RCA statement for Tisha B'Av

Daas: The RCA went even further than that. In their statement titled on their website as “RCA Condemns Chareidi Rally” they tried to diminish a rally attended by Gedolei Yisroel across the Orthodox spectrum as being, in their statement, a “small but vocal group” who the RCA President wrote “take to the streets to publicly aid the many enemies who stand ready to destroy, G-d forbid, the Jewish State – and all Jews”.

Really, RCA? Rav… Elya Ber Wachtfogel, Ahron Schechter, Osher Kalmonovitz, Shlomo Feivel Shustal, etc. etc. are a “small but vocal group” who are aiding the enemies of the Jews?

HaKatan: Take a look at the Netziv (I think it’s somewhere in Devarim in the HaEimek Davar) who explains what Sinas Chinam was Bizman HaBayis. It was people who thought they were allowed to hate others (because they assumed everyone they saw doing the tiniest thing wrong was an Apikores and that they should kill them) but really were mistaken.

Does anyone else agree that Joe, by his very commenting on threads, undermines his point? My thoughts when I see him is “Only someone like Joe would think like that”.

What do you mean “him”, Joe? Or do you always refer to yourself in third person?

Naftush: There is hardly any restraint on their part when the RCA’s reference to their specific target is more than obvious. That is akin to saying a comment stating “The President is a foreign-born Kenyan Muslim” is full of “quite a bit of restraint” since it isn’t specifying “which President” it is referring to.

I believe that before the RCA condemned a Shasnik rabbi for calling other Torah-observant Jews Amalek, they should have addressed the same phenomenon in their own ranks. A very prominent “gadol” within the YU orbit called Rabbi Saul Berman and the organization Edah “a sort if internal Amalek” in a 1998 shiur. Instead of passing the buck of delegitimization, a mature and proper response would be to say “we disagree with the shita or approach of so-and-so.”

rebdoniel: difficult to respond to your comment unless you give us more details

ROB,

In a 1998 Shabbos Purim drasha in the YU dining hall, R’ Schachter, in a diatribe against the Orthodox left, said that R’ Saul Berman and Edah(the now-defunct vanguard of liberal Modern Orthodoxy, which was absorbed into YCT) was “a sort of internal Amalek.” Rabbi Berman, at the time, defended the remark as a kind of extreme rabbinic poetry, although he’s since rethought the matter.

I also read that in the 1920s, the Rebbe of Munkatch labeled as an Amalek none other than Agudath Israel, which he thought was a bunch of crypto-Zionists and modernizers.

This is nothing new under the sun, and leaders within the realm of YU/RCA are guilty of it themselves.

The point is that calling other Jews (especially other observant Jews) “Amalek” is a negative phenomenon not exclusive to the “Haredi” world, but also affects other sectors of the community.

honestly, its getting old.

Sam2, allow me to please mention that I enjoy your erudition in other threads.

But, to answer your question here:

I don’t know why you believe that I “hold that the majority of the CR (and Frum world) are Ovdei Avodah Zarah and have no Chelek in Judaism.” CH”V.

To be clear, as I have posted in the past, belief in heresy does not necessarily make one a heretic. Etc. But Zionism is, regardless, Avoda Zara, according to the gedolim.

I thought this site is called the Yeshiva World, not the Mizrachi World. If I am correct in this notion, then it is worth noting that the Yeshiva World (as in where YWN got its name from) seems to look up to (and learns sefarim from) its past greats like the Chofetz Chaim, his talmid Rav Elchonon, the Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, et al.

These greats were all vehemently against Zionism. Quoting their (and others’) words about Zionism thus seems quite relevant to the Yeshiva World, in my humble opinion.

If this were YU’s blog, however, I concede it would be “out of place” there.

I’m sorry if your background does not conform to these gedolim’s views.

If you disagree with my understandings here, please feel free to let me know where you believe I have erred in the above.

Feif

The Holy Chafetz Chaim and his holy disciple Reb Elchonon had open Ruach Hakodesh. They knew fully what they were dealing with. The works of Reb Elchonon are like open, clear prophesy. To say they spoke without fully understanding the situation fully, or that things have changed is to belittle their great far reaching clear vision.

They knew what they were talking about. And no, the founding “fathers”, those “greats” did nothing to instill Yiddishkeit. FAR FROM IT. Any ounce of Yiddishkeit in the holy land is DESPITE their efforts.

Mind you, read history.

Oh Shreck, and what about all the gedolim who were not against Zionism?

See the writings of R’ Chaim Berlin, R’ Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor, and most others, including the Agudah in Europe who voted for the Peel commission.

Furthermore, even if 100% of gedolim were against the State, that was a theoretical. It’s now on the ground and everything changes. You can’t pasken facts on the ground with theoretical.

Feif Un:

Judaism is not something one can practice any way one wishes. I have quoted gedolim who have spoken very harshly of some mistaken movements that have come up among certain Jews. If you don’t like their opinions, please feel free to find your own that disagree with them. But, to my knowledge, I am not a rasha, and if you aren’t even interested in my mechila, then I guess I needn’t mention it further.

In addition to the two holy great sages you mentioned, the Chofetz Chaim and Rav Elchonon HY”D, whom, as others have pointed out, knew very well already what Zionism was and is, I have also quoted from the Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish who both lived in Eretz Yisrael through the founding of the State and various atrocities, like yaldei Tehran, committed by Zionists both before and after the State’s founding. So you are being disingenuous, to say the least, by claiming that gedolim’s opposition to Zionism was theoretical and also limited to before the State. This is simply not true.

(I don’t understand why you continue with your Lashon HaRa about Satmar. I did not even quote, Rav Yoel Zatza”L, though, as Rabbi Reisman wrote, this is not a “Satmar” shita; it is everyone’s shita. The main difference between Satmar and the other gedolim was tactical, post-establishment of the State. The Satmar Rav (and others) forbade “working from within” while some other permitted that. But none condoned Zionism, CH”V.)

Which gedolim are those who you claim “gedolim who say Israel is a brachah from Hashem!” As I mentioned, it is not a difference of opinion. Zionism and the State of Israel violated and continues to violate both of the two oaths that apply to Jews, according to the gedolim.

It is also a gross insult to the Torah, and to all thinking (not to mention to all the shmaded) Jews, to label as “a “Bracha” a Zionist State, whose very existence is to redefine a Jew from Torah-observant to Nationalist Goy. The Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish both called it a gizeira. History has further shown the utter disaster this State was and is. But you know better, I guess.

As to your “argument” that the goyim violated their oath and therefore we may violate ours, if you understood the sugya at all, you would know that this is not only wrong but that it makes no sense. The oaths are there for our protection in galus; why would anyone want to give that up?

Again, whom are those that you claim that the Nations’ oath “clearly was broken, so according to many, the 3 oaths no longer apply”?

There are not “many Rabbanim on both sides of the issue”. That is clear. As Rabbi Reisman wrote, the founding of the State did not change the applicability of the three oaths as held by all; it merely changed the tactics on the ground.

How someone can so vehemently attack tens of thousands of Yidden, in the same post in which he calls someone a rasha for attacking the beliefs of large groups of Yidden, is beyond me.

HaLeivi, that is correct, before the war religious Judaism was not black or white, there were shades of grey.

I forgot the name of the sefer, but it’s available on hebrewbooks.org where it goes through some of the opinions of late 19th and early 20th century rabbonim. And, yes, they range from extreme on one side to the extreme on the other with many smack in the middle. Geography also played a part in how they decided and contrary to what you might read about from Hakatan and the other guys, the Agudah was not of one opinion one way or the other.

First and foremost we must lament too much tolerance of those who choose to sin,(which paradoxically it goes) hand in hand with Sinas Chinam

DaasYochid, I concur.

Thank you, “About Time”. I appreciate your posts here, especially in this thread.

Sam2, we have in the past discussed Rav Ovadia and, from his own words, it is clear he is not a Zionist. If you could quote those SHU”T (Lashon HaKodesh is fine) or tell me where to read them online, I would be happy to do so, as I previously also mentioned.

But even the Agudah members (who disagreed with the many great Rabbis who opposed them and the State), who did vote to accept the State’s imminent founding, did so with the hope that there could be some good that would come from that evil and on condition that the Zionists would not interfere with religious life there.

So I find it very unlikely that, based on the above, miKatzeh el haKatzeh, anyone could seriously claim “the medinah is a good thing”, as you write.

But I would be happy to see those teshuvos, if available, as I said.

DM: You forgot R’ Hertzog, R’ Aviner, R’ Avraham Shapiro, R’ Kook’s son and grandsons, R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (there were things he didn’t like for sure but he had some pretty positive comments), R’ Yat”z Rimon, R’ Melamed, R’ Yoffin, and many more I could list but I don’t want to get into a shouting match of “my Gadol’s bigger than your Gadol” and “Oh, he’s just a Zionist anyway” and “he never approved of Zionism”.

Count me in too. I also hold Eretz Yisroel is a good thing. Actually the Ribono Shel Olam does too. ?? ?’ ?’ ????? ?? ??? ????.

Could you kindly list the Gedolim that held one must get rid of any vestige of Yiddishkeit upon “making Aliyah”. Which tzadikim also held that “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”. How many Torah leader held of the ciyuv to steal babies…

Before getting to the rest of your lists, Rav Ovadia, however, is certainly not what you claim he is, as discussed earlier.

For a change, let’s leave out non-MO and non-“Religious Zionist” Rabbanim from this post.

Essentially, it comes down to Rav JB Soloveichik and his own stated admission that he broke from his own mesorah to support Zionism. By extension, Rav JB’s talmidim who propagate their Rebbi’s views are, therefore, not a raaya to anything regarding Zionism as they are following their Rebbi.

I would humbly add, that given the inestimable damage Zionism and, in particular, the State of Israel, has done to Yahadus and so many Jews, one wonders if Rav JB would still think that the State was “Kol Dodi Dofeik” and, therefore, would have taught his talmidim differently.

Regarding Rav Kook: Interestingly, Rav Lichtenstein, who you quoted, writes about Rav Kook that “One can view nineteenth-century European nationalism as an appropriate matrix for Rav Kook’s thought, and there is no dearth of analogues to Hegel, Bergson, and others in his writing”. You can see this quote in Google Books.

So, dear fellow Jews, ad masai atem pochasim al shitei haSiifim?

One’s Torah/Haskafa source helps determine one’s avodas Hashem and hashkafas haChaim. So is it secular ideas and 19th-century European Nationalism that is your chosen source, or is it, instead, pure unadulterated Torah that is your Torah/Hashkafa source?