- This topic has 79 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 1 hour, 2 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
@EBROWN – your statements on the army in the times of Tanach are demonstrably false. Just an easy example – look at Yiftach’s army, described by the Navi as being constituted of “Anashim Reikim” – empty people – who were presumably not nearly at the level of observance that your cheder rebbbi would have you believe. Yet, when Klal Yisrael needed rescuing, Yiftach and his people were whom they turned to.
The army today is not run by Shomrei Torah uMitzvos – that is true. However, the army as a whole is very willing to make accommodations for those that are, including setting up specific units that are designed for not just a Frum lifestyle, but a Chareidi lifestyle. Are things perfect? No – there is still room for improvement, of course. But the army is making a good-faith effort, and there is no doubt that with Chareidi involvement and cooperation, the situation could be made better yet. So, it behooves Chareidim to get involved and work toward this goal – instead of sitting on their hands while the rest of Klal Yisrael, including a great number of Bnei Torah, puts their lives on the line to defend them and their fellow Jews.
an Israeli Yid
@ UJM
Please try to keep your eye on the ball
The OP claimed that “All Jews are Forever Forbidden from the IDF”
I responded that there have been prominent poskim who instructed people to join
You posted that their reasoning is Pekuach Nefish (like eating trief and Chiilul Shabbos)
You also took umbrage with me saying that you hold Z is Kfira / A”Z
Based on the above, my understanding is:
1) you disagree with the OP and hold that in cases of Pekuach Nefish one should join the IDF
2) you disagree with the contention of HaKatan and SomeJew that Z has a halachic status of Kfira / A”ZThere are other ways to understand what you said as well. So, please clarify
@ SomeJew
On this thread, I am trying to understand UJM’s point of view. He seems to say Pikuach Nefish would permit joining the IDF and that Zionism is not A”Z / Kfira. I am well aware what you have written about this. But, UJM, objected when I attributed your point of view to him. This could be because:
1) He doesn’t agree with you that Zionism is A”Z / Kfira, or
2) He does agree with you that Zionism is A”Z / Kfira bit since he hasn’t written that openly he objected to me attributing this view to him without evidenceHoping that he will clarify his position on this so we proceed with the conversation.
I did respond to one of your posts in the Lubavich / Zionism thread. That conversation got detailed into other unrelated matters.
Didn’t the chareidi parties agree to a draft compromise? How do we understand that in light of this thread?
you conveneniently omitted to respond to clear proof that 3 shavu’ot are not binding lema’aseh .
From a clear psak in sh’a .
You continue to repeat the demonstrable fallacy that p/n are not docheh the shavu’ot ,
while the shavu’ot are not even binding at all lehalacha.
I call on somejew to stop ignoring clear psakim of rabban shel yisrael , maran habet yosef , just because of his mistaken fantasies .
.
.
.You have not answered my question.
Shulhan Aruch permits , no ,- mandates , violating Shabbos to physically fight against an enemy that attempts to seize even ‘kash vateven’ —since it begins with kash and ends with lives (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 329).
Will repeat again
mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy
and again
… mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy ….
That is from THE ultimate halacha sefer for all klal yisrael for the last 500 years.
.
.
.
.
.Qiucck reminder of somejew’s post :
In (very) short, that means that if goyim – chas v’shulem – threaten masses of jews, our kosher responses are: make peace, give gifts, run away, and pray to G-d. What we are not allowed to do is organize an army and physically fight the enemy.
—Contrast that with maran bet yosef in shulhan aruch mentioned in my previous post .
Somejew is playing around with klal yisraels literal amud hahalacha here.
.
.
.lernt > Didn’t the chareidi parties agree to a draft compromise? How do we understand that in light of this thread?
Maybe they did not read this thread yet. Or maybe gedolim want to take away passports from full time learners to take away yetzer hara from the learners to go on foreign trips.
There are many answers to the 3 shavous
1) We don’t pasken like aggadata
2) Its only when the goyim keep their oath and don’t cheper jews. Once there was a holocaust thats gone.There are others too. i had a list of 3-4. Now to be fair the Satmar reba disputed these. But those that held these views were not around then anymore to answer the reba. Furthermore, the reba disputed these after the medina was founded already. At that point in time it was a mute point since it was a done deal so why argue with someone who had the bully pulpit like the satmar reba who if you dared dispute him, his mafia would go after you. he himslef was a huge tzadik but his kanois stirred the mafia around him.
As far as what agudah held, it was diverse. Ther were some to the left and some to the right. Many of the rizyna rebas held zioinsm is al pi torah and others held not like that and you had people in the middle. The imeri emes held R Kook zl was tzadik who was just misguided due to his tzidkus as you see in his letter. Many many big gedolim gheld of R Kook inlcuding R isser zlaman and R aryeah Levin. of course the chaftez chaim held of him too. Move to today when the battle is different and its isn’t about a state rather its about secularism. I think some of it is mistrust vs real issues while some of it is that the system grew into an unprecndted system where being charedi means to learn a whole life and not work because of the way things were shteled avek by the chazon ish years ago. . Its hard to break from that. But at the need of the day agaudah shita today is more to the right in terms of joining the army.
Re zionisim itself its machlokos and both sides have strong torah sources
Non Political: I am not disagreeing with HaKatan and SomeJew that Z has a halachic status of Kfira / A”Z. I didn’t comment or address that point and simply objected to your putting words in my mouth on a position I may have not yet articulated addressing. The general point I made is that even something clearly prohibited sometimes has exceptions under special circumstances permitting engaging in an otherwise prohibited activity.
Chaim87,
Yeah the 3 oaths are quoted in an Aggadeta gemara based on pesukim in Shir Hashirim which is NOT part of the Torah. And it’s not brought down in the big poskim – not in yad hachazakah, not in shulchan aruch or nosei keilim. As well, the Maharsha there asks, if the 3 oaths are a thing, how did they go up during bayis sheini? He answers that it was with the permission of the Persian government so it was ok. The Meshech chochma said the ratification of the Balfour Declaration was enough to permit it. The Satmar Rebbe zt”l was one opinion in a sea of opinions.The ironic thing is the Satmar Rebbe zt”l had many views on many topics. He held that secular studies were forbidden. He held that people need to have very short hair and long payos. He would be appalled that his views are bashmutzed by the impure mouths of those who clearly have a lot of secular studies under their belts and don’t dress the way a yid should, in the view of the Satmar Rebbe zt”l. He would refer to these people as modernishe tziyoinistim!
yankel berel, chaim and LMT:
Why do you post things that are against the Torah and that are also baseless? Giluy panim baTorah sheLo kaHalacha is not a joking matter.The Oaths are brought down liHalacha by poskim, as the Satmar Rav brings down in his sefer. The Satmar Rav did not invent that they are halachic. Even the Rambam himself applied them as halacha liMaaseh in Igeres Teiman. They are brought down as halacha by poskim and others throughout the centuries, which is why Zionists come up with silly answers trying to pretend that they are no longer in force.
Chaim’s argument about them being reciprocal is also wrong, as the Satmar Rav notes, because, in part:
1. The oaths are for our benefit, not a contract between us and the nations.
2. Even if they would be reciprocity on the oaths between us and the nations (which there is not, in fact), that would apply only to the oath against “rebelling”, not to the other oaths, like ascending with force and also forcing the end.Nobody held of Zionism, despite Chaim’s stories, though some rabbis might have been fooled by Zionist lies *at the time*. And nobody held of those writings of Rabbi Kook which were heretical or otherwise anti-Torah, and many held and published very strongly against Rabbi Kook himself.
LMT:
The Meshech Chochma did not hold what you claim. If he did actually write what they claim he wrote (which was published in a “Religious Zionist” paper, not in a sefer), then he simply stated that the fear of violating the oaths – meaning of rebelling against the nations, of course – would not be an issue in light of the Balfour Declaration, for Jews to peacefully and non-politically move to the holy land. That’s it.Of course, the reality is that those same British then issued the White Papers effectively rescinding that, and ultimately also did not vote for the Zionist State in 1948, and that all anyways has nothing to do with the other two oaths as mentioned above, both of which the Zionists flagrantly violated and neither of which the Meshech Chochma permitted: namely the Zionists fighting wars (and terror) to gain that “State”, and even without that, to get any “State” even peacefully (dechikas haKeitz).
I find it sad that people make halachic (and hashkafic) claims when they clearly have not learned the sugya and are just relying on the (false) Zionist meme that only Satmar holds of the three oaths. Go ask your LOR, if you have one, and ask him for sources.
Why do you post things that are against the Torah and that are also baseless? Giluy panim baTorah sheLo kaHalacha is not a joking matter.
Three oaths are omitted by yad halacha [rambam] . tur and shulchan aruch .
Says Avnei Nezer [gadol haposkim before the first world war] is clear proof that it’s not lehalacha.
.
.
.
.
Besides the above , Shulhan Aruch mandates , violating Shabbos to physically fight against an enemy that attempts to seize even ‘kash vateven’ —since it begins with kash and ends with lives (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 329).Will repeat again :
mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy
.
.and again:
… mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy ….
.
Another indication three oaths are NOT lehalacha.
.
.
.
Remember Mr. katan – Giluy panim baTorah sheLo kaHalacha is not a joking matter.
.
.This blow up of the so called three oaths halachot, is a minority satmar shitah.
Which is overused for polemical purposes
And not to be taken literally .
Feel bad for katan and somejew who naively are taking it at face value.
Even SR himself did not consider this literal halacha .
Nor did he consider the medina as literal kefira
He used language and stirred emotions normally reserved for real halacha and real kefira in order to accomplish great things in distancing the haredi world from Zionism.
Period.
.
.Breaking news!! Not everyone holds like Satmar
HaKatan:
Again:
1) R’ Teitelbaum did not have binding judicial authority outside his own community. He certainly did not have such authority in his own country of origin. He did not have that binding authority anywhere else in Europe, certainly nowhere in the Middle East and North Africa. He was one opinion. You clearly do not understand that simple fact, just like you don’t understand how judicial authority is supposed to work within Judaism as a whole, the non-binding nature of moder practice and what we call Minhag (which isn’t actually Minhag), the fact that there has been no true binding judicial authority since the Bavli, and the fact that there are major differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardim with regard to following legal precedent. Hint: Ashkenazim tend to demand it, Sephardim do not. It is not a violation of Halacha to say, “with all due respect to the prior court, we’re ruling differently for xyz reason”. So your Halacha LiMaaseh argument is void.
2) Whether your utterly pathetic self likes it or not, Aggadeta such as that in Shir Hashirim cannot be used for pesak Halacha. Period. End of discussion. They are an Asmachta at most, which makes the oaths possibly Dinim Muflaim, Rabbinic Laws that can be overturned. Your claim otherwise is also void.
3) You are wrong vis-a-vis Risaala Al-Yemeniyya, notwithstanding your insistence to the contrary. Understand: You don’t know what you’re talking about. If you bothered to read Risaala Al-Yemeniyya in the original Arabic (like I have), or a reputable Hebrew translation from someone such as a member of the Qafih family, instead of whatever biased, Ashkenazi half-translation you read, you would know that Rambam does not issue any sort of halachic ruling with regard to the so-called “oaths” and that the precise context of these “oaths” is encouraging Yemeni Jewry to stand strong in the face of pressure to convert or face violence/death. The only halachic material is laying out how to determine if someone is a false Messiah. The oaths are a rhetorical device. That’s it. You’re wrong and you wearing a fedora, kopek, streimel or whatever headgear you want will not cover up that fundamental misunderstanding.
In the end, we don’t have to listen to anything R’ Teitelbaum said. It’s really that simple. You can kick, scream and name call all you want. It’s pathetic at this point, and you’re not changing minds.
You also will answer HKB”H for slandering an entire community after 120.
Rav Yoel Teitelbaum zt”l didn’t just have a view on Zionism. He also felt that secular education was treif, and had a number of strict rulings in other areas. He would view the educated people who dare to speak in his name despite not shaving their heads and growing long payos as shkootzim, and some of them as malshinim as well. Don’t judge the Satmar Rebbe zt”l by the people on the Internet.
Lernt > He would view the educated people who dare to speak in his name despite not shaving their heads and growing long payos as shkootzim, and some of them as malshinim as well.
I am not sure how far it went. I heard a talk by a doctor who (when young) was invited by SR for Rosh Hashona to be available for medical emergencies. The doctor later started learning for semicha at YU and proudly reported his advancement to SR who replied “better to be rofe cholim than mattir asurim”
still waiting for a response to the following ???
—Shulhan Aruch mandates , violating Shabbos to physically fight against an enemy that attempts to seize even ‘kash vateven’ —since it begins with kash and ends with lives (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 329).
Will repeat again :
mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy
.
.and again:
… mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy ….
.
Another indication three oaths are NOT lehalacha.
.
.Yankel Berel, over the past two years, I have noticed many times
that fanatical anti-Zionists like HaKatan, UJM and SomeJewIKnow
ignore logic and facts that they cannot refute.They are totally stubborn and brainwashed, and they cannot be
reasoned with. We cannot ignore the possibility that they are
being paid by Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah, to constantly attack Israel.They also tell many lies: lies against Israel, lies against secular Zionists,
lies against religious Zionists, and lies against people who disagree with them.HaKatan, UJM and SomeJewIKnow are not merely Baalei Lashon HaRa;
they are Baalei Motzi Shem Ra, and they did it many times.___________________________________________________________________
Anyone who wants to take possessions from one Jew,
and give his possessions to goyim, he is a MOSER.The anti-Zionists want to take away take possessions
from 8,000,000 Jews and give them to Muslims.
This makes the anti-Zionists MOSER 8,000,000 times.___________________________________________________________________
Anyone who endangers the life of one Jew is a RODAIF.The anti-Zionists want to endanger the lives of 8,000,000 Jews.
This makes the anti-Zionists RODAIF 8,000,000 times.
___________________________________________________________________
What is the punishment for being a MOSAIR 8,000,000 times?
What is the punishment for being a RODAIF 8,000,000 times?
@ somejew
Q is very clear .
So clear that I cannot understand what you dont understand.
You wrote that that the only recourse when threatened is running away giving presents or any shtadlanut besides for fighting.
Fighting is against the shavu’ot , AND EVEN PIKUACH NEFESH IS NOT DOCHEH THE SHAVU’OT.
Thats in short a summary of your writing.
And that last point which i put in bold , is THE ISSUE where you diverge from klal yisrael and all the talmidei hahamim and poskim.
—Now – shulhan aruch clearly disagrees wiyh you on that very point
Shulhan Aruch mandates , violating Shabbos to physically fight against an enemy that attempts to seize even ‘kash vateven’ —since it begins with kash and ends with lives (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 329).
Will repeat again :
mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy
.
.and again:
… mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy ….
———————–As simple a proof as can be ….
.
.
Am waiting for a response .
.
.
.Hello ?
Reminder
A] the following is somejew’s “psak” :
this is somejews language , copied and pasted :
In (very) short, that means that if goyim – chas v’shulem – threaten masses of jews, our kosher responses are: make peace, give gifts, run away, and pray to G-d. What we are not allowed to do is organize an army and physically fight the enemy.
[somejew]
——-
B] the following is maran habet yosefs psak in his halacha sefer the shulchan aruch :
halacha mandates , violating Shabbos to physically fight against an enemy that attempts to seize even ‘kash vateven’ —since it begins with kash and ends with lives (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 329).
Will repeat again :
mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy.
—
This is the question mr somejew –
How do you fit A with B ?
.
.Zionism is inherently wrong and has destroyed many people’s little connection of judiasm from fasting Y”K to now its good enough to be pro israel (as our previous rebbe the rebbe rasab predicted in the introduction to kuntres umayon). Fighting in the idf has nothing to do with Zionism and everything to do with pikuach nefesh and protecting jews not the Zionist state.
tunaisafish — What you just said contradicts Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky ZTL ZYA:
Reb Yaakov [Kamenetsky] felt that but for
the creation of the State in 1948 [CE] a million Jews
would have become assimilated as a result of
the despair that followed the Holocaust and
attributed the renascence [rebirth] of Soviet Jewry
to the miraculous Israeli military victory in 1967..…
Similarly, he [Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky] concluded, recognition of
Israel’s role in preventing millions of Jews
from losing any connection to the Jewish people
must mitigate our kana’us, even as
our love for our fellow Jews in Eretz Yisrael
must “not blind us to [their] shortcomings.”SOURCE: Reb Yaakov: The Life and Times of HaGaon
Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky by Yonason Rosenblum,
based on the research of Rabbi Noson Kamenetsky (chapter 11, page 209),
Mesorah Publications, publication dates: February 1993 & January 2004,
ISBN: 0-89906-413-2 (hardcover)
ISBN: 0-89906-415-9 (paperback)fish> Zionism is inherently wrong and has destroyed many people’s little connection of judaism
I would like to challenge that. Were early non-religious zionists taking Jews out of shuls and shipping them to kibbutzim? I doubt it. I think most of their followers were already assimilated Jews (like Hertzl himself) who moved from the idea of building socialism in Russia or Poland to the idea of building it in EY. Biggest effect on them – they escaped Soviet and Nazi prosecution, most of their children and grandchildren are Jewish, and some are traditional or observant, others still have a chance. Fighting Arabs has something to do with that, ironically – R Schach explains that Hashem had to make Arabs antagonistic to Zionists to protect them from assimilating among those Arabs! That aos means that in R Schach’s opinion, Hashem cared about them staying Jewish. Hope you care about it also.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.