- This topic has 36 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I know this sounds self-centered, but this topic was inspired by my own post in now-closed thread:
Methinks DovidBT has hit the nail on the head:
“Is there a generally accepted definition of โZionistโ?”If one is talking about the stream of Zionism that attempts to replace Judaism with secular nationalism, then Zionism is bad.
If one is talking about the stream of Zionism that loves Eretz Yisroel because it is the land in wich we can best serve Hashem, then Zionism is good.
If one lumps all of Zionism into one big boat and insists that it must all be labeled either the absolute kefira or one of the ikkurei emunah, Zionism is something to be debated ad nauseam in the coffee room.
So when you say “Zionism”, precisely what ideology are you referring to?
The second definition describes every frum Jew, including Neteurei Karta, it isn’t a definition of Zionism.
One word,Kefira
It’s like being a mermaid, only attached to specific land.
Show me one gadol , chasidish or litvish, Ashkenazi or Sephard, that held that the creation of the state of “Israel” was Halachically acceptable
RebYidd23: Does that mean individuals who are Zionsts have no voice?
Is it becoming to be bestfriends with a lobster (because he isn’t kosher)?
Zionism equals the right for Jewish self determination aka the existence of the “jewish” state. Which is the commonly accepted definition outside this YWN bubble.
That sounds exactly like Nationalism.
Sadigurarebbe – that ‘s not the definition used within the Jewish world, although it may be the definition used outside the Jewish world.
The zionist/anti-zionist conflict within the Jewish world is completely different from the zionist/anti-zionist conflict outside the Jewish world.
Within the Jewish world, the issue is that many Frum people have a problem with a government that is not run according to the Torah and may think that it would have been better for the Jews if such a government had never been founded. We certainly don’t think the government has a right to make laws against the Torah.
Regarding the outside world, the issue is that there are many goyim who don’t think the Jews should be ruling themselves. Or they don’t think we should be defending ourselves. Or they think they have a right to tell us what to do.
This comes from anti-semitism, and even most anti-zionist Frum Jews would fight them on this.As far as the rest of the world is concerned, we have a right to self-rule and they have no right to tell us what to do and/or not to let us defend ourselves. Our fight is an internal fight that has to do with wanting to live in a country that is ruled by Torah.
I think somebody needs to brush up on the three oaths. Of course the frum opposition is to the existence of the State, this is the opinion of the majority of ehrliche yidden. While we are also opposed to the way the chilonim govern and oppress us. Zionism is not just secular government, that is white washing the words of the gedolim Chas v’shalom. There can never be a state run according to the torah without moshiach. Unless you are one of those kahanists, which I highly doubt you are, that is not the frum velt’s main issue with zionism.
As Reb Yoelish famously said, a Yid has to oppose zionism, but if a goy does it is anti semitism. What do you think he meant by zionism? Obviously it was the State’s existence, why would it be anti semitism for a goy to oppose secular values.
Now again you said “Within the Jewish world, the issue is that many Frum people have a problem with a government that is not run according to the Torah and may think that it would have been better for the Jews if such a government had never been founded. ” Notice how that is not different from what I said in the very beginning. Zionism= a “jewish” state, one that we are vehemently opposed to, and daven every day for it to be replaced by melech hamoshiach.
Perhaps, I wonder whether you misunderstood my initial comment and or deliberately tried to obfuscate the issue, but there is no real difference between the olim’s definition of zionism and the goyishe velt’s. If you read over your words, you will see that.
For 2000 years jews did not control their own destiny and so exactly how to run a county according to the torah was not thought about
Now that it has become a reality in the more charedi societies it still isnt really studied (There are some Dati-Leumi places that do study this topic and try to come up with solutions) even such simplet things as Shabbos is alot more complicated on a modern county than it is in a place like Kiryat Joel where jews do not really control anything (Like the Utiltiies , Water, Fire, etc) and to quote the Bostoner Rebbe. He was glad he was not in control of the government. he wouldnt know what to do about such things like the Airport (You cant shut down an airport for 25 hours, even if you dont scheduale flights) Flights get delayed in home country and are late and land after shabbos begins and foreign airlines could care less about shabbos
Joseph, what’s wrong with nationalism?
SR, the three oaths are a halachic non-starter.
1. The pasukim cited refer th the kelei hamikdash, not the people.
2. They are aggadata. Aggadata cannot be understood literally (Rambam, Intro. to Perek Chelek).
3. They are not brought down in any of the codes.
4. According to Rav Chaim Vital they were only for 1,000 years (Inro. to Sefer Etz Chaim 8).
5. According to Rav Meir Simcha the San Remo conference repealed them as the other nations agreed.
6. According to Rav Soloveichik (Kol Dodi Dofek) Hashemn has called.
7. The other nations violated their oath not to persecute us too much on several occasions (Crusades, Chmielnitzky massacres, pogroms, Petlura massacres, Holocaust). Thus, the deal is off (Sotah 10a with Rashi dโh huchal shevuato shel Avimelech and Shulchan Aruch YD 236,6).ZD, as a mater of fact the Tzitz Eliezer wrote a series of books called “Hilchot Medina” and Rav Herzog wrote called “Techuka l’Yisrael. There have also been numerous articles in Techumin. However, you are correct that more must be done before Hashem will let us form the government. There must also be a will to run the country and not be an armchair PM (I will now give credit to Trump for admitting that one does not really know until he enters the job). This si called in Kabbala an awakening below that causes an awakening Above.
Mermaids actually do have voices.
whatโs wrong with nationalism?
Read what R’ Reuven Grozovsky zt”l has to say about it.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41396&st=&pgnum=10&hilite=
Yes, I am familiar with the zionist arguments, we obviously have our own counter arguments and different understandings of it, and they are well documented should anyone be bored enough to look. I shall spare you and everyone else here the same rehashing that undoubtedly goes down in every thread entitled zionism or the mentioning of it’s name.
Because I wish to focus on the other issues brought up, which intrigue me. Such as the governance, and how we would go about it. A fun thought crossed my mind, a fantasy scenario, perhaps even ludicrous. Bare with me, while I paint the scene.
All the charedim, Satmars the Ediah etc, all agree to vote in the elections, the Satmars finally encourage moving to EY hakedoisha. Now what happens, we have the numbers to do more then go for short term compromises. We make peace with Shas, and somehow get Degel, Peleg and all the various factions to vote for one party.
Now how does that sound? Crazy and impossible, but one can dream.
Reb Yoilish never said that a goy that opposes Zionism does it it because anti semitism.
The story goes, and it is one I have heard from my rebbeim.
A meeting in 1968 with Senator Hubert Humphrey, then running for the presidency. The rebbe’s aides had warned Humphrey against raising any political issues pertaining to Israel. When he was informed of this after the meeting, the rebbe laughed:
Had Humphrey spoken to me in support of the Zionist state, it wouldn’t have bothered me in the least. We Jews have a Torah which forbids us to have a state during the exile, and therefore we may not ask the Americans to support the state. But a non-Jew has no Torah, and by supporting the state he feels he is helping Jews. So, on the contrary, if an American non-Jew is against the Zionist state, it shows he is an anti-Semite.
Reb Volf Katz, a close intimate of the Rebbe, was at the Humphrey meeting and he will verify the quote is untrue.
The bubbe maaisa comes from an untrue quote from a meeting between the Rebbe and Hubert Humphery.
The sefer Vayoel Moshe will answer all the above questions.
Just because something is not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mean that it’s not a real Halacha. The laws of lashon hara are not enumerated in the Shulchan Aruch. So lashon hara isn’t a real sin?
Even if it is only a “medrash” and not a real “Halacha,” it still reflects the ratzon Hashem – and the ratzon Hashem is that we should not have a Zionist state while we are in golus.
The vast majority of gedolim were either anti-Zionist or non-Zionist (Chofetz Chaim, Brisker Rav, Satmar Rebbe, Chazon Ish,….)
I wish everyone Yom ha’Atzma’ut Sameach. Out of interest:- How many of you are observing Yom ha’Atzma’ut biZemano? How many of you are following the Pesak of the Rabbanut haRoshi and observing Yom ha’Atzma’ut Nidche?
The vast majority of gedolim were either anti-Zionist or non-Zionist But not withstanding, urged everyone to go & vote, to increase Frum party representation in Knesset.
So excited about Yovel Yom Yerusholayim, jut 23 days away.
We observe the day by donning sackcloth.
Mlk, Rav Kasher refuted it in “HaTekufa HaGedola”.
147, as a matter of fact, Rav Goren wanted to make a Yoim HaAtzmaut Meshulash. In my community, we commemorate Yom HaZicharon but we did not say Tachanun this morning.
Joseph, do you commemorate Nakba Day and Land Day? Do you have a Spies’ and Erev Rav Day?
Joseph:- Are you R’L donning sackcloth biZemano on Monday Iyyor 5th, or in deference to Pesak of Rabbanut haRashi, donning sackcloth Nidche on Tuesday Iyyor 6th?
Eda Haredit: We condemn them
Rabbi Shmuel Pappenheim, a spokesperson for the extreme ultra-Orthodox Eda Haredit faction in Jerusalem, slammed Neturei Karta on Monday, clarifying that they had nothing to do with the Satmar Hasidim and Eda Haredit members in Jerusalem.
According to Pappenheim, “The actions of Neturei Karta members contradict the method of the Satmar rabbi. It is prohibited, at a time when the Jewish people sitting in Zion are suffering, to do such things and to defy our soldiers and people in danger.”
The rabbi added that the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta faction in New York concentrated today around a yeshiva led by Rabbi Moshe Ber Beck, a former Vizhnitz Hasid who split from the Hasidic dynasty about 40 years ago.
One of the prominent spokespersons of this group includes Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weis, who met in the past with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Muslim leaders.
According to Pappenheim, additional Neturei Karta groups live in Canada and London. “They have been ejected from Israel, so they go abroad and make a lot of noise,” he said.
Rabbi Pappenheim further argued that the late founder of the Satmar Hasidic dynasty, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, had slammed Neturei Karta at the time, claiming that the phrase “Let there be no hope for informers” was directed at them.
“We have nothing to do with them and we condemn them,” he added.
(ynet)
There are groups using the NK name illegitimately. The real NK in Yerushalayim have nothing to do with them. The Satmar Rebbe and Brisker Rov were very close to NK founder Rav Amram Blau.
Also, Pappenheim doesn’t represent the Eida, despite his media campaign claiming so.
The 3 shevuos are incredibly vague and without a psak in the normal sources (Rosh, Rif, Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, Rama) many basic questions remain unanswered… How exactly do you violate them? Who is the prohibition on? Until when are they in force? Are they dependent on one another? What are the practical ramifications for future generations if they are indeed broken?
Obviously Satmar and many Charedim have one approach and Dati Leumi have a different approach and there are presumably hybrid approaches in answering these very basic questions… But ืืื ืืืื… It’s a dispute and each side should be respected. For some reason, both sides take their interpretation as the only interpretation which is not the way we approach most other areas of halacha.
It’s no coincidence that ืืื ืืขืฆืืืืช falls out during the time period when we are supposed to be correcting ืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืื.
Joseph, maybe they should be sued for trademark infringement.
All these questions have been answered. They’re binding. Search the CR.
Joseph- I didn’t mean they weren’t answered. I meant that they weren’t answered by the classic halachic compendiums that I listed. Of course they were answered in different ways. And you are illustrating my point exactly, each side thinks theirs is the only pshat. There doesn’t seem to be any ืืื ืืืื even though there is no clarity in the Gemara itself and those Rishonim/early Achronim I listed don’t discuss it (even though those are the starting point in determining psak halacha). It seems strange that each side is so militantly against any other possible interpretation. Even Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai seemed to have more respect for each other’s position when they were arguing about far more serious matters like yibum vs. giluy arayos which led to mamzerus. As I also mentioned, I think the timing of ืืื ืืขืฆืืืืช is sending us a message to be a little bit more respectful of the other side. There is not just one way to answer those questions.
Joseph, the Ohr Sameach wrote straight out that the 3 Oaths are no longer in effect.
The claim it isn’t binding only started after the Zionist movement started. It has been accepted as binding throughout Jewish history. The claim otherwise is new and illegitimate.
And that’s certainly a legitimate approach.
So you think the Ohr Sameach was wrong?
There are groups using the NK name illegitimately. The real NK in Yerushalayim have nothing to do with them. The Satmar Rebbe and Brisker Rov were very close to NK founder Rav Amram Blau.
Also, Pappenheim doesnโt represent the Eida, despite his media campaign claiming so.
All that doesn’t address the point that the Satmar Rov did not agree with supporting the Palestinians.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that they’re not halachically binding. Is it therefore a good idea to engage in hisgarus b’umos? (Based on the Arabs’ reaction, it clearly was hisgarus b’umos.)
DY- you have to take everything in context. In 1948, just three years after the end of the Holocaust… Hisgarus b’umos wasn’t a top concern.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.