For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)


ZIONISM / RELIGIOUS-----why is it wrong


ab Posted - 20 November 2001 17:29

Why is Religious Zionism wrong?

MODERATOR Posted - 20 November 2001 20:40

Because it violates the Torah's command for us not to have governmental control over Eretz Yisroel until Moshiach comes. The punishment for making a State of Israel, the Gemora says, is that Hashem will allow our "flesh to be hunted down like animals in the field."

Not good.

Also, the Zionist ideas that having our own land and our own language makes us more of a "nation" (found in religious Zionist literature, such as Eisenstein's Encyclopedia) is heresy since it implies that Klall Yisroel's status as a nation is effected by things other than the fact that they have a Torah.

e Posted - 28 November 2001 15:36

but acc. to the torah is eretz yisrael not a holy land our homeland and a land which has great value to us and is not just a "land"?

danny Posted - 28 November 2001 15:36

According to R' Berel Wein, following the Beilis blood libel case which occurred in Kiev, many Jews, including chassidim (chassidim more than misnagdim) joined the Zionist movement in order to seek a homeland and be rid of the oppression which plagued them for the last 2 millennia. Apparently, they didn't think it was against the Torah to have a homeland.

MODERATOR Posted - 28 November 2001 16:41

Those Jews weren't the Torah authorities, and they don’t prove anything. Everyone knows that the Zionists were once regular Jews - after all, Zionism was a new movement.

But even those Jews did not give much thought to the Halachic ramifications. As you point out, their conversion to Zionism came after death and destruction by the hands of Goyim. The promise of freedom and protection from anti-Semitism, perhaps even the end of anti-Semitism, and - this was the word the Zionists used - "normalization" of Judaism - was a powerful carrot that pulled many religious Jews over to the side of Zionism. It was hardly an objective Halachic decision.

The fact remains that except for the Mizrachi, all the Torah leaders were against creating the State of Israel, and that the Mizrachi has not come close to even beginning to answer the Halachic claims leveled against them.

MODERATOR Posted - 28 November 2001 16:45


Yes it is. But it was no less holy when the Turks owned it. It is not the holiness of the land that is the question, but rather the prohibition our creating a Jewish sovereign government in that holy land that is the problem.

Eretz Yisroel is not the issue. The State of Israel is. Those are two totally different things. Southern Lebanon, actually, is part of Eretz Yisroel, and is just as holy as anywhere within the State's borders.

e Posted - 29 November 2001 15:00

okay I understand now I think. you mean physically its holy but politically it gets problematic?

MODERATOR Posted - 29 November 2001 18:14

Pretty much. The land is holy; the fact that the holy land was made into a Jewish State is wrong.

cz Posted - 10 December 2001 20:22

What about the chovevei zion movement?

The Netziv was a leader in that movement and he certainly was a respected gadol.

Their intention besides mass emigration to EY was to "force the hand of G-d" to bring moshiach this was based on the opinion of the gra that an "awakening below will create an awakening above" .

How was this allowed?

Also how many oaths are there? it seems from the gemara there are 3 + shelo yidchak es haketz.

MODERATOR Posted - 10 December 2001 20:35

The Netziv wasn’t a leader of Chovevei Tzion, though he was a supporter in many aspects, in the beginning of its inception. But not all. He was very much against selling the land for Shmitah for instance.

But the entire movement was not to make a Jewish State but rather for individuals to settle the land. The Netziv never took the position that settling the land was going to "force Hashem's hand", and neither did the GRA, by the way. The Netziv was in favor of individuals living in Eretz Yisroel. That’s all. That’s not Zionism.

You are correct about the number of Oaths.

Mendel Posted - 24 January 2002 16:25

I really don't agree with your comment about Chovivei Tzion being a movement that was only supposed to get Jews to live in Eretz Yisrael.

Their clearly stated position, in fact was that they were Zionist- practical Zionists, who believed in working the land so that they could get a claim to it.

Please explain where you get your understanding of the goal of the Chovivei Tzion from.

MODERATOR Posted - 24 January 2002 16:39

Clearly stated? No, it's not. That was not "clearly stated" at all. They wanted individuals to build the land, to live in the land, but to create a Jewish government there never was one of their goals. It is clearly omitted in all of their writing. The Zionist movement was something totally different.

HS Posted - 01 February 2002 15:18

You mention the three oaths as a reason against founding the sate of Israel - we do not paskan halachah on the basis of midrash

One of the oaths is that we will not found a state without permission of the goyim - Novermber 29 1947.

The oaths are on condition that the goyim do not over oppress us - they did

MODERATOR Posted - 01 February 2002 15:43

HS, please read the Zionism and Yom Haatzmaut forums on these boards. Those are the old, tired Zionist claims and do not work. Details are all over the other forums.

Jewel Posted - 19 April 2002 20:36

Who brings the 3 oaths down into halacha? Please let me know where you site from so I can look it up. (My dad asked a rabbi about the three oaths. The rabbi said that Rabbi Zimmerman wrote a whole book on why they don’t apply, but you probably don’t hold by him).

MODERATOR Posted - 19 April 2002 21:45

The Oaths are quoted L'Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to:

Responsa Rivash #110,

Responsa Rashbash #2,

Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam (#4 - Regarding why the Rambam does not count the Mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisroel in his list of Mitzvos),

Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel - the majority of Jews at the time - did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh's call),

Rambam (Igeres Taimon - warning people not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger),

Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths.

Its not that I don’t "hold by" Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman (I have his book), its that his arguments have already been anticipated and disproved by authors before him, most prominently the Satmar Rav's Vayoel Moshe. I don’t see anything in Rabbi Zimmerman's Sefer that is compelling at all.

(Incidentally, Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman was a big Baki with encyclopedic Torah knowledge, but he wasn’t in the league of the collective group pf people whose position he was trying to disprove. He is perhaps entitled to his opinion, but to say he wrote a whole book "showing" why the Oaths don’t apply is kind of ignoring who his opponents were.)

BatMelech Posted - 22 April 2002 17:09

I was told that a main argument against the opinion that it was assur to establish the state of Israel, is that the 3 oaths which you have spoken about are part of the aggaddah of gemara. We do not posken halacha from Aggadah. Therefore, how can we say that the proof that it was wrong to establish the state of Israel is that the oaths say we can't? The oaths are only aggadah! I assume that the great Satmar Rav knew that we aren’t allowed to poskin halacha from aggada!

dave17 Posted - 22 April 2002 17:09

One thing that really bothers me . im willing to daven in a shul that will make a mishaberech for eretz yisroel. I understand that the congregation feels it’s important. what I don’t understand is how and when did this mishaberech become the most important part of davening?

This is the one point in davening when everyone stands up, with proud faces and listens intently to what the gabbai or chazzan is saying. if someone from the shul was speaking at this point or decided not to stand up, he is obviously a poresh min hatzibur and not a good well rounded Jew.

I have seen people , a good number of them with this philosophy. these same people are the ones who are sitting down and shmoozing during chazaras hashas and laining , finishing up their own shemonah esrei so they can get in a few words to their neighbors and then walking out for random parts of mussaf.

Even if you're going to be machshiv the kedusha of eretz yisroels government in the tfiloh, is it more important than everything else in davening? Is the knesset more important than Hashem?

There is a shul in Baltimore where a visiting Rosh yeshiva (of a prestigious yeshiva)made the decision not to stand up for the mishaberech.

When bochurim went out collecting for the yeshiva about a month later, people told them they would not give to this yeshiva bec their rosh yeshiva was embarrassed the whole congregation by rejecting something that they so strongly believed in. the question is, would they have said the same to a bochur collecting for YU ,if one of the Rebbeim in their faculty had been shmoozing during chazaras hashatz?

Would they have said he embarrassed the congregation by showing disrespect for something they so respected? I really can’t figure it out. There’s a certain disconnect here. Why is this?

- 22 April 2002 18:39

Bat Melech,

This was discussed all over these boards. First, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.

Second, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says You may not do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. That’s the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V'Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)

Third, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to making a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doing so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.

Fourth, it is not the Satmar Rebbe ZTL who uses this Gemora l'maaseh, but the Rishonim - such as Rambam, Ramban, Rivash, Rashbash, Megilas Esther. And Achronim, like the Maharal and Rav Yonason Eyebushitz. The Oaths are an accepted Halachicly binding obligation throughout history.


You are correct, of course. What you are describing is the Avodah Zorah of Zionism, where they hold the honor of Israel and its warriors in higher esteem than Hashem Himself. And not only will these people not pay attention to prayers to Hashem, but the Mi Shebayrach for the Cholim and the prayers for all Jews "hanesunim b'torah uvashivyah" as well. In other words, it is not because this prayer is said for Jews in danger, but because it is said for those afilliliated with the State of Israel, that they care about it. The rest of davening, and the rest of the Jews in danger all over the world, are not as "privileged".

As I stated elsewhere, to single out any Jew for special prayers over all others in danger and in need of help because he is "serving the Medinah" is clearly nothing but Zionism, and may not be followed. That Rosh Yeshiva gets a lot of credit for what he did, and you should not worry for him. If someone stuck up for me and suffered for it, I know that I - and so would any decent human being - be grateful to that person and try to find a way to repay him. When someone sticks up for Hashem and suffers, Hashem does the same. I'd rather have Hashem on my side then those misguided donors.

datit Posted - 29 April 2002 16:42

I have been taught that it is said that if the Jewish nation is in danger, they are permitted to have Israel as the Jewish state.
is this true?

MODERATOR Posted - 29 April 2002 16:44

No, it is not.

In fact, it says the opposite. The Maharal writes (quoted above) that even if by violating the Oaths the Jews can save themselves from "torturous death", they should rather submit themselves to death rather than violate the Oaths.

dave17 Posted - 08 May 2002 17:08

I just wanted to add a point to the topic of the level of chashivus that shuls give to this mishaberech. the way I see it, when something is complete and unquestionable, people don’t feel a need to back it up. you will never hear somebody say that he doesn’t hold of shemonah esrei.

For this reason people don’t feel a need to act with respect towards it bec it generates its own respect. when something is lacking in its shleimus on the other hand, people who are advocates of the cause will stand up for it and pursue it to the fullest degree.

This mesheberach which is obviously lacking bec there are Jews all over the world who don’t say it, needs this type of support. People feel almost insecure that they are following something that isn’t universally held of, and there for become adherents.

They feel by showing an extra level of chashivus to the bracha, they are making up for the others who are downplaying it.

Over the years this has turned into a level of respect far and beyond any level shown for other parts of the davening.

It’s sad and unfortunate but it makes sense. People need to feel that what they believe in had actual mamashus.

I'm just wondering if the moderator agrees.

datit Posted - 08 May 2002 17:08

So basically the maharal is saying: "give into the goyim, for the Jewish nation to die is Hashem’s will". in times like this we have to be a little bit realistic, and realize, that the goyim want us to die, and they do have the power to do it. Giving into them not only isn’t realistic, its suicide!

????? Posted - 08 May 2002 17:08

All I know is that the Rav ZT"L (R' Y.D. Soloveitchik) was President of Mizrachi for 3 decades! I will gladly take the same punishment that he is receiving from Hashem for his "religious Zionism"!!!!!

MODERATOR Posted - 10 May 2002 21:51


That’s likely to be a part of it, yes.


There are certain sins that are Yehoreg v'al yaavor - better to die than to do them. Creating a sovereign State in EY before Moshiach's coming, according to the Maharal, happens to be one of them. The issue is not what’s good politically but how much are we obligated to avoid doing the sin.

Plus, G-d said that by violating the Oaths, the Jewish nation will be hunted down and killed like animals. By keeping the Torah, on the other hand, we merit Hashem's protection.


Yeah, well, the adherents of all wrongheaded Jewish movements throughout history said that. But you are mistaken, you are not in the same category as Rav Soloveichik. Your defense will be that you were following your Rebbi (not that you can defend his position at all), but he will not be able to use that defense, since his Rebbeim were anti-Mizrachi.

aharon31 Posted - 17 October 2002 7:36

dear Mr. moderator,

you quoted the reason that we can't have the state of Israel is because of the shlosha shevuos- namely, that we won't ascend to Israel "Derech choma" and hashem will protect us.

But, rashi says, "derech choma" means violently by force. but didn't the goyim of the world all decide klal yisral deserved a home? as for the other reason, that we have something that unites us other than torah, most Jews, when they travel, don't look for Zionist councils in the area, but shuls? why? because their interested in the religious connection, not Zionist.

MODERATOR Posted - 21 October 2002 16:11

We discussed this already please refer. Rashi doesn’t say that. he says "byad hachazaka". That doesn’t mean by force. Paroh let the Jews out of Egypt "byad hachazaka" but surely he didn’t have to violently force them to leave. And the "whole world" decided no such thing - the UN is not a Sanhedrin that can force people to accept their hashkofos (all Zionists know that).

Those who lived in the land - the Arabs - did not want the Jews there, and so Israel was established against their will. That is the very short nutshell version. Please refer above.

iloveisrael Posted - 12 January 2003 15:32

I was just reading this topic and I have to disagree. How do you explain the Israeli sovereignty during the time of bar kochvah. even rebbi akiva, if I am not mistaken, supported bar kochvah and viewed him as a messianic figure.

Many people today people that the establishment of the state if bringing us one step closer to moshiach --those are people who believe that we as Jews have to help along the redemption.

MODERATOR Posted - 12 January 2003 15:39

Rebi Akiva held that Bar Kochba was the Moshiach. Upon the arrival of Moshiach, the Oaths are inapplicable. Moshiach hasn't come yet, therefore the Oaths are still applicable.

On the contrary, we see from the horrific bloodbath that the Jews went through in the days of Bar Kochba - which Chazal say was because the Oaths were violated - what r"l happens when we violate the Oaths before Moshiach comes.

israel-phile gal Posted - 12 January 2003 18:38

moderator- can I ask you how you're so sure that moshiach isn't here yet? I think he's coming tomorrow..& unless your moshiach- & even if you are, you should specifically know that mashiach is coming tomorrow!

MODERATOR Posted - 12 January 2003 18:44

Huh? If Moshiach is coming tomorrow then he's not here today.

And it’s not good to "not be too sure" Moshiach isn’t here - if you commit these acts before Moshiach comes the punishment is, Jews are "killed like animals".

MODERATOR Posted - 20 January 2003 7:33

It is true that waiting for Moshiach means we must be prepared for the distinct possibility of his coming at any moment. Rav Schwab ZTL, in an article he wrote for the Jewish Observer (reprinted in the 25th Anniversary Edition), reports that he once heard from the Chofetz Chaim, who was famous for his tzepiyah l'yeshuah, that the possibilities of Moshiach coming tomorrow are equal - he may or he may not.

The waiting for Moshiach is living with the reality that he may. Yes, Lubavitch has changed that by promising that Moshiach's coming is going to be in this generation, and imminently.

Of course, he also believed that the Nasi HaDor (a phrase commonly used in Chabad to describe a position occupied by the current Chabad Rebbe, whoever it may be) is the potential Moshiach of the generation. You do the math. This means that the Chabad Rebbe, whoever he may be during this generation will be the actual Melech HaMoshiach, which is one of the many real reasons that the belief in the Lubavitcher Rebbe being Moshiach clearly came from the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself.

However, since we do prepare for the definite eventuality of Moshiach's arrival, hopefully in our days, and hopefully immediately, you will find seforim like the Pele Yoatz saying that people who wait for Moshiach do not build large and fancy houses in chutz laaretz, and you will find that tzadikim like the Yismach Moshe and others used to have a packed suitcase prepared for Moshiach's arrival.

As far as Moshiach and Kibutz golius is concerned, your question is asked, and answered, by the Rambam himself.

In Igeres Taimon, he demonstrates that the self-proclaimed "Moshiach" that was running around in those days was not Moshiach at all.

He does this by mentioning several signs that Moshiach must display, none of which are fulfilled by the man in question.

He then says that following any such false redemptions would be a violation of the Oaths, which were designed specifically to make sure that Klall Yisroel would not try to end the Golus before the proper time.

He says that this man cannot be Moshiach because, among other things, Moshiach will be suddenly and by surprise in Eretz Yisroel. Nobody will have expected this man to be Moshiach.

"At the time he is revealed, the nations will be petrified from what they hear about him; they will assemble to try to plot a defense against him, for they will be in awe and terrified at his open and undisputable signs and wonders".

The Rambam mentions the Kibutz Golius that Moshiach will perform, and also says that the fulfillment of world peace and the "conclusion" of the "fearful acts that will take place from east to west", "they will not happen at the beginning of his revelation in the world, but rather after the war of Gog and Magog."

Moshiach will be a prophet greater than all prophets except Moshe Rabbeinu. He will be a unique Tzadik as well, with qualities that were until then present only in Moshe Rabbeinu. He will be known as such. "Therefore, if someone who is not publicly known for his wisdom gets up and declares he is Moshiach, we may not believe him."

In other words, first Moshiach will be revealed suddenly in Eretz Yisroel, with signs that he is Moshiach, then, after Moshiach's revelation according to those signs, there will be Kibutz Golius, the war of Gog and Magog (it is clear that the war of Gog and Magog will be after the revelation of Moshiach), then other Messianic prophecies will be fulfilled.

This is supported by the Gemora at the beginning of Avodah Zorah which states that even before the war of Gog and Magog, Moshiach will be revealed, known to the nations of the world, and the nations will be so scared of him that they all want to become Jewish.

So even though we will not know for sure that this person is Moshiach, we will have a measure of evidence, such that we will be entitled to assume that he is indeed the real Moshiach. And that assumption would allow us to follow him from Kibutz Golius.

The problem is, as Grend mentioned, the Rambam in Mishne Torah says (11:3) that "Moshiach will not need to do any signs or wonders and change things in the world or nature or resurrect the dead ... rather, if someone of Dovidic lineage, and performs mitzvos like his father Dovid ... and will make all of Klall Yisroel follow the Torah, and repent, he is assumed to be Moshiach. If he succeeds..."

So first, even here, the Rambam tells us that a prerequisite even for a person to be assumed to be Moshiach is that he will cause all of Klall Yisroel to do Teshuva. With a 60% intermarriage rate in America, and will all the rebellious teenagers still not frum, and with all the Loshon Horah that is spoken, and all the Aveiros that we all still do, clearly, not even an assumed Moshiach is has yet arrived.

(Note: Here, too, Lubavitch has distorted things. When the Rambam says that Moshiach will make all of Klall Yisroel do Teshuva, he is not referring exclusively to what we call "Ballei Teshuva" - people who know nothing about Judaism becoming religious. He says all of Klall Yisroel, meaning, the religious Jews as well. More so, even, because if we are going to consider the non-religious Tinokos Shenishbu, then they have little to do Teshuva for, compared to us.

The Rambam means that Moshiach will make all the Yeshiva bochurim and BY girls and frum baalei batim do Teshuva. And even according to their distortion, nothing close to even all of the Tinokos Shenishbu have done Teshuva.

As I mentioned, an intermarriage rate of over 60% in America means that not only have they all not done Teshuva, but their situation in a way is a lot worse than ever in Jewish history. A far cry from the Rambam's requirement.)

But besides Teshuva, the Rambam also says (11:12) that all Jews will gather around moshiach, who will determine their lineage with Ruach HaKodesh, and (see Kesef Mishna) that he will also possess the Urim V'Tumim.

In Hilchos Teshuva the Rambam writes that Moshiach will be wiser even than Shlomo HaMelech, and all the Goyim will come and listen to him.

And more: The Rambam writes that one of the requirements of a Navi in general is that he perform supernatural acts to prove his stature.

And the Rambam in Pirush HaMishnayos in Sanhedrin (ch. 11) explains that all the world, including the Goyim, will make peace with Moshiach and serve him, "because of his great righteousness and the wonders that he will do, yet reality will not be changed from what it will currently be, except for the fact that the Jews will rule."

So clearly, there will be many wondrous acts and even miracles that the Moshiach will perform, even before the world changes, and what the Rambam says that Moshiach will not do any wonders or miracles is referring to wonders and miracles such as he lists, like the resurrection of the dead and similar things that are changes in the reality of the world, things that will indeed happen later on in the Messianic age.

So all the Rambam means, as he says more clearly in Peirush HaMishnayos, is that the Moshiach will not perform any Messianic changes in the world until later on, but even at the beginning of his revelation, he will perform several wondrous acts.

When all that happens, we can follow that man into Kibutz Golius.

And Kibutz Golius doesn’t even mean that we will go from Chutz Laaretz into Eretz Yisroel. the Raavad in his commentary on Edios writes that before we go into Eretz Yisroel, Moshiach will take all of Klall Yisroel through the desert again, like he (Moshe, the redeemer) did the first time. If that doesn’t happen, then it's not the Kibutz Golius.

MODERATOR Posted - 20 January 2003 7:36

I am copying the above post to the "Moshiach" forum, under a new topic called "How Will We Know Who Is Moshiach?". Please post all responses there.

micha Posted - 11 April 2003 13:05

When did an oath not to rise up to conquer Israel become one not to have a gov't? Israel wasn't conquered, it was obtained politically.

MODERATOR Posted - 11 April 2003 13:32

The Oaths prohibit that as well. The Ramban writes that even when Coresh gave permission to the Jews to return to Eretz Yisroel, those who did not have the benefit of a prophecy saying that the Golus was over would not return for fear of violating toe Oaths; the Maharal says that even if the nations force the Jews to obtain Eretz Yisroel - just the opposite of uprising and conquest - it would still constitute a violation of the Oaths.

And Israel was created through much violence and conquest, as per the War of Independence. It is not a big deal to declare a given land yours; that does not mean it is yours. It is a big deal to actually have control of the land. Upon the declaration that Israel is now Israel - mere hours later - all the Arab countries attacked. It was the result of that war that allowed Israel to be created.

There was the Stern Gang, the Irgun, the Haganah, and much much fighting that allowed a Jewish State to be born despite the wishes of the then-residents, namely, the Arabs. The fact that the UN wished there to be a state does not any more make a State than when the UN wishes Iraq not to be invaded. It is control over the country that makes a State, and that came only through force.

mX Posted - 14 April 2003 7:39

mod, you mentioned that maschiach will arrive before the war of gog and magog but aren't there some views that hold the opposite. Aren't there views that hold the war already started or even passed (WWII)?

MODERATOR Posted - 14 April 2003 7:46

There is no basis to say that WWII or any other war was the war of Gog and Magog. And such a view is, in fact, impossible to be correct since the Gemora does indeed say that the war of Gog and Magog will happen after Moshiach comes, not before, and the Rambam writes that as well.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the armies of Gog and Magog will be around before Moshiach, and some of their activity, such as trying to get the Jews to rebel against G-d, will take place antebellum as well.

The idea that WWII was Gog and Magog is a baseless fabrication of Zionists in order to make it more palatable to say that the founding of the Medinah, which came shortly after WWII is the Aschalta D'Geulah, ushered in by the war of Gog and Magog. But the whole idea is mythology, not based on any Torah sources or reasoning.

Yair Posted - 17 May 2004 8:29

Okay, I have ample respect for most people here, but seriously, did ANYBODY read "Em HaBanim Smeicha" (HaRav Shlomo Teichtal zt'l)? I think if one did, some of the more prominent questions here might be answered. (If someone did read and mention it, then I am sorry - I visited many forums here and haven't found a single reference

MODERATOR Posted - 17 May 2004 8:32

Do a search for "Teichtel" and youll find where that sefer is discussed here.

It is full of glaring errors and blunders, samples of which I have listed. Not a single claim against Zionism is answered there.

Tzioni Posted - 28 October 2004 7:50

What is the deal with Rav Issachar Shlomo Teichtal? Was or was he not part of the neturei karta?

a Jew that loves being Jewish in Israel.

MODERATOR Posted - 02 November 2004 21:18

He was not.

yehoshua111 Posted - 07 November 2004 3:40

Ok so like last school year at the beginning of the year I went to a yeshiva high school and the rabbi of the young Israel in that city gave a class on Zionism. I was only there for a few classes so I really don’t know much about it, but if it was so wrong why would he teach it why would the chief rabbi of st. louis mo support it if it was so wrong?

MODERATOR Posted - 07 November 2004 4:05

Ask him.

taon Posted - 07 November 2004 21:17

I thought Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman ztl said at the beginning of the war or about WWI that it was the war of gog and magog?

MODERATOR Posted - 07 November 2004 21:19

No, he didn’t say such a thing. The war of Gog and Magog happens after Moshiach comes, not before. The Gemora says so.

mo Posted - 19 November 2004 6:24

**The Netziv wasn’t a leader of Chovevei Tzion, though he was a supporter in many aspects, in the beginning of its inception. But not all. He was very much against selling the land for Shmitah for instance.

But the entire movement was not to make a Jewish State but rather for individuals to settle the land. The Netziv never took the position that settling the land was going to "force Hashem's hand", and neither did the GRA, by the way. The Netziv was in favor of individuals living in Eretz Yisroel. That’s all. That’s not Zionism.**

There are statement from r. Alexander Lapides of Chovevei Zion where he clearly states that they didn’t have in mind to establish a state - because it's transgression of Sholosh Shvuois!

yp23 Posted - 14 December 2004 11:27

Has any1 read the book Eim habanim semecha" written by 1 of the great gdolim who was at first a great metnaged to the zionisim??? It’s a great book with numerous quotes from chazal that were all written from the author's memory!!! I think its obligation to read the book before we have any haskofah and comments about Zionism- lets c what the torah says!(the book is translated into English) I hope Hashem will enlighten our eyes in the real ways of the torah.

MODERATOR Posted - 14 December 2004 11:37

The Aim Habanim semecha has been discussed on this site (do a search for "Teichtel" and youll find it). It is full of errors and glaring blunders, a sample of which I listed.

And for the record, the sefer says nothing (or very little - I forget) about creating a State of Israel. It discusses building up Eretz Yisroel and living there, but nothing about Statehood.

In fact, the Lubavitcher Rebbe (who I am not a chosid of) stated that Rabbi Teichtel was "far away form Zionism", and in that he was correct, for the most part.

But even so, as I said, the sefer is packed with glaring errors.

mo Posted - 28 June 2005 13:09

**Also, the Zionist ideas that having our own land and our own language makes us more of a "nation" (found in religious Zionist literature, such as Eisenstein's Encyclopedia) is heresy since it implies that Klall Yisroel's status as a nation is effected by things other than the fact that they have a Torah.**

What is this Encyclopedia's name?
Was Dr Eisenstein an accepted Mizrachi ideolog?

MODERATOR Posted - 28 June 2005 13:14

Otzar Yisroel. He died in the 50's.

No comments: