- This topic has 361 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 5 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
chiefshmerel:
Actually, if you read it well, you would realize that it was much more than just Kastner’s rishus. He implies (correctly) that the Zionists caused the Holocaust as well.In any event, others point out the same fact, both secular and, liHavdil, gedolim.
SQUARE_ROOT:
No, they are not reciprocal as the gedolim noted and ruled halachically especially those who ruled during times of great persecution like the Rambam and Rav Yonasan Eibeschutz.But even IF (that’s for argument’s sake, though it’s not true) there were any reciprocity, that would be only the oath of rebelling against the nations, not the rest.
In other words, there is zero logic to claim that Jews may violate all their oaths just because the gentiles violated theirs of not subjugating overly much. If anything, the natural counter-balance to that oath, is the oath of not rebelling. That would still not permit aliya baChoma and dechikas haKeitz, for examples, because those are open rebellions against G-d.
But the Zionists flagrantly violated those two oaths as well, not “just” rebelling against the nations. And there is anyways no reciprocity, as per the poskim throughout history.
yankel berel:
“Even if [this is debatable] the creation of the medina was against the torah, the EXISTENCE of the medina is not. [lehol hadeyot]”That makes no sense and is also a lie. It’s actually the opposite. LiChol haDeios, the State remains just as forbidden to have as it was to create it. But since it exists, there is a need to “deal” with it like one would with any type of thugs.
The Steipler rules that way, in karyana diIgrasa, for example.
Even if there is not a way al pi derech haTeva to actively shut it down without risking Jewish lives, that means only that it needs to be dealt with as such, but not at all that it needs to be actively supported, CH”V. If Jews for J or the Mormons were running the Zionist “State” and shmading Jews there, everyone would see this perspective plainly. It’s only because some of the Zionists happen to be Jews and their immense propaganda, that some people become totally confused when it comes to the Zionists.
This one is interesting:
“It is a means to an end – of keeping Yehudim and their property in EY safe.”
So, in other words, it’s worth violating G-d’s word (the oaths and the entire Torah, according to the Brisker Rav) and sending His children to be shmaded in the Zionist army and all the rest just to protect Jewish “property” in the Zionist State (not E”Y, as the Zionist State is not E”Y even if it does cover part of that)? That’s essentially admitting that your concern is not just pikuach nefesh but rather Zionism.Regardless, pikuach nefesh goes only so far. The gimmel chamuros are yehareig viAl yaavor. Zionism is, according to all gedolim, A”Z, and their army serves up heapings of all three.
Ubiq, you’re going back to the knee jerk “no issur no problem” thing. It’s what high school kids say when their rebbeim tell them that following sports isn’t assur. Time to move on.
The shvuos are more than just “advice” or even the best advice; they’re the ratzon Hashem, expressed through chazal. What the zionists did was contrary to the ratzon Hashem according to everyone.
Again, Hashem warned us what would happen if we did it; that’s not just “advice”
And that’s only rav Belsky’s shitah. Most other gedolim I’ve spoken with do not agree with it, as hakatan is accurately quoting. They give other reasons why it’s not in the major poskim; the satmar rov says that it’s because they’re not separate halachos, but all part pf kefirah in bias hamoshiach. The same way the rambam etc do not codify every heicha timtza where one can violate an issur, they don’t mention this example very often. But they do mention it in their general writings and exhort people to follow them, so they clearly do not think it’s “just medrash” or whatever.
Avira, when I say anti-Zionist yeshivas, I don’t mean Satmar or a yeshiva that had an official anti-Zionist policy. What I mean is a yeshivish yeshiva in which the rebbeim personally had anti-Zionist views AND proudly espoused said views. I prefer not to name any, lest I give too much information to remain anonymous.
The attitudes I was familiar with were of the nature that require a lot of assumptions and specific long-winded scenarios to be true. For example, it was claimed that Herzl would spit at a frum person if he saw them in the street. No one ever accused him of doing such to them or in their sight, and it would be downright false to claim that he never saw a frum person in his life.
Regarding Perfidy, I wasn’t sufficiently anti-Zionist in the views of the hanhala. Without mentioning any ideas such as not building a state before Moshiach, the first line of defense was that I should read Perfidy. There was barely any discussion of hashkafa regarding this anti-Zionism, only passing references to Herzl’s secular lifestyle. He certainly was secular and atheistic, but was on good terms with rabbanim who wouldn’t dismiss him. That’s why he corresponded with the first Chortkover Rebbe, Rav Dovid Moshe Friedman, even though the Rebbe was not a supporter. Of course, Herzl wanted support, but I don’t recall any source that he sought to force his lifestyle on others. Rav Kook and Rav Reines collaborated with Herzl, although acknowledging them as gedolim doesn’t fit a certain narrative. Rav Kalischer and Rav Alkalai predated Herzl, but very much supported practical Zionism.
By the way, Herzl was not the founder of Zionism, Leon Pinsker was. Herzl’s idea was more than a decade later, piggybacking off Pinsker, and certainly involved the “permission of the nations”. That’s why Herzl met Kaiser Wilhelm during the Kaiser’s visit to Eretz Yisrael in 1898; to attract support from the nations.
I have tremendous respect for certain anti-Zionist rabbanim, such as Rav Elchanan Wasserman, who opposed it as a concept when there was no state. I believe he would be more pragmatic (like Agudah) if he lived a few more years. Ditto for the Satmar Rebbe Rav Yoel Teitelbaum, who had tremendous Ahavas Yisrael and practiced the ideal of “hate the sin, love the sinner”.
I’m not going to debate this anymore, but I’m putting this out there because someone reading this who is otherwise unfamiliar should know there is another side to the story. Whoever wants the last word can have it.Also, hakatan, there is one shitah among the biggest talmidim of rav berel soloveitchik, who holds that once the state was made, there’s no obligation vis a vis the shvuos to dismantle the state, but rather we daven it should go away because of the many tzaros it causes, both spiritually and physically.
UJM writes: “The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us wuth torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.
I can’t blame you because this is a mainstream Satmar point. However, it is a clear misrepresentation of the Maharal’s words, and Rabbi Hartman notes this in his footnotes.
What the Maharal is saying if that even if the Galus gets this hard that the nations are killing us, we still should not violate the oaths. This is NOT the same as saying that the nations are begging us to violate them!
This misquote is used to portray the Maharal as saying that even if the nations vote for a Jewish state, then by accepting it we are still violating the oath.
The only benefit of this misquote is that it caused Satmar to treat the Maharal as a hero, and therefore helped promote and print Maharal. For me, that’s a fair trade.
>>>I’ve been in basically every anti zionist circle around; it’s just not true. Perfidy is the icing on the cake, but it’s not the reason why anyone’s antizionist.
I never said it was the reason anyone is antizionist.
I said that one of the many hypocrisies I saw in the antizionist groups was the reverence and unquestioning belief they accord to the book Perfidy when had the author written on any other topic pertaining to the Jewish world it would have been banned reading by them and something they would have unquestioning rejected as not true if they don’t like what it said . Similar to the way they do relate to the response of the people he accuses in the book. And that is just one EXAMPLE of the hypocrisy and lack of concern for the actual truth I saw which pushed me out of the extreme antizionist world.
I’m still not a Zionist. But I also came to realize that there is a lot of bad haskafa in what the antizionists write.(Their reverence for the book Perfidy is benign compared to some of the other haskificly questionable positions they take) And their propaganda does motivate many of their followers to engage in wrong behavior
Hakatan: “That makes no sense and is also a lie”
You’d need to explain why it makes no sense. It isn’t enough to simply explain as much. To me it makes very much sense. If the oath is merely an activity that one shall not engage in, what does that have to do with a state that already exists?
You are making up an issue that Chazal did not mention. There is no mention of creating, living in, protecting, or keeping a Jewish state. It was only about trying to leave the Galus. There’s surely no Mitzvah of going back into Galus!
And you’d have to quote the קריינא דאגרתא fully, because i recall him making The exact point that you said makes no sense. He was responding to someone who tried invoking the three oaths, and he was upset about it.
chiefshmerel: Zionism was founded by Nathan Birnbaum in 1883, before Leon Pinsker. Birnbaum is the one who actually recruited and influenced Theodore Herzl to become a Zionist. Birnbaum was elected the first Secretary-General of the Zionist Organization (WZO) at the First Zionist Congress, which he helped organize.
In the 1910s Birnbaum became a Baal Teshuva. He completely renounced Zionism and became a very vocal anti-Zionist. And he was appointed as the General Secretary of the Agudas Yisroel.
Which is the very reason why the Zionists wrote Birnbaum, who founded Zionism, out of the history of Zionism. What could be more embarrassing to them that their very founder became a Baal Teshuva, an anti-Zionist and a leader in Agudas Yisroel?
Avira
“Ubiq, you’re going back to the knee jerk “no issur no problem” thing. ”
nope, and I explicitly said that “So Its just a bad idea” I’m not sure on what planet “bad idea” means “no problem”
With all talking past each other, there are some statements here that look like real debate!
Avira > The balfour declaration (and even the UN partition plan) are irrelevant because when the zionists took over, the british were no longer baalei batim on the land.
This is very brisker for me. Could you unpack this in detail step by step? From my simple reading, there were several steps:
(1) initial zionist yishuv, somewhat supported by a small number of rabonim, but no others,
(2) Balfour declaration – that made further arrivals not violating shvuos as they came with permission
(3) state declaration by those who already arrived – not by shvuos – it is just a declaration, not arrivals and with UN permission
(4) later arrival from DP camps, arab countries, USSR – all according to international lawswhere is your analysis different?
HaKataan says that declaration of state was against goyim as UN wanted to have another mandate. Could you clarify about this “another mandate”? I thought UN sanctioned two states – Jewish and Arab.
It’s more than a bad idea, it’s an abrogation of the ratzon Hashem
HaKatan:
My previous comment was quite serious.
Your Satmar propaganda cannot revise the historical facts.
Your claim that “the UN wanted to begin a different mandate in Palestine” is simply Satmar revisionist history.
The Satmar propaganda machine invented a halacha that never existed – IE that the Jews may not have a state in E.Y. until Moshiach arrives, even when the leading non-Jewish powers recognize the existence of that state.
Satmar propaganda discards the ruling of the Rambam (based on the Talmud) that the only difference between now and the messianic era is the subjugation of the nations.
A Jewish state will exist both before and after Moshiach arrives.
1. The Balfour Declaration was made by the British before they controlled Eretz Yisroel. The Ottomans were still in charge at the time. It would have been no different than if Russia had declared support for a homeland. The declaration doesn’t help regarding the Shavuous.
2. By time the British took over Eretz Yisroel from the Ottomans, the British no longer supported establishing a Jewish homeland. So that also demonstrates no support from the Goyim for a Jewish state.
3. During British rule Zionist terrorists were murdering British soldiers to pressure the British to allow a Jewish state. This demonstrates they were already violating the Shavuous by fighting the Goyim, who opposed their state, to form a state.
4. The UN never controlled Eretz Yisroel. The only reason the UN had a vote on whether to authorize a Jewish state, was because the Zionist terrorized the British into abandoning Eretz Yisroel. And local Goyim of Palestine opposed the formation of a Jewish state.
So even though in my first comment on this thread I explained many multiple reasons why the Shavuous were not, and could not be, abrogated, even on the Zionists on convoluted terms trying to farnagle an excuse why the Shavuous could be ignored due to the Goyim being okay with it, it doesn’t work and falls squarely flat on its face.
RightJew:
Your comment was quite absurd.It’s not Satmar propaganda. Look at the archives of old (secular, not Satmar) newspapers from the late ’40s; it’s plain to see. As well, the Zionists warred with and terrorized the British into leaving the area; they did not willingly hand over control to the Zionists by any means.
Dechikas haKeitz is from the gemara. The poskim brought that long before Satmar came around. Regardless, founding a State, especially in part of E”Y, is very obviously a violation of galus because a central part of galus is living under the rule of the nations, not ruling over yourself in E”Y.
HaLeiVi:
So, by that logic, if someone lit a fire on Shabbos, then there’s nothing wrong with adjusting that fire, as it has already been lit?You totally invented that “heter” (or whatever Zionist you found who invented it). The oaths require living in galus until Hashem chooses to end the Galus. Nowhere does anyone rule that if someone breaks this rule that they could therefore now be free of the requirement to live in galus. This, of course, would be akin to “sheLo yehei chotei niskar” from shas. And if you understood that galus was for our benefit, then you would immediately see why it’s absurd to even posit such a thing.
The Steipler was discussing voting in elections. Since the State exists, and your voting in elections has zero impact on whether or not the State will exist, therefore you are allowed to vote in its elections, according to the Steipler (which is an eilu viEilu opinion on voting in Israeli elections). But, of course, if your vote would in any way cause the State to exist then you would not be able to vote.
“It’s more than a bad idea, it’s an abrogation of the ratzon Hashem”
could be, but unlike a clear/cut and dry halcha, “ratzon Hashem” is harder to ascertain. That same gemara says all who live in chutz Laa’aretz is as they do Avoda zara, Zionists focus on thsi gemra and come up with tirutzim why the other isnt really Avodas Hashem you do the reverse. Im sure you have very creative tirutzim (probably better than the ones youve shared so far, – note I’m not asking you to share them Ive heard them before I rely on them, I dont live in EY)
AAQ
“With all talking past each other, there are some statements here that look like real debate!”
First half is correct
Second is not.
There is no real debate. There has been no new information uncovered. ALL the se arguments have been made over and over for over 70 years.
Nobody is changing minds.I do find it amusing though when in an effort to defend an untenable position all sorts of strange arguments get mad.
you do highlight a great one, that I pointed out earlier
You point # 3 though is only partially correct, the UN voted to create a State, the possessors who conquered Eretz Yisrael (the British) had tunred over the issue to the UN.
For reasons yet to be explained, although normally Kivush of land is a kinyan, this is an exceptionAAQ:
Avira > The balfour declaration (and even the UN partition plan) are irrelevant because when the zionists took over, the british were no longer baalei batim on the land.>> Actually, it’s much more than that. The British essentially rescinded that with the subsequent white-papers and, in any even, permitted only settlement, not political rule which the oaths separately forbid regardless. In other words, the only thing that Balfour would have accomplished, while it effectively was operative, is that the nation in power there would have allowed non-political settlement so doing that would not have been a rebellion against the nations.
This is very brisker for me. Could you unpack this in detail step by step? From my simple reading, there were several steps:
(1) initial zionist yishuv, somewhat supported by a small number of rabonim, but no others,
>> No. Initial NON-Zionist yishuv, as in chovevei tzion, for settlement and non-political purposes only, was supported by only some rabbanim.
(2) Balfour declaration – that made further arrivals not violating shvuos as they came with permission
>> No. See above. Only during that time, pre-white-papers, would arrivals have been with permission and therefore not a rebellion.
(3) state declaration by those who already arrived – not by shvuos – it is just a declaration, not arrivals and with UN permission
>> Declaration of State was forbidden for numerous reasons as per various gedolim. It was against the UN which wanted to restart a Mandate there. It required massive sacrifice of Jewish lives, which was also forbidden.
(4) later arrival from DP camps, arab countries, USSR – all according to international laws
>> The State in which they arrived was and is forbidden. Thus, living there could still be a violation of the oaths even after the Zionists muscled their way in. For example, Rav Shach held it forbidden to live in the territories as an “higarus gasa baUmos haOlam”.Where is this maharal that 3 shavuot are even against pikuach nefesh ?
thanks@hakatan
Even if [this is debatable] the creation of the medina was against the torah, the EXISTENCE of the medina is not. [lehol hadeyot]”That makes no sense and is also a lie. It’s actually the opposite. LiChol haDeios, the State remains just as forbidden to have as it was to create it. But since it exists, there is a need to “deal” with it like one would with any type of thugs.
The Steipler rules that way, in karyana diIgrasa, for example.
————-
You are losing your heskat ne’emanut here.Steipler writes CLEARLY that the issur was only in the establishment , not in its existence.
Please don’t misquote sfarim to jibe your narrative.@katan
Even if there is not a way al pi derech haTeva to actively shut it down without risking Jewish lives, that means only that it needs to be dealt with as such, but not at all that it needs to be actively supported, CH”V.
—–
Just the opposite .
It should be supported – if said yidden will be supported , their lives and their property will be supported .
Definitely.Lo Ta’amod Al dam Re’aha is a Lav De’oraytah.
You are mehuyav to give away ALL your property not to be over a Lav Min HaTorah..
@katan
If Jews for J or the Mormons were running the Zionist “State” and shmading Jews there, everyone would see this perspective plainly.
—–
Absolutely not.
Even if Jews for J would be the elected leaders there and the majority of Jews there ,would be Jews for J ,
I would NEVER [neither should you] abandon the innocent Jewish citizens there to a rerun of Oct 7th {chas veshalom] .I simply shudder at the thought of it !
@katan
“It is a means to an end – of keeping Yehudim and their property in EY safe.”
[yb]So, in other words, it’s worth violating G-d’s word (the oaths and the entire Torah, according to the Brisker Rav) and sending His children to be shmaded in the Zionist army and all the rest just to protect Jewish “property” in the Zionist State
[katan]
————-
Thats no violation of Gods Word at all.Not aiding the State and the Army in case of P/N – THAT is a violation of Gods Word.
Who clearly commanded us not to stand by , when our brothers’ innocent blood is being spilt.
Re property – Yes , that is the clear and famous psak of Sh’A , to be mehalel shabat for property.
Re who should or should not serve in an army dominated by secular mesisim and madihim , and how to balance the problem of p/n versus the individual persons yahadut – that is a valid and necessary discussion for each individual to be had with a gadol batorah ve yirat shamayim , who knows him personally.
.@katan
…. the Zionist State, (not E”Y, as the Zionist State is not E”Y even if it does cover part of that)? That’s essentially admitting that your concern is not just pikuach nefesh but rather Zionism.
[katan]
—-
Irrelevant . Totally irrelevant.
P/N is and remains P/N, whether it is in a Zionist state , in EY, in both or in none.Admitting that my concern is Zionism ??
No admission whatsoever.
Was this supposed admission of mine meant to be based on logic ? How so ?@katan
Regardless, pikuach nefesh goes only so far. The gimmel chamuros are yehareig viAl yaavor. Zionism is, according to all gedolim, A”Z, and their army serves up heapings of all three.
[katan]
—
Wrong . Zionism is Not a’z according to all gdolim . According to some gdolim only.Their army serves heapings of all three, you say .
One is not mehuyav to eat what is served.
But one IS mehuyav not to stand idly by their brothers blood.
.@katan
Ma’ase Rav –
the shevet haleivi immigrated to EY then Palestine under the British – without permission of the British [the then rulers].Illegal immigration to EY is mutar al pi torah .
Proof.@ujm
1. The Balfour Declaration was made by the British before they controlled Eretz Yisroel. The Ottomans were still in charge at the time. It would have been no different than if Russia had declared support for a homeland. The declaration doesn’t help regarding the Shavuous.2. By time the British took over Eretz Yisroel from the Ottomans, the British no longer supported establishing a Jewish homeland. So that also demonstrates no support from the Goyim for a Jewish state.
—————–
No 1 is irrelevant [because of/ and] No 2 is factually incorrect.@hakatan
By time the British took over Eretz Yisroel from the Ottomans, the British no longer supported establishing a Jewish homeland. So that also demonstrates no support from the Goyim for a Jewish state.
[katan]
——————
The League of Nations (LON) formally adopted a British mandate for Palestine in July 1922, which incorporated the principles of the Balfour Declaration in the mandate.
Note – Britain was ruling Palestine since October 1918 ,all the while supporting the Balfour Declaration.Proof that one Cannot rely on hakatans assertions.
@hakatan
Apologise .
previous post was by UJM , not hakatan.
This is NOT proof of hakatans lack of reliability.
Thanks.Can we be precise what exactly falls under shvuos? Mass immigration against the will of those in charge? Or is it subjugating others
A claim that Jews in Israel were put in danger is a serious argument, if true. Only political Zs can disregard it. But do not just compare Israeli situation with relative safety of golden greens abd boro Park. Compare with all Yidden who stayed in Europe and were killed and shmaded by soviets and then nazis, and those who assimilated in USA. Next time you see a Russian speaking guys who comes to shul but doesn’t know what to say, think that he is like that because his great grandfather listened to drashos against golden Medina and 3 shvuos and stayed behind, while your predecessors disregarded divrei chachamim.
hakatan, R’ Shlomo Kluger disagreed about the Oaths no longer being binding when the non-Jews didn’t keep to their end. He said it’s pashut that the Oaths relating to the Jews are no longer in effect when the non-Jews treat us harshly.
Just acknowledge that this is a machlokes, and there are legitimate gedolim on both sides.“The oaths require living in galus until Hashem chooses to end the Galus. Nowhere does anyone rule that if someone breaks this rule that they could therefore now be free of the requirement to live in galus. This, of course, would be akin to “sheLo yehei chotei niskar” from shas. And if you understood that galus was for our benefit, then you would immediately see why it’s absurd to even posit such a thing.”
The oaths are exactly one thing. Don’t make up stuff. There is no Mitzvah to knock on the doors of the nations and beg to be subjegated. The misquoted Maharal that Satmar refers to explains that the Galus is unnatural and that it requires an active Gezeira forcing it in place. The three oaths are three Gezeiros that keep the situation suspended in midair. And you just can’t go against it.
There is no Mitzvas Galus. It is a warning that you can’t outsmart Hashem. By raising the importance of these oaths and turning them into Yesodei Hadas you then can’t understand a simple logic, and equate it to fire on Shabbos.
I’m very unconvinced that any of them were violated, especially since it worked and the whole idea is that it won’t. Bnei Ephraim didn’t get out successfully; the state of Israel did get established. But regardless, having a state has nothing to do with going up en masse or breaking out if Galus on our own.
Yes, it’s obvious that the Zionist organizations would have wished for mass migration and a peaceful crusade, but it didn’t happen. It’s obvious that they caused a lot of trouble in Yiddishkeit just like any replacement ideology, which is the main reason Rabbonim had to counter these organizations.
But it happened, one way or the other. And Hashem was aware of it, I’m told. No, we didn’t outsmart His Galus plans.
RightJew says, “Satmar propaganda discards the ruling of the Rambam (based on the Talmud) that the only difference between now and the messianic era is the subjugation of the nations.”
I thought Agadaic topics aren’t rulings. But more importantly, the Rambam actually does not hold this way. Not in Hilchos Shabbos where he sides with the Chachamim in prohibiting wearing armor, and not in Hilchos Teshuva where he says that all Nevuos are about the days of Moshiach — unlike Shmuel who said that there is no difference between these days and the days of Moshiach.
I don’t have the קריינא דאיגרתא with me now, but it seems that what I recalled seeing there is correct. This is what I found quoting him:
עיקר טענת האדמו”ר הרה”ק מסטמאר שליט”א מחמת ג’ שבועות אינו מובן לענ”ד בודאי בתחילה היה שלא כדין אבל עכשיו שאין שלטון אחר לכאו’ ליכא איסור מצד ג’ השבועותApparently he thought it makes sense. And this is the position of the overwhelming majority of Chasidish and Litvish Rabbonim.
See Kesuvis (111,1). not to take forcefully the land and accelerzte the redemption but individuals are not commanded.
Zionism is the movement to create a national homeland for the Jews in the land of Israel. They did that. The movement is no more.
HaLeiVi:
“the Rambam actually does not hold this way.”
Please stop inventing your own Torah.
The Rambam wrote Mishneh Torah as his compendium of the oral law.
“Our Sages taught: “There will be no difference between the current age and the Messianic era except the emancipation from our subjugation to the gentile kingdoms.”
(Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 12:2)Furthermore, Rambam wrote:
“If a king will arise from the House of David…”
(Kings and Wars 11:4)For a king to arise in the Land of Israel, it would be necessary for a large number of Jews (but not all Jews) to return to the Land of Israel PRIOR to arrival of Moshiach.
Thus the invented notions of Satmar / NK, where Jews only return to E.Y. after Moshiach arrives, were rejected by the Rambam.
“וְאַתֶּ֧ם תִּהְיוּ־לִ֛י מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים וְג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ”
(Shemot 19:6)The mission of the Jews is clearly spelled out in the Torah – to be a kingdom of priests and holy nation IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL.
Not in Brooklyn, Lakewood, or Monroe, NY.
The Torah mission is neither Reform Zionism nor Reform Satmarism.
An invented fake halacha of “Three Oaths” that allegedly prohibits a Jewish return to E.Y. before Moshiach cannot nullify the Jewish mission.
The huge new yishuv in E.Y. is an opportunity to work towards the Jewish mission of being a kingdom of priests and holy nation, regardless if one believes we are in “atchalta d’geulah” or not.
Haleivi: “But it happened, one way or the other. And Hashem was aware of it, I’m told. No, we didn’t outsmart His Galus plans.”
The Holocaust, tach vtat, the crusades, the inquisition, blood libels, etc all happened one way or the other. And Hashem was aware of it, I’m also told. No, just because it happened doesn’t mean we’re happy about it.
Yankel: The British proclaimed Balfour while the Ottomans controlled Eretz Yisroel. After the British took over they didn’t declare further support of that declaration. But even more importantly, it is 100% absolutely indisputable that the British never ever authorized the creation of a Jewish state while they controlled Eretz Yisroel. They opposed the creation of a Jewish state in the land they controlled, while they controlled it.
And the only reason the British quit Eretz Yisroel was because they were terrorized out by the Zionists who were murdering and maiming and otherwise fighting the British and the Arabs while the British controlled Eretz Yisroel.
So it absolutely clear that the Zionists were going against the Shavuous by fighting the controlling authority of Eretz Yisroel. And the only reason the controlling authority quit was because of the militant actions of the Zionists.
RightJew, do you have an incling as to my two references?
I don’t understand people here.
There are no oaths!
The oaths were only on Bayis Rishon. It doesn’t say anywhere for Bayis Shani. Plain and simple!
Second, then oaths is not to rebel your host country to go to Eretz Yisroel. It doesn’t say people IN Eretz Yisroel can’t rebel and fight!
Anon1, where do you see any oaths in the first place? It’s not the Pashut pshat in the Pasuk. But it is in the Gemara, when it is discussing Amoraim.
As to your second point, the two oaths are unrelated. One is not to rebel and the second is not to go up en masse.
According to your logic, that it only applied during Bais Rishon, who was it about? Galos Yechonya?
@ujm
Yankel: The British proclaimed Balfour while the Ottomans controlled Eretz Yisroel. After the British took over they didn’t declare further support of that declaration.
—
Factually Wrong. Their Mandate, received from the League of Nations explicitly mentioned the Balfour Declaration.Following is an excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica –
“In July 1922 the Council of the League of Nations approved the mandate instrument for Palestine, including its preamble incorporating the Balfour Declaration and stressing the Jewish historical connection with Palestine.
Article 2 made the mandatory power responsible for placing the country under such “political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home…and the development of self-governing institutions.”
Article 4 allowed for the establishment of a Jewish Agency to advise and cooperate with the Palestine administration in matters affecting the Jewish national home.
Article 6 required that the Palestine administration, should facilitate Jewish immigration and close settlement of Jews on the land. Although Transjordan—i.e., the lands east of the Jordan River—constituted three-fourths of the British mandate of Palestine, it was, despite protests from the Zionists, excluded from the clauses covering the establishment of a Jewish national home.
On September 29, 1923, the mandate officially came into force.”
Lord Robert Cecil , The Deputy Foreign Secretary representing the British Government on 2 December 1917 stated that the British Government fully intended that “Judea [was] for the Jews. Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians and Judaea for the Jews”.
This was AFTER the British were victorious in the Battle of Beersheba and already controlled a significant part of EY.
.The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed.
That was a while AFTER the British controlled EY.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.