- This topic has 119 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 12 hours, 4 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
Just because there are some simple minded people who fall for the pseudo halacha hogwash masquerading as halacha writings of r yaakov shapira ,
that does not mean that we should join them
this sefer [or rather book] seems like nothing more than cheap propaganda hidden under some millimeter thick of deceiving pseudo halachik language.
following [copied and pasted] is somejews psak level one :
In (very) short, that means that if goyim – chas v’shulem – threaten masses of jews, our kosher responses are: make peace, give gifts, run away, and pray to G-d. What we are not allowed to do , is ….. physically fight the enemy.
….. One cannot fight the non-Jews with violence because of pekiach nefesh, and that is both explicitly stated by Maharal but also blatantly obvious in context of the shevios that are fundamentally about dealing with the dangers of gulis (galus).
ad kan divrei somejew.
in other words , even if you do not have other ways of saving yourself ,and the only way of saving yourself and your family is by [defensive] violence, even if said violence would actually save your and your families’ life, you are OBLIGATED to die ,and let your family die, according to halacha , no holek, halacha lema’aseh !
===
then somejew was confrontedwith a clear psak in sh’a , tur , rambam , based on clear gemara
mandating self defense even bimkom hillul shabat.
===
so we get to somejew’s psak level two [copy and paste]
“If there is an imminent threat to the life of a jew, one is allowed to stop the murderer, even in galus.
That is also allowed on shabbos, because of p/n.”now somejew is already matir to use defensive violence to save oneself from death.
but he still prohibits [on the pain of death] to organize an ‘army’ to stop the murderer .
===
somejew theorizes that a group of three individuals might be considered an ‘army’ already.
but he clearly ignores that in sh’ aruch the issue is about a multitude coming to attack and that the defense is consisting of a multitude too.
besides that, shulhan aruch is talking about other yishuvim which are nocheh lehikavesh if the first yishuv would fall .
so we are clearly talking here about resistance to kibush , which means organizing an army to resist a kibush
and shulhan aruch kayadu’a only talks about issues of relevance in galut.
add one plus one and you get two
SH’A was matir in galut to organise oneselves in self defense to save lives.
when you look in gemara eiruvin 45A it says very clearly that r nachman ,residing within galut bavel , says that neherda’e is a border town and one should employ community wide organised self defense of neherda’e , to shield all Jewish communities in Bavel from being conquered by their enemies , in order to save lives.
in short – organised jewish self defense at work within galut because of pikuach nefesh , halacha lemaaseh .
this is brought in mishneh brurah , shulhan aruch, tur and rambam , no holek whatsoever.
its mutar , no , sorry, not mutar ,
mandatory.
—
a talmid of hafets hayim quoted a haskafic etsa tova from hafets hayim spoken to his audience in poland where organised self defence would not have the desired effect so H’H discouraged them from going down the path of self defense.that is not a halachic ruling , nor is it applicable outside those specific circumstances.
—
maskana –
pikuach nefesh clearly overrides any existing halachik shavu’ot prohibitions [if they exist at all – cf avnei nezer sof YD that they never even existed]
.
.
.
it is time that somejew and katan should relearn those relevant sugyot without any preconceived notionsbefore they resume their self appointed role as spokesman of the whole haredi community.
.
.there are many questions that have been asked by and confounded gedolim over generations about how R’ Akiva could have thought BK was moshiach, specifically regarding the various psak of the Rambam on the subject. Let me know if you find anyone else who asks your question and if you find any good answers.
=Regarding R’ Yakov Shapira’s book Empy Wagon, it is certainly not a halachic sefer. Most of it is filled with the documented history of the zionist kefira, something that was difficult for me to even expose myself to, much less come to terms with that revolting history.
However, he does indeed quote numerous Torah sources with a solid English translation. As such, I find it easier to leverage and give credit to his book for some copy.
=I can’t respond to all the nonsense you wrote, mostly because I – again – even can’t make any coherent sense of what your intent might have been. You’re shooting off in all different directions, seemingly desperate to argue about something, antything. As I have said many times, please try to make a coherent point and I will try to responsd. You seem to be intetionally straw-maning my earlier statements, but for what? But my stamtments are (I claim) straight from Torah sources, so are you really so invested in your idol worship heresy fantasy that you don’t even want to learn the sources I am pointing to?
yankel, when you put this discussion together, we need to add “chacham einav b’rosho”:
some might say: we are allowed to respond when there is pikuach nefesh. Well, modern wars play out in a way that one needs to have a defensive perimeter with air defense and ballistic missiles and UAVs in advance of a conflict; and one needs factories, researchers, budget to conduct R&D, etc well in advance of that. So, to fulfil “if someone comes to kill you, kill him first” (that I don’t think is restricted by the borders of EY), one needs to organize a society years in advance.you are beating around the bush.
my writing is as clear as can be.
gemara , rambam , tur , sh’a , mishne brura , all point to mandated organized Jewish self defense in galut when needed for pikuach nefesh
this is clear
its lehalacha
its lema’aseh
.
you , however , are clearly on record multiple times in these pages, that even if the choice is between sure death on one hand and organized jewish self defense in galut on the other
lehalacha one is OBLIGATED to die, and let ones own family die , and let any other jew die [chvsh]
this is so simple and so clear
I elaborated on this countless times already.
.
.
.what exactly in this post is inaccurate ???
what exactly in this post is incoherent ???
.
.
.
.@ somejew
Re r akiva
there is no question at all
I do not have any questions
.
.the question is on you
you claim that no man made hishtadlut is to be made even by mashiach to bring the ge’oula
.
.
then how could r akiva and the rambam consider ben kochba as mashiach ?he was ruled out only when he died
he should have been ruled out straight away — on the grounds of his man made attempts to bring the ge’oula ???
.
Shma minah that the ge’oula can come via man made efforts .
.
what exactly is incoherent in this post ???
….
@yankel berel – thank you for your summation and rebuttal of the points raised by some of the local unthinking posters.
an Israeli Yid
hello ?
again, the shavuos are generally about our obligation to live under non-jewish rule and the issur to rebel against their government and its rulership. This includes, as stated by the Maharal and others, even at threat of death.
There is a separate obligation to save ones life in the face of a a random non-Jew or non-Jews who are being violent. This would have nothing to do with the Three Shevios.
Up to here, is everything clear? – because this is basic basics of thinking
Now, there is certainly room to speculate when those two halachos clash, like in any other sugya. So, what if there is no kingdom, what if someone is caught on the border between two waring armies, etc etc. Those might be interesting studies to find responsa about. Nonetheless, the axioms themselves – pekiach nefesh and the shalosh shevios – are well documents across chazal and poskim.
Can we step back for a second. Looking at all the proofs on both sides of this well-documented and exhaustive – and exhausting – thread.
So, the proposition is that Jews as a nation are not allowed to do certain things. The material for that is one agadta with several commentaries, mostly in the 20th century. I do understand that a national state was not on a horizon for many centuries, but still the issue of such national importance would deserve larger halachik attention over time. And if we conclude that the issue is important but was neglected over centuries, then we need to sound an alarm and devote more resources to this analysis, and maybe in a more serious and honest, less-partisan, way rather than relying on several Rabbonim who issued their opinions on this important topic on both sides. I am not dismissing those opinions, just saying more is required. Compare, for example, with early teshuvos on electricity and such questions as opening a fridge on shabbos. Early teshuvos are by now totally forgotten when people got used to devices in homes and Rabbis learned a little more about physics.
Here is an anecdote from early Israeli life that illustrates how view on halocha changes when there is a state (legitimate or not). Israeli police had to deal with genavim and gazlonim who would steal cars on Shabbos. They asked a shaila and a Rov explained that this is just property, so obviously you cannot drive to catch them, but, for public policy reasons, you can do midrabonans such as use a bike. You just need to picture yourself mishtara following on a bike the thieves in the cars. Another rav allowed the cars in order to prevent all cars being driven into Jordan.
please think .
on one hand there is clear halachik imperative to organize self defence begalut
stretching an unbroken link from gemara, to rambam ,to tur , to shulhan aruch ,to mishne brura
all , undisputed pillars of halacha for many centuries
without any holkim whatsoever
without any other preconditions whatsoever
if it is pikuach nefesh it should be done.
period.
.
.on the other hand you quote a maharal
without an exact address
where he is not talking lehalacha
allegedly saying huge hidushim
that one is OBLIGATED to suffer certain death , him and his family and the whole of his community
this is not mentioned anywhere lehalacha in any halacha lema’aseh sefer
this is not mentioned in hazal when they enumerate the three things one is obligated to offer one’s life for
not mentioned in rambam’s yad
not in tur
not in shulhan aruch
not in mishna brura
.
.do you realize the weakness of your position ????
.
.
.Why does somejew think that
a non attributed alleged and agadic maharal has the power to impose conditions on
an unbroken chain of undisputed pillars of halacha stretching back to clear gmara
..
in what other subject in our vast torahin what other accepted tshuvot sefer
has he seen a similar flippant approach ?
.
al achat kama vekama when the subject at hand is min hachamurot she bachamurot
the issue of mass pikuach nefesh !?!
.we are waiting …
for an honest answer ….
.
.Only brainwashed idolaters and the worst trolls refuse to see the truth that Zionism is idolatry and heresy and that it has caused cataclysmic damage to the Jewish people including destroying the Judaism of multiple generations of hundreds of thousands of Jews, if not more than that. And the oaths are undisputed halacha for many centuries, with actual examples brought down by Torah giants of what happened when the oaths were violated, including Ben Koziva and the Holocaust, both of which were the greatest causes of oceans of spilled Jewish blood, R”L L”A.
Eileh elohecha, Zionists.
lol.
oaths undisputed halacha …
avnei nezer disputes it.
not mentioned not in yad hachazaka mishneh torah
not in tur
not in sh aruch
not in mishneh brura
pashtut in all mentioned sfarim that they are NOT lehalacha
from siman 329
thats undisputed ????
you should change your english dictionary ….
.
Somejew went on an extended holiday ?
yankel berel:
You can laugh, but you can’t invent your own facts.
Avnei Neizer did not dispute the halachic applicability of the oaths. Go ahead and quote and cite what he said about that.
“Not mentioned” does not in any way mean dispute.
But, as mentioned, the Satmar Rav (Zionists brains automatically turn off) brings down many poskim who do bring – in their halacha sefarim – the halachic applicability of the oaths.
The oaths are undisputed halachically in force; go ahead and quote and cite a source that show one who does dispute it. But keep laughing.SQUARE_ROOT:
I assume you won’t bother responding and will just find some more hevel uReus ruach to copy/paste to a new thread and just ignore the Torah’s view against your idolatry. But, on the off-chance that you do read this…Your latest response to me is full of nonsense, and my quote of the Torah’s view on this topic has never been refuted, to my humble knowledge.
“Religious Zionism” is idolatry as per Rav Elchonon, the Brisker Rav (who lived there, too), and all the rest. No, of course that has zero to do with the first Rashi in chumash, Avraham Avinu and all the mitzvos that are dependent on being in E”Y. Your giluy panim baTorah sheLo kaHalacha of the gemara regarding one who lives in chutz laAretz is also silly. The basic understanding of that gemara is that those who live in Hashem’s land, E”Y, are under the “direct oversight”, so to speak, of Hashem, as opposed to those who live outside E”Y who are *also* under the oversight of the “sar” of the nation in which they live. Of course, the “sar” of the Zionist paradise is the Satan, so that presumably puts those living there under the oversight of the satan, too.
Your academic question of why the oaths do not appear in the Rambam’s Yad and in the S”A has zero impact on the halachic relevance of the oaths, as brought down by numerous poskim throughout the ages.
Additionally, the nations of the world did not ever approve the creation of a Jewish State in 1920, as you falsely claimed. Balfour did signify British approval of a “national homeland” for the Jews, but not necessarily sovereignty, and that declaration was anyways rescinded by the subsequent White Papers and also clarified by the British that the Zionists “read much more” into Balfour than was written there.
Even if none of that were true, that doesn’t at all mean, as you again falsely claim and with zero basis for the same, that “therefore the oaths cannot apply in our time”. Of course they can and do apply, and the creation of the Zionist paradise has zero impact on that applicability because, in part, it is those very oaths that forbade the founding of that “State” (in addition to the numerous other halachic problems in founding that “State”). Again, all the prohibitions of the oaths, including Meridah baUmos, dechikas haKetz and aliyah baChoma, remain just as severely prohibited now as they were throughout the ages.
Yes, Rav Elchonon never saw the “State”. But he saw its ideological engine, Zionism, quite well. And the Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish and many other gedolim certainly did see that “State” and even lived in it, and held the same as did Rav Elchonon that Zionism is heresy and idolatry.
The Zionist victory in 1967 was not miraculous; it was derech haTeva. There certainly was hashgacha from Hashem, just as there is anything that Jews do. But their victory was very much not miraculous.
That “baal teshuva” movement you mentioned was only needed because the Zionists shmaded almost all the Jews there to begin with! And that anyways doesn’t change the Torah CH”V.
The Satmar Rav expressed numerous severe problems with the Zionist “State”, but socialism was obviously not a very big concern of his.
Regarding your ramblings at the end of your post:
No, there is no valid logic to those who disagree with the Torah’s viewpoint of the idol and heresy of Zionism. No, asking the gentiles to “take over” would not in any way lead to a “civil war” and attacks on Jews and another Holocaust, CH”V. First of all, it is the Zionists who caused the Holocaust (primarily to achieve their “State” afterwards. So that concern wouldn’t apply here. Second, the Jews there would be much safer under a normal gentile government than under the Zionist idolaters and heretics under which they live now. That is true both materially and spiritually. Your accusations of me at the end of your post are totally baseless and beyond the pale – and you’re likely projecting given that you are the Zionist.you ask for a source that oaths are not lehalacha.
I do not have the sefer wiyh me now
If not mistaken AVNEI NEZER end of YD in siman taf nun dalet [454] clearly asks why none of our pillars of halacha bring the oaths in their halacha sefarim.
and clearly says that the reason is because the oaths are not halacha.
will bln try to look it up again and give you a more exact quote.
.
.> That “baal teshuva” movement you mentioned was only needed because the Zionists shmaded almost all the Jews there to begin with!
I think this explains some of your deep feelings about this topic – and it is based on a false premise. Most European Jews who arrived to EY in 1920-50s were not religious and and many were anti-religious to begin with. They were not made anti-religious by Zionists, but rather by attractive theories of communism/bundism/cultural movements in Eastern Europe before that – and thanks to inability of rabbis to stop that movement. As frustrated R Salanter said at some point – I can have a discussion with a French professor who is already totally non-religious, but not with Lithuanian Jews who are going downhill. There are occasional episodes – like Tehran orphans who were saved from Russia in 1940s by Polish government in exile, or Teimanim, but this was not the case for majority. All these people were saved physically by choosing Zionism instead of Bundism and leaving Europe; and from gehinom by choosing to organize harmless kibutzim instead of soviet labor camps.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.