Eim Ha-Banim S'meikha
Yisroel Markov
morning. It was written by Rabbi Can't-Remember-His-Name in Budapest
in 1943. He was subsequently murdered by the Nazis y"sh.
In the sefer, the author makes a forceful argument for Zionism. In the
introduction he writes, among other things (QFM-CW): "But the average
O Jew is not aware of the halakhic arguments supporting settling the
land and protecting it. He has been taught by the rabbis of our age to
regard all Zionists as irreligious transgressors, and hastens to
condemn anyone who says differently: "You are a Zionist and a sinner."
The rest of the book is sources and a case for Zionism, including
support and alliance with non-religious Zionists.
Iy"H and b"n, I will try to post more on this later (including the
rabbi's name).
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Jonathan J. Baker
>I've come across the sefer by this name in the shul I go to in the
>morning. It was written by Rabbi Can't-Remember-His-Name in Budapest
>in 1943. He was subsequently murdered by the Nazis y"sh.
R' Shlomo Teichtal hy"d.
>In the sefer, the author makes a forceful argument for Zionism. In the
>introduction he writes, among other things (QFM-CW): "But the average
>O Jew is not aware of the halakhic arguments supporting settling the
>land and protecting it. He has been taught by the rabbis of our age to
>regard all Zionists as irreligious transgressors, and hastens to
>condemn anyone who says differently: "You are a Zionist and a sinner."
>The rest of the book is sources and a case for Zionism, including
>support and alliance with non-religious Zionists.
The new translation, or the old Hebrew?
--
Jonathan Baker | Marches-wan, marches-two,
jjb...@panix.com | March the months all through and through
Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> I've come across the sefer by this name in the shul I go to in the
> morning. It was written by Rabbi Can't-Remember-His-Name in Budapest
> in 1943. He was subsequently murdered by the Nazis y"sh.
Rav Teichtel.
>
> In the sefer, the author makes a forceful argument for Zionism. In the
> introduction he writes, among other things (QFM-CW): "But the average
> O Jew is not aware of the halakhic arguments supporting settling the
> land and protecting it. He has been taught by the rabbis of our age to
> regard all Zionists as irreligious transgressors, and hastens to
> condemn anyone who says differently: "You are a Zionist and a sinner."
> The rest of the book is sources and a case for Zionism, including
> support and alliance with non-religious Zionists.
>
He was a Satmarer (if I'm not mistaken) and was violently opposed to
Zionism until the Holocaust. It's a powerful book !
> Iy"H and b"n, I will try to post more on this later (including the
> rabbi's name).
>
Josh
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
news:3dd028dc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> I've come across the sefer by this name in the shul I go to in the
> morning. It was written by Rabbi Can't-Remember-His-Name in Budapest
> in 1943. He was subsequently murdered by the Nazis y"sh.
Rabbi Teichtel, whose first name I do not remember either. Incidentally,
there is a large Teichtel family in Israel and NY who are Lubavitchers - I
wonder if they are related.
Ian
Sammy
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3dd028dc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
[asked about Sefer 'Eim HaBanim Semeicha' by R' Teichtel, HY"D]
Excerpts from
http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?whichpage=3&pagesize=15&forum_title=Other
&topic_title=&forum_id=21&topic_id=339 :
The Sefer AIm HaBanim Semecha doesn't contain anythign new. It's a
collection of all the old Zionist arguments that have long been disproven.
The truth is, his position stood no chance to begin with, because even
though Rav Teichtel was a Talmid Chacham, he was opposing the collective
Torah knowledge of the greatest Torah giants, including but not limited to
Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh, The Chofetz Chaim, the
Rogachover Gaon, The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rashab), the Belzer Rebbe (R.
Yisachar Dov), the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky,
all who were opposed to Zionism and the creation of a State. So he was
really quite outgunned from the start.
--------------
It is not even taken seriously outside of Zionist circles, because it is
mostly emotional sermons and discourses (droshos), rather than a serious
Halachic analysis.
It's an emotional outcry in response to the holocaust (he dates the
introduction Parshas Tetzaveh 1943) and its clear that he was talking out of
desperation for finding a safe haven for Jews, which many felt Eretz Yisroel
would be. He confuses his personal feelings with Halachic methodology,
Rebbishe vertlach with Halachic rulings, and so is not at all compelling.
Example: On page 147 he addresses a powerful statement in Ahavas Yonason by
R. Yonason Eyebuschitz ZT"L that it is absolutely prohibited for Jews to
take over Eretz Yisroel before Moshiach, even if all the nations want them
to, which is kind of a problem for a religious Zionist like Rabbi Teichtel.
This is his response: "You should understand that the words of Rav Yonason
only apply when there is no sign from heaven that we should all abandon the
lands of Chutz Laaretz, meaning, when Jews can live peacefully outside of
Eretz Yisroel ... but not nowadays, when the words of the prophet came true,
[that Jews will be hunted down by goyim]. So when the nations give us
permission to return to our land, can there be any doubt that it is the will
of Hashem that we return to Eretz Yisroel? I am certain, that if Rav Yonason
Eyebushitz was living with us today and saw the terrible golus that we
endure, he himself would say to us: 'Brother Jews! The time has come for you
to go to Eretz Yisroel, for this is the will of Hashem, for it is not
coincidence what has happened to us in Golus, but rather it is the finger of
G-d pointing to us to rise from golus..."
Ok. Now, of course, even in the days of Rav Yonason (about 250 years ago)
Jews were persecuted, and all throughout Golus they were, too. Yet Rabbi
Teichtel decided that he knows how to quantify the measure of suffering that
Jews are expected to tolerate in Golus, and what on the other hand is a
"sign from Hashem" for them to return. He decided that he can read Hashem's
signs and that this, for sure, is what our suffering means.
Where did he get this scale? Nowhere. He decided it on his own. He and only
he decided that this "sign from Hashem" tells us that the Golus is over.
Well, he can read whatever he wants into "signs from Hashem," but this "sign
from Hashem" has no Rashi or Tosfos to tell us how to interpret it. Nor did
Hashem tell him how to read history, nor does he have any sources that his
is the proper reading.
Since when do we pasken sheailos based on personal feelings? It's a nice
sermon, but Halachicly it means nothing. Yet to him, not only is it
Halachicly binding on everyone, but it "there is no longer any room for
doubt".
And it gets much, much, worse. This attitude that "everyone has to interpret
the world the way I do" often passes the line into the realm of the absurd.
On page 98 he deals with the Minchas Elozor, who was a vehement opponent of
Zionism. He was vehemently critical in general, actually, when it came to
protecting the Torah. And nobody was beyond his scrutiny. Here are some
quotes:
" 'Whoever becomes an leader in this world becomes evil in the next world'
(Rambam, Tur). The world explains this to refer to the lay leaders, like
presidents of congregations, which in many congregations this is true. But
if we're going to talk about our generation and our days, it can be
referring to the Rabbonim as well, unfortunately ." - Divrei Torah III:47
" 'Whevener there are Reshaim in the world, there is suffering in the world.
Who are Reshaim? The robbers.' (Sanhedrin 113b). This is referring to the
fake leaders who "rob" the truth form the people, because they act like
Tzadikim and act for their own benefit. They prevent the redemption. Hashem
should save us from them." - ibid 58
"There are Rebbes ("admorim") who are fakers, they make believe they are
Tzadikim, are meyached yichudim, and dress like Rebbes or rabbis. This is
all the doing of the Satan in order to bring the public (followers) to
sin" - ibid V:82
"The reason why Jews in Germany can learn heresy and still remain religious
is because they are like the people who are immune to poison because they
are used to drinking it and so have so much of it in their system. So too
the German Jews, they are soused to the poison of secularism since they are
habituated in it from childhood little by little, that this does not hurt
them. That is why they are immune to the bad influence of the Mizrachi and
the Agudah as well." - ibid IV:93
"'And you shall love your neighbor like yourself' - this means, just like
there are different parts of you that you care about more - for instance,
you care more about heaving your head than your feet - so too we love the
Tzadikim more than we do others. The lowest level is those who are like our
fingernails, also part of us, but we clip them off and discard them. These
people too are like fingernails that need to be separated from the rest of
us, and this is for the benefit of Klall Yisroel." - ibid II:39
Anyway, the following is Rabbi Teichtel's explanation of why The Minchas
Elozor was against "Yishuv HaAretz". I promise I am not making this up:
First, he tries to establish that whether the redemption will come
miraculously or slowly and naturally depends on whether Moshiach's coming
will be because we "deserve it" ("zachah") - in which case it will be
miraculous, or because Hashem sent it to us despite our not deserving it, in
which case it will be natural. Then he says, quote:
"And with this we have an open response to the entire objection of our
master and rebbi, the holy scholar, the Minchas Elozor ZT"L of Munkatch,
regarding being involved with building the land. For I myself was one of his
group, and I knew that his entire objection was base don the fact that the
redemption is going to come miraculously, not naturally . But his honor
remains intact, for he on his high level believed that the entire world is
on the high level where they deserve Moshiach, like he was. But the truth is
that this last generation, unfortunately, not deserving of Moshiach, and
therefore the redemption will come couched in natural methods." - Aim
Habanim Semechah p.98
I promise I did not make that up. In other words, the Minchas Elozor
mistakenly and naively thought the whole world was Tzadikim like he was, but
in reality he didn't understand that the world doesn't really deserve
Moshiach.
Now never mind how Rabbi Teichtel decided he can judge the world and decide
whether they deserve Moshiach or not; never mind that he has not one
Halachic shred of evidence to back up this position of his; but to say that
the Minchas Elozor naively looked at the whole world as much more righteous
than they actually are, as deserving of redemption when in fact they don't
deserve it, is beyond ludicrous. It's downright absurd, and for anyone who
knows anything about the Minchas Elozor, totally dishonest. If there was one
person in the past hundred years who we would say is not guilty of over
rating the world, it could very well be the Minchas Elozor. If he's not
first on the list, he's second.
And to attribute such an attitude to him of all people, is nothing less than
the stuff of la la land.
And that's besides the arrogance of saying that he is more able to discern
how deserving Klall Yisroel is of greeting Moshiach than the Minchas Elozor.
This is a Halachic treatise? Nope. Sorry.
It would have been one thing if they would have left it as a sermon or a
drush, but because the Zionists don't really have any serious Halachic
backing, they took this sefer and made it something of an icon. It's a big
pity.
Btw, Rabbi techtel's sefer comes without any Haskomos (approbations) form
anybody. But he did want Haskomos, so what he did was - I am not making this
up either, I promise - he took Haskomos out of another sefer, and printed
them in his sefer, saying that the Haskomos would certainly apply to his
sefer too, since the 2 seforim generally say the same things. But none of
the rabbis of his time - not a sngle one - wrote him a haskama.
Another note: Aim HaBanim Semechah speaks basically about building the land.
The topic of creating a sovereign state - which was the major objection to
Zionism - is almost completely ignored. Perhaps this is what the Lubavitcher
Rebbe meant (told supposedly to the authro's son, quoted in the
introduction, p. 21 ) when he told the son of author to "publicize that your
father was a G-d fearing Jew who was far away from Zionism"
_________________________
Thanks for asking [TM]
--
Always Check 'X-Original Date:' in Full-Headers to See When Post was
Actually Submitted (vs. When It was _Approved_.)
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
"Sammy" <s...@reply-to.field.INVALID.net> wrote in message
news:aqpj92$c8725$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de...
> [Nov. 11, p.m.]
> Btw, Rabbi techtel's sefer comes without any Haskomos (approbations) form
> anybody. But he did want Haskomos, so what he did was - I am not making
this
> up either, I promise - he took Haskomos out of another sefer, and printed
> them in his sefer, saying that the Haskomos would certainly apply to his
> sefer too, since the 2 seforim generally say the same things. But none of
> the rabbis of his time - not a sngle one - wrote him a haskama.
Not that haskama fraud is unheard of, but was any rav around to write
haskamas in nazi-occupied Europe in 1943?
Ian
Jonathan J. Baker
>[Nov. 11, p.m.]
>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>news:3dd028dc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>[asked about Sefer 'Eim HaBanim Semeicha' by R' Teichtel, HY"D]
And you take an Agudist message board to be "objective"? It's a
political polemic from a political source.
>Excerpts from
>http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?whichpage=3&pagesize=15&forum_title=Other
>&topic_title=&forum_id=21&topic_id=339 :
>The Sefer AIm HaBanim Semecha doesn't contain anythign new. It's a
>collection of all the old Zionist arguments that have long been disproven.
>The truth is, his position stood no chance to begin with, because even
>though Rav Teichtel was a Talmid Chacham, he was opposing the collective
>Torah knowledge of the greatest Torah giants, including but not limited to
>Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh, The Chofetz Chaim, the
>Rogachover Gaon, The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rashab), the Belzer Rebbe (R.
>Yisachar Dov), the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky,
>all who were opposed to Zionism and the creation of a State. So he was
>really quite outgunned from the start.
>--------------
>It is not even taken seriously outside of Zionist circles, because it is
>mostly emotional sermons and discourses (droshos), rather than a serious
>Halachic analysis.
>It's an emotional outcry in response to the holocaust (he dates the
>introduction Parshas Tetzaveh 1943) and its clear that he was talking out of
>desperation for finding a safe haven for Jews, which many felt Eretz Yisroel
>would be. He confuses his personal feelings with Halachic methodology,
>Rebbishe vertlach with Halachic rulings, and so is not at all compelling.
As do the authors of this essay, so it is not all that compelling, either.
>Example: On page 147 he addresses a powerful statement in Ahavas Yonason by
>R. Yonason Eyebuschitz ZT"L that it is absolutely prohibited for Jews to
>take over Eretz Yisroel before Moshiach, even if all the nations want them
>to, which is kind of a problem for a religious Zionist like Rabbi Teichtel.
>This is his response: "You should understand that the words of Rav Yonason
>only apply when there is no sign from heaven that we should all abandon the
>lands of Chutz Laaretz, meaning, when Jews can live peacefully outside of
>Eretz Yisroel ... but not nowadays, when the words of the prophet came true,
>[that Jews will be hunted down by goyim]. So when the nations give us
>permission to return to our land, can there be any doubt that it is the will
>of Hashem that we return to Eretz Yisroel? I am certain, that if Rav Yonason
>Eyebushitz was living with us today and saw the terrible golus that we
>endure, he himself would say to us: 'Brother Jews! The time has come for you
>to go to Eretz Yisroel, for this is the will of Hashem, for it is not
>coincidence what has happened to us in Golus, but rather it is the finger of
>G-d pointing to us to rise from golus..."
>Ok. Now, of course, even in the days of Rav Yonason (about 250 years ago)
>Jews were persecuted, and all throughout Golus they were, too. Yet Rabbi
>Teichtel decided that he knows how to quantify the measure of suffering that
>Jews are expected to tolerate in Golus, and what on the other hand is a
>"sign from Hashem" for them to return. He decided that he can read Hashem's
>signs and that this, for sure, is what our suffering means.
And you can't see that the mass deaths that were occurring in 1943 aren't
several orders of magnitude greater than what was happening in 1750 Germany?
Only by eliding the reality of the Holocaust can this point make any
sense.
>Where did he get this scale? Nowhere. He decided it on his own. He and only
>he decided that this "sign from Hashem" tells us that the Golus is over.
Operation Reinhard/Final Solution was a sign from Hashem.
>Well, he can read whatever he wants into "signs from Hashem," but this "sign
>from Hashem" has no Rashi or Tosfos to tell us how to interpret it. Nor did
>Hashem tell him how to read history, nor does he have any sources that his
>is the proper reading.
>Since when do we pasken sheailos based on personal feelings? It's a nice
All the time. It's what we call "Daas Torah" - instinctive, or "public
policy" rulings, later backed up by sources.
>sermon, but Halachicly it means nothing. Yet to him, not only is it
>Halachicly binding on everyone, but it "there is no longer any room for
>doubt".
Death is kinda like that.
>And it gets much, much, worse. This attitude that "everyone has to interpret
>the world the way I do" often passes the line into the realm of the absurd.
>On page 98 he deals with the Minchas Elozor, who was a vehement opponent of
>Zionism. He was vehemently critical in general, actually, when it came to
>protecting the Torah. And nobody was beyond his scrutiny. Here are some
>quotes:
>"There are Rebbes ("admorim") who are fakers, they make believe they are
>Tzadikim, are meyached yichudim, and dress like Rebbes or rabbis. This is
>all the doing of the Satan in order to bring the public (followers) to
>sin" - ibid V:82
Oh, so he had heard of the Belzer rebbe telling his followers to stay
while he escaped to Israel?
>"The reason why Jews in Germany can learn heresy and still remain religious
>is because they are like the people who are immune to poison because they
>are used to drinking it and so have so much of it in their system. So too
>the German Jews, they are soused to the poison of secularism since they are
>habituated in it from childhood little by little, that this does not hurt
>them. That is why they are immune to the bad influence of the Mizrachi and
>the Agudah as well." - ibid IV:93
Here's the nub of the essay: R' Teichtal attacks Agudah directly.
>"'And you shall love your neighbor like yourself' - this means, just like
>there are different parts of you that you care about more - for instance,
>you care more about heaving your head than your feet - so too we love the
>Tzadikim more than we do others. The lowest level is those who are like our
>fingernails, also part of us, but we clip them off and discard them. These
>people too are like fingernails that need to be separated from the rest of
>us, and this is for the benefit of Klall Yisroel." - ibid II:39
So he's saying there are real tzadikim, and fake tzadikim. Not everyone
who calls himself a tzaddik or a rebbe necessarily is. Look at all the
opposition to R' Shlomo Carlebach, etc.
>It would have been one thing if they would have left it as a sermon or a
>drush, but because the Zionists don't really have any serious Halachic
>backing, they took this sefer and made it something of an icon. It's a big
>pity.
Except of course for the abrogation by Hashem of the three oaths.
1) No "kechomah" but gradual aliyah.
2) The goyim tried to wipe us out.
3) We are thus freed of the obligation to remain in galut.
We can only discern the ratzon Hashem through history, since we live
in an age of hester panim.
>Btw, Rabbi techtel's sefer comes without any Haskomos (approbations) form
>anybody. But he did want Haskomos, so what he did was - I am not making this
>up either, I promise - he took Haskomos out of another sefer, and printed
>them in his sefer, saying that the Haskomos would certainly apply to his
>sefer too, since the 2 seforim generally say the same things. But none of
>the rabbis of his time - not a sngle one - wrote him a haskama.
This has become all too common. Haskamah abuse is rampant in the Jewish
publishing world, esp. since haskamot have lost their original purpose
(charomim acting in lieu of copyright law), and have instead become kosher-
marks. In the older haskamot, it didn't matter if the issuer had read the
book, the whole issue was hassagas gvul of the printer. Now, they still
don't read the books, but issue haskamot based on "he's a good talmid
chacham", "his last book was pretty good and this book seemed like a good
idea", etc.
So if you fault him for haskamah abuse, you have to fault the entire frum
publishing world.
>Another note: Aim HaBanim Semechah speaks basically about building the land.
>The topic of creating a sovereign state - which was the major objection to
>Zionism - is almost completely ignored. Perhaps this is what the Lubavitcher
>Rebbe meant (told supposedly to the authro's son, quoted in the
>introduction, p. 21 ) when he told the son of author to "publicize that your
>father was a G-d fearing Jew who was far away from Zionism"
>_________________________
>Thanks for asking [TM]
Trust you to dig up a political polemic posing as a book review.
Remember, chabadtalk.com (originally lubavitchteens.com) was formed as
a direct response to the tendentious anti-Lubavitch material posted on
frumteens.com. And there are some pretty good discussions on chabadtalk.com.
Yisroel Markov
<jjb...@panix.com> said:
>In <3dd028dc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE> ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) writes:
>
>>I've come across the sefer by this name in the shul I go to in the
>>morning. It was written by Rabbi Can't-Remember-His-Name in Budapest
>>in 1943. He was subsequently murdered by the Nazis y"sh.
>
>R' Shlomo Teichtal hy"d.
Yisakhar Shlomo, to be exact.
>>In the sefer, the author makes a forceful argument for Zionism. In the
>>introduction he writes, among other things (QFM-CW): "But the average
>>O Jew is not aware of the halakhic arguments supporting settling the
>>land and protecting it. He has been taught by the rabbis of our age to
>>regard all Zionists as irreligious transgressors, and hastens to
>>condemn anyone who says differently: "You are a Zionist and a sinner."
>>The rest of the book is sources and a case for Zionism, including
>>support and alliance with non-religious Zionists.
>
>The new translation, or the old Hebrew?
The new one. Have you seen Noach's post on the subject? (Thank you
very much, Noach, and I reserve the right to use anything you've
posted there against your positions in the future :-)
Sammy
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:aqr4ek$nb0$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In <e> "Sammy" <s...@reply-to.field.INVALID.net> writes:
Why do you always delete the msge. id of the post you are replying-to and
replace it with '<e>'?
I've been wondering about that for quite some time now.
> >[Nov. 11, p.m.]
>
> >"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
> >news:3dd028dc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> >[asked about Sefer 'Eim HaBanim Semeicha' by R' Teichtel, HY"D]
>
> And you take an Agudist message board to be "objective"? It's a
> political polemic from a political source.
1. It's not an "Agudist message board".
There is nothing at all that I have
seen that would indicate that frumteens.com is in any way affiliated with
either Agudath Israel of America or the Israeli political party Agudath
Israel. (and it should be noted that the former is _not_ the American arm of
the
latter but rather a completely different organization that does completely
different work).
If anything, it would sometimes appear that the rabbinic educator who runs
the site is critical of the Agudah (both of them).
The rabbinic moderator of Frumteens.com does not take sides between the
three basic mainstream Torah positions on Zionism-known as Satmar, Agudah
and Brisk [1]
(of the outstanding Torah sages, those who supported the Mizrachi position
were truly a minority fringe) but rather presents all of them and focuses on
the fundamental rejection of Zionism, including 'Religious Zionism', that
they all share.
2. In the post of mine to which you replied, I merely presented the
critique of Eim HaBanim Semeicha (hereafter referred-to as 'EH"S') without
offering any comments of my own, one way or the other about it's objectivty
or anything else. It should be noted that objectivity is actually a relative
criterion, the discernment and asessment of which is often highly
_subjective_ !
As one who completely rejects all forms as Zionism as being proscribed by
the Torah, the author of the piece has an obviously bias. As a staunch
believer -in and supporter of 'Religious Zionism' who completely rejects all
forms of _anti-_ and _non-Zionism_ as being untenable from a Torah
perspective, _you_ also have an obvious bias.
> >Excerpts from
>
>http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?whichpage=3&pagesize=15&forum_title=Othe
r&topic_title=&forum_id=21&topic_id=339 :
>
> >The Sefer AIm HaBanim Semecha doesn't contain anythign new. It's a
> >collection of all the old Zionist arguments that have long been
disproven.
> >The truth is, his position stood no chance to begin with, because even
> >though Rav Teichtel was a Talmid Chacham, he was opposing the collective
> >Torah knowledge of the greatest Torah giants, including but not limited
to
> >Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh, The Chofetz Chaim, the
> >Rogachover Gaon, The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rashab), the Belzer Rebbe (R.
> >Yisachar Dov), the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Chaim Ozer
Grodzensky,
> >all who were opposed to Zionism and the creation of a State. So he was
> >really quite outgunned from the start.
> >--------------
The above is really the bottom line and I see you did not reply to it.
[Remainder deleted. Perhaps I will reply more later. Suffice it to say that
your logic is seriously flawed and like the author of this critique claims
about R' Teichtal, your arguments are based-on _emotion_ and what you _want_
to be true rather than on logic and sound Torah]
NOTES:
[1] See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ao7d9s%24k0dts%241%40ID-67534.news.dfnc
is.de for a basic description of each.
Sammy
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:aqr4ek$nb0$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In <e> "Sammy" <s...@reply-to.field.INVALID.net> writes:
> >Excerpts from
>
>http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?whichpage=3&pagesize=15&forum_title=Othe
r
> >&topic_title=&forum_id=21&topic_id=339 :
[frumteens.com moderator:]
> >And it gets much, much, worse. This attitude that "everyone has to
interpret
> >the world the way I do" often passes the line into the realm of the
absurd.
>
> >On page 98 he deals with the Minchas Elozor, who was a vehement opponent
of
> >Zionism. He was vehemently critical in general, actually, when it came to
> >protecting the Torah. And nobody was beyond his scrutiny. Here are some
> >quotes:
Sammy:
It seems that you did not realize that these quotes, the first two of which
you ellided, were from the _Minchas Elozor_, NOT from R' Teichtal.
The quotes were brought to illustrate what is said just above about the ME
and therefore, how absurd R' Teichtal's assertion that the ME was naive in
overestimating people was.
Here are the first two quotes that you ellided. Notice that the first one
gives the source: 'Divrei Torah' by the Minchas Elozor; that is what is the
'ibid' of the last two is referring-to.
" 'Whoever becomes an leader in this world becomes evil in the next world'
(Rambam, Tur). The world explains this to refer to the lay leaders, like
presidents of congregations, which in many congregations this is true. But
if we're going to talk about our generation and our days, it can be
referring to the Rabbonim as well, unfortunately ." - Divrei Torah III:47
[Minchas Elozor of Munkacz]
" 'Whevener there are Reshaim in the world, there is suffering in the world.
Who are Reshaim? The robbers.' (Sanhedrin 113b). This is referring to the
fake leaders who "rob" the truth form the people, because they act like
Tzadikim and act for their own benefit. They prevent the redemption. Hashem
should save us from them." - ibid 58 [Divrei Torah of Minchas Elozor of
Munkacz]
> >"There are Rebbes ("admorim") who are fakers, they make believe they are
> >Tzadikim, are meyached yichudim, and dress like Rebbes or rabbis. This is
> >all the doing of the Satan in order to bring the public (followers) to
> >sin" - ibid V:82 [Divrei Torah of _*MINCHAS ELOZOR_* of Munkacz]
> >"The reason why Jews in Germany can learn heresy and still remain
religious
> >is because they are like the people who are immune to poison because they
> >are used to drinking it and so have so much of it in their system. So too
> >the German Jews, they are soused to the poison of secularism since they
are
> >habituated in it from childhood little by little, that this does not hurt
> >them. That is why they are immune to the bad influence of the Mizrachi
and
> >the Agudah as well." - ibid IV:93 [Divrei Torah of the MINCHAS ELOZOR]
J. Baker:
> Here's the nub of the essay: R' Teichtal attacks Agudah directly.
That was the MINCHAS ELOZOR attacking both Agudah _and_ Mizrachi.
> >"'And you shall love your neighbor like yourself' - this means, just like
> >there are different parts of you that you care about more - for instance,
> >you care more about heaving your head than your feet - so too we love the
> >Tzadikim more than we do others. The lowest level is those who are like
our
> >fingernails, also part of us, but we clip them off and discard them.
These
> >people too are like fingernails that need to be separated from the rest
of
> >us, and this is for the benefit of Klall Yisroel." - ibid II:39 [Divrei
Torah of the MINCHAS ELOZOR]
J. Baker:
> So he's saying there are real tzadikim, and fake tzadikim.
>Not everyone
> who calls himself a tzaddik or a rebbe necessarily is.
Yes, that's what the MINCHAS ELOZOR is saying and that is exactly the point
here as perhaps you will realize if you read the following portions of the
text that followed the above quotes which you ellided:
___________Begin Re-inserted Ellided text __________________________
Anyway, the following is Rabbi Teichtel's explanation of why The Minchas
Elozor was against "Yishuv HaAretz".
[...]
" [...] for he [the ME] on his high level believed that the entire world is
on the high level where they deserve Moshiach, like he was. But the truth is
that this last generation, unfortunately, not deserving of Moshiach, and
therefore the redemption will come couched in natural methods." - Aim
Habanim Semechah p.98
I promise I did not make that up. In other words, the Minchas Elozor
mistakenly and naively thought the whole world was Tzadikim like he was, but
in reality he didn't understand that the world doesn't really deserve
Moshiach.
Now never mind how Rabbi Teichtel decided he can judge the world and decide
whether they deserve Moshiach or not; never mind that he has not one
Halachic shred of evidence to back up this position of his; but to say that
the Minchas Elozor naively looked at the whole world as much more righteous
than they actually are, as deserving of redemption when in fact they don't
deserve it, is beyond ludicrous. It's downright absurd, and for anyone who
knows anything about the Minchas Elozor, totally dishonest. If there was one
person in the past hundred years who we would say is not guilty of over
rating the world, it could very well be the Minchas Elozor. If he's not
first on the list, he's second.
And to attribute such an attitude to him of all people, is nothing less than
the stuff of la la land.
And that's besides the arrogance of saying that he is more able to discern
how deserving Klall Yisroel is of greeting Moshiach than the Minchas Elozor.
________End re-inserted ellided text___________________---
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
> " 'Whevener there are Reshaim in the world, there is suffering in the
world.
> Who are Reshaim? The robbers.' (Sanhedrin 113b). This is referring to the
> fake leaders who "rob" the truth form the people, because they act like
> Tzadikim and act for their own benefit.
There is a great Creedmoorer nigun based on a rather interesting
interpretation of this that is found in the Vaboyel Mussa:
Beavud, beavud reshoim rino
Beavud, beavud reshoim rino
Beavud, beavud reshoim rino
Krechtz, krechtz, beavud reshoim rino
Ver zenen dem reshoim? Tzioinisten
Ver zenen dem reshoim? Mizrachisten
Ver zenen dem reshoim? Agudisten
Ver zenen dem reshoim? Alle yidden
Beavud, beavud reshoim rino
Beavud, beavud reshoim rino
Beavud, beavud reshoim rino
Fortz, fortz, beavud reshoim rino
This was sung at the famous Goldman-Hirsch mishkav zachor in the Russian
Compound.
Ian
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
>Why do you always delete the msge. id of the post you are replying-to and
>replace it with '<e>'?
>I've been wondering about that for quite some time now.
Because I want to get the attribution to fit onto one 80-char line, and
so I delete it, in 8-char chunks, until the thing fits on a line.
>> >"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>> >[asked about Sefer 'Eim HaBanim Semeicha' by R' Teichtel, HY"D]
>> And you take an Agudist message board to be "objective"? It's a
>> political polemic from a political source.
>1. It's not an "Agudist message board".
>There is nothing at all that I have
>seen that would indicate that frumteens.com is in any way affiliated with
>either Agudath Israel of America or the Israeli political party Agudath
>Israel. (and it should be noted that the former is _not_ the American arm of
>the
>latter but rather a completely different organization that does completely
>different work).
>If anything, it would sometimes appear that the rabbinic educator who runs
>the site is critical of the Agudah (both of them).
Haven't seen that. But it does take a black-hat anti-Zionist perspective,
which is more or less associated with Agudah in this country.
>The rabbinic moderator of Frumteens.com does not take sides between the
>three basic mainstream Torah positions on Zionism-known as Satmar, Agudah
>and Brisk [1]
>(of the outstanding Torah sages, those who supported the Mizrachi position
>were truly a minority fringe) but rather presents all of them and focuses on
>the fundamental rejection of Zionism, including 'Religious Zionism', that
>they all share.
IOW, loosely, Agudist.
>2. In the post of mine to which you replied, I merely presented the
>critique of Eim HaBanim Semeicha (hereafter referred-to as 'EH"S') without
>offering any comments of my own, one way or the other about it's objectivty
>or anything else. It should be noted that objectivity is actually a relative
>criterion, the discernment and asessment of which is often highly
>_subjective_ !
Which is why I responded to the essay as it was, not to your own
(non-present) comments.
>As one who completely rejects all forms as Zionism as being proscribed by
>the Torah, the author of the piece has an obviously bias. As a staunch
>believer -in and supporter of 'Religious Zionism' who completely rejects all
>forms of _anti-_ and _non-Zionism_ as being untenable from a Torah
>perspective, _you_ also have an obvious bias.
So? That's why you don't post long review essays from people who disagree
with the whole premise of the book, as if they "refuted" the book. All
they do is support the reviewer's biases.
Sammy
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:aqucp2$138$3...@reader1.panix.com...
S:
> >Why do you always delete the msge. id of the post you are replying-to and
> >replace it with '<e>'?
> >I've been wondering about that for quite some time now.
JB:
> Because I want to get the attribution to fit onto one 80-char line, and
> so I delete it, in 8-char chunks, until the thing fits on a line.
S:
Thanks for explaining.
S:
> >As one who completely rejects all forms as Zionism as being proscribed by
> >the Torah, the author of the piece has an obviously bias. As a staunch
> >believer -in and supporter of 'Religious Zionism' who completely rejects
all
> >forms of _anti-_ and _non-Zionism_ as being untenable from a Torah
> >perspective, _you_ also have an obvious bias.
JB:
> So? That's why you don't post long review essays from people who disagree
> with the whole premise of the book, as if they "refuted" the book. All
> they do is support the reviewer's biases.
S:
1. By that logic, you'd have to a priori dismiss the legitimacy of 'Eim
HaBanim Semeicha' itself, as the author disagrees with the whole premise of
what he is critiquing; namely Orthodox anti-Zionism.
You'd likewise have to dismiss, a priori, any critique or rebuttal of any
anti-Zionist work by someone who is pro-Zionist.
2. It wasn't a "review essay"; it was a response to someone who cited the
book in support of 'Religious Zionist' arguments.