Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Capital punishment by beis din

 Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 2)

Every Court of Law,2Even a Court of Law outside the Land of Israel — M.E. even [one whose members] are not duly ordained in the Land of Israel,3 supra § 1, n. 14. — if they see that the people are unrestrained in [committing] sins,4Even if there is one individual who is in the habit of violating the law, he may be penalized by the Court of Law, although the punishment meted out is not in accordance with Biblical law, only that when the people as a whole are unrestrained in transgressing laws, they may enact measures as a safeguard and they may inflict penalties on any one person for the infringement of their rules even if they did not see that person committing sins unrestrainably — M.E. and [provided] that the exigencies of the hour demand it,5TurG. It may, however, be asked (in accordance with the interpretation of M.E.), why should an individual transgressor be considered as falling under the category of ‘exigencies of the hour?’ This should, therefore, be understood as follows: If we withhold punishment from an habitual individual sinner, others will learn from his evil ways and will likewise become unrestrained in the commission of sins. Hence, the exigencies of the hour apply here too (Tummim). Others, however, maintain that the individual may be penalized even when the foregoing reason is not applicable (Shebuth Ya‘akob) — P.Tesh. may pass judgment both [with respect to] death6Derived from San. 46a, Yeb. 90b: ‘It was taught, R. Eliezer b. Jacob stated: I heard that the Court of Law may (whenever necessary) administer punishment by lashes and impose (capital) sentences, even though not (warranted) by Biblical law; not for the purpose of disregarding the Torah but in order to make a fence around the Torah. It once happened that a man rode on horseback on the Sabbath during the Greek period and was brought before the Court of Law and was stoned, not because he was liable to this penalty, but because the needs of the hour demanded it. It also happened that a man had intercourse with his wife under a fig tree and was brought before the Court of Law and was flogged, not because he deserved it, but because the needs of the hour demanded it.’ N.Yos., however, writes that the above penalties were imposed by the Great Sanhedrin but any other Court of Law does not have the authority to administer such punishment. He adduces the following text to prove his point: San. 52b: ‘Immarta, the daughter of Tali, a Kohen, committed adultery. In consequence of that, R. Ḥama b. Tobiah had her surrounded by faggots and burnt. R. Joseph said: He (R. Ḥama) was unaware of two laws. He was unaware of R. Mathna’s statement (that burning was executed by pouring molten lead down the culprit’s throat) and was ignorant of the following Baraitha: And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days (Deut. XVII, 9). This teaches that when the priesthood operates (in the Temple), the Judge operates (with respect to capital punishment) ; but when the priesthood does not operate, the Judge may not function.’ Hence, R. Ḥama, who flourished after the destruction of the Temple had no authority to impose capital punishment. N.Yos. cites additional cases to corroborate his viewpoint: Nid. 13b, San. 58b: ‘R. Ḥama had the hand of one who was accustomed to strike other people cut off.’ San. 27a: ‘The Exilarch (Resh Galutha) said to R. Abba b. Jacob, Go and investigate the matter; if he is definitely the murderer, dim his eyes.’ In these latter cases only partial punishment was administered but not full punishment in accordance with Biblical law. However, N.Yos. is opposed by the Codifiers (v. also D.M.) who hold that if the needs of the hour demand it even full punishment may be meted out including capital sentences although it would not be in accordance with Biblical law where legal warning and valid witnesses are required which would be difficult to obtain nowadays as a result of which the world would become full of violence and ultimately destroyed. Cf. ‘Jerusalem was destroyed because judgments were rendered in accordance with strict Biblical law’ (B.M. 30b). Thus RaShBA, N, and Asheri in Resp. Hence, Caro’s ruling here. , also the case of Simeon b. Shetaḥ in Mishna San. 45b who hanged eighty women at Ashkelon. and monetary [penalties]7M.K. 16a; B.K. 96b. as well as [to administer] all laws of punishment,8Ibid. even if in the case [in question] there is no valid evidence [available].9Kid. 81a; San. 26b and Tosaf. s.v. החשוד; Tur citing Yad, Sanhedrin XXIV, 4. This means that there was no legal warning given by witnesses to the offender immediately before committing the offense. For witnesses and legal warning are required only when adjudicating a Biblical law, but one who disobeys the ordinances of the country may be penalized according to the needs of the hour (N in Resp.) — M.E., ShaK. In capital cases the consent of the town Elders is required after due deliberation (B.Yos. citing RaShBA) — M.E. And if he is a stern individual, they may flog him by means of heathen authorities.10Derived from Mishna Git. 88b: ‘A heathen court may impose flogging upon a man and say to him, Do whatever the Israelite (authorities) tell you.’ Since Caro does not record here the latter statement of the Mishna (as found in Tur), viz., ‘and say to him, Do whatver the Israelite (authorities) tell you,’ it follows that even the final legal proceedings may be carried out by the heathen authorities since the offender is a very harsh person and the penalty is not in accordance with Biblical law — M.E. For only in the case of a Get (as in Git. ibid.) must the final legal proceedings be executed by Israelite authorities in order that it be considered valid — Nethiboth. , also infra § 26. And they have authority to expropriate his property and to forfeit it according to whatever they see fit in order to fence in the lawlessness of the generation.11Tur on the authority of Yad, Sanhedrin XXIV, 4-10 — G. Derived from M.K. 16a where Scriptural verses are adduced whence we derive that we have the authority to excommunicate persons refusing to obey the summons of the Court, to pronounce the Ḥerem (v. Glos.), to forfeit property, to curse, to smite, to pluck one’s hair, to adjure (so that one desists from malpractices), to fetter, to arrest and to prosecute. ‘We administer flogging on account of an evil rumour, because it is said, Nay (al), my sons; for it is no good report that I hear’ (I Sam. II, 24) — Kid. 81a. This has reference to an uninterrupted rumour not due to intimidation and where no enemies are about who might have published the rumour — Yeb. 25a. Cf. Tur. O.Ḥ. § 1 , also Git. 36b on the Rabbis’ power to expropriate one’s property; also Meg. 25b where it is stated that it is permissible to abuse a person of ill fame. The latter statement refers to an ordinary person but not to a scholar (RaN). Cf. Men. 99b: ‘Resh Lakish said, A scholar-disciple who has committed a misdeed should not be reproached in public because it is said, Therefore shalt thou stumble in the day and the prophet also shall stumble with thee in the night (Hos. IV, 5), that is to say, Keep it dark like night.’ The par. passage in M.K. 17a reads that ‘they do not place him under the ban.’ Some Later Authorities rule that the Court of Law has the power only to declare a debt cancelled but they cannot take possession of the money or the like on behalf of a person before it reaches the latter’s hand (Birke Yosef). Others (on the basis of Git. 36b) hold that the Court of Law does have this authority even before it reaches the latter’s hand — P.Tesh. All their acts, however, should be [done] for the sake of Heaven.12Cf. San. 46a: ‘Not with the purpose of disregarding the Torah, but in order to safeguard it.’ And [this should be executed] only [by] a great personage of the generation13Derived from B.K. 96b regarding the man who misappropriated a pair of oxen and was penalized by R. Naḥman, whence we see that only a distinguished personage like R. Naḥman who was the son-in-law of the Nasi’s house had the power to impose penalties. or [by] the representatives of the town14 B.B. 8b. whom they [i.e., the people] have recognized as the Court of Law over them.15Tur has שהמחום רבים עליהם ‘whom the public recognized as authorities over themselves.’ Gloss: And thus is the accepted practice everywhere, [viz.,] that the representatives of the town are regarded in their [own] town [as authoritative] as the [former] Great Sanhedrin.16Mord. (B.M. II beg.) on the authority of R. Gershon states: ‘Whosoever is appointed a leader of the community is regarded like the mightiest of the mighty and Jepthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation (R.H. 25b) and whatever he does is considered binding.’ Thus also RaShBAM.E. They may administer flogging and impose [death] penalties and their expropriation [of one's property] is considered valid according to the adopted custom,17MaHaRIK (Rt. I, XIV) writes that even according to the opinion that the representatives of the town have the power to enact measures as they see fit, it applies only to communal needs but not with respect to cancelling a debt of one individual for the benefit of another which does not fall under the category of communal needs. Thus also Isserlein in his Decisions. Furthermore, only one who is a distinguished personage in his generation may expropriate property — M.E. Cf. supra n. 13. If the custom in the community is to submit the matter to arbitration by one litigant choosing one person and the other litigant choosing another person and the Head of the Court of Law acting as the third, — this practice should not be altered — P.Tesh. although there are some who differ and are of the opinion that the representatives of the town have no power in these [matters] save that they [have the authority] to compel the community in [observing] whatever was an adopted practice heretofore,18B.B. 8b: ‘The townspeople have a right to stipulate meassures, prices of food and wages of labourers and to remove (place outside of the protection of the law — Rashi) those who disregard the terms fixed by the authorities (ולהסיע על קיצתן). The dissenting opinion takes ולהסיע as referring to ‘measures etc.,’ i.e., just as in the latter case it must be with the consent of all, so too in the case of ‘terms fixed by the authorities,’ the consent of all is required. The first opinion takes ולהסיע as a separate measure. Hence, the consent of all is not required — W.G. Cf. also Y. Meg. III, 2(74a) : ‘The seven representatives of the town are regarded as the (entire) town. What are we treating of? If they (the townspeople) accepted them, then even if one (was appointed his decision should be binding upon all the townspeople) ; if they did not accept them, then even many (i.e., more than seven cannot enforce their rulings upon the townspeople). We, therefore, deal here with an undefined case (i.e., the townspeople appointed them to look after the communal matters, without specifying which matter they delegated to them, and the town representatives sold aught without consulting the people, we are therefore, informed that their transaction is binding).’ or they accepted upon themselves [a new measure] with the consent of all [the townspeople],19e., by mere speech the matter becomes binding even in a matter concerning which no adopted practice existed formerly — M.E. but they may change naught in any matter that would involve a gain for one person and a loss for another20For this does not come under the category of safeguarding a cause — M.E. , also Ḥid. Hag. P. Tesh cites the case of the controversy around the Sulzbach edition of the Talmud. The latter was forbidden to be printed until a certain period would elapse after the Amsterdam edition of the Talmud was published. Certain authorities ruled that the purchasers of the Sulzbach ed. were prohibited to study in it. Zikron Ya‘akob, however, on the basis of the present ruling, held that since this prohibition would involve a gain for one (i.e., the Amsterdam publisher) and a loss for the other (i.e., the Sulzbach publisher), the law is that those who had already bought the Sulzbach edition were permitted to use it. , also P.Tesh. to Y.D. § 208, 5; § 236, or to declare a debt cancelled without the consent of all [the townspeople].21Mord. to B.K. X — G. Nevertheless, [in these matters] we follow the adopted custom of the town, especially if the [townspeople] accepted them [to render decisions] in every matter.22 infra § 23 Thus seems to me [to be the correct view].23 Y.D. § 228 on the laws pertaining to ordinances and Ḥerem for the sake of the public welfare — G. The later authorities state in their Responsa that one who has been sentenced to flogging may give forty gold coins instead of the flogging.24MaHaRIW s. 147 and R. Menaḥem of MerseburgG. , Ket. 46a where a monetary fine is designated as flogging. This is, however, not stated as a law, only that they decided thus because [of the needs of the] hour, but [in reality] the Court of Law has the authority to flog him or to confiscate [his] property as they see fit according to the matter [in hand] in order to safeguard a cause.25 infra § 425 GlossG. On the significance of the principle ‘to safeguard a cause’ (למיגדר מילתא), v. Yeb. 90b.


  1. So in summary, once Moshiach arrives, Israel becomes just like Iran?

  2. Once Moshiach arrives, it will no longer be known as the "State of Israel". It will be called "Eretz Yisrael", and will be governed by the Sanhedrin; as spelled out in the Torah.

    Capital punishment will be meted out, since this is part of the 613 Mitzvos. [Do you have a problem with the Torah?] However the Torah has an elaborate system of checks and balances in place, and the death penalty would only be administered if ALL the relevant conditions would be met.

    This is a far cry from Iran, which does not judge according to Torah law.

  3. Nope - the hareidi view is to be like Iran, until the moshiach comes.

  4. >Do you have a problem with the Torah?
    No, but Chazal sure did. Just try to blow a shofar the next time Rosh HaShanah falls out on Shabbos if you don't believe me. Or the Chazal who said that if they had been on the Sanhedrin they'd never have allowed a single guilty verdict in a capital case.

  5. Yes, once in 70 years, and rabbi Akiva said if he was in charge, there would not be a capital punishment at all.

  6. It has always been called eretz Israel. When moshiach comes, it will be malchut Israel, or malchut Beit David. Or malchut Hashem or Torah.

  7. Mishnah Makkos 1:10

    Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva were religious Jews, and would fulfill ALL the Mitzvos of the Torah. Meting out the death penalty, in cases where the Torah calls for it; is part of the 613 Mitzvos. Therefore we must understand their statement to mean, that they would invoke standards of proof that were so high, as to make it nearly impossible to achieve a conviction for a capital offense.

    However in a case where all the relevant conditions would be met", even Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva would not be able to avoid fulfilling the Law of the Torah, and would be REQUIRED to mete out the death penalty.

  8. parody may be false, but it has some truth to it

    there are lehavdil Midrashim, which might not be logically true but still teach a deeper truth .

  9. Therefore your illogical arguments should be treated as having some truth?!

  10. nothing illogical about my argument:

    here are some major similiraties between hareidism, and Iranian shiism of the Ayatollah's:

    a) Daas Torah vs velayat e faqih

    it is essentially the same principle - that the Gedolim who are "accepted" have absolute authority in both legal and socio-political matters. A claim which is contested by both the Modern orthodox, and modern Clerics such as Ayatollahs Montazeri, and Sanei.

    b) that dress form must be regulated and not corrupted by western influence - and men usually wear black suits and white shirts.

    c) the separation of sexes , eg even at sports matches.

    d) the consideration that Zionism is a an evil force and must be opposed - a doctrine held by hareidi and Shiite extremists alike. Note that some members of the Eda regularly visit Tehran, as do satmar.

    e) domination of the political democracy by the clerics - here Iran is ahead in the game, but Hareidi world has the same ideology, but not yet the same numbers to defeat democracy . however, the same concept has already been applied in the effective takeover of the Rabbanut, even without a majority.

    f) censorship of media, internet

  11. "Malchut" refers to the reigning power.
    It does not describe the land itself.

  12. It's a bit early for Purim jokes.

  13. This is what you said :

    "Once Moshiach arrives, it will no longer be known as the "State of Israel". It will be called "Eretz Yisrael", and will be governed by the Sanhedrin; as spelled out in the Torah."

    You were not talking about the land itself.

  14. Just getting in the mood

  15. Also, one of the rabbis in the hareidi yeshiva said something similar - that the Arabs respect hareidim more than secular israelis - we have similar dress codes, similar moral codes etc.

  16. “Capital punishment by beis din” awful title, makes the bet din look bad. Like the fake criminal charges against Netanyahu still working its way so slowly in the partisan Israeli courts, to defeat Netanyahu against voters’ wishes. What nonsense Steve Bannon: “The report argues that Bannon's testimony and document production are crucial to the investigation, saying that Bannon made statements suggesting he knew ahead of time about "extreme events." How dare Garland, head of DOJ approve this partisan trick.

    Back to parsha וירא.
    Both the New Testament and the Koran are based on the 5 Books of Moses with critical differences/lies. Amazing that the Koran on the Akedah leaves out the name of who Abraham bound and placed on the altar.

    My theory. Both Christianity and Islam could make peace with Torah Judaism.---Isaiah’s prophecies, the Talmud, etc.

    Update on me. I’m there on the NYS Court of Appeals website: October 18, 2021 2021-850 Aranoff v Aranoff. Allow me my letter yesterday:

    “1.I request permission to submit these papers concerning my motion number 2021--850 return date October 18, 2021. I attach Appendix A: Letter from my departed mother December 4, 1991 and Appendix B: Decision of Jerusalem Rabbinic Court January 21, 1993. I hear nothing from TIAA or from Susan.
    2.NYS Domestic Relations Law \S 236 Part B states: PART B NEW ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS 3. Agreement of the parties. An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded....
    3.Appendix A: Letter from my departed mother December 4, 1991 states:
    Susan is seeking a civil divorce. Jerry has a lawyer who is trying to nullify or prevent the divorce. Susan told Jerry she wants a divorce only a week before he left for Israel. Earlier she promised to go to Israel with him. But this was a trick to get him out of the way so she can file a divorce. I understand that it seems as if he walked out on Susan. In truth she fooled him. She wrote that even if he goes back to N.Y. she won't let him into the house - That he should sleep at your house. When I was in N.Y. last year, they did not talk to each other. She claims that she has no need of him - & prefers to be separated. -- Jerry sends love letters, that he'd do any-thing she says. She is very defiant & wants a divorce.
    4.Appendix B: Decision of Jerusalem Rabbinic Court January 21, 1993 states: Please summons the wife at your earliest convenience to notify us regarding her agreement to arrange divorce.
    5.In a divorce proceeding a written agreement has standing, as NYS Domestic Relations Law \S 236 Part B states: An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded.'' Susan signed aliya papers that she wants to live in Jerusalem with me. Susan participated in Rabbi Aryea Ralbag's rabbinic court in Brooklyn where I sent the get to by messengers from the Jerusalem rabbinic court.”

    Interesting. NYS Domestic Relations Law \S 236 Part B states: PART B NEW ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS 3. Agreement of the parties. This is Susan's Agunah International’s big idea: “His suggestion was to enact a takkanah requiring the groom to obligate himself in a separate legal document (enforceable in a civil court) that should he divorce his wife in a civil court and refuse to give her a Get, he obligates himself to pay her a certain sum of money each day for her expenses and those of her children-until he gives her a Get.”

  17. Well ever year before the Jerusalem To'evah Parade there is a gathering of "Gedolim" and major Imams to protest it.

  18. > and would fulfill ALL the Mitzvos of the Torah

    Like selling their 3 year daughters into marriage?

  19. But at that level, it's the Sanhedrin that applies the halakha. So if that's how their chose to apply it, there would be no capital punishment.

  20. False.
    There is absolutely no Mitzvah (command) in the Torah to sell your three year daughter into marriage.

  21. Continue that way, if you want to be treated as a joke.
    I'm here for serious conversations.

  22. serious - well, would you agree that hareidi ideology is different to Modern or liberal orthodox?

    Would you dispute the statement that Hareidi political world view is opposed to western democracy - namely, they do not want the secular or middle of the road jews to vote what role religion plays in society, specifically in Israel?

    And do you understand the Daas Torah ideology where the leader with this special quality makes decisions not only in ritual halacha, but also policy matters for society?

    And i recall you quoting one posek who suggested it is better to put secular jews in prison than allow them to live a sinfful secular life - if the ability was there.

    So the above very closely resembles Islamic Republic of Iran. I am not saying that Iranian clerics are chas v'shalom tzaddikim, they are not, they are rashaim. that is the obvious difference - all regular and major rabbis are Tzaddikim. So yes, if i claimed it is equivalent then i would be wrong and require teshuva, perhaps even denied teshuva.

    If they have common views on governance and sets them apart from middle ground Judaism, then that supports my argument. I think they also banned cinemas in Iran. Didn't they set fire to the old cinema in meah Shearim?

    It could be - and in fact is argued the otehr way - that secular israelis and secular Zionists want to be like other nations, like france, italy, England etc. It is in fact claimed by both the zionists and the anti-zionists.

    I don't think jews have always lived as hareidim - it is an innnovation. Sephardi jews never were Hareidi.

    There has actually been a quiet rebellion within the Hareidi world, to end Hareidism. That is becasue the logical conclusion, or reductio ad absurdum - is that all frum Jews become like Neturei karta - and visit Iran kissing the corrupt leaders. This flaw in satmar, Brisk, and general anti-zionsit world was exposed at their revulsion of the acts of neturei karta. This has led to Zionisation of hareidim - even the satmar rebbe complained that many satmar chassidim are becoming Zionised!


    Rav David bat Hayim discusses both Zionism and Hareidism...

  24. Really? Is that what R' Akiva meant? or was he saying that he had a teleological or otherwise described halachic approach where he could nullify capital punishment?

    Rabbi Rackman brings a case where Chazal wanted to banish all tarces of mamzerut - so they made a chazakah that if a baby is found, and its parents are not known, then they assume it is not a mamzer, becasue had it been a mamzer, its mother would have killed the poor baby!

  25. If so, why is this particular Gemara so famous, ? or is it just that it is a favourite of English language teachers, who are trying to show how flexible the oral law is and how Torah law is subservient to Oral law?
    Are you saying that if you are fully learned in the sugya and commentaries (which i am not) then it is just a statement whcih does not have halachic binding?

  26. I agree with what you say - to some degree
    was the Chazal period something as great as or greataer than the Messianic period? Not everything that happened then was perfect - such as the internecine war between B'Shammai and b' hilel, some midrashim state that 3000 were killed.

    So, for example, was the takevoer by Beis Shammai ideal?was their instiuting 16 Gezeiros in one day within the "checks and balances" you mention? And the gemara likens this episode to the Golden calf.

  27. you are not the only cherry picker

  28. Thank you 🍒

  29. More on parsha וירא My Artscroll Siddur p. 745: “In the merit of the tender and only fruit (Isaac) which blossomed at one hundred, who cried זעק, where is the lamb for the offering איה השה לעולה? ” My theory. Of course Isaac screamed זעק. Abraham said to Ishmael and Eliezer: Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship, and come back to you. Isaac sees no sheep anywhere, but ready is wood, firestone, rope, and sharp knife. Abraham bounds Isaac and lifts him on the altar with the wood on top. I saw a midrash that Isaac asked Abraham to bind him again lest he move and spoil the slaughter. Beautiful.

    Torah though on daf hayomi Rosh HaShana 12b:
    “AND FOR VOWS. Our Rabbis taught: If one is interdicted by vow to have no benefit from another person for a year, he reckons twelve months from day to day. If he said for this year, then even if he made the vow on the twenty-ninth of Elul, as soon as the first of Tishri arrives a year is completed for him; and this even on the view of those who say that one day in a year is not counted as a year. For he undertook to mortify himself, and he has mortified himself. But why not say [that his year ends in] Nisan? In respect of vows, follow the ordinary use of language [and men ordinarily talk of the year as beginning in Tishri].”
    Mortified = subdue (the body or its needs and desires) by self-denial or discipline."they wish to return to heaven by mortifying the flesh."

    My theory. Ordinary use of language is controlling, certainly in any contracts or understandings person to person. Beautiful.

    Allow me my letter today to the NYS Court of Appeals:
    “2.Appendix A: Susan Promise to join me in Jerusalem February 9, 1989. Susan signed at the Israel Aliyah Center, Inc in Manhattan on February 9 1989 “Where do you intend to residing in Israel? Jerusalem.” This is a serious promise in writing in a document. I apply “When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not be slack to pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it will be sin in thee.” (Deuteronomy 23:22)
    3.Appendix B: Rabbi Kornfeld letter to Susan July 1, 1991 states: “Whatever he is going to do in Israel it is only for your welfare and that of the children. Please do not forsake him. He is looking forward to spending a beautiful life together with you and the children. - for I understand it was your dream to go to Israel.”
    4.Today's My TIAA on the internet still says with no mention of 11/1/2021: DATE GROSS TAXABLE NON-TAXABLE DEDUCTIONS NET PAYMENTS 09/01/2021 $2,117.16 $2,113.54 $3.62 $0.00 $2,117.16 08/01/2021 $1,058.58 $1,054.96 $3.62 $0.00 $1,058.58 Your 10/01/2021 payment amount will be calculated on 09/20/2021 and displayed on the web on or after 09/22/2021 Paid Monthly
    5.I email repeatedly to TIAA and to Susan: “I did not get my TIAA pension October 1, 2021. How much will I get November 1, 2021? How much did TIAA pay Susan from my pension September 1, 2021? Please advise.”
    6.I'm in urgent need for my November 1, 2021 TIAA pension payment. I'm about 12,000 NIS overdrawn in my Bank Leumi account.”
    Wow 18,561 pageviews, why? Thanks KA for the upticks.

  30. Rav bar Hayim attacks Zionism as being a secular non Torah ideology, but recognizes that it patched up a problem of galus.
    That being the case , it was a rather big idea and successful one. Sometimes it takes rational thinking that comes from outside the yeshivas to patch a problem - eg the covid vaccine.
    Rav Pruzansky is more positive and says Herzl, Zionism are events which are totally miraculous and guided by Hashem. But he disagrees with bar Hayim on his other more radical ideas.


    Beheimos of Bnei brak, Ponovezh

    Nothing like this occurs in MO or DL yeshivot.

  32. Irrelevant to the discussion.
    This is also child's play, compared to what allegedly transpired one day, with Beis Shammai and Beit Hillel.

  33. Sach hakol, we are still in Churban sheini, of sinnat chinam. As my rav, rabbi Bernstein ztl once said, you can take the Jews out of galus, but taking galus out of the jews is something else.

  34. it is relevant to the discussion - because there is a long line of extremism in places like Ponovezh, that has led to this violence - albeit child's play compared to that of the rashaim in Iran. But the point is, this is supposedly the world's top yeshiva, not some football stadium where thugs have a brawl every week.

  35. Again Cherry picking
    This is not viewed as ideal behavior in the yeshiva world - contrary to your exposition. In fact it is viewed as an embarrassment and chilul HaShem

  36. What will it take, to get you to leave Londonistan?

  37. Are you in E'Y now?

  38. Yes. I put my money where my mouth is, not like the World Zionists, who encourage OTHERS to move to Israel.

  39. Well done.
    Where are you living?

  40. if/when we ever meet, you will see I am not as frum as you :) I wear totally western secular clothing

  41. Yes the Arabs have so much respect for haredim, that's why they kept blowing up buses full of them


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.