But surely we grow fatigued at this point?

I could’t have said it better!

If someone knows the entire Torah (both talmuds, rishonim, shulchan aruch, etc), and leads a significant portion of Am Yisrael in an halachic manner, then they are a godol - even if you greatly disagree with them. Of course this definition can be more refined but I believe it is sufficient for the purposes of the Amcha like you and me.

Even if I was a talmid of Rav Shach, I would still think 10 times before I ever said anything that had a shemetz bizayon to the Lubavitcher Rebbe Zt”l. He was a godol by any definition of the term. The last time the whole Jewish world got into a gedolim world war was the Emden-Eybeshutz controversy and that was probably the greatest cause of the destruction of Rabbinic authority that we suffer from to this day! We should stay away from such machloket like the plague.

There are people who consider the Lubavitcher Rebber to have been the Gadol Hador. Are we all forbidden from questioning his many questionable decisions? I know people who think of Rabbi Meyer Kahane that way. What’s the dividing line? Or do they all get gadol treatment? I mean, Steve, how much more pareve can my statement be? I didn’t say he was anything but an odom gadol. Is “not one of the gedolim in my worldview” an example of a lack of ahavas yisroel? Of course not. Is it sinas chinam? Of course not. What possible sinah is it? These are straw men, and your raising them doesn’t speak well of what I otherwise perceive to be noble intentions. Perhaps you are emotionally engaged out of the honor you feel has been inadequately expressed toward RYBS.

Now, as to number 3: Is my statement kivud talmidei chachomim? Well, that’s arguable, I guess. Do I have to agree that a talmid chochom is a “gadol” to be yotzi kibud talmidei chachomim? I’d like to see a source for that. I’d also like to know how it is such a conclusion would square with the likes of people many, many madregos above me — actual talmidei chachomim — who do not and did not view the Rav as a “gadol” because of their disagreements with his hashkafoh. What, you say? If they say that they’re not gedolim if they say that?

Wait a minute. That’s can’t be how it works. Can it?

I have no problem with disagreements. I have a BIG problem with hashkafic and historical revisionism. Feel free to state your case, just don’t push it on all of those gedolim who disagree (or imply that they were not Torah-True leaders). Doing so is a bizayon to the Torah greats of the past and a bizayon to truth.

I have no doubt that you are writing what you are leShem Shamaim but you should have little more trepidation when writing about those gedolim of yesteryear who do not fit into your conception of what the Torah demands. Our sages teach us that the kavod of Chachamim is similar to the kavod of Heaven - please be more careful not to disparage Maran HaRav Kook Zt”l just as I am careful not to disparage the Satmar Rav and maybe we will all be Zoche to see the final geula quickly in our day.

Well, I see we won’t agree on this Zionism vis-a-vis Judaism issue. So, maybe the best way to sum it up is to say that you’re Chareidi-Leumi, and I’m Chareidi non-Leumi.

What in the world does this mean? Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach had VERY different hashkafos than the Chazon Ish or the Brisker Rav. Does anyone doubt that all three were gedolim??? For that matter, the Chazon Ish generaly opposed the whole Brisker derech in limud. There is no such thing as what you describe above - it does not exist.

So why in the world do they need to sign the declaration? They could participate in the elections without signing any such document!

You are once again falling victim to chareidi revisionism of history. Almost EVERY godol in EY at the time supported the establishment of the state. RAv Zvi Pesach Frank, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Tokitchinski, Rav Yechezkiel Sarna, Rav Moshe Yaakov Charlap. They all supported the establishment of the state. To say these people were not “leaders of authentic Orthodox Jewry” is horrid beyond belief!

Hillel, Don’t take my word for it, just learn the sources from ALL the books, not just the current chareidi revisionist ones, and if that is not enough then go back and research the documents yourself - they are all publicly available. Go to Yerushalaim and ask Rav Elyashiv who was there during the time - he will tell you the truth. But for goodness sakes, don’t spout revisionist histories and hashkafas which you obviously know very little about.

The truth is that almost no one was choshesh about the three oaths in any real halachic way. There are a couple teshuvas in the rishonim which mention them but they were not included in any halachic code at all - not in the Yad, the Tur, the Rif, the Shulchan Aruch. No where. It was basicaly a polemic tool used by the Rebbe Rashab of Lubavitch, the Minchas Eliezer, and the Satmar Rav (who had the Yismach Moshe to rely on) in order to fight against Zionism. IT IS IN NO WAY A MAINSTREAM APPROACH. It was rejected by the overwhelming majority of gedolim and among them were those who opposed secular Zionism for other reasons - mainly because they saw it as an agent of assimilation. So please, stop with the falsification of history and the Torah and simply write that you hold like Satmar - don’t drag the other gedolim into this with you.

exactly!

check out the respect that RMF demonstrated for RYBS. granted, other charedi gedolim did not accord him that much respect. still, we can surely be mekil like R’ Moishe himself was in this regard. It’s got to be at least as good as kli shlishi or cholov stam

Although I am not from the MO world, I personally have tremendous respect for these two Gedolim and would have liked to have met them. This does not mean necessarily that I follow, or agree with every one of their positions.

I am certainly sensitive to the fact that the respective communities of the above-mentioned two Torah leaders view these Rabbonim as Gedolim. Rav Dov Eliach, in a recent interview, mentions that he took into consideration the sensitivities of some groups within the Charedi community when writing one of his biographies. I feel that the same goes towards those not within the Charedi community. If we want others to view our leaders with respect, we should show the same respect towards their leaders. Showing such respect is not a contradiction to strongly maintaining one’s own positions.

this is what I was trying to get you to say. you would not dare to speak with such chutzpah about gedolim.

Reb Reuven, ZT”L was recognized as one of the foremost leaders of Aguda, and he explains that the Edah Hachareidis may well be right in boycotting the new State of Israel, because it is wrong to seize the Holy Land by force before Moshiach comes. But he, reluctantly, joins the Government, in order to salvage whatever he can for Orthodox Jewry from the hands of the secular atheists who run the Government.

So the vast majority of achronim who paskened like the Ramban were not mainstream leaders of authentic Torah Jewry?

Please! If you want to hold like Satmar, then go ahead, just don’t claim it’s mainstream. The VAST majority of gedolim had no problem with the establishment of a Jewish state per-say. ALL were troubled by the secular component of secular Zionism – SOME to the extent of not supporting Zionism at all while others felt you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater - still the Aguda sent Rabbi Levin to sign the Israeli declaration of independence. ALMOST NONE were troubled by the idea of a Jewish state before mashiach – the only group which had this problem was Satmar.

If you want to see an overview of the halachic/hashkafic treatment of the Three Oaths throughout history, may I suggest you take a look at Rav Shlomo Aviner’s “kuntress shelo yaalu baChoma” – it might just open your eyes as to exactly how marginal your POV is.

We need not reheat that discussion, but it does bring it around to my friend JO’s point. If your point is that we can’t discuss the Rav’s decision because he was “one of the gedolim,” then you are on the wrong discussion board. If your point is that Ron Coleman can’t, or shouldn’t, discuss the question because he, as a “chareidi,” should not personally not criticize or question gedolim, well, I am afraid I must disappoint you, because the Rav, for all his brilliance and influence, is not one of “the gedolim” in my worldview, as large and great of a man as he may have been. I say this with all due with respect, but I must be sincere; as at least a person in the chareidi satellite of certain leaders and institutions in the yeshiva world, I have never learned the Rav’s Torah nor has it been suggested to me by anyone who taught me that I, or anyone else, should. (That is putting it mildly.)

Regarding Rav Aharon, of course, that is not the case at all — for me. Elu v’elu, brother, right? Even then I would not suggest that those who do not consider themselves talmidim of Rav Aharon or of Rav Aharon’s talmidim could not comment on the choices he made. On the other hand, I am entitled to believe that they are gravely in error if they do so beyond a certain bound, as you evidently believe I am regarding the Rav.

You are SO wrong. They went in order to eventually establish a Jewish political entity - as did the chovevei zion. They VERY much cared who ruled over the land as does anyone who holds of the Ramban’s shita in yeshuv haAretz wherein Jewish control of the land is the main kiyum of the mitzva. As is guaranteeing that foreign nations do not control the land. Look inside the Ramban’s commentary on Sefer HaMitzvot 4th positive commandment which the Ramban felt the Rambam left out.

The Talmidei HaGra held that by actively settling and redeeming the land from the locals, they were bringing the geula closer - this is ALL over their letters to each other and several have been published in the Kloisner addition of Drishat Tzion.

I suggest you read Kol HaTor, Drishat Tzion (and Rav Guttmacher’s articles of support for the program), Shivat Tzion, and also the Articles that were published in the Levanon (the newspaper of the old yeshuv in the 19th century) for yeshuv HaAretz. Then go on and learn the positions of the Avnei Nezer, Ohr Sameach, Rav Spektor, Rav Moholiver, and Rav Kook.

Once again you show your ignorance of History.

Let’s not get confused–we need to define our terms, before we can engage in a useful discourse.

Zionism is a secular-nationalist movement that arose in Eastern Europe, side-by-side with other secular movement, like Bundism and Socialism, that sought to mimic the trends that were sweeping the gentile community at the time. All of these movement sought to solve the “Jewish Problem” in a secular manner.

Zionism proposed a solution, whereby a Jewish-National state, with a Jewish government would be set-up somewhere in the world–not necessarily in Eretz Yisroel. The British proposed Uganda (Idi Amin’s country) in Africa, and Hertzl was ready to accept. The Eastern European Zionists, who made-up the bulk of the movement, vetoed Uganda, because it would not be able to muster popular support–they insisted on Eretz Yisroel as the site of their secular National State.

The Ramba”n, Talmidei HaGr”a and the other authentic Jewish lovers of Zion did not go to Eretz Yisroel to set up a national state for their party cronies. They went there solely to serve HaShem in His holy land. They couldn’t care less who the rulers of the area were, so long as they could serve HaShem in peace. On the contrary, they preferred the rule of King Hussein’s father to the rule of Ben Gurion and his left-wing atheist kibbutznicks.

The idea of seizing Ertetz Yisroel from the gentiles and reconstructing a Jewish State by force of arms before the coming of the Messiah has always been considered a heresy by the mainstream leaders of authentic Torah Jewry.

That is not what he wrote. I apologize for the confustion as, upon re-reading my words, it did seem like I was quoting him. Rather, I was paraphrasing him. He did write something like HKBH paskened, and it was referring to Zionism, Medinat Yisrael etc. The rest was my interpretation.

Irregardless, the main thrust is unchanged, and it was no more an apparent flash of ruach hakodesh than anything the Satmar Rav or anyone else who ever opined on Zionism said or wrote. But just as those are valid Torah perspectives (aren’t they?) so is Kol Dodi Dofek by R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik.

As for how one can not be an anti-Zionist and not move to EY, don’t be daft. There is a long literature about how “Zionist” means, essentially, “one who lives in EY” to those who live in EY and “one who supports EY” to those who do no live in EY. It is an interesting sociological quirk to be sure, but you can’t “get” anyone for failing to live up to their ideological commitment by assigning an ideological definition to them which they didn’t share.

But if he needs defending, then the answer is simple: RIETS needed him in the Diaspora.

good, you are moving in the direction in which I was leading you. so the question is, would you have used the same tone in questioning the personal behavor of R Aharon Kotler.