Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
ultra-Orthodox Jews against Isarel. What does Chaim say?
judeanoncapta:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
I will see if I can speak to him perhaps tonight.
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
I will let you know how it goes, if I do it, that is.
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Neither am I.
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Ridiculous. Ludicrous.
True, actual oaths that are actually agreed upon by a person, not metaphoric oaths brought in a midrash.
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.. )
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Please elaborate.
I do not get your meaning.
jdl4ever:
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.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on January 27, 2008, 07:43:26 PM ---<snip>
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on January 27, 2008, 07:43:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Ridiculous. Ludicrous.
True, actual oaths that are actually agreed upon by a person, not metaphoric oaths brought in a midrash.
--- End quote ---
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!
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on January 27, 2008, 07:43:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.. )
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on January 27, 2008, 07:43:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 06:47:35 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Please elaborate.
I do not get your meaning.
--- End quote ---
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.
jdl4ever:
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.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on January 27, 2008, 05:10:42 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 27, 2008, 09:31:49 AM ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version