Recently we have been reading in Yated Ne'eman about
the strange and infuriating battle people within the Chief
Rabbinate have been waging on behalf of those who are
marketing sefichin products according to the heter
mechirah. Many of us have been shocked and bewildered by
this strange phenomenon. It goes without saying that, as far
as we are concerned, even if no alternative goods would be
available, there is no justification for distributing
forbidden produce which causes the masses to sin. However,
in this case, where permitted produce can easily be
obtained, it would seem that the advocates of the heter
mechirah are motivated by some bizarre "principles,"
which contain an element of lehach'is, chas vesholom,
and this hurts us even more.
@Big Let Body=We can learn a lot by looking back and
analyzing how matters have deteriorated over the last 110
years. The heter, given originally as a temporary
measure based on pikuach nefesh and hedged with many
restrictions became, in succeeding shmittah years, a
totally invalid "wholesale permit." In practice, this absurd
technique (as the gedolim called it in their letter
this shmittah year) originally did away with
shmittah observance altogether.
In the light of recent events, this sad chapter of history
is of topical relevance, and it is also symptomatic of a
wider phenomenon. Taking a look back, we can see that the
shmittah topic was a prime example of the Zionists'
and haskoloh leaders' attempts to change the
character of the Jewish nation.
We must be aware of the tactics adopted by anti-religious
activists over the past hundred years and more. They
represented themselves as having the best interests of the
nation at heart when in reality they undermined the
foundations of the nation's existence and fundamental
articles of halocho and emunoh, chas
vesholom.
The heter mechirah debate has been going on for more
than 110 years. As we can see from historical documents,
some of the demagogic arguments made when the controversy
first started have remained unchanged to this very day.
@Big Let Body=Let us make it clear at the outset that, in
order to prevent any misunderstandings, we have to
distinguish between two diametrically opposed historical
approaches to this issue: 1. The rabbonim and poskim
who adopted a lenient view certainly acted lesheim
Shomayim and related to the topic as a purely halachic
one. 2. The maskilim, and secular members of Chovevei
Zion, on the other hand, gleefully pounced upon this ruling,
and used it to further their machinations, in total
opposition to the views of those gedolim.
Revisionist historians describe "the shmittah debate"
as an ideological one between two camps. The secular
leadership is portrayed as being concerned for the welfare
of the Jewish population, who were likely to starve if
nothing was done on their behalf. The other camp consisted
of all those "interfering" with these activities due to
their insensitivity and ideological backwardness.
The Real Issues
A close analysis of events, however, reveals different
tendencies altogether. The dispute was actually about the
character of the renewed Jewish settlement in Eretz
Yisroel and, from a wider perspective, about the
centrality of Torah in the life of the Jewish people.
Most of the population at the time was observant, and this
was a source of much annoyance to the secular leaders of the
Chovevei Zion movement, since their real aim (which they did
not really bother to hide), was to change the character of
the Jewish nation by making it resemble every other nation
on Earth. M. L. Lilienblum (in pp.13-22 of his Collected
Writings) relates to this "problem." Lilienblum was a
pragmatist, and tried to explain to his fellow maskilim
that it would be unwise to adopt the tactics of direct
confrontation.
In this article he also takes issue with the prevalent
approach which held that it was essential to make "religious
amendments" even before commencing settlement activities in
Eretz Yisroel, lest the "Orthodox" manage to achieve
facts on the ground. Lilienblum disagreed with this
attitude, arguing that it was preferable to work quietly and
slowly, and things would take care of themselves. He repeats
one statement many times in this article: "Time will take
care of whatever reason fails to accomplish," and, more
explicitly, "Our future political life will improve
everything!"
Lilienblum adds that if the well-to-do could be enlisted to
help the new yishuv by "legally purchasing the whole
of Eretz Yisroel from the Turkish government and
setting up there an internal government, a sort of autonomy,
then we could persuade the Rothschilds and Barons mentioned
above to force the new improvements on the whole Jewish
population of the country." (Incidentally, Lilienblum adds,
"I will not talk about the extent to which this accords with
principles of fairness and freedom which are accepted in our
generation.")
Lilienblum also talks about the difficulties involved in
tempting observant Jews to renounce their spiritual duties
in return for redemption from the stifling exile. Coming
from a religious background himself, he knew all about the
Jews' devotion to their religion: "Anyone who has a slight
understanding of the Orthodox character knows very well that
the stringency of some halachic authority is dearer to them
than our whole national culture and the settlement of
Eretz Yisroel put together. If, for example, we give
them the choice between persecutions, expulsions, plunders
and various cruel deaths together with the Shulchan
Oruch of Rabbis Karo and Isserles on the one hand, and
total independence and peace together with a new Shulchan
Oruch containing the religious amendments espoused by
myself and my colleagues on the other hand, they would,
without any further investigation or consideration, prefer
the first option."
He concludes, "I therefore hold that even though the
amendments are as necessary now as ever, since it is not
possible at the present time to enforce these amendments, we
need not and are not entitled to postpone the renewal of the
nation -- and time will take care of whatever reason fails
to accomplish."
In another article, which appeared in the Yiddish newspaper
Yiddishes Volksblatt he went into further detail: "It
may be that, at first, it will not be possible to behave
publicly in unrestricted manner, by smoking on the Sabbath,
for example, but we have to be willing to sacrifice such
small matters. Other nations make greater sacrifices for the
sake of their countries."
He hopes that, in the future, "Eretz Yisroel will be
built up, we are certain to have a supreme beis din
there in which learned rabbis will sit who understand the
needs of our time, and they will be able to reconcile
between tradition and the demands of our time. Nor is there
any basis to the fear that they would insist on the
observance of terumot and ma'asrot. Clever
rabbis will be able to come up with a permit!" (The
quotations are taken from Klausner's book, Behit'orer
Am pp. 141-43).
He warns about "surrendering" to the demands of those who
insist on the observance of mitzvos hateluyos
bo'oretz in Jewish agricultural settlements. In a letter
to Sh. P. Rabinowitz, Lilienblum writes, "People are
incensed about the fact that some members of the Chovevei
Zion movement do not observe all the 613 commandments, as
the Orthodox would like. Before you know it, these fanatics
will want to establish an inquisition in Eretz
Yisroel to ensure that the settlers observe all the laws
pertaining to the land, including shmittah and so
on!" (Ketavim Letoldot Chibat Zion, second volume, p.
329).
However, as we said, Lilienblum was a pragmatist. He did not
want to conduct an all-out war, because he knew that this
would only cause harm. Lilienblum was sophisticated and
therefore all the more dangerous. When someone asked him to
publish his views in various journals, he responded as
follows: "I consider it superfluous to publicize in writing
my views about the correct course of action regarding
matters connected to the land. Such words cause more damage
than good. You could convey this point to the other
settlements, without the fanatics knowing about my letter,
and then they too will say, 'Go and see what everyone else
is doing.' I would not dream of telling you all my thoughts
on this matter. We both know well enough that in our day and
age the laws of terumot and ma'asrot are
inoperative for various reasons, but in this matter we are
dependent on the views of the fanatics in Eretz
Yisroel and around the world" (Collected Writings,
p.41).
The First Shmittah
In 5648 (1887-8), during the period preceding the
shmittah year, the shmittah "problem" was
about to become a practical one. Lilienblum knew that the
resolution of this issue would be fundamental in determining
the nature of the Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisroel.
He therefore turned to several rabbonim in Europe, asking
them to permit work during the shmittah year. The aim
was to obtain an absolute heter -- not a provisional
one with conditions attached or an emergency measure. He was
interested in a permit that would satisfy the requirements
of his hidden agenda: to prove the necessity of permanent
changes in religious practice.
Lilienblum started working energetically towards this goal.
He asked his friends to turn to halachic authorities and to
explain to them that the yishuv was totally dependent
on agriculture for its survival, and that the cessation of
work during the shmittah year would result in a
situation of pikuach nefesh (this was true, but only
because Lilienblum and his friends had created this
situation: see further on).
Lilienblum himself preferred to act behind the scenes. He
explained his position in a letter dated 26th Tishrei 5648
(1887): "I myself am not able to encourage the rabbis on
this matter, because any statement from someone like myself
would only have the opposite effect on them."
In Adar 5648 HaRav Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor zt"l,
the Kovna Rov, ruled that because of the hardships that were
being experienced and the concern for pikuach nefesh
it was permitted to sell the land to a non-Jew. Rav Yitzchok
Elchonon attached several conditions: it was forbidden to do
any melochos mideOraiso, any work was to be
undertaken by non-Jews, and everything had to be under the
guidance and supervision of the rabbonim of Yerushalayim. In
addition, he stressed that his permit was not a permanent
one, applying only to the shmittah year of 5649, and
dependent on the approval of the rabbonim of
Yerushalayim.
Those who had anticipated an absolute heter were
deeply disappointed. They had not expected this. Such a
limited permit did not satisfy their desire for the total
abandonment of halochoh.
Still, they did not give up so easily. In order to mislead
the public, they published the heter without its
restrictions. They wanted to convey the impression that for
the purposes of the yishuv the mitzva of
shmittah had been abolished.
The Beis Halevi wrote about this: "As for the report in
Hameilitz about someone having heard from someone
reliable that four of our gedolim have together
permitted working the field during shevi'is, and no
details were added in order to give the impression that they
gave a blanket heter -- this messenger heard the
wrong message, because they did not permit everything, on
the contrary, they made prohibitions." (He went on to list
the various prohibitions, and adds that, in his opinion, he
would not make a heter even with these conditions and
restrictions. Beis Halevi 3:1).
The gedolim in Yerushalayim opposed the heter.
Apart from halachic considerations, they feared the danger
that "the settlers would feel free to trample on the whole
Shulchan Oruch," in the words of HaRav Shmuel Salant
zt"l (Writings, p.478).
Y. M. Pines, who was deeply rooted in the life of the
settlements and whose outlook was not exactly chareidi, also
writes, "In most settlements, work was in itself not
necessary at all; on the contrary, it only weakened the
ground. Some, however, found it necessary to work to
demonstrate that the laws of shevi'is had no more
relevance to this enlightened generation" (Hameilitz
5649, p.48).
The truth is that even Lilienblum himself was not ashamed to
admit his intentions. The pikuach nefesh issue was
directly related to the willingness to receive a small
amount of financial assistance from abroad. This could
easily have been arranged (after all, aid had been received
in many previous cases when it was needed) but, for obvious
reasons, no efforts were made in that direction.
Lilienblum wrote, "If the absence of work required our
obtaining an additional few thousand Francs, this would not
have been an insurmountable problem. But I looked at the
matter from a different point of view. I knew the ways of
those who take a stringent halachic view; therefore if the
settlers would desist from working in this first
shmittah year, this would provide the followers of
the stringent view with a pretext. And then it would become
impossible to permit work during the shmittah year.
We must therefore make sure that those who adopt the
stringent view do not get the upper hand, and that the
shmittah is not observed at all" (Derech La'avor
Golim,p.131).
For this reason too HaRav Mordechai Gimpel zt"l, from
Rozhinai, one of the leading supporters of the yishuv
at the time, came out against the heter: "A big hue
and cry has been made based on the false claim that the
observance of shevi'is would be likely to result in
danger to life. The dissemination of this argument has
produced the desired result and, based on this lie and only
on it, some rabbonim abroad made a ruling which contained a
leniency" (Writings 3, pp.888-92).
HaRav Y. L. Diskin even wrote a letter to Baron Rothschild,
in which he hinted to him that with a little bit of
financial assistance, there would be no need whatsoever for
any heter.
Fanatical Rabbis
When the virulently anti-religious haskalah author,
Y. L. Gordon heard about the limited heter that had
been made, he was furious. He held the "fanatical rabbis" of
Yerushalayim responsible for it, and decided to use his
venomous tongue to give vent to his wrath, using the style
of the gutter press. This is what he wrote to Lilienblum:
"Let us now take counsel what has to be done to get rid of
this death. If I could only make the world rise up against
these obscurantists and condemn them. Now tell me whether I
was right when I said that our [physical] redemption must be
accompanied by a spiritual one, for it will be impossible to
redeem our country if we do not redeem ourselves spiritually
from their tyranny."
Gordon wanted to prove that in the debate amongst
maskilim about the most effective techniques to adopt
in their struggle against original Judaism, those who were
in favor of solving the religious "problem" and discarding
all religious observance ("spiritual redemption") before any
mass settlement of Eretz Yisroel had been right.
Lilienblum, for his part, continued to argue in favor of
using restrained measures in order to disguise the real
intentions of the maskilim. This was his response to
Gordon:
"Your advice to wage war against the rabbis via the pages of
Hameilitz and to make the world rise up against them,
could result in a lot of damage, because the remaining
rabbis would also hear the trumpets of war." They would
then, in his opinion, refuse to endorse any heter,
"lest they be considered as supporters of anti-religious
heretics, and we would then be left with no permit at all.
If, on the other hand, we now keep quiet and not make any
fuss, we can quietly manage to find other rabbis to support
working. I therefore respectfully advise you to hold your
peace." (The correspondence appears in Derech La'avor
Golim pp.115- 17.)
The real aims of Lilienblum and his colleagues were revealed
clearly when farmers who did not want to rely on the
heter were brutally coerced. These devoted farmers
preferred to obey the rulings of the rabbonim of
Yerushalayim, who had instructed them to observe
shmittah properly.
This was the case in Gedera and other settlements, but the
most difficult struggle took place in Ekron (an article
about events there is planned for a future edition of
Yated). The rabbonim of Yerushalayim appealed to
their brethren in chutz lo'oretz to support the
farmers of Ekron. On the whole, there was a generous
response to this appeal, but in the Nisan 5649 issue of
Hamagid it was reported that there were places where
some people expressed the concern (which we are,
unfortunately, familiar with) that since farmers in Ekron
would not rely on the lenient view, any assistance to them
would be tantamount to aiding and abetting sinners!
Rav Naftali Hertz Halevi, the rov of Yaffo, wrote at the
time, "This has become an insignificant matter in their
eyes, in fact it has become completely permissible as far as
they are concerned. Woe unto us that we are forced to
witness this. Who knows what may be the ultimate intentions
of those who look for a heter. Even the decent and
religious ones amongst them are not sufficiently aware of
the long-term implications of their actions."
The Situation Today
In our time, we have seen how far matters have deteriorated:
during the last shmittah we witnessed the phenomenon
of the "sanctification" of the heter as a
lechatchila measure binding for all time.
Lilienblum's original vision has been realized: at long last
a rabbinical institution consisting of "enlightened rabbis
who understand the spirit of the times" has acted according
to his spirit. National-religious circles and their
supporters in the official governmental rabbinate have
succeeded in achieving everything Lilienblum tried to
achieve -- but did not. Even the lenient authorities of his
time only consented to a limited heter, based on the
weighty consideration of pikuach nefesh. The
heter contained many restrictions and qualifications,
and it was made absolutely clear that it was a unique,
specific decision, and people were encouraged not to rely on
it.
Today, by way of contrast, the heter has become
absolute and fixed, without any need to resort to the
pikuach nefesh consideration. As far as the advocates
of the heter nowadays are concerned, there is no
point in searching for ways of avoiding the need to resort
to the heter, and it is considered wrong to encourage
those who observe shmittah properly. On the contrary,
they feel a need to fight them. It is permitted
lechatchila! The mitzva of shmittah has been
abolished, Rachmono litzlan!
Thus a heter has turned into a "mitzva" of uprooting
shmittah (even though, as we said, there is no
halachic basis today whatsoever for the heter, even
according to those who originally promulgated it 110 years
ago). What a terrible deterioration to take place within two
generations! As Lilienblum put it: "Time will take care of
whatever reason fails to accomplish."
The history of the heter mechirah is symbolic of the
Zionist calamity which has affected other areas too. Since
the State was founded, secular governmental agents have
attempted to influence not only the masses of tinokos
shenishbu who are far removed from a Torah way of life,
but even the observant and traditional public. They dress up
their intrigues in the shape of "objective needs" of one
kind or another.
Thus attempts to interfere in the curricula of chareidi
educational institutions are represented as a concern for
"ignorance which could result in difficulties finding work
in the future," and the attempt to blend sport-related
tendencies into the cheder system is justified in
terms of "looking after the boys' health and fitness."
None of them would speak openly about gaining a foothold
into the chadorim or of undermining from within the
walls of our camp. We always hear "neutral" considerations
which seem to have nothing to do with the debate between the
religious and the secular. They will even declare that they
have no intention of harming religious interests, and that
they are perfectly ready to implement their ideas within the
religious framework and in a way that will not contain any
secular influence. Their sole desire, they state, is to
instill the chareidi public with "universal ideas" and an
aspiration for "progress."
In fact they are just repeating the tricks of Lilienblum and
Gordon, who disguised their longing to abolish
shmittah altogether by a concern for the physical
welfare of the yishuv which supposedly faced the
danger of destruction. The Zionist and Haskalah
leaders in 5649 knew very well -- and they said as such in
writing -- that they had to hide the fact that they were the
ones pushing for a heter mechirah, because if those
endorsing the heter would have found this out, it
would never have occurred to them to bolster these anti-
religious personalities.
Nowadays, when historians have revealed the sophisticated
methods of those whose aim was to detach the Jewish nation
from the Torah, we can say: how great is the insight and
foresight of our rabbonim, who for decades fiercely opposed
any secular governmental interference in our educational
institutions and our religious way of life. Our rabbonim
told us unequivocally that only evil can come out of wicked
people, and that there are no exceptions to this rule.
Chazal have taught us that the "good" deeds and intentions
of reshoim are considered evil by tzadikim.
This principle applies very much to all the acts of the
Zionist movement and its leaders over the last few
generations.
Since this movement was founded, there has been a debate
about its motivations and whether there was any room for
cooperation with it. The Mizrachi movement gave it the
benefit of the doubt. Most of its members secretly agreed
with some of the goals of the Zionists, but there were also
G- d-fearing Jews among them who, in their innocence,
thought that their intentions were good and that there was a
need for some "minor" improvements in religious matters.
Those who subordinate themselves to the views of the
gedolim, on the other hand, knew that the real
intention of the Zionists was to uproot the Torah, and that
all their leaders' actions were not to be trusted, even when
they seemed to have nothing to do with religious matters.
The extent to which this is obvious may vary, but their
mission is the secularization of the Jewish people.
