HaKatan

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.

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.

GAW:

I’m not sure why you insist on ignoring reality. As I wrote, “Only in Israel is there a problem of being shmaded by the IDF.” Until this is addressed, there is nothing else to discuss in this matter.

yichusdik:

First, this is not even a question of “ain somchin al haNeis”.

It is, liChaOra, a question of how long the Zionist regime will last as they tighten the screws of shmad and attempt to figuratively vaporize much of their very life-blood who are these Chareidi lomdei Torah (I presume the other limud Torah there also helps them).

The answer to your non-question is “HaYad Hashem Tiktzar?” Hashem can help our brethren there in an instant in any number of ways (including bringing Mashiach, for that matter).

As akuperma noted, there is no possibility of “pshara” when it comes to the Torah and shmad.

The gedolim, both then and now, have stated that the IDF is not a place for any frum Jew, regardless of whether or not he is learning.

The Zionists themselves admit ad haYom that they wish to change chareidim into Israelis. This is textbook shmad.

The bottom line is that the wicked Zionists have refused to allow the Chareidim (who claim a pitur from the army) to work for a living unless they agree to first be shmaded in the army. This is a gross injustice.

It doesn’t make sense to compare these numbers to the Israel Day parade, because there are far more “MO” and mostly/completely non-observant Jews than there are observant Jews.

So given that additional pool of people (secular Jews), it makes sense that a gathering of all frum Jews will not come close to a gathering of secular (and “D”L”) Jews.

As well, unfortunately, for many Jews, the two gatherings are not mutually exclusive. I imagine there were Jews who attended Sunday’s gathering but will still not understand why it makes no sense to attend the Israel Day parade.

Whether 50K or 150K, and on very limited notice, this is quite a large number of observant Jews who understand the evil perpetrated by the Zionists on our brethren in E”Y, B”H.

Sam2:

I believe softwords’ point about the Rabbeim of these “D”L” rabbis is actually quite instructive, because it highlights the utter lack of mesorah (and the halachic invalidity) of “D”L”.

Regardless of this, of course there was a distinction. Never mind “Mizrachi”; even Chovivei Tzion was considered wrong by Rav Hirsch and even by the Netziv later in his life.

Regardless of KDD’s intent, the Zionists are, of course, trying to stop Torah. From Ben-Gurion (and on), the stated purpose of the IDF is shmad. It’s not “just” a few months of army service.

Finally, his reference to “bnai Torah” in this context is not at all insulting; you know exactly what he means. He means someone whose primary occupation is learning Torah, not any Jew who follows the Torah.

As well, why do you assume that the Chareidim WANT to be impoverished? The wicked Zionists left them no choice by forcing them to either be shmaded in the IDF or else to claim their “pitur” that absolves them of army service but NOT to allow them to work. Someone posted this recently on these boards, incidentally.

So, yes, the Chareidim are literally being moser nefesh for continuing Yiddishkeit. That is exactly what the Chareidim are doing in the face of increasing Zionist shmad.

KDD:

I still haven’t seen anyone explain (other than from the Chareidi side, which you would certainly find offensive) why the “Dati Leumi” are not DEFENDING the Chareidim, since part of “D”L” is, of course, Das, or religion. So surely the “D”L” would sympathize with their Chareidi brethren and would want the Chareidim to follow their Daas Torah.

Again, I understood from your original post that the Chareidi position of forbidding service in the IDF results in your son being relegated to “chotvei eitzim viShoavei mayim” relative to chareidim. You’re essentially implying that your son is being made a “second-class Jew”. Yet, in a later post, you say you believe his serving in the IDF is not unfortunate but a Mitzvah. And you also don’t seem to deny that chareidim hold the polar opposite liHalacha.

So while I certainly understand the “divergent views”, I still don’t understand why your original post conveyed these offensive and incorrect implications, especially when your own later posts have shown this is not your true position.

To clarify, the whole “sharing the burden” nonsense (which the IDF itself does not agree with, as they don’t want Chareidim, at least not ones who aren’t prepared to convert to Zionism) is simply another (very serious) Zionist shmad tactic.

I have mentioned Rav Elchonon’s and Rav Chaim’s holy words many times on these boards. There is no known dissent among those accepted in the general Torah world.

So it seems pretty simple to me. Chareidim (and their descendants) who preceded the Zionists are off-limit to the Zionists regarding shmad, the army, denying permission to work, etc. On the other hand, those who, for whatever reason, choose to join the State of Israel and agree with its policies, certainly have that choice.

GAW:

The problem with that approach is that, unlike the US or Britian, this State of Israel is a chilul Hashem, shmad, etc. and you cannot divorce your being a Jew from anything.

So it’s not possible to have national pride in Israel even in that sense, whereas in the countries of the nations of the world, our Torah commands us to seek the welfare of the country in which we reside so, lichaora, it does not conflict with the Torah to be proud to be living as a Jew as a citizen of the medinah shel chessed, for example.

Just Emes:

You really need a new screen name, in my very humble opinion.

Regarding the rest of your post, you still refuse to understand the basic truth about the State and Zionism that any student of history is well aware and that Rab Chaim Brisker foresaw even in his life time:

no, contrary to your repetitive Zionist propaganda, the State is not neutral and democratic. It is shmad.

As Rav Chaim wrote, it’s not that the Zionists want a State and therefore resort to shmad to achieve that end; rather, the reason the Zionists want a state is that they want to shmad.

Even according to your story, Rav Moshe did NOT hold it was not a problem. All he held was that the reason the State was founded was that the “B”D of Klal Yisrael” paskened that it should be founded. That doesn’t mean that he held that this “B”D” was correct in their psak. All it means is that because that B”D concluded this way, that therefore Hashem did their will.

DaMoshe:

Why should you care what I personally hold of Chassidus?

My personal opinion is that I don’t know enough about Chassidus in general to espouse an opinion.

DaMoshe:

Your post may be venturing towards kefirah, so you might wish to be careful in what you write.

I did not insult Rabbi JB Soloveichik. I merely repeated what gedolim held of him and/or his positions and that his own words are that he broke from his mesorah.

Regarding Chassidus, ad haYom, Agudah’s moetzes has both Chassidim and non-chassidim. Whereas Agudah’s founding premise was to fight Zionism and gedolim until this day have confirmed that opposition to Zionism has not changed other than in tactics. Clearly, the two (Chassidus and, lihavdil, Zionism) cannot be intelligently compared.

But if your LOR cannot help you answer this, then I guess you will learn the answer regarding the halachic validity of Chassidus and everything else, BE”H, when Eliyahu haNavi tells us all BB”A.

For such enlightened and intellectually well-rounded people, some of you “MO” are way too easily insulted.

Just Emes:

This is still not emes, and I already pointed this out to you earlier.

If you read the rest of that article, you will see that their “support” for a State was predicated on the assumption that it was going to happen regardless of their support and also based on their expectations of the Zionists.

As the Brisker Rav pointed out, they were wrong on the former point because Hashem doesn’t look at what reshaim do, but at what tzaddikim do and, as you like to quote, the “B”D” of Klal Yisrael” is what caused the State to be created, (and the Brisker Rav seems to agree that this and the tefillos of misguided Jews in meah shearim were the true catalysts).

And as history more than amply pointed out, the conditions these rabbanim set for their acceptance of a State, like the condition how the Zionists would not interfere with religion in the new State, were very much not met.

Again, there is no halachic basis and also no mesorah for any flavor of Zionism.

Avram and Sam2:

This is theoretically a fair point, as labels can be broad, but only if you can define what might be halachicly permitted according to our gedolim including Rav Elchonon et al. yet would still fall under the label “Religious Zionism”, never mind secular “Zionism”.

For example, Rav Moshe has a teshuva, as I recall (and I imagine Sam2 knows), that the presence of an Israeli flag in a shul is not A”Z. That this is even a question is certainly illustrative of the topic at hand. Either way, that doesn’t change the reality of the tenets of the religious Zionist faith, which remain assur; but showing the Israeli flag is not A”Z according to Rav Moshe.

Again, the State of Israel and Zionism are shmad, treif, etc. Nothing has changed in this regard. And, if you think objectively about it, it makes no sense (and was roundly forbidden by Rav Elchonon, Rav Chaim Brisker, et al.) to graft secular European Nationalism unto, and in much conflict with, lihavdil, the holy Torah and CH”V fuse the two to make them both into one illegitimate cholent of a religion (and then, on top of that, for some to have the chutzpah to try to pass that off as authentic Judaism).

This is essentially what Rabbi Kook did, as Rabbi Dr. Lichtenstein has more or less admitted in his writings even if he draws a different conclusion, and this is what Rav Elchonon and others called Avoda Zara. That this is forbidden is not a very difficult concept to understand.

So, absent any other definition of “Religious Zionism”, “Religious Zionism” is strictly forbidden.

DaMoshe:

Perhaps you missed my prior answer to you.

As well, your comparison of Rabbi JB Soloveichik to (really?) Rabbeinu Tam is not valid.

Rabbeinu Tam may have come to a different conclusion than Rashi in various sugyos but NOT by CH”V abandoning the mesorah he had from Rashi. On the other hand, Rabbi JB Soloveichik himself admitted that he was breaking from his Mesorah from his father and grandfather, et al.

There is also the uncomfortable matter (especially for “MO”) of what gedolim held of Rabbi JB Soloveichik (read Agudah’s JO magazine obituary, for starters, and that is also available online) which also makes the comparison to Rabbeinu Tam a complete non-starter.

Right or wrong, if you wish to rely on the Rabbis you quoted against the gedolim that preceded them and also against the gedolim who were their contemporaries, then that’s your business, of course. But that does not create a legitimate mesorah.

Again, there is no legitimate mesorah for “Religious Zionism” (and “MO”, as well, for that matter, though that, too, has already been discussed in other threads).

Sam2:

I will quote your post and respond inline.

“So your apology is that “MO” and “DL” are people who routinely commit Avodah Zarah”

Not quite.

1 – I did not say “routinely commit A”Z””

2 – Rav Elchonon and others said that “DL” is A”Z mixed with, lihavdil, Yahadus. I thought that someone had mentioned being proud to be “DL” so I addressed this obvious point in that context as well.

Of course, if my saying over any of this was hurtful to anyone, this was obviously not my intention and I certainly apologize for any hurt that was or is caused by anything I have written or will write.

If anything, as I wrote, I would think that “MO” and “DL” would appreciate these facts, especially since they are surely intellectually honest.

“”but you are not commenting on their personal status as Ovdei A”Z.

It was for this that I specifically apologized because some people seemed to think that I had intended to comment on their personal status when this was certainly not the case.

DY:

This being the case, I still don’t understand why anyone would take offense to this Rav Elchonon or my repeating it. To those who act contrary to this Rav Elchonon, I would think they would be at least interested to know that these great gedolim hold that they are making a big mistake.

DaMoshe:

I probably answered you before, too, though I imagine you weren’t thrilled with the answer then, either.

The Gerrer Rebbe said that because Rabbi Kook was so in love with the land that this caused Rabbi Kook to rule “al tahor tamei viAl tamei tahor”. This is obviously a very serious charge, in itself. But other gedolim went much further in their condemnation of Rabbi Kook and his shitos.

For instance, Rabbi Kook made statements, like the one about secular soccer players being on a higher level than neviim because of their service to the land, that gedolim said were clearly impossible to reconcile with Torah.

Of course, Rav Elchanan Wasserman, Rav Chaim (and descendant) Brisker(s), Rav Aharon Kotler and others have called this (“Religious Zionism”) Avoda Zara (mixed with Judaism), Kefirah and Shmad. Even Rabbi JB Soloveichik admitted that his father held the same, as I have posted numerous times.

So, especially given what we do know from our gedolim, you would have to first find a legitimate mesorah for Religious Zionism before you can claim that there is one.

Thank you, again, Sam2.

Regarding the comparison to the Baal:

We have already spent three pages dealing with this topic. Other than my own humble posts, I have seen very few here (or elsewhere) that call out Zionism for what it is and what it is not.

Regardless of the numbers, however, the mashal to Baal is still instructive because it underscores how so many otherwise fine people could, in this very important inyan, be so wrong. So even though religious opposition to Zionism might not be viewed as “mainstream”, this does not at all make it any less correct, just as the NON-baal worshippers were also not the overwhelming majority in those times.

Consider why Eliyahu haNavi had to make this very public Kiddush HaShem on Har haCarmel when any school child could have told you which way was obviously right and which way was very wrong.

Just Emes:

You put Hashem’s signature of “Emes” in his screen name, yet you still refuse to accept simple truths that are both historical record and, in the halachic realm, that our gedolim hold ad haYom haZeh.

For instance, not that long ago, Rabbi Y. Reisman wrote in a (front-page piece in a) Flatbush, NY “neighborhood-type” Jewish paper that even post-founding of the State, nothing changed regarding the applicability of the oaths.

The only change was tactical, whether or not it was even permitted to work within the framework of the State to help the Jews there. This is a legitimate machlokes between the Satmar Rav and others. But Zionism is not even a hava amina, according to all of them.

DaasYochid and Avram (and others):

As I have written many times, I do not wish to condemn anyone.

I have never concluded from that Rav Elchonon or anywhere else that this therefore means that a person who unfortunately believes in Zionism as part of, lihavdil, his Judaism is any less neeman, or that his yayin is yayin nesech, etc.

But Rav Elchonon said what he said, as did the Brisker Rav and others. This is not a chidush.

If it is true that halachicly their yayin is yayin nesech, etc. then this is something for a posek to decide. Again, I have never said anything like that. Ask your LOR.

I simply attempted to repeat the Torah hashkafa on the matter, as expressed by gedolim, so that people do not base their Torah view on “misinformation”.

Just Emes:

I already mentioned that your UN sevaras are faulty. No, the UN vote to partition did not bind other nations and, in fact, the British abstained from that vote.

Regardless, the Arabs did not agree.

Further, the Zionists knew perfectly well that it would take a war and sacrifice of Jewish lives at the idolatrous altar of founding their State, which it, unfortunately did.

They knew it was AT BEST a 50/50 chance that their foolish war would NOT CH”V be a massive bloodbath of Jewish blood which, B”H, Hashem spared His people.

As well, the Zionists aggressively and offensively took more than even the UN voted to allow them and against the wishes of the chareidim living there as well.

rationalfrummie:

Actually, they are. The Rambam himself warned in Igeres Teiman that the Jews there should not violate the oaths.

ROB:

Whatever interpretation you have of my posts, which I incidentally do not agree with, you have no right to personally attack anyone, my humble self included.

As to the oaths, why do you continue to bring up Melech haMashiach with regards to the three oaths?

You are still trying to claim the oaths don’t apply because of Melech HaMashiach, who will reign post-galus?

Perhaps Sam2 or some of the other learned ones here can explain this.