somejewiknow

I have never pushed any daas yuchid in CR, rather I have turned to the consistent guidance of the Torah as taught unanimously by the Gedolim, including “Like the Or Sameach . Like the Avnei Nezer. Like the Emrei Emet. Like Rav Aaron Kotler. Like the Chazon Ish.”

I started a whole thread here, one you were part of, that asked the simple question: “does anyone have any Torah Mesorah that these gedolim taught that challenges the Satmar Rebbe”. You did NOT have any published seforim to point to by ANY of these gedolim. Yet, I leave the question on the table for you to answer: “What part of the psak in Vayoel Moshe did any Gadol challenge as not correct Torah Mesorah?”

I am confidant you will have nothing to answer as you are defending heresy.

reviewing Netziv Meishiv Davar 1:44

Based on this tshiva, the Netziv strongly advises against complete separation even from those within the community who may seem lax or different in their observance, arguing that such division weakens the Jewish people, especially in exile, and makes them vulnerable. However, his solution is not to actively collaborate with outright heretics (apikorsim or those who deny the Talmud – like today’s “religious” zionists). Rather, he advocates for strengthening the entire observant community – including the less meticulous – through widespread, communal Torah study, even if initially pursued shelo lishmah. This unity, centered on Torah, serves to clarify correct practice according to Halakha, reduce internal strife, bring borderline individuals closer to tradition, and ultimately create a stronger, unified front against heresy, not in partnership with it.

here is a full translation of Netziv Meishiv Davar 1:44:

Okay, here is the translation of the provided text from Shu”t Mesiv Davar into the requested Rabbinic Scholarly English, aiming for the style found in Artscroll publications.

Responsa Mesiv Davar, Part I, Responsum 44

Concerning “Right” and “Left”

B’ezras Hashem and for His Name, may He be exalted.

I have observed in the periodical Machzikei HaDas, issue no. 3, an article composed by one of the journal’s contributors, titled “Right and Left.” Therein, they sought to explore, by way of inquiry demanding a response, a certain matter. And since it is incumbent upon us to participate in strengthening the faith [lit. religion] in Israel, I could not restrain myself from presenting before the congregation of Hashem, the readers of Machzikei HaDas, may Hashem bless them, that which is in my heart regarding this investigation. And whoever possesses the ability to respond and clarify these matters in another manner, may his words come forth and illuminate the path of life. For however distant we may be from one another in physical residence, we are nonetheless close to each other in will and desire to arrive at the [common] goal, with the help of the Almighty Who imparts knowledge:

Behold, they formulated the language of the inquiry [as follows]: (a) Can the religion of Israel be divided into three segments? (b) Are there “right,” “left,” and “center” within the course of our faith? They added that, in their opinion, the concept of right, left, and center in religion existed in bygone years. Perhaps there were found in Israel three such categories: namely, the righteous (tzaddikim) who distanced themselves from all worldly involvements, so as not to derive pleasure from this world even in the slightest measure [lit. with a small finger]; opposite them were found the wicked (resha’im), who cast off the yoke of Torah and fear [of Heaven], whether due to lack of knowledge or out of contempt and malice; and the intermediate ones (amtza’im), upright in their ways, walking in the way of the world yet not spurning the Torah.

However, I say, with all due respect to the learned author, that he did not conclude his investigation in the manner he began it. He commenced by inquiring whether there exist right, left, and center within the religion and in the course of our faith, yet he concluded that the “left” represents the casting off of the yoke of Torah and fear of Hashem. But this is certainly not within the religion, and it lies outside the course of our faith! Furthermore, the expression “Perhaps there were found in Israel three such categories” is not readily understood – what sort of question is this? [Is it] concerning the three categories of the completely righteous (tzaddikim gemurim), the completely wicked (resha’im gemurim), and the intermediate ones (beinonim)? Rather, the inquiry should properly be formulated thus: Are there found among those who guard the faith and religion, and are not breachers of the boundaries, [categories of] right, left, and center? This is the question that requires thorough clarification.

Indeed, even regarding this [refined question], there are certainly three categories within Israel. And according to our explanation, in our humble opinion (b’aniyus da’atenu), they are alluded to in Scripture by the terms meyaminim (those who go right) and masme’ilim (those who go left), as will be elucidated.

First and foremost, one must know that within the positive commandment (mitzvas aseih) of “V’ahavta es Hashem Elokecha…” (“And you shall love Hashem, your G-d…”), which we recite daily, two distinct meanings are encompassed, both of which are clarified in the rulings of the Rambam, z”l. One interpretation is that a person should surrender his body, his soul, and his entire will to the will of Hashem; just as one who loves his only son finds it agreeable to relinquish all he possesses for the sake of his only son’s life – for this is the entirety of man – so too is it a positive commandment to surrender oneself for the sanctification of Hashem’s Name (Kiddush Hashem) in a situation of danger. As the Rambam wrote (in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:7): “And from where [do we know] that even in a situation of danger one does not transgress one of these three cardinal sins? It is stated, ‘And you shall love Hashem…'”. This interpretation is possible and obligatory for every single Jew, for this constitutes the entirety of the Jew [lit. the man of Israel].

The second interpretation is that one should cleave in his thoughts and yearning (teshukah) to attain Divine Inspiration (Ruach HaKodesh) – during times when this was possible – or at least a lofty level of spiritual awareness (he’arah gevohah) accessible to the enlightened intellect. In the vernacular [German/Yiddish], this love is termed [die Liebe]. And so wrote the Rambam (ibid. 2:1): “The honored and awesome G-d commands us to love Him… as it is stated, ‘And you shall love Hashem, your G-d…’ And what is the path to His love? etc.” This intent is found in the Yerushalmi, Berachos, chapter HaRo’eh, where Rabbi Akiva is cited as explaining this verse: “I have loved You with all my heart, I have loved You with all my soul.” The meaning of richamti (love/compassion) derives from the scriptural verse, “Erchamcha Hashem chizki” (“I will love You intensely, Hashem, my strength” – Psalms 18:2), and it is written, “Ha’tishkach ishah ulah mei’racheim ben bitnah” (“Can a woman forget her nursing child, refrain from having compassion on the son of her womb?” – Isaiah 49:15), the interpretation of which denotes the cleaving (deveikus) of the mind with intense love. This interpretation, however, is not attainable by every Jew, as the Rambam likewise wrote regarding this: “And what is the path to His love? etc.,” proceeding to explain [a path of contemplation], from which it is understood that not every person merits or attains this level. Similarly, it is taught in the Sifrei regarding this verse, “V’ahavta… ‘And these words, which I command you today… shall be upon your heart.'” What connection is there between these two? Rather, how does a person come to love the Holy One, Blessed be He? Through “[having] these words… [upon your heart],” for through this, you come to recognize the One Who spoke and brought the world into being.

Now, one who constantly immerses his thoughts in the love of Hashem and cleaving (deveikus) – this is truly the path of piety (derech ha’chassidus). For this is impossible except for one who separates himself (poreish atzmo) from the ways of the world. Such a person is termed a meyamin (one who goes right), meaning that he draws himself exceedingly close to the Divine Presence (Shechinah). And one who stands on this lofty path finds it impossible to associate extensively with people, even to teach them Torah and paths of ethical conduct (mussar), for any conversation and interaction with human beings interrupts the train of thought necessary for deveikus, which is only possible through seclusion (hisbodedus). Only Moshe Rabbeinu existed on this plane even amidst his discourse with Israel and teaching them Torah (Torah u’Mitzvos); after speaking with them, he would replace the veil upon his face and ascend in his thoughts to his proper place. This was not the case for other prophets and men of stature, not even Avraham Avinu. During the time he taught the masses the way of Hashem and His Torah, he did not stand at his [usual high] level and in his state of deveikus as he did when secluded by himself. Our master, the Gaon Chasam Sofer, z”l, already elaborated on this with illuminating words worthy of him, zy”a, in his introduction. Nevertheless, since his soul yearned to be constantly attached to Hashem, he is therefore termed a meyamin, as will be further explained.

Then there is one who serves Hashem and observes the Torah in all its details (dikdukeha), but he does not know the taste of [this intense] love and deveikus, nor does he engage in seclusion at all to attain this love. This was the way of the ancient philosophers who, Heaven forbid (chas v’shalom), never deviated from the way of Hashem and His holy Torah, and indeed taught others the greatness of Hashem and His Torah, yet they did not know how to love Hashem with deveikus. These are termed masme’ilim (those who go left), meaning they are more distant from the proximity of the Shechinah and Ruach HaKodesh.

And there are those who walk a middle path (derech memutza), meaning that during the recitation of Shema and prayer (tefillah), they draw their minds close to the love of Hashem and deveikus, but for the rest of the day, the ways of the world are theirs. Within this middle path too, there are those termed Chassidim (pious ones), but in a different sense than the aforementioned – rather, they are Chassidim in their deeds (ma’aseihem). And even in this, there are two ways designated as Chassidim: one who brings merit to the public (mezakeh rabbim), as explained in Yoma (87a), concerning whom it is written, “Lo sitein chasidecha lir’os shachas” (“You will not allow Your devout one to see destruction” – Psalms 16:10); and the second, those who perform the mitzvos in an exceptional manner (derech haflagah) and above the natural human way, as is known from the chapters dealing with the pious (Pirkei d’Chassidei) in Tractate Ta’anis. Thus, we find three paths of Chassidus in Israel: namely, the meyaminim who cleave through love of Hashem; and the two types of Chassidus in action. All three are elucidated in a single verse in the Ten Commandments: “V’oseh chesed la’alafim l’ohavai u’leshomrei mitzvosai” (“And performing kindness for thousands [of generations], for those who love Me and for those who observe My commandments” – Exodus 20:6). It is taught in the Mechilta: “‘For those who love Me’ – this refers to Avraham Avinu and those like him; ‘and for those who observe My commandments’ – these are the prophets and the elders.” The explanation is: “those who love Me” refers to those like Avraham Avinu, who was deeply immersed in deveikus and love of Hashem; “and for those who observe My commandments” refers to the prophets, who brought merit to the public through rebuke (tochachah), and the elders, who were meticulous in observing mitzvos with extraordinary diligence.

Now, one who practices his piety (chassidus) through the performance of mitzvos, it is self-evident (peshita) that he must be a Torah scholar (talmid chacham), learning and reviewing how to be meticulous in the mitzvah according to the perspective of the Torah (da’as Torah), lest he come to perform his deed in a strange manner, not in accordance with da’as Torah, Heaven forbid. Consider Levi and Pinchas: both acted zealously against immorality and risked their lives for it. Yet Pinchas ascended because of this to the highest levels, while Levi was rebuked by his father [Yaakov Avinu] and greatly diminished thereby. This is because great precision is required for this, to weigh the action according to the time and place, and also, for many matters, knowledge of the general principles of the Torah, which are not explicitly detailed, is necessary. Therefore, it is impossible to be a chassid in this manner except after thorough engagement (hegyon) with Torah. Indeed, even the path of Chassidus involving love of Hashem and deveikus, which might seem, according to imagination, not to require Torah study but rather simple sincerity (temimus), seclusion, and focusing one’s thoughts on loving Hashem – in truth, it is not so. Rather, even one who sanctifies himself and cleaves to the love of Hashem must nevertheless be exceedingly careful that his steps do not stray from the path of the Torah, and that his holy yearning and intense love, like death [in its power], do not mislead him from the path of reason (seichel). Concerning this, the Torah cautioned us through the mitzvah of tzitzis, which contains an allusion to the 613 mitzvos. The Holy One, Blessed be He, commanded us to make threads of white (lavan) and blue (techeiles) corresponding to two modes of conduct for a Jew. One is for him who walks the path trodden by the masses, engaged in the ways of the world; for such a person, the white threads – the same material as the garment (min kanaf) – serve to remind him of the performance of mitzvos. The second is for him who is set apart (mufrash) for the service of Hashem, engages in seclusion, and immerses his thoughts in the love of Hashem; for such a person, the thread of techeiles comes, which resembles the Throne of Glory (Kisei HaKavod) and attaches his thoughts thereto. Nevertheless, he is admonished to interrupt his deveikus and attend to a mitzvah that arrives at its designated time. Concerning these two modes of Jewish life, two verses regarding the remembrance of mitzvos are written: namely, the verse, “U’re’isem oso u’zechartem es kol mitzvos Hashem va’asisem osam v’lo sasuru…” (“And you shall see it and remember all the commandments of Hashem and perform them; and do not stray…” – Numbers 15:39), which contains a warning for the general populace of Hashem’s people who walk the middle path or are masme’ilim. And the verse, “Lema’an tizkeru va’asisem es kol mitzvosai vi’heyisem kedoshim l’Elokeichem” (“So that you shall remember and perform all My commandments and be holy unto your G-d” – Numbers 15:40), comes as a warning to the pious (chassidim) engaged in holiness and love of Hashem – these are the meyaminim – that they too must be meticulous in the performance of mitzvos according to da’as Torah. Then “vi’heyisem kedoshim l’Elokeichem” – you will be found favorable before Hashem, that He may bestow upon you an influx of holiness and Ruach HaKodesh. And concerning all types of chassidus, we learned in Avos (2:5): “V’lo am ha’aretz chassid” (And an ignoramus cannot be pious).

And now I shall explain the words of Isaiah the prophet (in Chapter 30:20-21): “V’nasan lachem Ado-nai lechem tzar u’mayim lachatz v’lo yikaneif od morecha v’hayu einecha ro’os es morecha. V’oznecha tishma’na davar mei’acharecha leimor zeh haderech lechu vo ki sa’aminu v’chi sasme’ilu.” (“And the L-rd shall give you bread of adversity and water of oppression; yet your Teacher shall no longer be hidden [lit. winged away], but your eyes shall see your Teacher. And your ears shall hear a word from behind you, saying: ‘This is the way, walk in it,’ whether you turn right [ki sa’aminu] or whether you turn left [v’chi sasme’ilu].”) The meaning here is that in his days, these three categories existed in Israel: namely, the group that conducted itself with holiness and deveikus, and they were a chariot (merkavah) for the Shechinah. The great ones of that group were hidden (nichnafim) and concealed in inner chambers, lest people disturb them from their cleaving to Hashem – these were the meyaminim. And there was the group that conducted themselves according to natural wisdom (chochmas ha’teva) and were distant from spiritual thought; their great ones were not hidden at all, but the disciples did not make efforts to see the face of their master, for they could ascertain their master’s views through writings more so than by hearing from their mouths. This is unlike the study of Hashem’s Torah, whose unique quality (segulah) it is that the disciples should see the face of the Rabbi. For this reason, Moshe Rabbeinu removed the veil from his face when he spoke words of Torah to Israel, so that they should see his face. This, then, is the prophet’s message in his time, when Torah study was essential due to the war with Sennacherib, as stated in Perek Chelek (Sanhedrin 94b) regarding the verse “v’chubal ol mipnei shamen” (“and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the oil” – Isaiah 10:27): the yoke of Sennacherib was destroyed because of the ‘oil’ of King Chizkiyahu, who thrust a sword into the entrance of the Study Hall (Beis HaMidrash) and declared, “Whoever does not engage in Torah study shall be pierced by the sword!” Regarding this, the prophet said, “V’nasan lachem Hashem lechem tzar u’mayim lachatz” – this refers to the way of Torah: “bread with salt and water by measure” [cf. Avos 6:4]. “V’lo yikaneif od morecha” – meaning, it shall no longer be like the way of the first group, to be hidden in chambers. “V’hayu einecha ro’os es morecha” – it shall not be like the way of the second group, where the disciples did not find it necessary to see the face of their master. “V’oznecha tishma’na davar mei’acharecha leimor zeh haderech lechu vo” – you will understand and perceive that only this path of diligent Torah study prevails (aguni u’matzli) during a time of war against Israel, and it alone is the path for the nation’s survival. “Ki sa’aminu” – whether among the group of meyaminim, “v’chi sasme’ilu” – or among the group of masme’ilim, all will understand that only the toil of Torah (amalah shel Torah) is the essential factor for the preservation of the Jewish people. Thus, we have clarified what constitutes “right” and “left” within the course of our faith.

From the outcome of our words, [it follows] that not everyone who walks the middle path in the service of Hashem is termed a beinoni (intermediate). For there are among the intermediate ones those who are worthy of being called Chassidim, except that they are not Chassidim immersed in seclusion with love and deveikus, but rather Chassidim in their deeds, as we explained above based on our Rabbis, the Masters of the Talmud, and the Tanna d’Vei Eliyahu [in the Mechilta] in the interpretation of the verse in the Ten Commandments. This is repeated in Sefer Devarim, end of Parshas Va’eschanan (Deut. 7:9): “shomer ha’bris v’ha’chesed l’ohavav u’le’shomrei mitzvosav l’elef dor” (“Who keeps the covenant and the kindness for those who love Him and observe His commandments, for a thousand generations”). A beinoni is called one who does not cast off the yoke [of Heaven] but is also not particularly meticulous. And it is understood that within the definition of beinoni, there exist many levels between the righteous and the wicked.

We have elaborated and expanded upon the matter, and we hope it will not be burdensome either to the editors of the journal or to the soulful supporters of Machzikei HaDas, for this indeed is the purpose of this publication: to serve as a remedy. From here, let us proceed to the remainder of the inquiry posed by the journal’s contributor. May Hashem be with us.

Behold, the contributor writes what his eyes behold in his location: that the generation living amongst us is not like previous generations. In previous generations, the beinonim were not in such danger of casting off the yoke of Torah and mitzvos, unlike the estranged individuals and yoke-breakers found in every generation. Not so is the present time. A Jew who, from the outset, has no intention or desire to turn away from Hashem’s Torah nor to deviate from its right path, nevertheless, if he does not place Hashem before him constantly (shivisi Hashem l’negdi tamid) to be careful that his feet do not slip from the path of life, he is in a state of danger (chezkas sakanah). Unwittingly, he may lose his eternity and his hope from Hashem and His holy Torah. One cannot deny what the senses perceive; however, it requires investigation as to why we have merited [lit. why befell us] all this.

First, one must know that it is not as the contributor stated, that since Judah became His sanctuary, Israel His dominion [i.e., since the beginning of Jewish nationhood], there has never been a generation as licentious as the present one, Heaven forbid. This is not the truth. For even when we entered the Holy Land (Eretz HaKodesh), and for many generations thereafter, when the inclination for idolatry (Yetzer Hara d’Avodah Zarah) held sway and burned like an oven – as stated in Sanhedrin (102b) – consequently, no man could be certain of himself that he would not come to idolatry unless he conducted himself in the way of Chassidus, constantly directing his thoughts so that his path was before Hashem. We learn this matter from the words of Yehoshua to Israel (in Joshua, Chapter 24). After he presented before them the service of Hashem and the service of the gods of the Amorites, and also warned the people, saying, “You will not be able to serve Hashem, for He is a holy G-d…” (v. 19), and they responded properly, “No! But we will serve Hashem!” (v. 21), Yehoshua added, saying, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen Hashem for yourselves, to serve Him.” And they said, “Witnesses!” (v. 22). He added further, “V’atah hasiru es elohei ha’neichar asher b’kirbechem v’hatu es levavchem el Hashem Elohei Yisrael” (“And now, remove the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart toward Hashem, the G-d of Israel” – v. 23). And the people said to Yehoshua, “Hashem our G-d we will serve, and to His voice we will listen!” (v. 24). It is not explained what Yehoshua added in this final warning, nor what the people answered him.

However, the matter is that Yehoshua knew that the Yetzer Hara d’Avodah Zarah would hold sway in the Holy Land. As stated in Midrash Shir HaShirim on the verse “Rachatzti es raglai, eichachah atnafem?” (“I have washed my feet, how shall I soil them?” – Song of Songs 5:3), that the Jews in Ezra’s generation said they did not wish to return to the Holy Land because, “I have washed my feet of the Yetzer Hara d’Avodah Zarah, how shall I soil them?” – for that place inclines one towards idolatry. Therefore, Yehoshua warned them: Do not be secure in your desire today to serve Hashem. Therefore, if you truly accept upon yourselves not to worship idols, you must perforce “hasiru es elohei ha’neichar asher b’kirbechem” – meaning, even the idolatry that the Canaanites practice among you, you must remove perforce, so that you are not drawn after them. And also, “v’hatu es levavchem el Hashem” – meaning, do not rely on the assumption that even without consciously directing your heart towards Hashem, you will not arrive at idolatry. Rather, you must incline your hearts towards Hashem, to place Hashem before your hearts constantly. This was Yehoshua’s warning, who knew through prophecy about the Yetzer Hara d’Avodah Zarah in the Holy Land. But Israel, the people of Hashem, did not understand Yehoshua’s warning. They answered again, “Hashem our G-d we will serve, and to His voice we will listen!” – meaning, we have no need to fear so greatly; even without constantly inclining the heart, which is the way of Chassidus, we will not serve idols, but rather Hashem our G-d. And behold, what transpired in those generations? They transgressed Yehoshua’s warning and stumbled for several generations until Shmuel HaNavi came and reiterated this warning, as explained (in I Samuel 7:3): “Vayomer Shmuel el kol beis Yisrael… im b’chol levavchem attem shavim el Hashem, hasiru es elohei ha’neichar… v’hachinu levavchem el Hashem v’ivduhu l’vado…” (“And Shmuel said to the entire House of Israel… ‘If with all your heart you are returning to Hashem, remove the foreign gods… and direct your hearts to Hashem and serve Him alone…'”). And it is written there (v. 4) that they then did so: “Vayasiru Bnei Yisrael es ha’Ba’alim v’es ha’Ashtaros vayivdu es Hashem l’vado” (“And the Children of Israel removed the Ba’alim and the Ashtaros, and they served Hashem alone”). The meaning of “alone” implies: not [serving] oneself and one’s household, but only Hashem. This corresponds to the warning, “v’hachinu levavchem…” (“and direct your hearts…”), which is a lofty attribute (middah gevohah), beyond human nature, and is the path of Chassidus. Because of this [level they achieved], it endured for them for many generations, until they reached the kings of Israel and Judah who sinned and caused others to sin. [There was] also another reason, which will be explained below, and they reverted to the Yetzer Hara d’Avodah Zarah until they were exiled. In our commentary on the Torah, titled Ha’amek Davar, we explained that the Torah also warned about this through Moshe Rabbeinu and transmitted it at the end of Parshas Nitzavim (Deut. 30:15): “Re’eh nasati lefanecha hayom…” (“See, I have placed before you today…”). This is not the place to elaborate further. However, all this occurred in the generation when the Yetzer Hara d’Avodah Zarah burned within Israel, and it was beyond human capacity to withstand the test (nisayon) except through the path of Chassidus.

This is contrasted with the period since the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Knesses HaGedolah) prayed concerning the Yetzer Hara d’Avodah Zarah, as stated in Yoma (69b). Since then, although in every generation there were many who breached the ways of the Torah, nevertheless, this occurred only due to the overpowering of desire (ta’avah) or other negative character traits (middos ra’os). One who did not possess the nature for those traits was not drawn after these perpetrators of transgression (ba’alei aveirah). The beinonim were not [inherently] endangered of stumbling into the net of the transgressors. However, in the current generation, where heresy (apikorsus) and distorted views regarding the authority [lit. faith] of the Talmud and the like have proliferated – and Chazal have already stated (in Avodah Zarah 27b): “A person should not engage in discussion [lit. business] with heretics (minim)…” and the Gemara explains: “Heresy (minus) draws, for one comes to be drawn after it” – therefore, one who does not take it to heart to be very careful is in a state of danger that he too will be dragged along after some time.

Now, the contributor diagnosed [the problem] and conceived counsel: to be protected from this generation by separating completely from one another, just as Avraham separated from Lot. With apologies to the contributor, this counsel is harsh as swords against the body of the Nation and its very existence! Behold, when we were in the Holy Land and under our own authority, practically during the Second Temple era, the land was laid waste, the Temple destroyed, and Israel exiled due to the conflict (machlokes) between the Pharisees (Perushim) and the Sadducees (Tzedukim). It was also caused by much baseless hatred (sin’as chinam), leading to bloodshed (shefichus damim) which was not according to the law (din). That is, when a Pharisee saw someone being lenient in a certain matter, even though he was not a Sadducee at all but had merely committed a transgression, nevertheless, due to baseless hatred, he would judge him as a Sadducee, whom they would cast down [into a pit]. From this, permitted bloodshed proliferated, [done] mistakenly for the sake of a mitzvah. The Torah already alluded to this (Numbers 35:34), as explained in the Ha’amek Davar and Rinas Dodim. All this is not far from the mind [to imagine] that it could reach such a state, Heaven forbid, in times like these as well: where, based on the perception of one of the Machzikei HaDas, it might appear that so-and-so does not conduct himself according to his way in the service of Hashem, and he will judge him as a heretic (min), distance himself from him, and they will pursue one another with permissibility based on false imagination, Heaven forbid, and destroy the entire people of Hashem, Heaven forbid! This is [the danger] even if we were in our own land and under our own authority.

How much more so (mikhalkoshevan) when we are subjugated in Exile (Galus), and Israel is a scattered sheep among the nations of the world (umos ha’olam)! We are compared in Exile to the dust of the earth, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Yaakov Avinu, “V’hayah zar’acha ka’afar ha’aretz” (“And your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth” – Genesis 28:14). And the nations of the world are compared to mighty, flowing waters, as it is written in Isaiah (17:12): “Hoi hamon amim rabbim kahamos yamim yeh’mayun” (“Woe, the roar of many peoples, they roar like the roar of seas!”). There is no remedy for a clump of dust against a flood of mighty waters unless the dust is formed into a solid stone; then, even if a river flows over it, it merely rolls it from place to place but does not destroy it entirely. So too Israel among the nations: they have no remedy except to become the “Stone of Israel” (Even Yisrael), meaning, they must be joined together in a single band (agudah achas). Then no nation or tongue can destroy them. How, then, can we say to separate one from another, allowing the nations to come and wash us away bit by bit, Heaven forbid?

Secondly, behold, even regarding the nations of the world, from whom it is the will of Hashem that we be separate and dwell apart, as it is written, “Hashem badad yanchenu” (“Hashem alone shall guide him” – Deut. 32:12), and Bil’am said, “Hen am levadad yishkon u’va’goyim lo yischashav” (“Behold, it is a people that dwells alone, and among the nations it is not reckoned” – Numbers 23:9) – the explanation being: when it dwells alone and does not intermingle with them, it dwells securely (b’menuchah); “u’va’goyim” – when it intermingles with the nations, “lo yischashav” – it is not considered a distinct nation. “Vayishkon Yisrael betach badad ein Yaakov” (“Israel dwells securely, solitary is the fountain of Yaakov” – Deut. 33:28) – its meaning is that the “fountain of Yaakov,” i.e., his desire and focus (simas eino), was that Israel should dwell securely with the nations (meaning, they should not compete with them) and also be “solitary” (badad), meaning separate from the nations without intermingling. Yet all this did not avail us to separate from the non-Jews (akum). As stated in Sanhedrin (104a) regarding “Eichah yashvah vadad” (“How she sits solitary!” – Lamentations 1:1): Rabbah said in the name of R’ Yochanan: I had said, “Vayishkon Yisrael betach badad” (“Israel shall dwell securely, solitary”), but now, “Eichah yashvah vadad” – for the nations distance themselves from us. And in Pesachim (118b) it is stated: What is meant by “bizer amim keravos yechpatzun” (“He scattered the peoples who delight in battles” – Psalms 68:31)? Who caused Israel to be scattered so widely among the nations? “Keravos yechpatzun” – because they desire proximity [to the non-Jews]. From the outset, the Holy One, Blessed be He, warned Avraham Avinu, “Ki ger yihyeh zar’acha b’eretz lo lahem” (“That your offspring shall be aliens in a land not their own” – Genesis 15:13). This was not merely a prophetic statement, but a command and a warning that it should be so. Because of this, it is written regarding Yaakov Avinu, “Vayagar sham” (“And he sojourned there” – Genesis 47:4), and Chazal expounded: This teaches that he did not descend to settle permanently (l’hishtakei’a), but only to sojourn (lagur) there, as it is stated [by his sons], “Lagur ba’aretz banu” (“To sojourn in the land have we come” – Genesis 47:4). The meaning is not that he didn’t intend to settle for his entire life, but only to sojourn for a few years until the famine ended in the land. For certainly this cannot be, as Yaakov had already heard from the mouth of Hashem, “Ki l’goy gadol asimcha sham” (“For I will make you there into a great nation” – Genesis 46:3), and he knew from this that they would be there for many years, and that this was the word of Hashem to Avraham: “Ki ger yihyeh zar’acha b’eretz lo lahem va’avadum v’inu osam arba mei’os shanah” (“…they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years”). Rather, the meaning of “not to settle permanently” is: to be like a citizen of the land, as would have been Pharaoh’s desire, who esteemed Yaakov and his offspring. But Yaakov said he did not desire this, rather “lagur ba’aretz banu” – to be sojourners in a land not ours. This was because he observed the word of Hashem to Avraham, “Ki ger yihyeh zar’acha…”, and the word of Hashem stands forever. Therefore, however much we strive in Exile to become equal and unified with them [the nations], what does the Holy One, Blessed be He, do? He turns the hearts of the nations to distance them [Israel] and make them solitary (badad). This is what we refer to in the Haggadah, after quoting the verse “Vayomer l’Avram yadoa teida ki ger yihyeh zar’acha b’eretz lo lahem…” (“And He said to Avram, ‘Know surely that your offspring shall be aliens in a land not their own…'”): “V’hi she’amdah la’avoseinu v’lanu, shelo echad bilvad amad aleinu l’chaloseinu, ela sheb’chol dor vador omdim aleinu l’chaloseinu v’haKadosh Baruch Hu matzileinu miyadam.” (“And this is what has stood by our forefathers and us; for not just one alone has risen against us to destroy us, but in every generation they rise against us to destroy us, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, saves us from their hand.”) It is impossible to interpret “V’hi” (“And this”) as referring to the promise “v’acharei chein yeitze’u bi’rchush gadol…” (“and afterwards they shall leave with great wealth…”), for that only occurred in Egypt, and thus there would be no allusion here to every generation. Rather, the meaning is: “V’hi” – namely, the word of Hashem “ki ger yihyeh zar’acha” – this is what has stood by our forefathers and us, [causing] that “in every generation they rise against us to destroy us.” This is because we do not wish to fulfill the word of Hashem “ki ger yihyeh zar’acha” – to be a distinct nation unto itself. We strive to draw near and unify with them; therefore, “they rise against us to destroy us,” but “the Holy One, Blessed be He, saves us from their hand.” Concerning this, we say, “Tzei u’lemad mah bikeish Lavan ha’Arami…” (“Go and learn what Lavan the Aramean sought to do…”) – lest some sophist come and say the opposite: that if we were completely intermingled with the nations, we would not be hated by them, and they would not seek to destroy us. Regarding this, we say, “Go and learn from Lavan the Aramean.” For behold, we were extremely close to him, as we were all his children [through Leah and Rachel]. Yet despite this, he sought “la’akor es hakol” (to uproot the entirety). The meaning of “hakol” (the entirety) cannot be interpreted as referring to Yaakov alone, for if so, it should have said, “he sought to kill our father.” Rather, the meaning of “es hakol” is: the entirety of Judaism. We learn this from the phrase “Arami oved avi” (Deut. 26:5), [which implies a continuous state,] meaning “An Aramean was destroying my father.” The intention is not only that at the moment he caught up with him and suspected him of theft did he seek to kill him, but even after he was proven righteous and Lavan had no claim against him, nevertheless, had it been in his power to kill him, he would have killed him. Indeed, this is explicitly stated in Lavan’s words to Yaakov (Genesis 31:29): “Yesh l’el yadi la’asos imachem ra, v’Elohei avichem…” (“It is in the power of my hand to do you harm, but the G-d of your father…”) – it is perplexing to whom he spoke in the plural [“you” – imachem], as until now he had spoken only with Yaakov. Is it possible he wanted to kill his daughters and their children as well? Rather, here he spoke to those who followed Yaakov, namely, those who had converted and gone with Yaakov, as it is written (Genesis 31:44, 50) “…between me and you, and between my kinsmen and your kinsmen.” He desired to kill all of them, even though he had no claim against them, but he sought to uproot Judaism. And even though they had never distanced themselves from Lavan and his offspring, nevertheless, he sought to uproot Judaism. All this was because they were close and intermingled with Lavan and were not like sojourners (gerim) in their city. From this, we must learn that the more we draw close to the non-Jews, the more they distance us and seek to destroy us. After all this, it has been difficult for us to distance ourselves from the non-Jews, because it is against human nature [not] to associate with companions, whether good or bad. How, then, can we tell our children to be separate, one from his fellow, in all the ways of our world?

Rather, if we come to strengthen the faith (le’chazek es hadas) amongst ourselves, so that it should not weaken in our hearts and the hearts of our children, we must reflect upon the earlier generations, as it is written, “Miz’keinim esbonan” (“From the elders I derive understanding” – Psalms 119:100). Behold, when King Chizkiyahu, the righteous (ha’tzaddik), saw that the pillars and foundations of the faith had weakened in the days of Achaz, what did he do? He thrust a sword into the entrance of the Beis HaMidrash and declared, “Whoever does not engage in Torah study shall be pierced by the sword!” Even though, if so, the learning would be entirely not for its own sake (shelo lishmah) – that is, not for the sake of the mitzvah of Torah study (Talmud Torah), and certainly not out of love for Hashem, but only to avoid being killed – nevertheless, this specific action strengthened the faith in the best and most effective manner, as is known.

And King Yoshiyahu, the pious (ha’chassid), when he foresaw the Destruction (Churban) and that Israel would be exiled from its land, and there was reason to fear that Torah and Judaism would be lost from Israel, Heaven forbid, what did he do? It is written (II Chronicles 35:3): “Vayomer Yoshiyahu la’Levi’im ha’mevinim l’chol Yisrael… Tenu es aron ha’kodesh ba’bayis asher banah Shlomo… ein lachem masa ba’kateif, atah ivdu es Hashem Elokeichem v’es amo Yisrael.” (“And Yoshiyahu said to the Levites, the instructors of all Israel… ‘Place the Holy Ark in the House that Shlomo… built… you shall have no [more] burden upon the shoulder; now serve Hashem your G-d and His people Israel.'”) Now, Chazal said (in Yoma 52b) that “Tenu es aron ha’kodesh…” meant that he concealed the Ark (ganaz es ha’Aron). However, it is not explained what his statement “atah ivdu es Hashem Elokeichem v’es amo Yisrael” means – in what way had the time arrived to serve in a manner different from hitherto? Also puzzling is his statement “ein lachem masa ba’kateif” (“you shall have no burden upon the shoulder”) – had they been carrying the Ark until then? This has already been discussed in the Yerushalmi, Shekalim, but this is not the place for elaboration.

However, the matter is that until then, the High Priests (Kohanim Gedolim) were immersed in seclusion, love, and deveikus towards Hashem, and similarly the Levites were supremely holy (kedoshei elyon). Consequently, they were unable to disseminate Torah widely (l’harbitz Torah ba’rabbim) and increase the number of students, as this interrupts deveikus, as we wrote above. This sacred service was termed being a “chariot for the Shechinah” (merkavah la’Shechinah), and in scriptural language, it was called “masa ba’kateif” (a burden on the shoulder), the place where the intellect resides, as we explained in Ha’amek Davar the scriptural phrase “ki avodas ha’kodesh aleihem ba’kateif yisa’u” (“for the service of the Sanctuary was upon them; they carried it on the shoulder” – Numbers 7:9). Now, the pious king admonished them: “ein lachem masa ba’kateif” – meaning, you should no longer engage in seclusion and be immersed in the love of Hashem and remain secluded by yourselves. Rather, “atah ivdu es Hashem v’es amo Yisrael” together – meaning, by teaching Torah to the public. Based on the king’s command, there then arose “the craftsman and the smith, a thousand, all mighty men of war” (II Kings 24:14, 16) – and it is taught in the Sifrei, Parshas Ha’azinu, that they waged the “war of Torah.” After them came the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Knesses HaGedolah), who further emphasized and “he’emidu talmidim harbeh” (established many disciples – Avos 1:1). Through this, Torah and Judaism were preserved in Israel.

So too must we act to strengthen the faith: increase Torah study in the houses of study (batei midrashim) and employ every possible strategy (tachbulos) to ensure that people engage in Torah study publicly (ba’rabbim). We should not be meticulous (ledakdek) about whether one’s fellow studies for its own sake (lishmah) or not for its own sake (shelo lishmah), as stated (in Berachos 28a) in the incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, where the conclusion (maskana) was not like Rabban Gamliel, who had said, “Any student whose inside is not like his outside (tocho k’varo) may not enter the Beis HaMidrash.” It is stated there that Rabban Gamliel himself later felt distressed (chalsha da’ateih), fearing that perhaps, Heaven forbid, he had withheld Torah from Israel. The conclusion is that even though he saw in a dream white pitchers filled with ashes, that was shown to him only to appease his mind (l’yatuvei da’ateih).

In truth, we should not suspect or assume that perhaps one learns shelo lishmah. Ordinarily (stam), one who learns Torah, even without love and deveikus, nevertheless learns in order to fulfill the mitzvah of Talmud Torah and fears the punishment for neglecting Torah study (bittul Torah), which is exceedingly severe (chamir tuba). This is like all mitzvos; if one puts on tefillin, etc., if he does so with love and deveikus, fortunate is he (ashreiv). However, not every person merits this; nevertheless, he performs the mitzvah because such is the commandment. And anyone who learns publicly (ba’rabbim) is preferable to one who learns in his room by himself, as we learned in Avos (3:3): “Ten who sit and engage in Torah, the Divine Presence rests among them… From where [do we know] even five?… From where [do we know] even one?…” But the more numerous [the learners], it is simply understood (pashut) that it is better (me’alei taffi). Even regarding [learning] on the road, it is stated in Ta’anis (10b): “Two Torah scholars walking on the road who do not engage in words of Torah between them deserve to be burned.”

Indeed, yes, even if he truly learns in order to aggrandize himself (l’hisyaheir), there is no transgression (aveirah) in this, Heaven forbid; rather, he does not receive spiritual reward (sachar ruchani). As Rashi wrote in Berachos (17a), if one learns to fulfill the mitzvos so that people will honor him, it falls under “Ki gadol ad shamayim chasdecha” (“For Your kindness is great unto the heavens” – Psalms 57:11). This applies to every mitzvah: even if there is an element of ulterior motive (shelo lishmah) in them, nevertheless, there is no punishment for this, Heaven forbid. As stated in Nazir (23b) regarding one who eats the Paschal offering (Pesach) for the sake of gross eating (achilah gasah): Granted (nehi) he has not performed the mitzvah in the choicest manner (min ha’muvchar), he has nevertheless performed the mitzvah of Pesach (Pesach mihasa ka’avid). And in Yoma (70a), it is stated that it was the custom in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur for everyone to bring a Sefer Torah from his home and read from it, “in order to display its beauty to the public.” Rashi explains: “To show the beauty of the Sefer Torah and the glory of its owner, who took pains to beautify the mitzvah.” The same applies to Talmud Torah: although he learns in order to make a fine appearance, granted he has not performed [the mitzvah of] Torah [study] in the choicest manner, he nevertheless fulfills the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Not only that, but [comparing] Talmud Torah shelo lishmah and pious acts (milei d’chassidusa) lishmah, Talmud Torah is preferable to pious acts, as proven in Erchin (17a): R’ Yehudah the son of R’ Shimon asked him: Rebuke (tochachah) lishmah versus humility (anavah) shelo lishmah – which of them is preferable? He replied: Do you not concede that humility lishmah is preferable to rebuke lishmah? For the Master said: Humility is the greatest of all [virtues]. [Therefore,] shelo lishmah is also preferable. For R’ Yehudah said in the name of Rav: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvos, even shelo lishmah, etc. From this, we can learn that Torah shelo lishmah is preferable to pious acts [performed lishmah]. For if you did not concede that Torah lishmah is preferable to pious acts lishmah, [the argument would not hold]. Hence [we must say that] Torah shelo lishmah is [also] preferable. This corresponds to what is stated in the Yerushalmi, Rosh Hashanah, chapter 3, and in the introduction (Pesichta Rabbasi) to Eichah Rabbah, regarding the verse in Hosea (8:3): “Zanach Yisrael tov, oyev yirdefo” (“Israel has rejected the good; the enemy shall pursue him”). “Good” refers only to Torah. We explained that the continuation of the verse there is: “Li yiz’aku, Elokai yeda’anucha Yisrael” (“To Me they cry out, ‘My G-d! We know You, O Israel!'”). “Zanach Yisrael tov, oyev yirdefo” – meaning, when they gather for prayer, they cry out to Me, “My G-d! We know You, Israel! We have loved You! Why do You stand far from our salvation?” To this, the prophet responds: “Zanach Yisrael tov” – they have rejected the good, namely Torah. Their knowledge and love are of no avail. Rather, “oyev yirdefo” – the enemy shall pursue them. For only the merit of Torah and toil in it (amalah) avails to protect from every enemy and avenger. And in the Midrash Rabbah there, it is stated: Rav Huna and R’ Yirmeyah said in the name of Rechavah: It is written (cf. Jeremiah 16:11), “Osiy azavu v’es Torasi lo shamaru” (“They have forsaken Me, and My Torah they have not kept”). [G-d says:] Would that they had forsaken Me but kept My Torah! For by occupying themselves with it, the [Torah’s] light would have returned them to the good path (machaziran l’mutav). And the statement is well-known in many places: “A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvos, even shelo lishmah, for from shelo lishmah one comes to lishmah.” The world commonly explains this to mean that eventually, he will learn lishmah. According to this explanation, if all his learning remains shelo lishmah, it does not achieve favor. However, in Sanhedrin (105b), we learn another explanation. For it is stated there: Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvos, even shelo lishmah, for from shelo lishmah one comes to lishmah. For as reward for the forty-two sacrifices that Balak offered, he merited that Ruth descended from him. Behold, we have learned the explanation of “comes to lishmah”: that he merits that descendants will emerge from him who will act lishmah.

From all this, we learn what lies before us, the Machzikei HaDas (Strengtheners of the Faith): that we must strengthen ourselves to engage in Torah study. The Rabbi (Rav) and the heads of the community (rashei hakehillah) should be involved in this, ensuring that the teachers (melamdim) are great Torah scholars (gedolei Torah). And even if, due to government requirements (al pi ha’malchus), they must also study secular subjects (limudei chol), this too should be under the supervision (hashgachah) of the Rav and the leaders of Israel, ensuring that the teacher is G-d-fearing (yarei Shamayim). This is impossible if each individual worries [only] for his own children, and lacks the means to select a suitable teacher who upholds the faith. Consequently, he forcibly prevents his son from secular studies (limudei chol), and this causes the son to rebel against his parents and follow deviant paths (derech akalkalos) in order to attain secular studies. However, if the matter rests upon the community (tzibbur) and the heads of the congregation (rashei hakehal), they will not completely prevent their children from secular studies. But there will be supervision through the teacher whom they select, ensuring they do not deviate from the path of Torah. They will also allocate ample time (sha’os meruvachim) for Torah study. Thus, both [Torah and necessary secular knowledge] will be maintained by them. Although one cannot expect them to emerge from such limited hours of study qualified for rabbinic ordination (hora’ah) – for such is the way of Torah, that its toil and objective are fulfilled only by one who devotes his entire mind to it, and “a soul that toils, toils for itself” (nefesh ameilah amlah lo – Proverbs 16:26) to assist him in mastering it, and it is impossible to become great in Torah (gadol baTorah) while engaged in other pursuits. (Any great Torah scholars who were also proficient in secular wisdom (chochmim b’limudei chol) either engaged in secular studies before immersing their heads in Torah, or after they had already become great in Torah, but simultaneously it is impossible to reach the ultimate goal of study.) – nevertheless, even if they do not reach the level of hora’ah, the engagement with Torah for even a few hours is exceedingly precious and leads to the fear of Hashem (yiras Hashem).

Furthermore, Torah study among groups of householders (ba’alei batim) will cause a reduction in strife (machlokes) within Israel and an increase in the number of Machzikei HaDas. For undoubtedly, there are many who have not reached the point of rejecting the Talmud and our early masters (Rabboseinu HaRishonim) and what is explicit in the Shulchan Aruch, but who are nevertheless distant from Torah study because they are lenient regarding stringencies (chumros), customs (minhagim), and admonitions found in ethical works (sifrei mussar). However, if they engage in Torah study, they too will understand that such individuals should not be considered heretics (minim) or apikorsim, Heaven forbid. They will then join in a single band (agudah achas) to deliberate on how to strengthen the faith and prevail over those who deny the Talmud (kofrim ba’Talmud). And the larger and more numerous the group (chaburah), the more it is strengthened, and they find counsel. They will speak one to another, and Hashem will attend and hear (v’hikshiv Hashem vayishma – Malachi 3:16), and He will help them guard their children completely from heresy (minus).

Moreover, Torah study in public will be beneficial for us, the Machzikei HaDas, ourselves, so that we know to conduct ourselves specifically according to the view of Chazal, namely the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, and not deviate based on [the view of] some great and holy individual who imagines that a certain way is more fitting for the service of Hashem. This already occurred during the First Temple era, when those who upheld the faith (machzikei hadas) – meaning, those who did not worship idols – offered sacrifices on high places (bamot) outside [the Temple], even though this involved a prohibition carrying the penalty of excision (issur kares). Nevertheless, they acted according to the words of the priests of the bamot, who were great individuals and claimed that in this manner, it would be easier to attain love and deveikus for the Holy One, Blessed be He, and one would not need to come specifically to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Because they considered this transgression a mitzvah, the righteous kings of Judah, like Asa and Yehoshafat, were unable to remove this sin from them, as it is written, “Od ha’am mezabchim u’mektarim ba’bamot” (“Yet the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places”). They held it to be such a mitzvah that when King Chizkiyahu came and abolished the bamot, Rabshakeh [Sennacherib’s general] declared (II Kings 18:22): “But if you say to me, ‘We trust in Hashem our G-d’ – is it not He whose high places and altars Chizkiyahu has removed, saying to Judah… ‘Before this one altar you shall prostrate yourselves, and upon it you shall offer incense’?” Behold, Rabshakeh considered this a great sin on Chizkiyahu’s part! This was because he [Rabshakeh] was an idolater (kofer), and in his youth, he had heard from his father’s house that it was a sin to prevent the people from deveikus and love of Hashem. In reality, it involved the prohibition of kares. If we investigate by what power Chizkiyahu prevailed over the popular opinion more than Asa and Yehoshafat, it can only be attributed to his disseminating Torah widely (she’hirbitz Torah ba’rabbim). Even though it was shelo lishmah, driven by fear of the sword, it nevertheless availed to prevent the sin and to act according to da’as Torah, not according to human reasoning (da’as enoshi). Similarly, in these generations, there are many Machzikei HaDas, fearers of Hashem, who conduct themselves according to their own reasoning (b’da’as atzmam) to attain love of Hashem, even though it is not according to the view of the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch. They rely on the saying of Chazal (in Sanhedrin 106b): “Rachmana liba ba’i” (“The Merciful One desires the heart”). Due to this, they come to commit many transgressions, all for the sake of Heaven (l’shem Shamayim), in order to attain the love of Hashem, which is fluent upon their lips. But if they accustom themselves to learn Torah with the intention of acting according to the Torah (al menas la’asos kefi haTorah), then they will be protected from divergent opinions (dei’os shonos) and from the state where each person’s Torah is in his own hand (Toras kol echad b’yado), Heaven forbid. Rather, everything will be according to the perspective of the Talmud.

In conclusion (haklal), if truly and sincerely (b’emes u’ve’tamim) we come to strengthen the faith, there is no counsel other than to engage in Torah study, without any regard (nafka mina) as to whether it is lishmah or shelo lishmah. This is solely entrusted to the heart and known to the Holy One, Blessed be He, how to grant success to the learner. But as for us, we should not consider or deliberate on this matter at all. In this manner, the learners of Torah will multiply many times over (kaheinah v’kaheinah), and even the sophisticated (ha’mischakmim) will recognize that the preservation of the Talmud is a protective wall for us.

Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin.

jews for z vs jews for j … which kefira will win the battle for yiddishe souls?

@always_ask_questions

I’ll copy what I commented on an editorial posted on YWN:

Mr, Sokol,

I can answer your question:
The reason there is such adamancy against the foolish who vote and even more so against the tricks of the EK leadership (and their “Rabunim”) is because Zionism is kefira, kefira against ikkarim of yiddishkeot. And one is not allowed to have even a slight sufek about such foundations.

Again: someone who gives even slight hesitancy toward zionism is a kofer b’ikkar and loses his chelek in olam habu (as per the Rambam).

The greatest Gadol could follow the lead of EK or the Pope and declare “just sign the paper that says you believe in their god. it’s just for the money!”, and I will tell you that “Gadol” is a zuken mamre and masis imadiach.

Anyone with yirash shomyim could not possible understand what I wrote above without reading the holy words of the many Gedolim who broach the subject.

You will notice. All the rabunim who are against this disgusting vote explain and scream “TORAH TORAH TORAH!!” and they show their sources and reasoning and the Torah shoulders they rely on. The other side screams “MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!” and they base themselves on “what I feel” or “what I think”.

On principal, I don’t believe that any of the names of Rabunim you mentioned above actually declared support for this evil act. So, too I presume the video of R’ Chaim zazt”l is a forgery (ai?) or another trick from EK. I presume this, because we are not allowed to be “mehahare achrai rabo”.

But, without a doubt,, if chalila any of these rebunim would start supporting kefira like any other moshiach sheker, I would push them away with both hands and be loyal to Hashem and His Torah. No questions allowed, no questions necessary.

I hope you learn… and do tshiva.

@always_ask_questions

all of this is nonsense. there is a system of Torah and Halacha, and what you are describing is not it. A Rav, any Rav, has to understand the sugya he is paskining and be able to explain himself in the Gemara (or at least in established foundational poskim). You can’t paskin off a video nor can your rav.

I don’t mean to imply anything about Rav Chaim ztz”l. But, if the video is not a fake (did it only get released this past year? long after his death?) and he did indeed understand the question and gave an answer like the Eretz Hakodesh group is claiming, that would simply place Reb Chaim deep in the middle of the sugya of Zuken Mamre (or Nuvi Sheker for those who like to go that route).

We Jews are obligated to keep to Torah not rebel against it like the zionists.

@always_ask_questions

why don’t you guys politely invite both sides to a in-person or on-zoom meeting so that their chassidim could here them discussing this issue? I’m interested in buying a ticket.

BMG just had an asifa against participating in the “Jews for Z” vote.

serious question:
who are the “rabunim” you would want at such a meeting that are pushing Jews to vote, chalila, in WZO?

@ujm
I’m glad you frame it as “you think”, because history certainly hasn’t been kind to the crooked path called “Modern”

@yankel-berel

the Raavah is on the Rambam hilchos tshiva perek zuyin where he mentions ” וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו ” that mistakenly believed in Divine physicality, chas v’shulem.

regarding the tshiva i saw, it was many years ago… seriously, but don’t take my word for it. i was reading some american journal in halacha from mid 20th century. I don’t recall enough about it to find it again. regardless, none of this conversation hinges on that the question of what is kefira and who is a kofer are note bound one to the other.

@chaim87
I didn’t “establish this is a Halacha question”, the many many Gedolim that fought against Zionism as a matter of halacha.

You can see the sefer “Tikun Olam” on hebrew books, printed well before the holocaust that compiles the many many kol koeres and psak dinim from gedolim – belz, lubavitch, munkatch, ger, chofetz chaim, etc etc.

Beyond that, the specific sefer “Vayoel Moshe” written by one of those Gedolim was a lengthy and explicit halachik sefer that solidified the sugya in the Torah world.

So certainly the halachik “question” has been asked. It has also been answered, but that is beyond the point you are foolishly making.

@zsk

my last statement was a response to chaim87, and that is why i address the response to him at the top of that comment. However, I wasn’t per se claiming he is or is not a masis imadiach, rather I was pointing out the obligation specifically to follow what the torah teaches as is well established in our mesorah, as shas and poskim.

to reiterate, Jews are obligated to keep that Torah. Not because it was taught by a specific person, rather because that is what Hashem told us to do at Sinai. Now, there is much to add about the obligation to listen to certain established authorities, most obviously Moshe Rebaini. So too the aforementioned shas and poskim. But, the point I made before and would expect any Jewish person to agree with is that the authority of those authorities is specifically because they are teaching the Torah that G-d gave us at Sinai.

I don’t understand why you wrote “try arguing substantively (you have not done so yet)”. Is the above not the most substantive thing?

Regarding the specific authority of the Satmar Rebbe. There are two parts to that conversation: 1) the authority of the previously established Torah he mentions and 2) the authority of his own established expertise and/or influence. As outlined in SA, a “Gadol” is someone who is greater in expertise and/or influence (students). A “Gadol Hador” would be someone who is the top-tier in his generation as per that mesure. Again, this is not me, this is Shulchan Aruch.

While there is indeed an argument to be made that the Satmar Rebbe has significant expertise and influence and would be considered the “greatest in his generation” by either of those measures. I don’t hinge my argument here on that, if only because it is not a necessary point to the core of the argument. Additionally, by framing this conversation that is really about Judaism vs clear heresy as a conversation about the Satmar Rebbe dishonestly turns it into an argument over shitas or schools or whatever.

The sefer Vayoel Moshe is explicitly a halachik sefer that was written (as per the author) for all of klal yisroel. That being said, if we ignore the authority of the author, we are still obligated to the sources he brings and perhaps obligated in the authors conclusions.

It goes without saying that the Satmar Rebbe didn’t say anything novel ,neither in his sources nor in his conclusions, as there is much documentation of his points in earlier works. However, what he did (attempt to) do was distill the halachik axios and apply them to the post ’48 reality of zionist heresy in the form of a self-procaimed “Jewish” state. In case there was any ambiguity as time went on, the Satmar Rebbe again published a follow up “Al Hageila. val HaTemira” in ’68, strengthening the Torah and halacha in light of the heretics and their violence.

The length of Vayoel Moshe is in part to the authors constant self questioning of his sources and conclusions as he asks many of the common challanges to what was written before him. He spends most of the sefer “second-guessing” each step. You, @zsk, wrote “The R”Z community has provided lengthy…” but I have asked multiple times for any meaningful Torah response to the halachik conlusions of Vayoel Moshe. I have not recieved one from you. To be clear, I would expect such a resource to have read and dealt with the pilpul of Vayoel Moshe both because of the authors lifelong expertise in the subject as well as to produce a meaningful work. What I mean to say is that if someone says “Jews are not bound by the shevios because the non-jews broke theirs”, they would need to at least address the clear multiple responses to that which are in Vayoel Moshe. I suppose, I could compile an incredible pro-heresy (zionist) “sefer” by just compiling all of the Satmar Rebbe’s kashas, and not include his answers, but that would be very dishonest and hollow.

While I don’t learn Torah from kofrim, I am still bound by – lehavdil – the shulchan aruch even if they quote it. So too, if a kofer (chalila they should learn) mentions a Torah source that informs something about the status of zionism or out relationship to it, I would of course be obligated to those Torah sources as per the Jewish mesorah.

Regarding yayin nesech, none of this conversation has to do with “what I consider”. Ask your rabbi what the halach is. As per the Satmar Rebbe and his psak in Vayoel Moshe, I never heard him paskin that R”Z have a din ovdei avoda zureh. But, you would have to ask a Satmar chussid who might know if their rebbe addressed your question.

@ard
in support of what you wrote in reply #2368349,
much of the am harutzes in this thread seems to be that many don’t realize that the only thing that gives weight to ANY gadol’s psak is the Torah mesora (i.e. shas and poskim) who he claims his psak is based on. In other words, a Gadol’s psak isn’t binding on klal yisroel, rather the Torah that was given at Sinai is what is binding. A so-called Gadol is someone who is for good reason an established authority in communicating that binding Torah.

This is the reason why all Gadolim in their sh”t write lengthy explanations on exactly what sources they are relying on to get to their conclusion, as they themselves know that the only strength their “letter” has is the established Torah mesora that supports it.

The tipshis of some is that they think that because the signature on the bottom of the letter is (HarRav) “Ovadia Yosef” or (HaRav) “Yoel b”hrav Chanaiya Yom Tov Teitelbaum”, they can, chas v’shalom, ignore the Torah they are teaching.

This is also why the Shulcahn Aruch in YD calls a person who “paskins” without being based in Shas and poskim a thug and his “psak” (of course) worthless. And why in the same shulchan aruch it forbids paskining (even with Torah sources) against established halachik norms without also publishing the rational behind the breach of norms. So too (says the SA), one must stay away from rabunim and dayunim who stray from the above path and choose leaders who act in a good honest way in line with our Torah Gedolim.

@yankel-berel
the whole sefer vayoel moshe is meant to answer that question of “a medina without any repercussions. Is that against ikarei emuna?”
and, I can’t wrap my head around your “all he does is quote other” critique of hakatan. I’ll warn you now, that’s also all that the Satmar Rebbe does in Vayoel Moshe.

In fact, the whole Torah is simply quoting others and learning what they taught to apply it to our current situation. Other foolish people make up their own ideas and say “prove me wrong!”.