העורך Editor

בהנאה!

Gemara Moed Katan 18b:

כי הא דרבא שמעיה לההוא גברא דבעי רחמי ואמר תזדמן לי פלניתא אמר ליה לא תיבעי רחמי הכי אי חזיא לך לא אזלא מינך ואי לא כפרת בה’ בתר הכי שמעיה דקאמר או איהו לימות מקמה או איהי תמות מקמיה אמר ליה לאו אמינא לך לא תיבעי עלה דמילתא הכי אמר רב משום רבי ראובן בן אצטרובילי מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים מה’ אשה לאיש מן התורה דכתיב ויען לבן ובתואל ויאמרו מה’ יצא הדבר מן הנביאים דכתיב ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה’ היא מן הכתובים דכתיב בית והון נחלת אבות ומה’ אשה משכלת.

Rabbi Yitzchak Ze’ev Soloveitchik is known to have derived from this Gemara (else, what’s the special chiddush?) that one need not make any efforts whatsoever in finding a wife (except to calm one’s nerves; presumably permissible hishtadlus for health). Just pray. (Uvdos Vehanhagos Lebeis Brisk?)

But this contradicts clear halacha regarding the efforts required by the parents to marry off their children! (One could also mention “שדה פלונית לפלוני” where effort is surely proper, but see this.)

קונטרס שוקיו עמודי שש

ובו יתבאר בעזה”י להלכה דין שוק באשה ערוה, מקום השוק, ואופן הכיסוי הראוי לשוק, על פי דברי הגמרא והפוסקים ראשונים ואחרונים

View or Download the PDF / פתח או הורד את הקובץ

Reprinted with permission.

Why the Mizrachi/Mafdal/Bayit Yehudi/ Religious Zionists never got anywhere politically.

Excerpt from a recent brilliant article by Moshe Feiglin:

Both Religious Zionism and Haredism are a reaction to Zionism.  An attempt to reconcile the inherent contradiction between the Torah of Israel and Zionism. After all, Zionism has “nothing to do with religion” (as the First Zionist Congress determined). Zionism had made it its goal to nationalize the Jewish people and turn it into a modern and sovereign nation, a nation that has no God but only a parliament.

In response, Haredism developed an ideology that views Zionism as a new type of non-Jewish government, sophisticated, and in a sense even more dangerous. Their conclusion was to put up walls and have separate and segregated communities. This is how Haredism was born.

In contrast to Haredism, Religious Zionism identified a spot of holiness in Zionism and tried to join arms with it. Rav Kook went so far as to formulate the necessary synergy within the framework of a very broad and complex coherent ideology.

In practice, however, Religious Zionism failed to bring the Kookian ideology to the ground level of reality and create that synthesis.  Zionism, which had nothing to do with religion, and religion (unlike the Torah), that had nothing to do with national sovereignty, remained in contradiction, and Religious Zionism is, therefore, an oxymoron.

Generations of “knitted kippah wearers” grew up within this contradiction between their Zionism and their religiosity. This created an ideological split personality: “Be religious at home and Zionist when you go outside”… Instead of settling the contradiction by developing the ideological foundations formulated by Rav Kook and assuming responsibility for leading Zionism, the knitted kippah wearers developed a naive belief that the process of redemption is deterministic. Secular Zionism is the “donkey of the Messiah” that unwittingly leads us to salvation. Since no ideology had been developed that connected the Torah of Israel to modern sovereign national existence, it was inconceivable to try to challenge Israeli reality with that kind of leadership. Issues such as the proper economic regime, the level of state involvement in the life of the citizen, liberty versus equality, etc. – were of no interest, and weren’t ironed out.

The Six-Day War and its miracles “proved” that there was no need for such leadership. The Creator took the reins, and in total contradiction to the will of the Zionist leaders – including the leaders of Religious Zionism – threw the biblical districts into their arms.  The “donkey of the Messiah” found itself stuck, against its will, with the stones of the Kotel…

It was only natural that Religious Zionism was devoid of the relevant ideology. It wouldn’t try to take national responsibility and challenge the Israeli reality with an alternative leadership at this point but instead would make do with safeguarding the existing situation so that there would be no “malfunction” in the process of redemption. That’s how the settlement enterprise began (without which, it’s doubtful if the State of Israel could have continued to exist).

The knitted kippah “split personality” was proven to be effective. It was enough to make do with the settlements, and leave the responsibility for leading the modern return to Zion to the (blind) leaders of Zionism, and rely on the God of history, who would lead them in the right direction. In the end, somehow, everyone would repent and everything would work out according to our dreams…

The Yom Kippur War exposed the loss of Zionist momentum. The frailty of Israeli existence created a deep crisis and once more raised questions of substance. What’s the mission that makes it worth living here under constant existential danger?

Zionist writers and poets (Moshe Shamir, Ephraim Kishon, Naomi Shemer) identified the religious enthusiasm of the new settler generation and saw Sebastia as the continuation of the success of Degania. For them, it was natural that along with the enthusiastic Zionist activity, the responsibility for filling the ranks of national leadership that had lost its vision would also come. Just as graduates of kibbutzim had taken over most national leadership positions at the time, it was only natural that along with the Zionist enthusiasm for settling the liberated parts of the country, the responsibility and aspiration to lead the country would come as well.

When this didn’t happen, when the settlers ran to the hills but left the responsibility for the results and daily existence to the old leadership (which would clean up after them…), the expectation turned into disappointment. The settlers became a nuisance, and to the left, even the object of hatred.

When the “donkey of the Messiah” refused to march in line with the “process of redemption”, the settlers became disgruntled. The image of the angry settler with the Uzi and the winter coat became a stereotype. The processes fed on each other and the polarization deepened.

The Oslo accords brought by the left, and the disengagement brought by the right, threw Religious Zionism’s irrelevance in its face.  It hadn’t succeeded in ensuring, through settlement alone, the deterministic existence of the process of redemption. The grip on the lands of the Bible had become fragile and bulldozers destroying neighborhoods and whole communities have become a daily reality.

Continue reading on Zehut International…

Hyehudi.org has posted several treatises against state-rabbinic “religious” institutions, and their so-called halachic rulings, in matters of Choshen Mishpat and Even Ha’ezer, especially coerced Gittin. Find them here.

Rabbi Mazuz has seen (at least) “Gitei Hakazav” (abridged here), and “Dayanei Hakazav“, and he doesn’t like what he sees.

Bayit Ne’eman, 162#, Bechukosai 5779 p. 4, footnote 28:

היום אנשים כותבים חוברות אנונימיים בלי שם, ”גיטי הכזב“ ”דייני הכזב“, ושם יורדים על הדיינים של ארץ ישראל. אני מכיר לפחות חלק מהם, ויודע שהם צדיקים וישרים ושומרים קלה כבחמורה ועושים תענית כל ערב ראש חודש, ולפי דעת בעלי החוברות האלה הם פושעים ארורים ומוכתבים מהבג“ץ וכדו‘, אבל זה לא נכון. וגם אם יש לכם השגות תכתבו בכבוד, לא כותבים בצורה כזאת. והבעיה שבעלי החוברות האלה לא חותמים את שמותיהם, אבל אם אתם אומרים דברי אמת ברורים תחתמו את זה, מה יעשו לכם?! כאן יש ”דמוקרטיה“ וכותבים מה שרוצים, אנשים צוחקים על ראש הממשלה ועל נשיא המדינה וכדו‘, אז תכתבו שהרב פלוני טעה, מה יש בזה?! אלא שהם יודעים שיש תשובות על דבריהם, ולכן הם יורדים ומתנפלים בעילום שם, כדי שיוכלו לומר: לא אמרתי, התכוונתי אחרת, זה ראשי תיבות אחרות וכדו‘. זו מדה רעה, ואסור לעשות דבר כזה (ועיין באו“ת סיון תשע“ט סי‘ קי“א).

I offer a defense of the offense:

First of all, the authors are hardly anonymous. 5 minutes on Google will tell you who wrote them (Hint: “Bechadrei” forums). A careful reading between the lines confirms this. And I suspect perusing Hyehudi will tell you who vastly helped edit these works (don’t worry, it’s not me!).

As to whether anonymity is justified in this case, well COME ON! Does anyone think the authors won’t be prosecuted if caught (if only on “unrelated” charges)?! There is a “benevolent” anti-Torah pseudo-law against those insulting “public servants”, which includes the kept-rabbis under discussion. So, there is a vast difference between empty name-calling which just rolls off pols and pertinent criticisms which would undermine the faux-legitimacy of these רבנים-מטעם.

This is no inactive Dead Letter legislation, either. Does the name Elitzur Segal (prosecuted for writing this) ring a bell? Ever heard of the prosecution of the publishers (and some contributors) to “Baruch Hagever“? And so on. “The midday sun requires no testimony.”

I note even Rabbi Mazuz’s transcribers placed the word “democracy” in parentheses, as well they should (this is true of democratic government in all times and places, by the way). There is no prohibition of מכה רעהו בסתר in the case of a גברא אלימא, etc.!

Rabbi Mazuz says גם אם יש לכם השגות תכתבו בכבוד. Is this an admission the rabbi has absolutely no pertinent answer to the halachic arguments? (Or must we wait patiently for או“ת סיון תשע“ט סי‘ קי“א?)

Please note: One of the rabbis behind Gitei Hakazav, Mishpetei Yisrael, etc. intends to write his own rebuttal for Hyehudi once he gets to study the aforementioned Sivan issue of the Ohr Torah journal.