Though a true hesped for Maran HaRav Shach,
zt"l, this is a work of hashkofoh in its own
right.
The first part of this work discussed the necessity of the
chareidi community living and acting alone, without the
possibility of being influenced by other communities whose
lifestyle is based on principles that are hostile to Torah
life. "Once during the Holocaust the Rabbinate [in Israel]
organized a prayer meeting together with chareidi groups and,
despite the severity of the situation, the Chazon Ish held
that the chareidim should not join but should pray only on
their own, since the foundation of our existence is absolute
segregation."
The second part describe the threat that the Rosh Yeshiva
zt"l saw in the Lubavitch movement, of importing
foreign values deep into the chareidi community. Fearing that
this could be a mortal danger for Judaism, the Rosh Yeshiva
courageously "broke the luchos" and set up separate
institutions for the bnei Torah world. Yet the
principle of isolation only means that we do not see
ourselves as sharing values with the secular; we still feel a
bond and are concerned about their welfare both physical and
spiritual.
We have already explained that someone who sits and learns
Torah all day wrapped up in tallis and tefillin
of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam is not yet within the category of
being "chareidi," even if he does his best to observe rare
mitzvos such as pidyon peter chamor. A "chareidi" is
someone for whom the secular public is not part of the
historical Am Yisroel and he dissociates and
segregates himself totally from secular and wishy-washy
circles. He feels no connection to their actions and deeds
and finds no common ground with them on topics of religion,
culture, and so on.
The public which Shas is comprised of, is not "chareidi." In
it you will find two brothers with a warm, friendly
relationship, the one religious, the other secular. They hug
each other at family simchos. Both consider each other
legitimate, religion being an important ingredient of life,
but not "everything," since there are also "interpersonal"
"family" values of "brotherly love." They also do not
consider the secular to have the total destruction of
religion as their aim, and treat them as precious brothers
with whom it is possible to live and get on with according to
an agreed arrangement. All in all, they have just deviated
slightly from the proper path, it is easy to make them
return, and if we are not successful, that is also not the
end of the world!
Since this is their outlook and mentality they are incapable
of developing means of defending themselves from the
influence of the street, so that they are exposed to [all
sorts] of influences, the long-term effects of which cannot
be known [in advance]. Moreover, it is not just a long-term
issue, because the difference between a "chareidi"
avreich and one who learns Torah and keeps mitzvos but
is not "chareidi" is indeed immense. It is a different level
of dedication and depth. In the course of time many of them
learned in Yeshivas and adopted the chareidi way of thinking.
However, this change of values only affected individuals, and
it was not possible to integrate the masses within Torah
Judaism with its strict criteria. The Rosh Yeshiva loved
them, and attempted with all his might to stem the plague and
draw them closer to chareidi Jewry. Then he thought of the
idea of setting up a movement for them whose criteria would
be less strict and which would be acceptable to the masses.
However, the main guidance has to come from the
gedolim who lead the chareidi public, who have insight
into the enemy's tactics and know how to defend us or even
launch a counterattack. It was the Rosh Yeshiva who set up
and supported this body, which with siyata deShmaya
enjoyed success, and indeed, following the establishment of
Shas they drew closer to the chareidi public, and there were
very high hopes and expectations [for the future].
However, the disappointments matched the expectations in
intensity. At a certain stage Shas joined and bolstered a
government led by the extreme left. HaRav Shach was
vehemently opposed to this move, for in his opinion it was
important to support a right-wing government from the point
of view of protecting the interests of Judaism, whereas there
was nothing worse than a left-wing government. Shas did not
listen to its founding father, and adopted an independent
path.
This was how a party suddenly came into being that was a
combination of observant and "traditional" Jews, but did not
follow the chareidi way. HaRav Shach foresaw the influence
the secular would have over Shas, its faintheartedness when
confronting secular bodies, its lack of expertise which would
lead to many failures and the inevitable deterioration, which
is the fate of anyone who does not stick to the chareidi
way.
HaRav Shach attempted with his remaining strength to avoid a
schism, for was he not after all their "father who had
begotten them, had he not made them and established them?"
However, stubbornness prevailed over reason and Shas left the
chareidi fold. Once again we were faced with a hybrid
movement that likes to get on with everybody and with a new
danger to the clarity of the pure hashkofoh of the
Torah world. Another body for which the isolationist policies
of chareidi Jewry would be a thorn in its flesh.
HaRav Shach attempted to ascertain whether this dissociation
from the Torah world would lead to any initiatives or any
feelings of longing to reunite with the parent movement, but
it was to no avail: "And he saw the calf . . . and the
dancing" and he concluded that it was "the voice of
[blasphemy] of them that sing" (See Rashi). "Moshe was the
father of wisdom and knew the wisdom of voices . . . When he
saw that they were happy with their corrupt deeds, he became
angry and desperate" (Ramban and Sforno).
Here the second breaking of the tablets took place. HaRav
Shach zt"l sent his adopted son away, banishing him
from the sphere of pure Torah Judaism. It was similar to the
test Avrohom faced when he sent away the person who was
likely to have a negative effect on Yitzchok. The righteous
mother is worried about this and demands wholeheartedly from
her husband to make this painful operation in order to save
the flask of pure oil. HaKodosh Boruch Hu also agreed
with her opinion: "Whatever Soroh shall say, you should obey
her." This is the way of Judaism: Yitzchok has to remain
totally isolated and to sever all ties with imperfect
parties.
Once Shas became liberated from its ties with its chareidi
allies, it started enjoying the company of its new friends --
the Israeli left, the government, the Histadrut and in other
forums. One of the things Shas attempted to do during that
period was to take over total control of the Chinuch Atzmai
network, naturally through the power of the secular
government. When I tried to speak to one of the senior
figures of this party to dissuade him from proceeding with
this plan I was given a cold response, the details of which I
do not want to repeat here. I am not privy to the secrets of
Israeli politics and I don't know why this program did not
come to fruition. It seems that the Protector of Yisroel was
watching over the remnants of the Jewish nation.
Last Sukkos, Shas held a Hakhel ceremony at the Kosel.
This ceremony was originally established by the Torah as an
opportunity for further spiritual elevation after the immense
elevation of the shmittah year. Amazingly enough,
those supporting the heter mechirah caught on to this
event, considering themselves the appropriate people to
organize the affair, which was, of course, attended by the
mayor of Yerushalayim and other secular figures.
Corresponding to the melech who read from the Torah,
the President of the State received an aliya.
This ceremony itself is not so significant, but it
demonstrates the attitude that these are all "good Jews:" as
if the rabbonim, the mayor, and the President are all
brothers sharing common beliefs. The message emanating from
such events is that the Jewish religion has many streams and
the traditional and secular Jews are also through and through
"kosher" Jews. An additional message is that the institute of
the Presidency in the State of Israel is a revival of the
kingdom of Torah. The President is a continuation of
malchus beis Dovid.
When they heard that Yated Ne'eman intended to object
to this event, and to cite the opposition of the
gedolim to the false and ridiculous ceremony, one of
their senior figures phoned the office of Yated and
said, "During this time the unity of Am Yisroel is of
paramount importance, and therefore we will hold this
ceremony. We don't understand your opposition."
Within a relatively short time they have become diametrically
opposed to the hashkofos of chareidi Jewry, and anyone
educated in their confused hashkofoh, which accords a
"Jewish" value to any secular or "masorati" Jew, is
bound to produce rotten fruits in the end, and any G-d-
fearing person must shun this way. See what the Beis Halevi
writes in Yoreh Deah 158.
Right and Left
Since we have talked about HaRav Shach's position about
desirable or undesirable governments, we feel duty bound to
say a few more words about this topic. It is well known that
the Rosh Yeshiva zt"l supported and even made efforts
towards the establishment of a right-wing government under
the Likud. We may reasonably assume that this did not stem
from a "love of Mordechai" but mainly from the fear of a left-
wing government, which he saw as an unprecedented threat to
Judaism. I shall explain this according to the way I
understand it, but I wish to make it clear that I cannot say
with confidence that this was also the reasoning of the Rosh
Yeshiva zt"l.
In democratic systems of government around the world,
religion is considered to be the private affair of each
individual, but it is considered a legitimate cultural aspect
of life. The religious person can be treated with more or
less respect, depending on the inclinations of the person,
but he is essentially considered to be a legitimate and
reasonable human being and it would be unthinkable to destroy
or fight religion or to prevent people from educating their
children in a religious manner as they see fit. This is the
accepted attitude.
However, there is another approach according to which
religion is totally illegitimate. Just as one cannot grant
legitimacy to racism, cruelty and the like, this theory
argues, so must religion be destroyed, since it is not a fit
culture for human beings. Just like we must take the child of
a person who educates his children to crime away from him and
educate it in the way of culture, so must we do everything
possible to abolish religious education, even against the
parents' wishes. In the opinion of these people, any law
enacted by a parliament contrary to these principles is null
and void, for a democracy is also limited and it has no
authority to pass anti-cultural or immoral legislation.
Religion, according to them, fits into the "anti-cultural and
immoral" category, so that any religious law or one
supporting religious education or synagogues, is void ab
initio.
This philosophy has its origins in Communism and Marxism and
has almost disappeared in our time, but it still has some
surviving advocates [amongst them] the extreme Israeli left,
which drags the moderate left along with it.
It is in this light that we can understand the phenomenon of
the enforced abandonment of religion through lies, financial
pressure and so on, which was especially prevalent in the
early years of the State. Those responsible for these actions
saw nothing morally wrong with them, for they were merely
"saving" children from a "backward" education, which had no
right to exist. Even today a decent left-wing person would
not hesitate to act in a similar manner, for he is confident
of serving the interests of "progress."
When the Left is in power, this philosophy is disseminated by
all the media, in all educational institutions etc. Constant
brainwashing broadcasts the message that being religious is
embarrassing and a sign of backwardness. All this encourages
the masses to want to discard the yoke of religion, apart
from the actual acts of coercion and deceit, which receive
the backing of public opinion.
Any achievements on our part resulting from the support of
such a government are worthless when compared to the damage
caused by a government espousing these views. For example:
Shas supported a left-wing government in return for the
possibility of opening schools and reaching tens of thousands
of children. It sounds like an attractive proposition, but we
have to take into account that the numbers of victims of such
a government would significantly exceed the above number of
children. The poison that would seep through to the public
would be likely to affect an [untold] number of
generations.
Left-wing governments broadcast anti-religious propaganda on
the one hand and elevate the status of the Supreme Court on
the other hand to the point where it is accorded supreme,
infallible authority. One day this court (which also shares
the attitudes of the Left) will decide that boys and girls
have to be drafted into the army and the yeshivas and
chareidi educational institutions have to be dismantled.
Public opinion has been prepared for this over many years,
and since this court has absolute power, no one will [be able
to] stand in their way.
On the surface it may look like you have gained ten thousand
but then they take everything away from you. They don't mind
that the cow gets fat, because in the end they intend to
decapitate Torah anyway! And you with your naivete were the
cause of it all!
We sometimes meet secular men who would recoil from a head-
on war against yeshivas and shuls. They have
nationalistic views, and religion is considered part of the
ancient historical culture of the nation. The Left, on the
other hand, are students of Marxism, according to which the
concept of a "nation" is a sign of a "backward culture." If a
member of the left still has any sentiments left for his
homeland, he is embarrassed by them, and he has no qualms
about making a "final solution" involving the destruction of
Judaism simultaneously with the establishment of a Hebrew-
Palestinian State, the common denominator of these two
nations being the fact that they are both inhabitants of the
Middle East.
Shas claims that it behaves according to its own method,
which it calls the "Sephardi approach." However, in such a
Kulturkampf the main thing is to understand the enemy's
tactics, and it is obvious that Yossi Sarid and Aharon Barak
do not act according to the Sephardi approach, but according
to a method surely unknown to the architects of Shas. It is
therefore clear who will have the upper hand in any
confrontation or struggle.
If in the future, there will chas vesholom be a decree
in the "new Middle East" of forcibly drafting yeshiva
bochurim then the "king" who read from the Torah in
the "Hakhel" ceremony will summon Shas leaders to his
residence and offer to intervene with our brothers to make
sure that they will only be drafted for a month a year and
allowed to hear shiurim on Torah and mussar
with visits by rabbonim etc.
Can there be any doubt that such a proposition would be
greeted with joy? Do they then have the background, the
understanding, or the strength to declare that such a
situation is one of shmad with everything this
entails? Those who feel that "we are all brothers" and that
the State and the army are "ours" are bound to have an
inferiority complex about not serving in the army and they
are very embarrassed about this.
On the other hand, they are confident that our brothers on
the Left will keep their promises and not abolish Torah from
the Jewish nation chas vesholom, for they are also
interested in the Torah not being forgotten amongst the
nation especially "after the Holocaust." So, the solution of
"one month a year" is just what we want. And what's so bad
about it anyway?
Many Shas people will not understand the obvious point that a
shortened army service of this kind would be the beginning of
the end of the Torah world, and would already put us in a
situation of observing the posuk, "Walk about Zion,
and go round about her, count the towers thereof, mark well
her ramparts . . . that you may tell it to the following
generations." We would be able to tell the following
generations that here was the Mirrer Yeshiva, here was
Chevron and Sfas Emes and Porat Yosef. After the secular
parties will carry out their schemes to uproot everything we
will only be left with memories.
I wish to relate an incident that took place more than two
years ago. The following gedolim were having important
discussions together: HaRav Eliashiv, HaRav Steinman and the
Gerrer Rebbe. The meeting took place in a room next to the
Gerrer Beis Hamedrash in Geula, Yerushalayim. For some of the
time a small group connected to the subject being discussed
stood in the corner of the room, and I was amongst them. The
conversation turned to the topic of Ehud Barak's draft decree
and the petitions to the High Court of Justice
(Bagatz). A member of the above group said that in his
opinion the whole thing was a mere "trick" and if we would
act in a certain way the situation would be different. When
HaRav Eliashiv heard this he reacted angrily: "No!" They want
to totally uproot us, but the Shas members are not aware of
this and can therefore be easily "bought." After all, they
would not be able to express themselves in the way HaRav Zvi
Pesach Frank did to Ben Gurion on the topic of national
service for girls: "Your sons and daughters are given over to
another nation," because according to their philosophy there
is only one nation.
There was a rare opportunity before the last elections when
they could have brought about a significant postponement in
the looming sword of the Bagatz, but they refrained from
doing so. I saw how disappointed the gedolim were by
this. Similarly, if there will be a proposal, and especially
if pressure is brought to bear on them, to incorporate
secular studies into the Yeshiva syllabus for
parnossoh purposes, if their statements are anything
to go by, we cannot assume that there would be any opposition
on their part, because they do not understand sufficiently
that such studies affect a person's yiras Shomayim.
We have talked at some length about the public danger
stemming from a party that does not follow the chareidi way,
but no less than this is the danger to the individual:
someone who is not totally within the chareidi camp that
listens to the gedolim will necessarily become
affected by strange philosophies and the whole structure of
his emunoh will change totally and lose its quality
and depth.
When the Rosh Yeshiva realized that the estrangement from the
chareidi camp had become a fait accompli, he founded
the Emet (Irgun Marbitzei Torah) organization to unite
the Sephardic bnei Torah who share the outlook of the
chareidi world, so that the "the camp which is left may be
saved" and cause a "revival of the former state of glory [of
Sephardi Jewry]."
We have related some of the deeds of HaRav Shach, some of his
mighty hand and the great terror, which he wrought in the
sight of the whole Jewish nation. That was how he established
patterns of leadership to ensure the continuity of Torah.
It says in the Shloh HaKodosh that before undertaking any act
a person should imagine that Moshe and the seventy elders can
see him, and that way he can judge whether to proceed with
the intended action or not. Similarly, we find that Yosef
Hatzaddik had a doubt about whether he should do a certain
deed or not. All his considerations were clearly in
accordance with the Torah, and he could not decide what to
do. When the image of his father appeared before him, he knew
what he had to do.
If his doubt was due to his not being sure of the Torah's
directive for his situation what did this image add to dispel
his doubts? We explained that sometimes a person is doubtful
and perplexed, but he thinks about what his father or his rov
would have done, and that way his doubt becomes resolved.
That is what happened to Yosef: as soon as he thought in this
manner, he immediately knew what he had to do. This is
similar to the thought expressed by the Shloh, except that
the image of someone we know naturally obligates us much
more.
In our generation of ikvesa diMeshicha we have had the
merit of four pillars of the world giving us directions in
the path that has to be followed: the Chazon Ish, the Brisker
Rov, the Steipler and the Avi Ezri. How fortunate we would be
if we would conjure up the image of these four giants before
undertaking any act. We, members of this last generation, who
had the merit of knowing the Steipler and the Avi Ezri,
should at least conjure up their image and think about what
they would have done and what they would have said.
The Chovos Halevovos already writes that in every generation
HaKodosh Boruch Hu conveys His word through the
gedolim, through a "teacher of avodas Hashem,
and this is ground for a charge by the Creator against His
creatures, for there is no generation, which has been without
such a guide and no country has ever lacked a person who
exhorted his contemporaries to turn to Hashem and His service
and taught His Torah" (Shaar Hateshuvoh, ch. 6). If we
contemplate all this, we will merit siyata deShmaya
and not fail.
