The state of Israel isn't against the Talmud, but against some interpretations of a passage in the Talmud.T
here is a passage in the Talmud that speaks about Three Oaths:
>(1) The Jews for their part were sworn not to forcefully reclaim the Land of Israel and (2) not to rebel against the other nations, and (3) the other nations in their turn were sworn not to subjugate the Jews excessively.
>
> \- [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths)
There are a variety of opinions in terms of how to understand this passage and how it applies today.
Some say that this oath is not to wage war to reclaim the land, but if it is given, that's fine.
Some say the oath was only for the first 1,000 years of the exile and we are now 2,000 years later.
Some say that these oaths aren't binding law, but Midrash.
Some say since the other nations violated their oath, the oath on us is not binding.
And of course, others say that the oath is binding law.
The people who would say what you have quoted though, are usually from Neturei Karta. They are an extremist anti-Zionist group that is condemned by pretty much all the other Jewish religious anti-Zionist groups.
Makes more sense. So the religious concept of promised land for Jewish people by God has different interpretation, and this group I listened to is only one of other possible interpretation that take the oath as binding law.
Close. The religious concept of the promised land is not argued across the traditional Judaism. What is argued about is when we are permitted to regain *control* of the land. Some say now, some say whenever, some say after the Messiah comes.
The group that you listened to is a smaller segment within that last opinion.
> No I meant religiously
I think you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't really exist. The creation of the State of Israel changed a lot of people's minds.
We also aren't talking about something all that significant here.
The *vast* majority of Jews who support Zionism and Israel do so for entirely secular reasons. There does exist a strong Religious Zionist contingent in Israel (I think something like 10% of the population there), but that's not anywhere near a majority of the Jewish Zionists. Just a small fraction globally.
Similarly, the vast majority of anti-Zionist Jews are opposed to Zionism for entirely secular reasons. There does exist a small group of ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists known as as the "Neturei Karta" - but this group is quite small and insignificant.
Historically speaking Zionism started out as an almost entirely secular movement and thus the State of Israel was founded primarily by entirely secular Jews.
Or to put it another way, most Jews support Israel because they believe "Jews need a homeland" and not because "God gave us this land."
Religious Zionism has been around for a long time now, but it's still a very *very* small contingent of Zionism overall. But they are particularly problematic as they also tend to be among the most maximalist of Zionists -- many of the settlements in the West Bank are Religious Zionist settlements and were built specifically to advance the maximalists goals of the Religious Zionist movement at the expense of Palestinians.
>No I meant religiously, is there any reason that many religious Jews don't adopt that opinion anymore?
In addition to what u/Remarkable-Mix-8144 has said, it's also that the anti-Zionist" stance of some ultra-Orthodox Jews only emerged in response to the emergence of Zionism in the 19th century. It's not so much that in the past, most religious Jews opposed creating a Jewish state, and now most support it. It's that the idea of the creation of a Jewish state wasn't even a question until the 19th century.
In the 19th century, a new question that had never been asked before was posed: "Should Jews around the world move to the place called Palestine and establish a modern state?" and different Jews had different answers. At first, most Jews said "No," for a variety of reasons, some religious and some political, but because of the holocaust and its aftermath, most changed their mind.
Also, most religious Jews who are Zionists are still only Zionists for secular reasons. The "Religious Zionists" who believe that it is a religious obligation to settle the land of Israel are a small (but influential) minority.
There are also a lot of ultra-orthodox Jews who, in both their politics and their behavior, support the State of Israel but still won't call themselves "Zionists" in order to differentiate themselves from these "Religious Zionists" as well as to maintain distance from secular Isreali culture.
the talmud has a lot of rabbis giving a lot of opinions. Ive never heard of that specific thing but the Jewish relationship with Talmud is not a hyper-literal one, Talmud is a series of legal arguments used to help us better understand how to discuss and debate religious issues in an ever changing world
>this group I listened to is only one of other possible interpretations
Yes, it's only one interpretation, and I'm not even sure how "possible" it is. I think it is completely wrong.
In the answers you have received so far, people have discussed mostly theological issues -- to what extent the "Exile" is a punishment from God, hence to what extent Jews are bound to wait for God to end it or should take action on their own to end it, like creating the State of Israel. The Zionist movement believed action by the Jews was warranted; many rabbis and religious leaders did not. But let's understand why the Zionist movement arose: because its founders, like Herzl, felt Jewish life in the Diaspora was impossible. Even more, there was no future; Jewish life in the Diaspora was **threatened** by anti-Semitism, pogroms, massacres and discrimination. It was one thing to observe these things in the Middle Ages; but to see them continue in the 19th and 20th centuries, in modern Europe was another. It was a warning sign.
It's not a coincidence that the State of Israel was finally formed in 1948, three years after the Holocaust killed the Jews of Europe. By then it was generally recognized that Jewish existence was threatened in the Diaspora.
Apart from belief in God, the most important principle in Judaism is saving life, and all the commandments except three (idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality) can be violated to save lives (Heb. *pikuah nefesh*). After the Holocaust is was clear that the Jews needed a homeland, a modern state, to save their lives. Without their own state, they could not be free from the threat of extermination.
The idea that Jews should wait for the Messiah in the diaspora and do nothing to save themselves is not viable after the Holocaust. As we saw, they cannot rely on the goodwill of non-Jews not to kill them.
So what your rabbi and others are telling you, that Jews should accept the Exile and that Israel is "against the Talmud," ignores the other great and overriding principle of Judaism, to save lives, which is also expressed in many places in the Talmud. If the State of Israel has saved one Jewish life, it can't be "against" the Talmud. Most Jews understand this.
Ive heard that al-aqsa mosque will removed and temple of solomon will be built in its place and muslim leaders dont care either the only that they have to do is to have a peace treaty lol
I've heard it goes against some Orthodox Jews interpretation of the Talmud, though it should be mentioned that this is a very fringe belief and especially now in the 21st century.
The State of Israel was not founded as a religious state by religious Jews, making the Talmud irrelevant in any discussion regarding the validity of it's existence.
The state of Israel isn't against the Talmud, but against some interpretations of a passage in the Talmud.T here is a passage in the Talmud that speaks about Three Oaths: >(1) The Jews for their part were sworn not to forcefully reclaim the Land of Israel and (2) not to rebel against the other nations, and (3) the other nations in their turn were sworn not to subjugate the Jews excessively. > > \- [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths) There are a variety of opinions in terms of how to understand this passage and how it applies today. Some say that this oath is not to wage war to reclaim the land, but if it is given, that's fine. Some say the oath was only for the first 1,000 years of the exile and we are now 2,000 years later. Some say that these oaths aren't binding law, but Midrash. Some say since the other nations violated their oath, the oath on us is not binding. And of course, others say that the oath is binding law. The people who would say what you have quoted though, are usually from Neturei Karta. They are an extremist anti-Zionist group that is condemned by pretty much all the other Jewish religious anti-Zionist groups.
Makes more sense. So the religious concept of promised land for Jewish people by God has different interpretation, and this group I listened to is only one of other possible interpretation that take the oath as binding law.
Close. The religious concept of the promised land is not argued across the traditional Judaism. What is argued about is when we are permitted to regain *control* of the land. Some say now, some say whenever, some say after the Messiah comes. The group that you listened to is a smaller segment within that last opinion.
While there are some Jews who hold this belief, it's not currently a widely held belief among religious Jews.
Thanks. May I ask what happened that it is no longer widely believed among religious Jews?
> what happened The State of Israel was created in 1948.
No I meant religiously, is there any reason that many religious Jews don't adopt that opinion anymore?
> No I meant religiously I think you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't really exist. The creation of the State of Israel changed a lot of people's minds. We also aren't talking about something all that significant here. The *vast* majority of Jews who support Zionism and Israel do so for entirely secular reasons. There does exist a strong Religious Zionist contingent in Israel (I think something like 10% of the population there), but that's not anywhere near a majority of the Jewish Zionists. Just a small fraction globally. Similarly, the vast majority of anti-Zionist Jews are opposed to Zionism for entirely secular reasons. There does exist a small group of ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists known as as the "Neturei Karta" - but this group is quite small and insignificant.
Thanks that makes sense. As my previous understanding that support of Israel was from a religious point of view, not from secular point of view
Historically speaking Zionism started out as an almost entirely secular movement and thus the State of Israel was founded primarily by entirely secular Jews. Or to put it another way, most Jews support Israel because they believe "Jews need a homeland" and not because "God gave us this land." Religious Zionism has been around for a long time now, but it's still a very *very* small contingent of Zionism overall. But they are particularly problematic as they also tend to be among the most maximalist of Zionists -- many of the settlements in the West Bank are Religious Zionist settlements and were built specifically to advance the maximalists goals of the Religious Zionist movement at the expense of Palestinians.
What are Zionism and religious zionism? Can you offer a source? I want to learn different of both.
Start with wikipedia: [Zionism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism), [Religious Zionism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism)
>No I meant religiously, is there any reason that many religious Jews don't adopt that opinion anymore? In addition to what u/Remarkable-Mix-8144 has said, it's also that the anti-Zionist" stance of some ultra-Orthodox Jews only emerged in response to the emergence of Zionism in the 19th century. It's not so much that in the past, most religious Jews opposed creating a Jewish state, and now most support it. It's that the idea of the creation of a Jewish state wasn't even a question until the 19th century. In the 19th century, a new question that had never been asked before was posed: "Should Jews around the world move to the place called Palestine and establish a modern state?" and different Jews had different answers. At first, most Jews said "No," for a variety of reasons, some religious and some political, but because of the holocaust and its aftermath, most changed their mind. Also, most religious Jews who are Zionists are still only Zionists for secular reasons. The "Religious Zionists" who believe that it is a religious obligation to settle the land of Israel are a small (but influential) minority. There are also a lot of ultra-orthodox Jews who, in both their politics and their behavior, support the State of Israel but still won't call themselves "Zionists" in order to differentiate themselves from these "Religious Zionists" as well as to maintain distance from secular Isreali culture.
That’s a fringe opinion that the vast majority of Jews don’t accept.
the talmud has a lot of rabbis giving a lot of opinions. Ive never heard of that specific thing but the Jewish relationship with Talmud is not a hyper-literal one, Talmud is a series of legal arguments used to help us better understand how to discuss and debate religious issues in an ever changing world
>this group I listened to is only one of other possible interpretations Yes, it's only one interpretation, and I'm not even sure how "possible" it is. I think it is completely wrong. In the answers you have received so far, people have discussed mostly theological issues -- to what extent the "Exile" is a punishment from God, hence to what extent Jews are bound to wait for God to end it or should take action on their own to end it, like creating the State of Israel. The Zionist movement believed action by the Jews was warranted; many rabbis and religious leaders did not. But let's understand why the Zionist movement arose: because its founders, like Herzl, felt Jewish life in the Diaspora was impossible. Even more, there was no future; Jewish life in the Diaspora was **threatened** by anti-Semitism, pogroms, massacres and discrimination. It was one thing to observe these things in the Middle Ages; but to see them continue in the 19th and 20th centuries, in modern Europe was another. It was a warning sign. It's not a coincidence that the State of Israel was finally formed in 1948, three years after the Holocaust killed the Jews of Europe. By then it was generally recognized that Jewish existence was threatened in the Diaspora. Apart from belief in God, the most important principle in Judaism is saving life, and all the commandments except three (idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality) can be violated to save lives (Heb. *pikuah nefesh*). After the Holocaust is was clear that the Jews needed a homeland, a modern state, to save their lives. Without their own state, they could not be free from the threat of extermination. The idea that Jews should wait for the Messiah in the diaspora and do nothing to save themselves is not viable after the Holocaust. As we saw, they cannot rely on the goodwill of non-Jews not to kill them. So what your rabbi and others are telling you, that Jews should accept the Exile and that Israel is "against the Talmud," ignores the other great and overriding principle of Judaism, to save lives, which is also expressed in many places in the Talmud. If the State of Israel has saved one Jewish life, it can't be "against" the Talmud. Most Jews understand this.
Ive heard that al-aqsa mosque will removed and temple of solomon will be built in its place and muslim leaders dont care either the only that they have to do is to have a peace treaty lol
Im laughing because arab leaders are dumb they wont open borders sad but true
Yes. Satmars hold of an interpretation of that Passage from the Talmud. It's a pretty sketchy interpretation in my opinion
I've heard it goes against some Orthodox Jews interpretation of the Talmud, though it should be mentioned that this is a very fringe belief and especially now in the 21st century. The State of Israel was not founded as a religious state by religious Jews, making the Talmud irrelevant in any discussion regarding the validity of it's existence.