Not a person. But the zionist movement achieved a קיבוץ גלויות greater than the times of עזרה. That's one task of משיח. So is להלחם מלחמות ישראל. We need חזרה בתשובה and בניין בית המקדש. We can be משתדל for the first and look for opportunities re the second.
What is the connection between the Macabees and those who "fought" for their "homeland"?
During Bayis Sheni no Jews fought to "save" or "free" the "homeland" (except for the biryonim who did it against Chazal's instruction and Bar Koziva who was supported by Chachamim only a s long as he was thought to be b'chezkas moshiach),
while The Macabees never lifted a finger against those who came to rule over the land until they had to fight against the ones who came "לְהַשְׁכִּיחָם תּוֹרָתֶךָ וּלְהַעֲבִירָם מֵחֻקֵּי רְצוֹנֶךָ to cause the Jews to forget the Torah and transgress the mitzvos".
You are confusing motive with objective. The motive for the revolt was Seleucid suppression of Judaism. The objective of the revolt was independence, as a way of becoming free of Selucid oppression.
If you want to claim that the Jews were fighting the Greeks to gain political independance as a means to gaining religious freedom, the burden of proof is on you. As far as anything we have seen, they fought against the decrees against keeping the Torah. All the state sovereignty (etc.) issues are projections from modern zionist thinking.
Quick q, Nachum, are you G-d? I don't even fully disagree with you, but the know-it-all-ee-ness and personal confidence is alarming.
I would argue that we need the state and its supporters for physical reasons (as you highlit) and Charedim for spiritual reasons because until we can all learn from each other, we'll have to make do with everyone championing their personal strengths.
The difference is that I do not claim to know what G-d thinks or what will be in the future except by what is in the written and oral Torah and what is said by Chachmey HaTorah.
Slifkin and Nachum on the other hand seem to believe they are prophets.
Are you saying the Maccabees didn't fight for self-determination, only for Mitzwoth (only some of them, as we have the commandment to build a 'kingdom of priests')?
Throughout the second Temple period the Jews did not fight for political freedom. They returned from the first exile and rebuilt the Temple with permission from the goyim. They let in the Greeks and did not fight them. They told Alexander the Great something like "Please spare us and we'll name after you all our children born during the next year." The Romans came in, and the Jews did not fight them (with the two exceptions I mentioned above).
If you are referring to the verse "kingdom of priests", please cite some rebbinic explanation of this mitzvah. Have you a Rambam or a Chinuch, or a Chazal that explains the details of this mitzvah (i.e., when and how it is to be done)?
Well, maybe because they saw the didn't have enough support among the people before that. The Hashmonaim saw it clearly but for the masses it took harsher impositions to be able to wake up.
It seems that the Torah is clear asking for Jewish sovereignty in the land.
yet you focus so much more on the word "מַמְלֶ֥כֶת (kingdom of)" than on the the phrase "ג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ (holy nation)". Why is that?
Why do you demand adherence to the state (that you suppose the verse is commanding us to make) and you do not demand adherence to holiness as described in the Torah?
Furthermore, "not enough support" is not the reason. There would have been plenty of support in Yerushalayim during the Roman siege, but the Chachamim still said "don't fight". The biryonim didn't listen.
The Torah is not understandable without the Oral law. So you can't quotes a verse and say about it whatever you want. According to your pasuk, there is no information about when or even where to make such a state.
That is right. Because at the time R' Akiva supported him he was b'chezkas moshiach. When R' Akiva found out that he was not, he immediately withdrew his support. Other than that one time (which was for the specific reason that I mentioned), the Chachomim never supported armed conflict to support the political sovereignty.
And you are sure that a תינוק שנשבה is still considered a גוי at least hashkafically? I know you said it's only a פטור but I need to see the חזון איש again. It seemed like he was saying that we can't hold anyone morally accountable like we could in the past.
Not a person. But the zionist movement achieved a קיבוץ גלויות greater than the times of עזרה. That's one task of משיח. So is להלחם מלחמות ישראל. We need חזרה בתשובה and בניין בית המקדש. We can be משתדל for the first and look for opportunities re the second.
What is the connection between the Macabees and those who "fought" for their "homeland"?
During Bayis Sheni no Jews fought to "save" or "free" the "homeland" (except for the biryonim who did it against Chazal's instruction and Bar Koziva who was supported by Chachamim only a s long as he was thought to be b'chezkas moshiach),
while The Macabees never lifted a finger against those who came to rule over the land until they had to fight against the ones who came "לְהַשְׁכִּיחָם תּוֹרָתֶךָ וּלְהַעֲבִירָם מֵחֻקֵּי רְצוֹנֶךָ to cause the Jews to forget the Torah and transgress the mitzvos".
Where is the connection?
>What is the connection between the Macabees and those who "fought" for their "homeland"?
The IDF does not just fight for a homeland. It fights to defend the lives of Jews that live in that homeland.
Again. The Macabees fought against the decrees against keeping the Torah. Period.
Right. Both are important things to fight for. The point is that we can draw inspiration for one from the other.
To clarify... again. The Macabees fought against the decrees against keeping the Torah. They did not fight for political independence.
And ended up becoming the leaders of hellenization in only 2 generations. Period.
What does the corruption of their family generations later have to do with anything being said here?
You are confusing motive with objective. The motive for the revolt was Seleucid suppression of Judaism. The objective of the revolt was independence, as a way of becoming free of Selucid oppression.
If you want to claim that the Jews were fighting the Greeks to gain political independance as a means to gaining religious freedom, the burden of proof is on you. As far as anything we have seen, they fought against the decrees against keeping the Torah. All the state sovereignty (etc.) issues are projections from modern zionist thinking.
An independent state *is* a mitzvah, in case you didn't know.
And an independent state is the only guarantor that we'll be able to keep all the others, or even be alive to do so.
Quick q, Nachum, are you G-d? I don't even fully disagree with you, but the know-it-all-ee-ness and personal confidence is alarming.
I would argue that we need the state and its supporters for physical reasons (as you highlit) and Charedim for spiritual reasons because until we can all learn from each other, we'll have to make do with everyone championing their personal strengths.
וְאַתֶּ֧ם תִּהְיוּ־לִ֛י מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים וְג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ אֵ֚לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּדַבֵּ֖ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
Exodus 19:6
Was this a response to my request to "cite the halacha that states that making an independent state is a mitzvah"?
Gdalya sounds the same
The difference is that I do not claim to know what G-d thinks or what will be in the future except by what is in the written and oral Torah and what is said by Chachmey HaTorah.
Slifkin and Nachum on the other hand seem to believe they are prophets.
I'm not sure he agrees that we need the state at all. BTW, you're a smart guy, what do you think?
1. Please cite the halacha that states that making an independent state is a mitzvah.
2. "an independent state is the only guarantor that..."
This statement is kfirah.
https://imgflip.com/i/9fdo9z
How discerning.
Are you saying the Maccabees didn't fight for self-determination, only for Mitzwoth (only some of them, as we have the commandment to build a 'kingdom of priests')?
That is exactly what I am saying.
Throughout the second Temple period the Jews did not fight for political freedom. They returned from the first exile and rebuilt the Temple with permission from the goyim. They let in the Greeks and did not fight them. They told Alexander the Great something like "Please spare us and we'll name after you all our children born during the next year." The Romans came in, and the Jews did not fight them (with the two exceptions I mentioned above).
If you are referring to the verse "kingdom of priests", please cite some rebbinic explanation of this mitzvah. Have you a Rambam or a Chinuch, or a Chazal that explains the details of this mitzvah (i.e., when and how it is to be done)?
Well, maybe because they saw the didn't have enough support among the people before that. The Hashmonaim saw it clearly but for the masses it took harsher impositions to be able to wake up.
It seems that the Torah is clear asking for Jewish sovereignty in the land.
It is interesting that you quote the verse
וְאַתֶּ֧ם תִּהְיוּ־לִ֛י מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים וְג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ
yet you focus so much more on the word "מַמְלֶ֥כֶת (kingdom of)" than on the the phrase "ג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ (holy nation)". Why is that?
Why do you demand adherence to the state (that you suppose the verse is commanding us to make) and you do not demand adherence to holiness as described in the Torah?
Furthermore, "not enough support" is not the reason. There would have been plenty of support in Yerushalayim during the Roman siege, but the Chachamim still said "don't fight". The biryonim didn't listen.
The Torah is not understandable without the Oral law. So you can't quotes a verse and say about it whatever you want. According to your pasuk, there is no information about when or even where to make such a state.
What does the rambam is hakdamot say about bar kochva? He's very clear that rabbi akiva was correct in supporting him till he fell.
That is right. Because at the time R' Akiva supported him he was b'chezkas moshiach. When R' Akiva found out that he was not, he immediately withdrew his support. Other than that one time (which was for the specific reason that I mentioned), the Chachomim never supported armed conflict to support the political sovereignty.
And you are sure that a תינוק שנשבה is still considered a גוי at least hashkafically? I know you said it's only a פטור but I need to see the חזון איש again. It seemed like he was saying that we can't hold anyone morally accountable like we could in the past.
This Israeli view on British colonialism makes Churchill's position less sympathetic.
Something I've always wondered: What are the red balls botanically? Petals?