Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
LerntminTayrah: The Satmar Rebbe never changed his position even one iota. His public protests against the State of Israel always were organized by himself and always only had Yidden attending them. He never once joined any protests by Goyim.
Furthermore, your little maaisele regarding HaGaon Rav Hunter ztvk’l being upset with HaGaon HaRav Miller ztvk’l (or having anything to do with the changing of the guards as Mashgiach in Chaim Berlin) over his writing the advertisements for Satmar to place in the New York Times is completely inaccurate and with no foundation. In fact, the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Hunter were very close with each other. Indeed, it was Rav Hunter who asked the Satmar Rebbe to write his Psak against artificial insemination to oppose Rav Moshe ztvk’l’s Psak on that topic.
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.
LerntminTayrah: That isn’t much of an “admission”. If a mamzer is born, you can no longer do anything to unborn him.
AAQ: The original one are still in Yerushlayim. NK is Litvish, Nusach Ashkenaz, founded by descendents of Talmidei HaGRA.
Dear EnglisherPolished: Is it at all plausible that all of which you speak may, at best, only be applicable to what might be referred to as the “modern Yeshivish”, to the exclusion of, perhaps, what you might call the “shpitz Yeshivish”?
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.
Unfortunately, the response to these complaints have been weak. In truth, trying to formulate logical and mathematical explanations for any moral rule will sound out of touch. Murder is worse than just inhibiting someone’s right to live. Can you explain why?
The answer is quite simple. The reason for any and all moral rules is simply “because that is the will of G-d.”
Whatever G-d wants, is moral to do. Whatever G-d prohibits, is immoral to do.
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 rav chaim soloveitchik said repeatedly that zionism is indeed avodah zara. Rav elchonon wrote that many times too.”
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.
LerntminTayrah: The Satmar Rebbe ztvk’l regularly paid for advertisements in the New York Times to state Orthodox Jewry’s opposition to the State of Israel. He also multiple times organized protests outside the Israeli Consulate in Manhattan as well as other protests against the State of Israel.
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.
CS: Are you trying to say that violating Tznius is not as bad as violating Shabbos? Do you agree that both are equally bad?
How old was Vashti when her head was chopped off?
The reality on the ground is that a larger percentage of frum Jews in America are consolidating in centralized areas such as the greater Lakewood area, the greater Monsey area and the greater NYC Metropolitan area. Lakewood, especially. But even the frum Flatbush community was growing until about 15 years ago or so. Nowadays it is mostly Lakewood and Monsey.
But what is happening out of towns is that many frum communities OOT are either shrinking outright or stagnating. This is because the young frum (chareidi) couples from out of town are moving to Lakewood in significant numbers shortly after their weddings.
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.
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!