ZIONISM / RELIGIOUS-----aschalta d'geula
grend123 Posted - 03 February 2003 2:16
I have to wonder if all you anti-Zionists out there have actually learned any Nach.
If you read the Shivat Tzion perakim of Yeshayahu (i.e., the Yeshayahu Hamenachem section), you would see a surprising parallel.
Koresh, the PAGAN king was fighting Bavel, which at that time had the potential of being Gog U'Magog. However the Jews in Galus refused to return to Eretz Yisrael because they felt that this redemption wasn't "frum" enough - they couldn't believe that the actions of a non-Jew could be the start of the Geulah - AND THE NAVI BERATES THEM FOR THAT! Yeshayahu rebukes the Bnei Galus that they are "frummer than Hashem" - if Hashem is bringing about the Geulah this way, who are they to say "it's not good enough."
Parallels?
Of course, we have no Navi today, but to reject the State of Israel as aschalta d'geula on the grounds that geulah cant come through the non-frum is clearly an anti-Yeshayahu stance.
P.S. Yes, I said Yeshayahu Hamenachem, which is the Israeli term for Second Yeshayahu. If the idea bothers you, take it up with Ibn Ezra. I'm not saying I believe one way or the other.. but the terminology for that section is useful.
MODERATOR Posted - 03 February 2003 2:31
Grend, I haven’t' the foggiest notion what you are trying to say. Please explain.
ckust Posted - 03 February 2003 2:42
I think Grend is trying to say that the Zionists are Gog and Magog, like Koresh was going to be even though Koresh wasn’t religious.
MODERATOR Posted - 03 February 2003 2:59
Gog and Magog are supposed to be non-Jewish.
Gog is a King, Magog is his kingdom. When Moshiach comes, they will wage war against Hashem and Moshiach. Hashem will destroy them all.
Gog U’Magog is 70 b'Gematriah, since they comprise all 70 nations. Also among the armies of Gog and Magog will be traitorous Jews who will rebel against Hashem and Moshiach. (Grend, is that what you mean?)
This war will obviously take place after Moshiach comes, not, contrary to popular belief, beforehand. And it says this explicitly in the Gemora (Avoda Zara 3b) and the Zohar in a number of places. However, although the "big war" of Gog and Magog will take place post Moshiach's arrival, the "armies" of Gog and Magog will be with us before Moshiach comes, and will begin making trouble for us then. There are those who say that the fighters of Gog and Magog will be those among Klall Yisroel who distort the words of the Torah and who try to tear Jews away from Hashem.
So in a way, the war of Gog and Magog has begun already, before the Geulah, in the sense that their armies are waging war against Hashem.
And it is therefore altogether likely then that Grend is right, about the Zionists being part of Gog and Magog.
But this in no way constitutes "aschalta d'geulah" (!?!?). Rather, part of the pains of Golus. Or, as is said in the name of the Ponivizher Rav, "what they call the aschalta d'geulah" is actually the sof golus!!".
Koresh, in addition, had a the support of a prophecy that the time of Golus was ended. That is why Yeshiaya berated the nation. Without a prophecy, they should indeed not have followed him.
The Ramban, in fact, says that the reason only the Jews of Bavel went to Eretz Yisroel is because the prophecy of the end of Golus applied to them only, and the others would therefore not be allowed to go, because without a prophecy, they would be violating the Oaths.
grend123 Posted - 10 February 2003 18:36
Whoa. I never said the Zionists were Gog U'magog. Koresh fought AGAINT Gog Umagog (aka Bavel, at that time). My point is that the geulah may be begun by non-religious people, just as shivat tziyon, which could have been the geulah if the people had listened to Yeshayahu, was spearheaded by Koresh.
Battzion Posted - 10 February 2003 18:36
We know that the state was aschlata d'geula for the following reasons. We know that Moshiach occurs through a process and not all at once.
At the beginning of this process, the Jews will start organize themselves, will become stronger militarily, politically, etc. if Im correct, the Jews must be united militarily by the time of the War with Gog Umagog or else how would they fight gog umagog??
We don’t need a specific person to come to unite militarily and stuff because as I said Moshiach gradually in stages. we see this happening very evidently with the State of Israel. from the fact that the state is aschalta d'geula, we can say the oaths are nullified.
Also, about the permission of the nations oath,(that we need the permission of the nations to return to E"Y and establish a state) I saw somewhere that we can clearly see that we had ENOUGH permission (not total permission) to establish the state, from the UN AND from the
MODERATOR Posted - 10 February 2003 20:07
Grend, I still dont understand. Koresh had a prophecy that the Geulah was over. We don’t. And fighting Gog and Magog is not the beginning of the geulah. Gog and Magog will be fought AFTER the appearance of Moshiach himself, as the Gemora says in the beginning of Avodah Zorah. The armies of Gog and Magog are here before the Geulah and yes, they do make some trouble. But that trouble does not mean the Geulah is here.
The Geulah will be here when Moshiach comes. Gog and Magog will take place during Golus, and, in terms of the great war, after Moshiach has come.
Second, the opposition to "human beings" being the bringers of the Geulah only applies to the third and final Geulah -- not to that of Koresh. The reason is, because any Geulah done via a human cannot be permanent, as Chazal say even with regard to Moshe and Aaron - when they made a Geulah it was not complete. The next Geulah will be; and that can only be done through G-d.
Third, Koresh was more than happy to have this "Geulah" happen not on his terms, but according to G-d's terms. He was merely doing whatever the prophecy and prophets said he should. The Zionists had no interest in G-d's redemption - they were interested in creating a State unrelated to, and even opposed to, G-d, and His Torah and His sages. There is no comparison between a King whose actions were done on behalf of G-d versus heretics whose actions were done on behalf of atheistic nationalism, and worse, with the specific intention of stripping G-d and spirituality from the definition of "Jewishness."
Battzion,
It says nowhere that the Geulah begins by Jews becoming politically powerful, and when you are talking about such power in Eretz Yisroel, you are making a bad error in logic:
If the Oaths tell us that we are not allowed to have sovereign power over Eretz Yisroel, then you cannot say that if the Jews attain such power it is a sign that the Oath is null. For if so, it is impossible to violate the Oath, as violating it would means aschalta d'geulah. Makes no sense. Even if there were such a thing as the Jews banding together politically, it would have to be specifically OUTSIDE of Eretz Yisroel.
Secondly, your "proof" that the Jews must be "united militarily" before Gog and Magog because otherwise how can they fight them, is absurd. First, the war of Gog and Magog will take place after the appearance of Moshiach, who will lead us into battle. Second, who in the world decided that the Jews will be prepared for this war? (Was
And even giving it credence - that does not exist in reality - who in the world says that such a military buildup constitutes the beginning of the geulah? Just because something is necessary for the war of Gog and Magog does not mean that...the Geulah is here when that happens???
grend123 Posted - 02 March 2003 17:52
Huh????
Koresh followed the prophets?
One of the most difficult sugyos in Yeshayahu is how koresh could be Yad Hashem since he DIDN'T have any prophet advising him - he was conquering for his own reasons. You can argue that if you like, but that is 100% the pashut pshat.
We assume that there did not have to be 3 batei mikdash - if Moshe Rabeinu had not hit the rock, then he could have been Moshiach. Chizkiyahu, according to the Gemarah, COULD have been Moshiach, but he didn't sing shira. So I fail to see how humans cannot bring about the final geulah - indeed I would argue that they HAVE to, since all of the "squandered possibilities" like Moshe and Chizkiyahu were of that nature.
But all of this is missing my original point, that the State CAN indeed be aschalta de'gula, because clearly the redemption can begin before Moshiach is in the picture, at least according to the Rambam Hilchos Melachim. My point is that Hashem works as he wills, and to deny the possibility of the State as the beginning of the geula merely on the grounds of it being "not frum enough" is exactly what the bnei bavel said about Koresh - and Hashem responded that He ruled the world, and that He decides how he will bring the geulah.
MODERATOR Posted - 02 March 2003 19:44
Grend,
The idea that a Geulah that is performed through human beings - even Moshe and Aharon - is necessarily temporary is in the Medrash Rabbah, and quoted by the Lubavithcer Rebbe Rashab regarding the Zionists. The fact that Moshe could have been Moshiach is not a problem, since had that been the case, then Hashem would have intervened and performed the Geulah the way He will iy"h when the real Geulah arrives.
As far as Koresh goes, there is no comparison between him and the Zionists. The idea is not that the Zionists were not "frum enough" but rather, they were enemies of Hashem, reshayim, kofrim, evil-doers, and more, their intention in creating the State of Israel was a totally unholy one: namely, "nihiyeh kechol hagoyim", and even to eliminate religion altogether.
It is therefore unthinkable that the anti-G-d actions of these anti-G-d people represent the ultimate revelation of G-d's Honor, the redemption itself. Forget it. It's absurd.
Koresh, on the other hand, was a righteous king. "Koresh was a kosher king, therefore, he is counted as if he were one of the Malchei Yisroel" (Rosh Hashanah 3b). Koresh, unlike the Zionists, made a decree that everyone should fear Hashem ("the G-d of Daniel").
Koresh was indeed acting in accordance with the express wishes of Hashem. "So said Koresh, King of Persia: 'Hashem ... has commanded me to build Him a house in
(I.e. Hashem commanded me through Yehsayah the prophet to build the Sanctuary in
And despite all of this, only 1500 Jews heeded Koresh's call to return to Eretz Yisroel. The reason, says the Ramban in Maamar HaGeulah (ch. 1), is that only the Jews of Bavel had a prophecy that the Golus was over. The rest of the Jews refused to emigrate to Eretz Yisroel en masse because since they did not have a prophecy that the Geulah has ended for them, doing so would have violated the Oaths!
Battzion Posted - 12 March 2003 17:54
Rav Mod- I sent this before, but it seems not to have been posted, so here it is again. It explains what I said in my last post much better. It is from the site www.yeshiva.org.il, and is a reply by Rabbi Moshe Kaplan to the following question:
What gives the State of Israel the legitimacy of a halachic Jewish State? Why do the laws of a Jewish State apply to one which was constituted under secular auspices?
Answer:
After 2000 years of subordination to other nations, dispersion in Exile and the desolation of our Land – and the desecration G-d’s which stems from this, we have been blessed with witnessing the amazing restoration of the Jewish People to their sovereignty and Land, which offers its fruits to its returning nation. This return has great spiritual, universal, even Divine, ramifications. The difficulty in appreciating this significance is due to the fact that the present situation in front of our eyes is far from perfect.
The key to answering your question is, therefore, the understanding that the Redemption process takes place in stages (Talmud Yerushalmi. Brachot 1:1). If it was a matter of all-or-nothing, then considering all that is lacking, we could say indeed that it is “nothing,” obviously not what we have been praying for.
But since our sources tell us that the redemption is a dynamic, developmental process, we can derive the simple conclusion that even though it is not complete, it does not mean it has not begun. To the contrary. Stage development means that it begins incomplete and develops toward completion and perfection.
More specifically, from Biblical sources down to modern ones, we find that the general stages are delineated by two phases: first the physical redemption and then the spiritual redemption (see Yechezkel chapters 36 and 37). The physical redemption includes the return – Teshuva - to our existence as a nation, having a government and army, dealing with agriculture and industry, which is the foundation of our ultimately becoming “A Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation” (Shmot 19:6). (Our goal is not merely to be holy individuals rather to express the Divine ideals of holiness in all aspects of human existence, that of national life and international relations. This ideal manifests the oneness of G-d that encompasses both heaven and earth, the spiritual and the physical realms.)
The secular reborn state is like a child that will ultimately grow up to be a great scholar, but presently cannot even read or write. Unaware of his future role he sometimes uses his developing energies in undesirable directions or even destructively. However, instead of wishing to return to the period before our “troublemaker” was born, we thank G-d for giving us this long awaited baby. Despite its wrongdoings, we make every effort to educate and redirect all of its G-d given powers toward the proper goals.
Zionism, the modern dress of our ancient yearnings to return to Eretz Yisrael and national vitality, takes the form of natural political efforts, based on human initiative which is in truth Divinely inspired. The two elements of full Jewish life, “Nationalism” and “Religion,” were perceived as separate and irreconcilable. In reality, however, “The national, practical inclination is the external dress [manifestation] of the spiritual, and the latter is the light and soul of the former” (Rav Kook, Orot, p. 158).
Therefore the two are not contradictory but complementary elements that together build the whole living organism of the Jewish people in its idyllic form. This is not an attempt to accommodate two different concepts. Rather, what has been misconceived as two opposing concepts is really one Divine ideal that transcends the individual components of nationalism and religion, and infuses new life and meaning into each.
However distant the stated goals of the secular Zionists may be from holiness, it is not in their hands to remove G-d from the Nation of Israel’s national aspirations. Any lack of recognition (by the secular or the religious!) that this Divine inner source is behind all the amazing events of our era does not change this fact.
In conclusion, we cannot judge the religious significance of the State of Israel only by what is presently revealed, for the Rabbis have taught us that the generation of the Mashiach is “bad on the outside and good on the inside” (Tikkunei Zohar, Tikun 60).
We must develop the eyes of Emunah to see that inner good and to guide it to fuller expression. We must learn to see the whole goal that is unfolding before our eyes and therefore view the present as a stage in an ongoing process towards complete redemption. As the Chafetz Chaim stated: “The advent of the Mashiach, which is the revelation of the Divine Presence in the world… will require a measure of understanding on the part of the individual before he will be capable of appreciating it.
One who gives no thought to the matter [of the Redemption] will obviously not feel anything [when it arrives]” (Cited in Beit Hashoeva p. 12).
May we indeed see the completion of the Redemption, speedily in our days, Amen.
Rabbi Moshe Kaplan
I know that this does not specifically address the oaths, but, really, even the Agudah says that they are batel, because of the UN vote and
MODERATOR Posted - 12 March 2003 18:30
Battzion,
Its sad that this kind of stuff is the best that religious Zionism can come up with. First, you are misinformed by whoever told you that the "Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah" decided that the Oaths are botul. That must be a Purim joke or something. I know that one of the mythological teachings that many Zionist Yeshivas teach is that this is an issue of "Zionists vs. Neturei Karta" or "Zionists vs. Satmar", and we've had such sentiments on these boards several times.
No, sorry, Bat, no such thing ever happened. Never. Nope. Go back to your teacher and ask him for a specific NAME of the Moetzes member who said such a thing. Forget that. It never happened.
(In fact, please see the forum "Rav Shach on this issue", where the Oath of not rebelling against the nations is quoted by Rav Shach several times in opposition to any "nationalist" activities, including standing up to the nations of the world as if we, too, were a nation of the world.)
As for the rest of your post, please note that your entire post is a collection of Zionist teachings without a single source for anything. If you want to defend Zionism you have to bring SOURCES or PROOFS or some kind of REASONING - not mere statements of Zionist teachings without any backup whatsoever.
The physical redemption includes the return – Teshuva - to our existence as a nation, having a government and army, dealing with agriculture and industry, which is the foundation of our ultimately becoming “A Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation”
Eeww. Who said such a disgusting thing? The foundation of being mamleches kohanim and goy kadosh is adherence to Torah and Mitzvos - it has nothing to do, neither as a cause or effect of, having an army and being a "physical" nation.
In fact, Rav Saadiah Gaon stated that the Jewish Nation is different from all the other nations in that we are a Nation only by virtue of all of us having the Torah, as opposed to a common language, food, army, culture, etc.
It is apikorsus to say that our status as a "nation" is enhanced by our attaining the "nation" stuff of the Goyim. This is one of the most insidious Zionist teachings: That in order to be more of a "nation" we must have a State.
Feh.
As far as the Geulah in stages, nowhere does it include as one of the stages, having a State in Eretz Yisroel or anywhere else for that matter.
Your quote from Rav Kook is meaningless since Rav Kook is the one who was accused of making up these teachings ex nihilo. It is those teachings that you have to find a source for. Finding more sourceless teachings doesn’t help your case.
Its all fluff, Battzion. You are presenting no defense for Zionism; instead, your post is an indictment of it, since it exposes it for what it is: simple Nationalism - "let us be like the nations". Let's have a State and an army and a language and membership in the UN and THEN we will be...what?
Nationalism is not a Jewish concept, and was condemned as simple idolatry by the Torah leaders, most famously Rav Elchonon Wasserman, leading student of the Chofetz Chaim, a vehement opponent of Zionism, which makes it a crime and distortion for this Rabbi Kaplan, whoever he is, to quote the Chofetz Chaim's teachings in defense of something he opposed as heresy.
However distant the stated goals of the secular Zionists may be from holiness, it is not in their hands to remove G-d from the Nation of
Fact, huh? National aspirations?? Our aspirations were never to create a State for ourselves, especially not in Eretz Yisroel. To do so is assur. And what you refer to as "secular Zionists" whose goals were "far from holiness" the Chofetz Chaim referred to as "from the seed of Amalek" (quoted by Reb Elchonon in a well-publicized letter).
It is unfortunate that in Zionist circles they minimize the vast revulsion that the Torah leaders had for Zionism - including religious Zionism.
Because of your falsification of the "Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah", I will sum up with a quote from Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZTL - member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah and talmid muvhak of the Chofetz Chaim:
"Nationalism is avodah zorah; religious nationalism is just avodah zorah mixed with religion"
(Ikvesa D'Meshichah)
grend123 Posted - 28 March 2003 10:55
I am discussing here the opinion of Rav Aharon Soloveitchik, Alav Hashalom - I would appreciate it if you would refrain from referring to his views as absurd.
Thank you.
grend123 Posted - 28 March 2003 10:55
You assume that Koresh was righteous, when the pashut pshat was that he was a straightforward pagan oved avoda zara.
It makes life simpler, but it doesn’t mean it's correct pshat
grend123 Posted - 28 March 2003 10:55
Sorry.. let me be clearer. Koresh himself was an idol worshipper, although he supported Judaism for Jews, true. The quote from ezra, however, does not mean yeshayahu gave him a prophecy but that he was making excellent PR with the Jews.
MODERATOR Posted - 28 March 2003 11:20
Grend, please. The Medrash Rabbah in Esther clearly says that Koresh was a "tzadik."
The Zionists, on the other hand, were total Apikorsim.
And as far as the author of this philosophy, please Grend, wake up. Zionism is not merely considered in the Torah world a legitimate but mistaken opinion, but rather a deviant movement, similar to the Maskilim or the Conservatives or the Reform. And, to quote Reb Elchonon Wasserman for the 150th time, Religious Zionism is nothing but idolatry mixed with religion.
That is true regardless of who said it.
Korach was bigger than Rav Aharon Soloveichik. He had Ruach HaKodesh (he saw that Shmuel was descended from him) and the support of 250 heads of the Sanhedrin in his time. Yet his philosophy was absurd and worse.
The measure of absurdity in any given philosophy is determined by the philosophy itself, regardless of who said it.
Battzion Posted - 31 March 2003 20:33
Rav Mod, I only said that the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah holds that the oaths are batel because it is a known fact that the Agudah holds that they are. Maybe Rav Elchonon Wasserman held something personally, but am I not correct in assuming that since the Agudah holds one thing, the Moetzes holds it too?
MODERATOR Posted - 31 March 2003 20:39
First of all, your "known fact" is actually fiction. The "Agudah" holds and held no such thing. To begin with, the Agudah is an organization, not a person. Only people have opinions, not corporations.
Second, you can find me not a single declaration by the "Agudah" or its Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah to that effect or anything even remotely similar.
Third, the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah is comprised of people; they are not a monolithic entity. And Rav Elchonon was one of them. Rav Shach ZTL was another, and he, too, quotes the Oaths. I am still waiting for you to find me some human being who disagrees.
Don’t hold your breath - I know that in Zionist circles they try to "normalize" their position that the Oaths somehow don’t matter by saying "Only the Chasidim" or "only Satmar" disagrees with that, but that is part of the Zionist mythology, together with the idea that the Rambam didn’t quote the Oaths, and the Koresh comparison mentioned at the beginning of this forum, et al.
Don’t hold your breath, battzion - you wont find what you’re looking for because it doesn’t exist.
Battzion Posted - 18 May 2003 1:37
About the shalosh shevous, I found these answers, among other- what do you think about these?????????????
They are part of a dvar torah by R' Avraham Rivlin:
- Rav Teitelbaum's claim rests on the fact that there was a "choma," that the nations of the world prohibited the Jews from settling in the
( I know you don't love this one)
Another answer is that once there is a sign from Hashem to return to the land, the oaths no longer apply. In addition to the permission given by the nations, the national reawakening and birth of modern Zionism can be viewed as a sign from Hashem that it is permissible to return to the land. The oaths were not an "issur" (absolute prohibition), but rather national tendencies that Hashem instilled within Klal Yisrael which would cause them to remain unmotivated to return to their land.
Also, throughout most of the exile, it was very difficult physically for Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael. Once a wide scale movement with an objective to return to Eretz Yisrael began, and it was physically possible to begin Aliya to Eretz Yisrael, it became clear that the oath was no longer in effect.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin (98a) says that when Eretz Yisrael gives forth fruit abundantly, it is a sure sign that the redemption is coming. Eretz Yisrael, in the time of the Zionist movement, began blooming and giving forth fruits unlike any previous time since the destruction of the land. This sign of redemption showed that the oath was no longer in effect.
According to some opinions, the only way to violate the oath would be if people came to Eretz Yisrael in very large groups. Since the Jews entered the land slowly, and over the course of many years, they did not violate the oath.
The author of the "Hafla'ah" maintains that the oaths only apply to those who are in the exile of Bavel, and not in other lands.
R' Chaim Vital explains that the oath only applied for 1000 years, not longer.
The Gra writes that the oath applies only to building the Beit Hamikdash, not to entering Eretz Yisrael.
MODERATOR Posted - 18 May 2003 1:47
Every one of those "answers" have been discussed and refuted in the Zionism, and Religious Zionism forums. Please refer. They’re the same-old-same-old outdated Zionist arguments that they all use. (You left out one of the most popular, btw: The Oaths are Agadita not Halachha (sic)).
Battzion Posted - 02 June 2003 7:08
About those answers, I purposely deleted some already extensively talked about on these forums ex. the Aggada one and one from R' Teichtal. but I have been through the forums and have not seen the Gra's answer or the answer that it applies only to Bavel. May I ask what your response is the Gra's answer??
MODERATOR Posted - 02 June 2003 7:29
The haflaah was referring to the Halachic prohibition of asur laalos mi bavel leretz yisroel --- for individuals to go form Bavel to EY. This, he says, is talking about from Bavel only. That does not refer to the collective Oaths of rebelling against the nations and taking over EY.
The GRA never said the Oaths only apply if you build the Bais Hamikdash; that is removing the GRA form its context and quoting only a fraction of its entirety. The GRA (which originates in the GRA's commentary on Tikunei Zohar #26) makes a statement that before Moshiach comes we will have to have the power of Torah with us. Then he qualifies that by saying "even so, we are still not allowed to build the Bais Hamikdash before Moshiach comes due to the Oath of "dechikas haketz."
Meaning, the GRA was asking if we need the power of Torah BEFORE Moshiach comes, why don’t we build the Bais Hamikdash? The answer is we cant, due to the Oath. This does not say that building the Bais Hamikdash is the only way to violate the Oath.
Quoting just the end part of the GRA ("the Oath prohibits us form building the Bais Hamikdash") is wrenching that line out of context.
Also, the GRA is only talking about the Oath of dechikas haketz; the main Oath under discussion here is the other Oath - shelo yaalu bchomah -- not to take over EY with sovereignty.
And even if all this would be true, where is the Halachic due process? We have the Rambam, Ramban, Ricash, Rashbash, and other rishonim and achronim who clearly are of the opinion that you can violate the Oath even without building a Bais Hamikdash, or rising up form lands other than Bavel. And many of these opinions - such as the Rambam - applied the Oaths in actual practice, as opposed to the GRA commenting on a Zohar, which may or may not be halacha l'maaseh.
It is axiomatic, never mind established halachic process, that, especially where am issue of a capital crime is concerned - such as the Oaths - we would never, ever base a heter in actual practice on such statements without demonstrating good and solid reason to pasken like them and not the other, majority Rishonim and Achronim.
But as I said - that’s just icing - the reality is there are no such shitos to begin with.
Battzion Posted - 09 July 2003 17:15
Oy, Im still trying:
I mentioned previously the answer that the oaths were not an actual issur, but rather a "national tendency", that Hashem made it so that the historical circumstances we encountered in Galus caused us to act a certain way, against our own will- as if we were bound by an oath. (this was said by the Baal Akeidah on Devarim 29:13-14.)
Another proof of this theory can be found in Iggeres Teiman, where Rambam seems to say that B"Y were bound by oath metaphorically. I haven’t actually seen the text inside yet, but is this a valid proof for this theory?
MODERATOR Posted - 11 July 2003 11:04
Sigh. The Akeidas Yitzchok merely said that the "oaths" are not literally "oaths" but some sort of existential part of nature.
The reason he says this is because a literal "oath" is difficult to comprehend in this context. But this does not mean that this "oath" is not binding. It is. In fact, he says the same thing about the "oath" of naaseh vnishmah, which the Gemora uses in many places as halachicly binding as if it were a real shevuah.
The issue is not whether these oaths are literally oaths or warnings of parts of nature of foundations of your neshoma -- the issue is that they are telling us that if we violate them in whatever form they exist, we will die c"v and therefore we are warned not to do it.
The Rambam in Igeres Taimon is towards the end, and he says "hisbiom al derech moshol" meaning, "he made them swear in a figurative sense" - but the figurativeness is the word "swear". It does not mean that it is not binding. In fact, the Rambam there says clearly that we dare not violate this "oath" or else klall yisroel is in mortal danger.
avi100 Posted - 04 May 2004 13:51
Could you please tell me who actually brings down the gimmel shavuous l'halacha and where. Nowhere in the Shulchan Aruch, the Rambam, or in any other poskim that we generally Paskin like are they brought down.
Also, what is your opinion about what c'choma (or b'choma) means?
MODERATOR Posted - 04 May 2004 13:52
http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=927&forum_id=27&Topic_Title=Religious+Zionism&forum_title=Different+Types+of+%22Orthodoxy%22
Oh - and add the Piskei Riaz to the list. I forgot to mention him the first time.
Rashi says what b'chomah means - at the end of the day, if you have sovereign strength in Eretz Yisroel, you have violated b'chomah. This is all that is necessary to be considered "byad hachazakah", as we see from that usage several places in Tanach. Please refer to many places in this forum where this is discussed.
mo Posted - 14 November 2004 17:01
The physical redemption includes the return – Teshuva - to our existence as a nation, having a government and army, dealing with agriculture and industry, which is the foundation of our ultimately becoming “A Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation”
Eeww. Who said such a disgusting thing? The foundation of being mamleches kohanim and goy kadosh is adherence to Torah and Mitzvos - it has nothing to do, neither as a cause or effect of, having an army and being a "physical" nation.**
I think it was Yehudo Alkali (or Alkalai) who redefined Teshuvo to means Return to the land. R. Meir Aeurbach (Imrei Bino) and his Beis Bin prohibited Alkalai books to be printed in
Or may be it was r. Tzvi Kalihser?
mo Posted - 14 November 2004 17:01
Yes it was Alkalai in Kisvae Alkalai part II on Sanhedrin 98a on Yechezkel 36. sorry for posting 2 times.
MODERATOR Posted - 25 November 2004 9:03
Thank you for the reference. I just saw it - and of course he has not a single source for such a thing at all. He just made it up out of his hat.
mo Posted - 16 May 2006 17:51
**The GRA never said the Oaths only apply if you build the Bais Hamikdash; that is removing the GRA form its context and quoting only a fraction of its entirety. The GRA (which originates in the GRA's commentary on Tikunei Zohar #26) makes a statement that before Moshiach comes we will have to have the power of Torah with us. Then he qualifies that by saying "even so, we are still not allowed to build the Bais Hamikdash before Moshiach comes due to the Oath of "dechikas haketz."
Meaning, the GRA was asking if we need the power of Torah BEFORE Moshiach comes, why don’t we build the Bais Hamikdash? The answer is we cant, due to the Oath. This does not say that building the Bais Hamikdash is the only way to violate the Oath.**
I don’t understand what Zohar asking and what is the terutz?
(Please, answer I really need it - and I am waiting for long time. This is the second try.)
MODERATOR Posted - 16 May 2006 17:53
It's not the Zohar; its the GRA's commentary. The nutshell version is, he's asking why cant we build the bais hamikdosh, and his answer is because of the Oaths.
mo Posted - 18 June 2006 17:27
**It's not the Zohar; its the GRA's commentary. The nutshell version is, he's asking why cant we build the bais hamikdosh, and his answer is because of the Oaths.**
Where can I find more complete explanation?
MODERATOR Posted - 18 June 2006 17:28
GRA to shir hashirim 2:7
