Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French

The relevance of Torah Today: The land and the State of Israel in israeli religious life
Uriel Tal

 

A few months after the Yom Kippur War a group of Israeli students, teachers, young scholars, kibbutz members and professional soldiers participated in a discussion on € The meaning of Jewish tradition for our time and our existence in Israel is. Since the Torah portion of the week in which they met happened to be B'shalaly (Exodus 13:17 - 17:16), they decided to use that text as a point of departure.

The first speaker maintained that this weekly portion offers one of many proofs that the Jewish heritage is highly relevant for our time and out situation in Israel. He quoted from the biblical text:

And it came to pass when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines . . . lest the people have a change of heart when they see war and return to Egypt. But God led the people about by the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 13:17-18).

The student speaking added that many exegetes (including Sforno, Ibn Ezra and Bahya on the basis of the Melehilta) interpreted the words is and they went up armed out of the land of Egypt literally, to mean « equipped and ready for war ». The Rashbam explains that they armed themselves to conquer the land, « as they were going to take possession of the land of Canaan ». Ibn Ezra further explains that the Holy One blessed be He arranged for the desert death of the entire generation which « had learned from its youth to suffer the yoke of Egypt and thus its spirit was depressed . . . and Israel was weakened and not learned in war . . . until another generation arose after the desert generation, a generation which had never seen exile, and their spirit was high. . . . » This means that the war against the Amalekites was designed to teach the Israelites down to the present day not to rely only on supernatural miracles to attain freedom (or, in our day, the realization of political Zionism) but rather to learn war through trust in God. Other exegetes, like the Malbim, similarly explained that the Holy One blessed be He compelled the Israelites to fight because divine help does not apply except to assist the natural human effort.

And for Israel to over come . . . heroic peoples . . natural preparation is necessary so that they have a heroic spirit, and divine influence will apply to this preparation to give them courage ... and they did not have this training when they departed from Egypt..

Indeed, concluded the first speaker, mentors of the present generation like Rabbis Shlomo Goren, Israel Shatzipanski and Shad Israeli, have interpreted Scripture in the same spirit, stating that « . from the day they left Egypt God prepared them for the conquest of the land by natural means, and the war against the Amalekites was preparation for it . . » (cf. the essay by Rabbi Israel Shatzipanski in Torah Umlubah, ed. by Shimon Federbush, Jerusalem: 1961, p. 108).

This presentation was countered by another participant, a student of Jewish philosophy majoring in Hasidism and its sources in Midrash and ICabbalah, who declared that such an interpretation was nothing more than an ideology justifying a political conception. Commentators within Jewish mysticism explain the same Torah portion in a different, even opposite, way which is symbolic, spiritual and psychological. According to leading hasidic commentaries (such as Toldot Jakob Joseph, Noam Elimelekb, Obey Israel, i.e., the Apter Ray, and Knesset Israel by Rabbi Israel of Rizhin) not Pharaoh but evil nature was the ruler of Egypt. (The Hebrew letters of the word Pharaoh rearranged spell oreph, meaning a spirit which stiffens man's neck.) Further, the words « when Pharaoh had let the people go » mean that he freed the Israelites of their sins, that is he showed them a way to be redeemed from sin. « Egypt » in this interpretation is not the historical land of Egypt but « the place of ultimate impurity ». Thus the phrase « lest the people have a change of heart when they see war » does not refer to an actual military battle but to man's war against evil nature, an inner, moral war, a symbolic-mystic struggle designed to bring metaphysical redemption nearer. The fear lest the people « return to Egypt » is thus interpreted to mean fear that when they encounter the difficulties of the inner moral struggle they will wish to return to « Egypt *, to impurity and sin. Finally, the phrase stating that they « went up armed out of the land of Egypt » does not refer literally to arms and weapons. It means that they were equipped with spiritual, moral, mystic weapons « so that evil nature should not rule them ».

A third participant, a student of Bible and archaeology, stated that neither of these two interpretations sounded reasonable to him, unless they were considered simply as intellectual word games. If we are looking for the relevance of Jewish tradition, he said, the first explanation fails because it makes the fight for the land of Israel dependent upon God. He was not religious, he continued, but if he were, he could not imagine that God would desire wars, actually order wars to be conducted, approve the use of force and even guide the Israelite trek through the desert, compelling them to fight so that blood would be shed. « What God, » he insisted, « would want widows and orphans and incurable cripples? y, And the second explanation is not acceptable either, he went on, because in our time, in the twentieth century, the age of rationalism, technology and positivism, there is no place for mystical or even symbolic understanding of historical, political or empirical phenomena.

I contend, this student continued, that Egypt is Egypt and the Red Sca is the Red Sea, and the subject of chapter thirteen of Exodus is a concrete description of the Israelite trek at the beginning of the thirteenth century B.C.E. In fact, the temple of Seti I in Karnak contains a series of reliefs like a military map, showing the route from Silo near Kantara in the Suez Canal region of today to Rafiah. The reliefs and otherarchaeological findings, among them a literary document dating from the time of Raamses II in the middle of the thirteenth century B.C.E., indicate that the € way of the land of the Philistines » was a route along the coast from Egypt to Canaan, part of the international route from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Documents from the period of the exodus, he explained, call the route a( the ways of Hor », that is, the ways of the god Hor (or Horns) since it was used by the Egyptian Pharaohs leading their troops on military campaigns to Palestine and Syria. The Egyptians set up forts and stations at frequent intervals in the desert section of the route in order to ensure transport and supply to the troops and caravans. As it was well defended by forts and fortified watering places serving Pharaoh's troops and chariots, this route might have become a military trap for the Israelite tribes which left Egypt. It is for this reason, and not for some mystic or theological motive, that they sought to avoid the « way of the land of the Philistines ».

This young man agreed that the Bible is close to us today, but it is close simply from an historical-geographic or even strategic point of view. Furthermore, this relationship is evident even in some of the place names appearing in the Torah, in the same weekly portion under discussion, names which also figure in Egyptian documents from the time of Seti I and Raamses II. Thus, for example, the Bible mentions the place name Migdol » which turns out to be an Egyptian fort on the military route from Egypt to Palestine. And « Baal Tsafon », named for one of the Canaanite gods, is the site of a temple for seafarers erected on the narrow strip stretching north from Yamma Hasirbonit (now Sabhat Bardawil) on the north shore of Sinai. As for the Red Sea (Yam Sun, an Egyptian document of about 1100 B.C.E. applied the name « Suf » to the area of marshes north of Tzoan, which is Bet Raamses. Obviously, then, the young man summed up, the Israelites wanted to avoid the Egyptian network of forts and therefore went along the narrow northern strip. I have no doubt, he said, that such concrete historic associations deepen my feeling of belonging to this region. We are part of the Middle East, this is our home, here was our past, our present is here and our future as well.

A fourth person rose to maintain that nothing his predecessors went to such pains to study, investigate and explain, no matter how interesting from a theoretical point of view, had anything to do with our present situation. The only thing that can be said about our situation today, he contended, is that we are the ball in a game among international political and economic powers. We are simply the victims of political intrigues and the irrational motives of tribal societies, and of a late and backward nationalist awakening here in the Middle East. We are simply a victim, he cried out, and anybody who tries to find some theological significance or historical connection or mystical relationship is only deluding himself and projecting his ideological needs, the need to justify our existence here and now, on to something artificial which he even calls by beautiful names like Jewish Identity or Divine Providence. Furthermore, he concluded, we are being pushed into narrow-minded chauvinism, into extremist fanatic nationalism at the very time when the enlightened world is tired of nationalism and is advancing toward a universal society.

Countless discussions of this type are taking place these days among young Israeli intellectuals. The deeper motivation for these deliberations, so it would seem, is by no means new in the history of the Jewish people. Contemplation of the theological and eschatological meaning of the historical, concrete reality has always been an inseparable part of Jewish life and creativity. Problems of this sort have risen not only in times of crisis such as in the days of the destruction of the Second Temple or after the expulsion from Spain, but also during periods of cultural contact between Judaism and the surrounding culture. From the middle of the eighteenth century on, with modernization and secularization, the traditional answers to the quest for the meaning of historical reality more and more lost their appeal. Then, with political Zionism and in the course of Israel's wars (during this generation in particular),self-searching acquired new significance and great intensity. People in Israel are very much aware of the fact that this time the questions are not only theoretical. The actual physical existence of Israel, society and state, is affected to a considerable extent by these problems and the solutions proposed for them.

What, then, are the religious approaches and trends in Israel that attempt to grapple with the question of the significance of Israel the land and the state?

We cannot deal here with all varieties of religious response to the challenge of Israel - land and state. Additional study is required of trends expressed in the writings of Rabbi Jack Cohen (such as « A New View of Zionism >s in Petahim, 2 (32), 1975, pp. 25ff.), Pinchas Hacohen Peli (« The Future of Israel » in Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly, Vol. XXXVI pp. 8ff.), Yeshayahu Leibovitz (such as Judaism, the Jewish People and the State of Israel, 3rd ed., Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1975; cf. Pinchas Rosenblueth, « The Jewishness of I. Leibovitz » in Petahim, 2 (35), 1976, pp. 49ff.), Rabbi Menachem Hacohen, Rabbi Shmuel Hacohen Avidor, Eliezer Schweid and others. Many of the trends not discussed in our essay have been included in the bibliography (1). Also, since our discussion is limited to Israeli religious self-expression, authors from other countries who have contributed to the topic of this essay could not be dealt with here.

Political Messianic Trend

War as religious obligation

The first trend in our discussion is that developed within the Gush Emunim (2) movement and which can be found among students of yeshivot such as Merkaz Hatay or Kfar Haroeh, among the Tzeirei Mafdal, among settlers in the territories, and in the religious-national youth movements and schools. One of its systematic points of departure is that Israel's wars are to be considered milhamot mitzvah, a wars which constitute a religious obligation ». As Maimonides wrote, y A war which constitutes a religious obligation is the war against the seven (Canaanite) peoples and the war against Amalek and the rescue of (the people of) Israel from an enemy who attacks them ... » (Hilkhot Melakhim V:1). Opinions are divided as to whether all of these three criteria are equally valid today. The possibility of applying the war of the seven Canaanite peoples and the war of Amalek to the present day situation is particularly disputed.
Some commentators, including Rabbi Menachem M. Kasher, whose book Hatekufah Hagedolab (The Great Era, Jerusalem: 1972) stirred great interest among the younger generation in Israel, maintain the view that such an analogy to the present day situation should in fact be drawn; that the commandments of the Torah concerning the Seven Nations and even Amalek are applicable to the Arabs today; and that, accordingly, the biblical verse u ... I will drive them out before you little by little, until you have increased and possess the land * (Exodus 23:29-30) applies to our relationship with the Arabs in Eretz Yisrael today. This application has received a mystical meaning in Rabbi Kasher's system and among his followers. Accordingly, the passage from the Zohar (cited in Torah Sbleimah on Exodus, 3 237) stating that the Holy One blessed be He u uproots dwellers 3 and « introduces dwellers 3 is interpreted to mean that He uproots Arabs and settles Jews, uproots the Canaanite and brings in Israel, and this is actually being fulfilled in political reality. Furthermore, « the flight of one million Arabs from Eretz Yisrael h during the War of Independence is evidence of divine providence and God's charity (Hatekukh Hagedolah, PP. 38ff.).

This application is challenged, however, not only from among those who strongly oppose this trend, such as the distinguished religious thinker Ernst Akiba Simon (Petahim, 5 (10), 1969, pp. 44-5), but also from among authors who belong to this trend, such as Rabbi Shemarya Arieli. While Rabbi Arieli asserts in his book Mishpat Hamilhamah (Jerusalem: 1972) that all the territories are sanctified and that « ... the holiness of the Land of Israel should be applied to the Sinai desert, Sharem a-Sheikh and the east coast of the Suez canal », he believes that only one of the three reasons for a war of religious obligation is valid today. The wars of Israel belong to the category of « rescuing Israel from an enemy >>. But the destruction of the Seven Nations and the smiting of Amalek are commandments that are not applicable to the Arabs today (as indeed can be derived from Maimonides, Hilhot Melakhim V:4 and Sekr Hamitzvot, positive commandment No. 187). According to these sources it follows that « the memory of the Seven (Canaanite) Nations has been extinguished v. Also, Amalek can no longer be identified since, according to the Mishnah, Sennecherib arose and confused the nations 3. Rabbi Yitzchak Freilich (Or Hamizrah, XXVIII, 1968) gives a different reason. While not denying the fundamental obligation of destroying Amalek, he cites Yagabot Maimoniyot to Hilkhot Melakhim V:1 to prove that « this law does not apply until the messianic era after the conquest of the land, for it is stated in Deuteronomy 25:19, 'Therefore, when the Lord your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you ... blot out the memory of Amalek...

This point of departure in its various interpretations, defining the wars of Israel as wars of religious obligation, is expanded in Nachmanides' notes on Maimonides' Seler Hamitzvot, Positive Commandment 4 and in his commentary to Numbers 33:53. x ... And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it ... n The sources can be found in many studies, treatises, sermons and even services, including the Tikun Yom Ha'atzmaut, a prayer book for the Day of Independence widely used even among the nonreligious. Thus: « ... We are commanded to take possession of the land . . . We should not leave it in the hands of any other people or allow it to lie in waste ... This is what the Sages call a war of religious obligation ... that we are commanded to take possession of the land and settle it.... » The essence of this commandment, in the words of Nachmanides, is « ... that we are commanded to enter the land, to conquer its cities, and to settle our tribes there ... for this is the commandment of conquest....’

A fundamental principle in this exegesis, to the extent that it has become a political ideology, is that the commandment to settle the Land of Israel is part of the commandment to conquer the land. This is learned from the Talmud (Kiddushin 26a): a... And you shall take possession of it and settle it. By what means will you take possession of it? By settling it! That is to say that the settling is included in the commandment of conquering, just as the conquest of the wilderness is part of the martial conquest. The same conclusion is derived from the Toselta to Avodah Zarab V:2, as long as they are settled on it, it is as if conquered. If they are not settled on it, it is as if it is not conquered.”

From this point of departure, the essence of which is in the normative, absolutist authority and the sanctified significance bestowed upon the conquest, not simply the settlement, of Eretz Yisrael, there emerges a conception of the State of Israel as a redemptive phenomenon.

Beginning of messianic age

According to this point of view, the State of Israel and its wars are evidence of a process of redemption which is taking place today before our eyes, first of all through natural ways but, as we shall see later, by supernatural ways as well. This is derived from the teaching of the amora Mar Shmuel. Shmuel asserted (for example, in Berakhot 34b) that the only distinction between this world and the messianic age is political subjugation, or the subjugation of the exiles according to other variants. This means that the messianic age is a meta-historical and messianic-political concept and not (or at least not primarily) a messianic-cosmic concept. It follows from this that prophecies of drastic changes in the order of nature and creation at the final re. demption were not intended for the messianic age but rather for a distant, unknown future—The World to come. According to Rabbi Shlomo Goren (Torat Hamoadim, Tel-Aviv: 1964, p. 546) and many others, prophecies of this category are not relevant for our time. Rather, they are intended for an unknown eschatological future. This includes even prophecies of Isaiah on peace or on cosmic changes (Shabbat 63a). On the other hand, Rabbi Goren continues, in the physical, earthly and political sense, the beginning of the messianic age is already being revealed in our time, as expressed by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner in his essay Messianic Reality (Morashah IX, 1975, p. 63). Accordingly we are already in the era of the Revealed End. x ... We affirm the absolute certitude of the appearance of the redemption now. Nothing here is of the realm of the secret or hidden. Rather, here are revealed, simple, explicit and dear signs: Nothing represents the Revealed End more than this: 0 mountains of Israel, give your branches and bear your fruit for my people Israel, for their arrival approaches' (Sanhedrin 98a). This clear sign of our agricultural settlement in our land and its bearing fruit generously (Rashi) is so revealed and simple.... »

Moving from here, from the approach of Mar Shmuel to calculating the messianic age, and from its application to earthly reality, to worldliness and consequently to the current political reality of Israel and the Middle East, Rabbis Shlomo Goren, Joshua Menahem Ehrenberg, Shaul Israeli and many others conclude that this concrete redemption is being achieved only through the force of arms and by special heavenly assistance, given and revealed by natural means. Breaking off the yoke of the nations in the sense of beginning the messianic age is being achieved by virtue of a the constant superiority of Israel's military power », in the words of Rabbi Goren (Coral Hamoadim, p. 547). As a result, as Maimonides wrote in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Pere* Heilek of Sanhedrin, « ... all the nations will make peace with the King Messiah and whoever will rise up against him will be destroyed and delivered into his hands by God, may He be exalted ». Once again we have an emphasis that those prophecies which contain an eschatological element but do not refer to total changes in the order of creation are the relevant prophecies for our time, such as those envisioning the ingathering of exiles and the return of political sovereignty to the people of Israel.

The criterion of assessing whether our age is indeed the beginning of redemption is not necessarily one of hidden wonders. Furthermore, contrary to the doctrine of Rav Zvi Yehudah Kook and Ray 0. Hadya (Eretz Nahelah—Zehutenu al Eretz Yisrael, ed. by Yehuda Shaviv, Jerusalem, 1976, pp. 111-12), Yitzchak Shilat (Greenspan) emphasizes that a ... messianism in its plain original meaning is not a hidden yearning in the heartsof mystical dreamers who are longing for a life different from the existence known to us in this world ... » (Morarhah IX, p. 58).

Lately we hear warnings against an excess of mysticism coming from within the religious Zionist camp, among the supporters of the Gush Emunim group themselves. In these cases particular prominence is given to the warning by Maimonides (Hilkhot Melakhim XI:3), according to which one should not expect the King Messiah to perform wonders and signs, to create new realities in the world or to resurrect the dead. On the contrary, it is repeatedly emphasized that x ... in his first steps and when he begins to reveal himself he (the messianic king) is not required to perform signs and wonders but rather to conquer the land and establish the independent government of Israel, to build the Temple, to gather in the exiles ... and only afterwards to slowly progress towards realizing the entire vision. At first he will conduct himself more or less in the natural ways of this world ... » (Goren, Torat Hamoadim, p. 551). In the same spirit, Rabbi Israel Shazipanski asserts that indeed all the wars, whether at the time of the exodus from Egypt or in our own day, are part of the overall program for redemption, the character of which is yet natural, a . that they conquer the land in a natural way, with weapons, so as to lift the people from the dejection of slavery and subjugation, the result of which was the habit of stretching one's neck out for his annihilators and to hold oneself down in the fire for his subjugators, so as to breathe into him the spirit of courage and an "elevated soul" » (Torat Namelukhah, p. 108).

Mystical authority of the State

A different emphasis is also emerging here. Some people see the current reality in Israel as the beginning of redemption, in light of a famous passage in the Talmud (Megillah 17b): ... Also war is the beginning of Redemption.» But others see the current reality as a more advanced stage, a real eschatological stage that possesses a mystical rhythm. One of the formulations is given and promulgated by Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook: “(People) speak of the beginning of the Redemption. In my opinion, this is already the middle of the Redemption.... We are in the parlor, not in the vestibule.... y, According to Rabbi Zvi Yehudah, the return to Zion, its settlement and conquest and the « kingdom of Israel being rebuilt anew this is the revelation of the Kingdom of Heaven.... the Israel Defense Force is total sanctity; it represents the rule of the people of the Lord on His Land.... We must know that the Kingdom of Heaven is being revealed in this kingdom, even in the kingdom of Ben Gurion (reprinted in Torat Hamelukhab, pp. 102-3).

Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook is not alone in wanting to attribute a mystical authority to the state, its government and territories. Rabbi Abraham Kahane Shapira (another leader of Yeshivat Merkaz Hatay and a member of the rabbinical court of Jerusalem), Rabbi Haim David Ha-Levi (the Chief Rabbi of Tel-Aviv-Jaffo), Rabbi Jacob Arid (Shtiglitz) and Rabbi Judah Amital, as well as student groups in Gush Emunim and Bnei Akiva, repeatedly emphasize that a complete, total sanctity rests on worldliness, earthliness, the soil, statehood and the political boundaries fixed in the Six Day War. Scholars and thinkers, among them Zvi Yaron, have already noted that this approach, even though it relies on the organistic theory of redemption of Rabbi Abraham Yitzhak Kook, the late father of Zvi Yehuda, does not completely match that theory or its social and political implications.

One of the conceptions expressed by the symbolism derived from mystical sources is the view of the late Rabbi 0. Hadya, who took an almost uncompromising stand against the return of any territories. The basis of his position is the prohibition against selling houses or land to the non-Jew in Eretz Yisrael because of the interdiction to tehonem (give them no quarter). On this point his position is more extreme than that of other authorities like Rabbi Bezalel Zolti (in his essay « Holding on to the Conquered Territories », 1969, reprinted in Eretz Nahalah, pp. 77ff.) who accepts the view of the Minhat Hinukh 94. Accordingly, the prohibition of to tehonem applies only to the territories occupied by the Babylonian returnees, but the prohibition of to tehonem does not apply to the land conquered after the exodus from Egypt and not repossessed by the returnees from Babylonia. Rabbi Hadya's position is rooted in a general mystical outlook that rules out flexibility or subtle halakhic distinctions for the sake of compromises. The events of the Six Day War have brought a radical change in our metaphysical status, he claims. This victory was « an astounding divine miracle ... the end of days has already come ... behold now through conquest Eretz Yisrael has been redeemed from oppression, from the sitra ahra (Satan's camp). It has entered the realm of sanctity. Thereby we have raised the Shekhinah from the dust, for it had been in Exile amongst foreigners. If, God forbid, we should return only a tiny strip of land we would thereby give control to the evil forces, to the sitra ahra» (Bretz Nahalah, pp. 111-12).

One of the Rabbinic sources frequently used to support this approach is the teaching of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, who said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: « All the prophets prophesied only concerning the messianic age; but as to the World to Come—no eye has seen (this), 0 Lord, but You » (Berakhot 34b, Shabbat 63a, Sanhedrin 99a). In contrast to the teaching of Mar Shmuel, all prophecies of cosmic changes which are to take place in the world order, in nature, refer to the messianic-political situation, the era of salvation and redemption that has already begun, for we have no knowledge whatsoever concerning the World to Come. /t follows, therefore, that since we are already in the midst of actual messianic redemption in Israel (the ingathering of the exiles, political sovereignty, making the desert bloom, the conquest of the land to its comprehensive boundaries) we are in the era of the End of Days, with the splendor and the glory and the total normative authority of the eschatological redemption. Therefore, present political reality, including wars, rule of the territories and their non-Jewish population, constitutes a reality upon which rests uncompromising sanctity. Consequently, « the war of conquering the land of Israel is one of the most essential missions in the process of redemption* (Goren, Torn Hamoadim, pp. 313-14).

One of the characteristic expressions of this political messianism, nowadays widely read and quoted, is that of Rabbi Yehudah Amital, in his collection of sermons, Hama'alot Mimdantakim (Jerusalem: 1975, published by the yeshivah of Her Etzion). « Let us ask, » he writes, « Why did this war come/ What is there to conquer? Why did the war of Gog and Magog come? ... After the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel the war can have only one significance: The purification, refining and cleansing of the congregation of Israel.* According to Rabbi Amital, the wars of Israel, including the conquest of the territories and Israel's military and political rule over the territories, are a kind of grace bestowed on Israel, for suffering has great power to uplift the moral purity of Israel. Moreover, biblical sources of a moral, edifying character, such as the Psalms, are now regaining their original meaning, their plain military meaning, « ... for David, the king of Israel, waged wars)) (pp. 21-2).

In fact, « any war in Israel is a war in the name of the Unity of God.... Israel by its very existence represents the Divine concept of the Unity of God.... The victory of Israel, then, is the victory of the Divine idea, and Israel's defeat the defeat of that idea.... Rabbi Abahu said (Yalkut Shimoni II:577): The redemption is Yours and ours. I shall show you the salvation of God. It is not the salvation of Israel that is mentioned but the salvation of God. The war of the Gentiles is a war against God; but insofar as they cannot wage war against God Himself, they wage war against Israel.... » Therefore, concludes Rabbi Amital, « it is forbidden to see this war the same way as we had seen misfortunes during the exile. We must recognize the greatness of the hour in its biblical dimension. And it can be seen only in messianic terms.”

Religious Opponents of Political Messianism

Among religious Zionists one can hear responses to this trend which are likewise rooted in the world of halakhab but which do not subscribe to what they define as an excess of zeal and political messianism. While the political messianic trend is well organized along the lines of a political movement, their opponents have hardly established an organizational framework. Some attempts are being made by groups such as Hatenuah Leyahadut shel Torah and Oz Veshalom. In the main, however, this trend finds its expression through individuals, teachers and students in circles and study groups. The trend is also articulated in public meetings, in the press, in journals like Mabalabim or in other Orthodox publications that are open to different views, such as Amudim (the organ of the religious kibbutz movement) and Deot (the journal of religious academicians) as well as in publications for religious thought of a relatively liberal character, like Petahim.

Prior to discussing the opinions expressed by these circles, an introductory comment is in order concerning the unique nature of this debate within religious Zionism which is so painful since it is carried on within the family, so to speak. Both sides belong to that same religious Zionist camp which finds itself confronted on one side by rivals from non-religious Zionism and on the other side by rivals from the non-Zionist religious community. Furthermore, the arguments with the political messianic trend frequently divide members of the same social and cultural milieu of the same kibbutz or family, all of whom subscribe to the same way al life. Thus, for example, when we read in the Principles recently published by the Oz Veshalom movement that within « ... official Religious Zionism ... an extremism which takes to the streets has twisted our image ... concerning our spiritual, ethical and political values *, we can see an intellectual and moral confrontation of political implications among brothers. Furthermore, Zionists who always had seen in settling on the land one of the foremost goals and means of Zionism now find it difficult to raise their voice against a movement for settlement. Their opposition is not directed against settling per se, but rather against settling in the territories because of the negative political and moral implications. They find it painful to struggle against an awakening of faith and idealism which have not been seen in Israel for many years. (It has been emphasized that in fact the Gush Emunim movement has been much more successful demagogically and politically than in actually establishing serious settlements [Abraham Paltiel of Ein Hanatziv, Amudim: Tamuz, 1976]. This has been statistically Verified by the L'shiluv group of the Labor Party in their survey on the development of settlements in Israel since the Six Day War).

Let us turn now to some of the positions of those religious Zionists who take issue with the political messianic trend. Their point of departure is that of Orthodoxy, namelY, the unquestionable authority of balakhah in relations between man and his Creator, between man and his fellow man, and consequently between the individual and society, or the state. Moshe Unna, one of the outstanding leaders of the religious kibbutz movement, made this clear in his address on Shleimut Ha'aretz (The Totality of the Land) delivered to the supervisors of religious schools in Israel in Nissan, 1969. Ephraim E. Urbach, in his a The Religious Significance of the Halakhah *, a study that often has been reprinted for students, teachers, educators and army instructors, emphasizes that a faith without mitzvot is unthinkable ... The religious significance of Halakhah is its establishing faith on the foundation of practice and on study which leads to action ... faith and the ways of expressing it ... are governed by rules and laws ... a (On Judaism and Education, The School of Education, Hebrew University, Jerusalem: 1967, pp. In) 133). According to this approach the framework of the law is conceived of as a factor which throughout history freed Jewish faith from an excess of contemplative or ascetic tendencies. Inasmuch as the Torah with its authoritative interpretations was accepted by the entire people, by organized and institutionalized society, the role of prophecy, of a charismatic, mystic and individual authority, diminished. For « ... the free charismatic activity brought about dangerous false prophets » (ibid., p. 128) The main danger lies in the totalitarian and absolute authority claimed by individuals possessed by prophetic or mystic charisma. The mystification of a social and political authority is likely to impair the rational and critical character of religious and intellectual ways of life, as well as the open and ever-developing structure of society and state with their legislative and executive arms.

Danger of pseudo-mysticism

Pseudo-mystical and fanatic views, however, have lately gained greater attention among the Israeli public through the influence of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook and his disciples. Rabbi Zvi Yehudah transforms the organic conception of his late father into an uncompromising political platform. Accordingly Zvi Yehudah quotes the statement in his father's famous work Orot that a Eretz Yisrael is not an external thing ... it is a substantive entity organically integrated in the life of the nation ... and, therefore, it is beyond the power of human reason to properly assess the unique essence of the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael ...» (Netivot Israel: pp. 89-93). Those who criticize political messianism do not necessarily direct their criticism at the organistic theology of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook itself (see Zvi Yaron, Mishnato :het Harav Kook, Jerusalem: 1974). This criticism is against the political or even partisan application of Rabbi Kook's theology for the justification of the ideology of Eretz Yisrael Hasbleimah as can be found, for example, in a Messianic Realism » by Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's disciple Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, (Morashah, IX, pp. 61-5). The suspicion of an abuse of religious mystification was formulated by Ephraim Urbach already several years ago when he stated that faith must not be ... dependent on the descent of a special spirit on the believer, it does not require mediators - between the source of inspiration and himself and it does not have to wait for a special fervor stirred up by external or internal factors ... » (op. cit., p. 133).

Under the influence of this approach as well es on the basis of some of Urbach's historical studies (« When did prophecy cease? a Tarbitz: XVII), Israel Jacob Yovel warns of the danger for the democratic and moral character of the state should its authority be based on political romanticism or pseudo-mysticism. Indeed, asserts Israel Jacob Yovel, messianic expectations that endured thousands of years undoubtedly had a constructive vitality in Judaism. As long as « ... the messianic hope was kept in its proper place, deeply embedded in the intimate chambers of the nation, in prayer, in sermons and in teachings, it served a useful function to fortify the national will and enable it to persist in the Jewish mission for which we were created ... but once the barriers eroded and messianism broke out from its intimate quarters and was transformed into a component of the understanding and shaping of reality it resulted in havoc » (« Religious Zionist Messianism », Morashab, IX, p. 48). And indeed his conclusion is that « the national religious educational system has produced sentimentalism, extreme nationalism and a definitive feeling that messianism is unfolding and being realized before our eyes education has been changed into politics ... quite frequently one finds in religious schools teachers who exploit their authority to preach the concept of at [firs at (not to surrender one inch of land), or who would send students to political demonstrations the elementary moral assumption that the educator should not use his authority for political influence is nonexistent, since he (the teacher) does not consider this to be a matter of politics.... (ibid., p. 52). It is true, continues Yovel, that the messianic faith served as one of the sources of inspiration and significant motivations of Zionism, but political Zionism knew «... to separate between hope and utopia »; it also was wise enough to « ... escape the danger of utopian demagogy ... (ibid., p. 51). This is not the place to discuss whether or not from a factual historical point of view Zionism really escaped utopianism. Perhaps this particular issue is more accurately assessed by Martin Buber in his Paths in Utopia and lately by the young historian Joseph Corral in his studies on the utopian foundations and the romantic cravings that motivated the early Zionist labor movement. What is important, however, is the growing opposition to a total or totalitarian authority that might arise from politics, relying on romantic and neo-mystical foundations which mingle yearnings for redemption with actual reality and responsibility. In this context Yovel points to the statement of Rahban Yohanan ben Zakkai (according to Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, XXXI): « ... if you have a sapling in your hand and they tell you the Messiah has come, first plant the sapling and then welcome the Messiah » (ibid., p. 49). Additional criticism focusing on the loss of political realism and moral responsibility because of an overabundance of redemptive enthusiasm has been expressed by Zvi Yaron in the press as well as in Amudim (No. 363, 1967). Indeed, religious Zionist criticism of political extremism emphasizes the following attributes: attaching absolute sanctity to phenomena which essentially are historical and subject to change, like boundaries; the blurring of clear rational and critical thought by an excess of piety, political romanticism and sentimental sermonizing; the transformation of mystical experience from an elevating personal feeling to a dangerous political lever that might incite the masses to irresponsible and undemocratic policies; turning education into indoctrination; creating a national and political radicalism, be it secular or religious; the lack of tolerance and of readiness to consider the views and needs of others, Jew or Arab, as equal human beings.

Jewish-Arab conflict: a moral challenge

At this point the Jewish-Arab conflict is seen as an important test for the moral integrity of the Jewish state. Current, temporary reality should not be elevated to the heights of the final phase in the process of redemption lest Israeli society absolve itself of the need to fulfill its moral obligations toward the Arab population. Consequently the members of Oz Veshalom assert, « we must refrain from ruling a lengthy period over a large Arab population which has a nationalist awareness of its own ... we therefore support a territorial compromise ...» (Principles §§ 3, 4). This spirit was also expressed by Ephraim E. Urbach in his well-known essay, « Who is a hero? The one who turns his enemy into his friend » (Petahim 3 [13], 1970, pp. 5-9). The author emphasizes warnings by thinkers and writers such as Ahad Haam as early as 1891, the poet M. S. Feierberg who in his story Whither? (1899) wrote: « My brothers, as you travel to the East do not travel as enemies of the East ... J>, Ijlayyim Nahman Bialik and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook in his letter to the periodical Haivri (1912), all of whom warned against lack of recognition and consideration of the Arabs. In that spirit the author calls for the respect of all human beings, of other nations, their rights and needs. Moral requests like this coming from amidst the religious Zionist camp are of special significance, considering the voices heard today from disciples of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook like Rabbi Shlomo Aviner and Rabbi Jacob Ariel (Stiglitz). Rabbi Ariel cites Maimonides (Hilkhot Melakhim VI:1) on the verse, « All the people present there shall serve you at forced labor » (Deuteronomy 20:11), as well as Hilkhot Melakhim, VIII: 10-11, according to which the full acceptance of the seven Noachide laws is conditioned on the acknowledgment of their divine source in the Torah given to Moses on Sinai. These sources sustain Rabbi Ariel's political conclusion: According to this approach, we are obliged to make use of the opportunity of having strangers under our control to educate them to observe the seven Noachide laws as laws derived from the one source that we and they share; namely, the Torah of Moses from Sinai (Morashah, IX, p. 97). The author presents this solution as an « educational and moral one », « the only complete solution to the problem of war and peace ... » Also, « ... this is in effect the solution for the demographic and geo-political problems for which so many are demanding to find solutions » (ibid.). Recently a group of students discussed this policy proposal from a historical point of view. The students indicated that they find it difficult to distinguish between this conception and the position of the Church towards the Jews since Christianity became a ruling religion, i.e., since the days of Theodosius at the end of the fourth century or, for that matter, the position of modern totalitarian regimes. One of the students who attempted to defend the stand taken by Rabbi Ariel responded that the difference is a simple one: their teachings are wrong and ours constitute the true Torah.

Positions like this become today the target of sharp criticism even from some individuals close to Gush Emunim. Particularly, fear is expressed of extremism and fanaticism which cannot but bring about moral perversion in Israeli society. This apprehension brought about a readiness in principle to yield some of the territories if by this concession peace and recognized safe borders can be achieved. Indeed, regarding Shleimut Haaretz (The Totality of the Land) Rabbi Yishay Yovel asserts that true peace is as important to Klal Yisrael as Nablus and Hebron, if not more important. One might have strong feelings concerning our right to all of Eretz Yisrael and nevertheless be ready to cede dear and important places in it. Not because of belittling their value, says Rabbi Yovel, ... but because of a very deep concern about the (moral) integrity of Klal Yisrael ...» («HitnaNutYaavor ye al Yehareg», Morasbab, IX, p. 26). The systematic point of departure in this matter is that there is no justification for the argument as if from a halakhic point of view that one may not surrender any portion of Eretz Yisrael. Moreover, Ramban's famous critical comment on Maimonides positive fourth commandment, «... We shall not leave it in the hands of others from among the nations or in desolation », is not necessarily or exclusively to be applied to maximal boundaries like « from the stream of Egypt to the big stream of the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18-21), which are to some extent similar to the boundaries established by the Six Day War. On the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, says Rabbi Yovel, we find a variety of versions in the Torah and Prophets. The boundaries of Canaan at Abraham's time (Genesis 10:19) are unlike those promised to Abraham and his descendants after him (Genesis 15:18-21); and both differ from the boundaries promised to the children of Israel in the desert (Exodus 23:31) and prior to entering the land (Deuteronomy 1:7). There is also a discrepancy between the various promised boundaries in the Torah and those for the end of days (Ezekiel 47:13). None of the promised boundaries in any biblical book coincides with those the tribes were to inherit by lot (Numbers 34:2-13). Neither are the promised boundaries of the land the same as those of the inheritance and settlement at the time of Joshua and the Judges (Joshua 12:13; Judges 3:4). And none of these compares to those of the second inheritance at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, or afterwards in the days of King Jannai and Agrippa I. Consequently, Rabbi Yishai Yovel proceeds to ask: from which source is the commandment of the conquest of the Land derived and to which boundaries is it applied? If, for example, the passages on inheritance are the source, then the question arises whether we should look to the first or to the second inheritance. According to Maimonides (Hilkhot Terumot I), the second inheritance is legally binding. If so, then Samaria, for instance, would not be included since the returnees from Babylonia did not conquer it and the hold of the Hasmoneans on this area was rather short lived and shaky. In this argument Rabbi Yovel also refers to historical research like that of Yehezkel Kaufmann in the first volume of Toldot ha-Emunah ha-Yesre'elit, and also to the historical atlas of the period of the second commonwealth, edited by Avi Yonah.

“Rather give your life”

It is significant that this approach uses results of historical and critical research to strengthen or verify normative values. A different type of argument against the political messianic position deals with the principle of yehareg veal ya'avor (rather give your life and do not transgress). These circles oppose the application of this principle by those against returning occupied territories. The sources, such as Sanhedrin 74a, teach that there are only three transgressions—idolatry, incest and murder—against which this principle holds unconditionally. For all other transgressions one should not sacrifice one's life unless conditions of ?Nut Hashem or gezeirat shmad prevail. Hence, it is said, the commandments of the conquest and the settlement of the land are not included in the category of the three most stringent laws of the Torah. So, too, the returning of territories for peace, for saving lives or for avoiding the moral corruption typical and unavoidable to a conquering nation do not constitute a case of Haul Hashem or ofgezeirat shmad. Therefore, the issue of yehareg veal ya'avor is not relevant here.

Frequently, the opinion is voiced that a decision about ceding territories should be left in the hands of experts in military and strategic disciplines or in diplomacy. It is often compared to cases of desecration of Shabbat (Avodah Zarah 27b, Yoma 85b) to save a life, in which the physician must assess the reality while the halakhah is guided by him (Hilkhot Shabbat 11:2,3; also Shuthan Arukh, Orab Hayyim 328). This position also found support in an interview with Rabbi J. B. Soloveichik which was published in the Israeli press (cf. also € A Messianic Approach or a Realistic Approach v, Amudim: 1976, No. 360).

Beyond all the detailed deliberations, these trends in religious Zionism attempt to crystallize a more comprehensive attitude as an alternative to what Oriel Simon calls x the danger of false Messianism v Biblical Calling—Conditional Promises », Petahim, 2 [32]: 1975, p. 24). Accordingly, political conditions that promise peace and remove from Israeli society the moral obstacles of a conquering nation should be preferred to the rule over all the territories in our time.

Existential Trend: Israeli Youth

Let us now turn to an entirely different situation, one that may be defined as an existential self-search among a group of young people, high school graduates, kibbutz-born in part, young intellectuals, mainly native Israelis of the second and third generations. These young people grew up rejecting Jewish tradition or having no connection with it as either religion or history. Yet now they are beginning to show signs of questioning, of path-seeking or even a return to Jewish tradition. These two features, dissociation from Judaism and an attempt at renewed contact, are conceived by them not as social, national or political questions alone. For them, these questions, perhaps primarily, have a very personal, existential meaning. They view the questions not primarily as part of the body-politic but as individuals. Recently this was very well expressed by one of the cadets in the IDF officers course: e My alienation from Jewish tradition made me a stranger to myself, as if being a third generation Israeli means exile, and I refer to spiritual exile from the heritage of my forefathers and therefore from myself. This feeling of alienation troubles me not only as a citizen or soldier of this country, but first and foremost as a human being, an individual.

That the members of this group arrived at a point of a historic self-awareness characterized by alienation from the past, perplexity as to the future and seriousemotional and existential preoccupation with a I *, now v and « here is evident from a perusal of their writings in Shdemot, a most significant journal by youth of all Kibbutz movements. Their writings are also to be found in the famous Seventh Day and Among the Young—Discussions Held in the Kibbutz Movement (Tel-Aviv, 1969); also, A Year After the War—Young People Talk (En Shemer, 1968), and more recently in The Israeli as a Jew—Proceedings of a Colloquium (in memory of Lt. Yishai Ron, 1974), or the by now already famous discussions of twelfth graders at Givat-Haviva On March 12, 1974, or in A. Eli's anthology Har Hamenubot (1969) or in No Secrets Were Told, an anthology of sketches, poems and stories by the young members of the 'bud Kibbutz Federation (1969). From all these talks, dialogues and writings there emerges a sincere concern with the meaning of being and existence in general, and especially with the meaning of Jewish existence here and now.

Not satisfied with religious or national-historical answers to the question of their relationship to Judaism and Israel, they are developing a new attitude, one that could be described as ahistoricity, the feeling that history has thrown one into this particular place at this particular time simply by accident. We are only here and now by chance, it is said, victims sacrificed on the altar of history by our parents, by previous generations.

It is this feeling of being an accident or a victim, in other words, an object, and the need to explain, justify and sanctify this accident, or even suffer, die or kill for it, which gives this small but significant sector of the younger generation no rest. The present in which we live, some claim, seems to have been determined and designed with no connection to the people born or cast into it, and the individual who finds himself in a historical situation in which he personally has no part develops a feeling of isolation and alienation. This feeling of alienation from the forces forming one's destiny is articulated in highly emotional ways. It is a personal feeling of great intensity perhaps because it appears against the background of Labor-Zionist education which sought to provide an answer, both a social and a Jewish-national answer, precisely to this question of alienation. The existential questioning is especially painful because it arises in the country itself, on the very landscape in which the young Israeli was born.

The fact that political Zionism sought to solve the Jewish question and has not yet done so, that it wished to create a new society based on principles of justice and decency and has not yet attained that goal, appears like a reflection of an ancient universal phenomenon, the rift between idea and reality, between dream and awakening, between intentions and deeds, between deeds and their consequences. Attempts to deal with this rift have been made by various and opposite systems in history from the theological to the Marxist and Zionist in our day, but it has become perhaps especially sharp in modern times and among the nonreligious, when the forces shaping history are no longer conceived as teleological, religious or rationalistic. Today, forces created by man himself—politics, science, technology and bureaucracy devoid of inherent moral criteria—deepen his consciousness of alienation. This feeling, mirrored in Israeli reality, was well put by one of the participants in A Year After The War—Young People Talk (Ein Shemer, 1968): « ... to live in a situation that is not subject to control ... our actions are dictated from outside, and more and more frequently we lose the right, the obligation and the possibility of choosing our own way as free men.* a The tragicomedy, z the young man continues, « which is typical of the reality my generation fell into, is that the desire for glory of a greater Palestine and historical continuity as divine commandment covers the monstrous and paradoxical meaning concealed in calling to God »

For me, the young man added, the values of tradition, history, nationalism and Zionism broke down at a distinct moment: « the day a human being died, a flesh and blood human being from both nations, a human being whose soul reflected the world.... x This ahistoricity and spiritual emptiness may be understood, though partially, as one of the results of the secularizationprocess. The spiritual and social revolution against Jewish religious tradition, in fact against the binding authority of religion or of metaphysics, enriched the intellectual world of the first generations of political Zionism and strengthened their social and national identity. For these people, among them Berdichevsky and Brenner, the revolution against tradition and the historicization process, the return to nature, to the primordial forces of life, of existence and thus also the relativization of traditional values, provided a constructive motivation of tremendous ideological force. Moreover, and perhaps paradoxically, the revolution itself reflected a tacit admission of the world of tradition against which the revolution was conducted.

For the generations after the revolution, however, for the young people of today, the picture is different. It perhaps resembles other romantic movements which evolved during the Enlightenment and contributed to the rise of the nation-state in Europe; they seemed to lose their content as their goals were attained. For the generations who were educated on this revolution, on the relativization of values, historic aesthetic myth turned into political mythology; a dream became reality and thus disappeared, and a promising spiritual and social utopia seemed to be destroyed through the process of disenchantment.

Moral dilemma and Identity crisis

Today, some of the more sensitive among the young intellectuals find themselves in a moral dilemma, leading them to question their right to the country, the justification for a Jewish sovereignty in Palestine which for generations has been accompanied by so much suffering for both Jews and Arabs. These youths are subject to an inner conflict regarding their identity as human beings, Israelis and Jews. The confrontation with death both as a personal reality and as a metaphysical problem; the confrontation with pain, suffering and agony, with fear and uncertainty about the near and distant future; the feeling or suspicion that there is no solution to Israel's security dilemma; the sacrifice of youthful years with their opportunities to study, work, learn a trade or establish a family without the constant demands of reserve service; the feeling that what a person does, what a nation accomplishes has no importance in any case because fate is determined by international forces outside one's control; the feeling that history has made a mockery out of political Zionism's highest principle, of autonomy—all these factors have generated an intense inner conflict among young people who have been cut off from Jewish tradition.

These youths ask: Does Judaism have an answer for us? Does it have an answer to suffering and death?

Can it provide an answer to the question of whether it is worth dying or killing for Jewish history, or for the God of Israel who turned His face away during the Holocaust, during wars and perhaps in the course of man's entire history with its misery, agony and pain? Is there any sense to a national Jewish identity which produces so much torment? And if Judaism does have answers drawn from religious tradition, can a modern person of the twentieth century, capable of analyzing geo-political and economic processes, insisting on his intellectual freedom, on his rational and critical capacities, accept a biblical or rabbinic theodicy?

In the course of the Ein Shemer talks in 1968, one of the participants summed up the problem as follows: « We are a generation of doubters and skeptics. We are left only with contradictions and ruined faith. What remains for us to believe in? ... I want to know and understand where I am going and what I am fighting for. I am not willing to be an eternal Isaac climbing onto the altar without asking why or understanding ...(pp 7-8).

At first sight the impression might be created that these are youngsters cut off from society in Israel, disappointed in Zionism or who despair of the State. This would be an absolutely wrong conclusion. The opposite is true, for the members of this group, small in number yet intensive and creative, are among the elite of the young generation in Israel. They are active in the major areas of life in Israel—in the kibbutz movement, in the army or reserves, in education, teaching, literature, art and science. A rather moving interpretation of Zionism as a personal, social and moral commitment by outstanding military commanders and educators such as Avner Shalev and Yeshayahu Tadmor can be found in the symposium ::: Military Education and Worldview (Petahim, 2 [35], 1976, pp. 4ff.).

Avraham Schapira, author and editor, has pointed out that indeed the self-search and the moral stocktaking and self-criticism are merely expressions of a natural feeling of being-at.home in Israel, of love for the land, of moral responsibility and social commitment. In their view, granting statehood the status of eschatology would necessarily bring about all the horrors of political messianism that the modern world has known since the French Revolution, as foretold time and again by authors like Jacob Burckhardt, Friedrich Nietzsche and Dostoiev. sky and as experienced by humanity under the totalitarian regimes of our era. Schapira, in his provocative and widely-discussed essay against a false messianism (Shdemot LVI:1975/6) draws a partial analogy between the Sabbatians and Gush Emunim. Referring to Gerson Scholem's work, Schapira does not ignore the historical and theological differences, yet he does point out that knowledge of the Sabbatian experience may sharpen our view nowadays when exalted emotionalism, unrestrained passion, and personal and nationalistic ecstasy are often substituted for socio-political responsibility. Therefore, Schapira concludes, the Gush Emunim trend hardly resembles the theology of the late Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (cf. Zvi Yaron, « Hatred in the Name of Love », Amudim, Shevat 1976).

The non-Orthodox members of the Shdemot group feel that the State of Israel should be regarded not as an ecclesiastical institution but solely as a social, juridical entity. Its purpose is the realization of man's essential human rights and duties, such as the affirmation of one's physical, personal and intellectual freedom, the preservation of one's individuality despite the levelling and conforming impact of modern civilization, and the actual practice of one's sovereignty as an individual and as a citizen. These ideas are all rooted in one of the most precious values of Zionism: autonomy, i.e., one's own nomos. Since this mamas in Judaism is Torah, and religious heritage, these sensitive young intellectuals are now confronting Judaism in a new way, a way that seems to be at its very beginning.

---

This article is reprinted by permission from Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly, Vol. XXXVIII (1976) where it appeared under the title « The Land and the State of Israel in Israeli Religious Life

Professor Uriel Tal teaches Modern Jewish History at the University of Tel Aviv. He has written numerous articles and is the author of Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics and Ideology in the Second Reich, 1870-1914 (Ithaca 1975).

1. The eighteen-page bibliography, entirely in Hebrew, deals with the Land and the State of Israel in contemporary Israeli Hebrew writing (photocopies obtainable from SIDIC for one dollar, or equivalent in other currencies). For additional bibliography, see Uriel Tal, e Jewish Self-Understanding and the Land and State of Israel », Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. XXVI, No. 4 (Summer 1971), pp. 376-381. Ed.
2. Gush Emunim (« Fidelity Bloc x)) is a religious activist movement centering on graduates of the Benei Akiva Yeshivot. It has attempted to establish settlements in Judea and Samaria in defence of the right to settle in the whole land of Israel (see Encyclopaedia Judaic Year Book 1975-6, p. 312). Ed.