Thursday, August 10, 2023

Satmar Rav says Six Day War victory was natural - without Divine Providence

 It seems that the Satmar Rebbe is saying that the 6 Day War victory was entirely natural - no miracles and no hashgocha protis. To ascribe it to a miracles is "maaseh Satan" i.e., an erroneous perception which causes major theological damage. He is not necessarily saying that Satan did these miracles. This is similar to the Novominkser Rebbe saying that the Gra's opposition to Chassidus was "maaseh Satan". Not that it originated with Satan but that it was a serious mistake with disastrous consequences and thus served Satan's purposes. However I have no problem understanding the way the gedolim of the Aguda understood it - i.e., it originated with Satan. It is rather a small difference between saying that when some error serves a negative purpose we use the idiom of "maaseh Satan" to describe it and saying that Satan actually caused the error.  See -  G-d does-miracles-even-for-irreligious

hhttp://www.baismedrash.com/2011/01/the-satmar-rebbes-position-on-the-six-day-war


Satmar Rebbe(Divrei Yoel Behaloscha page 304): Would you even imagine that there would be empty headed fools that while they call themselves religious but the smell of heresy wafts from their mouths and they fool the whole world with their announcements about miracles [during the Six Day War] – G‑d save us. If in fact these were miracles it would have been much worse. That is because there is bitter retribution to the Jewish people when G-d does miracles from the aspect of evil as the Maharal mentioned before stated. However in truth there were no miracles here at all [concerning the Six Day War]. It was simply a natural occurrence as can readily be seen from the discussions in the newspapers that it was assumed that [Israel] would be victorious. I have already stated that I am fearful – G‑d forbid – for the time when actual miracles are done for them. If at this time when in truth there were no miracles and yet this great evil befell them, then surely if there had been miracles done for them that it would have brought about severe suffering as we mentioned above. From this we see the extreme degree of their cruelty and evil. That even though it was reasonable that [Israel] was going to win the war, nevertheless the Jewish people were in great danger. Nevertheless they placed the Jewish people in this danger for the sake of their glory and for the sake of their governing. Because it was obvious to those with understanding that [Israel] had the ability to completely prevent the war. There were a number of alternatives and circumstances regarding preventing the war, but this is not the place to go into detail. Nevertheless someone who has eyes will see that there is no doubt about this. In fact it was the filth of heresy that blinded their eyes and made them act in an irresponsible and irrational manner..


Satmar Rebbe(Divrei Yoel #7 Shelach page 415): From here we see clearly that one shouldn’t talk about miracles done by Satan. One should avoid it to what ever degree that is possible. That is because this type of talk causes error and misleads the foolish to say that there is such a thing. And even if in truth miracles were done, it is necessary to conceal this fact and describe events in natural terms to the degree that it is possible because of the concern for the negative consequences which might come from it. Unfortunately due to our great sins, the opposite is done. People talk about and publicize miracles of Satan which in fact have no basis in reality. They are nothing more than phony miracles that are presented in order to fool the masses and to attract them to heresy and rebellion against G‑d and His holy Torah. Thus it is necessary for all Jews to avoid talking about the miracles of [Israel] so that they don’t have a part in the denial of G‑d and His holy Torah. Concerning victory in war, it clear from the words of the ancients in many places that it is not considered a type of miracle – even if the few defeat the many. And even the miracle of Chanukah in which the Chashmoneans defeated the vastly greater force of Greeks – even so the commemoration of Chanukah was not established because of the miracle of military victory but rather for the miracle of the oil. The Pri Magadim explains in the laws of Chanuka that it was because military conquest is not in the category of miracle since it appears to be totally natural. That is because there are times that it is natural for the few to vanquish the many even when they are greatly outnumbered. We can related this to the issue of this war of the Zionists with the Arabs.There was not even the slightest miracle because the Zionists were skilled in battle as opposed to the Arabs who were not real soldiers. The secular writers of those days testifiy that they knew from the start that the Zionists were going to win and thus the victory was according to nature. However due to our many sins we see that the heretics brag about their strength and their weapons and they do not believe at all in miracles. It is only the religious Jews who are attracted to these Zionists who loudly proclaim that it was miraculous in order to fool the world. Therefore we are obligated to deny and reject their words. [See Ahl HaGeula v’ahl HaTumra starting with simon 7)


Satmar Rebbe<(Ahl HaGeula v’ahl HaTemura simon 7): The consequences of all that we have discussed up to this point is that victory in war has nothing to do with miracles but is entirely natural. This is true even if a larger force is defeated by a smaller one and a stronger force is defeated by a weaker one… So surely concerning our topic of the war of the Zionists with the Arabs – there was not the slightest hint or scent of miracle. Because it is well known that Arabs and the descendants of Yishmael are not good soldiers and they fulfill the beracha that Avraham gave to Yishmael that he would fall before all his brothers…Therefore it is clear that there was not the slightest involvement of miracles in their defeat in war rather it was entirely natural. We have the testimony of many experts and government leaders that was published in the secular newspapers of that time which clearly foretold that the Arabs would not win a war because they were not good soldiers. I remember that in Israel prior to the founding of the State of Israel that the Zionist leaders gloated that they weren’t afraid of war with the Arabs even though they were numerically superior. These leaders explained that the nature of the Arab is to flee and escape from the sword of battle. But now the Zionist leaders are saying the opposite in order to blind the eyes and to exaggerate the victory by claiming false miracles and other things. They bribe the newspaper to write what they want to write in order to magnify their victory and their might. But it is clear that there is not even a whiff of truth in what they say about this. All of this is well known and there really should be no need to belabor the point nevertheless…I am belaboring this point…because of the great blindness in the contemporary world. Satan is becoming stronger and he is manifested in those religious Jews who are attracted to Zionism. Even to the degree that they announce that belief in the supposed miraculous victory is required and one of the foundations of faith. As if to say that whoever does not believe in their miracles is a heretic in their eyes. And they announce publicly and openly heretical words that these “miracles” were greater than the miracles done for those who were redeemed from Egypt…


Satmar Rebbe(Ahl HaGeula v’ahl HaTemura #86): It is one of the kindnesses of G‑d that He hasn’t tested us with tests that are so severe because there have not yet been open miracles. All their publicity and stories about their miracles are only false illusions that blind the eyes. Satan has been satisfied with that which the religious Jews who are attracted to Zionism have described as miracles. This has been enough to blind the eyes of a generation as weak and lowly generation as ours. However I am still afraid of what will happen in the future. I hope that it won’t come to this and that we won’t be tested from Heaven with different and powerful tests… In general a person needs to know that he should not be excited and impressed with any miracle or sign and wonder or success of the wicked or their ilk. That is because all of them are only tests from Satan…

163 comments :

  1. Israel began the 6-day war with its bombing campaign. Presumably Israel knew it could be victorious when it initiated the war campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bordering on kefira

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for posting this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again and again, over and over.

    A dass yachid he was and continues to be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So according to the satmar rebbe G-d killed 6 million yidden but G-d did not save 4 million yidden? Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The vast majority of the Gedolim agreed with him about Zionism being 100% treif. Many may have disagreed with him how to handle the Zionists after-the-fact of the state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The victory of the Hasmoneans over the Greeks was also natural and not Divine Providence, right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. chanuka said...

    The victory of the Hasmoneans over the Greeks was also natural and not Divine Providence, right?
    ======
    that is in the piece I hope to have ready tomorrow

    ReplyDelete
  9. Recipients and PublicityNovember 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM

    "Daas Yochid said...Israel began the 6-day war with its bombing campaign. Presumably Israel knew it could be victorious when it initiated the war campaign."

    Too bad you know nothing about the history of those times, nor about history in general it seems.

    First of all look up the term "casus belli" as it applies to international diplomacy and affairs.

    Secondly, try to read up "why" things happen in history, not just childish memories. You may find this informative: "Origins of the Six-Day War" (Wikipedia).

    The coup that brought to power Egypt's demagogic and antisemitic Colonel Gamal Abdul Nassser signaled trouble from the beginning as he constantly beat the war drums against Israel. He wanted to avenge Egypt's humiliating defeats in the 1948 and 1956 wars with Israel.

    Then Nasser set about creating a political and military union and pact with Israel's northern enemy, the Syrian military dictatorship that was also viciously antisemitic.

    In the weeks and months prior to the 6 Day War it was Egypt that forced Israel's hand when Egypt kicked out the UN monitors keeping the peace between Egypt and Israel, and the UN head U Thant went along with it.

    The straw that broke the camel's back and made war inevitable was the May 1967 shutting of the Straits of Tiran to Israel's shipping by Egypt, a complete closure and blockade of the Gulf of Akaba that was a hostile and provocative act (casus belli). This meant that Israeli ships could not use Israel's southern port of Eilat and it also meant that Egypt banned Israeli shipping from passing through the Suez Canal in the days before the 6 Day War. (Look up the geography of that part of the world and you will get some idea of what Israel had to deal with.)

    Not to mention the ongoing infiltration of Egyptian armed and trained terrorist Fedayeen (the forerunner to the PLO) from Egypt/Gaza into Israel killing dozens of Israeli civilians.

    Of course, the Soviet Union was also to blame because it armed and trained Egypt and Syria to the teeth with the most lethal modern planes, tanks and assorted weaponry.

    So Israel decided it was not going to wait to get murdered, very similar today's situation with the problems Israel faces from Iran and its proxies Hamas in Gaza and Hizbola in Lebanon.

    It helps to know the metzius and the facts and not just to spout off verbiage in defense of politically correct opinions devoid of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chashgachas pratis goes both ways.
    You can't be taken seriously if you claim that when things go your way it's God's will but when they don't, well that's just random luck. Is God a part-time manager of the universe?
    If I were to say: Yeah, the Holocaust just happened but the State of Israel? Clear proof of God's intervention in history! - would anyone take me seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  11. To Recipients and Publicity:

    I suppose that the Satmar Rov's secret plan would have been that the Jews leave EY.

    Then, there would have been no reason for war. (To the SR's mind)

    Or the medina would disband and give the keys to the keneset to the Egyptians.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm so glad the anon chachomim here as oh-so-much wiser than the SR zt'l.

    ReplyDelete
  13. why post about this at all?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Baruch Spielberg:

    Tell us who CAN disagree with the SR? Do you think any of us are following those views? Sheesh

    ReplyDelete
  15. Englishmen: We are not talking about the kashurut or treifus of ZIONISM, we are quoting the words of the SR regarding the "Miracles that the Yidden of Eretz Yisrael" experienced in the 6 day war.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sure we are talking about the treifus of Zionism. Otherwise why are we arguing over whether it was a miracle or not?

    ReplyDelete
  17. These comments from the SR seem to address why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people. According to the SR, G-d punishes the good, and Satan rewards the bad.

    Does the SR teach Shema yisroel, H our G-d, H is One. . .and Satan is 2? Who is being heretical here?

    Of course SR ends his rant with fear in order to intimidate his chassidim so that they should never look at the dati-leumi with anything but horror, waiting for his prophecies to come true that terrible things will happen to those tzionie people (who love the land that H gave us, and who love and respect their fellow jews, and who serve their country to help and protect the Jewish people.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Recipients and PublicityNovember 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM

    Can someone define what they mean when they use the term "Zionism" please? Is living in Eretz Yisroel "Zionism"? I wanting to move to Eretz Yisroel "Zionism"? How about when using Israeli hospitals is that "Zionism"? Is relying on the Israeli army to keep the borders of Israel safe from Arab invasions "Zionism"? If one uses El Al airlines to get in and out of Israel is that "Zionism"? There are just so many definitions that it's confusing.

    For some people the word "Zionism" means hating anyone who is not like themselves -- no different when some folks use the term "Haredi" they mean that they hate anyone not like themselves.

    It seems this more about mental conditions and flaws in human character than about any real political issues.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The sources you are translating are those sources posted on the website -
    http://www.baismedrash.com/2011/01/the-satmar-rebbes-position-on-the-six-day-war/

    that a commenter cited on your last post on this topic. Perhaps it would be appropriate to mention that in order to give credit for the research.

    And if you read the rest of the sources quoted there (that you did not translate yet - form the introduction to Al Hageula) you will find that the Satmar Rebbe never said what Rabbi Levine quoted in his name. You misunderstood this as well. He never said that the salvation of the Jews in the 6 day war was a Maaseh Satan in any manner at all. He said clearly that the Jews were saved in the merit of the Tzadikim and they were put in danger because of the Zionists. The Maaseh Satan was that the salvation of the Jews that came through Hashem was used by the Satan to portray false Nissim and convince people to accept Zionism.

    The saving of the Jews was not the Satan. That was G-d. The fact that G-d's act was twisted into being perceived as miracles that seem to favor Zionism - that was the Satan. So that quote at the Agudah convention was a distortion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Guest: Who is Rabbi Levine? And which Agudah quote was a distortion? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am not Guest but Rabbi Itche M Levine was the one in law of the Gerrer Rebbe. The Brisker Rav had many negative things to say about his honesty.

    The misquote is what R, Levine said:

    "When Jews are killed it is the act of Hashem but when Jews are saved then it is the act of the Satan?" He said that in public at the Agudah convention, which was his "kashya" on what the Satmar Rebbe said about the 6 day war, which is what supposedly led R. Yaakov Kamenetsky to agree with him.

    But that was a misquote of the Satmar Rebbe. He did not say that the saving of Jews came from the Satan nor was it a "maaseh Satan." He said that the saving of the Jews in the 6 day war came from Hashem, but the boost that Zionism got because of that was the doing of the Satan. The Satan twists things that Hashem does and makes them seem different than they are. The Satan twisted the natural military victories of the Israelis into looking like some miraculous event which resulted in great boost for Zionism.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "...they fulfill the beracha that Avraham gave to Yishmael that he would fall before all his brothers..."

    Where is this in the Chumash?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The time is long overdue that the Satmar Rav's blatant distortions of history AND of halacha should be exposed and condemned, along with his incitement of hatred among Jews.

    Any accurate history of the Six Day War will describe how the Israeli army and air force were greatly outnumbered by the military forces of 11 Arab countries plus the PLO. The claims that the Jews were confident about winning a war against all the Arab states are blatantly false - see the sixdaywar web site by CAMERA.

    Despite the overwhelming odds, with Hashem's help the Jews won a great victory and caused massive casualties to their enemies.

    Several months ago I met a young Baal Tshuvah who told me his Satmar family went completely off the derech of Judaism after seeing how the anti-Zionist Hungarian rebbes discouraged them from leaving Hungary during the war.

    In the sefer Eim HaBanim Semeichah (available on the Internet) the gadol Rav Shlomo Teichtal accused certain anti-Zionist Jewish leaders of having Jewish blood on their hands. Perhaps its time to shine a spotlight on the role of the Satmar Rav in discouraging Hungarian Jews from fleeing the Nazis during WWII.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I was told by someone who used to be a satmar chassid, that what motivated the satmar rebbe to put out these writings was that there were many satmar chassidim who were celebrating when Israel won the war.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 
    betzalel said...

    "...they fulfill the beracha that Avraham gave to Yishmael that he would fall before all his brothers..."

    Where is this in the Chumash?


    Bereishis (25:17-18)

    17. And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty seven years; and he expired and died; and was gathered to his people.
    18. And they lived from Havilah to Shur, that is before Egypt, as you go toward Assyria; and he fell in the presence of all his brothers.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have trouble understanding how the SR's shita over here is taken so seriously. Was he that chashuv as a talmid chacham that the seemingly loony things he says have to be taken seriously? Or do people really think they make sense (???)

    ReplyDelete
  27. sb said...

    I have trouble understanding how the SR's shita over here is taken so seriously. Was he that chashuv as a talmid chacham that the seemingly loony things he says have to be taken seriously? Or do people really think they make sense (???)
    =================
    He was that chashuv a talmid chachom that one is required to understand what he is saying and not simply dismissing it as you do.

    I am not aware of anyone who wasn't strongly impressed by him - even when they disagreed with him.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rabbi Eidensohn

    Thank you for that link. I never knew any of this about the Satmar Rav's shitoh. It is the exact opposite of what I have heard all my life.

    RebMoshe,

    The link provided by Rabbi Eidensohn also has information showing that Israel was indeed the militarily stronger side in the 6-day war and that all the military experts including Israeli ones knew that Israel would win. This is also different than what I was taught all my life. Thank you again, rabbi.

    http://www.baismedrash.com/2010/12/%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%92%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/

    He has a link from the CIA's website showing formerly classified documents stating that American intelligence said that Israel could beat all the Arab armies put together in about 7-9 days! Even if the Arabs would attack first!

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

    The fact that the Satmar Rav knew this on his own is a perfect example of the power of "Daas Torah", and is therefore a perfect post for this wonderful website!

    ReplyDelete
  29. rav tiectal says in aim habanim to come ro israel but HALILLA to make a madina and be over the 3 oaths.
    he never accused any rabbis of having blood in their hands .that was a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If the Arabs are such bad soldiers, then how were they able to conquer half the world in the Middle Ages?

    Was that just hashkaga protis?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Excellent post. Debunks many propaganda myths perpetuated by Zionists. The 6-day war a miracle? That's a joke. Read the sources linked by Reuven Moshe. It was no miracle. Another interesting myth busted by Rabbi Shapiro on that site is the expose of the widely circulated myth by Zionists that West Point does not teach about the 6-day war because "it was a miracle and there is nothing to teach." West Point Military Series which are books telling about the training that West Point gives their soldiers has chapters on the 6-day war right next to the Korean War. They explain it strategically and naturally. It was a good win, but no miracle.

    And I am glad that the propaganda about the Satmar Rebbe's opinion is being debunked as well.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Reply to a Comment Above:
    "rav tiectal says in aim habanim to come ro israel but HALILLA to make a madina and be over the 3 oaths."

    The statement about Rav Teichtal is false. There's no mention in Eim Ha Banim Semeichah of any ISSUR to make a medina (state).

    The Satmar Rav relies on a rejected opinion of the Megillas Esther. Rav Teichtal states "All of the great poskim who came after the Megillat Esther rejected his opinion, because it has no basis or substance." (p.229) See Pitchei Teshuvah, Even HaEzer 75:6.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The exact location is part 3:21 page 176 in my edition

      Delete
  33. It is a known and recordable fact that Israel was militarily at a disadvantage in 1967, to rewrite history in order to fit in with a Rav's shitah is called REVISION.

    As many of the Rabbonim declared after the war, the miracles bestowed by Hashem was to ignite the TSHUVA MOVEMENT. (see Reb Noah's writings)

    I fail to understand the obsession with the writings, thoughts or shitas of the Satmar Rav. Those who are intellectually curious, open Rav Kasher's sefer on HaGeulah, which is the only sefer written to debate (debunk) the mar mekomose of the SR. Then come to a conclusion....hearing one side of the story is 1/2 honest.

    ReplyDelete
  34. rav tiectal certanly holds,
    of the 3 oaths as binding...you can use the index and find
    it ...the bikies comes from parsha pearles of the naturna site.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Rabbi Teichtel was a small-town rabbi before the war, who wasn't well-known in world Jewry. He was never considered a godol. He was only elevated by the religious zionists after the war when they were desperately looking for halachic support for their positions. Ironically, he was a chasidic rov.

    ReplyDelete
  36. RebMoshe:

    Rav Teichtel's treatment of the Megilas Esther is terribly incorrect and misleading.

    He writes (p. 149, 150) that the Megilas Esther bases his opinion on Tosfos in Kesuvos 110b in the name of Rabeinun Chaim that nowadays there is no Mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisroel. Then he says:

    "However, ALL THOSE WHO FOLLOWED TOSFOS REJECTED THE WORDS OF RABBEINU CHAIM FROM HALACHAH, see Shelal...."

    Now he is correct that the Shelah disagrees with Tosfos, which makes it a Machlokes, which we all knew before. There are those who reject the Tosfos, for sure. But his statement that all subsequent authorites rejected Tosfos from Halachah is simply a joke. The follwoing is a partial list of places where you see he just isnt telling the truth:


    (1) The Taz (EH 75) brings the Tosfos without mentioning any opposing positions, indicating that he rules like Tosfos l'halachah

    (2) Kneses Hagedolah (EH 7 Hag' BY 20) brings many poskim that rule l'halachah like Tosfos

    (3) Noda Beyehuda (206) writes that the reason the Baalei Tosfos lived in Chutz La'Aretz and not Eretz Yisroel was b/c they held l'halachah like Rabbeinu Chaim.

    (4) Tumas Yeshorim 66 quoted in B'er Haitev EH 75 defends Tosfos' position l'halachah and says since it is a legitimate Machlokes, nobody can demand that someone go to Eretz Yisroel if he doesnt want to.

    (5) Korban Nisanel (Kesuvos 110b) brings the Machlokes Tosfos and Rambam both as legitimate opinions

    (6) Bais Shmuel (Even Haezer 75:20) brings both Tosfos and his opponents l'halachah.


    Now these sources are not really big secrets. Its unlikely that Rabbi Teichtel did not open a Shulchan Aruch to see the Taz and Piskei Tshuva etc. This is simply more dishonesty, hiding information from the reader in order to come up with his predetermined conclusion.

    Please do not accept the Sefer AIm HaBanim Semeichah as a serious Halachic work.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Sefer AIm HaBanim Semecha doesn't contain anythign new. It's a collection of all the old Zionist arguments that have long been disproven. The truth is, his position stood no chance to begin with, because even though Rav Teichtel was a Talmid Chacham, he was opposing the collective Torah knowledge of the greatest Torah giants, including but not limited to Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh, The Chofetz Chaim, the Rogachover Gaon, The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rashab), the Belzer Rebbe (R. Yisachar Dov), the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky, all who were opposed to Zionism and the creation of a State. So he was really quite outgunned from the start.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It is not even taken seriously outside of Zionist circles, because it is mostly emotional sermons and discourses (droshos), rather than a serious Halachic analysis.

    It’s an emotional outcry in response to the holocaust (he dates the introduction Parshas Tetzaveh 1943) and its clear that he was talking out of desperation for finding a safe haven for Jews, which many felt Eretz Yisroel would be. He confuses his personal feelings with Halachic methodology, Rebbishe vertlach with Halachic rulings, and so is not at all compelling.

    Example: On page 147 he addresses a powerful statement in Ahavas Yonason by R. Yonason Eyebuschitz ZT"L that it is absolutely prohibited for Jews to take over Eretz Yisroel before Moshiach, even if all the nations want them to, which is kind of a problem for a religious Zionist like Rabbi Teichtel.

    This is his response: "You should understand that the words of Rav Yonason only apply when there is no sign from heaven that we should all abandon the lands of Chutz Laaretz, meaning, when Jews can live peacefully outside of Eretz Yisroel ... but not nowadays, when the words of the prophet came true, [that Jews will be hunted down by goyim]. So when the nations give us permission to return to our land, can there be any doubt that it is the will of Hashem that we return to Eretz Yisroel? I am certain, that if Rav Yonason Eyebushitz was living with us today and saw the terrible golus that we endure, he himself would say to us: 'Brother Jews! The time has come for you to go to Eretz Yisroel, for this is the will of Hashem, for it is not coincidence what has happened to us in Golus, but rather it is the finger of G-d pointing to us to rise from golus..."

    Ok. Now, of course, even in the days of Rav Yonason (about 250 years ago) Jews were persecuted, and all throughout Golus they were, too. Yet Rabbi Teichtel decided that he knows how to quantify the measure of suffering that Jews are expected to tolerate in Golus, and what on the other hand is a “sign from Hashem" for them to return. He decided that he can read Hashem’s signs and that this, for sure, is what our suffering means.

    Where did he get this scale? Nowhere. He decided it on his own. He and only he decided that this "sign from Hashem" tells us that the Golus is over.

    Well, he can read whatever he wants into "signs from Hashem," but this "sign from Hashem" has no Rashi or Tosfos to tell us how to interpret it. Nor did Hashem tell him how to read history, nor does he have any sources that his is the proper reading.

    Since when do we pasken sheailos based on personal feelings? It’s a nice sermon, but Halachicly it means nothing. Yet to him, not only is it Halachicly binding on everyone, but it "there is no longer any room for doubt".

    And it gets much, much, worse. This attitude that "everyone has to interpret the world the way I do" often passes the line into the realm of the absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  39. On page 98 he deals with the Minchas Elozor, who was a vehement opponent of Zionism. He was vehemently critical in general, actually, when it came to protecting the Torah. And nobody was beyond his scrutiny. Here are some quotes:

    “ ’Whoever becomes an leader in this world becomes evil in the next world’ (Rambam, Tur). The world explains this to refer to the lay leaders, like presidents of congregations, which in many congregations this is true. But if we’re going to talk about our generation and our days, it can be referring to the Rabbonim as well, unfortunately …” – Divrei Torah III:47

    “ ‘Whevener there are Reshaim in the world, there is suffering in the world. Who are Reshaim? The robbers.’ (Sanhedrin 113b). This is referring to the fake leaders who “rob” the truth form the people, because they act like Tzadikim and act for their own benefit. They prevent the redemption. Hashem should save us from them.” – ibid 58

    “There are Rebbes (“admorim”) who are fakers, they make believe they are Tzadikim, are meyached yichudim, and dress like Rebbes or rabbis. This is all the doing of the Satan in order to bring the public (followers) to sin” – ibid V:82

    “The reason why Jews in Germany can learn heresy and still remain religious is because they are like the people who are immune to poison because they are used to drinking it and so have so much of it in their system. So too the German Jews, they are soused to the poison of secularism since they are habituated in it from childhood little by little, that this does not hurt them. That is why they are immune to the bad influence of the Mizrachi and the Agudah as well.” – ibid IV:93

    “’And you shall love your neighbor like yourself’ - this means, just like there are different parts of you that you care about more – for instance, you care more about heaving your head than your feet – so too we love the Tzadikim more than we do others. The lowest level is those who are like our fingernails, also part of us, but we clip them off and discard them. These people too are like fingernails that need to be separated from the rest of us, and this is for the benefit of Klall Yisroel.” – ibid II:39

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anyway, the following is Rabbi Teichtel’s explanation of why The Minchas Elozor was against “Yishuv HaAretz”. I promise I am not making this up:

    First, he tries to establish that whether the redemption will come miraculously or slowly and naturally depends on whether Moshiach’s coming will be because we “deserve it” (“zachah”) – in which case it will be miraculous, or because Hashem sent it to us despite our not deserving it, in which case it will be natural. Then he says, quote:

    “And with this we have an open response to the entire objection of our master and rebbi, the holy scholar, the Minchas Elozor ZT”L of Munkatch, regarding being involved with building the land. For I myself was one of his group, and I knew that his entire objection was base don the fact that the redemption is going to come miraculously, not naturally … But his honor remains intact, for he on his high level believed that the entire world is on the high level where they deserve Moshiach, like he was. But the truth is that this last generation, unfortunately, not deserving of Moshiach, and therefore the redemption will come couched in natural methods.” – Aim Habanim Semechah p.98

    I promise I did not make that up. In other words, the Minchas Elozor mistakenly and naively thought the whole world was Tzadikim like he was, but in reality he didn’t understand that the world doesn’t really deserve Moshiach.

    Now never mind how Rabbi Teichtel decided he can judge the world and decide whether they deserve Moshiach or not; never mind that he has not one Halachic shred of evidence to back up this position of his; but to say that the Minchas Elozor naively looked at the whole world as much more righteous than they actually are, as deserving of redemption when in fact they don’t deserve it, is beyond ludicrous. It’s downright absurd, and for anyone who knows anything about the Minchas Elozor, totally dishonest. If there was one person in the past hundred years who we would say is not guilty of over rating the world, it could very well be the Minchas Elozor. If he’s not first on the list, he’s second.

    And to attribute such an attitude to him of all people, is nothing less than the stuff of la la land.

    And that’s besides the arrogance of saying that he is more able to discern how deserving Klall Yisroel is of greeting Moshiach than the Minchas Elozor.

    This is a Halachic treatise? Nope. Sorry.

    It would have been one thing if they would have left it as a sermon or a drush, but because the Zionists don’t really have any serious Halachic backing, they took this sefer and made it something of an icon. It’s a big pity.

    Btw, Rabbi techtel’s sefer comes without any Haskomos (approbations) form anybody. But he did want Haskomos, so what he did was – I am not making this up either, I promise - he took Haskomos out of another sefer, and printed them in his sefer, saying that the Haskomos would certainly apply to his sefer too, since the 2 seforim generally say the same things. But none of the rabbis of his time – not a sngle one – wrote him a haskama.

    Another note: Aim HaBanim Semechah speaks basically about building the land. The topic of creating a sovereign state – which was the major objection to Zionism – is almost completely ignored. Perhaps this is what the Lubavitcher Rebbe meant (told supposedly to the authro's son, quoted in the introduction, p. 21 ) when he told the son of author to “publicize that your father was a G-d fearing Jew who was far away from Zionism”

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rabbi Teichtel was declared by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and quoted in the family's introduction to the sefer, to have actually been "very far from Zionism". I would think this is because in his sefer, as far as I can remember, he never argues in favor of a Jewish State, but rather in favor of building up the land). His sefer talks about settling eretz yisroel, not creating a Medinah there - big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Therefore, MEGILA, let's go and settle the land in mass.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Megilla,

    It is your statements which are blatantly false and misleading, and a clever diversion from the fundamental issue:

    "Its unlikely that Rabbi Teichtel did not open a Shulchan Aruch to see the Taz and Piskei Tshuva etc."

    Pischei Tshuvah Shulchan Aruch Evan HaEzer 75:6 clearly states that all the rishonim and achronim held there is today a mitzvah of YISHUV HAARETZ.

    Do the Satmar/Munkatch Rebbe and/or NK claim that before mashiach the Jews are prohibited from performing the mitvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael?

    The overwhelming majority of authentic POSKIM in the last thousand years strongly refute the Satmar & Munkatch Rebbe's primary halachic position of rejecting the mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz. These POSKIM who hold there is a mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz include the Vilna Gaon, the Chasam Sofer, the Avnei Nezer, the Ohr Somayach, Rav Kook, Chazon Ish, and many others.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Reply to Megilla:
    “The reason why Jews in Germany can learn heresy and still remain religious is because they are like the people who are immune to poison because they are used to drinking it"

    Your statement is vile poison against decent German Orthodox Jews who happen to accept the ancient principle of "Torah Em Derech Eretz". No Megilla, it is you who is drunk with the poison of sinas chinam against non-Chassidic Orthodox Jews who refuse to accept the extremist halachic deviations of certain rebbes. As the Eim HaBanim Semeichah correctly pointed out, these rebbes brought disaster on the Hungarian Jews during the 1940's.

    Reply to Megilla:
    "These people too are like fingernails that need to be separated from the rest of us"

    That loathsome statement is a direct mirror of the pasuk at the end of parshas Ki Setsei - "v'zanev b'cha kol hanechshalim". Amalek cut down the weak Jews at the rear of the Israelite camp. Is that the ideology of your Chassidic rebbes? Thanks but no thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yishuv and the establishment of a state are two VERY different matters. With completely different halachic ramifications.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The English translation of the sefer Eim HaBanim Smeicha is available free online. Google "Eim Habanim Semeichah" and
    see the tsel dot org web site.

    Anyone who studies the sefer will quickly realize that the author Rav Teichtal was an authentic Gadol contrary to Megilla's false and vindictive statements against him.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Megila's comments are 100% correct.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Its amazing the shtuyot people are spewing about Rav Teichtal ZT"L. One of strongest reasons he wrote his book is because he saw that the great opposition to the mitzva of settling eretz yisrael amongst the european rebbeim in the prewar era (he points out he was part of that fight, fighting against moving to eretz yisrael) and all this knowledge of the collective greats (himself included) was empirically proven WRONG and helped bring about the shoah.

    Should we discuss now how the "collective torah knowledge of the greatest torah giants" caused many Jews to be murdered in Europe when they insisted that they stay there rather than stray after "de zionists" (and some of these rebbes ended up escaping themselves to treifa medinas while their followers were murdered). I think we should discuss this.

    Btw, about "opening up a shulhan aruch" Rabbi Teichtal wrote his sefer from memory while in an attic hiding from the nazis without access to sfarim. Please do not slander that tzaddik.

    Oh lol one more thing, explain to me how zionists elevated him? His sefer survived and anyone can read it.

    Its also mentioned in that sefer somewhere that the whole complaint about the establishment being dominated by seculars in Israel and secular zionists with power there - this complaint was only made possible because religious Jews did not run with the idea to settle Israel and instead backed away and denounced it leaving a vacuum for the seculars to fill and control the outcome. The complaint about "de seculars" and "de zionists" runs on circular logic

    ReplyDelete
  49. It wasn't just "creation of a sovereign state" that was opposed by the rabbanim in europe. This is a complete anachronism and can only be said by someone who is unfamiliar with the issues in the late 18 and 1900's that were subject of disputes. For instance the whole concept of a sovereign state did not even crystallize and become a political goal of secular zionists until much later (for some like the self-haters of hashomer hatzair it never became a goal). Yet nonetheless the rabbis were condemning the zionist fervor and the idea of settling Israel in those early times (pre state). And they were telling their followers DO NOT GO THERE (for any reason). FACT. So anyone claiming that's the sole opposition was a state has no idea what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Megilla,

    You falsely quoted the Eim Ha Banim Semeichah when you claimed that he said "this last generation, unfortunately, not deserving of Moshiach".

    Anyone can refute your statements by reading the online English translation - Google "Eim Habanim Semeichah" and
    see the tsel dot org web site.

    On pages 134 & 147 the Eim HaBanim Semeichah brings from the Talmud, Or HaChayim, and other sources to argue that "the redemption must happen with miracles disguised in nature." Nowhere did Eim HaBanim Semeichah say that the Jews are not worthy of any redemption at all. The only question is whether the redemption will be a supernatural process or a natural process.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The Zionists goal was to create a State from the very beginning. Initially Uganda, but very shortly thereafter Palestine. It's efforts resulted in the Balfour Declaration as early as 1917, indicating those efforts began long before then.

    ReplyDelete
  52. For an excellent history of the Six-Day War, read Michael Oren's _Six_Days_of_War_. Oren is the present Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Based on his book, I'd say it was the breadth and depth of the victory that was miraculous.

    Certainly, Israel planned for victory, but the disintegration of the enemy, particularly the Egyptian army was a complete surprise. And before the war -as is well known- there was plenty of fear and anxiety and digging of mass graves for possible casualties. Even a victory, like the Yom Kippur War, could've been far, far more costly.

    I guess the zechusim of the tzadikim extended to taking the Golan, all of the Sinai as well as the Ir Atticka of Yerushalyim and Har Habayis. Who can blame the Dati Leumi, or the merely traditional, for thinking that Hakodesh Baruch Hu really wanted to give all the Jews in E'Y more of our land? Because that's just too straightforward if the haamon am can see the Yad Hashem. Must be some lomdus like a maase Satan even if we see nowhere in Tanach or our history HKBH acting in such a way.

    ReplyDelete
  53. RebMoshe: The quote from Eim Habonim Smecha that you claim is false and doesn't exist actually IS in the original Hebrew version of the sefer on page 98.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Megila: Are you by any chance the anonymous author of Frumteens?Your content,tone and rhetoric seem identical. At any rate, see R Gil Students treatment of this odious "hadracha" website on his Hirhurim- Torah Musings website. I especially recommend his thorough debunkings of some of the classic anti religious-zionist canards as esposed by Reb Anoymous Frumteens Shlita

    ReplyDelete
  55. Daas Yochid- Before you mouth off on Rav Teichtal Zatzal, HY"D, please see the haskomos given to his Sefer Shu"T Mishneh Sachir. The accolades in there from Gedolim (including mebers of the Eidah Hachareidis!) would do any author proud. Your words reflect terrible chuztpah on your part. Consider this an E-Machaah Likvod Ha'torah.

    As for those reading "Megila"'s megilla, I beg of you, please, please, please, do yourself a favor and get a hold of the sefer yourself. It is availible in english now (I believe translated by his son).

    And, Oh yeah. it contains a Haskomoh from R Zalman Nechemiah Golderg Shlita, a Gadol respected among the Chareidim as well. He's got quite a bit more Halachic Knowlede than megilla(/Frumteens?). See e.g. his shiurim on Choshen Mishpat.

    ReplyDelete
  56. For those interested, you can get a wealth of pro-Tzioni quotes from, among others, respected Chareidi Gedolim of yesteryear, in the books AtChalta Hi, (2 volumes, Hebrew) by R Yitzchok Daddon.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Shaul: No, not him. But I got all the info from his site. Gil Student never debunked anything with his party-line Zionist talking points. All of Reb FT's sayings are SOLIDLY sourced.

    ReplyDelete
  58. * [The Torah] forbids us to strive for the reunion or possession of the land by any but spiritual means
    Rabbi S. R. Hirsch

    * Not via our desire did we leave the land of Israel, and not via our power will we come back to the land of Israel.
    Rabbi S.D. Schneerson

    * [Zionists] want a state in order to make Jews into heretics.
    Rabbi C. Soloveichik

    * The Zionists have attacked the center point of Judaism.
    Rabbi V. Soloveichik

    Once before the Neila prayer on Yom Kippur Rabbi Avraham Yoshe Freund of Mansod said:

    "It is not because they are Zionists that they are evildoers. It is because they are evildoers that they are Zionists."

    Rabbi Aharon Roth once said:

    "It is a miracle that these evildoers don't command everyone to put on tefillin. It is possible that were they to do it, G-d forbid, it may be forbidden to put them on."

    ReplyDelete
  59. The Chazon Ish once said:

    "If it is hard to understand the whole matter of the Golden Calf, by seeing the matter of the State, one can understand it. The matter of the State is similar to the Golden Calf"

    Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman once said:

    "It is certain as the sun shines that the Land will vomit the Zionists out, because the Land is the Palace of the King....I don't say this either to curse or to bless, but because these are things which are written in the Torah and which will take place."

    Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik once said:

    "The Zionists aren't taking Jews away from Judaism in order to have a State, THEY NEED A STATE IN ORDER TO TAKE JEWS AWAY FROM JUDAISM"

    Rabbi Yechezkel Shraga Halberstam once said:

    "When a Jew recites 'Hear O Israel, the Lord your G-d, the Lord is One' he should have in mind rejecting all idolatry in the world, including Zionism, which is also idolatry."

    Rabbi Yissachar Dov of Belz once said:

    " There could be, before the arrival of Mashiach, that the Satan should succeed, and the evildoers should get a State in the Land of Israel. Their state would be a big danger for every Jew in material and spiritual matters."

    The Chafetz Chaim, Rabbi Yisroel Meir Hakohen once said:

    "In my opinion it is clear that the Zionists are from the offspring of AMALEK."

    Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (Reb Velvel) once said:

    "How can the little rabbis and heads of yeshivas take upon themselves the determination of things dealing with life and death? It is obvious that the partition will bring with it the anger and hostility of the Arabs and other nations of the world. This whole thing touches on the shedding of blood. HOW DO THEY HAVE THE ARROGANCE TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS DEALING WITH LIFE AND DEATH?

    He also said:

    "The Agudah is nothing, just money."

    Rabbi Moshe Leib Diskin once said:

    "The rabbis of the generation should gather together and issue a writ of excommunication against the Zionists and eject them from the Jewish People, and make decrees against their bread and wine, and to forbid marrying with them, JUST LIKE OUR SAGES DID WITH THE SAMARITANS."

    Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Eherenreich once said:

    "The Zionists brought us to the Holocaust. It is well known that it was possible to redeem Jews from the Nazis with money, and save many hundreds of thousands of Jews in Hungary from the fire. THE ZIONIST LEADERS WHO NOW SIT IN GOVERNMENT PREVENTED IT!"

    Rabbi Shaul Brach of Kashoa once said:

    "Before thinking up the idea of Zionism, Herzl wanted all Jews to convert to Christianity. When he was laughed at, he developed the second idea which was able to have more effect, since thousands of Jews began to believe they could be Jews without the Torah of Judaism."

    "I am also surprised at the leaders of the Agudah who want thousands of Jews to move to Eretz Israel. How can they ignore the welfare of their children, since there is no other place on earth where there is so much heresy and sectarianism as in the Holy Land in our day."

    ReplyDelete
  60. Reb Elchonon Wasserman, zt'l:

    “We must emphasize and declare the position of our holy Torah in order to banish any confusion of ideas. Inasmuch as there are Jews who are Torah-observant who say that a Jewish State would be the “beginning of the Redemption,” we must inform them of the position of our Torah that this is nothing less than the beginning of a new Exile! What do I mean? After all, Jews have been living in Exile for some two thousand years, so how can this be a “beginning” of a new Exile? My intention is to expose the so-called Jewish Communists. An Exile such as this has never existed until today. None of us can even describe such an exile, an Exile under Jews! Only Jews from Russia have a slight sense of this situation, even though the regime there is not a “Jewish” one. One of the great rabbis of this generation recently told me that the term “beginning of the Redemption” in reference to the Zionist movement makes his hair stand on end!

    “However, it could be said that it does bring the Redemption closer. The great Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna (who lived in the 18th century) stated (see Kol Yerushalayim, 22 Elul 1937) that effect of Jewish suffering is that it brings the Redemption closer, and because the misfortune of a “Jewish State” would bring greater suffering upon us, it could be said that this brings the Redemption closer, as was the case in Egypt, that the oppression of bondage hastened the Redemption.”

    **********

    Rabbi Avigdor Miller, zt'l:

    754. The Zionst leaders together with the Reform “rabbis” aided substantially in the destruction of the European Jews.

    In July 1938 President Roosevelt convened the Evian Conference to consider the problem of Jewish refugees. At that time a German offer was made to release Jews at $250 per person. The Jewish Agency, headed by Golda Meir, decided to ignore the offer.

    At this conference, the delegation from the Jewish Agency made no effort to influence the United States or any of the 32 other participating nations to open their gates to admit German Jews.

    755. When a shipload of Jewish refugees on the Danube river were refused permission to disembark anywhere, Henry Montor the leader of the United Jewish Appeal explained that they could not be allowed to sail the Holy Land because “Palestine cannot be flooded with old people or with undesirables”. (Feb. 1, 1940).

    768. Rabbi Weismandl sent urgent and impassioned appeals for small funds to stave off the deportation of thousands. The assimilationists and Zionists of Switzerland and other neutral countries and of the rich countries and of the rich communities overseas refused his request. The Reform “rabbis” and the disloyal, to whom the public Jewish funds were entrusted, scorned the messages which Rabbi Weissmandl smuggled out at the risk of his life, and they allowed the masses of Slovakian and Hungarian Jews to be transported to the German killing-centers.

    769. It was because European Jews put their trust in atheistic Zionist leaders that these leaders everywhere became the lackeys of the Nazis in all the Ghettos. They were the machinery, which served efficiently in the task of keeping the Jews docile and of persuading and coercing them to be sent off to their deaths. No Torah leader ever cooperated with the Nazis in the destruction machinery.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Rabbi Yitchok Hutner Z"L:

    Sadly, even in our own circles, the mold for shaping public opinion lies in the hands of the State of Israel. An appropriate example of this dangerous process of selectively "rewriting" history may be found in the extraordinary purging from the public record of all evidence of the culpability of the forerunners of the State in the tragedy of European Jewry, and the sub-situation in is place of factors inconsequential to the calamity which ultimately occurred.

    To cover its own contribution to the final catastrophic events, those of the State in a position to influence public opinion circulated the notorious canard that Gedolet Yisroel were responsible for the destruction of many communities because they did not urge immigration. This charge is, of course, a gross distortion of the truth, and need not be granted more dignity than it deserves by issuing a formal refutation. However, at the same time as the State made certain to include this charge as historical fact in every account of the war years, it successfully sought to omit any mention of its own contribution to the impending tragedy. While the State omitted in its own version of history is the second of the above-mentioned new directions in recent Jewish history. It is that phenomenon which we must now examine.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Rav Chaim Soloveichik of Brisk:

    Dear Rabbi Moshe Carpas:

    I have also read your words in connection with the sect of the Zionists who are now powerfully banded together. I do not blush to admit that I do not know how to find paths to oppose them.

    Seeing that these men are known as evil in their localities, and have already proclaimed their purpose, which is to uproot the fundamentals of our faith, and to take over all Jewish communities to aid them in their plan.

    It is hardly credible that after the revelations of their arrogant hearts there should still be found right-minded men willing to ally themselves with them. It is greatly astonishing throughout the whole Jewish People that they should be given a place and a voice in public affairs, since it is known they are causing others to sin.

    Let the people guard their souls lest they join them in the destruction of our religion and become an obstacle to the House of Israel.
    _____
    "The Zionists do not make Jews heretics in order to have a state, they want a state in order to make Jews into heretics!"
    _____
    "The Jewish people have suffered many (spiritual) plagues -- the Sadducees, Karaites, Hellenisers, Shabbatai Zvi, Enlightenment, Reform and many others. But the strongest of them all is Zionism."
    _____
    "If you intend to give a coin to the Jewish National Fund, give it to another idolatry, but not to the Zionists, since this idolatry is worse then any other."
    _____
    "[Zionists] want a state in order to make Jews into heretics. "

    ______________________________________
    Reb Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik (the Brisker Rav):

    "The Zionists have attacked the center point of Judaism."
    _____
    “How can these small rabbis and heads of yeshivas take upon themselves the determination of things dealing with life and death? It is obvious that the partition will bring with it the anger and hostility of the Arabs and other nations of the world. This whole thing touches on the shedding of blood. HOW DO THEY HAVE THE ARROGANCE TO MAKE JUDGMENTS DEALING WITH LIFE AND DEATH?”
    _____

    When asked: aren't we to pray for them, in order they should repent from their evil ways? He replied: three times a day in the prayer against the atheists we pray that they should be destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rav Yitchok Hutner ZT"L:

    Before we explore the second of the new directions in detail, it is important to establish a clear distinction between any common approach to world events and daas Torah -- a Torah view of the world, "Public opinion" and any but the Torah approach is by definition colored by outside forces, subjective considerations and the falsehood of secular perspective.

    An example of how public opinion can be molded -- indeed, warped -- at the whim of powerful individuals can be taken from a study of Russian history textbooks published during the respective reigns of Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev. During each period, the textbooks hail the then-current leader to the exclusion of all his predecessors as the savior of Russia and hero of his people. Undoubtedly, "public opinion" during each period, once children's minds had been suitably molded, reflected the thinking and wishes of the state. While more subtle in form, this ability to direct public opinion exists in democratic countries as well. Thus, we already pointed out at the beginning that we must make every effort to free ourselves from the powerful grip of public opinion, and must be ever on our guard that our opinions of the true nature of world events will be shaped only by Torah views as seen through Torah eyes.

    Sadly, even in our own circles, the mold for shaping public opinion lies in the hands of the State of Israel. An appropriate example of this dangerous process of selectively "rewriting" history may be found in the extraordinary purging from the public record of all evidence of the culpability of the forerunners of the State in the tragedy of European Jewry, and the sub-situation in is place of factors inconsequential to the calamity which ultimately occurred.

    To cover its own contribution to the final catastrophic events, those of the State in a position to influence public opinion circulated the notorious canard that Gedolet Yisroel were responsible for the destruction of many communities because they did not urge immigration. This charge is, of course, a gross distortion of the truth, and need not be granted more dignity than it deserves by issuing a formal refutation. However, at the same time as the State made certain to include this charge as historical fact in every account of the war years, it successfully sought to omit any mention of its own contribution to the impending tragedy. While the State omitted in its own version of history is the second of the above-mentioned new directions in recent Jewish history. It is that phenomenon which we must now examine.

    "The Jewish Observer", October, 1977, page 7.

    ReplyDelete
  64. (...continued from last comment)

    For other reasons, too, one must be careful of sudden and popular "awakenings" to different aspects of Jewish history, such as "Holocaust studies."Nachum Goldmann, head of the only international secular Jewish organization not directly subservient to the Jewish State, has stated that the weakening of sympathy for the State was the result of a lengthy period of time after the Holocaust having passed and the resultant forgetting by the world at large. Undoubtedly, this State, taking advantage of the arbitrary figure of thirty years, sought to reawaken interest in what it now termed the Shoah to regain some of that lost sympathy of the late 40's and 50's.

    "The Jewish Observer", October, 1977, page 9.

    ReplyDelete
  65. ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את אומות העולם שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי.

    The three verses are:

    I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, that ye awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please (Song of Songs 2:7).

    I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, that ye awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please (Song of Songs 3:5).

    I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem: Why should ye awaken, or stir up love, until it please? (Song of Songs 8:4).

    There are several other Midrashim that pertain to the Three Oaths and they are primarily recorded in Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah which is also known as Midrash Hazita:

    R. Yossi bar Chanina said, “There are two oaths here, one for Israel and one for the nations. Israel swore not to rebel against the nations [R. Yossi bar Chanina views Israel’s two oaths in Ketuvot as just one], and the nations swore that they would not overly burden Israel, for by doing so they cause the end of days to come prematurely.
    Rabbi Chelbo says...And do not ascend like a wall from the Exile. If so, why is the King Messiah coming? To gather the exiles of Israel.

    When Reish Lakish would see Jews from the Exile gathering in the marketplace [in the Land of Israel] he would say to them, 'Scatter yourselves.' He said to them: 'When you ascended you did not do so as a wall, and here you have come to make a wall.' [7]There are several other Midrashim that pertain to the Three Oaths and they are primarily recorded in Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah which is also known as Midrash Hazita:
    R. Yossi bar Chanina said, “There are two oaths here, one for Israel and one for the nations. Israel swore not to rebel against the nations [R. Yossi bar Chanina views Israel’s two oaths in Ketuvot as just one], and the nations swore that they would not overly burden Israel, for by doing so they cause the end of days to come prematurely.

    Rabbi Chelbo says...And do not ascend like a wall from the Exile. If so, why is the King Messiah coming? To gather the exiles of Israel.

    When Reish Lakish would see Jews from the Exile gathering in the marketplace [in the Land of Israel] he would say to them, 'Scatter yourselves.' He said to them: 'When you ascended you did not do so as a wall, and here you have come to make a wall.'

    Rambam cited the Three Oaths in his famous Iggeres Teiman:

    ולפי שידע שלמה ע"ה ברוח הקדש שהאומה הזו כאשר תלכד בגלות תיזום להתעורר שלא בזמן הראוי ויאבדו בכך וישיגום הצרות הזהיר מכך והשביע עליו על דרך המשל ואמר השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים וכו

    Shlomo Hamelech, of blessed memory, foresaw with Divine inspiration, that the prolonged duration of the exile would incite some of our people to seek to terminate it before the appointed time, and as a consequence they would perish or meet with disaster. Therefore he admonished and adjured them in metaphorical language to desist, as we read, "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the hinds of the field, that ye awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please." (Song of Songs 2:7, 8:4). Now, brethren and friends, abide by the oath, and stir not up love until it please (Kesubos 111a).

    Ramban did not explicitly discuss the Three Oaths. Rashbash who was himself a descendant of Ramban, understood this particular biblical obligation to be binding on the individual level but not on the collective:

    "In truth, this commandment is not a commandment which includes the entirety of Israel in the Exile which now exists, but it is a general principle as our Sages stated in the Talmud in Ketubos, that it stems from the Oaths which The Holy One, Blessed be He, made Israel swear not to rush the End, and not to ascend like a wall." (Responsa Rashbash, 2)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Rabbeinu Bachya, formulated a comprehensive Torah commentary based on the four principles denoted by the word "PaRDeS." In his commentary he wrote on Genesis 32:7 :

    …and it is written “And Hezekiah prayed before God” (2 Kings 19:15). So too we are required to follow in the way of the Patriarchs and to restore ourselves so that we may be graciously accepted and with our fine language and prayer before God, may He be exalted. However, to wage war is not possible (Song of Songs 2), “you have been adjured daughters of Jerusalem, etc.” You have been adjured not to engage in war with the nations.”

    Maharal discussed the Three Oaths in Netzach Yisrael:

    כי פירוש 'בדורו של שמד' היינו במדה שהיה לדורו של שמד, שהיו דביקים בה דורו של שמד, ובאותה מדה השביע אותם שלא ישנו בענין הגלות. כי דורו של שמד, אף על גב שהגיע להם המיתה בגלות, לא היו משנים. ועוד פירוש 'בדורו של שמד', רוצה לומר אף אם יהיו רוצים להמית אותם בעינוי קשה, לא יהיו יוצאים ולא יהיו משנים בזה. וכן הפירוש אצל כל אחד ואחד, ויש להבין זה

    Another explanation of the Midrash’s statement (he is speaking of Shir Ha-Shirim Rabba 2:20 that begins “ורבנן אמרי השביען בדורו של שמד”) that God adjured the Jewish people in a generation of Shmad (religious persecution Jews, or decrees against Jews): that even if they will threaten to kill them with difficult torture, they will not leave [the Exile] nor will they change their behavior in this manner.

    The oaths are between the Jewish people and God, and the gentiles and God respectively. Theoretically, if the gentiles would violate their oath does not tacitly mean that the Jewish people are free to do so as well. Historically, atrocities prior to the Holocaust have not prompted claims of violating the oaths by the gentiles.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Zionist Rudolf Kastner received a report (the Vrba-Wetzler Report") from 2 Nazi death camp escapees detailing what the Nazis were doing to the Yidden (i.e. murdering them in cold blood.) Kastner hid the Vrba-Wetzler report from Hungarian Jewry, who he helped lead to believe that the death trains were merely taking them to resettle. He knew (unlike the rest of Hungarian Jewry) that they were death trains. Kastner kept this report hidden in order not to derail his sweetheart deal for his family and friends train from Adolf Eichmann. (Which about 90+% constituted of his family and zionist cronies.) Adolf Eichmann himself said that the assistance provided to him by the Zionist Rudolf Kastner was immeasurable in keeping Hungarian Jewry quiet before deporting them to Auswitz. Kastners treason against his fellow Jew was so obvious, his fellow zionist court in the State of Israel CONVICTED him of collaboration with Eichmann. Afterwards a holocaust survivor killed Kastner because of his selling Hungarian Jewish lives to Adolf Eichmann. Kastner (to quote a Zionist/Israeli court) "sold his soul to the devil" by selling the lives of half a million Hungarian Jews to Adolf Eichmann in exchange for his crony train. Then another zionist court, trying to contain the damage that came out in the first zionist court trial, post-humously vacated PART of the original judgement against Kastner. The Vrba-Wetzler Report was produced by Rudolf Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler, two Slovakian Jews who had escaped from Auschwitz, and issued in the form of a report details of what the Nazis ym’s were doing to the Jews. It was typed up by Dr. Oscar Krasniansky, who personally delivered a copy of it to Kastner, who refused to make it public.

    At the conclusion of the war, SS Officer Kurt Becher (one of Kastner's Nazi friends he paid off) was put on trial at Nuremberg as a war criminal. Kastner testified in this Nazis defense, stating that “[Becher is] cut from a different wood than the professional mass murderers of the political SS”. This defense of an SS officer further angered the Hungarian Jewish community, even more so than the original collaboration had with Eichmann. In all, Kastner testified on behalf of Becher and other SS/Nazi officials involved in his ransom efforts five separate times between 1946 and 1948. And after the war, Kastner testified in Nuremberg in SUPPORT of several Nazis, in their war crimes trial. He got some Nazi's ACQUITTED.

    ReplyDelete
  68. This is a quote from the ruling by Israeli Judge Halevi against Kastner:
    "It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress was of decisive importance for [Nazi Col. Kurt] Becher. Kastner did not exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a willfully false affidavit given in favor of a war criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg."

    (The Judge also found Kastner guilty of "selling his soul to the devil", the devil being Eichmann and the deal Kastner struck with Eichmann allowing Eichmann to easily deport Hungarian Jewry to Auschwitz without resistance.)

    This is a quote from Rudolf Vrba, who escaped Auschwitz and reported what was happening there to Kastner:
    "I am a Jew. In spite of that, indeed because of that, I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war. This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler's gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence. Among them was Dr. Kasztner, leader of the council which spoke for all Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz - the number is still on my arm - I compiled careful statistics of the exterminations . . . I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers . . . Kasztner went to Eichmann and told him, 'I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.' Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kasztner up in S.S. uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid bargaining end there. Kasztner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars. With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine . . ."

    ReplyDelete
  69. And the devil Eichmann himself said:
    Only Heinrich Himmler could turn off the liquidation machine. It was in 1944, the year of the assassination attempt on Hitler, when Reichsführer Himmler took over as commander of the Reserve Army, that he authorized me to propose an exchange: one million Jews for 10,000 winterized trucks with trailers. The World Jewish Organization could decide for itself what Jews it wanted to choose. We asked only that they get us 10,000 trucks. Thanks to Himmler’s directive, I could assure them, on my word of honor, that these trucks would be used only on the Eastern front. As I said at the time, “When the 10,000 winterized trucks with trailers are here, then the liquidation machine in Auschwitz will be stopped.

    In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest. One man stood out among them, Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation and even keep order in the collection camps if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price of 15,000 to 20,000 Jews - in the end there may have been more - was not too high for me.

    Except perhaps for the first few sessions, Kastner never came to me fearful of the Gestapo strong man. We negotiated entirely as equals. People forget that. We were political opponents trying to arrive at a settlement, and we trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarettes as though he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigarette after another, taking them from a silver case and lighting them with a little silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.

    Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel. But the Arrow Cross, the Hungarian fascist party, had grown strong and stubborn. Its inspectors permitted no exceptions to the mass deportations. So the Jewish officials turned to the German occupation authorities. They realized that we were specialists who had learned about Jewish affairs through years of practice.


    (quote continued in next comment...)

    ReplyDelete
  70. (... Eichmann quote continued from previous comment)

    As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the SS and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders who were fighting what might be their last battle. As I told Kastner: “We, too, are idealists and we, too, had to sacrifice our own blood before we came to power.”

    I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred- thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. He was not interested in old Jews or those who had become assimilated into Hungarian society. But he was incredibly persistent in trying to save biologically valuable Jewish blood, that is, human material that was capable of reproduction and hard work. “You can have the others,” he would say, “but let me have this group here.” And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews.

    At the same time Kastner was bargaining with another SS of official a Colonel Kurt Becker. Becher was bartering Jews for foreign exchange and goods on direct orders from Himmler. A crafty operator, Becher had come to Hungary originally to salvage a stud farm which the SS wanted. He soon wormed his way into dealings with the Jews. In a way, Reichsführer Himmler was Becher’s captive. Becher showed me once a gold necklace he was taking to our chief. There were other agencies, German and Hungarian, which tapped Kastner for foreign exchange in return for Jews, but I held aloof from money affairs and left the material transactions to Becher.

    Men under Becher’s command guarded a special group of 700 Jews whom Kastner had requested from a list. They were mostly young people, although the group also included Kastner’s entire family. I did not care if Kastner took his relatives along. he could take them wherever he wanted to.


    —A. Eichmann, “Eichmann Tells His Own Damning Story”, Life Magazine, Volume 49, Number 22, (28 November 1960), pp. 19-25, 101-112; and “Eichmann’s Own Story: Part II”, Life Magazine, (5 December 1960), pp. 146-161; at 146

    ReplyDelete
  71. And of course the Zionists sabotaged the trucks for Hungarian Jewish lives deal by tipping off the British authorities to arrest the Jewish emissary sent from Europe to the middle east to facilitate the deal.

    ----------------------------

    Also, of course read the fabulous Sefer “Min Hamaytzar” by HaGaon HaRav Michoel Ber Weismandel ZT'L (a survivor who spent the entire war trying to save Jewish lives) for further details about the zionist collaboration with the Nazis.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Although some of those quotes Ben Torah pasted here from 20th century rabbanim are much later and really don't address the issue, nonetheless some of them are earlier quotes and indeed prove what I claimed - that it was not just the concept of a Jewish state that rabbanim opposed! They (many, many, many revered orthodox rabbis of that time) considered the holy land to be a "place of heresy" and told their followers DO NOT GO THERE (For any reason!). They said it was forbidden.

    Rav Teichtal ZT"L explains in his book that he was among this camp and insisted upon similar arguments... until he realized how wrong they were and that their actions prevented many Jews from escaping their fate to be murdered in a terrible calamity in the "so holy" europe where the rabbanim insisted they remain.

    ReplyDelete
  73. It's funny how some commenters here want to 'have their cake and eat it too.' They try to revise history and make all the haredi/chassidic rabbis into lovers of the Land of Israel committed to the mitzvah of settling and conquering the land of Israel, while at the same time staunchly opposed to the evil secular zionism. But that was not how history went. These commenters are imposing their own views onto the historical views of rabbis who lived before them. In doing so, they unconsciously admit that the ACTUAL views of these rabbis in those times, were mistaken! (by insisting it is unfathomable these rabbis could have said them/held them). All the while trying to uphold them as the paragon of proper and acceptable hashkafa. I can only laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  74. BT When are you publishing your book on quotes anti-Zionism?

    ReplyDelete
  75. It is evident there is a Satmarist propagandist spewing huge amounts of false, misleading, and diversionary statements on this blog.

    This Satmar will most likely continue to obfuscate and avoid uncomfortable facts and issues such as:

    1. The overwhelming majority halachic opinions of the greatest rabbis in the last thousand years who clearly hold there is a continuing mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael - see Pischei Tshuvah Shulchan Aruch Evan HaEzer 75:6.

    2. The monumental halachic and strategic error committed by the Hungarian anti-Zionist rabbis who discouraged Jews from escaping to Eretz Yisrael during WWII.

    3. The internationally recognized legal right of the Jews to establish a homeland in Eretz Yisrael:
    In the 1920's the US Congress passed a law recognizing the Palestine Mandate to create a Jewish homeland.
    In November 1947 the UN General Assembly voted by a majority vote (33 to 13) to partition Eretz Yisrael into Jewish and Arab states.

    4. It is the Arabs and their Satmarist/NK allies who "rebel against the nations" by denying the Jews the right to a homeland in EY.

    5. The halachic right of the Jews to engage in military self defense in response to Arab agression (see Orach Chaim 329:6). The Jews are fighting the Arabs in self defense, NOT in rebellion against the nations. Self defense is allowed under both HALACHA and International law, regardless of whether the Satmars allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Rav Miller, the Brisker Rov, the Lubavitcher, Belzer, and Munkatcher Rebbes, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Hutner, and the Chazon Ish are all Satmarers?!

    Wow! If only I'd have known I'd probably have joined Satmar myself!!

    ReplyDelete
  77. BT
    The main reason that Chasidic Rebbes were against 'Yishuv B'Eretz" is due to their understanding of Redemption and the arrival of Messiach.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Thank you for the above proof of the Zionist collaboration with Eichmann ym's and the Nazi machinery in their joint efforts to exterminate the Jews of Europe, with the prize for their Nazi collaboration being the State of Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Germans were in no position to "reward" the israeli/zionist Jews with anything, let alone a state. Those weren't the terms of "collaboration"of kastner et al at all. Be honest. The truth is bad enough, you don't have to embellish it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The Zionist didn't want to save European Jewry and thus generate sympathy for a "Jewish State".

    ReplyDelete
  81. Megilla- Sorry for being choshed you.

    Everyone else: For the sake of being intellectualy honest, it is important to see what both sides have to offer. If you're sincerely intereseted in the truth, you ought to visit both websites. See what Frumteens has to say, and see what Gil Student has to say. Gil's arguments can now be found in an E-book called the religious zionism debate. (Link- anyone?)

    Likewise, learn for youself V'ayoel Moshe and the like, and learn Ha'tekufa Ha'gedolah, Aim Habonim, R Aviner's Kuntrus etc. To paraphrase -the now defunct- Simms' A learned Yid is the best Tziyoni!
    As Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet (from Gush?) has stated "you cannot be a proper zionist unless you know the Satmar Rov's seforim by heart. Until then, your a faker." Would that some in the Satmar camp were as intelectually honest.

    ReplyDelete
  82. As an aside, one thing that especially impressed me about the "Kooknik's" was their total confidence in their views. While learning in Mir Yerushalayim, I frequently visited Merkaz Harav- that bastion of Dati- Le-Umiyoot, I was shocked to discover that their library contains many more Seforim from the SR Zatzal than Mir does. Likewise their veneration for a Gadol whose views they so totally disagree with, provided a living tutorial of Ahavas Yisroel/ Ahavat Yisrael!

    Likewise, they would never tolerate the kind of filth said about the Satmar Ravlike that expressed by some lowlife commenters on this blog. Posting such comments in the name AY is the height of hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "To paraphrase -the now defunct- Simms' A learned Yid is the best Tziyoni!"

    Hmmm, so the Brisker Rov, Chazon Ish, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Chofetz Chaim, Rav Samson Rapahael Hirsch, Rav Hutner, etc. are not learned?

    "As Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet (from Gush?) has stated "you cannot be a proper zionist unless you know the Satmar Rov's seforim by heart. Until then, your a faker."

    In which case, there aren't too many real zionists. How many zionists can you count that know the SR's seforim well, let alone by heart.

    ReplyDelete
  84. J- Thanks for twisting my words. I never said that all learned Yidden are tziyom. According to the raavad (Teshuva 3) not all gedolim even believed in the 13 ikkkarim. So what?
    My point was that the RZ side is alot more open to the other side than satmar.
    Unfortunately, not nearly enough RZ learn the SR's seforim. But plenty do. And they're on the shelves in Rav kooks yeshiva, for heavens sake! Find me 3 eidanik's that have checked out R Aviners kuntres.
    Agav, I personally consider myself an Aguda'nik- no sitra achra and no atchalta de'geula. But I think a vigorous case can be made for all 3 viewpoints. And that debate has been squelched.
    CHAVAL

    ReplyDelete
  85. "My point was that the RZ side is alot more open to the other side than satmar...
    Find me 3 eidanik's that have checked out R Aviners kuntres."


    That is because the Chareidim (Satmar, Brisk, Agudah, etc.) are a lot more fully confident in the soundness of their position than the "other side" is.

    Similarly, Orthodox folks generally never ever read or are "open" to the positions of the Reform and Conservative, even though the Reform and Conservative do study and read the Orthodox positions.

    ReplyDelete
  86. rav aviner takes 12 questions raised by the satmar rebbi w/o the answers.
    2) don׳t believe a thing in tekufah gedolah until you check the source.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Charles student- I never said anything about cofidence. Al Qaeda is quite confident in their beliefs. So are the NK chevra that frequent iran. I said intelectually honest. And I said that the debate has been squelched.
    Also are you implying that Merkaz Harav is afraid of the SR? Then why are his seforim on their shelves?
    Reform read our stuff because they don't feel bound by man made up laws so anything we say is irrelevant anyhow. I would hope you would grant that Mizrachi are at least "Shomer mitzvos maasiyos" and feel Meshubad to the Dvar Hashem.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Tziki- I haven't a clue what you're getting at with R' Aviner. Kindly elaborate.
    "Don't believe..."
    Absolutely.When learning perek 14, see for yourself whether the SR has misquoted the Maharal to buffer his own peshat. And when learning perek 15, check up all his sources in Kol Hatora Kula on the Sitra Achra and kochos Hatuma. And when it comes to perek 16, check the sources to see whether they support Rav Kasher's version of Achav the Rasho, or they really show Achav to be a tzaddik who just got caught up with a bit of Avoda Zara as the SR would have it.
    Now you're getting it!

    ReplyDelete
  89. all of r aviner points are raised in vayoel moshe and answered there.

    2) ויואל משה is not by me now , but he is not חשוד of forgeing the torah as you imply. on the other hand takufah gadolah is known to be unrealible. maybe 39 years ago a thick volume with many inaccuracies. as a curious youngster i looked many of them up in the מקור . i was shocked at what was done.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Tziki-
    1) Have you checkeed the footnotes? He brings the SR answers and tells you where Rav Kasher answers those. In one case he answers himself, if I remember correctly.
    I am not choshed the SR on anything, but either he has quoted the Maharal accurately or he hasn't.

    Among whom is Hatekufa Hagedola known to be innacurate, among Satmar Chassidim that won't go near it?
    I'll go with the great Gaon Rav Kasher over your memories as a curious youngster.

    ReplyDelete
  91. the goan rav yoel kahn ( the חוזר of the chqbqd rebbi) wrote a serious kuntrus against ויואל משה. Nothing but praise for the goanut and ישרות of the satmar rebbe (not like you ss that holds the SR is not honest).he doesn't agree for other reasons עיין שם .

    as for r kasher i remember is kuntres attacki g the Chazon ish on the international date line what the goqn rav chaim zimmerman said on this...perhaps i'll write more on this later.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Tziki- I do not believe the SR Zatzal ZY"A was dishonest. He meant every word he said. I apologize if it came across otherwise. He did however make certain Halachic claims that were very seriously challenged by Rav Kasher. You have not provided any response to that. I don't know what the dateline has anything to do with this. Please read the relevant chapters in Hatekufa Hagedola.
    Was calling me SS meant as an insult?

    ReplyDelete
  93. r s shapiro...a week ago on this blog someone wrote the gemmora and rashi in sanhedrian 98א was a mistake ,therefore the satmar rebbi and others are fundamently wrong.
    i went to check this in dikduki sofrim and other places and no mention.apperently he was magalie panim b torah , which is very severe כידע.
    as i mentioned previusly , as a ameriacan bahur 35 odd years ago , r kashers books fell into my hands with a חוברת Acusing him of these kind things. i looked them up and it semed true. if this sounds severe im sorry to say it is.
    In yeseva brisk of that takufa the בחורים said very sharp things in the nameof the גריז זצ״ל against RMK.
    והוא רחום יכפר עון...
    ציקי ק

    ReplyDelete
  94. reb shaul...thank G-d we cleared the satmar rebbi of dishonesty...but we're left that he couldn't learn up a maharal. theSR was a rosh yeshiva for 40 years giving daily-weekly lessons in gemorra...r kasher taught (rosh yeshiva) before leaving to write is many books
    from my students more than all
    regarding r rakefft...it's a cute saying but certanly not true. elyakim haetzni נ״י a geat person and zionest does not know vayoel moshe
    sincerely ...tziki

    ReplyDelete
  95. tziki-
    For the last time: CHECK THE SOURCES!!! That means VM, HH, and maharal. I don't care how great the SR was, he was human anyhow.
    The Chazon Ish had no shtellar but knew his stuff anyway, maskim?
    R kasher did not write books, he wrote seforim on kol hatora kula because he KNEW kol hatora kula. That was a terrible chutzpa on your part!
    Shkoyach for the he'arah on R Rakeffet, I have no idea who Elyakim H is.
    Be well- Uva Le-tzionim goel!
    Shaul

    ReplyDelete
  96. R. Mendel Kasher, who I find is the source of almost all the classic Zionist distortions. He was the one who made up the story of those Gedolim signing a paper was the Medinah is the aschalta degeulah, and he was the one who doctored the story of the meeting of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah in 1937 where he left out the poiastion of people like Rav Ahron Kotler. He wrote a book called HaTekufah heGedolah which is absolutely full of misquotes, fabrications and distortions. His deception has already been exposed and well known to those who have researched this topic. R. Zvi Weinman documented extensively the forgeries of R. Kasher - and he even challenged him in public to respond to his findings when R. Kasher was alive - in his excellent work "Mikatowitz ad 5 B'Iyar."

    Of course, R. Kasher did not produce any response to the evidence against him.

    More of R. Kasher's falsifications are exposed in the sefer "Das HaTziyonus", especially his now famous fraud regarding the position of Rav Meir Simcha od Dvinsk - see here:

    http://www.yoel-ab.com/katava.asp?id=91

    So this R. Kasher, who the Brisker Rav referred to as "the biggest treifah" (a play on his name, which he spelled the same as the word "kosher"), reprinted the unverified Kol Hator(1), and then he stretched the statements that are found therre, that we dont even know really come from the GRA, reading into them things that even they dont say.

    Obviously, whatever the GRA did say only includes statements about Eretz Yisroel and living there, and NOT taking control of it or making a state there, c"v. On top of which nobody claims the GRA wrote a sefer for all of Klall Yisroel with these statements in it, but rather, these were kabbalistic teachgins and instructions he gave to his talmidim which, like all such kabblaistic teachings, are not to be treated as if they are meant for everyone in all times an places:

    And then, on top of all that which gives them no supprot whatsoever, that, they call the GRA a "proto-Zionist" which means not a whole lot, but sounds supportinve of them since it has the phrse "zionist{ in it. A "proto" zionist/ May as well call Moshe Rabbeinu that since he wanted to go into Eretz Yisroel too.

    But the writings of the GRA and his Talmidim say just the opposite of the Zionists. The Perushim, who first settled Eretz Yisroel on the basis of the GRA's instructions to them - not to the world) stated cxlearly that they are doign so only as invididuals, NOT as a controlling force so as not to chas v'sholom violate the Oaths.

    Rav Yisroel of Shklov, of the GRA's Bais HaMedrash, states clearly in his Paas HaShulchan that the Oaths prohibit taking over Eretz Yisroel. The GRA's son, Rabbeionu Avrohom, states clearly that the Geulah does not come about at all at the hands of man, but totally and exclusively by the acts of Hashem. The GRA himself brings the Oaths, stating that they are why it is assur to build the bais hamikdosh nowadays.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Besides R. Kasher, other Zionists also distorted the GRA's positions. You see, the GRA did wnat to go to Eretz Yisroel, and he started goign but then turned back for mysterious reasons. His students were also among the first to settle Yerushalayim. All the above, which was driven by kabbalistic factors, allowed unscrupulous people, such as Zionists, to build and entire mythology around the GRA and his Erezt Yisroel positions.

    The rest of the Brisker Rav quote - the one about Kasher being the "biggest treifah" - involved another Zionist, this one named Yehuda Leib "Maimon," who the Brisker Rav said, also playing on his name, was "the biggest Kofer".

    This Maimon wrote that the GRA was in favor of starting the Snahedrin anew, which is why he wanted to go to Eretz Yisroel in the first place, but came back because the time wasnt ready for it to happen. The entire thign was a fraud, based on misrepresentation of certina facts. But Rabbi Kasher took the word of Rabbi Maimon and actualyl recorded this falsehood in his sefer Torah Sheleimah. In the next volume of Torah Sheleimah, he retracted. It was pretty embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  98. The Kol Hator we have today is not the authentic work of Reb Hillel Mishklov, if there ever was such a work. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin (1886-1962) published parts of it in the late 1940's. He himself admitted that this was an abridged version. The alleged original manuscript disappeared during the Zionist war of independence, and has never been found. Only two copies of the abridged version remained, and they were the basis for subsequent printings by Kasher and the Kol Hator institute. In 1994 a new edition appeared with some new sections based on a notebook found in the house of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. The notebook was written in the handwriting of Dr. Elazar Hurvitz, who is today a professor at YU. Apparently Rivlin dictated it to Hurvitz. It is possible that Hurvitz himself aided in composing the document.

    Rabbi Kasher writes in his introduction to Kol Hator (p. 537), "There is no knowledge of where the original manuscript is, nor do we have the copy, which Rabbi Dr. Elazar Hurvitz told me he wrote and prepared for printing all seven chapters."

    Furthermore, much of the history of Reb Hillel Mishklov's leading role in the aliyas talmidei hagra is only known to us from Shlomo Zalman Rivlin's book Chazon Tzion, which he published at about the same time as Kol Hator (possibly with the purpose of boosting the authority of Kol Hator). Later scholars, such as Aryeh Morgenstern (Geulah Bederech Hateva) have shown that much of this history was falsified, that Reb Hillel was not the leader of the 1809 aliyah at all, and that he first came to Eretz Yisroel much later.

    Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch published a 10 page article questioning the authenticity of the Kol Hator when it was published by Kasher in the late 60s. He notes that the sefer contains many modern Hebrew words, and it is therefore unclear what is from the original and what was added later.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Kasher wasnt always a Zionist. That's a later development. It's funny, in fact - if you want to track Kasher's Zionistic tendencies you can check the old printings of Torah Sheleimah, where he spelled his name the old Yiddish way - Menachem Mendel Kasher - Kuf alef shin ayin raish. Then slowly he changed both the spelling (to the modern chof shin reish) and the name (to plain "Menachem".) The Satmar Rebbe ZTL ahd the sefer in the olden days.

    ReplyDelete
  100. In the summer of '37 at the third Kenesia gedolah of the rabbinical leaders of Agudath Israel held in Marienbad, which included hundreds of rabbis, heads of yeshiva religious academies and grand rabbis of Chassidic communities from a number of countries. Rabbi Aharon Kotler attended this convention.

    From the journal Hapardes (Year 11, Issue 7) describing the convention:

    “Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Rottenberg from Antwerp, and rabbis from Czechoslovakia and Hungary were unanimous in rejecting any proposal for a “Jewish State” on either side of the Jordan River, even if it were established as a religious state because such a regime would be a form of heresy in our faith in the belief in the coming of the Messiah, and especially since this little “Jewish” state would be built on heresy and desecration of the Name of G-d.

    The late Rabbi Shlomo Rottenberg (a historian and author of Toldos Am Olam and other works), who also attended the Convention in '37 used to say that he could still remember what was discussed there, and the harsh opposition of these rabbinical leaders to a “Jewish State” that is a violation of the Three Oaths mentioned in the Talmud. (Rabbi A.L. Spitzer)

    It should be noted that Rabbi Menachem Kasher, in his attempted defense of religious Zionisn. Hatkuha Hagedolah", forged and doctored this article in Haprdes - yes, he did not merely misquote it, he actually blatenly and unashamedly doctored it, presenting his forgery as "proof" to his anti-Torah position, to give the impression that the only rabbonim against the State were those from Hungary and Czechoslovakia. He conveniently deleted the names of
    Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Ahron Kotler and Rav Rottenberg in the above narrative.

    He also deleted the sentence that those voting against - held this view under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES - even if such a medina was built upon 'yesodos hadass', because, this it would be "Kefirah b'emunas bias hamoshiach..." and especially one built "...al yesodos hakefirah, venimtza shem shomayim mischalell."

    Rabbi Kasher's Hatkufah Hagedolah is very popular in Zionist circles and his forgeries have contributed greatly to the distorted perception that "only the Hungarians" or "only Satmar" were against the Medinah for theological reasons.

    In Ha"H he distorted the words of the Gerer Rebbe (Imrei Emes) at that meeting as well.

    ReplyDelete
  101. One, Zionism isn't only against the Oaths. As Rav Ahron Kotler said, it is Kefirah against our belief in Bias Hamoshiach; as the Brisker Rav said, when he was told that the Satmar Rebbe said the State of Israel's existence is against the Oaths:

    "Against the Oaths? It is not only against the Oaths! It is against the entire Torah! It is against bleief in Hashem's Hashgacha on Klall Yisroel, eyc. etc."

    The Satmar Rebbe, for the record, also agreed that the State of Israel is not only against the Oaths. He writes that the Oaths are an added punishment for the Kefirah of believing or acting against the belief of Bias Hamashiach. He says this is why, even though the Rambam quotes the OAths in Igeres Taimon and warns us not to dare violate them or death with ensure, he did not quote them in Mishan Torah. Teh reason, he says is because the Oaths are a deterrent - they are an added punuishment that makes this Kefirah particularly lethal, but the aveirah itself is Kefirah. And the Rambam, when warning us not to violate them, quotes the Torahs deterrent and the terrible punishment, but added punishments and deterrents dont go in Mishna Torah - the Halachah itself does.

    Second: Zionism is not the result of a misreading of the Gemora. Misreading the Gemora is the result of Zionism. As the Chazon Ish said, Zionists know deep down that Zionism is wrong (as the Gemora implies about the Tzedukim) - its just a cover for following thre Yetzer Horah (see the "Arguing with zionists" forum, where the Chazon Ish is quoted in full).

    And this is because, as I demonstrated elsewhere in these forums, Zionism is so black and white against the Torah, that only an agenda and preconceived conclusions can cause one to believe in it. It's not a wrong pshat - it's the projection of a pre-determined anti-Torah idea onto the Gemora. Big difference.

    Of course, as is the case with all mass Kefirah, the original "scholars" among them are the ones responsible. As the generations go by and the garbled teachings are passed on, sprinkled with false information, to younger generations as if it was real, they are less and less responsible, like Tinokos shenishbu.

    Its hard to determine the personal culpability a person has for his beliefs, since it depends on WHY he bleieves them. Much easier, however, to determine the status of the beliefs themselves. And here, it's very easy.

    ReplyDelete
  102. This is why Zionist rabbis such as .Menachem Kasher, have to resort to open fabrications in order to convince people that Zionism makes sense. See the "Zionist APologetics" section where I relate how it was recently disclosed how R. Kasher doctored documents and then falsely claimed, based on his forgeries, that tons of Rabbonim signed a letter saying that the tate of Israel is "aschalta D'geulah."

    Rabbi Kasher, although not a big Lamdan, was a great baki, and no ignoramus. If somoene of his stature had to resort to forgeries to convince people he was right, we can safely assume, there was no legitimate way for him to do so.

    Or take the Zionist Rosh Yeshiva, R. SHlomo Aviner, who wrote, regarding the Machlokes between the Rambam and Ramban, regarding whether the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel nowadays, where the Megilas Esther (a rishon) explains the Rambam's position that the Oaths would negate not only a mass taking over of EY but also the Mitzvah of the individual, that - I promise I am not making this up - he wrote that since the Ramban was bigger than the Megilas Esther, we should therefore pasken like the Ramban here.

    Rabbi Aviner, when dealing with topics not related to Zionism, does much better than this, sevara-wise. It boggles the mind that somone who gives shiurim to talmidim could possibly say something so absurd. It is to be understood only in view of the principle fo shochad yaavir ainei pikchim. When somone has an agenda, when someone wants a certina Hashkafa to be true, when someone wants so badly to fit a square peg inot a round hole, he will somehow imagine that he succeeded.

    And so, as I said, Zionism is not the result of misreading the Torah; misreading the Torah is the result of Zionism.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Rabbi Aviner’s Kuntres Shelo Yaalu Bachomah I found as part of something he wrote called “Hilchos Moshiach LHarambam”. Rabbi Hershel Schechter’s lecture that I was looking for was not the one Grend pointed out – though that one is useful as well (thanks, Grend, for pointing it out). The one I was looking for is written up in
    http://www.doingzionism.org/resources/view.asp?id=1442

    It seems that throughout the topics on this forum we already basically refuted all the claims these Zionists have used or quoted to attempt to defend Zionism. There is almost nothing they have come up with that has not already been dealt with here on the site. In fact, many of the ideas and thoughts that we thought were the product of teenagers and that I showed to be simple mistakes were, I find, actually taken from the works of these Zionist Roshei Yeshiva. I highly recommend that anyone who has any shadow of a doubt that Zionism is a not only a deviant, heretical philosophy but also halachicly ridiculous should check out the way the Zionists themselves try to defend themselves and all doubt will be dispelled. I actually could not believe some of the ideas they try to sell. What is strange is that they actually believe what they write (presumably), but we have to apply the lessons we learn from our sages, that theYetzer Horah can make people do – and say, and believe – the silliest things, as the Gemora explains regarding the Yetzer Horah of Avodah Zorah. We totally cannot understand how anybody could believe in that nonsense. Yet as Menashe said, even Talmudic sages, had they the Yetzer Horah for Avodah Zorah, would have been running to worship sticks and stones.

    And please note that Avodah Zorah is a belief – and the Yeter Horah can make a person believe the craziest things. And so, when our seforim say that in Ikvesa Demeshichah the Yetzer Horah for Apikorsus will be frightfully strong, we can only stand in awe at the Ruach Hakodesh of Chazal, because we see with our own eyes that the Yetzer Horah for Apikorsus makes even intelligent people believe the most absurd and nonsensical things.

    As a bonus, you will also find how far removed the Religious Zionist community is from the Gedolei Yisroel. After all, they find themselves declared by our Gedolim to be idol worshippers and Apikorsim – and if they are religious, then they are declared to be religious idol worhsippers and religious apikorsim - and so they have no choice but to reject those who made such declarations, thereby removing themselves from the Mesorah of Klall Yisroel. Sometimes, you’ll see, they just go into denial and they will make believe that the opposition to Zionism comes from “Satmar and the Neturei Karta”, which enables them to avoid , in their minds, the obvious problem of having the Chazon Ish for example, declare them heretics. If someone is not holding by understanding the Torahs against Zionism, he should see how the religious Zionists and the Gedolei Yisroel relate to one another, and then he should chose which side he wants to be on. Because, to be sure, choose he must.

    As I said, almost all of their claims are already to be found on this site with simple corrections and explanations as to why they fail. It’s not hard. We will find things such as what Rabbi Aviner quotes at the end of his Kuntres, in the name of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook. He quotes this more than once in his kuntres. It is a comment about the disagreement between the Rambam and the Ramban regarding the Mitzvah of Yishuv EY nowadays. The Rambam omitted it from his Sefer HaMitzvos. The Ramban says he should have put it in. The Megillas Esther, the commentary printed on the side of the Rambam, explains the Rambam to be saying that the Three Oaths which prohibit us form taking Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus also negate the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook comments that since the Ramban was much bigger than the Megilas Esther, we certainly should follow the Ramban over the Megilas Esther, who ignored the Oaths, obvisouly because he held they are just non-compulsary Kabalah or Agadita.

    The obvious blunder here is that there is a Machlokes here not between the Megilas Esther and the Ramban but between the Rambam and the Ramban. Even the Ramban agrees that the Rambam argues with him. The question here is not whether we should pasken like the Megilas Esther versus the Ramban but like the Rambam versus the Rambam. If he would say that the Megilas Esthers explanation in the Rambam doesn’t work, we could discuss it; but to say that the Ramban should be followed here because he is greater than the Megilas Esther is cockeyed logic, since it is the Rambam that is the opponent of the Ramban, not the Megilas Esther; The ME merely explained the Rambam.

    So lets say theres a machlokes between the Rambam and Raavad. And lets say Rav Chaim Brisker answers the Raavad’s question and explains what the Rambam means. Then someone comes and says that in this Machlokes, we should pasken like the Raavad, because the Raavad was so much greater than Rav Chaim Brisker. He’d be laughed out of the Bais Hamedrash.

    And how does anyone expect our reaction to be any different when someone says that in the Machlokes between the Rambam and Ramban, where the Megilas Esther explains the Rambam, that we should pasken like the Ramban because he was so much greater than the Megilas Esther.

    It’s amazing that I have to even explain this,

    But it doesn’t end there. He says (quote):
    On top of all this, besides the fact that the Megilas Esther, with all his greatness, does not come into consideration when pitted against the Ramban . . . Besides that, isn’t it well known and obvious that the Ramban knew the holy words of Chazal in Kesuvos 111a. However, the Ramban here in sefer Hamitzvos is not acting as a Kabbalah person, but rather as a teacher of plain Halachos, and so here he did not consider the holy Agadic words of Chazal . And so too was the proper understanding of Rav Meir Simcha who mentioned many times in his letter on behalf of Keren HaYesod, he reiterated many times the “fear of [violating] the Oaths,” the clear indication being that there is no halachic problem with [violating the Oaths], but merely fear due to [violating] them, and so there is no obstacle [because of the Oaths] to the Halachah and the Mitzvah of the Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  105. We’ll start from the bottom. He “proves” that the Oaths are not Halachicly binding because Rav Meir Simcha said he was afraid of violating them. And since he only mentioned fear and not Halachic violations, we see that the Oaths do not impact on Halachah.

    There is only one thing we can say to this in response:

    Huh?

    If let’s say they build an Eruv in my community and I say “Boruch Hashem, I am no longer afraid of Chilul Shabbos”, does that mean that I don’t believe that CHilul SHabbos is Halachicly wrong?

    That’s a pretty obviously trying to read something into the Ohr SOmeach's statement that's not there.

    But regarding the Ramban, he is assuming, with no source at all, that the reason the Ramban holds that the Oaths would not negate the Mitzvah of Yoshuv Eretz Yisroel is because the Oaths are Kabbalistic concepts, and not to be brought into Halacha.

    Not that the Oaths are from the Zohar or the Arizal or the Ramak – they’re straight out of Talmud Bavli, and quoted by the Halachah seforim such as the Piskei Riaz on the spot, the Rivash, the Rashbash, and others. Where he got the idea that they are merely “kabbalistic” is beyond me.

    But he also forgets that just because the Ramban does not say anywhere that he does not consider the Oaths Halachicly obligatory. All we know is that according to the Ramban the Oaths do not negate the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, which is not a chidush at all, since the Oaths do not impact on the Individual’s Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel – they only intended to prohibit taking Eretz Yisroel with sovereignty, or a collective – not individual – ascent to Eretz Yisroel. It is the chidush of the Megilas Esther – his own chidush – that the Oaths would also negate an individual’s Mitzvah.

    So the Ramban disagrees with the Megilas Esther’s chidush. Does that mean that the Ramban does not hold that the Oaths would prohibit collective or sovereign aliyah? No. It doesn’t mean that at all. To say so is to read into the Ramban something he never said.

    In fact, the Rashbash, a Rishon (an older contemporary of the Abarbanel), son of the Tashbetz, and descendent of the Ramban, writes (Teshuvos Rashbash #2) – and implies clearly that this is the Ramban’s opinion - that the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel is only on individuals but it is not a Mitzvah Klalis on all of Klall Yisroel, because – yes, he says it clearly – the Oaths prohibit an en masse aliyah.

    The Ramban himself (Maamar Hegeulah #1) states that the Oaths were what prevented the Jews outside of Bavel to return to Eretz Yisroel upon Coresh’s decree. The Jews in Bavel had a Nevuah that they should return, but the Jews outside of Bavel did not, he says, and so in the absence of a Nevuah, the Oaths prevented them from returning to Eretz Yisroel, despite the invitation by Coresh to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Rabbi Aviner is a Talmid Chacham. And in areas other than Zionisn, he does a whole lot better, scholarship-wise. And although it seems impossible for even a mediocre student of Talmud to make such glaring blunders as he does, we should understand that throughout history, greater people than Rabbi Aviner have made greater blunders. Hence the Korach – Yeravam – Shabse Tzvi analogies.

    Compare it to a old story of man who goes to the tailor for a custom designed suit. The tailor, not the most skilled craftsman in the world, creates a monstrosity of a suit, with one arm jetting out of the chest pointing to the sky, the other arm pointing perpetually down to the ground, and the pants legs hopelessly in the wrong place.

    The customer painstakingly puts on the suit, and with one arm pointing up, the other pointing down, his legs awkwardly poking out in the wrong places, his neck twisted off to the side. He walks out of the store, a grotesque sight, limping down the street in a manner that that made him look not unlike the Hunchback of Notre Dame with a broken leg.

    Almost immediately, a someone comes over to the awkwardly limping man, and remarks, “Wow. Who made you that suit? He must be the best tailor in the world?”

    “The best tailor in the world? Why in the world would you say that?” the man asks incredulously.

    The passerby answered, “Because if he can produce a suit for a cripple like you he must be amazing!”

    So too, you see Talimidei Chachamim putting out Torahs and saying things that make them look like cripples. You look at their stuff and say “no way – this makes no sense!” And it doesn’t. But its not because they are Amei Haaretz – its because they clothed themselves in the grotesque trappings of Zionism and now they have to fit themselves and their Torahs into the silliest of positions, and they come out looking like cripples.

    But its not them that’s the problem – its Zionism. Not their fault they cant find a normal way to defend something that cant be defended. Not everyone is capable of “being Metaher a sheretz”.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Rabbi Aviner has a list of 13 reasons that the Oaths are not a contradiction to the State of Israel. Some of his reasons are are also given by Rabbi Hershel Schechter (on the website above) and others as well. Time permitting, I will try to go through all 13 bli neder. I will start with the most popular ones. It wont take long, especially since, as I mentioned, all of the main reasons are addressed on the site already.

    #11 – “The poskim disagree with the Megillas Esther who says you are not allowed to make Aliyah b’chomah.

    This was dealt with above. The Megilas Esther is not the one who says “you are not allowed to make Aliyah b’chomah.” He says that even individuals have no Mitzvah because of the Oaths. Disagreeing with the Megilas Esther means that you say that the Oaths do not negate the Miztvah of the individual. But the issue of collective, sovereign Aliyah is not implied because someone disagrees with the Megilas Esther.

    #12 – The Oaths are Agadita and not Halachicly binding.

    First, The Oaths are quoted L'Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel - the majority of Jews at the time - did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh's call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon - warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.

    Second, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.
    Third, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says You may nto do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V'Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)
    Fourth, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to makign a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doign so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.
    #3 – Since the goyim violated their Oath – i.e. not to make the Jews suffer overmuch, we are therefore absolved fomr keeping ours.
    From
    http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?whichpage=5&pagesize=15&forum_title=Other&topic_title=&forum_id=9&topic_id=349
    First, the comparison to all those Oaths you mentioned is silly. In all those cases, mutual Oaths were made, by party "a" for the benefit of party "b" and by "b" for the benefit of "a". So if "a" violates his oath which was supposed to benefit "b", then "b" can violate theirs. It's a simple concept of making a deal - I'll help you if you help me.
    But the Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more!

    But besides that there is no comparison between these Oaths and all the reciprocal Oaths found anywhere, the whole idea is disproven by even a cursory glance at our Seforim:

    ReplyDelete
  108. Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Ephrain, Chazal say, were all hunted donw and killed in the deset for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.
    The Oaths are brought down l'halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years.
    The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It's clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.
    The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths.
    The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us wuth torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.
    And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel).
    The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is nto included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing.
    R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced SHmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the "shem hameforash" and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.
    And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b'chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim's Oath anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says.
    What I wrote above is not rocket science. It's pretty obvious. Takes no genius or encyclopedic knowledge to understand it. Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violate dtheirs but we still cannot violate ours.
    It's just plain dishonesty that would make people come up with this.

    ReplyDelete
  109. (Note: Regarding the Reb Shlomo Kluger quoted by Rabbi Aviner, it is an erroneous quote. Rasha”k admits clearly that the Bnei Efriam were punished for violating the Oaths, even though Egypt violated theirs. He only permits breaking the Oath that prevents praying a lot for the Geulah – see Vayoel Moshe Maamar I for an explanation as to the uniquness of the Oath prohibiting prayer.)
    Regarding both of the above heteirim:
    It’s a pity nobody told the Rambam about these heteirim – for he warns un in Igeres Tamon not to violate the Oaths.
    And it’s a pity nobody told all those other poskim I quoted about the se heteirim either – because they all say the Oaths are binding.
    And its an even bigger pity nobody told Hashem about these heteirim – for He killed the Bnei Efriam for violating the Oaths. A pity, for they should not have been killed killed for no reason according to the Zionists. And He also punished the generation of Bar Kochba for violating these Oaths. Pity.
    Can some Zionist please tell G-d to stop punishing people for doing nothing wrong??? And please tell Chazal not to say that people were killed for violating the Oaths when in fact youre allowed to violate them!!
    No, its not rocket science at all.

    ReplyDelete
  110. the Hatekufah Hegedolah by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher. Rabbi Kasher is the author of, among other writings, the monumental work, “Torah Sheleimah”, which is a collection of midrashim and meforshim on Chumash. The sefer was used even by the Satmar Rebbe ZTL, who obtained it volume by volume as it was published. His comment on it was, “The bikius is nice, but the commentary is dry.” Rabbi Kasher’s Hatekufah Hagedolah is quoted as an authority by almost all religious Zionists, including Rabbi Aviner. The italicized comments, as well as those in square bracktes, are mine.


    Hatekufah Hagedolah

    Following the mention here (again) of the sefer Hatekufah Hagedolah by R.
    Mendel Kasher, and its use by many Religious Zionists as a Mareh Mokom for "religious"
    pro-zionist material and more recently as proof of Charedi acceptance of the
    "Aschalta DeGeula" concept, my attention has been brought to the sefer
    "MiKatowitz ad 5 B'Iyar" by well known Yerushalmi lawyer/to'en rabboni
    R' Zvi Weinman, who (amongst other matters) deals quite severely with the Hateufah Hagedolah,
    revealing the deliberate misquotes and deletions of its author - resulting
    in a complete misrepresentation and falsification of the facts. *
    Despite the respect for his monumental Torah Sheleimo, many have been
    uncomfortable with RMK's Mizrachi-style views as stated in HaH, and which have
    made him into something of an ideologue in Religious zionist circles.


    At the time of its publication the tone and content of his sefer upset some and
    not surprisingly, the Beis Din of the Edah Charedis of that time,
    led by Rav Pinchos Epstein z'l, issued a warning against the reading the HaH,
    labelling it 'Dei'os Kozvos' [ = bogus teachings] and adding that 'shahneh minus d'moshcheh..." [= “Apikorsus is unique in that it drage people into believing it”]


    But it is doubtful if even those who railed against him at the time,
    expected RMK to resort to doctoring and censoring material in order to
    'manufacture' evidence for his ideas.


    It seems surprising that a person with his vast knowledge, required the use
    of misleading and deceptive information to prove his case. [It is not surprising at all. Nothing in his vast storehouse of knowledge was able to support religious Zionim, and so he had to fabricate material.]


    And if a layman like RZW can cut right through important historical facts
    of his book, one must wonder what a Talmid Chochom could do to the
    mareh-mekomos used in the rest of Ha"H? [ One need not wonder. The entire sefer is no better founded than that of Rabbis Aviner or Zimmerman, which is why none of the above are even taken seriously in Torah circles]

    ReplyDelete
  111. RZW goes to the heart of the Kol Koreh (recently mentioned by RSH) and
    printed in HaH, p.374, which is a call to vote for the Chazit Datit
    Me'uchedet, and featuring the notion of "Aschalta DeGeulah" following the
    establishment of the state of israel.


    This KK is signed by chief rabbis Herzog and Uziel plus over 150 rabbis and
    Roshei Yeshivos - a number of them highly respected in the Charedi world.


    The propaganda value of this KK can be seen from the fact that it is
    referred to again and again as clear and open 'proof' that even the Charedi
    gedolim accepted the ADG status of the new israel. (I have yet to see
    proof for any sighting of a repeat of this comment by these gedolim.)


    However RZW goes further in his book (from p. 131) and discusses the
    background to this and the 2 other KK's of the time (one by the Admorim and
    another by Roshei Yeshivos - neither which mention Atchlta D’Geulah). He also notes that the
    ADG-KK was only published in the Mizrachi Hatzofeh - and NOT in
    the Agudist press (obviously they would have 'smelled a rat.').


    Upon investigating the matter and contacting some of these signatories for
    their explanation, he found that they NEVER SIGNED THIS KK!


    The modus operandi of the organisers for the KK was simple. They mailed out the text
    of that KK, notifying the recipients that anyone who does not send in an
    objection, will have his name added to it.


    This explains - writes RZW - the signature of Rav Menachem Kooperstock,
    who had passed away TWO AND A HALF YEARS prior to the date on the KK!!!
    He simply couldn't object...


    RZW comprehensively debunks RMK's statements (p.231) that "k'mat kol gedolei
    hatorah vechol RY's bo'oretz" accepted the concept of ADG, and (Ha"H page 387):
    "...kovu v'ishru 200 rabbonim miyisroel kimat kol rabbonei ho'oretz gam
    chavrei Agudas Yisroel (milvad HaNeturei Karta).. .hashkofas daas hatorah
    merabonei ho'oretz bli pipukim vechashoshos...shehakomas medina
    hi...kehashgocho protis min hashomayim K'ASCHALTA D'GEULA."


    As already mentioned above, RZW says that these quotes from HaH are
    regularly used by those who need it, to prove that the Gedolei Yisroel
    accepted the ADG.


    (Indeed, I noticed in my (borrowed) copy of HaH that RM Kasher
    himself considered this KK so important, that he refers the reader to it -
    **right at the beginning of his book** - even before his Hakodomo.)

    ReplyDelete
  112. RZW continues, that not only did he speak to the Gedolim, who denied ever
    signing such a KK, but - after much effort - found the original document -
    with the signatures...and of course the document with signatures NEVER has
    the words "Aschalta DeGeula" on it!


    The actual words there are (reproduced in his book): "...hanitzonim
    horishonim shel KIBBUTZ GOLIYOS..." (The HaH version: "...hanitzonim
    horishonim shel ASCHALTA DEGEULA."!!!)


    (Incidentally, RZW adds, that at that time no one yet had any idea that this
    "kibbutz goliyos" would also cause with the mass Haavora al hadass in the
    Olim camps.)


    RZW notes (p.144) that his criticisms of the HaH were originally published
    in the Z'eirei Agudas Yisroel monthly Digleinu (Shvat 5738) - during
    the lifetime of RMK, who obviously wouldn't or couldn't respond.
    (This is despite the fact that at the end of his foreword, he invited comments.)

    For more please click here:
    http://www.herzl.org.il/course/1/ravi.htm


    Later on (p.282) in his book, RZW brings further evidence, that RMK's bias
    and prejudices caused him to censor/misquote and misrepresent facts in an
    article in the rabanut publication Shono Beshonoh, in order to give the
    impression that his pro-zionist views were not in conflict with the majority
    of the Gedolei Yisroel.


    He further brings (photostatic) proof from an article in the Rabbinic journal "Hapardes"
    on the Knessiya Gedola in Marienbad in 1937 reporting the 7-hour discussion on the
    question of a Jewish state, which was blatantly and unashamedly doctored by
    RMK, to give the impression that the only rabbonim against, were those from
    Hungary and Czechoslovakia (and conveniently deleting/censoring the names of
    RE Wasserman, RA Kotler and Rav Rottenberg of Antwerp.)

    ReplyDelete
  113. He also deleted the sentence that those voting against -
    held this view under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES -
    even if such a medina was built upon 'yesodos hadass', because, this (an
    independent state) would be "Kefirah b'emunas bias hamoshiach..." and
    especially one built "...al yesodos hakefirah, venimtza shem shomayim
    mischalell."


    In page 286 he also shows how RMK in HaH distorted the words of the Gerer
    Rebbe (Imrei Emes) z'l at that meeting.


    Another person who published (in 5729) an attack on RMK is Rav Moshe
    Sternbuch shlit'a who was then a Rosh Kollel, living in Bnei Brak. His main
    aim is the Kol Hator which RMK attached to HaH - claiming it is the work of
    Rav Hillel Shklaver z'l purporting to be the views of the Gr"o z'l on
    Inyonei Geula etc - which somehow fit in very nicely with the views of HaH.


    RMS notes that the clear evidence that the entire sefer is not from
    the Gr"o or his students is the fact that it contains many modern Hebrew
    words and it is therefore unclear what is from the original and what was
    added later. In his opinion KH should not have been published - being a
    "Dovor She'eino Mesukan".


    He also expresses his surpise at RMK who ignored the Cherem Hakadmonim
    issued by the Bes Din of Vilna after the petira of the Gr"o not to publish
    anything in his name without the haskomo of the Bes Din.. [Rav Moshe Sterenbuch’s involvement in this is not merely due to his outrage at the Zionist distortion. He is a direct descendent of the GRA, and has spent a lot of his life deciphering his forebearer’s shitos. He is something of an expert on the GRA]


    RMS continues that RMK well knows the opinion of "rov minyan ubinyan gedolei
    hador hakodem vedorenu" (including RC Brisker, REC Meisles, RE Wasserman,
    RBB Leibowitz,RA Kotler and most of the gedolei Hachasidus) on these
    matters. But he disregards them and only brings those who are leshitoso.


    RMS then goes on to prove that even in this version of KH there are many
    rayos which clearly disprove RMK ideas in HaH and goes as far as calling him
    a 'megaleh ponim beTorah shelo kehalocho"!


    His 'maamar' runs approximately 10 pages with point after point
    disproving RMK's pshat in the KH and the Gr"o.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hayotze Lonu Mizeh, that it's more than obvious that when it came to stand up
    for his prejudices, RM Kasher was quite prepared to openly and/or
    surreptitiously doctor, censor and distort the facts. Thus, LAD, his book
    should not be used as serious proof for any debate on matters relating to
    the medina and the views of the Gedolei Yisroel. And, as mentioned
    previously, all his rayos etc misforim vesofrim must be double and triple
    checked - before being quoted as "Toras Emes".


    It seems to me that this need for distortion and misrepresentation
    shows that even this renowned Torah scholar felt that without it
    he could never convince the (Torah) world that an independent
    medina prior to bias hamoshiach was the ideal choice of
    the recognised gedolim.

    I discussed this material with a MO rabbi, who, to say the least (after
    seeing RZW's book), was quite disappointed - as, until now,
    the HaH was for him a mekor musmach. After the initial shock however, he
    went as far as to tell me that it is a 'mitzvah lefarsem' these 'ha'oros'.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Rabbi Aviner’s Defense of the Avnei Nezer

    Note: As stated above, there is no shitah mentioned by anyone including Zionists that if the nations of the world are in disagreement whether the Jews should take EY, that the United Nations vote decides, or even that a majority of nations decides. What decides, according to this shitah, is whether the taking of EY is done peacefully, without need for strength or arms (“yad hachazakah”), then, permission that allowes such a peaceful, unopposed ascent would not be in violation of the Oath of Shelo Yaalu Bachomah. If on the other hand, a “yad hachazakah” “strength of arms” is needed to take over EY, such ascent is in violation of the Oath of Shelo Yaalu Bachomah according to everyone. In the case of the State of Israel, despite UN votes and suggestions, residents of the land being taken from them gave no such permission for Jews to take it. And they resisted the land being taken by the Jews such that a bloody war had to be fought over the land, a war in which one percent of the entire Jewish population was annihilated. Hardly a peaceful ascent, and surely one that required “yad hachazakah.” The opposition of these nations to the Jews taking EY continues to this day, such that EY has become the most deadly place for Jews to lived, because of this opposition. There are Jews who will not ride their own busses, will not congregate in crowded places, and cannot enter a mall or bus station without being searched by police or soldiers and scanned by metal detectors, because of the opposition to the Zionist take over of EY still, 50 years later. There has been on the average one war every 10 years of the State’s existence, not counting intifadas and acts of terrorism. All because of the then-residents’ opposition to the Jews taking over EY.

    There Zionists have not come up with a single shitah that such a takeover is anything but a violation of “byad hachazakah.” The Zionist denial of the bloody results of their “solution to anti-semitism” and “safe haven” for Jews does not help the close to 25,000 Jews who were killed in this “safe haven.” Yet the Zionists, Roshei Yeshivos and Rabbonim among them, still teach their impressionable young students that the Zionists takeover of EY is comparable to Coresh’s open invitation for Jews to come into his land and build the Bais Hamikdash. When we wonder, when learn in Yeshiva that intelligent Jews used to bow to sticks and stones, how the Yetzer Horah can make an intelligent person do such a stupid thing, we have but to observe, first hand, the Zionist “defenses” to their crimes against the Torah, and see what utterly ridiculous things intelligent people can come to believe when the Yetzer Horah wants them to believe them.

    Therefore, the following is completely l’pilpula d’alma for academic edification (which in the case of Torah happens to be a Mitzvah). But any discussion of the Avnei Nezer is immaterial to the Zionist undertaking, since the Zionists did indeed take over E”Y without permission of its then-residents.

    In the footnotes to Kuntres Shelo Yaalu Bachomah Rabbi Aviner mentions that Rav Yonason Eyebushitz writes that even peacefully and permissibly we may not take EY because of the Oaths. The Avnei Nezer himself recognized this and said that since Rashi uses the phrase “byad hachazakah” to describe the Oath of Shelo Yaalu Bachomah, indicating that only if EY is taken by force is the Oath violated. The Avnei Nezer says that Rav Yonason’s statement therefore must be understood as drush, but we are obliged to follow Rashi’s halachic definition of the Oath.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Rabbi Aviner says that we would similarly dismiss the position of the Kaharash Yafo who says the same thing as Rav Yonason Eyebushitz as well.

    What he does not mention is that there are other interpretations of the phrase “byad hachazakah” and “bchomah” that disagree with the Avnei Nezer, nor does he make us aware of the difficulties in the Avnei Nezer’s interpretation. He also does not mention the Ramban who states clearly that even with permission of the nations, real permission, like Coresh gave, the Oaths are still in effect. This would make it a machlokes Rashi and Ramban, even according to the Avnei Nezer. He also does not mention the Maharal’s statement that the Oaths are inviolable even if the nations of the world try to force us to violate them, we should rather die then take over EY he says, surely, then, simple permission of the nations would not suffice.

    But even in Rashi, the words “byad hachazakah” are subject to different interpretations. IN the Shmos 6:1 we read that Paroh, not Hashem, see the meforshim—sends the Jews out of Egpyt “byad hachazakah.” Paroh waged no war to force the Jews out of Egypt and needed no force of arms. Yet his sovereign declaration that the Jews leave, even without preparation, and his forceful pleading is considered “Yad hachazakah”. Rashi himself on that posuk points this out. In Devarim 4:34 we read that Hashem took the Jews out of the bowels of another nation with wonders, “wars, and yad chazakah”. Says the Ibn Ezra: Yad chazakah – The Jews left Egypt with a Yad Ramah. This phrase, Yad Ramah is translated by the Targum Shmos 14:8 as “raish galui” not force, no war, no resistance is necessary to be considered Yad Chazakah.

    And as far as “chomah” goes, the Maharsha in Yoma 9 explains that going to EY “kachomah” means with enough people so that you would not remain alone and unprotected against your enemies. According to the Maharsha, too, conquest is not necessary to be considered “kachomah”. So too Matnos Kehuna on the Medrash Rabbah Shir Hashirim 8:1 – Kachomah means with going to EY with a multitude such that used to frequent the “shuk” in Bavel. So an ascent of a substantial amount of Jews – not even a majority of Jews and not even a large minority, but something akin to the crowds on the streets of Bavel – is considered kachomah.

    In view of all this, and especially in view of the Ramban which, according to the Avnei Nezer’s interpretation of Rashi would disagree with Rashi, there would be no reason according to all of the above Meforshim to say that the Ahavas Yonason or the Maharash Yafa are not mean L’halachah.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Reason # 13 – The Oaths are decrees, not prohibitions

    This is “based” on a Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24). After he quotes the Oaths as well as the consequences of the Jews violating them (“If you fulfill the Oaths, it is good; if not, I will allow your flesh to be hunted down in the fields like game and cattle”) explains the reason for the Oaths. He says that since Golus is an unnatural state, and all unnatural states have natural resistance, therefore, in order to protect the integrity of the Golus, Hashem institued the Oaths. The Maharal refers to the Oaths, besides as Oaths, as “gezeiros” too. Elsewhere, the Maharal mentions the Oaths and states “Oaths, that is, decrees.”

    Now Rabbi Aviner claims that since the Maharal refers to the Oaths as decrees, that shows they are not binding on us. It’s just that Hashem decreed that things will be this way, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t ignore the decree and try to do differently. If we do ignore the decree and successfully violate the Oath, there would be nothing wrong with that.

    His diyuk is not a diyuk – the language of the Maharal indicates no such thing – and his conclusions is absurd. The idea that the Maharal holds the Oaths are some kind of natural force or a curse or a gezeirah (I have seen various strains of this in various Zionist teachings) is disproven with no effort at all.

    ReplyDelete
  118. As far as his “diyuk”, the fact that the Maharal refers to the Oaths as “gezeiros” does not indicate at all that they are not Halachos. What the Maharal means when he refers to the Oaths as gezeiros is the same as what we mean when we say “chazal made a gezeira.” Gezeira is used to mean Halachic decree as well as natural law. There are other Maharals that mention Gezeiros where this is clear. The Maharal in Chidushei Agados in Erachin writes: “Know that Tzoraas is fitting for those who distance themselves from reality, and therefore the Torah was gozer on him that he should sit alone separated from his community”. Would Rabbi Aviner say that this, too, is not Halachic? He read this entire idea into a diyuk that says nothing of the kind. Nothing even close.

    The Maharal’s intent by referring to the Oaths as Gezeiros besides as Oaths is because usually Oaths are self-motivated. A person makes an Oath prohibiting or requiring something of himself. However, these Oaths were not our choice – they were determined and done by Hashem. In that sense, they are Gezeiros. It has nothing to do with laws of nature as opposed to Halachic obligations. Rather, it has to do with a something self-imposed versus decreed by Hashem.

    And regarding his “conclusions”, that the Oaths are merely natural laws, and there is therefore no problem violating them, obviously that is not so, because this “decree,” as opposed to “natural law” decrees, comes complete with a list of with problems that happen to you if you violate them: “If you fulfill the oaths, it is good, if not, I will allow you to be hunted down like game in the field.” Not only is this in the Gemora itself, but it is quoted in the very Maharal that Rabbi Aviner is discussing. And not only is it quoted in that Maharal, it is actually the very dibur hamaschil of the statement that Rabbi Aviner is dealing with. That’s right – the Maharal makes this comment not on the Oaths themselves, but on the consequences of the Oaths. “If you fulfill the Oaths, it is good; if not, I will allow you to be hunted etc.” The explanation of this idea is that the Golus is an unnatural state etc.

    But does not end there. That same Maharal, just a few lines later, in that very same paragraph after he refers to the Oaths as “gezeiros”, says, “Even if the nations want to kill the Jews with torture” they must not violate the Oaths.

    Clearly, then, (a) it is possible to violate the Oaths, and (b) if we do, the consequences will be mass destruction, and (c) we are warned not to violate the Oaths even under threat of torturous death. That wasn’t difficult at all. Pretty much a-b-c and in plain sight of anybody learning the sugya or reading the Maharal that he refers to. This is not just an error that Rabbi Aviner made. It is a shameful distortion of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Here’s Rabbi Shlomo Aviner’s take on Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZTL, that great gaon and tzadik, Talmid Muvhak of the Chofetz Chaim ZTL, who voluntarily went back to Europe to die in the holocaust because he knew his Talmidim could not escape and he could not bear to have them trapped there to die alone.

    So he went back. Rav Schwab ZTL told me that when Reb Elchonon was here and expressed his plans to join his talmidim in their darkest hour, he told Reb Elchonon, “You realize, don’t you, that if you go back there, you’re not going to get out alive?!”

    Rav Schwab, when he was telling me this story, at this point lowered his head to the ground, but his lower lip as if to hold back a tear, clenched both of his fists, and continued:

    “‘Yes,’ Reb Elchonon told me. ‘I know.’”

    Says Rabbi Aviner about that great Tzadik (Chayei Olam, p. 320):

    “He wrote terrible words of indictment (kitrug) against Am Yisroel. Hashem should save us from views such as his…It is a great Mitzvah to save Am Yisroel from these evil (or: “bad” – “raos”) views”.

    Of course, in theory, just because someone was a Tzadik and a Gaon and the closest student of the Chofetz Chaim, who gave his life so that young Torah scholars who would have died anyway r”l, should at least not die cold and alone, could, I supposed, write “terrible accusations” against Am Yisroel, though its difficult to imagine how, seeing that he cared so much for those Torah scholars that his life was forfeit for their benefit, but besides that, and besides the fact that what Rabbi Aviner writes is complete Hotzoas Shem Rah against one of the greatest Tzadikim of the 20th century (for Rav Elchonon guilty of no such thing), the point is that Rabbi Aviner is indeed forced to believe such things, because what else can he say in response to the fact that Rav Elchonon paskened that religious Zionism is nothing but “religion and avodah zorah combined”? That Rabbi Aviner’s very lifeblood is avodah zorah?

    This is what I mean by the Zionists severing their connection with out Mesorah. Gedolim such as Reb Elchonon, the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav and others did not merely declare Zionism “wrong”, but avodah zorah, apikorsus, and the like. When our Gedolim draw a line in the sand that thick, and you insist on crossing it, you kind of have no choice but to either go into denial (and cowardly make believe they never said such things or never meant them, and that “only Satmar” believes Zionsim is kefirah, like many Zionists do) or, declare that the “right side” of the line is yours and the Gedolim are the ones who are the “terrible accusers” against Am Yisroel

    ReplyDelete
  120. More on the Letter of Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk

    Rav Meir Simcha writes that because the Balfour declaration, the “Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel” has returned. Now he did not say the Mitzvah of Kibush Haaretz, but rather the Mitzvah of Yishuv Haaretz. Clearly, Rav Meir Simcha held that the oaths not only prevent any takeoverof Eretz Yisroel, but they also negate the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, as per the Megilas Esther.

    Now take a look at Rabbi ZY Kook’s statement (quoted by Rabbi Aviner) in context:

    “Besides the fact that it is understood that the Megilas Esther, with all his greatness and holiness, does not come into the equation against the Ramban, who is called the ‘Father of klal Yisroel’, and is the source for many halachos in shulchan aruch, whereas the Megilas Esther is not the source for one single halachah—it is not obvious and clear that the Ramban knew the words of Chazal in Kesuvos 111a, but in Sefer Hamitzbos he presents as a Halachic authority, not a Kabalistic, and so he did not consider [when he said the Mitzvah of Yishuv Haaretz appies], the holy Agadic words of Chazal, and so too was the understanding of Rav Meir Simcha ZTL, who in his letter…repeats oftentimes the phrase ‘the fear of the oaths’, from which it is clear that there is no issue of halachah here but rather fear due to the concept of the Oaths, and so there is no contradiction to [between the Oaths] and the halachah and Mitzvah d’oraisah.”

    The problem is, the rest of the quote of Rav Meir Simcha goes like this “the fear of the Oaths has passed, and so the Mitzvah of Yishuv Haaretz returns”, meaning that the Oaths indeed do have the power to negate the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, and only if the Oaths are not being violated does the Mitzvah apply.

    It would be difficult to imagine how someone could make such an incredible blunder. It really is hard to fathom, unless you consider the desperate Yetzer Horah for avodah zorah that tempts people to literally think in terms of the absurd

    ReplyDelete
  121. Refutation of R. Shlomo Aviner's Kuntres Lo Yaalu Bechomah

    The "reasons" refer to his reasons in hsi kuntres that he believes the Oaths are not relevant.

    Reason #1 - The Oaths only disallow the Jews from taking Eretz Yisroel if the Goyim dont want them to. But if the Goyim give them permission to, they may. The Balfour Declaration constitutes permission.

    Refutation #1 - The Ramban (maamar hageulah #1) says that when when Koresh gave the Jews permission to return to EY, only a small amount of Jews went, the ones from Bavel, because they had a prophecy that said they should return. But those who did not have the support of a Nevuah to return did not, because they would have been in violation of the Oaths, even thoug hKoresh asked them to return. Ergo: Even with permission to return, it is still in violation of the Oaths to do so.

    Also, the Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that not only are the Oaths still binding even if we take EY without force, but even if we are forced to take EY by the Goyim we are not allowed to do it - we have to resist unto death the wishes of the Goyim for us to take EY. It is Yehoreg V'al Yaavor, he says.

    Rav Yonason Eyebushitz (in AHavas Yonason) and the Yefas Toar (on the Oaths, both quoted all over this site) also say clearly that even a peaceful, with-permsission ascent to EY is prohibited according to the Oaths.

    Furthermore: The Avnei Nezer that Rabbi Aviner quotes in support of his case, as well as the letter by Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, and any others, are of no support at all, for the following reasons:

    Refutation #2 - The Avnei Nezer he quotes that says the Oath of shelo yaalu kachomah is not applicable is the ascent was peaceful and with permission, clearly does not alpply to the other Oath of dechikas haketz. For his diyuk in Rashi, "byad hachazakah" is only referring to Oath #2 (shelo yaalu kashomah) and not #3 (dechikas hketz). So even according to the avnei nezer, it would still be assur to take EY even peacefully, due to the Oath of Dechikas Haktez.
    Furthermore, the Minchas Elozor has questioned the authenticity of that Avnei Nezer altogether - ME V:12 says that it contradicts the Avnei Nezer's publicly known policies and is therefore most likely a forgery.

    Even if those authorities were all authentic, and even if they did give heterim for all the Oaths, they are still a minority opinion. At the very least, Rabbi Aviner provides no due process to tell us why we would pasken like the Avnei Nezer agaisnt the Ramban (?!) and the others.
    It's strange - he says we should pasken like the Ramban against the Megilas Esther because the Ramban was so much greater, yet when the Avnei Nezer (and, according to him one or two later achronim) contradict the Ramban and the Maharal and Rav Yonason Eyebushitz and the Yefas Toar - he just ignores the Ramban and the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Refutation # 3 - There is no shita in the world that says if some nations get togethr and vote that Jews should get EY they can. The shita says that if they can take EY peacefully without resistance then it would not violate the Oath. But that did nto happen here. There was a war - the war of '48, where 6,0000 Jews were killed. The Arabs, who were living in and around the land, did not give the Jews any permission to take it. Other countries did, and there is no such halachic status that the UN is like some kind of Sanhedrin Hagadol that can bind other nations to its decisions (any Zionist can tell you that). In any case, there is no comparison to a Coresh or any other "peaceful ascent", since - hello!! - in order to create the State of Israel they had to fight a bloody war with the Arabs!!!. So why in the world is that called a "peaceful ascent"?

    If the Zionists were weaker they never would have been able to create a State - it all depended on their Yad Hachazakah.
    No shitah ever found or imagined ever permitted such a thing. Not the Avnei Nezer, not R. Meir Simchah, nobody.

    Refutation # 4 -
    The Balfour Declaration never promised the Jews that they could take over Eretz Yisroel. Although the Zionists said it did, they were told time and time again that it is not so. At

    www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/israel/large/folder4/isd07-4.htm

    you will find a letter from Freda Kirchwey to Chaim Weizman. The following is an excerpt therefrom:

    "The Jews based their claim to the right to go to Palestine on the Balfour Declaration....
    "The question of a "national home" can be subject to many interpretations. it is hard to bleieve that the British government, using the words "national home" in 1917 had any idea that there shouold be created a Jewish State in Palestine withotu regard to the rights of the large Arab majority living there".

    ReplyDelete
  123. Also, the following memo by Frank P. Corrigan, titled "Summary of the Palestime Problem" at

    www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/israel/large/folder4/isd08-1.htm

    "The legal claims stem first out of the Blafour Declaration. This was a political paper that promised the Jews a 'home' where they might feel safe from persecutions from which they had for centuries been the victims. Closely examined, this does not constitute much grounds for the legal establishment of a sovreign Jewish State in Palestine. The Jews have read into it much more than it contains."

    In fact, the Balfour Declaration was originally drafted by ther Zionists. They (July 1917) wanted it to say, "His Majesty's government accpets the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people.."

    But Lord Balfour did not agree to that. What it said instead (October 1917) was "His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...".

    A big difference. A 'national home' is not necessarily a sovereign state, and "in" Palestine does not mean, as they wanted it to say, [all of] "Palestine".

    Winston Churchill, in reposnse to the Zionists running around telling the world that "See? They said we can take Palestine as our State!", retorted that the declaration did not mean "the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palistine as whole, but further development of the existing Jewish community." In other words, a safe home for Jews to live within Palestine, a developed Jewish Yishuv within Palestine, but not a Jewish State.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Rabbi Aviner’s Defense of the Anvei Nezer
    Note: As stated above, there is no shitah mentioned by anyone including Zionists that if the nations of the world are in disagreement whether the Jews should take EY, that the United Naitons vote decides, or even that a majority of nations decides. What decides, according to this shitah, is whether the taking of EY is done peacefully, without need for strength or arms (“yad hachazakah”), then, permission that allows such a peaceful, unopposed ascent would not be in violation of the Oath of Shelo Yaalu Bachomah. If on the other hand, a “yad hachazakah” – strength of arms – is needed to take over EY, such an ascent is in violation of the Oath of Shlo Yaalu Bachomah according to everyone. In the case of the State of Irael, despite UN votes and suggestions, residents of the land being taken from them gave no such permission for Jews to take it. And they resisted the land being taken by the Jews such that a bloody war had to be fought over the land, a war in which one percent of the entire Jewish population was annihilated. Hardly a peaceful ascent, and surely one that required “yad hachazakah.” The opposition of these nations to the Jews taking EY continues to this day, such that EY has become the most deadly place for Jews to live, because of this opposition. There are Jews who will not ride their own busses, will not congregate in crowded places, and cannot enter a mall or bus station without being searched by police or soldiers and scanned by metal detectors, because of the opposition to the Zionist take over of EY – still, 50 years later. There has been on the average one war every 10 years of the State’s existence, not counting intifadas and acts of terrorism. All because of the then-residenst’ opposition to the Jews taking over EY.

    The Zionists have no come up with a single shitah that such a takeover is anything but a violation of “byad hachazakah.” The Zionist denial of the bloody results of their “solution to anti-semitism” and “safe haven” for Jews does not help the close to 25,000 Jews who were killed in this “safe haven.” Yet the Zionists – Roshei Yeshivos and Rabobnim among them – still teach their impressionable young students that the Zionists takeover of EY is comparable to Coresh’s open invitation for Jews to come into his land and build the Bais Hamikdash. When we wonder, when learn in Yeshiva that intelligent Jews used to bow to sticks and stones, how the Yetzer Horah can make an intelligent person do such a stupid thing, we have but to observe, first hand, the Zionist “defenses” to their crimes against the Torah, and see what utterly ridiculous things intelligent people can come to believe when the Yetzer Horah wants them to believe them.

    Therefore, the following is completely l’pilpula d’alma – for academic edification (which in the case of Torah happens to be a Mitzvah). But any discussion of the Avnei Nezer is immaterial to the Zionist undertaking, since the Zionists did indeed take over EY without permission of its then-residents.

    In the footnotes to Kuntres Shelo Yaalu Bachomah Rabbi Aviner mentions that Rav Yonason Eyebushitz writes that even peacefully and permissibly we may not take EY because of the Oaths. The Avnei Nezer himself recognized this and said that since Rashi uses the phrase “byad hachazakah” to describe the Oath of Shelo Yaalu Bachomah, indicating that only if EY is taken by force is the Oath violated. The Avnei Nezer says that Rav Yonason’s statement therefore must be understood as drush, but we are obliged to follow Rashi’s halachic definition of the Oath.

    Rabbi Aviner says that we would similarly dismiss the position of the Maharash Yafo who says the same thing as Rav Yonason Eyebushitz as well.

    ReplyDelete
  125. What he does not mention is that there are other interpretations of the phrase “byad hachazakah” and “bchomah” that disagree with the Avnei Nezer, nor does he make us aware of the difficulties in the Avnei Nezer’s interpretation. He also does not mention the Ramban who states clearly that even with permission of the nations – real permission, like Coresh gave – the Oaths are still in effect. This would make it a machlokes Rashi and Ramban, even according to the AVnei Nezer. He also does not mention the Maharal’s statement that the Oaths are inviolable even if the nations of the world try to forceus to violate them – we should rather die then take over EY he says – surely, then, simple permission of the nations would not suffice.

    But even in Rashi, the words “byad hachazakah” are subject to different interpretations. In Shmos 6:1 we read that Paroh – not Hashem, see the meforshim - sends the Jews out of Egypt “byad chazakah.” Paroh waged no war to force the Jews out of Egypt and needed no force of arms. Yet his sovereign declaration that the Jews leave, even without preparation, and his forceful pleading is considered “Yad hachazakah”. Rashi himself on that posuk points this out. In Devarim 4:34 we read that Hashem took the Jews out of the bowels of another nation with wonders, “wars, and yad chazakah”. Says the ibn Ezra: Yad chazakah – The Jews left Egypt with a Yad Ramah. This phrase, Yad Ramah is translated by the Targum Shmos 14:8 as “raish galui” – not force, no war, no resistance is necessary to be considered Yad Chazakah.

    And as far as “chomah” goes, the Maharsha in Yoma 9 explains that going to EY “kachomah” means with enough people so that you would not remain alone and unprotected against your enemies. According to the Maharsha, too, conquest is not necessary to be considered “kachomah”. So too Matnos Kehunah on the Medrash Rabbah Shir Hashirim 8:1 – Kachomah means with going to EY with a multitude such that used to frequent the “shuk” in Bavel. So an ascent of a substantial amount of Jews – not even a majority or Jews and not even a large minority, but something akin to the crowds on the streets of Bavel - is considerd k’chomah.

    In view of all this, and especially in view of the Ramban which, according to the AVnei Nezer’s interpretation of Rashi would disagree with Rashi, there would be no reason according to all of the above Meforshim to say that the Ahavas Yonason or the Maharash Yafa are not meant L’halachah.

    ReplyDelete
  126. migila...at one pount you say r kasher started out well and then went off. Later you say the brisker rav ( who died in 1959 ) was very against him.
    so when dis the change occur?

    ReplyDelete
  127. Megila returns! I just discovered the 16 paragraph long material from megila here now.
    I do not have time to read it all right this moment. I am printing out the the entire thread to read over shabbos and will bli neder begin responding next week.
    For now, you might want to check R Moshe Shternbuch Shu't Teshuvos Vehanhagos chelek 2 teshuva 140, last paragraph. See what rov gedolim held.
    I am also currently working on an informal respone to "Yoel Elchonon". It's called Dat Ha'kitzoniyut. Ironically, it was that book that spurred me to do the research that lead to Maran Harav Kook and his well founded shittos.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Megila-
    I have read your last series of rambling comments. I am glad you have identiied the source of nearly all the religious zionist distortions. I note that Mr Frumteens has reached the exact same conclusions. Not only that, you were even mechaven to same horrific spelling errors! Surely a case of Hasgocho Pratis/Sitra Achra!
    Now down to business: The gist of "your" comments were that anyone who believes we can legimately have a state before Mashiach comes is delusional/oveid AZ/analogous to shabsai tzvi. Well then, it is all the more important that you hear the words of R Shternbuch I mentioned above. I will paraphrase his statements, please see them inside yourself. "In 1937 the agudah came together and were mostly in agreement that a jewish state was acceptable. The only argument was whether they had right to forgo Jordan which is halachically part of israel as well. The Brisker rav and rav Aharon Kotler had to be prevented from leaving by Rav Chaim Ozer. The Brisker rav expressed his fear that since the MAJORITY OF THE GEDOLEI HADOR had acceped the future state, HKBH would go along with it"
    Please note that this is not rav kasher aspeaking, nor rav aviner- it is rav Shternbuch- a member of the same organization the Satmar Rov once headed. A pretty powerful admission indeed.
    Please decide whether you wish to continue spouting these vile insults against Gedolei Olam, because make no mistake about it- decide you must.

    ReplyDelete
  129. megila-
    Now to R Weinman. If you look in the book by Y Elchonon referenced by you above, you wil see the genius of his allegations.
    He reports that he went to Gedolei Yisrael and they assured him that they never signed any such thing. Unfortantasley however none of these gedolim have come forward- They remain as anonymous as your moderator! But R Weinman assures us "that surely the true believers of israel will believe them." Riiiight. Uh-huh. (on second thought, he's probably right- the "true believers" will believe anything!)
    More next time.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Shaul: in fairness to megila, he did post that he copied it from FTmod. Also, please identify the source of where you are quoting R. Shternbuch AND provide the FULL statement of his not just a snippet, potentially out of context. Furthermore, you've failed to answer even 10% of the points megila posted.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Rav Sternbuch's comments regarding Israel are found in volume 2 #140 and I posted them at below link

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/12/rav-sternbuch-2140-daastorah-regarding.html

    ReplyDelete
  132. Can we get a full translation, rather than a potentially out of context partial translation?

    ReplyDelete
  133. megila...where is the gra speaking on the 3 oaths?.
    2) re r srernbach and kol hator he finishs saying that in all versions the main fight is against the erev rav( tzionim)
    3) shapiro ... on nov 27 you call yourself aguda and now it's r Kuk...which is lie and truth?
    4) A differnce between the chazon ish he learned all his life and never tried to to teach. r kasher didn't suceed a r yeshiva.
    5) rav chaim zimmerman found very serious mistakes on the rKasher book on the datelinebook v ד״ל.
    6) i personnaly know 2 familys the satmar rebbe sent to e yisroel before ww2... belz refused to let go to EY.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Dove: I will bl"n get to the rest of megila's comments. But I felt that the first thing was to do was pop his ballon with a little reality prick. My snide opening comment was meant to send a message that he is flooding the comment section of a blog with wholesale spam from another. Look at the sheer verbosity of his "comments"! It's absurd! What's wrong with a link?!

    ReplyDelete
  135. commentator- I am an Agudanik. So was R Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. He refers to R Kook as Maran. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. I said R Kook's shita is well founded. As is the Satmar Rov's
    Thanks for reading my comments.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Rav shlono z aurerbach was not aguda and was completly not political.
    The only exception was when he went to the MG Hatorah to vehemently protest goren heter of the mamzerim in 1971 .( which had the active support of r t y kuk )
    By the way where does he call rayk maran. i can't beleive a thing you say with out a source.

    ReplyDelete
  137. if you already mention the aguda and rav kuk , look at the letter of the gerrer rebbi זצ׳ל in 7 iyar 1921...after praising his torah and מדות "his love of zion is all out of proportion , he calls impure pure מראה לו פ the law is not like him etc...( ish al hahomah page 225)
    the aguda then was also rav zobnenfeld ,rav m blau.

    ReplyDelete
  138. if you already mention r yoel elhanan , rav aviner נ׳י has constantly refused to debate him.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Tziki- I'm not sure what you mean by non political. I can assure I have never patraken in any conventions myself. I meant he voted, took money etc but was not mizrachi.
    RSZA calls rav kook maran in shu't minchas shlomo. You can find it with any Shu't search engine. I don't have a hebrew keyboard, but if you insist, I will find out. Please look first yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Tziki- Rav Aviner can't debate a pen name. Yoel Elchon, as it says on the back of his book, is a shaym safruti.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Megila-
    Here are some quotes out of Shu't Avnei Nezer YD 494 regarding the megilas esther. I will be quoting some of his statements- as always please see inside for yourself. It is a long teshuva. I wiil be numbering the paragraphs as they appear there.
    1)The rishonim and acharonim have concluded that mitzvas yishuv EY applies today as well.
    3) The MA missed a sifri.
    4) He also missed a RMBM in avodim.
    7)In conclusion, there is nothing in the rambam that supports the MA.

    Back to me: So accoring to the Frumteens equation that Megillas Esther=RMBM, we now have an Avnei Nezer saying that the RMBM missed a sifri, missed a RMBM, and has taken something out of the RMBM which cannot deduced from the RMBM!
    No megila, the MA does not equal the RMBM- they are separate people, and it is your moderator that is to be laughed at, not R Aviner or R TY Kook.

    ReplyDelete
  142. So what he calls him maran? The Chazon Ish said even though it is assur to read any of R. Kook's hashkafa writings, it's okay to read his writings that are strictly halacha only.

    ReplyDelete
  143. shapira...r yoel elhanan is a real person...he lectures all over the country...you can warxh his videos on his sight...he is not anon like you. tziki kedera

    ReplyDelete
  144. Correction- The Avnei Nezer I wrote about yesterday is siman 454 not 494.

    ReplyDelete
  145. tziki and slomo- I typed a reponse to you that doesn't seem to have posted. I hope Rabbi Eidensohn can fix this. Otherwise I'll have to retype.

    ReplyDelete
  146. slomo- Check out RSZA biography "And From Jerusalem His Word" His attitude towards Rav Kook was quite diff than the CI.
    By the way, halevai people would learn R Kook's halacha seforim!

    ReplyDelete
  147. Tziki- Did you check the back of his book? He also gives a few reasons inside why he's anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Tziki- I think you may be referring to R Avrohom Chazan , who runs the organization. I've never heard of a debate challenge, but I can guess why he wouldn't. If chazan is anything like YE, it"ll be more a circus than a debate. They're not looking for a debate, they're looking to make R Aviner look stupid. Check out the "letter" to R Aviner in the book- it's straight up hatemail. And by R Sharkey, at the beggining YE says he wants to air the issues, then at the end says he was just trying to 'get' RS.
    Think of Rav Shach being asked to debate R Meir Kahane. Wouldn't go very far.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Tziki- I took my name from R SHAUL Yisraeli and R Avrohom SHAPIRA. Where did you get the name kedera- are you a crackpot? :)
    Be well- "Shaul"

    ReplyDelete
  150. I know this is an old thread, but I just wanted to share with the Olam an interesting Netziv i saw in Hemek Davar, Parshas Devorim, 30:3 where he clearly quotes a Ramba"n from his commentary on the Shir Hshirim, who says a pretty interesting thing, that there will be two stages to Kibutz Goliyos, the first with the Reshus of Umos Haolom Iyen Sham...

    Now just for the record the Netziv was nifter in 1893, the Balfour deceleration was in 1917, thats 24 years after the Netziv died.

    Now this is the interesting part, the Natziv based his hesber on the Ramban, who clearly had Ruach Hakodesh, and forsaw the future to some degree...

    Now, when you think about it, Harav Koov Zata"l, was a talmid muvhak of the Netziv, and he most likely knew what his Rebbie said, and therefore, its entirely possible that seeing his rebbies psat come to fruition, togethered with his tremendous love of yidden, put his full support behind the Meddina, even though it should be noted that he disagreed on many levels with what the secular movement was doing lemaseh... on the other hand he felt (which seems from the text like his Rebbie) this was the first stage, and lets make sure we have an impact and not let them take the full pie...

    Unfortunately today as a Young Avrech in a kollel in the N.Y. tri state area, I see that there are many who jump on the "satmer" band wagon, because of various negios... When clearly it was not the shita of lechol hapachos, most the Litveshe Rabbonim that the concept of a Jewish state was trief... I pray for all my brethren that they choose the path of shalom, and not so easily call other yiddin Apikorsim and such...

    ReplyDelete
  151. In fact, virtually all the Litvishe Gedolim said a Jewish state is treif.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. check your sources, I dont know who your sources are, (unless your one of the "True Torah Jews") but actually, there are two parts to their views on Zionisem, What I have heard from my Rabbonim, and they are people who sat on the Dias of the Asifah @ Citi Field, have admitted to me that A. most actually held that in theory if it was a state that followed the Torah, then it would be fine... B. there was a sense that even though the secular jews created a state we were muchyav to take part and make sure they don't take a monopoly on Artzinu Hakedosha (see Be'ayot ha-zeman Rav Reuven Grozovsky, Benei Berak 1960) that was the Agudda Hashkofa...

      Delete
    2. I just wanted to add i spoke yesterday to Rav Meir Porush (the son of the later Menachem Porush, and asked him to verify for me the above, that most of the Gedolim were pro the Medina and he said the following; most of the Gedolim agreed that there was no problem with the Medina, they felt that a medina established by non religious Jews is something we should not be happy with, However, if it was to be established,then we are a part of it. However, regardless the medina itself was not trief...

      Delete
  152. Actually, I've spoken to numerous Gedolim, including many who sat on the dais at Citi Field as well as others, and they indicated that the Gedolim zt'l were opposed to the very concept of State itself. They said there was a small minority who would've supported a religious State. But even they opposed the Zionists and a secular democratic State. Even according to that latter opinion they oppose the current State and Zionism.

    Then there is the question of what to do now that the Zionists already established a State, despite the Gedolim's opposition. On that the Agudah's Gedolim paskened we should participate in the parliament and government despite our opposition to the State and Zionism.

    ReplyDelete

  153. I'd like to address the very first sentence in this post: "It seems that the Satmar Rebbe is saying that the 6 Day War victory was entirely natural - no miracles and no hashgocha protis."

    At the risk of making a fool of myself, what if I suggested that the Satmar Rav never said that no hashgacha pratis was involved in the Six Day War? Yes, he said "it was simply a natural occurrence" and yes he said "there were no miracles here at all", but he never mentioned hashgacha pratis (at least not in the quotations you provided.) Is it possible that he holds that hashgacha pratis is not as synonymous with miraculous (and antonymous with natural) as we might have thought?

    ReplyDelete
  154. The War of 47-48 and the Six Day War -- Not Miracles
    Civil War:"Facing off in 1947-8 were a highly motivated, literate, organized, semi-industrial society and a backward, largely illiterate, disorganized, agricultural one." Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p. 311.

    War Against the Arab States: "The Arab forces in Palestine consisted (until the end of May) of not more than 28,000 troops -- some 5,500 Egyptians, 6,000-9,000 Arab Legionnaires, 6,000 from Syria, 4,500 from Iraq, a handful of Lebanese, and the remainder Palestinian irregulars and foreign volunteers. On paper, according to Haganah estimates, the combined Arab armies had some 75 combat aircraft, 40 tanks, 500 armored vehicles, 140 field guns, and 220 antiaircraft and antitank guns. In practice they had far less, much of the equipment (especially the aircraft) being unserviceable, and some of the remainder never reaching Palestine.

    "After the invasion both sides substantially increased their forces, the Jews handily winning the manpower race. By mid-July the IDF was fielding nearly 65,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies probably had about 40,000 troops in Palestine and Sinai by mid-July, and 55,000 in October, the number perhaps rising slightly by the spring of 1949." Morris p. 217

    Six-Day War:"The armies were extremely ill-matched. Israelis, through their history, have tended to see themselves as the "weaker side," their army smaller and less well armed than their Arab enemies. The truth in 1967, as at other times, was different." Morris, p. 311.

    "American intelligence accurately predicted that Israel would defeat any possible Arab coalition within a few days, perhaps a week...." Morris, p. 310

    "The Arab armies were mostly professional forces, relatively poorly trained, and not properly mechanized. The Egyptian army suffered from a basic weakness owing to the politicization of its command echelons, which resulted in the appointment of incompetent and inexperienced senior commanders, and structural weaknesses that were to prove fatal in wartime." Morris, p. 312

    "The Six-Day War was in all essentials, a clockwork war carried out by the IDF against three relatively passive, ineffective Arab Armies....Throughout, the initiative lay with the IDF; occasionally the Arabs 'responded' to an Israeli move; most often they served as rather bewildered, sluggish, punching bags." Morris, p. 313

    Benny Morris, professor at Ben-Gurion University, is one of Israel's most prominent historians.

    ReplyDelete
  155. There's something about the tone of voice of so many zionists. The boldness. For history, I'll defer to Israeli historian Benny Morris who says that Israeli forces were not outnumbered. See my comments above. I won't repeat it here. Satmar was correct.

    ReplyDelete
  156. why do you call satmar a bandwagon with negios. If anything the Mizrachi position is the bandwagon as its far more popular today, and the likelihood of negios is greater too with the zionist position because there's lots of money involved and the comfort of believing geulah has arrived. The "satmar" position is a difficult road with much self-sacrifice. If anything zionist is far more suspect of being corrupt. As for loving Jews, the Zionists got 30,000 of them killed and another million left the Torah. Some love there.

    ReplyDelete
  157. You seem to be unable to see things logically. Satmar, Belz, Munkatch and Reb Elchonon all got their followers to remain in Europe, for false reasons - either they would be protected, or they would be killed and it was better to die than to escape with their lives o places such as America and Israel. that was the anti-zionist shita.
    Regarding your statement "the Zionists got 30,000 of them killed" - that is assuming that nobody was ever killed before for being Jewish - the Romans, the byzantines, the arabs, the Crusaders, the European christians (england, germany, France etc.) the Spanish, the almohads, the pogroms, the Holocaust, of course none of these happened according to your thinking, and only the killing started with the Zionists. But that is false.
    Did I mention the communists, Stalin, unknown millions killed in the Soviet union.
    30,000 killed were mainly defending themselves and others. If you compare the korbanot of the Holocaust, when there was no army to protect the Jews and the State of Israel, when there is an army and it maintains its military edge, then the choice of Israel is what a rational person would choose.

    ReplyDelete
  158. rambam says that all miracles in the Torah can be explained naturally - with the exception of the manna.
    also, the Satmar rebbe brings the example of the Hashmonaim defeating the Greeks, and denies any miraculous basis to it. Funny, since the authors of Al Hanissim which has been in our siddurim for maybe 2000 years, certainly consider the victory of the few over the many, the righteous over the wicked, as being miraculous. So here is a case of the rebbe actually denying
    the text of the siddur. he is no different from reform!

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.