A Respectful Response to Rav Aharon Feldman Shlita’s “Treif Into Kosher: The Story of Eretz Hakodesh”

by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Rabbi Feldman’s scholarly article printed in Dialogue #9 presents a deeply felt argument against Charedi participation in Zionist institutions, particularly focusing on Eretz Hakodesh’s involvement in the World Zionist Organization (WZO). His central thesis portrays this participation as an unprecedented and unacceptable departure from traditional Charedi opposition to Zionism, which he characterizes as “treif” (non-kosher) being transformed, inappropriately, into “kosher.”

Rabbi Feldman’s position, articulated with evident passion and erudition, rests on several key assertions:

1. That leading gedolei Torah of previous generations uniformly prohibited collaboration with Zionist organizations
2. That Eretz Hakodesh has employed a “three-pronged public relations onslaught” of “trivialization and obfuscation, falsehoods and empty promises” to justify its participation
3. That no tangible benefits have resulted from this participation, and those promised have failed to materialize
4. That the very act of joining the WZO constitutes a Chilul Hashem of “breathtaking magnitude”

While Rabbi Feldman’s Torah erudition and his sincere commitment to Torah values is evident and highly commendable, I would like to respectfully suggest that a more nuanced understanding of the historical relationship between Torah-true Judaism – (and particularly Agudah’s)  and the Zionist movement may lead to different conclusions.  There has always been the Agudah approach and that of the Eida Chareidis.

Historical Context: A More Nuanced Reality

Rabbi Feldman cites various historical examples of rabbinic opposition to Zionism, including statements from the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, and Rav Elchonon Wasserman. However, the historical record, particlaurly after the rise of the State of Israel reveals a more complex picture than uniform opposition.

Precedent for Pragmatic Engagement

Most significantly, Agudath Israel participated in signing Israel’s Declaration of Independence through Rabbi Yitzchok Meir Levine, the son-in-law of the Gerrer Rebbe. This momentous act appears to have had the blessing of major Torah authorities of the time. The article does not address this crucial historical fact, which demonstrates that pragmatic engagement with state institutions has precedent among Torah leadership.

True there were hiccups and glitches particularly after the gius banos steps by the Zionists, but, for decades religious parties have joined coalitions with various Zionist groups to form governments in Israel. Initially, there were guidelines – for many years religious representatives did not take cabinet positions but did ally with Zionist parties. This pragmatic approach evolved over time, always guided by daas Torah, but consistently maintaining a path of engagement rather than total separation.

The WZO Comparison to the Knesset

Rabbi Feldman’s article specifically addresses Rav Reuven Grozovsky’s distinction between participation in the Knesset (which was permitted as a matter of survival) and participation in the WZO (which he opposed on ideological grounds). However, this distinction from 70+ years ago perhaps deserves reconsideration in light of today’s realities, where the WZO controls significant resources that directly impact Torah institutions.  This can be seen by Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l’s more pragmatic view as expressed here.  Some will invariably claim that Rav Chaim zatzal was manipulated here – but an unbiased view will clearly show that this is not the case.  

In addition, Rav Elya Brudny shlita and Rav Aharon Lopiansky shlita both spoke about it being worthwhile to privately vote in the WZO election in 2020. 

The article states on page 19: “Eretz Hakodesh also claimed its entry into the WZO would somehow help to counter threats to ‘kodshey Yisroel,’ presumably referring to areas such as giyur, kashrus and the Kosel…” but then dismisses this as “a flight of fantasy.” Yet the concrete results achieved by Eretz Hakodesh – including the recent allocation of $8 million to yeshivos and seminaries – demonstrate that these concerns were not fanciful but practical and well-founded.  

Contemporary Rabbinic Guidance

While Rabbi Feldman cites various rabbinic authorities who opposed Eretz Hakodesh, he does not address the significant support the initiative has received from current gedolei hador. There exists video evidence of Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l explicitly endorsing voting for Eretz Hakodesh. Additionally, Rav Gershon Edelstein zt”l advocated for joining and assisting Eretz Hakodesh.  Rav Dovid Feinstein zt”l was also an advocate of the nuanced approach and supported Eretz haKodeh.  Indeed, he instructed Rabbi Aryeh Zev Ginsberg shlita to be one of the delegates

Prominent rabbinic figures across the globe have supported this pragmatic approach, including Rav Elya Brudny and Rav Shmuel Fuerst in the United States, and the Rosh Yeshiva of Gateshead in England, Rav Gurevitz – son of teh Rosh She’arim and a brilliant Rosh Yeshiva in his own right. This widespread support from respected Torah authorities including major Roshei Yeshiva and Poskim in Eretz Yisroel suggests that the matter is not as clear-cut as presented in the article.  

Let’s also not that we are not always privy to teh internal discussions and disputes within Agudah itself (and rightly so).  At times, individuals with strong perspectives will strongly differ with a dissenting view.  I have seen documentation and letters when leaders in Agudah through their weight around even against the views of Rav Aharon Kotler zatzal himself!  

Addressing Specific Claims

On “Trivialization and Obfuscation”

Rabbi Feldman characterizes Eretz Hakodesh’s approach as trivializing the historical opposition to Zionism. He writes on page 13: “From the outset, Eretz Hakodesh has never once acknowledged, let alone addressed, the unanimous da’as Torah and psak halacha which for well over a century has prohibited collaboration with the WZO.”

This characterization overlooks the careful distinctions made by Eretz Hakodesh and its rabbinic supporters between ideological endorsement and pragmatic participation. The approach is not to trivialize previous rulings but to apply them with nuance to contemporary circumstances, just as Agudath Israel did when participating in Israel’s governance structures while maintaining ideological reservations.  

On “Falsehood”

The article claims on page 24 that Eretz Hakodesh falsely claimed rabbinic support, particularly regarding Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky shlita. Personally, I know this not to be the case.  However, the endorsements from numerous current gedolim mentioned above suggest that rabbinic support for the initiative is indeed substantial and genuine.

On “Empty Promises”

Rabbi Feldman asserts on pages 26-27 that Eretz Hakodesh’s promises of financial benefits have not materialized, stating: “If Eretz Hakodesh would be successful in receiving for all Chareidi institutions the amount Reform Jewry received, this would amount to about $400 per institution.”

This claim is directly contradicted by the recent allocation of $8 million to yeshivos and seminaries due to Eretz Hakodesh’s efforts. This tangible achievement demonstrates that participation has indeed yielded substantial benefits for Torah institutions.

The Traditional Approach of Agudath Israel

The nuanced approach to engagement with secular institutions has always been characteristic of Agudath Israel since the founding of the State of Israel. This approach recognizes that while ideological purity is essential, practical participation in existing frameworks is sometimes necessary to protect Torah interests.

There is no greater proof to this than the existence of Chinuch Atzmai itself, the school system founded by Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l himself  – which has single-handedly created facts on the ground.  They receive millions in funding from teh government.  IF Agudah would have chosen the path of teh Eida HaChareidis like Rav Feldman seems to wish to advocate for – these facts on the ground would not exist.

At the 4th Knessia Gedolah in Jerusalem in 1954, Rabbi Aharon Kotler sat alongside Rabbi Levine and Prime Minister Moshe Sharett. This symbolic gesture suggests that even leaders known for their strong ideological positions recognized the necessity of practical engagement in certain circumstances.

Benefits to Klal Yisroel

The pragmatic approach advocated by Eretz Hakodesh has already yielded substantial benefits for the Torah community. Beyond the recent $8 million allocation, this engagement ensures that voices representing Torah values are present in institutions that make decisions affecting religious life in Israel.

Rabbi Feldman’s article expresses concern on page 28 that “Eretz Hakodesh’s representatives will sit politely listening to all the kefirah being spouted and all the anti-Torah resolutions being passed.” However, without this representation, these resolutions would still pass, but without any voice advocating for Torah perspectives.

Conclusion

While Rabbi Feldman’s concern for maintaining the purity of Torah hashkafa is admirable and important, and necessary – the historical record suggests a more complex pattern of pragmatic engagement when necessary to protect Torah interests. This nuanced approach, guided by the daas Torah of each generation, better reflects the full spectrum of Torah leadership’s response to modern challenges.  

The Drashos HaRan writes that every tuvei hair requires voices from all sides of the spectrum – some more extreme than the others, and some more radical than the others. This is what keeps us balanced.  

The substantial support from contemporary gedolei Torah for Eretz Hakodesh’s participation in the WZO suggests that this approach is firmly within the tradition of Torah-true Judaism, albeit adapting to current realities. Just as our forebears made difficult decisions to protect Torah in challenging times, today’s leadership guides us through contemporary complexities with wisdom and foresight.

The tangible benefits already achieved through this participation demonstrate that, far from being an empty exercise, this engagement has meaningfully advanced Torah interests. In this light, Eretz Hakodesh’s approach might be better understood not as making “treif” into “kosher,” but as applying timeless Torah principles to contemporary challenges in a way that safeguards the future of Torah-true Judaism.

The author can be reached at [email protected]