Q&A: The Chazon Ish
The Chazon Ish
Question
"Since I am one of the great admirers of the Chazon Ish, who in my eyes was a very wise man and intellectually honest" — that’s what you wrote in one of your recent columns.
A. What was so special about him more than the other Haredi leaders of his time? For example, the Ahiezer or Rabbi Elchanan?
B. The Chazon Ish wrote: "We recoil from hearing doubt cast upon the words of the Sages, whether in Jewish law or in aggadah, as though it were a blasphemous report, Heaven forbid. And one who departs from this is, according to our tradition, considered a denier of the words of the Sages; his slaughter is carrion, and he is disqualified from testimony, and more."
There are many testimonies saying that he really held that the wine of a Mizrachi person was libation wine used for idolatry (see Ma'aseh Ish). He wrote that Mizrachi education was fake education.
Doesn’t he come across as strangely extreme, and as not looking at the facts and reality, in your opinion? Can these statements be justified? Can one argue that it was all just rhetoric, as you claimed in that column — that it was only meant to justify the conclusion that people should not entertain doubts about the words of the Sages — even though it seems he really believed it (both from the style of the writing and from the many testimonies)?
C. (A continuation of B.) Is it possible that he really received this from his rabbis, and that throughout the generations it was commonly accepted that casting doubt on the words of the Sages is so severe that one’s wine is considered libation wine? (He writes, "according to our tradition.")
D. If he were in our generation, do you think it would be proper to let him lead? Is he connected to reality?
Answer
I very much doubt that he really believed all this. I’m speaking about a general impression of his personality, his leadership, and his Torah. It’s hard to justify this in a more unequivocal way.
I do not agree with his approach, and I certainly would not accept his directives blindly, but that is true of anyone. I do not let anyone "lead" me.
Discussion on Answer
Ish, get to know the environment and you’ll see that many were like this. For example, Rabbi Chaim and the Griz — not exactly the same environment, but roughly — also spoke this way against anyone who didn’t really think the Sages were plus ultra ministering angels, and you have to understand the fear of the Enlightenment and so on, and the concern that every tiny flaw is a slippery slope…
To this day, the same phenomena exist in the Haredi public.
Many later authorities explained the statement of the Sages, "If the earlier ones were like angels, then we are like human beings; and if the earlier ones were like human beings, then we are like donkeys." The difference between angels and human beings is that angels have immediate, complete intellectual grasp, whereas human beings need to toil and analyze matters until they understand them properly. And indeed, many things that were simple to the Tannaim were difficult for the Amoraim, and many things that were simple to the Amoraim were difficult for the medieval authorities (Rishonim), and many things that were simple to the medieval authorities were difficult for the later authorities (Acharonim). Simply put, the farther a generation is from the revelation at Mount Sinai, the lower its level, for attending upon Torah scholars is greater than formal study of Torah.
But what’s the idea of cornering a person like this? Even if he held a few strange views, so what? It could have been a sign that in general his judgment was shaky, but the admiration came from a direct examination of some broader set of all his views — the others, usually the halakhic ones — and therefore no "sign" from other strange views will help.
Rabbi Michi?
If he really believed this, then that is a point against him. Still, he has many aspects that are very worthy of admiration (as T wrote).
In my opinion, his contempt for Mizrachi at least stemmed from the need at that time to emphasize and build the wall between Mizrachi (or the Religious Zionists and Religious Zionism) and the Haredim.
And perhaps the contempt is also connected to his statement about them that there were always mediocre people among the Jewish people in observance of Jewish law and in faith, but only in Mizrachi did they turn it into a method. And apparently the intention is to the accepted historical image that at that time, in this public, mixed dancing was very common, laxity in rules of physical contact was common, and in general there was very high ignorance that stemmed from lack of knowledge and lack of familiarity with Jewish law. I should note that I do not presume to say that this is how it really was.
That contempt was definitely there. Indeed, that was the situation among most Mizrachi people. Their serious layer is a very late development. At that time we were really talking about just a few individuals. Most of that public clung to Mizrachi ideology and used it in order to live comfortable, ordinary lives, without much knowledge and without much halakhic meticulousness. That was not the ideological method there — except in certain circles — but that was the reality among most of that public.
It’s worth reading the article by Dov Schwartz: "Religious Zionism in the Days of Rabbi Reines and Rabbi Kook: History and Ideas":
http://www.unisyn.org.il/%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%93%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A1-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99-%D7%94-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA
Ignorance — even if it existed — does not create concern about their wine. The concern, in my opinion, stemmed from the question of milking on the Sabbath.
What bothers me is the fact that the Chazon Ish defined anyone who arranged the sale permit during the Sabbatical year as aiding the hands of transgressors.
From your perspective, if he really believed all this — and in my humble opinion that’s what it looks like, which is why I’m asking — is he still worthy of admiration?
Meaning: does the approach that one must not challenge the words of the Sages itself show that a person follows conventions without thinking, like a blind person, or is it a legitimate opinion that you simply disagree with?