Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
These posters are, in a warped and “woke” mindset, viewed as provocative because, in their view, they are essentially defending the aggressor Israel. The rest is irrelevant to them.
It doesn’t seem that the safety of Jews in Israel is guaranteed. Especially if you read the navi about what will happen at the end of days, etc.
coffee addict:
The Zionists misuse/abuse the Torah when it suits their propaganda purposes. That’s normal for them. Their current leader does it all the time, and their first leader, David Green, did so as well.GadolHadofi:
Yes, it is actually very hard to understand.
There are way more Muslims (whether Jew-hating or otherwise) and Jew-haters than there are Jews. If you think this is a numbers game, then it’s over before it started. That’s not the reason.That “Due to the great concern” nonsense was from the secular organizations, not from Agudah; they just parroted/forwarded the email.
The rally poster lists three reasons to rally:
March for Israel, March to Free the Hostages and March against antisemitism.This march will, of course, accomplish none of that (May Hashem please help all Jews immediately, regardless), and it is actually heretical to think that it could accomplish that last one. The first one is also a chilul Hashem, even if the intent is only to support our brethren there.
AAQ:
Agudath Israel lobbies for Jewish interests. There’s your comparison to Rome and Egypt. That has nothing to do with a rally of thousands of Jews.The march on Washington during WW II was by Rabbis and was for a very different purpose. This rally is sponsored by secular organizations and will be mixed, and is in support of the shmad State of the Zionists.
Amil Zola:
Presumably, it will be totally mixed, as nothing about that has been mentioned. Anyways, frum women do not belong at rallies – kol kevuda bas melech penima.SQUARE_ROOT:
Actually, it very much is the time to do so, given that untold thousands of Jews are set to march on Washington this Tuesday under the banner of the Zionists with one of the stated goals as “March for Israel”.Chabad definitely became much more Zionist once their last leader took over their movement.
As well, this war is bringing out the latent Zionism in many who fooled themselves that they are not Zionist.
I’ve almost always, if not always, heard birshus haKohein. Not sure where they missed out on that by you.
ChabadOrthodoxrabbi1995:
Yes, that is our mesorah, going all the way back to that gemara. And nobody called your deceased leader a heretic. But your theology does contain heresy.Also, it’s not “bias” and it’s not “sinas chinam” and it’s not any sina at all, despite Chabad trying to deflect edited; in fact, as a card-carrying Chabad defender, you are obviously the one with the bias.
Most Jews appreciate Chabad’s services and therefore would have no reason to want to speak against Chabad’s theology. So, if anything, they would be biased in favor of Chabad.
But the Torah is truth, and you cannot corrupt it with your heretical theology of what was heretofore normative Christian theology, Rav Keller Zatza”l noted.
Anyone interested in the truth, including the quote from Rav Keller above, can find it at the Identifying Chabad Organizational Website. They also sell a sefer of the material so that you can learn it on Shabbos or Yom Tov or anytime.
The answer is that Klal Yisrael’s mesorah says he will be from the living, even if it once was a theoretical possibility as debated in the gemara.
And even if it were possible, it would be, as the gemara notes, Rabbeinu HaKadosh or Daniel (the Navi), not Chabad’s deceased leader.
Coffee:
It very well involve serious aveiros, not just a “shtus” to believe that Chabad’s deceased leader is Mashiach.We have a mesorah that Mashiach will come from the living. They can’t claim that they know better; doing that is essentially throwing out all of Torah sheBaal Peh. If you can argue against all the chachmei haMesorah for thousands of years, then you could just make a new religion, which is what they are unfortunately slowly doing.
sechel:
The org site “Identifying Chabad” has that and more there for you.Back to the OP, “lakewhut”:
That was a solid piece of Motzi shem ra on all of Klal Yisrael.
Especially given what is going on in the world, it is rather slanderous to write that Jews in general are not really waiting for Mashiach and that only Chabad does so.In fact, Chabad is waiting for their Rebbe to return, which is why they may express more passion about it than do Jews who are waiting for (the actual) Mashiach from among the living.
“i didnt see those words there.
so the rebbe is explaining about asking about asking תיקונים
then the rebbe brings the zohar of ישראל אורייתא וקוב”ה כולא חד”
Are you sure those are the words of the Zohar?The quote I saw was:
” קב”ה ואורייתא וישראל מתקשרין דא בדא”That’s very, very different.
No Mesorah:
You are denying and distorting reality and, as in the past, not addressing the clear and specific points mentioned.
No Mesorah:
“The only difference is that MO is much more likely to be honest with their religious standing. Which is not intrinsically a bad thing.”Not exactly. The satan tests everyone, so everyone has their challenges. And MO does claims loyalty to “halakha”. But that is where the commonality essentially ends.
1. Being MO is a “permit” to intentionally violate certain issurim while still considering yourself 100% orthodox.
2. MO’s embrace of Zionism as a core tenet of their faith is, of course, hugely problematic because Zionism, of any flavor, is literal idolatry according to Rav Elchonon Wasserman HY”D and the rest.
3. MO’s embrace of secular culture and their disregard for hashkafas haTorah is almost as large a problem as their Zionism because it results in a total distortion of what Jewish (Torah) life should be.
No Mesorah:
I had no intent to debate Zionism with you. It is not debatable.
The quotes were intended to address the matter at hand, which is the church ceremony attendance by a “Religious Zionist”.Since you asked, though, Zionism was and is intended to be an idolatrous land-based and godless replacement for (and destruction of) Judaism.
That sounds like a big problem to me. It is, of course. But feel free to continue mocking. I’ll just ignore it BL”N.
Dear No Mesorah:
You seem to have missed that every gadol forbade Zionism and that many wrote that it is literal idolatry and heresy.I gave you one source off-hand from Rav Elchonon HY”D; there are others, too (in Satmar, Brisk and elsewhere). Moreover, anyone who reads the WZO’s official “Jerusalem Program” can see both the A”Z and Kefirah there. It’s not mystical and not mysterious.
You are falsely claiming that I dislike Zionism and therefore a Rabbi who is Zionist is not to be trusted.
Once more, and, with this, I think I’ll let you have the last word if you continue to mock and ignore what I write:
A (Rabbi who is a) Zionist is, by definition, literally worshiping an idol and likely believes in heresy as well. That’s what the gedolim wrote, and we can see how logically sound they were in stating that.Whether or not he is a tinok sheNishba in doing so is not my concern. My likes and dislikes are irrelevant.
So, therefore, because he is a Zionist, his “psak” is automatically suspect. That’s the point here with his church ceremony attendance.
No Mesorah wrote:
“Since we just don’t go into a church regardless of the reasons, the rabbis in question should absolutely not publish a responsa.A Royal Coronation is a rare event and only a few Jews will ever be invited to attend one. Why write a precedent that any clergy could freely dispense to their congregants?”
Except that this happened multiple times over the past century and, yes, it was indeed used as a precedent by another “Modern Orthodox” Rabbi in NY. And, as mentioned before, “Vihyisem nikiyim” and the fact that this “Chief Rabbi” very publicly and proudly pronounced that he was going to attend this church ceremony, against the written psak and mesorah of Klal Yisrael going all the way back.
So, yes, of course he should have justified it – if he could. Instead, he stated that he was doing as did his predecessors.
Where is the halachic responsum for this supposed heter that is against mesorah and written psak going all the way back?
Reb Eliezer:
Very good. Non-idolater/non-Zionist Torah leaders should certainly be respected. Nobody claimed otherwise.mdd1:
What part of Zionism is literal idolatry did you miss?
No, he doesn’t mean that it’s kiEelu. He and others wrote that it is. Period.AAQ:
1) In addition, I would argue that “viHiyisem nikiyim” would obligate him to publish that teshuva, if it did exist, despite that he noted that his predecessors had also gone to church ceremonies in that church.AAQ:
1) You have it backwards. If anyone, all the more so a “Religious Zionist”, so publicly and pompously claims it is his duty as a Rabbi to go against the mesorah of our poskim going all the way back, then they are gravely profaning Hashem’s name unless they provide a valid halachic explanation for the same.The Zionists and their weapons are not relevant, of course, as the particular weapons they do or do not have do not impact that they are enemies of Hashem, His Torah and His holy people.
2) As I wrote in my last post, the particular judges on that B”D are irrelevant. The “Chief Rabbi” specifically noted in his video that he was relying on his predecessors having done this, not on a psak from those Rabbanim.
no mesorah:
1) So you failed to comprehend my multiple clear and lengthy posts? Attending a church ceremony in a church sanctuary was universally condemned and forbidden, going all the way back.2) And you seem to be unaware that I don’t want to just copy/paste from other sites. There’s no point in arguing over chashad, maris haAyin, hischabrus, kabbalistic reasons, et al. because all the poskim said absolutely not.
The point is – ironic, given your screen name – simply mesorah:
every posek forbade doing so,m as mentioned.So, a “Religious Zionist”, in an admittedly Zionist organization – when the above is literal idolatry according to the Torah giants – has (less than) zero chezkas kashrus to overturn the mesorah of klal Yisrael of all the poskim going all the way back who forbade doing so, as mentioned above. Ergo, this church ceremony attendance and its video were a massive chillul Hashem.
AAQ:
There is no “chazaka” and this has zero to do with politics.1. The organization is “Religious Zionist” which means it has zero chezkas kashrus, to begin with. The Av Beis Din is this Chief Rabbi, as mentioned above.
2. Where is the original teshuva permitting the first Chief Rabbi to enter that church? Which gadol applied that alleged heter, if it did exist, to any future time?
3. There could be 1,000 fully frum and non-Zionist talmidei chachamim on that beis din but that would be totally irrelevant given the above. The question is not on them; they are irrelevant.
This whole church thing is obviously a mockery of G-d but, just for argument’s sake, even if there was a heter back then – which nobody has produced – in that specific time and for that specific king, who said that heter still applies? Where is the teshuva showing how/why that would be?
Always_Ask_Questions:
It is telling that you ignore all the other gedolim who also condemned Zionism in the harshest terms and imply that others were “more accommodating” as if they permitted Zionism and as if they allowed anyone to be Zionist CH”V.Your quote from Rav Elchonon is a fraction of what he wrote on the topic (including to Mizrachi, by the way, whom he also condemned in no uncertain terms).
“Weird decision to cancel a Chief Rabbi of a large country because a website of the beis din that approved Rabbi’s decision has a reference to a movement that one of the gedolei disapproved 100 years ago.”
This is a disgusting sheker and a mockery of the Torah. Agudath Israel was founded to fight Zionism. It’s not “one of the gedolim”; it’s all of them. There was a difference of opinion how to deal with the Zionist State once it was founded, but none approved of Zionism – not before and not after.
Always_Ask_Questions:
I was not questioning those Rabbanim on that Beis Din who are genuine unadulterated shomrei Torah and mitzvos.But the Beis Din’s parent organization openly states that it is Zionist. This is not merely “something with which you disagree”. As well, its Av Beis Din, the Chief Rabbi, studied in “Religious Zionist” institutions, etc.
Their Chief Rabbi claimed that, in attending that religious service in a church sanctuary on Shabbos, he was following in the footsteps of this predecessors, not that he asked the London Beth Din for permission.
So, the number of unadulterated G-d-fearing Rabbanim on that Beth Din is all irrelevant to the massive chilul Hashem of their chief rabbi attending a church ceremony in a church sanctuary on, liHavdil, Shabbos, and then producing and disseminating a video about that.
Again, given that this was universally forbidden before, where is the teshuva/responsum on this, if there really was a heter (from a century ago or more recently)?
no mesorah:
I only noted your screen name.1) No, because he is a “Religious Zionist” (idolater) and his organization admits openly that they are Zionist (idolatrous). Therefore, when he does something that nobody in history has ever done and that every posek has written is forbidden, and he has no teshuva written as to why it is permitted for him, then the obvious assumption is that he is making a mockery of G-d.
2) Links aren’t permitted, unfortunately, but you can use your favorite search engine to pull up as many articles with sources as you’d like.
mdd1:
Not what it says in my copy. Maybe you have the Mizrachi Revised Edition.no mesorah:
You need a mesorah, or else you have nothing.To be brief, two points will suffice:
1) His position gives him zero permission to violate halacha and enter a church sanctuary, all the more so during a religious ceremony.
2) It is not at all “hard to pin down exactly why we do not go into churches”. It’s rather simple, as you can see from contemporary poskim and going all the way back.AviraDeArah:
It doesn’t matter who is on their Beis Din now.It matters who, and on what basis, initially gave this alleged heter for a Chief Rabbi to attend a church ceremony in a church sanctuary when nobody in history has ever permitted that.
It also matters that the parent organization of that B”D is idolatrous, which makes the above all the more problematic.
Reb Eliezer:
That has absolutely nothing to do with their Chief Rabbi attending a church ceremony in a church sanctuary.mentsch1:
The King respects the (religion of the) Chief Rabbi, as we know. There is neither a need nor a gain by that Chief Rabbi entering a church, against the Torah.AAQ:
A shtadlan doesn’t have his own Torah. For example, a shtadlan can’t get baptized and live as a Christian in order to better help Jews in a royal court.(When Shabsai Tzvi SR”Y converted to Islam to save his life, the rabbis that he fooled finally realized that he was indeed wrong. That was despite all the kiruv he did. According to you, they should not have changed their minds about him. Who cares that he converted to Islam?)
It’s sad that this even has to be stated: Hashem runs the world, and “lev melachim viSarim biYad Hashem”. Hashem obviously does not need any pompous “Chief Rabbi” to enter a Church.
LiHavdil elef havdalos, when a kohein must attend a levaya, the funeral homes have a video hook-up to a separate room right outside the funeral home so that the kohein can participate and not become tamei laMeis. The UK Palace could have (and likely would have) easily done something similar for their Chief Rabbi to help him.
Remember Rav Chaim Brisker’s line: if the Jews don’t make kiddush (as in separate from the goyim) then the goyim will make havdala. Think of the Kiddush Hashem that could and would have made, and the aivah that it would have removed! “Chief Rabbi attends coronation in a special tent put up specifically for him to accommodate his religious laws that forbid him from entering a church”. Afterwards, at the palace, or anywhere else outside the church, he could have blessed the king just like the “other faith leaders”.
In fact, we know that their king himself was willing to break protocol to have the Chief Rabbi leave before the king so the Chief Rabbi could go home for Shabbos.
This was and is a disgrace and an abomination.
mdd1:
If that question is relevant, then one should certainly ask.
Read Kovetz Maamarim and the rest. It’s Black-and-White; “Religious Zionism” is idolatry. Period.Regardless, that question has zero to do with a church, which is absolutely forbidden to enter (certainly its sanctuary, and even more so when a religious ceremony is being conducted there).