Why I won't stand for or say the tefila for the medina

[ChabadKahanist]

This past sukot I was in in Kfar Riskin (Efrat) people asked why I did not stand for the tefila for the medina,to which I replie,how can I stand for a prayer which I do not believe in the words are a lie.
What do you mean the asked?
To which I replied how can anybody with any intelligence in good faith believe in the words reishit smichat geulateinu when Jews are being thrown out of their homes,Jewish land is being given to our enemies,Jews are denied the right to make aliyah while Goyim are given citzizenship & last but not least our enemies occupy Har HaBayit?
Its a lie & I can not in good conscience give any credence to this prayer.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

That's the part you don't agree with?

You ask how can anyone claim its the beginning of redemption:  easy.  The ingathering of the exiles is a big part of the redemption, and we witnessed thatoccur withthe zionist movement.  All the criteria you mention, as bad as all those things are, do not preclude the possibility that we are living in the early stages of the redemption.    Itsreally a hypothetical debate (no one really knows and believing one way or the other doesn't call for living differently so no practical difference) but to refuse to stand for thatis making quite a statement and I don't think it's what you intend.  Is it possible there is some other aspect of the bracha you cant stomach?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

In-gathering of many Jews, very good and well, OTOH some of them are a true stumbling block to our mission and would have been better off if they were in the galut instead (or not being born at all).

 + not import many of the goyim into the land of Israel on top of that who further defile the land and give more votes (and manpower) to those who will try to continue to keep the country a Hebrew speaking gentile State instead of the true Jewish state we are anticipating and will be fighting for.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

My synagogue in the United States actually omits those 3 words that you disagree with. The rabbi's copy has it in a box (like some things are in grey in a siddur that aren't said every day such as Ya'aleh VeYavo) and he doesn't say it. Once he said it by accident and some people didn't like that he said it. I guess it's a compromise between the yeshivish members of the synagogue and the more Zionist members. This was the policy before this YU ordained rabbi came. Before they had a yeshivish Lakewood style rabbi.

[ChabadKahanist]

My synagogue in the United States actually omits those 3 words that you disagree with. The rabbi's copy has it in a box (like some things are in grey in a siddur that aren't said every day such as Ya'aleh VeYavo) and he doesn't say it. Once he said it by accident and some people didn't like that he said it. I guess it's a compromise between the yeshivish members of the synagogue and the more Zionist members. This was the policy before this YU ordained rabbi came. Before they had a yeshivish Lakewood style rabbi.

If they took out those 3 words I would have less objections
My loyalty is to the land & people not to the leftist Bolshevik state or its self serving lying thieving politicos.
Also no halachic obligation to stand,where in Shulchan Aruch does it say I must stand? It doesn't.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

If they took out those 3 words I would have less objections
My loyalty is to the land & people not to the leftist Bolshevik state or its self serving lying thieving politicos.
Also no halachic obligation to stand,where in Shulchan Aruch does it say I must stand? It doesn't.

I don't stand either but not because of objection. I do object to the term "President and Vice-President of the Untied States" in the prayer for the American government unless you change it to say the "office of the President". After Obama leaves office, the original wording can be put back.

So I would say Misrad HaNasi VeMisrad Mishnato. The office is a nationalistic thing but it's under foreign occupation. Regarding Israel, the State itself is also holy but it's under Erev Rav occupation. But the wording of the Israeli prayer for the State doesn't need alteration.

[muman613]

I don't stand either but not because of objection. I do object to the term "President and Vice-President of the Untied States" in the prayer for the American government unless you change it to say the "office of the President". After Obama leaves office, the original wording can be put back.

So I would say Misrad HaNasi VeMisrad Mishnato. The office is a nationalistic thing but it's under foreign occupation. Regarding Israel, the State itself is also holy but it's under Erev Rav occupation. But the wording of the Israeli prayer for the State doesn't need alteration.

Binyamin,

I realize that this concept is not respected around JTF and I understand why.... But there is a concept that the Jewish people should respect the 'King' of any nation they reside in. I believe this is learned from the fact that Moses, in addressing Paroah, gave him complete respect until the very end. I think it is because of this concept that the prayer for the state was added.

I found this article by Rabbi Shafier (A modern Orthodox Rabbi I respect and support):

http://www.theshmuz.com/Parshas-Bo.html

Infanticide becomes state policy

Jews didn’t even have the right to live. As the Jewish People continued to thrive, infanticide became state policy. Pharaoh issued four separate decrees to stem the “Jewish population problem,” eventually commanding the citizens of Mitzraim to kill the Jewish newborns.

Bathing in babies’ blood

But even more telling, Pharaoh himself was a butcher. When he contracted Tzaras, his wise men offered the cure -- bathe in human blood. The Medrash tells us that to do this; he would bathe in the blood of Jewish babies each day. However, he needed a bath in the evening as well, and heaven forefend to use stale blood, so each morning and evening he would have 150 innocent Jewish souls slaughtered – for his personal comfort.

Why should Moshe treat such a king with respect?

Respect for the institution not the individual

It seems that the answer to this question is the distinction between respecting the institution and respecting the individual.

For the proper running of society, and therefore for the good of mankind, there needs to be a system of leadership and a hierarchy of authority - what we know as government. For government to be effective, it must wield power and its citizens must respect its authority.

Without fear of government, a man will swallow his friend alive (Pirkei Avos). Anyone who has lived through a period of lawlessness can attest to the primal fear he felt as he helplessly watched rioting, looting, and mob behavior. 

Ask a recent émigré from South Africa what it is like when a group of thugs appears at his backyard picnic and begins indiscriminately shooting up his family. It’s a country where carjackings, muggings and armed holdups are the norm - and there is no one to talk to - not because people there are different, but because the respect for authority has melted.

One of the obligations on any member of a society is to obey and respect its leaders. It is a correct and proper manner of behavior. Without it, society itself cannot function.

As the king occupies the position of leadership of the country, it is the obligation of all to respect him. That is basic to the good of society. It is the right way to act, and it is the way that HASHEM wants us to act. This respect has nothing to do with the individual – it has to do with the position.

 

I may recognize that a leader, as an individual is a lout, but as long as he maintains his position, I am obligated to respect him.

Moshe Rabbenu acted with respect for the institution

Moshe Rabbenu was acting in the way that was right and proper. Despite the fact that this individual was wicked, he held the position of king, and therefore, Moshe acted with respect for the institution of leadership. Even though that institution was now being used to pursue wicked ends, the institution itself was still worthy of respect, and therefore Moshe acted that way.

Historically the role of King

This message is especially relevant in our times. Historically, kings viewed their populations as sources of taxes and foot soldiers - vehicles by which to expand their fame and fortune. Rare was the king who actually ruled for the good of his people.
http://www.theshmuz.com/Parshas-Bo.html

[muman613]

See also:

http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5767/vaera.html

.
.
.
Rashi comments: "He commanded them regarding Bnei Yisrael"- to deal with them in a gentle manner and to be patient with them. "Regarding Pharaoh, the king of Egypt"-that they should show respect to him in all they spoke.

R' Avraham Yitzchak Bloch z"l hy"d (Rosh Yeshiva in Telz, Lithuania; killed in the Holocaust) asks: Why did Moshe and Aharon need to receive a special command to deal with Bnei Yisrael in a gentle manner? Moshe and Aharon were, after all, exceedingly humble and undoubtedly treated every person respectfully.

R' Bloch explains: There are two concepts that come into play when one is seeking the truth. One is "emet la'amitah"/ "absolute truth." The second is simply "emet" / "truth." Unlike emet la'amitah, ordinary emet is not pure in the sense that one who wishes to impart emet may alter his presentation to account for his listeners' backgrounds and preconceived notions. But such a presentation is not without risks, for it may lend credence to the very notions that it seeks to refute. Indeed, the mere fact that one would trouble to defend Torah beliefs against heretical ideas gives credibility to those very heretical ideas.

Returning to our verse: Why would Hashem command Moshe and Aharon to show honor to the evil Pharaoh? Absolute truth would dictate that Pharaoh did not deserve honor, but relative truth required that he be honored. Honoring kings, whether or not they personally deserve honor, is necessary to preserve world order. Therefore, such honor is the "truth." Rashi himself notes this when he explains why Yaakov sat up in Yosef's presence. He writes (Bereishit 48:2): Yaakov said, "Although he is my son, he is a king, and I will do honor to him." >From this, Rashi continues, we may infer that we must show honor to a person of royal rank. Similarly, he concludes, Moshe showed honor to the king.
.
.
.

[Israel Chai]

This past sukot I was in in Kfar Riskin (Efrat) people asked why I did not stand for the tefila for the medina,to which I replie,how can I stand for a prayer which I do not believe in the words are a lie.
What do you mean the asked?
To which I replied how can anybody with any intelligence in good faith believe in the words reishit smichat geulateinu when Jews are being thrown out of their homes,Jewish land is being given to our enemies,Jews are denied the right to make aliyah while Goyim are given citzizenship & last but not least our enemies occupy Har HaBayit?
Its a lie & I can not in good conscience give any credence to this prayer.

Talmud states Moshiah was "born" when the temple was last destroyed. That is the beginning of the messianic era. Not great joy, but suffering and the culmination of all that the evil intention and death brings should be expected. Be thankful for these terrible things that G-d allows and pray for them to stop soon, because, certainly when they do, people will be really thankful when they are.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

In-gathering of many Jews, very good and well, OTOH some of them are a true stumbling block to our mission and would have been better off if they were in the galut instead (or not being born at all).

 + not import many of the goyim into the land of Israel on top of that who further defile the land and give more votes (and manpower) to those who will try to continue to keep the country a Hebrew speaking gentile State instead of the true Jewish state we are anticipating and will be fighting for.

I don't know, I just learn Jewish sources.  They say that ingathering of exiles as a whole is a good thing.  So how can I view as negative?   

Do you really imagine that when they speak of ingathering the exiles, that somehow only the righteous exiles will come, while somehow the bad Jews will be kept out?  That's specifically NOT what happened in the first redemption with Ezra.  It is exactly like now where a lot of riff-raff came up with Ezra.  It's a holistic process where many Jews come, and hopefully the Israeli Jews become more righteous over time and society more just over time.   I don't know why people don't except a natural vision of this process such as that.    Ezra had hoped something better would come about over time, but it never got critical mass and never developed as he had probably hoped.  It doesn't make his efforts negative instead of positive.   Shouldn't we hope the same better things to develop now in our day?     

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

If they took out those 3 words I would have less objections
My loyalty is to the land & people not to the leftist Bolshevik state or its self serving lying thieving politicos.
Also no halachic obligation to stand,where in Shulchan Aruch does it say I must stand? It doesn't.

Where does it say in the Shulchan Aruch any laws regarding the land of Israel or a Jewish state?   It doesn't list them.    That's a silly question because common sense would dictate standing and there is no need for a shulchan Aruch to say "In 400 years from now when the synagogue does a prayer for the Jewish state of that time, make sure to stand for it"    By not standing you are causing a conflict in the shul.  I'm not saying that's the worst thing in the world, but I just don't see the rationale for causing this particular conflict.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

On the subject of the prayer for America, there was a big gadol who wrote that he was against this kind of prayer because it was an Exilic vestige from when they used to pray for the Czar in russia when the Jews were deathly afraid, and the whole idea didn't sit well with him.  I forget which gadol but he thought they should not do the prayer for host country anymore in this day and age.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I don't know, I just learn Jewish sources.  They say that ingathering of exiles as a whole is a good thing.  So how can I view as negative?   

Do you really imagine that when they speak of ingathering the exiles, that somehow only the righteous exiles will come, while somehow the bad Jews will be kept out?  That's specifically NOT what happened in the first redemption with Ezra.  It is exactly like now where a lot of riff-raff came up with Ezra.  It's a holistic process where many Jews come, and hopefully the Israeli Jews become more righteous over time and society more just over time.   I don't know why people don't except a natural vision of this process such as that.    Ezra had hoped something better would come about over time, but it never got critical mass and never developed as he had probably hoped.  It doesn't make his efforts negative instead of positive.   Shouldn't we hope the same better things to develop now in our day?   

 The in-gathering of the Jews, even "bad" one's in the fact that they were married to shiksas of who'm Ezra then told (or forced don't remember exactly) was an ok thing in the fact that at least they were Jews and identified as such. Were part of the movement to actually liberate the land and rebuild the Temple etc. It is like the 4 species on Succot, even those without Torah and good deeds are included as part of the 4 species (thus symbolically part of Am Yisrael).
 On the other hand at the same time their were Samaritans who's presence was a big stumbling block and they were enemies of Jews with proper and good lineage and at least connectiveness to Ezra, the Prophets and the Hachamim. Even with the fact that some of them were Jewish (Israelites) and did some thing, never-the-less their presence in the land was a negative factor. It would have been better if they were outside the land or just not born to begin with.
 Do you see the differences?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The in-gathering of the Jews, even "bad" one's in the fact that they were married to shiksas of who'm Ezra then told (or forced don't remember exactly) was an ok thing in the fact that at least they were Jews and identified as such. Were part of the movement to actually liberate the land and rebuild the Temple etc. It is like the 4 species on Succot, even those without Torah and good deeds are included as part of the 4 species (thus symbolically part of Am Yisrael).
 On the other hand at the same time their were Samaritans who's presence was a big stumbling block and they were enemies of Jews with proper and good lineage and at least connectiveness to Ezra, the Prophets and the Hachamim. Even with the fact that some of them were Jewish (Israelites) and did some thing, never-the-less their presence in the land was a negative factor. It would have been better if they were outside the land or just not born to begin with.
 Do you see the differences?

I see a much clearer and obvious parallel with the Jews who made aliyah w ezra and today's zionist Jews than with samaritans.  The vast majority of the Israeli Jews do not want to erase Jewish nationhood or judaism.  And that was certainly true of the rank and file during the zionist movement that they were basically decent people.  The peace now ilk who are truly enemies of the Jews are a tiny minority.  You gave credit to ezra's Jewish rabble for liberating the.land but they didn't fight anyone - the modern day zionist masses deserve that much credit and more because they really were part of a mass liberation movement and self sacrificed in battle.

Whenever I try to analyze today's situation I always find myself "stuck" with the same basic fact:  despite the fact that the first temple period was full of evil kings including ones who worshipped idols, still we mourn the loss of Jewish sovereignty, not just the Temple's destruction.  And there is no jewish scholar in history who when referring to that first commonwealth period has made a distinction between eras under which a righteous king ruled vs an idol worshiipper Jewish king as having any difference in terms of whether it was a Jewish national presence (commonwealth) or Jewish sovereignty or not.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

 KWRBT we are in agreement. I dont or didn't say that ever secular person is automatically not my brother and sister. Nothing like that, but at the same time as you know their is definitely a problem with the sometime blind allegiance that some say (as you are well aware of yourself).

[Binyamin Yisrael]

Chabad doesn't say the prayer for any government and ArtScroll removed it from their prayer book other than the RCA Edition. The regular addition has a grey box that says some say the prayer for the government at that point.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

The prayer for the state actually originated during the Babylonian Exile. I think it's in Ezekiel or Daniel.