This is on the 3 oaths, and why they are not valid. http://www.kby.org/hebrew/torat-yavneh/view.asp?id=3970
It omits mention of the Ohr sameach of Dvinsk, who celebrated after the Balfour and san remo declarations, saying the oaths no longer pertain.
Also, R' Lamm quoted R Kasher as saying that the 3 oaths are a package deal. Since the Gentiles did not observe the oath not to punish us too much, then we are not bound by the first 2. That is quite apart from R' Vital saying they were only valid for 1000 years. In any case, if they were ever valid, why did R' Akiva not keep to them when he backed bar Kochba? Whilst bar Kochba failed to boot our the Romans, Mar Begin managed to boot out the British - who were the last occupiers of Eretz Yisroel - and who actually voted to give it back to Am Yisrael.
Apparently you did not read the above document, Eddie. All your points were already answered in the above article before you ever submitted your comment.
Actually I transferred this comment from the post about Rav Kook and there Eddie's comment preceded the information which was a response there to his question.
This Satmarist rant contains blatantly misleading statements.
"Ramban did not explicitly discuss the Three Oaths" - This statement is blatantly deceptive. In the Ramban's Addendum to Sefer HaMitzot of the Rambam, Positive Commandment No. 4, it clearly states that there is a positive biblical commandment to take possession of Eretz Yisrael at all times. The Ramban describes it as a "milchemes mitzvah", and he does NOT pasken according to the three oaths.
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.
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.
If the Satmars possessed some intellectual honesty, they would acknowledge that Islam is waging permanent war to destroy the Torah and destroy the Jews, regardless of Zionism.
I see dozens and dozens of sources, from Chazal to Rishonim (Rambam, etc.) to Achronim (Maharal, etc.) to recent Poskei HaDor (Chazon Ish, etc.) all saying the oaths are binding. Unless I missed it completely the Satmar Rebbe is not mentioned once or cited as a source in this entire lengthy document.
@Columbus - "Rambam, etc...saying the oaths are binding." - Is that so? Please cite where in the Rambam's halacha compendium Mishneh Torah where it mentions anything about the shalosh shavuos.
Rambam: 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
Rabbi Yakov Shapiro a relative of the Teitelbaum mishpacha , known now as Dvar Torah has spent his energies and efforts in dispensing these anti-Zionist rhetoric. Always biased without time or space for difference of opinion.
What now? Should we dismantle the state and surrender to the Arabs? DO you think the Arabs will allow Jews to live there peacefully? And if not, which country will be ready to absorb an additional six million Jews?
You don't kill it but you do align yourselves with its enemies so that they can do the dirty work for you. One day you will wake up and realize that their hatred is towards ALL Jews including yourself and that it has nothing to do with the Jewish State.
Rav Moshe Feinstein paskened that yishuv eretz yisroel is a mitzva kiyumis and not a chiyuv. The fact that so many gedoei Torah lived chutz laaretz also indicates that they did not feel it was a chiyuv unless it was impossible for them such as for the Gra and the Chofetz Chaim.
It's astounding that the writer brings down the Ramban as holding that the 3 oaths are still applicable when the Ramban paskens that yishuv eretz yisroel is a mitzvas aseh and conquering eretz yisroel by force if necessary is part of the mitzva. Sefer Vayoel Moshe is mifalpel how this could be.
@tzoorba - If someone would give over nowadays the Ramban's opinions on Eretz Yisrael without mentioning who stated them, many Chareidim might consider the author to be a "Kahanist" or a "militant Zionist". I myself learned in a black hat Chareidi yeshiva that the halacha is according to the Ramban.
How can Vayoel Moshe manage to invalidate the Ramban?
what is interesting about both this and the R' Kook post, is that mainstream Chareidim, eg followers of R Elyashiv, R' Yosef, are not attacking R Kook or the State. The attackers are NK and satmarists. The defenders of R Kook are his followers. I'd like to hear more from Chareidi mainstream, Hassidic or misnagdic.
I've never heard the Chareidi mainstream defend Zionism or even Rabbi Kook. I've often heard the Chareidi mainstream denounce Zionism and sometimes even Rabbi Kook.
was rav shlomo zalman aurbach mainstream enough for you?
למרות שנמנה עם הציבור החרדי, היה מקובל על כל פלגי היהדות הדתית האורתודוקסית. בין השאר החשיב את הרב אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק, שאותו הכיר היטב. הערכה זו התבטאה גם כשכינה אותו "מרא דאתרא דארץ ישראל" וכן "הרב" סתם. הרב קוק סידר את הקידושין בחתונתו, שנערכה בירושלים בפורים משולש, ואף נתן הסכמה לספרו הראשון "מאורי אש"[2]. זכה בפרס הרב קוק לספרות תורנית לשנים תש"ג-תש"ד. גם בנושא חיילי צה"ל, הביע הרב אוירבך עמדה מעט שונה מהמקובל בסביבתו החרדית, כאשר השיב לבחור בישיבה שביקש רשות לנסוע בתקופת הלימודים לקברי צדיקים בצפון כך: "בשביל להתפלל על קברי צדיקים יש צורך לנסוע עד הגליל? כשאני מרגיש צורך להתפלל על קברי צדיקים אני הולך להר הרצל, לקברי החיילים שנפלו על קידוש השם"[3].
My only issue with the whole topic is - it is obvious to any open minded person that for the last 100+ years we are in the middle of a kibutz galuyos. Also it seems to me that all the people who rail against this obvious fact are denying to a certain extent the involvement of hashem in hasgacha as if he has nothing to do with the whole evolution of events that brought klal yisroel back to ey after 2000 years. Even if its an aveira like they claim it is who said there cannot be kibbutz galiyos through an aveira ? There are other aspects of moshiach that was though an aveira, lot, Yehuda vi'tamar, dovid bas sheva to name a few. So in summary- just because there might be an issue of shalosh shavuos now that its done all should be makir the present and opportunity that was given to klal yisroel.
Have we gone out of our cotton pickin minds,after 67 years of a jewish state with a jewish population of almost seven million (kein yirbuh),and the biggest kibutz goliyus since yetzias mitzrayim,and open miracles year after year,and what are we busy with ''sholosh shevuos" anyone not seeing the YAD HASHEM in the fact that we come back to our country after 2000years,is either criminally insane or is a rasha merusha or both
Have we gone out of our cotton pickin minds,after 67 years of a jewish state with a jewish population of almost seven million (kein yirbuh),and the biggest kibutz goliyus since yetzias mitzrayim,and open miracles year after year,and what are we busy with ''sholosh shevuos" anyone not seeing the YAD HASHEM in the fact that we come back to our country after 2000years,is either criminally insane or is a rasha merusha or both
Rav Shraga Feivel disagreed with the Satmar Rav about the Three Oaths. It says so in the Art Scroll bio.
I am not sure Arab warfare makes Zionism a violation of the 3 oaths. Even when the non-Jewish king gave permission to rebuild the Temple there was terrorism on the part of local residents- the Kusim.
Rabbeinu Chaim Vital, said quite explicitly in the name of the Arizal and the Zohar that the three oaths were only binding for 1000yrs. אמר עוד במי הנ״ל, ובג״ד השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים וכר. פירוש הדברים, כי ה נ ה היתד, השבועה הגדולה לאלהי״ם, שלא יעוררו את הגאולה, עד שאותה האהבה תהיה בהפץ ורצון טוב, כמ״ש עד שתהפץ. כבן העובד את אביו, ועייל בכל פלטרין דיליה, ובכל גניזין דייייה. ולא כעבד, העובד במשגה, ולוקה השפחה ע״מ לקבל פרס. וכבר אמרו רז׳׳ל, כי זמן השבועה הי א עד אלף שנים, כמ״ש ז״ל בבריתא דר׳ ישמעאל, בפרקי היכלות, ע״פ דניאל, וז״ל. ואתיהבון בידיה עד עידן ועידנין ופלג עידן. ואיך הראהו הקב״ה ליעקב אבינו שר עולם, והוא שרו של בבל ע׳ עוקין וכר ע״ש. וכן בזהר פ רשת וירא ד׳ קי״ז ע״א, וז״ל, אמר ר׳ יוסי׳ כ ל דא אריכו זמנא יתיר מכמה דאוקמוה הבריא, דאיהו יומא הד גלותא דכנסת ישראל, ולא יתיר, דכתיב נחנני שוממה כ ל היום דוה. Found in the introduction to Shaar HaKdamot and brought in the introduction to Eitz Chaim, from whence I copied it. I cannot help but find it odd, that any Chassidim, who claim to follow the Zohar and the Arizal would disagree.
The statement in R. Chaim Vital that the oaths "expired" has been shown not to have originated by R. Chaim Vital at all (HaEmek, Sivan '82).
The Golus happened in the year 70. That means any Rishonim or Acronim after approximately the Rif that brings the Oaths l'halachah shows that they do not believe they have expired. The Rambam applies them in his letters, and the Megilas Esther in Sefer HaMitzvos says that the reason the Rambam left out the Mitzvah to live in Erezt Yisroel nowadays is because although it is permitted to live there, it is no longer a Mitzvah, since obligating everyone to live there would cause a violation of the Oaths. They are also applied by countless other Torah authorities throughout the generations, including the Rivash and Rashbash.
Rav Ovadiah Yosef, in an old Techumim article, dismisses the claim that the Oaths have "expired" by referring the reader to read what it says in Vayoel Moshe. The Rishonim and Achronim bring the Oaths L'maaseh all over the place after the alleged expiration date.
i have no idea what ROY said about the oath's expiration. however, the former chief rabbi of the state of israel obviously did not believe that the state was treif. whatever issues he had with the state of israel, rav ovadia did not in any way what-so-ever agree with satmar!
Ben: I made a narrow point specifically regarding the idea of the oaths expiring. I pointed out several reasons that is not the case. One of them was that Rav Ovadia Yosef's position that the oaths are still active.
As far as the broader question of Zionism and ROY's position, while he isn't Satmar, obviously, you are incorrect that he does not agree whatsoever with the SR. While he may not agree with everything, as I pointed out above, Chacham Ovadia Yosef does cite the VaYoel Moshe as a source when discussing the issues relating to Zionism.
The statement in R. Chaim Vital that the oaths "expired" has been shown not to have originated by R. Chaim Vital at all (HaEmek, Sivan '82). Rav Yaakov Hillel would take issue with that statement. As would a number of other Mekubalim, especially was we have the introduction to Shaar Hakdamot in Rav Chaim Vital's own handwriting.
Rav Ovadiah Yosef, in an old Techumim article, dismisses the claim that the Oaths have "expired" by referring the reader to read what it says in Vayoel Moshe. Please list an explicit source. I've heard him give shiur on this hakdama, and Rav Yosef Shmueli and Rav Ben Zicri(Rav Ovadia's son in law) both quote him in their pirushim on this piece of Eitz Chaim as agreeing with it.
One of them was that Rav Ovadia Yosef's position that the oaths are still active.
sorry, i simply don't believe it. ROY was a huge supporter of the IDF. yes, he supported deferments for people learning (but not for people pretending to learn), but he loved the IDF and the soldiers. several of his grandchildren served (and not as chayalei da'at). he traveled extensively throughout Yesha, blessing the settlements. he met and gave support to israeli politicians (and not just shasniks).
none of these go with believing that the oaths are still active. let us know when you find the article. TIA.
I saw that Techumim halachic article Gavriel mentioned above and Gavriel is correct about Rav Ovadia Yosef writing in Techumim states that the oaths remain in effect today and he references the Vayoel Moshe for further reference. It was a long time ago and unfortunately I don't recall which issue Rav Ovadia wrote this in.
The R' Chaim Vital is perhaps the strongest disproof of the satmarer type arguments. But I think an analysis of the context of the oaths is important, as it is not clear what they mean or why they were made. The rebellions agasint the Roman empire led to Hurban Bayit sheini, and then the massacres and expulsions of the Jews from Israel. Bar Kochba had independence for 3 years, before he was crushed, and Edom took its bloody revenge. Thus the Rambam's comments that the oaths were derech mashal make sense - do not rebel agasint an enemy that you cannot defeat. Roman Empire was huge, and although Bar Kochba managed to defeat one battalion, they sent in reinforcements.
So the oaths were a rational thing at the time, and perhaps to placate the Romans. There were later massacres of Jews in Israel, eg the crusades, which were prior to Ramban's aliyah. In Ramban's time, a small community was forming, and after several centuries the mystics of Safed - the Arizal, R Caro, R Vital, the ReMaK were already starting a new reinvigoration. The Gra was also calling for an ingathering of the exiles - apparently he predicted the date of the 6 day war as being a ketz. But it was still dangerous to consider a military campaign - as was shown by the catastrophic shabbetai zvi debacle. the ottoman Turks would have no hesitation in putting down a Jewish rebellion. So even if the oaths were not legally binding at that point, they made sense on a practical level - not to rebel against a powerful nation.
This brings us to the current period - an I have omitted many other stages, as I am not a historian. The Old Yishuv, which was essentially very pious Orthodox jews, eg followers of the Gra, Besht and Sephardim, were not taking any political stance for independence. The Zionist movement, saw that in history, there was opportunity, especially with the British defeat of the Turks. It is very strange that rebellion against the nations is cited, but the Zionist movement was not a rebellion but a collaboration with the nations, and ultimately a UN approval of a State. So again, if there was any validity to the oaths in 1947/8 (and the Arizal would not agree that there was), the State of Israel was approved by the UN - and the war of independence was a defensive war agasint the Arab attackers - rodef. You cannot make an oath to violate the Torah! I cannot make an oath to eat at McDonalds, and nobody can make an oath to not defend oneself if halachically they are obliged to.
Certain wars were successful, eg those of the Hashmonaim, which we celebrate, and others were not, such as Bar Kochva. Hashmomaim were Tzadikim, whilst Bar Kuziva was arrogant and deceptive. The very fact of the success of israel's 1948 and 1967 wars is proof of the oaths having been lifted - if we understand them in the reflexive way that Rambam alludes to. RYBS was noted for saying we should hesitate before deciding whether israel represents the Geula, since Bar Kochba was a short lived affair. But it seems the function of the oaths has outlived their usefulness.
Also, ROY did refer to them even in the Oslo debacle - he argued that opposing the Oslo accords was a violation of the oath not to rebel agaisnt the nations! At the time, essentially all of the Gedolim, from Rav Shach, to Gur, to Lubavitcher rebbe, to Rav Goren, and even satmar opposed the Oslo treaty. Rav Shach, who was the haredi leader of the time, said that it is assur to return holy land which was won by Divine miracle to terrorists. So, presumably this broad range of Gedolim did not feel restricted in opposing the nations, or making a wall agasint the Pilishtim.
It should be painfully obvious that Chazal's purpose in creating the "oaths" concept was to prevent Jews from getting themselves annihilated similar to the way we had just failed miserably against bar Kochva. That tragedy was on the scale of the holocaust. And chazal did not want to see wimpy Jews running into gunfights with a knife because "God is on our side" or "moshiah will come" or "we will bring the redemption" or to follow false messiahs and get themselves and many other Jews slaughtered with them. (I'm using the knife into a gunfight expression as a rhetorical device because yes I know, guns didn't exist yet then). This actually happened several times (although in very small groups) as attested to by the Rambam in a letter to Yemen. In all these cases of the Jews in exile, when rishonim and acharonim bring this oath concept l'halacha it is also practical - the Jews were not only heavily outmanned but certainly lacked the technology and weaponry to be able to wage a legitimate war that wouldn't result in our annihilation. No one studied warfare, no one knew how to even fight in hand to hand combat. Eventually, that practical reality changed in a major way. It started with world war 1.
Eddie - can you back up your statement from rav shach abt Oslo? In public rav shach was mostly pro Oslo,except once when his fear of assimilation was the theme. The holiness of the land was expressedly not the issue. He would constantly say that the holiness of the land has no connection to the lineage of the officials in the government that controls it. The kosel was no less holy when the Turks had control.
Rav Shach, who was the haredi leader of the time, said that it is assur to return holy land which was won by Divine miracle to terrorists.
you'll have to do better than that. rav shach opposed the government because meretz was in it, not because of its policies. he always favored land for peace. so, no, i don't believe he said any such thing.
All of the Rav Shach comments - you are talking about the bad years, i.e. when rav Shach was inciting against Zionism, DL, settlements etc. I am not saying Oslo was good, but it changed R Shach. He opposed it, and forbade the deal, as did all of Agudas Yisrael. Do I have a paper copy of his statement 20 years ago? No. But he did change his view.
Dvar... Why didn't you bring אם הבנים שמחה 3:41 where he brings the 3 oaths for הלכה? This is important since this book is the'bible' of the dati-leumi people.
Rav Teichtal's Eim Habonim Semeicha doesn't contain anything 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. The most extensive work on this topic is of course the Satmar Rav's Vayoel Moshe, which disproves just about every Zionist "proof" ever conceived.
Aim HaBanim Semecha 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. 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
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 Klal 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 Teichtel’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 to the author'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”. I would think this is because in his sefer he never argues in favor of a Jewish State, but rather in favor of building up the land.
Actually, Eim Habanim says that the oaths are only valid when we enjoy peace in the exile, but that signs then were that we did not enjoy it. And he adds that the nations have agreed to a jewish state (San Remo, Balfour etc), and hence another sign that we can return. In short, he says that the oaths are only valid under certain conditions, which no longer pertain.# http://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/264.html#link
Firstly, R Teichtal was a Gadol, but since he disagreed with those haredi gedolim who opposed Zionism, you feel free to attack him. He lived in an environment where Rebbes were telling their flocks to shun eretz Yisroel, and that they would be safe in Holy Europe. It is actually what the previous Lubavitcher rebbe said, and then had to flee to save his life. As for haskamas, he was killed by the nazis, yemach shamam. how would he have been able to go to a publisher while stlll hiding out in a loft somewhere? He may not argue in favour of a Jewish state, but he argues in favour of building the Beit MIkdash shel matah, ie before Moshiach comes. he says this is permitted with consent of the nations. There is a R' Teichtal in Germany, who is Chabad. I wonder if it is his grandson?
@Yeruchem Gold - "it (Aim HaBanim Semecha) is mostly emotional sermons and discourses (droshos), rather than a serious Halachic analysis" - You are a very smooth Satmar propagandist, spewing out large amounts of confusing words but not actually refuting any of the numerous halachic sources cited by the Aim HaBanim Semecha.
Many halachic sources supporting mitzvas yeshivas Eretz Yisrael are cited by Aim HaBanim Semecha, including Sifrei, Ramban, Rambam, Shelah, Chatam Sofer, Vilna Gaon, Shulchan Aruch, Pischei Tshuvah, etc. These sources all argue in favor of the mitzvah of yeshivas Eretz Yisrael and thus refute the Satmar Rav's failed attempt to uproot that mitzvah.
Some Satmars are now desperately employing falsehoods against the Eim HaBanim Semeichah to defend their failed shitah.
He gives emotional opinions without halachic backing. I gave numerous examples of this with direct quotes from his book. And giving a point-by-point refutation of Rabbi Teichtal's book is not an attack on him but rather on his writings.
Okay, he couldn't get haskamas, but why'd he make up haskamas printed in his book that were never given to him?
Yes, the Rabbi Teichtal in Germany is his grandson.
Yerucham, he was hiding in an attic waiting to be rounded up, with no seforim at his behest. he wrote the book based on his memory of the sources he had learned in the past. You think it has to be like a book that is written by a Rosh Yeshiva who has all the references at hand, and can edit and check etc. Could you write a PhD thesis with no access to any academic literature, internet, library etc? Do you think you could get it done to a high standard? Of coruse there will be shortcomings. And I dont knwo what the haskomos were and when or why they were added. Perhaps he meant to show he had previusly written accepted seforim.
ROY takes the seriously... In his famous responce about the oslo accords he says " and maybe the law is like satmar that we can't have a medina anyways" and uses this to allow the oslO accords
This just shows how twisted the Satmar logic is if people use it to justify strengthening the enemies of the Jewish people and giving them better ability to murder us as they openly state is their goal over and over again. How sick and twisted it is. Since "we can't have a medina anyways" because Rabbi Yoel wrote it so in his book, then let's give Jew-hating genocidal nazi terrorists weapons and sovereignty over us and see what happens. I guess you prefer they murder us with advanced weaponry and tanks rather than hatchets and knives.
It is interesting that one of the sources that Dvar Torah brings (page 8) for the Shvuos being lehalacha is the Steipler in Krayna Deigarta 205.
If one looks there, it is clear that the Steipler held that once the Shvuos were violated with hakamas hamedina, the issur is done, and there is no ongoing issur in the existence of the state, since there is no authority against which the state is rebelling. (This was pointed out by Rav Hershel Schachter.)
However, Dvar Torah/Rabbi Shapiro has tried to make the case that that was not the Steipler's intention (a very forced/dachuk reading.)
The interested reader should see this post for the back and forth between myself and Rabbi Shapiro, and make their own judgment on whose reading is correct. http://seforim.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-review-of-alo-naaleh.html
First, from skimming the Dvar Torah, I noticed that he cites the Maharsha in Chiddushei Halachos in Kesuvos. But in fact, the Maharsha is in Chiddushei AGADOS (small fonts). Therefore the Maharsha is telling us loud and clear it is aggedeta. And if one looks at Reb Shmuel Hanagid's Mevo Hatalmud at end of Brachos, he says clearly that aggada, which is all non halachic areas of gemara, are only to teach whatever lesson the mind can fathom. In this case, it would seem the shevuos are to teach us menschlachkeit, that we should treat our hosts kindly, and not rebel, but show hakaras hatov. Is there any reason in the world, it would not apply to our secular brethren in EY, just as much as to Henry the 8th, whose hobby was beheading his wives? Are we patur from showing the Medina hakaras hatov?
Second, the Rambam quoted above does not come with a source from Mishna Torah, and he says clearly it was AL DERECH HAMASHAL.
Third, it is not cited by Rif, Ran, Mordechai, Tur, Shulchan Oruch, Rama or nosei keilim. Can you kindly provide one other example of a binding halacha which is not in shulchan oruch? Even Cherem Drabbeinu Gershom, a much later innovation, is found in shulchan oruch. But such an ikar from the gemara as shalosh shevuos is totally absent? How can that be?
Fourth, if you are so makpid on aggadeta, do you also not drink even numbers of cans of diet coke because of the gemara of zugos?
Fifth, the Avnei Nezer says that perhaps, since the nonfrum caused the churban 2,000 years ago, davka the non-frum rebuilt EY to be mechaper.
Sixth, during the holocaust, Jews had nowhere else to go, it was pikuach Nefesh.
Seventh, what do you suggest we do now, go back to your beloved Germany and Poland and give back EY to the Arabs, Chas vshalom? Mai d'hava hava.
Eighth, a state doesn't mean a kefirah in bias moshiach, any more than going to work is a kefirah in Nosen lechem lchol basar, or going to a doctor is kefirah in Rofei chol basar. We do our hishtadlus, and Hashem does his part.
Barry, if you read through the Dvar Torah you will see he makes an excellent point that the point remains equally true whether aggedita is halachicly binding or not. Even though Dvar Torah brings strong sources that the oaths are halacha, he brings equally strong sources that even aggedita is halachicly binding. See his article above again. He also demonstrates that even if you assume it is aggedita and not binding it is absurd to disregard the oaths.
BECAUSE Rav Shapiro/Dvar Torah never read "Am Habanim Simachs"; he was asked on a few occasions and has never delved into anything besides "Vyol Moshe'.
The ruling powers of the land were the Turks and then the British. Not the Arabs. All the "hanagnahs, Irguns, Stern Gangs" (sic) were manifestations of self-defense. The zionist writers wanted and expected "peaceful coexistence" with the Arabs as you describe it. Read their writings. The defense mechanisms only developed later due to sakanos nefashos. The Irgun efforts were literally a response to arab terrorism which the British as a matter of policy did nothing or very little to stop unless it was directed at the British. Before the Haganah, they relied on Turkish horsemen to protect their farms from arab thieves and murderers until they realized the Turks weren't protecting them to the best of their abilities. What about any of this violates the oaths? In the Shulchan Aruch it says that if the gentiles come to attack the Jewish community on Shabbat, you are allowed to arm to defend yourselves on Shabbat. There is no prohibition against self-defense.
So if i read the Zionist writings i will see that they never planned on a state! Talk about la la land. The title of Herzl's book 'the Jewish state' might give something away!
"So if i read the Zionist writings i will see that they never planned on a state!"
That's clearly not what I wrote. Do you have problems with reading comprehension or are you purposely obfuscating? It is you and your fellow-travelers who live in la la land still arguing over a controversy that already had an outcome 65 years ago. You are still debating the design of chariot wheels while everyone drives cars. It's over, you lost. The state was created. Your theoretical and fantastical "ideology" (if you can call it that) does not address this reality.
"The British took over from the Ottomans at the end of World War I. The Zionist terrorists were against the British rulers. The Turks were long gone"
I wrote in my post: "The ruling powers of the land were the Turks and then the British."
So what exactly was your point? Oh, there was none. But can't you at least quote something for me from one of your illustrious naturei karta pamphlets?!
One of the greatest Halachic authorities, R' J.D Bleich has written about the issues surrounding the oaths. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y4SPB17NkzAC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=chaim+vital+3+oaths&source=bl&ots=GIKATc-wAx&sig=WCeI-2PUv06iaR8xFNaA1102Jv4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_9ClUvilHqrI0QWZsoGgCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=chaim%20vital%203%20oaths&f=false
R' Zevin ztl pointed out they are no longer binding. He also points out that the Maharal wrote that these are decrees or punishments, and not binding on us legally. This is how the aggadic understanding works, eg if someone catches flu, it is not assur for them to have chicken soup to get better. the flu is a decree, but we are not prevented to alleviating it. Rav Yehuda Hershuni ztl, points out a Meshech Chochma, who says that in the absence of a Sanhedrin, the community may sanctify the new moon. he extends this possibly to fighting a milchemet mitzvah - which usually requires a King/Prophet/sanhedrin. There is a mitzvah in every geenration to fight Amalek. Many gedolim, including the Mahahral, have said that all enemies of Israel are actually descended from Amalek. hence, whether or not the milchemet mitzvah is allowed today, the fight against Amalek is still a mitzvah.
Even if we assume they aren't halachicly binding., why would you invite the terrible kinds of punishments the Maharal writes result from violating the oaths?
yankel, I made a brief summary of the article I linked - I named the Maharal, you can check for other names. I dont know who szold was. Amalek was a nation, and the arguemnt is that they are physical descendants of them. It would be hard to say that Jews are descended form amalek. Furthermore, in the TNK we have cases of Israel who worshipped idols - does that make them amalek?
You said it, not me. Henerietta Szold is a hero of the Zionist establishment and one of the rishei am yisroel, just like Ach'av, Korach, Mendelsohn and Jack the Ripper. Where should I check for other names? Where is the Maharal? Which Halocho sefer did he write? After all, you are quoting a psak halocho, not just a hashkofo.
The issue whether the oaths are binding (despite being aggadic and despite the transgressions of nations) is a sideshow. The core issue is not whether, but what the oath of שלא יעלה בחומה actually is. The overwhelming majority of authorities interpret it in a way that excludes the Zionist movement. The Satmar Rebbe attempted to interpret it as including any large scale immigration, and he does so by conjecture, conflation and by simply neglecting traditional interpretations.
What is "going up as a wall?" It means the majority of the nation invading the land by force.
Some authorities describe the oath in terms of forcing the "end" by means of a premature קיבוץ גלויות. Well, Zionist immigration has been going on for more than 100 years, and yet the majority of Jewry still lives in the diaspora. (And that doesn't consider עשרת השבטים). Rashi makes it very clear, that partial immigration is not "as a wall". See Yoma 9b. How does the VaYoel Moshe handle this open Gemara? By citing the Gemara's text and truncating it right before the clause that would refute him. Indeed, elsewhere in VaYoel Moshe, the Satmar Rebbe is forced to admit that according to the Mishneh Torah, the oath only includes the immigration of the majority of the people. Some authorities require that immigration must be an armed invasion. Obviously, this has not happened. All immigration, legal or otherwise, was peaceful.
The Satmar Rebbe conflates any armed activity with an invasion. This means ignoring the יעלה of יעלה כחומה.
In summary, the oath was never violated. There never was an immigration that had any pretense of a gathering of the exiles. There never was an armed invasion. Most immigration was legal. The Satmar Rebbe attempted to give a modern reinterpretation of the oath to include any large peaceful legal immigration which is manifestly not supported by the consensus of Rishonim and Achronim.
Of course there was an armed war to take control of Israel. Not only was it their War of Independence but it also included the Zionists terroristic war against the British sovereigns of Palestine in the decades leading up to '48.
Read again. I wrote that one must make a distinction between an invasion and other armed activities. Those engaged in military activities had earlier immigrated peacefully. There never was an armed invasion, which is what יעלה בחומה means. You have conflated the two concepts.
Furthermore, you conflate the different Zionist factions. The majority did not engage in terrorist activities. It's rather dishonest to paint the entire movement based on the actions of a minority faction. You are also incorrect when you claim that there were "decades" of terrorist activity. Ridiculous.
The War of Independence occurred after the land was legally theirs. The land at that point legally belonged to the Jewish people. In other words, there was never as you put it, "an armed war to take control of Israel", it was rather a war to retain control of Israel. At that point, the Arabs were threatening the Yishuv with another Holocaust. There could not have been a greater מלחמת מצוה than that. More than that, it was a case of פקוח נפש. Thus, all Jews were halachically obligated to join the battle against the צר שבא עליהם.
as an ex-Yeshiva guy, I must point out that these sort of pilpulim, shakla ve'taryes, casuistics, whatever you'd like to call them, point to a major flaw in the halachic and thelogoical systems of current Yahadus.
Ha'yoitze me'zeh is that halacha and hashkafa are infinitely subjective and malleable, even corruptible. This applies equally to the cases of gittin, mazerim,etc of very recent vintage.
But to my mind, the root problem is even more insiduous. There is complete obsession with halachic minutae, at the same time, our supposed observance is completely removed from any shemetz of spirituality or meaning.
The primary source the Satmar Rav and Munkatch Rav rely on is the Megillas Esther (see the perush Megillas Esther who argues on Ramban's Addendum to Sefer HaMitzot of the Rambam, Positive Commandment No. 4, where Ramban clearly states that there is a positive biblical commandment to take possession of Eretz Yisrael at all times).
Eim HaBanim Semeichah cites Pitchei Teshuvah Even HaEzer 75:6, Shelah, Maharit, and other sources to prove that "all of the great poskim who came after the Megillat Esther rejected his opinion, for it has no basis or substance."
Another item of unsourced conjecture by the Satmar Rebbe is his claim that the opinion of the local Arab population matters, and the authority of the British (Balfour Declaration), the League of Nations and Turkey (San Remo) and the UN are not relevant. As far as I know, he doesn't prove his claim. Koresh may have given permission for the Jews to return to their land, but he was opposed violently by the local population. That implies, that we don't need permission from the locals, only from the sovereign authority.
Of course the opinion of the British sovereigns of Palestine and the majority Arab population are of consequence. That is the entire obvious point. The Zionists fought the British in their terroristic war against the British presence in Palestine. And clearly the Arab majority of Palestine opposed the Zionists ambition of sovereignty.
The British were only sovereign as far as promoting Jewish immigration and developing leading eventually to statehood. The status of the Arab population is simply not relevant, just as the violent local population were not relevant when Koresh gave his permission to the Jews to resettle the land. The idea that the Oaths require kow-towing to local Arabs who themselves were rebelling against the sovereign is just conjecture. More than that, if the sovereign declared that the country belongs to the Jews, any opposition to that decision is in effect a rebellion against the sovereign and thus forbidden under the Oaths. That some local Arabs joined in the rebellion does not give the Jews permission to join them. Had the Jews joined the Arabs and allow them to take over the country they would God forbid fulfilled the prophecy of אני מתיר את בשרכם כצבאות וכאילות השדה. Thank God, we observed the oath, and didn't rebel against the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference and the U.N. vote.
In any case, the British ceded whatever sovereignty they had to the U.N. who then voted to create the Jewish State. Again, the majority of Zionists did not engage in terrorism.
Based on your above comment and logic, at minimum the Zionists seized the Palestinian land granted by the U.N. to the Arabs, including Jerusalem, during the '48 war.
1) It's not clear that the Oath prevents conquering land from within ארץ ישראל. The word יעלה means to ascend from outside of ארץ ישראל. Thus, such conquest lies outside the ban of the Oath. 2) The U.N. declaration was a proposal that was rejected by the Arabs. The Arabs never accepted the land now know as the West Bank. The land was granted by the U.N. but never accepted by the Arabs. The land became at worst ownerless, and thus outside the ban of the oath.
The entire Torah world agrees with the Satmar Rebbe on Zionism. Brisk, Chazon Ish, Reb Elchonon Wasserman, Reb Chaim Ozer, Rav Ahron Kotler, etc. They all agreed Zionism is treif and they all agreed a State should not have been created. The only disagreement is what to do about it after the mamzer State was already created. Satmar said disengage, do not interact with it, do not accept money from them, do not vote in their elections. Brisk, Toldosh Ahron, Eidah Chareidus, and some others agreed with the Satmar Rebbe on this point. Most of the Torah world disagreed in practice (even if they agreed in theory) and felt that once the State was here, we need to engage it, vote, participate in the Kenesset, since we pay taxes we should take monetary benefits, etc. Only on this point did they disagree.
Even Rav Eliashev said the Israeli Kenesset is a Beis Minus:
I don't have time to comment now, but I've previously translated a Shu"t from R Sternbuch- not exactly a big zionist- about the opinion of Rov Gedolim BEFORE the state was founded. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/12/rav-sternbuch-2140-daastorah-regarding.html
As I have noted above, most of this discussion is not lema'ase, because once the medina was established, the issur is done, and there is no ongoing issur in maintaining the medina. This was the view of the Steipler.
There is still an issur of spilling Jewish blood to defend the Zionist State. If surrendering sovereignty means saving even one Jewish life then there is an obligation to give up Jewish sovereignty over Israel.
And considering the amount of Jewish blood spilled from '48 through today to defend the State, it is clear that the State is responsible for the spilling of Jewish blood.
you are making some false claims Stauber. Ramban holds that it is a mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisroel in every generation. This means we must try to have a Zionist state in every generation. You are also saying that it is forbidden to defend jewish lives - which was very much a satmar idea. Hassidic rebbes led more to their unfortunate ends than did the Zionist enterprise. But, you deny the Torah - it says do not stand idly by. this is precisely what you Mr Shtauber, are advocating - to stand idly by and allow the islamic murderers do 1000x worse to us than they are doing to frum muslims in Syria. So perhaps you are doing the work of mr Amalek?
You are a very sick person. The Arabs daily proclaim they wish to kill all Jews; they launch rockets into people's home and glorify those who bomb buses. There is no מלחמת מצוה greater than this. And you think it's about the State? The Satmar Rebbe himself wrote that if the Arabs take over they will kill everybody. (See דברי יואל on פרשת בא) The IDF does not defend the State. It defends the Jewish people. The Arabs have promised that any land surrendered by the Jews will be used to kill more Jews. And they have kept that promise. Tell us, which "one Jewish life" has been saved by Israeli evacuations? The State is responsible for spilling of Jewish blood? Are you aware of the history of Arab violence against Jews throughout the centuries? Are you aware that Arab anti-Semitism was already on the increase in the 19th century before the rise of the Zionist movement? In any case, the post was about the Three Oaths. I don't see anything in your comment that would negate the fact that the Oath against "ascending as a wall" has nothing to do with Zionism.
It is forbidden to sacrifice Jewish lives in the pursuit of a Mitzvah. That is the case whether the Mitzvah is eating kosher, davening, or yishuv haaretz. Clearly the Zionists violated pikuach nefesh and the Zionists spilled Jewish blood against Jewish Law.
They did so pre-State, during the '48 war, and continue to do so today.
Had the Zionists not established their State, many lost Jewish lives would not have been lost.
It is forbidden to sacrifice Jewish lives in the pursuit of a Mitzvah. That is the case whether the Mitzvah is eating kosher, davening, or yishuv haaretz.
Mr. Waxman, would you sacrifice your life if a gentile was going to kill you unless you are a piece of pork? So why would you sacrifice lives for yishuv?
robert i served in the idf, in situations where gunfire was exchanged. if need be, i'll go again. i realize that the extreme chareidi viewpoint doesn't allow for other dayot, but not everyone agrees with the opinions given here.
Don/Ephy.. Milchemet mitzvah sanctioned by a Sanhedrin will involve sacrifice of life - but that is a separate discussion.
Halacha of Rodeif, is that you rise up before he kills you. If you do nto fight, there will be more loss of life than if you do. Remember, the Arab rodfim attacked in 47/8; 67; 73. There are occasionally misadventures such as the Suez campaign, and IMHO the 82 Lebanon war. But the 3 biggest wars in question were clearly rodeif - and hence halachically we were all obliged to fight, even haredim.
Next, according to some opinions, Amalek is anyone who follows the ideology of Biblical Amalek. The Arabs were talking about driving us into the sea - which incidentally is what Pharoah dreamed of doing. So whether they are genetically amalek or spiritually, it is a mitzvah and chiyuv to fight them in every generation. The alternative that the great rebbes and Roshei yeshivas of Europe was to sit it out there, cost many more lives. Also, the IDF is a deterrent, to some anti semites, since they know they might get hit back. This was not the case before 48.
"...the Talmud forbids us to even think of a return [to Palestine] by force [i.e. top attempt to effect Redemption through human effort]. Without the miracles and signs mentioned in the Scripture, we must not take the smallest step in the direction of forcing a return and a restoration of our nation. The Song of Songs expresses this prohibition..." -Moses Mendelssohn (1783)
Let me add the following: the job of a moreh horaah is to see the big picture, and not cling to one detail, at all costs. Lmashal, suppose a bar-mitzvah boy leined his parshah, and the guests went downstairs to the seudah. One nudnik starts running around that he made a mistake with the trop in rishon. He wants everybody to go back upstairs and the boy should reread the parsha. Everybody knows that trop is not meakev. But this fellow feels it is very important. For him it is better to lein again, even though it will ruin the seudah, and embarrass the boy and his family. One who would insist on doing this is actually not just making a mistake in halacha, he is mentally imbalanced. To think that trop outweighs mevayesh brabim is a sign of being not all there.
The ikar of Torah is meschlachkeit. To make an issue of a gemara, which may be only an aggadeta and is not found in shulchan oruch, at the expense of making machlokes in klal yisroel is unfortunately the sign of a person who is not meurav im habriyos, and not completely balanced. When we had people like Dov Gruner who brought their tefilin to jail, and were hanged for trying to establish a state for their fellow Jews, and died singing Hatikva, makes Hatikva kodesh kodoshim, despite what any insensitive nudnik might say. Dov's mesirus nefesh outweighs all the dikdukei halachos of any of these so-called kanaim. Reb Aryeh Levin grasped the depths of it. Unfortunately, ad hayom hazeh, their are many who make the ikar tafel and the tafel ikar. This lack of emphasizing the primacy of menschlachkeit, kneged all else, is exactly why we have all the antizionist movements splitting and fighting with each other. When they realize that midos tovos are the entire goal of Torah, the fighting will finally stop.
Finally, this business about being dangerous to violate shalosh shvuos is against the metzius, and makes it seem like we can know how the RBSH firs zich the velt. In the 150 years that the Israeli govt has been keeping records, the total number of fallen soldiers and terrorist victims is 25,000. In the holocaust, we lost 6 million in about 10 years. during tach vtat, we lost tens or hundreds of thousands in 2 years. We also had crusades and inquisitions all through golus. Baruch Hashem, we are zocheh to have this state, which is the biggest bracha we have had, since the churban first began. All klal yisroel has benefited, including the chareidim. When else did they have so many yeshivos and shuls and access to mekomos hakedoshim and freedom from anti-semitism? In addition, they received govt funds for 65 years. Instead of rehashing old, irrelevant fights year after year, it's time to move on, be modeh al haemes, and make sholom with our secular brethren.
Barry, 25,000 Jewish deaths in chopped live to you?? Wow. What more can I say.
Since '48 there has been more anti-semitism and the cold blooded killing of Jews for being Jewish in the Zionist State of Israel than the entire rest of the world combined.
Columbus, you are not being quite logical. First, your cut off point conveniently ignores the Holocaust. However, in stalin's purges in USSR, 20 Million were killed - and this would have included many Jews, since even on a random basis, there was a large jewish population in Russia, all the more so those involved in communism, bolshevism etc. next, you ignore the violence in Arab countries, and the pogroms that took place there. Many of the jews fled to Israel, but would have been snuffed out if they stayed. It is of course tragic that Israelis are killed, but logically, you are less likely to be killed if you have a strong army than if you have no army. Look at European history of the Jews who were defenseless. Then there is the Gulag in Soviet Union, and jews who were imprisoned or sometimes killed. Of course you do not really care about jews anywhere, and like your holocaust denying buddy, David duke, you claim that anti-semitism only began with zionism. Oh, some NK cousin of yours who went to tehran hjolocasue conference, said on BBC News (yes i watch TV) that only 1 million Jews died in the holocaust, the figure of 6 million was herzl's invention.
Columbus, of course every neshama is precious, I am saying we lost far more in comparable periods before the State. You are merely trying to sidetrack the argument. Furthermore, the entire reason why Hertzl started the Zionist movement was because he was sick and tired of pogroms and antisemitism. So please don't rewrite history.
Finally, if you cared about those 25,000, you wouldn't trample on their life's work, which was to have a state and ensure the safety of their brethren, instead of saying their cause was worthless, and they foolishly died for naught.
The worst Arab pograms were a response to Zionism. Both pre-State (Zionism dates to before 1898) and post-State. Sure there was Arab violence against Jews pre-Zionism, just as every non-Jew hates Jews. But the Arab violence against Jews pre-Zionism was far far less than the Christian violence against Jews. Post Zionism the Arab murder machine against Jews was ignited by the Zionists. It far surpassed anything beforehand.
You are engaging in a "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. It is true that historically Arab antisemitism was relatively milder than the European variety. However, as the 19th century progressed, there was increased contact between the Arab world and the West. Consequently, the Arabs picked up Western antisemitism as well. Also obvious, is that antisemitism typically requires Jews and thus an increasing Jewish presence in the land (thanks to the Besht, G"RA, Chassam Sofer, Beis HaLevi and the Netziv etc..) would also increase antisemitism. And don't forget the 1840 Damascus Blood Libel which was probably the most significant incident of antisemitism after the Chmelnicki massacres. All of this preceded Zionism.
Add to that the 1836 Persian blood libel /pogrom and mass conversion of Jews in Meshed, who lived as Marranoes. There were countles other pogroms throughout Persia by the anti-semitic Islamists. Babies were taken and thrown in the air to fall on the sword of murderous Iranian muslims. Of course, Satmar are quite happy with Iran, and Neturei karta kiss the leaders of terrorist organisations.
Not many people take all of what the Satmar rebbe said too seriously. He forbade going the newly liberated Jerusalem and territories after the 6 day war - a tzioni victory. Is there anyone who won't go to the Kotel or old city now, for this reason? And if someone does, perhaps that is also being a shituf to the tzioni avoda zarah (alleged).
Some of the minor things most poskim disagree with the psak of Satmar. But the major underlying issues regarding Zionism and Statehood itself the entirety of the Chareidi world agree with Satmar.
No Mr Stauber, the Hareidi world vehemently disagrees with Satmar on most issues. A few examples:
R' Moshe Feinstein said the Entebbe operation (zionist army) was an open nes.
R' Shach forbade giving back land won by Divine Miracle - the opposite of what satmar says about miracles.
The Ponovezher Rav, R' Kahaneman, would celebrate Yom haatzmaut :) Tell that to your satmar buddies.
Gur - well , they are one of the most pro Zionist Chassidic groups.
R' Henkin was well known fohis love of Israel, and said that after the Stae was declared, we must support it, regardless of the oaths.
R' Elyashiv said that the Rabbanut (State run) was the first seeds of the Sanhedrin.
R Shteinman, before the Lapid party, supported Nahal Haredi intot he Zionist IDF.
So perhaps what you really ought to say, is that all the terrorist and Islamic groups agree with Satmar on the fundamental issues. Mainstream haredi do not.
nonsense. the majority of the chareidi world have signed on with the zionist state, even if they don't do the wrappings like hatikva or yom ha'atzmaut.
@Stauber - "major underlying issues regarding Zionism" - Satmar is setting up a straw man called Zionism and then knocking it down, while completely ignoring and suppressing the REAL UNDERLYING ISSUES:
Does the Torah claim that the geulah process can only unfold in a supernatural manner, or can it also unfold with miracles hidden within nature? The answer according to many authorities is that the geulah can certainly unfold in a natural manner.
It is true that the vast majority of Gedolim agree with Satmar and Brisk that Zionism is evil and they illegally (per Jewish Law) established their medina. But it is also true that the majority of Gedolim disagreed with Satmar on how to treat and interact with the Zionists and their State once it was already established.
Eddie, Rav Eliashev never said any such thing. And you are wrong about your attributions to other Gedolim too. Rav Eliashev said the Kenesset is a Beis Minus (apikorsus.) And Rav Shteinman never supported Nachal Chareidi. In fact Rav Shteinman shlit"a is opposed to joining the Israeli Army altogether. He told people it is better to run away to India than to let the IDF draft you:
על אף שמטרתם המוצהרת של המגייסים היא לפנות רק לבחורים שנפלטו ממסגרות הלימוד החרדיות, גורמים בחברה החרדית התנגדו להקמת הגדוד. ההתנגדות התבטאה, בין השאר, בפשקווילים חריפים, אשר אחדים מהם כוונו כנגד הרב אהרון יהודה לייב שטיינמן, מבכירי הציבור החרדי-ליטאי, שנתן הסכמה שבשתיקה למהלך.[2]
^ אבישי בן חיים, הרב שטיינמן עם הפנים להיי-טק, באתר ynet, 1 ביוני 2001
You are conflating Satmar and Brisk which is a gross misrepresentation of Brisk's attitude toward the medina. Brisker Rav's opposition was due to the concerns fro pikuach nefesh and shmad by the zionists. It had little/nothing to do with the Shvuos, which was the Satmar Rav's focus.
Barry - opposed it as a regular service for all bochrim, yes, that is not under dispute. But the Nachal haredi was given support by R' Shteinman. Also, rav Shach famously said that someone cannot just sit in yeshiva to avoid conscription, if he is not learning - since that would be geneiva. The point I am making is that they allowed under limited circumstances some frum people to enlist. Such a position is heretical for satmar.
Don, I said that Rav Elyashiv spoke about the Rabbanut, where he worked. You are talking about the Knesset. They are 2 different places. In the Shteinman story he said "When the young man left the bnei bayis of the rav asked him why he said davka to travel to India. “What do I know” said the rav, adding “Perhaps they sent him and he has a recording device in his pocket. Afterwards he will go to the radio and media and publicize what I said, that I told him that he can go into the IDF.” - See more at: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/160906/maran-r-shteinman-tells-yeshiva-student-to-go-to-india-instead-of-idf.html#sthash.klQk2Zx6.dpuf"
I never said he wanted all frum people to go to the IDF - I said he backed Nachal haredi, which has been evidenced by a few of us . That is why the Lapid movement is harmful, because it may lose support for Nachal haredi. You are claiming that he is totally opposed to the Zionist state, but his support for Nachal, shows he has some basic support for it.
Dov, that is a very enlightening statement. Could you kindly make a line by line comparison and explain to us just what deep analysis of the words motivated that insight. Please also explain why you wouldn't say the same about the Star Spangled Banner, or any other country's anthem.
Do you see that you are motivated by nothing except illogical hatred that is not your fault, but was force-fed to you at some point in your education? Would any objective Jew find anything objectionable or kneged Torah in the words of Hatikvah. Show me one.
The original Hatikva composed by the zionist Naphtali Herz Imber said: לשוב לארץ אבותינו. But the Israelis wanted to davka put apikorsus in it, so they actually changed the poets original composition to להיות עם חפשי בארצנו.
I'm not a big fan of Hatikva and neither was Rav Kook. He proposed an alternative anthem that was more in tune with a Torah outlook.
I'm not sure what ideology lead to changes in the text. It could simply be that the State was founded on only on a fragment of the ancestral land. It may have been as innocent as that. Do you have evidence that the change was purposely anti-religious?
Sorry. I'm having some trouble seeing the apikursis in that line. Chofshi is apikursis? Please see beginning of mishpatim, uvashviis yeitzei lachofshi chinam. Vim amor yomar haeved ahavti es adoni es ishti ves banai, lo etzei chofshi...vratza adonav es ozno bamartzea. According to you, the eved who wants to go out lachofshi chinam should be the one getting his ear pierced, not the other way around, as the pasuk says.
in addition, here in the USA we have The land of the am chofshi and the home of the brave in our anthem. We also have an Am chofshi bell in Philly. We have a Declaration of am chofshi in Washington. In Boston, there is an Am chofshi trail. I never knew liberty, freedom and independence were bad things.
Emes leyakov... You only read half the gemora migila 17א , first comes sanhedrien , getting rid of רשעים , and them jerusalem... He satmar rebbi discusses this.
Wow, that Rav Ovadia Yosef is interesting. I want to make sure I understood it correctly. Can someone translate it or at least give a brief synopsis of what Chacham Ovadia Yosef is saying?
So, we find ourselves recycling Rav Ovadia's (in)famous land for peace teshuva, which he less famously retracted, as saying that he somehow argues on the Arizal regarding the end of the three oaths? Yet he doesn't reject the Ari's assertion and rather brings it as the maskana to that piece of his teshuva. So he believed that if Jewish lives could definitely be saved by trading land, that was permissible and not going against the words of Torah. However, he clearly quotes that Eitz Chaim piece without arguing on it at all, as the maskana, and further he does not, anywhwere refer to the Satmarer Rebbe's work.
Actually Rav Ovadia Yosef above does reference Sefer Vayoel Moshe for further clarification on this issue. And, of course, Sefer Vayoel Moshe is the magnum opus of the Satmar Rebbe ztvk'l zy'a on this issue.
Obviously Chacham Ovadia Yosef holds the Satmar Rebbe's shitta on the Three Oaths in tremendous esteem and thus cites the Sefer Vayoel Moshe when discussing this issue.
RMT: Please provide proof, if any, over any alleged retraction by Chacham Ovadia Yosef ZT'L.
And I don't mean over the land for peace issue. (Although that would be interesting, too, if true.) But over Chacham's above position on the issue over the current validity of the Oaths, that Chacham so eloquently outlined in the above Techuma article that RDE so hopefully located for us.
Unless you can provide this definitively and without having to twist some documented writing into being an alleged retraction, it is very safe to say everyone can disregard your claims of a retraction.
As to his retraction to his psak on land for peace see his website and any number of the lectures on file there, he repeats it often.
Personally I don't care what ROY says. Being a talmid of Nahar Shalom and more importantly Beit El, I hold by the position held by the Roshei Yeshivot of Beit El for the last 300yrs, namely that the three oaths were only for 1000yrs.
In all due respect to ROY ZTzUK"L he is not a greater than then R' Chaim Vital, the Rashash, the Chidah, the various Roshei Yeshivot that the Ben Ish Hai felt were his equal and the Chazon Ish felt were his superiors... For 300yrs(500 if you go back to when it was a chabura in B"M Yochanan Ben Zakkai) they have given one answer. They ceased.
I have a mesora that goes back directly in unbroken chain to the Ar"i, and which the Ar"i points out is stated explicitly in the Zohar, thus bringing the Rashbi into it.
The minhag of all the mekubalim(which is why Rav S.Z. Auerbach also felt that they had ceased) is to not deviate from minhag Beit El. So for e it is a settled matter, and I really don't see a need to argue on the point beyond that.
The only addendum I would add is that there is a huge difference between the the cessation of the 3 oaths and Zionism which, is a Jewish nationalist movement, born out of the nationalist fervor that seized the world in the early 20th century.
RAMATZ, that is a very interesting comment you make. Do you also know about the GRA who said that the "wall" was referring to the Beis Hamikdash? A totally different take on what the oaths were about. Also, where has Yeshivat Beit El been for the last 300 years? In Israel?
I am familiar with the position of the GR"A, as I used to live next to Talmidei HaGR"A(namely the Zilbermans) in Jerusalem.
Yeshivat Beit El was founded in Jerusalem in 1730 by Rav Gedaliah Hayon, the second Rosh Yeshiva was the Rashash. However, as a chabura inside B"M Yochanan Ben Zakkai it was initially founded by Rav Shmuel Vital, Rav Yaakov Tzemakh and Rav Avraham Azulai in the 1620s.
The Yeshiva remained in the Old City of Jerusalem until the destruction in 1948, and then was relocated to Rashi Street, after a short a stop over in Nahar Shalom, for about 7yrs.
You write above "Personally I don't care what ROY says." Wow!
You don't like what Rav Ovadia Yosef says so now it is "Personally I don't care what ROY says." Wow.
In the past you were not shy about citing Rav Ovadia Yosef when it suited *your* position and feelings. As soon as we find ROY says something you don't agree with, its "Personally I don't care what ROY says."
The comments from Rav Ovadia Yosef are irrelevant to Zionism. He was discussing giving back parts over which we do not have complete control, like Yehuda vShomron.
Notice his sentence that "Today, Bezras Hashem we have matosei krav (jet fighter planes)". Doesn't sound all that antizionist to me.
The article by ROY is about the territories, i.e. west bank, gaza, and whether returning them for peace is permitted. It does not speak about the State of Israel which is recognized by the UN and world powers.
next, the calculation is about whether making a peace deal in exchange for land will save lives. This was the simplistic view of r' Shach and ROY in the 1980s. Lubavitcher Rebbe, who was not yet in his messianic phase, opposed giving back any land. RYBS said it is a decision for the military experts, just like doctor has to decide whether to cut out an infected limb, chas v'shalom. Rav Goren, Rav Kapach, and many others said it was forbidden, but also dangerous.
In a sense, the only person qualified to make such a decision was rav Goren, as he was the only person to be a military expert, and a halachic expert. Rav Goren stated that giving land to the PLO or other terrorist groups, and allowing the palestinain refugees in their diaspora return to their new state will endanger more Jewish lives, as they will bring their murderous weapons and will also rise in their nationalism, and want the rest of eretz Yisroel. Next , ROY was close with Peres and labour party, who would pay money for shas institutions, and rav Shach told him to leave the coalition. rav Shach changed his views when he saw the enormity of the disaster of what Oslo would be. Rav Goren was very accurate in his assessment, even years before Oslo. It is like asking someone to judge whether an animal is treif or not, but that someone has never seen or slaughtered an animal before in his life. rav Goren knew the enemy, and their intentions and capabilities. ROY and rav Shach in his earlier views, were living in a dreamworld where they suspect every word of Jews who carry guns, or study science, but believe every word of murderers, terrorists, and amalek.
Not sure this is accurate. Not sure he gave psak halacha or just Daas Torah. Next, he was attacking the zionist and right wing, for building settlements, for having an IDF, for building in jerusalem. Most likely this was part of his davka against Lubavitcher rebbe. it is an interesting question of "how do u determine " that land will lead to peace? You see, R Sjhach had attacked the eretz Yisrael shleimah people, and his followers did this for many years. Is the answer through Daas Torah? i.e. did R Shach determin that land for peace will bring peace - since that is what he was saying to the RZ crowd. If so, then clearly he was not the Gadol hador in these matters. if not, then you have to look at who said what. Amongst the secular, Shamir , Sharon and Bibi opposed LFP, whilst Peres, beilin, Aloni supported it. Amongst the Religious, R Goren, R Kapach, R Rabinovich , R Yisrael opposed it, whilst R Lichtenshtein and R Amital supported it. So now we have empirical evidence that Goren was right, but the leftists were wrong, as was ROY, Lichtenshtein, and r Shach - but Rav Shach at least did a change at the time of Oslo and fiercely opposed it. If you read r Bleich's essay on land for Peace, he makes some important points - but he states that you shouldn't advertise that you are willing to trade land - since it will weaken you strategically. I asked him once about ROY's view on the 3 oaths - he said that whether or nto the founding of the state was illegal, now we have it, the oaths are not relevant. he also opposed Oslo, becasue it was a danger to life. R Bleich is a massive Gadol - as far as i known, nobody has ever criticised him.
In addition, would Rav Ovadiah Yosef have served as Chief Rabbi of a state he considered illegitimate? Of all people, he would be the last place you should go when looking for support for antizionism.
not to mention he permits hallel on independence day (albeit without a bracha). ROY declared the state to be resihit tzimchat geulateinu, hardly the position of satmar.
Actually it's a huge chiddush coming from the Rav that says you should say tachanun on the day of your wedding and other simchas. I have even seen him not protest when it was said by a father and congregation on the day of his son's brit. If you knew and understood the severity with which sephardim view changing the nusach of prayer, you would understand just how huge it is that he says permits this. He is equating it to a minor holiday, such as Rosh Chodesh, Purim, or Chol HaMoed Pesach, as all of those days we say Hallel without a Brakha too.
contrast ROY's position to the story about the chazon ish ordering that tachnum be said on independence day even though there was a brit in shul that day.
b'gadol i don't get this need to push everyone into a box. there are 50 shades of gray between the satmar rebbe and rav kook. no one has to be on "this side or that side". ROY did not take part in the ideological battle between the religious zionists and antizionists. he looked at the state as a state and judged it based from that POV (basing his judgement of course on halachic considerations).
if the ashkenazim could get it through their heads that people can hold a variety of opinions, they'd be a lot healthier.
maybe a summary of the research I've done might help, as we have almost exhausted this debate.
First, it is not clear what the "wall" of the oath is - some say going on mass aliyah on one day - which never happened; the GRA says building the Beit HaMikdash, which also hasn't happened. And then what is the halachic status of a State ? Is it simply Jewish military and political control over Israel?
Next - whethere the oaths were halacha or aggadda. Those who cite Rambam's Iggeret, neglect to mention that he says it is derech mashal. And as a mashal it is very sensible, not to antagonise those who are stronger than you. I wholeheartedly agree with that - even today that we have an army. But none of the major codes bring these as halacha - Rambam, Shulchan Aruch etc.
Third, there is strong evidence that the oaths ceased already - i find it quite funny that Hareidim base their orthodoxy on Beit HaAri, ie th Kabbalah of the Arizal, the Shulchan Aruch of R Caro - but the naysayers deny that R Chaim Vital and the Zohar, satte the oaths already expired. To be doubly sure, the Ohr Sameach and the Avnei Nezer said that the political process, Balfour, San Remo etc have nullified any last effects of the oaths. In any case, the oaths were a package deal - and the nations didnt keep their side of the bargain. And then there is an additional argument - in halacha there is some decision making process such as one law overriding another. But the satmar and NK views have essentially written a new Shulchan Aruch, where these 3 oaths override every thing else - to the point that they become yehareg vlo yaavor - with no basis in any halacha whatsoever. So a new religion has been formed, which pretends to be Judaism. This also is very starnge, since the positive commandment of conquering and settling israel, as well as the negative commandment of Lo Techanem, are both breeched by this new Reformisher religion, which dresses itself in devout hassidic garb.
@Eddie ROY's essay was published in Torah Shebaal Peh in 1979, it is a written form of a shiur that he gave in Yad Maimon in June of that year. It was the theme of the Yom iyun due to Begin's accord with Egypt. This is way before Shas party was even conceived. Current Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef relates that on Shavout 1967, he walked with his father past the Jaffa Gate and his father commented that one day we may have to give it back for peace, and the Halacha allows it. As for Rav Goren, being in the army as a chaplain doesn't make one a military expert. Yet being a general such as Rabin, or a minister of defense (usually) does - Peres. In fact I'd argue that ROY's view were better than Rav Gooren's. He had just sat on 1000 Aguna cases in a special Bet Din for the military which Rav Goren had been distanced from.
if ROY published this in 1979, it is then obviously his view in the 1980's - what is your point of difference exactly? Yes, Shas was later, but Shas advocated Oslo, which was going to reverse what ROY had written in 79. Oslo was recognizing Arafat and the PLO; giving them immunity for all their crimes prior to oslo, and releasing terrorists. And Rabin said he was happier to have an agreement without peace (Israel) than to have peace with no agreement (N. Ireland). Plus empirically, the case is against Oslo/Rabin and ROY. The number of Israeli lives lost to terror doubled after oslo, than in the preceding 8 years. So what ROY actually helped to was to trade land for more deaths.
Your paragraph about YY is irrelevant, as he has no stature or expertise in military affairs. Your last paragraph is total nonsense. R Goren was a paratrooper, fought in several wars, and saw action. He was also a chaplain. There were generals who supported and those who opposed. generals are not infallible - Sharon made big blunders, but also made amazing successes. Rabin was drunk and near breakdown during the 6 day war. Dayan colluded with Kissinger to help Egypt win the yom kippur war, and ordered soldiers to remove mines on the border, to give Egypt a fighting chance. In any case, everyone now agrees Oslo was a disaster - Peres does, ROY did while he was alive; Rabin's son does, and the swollen Israeli graveyards do too. We lost probably as many due to oslo as we did due to the Yom Kippur war. Rav Shach lost an illui student , who was studying at rav Riskin's yeshiva, and then went to Ponovezh.
How does Aguna give someone expertise in military affairs? ROY never held a gun, wore boots, or saw an enemy firing. If anything, the experience must have weakened him. R Goren left the army and became Chief rabbi of tel Aviv - that didnt make him lose his knowledge and experience. Arik Sharon had also left the army, but he came back in 73 to turn around the YK war that Dayan and Meir had concocted for the benefit of the egyptians.
It is ironic that on the one hand, the hareidi extremists use the secular as their bogeyman and why zionism is treif; on the other they align with the most extreme secular leftists when it comes dinei nefashos.
It is probably worthwhile to mention that much of the article by Dvar Torah as well as much of the comments here are plagiarized word for word from classic.frumteens.com. Many people have compiled Rabbi Shapiro's extensive information previously but they do so with attributing credit:
http://zionismquestions.blogspot.com/
http://vintagefrumteens.blogspot.com/
http://frumteendex.blogspot.com/
Agree or not with what he says, plagiarism is wrong.
IT is not plagiarism, since it is Yakov Shapiro submitting all the comments. He has dedicated his life, as an ainekel of the Teitelbaum family to dispense Satmar rhetoric where ever he can. Warn teens about accepting info from Frumteen BlogSpot.
@Eddie You are mixing 2 issues. One is the Halachic propriety of exchanging land for a theoretical peace. ROY allows for it. He never rescinded that psak. That was way before Oslo or any other peace agreement. The second is whether specific cases of peace deals would work. In the case of Oslo, he relied on Generals who thought it would work to say that the peace part of the criterea would work, to allow Shas to abstain. Shas never voted for Oslo, it passed with 61 votes with Shas abstaining. That may have been Rabin's bad call. The academic psak still stands, and I've never seen a proper halachic rejection to the psak. ( I found Rabbi Zaini's book rediculous) When the Gaza disengagement came around, ROY said that he opposed because itwas unilateral hence it wasn't being done in exchange for peace. As part of a peace deal he would have been open to the idea.
Ahh, but Rav Shach was saying that by holding on to land, we are inciting the enemy - so his postion was assuming that by letting go we will get peace. I understand the 2 issues, but they cannot be practically separated. There is an argument amongst the Settlers, that since it is a mitzvah to settle Eretz Yisroel, then if we are forced to give it up, it is shamd, and hence becomes yehareg v'lo yaavor. I am not a great fan of any of the yehareg v'lo yaavor claims, whether it is kol isha, being drafted , or making territorial compromise. But practically, you must see whether having a PLO/Hamas entity in the heart of israel will save lives or not.
I read a review of a new biography of Theodor Herzl, which reminded me of some important points for this discussion. Herzl's Zionism was a reaction to the failure of assimilation and emancipation. Under these movements, it was envisaged that anti-semitism would end. In fact it continued, although it is not certain whether it got worse as some claim. Herzl's political Zionism was a way to lift the 3 oaths, by engagement with the world leaders. And the Zionist congress did exactly this. The oaths were not halacha, and were not something the Rabbis could change - so it matters not that Herzl wasn't frum. The Zionist Congress represented a vast section of the Jewish population - and the nations were part of the the oaths. the successes lead to San Remo, and Balfour, and eventually to the State of Israel. In herzl's own lifetime, the Ottoman Turks were not interested in a Jewish state in Israel. There is also the Etzba Elokim in all of this. Britain wins Eretz Yisrael from the hands of the Turks. The same British now make a declaration, and this ends any fear of the oaths being legitimate, as the Ohr sameach had said. Britain then hands over the land tot he Jews. This chain of events is unbelievable - and that is why great gedolim see the Divine hand in history in these matters.
I don't want to join the whole argument or anything, seeing as I'm really not well learned in the subject, but I DID want to comment on the title of this post. I assume you're discussing the Three Oaths. I want to point out that in Hebrew, that would be Shalosh Hashvuoth. NOT the shalosh shavuoth. That means the three weeks. Please correct this.
The above document "sources" is not objective, and is misquoting the sources to suit the objectives of the poster. For example, in Iggeret Teiman, Rambam states that the oaths are only b'derech mashal and not halacha, hence he does not include them in his halachic works. And he is talking about the issue of calculating the end , since he was fighting against a false messiah in this letter. In His definitive Misneh Torah he states that we should not focus too much on aggadah, there is no ikkar to be drawn from them, it is permitted to live in EY.
In the Iggeret Teiman, he says one must escape a place of oppression, which is what he himself did from spain,as did Nachmanides. In other words, they reject the idea of the maharal, whihc is in fact contrary to halacha an torah. The Torah says do not stand idly by, which is what Maharal is telling us we must do!
The article above is really mishmash of falsehoods and false attributions, it is a ziuf of the Torah. Consider the following:
"Not only are the Oaths binding according to the consensus of authorities, including the Ramban"
Complete lies! The major halachic works do not contain the oaths, the SA, the Yad, etc. Ramban says nothing about these oaths, so why is the liar claiming he does? What he quotes is a the Rashbash! who differs with him. Citing the Rashbash and claiming it is the views of the Ramban would mean that ramban considered Kabbalah to be false, and the sefirot to be polytheism! That is what Rashbash said about kabbalah. Are there any Satmar or Briskers who would hold such a position on Kabbalah?
This is on the 3 oaths, and why they are not valid.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kby.org/hebrew/torat-yavneh/view.asp?id=3970
It omits mention of the Ohr sameach of Dvinsk, who celebrated after the Balfour and san remo declarations, saying the oaths no longer pertain.
Also, R' Lamm quoted R Kasher as saying that the 3 oaths are a package deal. Since the Gentiles did not observe the oath not to punish us too much, then we are not bound by the first 2. That is quite apart from R' Vital saying they were only valid for 1000 years.
In any case, if they were ever valid, why did R' Akiva not keep to them when he backed bar Kochba? Whilst bar Kochba failed to boot our the Romans, Mar Begin managed to boot out the British - who were the last occupiers of Eretz Yisroel - and who actually voted to give it back to Am Yisrael.
Apparently you did not read the above document, Eddie. All your points were already answered in the above article before you ever submitted your comment.
DeleteActually I transferred this comment from the post about Rav Kook and there Eddie's comment preceded the information which was a response there to his question.
DeleteThis Satmarist rant contains blatantly misleading statements.
ReplyDelete"Ramban did not explicitly discuss the Three Oaths" - This statement is blatantly deceptive. In the Ramban's Addendum to Sefer HaMitzot of the Rambam, Positive Commandment No. 4, it clearly states that there is a positive biblical commandment to take possession of Eretz Yisrael at all times. The Ramban describes it as a "milchemes mitzvah", and he does NOT pasken according to the three oaths.
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.
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.
If the Satmars possessed some intellectual honesty, they would acknowledge that Islam is waging permanent war to destroy the Torah and destroy the Jews, regardless of Zionism.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/06/tennessee-imam-jews-and-christians-filthy-their-lives-and-property-can-be-taken-in-jihad-by-the-musl.html
EmesLeYaakov:
DeleteI see dozens and dozens of sources, from Chazal to Rishonim (Rambam, etc.) to Achronim (Maharal, etc.) to recent Poskei HaDor (Chazon Ish, etc.) all saying the oaths are binding. Unless I missed it completely the Satmar Rebbe is not mentioned once or cited as a source in this entire lengthy document.
@Columbus - "Rambam, etc...saying the oaths are binding." - Is that so? Please cite where in the Rambam's halacha compendium Mishneh Torah where it mentions anything about the shalosh shavuos.
DeleteRambam: 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
DeleteRabbi Yakov Shapiro a relative of the Teitelbaum mishpacha , known now as Dvar Torah has spent his energies and efforts in dispensing these anti-Zionist rhetoric. Always biased without time or space for difference of opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhat now? Should we dismantle the state and surrender to the Arabs? DO you think the Arabs will allow Jews to live there peacefully? And if not, which country will be ready to absorb an additional six million Jews?
ReplyDeleteChayim:
DeleteThe State is like a mamzer. We don't kill mamzeirim. But that in no way justifies how a mamzer came about to being born.
You don't kill it but you do align yourselves with its enemies so that they can do the dirty work for you. One day you will wake up and realize that their hatred is towards ALL Jews including yourself and that it has nothing to do with the Jewish State.
DeleteRav Kasher's book, Hatekufah Hagedolah, struck me as a complete and nearly inarguable refutation of the Satmar Rov's writings on the subject.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with Satmar but your point about Rabbi Kasher's book was already addressed in the document of the original post.
DeleteRav Moshe Feinstein paskened that yishuv eretz yisroel is a mitzva kiyumis and not a chiyuv. The fact that so many gedoei Torah lived chutz laaretz also indicates that they did not feel it was a chiyuv unless it was impossible for them such as for the Gra and the Chofetz Chaim.
ReplyDeleteIt's astounding that the writer brings down the Ramban as holding that the 3 oaths are still applicable when the Ramban paskens that yishuv eretz yisroel is a mitzvas aseh and conquering eretz yisroel by force if necessary is part of the mitzva. Sefer Vayoel Moshe is mifalpel how this could be.
@tzoorba - If someone would give over nowadays the Ramban's opinions on Eretz Yisrael without mentioning who stated them, many Chareidim might consider the author to be a "Kahanist" or a "militant Zionist". I myself learned in a black hat Chareidi yeshiva that the halacha is according to the Ramban.
DeleteHow can Vayoel Moshe manage to invalidate the Ramban?
emesleyaacov
Deletei've had multiple conversations with guys who learned in yeshivot, good ones like lakewood, who hadn't read that ramban until i showed it to them.
@EmesLeYaacov,
DeleteHe doesn't invalidate the Ramban. He just indicates that despite the Ramban's shita, the 3 oaths still apply although I don't recall how.
what is interesting about both this and the R' Kook post, is that mainstream Chareidim, eg followers of R Elyashiv, R' Yosef, are not attacking R Kook or the State. The attackers are NK and satmarists. The defenders of R Kook are his followers.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear more from Chareidi mainstream, Hassidic or misnagdic.
I've never heard the Chareidi mainstream defend Zionism or even Rabbi Kook. I've often heard the Chareidi mainstream denounce Zionism and sometimes even Rabbi Kook.
Deletesally
Deletewas rav shlomo zalman aurbach mainstream enough for you?
למרות שנמנה עם הציבור החרדי, היה מקובל על כל פלגי היהדות הדתית האורתודוקסית. בין השאר החשיב את הרב אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק, שאותו הכיר היטב. הערכה זו התבטאה גם כשכינה אותו "מרא דאתרא דארץ ישראל" וכן "הרב" סתם. הרב קוק סידר את הקידושין בחתונתו, שנערכה בירושלים בפורים משולש, ואף נתן הסכמה לספרו הראשון "מאורי אש"[2]. זכה בפרס הרב קוק לספרות תורנית לשנים תש"ג-תש"ד. גם בנושא חיילי צה"ל, הביע הרב אוירבך עמדה מעט שונה מהמקובל בסביבתו החרדית, כאשר השיב לבחור בישיבה שביקש רשות לנסוע בתקופת הלימודים לקברי צדיקים בצפון כך: "בשביל להתפלל על קברי צדיקים יש צורך לנסוע עד הגליל? כשאני מרגיש צורך להתפלל על קברי צדיקים אני הולך להר הרצל, לקברי החיילים שנפלו על קידוש השם"[3].
Rav Kook was a Charedi.
DeleteMy only issue with the whole topic is - it is obvious to any open minded person that for the last 100+ years we are in the middle of a kibutz galuyos. Also it seems to me that all the people who rail against this obvious fact are denying to a certain extent the involvement of hashem in hasgacha as if he has nothing to do with the whole evolution of events that brought klal yisroel back to ey after 2000 years. Even if its an aveira like they claim it is who said there cannot be kibbutz galiyos through an aveira ? There are other aspects of moshiach that was though an aveira, lot, Yehuda vi'tamar, dovid bas sheva to name a few. So in summary- just because there might be an issue of shalosh shavuos now that its done all should be makir the present and opportunity that was given to klal yisroel.
ReplyDeleteHave we gone out of our cotton pickin minds,after 67 years of a jewish state with a jewish population of almost seven million (kein yirbuh),and the biggest kibutz goliyus since yetzias mitzrayim,and open miracles year after year,and what are we busy with ''sholosh shevuos"
ReplyDeleteanyone not seeing the YAD HASHEM in the fact that we come back to our country after 2000years,is either criminally insane or is a rasha merusha or both
Absolutely! I could not agree more.
DeleteHave we gone out of our cotton pickin minds,after 67 years of a jewish state with a jewish population of almost seven million (kein yirbuh),and the biggest kibutz goliyus since yetzias mitzrayim,and open miracles year after year,and what are we busy with ''sholosh shevuos"
ReplyDeleteanyone not seeing the YAD HASHEM in the fact that we come back to our country after 2000years,is either criminally insane or is a rasha merusha or both
Rav Shraga Feivel disagreed with the Satmar Rav about the Three Oaths. It says so in the Art Scroll bio.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure Arab warfare makes Zionism a violation of the 3 oaths. Even when the non-Jewish king gave permission to rebuild the Temple there was terrorism on the part of local residents- the Kusim.
ben dov
1honestlyfrum.blogspot.com
Rabbeinu Chaim Vital, said quite explicitly in the name of the Arizal and the Zohar that the three oaths were only binding for 1000yrs.
ReplyDeleteאמר עוד במי הנ״ל, ובג״ד השבעתי אתכם
בנות ירושלים וכר. פירוש הדברים, כי ה נ ה
היתד, השבועה הגדולה לאלהי״ם, שלא יעוררו
את הגאולה, עד שאותה האהבה תהיה בהפץ
ורצון טוב, כמ״ש עד שתהפץ. כבן העובד את
אביו, ועייל בכל פלטרין דיליה, ובכל גניזין
דייייה. ולא כעבד, העובד במשגה, ולוקה
השפחה ע״מ לקבל פרס.
וכבר אמרו רז׳׳ל, כי זמן השבועה הי א
עד אלף שנים, כמ״ש ז״ל בבריתא דר׳ ישמעאל,
בפרקי היכלות, ע״פ דניאל, וז״ל. ואתיהבון
בידיה עד עידן ועידנין ופלג עידן. ואיך
הראהו הקב״ה ליעקב אבינו שר עולם, והוא
שרו של בבל ע׳ עוקין וכר ע״ש.
וכן בזהר פ רשת וירא ד׳ קי״ז ע״א, וז״ל,
אמר ר׳ יוסי׳ כ ל דא אריכו זמנא יתיר מכמה
דאוקמוה הבריא, דאיהו יומא הד גלותא דכנסת
ישראל, ולא יתיר, דכתיב נחנני שוממה כ ל
היום דוה.
Found in the introduction to Shaar HaKdamot and brought in the introduction to Eitz Chaim, from whence I copied it. I cannot help but find it odd, that any Chassidim, who claim to follow the Zohar and the Arizal would disagree.
The statement in R. Chaim Vital that the oaths "expired" has been shown not to have originated by R. Chaim Vital at all (HaEmek, Sivan '82).
DeleteThe Golus happened in the year 70. That means any Rishonim or Acronim after approximately the Rif that brings the Oaths l'halachah shows that they do not believe they have expired. The Rambam applies them in his letters, and the Megilas Esther in Sefer HaMitzvos says that the reason the Rambam left out the Mitzvah to live in Erezt Yisroel nowadays is because although it is permitted to live there, it is no longer a Mitzvah, since obligating everyone to live there would cause a violation of the Oaths. They are also applied by countless other Torah authorities throughout the generations, including the Rivash and Rashbash.
Rav Ovadiah Yosef, in an old Techumim article, dismisses the claim that the Oaths have "expired" by referring the reader to read what it says in Vayoel Moshe. The Rishonim and Achronim bring the Oaths L'maaseh all over the place after the alleged expiration date.
Deletei have no idea what ROY said about the oath's expiration. however, the former chief rabbi of the state of israel obviously did not believe that the state was treif. whatever issues he had with the state of israel, rav ovadia did not in any way what-so-ever agree with satmar!
DeleteGavriel, The Rambam "applies" them in what way? Derech mashal, ie they are aggadic, not halachic.
DeleteRambaN, on the other hand, does include conquest and settling of Israel as a mitzvah in every generation.
Ben: I made a narrow point specifically regarding the idea of the oaths expiring. I pointed out several reasons that is not the case. One of them was that Rav Ovadia Yosef's position that the oaths are still active.
DeleteAs far as the broader question of Zionism and ROY's position, while he isn't Satmar, obviously, you are incorrect that he does not agree whatsoever with the SR. While he may not agree with everything, as I pointed out above, Chacham Ovadia Yosef does cite the VaYoel Moshe as a source when discussing the issues relating to Zionism.
The statement in R. Chaim Vital that the oaths "expired" has been shown not to have originated by R. Chaim Vital at all (HaEmek, Sivan '82).
DeleteRav Yaakov Hillel would take issue with that statement. As would a number of other Mekubalim, especially was we have the introduction to Shaar Hakdamot in Rav Chaim Vital's own handwriting.
Rav Ovadiah Yosef, in an old Techumim article, dismisses the claim that the Oaths have "expired" by referring the reader to read what it says in Vayoel Moshe.
Please list an explicit source. I've heard him give shiur on this hakdama, and Rav Yosef Shmueli and Rav Ben Zicri(Rav Ovadia's son in law) both quote him in their pirushim on this piece of Eitz Chaim as agreeing with it.
i too would like a specific source about ROY and the three oaths, rather than "an old article"
DeleteOne of them was that Rav Ovadia Yosef's position that the oaths are still active.
Deletesorry, i simply don't believe it. ROY was a huge supporter of the IDF. yes, he supported deferments for people learning (but not for people pretending to learn), but he loved the IDF and the soldiers. several of his grandchildren served (and not as chayalei da'at). he traveled extensively throughout Yesha, blessing the settlements. he met and gave support to israeli politicians (and not just shasniks).
none of these go with believing that the oaths are still active. let us know when you find the article. TIA.
I saw that Techumim halachic article Gavriel mentioned above and Gavriel is correct about Rav Ovadia Yosef writing in Techumim states that the oaths remain in effect today and he references the Vayoel Moshe for further reference. It was a long time ago and unfortunately I don't recall which issue Rav Ovadia wrote this in.
DeleteThe R' Chaim Vital is perhaps the strongest disproof of the satmarer type arguments.
ReplyDeleteBut I think an analysis of the context of the oaths is important, as it is not clear what they mean or why they were made.
The rebellions agasint the Roman empire led to Hurban Bayit sheini, and then the massacres and expulsions of the Jews from Israel. Bar Kochba had independence for 3 years, before he was crushed, and Edom took its bloody revenge. Thus the Rambam's comments that the oaths were derech mashal make sense - do not rebel agasint an enemy that you cannot defeat. Roman Empire was huge, and although Bar Kochba managed to defeat one battalion, they sent in reinforcements.
So the oaths were a rational thing at the time, and perhaps to placate the Romans.
There were later massacres of Jews in Israel, eg the crusades, which were prior to Ramban's aliyah. In Ramban's time, a small community was forming, and after several centuries the mystics of Safed - the Arizal, R Caro, R Vital, the ReMaK were already starting a new reinvigoration. The Gra was also calling for an ingathering of the exiles - apparently he predicted the date of the 6 day war as being a ketz.
But it was still dangerous to consider a military campaign - as was shown by the catastrophic shabbetai zvi debacle. the ottoman Turks would have no hesitation in putting down a Jewish rebellion. So even if the oaths were not legally binding at that point, they made sense on a practical level - not to rebel against a powerful nation.
This brings us to the current period - an I have omitted many other stages, as I am not a historian.
The Old Yishuv, which was essentially very pious Orthodox jews, eg followers of the Gra, Besht and Sephardim, were not taking any political stance for independence. The Zionist movement, saw that in history, there was opportunity, especially with the British defeat of the Turks. It is very strange that rebellion against the nations is cited, but the Zionist movement was not a rebellion but a collaboration with the nations, and ultimately a UN approval of a State. So again, if there was any validity to the oaths in 1947/8 (and the Arizal would not agree that there was), the State of Israel was approved by the UN - and the war of independence was a defensive war agasint the Arab attackers - rodef. You cannot make an oath to violate the Torah! I cannot make an oath to eat at McDonalds, and nobody can make an oath to not defend oneself if halachically they are obliged to.
Certain wars were successful, eg those of the Hashmonaim, which we celebrate, and others were not, such as Bar Kochva. Hashmomaim were Tzadikim, whilst Bar Kuziva was arrogant and deceptive. The very fact of the success of israel's 1948 and 1967 wars is proof of the oaths having been lifted - if we understand them in the reflexive way that Rambam alludes to. RYBS was noted for saying we should hesitate before deciding whether israel represents the Geula, since Bar Kochba was a short lived affair. But it seems the function of the oaths has outlived their usefulness.
Eddie, see my above comments about Rav Chaim Vital. You are incorrect in what you think he says.
DeleteChazal, the Rishonim and the Achronim cite the oaths l'halacha l'maaisa long long after the Roman era.
DeleteAlso, ROY did refer to them even in the Oslo debacle - he argued that opposing the Oslo accords was a violation of the oath not to rebel agaisnt the nations! At the time, essentially all of the Gedolim, from Rav Shach, to Gur, to Lubavitcher rebbe, to Rav Goren, and even satmar opposed the Oslo treaty. Rav Shach, who was the haredi leader of the time, said that it is assur to return holy land which was won by Divine miracle to terrorists. So, presumably this broad range of Gedolim did not feel restricted in opposing the nations, or making a wall agasint the Pilishtim.
DeleteIt should be painfully obvious that Chazal's purpose in creating the "oaths" concept was to prevent Jews from getting themselves annihilated similar to the way we had just failed miserably against bar Kochva. That tragedy was on the scale of the holocaust. And chazal did not want to see wimpy Jews running into gunfights with a knife because "God is on our side" or "moshiah will come" or "we will bring the redemption" or to follow false messiahs and get themselves and many other Jews slaughtered with them. (I'm using the knife into a gunfight expression as a rhetorical device because yes I know, guns didn't exist yet then). This actually happened several times (although in very small groups) as attested to by the Rambam in a letter to Yemen. In all these cases of the Jews in exile, when rishonim and acharonim bring this oath concept l'halacha it is also practical - the Jews were not only heavily outmanned but certainly lacked the technology and weaponry to be able to wage a legitimate war that wouldn't result in our annihilation. No one studied warfare, no one knew how to even fight in hand to hand combat. Eventually, that practical reality changed in a major way. It started with world war 1.
DeleteEd, Rav Shach never said any such thing about divine miracle. You are incorrect.
DeleteEddie - can you back up your statement from rav shach abt Oslo? In public rav shach was mostly pro Oslo,except once when his fear of assimilation was the theme. The holiness of the land was expressedly not the issue. He would constantly say that the holiness of the land has no connection to the lineage of the officials in the government that controls it. The kosel was no less holy when the Turks had control.
DeleteRav Shach, who was the haredi leader of the time, said that it is assur to return holy land which was won by Divine miracle to terrorists.
Deleteyou'll have to do better than that. rav shach opposed the government because meretz was in it, not because of its policies. he always favored land for peace. so, no, i don't believe he said any such thing.
All of the Rav Shach comments - you are talking about the bad years, i.e. when rav Shach was inciting against Zionism, DL, settlements etc. I am not saying Oslo was good, but it changed R Shach. He opposed it, and forbade the deal, as did all of Agudas Yisrael. Do I have a paper copy of his statement 20 years ago? No. But he did change his view.
DeleteRav Shach was a ferocious opponent of Zionism his entire life.
Delete"whilst Bar Kuziva was arrogant and deceptive"
DeleteMe guess that Rabbi Akiva was aligned with the wrong guy, then!!
Dvar... Why didn't you bring אם הבנים שמחה 3:41 where he brings the 3 oaths for הלכה?
ReplyDeleteThis is important since this book is the'bible' of the dati-leumi people.
Rav Teichtal's Eim Habonim Semeicha doesn't contain anything 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. The most extensive work on this topic is of course the Satmar Rav's Vayoel Moshe, which disproves just about every Zionist "proof" ever conceived.
DeleteAim HaBanim Semecha 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".
(continued...)
(...continued)
DeleteAnd 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. 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
(...continued)
DeleteAnyway, 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 Klal 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 Teichtel’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 to the author'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”. I would think this is because in his sefer he never argues in favor of a Jewish State, but rather in favor of building up the land.
Actually, Eim Habanim says that the oaths are only valid when we enjoy peace in the exile, but that signs then were that we did not enjoy it. And he adds that the nations have agreed to a jewish state (San Remo, Balfour etc), and hence another sign that we can return. In short, he says that the oaths are only valid under certain conditions, which no longer pertain.#
Deletehttp://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/264.html#link
Firstly, R Teichtal was a Gadol, but since he disagreed with those haredi gedolim who opposed Zionism, you feel free to attack him.
DeleteHe lived in an environment where Rebbes were telling their flocks to shun eretz Yisroel, and that they would be safe in Holy Europe. It is actually what the previous Lubavitcher rebbe said, and then had to flee to save his life.
As for haskamas, he was killed by the nazis, yemach shamam. how would he have been able to go to a publisher while stlll hiding out in a loft somewhere?
He may not argue in favour of a Jewish state, but he argues in favour of building the Beit MIkdash shel matah, ie before Moshiach comes. he says this is permitted with consent of the nations.
There is a R' Teichtal in Germany, who is Chabad. I wonder if it is his grandson?
@Yeruchem Gold - "it (Aim HaBanim Semecha) is mostly emotional sermons and discourses (droshos), rather than a serious Halachic analysis" - You are a very smooth Satmar propagandist, spewing out large amounts of confusing words but not actually refuting any of the numerous halachic sources cited by the Aim HaBanim Semecha.
DeleteMany halachic sources supporting mitzvas yeshivas Eretz Yisrael are cited by Aim HaBanim Semecha, including Sifrei, Ramban, Rambam, Shelah, Chatam Sofer, Vilna Gaon, Shulchan Aruch, Pischei Tshuvah, etc. These sources all argue in favor of the mitzvah of yeshivas Eretz Yisrael and thus refute the Satmar Rav's failed attempt to uproot that mitzvah.
Some Satmars are now desperately employing falsehoods against the Eim HaBanim Semeichah to defend their failed shitah.
http://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/contents.html
Eddie,
DeleteHe gives emotional opinions without halachic backing. I gave numerous examples of this with direct quotes from his book. And giving a point-by-point refutation of Rabbi Teichtal's book is not an attack on him but rather on his writings.
Okay, he couldn't get haskamas, but why'd he make up haskamas printed in his book that were never given to him?
Yes, the Rabbi Teichtal in Germany is his grandson.
Yerucham, he was hiding in an attic waiting to be rounded up, with no seforim at his behest. he wrote the book based on his memory of the sources he had learned in the past. You think it has to be like a book that is written by a Rosh Yeshiva who has all the references at hand, and can edit and check etc. Could you write a PhD thesis with no access to any academic literature, internet, library etc? Do you think you could get it done to a high standard? Of coruse there will be shortcomings. And I dont knwo what the haskomos were and when or why they were added. Perhaps he meant to show he had previusly written accepted seforim.
DeleteROY takes the seriously... In his famous responce about the oslo accords he says " and maybe the law is like satmar that we can't have a medina anyways" and uses this to allow the oslO accords
ReplyDeleteThis just shows how twisted the Satmar logic is if people use it to justify strengthening the enemies of the Jewish people and giving them better ability to murder us as they openly state is their goal over and over again. How sick and twisted it is. Since "we can't have a medina anyways" because Rabbi Yoel wrote it so in his book, then let's give Jew-hating genocidal nazi terrorists weapons and sovereignty over us and see what happens. I guess you prefer they murder us with advanced weaponry and tanks rather than hatchets and knives.
DeleteIt is interesting that one of the sources that Dvar Torah brings (page 8) for the Shvuos being lehalacha is the Steipler in Krayna Deigarta 205.
ReplyDeleteIf one looks there, it is clear that the Steipler held that once the Shvuos were violated with hakamas hamedina, the issur is done, and there is no ongoing issur in the existence of the state, since there is no authority against which the state is rebelling. (This was pointed out by Rav Hershel Schachter.)
However, Dvar Torah/Rabbi Shapiro has tried to make the case that that was not the Steipler's intention (a very forced/dachuk reading.)
The interested reader should see this post for the back and forth between myself and Rabbi Shapiro, and make their own judgment on whose reading is correct.
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-review-of-alo-naaleh.html
A few points:
ReplyDeleteFirst, from skimming the Dvar Torah, I noticed that he cites the Maharsha in Chiddushei Halachos in Kesuvos. But in fact, the Maharsha is in Chiddushei AGADOS (small fonts). Therefore the Maharsha is telling us loud and clear it is aggedeta. And if one looks at Reb Shmuel Hanagid's Mevo Hatalmud at end of Brachos, he says clearly that aggada, which is all non halachic areas of gemara, are only to teach whatever lesson the mind can fathom. In this case, it would seem the shevuos are to teach us menschlachkeit, that we should treat our hosts kindly, and not rebel, but show hakaras hatov. Is there any reason in the world, it would not apply to our secular brethren in EY, just as much as to Henry the 8th, whose hobby was beheading his wives? Are we patur from showing the Medina hakaras hatov?
Second, the Rambam quoted above does not come with a source from Mishna Torah, and he says clearly it was AL DERECH HAMASHAL.
Third, it is not cited by Rif, Ran, Mordechai, Tur, Shulchan Oruch, Rama or nosei keilim. Can you kindly provide one other example of a binding halacha which is not in shulchan oruch? Even Cherem Drabbeinu Gershom, a much later innovation, is found in shulchan oruch. But such an ikar from the gemara as shalosh shevuos is totally absent? How can that be?
Fourth, if you are so makpid on aggadeta, do you also not drink even numbers of cans of diet coke because of the gemara of zugos?
Fifth, the Avnei Nezer says that perhaps, since the nonfrum caused the churban 2,000 years ago, davka the non-frum rebuilt EY to be mechaper.
Sixth, during the holocaust, Jews had nowhere else to go, it was pikuach Nefesh.
Seventh, what do you suggest we do now, go back to your beloved Germany and Poland and give back EY to the Arabs, Chas vshalom? Mai d'hava hava.
Eighth, a state doesn't mean a kefirah in bias moshiach, any more than going to work is a kefirah in Nosen lechem lchol basar, or going to a doctor is kefirah in Rofei chol basar. We do our hishtadlus, and Hashem does his part.
Barry, if you read through the Dvar Torah you will see he makes an excellent point that the point remains equally true whether aggedita is halachicly binding or not. Even though Dvar Torah brings strong sources that the oaths are halacha, he brings equally strong sources that even aggedita is halachicly binding. See his article above again. He also demonstrates that even if you assume it is aggedita and not binding it is absurd to disregard the oaths.
DeleteBECAUSE Rav Shapiro/Dvar Torah never read "Am Habanim Simachs"; he was asked on a few occasions and has never delved into anything besides "Vyol Moshe'.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling powers of the land were the Turks and then the British. Not the Arabs. All the "hanagnahs, Irguns, Stern Gangs" (sic) were manifestations of self-defense. The zionist writers wanted and expected "peaceful coexistence" with the Arabs as you describe it. Read their writings. The defense mechanisms only developed later due to sakanos nefashos. The Irgun efforts were literally a response to arab terrorism which the British as a matter of policy did nothing or very little to stop unless it was directed at the British. Before the Haganah, they relied on Turkish horsemen to protect their farms from arab thieves and murderers until they realized the Turks weren't protecting them to the best of their abilities. What about any of this violates the oaths? In the Shulchan Aruch it says that if the gentiles come to attack the Jewish community on Shabbat, you are allowed to arm to defend yourselves on Shabbat. There is no prohibition against self-defense.
ReplyDeleteThe British took over from the Ottomans at the end of World War I. The Zionist terrorists were against the British rulers. The Turks were long gone.
DeleteSo if i read the Zionist writings i will see that they never planned on a state! Talk about la la land. The title of Herzl's book 'the Jewish state' might give something away!
Delete"So if i read the Zionist writings i will see that they never planned on a state!"
DeleteThat's clearly not what I wrote. Do you have problems with reading comprehension or are you purposely obfuscating? It is you and your fellow-travelers who live in la la land still arguing over a controversy that already had an outcome 65 years ago. You are still debating the design of chariot wheels while everyone drives cars. It's over, you lost. The state was created. Your theoretical and fantastical "ideology" (if you can call it that) does not address this reality.
"The British took over from the Ottomans at the end of World War I. The Zionist terrorists were against the British rulers. The Turks were long gone"
DeleteI wrote in my post: "The ruling powers of the land were the Turks and then the British."
So what exactly was your point? Oh, there was none. But can't you at least quote something for me from one of your illustrious naturei karta pamphlets?!
One of the greatest Halachic authorities, R' J.D Bleich has written about the issues surrounding the oaths.
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y4SPB17NkzAC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=chaim+vital+3+oaths&source=bl&ots=GIKATc-wAx&sig=WCeI-2PUv06iaR8xFNaA1102Jv4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_9ClUvilHqrI0QWZsoGgCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=chaim%20vital%203%20oaths&f=false
R' Zevin ztl pointed out they are no longer binding. He also points out that the Maharal wrote that these are decrees or punishments, and not binding on us legally.
This is how the aggadic understanding works, eg if someone catches flu, it is not assur for them to have chicken soup to get better. the flu is a decree, but we are not prevented to alleviating it.
Rav Yehuda Hershuni ztl, points out a Meshech Chochma, who says that in the absence of a Sanhedrin, the community may sanctify the new moon. he extends this possibly to fighting a milchemet mitzvah - which usually requires a King/Prophet/sanhedrin.
There is a mitzvah in every geenration to fight Amalek. Many gedolim, including the Mahahral, have said that all enemies of Israel are actually descended from Amalek. hence, whether or not the milchemet mitzvah is allowed today, the fight against Amalek is still a mitzvah.
Even if we assume they aren't halachicly binding., why would you invite the terrible kinds of punishments the Maharal writes result from violating the oaths?
DeleteDoes that mean that the Zionists who worked to shmad yidden, such as henerietta szold sr''y, are amalek, thanks to your nameless gedolim?!
Deleteyankel, I made a brief summary of the article I linked - I named the Maharal, you can check for other names.
DeleteI dont know who szold was. Amalek was a nation, and the arguemnt is that they are physical descendants of them. It would be hard to say that Jews are descended form amalek. Furthermore, in the TNK we have cases of Israel who worshipped idols - does that make them amalek?
You said it, not me. Henerietta Szold is a hero of the Zionist establishment and one of the rishei am yisroel, just like Ach'av, Korach, Mendelsohn and Jack the Ripper.
DeleteWhere should I check for other names? Where is the Maharal? Which Halocho sefer did he write? After all, you are quoting a psak halocho, not just a hashkofo.
You claim Jack the ripper was a Jew - do u have any evidence, or you learned this from your neo-nazi buddies in Tehran?
DeleteI already told you twice:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y4SPB17NkzAC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=chaim+vital+3+oaths&source=bl&ots=GIKATc-wAx&sig=WCeI-2PUv06iaR8xFNaA1102Jv4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_9ClUvilHqrI0QWZsoGgCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=chaim%20vital%203%20oaths&f=false
Reb yerahum hayakar.... Even the zionist rav tiechtal זצ׳ל knows the 3 oaths are in effect and binding...
ReplyDeleteעיין שם
על רגל אחת
ReplyDeleteThe issue whether the oaths are binding (despite being aggadic and despite the transgressions of nations) is a sideshow. The core issue is not whether, but what the oath of שלא יעלה בחומה actually is. The overwhelming majority of authorities interpret it in a way that excludes the Zionist movement. The Satmar Rebbe attempted to interpret it as including any large scale immigration, and he does so by conjecture, conflation and by simply neglecting traditional interpretations.
What is "going up as a wall?" It means the majority of the nation invading the land by force.
Some authorities describe the oath in terms of forcing the "end" by means of a premature קיבוץ גלויות. Well, Zionist immigration has been going on for more than 100 years, and yet the majority of Jewry still lives in the diaspora. (And that doesn't consider עשרת השבטים). Rashi makes it very clear, that partial immigration is not "as a wall". See Yoma 9b. How does the VaYoel Moshe handle this open Gemara? By citing the Gemara's text and truncating it right before the clause that would refute him. Indeed, elsewhere in VaYoel Moshe, the Satmar Rebbe is forced to admit that according to the Mishneh Torah, the oath only includes the immigration of the majority of the people.
Some authorities require that immigration must be an armed invasion. Obviously, this has not happened. All immigration, legal or otherwise, was peaceful.
The Satmar Rebbe conflates any armed activity with an invasion. This means ignoring the יעלה of יעלה כחומה.
In summary, the oath was never violated. There never was an immigration that had any pretense of a gathering of the exiles. There never was an armed invasion. Most immigration was legal. The Satmar Rebbe attempted to give a modern reinterpretation of the oath to include any large peaceful legal immigration which is manifestly not supported by the consensus of Rishonim and Achronim.
Of course there was an armed war to take control of Israel. Not only was it their War of Independence but it also included the Zionists terroristic war against the British sovereigns of Palestine in the decades leading up to '48.
DeleteRead again. I wrote that one must make a distinction between an invasion and other armed activities. Those engaged in military activities had earlier immigrated peacefully. There never was an armed invasion, which is what יעלה בחומה means. You have conflated the two concepts.
DeleteFurthermore, you conflate the different Zionist factions. The majority did not engage in terrorist activities. It's rather dishonest to paint the entire movement based on the actions of a minority faction. You are also incorrect when you claim that there were "decades" of terrorist activity. Ridiculous.
The War of Independence occurred after the land was legally theirs. The land at that point legally belonged to the Jewish people. In other words, there was never as you put it, "an armed war to take control of Israel", it was rather a war to retain control of Israel. At that point, the Arabs were threatening the Yishuv with another Holocaust. There could not have been a greater מלחמת מצוה than that. More than that, it was a case of פקוח נפש. Thus, all Jews were halachically obligated to join the battle against the צר שבא עליהם.
as an ex-Yeshiva guy, I must point out that these sort of pilpulim, shakla ve'taryes, casuistics, whatever you'd like to call them, point to a major flaw in the halachic and thelogoical systems of current Yahadus.
ReplyDeleteHa'yoitze me'zeh is that halacha and hashkafa are infinitely subjective and malleable, even corruptible. This applies equally to the cases of gittin, mazerim,etc of very recent vintage.
But to my mind, the root problem is even more insiduous. There is complete obsession with halachic minutae, at the same time, our supposed observance is completely removed from any shemetz of spirituality or meaning.
The primary source the Satmar Rav and Munkatch Rav rely on is the Megillas Esther (see the perush Megillas Esther who argues on Ramban's Addendum to Sefer HaMitzot of the Rambam, Positive Commandment No. 4, where Ramban clearly states that there is a positive biblical commandment to take possession of Eretz Yisrael at all times).
ReplyDeleteEim HaBanim Semeichah cites Pitchei Teshuvah Even HaEzer 75:6, Shelah, Maharit, and other sources to prove that "all of the great poskim who came after the Megillat Esther rejected his opinion, for it has no basis or substance."
http://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/267.html#link
Another item of unsourced conjecture by the Satmar Rebbe is his claim that the opinion of the local Arab population matters, and the authority of the British (Balfour Declaration), the League of Nations and Turkey (San Remo) and the UN are not relevant. As far as I know, he doesn't prove his claim.
ReplyDeleteKoresh may have given permission for the Jews to return to their land, but he was opposed violently by the local population. That implies, that we don't need permission from the locals, only from the sovereign authority.
Of course the opinion of the British sovereigns of Palestine and the majority Arab population are of consequence. That is the entire obvious point. The Zionists fought the British in their terroristic war against the British presence in Palestine. And clearly the Arab majority of Palestine opposed the Zionists ambition of sovereignty.
DeleteThe British were only sovereign as far as promoting Jewish immigration and developing leading eventually to statehood. The status of the Arab population is simply not relevant, just as the violent local population were not relevant when Koresh gave his permission to the Jews to resettle the land. The idea that the Oaths require kow-towing to local Arabs who themselves were rebelling against the sovereign is just conjecture. More than that, if the sovereign declared that the country belongs to the Jews, any opposition to that decision is in effect a rebellion against the sovereign and thus forbidden under the Oaths. That some local Arabs joined in the rebellion does not give the Jews permission to join them. Had the Jews joined the Arabs and allow them to take over the country they would God forbid fulfilled the prophecy of אני מתיר את בשרכם כצבאות וכאילות השדה. Thank God, we observed the oath, and didn't rebel against the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference and the U.N. vote.
DeleteIn any case, the British ceded whatever sovereignty they had to the U.N. who then voted to create the Jewish State.
Again, the majority of Zionists did not engage in terrorism.
Based on your above comment and logic, at minimum the Zionists seized the Palestinian land granted by the U.N. to the Arabs, including Jerusalem, during the '48 war.
Delete1) It's not clear that the Oath prevents conquering land from within ארץ ישראל. The word יעלה means to ascend from outside of ארץ ישראל. Thus, such conquest lies outside the ban of the Oath.
Delete2) The U.N. declaration was a proposal that was rejected by the Arabs. The Arabs never accepted the land now know as the West Bank. The land was granted by the U.N. but never accepted by the Arabs. The land became at worst ownerless, and thus outside the ban of the oath.
The entire Torah world agrees with the Satmar Rebbe on Zionism. Brisk, Chazon Ish, Reb Elchonon Wasserman, Reb Chaim Ozer, Rav Ahron Kotler, etc. They all agreed Zionism is treif and they all agreed a State should not have been created. The only disagreement is what to do about it after the mamzer State was already created. Satmar said disengage, do not interact with it, do not accept money from them, do not vote in their elections. Brisk, Toldosh Ahron, Eidah Chareidus, and some others agreed with the Satmar Rebbe on this point. Most of the Torah world disagreed in practice (even if they agreed in theory) and felt that once the State was here, we need to engage it, vote, participate in the Kenesset, since we pay taxes we should take monetary benefits, etc. Only on this point did they disagree.
ReplyDeleteEven Rav Eliashev said the Israeli Kenesset is a Beis Minus:
http://matzav.com/rav-elyashiv-shomrei-torah-umitzvos-should-not-enter-the-knesset
I don't have time to comment now, but I've previously translated a Shu"t from R Sternbuch- not exactly a big zionist- about the opinion of Rov Gedolim BEFORE the state was founded. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/12/rav-sternbuch-2140-daastorah-regarding.html
ReplyDeleteAs I have noted above, most of this discussion is not lema'ase, because once the medina was established, the issur is done, and there is no ongoing issur in maintaining the medina. This was the view of the Steipler.
ReplyDeleteThere is still an issur of spilling Jewish blood to defend the Zionist State. If surrendering sovereignty means saving even one Jewish life then there is an obligation to give up Jewish sovereignty over Israel.
DeleteAnd considering the amount of Jewish blood spilled from '48 through today to defend the State, it is clear that the State is responsible for the spilling of Jewish blood.
you are making some false claims Stauber.
DeleteRamban holds that it is a mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisroel in every generation. This means we must try to have a Zionist state in every generation. You are also saying that it is forbidden to defend jewish lives - which was very much a satmar idea. Hassidic rebbes led more to their unfortunate ends than did the Zionist enterprise. But, you deny the Torah - it says do not stand idly by. this is precisely what you Mr Shtauber, are advocating - to stand idly by and allow the islamic murderers do 1000x worse to us than they are doing to frum muslims in Syria. So perhaps you are doing the work of mr Amalek?
And if surrendering sovereignty means shedding even one Jewish life then there is an obligation to retain Jewish sovereignty over Israel.
DeleteEither way, we are discussing the Shalosh Shevuos, not pikuach nefesh. Please stay on topic.
You are a very sick person. The Arabs daily proclaim they wish to kill all Jews; they launch rockets into people's home and glorify those who bomb buses. There is no מלחמת מצוה greater than this. And you think it's about the State? The Satmar Rebbe himself wrote that if the Arabs take over they will kill everybody. (See דברי יואל on פרשת בא)
DeleteThe IDF does not defend the State. It defends the Jewish people. The Arabs have promised that any land surrendered by the Jews will be used to kill more Jews. And they have kept that promise.
Tell us, which "one Jewish life" has been saved by Israeli evacuations?
The State is responsible for spilling of Jewish blood? Are you aware of the history of Arab violence against Jews throughout the centuries? Are you aware that Arab anti-Semitism was already on the increase in the 19th century before the rise of the Zionist movement?
In any case, the post was about the Three Oaths. I don't see anything in your comment that would negate the fact that the Oath against "ascending as a wall" has nothing to do with Zionism.
It is forbidden to sacrifice Jewish lives in the pursuit of a Mitzvah. That is the case whether the Mitzvah is eating kosher, davening, or yishuv haaretz. Clearly the Zionists violated pikuach nefesh and the Zionists spilled Jewish blood against Jewish Law.
DeleteThey did so pre-State, during the '48 war, and continue to do so today.
Had the Zionists not established their State, many lost Jewish lives would not have been lost.
It is forbidden to sacrifice Jewish lives in the pursuit of a Mitzvah. That is the case whether the Mitzvah is eating kosher, davening, or yishuv haaretz.
Deleteyou did light hanukka candles, didn't you?
Mr. Waxman, would you sacrifice your life if a gentile was going to kill you unless you are a piece of pork? So why would you sacrifice lives for yishuv?
DeleteWrong. A מלחמת מצוה by definition is a מצוה and necessarily comes with the risk of sacrifice. Yet the halacha demands that הכל יוצאים.
Deleterobert i served in the idf, in situations where gunfire was exchanged. if need be, i'll go again. i realize that the extreme chareidi viewpoint doesn't allow for other dayot, but not everyone agrees with the opinions given here.
DeleteDon/Ephy..
DeleteMilchemet mitzvah sanctioned by a Sanhedrin will involve sacrifice of life - but that is a separate discussion.
Halacha of Rodeif, is that you rise up before he kills you. If you do nto fight, there will be more loss of life than if you do. Remember, the Arab rodfim attacked in 47/8; 67; 73. There are occasionally misadventures such as the Suez campaign, and IMHO the 82 Lebanon war. But the 3 biggest wars in question were clearly rodeif - and hence halachically we were all obliged to fight, even haredim.
Next, according to some opinions, Amalek is anyone who follows the ideology of Biblical Amalek. The Arabs were talking about driving us into the sea - which incidentally is what Pharoah dreamed of doing. So whether they are genetically amalek or spiritually, it is a mitzvah and chiyuv to fight them in every generation.
The alternative that the great rebbes and Roshei yeshivas of Europe was to sit it out there, cost many more lives. Also, the IDF is a deterrent, to some anti semites, since they know they might get hit back. This was not the case before 48.
Neither this nor any of the zionist wars are מלחמת מצוה
DeleteRider, you don't have the authority to declare what's a מלחמת מצוה which is a clearly defined halacha-
DeleteI refer you to משנה תורה, הלכות מלכים, פרק ה:
ואיזו היא מלחמת מצוה... ועזרת ישראל מצר שבא עליהם
One source not yet cited:
ReplyDelete"...the Talmud forbids us to even think of a return [to Palestine] by force [i.e. top attempt to effect Redemption through human effort]. Without the miracles and signs mentioned in the Scripture, we must not take the smallest step in the direction of forcing a return and a restoration of our nation. The Song of Songs expresses this prohibition..."
-Moses Mendelssohn (1783)
Let me add the following: the job of a moreh horaah is to see the big picture, and not cling to one detail, at all costs. Lmashal, suppose a bar-mitzvah boy leined his parshah, and the guests went downstairs to the seudah. One nudnik starts running around that he made a mistake with the trop in rishon. He wants everybody to go back upstairs and the boy should reread the parsha. Everybody knows that trop is not meakev. But this fellow feels it is very important. For him it is better to lein again, even though it will ruin the seudah, and embarrass the boy and his family. One who would insist on doing this is actually not just making a mistake in halacha, he is mentally imbalanced. To think that trop outweighs mevayesh brabim is a sign of being not all there.
ReplyDeleteThe ikar of Torah is meschlachkeit. To make an issue of a gemara, which may be only an aggadeta and is not found in shulchan oruch, at the expense of making machlokes in klal yisroel is unfortunately the sign of a person who is not meurav im habriyos, and not completely balanced. When we had people like Dov Gruner who brought their tefilin to jail, and were hanged for trying to establish a state for their fellow Jews, and died singing Hatikva, makes Hatikva kodesh kodoshim, despite what any insensitive nudnik might say. Dov's mesirus nefesh outweighs all the dikdukei halachos of any of these so-called kanaim. Reb Aryeh Levin grasped the depths of it. Unfortunately, ad hayom hazeh, their are many who make the ikar tafel and the tafel ikar. This lack of emphasizing the primacy of menschlachkeit, kneged all else, is exactly why we have all the antizionist movements splitting and fighting with each other. When they realize that midos tovos are the entire goal of Torah, the fighting will finally stop.
Finally, this business about being dangerous to violate shalosh shvuos is against the metzius, and makes it seem like we can know how the RBSH firs zich the velt. In the 150 years that the Israeli govt has been keeping records, the total number of fallen soldiers and terrorist victims is 25,000. In the holocaust, we lost 6 million in about 10 years. during tach vtat, we lost tens or hundreds of thousands in 2 years. We also had crusades and inquisitions all through golus. Baruch Hashem, we are zocheh to have this state, which is the biggest bracha we have had, since the churban first began. All klal yisroel has benefited, including the chareidim. When else did they have so many yeshivos and shuls and access to mekomos hakedoshim and freedom from anti-semitism? In addition, they received govt funds for 65 years. Instead of rehashing old, irrelevant fights year after year, it's time to move on, be modeh al haemes, and make sholom with our secular brethren.
Hatikva is the Zionist version of Die Fahne hoch.
DeleteBarry, 25,000 Jewish deaths in chopped live to you?? Wow. What more can I say.
DeleteSince '48 there has been more anti-semitism and the cold blooded killing of Jews for being Jewish in the Zionist State of Israel than the entire rest of the world combined.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Columbus, you are not being quite logical.
DeleteFirst, your cut off point conveniently ignores the Holocaust. However, in stalin's purges in USSR, 20 Million were killed - and this would have included many Jews, since even on a random basis, there was a large jewish population in Russia, all the more so those involved in communism, bolshevism etc.
next, you ignore the violence in Arab countries, and the pogroms that took place there. Many of the jews fled to Israel, but would have been snuffed out if they stayed.
It is of course tragic that Israelis are killed, but logically, you are less likely to be killed if you have a strong army than if you have no army. Look at European history of the Jews who were defenseless.
Then there is the Gulag in Soviet Union, and jews who were imprisoned or sometimes killed. Of course you do not really care about jews anywhere, and like your holocaust denying buddy, David duke, you claim that anti-semitism only began with zionism.
Oh, some NK cousin of yours who went to tehran hjolocasue conference, said on BBC News (yes i watch TV) that only 1 million Jews died in the holocaust, the figure of 6 million was herzl's invention.
Nothing more needs to be said
Deletenothing?
rav brovender says it better than i ever could:
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/737907/Rabbi_Chaim_Brovender/Zionism-_Satmer_Rav_vs-_Rav_Soloveitchik
Columbus, of course every neshama is precious, I am saying we lost far more in comparable periods before the State. You are merely trying to sidetrack the argument. Furthermore, the entire reason why Hertzl started the Zionist movement was because he was sick and tired of pogroms and antisemitism. So please don't rewrite history.
DeleteFinally, if you cared about those 25,000, you wouldn't trample on their life's work, which was to have a state and ensure the safety of their brethren, instead of saying their cause was worthless, and they foolishly died for naught.
Nothing more needs to be said.
DeleteA lot more should be said when a FACT is an opinion.
The worst Arab pograms were a response to Zionism. Both pre-State (Zionism dates to before 1898) and post-State. Sure there was Arab violence against Jews pre-Zionism, just as every non-Jew hates Jews. But the Arab violence against Jews pre-Zionism was far far less than the Christian violence against Jews. Post Zionism the Arab murder machine against Jews was ignited by the Zionists. It far surpassed anything beforehand.
DeleteYou are engaging in a "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. It is true that historically Arab antisemitism was relatively milder than the European variety. However, as the 19th century progressed, there was increased contact between the Arab world and the West. Consequently, the Arabs picked up Western antisemitism as well. Also obvious, is that antisemitism typically requires Jews and thus an increasing Jewish presence in the land (thanks to the Besht, G"RA, Chassam Sofer, Beis HaLevi and the Netziv etc..) would also increase antisemitism. And don't forget the 1840 Damascus Blood Libel which was probably the most significant incident of antisemitism after the Chmelnicki massacres. All of this preceded Zionism.
DeleteVery good point Ephraim.
DeleteAdd to that the 1836 Persian blood libel /pogrom and mass conversion of Jews in Meshed, who lived as Marranoes. There were countles other pogroms throughout Persia by the anti-semitic Islamists. Babies were taken and thrown in the air to fall on the sword of murderous Iranian muslims.
Of course, Satmar are quite happy with Iran, and Neturei karta kiss the leaders of terrorist organisations.
Not many people take all of what the Satmar rebbe said too seriously. He forbade going the newly liberated Jerusalem and territories after the 6 day war - a tzioni victory. Is there anyone who won't go to the Kotel or old city now, for this reason? And if someone does, perhaps that is also being a shituf to the tzioni avoda zarah (alleged).
ReplyDeleteSome of the minor things most poskim disagree with the psak of Satmar. But the major underlying issues regarding Zionism and Statehood itself the entirety of the Chareidi world agree with Satmar.
DeleteNo Mr Stauber, the Hareidi world vehemently disagrees with Satmar on most issues. A few examples:
DeleteR' Moshe Feinstein said the Entebbe operation (zionist army) was an open nes.
R' Shach forbade giving back land won by Divine Miracle - the opposite of what satmar says about miracles.
The Ponovezher Rav, R' Kahaneman, would celebrate Yom haatzmaut :) Tell that to your satmar buddies.
Gur - well , they are one of the most pro Zionist Chassidic groups.
R' Henkin was well known fohis love of Israel, and said that after the Stae was declared, we must support it, regardless of the oaths.
R' Elyashiv said that the Rabbanut (State run) was the first seeds of the Sanhedrin.
R Shteinman, before the Lapid party, supported Nahal Haredi intot he Zionist IDF.
So perhaps what you really ought to say, is that all the terrorist and Islamic groups agree with Satmar on the fundamental issues. Mainstream haredi do not.
nonsense. the majority of the chareidi world have signed on with the zionist state, even if they don't do the wrappings like hatikva or yom ha'atzmaut.
Delete@Stauber - "major underlying issues regarding Zionism" - Satmar is setting up a straw man called Zionism and then knocking it down, while completely ignoring and suppressing the REAL UNDERLYING ISSUES:
DeleteDoes the Torah claim that the geulah process can only unfold in a supernatural manner, or can it also unfold with miracles hidden within nature? The answer according to many authorities is that the geulah can certainly unfold in a natural manner.
http://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/173.html#link
There are also many sources that state that the geulah will unfold with permission of the gentile rulers (the U.N. would be in this category).
The Gemara in Megillah 17a states that Jerusalem will be rebuilt before Mashiach arrives. This is a clear refutation of the Satmar/Munkatch/NK shitah.
http://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/237.html#link
Those who are in agreement with Satmar are the minority and they are Munchatcher Chassidim, Briskers and NK.....
DeleteIt is true that the vast majority of Gedolim agree with Satmar and Brisk that Zionism is evil and they illegally (per Jewish Law) established their medina. But it is also true that the majority of Gedolim disagreed with Satmar on how to treat and interact with the Zionists and their State once it was already established.
DeleteEddie, Rav Eliashev never said any such thing. And you are wrong about your attributions to other Gedolim too. Rav Eliashev said the Kenesset is a Beis Minus (apikorsus.) And Rav Shteinman never supported Nachal Chareidi. In fact Rav Shteinman shlit"a is opposed to joining the Israeli Army altogether. He told people it is better to run away to India than to let the IDF draft you:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/160906/Maran-R%27-Shteinman-Tells-Yeshiva-Student-To-%27Go-To-India%27-Instead-Of-IDF.html
Don
Deleteעל אף שמטרתם המוצהרת של המגייסים היא לפנות רק לבחורים שנפלטו ממסגרות הלימוד החרדיות, גורמים בחברה החרדית התנגדו להקמת הגדוד. ההתנגדות התבטאה, בין השאר, בפשקווילים חריפים, אשר אחדים מהם כוונו כנגד הרב אהרון יהודה לייב שטיינמן, מבכירי הציבור החרדי-ליטאי, שנתן הסכמה שבשתיקה למהלך.[2]
^ אבישי בן חיים, הרב שטיינמן עם הפנים להיי-טק, באתר ynet, 1 ביוני 2001
You are conflating Satmar and Brisk which is a gross misrepresentation of Brisk's attitude toward the medina. Brisker Rav's opposition was due to the concerns fro pikuach nefesh and shmad by the zionists. It had little/nothing to do with the Shvuos, which was the Satmar Rav's focus.
DeleteDon, Don't tell porkie -pies (lies).
DeleteRav Elyashiv served in the Rabbanut and compared it to the Sanhedrin. Stop with your historical revisionism.
Rav Shteineman did support Nachal, what are u talking about?
http://www.rabbihorowitz.com/PYes/ArticleDetails.cfm?Book_ID=1731
" With that, Nachal Charedi was established with the full-throated bracha (blessing) and encouragement of Hagaon Rav Ahron Leib Shteinman shlit"a."
Rav Shach gave heter to R' Becher (who was then teaching in Ohr sameach) to go to the IDF.
Don Don't lie. The truth will catch up with you.
I can testify from personal contact that both Rav Shach and Rav Shteinman opposed IDF service.
DeleteBarry - opposed it as a regular service for all bochrim, yes, that is not under dispute. But the Nachal haredi was given support by R' Shteinman.
DeleteAlso, rav Shach famously said that someone cannot just sit in yeshiva to avoid conscription, if he is not learning - since that would be geneiva.
The point I am making is that they allowed under limited circumstances some frum people to enlist. Such a position is heretical for satmar.
Rav Shteinman opposes IDF service EVEN IF SOMEONE IS *NOT LEARNING*:
Deletehttp://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/160906/Maran-R%27-Shteinman-Tells-Yeshiva-Student-To-%27Go-To-India%27-Instead-Of-IDF.html
And Rav Eliashev considers Zionism and the Israeli State to be apikorsus:
Deletehttp://matzav.com/rav-elyashiv-shomrei-torah-umitzvos-should-not-enter-the-knesset
Don, I said that Rav Elyashiv spoke about the Rabbanut, where he worked.
DeleteYou are talking about the Knesset. They are 2 different places.
In the Shteinman story he said "When the young man left the bnei bayis of the rav asked him why he said davka to travel to India. “What do I know” said the rav, adding “Perhaps they sent him and he has a recording device in his pocket. Afterwards he will go to the radio and media and publicize what I said, that I told him that he can go into the IDF.” - See more at: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/160906/maran-r-shteinman-tells-yeshiva-student-to-go-to-india-instead-of-idf.html#sthash.klQk2Zx6.dpuf"
I never said he wanted all frum people to go to the IDF - I said he backed Nachal haredi, which has been evidenced by a few of us . That is why the Lapid movement is harmful, because it may lose support for Nachal haredi.
You are claiming that he is totally opposed to the Zionist state, but his support for Nachal, shows he has some basic support for it.
Dov, that is a very enlightening statement. Could you kindly make a line by line comparison and explain to us just what deep analysis of the words motivated that insight. Please also explain why you wouldn't say the same about the Star Spangled Banner, or any other country's anthem.
ReplyDeleteDo you see that you are motivated by nothing except illogical hatred that is not your fault, but was force-fed to you at some point in your education? Would any objective Jew find anything objectionable or kneged Torah in the words of Hatikvah. Show me one.
The original Hatikva composed by the zionist Naphtali Herz Imber said: לשוב לארץ אבותינו. But the Israelis wanted to davka put apikorsus in it, so they actually changed the poets original composition to להיות עם חפשי בארצנו.
DeleteI'm not a big fan of Hatikva and neither was Rav Kook. He proposed an alternative anthem that was more in tune with a Torah outlook.
DeleteI'm not sure what ideology lead to changes in the text. It could simply be that the State was founded on only on a fragment of the ancestral land. It may have been as innocent as that. Do you have evidence that the change was purposely anti-religious?
Sorry. I'm having some trouble seeing the apikursis in that line. Chofshi is apikursis? Please see beginning of mishpatim, uvashviis yeitzei lachofshi chinam. Vim amor yomar haeved ahavti es adoni es ishti ves banai, lo etzei chofshi...vratza adonav es ozno bamartzea. According to you, the eved who wants to go out lachofshi chinam should be the one getting his ear pierced, not the other way around, as the pasuk says.
ReplyDeletein addition, here in the USA we have The land of the am chofshi and the home of the brave in our anthem. We also have an Am chofshi bell in Philly. We have a Declaration of am chofshi in Washington. In Boston, there is an Am chofshi trail. I never knew liberty, freedom and independence were bad things.
Emes leyakov... You only read half the gemora migila 17א , first comes sanhedrien , getting rid of רשעים , and them jerusalem... He satmar rebbi discusses this.
ReplyDeleteWow, that Rav Ovadia Yosef is interesting. I want to make sure I understood it correctly. Can someone translate it or at least give a brief synopsis of what Chacham Ovadia Yosef is saying?
ReplyDeleteSo, we find ourselves recycling Rav Ovadia's (in)famous land for peace teshuva, which he less famously retracted, as saying that he somehow argues on the Arizal regarding the end of the three oaths?
ReplyDeleteYet he doesn't reject the Ari's assertion and rather brings it as the maskana to that piece of his teshuva.
So he believed that if Jewish lives could definitely be saved by trading land, that was permissible and not going against the words of Torah.
However, he clearly quotes that Eitz Chaim piece without arguing on it at all, as the maskana, and further he does not, anywhwere refer to the Satmarer Rebbe's work.
Actually Rav Ovadia Yosef above does reference Sefer Vayoel Moshe for further clarification on this issue. And, of course, Sefer Vayoel Moshe is the magnum opus of the Satmar Rebbe ztvk'l zy'a on this issue.
DeleteIn most instances Rav Ovadia does not interest himself in psak of Ashkenzic rabbis....
DeleteObviously Chacham Ovadia Yosef holds the Satmar Rebbe's shitta on the Three Oaths in tremendous esteem and thus cites the Sefer Vayoel Moshe when discussing this issue.
DeleteWhoops... the whole doc didn't load when I wrote the above comment...
ReplyDeleteHowever, the fact remains that Rav Ovadiah Yosef retracted this psak.
RMT: Please provide proof, if any, over any alleged retraction by Chacham Ovadia Yosef ZT'L.
DeleteAnd I don't mean over the land for peace issue. (Although that would be interesting, too, if true.) But over Chacham's above position on the issue over the current validity of the Oaths, that Chacham so eloquently outlined in the above Techuma article that RDE so hopefully located for us.
Unless you can provide this definitively and without having to twist some documented writing into being an alleged retraction, it is very safe to say everyone can disregard your claims of a retraction.
Thank You
See his son in law's commentary on the introduction to Eitz Chaim in his sefer Pachad Yitzchak.
DeleteAs to his retraction to his psak on land for peace see his website and any number of the lectures on file there, he repeats it often.
DeletePersonally I don't care what ROY says. Being a talmid of Nahar Shalom and more importantly Beit El, I hold by the position held by the Roshei Yeshivot of Beit El for the last 300yrs, namely that the three oaths were only for 1000yrs.
In all due respect to ROY ZTzUK"L he is not a greater than then R' Chaim Vital, the Rashash, the Chidah, the various Roshei Yeshivot that the Ben Ish Hai felt were his equal and the Chazon Ish felt were his superiors... For 300yrs(500 if you go back to when it was a chabura in B"M Yochanan Ben Zakkai) they have given one answer. They ceased.
I have a mesora that goes back directly in unbroken chain to the Ar"i, and which the Ar"i points out is stated explicitly in the Zohar, thus bringing the Rashbi into it.
The minhag of all the mekubalim(which is why Rav S.Z. Auerbach also felt that they had ceased) is to not deviate from minhag Beit El. So for e it is a settled matter, and I really don't see a need to argue on the point beyond that.
The only addendum I would add is that there is a huge difference between the the cessation of the 3 oaths and Zionism which, is a Jewish nationalist movement, born out of the nationalist fervor that seized the world in the early 20th century.
RAMATZ, that is a very interesting comment you make. Do you also know about the GRA who said that the "wall" was referring to the Beis Hamikdash? A totally different take on what the oaths were about.
DeleteAlso, where has Yeshivat Beit El been for the last 300 years? In Israel?
Eddie,
DeleteI am familiar with the position of the GR"A, as I used to live next to Talmidei HaGR"A(namely the Zilbermans) in Jerusalem.
Yeshivat Beit El was founded in Jerusalem in 1730 by Rav Gedaliah Hayon, the second Rosh Yeshiva was the Rashash. However, as a chabura inside B"M Yochanan Ben Zakkai it was initially founded by Rav Shmuel Vital, Rav Yaakov Tzemakh and Rav Avraham Azulai in the 1620s.
The Yeshiva remained in the Old City of Jerusalem until the destruction in 1948, and then was relocated to Rashi Street, after a short a stop over in Nahar Shalom, for about 7yrs.
Michael, wow. What can I say other than wow!
DeleteYou write above "Personally I don't care what ROY says." Wow!
You don't like what Rav Ovadia Yosef says so now it is "Personally I don't care what ROY says." Wow.
In the past you were not shy about citing Rav Ovadia Yosef when it suited *your* position and feelings. As soon as we find ROY says something you don't agree with, its "Personally I don't care what ROY says."
Wow.
""Personally I don't care what ROY says."
You've stooped to a new low.
The comments from Rav Ovadia Yosef are irrelevant to Zionism. He was discussing giving back parts over which we do not have complete control, like Yehuda vShomron.
ReplyDeleteNotice his sentence that "Today, Bezras Hashem we have matosei krav (jet fighter planes)". Doesn't sound all that antizionist to me.
The article by ROY is about the territories, i.e. west bank, gaza, and whether returning them for peace is permitted. It does not speak about the State of Israel which is recognized by the UN and world powers.
ReplyDeletenext, the calculation is about whether making a peace deal in exchange for land will save lives. This was the simplistic view of r' Shach and ROY in the 1980s. Lubavitcher Rebbe, who was not yet in his messianic phase, opposed giving back any land. RYBS said it is a decision for the military experts, just like doctor has to decide whether to cut out an infected limb, chas v'shalom.
Rav Goren, Rav Kapach, and many others said it was forbidden, but also dangerous.
In a sense, the only person qualified to make such a decision was rav Goren, as he was the only person to be a military expert, and a halachic expert. Rav Goren stated that giving land to the PLO or other terrorist groups, and allowing the palestinain refugees in their diaspora return to their new state will endanger more Jewish lives, as they will bring their murderous weapons and will also rise in their nationalism, and want the rest of eretz Yisroel.
Next , ROY was close with Peres and labour party, who would pay money for shas institutions, and rav Shach told him to leave the coalition. rav Shach changed his views when he saw the enormity of the disaster of what Oslo would be. Rav Goren was very accurate in his assessment, even years before Oslo. It is like asking someone to judge whether an animal is treif or not, but that someone has never seen or slaughtered an animal before in his life. rav Goren knew the enemy, and their intentions and capabilities. ROY and rav Shach in his earlier views, were living in a dreamworld where they suspect every word of Jews who carry guns, or study science, but believe every word of murderers, terrorists, and amalek.
Rav Shach is the Godol HaDor and his psak halacha is that land-for-peace that will save lives is a chiyuv to give up the land.
DeleteThe only issue is the question whether it will save lives.
Yaakov Moshe:
DeleteNot sure this is accurate. Not sure he gave psak halacha or just Daas Torah.
Next, he was attacking the zionist and right wing, for building settlements, for having an IDF, for building in jerusalem. Most likely this was part of his davka against Lubavitcher rebbe. it is an interesting question of "how do u determine " that land will lead to peace? You see, R Sjhach had attacked the eretz Yisrael shleimah people, and his followers did this for many years. Is the answer through Daas Torah? i.e. did R Shach determin that land for peace will bring peace - since that is what he was saying to the RZ crowd.
If so, then clearly he was not the Gadol hador in these matters. if not, then you have to look at who said what. Amongst the secular, Shamir , Sharon and Bibi opposed LFP, whilst Peres, beilin, Aloni supported it. Amongst the Religious, R Goren, R Kapach, R Rabinovich , R Yisrael opposed it, whilst R Lichtenshtein and R Amital supported it.
So now we have empirical evidence that Goren was right, but the leftists were wrong, as was ROY, Lichtenshtein, and r Shach - but Rav Shach at least did a change at the time of Oslo and fiercely opposed it.
If you read r Bleich's essay on land for Peace, he makes some important points - but he states that you shouldn't advertise that you are willing to trade land - since it will weaken you strategically. I asked him once about ROY's view on the 3 oaths - he said that whether or nto the founding of the state was illegal, now we have it, the oaths are not relevant. he also opposed Oslo, becasue it was a danger to life. R Bleich is a massive Gadol - as far as i known, nobody has ever criticised him.
In addition, would Rav Ovadiah Yosef have served as Chief Rabbi of a state he considered illegitimate? Of all people, he would be the last place you should go when looking for support for antizionism.
ReplyDeleteHe WAS serving as Chief Rabbi when he wrote this.
Deletenot to mention he permits hallel on independence day (albeit without a bracha). ROY declared the state to be resihit tzimchat geulateinu, hardly the position of satmar.
DeleteNo chiddush. You can say Hallel every day of the year without a brocho.
DeleteActually it's a huge chiddush coming from the Rav that says you should say tachanun on the day of your wedding and other simchas. I have even seen him not protest when it was said by a father and congregation on the day of his son's brit.
DeleteIf you knew and understood the severity with which sephardim view changing the nusach of prayer, you would understand just how huge it is that he says permits this.
He is equating it to a minor holiday, such as Rosh Chodesh, Purim, or Chol HaMoed Pesach, as all of those days we say Hallel without a Brakha too.
contrast ROY's position to the story about the chazon ish ordering that tachnum be said on independence day even though there was a brit in shul that day.
Deleteb'gadol i don't get this need to push everyone into a box. there are 50 shades of gray between the satmar rebbe and rav kook. no one has to be on "this side or that side". ROY did not take part in the ideological battle between the religious zionists and antizionists. he looked at the state as a state and judged it based from that POV (basing his judgement of course on halachic considerations).
if the ashkenazim could get it through their heads that people can hold a variety of opinions, they'd be a lot healthier.
maybe a summary of the research I've done might help, as we have almost exhausted this debate.
DeleteFirst, it is not clear what the "wall" of the oath is - some say going on mass aliyah on one day - which never happened; the GRA says building the Beit HaMikdash, which also hasn't happened. And then what is the halachic status of a State ? Is it simply Jewish military and political control over Israel?
Next - whethere the oaths were halacha or aggadda. Those who cite Rambam's Iggeret, neglect to mention that he says it is derech mashal. And as a mashal it is very sensible, not to antagonise those who are stronger than you. I wholeheartedly agree with that - even today that we have an army. But none of the major codes bring these as halacha - Rambam, Shulchan Aruch etc.
Third, there is strong evidence that the oaths ceased already - i find it quite funny that Hareidim base their orthodoxy on Beit HaAri, ie th Kabbalah of the Arizal, the Shulchan Aruch of R Caro - but the naysayers deny that R Chaim Vital and the Zohar, satte the oaths already expired.
To be doubly sure, the Ohr Sameach and the Avnei Nezer said that the political process, Balfour, San Remo etc have nullified any last effects of the oaths. In any case, the oaths were a package deal - and the nations didnt keep their side of the bargain.
And then there is an additional argument - in halacha there is some decision making process such as one law overriding another. But the satmar and NK views have essentially written a new Shulchan Aruch, where these 3 oaths override every thing else - to the point that they become yehareg vlo yaavor - with no basis in any halacha whatsoever. So a new religion has been formed, which pretends to be Judaism. This also is very starnge, since the positive commandment of conquering and settling israel, as well as the negative commandment of Lo Techanem, are both breeched by this new Reformisher religion, which dresses itself in devout hassidic garb.
@Eddie
ReplyDeleteROY's essay was published in Torah Shebaal Peh in 1979, it is a written form of a shiur that he gave in Yad Maimon in June of that year. It was the theme of the Yom iyun due to Begin's accord with Egypt. This is way before Shas party was even conceived.
Current Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef relates that on Shavout 1967, he walked with his father past the Jaffa Gate and his father commented that one day we may have to give it back for peace, and the Halacha allows it.
As for Rav Goren, being in the army as a chaplain doesn't make one a military expert. Yet being a general such as Rabin, or a minister of defense (usually) does - Peres. In fact I'd argue that ROY's view were better than Rav Gooren's. He had just sat on 1000 Aguna cases in a special Bet Din for the military which Rav Goren had been distanced from.
Kollel nick:
Deleteif ROY published this in 1979, it is then obviously his view in the 1980's - what is your point of difference exactly? Yes, Shas was later, but Shas advocated Oslo, which was going to reverse what ROY had written in 79. Oslo was recognizing Arafat and the PLO; giving them immunity for all their crimes prior to oslo, and releasing terrorists. And Rabin said he was happier to have an agreement without peace (Israel) than to have peace with no agreement (N. Ireland). Plus empirically, the case is against Oslo/Rabin and ROY. The number of Israeli lives lost to terror doubled after oslo, than in the preceding 8 years. So what ROY actually helped to was to trade land for more deaths.
Your paragraph about YY is irrelevant, as he has no stature or expertise in military affairs.
Your last paragraph is total nonsense. R Goren was a paratrooper, fought in several wars, and saw action. He was also a chaplain.
There were generals who supported and those who opposed. generals are not infallible - Sharon made big blunders, but also made amazing successes. Rabin was drunk and near breakdown during the 6 day war. Dayan colluded with Kissinger to help Egypt win the yom kippur war, and ordered soldiers to remove mines on the border, to give Egypt a fighting chance.
In any case, everyone now agrees Oslo was a disaster - Peres does, ROY did while he was alive; Rabin's son does, and the swollen Israeli graveyards do too. We lost probably as many due to oslo as we did due to the Yom Kippur war.
Rav Shach lost an illui student , who was studying at rav Riskin's yeshiva, and then went to Ponovezh.
How does Aguna give someone expertise in military affairs? ROY never held a gun, wore boots, or saw an enemy firing. If anything, the experience must have weakened him.
R Goren left the army and became Chief rabbi of tel Aviv - that didnt make him lose his knowledge and experience. Arik Sharon had also left the army, but he came back in 73 to turn around the YK war that Dayan and Meir had concocted for the benefit of the egyptians.
It is ironic that on the one hand, the hareidi extremists use the secular as their bogeyman and why zionism is treif; on the other they align with the most extreme secular leftists when it comes dinei nefashos.
It is probably worthwhile to mention that much of the article by Dvar Torah as well as much of the comments here are plagiarized word for word from classic.frumteens.com. Many people have compiled Rabbi Shapiro's extensive information previously but they do so with attributing credit:
ReplyDeletehttp://zionismquestions.blogspot.com/
http://vintagefrumteens.blogspot.com/
http://frumteendex.blogspot.com/
Agree or not with what he says, plagiarism is wrong.
IT is not plagiarism, since it is Yakov Shapiro submitting all the comments. He has dedicated his life, as an ainekel of the Teitelbaum family to dispense Satmar rhetoric where ever he can. Warn teens about accepting info from Frumteen BlogSpot.
DeleteThere are a whole army of teens that spread frumteens word by copying there content. It is not the site owner, R. Shapiro, who submits these comments.
Delete@Eddie You are mixing 2 issues. One is the Halachic propriety of exchanging land for a theoretical peace. ROY allows for it. He never rescinded that psak. That was way before Oslo or any other peace agreement. The second is whether specific cases of peace deals would work. In the case of Oslo, he relied on Generals who thought it would work to say that the peace part of the criterea would work, to allow Shas to abstain. Shas never voted for Oslo, it passed with 61 votes with Shas abstaining. That may have been Rabin's bad call. The academic psak still stands, and I've never seen a proper halachic rejection to the psak. ( I found Rabbi Zaini's book rediculous) When the Gaza disengagement came around, ROY said that he opposed because itwas unilateral hence it wasn't being done in exchange for peace. As part of a peace deal he would have been open to the idea.
ReplyDeleteAhh, but Rav Shach was saying that by holding on to land, we are inciting the enemy - so his postion was assuming that by letting go we will get peace.
DeleteI understand the 2 issues, but they cannot be practically separated. There is an argument amongst the Settlers, that since it is a mitzvah to settle Eretz Yisroel, then if we are forced to give it up, it is shamd, and hence becomes yehareg v'lo yaavor. I am not a great fan of any of the yehareg v'lo yaavor claims, whether it is kol isha, being drafted , or making territorial compromise.
But practically, you must see whether having a PLO/Hamas entity in the heart of israel will save lives or not.
I read a review of a new biography of Theodor Herzl, which reminded me of some important points for this discussion.
ReplyDeleteHerzl's Zionism was a reaction to the failure of assimilation and emancipation. Under these movements, it was envisaged that anti-semitism would end. In fact it continued, although it is not certain whether it got worse as some claim. Herzl's political Zionism was a way to lift the 3 oaths, by engagement with the world leaders. And the Zionist congress did exactly this. The oaths were not halacha, and were not something the Rabbis could change - so it matters not that Herzl wasn't frum. The Zionist Congress represented a vast section of the Jewish population - and the nations were part of the the oaths. the successes lead to San Remo, and Balfour, and eventually to the State of Israel. In herzl's own lifetime, the Ottoman Turks were not interested in a Jewish state in Israel. There is also the Etzba Elokim in all of this. Britain wins Eretz Yisrael from the hands of the Turks. The same British now make a declaration, and this ends any fear of the oaths being legitimate, as the Ohr sameach had said. Britain then hands over the land tot he Jews. This chain of events is unbelievable - and that is why great gedolim see the Divine hand in history in these matters.
I don't want to join the whole argument or anything, seeing as I'm really not well learned in the subject, but I DID want to comment on the title of this post. I assume you're discussing the Three Oaths. I want to point out that in Hebrew, that would be Shalosh Hashvuoth. NOT the shalosh shavuoth. That means the three weeks. Please correct this.
ReplyDeleteThe above document "sources" is not objective, and is misquoting the sources to suit the objectives of the poster.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in Iggeret Teiman, Rambam states that the oaths are only b'derech mashal and not halacha, hence he does not include them in his halachic works.
And he is talking about the issue of calculating the end , since he was fighting against a false messiah in this letter. In His definitive Misneh Torah he states that we should not focus too much on aggadah, there is no ikkar to be drawn from them, it is permitted to live in EY.
In the Iggeret Teiman, he says one must escape a place of oppression, which is what he himself did from spain,as did Nachmanides. In other words, they reject the idea of the maharal, whihc is in fact contrary to halacha an torah. The Torah says do not stand idly by, which is what Maharal is telling us we must do!
The article above is really mishmash of falsehoods and false attributions, it is a ziuf of the Torah. Consider the following:
ReplyDelete"Not only are the Oaths binding according to the consensus of authorities, including the Ramban"
Complete lies! The major halachic works do not contain the oaths, the SA, the Yad, etc. Ramban says nothing about these oaths, so why is the liar claiming he does? What he quotes is a the Rashbash! who differs with him. Citing the Rashbash and claiming it is the views of the Ramban would mean that ramban considered Kabbalah to be false, and the sefirot to be polytheism! That is what Rashbash said about kabbalah. Are there any Satmar or Briskers who would hold such a position on Kabbalah?