- This topic has 96 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 16 hours ago by .
-
Posts
-
I have a question for the posters on this thread. I have no doubt that in the past, Socialism/Zionism and other “isms” led massive number of Jews away from Torah and mitzvahs. Yes, agreed. However, the question is, are we not living, to great extent, in a post-Zionist world today, whereby many Jews in Israel are (and the United States) are not driven by anti-Torah ideology but looking for Emes in a world of sheker. Assimilation in Israel is a problem no doubt. However, far more Jews have disappeared in the United States due to the materialistic and corrupt atmosphere that exists there than anywhere and anytime in history. In 1960, the intermarriage rate was less than 5% and now it’s approximately 70% (and in some out of town communities more than 90%). There’s no bigger destruction than that. Millions of Jews gone. Gone. Leave aside Zionist ideology for one moment. In Israel, the intermarriage rate is miniscule (less than 5%). You’re forced to self-identify as a Jew whether you like it or not. No matter how secular you are, the Arabs don’t let you forget it. In the United States, it’s a slow death by a thousand cuts. Yes, there are strong and flourishing on clays of Torah Jewry. Amazing Torah fortresses. However, the ultimate future of the Jewish nation is learning and living Torah in our Holy Land. Soon more than half of the Jews in the entire world will be living there. So shouldn’t we all try to make our Holy Land a place of Torah and mitzvahs by reaching out to our brothers and sisters in our Holy Land and teaching them the beauty and truth of our Holy Torah instead of ostracizing them (calling them filthy “Zionists” and thereby irredeemable). Most of them are tinokos sh’nishbu and as such are simply ignorant. We need to show them the way with love. It does not mean we water down the Emes. We need to follow the path of the great kiruv organizations who draw our estranged brothers and sisters close to Hashem and his Torah as Aaron HaCohen did. I am a Kohen myself and it pains me to see us write off the chilonim as our enemy.
I welcome any and all reactions.
In the land that is today known as Saudi Arabia,
there were several towns that had very large
Jewish minorities or even Jewish majorities.The only source to this whole story, the Jewish existence and their demise, is the Qoran. How do we know there is any truth to this? Any letters to Geonim? Any Kinnos? Archeology?
Dear Haleivi,
First of all, if it is a fabrication than a lot of The Koran has to be reimagined. It seems to have borrowed many ideas from the Jewish Kingdom of Arabia. If it didn’t exist, than where did those ideas come from? And if it made them all up, how did The Koran gain legitimacy?
But it is mentioned in other Arabic writings from the first millennium. It also mentioned from the Christian point of view in the Greek books of it’s time. And there are now dozens of stone tablets that confirm it’s existence.
There is also some vague mentions of Jews living in these areas in our literature.
Dear Return,
I agree to the main point. Not so much your overall view of our history.
He meant in the time before 1929, those preceding Generations. That is what is relevant. Not what happened in the middle ages.
Is a war between Iran and Iraq with a million killed a Zionist fault? Prosecution of christians in all Arab countries? Saddam Hussien regime in Iraq and Hafetz Assad in Syria? Ayatollahs in Iran? ISIS?
Would you think if EY was under Arab rule, none of that will apply to Jews who were there? What about Jews from other countries that needed a place to escape? Would US take everyone? Or Uganda?
Guys! Their sensoring my posts. Now you can all feel good that I’m gone. I did try to post _alot_ of really interesting info. Haha sorry you didn’t see it
SQUARE_ROOT:
Now you’re copying and pasting from other posters, including their typos?
The Chevron (not Tzefas) riot of 1929 was indeed a direct result of Zionism and, yes, Jews did live peacefully there prior to the Zionist invasion.
The Tzefas (note that is Tzefas, not Jerusalem and not the rest of the land) riots about a century earlier were obviously due to other political factors at that time. But that isn’t relevant to the facts and truth which you and other Zionist idolaters refuse to accept, as mentioned.AAQ:
Nobody claims that the Arabs should have taken over a century ago. Had the Zionists never invaded, the land would have presumably been ruled by the Christians, with individual religious councils for Jews and, liHavdil, Muslims, living peacefully in their respective areas as they did prior to the Zionist invasion.returnagain2:
In the Zionist paradise, the national religion is shmad/Zionism. In the Zionist paradise, one has to fight the national culture just to be a religious Jew. This does not exist in most countries in the world. Many of the Jews around the world who do not know about the beauty of our faith have been deprived of that due to the massive mess created by the Zionists, including the Holocaust.SQUARE_ROOT:
You keep copy/pasting other people’s mistakes.
The Chevron Massacre of 1929 was indeed because of the Zionists. That’s history and facts.
It is silly to ask a question from riots in Tzefas a century earlier.AAQ:
Nobody said that Mandatory Palestine should have been under Arab rule. It should have remained under Christian rule, as it was before the Zionists invaded and made the mess they did. Then, Jews would have their own religious councils and control over their religious lives, and not have to deal with all the cataclysmic mess the Zionists foisted on the Jews (and, liHavdil, the rest of the region).Regardless, yes, the Zionists made a tremendous mess, especially for Jews, ever since they started over a century ago.
@return again
not much hope for torah in EY lately – what’s with the sad relentless redifot of bnei yeshiva there ??
doesn’t bode any good … cannot see a way out ….
.
.hakatan > Had the Zionists never invaded, the land would have presumably been ruled by the Christians, with individual religious councils for Jews and, liHavdil, Muslims, living peacefully in their respective areas as they did prior to the Zionist invasion.
Great, thaanks for articulating your assumptions! This sounded reasonable in 1915. So, I would very much understand Rabbonim who said it then. But, again, look at the last 100 years – how many countries in the Middle East, or elsewhere, are still controlled by Christian colonizers? Statistically speaking, EY would eventually be like one of the neighbors – Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon. Most likely ruled for some times by militant anti-religious fanatics like Syria, having civil wars, having ISIS run it for 5 destructive years. As it was Syria and Egypt briefly united in an Arab Socialist Republic, this would probably be stronger if they had a direct link through Palestinian socialist republic. Probably, joining arab and USSR oil production into a stronger cartel; Sephardim and Soviet Jews staying under their power. All of that is the most likely outcome of that anti-Z vision. Again, I am not blaming rabbonim for not being naviim, same as those who told Yidden to stay in their European communities. But we have the benefit of knowing history, need to start paying attention.
> Zionists made a tremendous mess, especially for Jews,
The world at the time was a mess. Growing nationalism and communism in Europe was a great danger. Zionists were among those who understood the danger. In hindsight, the best solution for Jews would have been to all join together in trying to find safe places and maybe try to make those countries they lived in stronger ad wiser. We see that Jews play significant role in US politics, see people like Kissinger, but many others also. Let’s go back to Poland in 1920s – where the newly reconstructed country (was partitioned from 1790) enjoyed democracy – Poles fighting each other Polish Jews fighting each other, while being surrounded by Nazis and Soviets. If some Yidden instead of arguing about pro- and against Zionism, would gather information about tanks and airplanes Germans and Russians were building and explain the danger to Polish government, maybe they had a chance.
HaKatan is obviously unfamiliar with or intentionally chooses to ignore Pan-Arabism; the common denominator between massacres in Tzefas in the 19th century, Chevron in 1929, and the constant terrorism Israel faces today. He would be the most valuable spokesman (read: tokenized propagandist) for Haj Amin al-Husseini and anyone who appreciates such.
katan :
Had the Zionists never invaded, the land would have presumably been ruled by the Christians, with individual religious councils for Jews and, liHavdil, Muslims, living peacefully in their respective areas as they did prior to the Zionist invasion.
—this is an excellent example of katans ignorance of world events
katan is still stuck in the 1800’s where colonial powers rule and indigenous populations still live ‘peacefully’ under their rule.
this is anachronistic.
we live in the 2000’s and solutions from the 1800’s are a total joke.
I challenge katan with one example of Britain ruling any country around the globe with the population of that country practicing a different religion and with a totally different culture …
Nu mr katan … we are waiting for your answer ….
.
.chiefshmerel:
Nope. You are not being honest. The massacres in Tzfas in the early 1800s had zero to do with the Chevron Massacre. And, as Rav Baruch Kaplan testified – he lived there in Chevron – the Jews in Mandatory Palestine lived in peaceful coexistence with the Arabs – until the wicked Zionists invaded and with the bald Zionist lie of doing so in the name of the Jews.yankel berel:
This is an excellent example of…not my ignorance and it is not at all anachronistic, if one knows the history rather than just believing nonsense Zionist propaganda. The discussion was about how the Jews lived peacefully there prior to the Zionist invasion at the fin de siè·cle. Therefore, the context would indeed have been colonial rule. As well, after the Zionists terrorized and fought the Brits into leaving in 1948, the UN told the Zionists that they intended to start a new mandate, which the Zionists refused and instead declared their “independence” and at the cost of tens of thousands of Jewish lives, because the Zionists care only about Zionism, certainly not Jewish lives. So, as mentioned, that’s what was supposed to happen: the UN would have started a new mandate in 1948.Always_Ask_Questions:
That’s interesting. Zionism is a particularly toxic form of Nationalism. Yet you’re claiming that the wicked Zionists understood the dangers of nationalism and were trying to help, despite that the Zionists are virulent nationalists. And the Zionists were the ones who made the cataclysmic mess for Jews (including the Zionists both causing, and hurting Jews during, the Holocaust) specifically because of their idolatrous Nationalism, because they decided that if Jews converted from Judaism to Nationalism and if Jews would then be “normal” like the gentile nations in having their own land, then they would finally be accepted as goyim by the gentiles. Of course, none of that happened, but the idolaters still believe in their idol and others even defend that idol as being good for the Jews despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Other than the horrors of harugei beithar, which could have been tens of millions or more Jews murdered R”L, depending on how one learns that gemara in Gittin, there has never been anywhere near as much Jewish blood spilled like water R”L at any point in history as there has been since the founding of and continuation of Zionism. You just need to open your eyes to the facts as they are today, too. The Zionists need billions of dollars a year for “security”, which they anyways don’t have. Their billion dollar Gaza wall was breached by some savages in over 100 places!! Only an idolater with far too little awareness of G-d could possibly claim that Zionism has been good for Jews.yankel > katan is still stuck in the 1800’s where colonial powers rule and indigenous populations still live ‘peacefully’
this was not just 1800 – colonial system worked until WW2 and even later in Africa. But you are right that there is a systemic problem here: Judaism is long-term and conservative. This works well most of the time – except when it does not. This is lfe in general – Avraham is going around teaching for years, which is his great achievement, and then he needs to make a decision in one second to stop shechting his son and switch to a ram. Similarly, we have crossing of Yam Suf. And then establishing new approaches after destruction of beis hamikdashim.
So, our times change pretty fast (siman of Moschiach?) – we barely learned to open fridge on Shabbos and then we have whole Torah on our phones and chatgpt paskening. So, it is understandable that people cling to old ideas for too long. Does not make it right, though, when it contrqdicts the facts.
Practically speaking there is ZERO relevance to propose those silly canards
“give the land to esav ”
as per katan
“if only the z didn’t invade …”only someone stuck in the past could think along those lines
fact is that katan did not name even one country on the globe with a population with a different religion and culture ‘governed by esav’
he is not stuck in the past , sorry
he is stuck to his krumme shitah
so stuck that he became megulgal in to a …. parrot
declaiming words without any obvious understanding of their significance or context
and subsequently turning katan into a unwitting and permanent laughingstock.
.
.I challenge katan with one example of Britain [or any other western nation] presently ruling any country around the globe with the population of that country practicing a different religion and with a totally different culture …
Nu mr katan … we are waiting for your answer ….
.
.the other pikchim like somejew and ujm are also invited to offer their two cents …
.
Nu ?
.will they be modeh al haemet for once ??
just for once ???
.
holding my breath ….
.
.AAQ and YB:
I responded to your mockery of me, if the mods choose to post it.I am reposting most of my original post which katan somehow chose to call ‘mockery’……
is the nickname ‘mockery’ designed to excuse a non answer ???
because I reposted this challenge without any hint of mockery here .let’s see whether they will be coming with an answer , or not …..
—
I challenge katan with one example of Britain [or any other western nation] presently ruling any country around the globe with the population of that country practicing a different religion and with a totally different culture …
Nu mr katan and supporters … we are waiting for your answer ….
.
will they be modeh al haemet for once ??
just for once ???
.
holding my breath ….
.
.@yankel-berel
I don’t understand your question, your “challenge”.
What is the claim and why is your question a challenge to it?@ somejew
there is need to obfuscate and sidestep …
tachlit – is there one example of Britain [or any other western nation] presently ruling any country around the globe with the population of that country practicing a different religion and with a totally different culture … ?
yes or no ?
and please back up your answer with facts and figures ….
not hard at all – simple request …
.
.Here is what ChatGPT said:
You’re asking: **Is there an example today of a Western country—like Britain—“ruling” a place whose population practices a different religion and has a markedly different culture?**
The short answer is: **yes**, but only in the sense of overseas territories—not independent countries. Presently, **no Western power governs an independent country** whose population has a different religion and culture. However, several Western nations **do maintain control over overseas territories** with distinct cultures and religions. Here’s how that breaks down:
—
### U.K. Overseas Territories
#### What Are They?
* The **United Kingdom** continues to govern **14 British Overseas Territories (BOTs)**—not independent nations, but territories under UK sovereignty. These include places like **Bermuda**, the **Falkland Islands**, **Gibraltar**, **Turks and Caicos**, **Anguilla**, and others.([House of Lords Library][1], [Wikipedia][2])
* They’re not countries in their own right; they remain under UK oversight for defense, foreign affairs, and constitutional matters, while often retaining internal self-governance.([House of Commons Library][3], [Wikipedia][2])#### Cultural and Religious Differences
Many of these territories have populations with **religious beliefs and cultural practices distinct** from those of the UK:
* **Gibraltar**, for example, has primarily Spanish-influenced culture and a majority Roman Catholic population, differing from the UK’s largely secular or Protestant heritage.([Monarchies Wiki][4], [Wikipedia][2])
* The Caribbean territories—**Turks and Caicos**, **Anguilla**, **Montserrat**, **British Virgin Islands**—are culturally Caribbean, with populations predominantly of African descent, Christian denominations, and culturally distinct from Great Britain.([Fencu][5], [House of Commons Library][3])
* Even the **Falkland Islands** have a small, uniquely islander culture with deep ties to their local heritage.([Wikipedia][6])—
### Commonwealth Realms (Symbolic Rule)
There remains another form of vestigial “Western rule” via the **Commonwealth Realms**—countries that are fully independent but recognize the **British monarch** as a ceremonial head of state:
* As of 2025, there are **15 Commonwealth realms**, including **Canada**, **Australia**, **New Zealand**, **Jamaica**, **Papua New Guinea**, **Solomon Islands**, **Belize**, **Tuvalu**, and others.([Wikipedia][7], [EmpPaths & Travel][8])
* These are sovereign nations with their own governments, cultures, and religions. Recognizing the British monarch is largely symbolic and does **not** imply governance or cultural dominance.
* Many of these countries practice religions and cultures quite different from the UK—**Papua New Guinea** with traditional and Christian beliefs, **Solomon Islands** with Melanesian cultures, **Jamaica** with Afro-Caribbean traditions, etc.In fact, some realms are moving away entirely from even this symbolic link. Very recently, **Grenada** passed legislation to **remove the oath of allegiance** to King Charles III from its constitution, a step toward abolishing the monarch as head of state.([The Guardian][9])
—
### Summary
| Type | Examples | Cultural/Religious Difference? | Nature of Rule |
| ———————- | ——————————————— | —————————— | ————————————————– |
| **Overseas Territory** | Gibraltar, Falklands, Bermuda, Caribbean BOTs | Yes | UK retains authority over defense, foreign affairs |
| **Commonwealth Realm** | Canada, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, etc. | Yes | Independent nations; monarch is symbolic only |* There are **no contemporary examples** where a Western nation directly “rules” an independent country with a different religion and culture.
* The only current parallels are in colonial-era holdovers—**overseas territories**—where different cultures and religions do exist under UK sovereignty.
* And increasingly, even symbolic ties like those of Commonwealth Realms are being dissolved in favor of full republican sovereignty.So, @yankel-berel,
can you now answer my question as to what this matters? what is the point you are trying to make and why do you keep asking me this random question?> can you now answer my question as to what this matters?
I presume this was a reference to a claim that without evilZs, Jews in EY would happily live in a British protectorate. I think this just shows that some arguments get repeated from letters written 100 years ago. It would be a reasonable assumption that Brits would rule EY – at least as reasonable as the idea that going to US and EY is more risky than living in traditional communities near Commie Russia and German Nazis. This was based on the experience of surviving WW1 – it was horrible but did not affect masses (outside of USSR that closed itself after that). But now in the hindsight, we see that British protectorate was not going to happen, but Hafetz Assad protectorate was a possibility. So, even if you were so cruel as disregard what will happen with all those potential Israelis, this proposition does not seem to make any sense.
the reason of the question is so clear , that I am astonished that you are asking .
I must admit that I left some part out of the original question , owing to the fact that the reason of the question was so clear to me.
I will rephrase the original question, for those who claim not to understand the reason :
—
Is there an example today of a Western country—like Britain—ruling, INCLUDING taking direct responsibility for internal security , a place whose population practices a different religion and has a markedly different culture , AGAINST THE WILL OF SAID POPULATION ?yes or no ?
—
The reason I am asking is obvious .
katan claims repeatedly that “giving EY to esav” is going to ensure the wellbeing of 8 million of our brothers there.
What I am doing here, are only some first steps of what katan , ujm and somejew themselves would do when their own little daughter would need major surgery …
they would inquire about the possible repercussions of each of the available courses of action …
and about the repercussions of those repercussions ….
they would make those inquiries in a thorough and serious manner ….
.
.i still don’t understand.
I am Jewish. I don’t have “8 million brothers there”.
Are you asking about HOW to dismantle the evil zionist state?
I don’t know and don’t really care to imagine. I’m not the PM nor do I want to be.
What I DO KNOW is that Jews should do tshiva and follow the Torah. This has nothing to do with the policies or agenda of kofrim like the zionists or their state.
Nu Mr somejew ???
.i still don’t understand.
I am Jewish. I don’t have “8 million brothers there”.
Are you asking about HOW to dismantle the evil zionist state?
I don’t know and don’t really care to imagine. I’m not the PM nor do I want to be.
What I DO KNOW is that Jews should do tshiva and follow the Torah. This has nothing to do with the policies or agenda of kofrim like the zionists or their state.
—-we are getting closer to nailing down your real shitah , thanks.
you don’t have 8 million brothers there …
so can you please specify – how many brothers do you have there ? can you supply a number please ?
and by which exact criteria the others are excluded ?
thanks
.
.Are you asking about HOW to dismantle the ….. state?
I don’t know and don’t really care to imagine. I’m not the PM nor do I want to be.
—
Thanks for this clarification .
1] you say you don’t know how to dismantle the state ….
assuming you mean , you do not know ‘how to dismantle the state’ without innocents being murdered or wounded in any way ….
[because how to dismantle a state with no regard to innocent deaths or injuries, is not difficult at all]
2] then you state ‘I don’t really care to imagine’ …… on this very same topic of dismantling the state without innocents being murdered or wounded in any way ….
is this not a clear admission to what I have repeatedly claimed on these pages ?
that somejew does not have a solution for the well being of the jews in EY
and that somejew does care to find a solution for their wellbeing
why not ?
why does somejew not care , in the context of the oaths , for the well being of the jews in EY ?
answer is aforementioned maharal , quoted by somejew, who states that to transgress the oaths is yehareig veal yaavor
because pikuch nefesh is not docheh the oaths …
what part of this simple analysis is incorrect ?
.
.@yankel-berel
I don’t think I am “hiding the ball” about anything we are talking. Everything I am saying is mainstream classic judaism as well documented in the major seforim of chazal,rishonim, and achronim.“Klal yisroel” means “achicah b’mitzvos”, that is to say my “brothers” are those who are classified by the Torah as being part of klal yisroel. You can read the Rambam in Hilchos Mamarim as well as his commentary on perek “Kol Yisroel”.
It’s not my business personally to figure out how many people are in Klal Yisroel, but since you asked I would point you to the most obvious external feature of someone who is presumed to be NOT part of klal is anyone who is not publicly keeping Shabbos. The same surveys that would provide you with a population count of the medina also provide a speculation that a large majority of those self-identified “Jews” do not claim to keep shabbos.
–
Regarding my statement about dismantling the medina. I said “I don’t care to imagine” because it’s not something I am practically enabled to do nor is it a position of control that I seek.
The whole hashkafic foundation of the “three oaths” specifically and the gulis generally is specifically that we Jews as a nation are NOT allowed to do physical hishtadlus (like non-jewish nations) to survive as a nation. We are supposed to specifically make ourselves vulnerable to the “70 wolves” that surround us by not engaging in their “derech hateva” politics. We are specially supposed to turn to Hashem, and Hashem alone, to protect and rescue us as a nation, in order to show to the world (and even more so to ourselves) that we are a holy nation that is not guided by the natural order.
This is the exact tikkin of gulis and exactly why the shevios are taught as such.
So, if the goal of gulis is BITEL and to NOT take control of the national fate, but rather to explicitly and adamantly rely only on Hashem, you can understand how absurd your question is about “if you were prime minister…” Someone, chalila, wanting to be prime minister is exactly them being a zionist. This is what zionists call “self determination”.
Everything I wrote above has zero to do with me or my feelings or caring about anything. The above is true because it is what the Torah teaches us, as least as per my understanding. So, please refrain from attacking whoever you think I am simply because you are motivated to reject what I say.
Forget about the pilpul. Look at a bigger picture:
The whole premise that the core of our religion is not to do physical actions to survive borders on herecy.
Whatever sources for bitachon you have from the Tanach, it is obvious that Tanach describes numerous actions taken by gedolei israel, starting from avos, Moshe, etc. So, your claim is exclusively based on the gemora about 3 shevuos. So, like some other religions, you are claiming that Jewish bris changed at about time of the 2nd churban that we are now ossur to deal with things we used to do before.
Note that I am not against shevuos-based realpolitik that Jews practiced over centuries when it was necessary. And I also understand gedolim a 100 years ago who had to consider dangers of assimilation and secularism involved, and having Jewish settlement in EY as a possibility. But you can really spend your resources better but trying to learn how to deal with current reality, instead of denying it.
@somejew
it is davka your [mis]understanding of the torah which I take issue with.Not you as a person per se .
Although it still is you as a person who is having this misunderstanding.
your [mis]understanding of the torah has huge implications
[and that is an understatement] ,because if you are wrong , and we do have to take into account the bederech hateva hishtadlut for the well being of [for arguments sake] the two million shomrei shabbat in EY [status of the non shomrei shabbat is unclear , but let’s go with your shitah for now]
and we do not,
we are over on lo ta’amod al dam rei’acha, multiplied by two million !
hope you agree with me that we have to one hundred and ten percent right that your psak that we do not have to take into account hishtadlut bederech hateva for those two million to survive , is correct.
this will need to be proven airtight , not even one millimeter less .
otherwise we are being mezalzel in dinei nefashot mamash.
this is hamurot shebachamurot , which in time of hazal would need a beit din of minimum 23 .
hope that all of the above is fully agreed to ?
.
.I appreciate the honest response that seems intent on moving the conversation forward.
I don’t have an issue with trusting the Torah “to the millimeter” nor do I doubt any part of it on any level.
However, since my point about hishtadlis seems to be novel to you, I will soften the suprise by expressing my disagreement with your claims on their own merit.
Histadlis generally is the exception that must be proven, not the other way around. For example, the starting point of being a Yid is believing everything is in Hashem’s hands. Specifically when a person is niftar is gozer on Rosh Hashuneh. This is clear in our mesora. So, every action – even general hatzula nefushos – is an exception to our normal understanding of the world and something that must be proven before allowed. So too medicine and parnsas. This doesn’t mean that those issues haven’t already been clearly established, hatzuleh nefushos and medicine and panuseh have all been well codified in Torah and in the Jewish life. Nonetheless chazal are clear that if nor for the Torah telling us explicitly, going to a doctor would simply be another form of avoda zureh and kefira in Hashem.
Beyond that clarifying point, your last comment included a very foolish false-binary of break the shevious or watch millions – chas v’shulem- burn. Keeping the shevios does not mean letting any individual Jew get – chas v’shulem – hurt. As I have written in other places: if zionists believe Jewish lives are in danger inside the medina, help them escape to safer lands. Running away from adversity is part of keeping the shevios, not breaking them.
This touches on my question to you in another thread around here right now: what is the real question? If I specifically don’t go to the army, will a Jew – chas v’shulem – die? If I specifically don’t answer the Hatzuleh Radio Medic Call on Shabbos, will someone -chas v’shulem – die? Can that person go to the hospital before Shabbos? Can that person escape the zionist danger and move elsewhere?
So, no, while of course the Torah is 100% correct, your attempt to divide and conquer its teachings is foolish and empty.
the main problem in your approach is your ironclad starting point that your shitah IS THE torah view,
whereas I am attempting to start from WITHIN the accepted torah sources to establish as to whether the torah agrees with you or not ,
using time honored massa umatan kedarka shel torah as seen in the countless thsuva sfarim of our greats over the generations
if you cannot support your maskanot using those established processes , then your maskanot are null and void.
hope and expect you to agree
any approach lema’aseh we will adopt in regard to hishtadlut bimkom pikuach nefesh , will have be the same as the rabbanim adopted during all our previous generations bimkom pikuach nefesh .
if gdolei harabanim adopted a certain approach lema’aseh to hishtadlut bimkom pikuach nefesh , it is incumbent on us to do the same , notwithstanding any hashkafic background .
you speak as if your maskana is the torah and as if any question on it , is a question on the torah .
this is totally wrong
your maskana , is nothing more than your maskana , and any question on it from torah sources , is a challenge for you to prove your maskana right.
so this not a debate between the torah and the outside world as many of the arguments on these pages are .
this is , rather, a debate , within the torah.
hope and expect you agree
.
You are invited to offer ANY pre-zionist (pre 1890) source in Shas or Poskim that forces a machlokes anywhere in the sugya of gezeiras hagulis generally and the application of the shulosh shevios specifically.
There IS a mochlokes in the gemureh about between R’ Zeira and R’ Yehuda, so that shikel daas between them is fair.
There are ALSO perhaps nuanced machlokesim about what exactly are the guidlines of the shulosh shevios, such as what is “aliyah k’choma”, etc, but poskim have resolved all if not most of those such that there is no machlokes. You are welcome to present somewhere you think there is valid machlokes in something if my understanding of this is mistaken and you want to leverage that shita to present coherent context for a needed shikel daas.
Beyond these two points, there are many many regular mekoros of how Jews must ask in gulis, about how to understand and safeguard breaking the shevios. These all present a singular cohesive view, from midrashei chazal to tshivas in psak to sodos haTorah to mifarshei hachimash to baalei musar and hashkufeh.
I don’t see any room for shikel daas if you cannot present an alternate deyoh in Shas! Who (in shas and poskim) is expressing the alternate shitah you claim that would put into question anything I wrote visavis gulis and the shevios?
somejew,
not to change the subject, but I am trying to see whether your shitah holds across other topics, for example is there an alternative in gemora to R Akiva saying that make your shabbos as weekday but do not rely on briyut? (Pesachim 112)I am specifically talking about pikuach nefesh here .
it is pashut in shas , poskim and shulhan aruch that besides the three hamurot, pikuach nefesh is docheh everything else .
you claim that the oaths take precedence over pikuach nefesh .
the gemara contradicts that
the poskim contradict that.
the shulhan aruch contradicts that.
.
.
I would like a direct answer please, not a sidestepping one .
.
.I already gave you a direct answer. here it is again:
SA does NOT say what you want it to say. It says[taken from Hebrew Books and transcribided without Ramu for brevity]
יורה דעה סימן קנז: על איזה עבירות ייהרג ואל יעבור, ובו ג’ סעיפים
סעיף אכל העבירות שבתורה, חוץ מעבודה זרה, גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים, אם אומרים לו לאדם שיעבור עליהם או ייהרג, אם הוא בצינעה – יעבור ואל ייהרג. ואם ירצה להחמיר על עצמו וליהרג, רשאי, אם העובד כוכבים מכוון להעבירו על דת.
ואם הוא בפרהסיא, דהיינו בפני עשרה מישראל, חייב ליהרג ולא יעבור, אם העובד כוכבים מכוון להעבירו על דת .אבל אם אינו מכוון אלא להנאתו, יעבור ואל ייהרג. ואם היא שעת הגזירה , אפילו על ערקתא דמסאנא ייהרג ואל יעבור.
ובעבודת כוכבים, גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים, אפילו בצינעה ושלא בשעת הגזירה, ואפילו אין העובד כוכבים מכוון אלא להנאתו – ייהרג ואל יעבור.and the translation:
Yoreh De’ah Siman 157: On Which Transgressions One Should Be Martyred Rather Than Transgress, and It Contains Three Sections
Section 1
Regarding all transgressions in the Torah, with the exception of idolatry, forbidden arayos, and bloodshed: If a person is told to transgress them or be killed, and the transgression is committed in private ( b’tzinah ), they should transgress and not be killed. However, if they wish to be stringent upon themselves and be martyred, they may do so, provided the non-Jew intends to make them abandon the Torah.
If the situation is public ( b’farhesia ), meaning in the presence of ten Jews, one is obligated to be martyred rather than transgress,
if the gentile intends to make them abandon the Torah. But if the gentile’s intention is merely for their own pleasure, one should transgress and not be killed. If it is a time of decree ( sh’as hagezirah ), one must be martyred rather than transgress, even for the sake of a sandal strap.
And concerning idolatry, forbidden arayos, and bloodshed, even when committed in private and not during a time of decree, and even if the gentile’s intention is merely for their own pleasure, one must be martyred and not transgress.
@yankel-berel
Beyond this, there are many makoros in chazel, such as the medrash says bne efroyim were punished by mass death for breaking the shevioyos to escape mitzroyim, which clearly say one cannot break the shevios for pekiach nefesh.
If you have a serious question, just read the relatively short paragraph of maharal where he explains himself. or read vayoel moshe where the whole sugya is explains. your questions are not “bomba kashos”, rather they just show your deep insincerity and readiness to lie about what the Torah says, oy.I am specifically talking about pikuach nefesh here .
it is pashut in shas , poskim and shulhan aruch that besides the three hamurot, pikuach nefesh is docheh everything else .
you claim that the oaths take precedence over pikuach nefesh .
the gemara contradicts that
the poskim contradict that.
the shulhan aruch contradicts that.
.
.
I would like a direct answer please, not a sidestepping one .
.again mr some jew …
sh’a says clearly , and I am copying from your quote of shulchan aruch ….
כל העבירות שבתורה, חוץ מעבודה זרה, גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים, אם אומרים לו לאדם שיעבור עליהם או ייהרג,
אם הוא בצינעה – יעבור ואל ייהרג
אם הוא בפרהסיא, דהיינו בפני עשרה מישראל, חייב ליהרג ולא יעבור, אם העובד כוכבים מכוון להעבירו על דת
clear as day that all averot besides the three , he should be over the issur …
betsin’a for sure
and also befarhesya if the one who is forcing does not want to leha’avir al hadat .
so , the one coming to murder , the one which necessitates the issur , he has no intention leha’avir al hadat
the din is ya’avor
not like maharal in his agada sefer
.
not a ‘bomba kushya’ – just pashut pshat …
.
.previous comment is a direct, clear answer to your question(s).
why is somejew sidestepping again ?
a clear shulhan aruch not like his claims .
why can’t he answer a simple question ?
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.