Zionism At A Glance
"Zionism is avodah zorah; Religious Zionism is religion combined with avodah zorah."
- Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZTL
Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:39 AM
I am asking how it can be that so many knowledgeable and good people can believe in something that is so clearly wrong?
Posted 11 May 2012 - 04:38 PM
From the Brisker Rav on this topic:Rav Shapiro,
I do not expect any Zionists to produce an argument you could not refute. Your expertise on this subject is well known to many people, from the MO community all the way to the Satmar community. I have but one question. It is indisputable that there are very knowledgeable rabbonim who were Zionists. I know they were not the greatest talmidei chachamim in the world relative to those who opposed Zionism, but that just begs the question. Even if the Zionists never were as great as the Chofetz Chaim and Chazon Ish, why would talmidei chachamim believe in Zionism if it is so obviously wrong? How could they not see the arguments against them?
Please do not get the wrong impression. I am not saying there is any basis for what these rabbonim believed. I know Zionism is wrong according to the Torah. I am asking how it can be that so many knowledgeable and good people can believe in something that is so clearly wrong?
Posted 11 May 2012 - 05:11 PM
Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:04 AM
The Golus was a Gezeirah from Hashem which we are prohibited to violate. We dare not violate it for our own sake - and for the sake of Eretz Yisroel, for not only will we be hunted and killed like animals r"l if we do, but the land itself will suffer tremendous pain if we return before Moshiach comes.בית הלוי על בראשית פרק כח פסוק י
דמשמעות הכתוב דעיקר כוונת הגלות הוא היציאה מארץ ישראל וזהו שאמר ויצאו שלא יהיו כאן. והכוונה בזה דארץ ישראל בקדושתה אינה סובלת עליה עוברי עבירה והיא ארץ אשר ה' דורש אותה מראשית שנה עד אחרית שנה וע"כ כשחטאו שלחם ממנה, וזה לא היה לעונש על חטאם דהרי היה יכול להענישם בעודם יושבים עליה רק היה לטובתם דאם היו עונשים באים לא היה להם תקומה חלילה וע"כ שלחם לחו"ל אשר שם גם אם אינם צדיקים יוכלו להתקיים, ועיין ברמב"ן פרשת בחקותי שכתב דכל הקללות שבתוכה נאמרה רק בהיותם בארץ ישראל ולא בהיותם בחו"ל. ועכ"פ העיקר הוא היציאה. ואמר
Posted 19 June 2012 - 09:22 AM
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
Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:45 PM
Rabbi Shapiro, I was just reading Rabbi Aviner's pamphlet Do Not Ascend like a Wall. I found it pretty convincing. I have also seen the Rav's refutation of it but I only saw part refutations and I do not know whether a full refutation exists. Why should it be rejected?
Posted 05 May 2014 - 12:24 PM
Yeah, there are some arguments that bother me. First, what is the response to the letter of R' Meir Simcha of Dvinsk? Also, what about the argument that it is a Machlokes in the gemorah (specifically Yoma 10a). Also, Doesn't the Gra say that the oaths only forbid buiding the Beis Hamikdash? Also, I have a heard time with the fact that the neither the Rosh, Rambam, or Rif bring down the Oaths l'halacha. (Yes I know the Rambam mentions it in Igeres Teiman) But why would these Rishonim bring them down L'halacha?
Posted 05 May 2014 - 02:02 PM
Yeah, there are some arguments that bother me. First, what is the response to the letter of R' Meir Simcha of Dvinsk? Also, what about the argument that it is a Machlokes in the gemorah (specifically Yoma 10a). Also, Doesn't the Gra say that the oaths only forbid buiding the Beis Hamikdash? Also, I have a heard time with the fact that the neither the Rosh, Rambam, or Rif bring down the Oaths l'halacha. (Yes I know the Rambam mentions it in Igeres Teiman) But why would these Rishonim bring them down L'halacha?
These were all answered on the old site. Please see these places:
http://classic.frumteens.com/search.php?mode=doit&search=balfour&andor=+and+&forum=0&searchdate=0
Posted 06 May 2014 - 12:52 PM
For a while I have been reading thru the old site (not just since yesterday) and the myriad index's of it. And I have some of those questions I mentioned above. I did realize, though, that some of my questions are not really kashes. For instance I say the Rav say that that Gra I mentioned does not exist. Also, the proof from Yoma 9b is a pretty (really) bad proof. Just from reading Rav Aviner about it is clear that that Gemorah is not at all conflicting with the Oaths. Because its pretty clear from that Gemorah that the oaths are only talking about in the days of Ezra that the Jews should have gone up as a wall but nowhere does that gemorah say that in the future (i.e our time) your supposed to go up as a wall. But I still have the Kasha about the Rishonim. I know, as is mentioned, on the other site that there are certain Rishonim who mention the Oaths L'halacha but I still do not understand why people like the Rambam (in Mishna Torah not in Igeres teiman), Rosh, and Rif don't mention it L'halacha. Also, I have seen the Rav argue elsewhere that the oaths are not Aggadic but if it is aggadic as as you say some people hold that there are Addagic and the Teshuvos Noda B'yehuda 2: Yoreh Deah 161 disagree with Rabbeinu Tam and says that we dont learn halacha from Aggada even if it doesnt contradict halacha.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 08:55 PM
For a while I have been reading thru the old site (not just since yesterday) and the myriad index's of it. And I have some of those questions I mentioned above. I did realize, though, that some of my questions are not really kashes. For instance I say the Rav say that that Gra I mentioned does not exist. Also, the proof from Yoma 9b is a pretty (really) bad proof. Just from reading Rav Aviner about it is clear that that Gemorah is not at all conflicting with the Oaths. Because its pretty clear from that Gemorah that the oaths are only talking about in the days of Ezra that the Jews should have gone up as a wall but nowhere does that gemorah say that in the future (i.e our time) your supposed to go up as a wall. But I still have the Kasha about the Rishonim. I know, as is mentioned, on the other site that there are certain Rishonim who mention the Oaths L'halacha but I still do not understand why people like the Rambam (in Mishna Torah not in Igeres teiman), Rosh, and Rif don't mention it L'halacha. Also, I have seen the Rav argue elsewhere that the oaths are not Aggadic but if it is aggadic as as you say some people hold that there are Addagic and the Teshuvos Noda B'yehuda 2: Yoreh Deah 161 disagree with Rabbeinu Tam and says that we dont learn halacha from Aggada even if it doesnt contradict halacha.
I would suggest that if you want to learn about the Oaths, that you pick up a copy of the Satmar Rebbe's Vayoel Moshe. He answers these questions there. In fact, it is the main topic of the Sefer. The Pnei Yehoshua and the Rambam are included in the discussion. You will see, for example, that the pnei Yehoshua is a much worse proof than even you realized. The Gemora never says that the Jews "should have" gone up like a wall, even then. All it says is that "had they" gone up like a wall they would have merited etc. . This is no different than when Chazal say, for example, that "had Moshe gone into Eretz Yisroel, the Bais HaMikdash would never have been destroyed." It does not mean that Moshe did wrong by not going into Eretz Yisroel - Hashem told him not to. It means that had he been zocheh o have gone in, then good things would have happened. The same with the Gemora in Yoma. Had the Jews merited a Geulah and gone in during the days of Ezra etc. But it does not even say they should have done so.
As for the Rambam not bringing them, I also discussed that at length on the old site. In short, first, the Rambam not only "mentions" the Shevuos in Igeres Taimon, he warns us not to violate them. According to many Poskim, if the Rambam mentions something in Igeres Taimon, that would override any contradictory content in Mishne Torah, assuming there is a contradiction. But besides that, the reason the Rambam (and others) do not quote the Shevuos as a Halachah is because it is not adding any prohibitions that didn't exist before. The Shevuos are only a punishment for being Kofer in the Gezeiras HaGalus, which the Rambam says is only over when the signs of Moshiach's arrival have been fulfilled, which of course has not happened yet. Again, please see Vayoel Moshe - this is straight out of there.
But regardless of what the reason is for the Rambam not bringing them, the reason cannot be that he does not hold from them, because if that were true, he would be contradicting himself in Igeres Taimon. You cannot learn a pshat in the Rambam that the Rambam himself clearly did not hold of.
Besides which, the Shevuos have been invoked in actual practice throughout the last 2,000 years in Golus by various Rishonim and Achronim - including those who knew full well of the Rambam. In fact, until the Zionists came along, nobody ever claimed that the Shevuos were not binding (and even the Zionists didn't have the gall to make such a claim at the beginning), and nobody ever said that the Rambam's omission means he disregarded them. On the contrary - we have the Megilas Esther on the Sefer HaMitzvos saying that the Rambam omitted the Mitzvah of Yishuv Haaretz because of the Shevuos. Although the Megillas Esther is interpreting the Shevuos is a much more strcit fashion than the majority of authorities, who hold they do not preclude individuals from living in Eretz Yisroel, still, the Megilas Esther had no problem learning in the Rambam that the Shevuos are binding.
Your question regarding Halachah from Agadah is also discussed on the old site - please refer. The idea is, frankly, silly. Let us assume, arguendo, that the Shevuos are Agdiata and cannot be used to derive prohibitions. Still, the Gemora says that if Jews do violate the Shevuos, they will be hunted down and killed like animals. Even if there would be no Halachic prohibition to violate them, how would anyone who believes Chazal's warning violate them? So there is no Halachic prohibition - what difference does that make? We know that violating the Shevuos will result in Jews being killed like animals. Is that what you want to happen? (Especially since we know that violating the Shevuos has resulted in that in the past - as in the Bnei Efraim).
But the fact is, they are Halachah. The definition of Halachah is when we are told we may or may not do something; Agada is an incident from which we derive lessons. The Gemora is telling us that we are not allowed to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel because of these Shevuos which we derive from Pesukim, and that if we do, we incur a punishment. That, by definition, is Halachah. When we are told not to do something, something in actual practice, that is Halachah. Note that the Gemora uses the Shevuos in actual practice. Again, that, by definition, is Halachah. (Compare, for example, the Gemora in Shevuos about the Jews making an Oath on Har SInai to keep the Mitzvos. We use that L'halachah for אין שבועה חל על שבועה etc.). But as I mentioned, the entire question is moot. Chazal said Jews will be - and have been - massacred en masse for violating these Oaths. Halachic prohibition or not, you have to be insane - or a Kofer - to violate them.
Once again, I suggest that if you want to know the answers to such questions, you pick up a copy of Vayoel Moshe which is, to this day, the best Sefer, by far, written on this topic. And although you would not know it from reading Aviner's tracts, it already answers those questions that you mentioned he raises.
Posted 24 June 2014 - 11:15 PM
I'm making my way through Vayoel Moshe. Just a quick question. A certain person was arguing with me the other day that the Gedolim who were against the state only said it because they believed it would turn into "ani matir es bsarchem" but now when they would see that it has not turned into that they wouldnt not be against it. My response was that the gedolim were against it because the held that that's 100% halacha. It has nothing to do with we see in the stat "matir es bsarchem". Correct me if I am wrong on that point. Also, a side point of have seen some of what the Rav has written regarding Rav Kook. I don't understand how, if what you said is true, Rav Elyashiv have Rav kook as his misader Kidushin and Rav elyashiv once got upset when someone disrespected Rav kook. Pls explain. Thank you.