Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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:
What exactly is the need for/purpose of “ahavat Eretz Yisrael” that you tout it as a benefit of seminary?
I certainly agree with you that it makes no sense to eat a poor family’s last piece of chicken on Shabbos, but seeing the lifestyle to whatever extent does seem to have some value.
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.
I agree with PBA.
I think it makes much more sense to send one’s daughter to a quality domestic seminary rather where she can sleep at home rather than to put her under the control of a male head-of-seminary 6,000 miles (or 600 miles, for that matter) away where she would be essentially on her own.
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.
Same with YU. Some Torah giants adopted the tactic of refusing to step into the place. Others not only did enter the building but they even taught there.
But it was a question only of tactics, not daas Torah opinion on YU’s theology, which has, of course, been considered dangerous and deviant by the Torah giants who addressed it even close to a century ago.
Moreover, in YU’s case, a certain Rav (not YU’s “The Rav”) who taught there was asked why he taught there given the above. He explained regretfully that he was somehow convinced by a certain R”Y of YU that the future of Torah in America was only in YU but that had he known at the time that this would not be the case then he would not have taught in YU.
So the greatness of some of the people who taught there does not in any way convey legitimacy to that institution and its theology, particularly in light of the gedolim’s strong opposition to which those same people there agreed.
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.
MachaaMaker:
It’s not chashuv for YU, certainly not for today’s YU.
YU was, until that year (about 85 years ago) a Yeshiva, not a University that happened to also have a Yeshiva.
Regardless, Rav Shimon Shkop’s short tenure there was no impediment to the various famous quotes of the gedolim about YU.
Rav Elchonon’s words about that institution are well-known and can also be found online.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Aharon Kotler and others would not even walk into the place.
Etc.
Not very chashuv.
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.
Sam2:
Surely you realize that there are other Rabbis Soloveitchik/Soloveichik. So I feel it makes sense to specify to which I am referring.
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.
Dr. Hall:
Nobody prays to angels.
Regarding Machnisei Rachamim, for those that say this piece, it is asking the angels to do their job, so to speak.
But the only address for prayer, as in when asking to be granted anything or to change anything, etc., is Hashem.
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.
tbontb:
I wouldn’t say that’s really “the” question, though it is an interesting one.
Given other OO behavior such as Rabbi Avi Weiss’s local mixed-gender Christian Baptist Choir singing in front of his Aron Kodesh, the answer seems pretty obvious.
The question is how any “Yeshiva graduate” could possibly even consider such views, let alone spout them to the world.
The answer should further clarify itself if Rabbi Avi Weiss does not issue that retraction for the WSJ, as Rabbi Hoffman suggests they do.
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.
Sam2:
In addition to what bhe wrote, I merely abbreviated his two names to one set of initials and, crucially, preceded that with the word “Rabbi”.
There is no need to protest this, as this is not a lack of kavod to anyone. I need not point out that I’ve seen references to, for example, “Rav E.M. Shach”, to which nobody takes offense claiming that you have to write out “Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach” instead.
That’s ridiculous.
As to insulting, I simply indicated what Rabbi JB Soloveitchik said about himself. I’m sorry that you feel insulted by your “Rav”, but that has nothing to do with me.
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.
simcha613:
Gedolim have said that it is not only not “a legitimate hashkafa” but it is “a sea of edited mixed with a drop of Torah” (Brisker Rav) and “Religion and edited together” (Rav Elchonon Wasserman). Rav Shach, Rav Aharon Kotler and others held similarly.
No, it is not a “legitimate hashkafa”, much as some might wish it were.
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?
Sam2:
There is nothing to admit. History is plain that there simply was no neis. One is entitled to one’s own opinion, not one’s own facts.
But “no neis” does not contradict, CH”V, neither Hashem’s full control of the world nor, for that matter, bechira chafshis.
The Zionists prefer to instead claim non-existent miracles that, even if it were true, that therefore there should be a new Yom Tov in Klal Yisrael for the first time since the establishment of the only holiday established after Tanach, Chanukah (disregarding, for this purpose, other Zionist holidays), especially given the cost in lives, that the Zionists were the ones who lost it in the first place, etc.
I don’t see the irony of consistent belief in the Torah and only the Torah
edited
Matan1:
I don’t understand the question. The topics in question are directly related to Zionism.
jbaldy22:
I imagine the mods don’t have a problem with Rav Gifter’s thoughts on the matter.
Obviously, the Holocaust is first and foremost the fault of the Nazi murderers. But that doesn’t excuse the Zionists for their despicable role.
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.
But just for the sake of fairness, leaving aside the particulars of the Satmar Rav’s case, every gedolim-basher who points out how the Satmar Rav survived should also point out that Rav Elchonon Wasserman went back to Europe to his talmidim, knowing there was a chance he would die there, even though he was already safe and could have easily survived the war and left his talmidim instead.
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:
Again, it was the Zionists that lost it in the first place. It is absurd to celebrate this undoing of a very, very small part of the damage that the Zionists themselves inflicted on the Jewish people.
More importantly, we don’t make up new holidays just because we like something. There is exactly one holiday that has been established in Klal Yisrael since Tanach: Chanukah. No other event has been deemed worthy by Chazal of prior generations to establish a holiday. Yet Zionists proclaim holidays for all their “victories”.
Yes, it would have been less problematic (not problem-free, but less problematic) if it had been a war of only goyim. But it wasn’t – it was a Zionist war – and that makes a ton of difference.
How many Jewish lives were sacrificed on the altar of Zionism for this “victory”? How much sina was created, threatening Jews worldwide? How many severe aveiros of hisgarus baUmos and aliya biChoma were violated for this?
Almost nothing is ever doche pikuach nefesh. How many human sacrifices to this idol of Zionism (as fighters in its offensive wars) were required to regain a little of what the Zionists recklessly lost in the first place? Yet you celebrate this made-up day?
(To be clear, The Torah of course permits self-defense, albeit the need for it here was only a result of Zionist aggression in the first place; but this war’s conquests are anyways not a question of self-defense.)
Again, this celebration is not Torah but, lihavdil, Zionism.
The only way any educated Jew could celebrate any Zionist holiday is if they have grafted the idolatry of Zionism unto, liHavdil, our holy Torah (as does MO/”Religious Zionism”) and have thus poisoned their worldview with the former rather than only Torah.
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:
The 6-day war was not a neis, as mentioned above. You can see this for yourself if you go to the CIA’s web pages about this war.
Again, Zionist believers should at the very least not believe every lie spouted by the Zionists; that 6-Day War in 1967 was no miracle.
It is absurd for otherwise intelligent and thinking people to simply believe indisputably non-factual Zionist propaganda as “Gospel truth”.
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.
PBA:
Thank you.
MachaaMaker:
This is very different. A small-scale local European Haman haRasha cannot be compared to the monumental and long-lasting tremendous Zionist folly in starting up with and provoking the Arabs against all logic and against the gedolim’s wishes and still losing thousands of Jewish lives then, tens of thousands more human sacrifices over the following decades, and endangering Jews worldwide, CH”V, etc.
That’s not a Yom Tov; that’s a Tisha BiAv. The Zionists are, of course, “liShitasam” here; they celebrate their own lag baOmer as Bar Kochba’s victory against the Romans when we, of course, mourn that saga on Tisha BiAv as that false Mashiach and Beitar’s resultant destruction resulted in literal rivers of Jewish blood, the greatest loss of Jewish life in history until the Holocaust.
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.
To be clear, it is absolutely forbidden to establish a Jewish government in E”Y before Mashiach even if the goyim all insist that we do so, but all the more so when it requires force and human sacrifice.
The Maharal held that even if the nations force us to create a State it is forbidden to do so, yehareig viAl yaavor. Even the sources that Zionists twist in a vain attempt to support their state, such as Rav Meir Simcha in the early 1900s after the Balfour declaration, did not allow war as a means of obtaining the ability to settle in E”Y nor did he speak of the formation of any governmental entity.
Interestingly, there were rabbis who, for example, initially supported Chovevei Tzion but, when they saw what had happened, later dropped their support. Whereas gedolim like Rav Hirsch, for example, held all along that even this movement (never mind Zionism) was “no small aveirah”.
In other words, “…asher yihye baYamim haHeim” is relevant only to matters that could change or are dependent on a particular assumption or set of circumstances, like, according to some, Chovevei Tzion. Depending on where the movement was up to, it could possibly be permissible to join.
But if something is outright assur, regardless of time and place, like Zionism and founding the State of Israel, then it’s always outright assur and “asher yihye baYamim haHeim” is irrelevant because the “shoftim” of later times cannot possibly pasken any differently because it is simply immutable.
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.”
As others have mentioned, people used to go to the kosel long before the Zionists started making problems in Eretz Yisrael (well before 1948).
So all the Zionists accomplished with “Har HaBayis BiYadeinu” in 1967 was to undo a very, very small part of the damage that they themselves, the Zionists, did up to and including 1948. That’s besides for the cost in Jewish blood, other issurim, etc. that it took to both inflict that damage and to undo it.
So the perspective of the kosel being a 1967 “gift from Hashem” is faulty and short-sighted as well. That “gift from Hashem” was always there, and it is the Zionists who lost it in 1948 in the first place.
The Zionists are true to form in celebrating this day, like the Satmar Rav’s mashal of the arsonist bringing a hose after setting a massive fire.
(Rav Hutner did not attend opera shows after he became Rav Hutner.)
Regardless, you are really asking two questions, and they don’t really impact each other. One question is if today’s “Jewish music” is really “Jewish”? The other question is if classical music is permitted.
Halachic inquiries must be directed to legitimate halachic deciders, like a Rav/Rebbi with a real mesorah…
But it would be foolish to underestimate the awesome power and soul language of music.
DaMoshe:
I don’t see why it’s funny, though I thank you (hakaras haTov) for your back-handed but far too kind compliment that being a Torah Jew is part of my identity (unlike MO/”RZ”‘s identity of “Religion mixed with A”Z” or “A sea of heresy with a drop of Torah mixed in”, etc. depending on the gadol you “ask”).
Sam2:
That would be contrary to basic logic and daas Torah (not to mention current events). Just for example, Rav Meshulam Dovid Soloveichik, son of the Brisker Rav, recently spoke a few times on this topic and was rather clear that there is no such distinction that you wish to make.
Syag:
First, as I mentioned earlier, I did not “insist bad things” about anyone.
Just because Zionism is shmad and your typical Israeli goes through that system, that does not make, and I did not say that, your typical Israeli is, CH”V, a bad person. I don’t see the L”H issue: I did not blame them for anything.
I asked you a simple question which you haven’t answered:
“Let us be clear: for someone who was brainwashed, to hate something, as part of their very identity, would you expect them to have any sort of good feelings towards any of that?”
But I am anyways willing to concede the possibility that your typical Israeli off-the-street might appreciate mishnayos being learned for them, regardless. It’s not relevant.
But akuperma’s post, in my understanding, which is what started this, is correct, as he was referring to the real Zionists, not the man-off-the-street. On this, there can be no question.
I certainly wish you the same.
Syag:
Again, countless gedolim have said that Zionism is shmad. Even with whatever limited emunas chachamim I do have, I believe them on that.
Regarding this instance, too, I have tried to set the reality in light of the gedolim’s words and the little knowledge of my own. If you feel I have erred factually, please let me know.
Let us be clear: for someone who was brainwashed, to hate something, as part of their very identity, would you expect them to have any sort of good feelings towards any of that?
I welcome your response.
rf:
Regarding your motzi shem ra about me that I do not “recognize the importance of E”Y”:
Actually, it is precisely because I do recognize the importance of E”Y that only reinforces the gedolim’s stated views of how Zionism is a non-starter.
Zionism and, liHavdil the land of E”Y are, of course, contrary to Zionist fantasy, wholly separate entities.
Regarding your motzi shem ra about my allegedly not recognizing hashgacha pratis, this is also absurd.
Presumably, you wrote that because I don’t believe in the Zionist fantasy that the very founding of Israel innately means that Hashem wanted it to happen. By your logic, one could say the same about the Holocaust, the Egel, or anything else.
Of course Hashem runs the world. But that He allows something to happen does not at all mean that He “WANTS” that to happen.
My Torah is the one given on Har Sinai and the mesorah from rebbi to talmid that followed.
edited
RF:
Your latest post is incorrect as well.
While it is a halach biYadua that Eisav Sonei es Yaakov, that means that one should be all the MORE careful to NOT “fan those flames”.
If you taunt a wild animal then you can’t claim that it bit because it’s a wild animal. It’s true that if it were a cow that it would not have bitten. But it’s also true that it wouldn’t have bitten if you hadn’t taunted it.
The facts are that the “Religious Zionists” came up with their disgraceful “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu HaKosel Echad” and needlessly provoked the Arabs which did antagonize the Arabs, on top of the rest of the Zionist aggression, and this was the result as testified by those who lived there and knew exactly what was happening.
To be clear, the Arabs had no right to touch even a single hair on the head of a Jew. But that doesn’t change the sheer recklessness of starting up with them.
Syag:
I did not mean to imply that your typical Israeli off the street is Leah Rabin and a “hater”. Not at all. But if they don’t even know what Mishnayos are, and have been taught that, in Ben-Gurion’s words, “Religion is the historical misfortune of the Jewish people”, what nechama could they possibly derive from someone learning mishnayos, assuming they could even tolerate the very thought of it?
To clarify further, if, someone offered to perform some religious act that, in your mind, is totally opposite what you were taught: would that gesture have any meaning to you? I don’t see how it would.
Might you appreciate the gesture just because it was offered, or just for the solidarity? Depending on the person, perhaps it would. But that’s a far cry from claiming it would bring nechama to them.
And akuperma is still quite correct that any Zionist worthy of the name would abhor this “galut stuff”.
Syag:
As Jews, the Torah IS real life. And most Zionists (not “RZ”), who don’t even know what mishnayos are, would not likely be comforted.
Leah Rabin’s line comes to mind, how she would rather her kids be Arab than Chareidi.
b. Israeli Jews who have passed on would, presumably, be included in the generic Yizkor/Keil Maleis just like all other Jews from anywhere else who have passed on.
For MiSheBeirachs, too, please cite one halachic reason that Jews in E”Y are more eligible than others to receive a special bracha just for them.
We daven at least twice a week “Acheinu kol beis yisrael haNisunim baTzara uVaShivya…HaMakom yiRacheim aleihem….” and (non-“MO”) shuls and yeshivos across the world daven for our brethren in E”Y daily if not more by reciting tehillim after davening.
not necessary for your point
Incidentally, the prayers invented by the Zionists are, of course, also problematic in their particular wording, so those are anyways non-starters. We obviously have no need for idolatrous (per our gedolim) add-ons to our tefillos.
What you mean to imply is why people don’t accept the A”Z of Zionism that “MO/RZ” have grafted onto, lihavdil, our holy Torah. The obvious answer is that the gedolim strictly forbade this deviancy in the strongest terms.
Avi K:
a. So, taking your point to its logical conclusion, RAK’s sefarim and everything else in his life are all not worth anything because of your story. After all, it must have been exaggerated or lav davka, or whatever implication you take from your allege story.
Obviously not.
RAK stated clearly that, at its essence, MO is the same as Conservative and Reform. There is no reason to believe he intended “lav davka” here, nor is there a logical “lav davka” alternative, even if your story were true, accurate, etc.
While on that topic, he also said that Rabbi JBS was “machariv America”, as I understand that quote. That could be argued as not literally “destroyed America”.
Besalel and others:
No, the Ramban did not CH”V hold that it is a mitzvah to violate the oaths, risk and lose, R”L L”A, tens of thousands of Jewish lives on the altar of that idolatrous State, etc.
Living in E”Y, not en masse, and with no force needed, and with permission of the nations including of the inhabitants already there, is a different story, but which is anyways entirely inapplicable to Zionism.
As I and others have posted, the Zionists and the State of Israel are still very much fighting to change our people from a Torah-based nation to a goy nation-based nation. Also, from ’48 until today, the gedolim certainly did not moderate their stance against Zionism. In fact, they have repeatedly confirmed that the same concerns, if not more, apply after ’48 through today.
Again, the Satmar Rav’s mashal of the arsonist who set fire to a structure and then ran up with a fire hose like some sort of hero, seems quite appropriate. The Zionists have reneged on their deals with Agudah that Agudah paid for with their collective soul and, as Getzel pointed out, welfare exists everywhere.
DaMoshe:
Please let me know which navi informed you that I hate and that this alleged hate has prevented Mashiach from coming, CH”V.
On the contrary, I’ve pointed out how our gedolim hold (it’s actually a gemara in Sanhedrin) that having a “Jewish State” holds off Mashiach’s coming.
(On other threads, I have also quoted Rav Schwab’s letter begging “our achim biAidah”, the “Centrist Orthodoxy”/”Modern Orthodox” to return to the fold. His piece is entitles to the effect of Love, not Hate.
But Rav Schwab was unequivocal that this does not in any way permit their “…heresy”.)
rf:
Your post is, unfortunately, historically and otherwise, wrong on all counts.
mmys:
Of course the Zionists managed to fool lots of people at the time. They still manage to fool people even with the benefit of hindsight of history and the recorded clear opinions of the gedolim on this subject.
The Brisker Rav wrote that the State only came into being because of the Jews who davened for that State instead of davening for the geula, which Hashem would have given them at the time had they instead done so. So your post is not a chidush.
But whatever your grandfather’s opinion is, or that of others who were there, one can presume that both the Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish were greater than he and the others.
Both the Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish agreed that the state’s establishment was a gizeirah raah. The Brisker Rav pointed out to the Chazon Ish that a gizeirah (raah) avida liHibatla only applies when people understand that it’s a gezeira raah so he feared that this gizeirah would remain ad beas goel, Hashem yiracheim.
On a subsequent Israeli Independence Day, the Chazon Ish was honored with Sandak for three brisos. Despite this, he insisted on saying Tachanun that morning anyways so that nobody would make any mistake about this matter.
But the “Religious Zionists” continue to delude themselves and attempt to delude others who don’t know any better.
DaMoshe:
Actually, the accurate claim, which Zionists cannot refute, is that “life was better for Jews in Eretz Yisrael before Zionism”, not “before 1948” as you wrote, because by that time the Zionists had already engaged in decades of conflict with the Arabs in E”Y.
Regarding the Chevron massacre, as has been posted on these boards numerous times, that was also “thanks” to Zionism, specifically “Religious Zionism”.
Rabbi Baruch Kaplan who was there, said publicly (and others concurred) that the Arabs revolted due to the “Religious Zionists” provoking the Arabs by insisting on having control over the Kosel. “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu HaKosel Echad” was their abominable rallying cry, twisting our holy Shema into a nationalist propaganda slogan that cost innocent Jewish lives.
Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, on the other hand, begged the “Religious Zionists” to stop antagonizing the Arabs and to be grateful that the Arabs did not interfere with Jews davening there. But the Zionists wanted to serve their idol (as per Rav Elchonon).
147:
The reason the British blocked immigration into Palestine during WW II is due to the Zionists fighting with the Arabs so the British didn’t want the Arabs to get even more violent.
If it weren’t for the treachery of the Zionists before, during and after WW II then those Jews might never have been tossed around those third-world countries to begin with. And some of the ones that were might have survived had the Zionists not lobbied governments for Palestine or nothing. Even the Zionists admit that Zionism was (and is, of course) above all, including being above saving Jews in Europe and they put their money where their mouth was.
The Satmar Rav said early in the century that it would be a miracle of tragedy did not befall the Jews in Europe because of what the Zionists are doing.
He also compared the Zionists to an arsonist who sets fire to a house and then runs to get a hose.
Read the despicable lies that Zionists said about Jews in an attempt to change the Jew into a new Goy Hebrew Zionist.