Did the Agudah in 1937 permit what happened in 1948?

The following letter was published in the journal Kedushas Tzion, Elul Tishrei 5785 (2024).

I would like to comment on the sefer Achakeh Lo by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Cohen of New York. The sefer, which is written in Hebrew and English, comes to support the opinion of the Vayoel Moshe and brings many ideas that are widespread in those batei midrash.

The form of the book is that first he brings sources about exile, then he speaks about the three oaths in Kesubos 111, and then he brings the opinions of Gedolei Yisroel from the beginning of the era of Zionism until our time. And the point I would like to comment on is that he argues that there were no Gedolim who were in favor of the establishment of the state. Now I am not talking right now about the problem of a state that does not follow the Torah, but rather about the establishment of the state itself. This is what bothers him. Now, he also agrees that there were rabbis who were in favor of the establishment of the state. But according to him, there was no “Gadol” who permitted it. The names of the rabbis who permitted it appear in the book on page 373.

He even brings the opinions of Gedolei Yisroel who permitted mass aliyah when done with the permission of the nations, which is against the opinion of the Vayoel Moshe. And he brings that there were Gedolim who permitted to vote in the Israeli elections, which is also against the opinion of the Vayoel Moshe. However, according to him, even these Gedolim agreed that the very existence of the state is forbidden. But what I noticed is that from the book itself, we see that his assertion is not true. For example, the book quotes many statements from the Brisker Rov, who was against the establishment of a state. On page 241, he quotes the sefer Teshuvos V’hanhagos, volume 2, Orach Chaim, siman 140, in the following language:

In the year 5697 (1937), the Knessiah Gedolah of Agudas Yisroel discussed the establishment of a partitioned state. The Brisker Rov was very angry that they discussed this since it would lead to bloodshed. Rabbi Avraham Kalmanovitz asked him, “Why do you care so much? Why are you screaming so much? The British will in any case not listen to rabbis.” The Brisker Rov brought the Gemara in Sanhedrin 26a where Chizkiyahu was afraid that Hashem would follow the majority. But they told Chizkiyahu, “A conspiracy of the wicked does not count.” This implies that if they are not wicked, then Hashem does indeed follow them. And therefore he, the Brisker Rov argued that at the Knessiah, most of the Gedolei Hador have gathered, and Hashem follows the majority, and they agreed to the establishment of the state itself. They only differed as to whether it was permitted to give up on parts of the land of Israel. And he said then, in the year 5697, “I am afraid that the state will come into existence because this is not a conspiracy of the wicked and they do count.” The above is what I heard and wrote down in my notes from the Brisker Rov’s son, Rabbi Yosef Dov, zatzal.

So far, this is the quote from Achakeh Lo. So we see in his book itself a proof from the words of the Brisker Rov that most of the Gedolei Yisroel, most of the Gedolim of the generation, agreed to the establishment of a state. By the way, this contradicts the argument of the Satmar Chasidim, in many publications that they produce, that most of the Knessiah Gedolah was against the establishment of the state.

Rabbi ET

The editors of the journal turned to me for a response. Here is what I wrote.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the letter by Rabbi ET on my book Achakeh Lo. What the Brisker Rov said – that most of the gedolei Yisrael agreed to the establishment of the state itself – was in the year 5697 (1937) at the Knessia Gedola, at which they discussed the proposal of the Peel Commission, under which the British would give a portion of the land to the Jews in a peaceful manner. Only in this situation was there a possibility of permitting it, because these gedolim explained the words “as a wall” to mean through war and conquest, and here there was no conquest because the land was being given to them as a gift by the nation that ruled it. But regarding a state established through war, as actually happened in the year 5708 (1948), where the British left the land to the Zionists and the Arabs to fight over, and whoever would be stronger would win, there is no indication that any of those gedolim would have agreed. And those who in fact did permit a state even through warfare are only the list that I provided in my sefer on page 373.

It seems that Rabbi ET saw only my English edition, which was published in 2018, and not the lashon hakodesh edition which was published in 2023, in which I added some material. There I have twelve names of rabbis who permitted the state as it was. I mentioned there that they are the minority, and also pointed out – and this is the main point – that all of them wrote their words after the year 5708 (1948). Their ruling was an after-the-fact ruling, a limud zchus, a post-facto justification for something that already existed in any case. In my humble opinion, this type of ruling is not as significant as the ruling of a rabbi who lived before the action and permitted it as a lechatchila. Now, the question is, if there was a real reason to permit a state founded through warfare, why was there no one at all who gave a heter on this before it happened?

Regarding the question of whether there was a majority of gedolim at the Knesia in 1937 who voted for the state, this is not clear. In the book Achakeh Lo, I brought one version of the story with the Brisker Rov, in which the Brisker Rov stated, “That is what worries me: to me it is clear that it is forbidden to establish a Jewish state even if it will cost one Jewish life, but if a majority of the greatest rabbis decides in favor of a Jewish state, I am afraid that Hashem will follow the majority.” According to this version, the Brisker Rov was speaking before the Knessia, or before its conclusion, and he did not state clearly what he thought the majority was saying. And even according to the other version, Rav Sternbuch’s version, we see the Brisker Rov said, “At this Knessia, most of the gedolei hador have gathered, and Hashem goes after the majority. And they agreed to the state itself and only disagreed if it is allowed to forego parts of it.” From these words, it sounds that all the gedolim who were there, who were the majority of the gedolei Yisrael, agreed to the state itself. But we know that there were many of them who disagreed, as I brought from the Hapardes there.

The stormy gathering deliberated for seven hours; they drafted decisions and fought over every stroke of the pen. Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Rottenberg from Antwerp, the Rabbis of Czechoslovakia and Hungary were in favor of rejecting any suggestion for a Jewish state, even on both sides of the Jordan, even if it was established on a religious foundation, because this would be a sort of denial of the belief in the coming of moshiach. Even worse, this small state would be built on the foundation of kefirah and the name of heaven would be desecrated. However, the Rebbes of Boyan, Sadigur, Rabbi Tzirelson, Rabbi Levin of Reisha, and Rabbi Sorotzkin held that it is possible to agree according to the laws of the Torah to the establishment of a Jewish state in part of Eretz Yisrael without denying the coming of the redeemer.

So we see it was not clear who was in the majority. Harav Sternbuch himself brings that Rabbi Wasserman and Rabbi Kotler wanted to leave the gathering when it looked as if they might agree to a Zionist state. The Brisker Rov may have meant that most of the gedolim at the Knesia were in favor of a state, and their opinion was accepted, but then it is not clear that they were most of the gedolei Yisrael in the world. Because if you combine the minority at the Knessia with the rest of the gedolei Yisrael in the world, maybe there was a majority against the state. And it could be that the Brisker Rov’s associates or family did not tell him all the details about the Knessia. They merely told him that the Moetzes had agreed to a state.

The journal subsequently published a response to this by Rabbi MM:

You wrote in your sefer, and you wrote again above that those who permitted the state were the minority. But you haven’t proven this from anywhere. And on the other hand, Rabbi ET brought great witnesses to testify to his position that most gedolei Yisrael did agree to the establishment of the state: The Brisker Rav, his son Rav Yosef Ber, and Rav Moshe Shternbuch – all of them opponents of the state, yet they all agreed that most gedolei Yisrael supported the establishment of the state.

You tried to deflect this proof in several ways. First of all, you claimed that the issue under consideration at the Knessiah Gedolah was establishing a state with the permission of the nations and without war, whereas in 1948, the British left the land before the Jews (whom you call Zionists) and the Arabs, and whoever was more powerful would win. Therefore, this is not similar to 1937.

However, the fact is that the British ruled over the land with the power of the mandate given to them by the League of Nations, a mandate whose goal was to lay the groundwork for a Jewish state that would be established in its place. At the end of the mandate, the British left the land in order for the national home for the Jewish people to come into being as planned. The malicious plans of the British who wanted to stay in the land, had they not been forced out by the Jewish underground, and their actions that were done with the desire and the hope to give more power to the Arab gangs in the land after they left, do not interest us and have no bearing on the facts. The fact is that the land was given to the Jews with the permission of the nations.

And indeed, a short time later, after the establishment of the state, many countries in the world recognized the new state, which embodied the will and the vote of the UN a short time earlier.

Also, the fact that Arab gangs and Arab countries declared war against the decision of most countries in the world does not make any difference. I have a book in my hand. It’s called Ezra. And there it is described how the various gangs that existed in the land at the time of the Jews’ return to Zion under Cyrus fought with all their strength against the poor Jews who had returned to their land. Do you think that in light of this, those Jews were considered “olim b’choma,” going up as a wall? Doesn’t everyone agree that Ezra’s aliyah was considered an aliyah with permission and peace with the government?

And furthermore, I am shocked. Do you really think, Heaven forbid, that the rabbis at the Knessiah Gedolah were fools who thought that the Arabs who had infiltrated the land would accept with songs and praise the Jews who returned to their land and establish a state? According to you, did they not know or hear about the Arab uprising that had already begun in the land one year earlier? It must be that you relied on the fact that an uneducated reader would not pay attention to the fact that the Knessiah Gedolah took place already after the Arabs launched their uprising against the Jews. However, the simple truth is that 1937 and 1948 are the exact same story. The entire Knessiah was happening in the shadow of the events of 1936, when the idea was proposed to partition the land between the Jews and the Arabs.

And the conclusion of the Moetzes was:

The holy land whose boundaries were established by Hashem in the holy Torah, is given to the Jewish people forever. And any concession on these boundaries are null and void.

And it could be that indeed the Brisker Rav’s words came true and because of the psak of Gedolei Yisrael, Hashem Yisbarach allowed the establishment of the state.

You also argued that according to a different version of the story, the Brisker Rav did not say who the majority was. Also, you said that even if most of the rabbis at the Knessiah Gedolah did support the establishment of a state, this does not yet prove that most gedolei Yisrael supported that, because if we combine the minority of those who were opposed at the Knessiah to other gedolim who did not participate in it, we will reach the majority you hoped for who opposed the establishment of a state.

Besides the fact that all your words are just raising a question by assuming certain unlikely assumptions, I don’t see any reason to ask any question here. First of all, you claimed that most of the gedolei Yisrael opposed the State of Israel, the establishment of the state. And for this, you have no source at all, only your own desire. And the most that could be said is that perhaps we could say, with difficulty, that we don’t have a majority in support of a state.

If so, before I finish talking, there is already a problem with your words. Why do you make the assertion that most of the gedolei Yisrael opposed the establishment of the state? This is something you need to recant. As to your question itself, we don’t have to make any dispute between these two versions of the story because they could both be explained in the same way. The Brisker Rav was asked, why do you have to get upset about this fact that they that they want to have a state, since in any case the British are not listening to the gedolei Yisrael? His reply was that it was important to him, the Brisker Rav, to try to influence the gedolei Yisrael at the Knessiah because in heaven they do take into account what they say. This means that according to both versions of the story, he hoped that he would succeed in changing the minds of those rabbis at the Knessiah, and therefore he protested. And even according to the second version (where he didn’t say what the majority held), we can assume that if he needed to cry out and protest, it must be that he saw that most rabbis were leaning against him. And according to both versions, we don’t see that he ever succeeded in changing the mind of any of those at the knessiah. In such a case, when we don’t know something – that is the proof that it isn’t true.

And on the contrary, this version that you quoted seems to clearly indicate that the Brisker Rav was not crying out for nothing; it was because he saw that he was the minority.

Also, what you wrote that maybe if we combine the minority of those opposed at the knessiah wih the gedolei Yisrael who were not at that knessiah, maybe that would tip the scales against the state, this is a weak argument. Number one, the Brisker Rav did not hold that way. He considered the Knessia as that gathering that heaven would look at and determine history. Secondly, it’s only logical not to count those who did not join the vote. If most of the gedolei Yisrael were at the gathering, having been selected as representatives of their communities, and they sat and voted on the matter, that is what Chazal say, “You have no other beis din besides the beis din in your times.” So how could someone sitting at home claim to be part of this vote? In any case, why would you assume that most of those at the Knessiah supported the state, but most of those who stayed at home opposed it? This is just false prophecy and you’re just trying to make up a story that’s hard to contradict.

And that’s why I ask you, you did all this to prove your point? Why are you doing that? Just to undermine the Brisker Rov’s words? In order to save yourself from the need to agree that there is no source in the world that according to which most Gedolei Yisrael were opposed to the Jewish state? At the most, you could say something very, very forced that it’s not so clear that there was a majority of Gedolei Yisrael who supported it. But this doesn’t save you because even after that, you have no proof that they were against it.

I replied:

You printed a letter by Rabbi MM, who writes that according to the Brisker Rov, most Gedolei Yisrael in the year 1937 decided that it was allowed to establish a state, even through warfare.

And you made it seem as if I, an insignificant little person, am coming to reject the words of the Brisker Rov and to say that in fact, the Gedolim did not permit it through warfare, only in a peaceful manner, not as actually took place in 1948. 

But in fact, that is not what’s going on here. The Brisker Rov, with his foresight, understood that a partition plan would result in war with the Arabs. And he said explicitly that the Gedolim at the Knessia did not foresee this. And therefore, in his opinion, they made the mistake of permitting a state which would lead to danger. He was afraid that Hashem would follow the majority and cause this state to come into existence, and then the Arabs would go to war against it. Not that the Gedolim permitted this war, and therefore there would be war. But rather, that the Gedolim permitted accepting a state as a gift from the British, without foreseeing that there would be war, and then, when Hashem would rule according to their words, the automatic result would be war, and there would be danger to the Jewish people.

Here are the Brisker Rov’s words as reported by his sons, Reb Yosef Dov and Reb Dovid in a booklet, which is quoted in the sefer “From Katowitz to the fifth of Iyar” page 300.

He was very angry that they were discussing this at the Agudah. And he said that they are coming to discuss if it is permitted to concede pieces of Eretz Yisrael. But to concede even one Jewish life is certainly forbidden. And we know that the Arabs will not take this partition silently, and there will be war and Jews will be killed. And who knows how much blood will be spilled?

According to the version cited by Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Shulsinger in his sefer Pninei Rabbeinu HaGriz, page 148:

The Brisker Rov said, “Why are they discussing the partition plan? How will this partition be executed? Isn’t it clear that the Arabs will definitely not agree to this partition? The partition cannot come into being peacefully. It is clear as the sun that as soon as a Jewish state is established, according to the partition plan, the Arabs will immediately declare war on it, and Jewish blood will be spilled. And there is no heter in our holy Torah to spill the blood of even one Jew for the sake of the establishment of a Jewish state.” At this point, Rabbi Avrohom Kalmanovitz asked, “Aren’t we discussing here that the UN and the British will carry out the partition peacefully, with the agreement of both sides and not that there should be blood spilled?” The Brisker Rov replied, “It will not happen that way. The Arabs will never agree to the establishment of a Jewish state. There will definitely be blood spilled. And even if there is a possibility that blood might be spilled, it would be forbidden. And all the more so when we know for sure that it will happen.”

According to Rabbi MM, the Gedolim who permitted the state in 1937 also knew well that the state would lead to war with the Arabs. And he calls anyone who thinks otherwise a fool, because the Arab uprising had already begun one year before the Knessia. But it seems that Rabbi Kalmanovitz, who was at the Knesia, did not think that there would be war. And also the words of the Brisker Rov are that the Moetzes did not take into account the question of loss of human life.

We also have on record a letter from Rabbi Yaakov Rosenheim testifying to this, brought in the book “From Katowitz,” page 339.

The agreement of Agudah to the establishment of a state before the coming of moshiach is based on the rulings of the Gedolei Torah. However, those rulings depend on two basic conditions, which are far from reality and possibility: 1) the state must be conducted in accordance with Torah and tradition; 2) there must be peace with the Arabs. The second condition is in order to fulfill the oath against going up as a wall (Kesubos 111a). This oath forbids us to take any military action or conquest of the land against the will of the Arabs and the governments of the world. The oath prohibiting rebellion against the nations refers to revolution by military force.

And regarding the argument that only a fool would think that the Arabs would accept a Jewish state peacefully, don’t we see that even decades after the establishment of the state, after all the wars with the Arabs, there are still some who think that the two-state solution will bring peace? And even if very few think so today, in the 1980s it was still a reasonable possibility, discussed by Gedolei Yisrael such as Rav Shach and Rav Ovadia Yosef, who both supported the return of land for the sake of peace. All the more so in the year 1937, when they had only seen a short period of uprising on the part of the Arabs, many people, even among those who knew the situation well, thought that it could be done peacefully through partition, especially a partition like the Peel Commission’s, which gave the Jews only 20% of the land.

I will add that the British government only considered carrying out the Peel Commission’s partition if the Arabs would also accept the idea (which they didn’t, which is why it was dropped). And that is why it was very logical to assume that if the official representatives of the Arabs agreed, the other Arabs would not disrupt it or try to stop the plan from coming into existence. Only the Brisker Rov with his great wisdom about the world realized in advance that this would not happen.

And on the contrary, I ask Rabbi MM, according to you, that those rabbis who permitted the state knew well that there would be war, why indeed did they permit establishing a state under such conditions? What did they say to the Brisker Rov’s argument that it is forbidden to give up on one Jewish life for the sake of a state? Did they have prophecy like in the time of Ezra, that we have to return to our land and build the Beis Hamikdash? Were the lives of so many thousands of Jews not important to them? Certainly, he must admit that the whole debate at the Knessia was about a state given peacefully.

And indeed we see that Rabbi Yehuda Leib Tsirelson in his responsum written at the Knesia in favor of accepting the partition plan, quoted in the Shailos u’Teshuvos Yad Mordechai and also in my sefer, did not speak at all about danger. And even Rabbi Mordechai Rottenberg in Yad Mordechai there, when he came to disagree with Rav Tsirelson, did not mention the consideration of danger. And so too Rabbi Menachem Ziemba, who spoke publicly at the Knessia, did not mention danger at all. According to him, the question was which way would bring a greater Kiddush Hashem to the world: the establishment of a state in the eyes of the nations, or our refusal to accept a state based on our faith in the promise of Hashem to bring the complete redemption. This is printed in Chidushei HaGramaz, 54.

So we see from this that it did not occur to them that there might be war and danger. If they had foreseen that there would be danger, they should have written this explicitly, and then explained why according to them it is worth entering into this danger. Therefore, I stand by my position that the Gedolim who permitted the state in 1937 would never have permitted what happened in 1948.

And on the contrary, look at the history of the Agudah in 1948 and see if they were able to find any Gedolim at their time who were willing to lend their support to the state under the UN’s partition plan, in light of what was already known: that it would bring about war. According to the testimonies brought in the book “From Katowitz to the fifth of Iyar,” Agudah’s lay leaders wandered from one Gadol to the other without getting a clear answer.