Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gavra- I have said that a long time ago and actually posted some comments on this matter. The headlines are sensationalized and often, totally at odds with the actual content of the article.
For_real: You are not comparing equal matters. You listen to the psak of a Rov concerning kashrus,etc. because he KNOWS the halacho- NOT because (as you write) ‘his opinion matters to you” A psak halocho ,based on shulchan aruch, has nothing to do with opinion and everything to do with how one sees the halocho. What is at stake here is a OPINION on a matter that cannot be found in halocho- hence the flexibility of not adhering to it.
HaLeivi: You always talk in riddles. I am not smart enough to understand what you are alluding to. To beat a dead horse,aloow me to repeat what I said: if it is in the Poskim like the Rambam, (for items that are not covered by the Bais Yossef) or if it is in the “arba chelkei shulchan aruch”,we have to follow the Piskei halocho. For other matters that qualify as “milei d’alma” ,we do not have to follow the opinions.
mdd: instead of just dismissing idly what I said, please justify your positions.
anomymous1000: That is exactly what I said. It is not an obligation to listen to a Rav’s opinion but,of course, you can ask for an opinion and follow it if you want to.I do the same but I would never dream of labeling it “halacha” and make it an obligation.
Haleivi: You confuse me. What does mayim acharonim have to do with our subject? It is a gemoro and mentioned in shulchan aruch.
“mah inyan shemita eitzel har sinai?”
popa: I find most of your comments obnoxious, arrogant and often irrelevant. Your opinion is your opinion but there is a halocho of “motzi shem ra” and what you said about me falls under that title. Furthermore, it is a stupid comment as these are mitzvos d’oraisa.
oomis and yichusdik: I am with you on this matter. The mention of “lo sossur” that anonymous1000 alluded to is erroneous. There ,we are talking about halachic matters, not “milei d’alma”, matters of general interest. There is no obligation to follow any Rov in matters that are not halachic. As yichusdik said, why leave our brains at the door?
This post is probably after the mentioned wedding but I did not want to leave the comments of lopman24 and apushatayid uncostested.
A normal mitzvah tanz,where mainly family and close freinds stay, only requires a badchan for an extra hour or so. The main band has usually left at this time and only a skeleton musician is there for music. The hall-obviously- you need for the wedding , so there is no extra expense there.
Only at so-called “rebbeshe’ weddings do you have extensive mitzvah tenz and this is not what is asked for anyone else.
benignuman: of course, no one knows what would have happened in different circumstances- this is pure lunacy. Howeve, allow me to say the following: During Rommmel’s advance towards Egypt and the Suez canal (and ultimately israel) the Allies were very pessimistic and did not think they would be able to stop him. The victory at El Alamein was a surprise and, if you believe in G-d’s providence, it was a gift “min hasomayim”. In that context, during those days, as the Yishuv was deadly worried about the German advance, Rav Herzog zz’l was consulted about tefillos and the like- and he is quoted as saying that “there is no indication anywhere in our tradition that there would be a third Churban in Eretz Yisroel” and thereby gave hope snd an assurance that things would end well, as it did.
As I have commented many times, no one can be faulted about the Holocaust except for the Nazis ym’s. However,it is a fallacy to say that the position of the Rabbonim in Europe before the war(not to leave Europe) was correct. It was not. Unfortunately, Chachomim are not infallibe and this goes for the present anti-zionism. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
TOI- If there is anyone who could be considered misguided (allow me to be polite) it is you and the people who espouse your views. If you truly think that ,with Arab sovereignity, we’d be having yeshivos, thriving cities and expanding Jwish presence, then you truly are hallucinating. Everywhere in the Middle East, minorities (not only Jews) are being killed, persecuted and exiled. Just check the headlines about Iran (Bahai, X-ians), Egypt (Copts), Syria (Sunni Muslims), Algeria (berbers), Turkey (secular Turks) and I would not trust an Arab to give me a copper penny. And, PLEASE, don’t come back with that hoary argument that, prior to israel, there was harmony and love with the Arabs. Not only is it false, this is a hundred years later and totally different circumstances.
As far as Zionism, no one is being vague. Please look at Rav Kook’s seforim and other Zionist minded Rabbonim and you might have a better idea of religious Zionism.
Sam2- I could not have said it better!
Toi- what is wrong eith using the noum zionism? allow every one to interpret what they mean with it, as Sam2 said. Where zionists -religious ones or secular ones- disagree with the anti-zionisrs is that they feel that there is a need for jewish sovereignity today ,as otherwise we’d be annihilated. And, contrary to anti-zionists, we don’t feel it is an aveirah at all- on the contrary- is is a mitzvah.
TOI- before responding,allow me ot say that I appreciate your civil discourse in our discussions- contrary to others- and this alone may be encouraging.
Please re-read my postings: to me, real Zionism is living in Eretz Yisroel and developing the (whole)land. The political aspect of this- meaning full independence- was not part of the original Zionist idea (Chovevei tsion and others). Hence, there is absolutely no contradiction saying that the early proponents of going to Eretz Yisroel (Kalisher, Mohilever,Netziv)were true Zionists and yet we cannot know how they would respond today to the present situation. Independence may have come anyway- due to the political developments in the world- but we cannot extrapolate from one era to the other.
HaKatan; yup ,it is quite obvious what I choose!
HaKatan: Why must I follow the path of one particular Possek? Or can I follow a different Possek? Why are the words of R’Elchonon Wasserman zz’l (even if he said it) more authoritative that Rav Kook ? Or Rav Teichtal zz’l ,for that matter? You are entitled to follow your Poskim and I am certainly allowed to follow my Poskim, especially as this a not a halachic matter.
Toi- I have read R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher’s sefer from cover to cover.Believe me, he was a full proponent of Yidden returning to Eretz Yisreol, to the extent of wanting to do the korban pessach! Incidentally, he also deals with the sholosh shevuos. So, he was a full proponent of real Zionism- which means to return to our homeland and rebuild it. I am pretty sure he did not deal with any sovereignity over the land. It was still part of the Ottoman empire and independence was not thought of. RSR Hirsch, by contrast, based on the little I have read of his teshuvos, actively discouraged the return to Eretz Yisroel and was satisfied to stay in germany and living like a jew there. Very different approaches! What I said in another thread is that neither RSRH Hirsch nor R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher wrote about political Zionism, a concpet alien to their times. That only came to the fore with Herzl ,who preached for an independent country.
Just to add a few comments: Way before Herzl, there was Rav Mohilever, R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher, the Netziv, Moshe Montefiore and ,of course, talmidei HaGro and HaBesht. So, Zionism, as a return to Eretz Yisroel existed for decades and centuries before Herzl. What Herzl did was to make this a mission and to champion a place for Jews, who were persecuted everywhere. I daresay that Herzl learned from the religious Rabbis who came before him!
What was different in the late nineteenth century was the wave of nationalism that was prevalent in all of Europe (Greece, Italy, Serbia,Finland,etc..) and so Zionism took the form of a national purpose. unlike some of the Russian maskilim (Achad Hoam and others), Herzl had no notion of religion and would not make any statement on this. The tragedy for Jewry was that the Orthodox leaders in Europe were fighting a war against the maskilim and reform and were not able to differentiate them from Zionists. If the orthodox establishment in Europe would have understood the dangers lurking ahead, been able to separate the anti- religious crowd from the real zionists and galvanized the masses to make alyah, history would have been different. Rav Kook’s contribution was to highlight the importance of Eretz Yisroel in Judaism, something that had ben lost since the churban.So, there were grievious errors all around and European jewry paid the price in WWII.
Toi- you may be right in some ways ,that both sides tend to skew comments to their advantage. R” Zvi Hirsch Kalisher,the Netziv and many others did not plan or know political Zionism and it would be pure conjecture to speculate what they would have done. I am not even sure whether Rav Kook wrote about political Zionism,although he clearly gave the land of Israel much more prominence than other Gedolim of his era. However, accepting all that, there is little to show that political Zionism is “shmad” or whatever evil the anti-Zionists claim. I have made enough search now to see that the basis of all anti-Zionism derives from the gemoro in Kesubos (sholsh shevuos) and that it has no applicability today, based on many meforshim, rishonim and acharonim.
rebdoniel: this is exactly what I meant! Hirsch is not the right person uopn whom to build an anti-zionist creed.
Toi-Thank you and I looked it up. Firstly, please remember that this site is anti-zionist and may distort quotations or ignore anything that is not in line with their thoughts. That said, even what they bring down from Rav Hirsch’s writings do not square at all with the anti-zionist screech of today. Firstly, it is clear that Rav Hirsch is not talking about political Zionism. He is talking about making alyah to Eretz Yisroel,as you will see from the quotations culled from “Shemesh marpeh” . He argues with R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher and it is absolutely about making alyah- not political Zionism. With the greatest respect to RSR Hirsch- to argue,as he does, that we should remain loyal to the countries we live in and not move to Eretz Yisroel (which is what he advocates) came to a bitter end- as he lived in Germany! (even as thousands of jews fought in WW1) so I would decline ,with respect, to follow his path on this. (BTW- chareidim do not follow his other path- secualr education!)
He seems to mention the ‘sholosh shevuos” but he says that we should ask the gentile nations how they accepted the third shevuo! (not to enslave the jews too much).A bitter joke, knowing what happened in his beloved Germany 45 years after his passing!
anyway- to quote Rav Hirsch is not the most relailbe source tob rely upon.
Toi and “About Time” :
Herzl was born in 1860 (died in 1904) and had barely any connection with Judaism until the Dreyfus affair in 1894. His book “der Judenstaat’ was written in 1895/96. (all from wikipedia). So, the idea of political zionism was not on anyone’s agenda until those years. I truly don’t know how RSR Hirsch could be against political Judaism- a movement that did not exist until well after his death.
So, please provide examples of RSR Hirsch being anti-Zionist. You surely cannot imply that he was against any “alyah’ to Eretz Yisorel, something jews had been doing for centuries , including the perushim and talmidei HaBesht. There clearly was am movement of “Chovevei Zion’ (led by great rabbonim,including the Netziv, I think) before Herzl but it also started in RSR Hirsch’s later years (1880’s). Please provide any cogent writings from RHR HIRSCH that support your comments.
Toi- thank you for your input. You have to explain to me,however, how RSR HIrsch zz’l could have made input in this, as he died in 1888, many years before the Zionist idea was even conceived. The only alyah that happened in RSR Hirsch’s time was in 1881- (called “bilu”), and that was mainly frum jews!
Toi- I spend the shabbos learning this sugya in kesubos and researching the rishonim and acharonim. And, guess what, the more I delved into this, the more it became clear that the sholosh shevuos were NOT applicable (if they ever were). Check the “Shittoh mekubetzes” and what he brings downc from the talmidei Horashbo (a rishon,of course).Check the ‘Pnei jehoshua ” on this sugya. Check the MAHarsho, check the meforshim on the possuk in Shir Hashirim from where these shevuos are derived. You will see, pretty clearly, that the sholosh shevuos are not halacha and that there are plenty of responses to what the anti-zionists maintain.
HaKatan: This is why I never respond to your comments. Rav Reisman may be a choshuvo Rov but I have no duty to follow him especially as I have bigger people than him to follow and who dismiss his ideas (if this is what he actually said-I don’t want to be “choshed bikesherim). And, lastly, by not answering my questions, you show that you don’t have any answer, except diatribe!
HaKatan: I am going to violate my own mini-promise: never to respond to you!
You can continue to misrepresent the facts and to quote some Rabbonim of previous generations; the fact still remains that there is not one iota of evidence that the so-called sholosh shevuos are applicable today. They are not mentioned in the Rosh, the Rif or the Rambam- the three standard sources of our halocho. Of course, there is not an iota of mention in the Tur or the Shulchan Aruch. Other halochos from the same sugya (as far as whether a wife is obligated to follow her husband wherever he goes) IS mentioned in Rambam and Joreh Deah- so the Poskim knew this sugya pretty well-yet never mentioned the sholosh shevuos.
Additonally, the Maharsho explicitly says that, if you have permission to go to Eretz Yisroel, you are NOT transgressing the “lo jaalu bechomo” and this is confirmed by the Pesukim, end of Divrei Hajomim and beginning of Ezra, that quote Cyrus’ permission to the Jews to go back to their homeland. There are other sources too that ‘lo jaalu bechomo” is not applicable in our case. It certainly is not applicable when given the authority by a superior power. It is not the Sanhedrin at all who matter here, but the rulers of the land. And the UN vote is plenty sufficient to do away with this. As far as ‘being dochek the ketz”, what does that mean? It has no relevance on living in Eretz Yisroel or building a state there.
It is clear to me that that the sources that you rely upon are a small minority and that there are plenty of other, better sources to rely upon.
HaLeivi: I do not have the time to go over the whiole sugyah but I did some learning last night and it is pretty clear that the mjority of POskim and meforshim do not think that the “shlosh shevuos’ are applicable and ,in any case, the fact that the UN gave the grren light for a state takes away the oen shevuoh (Lo taalu bechomo) that might make a difference. (see Maharsho, Divrei hajomim, Ezra)
I posit that one crucial element of the gemoro in kessubos (sholosh shevuos) is missing from all of the talk and commentaries on this post. The fact is that the sholosh shevuos were said by Yirmijohu Hanovih and – even if they were valid ad the time- the Jews returned to Eretz Yisroel for the second Bayis! Why wouldn’t those shevuos be valid then if ,indeed, they were “halocho”? (R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher zz’l makes that speicific point).The standard answer that you hear is that they returned “al pi novih”. But there is no evidence of any divrei nevuoh on that. Ezra and Nehemia were not neviim and returned to Eretz Yisroel because they received permission from the emperor! not that different than today! For the ones who will try to catch me, I know that, according to some shittos, Malachi is Ezra but it does not detract from my questions.
gensa a.k.a with many aliases: why should I believe you? You have made up more stories on this website than i have ahd hot breakfasts!
TOi: So, there was never any problem with hechsherim from chareidi rabbonim? hechserim are a business and ,at times, problems arise, but I would never cast aspersions on the whole hechsher industry.
Toi- I have no clue what you are talking about. Regardless whether you are right on the facts, what is wrong relying upon the rabbanut hechsher?? You don’t have to eat it but you cannot broadly say that ‘it is questionable status”. And since when does that fact have anything to do with zionism ?
Toi- I answered your assertion that the state is the biggest mitzvah by saying that it is not. No one knows what the biggest mitzvah is. I did say that saving Jewish people is a very big mitzvah! do you disagree with that?
March 17th is a special date for the Irish…..
HaKatan: I don’t usually engage in a dilaogue with you- we will never agree and I find your incessant comments on Zionism ultimately boring. However, as you mentioend Poskim and the gemoro end of kesubos,I might as well respond.
It is certainly not halacha and therefore any Possek cannot find solace in his Piskei halocho based on this gemoro. You will have to find me a Rambam or a Se’if in shulchan aruch that refers to this gemoro as halocho.
HaKatan: If I have an actual question on halacha that is covered in the shulchan aruch, I do not need a novih and ,indeed, I can ask a possek. However, as the matters wev are discussing are not mentioned in shulchan aruch, I don’t see how any Possek can pasken at all.
they probably saw two meshulochim from Israel…..
Thanks to Sam2 and apushateyid for pointing us towards the Wikipedia entry. However, if you follow the trail to the book from which the entry is derived, you realize that the use of some kind of wristwatch already happened in teh NINETEENTH century , by the German navy in the 1880’s and the British in the Boer War (1899-1902) and used by thoe most manly of people,soldiers . It was refined in the early twentieth century and fully popularized after the First World War. i would suggest that the Chazon Ish, living in Vilna, Lithuania at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, did not see those wristwatches on men until much later. Hence, maybe this explains his opinion on this. Whether one should consider it similarly today is rather problematic.
redleg: you have anything to support your theory about wristwatches being made (exclusively) fo women?? and how do you answer the fact of a mirror , that, originally ,was ossur (see shulchan aruch)as “lo silbash” yet today, as everyone uses it, is muttor? Is a mirrro ossur for men??
Well, i did not know that we are back in the time of the neviim! According to HaKatan, there are individuals who know, who KNOW!, what HKBH wants us to do!
Toi; the state is the biggest mitzvah? I am not aware of that- although I am aware that living in Eretz Yisroel is a big mitzvah and the chazal were very dismissive of anyone living otuside of Eretz Yisorel. And, I also know that protecting Jews is one of the biggest mitzvas!
yichusdik: I have stoped reading the rantings of HaKatan, Toi and others a long time ago. They take most of everything out of context and continue an argument that was settled long ago-with the Holocuast and the establishment of medinat Yisroel.
However, to your point- about “retzoin hashem’ . We do not live in the time of the neviim and therefore there will not be any oracle from heaven. Check the Rambam in hilchos melochim who clearly assumes that Moshiach and the return of malchus dovid will be driven by human beings. We never know exactly what HKBH wants- but we cannot trun our back on trying to re-establish the Jewish sovereignity over Eretz Yisroel.