Category: Yom Ha’atzmaut

Acknowledging Hashem on Yom Ha’atzmaut in Melbourne

The invocation of memory is often a double-edged sword. To begin an essay with “I remember when” risks self-identifying as a relic of a bygone era. Yet, perhaps I must accept this designation as a witness to a past epoch, perpetually disquieted by the trajectory of contemporary “neo-developments.”

My arrival in Israel from Melbourne as a young man to study at Israel’s first Hesder Yeshiva, during an era when such institutions were a novelty, was a profound ontological shift. My formative religious education had been filtered almost exclusively through the prism of Ḥabad. A quintessential Ḥabadnik maintains a fervent interest in the “Jews residing in the Land of Israel,” much in the same way they support the “Jews in the Land of Australia.” The distinction is viewed largely through a functional lens: the Land of Israel simply necessitates the performance of additional mitzvot and is imbued with a certain Kedusha.

Crucially, however, the committed Lubavitcher historically eschewed the nomenclature of the “State of Israel,” favouring “Land of Israel” (Eretz Yisrael) instead. The Rebbe, Zechuso Yogen Alaynu, famously refrained from uttering the word “State” (Medina) in a sovereign context. This ideological boundary was so rigid that in his correspondence with Zalman Shazar, the President of Israel and a man of Lubavitch lineage, the Rebbe pointedly omitted his official title.

Consequently, my first encounter with Yom Ha’atzmaut at Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh was a revelation. The atmosphere was transformative: the student body was arrayed in Sabbath finery of pristine white shirts and formal trousers. The day was punctuated by festive meals, scholarly shiurim, and exuberant dancing. Liturgically, the service was augmented within a rigorous Halakhic framework, including the recitation of Hallel during Shacharis (albeit without a preceding berakha). This approach mirrored the personal praxis of Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik z”l, the Rav, who according to Mori V’Rabbi Rav Hershel Schachter, preferred its recitation after Aleinu.

Regardless of the liturgical minutiae, the day was palpably infused with a providential weight. There was a collective conviction that the Divine Hand had orchestrated the State’s inception and this was a critical milestone in the process of Geula. To those who perceived God as “concealed” during the horrors of the Holocaust, the State was the “mighty finger of God” signalling that He had not forsaken His people. The mission was clear: to imbue this nascent State with Kedusha, creating the vessel through which the Diaspora would eventually all return.

Upon returning to Melbourne, I observed a bifurcated communal commemoration. The secular or “not-yet-frum” community, under the aegis of the Zionist Council of Victoria, hosted celebrations ranging from musical performances to discos. While well-intentioned, these gatherings lacked the liturgical gravity and other considerations required by Halakhic Jews. They omitted the communal gratitude expressed through formal prayer.

The religious alternative was the communal Ma’ariv service held at Mizrachi Shule. This was a truly ecumenical event. Rabbis from nearly every congregation (excluding Ḥabad and the Ḥaredi Adass Israel) were in attendance. The Ḥazanim and keynote speakers rotated annually, representing a diverse cross-section of the community. The pews were not merely filled with Mizrachi regulars. They were packed with Holocaust survivors who viewed the State as the literal manifestation of their personal salvation. The religious Zionist youth movement, B’nei Akiva, provided the energetic vanguard of the evening.

Over time, this cooperation was formalised. Promotional materials bore the insignias of all mainstream Orthodox synagogues, presented under the auspices of the Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Victoria (COSV) and the Rabbinic Council of Victoria (RCV).

However, a liturgical shift eventually took hold. Mizrachi adopted a service largely sourced from the Kibbutz Hadati Maḥzor, introducing elements like the blowing of the Shofar, singing Lekha Dodi to alternative lyrics, and a quasi-cantillation of biblical verses. This “neo-liturgy” was foreign to the Hesder Yeshivos of my youth. While I initially found these innovations stylistically jarring, I continued to attend, moved by the imperative of communal unity and the shared recognition of the Divine in Israel’s continued development.

Melbourne’s communal landscape has since undergone a significant demographic and leadership metamorphosis. Historically, “mainstream” pulpits—Toorak, Elwood, Caulfield, St. Kilda, Kew, and South Caulfield and more—were occupied by distinguished non-Ḥabad Rabbis. Even where Ḥabad lineage existed, such as with Rabbis Ḥaim and Sholem Gutnick, there was a fierce, vocal Zionism. Rabbi Ḥaim Gutnick, in particular, was a titan of the communal Mizrachi service, untethered by any ideological prohibition against celebrating the State. I remember Rabbi Shmuel Gurevich, Headmaster of Ḥabad’s Beth Rivkah College and a former Israeli soldier giving a riveting address.

The current reality is different. A side effect of Aliyah is that the “best and brightest” of the Religious Zionist cohort make Aliyah, leading to a relative vacuum in local Rabbinic and other leadership. This has resulted in a Rabbinate that is now overwhelmingly Ḥabad-leaning. Within the RCV, non-Ḥabad voices have become a dwindling minority.

The consequences of this shift became manifest this year. For the first time in memory, Yom Ha’atzmaut was no longer hosted by the Council of Orthodox Synagogues. The RCV was reportedly not formally invited to participate. The logos of the various mainstream synagogues vanished from advertisements. The event had morphed from a communal milestone into a localised Mizrachi Shule service, to which the rest of the community was now “invited.”

I admit to a certain aggravation regarding this development. Perhaps I am “old-fashioned,” but I maintain that the celebration of the State should be a collective endeavour, supported and led by the clergy of all mainstream congregations on a rotational basis. Sadly, the generation of survivors who once anchored this event has passed, and the presence of members from other synagogues has become increasingly sparse.

There is a final, poignant irony: even Mizrachi now employs five Rabbis of Ḥabad extraction on its staff. They attended the service, of course, though they mostly remained silent observers of a Nusaḥ and a theology they do not fully share.

PostScript: Of course, I am aware that Katanga in keeping with their curious identity forged by Holocaust survivors who broke away from Mizrachi, also include liturgical nuance to their davening on this day. There are other organisations, such as Hineni and even Ohrsom, who might otherwise have been formally included in a wider tent.

Reflecting on Yom Ha’atzmaut-Two Lines of Inquiry from the Digital Deluge

As I reflect on this day, two distinct lines of thought emerged from the stream of digital correspondence that continually floods our lives.

Lubavitcher Communal Rabbis

Chabad, unlike the mainstream Charedi community in Israel, does not fit the typical mold. Its members contribute to society, hold jobs, and serve in the army. They are a source of uplift and encouragement to Israeli soldiers and wield significant influence. While I could do without the proliferation of Meshichist signage plastered across Israel, it’s important to recognise that Chabad is not part of the Charedi sector that refuses army service—let alone the faction that declares it would “rather die than enlist” or prefers to “leave the country in order to remain in Kollel.” In Melbourne, Chabad is integral to many Shules and has a rich, foundational history.
The Lubavitcher Rebbes, especially from the time of the Rashab onwards, have been staunchly opposed to secular Zionism. Their rhetoric has often paralleled that of the anti-Zionist Hungarian Satmar movement. This should not come as a surprise. It is entirely possible to be deeply supportive of Jewish life in Eretz Yisrael—note that Lubavitchers will typically avoid the term State of Israel—while still rejecting the idea of a secular Jewish state as a legitimate component of the Jewish worldview (Weltanschauung).

The last Lubavitcher Rebbe had at least two notable interactions regarding Yom Ha’atzmaut:

  • When Rav Moshe Tzvi Neriah, a prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Mizrachi movement, asked the Rebbe why he did not celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut, the Rebbe replied with a rhetorical question: “Perhaps you should ask why I don’t fast on Yom Ha’atzmaut.”
  • The Shulsinger brothers of New York, well-known printers of Jewish texts and calendars, once submitted a draft of a Chabad calendar that included Yom Ha’atzmaut on the 5th of Iyar. Rabbi Hodakov, the Rebbe’s executive secretary, struck it from the draft. When the brothers challenged the decision, arguing that the day at least deserved recognition as one of salvation, they were granted an audience with the Rebbe. In a reportedly heated exchange—audible even outside the Rebbe’s office—the Rebbe is said to have responded: not only was the founding of the State not the beginning of the Redemption, but in fact, it was delaying the Redemption.

Now, to many, none of the above is new. To others it may be surprising. My question though is to the Communal Chabad Rabbis and the members of the communities in which they lead.

“Rabbi X, do you believe that the existence of the State of Israel is an impediment to the Geulah—the Redemption—or, in Chabad preferred terminology, ‘the coming of Moshiach’?

This is not a theoretical question. Chabad Rabbis lead the following prominent Melbourne congregations: Caulfield Shule, St. Kilda Shule, Central Shule, South Caulfield Shule, two minyanim at Mizrachi Shule, Melbourne (Toorak) Shule, East Melbourne Shule, Moorabbin Shule, the Ark Centre, and Hamerkaz Shelanu. (I have not included various Chabad Houses or the Yeshivah Centre, though Hamerkaz Shelanu may well qualify as a Chabad House.)


Ask your Rabbi. I’m genuinely interested in their response.
Are we to believe that newly unfolding historical realities are irrelevant? I’ve been deeply influenced by Rav Soloveitchik, who famously parted ways with his grandfather, Reb Chaim Brisker—who shared the Rashab’s view—on this issue. Rav Soloveitchik declared:

“History has paskened against Reb Chaim”

A Rabbi Who Champions Interfaith Dialogue: Reflecting on Rabbi Ralph Genende’s Recent Statement

Rabbi Ralph Genende, formerly of Caulfield Shule, has long been a sincere advocate for interfaith harmony and respectful dialogue. His deep appreciation for Indigenous Australians is evident both in his words and in his actions. In this week’s edition of The Australian Jewish News, he wrote:

The Jewish people have a long love affair with Israel. It’s probably one of the most extended loves for a land and for a place, bar our First Peoples of Australia.

This poetic statement raises several theological questions. I want to emphasise at the outset that these questions are not meant to diminish, dispute, or relativise the deep connection that Indigenous Australians have with their land. Rather, the questions are directed at understanding how Rabbi Genende reconciles this comparison with traditional Jewish theological perspectives

  1. When did the First Peoples inhabit Australia in relation to biblical chronology?According to Jewish tradition, Adam was the first human, and ten generations later, the world was destroyed by the Flood during Noah’s time. The Midrash speaks of previous worlds created and destroyed before ours, but these are generally understood as metaphorical or spiritual realms. Is Rabbi Genende suggesting that Indigenous Australians predate or parallel the post-Adam narrative? Or does he interpret these timelines differently?
  2. Was Australia included in the Flood? The Torah (Bereishit/Genesis) describes a global flood that spared only Noah and those aboard the Ark, with the notable exception—according to some commentaries—of the Land of Israel. Would Rabbi Genende argue that Australia was also spared? Or is he aligned with those who read these descriptions allegorically?
  3. Were the First Peoples already in Australia at the time of Abraham? God’s command to Abraham to traverse the land of Israel—“for I will give it to you and your descendants”—marks a foundational moment in Jewish history. Does Rabbi Genende hold that the Indigenous connection to Australia stretches back tens of thousands of years prior to this event, and if so, how does he theologically frame that in relation to the Jewish covenantal connection to Israel?
  4. Is this view shaped by historical trends in Jewish thought? Throughout the Jewish diaspora, various ideological movements—such as the Bund and segments of Reform/Progressive Judaism—have at times been anti-Zionist, promoting ideas like Doikayt (hereness), which emphasises Jewish life wherever Jews find themselves. Could Rabbi Genende’s comparison reflect a parallel sentiment—that the Indigenous connection to Australia represents a form of “Doikayt” unmediated by exile or diaspora?
  5. How does this compare to the Orthodox Jewish perspective? Orthodox Jews pray three times a day for a return to Zion and see the Land of Israel as the eternal homeland of the Jewish people. Almost all Jews exclaim “Next Year in Jerusalem” on Pesach. I presume Rabbi Genende, even in framing his statement poetically, would acknowledge the profound and enduring depth of this bond to be at least as great as the First Nations attachment to Australia?

Yom Ha’atzmaut: I didn’t find it funny

As I was leaving Shule today, there was a function being held. I don’t know who the caterer was, but it was under Adass supervision. The door was open, and the Mashgiach (supervisor), a rather portly chap was munching on some soup nuts. He was a jovial type and we exchanged a few pleasantries. He then asked me (in Yiddish) do you know what day the Megadef (blasphemer) in today’s Parshas Emor committed his sin? [ The blasphemer who cursed God was the son of Shlomis Bas Divri  and his father was allegedly the Egyptian killed by Moshe Rabbenu (Shmos, second Perek) and he was punished with death for cursing God.]

This Mashgiach of the food (who was a Chossid of some sort, with long Payes, and his Tzitzis Beged on the outside) bellowed that it was the 5th of Iyar (i.e. Yom Ha’atzmaut). I have to admit that I didn’t know if he was telling me the truth in respect of the date and I just wasn’t aware or I was confused with the date of the Mekoshesh Etzim, but it doesn’t matter.

In other words, on the very the day that Hashem allowed the world to grant Israel the ability to be an independent nation, was according to this fellow the same day that the Megadef sinner was put to death for cursing God.

His point was clearly that there was a connection between the two. The notion of a new State for Jews wasn’t a cause célèbre but something akin to cursing God/sinning for which the death penalty was appropriate.

As is my way, I usually find a quick retort, and told him that the correct meaning was that anyone whose distorted weltanschauung saw the establishment of the new State of Israel as a sin/curse, was deserving the death penalty. He snorted, and didn’t respond, and I went on my way.

I simply cannot comprehend how people can speak this way about Israel. I struggle with it. Either they feel that immediately after the Holocaust God decided to “test us” and offer us a State and we should have said “NO”, or they think that the Hester Panim (concealment of God’s visage) during the Holocaust continued further and we shouldn’t have fallen for the “ruse” agreed to by the United Nations, or that we should simply have accepted the view of  R’ Yoel of Satmar, that it is (God forbid) a sin to make mass Aliyah to Israel before the Redemption (as expounded in VeYoel Moshe and discredited as an halachic argument by many Talmidei Chachomim of note).

Having been at the Yom Hashoa commemoration during the week, focussing on the destruction of Hungarian Jewry, and feeling the pain of that episode once more, I find it utterly incomprehensible that soon after 6 million holy people were murdered by the Nazis, that I am meant to see the establishment of a State as  a cataclysmic curse akin to the Megadef (the episode of which has some parallels to the Mekoshesh Etzim in Parshas Shlach).

It is times like this where I am profoundly challenged to consider such people and their views as brotherly. Not only did I not find it funny, I found it grossly offensive (he mistakenly thought I was a Chabadnik, as he had stated).

I am glad that I went home to have a nice Shabbos meal with my mother (a Holocaust survivor who lived, studied and found refuge in the new State of Israel immediately after the war) and managed to control my seething anger.

The flag of the State of Israel atop the Ponovezh Yeshivah on Yom Haatzmaut

Agudas Yisrael and Yom Ha’atzmaut: then and now

[Hat tip to Mark]
The letter below was penned by famed Rosh Yeshivah of Telz in Cleveland and member of the Moetzes Gedolai HaTorah in the USA, Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch ז’ל. I had heard about the sentiments, but it is all the more powerful when one reads the actual letter. Well, not quite the actual letter, but a translation of the letter, which I lifted from the following article.

    

With God’s help, Sunday, Parashat Bechukosai, 5714

My respected friend, Mr. David Ulman, Shalom and with eternal blessing!

First I would like to express my gratitude to you for contacting me to request clarification with regard to the holiday of Independence without judging or criticising from afar. Now let me respond to the matter with clarity.

  • The copy of the advertisement that you sent to me is indeed correct. Furthermore, this event was attended by the Women of Agudath Israel and Pirchei Agudath Israel. The reason that their attendance was not mentioned [in the ad] is simply due to the fact that they decided to attend later [after the flyer was published], and they became an official part of the evening’s program.
  • Before we discuss the actual matter we must first clarify the following questions:
    1) Is Yom ha-Atzma’ut a worthy matter for the Ultra- Orthodox community to deliberate and to express a stance regarding it[s celebration]?
    2) Is it worthy of celebration?
    3) Is it worthy for the members of Agudath Israel to unite with the members of Mizrachi in a fashion which allows us to express our approach and influence others to act according to the spirit of Agudath Israel?

In my humble opinion, one must respond to these questions as follows:

  1. The independence of Israel and the establishment of the State are important events in the life of our nation. It is worthy for members of Agudath Israel to participate when there is a possibility to express their thoughts and views before a large forum in order to influence them regarding the approach of the Agudah and to refute the negative sentiments against Agudath Israel.
  2. In my opinion, despite all of the defects and deficiencies in the leadership of the State of Israel, its mere existence, which happened via revealed miracles, is of great significance that deserves recognition and appreciation. This recognition must be publicly expressed for two reasons: First, because the truth must be expressed. Second, that all should know and recognise that our war against the Government of Israel is not targeted against the existence of the State.
  3. Participation with Mizrachi in a fashion that Agudath Israel is free to express its views was recognised as the correct approach by creating a religious front that Agudath Israel is always willing to renew. Although I know that we disagree with Mizrachi on our fundamental beliefs, and in no way are our views consistent with each other, and consequently our actions are totally different, still there are many issues on which we can work together and, through this, strengthen the ultra-religious and its influence on the life of the nation.

After this preface let’s discuss the issue of our participating in the celebration of Yom ha-Atzma’ut. The collective meeting for Yom ha-Atzma’ut was not particularly festive; it was simply a symposium conducted by all the Orthodox factions and gave everyone the opportunity to express their views. Of course, if we would not have attended, the meeting would have turned into a platform focused on criticising Agudath Israel and its leaders who are the “Gedolei ha-Torah.” Our participation on the other hand caused the speakers to speak politely and allowed Agudath Israel to express its views in front of more than one thousand people. Hence even if we would not have related to the State of Israel in a positive fashion, our participation would still have been of value. However, in my view since the creation of the State of Israel is indeed an important milestone in the life of our nation, our relationship to it, therefore, is positive, and our participation is obligatory.

Our participation together with Mizrachi is despite the fact that the religious political front was canceled. In Cleveland there is a religious front by the name “Orthodox Jewish Association” comprised of representatives of ultra-orthodox synagogues, Agudath Israel, Mizrachi, Young Israel and representatives of the educational institutions of the ultra-orthodox. A condition was established that if there is any issue with which one of the participants disagrees, the organisation cannot act. For example when rabbi… came here as the representative of the so-called Jewish Agency’s Torah Department, during their month of propaganda, and most of the organisation’s members were willing to participate in an open forum, Agudath Israel and our educational institutes did not agree, despite our personal relationships with rabbi…. Of course Mizrachi acted independently, but not in the name of our joint religious organisation. Due to this organisation, thank God, we were able to eliminate non-kosher at United Jewish Appeal banquets and gatherings and accomplish other positive outcomes that strengthened the religious position and its respect in the community. Therefore, if we would not have agreed to organise the Yom ha-Atzma’ut gathering of course we could have stopped the organisation from attending. However, our view is positive [towards Yom ha-Atzma’ut] and therefore we did attend. It is noteworthy that nothing was done without consulting with us. We oversaw all preparations to insure all would be in accordance with our interests. For example, no irreligious attended and all women sat in a separate section behind a Mechitzah etc….

To summarise, I feel it correct to clarify why this was conducted this year and not in previous years. The reason did not emanate from our side but from the side of the other factions. In past years all the Zionist factions would conduct the gathering in accordance with their approach and of course we are neither part of them nor their ways. But this time they approached us with a proposal that the gathering would be only with religious people in accordance with the spirit of Torah and asked us if under these conditions we would be willing to participate. And thus, despite the fact that this year we are actually at war with the Mizrachi even more so than in previous years, we still feel it was the correct approach to demonstrate to them that on issues on which we are in agreement we can work together.

In general, I already expressed my view that we lost a great deal by refraining from recognising correct issues just because the irreligious and those manipulated by them, the Mizrachi, agreed to them, because through agreeing with them we would have strengthened their false opinions. In my opinion, our views did not find receptive hearts within the nation not because of our stance against their incorrect views; rather it is because of our negative position against the correct views such as learning Bible, speaking Hebrew and Eretz Yisrael. The populace cannot understand our concerns and, moreover, when we emphasise our positive views they will accept us and allow us to fight the falsehoods. In addition, I must express that this attitude of ours is not unique to our life in America. We acted this way in Lithuania as well despite the fact that then, as now, we were totally zealous concerning anything that, God forbid, is not in accordance with the spirit of Torah. We did not regress because of persecution, denouncement and sometimes even suffering, sorrow and much damage to our holy Yeshiva.

With this I am your friend, I respect you and bless you, 

Eliyahu Meir Bloch

Tachanun on Yom Ha’atzmaut

I understand but do not accept the view of Hungarian Satmar, Toldos Aron, Shomer Emunim and similar, that the establishment of a State for Jews is the work of Satan and should be rejected. Such a view, in the opinion of many great sages is not justifiable, and its tenuous reliance on the three oaths is seen as an halachic fiction.

I understand, but do not agree with the view of Chabad and some other Chassidim and Misnagdim, that “it is what it is”. They contend that the establishment of the state wasn’t a necessary event in the development of events leading to the Mashiach. However, given that the State is a reality, they will support the people within the State. Chabad, for example, refrain at all costs from saying the State of Israel. Listen carefully. They will always say Eretz Yisroel, following the practice of the last Rebbe, who I believe only referred to it as the “State of Israel” but once.

I understand and accept the position of those who see the State of Israel as being an eschatological reality created by Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and that it will eventually lead to ובא לציון גואל, but who will either

  • not say hallel
  • will say hallel without a bracha
  • will say hallel with a bracha

They do not disagree with the metaphysical importance of the State, but have halachic techno-legal reasons for their particular practice. For example, the Rav didn’t say Hallel and at Kerem B’Yavneh we said Hallel without a Bracha.

I do not understand why people who do not agree that the establishment of a State for Jews is the work of Satan (e.g. Satmar) or who are passively ambivalent about the eschatological significance of a State (e.g. Chabad) not only say Tachanun, but insist on saying Tachanun. It is related that the Chazon Ish, who was saved from the events of the Holocaust by no less than the efforts of Harav Kook ז’ל, insisted on saying Tachanun.

In Melbourne, a number of years ago, when a Bris occurred at the ultra-orthodox Adass Yisrael congregation, Rabbi Beck insisted that Tachanun be said davka because it was Yom Ha’atzmaut and that it would be entirely wrong for someone to come away with the impression that Tachanun might not have been said on Yom Ha’atzmaut.

It is well-known, that Chizkiyahu the great King, in whose generation the Gemora tells us (in Sanhedrin from memory) that Torah study and knowledge was in a high and unprecedented state, failed to materialise the Geula because Chizkiyahu became too haughty and felt that it was unnecessary to utter special praise (Shira) to Hashem and thank him for the miracles that Hashem wrought on Am Yisrael.

Shira, praise and thanksgiving, is the power to see the illumination of the future in the present. It is the power to perceive our existence as a link between the past and the present, and the power to raise everything towards an all-encompassing Geula.

Therefore after crossing the Red Sea, in “Shirat Ha’Yam” – it states: “Az” Yashir. Az– “Then,” past tense, is a reflection on the past, “Yashir” – “will sing praise” in the future tense. There is the joining and encapsulation of the past and the future, thereby giving meaning to the present.

The Torah is also referred to as “shira.” We seek to find Hashem in every nook and cranny and aspect of life—in every corner. This is the approach to Torah that elevates the world. Torah that creates a superficial division between the Yeshivah and the external, real world, is not the ideal.  Yahadus desires to interpret everything, and of course, especially the manifestation of God’s name

It is possible to study Torah as in the days of Chizkiyahu, to the extent that even the children are expert at the laws of tumah and tahara, yet still the Geula is hindered and delayed.

Yeshayahu expected Chizkiyahu to offer praise, and sing shira to elevate the entirety of reality. Chizkiyahu failed and the world was set back in reaching its goal.

One’s individual Torah, despite it’s great value and benefits, is not termed Shira. Only the transcendent Torah that strives to see how everything is bound to Hakadosh Baruch Hu is described as shira.

Those who separate the Torah from the State as if they are two entities are not singing.  This is how Rav Kook explained the criticism of Chizkiyahu. “That in his days briers and thorns covered Eretz Yisra’el,” for Chizkiyahu did not demonstrate how the Torah is also connected to the land.

In justifying Chizkiyahu, some have posited that the miracle of his victory over Sancherev was not as great as the sun standing still (in the days of Yehoshua) and that is why Chizkiyahu didn’t sing Hashem’s praises. Mortals, however, are not qualified to  judge which miracle is greater or more substantial. Judging such things is an expression of haughtiness, and this is what Chazal meant.

Shira dissolves the temporal manifestation of ingratitude, as supplied by the Yetzer Horah.

What is most puzzling to me is that even those who don’t recognise the need to especially sing to Hashem still insist on making this a day like any other and continue saying Tachanun. Yet, on their own days of celebration (e.g. a special day in a Chassidic court), they suspend the saying of Tachanun.

Why?

Yom Ha’atzmaut: Remembering Rav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal הי’ד

If you have not heard of Rav Teichtal,

A younger Rav Teichtal, הי''ד

may Hashem avenge his murder by the Nazis, I suggest you borrow or buy a copy of אם הבנים שמחה Eim Habanim Semecha (EHS) which has also been translated into English. Rav Teichtal is known throughout the world of Halacha, as the famous Posek and author of  Responsa שאלות ותשובות משנה שכיר. In fact, I’d venture to say that many Rabbis, save the centrist or religious zionist, would only know of him because of his שאלות ותשובות משנה שכיר. Most certainly, when I was a lad, most people, including centrist and religious Zionist Rabbis hadn’t heard of  אם הבנים שמחה because the Charedi anti Zionist world banned the book and exerted extreme pressure on the family not to republish it.
When I was learning in Israel, there was never a time that I went into a bookshop without asking whether they had a copy. The closest I got, was just before I left, when someone gave me the address of a family member, and suggested I might try knocking at their door. I didn’t have the guts to do that. How pleased I was, some twenty years later, when it was republished. When it appeared in English, I was both surprised and not surprised. I was surprised that something I couldn’t lay my hands on appeared in English, but given the compelling nature of the Sefer, I was not surprised that others sought fit to translate it with haste.

Rav Teichtal was the long term Av Beis Din and Rav of  Piešťany, in Western Slovakia.


On the 10th of Shvat 1945, as Rav Teichtal was transported to the concentration camp in Mathhausen. Rav Teichtal’s son related (see introduction to EHS)

After starving their victims for a number of days, the oppressors tossed each of them a meager crust of bread, with the evil intent of having them fight pathetically for their paltry allotment. Indeed, one of the Ukrainians grabbed the portion of a Jew – my father’s neighbor – who was desperate for this crust of bread. This angered my father, who demanded the return of the theft. The other travelers begged my father not to get involved, since it might cost him his life. But he said “How can I stand by when the wronged man’s life depends on this food?” Indeed he insisted on taking a stand, and the Ukrainians, with the cooperation of the Nazi soldiers, rose against him and killed him, after torturing him mercilessly.

Prior to the the outbreak of World War 2, Rav Teichtal was as anti-zionist as his mentor, the Minchas Elazar of Muncasz. Rav Teichtal had written anti-zionist polemics like the majority of his Hungarian Charedi colleagues. Describing the views of the Muncazer, Rav Teichtal wrote (EHS):

 “The Minchas Elazar opposed resettling and rebuilding the Land [and] based his entire opposition on the idea that salvation must happen with miracles and wonders. In his opinion, anyone who tries to [bring salvation naturally] denies the redemption which will occur miraculously.”

Rav Teichtal הי''ד later in life

During the war, while hiding in Budapest, he wrote (EHS):

“A large portion of our Israelite [European Jewish] brethren who
were killed would have been saved if they had already been in Eretz
Yisrael. And now, who will accept the responsibility for the pure
blood which has been spilled in our time? Similarly, all those who
deterred the Israelites from going to Eretz Yisrael and participating
with those building [the land] cannot purify themselves and say:
‘Our hands have not shed this blood.’
“Those [anti-Zionists] who have a predisposition on this matter
[fleeing to Palestine] will not see the truth and will not concede to
our words. All of the evidence in the world will not affect them, for
they are smitten with blindness, and their inner biases cause them
to deny even things which are as clear as day. Who amongst us is
greater than the [twelve] spies [meraglim]? The Torah testifies that
they were distinguished, righteous individuals. Nonetheless, since
they were influenced by their desire for authority, they rejected the
desirable Land, and led others astray, causing this bitter exile…
[These] spies were prejudiced by hidden motives. The same holds
true in our times, even among rabbis, rebbes, and Chassidim. This
one has a good rabbinical position; this one is an established Admor,
and this one has a profitable business or factory, or a prestigious
job which provides great satisfaction. They are afraid that their
status will decline if they go to Eretz Yisrael. People of this sort are
influenced by their deep-rooted, selfish motives to such an extent
that they themselves do not realize that their prejudice speaks on
their behalf. People of this sort will not be convinced to accept the
truth, even if they are shown thousands of proofs from the Torah…
The holy kabbalist [Rabbi Eliyahu of Greidetz] who resembles
an angel of the Lord of Hosts states explicitly that the reason
there are tzadikim who oppose [aliyah] is because the kelipot [evil
forces] have become strong within them. It entices them to nullify
this great matter for which the Holy One Blessed Be He constantly
longs. He longs for us to return to our forefathers’ inheritance, for
every Jew has an obligation to strive to return to our Holy Land, as
I will prove unequivocally from the words of our Sages.

The מקובל Rav Eliyahu Greidez, mentioned above, was none other than Rav Eliyahu Gutmacher, ז’ל to whom many Jews in Poland flocked, to receive ברכות and advice, and in whose memory Kibbutz Sde Eliyahu was named.

The Kabbalist, Rav Eliyahu Guttmacher ז’ל, one of the theological founders of Religious Zionism

Perhaps the most heart-rending story that served to motivate Rav Teichtal to be transformed from an anti-Zionist into a religious Zionist was (see here) :

“What can we say; how can we speak, and how shall we justify ourselves? God has found the sin of your servant.” I shall tell you a story.

In a small town there was a shamash (sexton) of a synagogue who died, leaving behind a widow. The people of the community thought about how they could provide her some financial support, for at that time there was no pension for widows. Perhaps it would be possible to allow her to continue the work of her late husband. On the other hand – it is not proper for a woman to serve as the shamash of a synagogue. Eventually it was decided that she would carry out those activities that could be performed outside the synagogue, while the tasks of the shamash during prayer times would be filled by the worshippers themselves, on a voluntary basis. Thus the woman would be able to continue earning the salary that her husband had received.

It came time for “selichot,” and as part of her job the woman had to get up and go about from house to house in the village, waking the people for selichot. She took the special “selichot stick” in her hand and headed for the most distant house in the village – the home of Weiss Shendor. When she knocked on the door, Weiss Shendor awoke, alarmed at the disturbance at such an unusual hour. When he opened the door and saw the wife of the shamash, he asked what she wanted. She explained that as part of her duties she had to go from house to house, waking everyone for selichot. When Weiss Shendor heard this, he tried to persuade her that it was not seemly for a woman to go about outside so early in the morning, in such cold and wet weather, and that it would be better if he did the job in her stead. The woman accepted the offer and handed him the “selichot stick,” and Weiss Shendor set off to waken the people.

Upon knocking at the first house he was asked to identify himself. He answered, “I am Weiss Shendor, and I have taken it upon myself to waken the people for selichot.”

The house owner was incensed. “Weiss Shendor? A pork-eater like you isn’t going to wake me forselichot!” With that he slammed the door and went back to sleep.

He went off to the second house and again came the question, “Who is it?” Again he gave the same reply, and again the same response: “Weiss Shendor? A Shabbat desecrator like you will not come and wake me for selichot!” Again a door was slammed in his face.

The same thing happened at the next house: “A swindler and gambler like you will not wake me forselichot!” – and so on, at every house throughout the entire village. The wake-up round ended with nothing more to show for itself than a trail of scorn and disdain. Not a single person got up for selichot.

When the congregation was gathered for the morning prayers, the rabbi asked: “What happened this year, that no one came to the synagogue for selichot?” The people started justifying themselves and explaining that it was all Weiss Shendor’s fault. He was a shady character who was notorious throughout the village; it was he who had come to awaken them for selichot, and that was why none of them had come.

“Fools!” responded the rabbi. “It’s true that Weiss Shendor is guilty of everything that you’ve accused him of, but this time he was waking you for selichot; he wasn’t doing any of the bad things that he’s known for. So why didn’t you get up?”

[Here Rabbi Teichtal burst into tears and shouted:] It’s true that the Zionists desecrate Shabbat and so forth, but it was they who awakened the nation and shouted, “Get out of the rubble; the gentiles hate us, there is no place for us except in Eretz Yisrael” – and we didn’t listen!

Let us only hope to be worthy of correcting the distortion and having God accept us in the promised land”

These days, alas, not much has changed in respect of the Hungarian ultra-Charedi establishment and the State of Israel, as seen by the following Pashkevil (click to enlarge), appearing now in Jerusalem.

Pashkevil condemning Yom Ha'atzmaut: 2011

Charedim and the State of Israel: then and now

This story originally appeared in שבת בשבתו in 2001 in a weekly Parsha sheet put out by מכון צומת and was retold by Rav Aviner.

During the 1929 riots, on Friday, the 17th of Av, rioters ran wild throughout the country, cruelly ransacking and murdering. In the afternoon, thousands of inflamed Arabs stormed out of the Mosque of Omar after being saturated with the hateful incitement of the Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Huseini, and marched forward, armed with knives and clubs. Most of them advanced towards the neighborhoods of Meah Shearim and Beit Yisrael, with cries of “Slaughter the Jews.” At the head of the inflamed throng marched an Arab sheik, waving a long sword and firing up the rioters not to have pity on men, women or children, since it was a holy war — a jihad.

Jaffa Gate

When the rioters reached the Italian hospital, two Charedi youths emerged from the flour mill at the southern edge of Meah Shearim and advanced towards the rioters. One of them, who had curly side-locks flowing from under his hat, pulled out a pistol and shot straight into the mouth of the sheik walking in front, and he died on the spot. The inflamed masses were seized with fright and they began to flee in the direction of Damascus Gate, while the two youths chased after them, throwing a hand grenade which killed three more rioters. Moreover, the rioters trampled one another to death during their escape.

That same bearded youth who fired the pistol was the saintly Rabbi Aharon Fisher, father of the illustrious Rabbi Yisrael Ya’akov Fisher,

Rav Yisrael Ya'akov Fisher ז'ל

Chief Rabbinic Justice of Edah HaCharedit in our own times [now ז’ל, this was correct in 2001].

The next day, the great Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld,

Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld ז'ל

who lived in the Old City, had to go to Meah Shearim as a Mohel [circumciser]. His family and friends were terribly worried about him, and they begged him not to go, but he insisted. He would not forego the mitzvah.

The eighty-year-old rabbi, clad in his tallit, walked to Meah Shearim not by way of Jaffa Gate, but by way of Damascus Gate, a troublesome spot even in normal times. He walked calmly along the same route where thousands of murderers had walked, in order to fulfill the mitzvah of circumcision, and he returned by way of Jaffa Gate. When he was later asked why he went precisely by way of Damascus Gate, he responded, “So that the Arabs would not think that they had succeeded in banishing the Jews from even one corner or street in Jerusalem.” And why had he returned by way of Jaffa Gate? “Such is my regular custom, in order to fulfill the words, “Walk around Zion. Circle her” (Psalm 48:13) (BeDor Tahapuchot, Rabbi Shlomo Zalmen Sonnenfeld, pages 226-229;393-396).

It is well-known that the illustrious Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld was not a Zionist. Quite the contrary, he ascribed to the opposite view. He was the most Charedi of Charedim, and an opponent of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook.

To say that the Charedim did not sacrifice themselves for this land is a severe libel.

Meah Shearim was established on a spot where people were afraid of bandits.

The Charedim sacrificed themselves for the Land, or more precisely, for the word of G-d, who commanded us to settle the Land.