Yom Ha'atzmaut (Correction)
ha...@aecom.uucp
> just one correction. we do not say
> hallel on purim. we read the megilla
> in its place.
Sorry! My mistake! I got confused between Al Hanissim
and Hallel (don't ask me why!).
Eli Haber
{pegasus,cucard,esquire,philabs}!aecom!haber
Eli Posner
by Eliyahu Teitz.
With regards to the Satmar 'Rav': yes, I've read his 'sefer' (Va'Yohel Moshe),
and I have doubts if I should call it a sefer. There are without exaggeration
over 100 misquotes and stupidicies mentioned in that book. There are about
5 seferim written specifically to refute the shtoot (shtus) loaded in that book.
In other words, don't look to the Satmar Rav for comment on Israel.
The fact that the Israeli government is secular, is actually a very good
point. the problem could be solved by looking in mesechet Megilla (I don't
remember which daf) which talks about that salavtion will be even be
achieved before all Israel is chozer bi'tshuva. I other words, a religious
Jewish state is NOT a necessity , although it is ideal.
Ok. No, Arik Sharon is not shomer mitzvot, BUT the work he has done and is doing
dwarfs that fact.
I still disagree over Mr. teitz's insistance that Hallel cannot be recited.
Just think about it: Israel is now in Jewish hands. 100 , 200, 400, 1000, 1500
years ago IT WAS NOT IN OUR HANDS, BUT NOW IT IS!!!!! Obviuosly it is
a major nes in along time. Therefore that Rabbinut in Israel in their finite
wisdom decided that it is proper to say Hallel. ( I hope your not arguing
that they have no right to do this, because it is clearly written that they do).
Enough for now,
--
Eli Posner
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!utcsstat!rao
h...@houxt.uucp
reason that the Satmar Rebbe opposed the State of Israel in
addition to reasons relating to any violations that the secular
government had made or might make.
He claimed that in Europe, the Satmar Rebbe had a 'Talmid Muvhak'
(or a prize student - roughly translated,) that emigrated to
Israel and was killed on the way. The Satmar Rebbe took this as a
'simmon' (a sign) that it was not proper for the Jews to attempt
to set up a community until the comming of the Messianic period.
--
Harlan B. Braude
{houxm,allegra,harpo,hogpc,ihnp4,zehntel,ucbvax,sdcsvax,eagle,burl}!houxt!hbb
te...@aecom.uucp
In response to the comment on my article by Mr. Posner let me say a few things.
Firstly, the Satmar Rav, whether you agree with what he said ( and i do not
include myself among the agreers to his philosophy ), was a gadol batorah ( a
sage, literally great in torah ), and is entitled to his own opinion. No one
is forced to listen to it, but don't call it shtus ( foolishness ). I, too,
get upset when I hear Satmar self-righteous pomposity. I only mentioned
Satmar to show that there are people who think the State of Israel is not only
not a miracle to be lauded, but an action to be ignored and ridiculed.
Next, the gemara that you quoted from megilla, as I recall, and i might be
wrong, says that moshiach will come when the Jews are either totally righteous
or totally unrighteous (sinners). What this has to do with a political state
I don't know. Also, if the state promotes irreligiousness ( or however you
want to call non-observance ), what good is that state to the Jews ? For
such a state we recite hallel ???
The fact that Ariel Sharon is not religious does not detract from his
military achievments. A person who dies for the state, protecting other
Jews, in my eyes, deserves greater recognition and reward ( in heaven )
than a scolar who sat and learned torah all his life, because the soldier
made the supreme sacrifice for the protection and honor of the Jews and all
they stand for. I say this whether or not the soldier was religious. In
fact, those people who do not go to the army in Israel, are shirking a
responsibility for which they will have to answer in the future. If a
person sincerely wants to learn torah and dedicate his life to it, then I
have no complaints. However, to use the study of torah as an excuse not to
serve in the army is cowardly and only gives the non-religious more ammun-
ition with which to attack the religious.
A person's private convictions make no difference on the national scene.
However, the national religious belief should be conducive to observance.
If it indeed becomes conducive to religion, then I agree that hallel could
be said.
To look down at anyone who does not say hallel and call him a non-believer,
however, is also wrong. Not saying hallel does not mean that one is not
appreciative of the gift G-d gave us. It only means that in its present form,
the gift is nothing to cheer about. We must work together to improve the
government and make it more comfortable for everyone, regardless of personal
belief.
In closing, I have just one question. Where is it "written" that the
religious leadership in our days has the right to decree when hallel should
and should not be said. Now that s'micha ( ordination ) in its original
form has been abolished ( it's already close to 2000 years since te last
ordained rabbi [ ordination meant acceptance as a rabbi from a previously or-
dained rabbi, going back to Moses ]), many laws that apply to the rabbinate
can not be implemented.
The Satmar approach only breed hatred. Let us not fall into their trap and
stoop to their level.
Hamitzapeh l'mashiach b'chol yom,
( he who awaits the Messiahs coming every day )
Eliyahu Teitz.
Yehoyaqim Martillo
Because genuine ordination no longer exists, Sefardic and Oriental Jews
have tended to avoid the titles Rab or Rabbi and have preferred to use
Hakham or Mori. I recommend this practice become general among observant
Jews because certain malevolent beings in the name of fraudulent versions
of Judaism (known as Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Humanist or
Liberal) have pre-empted the titles Rab and Rabbi.
D.SIMEN
different "versions" of Judaism? I know of only one, although
different branches stress the importance of mitsvot more or less --
more less than more in the Reform movement, more more than less in
Orthodoxy and Conservatism. (I don't know enough about the
Reconstructionist branch to comment on their view of mitsvot.)
David (ben Mord'kai) Simen
...!homxa!dcs
Eli Posner
>I heard from Rabbi Rakefet in Israel, that there is a special
>reason that the Satmar Rebbe opposed the State of Israel in
>addition to reasons relating to any violations that the secular
>government had made or might make.
>
>He claimed that in Europe, the Satmar Rebbe had a 'Talmid Muvhak'
>(or a prize student - roughly translated,) that emigrated to
>Israel and was killed on the way. The Satmar Rebbe took this as a
>'simmon' (a sign) that it was not proper for the Jews to attempt
>to set up a community until the comming of the Messianic period.
Hold it one minute here! Let me get this straight: his student died on the
way to Eretz Israel, therefore Midinat Yisrael is bad. Very interesting.
Well, I just lost the last few drops of respect for the Satmar 'Rav'. Please
tell me that this story is not true, because it is plain Loshon Horoh.
Houxt!hbb, you just made the Satmar rav look like a fool!
I don't think a personal tragedy is enough to make important and influential
decisions like the one the Satmar Rav has made .
In addition, who is the Satmar Rav to decide what's good or what's bad
especially against something which is so obviously prescribed ot us
beforehand.
Hey, if the Satmar Rav is so keen on Simmonim, why does he ignore the obvious
ones: 1) Israel blossoming only once it's in Jewish hands
2) Kibbutz Goliot
3) 1948 War - militarily impossible for the Jews to have won; but we did
4) 1967 - speaks for itself. Yerushalim returned to the Jews
5) Lebanon War - the dogfights and tank battles with Syria can not
be anything besides a miracle. To be honest, I don't
think the Israeli soldier is 100 times superior to the
Syrian soldier, but 86 to 1 was the score.
And so on and so on.....
Also, who says the Talmid's death was a bad sign? Death <> bad.
Hey, what does one thing have to do with the other? My student
dies going to Israel therefore Israel is bad? Is this bad
logic , or am I missing something?
h...@houxt.uucp
where I quoted a Rabbi in Israel as having stated that the Satmar
Rebbe's opposition to pre-messianic settlement in Israel stemmed
from a personal tragedy.
The use of signs of this sort to gain insight into difficult
issues is not a new one (These signs would not be considered
case that I heard from a different rabbi, where some respected
sages considered the possibility of reinstituting the 'Karban
Pesach' in Israel. They lived outside of Israel, themselves. I
believe that the issue was raised during the time of the Maharal
Miprag and came up again during the time of Rav Kook z"l in
the early part of this century (the first Rav Kook, z"l, that
is.)
The idea was that since 'Tuma hootra betzibur' (ask someone you
respect for a good explanation,) and some other reasons I do not
recall, the 'Karban Pesach' could be sacrificed without a 'Beit
Hamikdash', etc.
At any rate, some tragedy occurred in that situation, and it was
taken as a the details and I apologize for that. I know how
frustrating that can be to people trying to make sense of what I
am writing.
Harlan Braude
houxt!hbb
Yehoyaqim Martillo
the words malevolent and fraudulent.
Because I do not wish to spend to much time on this issue, I will confine
myself to the malevolence of the Reform Jewish leadership.
Remember the root meaning of malevolent is desiring ill (for someone
else).
Gershom Sholem demonstrated several decades ago the descent of the German
Reform movement from German Jewish Sabbatianism. The Sabbatis were
extremely hostile to non-Sabbati Jews. In Poland the Frankists (a Sabbati
offshoot) incited violence against the Jewish community.
The basis of Sabbati hostility probably lay in their awareness that they
were no longer truly members of the Jewish community. (Their practice of
wife-swapping and orgies on Yom Kippur gave them the stigma of mamzerut.)
Consequently observance of Jewish Law was an anathema to them. Thus
fourth and fifth generation Sabbatis developed an ideology to minimize the
importance of Jewish Law and began to consider themselves Germans of
Mosaic faith rather than members of the Jewish Nation. At this point the
German Reform movement begins.
Quickly the Reform Leadership demonstrated their malevolence. When the
Syrian Muslims during the 1840's were massacreing Damascene Jews. Jews
throughout Western and Central Europe protested to their governments to
try to stop the persecution. The response of the Reform leadership was
fearless. They asserted that they were Germans and the persecuted were
Arabs and that Germans of Mosaic faith had no reason to be concerned.
Later in the 1870's and 1880's when Rumanian Jews were being persecuted.
The Reform leadership of that generation took exactly the same fearless
position.
The logical conclusion of the Reform ideology was that Jews really being
Germans or Poles or Russians or Arabs were no longer in exile. Since
traditional Judaism held that Jews would return to Israel and rebuild the
Temple when the Messiah comes, the Reform Jews began calling their Houses
of Peculiar Worship (battei `avodah zarah) temples specifically to deny
this article of faith. In fact this denial is still a principle of the
Reform movement even though the leaders lie about the reform position to
their followers and pretend to support Israel.
During WWII, the Reform Jewish Leader Stephen Wise demonstrated his
malevolence toward Jewish interests. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor
Japan had already become a refuge for many Jews. The Japanese felt they
were receiving bad press. The Japanese offered to admit several thousand
more Jews if Stephen Wise publically stated that the Japanese were
treating the refugees well (which was true). The State Department said to
go ahead (after all the refugees might come to the USA). However, Stephen
Wise put empty displays of patriotism before several thousand Jewish lives
and flat out refused to make the requested statement.
Currently, reform Jewish leaders are most likely to drool sympathy for
Arab Nationalish goals while they ignore the feeling of Jews who have been
persecuted by Arabs. I do not go around drooling sympathy for German or
Polish or Ukrainian or Russian nationalist goals.
I feel justified in terming reform Jewish leaders malevolent historically
and currently. Careful readers will note I have even left out one
important issue. I could make a similar analysis of the other aberrations
which exist among Ashkenazim but the analysis would be repetitive.
The question what is a fraudulent way of being Jewish is easily answered
in consideration of the question what is a fraudulent way of being
American.
Claiming merely knowing a little bit about about American history and
tradition is sufficient to being American is fraudulent.
Accepting American law but denying the validity of Anglo-Saxon
common law and claiming the right for individuals to interpret the
constitution in obliviousness to the legislative and judicial tradition
is a fraudulent way of being American.
Reform claims knowing a little about Jewish history and Jewish
tradition is sufficient to being Jewish.
Conservatism claims to accept authority of the law but denies the validity
of the Jewish Common Law (Torah shebe`al peh) and claims the right to
interpret the constitution (Torah shebiktab) in obliviousness to the
legislative and judicial (rabbinical) tradition.
These positions constitute fraud, and the leaders of these movements are
guilty of lipnei `iwer.
Of course, since most American Jews have nothing to do with anything
Jewish these arguements are not very important.
Eli Posner
I'll tell you why the Rabbinut in Israel has the right to proclaim Hallel.
The only way Smicha can be returned to Jewish life is for someone Smicha'd to
Somache someone else. But the problem is; there are no Rabbis nowadays
that have the real Smicha. BUT if there is a general consensus among all
jews in Israel then they are allowed to Somache someone. Anyways the reason I
mentioned this was to show that in Israel the powers of the Rabbis is greater.
In addtion, the Gemara says "Avira D'aretz Yisrael Machkim" - "the 'atmosphere
of israel is smarter". meaner they (the Rabbis) are 'greater' but not
necessarily more knowledgeable. You know what I'm getting at.
BTW - since someone (I don't remember who) called the "Neturai Karta" crazy.,
I'll add to it.
Not only are they crazy but they also are insanely UNreligious.
After the 1967 war, the Neturai Karta [get ready for this....] made
a deal with Jordan, that the Neturai Karta will help the Jordanians inreturn
for letting the N.K. live in Jerusalem after the Jordainans recapture it (!).
G-d forgive them.
Eli Posner
he stated correctly that the 'korbon pesach' could be returned.
Not only that, but a Sanhedrin could easily be formed nowadays halakhily.
MOST korbonot could also be reinstated. (Maybe not most, but some)
I really don't know the reason why no one acts and does this, but
I suspect it's because people wouldn't be comfortable to see this because
they aren't used to it. They are probably waiting for the Messiah.
Asher Meth
A gutteh voch to all / Shavu'ah tov.
Or leyom rishon leparshas Bamidbar (bemidbar, in the pasuk), (motzaei shabbos
kodesh leparshas bechukosai), 18 IYAR 5744, 33 days in the 'Omer - LAG BAOMER.
context : comment of Eli Posner on 'korbon pesach', Sanhedrin, and korbonos
in general.
>I really don't know the reason why no one acts and does this, but
>I suspect it's because people wouldn't be comfortable to see this because
>they aren't used to it. They are probably waiting for the Messiah.
>---
>Eli Posner
Aren't we all ??? Ani ma-amin be-emunah sheleimah bevias hamashiach, veaf
al pi sheyismahmeiah, im kol tzeh achakeh lo bechol yom sheyavo !!!
(I realize that the inference was probably *not* meant, but it was there and
was too open to misinterpretation.)
Asher Meth
allegra!cmcl2!acf4!axm9839
Chaya Bleich
Eli Posner states as a matter of fact that most, if not
all of the sacrifices could be brought "b'zman ha-zeh".
There are serious halachik questions at stake, and the issue
is not as clear-cut as Eli makes it sound. My father
(Rabbi J.D. Bleich) wrote a survey of the responsa
regarding this question, entitled "reinstitution of the
sacrificial order", which appeared in Tradition in Fall
1962 and has been reprinted in Contemporary Halakhic
Problems, Vol. 1. I am going out of town tomorrow,
so I don't have time to list the "marei mekomos"
but it is quite a long list. I just want to point
out that the question isn't quite as simple as Eli
makes it sound.
Chaya Bleich
allegra!cmcl2!acf4!bleich
axm...@acf4.uucp
Yom sheini leparshas Bamidbar, 19 IYAR 5744, 34 days in the Omer.
> My father (Rabbi J.D. Bleich) wrote a survey of the responsa
> regarding this question, entitled "reinstitution of the
> sacrificial order", which appeared in Tradition in Fall
>>>> 1962 and has been reprinted in Contemporary Halakhic
> Problems, Vol. 1. I am going out of town tomorrow,
> so I don't have time to list the "marei mekomos"
> but it is quite a long list. I just want to point
> out that the question isn't quite as simple as Eli
> makes it sound.
> Chaya Bleich
> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!bleich
One correction, please. that should say Tradition, Fall '67 (not '62).
Asher Meth
allegra!cmcl2!acf4!axm9839
te...@aecom.uucp
Dear Mr. Posner,
As I remember, and I may be wrong, the only way to reinstitute smicha
is if all Jews agree on the person to be musmach. And even if it is only for
Israeli Jews to decide, then it applies only to those living in the
Halachik boundaries of Israel, which are nothing like the present day
borders. And, even if it applies only to the Jews in the Halachik boundaries,
no matter how much you dislike the niturei karta ( and I like them even less),
they are Jews, and they live in Israel, and they'd never agree on a candidate
for smicha.
elli teitz.
te...@aecom.uucp
As I see it, and this ismy opinion only, there is only one form of Judaism
and then there are Jews who practice their own religions, which they call
Judaism.
Judaism means the acceptance of all the mitzvot and the acceptance of the
Rabbinic explainiations. Anyone who does not accept these is a Jew but
does not practice Judaism.
The conservative and reform and other branches of "Judaism" are Jews 100%.
But they are not practicing Judaism, but rather, a religion similar to ours.
elli teitz.
Yehoyaqim Martillo
halakhic problems. He notes that the sefer haxinuk states that rebuilding
the beyt hamiqdas: becomes obligatory when the majority of Jews resides in
the land of Israel. In view of American Jews' desire to commit ethnic
suicide, this obligation will become incumbent on Jews in around 25
years.
Whether we can reinstitute the sacrifices and whether we can rebuild the
temple, my grandfather, hakam Hasan, was of the opinion that the various
Muslim structures on Temple Mount should be knocked down. The
various Muslim commentators are quite explicit that Muslim possession of
Temple Mount demonstrates the truth of Islam and is a graphic expression
of Jewish subjugation. In various Arabic journals, I now and then see the
reluctance to knock these buildings down taken as evidence that we Jews
know we will eventually loose the Land of Israel, that we will once again
become dhimmis (subjects), and that the land of Israel is still part of
the dar al-Islam (the House of Islam).
The opinion of most Muslim scholars is that a Muslim must leave a land
which has irrevocably left Muslim dominion.