The Moetzes At A Crossroads
The kol korei by the American Agudah Moetzes regarding the WZO election has the makings of a huge make-it-or-break-it gamble. The guy in the street is not being asked whether he is with the gedolei hador, or against them. Rather, he is told to choose between competing groups of gedolim – to swear allegiance to the Agudah slate rather than the other. If this were baseball, he’d be deciding between the American League All-Stars vs. the National League. Depending on whether or not people vote for Eretz Hakodesh, the Moetzes will either emerge stronger than it has been in decades, or weakened to the point of irrelevance.
The Moetzes came into being in the turbulent times of the opening decades of twentieth century European Jewry. No one at the time spoke for Torah-true Judaism as a group. There were thousands of communities scattered over the landscape, populated by Jews who looked, dressed, and spoke differently from each other. Many believed that European Jews needed to have a univocal voice, to guide and coalesce them internally, and to represent them externally. It was particularly important, they thought, to bring together chassidim and non-chassidim.[1]
The first iterations of the Moetzes did just that. German rabbonim, Litvishe roshei yeshiva, Chassidishe rebbes (including Chabad) were all represented. After the Shoah, this essentially continued, both in Israel and in the US – with an important addition: Sefardim joined as sitting members. The Moetzes could still be viewed as the voice of the collective non-Zionist gedolei Torah.
When Rav Shach pulled Degel Hatorah out of the coalition, the Moetzes in Israel became something very different. Chassidim had their own Moetzes – although they had really reverted to the much earlier practice wherein each chassidus was guided by its own leaders. Not long after, Sefardim also broke off, and formed the Moetzes Chachmei Hatorah. The Agudah Moetzes had become the voice of the Litvishe Torah community – an important enough role in Israel, where separating religion from politics would have meant utter powerlessness.
In the US, chassidim continued to be represented on the Agudah Moetzes. For a while, there was an unofficial power sharing arrangement that guaranteed sizeable representation for both Litvishe and chassidishe leaders. In time, as the various chassidishe courts flourished and grew in size and influence, they began to work more independently – or by allying themselves with the most dominant chassidishe groups. Today, chassidim have only token representation on the US Moetzes; it can only claim to be the lodestar of the vibrant and thriving, B”H, American “yeshiva” community. That is quite a big deal – but nothing more.
But even this is perhaps no longer. This time around, American charedim are not being asked whether they will remain true to Torah principles, and seek guidance and instruction from Torah leaders, as we always have. They are being asked to chose between one group – an apparent majority of the Moetzes – and an equally impressive group that takes strong issue with the psak regarding the WZO.
People who have followed the story know that the psak does not reflect the positions of many, many Torah figures. That includes members of the Moetzes itself, some of whom have aligned themselves in recent weeks with the opinion of zekan hagedolim, R. Shmuel Kamenetsky, and many others who have shied away from any public endorsement of Eretz Hakodesh (for fear of becoming a victim of our own version of cancel culture) but have shared their feelings quietly with talmidim and mispallelim. They know that even in Israel, there are large numbers of roshei yeshiva who have endless kavod, as they should, for Rav Dov Lando – but still (quietly) disagree. They know that y”l, R. Lando has positioned himself against the stated position of R. Chaim Kanievsky, who instructed people to vote in the past.
Putting it all together, people just cannot feel that they are choosing between siding with Torah luminaries rather than lesser people. They know that this is not true. They are going to ask why they should go with the Moetzes rather than others, just because they’ve always done so in the past.
If they stay loyal to the Moetzes, it will be an important victory, one that will likely add years to its leadership. If they bolt…
Complicating matters is that this is not like other questions in the past, where Jews lined up behind their favorite rabbis, knowing that they understood very little about the issues. This is not another Get of Cleves. The caught-in-the-middle Jew in this issue may have some strong opinions about the matter that will predispose him to one side or another.
Some with traditionally strong anti-Zionist leanings will cheer on the Moetzes. Others will not. They will have a hard time squaring what they themselves know to be true with the message of the kol korei.
There are many examples contained in the kol korei that will tick people off, and send them scurrying for a different group of luminaries.
Here are just a few:
“The Zionist Movement was founded 125 years ago with the purpose of uprooting the foundations of Judaism.” Of course this is not true. It was started to allow Jews to escape persecution and penury in Europe by creating a Jewish homeland on the Land we had been linked to for millennia. Uprooting them from the foundations of Judaism was certainly what many, many of the adherents of secular Zionism wished for – and later acted upon. But it was not a definitional element of Zionism. When the children of pious chassidishe families jumped on the Zionist bandwagon, it was not for the purpose of abandoning Torah – although that happened. It was for the purpose of creating a better (they thought) life for themselves and their children. To argue otherwise is not only inaccurate, but a slap in the face of those who supported a Torah Zionism – like Rav Shmuel Mohliver, the Netziv, and Rav Isser Zalman. It is another manifestation of the position that many have come to detest, of “when we say Torah, we mean us. Exclusively.”
“The geonim the Chofetz Chaim, the Gerrer Rebbe, Rav Chaim of Brisk, the Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Steipler, Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, zichronam livracha, forbade joining the World Zionist Organization (WZO).” People are going to wonder. Do we really determine policy based on positions of gedolei olam a hundred years ago? Has Zionism remained the same? On a given day, I daven maariv in a shul built in part by government money. I pass a mikvah built and sustained by government money. I daven the other tefilos in a chanichei yeshivos minyan populated by Kollel avreichim. Their families are subsidized by the government in multiple ways. The yeshivos they attended were recipients of large subventions by the State. If the Zionists are trying to eradicate Torah, they are certainly doing a miserable job of it.
Moreover, many of our Anglo charedim have spent time here in Israel since Oct. 7. They have seen past the headlines about protests and civil war, and witnessed the renaissance of interest in Jewish roots among those pesky secular Zionists. They have stood in awe at their mesiras nefesh for Am Yisrael. And they have stood shamefaced upon realizing that the charedi community (as a whole; I’m not speaking about thousand of yechidim acting as yechidim) has lived like a group apart from the rest of the country. They are going to be wary about positions and pronouncements that affirm the isolation of charedi Jews from everyone else, and will seek the leadership of those with a tad more openness.
“It is forbidden to agree to matters that the Torah leadership of Klal Yisroel has explicitly forbidden.” This is going to raise some eyebrows. Once again, the assertion that “the Torah leadership of Klal Yisroel” – not of Agudah, but of Klal Yisroel – is us! They will note that Shas is running its own slate in the WZO election. But what do you want from a bunch of Franks? They certainly are not part of our Torah!
Some Anglo charedim have had enough of this kind of thinking. It is infantilizing and humiliating to thinking people. Backs against the wall, they will continue to accept instruction from Torah leaders, rather than follow their own gut. That is part of what makes them charedim. But give them a legitimate choice, and bets may be off about which group they will follow. Especially because people recognize that in any mix of positions, the extreme ones have the most influence, and they understand that Peleg seems to have more influence in the Moetzes than it does in Israel!
The next weeks will be interesting, as the votes come in. Or don’t. May HKBH guide us all to proper decisions, and proper respect for each other.
-
I am indebted to Dr. Judith Bleich for this observation ↑
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The latest episode of my podcast, Two Rabbis Three Opinions is now available on Spotify: Critical Thinking: The Price We Pay When Ignoring It
We are not clueless kids, and all the disputants should recognize that. Pulling rank or applying social pressure should stop in favor of rational persuasion. This applies to all elections.
finally an article from my favorite writer.
Well said
the only fact both haredi factions can agree on is their total rejection of the dati leumi /OU-YU-Mizrachi derech [ and perforce any validity to their rabbinic leadership ]. the total derision I read in most amcha sites , like Yeshiva World News , I find totally eye opening — to realize that my folk is seen as freierim at best , kofrim as the more standard belief.
Does one doubt that when the next Knesset elections come around, that the dati folk will insist that their representatives ensure that the haredi agenda be actively opposed , and to side against those who have neither their back nor their front?
Ideally, no party will be entirely for itself. Israel can’t maintain a stable democracy though monkey business as usual. A recognition of the national interest would be refreshing.
You make the mistake of assuming that the Agudah kol korei was done with thought and deliberation. Hence the “calculated risk”. Methinks you presume too much. It was written because a minority of the moetzes were able to force the release of the document, specifically the eitznikim on the moetzes. I don’t for a minute believe that any thought was given to your intelligent analysis of the possible outcomes.
From what I hear, the lay leadership of Agudah agrees with you!
Interesting – Might it also be that the US moetzet was looking over its right shoulder at the true chareidim of eretz yisrael?
bsorot tovot
Almost certainly. Those in favor of voting reportedly tried to save face by saying that once Rav Dov Lando spoke, they had no choice but to go along. Which is pretty tragic, because the reasons that could call for complete separation from the rest of society – and using accursed Zionism as a whipping boy – have no application to life in the USA
Yitzchok isn’t daas Baal habaayis normally hepech daas Torah so when you want to know what daas Torah is look at the consensus of lay leadership and it should give you a strongidea
…Except when it isn’t
But more importantly, you seem to have misread the entire piece. The issue does not pit talmidei chachamim against baalei batim. It pits one group of talmidei chachamim against another
Will you also mention the Mizrachi/OIC slate that is supported by YU/OU?
The piece was not a discussion about whom to vote for, but an analysis of what is at stake for the Moetzes. But now that you mention it, yes, there is another option that lots of fine people are going to exercise, which is the OU/Mizrachi slate. There are some subtle differences between slates (beyond the scope of this piece), but in the end, the Orthodox parties pretty much vote together
“There are some subtle differences between slates (beyond the scope of this piece), but in the end, the Orthodox parties pretty much vote together”
I received an email and an accompanying video link from Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman of YU on behalf of the OIC-Mizrachi slate. Notably, Rabbis Rimon and Doron Perez speak of unity towards the end of the first minute of the video. There is, in fact, a text of a prayer for ahavas yisrael and achdus yisrael in the 53 second point of the video(another interesting backdrop is that of RHS speaking in Minute 2:00 in front of the quote on the wall from R. Jonathan Sacks, “hope is the belief that we can make things better”).
In the email, R. Berman writes “as Rav Schachter has emphasized, the millions of dollars at stake are funds that sustain the very institutions that nurture our families and communities in Eretz Yisrael. The more representation we have, the more support we bring to Torah in Israel.”
See web version of email with the accompanying video(“VOTE OIC-MIZRACHI – SLATE 5 – WZO Election 2025”) :
https://view.comms.yu.edu/?qs=b81a6f7450d015e6d9be6ee0450e5d22cccb28f704f96b4f2af4668268de20a58e7d2507ee59a704d5805d211a7192bed7c87e11289738a240311bb0b98eca711512f3839284e78db0f2bf90fa69342d
R. Dovid Lichtenstein’s Headline program has interviews regarding both the Mizrachi and Eretz HaKodesh platforms. R. Yonah Reiss, R. Doron Perez of Mizrachi, R. Nechemia Malinowitz of Eretz Hakodesh, and R. Moshe Hauer were interviewed. The ideas of each of the speakers, and the differences and commonalities between the platforms of the two organizations, are summarized at the end( Minute 1:51:47):
http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/32225-%e2%80%93shiur506%e2%80%93-thebattle-over-the-character-ofisrael-%e2%80%93-supportingprogressive-values-or-supporting-torahhow-to-handle-reform/
Ok. Thank you. As a MO American concerned mainly about the DL community in Israel, the future of the chayalim and the need for Chareidim to join the fight, etc. the Moetzes’ stand on WZO is not of any import to me, but I guess it is for other readers of this blog, for whatever reason.
Change normally occurs slowly with a small number of momentous events that result in accelerated change. This event is of the latter type. Regardless of what happens, so-called daat Torah has given way to the more traditional Jewish notion of eilu ve’eilu divrei Elokim hayim.
The genie has escaped the bottle, hopefully never to return.
When Christie was running against Corzine for NJ Governor in 2009, the Lakewood Vaad strongly supported Corzine, while its voters strongly supported Christie. Already, the internal political influence of the leadership was on the wane.
I grew up in the 1970s, and was profoundly influenced by The Jewish Observer (the official magazine of American Agudah), and its constant message of pride in how the politicians of Israeli Agudah did exactly as they were instructed by the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah. You can’t begin to imagine how disillusioned I became, when Degel broke off from them in the 80s. Where is the unity? How did the majority of the Moetzes feel about this breakup? Alas, I searched the pages of the Observer in vain for many years for some word of explanation or consolation. That was almost 40 years ago, and I applaud Rabbi Adlerstein for being the first (that I’ve seen) to address that event and put it into some sort of historical perspective.
I don’t know what he said publicly, but privately Rav Ruderman zt”l was very upset about the breakup.
How did Rav Ruderman who died in 1987 express an opinion about Degel HaTorah that wasn’t established until 1988?
the breakup was in the works for quite a while until it formally happened; Rav Ruderman ztl could have been upset by the politics that was occurring well before the formal event. just a conjecture
For those of us who identify with those Gdolim who have been giving Chizuk to the IDF being Mnachem Avel and Mvaker Cholim to the victims of Hamas from the beginning of the war this issue is irrelevant
1) Baruch Hashem!
2) Unfortunately, however, not true. If the Peleg/Eitznikim succeed in pulling votes away from Eretz Hakodesh, it will strengthen the Brisk/Satmar interpretation of history for another generation of young people, making those gedolim or yours (and mine!) irrelevant
Or might make those who would vote Eretz Hakodesh vote instead to OU/Mizrahi to avoid these ongoing & disrespectful lack of dialogue.
This Kol Koreh is what can be expected from certain members of the Moetzes who have long documented stridently negative views about anything remotely connected to the State of Israel and all forms of Zionism as well a studied refusal to acknowledge that there are Gdolei Torah and very fine Bnei Torah who are Moser Nefesh for Klal Yisrael in Gaza while the Charedi world largely has been carrying on as life is normal in a way that Rambam in Hilcos Teshuvah and Hilcos Taanis clearly disapproves of .Yes we must send a strong signal that Am Yisrael Chai despite the vicious currents of anti Semitism by learning Givibg Tzedaka and doing more Chesed but having a studied indifference to the Mesiras Nefesh of our brothers and sisters in the IDF cannot be called being Noseh Bol Chavero .One waits in vein for any publisher other than Maggid y to publish a book about those who fought back on 10/7 and the Mesiras Nefesh of the hesderniks in this war .
“Of course this is not true….”
Just Rav Chaim brisker said it is true.
Zionism was long before Jews in Europe were being heavily persecuted.
Just you should know that rav Chaim soliveitzick and practically all major roshei yeshiva from Europe disagree with you.
“Just Rav Chaim brisker said it is true.”
I haven’t seen that from his pen. No good reason to demand less
“Zionism was long before Jews in Europe were being heavily persecuted.”
Simply wrong
“Just you should know that rav Chaim soliveitzick and practically all major roshei yeshiva from Europe disagree with you.”
Thank you for enlightening me. Now that you’ve told me that, I will certainly accept it and fully believe it.
NOT.
Besides, anyone not living in a closed echo chamber knows that Zionism today means something very, very different than it met in pre-War Europe. And any community that bases its policy of today on decisions of a hundred years ago without taking into account changes that have occurred, is going to see the world – and their own adherents – leaving them behind
One could argue that Yiftach had hardly the level of Torah knowledge of Shemuel. Yet chazal tell us yiftach be’doro ke’shemuel be’doro. The reason seems obvious: absent understanding current context, psak is not possible.
To use the logic of Rav Landau?
Maybe Rav Chaim was given misinformation!
Rav Landau’s claim totally destroys the contemporary concept of Daas Torah.
When I was growing up, those who opposed the “New Daas Torah” said exactly that. “The Gedolim are steeped in learning, not wordly and fed information by questionable sources, often with a personal agenda!”
Now “Daas Torah” says the same!
‘“Just Rav Chaim brisker said it is true.”’
“I haven’t seen that from his pen. No good reason to demand less”
But this is a well-known piece of information regularly popularized by the zealots that I’m amazed you haven’t heard of. R Chaim (roughly, and less sharp than he actually writes) writes in a letter, “we can rely on what the Zionists’ themselves say that their ultimate motive is (specifically) secularism….” Sorry that I can’t access it to you here but if you know how to search for it try that. I remember that Harav Svei OBM mentioned it in one of his major addresses and R Uri Zohar, a subsequent speaker, stated that R Chaim’s idea initially came to him as a shock but when he thought about it later it helped explain certain otherwise senseless things that go on in Israel. Where was his honor HRYA שיחיה at the time?
Please note that I’m only reporting but do not understand the issues well enough to defend them.
I also hope that you read R Feldman’s article in Dialogue Magazine from several years ago about this, that the zealots have reprinted and are distributing, so as to more completely address his points and to know whether people find them convincing.
“People who have followed the story know that the psak does not reflect the positions of many, many Torah figures.” That would be truer if you left out the words “many, many”. Do a head count, including those who only whisper their support for voting for Eretz Hakodesh, and see where the numbers lie.
In general, I’ve lived through various הוראות תמוהות לכאורה and seen little long-term actual damage to their promulgaters. Particularly in Agudah where ultimately you obey the views of the Gedolim. We’ve yet to see if this time it will be different.
No arguing with your last line. My crystal ball isn’t telling me who is going to come out on top.
I will have to disagree about “many, many.” It is true, beyond cavil. This does not mean they are the majority. But there are far more than are required for a person to rely upon. Which is, of course, the real issue. While an argument perhaps could be made that those in Israel who identify with “the system” are dutibound to follow its leaders, this does not mandate that those who live in America need do the same. The realities of political life in Israel might well demand a unified response. Those realities are not part of the American charedi life style – and in many cases directly conflict with the chinuch and ruchniyus needs of Anglos. For them, turning to their own local rabbeim, i.e. the system that universally prevailed before the creation of the European pre-War Moetzes, will do a better job.
As far as R Chaim Brisker’s attestations about Zionism, I’m surprised that it can make such a difference. He obviously knew some of the fiercely anti-Torah personalities in his day. They, the theoreticians at the time, should not be able to erase what clearly was the stated goal of early Zionism, and what attracted the masses to it: the possibility of establishing a Jewish homeland in Israel where Jews would be able (they thought) to live in safety and dignity. But even more importantly. If it were possible to rewrite history and turn every last early secular Zionist into a diabolical atheist bent on completely severing Jews c”v from their past, what would it have to do with what Zionism means today? In my book, the way you determine that is by asking taxi drivers. I have no doubt that you won’t find many whom the remaining diehard Haaretz liberals would be proud of. The taxi drivers will insist that Zionism today means believing that Jews are entitled to autonomy in their ancestral homeland of Israel. The old versions are useful today only to provide dissertation topics for aspiring PhDs
“Zionism was long before Jews in Europe were being heavily persecuted.”
I’m sorry, the amount of willful ignorance required to say this is mind-boggling.
he must think that Chmielnicki invited the Jews to a picnic
if one means modern political Zionism which began in the 19th century -Jews were heavily persecuted in Europe before then.
If one means Zionism as a yearning for Eretz Israel it is from the beginning of the Jewish people and thus predates Jews being heavily persecuted.
a dayan can only pasken al mah she’einov ro’ot; the gedolim before the war in Europe were not present currently. Some, like the Rav ztl may have left the Agudah for Mizrachi.
I am astounded how this elementary notion, fundamental to halakha and hashkafah, is not understood.
End of the day the side the Torah leaders that opposes voting have been very vocal and visible about it. The Torah leaders on the side that allegedly support voting with a few exceptions has kept their opinions to themselves. Therefore even assuming they exist this can hardly be framed as two sides of Gedolim and siding with one. Furthermore even assuming things have changed, the opponents of voting in the WZO are correct at least in the fact that the status quo on not voting in WZO election is on their side. And always has been. Therefore they aren’t remotely making a new prohibition and demanding people go along.
The logic of this completely evades me. Because one side is vocal it can’t be framed as two sides? (This is always the case with extremists; even more so when they can operate within a cancel culture that totally shuts down the other opinions)
So suppression of a point of view invalidates it?
Perhaps the question is why is one side not voval?
bsorot tovot
That’s easy. Because long before “cancel culture” became a known commodity in the world at large, we had invented and implemented it.
How much of our cancel culture is to compensate for our exiled communities’ loss of legal status to legislate for their members, levy taxes, impose criminal penalties, etc.? To me it looks like an attempt behind the scenes to simulate formal legal power. Unfortunately, its use can be extended to stifle legitimate halachic or hashkafic disputes, or to enforce specific modes of thought and behavior that should be discretionary within Torah limits.
This is all the product of a world view that still cannot deal with a sovereign Jewish state as imperfect as it is as the host to the greatest quantity of Torah learning and the spiritual center of the Jewish People as HaShem Yisbotach’s gift to Am Yisrael after the Holocaust.
The vast majority of the time between Joshua and Churban Bayis Sheni sovereign Jewish rule was imperfect-yet Chazal treated the loss of Jewish sovereignty as a major tragedy.
Schmerel, your comments do not qualify even as da’at ba’al habayit; they reflect no da’at.
Remember, Hareidim voted 5 years ago.
I am on your side, Dr. Gewirtz. I voted this time and last. However, your rather sharp comment is very much eliding the extremely vociferous and vocal opposition last time around. it is incumbent upon those who engage in ad hominem to ensure they do not miss.
Kalman, i do not believe I missed.
“If they stay loyal to the Moetzes, it will be an important victory, one that will likely add years to its leadership. If they bolt…”
The next weeks will be interesting, as the votes come in. Or don’t.
I think you need to quantify this a bit. What counts as a success for the moetzes?
IMHO, if Eretz Hakodesh fails to garner more votes than last time – or if they wind up with even fewer – it will be a major victory for the Moetzes. It might also be the undoing of Agudah, ironically, because those who keep it financially alive are reportedly not happy with the fact that the Moetzes has turned into an extension of Eitz/Peleg
Targeting more WZO money toward anti-orthodox causes might look like victory…to somebody. Also, the job of circling the wagons to avoid the military draft would get harder because of fewer wagons.
I’d think they’ve already demonstrated they have, then, no?
Are you saying the donors will only keep donating if they prove ineffective? That’s illogical, but people often are.
Bob: You say that bit about the wagons as if it was a bad thing.
Also, the WZO has precisely zero to do with the draft.
Nachum, My point was that this WZO tiff exacerbates intramural friction among Chareidi factions such that their other priorities will get less support.
if Eretz Hakodesh fails to garner more votes than last time – or if they wind up with even fewer – it will be a major victory for the Moetzes.
That seems about right to me. Per wikipedia, last time around EH got 20,045 votes. That’s not a large number, relatively speaking. You could fit twice that at a siyum hashas.
It might also be the undoing of Agudah, ironically, because those who keep it financially alive are reportedly not happy with the fact that the Moetzes has turned into an extension of Eitz/Peleg
I don’t understand what eitz/pelg has to do with this. R Dov Landau is degel.
====
In any case, the whole WZO election seems a bit bizarre. As I understand it, there’s this pot of money available for the taking based on whichever group is able to get its constituents to vote in an election, the outcome of which really has no bearing on their lives and the elected body of which can’t even pretend to wield authority over them.
Is there something I’m missing? Because ideology aside, the whole thing sounds like a giant international chinese auction.
Not to mention that none of those voting actually contributed to that pot, or at least not that much. (Israelis sure have, but they don’t vote- their representatives are determined based on Knesset representation.)
[Edited] Why is this framed as one group of talmidei chachamim vs another when we all know that it’s actually about one individual …imposing his political will on everyone else? Do you imagine that within Mo’etzes there was even one serious discussion where IDEAS were debated?
Dovid, we don’t all know. This type of inside baseball insinuation doesn’t belong here.
Sometimes it’s helpful to understand how the sausage is made.
Also, he’s 100% wrong. That RY gives literally dozens of shiurim and vaadim a week and spends much of the remaining of time fundraising. Within the yeshiva itself he is hugely respected for his Torah and middos.
But of course several members of the Moetzes already opposed Eretz Hakodesh in other forums, as did leading senior Roshei Yeshiva who aren’t in the Moetzes.
Rabbi Adlerstein,
The WZO election will soon be over. But if it is true that we Invented and implemented “cancel culture” to the extent that Talmidei Chachomim fear to express their beliefs, is that not a far greater tragedy? Isn’t this what the Netziv in He’emek Davar (hakdama) wrote caused the Churban, labeling as heretics those who held different opinions? I pray that you wrote with hyperbole, otherwise, what hope is there for Klal Yisroel?
Rabbi Miller,
Regretably, I do not think that it is hyperbole at all! Nonetheless, I’m not worried about Klal Yisroel, for several reasons. 1) Sooner or later, all extremists are unseated. Here in Israel, Peleg is not even seen as part of the mainstream – even though in the US, it seems to dominate the Moetzes. (Here, the problem is Satmar/Brisk) The Biryonim/Kanaim disappeared after the Churban Habayis 2) HKBH always supplies a few life preservers before we go under
You wrote that in Israel, the Peleg is not part of the mainstream. On the contrary, there is now no distinction at all between the Peleg and the mainstream Litvish chareidi leadership.
Apparently you are correct 🙁
That is true. Anyone who follows the Israeli Yeshivish world know that Peleg (and its offshoots, they have also split into different camps) are a small minority of the Yeshiva litvish world in Israel.
They do however make the most noise.
Why Rabbi Landau decided to proclaim not to vote for WZO is a bit of a mystery. His partner in Slabodka Yeshiva, Rabbi Moshe Hillel Hirsh, was for voting in WZO, and I’m told the only reason he hasn’t said so publicly this time, is in deference to Rabbi Landau.
BenShaul: Such that deference is a more important objective than voicing his opinion on this. Long live deference!
I respect the author tremendously, and have learned a great deal from him over the years, but I think there is a strong element of wishful thinking here. Specifically, that anyone who has not publicly aligned themselves with the Moetzes is against their position. I don’t think so. I think if anything, people are afraid of being cancelled by the ba’al habatim than the yeshiva crowd. The Yeshiva crowd is much more loyal, and would probably go along with whatever the Moetzes said, either way. It is the ba’al habatim who are more on the margin and likely to bolt.
I personally know many prominent people who agree with Rav Feldman zt”l but are not willing to be as outspoken as he is.
Secondly, the claim that the Moetzes doesn’t realize the consequences of their decision is baffling. Rav Feldman and Rav Kotler said very clearly last time around that they would resign from the Moetzes rather than let it support voting in WZO elections. They knew that that would basically end Agudah as a unified voice for the yeshiva crowd, but they felt it was worth it. You see the same thing in their quotation of the Chofetz Chaim as saying opposing Zionism is worth losing a full third of all the yeshivos. If opposing voting in WZO means the end of Agudah, or losing followers, etc. they see it as a price worth paying.
And all these opinions flow pretty directly from how they see the world, and the Zionist issue as a whole. Their opinion of how to approach Zionism is based in history and their understanding of the previous gedolim’s take on the matter. The idea that this is somehow the influence of right-wingers in Ereyz Yisrael etc. is just ahistorical. Rav Feldman is the Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel, founded by Rav Ruderman. He was extremely anti-Zionist in his worldview. Same with Rav Kotler, whose forefather Rav Kotler also shared this opinion.
My great-uncle, Rav Ruderman was a member of HaPoel Mizrachi until some point. He was hardly of the same view as Rav Feldman.
He also came from a Lubavitch family. Yet he eventually became a staunch Slabodka talmid, opposed to Chassidus and Lubavitch in particular. He also opposed Zionism. These opinions are on record.
NT: It’s unclear from the writing in your last paragraph if the “anti-Zionist” is referring to Rabbi Ruderman or Rabbi Feldman. If that modifier is referring yo the latter, then that is absolutely correct. But, if it’s referring to Rabbi Ruderman, he was either apolitical or (probably more accurately) tolerant/sympathetic toward Mizrachi. As noted in some of the other comments, any characterization of him being anti-Zionist is without basis and therefore historically inaccurate. And my father was a Talmid of Rav Ruderman, so he could verify Rav Ruderman’s legacy involvement in and position on Mizrachi.
While Ner Israel insiders will deny that Rabbi Feldman speaks on behalf of the Yeshiva’s true position, that assertion is obviously lame, inasmuch as his tenure of Rosh HaYeshiva has now outlasted the time that Rabbi Weinberg zt”l officially served in that role. Rav Weinberg’s legacy views (as were Rav Ruderman’s) were indeed once the Hashkafa of the Yeshiva. So, it’s untenable to continue using the “outlier” claim to counterbalance what is in fact the consistent public record.
I mean Rav Ruderman. I have confirmed these opinions with close Talmidim of his in the yeshiva hanhala. Now he was more tolerant and I’m sure sympathetic than others of his view might have been. But I remember during my time in yeshiva a kuntres was published and widely distributed with memories of Rav Ruderman. It said that Rav Ruderman agreed with the Satmar Rav in theory but not in practice, and that he traveled many times to NY to discuss the issue of the Medina with him in person. I later confirmed his views with his talmidim and relatives personally.
And I assure you, no insider denies that Rav Feldman speaks for the yeshiva. The people who claim Rav Feldman differs from the Yeshiva tend to be more casual talmidim, often those who are there for college. I have heard the same opinions from the rest of the hanhala consistently during my five years there. Rav Feldman says all these opinions from the pulpit in his shmuessen.
I don’t recall (religious) American Jewry ever accepting the Moetzes over themselves as the final authority in all matters. So I don’t feel that someone in yeshiva in Chicago, or someone who follows a knowledgeable Rav in Detroit, has any obligation to follow what the Moetzes says.
Also Rav Dov Landau represents the most extreme of the Lithuanian chareidi roshei yeshiva in Israel (fun fact – he is against even davening for Israeli soldiers). He has a history of having disputes with other chareidi gedolim, including Rav Schach. So again, as knowledgeable as he undoubtedly is, why is he seen as the decisive opinion, and not say, Rav Asher Weiss or Rav Baruch Dov Povarsky?
Unfortunately, as is often the case, individuals with the most extreme views are the most vocal and public in airing their opinions. Hence you have the Yated bowing and scraping for having dared run an ad for Eretz Hakodesh, and Rabbi Feldman publishing a letter deigning to forgive them for their offense. Does Rabbi Fuerst upbraid people for not voting in the WZO? Of course not, because he understands that there is daas Torah on both sides of the issue, and accordingly treats the opposing view with respect.
I wish the opposing view would extend the same courtesy.
People have different conceptions about Daas Torah, but who is willing to state openly and unequivocally that only one Gadol or one limited set of Gedolim embodies it to the exclusion of all others? Is there a precedent for this in our current golus?
only in the Catholic church perhaps and only in a limited sense? 🙂
Rav Feldman is very close to the Satmar position on Zionism and to imply that he is the same ballpark of Rav Ruderman is mind boggling!
Rav Feldman opposed participation in the Washington rally despite agreeing that it was pikuach nefesh, because people will speak positively about the “Zionist enterprise”.
Rav Moshe Brown, one of Rav Rudereman’s greatest talmidim, testified that Ner Yisroel and ALL of the Yeshivos attended in 1967.
In one of Rav Feldman’s first comments after October 7th, he attributed what happened to those who “embraced the Zionist Enterprise” by voting in the last WZO election.
Rav Ruderman?
We don’t give honor to Torah by attempting to make his views mainstream.
Let me tell you how this sounds to (at least my) Dati Leumi (DL) ears.
There are basically two factions competing for influence in the WZO elections. One that says don’t vote at all (anti-Zionist), and the other that says vote for Eretz Hakodesh (which is basically Hareidi non-Zionist).
One takes no official funding from the government, the other takes funding. Both are against any sort of Hareidi draft on the scale that would alleviate the man-power shortage in the army. Both constituencies sing anti-draft / anti-State songs at their weddings (as we saw from a representative of Yahadut Hatorah, which certainly wants as much funding as possible, and hence is in the government). Much of the funding attained by Eretz Hakodesh would go to institutions that are far from DL hashkafa or priorities. So for us, Eretz Hakodesh versus no vote doesn’t seem like the forces of light versus darkness.
…and when we read about Hareidi leaders who may feel differently and are “afraid” to speak out, we laugh to ourselves because we know what real fear is. Real fear is having 4 kids, all in their 30s, and fathers of large families, serving on 3 fronts for who-knows-how long.
“…and when we read about Hareidi leaders who may feel differently and are “afraid” to speak out, we laugh to ourselves because we know what real fear is. Real fear is having 4 kids, all in their 30s, and fathers of large families, serving on 3 fronts for who-knows-how long.”
There is no appropriate response to this, other than shamefaced silence. Anyone who could deign to attempt a rejoinder, I think, has hopelessly compromised his/her nekudas ha-emes.
I think it should be said, however, that the fear of those who remain private about their views is not fear of personal harrassment. It is the fear that if they speak out, they will lose all effectiveness they have with the many, many people they constantly guide.
The Agudah has certainly “evolved”, hasn’t it? Some would say that the leadership void within the Moetzes has been commandeered by Kannoim (who learned English in HS), and there is certainly truth to that. An institution like the Agudah, which has prided itself on Daas Baalebattim being subservient to Daas Torah, now finds that model being tested.
In the past, the Agudah has ranged from being tolerant of Zionism, neutral about it, to being in ideological disagreement with it (including and perhaps especially Religious Zionism). But, it is only over the past several years where the opposition by seemingly “mainstream” figures has become extreme, along the lines of what was limited to Satmar and Neturei Karta. Some longtime financial supporters of the Agudah who also have also been comfortably giving to IDF support, Jewish Federations and other Israel causes, especially since October 7, now find themselves “Hashkafically homeless” (credit to Dovid Bashevkin). After all, the Mesorah from their formidable years with legacy Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbanim is far more inclusive of different elements within Klal Yisrael than what has been happening lately. The Eretz Hakodesh broygiss is merely a microcosm of the shift that has taken place, and as per Rabbi Adlerstein’s post and comments, will be a “test case” moving forward. The prevalent anti-Eretz Hakodesh rhetoric straddles the line between political hyperbole and worse. Personally, I have no horse in the WZO race since I just voted for the OIC. It’s just a shame to see kannaus having been normalized within Klal Yisrael, without any apparent checks-and-balances.
What is clear to me is that what is largely an Israel issue is causing such disruption, forced onto the American Chareidi and Chareidi-Lite agendas. Some apparently have significant time on their hands to deal with this niche political and financial issue, instead of more pressing matters (e.g., running their Yeshivos, giving real shiurim, learning Torah, and Pesach preparations). The prevalent existential message they are imparting is that politics and optics within the Chareidi world reign supreme, over matters of true substance.
There’s too much anger in our world.
Rav Ruderman an extreme anti-Zionist?
https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/714683/What-is-the-Future-of-the-Jewish-State?
@14:30.
Wow! Everyone should hear this
Thanks for this link! To give you one in return:
“Back in 1949, Rav Ruderman invited Rav Zev Gold, the head of the Mizrachi, as the guest speaker at the 6th Chag Hasmicha in Ner Yisrael.”
This was pointed out in a shiur of R. Elchanan Adler of RIETS titled “How Underlying Attitudes Affect Our Value Judgments on Israel and the Washington Rally”(p. 98 in transcript and minute 15 in audio links below):
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1090635/How-Underlying-Attitudes-Affect-Our-Value-Judgments-on-Israel-and-the-Washington-Rally
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1081227/How-Underlying-Attitudes-Affect-Our-Value-Judgments-on-Israel-and-the-Washington-Rally
This has been posted before. I’m going to take the word of people who spent decades learning under Rav Ruderman over the remembrances of a child. To quote Megillah 20a אין מביאין ראיה מן הקטן.
REVISIONISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN HAREIDIDOM
For years I have been wondering when people who, like me, have problems with the logic of “daas torah” wpuld begin to speak up. Of course we are going through a shatteringly critical time for the Jewish people, and Im Lo Achshav eimasi. However, I am not at all surprised that it would be you to be leading this discussion. Who else? Congratulations and Thank you.
I posted this story once from an article. All the experts on Rav Ruderman said impossible. We need proof.
Now you have it.
But I know what’s coming.
“He changed his mind”!
Hi all as far as I understand Halachically No one is obligated to vote for a specific party unless THEIR personal Rav tells them to. A Kol koreh does not obligated an individual on a matter of voting. Isn’t that right Rabbi Adlerstien? It may create social pressure but that would only be true if individuals discussed their voting patterns… I believe there is also an Option to vote for Aish HaTorah, as well as Sephardim and OU. As a proud Torani Jew I checked the list of voting options for Who cares most about helping our soldiers and rebuilding our country during a war…that is OU. I believe that is the most pressing issue at the moment. Money for Yeshivot should maybe come from individual donors who love those Yeshivot, at the moment.
Shouldn’t political recommendations by even one’s personal Rav be taken as an input and not as an order to obey no matter what?
In general,” bow politically to my will or be drummed out of the group” doesn’t sit well. Having a guaranteed vote makes party officals too secure.
As to the position of Rabbi Ruderman. He isn’t the only Gadol, whose position or approach vis-a-vis the State of Israel changed over time. Much of it had to do with the increasing awareness and actions of the State. The struggles/controversies over forced autopsies, the Yeminite children saga, the battle over giyus banos & sheirut leumi, who is a jew, among others; took the shine off the what was a rosy eyed view of the State. The abandonment of Gaza did that for the dati leumi crowd, the yeshivish world happened much earlier.
And then it changed again, under PM Menechem Begin who allocated the largest amounts of monies to Yeshivos & Bnei Torah. Since PM Begin earliest relationship with Rav Aryeh Levin , he had a strong connection to the Torah world and covered deficits in many yeshivos.
Some ppl are stuck in quick sand & have ignored the huge, awesome growth of the Torah world because of Israeli funding..
“The Zionist Movement was founded 125 years ago with the purpose of uprooting the foundations of Judaism.”
I heard this in the name of R. Chaim Brisker. See R. Mordecai Plaut’s exchange with R. Berel Wein in the Fall 2001 issue of Jewish Action in connection with R. Wein’s review of Yoram Hazony’s “The Jewish State–the Struggle for Israel’s Soul.” R. Plaut quotes Rav Chaim :
“In fact, Hazony’s analysis now, after the fact, is exactly that of HaRav Chaim Brisker… Rav Brisker is often quoted as having said that the real goal of the secular “Zionists” is uprooting the Jewish religion. The State, he said, is just what they consider the best means to this end.”
https://jewishaction.com/letters/jewish-state-war-ideas/
In general, the Kol Korei’s history of the rabbinic opposition to the WZO seems to follow R. Aharon Feldman’s repudiation of Eretz Hakodesh in the 2022 issue of Dialogue Magazine which was quoted and linked in the recent JTA article titled, “From the far left to the haredi right, these Jews are questioning the ethics of voting for the World Zionist Congress ” :
https://dialoguemagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Eretz-HaKodesh.pdf
However, even if Rav Chaim made the statement about the “real goal of Zionism,” Israel has changed over the years as R. Adlerstein wrote. Also, there are other opinions on Zionism in the Torah world. As R. Elchanon Adler said in a shiur after the 2023 Washington rally(he also discusses Eretz HaKodesh and the WZO controversy on p. 99):
“I think that what is often lost in all of this discussion is that between the two extreme outlooks there exists a wide spectrum, and you don’t have to be completely on one end or on the other”(p. 97).
See audio and transcript of R. Adler’s shiur:
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1090635/How-Underlying-Attitudes-Affect-Our-Value-Judgments-on-Israel-and-the-Washington-Rally
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1081227/How-Underlying-Attitudes-Affect-Our-Value-Judgments-on-Israel-and-the-Washington-Rally
I appreciate the chizuk R. Adlerstein has provided by offering an alternative perspective on the Moetzes statement and on similar issues, both on Cross Currents and on the podcast.
While I am uncomfortable with the Agudah Kol Korei, I did find one part nuanced, where it said ” [w]e do not intend to impugn the honor of those distinguished rabbis who ruled that it is permitted.”
Compare as well the Kol Korei with the “Statement of Agudath Israel on Charedi Principles,” issued in October 2020 a few months after the WZO election, when the Eretz HaKodesh slate signed a coalition deal with right-wing non-Orthodox parties. That statement was milder than the current Kol Korei in that it did not say that Zionism was founded for the ” purpose of uprooting the foundations of Judaism.”
Unique for an Agudah statement, there was then appended a “Postscript: What The Statement Means… And Doesn’t,” which read in part(see link below):
“What our statement does not mean is that we reject in any way our fellow Jews who may not recognize that truth. Nor does it mean that we will in any way change our support for Israel’s needs. Agudath Israel of America has always advocated in the halls of government for Israel’s security and economic needs and general welfare, and will always do so. And, most importantly, our statement is not intended to – and does not – in any way injure Jewish unity. On the contrary, it fosters it, in its reminding to all Jews that, as Rav Saadia Gaon famously declared: “The Jewish nation is a nation only by virtue of the Torah.”
https://agudah.org/statement-of-agudath-israel-on-charedi-principles-2
Nobody has every presented any evidence that shows that Rav Chaim Kanievsky endorsed (certainly not, as EHK claims, “established”) voting for EHK or any other slate.
There is talk of a letter that has never been produced (despite them having over five years to do so) and a video in which Rav Chaim makes a monosyllabic sound after clearly having difficulty hearing what was being asked to him.
Nope. Eretz Hakodesh published a copy. I saw it myself. And Rav Shmuel attested to receiving it five years ago
For many years already, it was never clear how much understanding Rav Chaim had of the question being yelled into his ear. It was virtually impossible to have an extended conversation with him , certainly not a nuanced one.
But he became the “last word” based on an assumed element of Ruach Hakodesh / si’yata de’shmaya. A totally non Litvish approach.
When Rav Chaim insisted on keeping schools open during Covid, no one had the chutzpah to question whether he was “given all the facts”
Suddenly, everyone became “rationalists” and insist that he wasn’t “properly informed. ”
Sounds like an agenda and lack of intellectual honesty to me!
Rabbi Adlerstein is echoing a certain sentiment, but the piece is not at balanced until he acknowledges a few things:
(1) Many Gedolim of yesteryear indeed thought that Zionism (and to some degree the State) was founded for the purpose of uprooting Judaism. Let’s take, as a small example, a conversation between MK Lorencz and the Brisker Rav (Bimchitzasam, Hebrew ed., p. 179), where the latter said so explicitly. The former thought that the purpose was to gain power, and their fight against the Charedim was out of fear of losing it. “Once, when I presented my viewpoint, Maran rose to his full height and said: R’ Shlomo, I see that you cannot accept my words. Believe me, were it permitted, I would wrap myself in tallis and tefillin and swear that the truth is as I say.”
So to state with no caveat that “of course this is not true” is, well, of course not true.
In any event, the words of the Moetzes are the epitome of gentleness compared to what Rav Kook had to say about secular Zionism in 1904
(2) The Jerusalem Program, to which all WZO voters must agree, states inter alia:
“Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future.”
Really? If the Zionist, “democratic” state of Israel were to cease to exist and be replaced with a Torah-based monarchy, may it be so bimheirah beyameinu, would we cry bitter tears over the loss of the continuity and future of the Jewish people?
“Encouraging recruitment and service in the Israel Defense Forces and the security forces and strengthening them as the protective force of the Jewish people living in Zion, as well as encouraging full National Service for anyone exempted in law from service in the IDF.”
Non-eitznik Charedim sign on to that? I don’t think so. Never mind those who are learning full time; let us ask IDF Major General Zini, who founded the Chashmonaim Charedi brigade, about the IDF’s record with Charedim (March 30, 2025):
“When we examined things in depth, one can say that a Charedi who will come forward and say that the IDF did not keep its commitments along the way, we earned that statement fair and square.
Any IDF track that I checked, and I don’t want to say I checked all of them but I did check the vast majority, to varying degrees and at varying times we did not fully keep what we promised.
Educators or leaders of the Charedi public will say, you talk the talk but in practice you don’t keep it. Those are facts, we earned that fair and square.”
Gen. Zini said that in order to build trust, the IDF has to change before turning to the Charedim on the issue.
So, one can discuss the political pros and cons of the Moetzes publishing their kol korei [just as one can discuss the degree of conviction on the part of those [ostensibly? nothing in writing, eh?] in favor of voting] but painting it as an extremist viewpoint is off the mark.
Dear Rabbi “Mark,”
Since I know you so well, I can say with confidence that you are capable of doing better than that. I said that Zionism was clearly not primarily about wiping out Torah, although far too many of its early promoters very much wanted to do that. You respond with a story about the Brisker Rov who declared otherwise. The Brisker Rov zt”l’s saying something does not make it factually true. There were numerous Torah figures who held the polar opposite position. They can’t all be right. (Inter alia: The Satmar Rov was a massive talmid chacham. He declared that the Israeli victory in the June War was the work of the Soton. Are you ready to embrace that position as well, since it was advanced by a respected talmid chacham and manhig?) The Brisker Rov likely was speaking from his personal experience with Zionist maskilim in Brisk, but not as a historian. Zionism was about establishing a Jewish homeland in Eretz Yisrael. That is true enough for anyone to sign on to the Jerusalem Program
You wrote:
“Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future.”
Really? If the Zionist, “democratic” state of Israel were to cease to exist and be replaced with a Torah-based monarchy, may it be so bimheirah beyameinu, would we cry bitter tears over the loss of the continuity and future of the Jewish people?
I respond:
At the moment, before either Moshiach comes or the Charedi world finds a way to participate in the general responsibility for the running of the only Jewish State we have – Yes, “Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future.” The “future” coming to an end when we BE”H merit changing it into a state run in accord with Torah principles.
You:
Let us ask IDF Major General Zini, who founded the Chashmonaim Charedi brigade, about the IDF’s record with Charedim (March 30, 2025):
“When we examined things in depth, one can say that a Charedi who will come forward and say that the IDF did not keep its commitments along the way, we earned that statement fair and square.
Any IDF track that I checked, and I don’t want to say I checked all of them but I did check the vast majority, to varying degrees and at varying times we did not fully keep what we promised.
Educators or leaders of the Charedi public will say, you talk the talk but in practice you don’t keep it. Those are facts, we earned that fair and square.”
Gen. Zini said that in order to build trust, the IDF has to change before turning to the Charedim on the issue.
Me:
He’s talking about the IDF’s horrible record with religious soldiers in the past, whereby promises were broken as fast as they could be made. What he’s saying is that the IDF is going to have to change its performance record, and is now prepared to try. That, in fact, is his job!
I hear. But I still have trouble signing the statement when the intention was clearly not the interpretation that you put forward.
The WZO have always seen the Democratic State AS the Messianic vision (assuming they believe in it at all), and they see Sheirut Le’umi as it exists today being incumbent on all religious youth, and have no issue with it.
I would sign if it said that a Democratic State of Israel is our best safety net in Galus and that we support a National Service that includes full time Learning as one of the options.
As the statement stands, I respect the many frum Jews who see the statement as a reflection of their values. I am not one of them.
Going back to the title and the premise of this post. The Agudah in America is made up of three entities. The first is the professional administrative side that includes its political advocacy, Daf Yomi etc. The second is comprised of the card-carrying members, askanim, and philanthropists. And the third is the Moetzes. The administrative entity is someone self-sufficient and not substantively connected to the Moetzes. Historically, the card-carrying members, askanim, and philanthropists have had a subservient relationship with the Moetzes with the party line being that they will always subordinate their own judgment to the Moetzes. This is the Daas Torah doctrine that has long distinguished Agudas Yisroel of America from other circles within Orthodoxy.
But what has evolved recently has put a strain on the above model. The Moetzes no longer has the American Gedolim of the caliber of those who were on it in the 20th century. Recently, it has become evident that he Moetzes has become merely a proxy for extremists in Eretz Yisroel. Importing that model has not been such a great fit. The Moetzes has gotten out of touch with the classic Yeshiva World values that are now relegated to historical ones. As such, the baaleibattim and askanim who have always been reliable supporters are now seeing the Moetzes as less and less relevant to them and America. It’s gotten to a point where one cannot even say that there is an “eilu v’eilu” on the Moetzes, in the hope that that it will ultimately find a point of equilibrium, and in 5 years things will settle down.
Of course, no one can cancel or disband the Moetzes. And certainly no outsiders are allowed onto the Search Committee when openings on the Moetzes arise. It will remain nominally in tact forever. The question though is how long the Moetzes can sustain itself as an independent entity if it is no longer connected to or seen as the flagship of the other two divisions of the enterprise.
From the beginning of the Agudah there have been internal debates about the power of Rabbonim vs laity in the organization. Two titans Isaac Breuer and Jacob Rosenheim had different viewpoints. There were also disputes about how inclusive the organization should be-even who should select the Moetzet. Of course, they were both committed to halacha. Just to show that differences have always been there.
There certainly were leading Gedolim on the Moetzet in the 20th century but it is naive to state that being a Gadol was a prerequisite to being on the Moetzet-certainly there Rabbonim who spread Torah and certainly knowledgeable but were not Gedolim in the standard use of the word.
This is the time for the social service side of the Agudah (and OU) to reconsider its close connections to the Democratic welfare state. Trading of favors with Schumer and his immoral ilk didn’t quite work out to our credit. The public letter supporting Mayorkas’ appointment ignored the ample warning signs about him.
Jews must be able to deal with both parties including DJT who certainly associates with Laura Loomer who has openly stated ant-Semitic comments. It is very easy as Bret Stephens recently wrote for each party to call out anti-Semitism on the other side but not from their own party. Read his recent article about how few have done that.
On social issues, Democrats as a group are offensive, not jut a few here or there.
R. Yair Hoffman published last week ‘A Respectful Response to Rav Aharon Feldman Shlita’s “Treif Into Kosher: The Story of Eretz Hakodesh” ‘ on VIN news, linked below. Some excerpts:
— Most significantly, Agudath Israel participated in signing Israel’s Declaration of Independence through Rabbi Yitzchok Meir Levine, the son-in-law of the Gerrer Rebbe. This momentous act appears to have had the blessing of major Torah authorities of the time. The article does not address this crucial historical fact, which demonstrates that pragmatic engagement with state institutions has precedent among Torah leadership.
— The VIN article links to the videos of R. Chaim Kanievsky and another of R. Elya Brudny and R. Aharon Lopiansky, both of whom had spoken at the 2019 Agudah Convention about it being worthwhile to privately vote in the WZO election in 2020.
— Rav Dovid Feinstein zt”l was also an advocate of the nuanced approach and supported Eretz haKodeh. Indeed, he instructed Rabbi Aryeh Zev Ginsberg shlita to be one of the delegates
[ For his part, R. Feldman says that R. Brudny later retracted his support, and that R. Dovid Feinstein indicated his opposition according to a close talmid; see the Dialogue article pages 23 and 32 respectively, linked below ]
— At the 4th Knessia Gedolah in Jerusalem in 1954, Rabbi Aharon Kotler sat alongside Rabbi Levine and Prime Minister Moshe Sharett. This symbolic gesture suggests that even leaders known for their strong ideological positions recognized the necessity of practical engagement in certain circumstances.
— The Drashos HaRan writes that every tuvei hair requires voices from all sides of the spectrum – some more extreme than the others, and some more radical than the others. This is what keeps us balanced.
— … Eretz Hakodesh’s approach might be better understood not as making “treif” into “kosher,” but as applying timeless Torah principles to contemporary challenges in a way that safeguards the future of Torah-true Judaism.
https://vinnews.com/2025/03/24/a-respectful-response-to-rav-aharon-feldman-shlitas-treif-into-kosher-the-story-of-eretz-hakodesh/
https://dialoguemagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Eretz-HaKodesh.pdf
How ironic that the views of R Rudetmzn ZL are nor the subject of revisionism! It is well known that a Torah Umrsorah convention.R Elyah Svei ZL confronted R Rudetmann ZL and gave him Musar claiming that Ner Yisrael wasn’t frum enough !
Personally, I first factor authority before logic in these areas. Since there are authorities on both sides of the aisle, it remains for me a Machlokes. As to the logic of it, the naysayers have some fine presentations, such as these
https://harehbetzba.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/WZO-Feldman-Letter.pdf
https://hefkervelt.blogspot.com/2025/03/roshei-yeshiva-speak-out-against-eretz.html
IMHO they are better than what the advocates have presented so far, but perhaps only because various advocates are remaining silent.
An ambiguity in this post is whether it is written on behalf of what people might say or on behalf of oneself. If the latter, it would be a departure from other times when the esteemed writer retreated from “mishing” in a conversation of Gedolim.
Also not to be understood is that if the naysayers claim a continuum from the “Chofetz Chaim” through “Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, zichronam livracha”, which thinking people “are going to wonder. Do we really determine policy based on positions of gedolei olam a hundred years ago?” Don’t they know that some of the Gedolei Olam lived more recently, and were fully informed about government money given to shuls, mikvahs, families…?
Whereas “slapping” R Mohliver and the Netziv wouldn’t be an issue. Herzel began with sympathy to religion, and said so to the Rav of Basel. Later the Russian Maskilim hijacked the movement with negativity towards it, due to which the religious left and founded the Mizrachi. So wrote R Wolbe, and he invites his reader to read the minutes of the Congress for confirmation. Such that the reality changed from when R Mohliver and the Netziv were advocates וכבודם במקומם מונחים. (This of course is at odds with the citation from the Moetzes.)
His honor also (enthusiastically?) mentions Peleg. When Peleg began, his honor posted on CC before hearing its side of the story, namely being clueless that the superlatives of greatness of the anti-Peleg leaders applied also to the founder of Peleg. Since then an inspiring biography has been written by E Kobre. Perhaps his honor has no interest in reading it, in which case his opinions would have Omek without Hekef.
At that time anti-Peleg (allegedly) did precisely what the Moetzes is (allegedly) doing now, pretending that in effect everyone holds like them.
(On the various issues I remain a crossbencher.)
I have never commented here, and probably haven’t looked at cross currents in a few years, but I just saw this article and it really resonated with me. I am just a regular chareidi woman who lives in Flatbush. I saw the advertisements for Eretz Hakodesh and I voted on the first day of voting. (I also voted 4 years ago, when I passed by Landau’s shul and they were promoting it). I got wind of the controversy abt a week later when it was reported on yeshiva world news. Then, when I read the statement put out by the Moetzes, I got really confused- first of all, isn’t the purpose of Gedolim to lead us in our current times, help us deal with the challenges of our current environment and guide us in keeping the Torah in whatever time and place that we live. I don’t think we are meant to be going with gedolim from 100 years ago, reacting to a movement from 100 years ago. I was also confused because isn’t voting for Eretz Hakodesh the same as voting in the Israeli elections? The statement abt how horrible it is to vote for ppl who will sit in the same group as Reform, etc- I mean, what abt the Knesset?
I think it put all of us regular frum ppl who were raised on the principles of following Daas Torah into a turmoil. Then, my teenage son came home from Yeshiva railing against Eretz Hakodesh. His menahel and his Rebbe gave the boys speeches about how terrible it was to vote for it (they are 15- they can’t vote anyways!) It basically shattered by sons’ pure perspective of trusting Rabbanim and daas torah being the final word, because how does he reconcile that other rabbonim said it is okay to vote, if his menahel and rebbi said it is assur gamur? what abt the fact that his mother voted- does that mean you don’t have to listen to gedolim?
This whole thing has just been a mess. I think everyone just has to follow their LOR on what to do, but I would assume that most Rabbanim wouldn’t want to now say that it’s okay to vote once the Moetzes said that you shouldn’t.