Detailed
Description |
|
This pamphlet is part of a series entitled: מאורעות זמנינו לפי דעת תורהby R. Elhanan Bunim Wasserman (1875–1941), Lithuanian talmudic scholar, yeshivah head, and communal leader. R. Wasserman received his education at the yeshivot of Volozhin and Telz, which were headed at the time by R. Eliezer Gordon and R. Simeon Shkop, respectively. In 1899 he married the daughter of R. Meir Atlas, rabbi of Salant, and spent some years studying in his father-in-law's home. In 1903 he was appointed head of the yeshivah of Amtshilov, where he proved an outstanding teacher, greatly influencing his students. He joined the kolel of the Hafez Hayyim in Radun in 1907 and remained there until 1910, when he was appointed rabbi of Brest-Litovsk. During World War I he returned to Radun and when the war reached that town the yeshivah moved to Smilovichi, where R. Wasserman was appointed its head. After the war he moved to Poland and established a yeshivah at Baranowicze, which became one of the most famous in Eastern Europe. He was one of the main pillars of the Agudat Israel movement together with R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski and the Hafez Hayyim, and was regarded as the latter's spiritual successor. Wasserman emerged as one of the outstanding leaders of Orthodox Jewry. In addition to his academic activities, he played a major role in communal affairs, contributing extensively to the Jewish press, and figuring prominently at Agudat Israel conferences.
He wrote Ikvata di-Meshiha, 1942, and published the responsa of R. Solomon b. Abraham Adret (the Rashba) with annotations. His talmudic novellae appeared in the rabbinic journal Sha'arei Ziyyon (1929–34) and in other publications. At the outbreak of World War II he fled to Vilna and in June 1941, while on a visit to Kovno, was arrested by the Nazis together with 12 other rabbis and sent to his death. On their last journey he encouraged his fellow victims to walk proudly and with head erect. "The fire which will consume our bodies will be the fire through which the people of Israel will arise to a new life, " he assured them.
R. Wasserman defined himself as an instrument of Torah as intertwined with Halakha, and his very being blended with them. According to his Weltanschauung, Torah was the inner definition of reality, and empirical history, however harsh, functioned according to it. He was categorically opposed to non-Torah voices: Yevseksies (Jewish communists), religious Zionists, and Enlightenment assimilationists. He contended that contemporary events were those of Ikveta de'meshiha (the period of suffering, which introduced the messianic era). In it, the consequences to anti-Torah evils were brought to a head. Thus, Jews suffered because they contained the seeds of Amalek, separated from Halakha. At the same time, suffering also purified Israel in anticipation of redemption.
Since Torah was immutable, to depart from the tradition of Torah meant heresy. R.Wasserman affirmed old truths as a matter of principle; maintaining what was old furthered the being of Torah. Second, R. Wasserman was a Halakha-immersed being, a reflection of Halakha and deliverer of it. Specifically, he was an instrument of halakhic truth as exemplified by his teacher Hofets Hayim. R. Wasserman explored reality to define it in halakhic terms: How did God weigh man's actions? Why did He issue certain decrees? What did Jews have to do to improve? Third, according to R. Wasserman's halakhic definition of being, Israel was radically divided. Those who wanted to uproot Torah and Mitsvot (Yevseksies, Maskilim) or sought to transplant Judaism with humanistic culture; or wished to establish a secular state or sympathized with the effort (Rav Kook), belonged to the Sitra ahra (the realm of negative other-being). Having left the inclusive community (Klal Israel), they were no longer neighbors to be loved as oneself as stipulated by the Law. While they could be accepted back if they did Teshuva, until they did, they remained worse people than Gentile antagonists; they belonged to the seed of Amalek, which insinuated itself into Israel's midst.
In his work Consoling Truth, Eliezer Schweid blends the content of "Omer Ani Ma'asi Le'melekh" with R. Wasserman's later Ma'amar Ikveta De'meshiha to formulate R. Wasserman's response to the unfolding tragedy. But "Omer" may have written earlier than 1932, and sections of Ma'amar were added after Kristallnacht. Given the powerful historical changes between the times of their composition, it is questionable whether the two texts should be treated together--whether or not the theology is consistent. The situation that prevailed before Hitler's rise to power was far different from that which prevailed around the time of Kristallnacht.
|
