Q&A: On Religious Zionism Without a Hyphen
On Religious Zionism Without a Hyphen
Question
I read your article (old, but still very timely), “The Third Way — Religious Zionism Without a Hyphen.” I definitely agree that one should not grant the State a status of holiness, nor see it as some entity that needs to be forcibly turned into something religious. And likewise, that one should conduct oneself in reality according to what one actually sees on the ground, and not according to all sorts of messianic considerations.
But I wanted to ask: you draw a sharp distinction between “religion” and “nationhood” — don’t you think that the return of the Jewish people to its land is a process with religious significance? After all, “because of our sins we were exiled from our land,” and all the prophets prophesied about the return to the land — something that has happened over the last 150 years. Is there no religious significance to the return to the land, not in a practical sense but in an ideological one?
In addition, we also see in many halakhic decisors that the definition of “the cities of Israel in their ruin” is that they are not under Jewish rule. So is there no value to Jews holding the Land of Israel?
Additionally, the role of the Jewish people is to reveal God’s name in the world: “This people I formed for Myself, that they might declare My praise.” So is there no value in the Jewish people once again standing as a people and not as a collection of scattered individuals?
In sum — in your opinion, is the joy over the return to the land and the establishment of the State only because we now have a political refuge, and nothing beyond that?
Answer
I don’t completely understand the question. What does it mean that this has religious significance? Any implications? If you present a concrete implication, I can discuss it.
As for the matter itself, Jewish sovereignty is not defined by the ruler’s mother but by the ruler’s culture. The culture in present-day Israel is not Jewish (speaking Hebrew and reading Amos Oz does not make it so). Our nation is a nation only through its Torahs.
Discussion on Answer
The culture in present-day Israel is half-Jewish. There is an ongoing sense of one people, and they preserve scraps of tradition as a matter of folklore. Maybe “its Torahs” thinks they are the condition for our nationhood, but of course that is absurd nonsense.
Nahum G, the people are with you.
It would be more accurate to argue that this is a definition stemming from one of the possible interpretations of “its Torahs” — an interpretation Rabbi Michi holds on the basis of weighty arguments that he laid out in a series of articles. One can disagree with him, and in my view those who disagree also have serious arguments. It is certainly not absurd nonsense.
Ofer — what I said still stands even if the Written Torah together with some oral traditions was given to Moses at Sinai. The Jewish people is a people like any other people, and maybe it also has a Torah. A people like any other people — like the French, like the Indonesians and the Swedes, like all the nations, the house of Israel. Everything the Swedes have, the Jewish people has too, and maybe it has more things besides. The anomaly in the area of conversion — that someone who converts according to Jewish law is immediately considered “Jewish” even in the consciousness of secular people — is merely a psychological inheritance, nothing more. On the contrary, try proposing guidelines for defining a “people” and show me that the present-day Jewish people does not meet them. And this state is the national home of that people, so by any reasonable definition of a “Jewish state,” it is a Jewish state. Above, reference was made to “the ruler’s culture,” and if they explain what that means I can respond more specifically.
Nahum — what you’re saying is possible, and the anomaly you point to is indeed troubling. That’s not what I was referring to. I don’t think the discussion is whether the Jewish people is a people, but rather what defines it and what defines belonging to it. True, the Jewish people is like all other peoples, and it also has a Torah that parts of the people consider binding. Does it, and if so how does it, generate the definition of Jewishness? Rabbi Michi, it seems, argues that it does, and supports his claims through a long logical argument in which he tries to define and clarify concepts. His analysis poses a challenge to anyone unwilling to adopt an essentialist definition of Judaism. I do not agree with his conclusion or with some of his arguments, but in order to do that one has to address his arguments in an orderly way and present alternative definitions that can withstand critical scrutiny. Either way, it is a serious position, not absurd nonsense.
So to understand why it’s not absurd nonsense you have to read a whole series of articles?? You know what, send me a link to the first article that touches on this issue and I’ll respond to the arguments and definitions. If after the arguments it turns out that this isn’t absurd nonsense, I’ll donate money to the Paamonim organization.
In order to claim that a position is absurd nonsense, you need to know the position. Otherwise the claim is meaningless. Since I’m fond of Paamonim, I’ll refer you to column 130 on the site and to the articles linked in the footnotes (at least the one in Akdamot).
Look, the claim is a very familiar one that lots of religious people wave around, and that’s what I was responding to. Am I supposed to guess that here there’s someone making that same familiar claim but with mysterious arguments? In any case, thanks for the reference — I’m reading.
All the laws of justice and government here are literally those of gentiles.
Where is the law of the Sabbatical year for lands, and jubilees, and ancestral inheritances?
The prohibitions of lending with interest, and the cancellation of debts?
And the point of linking the Sabbatical year to Mount Sinai is that so long as the laws of the Sabbatical year are not being observed, it is as if the Torah has still not been received.
And as is quite clear today, the Jewish people does not accept and has no interest in accepting the laws of the Sabbatical year.
Rabbi,
you did not address the question of tearing one’s garment upon seeing the cities of Judea in their ruin. According to the Rabbi’s view, has Jewish power not prevailed, such that one must still tear one’s garment upon seeing the cities of Judea in their ruin, or is this still defined as a Jewish state, such that one need not tear one’s garment upon seeing the cities of Judea in their ruin?
I don’t think there is ruin here. Jerusalem may be a different story because of the Temple.
A. The question is whether something that lacks practical implications means that it is not significant. In my opinion it is significant, in the sense that one should reflect on the deeds of the Holy One, blessed be He, and thank Him for returning the Jewish people to the Land of Israel as part of the historical process of redemption, and not just for having physically saved us.
B. Granted, “our nation is a nation only through its Torahs,” but even someone who does not observe Torah and commandments is still considered part of the Jewish nation. So there is room to say that even Jewish possession of the Land of Israel is a value that does not necessarily depend on the culture they represent.