Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“We had here before a quote from Mir mashgiach from 1950s imploring his (small number of) students to learn at full strength not to make him into a liar (even when number of students were not important for army composition). In our time, it should be possible to make a determination of who the learner is in a way that will increase confidence in integrity: start with timeards and biometrics and some exams testing learning. Can you imaginge kiddush Hashem when the whole country would be able to see those timecards seeing how people shteig from morning to night?”
@AAQ – If only. Unfortunately it will never happen. Because it’s really simple:
1) Charedim just want money. That’s it. Whoever will give them money without strings attached will get their vote. And they will threaten to get money. Moshe Gafni regularly and shamelessly goes on record demanding money for Charedim so “Israelis don’t have to deal with them blocking roads”. Extortion much?
2) The old guard and wealthy individuals in the US (I’m looking at you Monsey and Brooklyn), UK, Switzerland, etc. would rather perpetuate a 100 year old war that is no longer relevant than look at themselves in the mirror, do an actual Cheshbon HaNefesh on their entire society, admit that 100 years have passed, the situation is Israel has dramatically changed since the 1800s and certainly changed in the last 50 years or so, and finally admit that the overwhelming majority of Charedim are most definitely not equipped to learn 3 sedarim a day and should be serving in the army or national service in some capacity and then working a normal job like everyone else.
3) Charedim will never accept ANY testing by the State. Period. Because they think they are the sole arbiters of Torah (they aren’t at all and the unbridled chutzpah to believe otherwise is quite frankly nauseating and breathtaking) and only they can determine who should learn and who shouldn’t, only they can determine the testing method, and only they can carry the testing out. Which they will never do, because to them, everyone is good enough to learn and be exempt, even the Shababnikim hanging around on Rechov Rabbi Akiva in Bnei Brak standing outside of whatever Beis Midrash or Yeshiva they were supposed to be in who spend hours on end kibbutzing and smoking rather than learning. They also will never test because of their belief that the State is evil, etc. Which goes back to my previous point that they will not grow up and stop lying to themselves.
“On the one hand, they know how badly our army needs more soldiers. The physical and psychological burden on our current force can be made easier if there were more people willing to serve. And just the general effect on morale when such a huge and important demographic refuses to serve with the rest of the nation. ”
@Simcha – If you read Hebrew language Charedi news outlets, they don’t give a flying <expletive> about the rest of the country. To them, who cares if 3/4ths of my shul was either in Gaza or up in Lebanon off and on for 2-3 years. They don’t give two <expletives> that one of my downstairs neighbors was injured in Gaza in this round and the other was injured in Gaza in 2014 and has PTSD.“I made very clear that an anti-Semite can be a Jew. In fact, they are the worst anti-Semites. Y’know, Jewish Uncle Toms.”
So you mean yourself.
Come on YYA, I expect better from you.
It’s just Judenhasse.
You’re trying to argue that Israelis are being punished for harming Charedim.
Indonesia has no zero diplomatic ties to Israel and they’re being egged on by Francesca Albanese of all people. The woman has built an entire career around “criticism” that casually slides into talking points about the “Jewish lobby” controlling America. The woman spews Judenhasse.
Charedim are being arrested for refusing to do what they are supposed to be doing – serving in army or civil service or showing up to get their exemptions.
That is not the same thing and it is not Middah k’neged middah.
Try again.
YYA: Why are you arguing with people in Chu”l? (I’m intentionally not commenting for that reason)
A lot of what the OP said is true, although I question the timing.
Duvid: Nice rhetoric. Now actually provide a counter argument to the OP.
JustThink: If you think Israel isn’t under attack, you’re willfully blind.
YYA: Here we go again…
UJM: Look in the mirror and you’ll see one.
I fail to see what the problem is here. This is no different than teaching a first grader to daven.
There’s a very good chance my Hebrew is more fluent than most people on this forum – I live in Israel in an almost completely Hebrew speaking environment – and I can’t keep up with the Shaliach Tzibbur during Selichos, even when they take their time. I regularly have to the end of most of the various piyyutim just to keep up.
You people really expect a 7th grader with a Yeshiva day school background (re: incredibly weak Hebrew) to read complex piyyutim fluently? You must be joking.
@AAQ – Yes, that is true.
However, this situation where the father in law is expected to support his daughter and son in law while they “learn” (a load of hogwash to say the least, it’s a paid vacation from reality and anyone who has seen the lives of these couples who live in Ramot Eshkol knows it) and slowly bankrupt the parents in law over several years – is idiotic.
There is a line from an alternative rock song from the 1990s that goes “Why don’t you get a job?” that is appropo for this situation. Actually, that whole song reflects what many think of this arrangement.
@AAQ – The Ketubah is very clear – the husband support his wife, not the other way around and certainly not the FIL supporting the both of them. Other “arrangements” don’t exactly matter since the Ketubah is for all intents and purposes a legal document certifying a marriage and essentially seving as a pre-nup with all the conditions for the marriage contained therein. Even the so-called “Tena’im” don’t say that nonsense.
@Chaim87 – Could be, but “working guys” should be working and earning money before they get married so they don’t have to make these ridiculous demands.Read your own Ketubah. Does it say anything about a father in law supporting his son in law?
Contrary to what Charedim seem to believe, it does not say “marry me and you (the bride) will support us” or “marry me and your father will support us”. It says, and I quote:
“Be my wife according to the practice of Moses and Israel and I shall G-d willing cherish, honor, support and maintain you in accordance with the custom of Jewish husbands who cherish, honor, support and maintain their wives faithfully. And I here present you with the marriage gift of virgins, two hundred silver Zuzim, which belongs to you per the Torah, your food, clothing and necessities, and live with you as husband and wife according to universal custom”.
Either he gets paid by his kollel or he goes and gets a job like anyone else.
“Democracy is unJewish.
Judaism supports and demands a theocracy, led by a Jewish monarch from the Davidic dynasty, under strict Biblical law.
Both historically and to be implemented in the future, under Jewish rule.”The Sanhedrin is a legislature crossed with a judiciary (at least for very specific capital crime cases). That’s one branch, possibly two in one.
There is a King. That’s a second branch.
There is a court system. That’s a third branch.
Techinically the king is subject to the Sanhedrin, although the Sanhedrin doesn’t typically act against it because a king can do what he wants – more or less anyway. So there are checks and balances of some kind.I suspect a large number of people here have never actually considered what a state governed by Halacha means and what the implications are.
Somewhatever, probably because you’ve been reported to the mods and they don’t like what you have to say.
Stupid question that shouldn’t even be given the time of day.
@AAQ –
1) Yes, and the Chasam Sofer was also ideologically opposed to any leniency in any pesak whatsoever. So his position makes sense.
2) Presumably like everyone else in eastern europe.
3) Based on what was written – and the argument that government oversight is sufficient to be considered אירתותי מירתת, I would be inclined to say no.
4) I grew up in the south, but haven’t been there in nearly 20 years. I don’t remember or know what goes on now (I assume my home community is now big enough that they sell cholov yisrael), but we definitely drank and ate cholov stam products.
5) Re “there are milk-related teshuvos discovered later in private archives”: Yes, there are. And they are specific to that person, no one else. Igros Moshe is what he wanted published. The other letters were rulings for individuals that had no business seeing the light of day – especially because of individuals like certain posters here who look for those exact individual rulings to justify their own biases and ideological beliefs.Here’s the relevant Igros Moshe.
בענין חלב הקאמפאניעס שבמדינתנו.
ט”ו סיון תשי”ד. מע”כ ידידי הרה”ג מהר”ר יהודה דיק שליט”א.
ובדבר החלב של הקאמפאניעס במדינתנו אשר יש פקוח הממשלה ואם יערבו חלב בהמה טמאה יענשו וגם יסגירו את העסק שלהם שלכן ודאי מירתתי מלערב יש טעם גדול להתיר אף בלא שיטת הפר”ח משום דהעיקר דידיעה ברורה הוא כראיה ממש כהא דשבועות דף ל”ד גם לעדות דממון. וגדולה מזה איתא בתוס’ יבמות דף מ”ה בשם יש מפרשים גם לדין ראיית ב”ד לטבילת גר עיין שם. וזהו גדר אנן סהדי שמצינו בהרבה מקומות. ואף לעדי קיומא דקידושין שאף שלא ראו אלא היחוד הוא כראו הביאה ממש ונעשית א”א גמורה אף לחייב מיתה להבא עליה אחר אח”כ ושלא לתפוס בה קידושין אחרים. ויותר מזה חזינן דאף אנן סהדי פחותה מזו כהא דחזקה אין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות שהוא כראיה ממש ונחשב כהוו עדים לקיומא אף לקולא לענין שלא להצריכה גט מהשני בקטנה שלא מיאנה והגדילה וניסת לשני בכתובות דף ע”ג ושמואל לא פליג אלא משום שאין אדם יודע שאין קידושי קטנה כלום וע”ד קידושין הראשונים בועל עיין שם, אף שאין בועל ביאת זנות הוא רק לרוב בנ”א ומ”מ נחשבה ידיעה זו כראיה ואף שצריכין אנו לעוד דבר דהוא רק ידיעה דהא לא ראינו רק יחוד ולרב הוא עוד תלתא שהם רק ידיעות שאף שסובר אדם יודע שאין קידושי קטנה כלום ודאי איכא מעוט שאין יודעין גם לדידיה כיון דאיכא מ”ד שסובר דאין אדם יודע עיין בתוס’ גיטין דף מ”ה משום שאין לומר שתהיה פלוגתתם רחוקה אך מ”מ מצד הרוב היודעין שאין קידושי קטנה כלום והרוב שאין בועלין ביאת זנות והרוב שביחוד יש גם ביאה אף שאיכא ג’ מעוטים כנגדם שאף אם נימא כמעוט אחד לא היו קידושין מ”מ נחשב לרב כעדים לקיומא ממש שבעיל לשם קידושין אף לקולא שלא יתפסו קידושי השני וגם שמואל מודה בעצם הדין כדלעיל אלמא דיש לידיעה דין ראיה ממש.
ויש ידיעה שאף בנפשות נחשב ראי’ דבמנאפים עד שיראו כדרך המנאפים אף שהחיוב הוא רק אם הכניס כמכחול בשפופרת שלא ראו זה. ומשמע מרש”י ב”מ דף צ”א שכתב דלא הזקיקתן תורה להסתכל כ”כ, דבכה”ג ברוצח ושאר מיתות לא היו מחייבין מיתה ורק במנאפים לא הזקיקתן תורה להסתכל ומחייבין אותן מיתה אף שאינה ראיה. וא”כ צריך לומר שבעצם ידיעה היא כראיה גם לגבי נפשות ולכן נהרגין במנאפין ורק בשאר מיתות הוא גזה”כ שלא ידונו ע”פ ידיעה ולכן במנאפין שהיה נמצא שלא יהרגו לעולם כדאיתא בספ”ק דמכות סובר שמואל דמוכרחין לומר דבמנאפין נהרגין ע”פ ידיעה זו ולית בהו גזה”כ זה לענין ידיעה זו אבל אם ידיעה לא היה בעצם כראיה איך שייך לומר שיהרגו כדרך המנאפין דהא עכ”פ לא ראו וליכא עדים אלא ודאי שבעצם הוא כראיה לכל דבר רק שנתחדש דבנפשות לא ידונו ע”פ עדות דידיעה ובמנאפין לא נתחדש לענין ידיעה זו.
ולכן בחלב שאסרו רק בחלבו עכו”ם ואין ישראל רואהו יש להתיר גם בישראל יודעין ידיעה ברורה דהוי כראיה. וזה שאם יערבו יענשו ויצטרכו לסגור העסק שלהם שהוא הרוחה של כמה אלפים והממשלה משגחת אליהם הוא ודאי ידיעה ברורה שהיא כראיה שלא היה בכלל איסורם. וזה הוא גם לכו”ע דאין טעם לחלוק בזה ולכן הרוצה לסמוך ולהקל יש לו טעם גדול ורשאי וכמו שמקילין בזה הרוב בנ”א שומרי תורה וגם הרבה רבנים וח”ו לומר שעושין שלא כדין. אבל מ”מ לבעלי נפש מן הראוי להחמיר ואין בזה משום יוהרא וכך אני נוהג להחמיר לעצמי אבל מי שרוצה להקל הוא עושה כדינא ואין להחשיבו כמזלזל באיסורין.
ובאם אחד נהג להחמיר אם נאסר מדין מנהג ג’ פעמים תליא אם היתה כוונתו להחמיר אף אם הדין הוא להתיר וכ”ש בידע בעצמו שיש להתיר ומ”מ נהג איסור יש עליו איסור נדר דנהג ג”פ אבל אם החמיר משום שהיה סבור שאסור מדינא או אף רק שאסור מספק וחשב על המקילין שאולי טועין בדין או שאולי הם מזלזלין באיסורין אין עליו דין נדר מצד מנהגו וא”צ היתר. והנני ידידו, משה פיינשטיין.Read carefully.
He does not lay out specific circumstances. He says he himself is strict. He says those who keep cholov yisrael aren’t acting on Yuhara by doing so. You may want to pay attention to the fact that he points out that many Rabbonim drink cholov stam and that it is inappropriate to say they are just flagrantly violating a prohibition (and according to Pischei Teshuva, a Torah level oath for Bnei Ashkenaz). Most of this is an argument in favor of goverment oversight being treated as equivalent to imposing a level of fear consistent with a non-Jewish maidservant or non-Jew in general being scared of being caught mixing non-Kosher milk into Kosher milk as well as an argument that government oversight is acceptable as “Anan sahadei”.
You want opinions for a purely cholov yisrael position that totally invalidates cholov stam? Fine. Use Chasam Sofer, Pischei Teshuva, Chachmas Adam, Aruch Hashulchan and Chelkas Yaakov. Those opinions take a position that does not consider the statement in the Gemara that כיון דכי קאי חזי ליה, אירתותי מירתת ולא מיערב ביה, which is an accepted leniency requiring a precise definition – because there is a discussion in the various authorities regarding what consisutes a Jew supervising a non-Jew milking a kosher animal. They prohibit on the grounds of a concern that something non-kosher was mixed in and an argument that no one ever permitted it – which ignores the discussion of non-Kosher milk being more expensive than cow milk and that also being a cause for leniency (and the one specifically laid out by Pri Chadash). Pischei Teshuva calls it a Torah level oath upon Bnei Ashkenaz.
However, Chazon Ish (with some caveats) held more or less like the Pri Chadash who was lenient – although not for the same reason as Radbaz – who was also lenient, as was Kehillos Yaakov under certain circumstances (for weak Yeshiva bochurim and due to government oversight).
@AAQ –
1) Re Charedim being the majority and what to do – it’s a very good question. The RZ community actively discusses how to deal with a religious majority state in journals such as Techumin. I’m not aware of any current Charedi discussion because it isn’t practical at the moment.Taking the most strict position and guessing that is the general position of the Charedi community, I would think they would shut it all down. That would be based on a view that public order or public necessity isn’t under the category of Pikuach Nefesh. However, if backup systems could be used or Grama technologies were implemented, that might not require a full shut down. But even then you may need someone there overseeing the systems and a significant percentage of the population here isn’t going to necessarily trust a non-Jew with overseeing the operations, even if they aren’t doing anything. So you’re going to end up with someone possibly violating Shabbos on some level.
2) I thought I presented a pretty good synopsis of both RZ and Charedi positions. The Charedi positions were Chazon Ish, RZSA and R’ Asher Weiss as well as R’ Shternbuch, with RSZA being the most lenient but the overall position being that it is prohibited. RZ positions were Rav Herzog and Rav Yisraeli, and Rav Herzog was initally closer to the Charedi position. I can search for more Charedi opinions on the matter, but it won’t be until some time next week.
3) Re Solar panels – yes, it does send power back to the grid. I have no idea if anyone – Charedi or RZ – has addressed solar panels generating electricity and the direct use thereof on Shabbos. Again, I can check next week. But I presume the same problems with the grid would apply to solar panel systems because it is essentially its own grid. The only way to get around it would be for the solar panels to charge batteries that would be used on Shabbos. That’s definitely doable (there are “tiny homes on wheels” that make use of them regularly) but the question would be technical scalability for an entire neighborhood or even country.
@YYA –
I was telling off SJ. I think you can cut me some slack here, all things considered.@YYA – I said “it would be just another case of Mamzerus in the Rabbanut’s records”. That says exactly what I think of the ruling in the Langer case (I would need to read the entire transcript of the case to get a full picture of the situation and understanding of the Halachos at play like i would with any other Halachik subject I read (I don’t take what Rabbonim say at face value, I want to see the sources for myself)) and what I think of the other case as well. I thought it would be obvious.
@Yankel – I’ve said what I had to say on the subject and I stand by it. I never said those Rabbonim had no integrity or yiras shamayim. What I said is that no one immune from biases, not even highly esteemed Rabbonim. There’s a reason why recusion exists, as does the term “conflict of interests”. It is also a known fact that Charedi newspapers serve as outlets for the Rabbonim, so it only stands to reason that the opinions expressed are those of said Rabbonim, only in a more vitriolic format. The Rabbonim could certainly have told the outlets to turn the level of vitriol down and to be respectful in their criticism – which they did not. Only HKB”H Himself can be described as unbiased, and even that is an insult to Him – as if such a thing could even be possible! (Definitely not!) That aside, the RZ community rejected the Kol Korei as did other communities. There really isn’t more to be said about it unless you would like to have a Halachik discussion about the application of Rabbinic authority post-Churban Bayis Sheni and the sealing of the Talmud (and by extension the complete freezing of Halacha) – and with the total exclusion of the subject of “Daas Torah” in its modern iteration.@Shimon – You missed my point entirely, but I admit you need to read far more than one of my posts to get it. Which you very obviously didn’t. So I’ll explain it to you exactly once. I will not do so again: My focus and point in these admittedly tired and stupid threads has always been a clear, vocal objection to everything Satmar and those aligned with them, usually on Halachik grounds. Nothing more than that. The post you are responding to is an admittedly more bombastic one. I will also add that I was addressing one of the most offensive people on this forum.
You also just interrupted a Halachik discussion. This thread is no longer about the orginal subject. It has shifted to a discussion of electricity on Shabbos in Israel as far as Halacha is concerned, with no consideration of politics. I would like to keep it that way. So I will ask you to kindly go away unless you can contribute meaningfully to the conversation by presenting actual Shu”t literature (whether Sephardic or Ashkenazi) about the subject – from any valid authority in the RZ or Charedi commnunities, or by asking/answering questions in a respectful manner. Thank you.
I do find it interesting that this is the second time that AAQ and I have attempted to engage in a friendly Halachik/Hashkafic discussion and have been interrupted by someone who cannot read the room. (in the other case, the thread was completely deleted. I have no idea why but I suspect someone complained about Artscroll being called out).
As for the heresy accusation: That’s baseless, insulting, it is not true in the slightest (I haven’t violated any of the 13 principles, whether short or long version, or anything in any of Rambam’s writings). You’ve crossed an unacceptable line that is almost as bad as the individual who decided it was a good idea to question my Yichus on this forum. Something he was immediately slapped down for.
But you know what?
You and everyone else here who has flung that accusation at me – whether today or in the past, or even in the future (you all know who you are) – can all answer HKB”H after 120 years unless you all apologize to me for that accusation – in person – and never make it again. Yes, that means you’re going to have to figure out a way to contact me and speak to me in person. I’m not joking in the slightest.
Consider this post an objection to that accusation for eternity.
Be well.
@AAQ – I know the examples are old. I’m presenting the classical Chareidi position, which is that you can’t use the grid because of Shabbos desecration issues across the board, whether they are on ideological grounds (“Gevalt! Evil Zionists!”) or varying understandings of Pikuach Nefesh, where public order fits within that, and precisely which of the Melachot is occurring – boneh, makeh be-patish, etc. or even the fact that IEC is operating a busines on Shabbos.
The RZ community doesn’t hold that way. The general perspective is that it’s a Pikuach Nefesh issue that overrides Shabbos, with the solutions to be used on Shabbos and Chagim being minimally akin to those created by the Tzomet Institute – meaning to lessen the issues via Grama rather than direct violation of Shabbos, if not the use of batteries and built-in back-up systems.
As for starting a solar panel business in Israel, the IEC will work with people who want to install solar panels to reduce their power bills (and maybe charge batteries for use over Shabbos).
Regarding use of electricity not being public order – it is public order if you consider the consequences of no electricity in the modern era, which would be utter pandemonium. In which case you’re then looking at possible Pikuach Nefesh issues.
@YYA – Welcome back for the 3rd or 4th time.I’m intentionally ignoring modern Israeli Charedi-Dati-Chiloni politics.
Re your other two posts: Seriously? Are we really going to heresy accusations? I’m only going to respond that you should have figured out by now that such an accusation is ridiculous and inaccurate, to say the very least.
@Yankel – I’m not interested in a debate over Rav Goren. You may respond as you would like to this, but I already said that I saw your point but can’t edit the post. I’ll leave my throughts on Rav Goren and the entire controversy with this:
The ruling in question was definitely questionable (especially per a simple reading of Rambam) and – without knowing that much about the case beyond what is publically available because the book containing the full pesak is really hard to find – more than likely wrong.
As for Rav Goren not being an authority: In the end, that Kol Korei only affected the Charedi community. It did not extend to anywhere else and the RZ community absolutely rejected it. Even the RCA didn’t react positively to it.
However, let’s be clear: The Kol Korei didn’t happen in a vaccuum. The Hamodia had been slandering Rav Goren for years at that point, calling him all sorts of names – names that they still use today and that they are (revoltingly) still proud of. In fact, the Hamodia spent 46 years ripping on Rav Goren – even until the day he died. Which is unbelievable. The Yated spent 9 years doing the same. Also, it’s a known fact that Kol Korehs are issued for everything under the sun, even the most ridiculous, ancillary nonsense. I don’t believe for a second that the Hamodia and Yated’s extreme bias didn’t reach the Rabbonim who signed the paper. It absolutely did. Everyone has their biases, including you and I and including Rabbonim, even the most prominent and respected of them. This case – because of its public nature – was just the right opportunity to strike. Had this just been another case without any publicity and if Gideon Hausner and the various politicos (like Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir) had never involved themselves – and they should not have, no one would have cared and it would be just another case of Mamzerus in the Rabbanut’s records.
And quite frankly, the fact that Satmar (a bad-faith actor in everything anti-State and any sort of Zionism) was involved via financing a campaign against the man on ideological grounds and by using pressure and aggressive rhetoric – that made the whole thing an embarrassing sham that IMO only resulted in bizui talmidei chachamim and Rabbonim as well as a less respect for Rabbonim as a whole – something that has only gotten worse over the years. And it is truly embarrassing.
@AAQ – That argument is that the power company isn’t a public utility producing power for emergency purposes, it’s a company that earns money. Thus they are making money on Shabbos by operating the grid or when people make use of electricity.
I haven’t had a chance to read the shu”t literature about it in depth, but my understanding of the Charedi position is that the grid is prohibited because Jews are violating Shabbos by maintaining the power grid, even if it’s mostly automated and run by a computer and various automated algorithms. Even the fact that there is a Jew present watching the systems makes it prohibited to use.
SJ:
Speak for yourself. There’s a massive difference between “This is a bad idea, don’t do it” (in this case, Meiri was saying “This is super dangerous ergo don’t do it” as a non-binding common sense moral, philosophical, or socio-historical directive) and the Halachik ruling of “This is illegal under Torah Law per Mitzvah abc with xyz violation and ghi consequences”.
As for Satmar: The Satmar Rebbe’s argument is that the Oaths are as a matter of Hashkafa that carries the weight of binding Halacha. He argues they are binding precisely they are a Sui Generis Halacha that are the “Oaths of the Creator” defining Galus and whether or not they are counted in the Minyan HaMitzvos. To SR, saying they aren’t “LiHalacha” because they aren’t in the Shulchan Aruch is like saying “don’t jump off a cliff” isn’t a law because it isn’t in the building code. It’s a foundational reality that precedes codification. This argument is SR’s claim about Rambam (even though it 100% flies in the face of everything Rambam wrote, including the fact that the three oaths are used in Risaala Yemeniyya as a rhetorical flourish, not an actual Halachic argument), and he uses Maharal’s (literalist) position on the Oaths as laws of nature for the Jewish people: If you violate them, you aren’t just “breaking a rule”; you are dismantling the spiritual protection of the nation. Moreover, SR argues that such violation is heresy – an argument with real Halachic consequences.
Moreover, if the SR said what you’re now claiming – and I dispute that, then his entire sefer is not LiHalacha at all. It is rather a vitriolic polemic of epic proportions that is a fantastic Mussar sefer when directed against ideological secularism, but it is on the Halachically binding level of Mesillas Yesharim or sayings by the Kotzker.
@AAQ –
Obviously one needs to know what they are talking about and keep in mind practical Halacha.
However, that does not detract from my argument. If in fact the oaths are LiHalacha as argued by members of this forum, there should be a ruling somewhere not Vayoel Moshe that states as such. There isn’t one. It just doesn’t appear anywhere in the the major Halachic codes. Which begs the question why. The answer is fairly obvious: We don’t issue Halachik rulings sourced in Midrash Aggada, which is where the oaths come from. This is a clearly understood principle. So then the question is why Satmar, Brisk, etc. decided it is LiHalacha and why they push it so hard. The answer to that question is far less comfortable because it has nothing to do with Torah and more to do with the lived experience, politics and ideology of certain Rabbonim.
If I’m wrong, I’d love for someone to show me a clear statement in an authoritative Halachik work – meaning Rif, Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, etc. – that the oaths are absolutely LiHalacha.
And I will point out that LiHalacha is not the same as taking something such as the oaths literally. Because even taking them literally does not mean it is LiHalacha, they could just really mean what Meiri says: It’s dangerous to attempt (ergo not a smart thing to do), so don’t do it.
Re Rav Goren: There is a similar story about Rav Soloveitchik.
What DaMoshe said: Everything gets turned into Zionism these days. We’re a long way from the days when this website and forum were basically about New York-centric Yeshivish issues and arguments over Modern Orthodoxy.
@Yankel – I think that’s a really extreme comparison although I do understand it.
1) I see your point. I can’t change the post so it’s moot. That aside, we’ll have to disagree. Rav Goren is not a Rabbinic authority to the Charedi public, mainly due to the Charedi media’s blatant disrespect and slander as well as Satmar – who essentially called him the devil incarnate. But say I mentioned Rav Kook or other world-class RZ Rabbonim, would you say the same thing, that they aren’t authorities, and only Charedi Rabbonim count?
2) Re Maharal: I didn’t have a chance to look at Maharal inside so I’ll take your word for it. My point is that is that the Satmarer is the one who made such a massive issue out of it and a hill to die on.
@AAQ – It is true that Halacha mostly deals with daily life. However, the more expansive codes – Rambam, Rif, Rosh, etc. – address the subject of Moshiach and they do not mention the oaths at all.
@yankel – That’s a major understatement (and you and I 100% agree about it).
@yankel – Thanks for the compliment. We will have to agree to disagree. I try to remain fact-based although the anti-Zionist triumverate here makes it exceedingly difficult.
Micro P:
You’ve strung together a series of Satmar polemics together with what may be at best considered a chiddush and presented them as an airtight theological fortress. While your devotion to a single 20th-century text is charming in its simplicity, your grasp of Halachic methodology and historical record is, to put it delicately, rather malnourished.
You are remarkably confident that the Midrash found in Maseches Kesubos 111a is binding Halacha. If the oaths were indeed “brought down Li-Halacha throughout the ages”, one would expect to find them in the actual codes of law. Can you point me to the chapter in Mishneh Torah where he codifies these oaths? Perhaps Rif? Or Shulchan Aruch? How about Ramban? Nothing? That’s because they’re absent. Totally, completely and utterly absent. The primary arbiters of Jewish law – Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Tur and Shulchan Aruch as well as Levush omitted them because they understood a fundamental rule you seem to be unable to grasp: we do not derive binding Halacha from Aggadic passages.
In addition, none of the following major Halachik authorities and Rabbinic leaders from the Geonim to the Acharonim mention it as a binding obligation of any kind: Rav Saadia Gaon, Behag, Rabbeinu Tam, Raavad, Or Zarua, Meiri (he explains the Gemara in Ketubos but frames the Oaths as a metaphorical warning about the difficulty of the journey, not a legal ban); Ritva explicitly notes that these are Aggadic in nature, which explains why they aren’t in the codes; Magen Avraham never mentions the Oaths as a factor in daily law; Chayei Adam does not mention of a prohibition against organized Aliyah; Aruch HaShulchan records no such prohibition; and finally, the Mishnah Berurah – who would be expected to write them as biding law because he lived during the rise of polticial Zionism – did not. To goto the modern era, Rav Shlomo Kluger, Rav Chaim Vital, Rav Meshulam Rath, Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Shlomo Goren disagree with you.
Thus your claim that “every Gadol” supports your view is nonsense, and the bottom line is that The Halachik record shows that only Rav Yitzchak de Leon, Maharal, Shelah HaKadosh, Maharsha, Rav Hirsch and the Satmarer take your position. But it is only the Satmarer who attempts your beloved chiddush that elevates these Oaths to the status of yehareg v’al ya’avor. No one else agrees.
You can kindly stop now.
But let’s play your game for a second. If the Oaths are a legally binding contract, let’s look at the fine print. The Oaths were a reciprocal agreement. One oath was that the Jews wouldn’t rebel; the other was that the nations of the world would not “oppress Israel too much”. Do you honestly intend to argue, with a straight face, that the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Pogroms, and the Holocaust do not constitute “oppressing too much”? If the nations broke their side of the bargain – and they did, in a spectacularly horrific fashion too – the Jewish people are legally and logically released from theirs. To suggest otherwise isn’t piety; it’s a theological suicide pact.
Bringing up the Ben Koziva (Bar Kochba) revolt as a proof for the Oaths is historically illiterate and a red herring. Bar Kochba’s failure is attributed by the Gemara and the Rambam to his arrogance or the fact that the generation was not yet worthy, not because he violated an “Oath” from Shir HaShirim. In fact, Rabbi Akiva, the greatest sage of his era, supported the revolt. Was Rabbi Akiva unaware of the “universally accepted” oaths, or did he simply possess a clearer understanding of the Torah than a 20th-century revisionist? And for the record, I also won’t point out what is probably the more obvious reason why Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students died – and it has nothing to do with a lack of respect and flies in the face of the oaths.
In addition, what AAQ said is true: These debates and fights are from 100 years ago and irrelevant today despite your attempt to keep them alive and relevant. The only relevant questions are associated with how to deal with the State and that is a discussion I will only have with those living in EY.
@AAQ –
The early position was that electricity was absolutely prohibited. Chazon Ish prohibited using “Zionist electricity” because he viewed the workers’ actions as intentional desecration. He argued that even if the electricity is necessary for life-saving services (hospitals, security), once there is a “surplus” used for lighting homes, the Jew at home becomes a beneficiary of the worker’s sin. Specifically in Orach Chaim 38:4, he argues that using this electricity involves a Chilul Hashem (desecration of God’s name) because it demonstrates a lack of “pain” over the public violation of Shabbat.
That’s why Charedim made extensive use of genetators or just sat in the dark. BTW, this still goes on today in some areas (I’ve witnessed it in specific neighborhoods in Bnei Brak – and I’ve heard a couple blow up from overuse during a 3 day Chag).
In Minchat Shlomo (Vol. 1, 11:7), RSZA writes: “Technically, one can find grounds to permit [using the grid], as the electricity is being produced for the sick and for security… However, one who is stringent to use a generator is performing a ‘great thing’ (davar gadol) to avoid even a scent of benefiting from Shabbat desecration”. Which is aruging that power plant must run anyway for Pikuach Nefesh so a private citizen drawing a little more current isn’t necessarily causing more “work” to be done in a way that creates a new prohibition.
Today, there is a tendency to use grama technologies (think Tzomet Institute) and batteries.
Rav Shternbuch is opposed to any use (Teshuvos VeHanhagos Vol. 1, 264), arguing even with automation, the “system” is managed by Jews who make decisions based on economic savings rather than Pikuach Nefesh and is also “empowering transgressors”. He basically reinforces Chazon Ish’s ban.
Rabbi Asher Weiss in (Minchat Asher) prohibits on different grounds – Makeh Be-Patish not Boneh (which personally makes more sense to me).
Rav Yitzchak Yosef allows it but those want to truly be “good, frum Yidden” shouldn’t.
“While you are correct that the halacha would indeed mandate that Jews rise up and violently fight the Zionists (like any other masis umadiach, kofer, michalel shabos, etc), we have unfortunately lost the masora of how to be “moredim”, as our Gedolim have taught us that we must wait for Moshiach to fight these wars against Hashem when the zionists and their supporters will be destroyed.
1) I thought it was “maysis imaydiach”?
2) Violently fight would only apply to an Ir Ha-Nidachas. The three you listed would be executed, assuming the criteria were fulfilled. Learn Halacha.
3) Zionism – yeah, we know, you wish we would all die CV”H, because you’re a Sonei Yisrael par excellence.Most importantly:
4) You’re waiting for Moshaich to fight against Hashem, after the Zionists are destroyed? That is very interesting.@AAQ:
The Rabbonim who ruled in the case in question were Rav Herzog, Rav Ben-Zion Uziel and Rav Shaul Yisraeli; the city in question was Haifa. It should be noted that Rav Herzog changed his stance from using bikes/horses to using cars. My understanding is that the background is more or less what you said it was.
Halachik sources: (1) Heichal Yitzhak (OC 32): Rabbi Herzog’s original thoughts on police work. (2) Amud HaYemini (Siman 17): Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli’s expansive defense of police activity on Shabbat. (3) Techumin (Vol 7): Often contains retrospectives on these early state-building psaks.
The actual pesak seems to be maintaining public order (which includes stopping stealing cars) falling under the category of pikuach nefesh – the State cannot function if it totally shuts down for 25 hours each week. Use of a bike would not help, so cars may be used, but some shinui needs to take place when starting the car.
Micro P:
Still trying to have the last word, are we? Just stop now.
To suggest that the State of Israel and its defense are a “rebellion against G-d” is to ignore a massive body of Halachic literature and the rulings of some of the greatest Torah scholars of the modern era. It’s far from being an “idol” but you’re too blind to get that. Everyone here other than you, ujm and SJ knows it.
The prayer for the State, the prayer for the IDF, and the recitation of Hallel are grounded in firm Halachic principles. Your ignorance or your hilariously pathetic attempts to argue otherwise based on appeals to authority do not matter in this case.
The Prayer for the State: The concept of praying for the welfare of the government is a time-honored Jewish tradition, rooted in the Mishnah: “Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it, men would swallow each other alive” (Pirkei Avos 3:2). In addition, there is the concern of the safety of millions: and the issue of “Lo ta’amod al dam re’acha”. Even if one were to view the state secularly, Halacha mandates praying for the safety of any entity that protects millions of Jewish lives. To refuse to pray for the safety of the State is to stand idly by the blood of your neighbor. As for the phrase “First Flowering of Redemption” that you and your ilk loathe – Chief Rabbis Herzog and Uziel who composed the prayer described the State as Reishit Tzmichat Geulatenu, that the recent and current kibbutz galuyos is a clear biblical promise being fulfilled, and to ignore it is to deny HKB”H’s hand in history. But it is also not an absolute declaration that the State is in fact the beginning of the Geula, and anyone who has read the prayer can figure that out.
The Prayer for the IDF: The prayer for soldiers is based on the biblical and Halachic obligation of Milchemet Mitzvah. Defending the Jewish people from those who seek to destroy them is the highest form of Pikuach Nefesh. The prayer asks G-d to “strengthen the hands of those who defend our holy land”. It draws on the precedent of Moshe and Yehoshua, recognizing that while soldiers fight the physical battle, it is Hashem who “walks with you to fight for you against your enemies” (Devarim 20:4).
Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaut: The recitation of Hallel is the Halachic response to a miracle. Gemara Pesachim 117a states that the prophets instituted Hallel for “every trouble that befalls the community; when they are redeemed from it, they recite it over their redemption”. That Gemar also states that it is recited when a new period of Jewish history begins. 1948 was certainly that – the Jewish people moved from the ashes of the Holocaust to sovereign self-defense against five invading armies. Aside that clearly marking a new period of Jewish history – one where we were given the chance to govern ourselves, leading poskim like Rabbi Meshulam Rath ruled that this was a miracle of biblical proportions mandating Hallel. In addition, there are precedents of Chanukah and Purim: Just as we say Hallel on Chanukah for a military victory and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty – even under a Hasmonean dynasty that was later criticized by the Sages – we say Hallel for the sovereignty restored in 1948. In addition, Megillah 14a uses a Kal VaChomer to explain why we celebrate holidays like Purim: If we sing Hallel for being delivered from slavery to freedom, we must certainly sing Hallel for being delivered from death to life.
In addition, Magen Avraham (686:5) and Chayei Adam (155:41) rule based on the Gemara that any community that experiences a miracle is authorized – maybe even obligated – to establish a “Purim” for all future generations on the anniversary of that miracle, which is something that has occurred on many occasions.
You cannot argue against this other than on rhetorical grounds or sticking to very specific opinions.
And I will point out that my argument is for everyone in Israel. I never extended that opinion to the rest of the world, which is that it’s nice to do as solidarity but not Halachically mandated. However, Charedim should be saying the prayer for the government of whatever country they are in. They don’t and that is a violation of Halacha.
As for the “shmad” nonsense:
First of all, you clearly don’t know what Shmad means. That refers to an era where Jews are forced to violate their religion and there is real persecution. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions were that. The forced conversions in the 1300s by the Almoravids were that. The Holocaust was obviously that. In the “State” you disparage, there are more Batei Midrash and Mikvaos than at any point in the last two millennia and no one is actively forcing Charedim and the RZ to violate Halacha or persecuting them, unless you consider being punished for not doing your civic duty to be persecution. Not even by serving in the IDF. If this is “destruction”, words have lost all meaning. You’re comparing a Jewish home where the Hebrew language is resurrected and Shabbos is the national day of rest the above. That’s a spit in the face of our ancestors who actually endured shmad.SJ:
So we’re doing the “my daddy is greater than your daddy” thing with Rabbonim? What is this, kindergarten? Grow up.
Rav Shmuel Mohilever & Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Reines, both Rav Kooks, The Nazir, Rav Herzog, Rav Meshulam Rath, Rav Goren, and even Rabbi JB Soloveitchik, Rav Meir Bar-Ilan, The Rebbe of Pashkan/The Ruzhiner Rebbe and Rav Yehuda Leib Maimon all disagreed with them. So did Rav Yehuda Alkalai, Rav Yehuda Bibi, Rav Yaakov Shaul Eliashar, Rav Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel, Rav Yitzchak Nissim, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, Rav Chaim David Halevi and Rav Shalom Messas. I can add those who had a lukewarm to positive view, such as The Ponevezher Rav, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Teichtal, and Rav Dushinsky. I will also remind you that Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Elyashiv themselves were part of the Rabbanut until their disagreement with Rav Goren over one specific case (and by the way, Rav Goren himself had a far more complicated view of the State and IDF than the oversimplified garbarge the Charedi public spews).
Also, with all due respect to those Rabbonim you listed, the term “Gedoylim” as you use it is an Ashkenazi invention meant to rank Rabbis in a heirarchical structure where one of “higher stature” can automatically veto what someone “less respected” says and the mere mention of said “higher stature” rabbi automatically ends the conversation. This is a structure that should not exist and it also flies in the face of Halacha (See commentaries on “Acharei Ha-Rabim Le-Hatos”. Certainly modern “Daas Toyreh”, which is solely focused on control of the masses, absolute conformity, anti-state rhetoric and ancillary nonsense is (and this should be differentiated between actual Da’as Torah, which is mastering our corpus and Masoret).
In fact, our tradition shows that one may absolutely disagree with his rabbi if he has legitimate grounds to do so. I don’t even need to list the sources, you can look them up. You have your Rabbonim. I have mine. We will have to agree to disagree despite your completely inability to be respectful about it.
Micro P:
Stop trying to have the last word when your fundamental premise regarding the Three Oaths is a halachic fantasy. To claim there is “zero” Torah authority suggesting the oaths are not in force is a blatant lie that ignores the Avnei Nezer, the Kli Yakar, Rav Shmuel Mohilever & Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Reines, Rav Menachem Kasher and other Poskim who rule that the oaths were nullified when the nations “exceeded the limit” of their mandate or due to time or due to the fact that Aggada is not used Le-Halacha (something you are incapable of grasping). Your selective reading of Gemara Shavuos ignores the reality that the oaths were a reciprocal agreement, not a suicide pact. Stop pretending your position represents the totality of Torah authority; it is an insult to the scholarship you claim to uphold.
Your attempt to hand-wave away the 1834 Safed plunder and the 1517 Hebron attacks as “minor incidents” is historical revisionism. You are ignoring centuries of Dhimmi status, which long preceded Zionists and Zionism. To call that “peace” is to romanticize a period of precarious survival. Stop the dishonest attempts to rewrite history to fit your narrative and acknowledge that Jewish blood was spilled long before the modern era. The claim that Pan-Arabism would have been “irrelevant” to Jews without Zionism is utter garbage. The rise of ethnic nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries across the Middle East targeted all minorities. Just look at the fate of the Assyrians and the Maronites. To suggest that Jews, a distinct ethnic and religious minority, would have been uniquely spared by a movement built on Arab supremacy is delusional. You are blaming the victim for the inevitable tide of regional radicalism.
To blame the Chevron Massacre on “godless Zionists” is a vile justification of a pogrom. You are siding with the Mufti by suggesting that a religious dispute over the Western Wall justifies the butchery of old men, women, and children who weren’t even part of the Zionist movement. Your logic provides a “heavens-sent” excuse for murderers. A “cordial relationship” that ends in a massacre at the first sign of a political dispute was never a relationship based on peace–it was a relationship based on submission. Learn to distinguish between a provocation and a slaughter.
Your assertion that Zionism is the “opposite of Judaism” is a tired, broken record that ignores the thousands of years Jews prayed daily for the return to Zion. Don’t try to gaslight me. I can read what is in a Siddur. You take the “New Hebrew” concept out of its 19th-century context to paint a caricature, ignoring the millions who are currently building hospitals, schools, and charities within the state you despise. You are looking at the ground and seeing only dirt while ignoring the garden.
Your constant need to claim the moral high ground and have the last word while spitting on the efforts of your brothers to defend themselves is ridiculous. You demand silence from others while you broadcast a distorted, one-sided version of reality that serves no one but the enemies of the Jewish people. My advice remains: stop trying to have the last word with these logically fallacious and historically bankrupt arguments. Open a history book that wasn’t written by your own echo chamber, and face the reality that your “idealized past” never existed.
As for this nonsense: “The news stories each day reveals the depths of the opposite that are the Zionists, as in their horrific assaults against (chareidi) Jews there”. Stop limiting yourself to just the Yated, Hamodia and this website. Even Kikar Shabbat, BeChadrei and Kol BeRama are less biased than you and don’t blame every single thing on Zionism the way you do (they usually blame Secularism and progressive politics, and correctly so).
@AAQ – That’a very specific question. I will IY”H look it up.
MicroP:
No, it is in fact you who needs to learn some Torah, which is not limited to three Charedi Rabbonim from the 1900s. Without getting into yet another tired discussion of the Three Oaths and all the related topics, there is an opposing view, one held by giants of Halakha and Machshava, that you and your compadres refuse to acknowledge in the slightest because of politics. We’re not going there, but the fact that you’ve reduced the vast, multi-faceted corpus of Jewish tradition to a single, 20th-century anti-statist polemic proves your “education” is sorely lacking. To act as if the entirety of the Torah’s relationship with EY begins and ends with Satmar-aligned ideology is ignorant and a theological embarrassment.
You’re trying to lecture me on “learning history” while simultaneously huddling inside a fantasy world built entirely out of revisionist nostalgia. You claim I’m “projecting my imagination”, yet your entire premise relies on a romanticized, fictional version of the pre-1948 Middle East.
Your insistence that Jews lived in “peace” before the “Zionist invasion” is a textbook Cherry-Picking Fallacy. You’ve conveniently scrubbed the 1834 Safed plunder, the 1517 Hebron attacks, and some 1300 years of humiliating Dhimmi status from your memory. “Peace” is a bold word for a system where Jews were forbidden from building houses higher than Muslims, forbidden from riding horses, and required to pay a “protection” tax (more like mafia-esque extortion on a massive scale) just to keep their heads. In some cases, Jews literally had to wear yellow clothing (doesthat ring a bell?). If your definition of “peace” is “quietly accepting institutionalized degradation”, then your dictionary is as broken as your logic.
You argue that because the region became a “nightmare” after Zionism, Zionism is the sole cause. This is the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy at its finest. It ignores the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of Pan-Arab nationalism, and global geopolitical shifts that had nothing to do with Jews. To blame the “nightmare” entirely on Jews wanting self-determination rather than on the violent rejection of that presence by others is victim-blaming yet again.
Again the Mufti. You have no shame. “Cordial” didn’t save the lives of those in Chevron or in the Arab Riots; it just gave the Mufti a polite way to scope out the targets. The “lay low” strategy is easy to preach when you’re alive to talk about it. It’s a strategy that failed in the Crusades, failed in the Inquisition, and failed in the Pogroms. Using the temporary, fragile quiet of one specific era as a universal rule for Jewish survival is not “Torah wisdom”; it’s a dangerous gamble with other people’s lives.
Finally, let’s address your absurd claim that Zionism is the “opposite of Jew”. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy. You don’t get to move the goalposts of an entire identity just because you’ve decided your specific brand of anti-statist theology is the only one that counts. Unless you’ve recently been promoted to the Almighty Himself, you don’t get to dictate who is “Jewish” and who is a “sinner”. You don’t get to arrogantly try to gatekeeping a 3,000-year-old identity to fit your narrow, 19th-century anti-Zionist polemic.
Re Nazism and Nazis. You deliberately avoided my point, again.
Spend less time telling others to “learn history” and more time reading the parts of history that don’t fit your echo chamber.
@AAQ: I would love for all of these threads to die off. I wish the @mods would kill them all off. I only respond to the three anti-Zionists because someone needs to present the other side and directly challenge them.
I’m far more interested in issues surrounding Halachic authority, what Halachic authorities actually address (and what has not been addressed), and the major theological problems with Chassidus. Whether Zionism is heresy or not or attitudes toward the State and IDF – as far as I’m concerned, it’s very simple: Secularist Zionism is, Religious Zionism isn’t. The State exists, deal with it – ideally recognizing what HKB”H has given us (by saying the prayers for the State and IDF per halacha). Serve in the army or civil service. That’s it.
To directly respond to the original post one final time: No, “Settlers” are not Rodfim, and the RZ establishment has always been quick about distancing itself from bad behavior, calling out bad behavior (we actually throw our own Rabbonim in jail when they commit crimes deserving such). RZ has also always admitted that the “hilltop youth” – and those who act like them – have always been a problem and that they are extremely difficult to reel in – especially since many went through the Gaza expulsion (that’s exactly what it was). The incident in question is far more complicated and involved some Arab praying on the side of the road – a bad location to pray in, especially on a rug (the driver literally didn’t see him), as well as a driver/soldier driving through a hostile situation – one that could have ended with yet another lynch mob, and an area that has strategic importance to protecting Yerushalayim from Arabs.
One last thing, Small One: In your post, if we replaced the word “Zionist” with “Jew”, it would be virulent Judenhasse.
Think about that.
Small one:
Your post is a masterclass in historical revisionism and victim-blaming. You’re attempting to sanitize the most brutal anti-Jewish violence of the 20th century by suggesting that if Jews had simply remained “quiet” and “submissive”, their enemies would have treated them with kindness.
To suggest that Haj Amin al-Husseini was a friend to the Jews until “Zionism” appeared is a complete fabrication. And you’re a disgusting liar for suggesting anything to the contrary. The Mufti was a Nazi collaborator who met with Hitler and actively lobbied for the “Final Solution” to be extended to the Middle East. The historical record, especially the Shaw Commission Report and police records and documented meetings between Hitler YMSV”Z and Husseini demonstrate this.
As far as the Chevron Massacre, Al-Husseini distributed leaflets claiming that Jews were planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. That’s a religious blood libel with nothing to do with a non-existent state. The Jews slaughtered in Hebron were largely the “non-Zionist” Old Yishuv, the people you claim were safe. But I can go futher back. In April 1920, he used the Nabi Musa pilgrimage as a vehicle for anti-Jewish violence. In the 1910s, he focused on the idea that Jews inherently “defile” Islamic holy sites and in 1918 started the “Al-Aqsa is in Danger” narrative.
There is also the transcript of the meeting between Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini on November 28, 1941, where the Mufti thanked Hitler for his “sympathy for the Palestinian cause” and Hitler explicitly told him that the German goal was the “total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe” and the “destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere.” The Mufti didn’t protest; he asked how he could help.
That is not not a man who was just “anti-Zionist”, but a foundational architect of modern Islamist Judenhasse and a literal partner in the Nazi genocide.
And you’re whitewashing him, Sonei Yisrael.
Let’s be clear: The only Arabs willing to tolerate Jews in the Middle East were the past rulers of Mecca – the current Jordanian monarchy, who were kicked out of the Arabian Peninsula by Ibn Al-Saud and his insane cleric Ibn Al-Wahhab. But that monarchy only was in favor of any significant Jewish presence so long as Muslims remained the absolute authorities.
As for the insane claim that “if not for the Zionists, the Holocaust would not have happened” is offensive in the extreme. You’ve just absolved Hitler and the Nazi party of their primary role in the genocide. You’re ignoring the fact that the Nazis targeted Jews as an ethnoreligious group, not politics. Whether a Jew was a Zionist, a Communist, or a Satmarer, they went to the same gas chambers. You’re also ignoring Hitler’s own documented Judenhasse from his young adulthood and ten years developing his Judenhasse ideology.
The White Paper: You missed my point, like usual. Zionism wasn’t part of the equation, appeasing Arab violence was. To suggest the British would have “opened the doors” during the war if Jews hadn’t “agitated” is a fantasy; the British spent the 1940s hunting down Jewish refugee ships and sending survivors to camps in Cyprus. Moreover, the British were not “perfectly capable of defending the Jews”. History proves it. During the Arab Revolt and the 1929 Riots, the British frequently stood by or disarmed Jewish defense groups while Arab mobs attacked. In 1948, the British abandoned the Jews to a five-army Arab invasion, even handing over key strategic police forts to the Arab Legion. Do I need to also remind you of what happened in York in the 1100s and the fact that Jews were expelled from England for some 366 years?
Your claim that Zionists sacrificed Jews for the State may be true. But you are absoutely ignoring the fact that the only entity on earth trying to get Jews out of Europe when every other door (USA, UK, Canada) was shut was the Zionist movement. The “rivers of blood” the Brisker Rav spoke of were indeed a tragedy, but you prefer the “rivers of blood” of the Crusades, the Chmielnicki massacres, Kishinev, the Farhud, and the Holocaust where Jews died with no way to fight back.
You calling Jews “invaders” in the only land where we are indigenous is adopting a Judenhasse position. By your warped logic, the students of the Vilna Gaon and the Chovevei Zion were okay because they were “non-political”. But once those Jews decided they didn’t want to be slaughtered every twenty years and built an army to prevent it, they became “invaders.”
You only accept a Jew if he is passive. The moment a Jew takes action , he is “equally evil” to a Christian.
Face it: You’re actually arguing that Jewish safety is found in “pleasing the master” and that any attempt at self-determination – even if guided by HKB”H – is a sin tantamount of the 3 cardinal aveiros. You are ignoring the fact that the Arabs and the Nazis didn’t care about the “Three Oaths”, they cared about killing Jews.
None of this is Torah; it’s a suicide pact masquerading as piety. It uses the names of great Rabbonim to justify a position that leaves Jews defenseless in a world that has proven, time and again, it will not protect them.
SJ:
For the record: you and I both agree that dechikas haketz is not a good thing. However, again, you’re wrong about Rambam. Exile as a “Divine Decree” is NOT one of the 13 Principles of Faith. Principle 12 is belief in the coming of the Moshiach; 13 is belief in the Resurrection of the Dead. Nowhere in Rambam’s list–nor in any authoritative Halakhic codification of these principles–does it say “I believe with perfect faith that Exile is a Divine decree that we are forbidden to end”. In fact, the Rambam himself writes in Mishneh Torah that if a leader arises, fights the wars of God, and builds the Temple, he is presumed to be the Moshiach. He focuses on action, not passive waiting.
Stop distorting Rambam.
Now to the rest.
Equating Zionism with Christianity is not just a theological error; it is a historical obscenity and a profound intellectual insult. If you want to argue about Dechikas HaKetz (forcing the end), there is a legitimate Halakhic discussion to be had about the Three Oaths. But the moment you claim that a Jew holding a rifle to defend his family in the Galilee is “equally evil” to a religion that spent two millennia burning Jews at the stake and demanding the total abolition of the Torah, you have moved from theology into delusion.
Christianity is a replacement theology. Its “Messiah” claimed the Torah was a temporary “tutor” and that the “New Israel” (the Church) replaced the “Old Israel” (the Jews). It is fundamentally an exit strategy from being Jewish. Zionism is the exact opposite. It is the refusal to disappear into the “non-Jewish nations” that the author claims to despise. To compare a movement that forces the world to recognize Jewish identity with a religion that sought to erase it is a total inversion of reality.
A Moshiach Sheker (False Messiah) is someone who claims Divine authority to change the Law or replace God. Christians created a god-man. The Zionists, for the most part, didn’t claim to be Moshiach at all. They claimed to be a rescue party. If a building is on fire and a team of men puts up a ladder to save the children inside, only a sociopath stands at the bottom screaming, “Don’t use the ladder! It’s a false messiah! Wait for the divine elevator!” To call the survival of the Jewish people a “tempting promise of riches” is a disgusting trivialization of the blood spilled in the Kishinev pogroms and the Holocaust.
Also, you can stop calling RZ Rabbonim “priests” now. It’s an unnecessary ad hominem. Religious Zionism produces some of the most rigorous Talmidei Chachamim (Torah scholars) in the world. They didn’t “ignore” the Torah; they rediscovered the parts of the Torah that the author has conveniently forgotten in the comfort of his Exile–the laws of Yishuv Ha’Aretz, the laws of Jewish sovereignty, and the laws of Pikuach Nefesh on a national scale.
As for “sending their children off to die in wars… just like the non-Jewish nations”. For 2,000 years, Jewish children were slaughtered like sheep because they didn’t have an army. To imply that there is no difference between a Jew dying as a helpless victim of a Cossack and a Jew dying as a soldier defending EY is an insult to the Kedoshim.
Small one:
Zionists do not worship the Holocaust. Stop lying.
Small one:
It is truly pathetic to watch you hide behind distorted “history” to mask what is clearly hatred for Jewish agency, even one that is controlled (or allowed) by HKB”H. You speak of “history” as if it were a fairy tale where Jews lived in a peaceful utopia before the Zionists arrived.
Your so-called analysis is not only historically illiterate but morally bankrupt.
1) You claim the Zionists “invaded” against the wishes of the Jews already there. Which Jews? The ones who had been praying three times a day for two millennia to return? Or the ones who were being slaughtered in the 1929 Hebron massacre–long before your “Zionist state” even existed? The “Old Yishuv” was starving and vulnerable; they were being preyed upon by the very “neighbors” you think were peaceful until the Zionists showed up. To call Jews returning to their ancestral homeland an “invasion” is to adopt the vocabulary of the PLO. You aren’t speaking the language of Torah; you’re speaking the language of those who seek our destruction.
2) You lament that the Zionists fought the British Mandate. Do you mean the same British Mandate that issued the White Paper of 1939, slamming the doors of Eretz Yisroel shut while the crematoria of Europe were being warmed up? You are literally mourning the fact that Jews fought against a colonial power that was sentencing millions of our brothers and sisters to death by denying them entry. Your “shita” apparently dictates that we should have politely asked the British for permission to not be turned into ash. That isn’t piety; it’s a grotesque betrayal of Ahavas Yisroel.
3) You suggest the Zionists should have waited for a “new mandate” after 1948. History, meaning real hidstory and not your sectarian fan-fiction, shows that the UN had zero intention or capability of protecting Jews. They watched as five Arab armies prepared to “drive the Jews into the sea.” Your “solution” was for Jews to remain passive, stateless, and defenseless while being surrounded by genocidal regimes. You blame the “wicked Zionists” for declaring independence, but you offer no alternative other than “wait to be massacred and hope for a miracle.”
4) You claim the Zionists “did not care about Jewish lives.” This is the most offensive projection in your entire rant. The State of Israel has rescued more Jews from more corners of the earth than your entire ideological movement has even bothered to acknowledge. While you sit in your armchair judging the “wickedness” of sovereignty, the State of Israel is the only reason half the Jewish population on earth isn’t currently living in a cellar or a graveyard.
5) The “forever wars” weren’t launched by Zionists; they were launched by those who refuse to accept Jewish existence in any form. By blaming the victim for the war launched against them, you have abandoned the most basic moral clarity. You are essentially saying that if the Jews had just stayed in Galus and remained “good little victims,” there would be peace.
I’m still waiting for SJ to explain why Zionism is like Catholicism in a more clear fashion.
AAQ – Sorry for the delay. Obviously we don’t actually know what occurred during those three days, but Rambam saying Avraham did so is something Rambam would write. However, it’s really ancillary to my point, which was (and still is) that SJ doesn’t have a clue about Rambam – who was very consistent with what he wrote.
Re Gemara: When you look at it, it is ancient case law that was frozen in time, along with ton of another related material. Nezikin does primarily consist of civil and criminal law. Again, that isn’t heresy and it doesn’t detract from what it is – the recorded details of our legal system and all the discussions of the highest courts and institutions at that time. What Pekak said is true – Sifrei Shu”t are practical applications of Halachik issues (which is why they are usually more interesting than Gemara itself).
You could indeed presume that if the Gemara was written down in the modern era, it would contain a ton about car accidents. That’s logical.
ujm: He hasn’t refuted anything I said. He also hasn’t refuted Simcha or Eval’s point either. I will give him credit for being excellent at firing off polemics laced with logical fallacies.
As for being Herzl/Ben-Gurion aligned, no, not really, but nice try with the incorrect description. I have expressed my position more than once on this forum. Viewing the state as a positive thing (along with saying certain tefillos on Halachik grounds, not philosophical grounds) and possibly being Zionist insofar as Shivas Tzion is concerned is not the same as Political Zionism and being a political Zionist. If I am a Zionist, it’s maybe so far as Rav Kook was. The fact that you cannot grasp any of this is as baffling as SJ’s demonstrably incorrect argument that Rambam was a literalist vis-a-vis Midrash and Aggada and required a miraculous Geula.
@Yankel – I know. His ignoring me and putting up logical fallacies as a defense is only making his argument weaker.
@AAQ – Very briefly:
Re Rambam’s approach to Avraham Avinu and the Akeida/Nevua: I don’t think that’s terrifying. It makes a lot of sense, all things considered.
Re more or less mysticism: I’m inclined to believe more, but I may be mistaken.
In the case of SJ vis-a-vis Rambam, he’s couldn’t be more wrong.
@AnIsraeliYid – Rotter dot net has more information. It seems the incident also had some security implications.
SJ:
Ad hominems again. You really can’t help yourself, can you?
You have not rebutted anything.
First, no one here denied the spiritual redemption and its necessity. No one RZ has denied the lack of spiritual redemption or a full physical redemption. You are downplaying the physical part – which is the precursor to the spiritual part – as much as you possibly can, and I suspect it’s because of your Satmar-aligned beliefs.
Second, your analogy is a strawman argument. You know perfectly well that building a hospital in Haifa is not the same as “playing with corpses”. but you use the imagery because your actual theological platform is too flimsy to stand on its own. You also know perfectly well that Zionism does not play with dead bodies or advocate for graveyard excavation. Also, if you were confident in your “spiritual Geila” argument, you wouldn’t need to resort to such bizarre distortions to make your point.
As for the Catholicism comparison:
You are attempting to use “Catholic” as a slur for anything that involves physical structure, hoping the shock of the word will hide the fact that your own position is actually the one rooted in foreign, non-Jewish dogma. The core of Catholic (and broader Christian) thought is Supersessionism. If you don’t know what that is, it is the belief that the physical “Israel” has been replaced by a “Spiritual Israel”. Catholicism historically argued that the physical land and the physical people no longer mattered; only the “spirit” and the “church” remained. By arguing that the physical return to the land is irrelevant and only a “spiritual geila” matters, you are the one adopting a Catholic framework.
Your insistence that the “spiritual” is the only valid reality is Gnostic heresy, not a Jewish one. Judaism is a religion of “doing” Mitzvos performed with physical objects in a physical world. The Jewish view is that kedusha is found by sanctifying the physical (plowing fields, defending lives, building a society). But you know this. Yet it is you who is arguing that kedusha may only be found by escaping the physical and waiting for a miracle. Calling Zionists “Catholic” for building a state is like calling a Jew “Catholic” for shaking a Lulav. It’s a physical act for a spiritual purpose. You view basic Jewish national life as a foreign religion. Moreover, in Catholicism, the individual is passive, and salvation is mediated through a higher power. Your theology demands that Jews remain passive, “davening” in a vacuum and waiting for a miraculous mediator to descend and do the work for them. If anyone is Catholic – It’s you.
As an aside, Simcha’s point is not what you’re claiming it is. You’re strawmanning his argument and it’s obvious.
Are you kidding me?
The Dati Leumi community disassociated itself from the incident immediately, without even having all the facts that point to a very different picture.
@AAQ:
That may be true, but that wasn’t my point.
My primary point is that SJ’s claim about Rambam requiring a miraculous redemption directly contradicts what Rambam himself wrote. He also doesn’t know what he’s talking about, especially since he refuses to even do the most basic research required to understand Rambam.
SJ:
“You seem to misunderstand the reality that I follow the Jewish religion. What I pray for three times a day has nothing to do with getting on a plane and going to the physical land called Eretz Yisroel. Once you figure that out that we aren’t talking about the same thing, you’ll understand why Jews don’t practice the same religion as Zionists.”
This is textbook intellectual dishonesty relying on a No True Scotsman fallacy to rewrite thousands of years of Jewish history to fit your personal politics. By claiming that Jewish prayer has “nothing to do” with the physical land, you aren’t just expressing a fringe opinion; you are gaslighting the very liturgy you claim to follow. From the Amidah to the Seder, the texts are explicit in their yearning for a literal, physical return to EY (AKA Tzion). To suggest that “real” Jews view these as mere metaphors is a fallacy of composition, where you’ve mistaken your specific sectarian bubble for the totality of the Jewish faith.
Furthermore, implying that others simply haven’t “figured out” your (or your Chassish sect’s) definition of Judaism is a transparent ad hominem shield used to deflect from the weakness of your logic. You’ve constructed a false dilemma that insists one cannot be both a religious Jew and a Zionist, conveniently ignoring the millions of religious Jews for whom the physical land is a central, divinely mandated obligation. Using your religious observance as a high-horse to excommunicate those who disagree with your politics doesn’t make you more “authentic”; it just makes your argument a series of logical failures wrapped in unearned arrogance.
As for your absurd comparison to Catholicism or attempt to frame any positive approach to the State as not being Judaism: Equating a core covenantal yearning for an ancestral land with a specific Catholic sacramental ritual is a desperate false analogy that only succeeds in exposing your profound ignorance of the physical, law-based nature of Judaism. Dismissing the literal “kibbutz galuyos” to a specific geography as “physical nonsense” isn’t spiritual insight; it is a transparent rhetorical dodge designed to gaslight anyone who has actually read a Siddur.
SJ: Your point is incorrect. I already explained why, but I see I have to re-explain it. Before that though I will point out that you’re rude, judging by your willingness to call me “evil” and call Simcha “stupid”. Whether I am RZ or not is irrelevant to the conversation other than you being utterly incapable of politeness toward anyone who may be RZ. Even if I am, that doesn’t give you the right to be rude or disrespectful.
To my point. Again. Rambam does not include a miraculous redemption in the 13 ikkarim and never makes that sort of claim; you insisting otherwise is a direct contradiction of the Rambam’s own words in the Mishneh Torah. He clearly states a lack of the supernatural in Hilchos Melachim. In fact, he doesn’t mention it or insist on it anywhere in his writings and he limits miracles. But I’ve already said all of this. You are attempting to uproot Rambam’s actual philosophy in favor of Ramban and Raavad, which you are more comfortable with because it matches your beliefs. On top of that, Rambam clearly states that when the literal meaning of a verse or a Midrash contradicts demonstrated scientific or philosophical truth, the text must be reinterpreted. By saying the Rambam “aligns” with all Chazal, you are forced to claim that Chazal also intended these philosophical allegories (a claim often impossible to sustain without forced interpretations).
Your position also erases the whole controversy over Rambam’s writings. If his approach was in perfect alignment with the Hakhamim who preceded and followed him, the controversy would never have happened. Rashba, Raavad, and Ramban didn’t oppose Rambam because they misunderstood him; they opposed him because they recognized he was doing something radically different. They saw a “space” between his logic and the tradition, and they were deeply concerned by it.
Re rationalism: I would tell you to do some basic research and look up what rationalism is within the context of Hakhamei Sepharad. It’s actually important because whether you like it or not, the distinction is important and it stems from the very different worlds that French, German, and Provencal Jewry were living in compared to that of Andalucia + MENA. But you’re completely unwilling to do so. I assume this is for either Satmar-aligned ideological reasons, a total lack of interest in truth and education, or fear of discovering that you may be wrong. Or perhaps even worse, discovering there is something you don’t know. All this means you really have no clue what you’re talking about.
Also: You can follow Raavad and Ramban all you want. I don’t have to. I can follow Rambam, R. Saadia Gaon, Radak, R. Tanhum Yerushalmi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Janah, Ralbag and the other heavy hitting Hakhamim who do not understand the relevant Mekoros the way Ramban, Rashba and Raavad do. It’s not a violation of Halacha to do so, it’s not heresy either, despite your wish to the contrary.
(TL;DR: You’re wrong and you’re intentionally warping Rambam’s own words to match your ideology.)
Go and learn. Seriously.
RightJew is generally correct albeit with a bit more nuance.