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-----some questions for the moderator

BenYB Posted - 06 January 2005 8:48
Mod- Your comments about Ezra accepting the reasoning of those people who stayed in Bavel doesn’t seem to be backed by the Gemara. Reish Lakish (I think it’s in Yuma) castigates the people who didn’t go to Eretz Yisrael.

Furthermore Ezra (Kesubos) doesn’t allow people to give maaser sheni to Leviim because they refused to join him when they went to Israel (Doesn't sound like Ezra agreed with their reasoning).

In Taanis as well you find that families of Kohanim the didn’t go back to Eretz Yisrael will not be able to have as many turns in the avoda of the Beis Hamikdash. Another fundamental error you make is when you say that the Balfour declaration wasn’t valid because the people (Arabs) who lived there didn’t accept them.

Hello! Have you read sefer Ezra lately? The Shomronim were also less then happy about Jews returning. See, the whole problem with Vayoel Moshe is, he completely ignores the shita in the Gemara of "Ani rochev al chamor". That’s a very clear mandate for Mashiach coming in the natural order of the world.

Furthermore when you quote the pasuk in Mishlei about Hashem closing the eyes of the gedolim if the generation is not worthy (which by the way answers according to Rabbi Akiva why Rav Yochanan ben Zakai didn’t save the Beis Hamikdash) how do you know that he’s closing the eyes of Rav Kook and not the Satmar Rav?

I hope you can provide me with real halachic answers and please spare me your constant rhetoric about Zionists, I consider myself an Ish Emes and if you were actually able to prove this to me I would have no choice but to agree.

MODERATOR Posted - 06 January 2005 9:41
This was already discussed in the "Zionism" forum.

Your question about the Gemora is Yoma is not directed against me but against the Ramban, who says (Maamar Hageulah ch. 1) that the reason the Jews outside of Bavel did not join Ezra in going to EY was because whereas the Jews of Bavel had a Nevuah that the Golus was over for them, the Jews outside of Bavel had no such Nevuah.

Therefore, joining Ezra would be for them a violation of the Three Oaths.

The answer is that Ezra's complaint against the Jews not joining him was directed against the Jews of Bavel only, as is clear from the Gemora itself. No complaints were leveled against the Jews outside of Bavel.

And even regarding the Jews of Bavel, the Pnei Yehoshua says on that Gemora that the statement of Raish Lakish is not a Halachic conclusion, for it was opposed by other Chazals, and the Jews of Bavel apparently held like those who disagree with Raish Lakish.

In fact, the Gemora on the spot quotes Rav Yochanan as disagreeing with Raish Lakish on this.

Alternatively, even Raish Lakish did not say the Jews sinned. He said that had they gone to EY many good things would have happened. That can be understood in the same way we understand the Chazals that say had Moshe Rabbeinu gone into EY the Geulah Sheleimah would have happened, or that the Yetzer Horah would have been destroyed. Chazal do not mean that Moshe sinned by not going into EY - he would gladly have gone! - but rather that Moshe's sin prevented him from being able to go into EY by Decree of G-d, thus negating all these benefits.

So too, the Jews in the days of Ezra were not necessarily taken to task for not going with him to EY, but rather for doing the sins that cause G-d to decree through the Oaths that they not go in to EY, for the Oaths are designed to maintain the Golus, which of course is a punishment and a necessity that we brought on through our sins. We cannot go into EY just as Moshe can; we wish we could, just as Moshe did; if we would, so much good would happen, just as if Moshe had. But we are not allowed to (en masse), just as Moshe wasn’t. And it is our sins that caused this, so we are blamed for the results of those sins, just as Moshe was.

Re your point about Coresh and the Shomronim. It doesn’t matter if there were Goyim who were happy or unhappy that we go to EY. What did matter was that the Jews did not need to use fighting war to resist that opposition. The Oaths say that we cannot go to EY "byad hachazkah" - with strength. So if we don’t need physical strength, the Avnei Nezer says that this Oath is not violated. Whenever you see the phrase "permission of the nations" on this topic, it is always used in the context of a peaceful ascent without the need for strength.

But the Zionists had to fight a war of Independence. They also physically opposed the English for many years. In fact, the Zionists will tell you that the War of Independence never really ended, and the conflict with the Arabs today is merely a continuation of the same war.

That's why Israel's "permission" and that of Coresh are not comparable. Permission in and of itself is not a factor. If that permission enables the Jews to ascend and take over to EY peacefully without the use of physical strength, we have a discussion. That happened with Coresh, not with Lord Balfour.

On one page the Zionists will write that we are still fighting a so-far-50-year war for the State of Israel, and on the next page they will write that the taking over of the State of Israel was done peacefully like in the days of Coresh. Go know.

Re Ani Rochev al hachamor. The issue, despite the way many Zionists present it, is no whether Moshiach is going to come naturally or unnaturally or slow or fast or whatever. Moshiach can come any way he wants, and we won’t know till he gets here (Ani rochev al hachamor only happens if the Jews are unworthy). But regardless of how Moshiach comes, until he does come, we are still bound not to break the 3 Oaths. Whatever the Oaths prohibit does not change because of how Moshiach may come. Thus, if Jewish sovereignty in EY is within the scope of the Paths prohibition, then Moshiach’s coming - natural or unnatural, on a donkey or horse of airplane - is still prohibited and is not part of the plan of the Geulah.

There are plenty of ways for Moshiach to come, al hachamor or in the ananim, without us creating a State of Israel. It does not impact in the slightest on the issue at hand, which is, "what is within the scope of the Oaths prohibition?"

For the record, though, the issue is not Vayoel Moshe. Contrary to what the Zionists teach, opposition to the creation and existence of the State of Israelis not excusive to Satmar (the OU website's biosketch on the Satmar Rav is an example where this untruth is found).

Rather, opposition to the creation of the State of Israel was and is mainstream Torah opinion.

And by that I man that the same collective body of Torah authorities that were followed universally regarding "non political" Halachic and Hashkafic issues - such as the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Chaim Soloveichik, the Rogechover, the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, et al - were against the creation for the State of Israel.

I don’t understand your question about mashiv chachamim achor, for you are confusing the question and the answer. The question that mashiv chachamim answers is not "how do we know the Zionists are wrong" - for that we know by objective Torah analysis, by observing the strength of the arguments and the weight of the authorities, the same way we know the Halachah in any other context.

Rather, the question that mashiv chachamim achor answers is "how can some talmidei chachamim not see this?".

But there are simpler answers than mashiv chachamim achor. The Yetzer Horah for avodah zorah - and today, kefirah - is able to bring down greater talmidei chachamim than the Zionist rabbonim. Mashiv chachamim achor is l'ravcha d'milsa.

MODERATOR Posted - 14 January 2005 9:08
See the whole problem with Vayoel Moshe is he completely ignores the shita in the Gemara of "Ani rochev al chamor". That’s a very clear mandate for mashiach coming in the natural order of the world.”

You surely did not ever read Vayoel Moshe but rather heard this in the religious Zionist "grapevine", else you would surely know that not only does he not ignore the possibility (it’s not a shita - it’s a possible way for Moshiach to come) of ani rochev al hachamor, he also refutes the Zionist interpretation of it.

He quotes the Ramban explaining it to mean that there surely will be miracles - only of a different type. Whereas if Moshiach comes from the "ananim" there will be glorious miracles and upheavals in nature, if Moshiach comes as an ani rochev al hachamor, the miracles will not involve massive upheavals of nature, but miracles there will be - such as the Jews marching into Eretz Yisroel without any resistance from their enemies, just having the land handed over to them in an obviously miraculous fashion, though without involving things like splitting oceans or food falling from the heavens.

There are more proofs he brings, but it is clear that regardless of how Moshiach will come, one thing we know - he will NOT come by Jews having to fight a war with the Arabs to get into the land and then sit there getting bombed and maimed waiting for Moshiach to arrive.

BenYB Posted - 30 January 2005 21:41
First of all I have admit I liked some of your answers (I told you I’m trying to be an Ish Emes!) but we clearly have different definitions of what miracles are. The war of independence was clearly a miracle, Tzhal didn’t even have enough guns to go around for each of their 100,000 soldiers!

Secondly in one of the Zionist forums (Sorry don’t remember) you talked about 67' being maasei sutton. However you must admit that the Satmar does stand alone on that issue.

Thirdly are you sure you have the Chofetz Chaim correctly pegged as an anti-Zionist? I read in Hamidinah Hayehudit that his son argued with him on the Zionist issue and in response he said that things went out in his name that he didn’t say!

Fourthly you didn't put up my earlier post (I'll abbreviate the letter cause I’m tired) where a letter was signed in Teves of 48' that thanked Hashem for allowing us to see the 1st buds of our redemption that was signed by 100 of the biggest Rabbayim in Israel. You might have heard of 2 of them, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank and Rav S.Z. Auerbach! Don't believe the story, ask Rav Ovadia Yosef, he recounts it in the book I read.

Finally I’ll admit I went to a Zionist yeshiva and my Rav said there is a book that was written by one of the Gra's talmidim in the Gra's name that’s very Zionistic and Satmar's think it’s a fraud. What’s the name of the sefer and what’s pshat with it? Shabbat Shalom

MODERATOR Posted - 30 January 2005 21:52
As an Ish Emes. I really suggest you do research on the topic you are discussing. These aren’t my answers - they existed before I was born. You can find them in Vayoel Moshe, which you apparently have not read, or else you would have known them.

And please note - it doesn’t matter if you "like" the answers - the point is if you can’t refute them, you have to concede to them whether you "like" them or not.

The Israeli victories are far from the most unlikely in the history of warfare. In fact, there is documentation from the US Government trying to predict who would win in a war of independence between the Zionists and the Arabs, and they came out its not possible to know for sure. Reasons cited were the disorganized state of the Arab armies and their general dysfunctionality.

But it doesn’t matter - if you want it to be a miracle, let it be! Miracles mean nothing, as I showed. Miracles happen for Goyim for reshayim for evil doers, big deal. And no, the Satmar Rebbe was not a daas yochid in that at all. In fact, it is a common hashkafa used in many places. Rabbi Yaakov Hillel, a sefardi who has nothing to do with Satmar, uses it to explain the miracles done by unsavory pseudo-kabbalists.

The fact that the Satan can make miracles is something that you yourself don’t disagree with I am sure---- remember the Egel, how the Jews saw an image of Moshe dead on Har Sinai? Who do you think made that miracle? Clearly it was a nisayon, created by the Yetzer Horah to test their Emunah. That is all "Maaseh Satan" mean. Nothing more and nothing less.

Or when the Bnei Efraim left Egypt miraculously and were killed in the desert because they were not allowed to leave Egypt. Clearly that miracle was not a sign that Hashem was happy with their actions. So too the miracles - if you insist on calling them that - of the Zionists, show absolutely nothing about whether Hashem approves of not.

The sefer you are referring to is discussed in the Zionist forum, and it is not Satmar that says it’s a forgery but just about everyone - Rav Moshe Sterenbuch, a descendent of and expert on the GRA proved that the GRA did not write that, nor did his Talmidim.

And the kol koreh with all those signatures was also doctored and forged - they even had dead people signing on it! See the Zionism forum - "Zionist apologetics" and look for my post of earlier today, about Rabbi Kasher's Hatekufah Hagedolah.

No comments: