Zionism, Why the Big Debate?
Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Zionism, Why the Big Debate?
- This topic has 235 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by ☕ DaasYochid ☕.
December 2, 2014 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #1101992eekMember
Zionism is not extreme. There are so many reasons to prompt a national return to EY. For example, it is the land promised to us by God. I want to take Him up on that offer.
Also, the historical background to the founding of the medina cannot be overlooked. When Jews were in DP camps after WW2, they were asked to fill out a form of which countries they wanted to move to. Over half of the people responded with first choice of EY, and second choice, being the crematoria. EY was the only place that Jews could feel at home. And it should remain that way.December 2, 2014 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #1101993voos epesMember
Please never compare me to Zionist and I live in Monroe so…December 2, 2014 8:21 pm at 8:21 pm #1101994OURtorahParticipant
eek- im not saying zionism is extremism, i’m saying for those people who are so pro it they cannot see anyone else exists, just like neturai karta, which cannot see anyone else exists because they are so against it.
voos- I am comparing you to them only because honestly you guys have more in common than me and you do. You both hate each other and love your cause. The rest of us just try to be the best jew we can and make the most from life. Why cant you just love your fellow Jew for one minute. If you truley wanted to make Hashem proud in that aspect (you cannot deny it it is a mitzva dioraysa “veahavta leryacha camocha”) then you would say ok I hate Israel, but first and formost I love my fellow Jew.
All I am saying is that If you truly believe you are right, you wouldn’t try projecting your emotions and beliefs so much. That is usually a sign that you are uncomfertable deep down with what you are doing so you try to get others to agree with you. If you were comfertable with what you did, you wouldn’t need to project it. You’d recognize that other people do not see life the way you do, maybe they have never heard your side of the story. But burning their flags, things they grew up knwoing surly will not help your cuase.
Think about it.May 17, 2015 3:25 am at 3:25 am #1101996
PAA: Zionism, Why the Big Debate?
Sure, it makes a halachic difference:
“He [The Chazon Ish] used to say: Who is an Apikores who keeps Torah and Mitzvos (“a frum Apikores”)? Someone who claims that it is the fault of the Gedolim that six million Jews were killed in Europe, and also anybody who celebrates Yom Ha’atzamut.”
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51554&st=&pgnum=172&hilite=May 17, 2015 5:51 am at 5:51 am #1101997
You left out a key word in your translation. It’s who is an apikoros “in our generation?”
That may make a big difference, now that we are 2-3 generations later.May 17, 2015 6:35 am at 6:35 am #1101998
LOL. You’re grasping at straws.May 17, 2015 6:39 am at 6:39 am #1101999
What may have changed?May 17, 2015 6:49 am at 6:49 am #1102000mddMember
Gemora says that excessive humility of one of the Tannoim caused the Churban. Any comments? Btw, I am not equating the two situations.May 17, 2015 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1102001
“You’re grasping at straws. “
No, I am trying to be medayek in the lashon, which is what we do in learning all the time.
“What may have changed? “
Zionism is no longer a movement by apikorsim who are choteh and machti lahachis. It’s now secular nationalism run by am haratzim who are generally indifferent to religion, like most western countries.
I understand if you disagree.May 17, 2015 6:30 pm at 6:30 pm #1102002
I am trying to be medayek in the lashon
No need for gymnastics. Frum Zionism didn’t always exist, but other forms of apikorsus did.
I understand if you disagree.
I would hope so, since you you didn’t really answer the question.May 17, 2015 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #1102003simcha613Participant
I still don’t get all the commotion. Religious Zionism is simply the belief that the Jewish people belong in EY… not because of any nationalistic reasons, but because Hashem gave us EY as seen in the Torah. At worst, it’s a violation of the 3 shevuos which is not one of the 613 Mitzvos, it’s not one of the 13 ikkarim of the Rambam, and it’s not even brought down lehalacha by most poskim. The machlokes between Religious Zionists and Religious Anti-Zionists is simply how to understand that Gemara, which like I said, isn’t brought down lehalachah by the poskim. It’s such a small betail within the world of halachah and hashkafah. Why does this tiny disagreement cause such a huge machlokes among Klal Yisroel? It doesn’t make sense!May 17, 2015 7:12 pm at 7:12 pm #1102004
Religious Zionism is simply the belief that the Jewish people belong in EY… not because of any nationalistic reasons, but because Hashem gave us EY as seen in the Torah.
Not because it’s a mitzvah?
If only there were no nationalism mixed in…May 17, 2015 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1102005oomisParticipant
Frum Zionism exists today, however, and to lump ALL Tzionim with the ones of whom you disapprove from nearly 7 decades ago, is really inappropriate. The frum people who are settling in E”Y have brought with them many positive things, and there are more Yeshivos with kids from all over the world, than ever before. And before you write off the secular zionists, THEY gave blood, sweat, and tears to build up E”Y. They may have been lacking in some significant aspects of Yiddishkeit, but their love OF and devotion TO the LAND was never in question. They deserve better than the contempt in which they are held by some people who never could or would have done what they did. Were the secularists’ actions the ideal? No. But it surely was a start.May 17, 2015 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm #1102006
At worst, it’s a violation of the 3 shevuos which is not one of the 613 Mitzvos, it’s not one of the 13 ikkarim of the Rambam, and it’s not even brought down lehalacha by most poskim.
I agree with you. When did the shalash shevous become such a major thing? The fact that there is so little halachik literature on it before the Vayoel Moshe proves my point. (But still if the three oaths are really halachikly binding, then the punishment for it is terrible, “your flesh will be hunted down like animals in the field” chas vesholom)
Just to quote Rav Moshe Feinstein (Thanks, PAA)
????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???”? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??????May 17, 2015 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #1102007
Satmar holds that the issue of the shavuos is a big problems. Others hold there are other big problems even though the shavuos are not.May 17, 2015 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #1102008
I agree with you. You can still be anti-zionist and hold that the shavous are not binding.
Just to finish off the qoute from Rav Moshe tz”l:
?? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????, ?”? ?? ?????, ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????, ????? ?????? ?”? ????? ????? ????. ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????”? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????, ????? ????? ??.May 17, 2015 9:49 pm at 9:49 pm #1102009notyeshivishMember
My dearest OURtorah,
I hope you have changed your views from those of five months ago because what you said is appalling and psychologically incorrect. First off, to compare Zionism to the neturei karta is ridiculous and shameful. Zionism does not burn flags and outwardly protest against the chareidi community. Also, you talked about us not being so vocal about our beliefs because it shows that were uncomfortable. However, this is not the case in any sense. We speak out not only because we speak about things we believe in like any normal person but we have to because people like yourself put us down. I’m sure you would appreciate it if we would keep quiet while you talk about zionists not recognizing other Jews but I don’t think that it is possible.May 17, 2015 10:16 pm at 10:16 pm #1102010
Joseph: That story about the Chazon Ish is apocryphal, like most of that book. The author has a certain agenda and so everything in there has to be interpreted in that light, like the story about him saying tachanun by the bris on 5 iyar. If the chazon ish had ever said anything good about zionists it would never have made it into the book, so we obviously can’t trust it. Moreover, that doesn’t even sound like him, rather like the vayoel moshe. Finally, we were talking about zionism as a whole, and that quote is about celebrating yom ha’atzmaut.May 17, 2015 10:35 pm at 10:35 pm #1102011
The truth is, I have seen many good arguments of why the three oaths are binding.May 17, 2015 11:35 pm at 11:35 pm #1102012
RY: It’s a highly acclaimed and very much accepted as reliable sefer by gedolei yisroel (i.e. Rav Chaim Kanievsky, et al). And it is sourced, too, many (including the story at hand) with living tzadikim who you can verify it directly with.May 18, 2015 1:44 am at 1:44 am #1102013
Joe: No, actually, I can’t verify it, and neither can you. In fact, the more I think about that story, the more preposterous it sounds. First of all, of all the brisim that must have taken place over the years since 1948, at which, undoubtedly, many anti-Zionist gedolim were present, we’ve never heard of the Brisker Rebbe saying tachanun, Satmar Rebbe, Rav Amram Blau, Rav Shach, etc. Only this one story.
Second, it’s part of a whole section of not being mechadesh a ta’anis on 5 iyar and not be mechadesh a ta’anis for the victims of the holocaust. So to say that he decided to declare some sort of “eis la’asos” in this case seems fanciful.May 18, 2015 1:44 am at 1:44 am #1102014simcha613Participant
Jewish Thinker- and there are many good arguments how they are no longer binding or how they were never binding. That’s why it’s a machlokes and that’s exactly my point. It’s a machlokes about an obscure Gemara that’s not even brought down lehalachah by the Rosh, Rambam, Rif, or Shulchan Aruch. There are many machlokes in halachah and hashkafah and yet none seem to be as polarizing as this. It’s ironic that the focal point of Zionism usually happens on Yom HaAtzmaus, where we remember how the students of R’ Akiva were punished for not treating each other respectfully. Calling a person who doesn’t say Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaus a heartless sonei Yisroel, or calling someone who does say Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaus a kofer or an apikores (I know I’m speaking in extremes here) seems to be completely the opposite the nature of sefirah. We are disrespecting two legitimate streams of halachic Judaism. Can’t we recognize that this is but a small detail in our Avodas Hashem and admit that there is halachic basis to each side? Can’t we discuss halachah without the poisonous rhetoric?May 18, 2015 2:02 am at 2:02 am #1102015
So long as you know better than the gedolei hador who were actually there, who is anyone to argue on you? You can determine the veracity, or lack thereof, merely by the “sound” of it!May 18, 2015 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1102016
My point above, when being specific about the lashon, is like this. If the the Rav who wrote the Q&A with the Chazon Ish was careful with his words, then what does “in our genration” mean? What does it come to teach us?
If he was not careful with is words, then the whole story is suspect.
I assume that he was careful with his words. Therefore I was positing what it comes to teach us, that Zionism and the Medina are different now than they were before. Therefore there may be a change in how we relate to it.May 18, 2015 6:04 pm at 6:04 pm #1102017
“The truth is, I have seen many good arguments of why the three oaths are binding.”
It seems to me that the 3 oaths are not binding anymore, since the UN resolution. Before that, though, the 3 oaths were a historical fact from 1882 until 1945. We violated it, and we were punished.May 19, 2015 2:30 am at 2:30 am #1102018
“So long as you know better than the gedolei hador who were actually there,”
What gedolei hador who were actually there?
“You can determine the veracity, or lack thereof, merely by the “sound” of it!”
No, and neither can you. But when something sounds fishy we suspect it, and I’m not basing my hashkafah on some mayseh.
And, Joe, before you start mouthing off about how Rav Kanievsky thinks that book is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I think you ought to have a look at page 3 (in the hebrewbooks pagination). Rav Kanievsky made the author put in a disclaimer saying that there’s material in the book whose veracity is unknown and, therefore,
“?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????”May 19, 2015 4:44 am at 4:44 am #1102019Avi KParticipant
MDG, as I have previously posted, the three oaths are not paskened in any of the codes. No surprise as Rav Chaim Vital says that they were only for 1,000 years. Besides, the other nations ratified our right to a state in the San Remo conference a few years after WW1. Acording to Rav Teichtal (Em HaBanim Semeicha) we were punished for NOT MAKING ALIYA. He says that this was a manifestation of the sin of the spies.May 19, 2015 4:49 am at 4:49 am #1102020charliehallParticipant
“It’s a machlokes about an obscure Gemara that’s not even brought down lehalachah by the Rosh, Rambam, Rif, or Shulchan Aruch. There are many machlokes in halachah and hashkafah and yet none seem to be as polarizing as this.”
If neither the Rif, Rambam, Rosh, or Shulchan Aruch accepted it as binding, there is no machloket.May 19, 2015 4:13 pm at 4:13 pm #1102021
Thank you for discovering the lack or veracity. I was suspect, so I looked up the source. But I did not go far enough. I appreciate your intellectual honesty and diligence.
One of the sources that I see as holding of the 3 Oaths is the RambaN at the end of the RambaM’s Sefer Hamitsvot. In the section of mitsvot that the RambaM forgot, the RambaN includes yishuv ha’arets. In that paragraph, the RambaN uses the lashon of “conquer” 11 times. However, 2/3 though the paragraph he changes gears and says that even today there is a mitsvah for every individual to live there and inherit it. He changes from plural to singular (first shavua -lo ya’alu bachoma), and he changes from conquering to living & inheriting (2nd shavua – lo yimradu).
“Besides, the other nations ratified our right to a state in the San Remo conference a few years after WW1.”
Thanks for that info. That really blows a hole in my theory of history. Tiyuvta.
Dr Hall, good to hear from you.May 31, 2015 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm #1102022
The Frumteens Moderator has a lot on Zionism and the binding nature of the oaths.
PAA, why don’t you debate him directly on Frumteens? You seem very knowledgeable yourself.May 31, 2015 7:56 pm at 7:56 pm #1102023
Just to add, I know some people here are not big fans of the Frumteens Moderator, but please be respectful.June 3, 2015 12:11 am at 12:11 am #1102024tzviki16Member
who violated the oath? a bunch of secular atheistic ‘jews’. bnei yisrael never violated any oath. its not a jewish state. its a secular democracy like the u.s. france and germany.June 3, 2015 7:37 am at 7:37 am #1102025Avi KParticipant
MDG, YW. Your proof is not a proof. The mitzva of conquest is on Am Yisrael not on any individual. However, every individual has a mitzva to live in EY. There is also Rav Chaim Vital’s opinion that the oats were only for 1,000 years. If we say that they began with the churban Bayit Sheini that brings us to just before the Crusades.June 3, 2015 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm #1102026OURtorahParticipant
I just saw your post now and went back to find my post cuz I’m shocked that I would ever write that. I couldn’t find the post that compares the two but if I did ever compare them, my intentions were the extreme zionists. I grew up in a zionistic community, school, home etc. if anyone can understand you, it’s me. If I was not referring to the extreme people in my post that you found, I’m referring simply to the fact that in my community, which is quite large, even moderate zionists (not all) will bash chareidim and their views. Which not going into, but I understand, cuz lots of chareidim do the same. What bothers me is that people think it gives them a right to just hate another Jew just because they view Israel in a different light. That’s not what God wants from us. I, unlike a lot of people here am able to see the perspective of a typical religious Zionist. I say the tefila for the soldiers. I am on here to hopefully show people that just cuz your Zionist doesn’t mean your not frum. And I may not be as zionistic as you, I still respect you, and respect why you have chosen to view Israel the way you do.June 3, 2015 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm #1102027
“PAA, why don’t you debate him directly on Frumteens? “
I think PAA’s point is that it’s not worth all the debating anymore, so to PAA it’s pointless debating the frumteens mod.
“MDG, YW. Your proof is not a proof. “
Which proof? The Ramban? My point about the Ramban is that he changes his definition of the Mitsvah (FROM conquering as a tsibur TO settling as a yachid) when going from antiquity to modern times. I see that change in wording as significant, and I am linking that change with the 3 Oaths. To me that change in the Ramban fits well with the 3 Oaths.
If you disagree, please elaborate.
“Besides, the other nations ratified our right to a state in the San Remo conference a few years after WW1.”
I have been thinking of this since last week. The San Remo conference would not undo the 3 Oaths because there was nothing tangible. Even after the Balfour declaration and the San Remo conference, there was still limitations on immigration (1st Oath – shelo yaalu behoma) by the ruling powers (2nd oath – shelo yimradu). In my opinion, as I wrote above, the 3 Oaths were not absolved until May 14, 1948.October 8, 2015 2:55 am at 2:55 am #1102028
The answer to this thread is:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.