Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
smile4life,
It was Rav Aharon Kotler (and perhaps others) who made that comparison.
Regarding your post, where is there a mitzva to “give one’s life for Eretz Yisrael”, meaning, presumably, for the State of Israel, as the land was obviously in no danger?
If you mean that they gave their lives so that people’s lives should be saved, then why not say that?
Regardless, we have our own ways to show respect for those who have passed on, as outlined in the Torah.
Take it to a different thread.
Besalel:
That makes no sense. What do you claim has “changed”? The nihye kiChol haAmim and rak biDam tihye lanu haAretz philosophy remains just the same; only now, the focus is keeping the land Zionist, CH”V. An even cursory glance at Zionist activities makes this quite plain.
The Brisker Rav and others did not change their stance even after the State of Israel was founded, and they lived there both before and after.
If anything, the Zionist shmad is even stronger now than it was then. Back then, they left alone the Chareidim about whom they knew it were hopeless to spout their Zionist fantasies to them. Instead, they made do with deliberately destroying the Judaism of our Sefardic brethren whom they had conned into moving to their “utopia”.
While the mitzva to live in E”Y might be in effect today, depending on who you ask, the mitzva to conquer E”Y as definitely NOT in effect today and is, in fact, strictly prohibited with severe consequences, R”L L”A, Hashem Yiracheim.
GAW:
Yes, I agree that this was definitely ironic.
DaMoshe:
Do you also have a day to celebrate the open miracle of the creation of the eigel? Our mesorah is that both are Avoda Zara. Why one and not the other?
I do appreciate your tefilos, of course.
I am not aware of any aveiros of either Lashon HaRa or Motzi Shem Ra about anyone, but if you are aware of any, I would appreciate knowing about that.
Again, the bottom line is that Rav Elchonon and others said that Zionism is Avoda Zara and “Religious Zionism” is simply religion mixed with Avoda Zara. The whole MO/”Religious Zionism” is simply a non-starter.
And it is simply delusional to claim “He also clearly showed us an absolute early sign of the coming Geulah BB”A”. You have no neviim or even any gedolim to claim that and, of course, the gedolim have said just the opposite.
Even the letter which Zionists still tout as if it were some psak din, rather than a slimy forgery, never originally said those words, never mind who did or didn’t even sign the letter in any form.
Regardless, Zionism and its victories in 1948 had nothing to do with the geulah. Simply, a Mitzva haBaa baAveira is not a Mitzva and the founding of the State entailed various severe aveiros. Founding the State was absolutely assur in many ways, and to say Hallel for such a thing is patently absurd.
Of course MO/”Religious Zionism” has been making it all up and just as certainly they do delude themselves into thinking that there might be parameters for their inventions (which even Sam2 admits are not muchrach, even liShitasam). The problem is that the gedolim very much did and continue to disagree with MO/”Religious Zionism” at least as much as they did regarding any other deviant movement.
Even the “left-wing” Rabbis admit that MO/”Religious Zionism” changed (their) Judaism.
Like Eliyahu Fink, for instance, who blogged what any high school student could tell you after learning about European Nationalism, and then reading Orot (which, incidentally, the Chazon Ish, among others, also forbade): that Rabbi Kook merely took Nationalism and grafted it onto, liHavdil, our holy Torah. (Rabbi Dr. Lichtenstein also wrote similarly, though he obviously concluded positively, regardless.)
The bottom line is that Rav Elchonon and others said that Zionism is Avoda Zara and “Religious Zionism” is simply religion mixed with Avoda Zara. The whole MO/”Religious Zionism” is simply a non-starter.
The Zionist nonsense in this thread is so strange that one wonders how intelligent people continue to delude themselves with any of this.
Tens of thousands of Jews have died on the altar of Zionism since Israel’s Independence Day. (Not to mention the countless other Jews have died before that time due to Zionism.) So “Yom Ha’atzamos” seems like a reasonable description for that day and not at all comparable to a racist slur as the MO wish everyone to believe.
Frum people are those who follow gedolim, not those who broke with their mesorah and who invented a new Torah of, as the Brisker Rav put it, “a sea of heresy mixed with a drop of Torah”. That is, of course, the province of MO and “Religious Zionism”. As Rav Aharon Kotler pointed out, the essence of MO is the same as Reform and Conservative.
There is, of course, nothing Jewish about Israel’s Independence Day. Just for example, the Chazon Ish was makpid to say tachanun that day even when he had three brisos that morning just to make sure that people should not err in this.
In addition to the gedolim’s strong and unwavering opposition, the Zionists also ignore that even for Bayis Sheini, which was indeed a real geulah, no such Yom Tov was created. And they had neviim then, unlike today. The Zionists also ignore that the State of Israel is among the LEAST safest places for a Jew today and ever since Zionism reared its bloody head well over a century ago.
Syag:
akuperma is correct (and you are the one who is “way off”).
As has been mentioned on these boards many times, and as recognized by our gedolim from way before 1948 through today, the goal of Zionism was and is to create a new “goy” Hebrew, Land/Nation-based, nation to replace the traditional, Torah-based, Jewish nation.
Sam2:
I will refrain from throwing your insulting words back at you. Whatever Talmidei Chachamim did or did not do, I do not wish to personally insult anyone.
But you seem to have missed the part about how Rav Schwab is on record imploring MO to return from their errors and rejoin Klal Yisrael. So this was not at all my extrapolation from one piece on one opinion, as you claim, but rather Rav Schwab’s words.
As you surely recall, we already discussed the Rabbi Schachter piece, and Rav Schwab’s response, here, where I noted that Rav Schwab obviously did not misread the piece even if you are able to claim that, lihavdil (from Rav Schwab), that I misread it:
But let us be very clear: if one looks at the writing of Rav Schwab, in that piece in particular, it is obvious that Rav Schwab’s response to Rabbi Schachter’s piece was actually the opposite of just “par for the course” strong lashon as you claim, and, therefore, nothing to do with any “lack of knowledge” on my part.
Rav Schwab wrote there at the end that he was NOT trying to denigrate any particular talmid chacham; the very title of the piece is “He who loves does not hate”.
As mentioned, Rav Schwab was very much NOT disparaging anyone. As you noted that you didn’t read Rav Schwab’s response, perhaps that would have been a good idea, as it likely would have prevented you from wrongly accusing Rav Schwab (and also forming the wrong opinion about my post) of this.
Should you care to read it, Rav Schwab’s piece is listed as (elsewhere):
besalel:
Your points about Uman, Rebbe-worship and zeman-Shabbos all relate to Chassidus, which holds itself to be different from traditional orthodox Judaism. This does not mean that they are correct, but this does make their practices not relevant here.
One very big difference between Chassidus and MO, in addition to what I posted above, is that, for example, spending thousands of dollars and traveling thousands of miles to Uman is obviously not an attempt to dilute orthodoxy or to change it to Nationalism=A”Z. Ditto the Rebbe-related hanhagos, including, for example, Chabad Chassidim flying in before a wedding to pray by Rabbi Schneerson’s grave. I am aware of what the gedolim have said about Chabad, but that is not the point here.
The point is that, unlike MO, chassidus is not an attempt to dilute orthodoxy and morph it into an unholy hybrid of Torah and, lihavdil, secular nationalism (which is A”Z as per even Rabbi JB Soloveitchik’s own father as well as Rav Elchonon, et al.)
besalel:
I did not mean to label you MO; I merely meant to direct you to my response, which is why I enclosed your name in parentheses.
Your assertion regarding wearing black is, in my understanding, completely wrong. Wearing black is not to copy the goyim but rather for humility, meaning to not “be flashy”.
Your assertion about “kibush haAretz” is astonishing. It is absolutely clear that we are not only not commanded to be kovesh the land while in galus, but that it is absolutely forbidden and under threat of dire consequences, as indicated in Kesubos. But, perhaps kol haPosel biMummo posel: if anyone really believes this (coming from Zionism, presumably), perhaps it is they who are “mumar liDavar echad”, or perhaps, as the Brisker Rav held, kol haTorah kula.
Sam2 (and besalel):
Out of respect for you, other MO members here, and Rabbi Schachter himself, I did not mention him by name. But since you insist…
No, it is Rav Elchonon, et al. who called Nationalism A”Z, not me.
You refuse to accept that I merely conveyed Rav Schwab’s written rebuttal to Rabbi Schachter’s shita in question, calling those like him “Talmid Chacham ShEin boDeah” in response to that shita. This is indisputable.
It is also quite logical that since “Religious Zionism” is, in Rav Elchonon’s words, Torah mixed with A”Z, and that MO are proud nationalists, then since Rav Schwab ruled out the Torah part, and the shita itself is very nationalist, then where else did it come from besides Nationalism which MO are proud of? You can’t have it both ways.
ZDad:
I am not getting involved in that one, but the common understanding of Chassidus as you portrayed it is clearly not what defines Chassidus.
Avram:
I know your post was not directed to me, but I anyways would like to comment on it, specifically regarding Baalei Teshuva.
This intended audience of this site is, in my opinion, indicated in the site name.
Regardless, nobody is telling a Baalei Teshuva that they are “bad” if they are currently up to the “MO” stage. (It’s too bad that MO don’t realize that they could be, essentially, “in the same boat”.)
Everyone has struggles, no matter where they come from. But that doesn’t allow for claiming that an aveira is not any more an aveira, etc.
Again, this is about the ideology, not the people.
The Torah is above all else and is certainly not open to having foreign ideologies grafted on to it as does “MO”, “Religious Zionism” and others to create a new Torah (for which there is no mesorah) that they then try to pass off as authentic.
Respect for people is wonderful and nobody said otherwise.
But this does not preclude pointing out that that the gedolim held that the ideology of MO was and is terribly wrong.
To be clear, the founder of MO was condemned by the gedolim of his time for MO (and, included in that, is Zionism, since you seem to prefer that I bring it up).
Further, a well-known MO posek gave a Nationalistic (i.e. Avoda Zara, as per Rav Elchonon, et al.) explanation for why “liChaOra” Zionists believe that liHalacha Jews may sacrifice their lives for the State of Israel (regardless of whether or not Jewish lives are saved). Rav Schwab sadly referred to people like this as “Talmid Chacham sheEin bo Deah” and, essentially, to hope that people like this will “return to their (Torah) senses”.
As well, in MO one finds the “hevel uRius ruach”, etc. (quoting Rav Shlomo Miller’s words) regarding the questionable Broyde piece.
To be sure, nobody is claiming that all MO agree with all of this. One hopes that at least some MO (of all levels) know better in these (and other) matters than MO’s founder, and some of their rabbis, including a rather well-known posek.
But it is indisputable that all this is genuine MO and, perhaps worse, that MO still won’t admit that it’s wrong.
There are more recent examples, etc. but the point is NOT to “bash” MO.
Decades ago, Rav Schwab asked MO to rejoin traditional orthodoxy but, sadly, it seems that MO feels they know better. Bizarrely, MO attempts to claim legitimacy from Rav Schwab’s very derech, TIDE, while Rav Schwab very clearly and publicly nixed this “possibility”.
DaMoshe:
Your contention that you “clarified there that MO does not endorse such behaviors”, is not at all clear.
Again, respect of the people is wonderful, but not of the ideology.
benignuman:
See here, for starters:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/who-says-above-knee-osur
By the way, the word is “Das”, not “Daas”.
netazar:
See Rabbi Soloveichik’s own Chamesh Drashos and the gedolim’s views about him and his ideologies.
DaMoshe:
Zionism is not pertinent to this discussion at this time.
The source of “justifying” is not only Broyde and his questionable piece, but Rabbi Soloveichik himself.
Sam2:
It seems that this wasn’t the only fake person Broyde “created”, but that’s not the only point.
See Rav Shlomo Miller’s scathing response to Broyde’s piece. Rav Miller clearly states that Broyde’s piece is wrong and that the arichus is “hevel uRius ruach”.
147:
I happen to think you are incorrect in that assertion, but which posek gave you that idea?
Regarding sources for these issurim:
The halachic process does not allow for cherry-picking from shitos that are not accepted liHalacha, not that this would anyways alleviate all the issues regarding women not covering their hair. And women wearing pants is problematic for other reasons besides beged ish.
Of course, if in doubt, ask your LOR.
DaMoshe:
Your assertion that some Modern Orthodox women do these things but, at the same time, that this has nothing to do with Modern Orthodoxy makes no sense and is also not true.
The reason your assertion makes no sense, and comparisons to L”H, et al. are also irrelevant, is that L”H is certainly no more prevalent among traditional orthodox than by anyone else. So while various Jews of various stripes may fall prey to the Yetzer HaRa in various aveiros and for various reasons, the non-MO still understand that whatever aveira they are doing is forbidden, unlike MO which tries to justify these things, as in, for example, the questionable Broyde piece that a different poster referred to.
The reason your assertion is also not true is that, as above, Rabbi JB Soloveichik created Modern Orthodoxy to institutionalize compromise of the Torah seemingly based on what he felt (against the gedolim of the time) was necessary for then-modern America, and on his mistaken assumption that traditional Orthodoxy would become a museum piece.
Again, this is not like someone walking into McDonalds for a cheeseburger because he just couldn’t resist it (for whatever reason). At least in that case, he knows he’s wrong. Whereas MO “kulas” are wrongly promoted as bona fide kulas.
Even back then, Rav Schwab essentially begged MO to “get with the program” and stop the MO stuff, but the MO refused. Strangely, at least on an institutional level, they still seem to spurn his call, even as MO likes to claim legitimacy as an outgrowth of TIDE, which Rav Schwab himself also denounced as impossible and not true.
Shopping613:
I appreciate your perspective. And achdus is a wonderful thing, as was recently demonstrated when hundreds of thousands of Jews worldwide davened for the physical and spiritual safety of our brethren in E”Y.
First, one should be careful who they are friends with. Friends have tremendous influence on people in many ways, subtle and otherwise. Being respectful or associating in various contexts is one thing; being friends with them is quite another.
We daven each day to be saved “meChaver ra”.
As others have pointed out, there is an eis lisno. Dovid HaMelech also wrote “Misanecha Hashem esna…”
Hashem created this midah, like everything else, for a purpose.
Besides for this point, there is a difference between the sinner and the sin. To respect the sinner despite their sin is one matter. But in no way can this extend to respecting the sin itself.
edited for extraneous, derogatory political comments of the very nature that posters in this thread were asked to refrain from (in this thread)
JF:
Your question is not relevant vis-vis Chareidim. The Chareidim were there long before the Zionists foisted their disasters on our holy land against the wishes of the Chareidim, and the Zionists must leave them alone. Nothing to discuss there.
As for what the the Israeli government should do if Israelis refuse to serve, that is, indeed, a fair question and the likely answer is that, in theory, like any good government, they should govern “by the people” and therefore switch to a professional army as is done in all normal civilized countries.
The reason that neither of the above is realistic is, of course, that mandatory IDF service is an integral part of Zionist shmad, of turning its Jews into goy hebrew “Israelis”, and Zionism without shmad is simply impossible because they are both one and the same.
PAA: you quoted Rabbis Aviner and Lichtenstein, both of whom are Zionist, but Softwords has answered much better than I did here.
Why bring up this discussion by Zionist Rabbis, as if serving in the IDF is worth even discussing?
The gedolim have declared (recently, again) that the serving in the IDF is assur, regardless of whether or not one is learning.
ROB mentioned WW II and clearly implied that gedolim did not anticipate what was to come, etc.
For all the Zionist treachery against Jews during and after WW II, etc. Zionists and their apologists would be wise to stay far away from that topic and Zionism’s supremely shameful involvement and lack thereof.
ROB didn’t want the whole debate started again, so I’ll simply suffice with quoting from the (Zionist) AICE Jewish Virtual Library’s page on Henry Montor (re: WW II):
GAW:
Absolutely not. It must be non-Jewish until Mashiach comes BB”A.
Syag:
I’m not sure what molesters and others have to do with this.
Of course I wish all Jews return to Hashem and His Torah.
As to shmad in Jewish schools, assuming you are referring to traditional Orthodox schools I can’t imagine what shmad you are referring to. I can certainly believe that there are better schools than others, etc. but shmad?
Interjection:
I don’t believe you are correct. I don’t view YWN as “hating Modern Orthodox” or anyone else for that matter. They may hold that “MO” is not a valid derech (the gedolim back in the time of Rabbi JBS certainly did not agree with his “MO” creation) but this does not mean “hate” of the individual adherents or even hate of the movement itself. On the other hand, not hating does not equal condoning.
GAW:
End result is Mashiach. If your question is what interim solution would be preferable to the State of Israel then I would say a non-Jewish government that respects our religion and keeps our brethren there safe.
Of course, as PBA wrote, I would certainly hope that all the Jews there (including the many Jews and their children who were and are shmaded by Zionism and the State of Israel) return to Hashem and His Torah(without grafting it to Zionism of course).
Mods:
Thanks, that’s better.
In my view, it’s simply pro-Torah, not specifically anti-Zionist.
No sub-title is needed, in my humble opinion.
I just noticed I got a subtitle. I would certainly have left out the last part, given the choice.
better?
Besalel:
Perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant. I meant shmad in the fullest sense of the word and this is what the IDF is about.
Of course, losing their “chareidi-ness”, whatever that means, is not (necessarily) shmad. But being changed from Oveid Hashem to Oveid Zionism is shmad.
mybrother:
Again, this was not an attempt to criticize. This was an atzeres tefillah, to daven to Hashem to save our brethren from Zionist shmad.
ROB and others:
In that law are criminal sanctions if their quota of chareidim being shmaded in the IDF is not met. This alone is abominable.
And, again, even the prior “pitur” only exempted the lomeid from the army, but did not allow him to work and feed his family.
The bottom line is that the Zionists have to leave all the chareidim alone and not threaten them in any way.
mybrother:
The atzeres tefillah was not about the individual soldiers who are in the IDF. It was about the Zionists forcing the observant Jews there to allow the Zionists to either shmad them in the IDF or else face crimminal sanctions.
The financial sanctions that the Zionists have imposed on the Chareidim, in the form of cruelly denying them permission to work, is one level of outrage. Making them criminals is far worse.
This is why everyone davened to Hashem: please help our brethren in E”Y keep their true faith and do not let the Zionists shmad them, too. Zionism is shmad, and a simple survey of history shows how the Zionists have shmaded many Jews in the past since even before 1948.
yichusdik, in your case, you might ask your LOR if your assessment is correct that this is a case of “ain somchim al haNeis”. Then, if they agree with you that this is “somchim al haNeis”, then the follow-up question can be presented.
Either way, to disregard Daas Torah is wrong.
But no daas Torah has indicated this is an issue of “somchim as haNeis” and, therefore, nobody should simply decide for no reason other than their conjecture that this is so.
oomis:
The amount of time lost learning while they’re in the IDF is not the worst problem. The biggest problems are the IDF itself: the shmad, the arayos, etc.
As well, it’s nice that they’re “erlich” and also that (you THINK) it did not compromise their frumkeit.
But the gedolim still forbade it, then and now, as others have noted.
You also don’t mention the tragic percentage of “D”L” that come out of the IDF not dati any more.
Finally, any frustration should be directed at Israel and Zionism because the shmad that are both Zionism and Israel/IDF is the main reason why the IDF is a non-starter for any Torah-observant Jew, as per the gedolim.
ROB:
There would be no concern of “running out of people to subsidize” if only the . . . Zionists, were to allow the Chareidim to work without first requiring them to be shmaded in the IDF.
edited for insults. Stick to your point
GAW:
I’m not sure why you insist on ignoring reality. As I wrote, “Only in Israel is there a problem of being shmaded by the IDF.” Until this is addressed, there is nothing else to discuss in this matter.
HALeivi’s comparison to the Maccabees (meaning, the Torah’s version as opposed to, liHavdil, the shameful Zionist propaganda version of the same), is well worth noting, too.
There is no compromise when it comes to the Torah.
yichusdik:
First, this is not even a question of “ain somchin al haNeis”.
It is, liChaOra, a question of how long the Zionist regime will last as they tighten the screws of shmad and attempt to figuratively vaporize much of their very life-blood who are these Chareidi lomdei Torah (I presume the other limud Torah there also helps them).
The answer to your non-question is “HaYad Hashem Tiktzar?” Hashem can help our brethren there in an instant in any number of ways (including bringing Mashiach, for that matter).
As akuperma noted, there is no possibility of “pshara” when it comes to the Torah and shmad.
The gedolim, both then and now, have stated that the IDF is not a place for any frum Jew, regardless of whether or not he is learning.
The Zionists themselves admit ad haYom that they wish to change chareidim into Israelis. This is textbook shmad.
The bottom line is that the wicked Zionists have refused to allow the Chareidim (who claim a pitur from the army) to work for a living unless they agree to first be shmaded in the army. This is a gross injustice.
GAW and ROB:
Again, outside of Israel, there is no stigma for any young woman if her father is working. In fact, this is the norm. Only in Israel is there a problem of being shmaded by the IDF.
It doesn’t make sense to compare these numbers to the Israel Day parade, because there are far more “MO” and mostly/completely non-observant Jews than there are observant Jews.
So given that additional pool of people (secular Jews), it makes sense that a gathering of all frum Jews will not come close to a gathering of secular (and “D”L”) Jews.
As well, unfortunately, for many Jews, the two gatherings are not mutually exclusive. I imagine there were Jews who attended Sunday’s gathering but will still not understand why it makes no sense to attend the Israel Day parade.
Whether 50K or 150K, and on very limited notice, this is quite a large number of observant Jews who understand the evil perpetrated by the Zionists on our brethren in E”Y, B”H.
ROB:
Of course, there is no stigma to having a father who works (and plenty of Chassidim in the United States and elsewhere do work). But this is only if working doesn’t require one to be shmaded like by the Zionists in Israel.
Thus, what GAW means, I think, is that a young woman in Israel with a working father also means that her working father was first shmaded by the IDF (regardless of how he, personally, came out of that shmad), which is obviously a stigma.
Sam2:
I believe softwords’ point about the Rabbeim of these “D”L” rabbis is actually quite instructive, because it highlights the utter lack of mesorah (and the halachic invalidity) of “D”L”.
Regardless of this, of course there was a distinction. Never mind “Mizrachi”; even Chovivei Tzion was considered wrong by Rav Hirsch and even by the Netziv later in his life.
Regardless of KDD’s intent, the Zionists are, of course, trying to stop Torah. From Ben-Gurion (and on), the stated purpose of the IDF is shmad. It’s not “just” a few months of army service.
Finally, his reference to “bnai Torah” in this context is not at all insulting; you know exactly what he means. He means someone whose primary occupation is learning Torah, not any Jew who follows the Torah.
As well, why do you assume that the Chareidim WANT to be impoverished? The wicked Zionists left them no choice by forcing them to either be shmaded in the IDF or else to claim their “pitur” that absolves them of army service but NOT to allow them to work. Someone posted this recently on these boards, incidentally.
So, yes, the Chareidim are literally being moser nefesh for continuing Yiddishkeit. That is exactly what the Chareidim are doing in the face of increasing Zionist shmad.
Without getting into all the issues again, and purely “liShitascha”, I don’t see why this should be any less than sheivet Leivi being supported by Klal Yisrael while the rest of Klal Yisrael works, etc.
Again, I believe “chotvei eitzim viShoavei mayim” is inappropriate and offensive.
KDD:
I still haven’t seen anyone explain (other than from the Chareidi side, which you would certainly find offensive) why the “Dati Leumi” are not DEFENDING the Chareidim, since part of “D”L” is, of course, Das, or religion. So surely the “D”L” would sympathize with their Chareidi brethren and would want the Chareidim to follow their Daas Torah.
Again, I understood from your original post that the Chareidi position of forbidding service in the IDF results in your son being relegated to “chotvei eitzim viShoavei mayim” relative to chareidim. You’re essentially implying that your son is being made a “second-class Jew”. Yet, in a later post, you say you believe his serving in the IDF is not unfortunate but a Mitzvah. And you also don’t seem to deny that chareidim hold the polar opposite liHalacha.
So while I certainly understand the “divergent views”, I still don’t understand why your original post conveyed these offensive and incorrect implications, especially when your own later posts have shown this is not your true position.
Another question:
“Religious Zionism” believes in serving the State, etc. (and, according to a prominent “MO” posek, serving in the IDF is doche pikuach nefesh because of the State itself even if no Jewish lives would be saved). On the other hand, Chareidi law (and traditional observant Judaism) doesn’t believe in any of this.
With all due respect, assuming for argument’s sake that there is even what to talk about halachicly, the “Religious Zionists” should still respect the halachic opinion accepted by chareidim – for Chareidim – that serving in the IDF is assur.
I understand this doesn’t help secular Israelis, but I don’t see why this shouldn’t answer the questions like yours of why your son is expected to serve in the IDF but they don’t.
Very simple: you believe it’s a mitzva to do so and are, unfortunately, compelled to by your government to serve while traditional Orthodox Judaism, Chareidim included, does not believe in any of this to the point that the gedolim have said this is shmad, etc.
So, even liShitas the “MO/R”Z””, why should this be any different than any other halachic dispute where each “camp” does what they understant to be correct?
Regardless of any of this, as I wrote earlier, I wish your son and all of Klal Yisrael all good things, BE”H.
To clarify, the whole “sharing the burden” nonsense (which the IDF itself does not agree with, as they don’t want Chareidim, at least not ones who aren’t prepared to convert to Zionism) is simply another (very serious) Zionist shmad tactic.
I have mentioned Rav Elchonon’s and Rav Chaim’s holy words many times on these boards. There is no known dissent among those accepted in the general Torah world.
So it seems pretty simple to me. Chareidim (and their descendants) who preceded the Zionists are off-limit to the Zionists regarding shmad, the army, denying permission to work, etc. On the other hand, those who, for whatever reason, choose to join the State of Israel and agree with its policies, certainly have that choice.
KDD:
First, I sincerely hope Mashiach comes long before your son is called up to the IDF at 18 and, regardless, that all of Klal Yisrael, including those in Eretz Yisrael, always remain safe and sound, BE”H.
I have a number of questions on your post:
For starters, why is this a question of your son versus the Chareidim? You stated that you, yourself, served in the IDF and you are well aware that Israel (bizarrely) chooses to forcibly draft every 18 year old into the IDF (when no other modern country does so). Yet you chose to raise your children in Israel with this knowledge. Obviously, even if every Chareidi did serve, Israel’s draft laws would still apply to your son. So I don’t see what one has to do with the other.
Then, of course, there are the other issues of why it is simply not possible to ask a Chareidi to, CH”V, serve in the IDF.
For one, since the main purpose of the IDF is to turn its enlistees into “Israelis”, this is a major non-starter for a Chareidi whose life is devoted to the Torah and not, ch”V, to Zionism or any other ism. As well, there are the many well-known immorality and other anti-Torah problems that make IDF service a non-starter. These make international news, and are not exactly a secret.
As well, the Chareidim have suffered terribly because of this State that they very much didn’t want (and, it is certainly clear by now, that this State has been terrible for Jews).
The Zionists wouldn’t even have the basic decency to let the Chareidim earn a living. Meaning, their “ptur” of “Toraso umanuso” was conditional on literal mesiras nefesh of Zionist-forced impoverishment. It is a further chutzpah to now attempt to shmad these Chareidim, who preceded the Zionists in E”Y.
GAW:
The problem with that approach is that, unlike the US or Britian, this State of Israel is a chilul Hashem, shmad, etc. and you cannot divorce your being a Jew from anything.
So it’s not possible to have national pride in Israel even in that sense, whereas in the countries of the nations of the world, our Torah commands us to seek the welfare of the country in which we reside so, lichaora, it does not conflict with the Torah to be proud to be living as a Jew as a citizen of the medinah shel chessed, for example.
Just Emes:
The oaths are a big problem, regardless, and, by way of analogy, there is no way to slaughter a pig according to halacha because a pig is simply assur. In other words, having a frum government in Israel would not help the problem of the oaths.
Contrary to your wishes, there simply is no “eilu viEilu” by Zionism and the State of Israel. As I have written, the pikuach nefesh alone is more than enough to have forbidden founding the State liChol haDeios including those Rabbis, as I have written numerous times and as you can see from that HaPardes.
Once again, there is no legitimate halachic basis and mesorah for Zionism and the State of Israel.
Just Emes:
You really need a new screen name, in my very humble opinion.
Regarding the rest of your post, you still refuse to understand the basic truth about the State and Zionism that any student of history is well aware and that Rab Chaim Brisker foresaw even in his life time:
no, contrary to your repetitive Zionist propaganda, the State is not neutral and democratic. It is shmad.
As Rav Chaim wrote, it’s not that the Zionists want a State and therefore resort to shmad to achieve that end; rather, the reason the Zionists want a state is that they want to shmad.
Even according to your story, Rav Moshe did NOT hold it was not a problem. All he held was that the reason the State was founded was that the “B”D of Klal Yisrael” paskened that it should be founded. That doesn’t mean that he held that this “B”D” was correct in their psak. All it means is that because that B”D concluded this way, that therefore Hashem did their will.