Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ANONANO:
This has all been covered before. Read Rabbi Soloveichik’s own words: yes, the goal of MO was and is to modernize because traditional Orthodoxy was supposed to not be able to survive in America. But netzach Yisrael lo yishaker, and traditional orthodoxy (Litvish and Chassidish) have both flourished while MO laments “Ultra-Orthodox Triumphalism”.
Besides, your explanation of MO seems odd, besides for it being factually false. “It does claim to engage in the outside world within the constraints of halachah and accept the risks that come along with it.” So does that mean a male is permitted halachicly to attend a Broadway show and “accept the risks that come along with it”? Does that explain why YU’s Commentator (one time I happened to pick one up somewhere) had a review of a bar/pub, clearly an issur to even walk into (male and female), with lishonos shel pritzus in the review as well? Come on. It is not “within the constraints of halacha”.
Zionism is heresy and idolatry according to the Satmar Rav, Rav Elchonon, the Brisker Rov among any others. Making that a part of your faith is not Judaism. One may think it is, but one is entitled only to one’s own opinion, not one’s own facts.
The goal of Zionism is to replace the Jewish nation with a Hebrew Goy, like every other nation of the world. This continues even today. Religious Zionists still delude themselves into thinking they can kasher this chazir, but that is their mistake that even Rav Chaim Brisker, way back then, knew was doomed to failure (and forbidden).
I don’t need to attack those Rabbis; according to our greatest sages those Rabbis (particularly, their rebbeim), are terribly mistaken. Both Rabbi JB Soloveichik and Rabbi AY Kook were condemned by many great Rabbis.
It’s not a case of “Eilu viEilu”. These great rabbis made equally great mistakes, which the great sages of the time called them out on, and, unfortunately, their talmidim continue to perpetuate those mistakes.
Read the old threads. Better yet, ask your (non-MO) LOR.
Traditional Orthodoxy, of whatever flavor you like, is the only Orthodoxy. The Torah is perfect and neither needs nor wants to be modernized. Rabbi Soloveichik claimed he needed to do so because American life demanded it. Clearly, this is not the case, yet MO persists in their ways. Kol haMosif goreia.
Wolf:
Parents, siblings and children have their own issur ervah. What does one have to do with another?
Sam2:
Even if they do grow up together, it doesn’t matter. Once they grow up, it is at least as possible as by any pinuyah that one or both of the cousins will develop a “romantic” attraction to the other.
Who says that R’ Moshe’s halacha doesn’t seem to apply to cousins?
The “proud MO” want to hear examples and also engage in name-calling, but, as soon as an example is brought up, they even admit it but they say “let’s leave that aside for now”.
My post above (and this one as well) is, in fact, probably ahavas chinam, but certainly not sinas chinam. I do not CH”V hate MO people. But it is absurd to claim that it is halachicly permissible to “modernize” Orthodoxy as MO delude themselves into believing and as some here are promoting.
(While on the topic of sinah, I saw recently the piece from Rav Meshulam Dovid Soloveichik (MO should recognize that name, as well as his father the Brisker Rav…) who, in the context of Zionists forcibly drafting Yeshiva boys, quoted Dovid HaMelech “Misanecha Hashem esna…” Perhaps that is too offensive to MO’s modern sensitivities (so MO would ignore that, too, one supposes), but there is also a mikor for requiring sinah in certain cases.)
Zionism is another area that MO would “leave aside for now”. The greatest Torah giants (the Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Satmar Rov and many others, in no particular order) spoke against Zionism, both well before and after Israel was founded, and recent Torah sages have confirmed the terrible errors of Zionism. The Zionists have acknowledged a small portion of their misdeeds. Yet MO makes this heresy of Zionism one of the most important parts of their theology.
Read the old threads; Zionists have no answers and MO (which, besides for its problem of making Zionism a tenet of its faith) also has no answers.
Feif Un:
Sectarian affiliation is, of course, not a guarantee of never sinning.
However, one difference between traditional Orthodoxy and MO is that, unlike traditional orthodoxy, MO claims certain aveiros are muttar. MO has attempted (with decreasingly-limited success, B”H) to redefine Orthodoxy to include being matir their violations of halacha.
Although we do not know Hashem’s ways, you can ask your Rebbi or LOR if you want to get as close as possible.
Having said that, liPilpula biAlma:
I think Ben Levi’s post re: R’ Shmuel Berenbaum is instructive.
There are other factors as well, both spiritual and, lihavdil, material:
1. Rav Elchonon HY”D wrote, before the Holocaust, that Hashem created, midah kiNeged midah, a merger of the two idols served by Jews at the time: Nationalism (i.e. Zionism) and Socialism.
2. Kivan sheNitan rishus…
3. liHavdil, on a material level, there was the very existence of Zionism as well as Zionist treachery that were major factors as well. (This is not a secret, much as the Zionists wish otherwise and blaspheme and besmirch our gedolim in attempting to rewrite history. See R’ Weissmandl, R’ Avigdor Miller and many others, in addition to researched and documented secular sources.)
What does “socially acceptable” or “whatever makes you comfortable” have to do with taava? It doesn’t, and these are halachic matters, not whatever you think is for you.
Writer Soul, it is understandable if a younger male cousin (mistakenly, but still) believes you’re like a sister to him, more than one who is closer in age to you.
ZDad, thinking of a cousin as a brother or sister is a nice concept – until somehow one of them doesn’t any more think of the other as only a cousin when something about the other person appeals to them in a non-cousin type way.
Chazal knew a lot better than some people give them credit for. Ask a Rav, as I wrote above.
Pirkei Avos: Al Tarbeh scha im haIsha. BiIshto amru Kal vaChomer biAishes chaveiro.
As others have said, since a cousin is no less of an ervah than any other pinuyah, the same “lo siKrivu liGalos ervah” applies.
A competent Rav should be consulted for the particulars of any practical exceptions.
ROB makes a good point that this letter seems to have been retracted.
It would be wise to avoid judging and besmirching someone without all the facts.
Gimar Chasimah Tovah.
I once heard (I don’t recall where/what) that the Machnisei Rachamim tefillah is, essentially, simply asking the malachim to do their job, as in to deliver the tefillos to Hashem as they are supposed to do, not that we are davening to them.
I’m not sure how “hishtadlu viHarbu sichina…”, though, fits into that.
Again, Pirkei Avos says “Asei licha Rav”. This applies to Rebbetzins, too. In fact, there is a concept of a “Rav’s Rav”; even Rabbanim need a Rav.
Find a Rav who will answer your questions. Perhaps ask your husband to do so for you. Surely someone can address your goal, whether or not learning gemara is an appropriate medium to accomplish this.
Moshe emes viSoraso emes. Kisiva VaChasima Tova to all of Klal Yisrael.
Regarding the OP’s statements:
“The more I advanced in my reasoning abilities, the more the Judaism stuff began to seem… silly”
“It’s hard to stay inspired when the Jewish ideas start to unravel because they pale in comparison to everything else you know. Especially since the emotional attachement one feels to things weakens as they get older… and the BY system relies heavily on emotions.”
Your post sees to be conflating two distinct points: what a Jewish education should be and if/when it is permissible for women to learn gemara.
Education, both for men and women should NOT be based on emotion but rather on logic and proofs. It is embarrassing to say that one’s attachment to and knowledge of Toras Emes is purely emotional.
Regarding women learning gemara, as others have mentioned, there are shitos who permit *individual* (not classroom) gemara study for women. If that really would make you happy, (though, based on your post, I am not convinced it would make you happy), speak to your Rav and see how you like learning gemara.
(Rabbi Orlofsky has an interesting talk on this issue of women learning gemara. If I recall correctly, he said something to the effect of Chazal say that women won’t find intellectual satisfaction in gemara learning like men do. So if you don’t believe Chazal in this area, then why do you want to learn their gemara?)
I think you might wish to clarify what exactly you mean by “Jewish ideas start to unravel” and “pale in comparison to everything you know”, CH”V, before you decide that gemara will somehow resolve any of this.
Moshe emes viSoraso emes. If you have questions, pirkei Avos teaches us “Asei licha Rav”; ask those questions and get those answers. He might even recommend good seforim for you to read on your own to further satisfy your thirst for knowledge. Neither men nor women should be ignorant in yahadus and CH”V that Chazal ever said they should be.
Nice.
truthsharer:
What does the “oasis” have to do with Zionism? Sedom and Amorah were “kiGan Hashem”, back in the day. Do you condone their deeds, too?
Eventually, Hashem did destroy those cities, incidentally. But do you know Hashem’s plans that He plans on never kicking out the Zionists? Are you also not aware that Hashem is “erech apayim”?
Besides, are you not grateful that Hashem has rachmanus on His people in Eretz Yisrael, regardless of merit level?
No, JF:
“Living among idol worshippers” does not mean shmaded by them.
The Zionists do try to make yishuv haAretz more important than living as a Jew.
Do you really think G-d allows you to live as an idol worshipper just so you live in E”Y?
And, if you really think so, why does the Torah say “ki es mizbichosam tototzu”, to destroy their idolatry, etc. lest the land kick you out?
JF:
In part, because you can’t sacrifice your own service of G-d to do so. Being shmaded in Israel in not an acceptable down-side to being “a light unto” the non-religious there.
Toi:
Please, by all means, argue better than I did so I don’t have to demean myself by arguing in that fashion. I would much prefer a talmid chacham set the record straight rather than my own paltry posts.
ROB, it certainly is an halachic matter, as you continue to refuse to believe.
As I wrote earlier, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein wrote that “One can view nineteenth-century European Nationalism as an appropriate matrix for Rav Kook’s thought, and there is no dearth of analogues to Hegel, Bergson and others in his writings”.
As well, gedolim said Rav Kook was misguided and some went so far as to decry him in addition to his works, while others forbade learning from at least some of his seforim.
It is said that a famous talmid of Rav Kook’s and a R”Y in his own right, publicly took down the picture of his Rebbi, Rav Kook.
So you can either get your hashkafos and halachos from the Torah world, or you can choose to get yours from “nineteenth-century European Nationalism” by a great Rav who, unfortunately, was misguided or worse according to the gedolim.
But a Rabbi of Berlin surely knows better than everyone else. It’s quite obvious what you choose, of course.
rebdoniel, there is nothing wrong with quoting Rav Hirsch as a raaya against Zionism or for any other reason, even if TIDE is a different valid derech. So what?
ROB continues manufacturing his lies and propaganda, presumably because he is infatuated with his idol of Zionism and he admitted on these boards that even if he saw Rav Elchonon’s words black-and-white that he would still be a Zionist.
The halachic applicability of the three oaths, and Zionism’s violation of both, are not in any real dispute, as has been posted here throughout many threads.
Zionism, itself, is shmad, and its shmad is also ongoing, as has also been posted on these boards.
Naftush:
Which of Rav Hirsch’s “spiritual successors” are prominent in the “Religious Zionist” movement?
TOI:
Zionist evil propaganda to the contrary, loyalty to Germany did not “blow up in our faces”. According to the gedolim, it was various forms of nihye kiChal haAmim, including Zionism, that “blew up in” their faces. Rav Elconon wrote that two idols served by Jews at the time were Nationalism (Zionism) and Socialism. In heaven, an unholy merger of the two (Nazism, of course) was sent to chastise for those beliefs.
Even in Mitzrayim, it was only when the Jews there tried to “assimilate” (liSheim Shamayim, to avoid the galus that they knew was coming) that Hashem caused the Melech Chadash to rise and the “good life” to switch to hate and enslavement. See the Medrash and Beis HaLeivi there.
Why not take the Torah’s viewpoint over the Zionist lies?
Sam2, I certainly trust you on this one, but isn’t the whole issue by two sisters that they wouldn’t “tell” on each other and, therefore, even two is not enough?
If this is so, then why would two unrelated women be a problem? Would one not “tell” on the other?
ROB:
Once again, as Rabbi Resiman (not from previous generations, incidentally) said bifnei Am viAida, the issue of the oaths never changed even after the State’s founding; only the tactics on the ground did.
There is no disagreement regarding the oaths, only regarding the tactics post-establishment of the State, like working from within, etc. I am not discussing tactics.
So I am quoting not, as you struggle to convince yourself, a “minority opinion”, but rather the only opinion.
I also won’t bother to ask you to read the answers to your questions because, as I wrote, you will not give up your idol, no matter what.
The Zionists violated both oaths.
HaLeivi:
As far as the umos not keeping their oath making any difference regarding us keeping our oaths, there is nothing to argue; it is nonsense.
The purpose of the oaths is to keep the Jewish people alive in galus. Regardless of what the goyim do, we need those oaths for our own protection in galus.
The Rambam, in Igeres Teiman, told them that even though they were heavily oppressed, they were still bound by the oaths.
GAW:
Deos Kozvos, even heresy, do not necessarily invalidate the believer himself.
HaLeivi:
The Arabs come into the picture for at least two two reasons:
The first is that Arabs lived in Eretz Yisrael and they did not agree to Zionist rule over them.
The second is that the Zionists fought (the Arab country) Jordan, an established government, in 1948.
As to the British “giving the land to the Jews”, the Brits themselves said that the Jews read much more into the Balfour Declaration than they had intended.
They never intended to turn over the entire “Palestine” to Zionist control, not even the part remaining after they gave away Trans-Jordan to the Hashemites.
And, in the end, the Brits never gave it to anyone but simply left the area.
The dechikas haKeitz is creating their own sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael, even if every Goy on the planet told them to, because this is something that Mashiach will do.
By the way, I don’t dispute the possibility or even likelihood that Arabs came to Eretz Yisrael because of Jewish progress in the 19th Century. But it’s not relevant to this.
The Zionists violated both oaths.
Ask a Rav.
Two sisters and one man is yichud, but I’m not sure any two women and one man is necessarily yichud.
It also depends on other factors, like whether or not the man is a “kasher”.
Ask a Rav.
ROB cannot help but defend his idolatry even at the expense of the truth.
This has been discussed earlier and the oaths are applicable according to various poskim throughout the ages and Rabbi Reisman recently stated lifnei am viAida that the difference of opinion was only regarding working from within, not regarding the oaths which remain applicable even the State’s founding.
And the UN does not take away either oath. The Zionists took far more than the UN allowed and the Arabs never allowed it at all. The UN is not, lihavdil, the Sanhedrin.
And, at the end of the day, the Zionists needed and still need wars, not a peaceful ascent.
Zionism violated both oaths, shelo yaalu bichoma and shelo yidchaku es haKeitz.
And there are answer for Bayis Sheini, too, but I wasn’t going to protest that particular post. But this one is simply false.
Yichusdik:
Your entitled to your opinion, of course, but we aren’t allowed to derive any new gizeira shava. But read the whole piece, even though you like Rabbi Student, if you want to be intellectually honest about the matter.
Sam2:
I believe there are other answers, in addition to the one I gave. It would be nice if a talmid chacham could post, rather than myself.
But I still maintain the question is pilpul simply because the Rambam himself used it as a basis for a major psak that he, himself, gave. So how could you claim the Rambam pasken differently than his own Mishne Torah?
Regarding others, it’s not just the Maharal who brings the oaths liMaaseh but many others. Please don’t insinuate that this gemara is some fringe belief when it is not so.
So, again, the Rambam himself paskened from those oaths, poskim and rabbanim throughout the ages applied them liMaaseh, and even RZ Rabbis grappled with them as halacha liMaaseh.
So how can anyone accuse me of CH”V being migaleh panim baTorah sheLo kiHalacha when I have simply stated that the Rambam must hold liMaaseh a widely-held halacha from a gemara which he, the Rambam, himself paskened from?
Why, if you wanted to be intellectually honest, would you not admit that there is no way the Rambam disagreed with that gemara’s applicability given that he himself paskened from it, despite your question of why it’s not in Mishne Torah?
HaLeivi and Dr. Hall:
I would still refer you to the question I posed in my previous post.
Charlie:
The whole strength of our faith is in mesorah, the faithful transmission of the Torah from Rebbi to talmid. Otherwise, anyone can make up anything they want and ch”V make a mockery of the Torah.
Now, if you want to take a different Rebbi with an equally valid mesorah from his Rebbi then that is one thing. But to invent your own new mesorah is quite another thing.
I don’t want to discuss the tremendous disagreement that the Torah world’s greats had with both Rav Kook and Rav JB Soloveichik regarding their inventions of their respective new ideas. And Rav Teichtal was not condoning any -ism, including Zionism, as clearly stated in his sefer’s hakdama. He was also writing under tremendous duress, etc. And the gedolim disagreed with him anyways.
But even if you feel they somehow were able to create a new valid mesorah, to do so kiNeged their own mesorah along with the vehement opposition of their peers who claimed their new ideas were against the Torah, is quite difficult to understand.
Again, I refer you to the question I previously posed.
Sam2:
Your academic question as to why it’s not in in Hilchos Melachim is a fair one to an extent: it’s only academic, not a “kushya” on the sugya. Regardless, there are also answers to that question.
But I disagree with the logic of your conclusion. Having “plenty of space” to list the halacha yet not having not done so does not conclusively demonstrate that such-and-such is therefore not a halacha.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, this same Rambam issued a psak based on the Oaths. This conclusively demonstrates that the Rambam himself held them to be in force. Many other poskim also brought them down liHalacha. Even the RZ rabbis grapple with the oaths. So to deny that gemara’s practical applicability outright is, at the very least, simply foolish.
But your academic question does arise, then. One answer I have seen can be found if you Google “A Response to Gil Student”.
Here is a partial quote:
“The fundamental reason why Zionism is wrong is [that] it violates the Three Oaths. That is unchangeable. Now, there is the academic question of why the Rambam did not mention the Three Oaths in Mishneh Torah. The Satmar Rav proposed that the Rambam did not need to mention them because he held that to violate them would be an act of heresy.
If there are other Rishonim who held that all or part of the geulah could happen without teshuva, then they obviously disagree with the Rambam. If they were writing a code of law, they would have no choice but to include the Oaths.”
So that explains the Rambam.
But, again, it’s anyways just pilpula biAlma. But it is interesting (and Torah study), nonetheless. Yasher Koach.
mdd, as I wrote, I believe there was a letter, but there were a number of “irregularities” that invalidate it.
ROB: Your disapproval does not make that gemara non-halachic and, specifically, non-binding. Numerous gedolim, min haYom ad haYom haZaeh based their piskei halacha on the three oaths, so your attempt to disregard the oaths as being non-binding is odious.
Even the “Religious Zionists” love to distort the Or Sameach’s line about the “fear of the oaths having passed”, in a failed attempt to justify their Avoda Zara. If the oaths weren’t binding (i.e. halacha), there would be nothing to “fear” in the first place.
The answer, of course, is that the fear of the oaths, that the Or Sameach wrote, is, of course, very real. And, unlike Zionist distortions, the oaths are very much still binding, even according to the Or Sameach who, while he permitted moving to Eretz Yisrael based on the Blafour Declaration, he was addressing only the oath of aliya biChoma. He certainly did not permit Zionism and its many problems like violating the other Oath with political rule, endangering Jews, CH”V, etc.
In brief, you deny a bifeirush gemara that is brought down Halacha liMaaseh by numerous gedolim throughout the ages, and you do so because it’s merely not mentioned in S”A and Rambam’s respective codes of Jewish law.
I’m sure it didn’t occur to you that there could be a reason why this whole sugya was not mentioned in the S”A and Rambam, and that same Rambam used them as a basis for an halachic psak he, himself, gave, as I mentioned.
As we have both agreed, you want to be a Zionist, and nothing will convince you otherwise. As in, “don’t confuse me with the facts; my mind is already made up”.
Before getting to the rest of your lists, Rav Ovadia, however, is certainly not what you claim he is, as discussed earlier.
For a change, let’s leave out non-MO and non-“Religious Zionist” Rabbanim from this post.
Essentially, it comes down to Rav JB Soloveichik and his own stated admission that he broke from his own mesorah to support Zionism. By extension, Rav JB’s talmidim who propagate their Rebbi’s views are, therefore, not a raaya to anything regarding Zionism as they are following their Rebbi.
I would humbly add, that given the inestimable damage Zionism and, in particular, the State of Israel, has done to Yahadus and so many Jews, one wonders if Rav JB would still think that the State was “Kol Dodi Dofeik” and, therefore, would have taught his talmidim differently.
Regarding Rav Kook: Interestingly, Rav Lichtenstein, who you quoted, writes about Rav Kook that “One can view nineteenth-century European nationalism as an appropriate matrix for Rav Kook’s thought, and there is no dearth of analogues to Hegel, Bergson, and others in his writing”. You can see this quote in Google Books.
So, dear fellow Jews, ad masai atem pochasim al shitei haSiifim?
One’s Torah/Haskafa source helps determine one’s avodas Hashem and hashkafas haChaim. So is it secular ideas and 19th-century European Nationalism that is your chosen source, or is it, instead, pure unadulterated Torah that is your Torah/Hashkafa source?
I believe I heard there was such a forgery.
Both Chazon Ish and Brisker Rav, who were there, stated that the State was a bad “gzeira”. Others held similarly.
ROB: As PBA and others have mentioned to you before, and as you well know, the Shulchan Aruch is not intended to be the sole source of every single halachic area.
But the three oaths are brought liHalacha by many, including the Rambam who applied them in his Iggeres Teiman to the suffering Yemenites who had written to him, and all the way down through the ages.
Zionist Rabbis try (unsuccessfully) to come up with all sorts of reasons as to how, in their opinion, Zionism escapes violating these most severe prohibitions (at least their consequences, R”L L”A, are most severe). Our gedolim would not have any of it.
You know all this, and your opinions on the matter are on these boards.
You prefer the Zionist “answers” to the unanswerable questions.
So your attempt at using the Shulchan Aruch in your defense is also disingenuous as you know it’s not because the matter is not halachic when matters of Zionism very much are halachic issues, despite that the State is already a reality for decades now.
Ask a posek if it is permitted to rebel against the nations. Ask a posek if it’s permitted to be oleh biChoma to Eretz Yisrael. Ask a posek if it’s permitted to sacrifice even a drop of Jewish blood for even a millimeter of Zionist ownership of Eretz Yisrael. Ask a posek if one may support the State of Israel financially or otherwise. Ask a posek if one can give precedence in halachic matters to IDF officers and their orders over one’s own Rav, as IDF officers have already instructed the yeshiva boys who have gone to their induction into the IDF, CH”V.
Are you implying that these and others are not questions for a posek?
DaasYochid, I concur.
Thank you, “About Time”. I appreciate your posts here, especially in this thread.
Sam2, we have in the past discussed Rav Ovadia and, from his own words, it is clear he is not a Zionist. If you could quote those SHU”T (Lashon HaKodesh is fine) or tell me where to read them online, I would be happy to do so, as I previously also mentioned.
But even the Agudah members (who disagreed with the many great Rabbis who opposed them and the State), who did vote to accept the State’s imminent founding, did so with the hope that there could be some good that would come from that evil and on condition that the Zionists would not interfere with religious life there.
So I find it very unlikely that, based on the above, miKatzeh el haKatzeh, anyone could seriously claim “the medinah is a good thing”, as you write.
But I would be happy to see those teshuvos, if available, as I said.
truthsharer, while the State obviously is a fact on the ground, it is not all theoretical at this point. The IDF is but one example. So it is instructive and, indeed, crucial, to understand that Zionism and the State are Treif. Then one can proceed to the issues that are at hand.
Feif Un:
Judaism is not something one can practice any way one wishes. I have quoted gedolim who have spoken very harshly of some mistaken movements that have come up among certain Jews. If you don’t like their opinions, please feel free to find your own that disagree with them. But, to my knowledge, I am not a rasha, and if you aren’t even interested in my mechila, then I guess I needn’t mention it further.
In addition to the two holy great sages you mentioned, the Chofetz Chaim and Rav Elchonon HY”D, whom, as others have pointed out, knew very well already what Zionism was and is, I have also quoted from the Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish who both lived in Eretz Yisrael through the founding of the State and various atrocities, like yaldei Tehran, committed by Zionists both before and after the State’s founding. So you are being disingenuous, to say the least, by claiming that gedolim’s opposition to Zionism was theoretical and also limited to before the State. This is simply not true.
(I don’t understand why you continue with your Lashon HaRa about Satmar. I did not even quote, Rav Yoel Zatza”L, though, as Rabbi Reisman wrote, this is not a “Satmar” shita; it is everyone’s shita. The main difference between Satmar and the other gedolim was tactical, post-establishment of the State. The Satmar Rav (and others) forbade “working from within” while some other permitted that. But none condoned Zionism, CH”V.)
Which gedolim are those who you claim “gedolim who say Israel is a brachah from Hashem!” As I mentioned, it is not a difference of opinion. Zionism and the State of Israel violated and continues to violate both of the two oaths that apply to Jews, according to the gedolim.
It is also a gross insult to the Torah, and to all thinking (not to mention to all the shmaded) Jews, to label as “a “Bracha” a Zionist State, whose very existence is to redefine a Jew from Torah-observant to Nationalist Goy. The Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish both called it a gizeira. History has further shown the utter disaster this State was and is. But you know better, I guess.
As to your “argument” that the goyim violated their oath and therefore we may violate ours, if you understood the sugya at all, you would know that this is not only wrong but that it makes no sense. The oaths are there for our protection in galus; why would anyone want to give that up?
Again, whom are those that you claim that the Nations’ oath “clearly was broken, so according to many, the 3 oaths no longer apply”?
There are not “many Rabbanim on both sides of the issue”. That is clear. As Rabbi Reisman wrote, the founding of the State did not change the applicability of the three oaths as held by all; it merely changed the tactics on the ground.
ROB, other than false prophets of Zionism, we do not have neviim today, as you write. We do, however, have the Torah, B”H. Our gedolim have taught us that the Torah, (and not Zionism), is our sole source of guidance (and not just a “rules book”, CH”V, as some mistakenly believe).
Let’s take your attempt at humor to its obvious conclusion: if someone were to ask the great rabbi of berlin if one should commit a sin, your answer, then, would be that we don’t have neviim and so we don’t know what Hashem wants of us.
Once again, while we may not always know for certain what is the ratzon Hashem, there are many times when it is quite clear what is or is not the ratzon Hashem and others that may require a sheilas chacham, etc. to determine the Ratzon Hashem there. You love to quote (when it’s convenient for you, of course) Yiftach biDoro kiShmuel biDoro.
Naftush:
You are writing “liShitascha”, and drawing conclusions that aren’t there in my words; you are confusing that which will be done at redemption and that which helps bring the redemption. Founding a State falls into the former only, not the latter.
I did not write that founding a State could bring the redemption. According to our gedolim, this State even did just the opposite: it pushed off the geulah.
Among its many problems, founding a State before Mashiach is Dechikas HaKeitz, which means doing something which may only be done at the Keitz.
rebdoniel seemed to imply that it was necessary to help Hashem in bringing the redemption and, therefore, in founding a State, in the form of the State of Israel.
In response to that, I merely pointed out that if your goal is to “help Hashem” then there may be other things (like simply doing the ratzon Hashem) that are permitted and help bring the geulah.
But even if you believe (against what our gedolim have stated) that founding a State would be helpful in bringing the geulah, founding a State is very much forbidden (for starters) as dechikas haKeitz because this will only be done during the keitz.
Sam2, allow me to please mention that I enjoy your erudition in other threads.
But, to answer your question here:
I don’t know why you believe that I “hold that the majority of the CR (and Frum world) are Ovdei Avodah Zarah and have no Chelek in Judaism.” CH”V.
To be clear, as I have posted in the past, belief in heresy does not necessarily make one a heretic. Etc. But Zionism is, regardless, Avoda Zara, according to the gedolim.
I thought this site is called the Yeshiva World, not the Mizrachi World. If I am correct in this notion, then it is worth noting that the Yeshiva World (as in where YWN got its name from) seems to look up to (and learns sefarim from) its past greats like the Chofetz Chaim, his talmid Rav Elchonon, the Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, et al.
These greats were all vehemently against Zionism. Quoting their (and others’) words about Zionism thus seems quite relevant to the Yeshiva World, in my humble opinion.
If this were YU’s blog, however, I concede it would be “out of place” there.
I’m sorry if your background does not conform to these gedolim’s views.
If you disagree with my understandings here, please feel free to let me know where you believe I have erred in the above.
DaMoshe, for his sake, please make sure he is aware of my previous post.
I do respect your opinion that I am “misguided”, though.
I am amazed that anyone can decide someone is a “complete rasha” based on some posts in a forum quoting gedolim regarding the various and numerous problems with Zionism. To call someone a complete rasha based on that sounds like mainstream Zionist “thought”, I guess.
I suppose you might wish to ask mechila from all of Satmar for baselessly calling their mehalech “Avoda Zara”.
It so happens that I generally do not quote the Satmar Rav ZaTza”L. So they are not relevant to this discussion. Nor is any Lashon HaRa about them called for.
Besides this, however, Rabbi Reisman is not “Satmar”. Neither were the various gedolim from earlier generations whom I quoted such as Rav Elchonon HY”D, the Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, et al. So trying to pretend all this is unique to “Satmar” is disingenuous, as I have pointed out.
rebdoniel:
It so happens that I humbly believe your understanding of the Rambam is not correct. But this is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
What is certainly clear from many great Rabbis (and the Rambam would certainly concur) is that Zionism was and is forbidden. One of the three oaths is to not hasten the redemption before its time. This applies even to excessive prayer, and certainly to actions on the ground. There could be other practices that help bring the redemption that are permitted. But founding a State far exceeds that which is halachicly permitted.
Seeking G-d in a manner that is very much against His will is obviously not a bright idea, no matter how much you wish to seek G-d.
ROB:
While Israel is indisputably a geopolitical fact, Zionism and its State is at least as treif now as it was in the past. Thus said many far greater Rabbis than, I daresay, even yourself, “Rabbi of Berlin”.
Your latest line that “we never know exactly what Hashem wants” as if to excuse Zionism because of that, is, at best, deception. You know very well what Hashem does NOT want. Yet because Hashem’s wishes, that are known from his Torah, conflict with your Zionist agenda, Zionists have this agenda take precedence over the Torah.
Zionists, yourself included, have no answers other than avoiding the truth, uncomfortable (for Zionists) as that truth may be.
Feif Un:
I suppose if there was a call for unity among Jews by the eigel haZahav you would have been urging Aharon to join in and worship the eigel and condemning Chur as having been deserving of being stoned to death for his opposition.
I am not mochel you for your curse to not greet Mashiach. How dare you curse your fellow Jews?
You make the usual Zionist mistake of conflating Zionism and its State with, liHavdil, Eretz Yisrael.
Ironically, contrary to popular (yours included) belief, it is the Zionists who are the haters of Eretz Yisrael with the terrible kefirah and spiritual decay with which they pollute Eretz HaKodesh.
It is the non-Zionist Jews who stand up to protest this chilul Hashem in Hashem’s palace.
The last part of your post is most puzzling, though. Mashiach is not oveid A”Z, CH”V. Therefore, he cannot be a Zionist. So why would you be chosheid biKisheirim that anyone (other than a Zionist) would call him a Zionist? I am sure he will not be a Zionist.
yichusdik:
Read Ikvesa DiMishicha.
Nationalism, including Zionism, is Avoda Zara. Period.
Yes, emphasizing Yishuv HaAretz over other mitzvos is also wrong, but it pales in comparison to this.
jfem:
Your point was obvious, but also, unfortunately, obviously wrong.
Jews are forbidden from rebelling against the nations and hastening the redemption; Zionism and the State of Israel are in violation of both of these oaths. Many great Rabbis refused to speak even a word of “Modern Hebrew” and castigated the State and Zionism in the harshest and severest terms.
But you think you know better, that it was Hashem giving us an “opportunity for political power”. This “opportunity” anways turned out to be an unparalleled major disaster, both physically and spiritually, just as the Torah greats, from the Chofetz Chaim and on, had predicted.
We would be much better off without all those tens of thousands of Jewish human sacrifices at the altar of this idol (and that’s before the Zionist shmad of countless others, still ongoing).
To use your “mashal” more correctly, it is Zionism that was and is “drowning” the Jews; whereas living as Torah Jews, free of Zionism and other isms, throughout the world, whether among the Nations or in Eretz Yisrael, is the “lifeboat” that has sustained our people since the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash. May Hashem redeem us all BB”A.
Nigritude, it is their life, but the Torah does not agree that a man can be equally fulfilled regardless of marital status, if that’s your implication.
Hashem himself said “Lo tov heyos haAdam livado; eeseh lo eizer kiNegdo”. And he created Chava for Adam, rather than leaving Adam a “bachelor”.
rebdoniel:
May Hashem guide you on the right path in pleasantness, in all areas, including this one.
Regarding a 30 yr old unmarried guy being referred to as a “boy”, I would apply “lav davka” to that appellation. Anyone at that age who is successful in parnassa, etc. is clearly not a boy. Similarly, a similar-aged female with advanced degrees and a parnassa may also be called a “girl”.
As you mentioned, there are certain times where halacha distinguishes between married and not-yet married.
But the usage of the terms “boy/girl” rather than “man/woman” or “male/female” is essentially for the gender distinction. But it is certainly not, CH”V, a societal condemnation for their great nisayon.
Benignuman:
Please read Rav Elchonon’s writings. He is clear that Zionism is literally Avoda Zara. As to the Israeli flag, just because Zionism is Avoda Zara that does not mean that the Israeli flag is a forbidden religious symbol (it is not forbidden to place in a shul, according to Rav Moshe). But, regardless, Zionism is A”Z.
yichusdik:
It seems you are implying that tahor is tamei and tamei is tahor.
Hypothetical “national responsibilities” have nothing to do with Zionism since Zionism is treif, as discussed. The authentic and original Judaism is Judaism without, liHavdil, Zionism. The new religion here is Zionism, regardless of “flavor”.
Zushy:
It’s sad that you ROB is fooled by Zionism, but I am sure you are aware that gedolim have said it is assur to read Rav Kook’s writings, and some hold one may not even read the ones not related to Zionism.
gavra_at_work,
As you posted, this is, indeed, what the Brisker Rav told the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish posited to the Brisker Rav that the then-newly-founded State Of Israel is an example of “gezeira avida liHeiBatla”.
To which the Brisker Rav responded that this is only true if it is also viewed as a gizeira. He said that he feared it was not viewed as such and that religious Jews will join the Zionists in running Israel.
Not only that, he said, he feared that the Zionists will get nourishment from our kedusha, from the yeshivos and chadarim that they’d support.
If so, he feared that the State will be a bitter gizeira and that this gizeira ra would remain until the coming of Mashiach.
May Hashem redeem us all BB”A.
Working on it:
I apologize if you felt I was “attacking” you. I certainly wasn’t judging you; perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your words; I apologize, if this is the case.
Please understand that your statement that the chareidim should leave is very offensive because the Chareidim were there long before the Zionists made their mess there.
Furthermore, after all the shmad the Zionists did to chareidim and others and the security problems the Zionists have created with their foolish provocations from well before 1948 and beyond, the very least the Zionists could do at this point would be to leave the chareidim alone and let them learn and work without forcing their shmad IDF on them.
Though it was not addressed to me, from the end of your recent post, I wonder how you can reconcile ahavas haTorah with what you wrote. First, are you really comparing the IDF shmad and znus to the NYPD? Seriously?
Of course one’s local PD deserves gratitude for what they do. And an individual soldier who saves lives is to be commended for that, too.
But, yes, it is too much to ask that Jews should remain silent while their brethren serve as walking billboards for the IDF, that den of shmad and znus, so antithetical to the Torah, that even current rabbanim have called it a gezeira and are willing to uproot their lives and yeshivos with them and leave Eretz Yisrael because of this gezeira.
benignuman:
Rav Elchonon HY”D was pretty clear, I thought, in Ikvisa DiMishicha that he considered Zionism to be Avoda Zara and not “lav davka”.
Redefining a Jew, as Zionism does, from a Torah-based oveid Hashem to a Nation/State-based “Hebrew” (i.e. Zionism), seems to qualify as literal avoda zara, in my humble understanding.
The Brisker Rav’s calling Israel the Satan’s greatest triumph since the eigel is, I think, very telling, especially since he was known to measure his words very, very carefully.
But you know better than them and others?
oomis:
Where in the Torah does it say that defending Zionist control of Eretz Yisrael supersedes Talmud Torah (or anything else, for that matter)?
And if you’ll answer that it’s pikuach nefesh of its citizens, then consider that shmad and arayos supersede even pikuach nefesh.
See what a big mess the Zionists made?
yichusdik:
I guess you don’t get it. It is *your* way that is the “chiddush”.
leibidik:
No, I do not agree.
Regarding hakaras haTov to an individual soldier, the OP wrote “Obviously one owes a debt of gratitude to one who does something for you, if he risks his life in doing so, all the more so.” But that’s irrelevant and not his point.
His point was regarding the IDF as a whole, which is an entity of shmad and znus.
The gemara he quoted clearly applies to the IDF as a whole. Its main purpose is as described above, though it obviously does perform military duties, too.
I think the OP wrote it best.
ROB, Israel’s chief rabbi matters to Jews outside Israel because their policies ultimately affect Jews worldwide when it comes to things like geirus and mamzeirus.