Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The depravity of this ruling is more profound than “just” the legislating of the abominable as normal. Think of the children “of” these unions. This legislation deems it perfectly normal for a child’s only parents to be of the same gender.
For example, if a same-gender “couple” wishes to take in a foster child, they now have the same rights and priority as a heterosexual couple. Whereas before this legislation, since the only definition of marriage was between a man and woman, and a child is best off in a home with a stable marriage, then it would be logical to prefer a couple over a same-gender “couple” or some other abomination/messed-up circumstance. But with this legislation, neither “couple” is legally better than the other and the child is now told that his two surrogate parents are the two males (or two females) of that “couple”. Period.
So the ramifications of this legislation reach far beyond “two people’s right to choose their own life”. It actually redefines (more accurately, destroys) morality and normality.
Also, by this “logic”, it also makes any consenting relationship (meaning, between two people who are of age of consent) including siblings, parent/child, etc. to be perfectly fine.
Sickening and scary.
(Since marriage is clearly not legally, anymore, a matter of being able to have children, etc. one wonders what the courts would do if two adult bachelor siblings – of any gender – would seek to marry for tax or other legal purposes.)
Joseph clarified the shamefulness of the OU’s statement on this abomination. It’s sad that some still can’t see this even after Joseph and others made this point but, I guess, this is an expected outcome of proudly “synthesizing” Torah and, liHavdil, “modernity”.
There are religious gentiles who blame “the Jews” for this legislation. This is where Agudah deserves credit for their stand, clarifying how they filed a brief against this legislation and that Jews do NOT support this legislation. And this is where the OU could have done us all a favor had they taken a Torah position on the matter rather than one more in keeping with haskala.
Yosi7:
Your comparison of Rabbi Schneerson to the Satmar Rav is a non-starter.
Rav Schach and others said what they did about Rabbi Schneerson and/or his movement/faith but none said anything negative about the Satmar Rav (yes, including any potential and minor differences in the matter of Zionism). On the contrary, the Brisker Rav, who was quite medakdek in mitzvos, to say the least, was mechabed the Satmar Rav.
So it was Rav Schach along with other gedolim speaking about Rabbi Schneerson, not milk5.
Shoomie:
I don’t think the two can be correlated.
First, who is the “we” who pasken like Rabi Yehuda over Rabi Meir? Not us. Second, both are legitimate opinions, “Eilu viEilu…”; the question is only which of the two to pick in practice.
None of this relates to Daas Torah.
Sam2:
Actually, here, my reference to the Jews in 1948 who wrongly prayed for the Zionist State to come into being was not to RZ/MO. Rather, it seemingly refers to ordinary frum Jews (e.g. in Meah Shearim, in the Brisker Rav’s words) who didn’t have the foresight of our gedolim who saw that a Zionist State was clearly not what Hashem wanted us to have (because, for starters, it involves severe prohibitions, of course) and thus they mistakenly davened for the State instead for the true geulah.
But since you mention it, and with all due respect, since your faith claims that the Zionist enterprise is “aschalta diGeulah” (though this is originally based on R’ Kasher’s forgery, besides for the other issues with such a position and clear objections to this position that the gedolim indicated, etc.), the RZ, liChaOrah, aren’t praying for the true geulah, but rather that it should be “completed” after its decades-long “start”.
One certainly hopes that Hashem takes those tefillos in the way that they should be expressed, though, unlike when, for example, He gave us the Zionist state in 1948 instead of Mashiach because people asked for the former instead of the latter, as per the Brisker Rav.
Sam2:
What relevance does that have to the points I made?
Similarly, the “growth of the State” is also silly to “emotionally connect with”. Again, what is the alternative?
Moreover, there are many Jews living there, many of whom have nothing to with Zionism. Are you implying that it is “wondrous” that they have achieved anything despite the abomination of Zionism? It seems pretty logical that Hashem blesses His people wherever they may be. What does their location being in E”Y have to do with this?
Many people continue to direct their tefillos to ask that the State be strengthened, etc. Obviously, as of this writing, we have not yet been zoche to the geulah. So would you prefer that Hashem have kept everyone there in a time warp to 1948 and not allowed the Jews there to make any advances even though the idolatrous State is a gross abomination in His eyes?
Besides, who knows how much chesed Hashem has done for His children in chutz LaAretz? Maybe He performed more miracles for the Jews in France than anywhere else? We have no idea.
So if anyone “connects emotionally” with anything in E”Y any more than they “connect” with nissim or anything else in chutz laAretz, then, liChaOra, there must be some Zionist leanings tainting his perspective.
PBA:
As mentioned before, the Brisker Rav stated that “The State they have managed to achieve is the greatest triumph of the Satan since the Cheit haEigel”.
Of course all of this was Yad Hashem.
(So was everything else, including the Holocaust.)
Regarding “miracles”, at least in 1967, the CIA’s web site (I won’t ask the mods to put in the link) informs very clearly that Israel’s victory in 1967 was NOT a miracle and that this was Zionist propaganda, etc.
As to 1948 and any other potential miracles, since the alternative would have been the deaths of tens of thousands of “soneihem shel Yisrael”, there really was no good alternative, was there?
Is everyone grateful that Hashem chose to spare His people? Of course. But that’s wholly irrelevant to the topic of Zionism.
As the Brisker Rav also noted, the State came into being not because of the politics and reshaim, etc. It came into being solely because some frum Jews were misguided into asking for the State instead of asking for the geulah. So Hashem gave them what they asked for, unfortunately, instead of the real solution that they could have received had they asked for that instead.
Instead of listening to his words and recognizing that grave mistake of historical proportions, many Jews today still pray for this idol instead of for all Jews to be safe and for the true geulah.
Again, I’m not sure where you got “greatest miracles of our era”, but even if this were true, this does not legitimize the A”Z of Zionsm in even the slightest way.
Instead of being “pocheis al shtei haSiifim”, it would make much more sense to drop the idolatry of Zionism and instead follow just the Torah.
Chaimbn:
Whatever your point about tefillah, yearning for the geulah, etc., the first line in your post is offensive:
“I see no reason why Hashem should give us back the ??? ?????.”
I see lots of reasons why we do indeed need Hashem to redeem us all BB”A.
For starters, so many in Klal Yisrael are suffering, each with their own nisayon from Hashem, regardless of where and how successful they may be.
As well, despite the wonder gift of Shabbos and, liHavdil, the various levels of materialistic success with which He blesses people, it can’t compare to being redeemed with the coming of MAshiach, living in a rebuilt Yerushalayim, with the Torah, avoda in the rebuilt Beis haMikdash, etc. as Chazal has informed us.
Wishing all of Klal Yisrael a Chag kasher viSameach.
Again, none of this is, CH”V, a condemnation of any person. This is simply a quoting of the gedolim’s position that MO/RZ is against the Torah, etc. That’s it. What you do with that is your choice.
And, as Rav Schwab wrote, he who loves does not hate. This is simply to defend the honor of the Torah and not at all, CH”V, about hatred and, again, nobody is judging anyone here.
The bottom line is that MO’s leader, as great in Torah as he was, admittedly broke from his mesorah and of the gedolim of his time, and the leader of RZ in E”Y also promoted positions that were strongly opposed by the gedolim of his time.
May we merit soon to see the day when all the “gilulim will be removed from the land” with the coming of Mashiach BB”A.
mw13:
Most of the gedolim quotes were from when they were very much alive and when they were present in the situation in which they were deploring. And there are many more.
Regarding Rabbi Kook, he was influenced by outside influences according to the Gerrer Rebbe who said that Rabbi Kook, out of his love of the land, “says al tamei tahor viAl tahor tamei”. The Chazon Ish forbade learning his hashkafa sefarim. Rav Shach wrote about him as well.
At the same time, Rabbi Kook had tremendous power as the Chief Rabbi in Yerushalayim, and people had to respect him and glorify him in order to receive what they needed from him.
The Brisker Rav, who was certainly not a fan of Zionism, once needed something from Rabbi Kook that was pikuach nefesh, etc. He convened his B”D to request their permission – individually – for each honorific he used in his letter to Rabbi Kook with that request.
That’s the “respect” you’ve heard about.
Sam2:
But we don’t even need the sources to show how wrong this is. For example, even you admit that “There are certainly many mixed events. However, none of those are obligatory and nothing is mandated.”
It’s scary that you can’t even see how wrong this is, and that you write this as if it’s some sort of defense of MO.
As you surely know, if a person has a choice of two streets, and he knows that one of those has pritzus and he chooses to go that way EVEN IF he goes with the full intention of not looking AND DOES NOT LOOK then he is called a RASHA!
Yet you have no problem with a putatively “Orthodox” institution ignoring all of this and institutionalizing “many mixed events”?
Hashem yeracheim.
Sam2:
Some of the sources are here:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/respecting-each-other
Others are in various places in Rav Shach’s Michtavim uMaamarim which you can easily find.
For instance, Rav Shach, when writing about Rabbi Soloveichik, wrote that Rabbi Soloveichik “forgot things that talmidei bais rabban know” and wrote things that are heretical and are forbidden to be heard and certainly forbidden to be written down” and to the point that such a person says “divrei kefirah that are simply shocking to see”.
The reason, Rav Shach, writes, that he is mentioning them to show how far the influence of foreign ideologies affects a person…
This was the point of this discussion, until you insisted on trying to justify the unjustifiable.
OURTorah:
In case this hasn’t been made obvious yet, I certainly have full respect for anyone who is serving Hashem the way he or she has been taught to do. But what’s against the Torah can not be condoned as a “legitimate derech”, etc.
I’m sorry if some people don’t like that and I wouldn’t want any of your friends to be “turned off” by it either. But this is, I think, the Yeshiva World, not Mizrachi World, and therefore the positions espoused therein are geared to and should conform to the gedolim of the Yeshiva world and not the leaders of MO/Mizrachi. If individual MO Jews have any questions, they can certainly ask their LMOR for answers.
As I mentioned, this has been discussed before. Like here, for example:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/respecting-each-other
In the piece mentioned there, Rav Schwab tries to draw MO, with much love and respect, into the fold of Torah Judaism. He implores them to abandon their fossilized “modernity” and instead embrace the true modernity of the vibrant Torah world.
I sincerely hope that they do so.
To clarify your last paragraph about “YU and Stern in your mind is very naive”, I don’t at all believe the institutional policy to be a result of naivete but rather a normal function of their MO theology. Once again, the many less-religious people are not the concern other than hoping that they all grow in their religion to full Torah Jews (in spite of where they are). The concern is, rather, the institutional policies of the MO faith.
zahavasdad:
While the classes and campuses are indeed separate, the events, etc. are all mixed. So, practically speaking, other than the actual classes, “Yeshiva”/Stern is essentially a co-ed experience.
Who are you trying to fool and why?
simcha613:
But that “hyperbole” is still very instructive as to the underlying values.
Sam2:
You wrote:
“Find me a Frum YU guy who thinks that secular studies matter as much as Torah and, well, you’d be lying, because it doesn’t exist.”
This is irrelevant to the point of absurdity. Even if you are correct, and it would be an impressive feat if this were true in the flagship institution of Torah Umada, the discussion is about the institution and movement, not the frum kids at YU who manage to ignore that particular kefirah.
To the point, again, the reason that there, unfortunately, has to be a distinction between MO and traditional observant Judaism is that MO is not only Judaism but rather a merging of Judaism with other outside influences like secular nationalism and various other ideas.
To take one (major) example:
We’ve discussed many times that the gedolim held Zionism to be A”Z and kefirah. We are also quite clear that MO is proudly Zionist, to the point that Zionism is one of the major tenets of their faith, also as discussed. Put the two together and you get…a big problem.
Read what Rav Shach and others wrote about the founder of MO and about the founder of RZ, certain successors to the above, and about MO and RZ in general.
Again, I’m sure you’re wonderful people, but the facts are what they are, as our gedolim indicated clearly, that these are deviant movements.
simcha613:
But did he not indicate that one should make Birchas haTorah upon entering a science lab?
OURtorah:
I am sorry that you misunderstood my post and apologize to you for any hurt that it caused you. CH”V, I had no intention of “bashing” individuals and I thought I was clear that doing so would be wrong. To be clear, it did NOT even occur to me to “bash” any individual person, MO or otherwise.
The reason I mentioned that possibility, as you wrote, is that Sam2 said that I should “put up or shut up”. So, in response to that, I wrote that if he wants me to “put up” the sins of individuals or else “shut up” then I wrote that this is not happening and also not even relevant. And, as denoted by my YW “name”, I do not claim to be anywhere near perfection.
Sam2:
Out of respect to you, I specifically did not mention earlier what Rav Shach, Rav Schwab and others wrote about Rabbi YB Soloveichik and later MO Rabbi(s).
MO’s founding father, Rabbi YB Soloveichik, admitted he broke away from his family’s mesorah. As opposed to the gedolim who followed a mesorah who stated unequivocally that he was wrong.
What else? Would you like to discuss YU’s “Yeshiva” and Stern Colleges? The mixed-gender almost-everything which is clearly against halacha, etc.?
Come on, Sam. This has been discussed before, contrary to your misrepresentation in your past post. And does it really matter what aveiros some people do in the name of MO? Are you asking me to “bash” them? I really don’t want to, and it’s not relevant. Only the institutions and philosophy/theology are relevant, not the people who may mean well, including yourself.
MO is so proudly Zionist that Zionism is essentially one of the most important tenets of their faith. Look at any mission statement of any MO institution, etc. We have discussed this all in the past. I have read plenty of MO publications and writings. This is not a secret, of course.
As it happens, I recently saw a YouTube video of a prominent MO school. If I didn’t know better, I would have wondered if the place was, instead, Conservative. But it was definitely not, as MO like to put it, “halakhic”.
I guess that fits with Rav Aharon Kotler’s statement “The essence of MO is the same as Conservative”.
So please stop trying to justify that which is simply wrong and against the Torah according to our Torah sages and, as Rav Shach noted, that which even a school-child can tell you is wrong.
You’re probably a great guy and I’ve called you “erudite” in the past, but none of that can justify the unjustifiable, as well-meaning as people may be.
Sam2:
Your purported explanation of the difference between a Lakewood guy and a YU guy is almost all wrong other than, perhaps, the “shelf/drawer” part.
First, both interact with the outside world.
Second, a Lakewood guy knows better than most that ONLY Torah is Torah and everything else is in a different world. The YU guy, on the other hand, “synthesizes” the two and calls them equals.
I don’t understand what exactly you are referring to when you insist “put up or shut up”. I am simply quoting the major Torah sages of the past 150 or so years.
Regardless, we have discussed various things that MO “holds of” and does, and you can certainly go back and check the old threads rather than misrepresent my quotes and posts. There’s plenty more, like the setup/practices that YU chose for “Yeshiva”/Stern College. We’ve discussed things in this area in the past, too.
I guess you mean that these and other gedolim should have “put up or shut up”. I guess you also feel entitled to this opinion.
Sam2:
You seem to be referring to quotes such as:
1. Rav Elchonon Wasserman HY”D, in Ikvisa DiMishicha, that Zionism is A”Z and “Religious Zionism” is religion mixed with A”Z.
2. The Brisker Rav, who was in E”Y at the time the State of Israel was founded, and publicly noted that the Mizrachi (education system) is a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah”.
ViRabbim kaHeina viKaheina.
That isn’t strictly the point here, which is why I didn’t bring those up until you insisted on mentioning them. But since you did mention those, the facts are what they are: this is the Torah’s view as expressed by our gedolim and it obviously has not changed, MOs wishes to the contrary not withstanding.
Rebbe Yid and cholentmama:
Again, this was in response to cholentmama’s assertion that “There should be no Modox or Yeshivish or Chassidish.”
And, again, nobody is judging any individual person.
However, the MO “movement”, is, by definition and in plain fact, influenced by outside sources.
Not only does MO not see this as the problem(s) that our gedolim (Rav Shach, Rav Schwab, et al.) noted that it is, MO considers its approach to be even superior to the Torah-only approach.
That many MO are (otherwise) very frum and have vast Torah knowledge (like their non-MO counter-parts) is really great. But these other influences cannot be ignored.
So, again, there does, therefore, need to be a distinction between “Modox or Yeshivish or Chassidish.”
chulentmoma613:
While this may be an emotionally appealing thought, this simply cannot and should not be the case.
It’s one thing to say that one who wears a streimel or knitted kippah should be just as valued and loved as one who wears a velvet kippah. Certainly, anyone who is “bichlal amisecha” is on the same playing field in this regard.
And one should not Ch”V judge another person for his personal level of Yahadus either.
But, at the same time, it is vitally important that people know that the background/hashkafos (rebbi/mesorah) of any Jew who has influence on them has not come from foreign sources but rather from only Torah sources.
So this is one important reason for the distinction between, as you wrote, “Modox or Yeshivish or Chassidish”.
May Hashem grant wisdom and strength to all His children to drop their infatuation with foreign gods and other foreign nonsense and secular culture so that all His children look to only Hashem and His Torah.
Syag:
Thank you.
DY:
I’m sorry you find it unlikely.
DaMoshe:
While I sympathize with your feelings in that story, I think that they made the correct decision with no ill-will intended, no lack of Ahavas Yisrael, and you also should not take offense for this same reason, as follows.
It is not at all uncommon for people who wear a knitted kipah to use a different havara than the traditional observant havara, such as substituting a patach for a kamatz and a taf in place of a saf (or thaf). (We’ll ignore the reason they do so, for this purpose.)
While this havara may fit a sefardi shul, as that is their mesorah, it does not make sense for an Ashkenazi shul whose mesorah is, for example, to distinguish between kamatz and patach and taf and saf.
So it makes sense that they would not offer the amud to someone wearing a knitted kippah and that this has nothing to do with their presumably fine level of Ahavas Yisrael.
Ahavas Yisrael is a wonderful thing, and hearing a nice chazan is also nice, but neither should cause mesorah to go “out the window”.
BarryLS1:
Rav Elchonon Wasserman answered your question well before Israel even came into existence (but long after Zionism has begun to shmad our people). He noted that Zionism is Avoda Zara while “Religious Zionism” is simply Religion mixed into Avoda Zara.
Your wrote: “It should be obvious to every Jews by now that Israel could not have survived and thrived without Hashem”. Similarly, and not to compare the two, one could at least as easily point out the same, but with one small change: “It should be obvious to every Jews by now that Hitler YM”S could not have survived and thrived without Hashem.”
The flaw in that logic is thus quite clear: what Hashem allows to happen is not at all necessarily what He “wants” to happen.
Further, as you wrote, “only the hard-core cult-like among us can’t recognize reality after all this time…” but should have continued with something like: and fail to see the how Zionism and the State of Israel (despite the Yeshivos, etc.) are the anti-thesis of Judaism and certainly not the ratzon Hashem as it is explicitly forbidden for Jews to have a State before Mashiach, the shmad, human sacrifices, etc.
Nissim mean nothing, of course, in terms of determining right or wrong. That’s straight out in the Torah: “ki minaseh Hashem eschem…” (and expounded on later).
The Brisker Rav, who lived in E”Y at the time of the State’s founding answered your last question. He noted that at that eis ratzon, had the Jews davened for the true geulah instead of the State, they would have received that. But since they asked for the State, with all its many problems, then that is what Hashem gave them, unfortunately.
It’s probably worth pointing out that the writer of the letter had no problem with women learning computer programming to support their families. That skill is one that, presumably, they went to some sort of institution to learn.
So he’s clearly not saying that people should be uneducated/unskilled yet still hope to make a decent living.
Charlie:
It’s not a question of “the Torah educational system” and anyone being more “fragile” etc. Chazal tell us “Shani minus diMashcha”. Heresy has a specific attraction to anyone, even the greatest gadol.
PBA:
I suppose one has to channel that love appropriately, like anything else. Perhaps this love can be a catalyst to reflect about the many terrible things that Zionism has brought to Hashem’s holy people, His holy Torah and His holy land so one would instead daven for the true geulah BB”A.
But your question is not a contradiction to my post; it is simply a matter of how to channel this natural love into a Torah-observant manner, just as one needs to channel other things into a Torah-observant manner.
This is something to discuss with your LOR.
Again, since instilling an arbitrary non-rabbinically advised “Ahavat E”Y” which, again, (ahava) is NOT a mitzva, is spiritually reckless, for a number of reasons, one should consult an LOR as to how to avoid these dangers.
PAA:
If one understands the position of the gedolim, including those who were there in E”Y at the time of the founding of the State of Israel, that Zionism is A”Z and kefirah, then one would likely not be flippant about what people believe when it comes to Zionism and people risking their lives, spiritually and physically, for Zionism.
Secondly, the practical solution at this point is for Hashem to perform a neis and redeem us all BB”A, which would end all this. But, instead, Zionists have fooled people into believing in the Zionist idol and to even pray specifically for it each week (as is, unfortunately, very common) in contradiction to this.
Finally:
The Brisker Rav, Rav Velvel, fell physically ill upon hearing of the State’s founding. His father, Rav Chaim, who died decades earlier, knew the State would be a disaster and made this known regarding “R”Z” even then.
The Chazon Ish sent a message to the Brisker Rav that the State was an example of “Gezeirah Raah Avida LiHiBatla”, a bad decree, which, like all bad decrees, would eventually come to an end.
The Brisker Rav responded that “Avida LiHibatla” applies only if people understand that it is a gezeirah raah. But if not, he said, I fear it will be with us until the coming of Mashiach.
If people would only daven for the true geulah, not Zionism, who knows…?
Charlie:
First, your anti-kollel argument has nothing to do with the travesty of R”Z.
So your “On the contrary…” phrase makes no sense. The matter is not one of Kollel versus R”Z, as you frame it, but rather, as I mentioned in my post as well, much more foundational.
Also, I preemptively addressed your mixing up Chovevei Tzion and R”Z in my post above. R”Z is, in Rav Elchonon’s words, Religion and, liHavdil, A”Z together. Chovivei Tzion was not R”Z.
I could have also noted that one of the early proponents of Chovivei Tzion publicly retracted his support later on, when he saw just how correct were Rav Hirsch and others who were against even that as “no small aveirah”.
golfer, yekke2 and others:
It’s surprising to me that your posts are directed at me rather than in concert with what I am saying.
Once again:
There is certainly no practical universal obligation to live in E”Y unlike, say, Shabbos or Milah.
Regarding whatever mitzva there may be to do so, even Rabbi Herschel Schachter said explicitly that one should NOT live in E”Y if doing so will negatively affect his/family’s ruchnius.
Therefore, instilling an arbitrary non-rabbinically advised “Ahavat E”Y” which, again, (ahava) is NOT a mitzva, is spiritually reckless, for a number of reasons.
writersoul:
D”L/R”Z have no mesorah for their theology.
As any MO adherent can tell you, R”Z was created by Rabbi A.Y. Kook and further developed by his son and others.
(Incidentally, Chovevai Tzion is not relevant here, though there were plenty of Torah luminaries such as Rav Hirsch who – presciently – considered even that to be “no small aveirah”.)
As even a left-wing MO Rabbi admits, Rabbi Kook melded the secular philosophy of nationalism with, lihavdil, his Torah knowledge to create the travesty that is R”Z.
Torah giants like the Brisker Rav R’ Velvel called their theology “a drop of Torah mixed in to a sea of heresy”. The Chazon Ish and others held similarly.
Formidable Torah knowledge does not permit one to grossly distort the Torah, as the gedolim recognized is, unfortunately, the case here with D”L/R”Z.
So, to directly address your posts, the Rabbanim to whom the R”Z “look to guidance” are following a non-existent mesorah that, as the gedolim have stated clearly, is against the Torah.
PAA (and others):
Even according to this Sefer Chareidim, he doesn’t propose to create an unhealthy balance between “chibas E”Y” and the mitzvos. He doesn’t write that one should sacrifice his ruchnius for the sake of “chibas E”Y” or living there.
My question in my previous post remains.
Again, even Rabbi Schachter of YU noted that if a person’s ruchnius, chidren’s chinuch, etc. will be better outside of E”Y then he should NOT move to E”Y but remain in chutz laAretz.
The bottom line is that it would be foolish for one’s spiritual health and priorities to instill “Ahavat E”Y” without first consulting a posek or LOR to determine if such a thing should be done and, if it should be done, then by what parameters.
Even liShitas Rav Chaim, I don’t see the relevance to today:
“We in Volozhin, thank G-d, are healthy in spirit and body, are whole in our Torah”
Does anyone today feel the same about themselves that they can say that shita applies to them?
Once again, even Rabbi Schachter from YU agrees that there are those who should NOT move to E”Y.
So, once again, what source in Chazal can you find for the practice of arbitrarily and deliberately instilling in anyone an arbitrary love for E”Y, as, for example, mentioned by a poster in this thread that she is “working on Ahavat E”Y” in Seminary this year?
This question, in my humble view, is particularly important considering, as I pointed out earlier that instilling this love of E”Y can, in certain cases, be counter-productive and spiritually damaging because a person might then allow that love to take precedence over his needs in ruchnius, etc. if his particular avodas Hashem would in fact be better outside E”Y.
PBA:
I have already conceded far more than you asked for: in response to your earlier quotes, such as the one mentioning “chiba”, I noted that it would be understandable if one were to feel joy at the ability to better observe mitzvos, etc. provided that it were better for his particular avodas Hashem to be there.
Regarding your line, “Yeah, also that there’s a mitzva to…and all that. Is shaking a lulav for those whose avodas Hashem will be bettered by it? ” This is not only “mean” and mocking, but absurd as well.
As mentioned, living in E”Y in these times is, at most, an optional mitzva. Again, even Rabbi Schachter from YU states in that Israeli Independence Day lecture from this past year, that if a person’s ruchnius, children’s chinuch, etc. would suffer from going to live in E”Y, then the person should stay in America and NOT move to E”Y.
Lulav, of course, has no such issues. Neither do Shabbos or Tefillin for that matter. Yet, as I pointed out, nobody has claimed that their school has a “learn to love tefillin” program. So your mocking comparison to lulav seems to simply be for the sake of being mean and mocking, not for any good reason that I can deduce.
Sam2: Thank you for the correction.
However, the elevation in these circles, of this allegedly Jewish value of loving E”Y, to a very prominent theological role, as I stated, is clear.
JFem (and others)
Regarding your claim that “I don’t think there are any social circles that literally conceive of “Ahavas Eretz Yisroel” as a mitzvah in and of itself”, that might or might not be true but, either way, they certainly come awfully close.
With a mantra like “Ahavat Yisrael, Torat Yisrael and E”Y”, which should be very familiar to those circles and with the mission statements of their schools clearly stating things like this, it is clearly a very high priority in their theology, if not an outright “mitzva”.
The alleged poster currently in Seminary earlier mentioned that she is working on her “Ahavat E”Y””. Others use the same term, too.
Given that no such term seems to exist in Chazal, unlike, say, “Ahavas Hashem” or “Ahavas Yisrael” (as in Jews, not the land), from where did this catch-phrase and hashkafa come, which seems to have no parallel for any mitzva, as I mentioned with Shabbos and Tefillin as examples?
Nobody wants to admit the obvious answer, I guess.
JFem (and PAA and others):
Misplaced priorities and incorrect focus are not good things to teach our kids.
Simply speaking, living in E”Y is for those whose avodas Hashem will be best there.
So if one’s particular child or children’s avodas Hashem will NOT be best there, then it would be counter-productive to artificially instill in them this “Ahavat E”Y”.
So, no, I disagree with arbitrarily promoting “Ahavas E”Y”. At least with Tefillin (for men) and Shabbos, it’s universally applicable. And, with those, I have yet to see a school’s mission statement promote teaching our children a love of Shabbos or Tefillin.
Yet for some (obvious) reason, a “love of E”Y” is a popular one.
PAA:
So you mean to say that there should be a mitzva to love the land so that people should live there (never mind that whatever mitzva there may currently be is far from universal)?
By that logic, there should be a mitzva to love Tefillin and Shabbos and all the others. If people love Tefillin then they’re more likely to lay Tefillin, too. Obviously, this is not a reason to institute a new mitzva to love something.
Again, as mentioned above, why is “Ahavat Eretz Yisrael”, emphasis on “Ahavat” perceived as a Jewish value (or even a major mitzva in certain circles), one that is perceived as an advantage to sending to seminary in E”Y as proposed earlier?
No. I am not disagreeing that someone living in E”Y (not necessarily within the State of Israel, of course) gains that optional mitzva (if all else lines up).
My point was, however, as I keep mentioning, regarding the early poster commenting to the effect that she was working on “Ahavat Eretz Yisrael” by being there.
My question that nobody has answered is why one should work on “Ahavat E”Y” and, specifically relevant to this thread, why this “working on Ahavat E”Y” is a perceived advantage of going to seminary.
As mentioned earlier, I do not dispute that one who appreciates being in the platerin shel melech, etc. may feel joy as a result.
But why is it a good thing to work on loving the land? As mentioned, laying Tefillin is a mitzva chiyuvis for essentially all men, while living in E”Y is only applicable in certain cases. Shabbos is applicable to both men and women and is an os between us and Hashem, etc. also unlike E”Y. But we don’t teach our young men to love their tefillin, and neither men nor women to “love” Shabbos for that matter.
Once again, given the above, why is “Ahavat Eretz Yisrael”, emphasis on “Ahavat” perceived as a Jewish value?
PAA:
I read it before I replied to you. That line/piece is not in the slightest a siyua to Zionism, and I’m not interested in discussing it at this point due to the (frum) people involved in this particular matter.
I mentioned Rabbi Schachter because of his position in the institution in which he is employed. I think the implication is rather obvious. Our mesorah is not as you extrapolate from that piece, and even in the MO world they are aware of this. If you’re interested further in his understanding, you can either listen to that lecture or perhaps ask him yourself.
Gimar chasimah tovah to all of Klal Yisrael.
PAA:
What are you trying to say by bringing up this piece?
PBA and DY:
This simply reflects their joy at their ability to do mitzvos, to be in palterin shel melech, etc.
So I grant that one could feel joy upon entering the land, and I conceded this earlier because it is the land we once had, more mitzvos, Hashem’s palace, etc.
But, again, my prior question to DY still remains. And you have still not brought a mitzva or even a general hashkafa to “intend to love the land”, so to speak. “Ki ratzu…” is not a commandment, simply a reflection of my second paragraph here.
Finally, as relevant here, you have not brought a reason to send one’s daughter there for the reason of implanting “Ahavat Eretz Yisrael”.
PAA:
Regarding your #1, there are countless gedolim throughout the generations through today who were and are no rush to move to E”Y. Yes, some did try, but that doesn’t speak for the vast majority.
Even Rabbi Schachter of YU says your #2 is incorrect: doing mitzvos in Chutz laAretz is NOT simply “preparation” for doing so in E”Y. You can hear that on his speech given on this past Israeli Independence Day.
Regarding #3, we were also kicked out of E”Y afterwards, as mentioned above.
jfem:
It’s true that we are able to visit or even live there, but Hashem took it away from us. I will refrain here from commenting further in this particular aspect.
DY:
Point taken, but are you saying that Chazal propose a general hashkafa of chibas haAretz? Where is the source of this?
jfem:
You still haven’t explained why one would love a land and the benefit of sending one’s daughter to E”Y for this purpose.
Yes, I agree that there might be an emotional attachment to a place where one grew up and that this could be extended to include E”Y because that is the land that our forefathers lived in, etc. and that we used to have until Hashem kicked us out.
As to “chiba”, this means a fondness, not ahava, but it’s irrelevant anyways.
None of that extends to create a mitzva to either be fond or to love any land and, as relevant to this thread, none of this explains the proposed benefit of sending one’s daughter to E”Y to increase her love of the land.
jfem:
Assuming that there is, in fact, a mitzva currently “in force” to live in E”Y if all the relevant parameters are met, why does it then follow that one should love the land?
Do we teach our sons to love their Tefillin, for example? Look at the incredible kedusha and connection to Hashem that Tefillin provides. Why no love for Tefillin, or countless other things?
(As to the immersion and “Lashon HaKodesh” and secular knowing Tanach and all that, I will not comment here on any of that.)