Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Charlie:
Actually, the similarity between the two, which the Zionists still haven’t learned, is that our place in galus is to placate the nations, not holler threats at them, especially when those threats are empty.
There is also no proof that Hamas, Fatah, etc. would have arisen had Zionism never arisen.
None of this excuses Arab savagery, but neither does that excuse taunting a herd of wild beasts and then claiming innocence.
Your point regarding the US Immigration law of 1924 does not negate the point that the Zionists lobbied governments to not allow Jews in because the only escape that fit their Zionist plans was Palestine.
But just for the sake of fairness, leaving aside the particulars of the Satmar Rav’s case, every gedolim-basher who points out how the Satmar Rav survived should also point out that Rav Elchonon Wasserman went back to Europe to his talmidim, knowing there was a chance he would die there, even though he was already safe and could have easily survived the war and left his talmidim instead.
I disagree that “they understood the ramifications of Nazi rise to power better”.
See Rav Avigdor Miller and others on this topic.
Just for example, nobody imagined the depths of Zionist conduct in WW II, both their folly, from the very outset of the war (“declaring war” on Hitler, who then declared “now I will finish them”) and treachery (lobbying governments to not allow in Jews so that their only choice was either the gas chambers or Palestine which they knew the British didn’t allow because the Zionists had so antagonized the Arabs with the Zionist idol Nationalism at any cost).
There are plenty of quotes to look up by such as Henry Montor who refused to intervene to save a ship full of Jews because “Palestine shall not be…flooded with the old and undesirables”. Another one (of many) is “A [milk-producing] cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews of Europe”. Explicit declarations that Zionism was a greater cause than saving Jews in Europe.
The pattern that always held true in galus was that if one place became dangerous then another would open up. The Zionists specifically didn’t want that because “Rak biDam Tihye lanu haAretz”.
The Zionists know and admit all this. How dare anyone blame gedolim for outrageous Zionist treachery?
Never in history was there such a “fifth column” (the Zionists) working against Jews. They then have the audacity to blame the gedolim.
Simcha613:
Again, it was the Zionists that lost it in the first place. It is absurd to celebrate this undoing of a very, very small part of the damage that the Zionists themselves inflicted on the Jewish people.
More importantly, we don’t make up new holidays just because we like something. There is exactly one holiday that has been established in Klal Yisrael since Tanach: Chanukah. No other event has been deemed worthy by Chazal of prior generations to establish a holiday. Yet Zionists proclaim holidays for all their “victories”.
Yes, it would have been less problematic (not problem-free, but less problematic) if it had been a war of only goyim. But it wasn’t – it was a Zionist war – and that makes a ton of difference.
How many Jewish lives were sacrificed on the altar of Zionism for this “victory”? How much sina was created, threatening Jews worldwide? How many severe aveiros of hisgarus baUmos and aliya biChoma were violated for this?
Almost nothing is ever doche pikuach nefesh. How many human sacrifices to this idol of Zionism (as fighters in its offensive wars) were required to regain a little of what the Zionists recklessly lost in the first place? Yet you celebrate this made-up day?
(To be clear, The Torah of course permits self-defense, albeit the need for it here was only a result of Zionist aggression in the first place; but this war’s conquests are anyways not a question of self-defense.)
Again, this celebration is not Torah but, lihavdil, Zionism.
The only way any educated Jew could celebrate any Zionist holiday is if they have grafted the idolatry of Zionism unto, liHavdil, our holy Torah (as does MO/”Religious Zionism”) and have thus poisoned their worldview with the former rather than only Torah.
Simcha613:
If you are comparing Israel’s 6-Day war to the Purim story, then your understanding of one or both of those is clearly different than mine. (But I’ll try to clarify.) Just because Purim was a neis nistar, that doesn’t lessen the actual neis. Nor does that make every war won into another Purim.
Again, regarding Israel’s 6-Day war, there were no nissim. And, in case the CIA’s web site is not clear enough, there was no “threat of a massacre” and there was nothing miraculous about Israel’s wars.
See the CIA: they knew Israel would trounce the Arabs, even if attacked on three fronts simultaneously.
You are simply trying to promote this fallacious Zionist nonsense.
Again, comparing it to the Purim story is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the Purim story, for that matter.
MachaaMaker:
The 6-day war was not a neis, as mentioned above. You can see this for yourself if you go to the CIA’s web pages about this war.
Again, Zionist believers should at the very least not believe every lie spouted by the Zionists; that 6-Day War in 1967 was no miracle.
It is absurd for otherwise intelligent and thinking people to simply believe indisputably non-factual Zionist propaganda as “Gospel truth”.
MachaaMaker:
In other words, if a group of people choose to play in traffic and, in the process, make an unprecedented chillul Hashem in doing so and Hashem is kind to them and some of the cars stop for some of them, then that’s not a reason to make a yom tov like a little Purim established in the past.
Regardless, these sevaras are irrelevant because the Chazon Ish and other gedolim considered it not a purim katan but, its polar opposite, a tragic day, like Tisha BiAv, and he deliberately said tachanun on “Yom haAtzamos” even when he had three brisos that morning.
PBA:
Thank you.
MachaaMaker:
This is very different. A small-scale local European Haman haRasha cannot be compared to the monumental and long-lasting tremendous Zionist folly in starting up with and provoking the Arabs against all logic and against the gedolim’s wishes and still losing thousands of Jewish lives then, tens of thousands more human sacrifices over the following decades, and endangering Jews worldwide, CH”V, etc.
That’s not a Yom Tov; that’s a Tisha BiAv. The Zionists are, of course, “liShitasam” here; they celebrate their own lag baOmer as Bar Kochba’s victory against the Romans when we, of course, mourn that saga on Tisha BiAv as that false Mashiach and Beitar’s resultant destruction resulted in literal rivers of Jewish blood, the greatest loss of Jewish life in history until the Holocaust.
Charlie:
Since you mentioned it: no, the Zionists were wrong to fight in Yerushalayim during the war. Had the Zionists stayed out of Yerushalayim, which was to become an international city, Jordan would not have entered the war as agreed with the UN and there would have been no fight.
As to your claim that “Arab rashaim who would have killed every Jew, Zionist or not”, it is the Zionists who shot at the Rabbanim who tried to surrender to the Arabs against the wishes of the invading Zionists rather than have the Zionists wrongly and needlessly sacrifice more Jewish blood for their Zionist war.
To the point: Jews were able to daven at the kosel prior to the Zionist invasion of E”Y in the early-to-mid 1900s. In fact, the Chevron Massacre occurred because the “Religious Zionists” insisted on controlling the Kosel rather than listening to Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld who begged them to be grateful that the Arabs didn’t stop the Jews from davening at the Kosel and to not antagonize the Arabs by insisting on Zionist control of the Kosel, back in 1929.
The “Religious Zionists” didn’t care and, ultimately, the Arabs murdered the non-Zionist innocent Yeshiva students as a result.
Again, Jews were able to daven at the Kosel prior to 1948 and it was the Zionists who caused them to lose that access.
To be clear, it is absolutely forbidden to establish a Jewish government in E”Y before Mashiach even if the goyim all insist that we do so, but all the more so when it requires force and human sacrifice.
The Maharal held that even if the nations force us to create a State it is forbidden to do so, yehareig viAl yaavor. Even the sources that Zionists twist in a vain attempt to support their state, such as Rav Meir Simcha in the early 1900s after the Balfour declaration, did not allow war as a means of obtaining the ability to settle in E”Y nor did he speak of the formation of any governmental entity.
Interestingly, there were rabbis who, for example, initially supported Chovevei Tzion but, when they saw what had happened, later dropped their support. Whereas gedolim like Rav Hirsch, for example, held all along that even this movement (never mind Zionism) was “no small aveirah”.
In other words, “…asher yihye baYamim haHeim” is relevant only to matters that could change or are dependent on a particular assumption or set of circumstances, like, according to some, Chovevei Tzion. Depending on where the movement was up to, it could possibly be permissible to join.
But if something is outright assur, regardless of time and place, like Zionism and founding the State of Israel, then it’s always outright assur and “asher yihye baYamim haHeim” is irrelevant because the “shoftim” of later times cannot possibly pasken any differently because it is simply immutable.
PBA:
I agree that circumstances, tactics and practical matters could change, such as, perhaps, voting in Israel’s elections, for example.
Meaning, if there is no inherent issur in doing a particular action, then that is something for whoever is the “shofet” “baYamim haHeim” to weigh and conclude if there is, in fact, any issur in doing so at that particular time and place, etc.
But there is no way to, for example, retroactively kasher [founding] the State which was and is a blatant violation of multiple issurim including a violation of oaths and (even the Zionists admit this and grapple with it in YU’s latest “To-Go” publication) pikuach nefesh (or, as the Brisker Rav held, the entire Torah).
The gedolim paskened as such having nothing to do with what Israel would or wouldn’t develop into and nothing can later make kosher what was a paskened unequivocal issur.
So what did you mean by “Nor do I accept the notion that because gedolim were opposed or supported something 50 years ago, that their opinion would not have changed if they had seen what the thing had developed into.”
As others have mentioned, people used to go to the kosel long before the Zionists started making problems in Eretz Yisrael (well before 1948).
So all the Zionists accomplished with “Har HaBayis BiYadeinu” in 1967 was to undo a very, very small part of the damage that they themselves, the Zionists, did up to and including 1948. That’s besides for the cost in Jewish blood, other issurim, etc. that it took to both inflict that damage and to undo it.
So the perspective of the kosel being a 1967 “gift from Hashem” is faulty and short-sighted as well. That “gift from Hashem” was always there, and it is the Zionists who lost it in 1948 in the first place.
The Zionists are true to form in celebrating this day, like the Satmar Rav’s mashal of the arsonist bringing a hose after setting a massive fire.
(Rav Hutner did not attend opera shows after he became Rav Hutner.)
Regardless, you are really asking two questions, and they don’t really impact each other. One question is if today’s “Jewish music” is really “Jewish”? The other question is if classical music is permitted.
Halachic inquiries must be directed to legitimate halachic deciders, like a Rav/Rebbi with a real mesorah…
But it would be foolish to underestimate the awesome power and soul language of music.
DaMoshe:
I don’t see why it’s funny, though I thank you (hakaras haTov) for your back-handed but far too kind compliment that being a Torah Jew is part of my identity (unlike MO/”RZ”‘s identity of “Religion mixed with A”Z” or “A sea of heresy with a drop of Torah mixed in”, etc. depending on the gadol you “ask”).
Sam2:
That would be contrary to basic logic and daas Torah (not to mention current events). Just for example, Rav Meshulam Dovid Soloveichik, son of the Brisker Rav, recently spoke a few times on this topic and was rather clear that there is no such distinction that you wish to make.
Syag:
First, as I mentioned earlier, I did not “insist bad things” about anyone.
Just because Zionism is shmad and your typical Israeli goes through that system, that does not make, and I did not say that, your typical Israeli is, CH”V, a bad person. I don’t see the L”H issue: I did not blame them for anything.
I asked you a simple question which you haven’t answered:
“Let us be clear: for someone who was brainwashed, to hate something, as part of their very identity, would you expect them to have any sort of good feelings towards any of that?”
But I am anyways willing to concede the possibility that your typical Israeli off-the-street might appreciate mishnayos being learned for them, regardless. It’s not relevant.
But akuperma’s post, in my understanding, which is what started this, is correct, as he was referring to the real Zionists, not the man-off-the-street. On this, there can be no question.
I certainly wish you the same.
Syag:
Again, countless gedolim have said that Zionism is shmad. Even with whatever limited emunas chachamim I do have, I believe them on that.
Regarding this instance, too, I have tried to set the reality in light of the gedolim’s words and the little knowledge of my own. If you feel I have erred factually, please let me know.
Let us be clear: for someone who was brainwashed, to hate something, as part of their very identity, would you expect them to have any sort of good feelings towards any of that?
I welcome your response.
rf:
Regarding your motzi shem ra about me that I do not “recognize the importance of E”Y”:
Actually, it is precisely because I do recognize the importance of E”Y that only reinforces the gedolim’s stated views of how Zionism is a non-starter.
Zionism and, liHavdil the land of E”Y are, of course, contrary to Zionist fantasy, wholly separate entities.
Regarding your motzi shem ra about my allegedly not recognizing hashgacha pratis, this is also absurd.
Presumably, you wrote that because I don’t believe in the Zionist fantasy that the very founding of Israel innately means that Hashem wanted it to happen. By your logic, one could say the same about the Holocaust, the Egel, or anything else.
Of course Hashem runs the world. But that He allows something to happen does not at all mean that He “WANTS” that to happen.
My Torah is the one given on Har Sinai and the mesorah from rebbi to talmid that followed.
edited
RF:
Your latest post is incorrect as well.
While it is a halach biYadua that Eisav Sonei es Yaakov, that means that one should be all the MORE careful to NOT “fan those flames”.
If you taunt a wild animal then you can’t claim that it bit because it’s a wild animal. It’s true that if it were a cow that it would not have bitten. But it’s also true that it wouldn’t have bitten if you hadn’t taunted it.
The facts are that the “Religious Zionists” came up with their disgraceful “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu HaKosel Echad” and needlessly provoked the Arabs which did antagonize the Arabs, on top of the rest of the Zionist aggression, and this was the result as testified by those who lived there and knew exactly what was happening.
To be clear, the Arabs had no right to touch even a single hair on the head of a Jew. But that doesn’t change the sheer recklessness of starting up with them.
Syag:
I did not mean to imply that your typical Israeli off the street is Leah Rabin and a “hater”. Not at all. But if they don’t even know what Mishnayos are, and have been taught that, in Ben-Gurion’s words, “Religion is the historical misfortune of the Jewish people”, what nechama could they possibly derive from someone learning mishnayos, assuming they could even tolerate the very thought of it?
To clarify further, if, someone offered to perform some religious act that, in your mind, is totally opposite what you were taught: would that gesture have any meaning to you? I don’t see how it would.
Might you appreciate the gesture just because it was offered, or just for the solidarity? Depending on the person, perhaps it would. But that’s a far cry from claiming it would bring nechama to them.
And akuperma is still quite correct that any Zionist worthy of the name would abhor this “galut stuff”.
Syag:
As Jews, the Torah IS real life. And most Zionists (not “RZ”), who don’t even know what mishnayos are, would not likely be comforted.
Leah Rabin’s line comes to mind, how she would rather her kids be Arab than Chareidi.
b. Israeli Jews who have passed on would, presumably, be included in the generic Yizkor/Keil Maleis just like all other Jews from anywhere else who have passed on.
For MiSheBeirachs, too, please cite one halachic reason that Jews in E”Y are more eligible than others to receive a special bracha just for them.
We daven at least twice a week “Acheinu kol beis yisrael haNisunim baTzara uVaShivya…HaMakom yiRacheim aleihem….” and (non-“MO”) shuls and yeshivos across the world daven for our brethren in E”Y daily if not more by reciting tehillim after davening.
not necessary for your point
Incidentally, the prayers invented by the Zionists are, of course, also problematic in their particular wording, so those are anyways non-starters. We obviously have no need for idolatrous (per our gedolim) add-ons to our tefillos.
What you mean to imply is why people don’t accept the A”Z of Zionism that “MO/RZ” have grafted onto, lihavdil, our holy Torah. The obvious answer is that the gedolim strictly forbade this deviancy in the strongest terms.
Avi K:
a. So, taking your point to its logical conclusion, RAK’s sefarim and everything else in his life are all not worth anything because of your story. After all, it must have been exaggerated or lav davka, or whatever implication you take from your allege story.
Obviously not.
RAK stated clearly that, at its essence, MO is the same as Conservative and Reform. There is no reason to believe he intended “lav davka” here, nor is there a logical “lav davka” alternative, even if your story were true, accurate, etc.
While on that topic, he also said that Rabbi JBS was “machariv America”, as I understand that quote. That could be argued as not literally “destroyed America”.
Besalel and others:
No, the Ramban did not CH”V hold that it is a mitzvah to violate the oaths, risk and lose, R”L L”A, tens of thousands of Jewish lives on the altar of that idolatrous State, etc.
Living in E”Y, not en masse, and with no force needed, and with permission of the nations including of the inhabitants already there, is a different story, but which is anyways entirely inapplicable to Zionism.
As I and others have posted, the Zionists and the State of Israel are still very much fighting to change our people from a Torah-based nation to a goy nation-based nation. Also, from ’48 until today, the gedolim certainly did not moderate their stance against Zionism. In fact, they have repeatedly confirmed that the same concerns, if not more, apply after ’48 through today.
Again, the Satmar Rav’s mashal of the arsonist who set fire to a structure and then ran up with a fire hose like some sort of hero, seems quite appropriate. The Zionists have reneged on their deals with Agudah that Agudah paid for with their collective soul and, as Getzel pointed out, welfare exists everywhere.
DaMoshe:
Please let me know which navi informed you that I hate and that this alleged hate has prevented Mashiach from coming, CH”V.
On the contrary, I’ve pointed out how our gedolim hold (it’s actually a gemara in Sanhedrin) that having a “Jewish State” holds off Mashiach’s coming.
(On other threads, I have also quoted Rav Schwab’s letter begging “our achim biAidah”, the “Centrist Orthodoxy”/”Modern Orthodox” to return to the fold. His piece is entitles to the effect of Love, not Hate.
But Rav Schwab was unequivocal that this does not in any way permit their “…heresy”.)
rf:
Your post is, unfortunately, historically and otherwise, wrong on all counts.
mmys:
Of course the Zionists managed to fool lots of people at the time. They still manage to fool people even with the benefit of hindsight of history and the recorded clear opinions of the gedolim on this subject.
The Brisker Rav wrote that the State only came into being because of the Jews who davened for that State instead of davening for the geula, which Hashem would have given them at the time had they instead done so. So your post is not a chidush.
But whatever your grandfather’s opinion is, or that of others who were there, one can presume that both the Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish were greater than he and the others.
Both the Brisker Rav and Chazon Ish agreed that the state’s establishment was a gizeirah raah. The Brisker Rav pointed out to the Chazon Ish that a gizeirah (raah) avida liHibatla only applies when people understand that it’s a gezeira raah so he feared that this gizeirah would remain ad beas goel, Hashem yiracheim.
On a subsequent Israeli Independence Day, the Chazon Ish was honored with Sandak for three brisos. Despite this, he insisted on saying Tachanun that morning anyways so that nobody would make any mistake about this matter.
But the “Religious Zionists” continue to delude themselves and attempt to delude others who don’t know any better.
DaMoshe:
Actually, the accurate claim, which Zionists cannot refute, is that “life was better for Jews in Eretz Yisrael before Zionism”, not “before 1948” as you wrote, because by that time the Zionists had already engaged in decades of conflict with the Arabs in E”Y.
Regarding the Chevron massacre, as has been posted on these boards numerous times, that was also “thanks” to Zionism, specifically “Religious Zionism”.
Rabbi Baruch Kaplan who was there, said publicly (and others concurred) that the Arabs revolted due to the “Religious Zionists” provoking the Arabs by insisting on having control over the Kosel. “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu HaKosel Echad” was their abominable rallying cry, twisting our holy Shema into a nationalist propaganda slogan that cost innocent Jewish lives.
Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, on the other hand, begged the “Religious Zionists” to stop antagonizing the Arabs and to be grateful that the Arabs did not interfere with Jews davening there. But the Zionists wanted to serve their idol (as per Rav Elchonon).
147:
The reason the British blocked immigration into Palestine during WW II is due to the Zionists fighting with the Arabs so the British didn’t want the Arabs to get even more violent.
If it weren’t for the treachery of the Zionists before, during and after WW II then those Jews might never have been tossed around those third-world countries to begin with. And some of the ones that were might have survived had the Zionists not lobbied governments for Palestine or nothing. Even the Zionists admit that Zionism was (and is, of course) above all, including being above saving Jews in Europe and they put their money where their mouth was.
The Satmar Rav said early in the century that it would be a miracle of tragedy did not befall the Jews in Europe because of what the Zionists are doing.
He also compared the Zionists to an arsonist who sets fire to a house and then runs to get a hose.
Read the despicable lies that Zionists said about Jews in an attempt to change the Jew into a new Goy Hebrew Zionist.
smile4life,
It was Rav Aharon Kotler (and perhaps others) who made that comparison.
Regarding your post, where is there a mitzva to “give one’s life for Eretz Yisrael”, meaning, presumably, for the State of Israel, as the land was obviously in no danger?
If you mean that they gave their lives so that people’s lives should be saved, then why not say that?
Regardless, we have our own ways to show respect for those who have passed on, as outlined in the Torah.
Take it to a different thread.
Besalel:
That makes no sense. What do you claim has “changed”? The nihye kiChol haAmim and rak biDam tihye lanu haAretz philosophy remains just the same; only now, the focus is keeping the land Zionist, CH”V. An even cursory glance at Zionist activities makes this quite plain.
The Brisker Rav and others did not change their stance even after the State of Israel was founded, and they lived there both before and after.
If anything, the Zionist shmad is even stronger now than it was then. Back then, they left alone the Chareidim about whom they knew it were hopeless to spout their Zionist fantasies to them. Instead, they made do with deliberately destroying the Judaism of our Sefardic brethren whom they had conned into moving to their “utopia”.
While the mitzva to live in E”Y might be in effect today, depending on who you ask, the mitzva to conquer E”Y as definitely NOT in effect today and is, in fact, strictly prohibited with severe consequences, R”L L”A, Hashem Yiracheim.
GAW:
Yes, I agree that this was definitely ironic.
DaMoshe:
Do you also have a day to celebrate the open miracle of the creation of the eigel? Our mesorah is that both are Avoda Zara. Why one and not the other?
I do appreciate your tefilos, of course.
I am not aware of any aveiros of either Lashon HaRa or Motzi Shem Ra about anyone, but if you are aware of any, I would appreciate knowing about that.
Again, the bottom line is that Rav Elchonon and others said that Zionism is Avoda Zara and “Religious Zionism” is simply religion mixed with Avoda Zara. The whole MO/”Religious Zionism” is simply a non-starter.
And it is simply delusional to claim “He also clearly showed us an absolute early sign of the coming Geulah BB”A”. You have no neviim or even any gedolim to claim that and, of course, the gedolim have said just the opposite.
Even the letter which Zionists still tout as if it were some psak din, rather than a slimy forgery, never originally said those words, never mind who did or didn’t even sign the letter in any form.
Regardless, Zionism and its victories in 1948 had nothing to do with the geulah. Simply, a Mitzva haBaa baAveira is not a Mitzva and the founding of the State entailed various severe aveiros. Founding the State was absolutely assur in many ways, and to say Hallel for such a thing is patently absurd.
Of course MO/”Religious Zionism” has been making it all up and just as certainly they do delude themselves into thinking that there might be parameters for their inventions (which even Sam2 admits are not muchrach, even liShitasam). The problem is that the gedolim very much did and continue to disagree with MO/”Religious Zionism” at least as much as they did regarding any other deviant movement.
Even the “left-wing” Rabbis admit that MO/”Religious Zionism” changed (their) Judaism.
Like Eliyahu Fink, for instance, who blogged what any high school student could tell you after learning about European Nationalism, and then reading Orot (which, incidentally, the Chazon Ish, among others, also forbade): that Rabbi Kook merely took Nationalism and grafted it onto, liHavdil, our holy Torah. (Rabbi Dr. Lichtenstein also wrote similarly, though he obviously concluded positively, regardless.)
The bottom line is that Rav Elchonon and others said that Zionism is Avoda Zara and “Religious Zionism” is simply religion mixed with Avoda Zara. The whole MO/”Religious Zionism” is simply a non-starter.
The Zionist nonsense in this thread is so strange that one wonders how intelligent people continue to delude themselves with any of this.
Tens of thousands of Jews have died on the altar of Zionism since Israel’s Independence Day. (Not to mention the countless other Jews have died before that time due to Zionism.) So “Yom Ha’atzamos” seems like a reasonable description for that day and not at all comparable to a racist slur as the MO wish everyone to believe.
Frum people are those who follow gedolim, not those who broke with their mesorah and who invented a new Torah of, as the Brisker Rav put it, “a sea of heresy mixed with a drop of Torah”. That is, of course, the province of MO and “Religious Zionism”. As Rav Aharon Kotler pointed out, the essence of MO is the same as Reform and Conservative.
There is, of course, nothing Jewish about Israel’s Independence Day. Just for example, the Chazon Ish was makpid to say tachanun that day even when he had three brisos that morning just to make sure that people should not err in this.
In addition to the gedolim’s strong and unwavering opposition, the Zionists also ignore that even for Bayis Sheini, which was indeed a real geulah, no such Yom Tov was created. And they had neviim then, unlike today. The Zionists also ignore that the State of Israel is among the LEAST safest places for a Jew today and ever since Zionism reared its bloody head well over a century ago.
Syag:
akuperma is correct (and you are the one who is “way off”).
As has been mentioned on these boards many times, and as recognized by our gedolim from way before 1948 through today, the goal of Zionism was and is to create a new “goy” Hebrew, Land/Nation-based, nation to replace the traditional, Torah-based, Jewish nation.
Sam2:
I will refrain from throwing your insulting words back at you. Whatever Talmidei Chachamim did or did not do, I do not wish to personally insult anyone.
But you seem to have missed the part about how Rav Schwab is on record imploring MO to return from their errors and rejoin Klal Yisrael. So this was not at all my extrapolation from one piece on one opinion, as you claim, but rather Rav Schwab’s words.
As you surely recall, we already discussed the Rabbi Schachter piece, and Rav Schwab’s response, here, where I noted that Rav Schwab obviously did not misread the piece even if you are able to claim that, lihavdil (from Rav Schwab), that I misread it:
But let us be very clear: if one looks at the writing of Rav Schwab, in that piece in particular, it is obvious that Rav Schwab’s response to Rabbi Schachter’s piece was actually the opposite of just “par for the course” strong lashon as you claim, and, therefore, nothing to do with any “lack of knowledge” on my part.
Rav Schwab wrote there at the end that he was NOT trying to denigrate any particular talmid chacham; the very title of the piece is “He who loves does not hate”.
As mentioned, Rav Schwab was very much NOT disparaging anyone. As you noted that you didn’t read Rav Schwab’s response, perhaps that would have been a good idea, as it likely would have prevented you from wrongly accusing Rav Schwab (and also forming the wrong opinion about my post) of this.
Should you care to read it, Rav Schwab’s piece is listed as (elsewhere):
besalel:
Your points about Uman, Rebbe-worship and zeman-Shabbos all relate to Chassidus, which holds itself to be different from traditional orthodox Judaism. This does not mean that they are correct, but this does make their practices not relevant here.
One very big difference between Chassidus and MO, in addition to what I posted above, is that, for example, spending thousands of dollars and traveling thousands of miles to Uman is obviously not an attempt to dilute orthodoxy or to change it to Nationalism=A”Z. Ditto the Rebbe-related hanhagos, including, for example, Chabad Chassidim flying in before a wedding to pray by Rabbi Schneerson’s grave. I am aware of what the gedolim have said about Chabad, but that is not the point here.
The point is that, unlike MO, chassidus is not an attempt to dilute orthodoxy and morph it into an unholy hybrid of Torah and, lihavdil, secular nationalism (which is A”Z as per even Rabbi JB Soloveitchik’s own father as well as Rav Elchonon, et al.)
besalel:
I did not mean to label you MO; I merely meant to direct you to my response, which is why I enclosed your name in parentheses.
Your assertion regarding wearing black is, in my understanding, completely wrong. Wearing black is not to copy the goyim but rather for humility, meaning to not “be flashy”.
Your assertion about “kibush haAretz” is astonishing. It is absolutely clear that we are not only not commanded to be kovesh the land while in galus, but that it is absolutely forbidden and under threat of dire consequences, as indicated in Kesubos. But, perhaps kol haPosel biMummo posel: if anyone really believes this (coming from Zionism, presumably), perhaps it is they who are “mumar liDavar echad”, or perhaps, as the Brisker Rav held, kol haTorah kula.
Sam2 (and besalel):
Out of respect for you, other MO members here, and Rabbi Schachter himself, I did not mention him by name. But since you insist…
No, it is Rav Elchonon, et al. who called Nationalism A”Z, not me.
You refuse to accept that I merely conveyed Rav Schwab’s written rebuttal to Rabbi Schachter’s shita in question, calling those like him “Talmid Chacham ShEin boDeah” in response to that shita. This is indisputable.
It is also quite logical that since “Religious Zionism” is, in Rav Elchonon’s words, Torah mixed with A”Z, and that MO are proud nationalists, then since Rav Schwab ruled out the Torah part, and the shita itself is very nationalist, then where else did it come from besides Nationalism which MO are proud of? You can’t have it both ways.
ZDad:
I am not getting involved in that one, but the common understanding of Chassidus as you portrayed it is clearly not what defines Chassidus.
Avram:
I know your post was not directed to me, but I anyways would like to comment on it, specifically regarding Baalei Teshuva.
This intended audience of this site is, in my opinion, indicated in the site name.
Regardless, nobody is telling a Baalei Teshuva that they are “bad” if they are currently up to the “MO” stage. (It’s too bad that MO don’t realize that they could be, essentially, “in the same boat”.)
Everyone has struggles, no matter where they come from. But that doesn’t allow for claiming that an aveira is not any more an aveira, etc.
Again, this is about the ideology, not the people.
The Torah is above all else and is certainly not open to having foreign ideologies grafted on to it as does “MO”, “Religious Zionism” and others to create a new Torah (for which there is no mesorah) that they then try to pass off as authentic.
Respect for people is wonderful and nobody said otherwise.
But this does not preclude pointing out that that the gedolim held that the ideology of MO was and is terribly wrong.
To be clear, the founder of MO was condemned by the gedolim of his time for MO (and, included in that, is Zionism, since you seem to prefer that I bring it up).
Further, a well-known MO posek gave a Nationalistic (i.e. Avoda Zara, as per Rav Elchonon, et al.) explanation for why “liChaOra” Zionists believe that liHalacha Jews may sacrifice their lives for the State of Israel (regardless of whether or not Jewish lives are saved). Rav Schwab sadly referred to people like this as “Talmid Chacham sheEin bo Deah” and, essentially, to hope that people like this will “return to their (Torah) senses”.
As well, in MO one finds the “hevel uRius ruach”, etc. (quoting Rav Shlomo Miller’s words) regarding the questionable Broyde piece.
To be sure, nobody is claiming that all MO agree with all of this. One hopes that at least some MO (of all levels) know better in these (and other) matters than MO’s founder, and some of their rabbis, including a rather well-known posek.
But it is indisputable that all this is genuine MO and, perhaps worse, that MO still won’t admit that it’s wrong.
There are more recent examples, etc. but the point is NOT to “bash” MO.
Decades ago, Rav Schwab asked MO to rejoin traditional orthodoxy but, sadly, it seems that MO feels they know better. Bizarrely, MO attempts to claim legitimacy from Rav Schwab’s very derech, TIDE, while Rav Schwab very clearly and publicly nixed this “possibility”.
DaMoshe:
Your contention that you “clarified there that MO does not endorse such behaviors”, is not at all clear.
Again, respect of the people is wonderful, but not of the ideology.
benignuman:
See here, for starters:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/who-says-above-knee-osur
By the way, the word is “Das”, not “Daas”.
netazar:
See Rabbi Soloveichik’s own Chamesh Drashos and the gedolim’s views about him and his ideologies.
DaMoshe:
Zionism is not pertinent to this discussion at this time.
The source of “justifying” is not only Broyde and his questionable piece, but Rabbi Soloveichik himself.
Sam2:
It seems that this wasn’t the only fake person Broyde “created”, but that’s not the only point.
See Rav Shlomo Miller’s scathing response to Broyde’s piece. Rav Miller clearly states that Broyde’s piece is wrong and that the arichus is “hevel uRius ruach”.
147:
I happen to think you are incorrect in that assertion, but which posek gave you that idea?
Regarding sources for these issurim:
The halachic process does not allow for cherry-picking from shitos that are not accepted liHalacha, not that this would anyways alleviate all the issues regarding women not covering their hair. And women wearing pants is problematic for other reasons besides beged ish.
Of course, if in doubt, ask your LOR.
DaMoshe:
Your assertion that some Modern Orthodox women do these things but, at the same time, that this has nothing to do with Modern Orthodoxy makes no sense and is also not true.
The reason your assertion makes no sense, and comparisons to L”H, et al. are also irrelevant, is that L”H is certainly no more prevalent among traditional orthodox than by anyone else. So while various Jews of various stripes may fall prey to the Yetzer HaRa in various aveiros and for various reasons, the non-MO still understand that whatever aveira they are doing is forbidden, unlike MO which tries to justify these things, as in, for example, the questionable Broyde piece that a different poster referred to.
The reason your assertion is also not true is that, as above, Rabbi JB Soloveichik created Modern Orthodoxy to institutionalize compromise of the Torah seemingly based on what he felt (against the gedolim of the time) was necessary for then-modern America, and on his mistaken assumption that traditional Orthodoxy would become a museum piece.
Again, this is not like someone walking into McDonalds for a cheeseburger because he just couldn’t resist it (for whatever reason). At least in that case, he knows he’s wrong. Whereas MO “kulas” are wrongly promoted as bona fide kulas.
Even back then, Rav Schwab essentially begged MO to “get with the program” and stop the MO stuff, but the MO refused. Strangely, at least on an institutional level, they still seem to spurn his call, even as MO likes to claim legitimacy as an outgrowth of TIDE, which Rav Schwab himself also denounced as impossible and not true.
Shopping613:
I appreciate your perspective. And achdus is a wonderful thing, as was recently demonstrated when hundreds of thousands of Jews worldwide davened for the physical and spiritual safety of our brethren in E”Y.
First, one should be careful who they are friends with. Friends have tremendous influence on people in many ways, subtle and otherwise. Being respectful or associating in various contexts is one thing; being friends with them is quite another.
We daven each day to be saved “meChaver ra”.
As others have pointed out, there is an eis lisno. Dovid HaMelech also wrote “Misanecha Hashem esna…”
Hashem created this midah, like everything else, for a purpose.
Besides for this point, there is a difference between the sinner and the sin. To respect the sinner despite their sin is one matter. But in no way can this extend to respecting the sin itself.
edited for extraneous, derogatory political comments of the very nature that posters in this thread were asked to refrain from (in this thread)
JF:
Your question is not relevant vis-vis Chareidim. The Chareidim were there long before the Zionists foisted their disasters on our holy land against the wishes of the Chareidim, and the Zionists must leave them alone. Nothing to discuss there.
As for what the the Israeli government should do if Israelis refuse to serve, that is, indeed, a fair question and the likely answer is that, in theory, like any good government, they should govern “by the people” and therefore switch to a professional army as is done in all normal civilized countries.
The reason that neither of the above is realistic is, of course, that mandatory IDF service is an integral part of Zionist shmad, of turning its Jews into goy hebrew “Israelis”, and Zionism without shmad is simply impossible because they are both one and the same.
PAA: you quoted Rabbis Aviner and Lichtenstein, both of whom are Zionist, but Softwords has answered much better than I did here.