Question

Hi, I’m sure you know Asaf Inbari’s famous article. I reread it recently, and I’m pulling out and sending you the following passage from it:
 
“Does Religious Zionism today have the power to serve as a spiritual force—and not a political force—that could influence the social and cultural character of the secular state?” Ehud Luz wonders in that same article, and he sets out three conditions that are necessary for this, in his view. The first condition is “the growth of a new theology that will provide the basis for a new cultural-social orientation.” The second condition is “the cultivation of a new spiritual leadership” that will have “the ability to inject new dynamism into Jewish law,” and the third condition is “the depoliticization of religion through the separation of religion and state, or at least through the establishment of a new relationship between them.”
 
By presenting Religious Zionism with these three conditions, Luz is playing into the hands of its gatekeepers. For if the chance that Religious Zionism will begin contributing anything to Israeli culture depends, as Luz says, on the fulfillment of conditions so sky-high and so difficult to attain; if the matter depends, as Luz says, on a theological revolution, and as though that were not enough, also on a halakhic revolution, and as though those two were not enough, also on an internal political revolution within the sector—replacing the rabbis of Religious Zionism with spiritual leaders of a different kind—and as though those three were not enough, also on a general state-level political revolution of separating religion from the state—then Religious Zionism can breathe easy: this is a Jewish law for the days of the Messiah.
 
 
I suddenly thought that you contribute a great deal—and recently, in the trilogy in particular—regarding the three conditions set by Ehud Luz, which in Asaf Inbari’s eyes seem like something “for the days of the Messiah.”