Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
(Rav Hutner did not attend opera shows after he became Rav Hutner.)
Regardless, you are really asking two questions, and they don’t really impact each other. One question is if today’s “Jewish music” is really “Jewish”? The other question is if classical music is permitted.
Halachic inquiries must be directed to legitimate halachic deciders, like a Rav/Rebbi with a real mesorah…
But it would be foolish to underestimate the awesome power and soul language of music.
DaMoshe:
I don’t see why it’s funny, though I thank you (hakaras haTov) for your back-handed but far too kind compliment that being a Torah Jew is part of my identity (unlike MO/”RZ”‘s identity of “Religion mixed with A”Z” or “A sea of heresy with a drop of Torah mixed in”, etc. depending on the gadol you “ask”).
Sam2:
That would be contrary to basic logic and daas Torah (not to mention current events). Just for example, Rav Meshulam Dovid Soloveichik, son of the Brisker Rav, recently spoke a few times on this topic and was rather clear that there is no such distinction that you wish to make.
Syag:
First, as I mentioned earlier, I did not “insist bad things” about anyone.
Just because Zionism is shmad and your typical Israeli goes through that system, that does not make, and I did not say that, your typical Israeli is, CH”V, a bad person. I don’t see the L”H issue: I did not blame them for anything.
I asked you a simple question which you haven’t answered:
“Let us be clear: for someone who was brainwashed, to hate something, as part of their very identity, would you expect them to have any sort of good feelings towards any of that?”
But I am anyways willing to concede the possibility that your typical Israeli off-the-street might appreciate mishnayos being learned for them, regardless. It’s not relevant.
But akuperma’s post, in my understanding, which is what started this, is correct, as he was referring to the real Zionists, not the man-off-the-street. On this, there can be no question.
I certainly wish you the same.
Syag:
Again, countless gedolim have said that Zionism is shmad. Even with whatever limited emunas chachamim I do have, I believe them on that.
Regarding this instance, too, I have tried to set the reality in light of the gedolim’s words and the little knowledge of my own. If you feel I have erred factually, please let me know.
Let us be clear: for someone who was brainwashed, to hate something, as part of their very identity, would you expect them to have any sort of good feelings towards any of that?
I welcome your response.
rf:
Regarding your motzi shem ra about me that I do not “recognize the importance of E”Y”:
Actually, it is precisely because I do recognize the importance of E”Y that only reinforces the gedolim’s stated views of how Zionism is a non-starter.
Zionism and, liHavdil the land of E”Y are, of course, contrary to Zionist fantasy, wholly separate entities.
Regarding your motzi shem ra about my allegedly not recognizing hashgacha pratis, this is also absurd.
Presumably, you wrote that because I don’t believe in the Zionist fantasy that the very founding of Israel innately means that Hashem wanted it to happen. By your logic, one could say the same about the Holocaust, the Egel, or anything else.
Of course Hashem runs the world. But that He allows something to happen does not at all mean that He “WANTS” that to happen.
My Torah is the one given on Har Sinai and the mesorah from rebbi to talmid that followed.
edited
RF:
Your latest post is incorrect as well.
While it is a halach biYadua that Eisav Sonei es Yaakov, that means that one should be all the MORE careful to NOT “fan those flames”.
If you taunt a wild animal then you can’t claim that it bit because it’s a wild animal. It’s true that if it were a cow that it would not have bitten. But it’s also true that it wouldn’t have bitten if you hadn’t taunted it.
The facts are that the “Religious Zionists” came up with their disgraceful “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu HaKosel Echad” and needlessly provoked the Arabs which did antagonize the Arabs, on top of the rest of the Zionist aggression, and this was the result as testified by those who lived there and knew exactly what was happening.
To be clear, the Arabs had no right to touch even a single hair on the head of a Jew. But that doesn’t change the sheer recklessness of starting up with them.
Syag:
I did not mean to imply that your typical Israeli off the street is Leah Rabin and a “hater”. Not at all. But if they don’t even know what Mishnayos are, and have been taught that, in Ben-Gurion’s words, “Religion is the historical misfortune of the Jewish people”, what nechama could they possibly derive from someone learning mishnayos, assuming they could even tolerate the very thought of it?
To clarify further, if, someone offered to perform some religious act that, in your mind, is totally opposite what you were taught: would that gesture have any meaning to you? I don’t see how it would.
Might you appreciate the gesture just because it was offered, or just for the solidarity? Depending on the person, perhaps it would. But that’s a far cry from claiming it would bring nechama to them.
And akuperma is still quite correct that any Zionist worthy of the name would abhor this “galut stuff”.
Syag:
As Jews, the Torah IS real life. And most Zionists (not “RZ”), who don’t even know what mishnayos are, would not likely be comforted.
Leah Rabin’s line comes to mind, how she would rather her kids be Arab than Chareidi.
b. Israeli Jews who have passed on would, presumably, be included in the generic Yizkor/Keil Maleis just like all other Jews from anywhere else who have passed on.
For MiSheBeirachs, too, please cite one halachic reason that Jews in E”Y are more eligible than others to receive a special bracha just for them.
We daven at least twice a week “Acheinu kol beis yisrael haNisunim baTzara uVaShivya…HaMakom yiRacheim aleihem….” and (non-“MO”) shuls and yeshivos across the world daven for our brethren in E”Y daily if not more by reciting tehillim after davening.
not necessary for your point
Incidentally, the prayers invented by the Zionists are, of course, also problematic in their particular wording, so those are anyways non-starters. We obviously have no need for idolatrous (per our gedolim) add-ons to our tefillos.
What you mean to imply is why people don’t accept the A”Z of Zionism that “MO/RZ” have grafted onto, lihavdil, our holy Torah. The obvious answer is that the gedolim strictly forbade this deviancy in the strongest terms.
Avi K:
a. So, taking your point to its logical conclusion, RAK’s sefarim and everything else in his life are all not worth anything because of your story. After all, it must have been exaggerated or lav davka, or whatever implication you take from your allege story.
Obviously not.
RAK stated clearly that, at its essence, MO is the same as Conservative and Reform. There is no reason to believe he intended “lav davka” here, nor is there a logical “lav davka” alternative, even if your story were true, accurate, etc.
While on that topic, he also said that Rabbi JBS was “machariv America”, as I understand that quote. That could be argued as not literally “destroyed America”.
Besalel and others:
No, the Ramban did not CH”V hold that it is a mitzvah to violate the oaths, risk and lose, R”L L”A, tens of thousands of Jewish lives on the altar of that idolatrous State, etc.
Living in E”Y, not en masse, and with no force needed, and with permission of the nations including of the inhabitants already there, is a different story, but which is anyways entirely inapplicable to Zionism.
As I and others have posted, the Zionists and the State of Israel are still very much fighting to change our people from a Torah-based nation to a goy nation-based nation. Also, from ’48 until today, the gedolim certainly did not moderate their stance against Zionism. In fact, they have repeatedly confirmed that the same concerns, if not more, apply after ’48 through today.
Again, the Satmar Rav’s mashal of the arsonist who set fire to a structure and then ran up with a fire hose like some sort of hero, seems quite appropriate. The Zionists have reneged on their deals with Agudah that Agudah paid for with their collective soul and, as Getzel pointed out, welfare exists everywhere.
DaMoshe:
Please let me know which navi informed you that I hate and that this alleged hate has prevented Mashiach from coming, CH”V.
On the contrary, I’ve pointed out how our gedolim hold (it’s actually a gemara in Sanhedrin) that having a “Jewish State” holds off Mashiach’s coming.
(On other threads, I have also quoted Rav Schwab’s letter begging “our achim biAidah”, the “Centrist Orthodoxy”/”Modern Orthodox” to return to the fold. His piece is entitles to the effect of Love, not Hate.
But Rav Schwab was unequivocal that this does not in any way permit their “…heresy”.)
rf:
Your post is, unfortunately, historically and otherwise, wrong on all counts.
mmys:
Of course the Zionists managed to fool lots of people at the time. They still manage to fool people even with the benefit of hindsight of history and the recorded clear opinions of the gedolim on this subject.
The Brisker Rav wrote that the State only came into being because of the Jews who davened for that State instead of davening for the geula, which Hashem would have given them at the time had they instead done so. So your post is not a chidush.
But whatever your grandfather’s opinion is, or that of others who were there, one can presume that both the Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish were greater than he and the others.
Both the Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish agreed that the state’s establishment was a gizeirah raah. The Brisker Rav pointed out to the Chazon Ish that a gizeirah (raah) avida liHibatla only applies when people understand that it’s a gezeira raah so he feared that this gizeirah would remain ad beas goel, Hashem yiracheim.
On a subsequent Israeli Independence Day, the Chazon Ish was honored with Sandak for three brisos. Despite this, he insisted on saying Tachanun that morning anyways so that nobody would make any mistake about this matter.
But the “Religious Zionists” continue to delude themselves and attempt to delude others who don’t know any better.
DaMoshe:
Actually, the accurate claim, which Zionists cannot refute, is that “life was better for Jews in Eretz Yisrael before Zionism”, not “before 1948” as you wrote, because by that time the Zionists had already engaged in decades of conflict with the Arabs in E”Y.
Regarding the Chevron massacre, as has been posted on these boards numerous times, that was also “thanks” to Zionism, specifically “Religious Zionism”.
Rabbi Baruch Kaplan who was there, said publicly (and others concurred) that the Arabs revolted due to the “Religious Zionists” provoking the Arabs by insisting on having control over the Kosel. “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu HaKosel Echad” was their abominable rallying cry, twisting our holy Shema into a nationalist propaganda slogan that cost innocent Jewish lives.
Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, on the other hand, begged the “Religious Zionists” to stop antagonizing the Arabs and to be grateful that the Arabs did not interfere with Jews davening there. But the Zionists wanted to serve their idol (as per Rav Elchonon).
147:
The reason the British blocked immigration into Palestine during WW II is due to the Zionists fighting with the Arabs so the British didn’t want the Arabs to get even more violent.
If it weren’t for the treachery of the Zionists before, during and after WW II then those Jews might never have been tossed around those third-world countries to begin with. And some of the ones that were might have survived had the Zionists not lobbied governments for Palestine or nothing. Even the Zionists admit that Zionism was (and is, of course) above all, including being above saving Jews in Europe and they put their money where their mouth was.
The Satmar Rav said early in the century that it would be a miracle of tragedy did not befall the Jews in Europe because of what the Zionists are doing.
He also compared the Zionists to an arsonist who sets fire to a house and then runs to get a hose.
Read the despicable lies that Zionists said about Jews in an attempt to change the Jew into a new Goy Hebrew Zionist.
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.