- This topic has 361 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 5 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
The shtikl from the Satmar Rebbe zt”l that was widely shared on social media after 10/7 (when NK was marching with antisemites regularly) was in Yiddish, with the satmar Rebbe zt”l saying that everything he said about the medina was tzvishin yiddin alein and one doesn’t encourage Arabs. I guess he did change his mind on that then.
Rav Hutner zt”l, who employed Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l, was famously not happy with Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l after Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l helped write the ads, which is why Chaim Berlin got a new mashgiach when they moved.LerntminTayrah: The Satmar Rebbe never changed his position even one iota. His public protests against the State of Israel always were organized by himself and always only had Yidden attending them. He never once joined any protests by Goyim.
Furthermore, your little maaisele regarding HaGaon Rav Hunter ztvk’l being upset with HaGaon HaRav Miller ztvk’l (or having anything to do with the changing of the guards as Mashgiach in Chaim Berlin) over his writing the advertisements for Satmar to place in the New York Times is completely inaccurate and with no foundation. In fact, the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Hunter were very close with each other. Indeed, it was Rav Hunter who asked the Satmar Rebbe to write his Psak against artificial insemination to oppose Rav Moshe ztvk’l’s Psak on that topic.
HaLeiVi: In fact, the oaths were — and continue to continuously be — unambiguously violated. Even if you want to discount everything else, you have to acknowledge the fact that the Zionists occupied Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria without ever having received any “permission” to do so from Goyim, the Brits, the UN or the world. Indees, they all have always been opposed to this occupation and continue to remain opposed to its continued Israeli occupation in violation of the oaths.
UJM, this might come as a surprise, but not everyone hates those they disagree with.
Avira
You provide another great example of what I mentioned in my first comment
“The problem with these discussions is everyone has their preconceived notions and cherry picks Pieces mamarei chazal to fit .”you recently said “Smerel – that was AFTER the gezerah min hashomayim was batul and they were given permission to fight. If such a thing had happened during the Holocaust – great, but it didn’t”
Yet In one of your earliest posts in this thread YOU said “Chazal learned the parsha of Yaakov and eisav before meeting with the Roman rulers, to learn and remind themselves of the yesodos, the ways one must behave in galus to be safe.”
Of course Yaakov prepared for milchama, yet you cherry pick and deny milchama as an option
not to mention the idea of milchama is of course brought halacha lemaseh in Orach Chaim 329:6You have your preconceived notion which doesnt have to fit with halacha nor mamarei chazal that YOUI cited
It makes these conversations pointless, though fascinating
T
HaLeiVi: Huh? Are you misdirecting your comment intended for someone else? I have no idea what you’re referring to. I have constantly been unambiguously polite with everyone
Unreported in the US but heard locally, Lord Balfour’s painting was destroyed in Cambridge (real one, not MA, USA). I was suspecting NK punished him for violating drei shevuos, but I am not sure they are allowed to approach paintings, especially in a college named after AZ.
Ubiq, do you think the chachamim would have fought the romans when they went to meet them? Milchama was a strategy when feasible.
But did the zionists do the first two options? No – they were like the foolish baryonim who went straight to fighting.
And during the Holocaust, fighting would have only ensured that no one survived r”l… Look at what happened in Warsaw.
The shvuos do not require jews not to fight goyim at all in self defense. But they do require us not to take back eretz yisroel by force.
Avira > And during the Holocaust, fighting would have only ensured that no one survived
Pre-WW2 Europe, including Poland, deluded itself despite nearby presence of USSR and Nazis. In interwar Poland, Yidden were fighting each other and Poles were fighting each other as in any healthy democracy, except it was not healthy and under external threats. OK, Poles are traditionally brave but not very learned, but maybe Yidden instead of figuring out which schools to go to,, could figure out that Nazis and Soviets are building tanks and airplanes instead of doubling down on horses.
Avira, Jews were not taking EY by force. They came as farmers or city dwellers (with a big machlokes between the two groups, first more ideological, second – more practical, first one won and less people came before WW2). Yidden in Eastern Europe were collecting money in their shuls for “workers in EY”, not “fighters”. Fighting was in self-defense as you suggest.
I heard from a talmid that Rav Hutner didn’t visit the kosel because he agreed with the satmar rov on it being a problem of not being mechazek the reshoim.
UJM, sorry, I wasn’t trying to portray you in a negative light, or at all. I was saying that it is possible to get along and even admire someone who you disagree with on certain issues. Therefore, Rav Hutner’s admiration for the Satmar Rav doesn’t shed light on his positions.
Reb Aaron disagreed with the Satmar Rav vehemently, on certain issues, and he admired him greatly.
Square – cute. Just to be clear, all of my rebbeim held of going to the kosel, just like 90% of klal yisroel. Chaim Berliners have no problems going either – Rav Hutner never said others shouldn’t do it.
Of note is that before zionism, Jews were able to go to the kosel freely. The Arabs stopped it because they had this paranoia about al aqsa mosque which to this day makes them go rabid whenever a Jew goes near it. This is by design – there’s a serious issur in going on har habayis.
So when zionists use the kosel as a trophy of victory and pride, it’s really just undoing the damage they inflicted.
@ujm
You conveniently forget the stated aim of the Arabs in 67 ‘to drive all the Jews into the sea’.’
Or the promise of the Secretary of the Arab League that the “Mongol Massacres will pale in comparison” to what will happen chvsh after the Arab victory.
The 67 War was an existential one .
The conquest of the Shtahim are also existential.
So is the retreat from those Shtahim an existential question.
Where considerations of pikuach nefesh are paramount.
Before any question of [possibly binding] considerations of 3 shevuot.Yidden who moved from Europe to EY pre ww2 escaped commies and nazis. Did old yishuv have a plan to absorb all these people without zionim? Did they have funds to feed them or to create jobs for them?
Zionim were at fault diverting funds from donors from tel Aviv manufacturing to kibbutzim. Manufacturing was able to support more jobs in tel Aviv and would enable more German jews to come. Kibbutzim were ideological goal but didn’t create enough productive jobs, limiting lives saved.
>>>I heard from a talmid that Rav Hutner didn’t visit the kosel because he agreed with the satmar rov on it being a problem of not being mechazek the reshoim.
None of his other Talmidim seem to have heard or believe that . They all daven by the kosel . It is inconceivable that someone like Rav Ahron Schechter would have made a public preannounced tefila asifah by the kosel had Rav Hutner opposed going there
Perhaps you are right that he didn’t “visit” the kosel as you put it. He went there to daven.
It’s nice to see you consider Rav Hutner to be deah. Hie had a lot more of a personal connection to and learned a lot more from Rav Kook than the Satmar Rebbe
It’s possible the Satmar Rebbe put anti-zionists ads in The New York Times and it is possible that Rav Avigdor Miller wrote them but there is no way either of them would have supported some of what goes.
Hertz Frankel, the one who organized the Satmar protests for the Satmar Rebbe wrote an article Misphca magazine saying that the Satmar Rebbe would have opposed some of the current Satmar methods of protesting. Three points he made that I remember were that the Satmar Rebbe only supported public protests in front of non-Jews if (1)there was a specific issue that was being demanded of the Zionists. He did not make general protests or put general ads to educate non-Jews about Satmar haskafa and beliefs (2)He was not dismissive of criticism from other groups about those type of ads and protests . He did not like making public protests if no one other than he and others in the Satmar orbit felt they were correct (3)questions like should a protest be public pr private were things he put major thought into. He never ran to lash out in public.
Rav Avigdor Miller was no frothing at the mouth anti-Zionist . I’ve heard many answers from him to questions about the state of Israel. He never gave the type of answers you would get in Satmar. Yes, he was opposed to Zionism. but similar to the way most Yeshivish rabbonim are
>>>Manufacturing was able to support more jobs in tel Aviv and would enable more German jews to come. Kibbutzim were ideological goal but didn’t create enough productive jobs, limiting lives saved.
In order to create manufacturing jobs you need to have the raw materials, a saleable product and trading partners. None of them were existent in abundance in Palestine. The kibbitzim existed for the socialist purposes of providing employment to anyone who wanted to work. In that regard they were a success at that point in time. Coming from Russia and Poland with it’s mass Jewish unemployment rate their ideal of providing everyone with jobs even if there may be better economic models to choose from made sense, Many early Zionist ideals (which are widely criticized by anti-Zionists with zero effort to understand their point of view or motives ) make sense to people who are coming from their background and life experience
Square, you’re talking about after zionists came in.
In the okd yishuv of yerushalayim, say during the time of rav shmuel salant, people went to the kosel unfettered.
There is a printed answer of R A Miller saying NOT to return any territories conquered in 1967, because of hashash pikuach nefesh.
So – being anti zioni does not necessarily translate in to the dangerous dismantling of the medina.@avirah
chairs and mehitsah were not allowed at the kosel.>>>In the okd yishuv of yerushalayim, say during the time of rav shmuel salant, people went to the kosel unfettered.
That is only somewhat true. The site was under control of the Wakf who did not allow Jews to do anything that implied they had ownership . In 1840, way before the Zionists came around they already forbade the Jews who wanted to do so from paving right in front of the Kosel. There are other reports in Jewish newspapers written before the Zionists of Jews being beaten and harassed on their way to or at the kosel. The major fight in 1911 over whether Jews can bring chairs when they daven at the kosel was not a fight with or because of any Zionist groups.
smerel, I am talking about 1920-30s specifically. I’ve read a very detailed thesis on the topic some years ago and it sounded convincing. Sochnut centralized funds provided by private donors and directed them to agriculture rather than cities as original donors preferred. Manufacturing in cities was able to provide a living and an economically viable community. Agriculture was losing money, so more and more funds were required to support them.
German Jews in particular were reluctant to come during early nazi years, leaving their parnosa behind.
All sides of this discussion of the conditions in EY omit the question – about all Yidden who found refuge there from Russian and Turkish Empires, then Russian revolution, then Stalin, then Nazis, then commies in Eastern Europe, then from Arab revolutions and mullahs and terrorists. Imagine Jews in Aleppo staying there until ISIS arrived … It is not just about 100 people who could beg the locals to put chairs near the kosel.
Answering that they could have gone to USA, British Empire, South Africa & America does not fully answer – not everyone was able to travel there, and many rapidly assimilated. Those who came to EY even under most hardened commies, had Jewish grandchildren, who still have a chance to do teshuva. And many Rabonim did not recommend going to the golden medina either.
“[B]eing anti zioni does not necessarily translate in to the dangerous dismantling of the medina.”
This is the official position of Satmar. They pray that it should be dismantled peacefully, but are against doing it by hand
@haleivi
preaching towards that goal is equal to dismantling ‘by hand’ .
And if this will be marbeh shfihut damim then it will be on their head.HaLeivi,
I’m sorry but that is not how a gemara finds the answer. It does not say מסתברא. That is a word that means, most likely, but not certain. In addition, even if he was a Navi, we have a whole Sefer of Ezra and not one nevuia regarding the geula? Think with your gemara cup! Does that make sense?!?! The pivitol moment when Jews can go back, and not ONE neviah?
We are in a zeman similar to when Jews had to leave Mitzrayim and Bavel. There is no Neviah, but the timing is right. It seems you have chosen to remain in Mitzrayim and Bavel. That is your right. It is even your right to criticize people who believe in the Geula. But it still wont make you right! You will be known as the Chamishim. As Rashi explained, the 4/5ths of Jews who remained in Egypt, even though they were being persecuted. They probably said the same thing as Satmar, that the 400 years weren’t over and even after all the miracles, they still felt Moshe was not the right leader. Most probably because he looked like a Goy, like the Torah described him, he looked like a Egyptian.
So I will follow the goyish Zionists to the Land that Hashem promised our Avos. That’s that!
anon1m0us, first off, you obviously haven’t followed my position here.
Second, you didn’t actually check up how the Gemara uses the term. It is ALWAYS final. It’s used to be Machria from logic when they’re is no proof from a Mishna.
Avira
you do not dissapoint
You are now postign comments that you must know not to be true“Ubiq, do you think the chachamim would have fought the romans when they went to meet them? ”
Yes of coruse, you must have heard of Rabi akiva and Bar Kochaba
“Milchama was a strategy when feasible.”
Yes exactly, as I said“But did the zionists do the first two options? No – they were like the foolish baryonim who went straight to fighting.”
Again, you cant possibly know so little about Israel history, Balfour declaration was obtained without fighting, There was plenty of Zionist diplomacy“And during the Holocaust, fighting would have only ensured that no one survived r”l… Look at what happened in Warsaw.”
There were survivors from Warsaw ghetto uprising. there were (almost?) none from Treblinka
You cant possibly not know this but your wrong ideology forces you to cherry pick and even fabricate pointsI find it fascinating
Note at no point did I say fighting was ALWAYS the correct approach
>>>“Ubiq, do you think the chachamim would have fought the romans when they went to meet them? ”
This question wasn’t addressed to me but it seems very clearly that they would have . Chazal say that when Rav Yochonan Ben Zakai saw that those who were supposed to fighting in defense were cooking straw in boiling water for nourishment he said “could they possibly win over the soldiers of Titus ?” He therefore went to meet Vespasian. It is pretty clear that he was not opposed to their fighting per se . It was he realized it was a lost cause any way he tried to get the best deal possible.
On another note the resoyim from the Neturei Karta frequently misuse that Gemora as a justification for their being such malshinim, and mischaber and msichazek rotzchim of klal Yisroel. It is a nonsense comparison. Rav Yochonan Ben Zakai did not run a PR campaign for Titus and Vespasian, he did not enable or condone them in any way whatsoever, He basically met Vespasian under surrender terms and tried to get whatever he could for klal yisroel. The Neturey Karta for all the damage they do never ask for anything on behalf of Klal Yiroel. It’s all about their own money, kovod and achzrorius
Haleivi,
I know your point. And it’s still not valid. There are no oaths. You’re not shown where it says it is still valid. You bring me a Rabbanim who interpret an Aggadta.
Nowhere Navi does it collaborate your opinion. Not even the gamora.Show me where a an assumption is considered a fact?
Anon, line one is not an argument.
You seem to easily argue against Gemara. I’m not sure I get your Hashkafa, and I’m not sure I want to.
I did point out that Gemara engaged in a serious discussion about it, and applied it למעשה for their generation. Why did this Sugya do wrong to be labeled Agadata, and to be ignored?
In a separate discussion, with someone else, you challenged his apparent assumption that Ezra was a Navi, so I showed you a Gemara that mentions it. That’s all. That was not to subscribe to Avira’s full opinion.
I pointed out several times that everywhere thar the Gemara uses the term ומסתברא it is an unequivocal conclusion, reached through logic rather than textual proof.
Smerel, you say: “Chazal say that when Rav Yochonan Ben Zakai saw that those who were supposed to fighting in defense were cooking straw in boiling water for nourishment he said “could they possibly win over the soldiers of Titus ?” He therefore went to meet Vespasian. It is pretty clear that he was not opposed to their fighting per se . It was he realized it was a lost cause any way he tried to get the best deal possible.”
Let me preface by saying that I agree that the Chachomim has nothing against fighting off dangerous neighbors, and there are Mishnayos to that extent.
But in this case, the full story as the Gemara relates is that the Chachamim said at the outset that they should not fight the Romans, because they won’t succeed. However, they were not in full control and the Baryonim did what they did. Then, they burned the storehouses in order to force everyone to fight. The Medrash quotes Rebbe Yochanan ben Zakai as complaining about this action.
It was after this, obviously, that Rebbe Yochanan ben Zakai said that someone must be done because there is no hope at all to continue.
That while episode was before the actual Galus, there’s not much to glean in this regard, anyhow. And obviously the inhibition to fight was not because of any Shvuos.
Haleivi,
There is NO gemera that states that today’s Galus is binded by any oaths. I pointed out, numerous times, that the gemara regarding oaths were clearly on Bayis Rishon and no where does it say Bayis Sheni.
In addition, ומסתברא is a term that does not unequivocally mean final. It means a logical conclusion without any evidence. As stated again, even if he was a Navi, no where does it ever say he received Navuah regarding the geula. NO WHERE! You seem to ignore that and just relay on prior prophecy that even Daniel didn’t know when 70 years were over. No where in Navi does it say a date etc. You relay on a lot of assumptions to meet your narrative.
Like I said, you staying behind is no difference than all the other gedolim that were wrong. The Meraglim were also the great of their generation and were wrong. By not seeing the hand of Hashem sis denying everything he is doing because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Like the millions of Jews in Egypt that volunteered to remain behind because after all the miracles, they still felt it was not time.
“[T]he gemara regarding oaths were clearly on Bayis Rishon and no where does it say Bayis Sheni.”
Explain where you see this clearly.
Which generation was Rav Yehuda and Rebbi Zeira?
Fact is that satmar preaching for dismantlement of Medina has been used by Senate Majority Leader as rationale [or excuse] for withholding arms in certain circumstances.
Withholding arms from israel is pikuach nefesh.
Pikuach nefesh on Satmars account.
.HaLeivi,
Read the gemara! Just because amoraim talk about something does not mean its a current discussion for this days! If you believe so, then we are in a far worse off state than I thought.
Satmar has not lobbied against giving arms to israel.
Formerly pro israel politicians looking to cozy up to the new left in the Democratic world which is anti Israel have used satmar as an excuse.
@avirah
So satmar has to come out against Shumer and correct him .
As long as that does not happen , we [and the whole world – most importantly including the decision makers about arms exports] will apply the klal of shtika ke’hoda’a .
Shma mina de niha lehu.Are they guilty of lo ta’amod al dam rei’acha ?
If people die as a result of non deliverance , or slow deliverance of certain weapons ?
A she’ala of dinei nefashot ?
.Satmar isn’t responsible for every idiot who quotes them wrongfully. Acknowledging it itself is an issue; they’re not a PR firm. Agudah doesn’t speak out when it’s cast wrongfully in the media either, and neither does mizrachi or zionist organizations. Your request of them is petty.
Also, while they don’t agree with nadler and his people, they also don’t think it’s pikuach nefesh for the US to send arms to Israel. You decided that. They basically believe in shev v’al taaseh; they don’t support the war nor do they support those who are opposed to it.
That’s not only satmar. The rabbonim who backed away from the major israel rally a few months ago also said that demanding things from America is not the way we behave in galus.
>>>Satmar isn’t responsible for every idiot who quotes them wrongfully. Acknowledging it itself is an issue; they’re not a PR firm. Agudah doesn’t speak out when it’s cast wrongfully in the media either
You can be sure that if some very high profile politician misrepresented the Agudah position in a public policy speech they would correct him. And Audah isn’t nearly as aggressive as Satmar when it comes to informing the non-Jewish public about what their opinions on issues relating to Israel iare.
>>>The rabbonim who backed away from the major israel rally a few months ago also said that demanding things from America is not the way we behave in galus.
That isn’t correct. Some felt that the gathering itself was not a place for their followers to be. No one had issues with asking for American support for Israel in time of war. And again Satmar is way more aggressive than Agudah when it comes to public demonstrations and making demands from politicians
@avirah
Satmar isn’t responsible for every idiot who quotes them wrongfully
===
Come on . A Senate Majority Leader should not mistaken for “every idiot”.
This is one of the most senior posts in the country.It seems that he did NOT quote them wrongfully.
He is not an ‘idiot’ .
He is an intelligent and a responsible [to his own worldview] person. Otherwise he would not get where he got.Biggest proof that he quoted them properly , is the fact that Satmar keeps quiet and does not correct the record.
.@avirah
Agudah doesn’t speak out when it’s cast wrongfully in the media either, and neither does mizrachi or zionist organizations. Your request of them is petty.
[avirah]
===this was not ‘the media’.
This was the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.
.
You can rest assured that any of the mentioned organizations would speak up if they were misrepresented by one of the foremost officials in the country . bifrat if it would be nogea to p/n.Your defense of them is laughable.
@avirah
while they don’t agree with nadler and his people, they also don’t think it’s pikuach nefesh for the US to send arms to Israel. You decided that.
[avirah]
======Its not p/n for the US to send arms. According to avirah, at least.
Question for Avirah [and all other satmar apologists] al pi derech hateva :
Will the same number of yehudim in EY chvsh die, irrespective of weapons shipments ?
Or will more yehudim chvsh die in EY if shipments are stopped or delayed ?What are the objective facts ?
.@avirah
That’s not only satmar. The rabbonim who backed away from the major israel rally a few months ago also said that demanding things from America is not the way we behave in galus.
[avirah]
——————-
Reminder- Discussion here was ,whether satmar shitah is being used for withholding arms , or not .
Whether satmar could ‘ve publicly rejected usage of their shita for blocking arms shipments.
And whether withholding arms is an issue of pikuach nefesh.
Resulting in satmar carrying responsibility for p/n.That was the discussion.
There was no discussion about joining demo’s , nor about ‘demanding’ anything.
Now to your new point. Which rabbanim said exactly what, please ?
.> Satmar isn’t responsible for every idiot who quotes them wrongfully
We have concepts of being responsible for creating wrong impressions
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.