Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky and the modern State of Israel

Reminder

A] the following is somejew’s “psak” :

this is somejews language , copied and pasted :

In (very) short, that means that if goyim – chas v’shulem – threaten masses of jews, our kosher responses are: make peace, give gifts, run away, and pray to G-d. What we are not allowed to do is organize an army and physically fight the enemy.

[somejew]

——-

B] the following is maran habet yosefs psak in his halacha sefer the shulchan aruch :

halacha mandates , violating Shabbos to physically fight against an enemy that attempts to seize even ‘kash vateven’ —since it begins with kash and ends with lives (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 329).

Will repeat again :

mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy.

—

This is the question mr somejew –

How do you fit A with B ?
.
.

ard> where jews fight back, WHEN directed by daas torah

Who directed Yiftach? People who rejected him earlier. The only daas Torah here seems to be in the midrash that when his dedicated object ended up being his daughter, Yiftach and Pinchas refused to go to each other, expecting the other to make the first move. Ben Gurion at least went to see Chazon Ish.

@ard
i brought my source (the Chofetz Chaim) in the thread here titled “Neturei Karta Condemned by Jews on Youtube”

AAQ:
You’re comparing Yiftach and Pinchas to the Chazon Ish and liHavdil elef alfai havdalos, the heretic David Green? Green went to him because he felt it would be politically beneficial to do so, of course, not because he was in the slightest interested in daas Torah.
Also, you’re stating that, by Yiftach, the only “daas Torah” was after the war, not on his appointment as leader and general before the war?

hakatan > you’re stating that, by Yiftach, the only “daas Torah” was after the war, not on his appointment as leader and general before the war?

interesting question. From peshat, it seems that same people who previously mistreated Yiftach, now called for his help. I don’t know whether that group consulted daas Torah. Do you have any meforshim on this topic?

@katan .

Thanks for this clarification.

This is very important.

here katan broke ranks with somejew.

if we are to take katan at face value [no reason not to]

katan agrees here that pikuach nefesh supersedes any understanding of the three oaths

so [even if] organizing an army to defend the yoshvei EY would contravene the oaths , nevertheless bimkom pikuach nefesh , this is mandated

katan argues that the IDF is not a good fit, because its involvement with the three hamurot.

meaning avoda zara giluy arayot and shfihut damim.

—

the Q is now . the mere fact that the IDF is osek in those three , is that enough to stop a frum jew’s involvement in the IDF

or do we need to consider the candidate, the frum jew’s own participation in the three hamurot ?
.

meaning : if the frum jew himself will not participate in the three hamurot , but other people within that army are,

is that ground to prohibit the frum jew’s participation in the IDF to save lives ?
.
.