Refuting the Lies of Rabbi Shoff who may become a Rosh Yeshiva in LA

 

On December 7, 2025, Meaningful Minutes featured a debate on YouTube between Rabbi Michal Weichbrod and Rabbi Elchonon Shoff titled “Should Jews Leave America?” As of December 18, the video has already garnered over 45,000 views.

I feel it is my chov—my obligation—to be moiche against the tremendous Chillul Hashem caused by Rabbi Elchonon Shoff. His words, filled with distortions and half-truths, must be repudiated so they do not, chas v’sholom, become a kitrug against Klall Yisrael.

Rabbi Shoff, with his Yeshivishe background, was articulate in presenting his fabrications and lashon hara about Eretz Yisrael—more dangerous in their subtlety than even the words of the meraglim chosen by Moshe Rabbeinu himself.

Rabbi Michal Weichbrod, a true mentch, responded with sincerity and conviction, and may I add, with respect!

I intend to respond directly to Rabbi Shoff’s absurd and heretical claims, and to his misguided praise of Jews remaining in Chutz La’aretz. His arguments must be dismantled clearly and forcefully, so that the truth about Eretz Yisrael and the responsibility of our generation is heard.

I will not go into whether there is an obligation to live in Eretz Yisrael I'm just here to point out the ridiculous and sometimes heretical views of Shoff! 

At the 9:21 mark, Rabbi Shoff presents an extreme and emotionally charged scenario about a child with cancer. This example has no relevance to the discussion. Pikuach nefesh overrides everything — no one disputes that. Why introduce such a case other than to manipulate the audience’s emotions?

At 11:29, he claims to “follow the majority of poskim,” citing Rav Moshe Feinstein as saying that living in Eretz Yisrael is not a mitzvah kiyumis and carries no obligation. Rabbi Michal Weichbrod correctly responds that Rav Moshe is a yachid on this matter. In fact, Rav Moshe bases his position on another yachid — Rabbeinu Chaim Kohen of the Baalei Tosafos.

Rav Moshe’s reasoning is in Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer I:102 and was based on the reality of the 1960s 1970's poverty, difficulty finding housing, and challenges in observing agricultural mitzvos. None of these conditions applies today. Housing is widely available, and observing maasros is easier than ever.The beauty of Shaalos and Teshuvois is that anyone with half a brain can look up the teshuva himself and see the circumstances of that psak!

At 13:16, Shoff claims that Israel is not the “healthiest place” to raise children or transmit Yiddishkeit. This is simply false.

 Israel consistently ranks among the top ten happiest countries in the world, even after October 7. It has more Torah institutions than anywhere else on earth, and children grow up with independence, safety, and a deeply Jewish environment. as 6 year-olds ride the public buses by themselves and are independent. 

At 21:50, he dismisses the Ramban’s teaching that mitzvos in Chutz La’Aretz are only a preparation for fulfilling them in Eretz Yisrael. He waves it away as exaggeration, comparing it to the gemarra's hyperbolic statements about lashon hara. he adds that anyone thinking that, is off the wall" He then mocks stories about Rav Kook z”l. His casual dismissal of foundational Rishonim and Gedolim is astonishing.... 

At 23:37, he argues that if living in Israel were obligatory, Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Lubavitcher Rebbe would have moved. 

This ignores the many Gedolim who did make Aliyah: the Gerer Rebbe, Belzer Rebbe, Kloizenberger Rebbe, Rav Shach, the Chazon Ish, the Steipler, Rav Shteinman, Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Moshe Sternbuch, and hundreds of others.

At 24:00, he mocks those who quote Tanach — and then later quotes Tanach himself when convenient.

At 29:24, he claims that “black hatters” have no place in Israel. A single visit to Ramat Beit Shemesh, Bnei Brak, Kiryat Sefer, Beitar Illit, or large parts of Jerusalem would immediately disprove this. Tens of thousands of families live full Torah lives here.

At 32:17, he asserts that Ramat Beit Shemesh is not a “healthy place” for Torah families. Anyone familiar with the community knows how baseless this is.

At 35:05, he again mocks stories told of Rav Kook z”l, yet simultaneously claims Rav Kook’s teachings “changed his life.” The contradiction speaks for itself. This is like saying I can't be a "racist," my best friend is black!

At 37:10, he repeats Rav Moshe’s position without acknowledging the historical context that shaped it — a context that no longer exists.

At 37:37, he suddenly invokes Chabad and asks why the Lubavitcher Rebbe did not make Aliyah. He omits the many Gedolim who did move, and he ignores the complex historical realities of pre-State and early-State Israel.

At 37:58, the sneaky Schoff,  mentions the Frierdiker (Chabad) Rebbe’s brief stay in Eretz Yisrael without noting that this was in 1929, before the State existed, when poverty and instability were extreme.

At 38:00, he chastises those who are "cherrypicking" but his own entire premise is based on cherry-picking! 

At 40:00, he quotes the Avnei Nezer’s position about hardship in Israel — without mentioning that the Avnei Nezer died in 1910, when the land was under Ottoman rule, and conditions were incomparable to today.

At 41:33, he claims that “most poskim today” say there is no obligation to live in Israel. 

Poskim living in Chutz La’Aretz say that. But the majority of poskim  live in Eretz Yisrael  —and they rule that Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvas aseh d’Oraisa. 

Entire sefarim, such as Ki Eis LeChanenah (490 pages), document the overwhelming halachic support for this.

At 46:38, he denies that Lech Lecha was a command to Avraham Aveenu to go to Eretz Yisrael, reframing it as merely a “journey.” This interpretation contradicts every traditional commentary and even basic Chumash education. You cannot make this stuff up! 

This guy according to the Yated is a candidate of being a Rosh Yeshiva in LA, I suggest he learn basic Chumash and Rashi first! בן חמש למקרא

at 47:44  he claims that for some people, “the will of Hashem” is to remain in Chutz La’Aretz. This reminds me when a student who wasn't being diligent in his learning was being pressured by his Rosh Yeshiva to learn, so he told his Roshei Yeshiva that he will start learning in earnest the following week and then adds ..."Im Yirtza Hashem" (If God wills it) " the RY answered him "God certainly wills it, the question is if YOU wills it." 

this notion also  contradicts the centrality of Eretz Yisrael in Torah, tefillah, mitzvos, and Jewish destiny. 

We all know that the RBS"O is literally obsessed with Eretz Yisrael, 3/4 of the 613 Mitzvois can ONLY be performed in EY! 

There isn't a prayer that doesn't talk about Eretz Yisrael, Bentching, Al Hamichyah, Shemoneh Esra etc And Jews scream לשנה הבאה בירושלים at the Seder night in the very first paragraph of the Hagaddah, Hu Lachma Anyeh! 

The entire Tanach is based on what happened ...guess where??? Eretz Yisrael! 

At the 46:47 mark, he quotes Tanach after having mocked those quoting Tanach at the 24:00 mark! 

He quotes a Yezchezkel Chapter 29, but if you look into Chapter 29 in Yechezkel you won't find anything that he said, and he brazenly adds a Malbim supposedly in Chapter 29  that also does not exist in that Chapter,  he is hoping that no one follows up on his lies but I will bring down a quote just a verse before Chapter 29:

כֹּה־אָמַר֮ אֲדֹנָ֣י ה' בְּקַבְּצִ֣י ׀ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל מִן־הָֽעַמִּים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָפֹ֣צוּ בָ֔ם וְנִקְדַּ֥שְׁתִּי בָ֖ם לְעֵינֵ֣י הַגּוֹיִ֑ם וְיָֽשְׁבוּ֙ עַל־אַדְמָתָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לְעַבְדִּ֥י לְיַעֲקֹֽב׃

וְיָשְׁב֣וּ עָלֶ֘יהָ֮ לָבֶ֒טַח֒ וּבָנ֤וּ בָתִּים֙ וְנָטְע֣וּ כְרָמִ֔ים וְיָשְׁב֖וּ לָבֶ֑טַח בַּעֲשׂוֹתִ֣י שְׁפָטִ֗ים בְּכֹ֨ל הַשָּׁאטִ֤ים אֹתָם֙ מִסְּבִ֣יבוֹתָ֔ם וְיָ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י הֹ' אֱלֹהֵיהֶֽם׃ {פ}

At the 49:09 Mark, he compares the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael with wearing multiple pairs of Tzizis at the same time, like Harav Sheinberg did! ...this entire argument is incoherent! 

Schoff's arrogance is astounding! He mocks Rav Sheinberg's  minhag while he's at it! What a mechuzaf! 

At 56:32, Schoff again brings the Avnei Nezer, who died in 1910, and who wrote sometime in the late 1800's that "if its difficult one doesn't have to make Aliyah" which was said when there was rampant poverty and EY was under the Ottoman empire! 

At 58:55, he continues his streak of Loshon Hara and makes sweeping negative claims about the religious standards of people considering Aliyah.

 Says that most people talking about Aliya were

  "evidently not me'dakdek in the mitzvois, people whose wives are not dressed to the basic standards of the Shulcha Aruch. they are not meticulous about minyan and halacha bla bla Who has time for Halacha, I'm busy with Aliya " 

At 100:03, He again asks about the positions of Reb Moshe Feinstein, the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the Satmar Rebbe that did not make Aliyah!

Well the Satmar Rebbe did actually make Aliya in 1945 and so did his daughter and son-in-Law, there is actually a photo of the Satmar Rebbe at the Kotel! He actually advised Rav Shteinman when they were together in Switzerland in 1945, to make Aliya! 

 He intended to settle in EY but on a fundraising trip to the USA, changed his mind after many of his Chassidim that lived in Eretz Yisrael disassociated from him because of his bad advice back in Europe, that Hitler y"ms would never come to Hungary/Romania!

 In fact he very much wanted the position of Rav Zonnenfeld in 1932, and would have settled there in 1932 had he won that position. Rav Duschinsky ultimately got that position! So much for the Satmar Rebbe not making Aliya! 

What is bizarre is that here we have this Schoff guy, obviously not a Chabad guy, certainly not a Satmar Chusid, and whose wife's grandfather defied her Great-grandfather, Rav Moshe, by going up publicly on the Har Habayis and he drags them into this debate? 

Then the sneaky guy asks:

 "Did they make a mistake?" (the gedoilim)

 Obviously trying to bait Rav Michal Weichbrod into saying that Gedoilim made a mistake, so that he can use that statement, and say that those who believe that one has an obligation to make Aliya believe that those Gedoilim ",made a mistake" Thankfully Rav Weichbrod doesn't go for the bait.

Hey Schoff.....Did the Chazon Ish, the Steipler, Rav Chaim Kanievsky  etc make a "mistake" when they paskened that Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is a Mitzva Bizman Hazah? Did the Ramban make that mistake?

But I'll tell you who did make a mistake! Gedoilei Yisrael!!!!! Yes, that's not DIN saying that, but our own Holy Torah that went out of its way to tell us that the Meraglim were the Gedoilei Yisrael, and they refused to make Aliya!

At the 100:02 mark he asks how do you respond to those gedoilim who have Ruach Hakoidish.....bla bla bla"

STOP HERE NOW!

Which recent Gadol had Ruach Hakodesh?  

The Gedoilim pre-WW2 that chose to remain in Europe when Hitler ym"s was starting to gain control? 

The Satmar Rebbe said on himself Parshas Shlach 1967, that he "doesn't have Ruach Hakodoish" 

Was he lying? 

So which Gedoilim had Ruach Hakoidish??

At 100:07, he suggests asking Rav Malkiel Kotler for guidance on Aliyah — without mentioning that Rav Malkiel himself once made Aliyah, married in Israel, and intended to stay there until tragic circumstances forced him back.

 His father R' Shnuer got sick suddenly and was niftar at a relatively young age, and so he got sneakers and ran back to the USA because he wanted so much to be the Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood, though they didn't really need him, as they had 3 other capable Rabbanim; they ultimately decided to have four (for obvious reasons)! 

In fact, his wife refused to return with him, so he left her there and got himself a Heter Meah Rabbanim and married another wife! 

As far as the others that he mentions they are all Roshei Yeshiva who have their own businesses, Yeshivos in the USA and like the Meraglim are afraid they would lose their positions in EY if they made Aliyah!

Throughout the debate, Shoff repeatedly uses selective quotations, outdated sources, and emotionally charged anecdotes to create a misleading picture.

The halachic, historical, and factual record tells a very different story.