Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky and the modern State of Israel

yb:
No, it says plainly – do it. Fight . Save the people .
I there would be a caveat , SHULHAN ARUCH or one of the other commentators would have said : STOP , only if this is bir’shut hamelech

why did not anyone say one word ????
—
sj:
no, it says plainly that carrying weapons is not chilil shabbos. at no point does SA tell Jews to fight.

=================

use your sechel .

if there is reason to be mehalal shabat its p/n

thats pashut , so

its pashut one is required to fight , and

that’s the language ‘yotsin aleihen bichei zayan’

we should go out and fight them with weapons , in sh’a hilch shabat 329 from eiruvin 45A
.

if there would be any reservations or qualifications in these halachot in sh’a

either sh’a or rama or nosei keilim should have said something

this is halacha pesuka

ledorot and lema’aseh

for p/n , if needed,

you fight
.
.

avnei nezer says there is no punishments at all for going against the oaths

the punishment mentioned is for an apparent disconnection between the person and HKBH

the persons inclination to go against the oaths is only a thermometer of the level of [dis]connection between the person and HKBH

pikuach nefesh would for sure be doche that
.
.

.

@none

you make me laugh

Stalin also held that he had a “conscience and a good connection to right and wrong’

plenty of others considered themselves as the above

and rivers of innocent blood and suffering resulted
.
.

Nu

mr somejew

waiting .

three separate proofs not that halacha is not like maharal

expect three separate answers

thanks

There were some major Rabbonim who held that the oaths are NOT in force anymore. Notably, R’ Chaim Vital, R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk and R’ Shlomo Kluger.
Additionally, even if they are in force, there were many Rabbonim who held that they weren’t violated – since the UN voted to establish the state, it wasn’t done via force. Also, the oath not to go up in large numbers requires more than half the Jews in the world – this is the opinion of the Shittah Mekubetzes, the Maharal, and R’ Yonasan Eybshitz. The Torah Temimah held that it only refers to when people are forced to move to Eretz Yisrael, not when they do so voluntarily.
So don’t claim that all Rabbonim hold that they’re in effect, and that Israel violates them.

@damoshe
Rav Ovadia Yosef already published without hesitation that what you are saying is a complete misread of the writing of R’ Chaim Vital. Again, you will not find any torah source that says differently on how we understand the writings of R’ Chaim Vital and the Ari ztz”l.

Looking past the strong evidence that the letter was forged R’ Meir Simcha (the original was never seen by any students or any correspondences. it was only published by a mizrachi newspaper with a, uh how can i say it politely, questionable timeline.), the letter certainly doesn’t claim that the oaths are not binding, rather the balfour declaration would be an exception to their otherwise binding nature. Of course, the Balfour Declaration never came to fruition and the British rescinded their questionable intent to allow a zionist state. The point here, of course, is that the Ohr Someyach explicitly held the shevios are binding.

R Klugar ztz”l is also explicit that the Bnei Efroyim were killed for violating the oaths even after the Mitzrim violated theirs. R Klugar explains that, however, one is not bound by the issur of davening too much for moshiach when under duress. You can find and learn it inside if you want to understand the distinction.

So, there you have it.
There are STILL no recognized Gedolim in the Torah world that claim the false narrative you are repeating here. The “question” of the “shalosh shevios” is a non-question in any bais medrash in klal yisroel.

somejew is stubbornly refusing to learn avnei nezer and pashtut of sh ‘a and poskim [as noted by avnei nezer himself] that the oaths are not binding , just an indication of the persons general avodat hashem

somejew is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the pikuach nefesh which will result in any of his ‘realistic’ options of governing EY

those refusals are obvious to any bystander

Question is , why he is refusing to acknowledge those plain realities in front of his nose ?

the answer is and must be one and only one

he is biased towards the shitah hakdosha , not to the shitah hakdosha itself

but a to a literal reading of the shitah hakdosha

which distorts and blinds him to plain realities right in front of him .

So, we are left to wonder – if he is blinded to the plain visible reality

what hope can we have that somejew should quote and interpret chazal correctly ?
.
.
.

.

@somejew

it’s impossible that you smell other people’s dishonesty when you yourself are enveloped by the smell of your own dishonesty.

smelly people cannot smell other people.
—

you do not know me at all – how could you state that I don’t care about what sh’a and avnei nezer say .

that statement of yours is obviously as unfounded as all of your other statements and interpretations of the torah

and as unfounded as your interpretations of the reality in front of us , which is essential in every other she’ela in the torah .

someone who does not know how a new appliance works, is totally unqualified to rule on its permissibility for shabbat even if he knows hilchot shabbat ba’al peh.

same here .

—

Lol.
you yourself mr somejew vehemently argued that hashmatat tur , hasmatat mishneh torah , hashmatat sh’a , hasmatat nosei keilim does not count ….

yet hashmatat rabbanim who do not quote avnei nezer suddenly does count …

who exactly in your opinion should bring avnei nezer and did not ?

Rav shlome zalman auerbach ?
who is documented directing specific individuals in specific circumstances to enlist ?
who took rav kooks haskama for his sefer maadanei erets and put it before rav zonnefelds haskama ?
he should have quoted avnei nezer ? and since he doesn’t, its proof that he disagrees ?

the rebbeim of gur who are known to be noheg lemaaseh like avnei nezer the gdol haposkim in poland , they should have quoted him ? and since they don’t, its proof that they disagree ?

or rav elyashiv whose mesader kidushin was rav kook and was known to be mocheh whenever someone spoke disparagingly about him , he should have quoted avnei nezer ? and since he doesn’t, its proof that he disagrees ?

listen, I am not a hasid of rav kook and I do not learn his agada sfarim , and I agree that he was controversial and understand the hitnagdut against him
but b’h I am not that narrowminded to totally deny the existence of approaches I disagree with

avnei nezer wrote what he wrote .
avnei nezer cannot somehow be dismissed .
avnei nezer was bothered by hashmatat haposkim

if somejew doesnt like it , then he should grow up.

are there holkim on avnei nezer ? yes.

is avnei nezer therefore batel umevutal ? no.

cant see what’s so difficult , that somejew has to start with personal accusations and all sorts of dirty intimidations of kfira , biters of talmidei hahamim etc etc

somejew should keep his arguments to the matter at hand .

he will do his own reputation a service .
.
.

.

Somejew should be modeh al ha emet , and state – there is a bona fide mahloket on this issue.

We were mekabel from our rebbeim what we believe in and others did not.

this ‘maximalist approach’ that EVERYONE holds like me, is false , and has been proven false.

when that happens , his arguments will be heard in a much more favorable way ….
.
.

@somejew

if there is someone dishonest here , it is the person you will be seeing when you gaze at clear still water ….

you asked me a few times to quote sh’a YD 157:1

which I did , and

which contradicts maharal in netsach yisrael 24

I will repeat this once more

sh’a says that betsin’a one should be over on ANY AVERA besides the three [which includes the oaths] because of pikuach nefesh is docheh the issur.

according to maharal , there is four issurim which are yehareig veal yaavor

acc to sh’a there are three issurim only

simple.
.

katan:
After SJIK proves to you… were taught …

—

Proves ?? there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER , not in your , not in somejew’s writing .

just mindless repetition and parroting

clearly contradicting open avnei nezer

clearly contradicting open sh’a YD 157

—

I wasn’t taught … I simply learned avnei nezer .

anyone can – you can learn it too, but without blinkers and preconceived notions, otherwise you might not understand what he writes.

—

katan lives in lala land

his grasp of reality is obviously weak as he keeps on repeating complete irrelevancies like

– whose fault things are

which hatsole would never ask

– giving land to esav

logic he himself would never ever employ for his own sick child chv’sh

wonder whether his grasp of torah understanding is any better
.
.
.
somejew somehow disappears without answering many questions after [angrily?] throwing unfounded personal accusations around

.
.

ujm apparently absolves himself from explaining and answering anything at all.
.
.
.

nu , somejew katan and ujm ….

to the point answers , please ?
.

@yankel-berel

It’s the zionists who are pressuring Yidden to join the army… not Hamas. Hamas is not trying to get us to do any aveiras. The Zionist want us to, at least, break the Shulosh Shevios. They want us to be kofer in the concept of “am hanivchar”. They want us to be kofer in the definition of “klal yisroel”. They want us to be kofer in waiting for Moshiach. They want us to be kofer in the explicit psukim in Torah that tell us how (and how not) Hashem will take us out of gulis.

Those points are all fundamental to the zionist heresy and fundamental to participating in its army, even if it was fully managed from top to bottom by the most religious RZ galach.

This fundamental heresy is well acknowledged and embraced by the RZ thought leaders, and taught explicitly in their yeshivas. They call those who reject zionism “galut (sic) jews”. They mock those who follow the Torah as “dosim” and “sheeple” to the slaughter. They claim that those who do histadlis when the Torah requires it and reject it when the Torah forbids it are fools who need to learn how to fight for themselves. They claim that Jewish life before the zionist state was dead and empty, with no one being smart enough to realize they can just take themselves out of galus with some guns, and are baffled that the Rambam himself didn’t think of this. They claim the Jews lived for 2000 years in fear of the non jew, and regularly getting slaughtered. What was the outcome of gulis? They claim: a river of blood that only stopped when the zionist came with guns. Before zionism, the RZ galachas teach, every Jew was vulnerable to the whims of their non-Jewish neighbors and their leaders. Zionism is the upgrade, they claim, because now there is Jewish “self-determination”.

All the above is, of course, clear kefira in Torah, rejection of foundational axioms such as schar v’onesh and hishtadlis and bitachon in Hashem. The 20000 years in gulis, despite the reality that it is at times very very difficult, is a blessing straight from Hashem. Like chazal teach us, Hashem took out the fury of our zins on the woods and stones of the Beis Hamkidash (rch”l) instead of – chalilah -taking it out on us. Chazal also teach us that the long gulis is a hidden blessing in that the massive punishment due to “sonei yisroel” was broken up into many small pains over a long tie, enable us to withstand and grow in light of that tikkin.

The outcome of gulis, so far, has been 2000 years of thriving Torah, leadership, and a birir of klipah ot of the kedisha of klal yisroel. The ultimate outcome of the gulis will be moshiach triggering complete tshiva amongst all of klal yisroel, moshiach fighting the wars of gog and magog, moshiach doing kibbitz gulyos. And, moshiach will be a nuvi, similar to Moshe Rebaini, with specific miraculous features, such as being able to paskin sheilas based on smell alone. He will certainly have the basic requirements of every kosher nuvi of being a tzaddik (in keeping all mitzvos), being humble, rich, a talmid chuchem miflag. When moshiach comes, the whole world will see that the Jewish Nation is a holy nation and that our avodah of gulis, our literal mesiras nefesh to keep Torah, is what makes us beloved to Hashem. The miracles that will take place wil be greater than the supernatural events of Yestiyatz Metzroyim, and the whole world will see and aknowlege Hashem’s greatness and the greatness of being a slave to Hashem. So much so, that the non-Jews will run to join us in our bitil and service to Hashem, asking to help serve Hashem in any way possible.

Judaism rejects “self-determination”. We believe in Hashem’s Divine determination of events. A Jew is not vulnerable to attack, rather we are deeply vulnerable to our own yetzer huresh and aveiras. Ideologically, we don’t protect ourselves with guns, we protect ourselves with tshiva and bitachon in Hashem. There are times when hishtalids is required on an individual level (never on a national level in gulis, that it why we are specifically “spread out” amongst the nations). And Zionism, especially the minis called “RZ”, rejects this Judaism.

Getting back to the subject of practicing that other religion by way of enlistment in their army priesthood:

Beyond the above fundamental intrinsic incompatibility, the current implementation of the evil IDF is also deeply at odds with yiddishkeit. Problems include hischabris l’rashoyim, nivel peh, shmiras enoyim, mixing of genders, walking haughty, chikos hagoyim, bitel zman, chilil shabbos, bizoy talmideh chachumim, mesira, kashrish of food, bitul Torah, etc. And all this is issues for the best of the soldiers, the weakest ones are opening up intense vulnerabilities in z’nis and kefira by way of leaving the confines of a well controlled yiddish enviroment and it social support structure for kedisha. And all this is applicable across pathways of IDF service. Specific paths involve even more issirim, such as – chas v’shulem – going into combat is putting oneself in makom sakuneh, killing innocent jews by accident, killing innocent non-jews on purpose, ba’al tashchis in bombing building and destroying property.

Many non-Jewish readers will say “well, this is the known cost of doing war”, and the Torah response is “who said you should go to war? move away and don’t do those aveiras”. In the same vein, I would say that if you believe there are non-military populations of Jews in danger, you should be active in helping them move away to safer lands. I don’t believe, and I don’t think any one reasonable thinks, that Jews today living in EY are in acute danger that demand allowing chilil shabbos or other issirim. However, if I am wrong and someone out there in CR thinks that Jews there are really in danger, I reiterate the above: save their lives by influencing and raising money for them to emigrate elsewhere.

Taking this a step further: chazal are very explicit in many places that breaking the shevios directly causes events like, chas v’shulem, a holocaust. Jews – chalila – participating in the IDF is something that truly puts more Jewish lives in danger. While perhaps counterintuitive to those corrupted by zionism, this is what the Torah teaches in many places.

So, putting this all together:

• The ideological underpinnings (the intent) of Zionism is kefira in Torah.
• The IDF in ANY form is the implementation of that Zionist active kefira, i.e “shmad”.
• The current reality of IDF implementation involves numerous issirim, including shfichas dumim and giliy arayis and chilil shabbos kodesh

As such, one is obligated to give up their lives not to join that evil nazi group, as is stated explicitly in the SA above.

@somejew

The argument is NOT only whether it is assur to join IDF or not.

We should come to that question only at the end .
—

The issue I have, is with your determination that maharal’s opinion, of yehareig ve’al yavor for the oaths, is halacha lema’aseh.

We will have to go step by step .

The first question is – do we paskan like maharal that pikuach nefesh is not docheh the oaths ?

Does sh’a YD 157 agree with maharal or not ?

It’s clear that Sh’a does not agree

Maharal does not make any difference between farhesya and tsin’a , nor between kavana leha’avir al hadat or not.

Acc to maharal you quote – in all cases, pikuach nefesh is not docheh the oaths.

According to sh’a, if it is not leha’avir al dat , bein farhesya vbein betsin’a , pikuach nefesh is docheh the oaths .

Are we in agreement on these lines I wrote ?

please concentrate only on these lines for the time being … we will bln get to all other issues behemshech ….

Are we in agreement on these lines I wrote ? Yes or no ?

If not , why not ?
.
.

@always_ask_questions
Why are you ignoring the conversation and switching topics?

Try responding to the Torah points I said instead of changing the conversation. Do you want sources? Do you think I am wrong about a Torah point? Go ahead and ask.

Instead, as alluded to in my long previous answer, you are following the path of the many apikorsim who simply mock religious Jews who are foolishly “involved in [their] spiritual battles” and should “come back to the earth”.

These are the words of someone who hates Yiddishkeit and bites talmidei chachumim. masis i’madiach, since you tell these evil thoughts to others.

somejew, I don’t think this can be resolved by quoting sources. I (earlier on) listened to sources from both sides in this interesting discussion, and it is clear to me that you need (as usual) to apply these sources to the current facts. So, I am usually trying to bring those facts and asking how different shitos apply.

for example, several people were saying that Zs created trouble in EY, where old yishuv lived in poverty and under pressure but without overt violence. There is some truth to that when you look from the facts of 1920. I am totally not surprised that many chachomim thought that. But, how do we judge this now in hindsight, knowing history of 20th century? Katan finally answered and said that he presumed that EY will remain British (or any Western) protectorate. A couple of us asked whether this is a reasonable assumption given that British and other empires fell apart and were overtaken by socialist and islamist governments. I don’t think we saw an answer.

In general, we all need to be a little humble about discussing these issues – answers might not be known and understood for some time. Quoting R Steinsaltz, it takes centuries for chachomim to come up with a final resolution for historical events. The idea that every political judgment by even most great chacham will be crystal clear like Moshe is not reasonable. Look at gemora – even records of most selected arguments by the most proominent chachomim reveals that many of them lose argument or do not know or forget a braisa here and there.

aaq

No , not at all
it’s for example your total brushing aside of the extremely important issue I raised re our youth losing their religion in the army , which you totally dismissed

and when I asked you to substitute the words ‘losing religion’ with the words of “a major malady” , you totally ignored the issue, instead asking irrelevantly about haredi doctors …
.
.
.

@aaq
you are again sidestepping

“the topic itself” was: the 30 % dropout reported by RZ educators because of army service , and the immense tragedy of a replication of such a drop out rate by haredi youth

a tragedy matched by l’o a 30% serious malady rate amongst haredi youth

which does not seem to bother you at all ……

which again seems to prove my original point re yir’at shamayim …..
.

yankel, you are asking a fair question. In fact, a close friend of mine used exactly such statistics explaining to me why he moved from a RZ to a chareidi community. I readily acknowledge success of charedim in keeping people observant. In fact, my kids went thru charedi schools.

What I am worried about that the defensive mechanism became the only factor to the degree that the community undermines major Torah values. R Soloveitchik perceived this contradiction early on in the 1940s on philosophical level: if we claim that we know Hashem’s truth and are now allowed to participate in the world affairs – how can we hide in the caves? But, beyond philosophy, you can see that in order to maintain the defense, all kind of arguments and behaviors fly in order to convince the followers not to look outside of the fence. All the books on middos and mussar get out of the window. What is the point of getting a majority in the medinah, if the resulting voters will no be Torah-true Jews.

@aaq

sorry but you have not answered .

the question is , when faced with the absolute knowledge that those are going to be the results , no matter the advice you are giving them ,

You have 10 children – if you know that three of them are going to lose their religion because of their service , would you send them ?

You have 10 children – if you know that three of them are going to lose their health and come back as cripples because of their service , would you send them ?

keep in mind that neither [religion and health] are a result of any enemy actions , both are the result of internal army structure and command

If you could honestly answer both of those two questions …. without extra commentary.
.
.

.

yankel, again,

I can come up with any answers to these questions from my comfortable chair and justify them, but it will be presumptuous of me.

I am just surprised why you are not taking my answer for an answer: start preparing your kids to confront challenges.
sources: chacham eninav b’rosho; mitzva of the father to teach the son to swim; r Akiva teaching students how to travel with gangsters on the road.

PS I am not sure how did r Akiva allowed his students on those dangerous trips. Why didn’t he keep them in the yeshiva? was it a bein hazmanim tiyul?!

@aaq

sorry but you have not answered .

the question is , when faced with the absolute knowledge that those are going to be the results , no matter the advice you are giving them ,

You have 10 children – if you know, A NAVI TOLD YOU , that three of them are going to lose their religion because of their service , would you send them ?

You have 10 children – if you know A NAVI TOLD YOU , that three of them are going to lose their health and come back as cripples because of their service , would you send them ?

keep in mind that neither [religion and health] are a result of any enemy actions , both are the result of internal army structure and command

If you could honestly answer both of those two questions …. without extra commentary.
.
.