- This topic has 232 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 1 hour ago by .
-
Posts
-
ujm said: Not everyone subscribes to that Chabad belief.
It is most definitely not exclusively a “Chabad belief”. At any rate, they hold that way, and they don’t care what anyone else holds. You don’t have to do it.
ujm said: I dare say that is a minority opinion.
Even אם תמצי לומר that it is so, something by no means certain, so they are being מזכה Yidden to do Mitzvos according to a ‘minority opinion’, as opposed to not doing them at all.
ujm said: And people often want to be polite or friendly. So if someone smilingly offers you something you might accept it to humor him or engage with him in a friendly way, but no more.
Why is that worse than a three year old doing a Mitzvah to get a lollypop? Jewishly speaking, these are mostly ‘big three year olds’ as opposed to real ‘kofrim’. As it happens, there are unfortunately some (Jewish) people who refuse to put on Tefillin even when approached. So there definitely is such an option. If someone really doesn’t believe (or so claims), why should he feel obliged to humor a perfect stranger, who he might even view with hostility? Therefore, if someone does choose to put on Tefillin, it shows he DOES believe on some level. That might even count as a הרהור תשובה to make him a Kosher Jew for those five minutes even לשיטתך, by the way. (Which is one of the סניפים used by Poskim who permit and even encourage such activity.) It’s the Satan’s job to be מקטרג and always look for flaws and ulterior motives in people’s Mitzvos, you don’t need to help him…
Let me ask you a question. If you were a Hatzalah volunteer, and a non-Frum Jew was having a heart attack ר״ל, would you really and truly be מורידין ולא מעלין, or would you (at LEAST) say ספק פיקוח נפש להחמיר when you have BOTH a פלוגתא דרבוותא and a ספק במציאות?
AAQ said: You don’t have to focus just on that one event. It is not as if Chabad just doing that. It is part of their trying to find and touch non-observant Jews.
Correct, but the discussion (which is in fact a discussion in contemporary Poskim) started with Tefillin because theoretically there is a ‘down side’ of ‘defiling’ the Kedusha of the Tefillin. Getting people to do Lulav and Esrog or hear Megillah etc. is a complete no-brainer that it is muttar. As soon as we have determined that the person putting on Tefillin is in fact a בר חיובא and has at least minimal intention to do a Mitzvah, it isn’t considered ‘defiling’ the Tefillin. That is the same Heter we have to put on Tefillin… The Lubavitcher Rebbe pointed out that someone putting on Tefillin for the first time in his life, for just a few minutes, is actually much LESS likely to ‘space out’ and be מסיח דעת than we are…
YYA> discussion (which is in fact a discussion in contemporary Poskim) started with Tefillin because theoretically there is a ‘down side’ of ‘defiling’ the Kedusha of the Tefillin)
I get it. Still, focusing on such a psak focuses on the big picture of what Chabad shluchim achieve. I am not suggesting mitzva b’yadei avera, but just fair appreciation. Especially when criticism comes from people who did not bother to do anything themselves…
I came up of an interesting definition of Chabad in R Soloveitchik 1976 hesped for R Rivkin, a Chabad Rosh Yeshiva at Torah Vadaas:
Therefore, having spent my young years in Choslovich and being familiar with chassidus, and particularly Chabad, if you were to ask me what Chabad wanted to teach Jews, I will give you the answer. Chassidus, in general, and the mission of the Baal Shem Tov, and particularly Chabad, was how to recite a berachah! As the Gemara states in Perek HaMeiniach (Bava Kamma, 30a): “One who wants to become a chassid, should fulfill matters of berachos,” meaning, “Do you know who is a chassid? One who knows how to recite a berachah.”YYA> As soon as we have determined that the person putting on Tefillin is in fact a בר חיובא and has at least minimal intention to do a Mitzvah
Is the concern that the person does not care what he is doing or whether he is Jewish?
In terms of not caring, this might happen but how do we verify. Modern people are very fickle. I’ve accompanied a Chabadnik to blow a shofar to a pizza guy who continued making pizza while the shofar was sounding. I think he was paying attention, but it was really hard to say. This was not his first year, so there was no explaining happening. In the hospital, patients were aware and grateful, except I did not see those in worst condition, as he went there by himself.
As to non-Jewish: I understand that generally if someone presents himself in a shul as a Jew, we do not question his Jewishness. In theory, he might be a reform convert or even a curious Buddhist.. Can we stretch this to someone coming up to a tefilin stand that the person understands that this is a Jewish thing.
AAQ said – Still, focusing on such a psak focuses on (misses?) the big picture of what Chabad shluchim achieve. I am not suggesting mitzva b’yadei avera, but just fair appreciation. Especially when criticism comes from people who did not bother to do anything themselves…
I think we agree, I was just pointing out the technical reason why this PARTICULAR mitzvah campaign generated the most controversy.
ujm – Let’s say it’s a מחלוקת הפוסקים, especially since it IS… So what? So he did a מצוה not לכל הדיעות. You hold that’s no good, fine, don’t do it yourself. Or, come up with a better way to reach Yidden. Someone has to start somewhere. Sitting and criticizing won’t bring back Hashem’s children.
ujm said – Comparing it to someone who refuses to put on Tefillin even when approached, doesn’t make it a Mitzvah for someone who doesn’t refuse. Nor does it necessarily demonstrate that he believes on some level.
I don’t understand your reasoning. I didn’t compare the two. The fact that many refuse to put on Tefillin proves that they don’t feel a need to ‘humor’ a stranger (who they may also see as strange). That would tend to indicate (even though it isn’t perfect proof it is a רגליים לדבר) that those who DO put on Tefillin are not simply ‘humoring’ the Chabadnik. Especially if he then proceeds to say קבלת עול מלכות שמים, which especially if he knows לשון הקודש is literally accepting Emunah in Hashem.
ujm further said – Given you acknowledge the view I’m sharing is a valid shitta by various Poskim, is your hypothetical rhetorical questions being made to them?
If you mean the Hatzolah question, then yes. Absolutely. My question is not hypothetical or rhetorical at all. Here in Eretz Yisroel it is מעשים בכל יום on the literal and practical level, both during the week and on Shabbos. I challenge you to find me ANY living Posek ANYWHERE, including Satmar, Hisachdus, Eidah, Neturei Karta, whatever, who will give you a היתר to stand there and watch a (regular contemporary non-Frum) Yid die רחמנא ליצלן because he is a “Kofer”. In a real למעשה scenario. Even if you would have to be מחלל שבת. Please try to prove me wrong if you can.
AAQ asked – Is the concern that the person does not care what he is doing or whether he is Jewish?
Well, the shliach would typically ask “Are you Jewish?”. If it’s a kid, he might ask if he’s 13. (I guess if the character in question isn’t “binary” the shliach might have to ask ‘them’ for ‘their’ ‘pronouns’…) You are right that unfortunately some people think they are Jewish but they really aren’t. Sometimes people like that say they are “half Jewish”, to which the shliach would ask “which half?”.
Once we have determined within reason that the guy approaching the shliach is in fact a guy, not a Goy, and has reached the age of ג״י, then we are left with the issue of מצוות צריכות כוונה, and what degree of כוונה that means. When it comes to a מצוה דאורייתא that doesn’t involve doing something a person would do anyway (possibly as opposed to something done completely as a מתעסק such as eating matzah or even Korban Pesach just because he’s hungry), then בפשטות simply doing the act is ‘caring’ enough, unless one has deliberate negative כוונה NOT to do the מצוה, which in this context makes no sense because if that were so he would probably just walk away.
there is another issue with the tefillin raised by satmar rav : guf naki
.
.ujm – NAME one such Posek.
Yankel Berel – I’m aware of that שיטה. That being said, if we take the most basic definition of גוף נקי, then applying it to healthy people for two minutes isn’t too hard. Especially if the other side of the equation is leaving the person as a קרקפתא דלא מנח תפילין according to all שיטות.
UJM believes לא תעמוד על דם רעיך is meaningless. Thus, UJM is Reform at best and just another Kofer.
ujm said – All can be the same non-believing kofer.
“Kofer” means “denier”. You have to know something in order to deny it. Most of the Maskilim and Zionists in the 5600s (1840-1939) fitted that definition. Most of the non-Frum today are nowhere close.
YYA> I think we agree, I was just pointing out the technical reason why this PARTICULAR mitzvah campaign generated the most controversy.
Right, I am just saying that those who point out the controversy are hasidei shotim who refuse to touch a drowning lady. Just find a way to come and help. It is an emergency, if you can’t go into the fire, take a bucket and help bring more water.
(I am not against discussing problems, just keep them in proportion to importance).YYA> Most of the Maskilim and Zionists in the 5600s (1840-1939) fitted that definition.
this is an interesting dating … like an era changed … we had imagination (avoda zara AND naviut) leaving with BM1 destruction … maybe controversies of 5600s changed with the churban the same way? We now don’t have the passion of anti-religious groups (communists and such) but also the passion of Chofetz Chaim …
@yaakov-yosef-a
toy wrote regarding kefira: “You have to know something in order to deny it”I’m surprised to see this level of dishonesty and am-harutzus from you. Please post a makor for such an idea, as I don’t believe it exists. Regardless (and this is the amharutzus), even if (according to your nonsense) it’s not in the geder of kefira, such a person would simply be an apikorus, or min, or just a plain old mimar.
All of these words have their own specific definitions, and collectivley they firmly reject any person who does not maintain a baseline yiddishkeit. There is simply zero place in klal yisroel for anyone who is not on board, including the greatest of talmidei chachomim and influential gedolim who can become a “zuken mamre” if they ever chalila cross that line.
Additionally, all these dinim are specifically ways that WE must judge OTHERS, and they are guidelines based specifically on what WE can see, not what goes on in their hearts. So, even if you would claim the above theory about an ignoramus and kefira, it wouldn’t change how WE must relate to such a rushe (it would only be relevant in beis din shel maaleh).
AAQ – My choice of chronology is based on the simple reality that back then many Maskilim had learned in Volozhin or other high level Yeshivos. They at least were raised Frum. Up to and including most of the founders of the State. Nowadays most secular Jews truly know almost nothing.
somejew – Do you hold that the Chazon Ish knew how to learn?
@yaakov-yosef-a
yes. I have my take on his tshivas at the beginning of YD. No matter HOW you learn the sugya, it is difficult. You are forced to say either he was 1) wrong, 2) typo, 3) misunderstood, or 4) needing context.I take option 3, but I am loathe to delve into it in a public forum. I wish there was a private channel to speak with you, and I would be happy to delve into it.
Regardless, the later great poskim have themselves struggled with this sugya in light of the chazon ish and dealt with it in similar fashion with conclusions that guide my previous statements.
UJM:
Biur Halacha you cited says both that one does save a life on Shabbos even if the person being saved doesn’t/won’t keep Shabbos. Way too much to copy (not OCRed), but linked on Hebrew Books at page 340 of the PDF in משנה ברורה חלק ג’.
The Minchas Elazar you mentioned is about the wine of a Mechalel Shabbos, not saving lives. Pages 184-185 of the Hebrew Books PDF for מנחת אלעזר חלק א.
Are these AI sources you didn’t read (because you care for narrative and not truth)? Or can I just use Occam’s Razor to say that you’re a compulsive liar? Will go with the latter, though the former also applies to some extent.
If a chiloni said the exact same things with the same phony sources, you’d call him an antisemite. You wouldn’t be incorrect, just hypocritical. You’re not even an Am Haaretz because they come with ignorance, not agendas.
Not even a מצוה הבאה בעבירה, just an עבירה.
To defame the Chafetz Chaim and Minchas Elazar like this is heresy. שם רשעים ירקב!SomeJew – Cut the nonsense. The Sefer Chazon Ish was very carefully edited first by himself, and then checked for typos by a handpicked group of close Talmidim who had a living Mesorah of what their Rebbe said and meant. And they knew the context and nuances and yada yada. Especially when it came to such hot-button issues like this one. No way to weasel out of it. How did the Talmidim of the Chazon Ish understand their Rebbe’s שיטה? Don’t forget, you accused me of “am-aratzus”, not simply following a different שיטה than you do. After you knew already that there is indeed such a שיטה, which may well be MORE מוסכם להלכה. Especially when it comes to writing people out of Klal Yisroel altogether ר״ל. So you are poshut a liar, plain and simple.
@yaakov-yosef-a
why the aggression? I am being sincere.
You seem to take issue with my option #2, that it’s not a typo. I apologize if the sefer Chazon Ish was published as you described, it’s not a history I am familiar with. I was not trying to be dishonest as if I really knew it was carefully edited by the chazon ish himself.I called the implication of your comment amharutzus, something that not only have I never came across a kosher shita that would support such an idea, but is so beyond the pale that you must not have thought through the implications.
The “amharutzus” I identified was “even if ignorance is not in the geder of kefira, such a person (who doesn’t believe ikarei eminah or keep mitzvos/shabbos) would simply be an apikorus, or min, or just a plain old mimar.”
I don’t believe that there is any respected student of the chazon ish that claims in his rebbi’s name that such a person is still part of “amecha”, and this is all in light of and perhaps despite the difficult questions that have been posed (and answered) on the tshivos of the Chazon Ish.
I hope I am not straw-manning your stance, and if I am please correct. Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. Please point me to the sources that are your “MORE מוסכם להלכה”, and I will continue answering with sincerity, iy”H.
some> I don’t believe that there is any respected student of the chazon ish that claims in his rebbi’s name that such a person is still part of “amecha
can you quote his students who say otherwise?
@always_ask_questions
can’t prove a negative. why would any posek explain that they don’t go against the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, Baal HaTanya, and Mishne Berira (with zero poskim on the other side except for @yaakov-yosef-a trying to read a Chazon Ish)?the cat is out of the bag
somejew has stated that his opinion re tinok shenishbah is right and chazon ish is wrong
and most importantly that he understands halacha better than the chazon ish
and therefore somejew is handing out ‘zuken mamreh’ cards
for disagreeing with somejews understanding
it seems that chazon ish is also a candidate for one of somejew’s “zuken mamre cards” ???
no wonder that somejew ‘s klal yisrael consists of very few members ….
.
.I don’t disagree with the Chazon Ish. I did claim some people (not major mainstream poskim, asfaik) misunderstand his tshivas at the beginning of YD. I certainly never called him, chalila, a zuken mamre.
you wrote that chazon ish is wrong or mistaken
you also wrote that r chaim shmulevits could be a zuken mamre for going against [your understanding of] the torah
when he says that fallen soldiers are equivalent to harugei lud
which according to your understanding is against the torah .
.so chazon ish , for disagreeing with somejew and being mistaken ….
should , using somejew’s reasoning , earn a zuken mamre card from somejew ….
.
.Articles about Gedolim and the
Modern State of Israel in the YWN Coffee Room:http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rabbi-shraga-feivel-mendlowitz-vs-satmar-rebbe
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rabbi-moshe-sherer-and-the-modern-state-of-israel
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rabbi-chaim-kanievsky-and-the-modern-state-of-israel
i never wrote any of those things. i’m not sure what you look to gain by be motzei shem ru on me and making up lies about what I wrote. I’m not that important for you to do such avairos over.
@ somejew
you wrote that chazon ish is wrong or mistaken
you also wrote that r chaim shmulevits could be a zuken mamre for going against [your understanding of] the torah
when he says that fallen IDF soldiers are equivalent to harugei lud
which is against your understanding of the torah .
these are facts and not at all motsi shem ra
.
.
.somejew claims that somejew is ‘sincere’ …
hitler and the nazi’s —- somejews favorite nickname —-
were ‘sincere’ too ….
they ‘sincerely’ worked for the destruction of the jews
my dear somejew — ‘sincerity’ is not enough ……
we need some HUMILITY too
humility in realizing that other jewish sages have more and better understanding of the torah
humility in accepting their understanding and gaining the flexibility of changing your own thinking as a result
humility …. humility …. humility …..
.
.yes r somejew
klal yisrael with its rabbanim and tsadiqim are not zuken mamre’s
and if you find yourself at odds with them
that is a sign that you are one who is in danger of turning into a zuken mamre …
not them ….
.
..
@yankel-berel
Regarding the chazon ish, I gave 4 option and NONE of them were “zuken mamre”. To quote myself above: You are forced to say either he was 1) wrong, 2) typo, 3) misunderstood, or 4) needing context.so too your other critiques where you dishonestly lie about what I wrote. \
@yankel-berel, you are fool who doesn’t even attempt to argue in good faith, rather you try to scream loudest and flood the boards with repetitive spam.you are fool who doesn’t even attempt to argue in good faith, rather you try to scream loudest and flood the boards with repetitive spam.
besides that
somejew says that chazon ish is ….. wrong
.
.he seems to claim he is authorized to say that chazon ish is wrong ….
maybe because he is sincere ….
or maybe because he is humble ….
hmmmm
that does not sound very right …
maybe indeed he is the fool here … for saying that chazon ish is wrong ….
.I will repeat my previous post , then ,
maybe somejew who claims chazon ish is wrong …. qualifies as a zuken mamre
after all …. he clearly insinuated that rav chaim shmuelevits is a zuken mamre
because rav chaim shmulevits had the chutspa to opine against somejew’s understanding of the torah
according to some sort of logic , somehow , that renders rav chaim into a zuken mamre
mamre against somejew’s torah ….
maybe somejew is a mamre against rav chaims torah ?
interesting … somejew ‘s humility has not led him down that path of thinking …
wonder why ….
chazon ish was not a typo
it was proofread
—not misunderstood
he says what he thinks and he means what he says
just like all his other writings
—needing context ….
what is that meant to mean ??
——————————————-in other words somejew claims chazon ish is …. wrong
this is the character of somejew … to keep in our mind … when we read all his other shenanigans
.
.
.not needing context
chiefshmerel: It’s remarkably ironic for you to chastise frum yidden and bnei Torah and call them names when your comment history is sprinkled with many outright kefira with your openly admitting you “question” certain portions of the Torah and highly doubt its veracity and divine authorship.
TheWizard: I don’t know what you take issue with since I just flipped through my post history and didn’t find myself questioning certain portions of the Torah. Or do you mean specific interpretations that are misattributed by control freaks and liars like UJM? Biur Halacha and Minchas Elazar are being defamed with UJM’s drivel and lies. It would be at least an אלו ואלו situation if they did say it, but they didn’t; UJM just lies about it.
TheWizard, you intended to mock me with your comment, so be it. As one who has put in tremendous effort to internalize Pirkei Avos 4:1, I’m still willing to hear you out. So please tell me what I’ve wrote that you take issue with and implies disbelief in the Torah’s “veracity and Divine authorship”. Tell me what’s problematic, IMPORTANTLY with marei mekomos that actually exist and say as such. Note that it is a Mitzvah for yourself and myself to fact-check; I will say if you’re lying when you pull teshuvos irrelevant to the subject matter (or going against it) out of thin air and/or boich sevaras (which are at least more honest if not attributed to great people).
To Judaize a non-Jewish expression once again, the Chofetz Chaim repeatedly emphasized not to believe everything you read on the Internet. The greatest thing this Coffee Room has done for me was that it got me to learn portions of Minchas Elazar & Chazon Ish inside!.
to summarize somejew’s posts :
chazon ish could be wrong – by virtue of somejew’s say-so ….
rav chaim shmulevits could be a zuken mamre – by virtue of somejew’s say-so …
honorable people disagreeing with somejew’s understanding are being forcibly consecrated as catholic priests
while they have no connection whatsoever with that religion ….
————————
somejew sounds like a lunatic
somejew posts like a lunatic
is somejew a lunatic ?
is he ?
.
.
.
.
.somejew —
chazon ish and rav chaim shmulevits …
who is next on the menu ?
.
.
.This seems like an established pattern
A] somejew posts something extreme and objectionable
B] other posters reply and disagree
C] somejew replies and calls them priests , fools , idolaters etc
D] the other posters respond in kind and somejew receives the same vitriol back in his own face
E] somejew gets offended and disappears
F] after a while , somejew gets over it and starts afresh
G] back to A again ….
.
.
Good to recognize a pattern …
.
.
.@yankel-berel
when did I “get offended and disappear”?I was clear in what I wrote.
that’s what you routinely have been doing for the last few months …
you argue , you respond , you curse , and then you disappear
to be followed after a while by another round
of the same ….
.
.
.when you run out of answers and when you receive the same vitriol back into your face …
that’s when you disappear
only to return when people ‘forgot’ about your vitriol and non answers …
that is a pattern
repeated in thread after thread ….
go back and check ….
.
.@yankel-berel
i still have no idea what you are talking about. did i leave something unanswered? did I abandon some thread too early?
instead of just throwing out a baseless accusation, point out something i did or didn’t say that aligns with your “pattern”.
(I don’t care to repeat the same answers to the same questions over and over, despite your foolish desire to keep asking the exact same questions after they have been answered, such as your inability to read SH’A YD 157, with zero acknowledgment on your part to respond either admitting or arguing against those answers)As mentioned, I believe I have been very clear about my position regarding the various threads. I believe I have been very transparent about the mokoros I have learned that support my positions and have been equally responsive in explaining other mekoros that confuse some people.
If I have failed in any of the above three things [1. clarity in position, 2. providing supporting mekoros, 3. explaining seemingly challenging mekoros] please point me to that failure and I will – IY”H – respond.
If your tactic is to just double down on your own stupidity and ignore the Torah, I can’t help you, and I don’t see a point in joining the conversational nonsense circles you build for yourself.
besides the curses and unearned offensive slurs you routinely throw at most of your opponents
you also are not arguing in good faith
you have never proved that your approach fits with sh’a YD 157
you have never proved that your wonderful, ‘running away’ from EY idea , is going to solve all p/n problems
you have never owned up to the fact that you insinuated that rav chaim was a zuken mamre chvsh
you have never owned up to point that halacha everywhere is not decided by what would , could or should have been — only by what is …
you have never owned up to the fact that avnei nezer clearly says that the shavu’ot are … ‘not lehalacha’ [his language]
you have never owned up to the fact that the steipler clearly writes that the mere existence of the medina is not against the shavu’ot
you have never owned up to the fact that avnei nezer clearly writes that haskamat ha’umot will negate the shavu’ot
you have never owned up to the fact that you do not argue in good faith ….
.
/
.
.This seems like an established pattern
A] somejew posts something extreme and objectionable
B] other posters reply and disagree
C] somejew replies and calls them priests , fools , idolaters etc
D] the other posters respond in kind and somejew receives the same vitriol back in his own face
E] somejew gets offended and disappears
F] after a while , somejew gets over it and starts afresh
G] back to A again ….
====
the only way somejew is able to disprove the above post
is by supplying a point by point, fact and logic based answer , to each and every question
without running away ….
what somejew was doing till now , was plain …. running away …
it s high time somejew is accountable for the shenanigans he is posting
.
.@yankel-berel
most of your above “questions” are just ad hominem attacks against me. This is (or at least should be) a Torah conversation, which is the domain I care to discuss exclusively.I don’t want to, nor do I feel obliged to, distill sense out of your nonsense confused “questions”, so I can only ask you to do better at thinking and/or expressing coherent thoughts (I’m not sure where your failure comes from).
As a token of good faith, I’ve attempted to strip your above questions of ad hominem attacks and answer them point by point. since your “questions” are so malformed, I ask you to please continue the conversation by clarifying them as needed If you believe my answers are insufficient.
> you have never proved that your approach fits with sh’a YD 157
what is “my approach” and how is that approach in conflict with S”A?> you have never proved that your wonderful, ‘running away’ from EY idea , is going to solve all p/n problems
I never claimed that “running away” will immediately bring moshiach.> you have never owned up to the fact that you insinuated that rav chaim was a zuken mamre chvsh
I adamantly and explicitly did NOT insinuate that. I DID say that if you are foolish enough to call them, chas v’shulem, heretics/notzrim/reform/zionist/jewsforj, THEN one would be forced to say they are “zuken mamre” and would still not be allowed to abandon the Torah.> you have never owned up to point that halacha everywhere is not decided by what would , could or should have been — only by what is …
I have no idea what you are talking about or asking> you have never owned up to the fact that avnei nezer clearly says that the shavu’ot are … ‘not lehalacha’ [his language]
yes I did, I address this explicitly in comment: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/matzav-article-about-golus-and-eretz-yisrael/page/3#post-2439476> you have never owned up to the fact that the steipler clearly writes that the mere existence of the medina is not against the shavu’ot
I have no idea what you are talking about or asking. The only source I can think of the from the Steipler is about if voting in the Medina (may it be quickly, peacefully destroyed) is forbidden in light of the shevios after the Medina has already been established. So, what is your question?> you have never owned up to the fact that avnei nezer clearly writes that haskamat ha’umot will negate the shavu’ot
I’ve never been asked this. where does the Avnei Nezer say this? (please quote exact line, as some of his tshivas are very long)interesting …
you calling honorable people … priests , fools , nonsense , confused , malformed , lack of coherent thought , failure … apparently is not ad hominem …
but legit questions about your own musings are ad hominem …..
so much for fairness and honesty …
====
A] the pashtut in YD 157 is that barring shaat hashmad there are only 3 averot which are yehareig veal yaavor , all others p/n is doche them
meaning that p/n is doche the shavu’ot as they are not one of the three
you have not yet furnished an answer in any of your posts …
B] You claimed that the current situation in EY without an active IDF is not p/n , because the people can run away …
you have not brought any reasonable practical plan how ‘running away’ is going to preclude the p/n resulting from the IDF being inactive ….
C] Sure you insinuated that rav chaim is a zuken mamre – rav chaim clearly said in public that fallen IDF soldiers are begeder harugei lud
this appellation – zuken mamre – , was used by you so as to not accept rav chaims statement …
D] you repeatedly claim that we should ignore p/n issues in EY because everything and anything wrong in the entire middle east is the exclusive fault of the zionists … if only they would have not ‘invaded’ [using your crooked language] there would be no p/n ….
therefore we somehow should ignore this supposedly zionist manufactured p/n …
even if the facts and your portrayal do align … even then …. you have not at all explained why this is relevant to the way we are obligated to respond …
does hatsala not respond with hilul shabat to address avoidable emergencies ?
does hatsala not respond with hilul shabat to address self created emergencies ?
you simply keep on skirting the real issues ….
E] No , you did not admit to the clear words of avnei nezer
you did not admit that someone transgressing the oaths did not transgress a halacha
F] Steipler clearly limits the halachik illegality of the medina to its ESTABLISHMENT .
this is in the letter re the obligation to vote
you have never admitted to this , although this is the clear meaning of his words
=======
if you know the meaning of the word ’emet’ , you will acknowledge itand if you do not , you will not acknowledge …
your reaction to this
will be the ultimate proof as to whether you argue in good faith ….
.
.
A] there are three answers to your question: 1) like the Shulchan Aruch in general, this is not an airtight inclusive list of every possible haluchic situation where one gives up their life (see Ramu here), rather the SA was written according to what was commonly applicable and commonly known haluches and their generally common psak. 2) breaking the shulosh shevios is a type of Avoda Zureh, 3) Breaking the shulosh shevios is by definition a “shaas shmaad”.
B] My “wonderful, ‘running away’ from EY idea” is simply proof that right now there is no pikiach nefesh NOW. If there WAS actually pekiach nefesh in EY, the first reaction from ANY SANE PESON would simply be to run away. this is not controversial!
I’l double down on the absurdity of your false zionist religion: if ANYONE really believed that there is NOW pekiach nefesh, there would be mass ongoing charity campaigns to support and promote jews leaving the zionist state. Instead, those crying “PEKIACH NEFESH!!! are exactly those same people crying that jews should, chalila, mass move to the zionist state from other countries!
Regarding a separate conversation about IF the zionists would disband their evil project. What that THEORETICAL means is that 1) if there would be a plan to correct the wrong of zionism and disband the IDF and the national government AND 2) there was no stable replacement government AND 3) the reaction by zionists or other evil parties would be to threaten lives and create a real pikiach nefesh situation, there SHOULD be the option either before during or after this plan to allow anyone who feels at risk to leave.
C] I’ve been explicit with my words as well as my intent.
D] No, that is not my stance, and certainly nothing I have “repeatedly claimed”. try NOT straw manning my position. If you don’t understand something I wrote, you can ask what I meant.
E] I don’t understand your question. Do you know what “haluche” is? Currently there is much psak haluche vis a vis the zionists, which a zionist kofer would transgress. The avnei nezer DOES say that one is (of course!) obligated to keep the Talmudic teaching we call the “Shulosh Sevios”, despite them not having been generally established (in his time) psak haluche. It would certainly , according to any koshe Jew and certainly the Avnei Nezer, an aveira to not keep ANY letter of the Torah including the “shulosh shevios”
F] Sounds like you are conceding the point. You earlier wrote ” the steipler clearly writes that the mere existence of the medina is not against the shavu’ot”. Now you seem to admit that STEIPLER DID NOT WRITE THAT. Is it true that you were wrong?
ALSO:
YOU have ignored the following:
>> you have never owned up to point that halacha everywhere is not decided by what would , could or should have been — only by what is …
>I have no idea what you are talking about or asking
G] Have you conceded that what you wrote here is nonsense?>> you have never owned up to the fact that avnei nezer clearly writes that haskamat ha’umot will negate the shavu’ot
>I’ve never been asked this. where does the Avnei Nezer say this? (please quote exact line, as some of his tshivas are very long)
H] Have you conceded that AVNEI NEZER DID NOT WRITE THAT. Is it true that you were wrong?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.