HaKatan

@ZSK:
Yes, denigration. No, I did not denigrate any particular individual. I simply noted the Torah-based fact from the greatest Torah sages of the past century that “Religious Zionism” is beyond the pale, that it is both idolatry and heresy.

You claim that I “have never substantially answered anything I have said in rebuttal to you, ever.” Perhaps you could clarify how you came to that odd conclusion.

But, no, those saintly sages’ words have never been “torn apart, debunked” and whatever other rhetoric you want to use. The indisputable Torah fact is, as mentioned above, that “Religious Zionism” is beyond the pale, that it is both idolatry and heresy. What that connotes of those who are fooled by it is a separate matter, and you can get into the Raavad and tinok sheNishba and whatever else you want to attempt to possibly defend them. But the ideology and belief is simply a non-starter. Period.

So, it is nonsensical to insist on demanding respect for those who believe and/or promulgate idolatry and heresy when they are instead supposed to be doing so for, LiHavdil, only Torah. Hashem knows what is in everyone’s hearts and he surely loves all His children who seek to connect to him as they were taught by their rabbis. But if they were taught lies and heresy and idolatry as the basis for their beliefs, then those are obviously non-starters as opposed to LiHavdil someone who believes in only Torah who therefore is obviously far more worthy of respect than the ones you still insist on being granted respect.

yankel berel:
That doesn’t seem like a contradiction; you’re welcome to quote the paragraph to which you are referring, if you’d like, but I don’t know that it really matters. Assuming your quote is correct, there is still a very, very big difference between this group of minim who are mesisim uMedichim on the largest imaginable scale (the Zionists of course) versus a “mere” rasha (not a min, but a rasha).

For example, if a rasha builds some mansion – and nobody ever even heard of this rasha – then there doesn’t seem to be any concern that his rishus will be validated by his palace going to a tzaddik. Even if they did hear of him, people buy and sell houses all the time and almost nobody cares who originally built his house unless there is some prestige or other gain from that. Whereas, if the Zionist State were to be the basis for the geulah (which is impossible, of course, but in theory, if it were), then it would clearly cast a positive light on that idolatry and heresy (which it factually is according to the Torah).

There are also infinite cheshbonos that Hashem could have in arranging it that way for the tzaddik to get that house. For example, on an individual level, rewarding the rasha in this world rather than in the next while at the same time reusing the rasha’s efforts to reward the tzaddik. But none of that is relevant to Zionism and its “State” which – unlike a mansion which is inherently harmless – have shmaded (and continues to shmad) at least three generations of Jews there.

Regardless of the various reasons there could be to explain the Rambam (and, again, I don’t think it’s a contradiction, in my very humble opinion), nonetheless, the Brisker Rav surely knew that Rambam at least as well as anyone today, and he still stated exactly what he did due to Chazal’s dictum that Hashem causes zechus to come from zakai, and the opposite from the opposite.

(The Satmar Rav actually went further and drew a kal vaChomer from min sheKasav Sefer Torah that it must be burned. If we need to go that far to ensure a min’s name is not relatively well-known, then surely Hashem will ensure that nothing (significant?) – he was referring to infrastructure, if memory serves – from the Zionists will remain when Moshiach comes.)

Finally, in addition to all that, the midrash notes that the final geulah is something that must come from Hashem alone, not from man’s efforts (other than Torah and mitzvos, of course).

GadolHadofi:
I am not “Joseph”, so I don’t know why you chose to use that name to seemingly refer to my post.
See the piece by Rav Hutner Zatzal in Jewish Observer (archives) from the late ’70s, if memory serves.
We do not believe in any human’s infallibility, but, again, repeating that Zionist canard against gedolim is disgusting.

Relevant to BB as well:
The Chazon Ish noted that an apikores nowadays is one who either celebrates the Zionist independence day or blames the gedolim for the deaths of Jews in Europe. You can ask your LOR what the Chazon Ish meant by that given that you feel you know the history and Torah better than the Chazon Ish and the others.

@ZSK:
Wrong. And please stop denigrating people here.
The Religious Zionists, from at least as far back as Rabbi Kook’s son, believe that the redemption is currently happening and that it no longer depends on schar viOnesh.

GadolHadofi:
Why do you claim silly things in other people’s names?
I never wrote that the churban and other tragedies pre-Zionism were caused by Zionism.

You might be confusing that the sages bring down that the post-churban mass destruction of Jews at Beisar (“Beitar”) was caused by a violation of the oaths, the same oaths that Zionism violates. So, the churban and all the rest of the pre-Zionism tragedies, of course, were not caused by Zionism. But, like Beisar and Zionism, there certainly could indeed have been other tragedies that were caused by violating the oaths.

Regarding the Holocaust (specifically) and Zionism, this is a matter of historical record, of course, and the Zionists both admit this and that they would not do anything differently if given a do-over. As the Zionists have stated, better Zionism and no State versus a State with no Zionism, and during the Holocaust, “A cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews of Europe” and on and on. And, to clarify the timeline of both, in case the dofi is getting in the way: Zionism was founded fin-de-sicle (late 1800s). The Holocaust happened almost a half-century later. That logic isn’t at all complicated.

ZSK:
Take it up with Rav Elchonon Wasserman and all the other gedolim who stated this over the decades.
You can also take it up with the “Religious Zionist” rabbis who can tell you how their boys come crying to them over the terrible nisyonos the Zionists intentionally put these boys through in their shmad army.

HaTorah haZo lo sihei muchlefes.

SQUARE_ROOT:
This nonsense was already addressed. Please stop posting nonsense and stop repeating the same.

@SQUARE_ROOT:
Why do you pollute these boards with Zionist nonsense?
Oh; because Zionism is an idol, and idolatry is not rational.

Regarding the silly piece you quoted:
No, the galus is not over until Mashiach comes. As of this writing, it decidedly – and sadly – has not yet ended. It has zero to do with the “mindset of the meraglim” but rather its opposite which is following the Torah.

Regarding your personal comment:
No, you do not remember correctly. The meraglim told the people that we are not strong enough to conquer the land and that even G-d cannot do so (whether due to their sins or whatever other reason). Similarly, liHavdil, the Zionists lie (see their heretical “Jerusalem Program”) that the Jewish people cannot continue to exist without a strong and secure “State” of “Israel”.

As well, you mischaracterized both the Chareidim and, liHavdil, the Hesder.
First, Torah study is the ultimate protection, so it would be foolish for them to abandon Torah study and take up weapons.
Second, the main issue preventing the chareidim from fighting in the Zionist army is that Zionism and its army are shmad.
Finally, Rav Elchonon Wasserman and other gedolim noted that “Religious Zionism” is religion and idolatry biShituf.
So, “Hesder Jews”, who practice the idolatrous and heretical “Religious Zionism”, and also allow themselves to be shmaded in the Zionist army, are obviously not practicing the “correct Derech HaTorah”. The “correct Derech HaTorah” is to remain Jews who serve only G-d, not Jews who also worship the Zionist idol and also not to allow themselves to be shmaded in the Zionist army.

This should all be plain and simple to all Jews but the idol and its immense propaganda unfortunately confuses people.

Ellie7:
You wrote:
“The vibe of the whole letter is placing men’s issues squarely on women’s shoulders. You’re turning women into the bad guy and framing men as poor, innocent bystanders.”

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. It’s not “good (men) vs. bad (women)”. It’s that some women are doing something improper, regardless of whether or not they realize that it is improper.

“The way you describe the first type of man, especially-‘The Struggling but Sincere’-made me cringe. Why don’t you think that most women-even in the long, lace sheitals aren’t struggling but sincere? Why do you assume they aren’t trying their best? Why are you viewing them as an evil entity out to get men?”

Again, he’s not criticizing those women as “bad” and “out to get men”; the women, too, could certainly be “struggling but sincere” and “trying their best”. But, again, he’s raising awareness that those women may not realize that what they are doing is problematic.

“You can’t blame women for men’s issues. Yes, perhaps in an asifa for women this can be emphasized-without placing responsibility for men on their shoulders. No one bears responsibility for another’s actions. Period.”

I’m curious from which rabbi or BY school you learned that “hashkafa”. There is actually a straight-out mitzva in the Torah of “Lo saamod al dam raiecha”. According to your “hashkafa”, if you see someone at risk of drowning and you are able to help but choose not to save them from drowning, then that’s perfectly fine. But the Torah says otherwise. In fact, ironically for this discussion, if a man doesn’t save a woman at risk of drowning, then he is called a chassid shoteh.

There is also “lifnei iver lo sitain michshol”. Etc.

So, I think this is the crux of your issue. You are claiming that, as a woman, you are entitled to wear any sheitel you want (and you noted that you do wear a sheitel that is more tzanua than some out there) and not be considered wrong for doing so. Even if secular “culture” implies that, liHavdil, the Torah very much disagrees. So, yes, women do need to be aware of what they are doing and the effect of that on men (and other women, too, like being machshil them via peer pressure or negatively affecting their marriages, etc.).

Please try harder to view this from the Torah’s perspective. That should help with the anger you feel about this issue.

keith:
Regarding your second paragraph, I have never seen any NK advocate for the killing of any Jew. It’s true that they have marched with undesirables, but they have never advocated violence against anyone, from reports that I have seen.

(While on that topic, the wicked Zionists murdered Dr. DeHaan in cold blood, and are responsible for not only the Holocaust and contributing to it, but there were well known examples of Zionists who collaborated with Nazis, like Kastner did. Yet no supporter of Zionism condemns the Zionists for their consorting with evil people and entities. So, if that’s your standard, then you should be left with the question of why that is so.)

ard:
You don’t seem to have understood what I wrote.

Yes, as I wrote, the NK have used some questionable means, including hugging murderers, etc.
However, their message that is indeed the Torah’s message is that Zionism is the diametric opposite of Judaism and that the Zionist “State” is Zionist and not Jewish. Therefore, Jews are not responsible for anything the Zionists do or do not do.

Please stop spamming these boards with your nonsense. If you have your own opinion, then that’s one thing. But we don’t need to read here random opinions from YouTube.

Your idol and its leaders are infinitely worse than any NK. If anyone loves the evil Zionists and their “State” but hates NK, then he obviously is not basing himself on Torah.

The NK have used some questionable means, but their message is the Torah’s message, and crucial for both gentiles and Zionist Jews: Zionism and its “State” do not represent Jews, and Jews are not responsible for anything the Zionists do or do not do.

yankel berel, chaim and LMT:
Why do you post things that are against the Torah and that are also baseless? Giluy panim baTorah sheLo kaHalacha is not a joking matter.

The Oaths are brought down liHalacha by poskim, as the Satmar Rav brings down in his sefer. The Satmar Rav did not invent that they are halachic. Even the Rambam himself applied them as halacha liMaaseh in Igeres Teiman. They are brought down as halacha by poskim and others throughout the centuries, which is why Zionists come up with silly answers trying to pretend that they are no longer in force.

Chaim’s argument about them being reciprocal is also wrong, as the Satmar Rav notes, because, in part:
1. The oaths are for our benefit, not a contract between us and the nations.
2. Even if they would be reciprocity on the oaths between us and the nations (which there is not, in fact), that would apply only to the oath against “rebelling”, not to the other oaths, like ascending with force and also forcing the end.

Nobody held of Zionism, despite Chaim’s stories, though some rabbis might have been fooled by Zionist lies *at the time*. And nobody held of those writings of Rabbi Kook which were heretical or otherwise anti-Torah, and many held and published very strongly against Rabbi Kook himself.

LMT:
The Meshech Chochma did not hold what you claim. If he did actually write what they claim he wrote (which was published in a “Religious Zionist” paper, not in a sefer), then he simply stated that the fear of violating the oaths – meaning of rebelling against the nations, of course – would not be an issue in light of the Balfour Declaration, for Jews to peacefully and non-politically move to the holy land. That’s it.

Of course, the reality is that those same British then issued the White Papers effectively rescinding that, and ultimately also did not vote for the Zionist State in 1948, and that all anyways has nothing to do with the other two oaths as mentioned above, both of which the Zionists flagrantly violated and neither of which the Meshech Chochma permitted: namely the Zionists fighting wars (and terror) to gain that “State”, and even without that, to get any “State” even peacefully (dechikas haKeitz).

I find it sad that people make halachic (and hashkafic) claims when they clearly have not learned the sugya and are just relying on the (false) Zionist meme that only Satmar holds of the three oaths. Go ask your LOR, if you have one, and ask him for sources.

Maskilic/”Modern Orthodox” comparisons of gemara to the founding of Bais Yaakovs, and the questions from Bruriah, women being no longer only in the kitchen, etc. are all silly, despite their “Rav”/Professor of Talmud violating halacha in teaching a talmud class to women at “Yeshiva” University, something never done before.

First, no source permits giving a public talmud lecture to women as the modern day maskilim’s leader did. Ask your LOR under what specific conditions it would be permitted and perhaps even beneficial to teach gemara on an individual (not group) basis to, say, your daughter or your wife.

There was nothing halachically novel about the founding of Bais Yaakovs, which is why the rabbis approved of Ms. Schenirer’s idea. As the Chofetz Chaim wrote, until that point, girls received their mesorah at home, and did not need formal schooling as provided by BYs. Once the haskalah (forerunner of today’s “Modern Orthodox”) and Zionism and other -isms began wreaking havoc on Jewish homes, preventing the women from receiving and/or conveying the mesorah mother to daughter, there arose the need for an alternative way of conveying that mesorah, which is what Bais Yaakovs provided. (Of course, today, given the schooling structure in Western countries, Bais Yaakovs also serve the purpose of enabling Jewish girls to get a Torah education in a Torah environment rather than a secular education in a secular environment.)

Women can be great lawyers and leaders, but Torah is not an academic body of knowledge – Torah is chachmas Elokis – so that’s all irrelevant.

Bruriah was obviously exceptional, even among daughters of tannaim. We cannot fathom the greatness of our ancestors in those days, but even she, herself, proved Chazal’s wisdom, so it is foolish to go against Chazal based on the exceptional learning of Bruriah. However, as mentioned, for an individual woman to learn could be permitted, depending on the circumstances. Ask a non-Maskilic LOR for specifics.

AAQ:
As he stated, Zionism contains all of those components: Political Movement, Statehood and Self-Determination.
Your response was, essentially, that these three are not conceptually problematic.
So, by that logic, since Judaism is a religion, that must mean that Religion in conceptually good. Therefore, that would imply that a Jew being part of any Religion would be okay, which is obviously not true.

So, that’s silly. Of course, it is the details/implementation of a particular concept that determine whether or not that implementation is problematic.

Moreover, Statehood is indeed inherently problematic for Jews prior to Moshiach’s coming, according to all Torah authorities. So, the fact that all the gentiles have States (all over the world) doesn’t make Statehood inherently innocuous, just something that is okay for gentiles and very much not okay for Jews. We, of course, have a Torah, and that Torah forbids Jewish statehood prior to Moshiach’s coming, as mentioned.

As to the other two: a political movement that is (at least in theory) backed by Torah authorities (like Agudah) is okay. But one that is engineered by heretics from the ground up to destroy Judaism and Torah (that would be Zionism, of course) is obviously not comparable to Agudah. The Self-Determination point is a little more subtle. Having *communal* autonomy under the overall political control of Esav in Esav’s lands (as was pursued in Europe by Rav Hirsch and others and also what should have happened in Mandatory-Palestine) is very, very different than (the wicked Zionists) fighting endless wars against the British (first) and the Arabs and others to create and maintain an “independent” pseudo-State.

Avi K:

You “Modern Orthodox” are really in such a bubble that it’s almost amazing to see. The reason for that, of course, is that all the gedolim stated that your lifeblood of Zionism is heresy and idolatry, so you have no choice but to invent your own nonsense even when that goes against every gadol that ever lived. Do you really think that the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav and all the others couldn’t learn that Rambam at least as well as Rabbi Zevin, yet they all stated that the Zionist army was absolutely forbidden? This is so silly. That’s besides the fact that the Zionist army is shmad and the gimmel chamuros.

In addition to your idolatrous nonsense about the IDF, as if the Rambam is in any way remotely relevant to that shmad army as mentioned, your contention that “The fact is that nobody goes OTD because of the IDF. They would have gone OTD anyway,as anyone who lives in a Chareidi area knows.” is pure wicked lies. Rav Steinman once told a boy who came to him that no matter which army “framework” he would do, if he would go to that Zionist army, he would come out “a total goy”. Your own fellow idolaters, the “Religious Zionists”, cry to their rabbis about what the wicked Zionists do to them in that army.

If you want to worship your idol, that’s between you and G-d, but don’t make that worse by denying that of course Jews obviously go OTD in that shmad army.

simcha613:
It must be difficult inventing quotes and contradictions that don’t exist.

Of course, the wicked Zionists should be grateful to G-d for even “natural” and “normal” occurrences, including their military victories due to their military superiority over their enemies, though the wicked Zionist heretics do not even acknowledge G-d’s existence to begin with, and their entire Zionist enterprise is one big rebellion against Him. But that’s besides the point.

As the Satmar Rav points out (and if G-d gave you the ability to learn from a sefer in lashon haKodesh, then I’d encourage you to pick up his Al haGeulah… to see this for yourself), the point is that Jews should not use Zionist victories as proof that G-d wants Zionism and its “State”. Even if the Zionist victories in their wars were actual miracles, that still would not indicate that G-d wants the Zionists, because we don’t base our Judaism on miracles but rather on the Torah, and the Torah very clearly forbids Zionism and its “State”. But, and again this is the point, the Zionist victories in their wars were not miracles but rather conventional military victories, so even if somebody would make that mistake of basing his Judaism on “miracles”, the Zionist military victories were, in fact, not miracles.

wtsp:
The answer is that Zionist propaganda is unfortunately extremely strong, and some do not realize that they are influenced by Zionist propaganda against the Torah and its values in multiple ways. And Jewish pride is only doing what Hashem wants, meaning: learning Torah and fulfilling mitzvos, not any military accomplishment (especially by the wicked Zionists in their shmad army which is a den of all three of the three chamuros).

YB, qwerty613 and ZSK:
Rav Elchonon Wasserman stated clearly in Kovetz Maamarim that Zionism is idolatry and that “Religious Zionism” is idolatry mixed with some (true) religion. Other gedolim did as well.

As to why Zionism is heresy and idolatry, that is simple. Ain od milvado and Toras Hashem Temimah. If you add anything to the Torah (like “Religious Zionism”), then you are by definition detracting from the Torah, which is heretical. And if you believe that anything usurps/replaces any part of G-d’s power, then you are necessarily making that into an idol. You could even make yourself into an idol.

So, for starters:
The Torah states that Hashem guarantees that the Jewish people will last forever. LiHavdil, the heretical Zionists, in the very beginning of their “Jerusalem Platform” of their core idolatrous ideology of Zionism, state (some lies omitted from the quote for brevity) “Zionism…views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future.”

In other words, according to the Zionists, it is not G-d, but the Zionist “State” that guarantees the “continuity and future” of “the Jewish people”.

yankel berel:
Again, your idolatry of Zionism is not letting you think clearly and, as a bonus, causing you to engage in ad hominem attacks. Nobody said anything about the Arabs taking over.

More Zionist nonsense.
Regarding your quote:
“The Chazon Ish encouraged people from overseas to settle in Eretz Yisrael as it is a positive commandment, and he felt that Yiddishkeit was more prevalent and easier to practice there than in the diaspora.”

So, if you would actually be a better Jew, including less of a Zionist idolater, for example, if you were to move there, then that quote would make sense. But if moving to E”Y would increase your worship of the Zionist idol (or otherwise negatively impact your Judaism), then the Chazon Ish and Rav Chaim would obviously never dream of telling you to move there.

Incidentally, the greatest halakhic decisor of the “Modern Orthodox” of today, Rabbi Herschel Schachter, also stated as above, in a lecture he gave a number of years ago in honor of the Zionists’ idolatrous “Independence Day”.

Your “PERSONAL COMMENT” also seems odd.

First, it was the Satmar Rav who was the first (publicly and in a published sefer) who “advocated for dismantling the State of Israel “peacefully”.”
He wrote that the Zionists could go to the gentiles and tell them to take over without hurting any Jews CH”V, and the gentiles would figure out a way.

You asserted, with zero basis in fact and reality:
“Even if we ignore the fact that there is NO WAY to dismantle the state without killing MILLIONS OF JEWS, dismantling the State of Israel would certainly cause MILLIONS OF JEWS to leave Eretz Yisrael permanently.”

This is, of course, false. When the Soviet Union fell overnight, it did not result in any deaths of millions, and most still stayed put exactly where they were (except the ones who wanted to leave to Western countries, which is perfectly possible now under the Zionists). There is no reason to expect differently here.

SQUARE_ROOT:
That’s pretty ironic coming from you, with all the Zionist threads you started with the Zionist nonsense you copy/pasted from all over. You could have started one thread, and posted all the Zionist nonsense there, rather than polluting the board with endless Zionist threads from this irrelevant random copy/paste and that random propaganda copy/paste.

SQUARE_ROOT
You falsely claimed “The Three Oaths are never mentioned in ANY classic Halachah sefer,
because they are NOT HALACHIC.”

As the Satmar Rav points out, numerous poskim bring the oaths as halachic. As mentioned, the alleged piece from the Or Sameach that states that the “fear” of violating the oaths no longer being a concern (regarding living peacefully and non-politically in the holy land), means that he certainly considered the oaths halachic.

In the Rambam’s Iggeres Teiman, he specifically warned the Jews against violating those oaths. If they weren’t “halacha” then he would not have done so.
Ramban never rejected them. The Satmar Rav discusses the Ramban as well. Yes, there is a mitzva to live there according to the Ramban but not to violate the oaths.

The oath in force for 1,000 years do not refer to these oaths.
All your other Zionist apologetics are either similarly irrelevant or simply false.

Even if the oaths were reciprocal (which they are not, but even if that were true) regarding the nations not overdoing their “oppression” of us, that would mean only that we would be allowed to rebel as a result. But it would not allow violating the other oaths including political sovereignty and ascending as a wall. Besides, as the Satmar Rav writes, there are many times throughout history where the gentiles oppressed the Jews but they did not rebel against the nations due to the oaths. The Rambam himself in his iggeres teiman is an example of this.

The oaths are brought down as halacha by poskim (the Satmar Rav lists numerous poskim, going all the way back) and, in fact, according to the Maharal, they are yehareig viAl yaavor, that even if the gentiles want to force us to violate the oaths, we would not be allowed to do that even at risk of life R”L L”A.

zvei dinim:
Exactly zero “serious gedolim” ever “strongly supported the creation of the State of Israel”, for any reason. Some, in Marienbad, for example, did unfortunately accept as a foregone conclusion the impending founding of that “State”. But of course nobody would ever support the establishment of a “State” that is a violation of the Oaths and (otherwise) a total rebellion against G-d, among numerous other problems.

Always_Ask_Questions:
I find it strange to be asked to quote from a gadol’s Torah when that is outside the scope of the thread. Why in the world would you even ask for that? People came to this thread to discuss the topic at hand, not for a general Torah shiur.

Next, the Or Sameach and Netziv did not have a “more nuanced view” of early Zionists. From where did you get that?

The alleged piece by the Or Sameach, for example, which the Zionists love to abuse, was limited to settling the land with permission of the gentiles and in a totally non-political and peaceful way. That’s it. It also affirmed the halachic reality of the Oaths. On the other hand, the Zionist invasion of the holy land over a century ago and the Zionists’ wars and terror against the British and Arabs, which is what the Zionists did in reality, were very much not what the Or Sameach permitted. That was all obviously grossly forbidden, including a terrible violation of those Oaths, not that the Zionists cared in the slightest.

In general, it is a feature of Zionist propagandists to misquote, distort and lie, in the hope that readers will not know any better than to assume that they are being told real Torah truth rather than, liHavdil, Zionist lies and propaganda.

SQUARE_ROOT is simply copying/pasting and not reading (or ignoring) the responses to his earlier copy/pastes.
The Zionist victory in their war (of aggression) in 1967 was factually non-miraculous.
That was the view of the Satmar Rav, who never stated that it was a miracle from the sitra achara, as anyone has learned his sefarim could tell you, unlike the pathetic Zionist memes that they’ve spread all over.

ard:
He has a website, and has many published articles there, in some of which he talks about his background. He attended YU and “made aliyah”, for starters.