- This topic has 75 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The RASH”B was fire against Zionism & wouldn’t join the Agudah due to they’re willing to work with the Zionist camp. How did Chabad change to being very pro-Zionist over recent decades?
They changed Rebbes twice since the Rashab.
What makes you say Chabad is pro Zionism?
The Chabad relationship with the Medinah and Zionism is complex and subject to considerable variation in interpretation from even those within 770. It seems though that the historical firm anti-Zionist position softened somewhat during and after the Shoah when It became apparent that EY was perhaps the only safe haven for yidden who survived. The need for a “state” nominally controlled by yiidden (versus simply living under British control) was driven by the virulently anti-Semitic actions of the British occupation forces who did nothing to protect the growing post-war population of refugees from more frequent Arab attacks . then that we Jews had nowhere to go and we needed a safe haven somewhere. Once the state was established, there was no longer a point to fighting its existence but equally, the rebbe Z”TL accepted .the reality of that millions of Yidden were there and their long-term security and well-being required practical accommodation and support of the State. At the same time, they were not willing to change their fundamental beliefs regarding the notion of the Geulah and remained firmly “anti-Zionist”. Most of their mosdos did not display the Israeli flag, did not sing Hatikvah etc. Even today, you will get very different and often convoluted explanations of exactly how their is no contradiction in simultaneously being “pro-Israel” and “anti-Zionist”.
Chabad is not pro Zionism but rather pro safety of Yeddin.
There was ones a Yeshiva that sang hatikva at a dinner, and when the Rebbe heard about it he took his name of the Yeshiva.
Chabad is against the Zionist shita. But ones there is a land where Yeddin live we support there security. And ones they’re making a government it should be according to Torah.GadolHaDorah, well said.
I really don’t want to get involved, but there’s nothing Zionist about supporting our brothers and sisters in Eretz Yisroel, and supporting the soldiers who give their lives for them. We don’t believe that living in Eretz Yisroel replaces Yiddishkait, (secular Zionism) nor that the State is the beginning of the Geulah (religious Zionism). There is far more to say on this topic, ve’ein kan mekomo.“Even today, you will get very different and often convoluted explanations of exactly how their is no contradiction in simultaneously being “pro-Israel” and “anti-Zionist”.”
That’s true of almost the entire frum community with the exception of the Neturei Karta (if they count). It’s not like we’re pro Palestinian chas v’shalom. You can be against the tenets of the Zionist movement without pulling for the terrorists.Everyone’s approach will seem “convoluted” to those on the outside. The Litvish approach of participating in government while claiming to be anti probably seems convoluted to the Satmars. The Lubavitch approach of serving in the IDF (correct me if that’s only Chabad-lite) while claiming to be anti seems convoluted to us. Fundamentally, Chabad considers the founding fathers of Zionism to be bad people, while the religious Zionists consider them to be heroes. They might keep it under wraps on account of kiruv, but it seems like Chabad’s views on Zionism are relatively in-line with the Litvish views. Admittedly, Chabad is unquestionably the least anti-Zionist Chassidus.
We do that thing that drives people crazy where we say, beshita we’re more anti-Zionist than Satmar, but we support the Yidden there and they need a strong Government so we support their Government to the max even if they’re Zionist, but really we don’t support them at all even though we support them. Fully.
Chabad isn’t really “zionist”. Note that they actively work to preserve Jewish communities in golus. On matters unrelated to Torah and MItsvos, they tend to support whatever the community supports. That’s why Chabad in New York supports the Yankees and Mets, whereas Chabad in Baltimore supports the Orioles. In things that don’t really matter, such as politics and supporting the “home team”, a Chabad shliach in Tel Aviv will be acting different than one in Morocco or Russia,
My impression is that Chabad’s kiruv and inclusivity require that it maintain a neutral position on Zionism. Otherwise it would alienate too many people.
Neville, Brisk’s anti-Zionism isn’t convoluted at all.
I’m just going to answer the OP without going through the other posters (I mention this in case my response reflects a message I wouldn’t want to make, in light of previous responses), as a Lubavitcher:
It’s sort of the difference between “Lekatchila” and “Bedieved”. To begin with, the entire tnua was anti-Torah (……), but once there is already a state, it hardly helps to fight against it, and so the stance is preserve and nurture that which accommodates true Torah values.
To emphasize: even today, Chabad’s stance is NOT to embrace the said tnua of Zionism. Rather, as it stated, the stance is to embrace that which adheres to Torah, notwithstanding Zionism in its anti-Torah image.
This is similar to Chabad’s stance towards Reform Jews/Judaism. Towards the tnua, no recognition whatsoever. Towards the Jews– we treat them as any Jew.
They are pro-Jewish. Get a clue.
“We do that thing that drives people crazy where we say, beshita we’re more anti-Zionist than Satmar”
You say that solely to drive people crazy? You surely realize you are much less anti Zionist than Satmar.Sechel summed it up nicely. On this issue, Chabad sees eye to eye with the Yeshivish world. As is evidenced by the fact that it was never brought up as an arguing point in 10,000+ posts of Chabad wars.
simple, They realized they were wrong.
The question is on those woh repeat the same anti-zionist arguments from 70+ years ago. How do they stick to such a bizzare shitah that is clearly been proven wrong
Ubiquitin some still want to live in a ghetto in Hungary or Poland.
Neville – “it seems like Chabad’s views on Zionism are relatively in-line with the Litvish views”; “On this issue, Chabad sees eye to eye with the Yeshivish world.”
Moving away from theory and philosophy to practical:
There were fierce battles between Chabad and the “Yeshiva Party” representative in the Knesset (taking direction from our Gedolim, in particular, Rav Shach zl but also Rav Ovadia Yosef and other gedolim).
The issue came out in returning Land for Peace. Chabad view of “not one inch” especially since “Hashem gifted the Land in a miraculous way, we must not squander this gift”, which is a Religious Zionist/Nationalist view, while our Gedolim held there is no problem to return Land to avoid pikuach nefesh (and saving one soldier’s life that would be r”l lost in a battle is an olom malleh).
Chabad held that the Peace with Egypt is worthless, just a piece of paper, which the next ruler does not need to recognize, while giving up the Sinai is real and a huge loss (military and financial – oil fields etc). Our Gedolim held it is a worthwhile risk and strongly supported the Peace Treaty
Chabad tried to recruit poskim to strengthen their “daas Torah”, but the prevailing psak of Gedolei Eretz Yisroel was upheld. Isreal returned the Sinai to Egypt and signed a peace treaty with Sadat. We still benefit today from this Peace Treaty (based on Land for Peace).
History proved Chabad wrong on that issue. (Except that their shitah would apply to Gaza, but that was not the Halachic debate at the time).
“solely to drive people crazy?”
Not TO drive people crazy. But using the incoherence THAT drives people crazy. (The spirit of my comment was tongue in cheek.) The position that belief of Chabad is we are the most anti yet the biggest supporters and see no contradiction.
There’s a YouTube video of R’ Yoel Kahan (his credentials have been discussed in the coffee room many times) talking with Chasidishe guys where R’ Yoel is making that argument, that Beshita Chabad is more anti-Zionist than Satmar … but that now that there’s a country they need to be supported same as any Jewish community anywhere …RGP:
I’m aware of that situation, but that’s not a machlokes about the halachic implications of Zionism. At the end of the day, they still both believed that it was mutar to be involved in the government.And, lol stop pretending to not be a Lubavitcher. This is one shittah of which you can be proud. Land-for-peace has been totally disastrous.
Lakewhut: “Ubiquitin some still want to live in a ghetto in Hungary or Poland.”
And, some want to live in Soviet Russia and have their children conscripted by an army that will forcefully secularize them. I refer, of course, to the Zionists.I may not be a Chabad Rabbi or anything, but I know enough for some common sense and what I hear.
There are Chabad rabbis in California. Does that make them pro-California? Or are they there for the Jews?
Aside from the stance that essentially can be summed up by saying that the Rebbe acknowledged there are Jews in Israel, and that is his main concern, they also go back to history and the Torah. Jerusalem is the home of the Jewish people. Correct? Judea too, Correct?
Maybe they don’t like the secular government of Israel, but that doesn’t mean they accept the fiction of a Palestine.
I don’t see what any of that has to do with “zionism” or “anti-zionism”. it’s just plain reality, and it cannot be changed. It’s a Jewish land, and it has Jews.It’s not a competition, but what you’re saying is simply not true. I understand Chabad’s stance; it’s pretty much the same as my own. But, if you don’t hold like the VaYoel Moshe, then you can’t claim to be more anti-Zionist than Satmar.
Chabad accepts the reality that the Zionist movement was founded and led by people who hate the Torah. Satmar, on the other hand, wouldn’t care if it was led by the Tzadik Hador. They hold it’s inherently assur and that the state is essentially assur b’hanaah.
This would be like a guy selling chometz during Pesach and saying “in theory, I’m even stricter about chometz than frum people; I just happen to derive benefit from it anyway since it’s here.”
As noted, since the Rebbe was niftar, there really is no singular “Chabad Shitah” on issues that pertain to “Zionism” or the appropriate level of recognition/cooperation with the State. Chabad in EY does not check with 770 on day-to-day questions that arise on their relationship with various government agencies or how they react to various policy issues. While others may disagree, the determination of a Chabad shita is considerably more local and decentralized than those of other Chassidus where there currently is a Rav who directs their policies and practices in real time.
The DE FACTO position of Chabad, taken globally, is the politics (Likud vs whomever else is running, Trump or Schumer, Tories or Labor, etc.) are really not all that important, and what matters is Jews learning Torah and doing MItzvos, and anyone concerned over anything else (e.g. almost all of us on YWN) is wasting their time with things that aren’t important. The “bottom line” (as well put in Pirke Avos, among other places), is that this world really isn’t worth prutah.
Neville, so now that my membership at Chabad is expiring this month, you think I should renew it? There are many things they do that I don’t understand or agree with. Like I just discovered that after they stay up for Shavuos, they go to sleep before they daven shachris. (besides that going to sleep before shachris negates the entire purpose of staying up, it is also a serious halacha problem). I also don’t agree with many other things like having people put on tefillin in the middle of street near dog poop and ervah (of immodestly dressed women). Plus as I noted the lack of proper respect for many great Gedolim. On the other hand, there is much to admire about them, so the jury is out. It is not an insult to me to be called a Chabadsker, there are worse names (just don’t call me a Brisker!).
To: Rebbetzingoldpickenstein,
Israel lost a lot more by giving up Sinai then it gained by “friendship” with Egypt.
Israel would have been a very respectful country if it didn’t give away Sinai. It lost lots of
security and loads of petrol by loosing Sinai. If it didn’t give up Sinai it would not have given up
Gaza either. Egypt never became a supporter of Israel in the international field. Perhaps a little
less aggressive. The Rebbe’s point of view was that giving away land is the greatest threat to national security.
He proved his point by the fact that all members of the military said unanimously that from a security point of view it is a very bad idea. Only that from a political point of view they said the politicians thought it is a necessary thing to do to gain international support. It did not gain Israel one iota of international support. On the contrary countries saw that Israel can be pushed around and they started pushing. If Israel did not give away Sinai Israel would have looked a lot stronger in the eyes of the world. Pesters like BDS would not say a word. EU would have respected Israel. Political situation today would be in the very least the same as it is and more likely the political situation would have been a lot better today. There is a lot more to say of course. But lets get this straight the Rebbe had political insite much much better than some of these cloistered Rabbonim without mentioning names that don’t know the difference between supersonic aircraft and horse drawn wagon of the old shtetl. The Rebbe had unparalleled knowledge of Torah, military, political and international affairs than anyone of the gedolim by a long shot.akup:
I’m sorry, but that’s a cop out. Half of the world’s Jewish population lives in Israel. It’s worth talking about. Surely you wouldn’t suggest the Rashab’s shittos on this, and the entire sefer of the Satmar Ruv are “non-Torah,” and “not important.”Haimy: “This does not seem in line with the Shita of the Rashab.”
That depends, do you have a source on what the Rashab said about using subtle deception for the purposes of potentially being mekarev thousands? That’s what this is really about. I don’t say the word deception as an insult. All kiruv organizations “wait until people are ready” to reveal certain things. That Chabad rabbi knows exactly what frum people mean when they say Zionist vs. Anti-Zionist, and he knows where real Chabad falls on that spectrum.If you watch the heartbreaking video of the Gabi & Rivky Holzberg funeral in Kfar Chabad attended by Shimon Peres and other top echelon Israeli politicians you may notice that someone tipped off the government officials before Rabbi Shemtov spoke because there is no sign of Peres, Ehud Barak (I think) and others lest they be associated with anything Rabbi Shemtov had to say or have had to oppose him at that sensitive moment. Shemtov wasn’t going to miss that opportunity to state the official Chabad position which was opposed to the Israeli politics of the day, but the local Israeli Chabad would never risk embarrassing Shimon Peres even if Rabbi Shemtov was delivering the official Chabad (Rebbe’s) position.
The thread o “World Domination” got nuked after a lived short existence.
It exposed the actions of Chabad in its trajectory to dominate the world.
Probably ruffled some Chabad feathers.
Rebbitzen: So you are offended by a Chabadnik having “people” [aka OTD Yidden] put on tefillin in the middle of street near dog poop and ervah. Gevalt!! This alone is sufficient to keep Moishiach from coming. However, you note that there are other aspects of the work of the Rebbe’s shiluchim that you admire. Perhaps the solution is for you to ride along in the Mitzvahmobile with a scoop and trash bags so you can clean up the immediate area where a chabadnik might coerce a yid into saying v’tzivanu l’haniach tefillin and in an emergency, use the extra trashbags to cover up any women walking nearby whose neckline is a bit too low.
I think that the Rebbe’s active involvement in Israeli politics — albeit from afar — made Israel an important issue in his circles. Telushkin’s book addresses this issue. It is fact of course that all the Israeli politicians came to see and seek out the Rebbe’s advice (which he gave readily).
As total side topic; Rebbetzin, dog poop isn’t a problem for brachos. Only when you have your dog poop on hides does it have a problem of saying a bracho.
Chabad is anti-Zionism, not Anti–Zionists.
In other words, we strongly disagree with the Shitta of zionism (as per the Rebbe Rashab, Rebbe Rayatz and Rebbe), and there is no Chabad Shul that will celebrate Hay Iyar or the like. However, once a Jewish Country exists, we support it- as we would support any Jewish community or business, regardless of where it is located.
As part of supporting the Jewish people, we care for their safety and thus the Rebbe spoke very strongly about not giving away land or peace treaties, as that would undermine the safety of the Jewish people (which is exactly what happened ie Gush Katif)
Being that we care for the general safety of EY, there are Lubavitchers who join the army with specific conditions, either married or anyways not in Yeshiva.Gadol – WHenn a yid does a mitzvah assay, he get a reward (s’char), when a Yid commits a lo saasay, he gets punished.
Helping yidden do mitzos assay only earns them rewards. If they didn’t do the assay, what’s the downside? They would get the s’char!
The real accomplishment is to prevent yidden from committing lo saasay, which is like rebelling against HKBH. That would accomplish so much more – saving yidden from sinning! Preventing onesh of Gehenim!
Imagine a mtzvamobile stopping yidden from eating treif! Stopping chilul shabbos! THAT would be FANTASTIC!
I like Chabad and they do wonderful things, but they could use some finetuning. I would be happy to offer my guidance which they sorely need.
The very comparison to the times of the Rash”b is sort of a Satmar outlook on the concept of Zionism, or sort of misunderstanding the very issue of total diff times and situations.
If you read the Rshb”s writings ( in sefer/kuntres מעיני)
I recall it was more against the very movement of Zionists, which was made up from secular etc. That all changed once there was a reality of a government and state of Israel.Once Israel was already established many gedolim upheld that it is a total diff status. As the fact is, its here to stay and we need to deal with it. Even the ones that opposed Zionism l…So was the opinion of Rav Ahron Kotlers, Ponovizh Rav and the Chazon Ish etc.
Whereas, Satmar and NK shitah was to totaly distance themselves as it does not exist..
TAS; what is the source of your Halacha?
What does on “hides” mean?1. If it were certain that giving land away world save more lives, would Chabad support giving the land?
2. Does Chabad believe we should conquer these days parts of Eretz Yisroel that’s Arab controlled?
RGP; I’m no Lubavicher, but an argument can be be made the other way. If a Yid does an aveira (Lo Saase) in this world he can get a kapara for it in the next. However if a Yid did not perform a Mitzvas Aseh in this world there is no way he can perform it in the next world!
The previous Libavicha Rebbe Zatzal minced harsher words on the Zionist regime and the entire Medina than the Satmar Rav Zatzal. . Its absolutely astounding how the new Lubavich took a different route in total disregard to their holy Rebbe the Meharshab.
Rebbetzin: The issue came out in returning Land for Peace. Chabad view of “not one inch” especially since “Hashem gifted the Land in a miraculous way, we must not squander this gift”, which is a Religious Zionist/Nationalist view, while our Gedolim held there is no problem to return Land to avoid pikuach nefesh (and saving one soldier’s life that would be r”l lost in a battle is an olom malleh).
This is a completely misstatement of the Rebbe’s position. In utter contrast to the Religious Zionists, whose opposition to Camp David was based on the Ramban’s shita that the mitzvah of kibush ha’aretz (which obviously overrides pikuach nefesh) is noheg bizman hazeh, and therefore territory must not be given away even if it were to save lives, the Rebbe explicitly based his opposition on pikuach nefesh, and on the explicit halacha in Shulchan aruch which defines that it is pikuach nefesh to allow foreign armies to occupy territory from which it will be easier for them to threaten any area with a Jewish population.
Joseph: 1. If it were certain that giving land away world save more lives, would Chabad support giving the land?
Yes, absolutely. The Rebbe said so explicitly, and not just any land but even Yerusholayim itself.
He was clear that just as when deciding whether shabbos needs to be broken for a sick person you ask doctors, so when deciding whether a piece of territory counts as “a border city” you have to ask currently serving military officers.
But we have to be clear about the question we are asking them: the only question is whether withdrawing from this territory creates a risk. Just as we are not interested in a doctor’s opinion on whether the spiritual benefits of fasting on yom kippur justify the risk, we are not interested in military officers’ opinion on whether the potential benefits of giving away territory are worth the risk. In both cases the Torah tells us no benefit can justify the risk, if there is one.
Joseph: 2. Does Chabad believe we should conquer these days parts of Eretz Yisroel that’s Arab controlled?
No, it does not, just as it believes that the state should never have been established in the first place.
The basic difference between Chabad and Satmar’s shitos is that Chabad does not believe in “maaseh soton”. If it happened, Hashem wanted it, and we have to deal with it. Satmar seems to believe that since the medinah is treif it must be dismantled, even though that would endanger millions of Yidden. We should daven and hope that they will be miraculously spared, but we should accept that al pi derech hateva they will be slaughtered, and we must accept that as the consequence of violating the shevu’os.
Chabad says that is insane. Whether we like it or not, the medinah is the only thing that stands between millions of Jews and Holocaust Part II, r”l, so we must now support it exactly as we would support the USA if it were in danger of falling to an enemy who would r”l wipe out its Jewish population. In fact the gemoro which is the basis of the Rebbe’s shita on territories is not talking about Eretz Yisroel, it’s talking about Nehardea, a province in Iraq that had a large Jewish population and some degree of Jewish autonomy.
In no particular order:
The Rashab did not live at the same time as the Medina; it wasn’t clear whether or not everyone here realized this.Wrapping tefillin next to tzoah is lo taaseh, not a mitzvas aseh. However, I would argue with the one who said Lubavitchers actually do this and his/her understanding of “next to.”
Satmars do not wish for Israelis to be slaughtered; that’s religious Zionist propaganda that’s trickled into frum circles apparently. There were yidden living there before the medina, which was no problem. The problem is the government, which they hold is assur b’hanaah. For the “its here, get used to it” argument, you wouldn’t find chometz during pesach and say “well, now that it’s here it would be silly not to get any benefit from it, so I should sell it.” If something is assur l’halachah, you can’t matir it “because it’s there.” That’s an absurd argument. Our gedolim had their real reasons to argue on the Satmar Ruv, and it definitely wasn’t “it’s here; get used to it.”
“Satmar seems to believe that since the medinah is treif it must be dismantled, even though that would endanger millions of Yidden. We should daven and hope that they will be miraculously spared, but we should accept that al pi derech hateva they will be slaughtered, and we must accept that as the consequence of violating the shevu’os.”
This is a grossly inaccurate portrayal of the Satmar Rebbe’s shitta.
I’m actually surprised they didn’t edit it. That’s the type of Satmar-hating garbage I would expect to see on home page comments, but not here.
“Our gedolim had their real reasons to argue on the Satmar Ruv”
The disagreement between Satmar and the Litvish is minor. They both agree Zionism is treif and the existing State of Israel is treif. They only disagree how to interact with that treif state that they both acknowledge exists.
Milhouse:
From where did you come up that these ideas that are allegedly Satmar ideas? I doubt that even NK holds that way, though, liHavdil, Satmar for sure does NOT hold like that. The Satmar Rav notes specifically that the Zionists could have peacefully ended their regime if they wanted to do so, and possibly still could do so even after the Zionists have (purposely) “inflamed” the region. Regardless, you cannot be machzik the Zionists.Instead of assuming what Satmar “seems” to hold, why not learn VaYoel Moshe and Al HaGeula viAl haTemura?
And from where did you come up with the alleged Chabad shita that the Zionist state “is the only thing that stands between millions of Jews and Holocaust Part II, r”l” This is mere Zionist propaganda and simply a bald lie (has anyone stopped to think how insane it is that a standard feature of an Israeli home is a “sealed room”!?), unless you mean that the Zionists are, in theory, protecting the residents of the parts of Eretz Yisrael that the Zionists have invaded.
Still, even that is not a reason to proactively support the Zionists. We daven for all our brethren worldwide, regardless of the government that rules the land in which they reside, but certainly not for the Zionist government.
Finally, your statement that — “If it happened, Hashem wanted it, and we have to deal with it.” and that, therefore, the State must NOT be a maaseh Satan — is simply not logical. What Hashem allows to happen versus what He “wants” are not at all necessarily the same.
Just as Hashem allowed the Eigel to come into existence, He also allowed the State to come into existence. While on the topic of the Eigel and the State, the Brisker Rav (not Satmar rav) noted that the State of the Zionists is the greatest achievement of the Satan since the Eigel haZahav.
Welcome back, HaKatan! (Now wait for the catcalls that you’re my alter-ego.) It’s been over three long years since we were last zoche to your wisdom…
Uncle Ben. It is an explicit gemara beach is in the third perek. It is brought down in s”a, but I forget where. In the chayie Adam it is in rule 3 sif 6
The Satmar Rebbe ztz’l was asked why he doesn’t thank them for saving him? He said, if someone sets a fire to a house and then saves them, does he deserve thanks?
I’m totally confused. Chabad is made up of people, correct? At the end of the day, different people have different personalities, and different people explain things in different ways. How do you expect an answer that you like (and I’m guessing this is one of those questions where you just hope for the response you want).
I don’t know any Satmar people. Maybe they’re nice and I would like them, I can’t say. But, are you people having me believe that it is okey for Jews to live everywhere around the world but for Jerusalem? What about all of those Shuls that were destroyed just prior to 1967?
That makes no sense.I saw a picture the other day where the Chabad Rabbi’s got to the new leader of the Ukraine. I am glad. But should this be an equally troublesome problem as Jews living in Jewusalem? After all, some of the same people here tell us that you can’t be involved this much in governments outside of Israel as well!
Well which way is it? I’m not being anymore convinced here of anything that the Chabad Rabbi’s didn’t already convince me of.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.