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".
Upon the victory, they needed a leader and so they appointed a king from amongst (as the Rambam there writes) the Kohanim.
"וחזרה מלכות לישראל" was a result but not the goal or purpose. As I pointed out numerous, Chazal allowed other invaders to rule and never rebelled except this one time when there were decrees against keeping the Torah and one other time when Chachamim thought that Bar-Koziva was the moshiach. In fact, the gmara makes a big to-do about the fact that the biryonim's fight against the Romans was against the will of Chazal.
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.
I say the same thing as many many Chachmey HaTorah from this generation as well as from previous generations.
But Slifkin -for almost twenty years- has been constantly spotlighting his insolent disagreement with and disparagement of
(a) the Chachmey Hatorah of the last five-hundred years (including of this generation)
and
(b) the Chachmey HaTorah of all previous generations (including Chazal) as understood (rebbe mipi rebbe) by the Chachmey HaTorah of the last 500 years (including this generation).
If you're asking me my opinion on the state I agree. Ramban says we can't leave the land in the hands of other nations. Rambam emphasizes by הלכות חנוכה that the מלכות returned to Israel for over 200 years-even though we know they were evil. The Rambam in hakdamkot glorifies bar kochvas attempt to overthrow the romans and reestablish a state. We are not a private, individualistic religion. We are a nation and meant to practice the Torah as a nation. Any step towards that is praiseworthy. We are much closer to the גאולה שלימה now than we were before. One who thinks is all the same galut is being a terrible כפוי טובה to Hashem and is mocking His הבטחה articulated explicitly that he would bring us back. "ומל ה' ת לבבך" is the next step.
Don't know why you're not sure. Of course the state should not have been made, although dismantling it would be incredibly complicated now.
Also, regarding confidence in speech, 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.
You should have an independent political entity based on Torah, both at the same time. At the moment we are independent (not fully but enough) and moving towards being a Torah based nation.
Who said that we should, AT THIS TIME IN GALUS, have "an independent political entity"?
2.
"moving towards being a Torah based nation"
Who said that it is ok to have a Jewish state that is "MOVING TOWARDS being a Torah based nation"?
If you want a Jewish state, make it a Torah one from the start. You know why they didn't do that? Because the Torah leaders said "no". And the ostensibly Torah observant people who compromise the Torah went ahead and joined with the kofrim to make the secular state (expecting to somehow influence the kofrim), and now their leaders are somehow called "also Chachmey HaTorah" along with the true Chachmey HaTorah who do not compromise the Torah.
The question is what the starting point is. Obviously if there's an opposing דרשה we paskin otherwise but till then we learn that we are supposed to serve Hashem as a nation, collectively. We see this from the מצוות of שופטים ושוטרים, העמדת מלך, בית המקדש וכו. We need to run the nation acc to Torah but we are definitely supposed to live as a nation.
And where do you learn that that means having a politically independant land when we are in galus, which we are. We had no politicallly independence land during the first galus. We haven't had a politically independent land for almost 2000 years. We still have nothing like the sanhedrin or a single body to lead the nation. This current state will certainly not allow such a thing (except through the rabbinate which is subservient to the secular 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.
Cute. I was referring to since the Roman invasion of Eretz Yisroel, but it even holds true for all the time since churban Bayis Rishon. So please try to answer again.
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.
But the Rambam says that we celebrate that independence. "וחזרה מלכות לישראל יותר מאתים שנה"
Upon the victory, they needed a leader and so they appointed a king from amongst (as the Rambam there writes) the Kohanim.
"וחזרה מלכות לישראל" was a result but not the goal or purpose. As I pointed out numerous, Chazal allowed other invaders to rule and never rebelled except this one time when there were decrees against keeping the Torah and one other time when Chachamim thought that Bar-Koziva was the moshiach. In fact, the gmara makes a big to-do about the fact that the biryonim's fight against the Romans was against the will of Chazal.
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.
They also say that they are following the Torah.
But they are not. How do I know? Because...
I say the same thing as many many Chachmey HaTorah from this generation as well as from previous generations.
But Slifkin -for almost twenty years- has been constantly spotlighting his insolent disagreement with and disparagement of
(a) the Chachmey Hatorah of the last five-hundred years (including of this generation)
and
(b) the Chachmey HaTorah of all previous generations (including Chazal) as understood (rebbe mipi rebbe) by the Chachmey HaTorah of the last 500 years (including this generation).
I'm not sure he agrees that we need the state at all. BTW, you're a smart guy, what do you think?
If you're asking me my opinion on the state I agree. Ramban says we can't leave the land in the hands of other nations. Rambam emphasizes by הלכות חנוכה that the מלכות returned to Israel for over 200 years-even though we know they were evil. The Rambam in hakdamkot glorifies bar kochvas attempt to overthrow the romans and reestablish a state. We are not a private, individualistic religion. We are a nation and meant to practice the Torah as a nation. Any step towards that is praiseworthy. We are much closer to the גאולה שלימה now than we were before. One who thinks is all the same galut is being a terrible כפוי טובה to Hashem and is mocking His הבטחה articulated explicitly that he would bring us back. "ומל ה' ת לבבך" is the next step.
Don't know why you're not sure. Of course the state should not have been made, although dismantling it would be incredibly complicated now.
Also, regarding confidence in speech, 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.
Incredibly complicated? It would be downright retzicha!
I meant just as confident as Nachum. I can respond with what I think later. Gotta get some sleep.
Got it. Great point!
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.
You should have an independent political entity based on Torah, both at the same time. At the moment we are independent (not fully but enough) and moving towards being a Torah based nation.
1.
Who said that we should, AT THIS TIME IN GALUS, have "an independent political entity"?
2.
"moving towards being a Torah based nation"
Who said that it is ok to have a Jewish state that is "MOVING TOWARDS being a Torah based nation"?
If you want a Jewish state, make it a Torah one from the start. You know why they didn't do that? Because the Torah leaders said "no". And the ostensibly Torah observant people who compromise the Torah went ahead and joined with the kofrim to make the secular state (expecting to somehow influence the kofrim), and now their leaders are somehow called "also Chachmey HaTorah" along with the true Chachmey HaTorah who do not compromise the Torah.
The question is what the starting point is. Obviously if there's an opposing דרשה we paskin otherwise but till then we learn that we are supposed to serve Hashem as a nation, collectively. We see this from the מצוות of שופטים ושוטרים, העמדת מלך, בית המקדש וכו. We need to run the nation acc to Torah but we are definitely supposed to live as a nation.
And where do you learn that that means having a politically independant land when we are in galus, which we are. We had no politicallly independence land during the first galus. We haven't had a politically independent land for almost 2000 years. We still have nothing like the sanhedrin or a single body to lead the nation. This current state will certainly not allow such a thing (except through the rabbinate which is subservient to the secular state.
So what exactly are you proposing?
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.
Mmmm... Yeoshuah Bin Nun, David HaMelech, etc.
Cute. I was referring to since the Roman invasion of Eretz Yisroel, but it even holds true for all the time since churban Bayis Rishon. So please try to answer again.
But the Rambam seems to write that we need to support one who begins on that path of he has a chance. Not wait for a miraculous savior.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you know anybody today who meets the Rambam's criteria for having "chezkas mashiach"?
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?