Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yankel Berel, do you understand why past generations tried avoiding the Russian and Polish army?
yankel berel, thanks for the Mareh Makom. He does say that if there is permission then according to Rashi there is no issue of עולה בחומה, since he understands Rashi’s “ביד חזקה” to mean going against the nations. He does not mention Reb Yonason.
SQUARE_ROOT, Hashem should protect them all. We owe thanks to every soldier but not sure about every policeman.
anon1, Not sure why you are bestowing the title of ‘picking and choosing’ unto me, but I do see how you are picking and choosing which points to ignore.
As for not being brought by other Sefarim, as I wrote earlier, they were never meant to replace the need to learn Gemara for general direction in all things. Others have already responded that this is no different than Lashon Hara. And, as I worte earlier, it’s no different than all of those Halachos that the Magen Avrohom brought in the end of Hilchos Krias Hatorah. I also mentioned, to address this point, that it doesn’t make sense to have “Hilchos Shalosh Shvuos” since it is not a Mitzva all its own. It is gleaned from a Pasuk in Kesuvim, which can not create a new Mitzvah, but it can surely advise and admonish. Yirmeya Hanavi also admonished us to seek the welfare of the host country. That is not either a Mitzva all its own, and although it found its way into Pirkei Avos it is not either a Halacha in Shulcha Aruch ― as far as I can recall.
And again, I will rely on our sages to know when a verse, whatever time-period it was said in, applies to us or not. Shlomo Hamelech was not in the time of the second Galus but nor was he in the time of the second.
RightJew, I guess you’d side with Yosheyahu over Yirmiyahu.
#1 is you vs. the Gemara. Cool ― if you’re a Karaite.
#2 missing the point by a lightyear. The oaths have nothing to do with living in Eretz Yisroel.
#3 is technically true.
#4 is perhaps true.
#5 pointless.Your postscript shows that you are not arguing in good faith.
Yaakov Yosef, you say “I never said that it was a given that הסכמת האומות would be מתיר anything, something the Maharal says explicitly that it doesn’t“.
I think this is a misunderstood Maharal. First of all, he doesn’t mention the nations “allowing” us to return. What he says is that even if it gets so hard that they are murdering (some of) us, we should still not try to break out of Galus.
But this is in a wider context of how he describes these three oaths. He describes them as the three forces at play keeping the unnatural state of Galus possible. Two of them keep us from leaving it, the way some other nationalities have sought independence, and the third keeps the nations from going too hard—in Galus terms, which means rounding up every Jew. Up until the Germans nobody did that, not even the harsh and cruel Romans.
He seems to be saying that it can’t happen, since you can’t go against these forces and it doesn’t pay to try.
Personally, I don’t think that the two oaths that pertain to us were violated in the end, even if the initial plan was to immigrate en masse. And fighting local enemies or even declaring an independent state is a far cry from the idea of revolting against our host nations to break out of a Galus. And with the above Maharal in mind, it couldn’t have been broken even if we’ve tried.
As for the Germans violating the oath on the nations, they did not fully succeed in their plans and they lost terribly. And also, perhaps that is what caused, in Heaven, a motion to create a Jewish national state, just like it triggered that reaction in this world. (If you don’t like to think of the state of Israel as a positive thing, then this won’t work for you.)
We are still in Galus, and state of Israel itself is in Galus, but of the same type that we had from Herod’s time onward.
May we all be Zoche to greet Moshiach in the very near future, while not having to be ashamed to meet eyes.
Anon, I think you are crossing into open dishonesty. Ypu are quoting a Rambam about strange statements in Chazal as a marker for what he would have held about normal Sugyos that you decided to classify as Agada.
It so happens that the Rambam in his Sefarim take Agada and Medrash very plainly and usually literally. The Moreh Nevuchim, for example, quotes Midrashim quite often and almost always for their plain and straightforward meaning.
This is especially true for this very topic, where I have shown you that he quotes it as the actual intention of the Pasuk.
And again, it is not a Mitzvah all its own. But it is mentioned by Shlomo Hamelech, and understood by Chazal as a warning.
Yankel Berel, you say “…decide who is or isn’t worthy of the title rav”. But that’s the point. Don’t decide who is or isn’t. Just refer to them normally without deciding whether or not there are issues with them.
If a Gemara tells you what you must or must not do, that is by definition an Halachah. It is not a story or a depiction, or even a theoretical punishment. Especially when the Gemara is discussing in detail how we derive all of it. And that’s after a description of Amoraim who acted upon these ideas. And, as I pointed out, the Rambam took it seriously enough to refer to the Gemara’s interpretation as Shlomo Hamelech’s plain intention of the verse.
The fact that the Magen Avrohom added certain Halachos after הלכות קריאת התורה since they were missing from the Shulchan Aruch and they were important enough to be made aware of, tells you that the Shulchan Aruch wasnever meant to replace the Torah. It was meant, as the Mechaber wrote, to codify what was written in the Tur/Beis Yosef, which was the daily practice—as the Tur describes in his introduction.
Nor does the Tur/Shulchan Aruch explain the importance of leaving Yeshiva to join the army so that you can take part of potential battles.
Yaakov Yosef, nevertheless it is appropriate to refer to Rav Goren as Rav Goren. You can bear in mind all of the issues, but since he was, after all, a renowned scholar it is fitting to refer to him as such. It’s not like he was פורק עול ח”ו. It’s just a good habit, and you’d appreciate others doing the same to rabbis whom you venerate that they strongly disagree with.
anon, that is circular reasoning. You are telling me that it is only Agadata because it is Agadata.
Speaking of dying on crosses, that happened mostly to people who followed their nationalistic urges, against the advice of our Chachamim. So, if the Romans punishing people are your yardstick, there you have one.
The Maharal being used to show that he held these oaths to be יהרג ואל יעבור is really a bad misunderstanding. You can see Rabbi Hartman on that piece wondering as well, how it was construed to mean that.
Although he does say that even if times are that bad you should not try to escape the Galus, that is not in the sense of יהרג ואל יעבור, but simply that it won’t help and that this option is not available. Turning it into שלש עבירות חמורות is a very big stretch.
anon1m0us, here are some responses to your earlier points.
“I am sorry, but as you stated, this gemara is an agadata! We do not derive any halacha from it.
While the 3 oaths are a great mashal, you do not find it in Torah SheBiksav. It is an agadata. You can learn what you like from it, but it does not have any halacha bearing.”I don’t know why you say “as you stated”, when I said the opposite. The Gemara in Kesubos discusses a very practical implication of what we derive from verses in Torah SheBiksav, albeit Diveri Kabbalah. I don’t know how you get to dismiss something as Aggadata. It is not a story or an exaggeration. Maybe Zman Krias Shma is also Aggadata.
” And if you want to follow Rabbanim who feels the oaths are something we should follow, then all of the oaths were fulfilled.
1)!The goyim created Israel with the UN vote.
2) Jews did not rebel.
3) I think the final straw, besides crusades, pograms, inquisition, was the Holocaust that satisfied יותר מדי.”This idea, that the three oaths are conditioned on each other, is one approach that was put forward by one Posek that may be a good Hetter. Just be honest about it, that you are utilizing the approach of the Avnei Nezer.
As for 1 and 2, I agree as well. There was no עולה בחומה, which means to go up as one like a crusade. And most likely what transpired cannot be considered ‘rebelling against the nations.’ But again, stick to the true point. Just because you don’t agree with anyi-zionism that doesn’t mean you must adopt new ideas of not accepting Chazal if you don’t find it convincing in the Pasuk.
Do you accept Chazal on לא תאכלו על הדם?
“So while the gemara talks about the 3 oaths, it is not halacha!”
So what is it? The Rambam in his letter refers to them as Shlomo Hamelech’s advice. Meaning, he took on Chazal’s interpretation as the actual intention of Shlomo Hamelech. It’s obviously not a Mitzva all its own, but the Amoraim were not being cute.
It is immature and embarrassing. Unfortunately, public trends are hard to stop. Even Rabbonim have limited influence.
מחלוקת מציאות
anon1m0us says:
@Hakatan,A) Not ONE gadol holds that the 3 oaths are in effect. NOT one!!! Anyone with Daas understands this.
1) the 3 oaths is a nice Medrish. It is not mentioned anywhere in Navi.
2) it was ONLY during the first churban. There were NO Oaths at the second.It is mentioned in Meseches Kesubos as the Halachic opinion of Rav Yehuda. Most Gedolim understood it simple and plain, although there is the Hetter of the Avnei Nezer that conditions one on the rest.
And since it was an opinion of Rav Yehuda, an Amora, it was obviously not only about the first Galus. Since when is an explicit mention in Torah Shebiksav the golden standard in Judaism?
It is highly questionable whether any of the two oaths were violated, and if it matters at this point, and how to react even if it does. But changing the Torah to match a desired result is not an option.
Riva, these are two discussions. The general Jewish population does not have any designated term for those who happen to live on the other side of the arbitrary “green line”. Normal people don’t refer to them as “settlers”. That term is reserved for outposts within otherwise arab neighborhoods.
It carries a certain danger and those who live there do so, very often, as an idealistic value. This is the discussion here.
Scary. The only deviance from ‘never changed my mind’ is ‘now I’m even more right’.
Over the years, there were many enlightening conversations from which I learned particular things. Obviously, I didnt pick up a new Hashkafa. But I did gain insight into some other Hashkafos.
“
There is also a Halachic prohibition against giving non-Jews ownership of Eretz Yisrael
”
Why so Machmir? I’m sure you can find a Rav that utilizes some kula.
I’m afraid that Riva’s soundbite quote of הכל מעלין was meant to sound like something it doesn’t say. In that case, that would be מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה.
It is about a couple moving to Eretz Yisroel, not a movement of bringing people there. I hope that’s all you meant.
UJM, I’m in full agreement about the idiocy of calling them Rodfim. I don’t know how to measure which one is sillier.
SQUARE_ROOT, so in an actual Halacha we aren’t treated to those anthologies? Is that only reserved for nationalistic ideas?
It doesn’t make sense to call them Rodfim if they are not being Rodef. Why the ridiculous rhetoric? Are you a Rodef if you disable a traffic camera?
You aren’t allowed to. The question is whether it would be De’oeaysa or not since it can’t last.
But it sure is considered building. Even piling up cheese to create a solid block of cheese is considered building.
There can be other issues as well. Removing the snow from where it naturally formed may be the Melachah of Tolesh, and f clumping it after that may be Me’amer.
Islam goes wherever you want it to go, like many religions. I would say this is a human ambition but charged with religious zeal.
Absolutely. Everyone expected then to hold on to some of them forever. Whatever ends up happening with the place, this is simply a fantastic ending to the (living) hostage saga.
It is interesting how this works out to be מקץ שנתיים ימים, but I’m not sure what to make of that.
Cameyyid, I think that’s on target. There might be more to it as well.
Worth keeping in mind that bad arguments don’t do your cause any good. It is better to have 3 solid proofs/arguments than 70 weak ones.
The way it seems from the Gemara, about half of the doctors were women.
I think the idea was to moderate it to match a certain standard, and that’s the way it has been for a long time. There used to be several moderators, but now I believe it’s down to one. No one gets paid to do it; and it can become overwhelming, especially when it’s a thankless job — usually.
That would explain things getting through rather than the one volunteer weighing the benefits of each post. Besides, we don’t know which ones never made it in.
None 2.0, there’s tons of places where anyone can view Kfira. This is one spot that was designated not to be like that. Are you afraid of allowing a Kfira-free environment in one particular website?
And, if you wonder, Kefira is very clearly defined in Halacha. It has nothing to do with having an answer to it.
The argument — that the Germans survived and so Zionists surviving doesn’t show anything — is a poor one. If your point is that something happened to eradicate a certain thing, then you should see that thing emerge as the main outcome.
Ashkenaz jewery is likely from Rome. We do know that there was a significant Jewish community in Rome at the time of the Mishna. It makes sense that many of them migrated to general Europe during the time of Charlemagne.
Fairly recently some group came across an old Jewish cemetery and tested their DNA form their teeth. It showed a very varied background, suggesting merchants who happened to grab the opportunity and came to Europe for business. This makes sense at that point since the aforementioned Charlemagne invited Jews and made things safe.
Running to the absolute most extreme example of any argument is a known fallacy. The Egel was was attended by the Rov, so now we should always be פורש מן הציבור.
Shabsai Tzvi did not head a segment of Klal Yisroel. He was a phenomenon that many were confused about. And even there, it would have been oit of place for someone to go up against Rabbanim publicly. You are free to join those who you think are right, but never fan the flames of מחלוקת between them. I’m frankly surprised that this is even debated, after so much tragic history of this kind.
Had you been around in the time and place of Reb Yonason Eibshitz, you would have no doubt lashed out on one or the other. I hope you agree that that would have been a bad move.
Yaakov Yosef A, you write:
No one even tried to offer a serious response to either of these postsMay I ask who you are expecting an answer from?
Sefardim have a much closer mindset to Chasidim than non-Chasidish Ashkenazim. And many famous Sefardi Chachamim were very into Chasidishe teachings. This was the case with the Baba Sali, as well as many of his grandchildren, and this is very much the case with today’s ‘Yenuka’.
None, that’s very elitist talk.
Yankel Berel, he invited scrutiny by doing things differently. Fine. But that scrutiny is for other leaders. We had so much trouble, historically, from המון עם getting involved in fights of leaders, or to put it better: turning arguments between leaders into full-blown fights.
In the medrash, her argument is that she, who was of meat and bones, was not jealous and tolerated her sister talking her place, therefore Hashem should tolerate the Jews even if they worshipped idols.
Yaakov Yosef A, you ask where the moderators are. However, when I tried being מוחה at one point for the very inappropriate manner in which anti Lubavitch spoke of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, a moderator responded with ‘how do you know he’s a Gadol’.
So we first need to to prove that a spiritual leader of a large portion of Frum Jews matches our expectation of “Gadol” before we give him the minimum degree of non-Bezayon.
May I say, that as much as people complain about Lubavitchers having slang for Misnagdim, Litvish have a big Lubavitch problem as well. We have, right here on this thread, retarted statements anticipating death.
Next time you’re at an antisemitism summit, trying to figure out its root causes and underlying mindset, look no further. You got it all, but you obviously don’t direct it on your own segment.
8 never came across someone blaming their problems on being bright up by Holocaust survivors. What you do hear is people psychoanalyzing others’ issues as that of the second generation survivor syndrome.
It wasn’t lack of love, but there were other issues. There was a big disconnect between many parents who had great expectations and hopes for their kids and couldn’t relate to the new American mentality. And other issues, too.
Perhaps the whole idea of the smile is to resemble the true inner, original self. So it’s really the other way around.