ujm

huju: Truth Social has a cherry-picked Board by The Donald (consisting of his son and loyal members of his Presidential Administration) and they are specifically permitted to waive the six month waiting period for him.

Several times people have thanked me for helping them change their perspective of the issue being discussed.

I heard that Mordechai Ben David comes here once in awhile. Hopefully this will get his attention.

The singers who composed tunes for a song to shelo asani goy should do the same for shelo asani isha.

Rabbosai, it looks like huju might have had a point. The Donald’s “wealth” (to use huju’s scare quotes in context) has gone down $1 billion in net value just today, as the value of his DJT holdings are now “only” worth $4 billion instead of yesterday’s $5 billion.

Anyone who so rapidly lost $1 billion in so short a period is worthy of our Tzedaka. Please donate to The Donald’s presidential campaign to cover his expenses.

Or simply buy up a lot of DJT stock with your favorite online brokerage firm.

This way DJT will go up again, allowing President Trump to cash out a few billion dollars to reinvigorate his presidential campaign, as candidates are legally permitted to put as much money into their presidential campaigns as they want to.

Tizku L’Mitzvos

CS: “Similarly, throughout history, when communal standards fell in a certain area, even very important areas such as sota and murderers, the response was Sanhedrin shutting down, not executing however many Jews were unfortunately involved. Same with the Rambam I just mentioned.”

The Rambam writes that if a Beis Din needs to execute 100 people per day, they can and should do so.

LF: Are you still in touch?

HaLeiVi: How can you subscribe to “2”, considering the fact that Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were never given to the State of Israel by the UN resolution or any other international or national authorization?

In fact, the UN and the world has consistently and always stated that Israel has no right, and never had any rights, to continue to occupy any areas outside of the Green Line.

And regarding your last point, you seem to imply that you think the State is a “great thing” Why?

And, as mentioned other times, the RBS”O also wanted to happen and allowed the Holocaust, Tach Vtat, the Crusades, the Churban, the Inquisition, multiple expulsions and blood libels. The fact that “it happened” doesn’t demonstrate that we’re happy about it and it’s great.

Democrats support Hamas.

Between Friday and Monday the value of The Donald’s portion of Trump Social has risen by $500 million, from $3.5 billion to $4 billion.

One man, half a billion richer over one weekend. Not shabby at all.

“Of course it’s important, just not something you exclude someone from a community for, any more than say lashon hara which is actually an explicit lav. There is no section of Gemara or anywhere else discussing tznius dress, whereas forbidden speech is.”

CS: So if a Chabad Shulcha regularly goes shopping in non tznius clothing, they’d be no consequences and she’d be allowed to continue representing Lubavitch? What if she regularly ate in public chicken-and-cheese sandwiches? There’s no explicit lav against eating chicken-and-cheese. What if she regularly drove to her Chabad House on Shabbos?

Where are you drawing the line? Why a bathing suit no but a short dress TMI in public when she sits, walks,  edited or perhaps even when she walks has no repercussions regarding her representing Chabad?

all bold are edits for the benefit of those who are/should be careful with their ears

HaLeiVi: In fact, the oaths were — and continue to continuously be — unambiguously violated. Even if you want to discount everything else, you have to acknowledge the fact that the Zionists occupied Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria without ever having received any “permission” to do so from Goyim, the Brits, the UN or the world. Indees, they all have always been opposed to this occupation and continue to remain opposed to its continued Israeli occupation in violation of the oaths.

However, the Maharal is misquoted. You can find it in נצח ישראל סוף פרק כד. He writes that even if we are being killed we still shouldn’t try to break out and go against the oaths. (Not a question of Pikuach Nefesh, since it won’t help.) This was misquoted and mistranslated as if he saying that even if we are being forced, under pain of death, we still should hold strong and not violate this sin, hence those must be akin to the three cardinal sins. Check Rav Hartman’s footnotes there.

I don’t see a practical difference even with your correction regarding the Maharal. Either way, the Maharal is saying not to violate the oaths even if we are going to get killed, otherwise. Which clearly indicates the oaths are binding and they were violated by creating the Zionist State. And, arguably, are continuing to be violated.

AAQ: The original one are still in Yerushlayim. NK is Litvish, Nusach Ashkenaz, founded by descendents of Talmidei HaGRA.

LerntminTayrah: I’m not sure what stira you’re imagining. The Satmar Rebbe asked Rav Avigdor Miller zt’l to write up some of the advertisements against the State of Israel that he put in the New York Times. The Rebbe himself attended protests against the State. All this is in the public record and can be attested to by the multitudes of those who were around during the Rebbe’s lifetime. He never changed his shitta one iota.

Also, he was never against Neteurei Karta. In fact, the founder of NK – Rav Amrom Blau shlita – was very close to the Rebbe. The clowns today who call themselves NK and attend demonstrations organized by Goyim are not the original or even the real NK; they just usurped the NK name. The Rebbe didn’t speak against the NK; he spoke against clowns who acted inappropriately. And the Rebbe organized his own protests against the State of Israel that were only attended by frum Yidden; he never joined, or authorized anyone to join, any protests setup by Goyim (like the clowns you’re referring to do.)

But he certainly did want to the Goyim to know that the Orthodox Jewish position was in opposition to the State of Israel and the State’s policies, actions and public positions. That was the very purpose of his newspaper advertisements and public protests.

Avira, you write: “It is true that the brisker rov and his talmidim did not stress rhe shvuos; they focused more on how twisted nationalism was, the עקירת הדעת that it champions, its “new” jew who is not a galus yid, its high casualties in terms of deaths…

But all this doesn’t apply anymore.

HaLeiVi: Of course it still applies. There’s no reason it would have stopped applying. The Zionists are still around. The so-called religious Zionists are still around. And they both still advocate everything they advocated before the State (other than creating a State). The State exists, but the reason Gedolei Yisroel called Zionism as being Avoda Zora was hardly only because they wanted to establish a State.

Dear EnglisherPolished: I was wondering if you could help me understand some of the terminologies you threw around in your OP:

1. Why do you think Americans look down on the English? I’ve always had the impression Englishmen are looked upon with sophistication.

2. What are a couple of prominent examples of what you refer to as “most good things come from America”?

3. Can you define in simpler terms what a “circus tent” hat is?

4. Please share what are Cole Hann shoes, Swiss shoes, what is the difference between them and what are Lululemon pants and how they’re different than non-Lululemon pants.

Thank you in advance for the education.

How old was Vashti when her head was chopped off?

Why did the government stop considering the number of children in college for FAFSA?

Yankel: While the British controlled Eretz Yisroel they NEVER authorized the establishment of a Jewish state. And the reason the British quit Eretz Yisroel is because the Zionist terrorized them with maiming and killing British soldiers (as well as Arabs.) The Zionists were fighting the controlling authority of Eretz Yisroel, in violation of the Shavuous, in order to establish their state.

Yankel: The British proclaimed Balfour while the Ottomans controlled Eretz Yisroel. After the British took over they didn’t declare further support of that declaration. But even more importantly, it is 100% absolutely indisputable that the British never ever authorized the creation of a Jewish state while they controlled Eretz Yisroel. They opposed the creation of a Jewish state in the land they controlled, while they controlled it.

And the only reason the British quit Eretz Yisroel was because they were terrorized out by the Zionists who were murdering and maiming and otherwise fighting the British and the Arabs while the British controlled Eretz Yisroel.

So it absolutely clear that the Zionists were going against the Shavuous by fighting the controlling authority of Eretz Yisroel. And the only reason the controlling authority quit was because of the militant actions of the Zionists.

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.

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.

Yankel: At best, the State is like a mamzer. We don’t kill a mamzer.

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.