To some, even the earliest initiatives of the Hibbat Zion movement- a precursor to political Zionism- evoked old echoes of false messianism. “They are a new sect like that of Shabbatai Zevi, may the names of evildoers rot.” (7) “The zionist sect, which has now banded and united together by force might well bring to mind the ancient warning against forcing the end” (8) fulminated the rabbi of Brisk, Joseph Baer Soloveichik (1889)
Similarly, the categorisation of Zionism by the Hasidic Rebbes of Eastern Europe that focused this discussion on the messianic issue. It was these Religious leaders, never content with formal halakhic criteria and always seeking to delve into the theological significance of events and deeds, who placed the question of messianic redemption and the metaphysical singularity of Israel at the forefront of the Orthodox polemic against Zionism.
Recent research suggests that the traditional fear of forcing the end and of rebelling against the exilic decree was far deeper and more widespread in Hasadic circles than historians have thought. The Zionist enterprise thus rendered these anxieties more concrete. (10)
This can be illustrated by examining the polemical writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the highly influential leader of the Habad movement during the early periods of Zionism. In 1899 Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer Schneersohn laid the corner stone of a principles ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) critique of Zionism.
Schneersohn attacked the Zionist aspiration of changing the condition of the Jewish people during the epoch of exile through a collective incursion into history. National re-awakening and a return to the land of Israel in order to achieve poltical soverignthy are not religiously neutral acts. They represent a human effort to realise decidedly messianic expectations, expectations whose fulfilments should depend solely on the transcendental and miraculous interversion of the saviour of Israel. “Zionism thus appears to be a blatant violation of the oath sworn by the Jewish people to wait patiently until the end of days, a betrayal of the religious norm of exile”. (12)
It is evident that Schneersohn regarded Zionism as a clear cut secularisation of the tradional messianic concept, that is, a transfer of initiative from divine to human hands.
Mendelssohn in one context and the radical Zionist writers who deployed this “Jewish trait”- the Lubavitcher Rebbe considered it a positive virture. As he put it “our God fearing brethren know that they are under the yoke of the exile and that they need to be submissive in every situation. For this reason, even after the heavy yoke that has been imposed upon them at various times, and despite all the persecutions and oppressions they have suffered, they are able to find themselves an existential, internal place paradoxically it is the nature of the sort to resist the hard and to overcome it.” (16)
In short from the viewpoint of the Ultra-orthodox leader, softness of the soul and political submissiveness are the guarantee of Jewish existence in nonmessianic times.
Schneersohn had a further critisism of Zionism vis-à-vis messianism. All human activity is incomplete, relative and transient and therefore must fall short of the yearned-for messianic redemption. Only by drawing a clear distinction between the two and removing the latter as far as possible from the realm of worldly salvation can the fullness of the final redemption be assured. (18)
It is noteworthy that Schneersohn also rejected out of hand the prevalent religious-Zionist view that the ingathering of exiles and the rebuilding of Jerusalem were to be a part of a gradual process, to be initiated little by little by human beings but completed by God. For him the only acceptable solutions were the redemption of Israel would thus be both initiated and completed by heavenly powers.
In summary it was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the highly influential Hasidic leader during the early years of Zionism, who made this traditional motif the focal point of the Ultra-Orthodox struggle against the Jewish National movement.
For these rabbis, the metaphysical domain is all-pervasive and leaves no empty spaces, no religiously neutral realm of human activity. In any case, the question of Zionism in henceforth frequently examined in the light of messianism.
It is evident that the messianic idea in Judaism has always been marked by inner tension and profound disagreement. At one end of the spectrum is the limited notion of political emancipation, the liberation of the Jewish people from subjugation to the great powers. At the other extreme is the hope for cosmic redemption and a profound change in nature itself, leading to an entirely new worldly order.
Any attempt to define messianism, then, entails a process of choice among the differing views found in the sources. As noted above, that position accords primacy to utopian messianism being no one has ever seen it over the restorative variety- renewing the present like the past. It comprehends messianism in miraculous and supernatural terms rather than in concrete, political terms. It yearns for a transcendent redemption that arrives at once.
By the same token the view makes redemption dependent of repentance, on preparation of an exclusively spiritual nature, detached from all mundane human activity. Consequently, it favours the traditional quietism and historical passivity as opposed to the attitude that permits certain kinds of activism. And when it comes to the question of the Holy land- the conflict between its powerful attraction and the fear of not living up to the severe religious demands entailed in dwelling there.
“Historical precedents show that it is precisely the effort to restrain the hope of redemption and confine it within mundane and realistic bounds that is liable to bring messianic tension to a head.” (34) In a seemingly paradoxical way, it is precisely the moderate image of redemption that seizing upon a suitable personality or circumstance, is most likely to provoke a tempest of messianic fervor. In contrast, it is the miraculous supernatural, utopian vision or redemption that, in many Cases succeeds in blocking the way preserving and defending the status quo.
In sum both the intimate and the more remote images of redemption display a marked tendency towards passive, miracle centred messianism. This direct confrontation with Zionism greatly contributed to the sharpening this traditonal passive posture and raising it to consiousness, bringing it from the margins to the center a times transforming it from a mere fol image into a well defined concept.
What accounts for the revival enjoyed by these sources in recent generations? The religious critique against Zionism were clinging to a few forgotten midrashim, imbued them, in the heart of the debate, with a new content such as they never before possessed. According to these works, the use of the ‘oaths’ as an argument against aliyah was mainly or even wholly an innovation of western European proponents of the Emancipation and Zionism’s opponents In Eastern Europe.
During the period of Sabbatai Zevi, Rabbi Moses Hagiz wrote in the early 18th century “the plague began. Nearly all the people of Israel were exposed to the danger…..and they were on the brink of death, heaven forbid to be judged as rebels and violators of the oaths which the holy one, blessed by He, imposed upon Israel, while they are in exile among Edom [Christianity] and Ishmael [Islam]. Or, in the words of the great combatant against Sabbateanism and its secret believers, Rabbi Joseph Emden “it was then a time of grace, redemption was imminent, had the Sabbateans not forced the hour and violated the Oath” (38)
During the nineteenth century, a few orthodox ideologies began to articulate a different, more activistic and worldly vision or redemption. Some even called upon the Jewish public to take a messianic initiative: to begin a gradual process of immigration to an agricultural settlement in the land of Israel, as a necessary and organic step towards full redemption. They also tried to developede practical programs, some quite far reaching for furthering this enterprise. These figures inclucuding Rabbi Judah Alkalai, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch, Kalischer and other “lovers of Zion”who espoused their views succedded in attracting a modest following and were later known as the “Harbingers of Zionism” (40)
The Harbingers of Zionism made it their role to resolve the tensions and disagreements of classical messianic faith. In order to do so they took a more activistic, realistic messianic view. They were able to do this relatively easily for one thing, it was just the right historical moment for activist ideas to come to the fore. The Harbingers vigorous efforts to turn messianic hopes once again into a force for change were closely connected with events taking place around them, for these men were clearly influenced by the national struggles then raging in Europe. The profound changes they observed taking place in the condition of the Jews- emancipation, on one hand and renewed persecution on the other- significantly shaped their views. Moreover, they had largly internalized the dynamisism and receptiveness to innovation that characterised modernity, and took a more practical, rational attitude towards historical change that was usual in their traditional surroundings. As Alkalai put it “the spirit of the times has freed all its inhabitants of the earth to live where they wish and granted them freedom to travel from country to country; it calls upon us to say to the prisioners [The jewish people] Go free! The spirit of the times summons every people to reclaim its sovereignty and raise up its language; so too does it demand of us that we re-establish Zion, the center of our life and raise up our holy language and revive it” (42)
At the same time, the new ideas were deeply immersed in the reservoir of classical Jewish concepts and sources stiring up long dormant messianic elements, and causing the ancient feelings of activism to re emerge and strengthen. These thinkers thus challenged the prevailing passiver concept of messianism with confidence in their grounding in tradition. They went so far as to castigate the popular view of the Messiah as heretical, an obstacle in the nation’s path. Kalischer warned “If a man should come before you and sanctimoniously declare, orally or in writing, that the Messiah will be sent from heaven from one stoke, you shall pour coals upon his head, saying you are a denier of prophesy” (43) In the same spirit, his ally Alkalai writes “our holy rabbis are delaying the consolation of our land….the people expect a man to come from heaven in a fiery horse-drawn chariot and gather up the scattered remanent of Israel but this ourwarn idea has become a stumbling block to the people of Israel.” (44)
The two are thus focused to delve into Jewish literature and either extract from it an activist, practical approach (as does Kalischer) or at least find in it sanction for such an approach (as does Alkalai)
The Harbingers see messianic redemption not at as a one time event but as a process, not as revolution but as eveloution. “Israel’s salvation will come little by little slowly with the horm of redemption flower” (Kalischer) (45) This the messianic of the Harbingers of Zionism In contrast to the prevalent Haredi one, no longer regards partial national reconstruction as a phonemenon that shatters, uproots and destroys the whole but rather as an organic link in the very development of that whole. As such partial redemption become legitimate. By the same token, this doctrine neutralises certain revolutionary elements that have accompanied the messianic idea, removing from it the paradoxial tone of crisis which it has always been overlaid. On the contrary, it assumed a decidedly optimistic stand towards historical events: The messianice process had its beginning in the emancipation of European Jewry and ti would continue to advance with the help of the enlightened nations, which would assist in the restoration of the Jewish people to their land and as result it would culminate in full universal human redemption. Redemption no longer comes out of the depths or in the wake of cataclysm but rather a gradual step by step process.
Second a clear distinction in drawn between the messianic process which is conrete historical development, and the messianic goal, a utopia that transcends history. Although redemption moves forward along a natural human course- the gradual ingathering of the exiles and resettlement of the land is to be completed with a miraculous divine revelation that bursts beyong the boundaries of both man and nature. The distinguishment between the ongoing process and the final foal allows the believer to regard the present as an open field for mundane human acitivity and voluntarily community initiative, and it sparks a decidedly activistic element within the traditional messianic faith. “ we must build houses, dig well and grow vineyards and olive groves” Alkalai writes. The Jews must redeem the land and use the political process; a firm economic basis for agricultural settlement must be prepared and the like “for one cannot behave in this world as though it were the world to come!” (48)
The conceptual transformation that the Harbingers sought to initiate from within the traditional sources is evident in their daring effort to ‘translate’ traditional spiritual concepts into earthly terms and endow them with concrete content. For example the “repentance upon which the redemption of Israel depends means none other than actual voluntary return of the Jewish people to its land. In Alkalai’s words “repentance means that they should retun to the land of Israel for the Jew who dwells else were is like one who has no god, hence there is no repentance greater than this” (50) He thus imbues the concept of repentance, like that of redemption with a physical meaning. “For him repentance-return no longer takes place only in the life of the individual, it is now understood as a collective act of the Jewish people as a whole, a historic event and a common task. (52)
The Harbingers of Zionism biggest challenge was to overcome the question of the ‘3 oaths’ which placed a barrier between the people and its land. “They spared no effort to neutralise the traditional passove dopctrine in herent in these oaths” (58) but they went even further, seeking to extract from the oath itself the doctribe of redemption articulated in their school. Indeed it was here that ythe creative exegetical moment was revealed in its full power.
The injunction “not to ascend the wall” that is- The Israel not burst into the land as one- was interpreted by Alkalai in an original manner, as itself expressing his own approach or realistic messianism! “At first little by little, for we are adjured not to go up all together!” (59) The traditional addict of passivity is thus turned on its head, finding a place of honour in the school of active messianism: “The Holy one Blessed be He, wishes the redemption to take place in a dignified and orderly way; therefore he adjured us not to go up all together, not to be scattered about the face of the field like tent dwellers, but to go little by little until our land is completely rebuilt and restablished.” (60)
Second with regard to the oath “not to force the end” Kalischer discovered that originally referred only to the final messianic end, to the notion of hastening the “end” but left plenty of room for an acutal historical “beginning” for the active preparation of the soil of redemption by human hands” (61) Hence the second basic distinction in the Harbingers doctribe between the goal and the process is also consistent with the ancient doctrine of oaths.
As for the third injunction “not to rebel against the nations of the world” both Alkalai and Kalischer argued that this had nothing to do with the contemporary return to zion. Obviously, this return would be a wholly political, not military, matter, carried out with the assent of the nations of the world and the support of their rulers” (62) This approach according to which the agreement if the nations realeases Israel from the fear of the oaths, is indeed grounded in classical Jewish sources)
The Harbingers doctrine of redemption allowed them to continue on to meet the needs of the imminent national revival however outside this group had very limited influence and as a result to the lack of support of this doctrine, the messianic justification of settlement in the land of Israel gradually waned. In fact several of the chief rabbinical advocates of settling the land of Israel expressed explicity reservations regarding the Harbringers’ doctrine of redemption.
“All of this messianic talk came to pass only because Kalischer thought that the light of redemption had began in his day; but in our time, in which we are subjugated in the exile and subject to new edicts we must not bring up any idea of redemption in connection with the settlement of the land” (68)
The most systematic critique of the Harbringers’ at that time was published by Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reins. “He was critical of the new concepts of redemption and repentance that had been taught by the Harbringers’, They frequently twisted quotations from the Bible and to Rabbis to fit their opinion, and it is understandable that by doing so they aroused controversy and strife” (69)
Suprising as it may seem today, a century later the founder of religious Zionism clung throughout his life to the traditional passive, miracle centred view of the Messiah thus being that redemption in itself is above nature and human effort. In his later more comprehensive writings, he remained faithful to this view, depicting the future messianic redemption in decidedly revolutionary and utopian fashion. “He went even further in this direction marking the direction of Israel dependant upon “the elimination of human corruption” and the “utter extirpation of evil”. (70) Reines thus envisaged Jewish national redemption as coming only after the reforming of humanity as a whole. (71) Expectadly this position also rejects out of hand and “forcing the end” by human initiative.
Reines’ views raised the question of how theological position is to be reconciled with the Zionist fervor manifested by its authors and the historical activism advocated by him and his colleagues.
The key to this problem lies in the explicit separation between the doctrine of legitimate Zionist activity, which in close hand, and that of messianic hops which is idea and distant. Reines writes “Zionist ideology devoid of any trace of the idea of redeption, in none of the Zionist acts or aspirations is there the slightest allusion to future redemption. Their sole intension is to improve Israel’s situation, to raise their stature and accustom them to a life of happiness, if so how can one compare this to the idea of redemption, clearly action in the present day does not respass upon utopian hopes for the time to come” (72)
The separation of realms between messianism and Zionism which was both ideological and pragmatic, molded the formative stage of Orthdoz Zionist religious thought ensuring to separate the controversary over Zionism among religious circles as far as possible from the issue of messianic redemption.
Anyone who thinks that the Zionist idea is somehow associated with future redemption and the coming of the Mesdsiah and therefore regards it as undetermining our holy faith is clearly an error. Zionism has nothing to do whatsoever with the question of redemption. The entire popint of this idea is merely the improvement of the condition of our wretched bretheren. In recent years our situation has deteriorated disasterously and many of our brethren are scatted in every direction, to the seven seas, to places where the fear of assimilation is hardly remote. The Zionists saw that the only fitting place for our bretheren to settle would be in the holy land…and if some preachers, while speaking of zion also mentioned redemption and the coming of the Messiah and thus let the abdominal thught enter people’s minds that this idea enraoches upon the territory of ture redemption, only they themselves are to blame, for it is their own wrong opinion they express” (73)
Zionism does not propse to fulfil or to replace messianic expectations. It offers a partial, relative solution for the here and now. It operated in a unredeemed world and does not trespass upon on the realm of the perfect or the absoloute. The gradual resettlement of the land of Israel is worthy of the highest religious esteem in itself, just as the entire national revival must be accorded positive religious value. However that value and esteem are to be registered in the chronicles of history, not in accounts of the End of days. Religious significance need not be solely messianic! The religious Zionists thus lends a hand to current efforts on behalf of the national and religious restoration of the people and the elevation of their present fortunes. But he continues to cling unreservedly to the utopian, messianic vision of the time to come. This dual loyality is possible due to the separation of realms: that of concrete human history, to which Zionism related and that of the anticipated miraculous redemption.
In Kalischer and Alkalai’s time, almost all the countires Jewish inhabitants had been orthodox, and these thinkiers naturally assumed that any new settlement activity likewise would be conducted in the spirit of the Torah. Bu beginning in the 1880’s there was a radical change: “The Zionist Rabbis were now call upon to join forces with freethinkers, heretics and sinners and to issue rulings allowing others to do so. Any confusion of Zionism with traditional messianism was liable to impede such co operation for the latter could only be permitted if it were limited to well defined pratical goals and did not deviate into areas that might be sensitive from a religious point of you” (77)
Public acitivity that focused on finding an immediate solution for the distress and humiliation of the Jews in exile did not appear to endanger religious faith. But if cooperation were expanded to included cultural and spiritual and especially theological matters, there would be no reason to fear a betrayal of principles and perhaps even a sliding into a false messiah (78)
The distinction between Zionist activity and messianic redemption thus suited the overall purpose of fostering coexistence between Orthodox and secular Zionists.
As already noted some major secxular writers were also concerned to maintain a strict separation between Zionism and traditional messianism. In their minds the religious concept of redemption was bound up with Jewish helplessness and passivity; hence only if religious aspirations were sharply demarcated and the heavy weight of absoloute metahistorical messianism set aside could the field be freed from concrete activity in the here and now. Zionism had to be protected from messianism. Whille the spokeman of religious Zionism likewise sought to keep these two ideas separate, they did so as much as to protect their messianism from Zionism as the other way round. They wanted to preserve the perfection and purity of their religious vision of redemption from the nationalistic aspirations to which they were also devoted. For them, the present national task did not compromise the vision of future fulfilment, but left its original innocence intact.
The high barriers that religious Zionist set up between their Zionism and their messianism was partly intended to refute any claim that they were forcing the end. They could thereby get rabbinical approval for Zionism and make it permitted to the faithful.
Thus the well know writer Peretz Smolenskin had good reason to warn his fellow lovers of zion “if you strive to establish colonies in the land of Israel may you go from strength to strength! But if you say that it is in your intension in doing so to clear the way for the Messiah you will be attacked by both the believers and the enlightened.” (81)
The separation of realms was viewed by this lover of zion as an effective means of appeasing both the orthodox and the secular. It would circumvent and neutralise the problem of messianism making it possible to attract many good people from both sides to the new settlement movement.
Sociologists of religion might use the following terminology, “The first option adopted in the name of the messianic faith, a position of rejection vis-à-vis modern Zionism. A second option by contrast took a stance of expansion seeking to broaden the traditional boundary of messianism to encompass ab initio modern nationalism. The third option adduced an approach of ‘compartmentalisation’ wholly separation the realm of Zionism from that of messianism.
This clear separation between and messianism could not be sustained. This is because it had never become the dominant view point of religious Zionism, which has increasingly interpreted historical events in the land of Israel in messianic terms. It has also failed to elicit much of a response from Haredi circles or to legitimize the Zionist enterprise in their eyes. On the contorary, ideological polarization over the question of Zionism and later the questions of the status and destiny of the state of Israel, have increasingly been bound up with the issue of messianism the various ideological positions being articulated around the interpretation of classical rabbinic texts on redemption.
This development is most striking in the case of two radical groups on opposite sides of the ideological devide. The disciples of Rabbi Abrahim Isaac Kook and the leadership of Gush Emunim have interpreted the Zionist enterprise as a decidedly messianic purpose: the state of Israel was conceived in holiness and is itself an embodiment of redemption. By contrast the Satmar Hasidim have enterpreted the Zionist enterprise as the polar opposite as an antimessianic rebellion: the state of Israel was conceived in Sin and represents a violent betrayal of classical faith in redemption. Both views evaluate Zionism in the perspective of messianic perfection.
We have already seen that Zionism did not appear in a vacuum, religiously speaking, nor was its message neutral in respect to traditional Jewish messianic hopes. Zionism called for Jewish immigration to the land of Israel just as messianism promised promised the return to zion and the ingathering of exiles. As the former movement sought to attain political independence for the Jewish people, the latter hoped for the liberation of the Jewish people.
The religious Zionists were indeed inclined to believe from the start that the national re awakening would ultimately give way to spiritual renewal as well, string the people to comprehensive repentance. Even Reins have had advocated limiting Zionist activity to the persuit of material objectives firmly hoped that a return to the people and the land would ultimately bring about a return to god.
It has become apparent that the religious mind found it difficult to view Zionism and messianism as two unrelated parallel phenomena, rather it tended to see them as overlapping. To many elements in Zionist activity and rhetoric evoked the classical version of redemption for a view that unwaveringly distinguished between the two to capture peoples imaginations for long.
From a different standpoint however, the Zionist eneterprise seemed to challenge messianic faith. Worldly salvation by human means, purely secular activity, redemption without any need for repentance- these elemtns were to significant for the religious mind to regard them with indifference. While Zionism and messianism both seemed to be playing in the same arena they were playing with different rules unti the trauma of the destruction of the Jews in Europe reinforced the growing tendency within the religious camp to link Zionism with messianism in particularly the two radical positions the one viewing the state of Israel as an unmistakably messianic phenomenon, the other as egregiously antimessianic. Both schools tried to formulate a religious response to the holocaust seeking to supply a ‘reason’ or a ‘meaning’ to counter the abyss that yawned in the great destruction. The one sees in the Zionist enterprise a metaphysical counterpoise to the gapping ruin, while for the other Zionism is the collective sin, the demonic rebellion against heaven that actually precipitated the destruction.
The more the Zionist idea was translated into reality, the more insistently were messianic claims made for it by the religious-zionist camp on one hand and its legitimacy called into question by the Haredi on the other. The present time and the present place were seen by many in the perspective of the messianic age and the Temple while the earthly state of Israel was summoned to give account before the ideal kingdom of Israel and the ideal congregation of Israel.
