CAN NWE GET THE FOLLOW UP OR DO YOU NOT HAVE ANSWERS YOSR
________________________________________________________
Below was posted by the OP, yosr, as a new thread. It is instead being posted here:
________________________________________________________
In “Part 2” I have included my second email to Rabbi Kraus of Neturei Karat and his response. There were 3 such back and forth. I shall post one series a day.
Letter 2: Me
I would first like to thank you for your detailed, meticulous and lengthy response. However there are some issues I would like to raise.
The Rav Wrote: “The nations in the U.N. who voted in favor of a Jewish state did not include the nations ruling over the land”
While this is technically true, Britain and the Arab Nations were members of the UN and thus agreed to the rules. It is irrelevant that they were out voted, or that they decided to abstain. Secondly the Gemara in Ketubot speaks of “The Nations”, the UN is and was the greatest representation of the world community.
The Rav Wrote: In the end, the Zionists did have to fight for their land, first against the local Arabs (Palestinians) and then against the surrounding nations. That is definitely “with a strong hand” and a rebellion against the nations.
Am Yisrael only fought because the Arab League decided to launch a full force invasion, and had at that point they not fought it would have resulted in a massacre of the 600,000 Jews living in Eretz Yisrael. The Arab League at that time proudly stated that they would commit a massacre on the scale of the Mongol massacres. So at that point, there was a Milchemet Mitzvah according to at least the Rambam. If one looks at the definitions that the Rambam gives to a Milchemet Mitzvah is, “To save Israel from the hand of the enemy”(Rambam, Mishna Torah, Hilchot Milachim, 5:1).
The Rav Wrote: Imagine that all the countries in the UN except America voted to give the Jews the state of New York for a country of their own.
The British had only received control of Eretz Yisrael in 1917 and had no real sovereignty, second the Arabs living in the Land also never had sovereignty as even you pointed out latter in your letter the Land passed hands over and over again.
The Rav wrote: Furthermore, not everyone agrees that going up “as a wall” means by military means. The Avnei Nezer is the only one who says that.
The Avnei Nezer actually seems to reject the oaths completely. Avnei Nezer comments, “Moreover, with regard to this oath, we do not know what its nature is… For an oath has force only when the person swears…Moreover, the oath that he administered to the nations, that they should not enslave Israel too much, what could its nature really be, if they didn’t know about this oath at all?” Here it appears that the Avnei Nezer does not consider the oaths to have Halachic ramifications. He also writes “Upon you (the leaders) is this great Mitzvah and there is no end to the reward of those who help in this matter, whether by attempting to obtain visas, or in the essential matter of purchasing land in Israel.” Furthermore there are others who do not hold by the Shvuos and hold it to be on a metaphorical level at most. For instance the Maharal of Praug see Sefer Netzasch Yisrael Ch. 24. In addition in light of Ramban who writes “Behold we were commanded with conquest in ever generation” (Supplement to the Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment #4), how can we take the questionably Halachic shvuot over a clear Halachic decision of the Ramban.
I feel it relevant to mention a few more modern day authorities as well, who supported the efforts of mass return.
The Ohr Sameyach, Rav Meir Simcha wrote in a letter of support for Keren Hayesod fund: “Since the fear of the oaths has been removed with the permission of the nations, the mitzvah of settling the land arises, a mitzvah equal to all other mitzvos in the Torah, and this mitzvah returns to its place”.
The Netziv, Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, wrote the following: “It is the will of Hashem that the land of Israel be settled slowly, slowly by the outcast of Israel. Hashem altered the heart of the czar, to allow us to form a committee and company to gather money to support our brethren (Zionists) working the land…it is a sign that it is G-ds will to make a settlement in His holy Land”(Shivat Tzion pg 17).
Reb Areh Leb Hackohen, Av Beit Din of Radin and son of the famed Chofetz Chaim (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagen). In Reb Areh biography of his fathers life he writes remarkably the following:
“I remember that in the years 5650-5651, when our Jewish brothers were expelled from Moscow, a great movement of Aliyah arose…At this time I received a letter from my father of blessed memory in which he pointed out to me the great surge amongst all facets of our nation to make Aliyah to Israel. He assumes that these are now the days of the footsteps of the Mashiach, thatHashem has redeemed His nation and that this is the beginning of the in gathering of the exiles which precedes the coming of Mashiach. If we had the capability, it would be proper to buy land and make Aliyah to Israel”.(Letters of the Chofetz Chaim to his son, Reb Aryeh Leb HaCohen, pg 43-44) It should be noted that the Chofetz Chaim was very much against the secular nature of the Zionists, but encouraged G-d fearing people to go up to the land en-mass.
Rabbi Shlomo Hackohen of Vilna, Av Beit Din of Vilna and author of Binyamin Shlomo. When Herzel came to Vilna, Rav Shlomo greeted him with a sefer Torah.
The Admor of Hosiatin was qouted by Rav Kook as saying, I was truly leaning towards Mizrachi, but I had to think of the Hassidim.
The Admor of Ostrovtza, he stated “What is going on here?! Hashem sent his holy children to build the holy land and here people condemn them?” (L’Ntivot Yisrael part 1 pg 197)
To recap, we have seen from the sources above 4 important points.
1 Perhaps the “3 Oaths” were never meant to be understood in a Halachic conext.
2. We were right to take a hands on approach to the Geulah and that was needed in order to activate it.
3. The Geulah will be a slow process not a quick simultaneous experience.
4 Secular and even anti-religious Jews can play a role in bringing Geulah.
Praying for the complete redemption and humbly awaiting your response.
Shabbat Shalom Mivorach,
Yosef
Letter 2: Rabbi Kraus
Dear Mr. Rabin,
As an analogy, think of the Gemara in Eiruvin 43a that moshiach cannot come on Shabbos or Yom Tov because of the prohibition of techumin. That means that even if the Jewish people have done complete teshuva and the time is ripe for moshiach, and even if Hashem knows that after Shabbos they will sin again and moshiach will not be able to come, still moshiach will not come in violation of the halacha.
I once heard the story of a rabbi who claimed that if he blew shofar at the Kosel on a certain Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbos, moshiach would immediately arrive. The other rabbanim told him: Even if that were true, you would have no right to violate halacha in order to bring moshiach.
If they had been given the land on a silver platter without a fight, then perhaps the Avnei Nezer would have agreed to it. This is also the context for the statement of the Ohr Somayach you quoted. How can you expect those two gedolim, who passed away long before 1948, to have foreseen the bloody war that was to take place?
then the body distanced itself from the soul. And since the connection has been ruptured, G-d’s supervision has been removed from him and he is left as ownerless as the wild animals that have no soul. That is why G-d’s supervision does not apply to the particulars of each animal but only to the preservation of the species, as the Ramban, the Rambam and the Chinuch wrote. So too with the human being if the soul is not within him that brings him close to G-d. This is the reason why Scripture chooses the language, “by deer or by the hinds,” for it teaches about detachment from holiness that is G-d’s supervision. For it is written regarding a sacrificial animal that is redeemed after being found to have a disqualifying blemish: “However, just as the deer and the hind are eaten…” For in the first-born or tithed animal, or other sacrificial animals, through a blemish and by redemption, the holiness of the sacrifice is removed from it.
The statements by the Netziv and the Chofetz Chaim do not even say that they are referring to mass aliyah. They contain no reference to the oaths, so I would not consider them relevant to our discussion of exactly what the oaths prohibit.
Sincerely,
Rabbi A Kraus