This may be silly question but I would appreciate an answer.
As I understand it the charedim claim that their learning protects the people of Israel. From wither is there proof of this ? Using precedents to the contrary:
- Joshua, Saul, David all fought physical battles. None of them claimed that their Torah protected the people.
- Rabbi Akiva apparently supported Bar Kochba in his rebellion against the Romans. No one claimed that that their Torah protected the people so negating a requirement to fight the Romans as far as I can see.
-Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakai negotiated with Vespasian to try and save what he could from the beseiged Jerusalem. He did not claim that his Torah would protect the people from churban hayis.
Given the Torah of Rashi, Tosfos etc for generations where was the Torah protection against the crusades, Chemielinski, the Holocaust etc etc.
If the claim is new is it because it is only now justifed in that the current learning results in a greater spiritual level than previously and therefore, unlike the above forebears, no army is necessary -then why did 7 October happen. Also where is the proof of that ?
And if an Army is required given that the Torah apparently does not provide complete protection (or we would not be where we are) then everyone has to contribute. As an analogy - even a poor man is required to give tzedaka.
Torah Protects - okay, there are many references, half references, and others sayings that some people stick it in, but in reality that is just not there.
Here is my question - every mitzvah protects!! Read any Loshen Hora book, on how the greatest merit for Jews is not speaking bad about some one else. They have 50 or so saying by this one and that one to prove this.
Take a mitzvah like shabbos. I can show 20-30 saying, how it protected the yidden throughout the generations. The word "shomer' is said countless times only by shabbos etc. Question, now I myself am shomer Shabbos am I exempt from serving and protecting my people. I understand I do things that protect us in a spiritual manner, and then I must do something more obvious and protect in a physical manner.
Why don't we just argue every shomer shabbos does not have to serve??? Anyone think of that?
Id really appreciate it if you didn't get so terribly TRIGGERED every time you see them deliberately misusing /abusing that possuk. They are doing it deliberately to wind up people like you, and by getting wound up you are playing into their hands
The United States of America has always allowed conscientious objectors to military service to avoid military service. In the first wars, the country faced, starting with its war of independence, there was no conscription. Not until well into the American Civil War was conscription introduced. If one had enough money, one could pay a substitute. Future President Grover Cleveland did just that. Conscientious objectors did alternative service, usually in military hospitals. Conscription returned for World War I and then again shortly before World War II. It continued after WW2 until 1973. Again, alternative service was always provided as an alternative for conscientious objectors. I remember once hearing from a minister in one of the peace churches that its members had become active advocates for mentally ill persons because so many had done alternative service in mental hospitals, seeing firsthand the horrible conditions in many.
The Confederate States of America adopted conscription about a year before the USA did during the Civil War. The law didn't provide for conscientious objectors to get out of serving, although just five days after enactment a long list of exemptions by occupation were added and ministers were among them. The CSA allowed paying a substitute -- for a while.
Conscription was very unpopular in the South, especially after another exemption was enacted which allowed anyone overseeing twenty enslaved people to get out of the draft. (And there are still people who deny that the American Civil War was about preserving slavery!) There was at times violent resistance to conscription in both the North and the South; the July 1863 Draft Riots in New York City was probably the most famous example, quickly turning into a race riot against the free Black people in the city who had been exempted from the draft as they were not US citizens! (That would change in 1868.) A fictionalized portrayal of the Draft Riots is in the movie "Gangs of New York". There weren't such big riots in the CSA; its only large city, New Orleans, was captured by the Union Army and Navy without resistance just two weeks after the draft law was enacted. New Orleans experienced not conscription but a rather brutal occupation.
There was a lot of resistance to the World War I draft as well. Socialist leader Eugene Debs, who had gotten six percent of the vote in the 1912 Presidential election, was particularly outspoken against the war effort and served almost three years in prison, primarily for obstructing the draft. There was much less resistance to the World War II draft, as the United States had been attacked. I lived through the sometimes violent anti-war protests during the Vietnam War, largely stimulated by the draft.
One could argue that leaving Yeshiva to protect Torah is acceptable because the bnei Torah can't rely on anyone else to fight for Torah. On the other hand, since the vast majority of the country is not observant, there are enough people to serve in the army.
You really believe that the social group acknowledged to be the most moral and ethical in history, and in the world, would be prepared to suffer all the vicious vilification and abuse heaped upon them by ignorant, shallow, self-centred and interested politicians and "journalists" - and their useful idiots - if what they were fighting for was not vitally and critically important?
Perhaps you should all try to look further than your nose and at least make some attempt to understand.....
This may be silly question but I would appreciate an answer.
As I understand it the charedim claim that their learning protects the people of Israel. From wither is there proof of this ? Using precedents to the contrary:
- Joshua, Saul, David all fought physical battles. None of them claimed that their Torah protected the people.
- Rabbi Akiva apparently supported Bar Kochba in his rebellion against the Romans. No one claimed that that their Torah protected the people so negating a requirement to fight the Romans as far as I can see.
-Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakai negotiated with Vespasian to try and save what he could from the beseiged Jerusalem. He did not claim that his Torah would protect the people from churban hayis.
Given the Torah of Rashi, Tosfos etc for generations where was the Torah protection against the crusades, Chemielinski, the Holocaust etc etc.
If the claim is new is it because it is only now justifed in that the current learning results in a greater spiritual level than previously and therefore, unlike the above forebears, no army is necessary -then why did 7 October happen. Also where is the proof of that ?
And if an Army is required given that the Torah apparently does not provide complete protection (or we would not be where we are) then everyone has to contribute. As an analogy - even a poor man is required to give tzedaka.
It is all very puzzling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
there are usually two choices, either admit error or double down
Bsorot tovot
I was so excited to read this. I almost had hope.
Torah Protects - okay, there are many references, half references, and others sayings that some people stick it in, but in reality that is just not there.
Here is my question - every mitzvah protects!! Read any Loshen Hora book, on how the greatest merit for Jews is not speaking bad about some one else. They have 50 or so saying by this one and that one to prove this.
Take a mitzvah like shabbos. I can show 20-30 saying, how it protected the yidden throughout the generations. The word "shomer' is said countless times only by shabbos etc. Question, now I myself am shomer Shabbos am I exempt from serving and protecting my people. I understand I do things that protect us in a spiritual manner, and then I must do something more obvious and protect in a physical manner.
Why don't we just argue every shomer shabbos does not have to serve??? Anyone think of that?
Id really appreciate it if you didn't get so terribly TRIGGERED every time you see them deliberately misusing /abusing that possuk. They are doing it deliberately to wind up people like you, and by getting wound up you are playing into their hands
I knew what to expect to read.
I lost faith and trust in the Haredi Olam years ago. I'm trying to cling to respect - whatever remains of it.
The United States of America has always allowed conscientious objectors to military service to avoid military service. In the first wars, the country faced, starting with its war of independence, there was no conscription. Not until well into the American Civil War was conscription introduced. If one had enough money, one could pay a substitute. Future President Grover Cleveland did just that. Conscientious objectors did alternative service, usually in military hospitals. Conscription returned for World War I and then again shortly before World War II. It continued after WW2 until 1973. Again, alternative service was always provided as an alternative for conscientious objectors. I remember once hearing from a minister in one of the peace churches that its members had become active advocates for mentally ill persons because so many had done alternative service in mental hospitals, seeing firsthand the horrible conditions in many.
The Confederate States of America adopted conscription about a year before the USA did during the Civil War. The law didn't provide for conscientious objectors to get out of serving, although just five days after enactment a long list of exemptions by occupation were added and ministers were among them. The CSA allowed paying a substitute -- for a while.
Conscription was very unpopular in the South, especially after another exemption was enacted which allowed anyone overseeing twenty enslaved people to get out of the draft. (And there are still people who deny that the American Civil War was about preserving slavery!) There was at times violent resistance to conscription in both the North and the South; the July 1863 Draft Riots in New York City was probably the most famous example, quickly turning into a race riot against the free Black people in the city who had been exempted from the draft as they were not US citizens! (That would change in 1868.) A fictionalized portrayal of the Draft Riots is in the movie "Gangs of New York". There weren't such big riots in the CSA; its only large city, New Orleans, was captured by the Union Army and Navy without resistance just two weeks after the draft law was enacted. New Orleans experienced not conscription but a rather brutal occupation.
There was a lot of resistance to the World War I draft as well. Socialist leader Eugene Debs, who had gotten six percent of the vote in the 1912 Presidential election, was particularly outspoken against the war effort and served almost three years in prison, primarily for obstructing the draft. There was much less resistance to the World War II draft, as the United States had been attacked. I lived through the sometimes violent anti-war protests during the Vietnam War, largely stimulated by the draft.
One could argue that leaving Yeshiva to protect Torah is acceptable because the bnei Torah can't rely on anyone else to fight for Torah. On the other hand, since the vast majority of the country is not observant, there are enough people to serve in the army.
If the chareidim leave the coalition, that spells the end of the war. So Bibi is being blackmailed to find a work around.
repeat 100 times.
Learning Torah leads to practice and protects one from sin.
Everything else is speculative feel good commentary
This is a tragic topic but u made it pretty funny. Shkoaych!
You really believe that the social group acknowledged to be the most moral and ethical in history, and in the world, would be prepared to suffer all the vicious vilification and abuse heaped upon them by ignorant, shallow, self-centred and interested politicians and "journalists" - and their useful idiots - if what they were fighting for was not vitally and critically important?
Perhaps you should all try to look further than your nose and at least make some attempt to understand.....
Solid!