Answers to common questions confirming that our ideology is true Judaism

The following document, written by Rabbinical Scholar, Rabbi Dovid Steinberg of Mexico, may be of interest to other Rabbinical Scholars; however, we offer his treatise for your information and review.

Introduction:

Some people ask us all the time if our ideology on what Zionism is and how we should see the Jewish people's role in Middle East is correct or not.

We compiled some sources to show to the beginner, as well as to the expert, that our ideology explained in our websites is based on true Judaism. Some people will be unable to understand the questions/answers of this section, but it is nevertheless a good reference to show a Rabbi or a religious Jew that disputes the content in a scholarly level.

Some of the more frequently asked questions on this subject are:

1) Rav Teitelbaum's claim rests on the fact that there was a "choma," that the nations of the world prohibited the Jews from settling in the land of Israel. The Avnei Nezer writes that this oath does not apply when the nations give Yisrael permission to return. Following the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference, in which the nations of the world determined that the Jewish people have a right to settle the land of Israel, the oaths do not apply. The Midrash hints to this idea, that if Bnei Yisrael have permission to enter the land they do not violate the oaths.

Our answer:

Rab Yoel Teitelbaum, of blessed memory, wrote in his book "Vayoiel Moishe", already in 1958, section 1 paragraph 16, the before mentioned claim of the Avnei Nezer [Responsa Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 456] about this claim, and was well aware of it.

Rabbi Teitelbaum explains there that the expression "Choma", wall, used in the Talmud [Ketubos 111a] to forbid Jewish massive immigration and settlement in the Holy Land, refers even if the nations give permission to the Jews to settle in the Holy Land and to emigrate. He goes on explaining that the Avnei Nezer constructed all his explanation on the explanation of the talmudic comentator "Rashi" on the Talmud [Rashi to Ketubos 111a] that writes that the prohibition applies only if the Jews emigrate with a "strong hand", meaning, according to the Avnei Nezer, with war and without permission. But there Rabbi Teitelbaum explains that Rashi used the expression "strong hand" to mean also all kinds of efforts, and he brings proof from Rashi himself that explained in his commentary of the Torah [Exodus 6:1] that "strong hand" refers to the efforts that Pharaoh used to drive the Jews out of Egypt and certainly that was not through a war, but with efforts, as described in Exodus [Exodus 12:30-33]. We also find that a leading commentators of Rashi, Siftei Chachomim and Gur Aryeh [Siftei Chachomim and Gur Aryeh on Numbers 20:20] understand that Rashi uses the language "strong hand" to mean "massively" and not "without permission".

The Rabbi also writes [Vayoeil Moishe section 1 paragraph 86] that what the Zionists say that it was with the permission of the majority of the nations (since some nations voted in the U.N. against the resolution of founding the Zionist state) is also not true, since the agreement was not respected as proposed by the nations of the world (to make a Zionist and Palestinian state, not to take Jerusalem, etc...) and they had to fight with the nation that is there also in many wars to establish the state.

Also, even the Avnei Nezer will agree that Rashi himself said that it is forbidden to pray too much for the redemption and by this a person violates the strong oaths that Zionism goes in direct contradiction to [see Rashi to Ketubot 111a], so all the more so is forbidden to actively do any effort to emigrate en masse, even if he does hold that if permission is given it is permitted to emigrate, which actually never happened and they fought against many nations and actual wars also to establish their state, and from this the Avnei Nezer [Responsa Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 456] never spoke, it is clear that in a situation like this he would agreed that is completely forbidden. And the Avnei Nezer also agrees that the oaths are a major practical issue [Responsa Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 454] that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Also, should be noted that the Avnei Nezer was talking in his Responsa about a small group of people that wished to establish there for pure religious purposes, and he died many years before the establishment of the stte and in many of his works spoke vociferously against the Zionists establishing in the Holy Land [Like in Responsa Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 126]. Also, he never spoke of actively establishing a state.

As far as the claim: "The Midrash hints to this idea, that if Bnei Yisrael have permission to enter the land they do not violate the oaths".

Even if we don't have the source to which page or paragraph is the person referring to, we know there's another paragraph in the Midrash [Midrash Rabba Shir HaShirim 2:7] that indicates the opposite. The leading commentators, such as Yefe Toiar [on the Midrash Rabba Shir HaShirim 2:7], explain that from the Midrash [Midrash Rabba Shir HaShirim 2:7] seems to be that even without rebellion and with permission from the nations, massive emigration and establishing a state is strictly forbidden, until the Messianic era comes, when all humanity will live in brotherhood and peace, serving the One and Only G-D. Almost all the Midrash is full with the idea that no redemption whatsoever will be possible until the coming of the Messiah and we don't know to be any dispute in the Midrash about this point.

2) Another answer is that once there is a sign from Hashem to return to the land, the oaths no longer apply. In addition to the permission given by the nations, the national reawakening and birth of modern Zionism can be viewed as a sign from Hashem that it is permissible to return to the land.

The oaths were not an "issur" (absolute prohibition), but rather national tendencies that Hashem instilled within Klal Yisrael which would cause them to remain unmotivated to return to their land. Also, throughout most of the exile, it was very difficult physically for Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael. Once a wide scale movement with an objective to return to Eretz Yisrael began, and it was physically possible to begin Aliya to Eretz Yisrael, it became clear that the oath was no longer in effect.

Our answer:

As an introduction, we may say that among the commentators and leading Rabbis and Jewish leaders there are mainly two signs that Messiah is coming for sure, and that therefore the oaths don't apply any longer:

1) When all the Jewish people repent [Ramba"m Halachot Teshuva 7:5; Ramba"m Halachot Melachim 11:4; Ramba"m, Sefer HaMitzvois Shoresh 14 at the end].

This is clearly stated in the Torah [Deutoronomy 30:1-2]: "And when all these things will come upon you... and you will return to G-D your G-D and you will hear His voice...". And immediately after it is written about the future redemption [Deutoronomy 30:3-6]: "And G-D your G-D will return your captivity and will have mercy on you and wiill return and gather you from all the peoples that G-D your G-D pushed you to them...".

This point is widely and extensively discussed in Vayoeil Moishe [Vayoeil Moishe part 1 paragraph 40-43].

Vayoeil Moishe even proves that this sign of the coming of Messiah is so evident and undisputable among the commentators, that a person that does not believe that the Jews will not repent from all their sins either before Messiah or immediately after his coming [there's a dispute if the Jews will return to full observance of Judaism before or immediately after the Messiah comes; see Vayoiel Moishe part 1 paragraphs 40-43 for full details of such dispute] denies the basic tenets of his faith.

2) When the prophet Elijah will come to announce the redemption: This concept is written in the Midrash [Targum Yehonoson 6:18] and the Mahara"l [Haggadah of Pesach], leading Rabbi and authority accepted worldwide, says that it is a must for Elijah the prophet to come to announce the coming of Messiah, and we find no dispute among the commentators except by the Ramba"m that doubts if it will be so [Mishne Torah Melochim 12:2]. But even according to him, and the later authorities that follow him, Elijah must come shortly after.

However it is, though, any commentator ever said that the sign of the coming of Messiah was determined by "national tendencies" or "by what people do".

Really, we find through history that when the Jewish masses wanted to emigrate to the Holy Land, led by a false Messiah, the Sages of every generation said it was a violation of the oaths. Thus, we find, for example, that in the time of the Mishna (more than 1900 years ago) Rabbi Akiva, the leading Sage of the generation, was confused by the false Messiah, Bar Kochba, and even if there was a national awakening and for sure had many supporters and the Jewish masses wished to emigrate to the Holy Land (that many of them were living there at the time and the dispersion of Jews was not so extreme like today and a massive emigration and settlement was possible), yet the Midrash [Midrash Rabba Shir HaShirim 2:7] tells us that they violated the oaths.

Also, we find that there was a tremendous national awakening in the times of the Ramba"m and yet he said the people of his generation, in his famous responsa [Iggeres Teiman], that they were violating the oaths.

And the same thing with Shabetai Tzvi, the 17th century false Messiah that led the masses to the Holy Land and was a national awakening to penance and to the redemption and we find that the Sages of that generation, like Rabbi Yaacoib Saasport, of blessed memory, wrote [Tzitzis Novel Tzvi] that the people of their generation were transgressing the oaths.

More than everything else, in our generation, because of our many sins, the cursed Zionist movement was a denial of the Divine mission of the Jewish People and its role in history, in a most radical way like never before in history by any group. The national support by the masses was caused not by a sincere awakening to holiness, but by a wave of ignorance, caused by the destruction of spiritual centers in World War 2, confusion and heresy, stimulated by the German "Enlightenment" and reformism, that demoralized the masses of Jews.

It is not even false messianism in the sense of the times of Rabbi Akiva, the Ramba"m or Rabbi Sassport. It was a rebellion against the very foundations of the Jewish religion and belief.

And what people claim that was also supported by some Rabbis, then it is not better than false messianism; but the truth is that even that is false, since no Holiness was mixed at all by its founders. The Rabbis that joined the Zionist movement did so without any solid base in Jewish tradition and history.

3) Rav Teichtal, in his work, "Em Habanim Smeicha," offers another explanation. Although the Jews were sworn not to enter Eretz Yisrael forcefully, the nations of the world were also sworn not to persecute the Jews too much. Over the course of the exile, the Jews were severely persecuted by the gentiles. Because the gentiles violated their oath, the Jews were no longer bound by their oath.

Our answer:

To answer this very frequent question, we have to understand better what is and what does the Talmud [Kesubos 111a] talks about when referring to the oaths of the nations.

Rabbi Betzalel HaCohen [Shitah Mekubetzes to Ketubos 111a], explains that this oath refers to the prohibition that the nations cannot bring the redemption faster. This can be accomplished by their persecuting too much the Jews, therefore bringing Divine Mercy upon the Jewish people, causing G-D to bring them the redemption not in its proper time.

So, we find that not because the nations violated their oaths, Jews can do the same and establishing a State before its time, that would be a violation of the oaths and bringing the redemption sooner. Also, we find no reference that the Jewish People can do whatever they like because the nations violated their oaths.

And not only that.

We find that the Mahara"l of Prague [Netzach Yisroeil chapter 24] and Rabbi Avraham Galante [in his book Zechus Avois] bring that "even if the nations would violate their oaths and oppress tremendously the Jewish people, G-D forbid, and kill them like deers of the field and torturing them with suffering harder than death, they would nevertheless be forbidden to violate their oaths".

Furthermore, it is self-understood in the Talmud [Kesubos 111a] that when the oaths are being discussed, it is in a time when the nations already violated their oaths in the destruction of the Temple, as related in the Talmud [Gittin 57], yet Rabbi Zera, that lived many years after the destruction, was afraid that Rab Yehuda would decree on him not to go to live to the Holy Land (even for purely spiritual reasons), based on his opinion that the oaths apply even to a single person emigrating for spiritual purposes to the Holy Land. Thus, we see that the Talmud rejects this at the outset.

However, this concept is applied somewhere in Judaism, by the Gaon (genious) Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, of blessed memory. Rabbi Kluger, in his work [Maasei Yedei Yoitzer], concludes by scriptural exegesis that specifically the oath of not praying too much applies only if the nations don't violate their oaths also. If they do, Jews are allowed to violate this oath and to pray fervently to G-D to bring the Messianic time, when G-D will redeem the Jewish people from the cruel exilic yoke and will bring peace and bounty for the whole mankind. However, he greatly warns in the same paragraph not to transgress any other oath, as it can result in a tremendous disgrace, even if the nations do violate their oath by oppressing too much the Jewish people.

Most authorities disagree with Rabbi Kluger, but many authorities, including Vayoiel Moishe [Vayoiel Moishe part 1 paragraph 79] agree with him.

4) The Gemara in Sanhedrin (98a) says that when Eretz Yisrael gives forth fruit abundantly, it is a sure sign that the redemption is coming. Eretz Yisrael, in the time of the Zionist movement, began blooming and giving forth fruits unlike any previous time since the destruction of the land. This sign of redemption showed that the oath was no longer in effect.

Our answer:

Vayoiel Moishe [Vayoiel Moishe section 1 paragraphs 66-67] answers that:

1) The commentators of the Talmud like the Maharsha [Maharsh"a on Sanhedrin 98a] explain that the Talmud means that the blessing of the fruits will return to be like it used to be in biblical times, something like we cannot imagine today. For example, it is said that the fruit was very big and a small portion of land produced a lot of produce [Talmud Kesubos 112a]. And many such wonderful agricultural things that the Holy Land produced in biblical times. Today, we don't see such a proportion of growth in the fruit even by mistake.

2) Another explanation [Maharsh"a on Sanhedrin 98a], is that the Land will produce fruit and vegetables in a supernatural way, not known to us today, even to people in biblical times.

Miraculous growth includes fruit by trees that don't give any kind of fruit today [Talmud Kesubos 111b] and trees giving fruit every day [Talmud Shabbos 30a]. Because of the miraculous nature of this, it is a sign of redemption, since we all know that all the redemption will be in a miraculous way.

3) The Ramba"m [end of Mishne Torah] understands this talmudic passage as a blessing that delicacies will be found in the world like dust. This is also for sure something we don't see anywhere.

More than all this, it should be said that in Talmudic times, many years after the Temple's destruction, the Sages already witnessed incredible agricultural things in the Holy Land [Talmud Kesubos 111b-112a] and nobody took this to mean that the redemption was close. Then, it is clear that what is meant is an incredible supernatural agricultural growth.

Above all, what the Zionists say, that cultivating Eretz Yisroeil that is a wilderness, is an open miracle and a pre-Messianic or Messianic sign, is completely false and its rebuttal is written on the Torah itself. The Torah describes Eretz Yisroeil, the Holy Land, as a "good land" [Deutoronomy 8:7], a "land of wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranate, a Land of olive oil and [date] honey" [Deutoronomy 8:8], as its worst area better than the most fertile soil in Egypt seven times [Deutoronomy 11:10 with Rash"i]. >From all this, it is apparent that if the Zionists had failed to cultivate the soil, it would be an open miracle against them!

And also, all the deserts and wilderness that are in Eretz Yisroeil are still there, and only are cultivated the good places. It can be possible also that the Zionists, with their advanced machines and agricultural science made some deserts and wilderness into fertile soil, but it is not at all a miracle.

5) The author of the "Hafla'ah" maintains that the oaths only apply to those who are in the exile of Bavel, and not in other lands.

Our answer:

Vayoiel Moishe deals with the words of the HaFla'ha in the very first page of the book, and spends 9 paragraphs discussing its holy words.

But the whole argument used above never was. It is all a dream.

The Hafla'ah is a book that discusses Talmudic portions and explains them. On this paragraph of the Talmud, on Kesubos 111a, the Hafla'ah makes a brilliant question: "There's an argument in the Talmud if the oaths apply to a single person emigrating for spiritual reasons, so why does our Mishna, according to that opinion, says that a man may force his wife to live in the Holy Land. How does that opinion of Rab Yehuda explain that Mishna? (note that the Hafla'ah considers the oaths to be a practical issue, not just a non-practical issue). After trying to answer, to Hafla'ah comes up with a solution that the opinion of Rab Yehuda that even a single person violates the oaths, as opposed to Rab Zera, that holds that the oaths are only transgressed when a large number of people travel and stay to live in the Holy Land in the times of exile, applies only in Bavel (Babilonia; what today is known as Iraq), and that if the person lives in Iraq he is forbidden to emigrate to the Holy Land, even as a single person for spiritual reasons.

But HaFla'ah never touches the subject of mass emigration or building a state, that is accepted even by the opinion that disagrees with Rab Yehuda and there's no argument at all in the Talmud.

VM [Vayoiel Moishe paragraph 9] rejects the words of the HaFla'ah that Rab Yehuda holds it is forbidden to travel as a single person from Bavel, and that according to Rab Yehuda does not apply just to Bavel but to the whole world.

But Vayoiel Moishe, paragraph 9 holds like Rab Zera, that only massive emigration and building a state is forbidden.

6) Rabbi Chayim Vital, of blessed memory, explains that the oaths applied only for 1000 years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, no more (we now, in the year 2003, live more than 1930 years after the destruction. When the Zionist State was founded, to our deepest grief, in the year 1948, were already more than 1875 after the destruction).

Our answer:

In Vayoiel Moishe [Vayoiel Moishe part 1, paragraph 70-74] it is all explained and this argument is brought and analyzed.

First of all, let's explain that the words of Rabbi Chayim Vital of blessed memory are brought from the Zohar [Zohar Vayeiroh 117] and there he says that G-D swore to exile the Jews at least for 1000 years after the destruction and that He swore that even if they repent from their sins they would nevertheless be in exile.

VM [Vayoiel Moishe part 1, paragraph 73] brings a number of authorities and commentaries that explain that if the penitence is with all the heart and for love of the Creator, it can bring the redemption even before these 1000 years are completed. But Rabbi Chayim does not speak about the obligation of the Jews to push the exile before the time of the Redemption, not even 1 day before.

7) The subject of the oaths are of a non-practical nature. It was never meant to be a practical issue, not in the Talmud and not in the commentators or in the codifiers. Furthermore, we never decide based on Agaddic portions of the Talmud, meaning non-practical Talmudic portions. The oaths are Agaddah, meaning, a non-practical portion of the Talmud.

Our answer:

First of all, let's make clear that the argument "we never mix Agaddoh (non-practical) with Halocho (practical) sections of the Talmud" is completely false and only a person that is not familiar with the Talmud and the codifiers can believe such a thing.

For example, we see that from many "stories" in the Talmud, like the one of "Elisha of the wings" [Shabbat 130a] the codifiers decided a practical ruling, that one may not give up his life if a non-Jew forces him to transgress a commandment that requires us to make an action, like Tefilin [Shulchan Oruch, Yoreh Deah 157 with Beur HaGr"a]. Also, the codifiers [Mabit Kesubos 103 and Rada"l and Einei Shmuel Kidushin 81] issued Halachic ruling on death-life matters based entirely on Aggodoh and most laws of Kiddush HaShem [Tur-Shulchan Oruch Yoreh Deah 157 with commentators] are from Aggodos, that seem at first sight non-practical Talmudic "stories".

It is also a fact that the Talmud almost everywhere brings stories and things that happened to our great Rabbis and other personalities as practical rulings and the Talmud asks based on them and feels the need to answer them and never treated an Agoddoh as a story without a practical meaning.

The only difference then, between an Agoddic and a Halachic portions is the deep meaning of the Aggodoh, that sometimes disguises important teachings and presents them in the form of comparisons and parables. But its practical meaning is also a fact.

What matters then, is to know if the great codifiers, like the Ramba"m and other Rishoinim (great codifiers that lived from 900 to 700 years ago) considered it practical or not.

First we find the Ramba"m, in his introduction to Yad Chazaka [Sefer HaMitzvois Shoiresh 14], his great work where he explains all the Jewish Law in a simplified way. The Ramba"m writes: "... and all the Mitzvois that involve the King, and the wars... are not applicable but in the time of the Bais HaMikdoish [Temple of Jerusalem] and it is very simple and well known that they today don't apply, since we will not have a Kingdom back until we repent from all our sins...". We see then clearly that is a very well known fact that the Jewish people cannot have a Kingdom until they fully repent and G-D brings the Redemption Himself.

Also, in his Iggeres Teiman, a responsa from the Ramba"m, speaks about the oaths as a practical matter and very much cautions the people of his generation not to transgress them.

It is beyond the scope of this work to bring all the commentators and what they said, but we will bring a brief list of codifiers that brought the oaths as a practical matter:

a) Shut Riba"sh 101

b) Netzach Yisroeil chapter 24

c)Megilas Esther to the Ramba"m, positive Mitzvoh # 9 that the Ramba"m forgot according to the Ramba"n

d) Avnei Nezer section 454

The oaths are called an Aggodoh, because its nature is very deep and, as Vayoiel Moishe brings, the Jewish People never swore and therefore the whole subject of oath has a deep meaning.

Everything being said and done, Zionism is an evil anti-humanitarian doctrine that destroys not only the physical lives of millions of non-Jews and Jews but endangers the lives of the whole people of the earth, by constantly violating the severe oaths that G-D made swear to the Jewish People. It also destroyed and uprooted thousands of families from their spiritual root. Both European, African and families from the Middle East and America and continues doing so at a big pace.

Was founded by complete atheists and heretics of everything that Judaism considers Holy, at the expense of the Palestinian People.

For sure, every believing Jew must take on himself to battle this terrible plague that causes thousands, if not millions, of both physical and spiritual deaths, both among the Jewish and the non-Jewish.

Therefore, beyond that issue of the oaths, that is by itself a very severe issue to be taken on account, we must know that there are thousands of other problems both in religious and non-religious Zionism that all of them, by themselves, are worthy to battle Zionism, all the more so with all the problems combined.