Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I just meant that Yishuv Eretz Yisroel is not one of those Mitzvos that we need Mashiach to fulfill.
DY- Yishuv Eretz Yisroel is not many small mitzvos like tzedakah, it’s one mitzvah (albeit kiyumis according to R’ Moshe) you either do it or you don’t. But I hear your point that the two mitzvos aren’t comparable. Yishuv Eretz Yisroel is really really hard to do and there are many reasons not to go, like parnassah and family, and R’ Moshe’s teshuvah allows us to stay in Chutz La’Aretz for these reasons. But that’s what R’ Moshe’s teshuvah is… a heter, not a reason. R’ Moshe wasn’t advocating staying in Chutz La’Aretz. And just like if I were given a heter not to do a mitzvah, like not to wear tzitzis, or not to give any tzedakah, or not to fast on Yom Kippur, I would feel sad that I am not (or couldn’t) fulfill that mitzvah, we should feel the same way about Yishuv Eretz Yisroel. For those of us that are relying on R’ Moshe’s heter, we should feel sad that we need to rely on that heter, and we should hope that soon we don’t need to rely on that heter anymore. And I’m not taling about when Mashiach comes because Yishuv Eretz Yisroel can be fulfilled long before that happens. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m not being dan lekaf zechus, but I don’t get the feeling that people feel sad that they are relying on R’ Moshe’s heter. I get the feeling that people are using it as a reason or an excuse not to go. I don’t think that was R’ Moshe’s intention.
So, according to R’ Moshe, living in EY is like doing chessed or tzedakah or eating in the sukkah when we don’t have to? I accept that. Yet all of those things, we don’t use the fact that it’s optional as an excuse. Do people really say “I don’t do tzedakah or chessed because it’s optional? I only eat in the sukkah the bare minimum because it’s optional?” And yet, R’ Moshe’s teshuvah is a reason (or an excuse) not to move to EY? We do chessed and tzedakah even when it’s really difficult because they are good things, even if they are not obligatory. Why is our attitude towards the mitzvah kiyumis (according to R’ Moshe) of yishuv Eretz Yisroel any different?
I guess the only reason not to go, at least according to R’ Moshes’s teshuvah, is if it were in fact too dangerous. But in my opinion, danger is an objective halachic status. So unless the millions of Jews already in Israel are violating venishmartem for every moment that they are in EY (and I don’t think any posek would go that far to say that they are), then it is not too dangerous to go to EY. I don’t understand what R’ Moshe seems to say that danger is subjective.
If I have a rabbi? You sure get mean when you disagree with someone. I actually asked the Rov of my shul (who is not a Religious Zionist) and he told me that many have asked the question and he personally does not have a firm grasp of what R’ Moshe meant. The only comparison he could bring is the opinion of the Gra that you get a mitzvah every time you eat matzah over Pesach but it’s not a chiyuv… but even that concept he doesn’t really understand.
And it is not worse than it was at that time. People died by the droves trying to travel from Europe to Israel by horse and buggy or however they travelled. How many Nefesh BNEfesh fatalities are there? There were crusades and wars that killed many, not to mention the lack of food and infrastructure in the Land of Israel during the Middle Ages. You may need to relearn history if you think EY was safer in the 1300s than it is today.
And I don’t know if it’s definitely worse now than it was when R’ Moshe wrote the teshuvah. But even if it is, you can’t assume he would say it’s assur to go nowadays because it’s too dangerous.
“Why do “religious” Zionists always hold like the few Rabbis when it comes to Israel?!? “
Just like Chassidim follow their Rebbeim even when they are in the minority, Religious Zionists (without quotations around religious) follow their rabbonim.
Honestly, I don’t really understand R’ Moshe’s opinion. First of all, what’s a mitzvah kiyumis? An optional mitzvah? Mitzvah means commandment so saying it’s optional is a bit contradictory. Also, what does it mean to consider R’ Chaim Cohen’s opinion? It’s either objectively dangerous and we shouldn’t go, or it’s not dangerous and we should go? Is R’ Moshe saying that the dangers R’ Chaim Cohen refers to are subjective? For some people it’s dangerous while for others not so each person should take into consideration if it’s too dangerous for them? What does that even mean?
Either way, at the very least, R’ Moshe says it’s a good thing to go to Eretz Yisroel… he calls it a mitzvah kiyumis (whatever that means). So I don’t think R’ Moshe is a ra’ayah that it is assur to go to Eretz Yisroel because it’s too dangerous. I don’t think moving to Eretz Yisroel is an issue of “v’nishmartem” that everyone who lives in E”Y ius violating.
By the way, I also resent the fact that you say I’m pushing the “Zionist agenda”. Everyone who disagrees with how you interpret the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisroel or how the Geulah is supposed to come is pushing some sort of secular agenda? Eilu vaEilu Divrei Elokim Chaim… I think you should give a little more respect to those who disagree with you.
Health- is there any posek that actually says it is halachically forbidden to live in EY because it’s too dangerous?
I think arguments can be made on both sides whether the Medinah is the beginning of the geulah or not. It’s impossible to say with conviction either way. But I don’t think obsessing over or living in EY has anything to do with whether the geulah has started or not. EY is our homeland, we have an opportunity to return, haschalas hageulah or not.
Personally, I think one of the most compelling arguments that the geulah has started is kibutz galuyos which is the return of the Jewish People to Israel. For generations, no one knew whether it will happen through natural or miraculous means, but now it seems to be happening naturally. Klal Yisroel is literally returning to Eretz Yisroel. If that’s not Kibutz Galuyos, I don’t know what is (unless you know for sure it has to happen through miracles, but I don’t think any one of us is a navi that can say conclusively that kibutz galuyos can not happen through natural means).
“What’s your obsession with Israel? The country is run by people who don’t keep the Torah.”
I don’t understand what one has to do the other. Eretz Yisroel is our homeland. We should be obsessed with it regardless of who runs it. Using Zionism as an excuse to delegitimize Eretz Yisroel is in my opinion one of the biggest dangers of anti-Zionism.
If one did not every word but read from a Chumash what he missed (as long as more than half of the megila came from hearing the baal kriah from a Kosher Megila or reading from a kosher Megila) one is yotzei.
I remember a story I heard a long time ago explaining why R’ Moshe did not shuckle. I think when he was still in Russia before he came to the United States he was arrested by the secret police for some reason and he was forced to stand motionless for a number of hours (possibly while being interrogated). R’ Moshe said that he never felt fear like that in his entire life and he wanted to recreate that fear every time he stood in tefila before the Ribono shel Olam.
We should daven that those who are innocent do not suffer, and those who are guilty do teshuvah or pay the consequences without collateral damage. We should not daven that all of the Yidden should get off scot free if they in fact did do something wrong without doing teshuvah.
We should also daven that this entire event should conclude without any Chilul Hashem (though it may be too late for that).
Akuperma- But at one point the Bekisha was “in” style and the Jews decided to be “in” style as opposed to what I assume previous generations wore. Except this time when the Bekisha went out of style, it was chosen as the de facto uniform. Why did we give a hoot what the Goyim were wearing when they wore a bekisha and then decided to stop? Why was the bekisha chosen from all the other fashions throughout history?
Akuperma- What I assume takah’s question is, is that if Moshe Rabeinu didn’t wear it, why is there significance to it? Obviously there is such thing as styles, the current style are pants and shoes with laces as you so eloquently put it. Maybe a button down shirt or even a polo shirt. But the bekeshe was not Moshe Rabeinu’s style nor our current style. It was the style in Europe some hundreds of years ago (by both Jews and non-Jews). Why was that particular Goyish style chosen as the uniform of the Jews (for those Jews that wear it) for all time?
And I have seen shuls that do compose special tefilos in special situations, which I assume (or hope) was the motivations for those who composed the tefilah for the soldiers and I know it’s the motivation for those who say it. Eilu va’eilu divrei Elokim chayim. There is nothing wrong with composing new tefilos. And there is nothing wrong with saying a tefilah that was politically motivated when composed. It is obviously not your Rav’s minhag. It is obviously the minhag of other Rabbonim.
DY- I don’t know if that’s the case- that it’s clear the tefilah is for political reasons. I have heard that Rabbonim in the Charedi communities compose special tefilos during times of war like during Cast Lead or the second Lebanon War. Even though there are firefighters in constant danger, there is room for extra tefilos when facing an enemy during times of war. There is a unique danger present there that doesn’t exist in other dangerous times. It could be that the tefilah was composed because a soldier is in a constant state of war. He is constantly in this unique danger to prevent all of us from being in that unique danger. I can understand why people separate soldiers from other dangerous occupations.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s poor midos not to say it. I understand why you wouldn’t differentiate one dangerous occupation from another. But I don’t automatically assume that the tefilah was composed for political motivations, and I don’t really care if it was. And I also understand why some might consider a soldier to be in a unique situation of danger.
DY- It doesn’t matter. If you found out that the composition of the tefilah was in fact a genuine prayer to protect those soldiers who fight for us without ulterior motives, would that change your opinion? I doubt it. You oppose it because it practically has Zionist connotations today. It’s not the reason why most people say it. And it may or may not be the reason why it was started. But the connection between a prayer for Israeli soldiers and Zionsim is quite obvious and the reason why most in the Charedi community don’t say it.
Why it was started doesn’t practically matter- those who don’t say it, won’t say it regardless of the motivations of its authors… and those who say it will continue to say it regardless of the motivations of its authors.
Joseph- I guess we agree to disagree, but I think it is pretty clear that it is far more dangerous (physically, psychologically, and emotionally) to be a soldier than a firefighter. Aside from hard numbers which would back this up, it is much easier to create precautions against something dangerous that doesn’t think or feel and who’s activities are relatively predictable. If you are getting a bunch of bullets shot at your head, the control factor diminishes significantly, to put it mildly.
But, again, that is irrelevant. We owe hakaras hatov to both soldiers and firefighters. A mi sheberach exists for soldiers and not for firefighters. Why? I don’t think it matters. It’s the reality. Was the mi sheberach started for political reasons so that Zionism can be injected into tefilah under the guise of hakaras hatov? Possibly, but I don’t think it matters. Now it’s said by many people in a genuine fashion, which is a beautiful thing. And it’s also not said by many people which is also fine. I personally understand both sides (even though I side more with one). But you have to understand that this is not only a logical issue, but a tremendously emotional one as well. Your patronizing attitude towards those who say it is (in my opinion) a bit inappropriate (as is the patronizing attitude of posters who assume that those who don’t say the tefilah lack hakaras hatov).
DY- I didn’t mean that the emotion to say the tefilah is based on a hatred for the enemy. I meant that there is a difference between a firefighter who faces the threat of something that is a dangerous non living thing and a soldier who faces the dangers of a living people who want to destroy him and everyone who he protects.
Come on Joseph, do you really not see the difference between firefighters and soldiers? Yes, firefighting is a dangerous profession, but there is a difference between a fire which, while dangerous, is not actively seeking to kill and destroy as it is not a living conscious being. As opposed to our enemies who would like nothing more than to kill us all if not for the soldiers standing between them and us.
But that’s not the point. The real reason we don’t have a mi sheberach for firefighters is because one wasn’t composed and accepted as part of our tefilah. But one does exist for soldiers and it’s a tefilah that is meaningful and emotional to much of Klal Yisroel. By trying to logically explain why their emotional tefilah is unnecessary is hurtful and offensive and I’m sure you could probably think of a less upsetting why to explain why your kehilah doesn’t say it without minimizing those who do say it.
I guess I read that differently.
And I don’t know the facts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was started for political reasons… but now it’s something emotional for many people which is not a bad reason for saying a tefilah. It shouldn’t be used as a sword to attack those who don’t say it by implying that they don’t appreciate what soldiers are risking and fighting for… but it’s a powerful and emotional tefilah for those who connect to it.
DY- I know that’s what he was doing at first. But then people were talking about appreciating soldiers and he just seemed to be egging them on.
Or, I can reinterpret his firefighter comment- “Of course I appreciate soldiers. Just like I appreciate firefighters for putting their lives on the line to save people. Just like you would be insulted if I implied you don’t feel hakaras hatov to firefighters, I am insulted that you imply that I don’t feel hakaras hatov to soldiers.”
At best, Joseph just wants to annoy people who just want to hear that the Yeshivish and Chareidi community feel hakaras hatov to the soldiers who defend Eretz Yisroel while putting their lives at risk.
At worst, Joseph is trying to rationalize his not feeling hakaras hatov to the soldiers who defend Eretz Yisroel by telling those people that they are just as bad as he is.
If I had to summarize:
I think we all feel we owe hakaras hatov to the soldiers of Israel. The fact is, they do put their lives on the line to protect us from our enemies.
The question is, should we show it and how? Some posters seems to say that what the army does is so important to us, and they are risking so much to do it, that we should go as far to say a special tefilah for them that Hashem should protect them.
Others say, while we should definitely feel hakaras hatov for them in our hearts and minds, we do not have an obligation to change the tefilah for them just like we don’t for other organizations that we feel hakaras hatov for. Additionally, while we should feel hakaras hatov to the individual soldiers, showing it publicly to the Zionist entity as a whole (for those who believe that the Zionist entity is against halachah) would be inappropriate, especially when this Zionist entity is trying to force those who are learning Torah into the army. We should feel hakaras hatov to those individuals who protect us, but we should not necessarily show hakaras hatov to an organization that we disapprove of hashkafically and halachically.
The comparison to hatzalah isn’t exactly equitable because no one says a mi sheberach for hatzalah. If it had become accepted in many communities to say a mi sheberach for hatzalah and others communities did not, yet hatzalah was equally helping everyone, I could see how it might be perceived as a lack of hakaras hatov for those communities who don’t say it.
The fact that non religious Jews don’t value the protective value of Talmud Torah and don’t show hakaras hatov for it does not absolve us of our hakaras hatov towards them for protecting us as well.
The hakaras hatov we show to soldiers is not simply for protecting us. If that were the case, then Bnei HaTorah should be receiving at least equal hakaras hatov. The hakaras hatov for soldiers is also for the sacrifice and risk they put themselves in to protect us. They literally put their lives on the line to stand between us and our enemies. Bnei HaTorah do not risk nearly as much and that should be taken into account when we try and compare who “deserves” more hakaras hatov for protecting us.
Just because we disagree on certain hashkafic or halachic issues doesn’t mean we don’t get along. Machlokles is a part of Torah. Part of accepting each other’s differences is accepting that there are differences and that not every machlokes is sinas chinam.
I always understood the difference to be that emunah is the belief or knowledge that God exists and runs the world while bitachon is relying on and trusting in that powerful God that you know exists. Emunah is more intellectual while bitachon can take many forms. It can have actual practical ramification on decisions you make (actively relying on Hashem can theoretically change decisions you may make regarding health or parnasah for example) or just emotionally (giving strength in times of trouble). Bitachon is built upon emunah but they are not the same thing.
It’s just as bad as living in Saint Louis.
This topic has been hashed and rehashed but I would assume that R’ Schachter does indeed paskin like the S”A… he just doesn’t understand the S”A to be saying it’s completely assur as the S”A also says that women receive reward for doing it. I’m sure there are many ways for reconciling how the S”A says women receive schar for doing something that is seemingly assur, but one way of understanding it (and I assume R’ Schachter learns this way) is that the issur is on the teacher if he compels them to learn, but if they do it voluntarily than it is permitted and they receive reward (and presumably, in a situation where they receive reward for learning, it should be just as permissible to teach them. It doesn’t make sense to say that it is permissible for them to learn but they must do it on their own without a teacher).
Joseph- and I’m assuming, that according to those poskim who say that kepshuto is lechatchilah, everyone should strive to do it lechatchilah as long as it doesn’t interfere with any other area of halachah. Where it does interfere, like when it will cause someone to violate any issur DeRabanan (including dina demalchusa dina), then I would assume those same poskim would agree that it is better be yotzei this halachah in a bedieved fashion rather than use it’s lechatchilah performance as an excuse to violate any other halachah.
Joseph- You seem convinced that there are poskim that paskin that you absolutely need to get drunk to be yotzei ad delo yada, and that the Rama’s and M”B’s suggestion is not a halachically valid option. According to that premise, I agree with your conclusion that dina demalchusa dina/illegality of underage drinking plays no role in this discussion and the only concern is whether its dangerous or not.
I just disagree with your premise that there are any poskim today who rule that way and I believe that everyone agrees that at least bedieved you are yotzei if you follow the Rama’s and M”B’s suggestion.
We agree to disagree.
Random question- what is the chiyuv of ad delo yada?
I always learned that there are 4 mitzvos of Purim- megilah, matanos la’evyonim, mishloach manos, and seudah.
Is the chiyuv ad delo yada part of the seudah in the sense that you have a big seudah, with bread and meat and wine, but you haven’t hit ad delo yada (according to whichever shitah) then you aren’t yotzei your seudah?
Or is ad delo yada a separate fifth chiyuv of Purim that can only be fulfilled during the seudah?
I don’t think there is any posek nowadays who would say that you are not yotzei if you rely on the “kula” of the Rama and the M”B. Maybe they would say it’s a bedi’eved, maybe they say one should be machmir to be yotzei according to all the dei’os, but it’s not a matter of black and white psak halacha (maybe your posek paskins differently than normative halacha and concludes that one is not yotzei at all that way, but I doubt it). Once we are in the realm of chumros and kulos, lechatchilah and bedieved, and not straight up psak halacha… then other considerations like dina demalchusa dina can come into play.
Joseph- if that’s the case, then fine. But are there indeed poskim that will say it is against halacha for a 13 year old to rely on the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah on Purim? Is there a posek that allows or requires a legal minor (and halachic adult) to get drunk on Purim when they can be yotzei through those shitos? Please ask your posek who requires you to get drunk, if he would allow (or require) a minor to follow the Mishnah Berurah instead of getting drunk.
But, the question I was asking is, does one of the two options I presented indeed violate dina demalchisa dina more than the other.
And again, every chumra is a kula. Is being machmir to go further than what the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah require when it is being meikil on dina demalchusa dina really a chumra? Maybe the proper chumra is to fulfill drinking on Purim like those shitos and being mekayem dina demalchusa dina completely. Then you get the zechus of fulfilling two dinim instead of just one.
Underage drinking is illegal and yet if halacha requires drinking, we would be required to follow the halacha against secular law.
Now according to many poskim, one is required to get drunk on Purim. But according to (at least) 3 heavy hitters- the Rama, Pri Megadim, and the Mishnah Berurah- you can be yotzei (and the M”B even writes that it is ideal to be yotzei) by drinking more than usual and going to sleep but there is no need to actually getting drunk.
Now, from a secular law perspective, for someone under 21, both of these options are technically illegal (I think) because they both involve underage drinking. Once you are breaking the law by following the halacha, from a legal perspective, is there a reason to choose the option that requires less drinking?
The Queen- Are we so sure those things will end when Mashiach comes?
DY- I don’t think he thinks there is anything wrong with Eretz Yiroel. That is, after all, the name of the land. I think his point is, that sometimes it seems like people are going out of their way to avoid saying the State of Israel as if they are trying very hard not to acknowledge its existence.
Because Goyish governments never tortured Jews or murderers or terrorists before. I’m obviously not trying to validate the Israeli government if they did in fact torture these boys, but I don’t think that’s a difference between Goyim and Frei Jews.