somejewiknow

@lerntmintayrah
nobody wants yidden to die (except tziyonim, apparently). stop with the straw-man you’ve constructed.

@damoshe
Supporting the state IS the apokorisos! It itself is forbidden and kefira in both 1) the belief that Hashem Himself by way of Moshiach will get us out of gulis (galus) and 2) the belief in schar and onesh that nothing good is gained from choosing an aveira.

@lerntmintayrah
I have no intention of stopping anyone from learning Torah. I also have no plans to dismantle the zionist state. I just pray daily for its destruction as per the common nusach of shmoneh esrai.

@lerntmintayrah

The sin of the Zionists was taking people away from Torah

That might be one of the many sins that zionism did, but that isn’t the defining feature of zionism. “Religious Zionism” is also kefira and perhaps worse than “secular Zionism”.

@yankel-berel, you wrote:

If SR would hold , like somejew fraudulently tries to propagate on these pages , that halachik p/n protections do not extend to yoshvei EY , because of the 3 shavu’ot, then SR ‘s supposed saying would make more sense.

I never said that “p/n” has anything to do with being “yoshvei EY”, i said that one cannot break the Shalosh Shevios for pekiach nefesh.

In (very) short, that means that if goyim – chas v’shulem – threaten masses of jews, our kosher responses are: make peace, give gifts, run away, and pray to G-d. What we are not allowed to do is organize an army and physically fight the enemy.

There is a lot more to say about both sides of the mutar/assur of the 3 shevios, but the foundational concept is as above. One cannot fight the non-Jews with violence because of pekiach nefesh, and that is both explicitly stated by Maharal but also blatantly obvious in context of the shevios that are fundamentally about dealing with the dangers of gulis (galus).

@yankel-berel

as I said above:
If my answer is not simple enough or you want to get into it more, I would request that you start a new CR thread and tr to formulate a full meaningful question that at at least tries to understand the above foundation of the Maharal that considers what you understand the answer(s) presented might be. With that, I and others can have more clarity on what you are missing or where your criticism might be well directed.

You seem to be well meaning enough to want to at list hear a Torah answer. I am willing to write, iy”H, a source and specific response to your questions IF you can please compose a clear and focused well-defined question. The more you and I can focus on specific points, the more likely we can actually learn something instead of getting emotional and distracted into other adjacent parts of this large sugya.

If you can take it a step at and time and try to take responsibility to keep the conversation on track, I would enjoy the conversation. (i wish there was a better platform for structured conversation, but I am afraid to suggest anything here).

So, if you also want, please initiate a new topic.

@commonsaychel

If the moderators of this Coffee Room did their jobs correctly,
this “nutjob” would have been banned from this website

@yankel-berel

I don’t understand your question towards me, as I think I have addressed it clearly and the answer is obvious.

The whole foundation of the shalosh shevios, as well explained by the maharal is that we must maintain the gezairas hagalis and are forbidden to directly work against. Part of the gezairas hagalis are the many pogroms and violence, lo alaini, that klal yisroel suffers through. The Maharal says explicitly that even if all the non-Jews got together and told use you MUST go to eretz yisroel, rebuild the Beis Hamikdosh, and reinstate a Torah kingdom, if they did that under real threat of DEATH, chas v’shulem, if we don’t listen to them, we would STILL NOT be allowed to break the shevios and we Jews would be obligated to give up our lives instead of breaking the shevios.

To be clear, the Maharal says the obligation to keep the 3 shevios is more important than pekiach nefesh (as is obviously true for every ‘yharog val tavor’).

If my answer is not simple enough or you want to get into it more, I would request that you start a new CR thread and tr to formulate a full meaningful question that at at least tries to understand the above foundation of the Maharal that considers what you understand the answer(s) presented might be. With that, I and others can have more clarity on what you are missing or where your criticism might be well directed.

@yankel-berel you wrote:

I did take issue with the crooked and narrowminded statement that vay’m is the sole accepted halacha opinion , since supposedly no one else took issue with its content.

I am glad you are finally honest enough to recognize that Vayoel Moshe, as it’s author – one of the most prominent poskim of his generation – was admanat about both in his introduction Vayoel Moshe as well as multiple times through the sefer, is indeed written as a halachik sefer to paskin lemassa and that it’s length is “k’derech haTorah” like all major poskim before and after him that “show their work” and explain their reasoning and context for their psak.

That being said, it is well known and published psak that some (many) Gedolim did indeed tak issue with the psak in Vayoel Moshe, as has been well discussed here in CR. That disagreement is specifically regarding the 1) heter to vote in state elections and 2) heter to take money from the state. Vayoel Moshe paskins that this is forbidden while others have published clear psak and sources to justify their permission (see Biyos Hazman, for example)

Beyond those two points of contention, there has been ZERO legitimate disagreement with the psak of Vayoel Moshe. [I started a whole thread here on CR asking if I am overlooking anything. Of course, that thread is still open for feedback].

Perhaps more importantly, those poskim who disagree with the above two issurim of Vayoel Moshe DO NOT disagree with the fundamental principals that Zionism is yet another false moshiach and that we kosher Jews continue to pray three times a day for its state’s peaceful destruction (amen, kain yehi rutzon).

The overwhelming majority of the content of vy’m is agada

What! You just agreed that it was a halachik sefer!
It must be that you are calling the source statements of chazal “agada” and then rejecting the many halachik applications of those “agadas” by poskim across the generations, Rishonim and Achronim. I guess by labeling those statements of chazal “agada”, you think you can ignore the halachik ramifications and practical applications that our Gedolim have taught us? This smells like schoolyard bullying using name calling to push kefira (i.e. rejection) in divrei chazal and in later poskim.

most gdolei yisrael disagreed with its conclusions halacha lema’aseh

The obligation to listen to the psak of Vayoel Moshe is primarily the authority of the sources he quotes.

We Jews are obligated to keep the Torah that was given at Sinai, that’s the Oral Torah and Written Torah. The “Oral Torah” is exclusively what was included in the Talmud (both Bavli and Yerushalmi and including all parts of those Talmuds). Anything that is not included in Tanach or Talmud is NOT part of Torah and nothing new can be added, chv”sh, to Torah.

The work of gedolai poskim since the sealing of the Talmud is to apply its teachings to ever changing situations, but with the obvious and explicit caveat that we Jews are only obligated and must only follow the Torah and nothing else. We are obligated to follow the “klalei horaah”, the rules of the halachik process generation after generation that define and clarify the teachings of the Talmud, but we are nonetheless at the end of the day bound to all this only because it is sourced in the Talmud and therefore the Torah that was given at Sinai.

That being said, there is no room for a “disagreement” with Vayoel Moshe if all he does is point to a statement of the Pnei Yeshiya or Maharal or Rambam. We are bound to follow those teachings (which themselves have already been fully endorsed as being 100% authentic to the Talmud they themselves source). If the claim is that in Vayoel Moshe he is making a mistake in those sources (to’eh b’limudo or to’eh b’shikil daas), than that accusation would necessarily need to be very explicitly made – and in our day that means published (as well laid out by Shulchan Aruch and many commentators throughout the generations). Alternatively, there could always be an accusation of intentional fraud – i.e. teaching something that is not Torah under the lie that it is Torah – which would of course very much demand a public accusation (by example, you can see exactly this by Shabtei Tzvi yimach shemo and AY Kook yemach shemo, who both made up teachings and claimed them to be Torah, and were loudly called out and exposed by gedolim for their fraud while offering no meaningful rebuttal)

The truth is that arguing with Vayoel Moshe is in theory available to anyone who fulfils the basic requirements of having learned well Torah broadly and learned well the specific sugya(s) at hand and who “goes in a good way” – to take the language of the Shulchan Aruch. Anyone with that baseline integrity who lives and teaches Torah as an “erliche yid” can write his halachik work that rejects the psak of Vayoel Moshe.

No one has done that yet and that it a reflection of the integriy of the Torah he taught and a reflection of our obligation to folllow the sources he brought in Vayoel Moshe.

There was never any normative halachik process applied to these subjects.

This is not only a contradiction to what you wrote above, but an absurdity to the fullest. Before Vayoel Moshe was published there was a 5-plus year history of regular published an publicized psak against the Zionist kefira and much written in the decade preceding its publication against that evil state. And, I’m not talking about Satmar Rebbe, I’m talking about Munkatcher Rebbe, Lubavitcher Rebbe, and many many more year after year from the original heretical idea of Herzl shr”y through each step in histroy you will find gedolim clarifying and publishing their rejection of that false moshiach.

And this is specifically “halachik” in that is it telling yidden exactly what to do (hor’ah) in light of specific teachings of the Torah. Of course, the many tens if not hundreds of published letters and kol kore’s against Zionist heresy by various Gedolim before the publication of Vayoel Moshe does not compare to the thorough codification of the core halachas and psak vis a vis the modern zionist state by the publication of Vayoel Moshe itself.

It indeed became the halachik “gold standard” that has no detractors in the Torah world even now.

BTW: I’m posting to CR the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s psak against zionism published in 1900, iy”H

@yankel-berel

No one here called Agudas leadership a disgrace, I mentioned that the Satmar Rebbe does in Vayoel Moshe to give context to a separate point.

However, @smerel, decides to randomly and without explanation bash the main beis din of Jerusalem that is respected worldwide and an accepted authority of all ashkenazy communities there (chassidish and litvish).

The satmar rebbe zy”a was clear and explicit in his motivation and toeles to speak out against corruption, @smerel simply said he will stop talking.

@hakatan
spamming is one of the powerful ways to push kefira. you expect @square_root to give up his favorite tool to destroy yiddishkeit?

@smerel

for your made up speculative “concern” you decided there is a toeles to motzi shem ra on the beis of Jerusalem, headed by the litvish Gadol Rav Moshe Shternbuch shlit”a?

What does this even have to do with the conversation? I mentioned the Satmar Rebbes statements in Vayoel Moshe (again, I think that’s where I saw it) that the rabanim in Agudas Yisoel who are living in Eretz Yisroel cannot paskin with confidence vis a vis the zionists because they are nogea b’davar. This is part of the larger critique that Adudah in general in NOT a beis din and is NOT run by the moetzes. This is core to the agudah’s structure by design, not something they deny.

@hakatan
I don’t understand why so many are hesitant to call out the obvious heresy of MO and its leaders, instead running to meaningless Artscroll quotes that are marketing to their misguided students.

Chazal are clear that there is no kuvod to talmidei chachamim (and certainly no concerns for lushon hureh) when kefira in the Holy Torah is on the line.

@zsk
I pretty sure that my point was taken from vayoel moshe when discussing the general disgrace that is the leadership of agudas yisroel under the Zionist State

@always_ask_questions
wow an “ad hominem” AND a “strawman” fallacy at the same time!
goyim without Torah are very strange indeed!

@always_ask_questions
it wasn’t intentional. i didn’t realize the order matters for such people. which comes first the ikkar or the tefel?

@ujm

so is being mechalel shabbos b’farhesia