HaKatan

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

mdd, if you’d like to respond and have the last word about this, please feel free; I have quoted and brought down multiple secular sources, in addition to, lihavdil, Rav Chaim, whose shita is not at all shvere. You, on the other hand, have quoted nothing.

Despite your feelings on the matter regarding what you wish it were, and regardless of any Zionist propaganda to the contrary, the facts are what they are. As Rav Chaim said, Zionists need a State to shmad, not the other way around.

yichusdik, you missed the entire point and, as a bonus, you are also wrong about the Nazi comparison.

I was not condemning anyone, and certainly not a typical secular chiloni who I have previously said is likely a tonik sheNishba. I also never claimed anyone is an angel. Please relax.

I agree with you that many of them could care less what “Chareidim” do, other than the army issue.

The point is what Zionism is and is not. Zionism is shmad. Zionism is NOT merely a movement for a State. I explained all this above.

That doesn’t mean your typical chiloni is or is not anything. But Zionism is still shmad, as written.

MDD: I assume you wouldn’t care to actually back up your assertion that I am “wrong”? I even gave you plenty of reading material for mine. I guess you meant that you don’t agree even though you can’t disprove what I wrote and also have no (stated) proof to your own wishes about Zionism.

mdd:

The more you read, the more you see the Brisker Rov was absolutely right.

The more you observe current events, the more you see how he is still just as right.

Even in your own view about what he meant, he is still spouting kefirah, hence proving the Brisker Rov’s point.

Zionism believes that Jews need a State to be “normal” and that they need to be just like the nations and that religion had to go and the old Jew would be gone and the “new Jew” would be a Zionist, CH”V. His goal was “normalcy”, not safety. This is not within acceptable Jewish belief any way you slice it.

Here is a small sample of quotes:

Ben Gurion wrote:

“If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter…”

And Ben-Gurion wrote this blood libel, in the N.Y. Times, 4/22/1963:

“Jews are, in truth, a separate element in the midst of the peoples among whom they live; an element that cannot be completely absorbed by any nation. For this reason, no nation can calmly tolerate it in its midst.”

And on Zionism leaving Judaism behind:

“Our code must be framed to…fuse the returning tribes into a homogeneous national and cultural unit…cleansing of our lives from the trivia and dross which gathered upon us in dependence and exile…We have set up a dynamic State, bent upon creation and reform…Laws…merely a digest of experience and the lessons of the past, are useless to us. We need to…clear the path for circumstantial change.”

This is, of course, a primary function of the IDF.

Rabbi Gifter and many others bring up some of this.

Google “Jewish life is a dog’s life that evokes disgust”, which is also a Zionist quote, and see “The Zionist Illusion” in Google Books.

The Zionists don’t hide that they despise Judaism and its adherents and the Zionists have gone to extreme lengths to attempt to CH”V replace Judaism with, lihavdil, Zionism. As the Brisker Rov said, the Zionists need a State in order to shmad, not the other way around. There is plenty to read here and elsewhere that confirms this, not that he needs my confirmation.

EOM:

Our gedolim have written that the point of Zionism is shmad, and therefore the Zionists need a State, not the other way around. And that Zionism is Avoda Zara and Religion mixed with Zionism is merely Religion and A”Z biShituf.

Zionists wanted Zionism to, CH”V, replace Judaism as the religion of the Jews.

It is clear to anyone who observes what goes on there that this still holds true today, even if the Zionists’ methods have changed since Yaldei Teheran, et al. But this is besides the point.

Once you understand what Zionism is, it is clear that pro-Zionist means pro-Shmad even if the pro-shmad part is unintentional.

The Zionist “favors” are to either further trick people into believing in Zionism as, CH”V, the new Jewish religion and/or to buy influence and votes. (Of course, the “religious parties” in their parliament do work for the welfare of their constituents). Pirkei Avos basically says as much; this is not a chiddush.

As mentioned, the “Chareidim” lived in Eretz Yisrael before the Zionists came along and started up with the Arabs against the expressed wishes of Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld and the existing Chareidi population.

As for Hakaras haTov, I’ve previously posted the example of an arsonist who sets fire to a massive building complex and, while the fire rages, then goes to get his firetruck.

Once you’ve clarified what, if any, hakaras haTov, is due this arsonist, then you can determine the same for Zionism.

EOM, achdus is nice, and sinas chinam is not (not that I believe there is necessarily sina of any kind here). But this does not justify shmad. The IDF is a cultural organ, first and foremost. It happens to also be an army.

But any step to try to get chareidim into the IDF is for the sole purpose of acculturating them to the idolatry and kefirah of Zionism. As a bonus, the giluy arayos is also included.

As for akuperma’s “cavalier” attitude, I think his point is that, contrary to Zionist theology, the Holocaust is a part of galus just like the many other tragedies before it, Hashem Yishmor.

nfgo, since you mention the Torah’s great value of Jewish lives, what is your opinion on the thousands of Jewish lives sacrificed on the altar of Zionism and the State of Israel, especially before it “protected” any Jews?

I don’t agree with everything akuperma posted, but I wanted to point out that it is not “we” Jews who have a dispute with the Arabs over real estate, but rather it is the Zionists who idiotically insisted on having that dispute. Jews asked them to NOT do so but they went ahead and did so anyways and convinced the world to allow them to represent world Jewry during WW II and beyond.

Gedolim have written that the reason the Zionists are Zionists is to shmad, to change the Jewish faith and people from Jews to R”L Zionists. This MO still goes on today, albeit in slightly different form.

Avi K,

Please feel free to respond and have the last word between us on this; as a Zionist, you are intent on serving your idol and there is evidently nothing anybody can say to make you give that up until BaYom haHu yihye Hashem echad uShmo echad.

1. The oaths are halacha, as has been more than amply demonstrated. As well, the Rambam would not have brought them up to the Yemenites if they were not in force.

I’m quoting from another site to answer your question regarding 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”.

2. Even if the British had no good reason to have the Patria sent to a different colony, political considerations are never a reason to detonate explosives on a boat packed with civilians as the Zionists did in that case.

3. Even the Zionists had a committee of inquiry about this very sordid affair. Multiple sources have documented it, HaModia recently had an article on it, etc.

4. Kol HaPoseil…

5. He says that he was not justifying any “ism”.

6. Signs of the geulah do not justify Zionism. In fact, gedolim have said that Zionism

is holding back the geulah. After all, we see the sign that it’s otherwise ready, as indicated by the gemara.

7. Although “Religious Zionists” can’t get enough of that book, there is no “long list of gedolim” who “concur” with Rabbi Teichtal. And please see #4.

You are so desperate to justify this idolatry and heresy that you are denying reality and writing nonsense.

“GUA”:

Hashem wants us to do the right thing and not to stumble.

So since the Brisker Rov compared the State to the egel when he said the State of Israel is the Satan’s greatest triumph since the egel, it is simply not possible for him to have also said that Hashem “smiled” about the State any more than He “smiled” about the egel.

The stira seems irreconcilable, in my humble opinion.

mdd, I did mention both sides of the Moetzes debate, for what that debate was worth. Since you obviously missed it before, here is Rabbi Reisman, as quoted in the Flatbush Jewish Journal:

“Although most of the Torah rabbis opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in our ancient homeland, once it was established in 1948, the attitude of some leading rabbis changed to one of working with the government…As Rabbi Reuven Grozovsky wrote, the ideals don’t change. The ideal of sticking to the three oaths remains. But because the facts on the ground have changed, therefore our behavior is different.”

Notice he wrote “most of the Torah rabbis”, not “Brisk/Satmar” rabbis. Notice also that even after 1948 “sticking to the three oaths remains”. So regarding lying/distorting, is this, perhaps, a case of kol haPoseil biMumo Poseil?

To clarify your mistake, it is the Zionists who have no answers.

Avi K:

1. Popa already answered you earlier. Again, he used the oaths as the basis for a recorded psak. And other poskim did bring them. And Zionist Rabbis still struggle (unsuccessfully) to explain them away. They are halacha, despite Zionists wishing they weren’t.

2. There only took that risk for political reasons. It was totally unnecessary, except that to Zionists any benefit to the State is more important than pikuach nefesh.

3. Health dealt with this.

4. You opt to remain ignorant, and this does not change history.

5. Rabbi Teichtal was not a Zionist. His hakdama says so. This is all nonsense.

6. Who said it is? Zionists, who have no problem with shmad of Jews, and who make nationalism a religious obligation greater than pikuach nefesh?

7. Your fantasies have been disproven, and I have tried to bring that for you.

You remain deluded by this egel. Rav Elchnon, the Brisker Rov and many others condemned nationalism and Zionism in the harshest terms. You rely on sevaras which anyways aren’t sevaras to go against them. Good luck.

Just Emes:

Again, the outcome was definitely not positive.

Both Zionism and the State have committed appalling acts of treachery against our people.

The Brisker Rov and Chazon Ish and many others were absolutely against the State even after it was founded, regardless of minor differences like voting and other damage control measures. Your “B”D of Klal Yisrael” only goes so far. It certainly can’t change the Torah (nothing can), only work within it. According to what you mentioned, Hashem allowed these Rabbis to dictate world events via their psak that the State should be founded. This seems possible. But this does not make it good.

Do you also think the egel was a good thing, too? After all, Aharon HaKohein asked for the jewelry which was used to make it. (Obviously, we know that he was stalling, etc.) Again, here, you are blaming those Rabbis who voted for the State’s creation as the ones responsible spiritually for its creation (maybe they also had a cheshbon). So, it’s like the egel, except, there, it was the Micha who threw in Alei Shor, whereas here it was those Rabbis who paskined it should be created so Hashem listened to them. Wonderful!

But does that change the reality of what happened in either case? Do you not understand that far more Jews died for this idol than (directly) from the egel? Why is this so difficult to understand? You admit the secular Zionists did bad things, which is putting it very mildly. So why are you so enraptured by their egel, which is still a disaster and shmad entity? Does their shmad and other aveiros mean nothing to you that you want their State because of the minimal State religious trappings and the significant Torah that is learned there, especially when it’s assur to create that State and its continued existence continually violates the oaths?

And just today, even after all the rivers of blood spilled on the altar of Zionism and the State of Israel, there is yet another story on YWN:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/169606/Two-Girls-Injured-in-Gush-Etzion-Rock-Throwing-Attack.html

Avi K.

1. Yes, they were obviously written in an allegorical manner (hishbati eschem…im tachpitzu…es haAvaha….). But their halachic status and the Rambam’s advice to the Yemenites quoting those oaths was clearly not Derech Mashal. And many other poskim bring them liHalacha, some of whom I already quoted for you. They are clearly halacha, Zionist fantasies not withstanding.

2. Health dealt with #2. Besides, even if it were accidental as they claim, they took a chance detonating explosives on a ship full of Jews because of Zionist reasons.

3. Even the Zionists admit this; they had a Committee of Inquiry about it. HaModia recently had a whole piece on the Yaldei Teheran scandal too. You don’t need to be more Zionist than the Zionists, though I do understand that uncomfortable facts could diminish one’s belief in this idolatry.

4. Your lack of knowledge says nothing about their history.

5. Again, this makes no sense, as I wrote. Even if your “no longer needed” sevara were theoretically true, it’s clearly not true in this case because of the disaster of Zionism on both a physical and spiritual level, with its ongoing shmad even today.

Zionism has no answers.

Regarding cheap shots and propaganda, did you not learn in pre-school that two wrongs don’t make a right? And did you not learn to discuss something at its merits and not take cheap shots?

Even if what I wrote were only propaganda or otherwise wrong, that would not give you the right to take cheap shots.

mdd, please learn a little bit about the topic before you post.

Avi K:

Regarding R’ Chaim Vital, again, he is not speaking of these gimmel shevuos.

The whole premise is absurd for the following reason:

The oaths are a protection for us in galus, even according to Rabbi Aviner. So, again, as we are still in galus past that 1,000 years, expiring that protection before the end of galus is foolish for obvious safety reasons.

To try to clarify further, however:

He brings the following, in his piece:

The oath in question is a separate oath about the length of the exile.

[than 1000 years]

So, even according to Rav Chaim Vital, that 1,000 year was not a hard limit. But it’s anyways irrelevant because he’s discussing a different oath.

Regardless, it’s not our oaths. Also, even if it were, there are two oaths that Zionism violates, not “just” one. So at least one is still being violated even if you were correct.

lesschumras:

With all due respect, your post makes no sense. Zionism and Israel have nothing to do with freedom to practice our faith throughout the western world. Zionism and Israel are, however, responsible for tens of thousands of Jews who were sacrificed on the altar of their idolatrous State, thousands in the 1948 war alone. We discussed all this.

And none of the shmad perpetrated the Zionists can be expected to have occurred elsewhere. Before the Zionists shmadded them in Israel, the Yemenites had their Mesorah and resultant seforim, etc. intact from bayis rishon. Similarly, other sefardim and ashkenazim as well, were shmadded to Zionism (and I don’t mean “religious Zionism”).

None of this would (presumably) have happened without Zionism.

(Regarding the Holocaust, I believe it was Rav Gifter who wrote that it was common knowledge among the gedolim in the 1900s that Hitler YM”Sh was a divine agent of chastisement due to supporting Zionism. Other Gedolim may not have held that way, but it seems there were many gedolim who did. So your point there is not true according to some.)