Thursday, April 19, 2018

Rav Moshe disagrees with view of Satmer

שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ד סימן ח
ב. נס הצלה שנעשה על ידי חיילים שאינם שומרי תורה
ובדבר יהודי שנחטף באוגנדא וניצול משם ע"י החיילים שבאו לשם, מסתבר שיש להחשיב זה לנס גלוי, כי בדרך הטבע לא היה אפשר להיות דבר כזה. וכל מה שנעשה בעולם הוא רק יד השי"ת בין הטוב ובין ח"ו להיפוך, והוא המכה והמרפא. והוא עשה שנשבו, והוא עשה ההצלה בזה שנתן אומץ ורצון שילכו להציל, ואשר הצליח דרכם שהצילו. ודרכי השי"ת שעשה הנס ע"י פושעים נעלמו ממנו. ואסור לשום אדם להתחכם בקושיות על הקדוש ברוך הוא, אלא תמים תהיה עם ה' כמפורש בתורה (דברים י"ח י"ג).
והנני ידידם, משה פיינשטיין. 

69 comments :

  1. This view is essentially the same as that of the Dati Leumi or Rav Kook. The same Author of history that expelled Israel from their land, through the hand of Rome, or expelled sephardim from Spain, also as predicted by Neviim ingathered the exiles, through the hand of Binyomin Zeev Herzl. (in Yechezkel, even the persian King Khourosh is called "Moshiach"). Rav Shach was opposed to giving any honor the the secular (or religious) Leumi (nationalist) movement. the problem is that if you deny Hashem's involvement, then you are near kefirah. If you recognize it, then you have to proclaim it. The DL movement proclaims Hashem's ingathering , as foretold by the neviim of 2500-3000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  2. See the meller ספר on the brisker rav where there is a long discussion on this (vol 3)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do you proclaim Hashem's hand in making the Holocaust occur?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is what Rav Yissochar Shlomo Teichtel ztl H'YD wrote, as a punishment for rejecting the return to EY. He originally opposed it too until he learned the error of his ways.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rabbi Teichtal was mistaken as many rabbonim have written. But aside from that, the point being just because Hashem allowed and approved something from happening, doesn't mean it is a thing to celebrate. Whether it was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Beis HaMikdash, whether it was the establishment of the Zionist State of Israel or whether it was the Holocaust and the murder of six million Jews. All were through the Yad Hashem. And all are things Klal Yisroel mourns.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rav Menachem Mendel Kasher's "Hatekufah Hagedolah" exhaustively refutes all the Satmar's claims. It's as if his shitah was "This is the way it is, don't waste my time with any contradictory information"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Could you pls bring some sources your statement "as many rabbonim have written".
    Thanks you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are talking nonsense. The people who mourn the establishment of the State of Israel are the palestinians and muslim fanatics, and a small group of fanatic hareidim, who mix with holocaust deniers and terrorists. The Satmar/eidah/NK axis of idiocy does not form Klal Israel in any way. That is why Rav Shteinman was leader of Klal Yisroel, and why rav Kahaneman would celebrate Yom haatzmaut.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Even the Agudas Yisroel, despite participating in the organs of the state government, officially considers the establishment of the state as a sad and regrettable event. As leaders of Klal Yisroel, the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rov, the Steipler, Rav Shach, Rav Elyashiv, etc. all considered the state's establishment something to be mournful. Rav Kahaneman absolutely did not celebrate Yom Haatzshmutz despite putting up the flag (which itself he was a daas yochid about) only one day a year for getting state money for the Yeshiva.

    As an aside, Satmar, the Eidah HaChareidus, Brisk, etc. are far from being "small". They easily number in the hundreds of thousands.

    ReplyDelete
  10. rav Henkin, Rav Moshe did not mourn the State, and they were the gedolei Hador. we already have discussed Rav Henkin's view.
    Do Agudah "mourn"? I don't think even rav Elyashiv mourned, and you forget that he was a great supporter of the Zionist institutions , and he called the rabbanut the seed of the Sanhedrin.
    If you discount his comments when he was in his intellectual prime, then you discount him altogether.
    Rav Shach did not - as far as i know - consider the State to be a tragedy like the holocaust - such a view is a mad one. When the Oslo accords were agreed, rav Shach said it is assur to return Holy land , won by divine miracle, to terrorists. Rav Shach was opposed to secular Zionsm, and secular everything, but on a theological level he takes the opposite position of the Satmar. Rav Shach is saying that it was Hashem who gave the victory to the IDF, led by Hagaon rav Goren in '67. Satmar is saying this is the work of the devil. The difference between Rav Goren and rav Shach (apart from the fact that R' Goren knew much more Torah) is that R' Goren says you have to give thanks to Hashem for miracles, whereas r' Shach doesn't. Satmar is interpreting the miracles as actually being the work of demons, hence to mourn them.

    (On a personal level, I have met and done business with satmar chassidim. Also there is a pragmatic wing in satmar who are more accepting of the state. One of the Satmar rebbes mourned the bochrim H'YD who were murdered at mercaz harav).
    In any case, this post is about rav Moshe who opposed the views of Satmar.
    There is only the position of the brisker Rov or Zionism. If you don't accept the state, then you should only use US$, and avoid going to the kotel and other liberated areas.
    On another level, Satmar doesn't really distinguish between Secular and religious Zionism, he sees them both as avodah zarah. Agudah or centrist hareidim do see a difference, and they view religious zionism as a frum movement but not quite frum enough.
    It is also tragic that you see the ingathering of the exiles in line with Yechezkel's Nevua as something bad. Europe's jews are leaving. France and Germany are hotbeds of anti-semitism. This leaves England and Americas as the last places of the golus.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, read this about the Rebbe of Sadigur, a great Hassidic figure
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14958

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are posting a boatload of fiction. Virtually all your points are factually false. Rav Shach was a very clear supporter of giving land for peace. Famously so. Rav Elyashiv was a huge opponent of Zionism and the Israeli State, much as Rav Shach was and much as the Chazon Ish was, and called the Israeli Kenesset a "Beis Minus". Rav Elyashiv never supported Zionist institutions and resigned in disgust even from the Rabbanut since the Israeli State stuck its ugly hand into it. Mr. Goren was a nobody and was declared by the Gedolim to be a low man. He was the cause of Rav Elyashiv''s disgust.

    There are famous pictures of Rav Moshe and the Satmar Rebbe consulting each other on various issues. And Israel is also in golus. You are mistaking 1948 for Moshiach. We are all still in golus, including in Eretz Yisroel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1) Rav Shach changed his views when the Oslo talks hit the fan. It was published then, i was in Israel at the time. You forget that Rav Shach said it is assur to join Mr S. peres' labor givernment, even to receive yeshva funding. Becasue Peres was negotiating with terrorists.

    2) the Bostoner rebbe at the time of one of the terror campaigns asked Rav Ovadia Yosef to talk to the Israeli defence Minister or PM to get the army to fight back, saying things have gone too far. that is the opposite of Mr Satmar /Teitlebaum's view , since the Army has legitimacy in halacha. The Bostoner was a great tzaddik and was close to the Tzioni people.

    3) R' Elyashiv was employed by the Zionist institutes, it is like you have a book of censored history that you make your statements from. He worked under Rav herzog in the Zionist rabbanut. He received his salary as a Dayan. You don't know history, except for what you picked up in some williamsburg pashkevil in Yiddish.

    I will post a picture of R' Elyashiv, Chief (Zionist) Rabbi Unterman and Tel Aviv Chief rabbi Goren

    Rav Elyashiv was a Dayan on the Rabbanut, and sat with R' Ovadia Yosef and Rav Shaul Israeli who was a gaon close to Rav Aharon. They all disagreed with Rav Goren, and that is a big story in itself we have debated 1000 times. Hizkiahu Hamelech did not sing shirah, we are told in Sanhedrin, and that was a great sin. The point I made was that there is no middle ground. Rav Shach was opposed to secularism per se.

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82a4b226c0228259a8163403c524f3a214a9d5504b06c8e2e61d8e9f719a7f53.jpg

    Rav Eliashiv is smiling and presiding over the 1964 Rabbanut elections with Rav Unterman and Rav Goren. R' Eliashiv and his grandfather the Leshem were close to Rav Kook and honored his memory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here is a case in 1954, when R' Elyashiv recommends a get Zikui in a letter to his senior colleague, Rav Herzog
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M5NHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT165&lpg=PT165&dq=rav+isaac+herzog+elyashiv&source=bl&ots=KNeBE13sfC&sig=FswcGEJf2Pvzg2gg60Sxx5ZoTiw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizlLqEqNbaAhWHe8AKHb0_B744ChDoAQhXMAc#v=onepage&q=rav%20isaac%20herzog%20elyashiv&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  16. On the False"Torah"Jews websiteof the NK, it quotes the Brisker rov:
    "The Brisker Rav also said: "The Rambam (Melachim 12:2 and Teshuva 9:2) says that moshiach will redeem the Jewish people from their subjugation to the nations. Anyone who believes that it is possible to be redeemed from subjugation to the nations without moshiach is lacking in full belief in moshiach." (Yalkut Divrei Torah)"

    It is hard to believe that a Gadol and scholar of the calibre of Rabbi V. Soloveitchik would make such an error in reading the Rambam. I am pretty sure they misquoted him. The Rambam quotes the famous Chazal: אמרו חכמים אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכיות בלבד

    ימות המשיח is an era in history, so it doesn't exclude world events paving the way for this era.
    The same rambam quoted above says a few lines later:

    "There are some Sages who say that Elijah's coming will precede the coming of the Mashiach. All these and similar matters cannot be definitely known by man until they occur for these matters are undefined in the prophets' words and even the wise men have no established tradition regarding these matters except their own interpretation of the verses. Therefore, there is a controversy among them regarding these matters.

    Regardless of the debate concerning these questions, neither the order of the occurrence of these events or their precise detail are among the fundamental principles of the faith. A person should not occupy himself with the Aggadot and homiletics concerning these and similar matters, nor should he consider them as essentials, for study of them will neither bring fear or love of God."

    So will a state arise before Moshiach or after, will the Jews return before or after, etc, none of these matters are fixed in halacha.

    There is no guarantee that the Brisker Rov was beyond bias or error. The Hareidim seem to throw the Torah out of the window when it comes infallibility of their own leaders. That is reform, whether you like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rav Shach was a fierce and very outspoken anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli government. He was also in principle in favor of giving land for peace. If in particular circumstances he felt it was counterproductive, he'd oppose it in that situation.

    Rav Elyashiv was also a fierce and outspoken anti-Zionist. And always was. That doesn't mean he opposed participating in government organs. He called the Kenesset a Beis Minus.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So what? Zikui may be an option in certain extremely limited and very specific cases that meet the halachic criteria. That doesn't mean that others who abuse it to attempt to use Zikui when it fails to meet the difficult halachic criteria necessary to invoke it should not be condemned for doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So what? That means nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "As leaders of Klal Yisroel, the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rov, the Steipler, Rav Shach, Rav Elyashiv, etc"

    Try: Leaders of the Lithuanian Chareidi Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  21. He ignored the Brisker Rov, and worked under Rav herzog instead. He worked in heichal Shlomo, which he held to be holy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rav Shach was correctly opposed to secularism in general and the secular character of Zionism. I am opposed to the secular nature of Zionism. A Lubavitcher chossid once said there is no such thing as a secular Jew.
    Rav Shach was also worried about sakanas nefesh of every yid. So his duty as gadol ha dor was to criticize all public decisions made by secularism.
    BTW, Rav Becher who was at Ohr Sameach in the 90s, asked Rav Shach if he could serve in the army, and he said yes. I've seen him in uniform carrying a machine gun.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rav elyashiv instructed his degel mks to serve in the Knesset of barak, Sharon etc. So if it's a beit minus, he obviously found a way around it.
    Rav Meir Shapiro also was an MP in polish parliament, as we're other gedolei Torah, eg the malbim. So goyish parliament is kosher?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rav Goren was ilui and gadol hador. He went through shas 300 times, some mesechtot even more. The problem was after 1967 when he started to think we are in a new stage of history, and made bold halachic decisions. Rav Shach once asked him to join him as a rosh kollel. Those who knew him recognize d his gadlus. Samar rebbe was badmouthing everyone including Rav kook, who was 100 X greater than him.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Rav Goren to some extent supported land for peace - Golan heights, since he didn't consider it part of EY. There is an issur of lo techanem, regarding the nochrim. Rav Goren had military expertise, and didn't consider the plo to be a peaceful group. Thousands of yidden paid in blood for the errors of Oslo.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Indeed
    Rav Kahaneman supported and celebrated Yom Haatzmaut - fact.
    Hassidic Sadigura Rebbe also celebrated the State.
    Sephardi Gedolim unanimously supported the State, including the Baba Sali.
    Rav Baruch Gigi gave a very good vort on how the Sephardic leadership supported Zionism.
    Zionism began before Herzl,. Take The Ramban as a holy example.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You apparently think Klal Yisroel doesn't have leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Goren was derided by the Gedolei HaDor.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Golus has been around for a long time, even during the 2nd temple era. I agree, moshiach hasn't arrived, and it doesn't say when he will in my diary.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rav Moshe disagreed with satmar, and considered Zionist military victories as Hashem's miracles, . Rav henkin implied that satmar/nk are rodfim.

    ReplyDelete
  31. That doesn't prove anything - R' J.B. Soloveitchik was derided. Rambam was derided, his grave was desecrated and his seforim (books) were burned - not by the goyim, but by hareidi extremists of his day.
    Rav David Kapach in yemen was murdered by yemeni hareidim becasue of his views on the Kabbalah, even though R' Yaakov Emden had similar views. Frum people have a history of violence and bloodshed.

    ReplyDelete
  32. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/79593462eb7830deb9effaff7936a326b9d0e7eb04dc37d55e939e7f393aa6ef.jpg
    Rav Moshe sitting with PM Begin. Rav Moshe didn't wear glasses, so you cannot say he took them off.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It's similar to the statement that 100 Rabbi signed the declaration that shabbetai zevi was the Messiah

    ReplyDelete
  34. The klal doesn't. Some of the groups do. Even the group that these people led has broken up into component parts.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I hope that you understand the contradiction in what you wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Believing in the land for peace doesn't make one an anti-zionist.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Depends, Moe seems to have a shaky definition of what Zionism is. is it a secular conspiracy? Is it a religious ideology that thinks Moshiach is already here? Is it an idolatry for the land of israel? or a punishment equal to the holocaust? When you catch him out on one of his statements he quickly backtracks. e.g. working under the Zionist Chief Rabbi as a Dayan in the Zionist Hechal Shlomo, which was forbidden to enter by the Brisker Rov, yet still all these facts don't mean that rav Elyashiv supported Zionism in any way!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Correct. Rav Shach was a fierce and very outspoken anti-Zionist aside from his supporting the principle of land for peace.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It means recognition of the government, in a way that grants legitimacy. The entire reason that the Chareidim oppose the Kotel deal is because it allows Reform and Conservative representatives to sit on a government board. That, in the eyes of Yahadut Hatorah and their rabbis, grants legitimacy to the Reform and Conservative movements.

    You can't have it both ways, saying that Chareidim being part of the government is meaningless yet claiming that allowing the non-Orthodox in means they're legit.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nevertheless he made aliyah and saw the Jewish state as a miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The last rav who can even make a claim of being a leader of something greater, larger, than his immediate group was Rav Ovadia tz"l. He was the only leader in the last 20 years who tried to be inclusive with as many elements of Am Yisrael as possible. The Bnei Brak Rabbanim are concerned with the yeshiva world, nothing more than that.

    One doesn't have to search hard to see that Rav Ovadia, with all his reservations and even disgust for certain elements of secular society, was completely pro-state, pro-army, pro-aliya, pro everything. Yes he believed in land for peace but that is a minor point.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Land for peace was something he flirted with but later regretted. In his halachic works, he said it is forbidden to cede parts of Eretz Yisrael. In any case, there is another argument - Rav Goren wrote a critique of both Rav Ovadia and Rav Shach, when they were promoting the land for peace deal (with the Plo-Arafat yemach shemam). He wrote an article entitled "Do Torah Scholars Increase peace". He pointed out that many of the rabbis who supported land for peace had no inkling of what the land is, how it was fought for, and with whom they would be dealing. Arafat's PLo was not some Snow white organisation, it was a murderous group with thousands of jewish lives it had taken. Goren said that an influx of millions of refugees into the "west bank" who would be armed would make the intifada pale into significance. His words proved right, even withou the return of refugees, the West bank became a source of terror in the 90s after Oslo.
    To put it another way, as the gra said, lack of knowledge of science leads to lack of knowledge of Torah. The Rav who had gret knowledge of military and strategic matters was Shlomo Goren. Thousands were killed in the oslo led terror campaigns, and Israel had to essentially take back control it had given to the PA.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kal v-chomer, moe cites Rav elyashov calcalling the Knesset a "beit minus", yet at the same time his party serve in that same Knesset.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Here, Rav Shach is quoted and said that he didn't want to give any Kavod to secular zionism. http://www.mishpacha.com/Browse/Article/6046/Inside-With-Rav-Shach
    However, is he halachically correct in opposing the Entebbe rescue? He suggested that the hostages could be released by giving in to the demands of the terrorists.
    However, there is a Mishnah that says we do not pay money to terrorists or kinappers, since it encourages further terrorism. In a similar case, Rav Hutner was amongst the passengers that Palestinian terrorists hijacked the airplane he was in. At the time, some of rav Hutner's students asked Rav Yaakov Kamenetzy if they should raise money to free Rav Hutner. But rav Kamenetsky said no, because the Mishna says you cannot give in to demands of terrorists.
    So it seems that Gedolei HaDor of America were more supportive of Entebbe, the army and the State of Israel than Rav Shach. Rav Shach would take the maximum opposite of any group he opposed - Zionism, Chabad, Goren, Steinsaltz, Peres, etc. Unfortunately, this childish reaction formation behaviour is dangerous, since sometimes the truth and the Torah is with others, such as religious Zionism.
    Rav Aharon faced a similar problem when he was saying lives from the Holocaust. Lubavtichers and other groups were attacking him for breaking shabbes in order to save lives. The same Torah that tells us to keep shabbes, also tells us to save lives even on shabbes if necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It recognizes the reality on the ground, that as much as it is disliked and regrettable, the Zionist government rules the land. So it makes ado with the confines of that reality.

    As a matter of symbolic protest of that reality, despite participating in the organs of the government, UTJ refuses to accept a full Ministerial Portfolio it is entitled to under the coalition agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  46. He saw the Jewish State as much a miracle as he saw the Holocaust being a miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  47. No one outside the Sefardic world viewed Chacham Ovadia Yosef as their leader. Not the Litvaks, not the Chasidim and not the RZs or MOs.

    And Chacham Ovadia's official position was anti-Zionist or non-Zionist, depending on how you define the term.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Your comment is factually fictitious.

    ReplyDelete
  49. He saw the shoah as punishment for reform in Europe. He said it is assur to relinquish holy land delivered to us by miracle. If you read your megillah, you will the difference between exile in Egypt (holocaust) and redemption - every yisrael. You see good as evil, and evil as good.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rav yosef was rishon leZion, so a bit of a stretch to say he was non zioni. He was in the rabbanut for decades, was in Rav herzog's chug, and would annually go to Rav Goren azkara .
    Also, the Sephardi public were close to Rav yosef, whereas the Ashkenazim in Israel didn't care much for Hareidim or other rabbis. Ironically, Rav kook and Rav Goren were admired by non orthodox public (except for the atheist left, and anti Zionist right).

    ReplyDelete
  51. Because you get your "facts" from NK "falsetorahJews" website.
    So you think this post re: Rav Moshe is also false?

    ReplyDelete
  52. He saw the state as punishment for our sins as well. And he favored giving away land for peace.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I am curious, does Satmar also forbid farming or owning land in israel? After all, these are mitzvot that even the old Yishuv were involved in, and the Chazon ish would consult with farmers regarding halachic matters. But isn't it assur - according to your view to settle Eretz israel even as an individual, or to buy /redeem land from arabs, or own real estate? Should the yeshivos all over israel selltheir land and real estate to the arabs and then rent them back, since to own real estate liberated by Zionist forces is a violation of the 3 oaths?
    The Satmar rebbe claims the 3 oaths were from Moshe rabbeinu, that's why he named his book VAYoel Moshe :D
    The Arizal said they were only valid for 1000 years, so by the time the chug Arizal were working on reestablishing semicha, and settling Eretz Israel, the oaths were no longer valid (assuming they ever were valid).
    Arizal is a more reliable source in Kabbalah and understanding midrash than a 20th century Chassidic dynasty.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Provide evidence - you make claims but have no evidence. Rav Kahaneman once joked that he does what Ben Gurion does on Yom haatzmaut - he doesn't say Hallel, but he also doesn't say Tachanun. Rav Kahaneman, was greater than Rav Shach. R' Shach would still say tachanun like every other normal day.
    His position was only that a land for peace deal is permitted if it might save lives, for example the deal with Egypt. However, he did not wish to dismantle the state.
    Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, who was the greatest Rosh Yeshiva of the period was a strong supporter of state of Israel. Rav Iser Zalman ztl was the Rosh yeshiva of all the gedolei Yisrael - Rav Aharon, Rav Shach, Rav Henkin, Rav Auerbach etc.
    In any case the Ohr Sameach said that there is no fear of the oaths, after San remo and balfour. The Ohr Sameach was the giant, Torah authority and light of Dvinsk.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The hareidi world in any case is living in a State within a State. It is medinat hahareidis b'eretz yisrael. It has its mk s and ministers. Has a health system, B'H , a security system. It franchises everything from the Zionist enterprise. They fly elal (coming up like a wall), serve in army, have rabbis in the army, supermarkets and rabbanut. Banks have heter iska. Land and real estate is owned and taken from pilishtim. The hareidi public pay taxes, ride buses, B'H, learn Torah with security of Zionist enterprise. This was the vision of reb Herzl, aChazon ish, and everyone in between.

    ReplyDelete
  56. OK so we agree that there is no one who is a leader of Klal Yisrael, just group leaders.

    Having said that, you are making a black and white, binary distinction. Leadership isn't an all or nothing quality. Rav Ovadia's psak was respected and had (has) great weight in the DL world. Yes he gave piskei halacha that were for Sefardim only but much if not most of his work was for everyone. He is always quoted in DL halachic literature.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Like I said, you are trying to have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  58. He is quoted also in MO and general halachic literature.
    Most likely, the Ashkenzai Hareidim are not fond of quoting him. If you read , for example, Contemporary Halachic problems by Rav Bleich, Then Rav Yosef is regularly cited, as is the Tzitz Eliezer. Also, the entire Traditional Sephardi population regarded him very highly - unlike the secular Ashkenazi regard for Ashkenazi gedolim, except for Rav Kook for example.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Here is a citation from neturei karta's website:
    "Rabbi Meir Berlin, a Mizrachi leader, related that his nephew Reb Chaim of Brisk once said, “The Zionists attract Jews to their movement by dressing it up as ‘the mitzvah of settling in Eretz Yisroel.’ Eretz Yisroel is indeed the Holy Land. But consider: a synagogue is a holy place; nevertheless if it is a Reform synagogue, it is forbidden to go inside. Who knows if it will not come to the point where, despite its holiness, Eretz Yisroel will be ‘reformed’?” (Uvdos Vehanhagos, v. 4 p. 206) "
    Reb Chaim of brisk is perhaps one of the most important figure in Yashiva learning, at least amongst the Litvishers. If this citation is accurate, it is a very strange one, so I must only assume it is not accurate. The problem is that the Talmud says it is better to live in Eretz Yisrael even if they are idolaters than to live in Chu'l, even if there are talmidei chachamim. This claim , which i deny could have come from one as great as the aforementioned, turns the Talmudic dictum upside down and is thus a reform statement. whoever said it, is a reform and not an orthodox Talmudist.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The_Original_Bored_LawyerMay 23, 2018 at 8:10 PM

    Perhaps I am coming late to the party, but let me make two observations:

    1. Most authorities disagree with the Satmar on this one. The Brisker Rov did too -- he stated that Hashem can make miracles from minim and apikorsim.

    2. The fact that someone disagrees with Satmar on this or many other points does not make one a Zionist. Rav Moshe called Zionists reshaim in at least one teshuvah, and the Brisker Rov's anti-Zionism is well known.

    Part of the problem is that the Satmar Rov published a book explaining his anti-Zionist views, and that has come to be perceived as the anti-Zionist view that is addressed. The reality is that many gedolim were anti-Zionist yet would not agree with many things the Satmar wrote. Addressing only the Satmar shita is really not dealing with the issue in its entirety.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Aguda was troubled by the secular movement, did not wish to flatter them. Rav Henkin ztl, gadol hador said that Samar view is redifah.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This is proof - Rav Moshe, also Lubavitcher rebbrebbe, Rav jb soloveitchik, Rav hutner, all rejected satmar. Rav hutner also disagreed with Rav Shach on land for peace. There's picture of Rav hutner with Rav Goren ztl.

    ReplyDelete
  63. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6a46267f0ec700212616014c3799a3a2e2c8f31de17e31b9895f34c002b7f99.jpg

    Rav Hutner and Rav Goren, both talmidim and friends of Rav Kook

    ReplyDelete
  64. Golus means dispersion from Israel _ Eretz means land. So if the eretz/land in in the hands of Jews, it's not galus.
    Chazal say no difference except for shibbud malchiot

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Goren was a nobody and was declared by the Gedolim to be a low man. He was the cause of Rav Elyashiv''s disgust."


    That's actually nonsense and a lie. Rav Goren was a Gadol haDor, not only was this declared by Rav Henkin, who supported him, even Rav Shach tried to recruit him to head a Kollel together in 1960. hey did succeed to recruit Rav Elayshiv into the hareidi world, because they had threatened him - they said we will not take you seriously. That is the real reason why he left the rabbanut, the hooha about the mamzerim was just a convenient excuse. Look at What ex-Dayan Sherman did , thousand fold with conversions.


    The Hareidi gedolim said that they did not accept Rav Goren's psak or kashrus anymore. But they never really did, and they never accepted the kashrus of the rabbanut. Today they will not eat a regular Kosher product unless it has another hechsher on it. That does not mean the Rabbanut are "low people".

    The biggest claims against R' Goren were from Rav Moshe, who said that he was "bribed". the bribe being that he was elected as Chief Rabbi of Israel. But in 1964, Rav Unterman was elected, however, this does not mean he was bribed. It could also be argued that anyone who has an interest in the Kashrus business, whehter a shomer, a mashgiach, a posek etc and ahs some benefit or a relative who has some benefit from Kashrus industry - is bribed.
    Every cent, every penny that is earned from Kashrus, hechsherim Badatz etc is a bribe.

    So the only way out of this is to have poskim, rabbanim, shomrim etc to all volunteer, and for Kashrut agencies to give their certificates for free. they can work part time as accoutnants, dentists, farmers, atomic physicists etc. If they earn 1 cent from teaching in yeshiva, they are bribed. FACT.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Kalonymous: You're an admitted chazir eating mechallel Shabbos who doesn't even keep Yom Kippur. As such nothing you said, with all its falsities, needs to be replied to

    ReplyDelete
  67. Moe Ginsbur, you are a proven bestial and LGBQT practitioner, who wears shaatnez, and eats prawns with chazir milk. Also, your are a devil woprshipper, which is also proff of your wearing shatnez. Oh yes, you murder children too, and keep them in your freezer.

    ReplyDelete
  68. you people are all demon worshippers, that is why you are unable to covnerse in any rational manner

    ReplyDelete
  69. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2018/06/satanic-obsession-satmar-israel-haters.html

    ReplyDelete

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