Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Matan1, it is not my place to back up Rav Aharon’s words.
However, I question your statements about Rav Soloveichik. How are his works important to Orthodoxy as a whole? Outside MO, what Yeshiva even has those books in their libraries? Which Rabbeim outside YU recommend those to their talmidim?
As to talmidim of Rav JB Soloveichik who are now Rabbanim, the following incident makes me question why one should believe this is (in some cases) a good thing. I actually recently heard a shiur from one of those students of Rav JB Soloveichik. In that shiur, he made a point of propagandizing various Zionist fantasies. He made the usual Zionist mistake regarding Rav Simcha of Dvinsk, etc.
But beyond that, he made a point of saying “tell your kids in Yeshiva” that Israel is not a Maaseh Satan, etc.
In my very humble opinion, this man has severely damaged the Judaism of the people he is addressing and, if they listen, these people’s children (potentially liDoros) as well, CH”V. He is purporting to teach Torah but is instead doing the opposite.
To be clear, I have no problem with someone repeating over what his Rebbi held, or even his own Torah from other sources, and I also know Rav JB Soleveichik was sympathetic to Zionism in his time. But to propagandize Zionism in the guise of, lihavdil, Torah and, worse, to insist to baalei battim “tell your kids in Yeshiva”, is absolutely unacceptable.
This talmid of Rav JB Soloveichik was telling them to tell their kids to ignore (or, perhaps, bypass) their own Rabbeim in favor of, at best, his own Rebbi. He surely knows of Rav Aharon’s and others’ opinion of his Rebbi’s views on Zionism (and secular studies) in particular. As well, most likely, the kids don’t know enough about the sugya to counter these serious errors.
Very briefly, part of what the “Religious Zionists” missed (and what they still don’t get) is that, as the Brisker Rov did say (I recently saw this) the Balfour Declaration, while absolutely not a heter for Zionism, was indeed a “smile” from Heaven.
But the Zionists ruined this eis ratzon with their State. Had everyone davened for the geulah, he said, the geulah would have come. Instead, they ruined it and davened for the State to come to life, and, like the eigel, it did; they got what they asked for and not the geulah. “Miharsayich uMacharivayich miMech Yetzeiu”, indeed; Galus would have been over instead of this eigel and all its karbanos, etc. and we are all still in galus, Hashem Yiracheim.
lesschumras, the Jews throughout the Middle East were far better off before Zionism, not only before May, 1948. Please don’t insult yourself. Ask the Yemenites and Jews from other Arab countries who the Zionists shmadded and worse. Ask the chareidim who lived in peace there before the Zionists. See my above post, for example.
jewishfeminist02, if you ask people who were there (i.e. their children, at this point, or else listen to the recordings), they say that the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine were decent and did NOT hate the Jews for coming to live there.
The Arabs were, however, rightly worried about Zionism, which promoted their take-over of Palestine. The Mufti, no lover of Jews, had a cordial relationship with Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld. The former told that latter that they had no problem with Jews coming to live there; but if the Jews try to take over then they wouldn’t accept that.
As also discussed numerous times on these boards, the Zionists think the Chevron Massacre is a raaya to their fallacies.
In fact, Rabbi Baruch Kaplan, who was there, spoke publicly and was recorded saying that he used to take walks in Chevron late at night by himself with no fear of Arabs. It is the “Religious Zionists” including their leader who, against the express will of Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, provoked the Arabs regarding the Kosel “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu HaKosel Echad”.
The (false) rumor spread among the Arabs that Al Aqsa was threatened and the Arabs responded, thinking the Chevron Yeshiva boys were Zionist, CH”V, because of their skin color, murdering these innocent boys. Rabbi Kaplan blames the Zionists for this.
ROB, you wrote:
“The Jews lived in Germany in great harmony and “coexistence” for centuries…” until that changed drastically for the worse.
But you didn’t write the reason our gedolim gave for this change, which applies elsewhere, too. I forget now where I saw this, but I think it’s from the Bais HaLeivi.
In Mitzrayim, too, the Egyptians treated us well…until all of a sudden they didn’t. What was the turning point there? Klal Yisrael stopped performing Bris Milah to better integrate with the Egyptian culture. That’s the point when the Egyptians began to despise them.
The simple reason is that as long as we maintain our distinct Torah identity, the umos treat us well. But if we get too close to them by destroying our identity as the am haNivchar, that’s when, CH”V, Hashem puts sina in their hearts to ensure we remain a distinct people.
Germany is the same idea. There’s nothing wrong with being successful in your host country. That’s not why they hated us there. But you still have to maintain your identity as a Jew.
Zionism, as well, is all about changing Jews into a goyish nation, as has been discussed earlier. If it were possible to reverse Zionism, as Health points out, it would obviously be far better for the Jewish people.
Sam2:
I agree that there “is an important Kiyum in militarily defending any area with lots of Jews” and I alluded to this when I mentioned the arsonist, above.
But, even without the myriad issues posed by Zionism biNidon Didan, I disagree with your conclusion that “defending Jews is a Mitzvah so there should not be any Issur Mitzad Bittul Torah”. If it is “ee efshar al yidei acheirim”, that’s a different story, but then the Zionism issues would have to be addressed first.
As to “calling a spade a spade” regarding Rav H. Schachter, it is neither of the possibilities you mentioned. Zionism is not Judaism but my calling him Rav is certainly not fake kavod either.
There are two issues: the gavra and the cheftza, so to speak; or, specifically, the person and the belief. Errant beliefs, even heretical beliefs, do not necessarily make one a heretic.
Besides, it’s not my place to label him or anyone else of his stature despite the many insurmountable problems of Zionism as our gedolim have stated and continue to state.
As well, I can’t link to it, as usual, but Rav Aharon Kotler said about Rav Schachter’s rebbi, Rav JB Soloveichik, that he (Rav JB Soloveichik) “destroyed an entire generation”. So since Rav Shachter presumably learned Zionism from his Rebbi, how can one detract from his kavod for following his Rebbi?
Again, to propose, as you do, that it’s better to save lives than to learn, is debatable within a Torah framework. But to say, as he was quoted as saying, that it’s better to sacrifice lives to save the (putative and heretical) nation-state (again, with nothing to do with the pikuach nefesh of the citizens), is offensive and clearly outside the Torah’s framework.
But I will call a spade a spade regarding the position he is quoted to espouse: it is terribly wrong, as per our gedolim, as above.
According to Zionist theology, there should be a chiyuv for every Jewish man worldwide to join the army of their respective host countries; after all, surely there are defensive reasons for at least some of the worldwide areas of operation even if the Zionists have foolishly put themselves in a far worse position than that of other countries.
LiOlam al yiftach adam peh laSatan, so I’ll use a hypothetical case. Say there were millions (the number doesn’t matter) of Jews living in Haiti and Haiti were under threat from the Dominican Republic. Why would there be a substantive pikuach nefesh difference between defending Haiti and defending Israel? There are both Jews and non-Jews in both.
The answer is, of course, that the goal of Zionist wars are not for pikuach nefesh purposes but rather they are for the secular Nationalist value that Rav Herschel Schechter and others hold. This value something like: the “lium” or nation needs the State for its national existence and this State, itself, is worthy of pikuach nefesh, having nothing to do with its citizens.
I find it farcical that you’re actually considering Zionist wars to be michemes mitzvah when they are really milchemes shmad, regardless of the fact that they are like the arsonists who then come running with the fire truck after setting the conflagration.
Daas2, how does it not address the question?
Every civilized country has a volunteer army. Some Israelis also want this. There is anyways no military need for chareidim in the IDF.
The reason the IDF is mandatory for anyone is that it is a tool of Zionist indoctrination.
An MK recently said publicly that this whole to-do is a chance to change the chareidim.
This (i.e. shmad) is the only reason the Zionists want the Chareidim in the army. They’re trying to finish their evil and treacherous work from the Yaldei Tehran atrocity, from even before the founding of the State and all they’ve done since then.
Netzach Yisrael Lo Yishaker.
The more uncomfortable (for Zionists) issue is that if serving in the IDF is the same as engaging in/being a part of shmad (not to mention the gilui arayos) then one would be forbidden, yehareig viAl yaavor, from serving in that den of immorality and shmad known as the IDF.
Where is the mekor to “celebrate diversity”? Sounds like that one came from the M side of MO.
As for Sinas Chinam, it’s only “chinam” if there is no reason for the sina. But if it’s, for example, to call out shmad for what it is, that doesn’t sound like chinam, to me.
As it happens, I agree that within the Torah’s parameters, diversity is a nice thing. But when halacha is breached then it’s a terrible thing.
writersoul, it is the Zionists that tar themselves, and it was the gedolim who spoke about it.
Zionism is shmad (and more).
It is important to realize that even “Religious Zionists”, despite their (likely) good intentions, are de facto integrating this shmad into their yahadus.
Understand that this is not like being a member of one political party over another; a “Religious Zionist” on these boards quoted to me in Rabbi Kook’s name that their theology holds “we are Jewish because we are Zionist and Zionist because we are Jewish”. Does that sound like anything Moshe Rabbeinu would agree with?
Given this quote, it underscores the holy words of Rav Elchonon Wasserman HY”D, who wrote in Ikvisa DiMishicha that Nationalism is Avoda Zara and Religious Nationalism is religion in conjunction with Avoda Zara. (And that’s besides for and before the terrible shmad the Zionists did and still do).
Here are his words:
“It is clear that since modern nationalism is fundamentally idol-worship, it follows automatically that the Religio-Nationalist viewpoint is nothing less than idol-worship coupled with service to G-d.”
So, given the above, how would you answer your own question?
It also leaves out “aleichem”, as in “aleichem bilvad”.
I guess this is how the song “works”; it’s not intended to be a perfectly faithful reproduction of the Chazal.
rationalfrummie, your first fundamental error is assuming “we” need to keep control of Eretz Yisrael. This is something Mashiach will do, BB”A. Before then, we are strictly forbidden to take control of E”Y even if the nations want “us” to have it. Unlike many other halachic issues, nobody outside of Zionism (that I have seen) says that Zionists have “al ma lismoch” in their forcible conquest of E”Y and rebelling against the nations, both of which are separate and severe violations.
Your second error is assuming “we” are, CH”V, the same as the Zionists. The Zionists hate our/their faith, and their greatest wish after replacing Judaism with Zionism is, as recently expressed in their “Knesset”, to change Chareidim to Israelis. The Torah is, of course, diametrically opposed to Zionism. We are most definitely not Zionists.
This whole “share the burden” nonsense is a pathetic smokescreen for their real endgame of “integrating” Chareidim into Israeli culture, as the Zionists have openly proclaimed, as above.
Your third error is assuming that a “Chareidi” unit is so wonderful. See the recent articles by the Rabbis who run these units and they all say that even these units are no place for a frum kid. If, for example, a kid would anyways be, CH”V, “in the streets,” then that’s who these Rabbis want in these units. But these same Rabbis in charge of these units write clearly that these units are a very bad thing for a regular frum/chareidi kid.
Additionally, as this tragic movement of getting Chareidim in to the IDF has gained steam, more horror stories, CH”V, have emerged. For example, recently, there was a terrible story of how the Zionists convinced a chareidi man to “temporarily” switch to a different (i.e. non-Chareidi) unit for advancement purposes. As a result of this switch, this man experienced terrible yeridos and his anguished wife cried to a Jerusalem rabbi that “the State of Israel has betrayed me”; the Zionists have, unfortunately, destroyed another frum person and his family.
Finally, only to a Zionist would it make sense to, CH”V, sacrifice even a drop of precious Jewish blood for the sole purpose of helping the State of Israel increase its land holdings. As you seem very concerned about this issue of pikuach nefesh, pikuach nefesh is certainly not pushed aside for the Zionists to try to control more land even if they had the halachic right to any of it in the first place, which they don’t.
The potential pikuach nefesh benefit has no bearing on the shmad that is Zionism and the IDF.
In other words, even if serving in the army is halachicly considered saving pikuach nefesh, that would not allow for becoming shmaded in the IDF.
I’m sorry for writing the wrong name, and I thank you all for pointing out my mistake.
But the point remains.
And the Zionists still have no answers.
benignuman, that would not necessarily indicate a genetic factor any more than indicate an environmental factor. Both twins were presumably exposed to (mostly) the same things.
Thank you, toi.
“truthsharer”:
Perhaps your screen name would be better written “wishsharer”.
Are you calling Rav Chaim Brisker a liar?
That wouldn’t be a very bright thing to do since, aside for the obvious reasons, he lived there and then and knew from personal experience both pre-1948 and post-1948 what Zionism was and is.
Historical fact and current events happenings are not subject to your or anyone else’s denials. Zionism was and is what it was and is: shmad. This is still true even though their methods of shmad have changed since Yaldei Tehran, etc. Zionism was and is shmad.
If you’re better informed than Rav Chaim Brisker (pre-1948 and post-1948) and Rav Elchonon (pre-1948 only, HY”D), who lived there and then, please provide a comparable source that disagrees with them and with, lihavdil, the Zionists themselves. This is not a secret.
In other words, if you claim Rav Chaim’s words (and history and current events) are not true, then please provide a reliable same-level source who contradicts those facts.
DaasYochid, thank you.
lesschumras and Sam2:
I never argued that Zionism was the greatest form of shmad and I also did not argue that a typical Israeli Zionist should be ch”V mistreated in any way. I have, in the past, written that your typical Israeli Zionist is likely a tinok sheNishba to Zionism. But the theology of Zionism, its actions, and its proponents should still be understood for what those and they are.
Sam2, I don’t understand how you come up with “no more Zionists of the form”. As the Brisker Rov wrote and as is simple historical fact, Zionism’s whole reason for existence is shmad. Although the Zionists have changed tactics somewhat since the yaldei Tehran atrocities, the State and its IDF are still engaged in shmad in many levels and ways.
Again, because it seems that very few people get this, the Brisker Rav wrote, and is a matter of plain history, that the Zionists need a state in order to shmad (not the other way around, terrible as even that would be).
rebdoniel, that’s not exactly true. Not all of those were Zionists. Rav Kalischer, for instance, pre-dated Zionism and came long before the State of Israel. Even Rav Reines, who led Mizrachi at the turn of the last century, is not mentioned as one who condoned Zionist merida baUmos and certainly not the ongoing Zionist shmad which he was against.
Like many of the Zionists “sources”, the above Rabbis were no longer around when it was still decades before the State of Israel was to be founded. So these are not sources for anything practical.
I’ll leave it at that.
truthsharer and musser zoger, instead of attempting to prove these great Rabbis to be wrong (certainly a foolish endeavor), you simply deride those who rightly condemn that which you cannot defend but inexplicably can’t help but defend.
Regarding “Rabbanim should leave politics to the politicians”, you are implying that decisions of learning versus, lihavdil, IDF are outside the purview of Rabbinic interest. I didn’t know there was “musser” outside of Orthodox Jewry, because your implication is certainly well outside the bounds of observant Judaism. It’s more like Zionists.
Regarding not everything is “black and white”, this is certainly true, but irrelevant here.
Even if Lapid actually mean what he claims, that he simply wants to help Chareidim, and not, as it appears, liHashcicham Torasecha uliHaaviram meChukei ritzonecha, this, too, is not relevant.
The end result of this whole proposal is the same: more shmad, in line with clear and primary Zionist ideology of replacing Judaism with CH”V Zionism. It is absurd to suggest otherwise unless you know for sure that this case is different, and there is no reason to believe this case is any different.
It’s too bad that Zionists, including “Religious Zionists” can’t face the facts about their own ignominious history of Zionism.
Please go read what the Torah sages of today have written of this whole issue. For example, Rav Dovid Soloveichik’s pieces on this are freely available online. Additionally, please read what Herzl and the other Zionists and, lihavdil, how gedolim such as the Brisker Rov who lived then and there understood Zionism, before you make uneducated and derogatory comments.
ROB, according to Rav Dovid Soloveichik, the hatred towards “the other side” should actually be much greater than it is because of “Misanecha Hashem Esna” and more. And Zionism, both theoretically and practically, is indeed shmad, kefirah and more, which, in your illogical and unshakeable loyalty to your egel, you always refuse to see.
The Brisker Rov said the Zionists need a State to shmad, not the other way around. And the Zionists did and do shmad. It is grossly despicable for “Jews” to force Jews to give up even one of the Torah’s beliefs and practices. That’s your Zionism. We have discussed this before, but you still refuse to face the reality of your idol.
In case this isn’t obvious, Shmad is not only literally forcing someone at gunpoint to bow to an idol, though if the Zionists did that you’d still probably find some heter for this egel, the Satan’s greatest triumph since the Egel HaZahav, as quoted numerous times.
einfal, thank you. Although I suspect that Health is correct that those who need most to read it will not be changed by these words, I still wish to commend you for this post, with all due humility.
I haven’t seen a Torah that mentions a chiyuv to join, lihavdil, the State of Israel’s “Tzava”. Maybe the Zionists have a different Torah than the one from Moshe Rabbeinu?
Also, the people who were sent to the tzava were great tzaddikim and Moshe had a way of ascertaining that. We have neither Moshe nor a way of knowing who are “anshei chayil”, etc.
Moreover, we don’t know who is from what shevet, other than kohanim/leviim who know their yichus, so we can’t knos who is from which “Mattos Yisrael”.
Finally, our modern-day Torah sages (Yiftach biDoro kiShmuel biDoro, for ROB) already forbade entering that den of shmad and tumah that is the IDF.
And if that’s not good enough for you, read the stories of people who were spiritually destroyed, them and their families, after going to the “chareidi” units of the IDF, and listen to the Rabbis who are in charge of sending kids to those IDF programs who readily admit that even the chareidi units are not a place for a frum kid.
truthsharer:
There are a number of differences between the IDF and, lihavdil, any other army including the US army.
One key difference is that the IDF is mandatory. So if they are requiring everyone to serve, then they have to reasonably accommodate everyone’s religious beliefs.
Another key difference is that Israel lies that it is a “Jewish State”. So, to make that lie more believable to the uninformed, they should be accommodating religious Jews (of all stripes).
But Israel is a Zionist state, not a Jewish state. And Zionism is shmad. See above.
Charlie, your positions seem very difficult to understand, though I will limit my comments to a few of those. Presumably, you arrived at these strange ideas because of MO/RZ’s blasphemous merger of Zionism and lihavdil Judaism.
Pirkei Avos says “Asei Licha Rav”. It does not say to allow the IDF to replace or supersede your Rav.
Regarding Chilul Shabbos, even “Religious Zionist” Rabbanim, never mind the IDF, have made psakim regarding chilul Shabbos and pikuach nefesh than have been roundly condemned by great rabbis outside Zionist circles.
So, in a nutshell, the Zionists are up to shmad as they always have been (even if they do provide kosher food), and the MO and “Religious Zionists” are either in denial or worse about even the latest Zionist shmad, because the respective MO and RZ theologies require belief in Zionism as part of their faith.
As the Brisker Rov said, “The Zionists’ state is the Satan’s greatest achievement since the eigel”.
ROB, you have already stated on these boards that you would not renounce your idolatry of Zionism even if proof were presented to you that your eigel is treif, and it was. So anyone reading your leitzanus post above should understand your “qualifications”.
Two of your fellow-countrymen who reside under Zionist rule have chosen to point out in this thread to their fellow Jews that the Zionists are turning up the heat in their 100+ year-old quest to turn Jews and our Judaism into, CH”V, Zionist warrior “Hebrews” and Zionism.
As valuable as their posts are to people who don’t live there, they’re also not the only ones who recognize this about Zionism (besides for, of course, people who were not deceived by Zionist lies and fallacies in the first place).
I read an article the other day that recounted yet another horrifying story about how a chareidi man joined the IDF in a chareidi unit and the Zionists convinced him to “temporarily” go to another non-chareidi unit so he could advance. After the inevitable yeridos occurred, along with the (immediate) consequences from those yeridos, the poor wife of this man went to a Torah-observant rabbi crying that “the State of Israel has betrayed me”, which, of course, the State was happy to do as they shmaded yet another Jew and created yet more tzaar in Klal Yisrael.
As the Brisker Rov wrote, and as a study of Zionism’s tragic history and current events would easily indicate, the Zionists shmad – not because they need a State; rather, they need a State in order to shmad.
Yet people actually believe in Zionist heresy contrary to the Torah giants of yesteryear’s dire warnings and severest condemnation and the hindsight of history and power of modern communication to inform on current events.
As he also said (as I recall), if one seeks to understand the eigel (haZahav), one need only observe (people’s relationship to) Zionism; it is the same matter.
147 is probably just trolling. I think he doesn’t actually believes what he writes because he seems to never miss an opportunity to extol celebrating Zionist holidays yet never responds to any statements made against his position. This is known as trolling.
But if he does believe what he’s writing, he’s probably also not interested in (anyone) knowing that the Chazon Ish said that “mi hu apikores shomer torah uMitzvos? Kol mi sheChogeg es yom haAtzmaut..” Perhaps their “Yom Yerushalayim” is not as bad, but who knows?
JF: I disagree. A slippery slope is “only” a slope as opposed to a free-fall drop because there indeed are differences between different points on that slope, like one you’ve pointed out here between “gay marriage” and bestiality. But the slippery slope is very much valid, just not a straight (no pun intended) drop down.
But, even by your logic, if your sole criterion is “people should be able to marry– and be married to– whomever they choose” then incest (and polygamy – why limit to one?) should also be valid marriage material.
Regardless, the “slippery slope” is indeed a very big concern.
Toi, excellent post. Thanks.
DaMoshe, nice try with more meaningless rhetoric.
The criteria he gave for what makes one an apikores, according to what I quoted earlier, was one who celebrates the Israeli Yom HaAtzmaut. Nowhere in your story (assuming it is true), does it say that Rav Yaakov CH”V celebrated that Zionist “holiday”.
I am not interested in speculating on an unverified story, but he certainly was not condoning Zionism and ignoring the shmad, et al. of Zionism. Here is a quote from Rav Yaakov’s son about Rav Yaakov, as seen at Yated:
Regardless, Rav Yaakov was obviously not an apikores.
writersoul, I appreciate your remarks.
However, I am not applying my opinion to this; there is really no underlying reason to the other side, as I pointed out. Halacha prescribes certain actions and proscribes other actions. This is simple and indisputable.
Great gedolim have used the severest of condemnations when describing Zionism and its State, grossly inappropriately named “Israel”, and its various organs. They used terms like Avoda Zara, apikorsus, yehareig viAl Yaavor, and others.
So when pro-Zionists say foolish things like “but look at all the nissim that happened?” and “can’t you see the yad Hashem?”, none of these are valid answers to the myriad halachic and other problems with Zionism.
Yet, despite the complete lack of logic to these arguments, I tried to explain that, for instance, nissim are not indicative of Hashem’s will. Neither are military victories, “miraculous” or otherwise, especially when millions of Jews live there, because Hashem loves His children.
This is also indisputable.
However, if it were possible for Zionists to bring Torah sources that contradict (that same Torah, and, for example) Rav Chaim, Rav Elchonon, the Chazon Ish, and many others, then those sources could be examined (and have been, and all found not to CH”V condone Zionism). But mere emotional sevaras like “look how many people became frum in response to 1967” are meaningless.
Sam2, I disagree. I didn’t say the OU should go out and protest. But if you make a public statement as an Orthodox organization then you have to uphold the Torah’s honor as much as possible.
I maintain my position in my last post.
I find MorahRach’s post to be very interesting and very sad. It is a shame that so many MO choose “Modernity” over, lihavdil, the Torah.
JewishFeminist02 (there’s an interesting screen name): this abomination absolutely does affect our right to practice our faith and does encourage people to “come out of the closet” and be proud of their perverse behavior and intentionally promote that behavior, which clearly affects men, women and children, as I wrote above.
Sam2,
Here is a small part of the OU’s statement:
“Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.”
You posted that the OU’s statement was, in your view, perfect.
Would you say the same thing about that statement if the issue were, say, banning Shabbos observance, Bris Mila, private schools, or even all Torah learning?
For example, what if the “democratic process” decided that “social policy” requires all men, women and children to be michalel Shabbos and to disallow Bris Mila until the child becomes an adult and chooses then whether or not he wants a bris?
The last part of that quote from the OU is, in my opinion, at once the most troubling and also most revealing of OU Hashkafa.
I suspect that, as an MO organization, the OU must have a strong innate respect/desire for modernity.
Otherwise, who asked the OU to accord the “utmost respect” to this disastrous, anti-Torah result?
If you really wished to uphold the Torah’s honor, and, seemingly, if you actually believed the Torah’s morals are, lihavdil, above all others’, then you would write something else, like the following:
“…While we accord the process with the utmost respect, today’s result of that process, in the form of this ruling, is a tragic one for our morality and our nation.”
What a shame.
rationalfrummie:
Regarding your misunderstanding of my use of the word Zionist:
Obviously, the “Religious Zionists” understand that the Torah is our lifeblood and not, as Zionism holds, that Tanach is a cultural relic, CH”V; that’s the religious side of their identity, and I did not intend to suggest otherwise.
However, R”Z mixes and tightly integrates Zionism into, lihavdil, their religious Jewish identity.
On these boards, I was quoted from Rabbi Kook that “Religious Zionists” believe about themselves: “we are religious because we are Zionist and we are Zionist because we are religious”.
So they are inextricably tying in their identities as Jews with their identities as Zionists. That’s strong stuff. Because they are staking their Judaism on what gedolim have pronounced idolatry and, lihavdil, what Zionists are proud to declare: the “galus Jew” (and its religion, etc.) must be replaced with the “warrior Hebrew”, Hashem Yiracheim.
But I was not looking to show the faults of the “Religious Zionist” movement; rather, to convey just a small taste of how Zionism is expressly incompatible with, lihavdil, our holy Torah, as per our gedolim and, lihavdil, the Zionists themselves.
rationalfrummie:
You’re welcome to say my questions aren’t questions and statements aren’t statements. Please do. Although you seem to not be interested in what I have to say (rationalism is funny, sometimes, isn’t it?), I will try once more.
Regarding nissim (and the rest, too):
(please see the Rabbi Dov Lipmann thread.)
First, if you check the CIA’s web site, you’ll see that the 1967 was not a “neis”. They knew the Israelis could operate on multiple fronts and still win. But that’s besides the point, other than to attempt to dampen your Zionist religious fervor.
Next, I also mentioned (this will be the third time this thread) that if Hashem did not allow Israel to be victorious in its wars, it would likely have taken far greater “miracles” to protect His children. So Israel having won wars is, as I said, not a question on anything.
In addition, Hashem, at times, allows the Satan to even perform miracles so that he can do his job of trying to get Klal Yisrael to be deficient in their avodas Hashem. Like by the eigel. This is obvious.
To the gedolim, Zionism was just as obviously from the Satan (obviously, with Hashem’s permission). To those who choose to observe and study current events and history with open eyes, in addition to their emunas chachamim, it is also obvious that Zionism’s state, Israel, is, as the Brisker Rov said, the greatest triumph of the Satan since the Eigel.
All the learning and Yeshivos, etc. in Eretz Yisrael cannot negate this clear and obvious fact. The Satan will use even mitzva observance, if doing so suits his goal of ultimately lowering a person’s ruchius.
So, as is often the case with Zionists, “Kol HaPosel MiMumo Posel”. Instead of falsely accusing others of denying Hashem’s hashgacha, which is, in your words, “perhaps even apikorsus”, it is you who cannot admit that Hashem allows the Satan to act to deceive Hashem’s children, as we all know from the eigel. That seems neither rational nor frum.
WIY, what does the local municipality say about the matter? Do they object? If an employee from the relevant department would see a kid do this, would they care? Do they actually condone this or simply tolerate it? Or do they forbid it?
I think the validity of your assertions really depend on the answers to these points.
If this is an approved activity for kids, I don’t see why your opinion on their art is relevant, and these parents are not “teaching their kids to be mazikim” if it’s an approved activity.
But if kids chalking the sidewalk is not approved by your local municipality (perhaps even if it is tolerated), however, then I agree with your points about defacement and chinuch.
Having said that, even if it were approved, if it is true that those kids would then have less respect for public property, then I would agree that parents should probably just say no for chinuch purposes.
Sam2, Rav Ovadia, Shlit”a is obviously *not* an apikores.
I thought someone else already answered you about that teshuva.
Again, from what I have seen of his works, he is not a Zionist.
Regardless, if you could please quote that teshuva and/or direct me where online I could find it, then I would look it up since you mentioned it.
rationalfrummie, your statements are not statements and your questions are still not questions.
I already explained to you (the obvious) that had the Zionists lost that there likely would have been many more deaths and casualties of “soneihem shel yisrael”, CH”V. So Zionist victories don’t prove anything.
The Zionists need the Torah and the chareidi and dati to lend credence to their idolatry. So they tolerate it to that extent.
The Zionists know very well that without some minimal Torah they are nothing and will not fool anyone with their great lie that they represent Jews. Tanach is an important cultural relic, Hashem Yiracheim, to the Zionists, as seen by their recent chidon, followed, of course, by women singing their anthem.
(If the Zionists had even a shred of respect for yahadus and the Torah, they would have at least had men for this HaTikva recital. But they don’t, of course; Zionists are “proud warrior Hebrews”, not “despicable Galus Jews”. Of course, it is the Zionists who have to grovel at the feet of the nations, and Zionists and their state are the ultimate “galus Jew”.)
It’s only by creating a frankenstein consisting of their Avoda Zara and, lihavdil, the Torah, that they can fool so many Jews to not only tolerate but to actually promote Zionist idolatry.
As Shlomo HaMelech said, “ViHaKesef Yaaneh es HaKol”. The Frum work from within the government to make Torah living as feasible as possible under the Zionists. The Zionists need their votes. So arrangements are made.
Again, the Zionists have no answers because there aren’t any. Zionism was and is treif.
Sam2, in addition to the above answer by a different poster, from Rav Ovadiah’s other writings that I’ve seen, he is not a Zionist. He believes in, and says he encourages people to join those who are, living in E”Y and even calls this Zionism.
But he is not, CH”V, a Zionist, including hisgarus baUmos, dechikas haKeitz, shmad and the other central tenets of Zionist theology.
Zionism is treif and heretical, according to the great sages of yesteryear (and today) regardless of MO and “Religious Zionist” wishes to the contrary.
DaMoshe, you insist on having the Zionist wool pulled over your eyes. It is the Zionists who make things up and distort our holy Torah to further their idolatrous cause.
truthsharer, why are statements prior to 1948 irrelevant?
Besides, the Chazon Ish and Brisker Rov, among others, had plenty to say after 1948. Like instructing the baal tefillah to say tachanun on Israel’s Yom HaAtzmaut even though there was a bris to take place that morning.
The only difference among Torah authorities from before 1948 to afterwards is the tactical approach to dealing with Zionism. Some held it was assur to have any part of it while others held that it was permitted to work to save what could be saved even from within Zionist organs like its “Knesset”. But the treif of Zionism.
Is anyone so misinformed/uninformed that they (very mistakenly) believe that the gedolim’s opposition to Zionism stopped in 1948?
rationalfrummie:
You aren’t being very rational, and you are presenting emotional sevaras that have no intellectual basis. Your implication is that the proliferation of Torah in E”Y means that Zionism is ergo correct. So, by that logic, why was Hitler so successful if he was wrong, and he obviously was? The simple answer is that one (proliferation of Torah) has nothing to do with, lihavdil, the other (Zionism).
As Rav Elchonon said, it is certain. Your questions, again, are not questions.
That Hashem has spared His children, that Hashem has spared many Jews in Israel’s wars is also, obviously, not a raayah to Zionism. Of course, B”H, Hashem has rachmanus on His children.
Regarding the desert blooming, this also does not speak about Zionism, only about Jews in Eretz Yisrael; Jews do, of course, live in Eretz Yisrael.
It’s best to learn (outside of Zionist sources) first before ridiculously accusing people of calling neviim, CH”V, apikorsim.
musser zoger, no, it does not apply to Ponevezh. First, they fly the flag for political reasons. ViHaKesef YaAneh es HaKol. Second, merely flying the flag is not necessarily celebrating the day. They are not, CH”V, Zionists.
Regarding the pathetic accusation of trolling, I was not the one who “brought Zionism in”; I replied to a post that did so.
As I’ve mentioned in other threads, the Brisker Rov’s statement is factual history, in addition to daas Torah. Read the writings of Zionists. Their goal was (and still is) to create a new Jew, a Hebrew to replace Jews, replacing Judaism and the Torah with, lihavdil, Zionism, CH”V. This was and is very much not some innocent nationalist movement.
As the Brisker Rov wrote, the Zionists shmad not in order to have a State, but, rather, the Zionists need a State in order to shmad.
ZDad, that may be true in this context, though the meaning of egalitarian is simply equality (egal in French), not specifically equality between men and women.
147, you’re probably not serious.
But if you are serious, I presume you were not aware that the Chzaon Ish held that a person who keeps Torah and mitzvos, but celebrates Israel’s Yom HaAtzmaut, is an apikores. Whereas the N”K extremists have not done any such thing. So much for that…
So, while attacking a Jewish tinok shNishba over this heresy is probably not a correct approach, this does not change the heretical nature of Zionism.
ROB, as I posted in the Lipman thread, which I already referenced for you here, you would not give up your idolatry of Zionism even if you were proven wrong. But you can check that thread, as I wrote. Your idolatry was and is treif and indefensible no matter how much you wish that weren’t so.
Lakewood Fellow, (assuming you have learned in BMG) your past holy R”Y Rav Aharon Zatza”L was quite clear about his thoughts on Zionism. Regardless, Zionism is not a machlokes between gedolim.
Who can you bring that will take him on, and the Brisker Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chazon Ish, among many others, who declared Zionism to be the terrible heresy that it is? There is no machlokes. I am simply repeating their holy rulings.
Hakuna Matada, yasher koach; excellent post, in my humble opinion.
rebdoniel, you are “proudly MO”, and your theology maintains the mistaken notion of “halachic Judaism” as opposed to accepting “daas Torah” and being “machniah daas” to the same. No, that doesn’t mean you should turn your brain of; as as may questions as your Rabbi has time to answer and get the schar limud for doing so. But you are merely defending the indefensible, as HM posted.
However, unlike your claim that “this is only convenient for people of your mindset”, the truth is that nobody is stopping you from asking your own Rabbonim what their hashkafa is about any topic including teaching a child an umanus. This is not something exclusively allowed to traditionally orthodox Jews. The MO have decided to exclude themselves from this whole matter, and this is not only to their own detriment, it is also self-imposed.
I’m still not convinced they meant to malign Rav Ovadiah along with the thugs.
But, even if I am correct about that, I agree with PBA and disagree with Sam2 that the intended audience of the letter makes any difference.
As I posted earlier, PBA’s discussion with ROB about halacha is not going anywhere because, in ROB’s view, halacha conforms to ROB’s ideals (including Zionism), not the other way around.
ROB cannot even admit that the three oaths are halacha (which even “Religious Zionist rabbis” bring down and, unfortunately, bring fallacious arguments to get around them). So it seems ROB certainly can’t admit that lo sasuru and lo sikrivu, are halacha.
He keeps repeating the Zionist lie that the opinions both ways are well settled. I suppose Korach was also well-settled in his opinion against Moshe Rabbeinu, until he did teshuva after the ground opened up. Zionism is not “Eilu viEilu”, even though the Zionists really wish that to be true. Zionism is treif and shmad.
The Brisker Rav said the State is the Satan’s greatest achievement since the eigel. Rav Elchonon Wasserman said Zionism/Nationalism is Avoda Zara. Zionists think they know better, and most probably don’t even know just how much Zionism is shmad.
As the Brisker Rav observed, it is not that the Zionists shmad in order to have a State; rather, they need a State in order to shmad. This is clear to anyone who has read Herzl’s writings, knows the history of Zionism and observes what goes on in Israel even until today.
ROB, you’ve already been proven wrong about your idolatry of Zionism. This does not mean you can’t live in Israel, but the halachos against Zionism are very much real, contrary to Zionist fantasies.
And it’s not just Brisk and Satmar. Rabbi Reisman, as published on the front page of the Flatbush Jewish Journal, a while back, said that the gedolim held that the founding of the State did not change the halachic problems with Zionism and the State due to the 3 Oaths, etc.; what changed is the tactics of working either with Zionism or outside it, depending on your view.
But no objective Rabbi argues against the clear reality that Zionism was and is treif and shmad. Read Rav Elchonon’s Ikvesa DiMishicha and read Zionist history going back past the last century up until today. It’s clear to those not pocheis al shitei haSiifim.
I recently saw an article from a Rabbi who works with one of the “Frum” programs in the IDF and he admitted that the IDF is not a place for a frum kid who is “on the derech”, regardless of gender. That, too, is certainly a question of halacha, though it’s not that much of a question since the Chazon Ish and others forbade it for both boys and girls.
From a cursory reading of your posts, keeping in mind that you are a Zionist, it seems your entire halachic compass is way off, which is why PBA’s discussion with you is not going anywhere.
But you can go back to the Rabbi Dov Lipman thread and re-read, if you’d like. As you said there, nothing will convince you to give up your eigel, but you can re-read it anyways.
In my humble opinion, the portion of that letter regarding “oy lo…, etc.” seems to refer to the hooliganism, not to Rav Ovadia Yosef and his decisions. So, if true, what’s wrong with the RCA’s letter?
I don’t want to change the thread’s direction regarding ROB’s remarks. But the Torah is obviously not a mere law book; it is a way of life. I’ll stop there.
mdd, you’re missing the point and making assumptions as to my position which are completely wrong. And you still haven’t provided any sources to back up your assertions.
Of course there were many people who moved to Mandatory Palestine who had no intentions of shmad (i.e. becoming Zionist “Hebrews” and, CH”V discarding their Judaism). But this does not change the meaning of Zionism.
I quoted to you from what Herzl himself wrote as well as other Zionists, and the point is, again, that Rav Chaim Brisker was, in addition to his formidable daas Torah, simply stating the clear and obvious facts. Zionism needs a State for Shmad, not the other way around.
For further details, please see my previous posts (or read the books about Zionism).
Leyzer, aderaba. It is actually compelling evidence that this vociferous Arab enmity is precisely due to Zionism (and the State of Israel).
See the (transcription of the) recording from around 30 years ago of an interview with Rabbi Baruch Kaplan who was there at the time in 1929.
This has been mentioned many times on these boards.
The 1929 Chevron Massacre was a result of “Religious Zionists”, who sought to wrest from the Arabs control over the kosel, including Rabbi Kook who proclaimed “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu HaKosel Echad”. Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, and the other non-Zionist Jews who lived there well before Zionists came, had begged the Zionists to stop and not instigate the Arabs, but to no avail.
The (false) rumor spread among the Arabs that their Al Aqsa mosque was threatened, and they murdered these innocent Yeshiva boys who, with Ashkenazi features, looked to the Arabs like Zionists. The Sefardim who lived elsewhere in Chevron were not harmed because the Arabs knew these were not Zionists.
Here are his closing words, translated from Yiddish, as brought elsewhere:
“Everyone must know that the anger of the Arabs against us is only caused by the Zionists!
The Arabs were a friendly people to us, and I am a witness to it. We lived very well with them in Hebron. Rabbi Alter attested to this as well, and it is the accursed Zionists who caused them to hate us…