How do we know that anti-Zionist posters are Jewish?

@avi

rav kook is quoted by the imrei emet as saying about himself that he not a tsioni and also not a ‘mizrachist’ ….

printed in osef michtavim.

there might be other sources . I don’t know of them ….
.
.

@avi

haavara plan was a ‘great success’ ….

—

one can wonder whether without the haavara plan , the nazi economy would have rebounded so quickly from the great depression ???

who knows ??

this rebounding, fueled subsequent nazi aggression ….

one of the mysteries of world history ….
.
.

Yankel, thanks for the idea to look at Balfour declaration for Chofetz Chaim. Here is what I am finding:

Rav Shmuel Greineman, footnotes to Chofetz Chaim divrei Torah that he published (parasha bo)

ארץ זבת חלב ודבש שמות” י״ג:ה׳” “A land of milk and honey”

Chofetz Chaim: The soul certainly can not survive without a body, and all the commandments that are dependant on The Land can not be fulfilled without Eretz Yisrael. Our nation can not last in exile, and it is forbidden for us to remain here, nor to go elsewhere to be involved in business. Here they attempt to catch us and accuse us, nevertheless we live and survive, if but in difficulty. But Eretz Yisrael without Torah is nothing but a clump of earth, a body without a soul. ..

Note:
The Chofetz Chaim never let his mind wander from the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael.

I remember, in the winter of 5678 (1918), when the Chofetz Chaim was told about the tremendous joy that spread throughout Jewish homes in reponse to the Balfour declaration. The Chofetz Chaim burst out crying, and said, “What does joy accomplish? Hashem promised us that we would ‘burst forth westward, eastward, northward, and southward.’ This is a guaranteed document that Hashem will pay up in its appointed time.
“Now people have come and only admit to a small part of Hashem’s document, and everyone is getting excited as if the redemption has almost arrived!
“People are ready to be satisfied with a small amount… They don’t expect more… Woe unto us!” And he continued to cry.

I think this is from same notes
One time, they read him an article from a newspaper, in which one of the ‘maskilim’ expressed his hope that in the end Eretz Yisrael would be an independant country like Bulgaria, which was established on the ruins of Turkey. The Chofetz Chaim burst out crying and said, “Does this matter make sense? We are suffering for one thousand eight hundred years, our blood flows like water, we increase our prayers and supplications for a respite from the difficulties of the exile, and here they satisfy themselves with only a small amount? They have completely forgotten about the roles our prophets set out for us, and the promises of our holy Torah.”
…
One time we heard how the Chofetz Chaim expressed his anguish about the leftists in Eretz Yisrael, “Could it be that something good will come out of the left, that the Divine Presence will rest on their actions?”
….
It is a grave mistake that these people make, to think that the Torah and mitzvos are secondary matters and are unconnected to the building of the land. Remember the words of the Torah (Vayikra 18:21), “That the land not vomit you out when you contaminate it, as it vomited out the nations before you.” Eretz Yisrael is the palace of the king, one who sins there sins a great sin, and the danger [that results from sin] is much greater there!

The son of the Chofetz Chaim, Harav R’ Leib zt’l, would tell over that when the British announced the Balfour declaration in regards to Eretz Yisrael, the Chofetz Chaim saw in this a type of אתערותא דלעילא (awakening from above) in regards to the redemption, and he spoke then of the Ohr Hachaim on the verse “וקם שבט בישראל” – “and a rod shall rise in Israel.” [There the Ohr Hachaim speaks about the two possibilities in regards to the redemption. It can come miraculously, if the Jewish people merit it, or it can come in a natural way, if they do not. This part of the passuk refers to the redemption coming in a natural way in the merit of the tzaddikim of the Jewish people, who are referred to as Yisrael.] He said, however, that he was worried that the ‘frei’ would destroy it [as a result of their bad deeds], heaven forbid. He would also say that were many times in the past that had been opportunities lost for the redemption as a result of the destructive deeds of the generation.

here are some interestingquotes from a site that defends shevuos and starts with “Zionism was the most successful violation of the oaths in our history, but it wasn’t the first. I”

The Chofetz Chaim says that there is one kind of war that is permitted even during exile: a war against a decree of shmad, a decree made by a government that forces Jews to give up their Torah observance. The classic case of a war against a decree of shmad was the Maccabean revolt, he says. This war took place during the Temple era; nevertheless the Chofetz Chaim said that such a war would be permitted even today, when the oaths are in force, against an empire that outlaws the Torah, such as Communist Russia. (Recorded by Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman in his article “Omer Ani Maasai Lamelech” section 9.)

When the British government issued the well-known Balfour Declaration regarding Eretz Yisroel, the Chofetz Chaim saw it as an arousal from above regarding the redemption… But he said, I am afraid that the irreligious will ruin it, G-d forbid. He would said that many times there have already been times of favor, but those generations ruined it.” (Chofetz Chaim Al Hatorah p. 101) In any case the Chofetz Chaim never said that it was permitted to found a Jewish state. Similar, the Ohr Somayach was quoted as having written a letter in support of immigration under the Mandate, stating that immigration did not violate the oaths. He never said that conquest of the land would not violate them.

>>>third version of the same story from the anti-zionist POV. Seems like everyone agrees on the words Chofetz Chaim said, but interprets them somewhat differently.

All three versions of the story are quoting the same person. Yet anyone who looks inside to see what he actually wrote can see they are all inaccurate. See the actual Kitzur Toldos Chayav written by R’ Leib Poupko himself. He did say similar things but not nearly as dramatic or as strongly as being claimed by the anti-Zionists. No he did not burst out crying about hearing people celebrating the Balfour Declaration. In fact he celebrated it himself! He did express his worry that the secularists would ruin things

The Chofetz Chaim on the Torah, Parshas Bo is probably the most accurate depiction of what the CC said and felt about the issue. But according to his son (The R’ Leib quoted here) the CC was actually uncertain about publishing his one and only anti Zionist letter which opposed the claim Zionists then made (they no longer do) that by living in EY and speaking you can be a good Jew without keeping Torah. He wrote it and was still weighing the possible unintended consequences publishing such a letter could have, when the person in charge of his correspondence sent it to be published without his explicit instructions that they do so.

smerel, R Greineman writes as if he saw this first hand, not from R Poupko and it seems from the text that he was writing with CC approval. I understand his crying is not because of Balfour, or a possible misuse of Balfour, but that people are satisfied with such a small step towards the geulah.

If I dare to add, CC seems not to be familiar with the chinese saying – a journey of a thousand li begins with a single step.

@avi k

there is no indication whatsoever to be taken from the fact that hafets hayim approved of rav kook going into the rabinate

even if historically correct ,

towards any of his later sayings about hebrew university

or his actions while in the newly established rabbanut harashit

which made him controversial

those things happened only much , much later
.
.
.

@aaq

ch’ch was betokfo in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s up until mid 1920’s.

thereafter his health declined , he was niftar in 1933

REW ‘s ma’marim were written in the mid and late 1930’s

different times , different situations

he always ran them past R Chaim Ozer , and at least once did not publish a maamar after RCH’O objected
.
.

Yankel, I was reading ch ch letters of 1920s until early 30s, and didn’t find any negative statements on zionizm, even as his main topic is decline of observance. So it is just several years difference. Speculating: maybe ch ch objected and thus REW published only after his petirah? I didn’t know about RCHO involvement, thanks. Is this from independent sources or from REW chasidim?

ZSK, I don’t think you can write off REW on disinformation. It is one thing when we are talking, say, elderly R Eliyashev being mis-informed about one book by R Gershon Kamenetsky. Maybe, maybe, you can have a similar excuse for R Soloveitchik on the question of demonstration for Soviet Jews (“mislead” by Israeli gov that it is better to be quiet) – yes, this is an issue of great public importance, but not the main focus for American Jews at a time (and RJBS writes in other places “I am not a politician or from a family of politicians”) but here REW addresses, consistently, over the years, the issue discussed by the Jewish public. It was on him to get the right information before making his public statements.

@avi k

that tour was when rav kook was still rav of jafo

before he moved to the newly established rabanut rashit
.

if not mistaken rav sonnefeld called him by the title of ‘the yafo rav’ even when he was already rav rashi in yerusalem
.

every fact has to placed and considered within its context

otherwise the wrong impression is given
.

@Avi K – True. However, an issue of Mekor Rishon (Hebrew RZ newspaper, if you’re aware of it) from a year or two ago stated such and provided a documented source of the statement I summarized. Based on that, it does appear that the Hungarian establisment was not prepared for a Litvak to hold any authority over them. But that also reinforces a statement I made in another thread, that these “disputes” and “fights” were largely ideological without real animosity, with the most notable exception who made it personal was a certain Rav Teitelbaum.

@AAQ – I was not writing off REW. I was condemning Askanim – both past and present – for providing disinformation, causing Rabbonim to make statements based on deliberately incorrect or incomplete information and creating rifts that don’t need to exist – such as that between the Charedi and RZ public.

Regarding R Elyashiv and R Kamenetsky – It was disinformation, just like what was done to R Slifkin. I have no doubt regarding that.

Avi> The Baal haTanya also took this position (he also held that it is bittul Torah of the rav) and Rav Lichtenstein has an essay, availavle online, he unauthorized translation is called “If There Is No ‘Da’at,’ How Can We Have Leadership?” The Hebrew original is אם אין דעת, מנהיגות מניין.

First, thanks for the reference to the essay. Very thought provoking. Not sure what Alter Rebbe has to do with the topic, but he took an extreme political pro-Russian position during Napoleonic wars – contrary to almost all other misnagdim and chassidim, and he passed away while running away from Napoleon. The reasons being a mixture of seeing a danger of haskalah (as if it was possible to escape it, but delaying could have helped) and real-politik – as Chabad was further in Russia than most other groups, so presumed that his chasidim will be under the czar after the war anywas, so it is better to cooperate.

Avi> one of the rabbanim said that that was before daat Torah was invented.

R Zelig Epstein. As I heard it, he used subtler language “before daas Torah” without the harsh word “invented”. In reality, R Chaim Ozer position seemed to be more nuanced – he wanted older Rabbonim to have a priority for visas, as they would be more useful both for the ones who are left behind and to Americans themselves. I think we can see the wisdom of that from history – a small number of survivors started revival of Torah in US.

Interesting also that you put R Soloveitchik and R Chaim Ozer in the same paragraph. When R Soloveitchik was studying philosophy in Berlin, he would visit R Chaim Ozer during summer and present him with his hidushim developed during the year. R Chaim Ozer, who was famous also for his library, would nod and find a sefer where that “hidush” was already discussed.

@aaq

WW2 started september 1939 with germany and then soviet russia attacking poland

mir , in eastern poland was conquered by the soviets

the yeshiva fled mir which was under soviet occupation towards vilna in october 1939 after receiving a clear psak [!] from rav ch’o that they should even be mehalel shabat to do so

rch’o took the initiative to send telegrams to the yeshivot under soviet occupation at the time

vilna was also under soviet occupation at the time

but r’ch’o was told that vilna would be handed over to the then still free and neutral Lithuanian government

which actually happened a few weeks after the yeshivot arrived in vilna

the question of yeshivat mir fleeing from vilna to the far east came up later , after the soviet occupation of free lithuania in the summer of 1940

that was during the period lithuania was occupied by the soviets for the period around one year between the soviet invasion during the summer 1940 and the nazi invasion during june 1941

during that year the yeshiva was grappling with the question about applying to the soviets for exit visas

and that was after r’ch’o was niftar already

at no point was there any ‘psak’ from anyone either way , re the advisability of filing requests to exit the communist ‘paradise’ .
.

@AAQ

there is no written tshuva from him re the issue you mention .

there are reports of an oral one .

that was not a psak as such , as far as I understand

that was an etsa , an advice ,

by the way , from a klal yisrael perspective , with the benefit of hindsight , it was sound advice …
.
.

I have been reading the wicked comments of HaKatan and UJM
for more than two years, and I noticed that they *** NEVER ***
criticize the Nazis or the Arabs or the Muslims,
and they *** NEVER *** blame the Nazis or the Arabs or the Muslims
for *** ANY *** problem.

Instead, they blame “The Zionists” for 100% of the problems, 100% of the time.

This false version of History is disgusting anti-Semitic Victim Blaming,
and it is the symptom of minds that are very sick and very dangerous to Jews.

There are good reasons why I suspect HaKatan and UJM
of being paid agents of Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran.

ZSK – Historical fact check. The Yerushalmi establishment at the time was very much Litvish, from the Prushim descendants of the Talmidei HaGra. In fact, the previous Rov of Yerushalayim, R’ Shmuel Salanter (from Salant in Lithuania), suggested before his passing in 1909 to appoint R’ Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld (from Slovakia = Oiberland Non-Chassidish Hungary) as his successor. His suggestion was rebuffed for more than a decade mainly because – the Litvaks didn’t want a Hungarian… Hungarian Jews, especially Chassidish ones, didn’t become a majority in the Eidah orbit until much later, probably only after the Holocaust.

@AAQ

a psak – means halachik

which means logically and traceably sourced in shas and poskim

subject to logical counter arguments and counter proofs
.
.

whereas an etsah is either intuitive,

or sourced in the more ‘murky’ part of aggadeta

or mesorah received ish mipi ish

not subject to logical counter arguments and proofs
.
.

.

@somejew

@yaakov yosef

it was rav ch ozer rav of vilna , who merited the hakarat hatov from rav dushinsky for his appointment as rav of the edah

and it was again the same rav ch ozer who r moshe blau the then rosh hakahal of the edah was continually consulting with re the steps the edah should be taking

interesting facts to consider
.
.