The Misrepresentations of Hatekufah Hagedolah
Following the mention here (again) of the sefer Hatekufah Hagedolah by R. Mendel Kasher, and its use by many RZ's as a Mareh Mokom for "religious" pro-zionist material and more recently as proof of Charedi acceptance of the "Aschalta DeGeula" concept, my attention has been brought to the sefer "MiKatowitz ad 5 B'Iyar" by well known Yerushalmi lawyer/to'en rabboni R' Zvi Weinman, who (amongst other matters) deals quite severely with the Ha"H revealing the deliberate misquotes and deletions of its author - resulting in a complete misrepresentation and falsification of the facts (bim'chalas k'vod toroso).
Despite the respect for his monumental Torah Sheleimo, many have been
uncomfortable with RMK's Mizrachi-style views as stated in HaH, and which have
made him into something of an ideologue in Religious zionist circles.
At the time of its publication the tone and content of his sefer upset some and
not surprisingly, the Beis Din of the Edah Charedis of that time, led by Rav Pinchos Epstein z'l, issued a warning against the reading the HaH, labelling it 'Dei'os Kozvos' and adding that 'shahneh minus d'moshcheh..."
But, it is doubtful if even those who railed against him at the time, expected RMK to resort to doctoring and censoring material in order to 'manufacture' evidence for his ideas.
It seems surprising that a person with his vast knowledge, required the use of misleading and deceptive information to prove his case.
And if a layman like RZW can cut right through important historical facts of his book, one must wonder what a Talmid Chochom could do to the mareh-mekomos used in the rest of Ha"H?
(Those who have 'taanos' to Artscroll for altering/deleting pro-zionist sentiments in some of their their translations, may be surprised to learn that it doesn't come anywhere near the distortions that RZW reveals in the HaH!)
RZW goes to the heart of the Kol Koreh (recently mentioned by RSH) and printed in HaH, p.374, which is a call to vote for the Chazit Datit Me'uchedet, and featuring the notion of "Aschalta DeGeulah" following the establishment of the state of israel.
This KK is signed by chief rabbis Herzog and Uziel plus over 150 rabbis and Roshei Yeshivos - a number of them highly respected in the Charedi world.
The propaganda value of this KK can be seen from the fact that it is referred to again and again as clear and open 'proof' that even the Charedi gedolim accepted the ADG status of the new israel. (I have yet to see proof for any sighting of a repeat of this comment by these gedolim.)
However RZW goes further in his book (from p. 131) and discusses the background to this and the 2 other KK's of the time (one by the Admorim and another by Roshei Yeshivos - neither which mention ADG). He also notes that the ADG-KK was only published in the Mizrachi Hatzofeh - and NOT in the Agudist press (obviously they would have 'smelled a rat.').
Upon investigating the matter and contacting some of these signatories for their explanation, he found that they NEVER SIGNED THIS KK!
The modus operandi of the organisers for the KK was simple. They mailed out the text of that KK, notifying the recipients that anyone who does not send in an bjection, will have his name added to it.
This explains - writes RZW - the signature of Rav Menachem Kooperstock, who had passed away TWO AND A HALF YEARS prior to the date on the KK!!! He simply couldn't object...
RZW comprehensively debunks RMK's statements (p.231) that "k'mat kol gedolei
hatorah vechol RY's bo'oretz" accepted the concept of ADG, and (Ha"H page 387):
"...kovu v'ishru 200 rabbonim miyisroel kimat kol rabbonei ho'oretz gam chavrei Agudas Yisroel (milvad HaNeturei Karta).. .hashkofas daas hatorah merabonei ho'oretz bli pipukim vechashoshos...shehakomas medina hi...kehashgocho protis min hashomayim K'ASCHALTA D'GEULA."
As already mentioned above, RZW says that these quotes from HaH are regularly used by those who need it, to prove that the Gedolei Yisroel accepted the ADG.
(Indeed, I noticed in my (borrowed) copy of HaH that RM Kasher himself considered this KK so important, that he refers the reader to it - **right at the beginning of his book** - even before his Hakodomo.)
RZW continues, that not only did he speak to the Gedolim, who denied ever signing such a KK, but - after much effort - found the original document - with the signatures...and of course the document with signatures NEVER has the words "Aschalta DeGeula" on it!
The actual words there are (reproduced in his book): "...hanitzonim horishonim shel KIBBUTZ GOLIYOS..." (The HaH version: "...hanitzonim horishonim shel ASCHALTA DEGEULA."!!!)
(Incidentally, RZW adds, that at that time no one yet had any idea that this "kibbutz goliyos" would also cause with the mass Haavora al hadass in the Olim camps.)
RZW notes (p.144) that his criticisms of the HaH were originally published in the Z'eirei Agudas Yisroel monthly Digleinu (Shvat 5738) - during the lifetime of RMK, who obviously wouldn't or couldn't respond. (This is despite the fact that at the end of his foreword, he invited comments.)
On the subject of ADG, RZW brings the words of two disparate leaders of the Charedi world, the Lubavitcher Rebbe z'l and LHBCLC, the Ponowitz Rosh Yeshiva Rav Shach shlit'a who comprehensively dismiss the view that israel is either a geula or an aschalta degeula.
(If anyone has any doubt son this point, here are the words of Professor A. Ravitzky, in his book Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism (1996 by The University of Chicago), a prominent member of the Meimad party.
"...Who is a Haredi? Whoever views and experiences life in the Jewish state in Eretz Israel as exile - the exile of Israel in the Holy Land. One pole of the Haredi camp, the radical anti-Zionist one (particularly Neturei Karta circles), states that it is in exile because of the existence of the State of Israel, owing to both its betrayal of the Messiah and secular nationality; the opposite pole, the accommodationist non-Zionist one, maintains that it is in exile despite the existence of the State of Israel, despite the physical rescue and "the beginning of the ingathering of the exiles" that has accompanied its birth and existence. In any event - exile.
Those who share this perception, in all its various shadings, deny the possibility of an interim historical situation that is neither exile nor redemption. They unequivocally reject the validity of such a hybrid and recognize no halakhic or theoretical model appropriate to it. Any reality that is not totally messianic is, by very definition, total exile. For exile is not a geographic condition that can be overcome by aliyah and settlement alone. Neither is exile a political condition that can be corrected by the
attainment of national sovereignty and independence. The concept "exile" is
a theological, metaphysical one - the exile of the Shekhinah (Divine Presence) - that will expire only with the final setting right of humankind and the world. This responsibility imposed by exile on the Jewish people focuses exclusively on religious-spiritual activity, not on mundane political activity. The concept "exile" represents, first and foremost, a reality that has not yet been redeemed from sin: "Because of our sins we were exiled from our land" and "Israel will be redeemed only by repentance..."
For example, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn
(1902-94), explicitly stated: "The period in which we are now living is not the beginning of the redemption, and the aliyah of many Jews to the Holy Land is not the ingathering of the exiles, but rather the possibility of rescuing many Jews during the time of exile... The false redemption does not allow the true redemption to be revealed, for those who think that they are already living in the redemption do not perform the (religious) actions required for the going forth from exile and the revealing of the true redemption; they cause the rolongation of the Exile, the exile of the individual, the exile of the community, the exile of all Israel, and the exile of the Shekhinah."
Similarly, his outstanding critic Rabbi Eliezer Menahem Schach, the leader of the Lithuanian rashi yeshivot (heads of yeshivot) in Israel, declared, "The Jewish people is still in exile, until the arrival of the redeemer, even when it is in Eretz Israel; this is neither redemption nor the beginning of the redemption...Ad kaan leshono (of Ravitzky).
For more please click here:
http://www.herzl.org.il/course/1/ravi.htm
--------------------
Later on (p.282) in his book, RZW brings further evidence, that RMK's bias and prejudices caused him to censor/misquote and misrepresent facts in an article in the rabanut publication Shono Beshonoh, in order to give the impression that his pro-zionist views were not in conflict with the majority of the Gedolei Yisroel.
He further brings (photostatic) proof from an article in the Rabbinic journal Hapardes"
on the Knessiya Gedola in Marienbad in 1937 reporting the 7-hour discussion on the
question of a Jewish state, which was blatantly and unashamedly doctored by RMK, to give the impression that the only rabbonim against, were those from Hungary and Czechoslovakia (and conveniently deleting/censoring the names of RE Wasserman, RA Kotler and Rav Rottenberg of Antwerp.)
He also deleted the sentence that those voting against - held this view under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES - even if such a medina was built upon 'yesodos hadass', because, this (an independent state) would be "Kefirah b'emunas bias hamoshiach..." and
especially one built "...al yesodos hakefirah, venimtza shem shomayim mischalell."
In page 286 he also shows how RMK in HaH distorted the words of the Gerer
Rebbe (Imrei Emes) z'l at that meeting.
Another person who published (in 5729) an attack on RMK is Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit'a who was then a Rosh Kollel, living in Bnei Brak. His main aim is the Kol Hator which RMK attached to HaH - claiming it is the work of Rav Hillel Shklaver z'l purporting to be the views of the Gr"o z'l on Inyonei Geula etc - which somehow fit in very nicely with the views of HaH.
RMS notes that the clear evidence that the entire sefer is not from the Gr"o or his students is the fact that it contains many modern Hebrew words and it is therefore unclear what is from the original and what was added later. In his opinion KH should not have been published - being a "Dovor She'eino Mesukan".
He also expresses his surpise at RMK who ignored the Cherem Hakadmonim issued by the Bes Din of Vilna after the petira of the Gr"o not to publish anything in his name without the haskomo of the Bes Din..
RMS continues that RMK well knows the opinion of "rov minyan ubinyan gedolei
hador hakodem vedorenu" (including RC Brisker, REC Meisles, RE Wasserman,
RBB Leibowitz,RA Kotler and most of the gedolei Hachasidus) on these matters. But he disregards thems and only brings those who are leshitoso.
RMS then goes on to prove that even in this version of KH there are many rayos which clearly disprove RMK ideas in HaH and goes as far as calling him a 'megaleh ponim beTorah shelo kehalocho"!
His 'maamar' runs approximately 10 pages with point after point disproving RMK's pshat in the KH and the Gr"o's #######.
Hayotze Lonu Mizeh, that it's more than obvious that when it came to stand up for his prejudices, RM Kasher was quite prepared to openly and/or surreptitiously doctor, censor and distort the facts. Thus, LAD, his book should not be used as serious proof for any debate on matters relating to the medina and the views of the Gedolei Yisroel. And, as mentioned previously, all his rayos etc misforim vesofrim must be double and triple checked - before being quoted as "Toras Emes".
It seems to me that this need for distortion and misrepresentation shows that even this renowned Torah scholar felt that without it he could never convince the (Torah) world that an independent medina prior to bias hamoshiach was the ideal choice of
the recognised gedolim.
I discussed this material with a MO rabbi, who, to say the least (after seeing RZW's book), was quite disappointed - as, until now, the HaH was for him a mekor musmach. After the initial shock however, he went as far as to tell me that it is a 'mitzvah lefarsem' these 'ha'oros'.
