Non Political

@ YB

It’s funny that you get called a Zionist after making your position on the matter crystal clear in multiple posts.

@ AAQ

You wrote: At the basic level, if you put aside history of animosity between different groups, what would be your problem with the state?

Why are you asking him this? Isn’t it clear that from his point of view there are at least 2 things wrong with the state
1) It is forbidden to make a state before Moshiach comes
2) You are joining in an enterprise with people who are using the said enterprise to replace authentic Yidishkeit with Nationalism

I’m not saying that there are no responses to the above 2 points but HaKatan has been very clear and consistent regading where he stands on this, no?

As an aside, it is worth mentioning that when secular Zionists made clear that their agenda was not merely practical statehood but proactive shmad it was Rav Kook himself who said that the Rebbonim would have to downplay the importance of E”Y (like Chazal did with the Eserah Dibros due to terumos haminim).

@ ZSK

“I asked you to define Mesorah as a term”

Good luck with that

@ ZSK

You wrote: “What I disagree with in this thread (and in the threads about Zionism, the IDF, etc.) is the blatant disrespect and character assassination the Chassidish and Yeshivish communities continue to engage in vis a vis MO and RZ communities and their Rabbonim.”

I grew up in a MO community and also lived in Bet-El for a bit and learned with a talmid from R’ Melamid’s Yeshiva. What you describe has not been my experience. I heard (and hear) a good amount of derision from both sides. To a certain extent, this is by design. The tool to effectively shape and rally public opinion has always been rhetoric, not logic, v’hamaivin, yavin, (For those who will accuse me of ascribing Greek methods to Rebbonim, I refer them to the Ramchal’s Sefer Malitza.)

The original source for the statement from R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk is a letter on behalf of Keren HaYesod

@ HaKatan

You are misquoting me. I did not claim that “no poskim bring the 3 oaths as Halacha.” I did ask you you to provide citations for your claims so that the specific points made can be addressed in the context of this post.

@ The Satmar Rav, V’Yoel Moshe

ויש טפשים האומרים שיען שהיה בהסכמת רוב האומות אין כאן
לא איסור שבועה ולא איסור העברה על הקץ, וכל כך גבר
החשכות וסמיות העינים שנפל על העולם לטעות בדברי הבלים
כאלו.

There are fools that are saying that since there was an
agreement amongst most of the nations there is no
longer an Oath nor a prohibition of forcing the end.
This darkness and blindness has increased so much
that people are mistakenly following these words of
vanity.

I will leave it to Hakatan, Somejew, and UJM to explain this passage in v’Yoel Moshe in light of the quote from R’ Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk.

Also, maybe they can shed light on why we should give greater weight to what the Satmar Rav wrote vs what R’ Meir Simcha wrote. In the meantime I will go watch some paint dry as I listen to the sweet chirping of crickets

Re: my question about Yoma 9B.

Pnei Yehoshua (on Ketubot 111a) points out that Yoma 9b implies the opposite – that the redemption did not come because the Jews did not ascend as a wall. And since these two aggadic sources contradict each other, we must understand them in some other, non-halakhic way. (From footnotes on a shiur from R’ Eliezer Melamed).

I guess HaKatan got me on “just being lazy”

@ YB

You wrote: Facts are facts. Even katan cannot wish them away.

Apparently he can. Witness the power of Indoctrination.

@ ZSK

I saw Yoma 9b. Not sure how it “refutes the 3 oaths. Note, I am not taking a position here on if one does or does not have to refute the oaths. I am asking how you and Avi K see Yoma 9b as a refutation.

You wrote: Charedi blood is not סומק טפי in comparison to the צדיקים מק״ק דתי לאמי למיניהם, who have sacrified everything in a פיקוח נפש situation while Charedim refuse to do anything

This may reflect how the R”Z community sees the Charedi community but it is unfair generalization. A large number of first responders who rushed directly into harms way on Oct 7 to save lives where Charedi Hatzola volunteers. One of my Rabbonim is certainly Chareidi and I still remember him coming in with his IDF uniform during meluim. R’ Yisroel Zev Gustman was a Chareidi Rosh Yeshiva (who was offered to be R”Y of Ponovich), he said that speaking against soldiers in m’gala pnei Torah shlo k’halacha.

On the other hand I don’t think most Charedi Gedolim recognize the legitimacy of having secular Jews in positions of (military / civil / Judicial authority.

@ UJM

I read through the letters you posted from the Satmar Rav. Perhaps you would care to post where the Satmar Rav sees in Rav Kook’s written works or speeches that: ועל הכלל כולו יצא, לכפור בתורה שבכתב ובע”פ ובעיקרי האמונה לתת אותם לשמצה

enquiring minds want to know

@ 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?