R. Mendel Kasher, who I find is the source of almost all the classic Zionist distortions - by Megila

R. Mendel Kasher, who I find is the source of almost all the classic Zionist distortions. He was the one who made up the story of those Gedolim signing a paper was the Medinah is the aschalta degeulah, and he was the one who doctored the story of the meeting of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah in 1937 where he left out the poiastion of people like Rav Ahron Kotler. He wrote a book called HaTekufah heGedolah which is absolutely full of misquotes, fabrications and distortions. His deception has already been exposed and well known to those who have researched this topic. R. Zvi Weinman documented extensively the forgeries of R. Kasher - and he even challenged him in public to respond to his findings when R. Kasher was alive - in his excellent work "Mikatowitz ad 5 B'Iyar."

Of course, R. Kasher did not produce any response to the evidence against him.

More of R. Kasher's falsifications are exposed in the sefer "Das HaTziyonus", especially his now famous fraud regarding the position of Rav Meir Simcha od Dvinsk - see here:

http://www.yoel-ab.com/kata...

So this R. Kasher, who the Brisker Rav referred to as "the biggest treifah" (a play on his name, which he spelled the same as the word "kosher"), reprinted the unverified Kol Hator(1), and then he stretched the statements that are found therre, that we dont even know really come from the GRA, reading into them things that even they dont say.

Obviously, whatever the GRA did say only includes statements about Eretz Yisroel and living there, and NOT taking control of it or making a state there, c"v. On top of which nobody claims the GRA wrote a sefer for all of Klall Yisroel with these statements in it, but rather, these were kabbalistic teachgins and instructions he gave to his talmidim which, like all such kabblaistic teachings, are not to be treated as if they are meant for everyone in all times an places:

And then, on top of all that which gives them no supprot whatsoever, that, they call the GRA a "proto-Zionist" which means not a whole lot, but sounds supportinve of them since it has the phrse "zionist{ in it. A "proto" zionist/ May as well call Moshe Rabbeinu that since he wanted to go into Eretz Yisroel too.

But the writings of the GRA and his Talmidim say just the opposite of the Zionists. The Perushim, who first settled Eretz Yisroel on the basis of the GRA's instructions to them - not to the world) stated cxlearly that they are doign so only as invididuals, NOT as a controlling force so as not to chas v'sholom violate the Oaths.

Rav Yisroel of Shklov, of the GRA's Bais HaMedrash, states clearly in his Paas HaShulchan that the Oaths prohibit taking over Eretz Yisroel. The GRA's son, Rabbeionu Avrohom, states clearly that the Geulah does not come about at all at the hands of man, but totally and exclusively by the acts of Hashem. The GRA himself brings the Oaths, stating that they are why it is assur to build the bais hamikdosh nowadays.

Besides R. Kasher, other Zionists also distorted the GRA's positions. You see, the GRA did wnat to go to Eretz Yisroel, and he started goign but then turned back for mysterious reasons. His students were also among the first to settle Yerushalayim. All the above, which was driven by kabbalistic factors, allowed unscrupulous people, such as Zionists, to build and entire mythology around the GRA and his Erezt Yisroel positions.

The rest of the Brisker Rav quote - the one about Kasher being the "biggest treifah" - involved another Zionist, this one named Yehuda Leib "Maimon," who the Brisker Rav said, also playing on his name, was "the biggest Kofer".

This Maimon wrote that the GRA was in favor of starting the Snahedrin anew, which is why he wanted to go to Eretz Yisroel in the first place, but came back because the time wasnt ready for it to happen. The entire thign was a fraud, based on misrepresentation of certina facts. But Rabbi Kasher took the word of Rabbi Maimon and actualyl recorded this falsehood in his sefer Torah Sheleimah. In the next volume of Torah Sheleimah, he retracted. It was pretty embarrassing.

Besides R. Kasher, other Zionists also distorted the GRA's positions. You see, the GRA did wnat to go to Eretz Yisroel, and he started goign but then turned back for mysterious reasons. His students were also among the first to settle Yerushalayim. All the above, which was driven by kabbalistic factors, allowed unscrupulous people, such as Zionists, to build and entire mythology around the GRA and his Erezt Yisroel positions.

The rest of the Brisker Rav quote - the one about Kasher being the "biggest treifah" - involved another Zionist, this one named Yehuda Leib "Maimon," who the Brisker Rav said, also playing on his name, was "the biggest Kofer".

This Maimon wrote that the GRA was in favor of starting the Snahedrin anew, which is why he wanted to go to Eretz Yisroel in the first place, but came back because the time wasnt ready for it to happen. The entire thign was a fraud, based on misrepresentation of certina facts. But Rabbi Kasher took the word of Rabbi Maimon and actualyl recorded this falsehood in his sefer Torah Sheleimah. In the next volume of Torah Sheleimah, he retracted. It was pretty embarrassing.

The Kol Hator we have today is not the authentic work of Reb Hillel Mishklov, if there ever was such a work. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin (1886-1962) published parts of it in the late 1940's. He himself admitted that this was an abridged version. The alleged original manuscript disappeared during the Zionist war of independence, and has never been found. Only two copies of the abridged version remained, and they were the basis for subsequent printings by Kasher and the Kol Hator institute. In 1994 a new edition appeared with some new sections based on a notebook found in the house of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. The notebook was written in the handwriting of Dr. Elazar Hurvitz, who is today a professor at YU. Apparently Rivlin dictated it to Hurvitz. It is possible that Hurvitz himself aided in composing the document.

Rabbi Kasher writes in his introduction to Kol Hator (p. 537), "There is no knowledge of where the original manuscript is, nor do we have the copy, which Rabbi Dr. Elazar Hurvitz told me he wrote and prepared for printing all seven chapters."

Furthermore, much of the history of Reb Hillel Mishklov's leading role in the aliyas talmidei hagra is only known to us from Shlomo Zalman Rivlin's book Chazon Tzion, which he published at about the same time as Kol Hator (possibly with the purpose of boosting the authority of Kol Hator). Later scholars, such as Aryeh Morgenstern (Geulah Bederech Hateva) have shown that much of this history was falsified, that Reb Hillel was not the leader of the 1809 aliyah at all, and that he first came to Eretz Yisroel much later.

Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch published a 10 page article questioning the authenticity of the Kol Hator when it was published by Kasher in the late 60s. He notes that the sefer contains many modern Hebrew words, and it is therefore unclear what is from the original and what was added later.

Kasher wasnt always a Zionist. That's a later development. It's funny, in fact - if you want to track Kasher's Zionistic tendencies you can check the old printings of Torah Sheleimah, where he spelled his name the old Yiddish way - Menachem Mendel Kasher - Kuf alef shin ayin raish. Then slowly he changed both the spelling (to the modern chof shin reish) and the name (to plain "Menachem".) The Satmar Rebbe ZTL ahd the sefer in the olden days.

In the summer of '37 at the third Kenesia gedolah of the rabbinical leaders of Agudath Israel held in Marienbad, which included hundreds of rabbis, heads of yeshiva religious academies and grand rabbis of Chassidic communities from a number of countries. Rabbi Aharon Kotler attended this convention.

From the journal Hapardes (Year 11, Issue 7) describing the convention:

“Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Rottenberg from Antwerp, and rabbis from Czechoslovakia and Hungary were unanimous in rejecting any proposal for a “Jewish State” on either side of the Jordan River, even if it were established as a religious state because such a regime would be a form of heresy in our faith in the belief in the coming of the Messiah, and especially since this little “Jewish” state would be built on heresy and desecration of the Name of G-d.

The late Rabbi Shlomo Rottenberg (a historian and author of Toldos Am Olam and other works), who also attended the Convention in '37 used to say that he could still remember what was discussed there, and the harsh opposition of these rabbinical leaders to a “Jewish State” that is a violation of the Three Oaths mentioned in the Talmud. (Rabbi A.L. Spitzer)

It should be noted that Rabbi Menachem Kasher, in his attempted defense of religious Zionisn. Hatkuha Hagedolah", forged and doctored this article in Haprdes - yes, he did not merely misquote it, he actually blatenly and unashamedly doctored it, presenting his forgery as "proof" to his anti-Torah position, to give the impression that the only rabbonim against the State were those from Hungary and Czechoslovakia. He conveniently deleted the names of

Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Ahron Kotler and Rav Rottenberg in the above narrative.

He also deleted the sentence that those voting against - held this view under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES - even if such a medina was built upon 'yesodos hadass', because, this it would be "Kefirah b'emunas bias hamoshiach..." and especially one built "...al yesodos hakefirah, venimtza shem shomayim mischalell."

Rabbi Kasher's Hatkufah Hagedolah is very popular in Zionist circles and his forgeries have contributed greatly to the distorted perception that "only the Hungarians" or "only Satmar" were against the Medinah for theological reasons.

In Ha"H he distorted the words of the Gerer Rebbe (Imrei Emes) at that meeting as well.

One, Zionism isn't only against the Oaths. As Rav Ahron Kotler said, it is Kefirah against our belief in Bias Hamoshiach; as the Brisker Rav said, when he was told that the Satmar Rebbe said the State of Israel's existence is against the Oaths:

"Against the Oaths? It is not only against the Oaths! It is against the entire Torah! It is against bleief in Hashem's Hashgacha on Klall Yisroel, eyc. etc."

The Satmar Rebbe, for the record, also agreed that the State of Israel is not only against the Oaths. He writes that the Oaths are an added punishment for the Kefirah of believing or acting against the belief of Bias Hamashiach. He says this is why, even though the Rambam quotes the OAths in Igeres Taimon and warns us not to dare violate them or death with ensure, he did not quote them in Mishan Torah. Teh reason, he says is because the Oaths are a deterrent - they are an added punuishment that makes this Kefirah particularly lethal, but the aveirah itself is Kefirah. And the Rambam, when warning us not to violate them, quotes the Torahs deterrent and the terrible punishment, but added punishments and deterrents dont go in Mishna Torah - the Halachah itself does.

Second: Zionism is not the result of a misreading of the Gemora. Misreading the Gemora is the result of Zionism. As the Chazon Ish said, Zionists know deep down that Zionism is wrong (as the Gemora implies about the Tzedukim) - its just a cover for following thre Yetzer Horah (see the "Arguing with zionists" forum, where the Chazon Ish is quoted in full).

And this is because, as I demonstrated elsewhere in these forums, Zionism is so black and white against the Torah, that only an agenda and preconceived conclusions can cause one to believe in it. It's not a wrong pshat - it's the projection of a pre-determined anti-Torah idea onto the Gemora. Big difference.

Of course, as is the case with all mass Kefirah, the original "scholars" among them are the ones responsible. As the generations go by and the garbled teachings are passed on, sprinkled with false information, to younger generations as if it was real, they are less and less responsible, like Tinokos shenishbu.

Its hard to determine the personal culpability a person has for his beliefs, since it depends on WHY he bleieves them. Much easier, however, to determine the status of the beliefs themselves. And here, it's very easy.

This is why Zionist rabbis such as .Menachem Kasher, have to resort to open fabrications in order to convince people that Zionism makes sense. See the "Zionist APologetics" section where I relate how it was recently disclosed how R. Kasher doctored documents and then falsely claimed, based on his forgeries, that tons of Rabbonim signed a letter saying that the tate of Israel is "aschalta D'geulah."

Rabbi Kasher, although not a big Lamdan, was a great baki, and no ignoramus. If somoene of his stature had to resort to forgeries to convince people he was right, we can safely assume, there was no legitimate way for him to do so.

Or take the Zionist Rosh Yeshiva, R. SHlomo Aviner, who wrote, regarding the Machlokes between the Rambam and Ramban, regarding whether the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel nowadays, where the Megilas Esther (a rishon) explains the Rambam's position that the Oaths would negate not only a mass taking over of EY but also the Mitzvah of the individual, that - I promise I am not making this up - he wrote that since the Ramban was bigger than the Megilas Esther, we should therefore pasken like the Ramban here.

Rabbi Aviner, when dealing with topics not related to Zionism, does much better than this, sevara-wise. It boggles the mind that somone who gives shiurim to talmidim could possibly say something so absurd. It is to be understood only in view of the principle fo shochad yaavir ainei pikchim. When somone has an agenda, when someone wants a certina Hashkafa to be true, when someone wants so badly to fit a square peg inot a round hole, he will somehow imagine that he succeeded.

And so, as I said, Zionism is not the result of misreading the Torah; misreading the Torah is the result of Zionism.

Rabbi Aviner’s Kuntres Shelo Yaalu Bachomah I found as part of something he wrote called “Hilchos Moshiach LHarambam”. Rabbi Hershel Schechter’s lecture that I was looking for was not the one Grend pointed out – though that one is useful as well (thanks, Grend, for pointing it out). The one I was looking for is written up in
http://www.doingzionism.org...
It seems that throughout the topics on this forum we already basically refuted all the claims these Zionists have used or quoted to attempt to defend Zionism. There is almost nothing they have come up with that has not already been dealt with here on the site. In fact, many of the ideas and thoughts that we thought were the product of teenagers and that I showed to be simple mistakes were, I find, actually taken from the works of these Zionist Roshei Yeshiva. I highly recommend that anyone who has any shadow of a doubt that Zionism is a not only a deviant, heretical philosophy but also halachicly ridiculous should check out the way the Zionists themselves try to defend themselves and all doubt will be dispelled. I actually could not believe some of the ideas they try to sell. What is strange is that they actually believe what they write (presumably), but we have to apply the lessons we learn from our sages, that theYetzer Horah can make people do – and say, and believe – the silliest things, as the Gemora explains regarding the Yetzer Horah of Avodah Zorah. We totally cannot understand how anybody could believe in that nonsense. Yet as Menashe said, even Talmudic sages, had they the Yetzer Horah for Avodah Zorah, would have been running to worship sticks and stones.
And please note that Avodah Zorah is a belief – and the Yeter Horah can make a person believe the craziest things. And so, when our seforim say that in Ikvesa Demeshichah the Yetzer Horah for Apikorsus will be frightfully strong, we can only stand in awe at the Ruach Hakodesh of Chazal, because we see with our own eyes that the Yetzer Horah for Apikorsus makes even intelligent people believe the most absurd and nonsensical things.
As a bonus, you will also find how far removed the Religious Zionist community is from the Gedolei Yisroel. After all, they find themselves declared by our Gedolim to be idol worshippers and Apikorsim – and if they are religious, then they are declared to be religious idol worhsippers and religious apikorsim - and so they have no choice but to reject those who made such declarations, thereby removing themselves from the Mesorah of Klall Yisroel. Sometimes, you’ll see, they just go into denial and they will make believe that the opposition to Zionism comes from “Satmar and the Neturei Karta”, which enables them to avoid , in their minds, the obvious problem of having the Chazon Ish for example, declare them heretics. If someone is not holding by understanding the Torahs against Zionism, he should see how the religious Zionists and the Gedolei Yisroel relate to one another, and then he should chose which side he wants to be on. Because, to be sure, choose he must.
As I said, almost all of their claims are already to be found on this site with simple corrections and explanations as to why they fail. It’s not hard. We will find things such as what Rabbi Aviner quotes at the end of his Kuntres, in the name of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook. He quotes this more than once in his kuntres. It is a comment about the disagreement between the Rambam and the Ramban regarding the Mitzvah of Yishuv EY nowadays. The Rambam omitted it from his Sefer HaMitzvos. The Ramban says he should have put it in. The Megillas Esther, the commentary printed on the side of the Rambam, explains the Rambam to be saying that the Three Oaths which prohibit us form taking Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus also negate the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel.

Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook comments that since the Ramban was much bigger than the Megilas Esther, we certainly should follow the Ramban over the Megilas Esther, who ignored the Oaths, obvisouly because he held they are just non-compulsary Kabalah or Agadita.

The obvious blunder here is that there is a Machlokes here not between the Megilas Esther and the Ramban but between the Rambam and the Ramban. Even the Ramban agrees that the Rambam argues with him. The question here is not whether we should pasken like the Megilas Esther versus the Ramban but like the Rambam versus the Rambam. If he would say that the Megilas Esthers explanation in the Rambam doesn’t work, we could discuss it; but to say that the Ramban should be followed here because he is greater than the Megilas Esther is cockeyed logic, since it is the Rambam that is the opponent of the Ramban, not the Megilas Esther; The ME merely explained the Rambam.

So lets say theres a machlokes between the Rambam and Raavad. And lets say Rav Chaim Brisker answers the Raavad’s question and explains what the Rambam means. Then someone comes and says that in this Machlokes, we should pasken like the Raavad, because the Raavad was so much greater than Rav Chaim Brisker. He’d be laughed out of the Bais Hamedrash.

And how does anyone expect our reaction to be any different when someone says that in the Machlokes between the Rambam and Ramban, where the Megilas Esther explains the Rambam, that we should pasken like the Ramban because he was so much greater than the Megilas Esther.

We’ll start from the bottom. He “proves” that the Oaths are not Halachicly binding because Rav Meir Simcha said he was afraid of violating them. And since he only mentioned fear and not Halachic violations, we see that the Oaths do not impact on Halachah.

There is only one thing we can say to this in response:

Huh?

If let’s say they build an Eruv in my community and I say “Boruch Hashem, I am no longer afraid of Chilul Shabbos”, does that mean that I don’t believe that CHilul SHabbos is Halachicly wrong?

That’s a pretty obviously trying to read something into the Ohr SOmeach's statement that's not there.

But regarding the Ramban, he is assuming, with no source at all, that the reason the Ramban holds that the Oaths would not negate the Mitzvah of Yoshuv Eretz Yisroel is because the Oaths are Kabbalistic concepts, and not to be brought into Halacha.

Not that the Oaths are from the Zohar or the Arizal or the Ramak – they’re straight out of Talmud Bavli, and quoted by the Halachah seforim such as the Piskei Riaz on the spot, the Rivash, the Rashbash, and others. Where he got the idea that they are merely “kabbalistic” is beyond me.

But he also forgets that just because the Ramban does not say anywhere that he does not consider the Oaths Halachicly obligatory. All we know is that according to the Ramban the Oaths do not negate the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, which is not a chidush at all, since the Oaths do not impact on the Individual’s Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel – they only intended to prohibit taking Eretz Yisroel with sovereignty, or a collective – not individual – ascent to Eretz Yisroel. It is the chidush of the Megilas Esther – his own chidush – that the Oaths would also negate an individual’s Mitzvah.

So the Ramban disagrees with the Megilas Esther’s chidush. Does that mean that the Ramban does not hold that the Oaths would prohibit collective or sovereign aliyah? No. It doesn’t mean that at all. To say so is to read into the Ramban something he never said.

In fact, the Rashbash, a Rishon (an older contemporary of the Abarbanel), son of the Tashbetz, and descendent of the Ramban, writes (Teshuvos Rashbash #2) – and implies clearly that this is the Ramban’s opinion - that the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel is only on individuals but it is not a Mitzvah Klalis on all of Klall Yisroel, because – yes, he says it clearly – the Oaths prohibit an en masse aliyah.

The Ramban himself (Maamar Hegeulah #1) states that the Oaths were what prevented the Jews outside of Bavel to return to Eretz Yisroel upon Coresh’s decree. The Jews in Bavel had a Nevuah that they should return, but the Jews outside of Bavel did not, he says, and so in the absence of a Nevuah, the Oaths prevented them from returning to Eretz Yisroel, despite the invitation by Coresh to do so.

Rabbi Aviner is a Talmid Chacham. And in areas other than Zionisn, he does a whole lot better, scholarship-wise. And although it seems impossible for even a mediocre student of Talmud to make such glaring blunders as he does, we should understand that throughout history, greater people than Rabbi Aviner have made greater blunders. Hence the Korach – Yeravam – Shabse Tzvi analogies.

Compare it to a old story of man who goes to the tailor for a custom designed suit. The tailor, not the most skilled craftsman in the world, creates a monstrosity of a suit, with one arm jetting out of the chest pointing to the sky, the other arm pointing perpetually down to the ground, and the pants legs hopelessly in the wrong place.

The customer painstakingly puts on the suit, and with one arm pointing up, the other pointing down, his legs awkwardly poking out in the wrong places, his neck twisted off to the side. He walks out of the store, a grotesque sight, limping down the street in a manner that that made him look not unlike the Hunchback of Notre Dame with a broken leg.

Almost immediately, a someone comes over to the awkwardly limping man, and remarks, “Wow. Who made you that suit? He must be the best tailor in the world?”

“The best tailor in the world? Why in the world would you say that?” the man asks incredulously.

The passerby answered, “Because if he can produce a suit for a cripple like you he must be amazing!”

So too, you see Talimidei Chachamim putting out Torahs and saying things that make them look like cripples. You look at their stuff and say “no way – this makes no sense!” And it doesn’t. But its not because they are Amei Haaretz – its because they clothed themselves in the grotesque trappings of Zionism and now they have to fit themselves and their Torahs into the silliest of positions, and they come out looking like cripples.

But its not them that’s the problem – its Zionism. Not their fault they cant find a normal way to defend something that cant be defended. Not everyone is capable of “being Metaher a sheretz”.

Rabbi Aviner has a list of 13 reasons that the Oaths are not a contradiction to the State of Israel. Some of his reasons are are also given by Rabbi Hershel Schechter (on the website above) and others as well. Time permitting, I will try to go through all 13 bli neder. I will start with the most popular ones. It wont take long, especially since, as I mentioned, all of the main reasons are addressed on the site already.
#11 – “The poskim disagree with the Megillas Esther who says you are not allowed to make Aliyah b’chomah.
This was dealt with above. The Megilas Esther is not the one who says “you are not allowed to make Aliyah b’chomah.” He says that even individuals have no Mitzvah because of the Oaths. Disagreeing with the Megilas Esther means that you say that the Oaths do not negate the Miztvah of the individual. But the issue of collective, sovereign Aliyah is not implied because someone disagrees with the Megilas Esther.
#12 – The Oaths are Agadita and not Halachicly binding.
First, The Oaths are quoted L'Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel - the majority of Jews at the time - did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh's call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon - warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.
Second, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.
Third, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says You may nto do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V'Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)
Fourth, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to makign a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doign so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.
#3 – Since the goyim violated their Oath – i.e. not to make the Jews suffer overmuch, we are therefore absolved fomr keeping ours.
From
http://www.frumteens.com/to...
First, the comparison to all those Oaths you mentioned is silly. In all those cases, mutual Oaths were made, by party "a" for the benefit of party "b" and by "b" for the benefit of "a". So if "a" violates his oath which was supposed to benefit "b", then "b" can violate theirs. It's a simple concept of making a deal - I'll help you if you help me.
But the Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more!
But besides that there is no comparison between these Oaths and all the reciprocal Oaths found anywhere, the whole idea is disproven by even a cursory glance at our Seforim:

Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Ephrain, Chazal say, were all hunted donw and killed in the deset for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.
The Oaths are brought down l'halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years.
The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It's clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.
The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths.
The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us wuth torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.
And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel).
The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is nto included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing.
R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced SHmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the "shem hameforash" and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.
And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b'chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim's Oath anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says.
What I wrote above is not rocket science. It's pretty obvious. Takes no genius or encyclopedic knowledge to understand it. Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violate dtheirs but we still cannot violate ours.
It's just plain dishonesty that would make people come up with this.

(Note: Regarding the Reb Shlomo Kluger quoted by Rabbi Aviner, it is an erroneous quote. Rasha”k admits clearly that the Bnei Efriam were punished for violating the Oaths, even though Egypt violated theirs. He only permits breaking the Oath that prevents praying a lot for the Geulah – see Vayoel Moshe Maamar I for an explanation as to the uniquness of the Oath prohibiting prayer.)
Regarding both of the above heteirim:
It’s a pity nobody told the Rambam about these heteirim – for he warns un in Igeres Tamon not to violate the Oaths.
And it’s a pity nobody told all those other poskim I quoted about the se heteirim either – because they all say the Oaths are binding.
And its an even bigger pity nobody told Hashem about these heteirim – for He killed the Bnei Efriam for violating the Oaths. A pity, for they should not have been killed killed for no reason according to the Zionists. And He also punished the generation of Bar Kochba for violating these Oaths. Pity.
Can some Zionist please tell G-d to stop punishing people for doing nothing wrong??? And please tell Chazal not to say that people were killed for violating the Oaths when in fact youre allowed to violate them!!
No, its not rocket science at all.

the Hatekufah Hegedolah by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher. Rabbi Kasher is the author of, among other writings, the monumental work, “Torah Sheleimah”, which is a collection of midrashim and meforshim on Chumash. The sefer was used even by the Satmar Rebbe ZTL, who obtained it volume by volume as it was published. His comment on it was, “The bikius is nice, but the commentary is dry.” Rabbi Kasher’s Hatekufah Hagedolah is quoted as an authority by almost all religious Zionists, including Rabbi Aviner. The italicized comments, as well as those in square bracktes, are mine.


Hatekufah Hagedolah

Following the mention here (again) of the sefer Hatekufah Hagedolah by R.
Mendel Kasher, and its use by many Religious Zionists as a Mareh Mokom for "religious"
pro-zionist material and more recently as proof of Charedi acceptance of the
"Aschalta DeGeula" concept, my attention has been brought to the sefer
"MiKatowitz ad 5 B'Iyar" by well known Yerushalmi lawyer/to'en rabboni
R' Zvi Weinman, who (amongst other matters) deals quite severely with the Hateufah Hagedolah,
revealing the deliberate misquotes and deletions of its author - resulting
in a complete misrepresentation and falsification of the facts. *
Despite the respect for his monumental Torah Sheleimo, many have been
uncomfortable with RMK's Mizrachi-style views as stated in HaH, and which have
made him into something of an ideologue in Religious zionist circles.


At the time of its publication the tone and content of his sefer upset some and
not surprisingly, the Beis Din of the Edah Charedis of that time,
led by Rav Pinchos Epstein z'l, issued a warning against the reading the HaH,
labelling it 'Dei'os Kozvos' [ = bogus teachings] and adding that 'shahneh minus d'moshcheh..." [= “Apikorsus is unique in that it drage people into believing it”]


But it is doubtful if even those who railed against him at the time,
expected RMK to resort to doctoring and censoring material in order to
'manufacture' evidence for his ideas.


It seems surprising that a person with his vast knowledge, required the use
of misleading and deceptive information to prove his case. [It is not surprising at all. Nothing in his vast storehouse of knowledge was able to support religious Zionim, and so he had to fabricate material.]


And if a layman like RZW can cut right through important historical facts
of his book, one must wonder what a Talmid Chochom could do to the
mareh-mekomos used in the rest of Ha"H? [ One need not wonder. The entire sefer is no better founded than that of Rabbis Aviner or Zimmerman, which is why none of the above are even taken seriously in Torah circles]

RZW goes to the heart of the Kol Koreh (recently mentioned by RSH) and
printed in HaH, p.374, which is a call to vote for the Chazit Datit
Me'uchedet, and featuring the notion of "Aschalta DeGeulah" following the
establishment of the state of israel.


This KK is signed by chief rabbis Herzog and Uziel plus over 150 rabbis and
Roshei Yeshivos - a number of them highly respected in the Charedi world.


The propaganda value of this KK can be seen from the fact that it is
referred to again and again as clear and open 'proof' that even the Charedi
gedolim accepted the ADG status of the new israel. (I have yet to see
proof for any sighting of a repeat of this comment by these gedolim.)


However RZW goes further in his book (from p. 131) and discusses the
background to this and the 2 other KK's of the time (one by the Admorim and
another by Roshei Yeshivos - neither which mention Atchlta D’Geulah). He also notes that the
ADG-KK was only published in the Mizrachi Hatzofeh - and NOT in
the Agudist press (obviously they would have 'smelled a rat.').


Upon investigating the matter and contacting some of these signatories for
their explanation, he found that they NEVER SIGNED THIS KK!


The modus operandi of the organisers for the KK was simple. They mailed out the text
of that KK, notifying the recipients that anyone who does not send in an
objection, will have his name added to it.


This explains - writes RZW - the signature of Rav Menachem Kooperstock,
who had passed away TWO AND A HALF YEARS prior to the date on the KK!!!
He simply couldn't object...


RZW comprehensively debunks RMK's statements (p.231) that "k'mat kol gedolei
hatorah vechol RY's bo'oretz" accepted the concept of ADG, and (Ha"H page 387):
"...kovu v'ishru 200 rabbonim miyisroel kimat kol rabbonei ho'oretz gam
chavrei Agudas Yisroel (milvad HaNeturei Karta).. .hashkofas daas hatorah
merabonei ho'oretz bli pipukim vechashoshos...shehakomas medina
hi...kehashgocho protis min hashomayim K'ASCHALTA D'GEULA."


As already mentioned above, RZW says that these quotes from HaH are
regularly used by those who need it, to prove that the Gedolei Yisroel
accepted the ADG.


(Indeed, I noticed in my (borrowed) copy of HaH that RM Kasher
himself considered this KK so important, that he refers the reader to it -
**right at the beginning of his book** - even before his Hakodomo.)

RZW continues, that not only did he speak to the Gedolim, who denied ever
signing such a KK, but - after much effort - found the original document -
with the signatures...and of course the document with signatures NEVER has
the words "Aschalta DeGeula" on it!
The actual words there are (reproduced in his book): "...hanitzonim
horishonim shel KIBBUTZ GOLIYOS..." (The HaH version: "...hanitzonim
horishonim shel ASCHALTA DEGEULA."!!!)
(Incidentally, RZW adds, that at that time no one yet had any idea that this
"kibbutz goliyos" would also cause with the mass Haavora al hadass in the
Olim camps.)
RZW notes (p.144) that his criticisms of the HaH were originally published
in the Z'eirei Agudas Yisroel monthly Digleinu (Shvat 5738) - during
the lifetime of RMK, who obviously wouldn't or couldn't respond.
(This is despite the fact that at the end of his foreword, he invited comments.)
For more please click here:
http://www.herzl.org.il/cou...
Later on (p.282) in his book, RZW brings further evidence, that RMK's bias
and prejudices caused him to censor/misquote and misrepresent facts in an
article in the rabanut publication Shono Beshonoh, in order to give the
impression that his pro-zionist views were not in conflict with the majority
of the Gedolei Yisroel.
He further brings (photostatic) proof from an article in the Rabbinic journal "Hapardes"
on the Knessiya Gedola in Marienbad in 1937 reporting the 7-hour discussion on the
question of a Jewish state, which was blatantly and unashamedly doctored by
RMK, to give the impression that the only rabbonim against, were those from
Hungary and Czechoslovakia (and conveniently deleting/censoring the names of
RE Wasserman, RA Kotler and Rav Rottenberg of Antwerp.)

He also deleted the sentence that those voting against -
held this view under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES -
even if such a medina was built upon 'yesodos hadass', because, this (an
independent state) would be "Kefirah b'emunas bias hamoshiach..." and
especially one built "...al yesodos hakefirah, venimtza shem shomayim
mischalell."


In page 286 he also shows how RMK in HaH distorted the words of the Gerer
Rebbe (Imrei Emes) z'l at that meeting.


Another person who published (in 5729) an attack on RMK is Rav Moshe
Sternbuch shlit'a who was then a Rosh Kollel, living in Bnei Brak. His main
aim is the Kol Hator which RMK attached to HaH - claiming it is the work of
Rav Hillel Shklaver z'l purporting to be the views of the Gr"o z'l on
Inyonei Geula etc - which somehow fit in very nicely with the views of HaH.


RMS notes that the clear evidence that the entire sefer is not from
the Gr"o or his students is the fact that it contains many modern Hebrew
words and it is therefore unclear what is from the original and what was
added later. In his opinion KH should not have been published - being a
"Dovor She'eino Mesukan".


He also expresses his surpise at RMK who ignored the Cherem Hakadmonim
issued by the Bes Din of Vilna after the petira of the Gr"o not to publish
anything in his name without the haskomo of the Bes Din.. [Rav Moshe Sterenbuch’s involvement in this is not merely due to his outrage at the Zionist distortion. He is a direct descendent of the GRA, and has spent a lot of his life deciphering his forebearer’s shitos. He is something of an expert on the GRA]


RMS continues that RMK well knows the opinion of "rov minyan ubinyan gedolei
hador hakodem vedorenu" (including RC Brisker, REC Meisles, RE Wasserman,
RBB Leibowitz,RA Kotler and most of the gedolei Hachasidus) on these
matters. But he disregards them and only brings those who are leshitoso.


RMS then goes on to prove that even in this version of KH there are many
rayos which clearly disprove RMK ideas in HaH and goes as far as calling him
a 'megaleh ponim beTorah shelo kehalocho"!


His 'maamar' runs approximately 10 pages with point after point
disproving RMK's pshat in the KH and the Gr"o.

Hayotze Lonu Mizeh, that it's more than obvious that when it came to stand up
for his prejudices, RM Kasher was quite prepared to openly and/or
surreptitiously doctor, censor and distort the facts. Thus, LAD, his book
should not be used as serious proof for any debate on matters relating to
the medina and the views of the Gedolei Yisroel. And, as mentioned
previously, all his rayos etc misforim vesofrim must be double and triple
checked - before being quoted as "Toras Emes".


It seems to me that this need for distortion and misrepresentation
shows that even this renowned Torah scholar felt that without it
he could never convince the (Torah) world that an independent
medina prior to bias hamoshiach was the ideal choice of
the recognised gedolim.

I discussed this material with a MO rabbi, who, to say the least (after
seeing RZW's book), was quite disappointed - as, until now,
the HaH was for him a mekor musmach. After the initial shock however, he
went as far as to tell me that it is a 'mitzvah lefarsem' these 'ha'oros'.

by Megila

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/11/satmar-rav-says-six-day-war-victory-was.html