- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Although I do not pretend to fully know these sugyas, I read the following comment from POR and felt the need to respond.
Concerning Israeli national elections, I wonder how he would have related to the psak of R’ Yisroel Yaakov Fischer, ztl, that voting in Knesset elections is an issur of yeheirag v’al ya’avor, since by voting one is making an MK a shliach to take an oath that he believes that the laws of the Knesset have supremacy over all other legal systems, and since the Supreme Court ruling that someone who takes that oath but secretly believes that the Torah has supremacy over Knesset laws has no right to sit in the Knesset anyone who takes the oath, even with such a secret tenai is agreeing to their understanding, an issur of yeheirag v’al ya’avor. Said Rav Fischer, ztl, that even those who rule that אין שליח לדבר עבירה admit that that is only b’dinei odam but b’dinei Shamayim יש שליח לדבר עבירה, and וכי דיני שמים מלתא זוטרתא הם. In cases of yeheirag v’al ya’avor it makes no difference what the consequences are, it’s always assur. Wouldn’t taking such an oath with a secret tanai be equivalent to publicly kissing an idol but secretly putting a mezuza between one’s lips and the idol and telling oneself that he’s really kissing the mezuza and not the idol, is there any heter for that? If anyone can explain what’s wrong with this thinking I’d appreciate it.
Here is my very limited response
“POR,
First of all I’m not sure where poor Rabbi Fisher fits in this. The basic view, plus, was expressed by the hailige R’ Yoel of Satmar. He raises the point of the oath that the MK’s take, plus ,many many many more points – including the fact that we may not allow non jews to enter the site of the mikdash, or transgress various avieros, and the state manifesto includes protection of “holy sites” and all sort of divergent views.
R’ Yisroel Yaakov Fisher, although Raavad of the eida HaChareidis, did not fully subscribe to all the Satmar views, you can discuss the matter further with his children and those of his siblings.
Concerning the view of the Satmar Rov and those that agreed with him, there is a response written by a massvie Talmid Chacham called R’ Yoel Cohen – one of the main members of Chabad.
It is entitled Maamar Chacham, or something similar, and it available from th various KHT stores -including the one on R’ Strauss in Yerushalayim.
Among the points he raises are
1) there are EXACTLY 13 fundamentals of faith, and 3 cardinal sins. since when is Zionism, swearing falsely, etc … included
2) Some of the rhetoric written by various people is based on a shita yehcida’a or even less – for instance you yourself use the rhetoric “that even those who rule that אין שליח לדבר עבירה admit that …. ” But there is simply no shita in any poskim or rishonim that יש שליח לדבר עבירה
Using Maharam Shick’s explanation of a Chasam Sofer it was understood that tzadikim should join the Knesses. There was an argument by Miriam and Amrom on the separation of Yocheved her mother and his wife. His logic was to exhaust the neshamas in the guf by having no more children and thereby bring Meshiach. Miriam said that would work if every one would divorce their wives but if the tzadikim will follow him and the reshaim will not, Meshiach will not come and they end up with all reshaim. Similarly it was ruled that it is important for tzadukim to join the Knesses otherwise the reshaim will do whatever they want without any say of the tzadikim. The recent election proves this point.
I don’t understand the complaint about zionism and swearing falsely not being one of the 13 ikkarim or 3 chamuros. Shabbos isn’t, either. I’m very confused and it sounds like reductive polemics, not a serious statement. I have no idea if he ever said such a thing, so I’m talking about what I’m seeing here quoted, and not directing my statement at the person
Also, if he said that the satmar rov’s opinion on zionism doesn’t relate to the ikkarim… He clearly never read vayoel Moshe. The satmar rov brings multiple sources throughout the sefer that the 3 shavuos are related to denying bias hamoshiach.
It just so happened that there isn’t any such oath and never was. Some people are just very gullible
Shimon
Nice way to kill a thread
Anyway because it always pays to verify I just googled it
Regular members of Knesset only pledge to be loyal to the state of Israel
The president, Prime Minister, and all other ministers pledge to fulfill its laws
But there is definitely nothing in there about supremacy of its lawsFirst Rashi on Bereishis came up in another thread – that we can use an argument that Hashem gave us EY when arguing with goyim. This is written around the time of two major religions fighting for the right to own EY in first crusade, so this was quote a political statement! Did he not expect goyim to respond with the reference to the oaths?!
Zushy, claiming that the satmar rov didn’t hold that zionism violated the 13 ikkarim is demonstrably false. It’s literally all over the first Chelek of the sefer. It’s his central theme. He uses it to explain why it’s not brought in shu””a or rambam beferush. That has nothing to do with seeing his statement inside or not.
I can’t speak for the Torah since I’m not a Talmid Chacham, but I do know that Rav Shach ZT”L, the Steipler ZT”L, and many many other gedolei Yisroel told people to vote in the elections. So clearly Dayan Fischer ZT”L and the Rebbe ZT”L were not the be all and end all opinions on the matter.
Yserb, so the majority held of voting and a minority held you can’t vote. Who cares? A majority held that shavers are assur and a minority allowed them – does anyone care? We follow who we follow.
Aaq, rashi is telling you peshuto shel mikra. His perush is synonymous with the teitch of the pasuk. He was not writing a politically inspired work. Keep your wisenshaft heresy to yourself
Avira, other than not liking my explanation on the background of what Rashi is saying, maybe you can comment on the substance?
As to “political”, it only means that some issues are more acute at certain time periods. If Rashi were to live during Melech Shlomo’s time, maybe this would be less of interest. Is it not interesting that Rashi lived actually during times when goyim were fighting between each other for EY, while trampling through the area where Rashi lived with tragic consequences? When you read Chazon Ish 100 years from now, would you include background on his relationship with Ben Gurion et al as context?
What was Chazon Ish’s explanation of his position on elections?
The chazon ish, and most other gedolim, held that the dangers of not voting and the resultant chilul Hashem/shmad outweigh the problem of associating with reshoim and the chilul Hashem of doing so.
@AirOfTheLand I was just saying it in context of a way to end the argument. You can discuss sugyos all tug unt nacht, but no one alive will be able to discuss them the way the pre-WWII Acharonim did. So we are arguing a moot point since the issue is settled. Either you’re an Edahnik, Brisker, or Satmar-adjacent chusid. Or you hold it’s important to vote in the Israeli elections. That’s all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.