HaKatan

Sam2:

Your purported explanation of the difference between a Lakewood guy and a YU guy is almost all wrong other than, perhaps, the “shelf/drawer” part.

First, both interact with the outside world.

Second, a Lakewood guy knows better than most that ONLY Torah is Torah and everything else is in a different world. The YU guy, on the other hand, “synthesizes” the two and calls them equals.

I don’t understand what exactly you are referring to when you insist “put up or shut up”. I am simply quoting the major Torah sages of the past 150 or so years.

Regardless, we have discussed various things that MO “holds of” and does, and you can certainly go back and check the old threads rather than misrepresent my quotes and posts. There’s plenty more, like the setup/practices that YU chose for “Yeshiva”/Stern College. We’ve discussed things in this area in the past, too.

I guess you mean that these and other gedolim should have “put up or shut up”. I guess you also feel entitled to this opinion.

Rebbe Yid and cholentmama:

Again, this was in response to cholentmama’s assertion that “There should be no Modox or Yeshivish or Chassidish.”

And, again, nobody is judging any individual person.

However, the MO “movement”, is, by definition and in plain fact, influenced by outside sources.

Not only does MO not see this as the problem(s) that our gedolim (Rav Shach, Rav Schwab, et al.) noted that it is, MO considers its approach to be even superior to the Torah-only approach.

That many MO are (otherwise) very frum and have vast Torah knowledge (like their non-MO counter-parts) is really great. But these other influences cannot be ignored.

So, again, there does, therefore, need to be a distinction between “Modox or Yeshivish or Chassidish.”

Syag:

Thank you.

DY:

I’m sorry you find it unlikely.

BarryLS1:

Rav Elchonon Wasserman answered your question well before Israel even came into existence (but long after Zionism has begun to shmad our people). He noted that Zionism is Avoda Zara while “Religious Zionism” is simply Religion mixed into Avoda Zara.

Your wrote: “It should be obvious to every Jews by now that Israel could not have survived and thrived without Hashem”. Similarly, and not to compare the two, one could at least as easily point out the same, but with one small change: “It should be obvious to every Jews by now that Hitler YM”S could not have survived and thrived without Hashem.”

The flaw in that logic is thus quite clear: what Hashem allows to happen is not at all necessarily what He “wants” to happen.

Further, as you wrote, “only the hard-core cult-like among us can’t recognize reality after all this time…” but should have continued with something like: and fail to see the how Zionism and the State of Israel (despite the Yeshivos, etc.) are the anti-thesis of Judaism and certainly not the ratzon Hashem as it is explicitly forbidden for Jews to have a State before Mashiach, the shmad, human sacrifices, etc.

Nissim mean nothing, of course, in terms of determining right or wrong. That’s straight out in the Torah: “ki minaseh Hashem eschem…” (and expounded on later).

The Brisker Rav, who lived in E”Y at the time of the State’s founding answered your last question. He noted that at that eis ratzon, had the Jews davened for the true geulah instead of the State, they would have received that. But since they asked for the State, with all its many problems, then that is what Hashem gave them, unfortunately.

PBA:

I suppose one has to channel that love appropriately, like anything else. Perhaps this love can be a catalyst to reflect about the many terrible things that Zionism has brought to Hashem’s holy people, His holy Torah and His holy land so one would instead daven for the true geulah BB”A.

But your question is not a contradiction to my post; it is simply a matter of how to channel this natural love into a Torah-observant manner, just as one needs to channel other things into a Torah-observant manner.

This is something to discuss with your LOR.

Again, since instilling an arbitrary non-rabbinically advised “Ahavat E”Y” which, again, (ahava) is NOT a mitzva, is spiritually reckless, for a number of reasons, one should consult an LOR as to how to avoid these dangers.

Charlie:

First, your anti-kollel argument has nothing to do with the travesty of R”Z.

So your “On the contrary…” phrase makes no sense. The matter is not one of Kollel versus R”Z, as you frame it, but rather, as I mentioned in my post as well, much more foundational.

Also, I preemptively addressed your mixing up Chovevei Tzion and R”Z in my post above. R”Z is, in Rav Elchonon’s words, Religion and, liHavdil, A”Z together. Chovivei Tzion was not R”Z.

I could have also noted that one of the early proponents of Chovivei Tzion publicly retracted his support later on, when he saw just how correct were Rav Hirsch and others who were against even that as “no small aveirah”.

writersoul:

D”L/R”Z have no mesorah for their theology.

As any MO adherent can tell you, R”Z was created by Rabbi A.Y. Kook and further developed by his son and others.

(Incidentally, Chovevai Tzion is not relevant here, though there were plenty of Torah luminaries such as Rav Hirsch who – presciently – considered even that to be “no small aveirah”.)

As even a left-wing MO Rabbi admits, Rabbi Kook melded the secular philosophy of nationalism with, lihavdil, his Torah knowledge to create the travesty that is R”Z.

Torah giants like the Brisker Rav R’ Velvel called their theology “a drop of Torah mixed in to a sea of heresy”. The Chazon Ish and others held similarly.

Formidable Torah knowledge does not permit one to grossly distort the Torah, as the gedolim recognized is, unfortunately, the case here with D”L/R”Z.

So, to directly address your posts, the Rabbanim to whom the R”Z “look to guidance” are following a non-existent mesorah that, as the gedolim have stated clearly, is against the Torah.

Even liShitas Rav Chaim, I don’t see the relevance to today:

“We in Volozhin, thank G-d, are healthy in spirit and body, are whole in our Torah”

Does anyone today feel the same about themselves that they can say that shita applies to them?

PBA:

I have already conceded far more than you asked for: in response to your earlier quotes, such as the one mentioning “chiba”, I noted that it would be understandable if one were to feel joy at the ability to better observe mitzvos, etc. provided that it were better for his particular avodas Hashem to be there.

Regarding your line, “Yeah, also that there’s a mitzva to…and all that. Is shaking a lulav for those whose avodas Hashem will be bettered by it? ” This is not only “mean” and mocking, but absurd as well.

As mentioned, living in E”Y in these times is, at most, an optional mitzva. Again, even Rabbi Schachter from YU states in that Israeli Independence Day lecture from this past year, that if a person’s ruchnius, children’s chinuch, etc. would suffer from going to live in E”Y, then the person should stay in America and NOT move to E”Y.

Lulav, of course, has no such issues. Neither do Shabbos or Tefillin for that matter. Yet, as I pointed out, nobody has claimed that their school has a “learn to love tefillin” program. So your mocking comparison to lulav seems to simply be for the sake of being mean and mocking, not for any good reason that I can deduce.

JFem (and others)

Regarding your claim that “I don’t think there are any social circles that literally conceive of “Ahavas Eretz Yisroel” as a mitzvah in and of itself”, that might or might not be true but, either way, they certainly come awfully close.

With a mantra like “Ahavat Yisrael, Torat Yisrael and E”Y”, which should be very familiar to those circles and with the mission statements of their schools clearly stating things like this, it is clearly a very high priority in their theology, if not an outright “mitzva”.

The alleged poster currently in Seminary earlier mentioned that she is working on her “Ahavat E”Y””. Others use the same term, too.

Given that no such term seems to exist in Chazal, unlike, say, “Ahavas Hashem” or “Ahavas Yisrael” (as in Jews, not the land), from where did this catch-phrase and hashkafa come, which seems to have no parallel for any mitzva, as I mentioned with Shabbos and Tefillin as examples?

Nobody wants to admit the obvious answer, I guess.

PAA:

So you mean to say that there should be a mitzva to love the land so that people should live there (never mind that whatever mitzva there may currently be is far from universal)?

By that logic, there should be a mitzva to love Tefillin and Shabbos and all the others. If people love Tefillin then they’re more likely to lay Tefillin, too. Obviously, this is not a reason to institute a new mitzva to love something.

Again, as mentioned above, why is “Ahavat Eretz Yisrael”, emphasis on “Ahavat” perceived as a Jewish value (or even a major mitzva in certain circles), one that is perceived as an advantage to sending to seminary in E”Y as proposed earlier?

PAA:

I read it before I replied to you. That line/piece is not in the slightest a siyua to Zionism, and I’m not interested in discussing it at this point due to the (frum) people involved in this particular matter.

I mentioned Rabbi Schachter because of his position in the institution in which he is employed. I think the implication is rather obvious. Our mesorah is not as you extrapolate from that piece, and even in the MO world they are aware of this. If you’re interested further in his understanding, you can either listen to that lecture or perhaps ask him yourself.

Gimar chasimah tovah to all of Klal Yisrael.

PBA and DY:

This simply reflects their joy at their ability to do mitzvos, to be in palterin shel melech, etc.

So I grant that one could feel joy upon entering the land, and I conceded this earlier because it is the land we once had, more mitzvos, Hashem’s palace, etc.

But, again, my prior question to DY still remains. And you have still not brought a mitzva or even a general hashkafa to “intend to love the land”, so to speak. “Ki ratzu…” is not a commandment, simply a reflection of my second paragraph here.

Finally, as relevant here, you have not brought a reason to send one’s daughter there for the reason of implanting “Ahavat Eretz Yisrael”.

jfem:

It’s true that we are able to visit or even live there, but Hashem took it away from us. I will refrain here from commenting further in this particular aspect.

jfem:

You still haven’t explained why one would love a land and the benefit of sending one’s daughter to E”Y for this purpose.

Yes, I agree that there might be an emotional attachment to a place where one grew up and that this could be extended to include E”Y because that is the land that our forefathers lived in, etc. and that we used to have until Hashem kicked us out.

As to “chiba”, this means a fondness, not ahava, but it’s irrelevant anyways.

None of that extends to create a mitzva to either be fond or to love any land and, as relevant to this thread, none of this explains the proposed benefit of sending one’s daughter to E”Y to increase her love of the land.

PBA:

Moshe Rabbeinu understandably wished to enter E”Y to perform the mitzvos that could be done there, but where did he express a love for the land?

And you still didn’t answer the question. What is the need for/purpose of “ahavat Eretz Yisrael”?

writersoul:

“Israel is a publicity mechanism, in a way, for the seminary experience itself, no matter where it might be. If the Israel seminary as an institution was abolished, I doubt that the American/British/etc system would stay afloat for long after.”

While the “publicity mechanism” part may be true, for the traditional frum world, if attending seminary (wherever) is a good thing for post-high school young women then there is no reason to thing that it won’t happen without Israel. (But it wouldn’t surprise me if MO’s participation would drop without Israel due to theological rather than “advertisement” factors.)

Regarding Lior’s post, I think there is something to be said for witnessing people in Yerushalayim so removed from the materialism of this world despite the different lifestyle that these young women may have while in Israel. But I think the points are very reasonable.

Some NYC-area residents refer to Manhattan as “the city” in a similar fashion to how others refer to their city’s main business area as “downtown”.

Thus, the OP was presumably asking about restaurants in either Manhattan or Brooklyn, both of which are, as you noted, in NYC.

Alternatively, the OP could have been asking about restaurants in Brooklyn, meaning the Brooklyn in NYC, as opposed to any other Brooklyn.

rationalfrummie and takahmamash:

The statements by various gedolim about YU are clear as to their opinion of the institution and its philosophy. It’s not “only” those particular Torah giants. Both Rav Shach and Rav Schwab, for examples, are (similarly) on record about this.

As to some gedolim refusing to enter the place while others did do so, different gedolim have different approaches to the same set of facts even while holding the same opinion on the matter.

To illustrate with a different example, the Chazon Ish and Brisker Rav both struggled greatly to defend the Jews in E”Y against Zionism. But while the Brisker Rav refused to meet, liHavdil, David Ben-Gurion, liHavdil, the Chazon Ish did meet with him.

So while their respective tactics were different, their daas Torah on the matter was otherwise the same and they fought these dangers together.

HaLeiVi:

I disagree, unless you can explain why it makes more sense to purposely leave the name ambiguous.

I simply chose to make clear to whom I was referring. Leaving out his initials would leave an ambiguity as I noted.

In any event, there is nothing insulting about specifying the initials, as I also noted.

Dr. Hall:

I’m sorry I’m not convincing. I’ll try again, though.

Praying denotes ascribing omnipotence to the One to Whom we pray. Asking the Malachim to do that which they are supposed to do does not ascribe that attribute of G-d to the angels, which would, of course, be forbidden, though it does recognize the role that Hashem did give them.

For those whose mesorah is to say that piece, this seems like a very reasonable distinction. At the same time, I can certainly understand those whose mesorah is to not say that piece.

(Not that my opinion matters if there is a real mesorah both ways. Perhaps there are other reasons, too?)

Actually, Yeshivos and many shuls do not say Anim Zemiros. But what makes it mean that G-d is, CH”V, corporeal? As HaLeivi pointed out, there is plenty to find throughout Tanach, not just in Shir HaShirim, where one must read it allegorically.

Do you really believe, for example, “Ki biYad chazakah hotziacha Hashem miMitzrayim”, that G-d used his literal strong hand? Come on.

Patur Aval Assur:

I did not mean to imply that you held “Mai ahanu lei Rabbanan”. I meant to note that nobody should make that extrapolation from your quote.

Sam2:

Again, I was not insulting your “Rav”, yourself and not anyone else either. Writing, for the sake of brevity, “Rabbi JB Soloveitchik” rather than spelling out both names each time, is not insulting. I’ll leave it at that.

Patur aval assur:

I would vote to get back to the topic and to your quote from the Baal haTanya.

I don’t recall it being pointed out that things like whether or not to flee Europe before WW II are really questions of halacha, not political questions. It was well-known that America was dangerous for yahadus at the time, and that E”Y was under threat of attack from the Nazis. In fact, the Brisker Rav himself left for E”Y because of the potential spiritual threat of Russian occupation despite his fear of physical danger from the Nazis if they were to have reached E”Y.

There were parts of Europe that were not attacked until very late in the war. Had Hashem willed it, the war could have been over much earlier. Then there’s also the schar viOnesh aspect, etc.

Taking a particular set of actual circumstances without considering the many variables, both known and unknown, and then extrapolating that to “mai ahanu lei rabbanan” is, at the very least, foolish and short-sighted.

Patur aval assur:

When discussing this, or any issue that is not black-and-white in the poskim, there is little purpose in bringing in “Modern Orthodox” views.

We are approaching Matan Torah, and are in the midst of learning Pirkei Avos, which begins with the Mesorah from Moshe Rabbeinu and on. Our celebration on Shavuos is, in a large part, the unbroken chain of our mesorah that we have all the way back to Moshe Rabbeinu.

Unfortunately, since the “MO” broke with our mesorah, as that same Rabbi JB Soloveitchik himself admits, their “opinion” on these matters is not relevant.

Second, biNidon diDan, Zionists have, of course, a vested interest in trying to defend their idolatry. So that quote from Rabbi JB Soloveitchik is par for that course and also does not take into account the points quoted above from gedolim.

If you want a legit opinion against daas Torah, find a true gadol who holds that, if you can find any that do so.

Besides for the above, I saw the following:

The gedolim did not tell people to not go to E”Y; they only warned them to not fall prey to Zionism if they did go.

It was very possible that the Nazis would have reached and attacked E”Y. So advising people to go there wouldn’t necessarily have been a wise idea, just from a political perspective.

Finally, who is to say that Hashem would not have allowed Hitler in to E”Y if there had been a mass emigration there. Do all the gedolim bashers also disbelieve in schar vaOnesh? Maybe that would have been Hashem’s will and justice, in that circumstance?