and the poor. Rav shlomo kluger and others at the time allowed it – rav belsky also said that oberlander rabbonim like rav yonasan shteif ate machine matzos, and he said over a story about a choshuve yerushalmi yid who spent yom tov in a chasidishe town in poland. He had brought with him his machine matzos that were the norm in yerushalayim, but everywhere he went they wouldn’t let him into their homes…one family that was especially tolerant let him sit and eat them in a corner far away from their table.
I personally eat machine matzos that are shmurah and from a bakery in yerushalayim that has a sh’eris yisroel hashgocha, but not for the sedorim because of the shitos that hold that it might not be lishma.
Ujm, the overwhelming majority… Over 90%, completely were lost
אל תוועד לרשות**
I wouldn’t, because then people would be bound not to be my close friends, since אל תתחבר לרשות
Common, his parents were frum; he grew up shomer shabbos. He also was introduced to learning by visiting students of Torah Vodaas, where he first learned.
I was zocheh to eat by rav sheiner twice during my time in eretz yisroel; my dirah was actually very close to his house…my friend and i worked up the courage to knock on his door, and we were greeted by an einikel. His eniklach don’t speak English for the most part, even though the Rosh Yeshiva spoke very polished. We were led to his study, where he was reclining while learning from a small gemara; he had both a look of menuchas henfesh as well as intensity at the same time… it’s hard to describe. He was very warm and welcoming, asked us where we learned, etc…we were invited to eat by him, which we were very excited to do.
By the seudah, he and his sons/grandsons were talking in learning in rapid fire… throwing out mekoros, kashes, terutzim…real milchamta shel torah. He was suffering from some form of memory loss at the time, and couldn’t recall many mundane things….he also forgot the name of rabbi kook (he said “”the first rav harashi…i can’t think of his name”, while in learning…..shas, poskim, tanach…were all on his fingertips. It was truly remarkable. He answered a very difficult kasha on the parshah without blinking! Seeing him left an indelible impression on me.
Jack, you’re not the only one who raised that kashya on the netziv – rabbi zevin (whose sefer was my source for the above citations) raised the same difficulty, but the netziv is clearly talking about goyim because he contrasts it with “afili malchei yisroel”
Reb E, he’s talking about milchemes hareshus, which is to increase borders or gain resources
It seems I’ve stumbled on to an interesting machlokes; the netziv in haemek davar writes the following:
ומיד האדם מיד איש אחיו אדרוש את נפש האדם”, כתב: “מיד איש אחיו, פירש הקב״ה אימתי האדם נענש בשעה שראוי לנהוג באחוה, מה שאין כן בשעת מלחמה ועת לשנוא אז עת להרוג ואין עונש על זה כלל, כי כך נוסד העולם, וכדאיתא בשבועות ל״ה מלכותא דקטלא חד משיתא לא מיענש, ואפילו מלך ישראל מותר לעשות מלחמת הרשות”[
He’s saying that the world was established with wars and that a goyish country/King is not punished for even a bloody conflict in which (quoting the gemara in shvuos 35) even if one sixth of the entire population is wiped out, they are not punished.
Rav menachem ziemba, however, writes the following:
דעכו״ם יש לו קנין בכיבוש מלחמה, אבל אין לו היתר לכבוש, שאין הנכרי רשאי ללחום עם חברו
He says that one goy has no right to fight with another, and that yidden have a heter only because of having a Sanhedrin
So I must retract my statements as only being true according to some poskim – I am interested in this topic and will imyh post more when I find other shitos and sources
AAQ, I don’t have an interest in the sermonizing reform-esque garbled ramblings of most of his students, the majority of which devote their energies to “parshanut” and “ethics”(read, Western liberalism) – I’d prefer to judge him favorably (if i am forced to judge him at all; that’s also something i have no interest in) and look at his genius level lomdus, and brisker methods
Gadol, my sense of evil is that which is against the will of Hashem as expressed in dvar Hashem zu halacha; war isn’t pretty, it’s horrific. People die misos meshunos. Targeting non combatants is also not allowed, but if in the course of war there are civilian casualties… that’s the way of the world. halacha does not demand goyjm to be kumbaya peaceful hippies; they’re entitled to build empires and increase their economies as a result. Just because America decided a few years ago (after engaging in this behavior in its founding and subsequently for centuries) that conquest is assur and evil and whatnot, doesn’t make it so.
Zionists claim this when they say that they’re entitled to gaza and the west bank -“in a war, you win and lose, you’re conquered and you conquer” – why is it ok for Zionists to say this but not Russians?
Ujm, daas – I can’t say with certainty, but the following might shed some light on it. I asked rav belsky once about rav elyashiv’s name appearing on the kol koreh, and he replied by saying that rav elyashiv’s wording of “if it’s what you say, then it is assur” implies that he did not believe the metzius to be what the Osrim were claiming, and that this statement was in fact a subtle way of saying that he did not believe it to be so. when I asked him about a different rov who i held in high esteem, he “mached avek” but didn’t insult him sharply either. My guess is that he would have said that rav dovid was misinformed.
I honestly can’t say with my own aidus that they are visible without a background, because even with glasses I have somewhat poor vision. I am merely relating what he said at the time. Have you examined clear water and seen them, after removing them and verifying with a magnifying glass that they are indees cope pods and not lint? Perhaps you are seeing something else?
Reb E, how has russia turned itself into amalek? They’re not attacking jews directly, there are yidden who are caught up in the crossfire…has Putin expressed any desire or done any action to target yidden?
Goyim are allowed to conquer other nations to increase their borders. Lehavdil, we are too, that is the essence of milchemes reshus, to increase the borders of eretz yisroel. Westerners might not like conquest, and we should pursue peace and of course advocate for the war to stop to save the yidden who are in danger, but the idea itself of one nation conquering another is not evil or forbidden.
Also, amalek being an “idea” that can manifest in other nations does not in the least detract from the obligations to wipe out even newborn infants. UJM is trying to drive home the idea that we are happy and proud to do mitzvos, even (actually, especially) when they go against our nature as rachmonim bnei rachmonim, because we are able to serve Hashem by breaking ourselves with mesiras nefesh, as avrohom avinu did with the akeidah. He didn’t do it begrudgingly, he woke up early bezeizus and was ready to do it as he did any other mitzvah. kal vechomer ben bno shel.kal vechomer when the subject of the mitzvah are reshoim.
Marx, i agreed that halachikally he might not be a kofer, but it’s not the way our mesorah teaches us to view the words of rishonim, especially the elites of the elites such as the rambam.
Also, I’m not referring to my ability to passel rabbis due to their opinions on eruvin; I’m referring to the shitos of rav belsky, who did just that.
Daas, I don’t know where you are getting these statements from – I learned by him for several years and was present during a lot of these “hock” issues as they unfolded in real time. I heard him say that it’s better to avoid filtered water in general, and i heard him explain his heterim in almost the exact wording i posted.
I heard him mock and excoriate rabbonim who assered the fish that contained the anisaskis worms, and there’s a fairly accessible recording of him exchanging insults with one such figure. He had extremely strong words for – up to mocking the names of – rabbis who allowed making an eruv in Brooklyn. There are many, many people who spent years learning by him who are easily accessible. He held a lot of rav dovid feinstein, but I never heard him bring him up as a “yesh omrim” the way you describe
AAQ, rabbi soloveitchik had many faces, and I believe the level of “yeshivishkeit” depended on the talmid, but with certain things, like the above rejection of classic haskalah poison, he was steadfast to the mesorah of Torah that remained an inseparable part of his identity, no matter how many operas or lectures he attended.
Rav belskys heter was on multiple fronts: he held that it might not be considered visible, since it’s only visible against a black background (rav dovid feinstein held that this is considered visible), he also held that it’s not kavuah and you can rely on rov cups not containing cope pods. A 3rd heter is that it’s not a forbidden sheretz to begin with, because it was never shoretz al haarerz (interesting to note that based on this, he held that filters can potentially do more harm than good, because if there’s a hole and one gets stuck, it is now shoretz al haaretz and would be assur).
His heter was robust, but it was not on his list of shitos that made him not hold of a person who argues (the eruv and worms in the fish are on that list)
Concede* , not consent
Also, great detective work!! I would have said to find it in rav moshe meiselman’s “torah chazal and science”, where he discusses that statement (and others of the sort, re chazakos, tav lemaysav, etc) at length
Marx, I can’t see how those two aren’t contradictory, because torah bagoyim al taamin, and because if the rambam writes it and it therefore becomes Torah, does that mean that the foreign matter now is Torah? We should make a birchas hatorah on Aristotle? It doesn’t fit – torah is pure by definition and that’s exactly what the gra’s criticism was, that what he said isn’t Torah because it’s being influenced by philosophers. Comes the netziv and says that in a very similar way that rebbe’s statements regarding dovid are torah and one who accuses him of personal bias (as rav huna did in his time) would be guilty of mach’chish magide’ah, so too one who regards the accepted, torah valid words of rhe rambam as the product of foreign influence, would be in the same theoretical category – I’ll consent that I’m not sure kf such a person is halachikally a kofer as he is with chazal, but the same way we adopt the “tanaim vs amoraim” view of rishonim vs achronim, that we accepted on ourselves the profound magnitude of distance between our hasagos and that of the rishonim….at least the concept of mach’chish magide’ah would apply to rishonim (and achronim… we’re far beyond even the chazon ish ‘s era)
Mods, my intention wasn’t to give mussar, it was to start a collaboration similar to what i did in my bochurishe years, where people would contribute their own ideas and debate which ones were applicable and where
Was my “list of issurim one violates by watching the superbowl” thread also deemed distortion? Just wondering why it wasn’t posted
The guess is you thought it was mussar although it hardly fulfilled the necessary qualifications
I should have been clearer earlier; I didn’t mean to express an opinion about the hecsher itself, as i don’t know anything about it – i was saying that one cannot rely on any hecsher based solely on its name.
Marx, rabbi soloveitchik had to say it; for everyone else, it was self understood.
One source for the above that comes to mind is the netzviv’s famous line about how even if the rambam would testify after techias hamaysim that he didn’t mean what various achronim write as pshat in his words, it wouldn’t detract from the truth of those achronim’s explanations, because once the rambam was written, it became a part of the continuum of klal yisroel’s Torah transmission and he is not the baal habayis on it.
I’ve seen that netzviv quoted in several places… I’ll try to find one for you bl”n
Marx, the gra could say that; we can’t – for us it’s eili ve’eilu and the rambam’s torah is treated as torah, not as Aristotle. It’s like how rav huna criticized rebbe’s statement that dovid hadn’t been nichshal with an eishes ish and said he was motivated by the kovod of his alter zeideh – for us to attribute torah from chazal as anything but the pure, unadulterated transmission of torah misinai would be included in “mach’chish magide’ah” as outlined in the rambam’s list of heretical ideas – this is not my hagdarah, but rather that of rabbi yoshe ber soloveitchik, as many in his camp had gone the classical route of the maskilim (introduced by the rasha zechariah frankel) and attributed maamarei chazal to anthropology, their own character/midos and the common thinking of their time and place. They reduced hillel to *easy going nice guy” and shamai to “angry old man with a stick” afra lepumayhu.
For all of his faults and influences, he stayed within the mainstream on such essential matters and did a wonderful job at curtailing the more anti religious elements in his camp.
Ylavon; you’re assuming that this specific hecsher reloably maintains the standards of the sefer beis Yosef for which it’s named.
It would be like a pesach hechsher called “rema” – how can you doubt it, it’s called rema!
Besalel, that’s not how safek derabonon lekulah works. It’s efshar levrurei, able to be clarified; it’s not like you have 3 pieces of meat and don’t know which one is treif,.or if milk falls into chicken and you are unable to measure. That was the most dangerous line of this threat posred yet and one of the most shocking suggestions I’ve seen on here – not knowing it a known individual is Jewish would not allow us to treat it as a safek. Only if his status were unverifiable would we treat him as a safek,
Also, chazal added many chumros to yayin nesech far beyond ordinary derabonon’s.
Re, guzma – there are times that rishonim say such things. The chazon ish is referring to a cavalier attitude held by many(including one famous mechaber who I will not name because of kovod toraso) influenced by the haskalah to minimize spirituality, look at the world materialistically, and emphasize empirical knowledge over transmission. The rambam and others who occasionally interpreted agadatos that way were not under such influence. They also were not privy to kabalah, and ever since the times of the arizal, the overwhelming majority of baalei machahava, ranging from the maharal, maharsha, ramchal, gra, besh”t, chid”a, ben ish chai, etc…all go with interpreting agadatos metaphysically, not necessarily literally, but not allegorically either.
Marx; it’s in maaseh ish, related by rav greineman
AAQ – a mechalel shabboa befarhesya isn’t being punished by not having the halacha of a jew, he simply does not have the status because being a jew is synonymous with keeping the Torah. We don’t know how Hashem will judge such a person, nor is it relevant – the issue is, does this person have the din of a yisroel or not? And if one harbors forbidden hashkofos, does not keep shabbos, believes in a rebbe as god, allegorizes chazal in ways outside of the mesorah, to again quote the chazon ish “those who say halel on 5 iyar and blame the gedolim for the Holocaust”, or any other manner of severe deviation from Torah, such a person loses his status and is halachikally treated as a goy.
Gotagoodpoint, a mechalel shabbos or mumar for avodah zara, or one who maintains forbidden hashkofos(even if they have “,rabbi” attached to their name) has the halacha of a goy for wine lechol hadayos. The chazon ish wouldn’t drink from the wine of a student who made a remark that chazal exaggerate about certain things.
Bishul akum is a machloles because some hold the issur is better of chasunos, and there’s no problem with marrying the daughter of one of the above
AAQ, I don’t know who you consider choshuv, but normative halacha does not exposure to apikorsus for average or even above average individuals leshem da ma lehashiv. Rav moshe writes this regarding reading the new testament; he allowed rav avigdor miller (who asked) because he was an actual gadol batorah who had already finished shas many times. The proper fulfillment of da ma lehashiv can be done through kosher sources which were designed to counter those ideologies; rav avigdor Miller’s seforim are one such source, as are the chovos halevavos, emunos vedeos, kuzari and moreh nevuchim. Hearing about it from a supportive, positive source such as an immersive college course is a whole different level.
There were likewise “choshuv” voices which allowed chilul shabbos for work, because of cliched applications of maxims of chazal such as “asei shabatcha chol”. These were actual rabbis of towns in Europe, who were also maskilim. The lines weren’t as clear cut as they are nowadays. Nowadays one can easily know if someone is divergent from mesorah in the way that they dress – take a look at pictures of shlomo yehudah rappaport (he liked to be called “shir”). He was the rov of… Prague? Either that or another major city. He was a complete maskil, but he looked indistinguishable from the chasam sofer in his outward appearance.
Gadol, it’s that exact notion of “maturity”, “strength”, “conviction”, etc.., which halacha does not permit. Many people who are in that mindset believe that yichud isn’t necessary for them, because “do you think I’m going to….” – curiosity/engaging with bad ideas (why the quotation? Are anti torah ideas not bad?)
Halacha understands the natural weaknesses of people – even, and especially great people – “anyone who’s bigger than their fellow, their yatzer hora is greater”, and he needs more protection, not less. The steipler davened for rav chaim all his life that he not fall into foreign influences, well into his gadol-hood(orchos rabbeinu, i can find the page if necessary). It’s false bravado and arrogance to think one is above sin – regarding apikorsus, chazal say “shaani minus, de’mashchi”, heresy is different, because it drags (one into it).
Regarding lectures with forbidden content, some say that one can tune out those parts and be “masiacb daas”, but with the availability of kosher, curated college courses, it is difficult to justify it even according to those opinions. The majority, however, hold that such study is assur. The fact that “the velt” did it in the 60s/70s, etc, on its own, doesn’t permit it. People had many nisyonos in those days, and contrary to your point of the “thousands of frum people who remained frum” a very, very large number did not. More people went off the derech at that time than now, and college was not a small factor in that. Besides going off, many were/are weakened by it and become much less observant. Look at Mike Moscowits – he was a frum , orthodox rabbi who went to college campuses to do kiruv. He was dragged into the gender bender world and now, with his hat and jacket, promotes LGBT agenda and works with reform/conservative groups in that capacity.
Gadol, you didn’t speak earlier about the question of whether or not one is allowed to expose one’s self to bad influences in order to go to college. That’s a halacha shailah that has two sides, but both sides to that question agree with the aforementioned rambam that one is not permitted to engage in thoughts regarding forbidden beliefs. You said that it is meritorious to specifically weigh the ins and outs of foreign ideas and (hopefully) come to the right conclusion.
In your words: “As to being exposed to “bad ideas”, I would respectfully suggest that part of the college experience for ALL students should be the ability to evaluate a broad spectrum of beliefs and ideas and learn how to make decisions for oneself as to the validity of competing positions.”
This cavalier attitude, says the rambam, potentially costs one their olam haba. I think that’s just about as dangerous as jumping off the George Washington bridge.
AAQ, not everyone knows that the gemara you’re referencing is talking about acher – it was a cute vort, but also easily misunderstood
Ujm, not only is it forbidden, the rambam is uncharacteristically lengthy in his description of the danger of people allowing themselves to think freely in philosophy. His words are chotzvim lehavos aish; this is from perek 2 halacha 3 in hilchos avoda zara
. ולא עבודת כוכבים בלבד הוא שאסור להפנות אחריה במחשבה אלא כל מחשבה שהוא גורם לו לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על לבנו ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונמשך אחר הרהורי הלב. מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה ולא כל הדעות יכולין להשיג האמת על בוריו. ואם ימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות לבו נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו. כיצד פעמים יתור אחר עבודת כוכבים ופעמים יחשוב ביחוד הבורא שמא הוא שמא אינו. מה למעלה ומה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור. ופעמים בנבואה שמא היא אמת שמא היא אינה. ופעמים בתורה שמא היא מן השמים שמא אינה. ואינו יודע המדות שידין בהן עד שידע האמת על בוריו ונמצא יוצא לידי מינות. ועל ענין זה הזהירה תורה ונאמר בה {ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים}. כלומר לא ימשך כל אחד מכם אחר דעתו הקצרה וידמה שמחשבתו משגת האמת. כך אמרו חכמים {אחרי לבבכם זו מינות} ואחרי עיניכם זו זנות. ולאו זה אע”פ שהוא גורם לאדם לטרדו מן העולם הבא אין בו מלקות:
Even in his time, a yid is told by the rambam that he is not supposed to trust his sechel to come to the right conclusions in issues of emunah/hashkofa. Lo sasuru means not to get into such mental discussions or entertain thoughts regarding those issues. Obviously if someone has problems he needs support and sometimes he needs answers/proofs, but it is definitely not an ideal or a worthy pursuit of intentionally exposing one’s self to harmful influences, especially being totally immersed in a hostile culture without having had spent years in a serious Yeshiva (since those who do, know enough not to subject themselves to such things, so it ends up being the weaker elements who go, thus augmenting the danger exponentially)
It’s arrogant to say that we’re stronger than the yiden to whom this halacha was said. It’s a fallacy that you’re not influenced by what’s around you or what you read, and this is (as above, and many other sources) demonstrable from tanach, chazal, rishonim and achronim.
Lo sasuru, the mitzvah of not having goyim live in eretz yisroel is based on “pen Yachtiu oscha li”, “lest they make you sin to me”. Even if we’re the dominant power in the land, allowing a single oved avoda zara to live in eretz yisroel amid MILLIONS of Jews is a danger! The Torah says to get rid of him, because he will cause others to sin by his influence.
Parents didn’t raise the current generation; technology did
Marx, there are different shades of it, but all (including “religious” ones) believe that judaism is a nation not determined solely by our relationship to Torah. They believe in other things, which is why rav elchonon vasserman said that “zionism is avodah zara, and religious zionism is avodah zara mixed with religion”
Lakewhut, I’m trying to find one sentence in your post that isn’t merely regurgitating the tropes of every anti kolel, anti torah learning person I’ve ever met since I was a teenager.
The Gaon said that the Russians are Yavan, as can be seen with their alphabet that’s based on Greek. He also said that Germany is amalek at a time when Germany was friendly to yidden; that’s why Rav yosef chaim zonnenfeld hid himself when kaizer wilhelm passed by yerushalayim, because he didn’t want to have to give sholom to an amaleki king.
It doesn’t say Hashem made a mistake cv”s. It says נח לו לאדם שלא נברא, that it is better off “for a person”, to have never been created. This means that from our limited vantage point, it appears to us as if it is so, because we have more of an opportunity to fall than to rise to greatness.
Do we have a source for achashverosh’s ludicrous gezerah to be a hint at an actual inyan?
It was meant to show how much of a tipesh he was, at least according to the maan de’amar that he was a tipesh
Yalkut – yep, ravina, rav ashi, rabba, rava, rav yosef, rav kahanah, they ALL were “compared to one who has no god” – they could have moved, they didn’t. It’s preposterous and itself a form of avodah zara; that the land has intrinsic qualities aside from its given, stated purpose. Those gemaros have meforshim; you should learn them instead of just quoting random aramaic words that you’re copying from zionist rabbis’ literature.
Ever learn vayoel moshe? He shreds beyond measure any argument from those gemaros; utterly gutted – you should check it out sometime if you live in an area where they wouldn’t put you in cherem for being seen reading it.
Lower, rav tzvi kaplan’s Yeshiva/kolel is in yerushalayim, in ezras torah – that’s not the North.
Also i totally understand why he wouldn’t want to be in a kolel with israelis; he doesn’t speak their language, and there are other cultural issues as well.
Penicillin, indoor plumbing, cars, are among the most useful l can think of
Worst would be the Internet, nuclear and biological weapons, and ivrit
Avi, this is just buying straight into the attempts I mentioned hook line and sinker – you literally believe whatever the zionists tell you, without any independent inquiry and thought process. Citations of proofs to all of my claims(army construction, etc) can be found in “the empty wagon”. If you believe (in error) that you’re allowed to read apikorsus books as long as you’re “strong”, then you shouldn’t have any trouble reading an uncomfortable anti zionist book, as even you have to admit that denial of Hashem is worse than denial of Zionism (I hope).
They represent judaism the way McDonalds represents fine dining. I am a Jew, and there are hundreds of thousands of other jews who the state does not represent. Believing it to be avodah zara, I would literally let myself be killed rather than admit to it. Rav boruch ber said that zionism is yehereg velo yaavor. (See harav hadomeh lemalaach)
Teimanin kidnapping have been debunked? Really? Tell that to my friend’s grandfather who was KIDNAPPED and grew up in a secular ashkenaz house until his “parents” confessed to him that they were hired by the government. He became a baal teshuva and is close to rav amnon Yitzchok, who has a similar story.
Denial of their suffering and literal shmad is the same as Holocaust denial; actually, it’s worse, because we don’t face any threat from Germany anymore, but we do face a constant threat from the zionist regime that we are forced to live under.Rav chaim brisker said it best – “the velt thinks that the zionists want a state, and that in order to have a state, you need to be frei, but really it’s the opposite…they want a state in order to be frei!
AAQ, the army is just as much a shmad tool now as it was then. They still encourage znus, have indoctrination classes on zionism, and promote a militarism foreign to our people.