IDF’s New Haredi Division

Due those rules apply to all the officers, or is it similar to European colonial units or the American “colored” units in which the group deemed inferior are the “grunts” commanded by their better.

Zionism is shmad. Period. Zionism’s core and purpose is changing Jews and Judaism to Zionists and Zionism. It’s that simple. Therefore, no matter what promises the Zionist make about letting the frum Jews there “preserve their identity”, it’s just a smokescreen. Yes, they might or might not still wear the same clothes as before when the Zionists are done brainwashing them in their army. But the Zionists will do all they can to accomplish their core heresy and stated goal of changing these Jews into Zionists.

And calling this hasmonean is a rich irony (but absolutely par for the course) coming from the Zionists who are way worse than the hellenists against whom the real hasmoneans fought.

The problem with the Israeli army is the decisions are made by secular politicians, lawmakers and judges, a Torah Jew has no right to place his life in the hands of secular decision makers who send soldiers to die en masse instead of carpet bombing from the air. All other reasons and discussions are mere attempts to distract attention from this plain and simple truth. The Israeli Supreme Court are the biggest misyavnim in the world. True Chasmonaim fight against them not for them. In the army of a genuine Malchus Yisroel Torah Jews will be the first to join like Matisyahu Kohen Gadol and his sons.

Duvid> In the army of a genuine Malchus Yisroel Torah Jews will be the first to join like Matisyahu Kohen Gadol and his sons.

a very good point. But, in my recollection, Matisyahu was not invited to join a pre-kashered military unit – he started his own. Your idea is great and you should pursue it: start Torah-true units, hire your own trainers, supervise your own kashrus, then come as a functioning unit to partner with the Tzahal. If you feel that Tzahal is not cooperating, you can start your army in parts of EY that are not yet reached by Tzahal – Hevron unit or South Litani unit or Gaza brigade.

@Chaim87 . the fact that you mention Kook, who was labeled by many Gedolim as rasha gamur and fully rejected by everyone else, as a Torah authority shows either your ignorance or insincerity to Yiddishkeit.

Please send any makor for your claim. Please show me a tshiva from any Gadol that paskin that it is allowed for someone to go to join the evil zionist army.

I can show you tshivas that paskin clearly it is forbidden to have anytihng to do with the zionist army, and I can show you published statements of Gedolim calling Kook a “rasha” or “rasha gamur”

somejew, you don’t need to latch on R Kook in that list, you can start with gedolim more acceptable to you.

And this was discussed before here, there should be a lot of references if you search CR for R Kook. Here is quick one from internet search, I do not know how genuine this is, I am not an expert on R Kook, but there is a book and page that you can get and make your conclusion. Let us know what you think after you read this book, please!

“R. Yitzchak Gerstenkorn, the founder of B’nei Brak, told this story: In 5694 (1934), the Rav [i.e., Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook] was invited to the groundbreaking ceremony of the Beit Yosef (Novardok) Yeshiva in B’nei Brak…At the ceremony, which the Chazon Ish also attended, Rav Kook spoke at length…Throughout the Rav’s address, the large crowd sat quietly in their seats–everyone but the Chazon Ish. He remained standing throughout the speech, listening attentively to every word. He only sat down when the Rav finished speaking and took his own seat.”

“R. Tzvi Kagan, who was present at the event, added this revealing piece of information: When the Rav’s address began to draw out, people approached the Chazon Ish and suggested that he sit down. The revered rabbi refused, however, saying, ‘The Torah is standing!’”

from An Angel Among Men, by Simcha Raz, p.375; translated by Rav Moshe D. Lichtman

@somejewiknow
Its a documented fact that tge Chafetz chaim held R Kook Zl in high esteem and walked out in front of hundreds of people when R Kook was bashhmutzed at a big convention. What’s not documented is the kook shmook line that he never said. R Kook evne helped the chaftez chaim write seforim after his shver the aderes was nifter. I told you that R Isser Zalman held of it as did R tzvi pesach Frank and many other gedolim. You live in a bubble who refuses to believe there are two sides. There are plnety of teshuvas pro fighting in the army but you’ll mach them avek saying they weren’t geolim and only your were. Its fake jusidam, You live in a shell of lies. The truth is both are holy views. And we all know R Aron Lieb Steinman was Ok with the army too. Till he got bullied he allowed nachal charedi. This is all balony.

Chaim87:
No, the Chofetz Chaim and the others did not hold of him. Anyone who reads his works can see very clearly that he said things that were blasphemous. Like the soccer players being on a higher level in prophecy than Moshe Rabbeinu. As the Gerrer Rebbe wrote (documented), this angers the religious to a degree that is impossible to imagine. The Gerrer Rebbe and others also signed on to the Brisker Rav’s published letter that “Religious Zionist” education is a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah”. Please educate yourself.

AAQ:
Rabbi Kook was politically powerful. Therefore, when gedolim needed to deal with him, they had to address him as he expected. The Brisker Rav convened a beis din for every single title that he gave to Rabbi Kook when he sent him a letter. Same idea with the Chazon Ish.

But why look at stories? Look at sefarim kedoshim by gedolim that address the terrible things that Rabbi Kook wrote.

HaKatan, thanks for acknowledging that gedolim addressed R Kook respectfully. I never heard before that they did it because of politics. Is this your idea or is this an accepted theory in your circles? Let’s examine: what years did it start? Do you have examples of gedolim of yours that give similar titles to any people who are clearly not kosher?

> why look at stories? Look at sefarim kedoshim

Let’s clarify what we discuss here. There is a differences between disagreeing and disrespecting. Clearly, many rabonim in Jewish history had vehement disagreements, often expressed in seforim. This happens and it is not surprising that this is happening in the turbulent times we live. This happens with much simpler issues. For example, R Gershon Kamenetsky describes in detail how R Eliashev issued a psak banning his book based on incorrect information. Both the ban and the disagreement with the ban no way diminishes mutual respect between them.

@hakatan
I appreciate you defending the Torah and it’s rejection of liars like Shabtai Tzvi and Kook yimach shemam.
like
I would also like to point out that the core of the unanimous rejection of Kook is specifically because of the kefira that he published in his “books” and any yid can either trust the Gedolim and have nothing to do Kook and his Zionism or look at the nonsense he writes and see that it has no sources in Torah and is kofer many Torah foundations.

Every yid is obligated to reject a “navi sheker” like Kook from his own clear belief in Hashem and His Torah and learn any Torah necessary to reject those falsehoods.

@HaKatan
What you wrote about the chafetz chaim is just false. Your argument is because anyone who reads his work can see he said things that were blasphemous. Firstly that doesn’t prove the chafetz chaim didn’t hold of him. You completely made that up with no proof. I do have proof . There were 100’s of witnesses at the kensia where the chaftez chaim walked out of when a speaker bashmutzed R kook. Its very well documented and its FACT. We also know the R Kook helped the chafetz chaim write his seforim after his father-in-law teh aderes was nifter. Again a FACt.
Next re Ger. I can’t talk to a letter he signed. Firstly did you see the signature or its rumor? lets say its true. Noone is saying that he hold sof everything he did to the T. Overall theyt hold of him termendously. All you have to do is ask anyone in GER what they hold of R kook’s seforim and the man. He is till today a kodosh in ger. Go walk in and ask.

Your problem is a you formulate a theory based on narrow minded view that only one way in torah is correct. And when you hear that maybe tzadkim held of him you mach it avek that only your way can be true. The revisionist hisotry of today is sad. The 1930’s -1950’s were very different than you envsion with a good chunk of leading gedolim pro zionsim. (No I am not narrow minded. Yes the holy satmar reba and brisker rav plus many yerushlami gedolim were against it. But others disagreed)

Chaim87:
Your refusal to educate yourself does not change the reality. No, it’s not “whitewashing”; that’s what you’re doing.
Of course, they could have – and many did, in seforim and elsewhere – oppose Rabbi Kook. But when they needed his services, they addressed him as was needed.

Again, read the sefarim from the Satmar Rav, read the documented public letters from the Gerrer Rebbe and the Brisker Rav (on which many others signed, too). No, there are not two sides to the frum world about Zionism, and there never were. There were certainly many Jews who were confused by Zionism early on – and still today, like you – but the gedolim then knew even decades before the “State” was founded that Zionism was a non-starter and evil. Again, there are sefarim on this, even from then.

I am intentionally omitting the source of this, for hashkafic reasons:
“In 1900, just three years after the First Zionist Congress, a book called Ohr Layesharim was published by ultra-orthodox activists in Warsaw. This book articulated a firm rejection of Zionism…contained dozens of letters condemning Zionism, written by a broad spectrum of the most prominent rabbis of the era, including Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk, and Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneersohn of Lubavitch.

Antipathy towards Zionism, and particularly towards Zionist leaders, formed the backbone of the Haredi attitude during the pre-state era…each with their own approach – such as Agudath Israel, who were willing to work with Zionists without formally recognizing them as authentic representatives of Judaism, and others, such as the Munkatcher Rebbe, Rabbi Chaim Elazar Shapira, who would not contemplate showing Zionism or Zionists any kind of recognition or even acknowledgement – broadly speaking, the Haredi world maintained its stance, namely, that Zionism was created by heretics, and therefore, in every iteration, it continued to be an outgrowth of heresy.”

Chaim > Its also well known that he tried to make shalom between R Kook and R Y Chaim Sonnenfeld.

The way I read it in a (Hareidi) sefer – Chofetz Chaim cancelled his trip to settle in the apartment on Petach Tiqwa (on now rechov Chafetz Chaim) explaining that if he comes to Petach Tiqwa, he would surely need to go to Yerushalaim, and he would need to choose who to visit first – Yishuv Yashan or R Kook. Whomever he will visit first, the other group will reject Mishna Berurah … So, he would rather see everyone reading MB than being there himself in person.

And, right, quoting Rav Yedid and similar others is not the point – we all agree that there were people who totally rejected R Kook’s approach. The proposition we are arguing is whether there were serious talmidei chachomim who respected R Kook and to what degree. So far, the evidence seems to be that many respected in public and the question is was it genuine respect or a fake one.

AAQ:
I don’t understand why this is a question of them being “frightened”. This whole premise seems silly. They were not frightened of him, of course.

Since he had political power, and at some point they needed his assistance to annul some Zionist shmad or whatever it was, they had no choice but to use respectful titles when addressing him. If people choose to take that over every published sefer and letter from across the spectrum that severely condemned either him or his works, or even to claim that it makes it that some did hold and some did not, then they are obviously fooling themselves.

A separate point is that it’s very possible that certain people didn’t know about Rabbi Kook’s heretical works and that’s why they seemed to have “held of him”.

Bottom line is that his works are available to read, and the shocking kefirah therein is still exactly that, and the many gedolim (not just rabbis, but genuine masters of Torah and only Torah and without outside influences) over the decades severely condemned either him and/or his works, including in writing, some of which have been mentioned. It is silly to respond with stories about how x wrote nice titles to him.

Regarding the American side, the three may have worked with each other but, again, that doesn’t mean that Rav Moshe would have allowed public gemara lectures to women, while Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik taught them himself. Nor does it mean that Rav Moshe (and, liHavdil, Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik) would have allowed their official writings to claim that their predecessor was atzmus uMahus in a body. Not at all. Instead, it means that they had a working relationship for when that was needed, not that they in any way approved of him. Rav Aharon Kotler stated that Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was responsible for all the tuma in America. Yet, Rav Aharon also worked with him, when he felt it was needed. Same idea with Rabbi Kook. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand.

@HaKatan
I have no clue how old you are but speak to wise people over 80 and ask them what it was like 60 years ago. How they felt about zionism? It was much more pro Israel in charedi circles.

You can’t count what Satmar wrote because we agree on that. My argument is that he wasn’t the only gadol and bug gedolim disagreed. You also can’t count Brisk. We agree on that but many other disagreed. Same with the minchas eluzer.

Ger may have wrote certain sharp things in public letters. Altough I question that and would love for you to find me a link to that. However, facts are that overall, Ger was very pro zionsim and r kook. Ask any gera chusid. Again certain things were written against the ideo of coppearing with secularism but thats not zionism.

Re lubavtich yes them and belz were anti zionism. However, look at both today who changed views. So its not so clear cut.

You say people were “confused” about zionsim. That’s called revsinbg hisotry. When people don’t agree with your view they are “confused”. Oh I get it only your way is right.

Bototm line you fail to deny that all the rzyna rebas were pro zionsim. Why is that a nothing? R isser Zalman, the nazir, R Tzvi pesach frank, R shloma zalman and R elishyav etc all nothing? R Shraga feivel zl made a bracha when the medina was founded. (A fact I heard form eye witnesses). All is nothing. You keep on repeating the same few gedolim. OK You have a few big ones . But I also have a few big ones. Almost all rizyna rebas were pro zionists Should i repeat that again?)

@Always_Ask_Questions,

The fact that R Moshe zl was good friends with R JB zl is the point I am making too. Its because R moshe may have disagreed with R JB but he still held that R JB’s views are not kefira. R Moshe wasn’t respectufl of Sol Liberman even though he was a goan too. And so I can’t believe that so many gedolim were “repsectful” of R kook yet held its kefira.. And if it sin’t kefira who says its wrong. Both are torah views.

Hakatan, as you are consistent in your views, I’ll address the American side even as R Kook is a more interesting case. R Moshe and RJB didn’t simply collaborate, they were cousins who alternated calling each other before every yomtov. Family didn’t tell RJB when R Moshe was niftar out of concern for his health, but he figured out in a month when he didn’t get a call and called himself.