The patriarch Avraham was also known as “Avraham HaIvri,” because he came to Canaan from Eiver LaNohor, the other side of the river. This title has also been explained to refer to his position as one man against the world – “Avraham be’eiver echad – one man alone on his side,” believing in monotheism, while the entire world was on the other side of the issue.
This one trait assumed major significance: When any of Avraham’s contemporaries was asked about his beliefs, he would reply, “Of course, I am an idol-worshiper.” Then, even though he well could have ignored monotheism, since Avraham was its only exponent, and idolatry was the universally accepted belief of millions, he would add: “There is another approach: the monotheism of Avraham.”
That Avraham could single-handedly invade the consciousness of the entire world and create in their minds the possibility of ”another approach” was most noteworthy. Thus, it was perpetuated in his name – “Avraham Halvri.”
The same may be said about the Satmar Rav. Most of world Jewry had accepted the Zionist dream. And even many among those who had rejected its limited, secular definition of Jewishness were excited by the emergence of the State of Israel, and the miraculous victories in ’48, ’56 and ’67. The Satmar Rav was often alone in consistently condemning the State as the pure embodiment of a secular ideal, a ma’ase Sattan: dismissing victories on the battlefield as an ideological minefield; opposing mass aliyah as a violation of the Three Vows (T.B. Kesubos 11a : Binding Jewry not to force its way into Eretz Yisrael, nor to rebel against the nations, and the nations not to subjugate the Jews excessively.) for settling the country in defiance of world opinion; and participation in the government in any form – even voting in national elections – as strengthening a reprehensible concept by implied recognition. Like some other schools, those of the Eida Hachreidis, which is in the Satmar orbit, do not accept funding from the Israeli government.
Advisors had begged the Rebbe to omit from his writings his directives against going to the Kosel, as being too difficult to accept, sure to result in the alienation of many of his followers. He commented, “I don’t care if I’m left with only one minyan of adherents. I’ll not refrain from expressing my beliefs.”
He was once advised by a close associate, “Don’t let yourself get so upset!” The Rebbe replied, “There are a thousand reasons not to reveal the Emes, If one gets upset, he can forget himself for a moment, and then at least a bit of Emes comes through.”
The mainstream of the Torah leadership did not subscribe to his approach toward dealing with the Israeli government. Even those most strongly opposed to the State’s philosophy accepted its existence and, at worst, felt compelled to deal with it as they would with any government that ruled a land where Jews lived. At times they were deeply upset with his unyielding approach – such as Rabbi Aharon Kotler’s vexation with the Rebbe for “publicly opposing the Chazon Ish, Reb Isser Zalman Meltzer, the Belzer Rebbe and the Tchebiner Rav – all of whom held that voting in Israeli national elections was an obligation on every Torah Jew who took the needs of the Yishuv to heart.” Nonetheless, they were always aware of the Satmar position and often measured their stance against the extremes of the Satmar-Neturei Karta ideology. And even the most rabid, anti-religious secularist was aware of the “on the other hand,” represented by this one man’s uncompromising stance.
His ideology is represented by his two seforim VaYoel Moshe and Al Hage’ulah V’al Hatemurah, written with vast scholarship and great care – as well as by his spoken word on numerous occasions.
In spite of the difference between them, a current of admiration flowed between the Satmar Rav and the heads of American Yeshivos. Said Reb Aharon Kotler: “The Satmar Rav and I do not have the same approach – neither in Torah study nor in political matters – but I must say, he is a giant in Torah and a giant in midos.” The Satmar Rav, in turn, spoke at Reb Aharon’s funeral, weeping, quoting Rashi (in Be’haaloscha): “‘The praise of Aharon is that he did not deviate’ – Reb Aharon remained ever faithful to his tradition, never deviating.”
Similarly, Rabbi Reuvain Grozovsky, the late Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta Torah Vodaath and Bais Medrash Elyon, who had headed the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah (Council of Torah Sages) of Agudath Israel, had made it a policy of never responding to criticisms “from the right” because its adherents are G-d-fearing Jews, and there may well be some elements of truth in their approach (Beiyos Hazman pp. 69-71).... Indeed, Reb Reuvain had often cited a statement by his father-in-law, Rabbi Boruch Ber Lebowitz, a leading Rosh Yeshiva in pre World-War II Europe: “The Satmar Rav was the person to contact whenever the Polish and Lithuanian leadership had need to communicate with Hungarian Jewry.” When the Satmar Rav visited Reb Reuvain when he was ill from the stroke that had partially paralyzed him, the Rebbe wished the Rosh Yeshiva: “A refuah sheleimah – a complete recovery, so we can battle each other once again.” ... Several years later, when he returned home from Reb Reuvain’s funeral, the Rebbe seemed unusally depressed. To his Rebbetzin’s question as to why he was so troubled, he replied, “The world has lost an lsh Ha’emes – a man of rare integrity.”
It was not only in regard to its extreme anti-Zionism that the Satmar Rav had molded his community as “a group apart,” in the manner of Avraham Halvri. He also guided it to being distinguished in its total lack of compromise in mode of dress – not yielding to American pressures, neither in style nor in lack of modesty. If anything, the newer generations have reinforced their dedication to the standards of “Jewishness in dress” that had prevailed in Satmar of old making it much easier, one might add, for the American yeshiva community to adhere to its own standards of propriety without developing a sense of being at the outer edge of society.
Thus, the Satmar Rav’s relentless demands for the highest religious standards proved to be an important contribution toward changing the complexion of a significant segment of Orthodox life in America. Witness: Holocaust survivors and their American-born grandchildren – dayanim (rabbinical judges), rabbanim, diamond polishers, computer technicians, and gas-pump attendants among them – who proudly walk the streets of the New World in traditional garb, making the shtreimel an everyweek feature of many communities.
For evidence of the living legacy of the late Satmar Rav, we tend to look at the self-contained communities of his followers that crowd this or that old-world corner of various urban centers; or that are found in unlikely suburban locations, such as New York’s Monroe township or Rockland County. But, in many respects, his influence has extended beyond the confines of his immediate following, for those whose compass is set by other stars cannot help but have had their own awareness sharpened by the perspectives of the Satmar Rav.
After all, who can live in the same community as a tzaddik – or even in his time – and not be affected by his presence?
When Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky spoke at the unveiling of the matzeivah (monument) at the gravesite of the Satmar Rav, one week after his passing, he commented on the special gift G-d had bequeathed on our generation through the presence of the Satmar Rav for over nine decades:
“When an era closes, there is always a danger that the succeeding generations will be oblivious to the values and special character of their predecessors. Thus G-d often grants one exemplary member of the preceding era longevity, to permit him to teach the next generation how the old generation lived – by his mere presence. Thus did Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi – who closed the era of the Tannaim by writing the Mishnah – continue to ‘frequent his home’ for decades after his passing; and Rabbi Yochanan, who compiled the Jerusalem Talmud, lived for hundreds of years...; and thus did the Satmar Rav grace our generation with a greatness in scholarship and piety that had been identified with the glory of days gone by.”
{This article originally appeared in The Jewish Observer and is also available in book form in the ArtScroll/Mesorah Publications Judaiscope Series.}
{Matzav.com Newscenter}
