- This topic has 88 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 17 hours, 26 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
It looks like Katan still did not convince us of the alternative history of EY under his wise leadership. Nobody believes that Brits would have governed EY for the last 80 years. It would be Assad or Arafat or Saddam. Where would be all sephardim going? drafted into Iraqi and Iranian armies to fight each other (million people died in that war in 1980s)? bombed by russian aircraft in Aleppo? slaughtered by ISIS like Yazidis? what would happen with Russian and Ukrainian Jews? They would be also killing each other right now drafted in the slavic armies.
Imagine that this would be a real history. You would now approach chacham katan and ask him – do you regret your policies that lead to so many Yidden dying? He would say – gezeras Shamayim, like the advice my teachers gave to dtay in Europe before WW2. Don’t blame me.
Chazon Ish NEVER stated that dati le’umi wine is yayin nesech.
None of chazon ish devotees ever considered dati leumi touched wine as yayin nesech.
This a verifiable fact .
There are hundreds of chazon ish devotees in BB , serious talmidei hahamim .
Utter baloney.
.Rav Elchonon states b&w in kovetz maamarim that “Dati leumi” is literal idolatry.
—REW z’l did not issue any halacha psak that “Dati leumi” is literal idolatry.
Far from it.
This was a ma’amar hashkafa , and meant as mussar vehit’orerut.
Not lehalacha.
Pashut to any beginner ….
.Brisker Rav published a KK signed by the Gerrer Rebbe and many others that “Dati Leumi” education is a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah”.”
—KK was referring to dati le’umi hinuch in their era and their locale.
Nothing more.
And , again, the KK was lesheim hitrachkut , not to entrust your children to them.
Not lehalacha.
.
Notice to katan .
sfarim hakdoshim write that ka’as is heresy .
Wine of a ko’es is not yayin nesech ….
.notice to katan –
All ‘real non-Zionist posekim’ paskin halacha lema’aseh, that
the subsequent children of a grusha, divorced with a get signed by fully frum athalta digeuola believers , to be ksherim lavo bakahal .
this is pashut and also easily verifiable .
this is fully in line with steipler who unequivocally states
its assur to speak lashon hara about dati le’umi as they are not yatsa michlal amitecha …
.
.
.Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman died in year 1941 of the Common Era.
He never saw the modern State of Israel, which started in 1948 CE.
yb:
You cannot on your own invent that this was hashkafa and only “mussar”, as opposed to being actual halacha. It was also intended as mussar, though.
Elsewhere in his letters, for example, he wrote that one should not escape Europe to America using “Religious Zionist” institutions like YU but rather only via Torah Vodaath or the like. That was certainly mussar, too, but it was just as certainly also intended halachically.You also cannot on your own invent that it only applied to the chinuch at that time but not at other times. That’s silly and also baseless. The idolatry and heresy is at least the same, if not worse.
yb:
You’re welcome to believe whatever you want but, yes, they did say that, as posted above.none > maybe orthodoxy isn’t realistic in real life scenarios. .. Cuz the Torah itself can be lived in in _all_ realities
You are right on realism, you are just confused what are the varieties that fall within Torah Judaism. Gemora describes various rabbinical rulings in response to real-life behaviors: in some cases, rules are stricter for less-observant people to make sure they don’t get confused; in other cases, rules are simplified. Feedback is also important – there was a takana to forbid non-Jewish oil to minimize mingling, but it was too much for the people and it lapsed. Rules of ketubah and organization of schools were tweaked over hundreds of years to match how people behave (husbands were too quick to divorce when they got angry when ketubah money was set aside in the house, so it was changed to a lien on property; not all fathers could teach their sons or drive them to a far-away school, so small local schools were eventually created).
Now that a few of our coffee room regulars have smeared a few hundred thousand of their fellow Orthodox brethren (by quoting questionable quotes from gedloim regarding the DL shita – not the members themselves) it looks like no one has produced any real study with actual data regarding the effect of the IDF on personal religious commitment.
If so, it would seem anyone who makes a speculative statement such as “50%-70% of frum boys (even mizrachi, he said more than once) go off the derech due to being in the IDF,” is using made-up statistics and should be condemned for putting such an idea in people’s minds.
I would even say that radicals such Hakatan would disagree with such a statement. He would likely argue that anyone who joins the IDF is by definition OTD, so that the percentage of boys who go OTD in the IDF would be zero.
Rocky:
What you just suggested is, effectively, that if 50% – 70% of IDF enlistees who join the Zionist Army while religious end up being irreligious upon their discharge from the IDF, that if no official scientific study documenting this was that conducted, then we should all bury our heads in the sand and ignore this phenomenon and simply let it go on producing more and more and more irreligious people out of formerly observant Jews — because, after all, no scientific study was ever conducted.
There’s never been a scientific study proving that religious people who started engaging in znus became OTD; so Rocky will argue that “it would seem anyone who makes a speculative statement such as “50%-70% of frum boys go off the derech due to engaging in znus, is using made-up statistics and should be condemned for putting such an idea in people’s minds.”
> — because, after all, no scientific study was ever conducted.
Rocky, see if the poster is not familiar with the world of research, they are not aware that it is actually possible to conduct such a study.
I am suggesting that people who have such strong view start with an informal stidy – go to their local rosh yeshiva and ask for some names & numbers. So far, nobody seems to try that.Rocky:
Only to a Zionist would following the Torah be called radical.As to your assumption:
Many who join the IDF are fooled by promises or other things instead of listening to all the gedolim and common sense. The satan does that to everyone. That’s why Hashem gave us a Y”K each year.The znus there is an added (tremendous, yehareig viAl yaavor) problem on top of the shmad. The reason that so many go off is, of course, that this is the express purpose of the Zionist army: shmad. The whole point of Zionism is to redefine Jew and Judaism into Zionist and Zionism. Their army is the brainwashing/indoctrination center for that shmad. It’s not a big chiddush that this has damaged the Judaism of all its inductees, and destroyed it for the vast majority.
As Rav Steinman told a boy who came to him wanting to go through a “religious” framework, “no matter what framework you use to go to that army, you will come out a total goy”.
the only plausible reason I can see on
why people take the issue of OTD lightly – is that they only pay lip service to this whole scare of OTD
they do not really care about it ….
so they belittle it …
no study , no this , no that …..
.
.“The reason that so many go off is, of course, that this is the express purpose of the Zionist army: shmad.”
Don Quixote, the windmills want you to know that they aren’t jousting and the year is no longer 1500. (if you can’t figure out the reference: Stop fighting wars from 100 years ago and get with the program.)
Some myths need to be dispelled
Zionsim is not shmad or off the derech. Its a machlokos and dependent on shokul hadas as to who your rav or das torah is. R Kook zl was big tzadik. R isser zalman was maspid him, and the chaftez chaim stuck up for his honor. He was sent by R E;lchanon own’ brother in law who was the gadol at the time R chaim Ozer to Ameirca to represent the holy rav (together with the ohr somach). These are facts and there are pictures of the historic visit. No only was R kook a huge tzadik but so was R Herzog zl. Does anyone know how much he ran around trying to save jews during the holocuast. Listen to R Wein zl talk about the time R Herzog spoke about trying to save yddisha kinderlach in monasteries after the war. The tears he shed as he told everyone to fight for the next dor. Only a tzadik can do that. Then we have the holy rizyna rebas all who embraced zionism. So zionism is al pit torah and has legs.This story with R Aron Lieb is likely made up or exaggerated. R Shtienmnan started Nachal charedi and vadas tal. Everyone knows he supported the army at least for those not holding by going to yeshiva. You can’t make up a shita from one isolated story that likely never happened
There is an issue with secularism. As others pointed out its a case by case basis. What unit does the army joinner join? Was he using the army as an exit strategy but off before hand? The big issue with R Shitneman’s comprimse of hachal charedi was that it was established for weaker boys whihc menas from the gettgo you are doomed. S A system like Hesder where there are alot of good boys ould only elevate the others.
Re R Steinman
I think the answer is simple.
Did he support the draft ?
Absolutely not.
But he recognized that we do not live in an ideal world , and that necessitates pragmatism
he recognized that haredim are a minority living in galut.
the binary choice would -in his view- be
between all out war with the majority as it unfortunately became the case now, and
a tacit approval for the weaker non yir’at shamayim element , or better said the hefker OTD crowd who still wear haredi levush
to enlist and have a rigid framework , while all other haredim , including the working element legally deferring or being exempted.
So , barring a clear cut case of haredi levush but already OTD , he would advise not to enlist
that’s my understanding of his approach , and may be wrong …
.Chaim87, what you said is very true.
But the radical, fanatical, hateful anti-Zionists,
like HaKatan and UJM, will NEVER LISTEN.They just repeat the same arguments endlessly,
even though they have been refuted many times.But continue to speak anyway, for the benefit of
the people who silently read these messages.I agree with none 2..
Probably because you are none2.0…
Maran R’ Shteinman Tells Yeshiva Student To ‘Go To India’ Instead Of IDF
Yeshiva student visited with HaGaon HaRav Aaron Yehuda Leib Shteinman Shlita seeking the Gadol Hador’s advice as he feels he can no longer remain in beis medrash, lacking fulfillment from his learning as he explained his situation. According to a Kikar Shabbat report, the young man asked what his next step in life should be, explaining to the rav he is considering enlistment into the IDF as an option.
The rav took the young man by surprise to put it mildly, instructing him “travel to India” in response to his thoughts of joining the IDF.
SQUARE_ROOT:
As just posted in a different thread in which you posted Chaim’s fairy tales, no it is obviously not true.So your saying if I agree with someone that means I’m them. Lol maybe there’s just more non conformist hiding in your society then you realized
Writing style gives it away too.
Those who went OTD would have gone OTD anyway. There are also plenty of Chareidi kids who go OTD. In many cases, having no job skills, they turn to crime.
HaKatan,
In Rav Elchonon’s time, the term dati leumi did not exist. It was invented as the name of the new political party formed by the merger of Mizrahi and HaPoel haMizrahi in 1955. BTW, the leader of the Aguda in EY, Rav Y.Y. Levin, signed the Declaration of Independence and ran with both Mizrahi parties in the first Knesset elections as the United Religious Front. And yes, I disagree with those gedolim. There is a long list of gedolim who disagreed with them. As an aside, the Mir yeshiva went to Shanghai against Rav Chaim Ozer’s pesak. When asked about it years later, one of the rabbis quipped that daat torah had not yet been invented.
Tell me, what do your gedolim say about Internet usage?
Avi > one of the rabbis quipped that daat torah had not yet been invented.
I heard this in the name of R Zelig Epstein. I am not sure whether this was related to another psak by R Chaim Ozer – when asked whether (Sugihara, etc) visas should be given to old people (who will be first to be prosecuted by Soviets who were invading Lita) or young ones (whose children will be taken to communist schools), he replied – to the older ones, because
(1) they’ll be in a better position to help those who remained when they reach US
(2) they’ll be of more use to the American JewsSo, depending on the timeline, this shows that R Chaim Ozer did not have a blank policy against leaving, and the reasoning was pretty sound in this grave situation.
@Avi k
Besides your shitot which are wrong
your facts are also wrong
R E Wasserman zatsal clearly refers to the term dati le’umi in his writings
at the end of kovets he’arot on yevamot
REW was murdered al kidush hashem in 1941 …
.
.
.Another poster with multiple accounts, and the Mods are giving them a run for it?!
Great! The CR is getting its colors back, nostalgic!
What about thousands of people from Chareidi families
who live in the USA and Canada and the UK,
who go off-the-derech, who never served in the IDF?Is that also the fault of the IDF?
Avi K:
Please don’t insult the intelligence of the commenters here. Are you really trying to deny this, that Rav Elchonon wrote as he did in Kovetz Maamarim that “Religious Zionism” is idolatry and heresy, simply because of the date of the emergence of that political party and its name?Please open a Kovetz Maamarim and see it for yourself. It is there, in B&W, as mentioned.
“Religious Zionism” is, of course, pshuto hiMashmao, idolatry and heresy as all the gedolim stated. It’s that simple.
So, obviously, there is no list of gedolim who disagree with them. There is a long list who either stated in writing and/or signed off on the same just like Rav Elchonon did. But not CH”V supporting “Religious Zionism” which, again, is simply idolatry and heresy.@square root
can not understand you – thousands of people chvsh fall sick , an epidemic …
would you send your own kid to fall sick because others are sick already ?
where is the logic ?
.
.somejew > The Steipler says very clearly that an otherwise frum yid does not cross the threshold of kofer in ikkarei hadaas if he makes the mistake of “aschuleh d’geila” vis-a-vis the false geila of the tziyonim. That doesn’t mean that everyone who indeed makes that foolish mistake now has a free pass to believe all types of kefira and apikorsus and can never become a rushe!
—
I never said that someone who ‘makes the mistake of aschuleh d’geila’ cannot become a rushe …
following statement is equally true : I never said that someone who learns vayoel moshe can’t become a rushe
.don’t know where in the world did you see in my writing that someone “cant become” a rushe ???
hareshut netuna [mishna avot] ….. EVERYONE can become a rushe …
al ta’ami beatsmecha ad yom ….
even yochanan cohen gadol could ….
so can the vayoel moshe learner … and so can the dati le’umi yehudi …
.why is what ‘can become’, relevant at all ?
what should be relevant is : what he is !
what is he now ? is he ma’min be 13 ikarim ?
is he shomer torah ?
that’s all that matters.
.so, the steipler says – again – that
someone who IS ma’amin be’ikarim and in athalta d/g, is considered our brother al pi hahalacha
as simple as can be .
.
.Rav Elchonon wrote that RZ is avoda zara beshituf
but he meant this in a haskafic sense , not in a halachik sense.
RE would not be matir an eshet ish who got married with 2 frum edim who are RZ
nor would any posek
even the SR would not ….
Rav Elchonon was student of the Chofetz Chaim. So far, I was not able to find in Chofetz Chaim expressions similar to R Elchonon. In many articles and letters, he is using clear language of disapproval of various groups, but I did not see RZ among those groups. Did you see any?
While looking for Chofetz chaim quotes disapproving RZ, I found this in his speech @ Agudah convention in 1930 – someone recommended a village to install water filter because there was sediment visible in the tea they offered. Next time he came there, the city was burned down. He inquired what happened. They said – the filter was not producing enough water to put down the fires! The nimshal is that when the fire is burning, you shold not be a purist but use all means you have.
the steipler says – that
someone who IS ma’amin be’ikarim and in athalta d/g, is considered our brother al pi hahalacha
.
whether you like it or not – that is what he writes …...
.
you are ALMOST there. the Steipler simply said that believing in the kefira of “athalta d/g” does not make one a kofer.
They may or may not be a kofer.
that’s all.
@yankel-berel
“Rav Elchonon wrote that RZ is avoda zara beshituf but he meant this in a haskafic sense , not in a halachik sense.”
That’s interesting. So, if you say that Catholicism is also A”Z only in a hashkafic sense but not in an halachic sense, then what could that possibly even mean?He says that “Religious Zionism” is exactly that: A”Z and Religion biShituf. How that halachically affects an individual “Religious Zionist” is possibly more nuanced, depending on the posek. But the ideology is halachically exactly as he stated.
I’m not almost there . I am there .
You are the one who is almost there .
Steipler writes nothing about whether they may be a kofer or not .
Steiple addresses exactly our she’ela . A fully frum believer in athalta degeula is not a kofer .
he is bichlal amitecha .
assur to speak lashon hara about him .
exactly what I said .
therefore , it is obvious that it is a mitsva min hatorah to love him.
—
you , somejew are adding to the staipler that he may be a kofer for another reason .
your own private observation is totally correct – as correct as the observation that any satmar hasid may be a kofer for another reason …..
.
.
.I appreciate if someone could find what Chofetz Chaim wrote about zionists and RZs.
yb > Rav Elchonon wrote that RZ is avoda zara beshituf in a hashkafic sense , not in a halachik sense.”
—katan > That’s interesting. So, if you say that Catholicism is also A”Z only in a hashkafic sense but not in an halachic sense, then what could that possibly even mean?
—high time to stop burying your head in the sand
.no rav no dayan , no bet hora’a anywhere on the globe ever considered a get with fully frum RZ witnesses as pasul
the subsequent children are kesherim lavo bakahal
this psak is supported by REW z’l , the source you yourself are relying on ….
.
whereas a get with fully shomrei mitsvot believers in catholicism as edim is pasul in ALL batei din around the globe
the subsequent children are proper mamzerim and pesulim lavo bakahal
.
.
someone who gets angry is connected to a’z
RZ is connected to a’z [according to REW z’l]both in a hashkafic sense
with a hiyuv min hatorah to love both of them
.catholicism is a’z in a halachik sense
with no hiyuv .
.huge difference.
.
.
.The Steipler clearly agrees with the premise that the DL claim of “aschula d’geila” is itself kefira. So, his statement about a “fully frum believer in athalta (sic) degeula” could only apply to someone who doesn’t know that this concept is itself a heretical idea from the false religion called “Dati Leumi”.
To the larger point, the kefira of that “dati leumi” religion is not just the simple mistake of “aschuleh d’geila”. As you said, the Steipler’s statement is very limited to being only about an otherwise “charedi” person who considers current political events as “aschula d’geila”.
yankel> no rav no dayan , no bet hora’a anywhere on the globe ever considered a get with fully frum RZ witnesses as pasul
it is astounding that people do not see the difference between a disagreement within halachik Judaism and other religions. It seems that appeals to emotion using such disparaging language leads to that. Again, I am very curious to hear whether Chofetz Chaim used similar language. I could not find examples so far – can anyone help me?
> an otherwise “charedi” person who considers current political events as “aschula d’geila”.
can we stop using “charedi” as some sort of synonym of normality or exclusive holiness? There might be good rationales for belonging to a group, but is no extra zechus in belonging to a political faction. Tell me a person is an erliche yid, a baal middos, don’t tell me what hat he is wearing.
somejew > The Steipler clearly agrees with the premise that the DL claim of “aschula d’geila” is itself kefira …
—
this is sheker .Steipler never wrote that.
.
.as continuation from previous post :
Since the Staipler never said anything of the sort , your whole torah you built on this , is totally baseless
what remains as fact is what steipler really wrote
a frum person believing in athalta d/g is not a kofer , there is a hiyuv min hatorah to love him , veahavta lereacha kamocha
no matter what type of kipa adorns his head ….
—
by the way- this is practiced halacha lemaaseh by all batei din all over the globe ….
.
.
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.