- This topic has 21 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 2 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
Can someone please help me understand why it matters so much if an individual Jewish family was in Eretz Yisrael before 1948 or after? If you said before vs. after 1880 or so, I can understand. Hovevei Zion was founded in 1881, Leon Pinsker wrote Auto-Emancipation in 1882, etc., so anyone who moved to Eretz Yisrael before 1880 likely did it on a personal level, and likely for religious reasons. (Obviously there’s overlap, such as former President Reuven Rivlin’s family, among the Talmidei HaGra.) But from 1881-1938 (before the Holocaust created so many refugees, many of whom came between 1938-1948), tens of thousands of Jews moved to Eretz Yisrael in the name of Zionism.
Political anti-Zionists, plus a few on this forum, will make it sound like Charedim lived in Eretz Yisrael before Zionism, as opposed to Zionists (both religious and secular), who came only then. In some cases, this was true, but a large majority of Charedim came once Zionists began building it up. Much like the Egyptian and Jordanian Arabs who moved there from the 1890s through early 1940s. So why is there a distinction of pre and post ’48, not pre or post 1880?
If someone is from a Jewish family that moved to Eretz Yisrael before 1880, they can honestly argue against Zionist control without being hypocritical. No need to agree with R’ Amram Blau on everything, but his father moved to Eretz Yisrael in 1869, and his mother’s family went back several generations in Jerusalem. So I can understand his point.
But for the vast majority of Charedim today, many of whom come from families that have been there only after 1948 (or the 1920s, if you’re lucky), what significance does that have when addressing one’s obligations to the State of Israel; without which most of these people wouldn’t be there?Anyone who came pre-48 generally did so without their emigration being facilitated by the Zionists. So the Zionists argument that they owe allegiance is clearly false.
Many who came after 1948, also, did so without it being due to the Zionists. Just like those before 1948, who came despite the Zionists, not because of them.
Most of the Zionists themselves came after 1948.
The Ran in Nedarim paskens l’halacha that the halacha of dina d’malchusa dina does NOT apply in Eretz Yisroel, since the basis of the halacha is that the local country granted the right for its Jews to live in their land, therefore the Jews must obey the law of that land. Whereas, paskens the Ran, in Eretz Yisroel every Jew in the world has a G-d given right to live there, therefore they do not owe anything to the now current local rulers of Eretz Yisroel; and as such there’s no applicable dina d’malchusa dina in Eretz Yisroel.
cheifsmerel, I think you are right – everyone who came after 1880 was in some sort of cooperation with Zionists. Maybe not direct. Sochnut took over donor funds somewhere in 1920s – and redirected them to kibutzim from Tel Aviv area manufacturing (this is where Zionists indirectly contributed to loss of life in Europe – manufacturing allowed for more jobs, more jobs would invite more German and other Jews to come). But even those who came with the help of non-political money (from Montefiore to simple people like my great-grandfather who were funding through funds) – those people were sending money to settling EY even when they were not so political. And yo can argue that Montefiore trying to create jobs in old yishuv contributed to those charedim who joined there. So, maybe confusion is that there was no such demarcation between political zionists and other Yidden as we view it now.
> Anyone who came pre-48 generally did so without their emigration being facilitated by the Zionists.
it was not separate also. Growth of the community, increase in money and jobs, and security allowed more people to come even if they were not party members.
ujm is correct in his reasoning here.
.
.besides – who said that without the zionists the haredim coming after 1948 would not be able to enter EY ?
don’t forget – without zionists, the response of the local rulers would be more favorable to jewish immigration.
so it really is not accurate to say that haredim are in EY only bizhut the zionists .
.
.yankel > who said that without the zionists the haredim coming after 1948 would not be able to enter EY ?
without zionists, EY would have been under an Arab rule, I think we agreed on that. Look at all neighbors and take your chances: Jordan, PLO, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq. Which of these countries would invite any outsiders? Maybe UAE …
so, in 1948, all Jews from eastern europe would be sent back to Soviet area of occupation – poland, hungary, etc. Several millions of anti-soviet russians were sent from western occupation zone and went straight to Gulag.
then, all Sephardi Jews would have stayed under Saddam, Assad, Homeini.
@chief shmerel
even if , for arguments sake , even if you would be right re the necessity of the zionists to facilitate those haredim’s entry in to EY
where do we find in halacha that the inyan of hakarat hatov trumps clear damage to yir’at shamayim ?
for example – kibud av is based on hakarat hatov [sefer hachinuch and more]
nevertheless if the father is a rasha – that mitsva disappears …
why does it disappear – what happened to this vital inyan of hakarat hatov ???
.
.
another example – there is an inyan of hakarat hatov with the mitsrimki ger hayita be’artso
nevertheless they are only mutar lavo bekahal after three dorot
why ?? what happened to hakarat hatov ??
.
.@chiefshmerel
@AAQYou both forget the most important point here – without HKBH no haredi , and no jew for that matter , would have been able to be in EY now
so our main allegiance is to the RBSH’O , not to the Turks who happened to let some in , not to the British who happened to let some in , not to the zionists who pushed for unrestricted immigration and besides , also made a mess , but to the RBSH’O without whose help no jew would live in EY today.
and that allegiance trumps all other allegiances.
meaning that if haredi enlistment [which really is the elephant in this coffeeroom] contravenes our allegiance to the RBSH’O , by sacrificing our youth as a goodwill present to the melting pot reeducation system the army was intended to be ,
then all other allegiances are beteilin umevutolin , lo shririn velo kayomin …
even if – and thats a big if , there even exists an allegiance to the zionists , which I greatly doubt ….
.
.@AAQ
you claim that without zionists it would have been under arab rule
impossible to verify what would have happened if not for the zionists …
you would need ruach hakodesh to be able to answer such a question accurately .
if the RBSH’O would have wanted 8 million jews in EY , He could have made it happen without the ‘help’ of the zionists .
that’s pretty clear to anyone with emuna .
.
.My first in-laws emigrated to Palestine in the early 1930s.
Father in law from Vienna via HaShomer HaTzair (despite being frum). MIL from northern Germany with her younger brother via Youth Aliyah.Yes, their journeys and entry were facilitated by Zionists.
FIL, was a Zionist from a young age. His parents got Visas for the US in 1932, he refused to go with them, insisting on moving to Palestine.Your generalization about those who came pre1948 is far from accurate.
I also had cousins from Brooklyn who arrived in the Yishuv in 1933 and 1946 via the Zionist organizations.
By 1946 it was virtually impossible to get permanent housing if you did not arrive through organized Zionist channels. Those arriving illegally lived clandestinely til May 1948.As a side note I laugh at the right wing frum Jews in America complaining about illegal immigrants when so many of us were illegal immigrants in British Mandat Palestine. Talk about hypocrisy
yankel on mitzrim – exactly, you can have hakarat hatov and still have other restrictions. You can have appreciation to what Zionists did without becoming a chosid of Ben Gurion.
But your underlying premise seems to be that zionists brought damage to yirat shamayim. I question that. I think most of early non-religious zionist followers were either non-religious already or on the way of becoming such. In other words, without zionists, most of those Jews would have been communists, culturalists, converts, bundists, etc. That was the reality of the times. And while zionist propaganda sounded awful to religious ears at the time, in political reality, they guided these multitudes to be savevd both physically and spiritually.
chief > You believe that Charedim shouldn’t go to the IDF, fine. It’s understandable. Just don’t treat Religious Zionists who do enlist as Ovdei Avodah Zarah.
Unfortunately, as we see in these discussions, it is hard to maintain respect to others while advocating isolationism. If you recognize value of soldiers, then you will have to allow at least some from your community to join. In other words, to maintain strict boundaries around your community, you need to convince people that everything outside is treif. So, we have a method that works in social terms, preserving community from assimilation, but it leads to creating philosophy that does not always reflect Torah values.
yankel> impossible to verify what would have happened if not for the zionists …
you would need ruach hakodesh to be able to answer such a question accurately .True. We can have bitahon that Hashem will help us when there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. But we can’t rely on miracles when making decisions. As we discussed at length, middle east in general was a bad place to be in the last 80 years.
For a contract – compare with nationalists at the end of 2nd BM. The zealots acted against the facts, they burned food to make people go into a fight. R Yohanan b Zakkai acted rationally – he asked Vespasian for the minimum to make sure Romans accept it. In our case, it seems, at least a posteriori, that zionists had a rational position and maybe got help min hashamayim also, and anti-zs did not have a rational way forward.
XCTL, thanks for sharing this information. Glad your in-laws saw the danger in time.
To add to that, it does not mean that all donors were political Zionists, Somewhere in late 1920s, I think, Sochnut centralized donations and, thus, funds, would flow only through zionist organizations.@chiefshmerel
@aaqre hakarat hatov –
hazal say that someone who is kofer betovato of people , will end up doing the same to HKBH .
it seems that the cultivation of hakarat hatov to people is meant to be as a stepping stone to hakarat hatov to the RBSH’O
so which is more important ? hakarat hatov to people or to God ?
obviously the latter …
so even if , a very big if …
there is a place for hakarat hatov to zionists
the obligation of hakarat hatov to God will negate any other obligation of hakarat hatov
so, to sacrifice your children on the false altar of hakarat hatov to the zionists is utter folly, to say the least.
.
.
.aaq > … But your underlying premise seems to be that zionists brought damage to yirat shamayim. I question that …
—
that statement of yours is an excellent example of your ongoing naive and unrealistic grasp of events [sorry]
zionism was one of the most potent driving forces of pulling the youth [and older people too] away from yahadut before the war in Europe
as it was with the sefaradi immigrants to the newborn state
that and communism were the two evil magnets drawing people away from religion
any objective observer would agree.
.
.aaq to yankel :
…You believe that Charedim shouldn’t go to the IDF, fine. It’s understandable. Just don’t treat Religious Zionists who do enlist as Ovdei Avodah Zarah …—
you are totally missing the boat
I am on record , repeatedly so – that RZ are not ovdei avoda zara
nevertheless, the current dictatorial, illegal and immoral forced draft
under the blatantly false pretext of ‘equality’, is nothing more than an abomination.
.
.AAQ > …people will think of Charedim more as conscientious objectors than as a fifth column.
—
I in your place would be ashamed to repeat such a blood libel ….
calling haredim objecting to the draft a fifth column …..
you could have accused them of poisoning the wells for that matter ….
.
.
is that naivete ?or prejudice and blind hate ?
.
.yankel> zionism was one of the most potent driving forces of pulling the youth [and older people too] away from yahadut before the war in Europe
> as it was with the sefaradi immigrants to the newborn state
these are two separate issues:
1) in Europe, I don;t think I have all info but my assumption is that majority of anti-religious zionists were from those who were non-religious lehathilah.
some of the religious Jews were attracted more to RZ which did not mean they were becoming non-religious. If you have better facts, please bring them. It might have been something in between – people who were on the border of leaving religious community moved to Zionism, so it looked like they became non-religious due to Zionism, when in reality they were destined to some non-religious derech2) with Sephardim – I would agree that the sudden switch from a sheltered to a non-religious environment, together with the government pressure, lead them to less-religious behaviors. But the move was necessary due to physical sakanah, and they probably faired better than if they were to go to other Western countries. At the end, a lot of “non observant” Sephardim are masorti and pretty respectful of Chachamim and Torah and are not joining fights against religion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.