- This topic has 48 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Reading through The Empty Wagon by Yaakov Shapiro, I feel he did a service for Klal Yisrael. We must always remember that Zionism was spearheaded by atheists that hated the Torah. They also actively prevented deals with the Nazis that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives during the holocaust. Read Perfidy by Ben Hecht.
That said, I have a bone to pick. The author attacks specific frum, erliche yidden, some of whom were or are Torah scholars if he feels they had certain Zionistic leanings.
Regardless of whether or not he is factually correct, what halachic permission is there to write publicly against specific frum yidden? Even more surprising is his constant complaint against those who aren’t in step with halacha, be it the three oaths or accusations of Chillul Hashem where not halachically valid, or anything else.
Well, what about berating specific people for viewpoints that certainly do not impact their status as frum Jews?
In these days approaching Rosh Hashana, it behooves this writer to write an apology.
Wait, didn’t you just do the same thing you accuse him of doing?
Whatever your horoas heter is, he has the same heter.
Having read through some (not all) of the book I won’t debate the points and beliefs of the author despite my disagreement with most (not all) of them. Instead, I’ll share the general feeling the book left me with.
The Chazon Ish who he named the book after a conversation of his also said that you have to realize not to fight the wrong battle. (That was his reason for dropping the fight against the use of Modern Ivrit)
It is simply a shame that the author spent so much effort on it.
(One ironic haskific issue with the book is that the author engages in the same revisionist history that the militant atheistic anti religious crowd does in order to claim to Kochey V’Otzem Yodey was the reason for Israel’s military victories. Particularly in the six day war)
The book does not clearly define what “Zionism” is or who the “Zionists” are. As such one can be left with the impression that all of those who believe in the idea of a Jewish state or those who simply were born in Israel today to non-Charieidi parents are collectively responsible for the actions of a few people that were done without the knowledge of the majority.
Or that someone born in Israel today to none-Charieidi parents shares the same values, goals, motives, and beliefs as the people who fought for the Zionist movement before the state of Israel came into existence.
That simply isn’t true. There is an anti-religious element in Israel today (particularly in the media and court systems) but most of them aren’t motivated by Zionism but rather by the same beliefs that motivate the anti-religious secular Jews in the US. Most of them are actually post Zionist and anti-Zionist. (And some are motivated by the harassment they received from groups associated with Rabbi Shapiro’s viewpoint)
Rabbi Shapiro is a brilliant person with so much to offer the frum world. In times like today when Yiddishkeit is under attack from all sides, there is so much he could accomplish for the frum world and Torah.Had he written a 1300 page book against the CURRENT enemies of Torah and their ideologies he would be from the strongest spokesman for and defenders of Torah Judaism in our time. His former website, frumteens, was a lifesaver for some. Tragically he closed that website down and chose to use his talents and energy to fight people and ideals that are long dead.
Chaval Al davdon!
I haven’t read the book (nor do I intend to; I don’t really think Zionism is the issue for today).
That said, some quick thoughts about your question:
1. If the people to whom he refers had taken public stances on the issue, there doesn’t seem to be a problem of Lashon Hara unless his intent is specifically to publicize the fact that they had done something [he considers] wrong.
2. The Chofetz Chaim specifically notes that it is permitted to say, “Don’t follow the example of Ploni, who talks in Shul. He is doing the wrong thing.” Again, this heter (IIRC) is predicated on the question of intent. If, in saying so, your purpose is to use the example of Ploni as an instructional tool for your audience, you may say this. If your objective is to call attention to Ploni’s wrongdoing, you may not.
Dear Daas,
I think there is a difference. The author intended to write what he wrote. He wants to be portrayed as taking the position the OP ascribed to him. The same may not be true about those he wrote about. I can not say for sure. I have up on the book before he started the fun parts.
Last I checked, the 3 oaths are not halacha
the reason why we are in golus is because of baseless hatred, this book makes more hatred. he rights the book like a leftist he has no answers but just wants to complain. 1,000 pages on how bad certain people were in the making of israel, doesn’t contribute to halacha or hashkafah in any way. we look in the torah and we base all our decisions there
Dear Anonymous,
You assume the right to check, without a preconceived opinion. That forfeits the validity of your research on this topic.
Dear Smerel,
Congratulations on another excellent post! Amazingly, you put a thoroughly negative topic, into a lucid and positive statement.
anonymous Jew:
When was the last time you checked and WHERE?
” Read Perfidy by Ben Hecht.”
Ben Hecht was a Zionist
I didn’t publish anything. I’m asking.
This is not true. You clearly took a negative position.I think there is a difference. The author intended to write what he wrote. He wants to be portrayed as taking the position the OP ascribed to him. The same may not be true about those he wrote about. I can not say for sure. I have up on the book before he started the fun parts.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to make.
anonymous Jew:
Last you checked, the three oaths are not halacha?Have you ever opened any of the numerous sefarim by halachic decisors quoted by the Satmar Rav (and, lhbc”c, in Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer as well)?
As well, the Rambam invoked them as halacha in his Iggeres Teiman.
In other words, have you ever actually checked that they are not brought down halacha (as mentioned, they are brought down as halacha by numerous halachic decisors), or are you just assuming that?
I presume the OP’s issues are primarily with Rabbi Shapiro’s quotes from Rabbi H. Schachter of YU and, perhaps also, lbc”c of Rabbi AY Kook.
In his sefer, Rabbi Shapiro accords due respect, including rabbinic honorific (e.g. Rabbi or Rav) to each. Moreover, he limits his criticism to their views/stated points, for which there seems to be tremendous toeles in covering, not ad hominem attacks.
It’s also worth noting (both in general and regarding the L”H question) that Rabbi Shapiro did not make up these criticisms. The Satmar Rav wrote extremely strongly against Rabbi Kook, both his material and on Rabbi Kook himself.
Rabbi Shapiro also quotes Rav Schwab Zatza”l’s beautiful follow-up piece, “He who Loves does not Hate” in his “Selected Speeches”, to Rabbi Schachter’s article in “Journal of Halacha” about the alleged mitzva to slaughter Jews for the idol of Nationalism. Rabbi Shapiro also notes that lbc”c Rav Schwab wrote that he did not intend to attack lbc”c Rabbi Schachter publicly; however, his article was about “those like him”.
Bottom line: Rabbi Shapiro preserved their respective honor but covered the material as needed.
Regarding those who think that Zionism is a matter of history and not relevant anymore:
1. they should probably (re-)read Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer. You can postulate about post-Zionism as much as you want, but he brings specific examples to show that the State of Israel is very much a Zionist state, and that the core issues have not changed, just as any gadol would tell you.
2. they should note that the WZO is, unfortunately, still very much “real” and that R”L tens of thousands of (frum) Jews (according to the WZO’s web site) were recently fooled into voting in the recent WZO elections, against the vehement opposition to doing so by Rav Aharon Feldman, Rav Moshe Sternbuch, as well all of Lakewood/BMG and many, many others.Had more people (or their Rabbanim) learned Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer prior to the WZO voting period, then perhaps they would have known better than to join this wicked group (WZO/Zionism), etc.
You just proved yourself wrong no there is no basis in halacha if you are only in the source is the Satmer rav and the rambam in there’s taiman, that says it’s not hallacha.
The 3 oaths are aggadata and pardon me if I don’t accept the Satmar Rav as my authority on the subject.
greatwizzo and anonymous Jew:
The Satmar Rav did not on his own claim that the oaths are Halacha; rather, he lists numerous halachic authorities going all the way back who hold that they are halacha.It is rather silly to make pronouncements, and further insist, on matters in which one is obviously ignorant.
Rabbi Shapiro has his Satmar-affiliated shita, but it is far from being the mainstream view. His insistence on painting the “Zionists” as a single monolithic bloc, all of whom were bent on eradicating Torah from Klal Yisrael and replacing it with Zionist views, is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst.
For a well-written and cogent counterview, just look up Rabbi Yair Hoffman’s review of this book.
an Israeli Yid
Dear Hakatan,
I posted this before. The Satmar Rav Z”tl did not prove anything. He endeavored to demonstrate why he held the way he did. His points require counter points. Not refutations.
Here is the question to all ardent anti Zionists. If the three oaths are halacha, why was it omitted before Herzl? Why did none of the oilem who considered establishing a Jewish state in the 19 century, even bring it up?
In sum, this book has to rewrite the Jewish discourse in all different arenas of thought. Then he says If you are a Zionist you have to completely rewrite Judaism. Well, it did not stop him. So what is the problem?
an Israeli Yid:
Rabbi Hoffman writes well, but the article he wrote about the sefer was not a review of the sefer. I read both. Multiple times.As to Rabbi Shapiro’s portrayal of Zionism, his portrayal is absolutely right: any attempt to rewrite Hashem and/or the Torah out of the definition of a Jew (or even remix that), is heresy and absolutely unacceptable to Hashem and the Torah and, therefore, to any Jew who cares about the same. And that remix or excision of Hashem and the Torah from Judaism is Zionism. Whatever your preferred flavor.
no mesorah:
The Satmar Rav decisively proved, from the many halachic authorities he quoted, going back centuries and more, that the oaths are absolutely binding. Period.The premise of your “question” to the “ardent anti-Zionists” is simply not there. The oaths were very much in halachic responsa going all the way back, as the Satmar Rav notes and as lhbc”c Rabbi Shapiro writes in his sefer. Open those up and see!
Even the “Religious Zionists” struggle to come up with how their idol/State could be exempt from the oaths. According to your “logic” they need not bother. Yet they do, because they know very well that the oaths have always been in force, as the Satmar Rav quoted numerous halachic authorities who openly hold this, as mentioned, and as even Chovivei Torah and, lihavdil, as even some “Religious Zionists” held openly.
Maybe it would be wise to first read the Satmar Rav’s sefarim on the topic and/or lhbc”c Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer. Then, you would be able to theorize based on the reality of the Torah and the mesorah going all the way back, not on your imagination of what the Torah and mesorah say or don’t say.
“And that remix or excision of Hashem and the Torah from Judaism is Zionism.”
I have no idea how that reads as a true statement.
And any Jewish ideology could be accused of the same sin.
Dear Daas,
The ones quoted in the book, would never admit that they were trying to undermine Traditional Judaism.
The author blatantly attacks upstanding Jews in his book.
The difference is in that the author himself would proudly say he did so.
“And any Jewish ideology could be accused of the same sin.”
I have no idea how that reads as a true statement.
Actually, I do. A Jewish anything, including ideology, is one that is in full accordance with the Torah and mesorah. So if you define a Jewish ideology as a foreign ideology that conflicts in even a small way with the Torah and that happens to have Jewish proponents, etc. then your statement is true.
By contrast, my statement, in context, meant, as stated that it is simply impossible to accept anything that tampers with “Torah Hashem Temima”, all the more so if it jettisons the Torah entirely, in favor of anything else including Nationalism and/or pagan land worship. All flavors of Zionism lie somewhere on the spectrum mentioned here, as stated.
Hakatan, how do you get around the fact that, even if you accept them as having halachic status, the 3 oaths no longer apply due to one of the following:
1. In allowing the Holocaust, the goyim violated their obligation to not oppress the Jews excessively and thus abrogated the 3 oaths
2. The Jews did not rebel, an international body of nations granted us a stateThe ones quoted in the book, would never admit that they were trying to undermine Traditional Judaism.
And Rabbi Shapiro would never admit that he spread lashon hora
Quote – “Berating specific people for viewpoints.”
anonymous Jew, you mean to ask that you thought the oaths no longer apply due to the alleged reasons in your post.
The Satmar Rav handily dismissed those and many more.
For starters, the shevuos don’t work like that (you break it then I can break it). For example, the Rambam when writing to Jews in Yemen, was very clear that the gentiles then were going too far…
As well, even if it did work that way (which it does not), that would apply only to the oath against rebelling against the Nations, not the others like doing things allowed only by Moshiach, like having a State.
Regarding the non-rebellion because of the UN, there are numerous problems with this. For starters:
1. The Zionsts definitely did rebel. They literally terrorized the British in Palestine and, besides, the Arabs never agreed. Even the British ended up abstaining from that vote and simply left, due to Zionist terror.
2. The Balfour Declaration said only a home, not a sovereign independent state, and the British subsequently stated that the Zionists read way more into that statement than it stated.Dear Hakatan,
1. The Avnei Nezer does not mention the oaths. It is an extremely broad response. This equals to an out an out statement that the oaths are a non-factor. The origin of applying the oaths, is a direct counter to the A”NZ. From it’s inception, invoking the oaths has been a radical view. You could skew the state any way you want. The fact is, almost nobody was talking about the oaths from Hertzl until the state was declared.
2. The Satmar Rav never defined what constitutes a State. To analyze it as halacha is laughable. Although he provides myriads of sources, very few of them are actual evidence. Most of the writing is responses to basic counterarguments.
The shalosh shavuos is a distraction because not everyone has to hold of the satmar pshat of the shavuos, just like in any other sugya. I think the main issue with the book is that at this point what does he want? To just give up the state? That’s ludicrous! At this point either learn to live with it or decide to finally recognize that this is what Hashem wants and start appreciating it for what it is with all its maalos and chesronos.
🙋♂️ Thanks for popping in
manitou:
What other pshat in the three oaths do you know of? From which Halachic decisor?The main issue is that you, and others, haven’t read Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer. Then you might know the “main issue” and the other issues.
Regarding giving up the State, that’s not what he advocates, though the Satmar Rav did say that if the Zionists went to the Nations saying they want out, then the Nations would find a way to figure that out while protecting our brethren there.
If you think about it, this makes much sense from a political perspective. It is quite obvious that the gentiles only tolerate what some even publicly call “that #$@ little country”, to quote that ambassador, simply because of the interests of their respective nations. So they would presumably be quite happy to take over whatever Zionist assets they could in the event of the Zionists choosing to leave the Holy Land.
Regarding your other baseless conclusion that Jews should “finally recognize that this is what Hashem wants”, the same could have been said about the Holocaust (gasp!), the meraglim and, most appropriately in comparison, the Egel haZahav.
Yet the entire shevet Leivi did not agree with that “logic”. Hashem, of course, did not either agree, for that matter. Similarly, no Jew, today, with any knowledge of the idolatry and heresy of Zionism, should G-d forbid believe in this idol of Zionism.
The Satmar Rav says the Holocaust happened because the Jews
Were Zionists.Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook says that the Holocaust happened because
Jews were not zionists.From the fact that real Zionists went to Israel and we’re saved
While anti zionists stayed in Europe and got killed,
It would seem to me that Rav Kook was rightno mesorah:
Regarding the Avnei Nezer, you can check out this link, if the mods allow it:sorry
Regardless, it seems strange to ignore all the poskim going all the way back who do invoke the oaths as practical and in force, etc.
Not to mention, of course, the “Religious Zionists” themselves contend with the oaths rather than simply (and impossibly) declare them non-halachic as you still insist on trying.
Regarding your contention that nobody was talking about the oaths until the heretical founder of political Zionism:
1. Please see above. The Rambam, as mentioned, among many others did.
2. Until that heretic, there never was a hava amina to attempt to make a State due to that being, as everyone knew, a violation of the oaths.Regarding your opinion of what the Satmar Rav said, your prior posts make it seem likely that you have never even opened up his sefarim, so it seems silly to attempt to discuss this.
Regardless, though, the poskim who ruled that the oaths are binding are obviously well known enough that even the “Religious Zionists” take the time to (fail pitifully in their attempts to) contend with the oaths being very much halachic.
Shapiro’s other “friend” Yirmiyahu Kagan, advocates procisely that – giving up the state.
So he in effect wants to give up the mitzva of yishuv haaretz, and probably increase hatred of Jews in the world, in order to keep his fake mitzva of “hating the zionists”.
The Empty Wagon would’ve fared far better if he titled it “The Empty Book”. Harry Potter 7 is shorter and more interesting, and more depth.
He also brazenly includes the false “kook shmook” story, despite it being debunked and him being called out for it 15 years ago! (on Rabbi Gil Student’s blog.) Whic hmeans he couldn’t care less about chipush haames, and rather has an agenda.
Oh, BTW, his site frumteens was also terrible.“Yeshivish Rockstar”:
In addition to your having violated the grave issur of bizui talmid chacham (on Rabbi Shapiro), you have also made the common Zionist error of conflating the Zionist idol/State and, liHavdil Eretz Yisrael.The Satmar Rav said decades ago that if the Zionists wanted out, they could tell the Gentile nations and the Gentile nations would figure out a way to take over politically while protecting our brethren there. He is, of course, right (not that he needs my haskama) and I addressed this above.
Regarding yishuv haAretz, there is a machlokes regarding whether or not that mitzva is applicable today. And other mitzvos may supersede that mitzva, even according to those that it is in force today.
Regardless, though, there is no need for the Zionists to be able to fulfill mitzvas yeshivas haAretz. If there were a normal Western-style Gentile government in that land, (which was what would have happened had the Zionists not invaded E”Y, never mind that Moshiach would have come, as both the Brisker and Satmar Rabbanim stated) and as there is in the USA, the UK, et al. then Jews would simply buy property in E”Y and live there under Gentile rule, just as millions of Jews do elsewhere in galus.
So there is no reason you can’t live in E”Y without the Zionists. To the contrary, it would be far better to live in E”Y without the Zionists than with the Zionists.
It’s also too bad that the Zionists have inflamed the hatred of the Arabs for a century (including well before 1948) while the Zionists falsely claimed to represent the Jews. Then, the Jews could have continued living in Arab countries, as some do even today. But the Zionists need(ed) Jewish blood to sacrifice on the altar of their idolatrous State, and, just as important to the Zionists, they also needed to rid those Jews of any attachment to Torah as well, so they used any means necessary to get Jews to come to their State (and still employ various propaganda and other tactics today to the same end) and also to shmad them, as is well known.
Hakatan
Maybe you haven’t Learnt the sugya but nobody other than the satmar Rav saw it as a problem whether the ohr sameach or avnei nezer but most importantly the Ramban who says the mitzvah of yishuv eretz Yisroel is noheg bzman hazeh and the main mitzvah is kibush.
edited
Yeshivish rockstar:
It’s interesting that rather than praising Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer, which is trying to uproot the A”Z of Zionism from Jews the world over (who have been influenced by that idol, R”L L”A), you prefer a book that contains clear references to, and themes of, A”Z. Rabbeinu Yonah’s vort on “ViIsh kifi mahallalo” comes to mind; you know what someone is about based on whom/what they praise.Regarding the Kook-shmook story that Rabbi Shapiro quoted, he said he heard it from the original source. This story was also said over in Brisk by Rav Berel. It is well-known in those circles. So Rabbi Shapiro very obviously did not make up the story.
But you don’t need to believe or not believe stories. You can instead open up some sefarim. Both the Satmar Rav and Rav Elchonon HY”D blasted Rabbi Kook in incredibly strong terms. Each of the Satmar Rav and Rav Elchonon applied a different Rabbeinu Yonah, including the one I quoted above, with Rav Elchonon concluding that Rabbi Kook was, therefore, a “rasha gamur”, as Rabbi Shapiro quotes.
HaKatan – I specifically did not state that Rabbi Hoffman wrote a review of Rabbi Shapiro’s Satmar-oriented sefer. I stated that you should read what Rabbi Hoffman wrote for a counterview. Satmar – and Rabbi Shapiro – are perfectly entitled to their view. Rabbi Hoffman’s article presents a different view, and notes the Gedolim that supported such contrary view.
You have chosen a Shita to follow. It is far from the universal – or even majority – view at this time, and attempting to say otherwise – or to state with certainty what the Gedolim of yesteryear would have said today – is simply an attempt to fool yourself.
an Israeli Yid
Yeshivish rockstar:
Regarding “increase hatred of Jews in the world”, Rabbi YB Soloveichik, himself, is on record that Zionism/the State of Israel has enormously increased hatred of Jews world-wide, as Rabbi Shapiro quotes.Of course, those blinded by the idol of Zionism would find it very hard to see that, but if you would actually read Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer then you would realize that this is really quite obvious.
The Zionists arrogantly and very fraudulently proclaim themselves the representatives of Jews worldwide. Therefore, if a gentile believes that Zionist Big Lie (liHavdil, unfortunately, many Jews believe the immense propaganda the Zionists constantly crank out), then, when the Zionists do something the Gentile doesn’t like, then it would make sense that the gentile would therefore have a lower opinion of Jews.
But, again, it’s all a Big Lie. The Zionists represent nobody other than themselves (Zionists). They do not represent world Jewry, and never have. Even the (observant) Jews who live under the Zionist jack-boot are there only because they don’t want to leave the holy land, not because they want anything to do with the Zionists, who are unwanted invaders of the Holy Land.
anIsraeliYid:
I already replied that I read both multiple times.Rabbi Hoffman did not provide a (sourced) counter-view from any gedolim/rabbanim. Essentially, Rabbi Hoffman simply expressed his dislike of Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer
edited
For example, the individual miracles that may have taken place in 1967 have no bearing on the overall thoroughly non-miraculous and fully expected Zionist victory in 1967, as you can see on the CIA’s web-site (check it out) as Rabbi Shapiro quotes.
Nor do the Zionists mention, for example, David Green (first Zionist Premier) purchasing (with donated Jewish money) Ninety Million Dollars (in 1940s dollars!) in weapons prior to 1948 in anticipation of the war he was going to launch to officially start the Zionist state. That’s besides the battles and terror the Zionists waged prior to ’48.
If you could find me a sourced equivalent to Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer then I would be happy to check it out.
But you and I both know that such a work doesn’t exist because your alleged “other shita” doesn’t exist, even if minor differences do exist.
As Rabbi Shapiro notes, the Satmar Rav forbade both joining the Zionists in their government and also voting in their elections; by contrast, Rav Reuven Grozovsky permitted, in Biayos haZman (under strict conditions, which, as it happens, are not being followed), frum Jews to become members of Israel’s parliament and for Israeli citizens, who are anyways under the Zionist jackboot, to vote in the Israeli elections.
So there is certainly some difference of opinion in “minor” matters like these (voting or not). But on the core issues, there is only one shita of all gedolim ever since that heretic started promoting Zionism: Zionism is treif, a shmad and a danger to Jews worldwide R”L L”A and we want nothing to do with Zionism.
maintou:
Perhaps it is you who hasn’t learned the sugya.<i>though the Satmar Rav did say that if the Zionists went to the Nations saying they want out, then the Nations would find a way to figure that out while protecting our brethren there.</i>
This sounds like Motzey Shem Ra on the Satmar Rebbe. He couldn’t possibly have been so naive.
If the “Zionists” went to the Nations saying they want out, the Nations would not care about protecting our brethren there more that they did any other time in history.
HaKatan – you keep on repeating the same tired points, while either ignoring or denigrating the views of those with whom you disagree. The volume of your verbiage does not reflect the strength of your view – bloviation does not equal evidence. I therefore see no point in continuing this dialogue.
Wishing you a K’siva v’Chasima Tova,
an Israeli Yid
an Israeli Yid:
Again, haTorah haZu lo tihei muchlefes.
vigam atem.
those are some very strong words about rav kook. considering that rav chaim ozer, rav boruch ber, rav hutner, rav isser zalman, and rov litvishe rabbonim viewed him as the gadol hador id be very careful about what you say. the chofetz chaim maysa is a bunch of garbage as well and has been disproved ages ago. i dont care what circulates in the yeshivishe velt, that doesnt make it true
- The topic ‘The Empty Wagon – great book, but berating specific frum Jews is assur’ is closed to new replies.