- This topic has 27 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 12 hours, 59 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
Once upon a time the Orthodox Rabbinate in America and Canada were on a similar page, many who’ve came from similar places in Europe. When did YU/RIETS become Zionist and when did the Greater Yeshiva World become decidedly not Zionist?
The greater Yeshiva world has always been anti-Zionist. From when we were still in Europe before the war.
Once upon a time is how I start bed time stories for my kids.
Not true stories.when did yu allow gay clubs
“… when did the Greater Yeshiva World become decidedly not Zionist?”
The greater yeshiva world has obviously never been Zionist because Zionism is idolatry and heresy and a massive rebellion against G-d.
When was the frum Yeshiva world ever Zionist to begin with?
The yeshivas in europe were all not zionist, besides for the outlier yeshivas that weren’t really part of the mainstream yeshiva world (such as r’ reines’ yeshiva in Lida). Do some historical research. The reason for this is simple. In yeshivas, the students listened to the far far majority of gedolim of the time, since that is what the torah says to do (see sefer hachinuch mitzva 495 and 496, drashas haran 12, shiltos parshas mishpatim 58, ramban on parshas shoftim on pasuk of yamin u’smoel, the Rambam in his hakdama to mishna torah, Raavad quoted by the Rosh in sanhedrin and brought down in the Tur CM siman 25, וכו׳ וכו׳ וכו׳). The far far majority of gedolim were against zionism from the onset. Many of these gedolim were either teaching in or very connected to a yeshiva or multiple yeshivas. A very very non inclusive list would include: The Chofetz Chaim (who was the head of Radin), R’ Chaim Brisker (head of volozhin), R’ Chaim Ozer (the Ramlis yeshiva was under him), The Rugatchover, R’ Elchonon (boronovitch), R’ Baruch Ber (kamenitz), R’ Shamshon R. Hirsch (head of the berlin yeshiva), R’ Yehoshua leib Diskin, The Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, R’ Isaac Sher (head of Slabodka), R’ Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, R’ Zelig Bengis, R’ Shlomo Breuer, R’ Yosef Leib Bloch (the head of the telz yeshiva), the chazon ish, the brisker rov, R’ Ahron Kotler (head of Kletzk), R’ Reuven Grozovsky, R’ Shlomo Heiman (Ramlis), R’ Leizer Yudel Finkel (mir), The Ponovitcher Rov (head of Ponovitch), The Satmar Rov, The Klausenberger Rov. There are many many more. Almost all of them. Almost all of the above rabbis’ positions are documented, many of which you can easily find. Some can be found on the website www dot torahjews dot org under the section resources and rabbinic quotes. (not that I endorse the website).
I myself am not such a kanoi or anti zionist, but the facts are that most most most of our gedolim and the yeshivas in europe were not zionist.
the classic Torah world was never “zionist”. Zionism is just another false moshiach like Shatz and J.
This has been well expressed publicly and written about explicitly in tshivas by evey Yeshivish leader who has addressed the point including the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chazon Ish, the Steipler Geon, the Brisker Rav, Rav Kotler, as well as Aguda thought leaders like Rav Reuven Grazovky and later Rav Shach, Rav Avigdor Miller, Rav Michael Dov Weissmandl, etc
the Mizrachi movement in Europe like the Modern Orthodox movement later in the US was clearly and admantly rejected by the “Greater Yeshiva World”. So too Kook in EY was put into cherem for trying to even partially push zionist thought into the Torah world.
The only support you will find for zionism in the yeshiva world today are by balei batim who don’t know anything beyond artscroll and mishpacha publications.
You need to define what do you mean by “Zionist”? Members of Hashomer Hatzair – probably not. Supporting Jewish settlement and later state – probably many. Also, note that sometimes fierce fighting happens between leaders trying to bring people to join their movement at the expense of the competing movement – does not mean that they always disagree. If you look at recent discussions here, you will see that, say, Netziv, Ohr Sameach were not at the same position as others.
As to general “yeshivos”, we might have a very idealistic view of what was happening there. for example, at some point Telshe yeshiva was emptied out because all students became socialists, so Slabodka sent new students there …
As to YU, I am not sure whether there was politics involved when R Moshe Soloveitchik (son of Chaim Brisker) was there in 1930s, but R Moshe was already involved in creating modern religious schools when in Poland in 1920s. His son, R YB Soloveitchik was of course a supporter of Mizrachi, with some reservations and had explicit goal to produce Rabbis who could work with Jewish communities that had Americanized and educated people. His observation from talking to college students in 1950s that they had a lot of questions that they were not able to get answered either from reform or from Rabbis who did not know anything modern. So, it is R Soloveitchik’s “fault” (as well as Lubavitchers) that there are observant Jews outside of Boro Park – without their efforts, everyone would be assimilated already and you will not encounter such posts on YWN.
Many of the opponents of Zionism lived before the State of Israel was established. Some changed their views after it was established. They still opposed the secularists, but the idea of Zionism and having a Jewish state was separate.
There is a letter written by Professor Zvi Yehuda, who was a student of the Chazon Ish. In the letter (written to his daughter, and published in Tradition, Summer 1979 Issue 18.1), he writes about the conversation he personally had with the Chazon Ish regarding Israel after its founding. He says the Chazon Ish davened for the success of the State. He also says that when asked if Israel could be leading towards Mashiach coming, the Chazon Ish did not dismiss the idea – he simply said that it was too early to say, and time would tell.
R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer was a member of Chovevei Zion before the State was founded. He, along with R’ Moshe Mordechai Epstein, even helped to found a city in Israel (then part of the Ottoman Empire).The fact is, the Satmar Rav was a daas yachid in his views on Israel – he opposed a state in any form, even if it would be under religious leadership. Most Rabbonim opposed Zionism because it was run by secular Jews, who were anti-religion. Religious Zionists also oppose this, and would prefer that Israel be run according to halachah. However, almost all now recognize that once the state was founded, it is better to participate with it, and try to improve things for the frum Jews.
People like Hakatan and Joseph keep referring to the early Zionists and the harm they did. Nobody is arguing against that! Religious Zionists also mourn the fact that they did that. But they don’t allow it to change their views on having a Jewish state. IY”H one day soon, the State will be run according to halachah!
While prior to the shoah, much of Eastern European Jewry were not Zionists, the shoah and the establishment of the State of Israel were clear signs to some that a change was necessary. read kol dodi dofek by the Rav ztl
This is very complex question that needs to be broken down into many pieces. Firstly what’s Zionism ? Is it the idea of having our own country or is it about cooperating with secularists who are anti Torah ? Then there is the pre war to post war . Then there is Agudah vs mizrachi. Then there is peleg vs main agudaj
So before the war there were many pro the idea of a state just not a secular state. Yes R elchanon and r Chaim were anti as were of course the yershalmi tzadkim. But then you had R isser zalman zl and R Areya levin and even R Chaim ozer to an extent who were pro Zionism as in a state and supported R kook .
After the war , the punvitcha rav and R Lazer yudel Zl raised the flag and somewhat supported Zionism.
In the USA and Canada most RY supported the agudah faction with some like R Shrage fievel very supportive of Zionism. All of them held that secularism is evils and we need to oppose the govt of Israel because it’s secular and not because having a country is bad. R JB Zl on the other hand supported mizrachi and not agudah thereby saying he supports even secular Israel. So they differed then But they both held that once Israel is here to stay let’s work with them.Fast forward to 2025 . The American yeshiva system became influenced by the hard core Hungarian chasdim like Satmar and by brisk. So that slowly morphed into this new ideology that essentially opposes Israel completely but because of R Aron zl traditionally being part of agudah it’s somehow still Agudah even though it’s closer to Satmar now .
To put things in post war perspective. Aguda had a huge spectrum. There were sone who were totally pro Zionism but were anti secular and opposed Israel only because of its secular nature . They even once held that you should fight in the IDF and be happy there is a state yet oppose the secular aspect. Others held don’t join the idfakd we are opposed to the statehood yet since we have no choice cooperate for the better cause. Then others were somewhat in the middle, they did join and support the IDF but didn’t oppose the state or the idea of it. They kind of tacitly supported it via raising flags and inviting its secular members to speak. That’s where most of the yeshiva world was. So punivitch chevron and the Mir held that as did most of the USA . Basically proud that there is a state but unhappy about it being secular.However basically cooperative unless it was a direct edict like gyuis bnos. Then there was briska rav who didn’t have a yeshiva and just gave shuir to10-15 bochrim in his dinning room . He was totally opposed but a minority .
That’s still very different than REITs who was mizrachi..But there were holy Jews on the mizrachi side too. And it’s really a shikul hadas who you hold like
A lot of feelings towards Zionism were based on the politics of the time. But was “Zionism” the real issue? Imagine, there is no WW2 and many Jews still live in Eastern Europe. Would “Zionism” be the biggest problem? No, it would be communists in Russia, all kind of secular movements all over Europe, German Reform, etc. So, just because the confrontations moved to EY and the only remaining secularists were Zionists does not change that the core problem was secular anti-religious movements in whatever form they happened. As you see now, Israeli left is not so Zionist any more, but it is still in confrontation with Judaism.
We also need to look back at the start of the problem: how come so many Jews became anti-religious? In part, it was the influence of the times; amei haaretz who previously would be part of the Jewish community now had a choice to leave; and attractive influence of various isms.
But, we also need to admit that Jewish communities, and Talmidei Chachamim, did not initially have effective tools to upheld Judaism, it took some time to develop these tools – and by this time so many Yidden became members of various movements … One can say that adequate response was early developed by R Hirsh (and attempted before by Mendelssohn), R Salanter, Beis Yaakov movement, but really developed after WW2 both in Israel and US. During 1930s, Chofetz Chaim writes a lot about problems but offers almost no solutions, except “keep at least one cheder in each town so those who still want would be able to send kids there”. He even pleads with Polish President to rescind sanitation requirements on the mikvaot because Jewish communities were not able to abide by them…
So, two major approaches survived: (1) going to the desert to avoid any contact with anything “modern” and (2) developing approach that allows people to understand modernity in the Jewish context. After about 80 years, I would say approach (1) had definite successes “in the short term” by creating large community with large families of those previously committed, and (2) had definite success attracting more assimilated and educated people. At some point, we should get out of survival mode and ask the question – is Hashem looking for a nation that reads old books or a nation that reacts to the world that He sent us to.
DrYidd:
First, the Zionists both caused and contributed to the Holocaust, even if Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was not aware of that and the Zionists continue to cover that up and lie about it. Therefore, the conclusion you mentioned is obviously the opposite one that one would logically draw.Second, Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik’s Kol Dodi Dofek is flawed, at best, using specious and emotional arguments. But it’s even worse than that, because it uses “signs” to replace Torah law. We don’t make up signs that tell us to go against the Torah. Either way, his KDD is not relevant to Judaism.
DaMoshe:
Chovevei was a non-Zionist movement; it was concerned merely with living in the land, and doing so apolitically. Even that notion had plenty of rabbinic objectors including Rabbi SR Hirsch.Your take is factually inaccurate regarding the views of the gedolim and the Zionist idol “State”. For example, the Brisker Rav stated explicitly that even if the Chofetz Chaim were to be its Prime Minister, it would still be forbidden to have that “State”. He also noted that the Zionist “State” was the greatest achievement of the satan since the golden calf. The Chazon Ish held the “State” was a gezeirah raah that would ultimately be nullified. He estimated it would last for a matter of decades.
The whole “MO” meme about Satmar being a daas yachid is also ridiculous in its implication. Satmar is a daas yachid in certain minor matters like (forbidding) visiting the kosel, Israelis voting in their elections and the like. The core heresy and idolatry of Zionism and the disaster that was and is its “State” was and is obvious and acknowledged by all gedolim.
Actually, the Torah tells us to not join with evildoers even to do good. That certainly applies to the wicked Zionists who persist and compound their evil (in shmading Jews and destroying the Torah) very much in today’s times, too, not just a century ago.
Always_Ask_Questions:
Rav Aharon Kotler, who brought actual unadulterated Torah to America, stated that Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was responsible for “all the tuma in America”.@HaKatan
Yet R Aron sat with him for chinuch Atzmo. He had a strong personal connection. There are eyewitness testimonies that he walked into YU to ask R JB ZL to provide a shteler for a close talmid. (This isn’t heresay, it happened). Rabbi JB came to R aron levaya. And R Malkiel shlita was on his way to rabbi JB levaya till R Elya Svei stopped him. And so people say sharp things but actions matter. its clear that rabbi Solvetchikc was considered a gadol despire R Aron’s comments.Maybe we should also appreciate similarity between two approaches. Both Lakewood and RIETS are a modern innovation – they are different from what was the norm in Eastern Europe from where they came. Old norm was: small yeshivos for mostly poor smart & dedicated students. The rest of the community knew basics but did not participate in advanced learning. It was not total ignorance, there was a lot of what to admire:
there is a WWI diary by a German officer who got a report of suspicious activity in occupied Warsaw: he observed Jewish balagulas gathering in some remote building for an horu every day. This looked like a preparation to a rebellion. Turns out they were coming for a quick halocha class… German officer was amazed, saying that surely Berlin drivers were more educated than Warsaw Jews, but he never saw them to gather to learn together in the middle of a work day. Still, those balagulas were not learning gemora and they were working most of the day.This system clearly failed when balagulas got access to newspapers and other sources of information – in 19th century the disaster was all over Western Europe and started in Eastern and by early 20th century Eastern Europe was also full disaster. So, both Lakewood and RIETS addressed this issue – in a different way as we all know. But the main focus was the same – how to change educational and rabbinical systems to make majority of Jews appreciate Judaism when other attractive alternatives are freely available. Lakewood focused on teaching as much Torah as possible to people who may not become Talmidei Chachamim – and keeping them away from other info. RIETS in 1940-50s focused on quickly raising a generation of Rabbis who could talk to American-born Jews (including children of recent arrivals). Add Chabad to this list, of course.
another note: there was no popular expression “yeshiva world” in the “old world”
Chaim87:
Stories of Rav Aharon dealing with him as needed are not relevant to the facts of who he was and the damage he caused (still ongoing) to American Jewry. In this very thread, people still bring up his “Kol Dodi Dofek” piece as if its halacha liMoshe miSinai when in fact it’s actually baseless and emotional at best. Regardless, it’s clear that Rabbi Soloveichik had tremendous influence, and the gedolim acted accordingly.But if you want to tell over stories, you could tell over the one about giyus banos, when Rav Aharon tried to get Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik to condemn the wicked Zionists for trying to shmad all the girls and therefore destroy Klal Yisrael. Rav Aharon said imagine that in this room were not you, but your grandfather Rav Chaim Brisker and not me but my father-in-law Rav Isser Zalman, etc. What would your grandfather say. Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik would have none of that and wished him a good day and left.
HaKatan > Rav Aharon said imagine that in this room were not you, but your grandfather Rav Chaim Brisker and not me but my father-in-law Rav Isser Zalman, etc. What would your grandfather say. Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik would have none of that and wished him a good day and left.
right, and this story demonstrates that Boston Rav and Kletzer Rosh Yeshiva valued each other and were interested in the other one joining in the opinion. In the case of Chinuch Atzmai, they agreed and in the case of drafting girls they disagreed. It happens. Again, I suggest to you reading some of the regular writings of R Soloveitchik – I see that you read some stories and even his famous polemic essays, but read more of his Torah to see where he is coming from and see if it is that easy to reject his positions the way you do now.
Wow. A few of the historical claims and perspectives that have been shared by some of our fellow commenters are quite unfounded, with some even bordering on heretical. I would implore our dear readers to do independent research before taking any claims made on this forum seriously.
Forgive me for saying this but your response is classical whitewashing. Its always a nice convenient answer to say oh he was so influential and the other rabbonim had no choice. In fact I believe that’s the excuse why so many gedolim addressed R Kook Zl with such high esteem. Same excuse oh he was so influential that they had no choice. (As if being the chief rabbi of so0me third world backwards non country was so influential)
Here is the truth, R Aron would never have sat down with a true kofer or apikoros no matter how influential they are. R Aron was not a push over or one to compromise He was pure. And in fact he didn’t sit down with anyone in JTS despite the fact that Rabbi Sol Liberman was a genuis and knew kol hatorah kula. (He was also the chazon ish cousin) Furthermore, as I noted, R Aron asked him to give a shteler to one of his talmidim in YU. If YU is complete kefira how can R Aron do that? Its also well known that the two families were close too.
(Side note, its funny how you quote R Isser zalman zl all of a sudden. You do know that he was very close to R Kook Zl. And his own son became head of hesder after R Kook)
Bottom line, yes R Aron was very mad at R JB and did not hold of his approach. He was very vocal and sharp. But he didn’t mean what he said lieterally. He still held him in high esteem. Thes excuses that oh he had no choice because he was inlfuential, I just don’t buy them
Chaim, you raise an interesting question – as indeed the story is told that he appealed to R Soloveitchik historical responsibility referring to Brisker Rav and R Meltzer, but then how would R Kotler respond to his own views on Medinah and R kook being different from R Meltzer? Too bad you were not there during this historic meeting, it would be a good question to ask 🙂
yeshivaman > A few of the historical claims and perspectives that have been shared by some of our fellow commenters are quite unfounded,
it looks like you are actively tying to avoid lashon hara and not name anyone – but you are making it worse! Now everyone here is under suspicious. Maybe you should just state what you think is wrong and why.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.