HaKatan

Always_Ask_Questions, ZSK and others:
There are multiple answers for the omissions, but omission does not at all mean disagreement.
For example, the oaths are not as relevant to most people as, say, washing hands before bread.

None of those, however, claim that the oaths are not in force, and poskim and history show that they very much are.

user176:
See above.

A dispute is when two sides explicitly argue opposite rulings about a particular law. It is not a “dispute” when, like by the oaths, numerous poskim bring something as halacha and some happen to not mention it. That’s called an academic question as to why the others did not mention it.

Avi K:
Of course, the Satan cannot act without G-d’s permission, but that has nothing to do with this. Rabbi Kook’s philosophy was not accepted as valid Torah by the Torah sages, so no comment. But Chazal tell us that Hashem will bring the geulah Himself, not through basar viDam, regardless.

@ZSK:
The oaths are introduced in Talmud Bavli (part of our actual canon, as you put it) and brought liHalacha by poskim throughout the ages (see the Satmar Rav for a long list) and are invoked by even the Rambam himself in Iggeres Teiman.

Obviously, no Orthodox Jew should invalidate any gemara and also not mislead other Jews about vital halachos that are very real and applicable to life, as has already been proven throughout history.

yankel berel:
No, the Avnei Nezer did not dispute it.

The oaths are all in force, as they have been throughout history, as can be seen by anyone who cares to open a sefer. The Zionists violate them wantonly just as they violate the rest of the Torah.

ZSK:
You mean not able to convince you and them to drop the Zionist idol?

SQUARE_ROOT:
Your reply is also Zionist spam.
No major rabbis held that the oaths were no longer in force (though you admit that they were in force before that, contrary to your original post spam).
Cite those original words. There is nothing there.

Regarding Rav Meir Simcha, he likely never actually stated that, as that appeared only in a “Religious Zionist” publication. But even if he did actually state that, that would mean only that peaceful and non-political ascent at that time would not violate the very much in force oath of rebelling against the nations. It would not at all permit a political state nor would it permit ascent en masse.

It’s also imply idiotic to state:
“..the United Nations Organization both voted to establish a Jewish state, in 1920 CE and 1948 CE, so the State of Israel was NOT established by force.”
The simple facts are that the Zionist “State” sure was established by force – lots of force, in fact. The Zionists fought a war of “independence” in 1948, and both fought and terrorized both the British and the Arabs before that. That was not what the League of Nations had stated should happen, of course, but it’s anyways irrelevant because the use of force is forbidden (even according to Rabbi AY Kook) regardless of what the LON/UN/whomever stated.

Stop spamming these boards.

SQUARE_ROOT:
More Zionist spam.
The most pathetic part of this is that the original author could have opened a VaYoel Moshe and would have seen that his “questions” are not questions.

First of all, the objections to Zionism are far greater than “only” the Oaths, deadly serious as those oaths were throughout history.
Zionism is diametrically opposed to Judaism and is its greatest enemy by far. Therefore, of course it violates G-d’s will. Zionism is all about turning Jews and Judaism into Nationalists Zionists and Zionism. Obviously, that is a severe violation of G-d’s will.

As the Brisker Rav noted, the “State” the Zionists managed to achieve was the greatest triumph of the Satan since the golden calf idol. Both that idol and this idol are obviously against G-d’s will.

We certainly do derive practical halacha from aggadita unless that would go against halachos elsewhere. And even if we didn’t, we still understand from there G-d’s will. That’s in general.

But, here, specifically, we have numerous examples throughout history of mass murder that occurred, which the great Torah sages of the time (or later) indicated were due to violating the oaths, including Shevet Ephraim leaving Egypt early and the Ben Koziva rebellion. The Rambam himself, quite the “halachist” invokes the oaths in Iggeres Teiman. So, the oaths clearly are halachically in force, as that was the reason given for G-d having punished those Jews at those times and a warning to Jews at other times to not rebel due to those and not to arise en masse to E”Y due to those oaths.

Regarding the oaths not appearing in various halachic works, that is an academic question, not a serious question, but that would likely be because they aren’t applicable to day-to-day life like, say praying and kashrus. This involves things like mass “aliyah” and fighting wars against nations. These are not your typical day-to-day Jewish issues, at least not until the Zionists came and grossly violated the entire Torah (not “just” the Oaths) as per the Brisker Rav.

Koifer BIkur:
What a screen name. No, He is obviously not sending that message, because that’s against the Torah in multiple ways including the gimmel shevuos, as brought by poskim throughout the ages.

We daven for Hashem to return us all to E”Y with Mashiach, not CH”V to en masse do so on our own.

anon1m0us:
“A famous Rosh Yeshiva said that today’s generation more people go OTD by staying in Yeshiva than by going into the Army. Look how many people even had time to betul Torah for a stupid match.”

I didn’t know that the Reconstructionist movement had yeshivas. Famous where? Hollywood?
Your accusation of bitul Torah is odd considering that the greatest actual Roshei Yeshiva promoted this. They are obviously well aware of what is and is not bitul Torah.

Please help yourself and find an authentic rabbi and liberate yourself from your anti-Torah mindset.

somejewiknow:
Presumably, the problem is that their advertisers wouldn’t like that silence.

user176
“Need I warn about the dangers of speaking negatively about eretz yisrael? E”Y is eretz hakodesh…Whether controlled by an irreligious body or not is irrelevant. ”

Nobody is speaking negatively about E”Y. But, the “who is controlling” (part of) it question is obviously very relevant if you are considering moving there.

“…the mesirut nefesh those living in E”Y must endure to learn Torah…it is precisely that mesirut nefesh that will ultimately put E”Y in the right hands.”

This is totally made up. Hashem alone will control when He will return to E”Y. Hashem loves all His children wherever in the world they may be, and it’s very possible that a guy doing daf yomi in Phoenix despite a long day at work, etc. will be just as much a factor in bringing the geulah as anyone else’s mesirus nefesh for Torah.

SQUARE_ROOT and other Zionists:
He was wrong then, is wrong now and will be wrong forever. Of all places that Jews live, the Zionist paradise is statistically, by far, the most dangerous place for Jews. And the wicked Zionists hate the frum Jews and are attacking them now in unprecedented ways, attempting to end the olam haTorah in the portions of EY under their control. Zionism is itself diametrically opposed to Judaism.

Again, as mentioned, we have a mesorah from Rav Chaim Volozhin that the last station for Torah in galus is the USA, not the Zionist paradise. We also have explicit prophesies from the prophets that being in Jerusalem at the end of times will not exactly be a picnic.

The truth is that if one did not believe Rav Chaim Volozhin, then the logical thing to do would be to look into other civilized countries, not to be shmaded by the Zionists in their paradise that is perpetually in “existential risk” according to their own leaders.

brisker:
Filters can easily remove images (and you could do so even without filters). But filters cannot and will not remove treif “hashkafos” imparted by banned magazines.

@ZSK:
Rabbi Kook was indeed very learned and had certain standards that were extremely high, like tznius, for example. He also held that their “State” may not come about through violence and war, which is exactly how it did end up being founded. But all of that doesn’t change what the gedolim held of him, as mentioned above. The Chazon Ish also banned the sale of Rabbi Kook’s books, which included at least Rabbi Kook’s “hashkafa” books, if not also the others. So, no, that would not fit into the rubric of “hardline chareidi”.

@yankel-berel:
As many gedolim wrote, Rabbi Kook wrote and spread heresy in Klal Yisrael, which continues to be spread today by his students and students of his students. Period. This is indisputable as it is simply the facts.

As to your questions, in general:
The Brisker Rav convened the B”D of Brisk for every one of those titles that he felt he needed to use when addressing Rabbi Kook.
Rabbi Kook was mesader kiddushin of the rather young then-bochur Rav Elyashiv, not the nonagenarian gadol Rav Elyashiv. Etc.

As shown above, you can’t bring raayos from stories and/or fairy tales. Stories are very specific in nature and, when quoted, like here, are very much lacking context and other pertinent details.

But the Satmar Rav and Rav Elchonon and others all applied titles to him specifically, titles including “mechabel biKerem Hashem”, “Rasha gamur” and more. Rav Yosef Yedid mockingly called him a Navi (and titled that piece “Regarding an apikoros against whom we must protest”). And that’s besides the others who condemned his Torah, like the Gerrer Rebbe who ruled that Rabbi Kook was “omer al tamei tahor” (and that was after Rabbi Kook supposedly retracted his “controversial” positions – but afterwards essentially rescinded that retraction), etc.

Those are not stories about things that happened, which could have all sorts of reasons that make them irrelevant to anything, like what you quoted; rather, the above are criticisms of Rabbi Kook himself. Just open up a Kovetz Maamarim, for example.

Maran Rav Elyashiv Calls For A Ban Against Mishpacha Magazine

That publication was banned by the gedolim. They also lean rather liberal/leftist.

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.

Avi K:
“…British…greatly restricted Jewish immigration in 1936 in a vain attempt to appease the Mufti ym”s…”
No, that would be because of the Zionist terror and war that the Zionists waged against both the Arabs and the British, so the British didn’t want it to get any worse. Had the wicked Zionists not invaded and not agitated, then the British would have welcomed and encouraged Jewish immigration at a time when Jews badly needed (especially because the same wicked Zionists lobbied governments against allowing in Jews to their countries).

Eileh elohecha

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.

@ZSK and @yankel-berel:
The truth is not merely rhetoric; it is the truth, regardless of my inability to provide precise page numbers for you. But you can, for example, open up a Kovetz Maamarim and easily find what I quoted from Rav Elchonon. And you can easily open up Maaseh Ish and other sefarim and see what the Chazon Ish held. You can also refer to the archives of whatever Israeli newspaper it was in which the Brisker Rav published an ad, on which the Gerrer Rebbe and others signed, that “Religious Zionist” education is a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah”.

These are actual quotes, and the truth, of course. Since you have no answer to any of that, you sadly resort to dismissing it as “rhetoric” rather than doing the intellectually honest alternative of looking it up for yourself and/or taking the facts to a non-Zionist Rabbi who actually knows the sugya and asking them.

@yankel berel:

“you see that the zionists ARE THERE , must be therefore , that Hashem wants them there, otherwise they would not be there ….”

So, by that logic, the Nazi concentration camps must have also been what G-d WANTED (not just allowed to happen, but WANTED); otherwise, those would not have been there either.

For that matter, the destruction of the Temples and the murder of the millions (or more) in Beithar, and on and on, must have also been what G-d WANTED.

Obviously not. He certainly allowed it to happen, but very much did not WANT it to happen.

@chiefshmerel:
“HaKatan has referred to survivors in quotes. Implying that they call themselves and are referred to as survivors, but are not. Just another Jewish antisemite who believes the Holocaust was our fault”

No, that was not at all the implication. The quotes were to refer to those survivors from that post, not to imply otherwise.

I won’t bother quoting the rest…

The culpability for the Holocaust is obviously on those who committed that mass-murder, namely the Nazis and their accomplices. That’s obvious.

Regarding how it could have happened, the answer obviously involves – among other factors – sichar viOnesh, as that is how Hashem conducts Klal Yisrael. If you choose to deny that, then perhaps you might wish to use these days to repent from that heresy.

Believing that the Zionists provoked Hitler in the name of world Jewry is simply historical fact, not “Jewish self-hatred”. Speaking of Jewish self-hatred, that would, of course, be Zionism.

Asking people to be mekatreig on Klal Yisrael in general, especially right before R”H, is perhaps not advisable.

But, since you asked, the serious teshuva and achdus that would seem to be lacking is – thanks to immense Zionist propaganda with which the satan seems to go to town – the total negation of the Zionist idol including the clear recognition that it never did belong, does not belong, and wanting Hashem to (peacefully) remove it ASAP, as we pray each day in viLaMalshinim and also on R”H/Y”K.

R”H is coming up very soon. May we all merit to properly crown Hashem as the ruler of everything and without also believing in any idolatry (especially and including Zionism).

yankel berel:
You misunderstood. As I wrote, it was an example and illustration under the specific conditions noted. Besides, you cannot compare the attempts to remake a country vs a peaceful handover (however exactly that would work out).

Again, the point is that Hashem does not want the Zionists there so, 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.

That’s interesting.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman and many others all write explicitly that Nationalism/Zionism is idolatry and that Torah and, liHavdil, Nationalism is Torah and idolatry biShituf. The Brisker Rav published, and the Gerrer Rebbe and others signed on, that “Dati Leumi” education is a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah”.

So, perhaps a better question would be why anyone would possibly follow these grotesque distortions of Torah (Zionism of any flavor) rather than simply following liHavdil only the Torah.

To be fair, though, the reason that ZSK isn’t likely concerned about L”H against Conservative and Reform communities is that ZSK likely agrees that those movements are heretical and that its followers are unfortunately not biChlal amisecha.