Melamed backing down?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Just because we are not in a full redemption does not mean that galut is in Israel.   Israel by definition is NOT galut.   One part of redemption is bringing in the exiles to our homeland, physically.   That has certainly happened, and there is almost a majority of world Jewry there.

We've just celebrated Hanukah. This holiday teaches us that a situation is possible when the Jewish people resides in Israel and still it is considered galut. galut Yavan = Greece exile. During the Greece exlie, Jews lived in Israel but were dominated by Greek political dictate and their pagan worldview. Present situation in Israel is very similar to those times.

In so-called "galut Yavan" we did not have Jewish political sovereignty.   But now we do have Jewish sovereignty in our homeland.  That is precisely the difference.

There is certainly more Torah in Israel than anywhere else, and there are more Jews there than ever before in history.   To say this is the same thing as the situation 70 years ago and 200-1000 years ago is simply not accurate.   

This is certainly true and we must thank G-d for it. Still, it is not the end of the galut (see above). 

I didn't say it's a complete redemption, but it indeed does mean that the long period of 'galut' has ended.  If you can't see a major fundamental difference between the Jewish reality of the past 60 or so years vs. the 1000 or more years that preceded it, there is something seriously wrong.   To call them both "galut" is nonsensical.

We have obligations as a people and as individuals.  We cannot make an excuse and say, well we don't have a right to try, or we are exempt from trying regarding x, y, z, because the way I judge things, it's not a full redemption yet.  But if you agree that struggling for Jewish sovereignty in Judea and Samaria will bring about further geulah, then there is no sense in saying that we have to limit ourselves in doing so because of the fact that we are not yet in full geulah.  That is self-defeating and those premises don't fit together logically.

The only thing that limits us is Halacha. Specifically, we must follow the teachings of the rabbis of our generation (let alone speaking lashon hara about them, as wonga does). This is the only and ultimate limit, it is true for all times, both galut and geulah. All the other options are self-defeating.

So can't you see that it is circular logic and self-defeating to say that the halacha must take a back seat because we are "in galut" or "not complete redemption" or "messiah isn't here yet" ?

[Secularbeliever]

Let's see, was Menachem Begin poor or starving?  Was Stern?  I don't think so.  Eliyahu Hakim, one of the two assassins of Lord Moyne was from a wealthy family.  I could not give you an economic status of every member of the Irgun or Lechi but I don't think the fighters were largely down and outers.  True they had a disproportionate number of Sephardim in their ranks but Sephardim are not always poor, Hakim was from a family that lived in Egypt and quite wealthy.  Bet Tsouri, while not wealthy was certainly well educated.

This misses the point.   Begin was in a Soviet concentration/prison camp (poor conditions obviously - not starvation but "near-starvation"... they weren't fattening him up) for years before he came to Eretz Yisrael.   You think he had an american express on him when he got there?   So too with many who immigrated to the Yishuv and settled there.  They were coming on long and trying journeys from foreign countries with little in the way of possessions.   Even if they came with relative wealth, were there burgeoning business ventures and a vibrant economy to increase and maintain wealth?   And from what I've read about Begin, he and the other cabinet members did not live like kings in fact they lived very modestly because they gave every dime they could give to the revolt purposes.  Yes one had to be educated to know about zionist principles, to adopt the spirit of jabotinsky or the labor/socialist strain.   But how can this scenario be considered that the wealthiest people did the revolt?   The wealthiest Jews (The Jewish Agency) largely stationed in the diaspora, along with their cohorts who followed their demands in Eretz Yisrael (Haganah), were the ones who stifled the resistance and fought with every last breath to prevent a revolt.   If the underground had the kind of wealth and resources that the Haganah/Jewish agency had, things would have happened much more quickly and who knows how many Jews could have been saved...   

I think you are missing my point.  It was not Begin's time in the Soviet Labor camp that made him a Zionist or follower of Jabotinsky, he was already a leader of Betar in Poland before he was arrested.  His family was a very prominent family in Poland.  You are correct that he never chased wealth in Israel, even after his years as Prime Minister he lived very modestly.  But he did not get thrown in a Soviet prison for stealing bread to feed himself.  He was thrown in prison for being a Zionist and Jewish leader.  Look at the American Revolution.  Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and every signer of the Declaration of Independence were well to do.  Look at the hippies and counter culture left wingers of the 1960s.  I guarantee you there were no impoverished people among the SDS, Weathermen etc.  The Russian Revolution was led by people who were well off.  Same with the French Revolution.  Al Queada is led by Bin Laden who even in America would be considered quite wealthy and every one of the 19 911 hijackers were fairly well off. 
They are your classic revolutionaries, although very evil, who give up their lives in one sense or another to fight the government of their nations.

Zionist youth movements were popping up all over Europe.  There was certainly a need to become educated in zionist literature.  I'm not sure I see the need of being wealthy.   Why do you consider that was a prerequisite for anyone involved or involved to any high capacity?

And I still don't see how 9/11 was a revolution or could be considered that.

I think we have gotten away from the original point.  I just said that you don't need starving masses for a revolution.  In fact most revolutions are led by elites.  They can be elites of different types not neccessarily economic but poverty is rare among revolutionary leaders.  More important is that revoutions usually come from rising expectations that are not met thean from despair or oppression.  Starving people are busy looking for food, not taking up arms for a revolution.
Al Queada which pulled off the 911 attacks is a classic revolutionary movement.  They are trying to throw off the existing order in their own nations as well as in other nations.

[Spectator]

In so-called "galut Yavan" we did not have Jewish political sovereignty. 

If Daniel the Prophet and Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish mentioned galut Yavan (Greece exile) together with 3 other galuyot, and didn't give it the attribute "so-called", why wouldn't you follow their example?

But now we do have Jewish sovereignty in our homeland.

I don't need to remind you that it is not true sovereignity. Most strategic decisions are made not in the interests of the Jewish people but to please the US and "world opinion". It is rather self-government. It has been so for all 61 years of formal independence, and it will continue while the state is governed according to gentile laws.

I didn't say it's a complete redemption, but it indeed does mean that the long period of 'galut' has ended.  If you can't see a major fundamental difference between the Jewish reality of the past 60 or so years vs. the 1000 or more years that preceded it, there is something seriously wrong.   To call them both "galut" is nonsensical.

There is a major difference between -1000 and -100 but it is quite reasonable to call them both negative numbers.

As I already said, there is a huge difference but this difference is still insufficient to say that the galut has ended. The reason of your cognitive dissonance is because you stick to the formal translation of the word 'galut' as physical exile but its scope is much broader. Only Jewish sages can give the true definition and time limits of galut.

Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (Ba'al HaTurim) says in his commentary to Shelah Torah portion that the galut of Rome and the submission to gentiles will end when the Jewish people says "G-d reigned, G-d reigns, G-d will reign forever". Most Jews are still secular, and even those who are religious have many major faults. So the galut is still here.

So can't you see that it is circular logic and self-defeating to say that the halacha must take a back seat because we are "in galut" or "not complete redemption" or "messiah isn't here yet" ?

What exaclty do you mean by "back seat"? The first step to solve the problem is to admit its existence. Even the most Zionist sage Rabbi Kook said that the State of Israel is "the beginning of redemption". Only beginning and by no means completion or "almost completion". Our task is encourage the state to move in the right direction.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

In so-called "galut Yavan" we did not have Jewish political sovereignty. 

If Daniel the Prophet and Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish mentioned galut Yavan (Greece exile) together with 3 other galuyot, and didn't give it the attribute "so-called", why wouldn't you follow their example? 

By "so-called" I merely mean 'what you are referring to.'   Not implying anything else.   

But now we do have Jewish sovereignty in our homeland.

I don't need to remind you that it is not true sovereignity. 

False.  It IS true sovereignty even if the leaders sometimes don't act like it or sometimes don't have the guts to behave as such.  There are certain politicians who would not be held back if they were in office, and they do not hold back with the things they say (Feiglin, Michael Ben-Ari, Eldad)....    It is a myth that Israel cannot decide its own fate like any other sovereign nation, and even moreso, like any nuclear power which cannot be told what to do by any other country.   It is an all too-convenient myth of the conspiracy theorist variety that Israel cannot make its own decisions.   This takes the pressure off the Israeli leaders who make decisions of betrayal, because they wish to shift the blame onto someone else and will not take responsibility for their own actions, this makes it comfortable for Jews who don't like to feel that their own leaders are betraying them, and it makes a religious Jew very confused due to those who use this wacky theory to promote the haredi viewpoint that the redemption process is not really occurring and that what happened 60 years ago has no real significance, as if Jewish national life has not changed at all, a bunch of us merely switched locations at a given time.

Most strategic decisions are made not in the interests of the Jewish people but to please the US and "world opinion".   

It is still Jewish sovereignty.   The evil kings of the Davidic line were also leaders of a Jewish sovereignty and are not considered "galut administrations."  That time period was not galut even when some kings were idol worshippers.

It is rather self-government. It has been so for all 61 years of formal independence,   

Self-government, formal independence... .Call it what you want, it's Jewish sovereignty and it cannot be compared with the period of 2000 years before that.   They are completely different situations. 

I didn't say it's a complete redemption, but it indeed does mean that the long period of 'galut' has ended.  If you can't see a major fundamental difference between the Jewish reality of the past 60 or so years vs. the 1000 or more years that preceded it, there is something seriously wrong.   To call them both "galut" is nonsensical.

There is a major difference between -1000 and -100 but it is quite reasonable to call them both negative numbers.

But we are not calling things numbers.   You are calling the current period Galut, which is a term with a meaning.   That does not correspond to the reality of the past 1900 years or so that preceded it which really was termed galut aka EXILE.   You cannot possibly tell me that the quality of galut of the past 1900 years was negative but the return to Israel is somehow also negative.  It is qualitatively positive.  A positive thing.   That sets it apart from what galut was.   It's not perfect but it is a step in the right direction and qualitatively different from anything in the past 1900 years or so.

As I already said, there is a huge difference but this difference is still insufficient to say that the galut has ended. The reason of your cognitive dissonance is because you stick to the formal translation of the word 'galut' as physical exile but its scope is much broader. Only Jewish sages can give the true definition and time limits of galut.

[/b]

What Jewish sage would refer to Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel with millions of Jews living there, almost a majority if not already a majority of world Jewry, and more Torah being learned there than anywhere else - what Jewish sage calls this galut?  And I am not asking about modern day haredi reactionist rebbeim giving their hashkafic views and postulating about how we should "relate" to medinat Israel.   Quote me from the Talmud.   You cited galut yavan which I already explained was not a sovereign Jewish kingship/statehood.   There are parameters to geulah shelema (COMPLETE geula.... Notice that there is a concept of geula and a concept of geula shelema), and if they haven't been met then we aren't there yet.   But there is no reason to say that Jews living in Israel right now are living in galut.  They are not, and that is nonsensical.   Say they are not living in a complete geulah fine, but it makes zero sense to say Jews in Israel live in galut.   Absurd.   Those of us who have not moved to Israel are languishing in the galut and refuse to let go of the galut even though that burden has been lifted from us quite obviously.

Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (Ba'al HaTurim) says in his commentary to Shelah Torah portion that the galut of Rome and the submission to gentiles will end when the Jewish people says "G-d reigned, G-d reigns, G-d will reign forever".   

 

Is that not exceedingly vague?   You are just using that to interpret any way that you want.

Most Jews are still secular, and even those who are religious have many major faults. So the galut is still here.

Who says that has anything to do with galut?   Geula means Jews will have no faults?   Where do you get this from?   To me this is absurd.   

So can't you see that it is circular logic and self-defeating to say that the halacha must take a back seat because we are "in galut" or "not complete redemption" or "messiah isn't here yet" ?

What exaclty do you mean by "back seat"? The first step to solve the problem is to admit its existence. Even the most Zionist sage Rabbi Kook said that the State of Israel is "the beginning of redemption". Only beginning and by no means completion or "almost completion". Our task is encourage the state to move in the right direction.

Now you quote Rav Kook.  LOL.   Yes, exactly my point.   "Beginning of redemption" by definition cannot mean "galut."  It's one or the other.   Sorry if that bothers you, but it is nonsensical to say otherwise.   I took issue with something you said which was basically, we can't do/think x because we don't have messiah yet.   This outlook is completely destructive.   How does quoting Rav Kook somehow refute what I said?   You are merely giving a support to me.   But that is besides the point.   Whatever you want to call the period we are in today, the halacha cannot take a backseat to that.    So you cannot say, we are obligated to build a Temple, but we must ignore that body of halacha because we are not in complete redemption mode yet.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Now please tell me what Australian you are referring to.   And what did this person try to do that you say he shouldn't have?  I really have no idea what you refer to.  Was this person in the news?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

בס''ד

Nonsense. The Erev Rav are evil traitors, but the conspiracy theories that you and Barry Chamish promote are ridiculous. The Erev Rav would not try to murder HaRav Melamed chas vechalila because to do so is too risky. The vast majority of Israeli Jews would not support the murder of rabbis. And Amona proved that violent confrontations are bad for the Erev Rav because most secular Israelis do not have the stomach for such violence between Jews.

Mitflezet is a troll.

[Irish Zionist]

בס''ד

Nonsense. The Erev Rav are evil traitors, but the conspiracy theories that you and Barry Chamish promote are ridiculous. The Erev Rav would not try to murder HaRav Melamed chas vechalila because to do so is too risky. The vast majority of Israeli Jews would not support the murder of rabbis. And Amona proved that violent confrontations are bad for the Erev Rav because most secular Israelis do not have the stomach for such violence between Jews.

Mitflezet is a troll.

Who's Mitflezet? Dare I ask. 

[wonga66]

Now please tell me what Australian you are referring to.   And what did this person try to do that you say he shouldn't have?  I really have no idea what you refer to.  Was this person in the news?

Aussie Denis Michael Rohan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Michael_Rohan

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Wow interesting.  What a nut.   
Of course, if he had succeeded....   

Anyway, what's the big argument about this guy?   You mentioned him here once?  Big deal.   

I do find though that reading that wikipedia page proves something very obvious about the Arabs.   They will find ANY excuse to supposedly "justify" their Islamic terrorist murdering of Jews, when really they will commit these barbaric acts regardless of what anyone does.  And they will always find something to blame it on.  Even something like this that is not even remotely connected to Jews or Israel.   Israel probably caught the guy and put out the fire, yet they want to say Israel put him up to it.   So why didn't they let it burn down then?   

These Arab terrorist nazis are so full of falsehood it would be comical if not so tragic.  What makes it tragic is that people believe and lend credibility to their stupidity and baseless nonsense. 

[Spectator]

Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (Ba'al HaTurim) says in his commentary to Shelah Torah portion that the galut of Rome and the submission to gentiles will end when the Jewish people says "G-d reigned, G-d reigns, G-d will reign forever".   

 
Is that not exceedingly vague?   You are just using that to interpret any way that you want.

No, it is extremely clear. In Judaism, acceptance of G-d's reign means the obligation to observe His commandments (all of them, not only living in the Land). No other interpretation is possible. On the other hand, I can't see a way how you can push the State of Israel into this commentary, and if not, you contradict Rabbi Yakov ben Asher 

[Spectator]

Now you quote Rav Kook.  LOL.   Yes, exactly my point.   "Beginning of redemption" by definition cannot mean "galut."  It's one or the other.   Sorry if that bothers you, but it is nonsensical to say otherwise.   I took issue with something you said which was basically, we can't do/think x because we don't have messiah yet.   This outlook is completely destructive.   How does quoting Rav Kook somehow refute what I said?   You are merely giving a support to me.   But that is besides the point.   Whatever you want to call the period we are in today, the halacha cannot take a backseat to that.    So you cannot say, we are obligated to build a Temple, but we must ignore that body of halacha because we are not in complete redemption mode yet.

I quote him because he is the only sage from whom you can somehow get support for your position. The other sages (no less important and respected than Rabbi Kook!) that lived immediately before and in time of creation of the state were critical of his position and they had good reasons for it.

So "beginning of redemption", more accurately, "beginning of the blooming of our redemption" (ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו) is the process of transition from galut to geula. Let us look at some parameters:

1) Physical presence in the Land of Israel. Only 41% of the Jews are here.
2) Level of observance:  in Israel 10% of the Jews are haredi, another 10% are national-religious. Another 20-25% are somehow observant. Still, the majority are secular. Outside Israel the situation is even much worse.

So even according to Rabbi Kook, the situation is closer to galut than geula. Also, this process may be reverted back, as we saw in eviction of Jews from Gaza and North Samaria - this and some other crimes were committed by the State of Israel.

And one more thing. Those "reactionist haredi rebbeim" (your words) are the leaders of the observant community with the highest birthrate. You mentioned the fact that most Torah study is now being done in Israel. This too, to a great extent, is their merit. They also sabotaged the effort of the State to purge Judaism out of Jews in the early years of its existence (as Ben Gurion said, "in 20 years the only place one will be able to see a tefillin is museum"). So they are bringing the geula closer both physically and spiritually. They are great Torah sages and Jewish leaders. Therefore, even if disagree with some of their opinions, we must respect these opinions, including those concerned the State of Israel.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Now you quote Rav Kook.  LOL.   Yes, exactly my point.   "Beginning of redemption" by definition cannot mean "galut."  It's one or the other.   Sorry if that bothers you, but it is nonsensical to say otherwise.   I took issue with something you said which was basically, we can't do/think x because we don't have messiah yet.   This outlook is completely destructive.   How does quoting Rav Kook somehow refute what I said?   You are merely giving a support to me.   But that is besides the point.   Whatever you want to call the period we are in today, the halacha cannot take a backseat to that.    So you cannot say, we are obligated to build a Temple, but we must ignore that body of halacha because we are not in complete redemption mode yet.

I quote him because he is the only sage from whom you can somehow get support for your position. 

That's not true.

There were many rabbis who said similar things.  And I have heard that a certain currently well-known gadol signed on to a proclamation regarding this issue before he became more haredi-aligned.   In any case, there was more than just one rabbi saying that.

So "beginning of redemption", more accurately, "beginning of the blooming of our redemption" (ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו)

 

Before we even go any further, can we please acknowledge that it is completely nonsensical to say that the "beginning of geula" or "beginning of blooming of geula" etc etc is the same thing as "still galut."    ?

I'm sure you engage in sophistry and pilpul after this to somehow bolster your position, but the basics here are that to call the beginning of redemption as the "galut" is nonsensical.   That's like calling the 'beginning of black'   as "white."   Or the "beginning of blooming of white" as "black."   Take your pick.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Let us look at some parameters:

1) Physical presence in the Land of Israel. Only 41% of the Jews are here.   

Only?

And you should know that I have seen this report, but there are other statisticians that have the number higher.  In either case we are very close to a majority and when it is a certain majority that is a very significant thing indeed.   So are 30% and 40% etc also very significant.   I believe there are additional halachic nakfa mina's if it reaches a majority though, but I'm not an expert there.

2) Level of observance:  in Israel 10% of the Jews are haredi, another 10% are national-religious. Another 20-25% are somehow observant. Still, the majority are secular. Outside Israel the situation is even much worse.

Your point is what exactly?   This has nothing to do with whether we are in "galut" or not.

So even according to Rabbi Kook, the situation is closer to galut than geula.

No, you just made that up.   You quoted him above, and his words say the opposite of what you just claimed.

Also, this process may be reverted back, as we saw in eviction of Jews from Gaza and North Samaria

So what if it might be reverted back?   That doesn't mean it didn't happen in the first place.   You are actually acknowledging that something happened by saying there is something to revert.  Of course we pray that there is no reversal, but anything can happen if we sin.  The Torah says if we sin we are vomited out of the land.   The Rambam does not say that in geula no one sins. 

- this and some other crimes were committed by the State of Israel. 

Irrelevant.  Important to know about and be aware of, and to inform one's hashkafa in interacting with the govt of this state... But irrelevant to this particular discussion.

  And one more thing. Those "reactionist haredi rebbeim" (your words) are the leaders of the observant community with the highest birthrate. 

So?   Did I say that they have few kids?  No.  They have a ton of kids, Baruch Hashem.   May God continue to bless them with fruitful offspring.

And yes, their hashkafa is very reactionist. 

You mentioned the fact that most Torah study is now being done in Israel. This too, to a great extent, is their merit. 

 

So what?   Did I say haredi rebbeim don't deserve credit for Torah study?  Chas Veshalom.   Of course they deserve credit for their talmud Torah.  I'm not sure what you're getting at here.   It sounds like you think I don't like haredim and you are reacting emotionally to "defend" them against a non-existent attack.   Well, that is false.   I very much like haredim and appreciate them.  (even if I don't agree with every aspect of what they say or do).

So they are bringing the geula closer both physically and spiritually. 

 

Well spiritually yes.  But physically you'd have to admit they take a much lesser part in that.   But this is neither here nor there.   Isn't anyone who does mitzvoth bringing the geula closer?

They are great Torah sages and Jewish leaders.

  Did I say they weren't?

Therefore, even if disagree with some of their opinions, we must respect these opinions, including those concerned the State of Israel.

Whom did I disrespect?   You perceive my disagreement as disrespect.   Hypothetically, if I disagree, that means I do not accept what they say.   Not accepting, on whatever grounds, is not disrespecting.  It's strange that you seem to acknowledge this with the first half of your statement "even if you disagree" but then when you 'demand respect' I'm not sure what that is based on?   All I've done is disagree.   

On that note, I differ very strongly in my hashkafa from that of major haredi "gedolim."  And not just in regards to the state of Israel.   So does my gemara rabbi, and my gemara rabbi is himself haredi.



In any event, this discussion is meaningless.   To trifle over what state we are in is useless and pointless.   The bottom line is that the Torah demands of us to perform the mitzvoth and nothing is "cancelled" or "off limits" because we are waiting for moshiach.   The mitzvah is a chiyuv on the Jewish people, all of us, not on "just the moschiach."  No such thing.   And that was the bottom line of what I said.  So even if you cling to the false and oxymoronic belief for whatever philosophical reason that somehow Jews living in Israel today "live in galut," it should not make a difference halachically speaking.   

BTW, if Israel of today is galut even though it was not in the past, why do farmers have to keep Shmita?   In that sense, anyone saying it is "galut" is just giving philosophical speculation and even they know that deep down we have our Torah obligations and we have them tied to a certain land, and when we are there we have to do them, no matter how you view the air currents, the mystical forces that are aligning, or how many neighbors around you pay attention to the rabbi or don't follow Torah.

[Spectator]

KWRBT, I agree that there is no point to continue this discussion. Actually, my goal was to present an alternative legitimate Jewish worldview, not to prove that it is better or worse than the other ones.  I myself am not a haredi but I know this society well and I have deep respect for them, both the gedolim and regular people.

I am glad that it was a civilized discussion. Unfortunately, not always the discussions on this subject are civilized and respectful. It is very important to respect rabbis, no matter what part of Orthodox Judaism they belong to and how much their hashkafa is different from ours. We seem to manage not to cross any red lines.

And yes, mitzvat yishuv eretz yisrael is actual, no matter we live in galut or geula. haredim acknowlegde this. They live in Yesha; also recently I've been to their agricultural settlement in the south, it was great to see them out of the "ghetto".

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And yes, mitzvat yishuv eretz yisrael is actual, no matter we live in galut or geula. haredim acknowlegde this. They live in Yesha; also recently I've been to their agricultural settlement in the south, it was great to see them out of the "ghetto".

Oh, which place is that, what's it called?  I'd like to go there...

[Spectator]

And yes, mitzvat yishuv eretz yisrael is actual, no matter we live in galut or geula. haredim acknowlegde this. They live in Yesha; also recently I've been to their agricultural settlement in the south, it was great to see them out of the "ghetto".

Oh, which place is that, what's it called?  I'd like to go there...

It is called Komemiyut, located several miles north of Kiryat Gat.