|
|
| |||
|
IN-DEPTH FEATURES
Part III
What Does The Steipler Say? -- Some Highlights of the
Years of His Communal Leadership
What Does The Steipler Say? was the title of one of the
articles eulogizing the Steipler that appeared in the Hebrew
Yated (then in its first year of publication) following
his petirah. The fact that the question instinctively
kept being asked, even though it was no longer possible to
consult him, was testimony to the impact of the years of his
leadership of the Torah camp.
Fifteen years later, the question essentially still hovers in
the air, although there have been vast changes both within
our camp and without which necessitate the utmost care in
drawing comparisons.
The Chazon Ish was the leader who coordinated the beginnings
of the small, weak and struggling new yishuv. He
directed its battle to maintain its integrity and its loyalty
to Torah in the face of the constant threats of the Zionist
establishment to engulf it. His brother-in-law, the Steipler,
subsequently tended and guided the flock as it grew in
numbers and strength. He warned off attempts to weaken it
from within and endeavored to ensure that its voice would be
heard in the public forum. He left the Torah community
stronger and more self confident than he received it and its
growth has boruch Hashem since continued unabated.
Today however, the Torah camp faces unprecedented challenges
arising from its own continuing growth and diversification,
the ongoing moral decline of the surrounding society and the
escalation in the ferocity of the fight against us. Though he
can no longer provide direct guidance, the question What
would the Steipler say? is still all important. The
following selection from the record of his public leadership
clearly spells out a distinct message: "Let it be less but
let it be pure!"
To Vote or Not to Vote
"Did he sign or didn't he?" -- the question resurfaces before
every election. Whether or not to vote and if so, for whom.
It is never straightforward. We've chosen the issue of
participation in general and municipal elections to begin
with, since it illustrates two major features of the
Steipler's communal leadership. First, his battle against
"the party of deserters" (as he himself called them), namely
Po'alei Agudas Yisroel (PAI), and second, the dual leadership
which he exercised, together with ylct'a, HaRav Shach.
Although these two gedolim did not have frequent
contact with each other, their approach to every issue that
was brought before them was identical. The way in which each
of them submitted to the other's opinions was also
remarkable.
"As to the main matter, my humble opinion leans towards the
view that it is a great mitzvah to vote for the chareidi list
and that this constitutes the saving of religion . . . as for
your argument that there are [Torah] prohibitions involved, I
have given great consideration as to whether it is worthwhile
responding because in truth, it is utterly against my wishes
that the members of Neturei Karto, sheyichyu loy't,
should change their opinion. Whilst no prohibition is
involved in voting, there is zeal for Hashem's sake in their
refraining from doing so . . . You wrote that voting involves
acknowledging the validity of avoda zorah; however,
this is completely unfounded . . . your honor should know
that even for zealous ends, it is forbidden to interpret the
Torah at variance with halocho, and what is not the
truth does not succeed at all."
The contents of this letter (which appears in Karaino
De'igarto Vol. I, #203) set guidelines for charting
policy in the battle against Zionism through casting votes in
elections. That was his approach to the issue; it was a
battle whose sole purpose moreover, was to fight the
destroyers of religion, not to advance any group's particular
interests. He had absolutely no trace whatsoever of party
allegiance, which meant that every time a question arose it
was judged wholly on its own merits, free from the distorting
influence of party interests. On the other hand, neither was
there any place for emotional zealotry when it came to
determining the halocho and the course of action that
arose therefrom.
At that time, the rulings of the Chazon Ish and the Brisker
Rov zt'l regarding participation in the elections were
being questioned (the questions were actually being fanned by
excitability, without checking the facts). The wish to be
drawn into the general fight against Zionism gave rise to the
inclination to rule out taking any part in the elections and
consequently to view the opinions of those gedolim in
this light as well. The Steipler and ylct'a, HaRav
Shach however, clearly conveyed the message that all that was
involved was the battle.
HaRav Shach, before the elections in 5737 (1977): "I am not
expressing my own opinions, for this was the view of our
master the Chazon Ish, zy'a, and of the Rov of Brisk.
They were all of the opinion that one should take part in the
elections. If they would have said not to go, I wouldn't go .
. . for when we take part in the elections, a voice of
protest is heard . . . and I know that the opinion of our
master the gaon Rav Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky . . . is
also that one should go . . . I must say further that `they
have made me into a liar' when I said that `they were all of
the opinion that one should take part.' I know myself that I
am not a liar, however, HaRav Kanievsky . . . is certainly
not a liar and if he would have heard any hint from the
Chazon Ish against taking part, he would not be supporting it
now."
The Steipler: "I will just let your honor know that the
opinion of the vast majority of gedolei Yisroel
approximately twenty years ago was that there is absolutely
no trace of issur whatsoever involved, and our master
the Chazon Ish ztll'h was among them . . . Regarding
the actual question, everyone is obliged to follow the
majority opinion in the whole of Torah and in this matter,
most of the Torah sages who are with us . . . and who have
already departed are [and were] of the opinion that it is a
proper obligation . . . As for his advice to write `with the
exception of Yerushalayim t'v,' it is utterly
unfounded. Is it not enough that I am getting involved in
this controversy? Does he want me to become involved in a
disagreement about whether the power of the Badatz is only
binding upon members of the Eida HaChareidis or all who live
in Yerushalayim?" (Karaino De'igarto #154, 156).
This, despite the fact that from another letter his ruling on
this point is apparent (K.D. Vol. I #221).
The Battle With PAI
To the same extent that he held it was an obligation to vote
in elections, he issued a penetrating ruling that "the party
of deserters" should be distanced.
First a word of historical background about the affair. The
Po'alei Agudas Yisroel movement was, as its name suggests,
originally an organization of chareidi workers. It had been
established in Europe under the banner of the Agudas Yisroel
World Movement as a counter force to the irreligious Zionist
workers' groups. Through its youth movement, part of whose
membership was composed of natives of Germany, the movement
established a number of settlements in Israel, as needed.
Integration into the country's agricultural life led the
movement's leaders to a series of steps that in effect
constituted a gradual merger with Zionist organizations. The
leaders started to gradually dissociate themselves from the
Agudah's Torah leadership, with the process gathering
momentum after the State was established.
In 5708 (1948), they planted their settlements on land
belonging to the Keren Kayemet Leyisroel (Jewish National
Fund), a step that had been debated years earlier with HaRav
Elchonon Wassermann zt'l Hy'd, to whom PAI's leaders
had replied with a marked lack of respect. Now they tried to
attribute their actions to the "silence" (said to equal
acquiescence) of the Chazon Ish.
Thereafter, at every issue that arose PAI justified
themselves by the fact that they had the consent of
gedolei Torah -- who always remained anonymous. So it
was with the mixing of boys and girls in the Ezra youth
movement; so it was with the negotiations over PAI's
participation in Sherut Leumi (national service for
girls). Every time there was a different "godol
beTorah" who, they said, supported them. (It was
concerning their concession to Sherut Leumi that Rav
Kalman Kahana, one of the leaders of PAI, received an
astounding letter from the Chazon Ish which stated, "a spirit
of foolishness possessed you, that you commit suicide . . . "
as well as other fearsome remarks.)
In 5711 (1951), elections were held for the mayor of Petach
Tikva. The leaders of PAI supported an irreligious candidate,
over his opponent who was religious. In a letter from the
Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, HaRav Yechezkel Sarna and HaRav Meir
Karelitz zt'l forbade this.
HaRav Karelitz (the Chazon Ish's older brother) was then
serving as the official rov of the PAI movement. When the
politicians stubbornly refused to hearken to this letter,
HaRav Karelitz resigned from all positions of rabbinical and
any other kind of leadership.
The way things then stood was that on the one hand there was
Agudas Yisroel, which remained faithful to the Torah
leadership, while on the other was PAI, with its
institutions, its settlements and its sources of revenue. All
this time, the Agudah's Torah leaders had attempted to bring
pressure from the rank and file of PAI members to bear upon
the movement's leaders and the two movements still appeared
on a joint list for the general elections.
The Rebellion
In the elections of 5720 (1960), the list received six
Knesset seats, three of which were allocated to the PAI
faction headed by B. Mintz.
Then it happened. The Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah ruled against
joining a coalition with the leftist government. However, PAI
ignored their ruling and joined. The secular press hailed the
move as "PAI's independence day," -- independence that is,
from the authority of the Torah leaders.
The response of the Torah community was that leaders,
roshei yeshiva and Admorim, gathered to declare
that PAI had detached themselves from Agudas Yisroel. The
Tchebiner Rov, and the Rebbes of Ger, Vishnitz and
Boyan, ruled that their followers must renounce their
membership of PAI, even if their livelihoods would suffer as
a consequence. Thereafter, Agudas Yisroel and PAI ran for the
Knesset on separate lists.
In 5733 (1973), Rabbi Y. M. Levin z'l who served as
chairman of the Agudah's central committee, passed away. He
had always worked to preserve the movement's unity. After he
had been replaced, new winds began to blow within Agudas
Yisroel itself, calling for PAI's return to the Knesset list.
In view of the approaching elections, a meeting of the
Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah was convened (on very short notice
and including rabbonim who had not hitherto sat on the
Moetzes). The Steipler sent a letter to HaRav Shach, part of
which read, "regarding the rumor that Agudas Yisroel is
considering reuniting with the deserters, who call themselves
PAI, who have made a public disgrace of themselves on more
than one occasion, and whose ideology is the idol of Zionism,
and of `my strength and the power of my hand', R'l, and
who without a doubt would be prepared even now to go
immediately against the Aguda and the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah
if only they imagined that they would have some political or
material gain by so doing -- in my humble opinion, it is
clear that merging with them would be a dreadful chillul
Hashem, for it would be interpreted as a de facto
approval of all their scheming and [would show] that
insolence against Torah and against the Moetzes Gedolei
HaTorah reaps handsome benefits. Please . . . do everything
possible to prevent merging with them . . . it is clear, in
my humble opinion, that if Agudas Yisroel does merge with
them, that very many members will distance themselves, whose
only connection with the Aguda at present lies in the fact
that it is not together with `the other side.' "
At the meeting of the Moetzes, HaRav Shach arose and read out
the Steipler's letter. One of the politicians who was among
those invited, and who was in favor of the merger reacted by
proposing "that we put it to a vote." Most of the members
(including the new ones) supported the merger, with the
result of which was called "the United Torah Front."
HaRav Shach announced immediately that he was resigning his
membership in the Moetzes. HaRav Shlomo Berman, who was a
member of the presidium of Agudas Yisroel, also resigned in
protest at the way things had been arranged. During the pre-
election campaigning the signatures of these and of other
gedolei Torah did not appear in support of Agudas
Yisroel. However, since there was no alternative chareidi
list, no actual opposition was voiced.
Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz, who was faithful to the instructions of
the gedolei Torah and who was the first candidate on
the Aguda list, was instructed not to resign, but to refrain
from making speeches in Yerushalayim and Bnei Brak in support
of the Aguda list. (He was permitted to speak on the Agudah's
behalf in outlying communities, for if the chareidi Jews who
lived there did not vote for Agudas Yisroel, their connection
with the chareidi organization could be lost.)
An avreich who asked about voting was told, "This time
there's no order to vote, and when you're not ordered to, you
don't vote."
In that election, the combined list won five seats, which
represented the loss of a seat, since before the two parties
had always won six.
The Trend Reversed
In 5737 (1977), the Gerrer Rebbe, the Beis Yisroel,
instructed the party workers to run on a separate list from
PAI, in order to unite the chareidim once again and to obtain
HaRav Shach's consent to return to the Moetzes. HaRav Shach
did so and issued an appeal to vote in the elections. The
Steipler added his own letter of warm support, which he
closed with the following lines, "And this has already been
publicized and articulated well by . . . the gaon and
tzaddik, from the remnants of the Knesses
Hagedola, the truly mighty Torah scholars, his honor . . .
HaRav Eliezer Menachem Shach."
In that election Agudas Yisroel maintained its strength while
PAI won only one seat.
The trouble erupted again just a year later, when municipal
elections were held in Bnei Brak. A joint list was prepared
and it was headed by a PAI candidate. The fact that just a
year had passed since PAI had been ejected from Agudas
Yisroel and already a way had been found for them to sneak
back inside, and in Bnei Brak too, evoked a strong response
from the gedolei Torah. The Steipler and ylct'a,
HaRav Shach, bade HaRav Chaim Shaul Karelitz to issue a
notice conveying their instructions not to vote for the Aguda
list.
Some argued that this directive was only intended for bnei
Torah themselves, but that their families and those who
were not bnei Torah could vote, and this led to an
interesting episode. After tefillah in the Lederman
beis haknesses, HaRav Chaim Kanievsky went over to the
notice board and added, in his own hand, the following words
to HaRav Karelitz's note: Both talmidei chachomim
and amei ho'oretz, they themselves and their wives,
their sons and their daughters.
Before the 5741 (1981) elections, Aguda activists approached
the Steipler for a letter of support but he dismissed them
and did not grant their request. Rav E. Tabaschnik, who used
to frequent the Steipler's home, heard from him at that time
that he was displeased at the situation inside Agudas Yisroel
and that he did not intend to sign for them at all. However
just a few days later, a letter signed by the Steipler
appeared, calling upon voters to vote for the Aguda, albeit
phrased in somewhat reserved terms.
Rav Tabaschnik took himself off to the Steipler's home to
find out what had brought about the change of heart. When he
entered the Steipler said to him, "I told you that I wasn't
going to write but I heard that HaRav Shach was upset by
that, so I agreed to write."
Three days later, it was publicized that the [separate] PAI
list had been strengthened from within Agudas Yisroel and the
Steipler hurried to write a second letter that added, "I now
add that in view of this, every vote for a different list
literally constitutes demolition and destruction for Jewry,
and whoever votes for a different list is among those who
leads the public to sin, R'l."
In those elections PAI disappeared from the political map,
receiving fewer than the minimum number of votes required for
one seat and the movement has only declined since.
Girls' Conscription and Sherut Leumi
In 5731 (1971), the Steipler was shown an item in the journal
Hapeles which stated that the Israeli government had
plans to reintroduce legislation making Sherut Leumi
(national service, to parallel army service) compulsory for
all girls. The Steipler immediately wrote to one of the
rabbonim in America, "Please, have mercy on us, on Jewry, and
do anything that you find can to be of any help in effecting
a rescue. I don't know how, maybe by sending an influential
delegation to the Consul, maybe through an article in a
newspaper with wide circulation, to beg for mercy, that the
blood of shomrei Torah umitzvos should not be shed, to
have their daughters slaughtered before their eyes R'l . .
. "
This letter made a deep impression and the recipient passed
it on to a friend of his who asked the Steipler for
permission to circulate it in the botei medrash. The
Steipler replied, "The matter needs to be reflected on,
because I think that my choice of words implied that I was
testifying that they are planning to issue a decree etc.
whereas, regarding the facts, I am a dweller of tents who
knows nothing of what happens beyond what others tell me.
Last year they told me that there was some plan to make the
above decree and then they told me that all they wanted was
to ensure that irreligious girls would be unable to resort to
trickery and present themselves as religious. However, I
didn't know what the true facts were. I wrote my letter to
the above rov in response to an article which I was shown in
Hapeles of erev Shavuos . . . where everything
which I wrote about appeared. I was aghast, for it appeared
that the decree was very close at hand chas vesholom,
and that nobody was taking action to prevent it, may
Hashem yisborach have mercy. At any rate, it did not
occur to me that my letter would be so widely publicized, for
when something is to be made public it is imperative to take
great care over how it is phrased and the source [of the
information] should have been brought, rather than giving the
appearance of my testifying about it."
Two days later, the Steipler addressed another letter to the
same person. "Regarding my letter of two days ago, now there
is an ongoing rumor to the effect that the danger of the evil
decree is very great, and I repeat my request and cast my
supplication: please, make every possible effort in any
direction that you judge might be helpful. You can do
whatever you see fit with the letter that I wrote to the rov,
shlita."
In 5732 (1972), the law of compulsory national service for
girls was reintroduced with added vigor, and the Steipler was
again active. Originally, he formulated the following letter:
"Concerning the rumor that has come to pass . . . this
dreadful decree hovered over us twenty years ago . . . and
all the gedolei hador, the mighty Torah scholars who
were then alive, trembled and raised a commotion over it and
ruled that it was a stringent and fearsome prohibition in any
form . . . and all because it is an accessory of immorality,
R'l . . . We feel obliged to make it publicly known
that this prohibition against conscripting girls, in any way
or form whatsoever, is still fully in force, with renewed
vigor, for the burim are slipping lower and none come
to ask . . . "
This was the letter which he originally intended to publish.
However, he eventually decided that he preferred to publish
the original ruling of HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, HaRav Isser
Zalman Meltzer, HaRav Zelig Reuven Bengis and the Tchebiner
Rov, and to add a few lines explaining why the ruling was
being publicized, that would make it clear that it was still
in force. He then decided that his opinion that the original
ruling still applied should appear explicitly and when that
had been prepared, he asked that HaRav Shach add his
signature so that it would be clear that they both concurred
in this ruling.
The announcement was signed in this form on the twentieth of
Cheshvan 5732. Two days later, it was decided that the letter
should be sent to the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas
Yisroel and, after a slight amendment had been made, it was
signed by four of the members of that body (including of
course, HaRav Shach). However, since the Steipler was not a
member of the Moetzes, his signature was omitted from that
letter. It appeared on a second version, which was printed
separately alongside the other one.
A month later, an additional letter signed by the Steipler
and ylct'a, HaRav Shach was sent to the British Chief
Rabbi, asking him to intervene.
The Bnei Yisrael Of India
When the question of the lineage of the Indian tribe known as
Bnei Yisrael arose, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate (at the
prompting of the Ministry of Religions), leaned towards
declaring them fit to marry Jews. The Steipler spoke up to
oppose this ruling and he and ylct'a, HaRav Shach,
published a letter: "Our opinion is that since they have
already been forbidden by our teachers, the gedolim of
Bovel and Yerushalayim, ir hakodesh, ever since the
question arose a century ago and their prohibition spread to
all the botei din that had to consider the matter, the
prohibition is in full force and they remain forbidden."
In further letters to a meeting of rabbonim which convened on
the matter, the Steipler wrote, "It is imperative to turn to
all Torah scholars, gedolei Yisroel, the generation's
geonim . . . to make a permanent enactment, until the
arrival of the Redeemer, that anyone who wishes to marry must
first of all prove beyond question that his ancestry is
neither chas vesholom from those families, nor from
others who have become mixed with them."
The strong opposition prevented those in power from
implementing their plan. The Minister of Religions at the
time was Dr. Zerach Warhaftig (NRP). When he heard about how
fierce the opposition was, he asked for a meeting to be
arranged between himself and the Steipler. One day he knocked
on the Steipler's door, accompanied by his entourage. When
the Steipler was informed who had come, he refused to receive
him, explaining, "Whatever I say to him, he'll repeat the
opposite in my name and he'll turn my words around to suit
himself."
After a number of emissaries had been sent to entreat the
Steipler to grant the meeting, he agreed to receive the
visitor but said that he would not reply to him on the
subject. The Minister entered and asked, "Are they forbidden
to marry Jews?"
The Steipler answered, "I don't want to reply."
The Minister asked, "Must I instruct rabbonim not to arrange
weddings for them?"
The Steipler answered, "I don't want to reply," and then he
said, "This I ask of you -- don't persecute those rabbonim
who don't arrange weddings for them. However, I don't want to
speak about the actual question itself."
The Minister left the house and was heard saying to the
members of his group, "The Rav said that I don't need to
instruct the rabbonim not to arrange weddings." The next day,
the NRP's newspaper Hatsofe printed the "news" that the
Steipler had ruled thus for the Minister Dr. Warhaftig on the
latter's visit to his home.
When the Steipler was told about this, he rushed to issue a
contradiction. "I have been told that in this Wednesday's
edition of Hatsofe it was written that the Doctor
quoted me as having said that a rav who permits marriage with
one of the tribe known as Bnei Yisrael is allowed to
marry the couple but that no pressure should be brought to
bear on those who think that it is forbidden. This is utterly
incorrect. I never said that a rav who permits it may chas
vesholom do so. Only, because it was clear that they
wouldn't listen to me at all [if I would have told them] to
cancel the hetter, I asked that at any rate, as a small
concession, not to pressure those rabbonim who do not wish to
deal with it. I said this explicitly so that it shouldn't be
interpreted as though there are any grounds for permitting it
. . . " (Based on an eyewitness account).
In this connection, it is worthwhile relating something which
the Steipler said the Brisker Rov told him, as an example of
the great care necessary when giving halachic rulings. When
the "national home" was declared (the Balfour Declaration),
people came to ask the Rov if Hallel should be said. He
answered, "What does Hallel have to do with this issue?
If you had asked about shehecheyonu, that would be more
understandable . . . " The questioners went away and then
said that the Brisker Rov had said that the brocho of
shehecheyonu should be made.
|
||
| All material
on this site is copyrighted and its use is restricted. |
|||