Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@AAQ
not sure why you keep on [deliberately ?] ignoring the multitudes who were forced away from religion by the medina ?
.
.@AAQ
Religious soldiers from the Givati Brigade’s advanced training course have recently been deployed in the city of Hebron, including securing the Cave of the Patriarchs and its surroundings.
The soldiers were assigned to joint guard shifts with female Border Police officers, without being given the option to choose an alternate assignment that would fit their religious way of life.
According to them, there was no prior offer to guard separately, and some were even surprised to find they had been assigned this way without being asked in advance. One of the soldiers said, “We received no offer to guard separately. They simply put us on shifts with female Border Police officers, which does not correspond to our way of life.”
The Hotem organization, which promotes traditional Jewish values, stated, “There is no responsible body in the IDF for the sanctity of the military, and the progressive agenda of gender mixing is given precedence and harms observant soldiers.”
“There is no way to speak about recruiting haredim into the IDF without respecting the observant soldiers who are already serving and giving their lives”
—
you cannot trust the IDF to accommodate religious soldiers .
this is happening again and again ….
.
.re mashiach – continuation :
A] just fyi : within DL circles , there are constant references about kdushat erets yisrael , the mitsvot of yishuv ha’arets and kibush ha’arets
this obviously could not be applicable at all , about any other land all over the globe.
.
.
.we are debating the definition of certain terms
in the course of this debate , you are very liberal in your use of all types of adjectives which are not at all necessary to our debate
and by the way also totally misplaced
—re mashiach , yes – any hazal not quoted by rambam in yad , there has to be a reason for the omission
all commentators on rambam over the generations worked hard to find explanations for rambams omissions in his yad
and if we cannot find a reason why the holy rambam omitted something , then the fault lies with us, not with the rambam
that’s the age old approach towards the words of rishonim who are kemalachim …
.
..
מי שסובר שהשינוי משלטון נכרים לשלטון חופשים ורשעים מזרע ישראל הוא אתחלתא דגאולה אינו אלא טועה אבל לא רשע ח”ו שיהא
מותר לדבר עליו להר”ר ולבזותו ברביםwhoever thinks that this government is athaltah d/g is only “mistaken” , but not a rasha has veshalom ….
its assur to speak lashon hara about him ….ad kan the staiplers words
comes somejew and ADDS to the staipler —- if he is “mistaken” , that means , according to somejew , that this should be classified as kfira ….
that’s quite a jump ….
Mr somejew –
a mistake is nothing more than a … mistake , but not kfira ….
.
.hatam soffer is reputed to have warned his talmidim : I do not care if you misappropriate and use my hidushim in your own name
but I do warn you : I will never tolerate you saying your own hidushim in my name …
that is , in essence , what somejew is doing here .
he inserts his own opinions in to the staiplers words , even though the staipler never said them
and then somejew turns around and ‘proves’ his own opinions are correct — you see , the staipler says the same ….
.
.bottom line, athalta d/g is not kfira , its a mistake
the proponent of athalta d/g, while mistaken, is not a kofer , not a rasha
he is kasher le’edut accepted by all rabanim and it is an issur hamur to speak ill of him
unlike , lehavdil , a proponent of the kfira of reform or the kfira of trinity, who is a clear kofer and passul le’edut all over the globe in all batei din
.
.
.
.I never said that athalta d/g is valid
like I never said that ka’as or anger is valid
.
.both are related to kfira to a certain degree
both are bichlal amitecha
both , there is a hiyuv gamur min hatorah to love them
both , there is an issur hamur not talk lashon hara about them
.
.
.
hu asher amartihu asher katuv bedivrei hastaipler
.
.while the factors you quote did exist ,
you are [deliberately?] ignoring the clear role zionism played in the decline of religion pre WW2 in eastern europe and in EY ….
.
.haavara plan was a ‘great success’ ….
—
one can wonder whether without the haavara plan , the nazi economy would have rebounded so quickly from the great depression ???
who knows ??
this rebounding, fueled subsequent nazi aggression ….
one of the mysteries of world history ….
.
.@AAQ
have a look in dugma midarkei avi , in the three volume set of sifrei hafets hayim
where hafets hayim’s son quotes his fathers opinion about the balfour declaration .
.
.rav kook is quoted by the imrei emet as saying about himself that he not a tsioni and also not a ‘mizrachist’ ….
printed in osef michtavim.
there might be other sources . I don’t know of them ….
.
.rav shlomo zalman was not ‘in favor of’ the state .
that is plainly inaccurate .
.
‘the aguda’ did not sign the decleration of independence. r yitshak meir levin signed in his personal capacity .he also happened to be the chairman of aguda.
those are the facts.
it is your interpretation that ‘the aguda’ signed .
stick to the facts , please , and then add the interpretation.
.
.some minor adjustments re your other definitions –
mashiach – rambam does not bring all of your descriptions in hilchot mlachim although they do appear in hazal .
could be he held that those left out are in dispute between various different hazal and thats why he left them out …
.
re galut – agree , but the gra said that after the shib’ud of the four malhuyot we will suffer from a shib’ud under the erev rav mizera yisraelwhich fits the present situation where the ma’aminim are a persecuted minority under erev rav kofrim mizera bnei yisrael.
that is also a form of galut
.
.disagree re definition of zionism
our dabate is about how to view the zionist of today – not the zionist of the congress of basel some 130 years ago.
the zionist of today is the one who advocates for a jewish state and its welfare in EY
no zionist today advocates for a state in uganda , birobidzhan or anywhere else.
this debate has to be had on a realistic basis .
that is today’s reality and our debate should reflect that reality.
.
.I cannot understand why you keep on misquoting the steipler as if he said that atchalta d/g is kfira ???
he NEVER said that .
aderaba — he says that it is NOT kfira.
honesty above all else ….
.
.
.has veshalom . I did not make anything up.
tanya writes that anyone who gets angry is kofer in hashgacha , because if would have proper emuna
he would realize that anything which happens is straight from the RBSHO ,
that’s the explanation of the connection between ka’as and avoda zara
nu , what do think , mr somejew ? does that mean that a ko’ess is yatsa michlal amitecha ?
has veshalom .
.similar thing is mentioned in writings of r chaskel levenstein , he says :
any avera is really kefira , because if he would have proper emuna and understands who the RBSHO really is
and what an avera really is , it would be impossible to do any chet at all
so again – what do think , mr somejew ? does that mean that anyone who committed one chet ,is yatsa michlal amitecha ?
has veshalom.
.
.as continuation of previous post …
its clear from the above that certain things could be called ‘kefira’
but they are not at the level of ‘kfira’ in the context of yatsa michlal amitecha
I think that what I wrote here , is pashut
it does not make a difference to me how you prefer to label those two different levels of kfira
the important fact here is that there are two levels of kfira , both are labeled as ‘kfira’
but have two different meanings depending on the context
so – how do we differentiate between the two ?
when does the word kfira mean the “trinity type” of kfira and
when does this word mean the “ka-as of the tanya” type of kfira ?
the answer is very simple – the proof is in the pudding
look at how halacha treats it , an ed who is a ko’es is kasher
whereas an ed who believes in trinity is pasul .
as simple as can be .
so the question is – what is our athalta d/g believer ? like a trinity believer , as katan would have us believe ?
again , the proof is in the same pudding – ALL rabanim and batei din agree , he is kasher le’edut !
so there you are – its not my psak , – it is the rabbanim’s psak ….
.
.
.@AAQ
your description of zionism and its supposed benefits are totally warped and not resemble reality at all.
as I told you many times … you jump to opinions first and only then to the facts .
with the result that you grossly misinterpret the facts
your said misrepresentation of the facts are subsequently used by you
to back up your previous opinions which were not based on objective facts in the first place….
in other words – until you do not change your modus operandi
you will be perpetually stuck in a self delusional world .
.
.… had the wicked Zionists not invaded and not agitated …
—
again ….. katan is not being honest here …
zionists did not ‘invade’ EY .
they immigrated .
huge difference .
katan should remember – even when he fights against evil [according to his opinion] he should stick to accuracy …
the facts don’t change according to ideology …
facts are facts … and should be quoted accurately .
.
.
.katan quotes selectively — that’s besides his frequent misrepresenting of basic facts and history .
he will never quote imrei emet in osef michtavim where writes in praise of rav kuk …
he will never quote imrei emet writing about political rights for the jews in EY as ‘tov’ …
he will never react to the essence of his opponent’s argument or logic
all katan does , is : repeat , repeat … and again repeat his obsolete cliche’s
he seems a very nice guy as a person , but a terrible debater …
.
.…. as per the gimmel shevuos which are, of course, fully in effect according to all.
—joke of the century ….
“according to all” should be rephrased as — “according to Satmar Rav and other chashuva rabbanim … ”
but according to avnei nezer , rav zevin , possibly ohr sameach , and according to shulhan aruch , tur and rambam [acording to avnei nezer] , the pashtut of rav chaim vital — not .
high time to be honest …
.repeat –
high time to stop burying your head in the sand
.no rav no dayan , no bet hora’a anywhere on the globe ever considered a get with fully frum RZ witnesses as pasul
the subsequent children are kesherim lavo bakahal
this psak is supported by REW z’l , the source you yourself are relying on ….
.
whereas a get with fully shomrei mitsvot believers in catholicism as edim is pasul in ALL batei din around the globe
the subsequent children are proper mamzerim and pesulim lavo bakahal
.
.
someone who gets angry is connected to a’z
RZ is connected to a’z [according to REW z’l]both in a hashkafic sense
with a hiyuv min hatorah to love both of them
.catholicism is a’z in a halachik sense
with no hiyuv .
.huge difference.
.
.
.Why is katan totally ignoring the substance of this post ???
.
.
.it is Strange for me how you regularly confuse the distinction between halachik terms and haskafic terms
halacha is absolute
someone who believes in halachik avoda zara is halachically not amitecha , no issur lashon hara
someone who believes in haskafic “kefira” is halachically included in amitecha , with an issur lashon hara.
he has hashkafot pesulot but we are mehuyav to love him , EVEN IF THERE ARE NO EXCUSES OF TINOK SHENISHBAH or other excuses…
that’s what the staipler writes .
athaltah d/g is a hashkafa pesula and is wrong , but that hashkafa is not considered halachik kefira
therefore its forbidden to speak lashon hara about him , as he is included in amitecha
whereas believing in the trinity is halachik kefira and takes the person out of amitecha and therefore its permitted to speak lashon hara about him.
whatever I wrote is not my chidush , it is merely a quote from the staipler
and is accepted practise in all batei din all over the globe
all rebbeim of gur without exception [!] consider all fully frum dati leumi jews as halachically included in ‘amitecha’
even a ten year old knows that
and that is referring to fully frum mizrachisten with kipot serugot halacha lema’aseh here and now .
.
.
to dispute that , is like disputing that the sun exists ….
.
.
.somejew > Gulis : This definition aligns very well with the makoros in Torah that point out that the gulis of buvel has never yet fully ended (as Bais Sheni was not fully independent from shibid malchiyis).
—Have a look at rashi sanhedrin 97 where he explains that many years of bayit sheni period was characterized by ‘kavod’ because they were politically independent and self governing … without shibud malhuyot .
—
umipnei chata’enu galinu me’artsenu venitrachaknu …. galut translates as exile in english
but you are correct that there are added meanings to the term galut as is mentioned by the gra that after the 4 galuyot under the 4 malhuyot, there will be a fifth galut under the erev rav mizera bnei yisrael , which came true in our days in EY itself
so we do see that galut could be in EY itself too.
there was a gezera min hashamayim of exile and shib’ud malhuyot , as evidenced by the facts on the ground and as stated by hazal.
.
.Re the definition of zionism
You are correct about their founders view about a state not in EY .
However he was overruled at the time , and now no one is even dreaming about a state anywhere else.
the zionism of today is squarely centered on EY .
and that was the intent of the original question , how is zionism of today against any of the ikarim ?
.
.Dear square root
you want me to quote the page no ?
I want you to recant or delete you motsi shem ra rant about haredim ….
deal ???
.
.AAQ
you misunderstand my point
this expansion of self appropriated power by the SC, not authorized by the sovereign , is clearly illegal
there are no two ways about it
if they overstep their authority they are illegal
if they act within their authority they are legal
all talk about coalitions and comparisons to other systems is nothing more than irrelevant hot air
the current draft is based on this very same expansion of self appropriated power by the SC, not authorized by the sovereign
so the current draft is plainly illegal
basic reasoning , based on cold reality
.
now , how to deal with said reality ….
sorry again , but naive unrealistic nice sounding slogans are not going to help one iota …..
this boils down to a battle of wills
with the necessary syata dishmaya and required mesirut nefesh the battle will be won .
there is no other realistic option .
.
.
.@AAQ
AAQ> Maybe we can surmise from Rambam himself, as he says “like in our generation” but does not spend his whole lfe in the desert. He runs away from the prosecutions, then lives in a college town for some time (Fes), and then worked in the City as a doctor, having a house in Jewish suburbs.
—total rubbish – sorry
rambam for sure practised what he preached
if he did not go to the midbar , MUST BE that his generation were not a generation consumed by sin , forcing others to participate .
.
.
.Your post Re Katan – is a Correct observation
.
.@AAQ
Is it mutar to propagate something that is not emes?
“arrested for blowing shofar” is clearly emes.
Why is AAQ pretending that that the Israeli police are tsadiqim ?
It sounds great but are we really ready to say anything, emes or not, in order to cause outrage in gullible readers?
.
.qwerty is right in this point
when you learn the utterances and writings of their leader properly ,
all of those erliche habad groups do represent real habad ideology
.
.as continuation from previous post :
Since the Staipler never said anything of the sort , your whole torah you built on this , is totally baseless
what remains as fact is what steipler really wrote
a frum person believing in athalta d/g is not a kofer , there is a hiyuv min hatorah to love him , veahavta lereacha kamocha
no matter what type of kipa adorns his head ….
—
by the way- this is practiced halacha lemaaseh by all batei din all over the globe ….
.
.
.somejew > The Steipler clearly agrees with the premise that the DL claim of “aschula d’geila” is itself kefira …
—
this is sheker .Steipler never wrote that.
.
.katan > …. the Zionists provoked Hitler in the name of world Jewry ….
—
factually wrong .
the zionist organization did not provoke hitler .
the zionists in the 1930’s collaborated with hitler
not out of sympathy , from either side , I must note .
but because of overlapping interests ….
both hitler and the zionists wanted the jews out of germany
for totally different reasons , they both had the same goal .
they did not boycott hitler
it was the american reform jews who boycotted hitler
—In the United States a boycott committee was established by the American Jewish Congress (AJC) …. [wikipedia]
….. at the same time, Zionists were brokering the Haavara Agreement with Germany to open trade in exchange for sending German Jews to Palestine. When German emigrants arrived in Palestine, they would receive a portion of their capital in the form of goods and the rest in pounds sterling. The benefits for both sides were numerous. First, the agreement would drastically increase German Jewish emigration, fulfilling a central plank of the Nazi Party platform. It would also further the goals of the Zionists, who could help populate Palestine with prosperous immigrants whose money could vastly improve the struggling economy. Likewise, the capital purchases of German imports would be a boon for the depression-ravaged German economy at a time when the Nazi regime had promised to return the Reich to economic prosperity. [wikipedia]
.AAQ > …people will think of Charedim more as conscientious objectors than as a fifth column.
—
I in your place would be ashamed to repeat such a blood libel ….
calling haredim objecting to the draft a fifth column …..
you could have accused them of poisoning the wells for that matter ….
.
.
is that naivete ?or prejudice and blind hate ?
.
.aaq to yankel :
…You believe that Charedim shouldn’t go to the IDF, fine. It’s understandable. Just don’t treat Religious Zionists who do enlist as Ovdei Avodah Zarah …—
you are totally missing the boat
I am on record , repeatedly so – that RZ are not ovdei avoda zara
nevertheless, the current dictatorial, illegal and immoral forced draft
under the blatantly false pretext of ‘equality’, is nothing more than an abomination.
.
.yb > Rav Elchonon wrote that RZ is avoda zara beshituf in a hashkafic sense , not in a halachik sense.”
—katan > That’s interesting. So, if you say that Catholicism is also A”Z only in a hashkafic sense but not in an halachic sense, then what could that possibly even mean?
—high time to stop burying your head in the sand
.no rav no dayan , no bet hora’a anywhere on the globe ever considered a get with fully frum RZ witnesses as pasul
the subsequent children are kesherim lavo bakahal
this psak is supported by REW z’l , the source you yourself are relying on ….
.
whereas a get with fully shomrei mitsvot believers in catholicism as edim is pasul in ALL batei din around the globe
the subsequent children are proper mamzerim and pesulim lavo bakahal
.
.
someone who gets angry is connected to a’z
RZ is connected to a’z [according to REW z’l]both in a hashkafic sense
with a hiyuv min hatorah to love both of them
.catholicism is a’z in a halachik sense
with no hiyuv .
.huge difference.
.
.
.aaq > … But your underlying premise seems to be that zionists brought damage to yirat shamayim. I question that …
—
that statement of yours is an excellent example of your ongoing naive and unrealistic grasp of events [sorry]
zionism was one of the most potent driving forces of pulling the youth [and older people too] away from yahadut before the war in Europe
as it was with the sefaradi immigrants to the newborn state
that and communism were the two evil magnets drawing people away from religion
any objective observer would agree.
.
.@chiefshmerel
@aaqre hakarat hatov –
hazal say that someone who is kofer betovato of people , will end up doing the same to HKBH .
it seems that the cultivation of hakarat hatov to people is meant to be as a stepping stone to hakarat hatov to the RBSH’O
so which is more important ? hakarat hatov to people or to God ?
obviously the latter …
so even if , a very big if …
there is a place for hakarat hatov to zionists
the obligation of hakarat hatov to God will negate any other obligation of hakarat hatov
so, to sacrifice your children on the false altar of hakarat hatov to the zionists is utter folly, to say the least.
.
.
.I’m not almost there . I am there .
You are the one who is almost there .
Steipler writes nothing about whether they may be a kofer or not .
Steiple addresses exactly our she’ela . A fully frum believer in athalta degeula is not a kofer .
he is bichlal amitecha .
assur to speak lashon hara about him .
exactly what I said .
therefore , it is obvious that it is a mitsva min hatorah to love him.
—
you , somejew are adding to the staipler that he may be a kofer for another reason .
your own private observation is totally correct – as correct as the observation that any satmar hasid may be a kofer for another reason …..
.
.
.@AAQ
to your uninformed eye … I fully agree here ….
—
would like to take the opportunity to ‘inform’ you here of some simple facts
the exact same system and the exact same lack of constitution was the case for the first half of a century of the medina’s existence
the same ‘lack of stability’ by the voter was the case then , and the exact same mechanism was in force then , and nevertheless
for 5 long decades the elected politicians legislated , ruled , compromised and were accountable to the voter at regular intervals , while the unelected courts applied the laws , using the power granted them by the elected politicians .
the courts recognized where their power originated from and acted only within their legal power.
for the last 30 years , the courts like the proverbial golem which was kam al yotsro , slowly but surely kept on advancing outside their legal mandate until the present situation where they and their judicial lackeys ILLEGALLY interfere in all aspects of the other two branches, with the courts even canceling the laws regulating … the courts !!!!!
all the arguments you bring were equally valid over 5 long decades too, and still all functioned well .
those arguments are clearly and totally insufficient to explain the courts illegal behaviour over the last 30 years
this is an illegal, immoral and unaccountable clique which should be driven from their self appropriated positions the sooner the better.
.
.
.@AAQ
correction : the worst attitude is to capitulate to the danger , i.e. enlist .
.
.@AAQ
it is ideal to follow rambam’s advice .
it is not ideal to discard rambam’s advice
the torah is netsach , the advice is netsach .
netsach means ‘longer than hundreds of years’
means that we will listen to rambam for thousands of years if need be
if the situation changes and we will not need to be in a midbar anymore , then the advice will change
so length of time is completely irrelevant here
if you are REALLY interested in following rambam , that is ….
not if you are merely USING rambam for your own shitot whenever convenient
..
.
.no problem . challenge accepted
here we go
zionism is the movement which advocated for a return of the jews to EY and their establishment of an independent state there .
galut is the forced dispersion of the jews after hurban bayit sheni
mashiach is the shliach from the RBSH’O to take all jews back to EY and who will rebuild the bet hamikdash
.so the question was and still is – where in the 13 ikarim is there something against zionism ?
.
thanks
.katan > Rav Elchonon Wasserman … writes explicitly that Nationalism/Zionism is idolatry and that Torah and, liHavdil, Nationalism is Torah and idolatry biShituf.
The Brisker Rav published, and the Gerrer Rebbe and others signed on, that “Dati Leumi” education in their time and locale was a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah” ….
…. To be fair, though, the reason that ZSK isn’t likely concerned about L”H against Conservative and Reform communities is that ZSK likely agrees that those movements are heretical and that its followers are unfortunately not biChlal amisecha.
—
katan should open his eyes to the clear and stark reality in front of his eyes .
all rebbeim of gur without exception [!] consider all fully frum dati leumi jews as halachically included in ‘amitecha’
even a ten year old knows that
to claim otherwise is akin to denial of the sun’s existence …
so why did he sign that letter re dati leum education ?
answer – this is figurative , not halacha
like a ko’ess who according to hazal is like an oved avoda zara
is a ko’ess not biklal amitecha al pi hahalacha ??? has veshalom !!!
same with dati le’umi …..
.
.@AAQ
you claim that without zionists it would have been under arab rule
impossible to verify what would have happened if not for the zionists …
you would need ruach hakodesh to be able to answer such a question accurately .
if the RBSH’O would have wanted 8 million jews in EY , He could have made it happen without the ‘help’ of the zionists .
that’s pretty clear to anyone with emuna .
.
.@chiefshmerel
@AAQYou both forget the most important point here – without HKBH no haredi , and no jew for that matter , would have been able to be in EY now
so our main allegiance is to the RBSH’O , not to the Turks who happened to let some in , not to the British who happened to let some in , not to the zionists who pushed for unrestricted immigration and besides , also made a mess , but to the RBSH’O without whose help no jew would live in EY today.
and that allegiance trumps all other allegiances.
meaning that if haredi enlistment [which really is the elephant in this coffeeroom] contravenes our allegiance to the RBSH’O , by sacrificing our youth as a goodwill present to the melting pot reeducation system the army was intended to be ,
then all other allegiances are beteilin umevutolin , lo shririn velo kayomin …
even if – and thats a big if , there even exists an allegiance to the zionists , which I greatly doubt ….
.
.@AAQ
the question is not what historically happened in lita
the question was rather- what somejew and katan’s shitah really is …
.
.they are very selective in which questions they answer ….
wonder why ….
does it have anything to do with fear that honest answers on their part will cause them to feel to be contradicted by …
themselves ???
.
.@AAQ
aaq > … I suggest first look at who is a talmid chacham by an objective criterion – level of learning, respect from other talmidei chachamim (that includes those who disagree with each other, or those who are respected by only some of the other talmidei chachamim), and then take in all the opinions of the selected group.
—
‘objective criterion’ , yes . but lav davka your criteria ….
I prefer , [and you should too] the shulhan aruch’s criteria anfd there is an important one there , which you omitted .
hilchot talmud torah in YD – a t’ch who is lacking in yirat shamayim , is disqualified from being a talmid chacham
a talmid chacham who does not use all his spare time for learning is disqualified.
it does not mention anything there about respect .
this was your private addition …
.
.