Comments on: Sikrikim are Way Out of Control as Eida Split Widens

By: ujm

ujm — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:41:22 +0000

There is very little in differences between the shittas of Satmar, Brisk, Agudas Yisroel, Chazon Ish, Steipler, the Chofetz Chaim, etc. They all stringently opposed zionism and statehood. The only differences were what to do about it after the fact once the zionist state was de facto created. Satmar, Brish and some others said to ignore it or fight it and certainly not join its political process. Agudas Yisroel and others said as bad as it is and as much as we oppose it, we need to be part of its political process in order to protect our rights.

By: charliehall

charliehall — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:03:42 +0000

“The rabbanim from Brisk and elsewhere, who lived both in and out of E”Y, including the saintly Chazon Ish, were all quite vocal and clear that Zionism was and is rabidly anti-Torah and (therefore) anti-Jewish.”

Not true. Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik, son of Rabbi Chaim and father of Rabbi Yosef Dov, taught in Zionist schools for the last two decades of his life. Rabbi Yosef Dov became the leader of Mizrachi. Rav Kook has already been mentioned, and other unquestionable Zionist gedolim include Rabbis Reines, Herzog, Uziel, Aviner, and Lichtenstein. Towards the end of his life Rabbi Ovadia Yosef also admitted that he was a Zionist and he had the Shas party join World Mizrachi.

By: charliehall

charliehall — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:01:17 +0000

By: zionflag

zionflag — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:12:53 +0000

to convert all the Jews from hareidim (which they were in the recent past)

Have you researched the history of Jews in Poland & Russia? There was a larger contingent of secular Jews in Munkatch than Torah Jews.

By: shuali

shuali — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:11:08 +0000

@philosopher – Please reread my comment. The disagreement was in shita as you also write. That is true. Not accepting the other’s shita, has nothing to do, however, with respecting, loving, helping, or supporting them. The Satmar Rav gave money to the needy no matter what type, style, or color yarmulkeh they wore. That is well known. Beis Shamai did not refrain from marrying into Beis Hillel in spite of very serious differences in shita and halachah. Loving, caring, accepting, trusting, etc. does not mean, cannot mean, compromising on shita or halachah. That would either be hypocritical or discount the shita.

By: akuperma

akuperma — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:55:23 +0000

american_yerushalmi :

1. Boycotting an election isn’t as much fun as campaigning. And the issue they are fighting over is trivial compared to bigger issues (conscription, communal autonomy, war and peace, etc.), which suggests to me they are bored. If there ever is an “aktion” to round up hareidim, they’ll forget about dead bones of question origins and switch to breaking people’s bones – though the polling suggests that whomever wins the election will need hareidi support, to be purchased by cancelling conscription.

2. Hareidim would make horrible soldiers since they would always regard halacha as more imortant than military orders, and would ask “Is what we doing more important than the mitzvah to stay alive”. Much of zionist socialization for the last century has been devoted to convert all the Jews from hareidim (which they were in the recent past) into good zionist soldiers who follow orders.

3. The whole issue of conscription is about the hareidim. The army may see it as a nightmare if they get drafted (no army wants inherently disloyal soldiers) but the zionist parties see conscription as a solution to the very real threat of Torah Judaism displacing zionism in Eretz Yisrael.

By: HaKatan

HaKatan — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:24:38 +0000

I don’t understand why Satmar is the issue here. The rabbanim from Brisk and elsewhere, who lived both in and out of E”Y, including the saintly Chazon Ish, were all quite vocal and clear that Zionism was and is rabidly anti-Torah and (therefore) anti-Jewish. Speaking of the Chofetz Chaim, he was also strongly against Zionism and that was well before Israel’s founding.

As to Rabbi Kook, his ideas and philosophies (including any other form of Zionism) were roundly condemned by the Torah greats from (in ABC order) Chassidic to German to Litvish from the 19th century and on. Even the MO know and admit that Rabbi Kook’s nationalist philosophies are closely paralleled in secular sources (and Nationalism was quite popular at that time) and the Torah sages were quite clear that these ideas are very much kineged the Torah.

What I find even more astounding, though, is that someone here compared these misguided “sikrikim” to, lihavdil, ISIS?!

By: american_yerushalmi

american_yerushalmi — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:07:02 +0000

Akuperma #6: The Eida is a political party — that doesn’t vote. And though they don’t vote, they are as involved as nearly every other Israeli is in the elections, following the endless back and forth of the polling, who said what when, etc. And don’t you doubt it for a moment. On election day, right after they are publicly mekabel ol malchus shaymayim in front of the Eida’s headquarters building, very many scurry home to flip on their radios (maybe nowadays smartphones, who knows?) to check on the latest voting results.
Incidentally, it’s a pretty well known secret that most of the kanoim, sikrikim, and and related types in Yerushalayim have too much time on their hands. And before anyone starts in with the usual response, let me say that most of these types would make terrible soldiers. So forget any thoughts about “channeling their energies” into the IDF. The army doesn’t even dream of drafting these guys — and for good reason.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:22:24 +0000

shuali, sorry to dissapoint you but what you wrote is not the fact. Satmer very much vilified Rav Kook. In Satmer’s book anyone being vocally pro Zionist is equal to an apikoros since the antiZionism for Satmer = Yiddishkeit and pro Zionism = equals apikorses.
I love Satmer Chassidim and all frum, eidel people, including Eidah Charedis. They themselves are very warm and generally very eidel. HOWEVER being not being accepting that others have different shittas, has created a monster that is growing out of control. These include Sikrikim and NK, which Satmer is NOT against, they just don’t go to those extremes. Kaanuas (all l’Shem Shomayim, of course)HAS created this huge and growing out of cobtrol MONSTER. This reminds me of the time before the churban where Jews, committed acts of violence, all l’shem Shamayim of course!

By: anIsraeliYid

anIsraeliYid — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:17:28 +0000

Violence from the Eida Ha’ra’a, and their leadership doesn’t condemn it? Shocking!!! Who’d have thunk it?

#3 Long Island Yid has it right – they want to be able to pressure their opponents with the violence/threat thereof, while maintaining plausible deniability. We used to call that the “Yasser Arafat method of negotiating”.

an Israeli Yid