FACTIONS-----kahana / jdl etc...
-
needadvice Posted - 09 November 2000 13:11
I have a good friend who started being influenced by the kahane followers.
I think what attracted him to it was the militant style and strong views. My question is how bad is this? many things they say seem to make sense its just the way they say them seem inappropriate. Please help me explain to him why it is wrong to be a part of such a group.
Thanks
MODERATOR Posted - 15 November 2000 15:09
The entire Hashkafa of these people are off.
Responding to anti-Semitism with equal and opposite violence is against the Torah and, particularly while we are in Golus, a losing battle, and only makes things worse by provoking further anti-Semitism.
The Torah’s directive is for us to attempt peace with our non-Jewish antagonists, and only when faced with an actual kill-or-be-killed situation is violence justified.
You can find this in many places. The simplest would probably be Rav Elchonon Wasserman’s Ikvesa D’Meshichah, printed in the back of his “Kovetz Maamarim.” It is available in English as a pamphlet titled “Epoch of the Messiah”.
The idea of using muscle to combat anti-Semitism or, as these people used to say when I was a kid, “for every Jew a .22”, is not new.
Sixty years ago Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT”L was interviewed while in Vilna for a meeting of the Vaad haYeshivos by a writer for Dos Yiddishe Togblatt. A translation of the interview was edited by Rabbi Yehoshua Leiman of
The following is a quote from there:
“Togblatt: What should be our position regarding the Jewish anti-terror movement that uses terror against Arab terror?
Rav Wasserman: They must be regarded as Rodfim (endangerers) of Jewry. We are forbidden to use such methods.”
Our general position in Golus is to avoid and even run from confrontation with the Goyim, who by heavenly decree have the upper hand during this time period, as much as possible.
We are even sworn, while in Golus not to revolt against the gentile nations (Kesuvos 111a). If we violate this oath, the punishment is that G-d will “allow our flesh [to be hunted] like deer in the fields.” Meforshim say that this is the most terrible punishment in the entire Torah.
But you don’t even need any of this to dissuade your friend from joining the JTF. Check out their website – www.jtf.org. They claim to be Kahanists but they are miles from Kahane.
Their agenda is not merely Jew vs. Non-Jew; their agenda is White vs. Black. Apparently there’s not enough money to be gotten from militant Jews so they have extended their appeal to the extreme anti-black racists in
“White America senses that something terrible is happening to this country. Instead of lulling people into a false and suicidal sense of calm, the Republican Party should be sounding the alarm. . .
If JTF were on national television in the
For our glorious dream to come true, JTF needs millions of dollars to pay for time on national television. If you are a wealthy Jew or righteous Gentile with the needed millions of dollars, please contact us immediately so that we can make the necessary arrangements.”
Here’s more:
“Our struggle is to spearhead the momentous movement to save
Which is why every Jew and righteous Gentile should make out an especially generous check to "JTF" immediately and send it out right away.”
Save
They’re very much into the “righteous gentiles.” They correctly point out that Judaism does not demand gentiles convert, but their example of a “righteous gentile” is “Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, who does not believe in the Jewish religion but who does have mercy upon the victims of injustice”. These people are idol-worshippers who believe in a god who impregnates married women and has children. These are NOT chasidei umos ha’olam.
This whole thing is a moneymaking attempt to attract the extreme right wing anti-black Americans.
This is not even Kahanism. I don’t see how any Jew can take this seriously.
Lizard Posted - 15 November 2000 20:23
"Our general position in Golus is to be avoid and even run from confrontation with the Goyim, who by heavenly decree have the upper hand during this time period, as much as possible. We are even sworn, while in Golus not to revolt against the gentile nations (Kesuvos 112a). If we violate this oath, the punishment is that G-d will allow our flesh [to be hunted] like deer in the fields. Meforshim say that this is the most terrible punishment in the entire Torah."
How then could
MODERATOR Posted - 15 November 2000 20:47
When we fight it is only to save Jewish lives, not to get or defend land. We do not put Jewish lives at risk for any land. Unfortunately, there are many lives in danger today in Eretz Yisroel, and we cannot allow them to be wiped out c"v.
The mainstream leadership of Orthodox Jewry, which includes everyone from the Brisker Rav to the Chazon Ish to Rav S.R.Hirsh to Lubavtich were against the creation of a sovereign Jewish state in Eretz Yisroel (only the Zionists wanted it) because it violated either this or another of the Oaths that I was referring to above. The other Oath says, in short, that the Jews will not forcefully possess Eretz Yisroel during Golus.
The objection to Zionism in the Torah world is, contrary to popular belief, not due to the irreligiosity of the Zionists - although that was a small part of it as well - but rather to the violation of these Oaths.
However, that was regarding the question of whether to create a sovereign state in Eretz Yisroel. Ex post facto, after it was made, the question becomes what to do about it and how to relate to it. Now that it is here should we try to make it as religious and useful as possible or would participation in its political process make us accessories after the fact? That is a debate among Torah authorities.
But all of the above agree that risking Jewish lives is only justified to save Jewish lives, not to save land.
I once heard the following vort from Rav Shimon Schwab ZT"L:
In the Chanukah "al hanisim" it describes our miraculous victory in the war, and continues, "And afterwards, Your children went to restore your House [the Bais HaMikdosh] etc."
The words "and afterwards" are awkward and unnecessary. It could have just said "we won the war and fixed Your house..."
Said Rav Schwab ZT"L, the reason for these extra words is to make sure we understand what we were - and were not - fighting for.
Nobody should think that the war against the Greeks had anything to do with the fact that they took over control of the Bais HaMikdash. We would rather them have the Bais HaMikdash forever and make Tameh all the oil rather than risk Jewish blood to wage war.
Rather, the war was for one reason only: "The Greeks decreed ... to make them forsake the Torah and to make them violate Your laws".
When someone makes us violate the Torah we risk our lives to stop them. We wage war. But not for land.
Therefore, it is saying that only after we won the war, after Hashem have over "many into the hands of few, strong into the hands of the weak" etc. Only after the war was over and we won, only then - "afterwards" - we went to fix the Bais HaMikdosh. But if we would have had to fight and risk lives to get the Bais HaMikdosh back, we never would have done so.
Lizard Posted - 16 November 2000 15:35
Thanks for the quick response. Can it be argued though that conquering
Also R Schwab said you don’t risk lives for land only torah..but if you are supposed to disobey the torah when your life is threatened (except 3 cases) why are you ever allowed to fight and risk life?
Thanks
MODERATOR Posted - 16 November 2000 16:05
Giving the Jews a "homeland" did not save any lives, even if doing so would not have been against the Torah. In fact, just one day after the State of Israel was declared, the Arab nations attacked, annihilating one out of every 100 Jews living in
On the contrary, the Gemora says that the fact that Jews are spread all over the world makes it safer for them, since when they are clustered in one Medinah - like they were in the days of Achashverosh - it is easy for an enemy to destroy so many of them together.
Furthermore, the Maharal writes that violating these oaths are "yehoreg v'al yaavor" -- better to die than violate them. If all the non-Jewish nations would try to force us through threat of death and torture to take back Eretz Yisroel during Golus, we should rather submit to death, he says.
During "shas hashmad" (when the Goyim want to force us to violate the Torah) we must give our lives rather then give in. Outside the context of a religious war - such as when someone is sick and needs to go to the hospital on Shabbos - we violate the Torah rather to save the life.
21 Posted - 25 December 2000 20:09
Moderator you mentioned the gemarah in kesuboth 111 and the 3 oaths. It seems though the only one following those are the satmars as one of those oaths is not to go up to live in eretz yisroel which many people do.
I did learn though that The Maharal of
Furthermore, Rav Chaim Vital in the introduction to Eitz Chaim says
these oaths were made for one thousand years. Because more than 1000 years have passed since the Golus we are no longer bound.
But if we are abiding by these oaths why are Jews going to live in
MODERATOR Posted - 25 December 2000 20:37
The 3 Oaths are accepted by all factions of Jewry (except of course the Zionists and non-religious). They are applied by Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT"L in his Kovetz Maamarim (Ikvesa D'Meshichah) against the Jewish militants and Zionists, quoted numerous times by Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh ZT"L in Chorev in the same context, by the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rashab) in a famous letter (printed in Daas HaRabbonim - Ohr Layeshorim p.57) against Zionism.
There are countless more sources, but I wanted to give as broad a range as possible. So here we have the Litvaks, the Yekkes, Satmar and Lubavitch.
Unfortunately, because of political reasons, the Torah literature surrounding these Oaths are avoided in religious Zionist institutions.
There is no oath that prohibits living in Eretz Yisroel. The only prohibition is a national take over of the land. Nobody ever said you can't live in Eretz Yisroel. Even the most staunch anti-Zionists, the Neturei Karta, lived in Eretz Yisroel.
The Maharal says literally just the opposite of what you were taught. Here's the exact quote, from the place you cited, the last few lines:
"Even if the [Goyim] want to kill the Jews with hard torturous [death], they should not leave [the Golus] and they should not give in to this"
In other words, even if the Goyim demand that we must take over Eretz Yisroel or lese they will kill us, we should rather allow ourselves to be killed.
The idea that our Oaths are contingent on those of the Goyim is taught in Zionist institutions for political reasons but is not true. The Midrash Rabbah (Shir HaShirim) says that the Bnie Efraim were all annihilated in the desert for violating the Oaths and leaving
The idea doesn't work because the prohibition of the Jews to rebel against the nations or to take Eretz Yisroel were NOT for the benefit of the Goyim but for the benefit of the Jews -- it allows the Golus to finish its course as opposed to us "jumping the gun" and terminating it before it has fulfilled its purpose. So if the Goyim violated their oath - which of course they did - us violating ours would not be hurting the Goyim but hurting us.
The statement in R. Chaim Vital that the oaths "expired" has been shown not to have originated by R. Chaim Vital at all (HaEmek, Sivan '82).
The Golus happened in the year 70. That means any Rishonim or Achronim after approximately the
The Rambam applies them in his letters, and the Megilas Esther in Sefer HaMitzvos says that the reason the Rambam left out the Mitzvah to live in Erezt Yisroel nowadays is because although it is permitted to live there, it is no longer a Mitzvah, since obligating everyone to live there would cause a violation of the Oaths.
They are also applied by countless other Torah authorities throughout the generations, including the Rivash and Rashbash.
Yehonatan613 Posted - 23 March 2001 19:50
You might want to check out the kuntres 'she lo yaalu le choma' by Rav Aviner Shlit"a who explains for about 10 different and well argued reasons why the 3 shevuos do not apply to the state of
MODERATOR Posted - 23 March 2001 19:55
I have seen it. It is not impressive. Mostly wishful thinking bad attempts to put a square peg in a round hole. Every single one of his arguments have long ago been disproved and discarded. If you want to know the errors in any specific argument please mention it and I will gladly demonstrate.
This is not even a fair issue. The greatest of the greatest of our Gedolim have already declared the state to be against the Oaths. I am talking about Gedolim of 100 years ago. A nice rabbi even if he is a talmid chacham is not likely to "disprove" the collective Torah knowledge of the Torah giants.
It is only the Mizrachi that wanted a state, and they have not yet even begun to find ways to answer the Halachic problems of the Oaths and other issues as well.
ni Posted - 26 March 2001 15:42
Of what consequence is this discussion relevant to right now? The state is established we can not simply give it back even if we wanted to (as you explained elsewhere). Are there any halochos that are dependant on whether there was a state established legitimately or not?
MODERATOR Posted - 26 March 2001 15:49
It is very pertinent. Everything from saying Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut, to risking your life in the army, to settling the territories in the face of danger, to participating in the governmental process by everything from voting in the elections to being part of the Knesset, to land for peace to simply believing in Zionism - whether the State is an illicit idol or the Geulah or somewhere in between, determine, or at least impact on these issues.
More: If the state is against the Torah then it is forbidden to believe it is a good thing. And vice versa. Simply believing in something that the Torah disagrees with is an aveirah - lo sasuru acharei levavchem - even if there would be no behavioral implications.
Yehonatan613 Posted - 26 March 2001 22:29
please do be rather more specific about the flaws in r'aviner's arguments especially as he quotes gedolim who said the shevuos are batel.
also have you heard r'sholom gold's tape ' in defense of religious Zionism?'
do you not think that the aguda also have an agenda?
MODERATOR Posted - 26 March 2001 22:31
Absolutely. But as I said, please tell me which of the arguments you would like me to deal with. It is obviously beyond the scope of this forum to write commentary on an entire sefer.
But I shall be glad to comment on specific issues.
PS - . Many of the issues were already dealt with elsewhere on these boards.
e Posted - 12 April 2001 15:00
does "kahane's" have any relation to rabbi Meir kahane?
MODERATOR Posted - 17 April 2001 18:19
Yup. It means his followers.
segev48 Posted - 01 May 2001 16:16
First of all there is not one mention the of the three swears in all of the Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Oruch. It is never brought down L'halacha.
Second of all one of the swears is that goyim would not oppress us "too much".
Jewish children sent to gas chambers and crematoriums, while their parents were made in to soap and lamp shades is definitely too much.
Third of all, the swear is that we do not go up to eretz Yisrael at one time, and what we did was go up slowly in waves over 70 years before the state was established and it has now been 120 years since the first wave of Aliyah and most of the yidden have still to make aliyah. i.e. rov of am yisrael is still in galut.
And finally the "swears" are aggadah.
But besides all of that you may believe what you want personally about the State of Israel being the beginning of the redemption or of no consequence at all, but as a moderator, you are wrong not to allow for the beliefs of Jews who see in Israel the beginning of the end.
I and my friends and millions more, have left the countries of their birth to take an active role on the historical plane to be partners with G-d in the Geulah. I believe it is a privilege that G-d has given me to allow me to be a partner with him, to serve in a Jewish army and to be here to pave the way for millions more of our brethren who have yet to come.
Personally, I can't understand how you can not see G-d's hands in the return of the Jewish people home after 2000 years, the establishment of a Jewish State in the very land that they were exiled from, The revival of our language, the fulfillment of some of the prophecies, Torah and its institutions flourishing all over the country.
But at least I allow for your ideology in the weltanschauung (sp?) of Jewish belief!
MODERATOR Posted - 01 May 2001 20:00
Most of this was discussed, since those are the old, tired Zionist arguments. Its amazing how, despite being torn to shreds, they are still repeated.
First, the reciprocality of the Oaths was discussed right above, see my post of 25 December 2000 21:37.
See also my post of 9 February 2001 8:26 in http://bbs.shemayisrael.com/anything/Topic.asp?whichpage=2&pagesize=15&forum_title=Other&topic_title=ISRAEL&forum_id=21&topic_id=339
The Oaths are brought down l'halachah, 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.
And the Bnei Efraim, Chazal say, were killed for violating the Oaths. If this heter didn’t help them there’s no reason to think it will help us.
And as for it not being in Mishna Torah, the Rambam himself wasn’t impressed with this argument, since in Igeres Taomin he warns ppl not to violate the Oaths or else suffer grave danger.
So I guess the Rambam didn’t agree with your explanation of the Rambam.
Not only
The Oaths are not reciprocal. Our Oath not to rebel against the nations was not made to protect the nations it was made to protect us, so if the nations violate one of the oaths, that’s all the more reason to make sure we maintain the rest.
Seeing the "hand of G-d" means nothing when the Halachah disagrees.
The Bnei Efraim surely saw the hand of G-d in their escaping from
Until our Shevet Efriam. A clear miracle. The hand of G-d was surely seen! Yet it was forbidden and they were killed.
Why should we think we're better than Bnei Efriam?
jacob Posted - 18 June 2001 18:31
hi, I’m new to this site, and was reading what you said about kahane, specifically the jtf site. I used to be in the jdl, before it conflicted to much with yeshiva, and learnt many useful things there, such as Jewish pride, and self defense.
baruch hashem I haven't had to use my self defense yet, but I know friends that have used it, on the defensive, to stop attackers. also, what happens when there is another holocaust, why shouldn't one protect oneself, either through self defense or through guns? one last question, before the forming of the state of
MODERATOR Posted - 22 June 2001 19:44
jacob,
Jewish pride has to come through the Jewish religion, not tribal militancy, which is the type of pride the JDL instills. Jewish pride means we are holy, children of Hashem, and it comes hand in hand with Jewish humility when we contemplate the great responsibility that comes with that privilege. Jewish pride leads to commitment to Torah and Mitzvos.
Spending so much of your time energy and life preparing to know how to shoot someone in case of another holocaust is not our job in this world. Our job is to become Torah scholars and do Mitzvos. And if there will be another holocaust c"v, your knowing how to shoot will not save lives nearly as much as the commitment of Klall Yisroel to Hashem's Torah.
The JDL is more than a Karate class. It is a philosophy of what Jews need in this world to survive against the Goyim. Their philosophy is wrong and against the Torah as explained above.
cjorev Posted - 20 November 2001 17:29
I would really appreciate it if you can help me answer the following questions.
What is the explanation of the famous rashi in the beginning of Breishis "amar rebi yitzchak" Is this a "nationalistic" rashi?
Is there anywhere in Tanach besides Yirmeya 29 (as R Hirsh quotes) where we see our responsibilities in Golus namely not to be militant. (btw You need not elaborate, just sources)
What is the response to the following statement:
"There is no distinction between religious duty and nationalism, nationalism is a religious duty! And it often must result in militancy. Now, that is hard for many to accept, because it is not comfortable, it requires action. It demands that I
do not compromise for the comfort of the Diaspora. For, surely it is easier to be a coward that to be a man- because failures are hard to admit, unless of course you want to be the owner of your predicament and as a result of this illness we lack a conscience that gives us the ability to judge."
Finally, how do we know we must follow the exact law rather than the spirit of the law where the situation seems to demand?
thanks a lot
MODERATOR Posted - 20 November 2001 20:34
First, the "statement" (which sounds for sure like Kahane). It's full of baloney. No source, no tradition, baseless, empty words. Nationalism is not only not a religious duty, it is simply Avodah Zorah. "Nationalism" in this context is a euphemism for Zionism, or the idea that Jews need to be a "nation like all nations" - with their own land, language, etc.
This is idolatry. The Jews are different than all other nations. Other nations are nations because of common land, food, culture, language etc. Jews are a nation because of the Torah. That is ALL that makes us Jews. The idea that it enhances our status as a nation if we have a land or an army like everyone else is projecting non-Jewish national criteria and using it to replace the Torah Nation's criteria.
For more on this topic, you should see Rav Elchonon Wasserman's Ikvesa D'Meshichah. He discusses this at length.
It also does not matter if the nationalism is "religious" or not. As Reb Elchonon puts it: "Nationalism is avodah zorah. Religious nationalism is avodah zarah mixed with religion."
And no, the Rashi about R. Yitzchok is NOT, chas v'sholom, nationalistic. All it says is that Hashem owns the world and that when He decides to give Eretz Yisroel to us, we will have a right to take it.
It does NOT mean that we can just go into Eretz Yisroel and take the land from whoever is in there. That is forbidden and punishable by death, as the Gemora says in Kesuvos 111a.
Avrohom Avinu, who Hashem promised the land, had to buy the M'aras Hamachpelah from Efron. He did not come with claims of ownership. It says nowhere that Jews own Eretz Yisroel in Golus. On the contrary, we are allowed to live there, maybe even commanded to, according to some Rishonim, but not allowed to own it as a State. As we say in Davening "Because of our sins we were exiled from our land."
Eretz Yisroel was given to us on the condition we fulfill the Torah. It was the same Hashem Who promised it to us that took it away because we did not fulfill that condition.
And He said NOT to dare take it until we do fulfill it. That will happen when Moshiach comes.
PS - Ikvesa D'Meshichah will provide you with all you need to know about not being militant, as well.
IkeHolmes Posted - 05 December 2001 15:56
If we can't take control of the land, or have a government there, so what was Bar Kochba's excuse for fighting the Romans after they destroyed the Beis Ha Mikdosh and basically conquered Eretz Yisroel?
And why did the Tanoim, such as Rabbi Akiva support him? Maybe because he declared himself moshiach? But didn't Jews govern themselves in Beitar too?
MODERATOR Posted - 05 December 2001 16:35
You’re right - Bar Kochba's "excuse" was that he believed Moshiach had come. When that happens, Golus is over and we take Eretz Yisroel.
But Chazal do indeed say that the generation of Bar Kochba were punished with death and destruction because they violated the Oaths. That, even though they believed it wasn’t a problem. That is how severe the Oaths are.
Jewel Posted - 18 March 2002 18:05
Hello. I am a follower of Rabbi Kahane, zt"l. I am a young girl in a Bais Yaakov school. I never met either of the Rabbi Kahane's before they were killed.
However, I can tell you that just by reading his books, his words actually instilled more Jewish pride than any and all of my years in my Jewish, orthodox school. His words taught me that Jewish blood is not cheap, and we need to take action when it is spilled. He inspired me to change my life, and to become more aware of Jewish adversity around the world, as well as to become more observant and aware of Hashem.
About the
Rabbi Kahane, ztl, had an answer, which many seem to protest, but which I feel makes so much sense. The Arabs need to leave
Is the answer to evacuate all the Jews from the Land and place them in "safe
Do not worry, I have no faith in the Knesset, and I know that they are corrupt. I believe in an
He also stood for many other things as well, not just "violence." He learned Torah all his life and was in yeshiva for half of his life (Mir Yeshiva, Kollel). He was married, had children, wore a kippah, kept the Shabbat, kept Kashrut, feared Hashem, gave charity, and, as I and I think jacob said, instilled Jewish pride in so many souls.
Moderator, I have asked so many people to explain to me why HaRav Kahane ztl, was wrong. I even asked my principal, who evades the topic time and time again. No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer. No one seems to know what to tell me. I want the truth, and if my "hashkafah?" is wrong, I would like to know why.
1. Why is it wrong to have a Jewish homeland? (As we see in the Holocaust, NOT having a Jewish homeland doesn’t help too much. Maybe Eretz Yisrael could have saved the Jews of Europe?)
2. Let's say it is wrong to have a Jewish Homeland. What do you propose to do? Give it to the Arabs who will most probably kill the Jews there, cv"s? Deport all the 4 million Jews to
3. Why is it wrong for Jews to use physical self-defense against their enemies, or at least be trained to? You stated b4, if I am correct, that the Jews should immerse themselves in Torah instead of self-defense, or something. What about Rav Kahane, ztl, who learned his whole life and kept the mitzvot of Hashem? What if we/you/me do both?
I would like to know (seriously) how Rabbi Kahane, whom so many seem to "dislike," has instilled in me a sense of Jewish pride; a sense that it is an honor to be a Jew, a chosen child of G-d; the knowledge that my brothers and sisters pain is my pain; how after reading his words and meeting his followers, I daven with immense kavanah, and I am inspired to help Jews everywhere. All while reading his words and having NEVER met him. All this was inspired in a short period of time, while my school of many years has done nothing parallel to this.
If someone would like to set me, a "crazy Kahanist" straight, please do. Please, prove me wrong, I want to know the truth.
MODERATOR Posted - 17 April 2002 0:37
The first thing I would suggest for you is to get a hold of Rav Elchonon Wasserman's Kovetz Maamarim, and read the chapter called Ikvesa D'Meshichah. He explains why the tactics that Kahane espoused - which by the way, are nothing new: the idea of exporting the Arabs, and fighting terror with terror etc. were espoused way way before Kahane, in the early days of Zionism; his ideas are so totally unoriginal - are not only against the Torah, but cause Klall Yisroel to be in danger, and Jews to c"v die. See especially pages 310-313 in the new print. Basically it goes like this:
When someone attacks an individual Jew, he is instructed to fight back. "When someone rises to kill you, rise up and kill them first." But when we are dealing with the survival of Klall Yisroel as a whole, the rules change. This is because, using plain, nationalistic methods of survival work for other nations but do not work to maintain the Am Yisroel. This is because, while Esav was blessed with "He shall live by his sword", Klall Yisroel's Brochoh was that they should live by the Torah.
This means that the sword is the method the nations use for survival, but it does not work for us.
What does work for us, is to avoid confrontation with the nations of the world as much as possible. We are commanded by Chazal in numerous places (Brachos 7b, Yalkut Shimoni Shemos 168, Devorim Rabbah 1) not to dare engage the Goyim in a national confrontation. If we do, we will lose. Because we are playing on their turf - "the sword". What we are told to do in order to survive, is to avoid confrontation as much as possible, run away, whether the storm, and turn to Torah and Mitzvos.
The Gemora (Taanis 10b) says we should not "attract the attention" of the nations. Says Rav Elchonon: "This is a warning not to give the nations any opportunity to focus their attention on us and to always be talking about us. To the extent that the nations refrain from thinking about us and talking about us, to that extent we will be OK.."
In short, Kahane's methods of directly confronting the nations with force will fail because the nations are stronger than us, physically. The result will be - and has been - only to further instigate greater anti-Semitism and more deaths of Jews. The right thing to do according to Chazal is to "lay low" - just the opposite of what Kahane wanted.
Throughout history this is how Klall Yisroel has behaved. And although we have been persecuted and murdered for thousands of years, please note that Klall Yisroel is the only single one of the ancient nations that has survived until today. The "shelf life" for even the most glorious, powerful nations is much shorter than the shelf life of the Am Yisroel. The methods that Chazal revealed to us - the methods that we have used - have been successful beyond any reasonable expectations, or any natural life span. We have been miraculously successful in our survival using the methods of Chazal. And that, despite our being constantly persecuted, and without a homeland for thousands of years.
That is the only thing that allowed us to survive throughout golus - "laying low". And not confronting the nations. Not living "by the sword".
When the Goyim threatened us with death, we always turned to the Torah. When they threatened our religion, not our lives, like by making a Shmad, then, and only then, did we put our lives on the line and go to war against impossible odds.
We all know that’s the diff between Purim and Chanukah. On Chanukah, they didn’t want to kill any Jews. They just attacked "Hashem" - wanted to stop Torah and Mitzvos. So we fought. But on Purim they wanted to kill us - so we didn’t make a war; we prayed.
I quoted elsewhere on the boards an interview that Rav Elchonon ZTL had with a Yiddish newspaper before the war. He said that those who resort to the methods of "answering violence with violence" are considered Rodfim of Klall Yisroel - people who put Jewish lives in danger. And I don’t know if he meant that literally, but the Halachic status of such people is that you are allowed to kill them, and by killing them, it is considered as if you saved the Jewish lives that would have been lost because of their irresponsible actions.
Regarding a homeland, the torah prohibits us to have a homeland in Eretz Yisroel before Moshiach comes. The punishment, it says, is that if we do take Eretz Yisroel before Moshiach, Hashem will allow the Jews to be "hunted down and butchered like animals in the field." Rachmana Litzlan.
One of the reasons for not making a Jewish State in
"These Zionists...with their offensive militancy, fanned the fires of anti-0semitism in
"Thee are the 'statement' who organized the irresponsible boycott against
"The Zionists have incited and continue to incite an embittered Jewish youth to futile wars against world powers like
"And these same Zionist "statesmen" heedlessly push the world to the brink of another total war - revolving entirely around the
"...the rising anti-Semitism in the Western World is the product of their "statesmanship"".
Rav Shach ZT"L also writes how the controversy caused by the State of Israel is likely to cause the next world war, rachmana latzlan.
The solution? I don’t think there is any. Not any more. The Zionists threw a hand grenade into a powder keg of anti-Semitism with their actions. Now, the world hated us more and more. Even the Satmar Rebbe ZTL, one of the staunchest opponents of Zionism in our time, writes in several places, that even though it is clear that the State of Isabel must be abolished, due to the problems it causes as well as its Halachic unacceptability, but we cannot give back it to the Arabs, since doing so would be a big Sakanah to the Jews living there. Rather, he says, the only solution is to pray for Moshiach to come and let him abolish the State.
I have not heard of any Tzadik come up with any solution to this problem. The Gedolim tried to prevent it - as in the writing of Rav Michoel Ber and Rav Elchonon ZTL - but the Zionists ignored their pleas and put us in this position anyway. Once the fire is burning, I haven’t heard anyone suggest a way to put it out.
Except to pray to Hashem and to return to the Torah.
Jewel Posted - 08 May 2002 17:08
He explains why the tactics that Kahane espoused - which by the way, are nothing new: the idea of exporting the Arabs, and fighting terror with terror etc. were espoused way way before Kahane, in the early days of Zionism; his ideas are so totally unoriginal - are not only against the Torah, but cause Klall Yisroel to be in danger, and Jews to c"v die.
Actually, Rabbi Kahane, ztl, himself repeated this over and over again. First of all, he accredited much of his ideas to Betar and FFI and Zeev Jabotinsky, ztl. But even more than that, he accredited "his ideas" to the Torah, not to himself. The only book I need to read to find his ideas are the Torah. And I certainly don’t need to read a book to tell me his works were not original, I can find that in his own books.
When someone attacks an individual Jew, he is instructed to fight back. "When someone rises to kill you, rise up and kill them first." But when we are dealing with the survival of Klall Yisroel as a whole, the rules change. This is because, using plain, nationalistic methods of survival work for other nations but do not work to maintain the Am Yisroel. This is because, while Esav was blessed with "He shall live by his sword", Klall Yisroel's Brochoh was that they should live by the Torah.
This means that the sword is the method the nations use for survival, but it does not work for us
(6 day war and all the other wars in
What does work for us, is to avoid confrontation with the nations of the world as much as possible. We are commanded by Chazal in numerous places (Brachos 7b, Yalkut Shimoni Shemos 168, Devorim Rabbah 1) not to dare engage the Goyim in a national confrontation. If we do, we will lose.
(6 day war, and all the other wars in
Oh so I guess the European Jews "confronted" the Nazis? And the Crusaders and all the other Jewish enemies?
The Gemora (Taanis 10b) says we should not "attract the attention" of the nations. Says Rav Elchonon: "This is a warning not to give the nations any opportunity to focus their attention on us and to always be talking about us. To the extent that the nations refrain from thinking about us and talking about us, to that extent we will be OK.."
I think just by keeping the Torah we will attract enough attn of the Goyim.
In short, Kahane's methods of directly confronting the nations with force will fail because the nations are stronger than us, physically.
--IDF, hello? Where is your faith? Even if we didn’t have a "strong" army (which we do) that’s not relevant cuz defending ourselves is the right thing and Hashem will help us.
The result will be - and has been - only to further instigate greater anti-Semitism and more deaths of Jews. The right thing to do according to Chazal is to "lay low" - just the opposite of what Kahane wanted.
--To walk like dogs with our tails btwn our feet? Be afraid always of confrontation? How do you say we live like this? I say, c"v that this is how we may die. The European Jews laid low too.
Throughout history this is how Klall Yisroel has behaved. And although we have been persecuted and murdered for thousands of years, please note that Klall Yisroel is the only single one of the ancient nations that has survived until today. The "shelf life" for even the most glorious, powerful nations is much shorter than the shelf life of the Am Yisroel. The methods that Chazal revealed to us - the methods that we have used - have been successful beyond any reasonable expectations, or any natural life span. We have been miraculously successful in our survival using the methods of Chazal. And that, despite our being constantly persecuted, and without a homeland for thousands of years.
--So it doesn’t really matter if 6 million die, as long as in the end we survived?
That is the only thing that allowed us to survive throughout golus - "laying low". And not confronting the nations. Not living "by the sword".
When the Goyim threatened us with death, we always turned to the Torah. When they threatened our religion, not our lives, like by making a Shmad, then, and only then, did we put our lives on the line and go to war against impossible odds.
We all know that’s the diff between Purim and Chanukah. On Chanukah, they didn’t want to kill any Jews. They just attacked "Hashem" - wanted to stop Torah and Mitzvos. So we fought. But on Purim they wanted to kill us - so we didn’t make a war; we prayed.
Actually, they did fight, soooo.....
The solution? I don’t think there is any.
Too bad. I HAVE a solution. Faith in G-d and ARABS OUT!
Not any more. The Zionists threw a hand grenade into a powder keg of anti-Semitism with their actions.
Forget about the Zionists! This is post-Zionist era. Im not looking for someone to blame.
Now, the world hated us more and more. Even the Satmar Rebbe ZTL, one of the staunchest opponents of Zionism in our time, writes in several places, that even though it is clear that the State of Israel must be abolished, due to the problems it causes as well as its Halachic unacceptability, but we cannot give back it to the Arabs, since doing so would be a big Sakanah to the Jews living there. Rather, he says, the only solution is to pray for Moshiach to come and let him abolish the State.
I have not heard of any Tzadik come up with any solution to this problem.
The Gedolim tried to prevent it - as in the writing of Rav Michoel Ber and Rav Elchonon ZTL - but the Zionists ignored their pleas and put us in this position anyway. Once the fire is burning, I haven’t heard anyone suggest a way to put it out.
Except to pray to Hashem and to return to the Torah.
PRAY?? WHILE WE HAVE 400+ JEWS DYING SINCE
WAIT FOR MOSHIACH? WELL, GUESS WHAT? ITS 60 YEARS LATER AND MOSHIACH HASNT COME BC OF RESPONSES LIKE THIS. WE HAVE TO BRING MOSHIACH, NOT WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT. WHAT ABOUT DONT STAND IDLY BY
ARE YOU SO SCARED OF ARABS THAT YOU WONT FIGHT THEM TO SAVE YOUR FELLOW JEWS LIFE?? THIS IS NOT JUDAISM, BUT COWARDICE. thank you.
you have just made my belief stronger, as have almost all the other ppl who have told me not to follow Rabbi Kahane. None have a reason why, none have a solution. Thanks, I guess. G-d bless!
MODERATOR Posted - 09 May 2002 18:31
Jewel, you are missing the point.
Of course hishtadlus is needed, but the question is, what path to take for hishtadlus? Both advance and retreat are Hishtadlus, and both are appropriate in their proper times.
Chazal tell us that for Klall Yisroel, the histadlus that will be successful for us, is never, ever, to assert ourselves to or to confront the nations of the world. That will be our salvation.
We must never even demand things of the nations - we can only request, Rav Elchonon says. We cannot protest against them, we cannot demand they give us anything, we cannot write newspaper articles about how wrong they are (between ourselves, yes, we can and should; but to the world, in public, we cannot).
That is not relying on a miracle, that is practical advice from Chazal based on the factual dynamics in the relationship between the Jewish Nation and the Goyish Nations. The psychology of the Goyim, the Jews, and all other factors were considered by G-d and this is the advice - and orders that he gave us.
If we lay low, submit to the nations, we will live. Else, c"v...
This is how Klall Yisroel survived all these years. This is the only way we can survive in the future.
The victories of the IDF were battles; the war with the Arabs is not over. Far from it. The IDF has not conquered their enemies. On the contrary, more people have been killed by the enemy - Arabs - in
And even the "victories" are questionable.
Depends what you consider victory. If you want land, and are willing to give Jewish blood, which is of course against everything the Torah teaches - a Jewish life is worth more than all the land, including eretz Yisroel and the Bais HaMikdash itself - then its a victory, I suppose.
On Purim, they only fought AFTER the enemy was neutralized. When the Gezeirah was over, and the Jews had the support of the government, they "mopped up" their enemies. they did NOT fight Achashveirosh to nullify the decree.
Even today, it is clear that the incendiary acts of the Kahanists have caused Jewish blood to spill. Including that of Kahane himself, and his son and daughter in law. His way did not work for him. It doesn’t work for anyone.
The insane act of the Kachnik Tatiana Soskin caused an Arab uprising that killed and maimed may Jews.
No, its not "OK" if 6,000,000 Jews are killed, I never said that. But we don’t have an option of eliminating anti-Semitism, we only have the option of minimizing casualties. And that means laying low, Chazal say.
Rav Yochanan ben Zakai was willing to give up
The same applies for the first destruction.
Throughout history, those who wanted to fight were the ones who cause untold death and suffering for Jews. Like the Baryonim. And like Kahane.
Our only hope is to listen to Chazal and the Gedolei Yisroel who tell us that militancy is not the way to survival. Peaceful political requests to the nations, and finding favor in their eyes works for us.
Fighting works for the Goyim.
If we would fight, we would end up like the Goyish nations that came into existence in the days we did.
Dead. Obliterated. Gone.
Only because we did not fight in Golus and submitted to the reality of being a sheep among 70 wolves did we outlive all of them.
Kahane and those like him would change that. he would make us into a Goyishe "becharvo sichye" nation who will c"v perish like all such nations.
If it aunt broken don’t fix it.
Judaism aint broken. We’ve done better than anyone else, survival-wise. Don’t change that. The only other option is to have more Jews killed, not less. That was Kahane's choice.
Thank G-d it is not Klall Yisroel's.
Jewel Posted - 20 May 2002 20:06
"If we lay low, submit to the nations, we will live."
The Jews of the Holocaust certainly laid low. Any comments on how they perished if laying low is the way to survival?
MODERATOR Posted - 20 May 2002 20:35
I will answer this in the "Zionism" forum - Jews Arabs etc.
Thanks.
grend123 Posted - 26 May 2002 22:28
Rav Yochanan gave away yerushalayim - and Rabbi Akiva said he was wrong. On his deathbed Rav Yochanan said that he was afraid to die because he did not know who was right - he or Rabbi Akiva - and he was afraid of going to gehinnom if he was wrong. It wasn’t nearly as pashut as you make it sound.
MODERATOR Posted - 22 October 2002 0:11
Its very very poshut. It says nowhere that the reason Rabi Yochanan ben Zakai was worried on his deathbed was because he wanted to give away yerushalayim. In fact, that decision of his is used dozens of times in the Rishonim and Achronim as a halachah l'maaseh example of how we are to act when dealing with the danger form the Goyim.
Rabi Akiva did not say Rav Yochanan ben Zakai was wrong for wanting to give away Yerushalayim, as opposed to fighting for it. Rabi AKiva said that RYB"Z had an opportunity to avoid a war altogether by asking the Romans to go home, as per his one wish granted to him by Aspasyonus. But not a single opinion - of Rabi AKiva or anyone else - says that chas v'sholom Rav Yochanan ben Zakai should have fought for
There is no question that all the land in the world - including Yerushalayim and the Bais Hamikdosh itself - it not worth a single Jewish life. The idea that Jewish lives are expendable in order to own land is baseless and against the Torah.
Truth Seeker Posted - 19 February 2003 21:45
Moderator,
You claim that the Satmarar Rov wrote,
"...the only solution is to pray for Moshiach to come and let him abolish the State." ,
yet elsewhere, in a different forum, you quote the Intro. to VaYoel Moshe in which the SR explicitly states that _the very existence of the State is preventing the arrival of the Moshiach_ (but that we must pray that the State be abolished solely through the Hand of Hashem).
Obviously if the SR held that Moshiach cannot come as long as the State exists, he could not have said that Moshiach will abolish will the state!!!
MODERATOR Posted - 19 February 2003 22:03
Moshiach exists in many stages. The Rambam writes for instance that Moshiach will have to make all Jews do Teshuva, which will be a sign that he is in reality Moshiach. Once we know that, we follow him to the Geulah.
SO Moshiach does things in preparation for the Geulah as well as the Geulah itself. I imagine that’s why, in Divrei Yoel, he writes that we have to wait for "Eliyahu and Moshiach" to terminate
So he is saying that, before the Geulah happens,
moshe7 Posted - 04 January 2004 7:33
I take exception to what you conclude from the deaths of the Kahanes. When someone asks about the holocaust you say some bla bla about anti-Semitism. The Kahanes were murdered by anti-Semites, Mr. Gubin. I WARN YOU: you are playing with fire, do not touch HaShem's anointed.
MODERATOR Posted - 04 January 2004 7:37
Those who killed the Kahanes weren’t targeting any Jews - they were targeting the Kahanes specifically.
"G-d's anointed"? I don't think so.
daledamosshelhalacha Posted - 05 January 2004 13:45
I was shocked to read in "Between Berlin and Slabodka" by Hillel Goldberg that the Netziv was Zionist leaning. Is this true? What's going on over here?
MODERATOR Posted - 05 January 2004 13:50
This was mentioned somewhere in the Zionism forum. The Netziv was never said anything about chas vsholom creating a Jewish State in EY. He was in favor of colonizing Eretz Yisroel, which was then under Turkish authority. The Netziv was niftar before Herzl even dreamed up the idea of a Jewish State.
Zionists like to present anyone who loves Eretz Yisroel as Zionist, thereby hijacking our Torah sages to further their own agenda, which was making a Jewish State. Its a common Zionist propaganda tactic to confuse the issue of the holiness of Eretz Yisroel and the zechus (and according to some even a Mitzvah) of living there, with Statehood. The first is a Torah concept, the second is Zionism.
gai bluz Posted - 06 May 2004 8:07
I knew R'meir kahane zt'l personally and met his son R' binyamin zev zt'l on a number of occasions. the torah says "haboh lehorgicha hashkeim vehargo" so in personal matters one should use violence if all else fails.
ok you can say that "since its for the entire Jewish state it is different and we must use diplomacy....... But Diplomacy Does not work with the Arabs. Historically it has never worked. the Arab goal is the complete annihilation of
ISLAM BY DEFINITION IS A PEACEFUL RELIGION. let me clarify- based on what I heard in a lecture series on Islam from an Islamic scholar. Islam divides the world into two spheres the "dar el charb" meaning the area of sword/war and the "dar el salam" or area of peace.
Islam believes the world must be completely muslim and all infidels must convert to islam or be killed. the infidels have one way out; namely, to give up their land and subjugate themselves to the Muslims and live as second class citizens. This is the Dar El Salam.
The goal of the Palestinians is the conquest of all of "PALISTINE." The PLO which claims it just wants a return to the 1967 borders, was founded in 1964 when the Arabs were in control of all of the territories.
MODERATOR Posted - 06 May 2004 8:23
Your understanding of the Arab religion is wrong, but so is your understanding of your own religion. Haba lhargechah surely does not apply here - please read the Zionist forum.
Kahane lied about this to his people very often. He would site the Chevron massacre, for instance, as "proof" that the Arabs want to kill Jews regardless of the State of Israel, since there was no State of Israel in 1939, when the massacre took place.
But of course that’s a lie - Zionism predated the State of Israel. The Balfour declaration happened in 1917, the Zionist Congress in 1897. The Zionists were already fighting violently with the Arabs and the English, way before the State was created. And it was the Zionists that instigated the Chevron massacre (not that that alleviates any responsibility on the part of the murderers) with their antagonizing the Arabs with threats to take over the Kosel grounds, as well as the entire land.
Kahane knew that.
Kahane's way is against the Torah, as explained above. And that derech didn’t work for Kahane or his son. We don’t want what happened to them to happen to us.
buckonine Posted - 07 May 2004 9:24
MOD, you said that his understanding of Islam (and his own religion) is mistaken. You then explained how Kahane was wrong, but never explained how his ideas on Islam were misguided.
Please Explain.
MODERATOR Posted - 07 May 2004 9:29
This was discussed.
http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=1491&forum_id=45&topic_title=Why+do+Arabs+hate+Jews%3F&forum_title=Zionists%2C+and+Arabs%2C+and+Eretz+Yisroel&M=0&S=1
http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=3166&forum_id=45&topic_title=Demonization+BY+and+OF+Arabs-+Vicious+Cycle&forum_title=Zionists%2C+and+Arabs%2C+and+Eretz+Yisroel&M=0&S=1
http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=239&forum_id=14&topic_title=Arabs&forum_title=Jews+and+the+Other+Nations&M=0&S=1
And in other places as well, especially in the Zionism forum.
My point here is that what Kahane says cannot be trusted - he has a track record of making things up, twisting things and distorting things. When he says something it has to be taken as coming from a known propagandist.
dfg Posted - 17 June 2004 13:09
Mod, you wrote: "But on Purim they wanted to kill us - so we didn’t make a war; we prayed."
We didn't make war? What about the day where Jews killed all of their enemies (2 days in Shushan). Why didn't that violate the oaths?
On a related note, are Jews allowed to participate in the governments of other nations, or would that be "not walking between raindrops" and "laying low." If not, how was Esther allowed to be Queen and Mordechai allowed to be mishne lamelech (not to mention Esther's son being the Persian Emperor)? How was Yosef allowed to be viceroy in
Also, what is the original source of the oaths? When did we swear them?
Thank You
MODERATOR Posted - 17 June 2004 13:14
The "war" in
Jews are allowed to be in foreign governments. There is no Oath against that.
The Oaths are based on a Posuk in Shir Hashirim, as the Gemora states.
dfg Posted - 18 June 2004 17:07
I looked up the Gemorah (Ketuvot 111a).
The very next statement on the daf is "Kol hadar b'Eretz Yisrael sharoi b'lo avon."
We certainly don't take that as halacha - otherwise there is justification for all of the chilonim in
This is part of the same discussion. How can we pick and choose which part of this gemorah we wish to consider as halacha?
MODERATOR Posted - 18 June 2004 17:16
Every Gemora - the ones here and the ones all over shas - have to be understood in view of how they reconcile with other Gemoras and with problems that we may have understanding then at first blush. The Gemora wasn’t written like a Kitzur Shulchan Aruch where everything is spoon fed, and so that is why we have Meforshim.
The Makneh on Kidushin says that this Gemora works along the same lines as the Rambam that says "illicitness is only found in those minds that are empty of wisdom", and since chazal tell us that "the atmosphere of eretz yisroel makes one wise", therefore, if you use eretz yisroel correctly by utilizing the opportunity to become wise, you will not sin.
But only if you use EY properly.
Similarly, the Pnei Yehoshua (on the spot) says that this is only referring to someone who lives in EY lshem shamayim, in order for the merit of EY to help him be better, as opposed to because you like the fruits or the beauty of the land etc. And thus, if someone is mindful of the great holiness of EY, even if he does sin, he will surely do teshuva. He says that EY cannot be better than Yom Kippur, which "forgives" in ad of itself, but if someone relies on Yom Kippur to forgive thereby justifying sinning, it doesn’t work.
In other words, the Gemroa is conditional. It does not mean living in EY like a cow frees you from sin; it means that living in EY the way Jews are supposed to live in EY will inspire people to not sin and to do Teshuva if they do.
Alternately, it means EY is an opportunity not to sin, but you have to take advantage of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment