Tiferes Shlomo and the modern State of Israel

@somejew

@katan

the real full fledged Zionists – shomer shabbos or not – are no longer part of klal yisroel as per Torah guidelines.
[somejew]

—

somejew clearly contradicts karyane de’igrata vol 1 …..

and contradicts worldwide accepted halachik practise in all batei hora’a

and all rabanim and dayanim

all because of some supposed obligation to fit with wrongly preconceived ideological shitah ….
.
.

AAQ:

“The fact is that those who followed Zionists to EY mostly survived and are Jewish. A large portion of them is shomer shabbat or “traditional”. Even those who are not observant (and most likely whose grandparents were not observant with or without Zs) are still Jewish and have a chance.”

First of all, Palestine was under grave threat from the Nazi general Rommel, and Hashem supernaturally interceded to save all the Jews there from the evil Nazis. Second, you have ignored everything I wrote about this in my post. Those who went to Palestine “mostly survived and are Jewish”, you say? Again, the Zionists have shmaded generations of Jews, all of before, during and after WW II. “Shomer Shabbos” or “traditional” are nice, in theory, but anyone who denies even a single letter of the Torah is a heretic, and the Zionists deny much more than one letter – more like the whole Torah, with some limited exceptions. As the Brisker Rav put it, and many others including the Gerrer Rebbe signed on, the “Religious Zionist” education is a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah”.

Next:
“You provided the words. We provided analysis that shows that the Esav idea, while reasonable at a time, does not match recent history. If you do not have an answer in your mind, maybe you can ask or write a letter to someone who share your views and share their answer with us?”

No, you did not provide any such analysis. You just pointed out random ideas that do not at all refute the Esav idea. The Esav idea, of course, remains perfectly reasonable today. Just hypothetically, and for example, if the United States of America were to take over and annex that as an overseas territory, do you really think that President Trump or a similar leader would allow some savage to ruin that? No, he obviously would not.

Katan, you are using circular logic – everyone related to zionism is a heretic. Therefore, all the people saved by Zionists and who are observant today are heretics and their lives do not matter. This is against anything I ever heard from gedolim of any direction. R Schach, for example, writes that Hashem caused Arabs to hate early Zionists to prevent them from assimilation into local culture. Clearly, Rav thought that Hashem cares. Even if taking your position, Israelis stayed Jewish, while similar Jews in other countries intermarried or were killed.

> President Trump

We don’t know what will happen in the future. We were discussing definite events in the past – none of the middle eastern countries stayed under Esav, they went thru communist and islamic phases. Your “solution” would have condemned all Jews of EY, Europe, Sefarad, USSR to either assimilation or physical suffering. Again, if you have a Rov to ask – I’ll be interested to hear his opinion on this hypothetical future.

First of all, Palestine was under grave threat from the Nazi general Rommel, and Hashem supernaturally interceded to save all the Jews there from the evil Nazis ….
[katan]

—

Not ‘supernatural’ .

that was not a nes .

just like Israeli military victories are not a nes

same with the military victory of the british at el alamein – it was not a nes .

both were clear hashgacha pratit.
.
.

somejew’s brain is apparently kidnapped by aliens and reprogrammed by them to make

him think that it is a binary choice between the 13 ikarim and zionism

hence his convoluted and wrong approach.
.

in somejew’s reprogrammed mind it is a contradiction

either you are with zionism or you are with the 13 ikarim

would like to get hold of those aliens , maybe

they can deprogram somejew’s mind and let him think , think and …. think
.
.

maybe he will see that zionism , although it is , in my eyes, and

in most of the rabbanim’s eyes, a negative movement

and although most of its adherents and founders were apikorsim
.

nevertheless it is still possible to fully believe in the 13 ikarim

and still be a ‘full fledged’ zionist

I challenged somejew repeatedly on these pages to explain why it is impossible

to adhere simultaneously to the 13 ikarim and to zionism

but I was not deemed worthy enough in his eyes to merit a response on that specific question

probably it is, because he is too wise to answer fools like me ….

.

but I will pose the question again anyhow

where in the 13 ikarim do we find a contradiction to zionism ?

.
.

katan > therefore, there obviously must be a better alternative. Decades ago, the Satmar Rav noted that if the Zionists wanted, that they could approach the nations to have them figure it out. Only a Zionist idolater would definitively state that it is impossible to have anything other than Zionist rule.

So, you conclude, as we do, that there was no logical alternative for a goyishe government in EY, only smuchim alhanes. Again, this is in retrospective, SR did not know that. But if you are willing to rely on the nes, you should not limit yourself to Zionist restrictions. Maybe organize your own state in the area – PA, Gaz, East bank? Maybe a realistic approach right now would be a buffer state between Israel and Lebanon or Syria? Syrians are very eager to show their tolerance, so a mixed Druze/Satmar state could work.

katan > … Only a Zionist idolater would definitively state that it is impossible to have anything other than Zionist rule.

—

you missed someone out here …. a realist .

a realist is not beholden to any ideological straightjacket

a realist has no preconceived notions to what the solution is meant to be

a realist’s solutions are tailor-made to …. reality

exactly the approach the torah mandates the Jew to take

torah mandates the Jew to find and execute the most fitting solution to reality as is possible

if that means the continuation of those despicable zionists – so be it …

pikuach nefesh doche et kol hatora , including any possible shavu’oth
.
.

@somejew

it is still possible to fully believe in the 13 ikarim

and still be a ‘full fledged’ zionist
.
.

I challenged somejew repeatedly on these pages to explain why it is impossible

to adhere simultaneously to the 13 ikarim and to zionism

but I was not deemed worthy enough in his eyes to merit a response on that specific question
.
.

maybe it is because he considers himself too wise to answer fools like me ….

.

but I will pose the question again anyhow

where in the 13 ikarim do we find a contradiction to zionism ?
.
.
.

@yankel-berel
answer your question, you would need to define “gulis”, “moshiach”, and “zionism” first.
You are welcome to provide your working definitions or request mine, I only ask that they are meaningful specific definitions, such as – for example – your definition of zionism must specifically mean the novel ideology that was started with that name in the late 19th century and is currently valid for that movement.
If your answer is “no one knows what zionism is” or some other ignorance, it precludes any meaningful persuasive conversation.

@somejew

no problem . challenge accepted

here we go

zionism is the movement which advocated for a return of the jews to EY and their establishment of an independent state there .

galut is the forced dispersion of the jews after hurban bayit sheni

mashiach is the shliach from the RBSH’O to take all jews back to EY and who will rebuild the bet hamikdash
.

so the question was and still is – where in the 13 ikarim is there something against zionism ?

.
thanks
.

somejew > “zionism is the movement which advocated for establishment of an independent ‘Jewish’ state anywhere “.

maybe. Early pre-Hertzl Zionism – Odessa and such, were focused on EY. And so was Hertzl. True, his primary motivation was fear of anti-semitism in Europe (pretty prophetic, unfortunately), and when things did not develop as fast as he expected, he proposed Ua=ganda – and the idea was soundly defeated.

Ironically, it seems that Uganda would be OK with you, not (or less) against 3 shevuos.

Always_Ask_Questions:
“And so was Hertzl. True, his primary motivation was fear of anti-semitism in Europe (pretty prophetic, unfortunately)…”
This is a classic Zionist myth, of course.

No, his primary motivation was wanting to be “normal”, which is why his first plan was mass baptism R”L L”A. Once that didn’t work out, he chose Zionism, especially because of how en vogue it was among the Christian Zionists (who long pre-dated him and his fellow heretics) and how he would be able to propagandize Jews for it.

If his mythological supposed concern was in any way “prophetic”, then it was very much of the “self-fulfilling” type. In fact, he and other Zionists deliberately said nasty things about Jews, like “A Jew’s life is a dog’s life”, and that a Jew cannot be a citizen of his host country, and on and on. He, himself, wrote that anti-Semites will become the Zionists’ friends, because that would get Jews to emigrate to their planned future State.

And on and on.

@somejew

somejew > Gulis : This definition aligns very well with the makoros in Torah that point out that the gulis of buvel has never yet fully ended (as Bais Sheni was not fully independent from shibid malchiyis).
—

Have a look at rashi sanhedrin 97 where he explains that many years of bayit sheni period was characterized by ‘kavod’ because they were politically independent and self governing … without shibud malhuyot .

—

umipnei chata’enu galinu me’artsenu venitrachaknu …. galut translates as exile in english

but you are correct that there are added meanings to the term galut as is mentioned by the gra that after the 4 galuyot under the 4 malhuyot, there will be a fifth galut under the erev rav mizera bnei yisrael , which came true in our days in EY itself

so we do see that galut could be in EY itself too.

there was a gezera min hashamayim of exile and shib’ud malhuyot , as evidenced by the facts on the ground and as stated by hazal.
.
.

@yankel-berel

I have attempted, because I demand from myself, to provide definitions that are intrinsic and fundamental to each concept. So, the definition of zionism – as per this standard – must be unique and consistent to that specific ideology, meaning it applies to the first founders as well as each successive generation that carried their disgusting banner. And the inverse is true, meaning here if someone believes jews should NOT establish their own “Jewish” state anywhere in the world, they could never be called a zionist. While some have emphasized other ideas, working land, becoming rich, making peace, killing others, becoming secular, becoming religious, etc, the core defining feature of what is or is not “zionism” remains the same: establishing a “Jewish” state.

so too the definition of gulis I provided is consistent across all meforshim, both those meforshim who say that the years of Bayis Shaini were gulis and those who say they were geila.

However your feedback reveals a mistake you are making, perhaps in light of your reliance on artscroll translations. In Torah, “gulis” is a state of our relationship with Hashem, also called “gulis haShechina”. Pointing to the quote you mentioned, gulis is the reality of our sins standing in the way, and gulis is the means of fixing – and thereby removing – those sins. And this is not “added layers of meaning”, rather this is fundamental to the concept of gulis and geila, as chazal teach and is an explicit pasuk that gulis cannot end without tshiva.

A symptom of gulis and a key mechanism of gulis being the tikun is our dispersion amongst various nations and our exile out of eretz yisroel. Yet the reality of gulis exists even when jews gather together and even when we are in the physical borders of EY. This is why many haluches are different in EY during gulis vs geila. This is also why Yerishalmis today still say “leshuneh habu b’Yerishalyim”.

So, I would like to update my definition of “gulis” to: Gulis is a Divine decree for the Jews to suffer under “shibid malchiyis” specifically because of our sins to Hashem that caused “Gulis Shechina”. The gulis is the Divine mechanism towards our tikin and will necessarily only end when Jews do teshiva.

Regarding the definition of Moshiach, I omitted another distinct point worth mentioning: “מקבץ נדחי ישראל” as the Rambam says it, which means gathering all the dispersed Jews together. I’ve added it below.

RECAP:
Zionism is the movement which advocated for establishment of an independent ‘Jewish’ state anywhere.

Moshiachis a direct descendent of Duvid Hamelech who is a nuvi of Hashem (with all the established conditions of a nuvi) who brings back all Jews to tshiva (keeping all miztvos), can judge and issue psak with his smell, rebuild the Beis Hamikdash, gather all dispersed Jews together, and restore Malchis Beis Duvid as King. There are more details brought in chazal, such as Eliyuhi Hanuvi (also a nuvi of Hashem, of course) will publicly announce the arrival of Moshiach before he reveals himself, and all those details as well, even if here is not the place to expound on them all fully.

Gulis is a Divine decree for the Jews to suffer under “shibid malchiyis” specifically because of our sins to Hashem that caused “Gulis Shechina”. The gulis is the Divine mechanism towards our tikin and will necessarily only end when Jews do teshiva.

Please let me know if we are in agreement with the three definitions and I will continue to the next step.

Always_Ask_Questions:
You aren’t being specific: Jews who specifically were looking to “integrate” into secular culture were rejected from doing so. Jews continuing to live as Jews as did their fathers and grandfathers and all the way back, however, were doing just fine.

You also seem to have missing the part that his Plan A was conversion. He himself has zero Jewish descendants as do others who became Zionists, of course. Since the entire goal of Zionism was assimilation, there would obviously be no objection to intermarriage. Even today, Zionists move out to various countries and marry the women there. And, not to forget, the wicked Zionists also run programs to mingle their youth with the Arabs, and Yad Lachim and others exist specifically for the purpose of rescuing Jewish women from the hell that is an Arab “husband” and village.

No, Zionism does not at all guarantee Jewish grandchildren.

HaKatan > You aren’t being specific: Jews who specifically were looking to “integrate” into secular culture were rejected from doing so. Jews continuing to live as Jews as did their fathers and grandfathers and all the way back, however, were doing just fine. … his Plan A was conversion.

Yes, of course – Hertzl, like many non-religious Jews at the time – hoped to become equal citizens and Dreyfus affair showed him that this is not attainable through assimilation. What I am saying – for people like that, following Zionists to EY was a way better path than alternatives that existed at the time – conversion, communism, german nationalism. That was the main impact of Zionism on Jewish population. In no way I am supporting all the other narushkeit.

@somejew

disagree re definition of zionism

our dabate is about how to view the zionist of today – not the zionist of the congress of basel some 130 years ago.

the zionist of today is the one who advocates for a jewish state and its welfare in EY

no zionist today advocates for a state in uganda , birobidzhan or anywhere else.

this debate has to be had on a realistic basis .

that is today’s reality and our debate should reflect that reality.

.
.

@yankel-berel
zionism
we are establishing definitions of terms. “Zionism” means something specific, and that WAS true when the ideology gained momentum in the late 19th century and it REMAINS true today. That specific ideology is as I described: the “establishment of an independent ‘Jewish’ state anywhere”.

The only reason that no one TODAY considers places outside Palestine is because there is currently ALREADY an existing zionist state in Palestine, so there i no fuel behind practical conversations of other lands. This is similar to the early zionist debate about the what language should be the official language of the zionist state, german? yiddish? arabic? Now that the profaned “Ivrit” has taken hold, there is zero conversation about alternatives, because why would there be? Nonetheless, the ideology (and its core) hasn’t shifted.

This can be proven if you consider the actions and reactions from the DL Zionists during the retreated from Gaza 16 years ago. The ideological protests were in no way dependent on the biblical status of the land.

This can also be proven by the number of CONTEMPORARY self declared secular zionists who give no value to “biblical” borders beyond having an excuse to the nations of the world for the zionist government they support.

In the same vein, early zionists leveraged real Torah yearnings for Eretz Yisroel to excuse their own antisemitic rebellion against Hashem. This continues to be nothing more than an excuse for zionism, not a redefinition of the ideology. (despite the many Jews who are, R”L, happy to benefit from Zionism to also be in EY and will, R”L, support Zionism as a “mitzvoh ha’bu b’avaira”)

Bottom line, no one anywhere makes the absurd claim that a secular “jew” today cannot be a zionist because the core ideology from its inception consistently until today is that zionism is the advocacy for an independent ‘Jewish’ state anywhere in the world. Practically, that means supporting the current zionist state called “Israel”.

moshiach
you will have to be more specific about what your concern is. My definition is basic and unanimous in Torah teachings.

Is there a machlokes somewhere you are aware of that you believe is germane to the conversation and the definition of “moshiach”? or are you simply cofsucating the conversation because you yourself don’t know what the fundamental belief in “moshiach” is?

If the Rambam “left something out” in one place, you should check if he doesn’t bring it in other places. If he never mentions it, you would need to explain why. If chazal teach it and there is no cholek, you will need to be very very clear and very very careful about whatever claim you might have against my listing it. (zionists, btw, don’t worry about this because they have no problem being kofer in the Torah, especially the DL priests like Kook shr”y).

gulis
yes, the Gra you mention (which I can’t confirm, but the Steipler also calls this evil state “gulis under zera yisroel reshoyim”) would label zionism as another form of shibid malchiyos, another form of gulis. So, would you agree with my definition of “gulis” as recapped in my previous comment?

@somejew

re mashiach – continuation :

A] just fyi : within DL circles , there are constant references about kdushat erets yisrael , the mitsvot of yishuv ha’arets and kibush ha’arets

this obviously could not be applicable at all , about any other land all over the globe.
.
.
.

yankel > including securing the Cave of the Patriarchs and its surroundings… with female Border Police officers,

A good, and rather extreme, example. I am reminded here that Yosef was able to withstand his guard duty in the presence of a female – by recalling the face of his father. I would think anyone with minimal religious sensitivity should be able to do the same right near the maaras hamachpelah! Probably those female officers would do the same…

I am not making light of the situation. I think this is an unfortunate situation but unlikely to ruin yungelait when this happens once – and then document and complain, and go to the knesset and demand that this should stop. And say, fix X, Y, and Z instead of “we will not serve”.

@yankel-berel

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say in terms of this conversation forward. If your goal is just to throw out random unspecific “questions”, “maybes”, and “I don’t knows”, well you did a very good job.

Regarding “Moshiach”:
I still have no idea what – if anything – I wrote was objectionable to you. You still have not pointed out what – if anything – I wrote is not explicitly in the Rambam, And you certainly have not proposed an explanation of whatever admission you are thinking of and in the end you’ll never even begin to leverage that speculative ins into tweaking a working definition of “Moshiach” that we can both agree on.

Regarding “Zionism”:
What you are pointing out about any mention of “Eretz Yisroel” is simply the “religious” side of the title Religious Zionism It is not the “Zionism” side of that title. I would certainly agree that the heretical “Religious Zionist” movement has foolishly adopted and bastardized Torah concepts – concepts that continue to be Torah concepts, yet that has not changed the definition of the word Zionism. I believe this (Zionism being an ideology about Jewish independence NOT tied tied to any specific land) is not a controversial point, rather something that is accepted by all self proclaimed zionists. Religious Zionists just add the apokrisis that it was “siyata dishmaya” that Zionism chose EY because they believe – in their false religion – that Redemption will come from Zionism as their false moshaich.

I would like very much to move this conversation forward and if you disagree with my proposed definitions please be specific why and provide an alternative.

@AAQ

you are overly blessed with naivete

keep it up ….

.
.

@somejew

re galut

gemara baba batra 8A [if remember correctly] says that limud hatorah if on high level will bring mashiach

if on lower level will reduce shibud malhuyot in the form of easier taxes on the jews

and if on even lower level then the taxes of the shibud malhuyot will be crushing

we see that there are different levels of shibud malhuyot

the jew in the present USA is in galut

the jew under the czar in the 1800’s was also in galut

but lo harei zeh keharei zeh ….

.
.

@yankel-berel

it seems like you lost interest in getting an answer to your question. Otherwise, I’m not sure what you are trying to respond.

Do the definitions of terms I have provided establish an agreed foundation to continue? Otherwise, please offer an alternative.

@yankel-berel

I’m very confused by your recent comments. To answer your original query, “where in the 13 ikarim do we find a contradiction to zionism”, I need to establish a working definition of those three terms “zionism”, “gulis”, and “moshiach”.

You originally offered a set of definitions that I originally rejected and being incomplete and/or inaccurate. I tweaked your definitions, offering what would be acceptable to me. Since then you have posted seemingly random musings, but you have neither accepted by offering nor presented an alternative. You are welcome to challenge anything I wrote and you are certainly welcome to offer your own adjustments to a working set of definitions, but if we don’t have that common agreed upon foundation, it will be impossible to continue to answer your question.