August 13, 2010 2:43 pm at 2:43 pm #693721
yes 99. that is quite true. that is why I am suspicious of the opening poster.August 13, 2010 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm #693722YW Moderator-80Member
you are suspicious meaning you think he might sympathize with the NK?
if so i can assure you from his deleted posts on another subject nothing could be further from the truth.August 13, 2010 3:08 pm at 3:08 pm #693723
I always like a good juicy deleted post. put them upAugust 13, 2010 3:29 pm at 3:29 pm #693724YW Moderator-80Member
how about a thread where we put up all the deleted posts from the past week in one place?
should engender a lot of interest.
ill go ask the boss.August 13, 2010 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #693725
“how about a thread where we put up all the deleted posts from the past week in one place?
should engender a lot of interest.”
I was thinking a lot of outrage… but I suppose that is, after all, a from o f interest.August 13, 2010 6:01 pm at 6:01 pm #693726mexipalParticipant
i’ve got a good title for that thread LASHON HORA. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK it would be very interestingAugust 15, 2010 3:18 pm at 3:18 pm #693727msseekerMember
“MW13, Doctors make horrific mistakes ALL the time (they usually bury them)”
So… perhaps “munchhausen (non-existant illness) Mom” was right after all? Perhaps the life and family of this lovely woman (I know her personally) were ruined, probably forever, thanks to a horrific mistake? Or are are these docs immune to criticism just b/c they’re Zionist, like Herzel and all those chazer fressers?August 15, 2010 3:47 pm at 3:47 pm #693728000646Participant
“So… perhaps “munchhausen (non-existant illness) Mom” was right after all? Perhaps the life and family of this lovely woman (I know her personally) were ruined, probably forever, thanks to a horrific mistake?”
Like evreything else look into what both sides say and what evidence they each present. (Not what each sides opponents say the other side’s evidence is) without coloring it with your personel biases (such as I know her and she is sooooo nice) and then decide. You may be suprised what you come up with.August 15, 2010 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm #693729msseekerMember
Whom are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?August 19, 2010 4:45 am at 4:45 am #693731
where is part 2August 20, 2010 6:49 pm at 6:49 pm #693732lavdavkaMember
CAN NWE GET THE FOLLOW UP OR DO YOU NOT HAVE ANSWERS YOSR
Below was posted by the OP, yosr, as a new thread. It is instead being posted here:
In “Part 2” I have included my second email to Rabbi Kraus of Neturei Karat and his response. There were 3 such back and forth. I shall post one series a day.
Letter 2: Me
I would first like to thank you for your detailed, meticulous and lengthy response. However there are some issues I would like to raise.
The Rav Wrote: “The nations in the U.N. who voted in favor of a Jewish state did not include the nations ruling over the land”
While this is technically true, Britain and the Arab Nations were members of the UN and thus agreed to the rules. It is irrelevant that they were out voted, or that they decided to abstain. Secondly the Gemara in Ketubot speaks of “The Nations”, the UN is and was the greatest representation of the world community.
The Rav Wrote: In the end, the Zionists did have to fight for their land, first against the local Arabs (Palestinians) and then against the surrounding nations. That is definitely “with a strong hand” and a rebellion against the nations.
Am Yisrael only fought because the Arab League decided to launch a full force invasion, and had at that point they not fought it would have resulted in a massacre of the 600,000 Jews living in Eretz Yisrael. The Arab League at that time proudly stated that they would commit a massacre on the scale of the Mongol massacres. So at that point, there was a Milchemet Mitzvah according to at least the Rambam. If one looks at the definitions that the Rambam gives to a Milchemet Mitzvah is, “To save Israel from the hand of the enemy”(Rambam, Mishna Torah, Hilchot Milachim, 5:1).
The Rav Wrote: Imagine that all the countries in the UN except America voted to give the Jews the state of New York for a country of their own.
The British had only received control of Eretz Yisrael in 1917 and had no real sovereignty, second the Arabs living in the Land also never had sovereignty as even you pointed out latter in your letter the Land passed hands over and over again.
The Rav wrote: Furthermore, not everyone agrees that going up “as a wall” means by military means. The Avnei Nezer is the only one who says that.
The Avnei Nezer actually seems to reject the oaths completely. Avnei Nezer comments, “Moreover, with regard to this oath, we do not know what its nature is… For an oath has force only when the person swears…Moreover, the oath that he administered to the nations, that they should not enslave Israel too much, what could its nature really be, if they didn’t know about this oath at all?” Here it appears that the Avnei Nezer does not consider the oaths to have Halachic ramifications. He also writes “Upon you (the leaders) is this great Mitzvah and there is no end to the reward of those who help in this matter, whether by attempting to obtain visas, or in the essential matter of purchasing land in Israel.” Furthermore there are others who do not hold by the Shvuos and hold it to be on a metaphorical level at most. For instance the Maharal of Praug see Sefer Netzasch Yisrael Ch. 24. In addition in light of Ramban who writes “Behold we were commanded with conquest in ever generation” (Supplement to the Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment #4), how can we take the questionably Halachic shvuot over a clear Halachic decision of the Ramban.
I feel it relevant to mention a few more modern day authorities as well, who supported the efforts of mass return.
The Ohr Sameyach, Rav Meir Simcha wrote in a letter of support for Keren Hayesod fund: “Since the fear of the oaths has been removed with the permission of the nations, the mitzvah of settling the land arises, a mitzvah equal to all other mitzvos in the Torah, and this mitzvah returns to its place”.
The Netziv, Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, wrote the following: “It is the will of Hashem that the land of Israel be settled slowly, slowly by the outcast of Israel. Hashem altered the heart of the czar, to allow us to form a committee and company to gather money to support our brethren (Zionists) working the land…it is a sign that it is G-ds will to make a settlement in His holy Land”(Shivat Tzion pg 17).
Reb Areh Leb Hackohen, Av Beit Din of Radin and son of the famed Chofetz Chaim (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagen). In Reb Areh biography of his fathers life he writes remarkably the following:
“I remember that in the years 5650-5651, when our Jewish brothers were expelled from Moscow, a great movement of Aliyah arose…At this time I received a letter from my father of blessed memory in which he pointed out to me the great surge amongst all facets of our nation to make Aliyah to Israel. He assumes that these are now the days of the footsteps of the Mashiach, thatHashem has redeemed His nation and that this is the beginning of the in gathering of the exiles which precedes the coming of Mashiach. If we had the capability, it would be proper to buy land and make Aliyah to Israel”.(Letters of the Chofetz Chaim to his son, Reb Aryeh Leb HaCohen, pg 43-44) It should be noted that the Chofetz Chaim was very much against the secular nature of the Zionists, but encouraged G-d fearing people to go up to the land en-mass.
Rabbi Shlomo Hackohen of Vilna, Av Beit Din of Vilna and author of Binyamin Shlomo. When Herzel came to Vilna, Rav Shlomo greeted him with a sefer Torah.
The Admor of Hosiatin was qouted by Rav Kook as saying, I was truly leaning towards Mizrachi, but I had to think of the Hassidim.
The Admor of Ostrovtza, he stated “What is going on here?! Hashem sent his holy children to build the holy land and here people condemn them?” (L’Ntivot Yisrael part 1 pg 197)
To recap, we have seen from the sources above 4 important points.
1 Perhaps the “3 Oaths” were never meant to be understood in a Halachic conext.
2. We were right to take a hands on approach to the Geulah and that was needed in order to activate it.
3. The Geulah will be a slow process not a quick simultaneous experience.
4 Secular and even anti-religious Jews can play a role in bringing Geulah.
Praying for the complete redemption and humbly awaiting your response.
Shabbat Shalom Mivorach,
Letter 2: Rabbi Kraus
Dear Mr. Rabin,
As an analogy, think of the Gemara in Eiruvin 43a that moshiach cannot come on Shabbos or Yom Tov because of the prohibition of techumin. That means that even if the Jewish people have done complete teshuva and the time is ripe for moshiach, and even if Hashem knows that after Shabbos they will sin again and moshiach will not be able to come, still moshiach will not come in violation of the halacha.
I once heard the story of a rabbi who claimed that if he blew shofar at the Kosel on a certain Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbos, moshiach would immediately arrive. The other rabbanim told him: Even if that were true, you would have no right to violate halacha in order to bring moshiach.
If they had been given the land on a silver platter without a fight, then perhaps the Avnei Nezer would have agreed to it. This is also the context for the statement of the Ohr Somayach you quoted. How can you expect those two gedolim, who passed away long before 1948, to have foreseen the bloody war that was to take place?
then the body distanced itself from the soul. And since the connection has been ruptured, G-d’s supervision has been removed from him and he is left as ownerless as the wild animals that have no soul. That is why G-d’s supervision does not apply to the particulars of each animal but only to the preservation of the species, as the Ramban, the Rambam and the Chinuch wrote. So too with the human being if the soul is not within him that brings him close to G-d. This is the reason why Scripture chooses the language, “by deer or by the hinds,” for it teaches about detachment from holiness that is G-d’s supervision. For it is written regarding a sacrificial animal that is redeemed after being found to have a disqualifying blemish: “However, just as the deer and the hind are eaten…” For in the first-born or tithed animal, or other sacrificial animals, through a blemish and by redemption, the holiness of the sacrifice is removed from it.
The statements by the Netziv and the Chofetz Chaim do not even say that they are referring to mass aliyah. They contain no reference to the oaths, so I would not consider them relevant to our discussion of exactly what the oaths prohibit.
Rabbi A KrausAugust 20, 2010 9:16 pm at 9:16 pm #693734oomisParticipant
Au contraire. There is no such thing as Torah True Jews for Zionism. Zionism, the political philosophy, is an anti-Torah concept”
Yes there is – they were members of Hapoel Hamizrachi, now known as Emunah.August 22, 2010 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm #693735tomim tihyeMember
Is the debate between Rashi and Tosfos not more worthy of the time and attention you give to this group?August 22, 2010 6:56 pm at 6:56 pm #693736
It is astounding to me that you are debating him on whether the founding of Israel was in violation of the three oaths.
This issue is irrelevant to the contemptible practices of the NK.August 22, 2010 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm #693737
popa: I don’t understand your objection. Why not have in intellectual debate, but even if R’ Krauss wins we can vehemently disagree with the way he expresses his opposition to the founding of the State of Israel.
In fact the vast majority of Litvishe and Chasidishe Gedolim would agree with most of what R’ Krauss has written here, that l’chatchila the Zionists were wrong for establishing a State. Our issue with him is regarding how to deal with the b’dieved. On that topic there are a wide range of legitimate views, but I think (almost) everyone in the CR would agree that NK’s action are far outside the bounds of acceptable.August 22, 2010 9:40 pm at 9:40 pm #693738
I have to add that so far on the specific point of this debate whether the founding of the State of Israel was assur because of the 3 Oaths, I still find R’ Krauss’s arguments to be stronger.August 22, 2010 10:59 pm at 10:59 pm #693739
My objection is that by limiting his debate to these issues, he is bringing them and their practices into the realm of potentially proper behavior, which it is not.
Would you debate a Nazi over which ethnicity is the best?August 23, 2010 2:30 am at 2:30 am #693740
popa_bar_abba – Whoa. The nazis burned six million jews to death; NK occasionally burns Israeli flags. I don’t think the two are quite the same.August 23, 2010 2:37 am at 2:37 am #693741KashaMember
+1 for mw13.
If there is any comparison to the Nazi’s to be made, it is to the Zionist collaboration with Adolf Eichmann ym”s v’zichrom in the liquidation of Hungarian Jewry.August 23, 2010 2:42 am at 2:42 am #693742
I didn’t mean to compare the two.
I meant to compare the idea of debating philosophy with a group which would clearly be wrong even were their philosophy to be correct.
This was the just first example to pop in my head.
Aside: NK is guilty of much worse than burning Israeli flags. They are guilty of strengthening the position of our enemies. It is probable that they have been indirectly responsible for the murder of Jews.August 23, 2010 7:00 am at 7:00 am #693743AkivaParticipant
If you were going to engage the odious NK in debate over anything, why choose the Three Oaths (where clearly, they are going to win the debate)?
Instead, might I suggest you question their stance on these three topics instead:
1. Ahavas Yisroel. Why do they strengthen the hand of those who chas v’shalom seek our destruction and the destruction of our holy sites?
2. Emuna. Their disagreements with the secular medina are in line with what we can all relate to here on YW. That said the (growing) Jewish presence in Eretz Yisroel is the calling and the will of Hashem. That is basic emuna.
3. The mitzvah of settling the land. The three oaths only relate to conquering the land, however they should not stand in the way of Yidden fulfilling the “mega-mitzvah” of settling the land (see Ramban etc).
EDIT: In fact, better yet, don’t debate them at all.August 23, 2010 7:31 pm at 7:31 pm #693744
popa_bar_abba – “Aside: NK is guilty of much worse than burning Israeli flags. They are guilty of strengthening the position of our enemies. It is probable that they have been indirectly responsible for the murder of Jews.”
Shaking the hands of men responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of jews is despicable and totally wrong. However, it is a far cry from being “indirectly responsible for the murder of Jews”.August 23, 2010 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm #693745
popa_bar_abba – “Aside: NK is guilty of much worse than burning Israeli flags. They are guilty of strengthening the position of our enemies. It is probable that they have been indirectly responsible for the murder of Jews.”
Meaning, a large part of the battle for jewish lives in israel is the PR war. Every mission conducted by the IDF is weighed in PR terms. Every security action by the border police likewise. Bad PR does indeed result in jewish military and civilian casualties.
The NK, by presenting skewed facts and arguments to the media regarding the practices of our brothers in the military and government of israel, weaken our standing in the world. The media even gets to paint them as jews who claim that we are murderers and illegitimate occupiers.August 30, 2010 4:36 am at 4:36 am #693746lavdavkaMember
i eagerly await part threeAugust 30, 2010 4:37 pm at 4:37 pm #693747Pashuteh YidMember
It would be nice if somebody would bother answering my question from part 1 which is to show the s’if and siman of shulchan oruch or Rambam where the 3 oaths are brought down lhalacha. Easier to ignore the main question, score yourself a victory, and to go on to parts 2 and 3, then to bother proving your entire contention to begin with. Easy also to evade the question and say to look up this book or that by the proponents of NK philosophy. Obviously I don’t have those books, but I do have the primary sources from which all Jewish law is based. So show me a source from a recognized halachic work.
Again, all I ask for is a siman and s’if in Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Oruch, Chayei Odom, Mishna Berurah, or Kitzur Shulchan Oruch. Is that too much to ask?August 30, 2010 4:59 pm at 4:59 pm #693748yosrMember
The Final Post: This is the final letter between myself and Rabbi A Krauss of Neturei Karta. I apologize for the lateness of this post. I had originally posted it in a new thread and it was erased, I did not realize I needed to post it here.
Letter 3: Me
The Rav is correct that the main issue is the the “oaths”. Therefore I would like to bring down major poskim who hold the Mitzvah of Yishuv/Kibbush Haaretz to be from generation to generation. In addition I will also through the words of our sages continue to show that our current unfolding redemption can and should be compared to the return under Ezra and Nechemya.
First the Ramban is very clear in his language. “We are commanded to posses the land that the almighty God gave to our forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not to leave it in the hands of other nations or in desolation, as it says, ‘posses the land and live in it…Do not be confused and say that this mitzvah is the mitzvah to make war against the seven nations…this is not the case. We are commanded to kill those nations if they fight us, if they want to make peace with us we may do so and leave them in certain well known circumstances; but we may never leave the land in their hands nor in the hand of other nations in any generation. It is very clear that the Ramban held that the mitzvah of national Jewish existence in Israel (Kibbush Haaretz) applied at all times in all generations. It is very clear that the Ramban did not hold of the shvuot.
Now that we have established that the Ramban and for near certain the Rambam held of Yishuv and Kibbush, we must contend with the possibility that we do not hold like them. What if the shvuot are and were in effect when the Zionists initiated the ingathering of exiles, the wars and the State. How would these shvuot be annulled? Do we need Mashiach himself to come and annul them?
I would to argue that yes, Mashiach himself is not needed to annul these oaths (if in fact they were in effect). I would like to bring numerous sources, the words of our great sages that cannot be denied, that testify to this. It cannot be denied that the position of the rabbanim who support Medinat Yisrael, has strong basis.
Tosfot Yom Tov, Ma’aser Sheini 5:2 who cites the Yerushalmi:
“Our sages decreed not to bring the fruits (kerem rivai) so as not to adorn the marketplace of Yerushalayim, which is in the hands of our enemies. This is true even if the Beit Hamikdash will be rebuilt… for the Beit Hamikdash will be rebuilt before the establishment of the re-establishment of the Malchit Beit david, as the Yerushalmi affirms… Thus our enemies will have some control over us before the re-establishment of the Malchut Beit David, just like the beginning of the second Mikdash.”
[From this I see that my idea that I wrote to you in my original letter was correct, comparing the return of Ezra and Nechemya to the return lead by the Zionist, our great sages even state this. Notice he mentions “some control” not total control, this is very much the situation today, Baruch Hashem.
The Shelah in Shnei Luchot HaBrit, Beit David, vol 1 p. 18a and the Ramban, Shir Hashirim 8:13
“The beginning of the future redemption will occur with the permission of the kings (United Nations). Some of the exiles will gather in Eretz Yisrael (Led by the Zionists), and afterwards, Hashem will extend His hand again (to gather the rest). The verse, therefore says, “Then the Lord your G-d will bring back your captivity”(devarim 30:3) and afterwards, “He will return and gather you from the nations”(ibid).
The Radak, Tehilim 146:3
“Salvation is solely in the hands of Hashem, and He brings it about through mortals, as He did through Cyrus during the Babylonian exile. In the future as well, Hashem will bring Israel’s redemption through gentile kings, by inspiring them (UN partition) to set the Jews free.”
Rabbeinu Bachya, Vayikra 11:4-7
“Why is this nation (edom) called “Chazir”? For, it will eventually “lhachzir” the crown to its former glory. This means as follow. The two Temples were built by Jews… The third Temple, however will be built by Edom.. since they destroyed.. In the future, they and all the other powers (UN, EU…) will come to assist and support Israel, for peace will abound”.
Also in the Pesikta, Piska Kumi Ori:
“Our Rabbis taught: When the Messianic King appears, he will stand upon the roof of the Beit Hamikdash and proclaim to Israel, Humble ones, the time for redemption has arrived.”
The Abarbanel in Mashmia Yeshua p 25 and on Tehillim 147:2
“It is possible that the redemption will occur when the Kings decide that the Holy Land should return to the People of Israel. He who desires to go up to Eretz Yisrael will do so, like the Jews did after the Babylonian exile. Afterwards when the holy city of Yerushalayim is rebuilt, all the Jews will ascend together”
Maharivach, intro to Ein yaakov:
“Hashem will inspire Kings to recognize truth”
All these sources indicate that we will return to the Eretz Yisrael on a national level before Mashiach, it is this natural process that itself annuls the “oaths” (even if they are halachik in nature). It cannot be as you stated, like the story about the Rav who wanted to blow the Shofar at the Kotel. Even if the oaths had halachic ramifications, there were rules tied with it, all mikoros that I have brought down so far delineate those rules, meaning how the final geulah will come about. So at this point I will continue to maintain that the ingathering, wars and Medinat Yisrael in general are all proper as stated through the words of our sages.
Letter 3: Rabbi Kraus
Dear Mr. Rabin,
You make the error of thinking that the Ramban means that the mitzvah during exile is the same obligation as during the time of the Beis Hamikdash: to conquer the land and drive out its inhabitants. But this is incorrect – this would be forbidden by the oaths. Rather, he means that if an individual Jew lives in the land, he fulfills a mitzvah. This is apparent from the Ramban’s choice of words: “If so, it is a positive commandment for all generations, in which every one of us is obligated, even during the exile.”
This is explained by the Rashbash (Responsa, #2): “There is no doubt that living in Eretz Yisroel is a great mitzvah at all times, both during and after the time of the Temple, and my grandfather the Ramban counted it as one of the mitzvos, as it says, ‘You shall take possession of it and live in it,’ and so is the opinion of my father the Rashbatz in his work Zohar Harakia. And even according to the Rambam who did not count it as a mitzvah, it is at least a Rabbinic mitzvah, besides the many other benefits of living there. However, during exile this is not a general mitzvah for all Jews, but on the contrary it is forbidden, as the Gemora says in the last chapter of Kesubos, that this is one of the oaths that the Holy One, blessed is He, made the Jews swear: that they not hurry the end and not go up as a wall. Go and see what happened to the children of Ephraim when they hurried the end! However, it is a mitzvah for any individual to go up and live there, but if there are considerations that prevent him he is not obligated.”
The Radak on Tehillim is also based on this verse in Yishaya 66. The Radak himself on Yishaya explains that the nations bringing up the Jews will take place after the war of Gog and Magog, which is after moshiach comes.
Thank you for bringing up these points and we appreciate your willingness to discuss the topic. If you have any further points to make you can write to [email protected].
Rabbi A KrausAugust 30, 2010 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #693750
Now we all vote who won.
I vote Kraus wins.August 30, 2010 9:39 pm at 9:39 pm #693751squeakParticipant
popa- I think you made your point with your first post, and I agreed with you then.August 30, 2010 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #693752
I really just don’t understand how few of the people commenting on this conversation just don’t get what is wrong with this. I am probably one of the most Zionistic people I know but it just doesn’t matter and any Jew who thinks that Judaism and Zionism are not related incorrect – “Ki Mi Tzion Teitzei Torah”. You may not agree with the state but who cares. The matter of a Jewish state is a halachic issue(for the most part). Some will think we should establish it now(such as myself, although I do understand the other view) and others might think we need to wait. Eilu Veailu DIvrei Elokim Chaim. The point is Neturai Karta are Reshaim. THere is no reoson that we can’t disagree on a halachik issue but there are 613 mitzvot not 1. I agree with Satmar 612 of the Mittzvot I disagree with them on on e mitzva. okay, that’s fine – I can even have an intellectual debate about it. You cannot meet with Sonei Yisrael, or more specifically a man who is litteraly threatening every single one of our lives whenever visit Israel – namely the president of Iran, who has proxies such as Hizbulla and Hamas attacking Israel regularly. You cannot wish someone death because they think a “kdei achilas pras” is three minutes and you think it is four. you do what you think is right and he does what he thinks is right. Neturai Karta are Rodfim They are Reshaim. They want Much of klall yisrael to die. If we learned anything from WW2 its that you can not talk to evil. You cannot talk to hitler Y”SHM, you cannot talk to achmadinajad,Y”SHM or anyone who associates themselves with them. I urge you to look at their website and look what they say about the gedolei yisrael – its sickening! THEY ARE RESHAIM AND SHOULD BE KEPT IN CHEIRUM!!!August 30, 2010 10:35 pm at 10:35 pm #693753Ben TorahParticipant
OdAmiChay: I completely disagree with your analysis that there is inheritantly something wrong with talking with our mortal enemies who seek to kill us. Throughout the generations our leaders have done so. One prominent example is Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai who spoke to Roman General Vespasian while he set siege to the city of Yerushalayim. It resulted in him saving the city and talmidei chachomim of Yavneh.August 30, 2010 11:11 pm at 11:11 pm #693754
Well you are entitled to your opinion that is not the point. We must at least recognize that their behavior is completely unacceptable and even if you think you can get them to change from their ways you must first understand that they must know what they are doing is wrong. Additionally you cannot have a discussion with them about Israel until they understand hat meeting with terrorists is not okay.August 30, 2010 11:14 pm at 11:14 pm #693755Ben TorahParticipant
My point was that if meeting with Arafat might result in Arafat stopping to kill Jews, than as distasteful as it may be it is worth the shot to meet Arafat to talk him out of killing. I’m not saying that is the case, just that if it is, it is well worth it.August 31, 2010 12:43 am at 12:43 am #693756
That is correct. If talking to Arafat were to stop killing Jews then it would have been smart to talk to him. My point is however that you can’t talk to such people. Not because of morals just because they won’t list. History has tought us this time and time again. Hitler, Stalin, Arafat, they don’t listen. Look at any time in history it just doesn’t work. But anyhow that is irrelevent to this disscussion because “Neturei Karta” as they ironicly call themselves are not going to make peace between Am Yisrael and Achmadinajad(it sounds like a joke putting peace next to his name), they are going to join him in his fight against the “Zionists”. If you don’t believe me look at their website.August 31, 2010 10:13 am at 10:13 am #693757GreatArcticBearMember
I am just roaring in here for one last time under this login (which I would request also be closed once this post goes up) to note that jewsagainstzionism.com is NOT Neturei Karta. Therefore, any comments about the actions of “NK” on this thread are moot. Satmar roundly condemned the Teheran visit and NK and their events are in de facto cherem in official Satmar.
As I suspected from the beginning, and as confirmed by his E-mail address, Rabbi Kraus is a member of Natrina (SP) which is a Satmar based organization and totally opposed to the actions of those who call themselves Neturei Karta (especially the self named NK of Monsey who run another site altogether).
So, there was no debate with “Rabbi A. Kraus of Neturei “Karata” (sic).” There was a debate with a very learned Satmarer Chossid named Rabbi A. Kraus, who was putting forth the famed “Satmarer shitta” on Zionism and the state.
For the record, besides my lack of desire to participate in any more online debates, my own opposition to the present medine in EY is not based on the Three Oaths (although I have much common ground with those who hold by the Three Oaths) but rather on the actions of its misleaders, so that except to point out that this is NOT a debate against Neturei Karta, I have no real interest in this matter.August 31, 2010 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm #693758Pashuteh YidMember
Think about this. In every halachic issue, there are many details about the best way to do it, and then ways which although are not the best, are still acceptable. For example, Tzitzis should ideally have 8 strings which are a certain length (kdei aniva), and 5 sets of double knots, with certain number of coils in between.
However, if a string breaks, it is still kosher, because the opposite one is still long enough. However, if two break, then there is a problem that they may have come from the same strand. If some of the knots come out, there is a possibility it may still be kosher, etc. One need not argue with his friend about what to do in even a complex situation, because the laws are laid out clearly in ther Mishna Berura.
In this case of the 3 shevuos, we have people debating back and forth on how much authority the UN has, and how many people need to make aliya at the same time to violate, and what is halachically considered a conquest. The mere fact that there is no shulchan aruch to turn to on these laws means that they can’t be in effect at all. How can an area of halacha which is no less complex than tzitzis have no details spelled out anywhere in shulchan aruch to tell us what to do lchatchila, and what would still be acceptable if we can’t do it the ideal way.
Do you mean to tell us that this particular area of halacha is open to everybody on the street to voice his personal opinion? Ella mai, it is not a halacha at all, but a hashkafic matter that tells us to treat our host countries with menschlachkeit. The founders of the State went through diplomatic channels and did everything possible to get permission from all the relevant parties. There was no mass rebellion of Jews. All the wars were defensive and pikuach nefesh situations.
But that is really irrelevant, since the State exists now, and is flourishing bsiyata deshmaya in both ruchnius and gashmius. I have written many times before on YW in great detail all the brachos we have seen from the Medina. So the only choice is now whether to embrace the Medina with ahava and try to be mekarev the leaders to become more Torah observant, or to teach our children to hate the State and all it symbols like the flag, and the anthem and to have the children learn that they live with an illegitimate govt which should be ignored and trampled on as much as possible. Even though they maintain the essential services which are needed anywhere like electricity, water, police, fire stations, military, economic policy to encourage growth, etc. In addition, the govt is elected democratically, so everybody can change any detail they don’t like.
How are kids supposed to be baalei midos when they are taught hatred and no hakaras hatov? Tell me, you complain about the lack of proper behavior of the founding fathers of the Medina. Well other countries have it a lot worse. How about our good friend England with the nice King Henry the 8th whose hobby was chopping off the heads of his ex-wives. In those days did the Jews living there not say the tefila for the govt of England? Did that make the govt of England illegitimate? Many rulers came to power by gobbbling up whatever countries they could get their hands on. We have said the tefila for the greatest despots in history because we were always good citizens in accordance with the 3 oaths.
So why not use your own logic to behave with menshlachkeit towards the present Israeli govt which despite their supposedly numerous sins, is probably no worse than any other regime in history. Even the USA probably did not treat the native American Indians in a fair manner when it was founded, and may have taken their land in some cases. Yet the USA has done much good, and has now tried to compensate them for any past injustices.
The idea of teaching hatred goes against all the Jewish values which are darchei noam and ahavas habriyos and hakaras hatov. The wild behavior seen among many frum youth is a direct result of this miseducation. It is completely abnormal and sad to grow up without feeling pride in one’s country, one’s town, one’s school spirit, etc. Especially if the government is that of our brethren.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.