Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › How do we know that anti-Zionist posters are Jewish?
- This topic has 92 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 hours, 31 minutes ago by yankel berel.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 9, 2025 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #2457422yankel berelParticipantOctober 9, 2025 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #2457423yankel berelParticipant
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 ….
.
.October 9, 2025 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #2457424yankel berelParticipant@AAQ
have a look in dugma midarkei avi , in the three volume set of sifrei hafets hayim
where hafets hayim’s son quotes his fathers opinion about the balfour declaration .
.
.October 9, 2025 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #2457426yankel berelParticipanthaavara 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 ….
.
.October 9, 2025 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #2457425yankel berelParticipantwhile the factors you quote did exist ,
you are [deliberately?] ignoring the clear role zionism played in the decline of religion pre WW2 in eastern europe and in EY ….
.
.October 11, 2025 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #2457834Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantYankel, 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.October 11, 2025 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #2457835Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantR Berl Wein
The son of the Chofetz Chaim ,.. writes in his memoirs that his father donned his Shabbat clothing upon hearing the news and stated that “the matter (of Jewish redemption) has now begun and that we should be careful not to ruin this opportunity.”October 11, 2025 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #2457836Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantI 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.
October 11, 2025 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #2457837Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantA little different interpretation of seemingly same lines in another secondary source:
His son, Reb Leib, used to tell over that when the English announced the Balfour Declaration regarding the Jewish return to the Land of Israel, the Chofetz Chaim saw in this a sign from above that Heaven was preparing the Geula. However, he said that he was afraid that the secularists might ruin it, chas v’shalom. Many times in the past the time was ripe, but the people in the generation ruined it.Once the Chofetz Chaim was heard expressing his aggravation regarding the leftist factions in Eretz Yisroel. “Is it possible that anything good can come from these people? How can the Shechina come down and rest on something they established?” When he was shown a newspaper where one of their journalists wrote that it’s possible to be a good Jew without the Torah, the Chofetz Chaim wrote a long rebuttal to be published all over. “The existence of Yisroel depends upon the Torah, not on a country or a language! If we don’t keep the Torah the medina and the language won’t save us!” (Chofetz Chaim on the Torah, Parshas Bo)
October 11, 2025 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #2457838Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipanthere 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.
October 11, 2025 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #2457839Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantthird 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.
footnotes of Chofetz Chaim Al Hatorah, Parshas Bo:
In the winter of 5678 (1917-1918) when they told the Chofetz Chaim about the simcha that had spread in Jewish homes because of the Balfour Declaration, the Chofetz Chaim burst out crying and said, “What is the point of this simcha? Hakadosh Baruch Hu promised us, ‘And you shall spread out west and east and north and south’ – here is a sure promisory note, which Hakadosh Baruch Hu will pay up when the time comes. Now some people come and admit to a small part of Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s promisory note, and everyone is happy about this declaration, and they see it as a sort of redemption. They are satisfied with a little… they don’t wait for more… Oy, what has become of us…” and he continued crying.
The Chofetz Chaim’s son, Reb Leib, used to relate: “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. At that time he quoted the comment of the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh on the verse, ‘a tribe will arise from Israel’ (Bamidbar 24:17). 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.”
October 11, 2025 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #2457851Avi KParticipantYankel Berel,
1. They are not in effect. (if they ever were – as I pointed out, Reish Lakish said the opposite) according to Rav Chaim Vital, Rav Meir Simcha, and Rav Soloveichik.
22. Secular Zionism did not play any role in secularization. It was a result.
3. Rav Shlomo Zalman said that when he wanted to go to kivrei tzaddikim, he went to the military cemetery on Mt. Herzl.
October 12, 2025 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm #2458124Avi KParticipantAlways,
1. The religious ruined it by not heeding Rav Kook’s call to make aliya en masse.
2. Rav Meir Simcha said that the San Remo Convention cancelled the oaths. He also personally contributed to the JNF.
3. Ramban says (Sefer haMitzvot, Mitzvot that Rambam “forgot” 4) thatt here is a mitzva to conquer the Land in every generation.October 12, 2025 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm #2458320smerelParticipant>>>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.
October 13, 2025 12:40 am at 12:40 am #2458722Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantAvi> The religious ruined it by not heeding Rav Kook’s call
Agree, but you are mindlessly repeating the lashon hara terms – as if followers of R Kook were not “religious”. As somejew showed, it is asur to speak such loshon hora.
October 13, 2025 12:40 am at 12:40 am #2458727Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantsmerel, 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.
October 13, 2025 12:40 am at 12:40 am #2458737Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipant> 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.
smerel, thanks for answering my question – that CC was very limited in his public arguments against Z. I had this impression from reading his correspondence and finding arguments against every other group, but it is hard to prove a negative. The question then on REW – how could he have such a drastically different position? Was there any discussion between REW and CC? Did REW ask? Did CC respond to what REW was saying and writing?
October 16, 2025 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #2458888Avi KParticipantAlways, I was referring to the religious masses. At the beginning of the Mandate, the gates were wide open. The High Commissioner, Sir Hebert Samuel, was Jewish and a Zionist. However, very few came.,,
As for REW having a radically different opinion, the Gemara has many examples of chachamim who disagreed with their rabbanim. REW never met Rav Kook. The Chafetz Chaim did and encouraged him to go into the rabbinate. REW may also have been influenced by courtiers who gave him misinformation. BTYW, the CC, in his introduction to Mahaneh Yisrael, said that Jews should join European armies in order to gain experience for our own army.
October 17, 2025 10:07 am at 10:07 am #2460021Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantAvi K > As for REW having a radically different opinion, the Gemara has many examples of chachamim who disagreed with their rabbanim
I have no problems with REW holding his own opinion. But some here see him as a authority, and especially as a student of CC. So, it seems that in this aspect it was REW who disagreed with his teacher.
October 17, 2025 10:07 am at 10:07 am #2460067yankel berelParticipant@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
.
.
.October 17, 2025 2:19 pm at 2:19 pm #2460203Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantyankel> 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 ,agree, approval at early times is not necessarily an agreement on later actions. Still, we seem to have established here that CC and REW had different views, or at least public views at the overlapping times. So, if you want to follow REW, you need to explain why you are not satisfied with following CC.
October 18, 2025 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm #2460231yankel berelParticipant@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
.
.October 19, 2025 9:16 am at 9:16 am #2460420ZSKParticipant“REW may also have been influenced by courtiers who gave him misinformation.”
This would not surprise me. I suspect many Rabbonim who were opposed to Zionism were fed misinformation – deliberately – by the evil known as Askanim. Especially insofar as Rav Kook is concerned (who today would be considered very Charedi).
And there’s also the Hungarian establishment in the Old Yishuv’s sole objection to Rav Kook being, “He’s a Litvak. We ain’t listening to no Litvak”.
October 19, 2025 9:17 am at 9:17 am #2460424Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantYankel, 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?
October 19, 2025 1:01 pm at 1:01 pm #2460497Avi KParticipantZSK, actually, Rav Kook and Rav Sonnenfeld were good friends and participated in the teshuva tour of kibbutzim and moshavim together. One Motza’ei Yom Kippur, RS saw RK at the Kotel and gave him a beracha that the following year he should be up to his thighs in blood (as the Cohen Gadol). RK was very pleased.
October 19, 2025 1:01 pm at 1:01 pm #2460583Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantZSK, 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.
October 21, 2025 5:46 pm at 5:46 pm #2460821Avi KParticipantAlways, Rav Soloveichik did not take a position on demonstrations. When asked, he told questioners to ask a Kremlinologist. In general, his position was that rabbanim should not answer questions that are the realm of secular experts. 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.
October 21, 2025 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #2460826yankel berelParticipant@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
.October 21, 2025 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #2460827yankel berelParticipant@AAQ
this comes from talmidei rav chaim ozer
.
.
btw – I myself heard from a witness who saw emrei emet talking to REW for over two hours in marienbad in 1937those who knew emrei emet , say that this was almost unheard of that he should spend so much time with someone
REW was an adam gadol me’od .
.
.October 22, 2025 9:43 am at 9:43 am #2460823ZSKParticipant@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.
October 22, 2025 9:58 am at 9:58 am #2461707Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantAvi > Rav Soloveichik did not take a position on demonstrations. When asked, he told questioners to ask a Kremlinologist. In general, his position was that rabbanim should not answer questions that are the realm of secular experts.
Not a contradiction here. My source is memoirs by one of the students involved. They first asked R Feinstein, R Tetz, Lubavitcher Rebbe – they all answered negatively from their belief that (1) afraid that their quiet activities for soviet Jews will be disrupted (2) that students are putting their lives in danger from Soviet agents (we are talking 1960s!). When they approached R Soloveitchik, he indeed followed the approach you described – he asked his trusted contacts in Israeli government and they also suggested negative. So, batting 0:4 in daas Toirah, students started what they started. Later on, this student while driving R Soloveitchik casually asked him – we are doing things you did not approve of, but you did not reprimind us. Rav responded: I was mislead. I asked Israelis “what is best for Soviet Jews” and they responded based on what is based for them (presumably, before 1967, when Israel tried to re-establish better relations with USSR). Halakha of pikuach nefesh is – you do what is best for the person in danger, not for others.
October 22, 2025 9:59 am at 9:59 am #2461711Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantAvi> 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.
October 22, 2025 10:01 am at 10:01 am #2461712Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantyankel> emrei emet talking to REW
I am not questioning R Elchonon’s mailos at all.
October 22, 2025 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm #2461889Avi KParticipantAlways, the point is that RS did not pasken. He simply relayed the opinion of those whom he held to be experts. BTW, Rav Moshe did not take a position on “land for peace”. Rather, he told Begin to follow the advice of security experts. On the other hand, those rabbis who opposed it ruled that it is halachically prohibited based on Ramban in his Sefer haMitzvot (mitzvot that Rambam “forgot”) and the obvious principle that pikuach nefesh does not override a milchemet mitzva.
BTW, the Mir yeshiva went from Vilna to shanghai against Rav Chaim Ozer’s pesak. When asked about it years later, one of the rabbanim said that that was before daat Torah was invented.
October 23, 2025 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm #2462293yankel berelParticipantAvi k
you are mixing issues
RMF halachically [!] disagreed with those who assered giving back land even bimkom pikuach nefesh . nothing to do with the principle of datt torah
there was no ‘psak’ by r ch’o about shanghai at any time
by the way rch’o was niftar just weeks after the soviets marched into vilna
before the yeshiva moved from lithuania
daat torah was never invented
it exists only to the extent that there are sources in the torah supporting it
and cannot be an invention if thereare sources for it
.
.October 23, 2025 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm #2462359Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantAvi> 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.
October 24, 2025 11:53 am at 11:53 am #2462800Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantyankel > there was no ‘psak’ by r ch’o about shanghai at any time
> by the way rch’o was niftar just weeks after the soviets marched into vilnaI think this issue relates to the shailah that I mention above – preference for older v younger rabbonim. You might be right that technically, after the Rav was niftar, the DT would have transferred to a living Rav. Presumably, they did not “go” to REW then, or they would have stayed in Mir.
October 26, 2025 7:32 pm at 7:32 pm #2463026yankel berelParticipant@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’ .
.October 27, 2025 9:44 am at 9:44 am #2463576Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantyankel, thanks for history recap, you on a solid ground (many people when discussing R Ch’O psak think that they were expecting Nazi invasion rather than soviet in Vino).
Still, I am referring to his teshuva to a shailah about exit visas for young v older Rabbis – possibly pre- or immediately after Soviet invasion of Lithunia in June 1940. I am not sure whether this was in advance of the invasion maybe in May-June 1940 (that was my understanding from reading about it many years ago) or immediately after – Sugihara started giving his visas mid-July and R Ch’O was niftar early August.
October 27, 2025 6:57 pm at 6:57 pm #2463970yankel berelParticipant@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 …
.
.October 28, 2025 10:12 am at 10:12 am #2464042yankel berelParticipantre the hafets hayims postion re zionism
it is well known that aguda was established as a reaction to mizrachi and its willing affiliation and support of the zionist movement
hafets hayim was a leading founding member of aguda
the lack of open writings against zionism from hafes hayim ‘s side , should be attributed to tactical reasons , not to strategy
.
.October 28, 2025 10:12 am at 10:12 am #2464048SQUARE_ROOTParticipantI 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.October 28, 2025 10:12 am at 10:12 am #2464054Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantin what sense was it an etsa and not a psak, esp if you are working under daas Torah hypothesis?
(granted, I often get such “etsa and not a psak” both from the Rav that does not believe in DT and from the one who does! 🙂
> by the way , from a klal yisrael perspective , with the benefit of hindsight , it was sound advice …
I agree, the small number of great rabonim who came to the US made a lot of difference.
October 29, 2025 3:21 pm at 3:21 pm #2464617Yaakov Yosef AParticipantZSK – 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.
October 29, 2025 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #2465035somejewiknowParticipantrav yosef chaim zonenfeld ztz”l founded the Eida Charedis, who was the first Gaved. After his passing, the Eida begged the Satmar Rebbe ztz”l to become the second Gaved, but he declined (He ultimately conceded after the war and lead the Jerusalem community until his passing in the 70s).
The eida was and continues to be very much a unified beis din for the ashkenazy kehila, both litvish chasidish and otherwise, but its roots are (also) very Hungarian. So, I’m not sure where you got your history from.
October 29, 2025 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm #2465495yankel berelParticipant@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
.
..
October 29, 2025 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm #2465496Yaakov Yosef AParticipantsomejew – Check the dates… That was much later than when Rav Kook became Chief Rabbi. The Eidah considered themselves as the hemshech of the united Ashkenazi Beis Din (Badatz), which had been led for 60 years by R’ Shmuel Salanter, and was primarily controlled by the Prushim. ZSK seems to hold that the real problem the Badatz had with Rav Kook was that he was a Litvak, which is ridiculous.
October 29, 2025 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm #2465498yankel berelParticipantit 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
.
. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.