The holy yishuv of Meah Shearim began under the auspices of Rav Rivlin, who was taken to Beis Din by the rabbanim & residents of the Old City for initiating a move outside of the city. Their rationale was ‘we do not mess with the Arabs who are the prime shakers and bakers of those areas’. BTW the Beis Din ruled in the favor of Rav Rivlin. Rav Rivlin with the haskoma of Rav Sonnefeld and others continued buying land (even on Shabbos kodesh for the mitzvah of yishuv haeretz)in the Shaeri Chesed areas. Without the agressive moves and love of Zion (Zionism) of Rav Rivlin there would not be a B”H large, flourishing Charedei kehilla in Yerushayalim.

“no matter how great in Torah the Satmar Rebbe was, he was still human, susceptible to human foibles. He staked out a very strong, radical position for himself. Isn’t it just possible that as events unfolded, and he was face with growing cognitive dissonance, that rather than give up his position, he just dug in his heels and fought harder?”

let me cut & paste your words again and make some slight changes:

no matter how great in Torah the religious Zionists are, they are still human, susceptible to human foibles. They staked out a very strong, radical position for themselves (and the non-Zionists, overwhelmed by the magnificent Six Day War victory, followed suit). Isn’t it just possible that as events unfolded (Yom Kippur War etc.), and they were faced with growing cognitive dissonance (secularization of the state etc.), that rather than give up their position, they just dug their heels and fought harder?

Anyway, we can argue back and forth endlessly, which I have no time for erev yom tov. So let me just end with a little story.

During the craze of Shabateanism, a minister asked a rav whether he believes Shabatai Tzvi is mashiach. The rav asked him, “Well, do YOU believe he is the messiah?”

No, he said.

“When the real Messiah will arrive,” the rav said, “you’ll believe in him, too.”

Correction: In my above comment (91) I should refer to R. Landesman instead of R. Adlerstein.

Gut yom tov everyone.

(To the editors: sorry for indirectky accusing you of unevenhandedness. I hadn’t noticed that you did publish my 91 comment after all. Thanks a lot for your evenhandedness.)

“But he did think that going to the Kossel or Kever Rochel is an averah, and instructed his chassidim to this effect.”

Now where did you get this from, dovid? If you instruct your kids not to go somewhere, does that automatically mean you consider it an averah? This instruction was meant for his followers, not as a general psak halacha.

>I’ve heard it say that the sefardim were never as religious, and never as irreligious, as the ashkenazim. Your comment seems to bear this out.

I don’t have exact numbers. But as I said, their are MANY thriving frum yemenite communities and shuls. And even those families who are not strictly observant are almost never anti-religious and are often close to tradition – to the extent of sending their kids to religious schools, etc.

>There were some problems with that kind of “Chovevei Zion” pre-Zionism, and most rabbis were opposed to it. Even among those who supported it, many dropped it as soon as the secular Zionists jumped on the Zionist bandwagon and took the reins in their hands.

I don’t know how you can say that at that point in history “most rabbis were opposed to it.” Frankly, most rabbis did not publish any opinion one way or another about it. If you want to get a list of some of the gedolim who directly supported the chovevei zion and their entire enterprize – check out the book “Shivat Zion” which was a collection of letters by gedolim supporting chovevei zion and their enterprize.

Now you are right that several of the gedolim who initially supported the chovevei zion changed their mind after secularizing influences joined the movement, but I think that the point is made. Zionism started as a religious movement and it attracted to it Jews who were far from tradition.

Comment #1: Interesting that someone here can attack an entire kehillah of God-fearing Jews by insinuating that they are not mekayem a mitzvah. But when I call him on it, I am the arrogant one.

Comment #2: (In direct response to Menachem Lipken’s “I would hope you would agree that Religious Zionists are not involved in a “host of sins”.” Tal wrote “But that is precisely where I disagree.”

By Tal’s own definition, attacking an entire kehilla of God-fearing Jews is a sign of arrogance. I hope that this does not in fact represent his opinion.

Far left orthodoxy may be signficantly more important to all of us exploring how we will face the new challenges to orthodoxy from history, lierature, psychology, etc. than the far right. to be blunt, Kugel or Hartman or Greenberg (they are probably close to that far-left Orthodoxy boundary, though i suspect we differ on what side they might be) have relevance to that conversation even as we might reject their POV; but i appreciate that is not your charter. I maintain that fair and balanced would mean rejecting the far right as well, but i understand and appreciate your adgenda.

Actually, there is enormous support for this statement, but, as you said, “Almost everyone is so emotionally wedded to their position, that they are incapable of giving an honest assessment of history or the facts on the ground.” Charedim benefit enormously from the protections and economy afforded by the state of Israel. There were yishuvim before – sparse and starving, but surviving – but much of the kemach, and consequently, Torah, of the current charedi world is due to the infrastructure of the state.

And yes, you’re right, it’s impossible to avoid the state’s monopolization of security and economy. Maseches Avos notes the essential importance of government that you seem somehow comfortable dismissing.

Besides, we’re told not to despise Mitzri’im, because we were immigrants in their lands. The assertion that somehow they – rotzchim and ovdei avodah zarah who were shetufei zimah – warrant gratitude that is not due to the people and structures of Medinas Yisrael is either laughable or contemptible.

Comment by dovid landesman — May 27, 2009 @ 2:17 am

This point is demonstrated by Prof. Katz ztl in a number of complex areas well before the rise of chareidim in the second half of the 19th century. He speaks with meticulous precision of religious sensibilty that is often popularly born and bounded halkhically, where necessary, by the Rabbis. He also has examples where rabbis invoke religious, albeit not strictly halakhic arguments, to advance their position. (the famous case of R. chaim ztl demanding strict adherence to halakha wrt milah is a perfect example.)

However, I have not seen this argument broadly demonstrated within chareidi society and it actually suprises me. Did he give other concrete examples? Chassidus is a good example but before the chareidi era. In fact, it illustrates the point of rabbinic shaping. Mussar, as an example, is much less clear to me and I easily could see an opposing view. Beis yaakov is perhaps the best example but i do not know enough of how it developed in more chareidi circles, who accepted it when and and how it was shaped.

But R. Bulman’s ztl claim of “no change” (no important change) except popularly sounds like a bit of an exaggeration. In any case, this interaction of the religious sensibilities of the people with Halakhic norms as espoused by their rabbinic leaders is a fascinating topic.

Your last post is bringing you perilously close to MO beliefs; welcome. I wonder if your last four lines would pass moderation if you were anonymous.

[Editor's Note: Last time I checked, MO beliefs were more than welcome here, and several of the contributors listed on the front page identify with MO. Far-left Orthodoxy is another matter...]

Now, you are talking tachlis. In this avenue there is much to be accomplished. A chashuva & prominent Rosh Yeshiva z”tl asked his talmidim frequently in shiur, “What were the two most seminal acts of the twentieth century for Klal Yisroel?”. His reply was, “the Holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel”, HOW TRULY IRONIC that neither subject is a serious limud for our children. The majority of bochurim graduate mesivta and know ZERO about either subject, our girls b”h are taught a bit more. These subjects have been relegated to the SILENT curriculum (home study), no teaching, no serious dialogue or discussion. This is the keg of a future explosion!!

1. Interesting that someone here can attack an entire kehillah of God-fearing Jews by insinuating that they are not mekayem a mitzvah. But when I call him on it, I am the arrogant one.

2. Whether someone in kollel is or is not mekayem the mitzvah has nothing to do with whether Zionism is a prerequisite to the mitzvah. There are plenty of Charedim who do work in one capacity or another, of every ideology. Whether the kollelniks are or are not is a sideshow.

3. You raise a number of complaints about the Charedi world, much of which revolves around parnassah. I agree with much of the sentiment, but again what does that have to do with Zionism? There are plenty of people on all sides of the “Zionist question” who work for a living.

Menachem;

3. Also, the “we” I was referring to was religious Zionists, not Zionists in general. I would hope you would agree that Religious Zionists are not involved in a “host of sins”

But that is precisely where I disagree. Really, you cannot think of ANY downside to religious Zionism? Even if it turns out that your shittah is wrong? That is simply astounding.

I don’t think there is any point in my pointing out the downsides. It will simply not be “heard” by anyone here.

Moishe:

4.The fact that charedim fulfill the mitzvah of yishuv ha’aretz is wonderful, but it doesn’t at all diminish the fact that much of this yishuv ha’aretz – even that of the Edah Charedis – is largely or completely the result of Zionism.

There is no basis for that statement. The yishuv began well before Zionism came on the scene. It would have continued with or without Zionism. True, the Charedi world has to deal with the fact that the Zionists control EY — but what are they supposed to do? No one asked them, the Zionists took control forcibly. If I want to go to EY, I have to deal with the Stae or I will be arrested.

Suppose a government (let’s say the former Soviet Union, for those who can remember it) decides to set up a monopoly on matzoh. No one else may bake matzoh on pain of imprisonment. Be leis bereirah, those who want to fufill the mitzvah buy the matzoh from the government at whatever price it sets.

One would certainly admire those Jews for their mesirus nefesh. But anyone who said, “they owe their kiyum of mitzvas matzoh to the benevolent govt” would be considered foolish. Who asked the govt. to monopolize matzoh in the first place?

But he did think that going to the Kossel or Kever Rochel is an averah, and instructed his chassidim to this effect.

Largely but not completely so. Talmidei HaGra and talmidei Baal Shem came to settle EY, at a time when there were practically no secular Jews in the world, and definitely no secular Jews interested in yishuv EY.

Menachem, please don’t paint me a bogeylady. There are plenty of Satmars living in EY, with mosdos, shuls, and a shikun, and as far as I know the Satmar rav didn’t think it was a sin to live there. He just argued that the danger of being influenced by Zionism overrides the mitzva of ישוב ארץ ישראל.

Notwithstanding your harsh words, I see where you’re coming from. However, I didn’t say that one has to be a Zionist to fulfill the Mitzvah of Yishuv Haaretz. Also, the “we” I was referring to was religious Zionists, not Zionists in general. I would hope you would agree that Religious Zionists are not involved in a “host of sins”. And, of course, I know many fine Yeshivish folks who have made aliyah and who certainly put America’s armchair Zionists to shame.

I was just trying to point out that the downside of following RZ ideology, in general, is more benign than the downside of actively trying to undermine the state. I’m sure the Esthers of the world would say that that just by making Aliyah being part of the system I’m sinning and pushing off the Geulah. But it’s really hard to make the case that my living in Israel, in fulfillment of at least a Mitzvah Kiyumis is at the same time a sin.

I agree that these discussions seem fruitless. Not so much because people can’t be honest, but because the fundamentals of the extremes are so completely and diametrically opposed. However, the Tachlis, especially in a well run forum like this, is the hope that people with these divergent opinions can at least exchange them without the acrimony that usually accompanies such discussions.

The arrogance of this accusation of arrogance is simply breath-taking.

The fact that charedim fulfill the mitzvah of yishuv ha’aretz is wonderful, but it doesn’t at all diminish the fact that much of this yishuv ha’aretz – even that of the Edah Charedis – is largely or completely the result of Zionism.

And pointing out the “quite a bit” that the Zionists have done simply ignores Menachem’s point – the assumption that the anti-Zionist stance is theologically risk-free is incorrect.

This is why I find these discussions pointless. Almost everyone is so emotionally wedded to their position, that they are incapable of giving an honest assessment of history or the facts on the ground.

That’s a very valid point, which would have been much better made without the preceding flaming. Yes, you have gedolim to follow. So do we.

Tal Benschar, are you OK? Are you breathing?

Menachem Likpin is not Ben-Gurion or Golda Meir. He is a G-d fearing, ehrliche Yid. Have you considered the possibility that you might be the arrogant one by posting such a comment? Have you considered the possibility that you might be mevaze a kosher Jew in public? If Menachem Lipkin is arrogant for subscribing to the shita of the Ramban, then one could use your argument in stating that the Satmar Rav is arrogant by not subscribing to that shita. Start breathing, cut out PC statements and grand standing, or else you arrive at conclusions contrary to your intentions.

The arrogance of this statement is simply breath-taking.

In the first place, one can fufill the mitzvah of yishuv ha’aretz without being a Zionist. Tens of thousands of Charedi Jews fulfill that mitzvah every day without being Zionist. Even the members of the Edah Charedis fulfill that mitzvah.

And, second, if the Zionists are wrong, then one can think of quite a bit they have done beyond Yishuv ha Aretz. That word “essentially” covers a host of sins.

This is why I find these discussions pointless. Almost everyone is so emotionally wedded to their position, that they are incapable of giving an honest assessment of history or the facts on the ground.

This idea is one notch below that of the beginning of the redemption. What the Satmar Rebbe saw as some sort of “set up” by the Satan, the Rav saw as an opportunity provided to us by G-d in the aftermath of the Holocaust. This outlook becomes much more troubling for those who are either against or neutral to the founding of the state. Where the ‘aschalta d’geula’ ideology sets the redemptive process on an effective auto-pilot, this idea puts the outcome squarely in our hands. To the extent that a large segment of the Chareidi community basically decided to “sit this one out”, they have become complicit in a self-fulfilling prophecy which may actually cause a catastrophic end to that which began as G-d’s outstretched hand to us in our time of need.

Strip away, for a moment, the idea of modern Zionism. What you’re left with is a chain of events that can either be viewed as unprecedented fulfillment of prophecy relating to the Jewish people and their land or as one big “trick”. Understand, that in light of Rav Teichtel’s statement it’s quite possible that the thought processes of the Satmar Rebbe and other Torah greats were compromised in this area, just as those of the meraglim. We are obligated, as such, to question whether their line of thinking was/is truly for the sake of heaven.

In addition, no matter how great in Torah the Satmar Rebbe was, he was still human, susceptible to human foibles. He staked out a very strong, radical position for himself. Isn’t it just possible that as events unfolded, and he was face with growing cognitive dissonance, that rather than give up his position, he just dug in his heels and fought harder? This may have been done to the point where, regarding the 6 day war, he was forced, as you enumerated above in comment 50, to posit a series of rationalizations that were not only at variance with reality but also strained the pillar of Hashgacha Pratis to which the Chareidi world pays homage in the extreme.

I’m not trying to sway you over to my side. But I think it’s important for you, and others who hold like you, to realize the consequences of your being wrong. If we are wrong all we’ve done, essentially, is fulfill the mitzvah of Yishuv Haaretz. If you’re wrong, you may possibly have abetted in delaying the redemption by rejecting G-d’s (not Satan’s) magnificent overtures and in the process given Him a huge, virtual smack across the face.

“…our presence in EY is not a violation of the above shvuah.”

Now this I cannot understand. Why are the Arabs excluded from the אומות? There are many other problems with Zionism, but first let’s hammer this one out.

Chardal, I’m pleasantly surprised to hear that. I’m wondering, though, are they traditional in the sense of masorti, or are they full shomrei torah umitzvos?

I’ve heard it say that the sefardim were never as religious, and never as irreligious, as the ashkenazim. Your comment seems to bear this out. (I’m not confusing taimonim with ashkenazim but in temperament they’re pretty close.)

The book I mentioned was written while the terrible scandal was being perpetrated or shortly thereafter, so it is possible that things got better later on. Still, I personally heard enough stories from first or second generation Yemenite, Moroccan, and other immigrants to make you hair stand on end.

“The early zionists were uniformily relgious Jews. From Rav Kalisher to Rav Guttmacher. From the Kovner Rav to the Malbim to Rav Alkelai.”

There were some problems with that kind of “Chovevei Zion” pre-Zionism, and most rabbis were opposed to it. Even among those who supported it, many dropped it as soon as the secular Zionists jumped on the Zionist bandwagon and took the reins in their hands. So the best you can say about Zionism is that turning Jews away from torah is the second thing it did, or the third, or whatever. Sure doesn’t sound like the echoes of mashiach’s footsteps to me. But what’s completely beyond me is how religious Jews, and even kiruv organizations, can identify with and support a movement that is diametrically opposed to everything the torah stands for.

Now I’m going to put a question to you, Rabbi Adlerstein and commenters:

These posts ask why we don’t celebrate Yom Yerushalayim, Yom Zikaron, Yom Haatzmaut. I ask you: Why don’t you commemorate the terrible crimes commited by Zionism?

You ask the non-Satmar non-Zionists: You don’t agree with Satmar on the question of statehood, so why aren’t you grateful to those who gave their lives for the State?

I ask the non-Zionists and religious Zionists: You agree with Satmar on the question of the crimes of Zionism, so why aren’t you angry? Why aren’t you lamenting the terrible losses klal yisrael suffered at their hands? The generations of every boy who had his peyos cut off by force, every girl who had her modesty compromised, cry out to us. Why is nobody talking about it? How can any torah-true Jew praise Zionism? Could you bring youselves to praise German culture or music? You do believe in גדול המחטיאו יותר מהרגו, don’t you?

I’m not asking these questions in an antagonizing way. I’m really trying to understand your POV.

How in the world can kiruv organi

24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the Tent. 25 And the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders; and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did so no more. 26 But there remained two men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were recorded, but had not gone out unto the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp. 27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said: ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.’