Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Haleivi: “But it happened, one way or the other. And Hashem was aware of it, I’m told. No, we didn’t outsmart His Galus plans.”
The Holocaust, tach vtat, the crusades, the inquisition, blood libels, etc all happened one way or the other. And Hashem was aware of it, I’m also told. No, just because it happened doesn’t mean we’re happy about it.
1. The Balfour Declaration was made by the British before they controlled Eretz Yisroel. The Ottomans were still in charge at the time. It would have been no different than if Russia had declared support for a homeland. The declaration doesn’t help regarding the Shavuous.
2. By time the British took over Eretz Yisroel from the Ottomans, the British no longer supported establishing a Jewish homeland. So that also demonstrates no support from the Goyim for a Jewish state.
3. During British rule Zionist terrorists were murdering British soldiers to pressure the British to allow a Jewish state. This demonstrates they were already violating the Shavuous by fighting the Goyim, who opposed their state, to form a state.
4. The UN never controlled Eretz Yisroel. The only reason the UN had a vote on whether to authorize a Jewish state, was because the Zionist terrorized the British into abandoning Eretz Yisroel. And local Goyim of Palestine opposed the formation of a Jewish state.
So even though in my first comment on this thread I explained many multiple reasons why the Shavuous were not, and could not be, abrogated, even on the Zionists on convoluted terms trying to farnagle an excuse why the Shavuous could be ignored due to the Goyim being okay with it, it doesn’t work and falls squarely flat on its face.
chiefshmerel: Zionism was founded by Nathan Birnbaum in 1883, before Leon Pinsker. Birnbaum is the one who actually recruited and influenced Theodore Herzl to become a Zionist. Birnbaum was elected the first Secretary-General of the Zionist Organization (WZO) at the First Zionist Congress, which he helped organize.
In the 1910s Birnbaum became a Baal Teshuva. He completely renounced Zionism and became a very vocal anti-Zionist. And he was appointed as the General Secretary of the Agudas Yisroel.
Which is the very reason why the Zionists wrote Birnbaum, who founded Zionism, out of the history of Zionism. What could be more embarrassing to them that their very founder became a Baal Teshuva, an anti-Zionist and a leader in Agudas Yisroel?
It took Communism about 75 years after they took power to fall in the USSR. Perhaps it’ll take about the same time frame for Zionism to fall.
chiefsmerel: The difference between the various Zionist factions was about the same as the differences between the different communist factions, such as between the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, the Anarchists and Socialist Left Revolutionists.
Perfidy and Hecht is and was exactly as Avira described above.
Yankel: At best, the State is like a mamzer. We don’t kill a mamzer.
smerel: that’s nonsense. Hecht and Perfidy is merely a footnote among the Gedolim and others who express the crimes of zionism. His book might contain various truths, and this might be mentioned sometimes, but he is very very far from being central to anyone.
First, The Oaths are quoted L’Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel – the majority of Jews at the time – did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh’s call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon – warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.
Second, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.
Third, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says You may nto do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V’Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)
Fourth, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to makign a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doign so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.
The Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more! Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Ephrain, Chazal say, were all hunted donw and killed in the deset for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.
The Oaths are brought down l’halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years.
The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It’s clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.
The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths.
The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us wuth torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.
And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel).
The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is nto included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing.
R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced SHmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the “shem hameforash” and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.
And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b’chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim’s Oath anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says.
What I wrote above is not rocket science. It’s pretty obvious. Takes no genius or encyclopedic knowledge to understand it. Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violate dtheirs but we still cannot violate ours.
It’s just plain dishonesty that would make people come up with this.
ubiq: Why would you say it doesn’t hold water? Shulchan Aruch paskens that a wife is exempt from Kibud Av V’Eim, which is not only a m’doraisa but is actually one of the Aseres Hadibros!, due to her obligations of serving her husband exempts her from her father and mother.
According to your line of thought, you should argue that she should still be chayiv in Kibud Av V’Eim when she isn’t serving her husband. Yet the Halacha is that she’s not.
(The husband’s obligations of Kibud Av V’Eim precedes his obligations to his wife.)
Zushy for Mayor תשפ”ד!
ubiq: Two minor points:
At a chasuna it’s usually difficult to have an area for a minyan where you can have a mechitza.
And, while it might involve less effort than taking care of multiple children, even after the children left the house the wife’s first obligation is to serve her husband. (That’s the reason she’s halachicly exempt from Kind Av V’Eim, while married, since she must serve her husband first.)
Jude: It would be more compelling if you brought a S”A or Psak Halacha regarding women attending daily.
What else is the point that almost ever Shul in the world has the עזרת נשים ?
What geographic region are you based in?
Who is the original source of the claim that Sara Schnirer learnt Gemora?
pekak: What I wrote is the actual Halacha.
Yankel: It isn’t an “argument”; it’s a befeirush Chazal, Shulchan Aruch and Rambam. And Rashi explains it to mean that she’ll be led to engage in immorality.
A child is obligated to follow his father’s minhagim.
AAQ: If Rav Ahron had sent a shliach to borrow a book from the New York Public Library that wasn’t readily available elsewhere, and you found the index card from the NYPL with his name on it, would you take that to mean he gave his haskama to the NYPL, including its indecent and obscene materials?
There have been many talmidei chachomim who have utilized the JTS library in Manhattan, which is even more comprehensive than the YU library; yet I can assure you than none of them intended their borrowing a book there to indicate that Conservative “Judaism” is not kefira.
CS: “We are not ba’alei tshuva… We BH have a mesorah.”
Didn’t you mention in an earlier comment that your parent is a BT?
Rocky: Your information is incorrect. Here are some of the quotes you are asking for:
Rav Aharon Kotler ZTV’L, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
Rav Shimon Schwab wrote (Mitteilungen, Bulletin of Khal Adas Yeshurun April/May 1989): “Sometimes the Modern Orthodox halachic foolishness which is flirting with the anti-Torah establishment, may border on heresy. This is all part and parcel of the spiritual confusion of the dark ages in which we happen to live. However, in addition to the legitimate shitos we have discussed, there is yet another, more modern version in vogue called “Torah Umaada”. Apparently this is identical with Torah Im Derech Eretz, especially since both claim a belief in the priority of Torah over maada. Both seems exactly alike, but like two left gloves which cannot be worn together, they don’t fit! . . .”
(Selected Essays pp.160-162):
“Rav Hirsch ZT’L has inscribed two emblems on his banner. One is Torah Im Derech Eretz and the other is the so-called “Austritt”, which means severance, or total and non-recognition of any type of institutionalized heresy, “minus” or apikursus. This is also a resolution not to contribute, participate in, or support any cause which accords validity to the disbelief in Hashem or to the denial of the authenticity of Torah shebiksav or Torah shebaal peh. In other words, “Austritt” states that the Torah is our sovereign ruler, and it makes us independent of all those who deny its Divine origin…“To summarize, Torah im derech eretz without Austritt is considered treif l’chol hadeios! Even if you call it Torah Umaada.”
The battle against YU by the Yeshiva world is not, nor was it, a simple issue of Halachic or Hashkafic disagreement which can be dismissed as routine if accompanied with the obligatory respect for the opposing view, as per ailu v’ailu etc. Not so. Rather, YU was viewed as a deviant, dangerous, and anti-Torah entity that doesn’t deserve the respect of a legitimate Torah position, even a mistaken one. Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL once commented about Rav Soloveitchik, “He is respnsible for the majority of Tumah in America.” Also from the same Rav Aharon, “He destroyed an entire generation of Jews.” Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L said many times that he will not enter YU because it is bad. His son, Rav Schneur ZT’L, followed suit. Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT’L also, when he came to America in the ’30s, was invited to speak in YU, and he refused to even walk in to the place.
Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was wrong on any number of issues.
Dorah: As long as you’re not committing a crime, you have nothing to worry about.
SR: How do you define “win”? Does Russia win and Ukraine lose if at the end of this war Russia controls more Ukrainian territory than it did in 2021? Than in 2013? Is the only definition of Russia losing if it loses every inch of Ukrainian territory it is occupying?
Also, it is rather highly unlikely Russia will go after any country that’s part of NATO. Even if it wins in Ukraine.
A Yirei Shmayim will be always be a better candidate than an alternative.
As to the immediate question at hand, America publicly, strongly and explicitly warned Ukraine for six months before the war that Russia WILL attack them in war. And the idiot Zelenaky kept publicly replying up to the day of the invasion “no way, Russia is just trying to scare us but will keep the peace.”
Russia and Ukraine are both bad guys, from both a historical and contemporary perspective.
Ukraine is the worse of the two, especially historically but even contemporarily.
They’re both made for each other. Let their mutual “love” continue.
All this is the greatest proof in support of the Halacha that prohibits teaching women.
Dorah: Would you vote for
1. Stalin over Trump?
2. Pol Pot over George Bush?
3. Kim Jong-Un over Ted Cruz?
4. Biden over Republican Abraham Lincoln?
5. Jimmy Carter over Republican Teddy Roosevelt?
A simple yes or no for the five above scenarios is sufficient. Your reasoning can easily be deduced from your yes or no. The only additional detail worthwhile adding for any of the above, is if you’d sit out the election and not vote even if your non-vote could potentially, effectively, let “the other guy” win.
If America’s drug crisis was reduced to the level experienced in the frum community, America would be hailing the end of the crisis and a resounding victory in the war against drugs.
WB BaalHabooze!
Dofi: The Rambam in Hilchos Ishus 21:10 is saying that Beis Din can administer corporal punishment to the wife, in such circumstances. NOT that the husband can.
CS: Please do not lookup it Gemora, as the Shulchan Aruch, Rambam and virtually all the Rishonim and Achronim who rule on the subject pasken that girls/women learning Torah Shebal Peh leads to Tiflus, which Rashi explains is immorality. (Something we unfortunately see came all too true, in many of the communities that in recent decades disregarded this Halacha.)
And the psak from the Chofetz Chaim allowing a limited exception due to the fact that many females were going off the derech, specifically did not permit breaching the aforementioned Halacha in regards to teaching girls Mishnayos or Gemorah.
CTL: Is this Pesach a good time for us to come to the compound? Whenever works for the CTL family, I’ll try to make work for us.
Don’t blame the messenger because you don’t like the message. I didn’t author the Shulchan Aruch OR the Rambam.
user:176 — So, then, why are they going to Orlando?
Jack, what was different between 1967 and 2005?
Speaking of shivgers… What is the difference between an in-law and an outlaw?
.pǝʇuɐʍ ǝɹɐ sʍɐlʇno :ɹǝʍsuⱯ
Hadorah: Why are you against the IDF permanently occupying Gaza?
Anything to make a buck.
AJ: Halacha describes who is an apikorus. There’s morning wrong and everything right with calling out an apikorus as an apikorus. The Chofetz Chaim, the gold standard of what is and isn’t Loshon Hora, clearly paskens that everyone should publicly humiliate an apikorus.
The latest Peach getaway advertised in Mishpacha and Ami is in Alexandria… Egypt.
Hadorah: I paraphrased the Halacha in the same simple language it is written in the Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam. I didn’t embellish or add any commentary.
Aseh maat: Sadly, I must admit that your “suspicion” is accurate. I’m sorry for being a man. I’ll try better next time.
Until then I’ll try to remember that men have no right to talk about halachos regarding women. I’ll start correcting this error of thousands of years of male misogyny by going around to all the Butei Medrashim and Yeshivos that I can to confiscate all Seder Noshim in Mishnayos, Mesechtes Sotah in the Gemoras, of course Mishneh Torah Sefer Nashim and all other such Seforim authored exclusively by (yuck) men.
“How is this relevant at all”
It’s directly related. If there’s a proscription of them then being outside in public altogether too much, then kal vchomer you shouldn’t be plastering their pictures all over the place to be displayed 24/7. (Even if you disagree with this very strong correlation, you certainly can’t deny this is at least a strong argument.)
“and what purpose does it have here other than to breed negativity for your entertainment?”
Why would you assume it’s designed to breed negativity, when all that was said was nothing more than a simple Halacha from Shulchan Aruch and Rambam (that is also in the Gemora and throughout the Halacha seforim throughout the generations without anyone making a machlokes against it.) Unless this Halacha makes you uncomfortable.
Halachos don’t make me uncomfortable. You do.
The Rambam paskens that a husband shouldn’t allow allow his wife to leave the house more than once or twice a month. The Shulchan Aruch paskens the same, except instead of giving a specific number (once or twice) he paskens not to allow her out “too much”.
How is this relevant at all and what purpose does it have here other than to breed negativity for your entertainment?Paging @Sam Klein.
Reb Elezer: Whose posts are still missing?
little froggie: posting timestamp reflects vwhen a moderator approved a post (from whichever time zone in the world he may have been in) rather than when it was submitted.
It’s silly to be silly.
Friends let friends be silly.