yankel berel

the true secret behind katan’s delusional haskafa is the following

he claims no jew will be harmed even when IDF stops fighting

which is totally delusional

and obviously so

.
.
the secret behind it is simple – katan has no skin in the game

katan holds , and he will not deny this , like his compatriot somejew,

that when faced with a choice of sure death on one hand , and fighting and surviving on the other ,

one is OBLIGATED to die , together with his kids ,together with all his grandchildren ,

together with his neighbors , together with all residents of his street

together with all mitpallelim in his shul , together with all inhabitants in his city

together with all residents in the holy land , young and old

from sucklings to ctizens in old age homes

.
.
so think about this

what difference does it make whether there is or is not a viable plan to look after yoshvei EY ?

they do all ‘get on the plane’ or not

can you safely evacuate 8 million people and their possessions or not

it all is totally irrelevant anyway…

fighting as defense is out of the question anyway …
.
.
.
no wonder katan and somejew could come up with the most ridiculous ideas possible

it is clear that neither katan nor somejew have no responsibility whatsoever for the well being of yoshvei EY

they ‘ll readily admit that , they will say : the Z caused the mess so they should clean it up.

meaning – we have no responsibility for the well being of yoshvei EY

it is preferable that they die , over active self defense
.
.
.
it is important to keep this in mind , when engaging with them about possible ‘alternative solutions’ for safety of yoshvei EY ….
.
.

.

sechel says j said not to keep mitsvos

mathew said j said to keep mitsvos

gmara sechel brings is not unanimously accepted as referring the founder of the xtian religion

.
but I hear sechels safek proof
.
.

lol

sechels writing on monday does not have to jibe with sechels witing on tuesday

habads pronouncements in 1980 do not have to jibe with habads pronouncements in 1990 either

sechel is a good and worthy talmid

he seems to have absorbed their approach properly
.
.
.

@somejew

please think .

on one hand there is clear halachik imperative to organize self defence begalut

stretching an unbroken link from gemara, to rambam ,to tur , to shulhan aruch ,to mishne brura

all , undisputed pillars of halacha for many centuries

without any holkim whatsoever

without any other preconditions whatsoever

if it is pikuach nefesh it should be done.

period.

.
.

on the other hand you quote a maharal

without an exact address

where he is not talking lehalacha

allegedly saying huge hidushim

that one is OBLIGATED to suffer certain death , him and his family and the whole of his community

this is not mentioned anywhere lehalacha in any halacha lema’aseh sefer

this is not mentioned in hazal when they enumerate the three things one is obligated to offer one’s life for

not mentioned in rambam’s yad

not in tur

not in shulhan aruch

not in mishna brura
.
.

do you realize the weakness of your position ????
.
.
.

@sechel

sechel claims he doesnt care what j said in his testament

but sechel knows and i quote :

“j said you dont need to keep mitzvos anymore
he served avoda zara
kishuf
much more
basically was a mumar” ….. [sechels own words , copy and paste from this thread , July 7, 2025 12:00 pm]

—
how does sechel know ?

is there another testament from j ? besides the one sechel doesn’t care about ?

or maybe j left two testaments ? one for the world and another bepnimiyut ? only for his hasidim ?

or maybe j came to sechel in a dream ?

.
.
a real mystery ….
.
.
.

@somejew

you are beating around the bush.

my writing is as clear as can be.

gemara , rambam , tur , sh’a , mishne brura , all point to mandated organized Jewish self defense in galut when needed for pikuach nefesh

this is clear

its lehalacha

its lema’aseh

.

you , however , are clearly on record multiple times in these pages, that even if the choice is between sure death on one hand and organized jewish self defense in galut on the other

lehalacha one is OBLIGATED to die, and let ones own family die , and let any other jew die [chvsh]

this is so simple and so clear

I elaborated on this countless times already.

.
.
.

what exactly in this post is inaccurate ???

what exactly in this post is incoherent ???
.
.
.
.

following [copied and pasted] is somejews psak level one :

In (very) short, that means that if goyim – chas v’shulem – threaten masses of jews, our kosher responses are: make peace, give gifts, run away, and pray to G-d. What we are not allowed to do , is ….. physically fight the enemy.

….. One cannot fight the non-Jews with violence because of pekiach nefesh, and that is both explicitly stated by Maharal but also blatantly obvious in context of the shevios that are fundamentally about dealing with the dangers of gulis (galus).

ad kan divrei somejew.

in other words , even if you do not have other ways of saving yourself ,and the only way of saving yourself and your family is by [defensive] violence, even if said violence would actually save your and your families’ life, you are OBLIGATED to die ,and let your family die, according to halacha , no holek, halacha lema’aseh !

===
then somejew was confronted

with a clear psak in sh’a , tur , rambam , based on clear gemara

mandating self defense even bimkom hillul shabat.

===

so we get to somejew’s psak level two [copy and paste]

“If there is an imminent threat to the life of a jew, one is allowed to stop the murderer, even in galus.
That is also allowed on shabbos, because of p/n.”

now somejew is already matir to use defensive violence to save oneself from death.

but he still prohibits [on the pain of death] to organize an ‘army’ to stop the murderer .

===

somejew theorizes that a group of three individuals might be considered an ‘army’ already.

but he clearly ignores that in sh’ aruch the issue is about a multitude coming to attack and that the defense is consisting of a multitude too.

besides that, shulhan aruch is talking about other yishuvim which are nocheh lehikavesh if the first yishuv would fall .

so we are clearly talking here about resistance to kibush , which means organizing an army to resist a kibush

and shulhan aruch kayadu’a only talks about issues of relevance in galut.

add one plus one and you get two

SH’A was matir in galut to organise oneselves in self defense to save lives.

when you look in gemara eiruvin 45A it says very clearly that r nachman ,residing within galut bavel , says that neherda’e is a border town and one should employ community wide organised self defense of neherda’e , to shield all Jewish communities in Bavel from being conquered by their enemies , in order to save lives.

in short – organised jewish self defense at work within galut because of pikuach nefesh , halacha lemaaseh .

this is brought in mishneh brurah , shulhan aruch, tur and rambam , no holek whatsoever.

its mutar , no , sorry, not mutar ,

mandatory.

—
a talmid of hafets hayim quoted a haskafic etsa tova from hafets hayim spoken to his audience in poland where organised self defence would not have the desired effect so H’H discouraged them from going down the path of self defense.

that is not a halachic ruling , nor is it applicable outside those specific circumstances.

—

maskana –
pikuach nefesh clearly overrides any existing halachik shavu’ot prohibitions [if they exist at all – cf avnei nezer sof YD that they never even existed]
.
.
.
it is time that somejew and katan should relearn those relevant sugyot without any preconceived notions

before they resume their self appointed role as spokesman of the whole haredi community.

.
.

somejew to yb:

I don’t have a problem with this shulchan aruch, rather you claimed it is a problem. I don’t understand the problem you claim to see, nor do you, apparently.
–

Beyond that, this was not even a conversation about the shalosh shevuas, it was a conversation about the chofetz chaim’s sefer lekutei torah that bothered you.

===

@somejew

you turn the conversation on its head.

i was the one who asked on your assertion that one is not allowed fight even in the face of pikuach nefesh.

i introduced the mehaber maran habeit yosef

you were the one who introduced this quote from hafets hayims talmid.

read your own posts again.

@qwerty

I have no knowledge about rayats’s second daughter’s alleged infertility

but I seem to remember about r’ levi , the false mashiachs father, when meeting rayats prior to his sons shiduch with rayats’ daughter , angling for his sons ‘rebisteva’

but rayats would not be drawn and refused any hithayvut for his second son in law’ future in any so called admorut
.
.

somejew to yb :

was r akiva so badly mistaken ?

or is rather katan badly mistaken ?

The answer has been well discussed in rishonim and achronim that, yes, R’ Akiva was “so badly mistaken” in what he did, leading to the greatest slaughter of Jews in our history, perhaps greater than the recent Holocaust. AND, this was as per R’ Akiva’s belief that moshiach had already arrived allowing him to breach the three oaths!

==

its clear from rambam that r akiva’s only mistake was that he thought that bar kochba was mashiach

that was only clarified once bar kochba died.

clear and obvious in rambam .

up and until bar kochba’s death , as long as bar kochba was alive he was a fitting candidate for mashiach.

.
.

q for mr somejew here

how could the live bar kochba be a candidate for mashiach ?

did he not transgress that major and cardinal principle of judaism that man is not allowed to cause the ge’oula in any way ?

how could a so called heretic , kofer , or whatever name you want to stick on him , be mashiach ?

.
.
.

@sechel

rashab was more accepted outside of habad compared to rayats

@sechel

it has been rumored that rayats okayed it because he knew his daughter

she had a reputation of being open minded and more modern

whereas his eldest daughter was more chassidsh and frum ,

.
.

that explains how a chasidic rebbi took a university graduate as a son in law.

.

@sechel

j is quoted as saying to his disciples : I did not come to add or detract anything from torat mosheh

he did not serve avoda zara

he claimed not to have used kishuf only made miracles

what is your source for him having been a mumar ?
.
.

.

Mathematically if all Torah Jews in Israel would just vote as well as the Torah jews of the world just come to Israel and vote they would be hands down the largest and ruling party. Hence in this day and age no matter what the original founders if the state had in mind it is the Torah Jews who refuse to vote who are solely responsible for the continued secular rule in the state of Israel. In this day and age all the complaints of all the anti Israel public are 100% self inflicted.

[dovidf]

I would like to commend dovidf for this accurate and wise comment

we should all reflect on this very important point
.

.

@katan

@somejew

all psukim referring to tshuva are not a contradiction at all to possible human effort to bring geoula with human actions al yedei mashiach

rambam clearly quotes tshuva as needed for geoula

and clearly permits human endeavors as evidenced by bar kochba’s disqualification by rambam due to his death and not due to his human endeavors

.

.
r akiva was mistaken only in his believing bar kochba’s candidacy for mashiach, but not in anything else .

had b/k been mashiach , his human endeavors would have been perfectly acceptable.

thats all i wrote originally

and it stands .
.
.
.
rav henkin is not arguing with this at all.

.
think about it .

.

@qwerty

heard thar originally rashag was meant to be the rebbi of the habadi’s

rashag meaning r shmaryahu gourary , the first son in law of rayats

he was engaged to be married to rayats’s eldest daughter while rashab was still alive

rashab was rayats’s father and son of maharash , the youngest son of tsemah tsedeq

ramam [later morphed into maham shilo] did not see rashab , his shidduch did not merit rashabs blessing whereas rashags did.

the then rebbe rashab okayed the shidduch between rashag and rayats’s eldest daughter as rashag was at the time from the cream of the temimim .

temimim were the bachurim learning in the habad yeshivot in russia founded by rashab

rashab did not okay ramam’s shidduch because he was not alive when that happened

hard to believe he would have okayed that.

interesting to note that rashab left in his tsava’a an extra portion for the eldest of his granddaughters [the then kalla of rashag]

more than what was allotted for the other girls
.
.
.
.
.
.

@somejew
====================================================
….and now i’m trying to find any meforshim that have the same hava amina as you ….

—
it’s not a hava amina , rather it is a maskana.

its not the same as “me” , rather the same as the overwhelming majority of klal yisrael and their gdolei talmidei hahamim
===================================================
somejew:

I believe we can both agree on the following:
If there is an imminent threat to the life of a jew, one is allowed to stop the murderer, even in galus.
That is also allowed on shabbos, because of p/n.
One is not allowed to organize an army and fight a ruling non-jewish king, as that breaks the 3 shavuos.

ad kan divrei somejew
—

no , absolutely not

we totally cannot agree on your words
.
.

in the case of the tsorerim who come al iskei kash , mentioned in shulhan aruch . how exactly are you fighting them ?

only one man at a time ?

come on . there is a rabim who are coming and there is a rabim who are defending .

the rabim who are defending are told to do so by a certain non agadic sefer called shulhan aruch

written by the master of halacha , the bet yosef .

.
.

i rest my case.
==============================================

All your problems in understanding this berayta and psak in shulhan aruch stem from one source only :

– your insistence that

A] not like shut avnei nezer [sof YD] …. the shavu’ot are binding lehalacha

B] even if the 3 shavu’ot , would be binding lehalacha ,

pikuach nefesh , while docheh everything else , including actually swearing false or contravening a previous shavu’a
is for some mysterious reason not docheh those shavu’ot.

.
.
.
Change – for one moment only – your insistence about A and B ,

and you will see that all your problems in understanding the shulchan aruch , the tur , the rambam and the berayta will disappear in smoke.

.
.
.
try it .
.
.
.

@hakatan

…… there is still a very, very big difference between this group of minim who are mesisim uMedichim on the largest imaginable scale (the Zionists of course) versus a “mere” rasha (not a min, but a rasha).

ad kan divrei katan .
—

the russian tsar [and the russian empire] was a rasha merusha ,and caused much trouble beruchniyut uvegashmiyut, not less than the tsionim ,

and nevertheless , rav mibrisk credited his building of the Siberian railway for the rescue of thousands of yehudim [including the Mirrer yeshiva ,the only yeshiva to have collectively survived the war]

this is a good example of yachin rasha vetsadiq yilbash

any difference between the types of reshaim is only a consequence of your stubborn refusal to push the reset button on long held dogmatic belief

=============

katan:
For example, if a rasha builds some mansion – and nobody ever even heard of this rasha – then there doesn’t seem to be any concern that his rishus will be validated by his palace going to a tzaddik. Even if they did hear of him, people buy and sell houses all the time and almost nobody cares who originally built his house unless there is some prestige or other gain from that.

Whereas, if the Zionist State were to be the basis for the geulah (which is impossible, of course, but in theory, if it were), then it would clearly cast a positive light on that idolatry and heresy (which it factually is according to the Torah).

ad kan divrei katan
—

like the siberian railway does not “cast any positive light on that rasha merusha , the russian tsar”

and like the famous beit halevy who similarly explains that the reshaim the roman empire , who burnt our bet hamikdash and mass murdered our nation , do not get any s’char for their building highways and bridges which helped the yehudim of EY, , but was nevertheless an example of yachin rasha vetsadiq yilbash.

they do not get sechar because of their evil intentions

and the roman highways and bridges which helped the yehudim of EY , ” do not cast any positive light on that roman empire of rish’ut” either

and nevertheless factually still helped the yoshvei EY

same with the infrastructure built by the reshaim , the tsionim ” do not cast any positive light on the of rish’ut of mesitim umedichim” either

and nevertheless factually still helped and still helps the yoshvei EY the tsadiqim who still benefit from said infrastructure.

yachin rasha ve tsadiq yilbash.

.

no difference in the type of rasha , roman murderers or a murderous tsar or mesitim umadichim under the zionist guise , or communist guise or whatever guise.

yachin rasha vetsadiq yilbash

this principle applies , no difference who the rasha is .

==================================

katan:

….. , the Brisker Rav surely knew that Rambam at least as well as anyone today, and he still stated exactly what he did due to Chazal’s dictum that Hashem causes zechus to come from zakai, and the opposite from the opposite.

—

I do not believe rav mibrisk ever said it is impossible that any good could ever come from a rasha

evil romans and a despotic Russian tsar are excellent refutations of such a dogmatic approach.
============

katan :

…. The Satmar Rav actually went further and drew a kal vaChomer from min sheKasav Sefer Torah that it must be burned. If we need to go that far to ensure a min’s name is not relatively well-known, then surely Hashem will ensure that nothing (significant?) – he was referring to infrastructure, if memory serves – from the Zionists will remain when Moshiach comes.

ad kan divrei katan
—

a min who builds a house , the house has to be burnt ?

hordos was a ma’amin or a min ?

the building on top of me’arat hamachpela has to burnt ?

the stones of the kosel have to be burnt ?

moreover the second beit hamikdash after hordos’ renovation had to be burnt ?

by a sefer tora there are special requirements, absent in other places
======================

katan :
Finally, in addition to all that, the midrash notes that the final geulah is something that must come from Hashem alone, not from man’s efforts (other than Torah and mitzvos, of course).

ad kan divrei katan
—

we will need the exact source for such a medrash

.
.
.
.================================================
.
.
.

Hello

Mr somejew ??

.

to qwerty

you are right

harav mibrisk has been reliably quoted – when he read the first sicha of their rebbi , after they took the so called ‘nesi’ut hador’ from the rashag [r shmaryahu gurary] the oldest son in law of the rayats .

that this newly minted rebbi fantasizes that he is the mashiach

interesting how certain people can see things beshoresh while others barely see them even when begaluy.
.
.

@arso

@sechel

the question , to sechel , should be , and that’s arso’s intention [hope to have gotten this right]

was there a change in schar va ‘onesh , or not ?

not whether there was a change in circumstances .
.
.

@Katan

@BB

re a menuval being used for a yeshu’a

have a look in rambam hakdama le mishnayot where he writes that God will help a rasha to build a huge palace in order that a tsadiq will years later be able to rest in its shade

and finishes the rambam , that is the pshat in the pasuk ‘yachin rasha ,ve tsadiq yilbash’.
.
.
so according to rambam it is possible that a tsadiq would benefit from the menuval ,

and moreover , said menuval receives his siyata dishmaya in the merit of the tsadiq
.
.

Somejew disappeared …..

was that a disappearance because of lack of answers ?

who knows ….
.
.

@sechel

sechel:
Calling the rebbe a … Is apikorses

—-

I called him a non navi .

is that apikorses ?
.

@none

fyi be careful with your posts

tosefot yom tov made that connection , not just anyone

re your difficulty

heard r salamon explained that punishments came because of any averot , but in a normal setting people would pray

and thus avert the gzera

however if someone denigrates prayer , said prayer is powerless to help him , with the result that the punishment stays.

.
.