Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
by the way – it was the hilul hayadut that the so called neturei karta of the staiplers letter protested against what the staipler was praising
hilul shabat – pritsut – hilul kvarim – nituchei metim – chinuch likfira etc etc
not of any protests against the mere existence of the medina
there was no praise from him about that
he specifically mentions hizuk layahadut
nothing about their role in protesting against existence of the medina
.
.re rav kook— its not rav elyashiv the young bachur who is taken as proof
although rav elyashiv as chatan not a young bachur , probably could put many, many elderly people to shame …
it is rather his father and mechutan rav avrham elyashiv and rav aryeh levin the tsadiq of yerushalayim and the leshem his grandfather
who were ok with rav kook as mesader kidushin
and rav elyashiv himself as nonagerian who protested at any slight bichvodo shel rav kook
—
the difference between you and other commenters is that you cannot acknowledge any type of nuance
while reality and the whole world is full of nuances
.
.rav kook was controversial – yes
many disagreed with him – yes
many criticized him – yes
but at the same time – many held of him
and that is the meaning of the word ‘controversial’
why cant you acknowledge that ?
.rav shlomo zalman took his haskama for his ma’adanei erets and for his me’orei haeish
his son rav shmuel did not let the printers omit his haskama
these are facts and should be acknowledged
like the clear praise the emrei emet lavished on him – even while criticizing him in the same breath
.why do you insist on communist style censoring ?
.
.for your knowledge a picture of the leshem adorned the hafets hayims home …
.
.anyone who carefully reads the Steiplers letter will see his intent
the question was very clear
it was regarding participation in israeli elections
where the camps are delineated
on one hand – there is the aguda [then] which now includes shas degel and ets , who all agree in principle to the heter [or hiyuv] of participation
on the other hand – there is the edah haredit and the kana’im who all agree to the total issur of participation irrespective to any potential gains – it is non negotiable assur and that’s it
the answer given is clearly to follow the aguda approach and not the edah approach
qualified by the clear statement that the edah approach and their people are needed , chaviv , chashuv and should not change their shita
that is in essence the whole tshuva by the steipler
at no point in this tshuva does he discuss participation in holocaust denying conferences
nor participation in sonei yisrael demonstrations
he does employ the word neturei karta but it is abundantly clear from the context that he is not referring to any of the people who happen to demonstrate with sonei yisrael
or travel to holocaust denial meetings
he is referring to people who consider israeli elections as part of the 3 averot hamurot and therefore assur unconditionally.
all those who are really looking for the emet , will agree to what I wrote …
.
.
.have you read the titles rav mibrisk wrote to rav kook ?
have you read the titles the ba’al haleshem wrote to rav kook ?
both were written to rav kook in EY …
.do you know that rav kook was the mesader kidushin of both rav elyashiv and rav shlomo zalman auerbach ?
do you know that the sefer me’orei ha’eish of rav shlomo zalman has a haskama from rav kook
positioned IN FRONT OF rav yosef hayim zonnefelds ?
.do you know that rav shmuel auerbach refused the suggestion to omit rav kook’s haskama from the new edition of me’orei ha’eish ?
.do you know all those details and choose to ignore them ?
or did you just not bother to do the necessary research ?
.
.either way – it does not reflect very well ….
.
.
..
.@lerntmin
“Chabad mashpia Rabbi Yosef Paltiel, a popular “Stump the Rabbi” segment speaker, has said that Chabad chassidim primarily serve the Rebbe, and through serving the Rebbe they also serve Hashem.”
—you hit the nail on its head here .
this is one the main issues of habad’s divergence from torah true judaism
and one of the main sakanot of the future development of errant habad theology
.
.who knows where this is going to lead to , when new habad generations are going to arrive on the scene
never to have known those who still remember the flesh and blood version of their wrongly deified leader ….
.
.you are obfuscating …
we were discussing : A] the kfira of trinity and reform
not
B] mistakes in interpretation of the tora
or
valid machlokot within torah
the difference between A and B is of the magnitude as the difference between literally shamayim and arets
steipler classifies athaltah d/g belief as a mere mistake , not as “kfira”
whereas belief in trinity or reform is definitely full fledged “kfira”
.
.it is already high time to admit to the obvious , mr somejew …..
your credibility will be enhanced [even at this late stage] if you could find the inner fortitude to be modeh al ha’emet
whereas it will totally crash if you still cannot …..
.
.
.@aaq
ch’ch was betokfo in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s up until mid 1920’s.
thereafter his health declined , he was niftar in 1933
REW ‘s ma’marim were written in the mid and late 1930’s
different times , different situations
he always ran them past R Chaim Ozer , and at least once did not publish a maamar after RCH’O objected
.
.somejew claims that he “didn’t see anywhere that the Steipler says that NK are mistaken” ….
the Steipler writes:
[…]
……………בעיקר הדבר כך דעתי העניי נוטה שמצוה רבה להצביע לרשימה החרדית ושיש בזה ממש הצלת הדת לפי המצב כעת……
……..ומה ששמע מעלתו שיש איסורים בדבר…….
כתב מע’ שיש איסור בהצבעה מצד מודה בע”ז, והוא דבר שאין לו שחר, הלא המציאות בעוה”ר הוא שהשלטון בידם לע”ע ומחמת מציאות זו מצביעים ושותפים שומרי תורה להתם ע”ם להציל כפי האפשרי, ואיזו הודאה יש כאן שמסכים ברשעת הרשעים ח”ו בדעות טמאים שלהםוידע מע”כ שגם לצורך קנאות אסור לגלות פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה, ומה שאינו אמת אינו מצליח כלל
how can somejew not see which is obvious to all ???
NK clearly hold that participating in elections is prohibited , as the questioner to the steipler held
whereupon the steipler answers that this is a “davar she’ein lo shachar” ….
and labels that view as “giluy panim batorah shelo kehalacha”
and as “eino emet” and predicts that it therefore will be “eino matsliach klal”
.
.
in other words – as clear as can be : that according to staipler the NK and somejew are mistaken !and hold opinions against the torah !
which according to somejews own [convoluted and totally mistaken] reasoning is nothing less than kfira ?!
on par with trinity and reform ???!!!
.
.
nothing less than total absurdity …..
.
.somejew is [again] distorting the issues….
.
.kfira means – kfira in the 13 yesodot of judaism
for example trinity and reform
.
.mistake means wrongly interpreting the torah – which is a mistake but not kfira
for example beit shammai’s opinion of beit hillel’s shitah and vice versa
and all other machlokot within torah
and other mistakes not regarding the ikarim even when the propagator of the mistake is not a chacham
.
.
the above is pashut to any serious torah studentve’eino tsricha lifnim …
.
.@avi k
there is no indication whatsoever to be taken from the fact that hafets hayim approved of rav kook going into the rabinate
even if historically correct ,
towards any of his later sayings about hebrew university
or his actions while in the newly established rabbanut harashit
which made him controversial
those things happened only much , much later
.
.
.according to your own [faulty] reasoning , you should be ‘shocked’ whenever you look in the mirror …
.
.
.steipler clearly writes that the neturei karta are mistaken
according to your reasoning, where every mistake is considered ‘kefira’
it follows from the steipler , that the neturei karta are kofrim
so – simple logic – it follows then , that whenever you look in the mirror …. you are looking at a kofer …..
.
.
.770: A Mikdash or a Madhouse?
As an outsider, I think many of us view every habadi as both a Mikdash & a Madhouse.
There are different subgroups within every Chabadi , part of every habadi is a sincere Oveid Hashem in the traditional way while the other part is delusional, courtesy of their leader .
I don’t judge any habadi at all , as they all , including their leader , could be more beloved in shamayim than me.
We should not judge any yehudi because we do not have the keilim to judge anyone, but
we definitely should speak up whenever we encounter a falsification of our holy torah.
.
.
.@AAQ
you are overly blessed with naivete
keep it up ….
.
.I will repeat for the sake of clarity –
the zionism of today is squarely centered on EY .
and that was the intent of the original question , how is zionism of today against any of the ikarim ?
.
.there is no connection whatsoever between the neturei karta the steipler is referring too
and the wicked friends of ahmedinejad who traveled to his holocaust denying conference and
who demonstrate in front of the cameras together with people whose hands are stained with innocent yehudi blood
if you think they are one and the same
then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you to purchase
.
.
.which Rebetsin ?
.@AAQ
not sure why you keep on [deliberately ?] ignoring the multitudes who were forced away from religion by the medina ?
.
.@AAQ
Religious soldiers from the Givati Brigade’s advanced training course have recently been deployed in the city of Hebron, including securing the Cave of the Patriarchs and its surroundings.
The soldiers were assigned to joint guard shifts with female Border Police officers, without being given the option to choose an alternate assignment that would fit their religious way of life.
According to them, there was no prior offer to guard separately, and some were even surprised to find they had been assigned this way without being asked in advance. One of the soldiers said, “We received no offer to guard separately. They simply put us on shifts with female Border Police officers, which does not correspond to our way of life.”
The Hotem organization, which promotes traditional Jewish values, stated, “There is no responsible body in the IDF for the sanctity of the military, and the progressive agenda of gender mixing is given precedence and harms observant soldiers.”
“There is no way to speak about recruiting haredim into the IDF without respecting the observant soldiers who are already serving and giving their lives”
—
you cannot trust the IDF to accommodate religious soldiers .
this is happening again and again ….
.
.re mashiach – continuation :
A] just fyi : within DL circles , there are constant references about kdushat erets yisrael , the mitsvot of yishuv ha’arets and kibush ha’arets
this obviously could not be applicable at all , about any other land all over the globe.
.
.
.we are debating the definition of certain terms
in the course of this debate , you are very liberal in your use of all types of adjectives which are not at all necessary to our debate
and by the way also totally misplaced
—re mashiach , yes – any hazal not quoted by rambam in yad , there has to be a reason for the omission
all commentators on rambam over the generations worked hard to find explanations for rambams omissions in his yad
and if we cannot find a reason why the holy rambam omitted something , then the fault lies with us, not with the rambam
that’s the age old approach towards the words of rishonim who are kemalachim …
.
..
מי שסובר שהשינוי משלטון נכרים לשלטון חופשים ורשעים מזרע ישראל הוא אתחלתא דגאולה אינו אלא טועה אבל לא רשע ח”ו שיהא
מותר לדבר עליו להר”ר ולבזותו ברביםwhoever thinks that this government is athaltah d/g is only “mistaken” , but not a rasha has veshalom ….
its assur to speak lashon hara about him ….ad kan the staiplers words
comes somejew and ADDS to the staipler —- if he is “mistaken” , that means , according to somejew , that this should be classified as kfira ….
that’s quite a jump ….
Mr somejew –
a mistake is nothing more than a … mistake , but not kfira ….
.
.hatam soffer is reputed to have warned his talmidim : I do not care if you misappropriate and use my hidushim in your own name
but I do warn you : I will never tolerate you saying your own hidushim in my name …
that is , in essence , what somejew is doing here .
he inserts his own opinions in to the staiplers words , even though the staipler never said them
and then somejew turns around and ‘proves’ his own opinions are correct — you see , the staipler says the same ….
.
.bottom line, athalta d/g is not kfira , its a mistake
the proponent of athalta d/g, while mistaken, is not a kofer , not a rasha
he is kasher le’edut accepted by all rabanim and it is an issur hamur to speak ill of him
unlike , lehavdil , a proponent of the kfira of reform or the kfira of trinity, who is a clear kofer and passul le’edut all over the globe in all batei din
.
.
.
.I never said that athalta d/g is valid
like I never said that ka’as or anger is valid
.
.both are related to kfira to a certain degree
both are bichlal amitecha
both , there is a hiyuv gamur min hatorah to love them
both , there is an issur hamur not talk lashon hara about them
.
.
.
hu asher amartihu asher katuv bedivrei hastaipler
.
.while the factors you quote did exist ,
you are [deliberately?] ignoring the clear role zionism played in the decline of religion pre WW2 in eastern europe and in EY ….
.
.haavara plan was a ‘great success’ ….
—
one can wonder whether without the haavara plan , the nazi economy would have rebounded so quickly from the great depression ???
who knows ??
this rebounding, fueled subsequent nazi aggression ….
one of the mysteries of world history ….
.
.@AAQ
have a look in dugma midarkei avi , in the three volume set of sifrei hafets hayim
where hafets hayim’s son quotes his fathers opinion about the balfour declaration .
.
.rav kook is quoted by the imrei emet as saying about himself that he not a tsioni and also not a ‘mizrachist’ ….
printed in osef michtavim.
there might be other sources . I don’t know of them ….
.
.rav shlomo zalman was not ‘in favor of’ the state .
that is plainly inaccurate .
.
‘the aguda’ did not sign the decleration of independence. r yitshak meir levin signed in his personal capacity .he also happened to be the chairman of aguda.
those are the facts.
it is your interpretation that ‘the aguda’ signed .
stick to the facts , please , and then add the interpretation.
.
.some minor adjustments re your other definitions –
mashiach – rambam does not bring all of your descriptions in hilchot mlachim although they do appear in hazal .
could be he held that those left out are in dispute between various different hazal and thats why he left them out …
.
re galut – agree , but the gra said that after the shib’ud of the four malhuyot we will suffer from a shib’ud under the erev rav mizera yisraelwhich fits the present situation where the ma’aminim are a persecuted minority under erev rav kofrim mizera bnei yisrael.
that is also a form of galut
.
.disagree re definition of zionism
our dabate is about how to view the zionist of today – not the zionist of the congress of basel some 130 years ago.
the zionist of today is the one who advocates for a jewish state and its welfare in EY
no zionist today advocates for a state in uganda , birobidzhan or anywhere else.
this debate has to be had on a realistic basis .
that is today’s reality and our debate should reflect that reality.
.
.I cannot understand why you keep on misquoting the steipler as if he said that atchalta d/g is kfira ???
he NEVER said that .
aderaba — he says that it is NOT kfira.
honesty above all else ….
.
.
.has veshalom . I did not make anything up.
tanya writes that anyone who gets angry is kofer in hashgacha , because if would have proper emuna
he would realize that anything which happens is straight from the RBSHO ,
that’s the explanation of the connection between ka’as and avoda zara
nu , what do think , mr somejew ? does that mean that a ko’ess is yatsa michlal amitecha ?
has veshalom .
.similar thing is mentioned in writings of r chaskel levenstein , he says :
any avera is really kefira , because if he would have proper emuna and understands who the RBSHO really is
and what an avera really is , it would be impossible to do any chet at all
so again – what do think , mr somejew ? does that mean that anyone who committed one chet ,is yatsa michlal amitecha ?
has veshalom.
.
.as continuation of previous post …
its clear from the above that certain things could be called ‘kefira’
but they are not at the level of ‘kfira’ in the context of yatsa michlal amitecha
I think that what I wrote here , is pashut
it does not make a difference to me how you prefer to label those two different levels of kfira
the important fact here is that there are two levels of kfira , both are labeled as ‘kfira’
but have two different meanings depending on the context
so – how do we differentiate between the two ?
when does the word kfira mean the “trinity type” of kfira and
when does this word mean the “ka-as of the tanya” type of kfira ?
the answer is very simple – the proof is in the pudding
look at how halacha treats it , an ed who is a ko’es is kasher
whereas an ed who believes in trinity is pasul .
as simple as can be .
so the question is – what is our athalta d/g believer ? like a trinity believer , as katan would have us believe ?
again , the proof is in the same pudding – ALL rabanim and batei din agree , he is kasher le’edut !
so there you are – its not my psak , – it is the rabbanim’s psak ….
.
.
.@AAQ
your description of zionism and its supposed benefits are totally warped and not resemble reality at all.
as I told you many times … you jump to opinions first and only then to the facts .
with the result that you grossly misinterpret the facts
your said misrepresentation of the facts are subsequently used by you
to back up your previous opinions which were not based on objective facts in the first place….
in other words – until you do not change your modus operandi
you will be perpetually stuck in a self delusional world .
.
.… had the wicked Zionists not invaded and not agitated …
—
again ….. katan is not being honest here …
zionists did not ‘invade’ EY .
they immigrated .
huge difference .
katan should remember – even when he fights against evil [according to his opinion] he should stick to accuracy …
the facts don’t change according to ideology …
facts are facts … and should be quoted accurately .
.
.
.katan quotes selectively — that’s besides his frequent misrepresenting of basic facts and history .
he will never quote imrei emet in osef michtavim where writes in praise of rav kuk …
he will never quote imrei emet writing about political rights for the jews in EY as ‘tov’ …
he will never react to the essence of his opponent’s argument or logic
all katan does , is : repeat , repeat … and again repeat his obsolete cliche’s
he seems a very nice guy as a person , but a terrible debater …
.
.…. as per the gimmel shevuos which are, of course, fully in effect according to all.
—joke of the century ….
“according to all” should be rephrased as — “according to Satmar Rav and other chashuva rabbanim … ”
but according to avnei nezer , rav zevin , possibly ohr sameach , and according to shulhan aruch , tur and rambam [acording to avnei nezer] , the pashtut of rav chaim vital — not .
high time to be honest …
.repeat –
high time to stop burying your head in the sand
.no rav no dayan , no bet hora’a anywhere on the globe ever considered a get with fully frum RZ witnesses as pasul
the subsequent children are kesherim lavo bakahal
this psak is supported by REW z’l , the source you yourself are relying on ….
.
whereas a get with fully shomrei mitsvot believers in catholicism as edim is pasul in ALL batei din around the globe
the subsequent children are proper mamzerim and pesulim lavo bakahal
.
.
someone who gets angry is connected to a’z
RZ is connected to a’z [according to REW z’l]both in a hashkafic sense
with a hiyuv min hatorah to love both of them
.catholicism is a’z in a halachik sense
with no hiyuv .
.huge difference.
.
.
.Why is katan totally ignoring the substance of this post ???
.
.
.it is Strange for me how you regularly confuse the distinction between halachik terms and haskafic terms
halacha is absolute
someone who believes in halachik avoda zara is halachically not amitecha , no issur lashon hara
someone who believes in haskafic “kefira” is halachically included in amitecha , with an issur lashon hara.
he has hashkafot pesulot but we are mehuyav to love him , EVEN IF THERE ARE NO EXCUSES OF TINOK SHENISHBAH or other excuses…
that’s what the staipler writes .
athaltah d/g is a hashkafa pesula and is wrong , but that hashkafa is not considered halachik kefira
therefore its forbidden to speak lashon hara about him , as he is included in amitecha
whereas believing in the trinity is halachik kefira and takes the person out of amitecha and therefore its permitted to speak lashon hara about him.
whatever I wrote is not my chidush , it is merely a quote from the staipler
and is accepted practise in all batei din all over the globe
all rebbeim of gur without exception [!] consider all fully frum dati leumi jews as halachically included in ‘amitecha’
even a ten year old knows that
and that is referring to fully frum mizrachisten with kipot serugot halacha lema’aseh here and now .
.
.
to dispute that , is like disputing that the sun exists ….
.
.
.somejew > Gulis : This definition aligns very well with the makoros in Torah that point out that the gulis of buvel has never yet fully ended (as Bais Sheni was not fully independent from shibid malchiyis).
—Have a look at rashi sanhedrin 97 where he explains that many years of bayit sheni period was characterized by ‘kavod’ because they were politically independent and self governing … without shibud malhuyot .
—
umipnei chata’enu galinu me’artsenu venitrachaknu …. galut translates as exile in english
but you are correct that there are added meanings to the term galut as is mentioned by the gra that after the 4 galuyot under the 4 malhuyot, there will be a fifth galut under the erev rav mizera bnei yisrael , which came true in our days in EY itself
so we do see that galut could be in EY itself too.
there was a gezera min hashamayim of exile and shib’ud malhuyot , as evidenced by the facts on the ground and as stated by hazal.
.
.Re the definition of zionism
You are correct about their founders view about a state not in EY .
However he was overruled at the time , and now no one is even dreaming about a state anywhere else.
the zionism of today is squarely centered on EY .
and that was the intent of the original question , how is zionism of today against any of the ikarim ?
.
.Dear square root
you want me to quote the page no ?
I want you to recant or delete you motsi shem ra rant about haredim ….
deal ???
.
.AAQ
you misunderstand my point
this expansion of self appropriated power by the SC, not authorized by the sovereign , is clearly illegal
there are no two ways about it
if they overstep their authority they are illegal
if they act within their authority they are legal
all talk about coalitions and comparisons to other systems is nothing more than irrelevant hot air
the current draft is based on this very same expansion of self appropriated power by the SC, not authorized by the sovereign
so the current draft is plainly illegal
basic reasoning , based on cold reality
.
now , how to deal with said reality ….
sorry again , but naive unrealistic nice sounding slogans are not going to help one iota …..
this boils down to a battle of wills
with the necessary syata dishmaya and required mesirut nefesh the battle will be won .
there is no other realistic option .
.
.
.@AAQ
AAQ> Maybe we can surmise from Rambam himself, as he says “like in our generation” but does not spend his whole lfe in the desert. He runs away from the prosecutions, then lives in a college town for some time (Fes), and then worked in the City as a doctor, having a house in Jewish suburbs.
—total rubbish – sorry
rambam for sure practised what he preached
if he did not go to the midbar , MUST BE that his generation were not a generation consumed by sin , forcing others to participate .
.
.
.Your post Re Katan – is a Correct observation
.
.@AAQ
Is it mutar to propagate something that is not emes?
“arrested for blowing shofar” is clearly emes.
Why is AAQ pretending that that the Israeli police are tsadiqim ?
It sounds great but are we really ready to say anything, emes or not, in order to cause outrage in gullible readers?
.
.qwerty is right in this point
when you learn the utterances and writings of their leader properly ,
all of those erliche habad groups do represent real habad ideology
.
.as continuation from previous post :
Since the Staipler never said anything of the sort , your whole torah you built on this , is totally baseless
what remains as fact is what steipler really wrote
a frum person believing in athalta d/g is not a kofer , there is a hiyuv min hatorah to love him , veahavta lereacha kamocha
no matter what type of kipa adorns his head ….
—
by the way- this is practiced halacha lemaaseh by all batei din all over the globe ….
.
.
.somejew > The Steipler clearly agrees with the premise that the DL claim of “aschula d’geila” is itself kefira …
—
this is sheker .Steipler never wrote that.
.
.