Sunday, May 29, 2005

More Charedi censorship

In this week's בקהילה newspaper they published a letter attacking something that was printed last week. Last week they wrote an article about Gush Katif. In the article they wrote the following:
The settlers in Gush Katif asked R' Yaakov Kamenetsky if they are allowed to live there, maybe they should move because of Pikuach Nefesh? He answered that it is a milchemes miztva (and therefore there is no halacha of pikuach nefesh like the Minchas Chinuch, my interpretation). The writer of the article then said that R' Yaakov's position makes a lot of sense although you can certainly argue on it.

The letter writer was very upset with this. He has 2 problems:
1. The Charedi Gedolim hold that it is not a milchemes mitzva because the Rambam says that you need a king to have a milchemes mitzva
2. People living in Gaza are violating the 3 oaths because the non-Jews didn't give it to us.

In truth, both of his problems are very problematic, we will deal with this later.

In any case, what exactly is his problem? It sounds like he agrees that R' Yaakov said it (I heard this psak from other sources as well).

Was R' Yaakov not a charedi gadol? Is he not entitled to an opinion? Even if most of the gedolim disagreed with him so what? Do we wipe out dissenting opinions? This is a very disturbing pheneomenon of zero toleration of dissent. This is simply anti-Torah. The Torah has always quoted (Mishna, gemara) dissenting opinions.

About his "problems".

1. R' Shachter wrote an article in the RJJ journal (I think 20 or 21) where he discusses Land for Peace and brings down a similar psak of R' Yaakov that it is a milchemes mitzva. In the next issue they had a letter with a similar complaint from the Rambam. R' Shachter answered politely, but I remember in Shiur how he dismissed such an opinion, that of course the Rambam would agree that any government has the din of a melech for milchemes miztva.
2. The Steipler writes (I think in letter 205) that even though the Zionits violated the 3 oaths whgat is done is done and we don;t have to give it back. That certainly applies to Gaza as well.


Anonymous said...

it is unending.You are not allowed to think.R.Yaakov represented the beautiful part of the Yeshiveshe-Charedi world.-and they want to also take down his son R.Shmuel with the Slifkin affair.

Rebeljew said...

There are clearly two sides to this fight, forces that want to subjugate others and forces that want to free others. I hope we have the fortitude to fight for the right side.

Kin said...

As far as the 3 oaths go...I'm still waiting for someone to show me a Rishon (except the Migillas Esther) who thinks they are halachicly binding. While there are many Rishonim who hold it is a miztva to go and conquer Eretz Yisrael (which means, if I understand, as soon as it's possible) see the Ramban. As to whether or not Gaza is considered part of Eretz Yisrael Rav Shechter gave an excellent shiur on it, available at

In any event, I'm not sure what the milchemes mitzva side is. From either side of the argument. Once there are Yidin living there, certainly there's a mitzva to defend them and help them, that goes without saying, but that applies if they're living in Kfar Darom or if they're living in New Haven. That's a clear psak in the shulchan aruch, that you go out to fight on shabbos even with regards to hay and straw.

bluke said...

The point about milchemes mitzva is the following. In a war the normal rules of pikuach nefesh and putting yourslef in danger don't apply. In all other situations they do. Therefore, if there is no din of milchemes mitzva, maybe the people living there are obligated to move because of pikuach nefesh.

Litvshe said...

But that's not necessarily true. The case of going out to fight on Shabbos "afilu b'iskei kash v'teven" is clearly not in the case of Milchemes Mitzva. Unless the definition of MM is expanded to include cases of theft, since that may lead to the weakening of border communities.