tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post112361414792360255..comments2023-10-29T11:50:25.742+02:00Comments on My Obiter Dicta: In the Rav's Name...Jeffrey R. Woolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11315625918870195028noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post-1125569107300496052005-09-01T13:05:00.000+03:002005-09-01T13:05:00.000+03:00I don't think that we should keeping the Rav's nam...I don't think that we should keeping the Rav's name out of this discussion. Clearly, we don't know what the Rav would say about today's situation. But we do know <B> what the Rav would not say.</B> And perhaps that is even more important.<BR/><BR/>Unlike Rav Avraham Shapira, the Rav would <B> NOT </B> say--as a religious pronouncement--that he who hands over Gaza will not be forgiven (lo yi'nake).<BR/><BR/>Unlike Rav Avraham Shapira, the Rav woud <B> NOT </B> say that soldiers should refuse orders. After all, as Rav Lichtenstein points out (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n056.shtml#17): <I> In the final analysis, we - the government, the army, and it goes without saying the citizens and their spiritual leadership - face a hazy reality.... Even if we agree that it is the arbiters of halakha who define the level of danger and of utility that permits eating on Yom Kippur, only physicians know how to determine the extent to which a certain meal is needed for a said patient. Similarly, diplomatic issues that are veiled in the darkness of the decision-making apparatus should be entrusted to the government, partly because it has the tools and the perspective that are not always available to others. The prime minister's statement, "We see things here that you can't see from over there," is not an empty slogan. It has been proven, in other countries and other periods, as concrete truth. Primarily, however, because of its status. Although there is no absolute certainty that the realistic assessments of the government are correct, there is absolute certainty that it is the administration and that it has the right and obligation to govern. Its authority is not all encompassing or unhindered. A well-run state has a system of law and order that differentiates between law of the kingdom and oppression of the kingdom. But when it comes to taking initiatives that fall within its decision-making purview, in accordance with an assessment of the reality it faces, the government's opinion and will are sovereign. </I><BR/><BR/>Based on this, Rav Lichtenstein concludes that even if one personally believes that handing over Gaza is detrimental to security, the army has the right--and obligation--to follow the decisions of governmental and military leaders who believe that the handover will save lives over the long run. Consequently, a commander's order to participate in the disengagement is not analogous to an order to be mechalel Shabbat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post-1123745895606411432005-08-11T10:38:00.000+03:002005-08-11T10:38:00.000+03:00That's NOT what RYBS said! He said that Pikuach N...That's NOT what RYBS said! He said that Pikuach Nefesh can supercede most religious stricture. Lo T'chanem is still a religious questions, as is all the other issues listed in Rav Bar-Ilan's כפתור ופלא. They are religious issues. According to RYBS the determination if there are sufficient Pikuach Nefesh needs to override these religious concerns is a security/military question. That's all. he didn't remove 20 mitzvot and lavim from the realm of religious doctrine. Maybe Leibovitz did, but some of us can read the Rav and not necessarily get to Hartman and Leibovitz.<BR/><BR/>Of course that determination must take into account ALL elements of Pkiuach nefesh - direct and indirect, as well as economic impacts on Pikuach Nefesh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post-1123732993335292602005-08-11T07:03:00.000+03:002005-08-11T07:03:00.000+03:00I think the main point of the Rav's statement is t...I think the main point of the Rav's statement is that the question of whether or not to withdraw from parts of Eretz Yisrael is a security/military question, not a religious one.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps if those opposing the disengagement plan had focused on that, instead of having rabbis speak and tehillim said at every demonstration, the general (largely non religious) public would have given it more support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post-1123697813500599482005-08-10T21:16:00.000+03:002005-08-10T21:16:00.000+03:00Israel is sacred to all, Jews and Non - Jews, espe...Israel is sacred to all, Jews and Non - Jews, especially Christian Non-Jews.<BR/><BR/>It matters to me [a non-Jew] that thousands of Welsh Baptists travesl from Wales each year to see the Land of Jesus. These people do not want to see part of the land, they do not want to see some of the land, they want to see all of it, and with the same boundaries, city's, and towns, as shown and recognised in biblical times. They also want to visit Israel under the rule of its rightful owners and keepers - the Israeli's. Anything else - does not seem right or proper. <BR/><BR/>No one can give part of Israel away, allow it to become occupied by another Nation, or sell it too foreigners. Israel is Israel and lets keep it sacred. And anothere thing Israel was established on January 27th 1945, that was the day the gates opened in Europe<BR/>and the barbed wire came down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post-1123676224348334202005-08-10T15:17:00.000+03:002005-08-10T15:17:00.000+03:00I think that you're being a bit disingenious here ...I think that you're being a bit disingenious here - in your comment to an earlier posting (http://myobiterdicta.blogspot.com/2005/04/defining-moment.html#comments) you stated that you have received a trasncript where the "Rov emphatically stated his opposition to the establishment of a PLO state in EY. Such a state, he is recorded as saying, would be no better than a genocidal Nazi State."<BR/><BR/>So you (and we) do have a way of knowing how the Rov would have felt about handing over territory to a terrorist organization. Based upon what he said about it.....<BR/><BR/>Please, please, please publish the document so it is available to all who want to read it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com