Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Avram in MD:
I am not interested in telling people to do teshuva, as you keep trying to get me to do, because I am not interested in judging anyone.
However, simply, I see no reason why any thinking Jew should contradict his faith by being, in addition (and in contradiction), a Zionist.
Yes, I believe this can and will change. By the Baal, it took Eliyahu HaNavi at Har HaCarmel. Perhaps this will take Mashiach. I don’t know. But one can at least try to reason with people.
GAW:
I don’t recall seeing your idea you mentioned in your PS. What was that?
Avram:
The point is not what, al pi halacha, the Zionists should do now but that everyone should be crystal-clear that they should never have started and about the damage the Zionists have done and continue to do to Klal Yisrael.
We know, today, what our gedolim have said and continue to hold regarding Zionism and what the Zionists have done and continue to do, some of which the Zionists could certainly stop without any potential problem. Other than that, we do not know what the future holds.
So, as to what the Zionists should do after the above, this is for the gedolim of the generation to deal with.
But people still believe in the heresy of Zionism and make it (part of) their faith.
So, again, the point is recognizing right (Torah) and wrong (any flavor of Zionism).
Avram in MD:
Not a good supposition, no. Your premises are faulty throughout.
What do you mean “the Jewish people should do in order to make teshuva”?
The Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael long predates Zionism, and does not require teshuva for living in Eretz Yisrael with no political rule or ambition and with permission of the nations.
Incidentally, Rav SRH was very against the observant movement Chovevei Tziyon, who were not Zionists, and, chacham adif miNavi, sure enough, “Religious Zionism” and Zionism are both good examples of how correct he was.
On the other hand, if your question is what should the Zionists do to stop their ill-conceived and shmad-fueled rule of Eretz Yisrael, as in what Teshuva can they do?
The very least they could do is stop shmading our brethren and they could also renounce Zionism in favor of Judaism, for starters. True, there are other significant issues remaining. But that would be a good start.
GAW:
I mostly agree, in general, other than two items:
Your “Satmar: depends”, as you don’t specify what this depends on.
And your reference to my and in general the “Brisker mehalech” which is, to my knowledge, the Torah’s sole view: Rav Aharon Kotler himself said that there will never be a disagreement between himself and the Brisker Rav. The Satmar Rav held that Zionism is a gross violation of the gimmel shevuos. Who of their stature argued with them? This is not merely the “Brisker mehalech”; it is the Torah’s.
I am not aware of anyone of their stature who disagreed and certainly not of anyone whose disagreement with their general stance on Zionism was accepted among the other gedolim.
DaasYochid, thank you for your defense on my behalf to this baseless attack.
Naftush:
Your “defense” on behalf of the idolatry of Zionism is consistent, speaking of consistency.
As it happens, my written “havara” is, of course, not Zionist.
For three reasons, I choose to transliterate a kamatz using “a” rather than “o”, even though the “a” happens to also be used for a patach.
1 – There are many English words spelled with an “a” that, in many parts of the United States, are pronounced similar to an Ashkenaz kamatz.
2 – Words in Lashon HaKodesh that contain a cholam are also spelled with the same letter “o”. So “a” and “o” are both already “taken” and, therefore, neither is more suitable to be used for a kamatz than is the other, in this regard.
3 – I have heard some mispronounce the kamatz in “Yisrael” as in “mow” or “grow”, et al. I believe this error is perpetuated in part due to the choice of spelling “Yisrael” with an “o” rather than an “a”.
Regarding actual havara, this intentional mispronunciation of a kamatz as a patach by “Religious Zionists” seems to be done out of foolishness of identifying with Zionism which (never mind the A”Z) somehow justifies throwing away your mesorah, of differentiating between kamatz and patach, because a secular Zionist chose that havara for the then-newly-created “Modern Hebrew”?
So, while the use of “a” rather than “o” for a “kamatz” is relevant to Zionism due to the above, the reason that I use an “a” rather than an “o” for a kamatz is, of course, not to, CH”V, imitate the Israeli secular havara as some inexplicably do in their davening contrary to their mesorah, but rather that I believe it is better to use “a” than to use “o”, as explained above.
GAW:
“…discuss how to destroy the state (killing many yidden in the process) with Sonei Yisroel than discuss how to help Yidden with someone who isn’t even a Zionist.”
This is not accepted by anyone other than NK (though even by NK it’s still ironic to label that A”Z when they are fighting the greatest A”Z of the era).
As to your second point, his grandson said Rav Chaim’s words absolutely do have bearing today. In fact, he and others have openly stated that, if the Zionists don’t stop their shmad, that Russia of today would then be preferable to living in E”Y under the Zionists.
You and many others refuse to open your eyes to the shmad and idolatry that is Zionism and instead view Zionism and the State as essentially a good thing, R”L. Also indisputable, and openly admitted by Zionists both then and now, is that the cultural indoctrination organ of Zionism is the IDF.
Were this reality to be understood and accepted despite the A”Z of Zionism, it would be quite obvious that, no, it was not hyperbole.
So, as I wrote, clarified:
The choice of words, calling “mainstream” anti-Zionism (i.e. the Torah’s view) an A”Z, is poor and also offensive to the Torah…
GAW:
The choice of words, calling their anti-Zionism an A”Z, is poor and also offensive to the Torah, regardless of what practical solutions there are or are not.
As to meeting with Ben Gurion, who was and is a Zionist “idol”, the Brisker Rav refused to do so. The Chazon Ish did do so out of necessity. Even the Brisker Rav worked with a Chareidi MK to try to save whatever could be salvaged from the utter disaster of Zionist conquest of Eretz Yisrael.
Regardless, I believe you are very mistaken that today is functionally any different/better than 70 years ago. Zionist shmad is much worse (every kid forced to go into the IDF, to become “Israeli”, meaning to lose their Yahadus? At least, back then, they left alone the native chareidim who preceded the Zionists in the land); even worse hisgarus baUmos; the same Zionist ideology which is kefirah in kol haTorah kulah (and not “only” the three oaths) according to the Brisker Rav.
Rav Chaim Brisker said over 100 years ago that the goal of Zionism is shmad and a means to that end is a State. Not the other way around. This has not changed.
No, the concern is shmad, not money. If it were really all about money then they would treat the Chareidim no worse than they do their Israeli Arab citizens, and would not make the Chareidim serve in the IDF (which is not a “Jewish-oriented army” any more than any other deviance like Jews for J would be, in your view, “Jewish-oriented”).
More importantly, the Zionists should allow the Chareidim to work with full rights and privileges, as does any Israeli, even without any form of IDF service regardless of how long they learn full-time.
Then, once they compare the amounts they give Chareidi students to the amount they give to, say, secular college students, then the Zionists can talk about money. It’s not the money.
The Zionist shmad and discrimination against Chareidim is abhorrent.
GAW:
And in Eliyahu’s HaNavi’s time, only a small portion of Klal Yisrael did NOT worship the Baal.
I suppose you know better than Torah giants like, to name a few, from the 1800s through today, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chazon ish, Rav Shach, Rav Aharon Kotler, three generations of Brisker Rabbanim including, lihavdil bein chaim liChaim, Rav Meshulam Dovid Shlit”A.
This A”Z of Zionism is so offensive that those who worship this A”Z refer to people who fight the A”Z as ovdei avoda zara. What an achievement by the Satan!
Avram:
There are very strong anti-Zionists who live under Israeli rule. One has nothing to do with the other. The Zionist usurpers came and decided to create their abominable State in Eretz Yisrael.
That is not, in and of itself, a reason to leave Eretz Yisrael. But, at this point, the Zionist shmad is becoming so unbearable that some Yeshivos are indeed contemplating leaving.
Israel surrendering to Hamas is obviously not either what they should do.
But there are many theoretical possibilities in between, CH”V, shmad and hisgarus baUmos versus large-scale suicide.
But what there is to practically do all has nothing to do with Zionism being (just as practically) idolatry.
GAW:
From your above post, it seems you feel that fighting Avoda Zara is indeed the same as worshiping A”Z. I guess that’s part of the confusion that comes to one when one is pocheis al shtei haSiifim. People probably said the same then about Eliyahu HaNavi, too.
WIY, a cursory glance at the Israeli news here on YWN indicates that Zionist shmad is still very much in force.
The ever-present goal and indeed raison d’etre of Zionism is shmad, to create a new Jew on the ashes of Judaism, CH”V. This has not changed. In fact, it is now, in some ways, worse because of the current intensification of shmading charedim.
It’s not as you think that “[t]hese people don’t even know what they are protesting.” Perhaps it is you who doesn’t understand what it is they are (and, perhaps everyone should be) protesting.
Putting some light items on the baby’s lap gives the baby something to look at or play with. Since there seems to be no danger and no discomfort to the child, and since there seems to be a plus for the baby, too, I see no problem with this.
Yaakov Doe:
No, it’s not surprising.
But PBA’s point is that not only is he a frum Jew in the working world, but, specifically, that he also looks like an observant Jew rather than blending in.
Hein am liVadad Yishkon…
This deserves kudos, as PBA mentioned in his OP.
(This is not intended to imply that anyone who does “blend in” for professional purposes is doing anything improper. That’s for one’s LOR who knows all the particulars.)
GAW, though you admit that Anti-Zionism “is not inherently bad”, you malign them as “making it into its own Avoda Zara”?
Not to directly compare (despite that many gedolim have made such a comparison), but would you say the same about Eliyahu HaNavi fighting Baal-worship – that he “made it into its own Avoda Zara”?
I don’t understand how you could possibly apply that particular term when – how ironic – Zionism is Avoda Zara (and also has plenty of at least one of the other two of the big three aveiros for good measure); which makes Zionism a rather serious matter. And I also don’t know of much anti-Zionist “action” that would remotely make that comparison, “its own Avoda Zara”, seem correct.
So what exactly is it about those anti-Zionists that prompted you to dub their almost single-handed fight against this Avoda Zara, with the name, of all things, of an “Avoda Zara”?
“Doped up”:
Huh?
You posted that Judaism was, CH”V, founded on a bet.
And your source for this is
“??? ??? ???? ?? ?”
As it happens, Hashem did remove Moshe Rabbeinu’s name from Parshas Titzaveh in fulfillment of his request (not bet).
Regardless, that statement was uttered after the nation’s founding.
Judaism was founded at Har Sinai with the knowledge of the entire world. And there was no bet there.
Take it to another thread, old or new, there are plenty to chose from
The whole premise of MO was that traditional Orthodoxy would become no more than a museum piece unless he reformed/modernized Orthodoxy.
B”H, the Orthodox world (i.e. non-MO) has, of course, not needed MO’s reforms to Hashem’s Torah; while Jews of all stripes face financial struggles, there are still successful businesses that are owned, and run by, and that employ, chassidim, besides for the traditional Orthodox who also run businesses or are otherwise employed in various fields of work, whether white-collar or otherwise.
Rabbi JB Soloveitchik clearly stated he was deviating from his family tradition in the matter of Zionism. Yet the senseless and idolatrous worship of Zionism is one of the major mitzos of MO. They observe Israeli nationalist holidays as religious observances, etc.
Put simply: Even without the (rather major) Zionism issue, MO is a mistaken ideology that is kineged our Torah. We are already seeing the initial stages of disintegration of MO (as prominent MO writers have been decrying for years now); those leaning “to the left” become, CH”V, Conservative or worse, while those leaning “to the right” become traditionally Orthodox, B”H.
Charlie:
No, he is not bound by his father’s “psak”, for a number of reasons.
Ask your fellow MO, the erudite Sam2, about the few exceptions to Kibbud Av. Certain marriage and learning-related matters are among those.
As well, other than himself and his students, in whose eyes did Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik qualify as a gadol HaDor? Rav Aharon Kotler, who was a gadol haDor, said some very harsh things about Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik. Agudah’s rabbanim did not either seem to believe he was a gadol haDor; see, for example, their JO piece upon Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik’s passing, which can still be found online. It certainly did not say anything of the sort. Other than MO institutions, what Yeshivos include any of his works in their curricula?
As the founder of “MO”, Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik obviously felt that he needed to found his co-ed day school in Boston. But this doesn’t mean that even he would agree that this was the proper thing to do elsewhere. It also doesn’t mean he would say to do so today when American Jewry has, B”H, advanced far beyond where it was then.
As well, the gedolim of the time did not agree with him on this (among other things). So it is wrong to promote these failed, mistaken and condemned notions of MO.
Finally, the end of your post (before the bracha that you wrote to him) is also ignoring a major flaw of MO, which is the only known Orthodox movement that is mattir issurim (for the sake of modernity).
(The words “be open-minded” usually are code for “look the other way when issurim are committed; it’s okay”.)
So while people of all stripes unfortunately fall prey to the Yetzer HaRa, only in MO (among Orthodox movements) is it accepted to commit certain aveiros. Therefore, one cannot compare the negative effects of living in an MO area to that of living elsewhere.
I would, instead, advise, as Pirkei Avos says, “Asei licha Rav”. It is also very unwise to disregard other maamarei Chazal like “Oy laRasha viOy liShcheino”. (No, I do not mean to imply that MO are, CH”V, rishaim, but the concept of being wary of undue influence still very much applies.)
Finally, while there are indeed a variety of different valid mehalchim in avodas Hashem, that doesn’t mean MO gets to tag along simply because they feel like it. The majority of MO adherents may mean well (the same might be argued of Conservative and Reform as well), but that doesn’t make acceptable the theology of MO.
I appreciate “From Long Island’s post”.
OP:
You may, in fact, be rejecting their lifestyle, but since they presumably mean well and liSheim Shamayim, traditional Orthodoxy can be viewed as “the next step” as FLI mentioned.
Yitzchok2:
Reb Nosson Tzvi’s success does not at all mean that this can be applied to anyone else in a different time and place. B”H, people survive many bad choices; that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to replicate those choices.
As well, while everyone has a Yetzer HaRa, MO goes far beyond this by simply being mattir issurim, whether de facto or de jure, as the OP mentioned of his own experiences.
OP:
Find a Rav who believes in the original and unadulterated Torah (i.e. non-MO). And also, understand that many have been unfortunately misled by MO and may Hashem help them, speedily, to discover the truth as you have.
I commend you for your maturity and astuteness in considering all this and making these determinations.
Similar to DaasYochid’s point, I would say that if your parents, like so many others, have been misled by the mistaken ideology of MO, and it does seem that way from your post, then it also seems understandable that they would give you the type of education that they did, rather than a traditionally Orthodox chinuch because, unfortunately, MO was, presumably, the best conclusion in their minds.
The good news is that a good secular education (like being taught how to properly write and speak in English) can still be very helpful even within kodesh professions, so it’s great that you’ve gotten that education. Lihavdil, any good non-MO Yeshiva high school can do wonders for your religious education as well regardless of the MO issues you’ve had to deal with until this point.
Hatzlacha rabba.
Oomis: I appreciate your words.
The fact remains that love of the land (still no answer as to where to find that all-important mitzva? of loving the land) is not the same as loving the State of Israel which presently administers parts of that land.
One may love one (e.g. the land) and not the other (e.g. the State).
This goes both ways (either yes to land/no to State or yes to State/no to land).
Among other points, this is not opinion but fact.
As to opinions, however: yes, each is entitled to their own opinion; and I’m humbled to have been in agreement with some of your other opinions, including earlier in this thread.
Oomis, very simply: you are conflating two vastly different and, indeed, opposing views.
Love of the land is completely different than Zionism. The Zionists use love of the land as part of their propaganda attempting to confuse people into supporting their idolatry because of that wish to love the land.
Using the term “Zionist” for “love of the land” is untenable because Zionism has a well-established meaning.
By the way, where is there a stated mitzvah to “love the land”?
As thankful as you are for the yeshivos that exist there, are you also thankful for the tens of thousands of Jewish lives it cost to achieve that? Was it worth it? Not to mention the gemara in Kesubos which Zionists can’t answer. It’s not even a question.
Incidentally, many gedolim decried the creation of the State of Israel, even though there were some who agreed to work with it. Agudah was founded back in the day for the express purpose of fighting Zionism. Even nowadays, as modern (not MO) rabbis have stated, nothing has changed. Zionism was and is a very bad idea and against the Torah.
Again, only people who identify with the Zionist movement are Zionist. “We” are definitely not Zionist.
Rebbe Yid:
First, the Rambam himself was Moshe, not Moussa or some other language-equivalent.
As well, “Aryeh” is mentioned in the Torah (Gur Aryeh Yehuda…)
You’re also ignoring the language issue: Aryeh is Lashon HaKodesh while Leib and Lionel and whatever else are not.
Oomis:
Modern Hebrew has some unique “features” which place it in a different league than, lihavdil, Lashon HaKodesh.
For example, the use of “Chashmal”, which is a very esoteric concept, was intentionally chosen by the Zionists as the word for electricity.
Others include Bitachon for physical security instead of what we know it to be, ViRabbim kaHeina viKaHeina…
edited for the sake of peace
So while I do understand the similarities that do exist between modern “Hebrew” and, liHavdil, Lashon HaKodesh, the above is why this distinction is important.
The chumash tells us “Vayihi kal haAretz safa echas…”.
It was Lashon HaKodesh; not, lihavdil, “Hebrew”.
I agree with Oomis, again, and I stand by my prior post as well. It makes just as much sense to name a baby a “yeshivish” learning name as it does to give a yiddish name.
However, as in the case of the Kaminetsky family that someone mentioned, if you want give the name Mordechai at a Bris but prefer to use Mutty as a nickname, that’s a different matter. People today also “go by” their secular/legal (English) names, too, even though they were given real Lashon HaKodesh names at their bris. Like going by “Jon” instead of Yehonasan.
But you don’t name a kid “Jon” at his bris; you give him a Lashon HaKodesh name. Same with Yiddish. Don’t name a kid, say, “bendit” (or, translated, bandit), for example, at his bris (even as a second name, as someone already pointed out). Give him a real Lashon HaKodesh name and choose a nickname later.
(Obviously, one should ask their LOR, in practice…)
DaasYochid:
I intended my post for the other people posting as well, and a different poster had mentioned “keeping us together”. But I had intended to address your “unique” comment as well; I inadvertently used the other expression instead. But my point applies to both of the above criteria, including yours, “unique”.
golfer:
Naming Yiddish names doesn’t make any more sense than naming kids those Yeshivish names you mentioned.
OURTorah, again, thanks.
I fail to see how you concluded I am missing “a small bit” of Ahavas Chinam, based on my words here, but that’s okay…
As I mentioned before, this site is called “Yeshiva World”. So, just as on a “Mizrachi World”, I would expect to see Rabbi Kook almost deified, I would similarly expect to see a “Yeshiva” perspective on YWN, which includes stating the facts of Zionism just as they are.
Of course, for the same reason, I likely would not post (in any manner) on a “Mizrachi World”, because I would assume my comments would be universally rejected there due to the conflict between those comments and their theology.
Again, I don’t believe I have demonstrated any “intolerance” of anyone. So nobody should be “turned off” by anyone or anything here.
But I do appreciate your reminder that baalei teshuva and others who have been raised differently may visit the site.
But because of the educated and observant readership of this site, I feel my direct approach with “Yeshiva World” people in mind is an appropriate approach to all readers.
If anyone has a better way, I’d be happy to hear it.
OURtorah:
Thanks again.
I’m not sure how much clearer I could have been that I am not judging anyone, but I’ll try again.
I also agree that a Zionist could be a tinok sheNishba just as could anyone else. But this is irrelevant.
As I’ve said before, there is a difference between “not judging someone” and making kosher what they are doing.
Put simply, someone who worships an idol, no matter how much you like them and no matter what their background is, has just done a severe sin. While they may not know any better or have some other reason for doing so, and might, therefore deserve the benefit of the doubt (Hashem certainly knows everything, including his background, intention, etc.), there is no dispute that idolatry is idolatry and is forbidden.
So to, with Zionism (or any other aveira, for that matter), a person’s upbringing and education is only relevant as regarding motives, schar/viOnesh, etc. But this is all irrelevant to the definition of Zionism. Zionism is idolatry and shmad. Period. There is no real dispute about this.
Given the name of this particular forum, I believe it is very appropriate to delineate where Zionism stands vis a vis the Torah.
As I said, I am not judging anyone, but one has nothing to do with the other.
Rav Elchonon, as I quoted before, wrote in ikvisa diMishicha that Nationalism and, lihavdil, Judaism is simply A”Z and, lihavdil, Judaism mixed together. Rav Chaim Brisker held similarly and even Rabbi JB Soloveichik publicly confirmed this view of Rav Chaim.
“Not judging” does not mean that Avoda Zara can, CH”V, be considered legitimate by observant Jews just as the baal and any other idol is correctly and absolutely not considered, CH”V, a legitimate Torah path. Zionism is indisputably A”Z and shmad.
DaMoshe, this is not about my views, and you also missed that I specifically indicated that the Brisker Rav was in Eretz Yisrael before, during and after the State of Israel was founded. His views, and those of others, remained as they were even after the state’s founding.
The only change, for some, was tactical: whether to “work from within” the State’s politics or to avoid the whole thing. This is a legitimate machlokes that remains.
But there is no legitimate machlokes regarding the severe and insurmountable halachic problems of Zionism and the State of Israel.
As well, modern-day rabbanim have also confirmed that those pre-state views have not changed; and there is anyways no reason to believe they should change. The Torah is, of course, forever.
You are trying in vain to defend the indefensible.
But, again, I believe my points were relevant with regards to the OP. I’m sorry you do not agree, and there is certainly no need to respond.
DaasYochid:
Yeshivish English is much better-suited to “keeping us together” than is Yiddish, as I mentioned above. Everyone who learns, from any stream of observant Judaism, and including women, knows at least some of these “learning words”. Yiddish does not accomplish this.
OURTorah, I appreciate your thoughts.
Again, I want to emphasize the distinction between the reality of what is Zionism versus its adherents. The reality is that R’ Elchonon and others said that Zionism is A”Z and shmad. And Zionism has been a massive disaster for our people, Hashem Yiracheim.
Logically, therefore, no religious Jew should be infatuated with Zionism. But these misguided adherents of Zionism deserve no less respect just because they have made a (big) mistake in this belief.
So any “intolerance” you may see is directed at the idolatry and belief of Zionism, not at its misguided adherents who are perhaps to be pitied, not ch”V disrespected.
May Mashiach come soon to unify us all with the truth of “our Torah”.
I mostly agree with Oomis and not with DaasYochid.
I would point out, though, that it’s Lashon HaKodesh, not, lihavdil, “Hebrew”, that we have not changed.
Yeshivish English, as in English interspersed with “Torah learning” words, is, “limaaseh”, far more unifying than Yiddish.
How many baalei bayis learn with an Artscroll gemara or other English-translated work, some of whom would be unable to do so without these English-language works? How does Yiddish even begin to compare, as Oomis indicated?
If anything, Yiddish, today, outside of Chassidic communities, is more polarizing than unifying as it divides between the speakers and the non-speakers.
As well, making Yiddish a primary language along with its attendant downgrading of English also results in certain Jews having an embarrassingly poor command of the English language, which can be a chilul Hashem, CH”V.
For those who do not speak Yiddish at home yet, for various reasons, attend a Yiddish-teaching school, this nostalgic infatuation with Yiddish makes their schooling unnecessarily harder than it already is and they lose out academically versus had they been taught in English.
On the same topic, Jews in various sefardic countries (before the Zionists persuaded them to come to Israel at which time the Zionists proudly shmaded them) have had their own dialects of the local language yet they continued to use Lashon HaKodesh names. From where did some Ashkenazim get this idea that Yiddish is the new Lashon HaKodesh?
I, too, cannot understand why anyone would give up naming their son after Moshe Rabbeinu, the Avos, malachim, neviim, et al. and instead give them a “Yiddish name”.
DaMoshe:
Given the OP’s post, I thought my posts were and are very appropriate and on-topic. I’m sorry this bothers you, and I apologized in advance, too.
OURTorah, I appreciate your remarks and suggestions.
As I mentioned before, only Hashem is “bochein kilayos”. So I am not judging anyone and I am also not speaking badly about any particular person.
But I do feel it is very important to understand these matters and, unfortunately, not even chesed and Torah, and all the wonderful things you can think of, can be used to justify Avoda Zara.
Everyone has nisyonos, and we are all human, of course. But you cannot compare someone falling prey to his Yetzer HaRa even as he knows he is wrong for doing so, versus someone who distorts and disgraces the Torah with foreign and idolatrous theology like Zionism all the while claiming that this is part of the Torah, CH”V.
In other words, if someone goes to a movie and knows he is wrong for doing so, that is the yetzer haRa having caught him, wrong as it is. But if someone goes to a movie and says the Torah permits me to do so, that is much worse than the first way. That relates to MO as well, incidentally.
Here, with Zionism, they are taking something that is Avoda Zara and then claiming that it, CH”V, is (a very big part of) Torah. That is terrible, far worse than someone falling prey to his Yetzer HaRa. Besides these (and other) great Rabbis convey in the severest way that Zionism is terribly wrong and assur.
Again, I’m not looking to bash any particular people. But do you propose that we, therefore, ignore the reality that Zionism is idolatry and shmad?
OURTorah, please ask your LOR.
Defending Israel politically is not A”Z. Israel is definitely held to a “double standard”. The goyim know it, too. Since the very purpose of Zionism was and is to create a hebrew goy nation to replace Judaism, CH”V, this double-standard is, presumably, Hashem’s way of making sure the Zionists, perhaps at least the “Religious Zionists” understand “Hein am liVaddad yishkon uVaGoyim lo yischashav”.
But, CH”V, mixing Zionism into (or making it a major part of) your avodas Hashem, is a much different matter. Rav Elchonon called Nationalism mixed with religion simply Avoda Zara and religion combined. Rav Chaim Brisker, way back, called Zionism both A”Z and shmad. His son held similarly, even as and after he watched the State come into formal existence.
“Loving” Israel seems a little odd. Why would you love any country (other than, perhaps, the one in which you live)? And, of all countries, with all the terrible things that Israel and Zionists have done and still do to our people, it is completely irrational to love that particular country regardless of (or due even more so due to) their presence in Eretz Yisrael. The yaldei Tehran, Zionist shmad of the Teimanim, and the current shmad of the chareidim are mere starters. Not to mention the loss of thousands of Jews, and destruction of their families, directly due to Zionism. Hashem yiracheim.
Having said all that, I did not mean to imply that anyone, in particular, is or is not being oveid A”Z. Only Hashem is bochein kilayos vaLeiv and knows what is or is not a person’s intentions and deeds.
DaMoshe:
Why do you feel to defend this idolatry at every opportunity? You should welcome the opportunity for people to be educated about this fraud of Zionism that has been perpetrated on both our holy people and our holy Torah.
As to the Mesorah part of your story, that is commendable, indeed, and, for what it’s worth, I do agree with that.
I imagine some of you will not like this, so I apologize in advance and I humbly offer the following with all due respect.
I can’t think of many good reasons to change one’s mesorah, but shortchanging that mesorah just to sound like Zionists is (at least close to) avoda zara and, besides, one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard, despite that many people do so (unfortunately, due to having been misled by the avoda zara of Zionism – see Rav Elchonon HY”D and many others).
Presumably, your real mesorah is to differentiate between taf and saf. Don’t let anybody change that unless a (non-MO) LOR tells you to do so.
(I specified “non-MO” because, since Zionism is an essential tenet of the MO faith, any issue that deals with Zionism must, by definition, be handled by a non-MO Rabbi.)
If you need to make your parents happy, I would suggest a possible compromise, however, that when you speak “modern hebrew” (as in mundane conversation), as opposed to, lihavdil, lashon haKodesh (for tefillah and learning), meaning for non-divrei kodesh, you can pronounce the saf like a taf. After all, that is how “modern hebrew” is spoken and if you’re speaking that language then perhaps it is okay, at least bishas haDichak, like in your case, to speak “modern hebrew” as it is “natively” spoken (ignoring the shmad and other issues).
I would also switch back to lashon haKodesh, even during mundane conversation, when referencing any davar sheBiKedusha, but I would ask a (non-MO) LOR.
But CH”V should your davening be sullied by “modern hebrew”. Our siddur (i.e. other than the Zionist insertions) is written in lashon haKodesh, not, lihavdil, “modern hebrew”. Your davening deserves no less than your best lashon haKodesh al pi your real mesorah.
Like other questions posted here, this one is for your LOR.
There are also other particulars that could matter, such as the particular work environment, how much inter-employee contact there is in the course of work, the ages of those involved, if the informal meetings are one-on-one or more than that, and much more.
Generally speaking, however, I would humbly but strongly suggest that we consider the Torah’s attitude of harchaka (lo sikrivu liGalos erva as opposed to lo sigalu erva) and the potential danger of, besides for the aveiros chamuros that could result, the resultant (and needless) destruction of one or more families as a result of extra-marital activity, CH”V.
I’m sure that use of the term “Mrs. x” is a very worthy option to consider with your LOR, regardless of industry.
whats_in_a_name, if you read my previous posts, you would understand I made the effort to distinguish this toeiva from divorce and a single parent.
The end of a marriage is a tragedy, not a first-choice. This is what makes it NOT child abuse. Although it is unfortunate for the child, there is no choice in the matter IF the marriage does end.
But there is a choice in legislating and “normalizing” “gay marriage” to begin with. That was the “WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY” above.
Sam2: thank you for your comment. As to Charlie, the point still remains.
“Gay Marriage” is child abuse. Period.
Charlie, the Sedom reference to homosexuality happens to be based in the Torah, not, lihavdil, Christendom; see various meforshim on the savages’ threats to Lot that they wanted Lot to send out the malachim because “viNeidia osam”. They wanted to have intercourse with his male guests, in case that wasn’t clear enough. That’s our Chazal.
But I wasn’t even referring to that. Rather, you can compare the legalization and “normalization” of this toeiva with the middos of sedom that Chazal have told us that Sedom possessed. Like, for example, how they stretched a person’s legs to extend all the way on the bed they prepared for him. Or how they would permanently “shorten” a person’s legs on the bed they prepared for him. All so that the bed would fit the guest. Obviously, that they brutally murdered the guest in doing so was irrelevant (or, rather, the whole point). Of course, the length of each bed was chosen specifically for this reason.
So, too, while those who have legislated and “normalized” this abomination *might* not have been as evil in intent as was Sedom, they are still severely short-changing the children by legislating and “normalizing” this abomination, all so that the bed would fit (the child’s “parents”).
I really prefer to avoid analogies, which are often imperfect to some extent, but I don’t see how else to possibly convey the point when simple logic had no effect.
Regarding the Israel parades, you can’t compare them to toeiva parades.
Israel is very clearly discriminated against and is held to an unfair political double standard, regardless of how terrible Zionism was and is for Jews. While toeiva people, on the other hand, have managed to inject into marriage their abominations and corollary child abuse as societal and legislative norms.
Nonetheless, it is highly improper for Jews (including American Jews) to march in any parade for Israel, despite the legitimacy of the political double-standard issue. Just for starters, Zionists and their supporters miss out on the entire “hein am livadad yishkon uVaGoyim lo yischashav” angle. Not to mention the disaster that was and is Zionism from a Jewish perspective and the possible higarus baUmos, inevitable chillul Hashem and “double-loyalty” accusations. But let’s not get side-tracked…
Writersoul refuses to understand the point. It is silly to even ask if “you’d consider preferable, abusive heterosexual parents or loving homosexual parents.” Would you ask if one would prefer malkus or galus, as if the preference of one makes the other something at all preferred? Besides, I have repeatedly mentioned that ANY, even “loving”, homosexual parents IS CHILD ABUSE for WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY denying the child a male father and female mother which the child clearly needs for life.
Although I imagine that many people do have an “ideal life”, I addressed this point repeatedly, too. Although divorces/second marriages, etc. obviously should be allowed, it is incomparable and amoral to legislate, and promulgate as normal and expected, an extremely terrible situation for a child where s/he is guaranteed to be missing one parent of one gender as in same-gender “marriage”. This is a terrible scam and shame and even rachmanim bnei rachmanim have fallen for it. Oy meh haya lanu.
Writersoul:
“Gay parents” cannot possibly be as loving and supportive as one mother and one father, (even if one or both of the normal and non-gay are step-parents). Men and women complement each other and offer different types of “comfort” and “support” to a child, and this entire dynamic and its unappreciated positive effects on the child simply cannot exist in “gay marriages”.
As well, in this case of “gay marriage”, one of the parents is GUARANTEED to NOT be the biological parent (as opposed to “real” marriage where, in most cases, both parents are also both biological parents). This is plainly not normal and abuse to the children to make this on par with “normal” marriage.
Of course, allowing second marriages and foster-home situations where both parents are of opposite genders does not at all contradict the sheer abomination that is this whole disaster of “gay marriage” for these and other reasons.
Although I don’t think it adds much to the point, what if society decided that a kibbutz could raise a child better than parents could and foisted that as “normal”? What would you say then?
This is so absurd it is not even debatable.
Simple biology and logic (not to mention, lihavdil, the divar Hashem) cannot be refuted.
Charlie,
I have read articles in the secular media that correctly point out the disaster that is “gay marriage”, particularly for the children, as I had posted.
As to the others you referenced, Goyim do not have the Torah and therefore don’t usually benefit from its guidance.
There are goyim who are baalei taava and/or have the midos of sedom and are destroying children and families so that two “gay” adults can call themselves “married”.
Writersoul, the “facts” do NOT contradict my “claims”. The “normality” of this abomination is very new. So that effect on kids still remains to be seen. Therefore, there cannot be any meaningful studies yet this destruction of “gay marriage” being normal and its effects on kids is still in progress.
But simply biology and logic do back up that claim.
As to your theoretical question about a child of divorce, etc. versus a child of “two loving parents”, your implication is that “two loving parents” could include “gay” couples, but this is not at all necessarily the case.
Besides, I have already answered this in my previous post.
As to abuse, I would think that intentionally placing a child in the situation of two fathers and not one mother (or the inverse) is a form of abuse. Abuse is, of course, not acceptable.
Writersoul:
How could you possibly compare this abomination (both the practice and its legalization and “normalization”) to children of divorce or orphans, R”L L”A.
What does one have to do with another? If that theoretical child has suffered the trauma of (regardless of which way) losing a stable two-parent household, CH”V, then a “new” parent, even though not the biological parent, might actually ease that trauma and would at least provide as much stability and support as possible under the circumstances as they are. But to intentionally throw children into a same-gender marriage is obscene and absurd.
You wrote “For all I know, maybe kids do OPTIMALLY need one male and one female parent at home…” So that’s only a “maybe” in your mind? Do you know of a better way? Could you possibly explain a plausible reason that a child would do better with two females or two males than with two actual parents? Biology and logic dictate that this is impossible.
But the worst part is your contention at the end of that sentence where you claim “that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to be well-adjusted without them [a male parent and a female parent] implying that this is justification to allow same-gender marriage.
How dare any society subject children to this human experimentation when it’s anyways clear that it’s a disaster for these children? Raising children is not easy even in optimal circumstances. What gives you the right to intentionally make it vastly more challenging for these children (“it’s not impossible”, in your opinion, so that’s good enough to make it permitted to everyone as marriage)?
Charlie:
If you read the rest of my post then it should have been very clear why your comparison was disingenuous.
Even the goyim know (obviously without our Torah), that this is a really bad move for the kids.
Let’s also add the following. Presumably, one of these women is her biological mother while the other is a mere same-gender partner. This daughter may never get to know even the identity of her own father, much less ever see him and, by extension, what a father and husband should be, as his identity could be contractually or lawfully protected as a “fertility” donor or the like.
Not to mention that the women may choose to never reveal to her who is her real father, as the women may wish to (fool themselves and think they) demonstrate that a pair of two women is just as good or better than a pair consisting of one man and one woman.
You cannot compare the pain of an absentee father (or mother) to this. A normal step-father (or step-mother) is heaven in comparison to this. Do you not see even an inkling of the utter disaster that is this toeiva marriage?
Oh boy…this is going to take some time, presumably. Sam2, writersoul and Charlie…
Sam2:
This is absurd, even without bringing up the Torah’s perspective. And not only can there be no studies yet that can possibly back up your claim, but simple biology and logic makes that claim exceedingly untenable.
Could a child raised in a same-gender household still possibly “make it”? Maybe for the “lucky” ones. But is that the bar for acceptance and “normalization”? As long as it’s not guaranteed that they will commit suicide before becoming teenagers then society should allow it? This is absolutely absurd and insane! (Rather, it’s taavah and perhaps midas sedom, which they allow to supersede anything else).
Children raised by same gender parents cannot possibly be having “normal okay lives” as you astoundingly and offensively claim, unless they are robots rather than human beings with human emotions and needs. Anyone claiming such a thing likely has zero understanding of what his parents did for him from before conception and on and also has zero concept of what it means to live with two parents who are not of opposite genders.
Even if the community they live in is “accepting” of this toeiva, how would that help a confused child who may not prefer toeiva like they do, and may instead prefer a male father and female mother instead of a second female “parent”. An accepting community could actually be rubbing salt in those life-long wounds; not, as you perceive it, helping the daughter.
Sam2, there is no way that this should have ever become legalized and normalized, and it is an unprecedented and outrageous avlah to the children involved.
rebdoniel:
Regarding the very end of your post, Hashem could bring the geulah today (*despite* the existence of the State of Israel). So I think your last sentence should have been written differently.
writersoul:
Not true.
Legislating something is normal is a cause of at least two ill effects:
1. It causes far greater acceptance among those who do not engage in this.
2. It encourages others who are “on the fence” to “come out” loud and clear.
The result of both #1 and #2 affect society as a whole.
And the other points also remain, as in the damage this does to kids. The other day, I saw a news picture captioned to the effect of two women and their daughter. I imagine you believe that this “daughter” has a perfectly normal life?
I find it odd that people are comparing idolatry and kishuf to, lihavdil, our holy faith.
Charlie:
It is disingenuous to compare a politician’s polytheism with society’s normalization of same-gender marriage.
Same-gender “marriage” is thoroughly amoral, and affects everyone, whereas an individual’s practice of idolatry does not, and certainly not anywhere close to how same-gender marriage affects everyone.
Also, unlike a previous poster’s claim, marriage is not merely a state-sanctioned financial process.
Marriage affects children and custody of those children. It is plain to any objective person that a child needs a father and mother, not two of either one. It is similarly obvious that, barring extreme and unusual circumstances, a child needs the child’s biological father and biological mother.
Same-gender marriage is a terrible mess for children. The chutzpah of any society to allow this is appalling. That any Jew could condone this is even more so.
In addition to the severe impact on children, same-gender marriage also, as one of its goals, “normalizes” this toeiva. Since a person is, to at least some extent, the product of the society in which he lives (even if he is in as insular Jewish society), this societal recognition of same-gender marriage as “normal” is an attitude which will, CH”V, seep into our own culture as well.