His views were very much in league with league with an anti zionist website/
The Torah teaches us not to resist the nations even when they fight against us. We must follow in the footsteps of Yaakov Avinu in his encounter with his brother Esav. As the Ramban writes in Vayishlach, all that happened between Yaakov and Esav happens to us constantly with Esav's children. We must adopt the methods of that tzaddik, to make the three preparations that he made: prayer, a gift, and escape through war, that is, to flee to safety. As long as we walked on that well- tread path, G-d saved us from their hands. But since we have strayed from the path and new leaders have arisen who chose new methods, leaving behind our ancestors' weapons and adopting the methods of our enemies, we have fared worse and worse, and great travails have befallen us.
(Chofetz Chaim Al Hatorah, Devarim)
Let's get one thing clear first. Yaakov WAS IN EXILE at that time, which perhaps explains an approach adopted by the Jews in exile, but the current situation could hardly be considered analogous when we have a sovereign state and half the world's Jews residing in our homeland. So even if we take what they say as "correct," that is not necessarily a model for today's reality, and that is not how we (ie the Jewish govt) should interact with the non Jewish nations right now when we have left the physical Diaspora and established self-rule. In fact, Yaakov was on his way from Lavan to Eretz Yisrael, so in a way, we might relate this to the situation of ending the exile, as in the pre-state days of the "Palestine Mandate" and interactions of the Jewish people intending to return home with the non Jewish governments. Without elaborating here, I actually see parallels with Yaakov's approach to Esau here bear themselves out historically in those events. And as chazal say, the actions of the forefathers are simanim (signs) for the sons - the life events of the forefathers repeat themselves as patterns in Jewish history.
That said, I think your response is generally true given what I'm about to demonstrate. Maybe this will give more substance to the claim.
Now, as I have heard this teaching before, the third portion as you relay it here strikes me as very odd. What exactly does "Escape through war" mean? I've never heard of a notion like that before. In other words,
is it war, or is it escape? War involves fighting in battle. Otherwise it is simply called fleeing. I have heard the teaching as 3 basic preparations Yaakov made: 1. gift/appeasement 2. prayer 3. War.
He literally prepared for war as the midrash explains and you can see from the verses, which Rashi explains.
Using the artscroll translation,
This is after receiving the report from his messengers that Esau was coming to greet him with 400 men...
Bereshith (Genesis), Parasha Wayishlah, chapter 32 verse 8-9:
8. And Jacob became very frightened, and it distressed him. So he divided the people with him, and the flocks, and the cattle, and the camels, into two camps.
9. And he said, "If Esau comes to the one camp and strikes it, the remaining camp shall be a refuge."
ח. וַיִּירָא יַעֲקֹב מְאֹד וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ וַיַּחַץ אֶת הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ וְאֶת הַצֹּאן וְאֶת הַבָּקָר וְהַגְּמַלִּים לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת
ט. וַיֹּאמֶר אִם יָבוֹא עֵשָׂו אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה הָאַחַת וְהִכָּהוּ וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לִפְלֵיטָה:
Rashi comments there on verse 9:
וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לִפְלֵיטָה
"And the remaining camp shall be a refuge"
against Esau's will, because I will do battle with him. He readied himself for 3 things: for paying tribute, for prayer, and for war. For tribute, as in "So the tribute passed on before him (32.22), for prayer as in "G-d of my father Avraham" (32.10) and for war, as in the verse "The remaining camp will be a refuge" (32.9, similarly explained in Midrash Tanchuma) Artscroll adds that the Sefer Zikaron, a supercommentary on Rashi, points out that Rashi is stressing the word "and it will be"
וְהָיָה
and this reflects the certainty with which Jacob prepares, knowing that certainly the one camp will fight Esau and the other camp will escape harm because it will not be fighting and will serve as a needed refuge.
This addition by the Sefer Zikaron seems to highlight that unlike the first part of the verse which is a conditional (if) - he is not sure if Esau is determined for warfare, but he is preparing for battle in case of that - the second half of the sentence is a certitude that the other camp will definitely serve as a refuge in either case.
If I would be so bold as to offer up some insight into the Rashi, I would suggest that he is explaining a military strategy on the part of Yakov in which he will use the best, most trained and capable fighters split into one camp against Esau while mostly women and children and those who cannot fight will be kept in the camp of refuge away from the battle to protect them from the violence and for regrouping afterwards to treat the wounded soldiers etc. It would not make sense to send in untrained people into battle. The "refuge" is only necessary if indeed the other camp is knowingly being sent into battle (if it should materialize).
Let's keep in mind also that this was a war with his brother, and not something he wanted since he set out originally to reconcile with Esau, not to conquer him (see the beginning of the Parasha). This can explain the tribute aspect, and why Yaakov wanted to push off warfare if we take the sequence of his strategy as a set order whereby war is only the last option. More generally, we can say this is a basic three-pronged strategy when faced with potential warfare, however all 3 go together, and the "diplomacy option" (tribute) is only one aspect of the three, which is
taken off the table if not reciprocated. That hardly sounds like cowering in fear of the goyim or fleeing. If Yakov wanted to, he could have simply fled,
With the whole camp, back into Mesopotamia or any other direction to avoid the coming Esau and his men, but he did not do that.
So where the idea comes that WAR becomes synonymous with Fleeing, I say with great humility that that indeed may be the galut influence whereby Torah scholars lost understanding of the concept of warfare. Because this is nowhere evident in Rashi or the verses themselves considered logically.
However, it may also simply reflect that the Chofetz Chaim (if your friend is quoting him properly, which, due to experience, I never assume anyone is quoting chachamim properly unless they prove it), is a rabbi in the exile situation (this is before state of Israel), outside the Land, and he is explaining the approach that should be taken
in an exile land such as Poland/Belarus where he resides as he makes his statement. Indeed it would be logical that if the govt of Radun or whatever town they are in have decided to oppress the Jews and even attack them, the Jews at that time are largely defenseless, and the more logical approach if they are not prepared to fight and will be slaughtered, is to flee to some other town or village where there is no hostility. Before the shoah, where they sought us out in every corner of the earth to murder our men women and children, this approach was practical. And indeed, that is the terrible curse of exile and why the cursed Diaspora is such a wretched place for a Jew to remain. Part of the terror is the fleeing from place to place and not being allowed to assemble arms or train or properly establish self-defense measures.
Hope this clarifies. You should explain to your friend how ready the Chofetz Chaim was to return to Eretz Yisrael at any moment, and if he had the opportunity he would not squander it by embracing the cursed galut where the only approach is this self-effacing shame of fleeing in terror defenseless from the attacks of non-Jews. So what will he do?
Topic: A long talk with a Chofetz Chaim yeshiva student revealed... (Read 1074 times)