somejewiknow

@non-political
you’ll find more palestinian flags in those EY neighborhoods than zionist flags.

The Satmar Rebbe pushed his students in America to loudly protest, claiming the American Jews are the ones whose voice matters vis-a-vis public influence, which would certainly seem to have been an influence on NK leaders like Rav Beck ztz”l who was a talmid of BOTH Rav Blau tzt”l and the Satmar Rebbe ztz”l.

Beyond that, there are not pro-palestinian protests in the Zionist state that Jewish residents could join even if they wanted to.

Regardless, nobody – NK or otherwise – is supporting murdering of Jews when they join the protests against the zionist state. If NK wanted Jews dead, they would tell them to join the IDF death cult.

@square_root
you are quoting the exact spot in the Chazon Ish, can you not just get it yourself?

Regardless, yes – of course – the zionist quoted is a liar. As I mentioned before, they don’t care about Torah, they only care about keeping the river of Jewish blood flowing as a means to stay in political power.

The Chazon Ish is speaking about the halacho of eruvin and a machane (encampment of soldiers) during a milchemes mitzvah (he specifies: as established by real prophets and the great sanhedrin) / milchemes rishis (a war initiated by King David to expand the kingdom’s borders).

There he says that in the case of milchemes mitzvah it is by definition pikiach nefesh – so no halacha of exemption. And if a rishis, exemptions apply unless the military operation turns deadly in which case if the except soldiers are needed it becomes regular pikiach nefesh like a milchemes mitzvah and no more exception.

At no point does the Chazon Ish even hint to anything relevant to modern times and the current shmad of the cantonist or zionists or notzrim or whatever new name Amulek has chosen to sugar coat it’s love for violence and jewish blood. At no point does the Chazon Ish mention the sugya of Shevet Levi nor the today’s yeshiva students.

Again, the author is a Zionist, so it’s easy to know and presume he is a liar, like his teachers, like Kook. Stay away from such crooked “Torah” and such priests.

In any case, if one would attempt to apply this section of the Chazon Ish to today’s situation, it would be hard to know on which side one would be obligated to fight. Are we supposed to pick up arms to fight the murderous zionist army who are actively targeting the minority of Klal Yisroel in their midsts? Or are we supposed to pick up arms and fight the downtrodden murderous arab groups who are not always mavchin bein tzadik l’rushe?

Certainly, those who really DO care what the Chazon Ish taught already know that we Jews don’t turn to weapons or violence, rather we turn to Hashem for His salvation and protection, and we take to the streets and protest any attack on our Torah or our Father in Heaven.

https://hebrewbooks.org/14336

@yaakov-yosef-a
It’s a shame you are so ready to speak such luchon hureh on NK without having ever spoken to anyone from NK to hear their side.
Look past the propaganda and rumors and you will see a group of frim yidden who don’t do aveiras in public. That’s the baseline of demanding you hear their side before falling for the slander of YY Jacobson.

@hakatan

BUT zionists aren’t WORRIED about kurais or mass death. They think it is honorable for jewish boys to die en masse for their political state. Thats how they worship their god. That’s what their dati leumi priests teach them.

@yaakov-yosef-a
I’m not clear what the distinction you are making is between pushing someone away from Torah and pushing someone towards another religion. they seem to be two ways of phrasing the same thing.
Nothing I am saying has anything to do with NK per se, rather I am only speaking about Torah that the masis would himself agree is Torah. (The conversation about a shogeg mesis is well beyond CR…).
To say it again: if the INTENT of criticising NK is NOT because of their questionable tactics but rather leveraging their questionable tactics to get Jews to reject normative Torah and/or adopt the false moshiach of Zionism, that would be the “masis i’madiach” I was calling into question.

@non-political
I’m not sure what your cryptic criticism is about my use of the terms “masis” and “madiach”. Please explain what I got wrong.

@mdd1
what’s your approach? what does it accomplish better?

My goal here is not to attract anyone to Torah, rather to ust to make the truths in Torah available to those who want it.
The Torah is beautiful without me having to sugar coat it….

@ujm

it’s not even debatable. the distance – by talmidei chachumim – between the “charedim” of the chazon ish ztzt”l and the “kanoyim” of rav amram bloy ztzt”l is exceptionally minor.

This carries on today, as the students of Rav Chaim ztz”l’s biggest complaint towards todays kanoyim like neturie karta is that they are lost parliament votes (of those who live in within zionist borders).

@mdd1

I personally know a goy who joined his Church and came out a Ger Tzedek in a black yarmulke. Etc.

@yaakov-yosef-a

I wasn’t referring to NK’s specific tactics, rather their message that is fully in line with mainstream Torah’s rejection of zionism and its kefira.

I never claimed that NK can claim to be the exclusive “maminim” (nor do they, afaik).

I don’t understand your accusation that they have “cut themselves off” from anyone. Beyond that, your words are inherently foolish, as a formal “kofer” is by definition not part of klal yisroel.

Beyond that, NK in the USA has recognized gadolim, afaik. They had the Kashu Rav ztz”l as well as Rav Moshe Ber Beck ztz”l who both recently passed away and were both active public supporters of the modern NK activities. I don’t know who, if anyone, has filled in the recent gap of losing these great men, so you would need to ask someone over there. Regardless, they certainly don’t claim that THEY don’t have Torah, so I don’t understand even the claim of kofer even if NK did stand completely alone.

@yankel-berel

Bump to keep this thread up. If still want my answer, I am awaiting your response.

@zsk
You’re a fool who follows fools and it shows because your many words contain nothingness. The meaningful conversations here in CR on the subject of heresies like zionism in light of – lehavdil – Torah are conversations about Torah and what it teaches.

You offer nothing.
No Torah, no integrity.
For example, you either never learned Vayoel Moshe or your are intentionally lying when you make the absurd claim there are no meaningful (haluchik?) differences. The arguments that dismantle RELIGOUS zionism are well laid out in that sefer. If you have a counterargument in Torah, go ahead and state it. But, you can’t pretend that the rejection of zionism is only “secularist Zionism”. Most of the sefer is bemoaning the crooked evil of “Religious” Zionism, as the Satmar Rebbe said: “Kook, yimach shemo”

The Satmar Rebbe was not (only) upset by Kook’s secularism, rather he cred about how he distorted and abused the Holy Torah for his false messiah.

@yeshivaman613
the problem is that if they started filtering out the kefira, they would have to silence the zionist voices. not sure WHY that’s the problem exactly, but that seems to be the problem.

@1
why would you let your kids go to houses where they do something crooked?

@yankel-berel

if you don’t start with the absurdity that the NK actions (whatever you might be referring to) are “unsavory”, you would have no reason to think there is a distinction between NK from 1950s and NK today.

NK today is of the same ideology of its predecessors (unless you can point me to some distinction), is led by students or students of students of the original founders ztz”l, and continues to exists in Palestine, Europe, and North America as a singular group that shares a unified ideology.

So, forcing readers to prove a negative to repel your baseless claims against a group of apparently kosher yidden is not only dishonest, but motzi shem ra. It is possibly also masis imadiach as it pushes yidden away from real Torah views (but I’m not sure if internet comments are masis or if they are madiach, H”Y)

@yankel-berel

to be a “kofer” means to reject something. So, one needs to have access to the thing as a perquisite to accepting or rejecting it. In our conversation about being kofer in Torah, that would mean that one would need access to that part of Torah. Rejection (and so too acceptance) can happen either generally or specifically, explicitly or implicitly. So, one can be mekabel on himself the complete Torah despite not knowing or having access to the whole body of Torah, and so too rejecting the Torah.

This is also true for any details. If one DOES have access to them, he can accept or reject those details in kind. In Torah, the 13 ikarim include accepting the complete written and oral Torah, such that claiming that even one word was taught by Moshe – chalila – alone and not Hashem would be literally kofer (v.) in that Torah.

There is a very interesting deep dive into the minutiae of debate amongst Rishonim about what the guidelines of “access to” are in “edge cases”. In other words, what is the expectation for a person to accept the 13 ikarim generally or specific details if they don’t have formal access to the information. This touches on the sugya of tinuk shenishbu as well as the Brisker Rav’s statement that “nebuch an apikorusis still an apikorus”.

It is well established to the point of being obvious that there are parts of Torah that are unknown to our generation, haluchas that have been lost as well as new questions that haven’t been resolved through the tools we have at hand (mishna and shikil daas). The ultimate answer to these unknowns will be revealed by Eliyahi Hanuvi in the future. In the meantime there is no expectation for us to somehow be certain in knowing the answers to these parts of Torah that we can’t possibly have access to.

Nonetheless, we are obligated to be certain (not have any even fleeting doubt – as is true for all 13 ikarim) that the Torah that we DO have today is exactly the true Torah that was given by Hashem at Sinai. The parts that we don’t know, we are obligated to accept and look forward to the time when we will be able to learn those parts.

If a person knowingly rejects, either by way of a general or a specific, any part of the Torah, that person would be a kofer (n.). If he acknowleges that he doesn’t (yet) know some detail, but accepts it as much as possible, he is not a kofer.

Mistakes
Mistakes are easy to understand in the same manner. If a person is intentionally making a mistake – such as rejecting accepted mesora of what was taught at Sinai or not learning that mesorah to his ability – he would be guilty of rejecting the true Torah. On the other hand, if he has no access to the true Torah, he would not be guilty of rejecting anything.

To summerize: a “mistake” in Torah is by definition a false “non-Torah” idea and that would make it by definition “kefira”(n.) vis-a-vis the true Torah. If someone would adopt that mistake he would be “kofer”(v.) in the Torah. And if he did this purposfully, he would be a “kofer”(n.). (and someone who themselves is a “kofer” in the Torah, would be a “kofer b’ikar” of the “ikar” relevant to believing the Torah we have today is from Sinai)

Machlokes Hillel Shamai
In order to delve into kefira vis-a-vis Hillel and Shamai, you would need lengthy introductions about other core concepts of “lo bashomayim hee” and “klalei psak and horaah”. If that is interesting, we can get into it, lmk.

For the sake of this conversation, it is enough to know that debates between Gedolim on the level of Hillel and Shamai were ones of “shikil daas” not mistakes in of forgeting – chalila – mishne. The process of oral Torah is designed to enable a process of new situations to establish longstanding right and wrong of “shikil daas”. Once that process of establishment happens, that “shikil daas” enters the body of oral Torah that must be excepted by future generations.

Before (or during) that “shikil daas”. a person who is “roy l’horaah” could argue on either side bettween those competing “deyas” and he would not be kofer in Torah.

In conclusion, on the level of Hillel and Shamai, since the debate was specifically only in terms of undecided “shilik daas”, there would be no grounds for accusations of kefira towards either side.

@yankel-berel

are you being intentional dense? there is a no such thing as “kfira be’ikar”!

EVERY kefira in Torah that is “mazid” is kefira in the ikar that demands we except the (written and oral) Torah. If it’s kefira, it COULD make a person a “kofer b’ikar”

@yosefsebrow

the quote from קריינא דאיגרתא, which was the opening of this post, was specifically about VOTING not being a problem of the shalosh shevios. Interestingly, the Satmar Rebbe ztz”l never said that voting was a problem of the shalosh shevios, so the statement of the Steipler Gaon ztz”l seems to be in response to a questioner that misunderstood or otherwise misrepresented the Satmar Rebbe’s psak against voting (which indeed was for other issurim, which the Steipler concurs with, despite ultimately disagreeing with the shikil daas.)

@yankel-berel

Kefira and Kofrim

“Kefira” is the idea. “Kofer” is the person. In verb form, “being kofer” is something a person does).

A “Kofer” means someone who rejects something. A Yid who reject idolatry is “kofer” in that idolatry. In the context of our conversation, we are talking about being “kofer” in Torah.

You are confusing being a “kofer” and being a “kofer b’ikar”.

In Torah, anyone who disagrees with another teaching is “kofer” in their teaching. This is sometimes allowed and sometimes not allowed. Every posek who writes a tshiva rejecting another’s psak is “kofer” in that other psak. If someone rejects the psak of the Rambam, he is “kofer” in the Rambam. Beis Hillel was “kofer” in Beis Shamai and vice-versa.

If someone rejects the established Torah, both written and oral, we have today he is being kofer in one of the 13 ikarim (“kofer b’ikar”). This is distinctly different than not having access to the Torah (such as any sufek that Eliyuhi Hanuvi will but has not answered). In other words, if someone “should know” that something is correct Torah yet he rejects it, he would be a “kofer b’ikar” in the ikar (I think #7?) that “the Torah we have today is the Torah given at Har Sinai” . If someone was never taught (or tried but was not able to learn) something and therefore believed something false, he would NOT be called a “kofer” since he didn’t have that Torah for him himself to reject. However, his mistaken belief is still objectively “kefira”.

As has been mentioned repeatedly in these conversation, a person can believe “kefira” and still not be a “kofer”. He would only be a “kofer” if he knowing ignores or rejects Torah.

Steipler and NK

I misunderstood your claim when you wrote “the neturei karta are mistaken” as I thought you were claiming some criticisms by the Steipler specifically towards NK, as if the Steipler was calling them out on something specific to their movement. This letter (the one I translated a section of above) was not specifically about NK – although he mentions them by name for a tangential point of support – rather this letter is about the specific isser of voting in the Zionist government elections.

First the Steipler says that he leans to say that voting is a “mitzvuh rabbuh” and not (technically) usser, yet nonetheless there is vald place for kanoyus like NK (and they should continue not voting and disregard his “mitzvuh rabbuh”).

Second, the Steipler discusses the claim of voting being “modeh l’avoda zureh”, where he says that this is not a reasonable claim and would be “migaleh punim she’lo k’halachuh”. He emphasizes that even though he said above that he support the kanoyis to not vote as a needed stance in Klal Yisroel, to claim it (haluchikly) forbidden because of “modeh l’avoda zureh” would be false and lead to failure.

[There are many reasons brought by poskim that forbid voting beyond the specific point the Steipler discusses of “modeh l’avoda zureh”]

So, in summery, the Steipler is calling out all the many poskim who forbid voting as an isser because of “modeh l’avoda zureh” as being mistaken in their psak, and so you are correct that this would (as far as I know) include NK as being in the large camp of yidden who follow the psak that voting is “modeh l’avoda zureh”.

As such, I stand by what I wrote before, that if the Steipler is indeed correct and the sevureh of “modeh l’avoda zureh” is a distortion of Torah, the sevureh would of course be (by definition) kefira in Torah. If a person would somehow know that this sevureh is kefira (for example, after Eliyuhi Hanuvi is mitaretz all the kishiyos) and would chv”sh still claim it as true, they would be a kofer b’ikar. So too the reverse, if it is revealed by a nuvi that the Steipler is specifically wrong, anyone foolish enough to still reject the Truth and hold on to his mistaken psak would be a kofer.(Again, as mentioned above, there is no reason to think that this is binary right/wrong where either the Steipler or the Eida must be exclusively correct)

@yankel-berel
i didn’t see anywhere that the Steipler says that NK are mistaken. Nonetheless, if the Steipler DID claim that NK are mistaken he would INDEED be claiming that their approach is kefira in the the true Torah.

[This is true of every machlokes and shikel daas as explained in Pikei Uvos about michlokes leshma and as Rashi ended his incredible commentary this week with “ashrei sh’hibarta” which later commentators explain that the breaking of the lichos by Moshe gave us our current status of Torah Shebaal Peh that leaves the 50th gate of understanding inaccessible until Moshaich comes, when the final right and wrong will be revealed]

Once again, in your eagerness to mock Torah and our past Gedolim you confuse “kefira” and “kofer”. A “kofer” is someone who is taught that a certain idea is “kefira”, yet choosing to foolishly believe it.

If the Steipler is correct, NK might be believing in kefira, but the Steipler is not claiming they are expected to understand that. So too the reverse, if NK is indeed correct it would seem the Steipler was believing in kefira.

[This is all – perhaps foolishly – presuming a binary choice between the two]

@yankel-berel and @always_ask_questions
I’m at a bit of a loss of words because I can’t believe I have to spell this out. So maybe I’m the crazy person and you are welcome to correct me.

“Kefira” literally means a rejection of something. The way we use the word “Kefira” usually rally means “kefira in Torah” that is to say “an idea that rejects (any) part of Torah”.

Is this not obvious basic definition of the word? @yankel-berel you yourself referenced the true point that “any aveira is kefira”, so I am confused by your ramblings.

ANYTHING that is not accurate to Torah is by definition kefira. Do I really need to spell this out like this?

So, if the Steipler Geon writes that something is a mistake (in Torah), that is to say that the idea is “kefira”!

Again, I am shocked that this even needs to be said!

@yankel-berel
zionism
we are establishing definitions of terms. “Zionism” means something specific, and that WAS true when the ideology gained momentum in the late 19th century and it REMAINS true today. That specific ideology is as I described: the “establishment of an independent ‘Jewish’ state anywhere”.

The only reason that no one TODAY considers places outside Palestine is because there is currently ALREADY an existing zionist state in Palestine, so there i no fuel behind practical conversations of other lands. This is similar to the early zionist debate about the what language should be the official language of the zionist state, german? yiddish? arabic? Now that the profaned “Ivrit” has taken hold, there is zero conversation about alternatives, because why would there be? Nonetheless, the ideology (and its core) hasn’t shifted.

This can be proven if you consider the actions and reactions from the DL Zionists during the retreated from Gaza 16 years ago. The ideological protests were in no way dependent on the biblical status of the land.

This can also be proven by the number of CONTEMPORARY self declared secular zionists who give no value to “biblical” borders beyond having an excuse to the nations of the world for the zionist government they support.

In the same vein, early zionists leveraged real Torah yearnings for Eretz Yisroel to excuse their own antisemitic rebellion against Hashem. This continues to be nothing more than an excuse for zionism, not a redefinition of the ideology. (despite the many Jews who are, R”L, happy to benefit from Zionism to also be in EY and will, R”L, support Zionism as a “mitzvoh ha’bu b’avaira”)

Bottom line, no one anywhere makes the absurd claim that a secular “jew” today cannot be a zionist because the core ideology from its inception consistently until today is that zionism is the advocacy for an independent ‘Jewish’ state anywhere in the world. Practically, that means supporting the current zionist state called “Israel”.

moshiach
you will have to be more specific about what your concern is. My definition is basic and unanimous in Torah teachings.

Is there a machlokes somewhere you are aware of that you believe is germane to the conversation and the definition of “moshiach”? or are you simply cofsucating the conversation because you yourself don’t know what the fundamental belief in “moshiach” is?

If the Rambam “left something out” in one place, you should check if he doesn’t bring it in other places. If he never mentions it, you would need to explain why. If chazal teach it and there is no cholek, you will need to be very very clear and very very careful about whatever claim you might have against my listing it. (zionists, btw, don’t worry about this because they have no problem being kofer in the Torah, especially the DL priests like Kook shr”y).

gulis
yes, the Gra you mention (which I can’t confirm, but the Steipler also calls this evil state “gulis under zera yisroel reshoyim”) would label zionism as another form of shibid malchiyos, another form of gulis. So, would you agree with my definition of “gulis” as recapped in my previous comment?

@non-political
Not every DL necessarily has the status of a “kofer” even though their beliefs (the ones that establish their distinct “DL” identity vs just being a shomer Torah i’mitzvos Jew) are unanimously kefira.
There are many reasons why a person who calls himself DL might not be a certain “kofer”, such as them simply identify with the name DL but not even being aware of the kefira or alternatively they never had access to normative Jewish teachings and will quickly accept the authentic Torah as they get exposed to it.
This is all the same for all types of heretical movements that we suffer from, such as Reform or Sha”tz or MO. The title doesn’t mean much, rather as the Chazon Ish writes (YD 1), we must judge each individual according to their specific situation.

@yankel-berel
I can’t speak for a Hakatan but I would guess the reason not answering your question is because there’s no substance to it. You seem to have very little grasp on how halacha works and how to understand psak.
It’s not even complicated. I suppose it’s only that you’re so invested in your own confusion that you project it onto everything you learn.

Take for example the statement of the Steipler above.It is obvious for any Ben Torah to understand what he means.
It’s not subtle.
it’s not abstract.
It’s not obscure.
It’s very straightforward:
This idea (aschaluh d’geila) is kefira, but someone who believes it is not necessarily a kofer because of it.

So too the subject generally of puseling people who might be kofrim. Since there are no firm guidelines of knowing who is or is not a kofer based on their beliefs (see Chazon Ish YD1), we cannot make a general rule about it. Of course any Baal Nefesh should be careful who he chooses to associate with and who touches his wine. But, there are times when one must be careful and linient with the things that are hidden in a person heart. This is exactly the psak of the Aruch L’ner in his tshiva about the mechalile shabbos of his day and yayin nesech.

@yankel-berel

I have attempted, because I demand from myself, to provide definitions that are intrinsic and fundamental to each concept. So, the definition of zionism – as per this standard – must be unique and consistent to that specific ideology, meaning it applies to the first founders as well as each successive generation that carried their disgusting banner. And the inverse is true, meaning here if someone believes jews should NOT establish their own “Jewish” state anywhere in the world, they could never be called a zionist. While some have emphasized other ideas, working land, becoming rich, making peace, killing others, becoming secular, becoming religious, etc, the core defining feature of what is or is not “zionism” remains the same: establishing a “Jewish” state.

so too the definition of gulis I provided is consistent across all meforshim, both those meforshim who say that the years of Bayis Shaini were gulis and those who say they were geila.

However your feedback reveals a mistake you are making, perhaps in light of your reliance on artscroll translations. In Torah, “gulis” is a state of our relationship with Hashem, also called “gulis haShechina”. Pointing to the quote you mentioned, gulis is the reality of our sins standing in the way, and gulis is the means of fixing – and thereby removing – those sins. And this is not “added layers of meaning”, rather this is fundamental to the concept of gulis and geila, as chazal teach and is an explicit pasuk that gulis cannot end without tshiva.

A symptom of gulis and a key mechanism of gulis being the tikun is our dispersion amongst various nations and our exile out of eretz yisroel. Yet the reality of gulis exists even when jews gather together and even when we are in the physical borders of EY. This is why many haluches are different in EY during gulis vs geila. This is also why Yerishalmis today still say “leshuneh habu b’Yerishalyim”.

So, I would like to update my definition of “gulis” to: Gulis is a Divine decree for the Jews to suffer under “shibid malchiyis” specifically because of our sins to Hashem that caused “Gulis Shechina”. The gulis is the Divine mechanism towards our tikin and will necessarily only end when Jews do teshiva.

Regarding the definition of Moshiach, I omitted another distinct point worth mentioning: “מקבץ נדחי ישראל” as the Rambam says it, which means gathering all the dispersed Jews together. I’ve added it below.

RECAP:
Zionism is the movement which advocated for establishment of an independent ‘Jewish’ state anywhere.

Moshiachis a direct descendent of Duvid Hamelech who is a nuvi of Hashem (with all the established conditions of a nuvi) who brings back all Jews to tshiva (keeping all miztvos), can judge and issue psak with his smell, rebuild the Beis Hamikdash, gather all dispersed Jews together, and restore Malchis Beis Duvid as King. There are more details brought in chazal, such as Eliyuhi Hanuvi (also a nuvi of Hashem, of course) will publicly announce the arrival of Moshiach before he reveals himself, and all those details as well, even if here is not the place to expound on them all fully.

Gulis is a Divine decree for the Jews to suffer under “shibid malchiyis” specifically because of our sins to Hashem that caused “Gulis Shechina”. The gulis is the Divine mechanism towards our tikin and will necessarily only end when Jews do teshiva.

Please let me know if we are in agreement with the three definitions and I will continue to the next step.