What Does The Steipler Say? was the title of one of the articles eulogizing the Steipler that appeared in the Hebrew Yated (then in its first year of publication) following his petirah. The fact that the question instinctively kept being asked, even though it was no longer possible to consult him, was testimony to the impact of the years of his leadership of the Torah camp.
Fifteen years later, the question essentially still hovers in the air, although there have been vast changes both within our camp and without which necessitate the utmost care in drawing comparisons.
The Chazon Ish was the leader who coordinated the beginnings of the small, weak and struggling new yishuv. He directed its battle to maintain its integrity and its loyalty to Torah in the face of the constant threats of the Zionist establishment to engulf it. His brother-in-law, the Steipler, subsequently tended and guided the flock as it grew in numbers and strength. He warned off attempts to weaken it from within and endeavored to ensure that its voice would be heard in the public forum. He left the Torah community stronger and more self confident than he received it and its growth has boruch Hashem since continued unabated.
Today however, the Torah camp faces unprecedented challenges arising from its own continuing growth and diversification, the ongoing moral decline of the surrounding society and the escalation in the ferocity of the fight against us. Though he can no longer provide direct guidance, the question What would the Steipler say? is still all important.
The following selection from the record of his public leadership clearly spells out a distinct message: "Let it be less but let it be pure!"
To Vote or Not to Vote
"Did he sign or didn't he?" -- the question resurfaces before every election. Whether or not to vote and if so, for whom. It is never straightforward. We've chosen the issue of participation in general and municipal elections to begin with, since it illustrates two major features of the Steipler's communal leadership. First, his battle against "the party of deserters" (as he himself called them), namely Po'alei Agudas Yisroel (PAI), and second, the dual leadership which he exercised, together with ylct'a, HaRav Shach. Although these two gedolim did not have frequent contact with each other, their approach to every issue that was brought before them was identical. The way in which each of them submitted to the other's opinions was also remarkable.
"As to the main matter, my humble opinion leans towards the view that it is a great mitzvah to vote for the chareidi list and that this constitutes the saving of religion . . . as for your argument that there are [Torah] prohibitions involved, I have given great consideration as to whether it is worthwhile responding because in truth, it is utterly against my wishes that the members of Neturei Karto, sheyichyu loy't, should change their opinion. Whilst no prohibition is involved in voting, there is zeal for Hashem's sake in their refraining from doing so . . . You wrote that voting involves acknowledging the validity of avoda zorah; however, this is completely unfounded . . . your honor should know that even for zealous ends, it is forbidden to interpret the Torah at variance with halocho, and what is not the truth does not succeed at all."
The contents of this letter (which appears in Karaino De'igarto Vol. I, #203) set guidelines for charting policy in the battle against Zionism through casting votes in elections. That was his approach to the issue; it was a battle whose sole purpose moreover, was to fight the destroyers of religion, not to advance any group's particular interests. He had absolutely no trace whatsoever of party allegiance, which meant that every time a question arose it was judged wholly on its own merits, free from the distorting influence of party interests. On the other hand, neither was there any place for emotional zealotry when it came to determining the halocho and the course of action that arose therefrom.
At that time, the rulings of the Chazon Ish and the Brisker Rov zt'l regarding participation in the elections were being questioned (the questions were actually being fanned by excitability, without checking the facts). The wish to be drawn into the general fight against Zionism gave rise to the inclination to rule out taking any part in the elections and consequently to view the opinions of those gedolim in this light as well. The Steipler and ylct'a, HaRav Shach however, clearly conveyed the message that all that was involved was the battle.
HaRav Shach, before the elections in 5737 (1977): "I am not expressing my own opinions, for this was the view of our master the Chazon Ish, zy'a, and of the Rov of Brisk. They were all of the opinion that one should take part in the elections. If they would have said not to go, I wouldn't go . . . for when we take part in the elections, a voice of protest is heard . . . and I know that the opinion of our master the gaon Rav Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky . . . is also that one should go . . . I must say further that `they have made me into a liar' when I said that `they were all of the opinion that one should take part.' I know myself that I am not a liar, however, HaRav Kanievsky . . . is certainly not a liar and if he would have heard any hint from the Chazon Ish against taking part, he would not be supporting it now."
The Steipler: "I will just let your honor know that the opinion of the vast majority of gedolei Yisroel approximately twenty years ago was that there is absolutely no trace of issur whatsoever involved, and our master the Chazon Ish ztll'h was among them . . . Regarding the actual question, everyone is obliged to follow the majority opinion in the whole of Torah and in this matter, most of the Torah sages who are with us . . . and who have already departed are [and were] of the opinion that it is a proper obligation . . . As for his advice to write `with the exception of Yerushalayim t'v,' it is utterly unfounded. Is it not enough that I am getting involved in this controversy? Does he want me to become involved in a disagreement about whether the power of the Badatz is only binding upon members of the Eida HaChareidis or all who live in Yerushalayim?" (Karaino De'igarto
