Rav Dovid Leibel and the New Charedi-Rabbinic Struggle

Accept the truth from whoever speaks it. I learned this principle from Rav Dov Landau when, thirty-five years ago, at the age of fifty, and while serving as a maggid shiur at the Slabodka Yeshiva, he penned a letter opposing the position of Rav Shach, who was over ninety years old, as well as other great Ravs of the generation. Rav Landau disagreed with the direction they were taking. He concluded his letter with a bold statement: “And do not explain to me the concept of ‘right being left and left being right’ and the new laws of ‘everything they instruct you.’ I’m not a child.” So, I tell you now, I’m not a child, I’m not a youth. I’m seventy years old and will continue to speak my truth […]. Falsehood has no legs to stand on. “Truth will sprout from the earth.”

Rav David Leibel delivered this remarkably sharp retort in response to a fierce attack from Rav Dov Landau, the spiritual leader of the “Degel HaTorah” movement, concerning Rav Leibel’s recent involvement in recruiting Yeshiva students and his vision for establishing a Haredi brigade in the IDF. In his criticism of Rav Leibel, Rav Landau invoked the principle of “Daas Torah” (the knowledge of Torah sages):

Recently, a defiant voice has arisen, baselessly and deceptively clinging to arguments of falsehood and emptiness and acting with severe and dangerous initiatives to change the character of the Torah world and reduce the number of Torah students, influencing his listeners to abandon the leadership of Daas Torah and to dig broken cisterns, even with the assistance of those whose goal is to destroy the Haredi Judaism, Heaven forbid.

A defiant voice has arisen, baselessly and deceptively clinging to arguments of falsehood and emptiness and acting with severe and dangerous initiatives to change the character of the Torah world

Rav Landau did not mention the name of this “defiant” individual in his letter, but it was clear that Rav Leibel was the target. Rav Leibel, however, was not intimidated and claimed that the inspiration for this “rebellion against Daas Torah” drew from none other than Rav Landau himself.

To understand Rav Leibel’s response, we need to delve into a parallel episode that took place during the establishment of “Degel HaTorah” in 1989.

Whose Daas Torah?

It is well known that Rav Elazar Menachem Shach, of blessed memory, the head of the Ponevezh Yeshiva, developed and elevated what scholars have called the “Daas Torah Doctrine” to new heights. With the founding of a new independent party alongside a new partisan newspaper, Rav Shach gained unprecedented religious and political hegemony, since the party often held the balance of power between left- and right-wing governments. From this position, he solidified the dominance of “Daas Torah” to an unparalleled degree.

In 1989, on the eve of the establishment of “Degel HaTorah,” only a few within the Haredi-Litvish community dared to oppose Rav Shach’s approach. Still, there were individuals who sought to challenge his authority as the outright leader of the community. One such individual was Rav Dov Landau, then a senior figure at the Slabodka Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, who for many years had refrained from public involvement. He believed that the Torah world, including its leadership, should operate as an apolitical entity, certainly on the State level. In his view, the creation of a new Ashkenazi Haredi party was divisive and unnecessary, projecting aggression and factionalism. To him, it was a disaster for the Haredi public.

Rav Shach gained unprecedented religious and political hegemony, since the party often held the balance of power between left- and right-wing governments. From this position, he solidified the dominance of “Daas Torah” to an unparalleled degree

Rav Landau’s stormy state of mind can be gleaned from a personal letter he wrote to Rav Shmuel Deutsch (now a leader of the Jerusalem faction, then a close disciple of Rav Shach). The letter did not appear in any public forum, but years later it was circulated in various online platforms that focus on controversies the Haredi establishment tries to downplay. In the letter, dated the 20th of Kislev, 1989 (a few months before the municipal elections and about a month after the national elections), Rav Landau expressed profound anguish over several concerns about the future: “The recent Knesset election here will seem like child’s play compared to what is in store – may I not open my mouth to the Satan – in the upcoming municipal elections.”

The most surprising part of the letter is a section where Rav Landau, with a tone both combative and dripping with cynicism, preemptively debates a hypothetical argument against him, accusing him of daring to contradict the leader of the generation and undermine Rav Shach’s “Daas Torah” authority:

I hope that following these words, people will not raise the familiar, well-known, and famous arguments against them: such as, “the elder has already ruled,” or, “this is Daas Torah,” or, “one must not oppose, even in the slightest, the view of the great Torah sages,” or any number of new halachic innovations that have emerged recently, and not so recently, on the subject of right being left and left being right, and the like. And if, nevertheless, such arguments are raised, I will say only this:

All these good and pleasant matters are well known to us, and have been forever. Forgive me, we were not born yesterday, and we are neither young nor naïve, neither in age nor in our understanding of these matters, not today, not yesterday. And surely we do not need to be educated anew, though the honor of the instructors is unquestioned, in matters that we have already received instruction on by our own holy mentors, who stood as giants of the land, from whose pure waters we drank eagerly, and from whose exalted Torah and profound wisdom we were privileged to draw, each according to his capacity. Their sacred images, their sublime words, their remarkable conduct still stand before our eyes, inspiring us, their fire still burns in our hearts, guiding our lives in Torah, faith, mitzvah observance, and a sound, bright, and fundamental Torah worldview. Let this be understood by those who were not fortunate enough to receive this!

In this letter, Rav Landau clearly acknowledges the use that Rav Shach and his new party made of the “Daas Torah” doctrine but asserts his own equal claim to that same “Daas Torah.” He, too, received it from his teachers (almost certainly a reference to the Chazon Ish), who “stand before our eyes as if alive […] and guide our lives […] in a healthy, clear, and fundamental Torah outlook.” In other words, his relative youth compared to the elder sages of the generation, and his lack of acceptance at that time as a Torah leader of stature equal to Rav Shach and his colleagues, did not disqualify him from holding a contrary position. He, too, has “Daas Torah,” no less than they do.

Copy-Pasting from 1989 to 2024

On the surface, Rav Leibel’s analogy between his position and that of Rav Landau seems compelling. Both, it seems, represent an independent voice within the Haredi-Litvish world, prepared to challenge established authority and propose new ways of addressing contemporary challenges. However, it is important to highlight distinctions between the two cases, and Rav Leibel’s claims must be carefully examined.

First, we should be aware of the different historical contexts in which the two figures operated. Rav Landau acted during a period when the establishment of “Degel HaTorah” was a novel and revolutionary development within the Haredi world. It was the first attempt to create an independent Litvish party, separate from Agudas Yisrael, and Rav Landau merely supported the continuation of the public status quo within the ranks of the Agudah leadership. In contrast, Rav Leibel is advocating for a revolutionary and bold leadership that stands in direct opposition to the Haredi public consensus on the matter of army recruitment. It can be argued that, for decades, the great sages of the generations declared that those who do not study Torah must enlist. However, there is a vast difference between such declarations and actively cooperating with the military to establish a new Haredi brigade.

Second, there is a significant difference in the scope of influence of the two movements. Rav Landau’s opposition to Rav Shach concerned the founding of a political party, a move he feared would lead to a significant loss of Torah study among the youth. Rav Leibel, on the other hand, proposes a far more profound change in the Haredi tradition regarding military conscription, an issue that touches upon the core identity and lifestyle of Haredi society. While Rav Leibel asserts that he is only advocating for integrating those yeshiva students who, in any case, are not truly learning, it still represents a significant shift in its implications for Haredi society.

A third point is the issue of publicity. Rav Landau’s letter was private and never intended for public consumption. In fact, it was a Chassidic activist opposed to Rav Shach who eventually made it public, for his own reasons. Rav Landau himself never sought to publicly oppose Rav Shach and confined his actions to the private sphere. Rav Leibel, on the other hand, has expressed his views publicly and forcefully. He has not limited himself to a private opinion but has sought to lead a broad public change, thereby positioning himself publicly as an alternative rabbinic authority to the widely accepted Torah leaders of the generation.

Moreover, it should be noted that despite his initial opposition, Rav Landau ultimately submitted to Rav Shach’s leadership and voted for the “Degel HaTorah” party, explaining his decision in terms of “you shall follow all they instruct you.” Rav Leibel, in contrast, continues to tread his independent path and shows no willingness to accept the authority of the traditional rabbinic leadership on the recruitment issue.

These points highlight that one cannot simply copy and paste from Rav Landau’s 1989 letter to Rav Leibel’s steps in 2024. However, Rav Leibel’s reliance on Rav Landau’s letter is still valid, though with qualifications. There are, indeed, relevant differences, but the central principle that emerges from Rav Landau’s letter is that no one holds a monopoly on “Daas Torah.” It is legitimate for other Torah figures to hold different views, even contrary to those who have been crowned (by the official newspaper or any other process) as the accepted Torah leader.

As Rav Zvi Bergman recently demonstrated (when he disagreed with Rav Landau concerning the moral duty to uphold political agreements), it is also legitimate for the dissenting opinion to be made public. Let the people choose. In addition, as part of analyzing the event, it seems appropriate to mention another relevant point: as a student of Rav Leibel, I wish to argue that he is, in fact, continuing Rav Shach’s legacy

Continuing Rav Shach’s Legacy

While Rav Shach established and strengthened the institution of “Daas Torah,” he also, paradoxically, heralded the possibility of diversity within Haredi leadership. He was the first to challenge the leadership of the Agudas Yisrael Council of Torah Sages and promoted independent leadership and political autonomy for the Haredi-Litvish public. Although he saw himself as representing the leadership of the previous generation’s Torah giants, he nonetheless legitimized an alternative Haredi leadership: not the collective rule of the Council of Torah Sages, but each community with its own leadership. Rav Leibel, it must be said, operates in similar fashion.

In this context, one can view Rav Leibel as a mirror image of the extremist Jerusalem Faction. Inspired by Rav Shach’s uncompromising adherence to the Truth and with a boldness that also continues his legacy, the Jerusalem Faction established a separate party, hoping to sway the Haredi-Litvish public to its side. This did not happen, of course, but the move itself undeniably echoes Rav Shach’s era. Rav Leibel is taking a similar path, but in the opposite direction: instead of radicalizing isolation and extremism, Rav Leibel is boldly advancing a radical openness and integration. Both, ironically, draw inspiration from the same legacy of Rav Shach.

In a remarkable turn of events, Rav Landau has now inherited Rav Shach’s position as outright rabbinic leader of “Degel Hatorah” and head of its Counsil of Sages, while his opposition, in the form of Rav Leibel, claims the mantel of Rav Shach

Furthermore, the claim that Rav Leibel draws inspiration from Rav Shach’s legacy does not end with public audacity. It can be said that in substance, too, Rav Leibel draws inspiration from his mentor. In a public letter published by Rav Shach in 1979, he expressed a firm stance against the misuse of the Toraso Umanuso exemption (the exemption from army service for Torah scholars). Rav Shach emphasized that the exemption was intended only for those who truly dedicate all their time to Torah study, not for those engaged in other activities. In calling for the integration of Haredim into the army, Rav Leibel interprets Rav Shach’s position in a manner that, in his view, adapts to contemporary reality. He argues that the exemption should be limited to that elite group of Yeshiva students whose Torah study is truly their sole pursuit, as Rav Shach described in his letter.

There is also a particular irony in the current struggle that should not be glossed over. The dispute between Rav Landau and Rav Shach was the latest instance of an ongoing Haredi struggle between two schools of thought, one following the Chazon Ish (Rav Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz) and his disciples and the other represented by Rav Shach. The nuances of this struggle for Haredi rabbinic supremacy are beyond the scope of this article, but suffice to note that Rav Landau was a staunch disciple of the Chazon Ish, and his opposition to Rav Shach’s process of Haredi politicization was very much in the mold of the Chazon Ish school of thought. In a remarkable turn of events, Rav Landau has now inherited Rav Shach’s position as outright rabbinic leader of “Degel Hatorah” and head of its Counsil of Sages, while his opposition, in the form of Rav Leibel, claims the mantel of Rav Shach and seeks to bring Haredi Judaism deeper into Israeli politics and society. Who would have thought?

Of course, one can interpret Rav Shach’s legacy differently, in opposition to Rav Leibel’s approach. Nonetheless, Rav Leibel’s interpretation provides a balanced counterweight to the Jerusalem Faction’s perspective and offers the Haredi individual a choice in navigating the unique circumstances we face today.

***

In conclusion, it is essential to remember that Rav Leibel does not operate in a vacuum. He represents a voice within the Haredi public, even if it is not always heard. Many within the community, including recognized and important rabbis, quietly lean towards his positions, even if they do not agree with every detail. Rav Leibel gives necessary expression to this voice, allowing for an open and sincere discussion of issues that are often pushed to the margins.

Many within the community, including recognized and important rabbis, quietly lean towards his positions, even if they do not agree with every detail

Perhaps the more important question is not whether Rav Leibel is right in every aspect of his plan, but whether Haredi society is capable and willing to engage in an open and respectful discussion about its future, the challenges it faces, and the ways to confront them. In daring to voice a different opinion, Rav Leibel makes a significant contribution to the future of Haredi society in Israel and to the future of the State of Israel as a whole.