May 2, 2022 11:30 am at 11:30 am #2081814
“I was under the impression that halacha recognizes conquest as creating ownership. The British conquered Palestine from the Ottoman’s it was theirs not the inhabitant’s and certainly not the neighbors”
The Balfour Declaration was made by the British when the Ottoman Empire still controlled Eretz Yisroel. The British did NOT control the land at the time. By time the British later gained control of the land, they did not espouse or support the principles of Balfour.
So you have another reason it is halachicly inapplicable.May 2, 2022 11:31 am at 11:31 am #2081819
And the UN declared Jerusalem to be an international city not to be controlled by the Zionists or Jews.May 2, 2022 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm #2081828n0mesorahParticipant
I’m confused. If we go with the idea of conquering land as acquiring it, the Jews conquered the land in ’48.May 2, 2022 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm #2081863
I’m answering ubiq’s point.May 2, 2022 1:43 pm at 1:43 pm #2081901
“By time the British later gained control of the land, they did not espouse or support the principles of Balfour.”
not quite true
From the Mandate for Palestine Assigning the British control over Palestine at the San Remo conference . (Signed by the British)
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, …
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; ….
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion….
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home….”
“And the UN declared Jerusalem to be an international city not to be controlled by the Zionists or Jews.”
Ok so limit that comment to parts assigned to be a Jewish State.
“Ubiq – the UN decided on a Homeland, not a state. There was also provision for an arab state in the area. That makes the Arabs, according to your reasoning, baalei devarim too.”
I don’t know where you are getting your information from UN resolution Resolution 181 (II) athat was voted for by the UN after the British handed over the issue explicitly called for a “Jewish State” (You might be mixing up with Balfour which said “Homeland” not “State”
And I don’t really get your comment regarding arabs they are baalie Devarim. Ok mazel tov.
You said ““the Balfour declaration was not agreed upon (insert italics) by the people who lived in eretz yisroel, and their surroundings,”” My question was why does that matter?May 3, 2022 11:37 am at 11:37 am #2082309
do you have a source for your claim that halacha does not recognize Goyim’s conquest?May 3, 2022 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm #2082355AviraDeArahParticipant
When did i say that goyim can’t conquer and own land? They can, even though it might not be allowed according to many (we had a thread on this a while back).May 3, 2022 1:51 pm at 1:51 pm #2082378
My apologies, when you said “the Balfour declaration was not agreed upon (insert italics) by the people who lived in eretz yisroel, and their surroundings,” I assumed it was relevant to the halachic discussion specifically as to whether it occurred with “Consent of nations” (according to those who say it matters), as thee way you wrote it sounded like you were replying to that point.
That there was no “consent of the nations” since the inhabitants and neighbors (!?) didnt agree. to which I asked why does that matter, they were not in control.
apologies if I got that wrongMay 3, 2022 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #2082567
First, The Oaths are quoted L’Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel – the majority of Jews at the time – did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh’s call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon – warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.
Second, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.
Third, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says you may not do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V’Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)
Fourth, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to makign a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doing so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.
The Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more! Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Efraim, Chazal say, were all hunted down and killed in the desert for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.
The Oaths are brought down l’halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years.
The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It’s clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.
The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths.
The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us with torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.
And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel).
The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is not included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing.
R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced Shmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the “shem hameforash” and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.
And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b’chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim’s Oath anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says.
Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violated theirs but we still cannot violate ours.May 3, 2022 10:03 pm at 10:03 pm #2082604n0mesorahParticipant
Just one point to refute your entire post. Why did the Avnei Nezer not mention it?May 3, 2022 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #2082608
“First, The Oaths are quoted L’Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel – the majority of Jews at the time – did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh’s call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon – warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.”
As someone who reads old threads it seems that this list of sources was responded to by PAA six years ago:
Unfortunately, the hebrew quotes have been reduced to question marks but can still be seen using the Wayback machine.
Or frumteen. Or daas torah blog. Most posts of his that are longer than a few lines were plagiarized from there.May 3, 2022 10:58 pm at 10:58 pm #2082644
Or, perhaps, he posts on other sites, too.May 3, 2022 10:58 pm at 10:58 pm #2082645
PAA didn’t address any of the many points in your quotation marks, Marxist.May 3, 2022 11:29 pm at 11:29 pm #2082663
Yay, I kinda messed up the link and it just links to the thread instead of the specific post.
Try this one:
To reiterate, you really need the Wayback machine for that post (and really the whole thread in general)May 4, 2022 1:31 am at 1:31 am #2082692
Ok, this is really not working, I tried to link to specific post but when my post gets published link gets messed up. I’ll reference it if you are still interested.
On page 2, PAA, November 7, 2014 at 3:43; Post #1101882May 5, 2022 1:19 am at 1:19 am #2083226Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipant
with so many talmidei chachamim who live or lived in E’Y, could we agree that there are some exceptions to the Oaths?! Or it is not OK for Zionists to fight for E’Y, but OK for non-Zionists to arrive on El Al later on without fighting?
Also, is emphasis on E’Y or on fighting non-Jews in general (see example of Portugal above). In the latter case, maybe Jewish communists would be a prime example of what we should not do (see a simpler source than Oaths – Beitza 25 that Hashem gave Jews Torah from stopping us stepping over other nations).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.