Q&A: Zion
Zion
Question
I dare be cheeky, now that Zionism has become so widespread:
Was the Jewish people really a people, a nation, during its time in exile? Every sociologist agrees that there are necessary conditions for being a nation, such as a language, a shared territory, and so on—things the Jews in exile did not have. Shouldn’t we see the Jews during the period of exile as only a religious unity? What do you think?
And in general, do all these questions have any practical implications? Maybe they help us understand our identity—meaning, is it an affront to the Torah or to Jewish thought (to the extent that there even is such a field; your view is known, and I agree with it) to say that Judaism is only a religion and not a nationality?
Answer
This is a question that has no unequivocal answer. The concept of a people is not well defined, so you can define it either way—yes or no. It’s basically just a matter of definition. Clearly there was Jewish cohesion across communities, and there is certainly room to treat that as a national definition. The lack of a territory and a common language (although the holy tongue was in fact shared by most of them—in the prayer book and in the Bible, for example) is a common characteristic, but not a necessary one. When there are other cohesive factors, that can also suffice.
But these questions have no practical implications at all, and they aren’t interesting. As I said, it’s just a matter of definition. So there is also no affront here to the Torah or to Jewish thought (especially since there is no such thing). And in general, the truth is not supposed to offend the Torah, so the only important question is whether this is the truth, not whether it offends someone or something.