Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s quite clear how the ראשו� ים and other א�–רו� ים define the שלש ש�’ועות. Satmar has their own שיט�” in which they have a unique definition of �–ומ�” and מרי�”�”. So why not redefine the איסור of leaving ארץ ישראל? Indeed, Moshe Ber Beck (influence by, but not Satmar) held that it was forbidden to live in Israel because he felt it was impossible to escape benefit from the State, and it’s equally impossible to benefit the State via taxes.
It’s clear that MBB, who was condemned by Satmar, is a fringe figure. Also of note, is a statement of the Satmar rebbe where he writes that nothing really can be done about the State except to pray for משי�— as giving the country to the Arabs would mean another Holocaust.
That being the case, I don’t know of any mainstream position (left, right or center) that advocates leaving the country en masse simply because there’s a Zionist government.
This opening post is full of disgusting “koch v’oztem yudi”,
No it’s not. He wrote: “Here “the eyes of G-D are upon the land..” always.”I don’t think you know what “koch v’oztem yudi” means.
doom:
” the seculars, who own and control the State, ”
Before the recent exit of UTJ, more than 50% of the ruling coalition were Orthodox. There are also Masorti who are not secular. Overeach by the court and attorney general does not mean that the seculars still control the State exclusively.“you are here at their mercy.”
Exaggeration.“So too, the nazi state called “Israel”
Please name one single gadol who called Israel a “Nazi state”. That’s what anti-Semites do, not �’�”ולי ישראל.
“In case it wasn’t already clear”
Not clear at all.“there were many religious Jews”
No, there were not many religious Jews there.“and the locals had no problems with that”
1834 Safed. 1929 Chevron. Centuries of discrimination and persecution. Moderation of discriminatory practices did occur, but that moderation occurred in the period immediately preceding proto-Zionist immigration. And note the term “moderation”, anti-Semitism still persisted. To make a sweeping generalization over a temporary phenomenon is dishonest.“invading Zionists…The religious Jews in E”Y begged them to leave .”
What invasion? Immigration isn’t an invasion. Begging them to leave doesn’t make it an invasion. Please show that all religious Jews begged them to leave.“all against the wishes of the religious Jews there”
There were religious Jews in paramilitary/defense organizations.“Zionism is, of course, an idol”
Do you know what idol means?” and its ideology is”
This doesn’t make sense. Zionism is an ideology. Or more accurately there are several ideologies that are called Zionism.“Obviously I did not write that Hashem accepted prayers to idols”
It wasn’t obvious. You wrote ‘praying for this idol’ which is awkward. As I’ve noted, people pray to idols, not for idols. You were unclear, not obvious. And you’re still not clear as you haven’t explain what it means to pray for an idol when people don’t do that. You fabricated an illogical concept; you don’t provide a shred of evidenced; and then you declare it obvious.“He accepted prayers TO HIM for the BENEFIT of that idol.”
A little less heretical, but still theologically radical.“No gedolim “felt otherwise” against the Brisker Rav.”
The fact is that many gedolim considered (at least at the time) that the founding of the State was את�–לתא �”�’אול�”. (Not all religious Zionists agree.)” not that they “calculated” in advance when it would happen, but rather that it would have happened then.”
Calculations can happen after the fact, and the Rambam makes no such distinction. You concocted a �–ילוק and shoved it into the Rambam. There are serious problems with the concept that משי�– would have arrived had there not been Zionism: As per the Rambam (citing Chazal), �’אול�” must be preceded by תשו�’�” of the nation. There was no such תשו�’�” in 1948 among non-Zionists. Consider the anti-Zionist Jewish communists in 1948- where was their תשו�’�”? So the Brisker Rav’s alleged statement must be taken as either apocryphal or exageration- but certainly problematic hashkafically.Summary:
No evidence of invasion. No explanation/evidence of an idol. No explanation/evidence for the radical non-traditional notion that Hashem listens to prayers for idols. No justification for calculating the קץ despite offering a weak �–ילוק. Denial of well known facts concerning gedolim who didn’t agree with the more extreme positions of Satmar and some of Brisk.First, any discussion of the topic should be guided by the Rambam’s warning against calculating or obsessing over such matters.
RightJew: I recall seeing an opinion coming out from Chabad, that the concept of קמעא קמעא is from the ירושלמי, and not the �’�’לי and we apply �”לכ�” כ�’תראי. This was many years ago, and I don’t recall the exact place. Ask your local Chabad rabbi! (BTW, I don’t think a Chabad position should matter to Satmar.)
HaKatan: מ�’ל�’לים �-כות is not applicable here. Take a close look at where the concept appears. e.g.שמ�–ות �–:י�” and the מצו�” of מעק�”. Hashem decides to get something done, and He chooses his agent by מ�’ל�’לים �-כות or �–ו�’�”. It doesn’t negate free will. People had free will to neglect the מצו�” of ישו�’ �”ארץ. All their �-כותים no matter how many, would not merit them the �-כות of building the land. There is no מ�’ל�’לים �-כות for those not involved. The conditions of ארץ ישראל is due to the efforts of those who built it. You don’t like the government? Then vote. Not enough votes? There’s a simple (if challenging) solution for that.
(Consider Rashi on רש”י:
ואפי׳ לא י�”יו לו עו� ות א�–רות אם לא עשית מעק�” �’�”א ס�’י שתת�’ל�’ל �–ו�’�” �-ו על י�”ך ש�’�-�” � עשית �–יי�’ שע�’רת על מ״ע
No sins, but the neglect of one makes one a proximate cause of misfortune. And if the מצו�” neglected is ישו�’ ארץ ישראל- well does a State run by those who don’t provide “safety rails” sound like a good idea?)“Of course, there were religious Jews who preceded the Zionists’ invasion”
1) Not many.
2) There were religious Jews
3) There was no invasion“not via heretics who perpetrated a massive historical rebellion against G-d”
1) Not all the founders were heretics. In fact, if you look at the list of signatures of the declaration of independence, you’ll note that the Torah Jews were over-represented.
2) Please explain why sovereignty, per se is a rebellion given that there’s not a single unambiguous source that states that sovereignty is a rebellion.“into praying for this idol ”
People pray to an idol, not for an idol.
“idol “State””
Who considers the State to be a deity?
“Hashem’s response to those prayers was to accept them”
Hashem accepts prayers to idols? That sounds like heresy. Indeed fact the � �’יאים describe situations in which He ignores, as it were, prayers directed to Him. Are we to believe the idea that He would heed prayers made to a rival?” The Brisker Rav…. Obviously, no, that founding was not the “first step” in the redemption. ”
The Brisker Rav vs. many other gedolim who felt otherwise doesn’t make it “obvious”.“In fact, both the Satmar Rav and Brisker Rav stated that Mashiach (i.e., the redemption) would have come back then – as in for sure would have come – if not for the founding of that “State” happening instead.”
Doesn’t go against Chazal and the Rambam who condemn those who calculate the End?