Derech Emuna settlement

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Derech Emuna settlement

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 113 total)
  • Author
  • #2115906

    There is a new right wing outpost being established in the Yehuda hilltops. built out of wooden planks, by black hatted charedim, it’s name is “derech Emuna” after Maran Sar Hatoira.

    I have full full full respect for these people, who live by their ideals,


    i fail to undestand how maran Sar HaToira name fits in

    After all, hiw father held of the shitas of Maran HaRav Shach, and heavilt discouraged higarus be’umos and settling over the green line

    case in point : Immanuel


    Who are you referring to as Maran Sar HaToira?

    These hilltop kids sound like they got caught up in Zionism but forgot to ditch their black hats.

    eli lev

    fail to undestand how maran Sar HaToira name fits in
    so maybe it doesnt fit . false advertising.


    They might as well advertise a charedi movie discussion clu .

    Names have meaning, groups have meaning. If you’re a zionist, you’re not charedi – maybe you’re charedi dati leumi,and that’s a ton better than the barely observant masses of nationalist jews who wear fabric on their head, but you can’t call yourself charedi and ignore the definition of the term.

    All charedi gedol oppose settlements. Whatever minority opinions there were about a positive view of s state in terms of hatzolah, or maintaining jewish identity, no one was opposed to land for peace, even rav ovadia yosef, who was the only charedi rov to allow halel on 5 iyyar.


    My mistake, there was one charedi rabbi who opposed land for peace; the lubavitcher rebbe – but he did not support making settlements either.


    Derech Emunah is rav chaim kanievsky’s largest sefer


    “and that’s a ton better than the barely observant masses of nationalist jews who wear fabric on their head,”
    There are many types within Dati Leumi. While some are not so strict about Halacha, there are many that are Moser Nefesh to keep Halacha (including some who I know personally). It is not fair to label them all together in such a degrotary way.

    “Whatever minority opinions there were about a positive view of s state”
    If one were to be intellectually honest, it is not fair to call it a minority view. While the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Shach and others viewed the state as totally Treif, many Gedolim viewed the state more positvely or at least in shades of nuance. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and The Tzitz Eliezer called it Aschalta Digeulah. Rav Dessler considered the state to be “Chasdei Hashem”. The Ponivitzer Rav insisted on having the flag put up on the Yeshivah on YH. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, Rav Shlomo Zalman, and Rav Ovadya (as well as many others) all expressed positive things about the state. Rav Yechiel Michel Tichitinsky writes “Now that we Baruch Hashem have Jewish control on our land”. Even Rav Moshe writes ” now that Bichasdei Hahem, Yerushalayim is not under the Reshus of the Umos, theres strong reason not to tear Kriyah (IM, Chelek Hey, Lamid Zayin, Aleph ).
    According to Rav Shabtai Rappaport, Rav Moshe’s grandson, Rav Moshe viewed the Medinah positively, but the was antagonistic towards the government since it was anti-religious. He viewed the goverment more positively, when Begin came to power.
    You might not view the state positively, but it seems like a distortion to pretend that those who do are just a minority.

    “even rav ovadia yosef, who was the only charedi rov to allow halel on 5 iyyar.”
    Rav Ovadya was far from the only Chareidi Gadol to allow Hallel on 5 Iyyar. While, the Chareidi Gedolim generally did not say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut, many of them were quite tolerant of others who did, and did not see anything wrong with it. Just 2 examples:
    When Rav Shlomo Zalman was asked about saying Hallel on YH he responded that there are those who say Hallel and those who don’t, and each side has whom to rely on. Additionally, someone witnessed Rav Shlomo Zalman reciting the Perakim of Hallel from a Tehillim on YH (Aschalta Hie, volume 2).
    Rav Henkin didn’t encourage saying Hallel, but he told his grandson not to be Moche against those who do, because they have what to rely upon (Aschalta Hi, Volume 2).

    Shimon Nodel

    כל הפוסל במומו פוסל

    Shimon Nodel

    Avira, what about all the hesder kolelim? Are they barely observant? They are definitely a lot more learned than you are


    Almost your entire list is second, third hand information. Who wrote the book you’re citing, and what were his sources?

    Just for one example, no talmidim of rav Moshe say he viewed the state positively. Many have told me that he didn’t address it because he needed his psakim to be accepted by everyone, and most Jews at the time were pro zionist.

    Rav henkin wrote in his seforim that the state violated the 3 shavuos. He was very strong in his opposition. How would he then say that saying halel is valid? We don’t praise Hashem for a violation of his will.

    Shabtai rappaport married a granddaughter of rav Moshe. He is not a grandson himself. He married a tendler(surprised?), teaches at bar ilan, and has a name that the Torah community accepted on itself not to use since shabsai tzvi. Shabti/shabsi took its place. His testimony is no different than those who say that rav Moshe had a seudah on 5 iyyar… When it was just his lunch(heard from a talmid)


    Where is the statement from rav tichichinsky? I don’t buy it. Please provide a primary source.

    None of the gedolim you quoted supported the ideals of zionism, pr the angering of the nations/arabs. None whatsoever supported settlements either.


    you can take all the hilltop youths and put them on a slow boat to China and no one will notice a difference.

    Avi K

    Who says that chareidi gedolim were against settlements? There have been a number for many years: Kiryat Sefer, Beitar, Emmanuel, Tel Tzion. The “settlement” in question is not a settlement but an encampment. Like it or not, the chareidi world is changing. Maybe we should, as Rav Kook said, ditch these labels. They prevent teshuva by giving their wearers the impression that they are 100%. They also cause chillulei hashem when it comes out that some wearers are much less.

    BTW, The Aguda signed on the Declaration of Independence. Rav Kahaneman flew the Israeli flag on Yom haAtzmaut – and the tradition continues. He also did not say tachanun.


    Incidentally, the Chazon Ish zt”l referred to the medina as “seifa de’galusa” not ‘aschalta de’ geula.
    Regarding Hallel on YH, used to be that those who said it did so w/o a bracha. Then Shloime Goren was elected Chief Rabbi and he decided that people should be making a bracha as well. This decision of his provoked widespread opposition from the Chareidi rabbonim. When someone had the nerve to ask Rav Elyashiv zt”l about this, he replied “I can’t think of a bigger bracha le’vatola.” (My chavrusa was present and heard Rav Elyashiv say this.)


    @avi K
    ” Like it or not, the chareidi world is changing”
    Wrong, its the MO crowd that is changing, they are going black hat or going frie.
    The average kippa sruga minyan resembles a geriatrics ward.


    As for agudah signing the declaration; that has a big backstory, detailed in “the empty wagon”. It was not particularly wrong considering the deal reb itche meir levine had with the zionists. In exchange for “hatzolah purta”, r” levine promised not to oppose the state at the UN in his speech, because that would make the jews loom splintered and weaken the cause of the state. That could have put jewish lives in danger, because zionists were known to kill those who stood in their way (rabbi de’han, and fellow zionists on the altalina ship, for instance).

    Rav boruch ber (in “harav hadomeh lemalaach”) stood up for zionists at first in order to save his life, since rav chaim told him that they (at that time!) were suspected of murder, but then he sat down when he remembered that rav chaim said that zionism is avodah zara, which is yehereg velo yaavor.


    Also, bear in mind that many rabbonim were favorable to the state on some level (including the ponevezher rov, according to rav yosef savitsky) because they saw it as hatzolah, where jews can live after the war. He would have been just as happy if America accepted all the Holocaust survivors, and would have made a celebration on that day, probably would have said halel too. His mixed response (not saying tachanun, and not saying halel) was due to the institutionalized apikorsus, chilul Hashem, and threats to Torah that the state posed(and poses).

    The biggest lies about gedolim and zionism are that the chazon ish and brisker rov somehow had favorable views of the state. Any and all talmidim of theirs represent the biggest anti zionists around. It’s almost as ridiculous as the claim (which I’ve seen zionists make) that the satmar rov wasn’t against the state, and that only his chasidim were!

    There are zero charedi gedolim on record as being pro nationalism, pro settlement, or anything remotely related to those things.


    Avirah- Much of the list is first hand (Rav Dessler, The Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadya, Rav YM Tichitzinsky etc.). Some of it is from the Sefer Aschalta Hi, written by Yitzchak Dodon (and has a Haskamah from Rav Avraham Shapirah, who regardless of Hashkafah was a huge Talmid Chochom). It discusses the views of various Gedolim towards the state. He usually brings first hand accounts, and names the person who witnessed it, which makes it more reliable. The statement about the different views about Hallel was told by Rav Michalel Weissbrod, Rav Shlomo Zalman’s neighbor.

    The comment from Rav Yechiel Michel Tichitzinsky is from his Sefer “Sefer Hashmitah”.

    In regards to Rav Moshe, he does write “Bichasdei Hashem” when referring to the fact that Yerushalayim is not Bershus Humos. That doesn’t sound like being neutral. Also, being that i’ve never heard any Talmidim say that Rav Moshe was against the state, I’m inclined to beleive Rav Shabtai Rapaport (even if his name is Shabtai). I also want to note, that Rav Moshe in IM writes to two Talmidim in Hesder that serving in the army is an “Inyan Gadol”, although learning full-time is greater.
    Incidentally, you seem to assume that teaching in Bar Ilan is a terrible thing. Apparently, Rav Moshe is quoted as telling someone that there’s no problem with delivering a Shiur in Bar Ilan, but they might want to avoid it because of the Kanaaim (Mesoras Moshe, I don’t have the exact source offhand).

    In regards to Rav Henkin, i think it goes to show that although he thought the state was a violation of the Shalosh Shevuos, he understood that there are Gedolim who have a different Hashkafah, and their Talmidim can be Somech on them. (It is noteworthy that Rav Henkin had great respect for Rav Shlomo Goren (even after the contreversies), calling him one of the Gedolei Hador (quoted by Rav Yehudah Hertzl Henkin).

    I agree that the most of the Gedolim were not in favor of creating settlements and provoking the Arabs. My point was just that viewing the state positively was far from a minority view, as you wrote before.

    In regards to the Chazon Ish, Rav Tzvi Yehudah who was a close Talmid, writes in a letter that the Chazon ish was not against the state, and that the rumors that that the Chazon Ish predicted it’s doom C”V are not true (You can see the letter online).

    I find it hard to beleive that the Ponivitzer Rav would have been just as happy if America had accepted the immigrants, although I can’t prove it.


    American Yerushalmi- I agree that most of the Gedolim were against people saying Hallel with a Beracha, because that would be a Safeik Bracha Levatalah. Even Rav Ovadya was fire and brimstone against that. When i said that many Chareidi Gedolim were fine with people saying Hallel, I meant without a Berachah.


    There’s a lot to go through, and my time is strapped. One thing that stands out is that you believe the accounts of hertzl henkin, aho is a confirmed feminist rabbi who has tried for years, unsuccessfully, to allow the mixing of genders that is rampant in the fabric-wearing community. Do we have any yeshiva-world people saying these things? Not hertzl henkin, not shabtai, etc…the answer is no.

    Where in rav tuchathinsky’s sefer is it? I know someone who is into these sort of things; rabbi eliyahu kitov has a pro-independenxe day piece in the English “the book of our heritage” which is missing from the original sefer toda’ah. that’s because it’s fake.

    I’ll come back later or tomorrow with a full rebuttal.


    Zushy, Avira D’Ara, EJM and the other posters above are all expressing an opinion of one Daas Yochid, a Hungarian Rav who went against the entire rabbinic establishment, and spent decades attacking the Gadol Hador Rav Moshe Feinstein. His closest students became the Neturei Karta who kiss and hug with Arafat and are best friends with Hezbollah and Iran.

    This daas Yochid was a tremendous baal chesed, a tremendous talmid chacham, but he was wrong in his vicious attacks against the Jews that were coming back and rebuilding eretz yisrael.

    R Chaim Kanievsky ztl had no ideological problem with living in and growing yishuvim over the green line. He differed very much from Rav Shach ztl. He encouraged frum Jews to make aiiyah and to live all over EY- not just within the green line. When asked about territorial concessions to arabs, his reply was, “they should make concessions.”.
    Rav Chaim was very different from Rav Shach. It makes perfect sense why they named the yishuv after him.

    If you really believe that a love for EY, and wanting to build it up is contradictory to chareidi hashkafa,


    You will see that the original Torah true hashkafa has always been Hibas Ha’aretz. At he same time its true that since the time of the Meraglim there have always been a lot of people that lacked Hibas Haaretz, and lacked a basic appreciation for the great gift Hashem gave us, They prefer to be holy and wait for moshaich, as they build up their mansions and real estate portfolios in he five towns.


    ” One thing that stands out is that you believe the accounts of hertzl henkin, aho is a confirmed feminist rabbi who has tried for years, unsuccessfully, to allow the mixing of genders that is rampant in the fabric-wearing community.”

    That’s a very general accusation; could you bring examples of what you mean?
    Rav Yehudah Henkin was a huge Talmid Chochom and Posek as seen from his Seforim. In fact the first volume even has Haskamos from Gedolim such as Rav Moshe; the Tzitz Eleizer and even Rav Menashe Klein. He does give some lenient rulings in regards to women things such as women learning Gemara etc. but he brings sources. I’m not aware of him trying to mix the genders; I’m pretty confident he was against co-education, as were Rav Solleveichik, Rav Lichtenstein and all the Gedolim of all the worlds. Notably, he was very against Parnership Minyanim, and was certainly against women rabbis. It’s not fair to categorize him as a feminist Rabbi. Was Rav Ovadya a feminist Rabbi for supporting Bas Mitzvahs? Was Rav Moshe a feminist Rabbi for allowing a woman to be a Mashgicha for food?
    Additionally, even if someone has a different Hashkafah, that doesn’t make them a liar who is willing to fabricate stories. Just because you don’t agree with Rav Yehudah Henkin’s Hashkafah, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t believe what he’s quoting directly from his grandfather.

    I believe that the quote from Rav Yechiel Michel Tichitzinsky can be found on pages 63-65 of Sefer Hashmittah.

    PS. I found it very funny that you saw people claim the Satmar Rebbe wasn’t an anti-Zionist.


    Rav chaim held of moving to eretz yisroel if one can do it easily. He never sanctioned making settlements. He also said in a letter that I’ve seen firsthand that the Israeli government is not a government regarding Dina d’malchusa. One need not be concerned with what it says.

    Zionists like to say that only the satmar rov was against zionism. What shall we do with…

    Rav hirsch
    Rav chaim brisker
    Brisker rov
    Rav elchonon
    All lubavitcher rebbes before the last
    Minchas elazar
    Rav boruch ber
    Rav chaim ozer
    Rav aharon kotler
    The rogotchover
    Chazon ish

    Off the top of my head. They spoke about it a lot, often


    Y1 – hertzl henkin’s bnei banim doesn’t have the haskama of the gedolim you mentioned; he did have a correspondence with rav menasheh klein in halacha, but not about his feminist issues. How do i know he’s a feminist, and what opinions of his are feminist?
    From the horrid edah website:
    he rules that a woman may wear tsitsit, and completely disregards the issue of her motivation (SBB II:3). Rejecting arguments to forbid women’s prayer groups on the basis of the prohibition of be-huqoteihem (following the ways of non-Jews; here, following a feminist ideology), he states that the Torah only prohibits non-Jewish actions, not motivations or movements (SBB II:10).

    He likewise allowed women to wear tzitzis, regardless of their motivation.

    Rav Moshe writes clearly that feminism is apikorsus.

    (Sbb is bnei banim.)

    when writing to defend the intermingling of the sexes that occurs in the Modern Orthodox community..(, his English book, equality lost, page 88)

    Henkin wrote in 2001 that giving women alios is something that shouldn’t be considered “for the foreseeable future.” Admitting that if done at that time, such a shul would not remain Orthodox, but not ruling it out.

    The infamous yoatsot program was his doing. He trained women to supposedly write “teshuvos”

    He spoke at a conference on “Orthodox” feminism a few years ago, welcoming women’s Torah study to be equivalent to men’s.


    I see here a discussion of who to believe when quoting gedolim of the past, then degenerating into a discussion whether the source is Adam kosher. This does make sense but there should be some limits. Unfortunately, most of sources we have paint pictures of the previous generation according to the writer’s ideology. Those who quote more radical opinions may do it to support their even more radical ones. More conservative ones are less outrageous, unless they go full neturei karta, and it is easier for them to obfuscate by omittion. In my view, any untruth is unfortunate and posuls the eidim. Maybe we need to refer more to seforim by the gedolim themselves, making sure those were not edited or some are advertised more than others


    Avira, the Ran in Nedarim paskens that Dina Dmalchusa does not apply in Eretz Yisroel.

    Avi K

    Ujm, the Shulchan Aruch(CM 369,6) paskens like Rambam that it does. Rav Ovadia says that one cannot say “kim li” against them. I personally cannot understand the Ran. Is he saying that David and Shlomo were illegitimate rulers? Not to mention the fat that there is a mitzva to appoint a king. The Netziv interprets “melech” to refer to any government , as does Rav Kook.


    Avirah- Here are a few things to consider:
    While, I’ve never seen a hard copy of Bnei Bnom (i’ve just seen Teshuvos from Sefaria), and therefore haven’t seen the Haskamos, acoording to an article by Tzvi Leshem about Rav Henkin’s legacy, the first volume of BB did in fact contain Haskamos from these Gedolim (as well as some others such as Rav Ovadya and Rav Mordachai Eliyahu).
    In regards to the Teshuvos you quoted, i think it makes more to learn the whole Teshuvah before disregarding Rav Henkin as a feminist. He probably brings sources. I will try to read the Teshuvos.
    I think you’re reading too much into what he wrote about Aliyos. It’s clear that he was against them; It’s unfair to say he was beyond the pale when he clearly writes that any Shul which implements them won’t remain orthodox.
    The insituition of Yoatzos was very contreversial, but it’s important to keep it in context. It’s specifically for a certain category of Halachos, and has many limitations.
    His support of women learning may be controversial but there is a Halachic basis for it. The Prishah, Rav Shach, Rav Chaim Kaneivevsky and many others allow women who are motivated to learn to do.


    Herzl Henkin, in one of his books, has a “teshuva” discussing whether a particular Godol HaDor (that he didn’t like) is an apokorus or not. In another “teshuva” he permits men and women dancing in the same open room.


    UJM- Where are these Teshuvos? (Which volume, which Teshuvah), Which Gadol was he referring to?


    Avirah- I just saw on Sefaria that Bnei Bnim does in fact have Haskamos from all the Gedolim mentioned. They all write very great things about him, referencing his Tzidkus and Yiras Shamayim.


    Y1836: I saw it over a decade ago. I didn’t note the volume. Henkin in his published “psak” says that it is okay for women to dance in front of men, since he says “there not going to look anyways”(!!!). I just looked at my notes and need to correct the point above regarding the Godol, which I went from memory until you asked me to look it up. He questions if it is “permissible” to call the Satmar Rebbe “Zatzal”. (I’m not kidding.)


    Rav moshe makes no mention of him being a tzadik, he says he’s the grandson of his beloved friend, he says that he doesn’t give haskamos on dinim(kdarko, this was not unusual) but that from what he saw(emphasis, he says he saw some pieces) definitely didn’t show him the parts i mentioned, or the one ujm mentioned about mixed dancing, which is there on teshuva 37, volume 1..if he showed rav moshe the part where he says women can wear talisim, something rav Moshe says is heresy, do you think he would have had the haskama? Uh, no. Henkin knew what to show to who, and capitalized on his yichus(which all of the haskamos mention). He may have been a grandson, but his father put him in the co ed Yeshiva of Flatbush!

    Many times the family of gedolim have more pull and are assumed to be good. It’s usually true, but has pitfalls. Though not nearly as bad as henkin, there’s no way the Torah temimah would have become popular if not for his father and uncle.

    Rav waldenburg, rav ovadia, and rav klein all said they have not seen the whole sefer. This was deliberate.

    You misrsead rav kleins word of “oso tzadik”, he didn’t say “bnei bonim from the tzadik..” meaning henkin, rather he’s pl making a play on words, “I’ve seen children of children to that tzadik…meaning he saw the grandchildren of rav eliyahu henkin, hertzls grandfather.


    “Zushy, Avira D’Ara, EJM and the other posters above are all expressing an opinion of one Daas Yochid, a Hungarian Rav who went against the entire rabbinic establishment, and spent decades attacking the Gadol Hador Rav Moshe Feinstein. His closest students became the Neturei Karta who kiss and hug with Arafat and are best friends with Hezbollah and Iran.”

    Man alive. אם אין דעת הבחנה מנין

    There are too many things happening on this thread …. however …..

    1) Gedolim are way way way above our hasaga. This applies to gedolim today, and kal vechomer to those of previous generations.

    2) יישוב ארץ ישראל is potentially a מצות עשה דאורייתא I assume I am not only one on this thread who is zoche to fulfill it. In this matter alone the Satmar rov zatvkal was indeed a daas yochid.

    3) there are numerous adherents of the basic ideology of אסור להתחבר לרשע אפילו לדבר מצוה who keep away from voting. I have heard estimates that they could potentially bring two more seats for UTJ. They still do not חלילה hug רוצחים etc, aderaba they are known for their extensive אהבת ישראל

    4) those that hug רוצחים were severely criticized by the leaders of the עדה החרדית – the successors of one of the Satmar Rav’s multifaceted roles.

    5) Many Gedolim – for example’s sake only מרן הגרמ”ד הלוי – expressed regular opposition to the government, nonetheless they encouraged יישוב הארץ and refused to leave ארץ ישראל

    6) The settlements of beitar and Kiryat sefer were built near the major population centers, as such Maran HaRav Shach zatzvkal was unopposed, in fact they viewed them as a solution to the housing crisis.

    7) The example I raised was Immanuel, in that case Maran Harav Shach was indeed opposed.

    8) As far as i understand Maran Sar Hatoira and his father before him, accepted Rav Shach position on these matters, as such it does not make sense to name a settlement after him.

    9) The point I was stressing was opposition to settlements. I do not understand how the position of the Ponevezher Rav [or, yet unmentioned, Maran HaGrach Shmulevitz] concerning the state is necessarily in disagreement. The main pro and anti zionism debate was not the purpose or the subject of my thread.

    10) there are numerous members of the dati le’umi community who are medakdek in toira and mitzvos, and unfortunately there are many balck hatters who are not. As yidden we respect and embrace everyone, and we also do not dream of understanding anyone else’s nisyoinois. [Nonetheless there is a undeniable “mainstream”, additionally there remains a small proportion of those from a dati-le’umi background who are “mitchared” and change their levush. Everyone understands that levush is supposed to represent something.]

    שבוע טוב ובברכה ומרבה לכל המשתתפים

    נא לעיין טוב במה שכתבתי, אשמח מאד מאד לשמוח הערות והארות



    I didn’t even address the neturei karta issues. Neturei karta are mainly litvishe Yerushalmis. The satmar rov was vocally opposed to even the legitimate, original NK started by rav amram blau. The current incarnations are splintered, with the main, normal, non-arafat hugging group still in meah shearim. Either way, almost none of them, the normal and the crazies, are talmidim of the divrei yoel zt”l.

    Zushy, the satmar rov was far from a daas yochid in not requiring yishuv eretz yisroel. Learn vayoel Moshe; 1/3 of the sefer is source after source that holds that there is no obligation. Those include rabbeinu chananel, one opinion in tosfos, and the rambam as explained by the megilas Esther. The rivash holds that the obligation isn’t so much to live there, but to buy land from goyim. The ramban holds that there is a chiyuv. It’s a machlokes rishonim. Achronim say that it’s a mitzvah if you’re able to do so relatively easily. Rav chaim kanievsky writes that too. Rav yaakov used to say it’s easier to raise kids in America.

    Some gedolim were moser nefesh to go to eretz yisroel; many weren’t.


    richashu: Your comment is full of hogwash. Rav Ahron Kotler, the Satmar Rov and Rav Moshe were the three leading postwar Gedolei HaDor. All three were close to with each other and worked with each other on Klal matters, despite any Halachic disagreements they may have had. None attacked the others. The people who met Arafat etc were never under the direction of the SR. Nor was he a Daas Yochid on the primary issue of the State. He along with virtually all the other Gedolim opposed the State’s formation. What to do about it after it was formed was the only area they disagreed.

    Rav Chaim Kanievsky agreed with Rav Shach as well as with his father the Steipler and the Chazon Ish regarding opposing settlements and other provocations against the Arabs, the could trigger them to violence against Yidden. If you disagree and feel we must settle all of Halachic Eretz Yisroel, then I suggest you start settlements in the parts of Eretz Yisroel that are in southern Lebanon and in Jordan, and live there.


    The divide in the issue of nationalism is so deep that rav elchonon and rav chaim brisker call it avodah zara….and shlomo goren says that one cannoy convert to “judaism” if they do not believe in it, if they want to hold on to their nationality, i.e. identify as American, Brazilian..they might like their culture and food, and language, and they only want to be a jew in terms of keeping the torah and their neshoma – that’s not a jew, according to goren…but a russian goy who doesn’t want to keep all the mitzvos but serves in that blasted army and celebrates 5 iyyar… that’s a jew.



    Avirah- where does Rav Shlomo Goren say this? Often controversial statements like this are taken out of context.


    I saw it in a teshuva he wrote; Google כפירה בעם ישראל לענייני גיור שלמה גורן, should be the first result – it’s mentioned in an article called “conversion in religious zionism” (written in Hebrew), by someone named rabbi yitzchok rones.


    @common saychel
    “Wrong, its the MO crowd that is changing, they are going black hat or going frie.
    The average kippa sruga minyan resembles a geriatrics ward.”

    In America, perhaps, but you’ve obviously never been to a datei leumi/chardal minyan in E”Y.


    @TM, been to places around the world including Israel and I stand by statement, its a dying movement


    Goren was, as far as I know, the only person who rav moshe ever threw out of his house, during the mamzerim issue.

    Goren also allowed essentially conservative conversions, much like eliezer melamed(melamed quotes goren…aveirah goreres aveirah), for the good of the “nation”. His qualifier was that they have to be like traditional israelis; because that’s religious zionism’s view of a Jew…an Israeli who should keep the whole torah, but if he doesn’t, he’s still jewish; you can join the “nation” by having an israeli passport and a conversion that obligates you to not eat pig, have a seder on passover and fast on yom kippur.

    to secular zionists, the one defining trait of a jew is that he is israeli or supportive of it, and from the avos, even by patrilineal descent. For religious zionists, a Jew is that too, but he also needs to have some religion (but not very much) mixed in. For torah jews, all you need is torah to be a jew; and the torah has dinim about who a jew is, from the mother, etc…, or a convert who joins the torah community by embracing the entire torah, not just what traditional frei people do.

    if anyone needs evidence of how zionist ideology affects psak halacha, look no further.

    Avi K

    Avira, Rav Moshe disagreed with Rav Goren but, so far as I know, he never threw him out of his house. I don’t know that RG ever went. The irony is that those who consider themselves talmidim of Rav Eliashiv, who resigned over the pesak, are annulling conversions left and right when couples come to marry. In the Langer case, there was no documentary evidence that a conversion and remarriage even took place. There was documentation that they were married by a priest. If there was a pro forma conversion, it was coerced (her father had incriminating information about Borokovsky). Rav Soloveichik and Rav Henkin supported RG. RS invited RG to speak at YU and participated in his shiurim.


    Rav Henkin was Machshiv Rav Goren, and said “Ein Liharher Achrav”. Also noteworth is Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg’s written Hesped for Rav Shlomo Goren in which he writes about his incredible Hasmadah, and praises him in the strongest way.


    Speak to any talmidim of rav Moshe (half of my rebbeim were) this story is very well known. Rav Moshe didn’t want the public to perceive that he was accepting of goren at all; he said that his psakim are invalid and that he has no authority in halacha. This was unusual for rav moshe, but much like who he was named after, rav Moshe knew when to be “vayigba libo bedarchei Hashem”. As for rabbi soloveitchik supporting goren in the langer case; please provide a source for that. I’m not even going to ask about rav henkin, because the way you know it is probably from his feminist, intergender mingling grandson yehudah hertzl, who spread numerous lies about his illustrious grandfather.


    Also, in the langner case… let’s call a spade a spade. This was deliberately to show that the religious zionist rabbis will bend halacha as necessary for the sake of the state. It was to show that their loyalty to the secular shmad state overrides their fidelity to Hashem. It was to make a statement that no matter what the state does, the rabbis will find some way to help it and support it.

    It showed that r”l, the Torah is subordinate to the whims of the murderers in the government, the enemies of Hashem, the kofrim in Torah and its giver, the uprooters of all that is holy.

    The thing about tamei in eretz yisroel has limits. The Torah mentions the many sins of the canaanim and says not to let them stay because “pen yachtiu oscha” , lest they make you sin. Ironically, the chances of zionists influencing jews to sin is FAR greater, as we can see with our eyes, than Arabs…the satmar rov makes a similar point in vayoel moshe. But in any case, the Torah doesn’t mince words when it comes to securing our spiritual safety. Talking about the evils of the zionists helps strengthen us not to be influenced by them. It’s why the fabric-wearing crowd watches movies and hangs out with girls, and the charedim(and admittedly, chardal) do not. They understand separation,and that sins in eretz yisroel are worse than anywhere else.


    My rosh yeshiva said that goren was a case of two opposing forces inside a person. He said that he learned a lot mitzad echad, but mitzad sheni, had distorted fantasies, would go around blowing shofros, and simply was a victim of the yatzer hora for zionism in a pretty bad way.

    There are some rabbis, I’d rather not say their names for their kovod, who fell prey to zionism on different levels, and for them gedolim say not to talk about them unecessarily…for instance, there’s one rov who was 99% frum, but wrote some rabbi kook-ian nonsense about frei jews being great and holy etc.., but this is not in his main, published seforim. Rav Moshe shternbuch considers him a rebbe, even though he’s one of the most staunch anti-zionists of our time. He understands peoples’ frailties.

    Another gadol who I spoke to about this rov was rav yitzchok sheiner, because his name appears in the haskomos of the people who put out the sefer containing the aforementioned nonsense. My friends and I got up the courage to simply knock on his door and try to invite ourselves to eat by him on shabbos. He was already beginning to lose his memory at the time, but his learning was on his fingertips. He remembered every word in shas, but couldn’t remember the name of rabbi kook when talking about how the unnamed rov had some ideas that were similar to his. Rav Scheiner told us that he was an ish kadosh, who had a very hard life. He ended up in university, divorced, and was in the holocaust, during which time he had a mental breakdown. Talmidei chachamim bleed, they are human, and rav scheiner’s open and frank descriptions of how good people can be imperfect made a very big impression on me. I think previously, in my mind, if someone erred, he was “upgefreight”, a nobody, not worthy of any kovod.

    The reason why I differentiate between people like goren, rabbi kook, and the unnamed rov in the story, is in scope. One gadol said that rabbi kook’s punishment in shomayim will be that they will tell him “kook! Kook! (meaning, “Look” in english), look at what you’ve done; it will pain him to know how much spiritual suffering his methods and ideas have caused klal yisroel. Goren’s damage is already mentioned above in this thread.

    The unnamed rov, however, was a victim of circumstance who, on the contrary, was a net positive. He was respected by both the yeshivos and the religious zionists, and definitely improved the standards of halacha that would otherwise be dominated by the gorens and the maimons of the time. while rabbi kook had mostly normative halachik opinions too, this was eclipsed by the hashkafic damage he caused.

    The only truly sad part of the unnamed rov’s legacy is that modern morons use his teshuva supporting a mixed kiruv organization(emphasis on kiruv) as some sort of heter to have co-ed schools; much like they abuse the aruch hashulchan’s heter to say shema in front of uncovered hair as some twisted heter for women not to cover their hair.


    I should have been more medakdek; he didn’t use the word “holy”, rather he praised their zeal, spoke about them poetically, and said not to separate ourselves from them, to be exact.


    Avira, so before you were accepting certain people but not others. Now, you are saying that there are people who are 50% to 99% Talmidei Chachamim and your favorite authorities admitted that. but the remaining part is treif and they are human and frail. This is contrary to other Talmidei Chachamim, of whom books are written that they are not human and frail. I know R Meir treated Acher that way, but I don’t think this is a usual way. The usual way is that if you are confronted with Talmidei Chachamim disagreeing, you need to respect them all, even if you disagree.


    “I’m not even going to ask about rav henkin, because the way you know it is probably from his feminist, intergender mingling grandson yehudah hertzl, who spread numerous lies about his illustrious grandfather.”

    As you know, i don’t agree with your disgraceful description of a towering Talmid Chochom. Even separate than that, though, what makes you think that he spreads lies about his grandfather? Do you actually have examples of supposed lies he spread about Rav YE Henkin?
    Quite frankly, i think the people spreading lies about Gedolim are those that pretend a Gadol didn’t hold a certain way because it doesn’t fit into the classis “Yeshivish” mode, even where’s towering evidence to the contrary.

    “Speak to any talmidim of rav Moshe (half of my rebbeim were) this story is very well known. Rav Moshe didn’t want the public to perceive that he was accepting of goren at all; he said that his psakim are invalid and that he has no authority in halacha.”

    Many well-known stories are simply not true or misunderstood/taken out of context. Could you at least name one Talmid of Rav Moshe who quotes this story? My quote about Rav Henkin’s view of Rav Goren was said explicitly by Rav Henkin’s grandson. You might not like the source, but the story with Rav Moshe and his supposed statement that “his psakim are invalid and that he has no authority in halacha”, was not backed up with any sources. I would find it much more convincing if you named at least one Talmid who says this.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 113 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.