Foreign Minister Yair Lapid ordered the pride flag to be displayed
outside the Foreign Ministry office in Jerusalem on Monday in honor of
Pride Month — but not everybody was thrilled.
" Prior to his entry into politics, Lapid was active in numerous social organizations, including the ALEH association to assist people with special needs; the Children at Risk Organization for children with autism, and the YRF association for renewal in education for disadvantaged youth. He also served as chair of the Miftan Safed Friends Association and taught citizenship in a school in Jaffa.
In 2012, Lapid announced his entry into politics and founded the Yesh Atid party, which he heads. Yesh Atid is a center party that is both Zionist and liberal. At the core of the party’s philosophy: Renewing Israel’s security concept; striving for a regional agreement and separation from the Palestinians, cleansing the political system and waging a war on corruption, integrating the values of Judaism and the values of democracy, strengthening the law enforcement system, propelling the Israeli economy and strengthening education and science in Israel."
He represents the straw man of zionism, which is when we take a representative of one present-day far left strand of Israeli politics and call it the definition of Zionism.
there is a fact that a large portion of Zionist movement is secular. However, this is not the cause of secularism, rather it is the success of Zionism. The parallel secularists in germany, communists in Russia, America etc are either intermarried, reform, gulag or killed off. It is the geniusof Zionism to bring Jews from all 4 corners of the Earth, no matter how far they were , from religion or israel, and plant them on the land of Israel. wait a minute, isn't that what the Tenach says?
Depends who you ask. Herzl's dream was to create a secular European social democracy where the majority population was Jewish, like like most people in France are French. Rav Kook's dream was the restoration of a halakhic sovereignty in Israel with the result of rebuilding true Jewish nationhood. Besides, it's God's end-game that matters.
Maseches Avos (2:5) אל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו Why are you focused on judging the man raised in a secular home, when he has at least done some mitzvos, whether lishma or lo lishma.
Given the fact that assimilation, emancipation, comunism, atheism were part and parcel of the European experience before Herzl , and that he in a small or large way wished to reverse that... and given the fact that the Bal Teshuva process and orthodox growth have begun to change the demographics of the jewish people, we can see that Herzl's vision leads to a Jewish state, and Rav Kook's vision leads to a teshuva movement. Rav Kook actually made the distinction between Teshuva ad Hashem, and Teshuva el Hashem. The first being the physical return, and the second being the spiritual return. But we have not reached any end, or keitz - and it is not wise to pretend we have.
Zionism, in general, refers to the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland, and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael.
Does Judaism have any problem with Jews wanting to live in Eretz Yisrael?
Given that 1948 happened, and the State of Israel exists, what practical alternative plan do you suggest for sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael today?
See Rabeinu Yonah's commentary of Avos (1:6) that there is an obligation to unfavorably judge any action performed by a Rasha, even if the act appears to be totally good.
Mitzvah does not mean "good deed". Mitzvah means "commandment", which implies a Commander, and one who is commanded.
Through speech and deed, Yair Lapid has publicly denied the authority of Torah, so any positive action that he does not fall under the realm of "Mitzvah". Lapid denies the authority of the Commander, and he does not consider himself bound by His commandments. Therefore any action that he may do can’t possibly be construed as following His orders.
My conclusion therefore is, that any good actions that Lapid may do, doesn't come from a desire to fulfill Hashem's will, and has little “mitzvah” value. The only reasonable alternative explanation is that it stems from secular humanism or for other ulterior motives.
Also, Rambam states in in hilchot melachim u milchamot, that no place in the world is forbidden to dwell in, except for mitzrayim. So there is no restriction against living in Israel.
"See Rabeinu Yonah's commentary of Avos (1:6) that there is an obligation to unfavorably judge any action performed by a Rasha, even if the act appears to be totally good."
really?
So a dayan , in your opnion, should find for a frum criminal rather than an honest secular or not quite frum? And then, within the frum world, judge a MO/ or RZ as a rasha vs a hareidi , regardless of who committed the crime?
I suppose it continues within the Hareidi world - a litvish will find in favour of a litvisher rather than a chassid. And within litvish, Brisk would favour Brisk, whereas mainstrem litvish woudl favour themselves.
All that is the opposute of the Torah - which tells the judge not to favour the great man or the poor.
If a frummer rapes a secular person or child, would you support teh frummer (as Litzman did)?
Herzl's book, Altneuland, written in German, does indeed include a depiction of Jerusalem with a rebuilt Temple.
"However, in his view, the Temple did not need to be built on the precise site where the old Temple stood and which is now taken up by the Muslim Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock - very sensitive holy sites.
"By locating the Temple at a different Jerusalem location, the Jewish state envisioned by Herzl avoids the extreme tension over this issue experienced in the actual Israel.
"Also, worship at the Temple envisioned by Herzl does not involve animal sacrifice, which was the main form of worship at the ancient Jerusalem Temple. Rather, the Temple depicted in Alteneuland is essentially just an especially big and ornate synagogue, holding the same kind of services as any other synagogue." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_New_Land#Major_themes
which just shows that he had some form of nevuah, if not a navi, he had a certain level of true predictions. It suggests that the reality, on the ground, is that the Temple and Temple mount issue is something no government can change, prior to Moshiach or a a pre-Messianic King. Israel is not China, cannot just go to war with 1.3 Billion Muslims -
But just look again at what you have copied and pasted.
The allegedly secular Herzl is actually envisioning a proto- 3rd Temple. He is not talking about a University or Hi Tech park, but a prequel to the beit Hamikdash. This is not the vision of a secular Jew, but of a deeply religious one. As Lubavtich used to say, every Jew believes in Torah, there is no such thing as a secular Jew!
Wanting to live in Eretz Yisroel, and indeed actually living in Eretz Yisroel, long long predates Zionism. Jews have lived in Eretz Yisroel continuously for millennia. And there were movements by Chasidim and Litvaks (Talmidei HaGra) that settled in Eretz Yisroel in the 18th and 19th centuries, long before the existence of Zionism or the birth of Theodore Herzl.
Zionism has as much to do with Judaism as Reform does.
Judaism opposes Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisroel in the pre-messianic age. Even if you were to dispute that, there's no basis in Torah Judaism that advises Klal Yisroel to seize or assume sovereignty while we are still in galus, as we currently undisputably are.
As far as what to do about it now, after the zionist irreligious apikorsum went to war to seize sovereignty over the land without any halachic basis and in opposition to Gedolei Yisroel, that's like asking what I suggest we do about a mamzer. (No, we don't kill a mamzer. Nor do we approve how he was birthed.)
That's a good start. At least he isn't an atheist.
However there are light years of difference from not being an atheist to being an observant Jew.
Yair Lapid does not believe that God mandated man to do mitzvos. In his own words:
האדם הדתי חי משבת לשבת, מרכז קיומו הוא המצוות. האדם החילוני שם במרכז קיומו את הרעיונות – המדע, הקִדמה, חופש הבחירה. האנושי קודם אצלו למחויבות הדתית,
“The religious person lives from Shabbat to Shabbat, the center of his existence is the mitzvos. The secular person puts the following ideas at the center of his existence - science, progress, freedom of choice. His humanism, precedes his religious commitment…”
That, my dear friend, is speaking like a RASHA. You can try putting lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
There's more to having a perspective on a Mamzer, than merely not killing him. His presence in the world generated an entire literature of Halacha related to Mamzeirim. The same is true too, regarding the State of Israel. Even if you think that its formation was illegitimate, it's still a reality, and you need to learn how live with it today, not in a pre-1948 mindset.
Many Gedolei Yisrael disagreed with the Satmar Rebbe's position on the Three Oaths. However the point is moot. 1948 happened. The State of Israel is a reality. Get over it. The question now is what is best for Yidden. The model proposed by Satmar and the so-called "Neturei Karta" is impossible in today's world. What do you suggest, alternatively?
Agreed. The Rambam writes: ומותר לשכון בכל העולם חוץ מארץ מצרים
Nevertheless the Rambam did hold of the Three Oaths, as is evident from his "Iggeret Teiman" (Kafach ed. Chapter 4) 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
Belief in the Torah; includes accepting and performing Hashem's commands. Jews that do not believe that they are under Hashem's orders to perform the mitzvos, are referred to as secular Jews.
There is a difference between judging a person in Beis Din, and judging people in the courtroom of the mind.
In Beis Din, all are supposed to equal before the law. However when it comes to the courtroom of the mind, Rabbeinu Yonah posits that there are different rules.
he only mentions these oaths in context of predicting the End (which yo have bene engaging in recently). Furthermore, he mentions this issur in Hilchot melachim, but says nothing about going up as a wall etc.
Shulchan Aruch[(Y.D. 334:42): A senior Torah scholar or head of a rabbinical court who has become immoral, he is not to be formally and publicly ostracized unless he has committed a sin as serious as that of Yeravam ben Nevat and his associates. However if he has done lesser sins he is flogged in private. Similarly any Torah scholar who deserves formal ostracizing, it is prohibited for the court to quickly do so but they should disassociate from him. The truly pious Torah scholars were praised that they never were involved in formally ostracizing a Torah scholar. – even though they were involved in flogging him if he were guilty of a crime punishable by flogging or rabbinic lashes. If there were bad rumors about him such as that he was engaged in reading heretical books or that was involved in behavior that his colleagues were ashamed of and that resulted in a desecration of G‑d’s name then he is to be ostracized. Kiddushin(81a): Rav
said that we flog a person because of an evil rumor about him.,, Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 24:5): A beis din – in all places and for all times - has the power to flog a person about whom there are rumors of bad behavior and the people and complaining that he has transgressed prohibited sexual relations. This is only when the rumors are unceasing as we have explained and also that he doesn’t have any known enemies who would slander him. In addition it is permitted to insult such a person and embarrass his parents before him. Rambam (Commentary to Kiddushin 4:11):… We have a general rule from our Sages that a person is flogged because of bad rumors about him. There is no difference whether we are talking about an unmarried woman or a married woman whether it is a man or any other people that are prohibited to have sexual relations. Whoever has a great deal of bad rumors about them, both of the suspects are flogged…
I don't know why the Rambam didn't include the Three Oaths in his Yad Hachazaka, however I don't think that the Rambam would write something that he didn't believe was correct.
Personally, I'm not bothered by the Rambam referring to the Oath, because, in line with what some Gedolim have posited, that is not to say that the Rambam would hold that the Oath is still relevant today.
A secular Jew who starts the teshuva process is no longer secular. Hezekiah was raised secular, but discovered the Torah later on. It is sad and interesting that even after his great acts of Torah education, he tripped up in showing his treasures off. Herzl did not do the degree of teshuva that would have made him a Hezekiah.
Theodr Herzl might have been a cardiac Jew, which is a Jew at heart, but not in practice. Maybe that's why he died of heart failure, since he kept his Judaism pent up in his heart, and he didn't share his Judaism with the rest of his body.
Any movement of sur meh'ra v'aseh tov is teshuva process. The magnitude of that movement is the measure. Rambam quantifies it, harota is one element. Herzl clearly had harota about assimilation. A BT gamur is the end of that process.
This was obviously known to the rabbis who ignored abusers- "This is only when the rumors are unceasing as we have explained and also that he doesn’t have any known enemies who would slander him"
Also, Rav Schiller cites Rav simcha wasserman ztl who gave a shiur in Ohr Sameach yeshiva. Rav wasserman , based on a RambaN , said that there is a 2 stage teshuva /geula process. The first was the reaction to the Dreyfus trial. (No mention of Reb Herzl, perhaps in deference to Rav elchonon). The second is teshuva gamur which will be when we are in full geula.
You have anactive imagination! Herzl's motivation was a pragmatic solution to antisemitism. It had nothing to do with religion - despite your claims he was some form of BT
Herzl's first solution to ‘the Jewish problem’; was a proposed mass conversion of Austrian Jews to Catholicism.
‘It should be done on a Sunday, in St. Stephen’s Cathedral, in the middle of the day, with music and pride, publicly,’ he wrote.
‘I give praise to every Jewish parent that decides to convert to Christianity,’ he wrote.
And again: ‘I have a son and would sooner convert today to Christianity than tomorrow so that he would start being Christian as soon as possible to spare him the injuries and discrimination that I suffered.’
Teshuva means to return to Hashem and His Torah. Herzl is not known to have done either of them. He merely changed tactics.
The benefits that he previously believed Jews were to gain through assimilation - independence, physical courage, idealism - were now to be realized by the founding of a SECULAR Jewish state.
Herzl also did not believe the Jewish state had to be established in the land of Israel. In Der Judenstaat, he considered both Palestine (then under Ottoman rule) and Argentina, writing that Jewish public opinion should determine which option was preferred. Later, he lent his support to the idea of a Jewish state in east Africa.
the question is whether he did teshuva from his starting point, not what his starting point was. Are you relatively holier than your parents generation?
Some Kings in Israel started out in idolatry, and then returned to G-d. Some did partial teshuva. Some did not. The ones who did partial teshuva are praised partially.
Did he have charota from his dallyings with assimilation?
He obviously did. He did beleve it should be in Israel.
However, you are a small individual, and probably have no leadership role. And the rabbis you most likely follow had disasterous leadership roles running up to the holocaust.
Also, despite your protestations to the contrary, your understanding of halacha is very .. mercurial.
It is a mitzvah to save (Jewish) lives. (many hareidi leaders did the opposite).
If a life can be saved in Uganda or argentina, it is still a mitzvah. It is not a mitzvah which is talui b'aretz.
His idea of a Jewish state was primarily as a solution to the pogroms and genocides of Europe, which Hareidi leaders largely missed. This develops into Eretz Israel and geula - hence his vision of a Beit Hamikdash.
Do you accept Rambam's Hilchot Shabbat,where he says a fisherman who throws a net on Shabbat to catch fish and saves a drowning man is not guilty of violating shabbat?
If you think otherwise, please show me Halachic sources that prohibit showing the true colors of people who do not keep the Torah.
As far as I know, the enemies of Hashem; people who spit on the Torah and its observance; deserve to have their true nature made known, so that people are not swept up in following them or their ideas.
It’s also ludicrous for these deserters from Judaism; to seek protection from exposure of their breaking the Torah, by invoking the very same Torah, whose observance they despise and ridicule, and feel is not binding on mankind.
watch this video he cites Rav Simcha just after 22 minutes, based on Yirmiyahu. Ramban may have been elsewhere in the video, so apologies for attaching Ramban to Rav Simcha's vort.
unless he has categorised himself as a secular humanist, then the paragraph is purely descriptive, and reasonably accurate. However if he believes in G-d, it is a first stage. I am not holier than the Hazon Ish, who was one of the holiest men who lived during the State of Israel. he said today there are no real apikorsim, and we must bring back the lost with cords of love. true, Brisk, NK and friends do not accept this. Just like they did not accept the Netziv or Rav Kook.
But you are not saying true colors. You want to paint even the white parts, red. Someone in tel Aviv, may eat kosher, observe pesach, yom kippur, but not shabbat. True, there are some who keep nothing.
Do I have to be? He was a major Gadol hador. Rav isser Zalman Meltzer was also a major gadol hador, but is perhaps less famous in the hareidi conscious than the CI. Brisker Rav was a gadol hador, but is specific to the brisker world.
Some people quote Rav kook, Rav shachter eg to show annulments are forbidden, or for geirus.
The point is that you can find chumras everywhere, it doesn't oblige me to keep every chumra there is.
No, belief that the Torah is from G-d , is believing in. Jews are secular when they have no reference to Judaism. Purim in tlv. Is a fancy dress ball. That is secular. If they discuss Mordecai , Esther and G-d 's control of events , that is Judaism - even if they don't fast for example. The beinoni is not a rasha.
Gemara in Chullin tells the story of Yalta. She told her husband there is a kosher analogue for everything forbidden. Isn't that kullah shopping? There is vegan "pork" in the health food store. Some even have a hechsher. Assuming there's a technical hescher, would you consume vegan bacon?
This is Zionism.
ReplyDeleteIn what way does Yair Lapid represent Zionism?
ReplyDeleteDe haan - quatrains, anti-zionism
ReplyDeleteIn what way does he not represent Zionism?
ReplyDeleteWhat connection does he have with Judaism, and what attachment does he have with the Land of Israel?
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeletePrior
to his entry into politics, Lapid was active in numerous social
organizations, including the ALEH association to assist people with
special needs; the Children at Risk Organization for children with
autism, and the YRF association for renewal in education for
disadvantaged youth. He also served as chair of the Miftan Safed Friends
Association and taught citizenship in a school in Jaffa.
In
2012, Lapid announced his entry into politics and founded the Yesh Atid
party, which he heads. Yesh Atid is a center party that is both Zionist
and liberal. At the core of the party’s philosophy: Renewing Israel’s
security concept; striving for a regional agreement and separation from
the Palestinians, cleansing the political system and waging a war on
corruption, integrating the values of Judaism and the values of
democracy, strengthening the law enforcement system, propelling the
Israeli economy and strengthening education and science in Israel."
https://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=878
So when he did Tzedakah and Gema'Ch, was that also his "Zionism"?
He represents the straw man of zionism, which is when we take a representative of one present-day far left strand of Israeli politics and call it the definition of Zionism.
ReplyDeletethere is a fact that a large portion of Zionist movement is secular.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is not the cause of secularism, rather it is the success of Zionism.
The parallel secularists in germany, communists in Russia, America etc are either intermarried, reform, gulag or killed off. It is the geniusof Zionism to bring Jews from all 4 corners of the Earth, no matter how far they were , from religion or israel, and plant them on the land of Israel. wait a minute, isn't that what the Tenach says?
Secular humanism.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Zionism's end-game?
ReplyDeleteDepends who you ask. Herzl's dream was to create a secular European social democracy where the majority population was Jewish, like like most people in France are French.
ReplyDeleteRav Kook's dream was the restoration of a halakhic sovereignty in Israel with the result of rebuilding true Jewish nationhood.
Besides, it's God's end-game that matters.
Given the huge number of secular Zionists; whose dream is being better fulfilled, R' Kook's or Herzl's?
ReplyDeletedepends who you ask-
ReplyDeleteHerzl's dream included a Beit HaMikdash, which would be admired by all Jews.
The Yerushalmi says that a Beit Mikdash will be built by men prior to Moshiach coming.
So in the subconscious of Herzl, there was a fealty to Torah, Neviim, and at least Yerushalmi.
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=t.co/e6bhJsciaT?tai0StGMUd
ReplyDeleteMaseches Avos (2:5)
ReplyDeleteאל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו
Why are you focused on judging the
man raised in a secular home, when he has at least done some mitzvos, whether lishma or lo lishma.
Given the fact that assimilation, emancipation, comunism, atheism were part and parcel of the European experience before Herzl , and that he in a small or large way wished to reverse that...
ReplyDeleteand given the fact that the Bal Teshuva process and orthodox growth have begun to change the demographics of the jewish people, we can see that Herzl's vision leads to a Jewish state, and Rav Kook's vision leads to a teshuva movement. Rav Kook actually made the distinction between Teshuva ad Hashem, and Teshuva el Hashem. The first being the physical return, and the second being the spiritual return.
But we have not reached any end, or keitz - and it is not wise to pretend we have.
What connection does Zionism have with Judaism?
ReplyDeleteZionism, in general, refers to the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland, and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael.
ReplyDeleteDoes Judaism have any problem with Jews wanting to live in Eretz Yisrael?
Given that 1948 happened, and the State of Israel exists, what practical alternative plan do you suggest for sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael today?
See Rabeinu Yonah's commentary of Avos (1:6) that there is an obligation to unfavorably judge any action performed by a Rasha, even if the act appears to be totally good.
ReplyDeleteMitzvah does not mean "good deed". Mitzvah means "commandment", which implies a Commander, and one who is commanded.
Through speech and deed, Yair Lapid has publicly denied the authority of Torah, so any positive action that he does not fall under the realm of "Mitzvah". Lapid denies the authority of the Commander, and he does not consider himself bound by His commandments. Therefore any action that he may do can’t possibly be construed as following His orders.
My conclusion therefore is, that any good actions that Lapid may do, doesn't come from a desire to fulfill Hashem's will, and has little “mitzvah” value. The only reasonable alternative explanation is that it stems from secular humanism or for other ulterior motives.
What connection does eretz Israel have with Torah? And the mitzva no. 4 lefi Ramban to acquire/dwell there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Rambam states in in hilchot melachim u milchamot, that no place in the world is forbidden to dwell in, except for mitzrayim. So there is no restriction against living in Israel.
ReplyDeleteEvidence that he's a rasha?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/yair-lapid-says-he-believes-in-god/amp
SPAM ALERT.
ReplyDelete"See Rabeinu Yonah's commentary of Avos (1:6) that there is an obligation
ReplyDeleteto unfavorably judge any action performed by a Rasha, even if the act
appears to be totally good."
really?
So a dayan , in your opnion, should find for a frum criminal rather than an honest secular or not quite frum?
And then, within the frum world, judge a MO/ or RZ as a rasha vs a hareidi , regardless of who committed the crime?
I suppose it continues within the Hareidi world - a litvish will find in favour of a litvisher rather than a chassid. And within litvish, Brisk would favour Brisk, whereas mainstrem litvish woudl favour themselves.
All that is the opposute of the Torah - which tells the judge not to favour the great man or the poor.
If a frummer rapes a secular person or child, would you support teh frummer (as Litzman did)?
So you accept the norm of perverting justice?
Herzl's book, Altneuland, written in German, does indeed include a depiction of Jerusalem with a rebuilt Temple.
ReplyDelete"However, in his view, the Temple did not need to be built on the precise site where the old Temple stood and which is now taken up by the Muslim Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock - very sensitive holy sites.
"By locating the Temple at a different Jerusalem location, the Jewish state envisioned by Herzl avoids the extreme tension over this issue experienced in the actual Israel.
"Also, worship at the Temple envisioned by Herzl does not involve animal sacrifice, which was the main form of worship at the ancient Jerusalem Temple. Rather, the Temple depicted in Alteneuland is essentially just an especially big and ornate synagogue, holding the same kind of services as any other synagogue."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_New_Land#Major_themes
which just shows that he had some form of nevuah, if not a navi, he had a certain level of true predictions.
ReplyDeleteIt suggests that the reality, on the ground, is that the Temple and Temple mount issue is something no government can change, prior to Moshiach or a a pre-Messianic King. Israel is not China, cannot just go to war with 1.3 Billion Muslims -
But just look again at what you have copied and pasted.
The allegedly secular Herzl is actually envisioning a proto- 3rd Temple. He is not talking about a University or Hi Tech park, but a prequel to the beit Hamikdash. This is not the vision of a secular Jew, but of a deeply religious one. As Lubavtich used to say, every Jew believes in Torah, there is no such thing as a secular Jew!
Wanting to live in Eretz Yisroel, and indeed actually living in Eretz Yisroel, long long predates Zionism. Jews have lived in Eretz Yisroel continuously for millennia. And there were movements by Chasidim and Litvaks (Talmidei HaGra) that settled in Eretz Yisroel in the 18th and 19th centuries, long before the existence of Zionism or the birth of Theodore Herzl.
ReplyDeleteZionism has as much to do with Judaism as Reform does.
Judaism opposes Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisroel in the pre-messianic age. Even if you were to dispute that, there's no basis in Torah Judaism that advises Klal Yisroel to seize or assume sovereignty while we are still in galus, as we currently undisputably are.
As far as what to do about it now, after the zionist irreligious apikorsum went to war to seize sovereignty over the land without any halachic basis and in opposition to Gedolei Yisroel, that's like asking what I suggest we do about a mamzer. (No, we don't kill a mamzer. Nor do we approve how he was birthed.)
Yair Lapid says that he believes in God.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good start. At least he isn't an atheist.
However there are light years of difference from not being an atheist to being an observant Jew.
Yair Lapid does not believe that God mandated man to do mitzvos. In his own words:
האדם הדתי חי משבת לשבת, מרכז קיומו הוא המצוות. האדם החילוני שם במרכז קיומו את הרעיונות – המדע, הקִדמה, חופש הבחירה. האנושי קודם אצלו למחויבות הדתית,
“The religious person lives from Shabbat to Shabbat, the center of his existence is the mitzvos. The secular person puts the following ideas at the center of his existence - science, progress, freedom of choice. His humanism, precedes his religious commitment…”
That, my dear friend, is speaking like a RASHA.
You can try putting lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
There's more to having a perspective on a Mamzer, than merely not killing him. His presence in the world generated an entire literature of Halacha related to Mamzeirim. The same is true too, regarding the State of Israel. Even if you think that its formation was illegitimate, it's still a reality, and you need to learn how live with it today, not in a pre-1948 mindset.
ReplyDeleteMany Gedolei Yisrael disagreed with the Satmar Rebbe's position on the Three Oaths.
However the point is moot. 1948 happened. The State of Israel is a reality. Get over it.
The question now is what is best for Yidden.
The model proposed by Satmar and the so-called "Neturei Karta" is impossible in today's world.
What do you suggest, alternatively?
Agreed. The Rambam writes:
ReplyDeleteומותר לשכון בכל העולם חוץ מארץ מצרים
Nevertheless the Rambam did hold of the Three Oaths, as is evident from his "Iggeret Teiman" (Kafach ed. Chapter 4)
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
Belief in the Torah; includes accepting and performing Hashem's commands. Jews that do not believe that they are under Hashem's orders to perform the mitzvos, are referred to as secular Jews.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between judging a person in Beis Din, and judging people in the courtroom of the mind.
ReplyDeleteIn Beis Din, all are supposed to equal before the law. However when it comes to the courtroom of the mind, Rabbeinu Yonah posits that there are different rules.
והשביע עליו על דרך המשל
ReplyDeletehe only mentions these oaths in context of predicting the End (which yo have bene engaging in recently).
Furthermore, he mentions this issur in Hilchot melachim, but says nothing about going up as a wall etc.
Shulchan
ReplyDeleteAruch[(Y.D.
334:42): A senior Torah scholar or head of a rabbinical court who has
become immoral, he is not to be formally and publicly ostracized unless he has
committed a sin as serious as that of Yeravam ben Nevat and his associates.
However if he has done lesser sins he is flogged in private. Similarly any
Torah scholar who deserves formal ostracizing, it is prohibited for the court
to quickly do so but they should disassociate from him. The truly pious Torah
scholars were praised that they never were involved in formally ostracizing a
Torah scholar. – even though they were involved in flogging him if he were
guilty of a crime punishable by flogging or rabbinic lashes. If there were bad
rumors about him such as that he was engaged in reading heretical books or that
was involved in behavior that his colleagues were ashamed of and that resulted
in a desecration of G‑d’s name then he is to be ostracized.
Kiddushin(81a):
Rav
said that we flog a person because of an evil rumor about him.,,
Rambam (Hilchos
Sanhedrin 24:5): A beis din – in all places and for all times - has the power to flog a person about whom
there are rumors of bad behavior and the people and complaining that he has
transgressed prohibited sexual relations. This is only when the rumors are
unceasing as we have explained and also that he doesn’t have any known enemies
who would slander him. In addition it is permitted to insult such a person and
embarrass his parents before him.
Rambam (Commentary
to Kiddushin 4:11):… We have a general rule from our Sages
that a person is flogged because of bad rumors about him. There is no
difference whether we are talking about an unmarried woman or a married woman
whether it is a man or any other people that are prohibited to have sexual
relations. Whoever has a great deal of bad rumors about them, both of the
suspects are flogged…
The entire “Shir Hashirim” is a Mashal.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why the Rambam didn't include the Three Oaths in his Yad Hachazaka, however I don't think that the Rambam would write something that he didn't believe was correct.
Personally, I'm not bothered by the Rambam referring to the Oath, because, in line with what some Gedolim have posited, that is not to say that the Rambam would hold that the Oath is still relevant today.
IR:I don't know why the Rambam didn't include the Three Oaths in his Yad Hachazaka...
ReplyDeleteKal: do you accept that he knew Halacha better than a 20th century rebbe? It was not Halacha. But calculating the End is included in the Yad.
Rabbeinu Yonah knows very well how to deal with a rasha. Today a tinok sh'nishba isn't a regular rasha.
ReplyDeleteA secular Jew who starts the teshuva process is no longer secular.
ReplyDeleteHezekiah was raised secular, but discovered the Torah later on. It is sad and interesting that even after his great acts of Torah education, he tripped up in showing his treasures off.
Herzl did not do the degree of teshuva that would have made him a Hezekiah.
When did flogging go out of practice?
ReplyDeleteThere is a courtroom of public statements too.
ReplyDeleteIt's very debatable what constitutes a "Tinok Sh'nishba", today.
ReplyDeleteWho calculated the End of times?
ReplyDeleteProvided you adhere to the Halochos of not speaking Lashon Hara or Rechilus.
ReplyDeleteRefer to the chazon ish
ReplyDeleteTheodr Herzl might have been a cardiac Jew, which is a Jew at heart, but not in practice. Maybe that's why he died of heart failure, since he kept his Judaism pent up in his heart, and he didn't share his Judaism with the rest of his body.
ReplyDeleteBut you are calling people rashaim, anyone outside of orthodoxy, and thus you feel relieved of any restrictions in halacha towards those people.
ReplyDeleteBy discussing end game... At risk of. ...
ReplyDeleteHow do you define "the teshuva process"?
ReplyDeleteAny movement of sur meh'ra v'aseh tov is teshuva process. The magnitude of that movement is the measure. Rambam quantifies it, harota is one element. Herzl clearly had harota about assimilation. A BT gamur is the end of that process.
ReplyDeleteHaha
ReplyDeleteBetter than not having a heart.
This was obviously known to the rabbis who ignored abusers-
ReplyDelete"This is only when the rumors are
unceasing as we have explained and also that he doesn’t have any known enemies
who would slander him"
They always point to phantom enemies.
It suffices to say that he was not a secularist, atheist, or planning a shmad of jews in Israel.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in Yemen at that time
ReplyDeleteNo, many authorities do not hold by the oaths.
ReplyDeleteOhr Sameach said no fear of oaths. Ramban was a Zionist. Modern zios. Rely on him .
Also, Rav Schiller cites Rav simcha wasserman ztl who gave a shiur in Ohr Sameach yeshiva. Rav wasserman , based on a RambaN , said that there is a 2 stage teshuva /geula process. The first was the reaction to the Dreyfus trial. (No mention of Reb Herzl, perhaps in deference to Rav elchonon). The second is teshuva gamur which will be when we are in full geula.
ReplyDeleteYou have anactive imagination!
ReplyDeleteHerzl's motivation was a pragmatic solution to antisemitism. It had nothing to do with religion - despite your claims he was some form of BT
source?
ReplyDeleteHerzl's first solution to ‘the Jewish problem’; was a proposed mass conversion of Austrian Jews to Catholicism.
ReplyDelete‘It should be done on a Sunday, in St. Stephen’s Cathedral, in the middle of the day, with music and pride, publicly,’ he wrote.
‘I give praise to every Jewish parent that decides to convert to Christianity,’ he wrote.
And again: ‘I have a son and would sooner convert today to Christianity than tomorrow so that he would start being Christian as soon as possible to spare him the injuries and discrimination that I suffered.’
Teshuva means to return to Hashem and His Torah.
ReplyDeleteHerzl is not known to have done either of them. He merely changed tactics.
The benefits that he previously believed Jews were to gain through assimilation - independence, physical courage, idealism - were now to be realized by the founding of a SECULAR Jewish state.
Herzl also did not believe the Jewish state had to be established in the land of Israel. In Der Judenstaat, he considered both Palestine (then under Ottoman rule) and Argentina, writing that Jewish public opinion should determine which option was preferred. Later, he lent his support to the idea of a Jewish state in east Africa.
the question is whether he did teshuva from his starting point, not what his starting point was. Are you relatively holier than your parents generation?
ReplyDeleteSome Kings in Israel started out in idolatry, and then returned to G-d. Some did partial teshuva. Some did not. The ones who did partial teshuva are praised partially.
Did he have charota from his dallyings with assimilation?
ReplyDeleteHe obviously did.
He did beleve it should be in Israel.
However, you are a small individual, and probably have no leadership role. And the rabbis you most likely follow had disasterous leadership roles running up to the holocaust.
Also, despite your protestations to the contrary, your understanding of halacha is very .. mercurial.
It is a mitzvah to save (Jewish) lives. (many hareidi leaders did the opposite).
If a life can be saved in Uganda or argentina, it is still a mitzvah. It is not a mitzvah which is talui b'aretz.
His idea of a Jewish state was primarily as a solution to the pogroms and genocides of Europe, which Hareidi leaders largely missed.
This develops into Eretz Israel and geula - hence his vision of a Beit Hamikdash.
Do you accept Rambam's Hilchot Shabbat,where he says a fisherman who throws a net on Shabbat to catch fish and saves a drowning man is not guilty of violating shabbat?
ReplyDelete"Herzl's motivation was entirely a pragmatic solution to antisemitism. It had nothing to do with religion"
ReplyDeleteAnd that's not a mitzvah?
And what about those whose solution to antisemtism was voluntary suicide? Did that have anything to do with religion?
If you think otherwise, please show me Halachic sources that prohibit showing the true colors of people who do not keep the Torah.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, the enemies of Hashem; people who spit on the Torah and its observance; deserve to have their true nature made known, so that people are not swept up in following them or their ideas.
It’s also ludicrous for these deserters from Judaism; to seek protection from exposure of their breaking the Torah, by invoking the very same Torah, whose observance they despise and ridicule, and feel is not binding on mankind.
The Chazon Ish was not the only Torah authority to weigh in on this issue.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPbZX7glfMw&list=PLcmpd_l0Ylu6uPb_fxV-AHnjGmx_AHxhd&index=19&t=1648s
ReplyDeletewatch this video
he cites Rav Simcha just after 22 minutes, based on Yirmiyahu.
Ramban may have been elsewhere in the video, so apologies for attaching Ramban to Rav Simcha's vort.
so what?
ReplyDeleteunless he has categorised himself as a secular humanist, then the paragraph is purely descriptive, and reasonably accurate.
ReplyDeleteHowever if he believes in G-d, it is a first stage.
I am not holier than the Hazon Ish, who was one of the holiest men who lived during the State of Israel. he said today there are no real apikorsim, and we must bring back the lost with cords of love. true, Brisk, NK and friends do not accept this. Just like they did not accept the Netziv or Rav Kook.
"Judaism opposes Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisroel"
ReplyDeleteStop lying.
Are you a "Chazon Ish"nik, who follows all his rulings, or do you only grasp at the Chazon Ish when his position conforms to your own worldview?
ReplyDeleteI agree that we must bring back the lost with cords of love, however until they return, they are not considered righteous people.
ReplyDeleteI didn't claim lapid is a tzaddik. But i also didn't accept, yet, that he is a rasha
ReplyDeleteMaybe he is, but i haven't seen the evidence.
But you are not saying true colors. You want to paint even the white parts, red.
ReplyDeleteSomeone in tel Aviv, may eat kosher, observe pesach, yom kippur, but not shabbat. True, there are some who keep nothing.
But the centre ground, are not rashaim.
Do I have to be?
ReplyDeleteHe was a major Gadol hador.
Rav isser Zalman Meltzer was also a major gadol hador, but is perhaps less famous in the hareidi conscious than the CI.
Brisker Rav was a gadol hador, but is specific to the brisker world.
Some people quote Rav kook, Rav shachter eg to show annulments are forbidden, or for geirus.
The point is that you can find chumras everywhere, it doesn't oblige me to keep every chumra there is.
Is “Kullah shopping” a legitimate Halachic approach?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you know regarding the debate about what constitutes a "Tinok Sh'nishba", today?
Brisker Rav was accused of this - he said he's machmir on pikuach nefesh.
ReplyDeleteI am not a Chatam Sofer nik either, but I marvel at how great that man and posek of Israel was.
ReplyDeleteNo, belief that the Torah is from G-d , is believing in.
ReplyDeleteJews are secular when they have no reference to Judaism.
Purim in tlv. Is a fancy dress ball. That is secular. If they discuss Mordecai , Esther and G-d 's control of events , that is Judaism - even if they don't fast for example.
The beinoni is not a rasha.
Gemara in Chullin tells the story of Yalta. She told her husband there is a kosher analogue for everything forbidden.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that kullah shopping?
There is vegan "pork" in the health food store. Some even have a hechsher. Assuming there's a technical hescher, would you consume vegan bacon?