Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Regarding yayin nesech, none of this conversation has to do with “what I consider”. Ask your rabbi what the halach is. As per the Satmar Rebbe and his psak in Vayoel Moshe, I never heard him paskin that R”Z have a din ovdei avoda zureh.
[somejew]
—————
Thanks for your honesty [unlike hakatan] stating the obvious.
If athaltah d/g would be heresy , then frum believers in this heresy are heretics.
Like lehavdil frum Reform or frum jews for ‘j’.So the reverse also applies.
Since they are al pi halaha not heretics , athalta d/g is not heresy.So all of hakatans preaching about heresy is to be taken , not in a literal sense.
Those with honesty will agree.
The others will robotically repeat their mantra, without supplying any logical rebuttal to the very simple logic of these few lines.
.@menachem
All the questions are nothing more than what they are – questions .
It is only when they are left unanswered that they might, in your mind, turn into so called ‘attacks’ .Answer them and they will be nothing more than an answered question .
Am ready to go through them with you one by one . You will tell me which one is an attack and not a question and why.
Am looking forward .Doubt to see anything close to a 90 % ratio of ‘raving attacks’.
Even in your mind.@741
What’s really pathetic , [and btw the reason of my ongoing posts] is that there are numerable questions and issues which are left totally unaddressed by the habad apologizers.If there would be serious [attempts or] answers to all the issues raised, with a serious ,open, honest and fact based discussion, then there would be no need for any ongoing posts.
They claim to have all the answers, but run away whenever there is a real challenge.Is that a possible reason why they mainly deal with non frum ? The non frum are not going to challenge them so quickly with questions about mesorah and chazal ?
Again, that does not mean that they are bad people – has veshalom !
They are special and idealistic people from whom all of klal yisrael can and should learn .But their theology is beyond bad.
They should be man enough to stand their ground , instead of running away.
.@Menachem
Can you point to where in tanya it says that a tsaddik of Tanya is INFALLIBLE ?Not one Rav [ranging the entire gamut of Orthodoxy considers wine touched by a frum believer in athalta di’geoula as Yayin Nesech.
Not one.That suffices. It is an hashkafik issue. Not a halachik one.
Athalta d/g is NOT HERESY AL PI HAHALACHA.
Period.
.Fact is and remains [as mentioned before]
Not one Rav [ranging the entire gamut of Orthodoxy considers wine touched by a frum believer in athalta di’geoula as Yayin Nesech.
Not one.That suffices. It is an hashkafik issue. Not a halachik one.
Athalta d/g is NOT HERESY AL PI HAHALACHA.
Period.
.@menachem
People say ?
We are referring to torah based criteria here – not folksy sayings …..A Beinoni of the Tanya ALSO did no avera.
So – the Q comes back : How do they pretend to know that their rebbi was a tsadiq of tanya ?Even leshitatam that he did not do an avera , [impossible to verify btw]
maybe he is a beinoni ?Repeated [unanswered] Question –
Habadi’s frequently [also CS on this thread] say that their late Rebbi was a Tsadiq of Tanya.What is their source for that ?
Is it because their Previous Rebbi took him for a son in law ?
.[Hakatan to YB]
It would take very long to respond to all of your posts, and you could just resolve this easily by speaking to an LOR.
But Zionism and its “State” are heresy, idolatry and remain no less of the same today as they always were, as all the gedolim stated and as is obvious to anyone not fooled by that idol. The only thing that changed was the tactics in dealing with them.
————
Repeating rubbish does not make it any less rubbish.
Even if you keep on repeating it like a robot.If you want to have a semblance of a reputation , the way to start is … to offer a refutation .
Or an attempted refutation at least.Ignoring so many open proofs against your shitah , risks of giving the [mistaken ?] impression that you DO NOT HAVE a real answer …
.
.I noticed that an intelligent Menachem who normally – when he has answers available – endeavors to respond to valid questions and issues raised, while now he resorts to implications of antisemitism [?].
Is that a copout ?
Think about it.The main problem about habad nowadays stems from the following erroneous assumption the habad hasidim make :
Welcome to the following [no difference whether conscious or subconscious] habadi thought process
“Since I genuinely feel uplifted when I hear / learn / follow the late habad leaders torah / hitva’adut / guidance , I am convinced that he is the most exalted Jewish leader since the unfolding of Jewish History , greater than Abraham and Moses.
No one in our generation comes even close and even in all preceding generations no one came close. Including in the generation of Moses.”
This assumption is something which sets habad totally apart from all other sections of klal yisrael.
Never in thousands of years of Jewish History was this considered official gospel [!] in any Jewish group, kehilla , yeshiva or hasidut.This is one of the defining differences between habad and all the rest of of Orthodox Jews.
One point of chomer lemahshavah – for all the non habad people reading thses lines
And incidentally for habadi’s still under the illusion that all non habadi’s are nothing much more than primitive savages subsisting on the achorayim of the hashpa’ot from their [false] mashiach, waiting to be shown the glory and benefits of civilization.
Q : Is it true that habad looks at themselves as the pasuk describes – Hen Am Levadad Yishkon …..
Do they view themselves as isolated from the rest of klal yisrael , more so than the other shvatim / hugim in klal yisrael ?
And if yes , why is this so ?
.@hakatan
Katan was ‘proving’ his kana’ut in many posts.
Now that Emrei Emet , Steipler and plain logic are disproving him , he sends us to the local rabbinic authority ….Doesn’t sound very promising ……
————-To be sure – Zionism is dangerous .
It does have a track record of pulling untold numbers away from HKBH and his torah.But hakatan is guilty of Hava’s original chet – Only ahila from ets hadaat was assur. Touching was permitted.
She exaggerated and included touch.Unwittingly, she helped the satan and …… adam harishon ended up eating from ets hada’at.
—–Katan has not responded to any of the posts but seems to think that ignoring issues will make them go away ….
.It seems like that the habad propaganda machine has run out of steam . We should give them some time to recuperate.
They were working overtime, seems like.
It must have been too much.So it might be our turn to offer to provide answers to their questions now. Such as Why do you ….
You the neo habad sceptics , for lack of a better name…
Or all non habad yehudim ….Why are you sceptic only about our wonderful movement which is the only contemporary embodiment of all of Judaism’s generations from Abraham Avinu to today ?
Is there anything beyond simple sin’at hinam at play here ?
.
We should attempt , unlike CS, to provide honest and clear answers here .To the point answers and not shirking anything.
Whoever wants to join – is welcome.
.If someone sincerely believes that a certain food is permitted by the torah , while it really is prohibited,
DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF …
8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah , and
9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah ???Obviously those haredim [and many of the national religious] who support the existence and establishment of the medina do not consider this against the torah ??
Read all the posts on this thread , all of them keep claiming that the torah AGREES to Zionism and a medina.
You might argue that they are MISTAKEN in the way that they understand the torah ….
But REJECTION of the torah – man dechar shemei ???They all agree and accept that torah is divine and immutable , but they learn the wrong pshat in the torah.
maskana :
athaltah d/g is not heresy.
.Regarding ikar 12 –
How is establishment of medina a denial of mashiach ?? Why can’t they both exist ???
He still yearns for and believes in Mashiach who will restore the Bet hamikdash , metaher klal yisrael and meishiv them bitshuva, take away the lev even mibsarhem ,bring back malhut bet david , take away the nations’ hate of the yehudim , bring the shechina back down to this world and the kiyum of all of the nevu’ot of the nevi’im.
and in the meantime, while he awaits and yearns for all this , he brings parnasah for his family … and he governs himself too.
Does that HAVE TO BE contradictory ???How so ?
.Emrei Emet in his written letter [Osef Michtavim]
says clearly that“we decided in Vienna that we will not be mitnaged to political rights to EY granted to the Jews even when they come via the seculars ,ki yavoh hatov mikol makom, because the good can and should come from any place”
This is the actual words of the foremost accepted Torah leader in Poland pre World War 2 ….
Clearly NOT like the hashkafa you promote here ……
.rav kotler zatsal did support the medina’s needs klapei chuts when speaking to the US administration .
Yadua lakol.
Maskana :
Mere Existence of the medina is not heresy .
.Steipler in Karyane DeIgrata VOL 1 clearly says the belief in the medina as athalta digeoulah ,while a big mistake [!] , is not kfirah.
Al pi ha’emet , It is a descent into a more dark form of galut than previous galuyot .
To experience a galut between our own errant and hateful brothers.
But this mistaken belief of athaltah d/g is definitely not kfira.Please check inside the sefer.
It is not kfirah .Black on white.
It’s there.Maskana :
Athaltah d/g is not heresy.None of the rabbanim in mainstream Orthodoxy .
None . [maybe some extremists within satmar]1] Have ever declared wine touched by a fully frum believer in athalta d/g as Yayin Nesech .
2] None have ever declared kidushin formed with the edut of a fully frum believer in athalta d/g as invalid .
None have ever declared subsequent kidushin to the same kalla by a strange man as valid and binding .All mainstream rabanim would not require a get , even lehumra , from the second mekadesh.
They would ALL , totally invalidate the second kidushin , on the basis of the validity of the first kidushin.
Which is valid only b/c of the edut of our fully frum athalta d/g believer.3] EVEN IF OUR ATHALTA D/G BELIEVER IS AN EX SATMAR HASID WHO ONCE KNEW THE ‘TRUTH’ AND CHANGED HIS HASHKAFA.
So much for halacha’s acceptance of the so called ‘heresy’ of athalta d/g.
For contrast – lehavdil , if our ed for the first kidushin would be a fully mitsva observant conservative jew , or a fully mitsva observant member of Jews for “j” , it is clear that all Orthodox rabanim would invalidate the first kidushin and need a get from the second one.
Which gives a clear illustration that even those who do talk about ‘heresies’ , do so in a theoretical manner only , but not in practical hahacha manner.
Leharchik et ha’adam …
Etc .Maskana lehalacha :
Athaltah d/g is not heresy.@CS
It seems that much of your beliefs were not much more than one big bubble.
One prick ….@hakatan
The Steipler in Karyane DeIgrata VOL 1 clearly says the belief in the medina as athalta digeoulah ,while a big mistake [!] , is not kfirah.
Al pi ha’emet , It is a descent into a more dark form of galut than previous galuyot .
To experience a galut between our own errant and hateful brothers.
But this mistaken belief of athaltah d/g is definitely not kfira.Please check inside the sefer.
It is not kfirah .Black on white.
Its there.
——
None of the rabbanim in mainstream Orthodoxy .
None . [maybe some extremists within satmar]
Have ever declared wine touched by a fully frum believer in athalta d/g as Yayin Nesech .None have ever declared kidushin formed with the edut of a fully frum believer in athalta d/g as invalid .
None have ever declared subsequent kidushin to the same kalla by a strange man as valid and binding .All mainstream rabanim would not require a get , even lehumra , from the second mekadesh.
They would ALL , totally invalidate the second kidushin , on the basis of the validity of the first kidushin.
Which is valid only b/c of the edut of our fully frum athalta d/g believer.EVEN IF OUR ATHALTA D/G BELIEVER IS AN EX SATMAR HASID WHO ONCE KNEW THE ‘TRUTH’ AND CHANGED HIS HASHKAFA.
So much for halacha’s acceptance of the so called ‘heresy’ of athalta d/g.
For contrast – lehavdil , if our ed for the first kidushin would be a fully mitsva observant conservative jew , or a fully mitsva observant member of Jews for “j” , it is clear that all Orthodox rabanim would invalidate the first kidushin and need a get from the second one.
Which gives a clear illustration that even those who do talk about ‘heresies’ , do so in a theoretical manner only , but not in practical hahacha manner.
Leharchik et ha’adam …
Etc .@hakatan
This is a repeat post- you must have overlooked this oneyou seem to say that rav kotler zatsal did not say to support the medina’s needs klapei chuts when speaking to the US administration ?
Do you really stand by that ?This is yadua lakol .
.
“….. Establishment of any state before Mashiach comes , is a violation of :
8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.Hashem said that you are forsworn not to return to the land (certainly not en masse and with force and politically and against the nations – all of which the Zionists flagrantly violated) until I return you to the land….
[Hakatan to YB]
============================Cannot understand your logic at all-
If someone sincerely believes that a certain food is permitted by the torah , while it really is prohibited,
DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF …
8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah , and
9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah ???Obviously those haredim [and many of the national religious] who support the existence and establishment of the medina do not consider this against the torah ??
Read all the posts on this thread , all of them keep claiming that the torah AGREES to Zionism and a medina.
You might argue that they are MISTAKEN in the way that they understand the torah ….
But REJECTION of the torah – man dechar shemei ???Would you say that in each argument about the real pshat in torah that the mistaken opinion is in violation ikarei emuna 8 and 9 ???
——
Besides that , AVNEI NEZER [end of YD] clearly paskans that establishment of a medina before mashiach is not against halacha.
How can you say that someone who paskans not like DIVREI YOEL is kofer in 8 and 9 of the ikarim ???
Hafleh vafeleh !!! How could you even say that ???
——
And regarding ikar 12 –
How is establishment of medina a denial of mashiach ?? Why can’t they both exist ???
He still yearns for and believes in Mashiach who will restore the Bet hamikdash , metaher klal yisrael and meishiv them bitshuva, take away the lev even mibsarhem ,bring back malhut bet david , take away the nations’ hate of the yehudim , bring the shechina back down to this world and the kiyum of all of the nevu’ot of the nevi’im.
and in the meantime, while he awaits and yearns for all this , he brings parnasah for his family … and he governs himself too.
Does that HAVE TO BE contradictory ???
How so ?.
@non political
I do not see in your post any response to my Q.
My Q pertains to the essence of self government before mashiach, according to katan.Self gov by non zionist shomrei torah.
Is that against ikarei emuna ?If yes, Which one and how so ?
@DaMoshe
the only response you can get from CS and her fellow travelers is a choice between jokes , sidesteps, issues being ignored and obvious non answers.
There is nothing else on the menu.Read through the last pages on this thread and the other [discontinued] threads , on the same topic.
Always the same.Wonderful people . Special people.
Lousy theology. Non existent logic.
.@hakatan
All your arguments are against the Zionists who were heretics and lived their life against torah.
But that was not the Q.
The Q here is whether a theoretical establishment of a non zionist state by shomrei torah before mashiach is against ikarei emuna.
You skirted this Q until now.
Will we merit to hear your opinion and proof ?
Which ikar and how so ?
Thanksta’anit dibur applies to someone who has something to say and keeps back ,,,,
Seems like there is nothing left to say ?@somejew
I looked at vayoel moshe several times . He for sure gives the impression that he is of the opinion which Katan is propagating on these pages. But even while learning his sefer , I could not come to any clarity as to the absolute proofs to his shitah .The mere fact that he says that it is against the 13 ikarim is not enough for me [/ us].
I [and all the non – Satmar Jewish Orthodox world] are not his talmidim or his hasidim.So , if not for re’ayot muhrahot to this shitah , we do not see ourselves obligated to follow his da’at yahid in this respect that even a non zionist medina is against ikarei emuna.
Nor should we be influenced by katan’s exaggerations about other rabanim who according to katan also held by his shitah.
For sure since following katan’s overblown hashkafa is being used as an excuse for curtailing US Government support for the medina.
[Cf, US Senate Majority Leader’s quote of Satmar as part of his Senate speech for withholding certain arm shipments.]All the while the medina is surrounded by bloodthirsty monsters who would make [chvsh] the Yazidi’s lot considered paradise compared to those of the Jews under their domination.
The unspeakable atrocities of Oct 7 are ample proof.It is clear that the overwhelming majority of gdolei yisrael disagreed with this satmar proposition.
There even is a niggling hashash that even satmar rav himself did not fully hold that the mere existence of the medina is against the ikarei emuna.
As mentioned before – and ignored by katan – Hafets Hayim writes clearly that it is permitted for a rebbi or parent to exaggerate the rish’ut and danger to a pupil or child in order to get the child to distance from the danger.There are certain internal contradictions in Satmar which point towards this idea.
But this is for another post.lema’aseh , the topic here is whether existence of a medina before mashiach is against ikarei emuna . If yes, which one and how so ?
?
@AAQ
It is well established fact that in Europe and the ME before the medina ,the Zionists were a substantial force for abandonment of yiddishkeit
Likewise after the medina .My question is re the theory of a medina without any repercussions. Is that against ikarei emuna ?
Katan wants us to believe so.But all he does is quoting others.
He has not once explained which ikar it contradicts and why.Is it true that in order to be a kanna’i , you have to either be prepared to lie , or to distort ?
Lets wait and see how long they can hold back .
For the record – there are NUMEROUS unanswered questions here.
Is this going to be the ultimate proof that habad lost ?Hello ….
Can we invoke the klal of shtikah ke’hoda’a ?@hakatan
you seem to say that rav kotler zatsal did not say to support the medina’s needs klapei chuts when speaking to the US administration ?
Do you really stand by that ?
This is yadua lakol .Still have not heard why a hakamat medina before mashiach IN OF ITSELF is against Rav Saadia Gaon principle that Klal yisrael is only a nation through torah ?
Or against any other principle of the torah ?All I have heard is that THOSE PEOPLE who established the medina were against the Torah . They thought and acted against the Torah.
So their handiwork factually was used against the Torah.
They used it to take countless yehudim away from the torah.But a medina in itself is a neutral creation , like a car or a spade. They both can be used for and against the torah.
Depends on the person who owns them.
All the gdolim said – was the medina was practically being used as a tool against the torah. Which I do not dispute at all.What happens however, when a rasha uses a spade against the torah and a tsaddiq wrestles it out of his hands and uses it to further Torah ?
Is the spade still considered ‘against’ the torah ?Happy to hear new ideas / proofs / logic about this .
Theoretically – Is creation of a country for Jews before mashiach coming , considered heresy in of itself – provided it not used against the torah ?
And if yes , against which of the 13 ikarim ?
And how so ?The most you can say is – that Zionism used the torah to give itself credibility.
I cant see anywhere in the torah a hiyuv to establish a State.Zionism , however, was a trojan horse , planted within religious Judaism , through which untold Jews defected from Yiddishkeit.
Many times in a piecemeal fashion, slowly slowly.So Zionism as a movement had a very detrimental effect on Judaism.
This seems to be agreed all over.
Hence the overwhelming disapproval of the gdolei torah toward the Zionist Movement.That does not justify stupid and/or extreme shitot like those of hakatan and others which come up on these pages.
Nu ?
Are they scared ?@hakatan
Besides your quoting R’E zatsal , I have not heard yet from you what ikar from the 13 ikarei emuna the medina is opposing. Besides the fact that most of its leaders and supporters are heretics.Waiting for you to specify exactly which ikar are they contravening by establishing a medina before Mashiach’s coming ?
And how that is considered a contravention ?A clear and detailed answer if possible .
.@ hakatan
You agree that:
Rav Kotler zatsal advocated to SUPPORT the medina klapei hutz !!!Not like your claim in these pages that no one would support NY State because of its Jewish inhabitants.
Rav Kotler clearly agreed that the welfare of the State equaled the welfare of its inhabitants.And that’s not at a contradiction at all to the emuna that HKBH is dealing with this world with shar va’onesh , as you put it on these pages.
Your statements on these pages are reflective of satmar minority view , which do not make any common sense at all .
.@hakatan
Fact is and remains that although the Steipler for sure did not think that the State is ashalta degeoula. Aderaba it is an even bigger galut than before. A galut between our our own erring brothers.
Nevertheless someone stating that it is ashalta deguola , IS NOT AN APIKORUS.
He said that while observing the first three decades of the medina in actual operation.
Wrong – yes. Apikorus – no.
Clear from him that the essence of the medina is NOT kefira.
You cannot use a ma’amar of Rav E’W ztsal, which was said much before the medina’s existence.Also – Hafets Chaim writes explicitly that a rebbi is allowed to exaggerate the sakana of a bad influence , in order to impress his talmidim to keep their distance from that influence.
So – it could very well be that R’E exaggerated and used inexact terminology to define this Zionist movement which was indisputably a bad influence on his talmidim and on the rest of klal yisrael.
This is not revisionism .
This is cold torah logic.The silence from CS and the other habad apologists/propagandists is getting louder …..
fyi. Rav Elhanan W zatsal wrote that in his opinion one will not be able to keep the torah and educate one’s children in a future medina.
In practice this has not come to pass.So – what Rav Wasserman zatsal thought about how the medina would develop , was not the same as how the medina actually turned out to be.
So – R’W zatsals shituf association which was said re the old time zionists might also not pertain to our medina.
RW zatsal did not see our medina.
So – our medina may not be subject to his shituf association, and our medina supporters are not necessarily ovdei a’z beshituf even according RW ztsl.
Rav Aaron Kotler zatsal , someone who was on the same shitah with R’EW zatsal before the War, and did see the medina , advocated that the haredi Jews klapei huts towards the US Government should vigorously defend the Israeli Government in world affairs – notwithstanding the very severe ta’anot he had against them.
RE’W would have been of the same persuasion had he seen the medina as it really was.
@hakatan
Clear letter by RYY Kaniefski zts’l that even someone nowadays who holds that the medina is athalta degeoula, even such a person is NOT an apikorus. [Kryane De’igreta vol 1]If you are honest, am waiting for your hoda’a .
Bezot tibachenu………Revisit to CS’s answer-
“2] Can you point to any source acceptable to all hugim in Yahadut that your leader qualified as a Tsaddiq of Tanya ?”Is there any public widely known instance of The Rebbe doing any aveira? Those who know The Rebbe say not… besides for the sheer holiness etc [CS to YB]
————————
The basic difference according to Tanya between Tsadiq and Beinoni is that although both refrain from ALL AVEROT, the beinoni still has the pull to do bad inside himself , but he strengthens himself and does not transgress at all , whereas the Tsadiq does not have this pull at all anymore , like David Hameleh who killed his yetser with fasting.So if CS would still have a shred of honesty left, she should here publicly agree that her answer is totally off.
Lets say he did not do any avera – how does this have any relevance to his ‘Tsadiq status’ according to Tanya ???
.@hakatan
I cannot see the ‘heresy’ you per force read into Zionism
You are right that the overwhelming majority of Zionists were heretics.
And that the medina and Zionism shmadded a huge amount of yehudim r’l.
Which is an avla , bal yehupar.But to say that a Zionist who happens to believe and keep the torah is a heretic – Minalan ??
When I say Zionist here ,I mean someone who supports the medina and tries to make it as frum as possible. Lav davka that he calls it ‘Reishit Tsmihat Ge’oulatenu’ . He supports the medina nevertheless because its hatslaha equals the hatslaha of its inhabitants, and serves as a reminder to some of the diaspora Jews not to assimilate .He supports the medina because he knows that its collapse would reduce its Jews to the level of the Yazidi’s of Iraq a few years ago r’l.
Such a person – is he an heretic ? If yes – Why ?Dear reader
Please contrast CS’s actual responses [without honesty] against those with honesty. Kirchok mizrah mima’arav.“1] Can you point to where in tanya it says that a tsaddik of Tanya is INFALLIBLE ?”
A tzaddik is totally in line with Hashem’s Ratzon, so his “mistakes” don’t come from yetzer hara but are also directed by Hashem (remember Aharons argument to the malach hamoves?) There is a rare scenario of a tzaddik not advancing in his avodas Hashem, and slipping to do an aveira (like Yochanan Kohen Gadol), but it would be obvious as the Posuk states ba zadon vayavo kalon.
For a regular YB to think HE knows, or anyone that didn’t top The Rebbe in yiras shomayim, knows, that The Rebbe made a mistake, because He knows better, is utter foolishness, but just arrogance and bizui TC. I hope that clarifies.
“2] Can you point to any source acceptable to all hugim in Yahadut that your leader qualified as a Tsaddiq of Tanya ?”
Is there any public widely known instance of The Rebbe doing any aveira? Those who know The Rebbe say not… besides for the sheer holiness etc
“3] Is the concept of ‘tsadiq of Tanyah’ widely accepted in Yahadut – outside of the hasidi circles ?”
The Alter Rebbe is widely accepted. How many tzaddikim of Tanya there are today is a different question which I cannot answer. I keep my nose out for them.
“4] Is the tsaddiq of Tanya explanation the only available one to explain the relevant ma’amarei hazal ?”
Not sure what you mean. And even if it is, it answers.
“5] If there exist other explanations , how are they more deficient in actually explaining the relevant ma’amarei hazal when compared to the Tanya’s [besides that they will not serve the habad cause]”
No one is making you become Chabad. As for me, it’s my honour and privilege.
“6] Why do you employ the condescending attitude that it is the opposite side who has ‘go and learn’ ?
Maybe it is actually YOU who should ‘go and learn’ ???”See the answer to 1, and you’ll know why.
@hakatan
I wrote that satmar rav VAYECHI was daat yachid.
Only he said such extreme that the avera of tsionism was the me’akev of the ge;oula.