On the 10th of Shvat is the yahrtzeit of Rav Yisochor Teichtel ztz"l Hy"d. He is most famous for his work "Eim Habonim Smeicha" [besides being a major Rav and posek]. There was a long monograph about him in one of the religious newspapers here. I was curious to see how they would deal with the fact that he changed his mind from the Satmar hashkafa against Zionism and adopted the stance that we should make aliyah and partner with the Zionists in building Israel.
Here is what it says:
בשנת תש"ג בהיותו גולה בבודפסט הצליח להדפיס את ספרו 'אם הבנים שמחה' בחיבורו זה ראה את הדרך והפתרון למצב ישראל בגלות המרה. הוא האמין וקיווה שהיהודים יינצלו מן התופת ואז יעלו כולם לציון ברינה.
That's all it says. That is called fudging or even revising history.
Here is the truth about his opinions in an article by Rav Tamir Granot [Note: I don't necessarily identify or agree with everything written but as far as Rav Teichtal is concerned, it is correct]:
I believe that the story of Rabbi Teichtal should not be judged in terms of its historical influence, but rather in terms of its own inherent importance. To put it differently: there was once an ultra-Orthodox Hungarian Jew, a disciple of the Rebbes of Belz and Munkacz, who was a fierce opponent of Zionism, but in light of – and in the very midst of - the events of the Holocaust, he courageously reexamined his position and decided in favor of Zionism. This is an important event for Holocaust history and for Jewish thinkers confronting it, but more importantly this individual story is perhaps also a testimony to what might have happened but did not. Rabbi Teichtal's solitary change of heart serves to emphasize the negative or passive approach on the part of most of the rabbinic and Chassidic leadership towards the Holocaust and its significance. I shall highlight the fundamental claims that Rabbi Teichtal proposes by virtue of his change of view, with less attention to his specific Zionist teachings, which have received much attention but which are, for the most, part not unique.
A. Biography
Rabbi Yissakhar Shelomo Teichtal was born in 1885 (5645) in Hungary, and studied in Pressburg (today Bratislava, capital of Slovakia). He served as rabbi, Rosh Yeshiva, Av Beit Din and teacher in the small Jewish community of Pishtian in western Slovakia (a town famous for its mineral baths). He is the author of the halakhic responsa known as "Mishneh Sakhir."
Like most Hungarian Jews, up until the Holocaust Rabbi Teichtal was firmly anti-Zionist, negating the idea of cooperating with secular Jews even for the purpose of building up Eretz Yisrael. He served as assistant to Rabbi Chayim Elazar Shapira, the Rebbe of Munkacz (author of Minchat Elazar), who was one of the fiercest opponents of Zionism, and in 1936 he published an article in the Yiddische Zeitung newspaper (published in Munkacz) supporting the Rebbe's view that the building up of Eretz Yisrael was a desecration of sanctity and would lead to the land being defiled.
In 1942, Rabbi Teichtal fled Slovakia for Hungary for fear of the Nazi occupation. The events of the Holocaust led him to reexamine his views. At first, according to his own testimony, he began to explore the subjects of exile, redemption that comes about through natural means, settling the Land of Israel, and the proper attitude towards the non-observant Jews engaged in this endeavor. Following all of this, he changed his approach and began supporting Zionism and aliya. He committed his new views to writing in his work "Em ha-Banim Semekha." Most of the book was written in the attic where he hid from the Nazis, and the hundreds of citations in the book are based only on memory. The book was published in Budapest in 5703 (1943). In the spring of 1944, the Hungarians began deportations of Jews to the camps, and Rabbi Teichtal, who received word that deportations from Slovakia had meanwhile ceased, decided to head back to Slovakia. In September 1944, following the crushing of the Slovakian revolt, he was transferred, together with the other Jews who remained from the community of Pishtian, to the camp at Serd, and from there to Auschwitz. Eyewitnesses attested that he was murdered on the 10th of Shevat 5705 (1945), because he had defended another Jew who was desperate for water (or, according to a different account, bread) against a Ukrainian guard. According to one of the witnesses, his final words were, "Disseminate my teachings further."
B. The Change of Heart
Let us begin with a citation from his introduction to a book of teachings that he published in 1936 and from an endorsement that was added to it, both of which serve to represent his view - up until the Holocaust - as a faithful disciple of Rabbi Chayim Elazar of Munkacz, zt"l:
This book contains sermons that I have given here in the community of Pishtian to strengthen Torah and faith. This is a real need at this time, since for our many sins, in our generation there has been a growth in heresy and a casting off of the yoke of Torah and the commandments, which has caused all the troubles that have befallen us. With God's help, I have gathered some articles that are a salve for the eyes, and every Jew who reads this book will, with God's help, find himself reinforced in his faith like a stake that will not falter, and all the words of heresy that have been spread in our times, for our many sins, by new "sages" who are springing up all the time will be regarded by him as chaff for the wind; the wind will carry them all away and bury them in the depths of oblivion.
The book is awarded an endorsement by the Gaon Rabbi Yoshia Buchsbaum of Galanta, with the following words:
With splendor and eloquence … [the author] has proved the mistake of many of our generation who regard themselves and call themselves "charedim" but who join themselves to and associate with men of evil who have cast away the words of our Sages, of blessed memory, and build themselves an altar and go after vanity and become worthless, offering sacrifices and incense to the "nationalist" idol in calling themselves nationalist Jews. Indeed, [the author] has denounced their end on the basis of their point of departure, for all of their hope and desire and intention is to remove the yoke of the words of our Sages, of blessed memory, from upon them, and the yoke of Torah and the yoke of faith. The author has noted quite correctly in his important book that in this generation it is necessary to make an even greater effort to reinforce faith, etc. It is my hope that all who read the author's book will find words of favor and will exercise proper judgment, for there is a great need to distance oneself from the tents of people who are all inventing new ideas, digging broken wells, as it is written: "All that come to her shall not return" (Mishlei 2:19).
Rav Teichtal was well aware of the reversal that his views had undergone, and he devotes considerable effort to legitimizing it, from two angles: 1. a justification for adopting the Zionist approach, and 2. legitimization for the very idea of a change of view, both in terms of his commitment to the Torah sages of the previous generations – including his own teachers – who had negated Zionism, and in terms of the fundamental question of whether a change in one's religious world view is possible.
On a personal note, Rabbi Teichtal describes the inner process that he underwent, causing the change in his views:
I must confess the truth and declare my sin. I, too, despised the rebuilding of the Land, because I heard unqualified statements made by many Orthodox Jews, which became firmly implanted in my heart. I did not concern myself with this matter at all, because I was preoccupied with learning, teaching, and writing volumes on the Talmud and its commentaries, as well as responses to questions regarding the word of HaShem. I only delved into this halachah after we suffered afflictions in this bitter exile. HaShem enlightened me, and I saw that I and all those who opposed this movement were mistaken. I admit and say, "That which I previously told you was mistaken," just like Rava and other great Talmudic Sages did. [See Mesoret HaShas on Shabbat 63b.] When rabbis admit their mistakes, they are praiseworthy.
Thank God, I have no qualms about publicly expressing the truth that is in my heart. I am not afraid of any man, for I studied under great and righteous gedolim and was raised among the genuinely holy wise men of the generation. Thank God, I also studied Torah early on and was married young. At the age of nineteen, I was united with the daughter of the foremost Torah scholar of the generation. Since then, Torah has never ceased from my table. I will not revoke my Torah opinion because of any gadol or rebbe or our generation, unless he debates the issues with me in the manner of Torah dialogue, using proofs from the words of Chazal. I will then concede to his words, if they are correct, but not if they are unfounded. (Em ha-Banim Semekha, p. 28 in the M. Lichtman translation)
The difficulty of coming out against the prevailing view is evident in Rabbi Teichtal's frank statement in the above selection; it is equally clear that the change in his position is controversial, and represents something of a rebellion against his teachers. Why, according to his own testimony, did he previously oppose Zionism?
a. Dogmatic thinking – everyone thought that way, that's how I was taught, etc.
b. Lack of interest – the intensive involvement in Torah study pushed ideological questions aside, and hence proper attention was not devoted to a clarification of the subject.
Rabbi Chayim Elazar Shapira zt"l, in a film about his daughter's wedding, Munkacz 1931
I believe that the above is certainly representative of the situation amongst the ultra-Orthodox public, and even its leadership - at least at the second tier. It is certain that the "Minchat Elazar" of Munkacz (Rabbi Teichtal's teacher), for example, did not oppose Zionism merely for traditional reasons; he developed and formulated weighty ideological considerations. But for the "masses," and even among the rabbis and yeshiva heads, anti-Zionism was integral to social belonging and to tradition; it was not a subject requiring examination.
And suddenly, says Rabbi Teichtal, even before the Holocaust provided positive proof in favor of Zionism, it shook us out of our dogmatic slumber and led us to a discussion of issues that we had left on the sidelines. In other words, it is now a fault not to re-examine ideological questions, and the lack of willingness to analyze and criticize existing views may lead to terrible mistakes.
We learn of another reason for his earlier opposition to Zionism from testimony as to a sermon that he delivered to a congregation in Slovakia, when he returned there during some stage of his hiding:
"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 for selichot!" 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 for selichot!" – 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.
In other words: "Since the main spokesmen for Zionism were secular, liberal people, we closed our ears and refused to listen to the truth that they spoke." The Rabbi of Bilgoraj referred to the Zionist leaders as "false prophets," as if to say: "If that is their status, then one cannot listen to anything that they say." Why are they false prophets? Isn't that precisely the question – whether it is their vision that is correct, or that of the Rebbes? Clearly, in the opinion of the Rebbe of Belz and of his brother, the Rabbi of Bilgoraj, it was unthinkable that people who desecrated Shabbat and ate non-kosher food could be bearing the true word of God, while the vision of the great Torah sages and righteous tzaddikim was misguided. Indeed, a review of the chapters in Yirmiyahu that speak about false prophets (such as chapter 23 and chapter 29) shows that prophets were indeed disqualified because of improper behavior. It was to this claim that Rabbi Teichtal's parable sought to respond. We must accept the truth from wherever it comes. It is possible that God's true word is being conveyed by apostates and heretics.
Rabbi Teichtal understands the difficulty in accepting a true ideology from "negative" sources, and he addresses this difficulty at length in his book. The following are some of his answers in this regard.
a. If a view was previously stated by Torah sages and righteous people, then the fact that it later becomes associated with heretics and libertines in no way detracts from its truth. Indeed, the first part of "Em ha-Banim Semekha" includes a great number of sources indicating support for Zionism on the part of great Torah sages at the time of the movement's creation, or even prior to that (Rabbi Yehoshua Kutner, the Netziv, Rabbi Mohliver, etc.). The later opposition of the ultra-Orthodox leadership arose mainly owing to the secular nature of the movement, and therefore their reaction is tainted with the same mistake of judging the view on the basis of its bearer rather than on its own merits.
b. If a prophet whom we consider righteous tells us to transgress or to nullify a commandment, while a different prophet who is not righteous tells us to fulfill the commandment, what should we do? This is precisely the message of Rabbi Teichtal's parable, and many chapters of his book are devoted to a verification of the thesis that settling Eretz Yisrael is a commandment applying to the entire nation and also one that is time-dependent (in the sense of being possible to fulfill during a particular period), and therefore it is of no importance at all that the person calling one to get up for selichot is Weiss Shendor, since the mitzva must be fulfilled in any case. One cannot be negligent with the excuse that "the prophets led me astray" or "they didn't reprove me" (see Yechezkel chapters 3, 33).
c. Finally, even if the first two reasons were weak or doubtful, the Holocaust has come and had its say. And this is where we find the revolutionary aspect of Rabbi Teichtal's argument, from the ultra-Orthodox point of view: God speaks to us through history and wants us to listen to His will. If there was a time of grace during the early days of Zionism, this was no coincidence. Rather, it was God's Providence acting for our benefit, and we should have responded to it. Moreover, during the Holocaust God was telling us: I have decided this argument, and I am showing you the way to Eretz Yisrael. In Rabbi Teichtal's view, history contains religious instruction, which may be read and which must be obeyed.
With regard to the Rebbe of Munkacz, Rabbi Teichtal writes as follows:
And now I must add that if our teacher, the author of the "Minchat Elazar," were alive with us, and had seen all that has happened to us – the terrible decrees and the killings that they have perpetrated among us, he too would acknowledge that we should leave the countries of the Diaspora and go to Eretz Yisrael, which has been awarded to us by the world powers, and not wait for the Messiah's call.
R. Teichtal continues:
Furthermore, after the utter chaos that our Jewish brethren have experienced, it is obvious that the halachah does not follow those lofty saints who opposed the settlement. The earth has crumbled beneath the feet of millions of Jews here in Europe. Some of them had their blood spilled like water; others remained like a mast at the head of a ship, with no shelter or shade above their heads and no ground beneath their feet. They are like a lone ship in the waves of a sea of troubles; they do not know where to turn and what direction they are facing. In this situation, the halachah follows those gedolim who advocated settling and rebuilding the Land, as I will explain. (Em ha-Banim Semekha, pp. 247-248 in the M. Lichtman translation)
In other words, historical reality is significant; it conveys the will of God, and it must be obeyed. We examined previously the view of Rabbi Wasserman and his teacher, the Chafetz Chayim, maintaining that the proper world view is to be arrived at through study of Torah alone. We also examined Rabbi Dessler's argument in his article, "Emunat Chakhamim," according to which the positions established by the Sages with their immense knowledge and their Divine inspiration cannot be changed because of some or other historical or factual change (and he, too, was referring to the Holocaust). In addition, we reviewed the sermon of the Rebbe of Belz and his brother concerning the "false prophets." Here, Rabbi Teichtal declares that one's religious outlook should be molded by history and its messages, and that the Holocaust leads to an operative religious conclusion: aliya to Eretz Yisrael and participation in building the land.
C. World View and Historical Reality
Rabbi Teichtal is aware that he needs to defend, on the theoretical level, the fundamental position that he is proposing. He explains:
I will preface with the wondrous words of our mentor, the Kedushat Levi. Often, when there is an unresolved question in the Talmud, Chazal say "Teiku"[Berachot 8a, 25b; Shabbat 5a, etc.], which stands for "Tishbi yetaretz kushiyot u-ve'ayot" [Eliyahu the Tishbi will solve difficulties and questions]:
At first glance, one might ask: Behold, this will occur after the Redeemer comes (speedily in our days, Amen). Why, then, must Eliyahu solve the difficulties and questions? Moshe Rabbeinu a"h, who gave us the Torah and mitzvoth, will be alive; why won't he solve all the difficulties that we have with our holy Torah?
The answer is as follows: Seder HaDorot, commenting on the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam concerning tefillin, says that Rashi z"l was the "Moshe Rabbeinu" of his group. Rabbeinu Tam ignored this, saying that Moshe already gave us the Torah. Now it is up to us to teach according to our intellect's understanding of the holy Torah.
We will explain this briefly. Chazal say about the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, "These and those are the words of the living God" (Eiruvin 13b). For there is a level at which a man's essence determines the way he understands our holy Torah. If he comes from the world of loving-kindness (chesed), then, according to his understanding of our holy Torah, everything is pure, permitted, and kosher. If he has the attribute of strength (gevurah), the opposite is true. Now, Beit Hillel had the attribute of chesed; therefore, they were [more] lenient. Beit Shammai had the attribute of gevurah; therefore, they were strict. This is the meaning of "These and those are the words of the living God": In truth, each one [expressed] the words of the living God, according to their level.
Behold, our Sages z"l who lived after the generation of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel saw that the world needs to operate through chesed. Therefore, they determined that the halachah always follows Beit Hillel's leniencies. Now, who is capable of discerning the attribute through which the world needs to function, so that the halachah can be decided accordingly? Only someone who is alive and exists in this world knows which attribute the world needs. Someone who is not alive, however, does not know this at all. Eliyahu is still alive and always exists in this world, for he never tasted the taste of death. Therefore, he will resolve all the difficulties and questions, for he knows the attribute through which the world needs to function. This also explains Rabbeinu Tam's statement that once Moshe Rabbeinu a"h gave us the Torah, it is up to us to teach it.
The Kedushat Levi means that since Moshe Rabbeinu does not exist in this world, he cannot determine the halachah now, [at the time of redemption,] based on the world's needs at the time [of the giving of the Torah]. These words are befitting a godly man such as himself.
HaShem enlightened me, and I found that one of the great poskim, whose teachings radiate every day in every house of study, our great mentor, R. Moshe Mabit [a colleague of the Beit Yosef and a member of his court], agrees with our master, the Kedushat Levi, on this point. In he work, Beit Elokim, he provides the same explanation as the Kedushat Levi as to why Tishbi will resolve our difficulties and not Moshe Rabbeinu. Thus, two "prophets" prophesied in the same manner. I will quote his words … [omitted here].
Behold, this is the same thing that our mentor, the Kedushat Levi, says. That is, since Eliyahu never left this world, and he knows the situation of every generation, he can decide the halachah whenever necessary. On the other hand, a tzaddik who already departed this world and does not know the circumstances of a [later] generation, cannot decide the halachah for that generation. All of this demonstrates the greatness of the Kedushat Levi's intellect, for he was worthy enough to concur with our master, the Mabit, who lived at the time of the Beit Yosef. Had he seen this work, he would have been overjoyed to find a "companion" like himself.
We may conclude from the words of these two profound gedolim that when a tzaddik renders a halachic decision on a particular issue and then ascends to the heavens, the halachah does not necessarily follow his opinion. If circumstances change, making it very difficult for the generation to follow this tzaddik's stringent opinion, and some good will result from following the opinion of the other tzaddikim, then we do not follow his opinion. This is so because he is no longer in this world and he does not know what the world needs. Therefore, today, when it is impossible to remain in the Diaspora because of the great calamity that has befallen Israel, it is obvious that we need not be concerned with the opinion of those gedolim who opposed the settlement. Rather, the halachah follows those who advocated it, because the times require it. Moreover, perhaps if the former gedolimwere alive today and saw our predicament, they too would agree. (Em ha-Banim Semekha, pp. 248-252)
Halakha, asserts Rabbi Teichtal, is decided at all times in accordance with the needs of that time. We are not talking about abstract, a priori truths, but rather about normative and ideological matters – i.e., questions of behavior within life itself. And in such questions, only a person who is connected to the world can decide. Thus Eliyahu, who is always alive and existing in our midst, is preferable to Moshe Rabbeinu, who has perfect knowledge of the heavenly Torah, but not of the earthly one.
Attention should be paid to the "bridge" that Rabbi Teichtal creates here: according to his argument, a world-view or ideology is like Halakha. Therefore, issues such as the status of secularism, redemption, and Eretz Yisrael are treated no differently from other halakhic questions, in the sense that they must be decided based on knowledge of reality.
There is a further point that is worthy of clarification. According to several important opinions, Halakha is actually not decided on the basis of reality; it simply applies to reality. A halakhic discussion, according to such views, is theoretical and a priori in nature, arising from the words and the subjects dictated by the sources, and continuing with their analysis and interpretation. The importance of recognizing reality arises solely from the fact that this is the arena in which the halakhic directive is implemented. Reality does not speak; it has no opinion, but it is the object of Halakha, and sometimes even its catalyst (as we deduce from such concepts as "pressing need," "extensive monetary loss," "basic natures have changed," etc.). In these terms, we may view the Holocaust as a compelling factor with regard to the halakha maintaining that there should be no cooperation with the Zionist enterprise: this was unquestionably a time of pressing need, and saving lives takes precedence over any other halakha.
However, Rabbi Teichtal clearly means to state more than this. After all, the Satmar Rebbe survived the Holocaust, and likewise the Rebbe of Chabad, and both saw fit to move to the U.S. rather than to Eretz Yisrael. According to Rabbi Teichtal, reality is not only the object of ideology, or a compelling factor. Ideology, or a world-view, is determined on the basis of experience of reality, and listening to what it has to say.
I believe that this is one of the most important messages of the religious-Zionist view, even before we treat its views on matters pertaining to actual events and current affairs. The view according to which we maintain a discourse with history and hear God's voice within it, is what guides religious Zionism in all of its ways, and Rabbi Teichtal is a wonderful representative of this perception. There is a very interesting similarity between the process undergone by Rabbi Teichtal and the process described by Rabbi Soloveitchik – who likewise was raised within an anti-Zionist tradition – when he passed over to the Zionist camp:
If I now identify with the Mizrachi, against my family tradition, it is only because, as previously clarified, I feel that Divine Providence ruled like "Joseph" and against his brothers; that He employs secular Jews as instruments to bring to fruition His great plans regarding the land of Israel. I also believe that there would be no place for Torah in Israel today were it not for the Mizrachi. I built an altar upon which I sacrificed sleepless nights, doubts and reservations. Regardless, the years of the Hilterian holocaust, the establishment of the State of Israel, and the accomplishments of the Mizrachi in the land of Israel, convinced me of the correctness of our movement's path.
Rabbi Soloveitchik's article identifies the religious Zionist view with the biblical personality of Yosef. Yosef represents a religious position that is sensitive to history and that organizes its world view on the basis of the dialogue that it maintains between history, on the one hand, and Torah and tradition, on the other. Yosef's brothers adopted a conservative, "ultra-Orthodox" approach. The assertion that Divine Providence ruled in accordance with Yosef and against the brothers is not meant as support merely for the Zionist position, but rather as a definition of the proper basic religious approach. Rabbi Soloveitchik never experienced a prophetic revelation, telling him how Divine Providence had decided in the matter of Zionism; he simply read the historical reality.
The view of history as the medium of Divine revelation finds further expression in innumerable sources in the teachings of Rav Kook. The following is one outstanding example:
The main way of listening to God's voice is listening to the entire procession of the ways of life, in all their details; listening to groups of people in accordance with their distinguishing characteristics; and listening to each individual in accordance with his worth; with the supernal, all-encompassing wisdom, living and giving life to all of existence. And to the extent that the details arise more clearly from the supernal, all-encompassing spiritual life, which is the wisdom of the Divine soul in the world – a person will hear more clearly the voice of God speaking to him, instructing him and actually commanding him. "I am the Lord your God" who teaches you what to do, who guides you in the way that you should go. (Arpelei Tohar, p. 62)
From the ultra-Orthodox perspective, the demand "to hear the voice of God" is interpreted in the narrow sense: to observe Halakha. And Halakha is known to us from the literary sources and from the mouths of the great Torah leaders of the generation, who decide matters of Jewish law. Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, along with the Chafetz Chayim and Rabbi Dessler, assume that one's world-view is nothing more than just another chapter in one's halakhic study and commitment. Indeed, this was the view expressed by the Chazon Ish in his famous letter to the Knesset members representing the Mizrachi party, who asked him where one would find written that which he asserted to be "da'at Torah" (the issue in question concerned the prohibition of recruiting girls into the I.D.F. or national service). The Chazon Ish replied: "In the fifth section of the Shulchan Arukh, which is transmitted only to outstanding Torah scholars, whose opinion indeed represents da'at Torah."
As opposed to this view, Rabbi Kook asserts here that God's voice may be heard from every place where He is revealed. God's voice is revealed in history, as well as in every manifestation of reality. Listening in this context assumes an element of prophecy, over and above the halakhic sense of obeying. God's prophets hear His words via non-literary channels; they perceive His message not only from sources within Torah and Halakha. Indeed, the prophetic commandment is one that addresses reality and history.
The innovation that Rabbi Teichtal introduces in response to the experience of the Holocaust is the insistence on the need to hear God's voice within history, and not to suffice with His voice as it sounds from studying books. As arising from Rabbi Teichtal's words, the terrible catastrophe of the Holocaust, in certain respects, is the result of a religious view that limited God's voice to the small space in between words in books, and therefore failed to hear the command to leave the Diaspora in time. It is clear that the ramifications of this view extend far beyond the issue of the Holocaust, which is already part of our past. It pertains to almost all of our dealings with our private as well as historical reality, from time immemorial and until the present.
Translated by Kaeren Fish vbm
