For example, he believed a person should live where he would be the most productive.
"It is ridiculous to tell a young man, who does a good job, or has prepared or trained himself to do a good job [here in the U.S., that he must instead go to ארצ ישראל]. "Good job" means to spread Torah, or to lead an exemplary life which serves as an example to others through personal contact - there are many ways to convert and educate Jews. I am not giving up on American Jews. If I feel that in my town, or in my village, I will accomplish a lot, and when I come to Eretz Yisrael so I or my influence will be reduced to zero, my place is here, not there. Some who went to Eretz Yisrael achieved the same objectives they would have in the Diaspora. But only some! I know of many who fail. They don't admit it. It's nice on their part not to admit it." (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Rav Thinking Aloud, pp. 242-3).
He saw the creation of the state as a positive event but did not see it in messianic terms with eschatological significance. In other words, he believed that one should not say that the state had any connection to the redemption. (Source: Sholom Carmy, "Soloveitchik the Zionist") Sholom Carmy writes:
"Rabbi Hayyim saw secular Jewish nationalism as the sworn enemy of Orthodoxy. His grandson saw it as a valuable, creative, and useful movement with much to contribute to Jewish welfare. But the shift is perhaps less than it seems on the surface. The Rav continued to laud the positive achievements of secular Zionism although its ideology stood in conflict with adherence to God as Orthodoxy comprehends it. The more messianic tendency in religious Zionism of the sort inspired by R. Kook, by contrast, celebrated the radical transformation of Jewish spirituality. It exalted the state and its military prowess in a way that R. Soloveitchik could not." (Soloveitchik the Zionist | Shalom Carmy)
The Wikipedia article on the Rav describes his Zionism as follows:
Soloveitchik was the pre-eminent leader of politically conscious pro-Zionist modern Orthodox Judaism. Out of respect for his stature, many leaders and politicians from Israel sought his advice and blessings in state affairs. Reputedly, he was offered the position of Chief Rabbi of Israel by Prime Minister Ben Gurion, but quietly declined. Despite his open and ardent support for the modern State of Israel, he only visited Israel once, in 1935, before the modern state was established. Yosef Blau has written that Soloveitchik's non-messianic Zionism was philosophically similar to that of Yitzchak Yaacov Reines (see Tradition 33.2, Communications).On Yom ha-Atzma'ut (Israel's Independence Day), 1956, Soloveitchik delivered a public address at Yeshiva University entitled, "Kol Dodi Dofek; The Voice of My Beloved Knocks." The address, which has become a classic of religious Zionist philosophy, enumerates and elaborates upon the instances of God's tangible presence in the recent history of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. It also issues a clarion call to American Orthodoxy to embrace the State of Israel, and to commit itself and its resources to its development. (Wikipedia)
However, the Rav did not say any prayer for the state during tefillah. (Rosh Hashana Machzor with commentary adapted from the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, p. 439.)
He objected to the Yom HaShoah commemoration, asserting that “all expressions of aveilus should take place on Tisha b’Av, not a separate Yom Ha’Shoah.” (The Rav Thinking Aloud, p. 244)
He was not enthusiastic about recitation of Hallel on Israeli Independence Day and forbade the recitation of a bracha on it. (Yitzchok Levine, “Rav Soloveitchik and Saying Hallel On Yom Ha’atzmaut,” April 20, 2010, Matzav)
He did not believe that the Ramban actually said that mitzvos performed outside of Eretz Yisroel are only a “prologue” or an “introduction” to those performed in Eretz Yisroel. (The Rav Thinking Aloud, pp. 229-231) He did not approve of the heter mechira for shmita.
He said: “Emotionally, I feel Zionism – religious Zionism – has replaced Torah.” [This is meant as a criticism of religious zionism.] (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in David Holtzer, The Rav Thinking Aloud, Transcripts of Personal Conversations with Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, p. 171.)
"Now there is an official public opinion which is molded not by religious, but by secular, Jews. People used to accuse us Orthodox Jews that we are intolerant. We are very tolerant, in comparison to Zionists. Let somebody try to say anything not in agreement with Begin -- אחת דתו להמית. You can say a lot not in agreement with Moshe Rabbeinu, but you must not deny Begin's theories. I am not joking. I can't yield to that. I am not a politician." (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Rav Thinking Aloud, pp. 239-40)
He said: “Emotionally, I feel Zionism – religious Zionism – has replaced Torah.” [This is meant as a criticism of religious zionism.] (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in David Holtzer, The Rav Thinking Aloud, Transcripts of Personal Conversations with Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, p. 171.)
Student asks: "Question: Is there any validity to hakamas ha'medinah as far as geulah or shivas tzion is concerned?
The Rav: "No. Yimay ha'Moshiach? No. Since it contributed greatly to the survival of our people it is very important. This itself is important. But all this stupidity - aschalta d'geulah, geulah - I am against it." (David Holtzer, ed., The Rav Thinking Aloud, p. 217.)
"Now there is an official public opinion which is molded not by religious, but by secular, Jews. People used to accuse us Orthodox Jews that we are intolerant. We are very tolerant, in comparison to Zionists. Let somebody try to say anything not in agreement with Begin -- אחת דתו להמית. You can say a lot not in agreement with Moshe Rabbeinu, but you must not deny Begin's theories. I am not joking. I can't yield to that. I am not a politician." (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Rav Thinking Aloud, pp. 239-40)
"… if the State of Israel will become a secular kingdom without Torah, without sanctity, without the Sabbath, without Jewish education, without family purity, a State in which Jewish uniqueness will be erased, then the price we are paying for her in blood and tears is too heavy." (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Rav Speaks, pp. 138-9.)
Question by student: "What do you do with the Ramban in Devarim which says the kiyum miztvos in chutz l'aretz is not on the same level as in Eretz Yisrael" ?
The Rav: "I knew that Ramban before you were born! [audience laughter] Kook comes out with the Ramban as if he is the only one to whom the Ramban has entrusted the text. I knew about it, and I sweated out the Ramban. I sweated out the Ramban, and the Ramban never said it. This is a Sifri, a difficult Sifri in limadatem osem ess binachem, v'ha'aretz yitan ess yevula, and we don't know exactly the text of the Sifri. And no matter who says it, I don't care. The three words כי לי כל הארץ settles everything. Ramban, Kuzari -- כי לי כל הארץ . It means chovos ha'mitzvos in chutz l'aretz is not to be considered a prologue or introduction to kiyum ha'mitzvos in Eretz Yisrael. They are the same importance. A Jew who takes an esrog in chutz l'aretz has the same reward, the same schar, as the Jew who take an esrog in Eretz Yisrael. It's a difficult Ramban, it's a difficult Rashi - but don't frighten me with it."
Student: Can't we say instead כי מציון תצה תורה, that davka b'Yerushalayim you'll accomplish more, even from galus?
The Rav: I'll tell you frankly, I believe that I interpret a shitckl gemara besser fun asach in Eretz Yisraei [Yiddish: a piece of Gemara better than many in א'י]. [audience laughter]. When I don't have to go into temporary structures. Ay, avira d'Eretz Yisrael machkim? Ay, ain Torah k'Toras Eretz Yisrael? I know all those ma'amarim, which are used by the Mizrachi uprights." (The Rav Thinking Aloud, pp. 229-231)
Student: Is there any place for Yom Ha'Shoah commemoration?
Rabbi Soloveitchik: "I am very bad as far as aveilus is concerned. That's one of the reason why I have not been elected a pulpit rabbi. Tisha b'Av...Rashi in Shmuel Bais says all yimay aveilus, pertaining to all disastrous events which took place in our history, all expressions of aveilus should take place on Tisha b'Av, not a separate Yom Ha'Shoah. Rashi says it. Not in Shmuel Bais, excuse me, it's in Divrei HaYamim." (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Rav Thinking Aloud, p. 244
Victor Geller writes, "The aftermath of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and the attack on the Palestinian refugee camps by Lebanese Christians, left a moral stain on Israel. In the Knesset there was a demand for a thorough inquiry into the massacres and a clarification if Israel was in any way responsible. The left wing political parties were in favor of the inquiry. The right wing parties were opposed to it. Mizrachi joined them in opposing any inquiry. Rav Soloveitchik was informed of the position taken by Mizrachi. A vote was scheduled for a Sunday. The Rav called Rabbi Friedman at the Jewish Agency and instructed him to call Israel in his name and to demand that Mizrachi vote for the resolution. The Rav said that it is not a political issue but a moral one and Mizrachi had to act morally. So insistent was the Rav that he told Rabbi Friedman to call Israel on Shabbat to convey his message! The call was an halachic order by the Rav to Rabbi Friedman. The call was made on Shabbat. Mizrachi voted for the inquiry." (Orthodoxy Awakens, The Belkin Era and Yeshiva University, Victor Geller, p. 258)
The Rav: "I knew that Ramban before you were born! [audience laughter] Kook comes out with the Ramban as if he is the only one to whom the Ramban has entrusted the text. I knew about it, and I sweated out the Ramban. I sweated out the Ramban, and the Ramban never said it. This is a Sifri, a difficult Sifri in limadatem osem ess binachem, v'ha'aretz yitan ess yevula, and we don't know exactly the text of the Sifri. And no matter who says it, I don't care. The three words כי לי כל הארץ settles everything. Ramban, Kuzari -- כי לי כל הארץ . It means chovos ha'mitzvos in chutz l'aretz is not to be considered a prologue or introduction to kiyum ha'mitzvos in Eretz Yisrael. They are the same importance. A Jew who takes an esrog in chutz l'aretz has the same reward, the same schar, as the Jew who take an esrog in Eretz Yisrael. It's a difficult Ramban, it's a difficult Rashi - but don't frighten me with it."
Student: Can't we say instead כי מציון תצה תורה, that davka b'Yerushalayim you'll accomplish more, even from galus?
The Rav: I'll tell you frankly, I believe that I interpret a shitckl gemara besser fun asach in Eretz Yisraei [Yiddish: a piece of Gemara better than many in א'י]. [audience laughter]. When I don't have to go into temporary structures. Ay, avira d'Eretz Yisrael machkim? Ay, ain Torah k'Toras Eretz Yisrael? I know all those ma'amarim, which are used by the Mizrachi uprights." (The Rav Thinking Aloud, pp. 229-231)
Student: Is there any place for Yom Ha'Shoah commemoration?
Rabbi Soloveitchik: "I am very bad as far as aveilus is concerned. That's one of the reason why I have not been elected a pulpit rabbi. Tisha b'Av...Rashi in Shmuel Bais says all yimay aveilus, pertaining to all disastrous events which took place in our history, all expressions of aveilus should take place on Tisha b'Av, not a separate Yom Ha'Shoah. Rashi says it. Not in Shmuel Bais, excuse me, it's in Divrei HaYamim." (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Rav Thinking Aloud, p. 244
Victor Geller writes, "The aftermath of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and the attack on the Palestinian refugee camps by Lebanese Christians, left a moral stain on Israel. In the Knesset there was a demand for a thorough inquiry into the massacres and a clarification if Israel was in any way responsible. The left wing political parties were in favor of the inquiry. The right wing parties were opposed to it. Mizrachi joined them in opposing any inquiry. Rav Soloveitchik was informed of the position taken by Mizrachi. A vote was scheduled for a Sunday. The Rav called Rabbi Friedman at the Jewish Agency and instructed him to call Israel in his name and to demand that Mizrachi vote for the resolution. The Rav said that it is not a political issue but a moral one and Mizrachi had to act morally. So insistent was the Rav that he told Rabbi Friedman to call Israel on Shabbat to convey his message! The call was an halachic order by the Rav to Rabbi Friedman. The call was made on Shabbat. Mizrachi voted for the inquiry." (Orthodoxy Awakens, The Belkin Era and Yeshiva University, Victor Geller, p. 258)
Rabbi Aharon Kotler and Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik - Rabbi
Dr. Aharon Rakeffet
The Rav was NOT in favor of drafting women. He was against going public with that position against the State of Israel at that time. – Rav Aaron Rakeffet
"One thing, my father was not a Zionist despite what the Mizrachi may say. They have The Rav Speaks, c'v'yochel, which is a story in itself. If you are talking about Cultural Zionism, he thought it was ridiculous. The Torah was given in Chutzeh l'Aretz, the Babli was in Chutzeh l'Aretz, all the Rishonim were in Chutzeh l'Aretz. What are you talking about? If you are talking about the political framework, which existed in a shtetl, being a minority, in an alien society, obviously had to change. And you needed a state. Jews needed a state. That's a political statement. From the point of view of the need of a state that will always be open to Jews (that) was perfectly clear to him. But in terms of cultural Zionism, he thought it was beneath contempt. I can only say I was not brought up in a Zionist home. Ahavas Ha'Aretz is one thing. Zionism is something else."
Dr. Haym Soloveitchik, "Haym Soloveitchik: How Modernity Changed Our Relationship to God," 18Forty, 1:09:43-1:10:37
However, he could wax romantic about the subject in ways that this author is not comfortable with.
Witness his thoughts on David Ben Gurion as depicted in an article by Jeffrey Saks:
When Wiesel asked him who was responsible for this state of affairs, the Rav would not answer, but stated that it was unfortunate that David Ben-Gurion, then Prime Minster, didn't appreciate the potential of Judaism-as-religion to draw young Jews to Israel, and encourage self-sacrifice on its behalf. This despite the fact that he Rav saw in Ben-Gurion someone with a "religious connection," albeit one that was generally not properly articulated. "In my eyes," said the Rav, "he is a religious Jew -- even though he doesn't know it himself.” (Jeffrey Saks, "Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik and the Chief Rabbinate, Biographical Notes," BDD 17, Sept. 2006)
However, here's the Wikipedia depiction of DBG:
And then there's the assessment of someone who knew him, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who considered Ben Gurion "to have hated Judaism more than any other man he had met". (Wikipedia)
What about concessions with the Orthodox. Why did he do that?
Let DBG speak for himself:
....David also described himself as an irreligious person who developed atheism in his youth and who demonstrated no great sympathy for the elements of traditional Judaism, though he quoted the Bible extensively in his speeches and writings. (Wikipedia, “David Ben Gurion”)
And then there's the assessment of someone who knew him, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who considered Ben Gurion "to have hated Judaism more than any other man he had met". (Wikipedia)
What about concessions with the Orthodox. Why did he do that?
Ben-Gurion was aware that world Jewry could and would only feel comfortable to throw their support behind the nascent state, if it was shrouded with religious mystique. That would include an orthodox tacit acquiescence to the entity. Therefore, in September 1947 Ben-Gurion decided to reach a status quo formal agreement with the Orthodox Agudat Yisrael party. (Wikipedia)In other words, he was conning the religious community.
Let DBG speak for himself:
"Since I invoke Torah so often, let me state that I don't personally believe in the God it postulates ... I am not religious, nor were the majority of the early builders of Israel believers."
That's pretty clear. Why not take him at this word? This was a man who lead the public to sin. About such a person the Mishnah says, "One who causes the community to sin, is not given the opportunity to repent. ... Jeroboam the son of Nebat sinned and caused the community to sin, so the community's sin is attributed to him; as is stated, "For the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned and caused Israel to sin" (I Kings 15:30). (Avos 5:18)
It is pretty far fetched to call a denier of God a religious man. Was he so shaken by antisemitism in Europe that he was motivated non-the-less to help the Jewish people?
Not a believer in God or Torah. Not motivated by antisemitism. Could he nevertheless have been a lover of Jews? Witness this quote from Ben Gurion: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." (Attributed to Ben-Gurion pre-War 1939 by Martin Gilbert in "Israel was everything" in The New York Times 21 June 1987) Sounds like he was a megalomaniac who lived for political ambitions to an extent so alarming that all obligations to look for the good in him are off the table.
And what about his treatment of the Arabs? We are all so used to fearing and hating them, even though Jews lived relatively peacefully in Arab countries and in Palestine for more than a thousand years. Their animosity started when the preparations for not just a state but for a state covering the whole land became glaring. In his words:
Did he only want his little piece of land and be happy to allow the Arabs theirs?
How many people died because of his ambitions? And how many did he kill?
Religious person? Was he human? He was after all the head of the country during the expulsion of 700,000 Arabs, half the country, from their homes in '47-48. Here's what happened in Lydda after he ordered the expulsion of 50,000 Arabs:
250 men, women, and children died that day. Religious man?
Safe to say, Rabbi Soloveitchik's comments about Ben Gurion are difficult to accept. And what about his thoughts on his uncle, the Brisker Rav. Again we return to Jeffrey Saks:
In addressing his uncle’s anti-Zionism, the Rav explained:
It is pretty far fetched to call a denier of God a religious man. Was he so shaken by antisemitism in Europe that he was motivated non-the-less to help the Jewish people?
For many of us, anti-Semitic feeling had little to do with our dedication [to Zionism]. I personally never suffered anti-Semitic persecution. Płońsk was remarkably free of it ... Nevertheless, and I think this very significant, it was Płońsk that sent the highest proportion of Jews to Eretz Israel from any town in Poland of comparable size. We emigrated not for negative reasons of escape but for the positive purpose of rebuilding a homeland ... Life in Płońsk was peaceful enough. There were three main communities: Russians, Jews and Poles. ... The number of Jews and Poles in the city were roughly equal, about five thousand each. The Jews, however, formed a compact, centralized group occupying the innermost districts whilst the Poles were more scattered, living in outlying areas and shading off into the peasantry. Consequently, when a gang of Jewish boys met a Polish gang the latter would almost inevitably represent a single suburb and thus be poorer in fighting potential than the Jews who even if their numbers were initially fewer could quickly call on reinforcements from the entire quarter. Far from being afraid of them, they were rather afraid of us. In general, however, relations were amicable, though distant. (Memoirs : David Ben-Gurion,1970, p. 36 in Wikipedia)
Not a believer in God or Torah. Not motivated by antisemitism. Could he nevertheless have been a lover of Jews? Witness this quote from Ben Gurion: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." (Attributed to Ben-Gurion pre-War 1939 by Martin Gilbert in "Israel was everything" in The New York Times 21 June 1987) Sounds like he was a megalomaniac who lived for political ambitions to an extent so alarming that all obligations to look for the good in him are off the table.
And what about his treatment of the Arabs? We are all so used to fearing and hating them, even though Jews lived relatively peacefully in Arab countries and in Palestine for more than a thousand years. Their animosity started when the preparations for not just a state but for a state covering the whole land became glaring. In his words:
Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. (David Ben Gurion)
Did he only want his little piece of land and be happy to allow the Arabs theirs?
The present map of Palestine was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have another map which our youth and adults should strive to fulfill: from the Nile to the Euphrates. (David Ben Gurion)
How many people died because of his ambitions? And how many did he kill?
During the first weeks of Israel's independence, he ordered all militias to be replaced by one national army, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). To that end, Ben-Gurion used a firm hand during the Altalena Affair, a ship carrying arms purchased by the Irgun led by Menachem Begin. He insisted that all weapons be handed over to the IDF. When fighting broke out on the Tel Aviv beach he ordered it be taken by force and to shell the ship. Sixteen Irgun fighters and three IDF soldiers were killed in this battle. Wikipedia
Religious person? Was he human? He was after all the head of the country during the expulsion of 700,000 Arabs, half the country, from their homes in '47-48. Here's what happened in Lydda after he ordered the expulsion of 50,000 Arabs:
From Lydda, the inhabitants left on foot, some being stripped of money and jewelry by the IDF troops at checkpoints on the way out....During the following days, suffering from hunger and thirst, dozens probably died on the way to Ramallah. An Israeli trooper later described the spoor of the refugee columns, "to begin with [jettisoning] utensils and furniture and in the end, bodies of men, women, and children, scattered along the way. Old people sat beside their carts begging for a drop of water -- but there was none." Another soldier recorded vivid impressions of how "children got lost" and how a child fell into a well, and presumably drowned, ignored as his fellow refugees fought over water. "Nobody will ever know how many children died" in the trek, wrote the legion's commander, John Glugg. (Israeli historian Benny Morris, "1948", p. 290)
250 men, women, and children died that day. Religious man?
Safe to say, Rabbi Soloveitchik's comments about Ben Gurion are difficult to accept. And what about his thoughts on his uncle, the Brisker Rav. Again we return to Jeffrey Saks:
In addressing his uncle’s anti-Zionism, the Rav explained:
“They said of him [Reb Velvel] that he was opposed to the State of Israel. This is not correct. Opposition to a State emanates from adopting a position regarding a political body, which is itself a political act. My uncle was completely removed from all socio-political thought or response. What may be said of him is that the State found no place within his halakhic thought system nor on his halakhic value scale. He was unable to ‘translate’ the idea of a sovereign, secular State to halakhic properties and values.” It is not that Reb Velvel was an anti-Zionist, per se, but that, as a halakhic matter the secular State of Israel did not register on his radar screen. Upon reaching the disappointing conclusion that there was no way to integrate the State into the a priori ideals of the halakha, Reb Velvel was forced to retreat and ignore (not oppose) the State. At this point in his presentation, we must pay close attention to the Rav’s words: “This disappointment led to my uncle separating himself from the most important event in modern Jewish history [i.e., the establishment of the State]. (Jeffrey Saks, The Rav Between Halakhic Men and Lachrymose Lubavitchers)
Again, this seems far-fetched. The Brisker Rav was consumed with opposition to the State. The Brisker Rav in commenting on how the Satmar Rebbe said the founding of the State violates the Talmudic rule of Three Oaths said, just three? It violates every precept in the Torah. The Brisker Rav was completely anti-Zionistic as was his father, Soloveitchik's grandfather, Rav Chaim Brisker. The biography by Shimon Meller dedicates more than 100 pages to the topic of the Brisker Rav's anti-Zionism. The Brisker Rav was asked if we should daven for the Zionists. He said, we should say the bracha in the Amidah concerning the heretics. He said the entire purpose of Zionism was to eradicate the Jewish religion. To call him neutral on the topic is as delusional as calling David Ben Gurion religious. And side note, I believe the most important events in modern Jewish history would be the emancipation and the haskalah drawing 90% of Ashkenazic Jewry from Torah observance (the State did the same to Sephardim), the Holocaust which arguably served as a punishment for that, and the rebuilding of Torah after the Holocaust. That Soloveitchik would place the state at the top of the list is pretty alarming.
The Brisker Rav said two things are certain. Zionism is idol worship, and all Jews in Israel are entrapped by Zionism. R. Joseph Soloveitchik only came to the Holy Land one time but it seems he was entrapped like a person who lives there. I just cannot rely on his words on the subject despite my adoration of the man.
He also said, even more incredibly that the "sandy" hills of Eretz Yisroel are worth sacrificing our youth for. (See Chumash, parshas Vayigash and R' David's Chumash book). This is an alarming statement. We only go to war with on the command of Hashem using prophets and the urim v'tumim. We don't sacrifice lives at the behest of atheistic leaders.
Now it's to Rabbi Soloveitchik's credit that I think he would accept this criticism of him. He didn't hold back on voicing his opinion and even criticized gadolim in Europe for allegedly advising people not to flee during WWII. Rav Soloveitchik was not thin skinned and shunned obscurantism, a term he used many times. So I think he would tell me to go ahead with my comments here. I still think, obviously, that his Torah, which is firmly removed from his Zionistic leanings and musings, is worthwhile, incredible even. As Rav Avigdor Miller said about Jewish thinkers who could say a problematic thing or two, rip that page out of the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment