Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Medinah

Viewing 17 posts - 101 through 117 (of 117 total)
  • Author
  • #2169051
    ☕️coffee addict

    “If the UN vote permitting a State is binding, then the UN votes partitioning Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem being an international zone, (and future UN votes demanding Israel leave the Arab zones) is equally binding.“

    Britain agreed to the vote so that’s why it was binding

    Israel doesn’t agree to the subsequent votes so therefore it’s not binding


    It is ok to be ambivalent towards political movements, but that does not mean that you need to reject the good out there. One Rav told me that when someone asks him whether he is a Zionist, he refuses to say “no”. He says instead – yes, in the sense of “mehazir shechinato leZion”


    “Britain agreed to the vote so that’s why it was binding”

    Okay. The original vote split Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem being an international zone. In that case, Israel only has permission to control the original Jewish zone and not the Jerusalem zone or the Arab zone.


    Happy, thanks for the kind words, but I’m not a talmid chacham – i was, however, zocheh to be among many.

    The avnei nezer is one shitah in what the rambam held; he’s not the only one to say it either. But what are the gedorim of the mitzvah according to the AN’s pshat in the rambam? Would the rambam hold, for instance, like the rivash that the mitzvah is to be mafkiah midei akum and can be accomplished remotely by buying land?

    The rambam does bring hakol maalin, but he doesn’t mention a reason. He also brings the din that a husband can force his wife to go to Yerushalayim, when there certainly is no chiyuv to move from one place to another in EY.

    Does the rambam perhaps hold like rav chaim cohen in Tosfos, that there’s no chiyuv in practice to go up, because we can’t do the mitzvos properly… But there would be a chiyuv theoretically?

    The rambam also conspicuously leaves out a mitzvah of kibush, but mentions dinim such as an immediate obligation of mezuzah in EY mishum yishuv haaretz, the heter to make plans to buy on shabbos, etc..

    So maybe the rambam held like the rivash?

    Re, bar kochva – “matunach” – the fact that the rambam mentions that his conquest was supported by rebbe akiva as part of bias hamoshiach, and that he himself was thought to have been moshiach, shows that he holds of the shevuos! We are definitely not bound by them in the wars of moshiach – how else is he supposed to fight them? The rambam also writes that Moshiach must, in fact, fight those wars to establish himself as a candidate,and he is only moshiach vadai if he builds the Bais hamikdash, etc.. but it’s clearly part of his job, and rebbe akiva only supported him because he thought he was moshiach – if he had been a stam crusader for jewish liberty, no one would have supported him at all.

    Regarding the Gra:

    The gra writes in shu”a (EH 75, 17) that there is a mitzvah in our time, but only in order to be mekayam EY -related mitzvos, not in itself.

    What you’re quoting fron sidur hagra, I don’t have available to me, but i do have the perush hagra on shir hashirim itself, and on the pasuk, the gaon writes that Hashem has “pain” so to speak, if we bring the geulah before its time, and quotes the shevuos in ghe gemara in kesuvos as written, simply.

    As for the kol hatur, it was not known until recently; no one had it, and gedolim such as rav Moshe shternbuch, who is an ainikil of the gaon, say it is not reliable in the form we have, or that it never existed to begin with.

    As for rav shlomo kluger, i haven’t been able to look up the sefer Damoshe quoted, but i did see him quote menachem kasher’s tekufah gedolah as some sort of source – it’s been exposed as a forgery; kasher forged signatures of gedolim who had passed away, as saying that the state is ashchalta etc..

    Ths brisker rov would refer to kasher as “the biggest traifah,” a play on his name.

    He was frummer than most zionists though, I’ll grant him that. But a forgery is a forgery, and he’s not a reliable source for such information.

    But the claim is, as i said, not very reasonable, because first,the shevuos were between us and Hashem, not between us and the goyim, and more importantly, chazal say that the bnei efraim were punished for breaking them with annihilation,and the Egyptians had definitely broken “their side” of the “deal”


    UJM what happens when the Arabs attack your zone? Something you need to take territory to defend your own.

    ☕️coffee addict


    You forget that wars fought over territory is binding if the other side retreats (look at Russia with Ukraine) now that is part of Israel and UN can’t say no, if that was the case Russia has to give back whatever they captured and good luck with getting them to do that!


    ujm”Okay. The original vote split Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem being an international zone. In that case, Israel only has permission to control the original Jewish zone and not the Jerusalem zone or the Arab zone.

    -ya but Israel won it n a DEFENSIVE war. They didnt go out and try to conquer it. If they gained control in a war they didnt start, why give it back?


    Re, rebbe zerah,and yoma 9:

    There’s not an “alternate pshat” or even a stirah – going up in the times of ezra was al pi nevuah; it was an end of a galus. Yirmiyahu said clearly that at 70 years they would return. What the gemara in yuma is saying is that if we all had listened to the navi, we would have had an eternal stay in EY and it would have been a geulah shlaima, instead of it being temporary.

    These are also two completely separate pesukim. the pasuk quoted in yoma is shir hashirim 8, 9.

    The pasuk of nishbati, with the shevuos, is 2, 7.

    Just because the two maamarim use the expression chomah doesn’t mean that they are two pshatim.

    And that’s exactly what rebbe zerah records in medrash rabba, that the beis hamikdash would not have been destroyed if we had done what we were told to do.

    But now that we’re in galus, the gemara in yoma didn’t say that we should go up like a wall now, rather, that we should have back then.


    CA/RW: So what? The point that was advanced here was that the Shalosh Shavuos was nullified because the United Nations gave permission for a Jewish State. If that’s the basis to nullify the Shalosh Shavuos, then on that basis the nullification is only applicable to the Jewish zone and not to the Jerusalem (international) zone or to the Arab zone, since no permission from the UN (or from the British) was ever granted over those territories.

    A later war isn’t a basis to nullify the Shalosh Shavuos.

    ☕️coffee addict

    Or I should say better once it’s nullified for a little bit it’s totally nullified

    ☕️coffee addict

    Where do you get that from?

    Once it’s nullified partially it’s totally nullified


    CA: The argument presented was that it is nullified because the Goyim gave permission. But the Goyim only gave permission for a small part of what the Zionists took.

    If the Goyim gave permission to make a state just in, say, Sfas, it is illogical to claim the vows are nullified and they can take 100x what the Goyim gave them.


    Avira > We are definitely not bound by them in the wars of moshiach – how else is he supposed to fight them?

    And that may be the point of the disagreement. Some claim – controversially of course, that Medina is Reishit Tzemichat Geulateinu, and you would agree that – according to their shita – fighting is appropriate. So, you feel strongly that Medina has no value, then it is possible that fighting is not OK (although the UN vote argument might still hold). Of course, this is, again, a circular argument as you brought shevuos to show that their policies are wrong…

    Now, both sides can bring arguments whether Medina is Reshit or not, we will know at due time, so, literally, Teiku.


    Re; expanding territories: indeed, if Jews are legitimately settled in EY, they are entitled to protect themselves, including creating defensive borders. If Arabs did not attack, one could have argued that there was no basis for expanding.


    Aaq, there was no moshiach fighting those wars, unless you think ben gurion was Messianic…

    Until such a person arises, we are bound by the shevuos.

    A state is not a messiah; we need a person.


    Avira, I see your point, we need a kosher leader who has a potential. Let’s put it this way – early Zioni settlers had some leaders among R Kook’s students, and even Menachem Begin later on… Can we join Ben Gurion expecting him to do teshuva? not an impossibility.

    But probably a better answer would be to observe that Jews were coming not as a wall, many driven by persecution and economic problems, and the actual war was not a conquest but a defensive war. Presume, Israel is not formed yet, and Jews live comfortably in USA. I would also be not in favor of forming a Jewish army to attack, unprovoked, a unified Arab state that consists of Egypt/Palestine/Syria to conquer EY absent major signs min hashamayim.


    Maybe we can zoom out and look at the big picture: Jews lived in subjugation for centuries under various despots. At least, we kept as a community when oppressed. In the last couple of centuries, it became even worse – Jews were still oppressed and the “easy” way out was through assimilation that many took. Communities were destroyed. As R Avigdor Miller testifies – 1938 Slobodka/Kovno there was a great yeshiva indeed, but nobody outside of the yeshiva was influenced by it, most surrounding Jews gravitated towards socialism, etc.

    So, suddenly within less than a 100 years, Jews suddenly became capable of obtaining a viable state, and not just in Uganda, which would be an achievement by itself, but in EY! Go back in time and tell this to Yidden in 19th century – or even in 1930s Germany or Russia – and they’ll run to say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut. Will you scare them by saying that half of citizens will be non-religious and read newspapers full of lashon hara?! They’ll say – is it better here where we live among Poles and Ukrainians?!

Viewing 17 posts - 101 through 117 (of 117 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.