Difference between revisions of "Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Notable Satmar people)
(→‎Orientation to Zionism)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
[[Shaul Magid]] writes:
 
[[Shaul Magid]] writes:
−
:While many people know of the general position of Teitelbaum and his Satmar community toward Zionism, few have actually read his works and understood the arguments from within the dense and complex context in which they were written. This is unfortunate, because his two anti-Zionist works, Vayoel Moshe, published in 1959, and ’Al Ha-Geulah ve ‘al ha-Temura (On Redemption and Exchange, taken from Ruth 4:7), a response to the Six-Day War published in 1967, offer detailed and intricate arguments that, contrary to what many believe, Zionism poses an imminent danger to the Jewish people and a deflection, rather than a procurement, of the impending messianic era. <ref name="Shaul">Shaul Magid [https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/satmar-anti-zionist The Satmar Are Anti-Zionist. Should We Care?]
+
:While many people know of the general position of Teitelbaum and his Satmar community toward Zionism, few have actually read his works and understood the arguments from within the dense and complex context in which they were written. This is unfortunate, because his two anti-Zionist works, ''[[Vayoel Moshe]]'', published in 1959, and ''[[Al Ha-Geulah ve ‘al ha-Temura]]'' (On Redemption and Exchange, taken from Ruth 4:7), a response to the Six-Day War published in 1967, offer detailed and intricate arguments that, contrary to what many believe, Zionism poses an imminent danger to the Jewish people and a deflection, rather than a procurement, of the impending messianic era. <ref name="Shaul">Shaul Magid [https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/satmar-anti-zionist The Satmar Are Anti-Zionist. Should We Care?] Few Jews today agree with the late Satmar rebbe’s attacks on Zionism. All the more reason to read them. Tablet. May 21, 2020</ref>
−
Few Jews today agree with the late Satmar rebbe’s attacks on Zionism. All the more reason to read them. Tablet. May 21, 2020</ref>
 
  
−
:Significantly, in the hundreds of dense pages of Teitelbaum’s works, he rarely mentions Zionism or Zionists outright, although he alludes to them often, usually with terms such as “minim” or “apikorsim” (heretics) or “horsei dat” (destroyers of religion). These terms are not particular to him but were commonly used by ultra-Orthodox thinkers in reference to Zionists. Teitelbaum almost never discusses Zionist thinkers, although in his essay on the Hebrew language, “Essay of Lashon ha-Kodesh” he often refers to Zionist educational initiatives and debates regarding the secularization and profanation of the Hebrew language. I have found only one reference in a halachic responsa where he mentions Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi of Mandate Palestine and architect of contemporary religious Zionism, and only in passing. Teitelbaum is not interested in direct polemics but rather creating a primary Torah source warning against the heresy of Zionism. His two major works are therefore replete with long digressions on talmudic dicta and their commentaries. They are clearly not meant for secular Jews, certainly not secular Zionists. In fact, one not conversant in the language of the beit midrash (“study house”) would have a difficult time unpacking his midrashic and halachic arguments.
+
:Significantly, in the hundreds of dense pages of Teitelbaum’s works, he rarely mentions Zionism or Zionists outright, although he alludes to them often, usually with terms such as “minim” or “apikorsim” (heretics) or “horsei dat” (destroyers of religion). These terms are not particular to him but were commonly used by ultra-Orthodox thinkers in reference to Zionists. Teitelbaum almost never discusses Zionist thinkers, although in his essay on the Hebrew language, “Essay of Lashon ha-Kodesh” he often refers to Zionist educational initiatives and debates regarding the secularization and profanation of the Hebrew language. I have found only one reference in a halachic responsa where he mentions [[Abraham Isaac Kook]], the first chief rabbi of Mandate Palestine and architect of contemporary religious Zionism, and only in passing. Teitelbaum is not interested in direct polemics but rather creating a primary Torah source warning against the heresy of Zionism. His two major works are therefore replete with long digressions on talmudic dicta and their commentaries. They are clearly not meant for secular Jews, certainly not secular Zionists. In fact, one not conversant in the language of the beit midrash (“study house”) would have a difficult time unpacking his midrashic and halachic arguments.
  
 
:These works are directed to his ultra-Orthodox community, who he believed were being, or could be, seduced by the Zionist narrative. This is particularly true with ‘Al Ha-Geulah, written when Teitelbaum saw the Six-Day War interpreted as a miraculous victory for Zionism. He often noted, half-jokingly, that all these secular Jews who didn’t believe in miracles suddenly started talking about miracles when it came to the Six-Day War. But more significantly, these works also represent a Jewish political theology, drawing on thousands of traditional sources, deployed to caution against the dangers of succumbing to the contemporary Zionist heresy.<ref name="Shaul"/>
 
:These works are directed to his ultra-Orthodox community, who he believed were being, or could be, seduced by the Zionist narrative. This is particularly true with ‘Al Ha-Geulah, written when Teitelbaum saw the Six-Day War interpreted as a miraculous victory for Zionism. He often noted, half-jokingly, that all these secular Jews who didn’t believe in miracles suddenly started talking about miracles when it came to the Six-Day War. But more significantly, these works also represent a Jewish political theology, drawing on thousands of traditional sources, deployed to caution against the dangers of succumbing to the contemporary Zionist heresy.<ref name="Shaul"/>
Line 23: Line 22:
 
:The difference between Teitelbaum and many of his colleagues was that only Teitelbaum spent significant intellectual capital developing a political theology that not only reacted to the circumstantial instantiation of Zionism as heresy but placed it in a theological context that has its roots in the biblical narrative, for example, the Israelite rebellion of the golden calf, Job’s blasphemous response to his suffering, the Israelites’ rebellion against Moses in the desert, and the history of miracle in the Israelite and Jewish tradition. In addition, Teitelbaum rejected the largely pragmatic acquiescence to Zionism in groups like [[Agudat Yisrael]], viewing them like the righteous who were fooled into serving the golden calf in the Sinai desert.<ref name="Shaul"/>
 
:The difference between Teitelbaum and many of his colleagues was that only Teitelbaum spent significant intellectual capital developing a political theology that not only reacted to the circumstantial instantiation of Zionism as heresy but placed it in a theological context that has its roots in the biblical narrative, for example, the Israelite rebellion of the golden calf, Job’s blasphemous response to his suffering, the Israelites’ rebellion against Moses in the desert, and the history of miracle in the Israelite and Jewish tradition. In addition, Teitelbaum rejected the largely pragmatic acquiescence to Zionism in groups like [[Agudat Yisrael]], viewing them like the righteous who were fooled into serving the golden calf in the Sinai desert.<ref name="Shaul"/>
  
−
:In his dissertation on Teitelbaum, Menachem Keren-Krantz of Tel Aviv University writes, “Most Jews and Orthodox rabbis [after the Holocaust] were sympathetic to the Jewish state, even if they were suspicious of its secularism and the success of religion [in Israel] in the coming years. For the first five years, R. Yoel [Teitelbaum] was the only one who continued to maintain a staunch anti-Zionist position which had emerged [earlier] from the schools of radical Orthodoxy in Transylvania and its environs.” Until the late 1950s, however, Teitelbaum did not publish anything substantive on the subject but made his views known in oral sermons and in various media such as the Yiddish newspaper Der Yid, which he founded in New York and was widely read in the Yiddish-speaking ultra-Orthodox community. By the late 1950s, seeing the ultra-Orthodox community softening toward what he considered the Zionist heresy, he decided to publish his views in book form, in Vayoel Moshe.<ref name="Shaul"/>
+
:In his dissertation on Teitelbaum, [[Menachem Keren-Krantz]] of [[Tel Aviv University]] writes, “Most Jews and Orthodox rabbis [after the Holocaust] were sympathetic to the Jewish state, even if they were suspicious of its secularism and the success of religion [in Israel] in the coming years. For the first five years, R. Yoel [Teitelbaum] was the only one who continued to maintain a staunch anti-Zionist position which had emerged [earlier] from the schools of radical Orthodoxy in Transylvania and its environs.” Until the late 1950s, however, Teitelbaum did not publish anything substantive on the subject but made his views known in oral sermons and in various media such as the Yiddish newspaper Der Yid, which he founded in New York and was widely read in the Yiddish-speaking ultra-Orthodox community. By the late 1950s, seeing the ultra-Orthodox community softening toward what he considered the Zionist heresy, he decided to publish his views in book form, in Vayoel Moshe.<ref name="Shaul"/>
  
  

Revision as of 11:41, 4 November 2024

Orientation to Zionism

According to the JC:

More importantly, however, even within Satmar the idea of actively supporting, in any way whatsoever, organisations that oppose the state of Israel, be they Far Right, Far Left, Islamist or anything else, is considered bizarre and in most cases actually forbidden.
The founder of Satmar, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, was absolutely clear that the PLO and other bodies were antisemitic murderers. He would never in a million years have supported a politician who was present at a wreath laying ceremony for the Munich Olympics terrorists.[1]

Shaul Magid writes:

While many people know of the general position of Teitelbaum and his Satmar community toward Zionism, few have actually read his works and understood the arguments from within the dense and complex context in which they were written. This is unfortunate, because his two anti-Zionist works, Vayoel Moshe, published in 1959, and Al Ha-Geulah ve ‘al ha-Temura (On Redemption and Exchange, taken from Ruth 4:7), a response to the Six-Day War published in 1967, offer detailed and intricate arguments that, contrary to what many believe, Zionism poses an imminent danger to the Jewish people and a deflection, rather than a procurement, of the impending messianic era. [2]
Significantly, in the hundreds of dense pages of Teitelbaum’s works, he rarely mentions Zionism or Zionists outright, although he alludes to them often, usually with terms such as “minim” or “apikorsim” (heretics) or “horsei dat” (destroyers of religion). These terms are not particular to him but were commonly used by ultra-Orthodox thinkers in reference to Zionists. Teitelbaum almost never discusses Zionist thinkers, although in his essay on the Hebrew language, “Essay of Lashon ha-Kodesh” he often refers to Zionist educational initiatives and debates regarding the secularization and profanation of the Hebrew language. I have found only one reference in a halachic responsa where he mentions Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi of Mandate Palestine and architect of contemporary religious Zionism, and only in passing. Teitelbaum is not interested in direct polemics but rather creating a primary Torah source warning against the heresy of Zionism. His two major works are therefore replete with long digressions on talmudic dicta and their commentaries. They are clearly not meant for secular Jews, certainly not secular Zionists. In fact, one not conversant in the language of the beit midrash (“study house”) would have a difficult time unpacking his midrashic and halachic arguments.
These works are directed to his ultra-Orthodox community, who he believed were being, or could be, seduced by the Zionist narrative. This is particularly true with ‘Al Ha-Geulah, written when Teitelbaum saw the Six-Day War interpreted as a miraculous victory for Zionism. He often noted, half-jokingly, that all these secular Jews who didn’t believe in miracles suddenly started talking about miracles when it came to the Six-Day War. But more significantly, these works also represent a Jewish political theology, drawing on thousands of traditional sources, deployed to caution against the dangers of succumbing to the contemporary Zionist heresy.[2]
In addition, Teitelbaum believed, like many religious Zionists, especially after the Holocaust, that we stand on the cusp of messianic redemption. We often misunderstand Teitelbaum’s anti-Zionism as diametrically opposed to the Zionism of Abraham Isaac Kook. In truth, Kook and Teitelbaum disagree less than we think. From deep within the canonical tradition, both had a similar task: to make sense of the secular nature of Zionism and how that could square with traditional understandings of both catastrophe and redemption. Kook argued dialectically, using a romantic and mystical mindset, that the secular and largely anti-religious nature of early Zionism was a necessary, albeit temporary, deviation from tradition that would be transvalued in the immanent redemptive future. Teitelbaum, who lived more deeply in the binary framework of talmudic literature, also believed that Zionism played a central role in the coming redemption, except that for him its role was not a Kookian inversion of tradition for the sake of redemption, but the pre-messianic heresy that Jews were required to resist in order for redemption to come.
Zionism was thus the false messiah that needed to be rejected for the true messiah to arrive. If Jews succumb to the temptation of the “final test,” and Teitelbaum knew that temptation was strong given its post-Holocaust context, redemption will come, but it will come though catastrophe. As Jewish historian Amos Funkenstein put it, according to Teitelbaum “[a] catastrophe is imminent, after which only a few, the ‘remnants of Israel,’ will survive to witness the true redemption. Indeed, Teitelbaum’s whole argument is embedded in the apocalyptic premise that the true redemption, through divine miracle, is very close at hand.” Kook believed that secular Zionism had to be embraced in order to be overcome; Teitelbaum believed Zionism had to be rejected in order to avoid catastrophic redemption. Another similarity between Kook and Teitelbaum is that both viewed the messiah, false and true, in terms of the more abstract idea of Zionism. For Kook, Zionism was the embodiment of messianism, for Teitelbaum it was its satanic prelude.
If we think Teitelbaum’s position is unique in its extreme rejection of Zionism we would be mistaken. In general terms, Teitelbaum’s ideological commitments against Zionism are not new, but part of a much longer trajectory of traditional anti-Zionism that stems back to the early 20th century in the work of Hayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz (1868-1937), the “Old Settlement” Jews in Palestine, and, later, Neturei Karta in Israel. This anti-Zionism was also shared by much of the prewar ultra-Orthodox world, from Lithuanian rabbinic giant Elhanan Wasserman (1874-1941) to Yitzhok Zev Soloveitchik (1886-1959); and much of the Soloveitchik dynasty; and the Lubavitcher Rebbes Shalom Dov Schneershon (1860-1920) and Yosef Yizhak Schneershon (1880-1950), among many others.
The difference between Teitelbaum and many of his colleagues was that only Teitelbaum spent significant intellectual capital developing a political theology that not only reacted to the circumstantial instantiation of Zionism as heresy but placed it in a theological context that has its roots in the biblical narrative, for example, the Israelite rebellion of the golden calf, Job’s blasphemous response to his suffering, the Israelites’ rebellion against Moses in the desert, and the history of miracle in the Israelite and Jewish tradition. In addition, Teitelbaum rejected the largely pragmatic acquiescence to Zionism in groups like Agudat Yisrael, viewing them like the righteous who were fooled into serving the golden calf in the Sinai desert.[2]
In his dissertation on Teitelbaum, Menachem Keren-Krantz of Tel Aviv University writes, “Most Jews and Orthodox rabbis [after the Holocaust] were sympathetic to the Jewish state, even if they were suspicious of its secularism and the success of religion [in Israel] in the coming years. For the first five years, R. Yoel [Teitelbaum] was the only one who continued to maintain a staunch anti-Zionist position which had emerged [earlier] from the schools of radical Orthodoxy in Transylvania and its environs.” Until the late 1950s, however, Teitelbaum did not publish anything substantive on the subject but made his views known in oral sermons and in various media such as the Yiddish newspaper Der Yid, which he founded in New York and was widely read in the Yiddish-speaking ultra-Orthodox community. By the late 1950s, seeing the ultra-Orthodox community softening toward what he considered the Zionist heresy, he decided to publish his views in book form, in Vayoel Moshe.[2]


The head of the Satmar Hassidic sect has accused his followers of increasingly admiring Israel for its military and political accomplishments, imploring them to maintain the Hasidic group’s hardline anti-Zionism. Addressing thousands of Satmar members at Long Island’s Nassau Coliseum, Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum lamented what he called a “tremendous and terrible spiritual decline” among his followers. “According to the rumors I heard, [people] are excitedly talking about the news of [the Israelis’] accomplishments, how smart they are, how they succeed politically and militarily, and about their heads of government,” Teitelbaum told the crowd in an address in Yiddish on Sunday, according to a Hebrew translation from the Kann public broadcaster. The head of the Satmar Hassidic sect has accused his followers of increasingly admiring Israel for its military and political accomplishments, imploring them to maintain the Hasidic group’s hardline anti-Zionism.Addressing thousands of Satmar members at Long Island’s Nassau Coliseum, Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum lamented what he called a “tremendous and terrible spiritual decline” among his followers. “According to the rumors I heard, [people] are excitedly talking about the news of [the Israelis’] accomplishments, how smart they are, how they succeed politically and militarily, and about their heads of government,” Teitelbaum told the crowd in an address in Yiddish on Sunday, according to a Hebrew translation from the Kann public broadcaster. “We must yell gevalt, gevalt! To where have we come?” he declared. “We have no part in Zionism. We have no part in their wars. We have no part in the State of Israel.” The Satmar, one of the largest Hasidic groups in the world, is staunchly anti-Zionist and does not recognize the State of Israel, maintaining a Jewish state should not exist until the Messiah appears.
“We’ll continue to fight God’s war against Zionism and all its aspects,” Teitelbaum said. The Satmar rabbi also spoke out against draft legislation regarding military service for ultra-Orthodox seminary students in Israel. “We declare there can be no compromise,” he said. “We won’t agree to any compromise regarding the [military] draft law for yeshiva students.” Teitelbaum’s remarks came as the coalition is haggling over legislation addressing mandatory military service for ultra-Orthodox seminary students. Earlier this week, the head of the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party gave an “unequivocal” ultimatum that his faction will bolt the government if legislation is not passed in the next seven weeks exempting members of his community from mandatory military service. Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman’s threat, not his first of this nature, comes ahead of a September deadline set by the High Court of Justice for the Knesset to re-legislate a previous exemption that the court disqualified on the grounds that it violated principles of equality. In September 2017, the High Court of Justice struck down a law exempting ultra-Orthodox men engaged in religious study from military service, saying it undermined the principle of equality before the law. However, the court suspended its decision for a year to allow for a new arrangement to be put in place, giving the government the option to pass a new law. After a similar ultimatum was made by UTJ during the Knesset’s winter session, coalition partners reached a last-minute deal to cooperate on the contentious issue in order to reach an agreement before the deadline. But a compromise agreement still remains elusive, with Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman vowing that his staunchly secular Yisrael Beytenu party would not fold in the face of demands made by their ultra-Orthodox coalition partners.[3]

Institutions

The sect operates numerous community foundations. Bikur Cholim ("Visiting the sick"), established in 1957 by Teitelbaum's wife Alte Feiga, concerns itself with helping hospitalized Jews, regardless of affiliation. Rav Tuv, founded in the 1950s to help Jews in the Soviet Union, aids Jewish refugees. Today, the organization mostly helps Jews from Iran and Yemen. Keren Hatzolah is a charitable fund to support yeshivas and the poor in Israel, providing for those who shun government benefits.

Teitelbaum founded a network of large educational institutions, both yeshivas and girls' schools. If its schools in New York were a public school system, it would be the fourth-largest system in the state, after those of New York City, Buffalo, and Rochester.[4] In most places, the girls' schools are called Beis Rochel, and the yeshivas Torah VeYirah. In 1953, Teitelbaum founded the Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States and Canada, which provides various services, including kashrut supervision.

Senior yeshivas include the United Talmudical Seminary and Yeshivas Maharit D'Satmar. [5] Satmar also operates its own rabbinical courts, which settle various issues within the community by the principles of Jewish Law.

The sect has a Yiddish newspaper called Der Yid, now privatized, and various other Yiddish publications. It is currently identified with Zalman's Hasidim; whereas Der Blatt, established in 2000, is owned and run by a follower of Aaron's.

UK

Schools in the UK

Beis Rochel d'Satmar Girls' School Hackney | Beis Rochel D'Satmar School Hackney | Beis Rochel Mcr Girls' School Salford | Beis Ruchel D`Satmar Hackney | Beis Ruchel Girls School (secondary) Salford

US

Notable Satmar people

Further reading

External links

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/time-to-stop-the-shraga-stern-farce-1.494581
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Shaul Magid The Satmar Are Anti-Zionist. Should We Care? Few Jews today agree with the late Satmar rebbe’s attacks on Zionism. All the more reason to read them. Tablet. May 21, 2020
  3. ↑ https://www.timesofisrael.com/head-of-satmar-hasidic-sect-castigates-followers-for-admiring-israel-idf/
  4. ↑ New York Times, April 25, 2006.
  5. ↑ yeshivasmaharit.org
  6. ↑ Kusisto, Laura (June 16, 2014) "Familiar Face Emerges in LICH Saga", The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
  7. ↑ Liel Leibovitz Straight Outta Satmar: Hear the Biggest Hasidic Hit of Right Now October 20, 2017 Tablet
  8. ↑ Yossi Green Weathers Storm in Seagate.  Tablet.
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Satmar_(Hasidic_dynasty)&oldid=264208"