Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ZDad, that would disqualify Rabbi Kook, too.
Once doesn’t need to guess; they could move anywhere, likely including Eretz Yisrael, but nothing can make that idol kosher. The halachic issues are just as valid; the only thing that changed was the tactics in dealing with it post-1948. But the issues, including the 3 oaths, as Rabbi Reisman wrote, never changed.
Avi K,
From searching elsewhere, it seems he is correct; as he says, it refers to Hashem’s oath of 1,000 years of galus, not the plural oaths that Klal Yisrael are bound by.
Besides, it’s brought liHalacha by gedolim and well after that 1,000 years elapsed. I read elsewhere that even Rav Ovadiah Yosef dismisses this by writing that they should read what is said about it in Vayoel Moshe.
He also answers Rabbi Aviner’s kuntreis as well, one of whose points is the one we just discussed.
Here too, the Three Oaths are certainly aggadah but they contain unique halachos. The poskim (though not the Shulchan Aruch, who only brings the most relevant laws) do quote them as halacha.”
There is actually a long list, far longer than what I have mentioned here.
Regarding Kol Dodi Dofek, how does any of this address the three oaths, much less “answer” them? We’re all still in Galus and this protection from Hashem is not less needed because of these “opportunities” granted. Miracles don’t condone anything.
There are explanations for all these, anyways. But #5 is clearly wrong.
“…due to the birth of the State of Israel; the fact that Jews had a position of power and a homeland meant that Jewish blood could no longer be spilt freely and without fear of retribution.”
Israel is the laughing-stock of the nations and is the ultimate “galus Jew”.
Regarding the 1,000 years allegation, this is also untrue. Rav Chaim Vital did not say the three oaths last only 1,000 years. We cannot post links, but the explanation of what he does say, which is a separate matter, can be found via Google.
Regarding it not being liMaaseh, even the “Religious Zionists” know the oaths are an issue. They convince themselves of absurd “solutions” (some based on distortions and forgeries, some simply not compatible with our Torah) to avoid the issue, but even the Zionists admit to the oaths being an issue. Poskim bring it, the Rambam brings it, the Maharal brings it, the Brisker Rov brings it and the Satmar Rov brings it, among many others.
Again, following that knessiah, the Zionists foolishly did not abide by the “psak of the beis din of Klal Yisrael” (which did not explicitly address the oaths, and what the halachic ramifications of that “psak” were) that the Zionists would not interfere with religion, thereby anyways rendering that “psak”, for whatever it did mean, null and void.
The Rav Moshe story requires far more clarification for it to be meaningful here.
The Chofetz Chaim, the Brisker Rov, Rav Elchonon, the Satmar Rov, Rabbi Rottenberg and many others have been shown to be very correct regarding the many disasters, both physical and spiritual, that the Zionists have brought on our people, Hashem Yishmor.
Again, the Zionists cannot justify their idolatry.
mdd, I would imagine that in Kiryas Yoel they would sooner tell you that the holy Rav Moshe was wrong and that their holy Rebbe was correct. I did not do so.
Thanks for contributing substantively to the discussion.
Just Emes (regarding Mitzrayim):
Given your screen name, and after reading your answer about the State being more worthy of Hakaras HaTov than Mitzrayim, I can only conclude that your Zionist leaning are tainting your ability to think objectively here.
You’re asking a question on a befeirush pasuk (not me) and then somehow trying to extend that to Zionism.
The Torah itself says “Lo Sisaev Mitzri…” and then it explains why, as I said, “ki ger hayisa biArtzo”. So even with all the terrible things the Mitzriyim did to us (and they did not do those terrible things from day one, speaking of “just emes”), they still did host us in their land for tens of decades, and that, the Torah says is worthy of Hakaras HaTov.
“Gadol haMachtio yoser min haHorgo”, certainly applies to Zionists, yet this also doesn’t matter to you.
Besides:
You still haven’t explained why the Zionists, nominal Jews, who still revere the Tanach as a cultural object because, in their warped view, it CH”V justifies their political existence in Eretz Yisrael. Why SHOULDN’T the Zionists allow Jews to be *gasp* practicing Jews? Why does this make them worthy of Hakaras HaTov?
As for the subsidies, the State only does this because they have to. It’s called buying influence, and this is history as well, none of which you seem to be interested in, for some reason, and this is a two-way street, despite the whining of the Zionists about it now.
It’s also interesting that you mention how mitzrayim “removed us from kedusha for 210 yrs”, yet you completely ignore all the shmad the Zionists have committed, where they have certainly changed a Jew to be far less distinct than we were in Mitzrayim, and you immediately mention Zionism in that same sentence while leaving all this out. Why?
And even if you live in Eretz Yisrael under Israel’s “protection”, you still haven’t addressed my arsonist fireman example. But for someone who doesn’t live there, who has no reason to be makir tov to that fireman, I certainly disagree with your assertion regarding hakaras haTov.
Just Emes (cont)
As well, I disagree with your chidush about Hashem willing any of this. CH”V that Hashem should want such a massive and enduring desecration of His holy name and the terrible misfortune on His children as you claim it was the ratzon Hashem because the “Beis Din of Klal Yisrael” paskened. Lu Yitzuyar, however, that their “psak” was actually followed (as per my above point), I would then concede that Hashem allowed it because of lo baShamayim hi; given the Brisker Rov’s position of the State being the Satan’s greatest triumph since the Egel, this would provide insight into why Hashem allowed the satan to put Klal Yisrael to such a test: because the gedolim said so.
You do realize that, essentially, you are blaming those members of the moetzes who did vote for the State (against the world-class great rabbis who voted no), for all the massive chillul Hashem, shmad, aveiros chamuros and other terrible things, spiritual and physical, that the Zionists have committed and continue to commit. According to you, it all happened because of those gedolim.
benignuman:
I assume you meant “cite”, not sight in your post.
Anyways:
There are sites that mention the following hold the oaths as halacha:
Piskei Riaz, Kesubos 13:8
Shailos Uteshuvos Rivash, Siman 101
Maharal (Netzach Yisroel, Chapter 24)
Just Emes:
You haven’t addressed my point that the “Beis Din of Klal Yisrael”‘s psak, whatever that was supposed to allow, was not what happened. So, therefore, that “psak” is anyways meaningless liMaaseh.
Again, bringing up the Ohr Sameach only underscores the crucial need to examine your Rav Moshe story in light of the questions I posed above. The Ohr Sameach did not condone Zionism in any form. He himself cited the oaths, too; but, because of San Remo, he allowed simple emigration to E”Y, not any political rule and not by any fighting, both of which Zionism terribly violated and continue to violate.
Just Emes (continued):
Let’s look at the politics and history.
Did you know that the Zionists themselves blew up one of those boats, the Patria, in Palestine, in political protest, supposedly not intending to kill any of the Jews on that boat?
Did you know that, long before 1948, the Zionists (fraudulently, of course) established themselves as the representatives for world Jewry and, during WW II, actively lobbied governments such as Canada to not take in Jews from Europe as they would have otherwise done, because the Zionists insisted the Jews would either be brought to Palestine only, no matter what?
Did you even hear about the Zionist mantra during WW II that “Rak BiDam Tihye Lanu HaAretz”?
Even the religious Zionists openly admit this. But there’s more: a Zionist official said that the old and infirm are like dust and they shall pass and that no effort would be made and no money would be spent to save them from being murdered by the Nazis in Europe in WW II? There were plenty of other quotes like “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”?
Do you know what vicious lies and slander the Zionists said about Jews before the Holocaust in a treacherous attempt to justify “needing” a “Jewish” State?
Did you know that the Nazis YM”Sh used some of those Zionist lies as part of their own propaganda?
Have you seen Rabbi Weissmandl’s writings on the topic of frustrated rescue efforts during WW II, how the Zionists impeded rescue attempts?
(There’s much more.) Once you’ve seen past the Zionist blindfolds, then you can better evaluate how much “good” you think the Zionists have done. Again, I refer you to the arsonist example above, and that is a very kind analogy, in my humble opinion.
Just Emes:
Regarding the Holocaust and Zionists having allegedly done good things:
Your “ain lomar”, the argument that the Jews would have been okay without a State and would have been better off without Zionism and its “favors”, is the most historically sound and also halachicly convincing possibility, provided you understand just how antithetical to Torah is, lihavdil, Zionism, and that you do not accept Zionist lies as historical truth, which you seem to do.
There are some gedolim who claim the Holocaust happened precisely because of the lack of protest against Zionism and that the Holocaust was the terrible result of violating those oaths, of Ani Mattir es Bisaarchem, CH”V. I’ve even read the “middah kinegged middah” explanations, too, according to that shita.
But let’s say one holds like the other gedolim who did not claim this, who say the particular aveira or aveiros that caused this is inexplicable.
Beyond the Holocaust, do you know the shmad they have perpetrated and still do perpetrate on our people? Did Chazal not say “gadol haMachtio yoser min haHorgo”?
Just Emes:
Regarding the “Beis Din of Klal Yisrael”, this is not relevant; all this indicates is that Hashem listens to them, not that they are or are not correct.
Regarding Rav Moshe, as I wrote, the context matters (like by Rav Meir Simcha, just for example), and the questions above would address the issue.
Beyond this, regarding mitzrayim and Zionism, I asked you if you believed that the arsonist in the example I mentioned above was deserving of hakaras haTov. A similar chiyuv (or, presumably, lack thereof) of hakaras hatov would apply to the Zionists.
From the rest of your post, it appears that you don’t understand the basis for comparison. I will get to it after your next point.
Again, the major gedolim like the Brisker Rov and others held that no matter who would run the State it would still be assur to start it. And even those from the Agudah who agreed not to prevent it, whatever that means, did so with the expectation that the Zionists would not interfere with Yahadus, as I wrote. Since the Zionists did and do interfere, it is plain from their words that none of those Agudah Rabbis would have endorsed the State of Israel. So much for “Klal Yisrael’s Beis Din”.
Just Emes:
The actual emes is that a good portion of that Agudah knessiah, and not just the Brisker Rov, were against Zionism and against the creation of a State even if (other than the oaths) the State would be run al pi Torah. The Ohr Sameach, too, endorsed the oaths as being halachicly applicable. I wrote about this above.
I also pointed out in my previous post that the Agudah’s “psak” to not hold back accepting the State, whatever that’s supposed to mean, was with the explicit stated understanding that the Zionists would not interfere (negatively) in religious observance. The Zionists very much did and do. So the whole psak seems rather invalid.
You can’t throw out the window a bifeirush gemara, the Rambam, poskim, the Maharal, acharonim, the Chofetz Chaim, the Satmar Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, et al. regarding the oaths with clear accompanying historical record and current events of Zionist aveiros chamuros besides for shmad, etc. just because of an ambiguous story about Rav Moshe with no context of time, place, precision (working with the Zionists versus being a Zionist CH”V), etc. Yiftach biDoro does not allow for this.
I’m not CH”V questioning Rav Moshe’s validity as a posek haDor. Aderaba, I want to know what he held about all these points I mentioned before. This would clarify the issue.
I already addressed your HaKaras HaTov point in my previous post.
mdd, your latest cheap shot about 2+2=9 is less cheap than the other one, but still not appreciated.
Regarding WZO, maybe ask them why they’re members. My point, which you refuse to accept, is that you can’t infer their position on the oaths and halachic issues of Zionism just because they’re members of a political organization. As they’re “working from within”, it actually makes sense that they’re members of WZO. It’s not a kashya, to me.
Regarding Rav Moshe, please see my earlier post to Just Emes.
Avi K.
1. The Zionists have no good answers.
2. Do you know anything about what galus means? Your position is actually breathtaking in its azus against Hashem. Hashem said the best thing for you in galus is to keep these oaths. You Zionists think you know better. It’s one thing to fantasize that the UN nullifies the oaths. But it’s quite another to say, as you do, that because of all the terrible things the gentiles did to us, Hashem Yishmor, that Hashem CH”V “thought wrong” about giving us those oaths meIkara. But that’s par for the course for Zionists.
3. It’s nice that you feel that way; the gedolim did not.
4. I told you already who it was. HaTekufa HaGidolah is the book.
5. It is irrelevant vis a vis Zionism.
6. He was referring to traditional Orthodoxy, not just Chassidim. Either way, both are flourishing while MO is moving either even *more* “to the left”, CH”V or, B”H “to the right”.
7. Rabbi JBS said it about Rabbi Kook; see “The Rav Thinking Aloud” by Rabbi David Holtzer. Someone asked Rabbi Soloveichik if he felt the presence of greatness. He answered “I wouldn’t say greatness. Uniqueness. “Greatness”? If you understand by “greatness” intellectual greatness: no, I was not impressed by his scholastics.”
But that’s okay; Korach was great, too. But he was still wrong. So it’s at least as possible that Rabbi Kook was wrong, too. It’s all been discussed. See here:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rav-elyashev-bans-nachal-chareidi/page/6
Avi K,
1. If the oaths were not halacha why, for starters, did the Or Sameach and the Avnei Nezer, both of whom the Zionists distort and misquote, bring them as such.
2. Who claimed “the oaths did not do a very good job of protecting us”? And why would that mean “the deal is off”? Which god told you that, Herzl?
3. I really would prefer to not discuss this, because I respect his Torah. One obvious difference is that the gedolim were speaking prior to the State’s establishment when the question of a State was a theoretical one. They were not “anti-Zionist”; they were pro-Torah. Another big difference is that there were major gedolim who held Rabbi JB Soloveichik was influenced by his secular studies. No such claim was made against the great sages like Rav Chaim and Rav Elchonon.
4. The Zionist forgeries of Rabbi Kasher were documented in MiKatowitz ad 5 B’Iyar.
5. The fact that he flew it still has no bearing on Zionism. No Terutzim are necessary to this non-kashya.
6. What I wrote came from a “Religious Zionist” site; I don’t recall the original source. As for Rabbi JB Soloveichik (again), he said lots of things that many gedolim disagreed with. He also said that traditional Orthodoxy would become a museum piece/relic. Yet, now, MO decries the non-MO “triumphalism”. So, even according to MO, he clearly was mistaken about that prediction. Regardless, it seems pretty obvious, though, at least in the Jewish faith, that there is nothing holy about a secular flag, much less one that represents the likes of Herzl and the others, not to mention the oaths issues. While on the topic, Rabbi JB Soloveichik also said he was unimpressed with Rabbi Kook’s scholarship. Still hold by either one 100%?
Just Emes:
Regarding the Moetzes, I read that the Brisker Rov was not at all in favor of having a moetzes, for a number of reasons. Wasn’t he the one that said a line about how the secretarin will be calling the shots? He certainly did not agree with that decision to condone the State, and neither did Rav Aharon and others who were there.
Regarding that meeting, the ones who opposed those Torah giants felt that “it is possible to agree, according to the laws of the Torah, to the establishment of a Jewish state in its portion of the land of Israel without denying the belief in the coming of the redeemer. There is no need to be concerned that the non-religious will chase, through the Jewish state, the religion.”
They were very, very wrong about that last line. As the Brisker Rov said, the Zionists need a state to shmad, not that they shmad for their State. In hindsight, this is pashut. The shmad they have perpetrated is ayom viNora and still ongoing. So, given the benefit of history, it is highly unlikely that they would have voted as they did if they would have known.
As for hakaras haTov, mitzrayim is not at all an appropriate comparison. The Zionists are (nominally) Jews. Should they not let Jews practice their faith? Every civilized nation allows this. How is this worthy of Hakaras haTov?
As for protecting Jews, I really don’t want to get started listing the myriad things they have done to endanger and worse, CH”V, Jews. So the pathetic amount of protection that their mandatory draft shmad army and American anti-missile system which they know is not fully effective pales in comparison to what they’ve done to Jews. In Mitzrayim, we came to their land and they hosted us, despite the many terrible things they did to us. BiNidon diDan, the Zionists came to Eretz Yisrael and made a terrible churban. There is no comparison.
In reality, a better analogue would be an arsonist who, after setting a complex of buildings on fire and the fire rages powerfully, then runs to his little fire truck. That is, lichaora, the extent of the hakaras haTov due Zionists.
Just Emes:
Did Rav Moshe write (against the earlier poskim) that the oaths were not halachic and not applicable liMaaseh?
Did Rav Moshe write that it’s muttar to be oleh biChoma?
Did Rav Moshe write that it’s muttar to be madchik haKeitz?
Did Rav Moshe write that liUmiyus (Nationalism) is, CH”V, part of the Torah?
Did Rav Moshe write that liUmiyus is permitted (to be grafted on to the Torah)?
I’m not at all convinced that it’s “just a history of the shittos haposkim” without answers to those specific questions (and more).
Again, even the Zionists Rabbis try to (unsuccessfully) find teirutzim for the three oaths, like the San Remo conference, et al. According to your story, they should have just asked Rav Moshe. Not to mention the vehement opposition of gedolim earlier than Rav Moshe, such as Rav Elchonon who called Zionism A”Z, Rav Aharon Kotler, Brisker Rov who called the State the Satan’s greatest accomplishment since the egel, etc.
I find this bizarre, as much as I trust your screen name.
correction: “membership in an organization does indicate halachic rulings on Zionism” should read “…does not…”
mdd, I understand you’re attempting to defend the indefensible, but please do not take cheap shots at me by mentioning other posters ot Tehran, etc.
I am discussing Zionism’s many halachic failings, not giving support to Ahmadinejad.
Regarding the WZO, membership in an organization does indicate halachic rulings on Zionism. Ponovezh flies the Israeli flag on their Independence day but that also does not mean they are, CH”V, Zionists.
ROB, it’s too bad you can’t find the sefarim I mentioned, but that doesn’t negate what their great authors said, other than in your fantasy-land. As well, outside of your fantasy-land, Zionism was and is a disaster for Jews, as I also wrote.
Finally, as I wrote, you anyways wouldn’t abandon your idolatry even if you saw those sources in black-and-white, so who are you trying to fool?
There are many places which reference Rav Chaim’s position on Zionism. Dr. Levine from Stevens has an interesting piece which he mentioned “the malach” and the Brisker Rov.
The Zionists have no answers, and you certainly don’t.
Just Emes:
Your sources are not fitting your screen name. You are using Zionist propaganda as a basis for your statements. Read what really happened in 1948 and then try again. The Zionists had no reason other than Zionism to attempt to take Yerushalayim in 1948. This was a clear violation of shelo yaalu biChomah as they were not given Yerushalayim.
Besides, the entire Zionist ascension was clearly anything but peaceful; it was definitely not biShalom. If you really want to get technical about who did and did not give permission, the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine were not members of the UN and they very much did not agree with Zionist aspirations. The UN, even if all its members agree, has no power to nullify the oaths.
Regardless, this all only addresses the shelo yaalu biChomah oath. The political rule in Eretz Yisrael is a separate violation of not forcing an early end to the galus.
Regarding Rav Moshe, even the Zionists admit that he was against flying the Israeli flag, both inside and outside shul and he called the founders of the State wicked, etc. and that if the Israeli flag were to be considered “holy” by Zionists then it would be like a keili of A”Z.
Avi K, we discussed all this. From the top.
1. The oaths are halacha and are brought down by early poskim. And the same Rambam warned against violating them in Igeres Teiman.
2. The oaths are a protection for us in galus. Even your own Zionist Rabbis try to come up with reasons for why the oaths are not in effect any more; if they were only for 1,000 years, and this logically makes no sense given the above, then there would be no reason to come up with any other reason why Israel and Zionism don’t violate them, which of course, they fragrantly do.
3. The gentiles violating their oath is also irrelevant for the same reason. Our oaths are for our protection. It is stupid to give that up because the gentiles violated their oath.
4. The Ohr Sameach you are quoting is, in my humble understanding, based on the forgeries from Rabbi Kasher. Either way, as I wrote earlier, the Ohr Sameach there allowed for people to go up and not for political rule as that would violate the other oath of trying to “force” the geulah.
5. Rabbi Soloveichik was a Zionist, so he is not a raaya to anything.
6. You are mistakenly assuming it is “obvious” that Rav Kahaneman did not agree. A recent talmid wrote on these boards that this is done for political purposes and not, CH”V, as an endorsement of the idolatry of Zionism.
Rav Edelstein’s quote, too, does not endorse Zionism; while that obviously differs from the Satmar Rov, he, too, is not endorsing Zionism, only that since the State is, very unfortunately, a reality, that one who does not vote is poresh min haTzibur.
Again, there are no sources to justify the idolatry of Zionism.
MDD, that has nothing to do with the halachic issues.
benignuman, no, that was not the position of the Ohr Sameach. We discussed this already. The UN is not representative of the entire world, much as they wish they were, and the Arab locals very much did not agree. Neither, for that matter, did the UK, who said that the Zionists were reading far more into their permission than they had intended. The Zionists clearly rebelled against the nations, and “Religious Zionists” struggle to find a heter for that rebellion, which they can’t.
Regardless, even if it were with everyone’s permission, this would only address the oaths of rebelling against the nations, not the oath of going up en mass.
As for the false claim of the oaths not being halacha, we covered this already also. The oaths are brought lihalacha by other poskim. (The lack of presence in Shulchan Aruch does not indicate its Halachic status.) The Rambam certainly believed it’s halacha when he wrote about it in Igeres Teiman. The Maharal said not to violate the oaths even if the nations forced Klal Yisrael to do so.
The Tzitz Eliezer also thought it was with everyone’s permission, etc. and not to establish a political rulership, only to live there.
Religious Zionists spill much ink trying to explain away the oaths. Just look at the Ohr Sameach you quoted, who clearly did hold of the oaths (until the Zionists mistakenly claim they became battel with some nations’ permission). This is a very basic distortion of the Ohr Sameach, as I wrote.
But the Zionists don’t have any reasonable answers to justify their idolatry and against the oaths because there are no such answers.
I’m not sure what sina is involved and, even more so, why you consider it chinam.
I think my post above to benignuman should answer your question, though it was Rav Elchonon who held that Zionism is A”Z: I don’t need to defend him and he obviously doesn’t need me to do so either.
Violating the oaths is the crux of the matter.
According to a Zionist web site, Rav Ovadia is “ambivalent” on Zionism.
As I wrote, many religious Zionists struggle futilely to explain away the oaths.
If you read Rav Ovadia’s actual positions as he’s quoted there, though, he is not a Zionist. He does not write that he advocates military conquest, considering it worthwhile to sacrifice lives CH”V for the State and he does also not write that he disregards the oaths.
Here is what he wrote:
“What is Zionist? By our understanding, a Zionist is a person who loves Zion and practices the commandment of settling the land. Whenever I am overseas I encourage Aliyah. In what way are they more Zionist than us?”
Notice that last line: he defines Zionism as simply fulfilling the mitzva of settling the land, which means he seems to hold that the mitzva is, to some extent, in effect nowadays. But he does not say you can violate the oaths by doing so. Everyone davens for Tzion (i.e. not the government, in case that wasn’t clear) in shemone esrei and also there were other yishuvim before Zionism and I don’t know of an opinion that those people violated the oaths; they simply went to live in Eretz Yisrael, no strings attached. I don’t see Rav Ovadia saying differently.
The Zionists have no answers to the oaths and the gross violations of those that Zionism was and is.
“ViEl Isheich Tishukaseich”, is what Hashem spoke to Chava.
That doesn’t mean she can’t be happy otherwise, but this is her nature.
benignuman,
Religious Zionism, striving to “gain and maintain sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel as a religious obligation” is not held as being in force by any major gadol to justify violating the oaths. Aderaba, it’s a severe violation of the oaths. Again, even the Zionist Rabbis struggle (futilely) to explain away the oaths.
Regarding after the state was established, there is no reason to believe Rav Elchonon would have held any differently except, like gedolim other than the Satmar Rov did, they joined in the State to save what they could from within. But, as Rabbi Resiman wrote, it was only the tactics that changed, not the ideals. The oaths were still in force and were being violated by Zionists.
Outside Zionists, this is universal, not “just” the Brisker and Satmar Rabbanim.
Zionism and the State were and are a terrible aveira and, besides that, a horrific disaster.
mdd, you’re the one “dreiing a kup”. No Zionist has yet produced a source by a universally accepted gadol, whose sefarim are learned in Yeshivos around the world, that claims this idolatry of Zionism is muttar.
Your miracles story, as I posted, is meaningless. I addressed this already. The gemara records that miracles took place in a church. Are you joining them, CH”V?
Come on.
ROB (cont.):
As for looking at the “results” to see what was right:
This is more amazing that the rest of your post. You imply that, say, the Chazon Ish, would look at Israel and its bloody and shmad history and deem all that worthwhile.
Zionists call the tens of thousands of Jews who lost their lives for this idol “worthwhile”. Any grade school kid who is not brainwashed by Zionism could tell you that the Torah does not agree with them and you. It doesn’t take a gadol to do so.
As well, the Zionists have shmaded generations of our people and still are doing so and they still have a mandatory draft, day-to-day reliance on a missile system which is proven not close to fully effective.
Their Zionists quotes from before and during WW II are well known. The nazis ym”Sh used similar language and even used some of those quotes for their propaganda. Herzl himself said anti-semitism would become the friend of Zionism to justify their idolatrous existence.
No matter how much Torah is thriving there by those who were not shmaded (or not completely shmaded in the case of “Religious Zionists”), Zionism has been a disaster for Jewry from a physical and Jewish spiritual perspective. Since Zionism is more important to you than either of those, you simple don’t care and write about pink elephants and living under Arab rule. Under Arab rule, the Yemenites had their mesorah from bayis roshon. We all know what the Zionists did to them and their mesorah once the Zionists fooled them into coming to Israel.
As for why the Brisker Rov lived there, at least one thing is certain: unlike yourself, he understood Zionist shmad for what it was. So, given his knowledge and greatness, why should he not live on a higher level being in Eretz Yisrael? You live there because you believe in this A”Z; lihavdil, he did not.
The more you bring up, the worse you make Zionism look to any objective observer. You really should just give it up and rejoin the original and true Jewish faith.
ROB, I’m waiting (not) for your retraction of your “hot air” accusation.
Again, speaking of hot air…
Contrary to your post, you are not “forced to post” except that you can’t help but desperately and futilely attempt to defend your idol of Zionism. Your “claims” have been answered numerous times despite your attempt to continue to spout these lies.
Rabbi Kook was roundly condemned by gedolim for his shitos. They emphatically disagreed with him that atheist soccer players being greater than neviim. Please don’t ask me to write more about him; there is no point.
Regarding Rabbi Zevin, bimchilas kivod Toraso haRama, you cannot put Rabbi Zevin against those multiple Torah greats like the Chofetz Chaim, the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, Rav Elchonon, Rav Aharon, et al. some of whom were older than him by at least a generation and we know that earlier generations are greater than later ones.
The Zionists have no answers.
Regarding the 1967 6-day war, please Google CIA 1967 war and click on the link to the CIA’s own web site.
Here is a brief selection:
[5]”
So much for “miracles”. But even if it were, even if Rav Yaakov held the 1967 was was miracles, that doesn’t make the A”Z of Zionism muttar; it just means the Jews in Eretz Yisrael were, B”H, zoche to nissim. It speaks nothing about their theology, as the Torah clearly warns about.
ZDad, you can check the historical records and see that 1967 was, in fact, not a miracle, but that’s besides the point and does not CH”V make Rav Yaakov a Zionist.
benignuman, no.
But I assume you never read the severe things that other gedolim said about Rabbi Kook (in particular) and Rabbi Soloveichik and their positions. In the case of Rabbi Kook, they banned learning from his works. As for Rabbi Teichtal, he was not a Zionist, and his hakdama says as much.
Regarding the others, assuming you are being truthful that they are Zionists, are you saying that any of these other Rabbis were equal in greatness to the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Elchonon, Rabbi JB Soloveichik’s own predecessors like the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler and others?
ROB, I highly doubt you would abandon your A”Z even if I did give sources, speaking of blowing smoke…
Anyways:
Rav Elchonon’s quote is from Ikvisa DiMishicha, as I wrote.
The Brisker Rov’s shita is from Uvdos ViHanhagos LiBeis Brisk.
Speaking of sources, MDD, I presume you are using the well-known forgeries from Rabbi Kasher as your source? Rav Aharon Kotler who was a member of the moetzes and was there, as well as others like the Chazon Ish and many others, are on record as being vehemently against Zionism.
What are your sources that any Gadol was pro-Zionist, CH”V?
Besides, who of their stature wrote that Rav Elchonon and the Brisker Rov were wrong?
Again, the Zionists have no valid answers.
Sam2, instead of “taking extreme umbrage” (which I doubt) at something nobody never said, it would be better to learn the sugya and see just how inapplicable this mitzvah is, even according to the Ramban, bizman haZeh.
The Brisker Rov said the State of Israel is the Satan’s greatest triumph since the Egel.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman, in Ikvisa diMishicha, said Religious Zionism is Religion mixed with Avoda Zara (biShituf).
Zionists have no valid answers.
Sam2, please read my post before commenting on it.
GAW, nobody said that CH”V the Ramban is not valid. The question is if/how applicable this mitzva is today.
As I wrote, Rav Moshe said it’s not applicable to Jews outside E”Y.
benignuman, point taken. But denying any part of the Torah is kefirah, even if your excuse is wanting to fulfill Yishuv HaAretz beyond its halachic bounds.
Just Emes (for MDD, too):
(continued)
But that’s “only” one of the oaths. The other oath, of being meoreir the ahava before its time, was still violated even if it would have been with everyone’s permission, which it wasn’t.
Also, Google (no quotes) “Rabbi Reisman Zionism”.
“…most of the Torah rabbis opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in our ancient homeland…As Rabbi Reuven Grozovsky wrote, the ideals don’t change. The ideal of sticking to the three oaths remains [even after the founding of the State].” And that’s before he gets to the Satmar Rov’s position.
As to the end of your post, “many jews are not attacked outright even in other nations because of fear that Israeli teams of agents will come after them”, this is laughable. Jews in other countries have, on occasion, Hashem Yishmor, suffered anti-semitic attacks. Have you read about Zionists knights in shining armor rushing in to save them?
Aderaba, our gedolim have also written that Zionism has given non-Jews further “ammunition” in their hatred against Jews.
Regarding the Holocaust, read what the Zionists admit about their actions/inactions during that terrible time.
For example:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/yom-hashoahany-thoughts/page/2
Just Emes:
I like your screen name, but unfortunately your post doesn’t agree with it.
The Zionists did not at all “go up peacefully”, not in any dictionary. Nor was their ascent with the world’s permission. The UN itself wrote that the Zionism took the Balfour declaration to a far greater extent than what they allowed. Besides, the Zionists didn’t even stick to the partition plan, which the Arabs anyways rejected, so there was no permission.
Also, it’s not wise to believe Zionist propaganda about how the Arabs suddenly swooped in or about anything else, for that matter. Do you think Ben Gurion was stupid and didn’t know what would happen? The Arabs had been protesting and worse for years already. The Zionists had no permission from anyone to take any part of Yerushalayim. This is ridiculous. Call a spade what it is. Zionist wars were a clear violation of the oaths.
Naftush, your post seems strange.
Read what the Zionists wrote and admitted regarding their activities during WW II.
See here, for example:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/yom-hashoahany-thoughts/page/2
Regarding A”Z, the gedolim hold that Zionism is A”Z.
The Brisker Rov said the State of Israel is the Satan’s greatest triumph since the Egel.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman, in Ikvisa diMishicha, said Religious Zionism is Religion mixed with Avoda Zara.
Just reading these boards should make it fairly obvious that Zionism is A”Z.
Also see Matisyahou’s second post here:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/still-fuming-at-rabbi-belsky-and-mishpacha/page/2
Nobody can reasonably argue with these (Brisker Rov, Rav Elchonon HY”D) and other Torah greats like Rav Aharon Kotler and the Chazon Ish? Zionists have no answers.
But why does it trouble you that people choose to recognize these errant ideologies and theologies for what they are?
Avi K, you still haven’t explained the kefira in your previous post.
As to your latest post, of course nobody denies Yishuv HaAretz is a mitzva. The question is if/how it’s applicable nowadays.
For example, Rav Moshe wrote that it’s not obligatory to live in E”Y.
Many gedolim could have “made aliya” but did not. Some even explained why they chose not to.
So, although nobody is taking E”Y out of the Torah, Zionists do distort it and elevate it beyond the other mitzvos, as I wrote.
Again, you still haven’t explained your kefira from your previous post.
writersoul, I agree with you that one could argue that classical is no different. But my understanding is that classical music is different.
I’m obviously not trying to be mattir anything that may be assur, so nobody should take this as halacha liMaaseh.
MDD, I had already agreed to disagree with you, but you still haven’t shown how this position is “extreme”, other than to Zionists. Regardless, this is the mainstream Torah position among those who have not been hoodwinked by Zionism. I won’t bother you with further examples.
Avi K, you seem to be so blinded by Zionism that you actually wrote:
“Serving Hashem as best he can means first of all doing the mitzva of yishuv haaretz.”
Any objective high school student could tell you that this assertion makes no sense.
First of all, Yishuv HaAretz is anyways a machlokes if/how applicable it is nowadays.
Secondly, by your writing that Yishuv HaAretz is “first of all” mitzvos, you are showing how your Zionism not only has been grafted on to, lihavdil, your observance of the mitzvos of our holy Torah but that your Zionism has taken precedence over, liHavdil, our Torah.
This is also known as kefira.
Avi K, none of these issues in Israel has to do with chevlei Mashiach or frum Jews. This has to do with one thing only and that is Zionism.
Health already mentioned why your idea would not work; so it has nothing to do with Frum Jews.
Zionists also don’t like our faith and have taken concrete steps to CH”V change it into, lihavdil, Zionism; ask the Teimanim, for instance. From more recent events, just for example, watch online the video of the Israeli “Chidon HaTanach” that just took place, where they turn Tanach into a game show subject and have the obligatory recital (sung by women, of course) of the heretical Zionist anthem to close out the evening, right after Netanyahu proclaims the usual Zionist fantasy that Tanach, is CH”V the basis for their right to Eretz Yisrael and the State of Israel. All the Zionist trampling on the Tanach as they make such a show out of that same Tanach is somewhat like Achashveirosh’s seudah featuring the kelim of the Beis HaMikdash.
So even if American frum Jews, by subjecting themselves to the Zionists, Zionist shmad and all the Zionist security issues and other problems by moving to Israel, would still remain frum (and this is not at all a sure thing), it would anyways not help your cause, as Health wrote.
But even if “making aliya” would help, the first priority of a Jew is serving Hashem as best as he can, not “making aliya”. Misguided “Religious Zionists” may hold otherwise, and this large error is unfortunate.
Regardless, Zionist problems are their own fault, not at all “the fault of frum Jews”.
Similarly, regarding your assertion that this is due to “chevlei Mashiach”, it is, as mentioned, the Zionists who made this mess; not, lihavdil, Jews and Judaism. This mess, therefore, has nothing to do with Mashiach, frum Jews, or anyone else other than Zionists for Zionist folly and resultant outcomes, Hashem Yishmor.
Sam2, I don’t recall the sources now (and I’ll try to find out where that idea comes from), but I assure you (FWIW) that I did not make that up. To the best of my knowledge, music is an expression of the soul. I didn’t say people intentionally put their soul into it, but that is what music is.
Also, ask people who know music well (not people who just listen to music) if they can determine anything about a Jewish singer from their music.
I don’t know why, but I think that Classical music may not a problem in this regard, but I am not sure. (Yanni or other New Age IS still a problem.)
Regardless of this admittedly more esoteric reason, you should not listen to non-Jewish music because of its more easily understood influences, subtle (or not so), though, those influences may be.
mdd, I’ll respect your assertion that “ein ze mikomah” regarding the 3 shvuos though I disagree with both that assertion and your implied position on the matter regarding “Religious Zionism”.
Regarding your comparing murderous Arab rock attacks in Israel vs not being able to wear a yarmulke in parts of Europe, I first of all don’t see what the purpose of the comparison is.
Besides that this comparison is pointless, in my humble opinion, it’s anyways almost no contest (Israel is far worse).
The ability to wear a yarmulke in the streets is almost worthless given the myriad security and other problems in Israel that are the bloody costs of Zionism.
As we discussed, it’s not “only” rock attacks that Israel has problems with, though those alone are far worse than having to wear a secular hat over the yarmulke as in parts of Europe. Israel also has a mandatory draft, constant battles against other types of terror, the potential for missile attacks that Israel cannot adequately defend against even with its anti-missile batteries, etc. Hashem Yishmor.
These and more do not apply to Europe, only to Israel.
(I find it pathetic that people even try to defend the utter disaster that is (secular) Zionism. If your theology (i.e “religious Zionism”) calls for the tens of thousands of Jewish human sacrifices that were needed for this A”Z, then I understand you are defending an A”Z that you were mislead into believing and I’ll also try to show you how you were mislead.
But when people try to defend secular Zionism by touting how you can dress like a Jew in the street in (parts of) Israel, as if according to the Jewish faith even a drop of Jewish blood may be spilled CH”V for that, and at the same time people ignore all of Zionism’s myriad problems and disastrous consequences to Israeli and world Jewry, Hashem Yishmor, I find the whole thing absurd.)
MDD: I disagree with your accusation of falsification and with your assertion that those chilukim, including the missile defense chiluk, are “shvach”. In fact, there is another story on YWN, today, about another rock-throwing “incident”. As I said, this is not normal.
You could try to answer those arguments instead of taking the easy way and dismissing them out of hand, which is a good tactic when you have no answer.
Even the Zionists struggle (unsuccessfully) to answer the multiple problems with Zionism from the gimmel shevuos, as I noted earlier. Speaking of propaganda, I’m not sure why you are resorting to cheap name-calling instead of addressing this substantively.
If you want to stop the discussion here then I certainly understand, as there is really nothing that can kasher the A”Z of Zionism.
Ask your LOR before you decide that any non-Jewish music is muttar.
Music is an expression of the soul. As non-Jews are different than Jews in this regard, no matter how moral and upstanding the non-Jew may be, a soul-to-soul musical monologue by a non-Jew is inappropriate. This means that any non-Jewish music is potentially problematic.
Whether or not it can become kosher by a Jew copying the music and putting Jewish words to that, is a separate matter; even if it is okay to “make it Jewish”, this does not mean the original is also okay to listen to.
Not to mention, on a practical level, that you are biased in favor of wanting to listen to this music so you are, therefore, not the best judge of what is or is not halachicly appropriate to listen to, regardless of the above.
mdd, I already posted the context in which these posts are posted. You, yourself, mistakenly propose that this is only a “Satmar and Brisk shita”. But I believe your moderation is misplaced. You are deceiving people as you so desperately defend this A”Z.
Let’s get to the easy part first. The “missile shield” that the other countries have cannot be compared to Israel’s, and you know it, and it is disingenuous to compare them.
Israel’s missile shield is part of an *ACTIVE* defense system, not just for a “doomsday” scenario like the others. When’s the last time you heard of Russia’s missile shield being activated or intercepting (or missing) a missile? Israel already knows just how effective (and ineffective) are its missile batteries. “Do us a favor, drei nit ken kup.” You also haven’t addressed the ubiquitous bomb shelters and the rest. This “defense” you are attempting is absurd, as is Zionism.
Regarding the oaths and the State, who argues with a befeirush gemara that is brought liHalacha by poskim? This is even conceded by Zionists who are forced to attempt to explain away the oaths with “novel” approaches like “the oaths are only decrees; but if you can successfully disregard the oaths and establish the State of Israel then that’s fine.”
Again, as previously posted:
(The Brisker Rov said the State of Israel is the Satan’s greatest triumph since the Egel.)
Rav Elchonon Wasserman said Zionism is Avoda Zara and “Religious Zionism” is religion and A”Z biShituf.
That’s not enough for you?
Avi K, your “arguments” are futile and discredited “Religious Zionist” attempts at making kosher their A”Z of Zionism. For starters, the purpose of the oaths is to protect Klal Yisrael in galus and there is no logical reason they should not any more be in effect after an arbitrary amount of time.
(In fact, it seems quite evident, Hashem Yishmor, that the oaths are in effect well past that 1,000 year mark. Suicide bombs and rocks thrown at cars, the Fogel family massacre, and all the other horrors endured by Israelis, are very much not normal. And some gedolim have argued that the Holocaust itself was a manifestation of these oaths.)
The nations fulfilling their oath also has nothing to do with our oaths. Our oaths are for our protection.
Despite Zionist wishful thinking, Rav Meir Simcha never said that. Had ALL the nations (including the Arabs) agreed AND had there been only limited and non-political/non-ruling ascent, then it seems that this would have been okay according to Rav Meir Simcha.
But the San Remo conference does not nullify the oaths. For one, even if ALL the nations had agreed (which the Arabs and others did not), this would only take care of the oath against rebelling against the nations, not the oath against being oleh biChoma, en mass. Regardless, the Arabs never agreed, as is painfully obvious, so Zionism has violated both oaths.
MDD, your post is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Nobody claims 19th-century Europe was free of persecution. I also agree with you that there were serious spiritual issues in Europe, in addition, including (Zionism,) the haskalah, etc.
Your greatest error, however, is the premise that any of this justified Zionism. We had similar, and also worse, periods in our galus; yet, nobody ever condoned violating the oaths and taking Eretz Yisrael en mass and with force against the nations as did the Zionists. In fact, when asked, the Rambam specifically warned the Jews of Yemen in Iggeres Teiman against doing so despite the danger and persecution, physically and spiritually, that the Jews then faced.
They listened to the Rambam and, ironically, until the Zionists hoodwinked them into coming to Israel and then shmaded them (and more), those same Yemenites had kept their mesorah intact from Bayis Rishon.
Zionism was not and is not the solution. As Health posted above, the Zionists decided that “normalizing” the Jewish nation would make the problems of galus go away. Especially in hindsight, it is very clear that the Zionists were very wrong. As the gedolim presciently predicted, they would create far more problems than they thought they would solve.
As I posted earlier, Israeli living clearly reflects the disaster of Zionism (“security fence”, multi-million dollar missile defense shields, neither of which are fully effective, ubiquitous bomb shelters, mandatory conscription, never knowing a day of peace in its decades of bloody existence, etc.)
The Zionists have inflamed the Arabs to hate not only Zionists but (other) Jews as well. These facts were understood already decades ago by “Religious Zionists” like Rabbi Soloveichik and certainly so by, lihavdil, secular Zionists as well.
ROB, repeating your projections on others doesn’t make those any less mistaken than they were the first time you said them. I do not hate and I do not denigrate, as I have said in the past. It is unfortunate for your belief in your A”Z of Zionism that the facts are clearly stacked against this belief.
Before you even get to the gedolim’s views, read what your own Zionists, religious and otherwise, have to say about your faith of Zionism. Childish insults do not make for meaningful contributions to conversations.
MDD, regarding what “annoys” you, the context in which I am posting is that of people who are so blinded by Zionism that they completely refuse to face facts and reality and insist on keeping their heads in the sand.
So, to begin with your own post, I posted a number of unique “features” of Israeli living, like ubiquitous bomb shelters (not to mention all the blown up buses). Those don’t exist elsewhere. And I previously mentioned that thousands of Jews lost their lives because of Zionism.
ROB, thank you for the yom tov wishes.
Even Rabbi Soloveichik admitted that the State of Israel is the cause of Arab hatred to Jews. This is actually quite obvious to any objective observer. While the Arabs did not love us beforehand, we basically lived side-by-side both in their countries and in Mandatory Palestine. As a “religious Zionist”, are you arguing with “the Rav” (and reality)?
Had the Zionists not started up with the Arabs (and had the Zionists not also convinced everyone that Zionism =, lihavdil, Judaism), the Arabs would not hate Jews even if they may not have been our friends either.
Again, Rabbi Soloveichik himself admitted that the establishment of Israel has caused Arab hatred of Jews (and it’s obvious that this is the case). Not to mention all the gedolim who said Zionism is A”Z and/or apikorsus.
Yet any time there is a post reminding Jews that Zionism has been a disaster for Jews (Zionist shmad, then and now, and also the tens of thousands who died or were murdered, many horrifically so, CH”V, and the continued need for an IDF) and that Zionism is not Judaism, the majority of posts in response spout propaganda and/or irrelevant facts trying to defend their idol.
If you want to claim that your religion of Zionism proclaims all this to be worthwhile on the altar of Zionism, then please understand this is very much not, CH”V, Judaism.
Gut yom tov to all.