Non Political

@ YB

You wrote: “This is clear
Zionism was/is/remains a sakana for yahadut.”
Most Zionists were heretics.
Most Zionists were choteh umachti et harabim.”

For this to be CLEAR you would have to differentiate between S”Z and R”Z and qualify that you are referring to S”Z.
Otherwise please explain: how does following the hadracha and psakim of R”Z Rebbonim constitute a sakana for Yahadus? If you where machria like the Gedolim who reject R”Z what criteria did you use? What criteria should the rest of us use? Given the thoughtfulness of your posts in general I am confident it’s something better then “my Rabbi is bigger then your Rabbi and everybody should recognize that, duh).

@ HaKatan

You wrote: “…which is also brought down by poskim on the spot there and elsewhere.”

Which Poskim bring it “on the spot”? Citation please.

You wrote: we anyways pasken like the oaths, as per all the poskim that bring those as halacha

which Poskim? Since you claim that “all the Gedolim” agree with the Satmar Rav and the Brisker Rav you should have no problem citing their Halachic works where the 3 oaths are brought.

You wrote: including the Rambam himself in Iggeres Teiman.

The Rambam writes that the Mishna Torah contains all the Dinim of Torah sh’baal pe. The 3 Oaths are not there. Let that sink in.

Avi K wrote: Rambam does not pasken them in Mishna Torah. Neither do any of the Rishonim, Shulchan Aruchm Rema, and Achronim. You wrote: You are left with an academic question as to why it’s not in other sefarim too. The Satmar Rav and others addressed that academic question, which is otherwise irrelevant.

It is not merely an academic question and certainly not irrelevant. Omission from every major Halachic Code From the Rif through the Shulchan Aruch sets Halachic Precedent. To refer to this as academic and irrelevant is, in technical parlance, a big halachic boo boo. Now, it may be that the Satmar Rav addresses this objection. Have you read how he does this? Perhaps you would care to post an executive summary for us simple folk here in the CR?

@ ZSK

I’m referring to comments (not made by you or Chaim 87) that are מבזה תלמידי חכמים. Regardless of what segment of the Torah community one is from affronts to Kavod HaTorah must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Comments that Hareidi Gedolim caused the Holocaust or somehow missed pashut pshat in Tanach are deplorable and certainly outside the pale of acceptable discourse. When such comments are made in the name of / in defense of R”Z one would expect the bnei Torah among them to protest.

@ somejew

“You wrote: we do have a clear Gemara in Chilin that say that we can paskin a question based on the observed actions of a Talmid Chuchem with a chazukeh as a Tzadik, that is obviously only in the case of a question between two shitas in Torah. Certainly, we don’t paskin to go after an observed avairah!”

Per the above ANY written or oral source that disagrees with Satmar / Brisk will simply be construed by you as (1) going after an observed avairah. Even if the Ravs authority (in the source presented) would be unimpeachable by your own standards you would certainly take the position that the source is (2) mzuif or (3) the Rav wrote based on misinformation.

But then you wrote: “To push the point home… I am looking for bona fida Torah sources.”

It seems to me that either (1) you did not write the above line (and the OP) in good faith or (2) you didn’t realize that what you wrote doesn’t shtim with itself. Of course, it’s also possible that I am simply misunderstanding you

Next

You wrote: If anyone here is interested in taking this conversation seriously, we need to start with defining our terms, specifically “what is zionism”…if anyone want to continue this and offer a meaningful definition of Zionism, ie. the novel ideology that started in the 19th century that the world refers to when they say “Zionism”, please go for it.

That was a very good example of begging the question.

Also, we don’t really need to define Zionism. It will be quite sufficient for the purposes of this discussion to state clearly the SPECIFIC anti-Torah beliefs and actions you understand to be associated with Zionism. We can then discuss each one individually.

@ HaKatan and Somejew

Are you claiming that there are no Torah sources for returning to and building up E”Z before Moshiach? This is a very direct question. Please answer clearly.

@ Square Root

You have ALOT of work to do before you get
from: The FIRST MITZVAH that G*D gave to Avraham Avinu was making aliyah by moving; to Eretz Yisrael;
to: Religious Zionism has a basis in THE TORAH.

For starters Avrohom Avvinu was a Navi. So, the instructions he received from Hashem where unambiguous. You would have to show that it is equally clear that their is a Mitzva Chiyuvis k’hayom to settle in Eretz Yisroel. You will not be able to do this because, for starters, R’ Chaim HaKohen (one of the Baalai Tosafos) and HaRav Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is not. Now, I am not claiming that other Poskim do not disagree. But the argument directly from Avrohom Avinu is a non-starter.

I respect that you take the time to call out HaKatan and Somejew on their Orwellian Two Minutes of Hate tantrums. L’man HaEmes, I’m telling you the above does not serve you well in what is otherwise a worthy undertaking.

@ HaKatan and @ Somejew

Maybe you guys can explain the Ramban’s position re: yishuv E”Y in light of the 3 oaths?

@ somejew

The problem is that, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you would apply your reasoning if the signature on the bottom is Rabbi Shlomo Aviner or Rabbi Eliezer Melamed. Am I wrong about this?

@ ard

You wrote: which ikar emunah does someone violate by calling you a kofer

Since you seem to be accusing SR of being disrespectful towards the Satmar Rebbe you probably meant to call his an apikoris not a kofer.

Second of all, the fact that a Rav of a particular community is held in high esteem by other Gedolim does not mean that all of Khal Yisroel must learn his seforim or follow his psakim and hadracha. And one certainly doesn’t have to follow the psakim and hadracha of his Chasidim. Asserting this obvious point, as SR has done, is not apikorsis.

If anything you ought to be more concerned about the blatant disrespect (both expressed and implied) coming from the other side.

@ HaKatan

You wrote: Non-Political and all the other Zionists

Nothing in any of my posts would indicate that I am a Zionist (I’m Non-Political 🙂

You wrote: If you don’t like my explanation of how it is obvious, then you’re welcome to find anyone who argues with the Brisker Rav (and all the others)

I think you should go back and re-read YB’s last post a couple of times. You need not bother with my post, I don’t think it will help you

Have a wonderful Shabbos

@ HaKatan

You wrote: However, anyone can easily see that the establishment of any state before Mashiach comes is a violation of at least…

No, obviously everyone cannot see that. Your proposition is based on a number of premises which we do not accept. I will spell these out for you.

You claim a violation of (8) The belief in the divine origin of the Torah

This is premised on a claim that the Torah clearly prohibits the establishment of a state so to do so must reject the Torah is of Divine origin

First of all, even if I grant you (and I do not) that such a clear prohibition exists, I submit that the very notion of the 13 ikrim per the Rambam is that one can transgress a particular prohibition and still accept all the Ikrim (including that the Torah is of Divine origin). I am aware that this point is debated in philosophy but that need not concern us here because we are learning the Rambam (not points of dispute in Platonic and Aristotlian epistemology, l’havdil).

You claim that this clear prohibition has 2 reasons:
Establishing the State violates the 3 oaths
Establishing the State embraces secular nationalism (and is therefore kfira or a”z)

The grounds for rejecting reason 1 have been amply provided in multiple posts on this subject so I see no reason to rehash them here.

Regarding Reason 2. I understand that you think that Judaism is a religion and that our common ancestry from the Avos, Lashon HaKadosh, and the land of Israel are merely incidental to our Jewish Identity. However, here your position disagrees with R’ Yehuda HaLevi (Kuzari), The Ramban, and the Maharal. Take note that I do not claim that there are no Religious Zionists who embrace secular nationalism. My claim is that it is not necessary to embrace secular nationalism to embrace a Jewish national identity based on classic sources.

Furthermore, it is not actually necessary to embrace a Jewish national identity to endeavor to establish a state. One can adopt a religion-only Jewish Identity and still do so. This is because, providing that there is no prohibition in establishing a state, one might have practical reasons for so.

This is all I have time for at the moment

@ Chaim87

You wrote: As R Hutner said about Briska rav, “The torah is nisht gegebn uf har grezim”

This is off the topic but I never heard this quote before. What do you think R Hutner meant by that?

@ somejewiknow

you wrote: “I can’t believe any Jew is calling “70 years old” outdated!

You are either intentionally or unintentionally misconstruing his meaning.

@ CS

Thank you for posting letter 27 of Iggeres Hakodesh.

I still don’t see how you take the leap from what is written in the Iggeres Hakodesh to relating to a nistalek in the way you are describing.

Also, do you have a response to YB re: the Ramban?

No, I don’t think “I know better then the Ba’al HaTanya. I didn’t learn Tanya so really have no way of knowing if the BH”T holds of what you are attributing to Him. Other posters who seem to be familiar with the sefer don’t seem to think so.

I do know that it is not normative Yidishkeit to relate to a nistalek in the way you are describing. And so do you.

@ DY

You wrote: “…asks for Rebbe’s assistance (via brachos, etc.) even when not at the Ohel. My impression is that most frum Yidden reserve it for an occasion here and there and particularly at the kever of whichever tzadik is being asked to intercede”

I don’t think you are right about this. Who allows asking a Nistalek for a bracha (at the kever or not)? There is a difference between asking the nistalek to intercede and asking the nistalek for a bracha. The problem is further compounded when the nistalek is believed to “run the world like Trump runs America.”

@ CS

Lets un-mish the mosh

@ CS

Philosopher asked: “Do you pray to the rebbe?

You responded: I do what all frum Jews [do], daven to Hashem and ask my Rebbe for assistance via brachos etc. Again PB TANYA”

I pointed out that what all frum jews actually do is ask rebbeim who are here in olam hazeh bguf v’nefish for assistance via brachos etc. They do not do this once their rebbeim are nistalek. Once their rebeim are nistalek they might daven at the kever to Hashem (and some may request that the rebbe who’s kever they are davening at be a moleitz yosher).

What I asked you to clarify, based on the above, is how does what you do = what all frum Jews do.

Hi CS,

I would also encourage you to answer Philosophers question. Based on my recollection of what you wrote on the subject a few years ago I have a pretty good Idea where you stand on this. However, it may be worthwhile for you to respond to this question again because it represents a perception held by a (seemingly not insignificant) number of Yiddin outside the Chabbad community.

@ Philosopher

“It’s really unfortunate that frum people can hold the Torah in such little regard as to think our great Sages contradicted any posuk in the Torah.”

I don’t think it’s fair to say that Arso and Neville are holding the Torah in little regard. It’s clear from their posts that they don’t think that the Sages contradict a pasuk.

@ Arso

You wrote: “it’s not your fault that you are a woman, but you just don’t understand the derech halimud that men are taught.”

You have made a claim that no meforesh makes, mainly that Yaacov is physically alive in the sense that his body was still animated when he was buried. It’s nice that you want to understand the OrHaChayim and the Rif this way, however, as a man with a Yeshiva background you should be able to read these mefarshim and recognize that they do not say this explicitly. The “derech halimud men are taught” should have given you sufficient analytical skills to see that your claim is interpretive.

@ Arso

“??? I said nothing of the sort!”

The words “You wrote” in the beginning of the phrase was a typo. The post was my response to the the following,

Here is what you did write: But as it would clearly be miraculous for Yaakov to be alive even after he has been buried for some time, I think it would be fair to assume that Hashem ensured that he was not suffering.

To this, I responded: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does. You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word. You have many sources that say clearly not like that.

@ Arso

On second thought, after re-reading what Philosopher already posted I see there is really no need for additional clarification. I’ll break down for you what I think she is saying step by step:

1) the Pasuk says Yaacovs sons saw their father died

2) Ramban expains that according to Rashi they didn’t know that he didn’t die

3) At this point Philosopher asserts that it is not reasonable to understand this as meaning that he was still completely physically alive in that he was breathing and had a heartbeat but somehow they missed this.

4) Then she asserts furthermore such a position would contradict the Pasuk because the Torah says that they saw he died so clearly they must have seen sufficient indication of death. So what she is saying is that the way you are proposing to understand Rashi according the the Ramban would contradict the Pasuk.

5) She then sums up that Yaacov’s body died [meaning no heartbeat, no breathing], however per Ramban’s explanation of Rashi, the shevatim may have not know or realized that Yaacovs nefesh is still attached on some level to his body and because of this he is alive forever.

@ YB

But if he does know the gemara , and still that his [!] tsadiq cannot make a mistake simply because he ‘is HKBH himself’ [afra lepumayu] , and like God by definition is infallible, so too is his[!] tsadiq, infallible. That is apikorsus. Clear and Pashut.

No, that would be a”z

For it to be apikorsis he would have to
1) know that Chazal contradict his view and say that he is right anyway because he knows better then Chazal. Or
2) be mvazeh Chazal in some other manner

@ Philosopher

If Moshe Rabbeinu and Avraham Avinu made mistakes, why wouldn’t the LR? He is not greater than them.

You would have to ask someone who believes this. I don’t. I just don’t think such a belief is a’z.

If you do ask though be ready for a long trip down the rabbit hole….

@ Arso

You wrote: “One of the things she said was that Yaakov Avinu can’t be alive because he would be suffering there, and why would Hashem make him suffer.”

Right. Because being physically alive has 2 aspects

1) the Nefesh animates the body
2) the Nefesh is constrained to experience whatever it experiences through the body

If he is physically alive in the full sense of that concept then both of those conditions would still apply and he would be suffering. So surely there is at least something different between the state Yaacov is in and the state a guy is in when he is buried alive, no?

“She also argued that Rashi does not mean he is alive.”

If alive means in the full physical sense then she is in very good company

“And don’t forget that she keeps on insisting that Rashi can’t be saying that he is alive because a later passuk says he died, and Rashi can’t be arguing with a passuk. This is all despite the fact that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the sons mistakenly thought that he died, which philosopher keeps intentionally ignoring.”

I am not sure why she used that as a proof. Maybe she made a mistake. It happens to the best of us.

As to your claim that none of the mefarshim say that all conditions of being alive apply to Yaakov Avinu, look again at the Or Hachayim who writes:
חי הוא אלא דורמיטא קראתו כישן ונרדם, which to me seems clear that he’s saying that Yaakov was fully alive (and breathing!) and in a sort of comatose state.

דורמיטא denotes withdrawal (like how some kochos hanefesh withdraw from the guf during sleep). The point here is that the Nefesh retains a connection to the Guf similar to a person when he is sleeping. The OrHaChaim then goes on to describe some (there are others) consequences of that connection that are relevant to pshat in the Narrative. This is how I understand the OrHaChaim.

It’s true that there is some ambiguity here because one could understand the כ’ הדמיון two ways (as you probably know from the sugya in Brachot re כחצות). So, on could read the OrHaChaim as saying that Yaacov is precisely like one who is sleeping. This seems to be how you are understanding the OrHachayim.

Same thing for the Rifs use of the כ’ הדמיון in כאיש שנתעלף.