Thank you for writing. I would imagine you read the article and did not simply comment based on the title. In the article I explained that having an army, while important, is a temporary necessity in comparison to the eternal nature of Torah.
Yes, but this is a proposal as to why there shouldn't be a tefillah for the army. It's not an explanation of why Yekum Purkan doesn't have anything about the army.
With all due respect, you are reading your bias into my words. I clearly wrote that we should have a Tefillah for the army, just that it should not be part of Yekum Purkan. It is most definitely not a "proposal as to why there shouldn't be a tefillah for the army."
I quote from above:
At the same time, the soldiers who protect us are included in our additional tefilos, even if not in the "Yekum Purkan." This reflects the hope that their service is temporary and that a time will come when the entire world will recognize the truth of our mission as Jews, and there will no longer be a need for an army. However, the fire of Torah will burn brightly in every home.... We are stronger when we recognize that we complement each other. The army provides the security for our people to live and thrive; the Torah provides the soul that makes us who we are. The resolution will come not from divisive rhetoric but from a shared commitment to understanding and mutual respect.
1. The title is "Why Yekum Purkan Doesn’t Include Our Soldiers." The answer to *that* question, which you return to in the post, is that Yekum Purkan was composed when there weren't any.
2. Then there is another question: Should there be another, similar tefilla for the State or IDF? Nobody would ever have edited Yekum Purkan, which was written in Aramaic in a specific context for its own specific purpose. The question is whether there should be a similar tefillah composed.
3. "Including" the soldiers in general Tehillim is not the same as composing a tefillah for them.
4. The Dati-Leumi world says yes, there should be a special tefillah. Hence, the Misheberah for the State and for the Army.
5. R. Lopiansky's claim that there shouldn't be a prayer for something non-permanent is belied by HaNosen Teshuah, which was widely recited worldwide for many centuries.
6. Hence, the real reason why Charedim don't davven for the IDF or state (even though many of them come from communities which said Hanosen Teshua) is not because they object to tefillos for temporary situations, but because of their desire to remain in opposition to Zionism.
7. As you can see, I read your post carefully and responded accurately to what you actually wrote. Hence, your FB post expressing frustration was misplaced.
Thank you for reading the post, which was an attempt to build bridges not deepen an ever deepening rift. I do not believe I suggested the tefilla of "including soldiers in mind for our general tehillim." What I had in mind and I believe wrote clearly was the Tefilla for Chayalim -- that every shul in my neighborhood says, yes even the more charedi ones.
As far as Rav Lopiansky he was specifically referring to Yukam Purkan. HaNosen Teshuah would go in the category of temporary tefillos even according to him.
As far as the "real reason why Charedim don't davven for the IDF or state" that was never the subject of my post.
Thanks for a fruitful discussion. Signing off now for Shabbos
Did you read what you quoted from Rav Lopiansky? He was explicitly talking about "why charedi shuls do not say the "Mi Shebeirach" prayers for the well-being of the State and the army."
Thank you for this!!
Huh? Yekum purkan was composed in 10th century Babylonia. There was no Jewish army.
Thank you for writing. I would imagine you read the article and did not simply comment based on the title. In the article I explained that having an army, while important, is a temporary necessity in comparison to the eternal nature of Torah.
Yes, but this is a proposal as to why there shouldn't be a tefillah for the army. It's not an explanation of why Yekum Purkan doesn't have anything about the army.
With all due respect, you are reading your bias into my words. I clearly wrote that we should have a Tefillah for the army, just that it should not be part of Yekum Purkan. It is most definitely not a "proposal as to why there shouldn't be a tefillah for the army."
I quote from above:
At the same time, the soldiers who protect us are included in our additional tefilos, even if not in the "Yekum Purkan." This reflects the hope that their service is temporary and that a time will come when the entire world will recognize the truth of our mission as Jews, and there will no longer be a need for an army. However, the fire of Torah will burn brightly in every home.... We are stronger when we recognize that we complement each other. The army provides the security for our people to live and thrive; the Torah provides the soul that makes us who we are. The resolution will come not from divisive rhetoric but from a shared commitment to understanding and mutual respect.
1. The title is "Why Yekum Purkan Doesn’t Include Our Soldiers." The answer to *that* question, which you return to in the post, is that Yekum Purkan was composed when there weren't any.
2. Then there is another question: Should there be another, similar tefilla for the State or IDF? Nobody would ever have edited Yekum Purkan, which was written in Aramaic in a specific context for its own specific purpose. The question is whether there should be a similar tefillah composed.
3. "Including" the soldiers in general Tehillim is not the same as composing a tefillah for them.
4. The Dati-Leumi world says yes, there should be a special tefillah. Hence, the Misheberah for the State and for the Army.
5. R. Lopiansky's claim that there shouldn't be a prayer for something non-permanent is belied by HaNosen Teshuah, which was widely recited worldwide for many centuries.
6. Hence, the real reason why Charedim don't davven for the IDF or state (even though many of them come from communities which said Hanosen Teshua) is not because they object to tefillos for temporary situations, but because of their desire to remain in opposition to Zionism.
7. As you can see, I read your post carefully and responded accurately to what you actually wrote. Hence, your FB post expressing frustration was misplaced.
Thank you for reading the post, which was an attempt to build bridges not deepen an ever deepening rift. I do not believe I suggested the tefilla of "including soldiers in mind for our general tehillim." What I had in mind and I believe wrote clearly was the Tefilla for Chayalim -- that every shul in my neighborhood says, yes even the more charedi ones.
As far as Rav Lopiansky he was specifically referring to Yukam Purkan. HaNosen Teshuah would go in the category of temporary tefillos even according to him.
As far as the "real reason why Charedim don't davven for the IDF or state" that was never the subject of my post.
Thanks for a fruitful discussion. Signing off now for Shabbos
Did you read what you quoted from Rav Lopiansky? He was explicitly talking about "why charedi shuls do not say the "Mi Shebeirach" prayers for the well-being of the State and the army."