ZSK

@Non Political –

I don’t want derail this thread, so very briefly:

Yoma 9b has Reish Lakish stating that Aliyah BaChoma was an ideal to be done during the time of Ezra. Aliyah BaChoma banned by one of the 3 oaths. Thererefore, one of the oaths is in question by at least one Amora, with the source being in the same Sefer as the three oaths themselves. Yes, it’s admittedly not ideal because it’s Aggada sourced in Shir HaShirim and not Halachik in nature, but it does make the point that the oaths may not so cut and dry.

Avi K can step in if he wants to to clarify anything.

As for my statement about “Charedim not doing anything”:

It is unfair, but it happens to be true for the most part.

It is amazing that there were Charedim who did what they did on Oct. 7. HKB”H knows I could have never done that. Kol HaKavod and Yiyashar Kochacham for doing so. We are eternally in their debt. The same goes for those who flooded IDF bases with meals and other supplies. It is my hope that those first responders now understand exactly what the cost of war is and what the RZ community has sacrificed in this war, because it is that community that has suffered the most losses. Perhaps they will then be more willing to allow their children to serve in Charedi frameworks in the army (they already exist). I also hope they receive the mental health counseling they no doubt will need in order to process and move past what they saw.

But I lived next to Bnei Brak for 6 years and was there almost every day. Hatzola minded people are the minority and certainly those who serve in the IDF are an even smaller minority. In order to not speak Lashon Hara, I won’t detail what I saw while living there, but suffice it to say that after that, I have a hard time believing everyone is shteiging all day and not just wasting time that could be better spent working or serving in the IDF.

The Charedi commmunity also doesn’t know what it is to walk into Shul on Shabbos morning with half the people present carrying loaded rifles and phones because they’re all in Miluim and may be sent to Gaza or Lebanon at any moment, as well as having half of Shabbos Tefilllos moved to parks so people can take cover with their families quickly if need be. I have a neighbor who was injured (lightly, thank G-d) and two more that weren’t home for months. A Shul member lost his nephew in Gaza. I personally have had turn around halfway to Shul and sprint home as fast as possible because of rockets.

I’ve been impacted by this war in a very direct fashion. So please excuse me for being a more than a bit critical of our Charedi brethren for not doing more, and having absolutely no patience for HaKatan, somejewiknow, ujm and their ilk.

HaKatan

You wrote:
“Rav Shach would be one. He wrote that Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik wrote “mamash divrei kefirah ad kidei hishtomemus liMareh haAyin”. He further stated that these were things typically forbidden to write, but that he (Rav Shach) was writing (i.e., repeating) them to show how terrible “chochmas chitzoniyus” causes “siluf viYerida biDaas Torah”. Rav Aharon Kotler stated that Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik was responsible for “all the tuma in America”, while on that topic.”

You are aware of what an ideological dispute is? Rav Kotler also said the time he spent learning with Rav Solovitchik was “Kodesh Kodashim”.
This is same sort of thing when either Rav Shach or Rav Eliyashiv panned a Charedi Yeshiva in Moshav Matityahu, but when confronted about the condemnation said he was repesenting the mainstream Charedi approach, but that the Yeshiva should still continue to exist.

And this is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about RZ and your allegations that it is heresy. So try again.

@Non Political – I thought the person in question was more making a rhetorical point than anything else, and quite frankly those statements were not any worse than anything HaKatan and somejewiknow said about RZ Rabbonim, especially Rav Kook. And he did apologize for the disrespect in another thread, and explained why it occurred. But yes, disrespect towards Rabbonim is unacceptable across the board, from Charedi to RZ.

@Avi K – Yes, he’s doing it again, this time going after Religious Zionism as opposed to Zionism in general. He’ll never stop.

@HaKatan – I fail to see humor in anything you say. The parody was to show you what you sound like. Apparently it wasn’t effective because you *still* don’t get it.

You’re never going to convince me of your position, just as I am never going to convince you of mine. Like Chaim, I will continue to answer you Rav for Rav, Midrash for Midrash, Gemara for Gemara, despite your pathetic one-line pronouncments delegitimizing anyone who doesn’t agree with you. And I will continue to point out the critical methodological error in the SR’s work – We do not issue Psak Halacha based on Aggada, which *is not* up for debate. What you and somejewiknow should do is quit slandering the Religious Zionist community once and for all and apologize.

@Always_Ask_Questions – The issue with threads concerning Zionism, the IDF, etc. is that backers of HaKatan’s position define Zionism as it was defined in the 1800-1900s within the realm of nationalism that was de rigueur at the time. They also (incorrectly) lump ideologically secularist Zionism together with Religious Zionism. To them, it is all black-and-white. That isn’t how things were and they are certainly not so today, which does in fact require HaKatan and his ilk to reexamine their position. The average Religious Zionist doesn’t define Zionism or Religious Zionism the way HaKatan and company do. Neither do ideologically secularist Zionists. And secularist Zionists don’t define Zionism in the manner of Religious Zionism or per HaKatan’s camp. There is a gulf between Rav Kook and Herzl/Ben Gurion, just like there is one between the SR and Rav Kook, but HaKatan and somejewiknow will not admit to such. Instead, it’s all the same because of “Zionism” (Nice Tzad HaShave on their part, but it’s quite erroneous). That makes any sort of discussion impossible.

It’s also impossible to have a discussion because HaKatan’s camp insists on preconditions for the discussion, which everyone has to accept. Those “facts” are: (1) Zionism in any form – even Religious Zionism – is heresy; (2) Rav Kook, Ein HaBanim Semeicha or any other source that supports our position (Orot, Avnei Nezer and Alo Na’aleh specifically come to mind, as do parts of Lev Avraham, even Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik) are all illegitimate sources; (3) Zionists are “kofrim” (an ad hominem attack against those who disagree, which is a logical fallacy); (4) Zionism is an aveira; and (5) the only unimpeachable sources are VaYoel Moshe and a few terse statements by several Litvish Rabbonim. That’s exactly what HaKatan and somejewiknow did, and the record on this form proves as such.

This sadly and unfortunately is like the Israeli government negotiating with the PA or Hamas, where Hamas sets preconditions that Israel has to accept before negotiations can even begin. Yes, I did just make that comparison – because it is true. No discussion can be had under such circumstances, because there isn’t anything to discuss.

@somejewiknow – I answered you in the other thread. Go read Rav Aviner’s work – it’s available on multiple websites. While you’re at it, also Avnei Nezer and Rav Drukman’s work about it. This really isn’t difficult.

@HaKatan

So I understand:

You’re challenging those of us who disagree with you to produce evidence for our position. But at the same time, you’re going to dictate what evidence is acceptable. And, any evidence we produce is automatically invalid from the start.

That’s arguing in bad faith, and I am not going to engage in that sort of debate with you, somejewiknow or any of the multiple aliases the two of you have created.

You can go look at the very legitimate sources I posted in the other thread. You’re certainly smart enough to do that much.

Really? You started a new thread because you didn’t like being challenged by several people? Pathetic.

I’m not going to repeat what I said in the other thread other than that I provided you with 2 sources that directly challenge the Satmar Rebbe’s magnum opus, as well at least once source that partially questioned Satmar, and that those are sources you will not seriously consider because of your specific, negative, deleterious, harmful and quite frankly revolting hangups regarding “Zionism” and the Dati Leumi community. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you and your ilk are too arrogant for such.

As for a discussion of Rabbinic authority, well, there’s no point in that discussion because your end position is: (1) the Satmar Rebbe was the absolute “Gadol HaDor” for all Jews (an absolutely preposterous position to take), and (2) it’s okay to slander the Religious Zionist community in any manner you possibly can, because they support a State you would like to see (G-d forbid) nuked off the face of the planet. You won’t have the conversation in good faith.

Let’s be blunt: You’re hoping that within the scope of this new thread you will get a storm of responses from Yeshivish and Chassidish minded people supporting you. We’ll see if that happens.

@somejewiknow

1) No, it is not a substantive argument. It would be – if you were not actually appealing to the authority of very specific Rabbonim that *you* approve of while rejecting the very clear authority of other legitimate Rabbonim who held differently, by way of accusations that those differring Rabbonim are guilty of the worst forms of אפיקורסות and therefore outside the מסורה. That *isn’t* a good faith argument.

Spell out the arguments you’ve heard that came from the 3-4 Rabbonim you constantly cite. I learned Vayoel Moshe and quite a few anti-Zionist seforim and am familiar with their positions vis a vis the state, the R”Z community, the IDF, etc. I’m not demanding you do so for me. I’m demanding it for everyone else.

2) I reject the premise that the Satmar Rebbe was a global authority. He was an authority for Satmar and those like them (i.e. Vizhnitz). He never was authoritative for the Litvish community, even though the Litvish community widely agreed with many of his views and showed him the necessary respect due to a Rav (because the SR’s views aligned with the views of REW, the Chazon Ish, Rav Schach, etc.). However, the Litvish community asks Litvish Rabbonim their questions, not Chassidishe Rebbes. He did not have שררה over them. He was never an authority for יהדות עדות המזרח, and certainly not for קהילות קודש דתי לאומי למיניהם. It is true that he wrote the most well known work about that אגדתא, but he was most definitely questioned. It is your own ignorance which had led you to believe otherwise. Which leads to my next point.

3) Re: works. Yes, I know you asked. However, when the starting premise is that anything that comes out of the R”Z community is טמא and full-on אפיקורסות from the start, there is no point. You wouldn’t seriously consider or engage with the sources even if I provide them. But anyway, here you go:

Sources that directly question the SR:
(1) Rav Aviner wrote עלה נעלה – מענה לספר ויואל משה and קונטרס שלא יעלו בחומה.
(2) Rav Chaim Drukman wrote a response in קמעא קמעא פרק ז.

Others:
(3) A quick Google search reveals Shiurim on VaYoel Moshe and responses thereto on websites belonging to ישיבות הסדר הר עציון וכרם ביבנה – at the minimum. I am sure a more detailed search (which I don’t realistically have time for until מוצאי שבת קודש) will show more.

Rabbonim who spoke positively of Zionism: Google the origins of the Mizrachi movement. There are far too many to mention, but many of them learned in the Volozhin Yeshiva and were part of Chibat Tzion. That speaks volumes inof itself.

By the way, there are also Charedi Rabbonim who wrote works that at least partially questioned the Satmar Rebbe while also pointing out the issues with ideologically Secularist Zionists, the IDF and the State itself, problems that R”Z public agree with (certainly חרדלי״ם agree, considering they only left the Charedi community because Rav Schach kicked them out). Lev Avraham comes to mind as one of such seforim.

4) I reject the premise that VaYoel Moshe is Halachik in nature. I refer you to my prior comments about such. Even if it is, it is not binding upon all of כלל ישראל, it is at most binding upon Satmar and those who accept the authority of the SR. As others have said, the SR was not a widely accepted Rav, neither were his פסקי הלכה nor his השקפת עולם. (Parenthetically, you have in the past devolved into actual slander of הרב קוק זצ״ל, I have refrained from doing the same about the SR- and there is plenty I could say about him. I have merely questioned the contents of his magnum opus – admittedly more disrespectfully than I should have.)

4) Jumping back to authority, as Chaim said, Ruzhin Chassidus stands in stark contrast to Satmar as a Charedi/Chassidish community that does not agree with the SR and views Zionism positively.

5) You said “I have seen poskin oser, at least lechatlchila, taking a R”Z as witnesses to a kesiba, may we Jews be saved from their wicked ways”. Name the Rav who said that. If you can’t, you made it up and it’s what *you* would do if *you* had the authority to do so.

5) As for your last two responses, you’ve finally answered, albeit in a roundabout manner. You believe the R”Z community is heretical, and you will answer HKB”H after 120 for the slander. You believe anyone who disagrees with Satmar is a heretic. You’re just unwilling to say it outright. There’s no other explanation for the condemnatory side comments in the following:

– “I have seen poskin oser, at least lechatlchila, taking a R”Z as witnesses to a kesiba, may we Jews be saved from their wicked ways”.

– “I suppose, I could compile an incredible pro-heresy (zionist) “sefer” by just compiling all of the Satmar Rebbe’s kashas, and not include his answers, but that would be very dishonest and hollow.”

– “While I don’t learn Torah from kofrim, I am still bound by – lehavdil – the shulchan aruch even if they quote it. So too, if a kofer (chalila they should learn) mentions a Torah source that informs something about the status of zionism or out relationship to it, I would of course be obligated to those Torah sources as per the Jewish mesorah.”

@Chaim87

Somejewiknow and HaKatan are likely different people. HaKatan is most likely the reincarnation of a user who used to post here called Joseph. He and that prior user both have/had Neturei Karta/Satmar leanings, if not being outright supporters of such. His arguments tend to be the same statements we’ve heard on this forum before (quoting REW, SR, GR, Brisk, etc.) and from every other Charedi organization. Most unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any substance to those arguments, because there is no elaboration thereupon (by the way, the Aguda engages in the same tactics). That was the reason why I wrote those long winded posts – to attempt to force a substantive, material response. As of yet, neither one has answered substantively and I suspect they won’t. “מסית ומדיח” and weak arguments from authority is probably all we’ll get from them.

Somejewiknow, based on his responses, is most lkely a knee-jerk reactionist Satmar Chossid (his constant use of “מסית ומדיח” makes this fairly clear). FWIW, I suspect he posts on Reddit under a similar sounding name (with the same writing style).

I don’t think either one of them are using bullying tactics. Their tactic seems to be continuing to repeat variations on the same thing until you lose your patience, at which point they look sane and you look loopy for losing your patience.

On a different note:

@somejewiknow – If the statement “any masis imadiach can say “well, rabbi, that’s what YOU say! haw haw haw!” is directed at me (and I suspect that is the case), well, a few things: (1) That’s an ad hominem attack – now try arguing substantively (you have not done so yet); (2) what I said about you and HaKatan answering to הקב״ה after 120 stands; (3) again, you’ve demonstrated an inability to deal with the various challenges raised against Satmar and those like them in this forum.

The R”Z community has provided lengthy תשובות, שיעורי תורה וכו׳ regarding Zionism. They provide all the reasons for “deviating” (as you would call it) from the “established” precedent and norms, even though they don’t have reason to do so. You just ignore such because you don’t like it – and because your Rebbe’s שיטה insists that such opinions are heresy.

Answer Non Political’s question about רב שלמה אבנר or רב אליעזר מלמד. Let’s add רב רימון and the ראשי ישיבה of ישיבת מרכז הרב. I suspect you would question the Torah they teach, as well as their legitimate authority.

To be even more blunt (and keep in mind the internet doesn’t forget): Would you consider wine I’ve touched, or wine that others who are R”Z have touched, or wine that those who have disagreed with you here, to be יין נסך? Answer the question. Yes or no will do. That will tell us everything we need to know. Keep in mind that such a thing has never happened.

Just to clarify:

Any perceived disrespect in my last two posts is directed at the two-three individuals in this forum who show disrespect to R”Z Rabbonim and anyone who leans R”Z every chance they get. They know who they are.

In no way was I referring to the Satmar Rebbe himself, despite the fact that I do question the entire Satmar mehalech.

A response about the 3 שבועות:

If our disputants look at כתובות 110-111, the entire subject is derived from שיר השירים. We do not derive Halacha from נ״ך, also known as דברי תורה מדברי קבלה לא ילפינן. If our disputants learned any גמרא, they know this. I will be דן לכף זכות that they aren’t so mindnumbingly stupid as to argue otherwise. Our disputants therefore need to find another source for banning moving to Israel before Moshaich’s arrival that is sourced in הלכה, תושב״ע, הלכה למשה מסיני, מפי מסורת or the תורה itself, not נביאים or כתובים. Their only resort is to insist on a divine decree akin to that in ירמיהו 27:22, which also happens to be in the relevant section of the בבלי. But that isn’t a strong enough argument considering the source being נ״ך.

In addition, that section of כתובות is clearly אגדתא or מדרש אגדה. We do not rule הלכה based on אגדתא or מדרש אגדה per the above maxim.

So the premise has major problems to begin with.

Rambam doesn’t mention the 3 שבועות anywhere in his writings other than in אגרת תימן, where they are referred to as being metaphorical, not actually binding. In fact, a simple reading of the relevant הלכות in משנה תורה does not line up with our disputants’ position. To get to our disputants’ position, we would have to intentionally misread the הלכות and אגרת תימן to reflect positions that are simply put, not there.

We can also argue that even if the 3 שבועות were in fact binding throughout most of Jewish history – and it indeed appears to have been the case, considering the long, bitter גלות since חורבן בית שני – they are now null and void due to the Holocaust. That horrific treatment by nations of the world was an absolute violation of the oaths on their part; per the Shulchan Aruch, we no longer need to maintain our part. The Maharal’s commentary on כתובות also applies here.

Those are strong arguments in our favor.

I will also point out – and this is after learning ויואל משה, that the author himself says the שבועות are metaphorical and not actual oaths, yet he still argues it is essentially heresy to leave גלות before Moshiach’s arrival.

Sorry, that’s a really weak argument, בלשון המעטה ביותר.

Our disputants’ primary source admits the שבועות are metaphorical and not actual oaths. Ergo, if the oaths are indeed metaphorical and not actual oaths, then they don’t apply, and at most constitute a stern warning or food for thought. Certainly that is the case if they are אגדתא or מדרש אגדה. If they aren’t and are instead binding Halacha, then the only questions to be discussed are whether they are currently void or not, and how to act based on such. Our disputants argue the שבועות are not void. We argue otherwise or lean in the opposite direction. But even that argument is moot because the State exists. Both positions are valid, but the trajectory of history is בלי עין הרע tending to show that our disputants’ position is increasingly untenable. אי״ה ובלי עין הרע that shall continue, and our disputants will eventually repent.

Second, essentially being heresy is not actual heresy. Leaving גלות before Moshiach’s arrival is not heresy, especially if you consider Rambam’s position in משנה תורה. It doesn’t violate any עיקרי אמונה despite the insistence that such does. I’d like our disputants to prove such, something they have avoided doing up until now. Quotes from REW, Brisk or Satmar without any explanation or expansion thereupon are inadequate, and may be considered simple hyperbole to keep students in line.

To those who consider this heresy and will invariably call me a heretic: You can answer הקב״ה for that accusation after 120. “כל הפוסל במומו פוסל” applies to you.

That’s all I have time for at the moment.

@somejewiknow and @HaKatan

Again, both of you are utterly clueless. For the millionth time, Zionism today is not ZIonism from almost 100 years ago. It is certainly not the same as RZ. It’s a real חבל the two of you can’t seem to grasp these two very simple facts.

Also, do you believe in שיבת ציון? Oh, you do? Then guess what? You’re a Zionist. End of discussion.

@somejewiknow

No, you most certainly are not my “brother in Torah”. Quite the opposite, most unfortunately. As far as I’m concerned, you’re מחוץ למחנה and a שונא ישראל.

@somejewiknow

You’re dodging the question. Do you consider the Rabbonim that Chaim listed to be Gedolim or not. It’s a yes or no question. We’re waiting for an answer. Your avoidance is quite telling.

@somejewiknow

Again with the refusal to address Rav Kook by his title. It’s very clear that hominem attacks and throwing out names of Rabbonim are the best you can do. Note that I gave you a mild rebuke (far less than you actually deserve, בלשון המעטה ביותר) and asked a question.

I’ll ask again:
1) Please define the terms you use.
2) Apply them to Rav Kook.
3) You claim there are Seforim that criticize Rav Kook other than that of the Satmarer. Name them – then I’ll verify what was actually said. In addition, statements from various Rabbonim don’t count unless you can give a date and name the individual who heard the statement made.

You made the claim, you back it up

If you need it and have done the relevant medical and psychological exams proving such, then obviously yes. This is kind of a no-brainer.

You’ve been calling various Rabbanim “כופרים, מסית ומדיח, אפיקורסים” for the last month or so. Your vitriol has in particular been toward Rav Kook. You’ve called Zionism heresy and IIRC, you declared a significant part of the Orthodox community as being the worst of the worst. If you think no one noticed, we did. You referred to Rav Kook by only his last name. You wrote שם רשעים ירקב in connection with his name on at least two different threads.

But I digress. It is my belief that people should know what they are talking about, especially when they throw out Halachik terminology like the terms you’ve used. So tell me something, do you know what those terms mean? Do you undertand the implications of the words you’re using? If you do, explain them and explain the application of those terms to Zionism. If you don’t and are just firing off whatever you were taught, it may be time to be quiet.

“Just to clarify, I wasn’t talking about the people who run Sefaria in my last post. I was referring to the people who would theoretically want a wacky, tranny version of the Tanach. I still don’t believe this group actually exists.”

They definitely exist. Remember, most Jews in the US (I’m including Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and unaffiliated, and even those who call themselves “patrilineal Jews”) tend to be left leaning politically and their Judaism (more like bagel flavored progressivism) is heavily affected by their politics, if not outright dictated by such. The same may be said about non-orthodox groups outside the US. You only need to scan speeches given by their leaders to see it. Those who are of my generation (millennial) and younger see it on social media (Facebook, Reddit and even LinkedIn).

JPS was probably trying to appeal to the non-orthodox world and remain relevant when doing what they did. I also suspect they also were under political pressure to do by those groups.

Bashing Charedim? No. Harshly critcising? Absolutely. Harsh criticism is not “bashing”.

“There is a common problem of people equating modern day DL with zionism of the previous generation. They are two different worlds that have very little in common. The DL world is committed to Torah and to E”Y and do not make compromises. In very ways their world and the Chareidi world are similar in terms of commitment and passion to their values. Just where you point the needle seems to account for their differences.”

Exactly right. DL is consistently misconstrued as being Herzl/Ben-Gurion-esque Zionism – an ideologically secularist, anti-religious movement, which was what the גדולים of previous generations were against. But DL being part of such a movement? No. DL never worshipped the state as Charedim claim. Do they view it as possibly the אתחלתא דגאולה? Yes. That hardly means state worship or any form of “idolatry”, just a more positive view of the state of affairs. No one DL would say the state is a לכתחילה – it very obviously isn’t. The practical difference between Charedism and DL as far as Judaism is concerned is essentially boils down to 2-3 מי שברכים (that Charedim in Israel should probably be saying per פרקי אבות) and two extra days with a quasi-chag davening. Most of the other noticeable, external differences are cultural.

(FWIW, In the same vein, DL is often mixed up with MO, when the two are completely different. The former is more akin to the traditional, Orthodox view of Tikkun Olam with the goal of the final גאולה (per עלינו לשבח) whereas the latter is more about survival in the modern era as an Orthodox Jew or trying to find the best mix of modernity and Judaism (depending on whether you link it to TiDE or TuM).

As for the keyboard warriors here who degrade רבנים outside the Charedi world, may הקב״ה have mercy on your souls after 120 for your consistent and constant denigration of תלמידי חכמים, רבנים, דיינים, etc.

Ban UJM, Joseph and his ilk.

Way to slander Rabbanim and others who are not of your ilk during Elul. (Sarcasm)

@HaKatan

You don’t know what you’re talking about and are just spewing NK talking points.

You can answer to HKB”H after 120 for being a Sonei Yisrael.

@ujm

I got your point. I was being intentionally brief.

I’ll clarify:

1) There are linguistic rules to LHK – phonological, morphological and syntactic. They exist whether or not reading/pronunciation changed due to surrounding languages. The most basic rules can pretty much be derived from any other Semitic langauge that was wasn’t essentially a liturgical language for nearly 1900 years (which is what Hebrew for the most part was, from Churban Bayis Sheni until Ben-Eliezer).

2) Teimanim (especially Baladi) appear to have the most uncorrupted reading tradition (mainly due to their relative isolation). If we want a vague idea of what LKH is supposed to sound like, look at the Baladim. Speaking of Teimanim in general, HaKatan is 100% wrong about shmad – Teimanim and Sephardim absolutely use the “th” sounds in davening and leining (anyone who has davened at a Sephardic shul or learned in a predominantly Sephardic Hesder Yeshiva (like I have) would know this – Sephardim are far more precise with pronunciation in their leining and davening than Ashkenazim are and they make a point of being so (the exception to Ashkenazim being less precise is obviously those whose tradition is נוסח אשכנז מובהק).

3) The varying pronunciations all have errors and that’s because a variety of cultural factors, time + מנהג אבותינו בידינו (sociolinguistic factors). For Teimanim, it’s ג being read as /j/; for Chassidim, pretty much everything, but especially vowels (there is at least one Chassidish Rebbe (IIRC Vizhnitz), who said he’s never heard a 100% kosher Torah reading in his life); for Litvaks, it’s cholam, as it is for Galitzianers. Ashkenazim don’t differentiate between א and ע, ח and כ, ט and ת, which they should. For Sephardim in general, their vowels are from Arabic, not Hebrew.

4) Incorrectly reading words is a problem על פי הלכה and we know this. Again, I refer to מסכת ברכות and statements about not allowing those who cannot differentiate between א and ע to serve as a שליח ציבור.

5) We have our traditions and they aren’t going away and I never said only one tradition is correct. The differences (acutally errors) in pronucnciation obviously aren’t going anywhere. But that does not change the fact that there are linguistic rules and they should be followed (and those who בשיטה don’t should obviously go back to reading correctly).

6) I never addressed Modern Hebrew. I tend to follow the opinion of Rav Kook זצ״ל that Modern Hebrew is 100% פסול insofar as fulfilling a חיוב and that Ashkenazim should be reading per Ashkenazi tradition only (and the other traditions per their Mesorah only as well, obviously). Which is why, despite having lived in Israel for 15 years (and B”H having very good Hebrew), I still daven and lein in the Ashkenazi tradition I grew up with. But I’m a distinct minority.

7) My last statement was directed at the OP, not you, asking why he cares what Yiddish does with regard to its Hebrew component. Yiddish isn’t a Semitic language, so there is no butchering of Hebrew to be done.

@ujm

This may be the one time I will ever agree with HaKatan on anything, ever. His example is correct, and reading Hebrew incorrectly when Leining / Davening / making a bracha is absolutely a problem. Certainly it can put the fulfillment of a chiyyuv into question (why do you think the Gemara made its statements about the ability to differentiate between Aleph and Ayin?).

Lashon Hakodesh does have phonological rules. Those rules exist regardless of whether the phonology of letters were affected by Galus by way of surrounding existing languages (i.e. vowel shifts in Yiddish), or in one case blatantly ignoring those rules b’shitta because of Maskilim. I have at least 3 sefarim that spell out those rules very clearly.

Last I checked, Israel doesn’t have to comply with the ADA. It’s a different country.
And we’re probably only hearing half of the story, like usual.

@philosopher – I was actually speaking to the OP, whose barely concealed racism is showing once again. Sorry for not being sufficiently clear.

You can cite whatever rulings you want.

Keep in mind: (1) the contentiousness of the issue; (2) the fact that Radvaz and Rav Ovadia are sufficient to rely upon, even if some sort of giyur lechumra or formal renunciation of Karaism is required; and (3) keep in mind that there are two Ethiopian communities in question here, the larger of the two definitely being safek akum and the other one being more likely Karaites. But I’m no expert and this is definitely above my pay grade.

Again, no issues with you at all. My issue is the barely concealed racism and bigotry that the OP constantly spews, as well as his blatant disrespect of anyone who is not Yeshivish/Chassidish. It’s tired, old, childish, divisive and quite frankly irritatingly stupid.