The Book “Swords to the Body of the Nation"
About a week ago, a new book by Rabbi Tzuriel Halamish - “Swords to the Body of the Nation" was published by the ‘Har Bracha Institute’. It covers a clarification of the Netziv’s (Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (1816-1893)) approach to the subject of Jewish unity, and the rejection of the idea of separating communities. In a broad and thorough introduction, Rabbi Dr. Boaz Hutterer explained the dilemma surrounding the idea of separating communities in Germany, Hungary, and Galicia.
The idea of separating communities was first raised in Germany, in communities where the Reform majority discriminated against the rights of the religious minority, and continued afterward in Hungary, in cases where the religious side feared coercion by the Neologues (as those similar to the Reform were called in Hungary).
In the year 5644 (1884), a leadership of progressives and modern religious figures was elected in the community of Kraków. In response, the journal of the Machzikei HaDat in Kraków raised the idea that those who were zealous for the word of God should establish a separate community for themselves. Against this, the Netziv wrote an article in which he rejected the idea of separating communities, since “this counsel is as swords to the body of the nation and its existence."
About six years ago I expressed this position, according to which it is forbidden to boycott the leaders of Reform and Conservative communities, and that despite the deep disagreements, one must express brotherhood toward them in every possible way. I explained this at length in several articles, and in doing so, I relied on the words of the Netziv, as our teacher and master Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook was accustomed to cite in his name.
Against this, there were those who argued that the Netziv was referring to separation from secular Jews, but that he supported separation from Reform Jews. And there were those who argued that although he wrote his words about Reform Jews, his words were stated in a general way, whereas in practice, he believed one should keep very far from them, and certainly not meet with them in brotherly manner, and in public.
By the grace of God, a book has now been published that thoroughly clarifies that the Netziv’s position was indeed against harming brotherhood with groups that do not conduct themselves according to halakha, including the Reform.
The Netziv’s Three Arguments
The Netziv raised three arguments against the “separation of communities": First, if the Jewish people are not unified, they will find it very difficult to stand against the hatred of the gentiles who threaten to destroy them.
The second: the decree of separation will not help prevent the influence of those who have left the faith, since even preventing the influence of the gentiles on those who are drawn after them proved difficult - all the more so, they will not succeed in preventing the influence of those who have left the faith upon them.
The third argument: it is natural that if they begin a sharp controversy against the wicked, they will subsequently be drawn into a sharp controversy against those who are less wicked, and will ultimately arrive at harsh controversies within the religious community itself. For even when we were in the Holy Land and Israel had a certain sovereignty, “the Temple was destroyed and Israel was exiled due to the controversy between the Pharisees and the Sadducees," as our Sages stated that the Second Temple was destroyed because of baseless hatred.
A Sober Analysis of the Method of Boycotts
Today, after 140 years, one can see that the method of boycotts and separation of communities indeed led to serious violations of the prohibitions against controversy, slander, and baseless hatred, until they have unfortunately become common and widespread among those who observe the commandments and study Torah.
At first, the controversies were only with Reform Jews and those who had left the Torah; afterwards, also with religious Jews who had not separated themselves from secular Jews, and with great Torah figures of Israel who had been partners in the Zionist movement that brought about the beginning of the redemption. Subsequently the controversy spilled into the inner courtyards of Hasidic dynasties and yeshivot, until it became accepted for rebbes and yeshiva heads, brothers and brothers-in-law, to revile and persecute one another, and in the best case, to be content with not speaking to each other for many years.
The permitting of the prohibition against controversy is many times more severe than the concern about excessive closeness to those who have left the Torah. As our Sages stated (Yoma 9b) that the First Temple was destroyed because of idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed, “but the Second Temple, in which they engaged in Torah, commandments, and acts of kindness - why was it destroyed? Because there was baseless hatred among them. This comes to teach you that baseless hatred is equivalent to the three transgressions of idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed."
A Study Evening at Kibbutz Ein HaNetziv
In honor of the book’s publication, Rabbi Akiva Zuckerman, rabbi of Kibbutz Ein HaNetziv, proposed that we celebrate the book’s launch with a study evening at the kibbutz named after the Netziv - and so it was. Many from the region participated in the event: Rabbi Shlomo Rosenfeld, Rabbi Moshe Bigman, Rabbi Benny Holtzman, Rabbi Achiya Amitai, as well as members of the kibbutz, and women of the midrasha, led by Rabbanit Rachel Keren.
Indeed, it is a great distinction for the kibbutz that it merited being named after one of the greatest heads of yeshivot in recent generations, the head of the Volozhin Yeshiva, who was also an active partner in the leadership of the Chovevei Tzion movement together with other rabbis and secular Jews, united by the commandment to settle the Land. It is also a great merit for the Netziv that a religious kibbutz in the Land of Israel bears his name.
Tirat Tzvi and Sde Eliyahu
The neighboring kibbutzim were also named after great figures of Israel who heralded Zionism and lived in the generation before the Netziv. Tirat Tzvi was named after Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer, and Sde Eliyahu after Rabbi Eliyahu Guttmacher.
It is worth noting that a characteristic of the rabbis who supported Aliyah to the Land, is that they also championed love of Israel, and opposed controversies with Jews who had left the Torah and with Reform Jews - like Rabbi Kalischer, who noted in his letters that he had succeeded in creating a reasonable relationship with the Reform rabbi and in maintaining the unity of the community in his city of Thorn. By contrast, those who advocated for the separation of communities also opposed initiatives to settle the Land, and actions that helped strengthen brotherhood among Israel.
A Testimony About My Great-Grandfather
My great-grandfather, Rabbi Dr. Chaim Yehuda Arye Weil, may God avenge his blood, who was a rabbi in Düsseldorf, Germany, and belonged to the Agudath Israel movement, worked in cooperation with the Reform Jews of his city. His daughter, my aunt Chana Paltiel, also testified to us that together with the Reform Jews they managed charitable affairs and assistance to the sick and a cemetery. He was not an innovator, but conducted himself as the rabbis of Germany customarily did.
His daughter Chana survived the Holocaust, survived the camps, immigrated with her husband Avraham to Kibbutz Ein HaNetziv, and lived to the age of 102. Even in her final years, when she had difficulty walking, her neighbor Tzipi Neuman recounted that she was meticulous about praying in the synagogue and walked to her place without assistance. Whenever the Ark was opened, she was careful to stand, and during Aleinu Leshabeach on the High Holidays she would bow, and with her remaining strength, straighten up unassisted. Her father, who was killed in sanctification of God’s name at Auschwitz, had told her that the most beautiful day of the year for him was Yom Kippur.
Living with One’s Parents in a Home Without a Mezuzah
Q: During my military service I began to return to religious observance, and today I am careful about many commandments. The problem is that my parents do not wish to affix mezuzot in the house. Is it permitted for me to live in my parents’ home when there are no mezuzot?
A: It is a mitzvah to gently persuade your parents to agree to affix a mezuzah in their home. However, even if they do not agree, it is permitted for you to live in their home without restriction. This is because the obligation of mezuzah applies to the one to whom the house belongs, as it is written: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house" (Deuteronomy 6:9). And since your parents are the owners of the house and not you, the commandment of mezuzah applies to them, and not to you.
A Guest
The same is the law for a guest who is staying in a home whose doorways have no mezuzot - he is not obligated to affix a mezuzah in the room where he is staying. And even if the hosts agreed that he should live in their home for a long time, since he does not pay for his lodging there, and the homeowners can remove him at any time, he is not obligated in mezuzah. However, if the homeowners are Jewish, it is a mitzvah to bring the matter to their attention, and if necessary, it is a mitzvah to purchase the mezuzot for them.
The Law of Mezuzah for a Renter in the Diaspora
One who rents a house in the Diaspora becomes obligated in mezuzah after 30 days, since as he lives in the house permanently, the house is considered his house. And if from the outset he rented the house for more than 30 days, he becomes obligated in mezuzah from the beginning of the rental. And if he rented for less than 30 days, since he lives in the house temporarily, he is exempt from mezuzah (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 286:22; Aruch HaShulchan 49).
The Law for a Renter in the Land of Israel
But in the Land of Israel, where it is a mitzvah to settle it and to dwell in its homes, our Sages ruled that even one who rents a house for a single day is obligated to affix mezuzot in it (Menachot 44a; Shulchan Aruch ibid.). This is so that those who rent homes in the Land of Israel should feel connected to the Land, and once they affix a mezuzah in their rented home, the chances will increase that they will want to remain in it. And even if they leave, those who come after them will see that a mezuzah has already been affixed in the home, and will be more inclined to enter it - and the result is that the Land becomes settled (Rashi ibid.). In addition, a Jew’s natural place is in the Land, and therefore, even one who rents for a single day is considered a permanent resident (Da’at Kohen 179).
A Guest in a Hotel or Vacation Rental
A guest in a hotel or vacation rental, even in the Land of Israel, is exempt from mezuzah for the first 30 days, since he lives there under the auspices of the hotel or rental owner. One who rents for more than 30 days becomes obligated in mezuzah after 30 days, since the payment for the room and the permanent stay in it, elevates his status to something approaching that of a renter.
However, if the hotel is in the Diaspora, there are those who say that even after 30 days he is exempt from mezuzah, since in general, a Jew’s stay in the Diaspora is temporary, and as long as he is not truly renting, the house is not considered his. In practice, it is good to affix a mezuzah without a blessing.
A Factory in Partnership with a Non-Jew
Q: I am a partner in a factory with a non-Jew. Am I obligated to affix mezuzot in all the rooms of the factory?
A: The halakhic authorities disagree on this matter. In practice, it is correct to take both approaches into account, and to affix a mezuzah there without a blessing (Birkei Yosef 286:2). This is on condition that there is no concern that the factory workers will treat the mezuzah with contempt; but when there is such a concern, even if the factory is owned solely by a Jew, a mezuzah should not be affixed there (Shach 286:7).
This article appears in the ‘Besheva’ newspaper and was translated from Hebrew.
