The Meaning of Religious Zionism in Our Time

Contents of the Article

We have already grown accustomed to the dichotomous division among religious Jews: ultra-Orthodox versus Zionists. It is clear to all of us that one’s attitude toward Zionism overshadows other important parameters, regarding which there is no agreement within the religious-Zionist camp. That camp has always included more and less liberal shades, more and less conservative, more or less right-wing ones, and so forth, even if the internal divisions change over time. The feeling that Religious Zionism is a small camp under a two-front attack, from secularism on one side and ultra-Orthodoxy on the other, led to the fortification of the camp under the heading of Religious Zionism. In the last generation, however, another division has begun to emerge in public discourse: Hardalim and those who are not such. Clearly this division too is crude, and each of these two groups could be split into several shades, yet my feeling is that this division can and should replace the current dichotomy. Hardal ideology is gradually becoming an inseparable part of the ultra-Orthodox outlook, and thus new ideological boundaries are being drawn. Even so, our discourse tends to cling to the old division (see, for example, the slogan about choosing a ‘Zionist chief rabbi,’ and my article in the Makor Rishon Shabbat supplement dated March 7 of this year). The sanctity of camp unity covers over all disputes, as Rabbi Neriya once said: ‘Blessed be the unifying ambiguity.’ Around the recent controversy over drafting yeshiva students and the ultra-Orthodox demonstration, one could see quite a few rabbis from the Hardal wing joining a campaign for which I find it hard to identify any moral justification whatsoever, apart from a desperate and unfair defensive effort aimed at preserving the image of ultra-Orthodox society and shielding it from those who are falsely portrayed as rising up to destroy it. All the values of Religious Zionism vanished in smoke. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. I will not return yet again to the controversies over Bible study, teacher-training institutes, the attitude toward academia in general, the appearance of women at conferences, their Torah study and publication of Torah articles, preaching campaigns against the judicial system and the Ministry of Education, and more. The liberal camp (I have no better name for it; I am waiting for a copywriter) is called by the conservatives names like ‘light,’ ‘neo-Reform,’ ‘riffraff,’ and the like, all as part of the delegitimization they are trying to impose on it. The conservatives are trying with all their might to deny legitimacy to this outlook within the field of religious and spiritual discussion, and the truth is that they are fairly successful. One of the clearest expressions of this takeover of the discourse is that group of rabbis, of fairly similar compositions and shades, that is from time to time called ‘the rabbis of Religious Zionism.’ This group publicly proclaims what the position of Religious Zionism is on any number of issues on the agenda. It may be around the choice of a chief rabbi for Israel or for Jerusalem, or around legislative questions, the Fellowship Fund and its camps, conversion, military service, and the like. The broad public is presented with a picture that forces it either to identify itself with ‘the values of Religious Zionism’ or be cast out. Even those who oppose these positions do so in a faint voice, because who can come out against the supposedly authoritative Torah view of Religious Zionism? Are we not religious Zionists committed to Torah? It is time to say, in a clear and ringing voice: this collection of rabbis, some of whom are indeed important Torah scholars, are the ‘rabbis of Religious Zionism’ only on behalf of themselves and a handful of their followers. True, they all belong to the religious-Zionist outlook. But, as noted, the important questions on the table are not connected to Zionism; this is an anachronistic line that it is time to abandon. On the questions that truly matter, with all due respect, I do not regard any of them as my rabbi. I disagree with them, or with some of them, for they too are not cut from one cloth, on almost every question on the agenda: their attitude to women, to secular wisdom, to non-Jews, to legitimate changes in Jewish law, to educational methods (separation, women’s Torah study) and the conduct of society (mixed or separate), to human rights, to the conception of Judaism and Jewish law in the state, to the mode of Jewish-legal decision making, and more. Because of this ‘blessed’ blurring, I find myself charged with the fact that ‘the rabbis of Religious Zionism’ (or some of them) oppose Rabbi Stav and his path and bring about the election of a conservative chief rabbi, oppose renting apartments to LGBT people, say that ‘the king’s daughter’s honor is within’ (Ps. 45:14) and that a Jewish woman must not hold public office or perform national service, forbid renting apartments to non-Jews, protest the ‘anti-religious legislation,’ and voice other positions that do not represent my views. What causes the dominance and hegemony of the Hardalim, and their disproportionate influence on the path and outlook of the religious-Zionist public? In my opinion there are four main reasons for this. First, the politeness and modesty, excessive in my view, of the rabbis who do not belong to this camp, who tend to efface themselves before their conservative colleagues and not answer them in kind. Second, many people, including many of our public representatives, lack the Torah learning needed to judge greatness in Torah, and therefore they are impressed by the length of the robe and beard, or by age, and perhaps also by stories, sometimes true, about prodigious religious learning. All this comes at the expense of originality, sound judgment, involvement in what is happening in the world, general education, and other parameters that are no less important for religious greatness in our time. The Meaning of Religious Zionism Today – Michael Abraham, PhD in physics, works in general philosophy, Jewish philosophy, and logic. Third, the percentage of educators who belong to the Hardal stream is far higher than their percentage in the general population, and their adherence to their path is strong. The fourth reason is the anachronism that sees today’s relevant front line on the religious-Zionist versus ultra-Orthodox axis. If I am a Zionist and also religious, then of course I belong to the camp led by these rabbis. Indeed, we have much in common. We are all committed to Torah and Jewish law, and of course to increasing the honor of Heaven and of Judaism. This is true of the ultra-Orthodox as well. With the Hardalim there are a few more points of similarity: we recite Hallel on Independence Day, and perhaps also support the sale dispensation for the sabbatical year, though some ultra-Orthodox do too. But on the practical plane, what matters more is what those values actually mean in practice. Here I see almost nothing shared between the camps. This blurring creates distortions in the shaping of public opinion, as I will now try to show. Let us look at the stormy campaign that has been underway in recent months against the wave of ‘anti-religious’ legislation. Ultra-Orthodox and Hardal rabbis and public figures repeatedly point to anti-Jewish and anti-religious conduct on the part of the government. Of course, the collaborators from the Jewish Home who are partners in the ‘government of wickedness’ and its decisions are accused of part of the responsibility as well, not to mention members of Knesset and ministers from ‘secular’ parties, heaven forfend. On this there is a consensus between the Hardal wing of Religious Zionism and the ultra-Orthodox. Arutz 7 reports to us: ‘The Housing Minister met with the Sephardic Chief Rabbi and discussed with him the wave of legislation on matters of religion and state. Rabbi Yosef expressed his concern, and Minister Ariel joined in these worries.’ The link in that article takes us directly to the law establishing a single chief rabbi. The rabbis of Har HaMor and those close to them, the so-called ‘Kav’ rabbis, join this witch hunt with even greater force, following directives from their teacher, Rabbi Tau. The Liba organization, which acts on their behalf and mobilizes them, has launched an ‘information’ campaign across the country, as part of which ‘classes’ are given about the ‘anti-religious legislation’ and its implications. Among other things, Rabbi Mikha Halevi, the chief rabbi of Petah Tikva, came to Lod to give a ‘class’ on the subject of religious legislation, something that should be examined by the Attorney General in light of the civil-service regulations that apply to public employees and explicitly include city rabbis, forbidding them to criticize legislative acts of the Knesset. Rabbi Lior went further still: in a letter published on his Facebook page after the kidnapping of the boys, he wrote the following: ‘If we think that troubles come by chance and by the ordinary course of the world, and not because of our deeds, God will punish us for that very thought, because scrutinizing our deeds is a commandment from the Torah. But beyond that, the leadership of the people of Israel must examine its actions, especially in recent times. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a severe deterioration in the government’s approach to the Jewish character of the state. There is an assault of laws whose common denominator is injury to and erosion of the Jewish character of our public life, such as harming the structure of the family unit, harming conversion procedures according to Torah law, and an attempt to undermine the requirement that a convert observe Torah and commandments, as well as other similar laws. The purpose of this legislative assault is to blur the distinctiveness of the people of Israel and make it like all the nations, heaven forbid.’ Yuval Diskin has already remarked that it is strange that God chose to punish precisely three religious boys, yeshiva students. Well, he has probably never heard ‘Through those near Me I will be sanctified’ (Lev. 10:3). And now to the collaborators. On the Kipa website the following report appeared: ‘Rabbi Tzvi Tau, president of the Har HaMor yeshivot, decided to sever ties with the yeshiva Shevei Hevron, which belongs to the Har HaMor stream of yeshivot, following the support given by Rabbi Hananel Etrog, the head of the yeshiva, to the Jewish Home party. After contacts between the rabbis themselves and their relatives, Rabbi Etrog convened the yeshiva students and announced: Rabbi Tau will continue his connection with the yeshiva, and the yeshiva will sever its connection with the Jewish Home.’ Wow, we were saved, thank God. Psifas, Elul 5774, August 2014, 16

A few days ago the following email reached the Google group of the Torah nucleus in Lod: ‘Attached is an in-depth analysis of processes in Israeli public life, with emphasis on the place of Religious Zionism. The analysis was written by Rabbi Yosef Klener of Jerusalem, one of the deepest thinkers among the students of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook.’ I rushed to read the in-depth analysis; perhaps at last I would merit descending to the depths of the secrets of the faith of our times. I read, and found flat, dogmatic, unreasoned verbiage, saturated with ugly slanders against Rabbi Stav, Naftali Bennett, and Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan. Time and again he falls into ad hominem argumentation, addressing the speaker rather than the argument, and into malicious-speech violations of the strictest sort. In the war against the wicked government, anything goes. If this is what is called an ‘in-depth analysis,’ believe me, you would not want to encounter a not-in-depth analysis in a dark alley. Many of the more prominent rabbis of Religious Zionism join the ultra-Orthodox and see some of their own public emissaries as collaborators with the ‘anti-religious government of wickedness.’ Can a God-fearing Jew stand idly by in the face of this? It is no wonder that even someone who in his heart dares to support some of these laws does so in a faint voice and with apologies such as ‘there is no choice,’ ‘one must compromise,’ and so on. People who lack the Jewish-legal and textual tools to criticize these nonsensical statements stand before them divided: on the one hand, they feel that these views are not theirs; on the other hand, this is supposedly the authoritative Torah view, and one must submit to it. But are these really anti-religious laws? Rabbi Klener gives three examples. The first is the law of one chief rabbi. This is one of the most sensible and reasonable laws I can think of, and to my mind no religious value should be harmed here. A considerable part of its initiators are religious people, who act this way out of their correct understanding of what is useful and proper. When the ultra-Orthodox attack this, it is self-evident. The rabbinate does not really interest them. It is simply one fewer place of livelihood and power for their own insiders. But what are religious-Zionist rabbis doing there? It is hard to believe what a frenzy surrounds this innocent and self-evident law. Why is it important at all? What difference does it make whether there will be one or two, aside from a bit less chaos, intrigue, and waste of money? The second law Rabbi Klener mentions is the conversion law. This is not about Reform conversion, heaven forfend, nor about civil conversion. The law speaks of decentralizing conversion among the rabbinical courts of city rabbis, who of course serve under the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate itself. The Chief Rabbinate opposes it as part of an attempt to keep power in its own hands, or rather in the hands of its ultra-Orthodox patrons, since to our misfortune there are still a few religious-Zionist failures among the city rabbis. Not many, thank God, but even so it is dangerous. Again, this is a law supported mainly by religious members of Knesset, and for reasons connected to their worldview. I should note that on the plane of Jewish law I count myself among the stringent regarding conversion, and among the opponents of Rabbi Druckman’s institutional conversions. But even if one opposes this law for some reason, what exactly is ‘anti-religious’ here? The third law is the surrogacy law, which also allows same-sex couples to bring children into the world through a surrogacy process and raise them. This is the most confusing law from the standpoint of the ordinary layman, because at first glance it seems that whatever our opinion may be, the Torah forbids it. So this is truly an ‘anti-religious’ law, isn’t it? But as far as I know, there is no prohibition whatsoever on a same-sex couple raising a child. There is, of course, a prohibition on such sexual relations, but by the same token there is also a prohibition on desecrating the Sabbath. Does anyone support denying surrogacy to Sabbath desecrators? And what about people who have relations with menstruants or eat forbidden foods? What does ‘anti-religiousness’ have to do with this? This is humane and sensible legislation, called for by civil rights, which are a cornerstone of our state, and therefore in effect unavoidable. It forces nothing on anyone; it merely prevents unjustified coercion. The last thing one can say about it is that it is ‘anti-religious.’ What defect do Rabbi Klener and his colleagues find in these laws, or, in his words, in ‘the astonishing tsunami of anti-religious legislation’? Even if he has some argument, he did not manage to get to it in the class. The only argument I found in his ‘in-depth’ article was pointing to the ‘wicked people’ who initiated the legislation, Lapid, Stern, and the rest. What in all these paranoid fantasies, it is worth reading there; it is really a matter for professional diagnosis, belongs to a religious-Zionist doctrine? What ultra-Orthodox person would not sign every word of his? What in all this has anything to do with my Torah outlook? Nothing. The necessary conclusion is that today it is important to redraw the battle lines along axes such as conservatism versus innovation, liberalism and coercion, the character of the state, the conduct of the Chief Rabbinate, attitudes toward ‘others,’ and so on. Of course, like any classification, this one too does not exhaust the depth of the matter. No group is cut from one cloth, neither the Hardal camp nor the other one. But that is built into disputes between ideological groups. In any case, these are lines far more relevant than the line of Religious Zionism, at least on the practical level. All of us define ourselves by our attitude toward the establishment of the state, when it has already existed for nearly seventy years, like that midrash in Genesis Rabbah that tells of the debates over whether man should be created: ‘R. Huna Rabbah of Tzippori said: While the ministering angels were debating with one another and occupied with one another, the Holy One, blessed be He, created him. He said to them: What are you debating? Man has already been made’ (Genesis Rabbah 8:5). Why fight over spilled milk? Today, thank God, we already have other issues over which to quarrel. And what of the Land of Israel? Is it not for its sake and in its name that all this unifying blurring is done? I can only quote here the words of Rabbi Klener: ‘The Land of Israel is no longer the issue. This struggle belongs to the concepts of the past; at any rate it is no longer the main struggle before us. There is an urgent need to understand what the next struggle is, and to prepare for it, sooner rather than later. Colossal confrontations lie before us, causing no less tension than the tension in which we lived over the past decades regarding the Land of Israel. The tension may even be of far greater intensity, but now the subject is different. The subject is identity and culture. The definition of the essence of the State of Israel. Is the State of Israel a state bearing a Jewish stamp, or is it a state of all its citizens?’ Well spoken. To conclude, I call here upon my friends and fellow rabbis who are not Hardal to stop effacing themselves before the Hardal group. We must serve as the voice of a group that for the moment seems not to have a sufficiently clear rabbinic voice. Organizations like Tzohar and Beit Hillel do not express sufficiently clear positions, do not position themselves as a clear alternative to the Hardal stance, and are even less willing to challenge its leaders directly. Their discourse is vague, and not without reason. This does not mean that the discourse must necessarily be disrespectful, as the Hardal group currently behaves. But ideological struggles are not served by blurring. Disputes must be clarified firmly and in a clear voice. We must come to our senses, so that R. Yohanan’s dictum will not be fulfilled in us: ‘The humility of R. Zechariah ben Avkulas destroyed our House, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land’ (Gittin 56a). Ideological struggles are not served by blurring. Disputes must be clarified firmly and in a clear voice. If you have creative leadership ability – Talpiot College, 7 Yotvata Street, Holon. Website: www.talpiot.ac.il, email: talpiot323@gmail.com, for registration: 1-800-071-500, 03-5128540. Join us on the road to success with a broad range of tracks for a degree and teaching certificate: preschool education, special education, B.Ed. in art education, teachers and educators for elementary and secondary school in a broad variety of specializations: Bible, Oral Law, literature, language, sciences, mathematics, English, educational counseling. The first applicants who are duly accepted for the 5775 academic year will receive a special benefit: participation in an external psychometric course in the amount of 1000 (conditional on presentation of a receipt). For details: 03-5128540. Academic studies integrated with Torah studies within the ‘Aviv’ study halls framework (Holon) and Modi’in (in Modi’in). Three study days, a long weekend, free tuition in the excellence track! Possibility of dormitories – a daycare center at the college for your peace of mind Organized transportation from central routes: from Kesem Junction and from the North Railway Station andsubsistence scholarship of 5,000 * subject to approval by the Council for Higher Education as needed ***for suitable candidates only. New! A train line to the college from all over the country. First academic year free for women performing national service from peripheral communities, under the amendment to the Discharged Soldiers Law. When choosing a place of study and teachers, one does not gamble! Your place is at Talpiot Academic College of Education in Holon. Psifas, Elul 5774, August 2014, 18