Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
Naftush,
You also, of course, have never considered why there is such a great need for “chozrei biTeshuva” in Israel that you trumpet how every family has at least one. Each returnee is wonderful news, but you list this as an asset to Zionism? Indeed, what a churban the Zionists have wrought!
I humbly disagree about your contention that it is inappropriate to say “Hashem forbids it. Period.” This is not my own opinion; far be it from me to have an opinion on this, as you alluded to. Rather, it is mainstream halachic fact from many Rabbis who have written this, some of whom I have previously quoted.
For example, relatively recently, Rabbi Reisman discussed, as seen in the Flatbush Jewish Journal, available free online, how the three oaths remain in effect according to everyone even after 1948 through today; the only difference among gedolim (i.e. what Satmar disagrees with) is regarding “working from within” the State once it has been established. But, according to all of them, whether Satmar or otherwise, the State is forbidden. Period. If you are better-informed than Rabbi Reisman, please enlighten everyone.
Naftush,
I don’t understand; your “answers” are actually unanswerable questions on Zionism, not answers.
Your “Jewish” Nation-State is forbidden from the Torah, and also features the “best” of both of those nations you mentioned, America and Germany. Israel is active shmad. Unlike America which respects religion, Israel/Zionism abhors specifically the Jewish faith and its very identity and purpose is to change Jews to goyish “Hebrews”/”Israelis”. And Israel also has the unique distinction of its citizens never having known a day of peace in its very bloody existence.
As to the Holocaust, I have mentioned often that Zionists are better off avoiding that particular topic since, among many other thing, the Zionists’ “State above all else (including Jewish lives)” priority, particularly during that terrible time, is appalling and quite anti-Torah, to say the least.
It would be wise to study the history first rather than rely on Zionist lies. While you’re at it, you could read what Torah greats like Rav Weissmandl, Rav Gifter, Rav Hutner et al. had to say about the Holocaust and Zionism.
Working on it:
Perhaps you should work more on your ahavas haTorah before working on love of Zionism. Zionism is shmad. The State is forbidden by the Torah. Religion and Nationalism is Religion mixed with Avoda Zara. Keep “working on it” from there.
mdd, Jews were learning in Eretz Yisrael long before the Zionists made their mess there.
DerechErets is right on.
yichusdik, you are, surely unwittingly, promoting a different theology, known as “Religious Zionism” which in Rav Elchonon Wasserman’s words, is Torah and Avoda Zara mixed together.
It is the Zionists who have literally “redefined Judaism and Jewish observance to the point where you have produced a new religion”.
To answer your question, I would go with an approach like Eliyahu haNavi’s “Ad Masai Atem Pochasim al shitei HaSiifim” question.
If the Avoda Zara of Nationalism/Zionism is your faith, then simply say so. But if, instead, the Torah we received from Hashem at Har Sinai is your guide, then “hasiru es elohei haNeichar asher bisochichem” and join the Jews who remain loyal to the Torah and have been zoche to see past the bitter lies of Zionism.
What a letter! Yasher Koach.
B”H, somebody finally wrote in to bring up these points in a mainstream public forum.
The Zionists here, as usual, can’t help but defend their idolatry.
JewishFeminist02 and Gamanit, the very minor problem with your analogy is that the State is forbidden by the Torah. So you can’t claim the State is the helicopter pilot; rather, the State is more likely the drowning waters.
yankel, he quoted two gemaras which indicate precisely the opposite of what you wrote: hakaras haTov is NOT always appropriate even if someone “does you a favor”.
oomis, he addressed your post too: there is no obligation to “make sacrifices for E”Y” for Israel’s real estate holdings.
You also missed his entire point that it is the Chareidim’s mesiras nefesh in learning untold hours of learning per day that is keeping the people safe *despite* the shmad of the IDF. You also missed his point that Israel and the IDF wish to shmad the chareidim who they get to join the IDF.
Let’s also assume for a moment that you are correct that by flooding the IDF with chareidim that the IDF will somehow become some “National Religious” army. How many Jews shmaded is it worth it to you for that to happen? Clearly, the change would not come overnight and many Jewish souls would fall prey, CH”V, to Zionist shmad (not to mention the physical dangers), Hashem yishmor, before such change would happen.
B”H; what a letter!
rationalfrummie:
I cannot answer to that which I have never claimed. Please read my post before claiming I said something that I did not.
The massacred Chevron students HY”D were not Zionists and also, of course, not responsible for their own murders by those savages. I quoted Rabbi Kaplan who said the “Religious Zionists” provoked the Arabs and, in response to a rumor that came up, seemingly as a result of that provocation, the savages murdered these innocent Chevron Yeshiva boys who were anyways not Zionists.
I am not a “kanoi”; what I bring down from gedolim is mainstream halacha.
Your sevaras, on the other hand, are simply your own emotional sevaras and, as stated, these are neither rational nor frum. As a bonus, you seem to have not read my post.
To answer your rhetorical questions:
A) Of course it was Hashem who allowed the Zionists control over the Kosel.
B) The CIA disagrees with your assessment (i.e. unwitting Zionist propaganda) of the 6 day war. The CIA indicates on their web site (check it out) that they knew and told the Israelis they could fight a multi-pronged war against the Arabs and win.
C) Did you really write “In Israel, we no longer suffer at the hands of the goyim”? And the Arab-Israeli conflict, with all its precious Jewish blood spilled is not suffering at the hands of the goyim?
D) Hashem forbade this State. Period. It’s a chesed from Him that some good things have happened there in the midst of the enormous shmad there. But Zionism is treif. Period.
The Yetzer HaRa of Zionism is simply stunning in what it can convince someone who claims to be both “frum” and “rational”.
Please, please learn the sources and leave this idol.
The Zionists have no answers.
Regarding the Chevron massacre, I don’t know why you thought I legitimized it. Of course the savages had no right to murder any Jews. But these are Pereh Adam and I previously quoted Rabbi Baruch Kaplan who laid the blame for that massacre on the Zionists, including “religious Zionists” for their foolish provocations of these beasts.
We discussed the nevuah before; the land being again fruitful due to Jewish work has nothing to do with Zionism which is just as treif as it always was.
There was an article recently about those farmers paid by Rothschild. They were frum people who came to work the land with no political motives like Zionism. Their overseers, incidentally, tried to starve them rather than allow them to keep shemita, and lied about them to Rothschild.
Again, Zionism and political rulership have nothing to do with any of that. The Brisker Rov came to Mandatory Palestine for his own valid reasons despite Zionism, as did many others. Nobody said there is anything wrong with that.
With all due respect, there are (at least) two problems with your “frum” “rationalism” regarding Zionism and Israel:
a) it is not rational
b) it is not frum (i.e. against the Torah)
Zionism is severely forbidden by the Torah due to the oaths and its shmad, for starters. You choose to ignore this, likely because:
a) Having a Jewish government gives you (100% goyish) pride (despite that we are still in galus and expressly forbidden from having any rulership in E”Y)
b) You also think it’s better to have “control” of the Kosel even though that control is forbidden (see above point) and came at a cost of even more lives, Hashem yiracheim.
c) You refuse to consider the possibility that “Israel survives” because there are so many Jews there and it might take a greater neis to save those Jews if Israel were to not survive; so, therefore, Israel’s survival does not indicate anything about Zionism.
Again, not very rational and certainly not frum.
And, again, Zionists have no answers.
Josh, as you probably noticed, this is not a kiruv shul. And Shlomo HaMelech said “Eis leEhov viEis liSno”; hate is not always the wrong approach. Dovid haMelech said “Misanecha Hashem esna”, as I recently saw quoted from R’ Meshulam Dovid Soloveichik where he applies that to (some) Zionists.
However, if someone were to post here and says he is either unaffiliated or grew up brainwashed in Zionist schools in Israel and looking for answers, then the tone of those answers will likely be different than those given to, for example, someone who is believed to be a typical Orthodox-educated person who is arguing an anti-Torah position.
rationalfrummie:
I don’t understand your question about why the Arabs turned so fast against the Jews.
Rabbi Baruch Kaplan testified regarding the Chevron Massacre that the Arabs behaved decently towards Jews in Mandatory Palestine and only as Zionism increasingly reared its traitorous head did the Arabs turn increasingly more violently against the Jews.
Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld related that the mufti, no lover of Jews, said that they had no problem with the Jews coming to live in Palestine but that they would not accept Jewish rule.
I posted earlier that the Arabs believed the false rumor that Al Aqsa was threatened because religious Zionists were trumpeting (with a shofar) and declaring shema Yisrael haKosel Kosleinu haKosel echad.
Zionists are so obsessed with their idol that they can’t even stop for one second to think about what would have been had Zionism never entered the world stage and the yishuvim continued as they were, with Jews gradually moving to Eretz Yisrael as they already were, buying land and minding their own business and living in harmony with the Arabs there and those that moved there afterwards.
Prominent Zionists, religious included, admit that Zionism and the State of Israel has created this Arab hatred, as has been posted many times.
Fellow Jews, “hasiru es elohei haNeichar asher biSochichem”; please see the truth of the Torah which hasn’t changed and never will. We are a people of the Torah, not “Nationalists”. Let us not condone the wickedness and shmad done and still being done to our people and to E”Y with all its kedusha and which we yearn for Moshiach to come and rebuild the Beis haMikdash BB”A.
Regarding Rabkin:
His research and book got very favorable reviews worldwide.
Of all the above “criticisms” I have seen of Rabkin, I still haven’t seen any Zionists contend with his research and what he wrote. Posters here launching ad hominem attacks, comparing a frum Jew (Rabkin) to Nazis, is despicable and yet par for the course for Zionists (ROB).
Let’s see any of you disprove his research before you launch childish attacks at him and have to ask his mechila.
Zionists have no answers.
Avi K, are you implying that one makes the other correct?
Serving as Rabbi in a Conservative temple, within halachicly prescribed boundaries, is one thing.
By the way, we know the results of that experiment; many who tried this became, themselves, Conservative, and this is liDoros unless those descendants come back BE”H.
But how does this allow a “liberal Orthodox” anything?
jewishfeminist02, Zionist propaganda holds that the Arabs in Israel know that they always considered themselves part of “Greater Syria”, not Palestine. They couldn’t care less what Western name is applied to the territory as long as it is Muslims ruling it.
Put another way, in their view, any Muslim ruler is better than Israel ruling the land. So, as Health keeps saying, for the Arabs, Turkey would be a major step in the right direction, if not outright acceptable or even preferred.
But it seems this particular point is becoming moot, as it seems negotiations are starting again and, if Gaza is any indication, they mean business.
May Hashem always protect all His children.
Zionists audaciously propagandize that WW II proves that Jews need their State. In fact, it really proves just the opposite (besides for the Zionists’ various misdeeds during and after WW II which indicate the egregiousness and chutzpah of their terrible lies regarding WW II).
Zionists wanted and continue to want to change our people’s very identity from a people of the Torah (even the Muslims refer to us as people of the Book, al-khitab) to, CH”V, one based on a Nation-State.
WW II proved decisively that assimilation never works, even in the most enlightened of nations of the time, in Germany. Obviously, the churban there extended to Jews of all stripes, as noted. Also as noted, the double-standard applied to Israel seems to prove the same thing about assimilation.
But it is Hashem that is our shield and protector; and the Torah of Yaakov, not the sword of Eisav, is our pride and joy and strength which has kept us throughout the generations and will always keep us, BE”H, ad beas goel tzedek BB”A.
The reason Zionism arose is that some assimilated Jews still didn’t feel like true goyim even after the persecutions stopped. So they decided that the only way the goyim would finally consider them as goyish as the goyim would be if the Jewish faith would be eliminated, CH”V, and, like Nationalist movements of the time, replaced with a new “Hebrew” goy. Literally. Not only would religious practice be eliminated, but the identity of a Jew would be based on his Nation and not on the religion. Then, they believed, the goyim would finally consider the Hebrew Goy just as goyish as any other goy and they would then be able to fully assimilate.
Of course, that whole premise is jaw-droppingly terrible kefirah and at least as bad as Lavan haArami and the Greeks of Chanukah, for the simple reason that these were Jews suggesting this.
The results of this very tragic and still on-going disastrous experiment of Zionism, Hashem yishmor, can be seen even today with the bizarre double standard applied to the State of Israel, which I assume is something that everyone here can agree with.
The Nazis, YM”Sh, too, did not differentiate between Jews, regardless of assimilation level. This is, of course, no coincidence according to our gedolim, as this was Mida kiNeged Mida for believing in Zionism and assimilation.
Presumably, the same holds true for the double standard that Israel is forced to contend with. It is the greatest slap in the face to the Zionists and an undeniable repudiation of their heresy and idolatry that the Nations do not accept Israel as a simple peer and one of them. In other words, Zionism is, spiritually, a complete and utter failure.
rationalfrummie, you are parroting Zionist propaganda which, in this particular case, is an outright lie.
Rav Chaim Brisker said that the goal of Zionism is shmad and they need a state for this end, not the other way around. In other words, the goal was and is shmad. The means to that goal is a state.
His son, the Brisker Rov, Rav Yitzchak Zeev held the same way and liHavdil bein Chaim liChaim, Rav Meshulam Dovid Soloveichik shlit”A holds the same. So does Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”A.
But you don’t have to believe these Torah giants because it’s anyways plain historical fact (and current events, for that matter, also indicate this quite clearly), that these Torah giants are 100% correct.
Read “A Threat From Within” by Dr. Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of History at University of Montreal.
Read the Nazi-like (before the Nazis) libels that Zionists said about their own people. Like “A Jew’s life is a dog’s life”, etc.
The Dreyfuss Affair was not at all the reason.