HaKatan

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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”.

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.

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.

PBA:

Moshe Rabbeinu understandably wished to enter E”Y to perform the mitzvos that could be done there, but where did he express a love for the land?

And you still didn’t answer the question. What is the need for/purpose of “ahavat Eretz Yisrael”?

writersoul:

“Israel is a publicity mechanism, in a way, for the seminary experience itself, no matter where it might be. If the Israel seminary as an institution was abolished, I doubt that the American/British/etc system would stay afloat for long after.”

While the “publicity mechanism” part may be true, for the traditional frum world, if attending seminary (wherever) is a good thing for post-high school young women then there is no reason to thing that it won’t happen without Israel. (But it wouldn’t surprise me if MO’s participation would drop without Israel due to theological rather than “advertisement” factors.)

Regarding Lior’s post, I think there is something to be said for witnessing people in Yerushalayim so removed from the materialism of this world despite the different lifestyle that these young women may have while in Israel. But I think the points are very reasonable.

Some NYC-area residents refer to Manhattan as “the city” in a similar fashion to how others refer to their city’s main business area as “downtown”.

Thus, the OP was presumably asking about restaurants in either Manhattan or Brooklyn, both of which are, as you noted, in NYC.

Alternatively, the OP could have been asking about restaurants in Brooklyn, meaning the Brooklyn in NYC, as opposed to any other Brooklyn.

rationalfrummie and takahmamash:

The statements by various gedolim about YU are clear as to their opinion of the institution and its philosophy. It’s not “only” those particular Torah giants. Both Rav Shach and Rav Schwab, for examples, are (similarly) on record about this.

As to some gedolim refusing to enter the place while others did do so, different gedolim have different approaches to the same set of facts even while holding the same opinion on the matter.

To illustrate with a different example, the Chazon Ish and Brisker Rav both struggled greatly to defend the Jews in E”Y against Zionism. But while the Brisker Rav refused to meet, liHavdil, David Ben-Gurion, liHavdil, the Chazon Ish did meet with him.

So while their respective tactics were different, their daas Torah on the matter was otherwise the same and they fought these dangers together.

HaLeiVi:

I disagree, unless you can explain why it makes more sense to purposely leave the name ambiguous.

I simply chose to make clear to whom I was referring. Leaving out his initials would leave an ambiguity as I noted.

In any event, there is nothing insulting about specifying the initials, as I also noted.

Dr. Hall:

I’m sorry I’m not convincing. I’ll try again, though.

Praying denotes ascribing omnipotence to the One to Whom we pray. Asking the Malachim to do that which they are supposed to do does not ascribe that attribute of G-d to the angels, which would, of course, be forbidden, though it does recognize the role that Hashem did give them.

For those whose mesorah is to say that piece, this seems like a very reasonable distinction. At the same time, I can certainly understand those whose mesorah is to not say that piece.

(Not that my opinion matters if there is a real mesorah both ways. Perhaps there are other reasons, too?)

Actually, Yeshivos and many shuls do not say Anim Zemiros. But what makes it mean that G-d is, CH”V, corporeal? As HaLeivi pointed out, there is plenty to find throughout Tanach, not just in Shir HaShirim, where one must read it allegorically.

Do you really believe, for example, “Ki biYad chazakah hotziacha Hashem miMitzrayim”, that G-d used his literal strong hand? Come on.

Patur Aval Assur:

I did not mean to imply that you held “Mai ahanu lei Rabbanan”. I meant to note that nobody should make that extrapolation from your quote.

Sam2:

Again, I was not insulting your “Rav”, yourself and not anyone else either. Writing, for the sake of brevity, “Rabbi JB Soloveitchik” rather than spelling out both names each time, is not insulting. I’ll leave it at that.

Patur aval assur:

I would vote to get back to the topic and to your quote from the Baal haTanya.

I don’t recall it being pointed out that things like whether or not to flee Europe before WW II are really questions of halacha, not political questions. It was well-known that America was dangerous for yahadus at the time, and that E”Y was under threat of attack from the Nazis. In fact, the Brisker Rav himself left for E”Y because of the potential spiritual threat of Russian occupation despite his fear of physical danger from the Nazis if they were to have reached E”Y.

There were parts of Europe that were not attacked until very late in the war. Had Hashem willed it, the war could have been over much earlier. Then there’s also the schar viOnesh aspect, etc.

Taking a particular set of actual circumstances without considering the many variables, both known and unknown, and then extrapolating that to “mai ahanu lei rabbanan” is, at the very least, foolish and short-sighted.

Patur aval assur:

When discussing this, or any issue that is not black-and-white in the poskim, there is little purpose in bringing in “Modern Orthodox” views.

We are approaching Matan Torah, and are in the midst of learning Pirkei Avos, which begins with the Mesorah from Moshe Rabbeinu and on. Our celebration on Shavuos is, in a large part, the unbroken chain of our mesorah that we have all the way back to Moshe Rabbeinu.

Unfortunately, since the “MO” broke with our mesorah, as that same Rabbi JB Soloveitchik himself admits, their “opinion” on these matters is not relevant.

Second, biNidon diDan, Zionists have, of course, a vested interest in trying to defend their idolatry. So that quote from Rabbi JB Soloveitchik is par for that course and also does not take into account the points quoted above from gedolim.

If you want a legit opinion against daas Torah, find a true gadol who holds that, if you can find any that do so.

Besides for the above, I saw the following:

The gedolim did not tell people to not go to E”Y; they only warned them to not fall prey to Zionism if they did go.

It was very possible that the Nazis would have reached and attacked E”Y. So advising people to go there wouldn’t necessarily have been a wise idea, just from a political perspective.

Finally, who is to say that Hashem would not have allowed Hitler in to E”Y if there had been a mass emigration there. Do all the gedolim bashers also disbelieve in schar vaOnesh? Maybe that would have been Hashem’s will and justice, in that circumstance?

Matan1:

I don’t understand the question. The topics in question are directly related to Zionism.

Charlie:

Actually, the similarity between the two, which the Zionists still haven’t learned, is that our place in galus is to placate the nations, not holler threats at them, especially when those threats are empty.

There is also no proof that Hamas, Fatah, etc. would have arisen had Zionism never arisen.

None of this excuses Arab savagery, but neither does that excuse taunting a herd of wild beasts and then claiming innocence.

Your point regarding the US Immigration law of 1924 does not negate the point that the Zionists lobbied governments to not allow Jews in because the only escape that fit their Zionist plans was Palestine.

I disagree that “they understood the ramifications of Nazi rise to power better”.

See Rav Avigdor Miller and others on this topic.

Just for example, nobody imagined the depths of Zionist conduct in WW II, both their folly, from the very outset of the war (“declaring war” on Hitler, who then declared “now I will finish them”) and treachery (lobbying governments to not allow in Jews so that their only choice was either the gas chambers or Palestine which they knew the British didn’t allow because the Zionists had so antagonized the Arabs with the Zionist idol Nationalism at any cost).

There are plenty of quotes to look up by such as Henry Montor who refused to intervene to save a ship full of Jews because “Palestine shall not be…flooded with the old and undesirables”. Another one (of many) is “A [milk-producing] cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews of Europe”. Explicit declarations that Zionism was a greater cause than saving Jews in Europe.

The pattern that always held true in galus was that if one place became dangerous then another would open up. The Zionists specifically didn’t want that because “Rak biDam Tihye lanu haAretz”.

The Zionists know and admit all this. How dare anyone blame gedolim for outrageous Zionist treachery?

Never in history was there such a “fifth column” (the Zionists) working against Jews. They then have the audacity to blame the gedolim.

Simcha613:

If you are comparing Israel’s 6-Day war to the Purim story, then your understanding of one or both of those is clearly different than mine. (But I’ll try to clarify.) Just because Purim was a neis nistar, that doesn’t lessen the actual neis. Nor does that make every war won into another Purim.

Again, regarding Israel’s 6-Day war, there were no nissim. And, in case the CIA’s web site is not clear enough, there was no “threat of a massacre” and there was nothing miraculous about Israel’s wars.

See the CIA: they knew Israel would trounce the Arabs, even if attacked on three fronts simultaneously.

You are simply trying to promote this fallacious Zionist nonsense.

Again, comparing it to the Purim story is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the Purim story, for that matter.

MachaaMaker:

In other words, if a group of people choose to play in traffic and, in the process, make an unprecedented chillul Hashem in doing so and Hashem is kind to them and some of the cars stop for some of them, then that’s not a reason to make a yom tov like a little Purim established in the past.

Regardless, these sevaras are irrelevant because the Chazon Ish and other gedolim considered it not a purim katan but, its polar opposite, a tragic day, like Tisha BiAv, and he deliberately said tachanun on “Yom haAtzamos” even when he had three brisos that morning.

Charlie:

Since you mentioned it: no, the Zionists were wrong to fight in Yerushalayim during the war. Had the Zionists stayed out of Yerushalayim, which was to become an international city, Jordan would not have entered the war as agreed with the UN and there would have been no fight.

As to your claim that “Arab rashaim who would have killed every Jew, Zionist or not”, it is the Zionists who shot at the Rabbanim who tried to surrender to the Arabs against the wishes of the invading Zionists rather than have the Zionists wrongly and needlessly sacrifice more Jewish blood for their Zionist war.

To the point: Jews were able to daven at the kosel prior to the Zionist invasion of E”Y in the early-to-mid 1900s. In fact, the Chevron Massacre occurred because the “Religious Zionists” insisted on controlling the Kosel rather than listening to Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld who begged them to be grateful that the Arabs didn’t stop the Jews from davening at the Kosel and to not antagonize the Arabs by insisting on Zionist control of the Kosel, back in 1929.

The “Religious Zionists” didn’t care and, ultimately, the Arabs murdered the non-Zionist innocent Yeshiva students as a result.

Again, Jews were able to daven at the Kosel prior to 1948 and it was the Zionists who caused them to lose that access.

PBA:

I agree that circumstances, tactics and practical matters could change, such as, perhaps, voting in Israel’s elections, for example.

Meaning, if there is no inherent issur in doing a particular action, then that is something for whoever is the “shofet” “baYamim haHeim” to weigh and conclude if there is, in fact, any issur in doing so at that particular time and place, etc.

But there is no way to, for example, retroactively kasher [founding] the State which was and is a blatant violation of multiple issurim including a violation of oaths and (even the Zionists admit this and grapple with it in YU’s latest “To-Go” publication) pikuach nefesh (or, as the Brisker Rav held, the entire Torah).

The gedolim paskened as such having nothing to do with what Israel would or wouldn’t develop into and nothing can later make kosher what was a paskened unequivocal issur.

So what did you mean by “Nor do I accept the notion that because gedolim were opposed or supported something 50 years ago, that their opinion would not have changed if they had seen what the thing had developed into.”