Voice from the political wilderness
Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein still holds a place of firm personal and moral authority in the religious-Zionist world, even though the co-head of the Har Etzion Yeshiva holds political views that are relatively left-wing.
By Tamar RotemRabbi Aharon Lichtenstein slowly walks along the corridor of the Har Etzion Yeshiva in Alon Shvut, in Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem. Students quickly pass by the yeshiva head, who is leaning on his cane. They converse with one another, gesturing energetically, and seem not to notice him. When he calls one of them over by name, however, the student stands at attention, then goes over and bows his head, listening closely to the yeshiva head's words and displaying obvious reverence.
Half a year ago, Rabbi Lichtenstein, now 74, fell on his way to the synagogue in Alon Shvut, where he lives, and he has not yet fully recovered. Nevertheless, he comes here daily to study for a few hours and teach a class at a yeshiva that promotes both devotion to the Torah and political moderation. In his office, whose walls are lined with books and whose large windows allow in a generous amount of sunshine, he apologizes for his cluttered desk. The casual visitor, though, gets the impression that the pile of books aptly suits the atmosphere of scholarship so evident in this room.
Until recently, Lichtenstein shared the title of yeshiva head with Rabbi Yehuda Amital, founder of the Meimad movement. When the latter retired at age 80, Rabbi Yaakov Medan and Rabbi Baruch Gigi were officially appointed to succeed the yeshiva's two founders. Nonetheless, Rabbi Lichtenstein is still considered the ultimate authority at the yeshiva and in the left-leaning religious Jewish community in general.
Following in the footsteps of his teacher (and father-in-law), Joseph Ber (Yosef Dov) Soloveitchik, leader of the modern Orthodox movement in the United States until his death in 1993, Lichtenstein is regarded as one of religious Zionism's most influential rabbis. No small matter, considering his image as a political dove, and that he has at times harshly criticized the leaders of Israel's religious-Zionist community, for example, in connection with their behavior during the disengagement from Gaza. Despite the current atmosphere of "settling accounts" in religious Zionism, no one has dared to come out against Lichtenstein, who has earned a reputation because of his ethical conduct, Torah scholarship and encyclopedic knowledge of halakha and Talmud.
Unlike other rabbinic figures in the national religious camp, not to mention Israel's ultra-Orthodox community, Lichtenstein also occupies a unique intellectual world, in which Torah study, humanism and worldly wisdom coexist harmoniously. He holds a doctorate in English literature from Harvard and frequently quotes secular thinkers and writers.
Lichtenstein was born in France in 1933, but when the Nazis occupied that country, his family fled to the U.S. His father, Yechiel Lichtenstein, taught at Yeshiva University High School, while his mother, Bluma, a native of Telz, Lithuania, who attended the Yavneh School there and received a Zionist upbringing, spoke Hebrew with her children at home. For six years during the 1960s, Lichtenstein taught English literature at a women's college, before deciding to devote his full time and energy to Torah studies. He moved to Israel in 1971, after Rabbi Amital invited him to join him as co-director of the yeshiva in Alon Shvut, in the West Bank.
Though Lichtenstein says he is still worried about religious Zionism's situation, he is far more optimistic today than he was before the disengagement. Then his fears focused on the possibility of soldiers refusing en masse to obey orders. When, on the eve of the disengagement, former chief rabbi Abraham Shapira, the rightists' spiritual authority, issued a religious ruling that instructed soldiers to disobey orders, Lichtenstein sent him a sharply critical letter.
Regarding the disengagement, Lichtenstein today expresses himself cautiously: "I can understand anyone who says it was a mistake and backs that assertion with a reasoned argument. On the one hand, we were promised heaven on earth and, on the other, we were promised hell on earth. Meanwhile, neither the optimists nor the pessimists have proven they were right."
He does not condemn the idea of disobeying orders per se. "I thought the context was wrong," he explains. "People close to Rabbi Shapira believed entire divisions would disobey orders, or that they would try evasive action and be sent to prison. Their hopes were not realized. By the same token, the fears people like me had were proven groundless. In an era when the percentage of religious Jews in the army is rising, there was the fear that, if they passionately adhered to such positions, which could lead them to disobey orders, that would create disunity and factions within the army."
What in fact did happen?
"As things turned out, despite their carefully constructed ideology, the leaders of the religious-Zionist community who led the opposition camp did not really understand the situation. They were surprised by the government's resoluteness and overestimated their camp's strength. They wrongly assessed what would happen at Kfar Maimon. In the final analysis, loyalty to the country and fear for its fate - whether for moral or personal reasons - outweighed ideology."
Concerning Yonatan Bassi, Lichtenstein argues that, as head of the Sela disengagement administration, he displayed conduct reflecting profound morality, as well as Zionism and a sense of mission. "His actions betrayed neither his nation nor the religious camp," he states categorically. "He wanted to serve Israel's best interests. He wanted to open the eyes of a public that was uninterested in understanding the situation. I think such conduct deserves respect. I am very angry that there are still people in my world who not only state that he failed but joyously celebrate that failure."
This does not mean that Lichtenstein completely condemns the criticism directed at Bassi. He believes that, when people say harsh things, they are showing they really care. "We live in an era when the future of the Jewish community here and Israel's future hang in the balance, and some people are more sensitive to this than others," he notes. "The British poet and writer T.E. Hulme related how, during a discussion in France of who was the better dramatist, Shakespeare or Racine, people threw chairs at one another. That shows they deeply cared about the issue."
Nonetheless, he observes: "When people become more religiously observant, they are convinced they have a monopoly on the truth. Although they might care more passionately about certain issues, they are not particularly imbued with a sense of humility or self-criticism that is rooted in a full-fledged spiritual world. They are unprepared to hear what others have to say because they believe it might weaken their religious faith."
It is easy to imagine that this criticism is leveled against the Hardali - the Hebrew acronym for Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) nationalist - community. Although, in his view, the Hardali community displays some degree of intolerance, he sees a definite advantage in the strengthening of religious behavior it has fostered: "The Religious Kibbutz Movement is considered tolerant but is also perceived as prone to making compromises. Religiously speaking, it is less impassioned. The Hardali community is devoted to the Torah and strictly obeys the commandments."
Lichtenstein says that it's not his political positions that have changed; rather, the national-religious camp has moved further to the right. "Today," he admits, "I am in a political wilderness. I once belonged to the National Religious Party, but today the party is unprepared to hear my views."
Nevertheless, he emphasizes that he has never been a member of Meimad, although he supports it from behind the scenes: "I do not see myself going down that route. I advocate territorial compromise, but also hold the view that Jews must never be indifferent to the various parts of Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel."
His support of territorial compromise is based on the religious principle of piku'ah nefesh, Judaism's paramount directive to save human life. Soloveitchik also spoke of the need for territorial concessions. "When we talk about territorial compromise, we are talking about a calculated risk," explains Lichtenstein. "And, as long as experts see such concessions as serving Israel's best interests, we must respond. If every lieutenant in the army chooses to ignore policies established by democratic forces, that is a problem."
There is also the moral aspect. "When a society becomes overly militaristic spiritually, a price is always paid," he explains. "One price is narrow-mindedness. Unfortunately, that statement holds true for a fairly large segment of the religious-Zionist community."
He recalls how in 1978, Shimon Peres visited the Har Etzion yeshiva and asked what its political agenda was: "I responded that we try to teach our students how to listen and how to choose their path in life in a profound, logical manner. I also told him that we teach them that there are different views and that they should not be mesmerized by empty slogans."
Then why is he in the minority? Why has modern Orthodox Judaism not caught on here in Israel?
"The very complexity of that outlook," he replies, "requires a certain level and ability to balance things and clarify issues. It is much simpler to follow a single flag."
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
He is an inspiring example and one of the very few people who has provided a human face to religious zionism - and I say kol hakavod to him for this I think I can appreciate why one would choose the life of scholarship over the murky political world but it would have been good to see him more involved in this in some way - e.g. join Rabbis for Human Rights or be less mealy mouthed about Meimad (based on what is written above) more generally I would say don't despair - my (limited0 impression from over here is that the religious zionist leadership don't represent a significant chunk of their constituency nowadays - there is a more moderate voice waiting to speak out we saw this in the early days of Netivot Shalom and perhaps we can see it again part of the issue though (in my view) is the that way that coalition governments have collapsed genuine and important political differences the religious zionist left should speak out - the right don't heistate do they?
So if it really is better for Jews if Israel didn't exist in the first place (and according to the pikuach nefesh logic, it's fair to say so) - what makes R. Lichtenstein any different to Haredim? Just the reasoning behind it? This is where Haaretz got it wrong - with all due respect to Rabbi Lichtenstein, whose scholarship in uncontestable - but he is not a Religious Zionist rabbi. He is a Modern Orthodox rabbi, just like Rabbi Soloveitchick (who despite declaring himself zionist, never made Aliyah - which in fact is what characterizes much of the Modern Orthodox movement) If you want Religious Zionism go look for Rav Kook, Rav Tzvi Yehuda, Rav Teichtal, Rav Shapira, Rav Aviner, etc who saw the religious aspect of the state of Israel as something that is not a mere detail in Jewish history that can be played with. If you want Religious Zionism's position on giving away parts of Eretz Yisrael, go to Merkaz HaRav, but definitely not to Har Etzion, 770 or Yeshiva University
With all due respect to the Rav, but I can't possibly understand this Pikuach Nefesh argument. Let's disregard the argument that territorial concessions strengthens terrorism (the Hamastan of Gaza is the best example of this), but, if forfeiting parts of Eretz Yisrael is permissible due to Pikuach Nefesh, than shouldn't we simply leave all of Israel? And for that matter - shouldn't Israel not have been established in the first place? It didnt come as a surprise to anyone in 1948 that the arabs would reject the partition plan!! Didn't everyone know that thousands of Jews would die? So, following the rabbi's logic, wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense for us to leave Israel and go back to Galut? Just look at reality: it is far more likely for you to be killed in Israel for being Jewish (even within the pre-67 border) than anywhere in the Galut! It's curiously safer to be a Jew in Tehran or Moscow than in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem! (cont'd...)
I believe that the motivation for much of R. Lichtenstein, Shlit'"a's thinking stems from his deep ethical and moral character steeped in his interpretation of Jewish law and world civilzation. If he believes that it is incumbent upon the State of Israel, and the Jewish people for that matter, to relenquish territories of Eretz Yisrael, he will sanction such an act, albeit with a heavy heart as a true lover of the Land and the Torah. I really do not think that HaRav Lichtenstein takes into account how his views will be perceived by the foolish masses nor do I think that any leader should formulate his positions based on what the polls say is what the people want to hear - for that we have the Kadima party. Take care.
There is so much to dispute in your post saturated with hurbis that I do not know where to begin. I sharply dispute your assertion that the State of Israel has become a "valley of death" in the past 30 years. This metaphor reminds me of the evil report brought back by the ten spies who caused the dreadful weeping of generations when they called the Land of Israel "a land that devours its inhabitants." To my mind, your statement constitutes an averia m'doraita of dibat ha'aretz. Furthermore, the impression the unititated receives by reading your mail is that we Israelis lived an idyllic existence from the founding of the State until the past 30 years. I don't think that you can discount four wars that all could have destroyed the State of Israel (milhamot ein breira) and the price of over 15,000 casualties that the State of Israel paid to survive these pre-Begin wars. I really do not understand how people can suffer from such myopic vision (or total lack thereof). Have a great day
You have a lot of hutzpa (flippant brazenness) to play G-d and make highly reckless statements that are "clear to all" [sic]. If indeed you can explain the personal tragedy that befell upon those individuals who did not vociferously oppose the Disengagement from Gaza as "Divine retribution" then perhaps you can explain to me why Yuri Shtern, OBM, died of cancer and why R. Beni Elon, Yibadel L'Hayyim Tovim v'Arukim, became inflicted with throat cancer soon after the Disengagement. While you're at it, kindly explain to me what were the sins of the 6 million souls who perished in the Shoah. Have a nice day.
I couldn't have responded to Mr. Rabinovich's missives better myself - tzadiqim, melakhtam na'aseit al yedei aherim! Kol tuv.
Dear Arnie, Does your last name begin L, like the former Archbishop of Paris? And if so, are you the author of a number of works on the teachings of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik? If you no longer identify yourself as a religious-Zionist, does this put you, politically, in the Lithuanian-Haredi camp for lack of better ideology to identify with?
Unfortunately, the Rav gives strength to those who foolishly believe that giving Arabs presents in the form of land will bring either peace or quiet. Moderation-yes, naivete-no
With all due respect to the Rav , I think it is clear to any one with eyes in their head and the will to see clearly , that the disengagement was one of the most bumbleling unmitigated failures in Jewish history, failing to fulfill even the most modest expectations of any of its foolhardy proponents. What's more, I think it is clear to any one with eyes in their head and the will to see clearly that divine retribution has been visited on many of the high profile architects of this catastrophe. The idea that the Rav states of a "calculated risk" is all well and good if one has leadership that is reliable. I think it is clear for all to see, that the "leadership" that the nation of Israel is suffering with is a leadership that acts on its own petty interests and not the interests of the country. There is a lot of European money funding the extreme left wing in Israel and it is clear to all that much of that money has wound up in the pockets of our fearless "leaders" and newspapers.
The policies RAL has supported over the last 30 years has turned the State of Israel into the Valley of the Shadow of Death. Yet he will never admit he is wrong. There is criticism of his position - just not by name out of respect for him and his Tora genius. Unlike political hacks such as Bassi, people still have respect for him even though they know he is wrong - and even though they know he will never admit it
What a greate Rav. He gives me hope for a saner future for the torah observant world.
How pleasant to read of a Torah true Jew who is not an antedeluvian lunatic, open to the world yet thoroughly devoted to Torah. A mensch---intellectually and spiritually.
I find it interesting that you chose the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the "indisputable Jewish leader of our generation" to quote you. The Lubavitcher rebbe never, in all his life, visited the Land of Israel, let alone chose to make his home here. The Rebbe also died 12 years ago. You cannot say what he would be advocating if he were alive today. Rav Lichtenstein has lived in israel for 35 years, and is alive and well, and continues to teach. Given the choice, I would follow the rabbinical leadership of a man who has chosen to lead from within (have you ignored that Rav Lichtenstein's yeshiva is in the Gush Etzion?) than one who chose to lead from afar, and is not even alive today.
? for the very government that perpetrated that poorly excused blunder has gone down through an ever-deteriorating slippery slope. Do I need to remind everyone, let alone the religious Zionist public, of the abuses committed during the forced destruction of 9 Jewish homes in Amona? Or the general public of the pathetic ?mishandleling? of the war with Hezbollah? How about the record-breaking amount of scandals in which almost everyone in the Kadima government have found themselves because of their personal and public behaviors? Everything Kadima stands for is, from the get go, from the moment an aging and sanity-losing Sharon tried to escape the voice of reason from within the Likud party, has been and continues to be detrimental to both, Jewish and Israeli morality. It is and understatement to assert that the whole charade has been bad for our security, that Israel is today in a far more dangerous stand than a year and a half ago, and that our enemies feel tremendously encourage
So much honors to a man that justified the army's betrayal to Jewish sovereignty and integrity? Both the Rabbi and the journalist who so passively follows him through the interview completely ignore, and pathetically so, the severe admonition presented by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the indisputable Jewish leader of our generation, about relenting any part of Eretz Yisrael to the Arabs, and specially to those claiming to be "Palestinians". As if there was place to doubt, even the staunchest "hitnatkut" supporters who recalcitrantly insist on the rights of such a palpable Wrong today admit that there hasn't been a single day since Asarah BeAv of 5765 (2005) when the Arab occupiers of Gaza have fulfilled Mahmood Abbas' promise that "the only thing" they would be throwing at us "shall be flowers". Just ask the people of Sderot! But the realization of how deeply relevant was the Rebbe's warning goes far beyond that.... (continues below)
Since Merkaz Harav hijacked the dati leumi narrative, I no longer identify as a Religious Zionist. If only Rav Lichtenstein's thoughtfully nuanced positions, so completely in consonance with his father -in -law's, could displace the shrill orange masses who have created the golden calf entitled Eretz Yisrael Hashleimah.