HaKatan

DaMoshe:

What sinas chinam? I don’t understand.

Assaf, please don’t misunderstand this discussion, which is academic.

I wish you G-d’s help to do good for His children, and may you always return home safely and complete in mind and body.

Just Emes:

I recall the thread from which you copy and pasted that whole post from. I presume you felt it would be better for me to repeat myself rather than copy my own responses in that thread.

Regardless, what comes out from your post is as follows:

There is nobody of note who seriously believes that the Zionists had a halachic right to found their State.

(Even the Zionists know that they had, AT BEST, a 50/50 chance of succeeding, viHaRaaya, look at what it took. So the pikuach nefesh alone would have been reason to not declare the State, even without the issue of the oaths.)

Even if your mistaken cheshbon regarding the UN was correct, which it is factually not, that would only cover the oath of being oleh biChoma.

It doesn’t mention that the Zionists took land which they were forbidden to take, like “West Jerusalem”. The UN intended that to be an international city, and it likely would have become an international city had the Zionists not brazenly chosen to go on the offensive and attack and try to conquer the Jerusalem, at which point they brought the Jordanians into the war and further sakana that this entailed. But that part was definitely biChoma and against the will of the nations.

But it would anyways NOT cover the oath of being madchik haKeitz, of having sovereignty before Mashiach, even with full permission, or even coercion to do so, of every single gentile on the planet.

So that’s anyways a non-starter.

Regarding this “B”D of Klal Yisrael”, you are grossly misunderstanding this.

As the Brisker Rav stated, the reason the state came into being is that Jews in Meah Shearim davened for the State instead of Mashiach and, as the poster there quoted Rav Weintraub, because the “B”D of Klal Yisrael” paskened that the State should come into action, EVEN THOUGH THEY PASKENED INCORRECTLY!

The Brisker Rav and the others held, and this is clear in hindsight, that this “B”D” was wrong in their pask, rationale, and hashkafa.

Psak: It was and is assur to have founded that State. Nothing to talk about.

Rationale: if you look at that “HaPardes”, the “B”D”‘s “support” for a State was CONDITIONAL on the following two items (at least those two, as I recall), none of which were kept by the Zionists:

1 – The State would be established peacefully and with no bloodshed.

2 – The State would not interfere with religious matters.

So their rationale was disproven.

Hashkafa: Their assumption was that since politically it seemed like the State was going to happen that they might as well go along for the ride. As the Brisker Rav noted, Hashem doesn’t look at what Reshaim do; but he does look at what Tzaddikim do.

And since these Tzaddikim paskened there should be a State (albeit conditionally), Hashem fulfilled their psak – with the disastrous results that we have seen, R”L L”A.

As I wrote in that post, the Zionists have no answers.

bklynmom:

Yes, it is a no-brainer.

But the yetzer hara for this avoda zara of Zionism is so strong that people come to the completely opposite conclusion of what is staring them in the face.

If not for Zionism there never would have been an Entebbe. All that is anyways irrelevant.

Zionism is shmad. The Zionists have thrown Jews out of their houses and are plotting to throw many more out of the Beis Medrash, which is their country’s literal lifeblood. Yet people still want to daven for their success?

As well, there is a fundamental difference between generally davening for success of the Zionists and the davening for the Czar that you refer to. Davening for the Czar was in the context that Hashem should have him treat the Jews well. Davening for the Zionists, on the other hand, is more of a cart blanche.

As I mentioned above, we daven that Hashem keep all our brethren safe.

Let’s look at the facts (emes means truth, as in the objective truth, not subjective emotions).

There are some IDF soldiers who do protect some Jews.

There are also soldiers in countries around the world that also protect Jews.

It would make sense that the numbers would be higher in Israel, but this is irrelevant.

(In response to some IDF actions, some goyim have “retaliated” against innocent Jews because they believe the Zionists’ lies that Zionism=Judaism when, of course, the opposite is true. Yes, these goyim are wrong to do so, regardless. Obviously. But that doesn’t change the alleged “cause” of their actions, the IDF.)

Either way, the facts are that not all IDF soldiers protect Jews (some may have other missions), and certainly not all IDF soldiers protect all Jews.

You have also significantly diverged from observable truth by stating “…to protect and save the Jewish people from the enemies who wish to destroy us.”

What you mean is “…to protect and save the people living in Israel from the enemies who wish to destroy them/Israel.”

This is a very important distinction because your way propagandizes the Zionist bald-faced lies about Zionists claiming to be the universal protector of Jews.

Particularly for a screen name such as yours, more precision is required, in my humble opinion.

The bottom line is to daven for the safety of our brethren wherever they may be and let Hashem work out how to run His world.

Health:

Welcome back, all should always be well with you and everyone, and thank you.

Avram:

Thank you.

Sam2:

I am surprised you even had that hava amina.

I explicitly stated in that very same paragraph about Hashem’s “will” that “…bechira chafshis and other related matters, which of course do not in any way contradict Hashem’s omnipotence”.

I also wrote from the Brisker Rav how Tefillah can bring about disastrous results, with his case in point being the State of Israel.

So, the clear implication of that is that the State was (again) of course from Hashem, although it was a result of (terribly mistaken) tefillos to Hashem, not the kefirah of “reishit tzemichat geulateinu” (since you brought up kefirah) or any of that other nonsense.

Although you obviously don’t agree, my salient point to d.s., as “drey kup” wrote and as you surely realized (but which you probably don’t like), was and is “…it’s simply a non-starter that the mere existence of Zionism should somehow grant it any Torah legitimacy.”

davidsamual14:

By your “logic”, Hashem also wanted the Holocaust and every other tragedy to happen. Surely with your knowledge of esoteric concepts of Judaism you are more than familiar with bechira chafshis and other related matters, which of course do not in any way contradict Hashem’s omnipotence.

I pointed out the Brisker Rav’s daas Torah that the State of Israel came into being because observant people in Meah Shearim (were fooled by the Zionists and) prayed for the State to come into being (as well as some other reasons).

Since you mentioned Moshe Rabbeinu, you also likely know that had Moshe persisted in praying to be allowed in to E”Y, Hashem would have let him in to E”Y, which is why He told Moshe to stop praying because this was not Hashem’s will.

Both of these demonstrate the awesome power of Tefillah, not as you misinterpret it as Hashem not being in control, CH”V.

The Yetzer HaRa for this idolatry of Zionism is indeed powerful and tries to abuse the Torah in its defense, but, BE”H, everyone can overcome this if they simply open their eyes to the Daas Torah of our sages (and reality and history) instead of, liHavdil, Zionist propaganda.

Avram:

As to your other questions:

To answer your second question, let’s determine the goal of the prayers.

If your goal is to worship the idolatry of Zionism then praying for the State makes sense, as, unfortunately, our MO brethren have gone so far as to insert into their siddur.

If, however, your goal is to beseech G-d to protect the Jews who live in E”Y simply because they are our Jewish brethren (especially if you also understand that the State of Israel is a tremendous affront to Him), then the most logical conclusion is to simply pray for the safety of our brethren in E”Y and leave the “how-to” to G-d.

Then, if Hashem chooses to do so through the IDF, then that’s His choice. If, instead, He does so by bringing Mashiach now and ending this nonsense and kefira immediately and bloodlessly, that would, of course, be much better.

This was the same mistake made at the time of Israel’s founding. The Brisker Rav said that some observant Jews prayed for a State as their salvation in 1948 instead of for Hashem’s true salvation, and Hashem answered their prayers in kind, with the utter disaster we have seen, Hashem yiracheim.

So it would be very wise to not play G-d and simply pray for the well-being of our brethren and leave to G-d the running of His world.

Regarding politics, there is no question that Israel is held to a different standard than the standard to which the goyim hold (other) goy nations. Notice that all goyim refer to Israel as the “Jewish State” when Israel is, of course, a Zionist state and therefore not a Jewish State despite some Jewish trappings (somewhat like a chazir trying to vainly show it is kosher).

It seems pretty clear that Zionism is the reason for this treatment by the nations. Bilam stated (and Hashem put his words into the Torah) “Hein Am Livadad Yishkon uVaGoyim lo yischashav”. The Zionists are, of course, kofrim in this, too, while Hashem allows the nations of the world to make the Zionists live those words in constant and living refutation of their kefirah.

Regarding working for the State of Israel, while seemingly very ill-advised for any number of reasons, this is clearly an halachic issue that requires the advisement of an LOR.

davidsamual14:

By your logic, Moshe Rabbeinu, who adjudicated civil matters and said “Mi laHashem eilai” and “hirgu ish achiv”, would also be an abomination to Hashem.

The obvious answer is that, as I posted before, shalom and achdus are very important. Hashem even allows His name to be erased for Shalom, in the case of a Sotah. But Moshe Rabbeinu rightly proclaimed the above, despite the very obvious “discord between brethren” this could have caused.

davidsamual14,

Achdus is very nice and machlokes is not.

But idolatry and shmad are far worse. Zionism is idolatry. Zionism is shmad. As a “bonus”, Zionism is also hisgarus baUmos, et al.

Chareidim always understood the evils of Zionism and its terrible effects on Jews. At the time you speak of, at Israel’s founding in 1948, Chareidim there saw the Zionist atrocities against our people, known as Yaldei Tehran, among others. Chareidi opposition to Zionism goes back to the very inception of Zionism over a century ago, not a recent invention as you imply.

We should focus on one goal: understand the truth so that we can serve Hashem as best as we can.

GAW:

I don’t recall seeing your idea you mentioned in your PS. What was that?

Avram:

The point is not what, al pi halacha, the Zionists should do now but that everyone should be crystal-clear that they should never have started and about the damage the Zionists have done and continue to do to Klal Yisrael.

We know, today, what our gedolim have said and continue to hold regarding Zionism and what the Zionists have done and continue to do, some of which the Zionists could certainly stop without any potential problem. Other than that, we do not know what the future holds.

So, as to what the Zionists should do after the above, this is for the gedolim of the generation to deal with.

But people still believe in the heresy of Zionism and make it (part of) their faith.

So, again, the point is recognizing right (Torah) and wrong (any flavor of Zionism).

GAW:

I mostly agree, in general, other than two items:

Your “Satmar: depends”, as you don’t specify what this depends on.

And your reference to my and in general the “Brisker mehalech” which is, to my knowledge, the Torah’s sole view: Rav Aharon Kotler himself said that there will never be a disagreement between himself and the Brisker Rav. The Satmar Rav held that Zionism is a gross violation of the gimmel shevuos. Who of their stature argued with them? This is not merely the “Brisker mehalech”; it is the Torah’s.

I am not aware of anyone of their stature who disagreed and certainly not of anyone whose disagreement with their general stance on Zionism was accepted among the other gedolim.

GAW:

“…discuss how to destroy the state (killing many yidden in the process) with Sonei Yisroel than discuss how to help Yidden with someone who isn’t even a Zionist.”

This is not accepted by anyone other than NK (though even by NK it’s still ironic to label that A”Z when they are fighting the greatest A”Z of the era).

As to your second point, his grandson said Rav Chaim’s words absolutely do have bearing today. In fact, he and others have openly stated that, if the Zionists don’t stop their shmad, that Russia of today would then be preferable to living in E”Y under the Zionists.

You and many others refuse to open your eyes to the shmad and idolatry that is Zionism and instead view Zionism and the State as essentially a good thing, R”L. Also indisputable, and openly admitted by Zionists both then and now, is that the cultural indoctrination organ of Zionism is the IDF.

Were this reality to be understood and accepted despite the A”Z of Zionism, it would be quite obvious that, no, it was not hyperbole.

So, as I wrote, clarified:

The choice of words, calling “mainstream” anti-Zionism (i.e. the Torah’s view) an A”Z, is poor and also offensive to the Torah…

GAW:

And in Eliyahu’s HaNavi’s time, only a small portion of Klal Yisrael did NOT worship the Baal.

I suppose you know better than Torah giants like, to name a few, from the 1800s through today, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chazon ish, Rav Shach, Rav Aharon Kotler, three generations of Brisker Rabbanim including, lihavdil bein chaim liChaim, Rav Meshulam Dovid Shlit”A.

This A”Z of Zionism is so offensive that those who worship this A”Z refer to people who fight the A”Z as ovdei avoda zara. What an achievement by the Satan!

GAW:

From your above post, it seems you feel that fighting Avoda Zara is indeed the same as worshiping A”Z. I guess that’s part of the confusion that comes to one when one is pocheis al shtei haSiifim. People probably said the same then about Eliyahu HaNavi, too.

Putting some light items on the baby’s lap gives the baby something to look at or play with. Since there seems to be no danger and no discomfort to the child, and since there seems to be a plus for the baby, too, I see no problem with this.

GAW, though you admit that Anti-Zionism “is not inherently bad”, you malign them as “making it into its own Avoda Zara”?

Not to directly compare (despite that many gedolim have made such a comparison), but would you say the same about Eliyahu HaNavi fighting Baal-worship – that he “made it into its own Avoda Zara”?

I don’t understand how you could possibly apply that particular term when – how ironic – Zionism is Avoda Zara (and also has plenty of at least one of the other two of the big three aveiros for good measure); which makes Zionism a rather serious matter. And I also don’t know of much anti-Zionist “action” that would remotely make that comparison, “its own Avoda Zara”, seem correct.

So what exactly is it about those anti-Zionists that prompted you to dub their almost single-handed fight against this Avoda Zara, with the name, of all things, of an “Avoda Zara”?

Take it to another thread, old or new, there are plenty to chose from

Charlie:

No, he is not bound by his father’s “psak”, for a number of reasons.

Ask your fellow MO, the erudite Sam2, about the few exceptions to Kibbud Av. Certain marriage and learning-related matters are among those.

As well, other than himself and his students, in whose eyes did Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik qualify as a gadol HaDor? Rav Aharon Kotler, who was a gadol haDor, said some very harsh things about Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik. Agudah’s rabbanim did not either seem to believe he was a gadol haDor; see, for example, their JO piece upon Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik’s passing, which can still be found online. It certainly did not say anything of the sort. Other than MO institutions, what Yeshivos include any of his works in their curricula?

As the founder of “MO”, Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik obviously felt that he needed to found his co-ed day school in Boston. But this doesn’t mean that even he would agree that this was the proper thing to do elsewhere. It also doesn’t mean he would say to do so today when American Jewry has, B”H, advanced far beyond where it was then.

As well, the gedolim of the time did not agree with him on this (among other things). So it is wrong to promote these failed, mistaken and condemned notions of MO.

Finally, the end of your post (before the bracha that you wrote to him) is also ignoring a major flaw of MO, which is the only known Orthodox movement that is mattir issurim (for the sake of modernity).

(The words “be open-minded” usually are code for “look the other way when issurim are committed; it’s okay”.)

So while people of all stripes unfortunately fall prey to the Yetzer HaRa, only in MO (among Orthodox movements) is it accepted to commit certain aveiros. Therefore, one cannot compare the negative effects of living in an MO area to that of living elsewhere.

I would, instead, advise, as Pirkei Avos says, “Asei licha Rav”. It is also very unwise to disregard other maamarei Chazal like “Oy laRasha viOy liShcheino”. (No, I do not mean to imply that MO are, CH”V, rishaim, but the concept of being wary of undue influence still very much applies.)

Finally, while there are indeed a variety of different valid mehalchim in avodas Hashem, that doesn’t mean MO gets to tag along simply because they feel like it. The majority of MO adherents may mean well (the same might be argued of Conservative and Reform as well), but that doesn’t make acceptable the theology of MO.

I commend you for your maturity and astuteness in considering all this and making these determinations.

Similar to DaasYochid’s point, I would say that if your parents, like so many others, have been misled by the mistaken ideology of MO, and it does seem that way from your post, then it also seems understandable that they would give you the type of education that they did, rather than a traditionally Orthodox chinuch because, unfortunately, MO was, presumably, the best conclusion in their minds.

The good news is that a good secular education (like being taught how to properly write and speak in English) can still be very helpful even within kodesh professions, so it’s great that you’ve gotten that education. Lihavdil, any good non-MO Yeshiva high school can do wonders for your religious education as well regardless of the MO issues you’ve had to deal with until this point.

Hatzlacha rabba.

Oomis, very simply: you are conflating two vastly different and, indeed, opposing views.

Love of the land is completely different than Zionism. The Zionists use love of the land as part of their propaganda attempting to confuse people into supporting their idolatry because of that wish to love the land.

Using the term “Zionist” for “love of the land” is untenable because Zionism has a well-established meaning.

By the way, where is there a stated mitzvah to “love the land”?

As thankful as you are for the yeshivos that exist there, are you also thankful for the tens of thousands of Jewish lives it cost to achieve that? Was it worth it? Not to mention the gemara in Kesubos which Zionists can’t answer. It’s not even a question.

Incidentally, many gedolim decried the creation of the State of Israel, even though there were some who agreed to work with it. Agudah was founded back in the day for the express purpose of fighting Zionism. Even nowadays, as modern (not MO) rabbis have stated, nothing has changed. Zionism was and is a very bad idea and against the Torah.

Again, only people who identify with the Zionist movement are Zionist. “We” are definitely not Zionist.

Oomis:

Modern Hebrew has some unique “features” which place it in a different league than, lihavdil, Lashon HaKodesh.

For example, the use of “Chashmal”, which is a very esoteric concept, was intentionally chosen by the Zionists as the word for electricity.

Others include Bitachon for physical security instead of what we know it to be, ViRabbim kaHeina viKaHeina…

edited for the sake of peace

So while I do understand the similarities that do exist between modern “Hebrew” and, liHavdil, Lashon HaKodesh, the above is why this distinction is important.

I agree with Oomis, again, and I stand by my prior post as well. It makes just as much sense to name a baby a “yeshivish” learning name as it does to give a yiddish name.

However, as in the case of the Kaminetsky family that someone mentioned, if you want give the name Mordechai at a Bris but prefer to use Mutty as a nickname, that’s a different matter. People today also “go by” their secular/legal (English) names, too, even though they were given real Lashon HaKodesh names at their bris. Like going by “Jon” instead of Yehonasan.

But you don’t name a kid “Jon” at his bris; you give him a Lashon HaKodesh name. Same with Yiddish. Don’t name a kid, say, “bendit” (or, translated, bandit), for example, at his bris (even as a second name, as someone already pointed out). Give him a real Lashon HaKodesh name and choose a nickname later.

(Obviously, one should ask their LOR, in practice…)

OURTorah, again, thanks.

I fail to see how you concluded I am missing “a small bit” of Ahavas Chinam, based on my words here, but that’s okay…

As I mentioned before, this site is called “Yeshiva World”. So, just as on a “Mizrachi World”, I would expect to see Rabbi Kook almost deified, I would similarly expect to see a “Yeshiva” perspective on YWN, which includes stating the facts of Zionism just as they are.

Of course, for the same reason, I likely would not post (in any manner) on a “Mizrachi World”, because I would assume my comments would be universally rejected there due to the conflict between those comments and their theology.

Again, I don’t believe I have demonstrated any “intolerance” of anyone. So nobody should be “turned off” by anyone or anything here.

But I do appreciate your reminder that baalei teshuva and others who have been raised differently may visit the site.

But because of the educated and observant readership of this site, I feel my direct approach with “Yeshiva World” people in mind is an appropriate approach to all readers.

If anyone has a better way, I’d be happy to hear it.

DaMoshe, this is not about my views, and you also missed that I specifically indicated that the Brisker Rav was in Eretz Yisrael before, during and after the State of Israel was founded. His views, and those of others, remained as they were even after the state’s founding.

The only change, for some, was tactical: whether to “work from within” the State’s politics or to avoid the whole thing. This is a legitimate machlokes that remains.

But there is no legitimate machlokes regarding the severe and insurmountable halachic problems of Zionism and the State of Israel.

As well, modern-day rabbanim have also confirmed that those pre-state views have not changed; and there is anyways no reason to believe they should change. The Torah is, of course, forever.

You are trying in vain to defend the indefensible.

But, again, I believe my points were relevant with regards to the OP. I’m sorry you do not agree, and there is certainly no need to respond.