Jump to content


Photo

Jew with Belief in Zionism C"V


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 FS613

FS613

    Member

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:59 AM

IY"H When Moshiach comes:

Will a Jew who C"V believes in Zionism be disqualified C"V from being redeemed (if alive) or from being reincarnated and redeemed (if Niftar),

either because

1) He is a Torah-observant Jew in all other areas; but he was never taught about the 3 Oaths and doesn't understand that Zionism is wrong.

2) He is a Torah-observant Jew in all other areas, and he was taught about the 3 Oaths and also that belief in Zionism is Kefira;

but he rejects those teachings and C"V believes that the Zionist State is "Aschaltah D'Giulah."

Thank you.

#2 SilverShoes

SilverShoes

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 10:46 PM

What are these THREE oaths?

#3 taon

taon

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 399 posts

Posted 01 January 2012 - 11:06 PM

Not to take Eretz Yisroel with strength, Not to rebel against the nations, and for the nations of the world not to afflict the Jews too much.

#4 sandythedog

sandythedog

    Member

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 10:13 PM

There are those who state that it wasn't by force nor rebelling when we got e"y since the UN gave it to us....

#5 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 10:54 PM

That is an invalid claim. (By the way, can you name anyone of importance who said it?) First, Israel had to be won in a war with the Arabs, so it was taken by force. Second, the prohibition is not taking the land by force, but having a stronghold on it. Third, the overwhelming mainstream, overwhelming majority of opinions is that even if everyone agrees that the Jews should take the land and the whole world gives it to them on a silver patter, it is still prohibited.

But as I said, the issue is irrelevant, as the residents of the land, i.e. the Arabs, put up a fight, and if not for the Zionists strength of arms, they would not have gotten the land, so it is clear that the State was created in violation of the Oaths. Plus, the UK themselves actually abstained in the UN vote!

#6 yuiop

yuiop

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 03:51 AM

Not to take Eretz Yisroel with strength, Not to rebel against the nations, and for the nations of the world not to afflict the Jews too much.


Was the Bar Kochba revolt a violation of the 2nd oath?

And is the 2nd oath specifically about rebellion against the nation in which one lives? Would an individual Jewish soldier fighting against the Axis in WWII then be considered in violation of the 2nd oath?

Thank you.

#7 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:21 PM

Was the Bar Kochba revolt a violation of the 2nd oath?

Yes. That is why there was such a bloodbath as a result. it was a punishment for violating the Oath. The violation, like that of the Tribe of Efraim, was unintentional. Rabi Akiva and many sages mistakenly thought that Moshiach had arrived and the Oaths no longer applied. But of course that was not the case.

And is the 2nd oath specifically about rebellion against the nation in which one lives?

No. But see below.

Would an individual Jewish soldier fighting against the Axis in WWII then be considered in violation of the 2nd oath?

No. The Oaths only prohibit the Jewish people as a people from rebelling. An individual acting as a functionary of some other nation does not qualify.

#8 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:34 PM

FS613 - The answer is it depends. I will iy"h address this some time in the future as it is one application of the general question of "Who Is An Apikores?"

#9 ohevyisroel

ohevyisroel

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 08:20 PM

i never heard of these 'three oaths' before - what r they called in hebrew & where r they? so the forming of the state of israel was against a dioraisah? i didn't know that so there's also a disoraiesah prohibition of not rebelling against the nations??

#10 achasshoalti

achasshoalti

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:45 PM

KESUVOS 111a

#11 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:39 PM

i never heard of these 'three oaths' before - what r they called in hebrew & where r they? so the forming of the state of israel was against a dioraisah? i didn't know that so there's also a disoraiesah prohibition of not rebelling against the nations??

תלמוד בבלי מסכת כתובות דף קיא/א
ג' שבועות הללו למה אחת שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את העובדי כוכבים שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי
אמר רבי אלעזר אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל אם אתם מקיימין את השבועה מוטב ואם לאו אני מתיר את בשרכם כצבאות וכאילות השדה...

But these Oaths are not new prohibitions. They are just deterrents to prevent the Jews from violating the Gezeiras HaGalus, which is an act of heresy (which is why the Maharal says violating the Oaths is Yehoreg V'Al Yaavor - it is better to submit to death than violate them). The Oaths just add the promise of a terrible punishment, the most horrific punishment found anywhere in the Torah, for violating what already is prohibited because of the Gezeiras HaGalus. The Oaths give us some parameters of what is included in the Gezeiras HaGalus, but they do not add anything new to it. The Oaths are why Jews throughout the generations have resisted the temptation to create a Jewish State in Eretz Yisroel during Golus.

The Brisker Rav exclaimed, when he heard that the Satmar Rebbe was explaining to people how the creation of the State of Israel was a violation of the Oaths, "The creation of the Medinah is only a violation of the Oaths!? It is really a violation of the entire Torah!" The Satmar Rebbe, I imagine, would answer that he agrees, because of what I wrote above. Saying that something violates the Oaths is the same as saying it is an act of heresy.

This is the second problem with Zionism that I mentioned in my post of 2/5 4:12 PM here. I will explain it at length after I finish explaining the first problem listed there, the re-defining of the Jewish identity. I know I have not gotten a chance to continue the discussion there recently, due to time constraints. I will get back to it the very near future אי"ה.

#12 flybird

flybird

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:40 AM

So now that a jewish state was created, anyone who goes there, lives there, etc is in violation of the Oaths?

#13 taon

taon

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 399 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:55 AM

No, it's okay for people to go there. Just not as a mass immigration.

#14 flybird

flybird

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 06:25 PM

also, I heard that some people think understand the words of the gemera differently so thats why some people think its okay to have made a jewish state. So we dont know for sure that its true, right?

#15 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:12 PM

If we don't know what the truth is then we should be against making a State because of the possibility that it is a deadly terrible sin, punishable by mass death and destruction of Jews, as the Gemora says is the repercussions of violating the Oaths.

But we do know what's true. As is the case with every Torah issue, we must follow the (a) greater authorities, (b.) majority of authorities, and (c.) the strength of the proofs presented.

When looked at from that perspective, there is no contest. If you look at the "people" who think the Gemora means something different versus those who do not, you will have no question which side you should follow. And if you look at the arguments presented, you will also have no doubt which side is correct.

The Zionists have not come up with anything close to adequate answers to the barrage of overwhelming proofs against them. Nor can they come up with sufficient authority to come close to those who oppose them. Not only that, but leading Zionist rabbis - as shocking as this may be - have resorted to actual forgeries to try to defend their position, such as R. Menachem Kasher's forged "declaration" of dozens of rabbis proclaiming the State of Israel to be Aschalta D'Geulah c"v. See here, post by Moderator 11 July 2005 17:26.

In any other question of Halachah, with the deck stacked the way it is, nobody would have a doubt as to which side is right. But because of the great desire people have to have their own country, their own army, and to be "normal" like the Goyim, they try to make what the sources say fit into what they would like to be true.

This is a very grave issue. Here are the words of the Brisker Rav ZTL on the topic ("The Brisker Rav". vol. 3 p. 364):

"This State that they have managed to create is the greatest triumph of the Satan since the sin of the Golden Calf!"

And the Brisker Rav was known for his tremendous precision in the words he used. He did not exaggerate.

Since the Egel, we have had Meraglim, Baal worshipers, Misyavnim, Baryonim, Tzedukim, Yoshka, Shabse Zvi, Haskalah, Reform, and tons of other terrible sins. But the Brisker Rav is saying that none of those were as great a triumph for the Satan as the creation of the State of Israel.

The contention is that we live in a generation with the new Golden Calf. When you learn Chumash you learn all sorts of reasons that the Jews justified their creating the Egel. Sometimes we wonder how it could be that so many Jews either were directly involved with the Egel or tacitly supported it. We think if we were there we for sure wouldn't have been among the Egel worshipers.

Well, we are there. Now we can understand what happened then.

I'll tell you what - go to whoever told you that "other people understand the words of the Gemora differently" and ask them who these people are and what exactly they understand the Gemora to mean, and we'll take it from there. You'll see what I mean.



#16 t2kt

t2kt

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:23 PM

How do you explain the words of the Avnei Nezer (י"ד סימן תנג :תנו) who maintains that the oath does not apply if permission is granted for Bnei Yisroel to ascend to Israel?

#17 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 03:25 PM

How do you explain the words of the Avnei Nezer (י"ד סימן תנג :תנו) who maintains that the oath does not apply if permission is granted for Bnei Yisroel to ascend to Israel?

I assume you mean to ask that, according to the Avnei Nezer, it would have been permitted to create the State of Israel since Lord Balfour promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine? Or maybe because of the San Remo conference? Or something to that effect?

That is indeed what is taught in Zionist institutions but it is a distortion.

The Avnei Nezer said that one of the two Oaths that Zionism violates - the one of שלא יעלו בחומה - only applies if, as the Avnei Nezer understands Rashi, the Jews who settle in Eretz Yisroe need force of arms (Yad HaChazakah) to do so. But if they can settle without opposition, without need for strength of arms, it would not violate that particular Oath.

Of course, that does not apply to creating a State, which is also a violation of the Oath of דחיקת הקץ. The Avnei Nezer was talking about creating colonies, not creating a Medinah.Colonies are not a violation of the Golus, since Jews are of course allowed to live in Eretz Yisroel during Golus (and it may even be a MItzvah to do so!) but if in order to create mass colonies in Eretz Yisroel you would need to fight, colonies would be a violation of שלא יעלו בחומה. The Anvei Nezer never discussed the issue of making a State, and it is irrelevant thereto because he would not apply his principle to the Oath of שלא ידחקו את הקץ.

Second, in order to create the State of Israel, the Zionists certainly needed military strength - they had to defeat the Arabs! What good does it do in regard to Yad Hachazakah if England or Bangladesh say they are OK with Jews having a home in Palestine if the Jews need to fight Arab armies to the death in order to settle there? If the Balfour declaration, regardless of who makes it, does not negate the Zionists' need for military strength in order to create - and sustain! - their Medinah, then what effect does that have on the Oath? The Avnei Nezer was talking about "permission" such that the Jews would not need to fight. "Permission" is not the point - it says nowhere that there is a prohibition to take EY without "permission." Yad Hachazakah is the point, and as long as that is needed, the Avnei Nezer would never dream of permitting such a thing. The Zionists had to fight a war - two wars, really, because there was a civil war where the Palestinians attacked before '48, and then, when England relinquished control over the land, the foregin Arab countries joined - which killed more than 1 out of every 100 Jews living in EY at the time. You call that a peaceful, unopposed ascent?!

And finally, the Avnei Nezer is a small minority opinion in this. The overwhelming majority of opinions - including the Ramban (Shaar HaGeulah ch. 1 at the end)! - say that even in a peaceful manner, with full permission of everyone, it would still violate the Oath of שלא יעלו בחומה. The Ramban says in one of his explanations that this is why very few Jews went with Ezra to EY - because they were bound to the Oaths, and the prophecy that they had that said the Golus was over, rendering the Oaths inapplicable, did not apply to all the Jews.

Now if you want to see something very funny on this subject, look at the attached .pdf below. I got it from a Sefer called "The Zionist Religion" (דת הציונית), written by this rabbi (that links to an excellent website, by the way). A Dr. Yitzchok Krauss in Bar Ilan University teaches a course in ZIonism. In the course syllabus, under the title "Responses to the Balfour Declaration," it lists the Avnei Nezer that you cited in your post, as if to say that the Avnei Nezer's statement about "permission" is a response to the Balfour Declaration.

The problem is, the Balfour Declaration happened in 1917, and the Avnei Nezer died in 1910.

The rabbi says that he wrote a letter questioning the good professor on this. And he says he received no response.

Attached Files



#18 t2kt

t2kt

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 05:32 PM

The Avnei Nezer said that one of the two Oaths that Zionism violates - the one of שלא יעלו בחומה - only applies if, as the Avnei Nezer understands Rashi, the Jews who settle in Eretz Yisroe need force of arms (Yad HaChazakah) to do so. But if they can settle without opposition, without need for strength of arms, it would not violate that particular Oath.

The Avnei Nezer does not write as you have quoted- i believe you have misunderstood his cause and effect. The main issue IS whether or not PERMISSION has been given (hence why he uses the lashon of "שאם יותן רשות לכולם לא יהיה שבועה"). His REASON is indeed dependent on his understanding of Rashi who writes that בחומה must be יחד עם יד חזקה but the Avnei Nezer's point is precisely that- that if there is רשות it is not called יד חזקה. I see nowhere that he demands that it must be peaceful with no fighting. At every juncture in Jewish history when there have been waves of immigration to eretz yisroel attacks have been carried out against the Jewish population, the fact that arab countries, in indifference to a majority decision by the UN, attacked the Jewish population, has no bearing on the Avnei Nezer's understanding of יד חזקה which he explains to mean רשות. I would find what you say more compelling if the arab-perpetrated war accompanied the עליה כחומה, unfortunately i would need to ignore three hundred plus years of history pertaining to Jewish immigration to eretz yisroel in order to believe that. The large groups of Jews moving to eretz yisroel were separated by about fifty years each, with some of the earliest aliyos (at least the ones that started to number in the thousands) consisting mainly of talmidei hagra and talmidei habesht. None of these aliyos were met with full fledged warfare. The war was a response to the מעשה הכרזת המדינה (it would be very hard to argue that the announcement of a state was a מעשה עליה כחומה) not the מעשה עליה itself, because not such עליה took place in 1948.

#19 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:11 PM

I took the liberty of omitting the disrespectful parts of your post. In the future I will simply ignore the entire thing.

You are wrong about the Avnei Nezer. He cites no proof or even discussion that indicates "reshus" from some entirety such as the majority of the UN negates Yad Chazkah. He uses the word Reshus because in the case he was talking about - making colonies - if there was Reshus there was no war. According to you, if some authoritative body, which you claim without basis that the UN majority vote would qualify as, has the ability to give Jews permission to go into EY, even if the residents of the land do not agree, and that would negate Yad Hachazakah. There is no such discussion, and certainly no proofs to anything close to that, in the Avnei Nezer. You made that whole thing up. The Avnei Nezer is not a source for your claim. The jump from Rashi's Yad Hachazakah to your assertions that the UN can negate Yad Chazakah has no source in the Avnei Nezer. In fact it has no source anywhere. It is a Zionist teaching that is baseless. The Avnei Nezer's case, where there was Reshus granted by the residents to the extent that there was no force necessary, cannot be used as a source to permit a case where force is necessary and "permission" is granted by people other than the residents.

The Avnei Nezer cannot say more than Rashi, for Rashi is his only source.

And for the record, the war was not merely in response to the hachrazas hamedinah. As I said, the Palestinians made a civil war to kick out the Zionists before the hachrazas hamedinah. The other Arab countries of course could not enter British territory and join them, until the British relinquished control. The Arabs fought the en masse Aliyah from way before the hachrazas hamedinah. The Haganah was formed before the Medinah because of Arab opposition. Yad Hachazkah was necessary even before '48.

Ben Gurion explained the Arab revolt of '36: "They see immigration on a giant scale...they see the Jews fortifying themselves economically...They see the best lands passing into our hands." (Teveth, p. 165)

Aliyah B'Chomah is exactly what the Arabs fought against. Even before '48. Said Awni Abd al-Hadi: "We will fight. We will struggle against the partition of the country and against Jewish immigration. There is no compromise." (Shlaim, p. 58)

As far as the Aliyah of the Talmidei HaGRA and etc., they purposely insisted on sufficiently small / weak groups so as not to violate Aliyah Bachomah. The Zionists wanted the opposite - the more en masse and the more with strength, the better. Rav Yisroel of Shlov, Talmid of the GRA and head of the Perushim in Tzfas wrote (Paas HaShulchan 1:3) that during Golus the MItzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel is only a Mitzvah for individual Jews, but it is not an inclusive Mitzvah incumbent on the entire Jewish people, because mass Aliyah would be a violation of the Oaths.

And so I repeat - the issue is black and white. There is no opinion on record of anyone of note that the Medina's creation was permitted. The Avnei Nezer is not a source. If you would like to extrapolate from the Avnei Nezer and extend what he says to a totally different case, that is your Torah, not the Avnei Nezer's. The Avnei Nezer says that making Jewish neighborhoods in EY in his time would not violate the Oath of Aliyah Bechomah because they would be done with permission and no force would be necessary. To extend that to making a state where force would be necessary but a majority of UN members is in favor of it, is your Torah. Not the Avnei Nezer's. Nobody of note ever said the Avnei Nezer applies in such a case. It is only in Zionist teachings claim such a thing, but it has no basis.

And besides, you have not responded at all to the fact that the Avnei Nezer was not talking about making a State, which would be Dechikas HaKetz, where his entire discussion would not apply. The application of the Avnei Nezer to the creation of the Medinah is a distortion, the fact that they teach differently in Zionist institutions notwithstanding. Remember what the Brisker Rav said - this is the Egel we are dealing with.

And your claim that even Satmar does not believe in the Oaths as opposition to Zionism is, well, absurd. (An anonymous poster in the name of another anonymous person is not really very compelling evidence.)



#20 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:39 AM

In short, we have:

1) The Avnei Nezer discussed whether creating Jewish neighborhoods in Turkish-ruled EY in the 1800's was permitted. The reason one would say it may not be permitted is because of the Oath that says if Jews make "Aliyah Bechoma" during Golus, they will be indiscriminately killed like animals. He says it is permitted because Aliyah Bechomah is explained by Rashi to mean Aliyah that is "en masse, with strength." It would not take any force of strength to create these neighborhoods, he says, since they were being made without any opposition that would require "strength" on the part of the Jews to make them, they are not within the scope of the Oaths.

2) Some ZIonists declared that this Anvei Nezer has just said it was permitted to create the State of Israel. But the Avnei nezer never said such a thing, nor can what he said be used as a source for such a thing, as follows:

3) One: The State of Israel is prohibited not only under Aliyah Bechomah, but the other Oath of Dechikas HaKetz, which means anything that is part of the process of Geulah we may not do on our own before the allotted time. Sovereignty over EY included. Creating Jewish neighborhoods in EY under the Ottoman (Turkish) government with their full permission and no opposition is not Dechikas HaKetz, which is why the Avnei Nezer never even discussed this Oath. Creating a State is a different issue entirely than creating settlements under a foreign auspice. The Avnei Nezer never permitted, nor even discussed, nor even mentioned in passing, whether it is permitted to create a sovereign state.

4) Two: The Avnei Nezer's entire point is that because Rashi interprets Aliyah Bechomah as "with strength" therefore, where no strength is needed, such as in the case of making the settlements in his days, there is no problem. But as soon as it was revealed that the Zionists plan on creating a Medinah, their mass immigration was indeed opposed, and was only accomplished due to the Zionists' force of arms, which proved to be superior to that of the Arabs. What kind of comparison is that to the Avnei Nezer? The Zionists make the invalid, and frankly astounding, claim that, because when the Avnei Nezer described the fact that the settlements could be made without any opposition, he said "they have permission [so] there is no [problem with] the Oath," therefore, whenever Jews have permission from the UN to make a Medinah, it is permitted, even if there is opposition and even if they do need force of arms and strength to do it!

But when the Avnei Nezer said "permission" he meant permission from whom? His point was that because they had permission, there was no force necessary. His whole point was that the colonies did not need "Yad Hachazakah." Now where does it say in that Avnei Nezer that if the Jews have to fight bloody wars, overcome lethal opposition of the local residents, and very much need force of arms and strength in order to succeed with their mass immigration, that because Bangladesh, France, and whoever made up the collection of nations that voted in the UN, was in favor of it, that there is no problem with the Oath? (And who in the world decided that the UN is a Sanhedrin Hagadol and their "permission" has any authority? Even if random nations have a right to give "permission," even in the face of opposition, maybe you need permission from "the nations" collectively, meaning all of them, not merely a majority vote? Or perhaps you need a vote - or a unanimous decision - of the population of the nations themselves - who says representatives in the UN are what counts? Or at the very least, perhaps you need permission from the country you are entering, and England ABSTAINED in that UN vote. The resodents of the land were the Arabs and they certainly did not give Reshus. If you are not using the correct criterion of permission - i.e. permission that negates the need for strength - you need a source to determine what constitutes "permission.")

It does not say that. If the Zionists want to extend what the Avnei Nezer says and take it to a place the Avnei Nezer never took it, that's their Torah. But don't say the Avnei Nezer permitted such a thing.

5) Besides which, the Avnei Nezer, is a minority opinion.