Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mdd, I did mention both sides of the Moetzes debate, for what that debate was worth. Since you obviously missed it before, here is Rabbi Reisman, as quoted in the Flatbush Jewish Journal:
“Although most of the Torah rabbis opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in our ancient homeland, once it was established in 1948, the attitude of some leading rabbis changed to one of working with the government…As Rabbi Reuven Grozovsky wrote, the ideals don’t change. The ideal of sticking to the three oaths remains. But because the facts on the ground have changed, therefore our behavior is different.”
Notice he wrote “most of the Torah rabbis”, not “Brisk/Satmar” rabbis. Notice also that even after 1948 “sticking to the three oaths remains”. So regarding lying/distorting, is this, perhaps, a case of kol haPoseil biMumo Poseil?
To clarify your mistake, it is the Zionists who have no answers.
Just emes:
“Plus that is all based on a story from the brisker rav’s position on the issue”
This position is documented numerous times and the Chazon Ish and Brisker Rov discussed this after the State’s establishment. Unlike the Agudah’s knessiah, this was not a theoretical discussion.
The Torah never changes. That’s emes, unlike some of the other assertions here. Please answer the questions I posed before trying to find sevaros to be mattir A”Z and kefira and throwing out gemara, poskim, et al.
Avi K:
1. Popa already answered you earlier. Again, he used the oaths as the basis for a recorded psak. And other poskim did bring them. And Zionist Rabbis still struggle (unsuccessfully) to explain them away. They are halacha, despite Zionists wishing they weren’t.
2. There only took that risk for political reasons. It was totally unnecessary, except that to Zionists any benefit to the State is more important than pikuach nefesh.
3. Health dealt with this.
4. You opt to remain ignorant, and this does not change history.
5. Rabbi Teichtal was not a Zionist. His hakdama says so. This is all nonsense.
6. Who said it is? Zionists, who have no problem with shmad of Jews, and who make nationalism a religious obligation greater than pikuach nefesh?
7. Your fantasies have been disproven, and I have tried to bring that for you.
You remain deluded by this egel. Rav Elchnon, the Brisker Rov and many others condemned nationalism and Zionism in the harshest terms. You rely on sevaras which anyways aren’t sevaras to go against them. Good luck.
Just Emes:
This is all not normal and none of this is (remotely, on balance) positive, unless you hold like the “MO/RZ” who feel it is “worth it” to sacrifice lives for a state, CH”V.
The State is very much a Zionist state. Netanyahu, at the recent chilul Hashem known as the Chidon HaTanach, claimed that our Tanach is, CH”V, the basis to justify their Zionist state. Of course, the same Tanach that says lo sikrivu liGalos erva, was promptly (further) trampled on as a group of women sang (haTikva) in front of the crowd and these boys whose heads are filled with Tanach. Even for this, they couldn’t have at least gotten men to sing HaTikva. Again, this is at a celebration of learning/memorizing the holy Tanach, not, lihavdil, at some IDF induction ceremony. Does this not bother you?
But, regardless, you can’t divorce the State from Zionism; since the continued existence of the State, like Zionism, is a severe violation of both oaths. So while it might take a neis to correct these violations, that doesn’t change the reality that both Zionism and the State are against the Torah, even if Israel were to be headed by religious Jews.
There is no way to kosher this idolatry, neither Zionism nor its State.
Ad Masai atem pochasim al shtei haSiifim?
Just Emes:
Again, the outcome was definitely not positive.
Both Zionism and the State have committed appalling acts of treachery against our people.
The Brisker Rov and Chazon Ish and many others were absolutely against the State even after it was founded, regardless of minor differences like voting and other damage control measures. Your “B”D of Klal Yisrael” only goes so far. It certainly can’t change the Torah (nothing can), only work within it. According to what you mentioned, Hashem allowed these Rabbis to dictate world events via their psak that the State should be founded. This seems possible. But this does not make it good.
Do you also think the egel was a good thing, too? After all, Aharon HaKohein asked for the jewelry which was used to make it. (Obviously, we know that he was stalling, etc.) Again, here, you are blaming those Rabbis who voted for the State’s creation as the ones responsible spiritually for its creation (maybe they also had a cheshbon). So, it’s like the egel, except, there, it was the Micha who threw in Alei Shor, whereas here it was those Rabbis who paskined it should be created so Hashem listened to them. Wonderful!
But does that change the reality of what happened in either case? Do you not understand that far more Jews died for this idol than (directly) from the egel? Why is this so difficult to understand? You admit the secular Zionists did bad things, which is putting it very mildly. So why are you so enraptured by their egel, which is still a disaster and shmad entity? Does their shmad and other aveiros mean nothing to you that you want their State because of the minimal State religious trappings and the significant Torah that is learned there, especially when it’s assur to create that State and its continued existence continually violates the oaths?
And just today, even after all the rivers of blood spilled on the altar of Zionism and the State of Israel, there is yet another story on YWN:
Just Emes, the core issues of the oaths applies to both Zionism in general and the State of Israel in particular.
The Brisker Rov, among others, quoted at that same Knessiah (I think) said even if it were run “al pi Torah” and had gedolim at its helm, it would still be assur to found that State.
You’re also mixing up living there individually or in small groups with CH”V violating the oaths. That the Gra and Baal Shem sent talmidim there, then, is also irrelevant because doing so did not violate the oaths, unlike Zionism and Israel which did and does.
You wrote:
“the gemarah says that when EY starts blooming again we have entered the stages of geula and after hundreds of years of desolation the land is green and flowing – proving that this was a positive development.”
This is not emes. The gemara, of course, is. The land certainly does seem to be “green and flowing”. But your conclusion, however, is your own. The land blooming does not mean it was muttar to disregard the oaths and vaChai baHem and viNishmartem and whatever else, even if that would mean that we would “enter the stage of the geulah”. Other than for pikuach nefesh, you’re not allowed to do any aveiros no matter how wonderful you think the outcome will be.
As an example, Eishes Potiphar also had a good cheshbon: she knew that she and Yosef HaTzaddik were going to have a common descendent who would be a tzaddik. She had a nevuah! So, according to your logic, this should have allowed Yosef to live with her. Yet he obviously didn’t because doing so was wrong. It’s Hashem’s cheshbon to make that nevuah happen. It so happens that it came true via his marriage to Osnas.
The ends don’t justify the means, and, in this case, both the ends and means of Zionism and the State have been disastrous for our people, despite the Yeshivos and learning there.
Avi K.
1. Yes, they were obviously written in an allegorical manner (hishbati eschem…im tachpitzu…es haAvaha….). But their halachic status and the Rambam’s advice to the Yemenites quoting those oaths was clearly not Derech Mashal. And many other poskim bring them liHalacha, some of whom I already quoted for you. They are clearly halacha, Zionist fantasies not withstanding.
2. Health dealt with #2. Besides, even if it were accidental as they claim, they took a chance detonating explosives on a ship full of Jews because of Zionist reasons.
3. Even the Zionists admit this; they had a Committee of Inquiry about it. HaModia recently had a whole piece on the Yaldei Teheran scandal too. You don’t need to be more Zionist than the Zionists, though I do understand that uncomfortable facts could diminish one’s belief in this idolatry.
4. Your lack of knowledge says nothing about their history.
5. Again, this makes no sense, as I wrote. Even if your “no longer needed” sevara were theoretically true, it’s clearly not true in this case because of the disaster of Zionism on both a physical and spiritual level, with its ongoing shmad even today.
Zionism has no answers.
mdd, the quote I mentioned regarding Zionism and the Holocaust seems to have been from the Satmar Rav, not Rav Gifter. I apologize for the error in who said it. I had actually meant to refer to Rav Hutner in his piece in the Jewish Observer, October 1977 where he referred to Zionists rewriting history to cover up their role in the Holocaust.
But since I mentioned Rav Gifter, here is part of what Rabbi Gifter said about Zionism:
“We know the truth. The truth is that Zionism is a curse, and that’s the way it is. Zionism is murder! And that’s what it really is, because it is true! Who threw the Jews into the ocean when they wanted to travel to Eretz Yisroel in 1941? Who sank the boat (called the ‘Patria’) with about 1000 Jews on it? Who? The Nazis? Zionists did it! Yes, the Zionists! What is that? Is it not murder? Murderers!! Because of Zionism, one is allowed to kill Jews? Didn’t these murderers say that the Jews of Europe are the “sacrifices” which we have to bring to have a Jewish “state” in Eretz Yisroel (G-d forbid)? Didn’t they say this? Don’t they have printed black and white statements which everybody can read? Didn’t this man with the name, “Yitzchok Greenbaum” say in Warsaw that all religious Jews should be thrown into the ocean? And all this because of Zionism! And he wasn’t ashamed of these words! I ask you: Is this right? Is this being nice? Is this grace? This is MURDER! Without any excuse, it is murder!”
Regarding cheap shots and propaganda, did you not learn in pre-school that two wrongs don’t make a right? And did you not learn to discuss something at its merits and not take cheap shots?
Even if what I wrote were only propaganda or otherwise wrong, that would not give you the right to take cheap shots.
I guess you’re still considering 5+4 to be 2+2, which is why you are surprised when the answer comes up as 9, to use your example.
mdd, please learn a little bit about the topic before you post.
Avi K:
Regarding Rabbi Aviner, if they are not answers to him then that is only because his questions are not really questions.
Unlike his “answer”, which he needs because he is a Zionist, previous generations did not do what Zionism did, not because they were “anusim”; in fact, many in previous generations did go to Eretz Yisrael to live there and this was okay; the simple reason they did not do so militarily and en mass is that they knew it was assur because of the oaths.
The Yemenites were under such deplorable conditions (shmad) that they did ask the Rambam. And in Iggeres Teiman, the Rambam told them not to rebel against the nations because of the oaths.
Although “BiMakom Chilul Hashem Ain cholkim kavod LaRav”, since I don’t wish to paskin that this is such a case, I write the following with all due respect to Rabbi Soloveichik.
Regarding Kol Dodi Dofek, I already asked you where the Torah allows “opportunity” to, CH”V override halacha. I also wrote that Rabbi JBS was also historically mistaken about this “opportunity” of Israel which, objectively speaking (even without the oaths), we would have been likely far better off without, just as he was famously mistaken with his other prediction about traditional Orthodoxy not lasting in America while a few decades later the MO decries traditional Orthodox “triumphalism” as MO moves either further left or to the “right”.
Zionists have no answers.
Avi K:
Regarding R’ Chaim Vital, again, he is not speaking of these gimmel shevuos.
The whole premise is absurd for the following reason:
The oaths are a protection for us in galus, even according to Rabbi Aviner. So, again, as we are still in galus past that 1,000 years, expiring that protection before the end of galus is foolish for obvious safety reasons.
To try to clarify further, however:
He brings the following, in his piece:
The oath in question is a separate oath about the length of the exile.
[than 1000 years]
So, even according to Rav Chaim Vital, that 1,000 year was not a hard limit. But it’s anyways irrelevant because he’s discussing a different oath.
Regardless, it’s not our oaths. Also, even if it were, there are two oaths that Zionism violates, not “just” one. So at least one is still being violated even if you were correct.
ZDad:
Practical issues of some refugees emigrating to Eretz Yisrael is not the issue. And Jews lived in Eretz Yisrael before Zionism, too, and I am not aware of anybody who claimed it was a problem for them to do so.
The issue is Zionist conquest and intentionally bringing people there en mass which were both terrible violations of those respective oaths pre-1948 and remained just as assur post-1948.
The only change post-1948 for “non-Satmar” was dealing with the State from within to salvage whatever was possible there. As Rabbi Reisman wrote, the oaths did not change.
lesschumras:
With all due respect, your post makes no sense. Zionism and Israel have nothing to do with freedom to practice our faith throughout the western world. Zionism and Israel are, however, responsible for tens of thousands of Jews who were sacrificed on the altar of their idolatrous State, thousands in the 1948 war alone. We discussed all this.
And none of the shmad perpetrated the Zionists can be expected to have occurred elsewhere. Before the Zionists shmadded them in Israel, the Yemenites had their Mesorah and resultant seforim, etc. intact from bayis rishon. Similarly, other sefardim and ashkenazim as well, were shmadded to Zionism (and I don’t mean “religious Zionism”).
None of this would (presumably) have happened without Zionism.
(Regarding the Holocaust, I believe it was Rav Gifter who wrote that it was common knowledge among the gedolim in the 1900s that Hitler YM”Sh was a divine agent of chastisement due to supporting Zionism. Other Gedolim may not have held that way, but it seems there were many gedolim who did. So your point there is not true according to some.)
Just as an interlude to all this discussion, I just this evening came across a story (from a few months ago) of a Jew who was stabbed by 15 pereh adam savages in Venice.
Here are the closing comments of the reporter “lifi tumo”:
“It is sad to see that such racial violence in still prominent in the world we live in today. This is only one of many recent attacks on the Jewish people. With all that is going on in Israel these days, it is unlikely that these acts of hate will stop.”
Note that last line. Again, this was in Venice, not Gaza.
While the murderers who committed this act are the ones who are responsible, this incident (among countless others) happened very likely only because of Zionism and their idiotic and irresponsible antagonizing of the Arabs.
ZDad, that would disqualify Rabbi Kook, too.
Once doesn’t need to guess; they could move anywhere, likely including Eretz Yisrael, but nothing can make that idol kosher. The halachic issues are just as valid; the only thing that changed was the tactics in dealing with it post-1948. But the issues, including the 3 oaths, as Rabbi Reisman wrote, never changed.
Avi K,
From searching elsewhere, it seems he is correct; as he says, it refers to Hashem’s oath of 1,000 years of galus, not the plural oaths that Klal Yisrael are bound by.
Besides, it’s brought liHalacha by gedolim and well after that 1,000 years elapsed. I read elsewhere that even Rav Ovadiah Yosef dismisses this by writing that they should read what is said about it in Vayoel Moshe.
He also answers Rabbi Aviner’s kuntreis as well, one of whose points is the one we just discussed.
Here too, the Three Oaths are certainly aggadah but they contain unique halachos. The poskim (though not the Shulchan Aruch, who only brings the most relevant laws) do quote them as halacha.”
There is actually a long list, far longer than what I have mentioned here.
Regarding Kol Dodi Dofek, how does any of this address the three oaths, much less “answer” them? We’re all still in Galus and this protection from Hashem is not less needed because of these “opportunities” granted. Miracles don’t condone anything.
There are explanations for all these, anyways. But #5 is clearly wrong.
“…due to the birth of the State of Israel; the fact that Jews had a position of power and a homeland meant that Jewish blood could no longer be spilt freely and without fear of retribution.”
Israel is the laughing-stock of the nations and is the ultimate “galus Jew”.
Regarding the 1,000 years allegation, this is also untrue. Rav Chaim Vital did not say the three oaths last only 1,000 years. We cannot post links, but the explanation of what he does say, which is a separate matter, can be found via Google.
Regarding it not being liMaaseh, even the “Religious Zionists” know the oaths are an issue. They convince themselves of absurd “solutions” (some based on distortions and forgeries, some simply not compatible with our Torah) to avoid the issue, but even the Zionists admit to the oaths being an issue. Poskim bring it, the Rambam brings it, the Maharal brings it, the Brisker Rov brings it and the Satmar Rov brings it, among many others.
Again, following that knessiah, the Zionists foolishly did not abide by the “psak of the beis din of Klal Yisrael” (which did not explicitly address the oaths, and what the halachic ramifications of that “psak” were) that the Zionists would not interfere with religion, thereby anyways rendering that “psak”, for whatever it did mean, null and void.
The Rav Moshe story requires far more clarification for it to be meaningful here.
The Chofetz Chaim, the Brisker Rov, Rav Elchonon, the Satmar Rov, Rabbi Rottenberg and many others have been shown to be very correct regarding the many disasters, both physical and spiritual, that the Zionists have brought on our people, Hashem Yishmor.
Again, the Zionists cannot justify their idolatry.
mdd, I would imagine that in Kiryas Yoel they would sooner tell you that the holy Rav Moshe was wrong and that their holy Rebbe was correct. I did not do so.
Thanks for contributing substantively to the discussion.
Just Emes (regarding Mitzrayim):
Given your screen name, and after reading your answer about the State being more worthy of Hakaras HaTov than Mitzrayim, I can only conclude that your Zionist leaning are tainting your ability to think objectively here.
You’re asking a question on a befeirush pasuk (not me) and then somehow trying to extend that to Zionism.
The Torah itself says “Lo Sisaev Mitzri…” and then it explains why, as I said, “ki ger hayisa biArtzo”. So even with all the terrible things the Mitzriyim did to us (and they did not do those terrible things from day one, speaking of “just emes”), they still did host us in their land for tens of decades, and that, the Torah says is worthy of Hakaras HaTov.
“Gadol haMachtio yoser min haHorgo”, certainly applies to Zionists, yet this also doesn’t matter to you.
Besides:
You still haven’t explained why the Zionists, nominal Jews, who still revere the Tanach as a cultural object because, in their warped view, it CH”V justifies their political existence in Eretz Yisrael. Why SHOULDN’T the Zionists allow Jews to be *gasp* practicing Jews? Why does this make them worthy of Hakaras HaTov?
As for the subsidies, the State only does this because they have to. It’s called buying influence, and this is history as well, none of which you seem to be interested in, for some reason, and this is a two-way street, despite the whining of the Zionists about it now.
It’s also interesting that you mention how mitzrayim “removed us from kedusha for 210 yrs”, yet you completely ignore all the shmad the Zionists have committed, where they have certainly changed a Jew to be far less distinct than we were in Mitzrayim, and you immediately mention Zionism in that same sentence while leaving all this out. Why?
And even if you live in Eretz Yisrael under Israel’s “protection”, you still haven’t addressed my arsonist fireman example. But for someone who doesn’t live there, who has no reason to be makir tov to that fireman, I certainly disagree with your assertion regarding hakaras haTov.
Just Emes (cont)
As well, I disagree with your chidush about Hashem willing any of this. CH”V that Hashem should want such a massive and enduring desecration of His holy name and the terrible misfortune on His children as you claim it was the ratzon Hashem because the “Beis Din of Klal Yisrael” paskened. Lu Yitzuyar, however, that their “psak” was actually followed (as per my above point), I would then concede that Hashem allowed it because of lo baShamayim hi; given the Brisker Rov’s position of the State being the Satan’s greatest triumph since the Egel, this would provide insight into why Hashem allowed the satan to put Klal Yisrael to such a test: because the gedolim said so.
You do realize that, essentially, you are blaming those members of the moetzes who did vote for the State (against the world-class great rabbis who voted no), for all the massive chillul Hashem, shmad, aveiros chamuros and other terrible things, spiritual and physical, that the Zionists have committed and continue to commit. According to you, it all happened because of those gedolim.
benignuman:
I assume you meant “cite”, not sight in your post.
Anyways:
There are sites that mention the following hold the oaths as halacha:
Piskei Riaz, Kesubos 13:8
Shailos Uteshuvos Rivash, Siman 101
Maharal (Netzach Yisroel, Chapter 24)
Just Emes:
You haven’t addressed my point that the “Beis Din of Klal Yisrael”‘s psak, whatever that was supposed to allow, was not what happened. So, therefore, that “psak” is anyways meaningless liMaaseh.
Again, bringing up the Ohr Sameach only underscores the crucial need to examine your Rav Moshe story in light of the questions I posed above. The Ohr Sameach did not condone Zionism in any form. He himself cited the oaths, too; but, because of San Remo, he allowed simple emigration to E”Y, not any political rule and not by any fighting, both of which Zionism terribly violated and continue to violate.
Just Emes (continued):
Let’s look at the politics and history.
Did you know that the Zionists themselves blew up one of those boats, the Patria, in Palestine, in political protest, supposedly not intending to kill any of the Jews on that boat?
Did you know that, long before 1948, the Zionists (fraudulently, of course) established themselves as the representatives for world Jewry and, during WW II, actively lobbied governments such as Canada to not take in Jews from Europe as they would have otherwise done, because the Zionists insisted the Jews would either be brought to Palestine only, no matter what?
Did you even hear about the Zionist mantra during WW II that “Rak BiDam Tihye Lanu HaAretz”?
Even the religious Zionists openly admit this. But there’s more: a Zionist official said that the old and infirm are like dust and they shall pass and that no effort would be made and no money would be spent to save them from being murdered by the Nazis in Europe in WW II? There were plenty of other quotes like “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”?
Do you know what vicious lies and slander the Zionists said about Jews before the Holocaust in a treacherous attempt to justify “needing” a “Jewish” State?
Did you know that the Nazis YM”Sh used some of those Zionist lies as part of their own propaganda?
Have you seen Rabbi Weissmandl’s writings on the topic of frustrated rescue efforts during WW II, how the Zionists impeded rescue attempts?
(There’s much more.) Once you’ve seen past the Zionist blindfolds, then you can better evaluate how much “good” you think the Zionists have done. Again, I refer you to the arsonist example above, and that is a very kind analogy, in my humble opinion.
Just Emes:
Regarding the Holocaust and Zionists having allegedly done good things:
Your “ain lomar”, the argument that the Jews would have been okay without a State and would have been better off without Zionism and its “favors”, is the most historically sound and also halachicly convincing possibility, provided you understand just how antithetical to Torah is, lihavdil, Zionism, and that you do not accept Zionist lies as historical truth, which you seem to do.
There are some gedolim who claim the Holocaust happened precisely because of the lack of protest against Zionism and that the Holocaust was the terrible result of violating those oaths, of Ani Mattir es Bisaarchem, CH”V. I’ve even read the “middah kinegged middah” explanations, too, according to that shita.
But let’s say one holds like the other gedolim who did not claim this, who say the particular aveira or aveiros that caused this is inexplicable.
Beyond the Holocaust, do you know the shmad they have perpetrated and still do perpetrate on our people? Did Chazal not say “gadol haMachtio yoser min haHorgo”?
Just Emes:
Regarding the “Beis Din of Klal Yisrael”, this is not relevant; all this indicates is that Hashem listens to them, not that they are or are not correct.
Regarding Rav Moshe, as I wrote, the context matters (like by Rav Meir Simcha, just for example), and the questions above would address the issue.
Beyond this, regarding mitzrayim and Zionism, I asked you if you believed that the arsonist in the example I mentioned above was deserving of hakaras haTov. A similar chiyuv (or, presumably, lack thereof) of hakaras hatov would apply to the Zionists.
From the rest of your post, it appears that you don’t understand the basis for comparison. I will get to it after your next point.
Again, the major gedolim like the Brisker Rov and others held that no matter who would run the State it would still be assur to start it. And even those from the Agudah who agreed not to prevent it, whatever that means, did so with the expectation that the Zionists would not interfere with Yahadus, as I wrote. Since the Zionists did and do interfere, it is plain from their words that none of those Agudah Rabbis would have endorsed the State of Israel. So much for “Klal Yisrael’s Beis Din”.
Just Emes:
The actual emes is that a good portion of that Agudah knessiah, and not just the Brisker Rov, were against Zionism and against the creation of a State even if (other than the oaths) the State would be run al pi Torah. The Ohr Sameach, too, endorsed the oaths as being halachicly applicable. I wrote about this above.
I also pointed out in my previous post that the Agudah’s “psak” to not hold back accepting the State, whatever that’s supposed to mean, was with the explicit stated understanding that the Zionists would not interfere (negatively) in religious observance. The Zionists very much did and do. So the whole psak seems rather invalid.
You can’t throw out the window a bifeirush gemara, the Rambam, poskim, the Maharal, acharonim, the Chofetz Chaim, the Satmar Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, et al. regarding the oaths with clear accompanying historical record and current events of Zionist aveiros chamuros besides for shmad, etc. just because of an ambiguous story about Rav Moshe with no context of time, place, precision (working with the Zionists versus being a Zionist CH”V), etc. Yiftach biDoro does not allow for this.
I’m not CH”V questioning Rav Moshe’s validity as a posek haDor. Aderaba, I want to know what he held about all these points I mentioned before. This would clarify the issue.
I already addressed your HaKaras HaTov point in my previous post.
mdd, your latest cheap shot about 2+2=9 is less cheap than the other one, but still not appreciated.
Regarding WZO, maybe ask them why they’re members. My point, which you refuse to accept, is that you can’t infer their position on the oaths and halachic issues of Zionism just because they’re members of a political organization. As they’re “working from within”, it actually makes sense that they’re members of WZO. It’s not a kashya, to me.
Regarding Rav Moshe, please see my earlier post to Just Emes.
Avi K.
1. The Zionists have no good answers.
2. Do you know anything about what galus means? Your position is actually breathtaking in its azus against Hashem. Hashem said the best thing for you in galus is to keep these oaths. You Zionists think you know better. It’s one thing to fantasize that the UN nullifies the oaths. But it’s quite another to say, as you do, that because of all the terrible things the gentiles did to us, Hashem Yishmor, that Hashem CH”V “thought wrong” about giving us those oaths meIkara. But that’s par for the course for Zionists.
3. It’s nice that you feel that way; the gedolim did not.
4. I told you already who it was. HaTekufa HaGidolah is the book.
5. It is irrelevant vis a vis Zionism.
6. He was referring to traditional Orthodoxy, not just Chassidim. Either way, both are flourishing while MO is moving either even *more* “to the left”, CH”V or, B”H “to the right”.
7. Rabbi JBS said it about Rabbi Kook; see “The Rav Thinking Aloud” by Rabbi David Holtzer. Someone asked Rabbi Soloveichik if he felt the presence of greatness. He answered “I wouldn’t say greatness. Uniqueness. “Greatness”? If you understand by “greatness” intellectual greatness: no, I was not impressed by his scholastics.”
But that’s okay; Korach was great, too. But he was still wrong. So it’s at least as possible that Rabbi Kook was wrong, too. It’s all been discussed. See here:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rav-elyashev-bans-nachal-chareidi/page/6
Avi K,
1. If the oaths were not halacha why, for starters, did the Or Sameach and the Avnei Nezer, both of whom the Zionists distort and misquote, bring them as such.
2. Who claimed “the oaths did not do a very good job of protecting us”? And why would that mean “the deal is off”? Which god told you that, Herzl?
3. I really would prefer to not discuss this, because I respect his Torah. One obvious difference is that the gedolim were speaking prior to the State’s establishment when the question of a State was a theoretical one. They were not “anti-Zionist”; they were pro-Torah. Another big difference is that there were major gedolim who held Rabbi JB Soloveichik was influenced by his secular studies. No such claim was made against the great sages like Rav Chaim and Rav Elchonon.
4. The Zionist forgeries of Rabbi Kasher were documented in MiKatowitz ad 5 B’Iyar.
5. The fact that he flew it still has no bearing on Zionism. No Terutzim are necessary to this non-kashya.
6. What I wrote came from a “Religious Zionist” site; I don’t recall the original source. As for Rabbi JB Soloveichik (again), he said lots of things that many gedolim disagreed with. He also said that traditional Orthodoxy would become a museum piece/relic. Yet, now, MO decries the non-MO “triumphalism”. So, even according to MO, he clearly was mistaken about that prediction. Regardless, it seems pretty obvious, though, at least in the Jewish faith, that there is nothing holy about a secular flag, much less one that represents the likes of Herzl and the others, not to mention the oaths issues. While on the topic, Rabbi JB Soloveichik also said he was unimpressed with Rabbi Kook’s scholarship. Still hold by either one 100%?
Just Emes:
Regarding the Moetzes, I read that the Brisker Rov was not at all in favor of having a moetzes, for a number of reasons. Wasn’t he the one that said a line about how the secretarin will be calling the shots? He certainly did not agree with that decision to condone the State, and neither did Rav Aharon and others who were there.
Regarding that meeting, the ones who opposed those Torah giants felt that “it is possible to agree, according to the laws of the Torah, to the establishment of a Jewish state in its portion of the land of Israel without denying the belief in the coming of the redeemer. There is no need to be concerned that the non-religious will chase, through the Jewish state, the religion.”
They were very, very wrong about that last line. As the Brisker Rov said, the Zionists need a state to shmad, not that they shmad for their State. In hindsight, this is pashut. The shmad they have perpetrated is ayom viNora and still ongoing. So, given the benefit of history, it is highly unlikely that they would have voted as they did if they would have known.
As for hakaras haTov, mitzrayim is not at all an appropriate comparison. The Zionists are (nominally) Jews. Should they not let Jews practice their faith? Every civilized nation allows this. How is this worthy of Hakaras haTov?
As for protecting Jews, I really don’t want to get started listing the myriad things they have done to endanger and worse, CH”V, Jews. So the pathetic amount of protection that their mandatory draft shmad army and American anti-missile system which they know is not fully effective pales in comparison to what they’ve done to Jews. In Mitzrayim, we came to their land and they hosted us, despite the many terrible things they did to us. BiNidon diDan, the Zionists came to Eretz Yisrael and made a terrible churban. There is no comparison.
In reality, a better analogue would be an arsonist who, after setting a complex of buildings on fire and the fire rages powerfully, then runs to his little fire truck. That is, lichaora, the extent of the hakaras haTov due Zionists.
Just Emes:
Did Rav Moshe write (against the earlier poskim) that the oaths were not halachic and not applicable liMaaseh?
Did Rav Moshe write that it’s muttar to be oleh biChoma?
Did Rav Moshe write that it’s muttar to be madchik haKeitz?
Did Rav Moshe write that liUmiyus (Nationalism) is, CH”V, part of the Torah?
Did Rav Moshe write that liUmiyus is permitted (to be grafted on to the Torah)?
I’m not at all convinced that it’s “just a history of the shittos haposkim” without answers to those specific questions (and more).
Again, even the Zionists Rabbis try to (unsuccessfully) find teirutzim for the three oaths, like the San Remo conference, et al. According to your story, they should have just asked Rav Moshe. Not to mention the vehement opposition of gedolim earlier than Rav Moshe, such as Rav Elchonon who called Zionism A”Z, Rav Aharon Kotler, Brisker Rov who called the State the Satan’s greatest accomplishment since the egel, etc.
I find this bizarre, as much as I trust your screen name.
correction: “membership in an organization does indicate halachic rulings on Zionism” should read “…does not…”
mdd, I understand you’re attempting to defend the indefensible, but please do not take cheap shots at me by mentioning other posters ot Tehran, etc.
I am discussing Zionism’s many halachic failings, not giving support to Ahmadinejad.
Regarding the WZO, membership in an organization does indicate halachic rulings on Zionism. Ponovezh flies the Israeli flag on their Independence day but that also does not mean they are, CH”V, Zionists.
ROB, it’s too bad you can’t find the sefarim I mentioned, but that doesn’t negate what their great authors said, other than in your fantasy-land. As well, outside of your fantasy-land, Zionism was and is a disaster for Jews, as I also wrote.
Finally, as I wrote, you anyways wouldn’t abandon your idolatry even if you saw those sources in black-and-white, so who are you trying to fool?
There are many places which reference Rav Chaim’s position on Zionism. Dr. Levine from Stevens has an interesting piece which he mentioned “the malach” and the Brisker Rov.
The Zionists have no answers, and you certainly don’t.
Just Emes:
Your sources are not fitting your screen name. You are using Zionist propaganda as a basis for your statements. Read what really happened in 1948 and then try again. The Zionists had no reason other than Zionism to attempt to take Yerushalayim in 1948. This was a clear violation of shelo yaalu biChomah as they were not given Yerushalayim.
Besides, the entire Zionist ascension was clearly anything but peaceful; it was definitely not biShalom. If you really want to get technical about who did and did not give permission, the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine were not members of the UN and they very much did not agree with Zionist aspirations. The UN, even if all its members agree, has no power to nullify the oaths.
Regardless, this all only addresses the shelo yaalu biChomah oath. The political rule in Eretz Yisrael is a separate violation of not forcing an early end to the galus.
Regarding Rav Moshe, even the Zionists admit that he was against flying the Israeli flag, both inside and outside shul and he called the founders of the State wicked, etc. and that if the Israeli flag were to be considered “holy” by Zionists then it would be like a keili of A”Z.
Avi K, we discussed all this. From the top.
1. The oaths are halacha and are brought down by early poskim. And the same Rambam warned against violating them in Igeres Teiman.
2. The oaths are a protection for us in galus. Even your own Zionist Rabbis try to come up with reasons for why the oaths are not in effect any more; if they were only for 1,000 years, and this logically makes no sense given the above, then there would be no reason to come up with any other reason why Israel and Zionism don’t violate them, which of course, they fragrantly do.
3. The gentiles violating their oath is also irrelevant for the same reason. Our oaths are for our protection. It is stupid to give that up because the gentiles violated their oath.
4. The Ohr Sameach you are quoting is, in my humble understanding, based on the forgeries from Rabbi Kasher. Either way, as I wrote earlier, the Ohr Sameach there allowed for people to go up and not for political rule as that would violate the other oath of trying to “force” the geulah.
5. Rabbi Soloveichik was a Zionist, so he is not a raaya to anything.
6. You are mistakenly assuming it is “obvious” that Rav Kahaneman did not agree. A recent talmid wrote on these boards that this is done for political purposes and not, CH”V, as an endorsement of the idolatry of Zionism.
Rav Edelstein’s quote, too, does not endorse Zionism; while that obviously differs from the Satmar Rov, he, too, is not endorsing Zionism, only that since the State is, very unfortunately, a reality, that one who does not vote is poresh min haTzibur.
Again, there are no sources to justify the idolatry of Zionism.
MDD, that has nothing to do with the halachic issues.
benignuman, no, that was not the position of the Ohr Sameach. We discussed this already. The UN is not representative of the entire world, much as they wish they were, and the Arab locals very much did not agree. Neither, for that matter, did the UK, who said that the Zionists were reading far more into their permission than they had intended. The Zionists clearly rebelled against the nations, and “Religious Zionists” struggle to find a heter for that rebellion, which they can’t.
Regardless, even if it were with everyone’s permission, this would only address the oaths of rebelling against the nations, not the oath of going up en mass.
As for the false claim of the oaths not being halacha, we covered this already also. The oaths are brought lihalacha by other poskim. (The lack of presence in Shulchan Aruch does not indicate its Halachic status.) The Rambam certainly believed it’s halacha when he wrote about it in Igeres Teiman. The Maharal said not to violate the oaths even if the nations forced Klal Yisrael to do so.
The Tzitz Eliezer also thought it was with everyone’s permission, etc. and not to establish a political rulership, only to live there.
Religious Zionists spill much ink trying to explain away the oaths. Just look at the Ohr Sameach you quoted, who clearly did hold of the oaths (until the Zionists mistakenly claim they became battel with some nations’ permission). This is a very basic distortion of the Ohr Sameach, as I wrote.
But the Zionists don’t have any reasonable answers to justify their idolatry and against the oaths because there are no such answers.
I’m not sure what sina is involved and, even more so, why you consider it chinam.
I think my post above to benignuman should answer your question, though it was Rav Elchonon who held that Zionism is A”Z: I don’t need to defend him and he obviously doesn’t need me to do so either.
Violating the oaths is the crux of the matter.
According to a Zionist web site, Rav Ovadia is “ambivalent” on Zionism.
As I wrote, many religious Zionists struggle futilely to explain away the oaths.
If you read Rav Ovadia’s actual positions as he’s quoted there, though, he is not a Zionist. He does not write that he advocates military conquest, considering it worthwhile to sacrifice lives CH”V for the State and he does also not write that he disregards the oaths.
Here is what he wrote:
“What is Zionist? By our understanding, a Zionist is a person who loves Zion and practices the commandment of settling the land. Whenever I am overseas I encourage Aliyah. In what way are they more Zionist than us?”
Notice that last line: he defines Zionism as simply fulfilling the mitzva of settling the land, which means he seems to hold that the mitzva is, to some extent, in effect nowadays. But he does not say you can violate the oaths by doing so. Everyone davens for Tzion (i.e. not the government, in case that wasn’t clear) in shemone esrei and also there were other yishuvim before Zionism and I don’t know of an opinion that those people violated the oaths; they simply went to live in Eretz Yisrael, no strings attached. I don’t see Rav Ovadia saying differently.
The Zionists have no answers to the oaths and the gross violations of those that Zionism was and is.
“ViEl Isheich Tishukaseich”, is what Hashem spoke to Chava.
That doesn’t mean she can’t be happy otherwise, but this is her nature.
benignuman,
Religious Zionism, striving to “gain and maintain sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel as a religious obligation” is not held as being in force by any major gadol to justify violating the oaths. Aderaba, it’s a severe violation of the oaths. Again, even the Zionist Rabbis struggle (futilely) to explain away the oaths.
Regarding after the state was established, there is no reason to believe Rav Elchonon would have held any differently except, like gedolim other than the Satmar Rov did, they joined in the State to save what they could from within. But, as Rabbi Resiman wrote, it was only the tactics that changed, not the ideals. The oaths were still in force and were being violated by Zionists.
Outside Zionists, this is universal, not “just” the Brisker and Satmar Rabbanim.
Zionism and the State were and are a terrible aveira and, besides that, a horrific disaster.
mdd, you’re the one “dreiing a kup”. No Zionist has yet produced a source by a universally accepted gadol, whose sefarim are learned in Yeshivos around the world, that claims this idolatry of Zionism is muttar.
Your miracles story, as I posted, is meaningless. I addressed this already. The gemara records that miracles took place in a church. Are you joining them, CH”V?
Come on.
ROB (cont.):
As for looking at the “results” to see what was right:
This is more amazing that the rest of your post. You imply that, say, the Chazon Ish, would look at Israel and its bloody and shmad history and deem all that worthwhile.
Zionists call the tens of thousands of Jews who lost their lives for this idol “worthwhile”. Any grade school kid who is not brainwashed by Zionism could tell you that the Torah does not agree with them and you. It doesn’t take a gadol to do so.
As well, the Zionists have shmaded generations of our people and still are doing so and they still have a mandatory draft, day-to-day reliance on a missile system which is proven not close to fully effective.
Their Zionists quotes from before and during WW II are well known. The nazis ym”Sh used similar language and even used some of those quotes for their propaganda. Herzl himself said anti-semitism would become the friend of Zionism to justify their idolatrous existence.
No matter how much Torah is thriving there by those who were not shmaded (or not completely shmaded in the case of “Religious Zionists”), Zionism has been a disaster for Jewry from a physical and Jewish spiritual perspective. Since Zionism is more important to you than either of those, you simple don’t care and write about pink elephants and living under Arab rule. Under Arab rule, the Yemenites had their mesorah from bayis roshon. We all know what the Zionists did to them and their mesorah once the Zionists fooled them into coming to Israel.
As for why the Brisker Rov lived there, at least one thing is certain: unlike yourself, he understood Zionist shmad for what it was. So, given his knowledge and greatness, why should he not live on a higher level being in Eretz Yisrael? You live there because you believe in this A”Z; lihavdil, he did not.
The more you bring up, the worse you make Zionism look to any objective observer. You really should just give it up and rejoin the original and true Jewish faith.
ROB, I’m waiting (not) for your retraction of your “hot air” accusation.
Again, speaking of hot air…
Contrary to your post, you are not “forced to post” except that you can’t help but desperately and futilely attempt to defend your idol of Zionism. Your “claims” have been answered numerous times despite your attempt to continue to spout these lies.
Rabbi Kook was roundly condemned by gedolim for his shitos. They emphatically disagreed with him that atheist soccer players being greater than neviim. Please don’t ask me to write more about him; there is no point.
Regarding Rabbi Zevin, bimchilas kivod Toraso haRama, you cannot put Rabbi Zevin against those multiple Torah greats like the Chofetz Chaim, the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, Rav Elchonon, Rav Aharon, et al. some of whom were older than him by at least a generation and we know that earlier generations are greater than later ones.
The Zionists have no answers.
Regarding the 1967 6-day war, please Google CIA 1967 war and click on the link to the CIA’s own web site.
Here is a brief selection:
[5]”
So much for “miracles”. But even if it were, even if Rav Yaakov held the 1967 was was miracles, that doesn’t make the A”Z of Zionism muttar; it just means the Jews in Eretz Yisrael were, B”H, zoche to nissim. It speaks nothing about their theology, as the Torah clearly warns about.
ZDad, you can check the historical records and see that 1967 was, in fact, not a miracle, but that’s besides the point and does not CH”V make Rav Yaakov a Zionist.
benignuman, no.
But I assume you never read the severe things that other gedolim said about Rabbi Kook (in particular) and Rabbi Soloveichik and their positions. In the case of Rabbi Kook, they banned learning from his works. As for Rabbi Teichtal, he was not a Zionist, and his hakdama says as much.
Regarding the others, assuming you are being truthful that they are Zionists, are you saying that any of these other Rabbis were equal in greatness to the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Elchonon, Rabbi JB Soloveichik’s own predecessors like the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler and others?
ROB, I highly doubt you would abandon your A”Z even if I did give sources, speaking of blowing smoke…
Anyways:
Rav Elchonon’s quote is from Ikvisa DiMishicha, as I wrote.
The Brisker Rov’s shita is from Uvdos ViHanhagos LiBeis Brisk.
Speaking of sources, MDD, I presume you are using the well-known forgeries from Rabbi Kasher as your source? Rav Aharon Kotler who was a member of the moetzes and was there, as well as others like the Chazon Ish and many others, are on record as being vehemently against Zionism.
What are your sources that any Gadol was pro-Zionist, CH”V?
Besides, who of their stature wrote that Rav Elchonon and the Brisker Rov were wrong?
Again, the Zionists have no valid answers.
Sam2, instead of “taking extreme umbrage” (which I doubt) at something nobody never said, it would be better to learn the sugya and see just how inapplicable this mitzvah is, even according to the Ramban, bizman haZeh.
The Brisker Rov said the State of Israel is the Satan’s greatest triumph since the Egel.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman, in Ikvisa diMishicha, said Religious Zionism is Religion mixed with Avoda Zara (biShituf).
Zionists have no valid answers.