You seem to think that 'mitzvah' translates as 'something very important'. If that were true, you would be right in laughing at people who don't understand the importance of this war.
The problem is, that's not what 'mitzvah' means, and that is not how to learn the Sugya of Milchemes Mitzvah.
Ah, and how do you learn the sugya of milchemes mitzvah? How do you understand the category of עזרת ישראל מיד כל צר שבא עליהם? I am excited to hear how a real lamdan learns this nuanced sugya.
According to the Lechem Mishnah and Keren Orah, going into Gaza to "destroy Hamas" (as if that is even a remotely realistic goal) is probably not עזרת ישראל מיד כל צר שבא עליהם. Going into Gaza to rescue the captives probably is, since most Gedolim hold they are considered תינוקות שנשבו and therefore should be saved. There is a separate question whether the whole halachic category of מלחמה requires a king, which is what it seems from the Rambam. But a halachic category of מלחמה is not requred for there to be a mitzvah of הצלות נפשות.
מצודת דוד: מגדל גבוה בנה מול שערי ירושלים, להשליך ממנו אבנים ליוצא ולבא
Then the war was over :
רד"ק: ולא רצה להלחם עוד עם מלך יהודה
אברבנאל :ולא רצה להלחם עוד עם אסא
After quiet was restored, and the enemy fled, אסא had drafted everybody for construction work & dismantling the projectile launcher. It was not a war.
"There is a separate question whether the whole halachic category of מלחמה requires a king, which is what it seems from the Rambam. "
There were wars centuries before there was a king. Nowhere in the רמב"ם does he say a king is required for a מלחמת מצוה. That the הלכות of war appears in הלכות מלכים is a very weak proof, and indeed falsified by the inclusion of other non-king dependent מצות there. (It's also somewhat inconsistent to make much of the Rambam's placement of the הלכות of מלחמת מצוה at the same as not noting that the Rambam's comments concerning the שבט לוי type are not mentioned in הלכות of war.) Still, it would be interesting if you could find a ראשון who made this claim that מלחמת מצוה requires a king. If you can't find a ראשון can you find someone who says it before the current era?
I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked you in the previous post:
"Does the kidnapping of 100+ Jews, some of whom may not have been מחללי שבת, and some of whom may have had הרהורי תשובה, the murder of 1200+ Jews, the maiming of 5000+ Jews, the mass destruction of homes/property, the hundreds of thousands displaced, the mass disruption to agriculture, the continuing economic damage, the continuing rocket fire and ongoing declarations of genocidal intent fail to rise to the level of מלחמת מצוה?"
Not sure why I should be interested in your fabricated chiddushim. The Keren Orah is quite clear that דהתם כבר הלך בעשא ממנו.
"There were wars centuries before there was a king. "
Yehoshua was a king, so it would be מלחמת מצוה. The Knesset is not. Besides for this, there is no indication that their defensive wars were in the halachic category of מלחמת מצוה.
". That the הלכות of war appears in הלכות מלכים is a very weak proof'
It's not because it appears in those halachos, but because the Rambam says so explicitly, אין המלך נלחם תחלה אלא מלחמת מצוה
"I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked you in the previous post:"
And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question "Where does the Rambam say מחללי שבת magically become ישראל for the purpose of עזרת ישראל מיד צר? Stop evading the question with your deflections and dishonesty."
And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question "Where does the Rambam say מחללי שבת magically become ישראל for the purpose of עזרת ישראל מיד צר?"
You've lost the plot. You brought up that issue to "prove" that it's not a מלחמת מצוה. But your "proof" fails because it doesn't address all the aspects of the conflict. So you question need not be answered. Indeed, by neglecting those facts you appear to be minimizing the evil of Hamas' attack. Plus, if you've been following the news you'd realize that one of the October 7 victims was Rabbi Don Peretz's son. Do you still insist that all the victims were מחללי שבת?
I've already shown you that it's irrelevant whether the immediate victims were שומרי שבת. Even if all the victims were foreign workers, it would still be עזרת ישראל מיד צר. Even if no one was killed and there was just physical destruction it would still be עזרת ישראל מיד צר. (Consider that the פסוקים don't reveal whether בעשא killed anyone. But he did threaten, harass and launch projectiles. And there the קרן אורה defines that as דאתא עלייהו!)
People who make that claim do indeed say that it's " because it appears in those halachos". You're not one of them.
"the Rambam says so explicitly, אין המלך נלחם תחלה אלא מלחמת מצוה"
That's not explicit. At best it's an inference. And an incorrect one. He defines a מלחמת מצוה in the next clause and doesn't mention a king!
But still, it would be interesting if you could find a ראשון who made this claim that מלחמת מצוה requires a king. If you can't find a ראשון can you find someone who says it before the current era?
and מלחמת מצוה אינו צריך ליטול בה רשות בית דין אלא יוצא מעצמו
EVERYONE understands the Rambam this way, which is why Rav Kook (משפט כהן קמד) had to be mechadesh his HUGE chidush that a government (and presumably even a secular one at that) could take the place of a מלך. Rav Herzog completely relies on R Kook in this regard. This is the main Halachic dispute between the Charedim and RZ. (And yes it is a Halachic dispute - not just an ideological one.)
You're not being clear. You write "EVERYONE" but don't seem to cite anyone but two sources- and I'm not sure they actually say what you claim they do. I'm especially interested in seeing a ראשון who says that. Or at least an אחרון from the 19th century or earlier. (This with the understanding that a תשובה may be more authoritative over a פסק not in response to an actual case of הלכה למעשה.)
I wish you would actually cite where Rav Herzog unambiguously states that a מלחמת מצוה requires a king. He doesn't say so in או"ח לא. I suspect you're referring to a side point he makes in לז in which he may only be bringing up Rav Kook to answer those who insist we need a king. It's not clear he agrees with that insistence.
and מלחמת מצוה אינו צריך ליטול בה רשות בית דין אלא יוצא מעצמו
it is more than obvious that a מלך is required. Otherwise the Rambam would say אין נלחמים תחלה and אלא יוצאים מעצמן.
Here are the quotes from R Herzog:
וא"ת הלא גם מלך אין לנו, אומר אני שכל שלא ניתנת לו המלכות לעולם אין צריך שיהיה מבית דוד, ומלך שלא מבית דוד אינו טעון משיחה בשמן המשח , ה והמלך אין כוחו אלא מן העם, שנבחר ע"י העם. וכן יש לנו לאמר שהעם כולו... יש לו הסמכות של המלך בנוגע לעניני האומה. וכיון שהרוב הגדול והמכריע מכריז על מלחמה זו הרי זה כצו המלך, ויש בידו לכוף
(תחוקה לישראל על פי התורה, כרך א' עמ 129)
דעתי, שקנינו בכיבוש מלחמה שאעפ"י שאין מוציאין למלחמת
הרשות אלא על פי בי"ד של שבעים ואחד, ואף למלחמת מצוה אין מוציאין אלא עפ"י
מלך ישראל (רמב"ם הל' מלכים ה,ב), הרי כבר הכריע קודמי, הגאון החסיד ז"ל במשפט
כהן (סי' קמד טו א), ובזה כיון לדעת המאירי ז"ל (סנהדרין נב,ב), שבזמן שאין לא מלך
It's not just the captives. The Lechem Mishna explains Rava's statement in the gemara that למעוטי עובדי כוכבים דלא ליתי עלייהו as a pre-emptive war. Also, see the Meiri, who says that according to Tana Kamma (according to whom we rule against R Yehuda) if the enemy has already attacked it is no longer a case of דלא ליתי עלייהו. And in Hilkhot Medina (the Tzitz Eliezer's book on Jewish Sovereignty), he paskens like the Meiri, and mentions the Yerushalmi in support: מלחמת חובה כגון דאתיין אינון עלינן - that they have already come upon us.
Today's war is not pre-emptive. It is a war to defeat an enemy who already attacked.
Where do you see that in the Meiri? The קרן אורה shows the opposite, that even though they were attacked beforehand, their further offensive action was not מפני אויב דאתא עלייהו. I think today's war to "destroy Hamas" is clearly and explicitly דלא ליתי עלייהו. They don't use the English words, "pre-emptive", obviously, which is an inaccurate translation of דלא ליתי עלייהו.
These discussions are really doomed to failure. You seem intent upon not seeing Hamas, with its full-throated declarations to destory Israel and kill the Jews, as a direct threat to our lives. This terror entity has been, daily for decades, murdering Jews in ramming, shooting, stabbing, and other terror attacks across all of Israel. For years they have been firing rockets into Israel. They suddenly break through and kill more than a thousand Jews, religious and secular alike, because they are Jews.
These terrorists are certainly not merely a future threat of לא ליתי עלייהו, they are completely and utterly in the midst of fulfilling their stated goals - killing Jews, as the Yerushalmi says, אתיין אינון עלינן.
The only way one could so profoundly misread the events occurring is if one is willfully blind, so deeply disconnected from what is going on in the State of Israel, or one has some ulterior motive to define it as a מלחמת רשות.
And it's clear that, while you may or mayb not be willfully blind and deeply disconnected from the goings on in Israel, you most certainly have an ulterior motive: "no haredi draft." That's it.
So continue your discussions here, pilpul which as any בר דעת would readily admit, applies not one iota to the threat we face. But realize as you do that you are fulfilling another Rambam (הלכות תשובה ג, יא), lemehadrin: you are abdicating your part in the shared fate of Am Yisrael.
By the way, lest you be mistaken, I believe the IDF needs to accomodate haredi men and give them the assurance that they can accomplish military service without being led astray of their lifestyle. If you argued against a haredi draft from this pragmatic point of view, there would be far less problem. But you are arguing out of principle, and the principle is completely misapplied.
Google translate does a passible job. I liked this line in the article. "because the same Torah that is supposed to stop the terrorists does not automatically cure the child whose leg hurts, nor does it prevent his parents from taking him to the doctor"
Another way of looking at this that just occurred to me - in America, especially on social media, there is a massive amount of of activity and interest, (sharing stories, inspirational clips, online Tehillim rallies, interviews with soldiers, survivors, etc., etc.) regarding Oct 7. None of this activity relates to or interfaces with the Israeli chareidi world in any way. They are being bypassed completely, sort like they're irrelevant bystanders. It's really quite strange.
My favourite, Rabbi Breitowitz, was asked for the halachic rationale for the war. He said there are two: milchemes mitzvah, and Pikuach nefesh/haboh lehorgecha.
R natan, Are you sure you are not conflating the two?
My favourite, Rabbi Breitowitz, was asked for the halachic rationale for the war. He said there are two: milchemes mitzvah, and Pikuach nefesh/haboh lehorgecha.
R natan, Are you sure you are not conflating the two?
I know where you're coming from, but I'm not a fan of ערב רב talk.
It's worth considering what R' Shlomo Aviner wrote/texted:
"Maybe this person who told you this [that we have a modern-day Erev Rav among us] is part of the Erev Rav, because it is written... that people who create disagreement are the Erev Rav."
I've read, (I forgot where,) that ערב רב refers to character traits and not specific people. As such, the idea is that we must refine ourselves and eliminate such negative traits from our personality.
Yes, like all the high-tech experts in Herzliya on their way to Silicon Valley, or the one million yordim currently living in the USA, or those that ran away to Berlin, or the soldiers on their 'tiyul hagadol' to India, South America or Katamandu. They will certainly be enough to overcome the coming Muslim crusade. But, not to worry, Modern Orthodox Americans have come for a photo-op barbeque with the soldiers, a solidarity rally at Kibbutz Be'eri, and a kumzitz where they can put their arms around each other, sing Am Yisrael Chai, and quickly post it on Facebook.
If Israel had nuked Gaza, *that* war would have lasted ony one day but the consequences would have been horrible. Is that what that commentor wanted?
"whether the war qualifies as a milchemes mitzvah."
Maybe the war isn't a milchemet mitzvah. Maybe pig meat is kosher.
You seem to think that 'mitzvah' translates as 'something very important'. If that were true, you would be right in laughing at people who don't understand the importance of this war.
The problem is, that's not what 'mitzvah' means, and that is not how to learn the Sugya of Milchemes Mitzvah.
Ah, and how do you learn the sugya of milchemes mitzvah? How do you understand the category of עזרת ישראל מיד כל צר שבא עליהם? I am excited to hear how a real lamdan learns this nuanced sugya.
How do you understand the category of "עזרת ישראל מיד כל צר שבא עליהם"?
It means saving Israel from all enemies who attack us.
According to the Lechem Mishnah and Keren Orah, going into Gaza to "destroy Hamas" (as if that is even a remotely realistic goal) is probably not עזרת ישראל מיד כל צר שבא עליהם. Going into Gaza to rescue the captives probably is, since most Gedolim hold they are considered תינוקות שנשבו and therefore should be saved. There is a separate question whether the whole halachic category of מלחמה requires a king, which is what it seems from the Rambam. But a halachic category of מלחמה is not requred for there to be a mitzvah of הצלות נפשות.
I'm familiar with the קרן אורה and he doesn't say that what he think he says.
Here's the link:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=14352&st=%d7%90%d7%a0%d7%92%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%90&_rnd=0.9366528862713569
The קרן אורה explains the distinction between the ירושלמי and the בבלי is that the orders of אסא didn't involve a מלחמת מצוה. He writes:
כבר הלך בעשא ממנו ע"י מלחמת ארם כמבואר בקראי התם
To clarify, read the פסוקים there in מלכים :
https://www.sefaria.org.il/I_Kings.15.21
There was no מלחמת מצוה because the war was over! What was the enemy engaging in? He was launching projectiles at innocent civilians:
וַיַּ֨עַל בַּעְשָׁ֤א מֶֽלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ עַל־יְהוּדָ֔ה וַיִּ֖בֶן אֶת־הָרָמָ֑ה לְבִלְתִּ֗י תֵּ֚ת יֹצֵ֣א וָבָ֔א לְאָסָ֖א מֶ֥לֶךְ יְהוּדָֽה׃
מצודת דוד: מגדל גבוה בנה מול שערי ירושלים, להשליך ממנו אבנים ליוצא ולבא
Then the war was over :
רד"ק: ולא רצה להלחם עוד עם מלך יהודה
אברבנאל :ולא רצה להלחם עוד עם אסא
After quiet was restored, and the enemy fled, אסא had drafted everybody for construction work & dismantling the projectile launcher. It was not a war.
"There is a separate question whether the whole halachic category of מלחמה requires a king, which is what it seems from the Rambam. "
There were wars centuries before there was a king. Nowhere in the רמב"ם does he say a king is required for a מלחמת מצוה. That the הלכות of war appears in הלכות מלכים is a very weak proof, and indeed falsified by the inclusion of other non-king dependent מצות there. (It's also somewhat inconsistent to make much of the Rambam's placement of the הלכות of מלחמת מצוה at the same as not noting that the Rambam's comments concerning the שבט לוי type are not mentioned in הלכות of war.) Still, it would be interesting if you could find a ראשון who made this claim that מלחמת מצוה requires a king. If you can't find a ראשון can you find someone who says it before the current era?
I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked you in the previous post:
"Does the kidnapping of 100+ Jews, some of whom may not have been מחללי שבת, and some of whom may have had הרהורי תשובה, the murder of 1200+ Jews, the maiming of 5000+ Jews, the mass destruction of homes/property, the hundreds of thousands displaced, the mass disruption to agriculture, the continuing economic damage, the continuing rocket fire and ongoing declarations of genocidal intent fail to rise to the level of מלחמת מצוה?"
"Nowhere in the רמב"ם does he say a king is required for a מלחמת מצוה."
I guess you disagree with Rav Kook and Rav Herzog who understood the Rambam that way. (see my comment above)
That was fun. Thanks.
Not sure why I should be interested in your fabricated chiddushim. The Keren Orah is quite clear that דהתם כבר הלך בעשא ממנו.
"There were wars centuries before there was a king. "
Yehoshua was a king, so it would be מלחמת מצוה. The Knesset is not. Besides for this, there is no indication that their defensive wars were in the halachic category of מלחמת מצוה.
". That the הלכות of war appears in הלכות מלכים is a very weak proof'
It's not because it appears in those halachos, but because the Rambam says so explicitly, אין המלך נלחם תחלה אלא מלחמת מצוה
"I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked you in the previous post:"
And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question "Where does the Rambam say מחללי שבת magically become ישראל for the purpose of עזרת ישראל מיד צר? Stop evading the question with your deflections and dishonesty."
"The Keren Orah is quite clear that דהתם כבר הלך בעשא ממנו."
Indeed. The enemy had fled and gave up on attacking Israel. What does that have to with Hamas?
And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question "Where does the Rambam say מחללי שבת magically become ישראל for the purpose of עזרת ישראל מיד צר?"
You've lost the plot. You brought up that issue to "prove" that it's not a מלחמת מצוה. But your "proof" fails because it doesn't address all the aspects of the conflict. So you question need not be answered. Indeed, by neglecting those facts you appear to be minimizing the evil of Hamas' attack. Plus, if you've been following the news you'd realize that one of the October 7 victims was Rabbi Don Peretz's son. Do you still insist that all the victims were מחללי שבת?
I've already shown you that it's irrelevant whether the immediate victims were שומרי שבת. Even if all the victims were foreign workers, it would still be עזרת ישראל מיד צר. Even if no one was killed and there was just physical destruction it would still be עזרת ישראל מיד צר. (Consider that the פסוקים don't reveal whether בעשא killed anyone. But he did threaten, harass and launch projectiles. And there the קרן אורה defines that as דאתא עלייהו!)
"It's not because it appears in those halachos"
People who make that claim do indeed say that it's " because it appears in those halachos". You're not one of them.
"the Rambam says so explicitly, אין המלך נלחם תחלה אלא מלחמת מצוה"
That's not explicit. At best it's an inference. And an incorrect one. He defines a מלחמת מצוה in the next clause and doesn't mention a king!
But still, it would be interesting if you could find a ראשון who made this claim that מלחמת מצוה requires a king. If you can't find a ראשון can you find someone who says it before the current era?
This is not a minor point!
Rambam is very explicit:
אין המלך נלחם תחלה אלא מלחמת מצוה
and מלחמת מצוה אינו צריך ליטול בה רשות בית דין אלא יוצא מעצמו
EVERYONE understands the Rambam this way, which is why Rav Kook (משפט כהן קמד) had to be mechadesh his HUGE chidush that a government (and presumably even a secular one at that) could take the place of a מלך. Rav Herzog completely relies on R Kook in this regard. This is the main Halachic dispute between the Charedim and RZ. (And yes it is a Halachic dispute - not just an ideological one.)
You're not being clear. You write "EVERYONE" but don't seem to cite anyone but two sources- and I'm not sure they actually say what you claim they do. I'm especially interested in seeing a ראשון who says that. Or at least an אחרון from the 19th century or earlier. (This with the understanding that a תשובה may be more authoritative over a פסק not in response to an actual case of הלכה למעשה.)
I wish you would actually cite where Rav Herzog unambiguously states that a מלחמת מצוה requires a king. He doesn't say so in או"ח לא. I suspect you're referring to a side point he makes in לז in which he may only be bringing up Rav Kook to answer those who insist we need a king. It's not clear he agrees with that insistence.
Here:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22218&st=&pgnum=94
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22218&st=&pgnum=115
Please be more specific and cite exactly where in his long תשובה Rav Kook states a מלחמת מצוה is defined by the existence of a king.
This is ridiculous. If the Rambam says
אין המלך נלחם תחלה אלא מלחמת מצוה
and מלחמת מצוה אינו צריך ליטול בה רשות בית דין אלא יוצא מעצמו
it is more than obvious that a מלך is required. Otherwise the Rambam would say אין נלחמים תחלה and אלא יוצאים מעצמן.
Here are the quotes from R Herzog:
וא"ת הלא גם מלך אין לנו, אומר אני שכל שלא ניתנת לו המלכות לעולם אין צריך שיהיה מבית דוד, ומלך שלא מבית דוד אינו טעון משיחה בשמן המשח , ה והמלך אין כוחו אלא מן העם, שנבחר ע"י העם. וכן יש לנו לאמר שהעם כולו... יש לו הסמכות של המלך בנוגע לעניני האומה. וכיון שהרוב הגדול והמכריע מכריז על מלחמה זו הרי זה כצו המלך, ויש בידו לכוף
(תחוקה לישראל על פי התורה, כרך א' עמ 129)
דעתי, שקנינו בכיבוש מלחמה שאעפ"י שאין מוציאין למלחמת
הרשות אלא על פי בי"ד של שבעים ואחד, ואף למלחמת מצוה אין מוציאין אלא עפ"י
מלך ישראל (רמב"ם הל' מלכים ה,ב), הרי כבר הכריע קודמי, הגאון החסיד ז"ל במשפט
כהן (סי' קמד טו א), ובזה כיון לדעת המאירי ז"ל (סנהדרין נב,ב), שבזמן שאין לא מלך
ולא סנהדרין, ראשי הצבור עומדים במקומם.
(פסקים וכתבים ח"ג , עמ קנג'")
It's not just the captives. The Lechem Mishna explains Rava's statement in the gemara that למעוטי עובדי כוכבים דלא ליתי עלייהו as a pre-emptive war. Also, see the Meiri, who says that according to Tana Kamma (according to whom we rule against R Yehuda) if the enemy has already attacked it is no longer a case of דלא ליתי עלייהו. And in Hilkhot Medina (the Tzitz Eliezer's book on Jewish Sovereignty), he paskens like the Meiri, and mentions the Yerushalmi in support: מלחמת חובה כגון דאתיין אינון עלינן - that they have already come upon us.
Today's war is not pre-emptive. It is a war to defeat an enemy who already attacked.
Where do you see that in the Meiri? The קרן אורה shows the opposite, that even though they were attacked beforehand, their further offensive action was not מפני אויב דאתא עלייהו. I think today's war to "destroy Hamas" is clearly and explicitly דלא ליתי עלייהו. They don't use the English words, "pre-emptive", obviously, which is an inaccurate translation of דלא ליתי עלייהו.
You should be able to find the Meiri.
These discussions are really doomed to failure. You seem intent upon not seeing Hamas, with its full-throated declarations to destory Israel and kill the Jews, as a direct threat to our lives. This terror entity has been, daily for decades, murdering Jews in ramming, shooting, stabbing, and other terror attacks across all of Israel. For years they have been firing rockets into Israel. They suddenly break through and kill more than a thousand Jews, religious and secular alike, because they are Jews.
These terrorists are certainly not merely a future threat of לא ליתי עלייהו, they are completely and utterly in the midst of fulfilling their stated goals - killing Jews, as the Yerushalmi says, אתיין אינון עלינן.
The only way one could so profoundly misread the events occurring is if one is willfully blind, so deeply disconnected from what is going on in the State of Israel, or one has some ulterior motive to define it as a מלחמת רשות.
And it's clear that, while you may or mayb not be willfully blind and deeply disconnected from the goings on in Israel, you most certainly have an ulterior motive: "no haredi draft." That's it.
So continue your discussions here, pilpul which as any בר דעת would readily admit, applies not one iota to the threat we face. But realize as you do that you are fulfilling another Rambam (הלכות תשובה ג, יא), lemehadrin: you are abdicating your part in the shared fate of Am Yisrael.
By the way, lest you be mistaken, I believe the IDF needs to accomodate haredi men and give them the assurance that they can accomplish military service without being led astray of their lifestyle. If you argued against a haredi draft from this pragmatic point of view, there would be far less problem. But you are arguing out of principle, and the principle is completely misapplied.
"The קרן אורה shows the opposite, that even though they were attacked beforehand, their further offensive action was not מפני אויב דאתא עלייהו."
Not quite. The enemy had fled and gave up on ever attacking again.
"דכבר הלך בעשא ממנו"
Hamas hasn't fled, so the according to the קרן אורה, it's still a מלחמת מצוה.
I don't think adding a word to the Rambam is appropriate.
Ah, a medayek! What brilliance. So explain it without כל.
Maybe Netanyahu is Mashiach and maybe the rebbe is still alive.
Google translate does a passible job. I liked this line in the article. "because the same Torah that is supposed to stop the terrorists does not automatically cure the child whose leg hurts, nor does it prevent his parents from taking him to the doctor"
Another way of looking at this that just occurred to me - in America, especially on social media, there is a massive amount of of activity and interest, (sharing stories, inspirational clips, online Tehillim rallies, interviews with soldiers, survivors, etc., etc.) regarding Oct 7. None of this activity relates to or interfaces with the Israeli chareidi world in any way. They are being bypassed completely, sort like they're irrelevant bystanders. It's really quite strange.
Because, by and large, the war isn't happening for them.
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein held that American Jews have a requirement to come to Israel to serve in the IDF, even if they do not make aliyah.
My favourite, Rabbi Breitowitz, was asked for the halachic rationale for the war. He said there are two: milchemes mitzvah, and Pikuach nefesh/haboh lehorgecha.
R natan, Are you sure you are not conflating the two?
Better than saying they are all left wingers
Add Donald Trump's "Any jew that votes democrat hates religon and hates Israel" to the dummy list.
the real jews
My favourite, Rabbi Breitowitz, was asked for the halachic rationale for the war. He said there are two: milchemes mitzvah, and Pikuach nefesh/haboh lehorgecha.
R natan, Are you sure you are not conflating the two?
It is clear that the Haredim are the famous Erev Rav and thus should be expelled forthwith.
I know where you're coming from, but I'm not a fan of ערב רב talk.
It's worth considering what R' Shlomo Aviner wrote/texted:
"Maybe this person who told you this [that we have a modern-day Erev Rav among us] is part of the Erev Rav, because it is written... that people who create disagreement are the Erev Rav."
I've read, (I forgot where,) that ערב רב refers to character traits and not specific people. As such, the idea is that we must refine ourselves and eliminate such negative traits from our personality.
And what would you be left with then?
Jews who act to support other Jews.
Yes, like all the high-tech experts in Herzliya on their way to Silicon Valley, or the one million yordim currently living in the USA, or those that ran away to Berlin, or the soldiers on their 'tiyul hagadol' to India, South America or Katamandu. They will certainly be enough to overcome the coming Muslim crusade. But, not to worry, Modern Orthodox Americans have come for a photo-op barbeque with the soldiers, a solidarity rally at Kibbutz Be'eri, and a kumzitz where they can put their arms around each other, sing Am Yisrael Chai, and quickly post it on Facebook.