Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Rav Herzog zt"l and the Doomsday Essay

A lot of noise is being made about the Benny Morris "Doomsday" essay. See, for example, RHM's blog on the matter.

To worry this worry is a sheer and utter lack of Bitachon:




שאלה: שלום,
אני בת למשפחה ניצולת שואה. סבי וסבתי שרדו את המלחמה אך רוב משפחתם נספתה שם. אני קוראת הרבה על השואה, שומעת ומתעניינת בנושא.
לאחרונה יש לי סיוטים שכל העסק הזה יחזור שוב, אבל הפעם זה יהיה הסוף שלנו.
איך אנחנו יכולים להיות בטוחים שלא זה מה שיקרה? גם אם קרו דברים טובים לעם ישראל בעשרות השנים האחרונות, אבל הרי שום דבר אינו בטוח, אנו מוקפים באויבים שמנסים להשמיד אותנו ושנאת ישראל בעולם מתגברת. מי אמר לנו שהסוף לא יהיה רע ומר? כמו שקרתה שואה אחת, למה לא תתכן שתקרה שואה שניה והפעם החורבן יהיה מוחלט?
בתודה
תמר
תשובה: שלום תמר,
ראשית, יישר כוחך שאינך מהססת להביע את אשר בליבך. אדרבה: שוחחי עם הורייך, חברותייך ומורייך ויקל לך. לא טוב לַשֶאת מצוקה כזו לבד. "דאגה בלב איש ישיחנה". בדיוק בשביל זה יש חברים, לא?

את שואלת שאלה תיאורטית, אך האמת שלפני שנים לא רבות, הפחד מפני "חורבן שלישי", היה מוחשי מאד. בשנת תש"א (1941) באמצע מלחמת העולם השניה, כאשר עוד נדמה היה שהחיה הנאצית הולכת לדרוס את העולם ושום דבר לא יוכל לעצור את היטלר ימ"ש, עמד בפני יהודי ארץ ישראל בדיוק החשש הזה. צבאותיו של המצביא הגרמני רומל שטפו בסערה את צפון אפריקה וכבשו מדינה אחר מדינה. היעד הברור היה ארץ ישראל. ביישוב היהודי הקטן והחלש בארץ השתררה בהלה. הבריטים כבר העבירו מכאן את מוסדותיהם, וההגנה תכננה 'מצדה' שניה על הכרמל.
הרב הראשי יצחק הלוי הרצוג שהה אז בארה"ב לצורך איסוף תרומות וחיזוק עולם הישיבות בארץ. כששמע על חומרת המצב הודיע למארחיו חד משמעית שהוא עוזב הכל וחוזר מייד לארץ. שגריר בריטניה בארה"ב שנפגש עימו באותה תקופה ניסה להניא אותו מכך: "כבוד הרב, אל תחזור לשם. הרי זה פיקוח נפש! מי יודע מה יקרה בארץ ישראל?!"
אך הרב הרצוג עמד איתן בדעתו: "אני חוזר לארץ. חורבן שלישי לא יהיה!!!"
את הדברים הללו שמע ממנו גם נשיא ארה"ב, רוזוולט, כמה ימים לאחר מכן, בפגישה בארבע עיניים שנערכה ביניהם, ושאב ממנו ביטחון ואמונה. מארחיו של הרב הרצוג בארה"ב, ביניהם רבנים ואישי ציבור חשובים, ניסוח לשכנע אותו שיוותר על הרעיון 'המטורף' ולא יסכן את חייו בשיבה לארץ, אך הוא סירב להקשיב להם.
אנחנו כבר יודעים מה היה הסוף. הרב הרצוג חזר לארץ, וצבאותיו של רומל נבלמו בדרכם לשערי הארץ. שנה לאחר מכן הובסו סופית בקרב אל עלמיין המפורסם (על הניסים שהיו שם יש צורך לספר בנפרד, ולא נעשה זאת עכשיו).


מניין שאב הרב הרצוג את ביטחונו? מניין ידע לקבוע בוודאות כזו ש"חורבן שלישי לא יהיה"?

בתורה ישנן שתי פרשוית המתארות חורבן. "בחוקותיי" ו"כי תבוא". המתבונן בפסוקים, מצד אחד, וקורא בספרי ההיסטוריה, מצד שני, יגלה שהן מקבילות בדיוק (עד לפרטי פרטים) לְמַה שקרה בחורבן בית ראשון ובחורבן בית שני.
אין בתורה תיאור של חורבן שלישי!
נביאי ישראל ואחריהם חז"ל קבעו לנו ברורות שלא יהיה עוד חורבן! מרגע שתתחיל הגאולה ועם ישראל ישוב לארצו לא יהיה עוד חורבן או גלות נוספת (הרחבה בנושא בספר "בנתיבי הגאולה" מאת הרב ערן טמיר, עמ' 190. בין המקורות המובאים שם: מכילתא, מדרש רבה, מדרש תנחומא, מדרש הנעלם על הזוהר ועוד. עייני שם).
אולי שמעת בחופש חלק מההפטרות הנקראות בשבתות 'שבע דנחמתא'. קראי בזמנך החופשי מעט מפרקי ישעיהו מפרק מ' ואילך, יחזקאל פרק לו' או נבואות נחמה אחרות, ותיווכחי לדעת כי ה'מוטציה' ההיסטורית של תחיית ישראל בארצו, היא התגשמות מדויקת של חזון הנביאים. דבר אחד מדבריהם לא ישוב ריקם. עייני למשל בהפטרת 'פרשת ויגש' וסיפרי כמה פעמים מבטיח הנביא שהגאולה תהיה 'לעולם'.

אנחנו עם למוד נסיון - ואופטימי. אפילו במצרים המשכנו להוליד ילדים למרות שלא היה כל כך ברור כיצד ישרוד עם שכל בניו מומתים. עברנו את פרעה, נעבור גם את זה, בקל וחומר עצום. יש לי קרובה שלוחשת הודיה לקב"ה בכל פעם שהיא שומעת מסוק, כיוון שהמסוק הוא בוודאות שלנו. זה לא מובן מאליו...

הביטחון והאמונה שמפעמים בנו, יש להם כמובן גם בסיס מוצק: "לו חפץ ה' המיתנו - לא הראנו כל זאת". הצלתנו המופלאה במלחמת יום כיפור, ששת הימים, מלחמת השחרור, ואף לפני כן...
הרי גם לפני מלחמת ששת הימים הסתובבו אצל כמה אנשים פסימיים בדיחות שחורות בנוסח 'מי שעוזב אחרון שיכבה את האור אחרון בנמל התעופה לוד'. והסוף ידוע.
כדי לקיים 'בינו שנות דור ודור' יש להתבונן בתהליכים במבט רחב, ולא ברגע קשה אחד. 50 שנה הם לפעמים רק פסוק אחד בספר שופטים, אולם קשה מאוד לדחוס את כל חסדי ה' עמנו ב- 50 השנים האחרונות לפסוק אחד. וכי חולל ה' את כל ניסי הגאולה רק על מנת להחריב הכל שוב?! יו-יו היסטורי?!
אומנם, מקובלים אנו שיהיו שלבים בגאולה.


לעיתים אפילו יהיה נדמה שיש נסיגה. המדרש מזכיר ש'דומה דודי לצבי - נכסה ונגלה'. נזכור את מה שקרה בימי שיעבוד מצרים כשבא משה לראשונה לדרוש 'שלח את עמי'. היתה רק התדרדרות במצב והיו אנשים שהאשימו את משה ואהרון בסיבוך הענינים, וגם שם - הסוף ידוע...

לכן, גם אם יש קשיים וחששות לא ניבהל. לא נאבד את המבט הכולל והרחב הצופה בגאולה ההולכת ומפציעה כשחר העולה,

גם כנגד הסיכויים והסברות האנושיות, וכמו שהבטיח לנו ריבונו של עולם על ידי נביאיו.
וכימי צאתנו מארץ מצריים יראנו נפלאות במהרה בימינו, והמיצר בצרתם של ישראל ישמח בגאולתם השלמה. כן יהי רצון.
בציפייה לישועה
יעקב, חברים מקשיבים


















37 comments:

  1. I added on RHM's blog:

    "Revach v'Hatzalah Ya'amod LaYehudim." This is a statement, not a prayer. The tefillos must rather be - and should be - that chas v'shalom we should not see fulfilled:
    "Me'makom acher, v'at u'beis avich toveidi..."

    ReplyDelete
  2. My post was not meant as a scare tactic, nor do I see that scenario as imminent. It was more as a heads up. To realize what's going on in the world... what were really up against.

    There are many possible ways out, this is not a forgone conclusion. But, it is a possible one and not an unreasonable one.

    Of course we should have Bitachon. There will be no third Churban in Eretz Yisroel. But there is no Beis HaMikdash now. Moshiach isn't here yet. We could lose control over Eretz Yisroel yet again and many Jew could Chas VeShalom die in the proccess. And nuclear weapons could be involved.

    My last line about "Davening" was meant more as an exclamation point, not as a "call to action".

    How often do our rabbinic leaders mandate public Tehilim when the Matzav in Israel demands it?! I don't think they will or should do it for this. At least not yet. Besides, I for one am not really big on saying Tehilim anyway as you know. :)

    But if one chooses to say Tehilim for this purpose, I don't think it would be wrong of him... or show a lack of Bitachon. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If there won't be a 3rd churban, then does this mean that the current settlement in Israel can truly be considered "Reishis Tz'michas Geulaseinu"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. Of course Tehillim is good - but it must be said with the right attitude - viz., with Bitachon that there will be no Churban Shelishi.

    2. Of course the settlement is "Reishis Tzemichas Geulaseinu." The controversy exists because the Tefillah identifies the *state* as RTG.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I added on RHM's blog:

    "Revach v'Hatzalah Ya'amod LaYehudim." This is a statement, not a prayer. The tefillos must rather be - and should be - that chas v'shalom we should not see fulfilled:
    "Me'makom acher, v'at u'beis avich toveidi...""

    This repudiates your whole post which began "To worry this worry is a sheer and utter lack of Bitachon"
    You've gone and redefined what "this worry" is! The worry is not that it means the end of klal yisrael cholila, but that "at uveis avich toveidi"

    the flaw in the response you cite is that it's predicated on accepting the Zionist interpretation of history. If you don't believe the state is significant, there is no potential "churban" - only potential murder.
    It is generally not wise to play prophet.

    I hope and I pray and trust that God will not allow another horrible devastation to befall the Jewish people, and for that matter I hope and pray that the return to Eretz Yisrael is the start of the permanent return - but you don't know that and neither does anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The "State" is an irrelevancy. (BTW, Rav Herzog made his assertion quite a few years before the State was founded.) It is the Kibbutz Galuyos that is the foundation of the redemption, and there are numerous proofs for that process in Perek Chelek and in the Yerushalmi Perek Mei'emasai.

    Zionism asserted that the existence of a *State* - preferably a very secular one - is germane to Jewish existence, and an end in and of itself. Ka'amur, that's irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "reishis tzmichas gauleseinu" is not a theologically meaningful term. There is no particular size settlement that is significant theologically. The process can be reversed and start again. There is no theological reason to think that this kibutz goliyos is what is meant, or that the current state of affairs has more theological significance than aliyas talmidei hagra did. You can hope all you like, but you cannot know what God's plan is, or how our own actions and failures play in.

    "Zionism asserted that the existence of a *State* - preferably a very secular one - is germane to Jewish existence, and an end in and of itself. Ka'amur, that's irrelevant."

    Tell the Satmer Rebbe that's irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. שו"ת ישועות מלכו חלק יו"ד סימן סו

    ב"ה יום עש"ק מצורע תרנ"א לפ"ק פה קוטנא. סמוך לגאולה יעלה מעלה מעלה, כבוד הרב הגדול בוצינא קדישא מגזע תרשישים כש"ת מו"ה ישראל נר"י בקאצק יצ"ו.

    אחדשה"ט, ע"ד שמעכ"ת חש לדברי הרמב"ם בה' מלכים, ולפי דעת הכ"מ העולה מבבל אפי' לארץ ישראל עובר בעשה, והוא אינו מובן שהרי זה לא נאמר אלא על ארץ בבל בפרט ולא על שאר חוץ לארץ, והטעם כי אחרי שהם נתרשלו בימי עזרא ולא רצו לשוב כי לא חשבו זאת לפקידה גמורה שצריכים לישב שם כפי נביאת /נבואת/ הנביא עד פקידה האחרונה, אבל בני מדינות הללו שהם מגולי טיטוס שנגלו מא"י עם שאר בני הארצות אינם בכלל זה, והוא מצוה גדולה, ונראה שגם בני בבל שעלו לא"י בעוד הביהמ"ק קיים בבית השני כשגלו אח"כ מא"י לאלו הארצות אינם בכלל זה, ומה שחשש מהר"מ מרוטנבורג הוא מחמת חשש דרכים וחסרון פרנסה גם מפני המחלוקת שהי' אז כידוע שבזמן המהר"ם מרוטענבורג הי' מחלוקת גדולה בין יושבי ארץ ישראל ויושבי אשכנז וצרפת בימי הר"ר משה תיקי שנתעורר עוד הפעם המחלוקת אודות הספר מורה נבוכים, אבל בשביל העולה מבבל לא"י לית מאן דחש בזה וא"כ בזה"ז שנשתנה בעזהי"ת לטובה הן בסכנת הדרכים והן מצד עניות ודאי היא מצוה גדולה, אמנם גם לפי דעת הרמב"ן שחשב זאת למ"ע מ"מ בעיקר המצוה אינו אלא הירושה והישיבה כאדם העושה בתוך שלו לכבוש א"י שתהי' תחת ירושתינו לא על ביאה ריקנית של עתה וכבר המשילו האחרונים למ"ע של אכילת מצה כי עיקר המצוה היא האכילה, ולקיחת החיטים לשם מצוה והלישה והאפי' אינם גמר מצוה, ומ"מ בודאי מצוה גדולה היא, ועל זה נאמר גומל לאיש חסד כמפעלו, גם על הפעולה של מצוה מקבל שכר, ונאמר אשרי תמימי דרך גם על הדרך של עושי מצוה יש בו שלימות ואין ספק שהיא מצוה גדולה כי הקיבוץ הוא אתחלתא דגאולה, ונאמר עוד אקבץ עליו לנקבציו ועיין ביבמות דף ס"ד שאין השכינה שורה פחות משתי רבבות מישראל, ובפרט עתה שראינו התשוקה הגדולה הן באנשים פחותי ערך הן בבינונים הן בישרים בלבותם קרוב לודאי שנתנוצץ רוח הגאולה אשרי חלקו שהוא ממזכה רבים:

    ומה שכתב מכ"ת בשם מהרי"ט שהעיר עזה /על זה/ לפי שאינו מכיבוש בני בבל בימי עזרא לא נתקדש אז אינה בכלל מצוה זו, לא כן דעתי נוטה, כבר הארכתי בזה בקונטרס מיוחד בענינים אלו ואחר החג הבע"ל כשהי' /כשיהי'/ פנאי אשלח לו קונטרס מיוחד על ענינים אלו:

    ידידו הדוש"ת ומברכו בברכת החג הבע"ל ישראל יהושע חופ"ק קוטנא.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As a convenience, I took the following excerpt from:

    http://www.kerenyishai.org/shiur_hebrew/shiur_vayera66.php#_ftnref10

    but these are all famous quotations.

    האור החיים הקדוש מנתח את הדברים בפירושו על התורה על הפסוק:[11]

    "אֶרְאֶנּוּ וְלֹא עַתָּה אֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ וְלֹא קָרוֹב

    דָּרַךְ כּוֹכָב מִיַּעֲקֹב

    וְקָם שֵׁבֶט מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל

    וּמָחַץ פַּאֲתֵי מוֹאָב וְקַרְקַר כָּל בְּנֵי שֵׁת"

    וזה לשונו:

    "....שאם תהיה הגאולה באמצעות זכות ישראל יהיה הדבר מופלא במעלה ויתגלה הגואל מן השמים במופת ואות כאמור בספר הזוהר"



    זוהי הגאולה של "אחישנה" אך לעומתה יש גאולה של "בְּעִתָּהּ", וכדבריו:

    "מה שאין כן כשתהיה הגאולה מצד הקץ ואין ישראל ראויים לה, תהיה באופן אחר ועליה נאמר שהגואל יבוא עני ורוכב על חמור..."



    וחותם האור החיים הקדוש:

    "וכנגד גאולת "בְּעִתָּהּ", שרמז במאמר "אשורינו ולא עתה" אמר "וקם שבט מישראל" פירוש שיקום שבט אחד מישראל כדרך הקמים בעולם דרך הטבע..."



    לשון אחרת בגאולת ה"בְּעִתָּהּ", ישנה התעוררות, כלשון האור חיים של "כדרך הקמים בעולם דרך הטבע..." . זהו למעשה תהליך הגאולה הנקרא בפי הגר"א ואחרים בשם "אתחלתא דגאולה", שהרי כל מושג ההתחלה שייך היכן שיש תהליכים, וזה שייך רק בגאולה של "בְּעִתָּהּ", שהרי בגאולה של "אחישנה" הכל קורא בבת אחת ללא תהליכים.

    נעיר כאן, סיפור מרתק המספר בנו של החפץ חיים, ר' אריה לייב הכהן בספר "מכתבי החפץ חיים" כי עת יצאה הכרזת בלפור, החפץ חיים התרגש מאוד ואמר כי זוהי אתחלתא דגאולה, ואז למד איתם החפץ חיים את פירוש האור חיים שהבאנו לעיל.



    למעשה בעניין זה נחלקו גדולי ישראל, היו שאמרו כי כל עוד הגאולה אינה מופיעה בשלמות אין זו גאולה, הם בקשו את הגאולה של "אחשינה" ולעומתם גדולים אחרים, שראו בתהליך שאנו מצויים בעיצומו כתהליך של " בְּעִתָּהּ".



    אחד מגדולי מבשריה של שיבת ציון, ממבשריה של הציונות היה רבי אליהו גוטמאכר, תלמיד הגאון רבי עקיבא אייגר., שהתבטא כך בזיקה לתהליך הגאולה:[12]

    "בעוונותינו הרבים, רבים טועים בחושבם שיהיו יושבים בחברת השעשועים כל אחד כפי דרכו בביתו, ופתאום יפתחו שעיר רחמים ייעשו מופתים בשמים ובארץ וכל ייעודי הנביאים יתקיימו ויקראו ממקום שבתם"



    ועל זה קובע ר"א גוטמאכר:

    "אבל לא כן הוא !"



    ומוסיף לכך ראיה:

    "מה היה יותר ברור מקץ השבעים שנה של [גלות] בבל , שהיה מתחילה מיועד עד כאן ותו לא. ובכל זאת עד כמה התאמץ דניאל, ועד כמה התקרב נחמיה לדרך הטבעי. ולא אמרו כמו המתחכמים: 'שבו איש תחתיו והגאולה צריכה לבוא..."



    ובאחת מהסכמותיו לאחד הספרים, שיצאו, אומר עוד רבי אליהו גוטמאכר:[13]

    "...ואצלי כבר ברור, שאם יקיימו ישראל שיתחילו לעבוד אדמת הקודש בסך ק"ל (130)[14] משפחות, שתהיה התחלת הגאולה גם כשלא יהיו ישראל ראויים לכך..."



    הרב קלאישר גם הוא ניתח את הדברים בזה הדרך ואלו דבריו:[15]

    "גאולת ישראל אשר אנו חוכים[16] לה, אל יחשוב החושב כי פתאום ירד ה' יתברך שמו, משמים ארץ, לאמור לעמו: 'צאו !'

    או ישלח משיחו כרגע מן השמים לתקוע בשופר גדול על נדחי ישראל ויקבצם ירושלימה ויעשה לה חומת אש, ומקדש א-ל ממרומים ירד, כשאר הבטיח ע"י עבדיו הנביאים, לא כן הקורא המשכיל"

    ומוסיף:

    "ודאי כי ייעודי הנביאים יתקיימו באחרית הימים ולא ייפול ח"ו דבר ארצה, אך לא במנוסה נלך ולא בחיפזון יום אחד . כי אם מעט-מעט תבוא גאולת ישראל, לאט-לאט תצמח קרן ישועה עד 'וישראל יעשה חיל' וישׂגה מאוד באחריתו בקיום כל הייעודים וההבטחות של הנביאים הקדושים..."



    ולבסוף נביא נא עוד מדבריו של אותו גאון, רבי אליהו גוטמאכר באגרת קודש ששלח הוא ובן דורו בעל "הערוך לנר". שם הם מבקשים להקים מוסד של תלמוד תורה בירושלים בשנת 1860, ושם אומר רבי אליהו, שכדאי להשקיע בת"ת בירושלים כי עוד מעט ולא יישאר כלום בגלות. הדברים קדמו הרבה לתחילת הציונות, לצורך ההשוואה נֹאמַר, כי בשנה זו, שהקריאה יוצאת בה, בשנה זו הרצל רק נולד.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From:

    http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/published/todwell.htm

    (this is also in my essay at
    www.aishdas.org/rygb/drbreuer.htm)

    DRIVING HOME THROUGH the largely-uninhabited hills of Judea, or walking down the streets of an Israeli city still lacking the imprint of Torah, I hear the question echoing: "Where is the religious aliya from the Torah communities of the West?"

    The question is not of recent vintage, nor was it posed by a representative of the Aliya Department of the Jewish Agency. It was Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld who addressed these words, some sixty years ago, to Rav Yitzchok Breuer. The rav of Yerushalayim further told the Agudah leader, "Now I understand the words of musaf for yom tov: `Because of our sins were we exiled from our country' - by HaShem; `and we were distanced from our Land' - this we have done voluntarily." (Moriah, p. 191)

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is your letter supposed to prove? 1. There were people who thought this way, and there were also people who didn't. You want to quote, you may as well quote R Kook. I didn't say it's impossible, I said you don't know for sure. Even this letter only says "korov lvadei"

    2. It's *still* irrelevant. There's no guarantee that there won't be huge setbacks, it doesn't have to be a smooth process.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. I cannot quote Rav Kook because I cannot understand (and therefore cannot accept) his assertion that the Zionist movement was a vast Teshuvah movement. But with the exception of the Satmer (and, I guess, the Munkatcher), it's pretty hard to argue with Chazal...

    2. This is true. But not nuclear holocausts, R"L.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The question is not of recent vintage, nor was it posed by a representative of the Aliya Department of the Jewish Agency. It was Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld who addressed these words, some sixty years ago, to Rav Yitzchok Breuer. The rav of Yerushalayim further told the Agudah leader, "Now I understand the words of musaf for yom tov: `Because of our sins were we exiled from our country' - by HaShem; `and we were distanced from our Land' - this we have done voluntarily." (Moriah, p. 191)"

    This is also an irrelevancy. You can see etzba elokim all you want (and not only in kibutz goliyos, how about just preparing a place for Jews to go after WWII) but it still doesn't mean that god can't c"v bring destruction in Israel, there are many historical opportunities that are windows not finalities.

    The problem in this post is that you prophesize, and worse, accuse those who don't view matters the way you do or don't think there's a guarantee that there won't be catastrophe in Israel of lack of bitachon.

    Bhada kavsha drachmana lama lach?

    There were promises that they can't get kicked out of Gush Katif b/c it would reverse the process of geula too. Is this a wise approach?

    Of course it's not - and even you then modify the post with the comment that the promise is revach vehatzala etc but we have to pray "Vat uveis avich toveidi" doesnt happen and the yeshua is not mimokom acher. That's all anyone is saying! There is no defintion of reishis tzmichas goulaseinu or statement about size of settlement even according to you - in fact, you prove this by quoting seeing etzba elokim as early as the cites you give.

    These kind of predictions do nothing but risk loss of emunah. The only relevant gemara in chelek is tipach atzmoson shel mechashvei kitzin.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "1. I cannot quote Rav Kook because I cannot understand (and therefore cannot accept) his assertion that the Zionist movement was a vast Teshuvah movement. But with the exception of the Satmer (and, I guess, the Munkatcher), it's pretty hard to argue with Chazal..."

    And the brisker rav, and quite a number of others, the whole edah charedis and much more - you are calling a very large proportion of the haredi world not just wrong but lacking in emuna.

    "2. This is true. But not nuclear holocausts, R"L."

    And how do you know this?!

    Plenty of references to all out wars and apocalyptic scenarios if you are interested in predicting the future. You could argue that a nuclear war is practically demanded by the descriptions of chevlei moshiach if you wanted to.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1. The Brisker Rav was not opposed to Kibbutz Gauluyos, nor is the EC. They are opposed to the State.

    2. I know this, from among other places, from:

    (1) ספר ישעיה פרק ד
    (ב) ביום ההוא יהיה צמח יהוה לצבי ולכבוד ופרי הארץ לגאון ולתפארת לפליטת ישראל:
    (ג) והיה הנשאר בציון והנותר בירושלם קדוש יאמר לו כל הכתוב לחיים בירושלם:

    and from the well known Yalkut on Melech Persia, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  16. נעיר כאן, סיפור מרתק המספר בנו של החפץ חיים, ר' אריה לייב הכהן בספר "מכתבי החפץ חיים" כי עת יצאה הכרזת בלפור, החפץ חיים התרגש מאוד ואמר כי זוהי אתחלתא דגאולה, ואז למד איתם החפץ חיים את פירוש האור חיים שהבאנו לעיל.

    This is an example of what I mean. If you reject the significance of the State, and think we could have stuck with the Ottoman empire (or whatever) then the Balfour declaration in itself is not significant.

    With the hindsight of history, we know the Balfour Declaration had two effects - making the state a possibility and relaxing immigration, and the latter could have happened otherwise and the former is irrelevant to you.

    But at the time, it had echoes of Koresh's prouncement, and if the British had stayed, it would have been the equivalent.


    למעשה בעניין זה נחלקו גדולי ישראל, היו שאמרו כי כל עוד הגאולה אינה מופיעה בשלמות אין זו גאולה, הם בקשו את הגאולה של "אחשינה" ולעומתם גדולים אחרים, שראו בתהליך שאנו מצויים בעיצומו כתהליך של " בְּעִתָּהּ".

    my own point


    ולבסוף נביא נא עוד מדבריו של אותו גאון, רבי אליהו גוטמאכר באגרת קודש ששלח הוא ובן דורו בעל "הערוך לנר". שם הם מבקשים להקים מוסד של תלמוד תורה בירושלים בשנת 1860, ושם אומר רבי אליהו, שכדאי להשקיע בת"ת בירושלים כי עוד מעט ולא יישאר כלום בגלות. הדברים קדמו הרבה לתחילת הציונות, לצורך ההשוואה נֹאמַר, כי בשנה זו, שהקריאה יוצאת בה, בשנה זו הרצל רק נולד

    and how is the birth of herzl is significant if one rejects the state?

    Seems like having it both ways to me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "1. The Brisker Rav was not opposed to Kibbutz Gauluyos, nor is the EC. They are opposed to the State."

    the brisker rav saw no significance in the term reishis tzmichas gouleseyni (I don't know what it means to be "opposed" to kibutz goliyos. I don't think the Satmer Rav was "opposed" to kibutz goliyos either. You already conceded that the Satmer Rebbe didn't see things as you do.)
    Statements about when it has already begun to happen were irrelevant to the Brisker rav. For him, there was a mitzva of yishuv E"y, and there was a promise of geula. He didn't do business in nonhalachic and nontheologically definable terms like "Reishis tzmichas gauleseynu" and no one in Brisk uses such terminology.

    WRT Edah Charedis, what are you positing exactly - that there's a theological split between the Satmer Rebbe, the titular head of the EC, and the edah??
    The EC is satmer.

    "2. I know this, from among other places, from:

    (1) ספר ישעיה פרק ד
    (ב) ביום ההוא יהיה צמח יהוה לצבי ולכבוד ופרי הארץ לגאון ולתפארת לפליטת ישראל:
    (ג) והיה הנשאר בציון והנותר בירושלם קדוש יאמר לו כל הכתוב לחיים בירושלם

    "and from the well known Yalkut on Melech Persia, etc."


    maybe hanishar betziyon v'honsar beyerushalayim is postIranian attack?

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1. The State in and of itself is a good thing (see the Rambam at the beginning of Hil. Chanukah). However, it is very much flawed and requires much rectification.

    2. The Ottoman Empire had not exhibited any indication of allowing massive Aliyah. The Balfour Declaration did.

    3. The birth of Herzl is indeed irrelevant.

    4. So far as I know, the Satmer *was* opposed to KG - he held it was an issur of shelo ya'alu k'chomah.

    5. Did I advocate the use of RTG? It is a meaningless phrase.

    6. The EC *is* Satmar - but that is an unfortunate development. I do not believe that when my great-great uncle R' ZR Bengis was ABD that the EC was what it is today.

    7. Fine, so we agree! An Iranian attempt to commit a Holocaust would fail in any event!

    ReplyDelete
  19. "1. The State in and of itself is a good thing (see the Rambam at the beginning of Hil. Chanukah). However, it is very much flawed and requires much rectification."

    Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The rambam is ambiguous - he is talking b'zman habayis and he also could be just contrasting it with malchus yavan etc. not necessarily with a beneficent democratic government. In any case, the state as it currently is constituted is not considered by vast swaths of orthodoxy, rightly or wrongly, a good thing. ARe you accusing all of them, and the gedolim they follow, of lack of bitachon? they read history differently than you.

    "2. The Ottoman Empire had not exhibited any indication of allowing massive Aliyah. The Balfour Declaration did."

    The british could have allowed immigration otherwise - I think you are missing the point. It's that the BD looked at the time as something other than what it turned out to be.

    "3. The birth of Herzl is indeed irrelevant."

    Ok

    "4. So far as I know, the Satmer *was* opposed to KG - he held it was an issur of shelo ya'alu k'chomah."

    No, he thought that insisting on doing so in a state is shelo yaalu bechoma. He didnt have a problem with going to E"y, individually or collectively if allowed in. (Even if he would have been, this would not have made him "opposed to kibutz goliyos" it would make him have a different definition of how that would happen than you and others have.)

    "5. Did I advocate the use of RTG? It is a meaningless phrase."

    Quote:
    2. Of course the settlement is "Reishis Tzemichas Geulaseinu." The controversy exists because the Tefillah identifies the *state* as RTG."

    I don't see how one can say something meaningless is "of course" happening, but if I misconstrued your statement and previous nonresponse to my contention that RTG is meaningless I apologize.

    "6. The EC *is* Satmar - but that is an unfortunate development. I do not believe that when my great-great uncle R' ZR Bengis was ABD that the EC was what it is today."

    IOW, The EC thinks exactly as the Satmer Rebbe does, but perhaps the "Real" EC didn't! Come on.

    "7. Fine, so we agree! An Iranian attempt to commit a Holocaust would fail in any event!"

    If you define Holocaust as wiping out every last Jew, Hitler also didn't succeed. There is nothing in what you quote or point to that says that anything lesser is guaranteed not to happen, and there is actually quite a bit that predicts all out wars, so I have no clue why you think a nuclear attack is ruled out.

    if all you mean is gmira lan dlo kola shivta you would have no argument. You are claiming that there can be setbacks, but not big enough setbacks to describe as a holocaust. Exactly how do you define that - do you even have a definition in mind? What is a major enough event to activate your prophecies and accusations of lack of bitachon - a rov cant be affected, what?

    Remember, there were people who said that the golus from gush katif would be a reversal of the redemptive process also, I guess they had a different definition.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 1. Everyone (except for Satmar et al) agrees that the State is a good thing. It's the government that is the problem.

    2. It turned out that the British barred immigration, so the BD did not work out right. But it did lead to the founding of the State (see #1).

    4. He was evidently opposed to any massive Aliyah before Bi'as Moshiach.

    5. Sorry, what I should have written is:

    "RTG is a meaningless phrase, but if anything is RTG it is the settlement, not the State."

    6. The *real* EC was RYC Zonnenfeld. Today's is a glorified Kashrus supervision service.

    7. It does not specify that only a small amount will be saved in Tziyon and Yerushalayim. Thus, we must assume that with the exception of yechidim, it means just about everybody. I would say something like the first Gulf War and the Hezbollah War.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1. Not everyone agrees by any means that a state that is not religiously significant is positive

    2. see #1.

    4. He was opposed to a Jewish run state to foster aliya; he was not opposed to massive aliya with the agreement of the nations. If you think this aliya couldnt happen without a state, then you may think he was effectively against aliya, but he did think that such aliya was possible without a state and this is the standard view of the EC crowd - you all could have come and lived here without the state. The EC doesn't date from bayis sheni; they are not claiming that the talmidei hagra and talmidei CS were over 3 shavuos (and they were encouraging mass aliya, the SR wasn't denouncing this).

    5. What is "The" settlement. One can point to the settlement in RYCS days and say it's the settlement and if we returned to that state of affairs we could still see etzba elokim. It doesnt say anywhere that there can't cholila be big reversals!

    6. Whatever "the real EC" is - the current EC is a significant swath of charedi society that considers itself under the rubric of this glorified kashrus and pashkevil service.

    BTW I don't know what R Bengis held; do you know for a fact what his views were?

    7. "It does not specify that only a small amount will be saved in Tziyon and Yerushalayim. Thus, we must assume that with the exception of yechidim, it means just about everybody. I would say something like the first Gulf War and the Hezbollah War."

    it doesn't specify and therefore we must assume?! Pshuto shel mikra is not like what you say.

    First of all, there are several rishonim, and midrashei chazal that read these psukim as going on golus bavel. Obviously they mean a churban equivalent to churban beis rishon, hardly the Gulf War (and these psukim have questionable relevance to achris hayamim).

    Second, pleitas yisrael, hanosar bitziyon vahanishar beyerushalayim - this means remnants. You seem to be saying that they are a majority and not remnants of any sort - I have no idea where you get that from.

    Normally, people say that the remnants are from the holocaust (eg the CC's famous prediction uvhar tzion tehiye pleita) But how can anyone *know* they are from an event already in the past? And you can hardly say that anyone who thinks nosar and nishar mean remants are kofrim bedvrei neviim and chazal (and that is essentially what you are saying!)

    ReplyDelete
  22. "hanosar bitziyon vahanishar beyerushalayim" = hanishar betzion vahanosar bey-m.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1. I am surprised to hear it.

    2. See #1.

    4. Absurd. Without a state (lower case "s") massive Aliyah would have been impossible. Ipso facto, the Satmer Rebbe was opposed to massive Aliyah.

    5. I don't understand what you are saying - but IIRC the Talmidei HaGra held they were the vanguard of the Geulah - so perhaps you are stating that the process began earlier than the late 1800's?

    6. Who is part of this "significant swath?" A few thousand Satmer and allied Chasidim?

    I do not know for sure what RZRB held, but this we know (from the YN's bio!):

    Reb Zelig Reuven loved Eretz Yisroel and was eager to make the Holy Land his home. In 1932, he was invited to become the rav of the Eida Chareidis in Yerushalayim after the passing of Reb Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld. But he turned down the offer because he was afraid the position would lead to conflict with Reb Avraham Yitzchak Kook, another talmid of the Netziv.

    In 1937, Reb Zelig Reuven was asked to fill the position of av beis din of Yerushalayim's Eida Chareidis. Rav Kook had since passed away, so Reb Zelig Reuven accepted the position at once, leaving Europe shortly before the outbreak of World War II.


    7. What can I say?


    מדרש רבה שיר השירים פרשה ב פסקה לג
    א"ר חייא בר אבא סמוך לימות המשיח דבר גדול בא לעולם והרשעים כלים והגפנים סמדר נתנו ריח אלו הנשארים ועליהם נאמר (שם ד') והיה הנשאר בציון והנותר בירושלם אמר ר' יוחנן שבוע שבן ...


    תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף צח/א
    ואמר רבי אבא אין לך קץ מגולה מזה שנאמר ואתם הרי ישראל ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל וגו' רבי (אליעזר) [אלעזר] אומר אף מזה שנאמר כי לפני הימים (האלה) [ההם] שכר האדם לא נהיה ושכר הבהמה איננה וליוצא ולבא אין שלום מן הצר מאי ליוצא ולבא אין שלום מן הצר רב אמר אף תלמידי חכמים שכתוב בהם שלום דכתיב שלום רב לאהבי תורתך אין שלום מפני צר ושמואל אמר עד שיהיו כל השערים כולן שקולין אמר רבי חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שיתבקש דג לחולה ולא ימצא שנאמר אז אשקיע מימיהם ונהרותם כשמן אוליך וכתב (בתריה) ביום ההוא אצמיח קרן לבית ישראל אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שתכלה מלכות הזלה מישראל שנאמר וכרת הזלזלים במזמרות וכתיב בתריה בעת ההיא יובל שי לה' צבאות עם ממשך ומורט אמר זעירי אמר רבי חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו גסי הרוח מישראל שנאמר כי אז אסיר מקרבך עליזי גאותך וכתיב והשארתי בקרבך עם עני ודל וחסו בשם ה' אמר רבי שמלאי משום רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל שופטים ושוטרים מישראל שנאמר ואשיבה ידי עליך ואצרוף כבור סיגיך וגו' ואשיבה שפטיך אמר עולא אין ירושלים נפדית אלא בצדקה שנאמר ציון במשפט תפדה ושביה בצדקה אמר רב פפא אי בטלי יהירי בטלי אמגושי אי בטלי דייני בטלי גזירפטי אי בטלי יהירי בטלי אמגושי דכתיב ואצרוף כבור סיגיך ואסירה כל בדיליך ואי בטלי דייני בטלי גזירפטי דכתיב הסיר ה' משפטיך פנה אויבך אמר רבי יוחנן אם ראית דור שמתמעט והולך חכה לו שנאמר ואת עם עני תושיע וגו' אמר רבי יוחנן אם ראיתי דור שצרות רבות באות עליו כנהר חכה לו שנאמר כי יבא כנהר צר (ורוח) [רוח] ה' נוססה בו וסמיך ליה ובא לציון גואל

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Absurd. Without a state (lower case "s") massive Aliyah would have been impossible. Ipso facto, the Satmer Rebbe was opposed to massive Aliyah."

    But he didn't think it was impossible and he wasn't opposed. You have your view of history and politics, but you can't force other people's views into your framework. You can't very well say that he was opposed to "kibutz goliyos" if what you mean is that you dont see how mass aliya would have otherwise been possible!

    "5. I don't understand what you are saying - but IIRC the Talmidei HaGra held they were the vanguard of the Geulah - so perhaps you are stating that the process began earlier than the late 1800's?"

    I'm saying that even lshitascha, there is no definite size to the settlement. Maybe if we merit it there's a smooth natural process, but if we don't there may be enormous setbacks.

    "6. Who is part of this "significant swath?" A few thousand Satmer and allied Chasidim?"

    The EC represents the yishav hayashan. What are you saying - that they are appartchiks but the hamon am of the yishuv hayashan doesn't support their line? She'ne'emar?
    The Satmer Rebbe was appointed titular head of EC more than fifty years ago - there were major talmidei chachomim part of the edah, and they didn't think of it is a betrayal of RYCS and R Bengis' views! And there are still major T"C associated with the EC, they are not nobodies.

    WRT R Bengis:

    "Reb Zelig Reuven loved Eretz Yisroel and was eager to make the Holy Land his home. In 1932, he was invited to become the rav of the Eida Chareidis in Yerushalayim after the passing of Reb Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld. But he turned down the offer because he was afraid the position would lead to conflict with Reb Avraham Yitzchak Kook, another talmid of the Netziv.
    In 1937, Reb Zelig Reuven was asked to fill the position of av beis din of Yerushalayim's Eida Chareidis. Rav Kook had since passed away, so Reb Zelig Reuven accepted the position at once, leaving Europe shortly before the outbreak of World War II."

    I see nothing here that supports your assessment that the EC has changed course. The EC is full of people who don't step outside the gevulos E"Y and some even not yerushalayim despite not being willing to concede to your pov. They surely love E"Y.

    7. I don't know what point you are trying to make with what seem to be once again irrelevant quotes. Rashi brings the midrash that understands this as churban bayis - so what are you trying to prove? I know that you can read the posuk as applying to achris hayamim, but there's nothing clear about it - and that's not really the point I was trying to make. The point is that the idea that "pleitas yisrael, nishar, nosar" means that an overwhelming majority will survive is very lav davka, because it precludes anything on the scale of a churban, and some read the posuk to refer to after the churban bayis rishon. Even without that, pshuto shel mikra is referring to remnants - your reading is that it doesn't say a number, therefore remnants are an "overwhelming majority" is just not pshuto shel mikra. (The question is what they are left *from* - whether events like the Holocaust and destruction of Eastern European Jewry or potentially something else that has yet to happen.)
    There are many statements that imply catastrophic events before the geula is completed. You even quoted some of them


    ' אמר רבי יוחנן אם ראיתי דור שצרות רבות באות עליו כנהר חכה לו שנאמר כי יבא כנהר צר (ורוח) [רוח] ה' נוססה בו וסמיך ליה ובא
    לציון גואל

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1. You cannot claim to advocate something if you advocate only in a totally unrealistic way.

    2. So what was R' Eliyahu Gutmacher saying?

    5. You captured my understanding accurately.

    My point is that RZRB was friendly with RAYHK (As he was with RTPF). Hardly the thing you would expect or get from the Satmer Rebbe.

    6. Tzoros are not annihilation. R' Yochanan interprets the pasuk in Yeshaya on the Zman HaGeula - what more do we need? The Ketz Meguleh in Sanhedrin - does say afterwards it will be reversed?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "1. You cannot claim to advocate something if you advocate only in a totally unrealistic way."

    You may think it's unrealistic, but that is opinion. If I'm in favor of a draft, and you think the draft is unrealistic, do I become not in favor of the draft?

    "2. So what was R' Eliyahu Gutmacher saying?"

    He says that it will happen b'derech hateva.

    First, we have no guarantee that there can't be something that looks like a return to the land that will be overturned - we only have a guarantee of no third churban. This could be misidentified. I don't see how you can accuse someone who thinks that the Satmer Rebbe may turn out to be correct in his understanding of history to lack bitachon; this is a machlokes between gedolei yisrael and there's no clear resolution.

    Second, even if you think that the above is untrue and there can be no retreat from the kibutz goliyos, we may be granted a smooth process if we merit it and one with major setbacks if we don't. What is difficult about this? Have there been no setbacks to date -as I pointed out before, some said that it's not possible that we will return land, because that would be an undue setback, and obviously they were wrong. Who's to say your definition of what can go wrong is the only one? What is there that says Gush Katif and gulf war can happen but a nuclear war cannot? There are many possible outcomes to a potential nuclear attack if it R"L happens - not all of them would have equal result.

    "5. You captured my understanding accurately."

    I've captured your understanding accurately that the hamon am doesn't support the "apparatchik's" opinions? Where do you get this from?

    "My point is that RZRB was friendly with RAYHK (As he was with RTPF). Hardly the thing you would expect or get from the Satmer Rebbe."

    and largely a personality issue. It tells you little about personal ideology; it tells you about Hungarian scorched earth extremism in implementing their ideology and personality. Litvishe tended not to treat each other that way. Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, for example, wanted to attend R Reines' levaya; that doesn't mean his ideology was not every bit as antiZionist as others who would not have thought to attend. The Munkatcher, who was very antiZionist, was a yedid nefesh of the Sreidei Eysh, and was very inconsistent in who he was personally friendly with vs who he railed against on a personal level. These are personality issues.

    ":6. Tzoros are not annihilation. R' Yochanan interprets the pasuk in Yeshaya on the Zman HaGeula - what more do we need?"

    But others interpret that very same posuk on the churban - which implies that tzaros can mean very drastic events short of annihilation! We weren't annihilated in WWII either. If something short of annihilation happens, then nothing very bad happens? (Why do you think nuclear war = annihilation by definition - was Japan annihilated?)

    Do you think what we have today are, historically speaking, tzaros? Our generation has hardly not been distinguished by its tzaros. Surely I do not need to make a list of tzaros that have befallen our people for the past two thousand years to demonstrate that there's practically no generation mizman habayis that has lived under such beneficent conditions l'maase, even with the situation in Israel.

    "The Ketz Meguleh in Sanhedrin - does say afterwards it will be reversed?"

    Who says it's taken place - even your most positive sources have not said we are seeing the "ketz megule" they talk about the beginning of the process of redemption.

    Look - your anaylsis is based on a particular view of history. Someone who takes a different view is not "lacking bitachon"; they are either accepting a different view of historical events than the one on which your analysis is based or agnostic about which view will turn out correct in reality. Agnosticism is an eminently reasonable position to take about matters on which gedolei yisrael took such different positions. Im ba'aarazim nafla shaleheves etc.

    Second, you are confident that because some see kibutz goliyos this is not just a possiblity for the way the final ketz can happen, but something definite. Others are more tentative, thinking this *could* be the kibutz goliyos if we merit it, but perhaps God has other ways to bring the ketz b'ita, and this beginning is not a definite start but a potential start.

    Even if this is the kibutz goliyos and it can't be reversed, there is no reason to consider there is a guarantee that no major troubles will befall us in E"Y. There are countless references to apocolyptic events at the end of days.

    I am not trying to say that your view is wrong in principle - only that you can't assert it with the certainty you do and together with talk about failures of bitachon. We can talk about faith and trust without talking about absolute certainties that we don't possess. If the tone of your post had been different, we wouldn't be having this debate. I too am reluctant to entertain the possiblity that God would allow a nuclear war in Israel at this point in history. But we must admit ki govhu shamayim mearetz etc

    ReplyDelete
  27. 1. His attitude towards KG is not directly relevant here. Nevertheless, this is not a matter of opinion but of fact, and he was incorrect as to the facts.

    2. Gush Katif was not a setback. There have been no setbacks (with the exception of human error).

    5. There is no hamon am associated with the EC.

    As to friendships: It is hard to believe that if RZRB had the same opinion of RAYHK as the SR that he would have kept up the friendship...

    6. This is an argument I have had with another colleague of mine: I believe that we can, should and are obligated to discern Hashem's will from history; he believes that we cannot, should not and are obligated not to attempt to do so. If my view is incorrect, then the RBSO is playing games with us. This is unacceptable to me theologically.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "1. His attitude towards KG is not directly relevant here. Nevertheless, this is not a matter of opinion but of fact, and he was incorrect as to the facts."

    Of course it's not a "fact"; it's a subjective judgement. The British could have allowed mass aliya without a Balfour Declaration. Mass immigration took place before the Jewish state, only with the Balfour Declaration and to what extent it was necessary is opinion.

    "2. Gush Katif was not a setback. There have been no setbacks (with the exception of human error)."

    You say that Gush Katif was not a setback; others disagreed because they said that it couldn't happen since a return of land would be a reversal of the redemptive process. Gulf War I was not a setback. You've just linked to an article that claims the Lebanon war was also not a setback.

    "5. There is no hamon am associated with the EC."

    sure there is! The yishuv hayashon is lock step with the EC, and they are a very significant and influential sector of Israeli Orthodoxy.

    "As to friendships: It is hard to believe that if RZRB had the same opinion of RAYHK as the SR that he would have kept up the friendship..."

    There were other people who refused to break with Rav Kook who were closer to SR than R Kook. I know people today who are thoroughly antiZionist who will not hear a bad word about R Kook. Some people thought he was a rasha; others thought he was wildly misguided, but otherwise a big tzadik and etc.

    "6. This is an argument I have had with another colleague of mine: I believe that we can, should and are obligated to discern Hashem's will from history; he believes that we cannot, should not and are obligated not to attempt to do so. If my view is incorrect, then the RBSO is playing games with us. This is unacceptable to me theologically."

    This is not an argument about whether we can discern hashem's will from history, but about whether we can discern in the level of specificity and certainty you claim to discern it, and not only retrospectively understand the past but also make very fine predictions in advance, and secondarily, whether we can condemn others who derive different lessons. If your view is incorrect, God is not playing games with us, but you are playing games with yourself - who told you that once kibutz goliyos started there could be no tragedy or setbacks in E"Y. It's not in the sources. You rest your case on a posuk that chazal interpret to mean remnants of am yisrael left after the churban, but b/c chazal also say that it refers to yemos hamashiach, you decide that "remnants" in yemos hamashiach means no overwhelming majority of people can be affected negatively. This is not in the posuk - it's your imposition against pshuto shel mikra, and ignoring descriptions of tzoros in the final days of geula. If you choose both to read history and decide we are at exactly point X in the process of redemption, and place on top of that absolute insistence on your own reading of psukim and chazals that are contrary to many explicit statements, that is not God playing games!

    This post sounds to me exactly like all those people who were saying gog u'magog was the first gulf war and also brought raayos from psukim.

    History has taught us that these precise predictions lead to emuna issues when someone's statement about what it would be theologically unacceptable for God to do was not attended to by God himself.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1. The British could have or could have not allowed Aliyah with or without the BD. The fact is that they did not.

    2. Even if they were "setbacks" they are not setbacks that indicate that the process is being reversed.

    3. The EC does not equal the YhY (who are not too many in any event).

    3. I am not making "precise" predictions. The "Doomsday" essay predicted a nuclear *Holocaust*. My assertion, that is sustained by Chazal and history, is that this cannot and will not occur. It is not predicted by the Nevi'im, and is not in line with the actual Nevuos of Gog u'Magog.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 1. He was still not against mass aliya. This is semantics, except that the problem is the same as the problem in this thread generally. If he thought something was realistic, and you think it's not, that doesn't mean that his (to your mind) unrealistic approach equates to being against the outcome you think is not feasible and he thinks is. Similarly, you think that a particular reading of history and reading of future developments is the only possible reading. This doesn't imply that those who read otherwise and come to different conclusions lack emuna, even if it's true that if they subscribed to your framework of historical understanding and reached the same conclusions they would lack emuna. One cannot take people's conclusions out of context, force them into another framework and reinterpret by the lights of the other framework.

    2. The process is being reversed is interpretation. Again, first, we are promised no third churban, but the idea that htis kibutz goliyos is *the* kibutz that leads to the geula is assumption. It could be a natural process that if we merit leads to geula, and otherwise another natural process may be set in motion later.

    but even if you think that's unlikely or out of the question - we still do not know that a nuclear war would be "Reversal." Perhaps if we merited, we would see a more peaceful process, but nuclear war could look like tragedy to us but be part of the redemptive process. Maybe not enough Jews left gola, and a war would force the nations to recognize and oppose Islamic antisemitism and lead to even more Jews making aliya. Maybe it would lead to much teshuva. Maybe it would lead to a new more torah-oriented government. We cannot know what the result is; to human eyes, it might look entirely catastrophic, but may contain positive seeds and be in its way a furthering of the divine plan.

    "3. The EC does not equal the YhY (who are not too many in any event)."

    The YHY is a large and influential sector of the haredi world, and contains many talmidei chachomim now and in the past. It and the EC cant be dismissed.

    "3. I am not making "precise" predictions. The "Doomsday" essay predicted a nuclear *Holocaust*. My assertion, that is sustained by Chazal and history, is that this cannot and will not occur. It is not predicted by the Nevi'im, and is not in line with the actual Nevuos of Gog u'Magog."

    You wrote this above:

    " It does not specify that only a small amount will be saved in Tziyon and Yerushalayim. Thus, we must assume that with the exception of yechidim, it means just about everybody. I would say something like the first Gulf War and the Hezbollah War."

    You said here that the overwhelming majority would be spared. Now you seem to say that anything short of holocaust is possible.

    Throughout this discussion, you seem to be assuming that holocaust means the end of the settlement in E"Y period. There are many potential outcomes for such a war. Some of these potential real world outcomes could involve massive loss of life but fall short of "Annihilation." They could even fall short of "Holocaust."

    As I pointed out at the start, your comments that we must pray that the yeshua doesn't come mimokom acher and that we be spared v'at uveis avich toveidi seem to leave a lot of wriggle room - so much that it seems to repudiate your post.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "He was still not against mass aliya."

    Wasn't he against mass aliya, not the state necessarily? His main proof was לא יעלו בחומה. If one looks at his teachings it seems that he uses this idea against not only the state, but even to mass aliya in general.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I remember him being OK if the country allowed it. I.e. if the mandatory government lets lots of Jews in, that's just as good as the US letting lots of Jews in. I think he only has a problem when the state gives permission, b/c the State is Jewish and therefore in his view illegitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 1. I did not say they lack emunah. I did say they lack bitachon. Not the same thing, although you seem to be conflating them.

    Me'ma nafshach: If one is a Chosid: "Tracht gut, vet zeih gut." And if one is a Misnaged, then a la CI, everything is l'tovas Am Yisroel. As The Marvelous Middos Machine says: "Be b'smicha anyway..."

    2. Perhaps. In which case we should take the perspective: "NH are good for us. Hooray!"

    3. I don't know what you are talking about. The YHY is tiny.

    4. I concede. I have no good evidence that it is davka a rov. It is evidently only Yerushalayim and whatever is assumed to be Tziyon that is guaranteed. My assumption is that NH being what they are, for all of Y-m to be saved, basically there can be no NH. To that I added the "Ketz Meguleh" Gemara, the "Ayeles HaShachar" Yerushalmi, the Nevuah in Yechezkel 38 about Gog and Magog, the Yalkut that Am Yisroel is reassured by Hashem when the King of Persia goes beserk - and to that I would add "Perazos teishev Y-m," and - voila!

    ReplyDelete
  34. 1 and 2. Sound like a reversal. We should take that perspective in part as we always should, but just because things are good in an ultimate sense does not preclude experiencing misery, and all sorts of horrors. In chelek several amoraim say yaisi vlo achminei - if it's a popular sentiment among amaroim, I dont aspire to more tzidkus than that. Also, one can see something for our ultimate good that if one merited, would have happened in more benign fashion, and that includes onesh. Though we must think everything is ultimately for the good, I don't think anyone felt obliged to say "Hooray holocaust" in the 40s, that would be a very simplistic reduction of the philosophy. I don't think we need to assume even the rbs"o says "hooray" btzarasam lo tzar.

    3. I don't have statistics so I can't argue this. I believe the EC dominates the YHY (though you are right that it's not entirely equivalent to it) and the EC/YHY have significant impact on haredi culture and life, and by extension, all orthodox life.

    4. I don't think that is guaranteed; there was a nuclear attack on Japan and even hiroshima and nagasaki are standing! A remnant in yerushalayim - I don't see where there's a havtacha there's no attack in yerushalyaim. But even if there's not, E"Y is bigger than yerushalayim, and of course there R"L could be an attack elsewhere with fallout in yerushalayim. I don't really enjoy spelling out these scenarios, but clearly they are feasible. I don't think any of those sources prove anything, from the ketz megule gemara on, and in particular I'd point out that the yalkut on the king of persia is a late midrash that ought not to be relied upon, it is hardly a gemara. The rest are too general for any firm conclusion to be drawn. I don't begrudge you the optimism, don't get me wrong, but there's a space between optimism and trust and the position you originally took in this post.

    Kol tuv.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 1&2. I'm going to concede. You are correct. Ultimately, this kind of Bitachon is a chush, a faith-based perspective. While it is true that I believe my grounding in sources in unimpeachable, and I think your alternative perspective is incorrect, I cannot muster a sufficiently irrefutable and conclusive proof. Otherwise, of course, the Satmer Rebbe would have had to concede to me as well. :-)

    3. To the extent a Kashrus organization can dominate life, the EC dominates life in YHY.

    4. See #1.

    KT

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'll settle for 3 out of 4. :-)

    Kol tuv (and let us pray your view of history is right)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hille and Shamai hug and move onto the next machlokes.

    ReplyDelete