July 15, 2013 9:53 pm at 9:53 pm #610079
On the RCA website, it has this statement, which I wholeheartedly agree with:
We urge all Jews to celebrate the diversity of our Torah community, whatever our ideology or choice of headcovering. Each of us, men, women and children, is a cherished member of our people and we must educate all members of our community to honor and respect each other. We pray that all will one day soon glory in the rebuilding of our nation and our Temple.
May each of us who this year mourns the destruction of Jerusalem, merit to see it rebuilt speedily in our days.July 16, 2013 12:58 am at 12:58 am #968838aproudbParticipant
Suddenly the OU and RCA wake-up from their slumber?
Where were the OU and RCA all this time when Bnei Torah is Eretz Yisroel have been mercilessly attacked continuously for over a year now??July 16, 2013 2:12 pm at 2:12 pm #968839
Joseph, this is exactly what they were talking about. Enough already!July 16, 2013 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm #968840Daas2Member
“We call upon all Jews throughout the world to reclaim the glory of our people by refraining from language that divides us and promoting language and deeds that unite us.”
Does this mean the RCA is retracting its previous statements insulting one of the Gedolei HaDor, and accusing the New York anti-draft rally of supporting Israel’s enemies?July 17, 2013 12:22 am at 12:22 am #968841LakewooditeMember
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?July 17, 2013 1:26 am at 1:26 am #968842
Where is the mekor to “celebrate diversity”? Sounds like that one came from the M side of MO.
As for Sinas Chinam, it’s only “chinam” if there is no reason for the sina. But if it’s, for example, to call out shmad for what it is, that doesn’t sound like chinam, to me.
As it happens, I agree that within the Torah’s parameters, diversity is a nice thing. But when halacha is breached then it’s a terrible thing.July 17, 2013 3:12 am at 3:12 am #968843
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.July 17, 2013 3:49 am at 3:49 am #968844yetelsMember
Sam- your point doesn’t negate HaKatan’s point. His example applies as does yours at times, depending on the circumstances.July 17, 2013 12:28 pm at 12:28 pm #968845gavra_at_workParticipant
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”.July 17, 2013 1:33 pm at 1:33 pm #968846trofinMember
gavra: I was agreeing with him until reading your very erudite point-by-point rebuttal shlugging up all his above straightforward and reasonable points. Thank you for adding your voice adding so much to this discussion. Without it, as an outside reader not knowing much of this issue, I wouldn’t have changed my mind on the issue.July 17, 2013 2:02 pm at 2:02 pm #968847gavra_at_workParticipant
What do you mean “him”, Joe? Or do you always refer to yourself in third person?July 17, 2013 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #968848NaftushMember
The RCA actually used quite a bit of restraint. It referred to “offensive name calling – including the inciteful invocation of the name ‘Amalek'” — as though both sides were guilty of it.July 17, 2013 2:27 pm at 2:27 pm #968849trofinMember
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.July 17, 2013 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #968851YW Moderator-73Moderator
yeah, seems soJuly 17, 2013 3:29 pm at 3:29 pm #968852
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.”July 17, 2013 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #968853rabbiofberlinParticipant
rebdoniel: difficult to respond to your comment unless you give us more detailsJuly 17, 2013 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #968854rabbiofberlinParticipant
rebdoniel: difficult to respond to your comment unless you give us more detailsJuly 17, 2013 4:21 pm at 4:21 pm #968855Feif UnParticipant
Joseph and HaKatan, when there’s a call for more unity between Jews, I’m not surprised that you’re the ones who will argue against it.
I hope that when Mashiach comes, the two of you are not there to greet him. You’d probably throw rocks and call him an evil Zionist. With your hatred of Eretz Yisrael and millions of Jews all over the world, you don’t deserve to greet Mashiach.July 18, 2013 4:35 am at 4:35 am #968856
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.July 18, 2013 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm #968857
You’re going to have a hard time getting sympathy here for something said against those affiliated with YCT.July 18, 2013 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #968858
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.July 28, 2013 7:57 pm at 7:57 pm #968859
I suppose if there was a call for unity among Jews by the eigel haZahav you would have been urging Aharon to join in and worship the eigel and condemning Chur as having been deserving of being stoned to death for his opposition.
I am not mochel you for your curse to not greet Mashiach. How dare you curse your fellow Jews?
You make the usual Zionist mistake of conflating Zionism and its State with, liHavdil, Eretz Yisrael.
Ironically, contrary to popular (yours included) belief, it is the Zionists who are the haters of Eretz Yisrael with the terrible kefirah and spiritual decay with which they pollute Eretz HaKodesh.
It is the non-Zionist Jews who stand up to protest this chilul Hashem in Hashem’s palace.
The last part of your post is most puzzling, though. Mashiach is not oveid A”Z, CH”V. Therefore, he cannot be a Zionist. So why would you be chosheid biKisheirim that anyone (other than a Zionist) would call him a Zionist? I am sure he will not be a Zionist.July 28, 2013 11:06 pm at 11:06 pm #968860
HaKatan: As someone who is a close friend of Feif Un’s, I can tell you that he really won’t care if you’re not mochel him. I view you as extremely misguided, but he views you as a complete Rasha.
IMO, you can keep on worshiping at the avoda zarah of Satmar. Satmar is a huge part of why Mashiach hasn’t come yet. Brothers fighting in the streets outside the cemetery where their father is buried, on his yartzeit? A complete disgrace! And people dare to call these people tzadikim and willingly choose to follow them!July 29, 2013 1:05 am at 1:05 am #968861
HaKatan: I actually don’t get you. Why are you here? You clearly hold that the majority of the CR (and Frum world) are Ovdei Avodah Zarah and have no Chelek in Judaism. No one here (except maybe Joseph, and that’s not something to be proud of) agrees with you and I highly doubt that anyone wants to hear you anymore.July 29, 2013 6:00 am at 6:00 am #968862ToiParticipant
honestly, its getting old.July 29, 2013 11:08 am at 11:08 am #968863
DaMoshe, for his sake, please make sure he is aware of my previous post.
I do respect your opinion that I am “misguided”, though.
I am amazed that anyone can decide someone is a “complete rasha” based on some posts in a forum quoting gedolim regarding the various and numerous problems with Zionism. To call someone a complete rasha based on that sounds like mainstream Zionist “thought”, I guess.
I suppose you might wish to ask mechila from all of Satmar for baselessly calling their mehalech “Avoda Zara”.
It so happens that I generally do not quote the Satmar Rav ZaTza”L. So they are not relevant to this discussion. Nor is any Lashon HaRa about them called for.
Besides this, however, Rabbi Reisman is not “Satmar”. Neither were the various gedolim from earlier generations whom I quoted such as Rav Elchonon HY”D, the Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, et al. So trying to pretend all this is unique to “Satmar” is disingenuous, as I have pointed out.July 29, 2013 11:38 am at 11:38 am #968864
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.July 29, 2013 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm #968865Feif UnParticipant
HaKatan, yes, I am well aware of your post, and yes, I think you’re a Rasha. You attack large segments of Jews and call them terrible names. You’re a Rasha. Even here, on Yeshiva World, people are getting sick of you.
You quote from people such as the Chofetz Chaim and R’ Elchanan Wasserman. Neither of them were alive when Israel was founded, and the Zionism they spoke about was completely different from Zionism today. Today, tens of thousands of people learn in Israel because of Zionists. Without the state of Israel, there wouldn’t be this learning. As for Gedolim saying it’s wrong, so what? There are plenty of gedolim who say Israel is a brachah from Hashem! Why can’t you just accept it as a difference of opinion?
As for Satmar, I think that it has become a disgrace. R’ Yoel was convinced that Hashem punished the Jews with the Holocaust for not following the Torah properly, so he decided his followers should be machmir on everything, as much as they could, so it wouldn’t happen again. It’s a great idea in theory, but where did it lead? To looking down on those who aren’t Satmar as not being frum, to violence against people in the streets (public streets!) who aren’t dressed to their standards (which aren’t halachic standards), and, as DaMoshe pointed out, to brothers fighting in the streets on their father’s yartzeit! DaMoshe put it best – Satmar has become a disgrace! R’ Yoel put standards on himself that he thought everyone could follow, but he was 100% wrong! I don’t know if I’d say it’s avodah zarah, but it’s definitely not halachic Judaism anymore.
Regarding his views on Israel, his biggest issue was the 3 Oaths. There is a disagreement as to whether the oaths apply if the oath of the other nations was broken. It clearly was broken, so according to many, the 3 oaths no longer apply.
Like I said, if you want to oppose Israel, that’s fine. Just don’t make it out that those who support it are doing something wrong. There are many Rabbonim on each side of the issue.July 29, 2013 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm #968866Oh Shreck!Participant
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.July 29, 2013 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #968867
Oh Schreck: There is a difference between Ruach HaKodesh and prophesy. There is nothing insulting or belittling about saying they did not know the course that world history would take decades in the future. If they did, presumably they would have found a way to avoid the Holocaust and still keep everyone Frum.July 29, 2013 8:17 pm at 8:17 pm #968868
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.July 29, 2013 9:24 pm at 9:24 pm #968869
“ If they did, presumably they would have found a way to avoid the Holocaust and still keep everyone Frum.”
Not sure if you know, but Reb Elchanan was very well aware of the impending Holocaust with its full impact. He spoke about it. He cried about it. It was very vivid to him. I know of other Baalei Ruach Hakodesh who were very well aware of it. One Tzaddik spoke openly about ‘rivers of tears’ before anything began, and tried everything possible to expand Torah so as to avoid the coming Gezeira. The forces working against Torah were stronger.
I know how Ruach Hakodesh and prophesy are related, but what does Ruach Hakodesh or prophesy have to do with omnipotence?July 30, 2013 12:26 am at 12:26 am #968870
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.July 30, 2013 12:28 am at 12:28 am #968871
truthsharer, while the State obviously is a fact on the ground, it is not all theoretical at this point. The IDF is but one example. So it is instructive and, indeed, crucial, to understand that Zionism and the State are Treif. Then one can proceed to the issues that are at hand.July 30, 2013 12:31 am at 12:31 am #968872☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
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.July 30, 2013 12:43 am at 12:43 am #968873
Truthsharer, there are other options, between Satmar and Zionism. I would love to see a wholesome discussion of what exactly were the Shitos of the Rabbanim in the Aguda, the Steipler, the Chazon Ish, the many different Rebbes, and all others, regarding all aspects of Zionism, the state and the Shalosh Shvuos.July 30, 2013 2:36 am at 2:36 am #968874
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.July 30, 2013 2:49 am at 2:49 am #968875
HaKatan: As I have told you before, look at the SHU”T Yabiya Omer OC 6:41 and 42 and then admit that there are opinions that the Medinah is a good thing.July 30, 2013 3:05 am at 3:05 am #968876About TimeParticipant
First and foremost we must lament too much tolerance of those who choose to sin,(which paradoxically it goes) hand in hand with Sinas ChinamJuly 30, 2013 3:08 am at 3:08 am #968877About TimeParticipant
A little light disperses alot of darknessJuly 30, 2013 4:37 am at 4:37 am #968879
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.July 30, 2013 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm #968880
HaKatan: you want to know Rabbonim who held/hold Israel is a good thing?
R’ Hershel Schachter
R’ Y.B. Soloveitchik zt”l
R’ Kook zt”l
R’ Aharon Lichtenstein
R’ Ovadia Yosef
R’ Mordechai Eliyahu zt”l
R’ Pinchas Mordechai Teitz zt”l
R’ Mordechai Willig
I’m sure I can find more if you want.July 30, 2013 6:13 pm at 6:13 pm #968881
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”.July 30, 2013 6:52 pm at 6:52 pm #968882apushatayidParticipant
Oh the irony of it all.July 30, 2013 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #968883Oh Shreck!Participant
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…July 30, 2013 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #968884
Regarding your last one about stealing babies, the answer is the Satmar Rebbe and children from Yemen.July 30, 2013 9:59 pm at 9:59 pm #968885
Oh Shreck!: Those things may be true for some Zionists, but it is not Zionism as a whole.
Nobody (even chilonim) hold you must stop being frum when making aliyah. I know many frum Jews who made aliyah, and nobody did anything to make them stop being frum.
A Zionist may have said that about the cow, but again, it doesn’t reflect Zionism as a whole.
The story of sealing Yemenite babies was shown to be false. I also posted where I spoke to the son-in-law of a Yemenite Jew who said the Zionists did not force anyone to cut off their peyos. Many Yemenite Jews, unfortunately, were eager to do that on their own.
Yes, there were some Zionists who did bad things, just as there are yeshivish people who do bad things, chassidim who do bad things, MO who do bad things, etc. It doesn’t mean Zionism as a whole is bad.July 30, 2013 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm #968886ChachamParticipant
As Haleivi said it is silly that every thread talks about the same old fight no matter what the original topic is. If people want to handle zionism they have to divide it into the many topics. Not every thing has to turn into the same thing all over again.
And also in this thread I happen to agree with Joseph that it isn’t true to say the Machaaa in manhattan was a “small vocal group” when it wasn’t just satmer but rather included many litvishe roshei yeshivos.July 31, 2013 1:15 am at 1:15 am #968887
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?July 31, 2013 1:58 am at 1:58 am #968888
HaKatan, you are quoting that about Rav Kook from someone who would easily say this about his own Rebbe or any Rishon and probably the Amoraim.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.