|

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Zionism and the Shoah - Part I

Caveats:

a) The Shoah is a highly emotionally charged subject. The criticisms laid out here may be painful to those who have been scarred, either directly or as descendants of survivors, by this most traumatic event, who find solace in the existence of a Medinah that they can call home, and that gives them a sense of Jewish pride. If you feel that criticism in this realm is painful, please accept my profuse apologies in advance, as I beg you to understand that this is not, in the slightest, my motivation for putting forth this post.
b) This post is not at all any kind of mitigation of the blood-guilt of the accursed Nazis and their collaborators, Yemach Shemam. We still await G-d's vengance upon the evildoers.
c) This is not a "Bari" post. It is a "Shema". Meaning, that the angle presented here is not one which can be empirically proven. It is an approach that some theologians and historians have taken as highly plausible, and should be part of any debate, without it being subject to summary dismissal as 'idiocy'.
d) It is important to point out that the State of Israel, until the rise to power of Menachem Begin in 1977, was run with a heavy hand in terms of which materials were permitted to be read. One could not purchase a copy of "Perfidy", by Ben Hecht, which delineates the severe actions of some of the Labor Zionist leaders in the hindrance of rescue efforts during the Shoah. The public agenda was set, firmly, by the Bolshevik Labor Zionists. Therefore, an entire generation of Jews were raised on the cause-effect relationship spin most desirable to the Zionists. Namely, that the Shoah was an inevitable outcome of the lack of a National Homeland, and that the National Homeland is the best guarantee of "Never Again". This point is abetted by some, such as Rav Herzog, claiming that this is the Third Commonwealth, which is guaranteed by the Neviim never to be destroyed. However, it is clear that there are those who debate both this cause-effect relationship, and the veracity of the 'invincibility' claim. Many luminaries, from Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch down to HaRav Shach, deny the claim that the present Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael was, in the 1930s, or is, at present, immune to catastrophe, irrespective of the depths of sin we may sink to.
e) I do not wish to get into the theological placing of blame for the Shoah on the Zionist movement and the massive inroads they made into the hearts and minds of our Nation, leading them down the destructive path of Kefirah, Kochi Ve'Otzem Yadi, socialism, nationalism, and other idolatries. It does bear remembering, though, that there were great leaders of our nation who felt this way, and it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of the stinging words of Rav Elchanan Wasserman in Be'Ikvesa DeMeshichah:
"Nowadays, the Jews have chosen two "idols" upon which they offer up their sacrifices. They are Socialism and Nationalism... These two forms of idol-worship have poisoned the minds and the hearts of Hebrew Youth. Each one has its tribe of false prophets in the shape of writers and speakers, who do their work to perfection. A miracle has happened: in Heaven these two idolatries have been merged into one - National-Socialism. There has been formed from them a fearful rod of wrath which hits at the Jews in all corners of the globe. The abominations to which we have bowed down strike back at us."
What is 100% clear, in my view, is that this irrational, bloodthirsty, sick, vengeful, sadistic murderous Europe-wide mega-pogrom was not due to the political and military powerlessness of the Jews, but due to the severity of the Aveiros committed by Jews. To suggest otherwise borders on heresy.
Singling out which particular iniquities brought this about is where we lack clarity, and I bring up R' Elchonon's view merely as one striking vantage-point where the Middah Kenegged Middah fairly stares one in the face. I acknowledge that there are others.
Criticisms of Zionist activities prior to the Shoah:
a) Theodore Herzl and Max Nordau were actively propogating the idea, among European leaders, that "the Jews constitute a foreign, destructive element for the countries in which they live". A minister in the government of the Emperor Franz-Joseph is quoted as follows: "If the malicious propaganda that would cast Jews as a danger to the world and as revolutionaries continues, instead of establishing a Jewish State the Zionists will bring about the destruction of the Jews of Europe". [Prof. Yakov Rabkin, A Threat From Within, pg. 174]
b) Prior to the war, in Ze'ev Jabotinsky's broadcasts over the official polish radio and in articles published in the press in several countries, he lashed out at Germany. Nazi leaders mentioned his articles published and speeches as those of someone who had quite openly "revealed the plans of his race" and who, "to the horror of the other Elders of Zion, spoke more plainly than they would have liked" (Schechtman, Fighter and Prophet; quoted by Rabkin, 176)
c) "At that time these unthinking (the Jewish “leaders”) rose up in their places of security in the free lands and they cast ridicule upon Hitler and enraged him by their irresponsible demonstrations and speeches…and they kindled his wrath by the reckless boycott. All this was in the year 5693 (1933) when the nations were still at peace with this evil one (Hitler) and there was no way other than humility and negotiation by persuasion. But these self-ordained leaders acted according to the opposite of wisdom and the opposite of the oath imposed by G-d (not to arouse the nations by open opposition), and they had a great share in arousing the frenzy of the mad dog to the highest degree” (Min Hametzar, Rabbi M. D. Weismandl).
[I should note that this is hard to comprehend due to our sensibilities being offended by being "led as sheep to the slaughter". But we may want to consider viewing this period of time (1933) as a lone sheep biting one of the rabid, slumbering wolves ready to pounce on her]
d) Several influential Rabbis, including Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, who taught at the time at the prestigious Berlin Rabbinerseminar, opposed the boycott and the anti-German propaganda that accompanied it, both of which they saw as dangerous and irresponsible. The American historian Marc Shapiro writes that a considerable number of rabbinic authorities, including Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky, Rav Elchanan, and the Satmar Rebbe, rejected the boycott as an attitude contrary to Jewish tradition. [Rabkin, 176]
e) Rabbi Yosef Zvi Duschinsky, representing the traditional Ashkenazi community before the UN in 1947, declared that Zionism had been the root cause of violence and friction with the [local - my own (Bari's) addition, as per testimony of Jewish inhabitants of Chevron] Arabs , which forced the British government to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine from 1930 on. Zionism is thus presented as an obstacle to the salvation of millions of Jews from the Shoah:
"the colossal massacre of millions of of our brethren at the hands of Nazism during the second world war might have been averted to a very substantial degree for many of them might have been able to live peacefully in the Holy Land as there would not have been the slightest justification for the limitations of Jewish immigration as have in fact been enforced during the last decade." (Rabbi Duschinsky's statement at the UN, as quoted by Rabkin, 174).
To be continued...

76 Comments:

Blogger chardal said...

What is 100% clear, in my view, is that this irrational, bloodthirsty, sick, vengeful, sadistic murderous Europe-wide mega-pogrom was not due to the political and military powerlessness of the Jews, but due to the severity of the Aveiros committed by Jews. To suggest otherwise borders on heresy.


aaaahhh, but if the aveira IS the rejection of our national life and our land, then the midda keNeged mida becomes even more clear. Perhaps the "heresy" was in the rejection of our need of a national home and national life in favor of a warped unnatural existence in exile. (hey, its not me, its Eim HaBanim Smeicha).

This post inevitably leads down the path of lifting the blame from the enemies, even with your introduction.

The funniest thing to me is the claim that the militancy of the Zionist led to the hatred and the proposal that if the normal shtadlan/galus approach was taken by the Zionists, all Arab/Nazi attacks would have been avoided. I would have thought that 2000 years of such an approach and about 10,000,000 dead later, that the oilam would have learned the complete and utter failure of that paradigm. Unfortunately, there are segments of the religious world that still want to bang their heads against a wall. Rav Kook predicted the disaster and proposed its solution years before Hitler even rose to power. The Satmar Rav failed to see what was coming, gave the wrong advise to all his chassidim, and in the end was saved by labor Zionists. Go out and see which gadol the average chareidi world respects and which one they denigrate yearly. Its the inability to review old ideas and assimilate the need for historic change that is killing the Jewish people. It doesn't matter whether we are dealing with chareidim idealizing pre WWII Europe or with RZ still relating to the state in an uber-mamlachti fashion. Both camps show an inability to learn hashkafic lessons from history.

4:53 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Also see the Rambam in his letter to Marseilles where he sees the galus as a result of the Jews abandoning proper political methodology and the study of the art of warfare:

וזו היא שאבדה מלכותנו והחריבה בית מקדשנו והאריכה גלותינו והגיעתנו עד הלום. שאבותינו חטאו ואינם, לפי שמצאו ספרים רבים באלה הדברים של דברי החוזים בכוכבים, שדברים אלו הם עיקר עבודה זרה, כמו שביארנו בהלכות עבודה זרה, טעו ונהו אחריהן, ודימו שהם חכמות מפוארות ויש בהן תועלת גדולה, ולא נתעסקו בלמידת מלחמה ולא בכיבוש ארצות, אלא דמו שאותן הדברים יועילו להם.
ולפיכך קראו אותם הנביאים סכלים ואווילים.
ודאי סכלים ואווילים היו, ואחרי התוהו אשר לא יועילו הלכו.

In other words, their distraction from proper national life led to the destruction. I personally only partially accept this approach. I have no question in my mind that there is a component of divine punishment in the exile. However, it is important to ALSO remember that Hashem expects us to function WITHIN the natural world and allows the NATURAL consequences of rejecting the natural order of things to run its course when we do not do the proper physical hishtadlus. (problem number 1023 in chareidi hashkafa is the reduction of hishdutlus to the spiritual realm and the ignoring of the need for good ol' physical hishtadlus COMBINED with Torah learning and prayer. The lack of balance in life is a major source of human suffering)

5:06 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

aaaahhh, but if the aveira IS the rejection of our national life and our land, then the midda keNeged mida becomes even more clear. Perhaps the "heresy" was in the rejection of our need of a national home and national life in favor of a warped unnatural existence in exile. (hey, its not me, its Eim HaBanim Smeicha).

Depends on how you learn the sources vis-a-vis 3 Oaths, the way we are meant to return en masse from exile to EY, and the like. We could go around and around on this one, as we have in the past, for a very long time. I haven't the patience.

This post inevitably leads down the path of lifting the blame from the enemies, even with your introduction.

That's ridiculous. Do you not blame Titus just because the zealots didn't listen to the Rabbanim?

I would have thought that 2000 years of such an approach and about 10,000,000 dead later, that the oilam would have learned the complete and utter failure of that paradigm.

You're assuming that 6,000,000 of those were due to not being militant enough, which, some of my point is, is highly debatable. The Seforno says openly that the Beis HaMikdash would not have been destroyed had the zealots followed the path of Yaakov Avinu in his dealings with Esav. The Rambam advocates this approach in Iggeres Taimon. The Ramban and Rabbeinu Bachye say that this is the correct approach in Galus.

But it is degrading, as Galus inherently is, and hence tempting to jettison. It is important to remember that your approach is the more enticing, and mine the more sobering and even depressing. But it may be that that is what the doctor ordered in the lead-up to WWII, and the zealots failed to listen to the Gedolim who favored moderation.

5:07 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

You're quoting that the Rambam says that while they were in Eretz Yisrael during the first Beis HaMikdash with the Neviim telling them what to do that instead of learning how to fight, they spent their time with idiotic astrology pursuits, and trying to compare that with '33 Europe???

That correct comparison would be, perhaps, if the IDF officers would be teaching Nostradamus instead of having target practice.

5:12 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

You're assuming that 6,000,000 of those were due to not being militant enough, which, some of my point is, is highly debatable.

I am not even talking about that. You are the one who is suggesting that them being more MODERATE would have saved lives. I am saying that the vast majority of Jewish history does not support that contention. For sure, the crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, and massacares that happened before the holocaust are not the fualt of the Zionists. So why hand this particular tragety on their sholdiers when they are pretty much the only ones who came up with the tools to sidestep the storm.

As far as the 3 oaths are concerned. I am not so interested in rehashing that either but the fact remains that most gedolei olam were not choshesh to this issue at all. To me it is a red herring and an absurd proposition that Hashem killed 6 million because they didn't follow a particular "halacha" which didn't even make it into any major code in the rishonim and got very limited play in the achronim.

The real issue is whether we are informed by Jewish history or not. The chareidim are increasingly rejecting the play of any of the natural disciplines in Torah matters. This includes history. Rav Kook, Rav Soloveitchic took a much more holistic approach to hashkafa. To me, Rav Kook was able to see what was coming, not because of "luck", but rather because he was one of the only gedolim to come up with a philosophy of history which enabled him to analyze the modern world. This is totaly lacking in the chareidi world. You can come up with as many supernatural "what if" scenarios that you like but proper hindsight analysis should conclude that there is something profound to learn from those gedolim who rejected the applicability of the 3 oaths and thus were able to give their followers the proper halachic and hashkafic advise.

If you think the issue of the 3 oaths is so clear, zai gezunt, but don't expect to convince many people with something hanging on such a loose base.

(Also, the Rambam is writing in the context of defining AZ as that which distracts you from the natural order of the world in favor of supernatural gimicks which will "magically" save you - that being the case, I think it is very apropos)

5:35 PM  
Blogger David Guttmann said...

>What is 100% clear, in my view, is that this irrational, bloodthirsty, sick, vengeful, sadistic murderous Europe-wide mega-pogrom was not due to the political and military powerlessness of the Jews, but due to the severity of the Aveiros committed by Jews. To suggest otherwise borders on heresy

How dare you indict Kedoshim? Blame the victim? yes it was the sin of the leaders who did not encourage their flock to leave. At best you can say "Meishiv Chachomim Ochor" at worst you can say that sin'as chinom that caused Churban Bayis sheni caused Hurban Europa, but please dont blame Klala Ysroel , the victims!

5:49 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

You can come up with as many supernatural "what if" scenarios that you like but proper hindsight analysis should conclude that there is something profound to learn from those gedolim who rejected the applicability of the 3 oaths and thus were able to give their followers the proper halachic and hashkafic advise.

There is nothing heebie-jeebie-ish about the approach of Reb Elchonon or HaRav Shach.

It was the Chafetz Chaim himself in '33 who said "UVehar Tzion Tihyeh Peleita". The Ponovizher Rav and Reb Elchonon adopted his words from then on.

The 3 Oaths have nothing to do with individuals going to Eretz Yisrael, and much more to do with wresting it by force, militancy, and demagoguery.

came up with the tools to sidestep the storm.

because they helped to create it and extend its reach, in order to further their "(non-Charedi-dregs-of-society-) Jews in Palestine only" campaign.

That point is virtually indisputable - that the Labor Zionists had a vested interest in the undesirables getting killed.

5:51 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

sin'as chinom

Why is this not blaming the victim?

5:53 PM  
Blogger David Guttmann said...

Re the letter to Chachmei Marseilles Chardal is correct. The Gedolim did not believe in astrology and kishuf, but were misled by their very limited and myopic outlook. yes they were racked with superstitions and nonsensical fears. Tell me was it easier to create Torah in EY and US after the holocaust rather than before? Would it have been prescient of them had they sent their Talmidim to EY and America to build Mosdos before the Tzoros started?

The worst of it is that the current crop of Gedolim are no better. They take from the medinah, but give nothing back.

This nonsense about Shalosh Shevuos is just that nonsense. Anyone reading the Kunteres Shalosh Shevuos and Vayoel Moshe can immediately see it is almost a Leitzonus. He mixes agaadeta drush and stam narishketin together for an almost incomprehensible stew of nonsense.

6:01 PM  
Blogger David Guttmann said...

>Why is this not blaming the victim?

True some of the leaders were victims though others, especially the chassidishe once made it out without their flock. However the blame falls on the leaders at the end of the day. Blaming the flock is cruel.

6:04 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Would it have been prescient of them had they sent their Talmidim to EY and America to build Mosdos before the Tzoros started?

Yes. So? You blame them for lacking the clairvoyant knowledge that Rommel would leave at Al-Alamein to go to fight on the Russian front?

This nonsense about Shalosh Shevuos is just that nonsense. Anyone reading the Kunteres Shalosh Shevuos and Vayoel Moshe can immediately see it is almost a Leitzonus. He mixes agaadeta drush and stam narishketin together for an almost incomprehensible stew of nonsense.

Actually, the responses to the 3 Oaths are very very weak in my view.
a) "Agadeta" - narishkeit. The Beis Yosef must Pasken from Medrash 100 times.

b) "Not brought by Poskim" - narishkeit. The Rashbash, Rivash, Piskei Riaz, and others bring it LeHalacha. And the Rambam brings it in Iggeres Taimon.

c) In Iggeres Taimon it is a "Mashal" - Narishkeit. He says "Al Derech Mashal" meaning just that Shlomo didn't actually gather the nation together and make them all swear. That's the only Mashal. He strongly warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths. The VaYoel Moshe's response regarding why it is not in Mishneh Torah is actually quite brilliant.


d) "Mitigated by Rav Meir Simcha" - narishkeit. He just said that if the British would hand it over on a silver platter as promised by the Balfour Declaration then "Sar Pachad HaShevu'os". Didn't happen that way.

Rav Hirsch and the Ben Ish Chai held from the Shevuos.

Rav Aharon Kotler and Rav Elchonon also held from the Shevuos, as clear from their statements regarding the voting in the Agudah in '37 in terms of whether a State should be established. They held even if it was run by the Chafetz Chaim it would be Assur.

The Steipler Gaon says that the establishment of the State was "Mistama Shelo KaDin" based on the 3 Oaths.

What I do accept, unlike the frumteens website, is that once the State is established, as RHS writes, it is no worse than a man having Bi'ah with an Eishes Ish and bringing forth a Mamzer - who is no less a Jewish child and should be protected as such. I do not buy the apologetics that the Steipler says "Lichorah" there is no violation. He says he simply does not understand the Taanah of the Satmar Rebbe regarding the 3 Oaths and the elections. No "Lichorah"s about it. Lichorah means, for the Steipler, I'm pretty sure this is true unless you prove the opposite. And he actively campaigned for participation in the elections.

The superstition comparison is just completely out of place.

6:19 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

True some of the leaders were victims though others, especially the chassidishe once made it out without their flock. However the blame falls on the leaders at the end of the day. Blaming the flock is cruel.

Why, only the greatest Tannaim were guilty of Sinas Chinam in Bayis Sheini, and only the Neviim were guilty of the Shalosh Chamuros in Bayis Rishon?

Of course not all victims were guilty, and some were very righteous. But there was something wrong, in a Klal sense, and many, many individuals suffered. "Keivan SheNitan Reshus LaMashchis, Eino Mavchin Bein Tzaddikim LaReshaim" (Bava Kamma 60).

6:23 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

The 3 Oaths have nothing to do with individuals going to Eretz Yisrael, and much more to do with wresting it by force, militancy, and demagoguery.

When it is used, through unnecessary svaros, to block klal Israel's attempt to regain a national life, it is destructive.

Why are you bringing the standard list of right-wing deep chareidi gedolim (except for Rav Hirsh and the Ben Ish Chai, the former never employs them directly) to prove the 3 oaths. I never denied they supported this misguided approach. That is what this discussion is about.

When everyone from the Gaon of Vilna, to the Gerre Rebbe, to Rav Eliyahu Guttmacher, to Rav E. Spektor are not choshesh to an aggadata that they felt goes against an halacha pesuka, I find it hard to hang the holocaust on such a sin, sue me.

What you are also forgetting is that the Moetzet in 37 and then later in 47 OUTVOTED the gedolim you site and the decision was to support yeshuv haaretz and the state. The fact that the chareidim decide to only canonize the most extreme gedolim while writing out of history or revising the rest is not leShevach. Even if ALL of agguda felt this way and did not send a representative to sign the Israeli declaration of independence (Rabbi Levine), it would still not matter because we are discussing a fundamental machloket.

Also, you misunderstand the Rambam's whole approach to geula in general (as did the Satmar Rav). The fact is, he DOES NOT include any mention of the 3 oaths in the Yad. He saw it the same way the meshech chochma saw it (another enthusiastic supporter of Zionism), as a part of the natural condition of galus, which needs to be considered as part of reality, not as an halacha or even as a supernatural force. If he felt it was a din, he would of included it in the yad, as he did all other halachas.

The Beis Yosef must Pasken from Medrash 100 times.

Yes, but he does not pasken this aggadeta, and neither does any major rishon that we use for framing halachic decisions. Using the three oaths as an issue is the halachic equivalent of Prof. Zohar trying to reinstate pilegesh. You can find some source, but in the end, it is still a very bad idea.

6:40 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Not brought by Poskim" - narishkeit. The Rashbash, Rivash, Piskei Riaz, and others bring it LeHalacha. And the Rambam brings it in Iggeres Taimon.

And I said, not brought in any major code. You will find support for almost any halachic position somewhere in the shu"ts, even a pilegesh (and that one is in some codes).

Iggeret Teiman - a polemic to try and save a community from a false prophet and from imminent danger - not an halachic work and the Rambam does not bring it in.

Rivash

Can be interpreted as a conception of a mitigating factor in reality. In fact, he only brings it in the context of galut bavel where the political opening of the gates was the sign that the unnatural situation is over, the same thing happened then that happened now, the gedolim did not listen to Ezra and the geula was tragically postponed.

I don't remember the other ones off hand but I am not bothered by a couple of shu"ts in the face of the Ramban's formulation of the mitzva of yeshuv haAretz which is the messorah which I follow and is practically impossible to square away with the three oaths as an halachic force.

In other words, the IMHO, the price you pay halachicaly by being choshesh for the 3 oaths (as an halacha and not as a midrash describing a unnatural reality) is much greater than the price you pay for ignoring the whole national mitzva of yeshuv haaretz as formulation by the Ramban.

All this is not even the point. To suggest that such an unclear sugya is the cause of death of 6 million Jews is offensive to say the least. (as is the attempt of the forces which advance it to see all the miracles of the past 50 years as some sort of supernatural maase Satan)

6:57 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

To suggest that such an unclear sugya is the cause of death of 6 million Jews is offensive to say the least.

I didn't do so. But I doubt calling Rav Aharon Kotler "deep Charedi" is accurate, and I am certain that the Meshech Chochmah held of the Shevu'os (the narishkeit about "Pachad" meaning non-Halachic Galus Matzav notwithstanding. "Ki Yareisi Pen Ekashel Chas VeSholom BaAvon Nedarim" is a Halachic fear).

That said, I don't know where the certainty comes from that the Maharal,the Rambam, and R' Yonasan Eibeschutz, who all openly admonish against violation of the Oaths in no uncertain terms,with dire consequences, are just being offensive.

I am offended that a majority of Shevet Efraim was knocked off for it.

I am offended that the Bar Kochva bloodbath was because of an illusory Messiah and unwarranted militancy.

I am offended that Lashon Hara is Shakul Kenegged the 3 Chamuros and caused the Churban Bayis and all the Tzaros since then.

I am offended by Galus, to be honest. What's it my fault? It's a Chutzpah to blame me, a victim of Galus, for Galus.

Also, you misunderstand the Rambam's whole approach to geula in general (as did the Satmar Rav)

I beg to differ, but that's fine.

He saw it the same way the meshech chochma saw it (another enthusiastic supporter of Zionism), as a part of the natural condition of galus, which needs to be considered as part of reality, not as an halacha or even as a supernatural force.

That is so much dreying around read into the Meshech Chochmah. Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky testifies that he saw a letter from the Meshech Chochmah himself that he is highly concerned that all the Yishuv Eretz Yisrael talk would cause Klal Yisrael to lose their Emunah in Moshiach. (!)

8:29 PM  
Blogger chardal said...


That is so much dreying around read into the Meshech Chochmah


Whatever, he just supported all the Zionist endeavors, peshuto kemashmao.

I see no point arguing this with you. If you want to see the most complete treatment of the three oaths from a RZ perspective, see Rav Aviner's book on the matter.

If you want to see the most complete treatment of all the sources which bring it down as having halachic validity, don't use VaYoel moshe but rather the appendix in the back of Avi Ravitzki's book of Jewish messianism, it is a much more complete treatment.

In the end, if you are still convinced that the three oaths are an actual halachic issue (why are all the deep chareidim always concerned with that one oath but never with the one on how the nations should not oppress the Jewish people too much - amazing how their interpertation is always a one way street against the Jews) this is an issue, zei gezunt. To paraphrase what you always say about he CI: "Rav Kook Zt"l is good enough for me"

In the end, I will take the risk and follow the Ramban's command to conquer the land which is a milchemet mitzva beKol HaZemanim.

You can have the last word, although I doubt there is anything you can say to convince me.

8:51 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

I know there is nothing I can say that can convince you.

This whole discussion is a diversion anyhow from what I want to focus on, which is not on the theological side of things.

9:02 PM  
Anonymous ayhb said...

Shema,

You've lost me. Your cheshek to post on such a topic knowing full well that not only is the Halocho Teykoo, but that you WILL cause Agmas Nefesh and you WILL lower the exalted status of Kedoshim in the eyes of those who have read it. I wouldn't show my father any of your posts because he'd probably come and find you and strangle you with the power chord on your computer. Why? Because he is one of those who survived. You need to go and find a little hole and crawl into it.



One thing is Bori --- Good bye. I lasted a week. People, just get off this Bog Blog.

3:51 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

I don't force anyone to read my blog. I doubt that there are Holocaust survivors who do, and if there are, like I said, I apologize to them in advance.

It is actually with a distinct lack of Cheshek that I posted on this subject. It is only after a bashing job on the Gedolim on other sites that I felt that the other side of the debate should be heard.

If anyone feels offended, they should know that I do not place any blame on any victim or survivor personally.

7:21 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

The exalted status of the Kedoshim should remain intact in everyone's eyes. There is no reason that there be any dampening of the cognition of the simple fact that these beloved Jews, Kullam Ahuvim, died and suffered simply because they were Jews, and that makes them Kedoshim U'Tehorim.

7:35 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

Guttmann said,

This nonsense about Shalosh Shevuos is just that nonsense. Anyone reading the Kunteres Shalosh Shevuos and Vayoel Moshe can immediately see it is almost a Leitzonus. He mixes agaadeta drush and stam narishketin together for an almost incomprehensible stew of nonsense.

Maybe it will be comprehensible to you when you can learn a blatt gemara. From the way you describe the sefer, written by an acknowledged Torah Gaon, it is clear that you never opened its first page. And if you have, that only makes it more sad, as you clearly didn't understand a word of it.

8:36 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

Shema,

You've lost me. Your cheshek to post on such a topic knowing full well that not only is the Halocho Teykoo, but that you WILL cause Agmas Nefesh and you WILL lower the exalted status of Kedoshim in the eyes of those who have read it. I wouldn't show my father any of your posts because he'd probably come and find you and strangle you with the power chord on your computer. Why? Because he is one of those who survived. You need to go and find a little hole and crawl into it.
One thing is Bori --- Good bye. I lasted a week. People, just get off this Bog Blog.

(rant)

See ya' later. People post blogs about every single subject under the sun, most of which are hostile to Torah ideology. One can post that the Mabul never happened, the Avos never existed, and the Torah was written by a few people, and receive the adulation of the unwashed masses. One can post the Chareidism is akin to Talibanism, and the worst thing that ever happened to Klal Yisrael, and the hoi polloi will cheer you on with glee.

But post a bit of truth about the pre-48 Zionists, and everyone gets their panties in a bunch.

Well, here's the news ayhb: You're not the only one who lost family in the Holocaust, and yours isn't the only hashkafo of those who attempt to understand our national history. If the truth causes you "agmas nefesh," then you'll find plenty of other Blogs out there to enjoy. And if a frank discussion of these issues causes you to lose respect for the Kedoshim, then you really have more need to listen to this discussion than anyone.

Never apologize for telling the truth, Bari. Some will attack you for it, and others will try to silence in myriad ways. And if you get fed up and quit, then do so gracefully. But NEVER apologize for telling the truth. And don't pander to stupidity either. African-Americans are offended by the fact that the primary hard-drive in a computer is called a "master." There is no need to go out of your way to avoid the sensibilities of the perennially offended.

(/rant)

8:50 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Jak,

David g. can probably outlearn you in gemara any day of the week. And unlike you, at least he has a consistent derech in hashakafa. He goes in the derech of the Rambam as laid out in the Moreh and his other writings. That is more than I can say about the mishmash which passes for hashkafa in the circles you frequent.

8:53 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

Chardal,

As usual, you rely on ad hominem attacks. Of course, in a moment, you'll accuse me of attacking you too. Since you have no idea how well I can or cannot learn, and we've already seen how fit YOU are to judge a piece of Rashi, I suggest you quit while you're behind.

And God spare me from "Talmidim of the Rambam." How anybody can even say those words with a straight face is beyond me.

9:21 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

Chardal,

I'll add that it's classic of you to let slide audacious insults against a renowned Gadol, while taking umbrage at my defense of said Gadol. Pathetic, really.

9:28 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Since you have no idea how well I can or cannot learn

Only from your posts

and we've already seen how fit YOU are to judge a piece of Rashi

As well as the maharsha which is good enough for me.

And God spare me from "Talmidim of the Rambam."

Spoken like a true person who never seriously studied hashkafa (except for what his BT yeshiva spoon fed him)

9:36 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

As opposed to you, of course, who has studied so much hashkafa that he became a religious Zionist.

Again, you're making assumptions, and foolish ones at that.

9:46 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

As opposed to you, of course, who has studied so much hashkafa that he became a religious Zionist.

Again, you're making assumptions, and foolish ones at that.


Oh, yes, the person who believes that hashkafa is "Rav Moshe Shapiro says" is giving mussar.

The person who would do pilpulistic gimnastics to read a Rashi like the maharsha when the maharsha himself starts off by saying he is being cholek on rashi is giving mussar on learning.

You give me a break. Go back to whatever little seminary you teach at and continue warping 18 year old girls minds with warped doctorines of "emunat chachamim"

9:52 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

If I pointed out every bit of outright am ha'aratzis you displayed in your posts about redemption, I would be here all day.

If the worst thing you can say about my learning skills is that you don't like my peshat in a Rashi (which I spoke to numerous talmidei chachamim about, all of them greater than everyone on this blog put together, and all of whom agreed with my way of learning), then praise the Lord.

As for Rav Moshe Shapiro, a Gaon Adir who has every part of Torah on the tips of his fingers, if he says that the Kol Tor was tampered with, you can bet it was tampered with. You're darn right that I'll take him over anything that you can throw my way. When you know stand at the level of his toenail in learning, I'll sit at your feet and call you Rebbi. And I'll call it Emunas Chachamim to boot.

10:02 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

"when you know enough to stand," that is

10:03 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

Chardal,

Please take back your comparison of 3 Oaths to Pilegesh. Unless you can provide me with a list of Rishonim who openly say that we DO NOT Pasken the 3 Oaths, the analogy is fatally flawed.

10:24 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

As for Rav Moshe Shapiro, a Gaon Adir who has every part of Torah on the tips of his fingers, if he says that the Kol Tor was tampered with, you can bet it was tampered with. You're darn right that I'll take him over anything that you can throw my way. When you know stand at the level of his toenail in learning, I'll sit at your feet and call you Rebbi. And I'll call it Emunas Chachamim to boot.

When Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlop, a Gaon Adir who had every part of Torah on the tips of his fingers, says that the Kol Tor is amiso shel Torah, you can bet it was not tampered with. You're darn right that I'll take him over anything that you can throw my way. When you (or Rav Moshe Shapiro) stand at the level of his toenail in learning, I'll sit at your feet and call you Rebbi. And I'll call it Emunas Chachamim to boot.

I love appeals to authority. Especialy when it is so easily reversed.

11:33 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Please take back your comparison of 3 Oaths to Pilegesh. Unless you can provide me with a list of Rishonim who openly say that we DO NOT Pasken the 3 Oaths, the analogy is fatally flawed.

I think they just didn't imagine anyone would ever think it is an halacha.

When the kuzari basically says that the cherpa of the Jewish people is that they don't go up en-masse to EY, he is going against your conception of the 3 oaths. When the Ramban paskens a mitzva to conquer the land, he is doing the same.

Face it, it didn't make it into any standard code and those gedolim who disregarded it as a halacha had plenty of room to stand on.

11:37 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

(or Rav Moshe Shapiro) stand at the level of his toenail in learning, I'll sit at your feet and call you Rebbi.

Now you're an expert on Rav Moshe Shapiro's level of learning too. The audacity never ends, though I'm hardly surprised.

I'm still waiting for your defense of the Satmar Rav, by the way.

11:59 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Now you're an expert on Rav Moshe Shapiro's level of learning too. The audacity never ends, though I'm hardly surprised.

Just when someone makes an appeal to authority and a bigger godol says different.

I am sure he is a big talmid chacham, but I have not seen him produce anything of the stature of Mei Marom or Beit Zevul. Further, I am less than impressed with what I have seen of his talmidim.

12:13 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

BTW, I don't think either godol's opinion can decide whether or not it was tampered with. I just see no proof whatsoever that it was and I respect the Rivlin family and Rav charlop enough that they were not mezayef a whole book.

12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Calm down,rabosoi.Just from seeing the title of this posting I knew it would be inflamtory as RZ and RYBS are 2 things people feel so passiontly about that any percieved slight to thier honor makes their followers blood boil and much caution much be used when speaking about them.That being said even if you want to reject baris point it isn't kefirah like the other "respected" blogs.Let us unite and use our passion and stength to fight the megaloy ponim b'torah shlo khilcsho over there rather then a viewpoint some of us don't agree with is expressed.For all well meaning bloggers I as a simple baal habos request you focus on the issues that unite such as torah,emunoh,dikduk in halacha,tikkun hamidos and yiras shomaim rather then on the issues that divide us unless of course you are just illistrating where in shas and rishonim etc. your haskofos are based on without any kintur or unless you are fighting all the kefirah so prevelant on other blogs.

12:16 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

which I spoke to numerous talmidei chachamim about, all of them greater than everyone on this blog put together, and all of whom agreed with my way of learning

So you found a bunch of talmidei chachamim who agreed that you know how to learn Rashi better than the maharsha. Yashar koach

12:19 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

I think they just didn't imagine anyone would ever think it is an halacha.

Shvache Maases.

When the Ramban paskens a mitzva to conquer the land, he is doing the same.

Yet that Ramban does state this as the reason why those from outside Bavel did not go up in the times of Ezra.

Face it, it didn't make it into any standard code and those gedolim who disregarded it as a halacha had plenty of room to stand on.

Don't know. But be that as it may, it is still defined by many, many Rishonim and Acharonim as the Ratzon Hashem that we not disobey these oaths.

If you like, check out the Me'am Loez on Shir HaShirim, where he quotes the Medrash that Bar Kochva was a violation of the 3 Oaths, and although Rabbi Akiva helped Bar Kochva, that may have been b/c BK said he was Moshiach and was successful in his wars, so R"A believed in him.

But, the clear implication is, it is forbidden and risky in the extreme for a non-Moshiach figure to engage in BK type activities.

12:29 PM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

Further, I am less than impressed with what I have seen of his talmidim.

Pfft. His Talmidim are positively proactive, at the forefront of Torah education both in Israel and abroad. You have no idea what you're talking about, and your impressions are are as meaningless as they are inane.

12:34 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

check out the Me'am Loez on Shir HaShirim

I love it. Now we pasken from Meam Loez. Okeedokey

12:40 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

focus on the issues that unite such as torah,emunoh,dikduk in halacha,tikkun hamidos and yiras shomaim

Thank you, anonymous. While I will certainly continue to focus on the issues you mention, I do feel that when on other blogs the issue of blame on the Gedolim for the Holocaust comes up, it is important to underscore the truth about those who formed Kefirah groups that actively abrogated the advice of the Chachmei HaDor.

Many Gedolim, such as Rav Hutner, Rav Weissmandel, and Rav Avigdor Miller, felt it worthwhile to speak and even publish about this issue, and the discussion in the comments is actually primarily Halachic in nature.

My purpose is not to alienate, C"V, it is to provide a different perspective.

Along the lines of what Jak Black pointed out: there is a sense of camaraderie when discussing the denial of Yesodos Emunah, which is, in my view, in its pervasive dispassionate nature, quite icky.

So there is no rational reason why discussions such as this should ignite Sin'ah, other than misplaced priorities by those who cannot deal with it.

12:42 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Yet that Ramban does state this as the reason why those from outside Bavel did not go up in the times of Ezra.


Yes, and Rabbi Zeira, the teacher of the oaths accepted mussar from a storekeeper who would not deal with him becasue those people didn't make a choma and come to EY thereby bringing the final geula.

All you prove is that people are so caught up in the oaths that they will not even listen to a Navi telling them to get our of galus.

12:45 PM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

Bari -

How about a separate post about the oaths? Don't forget to mention the Maharal if you do.

12:46 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

All you prove is that people are so caught up in the oaths that they will not even listen to a Navi telling them to get our of galus.

The Ramban cites it as the reason with no criticism of that behavior.

And no, I don't intend to show that we Pasken from Me'am Loez (though I knew you would misconstrue it that way, since you think even major Acharonim say dumb things about the Oaths, so I wouldn't think I might be exempted of being thought a novice text reader. Sigh.)

My intent was that you shouldn't be offended by statements to the effect that violation of the Oaths, causes, in a very practical sense, massive loss of life.

How about a separate post about the oaths?

Ein Li Koach. What I can say is that the frumteens moderator [ yes, that 'villain' of the J-blogs ;) ] has done a very good job debunking the arguments of those who say the Oaths are inapplicable for any variety of less-than-scholarly reasons.

As I said, I disagree with some of his polemics on the issue, but he shreds Rav Aviner's arguments into confetti.

12:55 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

My intent was that you shouldn't be offended by statements to the effect that violation of the Oaths, causes, in a very practical sense, massive loss of life.

I am not and I have no problem understanding the oaths as a force in reality but not as an halacha and certainly not as a formulation of an halacha that would proclude the Jewish people returning en-masse to our homeland.

As far as the Ramban is concerned, he paskens the yeshuv EY is a milchemet mitzva with all of its implications and said that this is so for all generations. The fact that he gives the oaths as the reason the Jews of bavel did not return should not be interpreted as approval since in general chazal had pretty hard words for those Jews as did many rishonim.

Once again, whatever "frumkeit" you gain by worrying about the three oaths is undone by what you lose.

but he shreds Rav Aviner's arguments into confetti.

Nurishkeit. Rav Aviner undoes the oaths beautifully in 13 different ways, each of which can stand on its own. Frumteens just regurgitates vaYoel moshe is a manner as unconvincing as the original.

Amazing how all the gedolim who supported Rav Kalisher and the Chovevei Zion. The greatest gedolim of their generation were not concerned about this, but a bunch of hungarian chassidim are able to push a background idea into the chareidi mainstream. The mind boggles.

1:16 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Frumteens just regurgitates vaYoel moshe is a manner as unconvincing as the original.

You either haven't read his point by point demolition or you're blinded by the sheer numbers. He SCRUNCHED Rav Aviner's proofs.

Amazing how all the gedolim who supported Rav Kalisher

Actually, Rav Kalisher himself writes about being concerned about the 3 Oaths. I'll see if I can get you the exact source on that. It was backgroung because it wasn't LeMaaseh.

1:21 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Meaning, it was background until then b/c it wasn't really LaMaaseh since then.

1:22 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Where have the chareidim fallen. Rav Sarna zt"l used to turn a blind eye to Rav Perush and his friends fighting as part of the lechi underground.

Rav Aryeh Levine would sneak communications in and out of prisons.

And today, everyone is always worried about oaths which are probably only a product of our own psyche (per the izbitzer, rav tzaddok, and rav Kook).

1:24 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Meaning, it was background until then b/c it wasn't really LaMaaseh since then.

Setting up an entire movement to settle the EY and create a political entity there is not leMaase againt the Satmar conception of the oaths????

1:26 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

I have read the frumteens on this and it is basically a bunch a sevaras which start from the POV they try to prove and then a bunch of strong assertions (eg "his diyuk is not a diyuk). Rav Aviner has a source for almost every line of his kuntress and he demonstrates beautifuly how the vast majority of gedolei olam did not concieve of the three oaths in any mannter approaching the Satmar approach. But I forgot, on this blog, Satmar is mainstream, just a little to the right. Not an extreme ideology invented this century as a response to modernity and Jewish nationalism.

1:35 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

And today, everyone is always worried about oaths which are probably only a product of our own psyche (per the izbitzer, rav tzaddok, and rav Kook).

Yeah. A million dead Jews in the times of Bar Kochva was probably a figment of our imagination too. That's what happens when you start dreying around in Chassidus that 99.9% of people today aren't well-grounded enough in to understand. Hence the great attraction to it by the RZ.

Baba Sali was, though, and he loved VaYoel Moshe. How d'ya like that.

Setting up an entire movement to settle the EY and create a political entity there is not leMaase againt the Satmar conception of the oaths????

Who was considering it LeMaaseh?

Not an extreme ideology invented this century as a response to modernity and Jewish nationalism.

That's like saying the Chafetz Chaim invented Hilchos Lashon Hara as a response to serious breaches in Shmiras HaLashon.

1:42 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Yeah. A million dead Jews in the times of Bar Kochva was probably a figment of our imagination too.

Only if you say it was because of the three oaths to begin with!!!

There are like a million other reasons given for why this failed, the vast majority having nothing to do with the oaths.

Who was considering it LeMaaseh?

The covevei zion who went there to create a state! (en masse, I might add)

1:48 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Only if you say it was because of the three oaths to begin with!!!

Um. The Medrash Shir HaShirim says so. Or did I imagine that?

The covevei zion who went there to create a state!

That's more or less the Tekufah we're talking about.

1:53 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Hence the great attraction to it by the RZ.

I think what you really mean is "hashkafos we don't yet know how to twist so they fit with the Satmar derech but said by gedolim who we don't yet want to write out of history", hence the avoidance by the chareidim of such hashkafic works. (actualy, come to think of it, this must also be why chareidim are against the learning of the rationalist rishonim's philosophic works such as the Moreh.)

1:53 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

The Medrash Shir HaShirim says so. Or did I imagine that?

Don't remember, but it would not be the first time rishonim went against a midrash. So what?

That's more or less the Tekufah we're talking about.

And the covevei zion got the support of the greatest gedolim of their era!

1:55 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

The Netziv, Rav Moholiver, Rav Spektor, Malbim, Rav Alkalai, Rav Guttmacher, they were twisting the Torah to get around a real halachic problem????

1:56 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

The Rashbash also only says the oaths are a hinderence. That is, a force in reality, not in din.

2:18 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Several influential Rabbis, including Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, who taught at the time at the prestigious Berlin Rabbinerseminar, opposed the boycott and the anti-German propaganda that accompanied it, both of which they saw as dangerous and irresponsible. The American historian Marc Shapiro writes that a considerable number of rabbinic authorities, including Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky, Rav Elchanan, and the Satmar Rebbe, rejected the boycott as an attitude contrary to Jewish tradition.

And Rav Yehuda Leib Zirelson Zt"l disagreed, of course he too was written out of the pantheon of chareidi gedolim.

9:01 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

The Rashbash also only says the oaths are a hinderence. That is, a force in reality, not in din.

Yes, this is typical RZ drey which they would NEVER EVER use if the same language were said about moving to Eretz Yisrael. It is quite pathetic, to be honest. It's poor scholarship to fit a square peg in a round hole.

And,WADR to Rav Tzirelson, a great Gaon to be sure, it is a chuckle-inducing proposition to think that his position should carry more weight than the Rashkabaha"g, the greatest Talmid of the Chafetz Chaim, and Rav YY Weinberg. Really, it is plain as day that the great leaders of Klal Yisrael opposed it.

I realize that the 'chucking' of the Gedolim of Europe is a cornerstone of RZ Hashkafa, and that you will probably find it very difficult to rid yourself of that half-smirk attitude which really runs through alot of your comments, if you look at them carefully, so continued discussion in this matter is rather pointless.

10:59 PM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

And Rav Yehuda Leib Zirelson Zt"l disagreed, of course he too was written out of the pantheon of chareidi gedolim.

As opposed to the religious Zionists (and certain others,) who decide who belongs in the pantheon of gedolim based on their opinions regarding Eretz Yisrael.

For example, anyone with brains in their head understands that although the Satmar Rav was a da'as yachid, he was a huge Gadol. Yet here we have people on this blog with the audacity to write "Anyone reading the Kunteres Shalosh Shevuos and Vayoel Moshe can immediately see it is almost a Leitzonus. He mixes agaadeta drush and stam narishketin together for an almost incomprehensible stew of nonsense." Why not just admit that he was a Gadol, but a da'as yachid. Same goes for Rav Kook, though obviously you delude yourself into thinking his opinions were mainstream.

Isn't it funny how relatively obscure Talmidei Chachamim, fine people though they were, are proclaimed to be "Gedolei Olam" once they weigh in with the RZ-PC opinion?

4:41 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

Why not just admit that he was a Gadol, but a da'as yachid.

The Satmar Rebbe was a Da'as Yachid in terms of participation in elections and overall vehemence, but in terms of the essential attitude toward the Medinah, he was joined by the Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish, HaRav Shach, Rav Kotler and others.

To be certain, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz, Rav Dessler, Rav Gustman and others apparently did not share the same negative attitude.

I have no problem at all with people taking either approach. In light of what I have learned about how the State came into being on the backs of the Holocaust victims, my enthusiasm is severely hampered, but I can't fault people for not thinking like me, as long as they have all the facts and are willing to view things open-mindedly.

It's a shame that the focus has been on the theology, which is really not what I wanted to underscore.

7:28 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

And about the Chovevei Tzion, you'd have to show that this movement represented an ideology of a tidal wave of immigration, not the equivalent a Nefesh B'Nefesh planeload or three.

And clearly, the use of force to accomplish this was not advocated by the Netziv and others.

7:40 AM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

The Satmar Rebbe was a Da'as Yachid in terms of participation in elections and overall vehemence

I was mostly referring to his attitude AFTER the foundation of the State, but yes, you're right.

8:06 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

his position should carry more weight than the Rashkabaha"g, the greatest Talmid of the Chafetz Chaim,

Please, I don't think R E. Wasserman got any one of his ideas through the moetzet and was roundly rejected in his zealosnous and attempt to redefine nationhood our of Judaism by Rav Chaim Ozer and the Chazon Ish.

You guys are trapped in chareidi-land where the various hagiographies/historical revisionsims make you think you have a clue as to what the world was like 80 years ago. So keep living in your fantasy world and don't forget, daas Torah nad emunat chachamim only apply to people from the CI to the right.

8:29 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

The Satmar Rebbe was a Da'as Yachid in terms of participation in elections and overall vehemence


Ya, that why satmar chassidim had to forge an entire book of forged letters to make it seem like all the gedolim in thr pre-state era were choshesh to the three oaths. Please! There was the Satmar Rebbe, the Munchacher, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Its is rivisionist and dishonest to say otherwise

8:31 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

And BTW, I am aware some gedolim felt the oaths were halachic but at the same time inapplicable to Zionism as a movement. That is not what I am talking about.

9:14 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

There was the Satmar Rebbe, the Munchacher, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Its is rivisionist and dishonest to say otherwise

That's just not true. Reb Elchonon quotes the 3 Oaths, the Chazon Ish ordered his Talmid to disseminate BeIkvesa DiMeshicha in Hebrew with no changes to it at all, Rav Aharon Kotler said at the Marienbad convention that even if the State had the CC at its head, it would still be a violation, and the Steipler writes that the establishment of the State was "Mistama Shelo KaDin" in light of the 3 Oaths.

9:27 AM  
Anonymous me said...

"Amazing how all the gedolim who supported Rav Kalisher and the Chovevei Zion.

The covevei zion who went there to create a state! (en masse, I might add"

Chovevei tzion was trying to found a state?! They were individuals going in groups to settle, but not essentially different than any other individual settlers who'd gone to E"Y. Those who supported chovevei tzion were supporting YISHUV E"Y, not a state.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.

2:13 AM  
Anonymous me said...

"The Satmar Rebbe was a Da'as Yachid in terms of participation in elections and overall vehemence, but in terms of the essential attitude toward the Medinah, he was joined by the Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish, HaRav Shach, Rav Kotler and others.

To be certain, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz, Rav Dessler, Rav Gustman and others apparently did not share the same negative attitude."

Can you characterize how R Shmuelevitz, R Dessler and R Gustman related differently to the state? Are you pointing to some difference pre-1948 or only post-1948, once the state was a done deal.

Thanks.

2:14 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

Post.

Rav Dessler writes positive things about the State as having potential, Rav Gustman had very warm feelings about having a Jewish army defending the Jewish people, and Rav Shmuelevitz writes about the Hakaras HaTov we should have about the positives. (I don't remember the specifics of what he underscores though, I'll see what I can find).

7:37 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

I misquoted the Steipler earlier. He does not say "Mistama Shelo Kadin" He says" Bevadai Mitchila Hayah Shelo Kadin".

2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Rav Dessler writes positive things about the State as having potential, Rav Gustman had very warm feelings about having a Jewish army defending the Jewish people, and Rav Shmuelevitz writes about the Hakaras HaTov we should have about the positives. (I don't remember the specifics of what he underscores though, I'll see what I can find)."

My point is that this is all consistent with Aguda thought and even thte thought of most of those you cite, provided that it's post 48. Is there any evidence that these people viewed the zionist enterprise pre48 positively?

I make a big distinction between attitudes pre and post 48, because that is where the whole 3 shavuos come in.

4:06 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

I said, first word of that comment - post.

9:08 AM  
Anonymous Steve Brizel said...

Let's try discussing these issues thru history and its lessons. FWIW, your approach to the three oaths ignores the simple factor that they were aggadic in nature, and repudiated as having any relevance by none less than the Ohr Samneach as stated in Hatekufah HaGdolah.

Try this approach-Hitler, Yemach shmo, from the day that he published Mein Kamph, made no secret that he was out to render Europe Judenrein. His ideology was viewed by some with alarm and dismissed by the majority of assimilated Western Jewry and the Torah world as just another crackpot's mouthing off and nowhere as bad as Communisim. Even after Hitler's election, we see Agudah leaders and the Sredei Aish offering letters of mazal tov and cooperation, etc.

While it is easy to blame Zionism for the rise of Hitler or the Shoah, the facts are that many of the Gdolim discouraged any participation in the very organizations that would have enabled them to have more than a 6% share of entry visas to EY. One can only wonder about those Gdolim and Admorim who assured their followers that all would be well and then fled as the first Panzers, Stukas and SS burned shuls , etc.

While immigration to the US was curtailed as a result of the draconian immigration laws of the 1920s, only a few visionaries among the Gdolim ( RCS) viewed the US as having potential for Torah prior to that time, as opposed to viewing it as the treife medinah. Even after the Holocaust was well underway, none less tnan R E Wasserman ZTL , HaShem Yimkam Damo advised his talmidim to refuse visas that provided them positions at RIETS and HTC-viewing spiritual danger as far worse than physical danger. Yet, the Brisker Rav , RAK and the Mirrer RY, Zicronam Livracha knew that staying in Europe was not feasible and rebuilt Torah in EY and the US. .

We also know that the Arabs, just like their Nazi benefactors, made no distinction between Jews . It is simply revisionist fantasy to assume that Mufti was a closet Ohev Yisrael.

Where the Zionists were correct, as RYBS pointed out in Chamesh Drashos, was their recognition that Europe had become untenable as a long term home in the wake of the development of secular anti Zionism, the Dreyfus case and the rise of Nazism , Fascism and Communism.

8:08 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Let's try discussing these issues thru history and its lessons. FWIW, your approach to the three oaths ignores the simple factor that they were aggadic in nature, and repudiated as having any relevance by none less than the Ohr Samneach as stated in Hatekufah HaGdolah.

This point is all I have time to address (briefly) right now - The 3 Oaths being 'Aggadic in nature', and therefore inapplicable in any real sense, is, in my view, ridiculous. See Rivash, Rashbash, Piskei Riaz, all the way down to even the TZITZ ELIEZER (vol. 7) that the 3 Oaths were absolutely binding all the way to 1948. The Beis Yosef must pasken from Medrash 100 times.
Rabbi Bleich's contention on this particular point is far more convincing, in my view.

The Ohr Sameach is completely misconstrued. He said that if the State were to be handed over on a silver platter, as indicated by the Balfour decl., then "the fear of the Oaths has departed". But, as we both know, it didn't go down that way at all.

Where I do agree with RHS' treatment of the 3 Oaths in BeIkvei HaTzon, unlike the Satmar Rebbe zt"l, is that they are inoperative post 1948.

8:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Web Site Hit Counters
SonyStyle.com Coupon