|
|
| |||
|
IN-DEPTH FEATURES
The laws of zeraim were not studied much during
the thousand years that there was no significant Jewish
community in Israel, since they were not relevant. Even
after there was a significant community, it was not one that
had much to do with farming the land. Though the
gedolim of that time did study and debate the laws,
there was not that much application of them.
This situation began to change about a hundred and fifty
years ago with the founding of farming settlements by the
Jerusalem yishuv in Petach Tikva and elsewhere. Still, it
was not until the arrival of the Chazon Ish in Eretz Yisroel
more than sixty years ago that the halachos were
given new life. With his halachic scholarship and
inspirational leadership, the Chazon Ish was a key factor in
the return to life of the mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz.
Part I
Introduction
According to the accepted calculations, 5761 is a
shmittah year. Each successive shmittah year
sees a blessed increase in the observance of the laws.
Shmittah will be fully observed on no less than
eleven religious settlements, and tens of thousands of
families in cities will be taking care to obtain only foods
that are free of any shmittah-related
prohibitions.
Just 63 years (or nine shmittos) ago in 5698 (1937-
8), things were very different. Then, only a handful of
individuals kept shmittah fully, and the prevailing
opinion was that any attempt to keep shmittah without
resort to the "heter" mechira was completely
unrealistic and doomed to failure.
The transformation that has taken place over the last nine
shmittos is the result of a process that was largely
set in motion by the Chazon Ish zt'l. During the
twenty years he lived in Eretz Yisroel--which included the
three shmittah years of 5698, 5705 and 5712--he laid
the foundations for the observance of all the mitzvos
hateluyos ba'aretz under modern agricultural conditions,
including shmittah. Through his seforim,
through the guidelines he laid down for the chareidi
settlements and the rulings he issued, and through his
gentle but forceful insistence that if only the will was
there, it was indeed possible to work the land in accordance
with all the Torah's requirements, he literally established
the modern observance of those mitzvos of life in Eretz
Yisroel that had been long neglected due to the
exile.
The Chazon Ish worked to strengthen shmittah on three
fronts. The first of these was his sefer, Chazon Ish Al
Shevi'is, which appeared in 5697 (1937), the year before
his first shmittah in Eretz Yisroel, wherein
he clearly spelled out his unequivocal halachic objections
to the heter mechira as well as set forth positive
proposals for the full observance of shmittah.
The second area of his endeavors was the help he extended to
members of the kibbutzim of Agudas Yisroel who
approached him with the request that he provide them with
practical guidance in keeping shmittah. Subsequent
editions of Chazon Ish contain lengthy discussions of
many of the problems and sheilos encountered by the
chareidi kibbutzniks. The Chazon Ish also offered
encouragement to those who expressed the willingness to make
the necessary sacrifice in order to keep shmittah
and, in a departure from his usual avoidance of involvement
in public affairs, he took active steps to help raise the
funds that were needed by the shmittah observers.
Third, he brought the prohibition of eating sefichin
(generally, produce which grows during shmitta, not
including fruits) to the public's attention, providing the
impetus for the setting up of organized supplies of Arab
produce to the towns. Slowly, he nurtured the love of this
"forgotten" mitzvah amongst the wider public, encouraging
the study of hilchos shevi'is during the sixth and
seventh years.
A closer look at some of the events that took place just
before and during the Chazon Ish's first shmittah in
Eretz Yisroel, reveals much of this godol's outlook
on kiyum hamitzvos and the new yishuv in Eretz
Yisroel in general, and his hashkofoh on
shmittah in particular. In order to fully appreciate
the significance of this agricultural revolution, we begin
with a brief survey of the state of shmittah
observance in the decades before the Chazon Ish's
aliya.
More than a Century Ago
One hundred and twenty years ago, hardly any practical
questions about shmittah needed addressing. The
shmittah of 5642 (1882) saw very few Jews involved in
agriculture in Eretz Yisroel. There were a few
farmers in Petach Tikva--which had been founded four years
previously in 5638 (1878)--and several Yerushalmi families
had settled in Motza, to the west of Yerushalaim, even
earlier in 5620 (1860). There were also a number of students
at the Mikveh Yisroel agricultural college, founded in 5630
(1870) near the old town of Yaffo. These small-scale farmers
were not overly concerned about leaving their fields fallow
for one year and they turned to the rabbonim of Yerushalayim
for guidance in dealing with problems of sefichin.
By 5649 (1889) however, Petach Tikva had grown and six new
agricultural settlements had been founded under the auspices
of Baron Rothschild. The farmers on these new settlements
were not willing to refrain from farming their land for a
full year. Officials employed by the Baron approached HaRav
Shmuel Salant and HaRav Yehoshua Leib Diskin for a ruling on
the question of shmittah. Of course they received the
reply that cultivating the land was forbidden for the
duration of the seventh year -- a ruling that they were not
happy with.
In Eastern Europe too, members of the Chibat Tsion movement
(who were anti-religious) wished to find a way that farming
could continue during shmittah. To this end they
portrayed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as far more serious
than it actually was, claiming that refraining from a year's
farming would endanger the lives of hundreds of families of
settlers.
Out of concern for the inhabitants of the land, three
rabbonim agreed to a sale of Jewish-owned land to a non-Jew
in order to render the land free of shmitta laws and
the produce free of kedushas shevi'is, in accordance
with the opinion of the Beis Yosef. They made a
strict condition that all agricultural work during the
shmittah year be done by non-Jews. Their consent to
this solution was on condition that it receive the approval
of HaRav Yitzchok Elchonon Spector of Kovna, the leading
poseik of the time.
Reb Yitzchok Elchonon gave his consent, but stipulated that
it was for one shmittah only and he further made his
approval conditional on the agreement of the rabbonim in
Yerushalaim who, as we have seen, were opposed to any such
kind of sale. The other gedolim of Lithuania, led by
the Netziv and the Beis Halevi, were also against a solution
of this nature. It was understood that the future of
shmittah observance in Eretz Yisroel was
dependent on the outcome of this first confrontation.
During the shmittah year, the heads of Chibat Tsion
brought financial and other pressures to bear on settlers
who wanted to keep shmittah and, while several
individuals in Petach Tikva and Ekron did hold out, most
capitulated to the threat of withholding vital funds. The
dominant policy was to rely on the mechira, and from
then on, the hetter mechira became the generally
accepted solution to the problems posed by
shmittah.
The controversy erupted again in 5670 (1910), with the
geonim of Yerushalaim, headed by HaRav Chaim Berlin,
(the Netziv's son) and HaRav Yitzchok Yeruchom Diskin, who
were against the "hetter", issuing a stirring call to
world Jewry to support the farmers who were prepared to lay
their tools aside in shmittah. HaRav Avrohom Yitzchok
Kook, on the other hand, strengthened and extended the
hetter. His position was strongly opposed by many
gedolim of the time, chiefly the Ridvaz from Slutsk
who then resided in Tzfas and who took active steps to
enable farmers on the Rothschild settlements to keep
shmittah, with considerable success.
While a full discussion of the "hetter" is not
possible in the context of this brief account, it is worth
noting that in the introduction to his commentary on the
sefer Pe'as Hashulchan, the Ridvaz describes the
tremendous pressures that were brought to bear on Rav Kook
at this time. Much more material related to the
shmittah of 5670 is also to be found in this
introduction.
A detailed treatment of HaRav Kook's own outlook on the
issue can be found in HaRav Kalman Kahane's Shnas
Hasheva. Quoting extensively from HaRav Kook's own
writings, HaRav Kahane proposes that rather than undermine
the mitzva of shmittah, HaRav Kook tried to
accommodate the entire population--including those who were
going to continue farming in shmittah anyway--within
the bounds of halacha until such time as conditions
facilitated the proper and full observance of
shmittah, which was his ultimate aim. HaRav Kook
himself joined the rabbonim who strongly objected to the
practice of Mizrachi kibbutzim of leaving a "pinat
hashmittah" (a small plot of land that was left fallow
during shmittah as a "zecher" of the mitzva)
while on all the rest of the land it was "business as
usual," fearing that this would merely serve to formalize
the complete abandonment of shmittah.
The First World War wreaked havoc on the life of the
yishuv generally, causing great difficulty with the
transfer of funds from chutz la'aretz upon which the
yishuv in Eretz Yisroel depended. The Zionist
movement also interfered with the traditional sources of
support for the community in Jerusalem. Under the
circumstances, the shmittah of 5677 (1917) was
observed to a greater extent than the previous ones had
been.
By 5684 (1924) however, the hetter was even more
firmly established and was being invoked to enable even the
practice of melochos de'Orayso by Jews (not non-
Jewish laborers as stipulated originally by R' Yitzchok
Elchonon) on land that had been "sold." This was the
situation in 5691 (1931) as well.
Two years later in Elul 5693 (1933), the Chazon Ish arrived
in Eretz Yisroel and soon discovered the sad state of
affairs. In the center of the orange-growing areas around
Petach Tikva, for example, there were only one or two
solitary individuals who had left their orchards alone
during shmittah, even amongst the religious
community.
Objections to the Sale
The sefer Chazon Ish Al Shevi'is appeared in 5697
(1937) and there the author took issue with the hetter
mechira on three main points (based on Chazon Ish,
Zeraim pp. 298 and 306). 1] He maintained that
the psak halacha is according to the opinions
that it is impossible to cancel the kedusha of Eretz
Yisroel by selling the land to a non-Jew. Thus even if the
sale practiced by the authorities to non-Jews for
shmittah had been valid (see below) he argued that it
would have achieved nothing.
2] His second point of dissension was that in fact,
the sale had no legal--let alone halachic--validity.
It was well-known that the entire sale was nothing more than
a legal fiction and that nobody had the slightest intention
of genuinely selling the land. Furthermore, the sale was
deliberately not recorded in the Tabu (the Land
Registry Office) and the vendors could and would certainly
use this fact to invalidate any attempt by the buyer to
uphold his purchase.
3] Finally, he maintained further that if the sale
itself had validity, selling the land was a violation of the
mitzva of lo sechoneim, which prohibits any sale of
land in Eretz Yisroel to gentiles. Therefore, concluded the
Chazon Ish, the sale which was effected by an agent
(shaliach) on behalf of all the farmers (most of whom
were not religious and did not give any explicit
authorization for the sale), was null and void because of
the rule that "ein shaliach lidevar aveira." Since
the entire sale was an aveira, the emissary could not
represent anybody but himself.
In their attempt to seek a way out of transgressing the
mitzva of shmittah which is a derabbonon
today, chided the Chazon Ish, the proponents of the
"hetter" were running afoul of a Torah prohibition of
selling the land to non-Jews. Though many rishonim
hold that even today shmittah applies
mide'Orayso, the accepted opinion amongst the
acharonim is that, since yovel does not apply
nowadays, shmittah itself is a medirabbonon.
See also the Netziv's "Kuntras HaShemittah" printed
at the end of ShU"T Meishiv Dovor, where the above
point is made.
The Chazon Ish had expressed his views earlier, in 5696
(1936). With the founding of the first Agudas Yisroel
settlements in the winter of that year, HaRav Chaim Ozer
Grodzinsky was approached by Aguda leaders for guidance with
regard to the question of shmittah observance which
would be confronted two years later. Reb Chaim Ozer turned
to the Chazon Ish and asked his opinion. The reply he
received was that reliance on the "hetter" was
unacceptable. This much is clear from a letter Reb Chaim
Ozer wrote to the Chazon Ish a year later where he referred
to their previous correspondence: "In truth, the question of
shmittah is a very difficult one, according to what
. . . your Torah honor . . . writes, that this (situation),
that it has become permitted, was not according to any
decision taken by the chachomim, but force of
circumstances alone caused it." (The letters are printed in
Kovetz Igros Chazon Ish II pp. 177 and 183.)
Being "Realistic"
But the "force of circumstances" is formidable and, besides
the sacrifice that keeping shmittah demands, an extra
measure of mesiras nefesh was necessary to act
contrary to what was almost universally seen as an "obvious"
fact, namely, that keeping shmittah was simply
impossible today. While the Chazon Ish encouraged any
initiative to accept the full observance of shevi'is,
he was well aware of the pressures that could and would be
exerted on individuals who challenged the accepted norm.
On the eve of the shmittah of 5698, when several such
Jews, whose occupations were in agriculture, came in to him
seeking instruction for the coming year, he provided them
with detailed directions for keeping all the halachos
of shmittah. But after they had left the room he
waved his hand in an expression of despair as to the general
situation, as if to say, "They will never manage to keep
shmittah anyway!"
In a sharp attack on the prevailing attitude, the Chazon Ish
publicized the following proclamation (six months into the
shmittah year, as stated in the text), entitled,
"Reality," in which he incisively (and sarcastically) showed
that perception of "facts" is subjective, and is a function
of the wishes and willpower of the observer.
"I am a farming man, supported by my own hard work. As I
stood at the threshold of the shmittah year, being a
son of a stiff-necked people, the idea crept into my mind of
obstinately keeping shmittah according to the
halacha. I was deserted and alone, the laughing stock
of all my neighbors. `Can it be? Not to sow or gather in?
But it's impossible to fight reality!'
"However, my stubbornness stood me in good stead and despite
the fact that anybody with a brain in his skull `knows' that
it's impossible to observe shmittah--the commandment
of shmittah being only for someone who already has
three years supply of grain in his granary-- and it being
`impossible' to compare (our) later generations with the
earlier ones, nevertheless, despite all this, we are already
halfway through shmittah and reality and I are the
best of friends. I sowed everything before Rosh Hashanah, in
the sixth year, and in shmittah I rested, neither
plowing nor sowing. I treat the produce of the sixth year
which entered the seventh with kedushas shevi'is and
consume it in accordance with those dinim, and I
remain hopeful of maintaining my truce with reality--or,
more correctly, reality's truce with me--for the remaining
six months of the year.
"My neighbors, who poked fun at me, plowed and sowed in
shmittah but reality waged a ferocious battle with
them and destroyed all their crops with its
torrential, driving rain. Now, I tender my request to the
lenient authorities, to forgive me for disobeying them and
to be so good as to review the matter a second time. Maybe
that brain in their skulls will repent and understand that
the Torah will never be changed, and that keeping
shmittah is purely a matter of resolution" (Kovetz
Igros pt. II pg. 74).
In a similar vein, he observed that those who searched for
leniencies and compromises, adducing support for their
positions from Shas and poskim, "rule
leniently because that is what they really want. If they
negate their own wishes before they open up the sifrei
halacha, and are guided only by the standard of absolute
truth, their conclusions would be very different from what
they have extracted" (quoted in Michtav MeEliyahu
Vol. III Pg. 250).
The Chazon Ish also bore great bitterness towards some who
were overly stringent in their rulings about what was and
what was not permitted during shmittah in cases where
the land had not been sold to a non-Jew. In many such cases
he had ruled leniently. He recognized that this was a ploy
designed to force the conclusion that it really was
impossible to keep shmittah properly under modern
conditions and that the hetter mechira was therefore
a necessity.
"In the Viduy of Rav Nissim Gaon," he once remarked
in a conversation with close associates, "appears the
confession `that which You have made stringent, I have made
lenient and what You have made lenient, I have made severe .
. . what You have forbidden, I permitted and what You
permitted, I forbade.' Being lenient where one should be
severe or permitting the forbidden are obviously sinful, but
what is blameworthy about being severe instead of being
lenient or forbidding the permitted, if one wishes to
refrain from what is allowed?
"These phrases however," he explained, "refer to those
rabbonim who support the easing of the prohibitions of
shmittah if the land was sold to a non-Jew, while at
the same time strongly protesting each and every lenient
halachic ruling that is given to the shmittah
observers. Their intentions are clear: to prove that keeping
shmittah properly is impossible and that resort to a
heter mechira is unavoidable. For stringencies of
this nature, viduy is certainly required."
Proof From the Gemora
One of the most commonly adduced "proofs" against the Chazon
Ish's uncompromising stance was the gemora (Sanhedrin
26) which relates: "Rav Yanai announced, `Go and sow
your fields in shmittah--because of the
arnona!'" Rashi explains that this was a tax on each
fields' produce that was levied by the king.
Here, claimed the supporters of the sale, was a precedent
for overriding shmittah when a difficult situation
demanded it. In his sefer, the Chazon Ish commented
briefly that the arnona then was not simply a matter
of hardship, rather "it was close to (constituting) danger
to life because of the poverty and the (methods of)
collecting the taxes." (Chazon Ish, Shevi'is, siman
18:4, 5697 ed.)
On another occasion he explained further that the pressures
of the brutal collection of taxes were exerted in order to
wring as much as possible from each household. These
pressures included imprisonment or other such severe
punishments. Such merciless persecution of entire
communities by the ruling power is always regarded as a
danger to life, even before actual loss of life is imminent.
According to the judgment of the Chachamim of the times,
rabbinical laws can be permitted, and even Torah laws if
necessary. It was because of the danger to life that Rav
Yanai was swift to announce that people should not act
strictly and wait but be quick to sow, considering it
insufficient to merely respond to those who approached him
privately for guidance.
The Chazon Ish even turned the question around, wondering
how his opponents themselves could explain what was plainly
obvious from the gemora, namely, that even the threat
of desolation of the land, of fields and vineyards and of
the lack of fruits and produce during a period of poverty--
the general economic difficulties facing the people at the
time-- were unable to budge the mitzva of shmittah.
Only in view of the excessive suffering caused by the Roman
decree was anything permitted. The catastrophe was not the
mitzva, cholila, but the insatiable demands of the
ruling powers. (Shnas HaSheva, pg. 185, 5719 ed.)
Not Like Selling Chometz
Another question that was raised regarded the sale of
chometz before Pesach. What was the difference
between arranging a sale to a non-Jew in order to avoid the
prohibition of owning chometz -- which everyone more
or less allows -- and doing so to avoid the prohibitions of
shmittah?
One answer was provided by the Chazon Ish in a letter where
he explained why the sale of chometz was halachically
valid while selling the land was not. When selling
chometz, the vendor is genuinely anxious not to be
the owner of any chometz and thus certainly has a
sincere intention to uphold the validity of the sale. With
shmittah, on the other hand, nobody would really sell
his land merely in order to usurp the mitzva of
shmittah. They would certainly prefer to observe
shmittah rather than to make a genuine sale of their
land (from a letter by the Chazon Ish, printed in Chazon
Ish, Zeroim pg. 306).
Indeed, when he was approached by officials of the Rabbinate
and asked to sign a petition to the Peel Commission which
was examining the question of the partition of Palestine for
the United Nations, he reflected on the irony of the hue and
cry that was being raised over a division of the land while
the sale of all the land prior to every shmittah
bothered nobody. When one of the rabbonim of the new
yishuv, in a discussion with the Chazon Ish
concerning the problems posed by keeping shmittah,
suggested the idea of declaring the land hefker, the
Chazon Ish retorted sharply, "Why certainly! The Torah,
however, is not hefker!"
|
||
| All material
on this site is copyrighted and its use is restricted. |
|||