JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Khazan on January 09, 2008, 07:42:00 PM
-
I was wondering if there are any posts or archived videos of Chaim talking about the ultra-orthodox sect of Judaism that is against the state of Israel. I forget what they are called, but they are a branch of Haredi that argue that Israel/Jews aren't allowed to have a state. Given that Chaim and other right-wing orthodox Jews evoke religion, these people also evoke religion to augment their claims. Is there any grain of salt to what they have to say? I think they're called "NETUREI KARTA," they also visited the Iranian president.
Is it in fact in violation of the Torah for Jews to have a modern state?
-
i dunno does anybody know.
-
I was wondering if there are any posts or archived videos of Chaim talking about the ultra-orthodox sect of Judaism that is against the state of Israel. I forget what they are called, but they are a branch of Haredi that argue that Israel/Jews aren't allowed to have a state. Given that Chaim and other right-wing orthodox Jews evoke religion, these people also evoke religion to augment their claims. Is there any grain of salt to what they have to say? I think they're called "NETUREI KARTA," they also visited the Iranian president.
Is it in fact in violation of the Torah for Jews to have a modern state?
No, in fact it is a commandment of the Torah to conquer and live in the land.
That is impossible without creating a state. So a state is mandated by the Torah.
The people who say differently are fools who don't understand the Torah at all.
They misinterpret one small passage in the Talmudh and beleive that thos can wipe out the entire Tanakh and the rest of what the Talmudh says on the subject.
They are fools. But they get alot of attention because they look and act so Jewish that you are shocked that they are a bunch of Muslim loving cretins.
I actually know a Neturei Karta member. He is a lunatic.
-
And actually Chaim was asked this question many times on ASK JTF over the years. It would take hours if not days to listen to enough show to find when he answered those questions.
-
What verse in the Talmud? I think the Naeturei Karta believe the messiah must come first before there is an Israel. Is that the thing in the TAlmud, or is that in the TAnack? They aren't the Lubavitch was the messiah bunch were they?
-
What verse in the Talmud? I think the Naeturei Karta believe the messiah must come first before there is an Israel. Is that the thing in the TAlmud, or is that in the TAnack? They aren't the Lubavitch was the messiah bunch were they?
That is not found in the Tanach, but only if you misinterpret one passage of the Talmud.
-
Theirs the 3 oaths- which actually weren't and aren't Halacha (binding as law, for the majority of poskim) , but even if it was , it was breached by the nations. In brief
- ( Ketuvot 111a ) - Im quoting from Rabbi Kahane's book Ore Harayon chapter 26 (the whole chapter is on this).
" What are the 3 oaths? G-d made Israel swear not to go up to the Land en masse; [Rashi: "together, by force"] and not to rebel against the nations, and He made the nations swear that they would not subjugate Israel too much. "
-
I like that you added that it isn't Halachah to begin with even if the nations didn't breach their oath since it is merely one opinion quoted in the Talmud and the accepted law by the ancient commentaries didn't accept this opinion for obvious reasons (it is directly against the simple reading of the Torah).
-
Theirs the 3 oaths- which actually weren't and aren't Halacha (binding as law, for the majority of poskim) , but even if it was , it was breached by the nations. In brief
- ( Ketuvot 111a ) - Im quoting from Rabbi Kahane's book Ore Harayon chapter 26 (the whole chapter is on this).
" What are the 3 oaths? G-d made Israel swear not to go up to the Land en masse; [Rashi: "together, by force"] and not to rebel against the nations, and He made the nations swear that they would not subjugate Israel too much. "
Nice to see you are longer flirting with Hareidi ideology, Tzvi.
-
I like that you added that it isn't Halachah to begin with even if the nations didn't breach their oath since it is merely one opinion quoted in the Talmud and the accepted law by the ancient commentaries don't accept this opinion for obvious reasons.
Of course it is not Halakha.
How could a misswath Ase d'oraitha be thrown in to the Garbage on the basis of a Midrash?
-
Was this the verse then ( Ketuvot 111a )? If it's in the Talmud, isn't it Halacha? Or is it just that this particular passage is being misconstrued by the Karta, therefore, this is just their opinion on a talmudic passage, and not Halacha (law)?
-
Was this the verse then ( Ketuvot 111a )? If it's in the Talmud, isn't it Halacha? Or is it just that this particular passage is being misconstrued by the Karta, therefore, this is just their opinion on a talmudic passage, and not Halacha (law)?
Both are correct. They are misinterpreting the simple meaning of the verse in the Talmud and to begin with it is not the Halacha. Not everything found in the Talmud is the Law, and there are frequently Rabbis who have different opinions in the Talmud. What is considered Halacha is after a long argument the Talmud proves one opinion correct and says "the Halacha is like person X". Or the Talmud says later on a rule that the Halacha is like person X in most cases but these few cases the law is like opinion Y. Or if the Talmud doesn't say out right what the Halacha is the ancient commentaries state what is the accepted opinion of the Talmud.
-
The Talmud writes the different opinions so that later on someone doesn't come up with his own opinion and "proof" of why something should be done differently. They Talmud brings up that proof and shows you how its not according to what you think becuase, a, b , c and d.
-
Theirs the 3 oaths- which actually weren't and aren't Halacha (binding as law, for the majority of poskim) , but even if it was , it was breached by the nations. In brief
- ( Ketuvot 111a ) - Im quoting from Rabbi Kahane's book Ore Harayon chapter 26 (the whole chapter is on this).
" What are the 3 oaths? G-d made Israel swear not to go up to the Land en masse; [Rashi: "together, by force"] and not to rebel against the nations, and He made the nations swear that they would not subjugate Israel too much. "
Nice to see you are longer flirting with Hareidi ideology, Tzvi.
What do you mean?
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
-
I dont concider myself Haredi and never did. I actually first read and was more in the state of mind from Rabbi Kahane's books. But the Torah is the Torah and one has to follow it. Anyway the way they label someone in Israel (the media) is just by their looks, and not by the Knowledge and Yirat Shamayim one has.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
-
First of all, learning about all the crimes commited by the secular agains't the Torah and agains't the Jewish people, who can blame any Jew not wanting to do anything with the State?
-
My great grandparent's Rabbi was the previous Satmur Rebbe 2 Rebbe's back and they took his advice by staying in Hungary and were killed in some concentration camp. I don't need to read the guy's Sefarim.
-
My great grandparent's Rabbi was the previous Satmur Rebbe 2 Rebbe's back and they took his advice by staying in Hungary and were killed in some concentration camp. I don't need to read the guy's Sefarim.
Good, because none of the Satmars do either.
Otherwise they would realize that their Rebbe was a fool.
-
First of all, learning about all the crimes commited by the secular agains't the Torah and agains't the Jewish people, who can blame any Jew not wanting to do anything with the State?
Because the second and first Jewish commonwealths had evil kings who did MUCH worse than the early zionists. And yet the Rambam praises their kingdom, tzvi.
This is because the Rambam is smart.
-
First of all, learning about all the crimes commited by the secular agains't the Torah and agains't the Jewish people, who can blame any Jew not wanting to do anything with the State?
Because the second and first Jewish commonwealths had evil kings who did MUCH worse than the early zionists. And yet the Rambam praises their kingdom, tzvi.
This is because the Rambam is smart.
You would have to state a proof and text from the Rambam.
-
First of all, learning about all the crimes commited by the secular agains't the Torah and agains't the Jewish people, who can blame any Jew not wanting to do anything with the State?
Because the second and first Jewish commonwealths had evil kings who did MUCH worse than the early zionists. And yet the Rambam praises their kingdom, tzvi.
This is because the Rambam is smart.
You would have to state a proof and text from the Rambam.
הִלְכּוֹת חֲנֻכָּה פֵּרֶק ג
א בְּבַיִת שֵׁנִי כְּשֶׁמָּלְכוּ יָוָן, גָּזְרוּ גְּזֵרוֹת עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּבִטְּלוּ דָּתָם, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּ אוֹתָם לַעְסֹק בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְווֹת; וּפָשְׁטוּ יָדָם בְּמָמוֹנָם, וּבִבְנוֹתֵיהֶם; וְנִכְנְסוּ לַהֵיכָל, וּפָרְצוּ בּוֹ פְּרָצוֹת, וְטִמְּאוּ הַטְּהָרוֹת. וְצַר לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְאוֹד מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וּלְחָצוּם לַחַץ גָּדוֹל, עַד שֶׁרִחַם עֲלֵיהֶם אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ, וְהוֹשִׁיעָם מִיָּדָם. וְגָבְרוּ בְּנֵי חַשְׁמֻנַּאי הַכּוֹהֲנִים הַגְּדוֹלִים, וַהֲרָגוּם וְהוֹשִׁיעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיָּדָם; וְהִעְמִידוּ מֶלֶךְ מִן הַכּוֹהֲנִים, וְחָזְרָה מַלְכוּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָתֵר עַל מָאתַיִם שָׁנָה--עַד הֶחָרְבָּן הַשֵּׁנִי.
Here it is.
Read it and weep.
-
Someone would have to translate.
-
The last line is."The Hasmoneans overpowered the greeks and saved Israel and the Kingship was restored to Israel for over two hundred years."
The Kingdom of Israel?!??!?!
Two hundred years?!?!?!?!
Think who he is including as Kingdom of Israel.
Alexander yannai, Antipater, Herod.
Some of the most evil kings in Israels history. Just as bad if not worse than today's leftists.
He includes them as Kingdom of Israel because he is smart enough to realize that any Jewish state is better than no Jewish state.
-
'Nuff said.
-
My great grandparent's Rabbi was the previous Satmur Rebbe 2 Rebbe's back and they took his advice by staying in Hungary and were killed in some concentration camp. I don't need to read the guy's Sefarim.
Why do you have a Satmar Rav?
He doesn't.
His great-grandparents did.
-
Actually the Rabbi of my Synagague for 20 years is Satmur but he doesn't admit to it if you ask him, he prefers to be left unclassified and he sends his kids to a Vishnitz Yeshiva. I asked him about R' Kahane and the Rabbi responded by saying that if R' Kahane would have been successful in Israel, it would have been a much better place so he isn't a true Satmur. He also speaks positively about Israel and doesn't like the fight between the two Satmur Rabbis going on and implied they are not acting like real Rabbis so he's probably a self hating Satmur. He's still a bit crazy and says some crazy things and his speeches don't make sense most of the time. I go to the Synagague since it is the closest Askenazi one to my house. I only follow the Rabbi on simple Halacha and learn with him but ignore the guy when he says crazy things. When I get married in the future I'm moving and finding a better Rabbi. Basically he's the Rabbi of the Synagague I go to but I don't follow him except for simple Halacha.
There tend to be two types of Chassidim, those that adhere to their Rabbi very strongly and reject any other sect's Rabbis and their opinions. Then there are some who happen to belong to a certain sect but love Chassidism in general and study other Chassidic Rabbi's works as well as their own Rabbi and try to follow Chassidism in general by taking into account the different opinions of the other sects and following some beliefs that other sects follow but their sect doesn't if they like the other sect's opinion on that area and believe this achieves a greater understanding of Chassidism than following only one set of opinions.
-
The last line is."The Hasmoneans overpowered the greeks and saved Israel and the Kingship was restored to Israel for over two hundred years."
That doesn't prove anything. + the Hoshmonaim were fighting to have Judasim against the greeks and the HELLINISTS who were fighting agains't the Torah.
-
It proves plenty. The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.
-
It proves plenty. The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.
No thats what YOU are saying, that sentence doesn't prove this. If he wanted to say what you are saying then he would have said it exactly like that.
Where, anywhere in Torah (Written and Oral) does it say to praise the wicked? In fact the opposite, we have to Hate the wicked, allthought at the same time try to get them back on the proper path.
(read my signature below, and what King David says- infact he says this a lot in Tehillim).
-
Well, if the Rambam thought like the Satmurs, he would have said that Chanukah shouldn't be celebrated since we fought against the occupiers of Israel before the Massiah and brought a wicked kingdom to Israel in the near future.
-
It proves plenty. The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.
Thank you.
For your dead on analysis.
-
It proves plenty. The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.
No thats what YOU are saying, that sentence doesn't prove this. If he wanted to say what you are saying then he would have said it exactly like that.
Where, anywhere in Torah (Written and Oral) does it say to praise the wicked? In fact the opposite, we have to Hate the wicked, allthought at the same time try to get them back on the proper path.
(read my signature below, and what King David says- infact he says this a lot in Tehillim).
No, Tzvi.
The Rambam makes it very clear what he means.
-
Well, if the Rambam thought like the Satmurs, he would have said that Chanukah shouldn't be celebrated since we fought against the occupiers of Israel before the Massiah and brought a wicked kingdom to Israel in the near future.
Ha!!!!!!!!!!
So true.
-
Actually, when Hannukah happened, the kingdom was rightious, but later it became corrupt and did bad things.
And about Rambam- you are acting like a christian missionary, who first makes an opinion and then brings some text and formulates that thinks of that texts from the first opinion. Rambam does not, I repeat does not say that having a wicked kingdom is a good thing, nor does he praise the wicked (which would be a Torah violation).
-
Then he would have said "and they brought 50 years of righteous leadership of Israel" or something like that, not 200 years since that includes the wicked kingdoms.
-
great conversation!! i'M enjoying this!
-
Actually, when Hannukah happened, the kingdom was rightious, but later it became corrupt and did bad things.
And about Rambam- you are acting like a christian missionary, who first makes an opinion and then brings some text and formulates that thinks of that texts from the first opinion. Rambam does not, I repeat does not say that having a wicked kingdom is a good thing, nor does he praise the wicked (which would be a Torah violation).
I didn't want to say this because I don't want to hurt your feelings but, tzvi, if you knew the hebrew you would see the context and see that the Rambam was saying precisely what jdl4ever and I are saying.
-
Actually, when Hannukah happened, the kingdom was rightious, but later it became corrupt and did bad things.
And about Rambam- you are acting like a christian missionary, who first makes an opinion and then brings some text and formulates that thinks of that texts from the first opinion. Rambam does not, I repeat does not say that having a wicked kingdom is a good thing, nor does he praise the wicked (which would be a Torah violation).
The kings may have been righteous, however a kingdom made up of Cohanim cannot stand forever; it is forbidden.
That's the irony, a forbidden halakically untenable kingdom and yet the Rambam clearly praises it.
-
Then he would have said "and they brought 50 years of righteous leadership of Israel" or something like that, not 200 years since that includes the wicked kingdoms.
Right, it even includes Herod and Agrippas who were not halakhically Jewish and calls them Malkhuth Yisrael.
-
great conversation!! i'M enjoying this!
Glad to hear it.
-
There are indeed solid grounds for those Orthodox practitioners who believe that we are to await the Moshiach's Reign, at which time he is to redeem us and rebuild the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem.
Rabbi Kahane himself, when asked publicly to comment on these various groups of Jews who disavow Zionism, replied "I certainly can not find fault with their Torah."
The fact that the Labor Zionists won out in governing the State of Israel, and their outlook was entirely secular to the point of actually being atheistic, has added fuel to the arguments of the "rejectionists"; for the State is not actually a "Jewish" State...it is rather "A State full of Jews".
Rather than spend endless hours debating the nuances of Torah pro and con, I will simply state my personal opinion:
I prefer the State of Israel to be a modern state based on Torah and Jewish history. In spite of its obvious shortcomings, I believe that because the Land has again returned to Jewish ownership as we had hoped and prayed for 2000 years, there no longer can be those who reject returning to it. The reborn Land of Israel is obviously a Divine Miracle, and we have no choice but to accept it. It should be noted that there were those in Pharoah's Egypt who opted not to follow Moses, and I'm sure they must have felt their reasons for staying behind were good ones. It's up to us to remake the State as best we can. Moshiach will clean up the unfinished business when he arrives. It is not reasonable to expect a 60 year old country which has fought five wars since its rebirth to have had the luxury of normal development. "What you sees, is what you gets".
-
Chaim, now that your'e on the forum, please tell us what you think of Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews.
-
Chaim, now that your'e on the forum, please tell us what you think of Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews.
you may want to post a new thread asking him... or change the title of this thread
-
"We have to concider them the enemy for all intents and purposes "
Noam Federman.
Look I never said reject the land. The land is perfect and the Torah is perfect. But the state could be a vehicle or an obsticle. Sometimes its the first, but in gneral its the later, expecially now where they dont even pretend to want to settle the land (and wish to give away Jewish land). -Unfortunatly thats the only time that some Jews understand who an enemy is, when they want to give land away, but what about all the other crimes? How can anyone look away from that, just because they were zionistic at one point.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
-
Many of the gedolai hador of the last 50 years accepted the state, and we just have to look at them to lead us. The Satmars and the NK are a tiny minority. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, Rav Shach, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Rav Shlomo Goren, Rav Kook, Rabbi Kahane, etc. have accepted the state, but a couple of Talmedei Hachamim reject it so we follow? No, we look at the Gedolei Hador, and even though we may not agree with them on everything (land concessions) they still are the gedolei hador, and should be treated as so. I once heard that someone asked Rabbi Kahane who they should Psak by in Halacha. He answered them hacham Ovadia Yosef on everything besides matters relating giving away land etc.
-
Many of the gedolai hador of the last 50 years accepted the state, and we just have to look at them to lead us. The Satmars and the NK are a tiny minority. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, Rav Shach, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Rav Shlomo Goren, Rav Kook, Rabbi Kahane, etc. have accepted the state, but a couple of Talmedei Hachamim reject it so we follow? No, we look at the Gedolei Hador, and even though we may not agree with them on everything (land concessions) they still are the gedolei hador, and should be treated as so. I once heard that someone asked Rabbi Kahane who they should Psak by in Halacha. He answered them hacham Ovadia Yosef on everything besides matters relating giving away land etc.
Did Rav Kahane follow follow Sephardi Halacha and Minhagim? If I remember correctly, his father was originally from Tzfat, but I don't know if he was Sephardi...
-
Many of the gedolai hador of the last 50 years accepted the state, and we just have to look at them to lead us. The Satmars and the NK are a tiny minority. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, Rav Shach, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Rav Shlomo Goren, Rav Kook, Rabbi Kahane, etc. have accepted the state, but a couple of Talmedei Hachamim reject it so we follow? No, we look at the Gedolei Hador, and even though we may not agree with them on everything (land concessions) they still are the gedolei hador, and should be treated as so. I once heard that someone asked Rabbi Kahane who they should Psak by in Halacha. He answered them hacham Ovadia Yosef on everything besides matters relating giving away land etc.
Did Rav Kahane follow follow Sefaradi Halacha and Minhagim? If I remember correctly, his father was originally from Tzfat, but I don't know if he was Sefaradi...
Rabbi Kahane zt'l was Ashkenazi, and I think he said to follow Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, not Rav Ovadia
Actually, when Hannukah happened, the kingdom was rightious, but later it became corrupt and did bad things.
And about Rambam- you are acting like a christian missionary, who first makes an opinion and then brings some text and formulates that thinks of that texts from the first opinion. Rambam does not, I repeat does not say that having a wicked kingdom is a good thing, nor does he praise the wicked (which would be a Torah violation).
The kings may have been righteous, however a kingdom made up of Cohanim cannot stand forever; it is forbidden.
That's the irony, a forbidden halakically untenable kingdom and yet the Rambam clearly praises it.
This is a disagreement between the Rambam and tha Ramban, the Ramban, forbids any line but that of David HaMelech from ruling, the Rambam, rules any Jew who is from 2 Jewish from birth parents may be king. Hilchot Melachim, first Perek
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
No, the question is what proof do you have? You're the one making the accusation. The Satmar Rebbe, ZT"L, was a Posek, and he was in the minority and interpreted the "Three Oaths" as Halacha. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
No, the question is what proof do you have? You're the one making the accusation. The Satmar Rebbe, ZT"L, was a Posek, and he was in the minority and interpreted the "Three Oaths" as Halacha. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
Nothing valid about it.
There is Misswath Aseh d'oraitha to live and settle in Eretz Yisrael.
No Midrash can erase a Misswath Aseh.
So, NO, HIS OPINION IS NOT VALID.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
No, the question is what proof do you have? You're the one making the accusation. The Satmar Rebbe, ZT"L, was a Posek, and he was in the minority and interpreted the "Three Oaths" as Halacha. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
Nothing valid about it.
There is Misswath Aseh d'oraitha to live and settle in Eretz Yisrael.
No Midrash can erase a Misswath Aseh.
So, NO, HIS OPINION IS NOT VALID.
Who ever said you can't live in Eretz Yisrael? There are plenty of Satmarers in Eretz Yisrael.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
No, the question is what proof do you have? You're the one making the accusation. The Satmar Rebbe, ZT"L, was a Posek, and he was in the minority and interpreted the "Three Oaths" as Halacha. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
Nothing valid about it.
There is Misswath Aseh d'oraitha to live and settle in Eretz Yisrael.
No Midrash can erase a Misswath Aseh.
So, NO, HIS OPINION IS NOT VALID.
Who ever said you can't live in Eretz Yisrael? There are plenty of Satmarers in Eretz Yisrael.
OdKahaneChai, The Satmar Rebbe made the manifestly insane claim that while it is a commandment from the Torah for each and every Jew to live in Eress Yisrael, it is a grave sin if more than a handful of jews actually fulfill this commandment.
This is a valid opinion?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
THIS IS ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
No, the question is what proof do you have? You're the one making the accusation. The Satmar Rebbe, ZT"L, was a Posek, and he was in the minority and interpreted the "Three Oaths" as Halacha. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
Nothing valid about it.
There is Misswath Aseh d'oraitha to live and settle in Eretz Yisrael.
No Midrash can erase a Misswath Aseh.
So, NO, HIS OPINION IS NOT VALID.
Who ever said you can't live in Eretz Yisrael? There are plenty of Satmarers in Eretz Yisrael.
OdKahaneChai, The Satmar Rebbe made the manifestly insane claim that while it is a commandment from the Torah for each and every Jew to live in Eress Yisrael, it is a grave sin if more than a handful of jews actually fulfill this commandment.
This is a valid opinion?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
THIS IS ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!
Not true. He was opposed to a Jewish government in Israel, not Jews in Israel.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
No, the question is what proof do you have? You're the one making the accusation. The Satmar Rebbe, ZT"L, was a Posek, and he was in the minority and interpreted the "Three Oaths" as Halacha. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
Nothing valid about it.
There is Misswath Aseh d'oraitha to live and settle in Eretz Yisrael.
No Midrash can erase a Misswath Aseh.
So, NO, HIS OPINION IS NOT VALID.
Who ever said you can't live in Eretz Yisrael? There are plenty of Satmarers in Eretz Yisrael.
OdKahaneChai, The Satmar Rebbe made the manifestly insane claim that while it is a commandment from the Torah for each and every Jew to live in Eress Yisrael, it is a grave sin if more than a handful of jews actually fulfill this commandment.
This is a valid opinion?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
THIS IS ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!
Not true. He was opposed to a Jewish government in Israel, not Jews in Israel.
Read his sefer VaYoel Moshe, Maamar Yishuv Eretz Yisrael.
In it he claims that only a handful of Jews should go to Israel and that it is assur for more than a few elderly Jews to live there.
That's what he says. Look it up.
And either way, if he opposes a Jewish state, he wants jews to put their faith in a miracle from G-d and that has always led to annihilation.
-
Very informative and educational...
I found this in the Wikipedia
"The Neturei Karta synagogues follow the customs of the Gaon of Vilna, due to Neturei Karta's origin within the Lithuanian rather than Chasidic branch of ultra-Orthodox Judaism. It must be stressed that Neturei Karta is not a Hasidic but a Litvish group, they are often mistaken for Hasidim because their style of dress (including a shtreimel on Shabbos) is very similar to that of Hasidim".
Does it mean Vilna Gaon was anti-Zionist too?
Also what was the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneersohn's postition on Zionism?
I found this in
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/Lubavitcher%20Rebbe%20on%20Zionism.htm
claiming that Lubavitcher Rebbe Shulem Schneersohn was against Zionism? Was that true? Did the Lubavitcher position change later?
BTW, don't get me wrong. I am a Zionist to the core and I believe Israel's right to "expand" rather than to exist. Just for my own education I am asking these questions.
Thanks!
-
Very informative and educational...
I found this in the Wikipedia
"The Neturei Karta synagogues follow the customs of the Gaon of Vilna, due to Neturei Karta's origin within the Lithuanian rather than Chasidic branch of ultra-Orthodox Judaism. It must be stressed that Neturei Karta is not a Hasidic but a Litvish group, they are often mistaken for Hasidim because their style of dress (including a shtreimel on Shabbos) is very similar to that of Hasidim".
Does it mean Vilna Gaon was anti-Zionist too?
Also what was the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneersohn's postition on Zionism?
I found this in
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/Lubavitcher%20Rebbe%20on%20Zionism.htm
claiming that Lubavitcher Rebbe Shulem Schneersohn was against Zionism? Was that true? Did the Lubavitcher position change later?
BTW, don't get me wrong. I am a Zionist to the core and I believe Israel's right to "expand" rather than to exist. Just for my own education I am asking these questions.
Thanks!
The Vilna Gaon was not alive when Zionism started although the founder of Chovevei Zion(Lovers of Zion which was a proto-Zionist group) was started by Rabbi Naftali Ssvi Yehudha Berlin Also known as the Netziv who was the head of the yeshiva that he started before he died. One can possibly assume his feelings from what his major students did.
He also told his students to move to Israel long before anyone in the Jewish world was even speaking about this and he enouraged people to move en masse. So that sounds fairly Zionist to me.
Lubavitch was definitely against Zionism before the state was founded. The most recent Rebbe changed the Lubavitch position on Zionism radically.
-
Very informative and educational...
I found this in the Wikipedia
"The Neturei Karta synagogues follow the customs of the Gaon of Vilna, due to Neturei Karta's origin within the Lithuanian rather than Chasidic branch of ultra-Orthodox Judaism. It must be stressed that Neturei Karta is not a Hasidic but a Litvish group, they are often mistaken for Hasidim because their style of dress (including a shtreimel on Shabbos) is very similar to that of Hasidim".
Does it mean Vilna Gaon was anti-Zionist too?
Also what was the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneersohn's postition on Zionism?
I found this in
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/Lubavitcher%20Rebbe%20on%20Zionism.htm
claiming that Lubavitcher Rebbe Shulem Schneersohn was against Zionism? Was that true? Did the Lubavitcher position change later?
BTW, don't get me wrong. I am a Zionist to the core and I believe Israel's right to "expand" rather than to exist. Just for my own education I am asking these questions.
Thanks!
The Vilna Gaon was not alive when Zionism started although the founder of Chovevei Zion(Lovers of Zion which was a proto-Zionist group) was started by Rabbi Naftali Ssvi Yehudha Berlin Also known as the Netziv who was the head of the yeshiva that he started before he died. One can possibly assume his feelings from what his major students did.
He also told his students to move to Israel long before anyone in the Jewish world was even speaking about this and he enouraged people to move en masse. So that sounds fairly Zionist to me.
Lubavitch was definitely against Zionism before the state was founded. The most recent Rebbe changed the Lubavitch position on Zionism radically.
Moving to Israel and supporting the Zionistic movement are different things. The Vina Gaon's student (in KOL Hator) writes about the movement to Israel as being the job of Ben Yosef, but it also as being taken over and then done by the eruv rav.
I dont think that their were a substantial amount of Religious Jews who have supported the zionistic movement, but settling the land is different from this.
-
Very informative and educational...
I found this in the Wikipedia
"The Neturei Karta synagogues follow the customs of the Gaon of Vilna, due to Neturei Karta's origin within the Lithuanian rather than Chasidic branch of ultra-Orthodox Judaism. It must be stressed that Neturei Karta is not a Hasidic but a Litvish group, they are often mistaken for Hasidim because their style of dress (including a shtreimel on Shabbos) is very similar to that of Hasidim".
Does it mean Vilna Gaon was anti-Zionist too?
Also what was the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneersohn's postition on Zionism?
I found this in
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/Lubavitcher%20Rebbe%20on%20Zionism.htm
claiming that Lubavitcher Rebbe Shulem Schneersohn was against Zionism? Was that true? Did the Lubavitcher position change later?
BTW, don't get me wrong. I am a Zionist to the core and I believe Israel's right to "expand" rather than to exist. Just for my own education I am asking these questions.
Thanks!
The Vilna Gaon was not alive when Zionism started although the founder of Chovevei Zion(Lovers of Zion which was a proto-Zionist group) was started by Rabbi Naftali Ssvi Yehudha Berlin Also known as the Netziv who was the head of the yeshiva that he started before he died. One can possibly assume his feelings from what his major students did.
He also told his students to move to Israel long before anyone in the Jewish world was even speaking about this and he enouraged people to move en masse. So that sounds fairly Zionist to me.
Lubavitch was definitely against Zionism before the state was founded. The most recent Rebbe changed the Lubavitch position on Zionism radically.
Moving to Israel and supporting the Zionistic movement are different things. The Vina Gaon's student (in KOL Hator) writes about the movement to Israel as being the job of Ben Yosef, but it also as being taken over and then done by the eruv rav.
I dont think that their were a substantial amount of Religious Jews who have supported the zionistic movement, but settling the land is different from this.
Actually there were quite alot of religious Jews who did support the Zionist movement. Especially students of the Vilna Gaon.
Chassidim, there were very few. Most were anti-zionist.
Although the Gerrer Rebbe said that Rav Kook was the Gadol HaDor.
-
Who? Not the Hassidim, neither the Litvish nor the Sefardim. Just the Kookniks, and on condition that the secular regime temporarily holds power, because at the time it did promote 1 positive thing- which was settling the land.
-
Very informative and educational...
I found this in the Wikipedia
"The Neturei Karta synagogues follow the customs of the Gaon of Vilna, due to Neturei Karta's origin within the Lithuanian rather than Chasidic branch of ultra-Orthodox Judaism. It must be stressed that Neturei Karta is not a Hasidic but a Litvish group, they are often mistaken for Hasidim because their style of dress (including a shtreimel on Shabbos) is very similar to that of Hasidim".
Does it mean Vilna Gaon was anti-Zionist too?
Also what was the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneersohn's postition on Zionism?
I found this in
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/Lubavitcher%20Rebbe%20on%20Zionism.htm
claiming that Lubavitcher Rebbe Shulem Schneersohn was against Zionism? Was that true? Did the Lubavitcher position change later?
BTW, don't get me wrong. I am a Zionist to the core and I believe Israel's right to "expand" rather than to exist. Just for my own education I am asking these questions.
Thanks!
First of all the Vilna Gaon, A"H, told his Talmidim to settle in Eretz Yisroel, but there was no real idea of "Zionism" at the time. And the Rebbe Rashab was against political Zionism because he saw it as, and it at the time was, a Secular movement that was replacing Torah with Nationalism. But the Rebbe (the most recent one) was certainly not against Zionism (Religious Zionism, that is).
-
Thanks guys for the explanations!
Is there any verse in the Talmud encouraging Jews to settle in Israel?
What did famous sages like Rambam, Ramban, Rashi and other commentators say about the establishment of a religious Zionist state in Israel?
-
Thanks guys for the explanations!
Is there any verse in the Talmud encouraging Jews to settle in Israel?
What did famous sages like Rambam, Ramban, Rashi and other commentators say about the establishment of a religious Zionist state in Israel?
To my knowledge none of the Rishonim wrote about it.
-
Thanks guys for the explanations!
Is there any verse in the Talmud encouraging Jews to settle in Israel?
Yes many.
-
The Rambam was very encouraging and extremely Kahanist like and R' Kahane quoted the Rambam a lot. The Rambam wrote that if a leader gathers the Jews together in Israel and tells them to go fight their enemies and conquer the land they must listen to him and obey; and consider him with the presumption that he is the Massiah. Rabbi Akivah who was one of the most famous Rabbis of the Talmud was the main supporter of the Bar Kochba revolt against Rome in Israel.
-
The Rambam was very encouraging and extremely Kahanist like and R' Kahane quoted the Rambam a lot. The Rambam wrote that if a leader gathers the Jews together in Israel and tells them to go fight their enemies and conquer the land they must listen to him and obey; and consider him with the presumption that he is the Massiah. Rabbi Akivah who was one of the most famous Rabbis of the Talmud was the main supporter of the Bar Kochba revolt against Rome in Israel.
Until he killed Rabbi Elazar, after which R' Akivah realized that Bar Kochba had failed in his mission as Moshiach.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
No, the question is what proof do you have? You're the one making the accusation. The Satmar Rebbe, ZT"L, was a Posek, and he was in the minority and interpreted the "Three Oaths" as Halacha. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
Nothing valid about it.
There is Misswath Aseh d'oraitha to live and settle in Eretz Yisrael.
No Midrash can erase a Misswath Aseh.
So, NO, HIS OPINION IS NOT VALID.
Jeremiah said, “They [Israel, the defeated nation] shall be carried to Babylon and shall remain there [in the Diaspora] until the day I [G-d] remember them” (Jeremiah 27:22). To Rabbi Judah this meant, “Whoever goes up [returns] from Babylon [the Diaspora] to Israel transgresses the positive commandment of the Torah” (Ketubot 111a).
-
Using the term "Ultra-Orthodox Jew" is like using the term "radical Islam". Either you practice Judaism and follow the Torah or you practice something else. Whether we agree or disagree with all the subtle customs and traditions that often cloud the fact that we are all Jews, going against Israel is going against G-d and is as far away from Judaism as you can get. Instead of using the term "Ultra-Orthodox", it is probably best to call them by the town in Europe that they still think they live in.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Wow, thank you for that completely fallacious generalization.
You obviously have never learned a single word of the Satmar Rebbe's. Otherwise you would understand why Haredim relate to the state the way they do.
First of all, who says the Satmar Rebbe ZT"L spoke for all Charedim? Second of all, while I don't agree with it, it is a completely valid opinion that he held.
How do you know it was valid?
What proof do you have?
No, the question is what proof do you have? You're the one making the accusation. The Satmar Rebbe, ZT"L, was a Posek, and he was in the minority and interpreted the "Three Oaths" as Halacha. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
Nothing valid about it.
There is Misswath Aseh d'oraitha to live and settle in Eretz Yisrael.
No Midrash can erase a Misswath Aseh.
So, NO, HIS OPINION IS NOT VALID.
Jeremiah said, “They [Israel, the defeated nation] shall be carried to Babylon and shall remain there [in the Diaspora] until the day I [G-d] remember them” (Jeremiah 27:22). To Rabbi Judah this meant, “Whoever goes up [returns] from Babylon [the Diaspora] to Israel transgresses the positive commandment of the Torah” (Ketubot 111a).
Right and rabbi zera disobeyed him and made aliyah because his rabbi, rabbi yehudah was wrong and his opinion is not the pshat of that pasuk and is not the halakha and is also impossible because commandments from nach are not considered d'oraitha.
Tzvi, there were definitely opinions like this in the Bavli talmudh. But they are not the halakha so quoting them the way you do is facetious.
-
Using the term "Ultra-Orthodox Jew" is like using the term "radical Islam". Either you practice Judaism and follow the Torah or you practice something else. Whether we agree or disagree with all the subtle customs and traditions that often cloud the fact that we are all Jews, going against Israel is going against G-d and is as far away from Judaism as you can get. Instead of using the term "Ultra-Orthodox", it is probably best to call them by the town in Europe that they still think they live in.
OOOOOOH, SICK BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
???
-
???
Please elaborate.
-
???
Please elaborate.
OOOOOOH, SICK BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=
???
-
It's american slang meaning "You really beat him with that argument."
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Daweehd???
-
It proves plenty. The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.
No. The Hashmoneans re-established Jewish (true Torah observant Jewish) control of the Beis Hamikdash. He is not referring to the kings, wicked or otherwise.
-
Well, if the Rambam thought like the Satmurs, he would have said that Chanukah shouldn't be celebrated since we fought against the occupiers of Israel before the Massiah and brought a wicked kingdom to Israel in the near future.
You are saying we established a "wicked kingdom" but this is not what Hanukkah is about. It is about Torah-true Jews led by the Hashmoneans rebelling against the wicked hellenists and Syrian greeks to retake the Beis Hamikdash and re-establish the control of Jewish affairs to Torah-true rabbis rather than saducees, hellenists and other defilers of the faith. The miracle was that G-d gave victory to the Torah-true Jews and enabled them to purify Judaism again. It has nothing to do with who the king was or became.
-
He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more :D. I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower.
I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.
But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.
There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.
Daweehd???
Daweedh is the correct way to pronounce the name David in Hebrew.
Why are you so surprised?
-
Daweehd???
Daweedh is the correct way to pronounce the name David in Hebrew.
Why are you so surprised?
That is the Arabic way to pronounce David.
-
Daweehd???
Daweedh is the correct way to pronounce the name David in Hebrew.
Why are you so surprised?
That is the Arabic way to pronounce David.
NO.
The Arabic way is Dawoud.
The true Hebrew way to pronounce it is Daweedh.
-
It proves plenty. The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.
No. The Hashmoneans re-established Jewish (true Torah observant Jewish) control of the Beis Hamikdash. He is not referring to the kings, wicked or otherwise.
Have you read the first paragraph of the Laws of Hannukah in the rambam?
It is quite clear that he praises the Hasmonean re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty for over two hundred years which includes Antipater, Alexander Yannai and Herod.
-
Well, if the Rambam thought like the Satmurs, he would have said that Chanukah shouldn't be celebrated since we fought against the occupiers of Israel before the Massiah and brought a wicked kingdom to Israel in the near future.
You are saying we established a "wicked kingdom" but this is not what Hanukkah is about. It is about Torah-true Jews led by the Hashmoneans rebelling against the wicked hellenists and Syrian greeks to retake the Beis Hamikdash and re-establish the control of Jewish affairs to Torah-true rabbis rather than saducees, hellenists and other defilers of the faith. The miracle was that G-d gave victory to the Torah-true Jews and enabled them to purify Judaism again. It has nothing to do with who the king was or became.
And yet the Rambam praises the fact that there were Jewish Kings at all, despite how they later acted.
-
It proves plenty. The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.
No. The Hashmoneans re-established Jewish (true Torah observant Jewish) control of the Beis Hamikdash. He is not referring to the kings, wicked or otherwise.
Have you read the first paragraph of the Laws of Hannukah in the rambam?
It is quite clear that he praises the Hasmonean re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty for over two hundred years which includes Antipater, Alexander Yannai and Herod.
But the point of the "Jewish kingdom" is not having to do with the king per se and his behavior, it has to do with the fact that Jews can freely live in our own holy land and that we have control of the Beis Hamikdash to do our temple service mitzvot. I don't think you have established from Rambam that he is saying it is better to have a wicked Jewish king than a non Jewish one. His point lies elsewhere. It is better that Jews have control of EY, rabbis control and Jews own Temple Mount, rather than be in exile, not free to serve Hashem in our land with our temple service, as happened after that 200 years.
To be more specific, what exactly changed by way of the Hasmonean revolt? We technically had jewish "sovereignty," but unfortunately through bribes and other meddling by the goyim, unfit rabbis with heretical beliefs (the sadduccees) often became kohen gadol and controlled the Temple Mount service, at times allowing nonkosher sacrifices to occur. But technically Jews were somewhat autonomous under the syrian greek auspices during this time. It remained so, even later under the Romans, after the hanukkah revolt. Autonomy was there. But what changed was the purity of the Temple service, no? It's worth looking into this further, I should brush up on this.
-
There are arguments I would put to neturei karta - explain this: how moshe killed the egyptian that beat the jew, chanukah,
But the argument that I would put to you who say the 3 oaths are not relevant in some way.
Just saying that ketuvot 110B-111A is not halacha, and is aggada, does not cut it. Because if it is aggada, then what does it teach?
Scholars here have said it is just different opinions.. and Reb Zeira was not of that opinion. However,
Reb Zeira (who was in bavel and wanted to go to israel) did not disagree with the 3 oaths, he just said it banned jews from going en masse. But it allowed individuals.
Here is a great challenge put to me by a non zionist in the diaspora..
Do you know of any source, pre modern zionism, that discusses this idea that the 3 oaths are not serious, or that they are not relevant, or do not apply, such as the idea that the 3 oaths are inderdependent, and if the nations break their oath with G-d and persecute us, then we can break our oath with G-d and go up en masse?
This website(which happens to be anti-semitic) has a full accurate copy of the soncino translation of the talmud
http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_0.html
Seder Nashim, Tractate Ketuvot, (end of) 110B to - mid 111A
-
You cant look at and rely at all on an anti-semitic site (so its counted as if it doesn't exist).
If you want to learn Talmud go to http://www.dailygemara.com/
-
For goodness sake, the translation is soncino. I happen to have the soncino translation on CD from davka software too. It is not tampered with.
You are welcome to ignore that link if you want, and use a proper gemara. Or your own website that just has an audio of the daf, and the daf in hebrew. This does not affect my post at all..
My post has the same argument, without that link. Without even looking at that website. So if you are responding to it, then please deal with the substance.
-
Here is a great challenge put to me by a non zionist in the diaspora..
Do you know of any source, pre modern zionism, that discusses this idea that the 3 oaths are not serious, or that they are not relevant, or do not apply, such as the idea that the 3 oaths are inderdependent, and if the nations break their oath with G-d and persecute us, then we can break our oath with G-d and go up en masse?
Yes, the Ramban who says that the Mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael applies at all times. Obviously the three oaths are not taken into account if the Ramban is saying that we are ALWAYS obligated to conquer eretz yisrael.
Also the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse.
Also the Yaabetz Rabbi Yaaqov Emden says that we should move to Israel en masse. All of the Jewish people are required to go to Israel at all times.
Also Rashi who in his commentary on the verse in Song of Songs that the three oaths is based on, says "There are many Midrashim on this verse that do not make sense." and then goes on to say that the Gentiles and not the Jews are being sworn in this oath.
So there are plenty of Rabbanim who said at the time that there is no issur in moving back en masse. In fact, I would ask your non-zionist friend to find ONE poseq who brought this down as a halakha before the BACKLASH AGAINST the Modern Zionist Movement.
-
The Soncino is a conservative translation so you can't just rely on it alone but must read the Talmud together with the translation to make sure they are not mistranslating. However, I have used it and found this translation to be very accurate regardless of it's authors. Also it is very cheap. I would rather buy the Soncino than the artscroll since it is more reasonable.
-
Soncino is a publisher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soncino
It goes back long before the reform/liberal/conservative e.t.c. movements. Neither their chumash, nor talmud translations are done by reform/conservative . It is all orthodox.
The talmud translation was done by Rabbi Isidore Epstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_Epstein
The foreward to the translation was done by a former chief rabbi, rabbi dr hertz.
Conservative synagogues in america may use it but it is an orthodox translation. They just do not have any scholars to write their own translation. I have heard that they now have their own chumash translation..
The old Modern Orthodox shuls in britain have Soncino and Hertz chumashim. And there is no way that the rabbis would allow them in the shul if they were written by reform/conservative. That is just ridiculous.. Similar with the talmud translation..
So, you are very wrong about soncino.
-
Interesting. I didn't know it was an Orthodox translation.
-
Here is a great challenge put to me by a non zionist in the diaspora..
Do you know of any source, pre modern zionism, that discusses this idea that the 3 oaths are not serious, or that they are not relevant, or do not apply, such as the idea that the 3 oaths are inderdependent, and if the nations break their oath with G-d and persecute us, then we can break our oath with G-d and go up en masse?
Yes, the Ramban who says that the Mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael applies at all times. Obviously the three oaths are not taken into account if the Ramban is saying that we are ALWAYS obligated to conquer eretz yisrael.
Also the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse.
Also the Yaabetz Rabbi Yaaqov Emden says that we should move to Israel en masse. All of the Jewish people are required to go to Israel at all times.
Also Rashi who in his commentary on the verse in Song of Songs that the three oaths is based on, says "There are many Midrashim on this verse that do not make sense." and then goes on to say that the Gentiles and not the Jews are being sworn in this oath.
So there are plenty of Rabbanim who said at the time that there is no issur in moving back en masse. In fact, I would ask your non-zionist friend to find ONE poseq who brought this down as a halakha before the BACKLASH AGAINST the Modern Zionist Movement.
He is on paltalk, in a room called Torah Revolution or Torah Nation. He is the admin. He has a name like TorasMosheEmmes
I think it is EST 11PM to around 4AM.
If you do go on and have a chat with him, then please let me know how it goes.. He is a baal teshuva, who became religious only around 7 or 8 years ago, but he is very frum and intelligent and logical and well informed.
In britain(GMT, and GMT=EST+5), that means me logging on at 3AM, which is not feasible this week).
maybe if I get up early, then before I get to work.. I am not really a morning person.
I noticed about Rashi on the oaths , The pesach artscroll machzor has his commentary on it. It is strange that he says that oath is G-d to the nations. Since the gemara has it as being G-d to the jewish people. Does rashi have any basis for saying it is G-d to the nations?
Putting aside whether they bring it as halacha, he says they teach it as not to go up en masse. Regarding whether it is as halacha. I put it to him that the RAMBAM did not include it in the mishneh torah. He said he did, though not explicitly.. He says the RAMBAM Has a section on oaths, and the seriousness of oaths. And, he says (as neturei karta do) , that the epistle to yemen which the RAMBAM wrote, where it quotes the oath from shir hashirim, he thinks the rambam is telling them not to go up to israel en masse. (what else would the rambam be telling them, quoting an oath not to awaken the love.. )We love israel anyway, right? I do not see any plain meaning there regarding our relationship with israel. Only what the gemara says it means.. So that must be what he is telling them.
-
He is on paltalk, in a room called Torah Revolution or Torah Nation. He is the admin. He has a name like TorasMosheEmmes
I think it is EST 11PM to around 4AM.
I will see if I can speak to him perhaps tonight.
If you do go on and have a chat with him, then please let me know how it goes.. He is a baal teshuva, who became religious only around 7 or 8 years ago, but he is very frum and intelligent and logical and well informed.
I will let you know how it goes, if I do it, that is.
In britain(GMT, and GMT=EST+5), that means me logging on at 3AM, which is not feasible this week).
maybe if I get up early, then before I get to work.. I am not really a morning person.
Neither am I.
I noticed about Rashi on the oaths , The pesach artscroll machzor has his commentary on it. It is strange that he says that oath is G-d to the nations. Since the gemara has it as being G-d to the jewish people. Does rashi have any basis for saying it is G-d to the nations?
Perhaps his reasoning is that a misswath Asse min haTorah cannot be whisked away by a midrash that claims that there were oaths that the Jews and the Nations took upon themselves.
Who precisely agreed to these oaths? On the Jewish side and the Gentile side?
When were these oaths agreed to? Is it possible that the Misswa of yishuv HaAretz, (which that Talmud says is equal to all the Torah) is actually assur mideRabbanan?
Is that something that is even possible?
There are only three things that Chazal say are equal to the Whole Torah, Learning Torah, Shabbat and Yishuv Haaretz.
Therefore saying that it is assur for Jews to Move to Israel en masse is roughly like saying that Keeping Shabbath en masse or Learning Torah en masse is forbidden
Putting aside whether they bring it as halacha, he says they teach it as not to go up en masse. Regarding whether it is as halacha. I put it to him that the RAMBAM did not include it in the mishneh torah. He said he did, though not explicitly.. He says the RAMBAM Has a section on oaths, and the seriousness of oaths.
Ridiculous. Ludicrous.
True, actual oaths that are actually agreed upon by a person, not metaphoric oaths brought in a midrash.
And, he says (as neturei karta do) , that the epistle to yemen which the RAMBAM wrote, where it quotes the oath from shir hashirim, he thinks the rambam is telling them not to go up to israel en masse. (what else would the rambam be telling them, quoting an oath not to awaken the love.. )
The context was about not following Messianic pretenders who would of course lead the Jewish people to go to Israel unarmed where they would inevitably be slaughtered.
Certainly that makes sense. But when it comes to the Zionist movement, the Zionists have built up a state that at this point could conquer both Persia and Babylon and Assyria and Egypt all at the same time. That is an Israelite military that is stronger than the Israelite military has ever been in the History of the Jewish people.
That is a very different situation than a Jewish people as powerless as we were in the Galuth.
I'm sure that you can see the difference. Perhaps your friend cannot. I'm sure that if I was posed this question two years ago, I would have not been able to see the difference. Haredi faith is all encompassing and many times it is delusional.
We love israel anyway, right? I do not see any plain meaning there regarding our relationship with israel. Only what the gemara says it means.. So that must be what he is telling them.
Please elaborate.
I do not get your meaning.
-
Not everything said in a Medrish is to be believed. That is what Rashi is saying. The Medrish (Rabba) contains mostly far out explanations that don't follow the literal meaning of the Torah and some don't even make sense and even explicitly contradict what the Torah says. If a Medrish contradicts the Torah explicitly like this one then it is wrong. It is irrelevant that the Talmud brought it as the Talmud occasionally brings opinions that are not the Halacha. The Rambam and Rashi basically stated out right or implied outright that this Medrish is wrong since it contradicts the explicit meaning of the Torah where it has an eternal unconditional commandment to conquer the Land of Israel.
I personally think without any proof but with mere speculation that this Medrish was written soon after the Bar Kochbah revolt when the author was scared after losing a million Jews in the revolt that if it continues no one will be left. So he made up this Medrish to prevent his followers from rebelling against Rome unless they are oppressed too much and are forced to go en mass. Although his intent was good, it was wrong since it contradicts the Torah.
-
<snip>
I noticed about Rashi on the oaths , The pesach artscroll machzor has his commentary on it. It is strange that he says that oath is G-d to the nations. Since the gemara has it as being G-d to the jewish people. Does rashi have any basis for saying it is G-d to the nations?
Perhaps his reasoning is that a misswath Asse min haTorah cannot be whisked away by a midrash that claims that there were oaths that the Jews and the Nations took upon themselves.
Who precisely agreed to these oaths? On the Jewish side and the Gentile side?
When were these oaths agreed to? Is it possible that the Misswa of yishuv HaAretz, (which that Talmud says is equal to all the Torah) is actually assur mideRabbanan?
Is that something that is even possible?
There are only three things that Chazal say are equal to the Whole Torah, Learning Torah, Shabbat and Yishuv Haaretz.
Therefore saying that it is assur for Jews to Move to Israel en masse is roughly like saying that Keeping Shabbath en masse or Learning Torah en masse is forbidden
I don`t really understand the mitzva of settling the land / yishuv haaretz...
Daf 110B, says something along the lines of, if you live outside the land of israel it is as if you are an idolator.
The non zionist guy made a great point though.. he said "the rabbis that wrote that were living in babylon, so you have to ask what they meant"..
I guess he is right..
Then also, on 111A, it says that if you are in babylon you should not leave. And if you are in israel you should not leave.
I do not really see consistency between the 2, or consistency between them, and yishuv haaretz.
Putting aside whether they bring it as halacha, he says they teach it as not to go up en masse. Regarding whether it is as halacha. I put it to him that the RAMBAM did not include it in the mishneh torah. He said he did, though not explicitly.. He says the RAMBAM Has a section on oaths, and the seriousness of oaths.
Ridiculous. Ludicrous.
True, actual oaths that are actually agreed upon by a person, not metaphoric oaths brought in a midrash.
I could not prove that they are metaphorical... But I disagreed with him also, for the reason that I would expect them to be listed explicitly ..
He said there would be no need to list every oath one can take.. I replied that there are only 3 and these are in the gemara..
His argument there was very weak..
But, a point , which i actually saw from gil student on his hirhurim website..
On his articles on religious zionism (not the shlomo aviner set of articles)
He said that if it is aggada then what does it teach..
see, if it teaches the same thing as it would teach were it halacha, then it would still forbid x!
And, he says (as neturei karta do) , that the epistle to yemen which the RAMBAM wrote, where it quotes the oath from shir hashirim, he thinks the rambam is telling them not to go up to israel en masse. (what else would the rambam be telling them, quoting an oath not to awaken the love.. )
The context was about not following Messianic pretenders who would of course lead the Jewish people to go to Israel unarmed where they would inevitably be slaughtered.
Certainly that makes sense. But when it comes to the Zionist movement, the Zionists have built up a state that at this point could conquer both Persia and Babylon and Assyria and Egypt all at the same time. That is an Israelite military that is stronger than the Israelite military has ever been in the History of the Jewish people.
That is a very different situation than a Jewish people as powerless as we were in the Galuth.
I'm sure that you can see the difference. Perhaps your friend cannot. I'm sure that if I was posed this question two years ago, I would have not been able to see the difference. Haredi faith is all encompassing and many times it is delusional.
I looked for iggeres teiman online, and this is the best I could get
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/maimonides.cfm
Is this not the whole thing? i.e. is it out of context?
I do not see anything there about messianic pretenders and the danger.
We love israel anyway, right? I do not see any plain meaning there regarding our relationship with israel. Only what the gemara says it means.. So that must be what he is telling them.
Please elaborate.
I do not get your meaning.
The RAMBAM mentioned the verse from shir hashirim (the oath verse that occurs 3 times in shir hashirim). What could he have meant when mentioning that verse?
Certainly nothing in the gemara or midrash about the verse being associated with not following a false messiah.
The only thing I can see he could have been referring to was the 3 oaths gemara in ketuvot 110B-111A. One oath being Not to go to israel en masse.
-
If you read the Rambam in Hilchot Malchut he clearly is pro the Jews going to Israel in mass in our times. He says if any Torah observant leader gathers up the Jews to Israel and tells them to go fight their enemies he must be followed and is considered B'chezcat Moshiach. Then he says that if he is defeated then he is considered no different than the righteous Kings of the Tanach. In Hilchot Shabbat he talks about Milchemet Rishut in our times and beseiging cities on Shabbat which means Jews fighting their enemies in Israel.
Q_q, you are making a very big Torah mistake that many religious people make. You are procrastinating over the Talmud and the commentaries getting all confused without first looking at the Torah. The Torah is always the first place that any real learned Jew looks and if any commentary contradicts the Torah than it is wrong or if possible must be reread or reinterpruited in a way as to not contradict the Torah as your original interpuitation was wrong. The Torah of Moshe says in multiple places a commandment that we must conquer the land of Israel and expel the inhabitants. There is no condition attached to this commandment and no time limit. In these multiple places where this commandment is listed, the Torah says nothing about Moshiach, the exile, or anything else constraining this commandment so they do not exist, period. If some Medrish argues with the Torah than it is wrong, that's the end of the story.
The Talmud Babli (although otherwise is nearly flawless) has a few obvious contradictions with the Torah and obscure things said by different Rabbis on the issue of settling the land of Israel precisely because they had to cope with the fact that they were not doing what the Torah requires and setting an example for the nation by making Aliyah but lived in Babylon because life was easy there. This is clearly apparent. The Yerushalmi knocks the Rabbis of the Babli for not making Aliyah.
-
Here is a great challenge put to me by a non zionist in the diaspora..
Do you know of any source, pre modern zionism, that discusses this idea that the 3 oaths are not serious, or that they are not relevant, or do not apply, such as the idea that the 3 oaths are inderdependent, and if the nations break their oath with G-d and persecute us, then we can break our oath with G-d and go up en masse?
Yes, the Ramban who says that the Mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael applies at all times. Obviously the three oaths are not taken into account if the Ramban is saying that we are ALWAYS obligated to conquer eretz yisrael.
Also the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse.
Also the Yaabetz Rabbi Yaaqov Emden says that we should move to Israel en masse. All of the Jewish people are required to go to Israel at all times.
Also Rashi who in his commentary on the verse in Song of Songs that the three oaths is based on, says "There are many Midrashim on this verse that do not make sense." and then goes on to say that the Gentiles and not the Jews are being sworn in this oath.
So there are plenty of Rabbanim who said at the time that there is no issur in moving back en masse. In fact, I would ask your non-zionist friend to find ONE poseq who brought this down as a halakha before the BACKLASH AGAINST the Modern Zionist Movement.
I would also point out that even for those people who misinterpreted the oaths and differed from the opinions of Rashi, Ramban, and all these other great rabbonim you list, even for these people, the life-and-death situation of the Holocaust would override any supposed oaths. Jews were denied entry everywhere in the world (even denied by the British into "palestine" during Holocaust) and only smuggling into Eretz Yisrael was much of an option, while some zionist leaders had some political sway. Same holds true for the Sephardim who were persecuted, beaten, tortured, robbed and expelled from Arab countries. Logical place to go was Israel where they could remain alive. If someone truly believes that Hashem runs this world and takes an active role in what happens, they cannot deny the stupidity of the anti-zionist argument. Some in Naturei karta have the chutzpah to suggest that zionism caused the holocaust. If this is so, why would Jews in the Shoah be denied entry into all other nations, not be saved by emigration deals, many end up in EY, all the sephardim forced out and into EY, etc.... The Jews win the wars against the genocidal Arabs that followed.... G-d must really like the fact that those oaths were broken, no? I personally have a sneaking suspicion that it is not that we entered the land too soon that is the reason for today's problems, it is that the Torah believing Jews delayed so long to resettle the land, as all these great rabbonim were encouraging us to settle it. Because of all that delay we are stuck with Olmert types. Now it is our job to uproot them.
-
Wouldn't this supposed "oath" have been broken by two neviim Ezra and Nehemia who led Jews en masse to Israel upon the Persian kings decree that Jews should rebuild the temple and Jewish kingdom? Was this oath supposedly made after the second destruction, and if so, why such a different scenario than that which followed the first in which Jews most certainly went en masse to Israel. In addition, why is the international approval of various allied powers for Jews' resettlement of Israel so blatantly ignored (in addition to the individual settling Jews buying land of Arabs and not kicking people out) by those who keep pushing this oath nonsense about not taking the land by force. By definition, going there with approval of various leaders of the goyim and going there and PURCHASING land often at a price way above market value for under-productive land (at least for the Arabs. We made it bloom), this is by definition not taking it by FORCE.
-
Daf 110B, says something along the lines of, if you live outside the land of israel it is as if you are an idolator.
The non zionist guy made a great point though.. he said "the rabbis that wrote that were living in babylon, so you have to ask what they meant"..
I guess he is right..
LOL, then in that case, we have to ask WHO wrote the oaths, and what did THEY mean by them? To dismiss a talmudic teaching outright like this (G-d forbid), we can dismiss any teaching outright (G-d forbid) and that includes this silly oath argument!
-
Daf 110B, says something along the lines of, if you live outside the land of israel it is as if you are an idolator.
The non zionist guy made a great point though.. he said "the rabbis that wrote that were living in babylon, so you have to ask what they meant"..
I guess he is right..
LOL, then in that case, we have to ask WHO wrote the oaths, and what did THEY mean by them? To dismiss a talmudic teaching outright like this (G-d forbid), we can dismiss any teaching outright (G-d forbid) and that includes this silly oath argument!
You are taking what I said out of context.
I said to the non zionist about the importance of living in israel.. and I used THAT as a proof.
He replied with that response, which was very correct of him. (doesn`t mean he is right to be a non zionist)
BTW, as mentioned, both Reb Zeira and Rav Yehuda did take the 3 oaths seriously. Reb Zeira said it applied to en masse, not to individuals. So your parallel does not work.. (nevertheless, it may -still- be that they meant it differently,). As mentioned, it does also say elsewhere on one of those 2 pages, that if living in babylon, stay in babylon, and if living in israel, stay in israel. I did mention that as problematic, seems inconsisitent with the 3 oaths. Of course we have to ask what things mean..That is obvious.