ZIONISM-----holocaust and safe haven

-

canberra Posted - 31 May 2005 12:55

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about the fact that contravening the oaths should be allowed because of pikuach nefesh.

After the holocaust many Jews would have died had they not been allowed into Israel. I realize that it was the Zionist fault that in many cases they weren't let in to other countries but these were secular Zionists.

Once this post facto had occurred a state may be considered necessary because of pikuach nefesh. what’s your opinion mod?

MODERATOR Posted - 31 May 2005 13:07

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the state of Israel has caused the Arabs to become terrible bloodthirsty enemies of the Jews (see Five Addresses, Rabbi JB Soloveitchik p. 79 - even he admits this), has had one war every 10 years on the average, and a total of about 25,000 Jews killed. I don’t see that saving lives.

Currently, the State of Israel is the most dangerous place for a Jew's safety in all the places that Jews live all over the world - more people have been killed there than everywhere else put together since its inception. It also creates more danger for Jews all over the world due to the hisgarus be'umos and resultant anti-Semitism. It is a Zionist dream that the State of Israel "saves" Jewish lives. All we have seen so far is the opposite.

That's al pi derech hatevah. And Chazal say, too, that the only way for Jews to stay safe in Golus is to keep a low profile and submit to the nations. It is a direct Kefirah against Chazal to believe that what Chazal say endangers Jews actually saves them, and vice versa.

Plus, Chazal say that the greatest danger to Jews - and by that I mean the most horrific annihilation of Jewish lives described in any of our Holy Seforim - comes from violating the Oaths. "I will allow your flesh to be hunted down like animals in the fields", is the result of violating the Oath, Chazal say. Hardly something that one would do to save lives.

So unless you can establish (and you cant, because the opposite is true) that the State of Israel is actually a pikuach nefesh necessity, your question doesn’t start.

But for the record, the Maharal writes that violating the Oaths is Yehoreg V’al Yaavor. So even if let's say the Goyim threaten to kill us unless we violate the Oaths, the Maharal says we should still allow ourselves to be killed rather than violate them.

MODERATOR Posted - 31 May 2005 13:10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS - Not that this is necessary, but pikuach nefesh does not justify violating any issur unless you can establish either:

(a) a current, measurable and real danger now, or

(b) a real and tangible and looming danger in the future. But to say "well in case there’s another holocaust we have to be Michael Shabbos now" is not a halachicly valid claim.

We do not break any issurim even for pikuach nefesh because of "in case". You need an actual sakanah.