Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LerntminTayrah:
“…admit that perhaps Hashem doesn’t hate the Toshvei Eretz Yisroel as much as they do.”
It’s pathetic that you insist on making a straw-man by conflating those living in E”Y with the Zionist invaders of a portion of E”Y.
The Torah never changes and never will, including for Zionism.DaMoshe:
The teshuva from Zionist shmad that is taking place is great. But that pig, like all pigs, is still treif, and will always be so. That “State” is forbidden by G-d for multiple severe reasons. Period. That “State” is Zionist, which is idolatry and heresy, and therefore it still exists specifically to shmad the Jewish people and redefine Judaism, which has not changed at all, even if more people put on tefillin and believe in Hashem.jacoby211:
Nope. We (as in Jews who follow the Torah) have a mesorah from the gaon and Rav Chaim Volozhin that the last station in galus will be America. As well, there are various rather frightening prophecies about what will happen in E”Y when Mashiach comes. Finally, the Zionist “State” is such an abomination that it is liable to disappear any day, especially as it reduces its support of Torah and increases its assault on the Torah and the Jews.
Netzach Yisrael lo yishaker!Chaim87:
More Zionist Kool-Aid. After the war, the Zionists pushed the survivors to serve as fodder for their “State”-to-be, branding them as “traitors” if they went instead to America, which many did. The sick irony of that is that those same Zionists lobbied governments against allowing in those very same Jews into their countries which meant that those survivors and their dead relatives were sent to Hitler’s ovens and camps instead.Here are some fun facts: almost all gedolim leveled extremely harsh criticism against Rabbi Kook – either personally or his works. Both Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Kovetz Maamarim) and the Satmar Rav called Rabbi Kook a “rasha gamur”. The Satmar Rav called him a lot more than that, too. As did Rav Yosef Yedid in Shearis Yosef, who titled the piece “Regarding an Apikores about whom we must protest”. The Chofetz Chaim also did not hold of Rabbi Kook, as any Brisker (and others) can tell you.
Regardless, Rabbi Kook never permitted war, and he died well before the Zionists fought their first “real” war (as opposed to their prior acts of terror and mischief) in 1948.
Regarding the shevuos, both the Brisker and Satmar Rabbanim stated that the State violated not only the shevuos but “kol haTorah kulah”. Practically speaking, they were obviously gravely concerned about its assault on Torah and Jews. But that in no way diminishes all the other halachic problems with that “State”.
Regarding today, of course they look to shmad. Zionism is shmad and they are promoting Zionism. They’re not “tinokos sheNishbu” in their “am chafshi” paradise which happens to have shuls, yeshivas and even “Religious Zionist” institutions, all over the country. That’s really not a tenable argument.
LerntminTayrah:
The Zionist slander of NK is absurd. Their methods are problematic, but their message is simply the Torah’s message: the Zionists do not represent Jews and Jews are not liable for anything the Zionists do. The NK never ever asked anyone to destroy the Jews of E”Y, and it is absurd to even suggest that.dbrim:
“Zionist state” is a term used by normal frum yidden who believe in the Torah and also not in the idolatry and heresy of Zionism.Unlike your “Religious Zionist” (which Rav Elchonon Wasserman HY”D labeled as “Idolatry mixed with religion”) propaganda, Hashem has not yet called us back to His palace; that is of course for what frum Jews daven thrice daily: “Teka biShofar gadol….”
It is also gravely forbidden for Jews to emigrate en masse to E”Y (as opposed to small groups/individuals) and it is also forbidden for Jews to take political power there as the Zionists have done, of course. The Zionists have also fought against the Torah and inflicted tremendous harm and damage on Hashem’s children, Klal Yisrael.
chaim_baruch:
When is this Zionist idolatry and silliness going to end? Denial is not only a river in nearby Egypt.
Israel is very much the Zionist State. Zionism is the heretical ideology that still very much drives that State.
Specifically, the heresy of Zionism – like redefining the Jewish people from Torah-based to land-based – is very much the current ideology of all flavors of Zionist idolatry, irreligious and otherwise.
DaMoshe:
The Zionist nightmare is in its final stage before that idol is confined to the dust-bin of history. On a different note, Mashiach and the third temple have zero to do with Zionism. – in fact, Zionism was and is intended to replace Judaism.Mishna in A”Z states that the Avoda Zara of a Jew can never become batel, as Rav Aharon Kotler noted in this regard.
The rally had separate-gender sections. The much bigger issues with the rally were the hischabrus im reshaim and the chilul Hashem of allowing the Zionists to be their representatives/leader (just like by the Eigel).
The difference between the Zionists who attended that Zionist rally, vs. NK bringing to the gentiles the Torah’s indisputable message that Zionism is not Judaism, is that NK likely believes (and it seems more so than ever that they are right in that belief) that it is literal pikuach nefesh to make sure the gentiles know that Zionism is not Judaism and therefore that the gentiles should not blame the Jews for whatever issue these gentiles might have with the Zionists and their State.
yankel berel:
He can keep his chezkas kashrus, but the story in which the Satmar Rav is quoted saying something he never said, to which the Brisker Rav replied that you can’t say that, reflects a misunderstanding of the Satmar Rav’s position as indicated in the Satmar Rav’s written Torah on the subject.smerel:
The fact is that, as per his book, what Rabbi Lorincz claimed to the Brisker Rav in the Satmar Rav’s name is against what the Satmar Rav writes explicitly in his sefarim and something the Satmar Rav never said.LMT:
So, in other words, your mischaracterization of maaseh Satan and the Satmar Rav’s use of that is of no consequence since – who cares – there were big nissim done. Well, the Satmar Rav might care. As should you, if Torah Jews looked askance at the Satmar Rav as a result of your mischaracterization of him.LerntminTayrah:
Whatever nissim did or didn’t happen in the Iranian barrage against Israel still do not change the facts:
nissim happen only in the zechus of frum Jews who need those nissim
Zionist wars were conventional military victoriesSmerel:
Yes, he did. Rabbi MP Lorincz quoted that from him, as I recall. That’s the same Rabbi Lorincz who misreported to the Brisker Rav what the Satmar Rav didn’t say. If you believe him as gospel truth to attach the Satmar Rav who never said the Satan won the Zionist wars then you can also believe him that the Brisker Rav made this statement, too.smerel and other Zionist apologists:
No, it’s not at all contradictory. The facts are that the Zionists won their wars in a conventional military sense, not as a miracle. There were, of course, miracles on an individual level (as there are all over the world every second) during those wars, but, again, the plain historical facts are that those wars were conventional victories. And, yes, that’s on the CIA’s web site, thatThe Maaseh satan part of it is, as the Satmar Rav writes in Al HaGeulah, that the Zionists claimed that it was a miracle and fooled people into becoming Zionists as a result. That was the maaseh satan. Also, on a related note, the Brisker Rav famously stated that “the State they have managed to achieve is the greatest victory of the Satan since the sin of the golden calf”. And Brisk is very exacting in the words they use.
Again, regardless of what you have or have not found, the Zionists won a standard military victory in 1967. Their war in 1948 was much less of a cakewalk, though the Zionists had purchased close to 100 Million Dollars (in 1940s money) to fund their army for that war. So that victory was no miracle either, as West Point’s books on the subject will also tell you, if you care to see military facts rather than Zionist propaganda.
Finally regarding what some gedolim might have held in 1948 and 1967, when the only “facts” available were Zionist lies, you can’t blame them for getting it wrong then. And the WZO fiasco was based on a totally fake heter, as Rav Aharon Feldman pointed out in writing at the time and later publicly denounced at the following Agudah convention; there was no “teshuva” ever written to discuss how it could overturn a wall-to-wall mesorah for a century unlike the millions of teshuvos that Rav Moshe and others wrote on matters far less severe. This is sick and sad.
LerntminTayrah:
You might want to learn the Satmar Rav on the subject before putting words in his mouth that he never said (and never wrote).
Satmar and Brisk both agree that these miracles are, of course, in merit of the Jews and despite that Zionist entity, not CH”V because of that Zionist entity.The Satmar Rav ZY”A went further in pointing out that although the Zionist victories in their wars were conventional military victories, which is simple fact, Hashem did give the Satan permission to fool many into believing the Zionist lies and propaganda about those victories being miracles. That is the maaseh Satan, not the actual – and very conventional – victories.
simcha613:
Zionism was, is and always will be idolatry. The Torah’s definition of idolatry doesn’t change.Regarding the Chareidim in the Zionist parliament, that is halachically almost-impossible (read Rav Reuven Grozovsky’s biayos haZman). And according to the Satmar Rav and others, it’s severely prohibited.
Whatever illusory benefits you fantasize that the Zionist State provides (there would not have been the need for any army, and Mashiach would have been here had it not been for the State, according to both the Brisker Rav and the Satmar Rav) does not kasher the enormous pig and idol that is Zionism and its State.
simcha613:
If your local Catholic Church would have a cultural program and have minyanim and kosher food, the entire program would still be totally treif.Zionism is idolatry. Period. The Zionist State uses its army to indoctrinate/shmad its inductees with the Zionist redefinition of Judaism. That’s exactly what it is. That is obviously totally treif, as all the gedolim said going all the way back, and no amount of Zionist apologetics and nonsense can possibly kosher that enormous pig.
Jews do not belong in the Zionist army, no matter how much Torah they learn or don’t learn. Period. The Zionist army is spiritually extremely damaging, and it is plainly forbidden to enlist. Period.
As well, the Zionist army is known to make OTD a large percentage of its inductees, those who were somewhat religious before entering that shmad. It’s not just theoretical, though it would be just as forbidden even if it were only theoretical.
It’s astonishing that people even bother trying to deny any of this when it’s plain as day.
Such Zionist nonsense. Gosh.
@yankel berel:
No, the Zionists started the war against the Arabs (and British) long before 1947. The “Partition Plan” came much later after the Zionists invaded against the wishes of the Jews and also the lihavdil the British and Arabs.
@simcha613
“nowadays the State of Israel is not an enemy of Torah nor does the government or army want anyone to not keep Torah.”
This is one of the biggest and most absurd untruths I can recall seeing on these boards. Wow.
In addition to the facts about Zionism and its “State” and army/shmad indoctrination force, you can also observe that if 30% of the already idolatrous “National Religious” are going further OTD in the Zionist army, then that army very obviously is not friendly to Torah.Zionists: Give it up. The Zionist idol is exactly that: an idol. edited
simcha613:
It’s such a shame that Zionists and their idolatrous supporters need to resort to lies to support their position. Zionism is shmad, as are its platforms and protocols, and the State of Israel is the Zionist State that puts Zionist shmad into action. It’s really not complicated and it’s also no secret if you just read their platforms and witness the evil they do in the portions of E”Y they control.They want chareidim for exactly one reason: to convert them from Judaism to Zionism.
“Sharing the burden” is not a Torah value. Just the opposite: it is a Zionist value. The Zionists chose to invade the area a century ago – against the wishes of the Jews there – and the Zionists proceeded to light the area (and world) on fire; it’s not anyone else’s responsibility to put out the Zionist fire.
So sad.
yankel berel:
This is silly. Stop hocking irrelevant nonsense about the League of Nations, which was long gone in 1948. The Zionists violated multiple oaths including rebelling against the nations, regardless of the LON. That’s the point. They also violated aliyah baChoma and dechikas haKeitz, so it also was and remains forbidden due to those two oaths in addition.
Again, the oaths are settled halacha, as per all the poskim through the ages that brought them down and applied them, including the Rambam, and nobody can possibly claim otherwise.
Yankel Berel:
You’re wrong/misquoting, and this has been discussed earlier. He permitted only voting in Israeli elections since that doesn’t impact the State’s existence.HaLeivi:
It is not “my” pshat. It is the Torah’s pshat. No Torah authority disagrees.“And the fact that the state succeeded in being established, for quite a few decades now, is proof that this is not a violation of Olah Bechomah or Meridah Ba’umos. Because again, those Gezeiros meant that it can’t work.”
Your invented pshat in gezeira, however, is yours and nobody holds that way, unless you can find someone like a Satmar Rav or Brisker Rav or the like who says that. Speaking of them, by the way, the Brisker Rav agrees to the Satmar Rav and actually goes further and stated that the Zionist State violates the entire Torah.
If you think about it, though, you will realize that your pshat makes no sense. Hashem warned that if they violate the oaths, then he will make their flesh free as one would hunt game (“Ani mattir es…”). That inherently means that you could actually violate the gezeira if you want to do that – but that it’s not going to be pretty if you do. So the fact the State exists after all these years does not at all indicate anything regarding it being a violation of the oaths (which it most certainly is in multiple ways).
On a related note, and this will offend the hard-core Zionist idolaters but I believe it is Torah: the fact that the Zionist paradise requires sealed rooms in all homes, and looking over one’s shoulder to ensure there are no savages waiting to attack R”L L”A, seems pretty obviously a continued “Ani mattir es bisar…”.
Again, your pshat makes no sense and is totally baseless.
Regarding your question about the reason it is so egregious to violate the oaths, that would be because it is kefirah in bias haMashiach and, regarding specifically the Zionist State as per the Brisker Rav, kefirah in the entire Torah. Please don’t bring in Tzlafchad here who had noble intentions to show how serious is Shabbos and not CH”V to rebel in any way, unlike liHavdil the Zionist paradise which is a total and utter rebellion including replacing Judaism with godless Zionism.
HaLeivi:
The Steipler in Karyana diIgrasa was discussing voting in elections, as mentioned above, not whether or not the State should exist. He and everyone else agreed that it should not. He wrote that since the voting in elections would not impact on the State’s existence therefore he held that Israelis could vote in their elections.anonymous re: bayis rishon:
That’s why the Satmar Rav wrote an entire volume on the topic. He must have missed that. So must have the Rambam when he mentioned them in Iggeres Teiman. Wow. What were they even thinking? They should have asked you.SQUARE_ROOT and the rest of the Zionist idolaters:
Give it up. The oaths are brought liHalacha as psak throughout the ages, including by the Rambam himself. The Zionists violated all the oaths, both rebelling against the nations (in massive ways), going up like a wall (tens of millions of dollars the Zionists schnorred from Jews to buy weapons in the 1940s) and, as a “bonus”, dechikas haKeitz, founding a State in E”Y which is Mashiach’s job.None of this is complicated – unless you’re trying to be a Zionist idolater and also keep the Torah.
AAQ:
Avira > The balfour declaration (and even the UN partition plan) are irrelevant because when the zionists took over, the british were no longer baalei batim on the land.>> Actually, it’s much more than that. The British essentially rescinded that with the subsequent white-papers and, in any even, permitted only settlement, not political rule which the oaths separately forbid regardless. In other words, the only thing that Balfour would have accomplished, while it effectively was operative, is that the nation in power there would have allowed non-political settlement so doing that would not have been a rebellion against the nations.
This is very brisker for me. Could you unpack this in detail step by step? From my simple reading, there were several steps:
(1) initial zionist yishuv, somewhat supported by a small number of rabonim, but no others,
>> No. Initial NON-Zionist yishuv, as in chovevei tzion, for settlement and non-political purposes only, was supported by only some rabbanim.
(2) Balfour declaration – that made further arrivals not violating shvuos as they came with permission
>> No. See above. Only during that time, pre-white-papers, would arrivals have been with permission and therefore not a rebellion.
(3) state declaration by those who already arrived – not by shvuos – it is just a declaration, not arrivals and with UN permission
>> Declaration of State was forbidden for numerous reasons as per various gedolim. It was against the UN which wanted to restart a Mandate there. It required massive sacrifice of Jewish lives, which was also forbidden.
(4) later arrival from DP camps, arab countries, USSR – all according to international laws
>> The State in which they arrived was and is forbidden. Thus, living there could still be a violation of the oaths even after the Zionists muscled their way in. For example, Rav Shach held it forbidden to live in the territories as an “higarus gasa baUmos haOlam”.HaLeiVi:
So, by that logic, if someone lit a fire on Shabbos, then there’s nothing wrong with adjusting that fire, as it has already been lit?You totally invented that “heter” (or whatever Zionist you found who invented it). The oaths require living in galus until Hashem chooses to end the Galus. Nowhere does anyone rule that if someone breaks this rule that they could therefore now be free of the requirement to live in galus. This, of course, would be akin to “sheLo yehei chotei niskar” from shas. And if you understood that galus was for our benefit, then you would immediately see why it’s absurd to even posit such a thing.
The Steipler was discussing voting in elections. Since the State exists, and your voting in elections has zero impact on whether or not the State will exist, therefore you are allowed to vote in its elections, according to the Steipler (which is an eilu viEilu opinion on voting in Israeli elections). But, of course, if your vote would in any way cause the State to exist then you would not be able to vote.
RightJew:
Your comment was quite absurd.It’s not Satmar propaganda. Look at the archives of old (secular, not Satmar) newspapers from the late ’40s; it’s plain to see. As well, the Zionists warred with and terrorized the British into leaving the area; they did not willingly hand over control to the Zionists by any means.
Dechikas haKeitz is from the gemara. The poskim brought that long before Satmar came around. Regardless, founding a State, especially in part of E”Y, is very obviously a violation of galus because a central part of galus is living under the rule of the nations, not ruling over yourself in E”Y.
yankel berel:
“Even if [this is debatable] the creation of the medina was against the torah, the EXISTENCE of the medina is not. [lehol hadeyot]”That makes no sense and is also a lie. It’s actually the opposite. LiChol haDeios, the State remains just as forbidden to have as it was to create it. But since it exists, there is a need to “deal” with it like one would with any type of thugs.
The Steipler rules that way, in karyana diIgrasa, for example.
Even if there is not a way al pi derech haTeva to actively shut it down without risking Jewish lives, that means only that it needs to be dealt with as such, but not at all that it needs to be actively supported, CH”V. If Jews for J or the Mormons were running the Zionist “State” and shmading Jews there, everyone would see this perspective plainly. It’s only because some of the Zionists happen to be Jews and their immense propaganda, that some people become totally confused when it comes to the Zionists.
This one is interesting:
“It is a means to an end – of keeping Yehudim and their property in EY safe.”
So, in other words, it’s worth violating G-d’s word (the oaths and the entire Torah, according to the Brisker Rav) and sending His children to be shmaded in the Zionist army and all the rest just to protect Jewish “property” in the Zionist State (not E”Y, as the Zionist State is not E”Y even if it does cover part of that)? That’s essentially admitting that your concern is not just pikuach nefesh but rather Zionism.Regardless, pikuach nefesh goes only so far. The gimmel chamuros are yehareig viAl yaavor. Zionism is, according to all gedolim, A”Z, and their army serves up heapings of all three.
SQUARE_ROOT:
No, they are not reciprocal as the gedolim noted and ruled halachically especially those who ruled during times of great persecution like the Rambam and Rav Yonasan Eibeschutz.But even IF (that’s for argument’s sake, though it’s not true) there were any reciprocity, that would be only the oath of rebelling against the nations, not the rest.
In other words, there is zero logic to claim that Jews may violate all their oaths just because the gentiles violated theirs of not subjugating overly much. If anything, the natural counter-balance to that oath, is the oath of not rebelling. That would still not permit aliya baChoma and dechikas haKeitz, for examples, because those are open rebellions against G-d.
But the Zionists flagrantly violated those two oaths as well, not “just” rebelling against the nations. And there is anyways no reciprocity, as per the poskim throughout history.
chiefshmerel:
Actually, if you read it well, you would realize that it was much more than just Kastner’s rishus. He implies (correctly) that the Zionists caused the Holocaust as well.In any event, others point out the same fact, both secular and, liHavdil, gedolim.
“and the bad idea is further weekned when you consider that its not like there want Jew hunting going on in Europe pre State.”
This is a big error. Zionism began its cataclysmic rebellion against G-d (including violating the oaths), decades before the wicked Zionists formally declared their “State” in 1948. In fact, the Zionists caused the Holocaust and also contributed to it, as the gedolim noted and, liHavdil, secular writers as well.
Regardless, numerous poskim, including the Rambam, invoke the oaths as being in full force and inviolable, and none have ruled otherwise.
RightJew:
I find it hard to believe you are being serious here, as that is absurd.On the off-chance that you are seriously asking:
First, you’re leaving out all the rest of the history, much of which contradicts the cherry-picked points you’ve mentioned.The Zionists terrorized the Arabs and British, forcing the British to leave Palestine, at which point the Zionists went ahead with declaring their “State” even though the UN wanted to begin a different mandate in Palestine. In the final analysis, the wicked Zionists founded their “State” against the will of the nations (including the Arabs) and with tremendous force (almost $100 Million dollars – in 1940s money – of weapons), both of which are violations of the oaths.
As well, creating any State – even with full permission of the nations – is forbidden as a violation of the oath of dechikas haKeitz, forcing the end, as in doing that which only Mashiach can do – namely, here, founding a State.
ADA and Smerel:
Whether or not the Satmar Rav’s idea is or is not still valid – logically, one would have to conclude that it is, but that’s besides the point – the most important thing is to recognize the reality of the Zionist idol for what it is, and to daven for a yeshuah from that Zionist idol.Also, the issue with NK of today is not their political views about the Zionist State; it’s about their being mischabeir to/machzik reshaim. Of course, those who associate with the Zionists are worse, in that regard, but that’s also besides the point. NK obviously consider that to be pikuach nefesh, while typical gedolim do not. But the fact that the Zionist State will at some point disappear is not at all in dispute.
SQUARE_ROOT (and Could Be):
“Stated simply: Midrashim are not Halachah.”Wrong, as mentioned above; see UJM’s post above.
That the oaths are mentioned in the gemara as agadita has zero relevance to their being in full force.
Again, the Rambam himself invoked them in Iggeres Teiman, and various poskim bring down the oaths as halachically binding. The Maharal makes it even more stringent, that they’re yehareig viAl yaavor. Not bad for “agadita”.So sad that people refuse to accept simple reality of Torah just because it conflicts with the Zionist idolatry.
Could Be:
100%? Machlokes?
Which poskim rule that they are not halacha?@yankel berel
Right. The fact that numerous other poskim bring it down as halacha including the Rambam himself in Iggeres Teiman is all to be ignored in favor of the idolatry of Zionism. So sad.Yes, they very much are halacha, both according to the Avnei Nezer and Rav Meir Simcha and all the rest. The Satmar Rav addresses this conclusively, of course.
SQUARE_ROOT:
So sad.Your Zionist idol makes you not only distort and deny what is true but also makes you write outright falsehoods and nonsense.
“because Jews did not come and conquer Israel by force (לא עלינו כחומה).”Yes, that is exactly what the Zionists did – they used lots of overwhelming force. The Zionists terrorized and fought both the British and the Arabs in order to create their “State” – very unlike what Rabbi Kook expected, as it happens.
The Satmar Rav and others wipe out the arguments you attempted.
The Rav Meir Simcha argument is particularly pathetic. If he actually said what the Zionists claim he said, all he said was that there is no problem with going to settle in E”Y given the permission of the nations. This doesn’t at all mean that the oaths no longer apply. In fact, just the opposite, he was saying that the oaths very much are in force but that this would not violate those oaths.
So pathetic.
anIsraeliYid:
A much better idea would be to drop the idol and daven for Mashiach, at which point Jewish sovereignty will be permitted, unlike now when it is forbidden. Comparing the Zionists to the chashmonaim is absurd and, no, that’s not what the Rambam wrote. We don’t celebrate Chanukah for that reason; that’s background. Jewish sovereignty in E”Y is a massive negative as it is a violation of the gimmel shevuos, which are brought liHalacha by the poskim including the Rambam in Iggeres Teiman.Re:
“Mods:
Yes, really.
The ‘oh really’ was in reference to your immature conclusion behind the edit. If you knew the truth, you’d be embarrassed you said it.”I don’t recall writing anything “immature”, but I apologize if either I did so or if whatever I did write was understood as such.
It was the insinuation that me having to delete a post after weighing out every line of every post to determine what is public/substantiated, what is a quote from a gadol or what is stam a posters opinion was misconstrued as me deleting to protect the MO and probably for monetary reasons. Machul lach
Mods:
Yes, really.
The ‘oh really’ was in reference to your immature conclusion behind the edit. If you knew the truth, you’d be embarrassed you said it.Re: the quotes – they’re in Michtavim uMaamarim, as memory serves.
While American gedolim dealt with Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik as needed, including giving him kavod and/or working with him when that was necessary, they were perfectly clear about the heretical ideas he proposed (including Zionism) being exactly that: heretical. They certainly did know and respect his talmudic knowledge, but not beyond that.
Rocky:
It is a fair point that Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik held the perspective (unlike Rav Aharon Kotler) where he (and others) incorrectly viewed Orthodoxy as in danger of extinction – something that is impossible, of course.That could explain why he created the current incarnation of haskalah, known as “Modern Orthodoxy” which, as Rav Schwab pointed out (even decades ago, all the more so today), is really “stale and fossilized”.
Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was a professor of Talmud, and studied in the finest University study halls in Europe.
He wrote things that, as Rav Shach put it, were “such kefirah that it was dumbfounding even to see it”.
Rav Shach wrote that he repeated that heresy to show how great an extent secular wisdom causes “damage to, and a lowering of level of, daas Torah”.Avi K:
It is a nice sensitivity to use the woman’s first initial, rather than her full name, in the byline, if that’s what you mean. Again, that is limiting her exposure to the public. It’s permitted to use the full name, of course, but it is still a sensitivity to use the first initial.Comparing to Devorah and Bruriah is ridiculous because we need to know those names as that is Torah – as opposed to a newspaper article for which there is zero need to know the first name of the author.
In other words, you feel it’s time for frum magazines to be less frum, and for nebulous reasons, at best.
A. Women were also in the world before.
B. Jews in the olden days knew not to look at women, even if they knew what the Queen looked like.
C. G-d blesses most families with both boys and girls, so that they each have a sense of how the opposite gender differs from theirs.The bottom line is that the Torah holds kol kevuda bas melech penima. There is no reason to expose women in any way unless it is necessary for them.
Menachem Shmei:
The Zionist army, its shmad, and all the rest, are all against the Shulchan Aruch. Obviously, for Jews to defend themselves as per Shulchan Aruch is not in question. But the Zionist army is a non-starter.Yankel Berel:
“Not sure why you keep on omitting the clear psak of Harav Avnei nezer , that LEHALACHA it is mutar to ascend en masse as a bloc . ”Not sure why you omit that the Avnei Nezer also wrote “וקשה מאוד לעמוד על הבירור כי תלוי בדברי אגדה”.
As well, the Satmar Rav strongly disagrees (as you noted) and brings multiple raayos for his position.Regarding the reason to favor the Satmar Rav over the Avnei Nezer: that would be Jewish lives,Edited
Since WW II, has there ever been a more blatant instance of “Ani matir es bisarchem” than what occurred on Oct. 7?
Please respect Hashem’s gezeiras haGalus. If you can gain more from going to E”Y, that’s great. But please don’t disrespect Hashem’s Torah.
Edited
user176:
The main problem today is what the Zionists do today, not only what they did for the past century.
There certainly are alternatives to the Zionist shmad.
As well, even if there were not any alternatives, it would still be crucial for Jews to disavow Zionism so that gentiles don’t blame Jews for anything the Zionists do.
Bottom line: Israel is a Zionist (and therefore anti-Jewish) – not Jewish – “State”.yankel berel:
No, the potential mitzva to live there today, as an individual, is a machlokes. It is forbidden to ascend en masse, regardless, as the Satmar Rav shows from multiple raayos, etc.Sending emails to congress to save Jewish lives (in Israel or elsewhere) is okay; but sending emails telling congress that Jews love Israel is not okay. The recent rally and the emails are all infested and infected with Zionism and that’s not okay.
yankel berel:
Yesh, actually, Evalemoshiv can indeed be that wrong.Gedolim (and talmidei chachamim) often use pesukim to describe their thoughts. That’s what the CC did in your story. But to knock out meforshim from your story is simply silly and a non-starter.
As well, other nevuos discuss, and the Brisker Rav brought this as well, that half of [the people of] Yerushalayim will be taken and the other half will flee for the caves. Sounds very safe, yes?
There is also the chazal that, just like by mitzrayim, there will be a 40-year exile of those in E”Y and, like the first time, only a fraction of those will merit returning.
Menachem:
You can’t compare the legitimate kingdom of Dovid HaMelech with the “band of thugs that descended there”, to quote the Brisker Rav.I quoted the Brisker Rav that the “hishtadlus”/”metzius” argument of the soldiers accomplishing anything for Klal Yisrael is false. It is only Hashem Who saves and through the merit of those who learn. Comparing to Dovid HaMelech’s army is silly and a non-starter.
Evalimoshavlo:
It’s a machlokes to when that even refers, including yimei Chizkiyahu, bayis sheini – see Ibn Ezra.Regardless, it is forbidden for all of, or even a large bloc of, Klal Yisrael to ascend to E”Y before Mashiach. The Zionists tried that (and also rebelled against the nations and took political rule, all of which are forbidden under pain of “Ani mattir es bisarchem…”) and created the cataclysmic disaster there (and also the Holocaust) as a result.
Of course, if there were no need for Jews to be in galus, to gather in the nitzotzos haKedusha wherever they are, then Hashem would just send Mashiach. Therefore, there must be Jews outside of E”Y when Mashiach comes.But Zionism doesn’t like any of that because it goes against its idolatry and heresy.
Sending emails to Congress is also essentially driven by Zionism, whether they realize it or not, as the Zionist “State” is not what is protecting the Jews there; just the opposite. As the Brisker Rav noted, the Zionists’ unending war are due to Zionism, of course; the Jews who did not survive those wars – that’s also due to the Zionists; the Jews who did survive those wars – that’s due to the lomdei and shmorei Torah and not the Zionists.
The Zionist “State” will be history, probably much sooner rather than later.